[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

GarryB wrote:Maintainence does not occur in combat.

In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...

Of course they performe maintenance before and after combat, not during. I find that arguement very funny to put it mildly. If your biggest concern is to have 4 crew per tank for maintenance then i really have to break it down to you that tanks do never go alone into battle of any sort there are always other tanks with their crew, commanding, communication vehicle, in best scenario infantry, air and mobile SHORAD along with some supply vehicles somewhere relative closeby. They will always help that is not about selfishness or about refusing help it is about the combined forces readiness and therefore success and survival. If someone really has such big concerns and necessity for a 4th crew member for their tank for maintenance reasons then i must say that their structure of military command and forces are shit or they are just idiots that drive all by themselfs without any formations, tactic or command. The 4th crew member would be happy not to be with them at that point.

That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard. Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?

Well i wild hold against that claim. Computerized plattforms with many remote controlled functions, stations, and no direct access to most of the devices that make your plattform do what it was designed to do will always have higher maintenance hours and more intensive maintenance overhaul. Not to mention that 70's tanks are very primitive compared with Armata of any configuration. The 70's tanks required almost only mechanical maintenance which was relative short, primitve of requirement to skill and environment which is good to repair/maintain them in the field rather requiring specialized personal, equipment or even a hangar/"boxstop".

I don't know how many rounds it will hold but i think some number was floating somehwere around of 38 but it think that is to high and rounds will be somewhere ~32 which is actually more then enough. If anything stands after a 152mm rounds and that of 32 times engagement then you should shot your gunner or call hulk (if he is not the target).

4t from what i at least belive includes cables + their protection aganist heat, moisture and even more importantly fuel and hydraulic liquid. Vehicles i served were always leaking Hydraulic fluids somewhere, either somewhere on lanes or on the pump. But it truly did say that M1A1 has 4t of cables and that A3 will use optic fiber based cabling wich will cut its weight by 2t. So i assume it includes cables + their protection.

Would make more sense but it still sounds like far more than what someone would expect. Do you know how much tons of cables+protection is in any other tank?

Well, keeping a fourth crewmember as a loader on a tank that have autoloader is useless. Maybe keeping him as an engineer, in the trunk would suffice

Anyway I have my faith in UVZ an I don't have no excuses to not believe them that Armata is in fact, a revolutionary design. They showed us prototypes in fact.

152mm on a tank sounds nice, it would act as a tank destroyer/bunker smasher/direct fire support for infantry (and I mean that with just one direct hit from 5km any any Abrams with DU uparmored sides or not would be just unidentified pile of junk afterwards) acting from further distances than typical MBT while 125mm Armata would break enemy on the flanks. It would reduce ammo capacity thought, from current 45(32 ready to fire) to around 32 overall probably but thats my wild guess. 152mm takes some space, ammunition for that gun even more.

That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard.

More to the point if they have problems maintaining tanks with only three crew WTF are they? Morons... by my reckoning they have had the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 in service for more than 40 odd years and they haven't noticed they have been having maintainence problems?

BTW I don't recall any complaints in France about maintainance issues with the 3 man Leclerc...

Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?

I really don't know how big the rounds are but I suspect they should get at least 20 rounds in the vehicle... possibly more.

Of course the rounds will be rather more powerful so fewer rounds might be needed to get the job done... remember a missile vehicle like Kristantema carries 12 missiles ready to fire but would need a reload when they are fired too.

In Afghanistan several tanks used, like uparmoured T-62s, had trailers to allow more main gun ammo to be carried safely... such a thing would certainly be an option for armata in an upgraded form I suspect too if needed.

If a larger gun is fitted a simple hull extension between the rear of the turret and the engine would allow for significant numbers of extra rounds to be carried... fit them in a way so that when the turret magazine is depleted that the turret can turn a specific angle and rounds from the position in front of the engine can be auto fed into the turret autoloader ready for use without the crew needing to leave their positions...

3 crews mean less people are barbecued when an ATGM hit the tank.

Engineers can be rushed from the rear to the front when needed.

I heard that, with the current development of Russian communication and transmitting system, T-14 can be fully zero crew i.e. completely remoted controlled.

Werewolf wrote:Well i wild hold against that claim. Computerized plattforms with many remote controlled functions, stations, and no direct access to most of the devices that make your plattform do what it was designed to do will always have higher maintenance hours and more intensive maintenance overhaul. Not to mention that 70's tanks are very primitive compared with Armata of any configuration. The 70's tanks required almost only mechanical maintenance which was relative short, primitve of requirement to skill and environment which is good to repair/maintain them in the field rather requiring specialized personal, equipment or even a hangar/"boxstop".

I don't know how many rounds it will hold but i think some number was floating somehwere around of 38 but it think that is to high and rounds will be somewhere ~32 which is actually more then enough. If anything stands after a 152mm rounds and that of 32 times engagement then you should shot your gunner or call hulk (if he is not the target).

It makes sense that the more advanced something is, the more mechanically complex it is; this is still worth it because the crew will be infinitely better protected than the crew of all other tanks in use. The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.  

I suspect that 32 152mm rounds really are more than enough on the modern battlefield, but a Russian 140mm would be a nice medium and should be able to accommodate a few more rounds - maybe 40 rounds.

Thanks, Werewolf and Garry.

Garry B wrote:

More to the point if they have problems maintaining tanks with only three crew WTF are they? Morons... by my reckoning they have had the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 in service for more than 40 odd years and they haven't noticed they have been having maintainence problems?

BTW I don't recall any complaints in France about maintainance issues with the 3 man Leclerc..

The fact that the Russians have used autoloaders for decades without any noteworthy problems puts it into perspective. Certain countries like Japan, France and South Korea wouldn't adopt autoloaders for their tanks if they were unsuitable. I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

..the K2 will be able not only to "sit", "stand" and "kneel", but to "lean" towards a side or a corner as well. "Sitting" gives the tank lower profile and offer better handling over roads. "Standing" gives the vehicle higher ground clearance and allows it to have better maneuverability over rough terrain. "Kneeling" increases the amount of angle that the tank's gun barrel can elevate and depress, which allows the tank to fire its main gun downhill—something that very few tanks, if there are any others at all, can do—and give it better ability to engage low-flying aircraft.

Source: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2311.html


This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.

The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.

Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

The introduction of the USB cable as a connector has done wonders for computing systems as it is a fully two way data and power bus system. Just like with the old SCART connector for connecting a video with a TV communication is two way so when you turn on the Video the TV could detect that through the SCART cable and automatically change to the Video channel (ie AV1 perhaps).

It is the same with the USB connector... not only can equipment send data to the main computers it can also send performance information and any errors that might have occured.

Considering the MiG-29SMT has training modes for its radar and self diagnostic systems to warn of problems and potential problems I would expect armata to have rather more than a light indicating it is time for an oil change...

I suspect that 32 152mm rounds really are more than enough on the modern battlefield, but a Russian 140mm would be a nice medium and should be able to accommodate a few more rounds - maybe 40 rounds.

AFAIK there is no such thing as a 135mm or 140mm Russian main gun tank calibre.

NATO is experimenting with a 140mm gun but AFAIK the Russians have no equivalent.

Of course with experiments in EM weapons they might have a 90mm round perhaps or a 70mm round with very very high velocity...

I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting.

This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.

Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...

GarryB wrote:

The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.  

Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

The introduction of the USB cable as a connector has done wonders for computing systems as it is a fully two way data and power bus system. Just like with the old SCART connector for connecting a video with a TV communication is two way so when you turn on the Video the TV could detect that through the SCART cable and automatically change to the Video channel (ie AV1 perhaps).

It is the same with the USB connector... not only can equipment send data to the main computers it can also send performance information and any errors that might have occured.

Considering the MiG-29SMT has training modes for its radar and self diagnostic systems to warn of problems and potential problems I would expect armata to have rather more than a light indicating it is time for an oil change...

Kamov has already self diagnostic due to modular based avionic systems and subsystems that provide pilot with information of any subsystem if does not work like intended he gets a message on the Selfdiagnostic monitor called Ekran Bite aswell the standard Ekran system that warns pilots via audio if they fly to fast towards ground, their angle of attack to notify (stall) before it happens and dozen other notifications. I would expect Armata would have such system installed especially if they plan to make a robot out of it at sometime.

GarryB wrote:

I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting.

Like GarryB already said such systems are standard on BMD's aswell lot of other airborne dropped plattforms since they are more or less expected BMP-3M aswell has such a system since it is designed as an BMP aswell as BMD for airborne drop duty.

The problem here is do the tank developers like UVZ see such a technology as necessary or is it just a gimmick and unneeded. You would need to train crew new tactics, when to use it when not to use it, how to use it and all that while it puts higher stress on supply chain and maintenance time. If you do not train your crew how to use it, it will end only up as a rarely if ever used gimmick. I don't expect Armata's being airborne deployed to battlefields. So they are mostly useless.

This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.

Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...[/quote] If you mean Anti-Sniper Device ASD then i would expect to have such a system aswell installed on it in bigger scale for higher range then just 800-1500m.

Garry B wrote:
Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

I assumed that because the T-14 Armata is not yet finished that they hadn't yet incorporated all those features.  It's nice to know that I was wrong.

Garry B wrote:

AFAIK there is no such thing as a 135mm or 140mm Russian main gun tank calibre.

NATO is experimenting with a 140mm gun but AFAIK the Russians have no equivalent.

Of course with experiments in EM weapons they might have a 90mm round perhaps or a 70mm round with very very high velocity...

The Russians have the more powerful 152mm gun, but I thought maybe a Russian developed 140mm would allow them to carry more rounds as a happy medium. I assume that one hit from either of these calibers would completely destroy or disable all current western tanks in one hit. Before EM weapons are developed and deployed, large rounds could be useful for now.

Garry B wrote:
Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting

I was under the impression that these capabilities were new -- I had no idea that the Russians had developed them considerably earlier.

Gary B wrote:
Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...

Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

Werewolf wrote:
Kamov has already self diagnostic due to modular based avionic systems and subsystems that provide pilot with information of any subsystem if does not work like intended he gets a message on the Selfdiagnostic monitor called Ekran Bite aswell the standard Ekran system that warns pilots via audio if they fly to fast towards ground, their angle of attack to notify (stall) before it happens and dozen other notifications. I would expect Armata would have such system installed especially if they plan to make a robot out of it at sometime.

It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

Garry B wrote:The problem here is do the tank developers like UVZ see such a technology as necessary or is it just a gimmick and unneeded. You would need to train crew new tactics, when to use it when not to use it, how to use it and all that while it puts higher stress on supply chain and maintenance time. If you do not train your crew how to use it, it will end only up as a rarely if ever used gimmick. I don't expect Armata's being airborne deployed to battlefields. So they are mostly useless.

That is so true. Maintenance will be of tremendous importance in such an automatized, digital machine that only extremely well trained, professional soldiers could possibly make full use of.  Countries that have a lot of hills could specify these features in their Armatas, but only a few Nations could properly operate such an advanced tank.

Thanks a million, Gary and Werewolf.

Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.

It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.

I hope you guys realize that Armata does have active suspension, which by definition can increase or decrease the vehicles height.





Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.

Werewolf wrote:

Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.

It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.

Some were apparently applied even to original M1A1/2s during service in Iraq without being updated to TUSK, also there are rumons all M1s in service will get it no matter if they reach TUSK or not.

Funny how they belived phone is useless even tho they had it on basically all previous tanks, even Sherman. Tho it possibly might be due to quite hot exaust of that God damn turbine engine.

Sherman phone:



M60A1:

The Russians have the more powerful 152mm gun, but I thought maybe a Russian developed 140mm would allow them to carry more rounds as a happy medium. I assume that one hit from either of these calibers would completely destroy or disable all current western tanks in one hit. Before EM weapons are developed and deployed, large rounds could be useful for now.

developing a whole new calibre is expensive... they would not have developed a 152mm round if a 140mm round would have done the job.

I was under the impression that these capabilities were new -- I had no idea that the Russians had developed them considerably earlier.

There have been several small light vehicles with big guns that can lower their suspension and fire from a lower more stable position. Most of the time the ability to lower the suspension is to be able to fit into an aircrafts cargo bay.

It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

Don't worry... US Strong Internet warriors will rely on the fact that anything good that is Russian is either a copy of a US system or a lie.

The Abrams wont be the best tank in the world but it will be the best combat proven tank in the world.... hahaha... and then they will talk about the next gen US tank being the best and they can make up all sorts of capabilities for that tank because it wont exist...

Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.

I am not making excuses. The BT-7 tank could drive around with no tracks fitted on its standard wheels. It can move much faster in such a setup but it is not as mobile over soft and rough ground like it is with tracks. Modern tanks can't do that either but that doesn't make the BT-7 tank better than modern tanks.
The analysed its use in combat and peace time and found driving around without tracks was rarely actually used and was really not worth the complication so they dropped it.

Being able to raise the wheel height of a vehicle is not something that is that critical to the normal operation of a tank or IFV. It means it can be more stable on a train or can fit into an aircraft with a lower roof, but the very idea that it will be bouncing along like some gang bangers car in the US is ridiculous. Higher ground clearance on rough country and the ability to crouch going into another vehicle or aircraft or ship makes sense... but it is hardly likely to be used in conjunction with radar to detect incoming rounds and ducking and dodging incoming rounds...

I find it funny that the same Abramsz fanboys that have bitched about autoloaders being bad here and there, unreliable, slow, complicated, bad designed, missing crew member 404 and so on and so on. Have now changed their attitude towards fanboyism of the revovler autoloader of Abrams and have changed their "anti-autoloader" towards "russian autoloader" being dangerous, unreliable, slow, complicated and so on. Having already very flawed and horrible designed turret of the Abrams that has this massive bustle on the back that can be penetrated from any angle from anything down to PG-7 warheads is not going to be better when you make it bigger by applying two revolver magazines with an autoloader.

I mean what happend to the 4th crewmember all huge and mighty advantageous of being night guard duty, being extra hands for maintenance and i mean where does his salary go now?

x_54_u43 wrote:I hope you guys realize that Armata does have active suspension, which by definition can increase or decrease the vehicles height.





Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.

I love the Armata. Thanks, x_54_u43

Militarov

I was reading up on the M1A3 development and it is there that they spoke of the need to integrate an external phone onto the tank so I assumed that they didn't have it on any current Abrams. It's strange that they had it on all their tanks and withdrew that feature in the Abrams only to reinstate recently. A million thanks for going to all the trouble of providing the pictures to the forum. Thanks, mate.

Armata doesn't have per se 'active' suspension. It's an adjustable system for better absorbing bumps in terrain, the recoil of the gun etc.

Werewolf wrote:

Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.

It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.

The French do seem to be a little more independent minded, and have a tendency to do things on their own - so I doubt that they will actually work with Germany to develop a new tank. The fact that they withdrew from the project that produced the Eurofighter and developed the Rafale instead is instructive.

Garry B wrote:

developing a whole new calibre is expensive... they would not have developed a 152mm round if a 140mm round would have done the job.

The Russians have probably already developed an entire line of 152mm ammunition so they won't start all over. Dmitry Rogozin said that the 152mm could penetrate a meter of steel but I thought that a round that big would penetrate at least 1500mm of armour.

Garry B wrote:
Don't worry... US Strong Internet warriors will rely on the fact that anything good that is Russian is either a copy of a US system or a lie.

The Abrams wont be the best tank in the world but it will be the best combat proven tank in the world.... hahaha... and then they will talk about the next gen US tank being the best and they can make up all sorts of capabilities for that tank because it wont exist.

The American fanboys are good for a laugh. They're useful in that sense. The king-kong chest-thumping is crazy. I'm convinced that most of them are just teenagers because there is no way that grown men can be that ignorant and obnoxious and be proud of it.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Militarov

I was reading up on the M1A3 development and it is there that they spoke of the need to integrate an external phone onto the tank so I assumed that they didn't have it on any current Abrams. It's strange that they had it on all their tanks and withdrew that feature in the Abrams only to reinstate recently. A million thanks for going to all the trouble of providing the pictures to the forum.  Thanks, mate.

Yeah infantry telephone was not considered as required when M1 entered service, it was added later i assume after first Gulf War, and later in Second war in Iraq and then it became standard in this TUSK update, but still majority of M1A1/2s lack telephone.

You are welcome.

Yeah infantry telephone was not considered as required when M1 entered service, it was added later i assume after first Gulf War, and later in Second war in Iraq and then it became standard in this TUSK update, but still majority of M1A1/2s lack telephone.

I rather suspect they thought their net centric communications up the yahzoo probably made them think fitting a telephone to the back of their vehicles was unnecessary.

Certainly it takes a lot of balls to walk up to a 70 ton vehicle that might decide to reverse or move at any time without warning, but it is also the most secure and direct way to talk to a tank crew.

The Russians have probably already developed an entire line of 152mm ammunition so they won't start all over. Dmitry Rogozin said that the 152mm could penetrate a meter of steel but I thought that a round that big would penetrate at least 1500mm of armour.

But the point is that it will be all new and completely unrelated and not compatible with existing 152mm calibre ammo. Of course it could be that a self guiding missile could have been developed for both guns as the large calibre would allow lots of internal space for a decent fire and forget guidance system with top attack and a significant shaped charge warhead or warheads that would be useful for both MBTs and self propelled artillery.
Equally the HE shells could be unified, but assuming Armata uses something like ANIET then a HE round with a tail fuse rather than a nose mounted fuse with lots of fragments designed to be delivered forward and sideways would be ideal for a tank but not so for artillery where a nose fuse and side fragments are more effective.

The American fanboys are good for a laugh. They're useful in that sense. The king-kong chest-thumping is crazy. I'm convinced that most of them are just teenagers because there is no way that grown men can be that ignorant and obnoxious and be proud of it.

Knowing (Thinking) they are a force for good in the world helps them sleep at night... it is just sad that they don't care for the truth, they are living The American Dream... so sad they are in the matrix and don't want to wake up. That is not pride... it is denial. they would rather be false gods than nobodies... the same as everyone else...

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7334

Cyrus the great wrote:
Dmitry Rogozin said that the 152mm could penetrate a meter of steel
 

Didn't they say it about 125mm on Armata and round for it?

Sunbeam wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Dmitry Rogozin said that the 152mm could penetrate a meter of steel
 

Didn't they say it about 125mm on Armata and round for it?

Currently yes but it is planned that it should get 152mm in near future when it is considered as needed.

GarryB wrote:Knowing they are a force for good in the world helps them sleep at night... it is just sad that they care for the truth. they are living the dream...

Didn't get you. How can they care for the truth and still live the dream?

With english subtitles.

Shows autonomic target tracking without crew onboard, firing of training HEAT rounds of the footage that we have seen but without the secrecy and few other things mentioned.


This is the full documentary without english subtitles, you will have to use CC audio identification subtitles which actually suck.

Didn't get you. How can they care for the truth and still live the dream?

Original is fixed....