[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

GarryB wrote:No more MBTs. The Armata will have heavy tanks, Kurganets and boomerang will have medium tanks and typhoon will have light tanks (ie like Sprut).

What's the procurement number of those medium and light tanks?

In twenty years time old vehicles taken from stocks wont be fighting with old equipment support... air power and artillery support will have developed... also even in storage you can upgrade material... nakidka will make Javelin useless except in line of sight SACLOS mode... and its 750mm penetration is pathetic.

I doubt there will be any investment on today's T-72 clones after 2030.

jhelb wrote: Our Israeli friends have now designed a helmet mounted system to allow armored personnel carrier and tank crews to see straight through their armor.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Troops-can-see-through-armored-vehicles-with-Israeli-firms-new-helmet-456258?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hoping Armata and other Russian tanks, IFVs etc have some answer to this coz this system will now be exported.

Some time back I suggested something like that be used for Armata, prior to this Israeli development. I've been thinking about this for a while now, IMO it's a bad idea. Even if implemented it probably wont be used by the soldiers.

On paper, something like this would improve performance, but in the real world it's just going to cause severe motion sickness for the user. It *might* work better on armata, since all three crewmen are in the hull and only moving in or or two directions, but on conventional MBT's were the commander (presumably who would use this system) and maybe the gunner also have to contend with the rotation of the turret, it's going to be like a carnival ride from hell.

I remember someone here said that to counter active defences like Trophy or Afghanit, I think it was Garry, you can fire with a machine gun decoys which are deployed in front of the tank.

I suggested that most APS systems use radar to detect incoming threats, so a 14.5mm HMG would be usefully adapted with corner reflectors in the projectile noses under an aerodynamic shaped plastic nose cap to make the rounds look rather larger than they actually are... a burst of 20 rounds fired at a tank would appear to be 20 large calibre weapons approaching at high transonic speed, which should activate an APS system... I doubt many could actively defeat that many incoming rounds at once... so fire another burst of 20 rounds with a few RPGs to follow up and they should get through the depleted defences.

Note an APS on its own is no defence for anything... it adds a layer of defence to improve protection... that is all.

But the radars are deployed outside of the tank so you can fire on it with a machine gun and destroy them and then use a RPG. That's a reason why you can replace armor with active protection. During a long war it's hard to replace radars on all damaged tanks so most of them will be without active protection.

The radar antennas can be solid metal so a bullet hole wont effect performance... look at some radar antenna and they have grids rather than solid dishes so hole wont matter.

I see, so basically the future "light tank" may look like this... https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/02/24/05/1024px10.jpg and the future medium tank may look like this... https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/02/24/05/sprut_10.jpg

Well actually both those vehicles would be light tanks... with different levels of mobility but very high fire power.

What's the procurement number of those medium and light tanks?

No official numbers but I would suspect the Kurganets and boomerang will be produced in rather greater numbers than armata simply because they are cheaper to buy and to operate... especially the wheeled models.

You might say they are too weakly armoured to be used as standard vehicles... but in current divisions the MBTs and IFVs have reasonably heavy armour and the rest of the vehicles are soft and weakly armoured.

The Kurganets and Boomerang will be better armoured than BMPS are now and Kurganets and Boomerang units will all have the same level of protection in every vehicle... so instead of an ACRV command vehicle that is basically a modified MTLB, their command vehicles will have the same level of armour as their IFVs.... and so on.

I doubt there will be any investment on today's T-72 clones after 2030.

There was always the trickle down effect where new technology developed for the T-80 was adapted and applied to the cheap tanks in reserve... the first T-72s had optical range finders, but when laser range finders entered service on the new model T-80s and T-64s the older T-72s got them too... in simplified forms, but they still got the upgrades.

I don't think that will change.

On paper, something like this would improve performance, but in the real world it's just going to cause severe motion sickness for the user. It *might* work better on armata, since all three crewmen are in the hull and only moving in or or two directions, but on conventional MBT's were the commander (presumably who would use this system) and maybe the gunner also have to contend with the rotation of the turret, it's going to be like a carnival ride from hell.

I rather suspect they have already implimented something similar to allow visibility for the crew as the hull is not the best place to view the battlefield from.

Traditionally the commander of the tank tells the driver where to drive because the commander has a better view of the terrain from the turret compared with the drivers view in the hull. Assuming the commander gets a turret top view of the world presumably the driver and gunner will be able to access the same camera feeds and wont rely so much on the commander telling them where to drive or shoot.

More importantly an unmanned land based drone or aerial drone would give a much better view for the crew than any camera mounted on the tank... you could have the over the shoulder view from above and see infantry sneaking up on you or lying in nearby ditches waiting to attack... much more useful than being able to see through the sides of the tank.

GarryB wrote:
The whole concept of families of vehicles is to reduce the logistics tail and simplify operation. If you mix the vehicles then there is no point and it was all a total waste of time. If they are going to mix all the formations up then half the models would get cancelled and back to Grozny where lighter vehicles are picked off and remaining vehicles defeated because they are no longer supported.

but if you cant make enough of new ones and they cant.... theyll have to mix it and there is spares allot of them.... so t-90 now is light vehicle this guy is hillarious....

Tanks are tanks. they are the main battle force of any army for quick assaults on enemy
formations. Javelins or lets say Spike missiles can definitively destroy a t-72standard tank and so
Kornets missiles too.  But a lot of this will depend on situations . How the tank is used ,what tactics? and where?

if for example you do a duel between a T-72 vs a Javelin.. in flat terrain and both
start the fight at same time..and both sides aware of each one position? then Who wants to be in the side of the javelin?

The tank will wipe the javelin or kornet operator in 2 seconds before the javelin is fired.
This is because is a hypersonic projectile what the javelin operator will be facing. vs their slow rocket that he needs to stand still and aim in a tank until it reach the tank 10 seconds later.
thats an eternity.

So always the T-72 will win ,if manage to catch a javelin operator position before he fire his missile , or even if the missile is fired first. The javeling go first up ,and then down. while the Sabot Round goes in a straight line and will wipe the javelin missile reach the tank. so the path of the javelin will be lost after the operator killed.

A tank can also be repaired, with a hammer many times and some welding ,the javelin not so easily. and the javelin will not give you transportation or protection against fire arms ,contrary to the tank. So a T-72 will always be superior to any anti tank missile. it all depends on how
the tank is used ,when ,where. and what electronic equipment the tank have.

a T-72 armed with Arena or afganit could defeat a javeling even if taken by surprise.
while the javelin cannot stop a sabot round. T-72 = Armor+ fast transportation+ fast gun.
if you have 1 T-72 , you could over run a 10 x terrorist positions with 10 javelins at night for example and not even firing a shot ,just driving the T-72 tanks over them.  

Javelin or kornets are only effective if you take by surprise the tank. but if the tank operators
see you first , you will be wiped by a tank.  So even outdated tanks ,like T-72 or T-80
can be lethal weapons , they can be used as direct fire artillery. and hit and hide tactics.

This is the way they used by ukraine army ,T-80s are used as direct artillery for hit and run
tactics . because Kornets are too slow their speed ,they cannot catch a fast moving tank
that hides behind any cover.

any NATO modern tank facing 2x or 3x T-72 can be defeated. if the t-72s ambush it ,and start the fight,Because just one hit on the tank,
even if not penetrated ,the concussion will light wound the soldiers and damage the external sensors and optics.NATO operators will lose some valuable time ,that can be used to finish the tank. by a hit from the sides.

THis is why i think Russia should never get rid of its T-72 tanks. they can operate for another
20 years at least. or more in case of fighting terrorism or soft targets.  All Russia needs to do
is upgrade their T-72s to B3 , add active protection arena ,and shtora and you will have a tank
that will be very useful for many more decades if used in combination with an Armata tank.
So you can have for example a T-14 +T-15 working together and all of them escorted by
4-6 upgraded T-72b3 tanks. The T-72s job will be to direct assault to overwhelm and distract the enemy away them from the armata. So armata fire from behind positions of T-72s. or can be used in the front line too ,with T-72s in the back used to overwhelm Trophy defenses.
So you will have 2-3 tanks firing at same time on same target.

on Urban warfare a javelin or TOW missile could have an edge over the t-72 that is not properly
protected to counter javelins ,but even if that was the case, the tank can be used to
encircle a city ,and lock and starve the terrorist inside a town. and force the terrorist to fire away of its hiding places ,in the open exposing its position for an easy kill of them,this however in the case no civilians taken hostages inside.

but if you cant make enough of new ones and they cant.... theyll have to mix it and there is spares allot of them....

They have to replace their T-90s but they also have to replace all the other vehicles in a tank division too.

Most likely they with either start by producing all Armata divs of vehicles, or they will start by adding armata vehicles to existing divs and as the new vehicle types are produced the old vehicles will be sent to other units that are not so well equipped.

Personally I think they will produce the vehicles needed for a whole div and convert an existing unit to the all Armata div.

It all depends upon whether all the vehicle variations are ready at the same time.

Note the equipment and electronics and sensors and weapons are unified so the suite developed for the MBT Armata will be standardised with the suite for the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon... though the lightest vehicles may have a lighter gun due to weight restrictions. The same for the command vehicles and air defence vehicles (gun and missile) and artillery (tube and gun) IFV, APC, etc etc.

so t-90 now is light vehicle

No, but it does show the hypocrisy of the MBT designation when a Russian MBT can be a similar weight to a western IFV...

Before the end of WWII there were light tanks, medium tanks, and heavy tanks... of course even then a German medium tank like a Panther was heavier than a Soviet heavy tank like a KV-1... a T-34 in the German army would be a light tank.

The result of WWII experience was that light tanks lacked armour, heavy tanks were too expensive to build in sufficient numbers so the solution was a medium tank with a heavy tanks gun and improved sloped armour to give it comparable armour to a heavy tank with a medium tanks weight and speed.

Today the MBT is more like the heavy tank of WWII, so the new Russian system of heavy, medium and light tank has some merit.

For light mobile forces a heavy or medium tank would slow the force down, while having no tank like vehicle at all would make it vulnerable if it comes across an enemy unit that has tanks...

Interesting post Vann, but you miss the obvious... Javelin has a basic thermal imager in its nose to find its target... optical jamming systems can render it pretty useless in its fire and forget mode. That makes it a SACLOS weapon, which makes it very vulnerable to return fire or just HE shells.

More importantly a tank does not operate on its own so any infantry could open fire on any ATGM team detected and air power and artillery would also try to deal with such threats too.

At the end of the day with a 750mm armour penetration performance NERA would likely dull the impact of even a successful attack. Guiding the missile all the way to the target however means a long time standing still...

The T-72s best defence is still moving from cover to cover...

Interview with Viktor Murakhovsky.

Talking of Armata it confirm both the presence of a two layer of active defesense systems - with "soft-kill" defeating mechanism, likely working at long range, and with "hard kill" mechanism, probably the inner layer.

Moreover it confirm the plan, in two steps, to transform platform Armata in a fully robotized product.
In the first step platform Armata will be still controlled from remote and used mostly as a very highly protected spearhead useful for destroy and/or track the exact position of enemy elements and instantly pass it to the manned vehicles and troop following it.

In the second step it will become a fully autonomous platform, capable to independetly adapt to the situation and fullfill its tasks.

Any news of T-14 tests?

Rumors of APS intercepting 2 Shturms are found in the internets but no source or pics. Also that it has good field test results except for the turret cover.

BMP 3's drink twice as much fuel also, means they have to have a fuel truck follow them on the front line ?

T-14 Armata has a Blind Spot, in which anything smaller than 37mm in diameter can't be detected. The Silver Bullet of the M1 Abrams is ~22mm in diameter. Also the Penetration Rod(about ~27mm in diameter with the Stabilizing Fins and ~35-inches Long) of a Tow Missile is far enough of the missile. That it will impact the Tanks Hull before the Missile Itself Is Detected.

T-14 Armata has a Blind Spot, in which anything smaller than 37mm in diameter can't be detected. The Silver Bullet of the M1 Abrams is ~22mm in diameter. Also the Penetration Rod(about ~27mm in diameter with the Stabilizing Fins and ~35-inches Long) of a Tow Missile is far enough of the missile. That it will impact the Tanks Hull before the Missile Itself Is Detected.

Says who?

Even if the 22 mm round from the abrams gets through... it still has NERA and actual armour to penetrate before it is a problem.

max steel wrote:BMP 3's drink twice as much fuel also, means they have to have a fuel truck follow them on the front line ?

T-14 Armata has a Blind Spot, in which anything smaller than 37mm in diameter can't be detected. The Silver Bullet of the M1 Abrams is ~22mm in diameter. Also the Penetration Rod(about ~27mm in diameter with the Stabilizing Fins and ~35-inches Long) of a Tow Missile is far enough of the missile. That it will impact the Tanks Hull before the Missile Itself Is Detected.

Is this an official internet release? Those are always to be trusted over any official or company statements whether they are made
or not.

Seriously, who the f*ck in the blogosphere would know about this 37 mm detection limit? Where is the leak? They only released one such detail
instead of a whole slew of other secret details? Why would anyone specify exactly 37 mm and not approximate it by 40 mm since radar
resolution is not a binary thing but rather a degree of fuziness.

Obvious BS. No other tank has phased array radar (AESA, APAR) systems which are distinguished by high resolution. What blind spot
are you yammering about?

max steel wrote:BMP 3's drink twice as much fuel also, means they have to have a fuel truck follow them on the front line ?

T-14 Armata has a Blind Spot, in which anything smaller than 37mm in diameter can't be detected. The Silver Bullet of the M1 Abrams is ~22mm in diameter. Also the Penetration Rod(about ~27mm in diameter with the Stabilizing Fins and ~35-inches Long) of a Tow Missile is far enough of the missile. That it will impact the Tanks Hull before the Missile Itself Is Detected.

Did you come up with this Bovine excrement yourself?
or
Did you regurgitate it from other fanboy forums?

max steel wrote:T-14 Armata has a Blind Spot, in which anything smaller than 37mm in diameter can't be detected. The Silver Bullet of the M1 Abrams is ~22mm in diameter. Also the Penetration Rod(about ~27mm in diameter with the Stabilizing Fins and ~35-inches Long) of a Tow Missile is far enough of the missile. That it will impact the Tanks Hull before the Missile Itself Is Detected.

And at which range the 37mm bullet can penetrate Armata ? And Armata can open fire at the target using 37mm gun at which range ?

On a radar thread I believe a member posted the statistic that if the Armata radar can detect 0.37m targets at 100km then the PAK FA radar should be able to blah blah blah.

Of course this information is hilarious because the radar on the Armata is not for searching for aircraft... it is specifically designed to detect incoming threats like APFSDS rounds... so you would think it would be able to detect all sorts of small calibre pointy projectiles...

Hilarious...

Armata tanks to use Russian made sights, not French ones;

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20160717/1043161099/armata-kurganets-matrices.html

UVZ: large-scale production of "Armata" will begin in 2018

https://russian.rt.com/article/312832-uvz-krupnoseriinoe-proizvodstvo-armaty-nachnyotsya-v-2018

Large-scale production of the new Russian tank "Armata" will begin in 2018. This was announced by Deputy Director of "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ) for special equipment Vyacheslav Khalitov.
"After 2018 we plan a good serial production", — quotes his words in the air of "Echo of Moscow", TASS.

Khalitov said that the price of the tank is already below the prices of its foreign counterparts, and after the launch of mass production its cost will drop even more.

The ability to export the tank, according to Khalitov, will occur after final adoption to the armament of the Russian army and gain experience of its operation.

"The customer will see how the car really is, and only then begin to really have some export requests", — said the representative of UVZ.

News Weapons Armata Tank media

franco wrote:Armata tanks to use Russian made sights, not French ones;

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20160717/1043161099/armata-kurganets-matrices.html

good to see R&D investments paying off

GunshipDemocracy wrote:UVZ: large-scale production of "Armata" will begin in 2018

https://russian.rt.com/article/312832-uvz-krupnoseriinoe-proizvodstvo-armaty-nachnyotsya-v-2018

Large-scale production of the new Russian tank "Armata" will begin in 2018. This was announced by Deputy Director of "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ) for special equipment Vyacheslav Khalitov.
"After 2018 we plan a good serial production", — quotes his words in the air of "Echo of Moscow", TASS.

Khalitov said that the price of the tank is already below the prices of its foreign counterparts, and after the launch of mass production its cost will drop even more.

The ability to export the tank, according to Khalitov, will occur after final adoption to the armament of the Russian army and gain experience of its operation.

"The customer will see how the car really is, and only then begin to really have some export requests", — said the representative of UVZ.

News Weapons Armata Tank media

Good news to hear, but is it for further order, or the already signed order of 60 T-14 MBTs, 30 T-15 heavy IFVs and 10 BREM-16 armored recovery vehicles (ARVs) ?

It looks like that the Armata platform will be a real game changer

Tactics of Russian motor rifle brigades will change with introduction of Armata tracked platform.

The introduction of the Armata heavy tracked platform developed by the Uralvagonzavod (Russian acronym: UVZ) scientific-research corporation to armour and motor rifle brigades will drastically change the land tactics of Russian Armed Forces and lead to the transition to the modular-type units, according to the Gazeta.ru online newspaper.

The introduction of the Armata heavy tracked platform developed by the Uralvagonzavod (Russian acronym: UVZ) scientific-research corporation to armour and motor rifle brigades will drastically change the land tactics of Russian Armed Forces and lead to the transition to the modular-type units, according to the Gazeta.ru online newspaper.

Motor rifle units are extremely vulnerable to the enemy`s fire on the modern battlefield. However, the tactics has not been radically changed. One can often see an attack of main battle tanks (MBT) in line order supported by infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and dismounted non-protected soldiers in the drills. Such a Cold-war era combat tactics became obsolete about 20 years ago. According to Russian defense analysts, such outdated approach to combat must be replaced by a modern one. The issuance of the Armata-based heavy armoured vehicles to the Land Forces` units will allow increasing the probability of the soldiers` survival on the modern battlefield.

Both IFVs and armoured personnel carriers (APC) have already revealed their combat potential as fire support, convoy, and reconnaissance means. At the same time, the aforementioned vehicles cannot boast of armour protection. For instance, the newest BMP-3M (M stands for upgraded, Modernizirovannaya) IFV developed by the Tractor Plants concern is armoured at Level 5 STANAG 4569 (all-round protection against 25mm tungsten alloy armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds at 500 m) and lacks additional applique armour. In the 1990s, the NII Stali scientific-research institute (now a subsidiary of the Tractor Plants concern) developed an explosive reactive armour (ERA) kit for BMP-3 designated as Kaktus (Cactus), but Russia`s Ministry of Defense (MoD) decided not to acquire it in large quantities. Hence, the BMP-3`s protection has not been enhanced at all. Hence, even the latest organic IFV of the Land Forces does not provide sufficient protection against enemy`s fire, let alone ageing BMP-2 that can be destroyed by the US M2 Bradley at 1,500 m distance through the medium of 25mm armour-piercing rounds. The armour protection specifications of BTR-80 / BTR-80A / BTR-82A APCs fall short of even those of BMP-2. Their frontal armour could withstand only several hits of 12.7mm heavy machinegun (for instance DShK or M2HB), while the sides are protected only against 7.62mm armour-piercing bullets. Hence, neither IFVs nor APCs could provide an effective fire support to Russian tanks on the modern battlefield.

General for Military Vehicles, Vyacheslav Khalitov said. According to him, such combat module may include one or two T-14 Armata MBTs, a fire support vehicle (FSV) armed with 57mm automatic cannon, an FSV armed with 152mm howitzer, a mobile command post and a logistic support vehicle.

The idea to introduce the joint armoured battle order to the tactics has gone down, since the motor rifle units of Russia`s Land Forces use vehicles with enormously varying armour protection. For instance, a motor rifle battalion operates heavy-armoured MBTs, medium-armoured IFVs, low-armoured APCs and non-armoured trucks. Previously, 120mm 2B11 Sani (Sledge) mortars were being transported by GAZ-66 light trucks that did not have armour protection at all. The usage of such battle order would result in extremely heavy losses as only heavy-armoured MBTs had a chance to reach the enemy`s next resistance line. Hence, IFVs, APCs, trucks, and dismounted soldiers could not survive on the battlefield. The infantry`s offensive was suppressed by the fire of the enemy`s small arms and light weapons (SALW). Hence, there is no need to increase the IFVs` firepower and mobility. Armour protection of IFVs and APCs seems to be the most vital feature on the modern battlefield. It should not come short of the tank protection level, Gazeta.ru supposes.

"We have hammered out an ideology of future land tactics based on the Armata heavy vehicles. The Uralvagonzavod Corporation offers to get rid of traditional units (such as brigade, battalion, company, etc.) and to switch to combat modules that will include both combat and support vehicles," the UVZ`s Deputy Director General for Military Vehicles, Vyacheslav Khalitov said. According to him, such combat module may include one or two T-14 Armata MBTs, a fire support vehicle (FSV) armed with 57mm automatic cannon, an FSV armed with 152mm howitzer, a mobile command post and a logistic support vehicle. "The aforementioned combat module`s combat potential will exceed the one of the present-day motor rifle and armour units. The module`s armour protection and mobility will not be graded," Khalitov added.

According to him, the organizational structure of the combat module can be adjusted to all types of terrain. "The combination of combat modules is required to complete various tasks. The module can be complemented by self-propelled surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems, artillery units, armoured engineering vehicles, mechanized bridge layers, mine clearance vehicles, and mine planters. Hence, the organizational structure of the new combat module can be easily adapted to all types of combat environment. Such flexible approach is the tactics of future," Khalitov said. Hence, the Armata heavy platform can drastically change the modern battlefield.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/armies_in_the_world_analysis_focus/tactics_of_russian_motor_rifle_brigades_will_change_with_introduction_of_armata_tracked_platform_tass_12407161.html

---

My thoughts are that the author of this article is talking about Armata brigades, and I'm sure that those units will be equipped with T-14 main battle tanks, T-15 heavy IFV's, T-16 recovery vehicles, Armata based engineer vehicles, bridge layers, Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled howitzers etc.

Now the variants of the platform...

The two already made variants.

- T-14 MBT.
- T-15 heavy IFV (I think it will be redesignated to BMP-15 once it enters service.)

Both of these are produced in small numbers, and are going to enter mass production in the near future.

These two other variants are confirmed/prototypes are made.

- T-16 armored recovery vehicle (I'm sure that it will be redesignated to BREM-16). Confirmed, prototype(s) is/are(?) made.
-2S35 Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled howitzer. Confirmed. Currently test/pre-production models are mounted on T-90 chassis, but it will be mass produced on the Armata platform.

Now the planned variants...

- TOS-2 heavy flamethrower system. Will replace the TOS-1/TOS-1A.
- TZM-2 transloader vehicle for TOS-2.
- BMO-2 APC variant, will carry soldiers armed with RPO-A "Shmel" shoulder-launched missiles. It is said to be armed with a 30 mm autocannon.
- MIM-1A multifunctional engineer vehicle.
- MT-A bridge layer.
- USM-A universal mining(?) system. I think it's more likely to be a trench digger, or something else.
- UMZ-A mine layer.
- PTS-A floating conveyor.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/armata.htm ...

and Russian Wikipedia.

From the Globalsecurity link:



The BMO-2 looks to be mislabelled - the vehicle appears to be a heavy APC rather than a Buratino replacement?

Big_Gazza wrote:From the Globalsecurity link:



The BMO-2 looks to be mislabelled - the vehicle appears to be a heavy APC rather than a Buratino replacement?

"BMO" is an engineering/assault vehicle, designed to carry a squad of RPO armed soldiers. It has a huge payload of additional launchers stored inside.

BMO-T:



Actual BMO-2 model, based on the Armata chassis:



They replaced the passengers with a large rack of ready-to-fire shmels and a 30mm gun on a remote weapon station, allowing it to function more like a BMP-T.

Zivo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:From the Globalsecurity link:



The BMO-2 looks to be mislabelled - the vehicle appears to be a heavy APC rather than a Buratino replacement?

"BMO" is an engineering/assault vehicle, designed to carry a squad of RPO armed soldiers. It has a huge payload of additional launchers stored inside.

BMO-T:



Actual BMO-2 model, based on the Armata chassis:



They replaced the passengers with a large rack of ready-to-fire shmels and a 30mm gun on a remote weapon station, allowing it to function more like a BMP-T.

Apparently there's another version with octagon shaped launchers placed in the crew space area.

[quote="magnumcromagnon"][quote="Zivo"]

Big_Gazza wrote:From the Globalsecurity link:



Apparently there's another version with octagon shaped launchers placed in the crew space area.

I thought that was a Minelayer.

chicken wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:From the Globalsecurity link:



Apparently there's another version with octagon shaped launchers placed in the crew space area.

I thought that was a Minelayer.

It was originally thought as a mine laying vehicle, but apparently people have been saying it's a top attack munitions system, probably a form of MLRS/rocket artillery, with it's munitions protected by armor. In most cases MLRS are too fragile to hang in tow with heavy AFV's, but apparently the muntions have been shortened (likely at the cost of absolute range, likely only 20 km max range or less for munitions) so they can fit within the Armata chassis...for all intensive purposes UVZ has created the ultimate siege-breaker vehicle, designed to scatter armored formations.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

It was originally thought as a mine laying vehicle, but apparently people have been saying it's a top attack munitions system, probably a form of MLRS/rocket artillery, with it's munitions protected by armor. In most cases MLRS are too fragile to hang in tow with heavy AFV's, but apparently the muntions have been shortened (likely at the cost of absolute range, likely only 20 km max range or less for munitions) so they can fit within the Armata chassis...for all intensive purposes UVZ has created the ultimate siege-breaker vehicle, designed to scatter armored formations.

Well, for me it's looks like those launchers mounted on top of the chassis are anti-personnel/anti-tank mine dispensers, but they can be smoke generators too, since it would find great use at NBC defense troops.