[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Benya wrote:

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.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Benya wrote:

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.

A MLRS system would make the most sense, Grad, Uragan, Smerch systems have anti-personnel/anti-tank mine dispenser rockets in their stockpiles, as well as UAV's, top-attack munitions, and it wouldn't be too difficult to create a rocket packed with electro-magnetic opaque aerosol grenades, and probably be more effective than the smoke dispensers seen on AFV's, with the ability to cover a much larger area, much more quickly.

Benya wrote: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.

- Tank variants: The T-14 surely covers not totally the spectrum. Anti-tank variant of 152mm? Would not be this a tank of 152mm?

Zivo wrote:

- Tank variants: The T-14 surely covers not totally the spectrum. Anti-tank variant of 152mm? Would not be this a tank of 152mm?

The T-15 with the 152mm will serve as a direct-fire assault gun. The turret would protrude into the passenger compartment, allowing the T-15 to be loaded through the rear ramp. This gives it the firepower to function more as a static weapon for the siege style of urban warfare we see in places like Syria and Iraq.

The true "anti tank" variant of Armata will use the 20km Hermes MLRS system KBP is developing.

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

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

Mike E wrote:

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

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

Makes me think they actually were considering the French Catherines, which would suggest the new sights are close in capability to them. This will be the biggest flaw in all of the T-14.

Mike E wrote:

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

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

Makes me think they actually were considering the French Catherines, which would suggest the new sights are close in capability to them. This will be the biggest flaw in all of the T-14.

Mike E wrote:

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

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

Makes me think they actually were considering the French Catherines, which would suggest the new sights are close in capability to them. This will be the biggest flaw in all of the T-14.

- Tank variants: The T-14 surely covers not totally the spectrum. Anti-tank variant of 152mm? Would not be this a tank of 152mm?

Makes me think they actually were considering the French Catherines, which would suggest the new sights are close in capability to them. This will be the biggest flaw in all of the T-14.

George1 wrote:High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles

Russia's new "super tank," the T-14 Armata, appears to be well-protected against one of the most commonly used anti-tank missiles in the world, the "stalwart" US-made BGM-71 TOW, defense analyst Sebastien Roblin wrote for the National Interest, but there is a twist.

The expert compared Armata's defensive capabilities with technical characteristics of two TOW variants, 2A and 2B. The first uses a wire-guidance system that allows the operator to correct the course of the missile while it is in the air.

"The wire-guidance system has the advantage of being immune to most forms of jamming. However, it requires the firer to remain in place, aiming the missile for its entire flight time until it hits the target. Countermeasures that make the target hard to see – such as plain old-fashioned smoke – can mess up the firer's aim," he explained.

The TOW-2A's chances to hurt Russia's new generation main battle tank (MBT) are slim. The tank has the Afganit Active Protection System that is capable of misdirecting missiles via its soft kill capabilities or shooting down missiles if the former does not work.

"Against a wire-guided system, the T-14's soft kill system will work if the Armata's radars are effective and the crew is quick enough to move the tank to a new position while the missile is in flight. The active-kill system, however, might have a good chance of taking out the missile if it's as good as it's cracked up to be," the expert noted.

If the Afganit system fails to protect the Armata, the T-14 has the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which will complicate matters for the TOW-2A even further. In total, Roblin concluded that several TOW-2A missiles will have to be launched so that one of them could penetrate the tank's armor.

Armata apparently does not have to worry about the wire-guided TOW-2A, but the top-attack TOW-2B that employs wireless-guidance using a stealth frequency is a different story.

The TOW-2B is capable of penetrating the tank's top armor, disabling its unmanned turret and negating its offensive capabilities because the Afganit system is not meant to protect the MBT from this type of attack. In addition, the Relikt ERA does not provide sufficient protection against top-attack missiles.

Nevertheless, the tank's crew will not be affected by the TOW-2B strike even if it is successful and will most likely leave the battlefield intact.

"In the end, the T-14 appears to boast some decent defenses against the TOW, particularly the TOW-2A, but how well they will work in combat is a question even the American and Russian manufacturers can only guess at," Roblin observed.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160731/1043806497/t14-armata-tow-missiles.html

AlfaT8 wrote:The National Interest trying to flex there "intellectual" muscle again.
Apparently the TOW-2B can badly hurt the Armata and Soviet AT weapons are "spitballs" in front of the Abrams.
Bitching about the Active Protection to conclude that it's existence means the Armata armor is crap.  
Also concluding that Afganit can't intercept top-attacks.
Bitching about the armor again, because of the Armatas weight?! (we need more imojis)  
Concluding that the turret is Armata's weak spot, because of probable lack of armor (despite not having external ammo).  

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-deadly-armata-tank-vs-americas-tow-missile-who-wins-17187

Mike E wrote:T-90 is nowhere close to the T-14 with any upgrade given to it. It is an outdated design and needs to be replaced, hence Armata.

AlfaT8 wrote:The National Interest trying to flex there "intellectual" muscle again.
Apparently the TOW-2B can badly hurt the Armata and Soviet AT weapons are "spitballs" in front of the Abrams.
Bitching about the Active Protection to conclude that it's existence means the Armata armor is crap.  
Also concluding that Afganit can't intercept top-attacks.
Bitching about the armor again, because of the Armatas weight?! (we need more imojis)  
Concluding that the turret is Armata's weak spot, because of probable lack of armor (despite not having external ammo).  

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-deadly-armata-tank-vs-americas-tow-missile-who-wins-17187

In terms of conventional armor, the Armata is still believed to be a slightly less well protected than an M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2 judging by its weight of around fifty to sixty tons. (For comparison, an M1 weighs seventy tons)

The bottom line is multiple missiles might be required for one to get through.

What about the wireless top-attack TOW-2B? The Afganit active protection system, mounted on the turret side, doesn’t appear useable against it. The Relikt ERA will also be less effective, and the top armor will likely be easy to penetrate.

Mike E wrote:It dates back to the sixties and is riddled with design flaws -- tight crew compartment, unavoidable frontal armour weakspots (drivers sight, LFP, mantlet), completely unmodular, ammunition length limiting autoloader, etc. Not a bad design, but it is heavily outdated and has been for some time.

It's no more outdated then it's contemporaries.

Mike E wrote:T-90 is directly based on the T-72, which was based directly on the T-64. You get the idea.

You can't simply throw ERA everywhere and hope to solve the issue. The mantlet can't be protected with ERA for obvious reasons, the LFP can't as it is equipped with an earth-moving tool and ERA in that location would be stripped off -- and the Driver's area would be in danger if protected by ERA: it would be located close to his optics and hatch.

Modularity? No. The Abrams can swap powerpack, armour packages, even optics rather easily. The Leopard 2 can be outfitted with exterior armour packages w/ no issue and like the Abrams, has an easily removable powerpack. Etc etc, the Leclerc's armour is semi-modular (ie could be replaced after combat), for another example.

T-90AM doesn't exist, and the SM didn't solve the length issue, it only allowed for a few new (still short) rounds to be fired.

It's way more outdated than its contemporaries, hence why the US/GER/FR can upgrade their platforms rather than going for a whole new one ie Armata. Seriously man, why would Armata exist if the T-90 platform wasn't outdated? It wouldn't need to and it would be way cheaper to just upgrade the 90's.