[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

par far wrote:Russia to get 2,000  T-14 ‘Armata’ type, does this mean that Russia will 2,000 Armata T 14 Tanks, is that not too much? Why does Russia need that many?


https://southfront.org/the-russian-army-will-receive-2000-armata-tanks/

2,000 is not many at all. In fact Armata type means that the actual MBTs will be 1,000 or so at best, which is extremely low for a country like Russia.

Imo Russia will need atleast 5000 T-14 to be able to prepare itself for a possible ww3 like scenario, also the 5000 units is for the T-14 alone and does not include other variants of the Armata platform

2,000 T-14s is a good number, but not by 2020 like some nutcases claim, but more like 2030 or 2025.

AlfaT8 wrote:2,000 T-14s is a good number, but not by 2020 like some nutcases claim, but more like 2030 or 2025.

besides T-14 there will be about 1000 T-90MS (Proryv) and some light tanks on basis or Kruganets or Sp.ruts

2000 is approximately the number of tanks needed to replace the T-72 in active service. It is right.

Hate to be that guy but even 2000 T-14s by 2025 don't sound right. Let alone, 1000 T-90AMs, I think they'll settle for upgrading T-90A to AM standard. The Russian military budget sadly is not as high as our US counterparts so we'll have to make due with those restrictions.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:besides T-14 there will be about 1000 T-90MS (Proryv) and some light tanks on basis or Kruganets or Sp.ruts

I wish -- there are what, roughly 400 T-90A's in service, and no guarantee that all of them will be upgraded to the Proryv standard. Expect ~300 M vehicles.

The updates and changes in the middle of the life of a model of warfare are not planned at the time of the design.

An update or modification of a design is a reaction to either new technology or a move by an opponent that requires a change... ie the continuous development of ERA and US 120mm smoothbore ammo... one side designs something to counter the other and in response the other side develops something better.

You can't plan for that before designing and if you create a new from scratch design everytime the US comes out with new ammo or the Germans come up with a longer barrel gun you will have to create a new tank design every 3 years.

You can't.

Every update means higher costs and most of the times means redundancies (in this case double main weapon for every tank),

Not necessarily. A new tank round that is designed to penetrate in service ERA can be defeated once its method of defeating the old ERA is determined and a way of stopping it is worked out and put into service... the new ERA might even be cheaper and lighter than the previous generation... and it can be fitted to all your vehicles... even the older ones to make them more effective as well.

Early updates are consequence of design mistakes. Not planned. Late updates are consequence of late technological improvements. Also not planned, because at the time of the design there is not a good preview of the technological improvements that can be available 30 or 40 years later.

Not strictly true. Sometimes new information means performance requirements were wrong... a good example is the penetration performance of 1980s western ATGMs which seem to be horrendously over rated... and Soviet ERA which seems to have been under rated by some.

And this double main weapon for every tank, means approximately double costs in the case of the development of a new weapon in the concrete case of the T-14, because no-one of the current main weapons in use today in the tanks of Russia can be included in a new model of tank for the next 50 years.

It does not double costs... costs are actually shared... new penetration mechanisms for new 152mm ammo can be applied to new 125mm ammo too, but on a smaller scale.

The current main weapons in service in the Russian tanks are not modern enough for a new model of tank. The T-14 requires the design of a new weapon, the same if the caliber selected is the 125mm or the 152mm. Only some prototypes can go with one of the weapons in use in the current tanks.

Except that the Russian military has said it is so far happy with the 125mm gun and current plans expect it to be the standard gun.

Russia knows perfectly that the right moment for the introduction of a new caliber is the begin of the life of a new tank, like the T-14. And if the Russian engineers do a good job designing the T-14 (I doubt not about it), Russia would not need another new tank model in the next 25 years (except in case of big war). The introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks would be now, or approximately in 2040.

They don't need to replace the turret to fit the 152mm gun.... they would just need to change the gun and alter the ammo handling system for the larger rounds.


Equally the IFV will replace the 30mm cannon for a 57mm gun when that is ready.

The costs are not that important... they are replacing their entire range of armoured vehicles with new vehicles... the cost of changing from 125mm to 152mm would be nothing in comparison... the cost in terms of ammo production would be higher and the cost in terms of ready to fire rounds would also be higher but kill probability would also be increased... and so they will likely do it when they think they need to.

And no, Russia will not be waiting to introduce the new caliber until the NATO finds a solution against the 125mm caliber. Then it would be too late, and it would make the transition faster, and as consequence, far more expensive.

The NATO solution to render the 125mm gun obsolete is to replace the tank armour of all their tanks in service and in reserve... that is going to cost a shitload more than swapping out the 125mm guns with 152mm guns in the T-14s.

Russia to get 2,000 T-14 ‘Armata’ type, does this mean that Russia will 2,000 Armata T 14 Tanks, is that not too much? Why does Russia need that many?

CFE numbers were 6,000 MBT in europe for Russia.

I realise the CFE is not in effect, but it gives you an idea of the numbers of in service and in storage MBTS for Russia. Of course of those 6,000 about 4,000 would be in storage at any one time while 2,000 would be in active units scattered around the place.

I rather suspect 2,000 would be plenty with 4,000 T-90s and upgraded T-72s in storage with the latter gradually replaced with Armata and other platform MBTs.

Mike E wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:besides T-14 there will be about 1000 T-90MS (Proryv) and some light tanks on basis or Kruganets or Sp.ruts

I wish -- there are what, roughly 400 T-90A's in service, and no guarantee that all of them will be upgraded to the Proryv standard. Expect ~300 M vehicles.

Nah, they don't want to hear that.
Reality sucks my friend.

First interception test, for the MoD, of "Афганит" against very high speed MBT's APFSDS round with DU core successfully completed , all while the same APS continue to be improved.

This breakthrough literally open a new era in the protection of armoured ground vehicles ( obviously togheter with the breakthrough in reactive armor on the basis of not explosive energetic materials)


http://pronedra.ru/weapon/2016/09/21/zaschitnyj-kompleks-armaty/

New Armata combat vehicle platforms to have number of advantages over their foreign counterpart

The newest Russian armoured vehicles designed by the Uralvagonzavod (Russian acronym: UVZ) research-production corporation, the Tractor Plants Concern, and the Military Industrial Company (Russian acronym: VPK, Voyenno-Promishlennaya Kompaniya) have a number of radical advantages over their foreign analogues and over the vehicles, previously developed by the indigenous defense industry, Russian analysts suppose.


The Armata family of heavy tracked vehicles developed by UVZ has undoubtedly become the core of Russia`s military vehicles fleet modernization. At present, it is comprised of three units, namely, T-14 main battle tank (MBT), T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV), and T-16 armoured recovery vehicle (ARV). The T-14 MBT and the T-15 HIFV have already been unveiled; the vehicles were demonstrated for the first time at the 9 May Victory Day parade in 2015. At the same time, the T-16 ARV remains undisclosed.

According to the open sources, the development of the T-14 Armata MBT commenced in 2009 by the Urals Design Bureau for Transport Machine-Building (Russian acronym: UKBTM, Uralskoye Konstruktorskoye Byuro Transportnogo Mashinostroeniya; a subsidiary of the UVZ corporation) company. The first nodes and components of the tank were unveiled in 2013. As mentioned earlier, several T-14 tanks participated in the Victory Day parade in 2015, having been demonstrated to the foreign official delegation and guests.

The official technical specifications of T-14 are not disclosed. The tank has received a new chassis with seven road wheels on each side, while the previously developed MBTs, for instance, T-72B / T-72B3 and T-90 /T-90A tanks have six road wheels on each side. The dimensions of the newest tank are significantly bigger than those of its predecessors. T-14`s hull length is estimated to be about 8.7 m (T-72B3 has a hull length of 6,860 mm, as well as T-90A) and height about 2.6 m (T-72B3 - 2,226 mm, T-90A - 2,223 mm).

The newest Russian armoured vehicles designed by the Uralvagonzavod (Russian acronym: UVZ) research-production corporation, the Tractor Plants Concern, and the Military Industrial Company (Russian acronym: VPK, Voyenno-Promishlennaya Kompaniya) have a number of radical advantages over their foreign analogues and over the vehicles, previously developed by the indigenous defense industry, Russian analysts suppose.


T-14 Armata is believed to have the autoloader problems fixed. According to the open sources, the tank is armed with an advanced 125mm gun-launcher that can fire both brand-new and previously developed rounds. According to the Defence Review Asia (DRA) magazine, the newest MBT has received the 125 mm 2A82-1M tank gun with an ammunition load of 45 rounds. The gun has a firing rate of 10-12 rounds per minute and a maximum firing range of about 7,000 m. The 2A82-1M`s muzzle energy is reported to exceed the one of the 120 mm L/55 tank gun designed by Rheinmetall Defence by 17%. It is coupled with a 7.62 mm coaxial machinegun. In May 2015, Russia`s Vice-Premier, Dmitry Rogozin said that the Armata tank would receive a new round that could "burn one meter of steel". However, the official did not specify the caliber and the type of the round mentioned by him. Therefore, T-14 is supposed to be effective against such modern MBTs, as Leopard 2A7 by the German Rheinmetall Defence and Krauss-Maffei Wegman (KMW) companies and M1A2SEP V3 Abrams by the US General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) consortium.

The unit price of T-14 is still unsettled. Neither Ministry of Defense (MoD), nor UVZ discloses the cost of the program. According to the experts of the DRA magazine, the T-14 unit price might be RUB 250 million (USD 3.9 million) or RUB 400 million (USD 6.2 million). The officials of the MoD have been complaining about "the high cost" of T-14 Armata, sometimes calling it 'inflated'. However, the aforementioned estimations do not seem to be overpriced. For instance, the M1A1 Abrams tank had a unit price of USD 2.9 million in 1991 (at present, the manufacturing of M1A1 MBTs is ceased - TASS). The latest serially produced modification of the Abrams tank, namely M1A2SEP V2 has a unit price of USD 9.71 million, Leopard 2A6 of USD 5.8 million, Leopard 2A7 of USD 10 million, AMX-56B Leclerc of USD 18.38 million (the full cost - TASS), K2 Black Panther of USD 8.5 million. Therefore, T-14 Armata seems to be significantly cheaper than the aforementioned foreign analogues. It is noteworthy that the Russian Armed Forces revealed their intention to get over 2,000 T-14 Armata MBTs by 2020 or by 2025.

The tactical role of the T-14 tank is not obvious. The military is planning to phase out previously delivered tanks gradually, replacing them by Armata vehicles. However, T-14 MBT is the world`s most sophisticated tank that requires advanced maintenance, control and a well-trained crew. Therefore, the newest tank may be used as a support vehicle for deeply upgraded T-72B3 and T-90A tanks. Such kind of interaction will require the integration of state-of-the art sensors and control systems (an identification friend-or-foe (IFF) unit, a GLONASS-type satellite navigation system, secured datalink, and an advanced central processing unit (CPU)) with the previously delivered vehicles.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_armata_combat_vehicle_platforms_to_have_number_of_advantages_over_their_foreign_counterpart_tass_2309164.html

---

Well, let's cover some gun specs:

- that 7,000 meters firing range can only be reached by a GLATGM.

- For the muzzle velocity, I think that it is around 1,750-1,800 m/s.

The T-14's price tag isn't that hefty compared to western adversaries, but it is not the final price.

As for its tactics, using it as a support tank for older MBTs is a short-term idea, and is not for the long run, since there would be entire tank brigades/divisions based on the Armata platform (same with Kurganets/Boomerang and maybe Typhoon platforms)

Interesting claims in this article from the National Interests Dave Majumdar (Yes, him again...) about the Afghanit APS being tested against APFSDS rounds.

The Afghanit active protection system (APS) mounted on Moscow’s powerful new T-14 Armata main battle tanks has been proven effective at intercepting depleted uranium-core armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) cannon shells if Russian sources are to be believed.

If Moscow’s claims are accurate, the new Russian active protection system would be a game-changing development in the realm of mechanized warfare. While active protection systems were thought to be effective mostly against incoming anti-tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades, most industry and defense experts had believed that active protection systems were ineffective against kinetic energy (KE) round such as the U.S. Army’s M829A4 120mm APFSDS. Thus, if the Russians have genuinely achieved a breakthrough in defeating KE anti-tank rounds, U.S. and NATO ground forces could face a very serious problem in the near future as the Armata family of combat vehicles becomes fully operational over the next several years.

The Russian-language news outlet Izvestia—citing a Russian Ministry of Defense source—has reported that the Afghanit APS has been successfully tested against incoming depleted uranium-cored APFSDS rounds flying at speeds of been 1.5km to 2km per second. “The first test interceptions of ‘crowbars’ (Russian military slang for sabot rounds) took place this year. This newest system was able to cope with such complex goals. Previously, it was thought to be impossible to destroy armor-piercing projectiles,” the Russian MOD source told state-owned Izvestia. “Much attention has been paid to the destruction of depleted uranium ‘crowbars’, which is now commonly used in NATO armor-piercing tank rounds. There is currently further work underway to improve the system, in particular, computer algorithms that control the interception.”

According to Izvestia, the key to the system is an active electronically scanned array radar built by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau, which lies at the heart of the Afghanit system. The system will not only be mounted on the fearsome T-14 main battle tank variant, but also on the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle version of the Armata. It is also very likely that the Russians will mount the Afghanit on every combat vehicle that will eventually comprise the Armata family of combat vehicles.


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-game-changing-feature-russias-t-14-armata-might-make-17859

Mindstorm wrote:
First interception test, for the MoD, of "Афганит" against very high speed MBT's APFSDS round with DU core successfully completed , all while the same APS continue to be improved.

This breakthrough literally open a new era in the protection of armoured ground vehicles ( obviously togheter with the breakthrough in reactive armor on the basis of not explosive energetic materials)    


http://pronedra.ru/weapon/2016/09/21/zaschitnyj-kompleks-armaty/

Agreed, and if Afghanit is proved to be effective in this role, it will be a game-changer!

Highlights from that pathetic article: 

"I don't see it as realistic,” Kofman said. “A discarding sabot is a depleted uranium dart, the entire concept is that the material is incredibly dense to serve as a penetrator. The Afghanit APS uses a fragmentation charge and is not liable to do much to the A4—the latest variant—of U.S. munitions. I can see it possibly pushing the dart off course with some sort of hit-to-kill approach, but I doubt much can stop it—besides combinations of ERA [explosive reactive armor] and composite armor."

 - This guy actually thinks he knows the type of interceptor Afganit uses. Not only is he most likely wrong (and it is EFP), but he does not understand the basic principles of how an APS system would operate against rods. It does not have to obliterate the rod, simply altering its angle by a marginal number of degrees (think 5-10) will basically render it useless for any sort of usable penetration. In addition, it seems as if multi-segment rods would be worse off against such a system. There's a good chance Afganit could shear off one of the segments if hit in the right location. 

"Thus, the Kremlin would be wiser to spend the money on improved ammunition to take full advantage of the 2A82 gun rather than spend the time and effort on a massive 152mm cannon variant."


 - They are working on improved ammunition.

Big_Gazza wrote:Interesting claims in this article from the National Interests Dave Majumdar (Yes, him again...)  about the Afghanit APS being tested against APFSDS rounds.  


While active protection systems were thought to be effective mostly against incoming anti-tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades,

Most "experts" are hacks and so are the clowns that cite them as authorities on any given subject. A stellar example of this is Daniel Yergin, the
so-called expert on the oil industry. Being 100% wrong 100% of the time keeps the MSM coming back for more and brings in big bux.

A high KE penetrator is really a condensed variant of a HEAT high energy molten metal stream. Active protection can disrupt the HEAT stream rather
effectively. Following similar physics APS can be designed to shred a HE penetrator. Unlike ARENA it acts close to the hull by launching sliding
plates as the sabot starts to penetrate the APS casing. This was discussed on this board already. The video recently posted showing the new
Russian APS explosive panels against HEAT rounds demonstrated that new explosives have been developed that are very efficient at directional
focusing. This development impacts any APS designed to shred sabot rounds.

For every measure there is a countermeasure. But chest thumping western chauvinists typically dismiss the ability of Russians to come up with
new solutions. Supposedly they steal everything from the west, which apparently has a monopoly on human intelligence.

Mike E wrote:Highlights from that pathetic article: 

"I don't see it as realistic,” Kofman said. “A discarding sabot is a depleted uranium dart, the entire concept is that the material is incredibly dense to serve as a penetrator. The Afghanit APS uses a fragmentation charge and is not liable to do much to the A4—the latest variant—of U.S. munitions. I can see it possibly pushing the dart off course with some sort of hit-to-kill approach, but I doubt much can stop it—besides combinations of ERA [explosive reactive armor] and composite armor."

 - This guy actually thinks he knows the type of interceptor Afganit uses. Not only is he most likely wrong (and it is EFP), but he does not understand the basic principles of how an APS system would operate against rods. It does not have to obliterate the rod, simply altering its angle by a marginal number of degrees (think 5-10) will basically render it useless for any sort of usable penetration. In addition, it seems as if multi-segment rods would be worse off against such a system. There's a good chance Afganit could shear off one of the segments if hit in the right location. 

"Thus, the Kremlin would be wiser to spend the money on improved ammunition to take full advantage of the 2A82 gun rather than spend the time and effort on a massive 152mm cannon variant."


 - They are working on improved ammunition.

These clowns have no imagination. They are not capable of understanding the physics.

APS can be designed that slices a sabot into pieces, this is more effective than deflection since it creates a debris field of metal pieces that neutralize the unsliced
part of the sabot. A combination of parallel to hull plates exploded at sharp angle relative to the sabot trajectory (and destroying some fraction of its tip end)
combined with a directional reactive plate such as used against HEAT rounds would be a show stopper for sabots. There has been plenty of time to design and
evolve such APS concepts. The size of the protective elements hinges on the quality of the explosive. With recent advances even low mass plates can shred
DU sabots. So the tank does not need a 20 ton coat.

Well, let's cover some gun specs:

- that 7,000 meters firing range can only be reached by a GLATGM.

Or it might also be the limit of the HE Frag round with a timed fuse.

The old T series tanks could fire HE FRAG to 9km in the semi direct fire role.

- For the muzzle velocity, I think that it is around 1,750-1,800 m/s.

The old 125mm ammo could manage that velocity.

It says in the article that the new gun improves the muzzle velocity of the 120mm new longer german gun by 17 percent.

It is already known that the german L/55 gun has a muzzle velocity of 1,800m/s with penetrator projectiles (ie APFSDS), so 17% higher velocity is simply 1,800 multiplied by 1.17 which equals 2106mps.

Note standard 125mm calibre ammo on the T-90 could already reach 1,800mps.

The T-14's price tag isn't that hefty compared to western adversaries, but it is not the final price.

As for its tactics, using it as a support tank for older MBTs is a short-term idea, and is not for the long run, since there would be entire tank brigades/divisions based on the Armata platform (same with Kurganets/Boomerang and maybe Typhoon platforms)

Once all the different vehicles are developed they will be able to form armata divisions.

Adding new systems and technology to older vehicles will both improve performance of those vehicles and also get the systems into service for a real test making them cheaper and easier to service.

Eventually as other vehicle types are removed from service the number of different types of engines and transmissions and systems will unify into standard systems that makes them easier to manage and ultimately cheaper.


Regarding "Afghanistan", this is excellent news... the ability to intercept an APFSDS round and cause it to yaw or break up will dramatically reduce its ability to penetrate anything. The best way of thinking about it is a nail being driven in by a hammer... if the angle of the strike is wrong the nail bends and does not penetrate the material... once it is bent further force is wasted bending the nail and the nail side on will not go into the material as easily as point on because the energy is now spread along a much larger surface area.

It is not going to make a family car into a tank however as a lump of metal weighing about 8kgs and moving at over 1km/s is still going through a car and anyone inside.

For a medium weight vehicle like a Boomerang or Kurganets it might make it survivable... depending upon where it is hit.

The first Point-and-click(shoot) tank

---

Russian-made T-14 Armata main battle tank fitted with new detection and acquisition system.

The latest Russian T-14 army tank on Armata platform will be equipped with an advanced complex of target detection and acquisition with video imaging, Director of the specialized design bureau of the Popov Gorkosvky Communications Equipment enterprise which produces the device Igor Ryabov.


"Armata will become the first Russian armored vehicle to have the complex of rapid target detection and acquisition with an optic-fiber video imaging. It allows tank commander to rapidly transmit to the pointer both target coordinates and video image. Formally combat control becomes a computer game," he said.

At present "a major batch of such complexes has been produced and is undergoing test trials. The new complex is designed and produced jointly by Nizhny Novgorod-based Popov works and Temp-Avia Company.

Ryabov said the new complex reduces combat actions of tank commander and pointer to the minimum. The commander simply places the cursor on the target and presses a button for lock-on. "He then transmits exact coordinates of the target and the battlefield image to the pointer and can even instruct which vehicle is to be hit first, say, tank comes first and armored personnel carrier follows. It remains for the pointer to press the button," Ryabov said. The complex can rapidly transmit exact coordinates of adversary target on any terrain and in any weather, he added.

The T-14 Armata was unveiled for the first time to the public during the military parade in Moscow for the Victory Day, May 9, 2015. This is the new generation of Russian-made battle tank armed with the new 125mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun with an automatic loader and 32 rounds ready to use.

The T-14 Armata is equipped with the Active Protection System (APS) Afghanit which seems similar to the Israeli Trophy able to intercept and destroy incoming missiles and rockets.The system is designed to work against all types of anti-tank missiles and rockets, including handheld weapons such as rocket propelled grenades.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian-made_t-14_armata_main_battle_tank_fitted_with_new_detection_and_acquisition_system_10210162.html

Of 2015, but must read for some people.

https://www.rt.com/news/258473-armata-t14-powerful-shell/

Russia’s new T-14 Armata tank is going to get an even more powerful armament, as the next version of the main battle tank will be armed with previously rumored 152mm gun, revealed the official in charge of the defense industry.

Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin told Izvestia newspaper that next-stage Armata tanks will be supplied with already-developed big bore cannon and brand new projectiles.

“We’ve got a new projectile for this tank than can burn through a meter of steel, we would arm Armata with that one,” Rogozin said.

Then the question is when will be ready the next version of the T-14 with the 152mm weapon, and how many units of the current version with 125mm will be produced.

I tend to think that the production with the 125mm weapon can be very low.

So if that quote turns out to be true we can expect the T-14 to be armed with a 125mm main gun and the T-14M to probably have the 152mm gun...

https://rbth.com/defence/2016/04/27/russia-to-get-first-mass-produced-t-14-armata-tanks-by-2018-says-maker_588671

The basic version of the T-14 tank is designed to use a 125 mm gun. However, according to the weapons manufacturer, this combat vehicle can be supplied with 152 mm cannon as well.

Then it is possible the T-14 going with 152mm weapon since the begin of the mass production. For me it is very likely, and surely this is the main reason of the timing in the begin of the deliveries.

GarryB wrote:So if that quote turns out to be true we can expect the T-14 to be armed with a 125mm main gun and the T-14M to probably have the 152mm gun...

Read an article in Russian from the Plant Director and he said the biggest problems with the 152mm round was that the turret had to be bigger and the amount of rounds able to be carried was low. He didn't figure it was needed with the 2S35 being able to do direct fire if a larger round was needed for a situation. Take that for what it's worth.

franco wrote:

GarryB wrote:So if that quote turns out to be true we can expect the T-14 to be armed with a 125mm main gun and the T-14M to probably have the 152mm gun...

Read an article in Russian from the Plant Director and he said the biggest problems with the 152mm round was that the turret had to be bigger and the amount of rounds able to be carried was low. He didn't figure it was needed with the 2S35 being able to do direct fire if a larger round was needed for a situation. Take that for what it's worth.

I guess this issue boils down to how effective Russian shells will be against NATO tanks. The 152 mm cannon will be deployed if it is needed
and the argument about the number of shells is weak. The current turret extension on the T-14 is small. The T-14 can accommodate a much
bigger turret.

When they went from a 37mm or 47mm high velocity anti tank gun during WWII to a 76.2mm gun one of the obvious costs was that while the T-34 is much bigger than a T-26 it carried about 60 rounds when the T-26 had over 100 shells.

Having said that the 76.2mm gun had a much more effective HE shell and as such was a much better general purpose weapon as the vast majority of things a tank fires upon in battle are not other tanks.

Anything that holds up the tank force is a target so a MG nest... towed artillery, even troops in a building or bunker.

With the transition from 125mm to 152mm the shells are both effective in terms of HE fire power, but the 152mm gun would need rather more propellent to be effective so the complete round will be bigger and heavier... reducing the number that could be carried and the speed at which they could be fired.

We need to differentiate between what factory managers and designers say and what the actual customer says...

Hi,

The versions of the T-14 we have been able to see so far, seem to have all been equipped with a version of "UDP T05BV-1" remote controlled weapon station integrated into the commanders panoramic sight (or vice versa).
This station is (afaik) equipped with a 7.62mm machine gun. It is also used in the new T-90 upgrade package.

I can see the 7.62mm setup has some advantages over the "traditional 12.7mm AA machine gun" commonly seen in MBT's from both the East and the West.
Most importantly :
- more ammunition capacity due to smaller, lighter rounds
- ammunition commonly used by infantry
- reduced weight of the weapon station, and therefor reduced stress on the drives = longer life / increased reliability?
- possibly less vibration when firing the gun = better for electro-optics of the panoramic sight?
- The 7.62mm should be sufficient for basic close-in protection against infantry, or to engage low flying scout UAV's.

the main disadvantage would be off course the reduced power of the 7.62mm against somewhat armored targets, or infantry hiding behind cover.

My questions for you guys are :
- Is the 7.62mm the correct choice for the T-14? Or will we likely see other/additional weapon systems and a different commander sight setup in future production versions of the T-14?
- What type of other weapon system would make sense to be installed on a 4th generation main battle tank (if any). I am talking about current technology, not something that will only be readily available in a decade or so.
- Do you guys prefer the panoramic sight and RWS to be combined in one unit? Or do you prefer them to be separated* for redundancy or other reasons?

* In Western designs it makes more sense to separate them, as there is an extra crew member (the loader) that can operate the RWS from his station when not loading rounds like a madman. T-14 hull currently seats only 3 crew members so the RWS would need to operate in automatic mode most of the time, which adds complexity to the FCS. Since we will see T-15's operating besides the the T-14, would the MBT need any additional weapon system in the first place? Which brings us back to question one : is the 7.62mm the overall correct choice for the T-14?

Your opinions are appreciated as always !