[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

- 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?

The T-14's RWS is autonomously aimed, and can track targets in the panoramic sight's deadzone. So the true aim point floats around the commander's crosshairs and follows the target's signature using IR image processing. It's practically cheating.

IMO 7.62 makes a lot of sense, but I think given the experience learned in Syria, it's time to introduce a supplementary heavy RWS in 23mm, 30mm, etc, at least for every 3rd or 4th T-14 to function as a BMPT for each platoon, without wasting hulls on a dedicated BMPT vehicle.

"THE WEST PLAYS CATCH UP TO COUNTER THE ARMATA".



https://southfront.org/the-west-plays-catch-up-to-counter-the-armata/

par far wrote:"THE WEST PLAYS CATCH UP TO COUNTER THE ARMATA".



https://southfront.org/the-west-plays-catch-up-to-counter-the-armata/

Interesting, talking about NATO's 130mm gun.

To increase the armor penetration for the gun, new, longer and heavier projectiles were developed – Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) – as were separable trays and high explosive air-bursting munitions (HE-ABM).

Despite the manufacturers’ declaration of the significant increase in the firepower of the guns, experts have expressed doubts. The sample that was presented is designed for manual loading and experts have confirmed that the rapidity of fire cannot exceed more than six to eight rounds per minute. The T-14 has an autoloader, which provides for the rapidity of fire of about 10 to 12 rounds per minute.

Probably on flat terrain in a stationary vehicle. Well, time to switch to arm-eating autoloaders.

- 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?

In addition to being less powerful the rifle calibre machine gun {RCMG) lacks the range of heavy calibre machine guns (HMG).

It is less effective against protected targets.

But personally I would go with a mixed mount carrying a PKMT machine gun and a Balkan 40mm automatic grenade launcher... the HE power of the 40mm grenade greatly exceeds the performance of HMG rounds against soft and moderately hard targets with a range advantage too. Against other targets the RCMG has enough power for most targets and more ammo to allow more targets to be engaged.

The problem with 40mm grenades is the volume required for the large ammo and the low velocity can make time to target a little long.

- 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.

I would like to see a 57mm automatic grenade launcher fitted as a backup weapon.

the 57mm gun they have in development (not the high velocity gun for the IFV) has a very heavy shell that would be very powerful against targets that don't require a 125mm HE shell... when they change to 152mm calibre this will be even more important as space for ammo that size will be limited... it makes more sense carrying 60 x 57mm shells than maybe 10 152mm HE shells that would fit in the same space...

Note Isreali tanks carried a 60mm mortar... mostly because they used them for illumination rounds because their night vision stuff wasn't very good but the extra HE power was found to be useful for targets that didn't need 105mm HE shells.

- 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?

The driver will be focussed on driving and not shooting at anyone, while the gunner needs to focus on the target assigned by the commander. That means the roof mounted machine gun is free to be used by the commander (the gunner aims the whole turret and main gun so they have the coaxial MG anyway.

If the commander is going to be the primary user of the roof mounted MG then it makes sense to slave his optics to it so what he can see he can shoot at straight away.

I would like to see them add a 40mm grenade launcher to that setup...

* 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?

Even if Armata had a human loader I think having the MG under the control of the commander makes more sense.

The commander should be scanning the area for targets and threats... an enemy soldier pokes his head around the corner of a building to fire a rocket and the commander sees that he needs to shoot straight away... a burst of MG fire and the command to reverse the tank to the driver should be as fast as possible... the loader wont have nearly the same level of view as the commander to the time it would take the commander to direct the loader to get up and fire the MG... it would be quicker for him to do it himself.

Worse comes to worse the commander could just monitor what the gun is aiming at in auto mode to find targets and threats himself... in a dug in position the driver could operate the roof mounted MG...

The crew positions in the Armata (and other vehicle families) are supposed to be unified so each crew position can perform any crew role so you can be gunner, commander, driver from any one position.

IMO 7.62 makes a lot of sense, but I think given the experience learned in Syria, it's time to introduce a supplementary heavy RWS in 23mm, 30mm, etc, at least for every 3rd or 4th T-14 to function as a BMPT for each platoon, without wasting hulls on a dedicated BMPT vehicle.

The BMPT concept in the past has been provided by using Shilka vehicles and even trucks with ZU-23-2s on the rear... I think having a few BMPTs in a platoon is worth it.

In fact in situations where the enemy has few or no tanks (ie COIN ops etc) I think a BMPT would actually be more valuable than an actual MBT... most MBTs are optimised to penetrate enemy MBTs which is overkill when the enemy has no or few MBTs.

In comparison a vehicle with a 120mm gun/mortar and a 23mm twin barrel cannon and a 57mm grenade launcher would be an excellent anti personnel/light armour system.

In essence, the new T-15 is similar to the BMPT with a tank body and IFV weaponry. The Tank BTG of 31 T-14's supported by 12 T-15's and 6 2S35's will be a powerful force.

[quote="higurashihougi"]

Big_Gazza wrote:

Probably he used the wrong word. I believe what he means is "why Armata put the catridges vertically like T-80 instead of put them horizontally like T-72".

I do not use wrong word, i use right word for autoloader on T-14. Its autoloader from T-64/80 series of Soviet/Russian tanks with some modifications and modernization of same.

Russian used this autoloader from T-80 because u can use bigger and longer rounds then u can use in T-72 autoloader.

Apologies if this was posted already

Russian used this autoloader from T-80 because u can use bigger and longer rounds then u can use in T-72 autoloader.

No you can't.

The only real difference between the T-72/90 autoloader (made in Russia) and the T-64/80 autoloader (now from a country called the Ukraine) is that the propellent stubs in the former lay flat above the ammo which also lay flat pointing to the centre of the turret ring.

In the T-64 the propellant stubs were vertical around the outside of the turret ring... and vulnerable to fire if the turret is penetrated.

The 152mm calibre Armata MBT will have a much larger turret ring which will allow both larger propellant and rounds to be used and there is no crew above them so they can be stacked in multiple rows.

0nillie0 wrote:

- 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?

Viktor Murakhovsky wrote that T-14 is gonna get 30mm auto-cannon with brand new ammo. And possibly 57-mm grenade launcher in perspective.

Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

Well "similar in concept".

GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

One steering wheel for the driver (to control the tank's movement), a joystick-like controller for the gunner (to rotate the turret, and elevate/depress the gun) and something similar for the commander (to control his sight and RCWS). I think that this is the proper control layout for the T-14 tank.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

Well "similar in concept".

The U.S. had a similar concept, so that point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Kharvov's plant's insistence on keeping propellant stubs vertical would of main their MBT still vulnerable. We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

Well "similar in concept".

The U.S. had a similar concept, so that point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Kharvov's plant's insistence on keeping propellant stubs vertical would of main their MBT still vulnerable. We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

And T-72s experience in Chech which is not even slightly brighter than one of T-80s, some turrets still did not fall back to the ground how far up they went.

This is just showing that crew capsule is not new thing when its about Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian tank designs and that it existed almost two decades before first hull featuring it was actually built.

Also we are talking numbers here, in Chech you had hundreds of tanks in full scale urban assault (which was really, really stupid idea), in Syria you have what? 1 batallion of T-90s used outside of urban areas as much as possible. Not really comparable situations.

magnumcromagnon wrote:We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

I don't know. Comparison like that could lead to false conclusions.

Chechnya was absolute and complete clusterf@ck. Quality of command, communication, technical side were awful. Traitors everywhere - starting from bottom to the highest ranks of military and political command.

How can you rate certain combat unit performance when it's understaffed, in poor technical condition and all combat information being sold to the enemy? Any goddamn T-100500 Uber-Tank would perform poorly.

A1RMAN wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

I don't know. Comparison like that could lead to false conclusions.

Chechnya was absolute and complete clusterf@ck. Quality of command, communication, technical side were awful. Traitors everywhere - starting from bottom to the highest ranks of military and political command.

How can you rate certain combat unit performance when it's understaffed, in poor technical condition and all combat information being sold to the enemy? Any goddamn T-100500 Uber-Tank would perform poorly.

Right, and not to forget the weaponry that the enemy had access to. RPG-29s vs. T-80Us with empty ERA bricks does not go well.

An artist vision of BMPT-3.... looks like with 57mm gun to me

The BMPT is a fire power vehicle that operates with tanks that can deal with pretty much anything except enemy tanks.

Very early versions were Shilkas and Tunguskas in the sense that anti aircraft vehicles were used for their enormous fire power and ability to obliterate a patch of ground rapidly and effectively.

The suitability of the "BMP-4" or Armata based IFV level armament for a BMPT role is actually pretty good... in fact some of the early model BMPTs had BMP-3 turrets, but the externally mounted twin 30mm cannon won because of the very low profile turret giving tank level protection to the turret crew without requiring frontal turret level protection.

The 57mm gun mount with missiles would be excellent for the job trading rate of fire for much more powerful rounds and guided round precision. The ready to fire guided missiles would also be a bonus though the 57mm gun will have serious HE fire power too.

Obviously the rear troop compartment would contain extra ammo for the 57mm cannon and likely replacement missiles.

GarryB wrote:The BMPT is a fire power vehicle that operates with tanks that can deal with pretty much anything except enemy tanks.

Very early versions were Shilkas and Tunguskas in the sense that anti aircraft vehicles were used for their enormous fire power and ability to obliterate a patch of ground rapidly and effectively.

The suitability of the "BMP-4" or Armata based IFV level armament for a BMPT role is actually pretty good... in fact some of the early model BMPTs had BMP-3 turrets, but the externally mounted twin 30mm cannon won because of the very low profile turret giving tank level protection to the turret crew without requiring frontal turret level protection.

The 57mm gun mount with missiles would be excellent for the job trading rate of fire for much more powerful rounds and guided round precision. The ready to fire guided missiles would also be a bonus though the 57mm gun will have serious HE fire power too.

Obviously the rear troop compartment would contain extra ammo for the 57mm cannon and likely replacement missiles.

one more advantage I´d say - AAD role..when does with tanks can hit any helo, UAV or A-10 within range of 10 kms or so...with size of Armata chassis indeed ammo supply can be like 300 rounds...

I would expect the Tunguska replacement within an Armata unit will already have a 57mm cannon and all the optics and sensors of all types to find and destroy helos and low flying aircraft... including air burst munitions to take out swarms of UAVs...

The net centricity should allow IFVs and BMPTs to also add weight of fire when the air threat is particularly bad but most of the time they will be looking for threats on the ground.

GarryB wrote:I would expect the Tunguska replacement within an Armata unit will already have a 57mm cannon and all the optics and sensors of all types to find and destroy helos and low flying aircraft... including air burst munitions to take out swarms of UAVs...

The net centricity should allow IFVs and BMPTs to also add weight of fire when the air threat is particularly bad but most of the time they will be looking for threats on the ground.

It seems ammo is not yet but one step ahead. Some time ago I´ve found on Grukhan´s blog an article from early 2000´s about guided and HE 57mm shells. 57mm shell could be packed with more HE and less propellent (for misiona where 1000m/s is not required but 700m/s is enough) an carry explosives same as in 76mm.... for BMPT looks like new opportunities.


In army arsenals back shrapnel

http://izvestia.ru/news/638481?utm_source=rnews

The defense Ministry is testing a unique small-caliber artillery ammunition intelligent system for remote detonation, is able with one shot to shoot down a small reconnaissance drone or quadcopter, the amount of which does not exceed a few tens of centimeters. The latest exploding shells, flying to their targets, creating around itself a cloud of small pieces of metal or heavy duty plastic, which disables the drone. Development of a range of new shells of different calibers conducts NPO "Pribor" company "tehmash" (included in "rostec").

As told "Izvestia" the chief designer of the small-caliber rounds for automatic guns of the NGO "Device" group "tehmash" Oleg Chizhevsky, the development has already passed the stage of experimental-design works and came in preliminary tests in the framework of the joint project "Derive", implemented in partnership with the Nizhny Novgorod CDB "savages".

In view of the prospects and importance of the work for the military testing new weapons will be held in the near future, — have informed "news" Chizhevsky. — Then you can expect them to adopting. At the first stage of our unique get ammunition 57-mm combat module AU-220M "Baikal", which were already included in the armament of armored personnel carriers "boomerang" and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) based on the platform "Armata" T-15 and BMP family of "kurganets-25". In the future we plan to develop ammunition with a caliber of 30 mm for the older BTR-82, BMP-2 and BMP-3.

In the defense Ministry to "Izvestia" explained that currently, ammunition is developed in the framework of the project "Derivation", included in the perspective nomenclature of ammunition of Russian armored vehicles. The first such work was commissioned by industry in 2012. The arrival of new shells to the troops is planned, together with deliveries of new armored vehicles, but no later than 2020.

New shells looks no different from ordinary. As told Chizhevsky, the main highlight of munitions — miniature fuse with artificial intelligence. It allows you, at the time of the shot or immediately after it, to program the shell to undermine at a certain time, calculated automatically by the computer depending on the distance to the target. Bounding up to her, and the munition explodes, dispelling the cloud of thousands of shrapnel balls. In the future it may even be pieces of heavy duty plastic. Small drones are almost not protected, so that, once in the cloud of submunitions, have no chance to survive. The falling on his own position, the shrapnel or plastic is absolutely not dangerous for the soldiers, protected by helmets and body armor.

— Small drones have already flooded the sky in war zones, and then there will be more and more, — explained the "Izvestia" military historian Alex Hassle. — The detection and interception of young scouts is a serious problem. Shoot them down with antiaircraft missiles is the same as throwing them in gold bullion. The price of the scout, as a rule, does not exceed one thousand dollars, and the rocket is much more expensive. Each drone is very dangerous, as it leads not only exploration, combat formations, but also induces light aircraft, helicopters, large armed drones, artillery and tanks of the enemy.

Currently in the armed forces of NATO countries are being actively implemented multi-rotor copters, which are used by infantry units for reconnaissance in woodland and settlements. Recently the U.S. armed forces bought a few dozen quadcopters Scout, who had already suffered during combat operations in Afghanistan. Weighing in at 1.3 kg and length less than a meter drone is able to hang in the air for about half an hour and fly at a speed of about 50 km/h.

As noted by Alex Khlopotov, about the relevance of fighting with these order say active work of Western companies to create an inexpensive but highly effective interception of small drones. In France is developed by a 40-millimeter anti-aircraft gun RAPID Fire, able to shoot remotely undermine ammunition. On a similar system operates with the German company Rheinmetall.

— In the creation of small-caliber ammunition with intelligent remote detonation we are seriously ahead of Western developers, says Alex Hassle. Is relatively inexpensive, but highly effective means of destruction of small drones.

Militarov wrote:

Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

Object 775 tho from what i remember had separate capsule inside turret itself rather than one inside the hull. This drawing looks to me like its ment to be placed inside the hull.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

Object 775 tho from what i remember had separate capsule inside turret itself rather than one inside the hull. This drawing looks to me like its ment to be placed inside the hull.

Not with that width and the Turret was a placeholder for both the capsule and moving parts of mechanism which was a revolver type with a cyclical funnel that went up to the front hull and acted as a separator between TC and driver. Also last detail the capsule was fixed and aiming forward. It didn't rotate with the firing system. Which forced a kind of tilting Gun/turret, just like the older Soviet tank obj 232/299-50 that has strong hints of the Armata.

Spacing between driver and gunner would have made any other solution impractical given that the tanks transmission for most USSR tanks were manual, thus more space was needed. The only tank with a two man crew other than the Drakon was the Rubin. And both were trialed with auto trannie. None kept it.

Also while you're correct about the hull capsule, the definition of a safety capsule, disregarding the layout is something that requires an automated mechanism, something both nations trialed, but only the USSR introduced in its MBT's. Dare I say the Obj 775 was an old series autoloading tank but with a totally different ammunition thus it needed to have that capsule.

And welcome back btw.