[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

Manually operated and à PITA.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Manually operated and à PITA.

Pain in the ass, i assume?

Yup.

IMO, it looks like another thing to bash your head on when going over rough terrain.

Zivo wrote:

Yeah, that is the one i have on my PC.

Well i guess occasionally it can prove to be useful, otherwise Israelis would drop it.

Looks very primitive. I thought it would have been aided by FCS and would be adjusted by coordinates semi/automatic. Seems like lot of time is wasted to aim it to have any effect on target. The AG-30 should have better performance in time/effeciency/accuracy -range against targets since they are already conntected to FCS on BMPT.

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

Though I do not deny the likelihood of that happening, it is thus-far completely unconfirmed and should be treated as such. It is more likely the core will remain the same and the 'soft' shell may change, possibly allowing for the addition of ERA on the side or something.

Unmanned turrets are said to shave off 5 tons, to there you go; ~9 tons, maybe less.

In other news, Armata has (already!) passed testing; here

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

I made the mistake of not expressing myself a little more clearer. I meant to say that (unlike in the Merkava) the capability should be automated. It's one of the few features that I like in the Merkava; I don't like the front engine design, because it greatly increases the thermal signature of the tank or that stupid rear door that makes it far easier to kill the crew from a shot from behind.

The Merkava apparently has every little armor in the front hull and the sides -- the very opposite of this nonsense about the Merkava being the best protected tank in the world.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

 Though I do not deny the likelihood of that happening, it is thus-far completely unconfirmed and should be treated as such. It is more likely the core will remain the same and the 'soft' shell may change, possibly allowing for the addition of ERA on the side or something.

Unmanned turrets are said to shave off 5 tons, to there you go; ~9 tons, maybe less.

In other news, Armata has (already!) passed testing; here

It is quite obvious that there will be an armor shell/applique armor for the shell in both composite aswell ERA type protection for the turret. It will not increase the likelyhood to be hit, since that armor does not have anything behind it with volume of the internal arrangement, it still will have a quite slim profile but will give protection from the safe maneuvering angles and the front does not have lot of projection anyways, since we have to ignore the "RAM" coating/sheet it does not face any projection to the front that would have any effect after penetration with or without armor.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

 Though I do not deny the likelihood of that happening, it is thus-far completely unconfirmed and should be treated as such. It is more likely the core will remain the same and the 'soft' shell may change, possibly allowing for the addition of ERA on the side or something.

Unmanned turrets are said to shave off 5 tons, to there you go; ~9 tons, maybe less.

In other news, Armata has (already!) passed testing; here

I absolutely love the versatility of the Armata design. The Armata can accommodate 65 tons -- meaning that it has endless options at its disposal in the ever changing battlefield. I read that the urban warfare kit weighs 5 tons, and so I imagine that its turret roof armour (in this configuration) will eclipse the turret roof protection of the Merkava mk4. In addition to an automatic 60 mm mortar, the inclusion of 23mm autocannons on the side (with a reasonable rate of fire) and 57 mm grenade launchers (in lieu of the 7.62) would increase the effectiveness of the Armata in urban engagements.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

I made the mistake of not expressing myself a little more clearer. I meant to say that (unlike in the Merkava) the capability should be automated. It's one of the few features that I like in the Merkava; I don't like the front engine design, because it greatly increases the thermal signature of the tank or that stupid rear door that makes it far easier to kill the crew from a shot from behind.

The Merkava apparently has every little armor in the front hull and the sides -- the very opposite of this nonsense about the Merkava being the best protected tank in the world.

Merk's have decent armour on the sides, it's just that it doesn't help with the inherent armor gaps that are forced by the engine outlay. The tank's main strength is the APS right now, NOT it passive protection.

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

Thanks for answering that question for me.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

I made the mistake of not expressing myself a little more clearer. I meant to say that (unlike in the Merkava) the capability should be automated. It's one of the few features that I like in the Merkava; I don't like the front engine design, because it greatly increases the thermal signature of the tank or that stupid rear door that makes it far easier to kill the crew from a shot from behind.

The Merkava apparently has every little armor in the front hull and the sides -- the very opposite of this nonsense about the Merkava being the best protected tank in the world.

Merk's  have decent armour on the sides, it's just that it doesn't help with the inherent armor gaps that are forced by the engine outlay. The tank's main strength is the APS right now, NOT it passive protection.

I've read that its side armour is not quite up to scratch, but I didn't get that information from reputable sources, so I'll have to scour the internet for more reputable sources. The Israeli Trophy APS has apparently already served the Israelis well in the occupied territories, but the new Afghanit APS should be superior.

The Merk IV's turret is well armored, but everything else is sketchy.

This is essentially the front lower hull. The fuel tank sits inside of this, and the transmission is right behind the fuel tank.

Zivo wrote:The Merk IV's turret is well armored, but everything else is sketchy.

This is essentially the front lower hull. The fuel tank sits inside of this, and the transmission is right behind the fuel tank.

Yeah that does look terribly thin.

Armata-Based Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle to Be Equipped With Drone

The T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle will receive a drone as part of its equipment.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the Russian Armata tank will be equipped with a drone, Oleg Sienko, the General Director of the Uralvagonzavod corporation which manufactures the tanks, said.

"The use of a drone on the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle is envisioned. This is an indispensable element in the tactical level. It is extremely difficult to move in a convoy without seeing," Sienko told RIA Novosti.

According to the official, the type of drone for use on the T-15 is currently under negotiation.

"This is definitely a question for the Defense Ministry which is testing Russian-made unmanned aerial vehicles," Sienko added.

The Russian Defense Ministry unveiled its new Armata tank at the May 9 Victory Day military parade in Moscow in 2015.

The tank is operated by a crew of three, housed in an armored capsule at the front. Its main armament includes a 125-mm smoothbore cannon and a 7.62-mm remote-control machine gun.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160418/1038197778/armata-drone.html#ixzz46Db1EPAA

In adition to the T-14 tank, T-15 IFV, 2S35 152mm artillery piece and T-16 BREM-T, it seems that some other variants will be based on the Armata platform:

russian wikipedia traslated wrote:Other machines on the platform [ edit | edit the wiki text ]
LMC-2 - fighting vehicle flamethrower; [1]
TOS BM-2 - heavy ognemёtnaya system; [1]
TRV-2 - Freight loading vehicle heavy flamethrower system [1]
USM-A1 - mining system; [1]
IIM-A - a multi-purpose machine engineering; [1]
UMP-A - minelayer (draft); [1]
MT-A - launched bridge (project); [1]
TCP-A - floating conveyor (draft). [1]

This was the primary source for the Russian Wikipedia:

http://vz.ru/society/2013/9/26/652197.html

I see logical the variants of the TOS BM-2 and the rest of the engineering vehicles, but I have some doubt about the LMC-2 and TRV-2. I'm not sure if Im understanding well the purpose of these potential variants and as consequence it is difficult to me to see if are necessary.

Someone knows something else about them?

In adition to all these versions, surely the Armata platform gives room to the development of two new artillery pieces:
- A variant of 203mm to replace the 2S7
- A variant of 240mm to replace the 2S4

I would expect them to be developed. It has been some talk about a 120mm mortar version, but I tend to think that this mortar is too small for this platform, I would expect more a 120 mm mortar in the Kurganets platform.

The Russian Defense Ministry has signed a contract with the company "Uralvagonzavod" to supply 100 tank "Armata".
"We have contracted 100 tanks", - he told reporters the Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
Borisov also noted that the defense department of the country fairly new tank, but "does not force his purchase."
"We have good modernization potential of the T-72", - he added.

Excellent!! Here the page source

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1858996.html

No more second guessing, T-14 confirmed by UVZ to be 3 times cheaper than Abrams which costs around $8.5 million...it (T-14) was original thought to cost something in the ballpark of $3.7 million but it turns out that it's cheaper, like virtually $1 million cheaper at $2.8, also the new gun barrel is 30% more effective than the last version of the 125 mm barrel produced. I think I recall the barrel on T-90MS using a different and older barrel than the T-14. Also, tops speed for T-14 with 1350 HP engine is 80 km/h, but serial engines will be 1500 hp. Also drone T-72 fire-fighting MBT's confirmed. Lastly UVZ has stated their desire to integrate their Armata's with the 57 mm with max range of 16 km (and not the 45 mm):

- Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url

magnumcromagnon wrote:No more second guessing, T-14 confirmed by UVZ to be 3 times cheaper than Abrams which costs around $8.5 million...it (T-14) was original thought to cost something in the ballpark of $3.7 million but it turns out that it's cheaper, like virtually $1 million cheaper at $2.8, also the new gun barrel is 30% more effective than the last version of the 125 mm barrel produced. I think I recall the barrel on T-90MS using a different and older barrel than the T-14. Also, tops speed for T-14 with 1350 HP engine is 80 km/h, but serial engines will be 1500 hp. Also drone T-72 fire-fighting MBT's confirmed. Lastly UVZ has stated their desire to integrate their Armata's with the 57 mm with max range of 16 km (and not the 45 mm):

- Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url

It will be cheaper, we knew it would be cheaper. It's not new. Whan we need to know is how the tank is going to stand up to the test of time.

Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.