[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

runaway wrote:

GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

I don't think the leopard 2a6 can wihstand the vacuum 1/2 rounds used by Russian tanks.

That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?

I can't be sure, but vehicles are not designed to be invincible to everything... they have design goals... required performance levels and if you can find out what they are you can guess what your weapons will or wont be able to do to them...

It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

That is the purpose of secrecy... imagine if WWIII had started in the mid to late 1980s... the NATO forces would have had some very bitter pills to take very quickly... first their best fighters (F-15s) would keep getting shot down every time they tried to use their BVR missiles because passive radar models of the R-27 home in on the F-15s radar marking their targets for Sparrow attacks. But that would be OK because NATO prides itself on close in fighting... except R-73s and helmet mounted sights pretty much guarantee kills for MiG-29s and Su-27s in close range combat... but fortunately NATO does not rely on air power in its operations.... NOT.

But they dodged that bullet so any potential lessons are forgotten.

It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

You are missing the point of the design... of course they can armour their turret the same way every other modern main battle tank is armoured... with the heaviest armour on the tank on the turret front. The question is why?

On a conventional tank it is there to protect the crew but if all the crew are in the hull, why add 10-15 tons of weight to the turret to protect the empty space either side of the gun?

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?

If a 120mm round... HEAT or APFSDS, penetrate the turret front and goes right through... front to back and goes through where the tank commander would be sitting if he was in the turret what difference does that make to the tank? There would be no ammo there, there will be no fuel there... so no fire... just a neat hole punched through. As long as the gun continues to work and the sensors continue to function what difference does it make to have a hole through the turret?

To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

Except if it gets hit by Hermes with a 30kg dual purpose HEAT warhead from the front where the TC sits then the TC dies and the gunner and loader likely bail out... does it have turret bustle ammo? If it does that is at risk of also being hit and burning.

runaway wrote:
And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

and which source claims Leopard can do so??

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun. 

The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.

I cannot quite make this out is it saying that they plan for the T-14 tobe upgraded with an electrothermal version of the 2a82?

That was what vpk.news claimed but is that officials? we yet have to know. Things always can change or source was not thet reliable. The truth is that Burestvennik was working on this topic and NATO started recently officially working on this topic. use Yandex and  NATO, electro thermochemical gun.

We know the Russians and Soviets have done quite a bit of work on such gun types, so trying to combine that technology with existing weapons to upgrade their performance makes a lot of sense.


The important thing to keep in mind that the high velocity 57mm gun is not in service because it is not ready yet... but prototypes have been seen mounted on actual vehicles.

We know the 152mm tank gun is actually ready because new 125mm rounds that have new designs based on ammo developed for the 152mm tank gun are entering service.

They clearly think 125mm is good enough for now... they could be wrong... lets hope they don't find out any time soon.

And 152mm is only 27mm larger calibre than 125mm so the difference would not be that big really in the visual sense... the KV-2 and ISU-152 have already been there in terms of calibre of gun and in fact the Sheridan and a model of the M60 series also had 152mm guns... but they were so pathetic in performance I would not count them as MBTs.... they were missile tanks... light missile tank and medium missile tank respectively. suffice to say an M113 loaded with 10 TOW missiles is better armed and protected than a Sheridan.

GarryB wrote: You are missing the point of the design... of course they can armour their turret the same way every other modern main battle tank is armoured... with the heaviest armour on the tank on the turret front. The question is why?

On a conventional tank it is there to protect the crew but if all the crew are in the hull, why add 10-15 tons of weight to the turret to protect the empty space either side of the gun?

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?

If a 120mm round... HEAT or APFSDS, penetrate the turret front and goes right through... front to back and goes through where the tank commander would be sitting if he was in the turret what difference does that make to the tank? There would be no ammo there, there will be no fuel there... so no fire... just a neat hole punched through. As long as the gun continues to work and the sensors continue to function what difference does it make to have a hole through the turret?

Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )
I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.

runaway wrote:[

Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )
I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.

I understand your reasoning, but there are some factors which partially explain the (current) fairly light armor for the turret.

Weight restrictions are obvious, but maybe not in the way you have considered.

Firstly, the T-14 will weigh in above 48 tonnes combat weight (perhaps even as much as 50) in the current configuration. This is already significantly heavier than the T-72B3, and even the relatively heavy T-90 (for Russian standards). It is a well known fact that, unlike Western counterparts, the Russians put a large emphasis on weight restriction, based on the terrain and infrastructure where these tanks will be deployed. More armor on the turret also means a bigger, heavier turret drive, bigger components, and a bigger noise and heat signature. The cost of the base model will also increase.

There is no doubt in my mind however that the turret design can be up-armored fairly easely should the sitation require it. I am sure that there is plenty of redundancy built in the afformentionned systems, for allowing a much heavier turret shroud to be installed... Especially taking into account the fact that the T-14 could potentially receive even more powerfull and heavier main weapon,

In theory, protection against machine gun fire and artillery shrapnell should be enough. When fighting against other tanks or vehicles with autocannons, T-14's will rely on their superior offensive capabilities and situational awareness to actively neutralize the threats before its turret comes at risk. Lets also not forget the host of possible active protection complexes available. For urban combat, other vehicles will be more suitable. With the future integration of UAV and other advanced sensors, the gun of the T-14 will not always be its most vital part.

Finally, armor or no army, any tank gun today can be damaged or destroyed by artillery shrapnel or heavy weapons fire, regardless if armor is present or not. So the argument may be moot to begin with. Guns can be fairly easely replaced in modern MBT's for that reason.

You also need to keep in mind that content of turret of T-14 is much more durable than any other tank because it contains now crew

Machinery is lot more durable than humans and even if something gets through it should not do anything too big

Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )

Isnt that the same for any tank?

If it is the same for any tank why do they protect the turret front with the thickest armour and not the turret sides or rear?

Or even the gun itself which is vulnerable to getting hit directly?

The purpose of a tank is to move around the battlefield observing and destroying... sometimes observing and detecting targets is actually as important as destroying them.

In a future battlefield each tank will collect information as well as use information to keep itself and others safe... a tank that can detect targets and pass that information to its fellow platforms and HQ can be as useful as one that can destroy said targets.

Mostly if a tank is damaged... ie loses a track or its gun is disabled the decision is made... can it continue to contribute to this fight and can it make it out of their on its own. If no and no then the crew bail out and try to make it back to friendly territory... if no and yes then it will attempt to drive back to friendly territory.

The point is that nothing is invincible so a loose shell fragment might get into the autoloader mechanism and jam the gun.. return to base and get it fixed and then head back into combat.

Putting 10-15 tons of armour on the turret front so that the enemy can't just disable the main gun defeats the whole purpose of putting the crew in the hull under the heaviest armour in the first place.

It is not an efficient use of armour.

Protect the crew and prevent the fuel or ammo from being set alight because that can destroy the whole vehicle... everything else... if it is important duplicate it, if it isn't then it doesn't matter.

I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.

If you have an armour structure so good that the enemy is trying to take your main gun out rather than blow your tank to bits then you have a very good tank armour structure because even if or when the enemy succeed you can still drive back to a rear area and perhaps change to another vehicle or perhaps pop the turret off and replace it with a turret with a working gun and optics/electronics. Modular design might allow the gun to be taken out and a new gun installed in a half an hour.

Any boxes of equipment of optics or sensors or whatever could be replaced... if damaged or if in need of an upgrade.

Just a precisation.
When you talk to a relatively light protected turret did you refer by chance to the external structure covering the active protection system or instead to the real one (also if in this case it would be better to call it a Gun Pod)?



Because the latter seems me the real opposite of something "lightly armored".

Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

So basically all round protection against 40mm AP rounds? You would need 200mm of RHA at sides, roof and rear. This totally negates using an unmanned turret.


Also, adding more armor to the turret so you can add even more armor and weight to the hull ? That makes no sense to me :s

This not Merkava with unmanned turret. Weight is limited to 50-55 tonnes due to Russian doctrine, geography and infrastructure.

0nillie0 wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

So basically all round protection against 40mm AP rounds? You would need 200mm of RHA at sides, roof and rear. This totally negates using an unmanned turret.


Also, adding more armor to the turret so you can add even more armor and weight to the hull ? That makes no sense to me :s

This not Merkava with unmanned turret. Weight is limited to 50-55 tonnes due to Russian doctrine, geography and infrastructure.

I meant to say proection aginst 30 and 40mm APFSDS from the front and protection aginst 25mm form the sides but I was a little lazy.

The point of protecting the turret front aginst autocannon is so that your rather expensive next gen MBT will not be put out of action by some slimy IFV gunner shredding all of your sensors with his autocannon MBT guns are less of a problem in this case as the do not fire in long bursts and are thus unlikely to hit even 1 of you FCS componets and if they do you have another and an emergency backup in the case of the Armata.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

Well, just check for yourself.
There are several close shots of what it's usually call turret:
Just look how the active protection system tubes goes deep inside under the so called turret, same for the gunner optics situated so deep under that was necessary to cave in a very visible "wolf mouth" opening to allow it to have a sufficient field of vision.
Beside that, about any picture would made you sure that what you call a turret has several opening in its bottom part i.e. it is not bolted on to the turret ring but it's instead "hanged2 to the top part of the gun containment structure.  
So it cover parts that are still important enough to be protected almost from shrapnels, HMG and light caliber AA or IFV guns but not so much to require a tank like level of protection.
At the same time such a structure would cause the premature detonation of RPG and ATGM Heat charges increasing the protection level of the gun pod itself

The real turret, meaning with it the structure that rotate together with the gun itself is beneath with its own, well armored roof  at the same height of the hull's one.

So is it confirmed that the gun breech and autoloader will come out unharmed if they get a direct hit from a 120+mm sabot?

Also, is the afghanit omnidirectional or does the tank have to rotate its turret to intercept a sabot?

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

What makes you think it is not accurate?

The purpose of the unmanned turret design is to move crew ammo and fuel out of the turret and out of the firing line... do you think they would pack fuel and ammo in the turret anyway?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

What makes you think that is not what they have actually done?

The point of protecting the turret front aginst autocannon is so that your rather expensive next gen MBT will not be put out of action by some slimy IFV gunner shredding all of your sensors with his autocannon MBT guns are less of a problem in this case as the do not fire in long bursts and are thus unlikely to hit even 1 of you FCS componets and if they do you have another and an emergency backup in the case of the Armata.

Do you think an enemy IFV commander will open up on an Armata tank when he spots one?

Would you be attracting their attention when your job is to transport troops around the battlefield?

I would mark its position on a map and send that data to the rest of my unit and then GTFO. Trading fire with an Armata tank armed with a 125mm gun with a 30mm or 40mm gun is stupid and dangerous...

Also, is the afghanit omnidirectional or does the tank have to rotate its turret to intercept a sabot?

None of their previous APS systems require turret rotation... they intercept when detected with an array of overlapping interceptors... turrets simply don't turn fast enough and turning in the middle of taking a shot can mean a bad miss but also a shot that reveals your location on the battlefield. If you fire you want to hit every time. If your turret turns every time something approaches your armour then the enemy could time their attacks to make your shots ineffective.

GarryB wrote:

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

What makes you think it is not accurate?

The purpose of the unmanned turret design is to move crew ammo and fuel out of the turret and out of the firing line... do you think they would pack fuel and ammo in the turret anyway?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

What makes you think that is not what they have actually done?

I was not saying that they did not do that I am just saying that is what I would have and they might have.

GarryB wrote:Do you think an enemy IFV commander will open up on an Armata tank when he spots one?

Would you be attracting their attention when your job is to transport troops around the battlefield?

I would mark its position on a map and send that data to the rest of my unit and then GTFO. Trading fire with an Armata tank armed with a 125mm gun with a 30mm or 40mm gun is stupid and dangerous...

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

That said such damage is usually repairable, and while it may cause tank to fail to complete the mission, it's crew will be safe and vehicle itself will be easily and quickly fixed in to combat ready condition, ad least in most cases.

ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

Which is why the most commonly used tanks and IFV's in service with the Russian Ground Forces have a redundancy in optics for observation and firing the weapons. I suspect that the T-14 will receive a similar solution in one way or the other.

It is generally not a good idea for an IFV to open fire on a MBT, unless you have favorable numbers, terrain (retreat cover) and tactical position (ambush), or in desperate self defense.

0nillie0 wrote:

ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

Which is why the most commonly used tanks and IFV's in service with the Russian Ground Forces have a redundancy in optics for observation and firing the weapons. I suspect that the T-14 will receive a similar solution in one way or the other.

It is generally not a good idea for an IFV to open fire on a MBT, unless you have favorable numbers, terrain (retreat cover) and tactical position (ambush), or in desperate self defense.

The gunner of the T-14 Armata has 3 sights 2 primary sights and 1 emergency sight.

GarryB wrote:

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.

None of their previous APS systems require turret rotation... they intercept when detected with an array of overlapping interceptors... turrets simply don't turn fast enough and turning in the middle of taking a shot can mean a bad miss but also a shot that reveals your location on the battlefield. If you fire you want to hit every time. If your turret turns every time something approaches your armour then the enemy could time their attacks to make your shots ineffective.

Seems like you're wrong. The afghanit launchers turn out to be the 5 fixed tubes on each underside of the of the armata's turret all facing at varying degrees to the front. If a projectile is fired perpendicularly or from the back the turret definitely has to turn to intercept it, which, as you said is reallly bad. Its even worse with the T-15 where the afghanit launchers are on the hull.

The russian should've put a turreted APS launcher on the turret roof like the israelis with their Iron Fist APS(which is specially designed to destroy APSFDS, the first ever APS to do so)  where it can fire at various angles and without the turret having to rotate, and also intercept top attack munitions unlike the current fixed configuration.

Like that, except unlike the israelis, put more tubes per launcher turret or make the launchers reloadable..

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.

Then whoever was in command of those tanks did poor jobs since the IFV of US shouldn't be able to reach in automatic fire from their 25mm to the 125mm round of a t-72. Which leadse to believe that either it's Iraq you are referencing or it didn't happen.