[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

In real world, engagement ranges are mostly within 3 km, and in european theaters even shorter, with typical engagement range not exceeding 2,5 km, 2 km being the most usual limit.

About IFVs proactively engaging enemy's MBTs, it is usually done by specialized IFVs only.

To effectively and with some chance of survival engage an MBT, you need to have at hand a suitable cover.

Usually, in any mechanized infantry unit, some IFVs are tasked both with fire support and MBT's hunting roles: those are the IFVs that are likely to engage enemy's MBTs trying either to accomplish a mission kill or to fix them until better suited weapons take them out.

About ATGM, usually they travel at relatively slow speeds: a HOT or a TOW missile, traveling at 300 m/s, gives an MBT at just 2 km around six seconds to return fire, and even an HEAT travels at four times that speed.

Fire and forget missiles, like Javelin and Spike, have quite dramatically changed the risks, still a suitable cover is needed to avoid counter fire, and IFVs trying to deliver their own infantry usually do not take to have that suitable cover at hand for granted.

So, the choice to have most of the electronics protected by relatively thin armour, while having most vital items very heavily protected without reaching enormous masses, makes perfect sense.

In the worst case, a small caliber autocannon will accomplish a mission kill, but the slightest wrong decision by an IFV's commander will lead to the loss of the IFV, its three men crew and more or less all of the infantrymen onboard.

In the best case, such engagement will only destroy or damage some sensors without hampering the MBT's ability to continue its mission, but if confronted by enemy's MBTs the Armata will offer a relatively small and heavily armoured target while most of the enemy's silhouette will make a useful target to kill the crew.

The real point is what are the electronics hosted in the outer part of the turret.

f they are not mission critical, their loss will result in a reduction of the MBT's efficiency but without making a mission's kill.

One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

The-thing-next-door wrote:One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

Who says it doesnt have other capabilities?

There are launchers installed in the roof, which are assumed to be part of the soft kill active protection system, more specifillay to launch projectiles which obscures the aerial view of the tank from optically guided and/or laser beam riding missiles.
There are also trainable soft kill launchers which launch similar projectiles. Perhaps these can also have additional capabilities which we have yet to see in action.

Also, we do not know of the electronic warfare capabilities of the T-14.

The verry turret itsel even acts as additional protection against top attack munitions of you think about it.

GarryB wrote:

One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

The cheapest and easiest way to defeat Javelin in top attack mode is to use a laser to blind the missile... such a defence can be used repeatedly against multiple threats over and over and over again without any need for reloads.

With its thermal seeker not working Javelin is a short range Metis-M that costs 50 times more than Metis-M and has similar range but less armour penetration.

Smoke grenades and infra red decoys are said to work very well against those IR seaker missiles.

Very similar to Javlin Israeli Spike ATGM seem to already have serious issues in maintaining lock on targets even in environment without active decoys or camouflage. In future those issues could be probably resolved with better algorithms and sensors, but as it stands now I strongly suspect modern day ATGM with IR guidance without man in the loop (Javlin and Spike MR) will be largely infective in realistic combat environment, especially if targets employ any kind of IR decoys or camouflage.

https://southfront.org/field-experiences-spike-atgm-system/

Anyhow until those issues are resolved beam riding is probably best and most reliable ATGM guidance method available.

Do modern Russian tanks use spaced armor for thier standof ERA arrays for example on the front of the T-15?

Does anyone know what the T-15 BMPs frontal armor layout looks like?

I found this image of the T-15 without its side armor.



It seems that the entire lower plate may be just spaced armor and the real lower plate is at less of an angle.






The lower plate has two mounting points for a towing cable so I don't think it is ERA.

Or the less angled plate seen is not part of the main armor and just covers the area above the tracks.

Solid State Wave Gyroscopes for the T-14 already in serial production according to the folks at Otvaga Forum...said to noticeably increase the accuracy of the main gun

pic: http://uploads.ru/KqxtW.jpg


   

Solid-state wave gyro (TVG (Rus accronym)) - a new generation of gyroscopic devices built on new physical principles. At the heart of its action - the theory of waves. Structurally TVG consists of a sensing element in the form of a hemispherical cavity and the electronics unit. The product has a low weight and dimensions, it has no moving parts and elements that may be damaged when large vibrational amplitudes. The uniqueness of the device provides a plurality of parameters, in particular, the minimum compared with analogues readiness time, maximum dynamic range, high resistance to mechanical stress.

   Applying HRG to successfully meet the challenges of improving the accuracy, reliability, vibration resistance, impact resistance, providing opportunities to work in conditions of high radiation background, a strong electromagnetic field, etc. With whole set of characteristics that are not available conventionally used devices - mechanical, laser and fiber optic gyroscopes - HRG will be out of competition in modern control systems. Gyroscopic instruments of the new generation can be successfully used both for military purposes and in the civil sector: industry, oil production, quality control systems, roads and railways, for the construction of the origin in the orientation system in robotics, for the construction of systems of orientation in space, in navigation systems and traffic control systems, water and air objects ground transportation. According to Marat Ziyatdinova, interest many companies have expressed in purchasing these devices.

I fould another set of ramdom internet cross sections could soemone please help explain the armor configuration of Armata platform vehicles?

I highly doubt this one has any validity as it is not only a massive waste of space but also offers inferior protection to a more normal sloped armor layout.


This looks far more sensible.


And does anyone know what the armor of the T-15 BMP looks like?

I believe the former layout is more accurate. It's akin to the Object 187.

More "normal" sloped armour is inferior in the modern era of ceramics and APFSDS. Advanced composites operate more effectively at lesser angles of slope (particularly ceramics) and APFSDS ammunition dramatically reduce the effectiveness of LOS thickness vis-a-vis sloped armour (ie they angle themselves a few degrees when they impact the slope, thus reducing its line of sight thickness).

T-72B etc composites effectively had to use rubber/metal layers in order to have any sort of effectiveness. Its flexing during penetration partially negates the aforementioned loss of thickness by long rods.

Mike E wrote:I believe the former layout is more accurate. It's akin to the Object 187.

More "normal" sloped armour is inferior in the modern era of ceramics and APFSDS. Advanced composites operate more effectively at lesser angles of slope (particularly ceramics) and APFSDS ammunition dramatically reduce the effectiveness of LOS thickness vis-a-vis sloped armour (ie they angle themselves a few degrees when they impact the slope, thus reducing its line of sight thickness).

T-72B etc composites effectively had to use rubber/metal layers in order to have any sort of effectiveness. Its flexing during penetration partially negates the aforementioned loss of thickness by long rods.

So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?

The-thing-next-door wrote:
So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?

Wew, no need to make assumptions or make things up bucko.

How do we know what is beneath the ERA (which is not, as you claim, "Malachit" to begin with)? The ERA does not float, there will obviously be a structure underneath, quite possibly a layer of armour.

Look at the render of the flat configuration. The primary composite is as far forward as it can be to any practical degree (not to mention the potention of spacing itself being a method of protection here). And...

Sure, I am not claiming this image is technically accurate. If you search Russian language forums, the consensus seems to be that the "flat" armour scheme is most probably true, give; it is both more in line with modern composites and uses composites.

Mike E wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:
So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?

Wew, no need to make assumptions or make things up bucko.

How do we know what is beneath the ERA (which is not, as you claim, "Malachit" to begin with)? The ERA does not float, there will obviously be a structure underneath, quite possibly a layer of armour.

Look at the render of the flat configuration. The primary composite is as far forward as it can be to any practical degree (not to mention the potention of spacing itself being a method of protection here). And...

Sure, I am not claiming this image is technically accurate. If you search Russian language forums, the consensus seems to be that the "flat" armour scheme is most probably true, give; it is both more in line with modern composites and uses composites.

So what exactly are these "modern composites"? I thought the composition of armor for modern tanks is classified so how would you know what the effects of sloping are?

And if "modern composite" armor for some reason has degraded performance when sloped why on earth would the front turret of the both challenger tanks be sloped?



The only Soviet project that comes to mind with flat armor was the Object 477 series

Now i can see benefits of Yandex Uber deal


"URALVAGONZAVOD" WILL SOON SHOW DEVELOPMENTS ON THE UNMANNED "ARMATA"

Nizhny Taigil, Feb 9 - RIA Novosti. "Uralvagonzavod" will soon show the public the developments on the unmanned version of the newest tank "Armata", the general director of the corporation Alexander Potapov said on Friday without giving the terms.


"We do not stand still, of course, we think, we are working on this, after a while you will see the results of our achievements," Potapov told journalists on Friday at his company, where Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov arrived on a visit.

Earlier it was assumed that the unmanned "Armata" could be created already in 2018. A year and a half ago, the head of the Main Automotive Armored Directorate of the Russian Defense Ministry, Lieutenant-General Alexander Shevchenko, stated in an interview with RIA Novosti that "the work has been put for two years."

According to him, it is necessary "to create a digital device that will solve problems based on objective conditions," but the main issues related to the robotization of the tank have already been resolved, "it will be necessary to take literally one more step."

As for the conventional, manned versions of the Armata tank, the Russian Armed Forces until 2020 should enroll 100 units for trial operation, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said at the Army-2017 forum. According to him, the technology is expensive, so the military department does not yet seek to "force events" with serial purchases.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20180209/1514289997.html

The-thing-next-door wrote:

So what exactly are these "modern composites"? I thought the composition of armor for modern tanks is classified so how would you know what the effects of sloping are?

And if "modern composite" armor for some reason has degraded performance when sloped why on earth would the front turret of the both challenger tanks be sloped?



The only Soviet project that comes to mind with flat armor was the Object 477 series

No, modern composite have no problem with sloped arrangements, just as old composite did not have any issue.

They have problems with curved surfaces, because the internal molecular structure could not be formed without irregularities acting as weak spots.

So having the Challenger, or the Merkava, a sloped front turret depends only on specific characteristic related to turret's internal spaces coupled in the Merkava with the aim to reduce as much as possible the turret's proper ceiling, being it as in any tank lightly armoured.

A possible minor advantage could be that a sloped armour will still deflect low and medium velocity shells, as in the WWII era, reducing the minor damages armour plates could receive during extended or high intensity fighting, and in turn reducing the frequency with which to repair or replace the external plating.

GarryB wrote:Old model full calibre armour piercing rounds can bounce when hitting a sufficiently sloped armoured surface... like a flat stone skipping off a surface of water.

Modern APFSDS rounds don't skip or ricochet... sloped armour just slightly increases the amount of material the penetrator has to pass through to penetrate.

Right now there are motor rifle divisions and tank divisions.

There are many differences in force structure, but the main difference is that while both forces have tanks and IFVs the tank division is tank heavy and the motor rifle divisions are IFV heavy.

The future division structure will likely add heavy, medium tracked, medium wheeled, and light wheeled divisions in tank and motor rifle versions.

This means that instead of a first rate tank division or a first rate motor rifle division having T-90s as its MBT and BMP-3Ms as its standard IFV, that there will be heavy tank divs and heavy motor rifle divs with T-14s and T-15s as MBT and IFV, but there will also be medium tank and medium motor rifle divs with an IFV and MBT model of the Kurganets for the tracked divs and Boomerang for the wheeled divs... and there will be light wheeled Tank and Motor Rifle divs with Typhoon MBTs and IFVs... the former with a 6 wheeled vehicle like Sprut with a 125mm long recoil gun and perhaps an IFV with a 57mm grenade launcher and Bulat missiles...

How on earth would you make an MBT version of the Kurganets? Just use the existing Soviet 80s legacy tanks (T-72,T-80 and T-90) as your medium tanks as thier armor is too weak to be considered heavy you ould probably whant to equip all of them with an APS.

GarryB wrote:should be able to operate on soft ground like desert or snow or marshland...

I believe the Armata can do that too but then again so could the Object 279 (It had extremely good crossing capacity) and probably the IS-7 aswell.

Crossing capacity is all about ground pressure distribution not the actuall weight of your vehicle.

Talking about light tank on Kurganets:

CV90120








Turkish ugliness

Edit: I replaced pic, BTW love high heels hostess presenting in Islamic Turkey Jv tank with Islamic Indonesia :d





and here they say that there is foreseen kinda of "Sprut" on Kurganets platform. Tank destroyer with 125mm gun.
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201506081238-t6c0.htm