[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

There is always the 125mm version of the Dragun turret I don't see why it could not be adapted for use on the kurg.

It has to be seen whether the 15 tonnes between a standard Kurganet and a T-72 are worth the effort and the costs of pressing into service a 125 mm support fire version of the Kurganet.

All of that provided that such 125 mm Kurganet still weight around 25 tonnes, of course, and that broadly speaking specific ground pressure of a Kurganet is significantly lower than that of a T-72.

The same applies for specific power-to-weight ratio and so on: it could turn out that a T-72 is just the right complement to the several Kurganets' versions, and all it takes is some mechanical convergence in terms of engine and transmission for the logistic chain's sake.

Peŕrier wrote:It has to be seen whether the 15 tonnes between a standard Kurganet and a T-72 are worth the effort and the costs of pressing into service a 125 mm support fire version of the Kurganet.

All of that provided that such 125 mm Kurganet still weight around 25 tonnes, of course, and that broadly speaking specific ground pressure of a Kurganet is significantly lower than that of a T-72.

The same applies for specific power-to-weight ratio and so on: it could turn out that a T-72 is just the right complement to the several Kurganets' versions, and all it takes is some mechanical convergence in terms of engine and transmission for the logistic chain's sake.

because Kurganets can swim and has power/weight like 32 HP/tonne? T-72B3 mod 2016 is 46tonnes and with engine 1120HP is lik e25 HP/tonne and weights 20 tonnes more then Kurganets. Besides Kurganets is a new design not from 70s? ?

The whole point of developing a vehicle family is to shorten the logistics tail... having to have a T-72 MBT in a kurganets div means carrying spare parts for two types of vehicles instead of just for one.

Having T-72s in a Kurganets div also means you need to add bridging equipment, or you need to find a spot in a river that is safe to ford because every single vehicle in your div is amphibious except for your T-72s...

There are obviously logistic benefits into having just one single family of AFVs, but being Kurganet a tracked AFV going to replace the BMPs, it will end into mechanized divisions where until now MBTs are already in ORBAT.

As I see it, while wheeled AFVs have really a different level of mobility, and because of that they benefit from having a dedicated direct fire variant, tracked ones do not differ in range, speed, cross country mobility and logistic footprint so much to make an accompaining MBT too sluggish.

There are drawbacks of course, but there are many positive advantages.

Until now, BMPs have for decades lived with and fighted along T-62s, T-72s and T-80s, and it could end that the Kurganets will do the same with the T-72B3s and T-90s making a dedicated 125 mm version of the Kurganet either redundand, or assigned only to specialized units requiring specific mobility characteristics.

Around the world it is give or take just the same, even when fire support derivatives of IFVs are available, they have seen little or no use being the MBTs still the favoured tool for providing heavy direct fire and protection against enemy's armored forces.

You are not getting it... the whole purpose of vehicle families was because of what happened in Grozny... all the light vehicles were picked off and then the tanks were dealt with from upper floors and basement positions where the only thing the tanks could fire back with was their HMGs for about 50 rounds before needing reloading.

the purpose of the vehicle families is improved mobility and protection because in current divs there are MTLB based vehicles and BMP based vehicles and BTR based vehicles all with different engines, some with tracks and some with wheels... some amphibious and some not... some very well protected, some very poorly protected.

With the new vehicle families the protection level has gone up dramatically, and the crew are rather better protected being under armour and away from loose ammo and fuel.

Most importantly if the Kurganets is just going to be a BMP then WTF is the point of the T-15?

There are going to be units equipped with only Armatas, and other units equipped only with Kurganets and other units equipped only with Boomerangs and the same for Typhoons.

Even in a Typhoon unit the ACRVs or command vehicles will be better protected than the barely rifle bullet proof of the modified MTLBs.

The Kurganets and Boomerang are in the 25 ton class and will be better protected than either BMPs or BTRs of today.

In the Armata units all vehicles will have tank level protection for their crews.

It makes no point in mixing BMP-3s with Armata MBTs or putting Boomerang IFVs with T-90s...

Until now, BMPs have for decades lived with and fighted along T-62s, T-72s and T-80s, and it could end that the Kurganets will do the same with the T-72B3s and T-90s making a dedicated 125 mm version of the Kurganet either redundand, or assigned only to specialized units requiring specific mobility characteristics.

You are looking at this the wrong way around... there are plenty of older vehicles to operate with T-90s in conventional divs, given the choice of a Kurganets tank with a 125mm gun or a T-90 in the same unit the former will use the same tracks, the same engine, the same transmission, the same components and will be much cheaper to buy a 30 odd ton Kurganets vehicle with a 125mm gun than a 48 ton T-90... and cheaper to operate too.

There is not only Urban environment combat.

I would say Kurganets, and any other medium AFV, are intentionally not meant to fight in Urban environments.

For such kind of operations, foot soldiers, heavy AFVs like T-15 or any specialized derivative and special forces inserted vertically are the way to go.

Instead open spaces should be the reign of Kurganets and Co. given their good cross country mobility and reasonable protection level.

In Urban environments, It won't be the 25 tonnes of a Kurganet to save crew and squad's lives when targeted by anyrhing more than the weakest RPGs.

It depends of course... in soft marshland then lighter vehicles make more sense but in urban areas or flat open spaces against NATO where targets can be detected and engaged at extended ranges and the enemy is well equipped then choices need to be made as to what sort of forces are used.

Having vehicle families allows options.

Russian defense manufacturer to wrap up initial tests for T-14 Armata tank in 2018

The Russian Defense Ministry intends to purchase around 100 tanks by 2020

MOSCOW, February 22. /TASS/. Uralvagonzavod (part of the Rostec corporation) will complete initial tests for the T-14 Armata tank in 2018, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov told TASS.

"This year, we are concluding the initial tests of the tank, which will be followed by operational testing," he said.

The corporation’s head reiterated that the Russian Defense Ministry intended to purchase around 100 T-14s by 2020.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said earlier that the Defense Ministry would make a decision after 2020 on awarding major contracts to supply Armata tanks to the army.

The T-14 tank designed on the Armata platform was first unveiled in Moscow on May 9, 2015. The new fighting vehicle was outfitted with an unmanned turret and an isolated armored capsule for its crew for the very first time.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/991215

George1 wrote:Russian defense manufacturer to wrap up initial tests for T-14 Armata tank in 2018

The Russian Defense Ministry intends to purchase around 100 tanks by 2020

MOSCOW, February 22. /TASS/. Uralvagonzavod (part of the Rostec corporation) will complete initial tests for the T-14 Armata tank in 2018, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov told TASS.

"This year, we are concluding the initial tests of the tank, which will be followed by operational testing," he said.

The corporation’s head reiterated that the Russian Defense Ministry intended to purchase around 100 T-14s by 2020.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said earlier that the Defense Ministry would make a decision after 2020 on awarding major contracts to supply Armata tanks to the army.

The T-14 tank designed on the Armata platform was first unveiled in Moscow on May 9, 2015. The new fighting vehicle was outfitted with an unmanned turret and an isolated armored capsule for its crew for the very first time.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/991215

This is good news of course, and by 2020 we can expect large orders and real serial production. Perhaps even low level serial production earlier. Most interesting will be to see if they will upgun it with the 152mm in 2020.

Even 100 by 2020 is not too shabby for early serial production. Thats 50/year, say one per week. Considering that T-14 are cutting edge, thats hardly insignificant.

I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

And for what?

There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

And for what?

There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.

Well with a 152mm gun you have a sort of ammunition that can destroy everything within kilometers...

"It reportedly has a 125mm smoothbore cannon, and could possibly one day get a 152mm gun that fires low-yield nuclear shells, according to Task and Purpose."

But seriously, the lower ammo capacity for 152mm and the more wear and tear of firing the thing speaks for that they will keep the 125mm for the foreseeble future

runaway wrote:

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

And for what?

There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.

Well with a 152mm gun you have a sort of ammunition that can destroy everything within kilometers...

"It reportedly has a 125mm smoothbore cannon, and could possibly one day get a 152mm gun that fires low-yield nuclear shells, according to Task and Purpose."

But seriously, the lower ammo capacity for 152mm and the more wear and tear of firing the thing speaks for that they will keep the 125mm for the foreseeble future

Well if the leopard 2 gets a 130mm I doubt the Russian MOD will be keeping the 125mm.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Well if the leopard 2 gets a 130mm I doubt the Russian MOD will be keeping the 125mm.

You think russian mod will enter a dick measuring contest?
The 130mm for Leopard 2 will demand 10 years with a new turret with autoloader, so its a long way off

Still, i would like to see how much ammo the 152mm in T-14 can have, also barrel life and precision of course.
How much more could the kinetic energy and penetration be vs 125mm? They say that for Leo 2 going for 130mm means 50% more kinetic energy!

runaway wrote:You think russian mod will enter a dick measuring contest?
The 130mm for Leopard 2 will demand 10 years with a new turret with autoloader, so its a long way off

Still, i would like to see how much ammo the 152mm in T-14 can have, also barrel life and precision of course.
How much more could the kinetic energy and penetration be vs 125mm? They say that for Leo 2 going for 130mm means 50% more kinetic energy!

It is more a question of effectiveness of the 125mm. The targests must be defeated by a single shot. The 125mm begins to fail, the way is paved for the 152mm weapon.

And also is a question of range. Tanks with 152mm weapon will be able to fight other tanks without entering in the range of fire of enemy tanks.

Additionally, a bigger use of guided ammunitions also favores the use of the 152mm caliber.

Russia has the weapon of 152mm ready or almost ready, the time is advancing and it only helps to the introduction of the 152mm caliber since the begin. The armata tank has been designed also for the 152mm weapon, then it will have enough ammunition. I do not expect problems with that.

Russia needs not to be only a follower. Needs not to wait to other contries to apply technologies that they have at this point.

eehnie wrote:

runaway wrote:You think russian mod will enter a dick measuring contest?
The 130mm for Leopard 2 will demand 10 years with a new turret with autoloader, so its a long way off

Still, i would like to see how much ammo the 152mm in T-14 can have, also barrel life and precision of course.
How much more could the kinetic energy and penetration be vs 125mm? They say that for Leo 2 going for 130mm means 50% more kinetic energy!

It is more a question of effectiveness of the 125mm. The targests must be defeated by a single shot. The 125mm begins to fail, the way is paved for the 152mm weapon.

And also is a question of range. Tanks with 152mm weapon will be able to fight other tanks without entering in the range of fire of enemy tanks.

Additionally, a bigger use of guided ammunitions also favores the use of the 152mm caliber.

Russia has the weapon of 152mm ready or almost ready, the time is advancing and it only helps to the introduction of the 152mm caliber since the begin. The armata tank has been designed also for the 152mm weapon, then it will have enough ammunition. I do not expect problems with that.

Russia needs not to be only a follower. Needs not to wait to other contries to apply technologies that they have at this point.

The 152mm gun for the Armata is called the 2a83 and it was created for the Object-195 prototype some time ago.

As for the "will the ego of the Russian MOD result in them introducing a new gun?" question....

Well lets see the Nazis produced the Tiger-I the Soviets produced the IS-1/122/2 model 1944 (yes they had 3 versions of it) then the Nazis came up with the Tiger-II the following year the Soviet Union rolled out its new IS-3 heavy tank.

Even after the war was over the Soviet Union just had to one up the Maus with the IS-7 (they even diched the 122mm for a 130mm) Obviously western tanks were outmached by IS-3s and T-54s so there was no need for the IS-7 and the later heavy tank developed to replace the IS-3 (T-10M) was clearly inferior to the IS-7.

Do you really think that another german attempt at competition will not tip the balance in favor of the proposal to upgrade to a 152mm that was already planned in the 1980s?

The Russian MoD have been saying that the 1st Guards Tank Army will receive the new families of weapon systems first. Read this week that the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Division will be the first unit. This Division has 2 Motor Rifle Regiments and 1 Tank Regiment. The Regiment of BTR-82AM will switch to Boomerangs while the Regiment of BMP-2's will switch to Kurganets. The Tank Regiment will switch from T-72B3's and BMP's to Amarta's. At that time we will see what tanks will go to the Motor Rifle Regiment's

Well if the leopard 2 gets a 130mm I doubt the Russian MOD will be keeping the 125mm.

Of course... the tanks with the biggest calibre guns always win right?

Still, i would like to see how much ammo the 152mm in T-14 can have, also barrel life and precision of course.
How much more could the kinetic energy and penetration be vs 125mm? They say that for Leo 2 going for 130mm means 50% more kinetic energy!

The 125mm is approaching its limits, but the 152mm is just starting... new ideas and solutions they are finding for the 152mm rounds is leading to improvements in 125mm ammo.

Of course the volume a 152mm round provides means huge space for guided rounds, which should have quite impressive performance options...

Russia has the weapon of 152mm ready or almost ready, the time is advancing and it only helps to the introduction of the 152mm caliber since the begin. The armata tank has been designed also for the 152mm weapon, then it will have enough ammunition. I do not expect problems with that.

Russia needs not to be only a follower. Needs not to wait to other contries to apply technologies that they have at this point.

Try looking at it from the enemies perspective... they have a choice... they can develop vehicles with levels of protection to keep them relatively safe from 125mm rounds or from 152mm rounds... they can do one or the other... in fact I think if they have to protect from what a fully developed 152mm gun can penetrate then they might change tacks and go for light unmanned vehicles armed with missiles or something.

From a Russian point of view delaying the upgrade does not hurt them... they are more worried about protecting their crews and smoking terrorists than fighting NATO.

Of course as long as NATO makes Russia enemy then NATO is the enemy so having a backup gun that could be mounted on Armata vehicles with the swap of a turret is great, but while the 125mm is doing its job then why bother?

The sooner Russia starts mounting 152mm guns on all their tanks the sooner all the NATO countries are going to want to upgrade all their armour too...

Now the cost there will make things hard for NATO countries well actually it will just mean more will get in debt to uncle scam or whomever supplies them with armour... I think it makes sense to keep that card up their sleeves because the increased weight of ammo and the increased cost of ammo is something they should avoid for a while yet.

Well lets see the Nazis produced the Tiger-I the Soviets produced the IS-1/122/2 model 1944 (yes they had 3 versions of it) then the Nazis came up with the Tiger-II the following year the Soviet Union rolled out its new IS-3 heavy tank.

If you paid attention you would notice the gun calibre went up to match the frontal armour of the enemy vehicle... not to match the calibre of the enemy vehicle.

The Panther was intended to fight T-34s, but its 75mm gun was smaller calibre than the 76.2mm gun of the T-34... it was however vastly more powerful.

And the IS-2 and IS-3 both had the same gun... 122mm.

Even after the war was over the Soviet Union just had to one up the Maus with the IS-7 (they even diched the 122mm for a 130mm) Obviously western tanks were outmached by IS-3s and T-54s so there was no need for the IS-7 and the later heavy tank developed to replace the IS-3 (T-10M) was clearly inferior to the IS-7.

That was a period where they realised (all sides that survived the war) that heavy tanks had had their day... and they did need the IS-7 at the time... have you never heard of the Pershing?

The Russian MoD have been saying that the 1st Guards Tank Army will receive the new families of weapon systems first. Read this week that the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Division will be the first unit. This Division has 2 Motor Rifle Regiments and 1 Tank Regiment. The Regiment of BTR-82AM will switch to Boomerangs while the Regiment of BMP-2's will switch to Kurganets. The Tank Regiment will switch from T-72B3's and BMP's to Amarta's. At that time we will see what tanks will go to the Motor Rifle Regiment's

They have to develop a full divisions vehicles for each family... it makes sense to use them initially as replacements for each type, but the whole purpose of designing actual full families of vehicles is unification and standardisation...

[quote="GarryB"]

The sooner Russia starts mounting 152mm guns on all their tanks the sooner all the NATO countries are going to want to upgrade all their armour too...

Yea they can just bolt on an extra 1000mm RHEA armor to thier tanks.

I doubt thier objecvtive is to protect against Russian 125mm guns either as both Svinets and Vaccum are effecive against all of thier latest tanks frontal turret armor.

Lets not forget that amor penetration standards in Russia are significantly higher than in the west so the "800mm" penetrating version of the Svinets would be superior to lets say the "800mm" penetrating DM-53.

GarryB wrote:The sooner Russia starts mounting 152mm guns on all their tanks the sooner all the NATO countries are going to want to upgrade all their armour too...

Yes, and they will have some problem with it... the Western politicians hate to see denied their narrative of being untouchable, but the reality is the reality...

It is the same with the Su-57, with the SS-31, A-235, S-500, Project 23000,...

The time advances, we will see. Having the weapon ready, to wait makes not sense for Russia. The development of heavier weapons for tanks is being done also in the West. To wait would be to lose advantage. The main question is if the weapon is ready.

Deos anyone know how much of an improvement in penetration the Armatas 2a82-1m offers in comparison to the 2a46m5?

If the 120mm L/55 is better than the L/44 then the 125mm L/60 2a82 should be better than the L/46 2a46m5.

I'm still convinced that the supposed 152mm main gun for MBTs is a fake or a oax.

First, the weak point in current 125mm gun(s) employed by various T-72s, T-80 and T-90 has been the ammunition, forc ed by to autoloader's geometry to not exceed around 50 cm lenght for the older models, and 65 cm for the latter.

The aforementioned Svinets seem to have been designed specifically for the late generation autoloaders as seen in the T-90s, exploiting the greater penetrator's lenght they make possible to employ.

Armata hopefully do not have any of such constraints, and penetrators' lenghts of 80 cm and over should be the norm, greatly increasing 2A82's penetration capabilities over any current russian tank equipped with present T-72's or T-90's autoloaders.

Second, 152mm rounds will be massive dimensions wise, limiting greatly the already limited numbers of rounds carried by a MBT. It will increase the burden upon fhe logistics, and it is even dubious what real advantages such a large caliber could offer. APFSDS shots rely upon velocity and penetrator's lenght as the factors determining theyr theoreticals penetration capabilities. With present penetrators having diameters between 25 and 30 mm and L/D ratios around 20:1, there is still ample margin to develop longer penetrators within present gun calibers, or at worst it would take only a limited increase in caliber for the sake of gun wear.

Rheinmetall seems to have deemed necessary to step up new generation caliber to 130 mm, I doubt russian engineers deemed necessary or even useful to get up to 152 mm caliber.

Especially given the fact that up to now, the russian guns suffered from suboptimal APFSDS designs, not from a lack of energy.

Even provided present APFSDS are up to the task against anything, there is no performance gain using larger guns to fire the same APFSDS.

There is littler margin left for speed improvements, present 1700 - 1800 m/s is more or less the greatest V0 attainable.

A new and larger calibre has a meaning only coupled with new, far longer APFSDS, otherwise is a total waste.