[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

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

Which shows how much you know... their tanks are already 70 ton monsters... adding another metre of armour would mean their transmissions would not move the vehicle, they would need to double the horse power of engines already straining under the current weight... and more importantly all the support vehicles that operate with them will need to be upgraded for the extra weight and size.

Designing a new vehicle from scratch means they could lose some excessive weight... if they are going for a bigger calibre gun they will likely need an autoloader anyway, but at the end of the day they will end up spending a lot of money... and I really don't think Latvia or Italy want to do that right now... they are already not spending on other really important things...

It is rather likely they will go for fully modular vehicles with one setup for 125mm gun protection and another for 152mm gun protection... which of course will all be estimated and guessed so they need a margin of error extra to be sure they are not wrong... this is all going to be very expensive...

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.

They might decide that armour levels needed are not practical and completely change tack with remote controlled vehicles etc.

Either way they will need to spend a lot of money...

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...

When you control the information and actual combat is not there to prove you wrong you can believe all sorts of things.

Many in the west just after Desert Storm thought the Soviet threat was fake because US Abrams tanks seemed able to easily deal with Iraqi downgraded T-72s and T-55s. Little details only came out later about the situations of combat, which of course the US managed to minimise casualties for themselves, and of course the fact that the difference between Iraqi T-72s and Soviet tanks was like the difference between an Abrams and an M60 tank... not to mention that the US Abrams tank was not really fully representative of NATO tanks of the time either.

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.

The introduction of the new weapon will effect the designs of the enemy... and is more linked to the requirements of the weapon rather than any political reason.

If the T-34 was actually going to be used like a Panther as a tank killer then it would have made rather more sense to fit them with the new ZIS-3 57mm high velocity gun. Its anti armour performance would have made it dangerous to all German tanks of the time including the Panther and Tiger.

The reasons they didn't use it was because the ammo was expensive and they never had enough anyway, but also because considering all the targets the T-34 engaged on the Eastern Front only a small fraction were heavy German tanks... most of the time HE rounds were more use and the 76.2mm gun had a much better HE shell.

When the 76.2mm gun was clearly inadequate they replaced it with an 85mm gun.

Better velocity and better HE shell too.

Second, 152mm rounds will be massive dimensions wise, limiting greatly the already limited numbers of rounds carried by a MBT.

Not really... the diameter of the round is what makes HEAT rounds powerful, so the HEAT round should be powerful enough with the projectile size probably allowing two 152mm calibre HEAT warheads and a small calibre HEAT warhead as a precursor... which should be plenty powerful for most targets.

The APFSDS benefits from a larger calibre barrel, but as propellant can be all the way to the tip of the projectile it does not need to be that much longer as the larger calibre greatly increases the available volume for propellant anyway, while the HE rounds can have shorter propellant stubs and large projectiles for bigger HE payload.

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.

The point is that with a combustible propellant charge it could pretty much be a slightly scaled up 125mm round that is proportionally shorter but thicker.

Just like telescopic ammo the rounds can be mostly propellant for the APFSDS rounds and mostly payload for the other rounds where muzzle velocity is not so critical.

Having said that of course... as long as 125mm rounds are doing the job it makes no sense to introduce a new calibre to the inventory.

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.

There is no question that the 152mm calibre gun has been developed and is an option for the new generation of armoured vehicles...

Actually depend of the mission they could adapt smaller rounds to be used from 152 mm gun. Like if they are facing only light vehicule like in syria they could carry cheaper smaller ammunition like a 76mm round adapted to be used on the 152 mm gun.

More likely a shorter stub round... perhaps APHE round that penetrates less armour but does more internal damage on impact...

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

The same projectile from a much bigger gun with a larger propellant charge will always have much better performance with APFSDS rounds where velocity is the key to performance...

With the Armata vehicles however it would be simpler and cheaper just to send tanks with 125mm guns... or where no enemy armour is expected 57mm guns and guided missiles.

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

The new longer barrel guns are reportedly able to fire ammo at 2-2.1km/s.

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

The ammo developed for the 152mm gun was developed for the 152mm gun, not for the 125mm gun and improved...

GarryB wrote:

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

Which shows how much you know... their tanks are already 70 ton monsters... adding another metre of armour would mean their transmissions would not move the vehicle, they would need to double the horse power of engines already straining under the current weight... and more importantly all the support vehicles that operate with them will need to be upgraded for the extra weight and size.

He was being sarcastic....He was replying to your comment about how if Russia adopted the 152mm, then NATO would add more armor on their tanks.

His point was that NATO won't be able to easily counter Russian 152mm guns, without adding an impossibly heavy amount of armor.

I think the 2A82 is stronger than the Rheinmetall 120mm - after all, the Vacuum-1 has a longer penetrator and more propellant. The older 125mm ammo is what I'm worried about, I doubt it can stand up well against modern Western tanks.

I still wish they'd transition to 152mm though. After all, if it's likely you'll need to transition to 152mm soon anyway (as in,within the next few decades), why not do it now, and save yourself the later hassle?

I wish they'd transition to unitary ammo. I think the biggest mistake Soviet tank manufacturers made in the last half century was that blasted carousel autoloader and 2-part ammo. Seriously limits penetrator length, more dangerous than bustle autoloaders, and the ammo is more complicated to handle compared to unitary.

IMO they should've made the first T-64 with a bustle autoloader from the start, like their Black Eagle,




or the proposed T-72 with 120mm autoloader

I still wish they'd transition to 152mm though. After all, if it's likely you'll need to transition to 152mm soon anyway (as in,within the next few decades), why not do it now, and save yourself the later hassle?

Because it costs money to make new ammo in mass production levels, so even if they adopted it right now it would take a few years to actually get it to more than a couple of areas...

And of course they will have to change all their storage and transport equipment to handle the different ammo.

I think the 2A82 is stronger than the Rheinmetall 120mm - after all, the Vacuum-1 has a longer penetrator and more propellant. The older 125mm ammo is what I'm worried about, I doubt it can stand up well against modern Western tanks.

For every tank on the battlefield there are more than 20 other vehicle types.... most of which have nothing like the level of armour a MBT has... except of course an armata division...

Older 125mm ammo could be reserved for use against IFVs and other lighter armoured vehicles...

I wish they'd transition to unitary ammo. I think the biggest mistake Soviet tank manufacturers made in the last half century was that blasted carousel autoloader and 2-part ammo. Seriously limits penetrator length, more dangerous than bustle autoloaders, and the ammo is more complicated to handle compared to unitary.

They have already rejected turret bustle autoloaders and it does not limit penetrator length.

In an Armata type turret the ammo could be stored in a spiral with rounds up to the full width of the turret ring an option if rod length was really that critical.

The likelyhood of ammo in the underfloor autoloader getting hit is almost zero... in the T-64 and T-80 it was found a penetration of the turret let sparks and hot metal fragments land on the exposed propellent charges, but in the T-72 and T-90 the only danger is spare ammo stored in the crew compartment... the ammo in the under floor autoloader is the safest place it could be.

A turret bustle is totally exposed... a new anti MRAP 30 x 165mm weapon used by Russian Special Forces would penetrate the rear turret and ignite the ammo pretty damn easily... from the rear 14.5mm rounds would probably do the same... let alone shots from above with light disposable rocket launchers from RPG-18 right on through to RPG-28.

BTW two piece rounds means two pieces... the propellent stub round is about 10kgs and the projectile is between 8kg and 13kgs... so the total weight is between 18-23kgs per round... in comparison a 115mm tank round weighs about 30kgs... of course its big brass case does add to the weight, but the 125mm rounds are much smaller and lighter to handle in the confines of a turret... with the autoloader the round and propellent charge are loaded together so there is no difference in loading speed.

IMO they should've made the first T-64 with a bustle autoloader from the start, like their Black Eagle,

Tested and rejected.

BTW it is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction post in the introductions and rules section... please take the time to go there and do that.

GarryB wrote:Because it costs money to make new ammo in mass production levels, so even if they adopted it right now it would take a few years to actually get it to more than a couple of areas...

And of course they will have to change all their storage and transport equipment to handle the different ammo.

But that hassle will still be there if they wait longer to adopt a new calibre. If you know you're gonna adopt it in the near future, and the new calibre is very effective, adopting it now could boost your fighting potential and avoid future hassle.

They have already rejected turret bustle autoloaders

Really? Interesting. Was there a time they deemed bustle autoloaders as less effective than their carousel ones?

and it does not limit penetrator length.

125mm penetrators were shorter than 120mm ones, until the Vacuum-1 came along. For the Armata, longer penetrators are possible because the ammo doesn't lie flat, but stands up.

The likelyhood of ammo in the underfloor autoloader getting hit is almost zero... in the T-64 and T-80 it was found a penetration of the turret let sparks and hot metal fragments land on the exposed propellent charges, but in the T-72 and T-90 the only danger is spare ammo stored in the crew compartment... the ammo in the under floor autoloader is the safest place it could be.

Still, that takes up more space than if most of the ammo and autoloader were outside the crew compartment, in a bustle.

A turret bustle is totally exposed... a new anti MRAP 30 x 165mm weapon used by Russian Special Forces would penetrate the rear turret and ignite the ammo pretty damn easily... from the rear 14.5mm rounds would probably do the same... let alone shots from above with light disposable rocket launchers from RPG-18 right on through to RPG-28.

Most modern bustles have blowout panels which prevent them from exploding into the crew compartment. They should be very safe.

BTW two piece rounds means two pieces... the propellent stub round is about 10kgs and the projectile is between 8kg and 13kgs... so the total weight is between 18-23kgs per round... in comparison a 115mm tank round weighs about 30kgs... of course its big brass case does add to the weight, but the 125mm rounds are much smaller and lighter to handle in the confines of a turret... with the autoloader the round and propellent charge are loaded together so there is no difference in loading speed.

120mm rounds (which are also unitary) weigh roughly the same the 125mm. And loading them from an autoloader takes one motion while from a T-72 or T-90, it takes two. The T-64 and T-80 autoloaders use one motion, but are more complicated.

Tested and rejected.

Are you talking about the Black Eagle? I doubt it was rejected because of the autoloader.

BTW it is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction post in the introductions and rules section... please take the time to go there and do that.

Appreciate the reminder. I kinda jumped the gun there!

But that hassle will still be there if they wait longer to adopt a new calibre. If you know you're gonna adopt it in the near future, and the new calibre is very effective, adopting it now could boost your fighting potential and avoid future hassle.

If they go through the hassle now they have the cost of the new ammo production... and no tanks that can fire the round...

If they leave it for 5 years they might have 500 Armata tanks they could take the turrets off (and fit them to Kurganets vehicles) and put 152mm gun turrets on all their in service Armata tanks.

Really? Interesting. Was there a time they deemed bustle autoloaders as less effective than their carousel ones?

They have not had ammo in a turret bustle since the T-34 was in service.

They had the Black Eagle (T-80 upgrade) and Burlak (T-72 upgrade) proposed and rejected because the ammo is too exposed to enemy fire.

The T-90AM/MS have ammo stored in the turret bustle area but they are not connected to the crew compartment... ie to access it a crewman must leave the vehicle and pass the rounds to the gunner... to load into the under floor autoloader.

125mm penetrators were shorter than 120mm ones, until the Vacuum-1 came along.

So if they are not shorter then there is no issue.

For the Armata, longer penetrators are possible because the ammo doesn't lie flat, but stands up.

For any unmanned turret with a 125mm gun the rounds in the autoloader don't need to make room above them for the two crewmen... which means they could be spiralled up and the penetrators could extend well past the centre of the turret ring...

Still, that takes up more space than if most of the ammo and autoloader were outside the crew compartment, in a bustle.

The removal of the underfloor autoloader in the Black Eagle version of the T-80 added about 20cm of headroom for the commander and gunner... which is not really that big a deal. In a turret bustle the ammo is very likely to be hit... an RPG direct hit to the ammo will destroy the vehicle... when you see video of tanks exploding and the turret blowing off or just disintegrating that is because the ammo is hit... putting the ammo near the outside where the enemy can easily hit it is a bad idea.

Most modern bustles have blowout panels which prevent them from exploding into the crew compartment. They should be very safe.

Half the ammo carried by modern MBTs is HE Frag... another quarter will be HEAT rounds,,, so 3/4ths of ammo will explode when directly hit... as opposed to propellent which will just burn rapidly when ignited... blow out panels stop the pressure of the propellent building up to explosive levels.

Note when you fire a 125mm gun the blast of flame out the front looks like an explosion but only because the burning propellent is contained in a chamber where pressure can get as high as an explosion... but only after building up.

With HE... it is an explosion straight away... blow out doors would shatter... as would armoured doors to the crew compartment.... that is how explosives work and how propellent works.

Get some black powder from a firework and pour it onto a stone or the pavement and light it... flash of light and lots of smoke but no bang. Put a much smaller amount in a cardboard tube that is sealed and introduce a spark and you get more pressure build up and then a sudden release... like an explosion but still really a propellant burning.

And loading them from an autoloader takes one motion while from a T-72 or T-90, it takes two. The T-64 and T-80 autoloaders use one motion, but are more complicated.

Still plenty fast enough.

Are you talking about the Black Eagle? I doubt it was rejected because of the autoloader.

The fact that the Burlak design bustle autoloader was based on the design for the Black Eagle bustle autoloader... yes it was... in both cases the ammo was exposed to enemy fire and too vulnerable... and therefore rejected.

Appreciate the reminder. I kinda jumped the gun there!

No worries.. I think I was up to post 12 by the time someone mentioned to me I needed to post an introduction...

GarryB wrote:

If they go through the hassle now they have the cost of the new ammo production... and no tanks that can fire the round...

If they leave it for 5 years they might have 500 Armata tanks they could take the turrets off (and fit them to Kurganets vehicles) and put 152mm gun turrets on all their in service Armata tanks.

Or they can just manufacture Armata with 152mm guns from the get-go, and skip the hassle of replacing their 125's.

They had the Black Eagle (T-80 upgrade) and Burlak (T-72 upgrade) proposed and rejected because the ammo is too exposed to enemy fire.

True. But it's better than having your ammo being hit while stored inside the hull.

The T-90AM/MS have ammo stored in the turret bustle area but they are not connected to the crew compartment... ie to access it a crewman must leave the vehicle and pass the rounds to the gunner... to load into the under floor autoloader.

Just use a bustle autoloader that draws ammo straight from the bustle, and problem solved.

So if they are not shorter then there is no issue.

Only because Armata uses an unmanned turret. With a manned turret, the Russian autoloaders are struggling to keep up penetrator lengths with Western rounds.

For any unmanned turret with a 125mm gun the rounds in the autoloader don't need to make room above them for the two crewmen... which means they could be spiralled up and the penetrators could extend well past the centre of the turret ring...

For the record, I'm not against carousel autoloaders in unmanned turrets. But with manned turrets, there isn't much space for the ammo, which requires them to be 2-piece and limits their penetrator length. Although, since unmanned turrets allow longer ammunition lengths, Then why not just go to unitary ammo then?. Simpler to handle, and can possibly fit more in the standing carousel.

The removal of the underfloor autoloader in the Black Eagle version of the T-80 added about 20cm of headroom for the commander and gunner... which is not really that big a deal. In a turret bustle the ammo is very likely to be hit... an RPG direct hit to the ammo will destroy the vehicle... when you see video of tanks exploding and the turret blowing off or just disintegrating that is because the ammo is hit... putting the ammo near the outside where the enemy can easily hit it is a bad idea.

20cm higher roof is quite noticeable though, especially considering the short height of typical Russian tankers. Bustles are also designed to explode outwards, so the vehicle itself remains relatively unharmed. If ammo explodes inside the vehicle, the damage would be worse.

Half the ammo carried by modern MBTs is HE Frag... another quarter will be HEAT rounds,,, so 3/4ths of ammo will explode when directly hit... as opposed to propellent which will just burn rapidly when ignited... blow out panels stop the pressure of the propellent building up to explosive levels.

Would it be safer if all that explosive power detonated inside the hull as opposed to a box outside it?

The fact that the Burlak design bustle autoloader was based on the design for the Black Eagle bustle autoloader... yes it was... in both cases the ammo was exposed to enemy fire and too vulnerable... and therefore rejected.

Do you think Russian tanks handle ammo more safely than Western tanks? I have my fair share of issues with current Western tanks, but I think they handle their bustles and ammunition well.

No worries.. I think I was up to post 12 by the time someone mentioned to me I needed to post an introduction...  

At least I now know I'm not alone.

Hole wrote:How well western tanks are handling there ammunition can be seen in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Exploding Leo2´s and M1´s everywhere you look.

Most of those explosions are from hits to the hull.

Most modern renditions of Russian tanks (eg T-90MS, T-90M, Oplot, Armata, VT-4 etc) have bustles full of ammunition anyway, meaning the bustle is safe enough to warrant adoption. Adding a bustle autoloader should maintain the safety.

I think the reason they haven't yet has more to do with institutional inertia (reluctance to change something already established), than with safety issues. It's the same reason I think most Western nations have yet to adopt autoloaders (aside from rate of fire).

Or they can just manufacture Armata with 152mm guns from the get-go, and skip the hassle of replacing their 125's.

Using the same gun calibre with new ammo is cheaper than replacing all the tank guns now...

What I suspect they will likely do is introduce the Armata tanks into service with 125mm guns and over time as it enters service more widely they might produce a few batches in 152mm calibre high velocity for a few units... there is no point in having all your armata vehicles not compatible with standard ammo use by the rest of your tank fleet, but then having some 152mm gun armed tanks near NATO borders might be a useful thing too... eventually.

In five or more years time when they have lots of 125mm gun armata tanks... it would be easy enough to take those turrets off and put them on new Kurganets tank models, and put new turrets with 152mm guns on the armatas already in service... by then they will have plenty of ammo in stock to arm and equip them in actual service.

Just putting 152mm guns in service now on armata tanks as they slowly trickle into service means for the next 5 years they wont have much of an impact anyway to start with but they will be expensive and different from all your other tanks.

99.9% of battlefield targets the 125mm gun can deal with... anything it can't deal with... call in attack helos or artillery... Direct hits from diving top attack missiles weighing 40kgs from a 152mm artillery piece will ruin anyones day.

True. But it's better than having your ammo being hit while stored inside the hull.

When your ammo is hit you are fucked... having it sitting on the back of the turret in clear view where it is easy to see and to hit, and having it hidden in the bottom of the hull where it almost never gets hit statistically... which makes better sense?

Just use a bustle autoloader that draws ammo straight from the bustle, and problem solved.

Not problem solved... the problem is that ammo in a turret bustle is easily targeted and therefore too vulnerable to enemy fire to store all your ammo.

Only because Armata uses an unmanned turret. With a manned turret, the Russian autoloaders are struggling to keep up penetrator lengths with Western rounds.

The T-90AM/MS uses the same gun and the same types of ammo the 125mm gun armed armata uses.

And keeping up with lengths?

That would be a dick measuring competition...

Russian APFSDS rounds are generally thicker than western rounds and also are generally fired at a higher muzzle velocity so they can afford to be a little shorter... even when they are not.

Did you know flechettes were rejected at replacements for bullets because even if they went through a human heart said heart could continue beating and needle like wounds are trivial...

You have to do more than just penetrate armour... you need behind armour effect as well...

For the record, I'm not against carousel autoloaders in unmanned turrets. But with manned turrets, there isn't much space for the ammo, which requires them to be 2-piece and limits their penetrator length. Although, since unmanned turrets allow longer ammunition lengths, Then why not just go to unitary ammo then?. Simpler to handle, and can possibly fit more in the standing carousel.

The future will probably be liquid propellent in binary form, where the propellent is stored in separate tanks in two components that may not even burn let alone explode, but when combined in the chamber of the gun energetically react to launch projectiles.

That will make ammo much much safer to store and use, and greatly reduce the fire risk to tank crew.

APFSDS rounds will just be arrows with sabots... not volatile at all.

20cm higher roof is quite noticeable though, especially considering the short height of typical Russian tankers. Bustles are also designed to explode outwards, so the vehicle itself remains relatively unharmed. If ammo explodes inside the vehicle, the damage would be worse.

If it is only propellent burning then blow out doors work well, but if the ammo actually explodes then it does not matter whether it is in the turret bustle or all around the crew compartment... they are dead.

Would it be safer if all that explosive power detonated inside the hull as opposed to a box outside it?

If the ammo explodes it is just a question of how big the pieces of the crew is... sure in a turret bustle the bigs will be chunkier but the crew will still be dead.

The point is that smaller chunks inside the vehicle, but rather less likely to be hit is the better option.

[qutoe]
Do you think Russian tanks handle ammo more safely than Western tanks? I have my fair share of issues with current Western tanks, but I think they handle their bustles and ammunition well.[/quote]

The Russians learned their lessons in Chechnia... no loose ammo in the crew compartment... all ammo in the armoured autoloader... limits you to 22 ready to use rounds but also means much much safer.

Look in Syria... when the enemy have guided missiles they can use to target the rear turret bustle... instant boom.

Previously a hit started a fire... the crew bailed and after a few minutes of burning the ammo explodes and boom.

Most of those explosions are from hits to the hull.

Diesel fuel only explodes at very high temperatures so the only way to get a tank to explode is to set off all the ammo, or to put a fire under a fuel tank and let it burn until the fuel reaches flash point... with the impacts of ATGMs I suggest it is the ammo exploding... and it does not matter if it is in the turret or the hull... look at this video:



Courtesy of george from the ATGM thread via youtube.

Most modern renditions of Russian tanks (eg T-90MS, T-90M, Oplot, Armata, VT-4 etc) have bustles full of ammunition anyway, meaning the bustle is safe enough to warrant adoption. Adding a bustle autoloader should maintain the safety.

The T-90MS and T-90AM only have a dozen rounds all spread out with fire dampening material between them in their bustles... we really don't know what the armata has, and who cares about those other ones... they are not Russian and therefore are not under their control/direction.

I think the reason they haven't yet has more to do with institutional inertia (reluctance to change something already established), than with safety issues.

Hahahahahaha... you don't think the Russian army will make changes based on crew safety issues.... introducing four new vehicle families that all remove the guns and ammo and fuel from the crew compartment at enormous cost and complexity is all about safety issues...

There are no crew in the armata turret, but look at the video above and tell me the driver in the front of that vehicle survived because he was so far from the turret bustle...

Western nations have yet to adopt autoloaders (aside from rate of fire).

Well that is not true... the French in their Leclerc and the Swiss in that little turretless tank both have autoloaders...

Note in that video... the explosion is visible at 53 seconds but the sound of the explosion is a 1:02... so there was 9 seconds between the explosion and the sound of the explosion.... so the camera was about 2.8km from the explosion... too far for a METIS-M1, and too far for a Fagot, but well within the range of the Konkurs.

GarryB wrote:Note in that video... the explosion is visible at 53 seconds but the sound of the explosion is a 1:02... so there was 9 seconds between the explosion and the sound of the explosion.... so the camera was about 2.8km from the explosion... too far for a METIS-M1, and too far for a Fagot, but well within the range of the Konkurs.

The explosion is massive. Almost like hitting an unprotected arms stockpile. This is an utterly pathetic failure of the Leopard armour. Totally,
utterly, pathetic. I have seen hits where there is delayed reaction, fire induced blow off, but this is instantaneous. And nobody can invoke
"monkey model" as an excuse. Unless the Germans export tanks made out of tin foil.

Considering the likely use for the tank I would expect most of the onboard ammo was likely 120mm HE, and HEAT, so a direct hit on the ammo means rather a large amount of HE, plus all the propellent for each round and with an explosion that big all the diesel fuel will likely explode as well.

It is not about armour... the video is too poor to see the target vehicle properly but that missile could have easily hit the side hull or the turret side.... and being Konkurs with an 800mm penetration performance there are very few tanks that could be totally safe from such a weapon from the side... in fact only vehicles with operating APS systems are the only ones that would be relatively safe...

And as I said... if your main gun ammo is hit then a full weapon load explosion would destroy any tank and kill all the crew...

Of course the point I am making and some are ignoring is that the turret often gets hit in combat being in the centre of the vehicle... the lower hull is hit much less often... which makes storing ammo there safer.

The simple facts of the matter are however are that a smart enemy will learn where the ammo is and aim there... a turret bustle is an easier target than deep inside the vehicle... but no location is safe.

GarryB wrote:

Using the same gun calibre with new ammo is cheaper than replacing all the tank guns now...

That cost will still pop up in the future. Either deal with it now (put 152mm guns into service) or deal with it later. Either way, you're dealing with the cost.

What I suspect they will likely do is introduce the Armata tanks into service with 125mm guns and over time as it enters service more widely they might produce a few batches in 152mm calibre high velocity for a few units... there is no point in having all your armata vehicles not compatible with standard ammo use by the rest of your tank fleet, but then having some 152mm gun armed tanks near NATO borders might be a useful thing too... eventually.

In five or more years time when they have lots of 125mm gun armata tanks... it would be easy enough to take those turrets off and put them on new Kurganets tank models, and put new turrets with 152mm guns on the armatas already in service... by then they will have plenty of ammo in stock to arm and equip them in actual service.

Then why not manufacture 152mm Armatas along with 125mm Armatas, now or in the near future? If it's easy enough then to replace 125mm guns with 152mm guns, it'll be even easier if some are made with 152mm guns right now off the bat. You won't have to change their weapons. You'll get your 125mm Armatas with ammo interoperability, as well as get through the effort of fielding the 152mm gun without having to deal with the problem later.

Just putting 152mm guns in service now on armata tanks as they slowly trickle into service means for the next 5 years they wont have much of an impact anyway to start with but they will be expensive and different from all your other tanks.

The same can be said in future when the the first 152mm guns arrive. Either deal with the problem now or in 15 years. Dealing with it now is better, in my opinion.

When your ammo is hit you are fucked... having it sitting on the back of the turret in clear view where it is easy to see and to hit, and having it hidden in the bottom of the hull where it almost never gets hit statistically... which makes better sense?

If the bustle getting hit was such an issue, modern Russian tanks wouldn't have them. But they do. Bustles can be used safely.

Not problem solved... the problem is that ammo in a turret bustle is easily targeted and therefore too vulnerable to enemy fire to store all your ammo.

Then just store the same number of rounds with the bustle autoloader, as the T-90M stores in its bustle. Or make the bustles the same size. No problem.

And keeping up with lengths?

That would be a dick measuring competition...

It's one worth keeping your eye on though. Tank rounds need to be strong enough to reliably penetrate your foes. Otherwise you'll suffer unnecessary losses.

Russian APFSDS rounds are generally thicker than western rounds and also are generally fired at a higher muzzle velocity so they can afford to be a little shorter... even when they are not.

That just means a worse L/D ratio which means more energy is lost in flight. They have a worse range and penetration at a distance as a consequence.

Did you know flechettes were rejected at replacements for bullets because even if they went through a human heart said heart could continue beating and needle like wounds are trivial...

You have to do more than just penetrate armour... you need behind armour effect as well...

APFSDS rounds can afford to have higher L/D ratios than flechettes. Their behind-armour effect is significant, unless they're shooting from the side.

The future will probably be liquid propellent in binary form, where the propellent is stored in separate tanks in two components that may not even burn let alone explode, but when combined in the chamber of the gun energetically react to launch projectiles.

That will make ammo much much safer to store and use, and greatly reduce the fire risk to tank crew.

APFSDS rounds will just be arrows with sabots... not volatile at all.

That or hard-to-ignite ETC guns.

If the ammo explodes it is just a question of how big the pieces of the crew is... sure in a turret bustle the bigs will be chunkier but the crew will still be dead.

The point is that smaller chunks inside the vehicle, but rather less likely to be hit is the better option.

The bustle is designed to protect against high explosive too. Only in rare cases is the explosion enough to kill the crew.

The Russians learned their lessons in Chechnia... no loose ammo in the crew compartment... all ammo in the armoured autoloader... limits you to 22 ready to use rounds but also means much much safer.

You don't have to put all your ammo in the bustle. Modern Russian tanks use them just fine. Just pack 22 rounds in the bustle with the autoloader, and have cage armor at the sides to protect from HEAT/HE warheads.

Look in Syria... when the enemy have guided missiles they can use to target the rear turret bustle... instant boom.

Previously a hit started a fire... the crew bailed and after a few minutes of burning the ammo explodes and boom.

So the crew survived. Bustle explosions are safer than you think. Usually the crew survive these explosions.

Diesel fuel only explodes at very high temperatures so the only way to get a tank to explode is to set off all the ammo, or to put a fire under a fuel tank and let it burn until the fuel reaches flash point... with the impacts of ATGMs I suggest it is the ammo exploding... and it does not matter if it is in the turret or the hull... look at this video:



Courtesy of george from the ATGM thread via youtube.

My point was that the bustle didn't cause most of the explosions. It is safe compared to storing your ammo in the hull. If you want you can reduce the ammo count in the bustle and make it smaller, so an explosion would be smaller, and store the remaining amount at the bottom of the hull (like modern Russian tanks anyway). Saves you from storing all your ammo in the hull (large target) or the bustle (if you're afraid of bustle explosions).

The T-90MS and T-90AM only have a dozen rounds all spread out with fire dampening material between them in their bustles... we really don't know what the armata has, and who cares about those other ones... they are not Russian and therefore are not under their control/direction.

Still shows that bustles are relatively safe if used well.

Hahahahahaha... you don't think the Russian army will make changes based on crew safety issues.... introducing four new vehicle families that all remove the guns and ammo and fuel from the crew compartment at enormous cost and complexity is all about safety issues...

Took them decades to realise that though. Only now are they focused on safety (and I commend them and the Armata for it). One thing Western tanks do better than older Russian tanks is safety (though the Armata beats them all).

Well that is not true... the French in their Leclerc and the Swiss in that little turretless tank both have autoloaders...

I was talking about as a whole. The Leclerc and Strv 103 (no longer in service by the way) are outliers, unfortunately. And they're just that: outliers. All other European armies have manually loaded MBTs, and autoloaders are only slowly catching on in support vehicles. Though Artillery is having a better time of it.

Hole wrote:I guess, you could sai the T-14 is now more in an pre-series or LRIP Phase, no longer a pure prototype.
Someone got infos about the Status of the 60 ordered tanks?

Besides... if you count all the working T-14´s in Russia and all the working Leo2`s in Germany it could be a close call. Damn! While I was in the Bundeswehr we had 2.000 tanks! Today they spend more on defence for much less. Makes you think were all the money is going. (apart from inflation.)

The EU is corrupt. Even worse for them, a lot of German tanks are in disrepair at the moment. Personally, I think the T-14 is the most lethal tank in existence right now. Germany's greatest hope to counter, are their 130mm and higher pressure 120mm guns in development https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html

Oh, and they need to fix their corrupt bureaucracy.

That being said, western tanks have done a lot of things right, at times better than the Soviets/Russians. Both sides have their flaws and strengths.

The sad reality is that Germany is in the heart of Europe and really does not need MBTs...


The very idea of European tanks rolling into Russia or stopping Russian tanks heading for Paris these days is absurd...

So if they are not going to invade Russia with these tanks or defend from an attack by Russia WTF do they need MBTs for?

Spending money on weapons now because they have always done it makes little sense.

If they need them to support their army then it would make sense to look at rather smaller lighter vehicles that can be easily transported with the troops.... but this is hardly the thread for such a discussion.

Note the New Zealand Army has not had tanks for decades... peace keeping troops don't need them... and they don't need fighter planes either.

GarryB wrote:The sad reality is that Germany is in the heart of Europe and really does not need MBTs...


The very idea of European tanks rolling into Russia or stopping Russian tanks heading for Paris these days is absurd...

So if they are not going to invade Russia with these tanks or defend from an attack by Russia WTF do they need MBTs for?

Spending money on weapons now because they have always done it makes little sense.

If they need them to support their army then it would make sense to look at rather smaller lighter vehicles that can be easily transported with the troops.... but this is hardly the thread for such a discussion.

Note the New Zealand Army has not had tanks for decades... peace keeping troops don't need them... and they don't need fighter planes either.

Well, due to America's stupid congress, and EU pressure, it seems another Cold war is brewing. I wish America and Russia could get along for once. At least the US president is willing to do that, if congress doesn't keep obstructing him. I personally see the EU as the villain in all this.

As a fellow New Zealander, NZ doesn't need such expensive equipment because it's, well, irrelevant on the world stage. I wish NZ were much larger and more powerful, but alas, we can't choose the land area of our favourite countries.

At least the US president is willing to do that, if congress doesn't keep obstructing him. I personally see the EU as the villain in all this.

The Russiaphobic shit comes from the US... both sides do it. In Europe I would say the UK is probably the most Russophobic, while the baltic states and eastern europe are probably more russophobic than the others.

I am glad we are so small and unimportant.... look at the size and yearly military budget spend of the US and they still don't get what they want.... what is the point?

Well, they have tanks in Lithuania, because they are in NATO. So the politicians and generals say the BW Needs tanks. Plus all the missions in Afghanistan, Mali...

New Zealand had a military force in Afghanistan too and we had no tanks there... even if the enemy had some tanks a few ATGMs would deal with the problem...

I would say a 2S1 with a 122mm gun and modern upgrades would be vastly more useful than any tank.

Have a modern IFV with the troop compartment filled with large calibre ammo and fit a 100mm gun on it for direct fire support... a tank would be a total waste of time and money in such a situation.... it is like fighter planes... most of the time they are pretty useless... for instance what would a fighter plane do in Afghanistan?

A bit of air to ground shooting with its gun, or drop a laser guided bomb or something?

Much better off with an aircraft like an A-10 or Su-25 but everyone brings F-16s and Typhoons and Rafales and crap.

GarryB wrote:

The Russiaphobic shit comes from the US... both sides do it. In Europe I would say the UK is probably the most Russophobic, while the baltic states and eastern europe are probably more russophobic than the others.

I am glad we are so small and unimportant.... look at the size and yearly military budget spend of the US and they still don't get what they want.... what is the point?

Yeah, because of their stupid congress and corrupt establishment politicians on both sides. Even if the President wants to do something about it, most of their government seems to have an extra hard-on for Russia and the West dropping bombs on each other. The EU supports this sentiment. And they're bad in a number of other ways.

Corruption is the reason why the US wastes so much money on pointless things. Other countries, even very powerful countries like China can get stuff done quickly, though they have their own problems.

I would say a 2S1 with a 122mm gun and modern upgrades would be vastly more useful than any tank.

Have  a modern IFV with the troop compartment filled with large calibre ammo and fit a 100mm gun on it for direct fire support... a tank would be a total waste of time and money in such a situation.... it is like fighter planes... most of the time they are pretty useless... for instance what would a fighter plane do in Afghanistan?

Imagine a cross between the Patria NEMO 120mm self propelled mortar and the BMP-3. A light, amphibious IFV with a 120mm gun-mortar and coaxial 30 or 40mm gun. Maybe have the mortar be able to fire 120mm ATGMs if need be.

Also, the turret can be mounted on a range of vehicles.

Even if the President wants to do something about it, most of their government seems to have an extra hard-on for Russia and the West dropping bombs on each other.

Their political system is fundamentally flawed... there are only two political parties... like most western countries in fact... and most of the time an opposition party will vote against things because the other side wants them and by voting against them they are defeating their political opponents... even when what they are voting against might actually be good for the American people...

Corruption is the reason why the US wastes so much money on pointless things.

The two party system in the US makes things easy for big business... when you bribe both sides you have both sides in your pocket so it does not matter who wins... you still get to "consult" in drafting new laws in your area of business and of course you make the laws benefit your company specifically and make things harder for your competitors... as you make more money you can expand and influence areas that don't even matter to your company... but you get a say because you own the politicians.

Imagine a cross between the Patria NEMO 120mm self propelled mortar and the BMP-3. A light, amphibious IFV with a 120mm gun-mortar and coaxial 30 or 40mm gun. Maybe have the mortar be able to fire 120mm ATGMs if need be.

The 2S34 Hosta has a 120mm gun/mortar that can fire 120mm mortar bombs, but also conventional 120mm shells, and 120mm Gran laser guided missiles and 122mm Kitilov laser guided missiles. Operating with IFVs with 100mm rifled guns and 30mm cannon, so I would not bother adding anything else though a roof mounted 12.7mm RWS would be useful...

Certainly more use with its high elevation gun and potent HE ammo and up to 13km range with shells, and 7km range with mortar bombs... and guided weapon accuracy when needed.

So the political bla bla and the facts on the ground don´t fit together.

I know they wont have anything less than very expensive brand new tanks, but in the end they will drive around in them and use them in parades but at the end of the day they wont do anything with them that a much lighter cheaper vehicle could do.

We had a culture of fighter planes here in New Zealand... till we realised that any action we might go to internationally will never rely on the performance of our A-4 Skyhawks so there was really no point in keeping them operational. Money wasted on those aircraft was better spent in other areas where we do use...

GarryB wrote:
Their political system is fundamentally flawed... there are only two political parties... like most western countries in fact... and most of the time an opposition party will vote against things because the other side wants them and by voting against them they are defeating their political opponents... even when what they are voting against might actually be good for the American people...

To be fair, virtually every country suffers from this. Many countries have just one party, with their "democracy" being a total joke. I'd say Russia has a better government than the EU at the moment, and the US has many corrupt establishment politicians that need to be voted out. But it's getting better there.

The two party system in the US makes things easy for big business... when you bribe both sides you have both sides in your pocket so it does not matter who wins... you still get to "consult" in drafting new laws in your area of business and of course you make the laws benefit your company specifically and make things harder for your competitors... as you make more money you can expand and influence areas that don't even matter to your company... but you get a say because you own the politicians.

I'm unfamiliar with Russian politics, but from how you described the west as being like a 2-party system, then Russia functions pretty much like a 1-party state. Though Putin and his government have overwhelming support from the people. What do you think of their politics right now? I think Putin's a little shady, but at least he's much better than embarrassments like Merkel, Macron or Trudeau in the west.

The 2S34 Hosta has a 120mm gun/mortar that can fire 120mm mortar bombs, but also conventional 120mm shells, and 120mm Gran laser guided missiles and 122mm Kitilov laser guided missiles. Operating with IFVs with 100mm rifled guns and 30mm cannon, so I would not bother adding anything else though a roof mounted 12.7mm RWS would be useful...
Certainly more use with its high elevation gun and potent HE ammo and up to 13km range with shells, and 7km range with mortar bombs... and guided weapon accuracy when needed.

Wow, that's a nice vehicle! Though a vehicle that supports troops like a tank or IFV, would probably need more armor. I'd imagine a Kurganets-style vehicle with the same 120mm mortar, maybe with an extra coaxial autocannon and RWS on top, with armor and countermeasures enough to stop ATGMs. A bit like your original idea, but with different armament.

I know they wont have anything less than very expensive brand new tanks, but in the end they will drive around in them and use them in parades but at the end of the day they wont do anything with them that a much lighter cheaper vehicle could do.

We had a culture of fighter planes here in New Zealand... till we realised that any action we might go to internationally will never rely on the performance of our A-4 Skyhawks so there was really no point in keeping them operational. Money wasted on those aircraft was better spent in other areas where we do use...

Except Russia has far more cause to use it's equipment than NZ does. It has far more enemies and is a much bigger player in politics. I think tanks will still be useful in armies for a long time. Who knows, maybe the tank of the future will be an armored IFV with a big gun (which would still be classified as a tank, depending on its role).