[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

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.

Fair has nothing to do with this... the western democracies claim to be the centre of the universe for democratic principles and beliefs, yet despite being just a two party system, the US went feral when the wrong candidate won... and not just the media... we are talking about the CIA and FBI and various government structures actually opposing the guy who won the election fair and square.

The problem was they were looking outside of America for someone or something to blame... they picked the Russians and Putin because it serves their agenda to have a bad guy... most of them make money on war so having Al Quada or ISIS the enemy hardly justifies a 700 billion dollar military budget... but Ruskies armed to the teeth with weapons even better than US weapons is a great enemy... the only minor small problem is that if you really fuck up you end up in a war likely to kill everyone on the planet but that is a small price to pay in their view because it is all about making money...

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.

Well Putin is very popular because he clearly knows what he is doing... just look at Russia when he started and look at Russia now.

The second most popular party in Russia is the communist party... which just shows how effective western propaganda has been at influencing the Russian people. The other parties generally get between one and about 6 percent of the vote, but there are generally about 7 or 8 candidates that any Russian can vote for if they wanted to.

Considering most western countries describe Russian democracy as communism and Putin is a dictator, I think their system seems to be rather better than the US... they don't piss around with party conferences and shit like that... they have cameras at polling booths, and it all seems to be rather quick and rather efficient compared with the long drawn out bullshit in the US.... not to mention if you have no money in the US you can't afford to buy all the air time you need to get noticed. What they should have done is gotten their name changed to "NotTrump OrHillary" and they would likely have won by a landslide... the last US election had nothing to do with who you wanted in power... lots of women voted for Hillary because she was a woman... or they voted for Hillary because they didn't want to vote for Trump... but most of the people that voted for Trump did so for a few obvious specific reasons... Hilary means war and lots of Americans are tired of seeing Americans coming back home in body bags or traumatised by a war that has nothing to do with the US... Trump said the US should be working on Americas problems and not be trying to solve everyone elses problems with american money and american blood. He also said he would improve relations with Russia.

So just like any politician he lied through his teeth about most things.... can you say the same about the evil dictator Putin?

To me Putin seems to say what he means and means what he says... His reactions are generally very measured and clever and most of all benefit Russia.

He has said in interviews he is not looking for friends, his job is to benefit the people who voted for him... it does not matter if he likes Obama or hates him, it is about getting a good deal for the Russian people first.

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.

My idea is for these vehicles to operate back from the front lines, perhaps even in fire bases... for COIN type situations, but if you want something that moves with the troops then Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon could all carry a 120mm gun/mortar turret... they will already have mortar carrier vehicles, and it would not be that difficult to fit it with a light cannon or grenade launcher to improve its close in fire support performance...

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).

Well in conventional wars where the enemy is a third world country with no armour or little armour a tank is an extravagance... and an expensive one at that... The new vehicle families armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon that consist of vehicle chassis with different turrets for different roles means you could have 2,000 tank turrets in storage an fit the vehicles you use operationally most of the time with lighter cheaper systems and weapons that are more suitable for conflicts where the enemy is not an equal.

I mean a vehicle with a large fixed superstructure with remote weapon stations with machine guns and grenade launchers and light cannon and sensors to detect small arms fire with a crew of 7 where one is the driver and the other 6 each operate a turret each to engage targets from any direction... each could have a sector to cover and with over lapping sectors it could deal with really difficult problems will urban areas etc.

If NATO becomes a problem put the tank turrets back on.

Russia has new state of the art training systems now that can train up to a full division at a time and will likely build lots more... the most accurate and awesome LAN party ever...

Sorry, just noticed this post:

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.

Actually will it?

In 5 years time they might develop a new EM gun that is vastly more efficient in a much smaller calibre... the 115mm calibre gun didn't really remain in service as the front line gun for very long because the 125mm gun was being developed as a rather better implementation of a smooth bore gun... not that the 115mm was bad, but the 125mm was rather better.

It is not just about the cost of putting a new tank gun calibre into full production and service... you then have the complication of distribution and support, which increases complication and problems.

They might never introduce it if they don't think it is needed or would be enough benefit to justify the cost.

They might decide to give it a limited introduction... I rather doubt Typhoon or Boomerang or Kurganets could carry it anyway so it is likely an Armata only gun... or perhaps a long recoil tank destroyer on the Boomerang platform might be the best use for it... having a powerful long range gun will reduce the need for heavy protection and might make lighter vehicles more viable.

Or they might decide all Armatas need it.

Right now they have 125mm guns in full production and 125mm ammo in reserve and production...

I rather suspect they will focus on getting high velocity 57mm guns and 57mm grenade launchers into service in numbers and worry about the 152mm smoothbore when it is more urgently needed.

Then why not manufacture 152mm Armatas along with 125mm Armatas, now or in the near future?

Putting new calibre guns and new calibre ammo into full scale production costs a lot of money... if you don't really need it yet then that money could be better spent building more new vehicles that would be rather more useful.

I doubt you can just drop a larger calibre gun into an Armata turret... I would suspect a different turret design would be needed... not that it would be hard, it would just be different.

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.

No it would not. Just making a few will cost money to tool up factories to make them, and it will also mean another factory will have to start production of the ammo it uses which will not be the same as 152mm artillery rounds. Having a mixed batch of 152 and 125 mm guns just makes things more expensive and create issues with some units not having enough ammo... and they have said they are using 125mm guns because the 152mm guns are not necessary yet... what has changed since then?

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.

Actually if it was up to me, what I would do is develop a sleeve that goes around a 125mm shell so that it fits into and can be fired from a 152mm gun... that means when you transition to the larger calibre gun the sleeve will make the 125mm rounds compatible with the new larger guns... the HE frag rounds and missiles and APFSDS rounds could be fitted with a Sabot around the projectile, and some extra propellant around the propellant stub for a bit of extra energy... so the old rounds will fit in the new autoloaders for the larger ammo... when the 125mm ammo is used up then you can start using 152mm or use 152mm ammo when needed... of course liquid propellant is an even better solution with a sabot around the projectile...

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.

Dealing with it in 5 or ten years means you can produce some ammo before the change over so you actually have ammo for the gun in service.

Putting it into service right now means pressure on production and it is already going to be more expensive without the pressure of high volume production.

If it is not needed now it is not a priority. Makes more sense fitting older tanks with better optics and sensors and communications.

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

There is no modern Russian tank with a turret bustle that is part of the crew compartment.

Look at the T-90MS/AM... it only holds 12 rounds and there is no connection between it and the turret crew compartment.

The only other Russian tank with a turret bustle is the T-14 and the K-14 and whatever the Kurganets 125mm gun armed vehicle is called... and they don't have manned turrets...

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.

Because carrying only 12 rounds into combat is silly. The T-90M does not store any rounds in its turret bustle. The T-90MS and AM carry 12 loose rounds separated in the turret bustle with no connection to the crew compartment in the turret... even if they were stacked up against the turret neither the commander nor gunner in a T-90 turret could reach back to get rounds there..

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.

But that is as stupid as we need a bigger calibre gun than they have... having a larger calibre gun means nothing... having longer penetrators means nothing... it is all about the enemy armour not the enemy ammo or enemy gun... unless you think WWIII will be a car yard where each side will show their ammo and the ones with the biggest win.

Russian ammo needs to be able to penetrate enemy tank armour... as long as it does that the length of the penetrators is actually better being shorter because it is easier to store and load.

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.

There are a few other factors more important than LD ratio... first of all the sectional density of a bullet determines its flight performance and the absolute thinnest don't actually perform best.

There are also plenty of ways to overcome drag including base bleed designs... sure that is for artillery but there is no reason a thicker APFSDS round could not do the same for the short few seconds it takes to cover the first 10kms of its flight... and who cares what happens beyond 10km.

The reality is that it really isn't important enough to bother dealing with.

Russia has released information about mach 10 scramjet powered missiles... how hard would it be to develop a mach 10 or faster APFSDS round with a built in scramjet... mach 10 is about 3.2km/s... a pretty good velocity for an APFSDS round... add laser beam riding and you potentially have a round that might not be effective within 4km (because it is accelerating still) but could be effective to 15-20km...

Narrow penetrators will be more vulnerable to interception because any yaw and they will snap like a twig at those speeds under that sort of force... thicker stronger penetrators will become a requirement... which suits a larger calibre gun like a 152mm...

APFSDS rounds can afford to have higher L/D ratios than flechettes.

A higher LD ratio would make them bits of wire...

Their behind-armour effect is significant, unless they're shooting from the side.

Against hard targets they are very effective from any angle because they heat up the armour and throw fragments and particles all over the place that are super hot and metal so they still have mass to be dangerous at high speed.

Against soft target they will generally punch neat holes...

That or hard-to-ignite ETC guns.

Electric guns still require capacitor banks and lots of batteries... the latter filled with very volatile chemicals that will burn and can explode if punctured.

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

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree... a 125mm HE Frag round is 33kgs in total, with 10kgs for the propellant stub and 23kgs for the actual HE projectile... the HEAT round is about 19kgs for the projectile, so assuming they are 3/4ths of the ammo load, then with the Black Eagle turret bustle with 31 rounds of ready to fire ammo that means about 16 HE Frag rounds and about 8 HEAT (and 7 APFSDS rounds)... that is 368kgs of HE with the HE rounds alone... plus 152kgs of HE with the HEAT rounds... and lets not forget each round has 10kgs of propellant, except the APFSDS rounds which have about 13 kgs of propellant each... do you really think the thin rear turret armour will stop that? A roller door going to stop an explosion 10 times bigger than the 50kg IEDs that destroyed Abrams tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A 250kg aircraft bomb exploding on the outside of the tank would have less power...

You don't have to put all your ammo in the bustle. Modern Russian tanks use them just fine.

The opposite is actually true... in service Russian tanks have ammo in the underfloor autoloader and they also have loose ammo in the crew compartment... in combat they removed the ammo in the crew compartment and go to war with the 22 rounds under the turret floor.

The T-72, T-80, and T-90 do not have turret bustles in service.

The only Russian tanks with any ammo in any turret bustle is the brand new T-90AM and the Export model T-90MS where the ammo is separate from the crew compartment... 22 rounds underfloor autoloader, 6 more in an armoured box between the turret rear and engine and 12 more in a separate external compartment in the turret bustle.

The Armata turret bustle is alleged to have some ammo stored there but there is no actual evidence this is true.

The turret bustle on the Armata if it exists will likely also be used on the Kurganets and boomerang and possibly typhoon... none of which will be connected to any crew compartment.

Just pack 22 rounds in the bustle with the autoloader, and have cage armor at the sides to protect from HEAT/HE warheads.

Cage armour wont stop a missile able to penetrate 1.2m of armour from penetrating the rear turret... in fact on some older model RPG-7s cage armour improves performance... as long as it goes off properly. Cage armour can dud an RPG rocket if the nose pokes between the cage gaps and the nose cone is crushed on impact. If, however the nose hits at the right angle the stand off detonation caused by the cage armour can allow a proper plasma beam to form which increases penetration... not reduce it.

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

You didn't read what I said... direct hit on main gun ammo means boom.... everyone dead... look at that video. If another part of the vehicle gets hit and a fire starts the crew will generally have plenty of time to bail out before the fire reaches ammo and boom... unless the crew is hit of course and/or cannot escape...

My point was that the bustle didn't cause most of the explosions. It is safe compared to storing your ammo in the hull.

And you are not listening... Bustles are western things and they rarely face an enemy with capable anti armour weapons... against a real enemy with modern weapons like ATGMs where you can actually aim for a part of a tank instead of just aiming and hoping for a hit.

Bustle or hull... it is ammo that causes explosions... whether you put it in the turret bustle or in the hull it will explode and kill the entire crew when hit. The turret bustle is easier to hit from any angle than ammo inside the hull below the turret.

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).

You can't eliminate the problem of ammo explosions because modern 125mm rounds have a lot of HE... as do 120mm rounds... and 152mm rounds will be worse.

Changes in propellant will not matter because it is HE explosions that are so lethal, though binary propellants would reduce the fire risk... putting any ammo in the turret is a problem... the new Russian tanks don't have heavy front turret armour and all tanks have weak side and rear protection so any ammo in a turret bustle will always be too weak to enemy fire... especially when the enemy is familiar with your vehicles like in Chechnia.

Still shows that bustles are relatively safe if used well.

No... it shows they don't think 22 rounds is enough for a combat tank.

Took them decades to realise that though.

Of course... the Soviets developed T-34s because they hate their own troops and don't care about losses... they didn't have to use sloped armour and they didn't have to keep increasing the armour thickness... do you really think the west cares about its soldiers and the soviets and russians dont... then why are the western forces so keen to get into conflicts that are really none of their business?

We have seen British soldiers killed because the British government can't afford flak vests... but the UK cares more for their troops than the Russian forces do... look at those Russian troops in Syria... so poorly equipped...

One thing Western tanks do better than older Russian tanks is safety (though the Armata beats them all).

Really?

They certainly like making them bigger and heavier and rather more expensive... and they love to send them to lots of third world shit holes... just to show who is boss.

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.

with artillery there was little choice... 152mm artillery shells are heavy... and the propellant charges are big and heavy too...

At one time there was only one MBT with a smoothbore gun and we heard from the west how inaccurate they must be and why are the Soviets so stupid.

It is a big secret but I will share it with you... the Soviets knew that rifling is great for stabilising full calibre rounds like HE shells... so when they developed the 100mm gun for the BMP-3 it is rifled for the primary round it fires is a HE round... the other round is a missile with slip rings for firing through a rifled barrel.

For a MBT the primary rounds were HEAT and APFSDS rounds... neither of which like rifled guns... it reduces penetration in HEAT rounds and cannot be fast enough to spin stabilise an APFSDS round... they are also cheaper to make... lighter, they don't slow down projectiles like rifling does and are easier to clean yet length for length give their projectiles higher muzzle velocity... now the exception is the British 120mm rifled... and doesn't the Indian Arjun use a 120mm rifled gun.

If NATO moves to a larger round they will either have to go for two piece ammo or go for autoloaders because the weight of the rounds will make them impossible to handle for a human.

If 125mm rounds were one piece imagine handling a 30kg round in the confines of a turret bouncing across country...

Western tanks are heavier, because in most of them there are three guys sitting/standing in the turret. The turret of the latest Leo2 Version weighs nearly 25 tons.

Western tanks are heavier because they are bigger... just look at them lined up next to Soviet and Russian tanks and it is pretty clear.

They are not that much heavier armoured and contemporary for contemporary they never have a bigger gun... traditionally Soviet and Russian tanks are smaller and lighter but have a big gun.

Not suggesting they are perfect... generally they could have better optics and better situational awareness for the crews... but then most tanks were largely blind anyway... well not blind... more like a person with binoculars stuck to their eyes... they had good detail vision but had trouble finding targets well. a single infantryman could get right up close by using blind spots and vision limitations of most tanks...

One of the new things with these new vehicle families is that they will have excellent awareness of targets close by, but also with excellent communications and also data sharing and of course UAVs will be much harder to get close to unobserved...

I rather also suspect infantry will be able to communicate directly to the commanders without going up and standing behind it using a phone on the back of the tank.

Which Comes from the fact that teir turrets are much bigger/heavier. Then you need a bigger/heavier chassis. Then some guy comes and wants to put more armor on it, which makes the thing even heavier... vicious circle.

How much bigger would you need to make the Armata in order to increase the weight to 200 tons?

Also since the navy seems so reluctent to buy cruisers why not buid them on land but with ampibious capabilities so you can circonvent all the burocracy and you have a truly multi role ship that can provide air defence , fire support on both land and sea and conduct ampibious landings.

Any way does anyone know what the perfomormance of the 152mm Griffel APFSDS for the 2a83 smoothbore gun is?

How much bigger would you need to make the Armata in order to increase the weight to 200 tons?

Not as much as you would need to make a western tank 200 tons.

The tanks that got closest generally went for 360 degree heavy armour... and I mean heavy armour for the time... it would be quite weak armour today.

The frontal armour is the heaviest so the easiest way to make a tank heavier is to increase the slope of the frontal armour to make it deeper/longer, and to increase the width and height of both the frontal hull and frontal turret area... Also trying to make side armour and rear armour as thick as the frontal armour and you will get to 200 tons easily.

The point is making a heavy tank is easy... it is like asking an alcoholic to get drunk, or a gambler to lose all their money, or a fat person to put on more weight.

It is reducing weight without reducing performance so much that is the hard task for any engineer (and fat person).

Also since the navy seems so reluctent to buy cruisers why not buid them on land but with ampibious capabilities so you can circonvent all the burocracy and you have a truly multi role ship that can provide air defence , fire support on both land and sea and conduct ampibious landings.

There are too many differences in land and sea vehicles for that to be very efficient... if you want a fire support vessel to support landing operations then a big barge that sits very low in the water with 152mm gun batteries mounted on it with a propulsion system dedicated to either move the barge or power the turrets and autoloading systems... but to be honest it would be much cheaper to just cover the damn thing with artillery rockets for one really big salvo...

Which Comes from the fact that teir turrets are much bigger/heavier. Then you need a bigger/heavier chassis. Then some guy comes and wants to put more armor on it, which makes the thing even heavier... vicious circle.

And that is what tank designing is all about... choices. You generally only need a bigger heavier chassis when you pick a bigger gun that needs a bigger turret ring to absorb the increased recoil... weight normally does not come in to it, though generally the main problem is balance... with heavy armour at the front of the turret and of course a big long heavy gun barrel hanging off the front, and the rear turret being the thinnest armour on the tank... a weak point and a balance problem... some sort of bustle structure with a few rounds of ammo might seem a good idea to offset the weight hanging out the front while at the same time offering a few extra rounds if you need them...

Does anyone have any news on the Armatas that the MOD has ordered?

Also What new vehicles are likely to spawn from the Armata?

The T-64 led to the T-72 and T-80 and the T-72BU BUA and BUAM (cough I meant to say the completely new and not a half baked T-72 upgrade T-90)


Alos does anyone have any news on Russian composite armor development and potential upgrades to existing vehicles?

Which Comes from the fact that teir turrets are much bigger/heavier. Then you need a bigger/heavier chassis. Then some guy comes and wants to put more armor on it, which makes the thing even heavier... vicious circle.

Chassis usually only get bigger and heavier when the gun gets bigger and needs a larger turret ring to absorb the increased recoil.

Western tanks have big turret bustles to counter balance their high mounted guns and heavy frontal turret armour arrays... they mount their guns high to give better gun depression angles and they mount them forward to allow three crew in the turret.

With such layouts a heavy large rear turret bustle balances out the turret and takes stress off the stabilising systems.

Also What new vehicles are likely to spawn from the Armata?

Look at a list of armoured vehicles in a current division... motor rifle and tank and that is pretty much the list of Armata vehicles needed...

The T-64 led to the T-72 and T-80 and the T-72BU BUA and BUAM (cough I meant to say the completely new and not a half baked T-72 upgrade T-90)

No.

The T-62 was an upgrade of a T-55 (with a new smoothbore gun).

The T-64 was a new tank design intended to be a capable but expensive tank, and it was followed by the T-80 design. The T-72 was a simplified design with decent armour and a good gun that was easy to produce and maintain and could be built in numbers to replace older less capable models.

When the cold war ended they had the choice of a T-80 with upgrades, or a T-72 with many of the sophisticated components of the T-80, but also improved armour design. The T-80s they had used a gas turbine engine that was expensive to operate and there was no diesel alternative because the ones they developed to improve the T-80 in the T-80UD... D for diesel, the diesel engine was produced in the Ukraine.

The T-90 has better armour, the same gun, a much better, though less powerful engine, and is simpler to mass produce and use.

The T-80 is not worthless but it has no real future in the Russian military... most of its upgrades to date are to make it more like the T-90 with compatible systems and equipment, and to give it a small APU that can be used to provide power while the main engine is not running... reducing its operating costs enormously.

This is particularly useful in the far north where it might not move around that much but can keep the electrics on and the crew warm without burning through enormous amounts of fuel.

I would hope the ammo in the underfloor autoloader has been improved and is better protected, because most T-80s hit in Chechnia exploded because any penetration of the turret showered the underfloor autoloader with hot material and sparks, which ignited the propellant and generally killed the crew right away.

In comparison the T-72s with no loose ammo in the crew compartment had protected ammo in the autoloader and did not immediately explode when penetrated... much to the relief of the crews.

GarryB wrote:Look at a list of armoured vehicles in a current division... motor rifle and tank and that is pretty much the list of Armata vehicles needed...

I meant what new MBT projects would come along.

GarryB wrote:No.

The T-62 was an upgrade of a T-55 (with a new smoothbore gun).

The T-64 was a new tank design intended to be a capable but expensive tank, and it was followed by the T-80 design. The T-72 was a simplified design with decent armour and a good gun that was easy to produce and maintain and could be built in numbers to replace older less capable models.

I never said anything about the T-62 or 55 I said T-64 and anoyne who thinks that the T-72 is not derived from the T-64 is clearly deluded.

Also Didn't the T-72s have better armor than thier T-64 counterparts? I think the UFP on the T-72s was better protected.

I remember The T-72M had only steel turret armor but that was the cheap export varient made for counties like poland. Surely the T-72 Ural and T-72A would have been better protected.

The T-14 Armata from a technical point of view
(Swiss analysis)

https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=33534

Conclusion
Certainly, all data released by the Russians on the new tank must be critically examined. Notwithstanding: Russian engineers, with the appropriate political support from the Kremlin, have consistently implemented the concept of the unmanned turret battle tank; while in the West, desperate attempts were made to extend the life of battle tanks whose development dates back to the 1970’s with limited system upgrades.

The current version of the T-14 may still have a number of constructive deficits and teething problems, but one thing is certain: when the West presents the first prototype of a new generation of battle tanks in three to five years (a highly optimistic estimate), the Russians will already have several years of practical experience in this area – a backlog that cannot be compensated for so quickly even with the alleged technological superiority of Western industry. A look at the history of tank development shows that the Russians revolutionized tank construction several times – not because they were the first to have the idea, but because they were the first to have the courage to take a step forward.

I never said anything about the T-62 or 55 I said T-64 and anoyne who thinks that the T-72 is not derived from the T-64 is clearly deluded.

Most non military people I know can't tell the difference between the T-54/55, the T-62, the T-64, the T-72, T-80, or T-90... does that make them all the same tank?

Also Didn't the T-72s have better armor than thier T-64 counterparts?

The T-64 had composite armour designed to be more effective than just armour plate. The T-72 also had composite armour but was designed to be easy to make and cheaper to build and operate.

Don't talk about the T-72 as if it is one vehicle... there are dozens of versions with totally different armour arrangements and equipment fits. There were lots of T-64 variants too, though not as many as the T-72.

Surely the T-72 Ural and T-72A would have been better protected.

You don't know, but you are telling us the T-72 is just a T-64 copy...

What if the armata BMPT had a revolver 160mm breech loaded mortar? Something like a cross between a vasilek and 2A70 100mm gun. It could be used for indirect fire, shoot superheavy ATGMs, and be used as a short range assault gun like the centurion AVRE or M60 CEV.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:What if the armata BMPT had a revolver 160mm breech loaded mortar? Something like a  cross between a vasilek and 2A70 100mm gun. It could be used for indirect fire, shoot superheavy ATGMs, and be used as a  short range assault gun like the centurion AVRE or M60 CEV.

OR the 160mm T-62

Well that would certainly have its uses as an urban warfare assualt vehicle and could be used in a similar fassion to the SU-152 and ISU-152 of WWII.

What if the armata BMPT had a revolver 160mm breech loaded mortar? Something like a cross between a vasilek and 2A70 100mm gun.

Doesn't that just make it a Coalition?

Much better range, guided round accuracy, and can be positioned back in a safer area, rather than near the front line.

It could be used for indirect fire, shoot superheavy ATGMs, and be used as a short range assault gun like the centurion AVRE or M60 CEV.

The ARVE and M60 CEV are for demolition, they are not assault guns... and for indirect fire with 152mm calibre ATGMs the Coalition fits the bill... and has already been developed.

Some sort of mortar carrier might be useful, but in a standard calibre like 120mm would make more sense... the 120mm mortar is already a potent mortar round and with improved electronics and sensors and communications the improved accuracy should make it very valuable.

Well that would certainly have its uses as an urban warfare assualt vehicle and could be used in a similar fassion to the SU-152 and ISU-152 of WWII.

Most tank gun calibres are already potent enough for urban warfare... the 152mm gun calibre for tanks will also mean too much HE fire power for most targets.

The point is to kill the enemy combatants... not bring down the neighbourhood and just get everyone... if that was the case then just use rocket artillery or aerial bombardment.

GarryB wrote:
Most tank gun calibres are already potent enough for urban warfare... the 152mm gun calibre for tanks will also mean too much HE fire power for most targets.

The point is to kill the enemy combatants... not bring down the neighbourhood and just get everyone... if that was the case then just use rocket artillery or aerial bombardment.

If that was the case why did the Red Army bother to haul around 203mm guns for use in urban warfare during the las stages of the war?

What do you do if you need to destroy a fortified building? In Afganistan I have heard that in some cases nothing short of a 203mm 2S7 or 240mm 2S4 would do the trick.

You can have all the precision guided pea shooters you but they still won't help against a well fortified position.

If that was the case why did the Red Army bother to haul around 203mm guns for use in urban warfare during the las stages of the war?

Because when there is fire coming from a city block and you can't pinpoint it... but this is WWII and not some civil war and you are moving through an enemy city in enemy territory where all the people in that building are enemy or enemy civilians then blowing the whole damn thing down sorts out the problem of sniper fire... there are no hearts and minds to try to win.

Older german buildings tended to be quite solid too... with lots of heavy stone buildings...

Direct fire meant you could put a round within 20m of the target and the power of the round meant part of the front of the building was coming down including what you were aiming at.

These days Coalition fire is even more accurate from 30km away, safe from most local return fire.

What do you do if you need to destroy a fortified building? In Afganistan I have heard that in some cases nothing short of a 203mm 2S7 or 240mm 2S4 would do the trick.

Very true... but 99% of targets don't require those heavy lifters and it would be hard to justify using such calibres for such roles most of the time.

Today the Coalition fires the same 152mm round to much greater ranges with much better accuracy, and for special hard targets the 2S4 will always be useful, and is kept in service because of that... though it does not have any direct fire capability AFAIK... vertical plunging fire is more effective anyway.

You can have all the precision guided pea shooters you but they still won't help against a well fortified position.

That is not true.

That is the same as saying a 5.45mm rifle round can accurately hit a human sized target to 400m with every aimed shot, but 7.62 x 54mm ammo is better fired from a PKM because it is more powerful.

More powerful rounds are only more effective if they hit the target... they used direct fire 203mm guns in cities because that meant they could hit a specific room of a building by pointing the gun directly at it and firing... with it 15km away there was no chance of hitting that particular room.

With guided shells you could have laser homing rounds, or Glonass guided rounds that could be fired from 50km away and still hit the room you want hit... whether it was 152mm or 240mm (well 240mm from 10km away anyway)... but that is the point.

Existing lighter shells are more effective when they are more accurately placed, but heavier shells are also rather more effective than they ever were before because being able to place the rounds where you need them means you need much less rounds for a specific job and you can do more jobs that you could never hope to do before...

A 110kg 240mm HE round coming in near vertically to hit an Abrams tank would obliterate it... lets face it it would also destroy a Armata tank too.

A concrete piercing model could be used to penetrate the top armour and the explosion inside the vehicle would kill everyone instantly.... the problem would be getting direct hits... with old versions that would require thousands of rounds fired, but with guided rounds... one or two per tank to be sure.

A 120mm mortar shell or 125mm HE tank round or a 100mm HE round from a BMP-3 is no pea shooter...

There is already a laser guided round for the 2S4 Tyulpan and it has been in service quite a while.

Smelchak...


BTW here is video of what happens when an old ATGM hits a Saudi Abrams tank from the side (in that super protected ammo storage area in the rear turret..)



Note the video claims it is Kornet, but it looks more like Faggot or Konkurs to me... either way... from the angle of the impact it would not matter whether it was Faggot (600mm penetration) or Konkurs (800mm) or Kornet (1.2m).

If you hit the ammo and set it on fire then the crew still in the vehicle are dead.

Quick question. Was there any information on how T-14 would light it's propellant stubs? We've seen video footage of Koalitsiya's needing it's propellant stubs to be microwaved to ignite, but it was never explained if the propellant stubs could only be ignited by microwaves, or that it could be still be ignited normally. I know that the microwave ignition was more efficient, but if the former is true, than it would be an ideal system to bring to the T-14, and could potentially make propellant stub cook-offs a thing of the past.

Interesting...

As you can see from the muzzle flash of an artillery piece propellant is still burning after the shell leaves the barrel on its way down target, so if the propellant needs to be in a microwaved state to burn then that raises interesting questions.

First... does it need microwaves flowing through it to burn... meaning the propellant would only burn inside the chamber and not necessarily in the barrel or beyond... unlikely I suspect because a lot of the propellant burns in the barrel too and that is where it gets its long range.

Second... assuming the above is wrong then perhaps the propellant is like bread and only works properly when it is cooked into shape... it burns rapidly after being microwaved and continues to burn until completely consumed... that would make sense... perhaps propellant that is not microwaved doesn't burn or is much weaker when it burns... which would make it much safer to store and handle...

Microwaves cook through friction... it makes water molecules move/vibrate, which generates heat within the food... perhaps in this case it uses the microwave pulse to align the molecules to optimise combustion... the question is, does the propellant ignite spontaneously when microwaved, or does the microwave prepare it for ignition and then an electrical current sets it off...

The propellant for the Coalition is continuously variable AFAIK, so basically it is cut to size depending on the round and distance to target etc, but the potential for low sensitivity to fire would make it useful on other vehicle platforms.


Amusing really... for a while only Su-34 strike aircraft had microwave ovens... now it seems the army is getting some too.

The microwave in the 2S35 takes care that the whole propellant is ignited at once, so the energy in the propellant is released at the same time, which increases the range of the munition. That´s what i think.

No.. it can't work that way.

HE detonates all at once and if you try to use it as propellant you will find the chamber of the gun is shattered and destroyed.

Propellant needs to burn, and in fact is most efficient if it is fully contained so pressure builds up over time.

There is another thread on ammo where they mention that if they optimise the barrel lengths for a certain calibre they could design a burn rate that optimises muzzle velocity.

Very high pressure straight away would be bad, but building and increasing pressure means the projectile accelerates faster to start with and further down the barrel... the key is to design the propellant so that the way it burns it maximises the pressure increase from the chamber to the muzzle... where any extra unburnt powder is of no real use and just contributes to the muzzle flash.

Of course to get the pressures behind the projectile all the way from chamber to muzzle there will need to be powder still burning when the projectile leaves the barrel.

I rather suspect that microwaving the propellant prepares it for ignition and aligns the molecules so they burn readily and rapidly for a more efficient and clean burn.

Otherwise why not microwave it all before loading into the vehicle so it is ready to burn...

The propellant is ignited by the microwave. Look at the video again.

Any info on how the ammo is stored T-14? Vertically as in T-64/80 or horizontally as in T-72/90?

And if the crew is no longer in the ammo compartment, would it make sense to put more armor there? Even something as simple as having armored plates around the autoloader?