[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Its because you were being retarded and saying about lack of orders. Then said it has to do with economy. We proved you wrong on many accounts but you just jumped in circles.

You are useless and provide zero benefit here. Thank you, bye.

A small one becouse of the need of reducing costs! There is no more fact then this.

If their goal was to reduce costs they would not order any.., put the design on hold and order lots of upgraded T-72s.

The initial order batch is generally to fit out one division so they can be tested in training to find any problems or potential improvements... that is in the use and the maintenance and the production of the vehicles.

They might find some way of making them faster or easier or cheaper, they might features they thought would be good but in practise not worth the effort... that is all just normal.

The TT-33 is a browning design but instead of a machined bump on the side of the barrel they made an entire ring around the barrel... does the same thing but can be done while the barrel is on the lathe instead of a whole separate machining process to add.

The BT series of fast tanks had a feature where the tracks could be removed and the vehicle could drive around on its wheels... sounds like a brilliant idea... tanks can move around on their tracks but for very long moves they normally put them on a truck because it can go faster and it means less wear and tear on the tracks.

In practise however they never really took the tracks off and drove them around like wheeled vehicles so the feature was not continued... which made the vehicles simpler and cheaper and quicker to make.

walle83 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

walle83 wrote:

I actually think your the one that keep bringing this discussion to low levels. Im giving my point of view on a subject, thats my right as a member on this forum. Im no fun to chat with? Stop talking to me then.

you've received answer many times,still re-phrasing one and the same question ignoring answers and provided facts.  An initial  batch is 132 vehicles.
There were plans to have more (and they ar ento cancelled) and 2000+ new and upgraded tanks.

So the what  the new question is?



looking forward to see new stuff from you.

What answers? Im just getting the same statment again and again. 100 Armata has been orderd, YES I KNOW, a small batch has been orderd. A small one becouse of the need of reducing costs! There is no more fact then this.

Anyway im getting tired of this, maybe i irritate you in some other thread soon  

100 MBTs is "установочная партия", pre series for extensive testing!

walle83 wrote:

What answers? Im just getting the same statment again and again. 100 Armata has been orderd, YES I KNOW, a small batch has been orderd. A small one becouse of the need of reducing costs! There is no more fact then this.

no, not fact its only your interpretation because as a person without much of a linguistic education you dont understand Russian and refuse to accept translated for you  
Perhaps this is not even intentional but some trauma from childhood but well we love diversity dont we?

Anyway im getting tired of this, maybe i irritate you in some other thread soon  

[/quote]


 you'rewelocme mate with new questions or contributions of course!

Looks good from above.

Hole wrote:
Looks good from above.

yuck dat's long!

GarryB wrote:

A small one becouse of the need of reducing costs! There is no more fact then this.

If their goal was to reduce costs they would not order any.., put the design on hold and order lots of upgraded T-72s.

The initial order batch is generally to fit out one division so they can be tested in training to find any problems or potential improvements... that is in the use and the maintenance and the production of the vehicles.

They might find some way of making them faster or easier or cheaper, they might features they thought would be good but in practise not worth the effort... that is all just normal.

The TT-33 is a browning design but instead of a machined bump on the side of the barrel they made an entire ring around the barrel... does the same thing but can be done while the barrel is on the lathe instead of a whole separate machining process to add.

The BT series of fast tanks had a feature where the tracks could be removed and the vehicle could drive around on its wheels... sounds like a brilliant idea... tanks can move around on their tracks but for very long moves they normally put them on a truck because it can go faster and it means less wear and tear on the tracks.

In practise however they never really took the tracks off and drove them around like wheeled vehicles so the feature was not continued... which made the vehicles simpler and cheaper and quicker to make.

Well alteast you can resond with a civil discussion, more than I can say about other members here.

Still, isnt that just what they have done? Orderd a small batch and stated that they will continue with upgrading T-72? Further massproducing was not in the pipeline?

Remember most of the front is angled armour and then engine and then crew compartment and troop compartment under the turret...

Still, isnt that just what they have done? Orderd a small batch and stated that they will continue with upgrading T-72? Further massproducing was not in the pipeline?

The Armata is not a new tank... it is a new vehicle family... including tanks and BMPs and BTRs and everything else in an armoured division.

They need to test them to make sure they are right before putting them into mass production...

You get it right before you make lots of them.

With the T-72 they are not going to "make" any... the T-72s are already made and will receive upgrades depending upon how many they want or need.

The T-90 will be produced in numbers depending on what results they get with the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang tanks... they might make enormous numbers instead of enormous numbers of the newer vehicles if they need more work, or they might only make a few hundred to fill gaps while the new vehicles are mass produced.... or they might make more so they have time to fix the problems with the new vehicle families.

Once the new vehicle families are sorted out an enormous number of support vehicles will become obsolete and will be replaced.

The light and medium vehicle families will be likely produced the quickest and cheapest, but armata vehicles will be more expensive and more specialised and likely will take rather longer to get all the vehicles into service... most T-90s will probably go into the reserve while T-72 upgrades will be used as robots.

A well protected T-72 whose crew wont bail out at a penetration... fire suppression systems can be very effective when the internal parts of the hull and turret are nitrogen filled with no oxygen for fires to burn... it can roll into an enemy held area with APS and ERA protecting it from most hits, while UAVs and other tanks are looking at where the enemy fire is coming from and suppressing it... the robot tank itself can also engage targets.

Of course against a sophisticated enemy some sort of signal jamming equipment could be used but that could be detected and targeted from the air too...

We really don't know how future warfare will play out... they want armour for a full division to test what they were thinking when they came up with the designs and to progress to further ideas... since they designed armata and boomerang and kurganets they have been to Syria, so they might have learned things there too... their armour needs to be flexible and be useful in a range of situations from COIN to WWIII.

Mobility and firepower and protection... the three keys to armour... boomerang has high mobility and high firepower and good protection... kurganets has good mobility and high fire power and rather good protection (remember APS that stops APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds plus normal armour and ERA...) Kurganets is probably better armoured than any current armoured division... a T-90 tank might have slightly better protection from the front, but even in a tank division only a small fraction of vehicles are actually tanks... most are BMP or BTR vehicles with much lower levels of protection...

And of course the armata with good mobility, but high fire power and high protection... most divisions have nothing like that level of protection... but in terms of fire power and situational awareness... the armata tank is supposed to have a tethered UAV with radar and thermal sensors that can hover over the tank and provide a birds eye view to the tank and other vehicles nearby.

These new vehicles have much better communications equipment and will share information and provide battle management systems with data to make them useful... other platforms including recce and attack formations will further provide live info in combat...

Previously at sea only large ships got such systems... AEGIS is an example. The new Sigma system in the Russian navy spreads that system to all platforms to maximise the data detection and data collection and data sharing capacity to make it much more powerful and these new vehicle families will do the same for land vehicles...

GarryB wrote:Remember most of the front is angled armour and then engine and then crew compartment and troop compartment under the turret...

Still, isnt that just what they have done? Orderd a small batch and stated that they will continue with upgrading T-72? Further massproducing was not in the pipeline?

The Armata is not a new tank... it is a new vehicle family... including tanks and BMPs and BTRs and everything else in an armoured division.

They need to test them to make sure they are right before putting them into mass production...

You get it right before you make lots of them.

With the T-72 they are not going to "make" any... the T-72s are already made and will receive upgrades depending upon how many they want or need.

The T-90 will be produced in numbers depending on what results they get with the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang tanks... they might make enormous numbers instead of enormous numbers of the newer vehicles if they need more work, or they might only make a few hundred to fill gaps while the new vehicles are mass produced.... or they might make more so they have time to fix the problems with the new vehicle families.

Once the new vehicle families are sorted out an enormous number of support vehicles will become obsolete and will be replaced.

The light and medium vehicle families will be likely produced the quickest and cheapest, but armata vehicles will be more expensive and more specialised and likely will take rather longer to get all the vehicles into service... most T-90s will probably go into the reserve while T-72 upgrades will be used as robots.

A well protected T-72 whose crew wont bail out at a penetration... fire suppression systems can be very effective when the internal parts of the hull and turret are nitrogen filled with no oxygen for fires to burn... it can roll into an enemy held area with APS and ERA protecting it from most hits, while UAVs and other tanks are looking at where the enemy fire is coming from and suppressing it... the robot tank itself can also engage targets.

Of course against a sophisticated enemy some sort of signal jamming equipment could be used but that could be detected and targeted from the air too...

We really don't know how future warfare will play out... they want armour for a full division to test what they were thinking when they came up with the designs and to progress to further ideas... since they designed armata and boomerang and kurganets they have been to Syria, so they might have learned things there too... their armour needs to be flexible and be useful in a range of situations from COIN to WWIII.

Mobility and firepower and protection... the three keys to armour... boomerang has high mobility and high firepower and good protection... kurganets has good mobility and high fire power and rather good protection (remember APS that stops APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds plus normal armour and ERA...) Kurganets is probably better armoured than any current armoured division... a T-90 tank might have slightly better protection from the front, but even in a tank division only a small fraction of vehicles are actually tanks... most are BMP or BTR vehicles with much lower levels of protection...

And of course the armata with good mobility, but high fire power and high protection... most divisions have nothing like that level of protection... but in terms of fire power and situational awareness... the armata tank is supposed to have a tethered UAV with radar and thermal sensors that can hover over the tank and provide a birds eye view to the tank and other vehicles nearby.

These new vehicles have much better communications equipment and will share information and provide battle management systems with data to make them useful... other platforms including recce and attack formations will further provide live info in combat...

Previously at sea only large ships got such systems... AEGIS is an example. The new Sigma system in the Russian navy spreads that system to all platforms to maximise the data detection and data collection and data sharing capacity to make it much more powerful and these new vehicle families will do the same for land vehicles...

I find that T-14 Armata MBT looks to me like heavy tank "танк прорыва" of the past, used in rather limited numbers on major directions of the attack as spearheads. They should be followed by the main mass of T-90, modernised T-80 and T-72BZs, as well as other armoured vehicles, BMPs and BTRs, including those with ATGMs.

kumbor wrote:I find that T-14 Armata MBT looks to me like heavy tank "танк прорыва" of the past, used in rather limited numbers on major directions of the attack as spearheads. They should be followed by the main mass of T-90, modernised T-80 and T-72BZs, as well as other armoured vehicles, BMPs and BTRs, including those with ATGMs.

This sounds quite reasonable to me

LMFS wrote:

kumbor wrote:I find that T-14 Armata MBT looks to me like heavy tank "танк прорыва" of the past, used in rather limited numbers on major directions of the attack as spearheads. They should be followed by the main mass of T-90, modernised T-80 and T-72BZs, as well as other armoured vehicles, BMPs and BTRs, including those with ATGMs.

This sounds quite reasonable to me

with 152 mm gun even more

August 22, it became known that the "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ, part of the Rostekh) is ready to create a heavy tank on the platform of "Armata" with a 152-millimeter gun.

https://iz.ru/782081/2018-08-27/v-ssha-sochli-armatu-bespoleznoi

The gun will be shorter. Range is not the aim, they want more "Ka-WOMM".

Hole wrote:The gun will be shorter. Range is not the aim, they want more "Ka-WOMM".

Range when it comes to tanks is everything that and penetration.

In-tank warfare whoever sees who first generally will get the kill.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

A T-14 with a 2A88 gun from a 2S35 Koaltion SPG?...  Granted its a nice graphic (for the clueless ) but a 155mm high-velocity tank gun will look a little different....  No fume extractor, no muzzle brake for start, would be shorter as well.

Big_Gazza wrote:

A T-14 with a 2A88 gun from a 2S35 Koaltion SPG?...  Granted its a nice graphic (for the clueless ) but a 155mm high-velocity tank gun will look a little different....  No fume extractor, no muzzle brake for start, would be shorter as well.  

killjoy you are

Of course this is artist impression - that one bewlo is with 2A83 gun (object 195)




or this one:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Объект_292

Two questions:

1) Is 125 mm not enough? (i.e. something notably bigger being necessary to counter development of APS?)
2) Would not the amount of ammo onboard be tank be notably reduced with this huge calibre?

Thanks!