[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

Exactly... T-14 is more of a system and would work best surrounded by like systems including Kurganets and Boomerang based vehicles and presumably are designed to operate with artillery and close air support, which is not to say they would not be good on their own, but their current T-90s seem to be very much good enough... their ability to hit tank sized targets at 5km with standard anti armour rounds suggests they would be best used at distant targets that don't even realise they are under fire.

Would be interesting if they developed new HE rounds with a semi armour piercing version that penetrates into light vehicles before it explodes... the standard HE Frag round has a range of safety fuse settings that allows it to explode on impact or after shallow penetration of light materials like buildings or cars, but having an actual armour piercing round with a HE filler would be very potent against a range of targets.

Armour is good protection against smaller HE charges, but it works against you if penetrated by something that explodes because the armour goes from protecting to containing and intensifying the explosion by reflecting it around inside the vehicle.

I wonder if they will use ground based robot vehicles with 30mm cannon and rocket launchers... they could fit one of those audio based weapons fire detection systems that hears enemy fire and determines the source and types of fire... sending in a few would allow you to map out locations various calibre weapons are located which can be directly engaged from T-90s sitting back a km or so.

Is the T-14 in production currently?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Is the T-14 in production currently?

Yes. Started from last February. 132 T-14 expected to be produced in the first tranche.

lyle6 wrote:3BM69/70 APFSDS:





>900 mm long DU/WHA shaft with muzzle velocity of ~2000 m/s = gg; no re

900mm long KE projectile is enough to penetrate 900mm of armor protection of any tank at 2000m...so this round is perfect for any wester tank for easly kill

This is bullshit from them. They do not have tanks with passive armore with thickness efficiensy greater then 800mm-850mm against APFSD....

Also they best round is around ~780mm long so that is max what this round will pen of armor...

Agreed. They arent magicians. The length of the apfsds and the speeds discussed can only infer a pen of about maybe 800mm RHA. seen a lot of tests using relatively modern computer programs showing apfsds penetration depths on yt. Thry are neat, but I have yet to see an enterprising lad use one of these programs in combination with the latest we know in tank armor. Im talking the steels, ceramics and fibres in the right places and in the right configurations. This might be hard to program into the software though as things like ceramic composite matrices are complex structures and I dont think many of the programs seen on yt are capable of rendering such complicated objects. I bet that kind of software is only seen on a university or government level. I do wonder if these kinds of structures greatly reduce penetration. It used to be that generally penetration stayed the same even with newer armor, it just lowered weight in the tank. Now though with rumors we hear for example in the Armata, with CCM and other materials, I wonder if it isnt just weight reduction but also penetration reduction as aell.

I will say one thing though that America does seem to have more advanced sabots for their darts. Arent they made mostly of carbon fibre? Also with a lighter sabot does it bring greater efficiency? I think it might but since Russia has gotten their longinus to speeds up around 2000 meters a second, this might not matter anyways.

Edit:added some thoughts.

This data is for DU sabots, not tungsteen, because they have less penetratio with same lenght then DU sabots. So i guess for 900mm dart of tungsteen aloy will have it around 800mm or so of penetration...

No, the weight is important in this case also. If sabot is longer it means it has more weight with more speed it has more Kinethic energy witch means it has more penetration. In our case energy is massure by MJ.

You know mate there is a story in one of the Russians institutes in past. When some general asked one proffesor. What do you need to make batter round for tanks. He answer: i need only pancake. General was stuned with answer. But how?
Proffesor said: Easy i need only speed for it and pancake will pen any armor on planet. Off course we do not have possibility to make pancake goes on that speed or any other object right now. In future maybe. So we need also greater mass of projectiles for penetration beside speed

galicije83 wrote:This data is for DU sabots, not tungsteen, because they have less penetratio with same lenght then DU sabots. So i guess for 900mm dart of tungsteen aloy will have it around 800mm or so of penetration...
No, the weight is important in this case also. If sabot is longer it means it has more weight with more speed it has more Kinethic energy witch means it has more penetration. In our case energy is massure by MJ.

Well, the German tests didn't prove that. Germans don't use DU ammo deliberately and for a reason. Still, the round they are using equals M829 equivalent version. The penetration differences are of cosmetic character.
There was a solid discussion in Germany some 10-15 years ago, as they have figured that the ammo they have stocked won't be enough for defeating the new Russkie tanks. And "a new" was not T-14, buy a mass modification of T-72B3 and the followers.

Well germans say for DM 53/63: it can penetrat fro 650-740mm..can we be realistick here ther is no from-to penetration here its only one real value of penetration and it is in this case this first one 650mm at 2000m at 0⁰....

There is no "one and only" penetration value because too many variables define that at the very end. Some of them can't even be calculated, as are random in their structure.
But what we have, is a serious discussion in one of the most advanced armor producers on the planet, that ended up without any conceptual change in the projectile's construction. They kept staying away from DU. That gives us a serious hint, agree?

Well even Russians made t penetrators..its far more cheaper then du with slightely less penetrations.

Yes its to much variabil in penetration but there is no from to..you can tell its around 740 or around 650 as Russians says for their sabots...but as i mention with DU you will have equal or more penetration from same lenght then with T penetrator witch has less.

Not all apfsds are the same. So a tank may have a frontal armor of 800mm RHA against one apfsds but against another it can be 750mm.

Some apfsds are very good against composite materials but would be very bad against RHA. I think it is the case for the last german apfsds.

That's why all those values represent nothing today. They were very precise for t-55 to t-72A era tanks but after that they stated using composite armor.

Another factor is that while DU is nuclear waste in the west, in Russia their new fast neutron reactors means it is potential fuel for nuclear power plants.

The radiation hazard from DU rounds is probably more problem than it is worth.

For WWIII then no real problem because everyone is dead anyway... so stock some up for WWIII and just use other ammo till then.

If tungsten rounds are not doing it they can always shift to 152mm rounds instead.

Penetration performance is never precise, there are so many variations on armour that a hit to the left a few cms might mean guaranteed penetration, while hitting where you hit and it doesn't penetrate.

Russia is generally very conservative when it talks about penetration performance so an armour penetrating 9mm pistol round might penetrate x amount of armour at 20m range generally it will often penetrate 50% more in practise but the figure given you can rely on for the round to penetrate cleanly and do damage to the target behind. Western figures for the same product will be 50% higher with small text saying sometimes penetration will be less or damage to target behind armour not assured.

Not suggesting Russian claims of 650mm penetration at 2km means the real penetration is 975mm (50% more)... but assuming the angle of incidence is correct it should always penetrate at least 650mm of RHA.

TMA1 wrote:Agreed. They arent magicians. The length of the apfsds and the speeds discussed can only infer a pen of about maybe 800mm RHA. seen a lot of tests using relatively modern computer programs showing apfsds penetration depths on yt. Thry are neat, but I have yet to see an enterprising lad use one of these programs in combination with the latest we know in tank armor. Im talking the steels, ceramics and fibres in the right places and in the right configurations. This might be hard to program into the software though as things like ceramic composite matrices are complex structures and I dont think many of the programs seen on yt are capable of rendering such complicated objects. I bet that kind of software is only seen on a university or government level. I do wonder if these kinds of structures greatly reduce penetration. It used to be that generally penetration stayed the same even with newer armor, it just lowered weight in the tank. Now though with rumors we hear for example in the Armata, with CCM and other materials, I wonder if it isnt just weight reduction but also penetration reduction as aell.

I will say one thing though that America does seem to have more advanced sabots for their darts. Arent they made mostly of carbon fibre? Also with a lighter sabot does it bring greater efficiency? I think it might but since Russia has gotten their longinus to speeds up around 2000 meters a second, this might not matter anyways.

Edit:added some thoughts.

You know what they say about computers: garbage in equals garbage out. Any simulation is only reflecting the limited set of assumptions and parameterizations of
physical processes. This does not mean it is a waste of time, but it is not proof of much if there are factors that produce leading order effects that are ignored.

Software here is custom models composed by researchers and nothing off the shelf. I know there are fluid dynamics packages from vendors such as Fluent. But
if you want to solve custom problems, then you write custom code. To produce parameterizations you need empirical data from field testing and laboratory
measurements. Youtube fanbois are not going to be lifelong researchers in materials science.

Heterogeneous materials are challenging to model. But with the right set of properties they can deliver much in terms of function. I am sure there is an endless
search for such useful characteristics and that any advances are top secret.

The material of sabot darts is chosen to be stiffer than the nominal target armour which is assumed to be metal. There are high speed videos showing what
happens to a bullet when it hits bullet-proof glass and it basically spreads like a liquid drop hitting the pavement. The glass is not as malleable as metal so the
metal ends up yielding and the impact energy goes into its deformation. The trick is for the more brittle glass not to shatter and fail in this manner. Once you
get into composite materials, the armour is no longer a malleable metal and the carbon fiber sabot dart does not have the advantage it had before.

The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself. When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
as lung penetrating particulate. People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU. Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
does not just go through the system. The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

DU is a hack solution.

kvs wrote:The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself.   When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
as lung penetrating particulate.  People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU.   Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
does not just go through the system.   The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

DU is a hack solution.  

Isn't aerosolized tungsten just as deadly?
White phosphorus smoke also destroys bones, but its still used. Burning rubber is highly toxic, but we still use rubber tires for APCs. DU saves lives by giving tankers an edge in destroying western tanks.

kvs wrote:The problem with DU is not just its radiation but with the toxic heavy metal itself.   When used for armour and shells it is aerosolized and spreads
as lung penetrating particulate.  People damage their health by breathing the dust from DU.   Like lead, uranium accumulates in bones and
does not just go through the system.   The residual radiation kicks in when the radioactive isotopes of this heavy metal trapped in the body
keep damaging cells from the decay emissions.

DU is a hack solution.  

Considering that it will only be used on nato filth, why sould anyone care?

The core problem with DU is that while in solid form its radiation is less dangerous that the soil in your back yard... in fact Bananas are probably more radioactive, but when used the various kinetic processes create the finest powder of DU... both kinetic penetrations and also direct reactions with steel create a super fine powder form of the DU which can be easily inhaled or ingested if you get it on your hands and then eat.

Once inside your body the atomic structure means the body mistakes it for calcium and uses it to build bones... which puts active radiation emitting particles right next to your bone marrow... which will effect not only your bodies natural defences, but DU is genotoxic... so your offspring will suffer and your life will likely be shortened and ended with cancer.

Suffice to say various researchers investigating DU were arrested and had 25mm DU rounds they recovered in Iraq after Desert Storm confiscated by men in full hazmat suits when they tried to return to the west.

The Germans decided that instead of using DU, or to give it its proper name... spent nuclear power station fuel rods shaped into darts, that Tungsten could give almost the same penetration and using a new longer barrel gun could achieve the same performance as the DU round... of course the DU round in the longer barrel also gives better performance again...

These days it probably makes more sense to use guided missile weapons that climb up and dive down on the target to hit armour from an angle it was never intended to be hit from... ie above... where the armour would be much less effective.

The upper hull armour on the Abrams is pathetic... but steeply angled... firing an RPG at the hull front from a building or the rear turret bustle would easily defeat the tank and a 2-3kg HEAT warhead would be all you needed to penetrate in either place... but then most tanks are vulnerable from above and below.