[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

NATO thinks the ballistic protection of the T-14 is >1m RHAe. Got them hot and bothered enough to invest in two oversized calibres with the full set of logistical problems associated with the move. They forgot to mention one has to get through Afghanit APS iron curtain first though. Luckily for the Russians they should have zero problems dealing with NATO APS given the prevalence of airburst fragmentation shells in the Russian armor loadout. Shoot one frag shell to destroy all external sensors including the APS, then switch to arrow shots for the coup de grace. wrote:

The new T-14 gives Russia an advantage in armored weapons even greater than in the Cold War era when they created the T-64, etc.

Russia doesn't need the T-14 just yet

It comes with significant cost disadvantages and it's untested

But if NATO comes up with a tank or AT means that can reliably destroy the T-90M, then the T-14 can rapidly be brought into production.

ALAMO wrote:
The only thing that comes to my mind is a big, box like magazine the way it was done with Black Eagle. But the thing will be monstrous.
Leclerc hosts 22 pcs into a loader while being smaller. I would expect a similar number.

It does and it has. 20 rounds occupying fully half of the turret. A massive target that can't possibly be adequately protected from the frontal arc, nevermind off-angle hits. And unlike the L2 with a main ammo reserve in the chassis the KF51 only has the bustle ammo rack. A single lucky RPG shot to the bustle and that main gun is offline.



[

Thx mate, I haven't seen that yet. The last time when I visited the Rheinmetall stand, they only had a gun model displayed.
So they are to make a ridiculously huge tank even more huge.
What a fantastic idea!
So now it will weigh how much? 80t?
Splendid!


A funny thought...
This thing will be about 1m higher than T-90M.
T-14 will be about the same height, yet the target is 1/3 the size - we talk only gun and its cover.
In theory, in open flat terrain, it can be spotted at approx. 6km, while the T-90M from less than 5km.
So only this one parameter shows us, that it can be attacked at the maximal range, not seeing the opponent yet.
That is of course only playing with line of sight, but there are several tactical situations and theatres, where the thing can matter.

Yup, the direction they are heading is just superb!

ALAMO wrote:Thx mate, I haven't seen that yet. The last time when I visited the Rheinmetall stand, they only had a gun model displayed.
So they are to make a ridiculously huge tank even more huge.
What a fantastic idea!
So now it will weigh how much? 80t?

According to Rheinmetall the combat weight is supposed to be 59t. Not nearly enough for a proper armor scheme before you remember that the main armament is a lot heavier as well. But the idea is that the onboard APS should be able to pick up the slack and protect against anti-tank munitions. A bit optimistic if you ask me.

ALAMO wrote: funny thought...
This thing will be about 1m higher than T-90M.
T-14 will be about the same height, yet the target is 1/3 the size - we talk only gun and its cover.
In theory, in open flat terrain, it can be spotted at approx. 6km, while the T-90M from less than 5km.
So only this one parameter shows us, that it can be attacked at the maximal range, not seeing the opponent yet.
That is of course only playing with line of sight, but there are several tactical situations and theatres, where the thing can matter.

If a T-14 finds itself in a suitable hull-down position its going to be practically impossible to kill with direct fire weaponry.

The best weapons against tanks, are mi28 and ka52 with vikhr or izd 305

And su34 or su25 or su25 with bombs

The best weapons against tanks are weapons they can't see coming and can do nothing at all about, so submunitions on Grad or Smerch or Uragan rockets with drones directing the attacks would be top of the list with attack helicopters destroying them at extreme range also in the list as well as vehicles on the ground launching Kornets at 8km range would be up there too.

Aircraft with submunition filled bombs fitted with glide kits would be devastating as well...

By the way, again, good luck handling an ammo shell that is 1.3m long. By hand. On the battlefield. On the move.

Not just the length, but also the weight of the round handled in the confines of the turret, the loader will need to be a weight lifter and after firing a few rounds wont be able to sustain a good rate of fire for long.

Of course nothing is invincible, but the T-14 has decades of experience and knowledge going it to its design and they have a wide variety of technologies built in to make it better protected.

I wonder if, at one stage they might decide to deploy the 152mm gun model as a long range tank destroyer for use in wide open spaces like mountains and deserts and steppes where targets can be seen at enormous ranges...

Wonder if they are experimenting with liquid propellants... would be interesting if they could design a liquid propellent that can be broken down into safer components and mixed together in the chamber before firing...

Well exactly right, the T-14 represents a whole platform, the Armata

And as a platform for rearmament and replacement of legacy vehicle designs, it has a lot of potential

But I think to start doing so in this war would be wasteful. There are no threats that warrant the initiation of such an industrial wide effort and expense. Russia needs to be cost-efficient and stick to using proven technology where possible.
By all means if NATO suddenly starts cranking out new MBTs with 130mm guns, unmanned turrets then yes; Russia will need to match them.
At the moment though they're busy trying to refurbish some Leopard 1s, so I think we're safe for the time being.

Otherwise its better to leave it until after the war. Like how after WW2 the Soviets started to get rid of their tank zoo of T-34-85s, T-44s, T-70s, IS-2s/IS-3s, the remaining KVs and BTs and so on, as well as their lend-lease tanks - in favor of just one main battle tank design in the form of the T-54, and later the T-55.

Depending on how long the war goes on for; I can definitely see Russia moving to phase out everything bar the T-90Ms post-war, and re-gearing the Uralwagonmash and perhaps Omstransmash factories to produce vehicles of the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang families instead - including their MBT variants but not only.

The Russkie are a decade ahead of the competitors, which brought the situation to the usual standard we had for a last age.
With a small and short lasting difference.

in favor of just one main battle tank design in the form of the T-54, and later the T-55.

You mean the T-54 which turned into the T-55, followed by the T-62, the T-64 and only a few years later by the T-72 and T-80?
Not to forget the "heavy" T-10 tanks. And some T-34´s were still in service in the 70´s and in reserve in the late 80´s, just like the T-10.

There are so many T-72 in service, not to mention all those BMP-2, BMP-3 and BTR-82 that it will take at least 2 decades to "get rid" of them
and replace them with the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang families.

According to Rheinmetall the combat weight is supposed to be 59t. Not nearly enough for a proper armor scheme before you remember that the main armament is a lot heavier as well. But the idea is that the onboard APS should be able to pick up the slack and protect against anti-tank munitions. A bit optimistic if you ask me.

Oh oh oh! That must be the famous Scandinavian armor. Called "paper". Impressive!

Point is, they came up with a single replacement design, and started producing it, and refused to produce anything that didn't fit that concept.
Yes some stocks of older models remained in service, some other tanks remained in reserve; but the majority were simply phased out or transferred to allies. It was all obsolete except for some niche use-cases. And it didn't happen all in a couple of years either. Rather it was a trend. Multiple families made obsolete by one family, and their fate was sealed even if it took some time.

In the same way when they came up with the T-62, they switched to production of that steadily, as it was the same concept as the T-55, only superior.
That doesn't mean though that they got rid of all their in service stocks of T-54s/55s all of a sudden. These weren't old vehicles yet even if increasingly obsolete.

And in the same way yes there are many T-72s in service still, and T-80s, as well as the BTRs and BMPs; but their resource is being used up, engines/transmission/chassis/etc.., some are getting destroyed in combat, while new models of them aren't being produced - only old reserves getting modernized.
There is production only of T-90Ms, BTR-82s and BMP-3s; but these newly produced vehicles are still a fraction of the total number of those in service. Most vehicles engaged in the Ukraine and used in the wider Russian military are either upgraded Soviet-era built ones, or date back from the Soviet-era without modernization at all.
It all depends how the war evolves. Whether it expands, whether it gets prolonged. But let's say it continues for another couple of years, with some escalation, and at the end of it all there is a new world with fresh security requirements.
Russia will probably find it has too many vehicles for its needs at this point, and that its tank/armoured vehicle pool is pretty worn down by then too. T-72s & T-80s of all stripes, certainly the T-62s, the T-64s, BMP-1/2s, BTR-80s upgraded to BTR-82 standards, MT-LBs - would all be prime to move to training units, shifted into the reserves, passed down to allies over the coming years, as a smaller number of new-gen platforms are produced to take their place.

Tank technology has to move with the times... there is nothing worse than fighting an enemy having to use an inferior tank.

The T-34 was an all round good tank but over time the enemy improved their tanks so it had to improve too... the T-34/85 was a good tank with a better turret layout and a good gun but not amazing... and not meant to be.

Just the same the T-54/55 is a good all round tank with a decent but not amazing gun and decent but not amazing armour and cheap and easy to mass produce...

The T-34 and T-54/55 and T-72 were the volume production tanks that had decent guns and decent armour for the time and good mobility because they tended to be rather lighter than their foreign equivalents.

Produced in enormous numbers they were not intended to take the enemy on alone, there were other tanks operating with them like KV-1 and T-62 and T-64/80 tanks that had better armour and/or better guns (yes I realise the KV-1 had the same or worse gun most of the time, but eventually it transformed into a JS tank with a 122mm gun.)

A good reliable easy to produce easy to operate and easy to maintain vehicle is important as a numbers tank... it can't have an unreliable engine or useless gun or weak armour...

But Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang are not tanks or BMPs or BTRs or SPAAGs, they are entire vehicle families.

Right now they have vehicle families in their tank and motor rifle divisions but the problem is that of the 26 or 27 different vehicle types they have, even where they have 4 or 5 based on BMP or BTR chassis the problem is that they might be different BMP and BTR types, so having a troop transport that is a BMP-3 and an engineer vehicle based on a BMP that sounds good, but if the engineer vehicle is a BMP-1 or BMP-2 chassis then there is no commonality advantage... different tracks, different wheels, different transmissions, different engines, different turrets... even different rear doors.

The goal is that in the future all the 27 different vehicle types and any new types like loader vehicles for SPAs, will be based on the one vehicle type the armoured unit is based on.

Developing trucks using the Boomerang chassis and engine and transmission (the engine and transmission also being used by the Kurganets based vehicles) promises maximised commonality and simplifying logistics and support... when the entire armoured unit uses one wheel type and one track type and one engine and one transmission the types of parts you need to carry to support that unit is minimised which maximises the support you can provide.

Obviously Armata units are going to be heavy and more expensive to operate than current forces and therefore might constitute perhaps 20-30% of the Russian Armoured forces, with the Kurganets and Boomerang being much larger components... the Boomerang being very mobile on good road networks and rather cheaper to operate and support being wheeled. Typhoon based light units for recon and special forces would be useful too.

It's funny how many specialists predicted that the tank is already an obsolete tool on the battlefield. Despite this, they are still used in all conflicts and developed

Supposedly working for the SMO. Also the first time the UV/IR sensors are uncovered. We just need a clearer image of the hard-kill mortars to see if they are loaded with live rounds then we can say with a high degree of certainty they have truly joined battle.

Russia is ready to share Armata technologies with India to create a modern tank, 02.14.2023, by Svetlana Tsygankova for Rossiskaya Gazeta. 

Delhi may receive technology from the Russian Armata T-14 tank. The Russian Federation is ready to share them in the development of the main battle tank for the national army of India.

This was stated by Deputy Director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Vladimir Drozhzhov at the Aero India 2023 RIA Novosti exhibition. He noted that the Russian side plans to participate in the joint development of the Indian main battle tank using modern Russian technologies in the field of tank building. Delhi is going to announce an international tender, the performance characteristics will be determined in the prepared documentation.

By the way, "RG" previously wrote that the T-14 was noticed in the special operation zone. A video of its combat training in the rear also appeared on the Web.

https://rg.ru/2023/02/14/rossiia-gotova-podelitsia-s-indiej-tehnologiiami-armaty-dlia-sozdaniia-sovremennogo-tanka.html

Current Brit view

When the T-14 Armata tank was sensationally unveiled at the 9 May Victory Day parade, in 2015, it embarrassingly broke down in front of thousands of onlookers during rehearsals. This proved an augury. Seven years later it can be stated with confidence the Armata story is over. This article explains its demise and wider implications.

The origins of T-14 Armata lie in the cancelled T-95 (Object 148). This tank, a casualty of the troubled 1990s, was finally abandoned in 2010. Conceptual vehicles with unmanned turrets had existed since the 1980s (CIA Top Secret ‘Soviet Tank Programs’, NI IIM 84-10016, 1 Dec 84 offers interesting historical perspectives on these designs). However, in the case of T-14 Armata the idea did not start from the cancelled T-95, or even a tank design, but with an engine.

Some context is necessary. All Russian tank engines, remarkably, are descended from the highly successful V-2 diesel engine designed in 1931 at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant (now destroyed by Russian forces). The V-84 (T-72s), V-92S2F (T-72B3s, T-90s), the UTD-20 (BMP-1s and BMP-2s), and UTD-29 (BMP-3s) are further upgrades of this engine. The V-2 is the Kalashnikov of tank engines. The exception to this practical Soviet approach is the T-64. This tank was fitted with the 5TDF engine, a failed attempt to copy a German wartime bomber engine. It is for this reason that the 2-3,000 T-64s in storage will never return to service.

T-14 Armata also started with a new engine: a Russian copy of the German X-shaped Simmering SLA 16 engine (also known as the Porsche Tour 212). The Russian engine was designated the A-85-3. However, Transdiesel Design Bureau did not design the engine for a tank but rather as a unit for compressor oil and gas pumping stations. It proved a flop and failed to make any sales despite repeated demonstrations at exhibitions.

Designed around the engine

By a roundabout and unclear route, Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) – Russia’s main tank manufacturer – decided to use the engine as the basis of a novel tank: the T-14 Armata. The tank was designed around the engine and not the other way round. It seemed a good idea: the A-85-3 was smaller and more powerful, if heavier, than the V-92S2F now fitted to the modern T-72B3s and T-90s. However, this decision had two important and deleterious consequences. The A-85-3 did not sell because it was complex, manifested too many problems, and was difficult to maintain. The engine needed many more run-hours to refine the design.

It is assumed UVZ was confident the problems would be rectified over time. They have not been and the A-85-3 remains a problem engine. The second consequence has followed from the size of the engine. A quick solution might have been to abandon the A-85-3 and refit T-14 Armata with the proven V-92S2F – except the latter does not fit, it is bigger. The only realistic engineering solution now is to start again. Currently, no authority appears willing to accept this reality.


In July 2021, the Russian MOD television channel TV Zvezda broadcast a documentary on T-14 Armata under its ‘Military Acceptance’ strand. The programme was filmed at the normally secretive 38th NII BTVT which celebrated its 90th anniversary last year and remains Russia’s premier armoured vehicle trials facility. A viewer of the 30-minute slot was treated to a futuristic world including rare footage of the inside of the T-14 Armata crew capsule.
T-14 Armata: a technologist’s dream tank, or nightmare? Source: Voennoye Obozreniye https://tvzvezda.ru/news/20217101156-SkKRH.html

The problem with all the gizmos is the microelectronics. Russian industry generally has been critically dependent on foreign microelectronics and associated technologies. These are no longer available due to sanctions (hence the joke Russian defence’s main supplier has become AliExpress). Captured Russian equipment such as drones reveals components are being sourced from wherever they can be found (including stolen Swedish traffic cameras in the case of the Orlan-10 UAV).

The perennial Russian problem of corruption has only worsened challenges posed by sanctions. The Volgograd Krasny Oktyabr (‘Red October’) plant which makes the armour plates for Russian tanks was declared bankrupt in 2018. Millionaire-owner Dmitry Gerasimenko is on the international wanted list for allegedly embezzling a loan of $65 million and transferring 6.2 billion roubles abroad. Such tales litter Russian industry. Since 2011, a staggering 72,000 officials have appeared before the courts on corruption charges. In 2022 alone (so much for patriotism) 60 defence industry officials and 250 public procurement officials have been prosecuted, 27 of whom were convicted of violations in the implementation of the state defence order.

Lack of an assembly line

The final, practical and mundane reason why T-14 Armata will not become a production tank is because there is no assembly line. All models to date have been assembled by hand (like luxury cars). A sum of 64 million roubles was reportedly allocated to build the assembly line. The plant shell and workshops were built but are empty. Contracts were signed but Western machine tools and other technology were never supplied due to sanctions (the same story has now unfolded with Russia’s moribund automotive industry facing an uncertain future with the departure of Western and Far Eastern car manufacturers). As many as 200 suppliers would need to be re-profiled. This will not happen now.

As relevantly, UVZ is fully engaged in sustaining the T-72B3 and T-90M assembly lines, desperately needed to replace war losses (Omsktransmash, the other tank plant, is refurbishing T-62Ms). At the time of writing, at least 1,594 tanks have been lost including 448 T-72B3-series tanks, and 37 T-90-series tanks that remain rare in Ukraine. The Russian Army started the war with 2,600 operational tanks, of which around 1,000 were ‘modern’. It took UVZ roughly a decade to produce or upgrade the ‘modern’ fleet. It will take an equally long and probably lengthier time to recover Russia’s decimated tank regiments.

T-14 Armata, in the end, proved a story of technology over-reach. ‘The fact remains that the T-14 will remain a prototype toy with no chance of mass production’, Russian defence journalist Roman Skomorokhov has sentenced. The root problem with the engine means ‘the tank moves satisfactorily only under the cover of a group of technicians and engineers’. Only one experimental company was ever formed anyway in Central Military District (CVO) and the chances it will appear on a frontline, except for propaganda purposes, are small.

More than a novel tank is lost. In June 2015, The Royal United Services institute (RUSI) hosted an event on Armata, presented by the knowledgeable Ukrainian Igor Sutyagin. The talks highlighted the programme was about a family of ‘Armata’ vehicles (T-15 heavy IFV, T-16 BREM-T ARRV, K-25 Kurganets and others). It is highly unlikely any of these projects will now proceed in the near/mid-term or at all. The future looks much like the out-dated Soviet past. As a final blow T-14 Armata’s improved 2A82-IM 125mm cannon – an undeniable upgrade on comparatively under-gunned Russian tanks – will not serve on T-90M. The breech block doesn’t fit.

https://wavellroom.com/2023/02/10/armata-the-story-is-over/

Does the author have some prizes in retardness contest ?

Does the author have some prizes in retardness contest ?

Probably but, as you might expect from a well written piece, it is being lapped up by the semi knowledgeable.


Sergio Miller

Sergio Miller is a retired British Army Intelligence Corps officer. He was a regular contributor and book reviewer for British Army Review. He is the author of a two-part history of the Vietnam War (Osprey/Bloomsbury) and is currently drafting a history of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The craziest part is, that this kind of shitty dogfood is being served to all of us on a daily basis.
And they don't even blink ashamed.

There is other part even more drugs driven.

UVZ is the planet's biggest tank producer. Never ceased to operate, and for the entire 90s, 00s, 10s was pumping out the tanks like popcorn baskets.
They have produced more tasks than all the other countries on the planet altogether, China included.
T-14 platform is just another vehicle they put on the production line.
How some mythical "western supplied tools" can be needed to produce a fukin tank, they have produced at a 300-400 per year rate?
The whole thing is getting irrational. They are really at a moment, when they figure things out, being sure it will work in their metafukinsphere. Winnie the Pooh was putting a head into a jar, as a solution for all the things he didn't like.
Well, they are on the same trajectory.

At the time of writing, at least 1,594 tanks have been lost including 448 T-72B3-series tanks, and 37 T-90-series tanks that remain rare in Ukraine.

We should recognise that these are the figures that are pumped out by Kiev and their no doubt well funded independent verification agencies, with a photo of nearly every one. So are believed by everyone in politics/news organisation etc in the West as they must be true.

When the T-14 Armata tank was sensationally unveiled at the 9 May Victory Day parade, in 2015, it embarrassingly broke down in front of thousands of onlookers during rehearsals.

And the new British tank... the British Invented tanks you know... it will be reliable and cheap and imaginary.

An inexperienced driver stalled the engine and failed to follow procedure to restart the engine so the electronics system refused to start the engine.

Lets now turn this into... the engine is unreliable and they can't go back to the old engine because it wont fit.

The British have always been very good at writing stories... mostly making up bullshit to cover their crimes around the world for the last few centuries, but this is really amusing.

The Su-57 was cancelled several times too.

The stuff about electronics not being made in Russia... well I have a Dell computer and none of the parts inside are made in the US... go figure...

The problem with all the gizmos is the microelectronics.

If it was British or German or American it would be filled with all the latest and best technology, but because it is Russian the technology is derided as gizmos...

What a cock sucker this wanker is.

Captured Russian equipment such as drones reveals components are being sourced from wherever they can be found (including stolen Swedish traffic cameras in the case of the Orlan-10 UAV).

Keep repeating lies and eventually no one will notice they are lies...

This guy is super butt hurt his country is supporting nazis... what some call a well written piece... I see as a copy and paste of western propaganda through the ages about every Soviet and Russian weapon or piece of equipment ever.

The butthurt is amusing.

Sure it wasn't Sergeant Mueller?

I guess if he doesn't tow the line to fight the commies and support the Bosch he wont get any more work... well... whores have their price don't they.