Sorry I thought that might be the right one
Interesting pictures anyway... thanks for posting them.
***Thanks for that and for sharing with us your knowledge.
This is all subject to change of course with any new information, but it is as clear a picture as I can make with the info available.
****Can't agree with you on that.
And we can discuss it of course and at the end of that discussion we don't have to agree that one or the other is right and therefore the other is wrong because there is no right or wrong when it comes to tank design for the most part.
The Israelis has the most protected tank in the world and his name is Merkava.
They claim to have the best protected tank but there is no independent confirmation one way or the other.
Keep in mind that the Merkava has a manned turret. Armata has an external gun and no people in the turret.
The heaviest armour on a modern MBT is the front of the turret, which has been found to be the most common place for a tank to be hit.
The Armata can dispense with heavy armour on its turret as there are no crew or ammo to protect above the turret ring.
Below the turret ring there is lots of ammo but no crew so a side penetration from the middle to the rear of the Armata will not kill or injure the crew either.
The design of the Armata is for all the heaviest armour protection to be around the very front area where the three crew sit... the point is that with three crew in the front hull if you wanted to put an engine there then you move the turret to the rear and put the crew in the centre of the vehicle which means a much larger area of roof for the engine and crew... which would be vulnerable to top attack weapons and require the heavy armour to be extended back to cover both the engine and the crew.
The engine itself is not made of armour strength/Armour hard metals so as an armour it is not very effective.
More importantly it runs very very hot and has lots of tubes with fuel and oil running through it that can easily catch fire.
The Russians have analysed their own experiences in combat and have said publicly that there will be front and rear engined versions of the Armata. The Tank version with an unmanned turret is very unlikely to have a front mounted engine unless the crew are in the very rear of the vehicle under fairly thin armour... unless you are suggesting all round heavy armour which would be very very inefficient and result in a 90 ton tank.
Thin armour at the front with the engine with the turret in the middle and the crew at the rear under the heaviest armour wouldn't work either as thin front armour with an engine behind it would be as weak as thin rear armour with an engine in front of it.
In terms of protection of the crew I think the Armata will be better protected than the Merkava, because from the front the Merkava has heavy frontal armour and then an engine, then driver then turret and then storage space for ammo or men or empty space and then medium rear armour... which means from the back there is not so much between the incoming penetrator and the crew, with the crew spread in the hull and turret.
With Armata it will have heavy frontal armour with an armoured capsule with three crew side by side (front and back armour protection separating crew from ammo and fuel0, then the turret then at the back the engine and then the rear armour.
Add the usual ERA and APS as well as things like Shtora that is a passive protection system and I think the use of the front engined version is not needed for the tank or Coalition.
It's not easy for a wounded soldier to get himself out trough the hatch in the roof of the turret, and if they can't do that, you know what will happen, and that's without talking about enemy fire.
The Armata will be surrounded by vehicles with similar levels of firepower and armour protection.
The three crew in the Armata all sit side by side and can help each other to get out if necessary.
Hope you understand my point.
I am not saying you are wrong, I merely am pointing out reasons they chose not to do it the way Israel decided to do it. Doesn't mean the Merkava is bad or the Armata is perfect, or vice versa.
The reality is that it doesn't matter what you do the enemy will always try to find a weak point and exploit it.
The Russian solution likely has a seriously steep frontal armour angle that has the frontal armour glacis covering the top of the crew seating area so the frontal armour acts as both frontal and roof armour so the threat to the crew from top attack weapons is minimised as there are not many top attack munitions that can penetrate frontal armour with ERA on top.
Obviously you would expect they will have an APS system modified to deal with top attack weapons and of course soft kill systems like Shtora and Nakidka will also be used to maximise protection.
One more question, I like the RWS with the 14.5 mm HMG on the roof of the Taifun, and don't understand why the T-90 don't have it.
Based on what I have read the choice to use the PKT was a combination of increased ammo capacity and reduced vibration, and a change in tactics. There is a rumour that in addition to a 125mm gun the Armata will also have a 30mm cannon in an external mount to deal with helicopters and other aircraft and other targets previously engaged with the 12.7mm gun. This means any small remote control gun setup just needs to deal with very close range elusive targets that tanks so often have trouble dealing with.
Hense the PKT on the T-90AM doesn't elevate particularly high... something like 40-45 degrees, but offers a good field of view and is largely slaved to the commanders panoramic sight so what he is looking at he can pretty much shoot at straight away.
(note they describe the Armata as a combination of features from the T-95 and the Black Eagle, now the T-95 is believed to have had a 30mm cannon fitted).
Also note that while most helicopter launched ATGMs these days outrange a 30mm cannon, with Nakidka and clever tactics like hiding in buildings the opportunities to shoot back would generally be quite good... especially as with modern Thermals the Tank will most likely see the helo before the helo sees the tank...
With a PKT they could probably have a 2,000 round belt of ammo, but with 14.5mm then they would probably only carry perhaps 300-500 rounds though I think you will agree they are significantly more powerful...