Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:42 pm

    Just some question

    1 ) What is the advantage of not having crew inside the turret and have an unmanned turret ?
    2 ) The way i look at it is if they have crew inside the chassis they would be constrained by space as they would have very little space for LCD , Weapons control and comfort.

    Putting crew inside the turret would have given them huge space plus would have put the crew inside the most toughest part of armour now with crew being protected by chassis so close to each other i.e. 3 in row any hit in front of chassis will disable all 3 crews.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:41 pm


    it will be a low rcs target when it faces AntiTank choppers with radar like AH-64D


    The most interesting gain will be a the strategic and division level point of view : in particular entire categories of assets designed to monitor evolution and composition of ground force's fronts and vector of attack will be rendered suddenly totally obsoletes (even only Nakidka would be almost capable to reach a similar game changing result at the strategic level ,if a serious military crysis would require the employment of today stock).

    Typical AH-64D with AN/APG-78 is capable to detect a moving MBT at a maximum range of 8 km

    http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/AN-APG-78-Longbow-fire-control-radar-United-States.html



    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/longbow-fcr-and-longbow-hellfire-missile/mfc-longbow-fcr-pc.pdf


    Even only Nakidka multispectral dissipating suit (thanks also to the synergetic reinforcing effect with the normal ground clutter) would be more than sufficient to put a similar helicopter vastly within engagement range of even only MBT's main gun with Ainet detonation-programmed rounds (to don't talk of Invar/InvarM....), therefore the gain obtained by that new generation of ground vehicles against those type of battlefield "counters" would be at best redundant.

    The aim is ,obviously to reduce of a pair of order of magnitude area of monitor and coverage of space based and air based strategic level radar sensors and immensely reduce range of detection of today and perspective SAR-type of radar ; the vehicles usually carrying similar sensors lack obviously both the space , the maximum allowed weight ,the energy level and the heat dispersion capabilities to having any chance to mount long range ,sophisticated radars in the long wave band necessary to overcome similar RCS reducing features (like happen instead without any problem or limits for theirs ground based counterparts).

    A move very difficult to overcome with technical solutions internal to the radar field which will ,very likely, force the entire enemy's air-based sensor structure ,(to the strategical and tactical level) at rely mostly upon IR based sensors anyhow limited by atmospheric conditions and almost uncapable against ground vehicles which ,to the contrary of airborn ones, are very often motionless ).


    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:46 pm

    Austin wrote: Just some question

    1 ) What is the advantage of not having crew inside the turret and have an unmanned turret ?
    2 ) The way i look at it is if they have crew inside the chassis they would be constrained by space as they would have very little space for LCD , Weapons control and comfort.

    Putting crew inside the turret would have given them huge space plus would have put the crew inside the most toughest part of armour now with crew being protected by chassis so close to each other i.e. 3 in row any hit in front of chassis will disable all 3 crews.

    1) Well, it makes it easier to change turret modules. It may take less than a few hours of down time and a crane to remove an assault gun turret module and replace it with a pantsir module. It also increases survivability, as it isolates the crew from the ammunition. The big advantage is that it makes the tank lighter as there is less interior space that needs to be covered with armor.

    2) Space, comfort? It's a war machine, not a vacation home. Laughing
    The digital systems are much smaller than the old analogue equipment, there should be plenty of room.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:23 pm

    Crew less turret makes the vehicle way less vulnerable as a whole. Aside from obvious weight+ vollume advantages, a penetrating hit on the turret will kill no crew, might not even disable response capability of vehicle.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:30 pm

    Call it an Urban fighting vehicle, tank support vehicle, fire support vehicle, convoy protection vehicle or whatever. To me, when it looks like a tank, and it walk like a tank, and it quacks like a tank....

    But the problem there is that every vehicle in a heavy brigade will be on an Armata chassis.

    A layman would call MSTA 2S19 self propelled artillery a tank... it looks like a tank... but it most certainly isn't.

    If this vehicle has a rifled 120mm gun I very much doubt it will be a high velocity 120mm like the British MBT gun... this will be a medium pressure weapon designed to fire a range of custom designed shells and mortar bombs like VENA.

    This main gun is just one step above the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 and you wouldn't call a BMP-3 a tank would you?

    So its certain that Armata Tank will have remote controlled/unmanned Turret from UVZ

    Even T-95 had an unmanned turret. The concept from early on was to locate the crew under the heaviest frontal hull armour and have an unmanned remote turret.


    But the new design from Omsk which is a BMPT class will have similar unmanned turret.

    Likely most of the new vehicles will have unmanned turrets... especially those with significant guns because there is no point in having a MBT with its ammo separated from its crew if all your BMPs have crew in turrets full of HE ammo where a penetration will kill the whole platoon. Separate crew from ammo and fuel applies to all vehicles.

    This new design looks too underpowered to be a BMPT even the present BMPT is too heavily armed. This one looks more like tank then BMPT

    The concept is that all vehicles in an Armata brigade (ie a heavy brigade) need to have similar levels of protection and mobility... if you have to send the tanks ahead because your IFVs will get destroyed because it is too dangerous then you are splitting up your force which weakens it greatly. That is not to say you can lead an attack with your air defence vehicles or mortar carriers, but a BMPT by definition will not be fighting enemy tanks... it will fight enemy infantry units and in many ways this new design actually approximates the armament I suggested a while ago.

    The difference is that they have come up with better armament... I suggested the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 for direct fire cheap HE firepower that can smash light bunkers yet can carry more ready to use ammo than 4 guided anti tank missiles. I also suggested that the two 30mm cannon be replaced with something firing at a higher rate to make it more effective against air targets but also more shock value against ground targets. And the 40mm grenade launcher was also my idea as low velocity HE rounds that can be dropped into shell scrapes and trenches or between buildings are useful too... it is notmal to get behind cover, but proper overhead cover is often much harder to achieve.

    So the "tank" shown appears to play a role akin to the Vena (Firepower flexibility, in having a gun for both direct and indirect roles) as well as that of the BMP-T? Though interestingly, what happened to the twin barrled Koalitsiya?

    This vehicle might possibly take on the roles of both Mortar carrier and BMPT, though I don't think it would have all the indirect fire control systems and equipment to fully fulfil that role. I would suspect a dedicated mortar carrier with the same main gun and perhaps RWS for a MG or light grenade launcher for close protection and a lot more main gun ammo would still be worth it so it can focus on its job. Having dual use vehicles might lead to the over use of the vehicle in one role which leaves a gap when a vehicle is needed in the other role.

    Koalition is still going forward though to allow it to be air transported I suspect it might lose a gun to make the turret smaller. The Koalition replaces MSTA 2S19 and no 120mm rifled mortar/shell firing weapon can replace a 152mm gun firing much heavier shells to 80km range...


    The main benefit I see is that the Support Armata (easier to describe) possesses more fire power compared to the BMP-T, but will it possess the same troop carrying capabilities..? Or did i confuse the bmp-t with the btr-t

    BMPT... old or armata don't carry troops... they are tank support vehicles. BTR-T is the troop transport.



    On looking closer, I do suspect that the actual gun might be a low velocity 152mm, perhaps with interchangability with the 120mm gun thru gun rings, to suit the situation. So in certain scenarios, where the koalitsiya system might be a disadvantage, (huge size makes it vulnerable when on mountain sides and such, also serves as a priority target by enemies), this system warrants the same level of firepower as a conventional artillery piece, where in its gun elevation would prove useful in mountainous regions as well urban fighting, essentially the "tank's" gun playing more of a mortar compared to the koalitsiya's howitzers. You reduce the range, but your higher trajectory allows for far greater firepower,as well as less affeced by terrain.

    The first part of the barrel has a large cover, the gun itself is described as a rifled 120mm gun. I would think that considering the standard tank vehicle was designed with a 152mm gun but fitted with a 125mm gun that this vehicle could probably also take on a bigger gun, but I would expect the 120mm shells and mortar bombs are enough for the job at hand.

    It have tank type main gun in a turret with similar elevation capabilities as other tanks.

    It makes no sense to make a tank with a 120mm rifled gun. There is no advantage to having a 120mm rifled gun and a 125mm smoothbore unless they are completely different weapons for completely different purposes.

    If the 120mm rifled gun is just the same gun or developed gun from the Vena then it makes perfect sense that this is a BMPT... the gun would not have the velocity to be a tank gun... just like the Vena is not a Sprut.

    It only seems, they replace 12,7 mm AD machine gun with remotely controlled Gatling gun, be it AK-306 or GSh-23-6, with higher elevation, what make tank better for defending against targets in higher positions like on hills or in urban environment. This gun is not independent, so it have to move he whole turret for horizontal tracking, what could mean it use the same FCS as the main gun. If the radar over the barrel is not only for speed measuring, but also to detect targets (Credo type?), than Gatling gun could also be used as defense against top attack ATGMs like Javelin and Spike. Considering turret is unmanned, Gatling gun could have enough ammo to operate against such treats.

    Sorry, but the idea that the gatling gun means this is a CIWS system simply doesn't make sense. If it was then why not attach the weapon to the rear of the turret in a fully stabilised 360 degree mount?

    I think they went for a single gatling for rate of fire... in other words very short bursts of 5 shells at fleeting ground targets or aerial targets with longer bursts. They put a gatling gun there so they could get away with one gun instead of the two they would need for a rate of fire of 5,000-6,000 rpm.

    1 ) What is the advantage of not having crew inside the turret and have an unmanned turret ?
    2 ) The way i look at it is if they have crew inside the chassis they would be constrained by space as they would have very little space for LCD , Weapons control and comfort.

    The gun turret needs the gun, and in this case the stabilising systems and sensors and of course ammo. By taking the crew out of the turret there is more space for ammo and sensors.

    By steeply sloping the frontal armour there is plenty of space in the hull... the extra wheel means longer hull and even more space and at the same time a more steeply sloped frontal armour array that is both front and roof armour for the crew.

    By having the crew all sitting side by side with unified displays and controls any one of them could drive the vehicle or fire the gun or command, so for normal operations one could sleep and the driver and commander can move the vehicle around or keep a lookout. When under fire of course all crew would be awake, but they can change roles without shifting position.

    If an enemy can penetrate the front hull armour to get to the crew then good luck to them. Anti spall liners and of course vests and helmets and other protection should save the crew unless the penetrator actually happens to go through them physically they will be no worse off than in any other tank in that regard. In fact they will be safer low down in the hull.

    Putting crew inside the turret would have given them huge space plus would have put the crew inside the most toughest part of armour now with crew being protected by chassis so close to each other i.e. 3 in row any hit in front of chassis will disable all 3 crews.

    A big turret with crew in it is a big target. A longer hull is better protected and safer.

    Even only Nakidka multispectral dissipating suit (thanks also to the synergetic reinforcing effect with the normal ground clutter) would be more than sufficient to put a similar helicopter vastly within engagement range of even only MBT's main gun with Ainet detonation-programmed rounds (to don't talk of Invar/InvarM....), therefore the gain obtained by that new generation of ground vehicles against those type of battlefield "counters" would be at best redundant.

    Importantly too in this duel between helo and tank is that the modern thermals in a tank can detect a helo at very long range though heat and movement of the main rotors and tail rotor.

    Even hiding behind a tree a huge engine plume coming out from the top of a tree suggests there is a helo behind it...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:40 pm

    Does someone have a list of current and future 120mm ammo compatible with this gun?

    If this had guided shells, it could be a major threat to ANY foreign MBT out there when top attack capability is considered.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:56 pm


    1 ) What is the advantage of not having crew inside the turret and have an unmanned turret ?


    - Vastly reduced target area in the turret which, being statistically and by far the most common hit of MBT by part of enemy HEAT, APFSDS, ATGM and RPG, will significantly degrate average number of hit on the platform in mobile engagements (the msot crucial between advanced opponents...)

    - Will reduce significantly MBT vulnerability to top attack weapons , in facts the internal volume by now occupied by an human operator force, factlly, the designer to enormously reduce armour thickness and composition in manned turrets.

    - Strongly shorten in-field times of repair of damaged tanks ( with even substitution of whole turret module becoming perfectly practicable !).

    - Strongly aid designers at shape turret (the main RCS contribuitor in a MBT) in the most advantageous way "stealth-wise", and to offer the best geometry against enemy chemical or kinetics penetrators.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:22 am

    Does someone have a list of current and future 120mm ammo compatible with this gun?

    If this had guided shells, it could be a major threat to ANY foreign MBT out there when top attack capability is considered.

    I really doubt this new gun would be a high velocity tank gun... if it were then why not just fit the existing 125mm smoothbore gun that is already in service and not introduce a new calibre.

    The only logical conclusion is that this is not a new calibre and the existing guns firing 120mm rounds are 120mm mortars and 120mm gun/mortars as fitted to Vena and Nona.

    This would mean that logically this weapon should be able to fire standard 120mm mortar rounds (including NATO ammo) as well as the special variable propellent shells developed for Vena. The guided diving top attack guided round is called Gran, though new rounds could have been developed too.

    The main point however is that if this weapon really is a replacement for the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and 120mm gun/mortar then it will not be used primarily against armour. There will be plenty of vehicles within the unit carrying Kornet-EM or 125mm smoothbore guns that could kill tanks at much greater ranges more efficiently.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 am

    I don't expect it to be comparable to the British L30 gun either.

    I never knew about GRAN until now, it seems like a very promising round for this AFV. It has a 9km range when fired from a rifled barrel, and enough power to punch through modern MBTs roofs. The more I learn about this AFV, the more I'm impressed about the design decisions, it will nicely fit into the BMPT roll if it's selected by the army.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:25 am

    The extra barrel length might improve flight range even further than is standard from a 120mm mortar, which has a much shorter barrel than this new gun seems to carry.

    According to my information the Vena with its 120mm gun can also fire the Kitolov-2M which has a range of 12km.

    I would rather expect with a new gun they might have new ammo as well.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:38 am

    Thanks Garry Mindstorm for responding.

    So the Armata , Boomerang and Kurganets will all work in the concept of Unmanned Turrets and 3 crew sitting side by side ?

    Also they have sorted the issue of Engine in back rather than in front ?

    BTW why are they going for 45 and 57 mm Gun , BMP-3 has 30 mm and 100 mm Gun , so they will go for just single 57 mm or 45 mm gun in new BMP or BTR ,downgrading it from 100 mm ?


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:17 am

    If you look at the model photos the engines in the Kurganets and Boomerang seem to be in the front on the right, so very much like on the BMP-1 and 2.

    The vehicles with heavy weapons like 120mm mortars or 125mm guns will have ammo in the turret floor so the turret needs to be separated from the crew compartment.

    A light BTR type vehicle with perhaps 50 cal HMG armament could probably get away with seating troops under the turret ring, but ideally yes... empty turrets... especially Koalition.

    For the troop carriers with a 45mm gun turret fitted all the ammo for the weapons in the turret will be in the turret and it will be separate from the front crew compartment and the rear troop compartment.

    By the looks of it only Armata will have rear engined versions for tanks and artillery vehicles, while the IFV will have a front mounted engine to allow rear ramp access for troops.

    We have seen the BTR=T and the BMO-T and there will likely be Armata versions though with the engines in the front these vehicles will have much easier and quicker rear ramp access.

    BTW why are they going for 45 and 57 mm Gun , BMP-3 has 30 mm and 100 mm Gun , so they will go for just single 57 mm or 45 mm gun in new BMP or BTR ,downgrading it from 100 mm ?

    The requirements for the armament of a BMP was to be able to defend itself from tanks, but primarily to be able to engage its equivalents and to engage hard and soft targets.

    The BMP-1 had an ATGM to defend itself from tanks but because it took 300-400m to gather the missile in the sights it needed a main gun that could take out tanks. At the time the main US tank was the M60 and the 73mm gun they selected for the BMP-1 was chosen because it filled that 400m gap where a tank could not be hit with the ATGM reliably.
    When the BMP-2 was introduced the new AT-4 and AT-5 had minimum ranges of 70m or less so there was no longer any need for the main gun to kill tanks, so they went for a 30mm cannon which could rip M113s to shreds and was also useful against light aircraft and a range of other targets.
    When the BMP-3 was developed it was realised that the BMP-2 complimented the BMP-1 rather than replaced it... it was found that the extra HE power of the BMP-1s 73mm gun was useful in some situations while the 30mm gun was useful in other situations.
    The result was the BMP-3 with a dedicated 100mm rifled gun with a big HE shell able to destroy significant objects like walls or bunkers, plus a 30mm cannon which was useful against light vehicles and even medium vehicles.

    The two different weapon types complimented each other, and the 100mm gun allowed anti tank missiles to be fired from the main gun rather than mucking around opening the hatch to load them on an external launcher.
    The upgraded BMP-2 has the ATGMs externally mounted ready to fire.

    The new vehicle with a 45mm gun or a 57mm gun should be able to deal with enemy IFVs in the 25-35 ton range and the calibre is big enough to have a much larger HE content.

    100mm and 30mm complimented each other but 45/57mm would be a good compromise with very high velocity anti armour rounds and HE power in a single weapon.

    It would be likely that they would add Kornet EM launchers to the vehicle IMHO and of course the troops inside will likely have an Igla-S gripstock or Metis-M1 too.

    Very simply the 45/57mm should be able to do the job of a 30mm and a 100mm all in one, though as I say above a Kornet-EM launcher would be useful and a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful as well as its low velocity steep curved trajectory would allow the engagement of targets on dead ground (ie dead ground means ground hidden from view by higher ground closer to you.)

    Keep in mind that the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 did have a heavy projectile but it only had a range of 7km.

    I would expect a good 57mm HE round to be effective to about 12km against ground targets.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    marcellogo
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 44
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  marcellogo on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:14 pm

    Crew needed to stay in turret because they had previously to look directly in tank optic to operate, thus as the personnel is by far the most valuable and in mean time vulnerable part in a tank that obliged to protect the turret even more than the front hull.

    So has weapon effectiveness grew up, also protection had to be increased up to reach actual 60+ ton behemots.
    Now ,with the large array of top attack weapons available also that protection lvl would be enought as they can hit the weak turret and hull roof.

    With putting all the crew in the hull(something make possible by the availability of flat screen and hi-res digital cameras) the vulnerable space is greatly reduced and it is now perfectly affordable as it only needs to uparmour the frontal hull roof alone against top attacks and not also the whole turret.

    Russian designers seems to me to have dedicated a lot of effort on those problem: they still kept a turret (or better a turret like structure) instead of a simple gun pod.
    Frankly i don't think those structure to be as protected like a regular turret, probably only the gun mount is heavily protected but worked as they are they can still stop a 30mm round, make tank AP round tumble before they reach the gun mount and obviously make also prematurely detonate top attack missiles before they can reach the crew situated in the far end of front hull.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:01 am

    Crew needed to stay in turret because they had previously to look directly in tank optic to operate, thus as the personnel is by far the most valuable and in mean time vulnerable part in a tank that obliged to protect the turret even more than the front hull.

    The turret gave a tank more flexibility... you could shoot in one direction and move in a different direction as an example. The commander generally took a position in the turret because the visibility from his hatch up in the turret was unobstructed and much better than from the hull. The loader had to be near the gun to load it, so it made sense to put the gunner next to the gun too... because there was room and he could look through telescopic sights aligned with the gun to aim it.

    A modern tank with an autoloader doesn't need a loader. The gunner doesn't need to physically look down a telescope mounted next to the main gun. The commander still needs a good view around the vehicle... but these days uses magnifying optics and night vision equipment to find targets and then digital stabilised video to identify the target.

    With modern electronics the feed from several cameras including those in UAVs orbiting above should allow a realtime view to be stitched together to create a virtual view around the tank that is unimpeded by the turret or smoke and dust etc etc.

    It is a challange but what they are saying is that they think they can give the commander the same or better view from inside the hull, but it will be safer in the hull.

    On a conventional tank design the commander looks for targets... hopefully with a 360 degree panoramic camera, while the gunner has a more restricted view of a sight aligned with the gun. This means that the job of the commander is to look for threats and targets. When a target is found the commander will press a button and the whole turret will turn to align the main gun with the target and the commander who will have lased the target will tell the gunner the range to the target. The gunner will find his crosshairs on the target and the range to the target inputted into the ballistic computer. The commander might decide on the round to be used or leave it up to the gunner... either way a round is selected and loaded and the gunner engages the target while the commander keeps a search for any threats or other targets. When the gunner is ready to fire he will say so and then the commander will give the command to fire.

    If another target appears and the commander spots it he might order a hold fire new target and he will push a button and the turret will turn and align the gun on the new target. This will often happen if the old target was perhaps a group of infantry 6km away, but the new target is a threat like an ATGM team 4,000m away or an enemy tank.
    The urgency of a threat means the commander will designate the target and order to fire when ready, which means once the target is in range the gunner will fire immediately.

    The point is that to do a good job the commander needs a good view all round and without that you can't put them in the hull.

    Clearly the Russians believe they have solved the situation awareness problem.

    Because of the way tank crews work a tank in combat will often be hit in the turret front because the turret is turned towards the most dangerous threats like vehicles that are firing at you.

    In most modern Tank designs this means that the thickest armour is generally the front turret area... not to protect the gun, but to protect the two or three crew in the turret.

    By moving the crew to the front hull that armour can be made thicker and steeply sloped for maz protection but weight can be saved by making the turret both smaller and lighter.

    Now ,with the large array of top attack weapons available also that protection lvl would be enought as they can hit the weak turret and hull roof.

    Keep in mind that many top attack munitions have terminal guidance based on TV or IR sensors that all could be defeated by DIRCMs. In fact the best way to defeat Javelin is Nakidka because without an initial lock on the tank it can't be fired in diving top attack fire and forget mode and has to be wire guided.

    With putting all the crew in the hull(something make possible by the availability of flat screen and hi-res digital cameras) the vulnerable space is greatly reduced and it is now perfectly affordable as it only needs to uparmour the frontal hull roof alone against top attacks and not also the whole turret.

    Not only that but all three crew sitting side by side means better communication, and the virtual view of the space around the vehicle means that any of the crew can be driver or gunner or commander without changing seats, and in low intensity situations you could operate with just two crew awake and one resting... so if something happens and everyone needs to be alert you are not all exhausted because you couldn't change seats and only the gunner got some rest...

    Russian designers seems to me to have dedicated a lot of effort on those problem: they still kept a turret (or better a turret like structure) instead of a simple gun pod.
    Frankly i don't think those structure to be as protected like a regular turret, probably only the gun mount is heavily protected but worked as they are they can still stop a 30mm round, make tank AP round tumble before they reach the gun mount and obviously make also prematurely detonate top attack missiles before they can reach the crew situated in the far end of front hull.

    Think about a full sized normal turret. Most of the vulnerable spaces are the cavities occupied by the crew, so the only point in hitting the turret on purpose was to kill the crew. The chance of actually hitting the gun or the autoloader was very low.

    With a new unmanned turret all the live main gun ammo is stored below the turret ring level in a protected autoloader so hitting the turret wont effect that. Above the turret ring you can have all sorts of things like the base for RWS as well as sensors and equipment to detect threats around the tank.

    A nice feature of the old ARENA was that the munitions could be launched upwards and fired down to intercept incoming missiles, but it could also be manually fired to engage enemy infantry that got close to the vehicle.
    I would assume a panoramic sight will likely be fitted as will a 30cal MG so the commander can shoot what he sees and there are likely a few other things in the turret above the turret ring level that could be fitted.

    At the end of the day if an enemy tank fires a round through the turret... in the front and out the rear... it might cut a few cables and might even disable a RWS, but it has wasted a shot and now it is your turn to fire back and when you get a frontal turret hit there is going to be much more effect.

    The enemy could just as easily shoot for the vehicles tracks to disable them... the point is that if they are shooting they want to be shooting to kill and a hit to the turret wont achieve that.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    marcellogo
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 44
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  marcellogo on Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Crew needed to stay in turret because they had previously to look directly in tank optic to operate, thus as the personnel is by far the most valuable and in mean time vulnerable part in a tank that obliged to protect the turret even more than the front hull.

    The turret gave a tank more flexibility... you could shoot in one direction and move in a different direction as an example. The commander generally took a position in the turret because the visibility from his hatch up in the turret was unobstructed and much better than from the hull. The loader had to be near the gun to load it, so it made sense to put the gunner next to the gun too... because there was room and he could look through telescopic sights aligned with the gun to aim it.

    A modern tank with an autoloader doesn't need a loader. The gunner doesn't need to physically look down a telescope mounted next to the main gun. The commander still needs a good view around the vehicle... but these days uses magnifying optics and night vision equipment to find targets and then digital stabilised video to identify the target.

    With modern electronics the feed from several cameras including those in UAVs orbiting above should allow a realtime view to be stitched together to create a virtual view around the tank that is unimpeded by the turret or smoke and dust etc etc.

    It is a challange but what they are saying is that they think they can give the commander the same or better view from inside the hull, but it will be safer in the hull.

    On a conventional tank design the commander looks for targets... hopefully with a 360 degree panoramic camera, while the gunner has a more restricted view of a sight aligned with the gun. This means that the job of the commander is to look for threats and targets. When a target is found the commander will press a button and the whole turret will turn to align the main gun with the target and the commander who will have lased the target will tell the gunner the range to the target. The gunner will find his crosshairs on the target and the range to the target inputted into the ballistic computer. The commander might decide on the round to be used or leave it up to the gunner... either way a round is selected and loaded and the gunner engages the target while the commander keeps a search for any threats or other targets. When the gunner is ready to fire he will say so and then the commander will give the command to fire.

    If another target appears and the commander spots it he might order a hold fire new target and he will push a button and the turret will turn and align the gun on the new target. This will often happen if the old target was perhaps a group of infantry 6km away, but the new target is a threat like an ATGM team 4,000m away or an enemy tank.
    The urgency of a threat means the commander will designate the target and order to fire when ready, which means once the target is in range the gunner will fire immediately.

    The point is that to do a good job the commander needs a good view all round and without that you can't put them in the hull.

    Clearly the Russians believe they have solved the situation awareness problem.

    Because of the way tank crews work a tank in combat will often be hit in the turret front because the turret is turned towards the most dangerous threats like vehicles that are firing at you.

    In most modern Tank designs this means that the thickest armour is generally the front turret area... not to protect the gun, but to protect the two or three crew in the turret.

    By moving the crew to the front hull that armour can be made thicker and steeply sloped for maz protection but weight can be saved by making the turret both smaller and lighter.

    Now ,with the large array of top attack weapons available also that protection lvl would be enought as they can hit the weak turret and hull roof.

    Keep in mind that many top attack munitions have terminal guidance based on TV or IR sensors that all could be defeated by DIRCMs. In fact the best way to defeat Javelin is Nakidka because without an initial lock on the tank it can't be fired in diving top attack fire and forget mode and has to be wire guided.

    With putting all the crew in the hull(something make possible by the availability of flat screen and hi-res digital cameras) the vulnerable space is greatly reduced and it is now perfectly affordable as it only needs to uparmour the frontal hull roof alone against top attacks and not also the whole turret.

    Not only that but all three crew sitting side by side means better communication, and the virtual view of the space around the vehicle means that any of the crew can be driver or gunner or commander without changing seats, and in low intensity situations you could operate with just two crew awake and one resting... so if something happens and everyone needs to be alert you are not all exhausted because you couldn't change seats and only the gunner got some rest...

    Russian designers seems to me to have dedicated a lot of effort on those problem: they still kept a turret (or better a turret like structure) instead of a simple gun pod.
    Frankly i don't think those structure to be as protected like a regular turret, probably only the gun mount is heavily protected but worked as they are they can still stop a 30mm round, make tank AP round tumble before they reach the gun mount and obviously make also prematurely detonate top attack missiles before they can reach the crew situated in the far end of front hull.

    Think about a full sized normal turret. Most of the vulnerable spaces are the cavities occupied by the crew, so the only point in hitting the turret on purpose was to kill the crew. The chance of actually hitting the gun or the autoloader was very low.

    With a new unmanned turret all the live main gun ammo is stored below the turret ring level in a protected autoloader so hitting the turret wont effect that. Above the turret ring you can have all sorts of things like the base for RWS as well as sensors and equipment to detect threats around the tank.

    A nice feature of the old ARENA was that the munitions could be launched upwards and fired down to intercept incoming missiles, but it could also be manually fired to engage enemy infantry that got close to the vehicle.
    I would assume a panoramic sight will likely be fitted as will a 30cal MG so the commander can shoot what he sees and there are likely a few other things in the turret above the turret ring level that could be fitted.

    At the end of the day if an enemy tank fires a round through the turret... in the front and out the rear... it might cut a few cables and might even disable a RWS, but it has wasted a shot and now it is your turn to fire back and when you get a frontal turret hit there is going to be much more effect.

    The enemy could just as easily shoot for the vehicles tracks to disable them... the point is that if they are shooting they want to be shooting to kill and a hit to the turret wont achieve that.

    Nothing you said was against i have said, only going much more in depth. I also can contribute o those matter: when talking about top attack weapon my fist thought was obviously about deadly Javelin/Spike F&F missiles, but there are many more weapons adopting same "trick" when having a men in the loop: hellfire, copperhead/kilotov, Bill or even a simple helo launched 2gen atgm.
    Nakitka and similar sistems are without doubt very efficient against those weapons, expecially against F&F ones, but they can't be the only ones as it would happen that when several missiles are launched, some would surely pass throught them.
    Better thing is to adopt a multilayered protection,that can also have synergic effects: maybe Nakidba can't avoid some of them to strike anyway but surely it can still degradate their sensor enough to avoid that they can select a weak spot in a tank with dedicated top attack protection.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:54 am

    Nothing you said was against i have said, only going much more in depth.

    I was not disagreeing with you... just expanding on what you said.

    I also can contribute o those matter: when talking about top attack weapon my fist thought was obviously about deadly Javelin/Spike F&F missiles, but there are many more weapons adopting same "trick" when having a men in the loop: hellfire, copperhead/kilotov, Bill or even a simple helo launched 2gen atgm.

    ARENA already deals with Bill and Bill 2 as its munitions are launched up and fire downwards to minimise the danger to nearby friendly troops. If the incoming missile is going to over fly the tank fitted with ARENA the system will still intercept weapons like Bill and Bill 2. The threats it has problems with are steeply diving weapons like ballistic weapons like Copperhead/kitolov/krasnopol/gran/santimetr/sokol etc etc, though smoke should block their laser target markers, and of course Hellfire in the laser guided model in lock on after launch mode or MMW radar guided lock on after launch mode can be dealt with using smoke and chaff and of course Nakidka or its equivalent. Those simple 2nd generation ATGMs using wire guidance can be defeated by Shtora.

    Nakitka and similar sistems are without doubt very efficient against those weapons, expecially against F&F ones, but they can't be the only ones as it would happen that when several missiles are launched, some would surely pass throught them.

    Nakidka is material that hides the vehicles radar and IR signature. It would not have enormous effect against manually guided missiles, but apart from Bill and Bill 2 which fly above the target and launch their warheads down onto the roof area of targets I don't know of any manually guided weapons that have top attack capability.

    Javelin needs an IR lock on the target before it can be fired in a diving top attack flight profile... I have seen plenty of videos showing them using banks of hair dryers to heat up cold range targets so they can get a lock required to fire upon the targets.

    The thermal sight in the seeker of the missile is cheap and nasty because it is destroyed each time it is used so at 2km its ability to get a good lock on a tank target that has IR protective screens would be very low. The missile could be manually guided but in that flight profile ARENA can defeat it.

    Better thing is to adopt a multilayered protection,that can also have synergic effects: maybe Nakidba can't avoid some of them to strike anyway but surely it can still degradate their sensor enough to avoid that they can select a weak spot in a tank with dedicated top attack protection.

    Yes... no one solution will deal with every threat, so the correct solution... as applied by the Russians and Soviets in the past, is layered defences that include hard and soft options. The Armata tank will likely combine an inner anti spall layer plus the base armour of the vehicle, plus an outer layer of non explosive reactive armour (NERA) in a modular form so that as improved designs and materials are developed the old armour can be removed and replaced or upgraded. Next they might have ERA on top of that, and then they will have an APS like Arena 2 or Drodz 3 that projects munitions into the path of incoming threats. They will also have Nakidka which covers the entire tank in a material that reduces its IR and radar signature to make the vehicle hard to detect or lock on to. Then of course there will be something like Shtora that interferes with the guidance systems on incoming guided weapons, and I would expect because they have anti sniper systems that can detect the objective lens of a sniper rifle out to 2km with a laser able to "deal" with that sniper in a package the size of a large pair of binoculars that fitting a similar system to the tank as part of its 360 degree optical and IR coverage of the vehicle that DIRCM would be included too.

    The last layer of course would be smoke/Chaff grenades that are designed to be effective in IR and MMW radar and CM wave radar frequencies respectively.

    The different layers compliment each other and result in a much more difficult target to deal with.

    Even a non perfect layer is better than nothing, so even if Arena 1 can't stop Javlin because of its steep diving top attack profile, it can stop RPG like weapons that are so widely deployed they pose a significant threat anyway.

    Arena 2 might be redesigned to deal with top attack weapons and also high speed threats like APFSDS tank rounds too, but in the mean time having Arena 1 improves protection from common battlefield weapons and would be worth fitting to the tanks if nothing better is available.

    I rather suspect it was the 360 degree optics detection and "jamming" capacity that made them realise that being able to spot air threats 360 degrees all the time would require good coverage that would allow all the crew to be seated down in the hull under the heaviest armour, while still able to observe the surroundings.

    I rather also suspect that in addition to large multi function display screens in front of them the crew will also have the capacity for helmet mounted displays that would project the outside world on a display in front of their eyes... in effect making the vehicle transparent enabling them to see the ground around them from the perspective of the camera location... similar technology is being developed for helicopter pilots.

    Equally the MMW radar sensors to detect incoming threats for ARENA and Drozd could be extended in role to be used to passively detect long bow apaches using MMW radar and MMW radar guided missiles, and could also be used to jam or distract incoming radar guided missiles and track them for neutralisation.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:54 am

    Does someone have a list of current and future 120mm ammo compatible with this gun?

    I don't have any info about any new shells, but standard current shells should include:

    All Standard 120mm mortar bombs from Russia and NATO.

    Gran guided mortar bomb.

    Kitolov-1M guided artillery round.

    120mm HEAT shell for direct fire engagement of enemy armour. (up to 1,000m range direct fire ammo with over 600mm armour penetration performance).

    120mm HE Frag round that looks like an artillery shell with a screw in stick on which propellent bags can be tied to change ballistic performance.

    120mm HE Frag rocket assisted round that looks like the round above but with less HE filling and a rocket booster to extend range to 7-13km.

    Note the HEAT round has rifling grooves, but also has stabilising fins, while the other two rounds have grooves on the shell to engage the rifling in the gun barrel to stabilise the round in flight with no fins.

    Note unlike the 100mm round from the BMP-3, these rounds don't have stub propellent cases. They have what looks like the rear part that is attached to recoilless rifle rounds with extra propellent bags tied to them.

    Would like to post photos, but can't seem to find any online, which is a bit frustrating.

    In looking for photos however, I did come across a few articles that include mention of a new 120mm round designed to have a range of about 17km, which means it would be an excellent replacement for 2S1 (122mm SPG) and 120mm towed mortars as well as NONA like vehicles. In comparison the 122mm artillery from the standard D30 gun has a range of 15km, so by adopting such a weapon you can eliminate an entire calibre and at the same time improve all round performance.

    The British did much the same in the late 1980s when it withdrew its 105mm Abbot artillery vehicles which were becoming obsolete at the time and allowed them to simplify logistics by removing a calibre from their inventory and stocks.

    In the short term however the 120mm gun/mortar weapon itself can be fitted to existing 2S1 vehicles that are in stock in large numbers and are popular and reliable vehicles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:49 am



    Here is a small photo of the ammo for the BMP-3 which includes laser homing gun fired missile in stored configuration, laser homing gun fired missile in inflight configuration, a 100mm HE round, a belt of 3 30mm cannon shells and an individual 30mm cannon shell.

    The compact nature of the 100mm ammo means it can be carried in significant numbers despite being a relatively large calibre with a heavy payload HE projectile.

    The cost of course is low velocity, which is not really that important for a HE round.



    The small image above is the Gran system.

    The reason I am posting these images is because the 120mm shell we are talking about is larger and longer than the 100mm round in the top photo but rather than a short stub propellent case it has a small stick with a circular base that is screwed into the round as in the photo above where the bottom object is the stick with propellent bag charges tied tightly to it and a base disk with holes in it to allow the propellent gas blast back and blow the round out the muzzle of the gun it is loaded into.

    Different bag sizes result in different ranges achieved where the most powerful charges are used to get max range, while smaller charges are used for engaging closer ranged targets especially if a high angle is needed... the smaller charge resulting in the round not travelling so high or so far so it reaches the target faster and at a steeper angle to improve the effectiveness of its fragments.

    BTW the HEAT shell is 13.2kgs, the HE Frag is 19.8kgs, and the HE Frag rocket assisted is also 19.8 kgs. The difference in the latter two rounds is that the standard round is effective from 1,000-8,850m, while the rocket assisted round is effective from 7,000m to 13,000m. The rocket assisted round sacrifices HE payload for rocket fuel to boost range.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 988
    Points : 1141
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Armata going for failed design concept?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:20 am

    The armata seams to be earily similar to some utterly failed tank prototypes like America's teledyne expeditionary tank, the M1 CCTB and the USSR's object 477. All of them had unmanned turrets. It also hasnt been noticed that no unmanned turret tank has ever been in succesful service.
    That may be because the unmanned turret concept has some major flaws:
    lack of degraded mode which makes it unusable by the crew in battle if any of the gizmos in the turret fails

    stuffing the crew into one compartment will make them more vulnerable to shells and mine blasts since a single penetration into the capsule will kill off the entire crew

    lack of unrestricted top vision which is essential for survival in battle

    Do you think the armata will solve these problems?
    IMO they should designed it as a buffed up black eagle.


    AZZKIKR
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 24
    Location : singaporean

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AZZKIKR on Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:16 pm

    If I recall, I think the BMP-T turret is unmanned, with the flaw of reloading the missiles requires the crew to dismount.

    I think it s a workable concept due to the now different requirements. Back then, it was circa cold war, tanks were expected to engage other tanks, but now, tanks are more likely to engage urban targets, and less tanks, therefore the concept of an unmanned turret, which is usually more exposed in Urban conflicts (shooting rpg's from the roof) is indeed more benefial for the crew's survivability.

    We do not know how advanced the Armata's unmanned turrets are, but knowing the pace of russian technology, and their advancements made since the collapse of the USSR. What concepts that may not have worked with certain coutries, or in certain eras, migt work now. Like the 15mm gun/missile launcher mounted on the US Sheridan Tanks, which the russians succeeded with the 125mm guns now insalled on their T-80's and T-90's, giving them a high probability of a long range kill, also allowing them to fire specialised frag rounds to engage infantry based targets.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:20 pm

    Different design requirements, different technology.

    360 view for all crew is now a possibility thanks to digital cameras. SA is no longer sacrificed for protection. Remember how shitty digital cameras were in the late 90's, a little over a decade ago? That alone is a good reason for the early failure of unmanned turrets.

    Looking at the models of the Armata concept, it's safe to say this will have the highest amount of crew protection of any MBT out there, with the steeply sloped frontal glacis, with the very thick side skirts and a dense turretesque structure protecting the crew from top attack munitions.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    failed armata design

    Post  Pugnax on Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 pm

    Wow this is a hot topic to touch upon.If Armata represents a truly defensive fighting vehicle,certainly it is not a tank.If using a 130mm/152mm gun it is best deemed a tank destroyer,akin to JagdTiger or JagdPanther.Given the immense technical advances made in the last 20 years this "defensive" platform should be unmanned,remotely piloted by a few computechs in a bunker complex somewhere in the Urals.Placing all 3 crew into a 56 ton behemoths central compartment is a bad idea,in regards to survivability,ergonomics and maintenance issues(t-72 crews cant repair a thrown track quickly without outside assistance).Russia cannot continue to shovel 5 foot 3 east asians into tiny metal boxes.Tthe Russian tanker hasnt had room to move inside his vehicle since T-10m or T-62.Slap a new Rapira 3 125mm into an old T-10,fix the turret roof armour,add modern optics and applique armour and add a supercharger...now thats a tank!

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    armata failed

    Post  Pugnax on Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:45 pm

    Before anyone responds i know the technical impossibilities of my suggestion,but it would have been the origin concept of a new tank.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:46 am

    Instead of looking at it as "one hit will kill off the entire crew". Look at it as "the likelihood of the tank getting hit and killing NO ONE is much higher". Armata isolates the crew from the most dangerous elements of the vehicle and places them in the the most protected area of the hull, unlike all previous AFVs of the past generation with the crew spread all over and near thin armored zones, fuel tanks, and magazines. The entire back 2/3's off this tank could be blown off, and the crew could get out and walk away, find me another tank with that survivability.


    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Armata failed

    Post  Pugnax on Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:34 am

    Zivo,your thoughts are appreciated,my response is simple.Train elite crew,put them in decent vehicles or remote ops gear.Survivability in any Russian built item has never been a high priority until now when Americans out number them 3/2.The Nato MBT 70 was a commission produced vehicle,commissions always put all eggs in 1 basket and fail...result was M-1 Abrams and Leo-2,(T-90 is close)the finest MBTs in the world.Armata is a commission design vehicle,maybe the next design will be equally successful after Armatas trials fail.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:34 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:34 pm