Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:16 am

    Armata won't fail.

    No offense but most of these criticisms are amateur at best.

    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 Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:34 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

    The original idea behind training in the USSR era wW2 was to manufacture things to be easily operatable by any crew member. Training crew members to be more elite will not improve protection, it will only improve competence with the tank. Like how putting conscripts in a BTR-80, getting struck by an RPG, will kill them all, same here as putting Spesnaz inside. Penetratoin is penetration, its only how the vehicle copes with it.


    The concept of moving all the 3 crew members into the chassis will increase the survivability, since the weight class has increased, as well as the less requirements for armour on the turret due to it being unmanned, hence more armour can be focused on the Chassis's glacis plate.

    The addition of a unified chassis will save logistics and production costs as well. In a battle, per say, if the Turret module gets damaged, it can be replaced entirely easily nd the damaged portion taken to be repaired compared to reparing it drectly which willconsume resource and manpower. Plus logitic will be simply simpler due to a unified parts list. Consider the M1A2, using its jet turbine and its enormous weight, requires alot of parts as well as logistical planning to be deployed. I read somewhere on this forum that their turbins suffered greatly in the mid east, therefore success wise, i'd consider the leopard 2 are greater success than the M1A2 can ever be.



    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!

    The T-10 existed in an era wher Heavy Tanks existed, but there is a reason why Heavy tanks disappeaed, as their role disappeared. Originally, heavy tanks in WW2 were equipped with very large guns (USSR - 122mm, 152mm, 107mm) compared to their Medium (USSR - 85mm, 76mm) counterparts. As technology evolved, there was no need for a huge gun needing a hulking chassis to be mounted, thats why when he T-55 series were introduces (100mm), the T-10 was no longer needed, for it was obsolete. the T-55 was faster, more mass produced, had as good a gun.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:28 am

    OK so I get that most of these issues can be solved but what about lack of degraded mode? It would suck in the heat of battle the autoloader to malfunction so theirs no way to reload the tank and it cant be repaired right away?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:52 am

    These are important questions that the Russian military must have thought long and hard about.

    Remember the armata design concept is not out of the blue... Russian tank designers have been grappling with the concept of a crew less turret with the T-95 and according to them it was ready for testing and service when it was cancelled.

    The point is that armata, kurganets-25, boomerang-25, and typhoon (later bommerang-10), were military concepts of the idea vehicles for different weight class vehicle families to replace an enormous range of all sorts of different vehicle types. There would be multiple companies competing for such contracts, but certain companies will be in with the best shot.

    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.

    And indeed the T-95 which was only ever designed as a MBT AFAIK.

    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

    In a fluid dynamic situation like battle there is always situations where an unharmed crew needs to abandon a tank because of damage sustained in combat that prevents it from functioning... even track damage can immobilise a vehicle... a lucky hit to the turret ring that jams the turret, an enemy round to the main gun.
    The point is that having two crew in a turret will not protect the main gun from being hit or the gunners optics being shattered, and there are very few things they can actually fix in the heat of battle that can get the vehicle fighting again... most of the time the solution will be to bail out and get the vehicle towed to safety and get repaired later... in which case having the three crew under the thickest and most sloped armour till you make that decision will keep them the safest. Anti spall liners and flak vests and helmets should offer excellent protection if something actually manages to penetrate... and not having them in a straight line in the hull will make lining up and killing all three with one shot unlikely.

    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

    Sorry but that is a myth. The only time the entire crew is at risk is if they are sitting amongst ammo and fuel and a penetration of the armour ignites either... in which case the exploding fuel and ammo is what actually kills them.

    As shown with the penetrations of western tanks in the Gulf where one crew is injured only because they were in the path of the penetration at the time, the risk is much lower when all that ammo and fuel is taken away from the crew compartment... which is the whole idea behind unmanned turrets.

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

    This is critical... but keep in mind that the APS and Shtora both require 360 degree vision around the tank to function properly... now with the former likely useing MMW radar and the latter an optics system that detects IR sources and lasers you would think that it would not take a genius to realise that 360 degree continuous visual (optical and IR) and radar (MMW) scanning of the surroundings including directly up for diving top attack munitions could be translated into excellent situational awareness. Adding to that some form of anti sniper/optics system as shown in binocular based systems already deployed by Russian forces and sold overseas, and DIRCMs suddenly makes this an interesting vehicle. I rather suspect and audio anti sniper system that can detect shots... calibre and source would be standard equipment too.

    Add to this the potential for UAV support and use for gods eye views of the target and the vehicle itself and I think putting all the crew down in the hull is looking better and better.

    Do you think the armata will solve these problems?

    I rather suspect they already solved those problems with the T-95 which also had an unmanned turret.

    IMO they should designed it as a buffed up black eagle.

    The Black Eagle would be rejected for the same reason the Burlak upgrade of the T-72 was rejected... all the ammo in the turret bustle is too vulnerable to enemy fire.

    In the T-95 and armata the ammo will be stored in the turret below the level of the turret ring.

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

    The BMPT has two crew in the turret, though seated below the turret ring. It was this flaw of having to reload the missiles that I suggested an external 100mm rifled gun as a cheap alternative to putting HE down range with accuracy and lots of power.

    .If Armata represents a truly defensive fighting vehicle,certainly it is not a tank.

    I don't follow. A tank, by definition is a vehicle with heavy armour designed to carry a gun powerful enough to take on any enemy armour. A mobile gun platform able to deliver accurate and powerful hits on vehicles and structures and enemy troops in the open or behind cover.

    Defensive tank killers have fixed guns and generally are older model tanks that are too small to take the big heavy gins of later tanks fitted to them in a turret so they have a fixed structure that greatly limits traverse.

    Cheap to make and use they are better for defence than attack because they are not good for mobile warfare where you want the vehicle to move one way and shoot another.

    This armata should be fine as an offensive and defensive tank.

    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).

    The three crew are sitting at the front under the thickest and heaviest armour on the tank that is very steeply sloped to maximise protection... where else would you put them?

    In real combat a crew doesn't leap out and change the tire... under enemy fire that would be suicide for any tank... they would abandon the tank... if they think the enemy might get it they would set it on fire before they left.

    Follow up forces will recover the vehicle and put another track on it.

    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.

    Russia has always designed its items to do their job at acceptable risk. T-72s are low and well armoured, their main problem was extra ammo distribution in the crew compartment and the fact that early 80s models faced the latest western models in western combat experience.
    American tanks are not relevant... Russia will fight American tanks with tactical nukes... Russia isn't invading NATO and if NATO invades then it will be nuclear very quickly.

    The cold war is over.


    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.

    Actually the real problem was that the countries interested in the MBT 70 all had different wants and needs and the result was two tanks... the M1, and the Leopard 2.

    The MBT 70 actually did the opposite of the armata and had the driver in the turret with the other crew.

    I read somewhere on this forum that their turbins suffered greatly in the mid east, therefore success wise, i'd consider the leopard 2 are greater success than the M1A2 can ever be.

    The M1A2 is an evolution of a vehicle that started out with British armour and a British 105mm rifled gun.

    The first major upgrade was to replace the British gun with a German 120mm smoothbore, and the next major step forward for the Abrams was new British armour...

    the T-55 was faster, more mass produced, had as good a gun.

    More importantly the T-64 and T-72 had better armour than the T-10 as well as a much more powerful gun.

    The introduction of new western manufacturing machines led to vast improvements in Russian gun technology that have led to improvements in accuracy and power and performance... much the same as purchases of Japanese milling machines greatly improved the quietness of Soviet and Russian submarines because of their better quality propellers. They had the skills to design good guns and good propellers, they lacked the machine tools to make them to the precision needed to realise the designs performance.

    OK so I get that most of these issues can be solved but what about lack of degraded mode? It would suck in the heat of battle the autoloader to malfunction so theirs no way to reload the tank and it cant be repaired right away?

    Manual loading is awkward and slow, if the tank had an autoloader malfunction it makes more sense to withdraw that single vehicle to a rear area and get it fixed than to persist in combat.

    The Russians have a lot of experience with autoloaders and not half the stories of tank men losing limbs or their lives are actually true.

    Current autoloaders have lots of failsafes, but a damaged one would be a real problem in a current T-90. If you think about it the two turret crew sit side by side level with the gun, so reaching down to the under floor autoloader to get a round that weighs 10kgs and then load it manually into something beside you and then reach down and get the stub propellent charge and put it in the chamber behind the projectile and then close the mechanism and turn forward to find the target would not be a vehicle operating at peak performance anyway.

    It would also suck for the engine to fail or the gun to fail... but sht happens and you deal with 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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:18 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:OK so I get that most of these issues can be solved but what about lack of degraded mode? It would suck in the heat of battle the autoloader to malfunction so theirs no way to reload the tank and it cant be repaired right away?

    Never been an issue with T-72s, T-80s, T-64s, why should it be an issue with Armata?


    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Dima on Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:41 pm

    The various exhibited models are very interesting and I'm truly delighted. The MBT variant is also very interesting even though it may not be the definite version and maybe just one of the proposed MBT on the Armata platform.



    But if this is anything even close to the new MBT, its truly amazing. The twin 6-barrel guns are very interesting and is definitely meant to counter the top-attack weapons. And if this is going to make to the production variant, it would mark another big leap that Russia would have over other designers, in self-defense from top-attack weapons alone.

    Even though there have been turrets with twin guns, like below, the new model displayed is sort of taking the Kashtan/Palash/Palma capability on to a MBT, a big leap in my view.




    I havn't gone through all the posts earlier, so putting few questions. Sorry if it has already been answered.

    1) Is the model displayed a 6-wheel or 7-weehled vehicle?

    2) The two guns looks independent in vertical plane, but will there be guidance units to allow the MBT to target two targets approaching at different angles (in vertical plane)?

    3) Without a direct physical viewer it looks like all the images have to come through cables and get displayed on to the dedicated displays. Or will the unit have something different that is conventional and 'real-time'?

    4) whats the gun barrel covered with & where is the third hatch located?

    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Dima on Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm

    The model displayed shows 6-barrel gun and it looks similar to GSh-6-23 (75Kg) & GSh-6-30L (145Kg). Since Alexey have mentioned to to be 6-barreled gun, I'm not sure if there is a chance for it being a 4-barrel guns. But it also looks like the 12.7mm Yak series cannon which are also light weight (45-60Kg).

    The purpose of these guns has to be air-defense and the guns till now used for AD (limited) role was the 12.7mm. But the cannon featured on this MBT model is a full-blown close-in AD unit. So what is the chance that such a capability on production variant be a 12.7mm 4-barrel unit instead of the 23/30mm 6-barrel units? or how about 12.7mm 6-barrel cannon?


    From KBP we have the following 6-barreled guns, two of them for aircraft and the rest for naval close-in AD weapons. For ease I've included the pictures.

    23mm GSh-6-23 Six-Barrel Aircraft Cannon (Su-24, MiG-31)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_23.htm

    Rate of fire - 10,000 rds/min
    Weight - 73Kg


    30mm GSh-6-30 Six-Barrel Aircraft Cannon (MiG-27)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_30.htm

    Rate of fire - 6,000 rds/min
    Weight - 149Kg


    30 mm GSh-6-30L Six-Barreled Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun (AK-306, AK-306M)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_30L.htm

    Rate of fire - 600-1,000 rds/min
    Weight - 145Kg


    30 mm GSh-6-30K Six-Barreled Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun (AK-630, AK-630M)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_30k.htm

    Rate of fire - 4,000-5,000 rds/min
    Weight - 200Kg


    30 mm 6K30GSh Six-Barreled Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun (Kashtan ADMGS)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/6k30gsh.htm

    Rate of fire - 4,500 rds/min
    Weight - 225Kg


    4-barrel cannons

    12.7mm YakB-12.7 and YakBYu-12.7 Quadruple Machine Guns (Mi-24)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/yakb.htm

    Rate of fire - 4,000-5,000 rds/min
    Weight - 45Kg/60Kg


    7.62mm GShG-7.62 Quadruple Machine Gun (Ka-29)
    http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gshg.htm

    Rate of fire - 6,000 rds/min
    Weight - 19Kg





    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:01 pm

    Honestly I don't think they will accept any vehicle with a Gatling gun. Using tank for AD is stupid and no mention has been made of that, and for urban operations 6 barrels just adds weight, complexity, and a ROF that is needlessly high.

    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Dima on Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 pm

    TR1 wrote:Honestly I don't think they will accept any vehicle with a Gatling gun. Using tank for AD is stupid and no mention has been made of that, and for urban operations 6 barrels just adds weight, complexity, and a ROF that is needlessly high.
    I don't think the concept displayed here is the MBT being used for AD. But the concept displays the two cannons as a new self-defence suite as an integral part to this MBT.

    The new MBT in development is suppose to have an unmanned turret and one of the advantages is the lower weight compared to the normal turrent. So even a very high figure of 500kg for two 23/30mm guns on either side of the turret is not going to make a huge weight penalty. A smaller 12.7mm 4-barrel gun is going to have even lesser weight.

    The question of acceptability will depend.
    But my view is to have these close-in cannons if the design is feasible, so that an MBT is able to independently defend itself against top-attack weapons/missiles & guided missiles. I believe it will be worth an addition if there is not a big penalty of weight.

    marcellogo
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:19 pm

    TR1 wrote:Honestly I don't think they will accept any vehicle with a Gatling gun. Using tank for AD is stupid and no mention has been made of that, and for urban operations 6 barrels just adds weight, complexity, and a ROF that is needlessly high.
    Russian gatling are usually gas-operated, so maybe if fired in shot burst they would be rugged enough for field deployment.
    In every case this is only a model, so I think it is still too early to draw some conclusion.
    Also the denomination itself raises a lot of questions :what is the operative doctrine underneath it? it is intended simply as a modern version of WWII assault gun or instead some hibrid between a tank and a direct infantry support vehicle? There is maybe also a pure tank version? Small guns are for Ciws or to be used only against infantry? Indirect fire possible/contemplated?
    Lot of questions really.

    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 10:27 pm

    I don't think it's x2 6 barreled guns. I think the one nearest to the camera is one, and the gun on the far side is just a 7.62 machine gun very similar to what is on the T-90MS.

    I highly doubt it's for dedicated AD, most likely just additional firepower. IMO it is probably just a place holder on the model. A multitude of different weapons should be able to be mounted to the two auxiliary weapon slots on the turret. If they wanted strong AD capability, I guess they could mount a strelets module on it. North Korea demonstrated a similar setup on their upgraded MBTs.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    failed armata design

    Post  Pugnax on Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:17 am

    Guys the reason i mention the old T-10,despite its short comings,. T-10 was the the last Soviet tank design to terrify Nato.In the early 80s during my service,we werent afraid of T-54/55/62,T-64/72/80 were considered to be full of design bugs rendering them of limited use.The T-10 was considered the most heavily armoured Soviet design,a match to the British Chieftain.Where the T-10 was,was definitely going to be a hot spot.Just a case of an old warrior clutching at doctrines and terrors from days gone by.Imagine an 18 year old clutching an FN,hoping the Carl Gustav round wouldnt bounce off Ivans armour while wishing his shell scrape was just 4 inches deeper.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:49 am

    The MBT variant is also very interesting even though it may not be the definite version and maybe just one of the proposed MBT on the Armata platform.

    We don't know that this is a mbt version... there are suggestions that this is a BMPT vehicle with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar instead of a high velocity tank gun.


    The twin 6-barrel guns are very interesting and is definitely meant to counter the top-attack weapons.

    A close look suggests to me that it is probably a 23mm 6 barrel gun (ie 23 x 114mm calibre rather than the much higher veocity 23 x 152mm round used by Shilka and ZU-23) and on the far side a long barrel 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher.

    And if this is going to make to the production variant, it would mark another big leap that Russia would have over other designers, in self-defense from top-attack weapons alone.

    I rather doubt these are for CIWS use, and suspect it is more for firepower against ground and air targets... the 23mm gatling would produce a high rate of fire and would be a powerful weapon against ground and air targets but using compact ammo (based on the 14.5mm HMG round).

    I rather suspect the gatling would be used in short bursts to fill an area with fragments, rather than against small fast moving targets.

    Imagine the effect on nearby friendly vehicles if a 23mm gatling gun suddenly opened up at 10,000 rpm because someone launched an RPG at the vehicle? The cure would be worse than the disease...

    Even though there have been turrets with twin guns, like below, the new model displayed is sort of taking the Kashtan/Palash/Palma capability on to a MBT, a big leap in my view.

    That tank with cannon fitted was about replacing the roof mounted 50 cal with a weapon or weapons more suited to anti helo use... nothing to do with CIWS use.

    2) The two guns looks independent in vertical plane, but will there be guidance units to allow the MBT to target two targets approaching at different angles (in vertical plane)?

    All the guns will be controlled by the gunner, so it is likely he will choose the weapon that is most suitable to the target.

    3) Without a direct physical viewer it looks like all the images have to come through cables and get displayed on to the dedicated displays. Or will the unit have something different that is conventional and 'real-time'?

    The gunners main sight will likely be used, but I suspect the guns can elevate independently as the low velocity grenade launcher will need higher elevation than the main gun or the gatling.

    4) whats the gun barrel covered with & where is the third hatch located?

    Probably to protect the gun from fragments and to lower the IR signature of the gun.

    Based on the location of the optics I would say the centre seat is to the rear of the seats either side of it.

    Using tank for AD is stupid and no mention has been made of that, and for urban operations 6 barrels just adds weight, complexity, and a ROF that is needlessly high.

    Actually the GSh-6-23 is a fairly light gun at less than 80kgs and being gas powered has no electric motor to spin it up. A high rate of fire is useful if used in very short bursts to maximise the effect of relatively small rounds.
    The 23 x 114mm ammo is rather more compact than the 30 x 165mm ammo.

    23 x 114mm ammo is also standard ammo used by Mi-24P helos.

    But my view is to have these close-in cannons if the design is feasible, so that an MBT is able to independently defend itself against top-attack weapons/missiles & guided missiles. I believe it will be worth an addition if there is not a big penalty of weight.

    Again, I seriously doubt these extra gun mounts are part of a CIWS.

    In every case this is only a model, so I think it is still too early to draw some conclusion.

    Very good point... this is only a model, and I doubt it is the MBT model anyway.

    Small guns are for Ciws or to be used only against infantry?

    I would rule the former out and suggest the latter is the only logical conclusion...

    I don't think it's x2 6 barreled guns. I think the one nearest to the camera is one, and the gun on the far side is just a 7.62 machine gun very similar to what is on the T-90MS.

    Looking at the barrel thickness of the farside gun I suspect it is a grenade launcher rather than a PKT.


    I highly doubt it's for dedicated AD, most likely just additional firepower. IMO it is probably just a place holder on the model. A multitude of different weapons should be able to be mounted to the two auxiliary weapon slots on the turret. If they wanted strong AD capability, I guess they could mount a strelets module on it. North Korea demonstrated a similar setup on their upgraded MBTs.

    I am pretty sure it is not an AD vehicle... keep in mind that it is totally out of scale to the vehicle models beside it.

    I rather suspect that this is a BMPT model but that the real MBT model will have the 23mm gatling replaced with a 30mm 2A72 cannon and it will likely retain the grenade launcher on the other side... the main gun being a 125mm smoothbore... later to be replaced with a 15xmm calibre weapon when needed.

    Apart from the panoramic sight at near the rear of the centre spine on the turret and the gunners optics above the gun there are lots of details missing like NERA and smoke grenades and APS systems and sensors... this is clearly a basic model that is not giving away all the real details.


    _________________
    “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 : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:59 am

    I appreciate what you are trying to say, but that 18 year old that has been told T series tanks are junk is living in a dream world and when he fires his Carl Gustav at the glacis plate of a T-80U expecting it to cut through like butter and the tank just keeps coming he will spend the next few seconds filling his shell scrape with the contents of his bowels and will be cursing the Western military instructor who told him his weapons were the best in the world and all them commie toys were junk.

    The T-10 was a bogeyman because it was largely unknown in the west... just like the Su-27 remains a bogeyman in the west while the Mig-29 has been examined and played with inside and out.

    The point is that in real combat against a competent enemy that has actually spent money upgrading their Mig-29s and Su-27s it is very likely that the Wests low opinion of the Mig will bite them in the A$$, whereas they might actually do better against the Flankers because they had more respect for them to begin with.

    Iraqi T-72s were easy kills for 1990 M1A2 Abrams, though the vast majority of tanks the Abrams fought in that conflict were not even T-72s, but older models including Chinese clones.

    A Soviet tank from that period would be much better equipped and operated in comparison, but this is something the west seems happy to largely ignore... who do you think is going to suffer in that regard? Certainly not Russia.

    Not really new... British and American pilots in the Pacific war were told that Japanese planes were made of rice paper and couldn't fly in the rain... lots of allied pilots found to their cost that that was BS.


    _________________
    “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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:25 am

    Pugnax wrote:Guys the reason i mention the old T-10,despite its short comings,. T-10 was the the last Soviet tank design to terrify Nato.In the early 80s during my service,we werent afraid of T-54/55/62,T-64/72/80 were considered to be full of design bugs rendering them of limited use.The T-10 was considered the most heavily armoured Soviet design,a match to the British Chieftain.Where the T-10 was,was definitely going to be a hot spot.Just a case of an old warrior clutching at doctrines and terrors from days gone by.Imagine an 18 year old clutching an FN,hoping the Carl Gustav round wouldnt bounce off Ivans armour while wishing his shell scrape was just 4 inches deeper.

    T-64 and T-72 were very much ahead of their NATO contemporaries. Until Abrams and Leo came around, NATO was in trouble, at least as far as tanks are concerned.

    They were both far superior to T-10, which while an advanced design for its time (especially in terms of fire control), was badly outdated by that point, and nothing special.

    I am curious exactly what design bugs all the tanks you listed have, that apparently slow, lumbering, outdated T-10 did not...

    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Dima on Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:34 am

    Zivo wrote:I don't think it's x2 6 barreled guns. I think the one nearest to the camera is one, and the gun on the far side is just a 7.62 machine gun very similar to what is on the T-90MS.
    I agree. Looking again, it looks like there is only one multi-barrel gun, the other could be the 7.62mm.

    The model shows it's having the current setup of weapons. i.e two guns, one for air-targets and the other for ground. The ground engagement gun have retained the current capability where as the one for air-targets have gone for a significant increase in capability. This I believe could be meant to increase the target portfolio and to include the top-attack weapons/missiles in its list.

    I highly doubt it's for dedicated AD, most likely just additional firepower. IMO it is probably just a place holder on the model. A multitude of different weapons should be able to be mounted to the two auxiliary weapon slots on the turret. If they wanted strong AD capability, I guess they could mount a strelets module on it. North Korea demonstrated a similar setup on their upgraded MBTs.
    That additional firepower have come in place of the earlier 12.7mm gun. So in a sense we can take that additional firepower as a significant improvement against air-targets.

    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Dima on Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:06 am

    GarryB wrote:We don't know that this is a mbt version... there are suggestions that this is a BMPT vehicle with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar instead of a high velocity tank gun.
    True. But for a BMPT vehicle, it has lower firepower (missiles) compared to the existing version.

    A close look suggests to me that it is probably a 23mm 6 barrel gun (ie 23 x 114mm calibre rather than the much higher veocity 23 x 152mm round used by Shilka and ZU-23) and on the far side a long barrel 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher.
    How about the 4-barrel 7.62mm? It is very light and would make good asset against infantry.

    But when we talk about two multi-barrel guns, this vehicle is sort of approaching the BMPT level, but without the missiles that exists on the current BMPT. Wink

    I rather doubt these are for CIWS use, and suspect it is more for firepower against ground and air targets... the 23mm gatling would produce a high rate of fire and would be a powerful weapon against ground and air targets but using compact ammo (based on the 14.5mm HMG round).
    Maybe CIWS was not the proper term to use?
    But we do agree that 6-barrel gun is for air-targets. And that is exactly what I mean, a significant improvement in capability against air-targets with this 6-barrel gun to include wider range of targets than just aircrafts. This I believe is for engaging the top-attack missiles.

    The crew is going to be shifted to the front hull, but that does not mean the turret need not be protected from top-attack missiles. Since this is an early model, there is quite a scope to change my view as things gets clearer. But as of now I believe and want to believe that this gatling gun is for engaging top-attack threats.

    I rather suspect the gatling would be used in short bursts to fill an area with fragments, rather than against small fast moving targets.

    Imagine the effect on nearby friendly vehicles if a 23mm gatling gun suddenly opened up at 10,000 rpm because someone launched an RPG at the vehicle? The cure would be worse than the disease...
    Yes, the likely engagement of the gattling gun would be used in short bursts. And this could be to engage the top-attack missiles, which the current 12.7mm cannot counter with any amount of bursts.

    Even though there have been turrets with twin guns, like below, the new model displayed is sort of taking the Kashtan/Palash/Palma capability on to a MBT, a big leap in my view.

    That tank with cannon fitted was about replacing the roof mounted 50 cal with a weapon or weapons more suited to anti helo use... nothing to do with CIWS use.
    Yes agree and that is what I too believe.
    But by the Kashtan/Palash/Palma capablity, I'm taking about the capability the 6-barrel gun brings with it (if it is the case). Such a cannon is only going to improve upon the tanks capablity against air-targets. And by air-targets, like I earlier said, it might include the top-attack weapons/missiles. For engaging a regular targets like helo, they don't need a 6-barrel gun.

    Based on the location of the optics I would say the centre seat is to the rear of the seats either side of it.
    But the centre seat is going to be that of driver or the gunner?
    If the 3rd seat is going to be further back, any exit hatch is going to be underneath the turret face.

    But my view is to have these close-in cannons if the design is feasible, so that an MBT is able to independently defend itself against top-attack weapons/missiles & guided missiles. I believe it will be worth an addition if there is not a big penalty of weight.

    Again, I seriously doubt these extra gun mounts are part of a CIWS.
    Then what is it for?
    They don't need any sort of 6-barrel rapid-fire cannon to engage the helos.

    Small guns are for Ciws or to be used only against infantry?

    I would rule the former out and suggest the latter is the only logical conclusion...
    A 23/30mm 6-barrel gun is a wastage on infantry. Better use smaller 4-barrel 7.62mm or 12.7mm for that role.

    From the looks, the weapon featured is in place of the regular 12.7mm air-defense/air-target gun and this could only mean improving its capability to effectively defend against top-attack missiles.

    Looking at the barrel thickness of the farside gun I suspect it is a grenade launcher rather than a PKT.
    I think its 7.6mm or a 12.7mm as Zivo mentioned. Maybe similar to what we see in this drawing.
    http://s1.uploads.ru/i/d4xQL.jpg

    Apart from the panoramic sight at near the rear of the centre spine on the turret and the gunners optics above the gun there are lots of details missing like NERA and smoke grenades and APS systems and sensors... this is clearly a basic model that is not giving away all the real details.
    Yes, itz a basic model no doubt. But it may be giving out signs of what sort of thing to expect..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:14 am

    True. But for a BMPT vehicle, it has lower firepower (missiles) compared to the existing version.

    Would have to disagree there.

    The BMPT has two 30mm cannon, plus coaxial PKT and two front fender mounted 30mm grenade launchers and finally two ready to fire ATAKA ATGMs.

    Lets assume that this new vehicle has a 120mm rifled gun related to the Vena, a 23mm gatling gun firing 23 x 114mm rounds and a long barreled version of the 40mm Balkan AGL. Add to that a PKT coaxial MG which we can assume is fitted.

    Certainly the 23mm gatling beats the 30mm cannons in terms of rate of fire, but the ammo is much lower velocity so its penetration will be worse. The 23mm rounds are far more compact so it will be able to carry a far larger load of 23mm ammo.

    The point is that against most soft targets the heavy projectile of the 23mm round will be just as effective, and the difference in effective range will not be significant.

    The job of getting 10 small cannon shells on target rapidly would be more efficiently done with the gatling than with the two single barrel 30mm guns and the two single barrel guns weigh 230kgs compared with the 73kgs of the 23mm gatling!

    The long barrel 40mm grenade launcher will likely have a range of 2-3km and the larger grenades will likely make up for only one weapon being fitted.

    In terms of making up for the loss of 4 ATAKA missiles.... I rather think a 120mm rifled gun able to fire HE shells and mortar bombs to 13km and 7km respectively more than makes up for those 4 missiles with a flight range of 6km.

    For precision the 120mm gun should be able to fire the Gran and Kilolov laser guided artillery rounds to ranges beyond 6km in a diving top attack profile...

    In fact I suggested that to improve the BMPT they should replace the two single barrel guns with a twin barrel GSh-30K with a higher rate of fire, and fit the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 so missiles could be fired down the main gun without any crew needing to leave the inside of the vehicle. I also thought it would be better with a couple of independently operated turrets... but with a crew of three there would not be the two dedicated gunners to operate them so they make less sense.

    How about the 4-barrel 7.62mm? It is very light and would make good asset against infantry.

    The best use of the 4 barrel 30 cal gatling is from a fast moving vehicle like a helo for use against enemy ground forces and it would be used to hose an area down to suppress enemy fire.

    Against infantry it would actually be much more effective to use exploding ammo like 40mm grenades.

    But when we talk about two multi-barrel guns, this vehicle is sort of approaching the BMPT level, but without the missiles that exists on the current BMPT.

    Multi barrel guns offer very high rates of fire, which is critical when trying to hit small fast moving targets so for CIWS and as a gun for a fighter aircraft they might be very useful, but most of the time very high rates of fire just wastes ammo. To suppress an enemy position like a building where lots of sniper fire is located then a 50 round spray burst of 23mm cannon shells is just as effective as a 50 round burst of 30mm cannon shells, but in this case it takes the 23mm cannon less time to deliver that burst so it will arrive in a shotgun blast like effect rather than a stream or two.

    If rate of fire was everything then metal storm would be the number one gun company in the world.

    But we do agree that 6-barrel gun is for air-targets. And that is exactly what I mean, a significant improvement in capability against air-targets with this 6-barrel gun to include wider range of targets than just aircrafts. This I believe is for engaging the top-attack missiles.

    No.

    If this is the GSH-6-23 then it is the wrong gun... the projectiles are heavy and the muzzle velocity is low... about 710m/s... these are not good features for shooting at moving targets.

    Don't think of this gun as being a Shilka with two extra barrels... this weapon is a very fast firing KPV with the projectiles stretched to 23mm calibre and filled with a lot more HE... the cost is a reduction in muzzle velocity of about 400m/s.

    Not great for penetrating armour but excellent for delivering a hell storm of fragments and HE.

    Against a group of enemy forces in the open this gun would be particularly deadly. Equally for ripping up light armoured vehicles it would also be deadly.

    For shooting at aircraft the density of fire would be great, but the low muzzle velocity would seriously count against it.

    The crew is going to be shifted to the front hull, but that does not mean the turret need not be protected from top-attack missiles. Since this is an early model, there is quite a scope to change my view as things gets clearer. But as of now I believe and want to believe that this gatling gun is for engaging top-attack threats.

    I would suspect the fact that they have anti sniper systems including laser dazzlers in a package the size of a pair of binoculars that for their new generation tank they could beef that up a bit so the diving top attack weapons like SALH or TV or IIR guided weapons will be dealt with both passively and actively.

    If these turret mounted guns could do the job then BMPs should be safe from top attack weapons because its 30mm gun should actually be more effective than any of the guns fitted to this vehicles turret at engaging such threats.

    And this could be to engage the top-attack missiles, which the current 12.7mm cannot counter with any amount of bursts.

    I rather doubt the solution to incoming top attack threats will come in any form of gun... it just wouldn't be able to react quickly enough... you need something like ARENA that is ready to fire at any time to intercept an incoming threat...

    For engaging a regular targets like helo, they don't need a 6-barrel gun.

    For engaging helos there will be TOR and Pantsir-S1 vehicles in the brigade.

    The 120mm gun with laser guided shells would likely be more use against a helo than the gatling gun.

    The relatively low velocity of the 23 x 114mm round means it would likely not be much use against aerial targets outside of 2-2.5km... which makes the vehicle horrendously vulnerable to enemy helicopter weapons.

    But the centre seat is going to be that of driver or the gunner?
    If the 3rd seat is going to be further back, any exit hatch is going to be underneath the turret face.

    I don't know. It is possible that the centre crewman gets out after one of the other crew gets out, or perhaps the turret has to turn 90 degrees sideways to let him get out his own hatch.

    For all we know there could be a tunnel down a side of the vehicle to let all three crew out a hatch at the rear and the hatches in the front are fake.

    As I said I don't know.


    Then what is it for?
    They don't need any sort of 6-barrel rapid-fire cannon to engage the helos.

    If the vehicle is the armata BMPT then its two main roles are convoy escort... ie firepower to repulse an ambush, and tank support to protect tanks from dismounted infantry, in steep country or urban areas where threats can come from angles where standard MBT guns can't elevate to cover.

    In that case its armament is fine... a 120mm direct fire gun/mortar plus a high rate of fire cannon with heavy HE projectiles for its calibre, and a 40mm AGL, plus coaxial PKT MG.

    Long range targets can be engaged with guided ammo and close range targets obliterated with 10,000 rpm 23mm cannon shells.

    A 23/30mm 6-barrel gun is a wastage on infantry. Better use smaller 4-barrel 7.62mm or 12.7mm for that role.

    The 6 barrel gun in this case allows lots of targets to be engaged rapidly without overheating. 23mm packs rather more punch than rifle calibre MGs. Using fixed bursts of 5, 10, 20, 50, or even 100 round bursts means the very high rate of fire will not be a problem in terms of wasting ammo. Against a target like a light vehicle a 10 round burst would ensure it is put out of action rapidly. I would think a sweep of the barrel at a group of infantry would make them duck very rapidly and stay down... Smile

    I think its 7.6mm or a 12.7mm as Zivo mentioned. Maybe similar to what we see in this drawing.

    Both PKT and Kord have muzzle flash hiders, while the far side weapon in the model is a straight tube that is too thick to be a rifle calibre machine gun. I would suggest it is either a 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher.

    Look at the elevation of the main gun... with a coaxial PKT machine gun attached to its axis a separate 30 cal MG becomes unnecessary.
    To be honest a 50 cal MG and a 23mm gatling would be relatively redundant as the ammo is a similar size while the cannon carries a much heavier projectile.

    The only weapon that makes sense is a low velocity grenade launcher that can lob grenades over frontal cover into dead space.

    Yes, itz a basic model no doubt. But it may be giving out signs of what sort of thing to expect..

    In my biased opinion it has the ideal armament for a BMPT type vehicle... especially if the decision is taken to replace the KPV HMG with 23mm KPVB machine guns which trade high muzzle velocity for shell weight, which would make the 23mm gatling more useful as the round it fires would become much more common on ground vehicles.

    AFAIK the 23mm gatling has been removed from aircraft for safety reasons as the vibration of firing led to problems in the Su-24 and Mig-31. The Mig-27 uses the 30mm 6 barrel gatling and has already been withdrawn with that aircraft.

    Both guns can still be used in gun pods.



    _________________
    “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

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    failed armata design

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:28 am

    I have always treated Soviet era equiptment with greater respect than most of my compatriots,the fact that in the1982-85 era only Nato had thermal imaging means that armoured encounters would be in favour of Nato in every single engagement,especially when coupled with longer range fire effectiveness if the Nato 105/120mm guns and greater crew proficiencies of Nato crew.Warpac hostilities would have been suicidal at conventional levels.Indeed havent former east german records concluded that hostilities were to be intiated by a massive medium and short range nuclear strike with WarPac units closely following and exploiting the chaos.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:17 am

    I have always treated Soviet era equiptment with greater respect than most of my compatriots,the fact that in the1982-85 era only Nato had thermal imaging means that armoured encounters would be in favour of Nato in every single engagement,especially when coupled with longer range fire effectiveness if the Nato 105/120mm guns and greater crew proficiencies of Nato crew.Warpac hostilities would have been suicidal at conventional levels.Indeed havent former east german records concluded that hostilities were to be intiated by a massive medium and short range nuclear strike with WarPac units closely following and exploiting the chaos.

    Thermal imagers of the early 1980s were mediocre, expensive and unreliable... and not particularly widely deployed.

    Except in the worst conditions the widely deployed image intensification systems deployed on Soviet tanks were almost as good... the gap was not that big and the II scopes were widely deployed on old and new Soviet tanks.

    British troops as a whole did very little night fighting except for elite units in the Falklands.

    A Warsaw pact attack on Europe would have started with about 800 nucelar detonations at various command centres and airfields... these guys knew was real war was and were not going to play around.

    The small numbers of modern tanks like Abrams and Leopards... and the large number of late model T-72s and T-80s... I really don't see any superiority for the west in that time period.

    The Warsaw pact anti tank capability was impressive with widespread deployment of man portable ATGMs and shoulder fired MANPADS. The overlapping layers of SAMs and enormous number of radar sets... I really couldn't see the NATO forces being prepared to take the losses needed to fight and win against such a force.

    However I also think the Warsaw Pact forces were never designed for an invasion of Europe... no matter what western propaganda might say because they had none of the enormous logistics vehicles and forces needed to keep armoured groups moving deep into enemy territory.

    Germany surprised them in 41 and they maintained forces large enough to blunt any such surprise attack again.

    Soviet doctrine was far more defensive than most western analysts give it credit for.


    _________________
    “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

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  medo on Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:36 pm

    Soviet doctrine was far more defensive than most western analysts give it credit for.

    True and same goes for today's Russia.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:08 pm


    in the1982-85 era only Nato had thermal imaging means that armoured encounters would be in favour of Nato in every single engagement,especially when coupled with longer range fire effectiveness if the Nato 105/120mm guns and greater crew proficiencies of Nato crew.


    I am in the strange impression that your opinions on this subject ,likely "warped" by the enormous amount of low level PR innuendo and clichès purposely conceived and spread in the West in the Cold War , are not merely totally out of line but even at the exact opposite of factual reality !! .

    Sometimes ago i posted this article which ,together with two others similar articles and the precise references to the Jane's Defense articles named "Impenetrable Russian Tank Armor Stands Up To Examination" (the existence of which with the linked tests is even comically negated where possible in open media Razz Razz...miracles of the PR's machine ) on the dread experimental results obtained by the Pentagon equipe directed by Leland Ness on orginal specimens of Soviet T-72A and B with K5 ERA at theirs time validating the surprising and worrisome experimental results obtained by the famous Prof. Manfred Held on the same MBTs covered an year before in the Jane's article named "Russian Tanks Immune to Attack Says German Expert", caused two different times ,very strangely, my immediate and inexplicable remotion on two other forums and the frantic cancellation of majority of mine posts....when someone say the Freedom of Information Laughing .
    Maybe you will get a more realistic and serious picture of what was the status in the armour and anti-armour technology between URSS and NATO just in the years you refered to.





    Warpac hostilities would have been suicidal at conventional levels

    Laughing Laughing

    Excuse me Pugnax, when possible i avoid to deride a position mantained by anyone, but when it appear so immensely and irreconcilably far for factual reality i cannot stop myself.

    NATO in the Cold War was ridiculously outnumbered and outgunned in virtually any segment of battlefield agents in the Continental Theatre and virtually ALL studies, simulations and projections conducted by NATO in the Cold War the UNIQUE solution offering a real chance to prevent Soviet Forces from obtaining a victory even offensive for easiness was the massive and extensive employment of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (NATO conventional forces in the European continent had ,in reality , the only purpose to slow and "channel" Soviet Forces to render them more vulnerable to "nuclearization's lines")

    Image that even today some US authorities (in particular Republican ones) has even questioned the recent choice by part of B Obama's administration to expand the instances of "no-first use" of nuclear weapons on security basis recalling that only them prevented URSS from invading ,practically unhindered , Europe during the Cold War.
    I think that i don't must recall to you what was the point of the CFE Treaty for NATO ,but in the opposite instance i report down here a little extract from "


    "It is important to remember the CFE Treaty’s original goals. For the United States and its NATO allies, the CFE Treaty offered the unique opportunity to address the dangers of an overwhelming Soviet and Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional weapons in Europe. This superiority made war, if it came, very difficult to win and unlikely to proceed without NATO having to resort to nuclear weapons.
    Soviet and Warsaw Pact superiority in the Cold War manifested itself in three ways: first and foremost, substantial numerical superiority in all key categories of conventional force equipment and manpower; second, overwhelming Soviet superiority of weapons and forces within the Eastern bloc; and third, a geographic advantage in the forces deployed forward in Europe, especially due to the deployment of a large number of Soviet troops in East Germany.

    The CFE Treaty sought to address all three issues by establishing equal equipment limits on the member states of the two alliances at lower levels, placing sub-limits on the amount of equipment that could be held by any single member of either alliance, and, through a structure of concentric zones, introducing sub-limits in the center of Europe and in the CFE “flank” regions."



    Warpac hostilities would have been suicidal at conventional levels

    Among the comical reality's overturning operated by the strong Cold War PR machine this is ,i must admit, one of the most funny and creative in absolute Laughing Laughing .



    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 Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:25 pm

    Interesting, the BGM-71E couldn't defeat soviet ERA even with a tandem warhead.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Armata failed

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:15 am

    Lets just say for the record we are lucky to have survived the weapons build up and machinations of both cold war sides military industrial complexes.As far as supremacy the dog chases its tail in an endless circle,from the outside it appears a game,from the inside it is one deranged dog.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:20 am

    Both sides had enough nuclear weapons on hand to not "lose", which would mean total obliteration for most of the ground they were fighting on.

    The whole purpose of "eastern europe" for the Soviets was to ensure that the ground being fought over was not Soviet.

    As you say... a conflict like that and both sides lose... very badly.
    Just as well it never happened.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:14 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:14 pm