1. The 60 ton number is the maximum weight for tanks, IFVs, APC, and some more, but 152mm cannon can stay in the 50 ton range.
The Armata vehicle family is a 50 ton class vehicle... in other words the IFV/APC, MBT, Command, and recon vehicles will be 50-55 tons or so, but the Coalition in its original two barrel model was going to weigh 65 tons.
2. A 60 ton tank will have 24 hp/ton ratios, which is better than most of the Western tanks have. So mobility will not be reduced.
Power to weight ratio is only part of the problem... gearing, transmission, running gear, all effect acceleration and acceleration from cover to cover is rather more important than top speed. Top speed is only possible on a flat hard surface... where tanks almost never go.
3. Extra 10 ton of armor will improve the strength of any tank.
and yet still wont make it invulnerable... just heavier and slower and harder to transport by air and land and sea.
A. The 30 mm gun that is the main gun on the Western IFV, getting serious upgrade, Sweden will have the 40 mm “Bushmaster-4”, Danish, Norwegian and Dutch have the 35 mm “bushmaster-3”, French and England upgrade there IFV to the CTI 40 mm gun with Case Telescopic Ammunition that his APFSDS has velocity of 1,500 meter per second and can penetrate 160 mm steel, that’s might be a big problem for tanks, IFV and APC.
The frontal armour should easily stop that and most modern tanks have protection from the sides that will stop similar rounds. NERA panels should improve side protection to 300-400mm.
B. EFP-Explosive Form Penetrator. This penetrator can cut through steel with velocity of 2,000 meter per second with no problem, it can be fired as a smart mine, from artillery, rockets, aircraft, and it’s a very dangerous weapon.
Such warheads are only of use against thin armour... a disk that is formed into a projectile by being accelerated to very high speed by an explosive charge is going to lack one key component of penetration... a hard penetrator. Sure it is travelling at high speed but the right case hardened armour will shatter it.
Soviets used SFF or self forging fragments in cluster munitions since 1987 and since 1996 have been offering improved models with built in MMW radar and IR sensors to specifically target armoured vehicles on the battlefield.
C. The worst of all is the under belly mine, this mines can destroy the tank completely.
Mine rollers, mine plows, EMP devices... lots of counters to mines... though nothing is perfect.
I think that the level of armor in a 60 ton with unmanned turret is equal to 70 ton in the Western tanks.
Well that is a pathetic huge step backwards. A T-90AM with upgraded versions of Shtora, ARENA, and Nakidka is a 48 ton tank which is equal in many respects to 70 ton weatern tanks.
The Armata Is newer, but the threats are getting strong and the defence need to get update all the time.
With increasing threats and now money to spend, you would think instead of starting from scratch and using their experience in real conflicts to develop a new tank that will be a whole new generation with new electronics and optics and systems, that they would just keep updating the T-90... hang on... aren't they already doing the sensible thing?
Armata wont be a super tank that will be invincible... because that is not possible.
but the T-72 was not a match to the Abrams tanks in Iraq.
Quite true, but there were plenty of very specific reasons for that.
Replace the M1 Abrams with T-90AMs and the Iraqi tanks with M60s with the equipment they had from the mid 1970s and the results would have been just as one sided.
The US army had training and communications and air control on their side, and the relatively passive posture of the Iraqis basically led to the US dictating the combat, which mostly was conducted at night.
THERE IS A REASON THE US REFUSED TO SEND GROUND FORCES TO KOSOVO.
On big flat open terrain a tank with thermal imagers that let it see through dust and smoke up against enemy tanks with active IR night sights where one can see 5-6km on the darkest night and the other can see 800m with the active IR searchlight it does not take a genius to work out the result.
Add the fact that the Iraqis were using ammo the Soviets wouldn't even use for practise rounds.
What’s the purpose of the medium brigade? Is it a tank brigade or like the Stryker infantry brigade?
The Russians will have two types of brigade in three different weight classes. The Tank brigade and the Motor Rifle brigade.
Basically tanks can't operate on their own and infantry can't operate on its own either, so a tank brigade has 3 tank regiments and one or two infantry regiments, while a motor rifle brigade has 3 infantry regiments and one tank regiment. The three weight classes are now heavy, medium, and light, but there will technically be four. There will be heavy tracked Tank brigades based on Armata chassis and heavy tracked Motor rifle brigades based on the Armata chassis. In the medium class there will tracked medium brigades of tank and motor rifle types on the Kurganets-25 chassis and wheeled medium brigades of tank and motor rifle types on the Boomerang-25 chassis.
Both medium brigades will be fully amphibious.
And in the light class there will be wheeled tank and motor rifle brigades on the Boomerang-10 chassis, which will also be amphibious.
The problem in the past has been to accociate each vehicle family with a vehicle where Armata is a tank, Kurganets-25 is a BMP, Boomerang-25 is a BTR and Boomerang-10 is a BRDM-2 type vehicle.
Basically the Armata brigades will have good mobility but will be used in high threat high risk locations like inside cities or to crack enemy hardpoints.
The medium brigades will be mobile and have lots of firepower and will have heavier armour than current BMP vehicles. (Note the BMP-3 is 18 tons and both the wheeled and tracked vehicles in the medium brigades are 25 tons or more).
The light brigades will be the most mobile.
Communication and data sharing and mutual support will be increased exponentially with the light forces being highly mobile and well armed.
If we are talking about the Iraqi T-72 levels, then we are taking about a ~3 fold increase, depending on the means of attack, chemical or kinetic energy.
No exaggeration, the difference is that massive.
Probably even a greater increase because Iraqi T-72s didn't even have effective ERA. T-90 has very effective ERA.
Armata seems to be using hull ammo storage, (correct me if I'm wrong Garry). I believe the reason Russian designers use this layout is because most of the time AFV's are hit in the turret, so it makes sense not to put the ammo there.
The ammo is stored in the turret but below the turret ring. To hit the ammo from the front you would need to penetrate the frontal armour, the crew compartment in the front hull, the rear armour/firewall separating them from the turret and then the turret to reach the ammo. From the side the ammo should be easier to reach but it is separate from the crew like ammo in the turret bustle of the Abrams... the difference is that the ammo in the Armata is better protected from external fire.