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 Thu May 17, 2012 7:27 pm

    Merkava safe from anti tank guns? Absolutely not.


    Even RPGs, there are countermeasures already being worked on.
    Dual piece RPGs, what have you.
    Don't buy into the marketting.

    The notion that MErkava has heavy 360 armor is also untrue. It has a generally heavier arc on the turret than most contemporary tanks, but not even across the entire front arc, and certainly nowehre near 360. Not good enough to stop any half modern APFSDS shell, or modern RPG, should it get through.

    Merkava was invincible before 2006 as well.

    Designing Armata to combat rebels in cities would make it a a comprimised POS for normal tank operations. Much better to use lighter vehicles for that task. Not like rebels in cities are gonna be shooting Kinetic Energy projectiles to disable tanks- and the russian army is NOT primarily an anti-insurgent force.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 18, 2012 2:44 am

    Take a future heavy/Armata brigade for example. What about the brigades recon forces or anyone else who needs fast vehicles? I don't think they would take kindly to having to ride in a 50 ton monster.

    The Russian and Soviet Army has a habit of using tanks in recon units... to boost their firepower. A tank weight vehicle with all the necessary sensors and electronics would be able to do a good job... we are talking about a vehicle with at the minimum will have a 1,400hp diesel with versions that will eventually produce up to 2,400hp in a vehicle that is 10-15 tons lighter than western tanks that are supposed to be mobile super tanks.

    Besides the recon aspect will expand its use of UAVs and unmanned ground vehicles in the future anyway.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 18, 2012 3:35 am

    ali.a.r wrote:As much as I hate to interrupt this very interesting "debate/discussion", I have a question thats been nagging me for a while.

    Take a future heavy/Armata brigade for example. What about the brigades recon forces or anyone else who needs fast vehicles? I don't think they would take kindly to having to ride in a 50 ton monster.

    Recon forces always have, and always will have, dedicated vehicles. That will not change in the new structure.
    Why would they use only MBTs for reco?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 18, 2012 4:06 am

    Recon forces always have, and always will have, dedicated vehicles. That will not change in the new structure.
    Why would they use only MBTs for reco?

    Yes, exactly... Armata does not = MBT.

    An Armata brigade will have dedicated recon vehicles... and those vehicles will be based on the Armata chassis.

    I rather suspect they will adopt modular armour, but the point of using a base vehicle family for a unit is to share protection levels and mobility, so making a super light model defeats the purpose.

    The problem is that if you have light thinly armoured recon vehicles in a heavy tank or heavy motor rifle brigade then they are vulnerable to attack because you wont be using your heavy brigades against unarmed protestors... there will be a reason you chose to use a heavy brigade over a medium or light brigade.

    In urban combat environments it was found that thinly armoured IFVs (and in this context even western non tank based IFVs would fare no better) were picked off leaving tanks to fend for themselves. The main gun on a tank has very limited elevation so attacking it from the 3rd floor or higher or from basement positions meant infantry were relatively safe. The Russian solution is a from scratch design where all the vehicles in the brigade will have the same level of protection and mobility so the enemy will have as hard a time picking off the IFVs as they will the MBTs. Also the MBTs will be fitted with independently elevating 30mm cannon that can engage targets up in tall buildings or down in basements. The external gun mount should also allow a much better range of elevation than the old gun setup.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed May 23, 2012 3:35 am

    I do agree with you that the “Armta” concept is the way to go. But I think that for a tank to survive in the battlefield, it needs to weigh around the 60 ton and not 50 ton.
    The threats to a tank are not only from tank’s gun, but also come from light guns in caliber of 35-50mm, that can penetrate the side of a tank, it’s come from EFP that can hit the tank from the sides and from the top, it’s come from the ATGM that can hit the tank from 8 km away, it’s come from the IED included mines that will explode under the bally of the tank and blew it to pieces. So to defend itself form all those threats, the tank needs to have heavy passive armor, reactive armour, ADS, under the bally armour and more. To make it happen I think 60 ton will be a better answer.

    I have a question about the concept. What we do with the T-90 and the T-72, are they going to have a “family” or they will stay in the same way they are now, and the “family” concept will be for the Armta only?




    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 23, 2012 4:07 am

    Why 60 and not 50?

    Weight is not the issue, volume is. Armata has less crewmembers than say Abrams, it is a newer design, no reason it has to weigh the same to be well protected.
    Don't worry about protection all around, firing trials in Russia are pretty exhaustive.

    T-72 is being upgraded as interim solution for tank forces, and T-90 will stay around for a while since they are relatively new.
    Both have their chassis used for a variety of vehicles, but not to the extent of modularity planned for Armata.

    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 May 23, 2012 5:47 am

    Why do people keep forgetting that? At 70 tons, the M1 is still equal to the T-90 in protection, it's the internal volume that adds to the weight as you have more space to cover with armor. Looking at their layouts, I'd even go as far to say the T-90 has slightly better 360 degree protection than the M1 as long as ammo is stored correctly.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 23, 2012 10:42 am

    I do agree with you that the “Armta” concept is the way to go. But I think that for a tank to survive in the battlefield, it needs to weigh around the 60 ton and not 50 ton.

    You base a design around a level of protection required... you don't base it on a weight class.

    With the T-90 they have a tank that in many ways was very close to the protection levels of western tanks.

    They have shifted around the components of the vehicle to reduce weight even further... by moving the crew to the hull it means the thick and heavy frontal turret armour is no longer necessary though the hull front armour will weigh more, yet they are looking at increasing overall weight by several tons.

    To prove that weight does not equal protection the KV-1 has similar weight to most model T-72 tanks yet its protection is much less. When it first entered service it was pretty much invulnerable in the frontal sector from enemy anti armour weapons... today it would be incredibly vulnerable.

    The threats to a tank are not only from tank’s gun, but also come from light guns in caliber of 35-50mm, that can penetrate the side of a tank, it’s come from EFP that can hit the tank from the sides and from the top, it’s come from the ATGM that can hit the tank from 8 km away, it’s come from the IED included mines that will explode under the bally of the tank and blew it to pieces. So to defend itself form all those threats, the tank needs to have heavy passive armor, reactive armour, ADS, under the bally armour and more. To make it happen I think 60 ton will be a better answer.

    Threats to tanks will continue to evolve... there is no such thing as an invulnerable tank. 14.5mm HMG fire will disable running gear and an immobile tank is a dead tank eventually.

    I have a question about the concept. What we do with the T-90 and the T-72, are they going to have a “family” or they will stay in the same way they are now, and the “family” concept will be for the Armta only?

    Hard to say. The Armata vehicles will be the most expensive and take the longest to actually build... The light and medium brigades wont have T series tanks in them so they can be rapidly created and put into service.

    The Armata on the other hand will take a while to produce in sufficient numbers, but I think the effort and time and cost to develop the Armata family equivalents of the T-90 might not be worth it, so they might retain conventional tank and motor rifle heavy brigades for some time with their wide range of vehicle types and extended logistics trains.

    Why do people keep forgetting that? At 70 tons, the M1 is still equal to the T-90 in protection, it's the internal volume that adds to the weight as you have more space to cover with armor. Looking at their layouts, I'd even go as far to say the T-90 has slightly better 360 degree protection than the M1 as long as ammo is stored correctly.

    Because western media and western marketing and the History Channel talk about 1980s export model T-72s vs M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks.

    They have always been keen to point out faults and problems while ignoring strengths and features.

    The other factor was of course that even in the Gulf War with people claiming to have been there there is a lot of confusion about what actually happened. I have spoken to a person who claimed to have been there and he said they managed to take out a few T-80s. The truth is that to someone who doesn't know any better a T-54, a T-55, a T-62, and a T-72 look very very similar and with bolted on add on armour they can't really tell them apart. The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s that could be penetrated from the side with 25mm DU ammo from a Bradley.

    T-72s... not so much.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 23, 2012 10:45 am

    I would add that you don't change the weight class of your armour on a whim... adding 10 tons in weight to your main tanks can drastically effect your ability to transport them... all your existing vehicle handling equipment suddenly becomes more stressed... suddenly you will need a more powerful engine and you will likely need a new transmission and gearing to cope with the extra power and the extra weight.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 2:30 am

    TR1 wrote:Why 60 and not 50?

    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.

    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.

    3. Extra 10 ton of armor will improve the strength of any tank.

    4. There are 3 threats that upgrade against them will be welcome in any tank or IFV.
    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.
    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.
    C. The worst of all is the under belly mine, this mines can destroy the tank completely.

    To defend against these weapons, the extra 10 ton is required.
    I think that the level of armor in a 60 ton with unmanned turret is equal to 70 ton in the Western tanks.



    Weight is not the issue, volume is. Armata has less crewmembers than say Abrams, it is a newer design, no reason it has to weigh the same to be well protected.
    Don't worry about protection all around, firing trials in Russia are pretty exhaustive.
    The Armata Is newer, but the threats are getting strong and the defence need to get update all the time.

    T-72 is being upgraded as interim solution for tank forces, and T-90 will stay around for a while since they are relatively new.
    Both have their chassis used for a variety of vehicles, but not to the extent of modularity planned for Armata.
    I understand and thank you for that.



    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 3:06 am

    Zivo wrote:Why do people keep forgetting that? At 70 tons, the M1 is still equal to the T-90 in protection, it's the internal volume that adds to the weight as you have more space to cover with armor. Looking at their layouts, I'd even go as far to say the T-90 has slightly better 360 degree protection than the M1 as long as ammo is stored correctly.
    I can’t argue on that as I don’t have enough info, but the T-72 was not a match to the Abrams tanks in Iraq.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 24, 2012 3:50 am

    AJ-47 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:Why do people keep forgetting that? At 70 tons, the M1 is still equal to the T-90 in protection, it's the internal volume that adds to the weight as you have more space to cover with armor. Looking at their layouts, I'd even go as far to say the T-90 has slightly better 360 degree protection than the M1 as long as ammo is stored correctly.
    I can’t argue on that as I don’t have enough info, but the T-72 was not a match to the Abrams tanks in Iraq.


    Brand new Abrams with brand new ammo and optics, versus older-armored, export T-72s with ancient ammunition and hardly any fire control...add to that level of training and external factors (air support, w/e) and its not exactly a fair comparison is it Wink ?


    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 4:12 am

    To prove that weight does not equal protection the KV-1 has similar weight to most model T-72 tanks yet its protection is much less. When it first entered service it was pretty much invulnerable in the frontal sector from enemy anti armour weapons... today it would be incredibly vulnerable.
    No doubt on that, the Merkava-4 is much more protected than Merkava -2, and the Merkava -2 is more protected than the M-60. It’s for sure not only the weight that makes the different, but also were the fuel, ammo, and oil storage in the tank. In the 6 day war the M-60 get hit and the oil that help to turn the turret catch in fire, in the Merkava, there is no oil in the turret, there is fire suppressing system in the engine compartment, and the rounds are in a secure place so they will not explode. So the weight is only one factor in protection but can’t be without it.
    Threats to tanks will continue to evolve... there is no such thing as an invulnerable tank. 14.5mm HMG fire will disable running gear and an immobile tank is a dead tank eventually.
    No doubt, and that one of the reason way in the Merkava the engine is in the front.
    Hard to say. The Armata vehicles will be the most expensive and take the longest to actually build... The light and medium brigades wont have T series tanks in them so they can be rapidly created and put into service.
    The Armata on the other hand will take a while to produce in sufficient numbers, but I think the effort and time and cost to develop the Armata family equivalents of the T-90 might not be worth it, so they might retain conventional tank and motor rifle heavy brigades for some time with their wide range of vehicle types and extended logistics trains.
    What’s the purpose of the medium brigade? Is it a tank brigade or like the Stryker infantry brigade?


    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 4:22 am

    Brand new Abrams with brand new ammo and optics, versus older-armored, export T-72s with ancient ammunition and hardly any fire control...add to that level of training and external factors (air support, w/e) and its not exactly a fair comparison is it Wink ?

    Thats true. I just don't know how much better is the T-90 than the T-72 on protection.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 24, 2012 4:36 am

    AJ-47 wrote:
    Brand new Abrams with brand new ammo and optics, versus older-armored, export T-72s with ancient ammunition and hardly any fire control...add to that level of training and external factors (air support, w/e) and its not exactly a fair comparison is it Wink ?

    Thats true. I just don't know how much better is the T-90 than the T-72 on protection.

    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.

    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 May 24, 2012 6:22 am

    It should be noted that Kuwaiti M-84's which are a high quality Yugoslav version of the T-72s, preformed equally well in combat against Saddam's armor as its western comrades.

    One of the largest issue with the T series is loose munitions in the fighting compartment. If crews go in with less ammo (only having the magazine loaded), which was often done during the Chechen wars, T-72:80:90's are top notch for survivability. The T-90AM solved this issue by putting the extra ammo in the bustle.

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2012 12:01 pm

    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.


    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 4:30 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    AJ-47 wrote:
    Brand new Abrams with brand new ammo and optics, versus older-armored, export T-72s with ancient ammunition and hardly any fire control...add to that level of training and external factors (air support, w/e) and its not exactly a fair comparison is it Wink ?

    Thats true. I just don't know how much better is the T-90 than the T-72 on protection.

    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.

    No doubt the T-90 is very interesting tank, I think it sold very well too, and hope we will not see it in the Syria army. I specially liked the RWS on top of the turret.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu May 24, 2012 6:26 pm

    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.
    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.
    and yet still wont make it invulnerable... just heavier and slower and harder to transport by air and land and sea.
    If all of you think 50 ton is good enough, it’s ok with me. But when start from zero, aim high and make the engineering for 60 ton tank. The west going into big upgrade for there IFVs, with bigger gun, extra protection and of course extra weight. So better to be prepare now and that's include engine, gear and more, bc later it will be much more expensive and some time impossible.
    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.
    Is the Russian tanks having NERA on there tanks? How it will stop kinetic projectile? I thought it works only against shaped charge?
    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.
    This type of weapon get very dangerous, there are a lot of upgrade including long strong penetrator that can penetrate the side of a tank with no problem. I know about some of the Russian stuff including the warhead for the BM-30 Smerch.
    Mine rollers, mine plows, EMP devices... lots of counters to mines... though nothing is perfect.
    In urban fighting, mins are no easy to detect or to take out, and if you didn’t see it, and you don’t have extra under belly protection you have a problem.
    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?
    I'm not sure if I get it right. I'm sure that the T-90 is the right way to go, and upgrade it through the time. but a new tank sould be the next step even if it take time to get there and a lot of money to test this tank.








    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 25, 2012 1:12 am


    If all of you think 50 ton is good enough, it’s ok with me. But when start from zero, aim high and make the engineering for 60 ton tank.


    You have the wrong end of the stick... it is easy to make a 60 ton tank that is well protected... there is no advantage to having a heavy tank. The advantage is in having a well protected tank and the lighter you can make it the better it is in terms of design and operational usefulness.

    The west going into big upgrade for there IFVs, with bigger gun, extra protection and of course extra weight.

    And when the super Bradley with a 40mm gun comes up against the Armata IFV with its tank level frontal armour how do you think that super western IFV will perform?

    With a 40mm gun even the command vehicle in the Armata brigade has tank level armour... how much use will it be?

    There are a variety of roles and missions and terrains in real combat... making everything a 70 ton monster is not a good solution no matter how well it protects your troops.

    So better to be prepare now and that's include engine, gear and more, bc later it will be much more expensive and some time impossible.

    The changes the Russians are making will mean only western tanks with western tank level firepower will have a chance of killing a Russian heavy brigade vehicle from the front... who is behind and who needs to upgrade and react?

    Is the Russian tanks having NERA on there tanks? How it will stop kinetic projectile? I thought it works only against shaped charge?

    NERA means there is no explosive... the energy of the incoming projectile is used against that projectile to reduce its penetration and hopefully break it up. Soviet tanks since the T-64 have used internal elements that move and interact to that effect.

    This type of weapon get very dangerous, there are a lot of upgrade including long strong penetrator that can penetrate the side of a tank with no problem.

    The sides, rear, and roof and belly of tanks will always be vulnerable to something... you can't protect everything to the same level as the front.

    I know about some of the Russian stuff including the warhead for the BM-30 Smerch.

    The Soviets had standard submunitions... Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka-U, Iskander, and aviation bombs could all use these submunitions.

    In urban fighting, mins are no easy to detect or to take out, and if you didn’t see it, and you don’t have extra under belly protection you have a problem.

    And what level of extra protection will do? This is just silly. No matter what level of increase in armour you decide to apply the enemy will simply make their mines bigger... and making mines bigger is much cheaper than lugging around heaps of belly armour that is just dead weight against threats from all other angles.

    I'm not sure if I get it right. I'm sure that the T-90 is the right way to go, and upgrade it through the time. but a new tank sould be the next step even if it take time to get there and a lot of money to test this tank.

    That is what they are doing! In fact they decided to save money by not producing the T-90AM right now and continue to upgrade the T-72s. They have a limited budget... it is pretty clear the extra money they would have spent on new T-90AMs is not all being spent on T-72 upgrades... the rest will likely be either invested in the Armata family (remember they have to design and build an entire range of vehicles, or kept aside for purchasing new Armata family vehicles later on.

    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 Jul 30, 2012 3:43 am



    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post_29.html

    I hope we get more shots of this model now that the cat's out of the bag.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:19 am

    Gur Khan29 июля 2012 г., 23:10

    Фишка в том, что на нижней картинке таки не Армата, а... незнамо что!

    Not Armata.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:54 am

    Not Armata.

    Even if it is not Armata, check out the elevation possible with an externally mounted main gun with no crew in the turret compartment...

    Note also the cannon... presumably 30mm mounted in the side of the turret that presumably can be used against a range of targets too.

    An interesting aspect of the high elevation of the main gun would be that missiles should be able to be lofted to much greater distances making fire and forget diving top attack missiles much more useful and capable.


    _________________
    “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

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1506
    Points : 1669
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:05 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Not Armata.

    Even if it is not Armata, check out the elevation possible with an externally mounted main gun with no crew in the turret compartment...

    Note also the cannon... presumably 30mm mounted in the side of the turret that presumably can be used against a range of targets too.

    An interesting aspect of the high elevation of the main gun would be that missiles should be able to be lofted to much greater distances making fire and forget diving top attack missiles much more useful and capable.

    The sustantial elevation can be useful in indirect fire. The large caliber gun of the tank must be intended to be used as indirect artillery.Krasnapol type guded projectiles come also into mind.
    The side gun is mentioned to be a 45 mm. Indeed, very useful against a whole range of armoured and unarmoured targets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:16 pm

    The sustantial elevation can be useful in indirect fire. The large caliber gun of the tank must be intended to be used as indirect artillery.Krasnapol type guded projectiles come also into mind.

    This gun is initially a 125mm high velocity smoothbore gun, and later to be a 152mm smoothbore high velocity gun.

    The MBT version that this vehicle is will not be equipped to engage targets with its main gun indirectly.

    The high elevation will be useful in hilly country on reverse slopes and aiming at targets well above or below your tank... including in urban areas. It will be point and shoot and visible targets... it wont be used against indirect targets.

    The brigade will already have tube and rocket artillery for that sort of job and those assets will be equipped and trained to engage indirect targets very very effectively... in fact more effectively than any previous Russian unit.

    It is an unusually short barrel for a 45mm weapon.

    Look at the barrel length of the guns on the Kurgan and Boomerang vehicles. The long barrel with muzzle brakes will be either 45 or 57mm and that will be the turret fitted to all Russian IFVs, including armata, and the sensors and electronics will be the same as well.

    If the extra gun on the Armata or tank vehicle is a 45mm then I suspect it is not related to the gun on the IFVs and is a lower velocity weapon, perhaps with a custom designed HE shell for dealing with infantry or obstacles with a small stub propellent charge like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3.


    _________________
    “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 4:54 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:54 am