Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 12, 2014 12:25 am

    Mike E wrote:Typically I would look deeper into this, but... There are many sources saying that this event did occur, and that "tank-net" thread is full of crap. Not only that, but there are reports of T-90's sustaining similar damage in Chechnya and Georgia among others. 

    "Full of crap" - Notice how they only mention it in a couple comments, and that they quickly changed the subject to something else. Had they had a thread on the subject, and/or provided actual sorces, it would be much more believable. One or two people's opinions doesn't equal the truth, as in this case.

    Also, please provide the source of " confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site)".

    T-90 wasn't in Chechnya it was a T-72 version probably S version intended for export and in Georgia no newer tank than T-72 were used, not that anything new would be needed for Georgia.


    I just did. He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

    Well, not really a reason to put his concerns about the report on a forum instead of his own website, i mean he still pays for it every year like any other person that runs a website for whatever purposes and that is also the point that does not make it 100% clear if it is even his account and he did not stated any statements what exactly his concerns are based on, i can surely understand which points in the report could bring concerns up but so far even he did not confirm it to be a hoax.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 12, 2014 12:30 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Typically I would look deeper into this, but... There are many sources saying that this event did occur, and that "tank-net" thread is full of crap. Not only that, but there are reports of T-90's sustaining similar damage in Chechnya and Georgia among others. 

    "Full of crap" - Notice how they only mention it in a couple comments, and that they quickly changed the subject to something else. Had they had a thread on the subject, and/or provided actual sorces, it would be much more believable. One or two people's opinions doesn't equal the truth, as in this case.

    Also, please provide the source of " confirmed by website author himself (he since long ago no longer updates the site)".

    T-90 wasn't in Chechnya it was a T-72 version probably S version intended for export and in Georgia no newer tank than T-72 were used, not that anything new would be needed for Georgia.


    I just did.  He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

    Well, not really a reason to put his concerns about the report on a forum instead of his own website, i mean he still pays for it every year like any other person that runs a website for whatever purposes and that is also the point that does not make it 100% clear if it is even his account and he did not stated any statements what exactly his concerns are based on, i can surely understand which points in the report could bring concerns up but so far even he did not confirm it to be a hoax.

    My bad!!! It was just Georgia then... (I believe) Question

     - Let me add that if the article is wrong/fake/hoax or whatever else, chances are the writer would admit it is a "fake" now that he doesn't run the site anymore.

    fragmachine
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 124
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2014-05-28
    Location : Poland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  fragmachine on Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:50 pm

    Is there any info about Armata tank armour? How will it fare against Leo 6 or Abrams? It will most probably be mixed with ceramics, steel plates/some sort of newly developed special material + Relikt, right?

    Drop in anything you know below Smile

    volna
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2013-03-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  volna on Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:07 pm

    fragmachine wrote:Is there any info about Armata tank armour? How will it fare against Leo 6 or Abrams? It will most probably be mixed with ceramics, steel plates/some sort of newly developed special material + Relikt, right?

    Drop in anything you know below Smile
    No info about the new composite but the basic armor will made of new steel 44S-sv-Sh
    http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-8773.htm

    fragmachine
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 124
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2014-05-28
    Location : Poland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  fragmachine on Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:06 pm

    Yeah, I heard about that steel. It could still be lighter by few tons and better protected than Abrams. Would make sense to make special heavy versions of Armata with better protection to serve in western district and some lighter versions for east of country.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:14 pm

    That new steel and composite should do a great job together.... Even then Relikt will be doing the dirty work.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3355
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:25 pm



    Will the ARmata tank will have enough protection on its turret against Top attack weapons? or will it depends of active defenses like arena?

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:28 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Will the ARmata tank will have enough protection on its turret against Top attack weapons? or will it depends of active defenses like arena?
    Probably both, better safe then sorry.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:35 pm

    Vann7 wrote:

    Will the ARmata tank will have enough protection on its turret against Top attack weapons? or will it depends of active defenses like arena?

    A) Top armor ERA

    B) Afghanistan

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:38 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:

    Will the ARmata tank will have enough protection on its turret against Top attack weapons? or will it depends of active defenses like arena?

    A) Top armor ERA

    B) Afghanistan

    +

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:24 pm

    Armata-based new combat vehicles to be displayed in 2015 Victory Parade

    BAKU, September 12. /ITAR-TASS/. A family of new combat vehicles based on the universal platform Armata will be displayed at a Victory Parade in 2015, Oleg Siyenko, General Director of the Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) research and production corporation, told ITAR-TASS in an exclusive interview at the ADEX-2014 international exhibition of armaments.

    "All works are proceeding according to schedule. A whole family of armored vehicles based on the Armata platform will be displayed in a Victory Parade next year," Siyenko said.
    Infantry combat vehicle "Atom" to be displayed in action at IDEX-2015 in Abu Dhabi

    The UVZ general director pointed out that there would be not only a main battle tank (MBT), but also other crawler-mounted combat vehicles. "Everything connected with the track layer is our business. An amored personnel carrier (APC) Kurganets is being developed by other enteprises," the UVZ chief said.

    Siyenko said earlier work was being conducted at a priority pace. "Everything is proceeding in line with the contract. Work is being done ahead of schedule. We get ahead of all schedules," he said. The UVZ general director also pointed out that all Armata characteristics, which were inherent in the Defense Ministry's technical specifications, are being confirmed during tests.

    The newest MBT Armata has been developed by UVZ specialists on the basis of a heavy-duty platform of the same name. The platform is to be used for the development of a main battle tank, infantry combat vehicle, a heavy APC, a tank support combat vehicle, an armored repair-and-evacuation vehicle, a chassis for self-propelled artillery mounts, etc. The MBT will have a 125mm gun, remote-controlled and fully digitalized. The crew will operate the gun from an isolated armored capsule.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3355
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:25 am


    Does russian MOD have said how many armata main battle tanks they will order for the army?

    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 Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    Does russian MOD have said how many armata main battle tanks they will order for the army?

    The last figure I've heard was 2,500 Armata's in various configurations. I would guess they're aiming for around 500 MBT's over the next decade. Who really knows though...

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3355
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:40 am

    Zivo wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Does russian MOD have said how many armata main battle tanks they will order for the army?

    The last figure I've heard was 2,500 Armata's in various configurations. I would guess they're aiming for around 500 MBT's over the next decade. Who really knows though...

    Thats actually not a bad number.. They should also keep their T-72s i think they have about 10,000 and upgrade/reinforce them.. They can be very useful in urban /guerrilla warfare ,as support tanks.. What i would also like to see is also many orders of Koalition -SV and Iskanders..

    You know how many Iskanders Russia have in inventory at the moment and how many ordered.?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:19 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Does russian MOD have said how many armata main battle tanks they will order for the army?

    The last figure I've heard was 2,500 Armata's in various configurations. I would guess they're aiming for around 500 MBT's over the next decade. Who really knows though...

    Thats actually not a bad number.. They should also keep their T-72s i think they have about 10,000 and upgrade/reinforce them.. They can be very useful in urban /guerrilla warfare ,as support tanks.. What i would also like to see is also many orders of Koalition -SV and Iskanders..  

    You know how many Iskanders Russia have in inventory at the moment and how many ordered.?

    No, Russia does not have anywhere near 10,000 operational, reserve, or even stored in barely decent condition T-72s. Not at this point.


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:24 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    Does russian MOD have said how many armata main battle tanks they will order for the army?

    The last figure I've heard was 2,500 Armata's in various configurations. I would guess they're aiming for around 500 MBT's over the next decade. Who really knows though...

    Thats actually not a bad number.. They should also keep their T-72s i think they have about 10,000 and upgrade/reinforce them.. They can be very useful in urban /guerrilla warfare ,as support tanks.. What i would also like to see is also many orders of Koalition -SV and Iskanders..  

    You know how many Iskanders Russia have in inventory at the moment and how many ordered.?

    No, Russia does not have anywhere near 10,000 operational, reserve, or even stored in barely decent condition T-72s. Not at this point.

    That number is way inflated, so you are correct... They could simply upgrade the T-72's to the B2 and B3 standards, while producing both the T-90 (of some variant, at a slower pace) and Armata. That would leave them with a rather powerful ground force without breaking the bank, and it *shouldn't* take much time either... They still have a large number of -72's in reserve, right?

    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 Sep 24, 2014 9:25 pm

    The bulk of the T-72's in service will likely remain in service for a long time, but will be upgraded. Which isn't a bad thing, considering NATO has the same plan for their MBT's. The clock is ticking down for the older reserve vehicles though, T-80's are also on the chopping block.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:29 pm

    Zivo wrote:The bulk of the T-72's in service will likely remain in service for a long time, but will be upgraded. Which isn't a bad thing, considering NATO has the same plan for their MBT's. The clock is ticking down for the older reserve vehicles though, T-80's are also on the clopping block.

    Which is a mistake IMO. Even given their vulnerabilities, they are very advanced even today.

    Instead of wearing out their life as quick as possilble (T-64s or spare T-72s could be used for that instead), they should be retired but placed into the reserve and kept in good condition; while T-64s should make their way into training units.
    T-62s, T-55/T-54s should be scrapped or converted into civil or utility vehicles same as the current plan calls for.

    That way, Russia would easily have a pool of advanced MBTs on top of the T-72 pool under active exploitation, and as T-64s would be used for training, tank crews will end up acquainted with a lot of the same features that are present in the T-80s. In times of high military tension, those T-80s could be rapidly mobilized and would be highly effective even without further modernisation.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:32 pm

    Zivo wrote:The bulk of the T-72's in service will likely remain in service for a long time, but will be upgraded. Which isn't a bad thing, considering NATO has the same plan for their MBT's. The clock is ticking down for the older reserve vehicles though, T-80's are also on the chopping block.
    Figured that, and it seems like a good option both economically and militarily... Why are the T-80's going to get chopped when the T-72 is technically older?- I've been wondering this for a while now, and it doesn't make much sense.... I'd like to them get upgraded to some sort of export spec and sold. I'm sure that there are potential buyers, why not?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:38 pm

    T-80 was "rejected" because of high fuel consumption. Army has not changed its opinion since then. The vulnerability issue is wildly overplayed and not that much of a factor.

    There are so many T-72s left, that rationalizing the force to one (well, almost one) type makes sense. T-64s are ancient and pointless, there are enough T-72s for training. They have bee dumped several years back from training, for good reason.
    While I would like to see T-80 live out its life, especially with proliferation of T-72B3 keeping them around is hard to justify. They are even more pointless to keep in reserve IMO. T-72 is a much more suitable reserve or mobilization tank, especially given the kind of crews reserve units would get in wartime.
    With mostly T-72s, training, large scale technical support in theater, and spare cannibalization becomes easier. Presumably they do have enough spares built up that continuing T-80 operations for years, but I guess they really want to narrow it down to one type.

    T-62 and T-55 are gone.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:41 pm

    akd wrote:I just did.  He stopped updating that site a long time ago.

    Please feel free to provide an original source for the report if you don't think Fofanov's doubts raise concerns about its veracity.  Everything I can find on this report points back to Fofanov's website, except some vague references to the original source being a post in a Russian language forum.

    Fofanov and others have discussed the trials on Russian forums. The consensus is it is not reliable data, and sadly should be dismissed.

    Vympel
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 112
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2013-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vympel on Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:12 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Figured that, and it seems like a good option both economically and militarily... Why are the T-80's going to get chopped when the T-72 is technically older?

    That depends on what T-72 and what T-80 you're talking about. The T-80B series is not newer than the T-72B series by any significant degree. T-72Bs were built right up to the end of the USSR (and beyond I believe). The Russian force is clearly being rationalised to T-72B tanks - distinct from say T-72A tanks which you never see nowadays, and which are probably being exported to fight in Syria or something.

    EDIT: only a comparative handful of T-80Us exist. T-80UDs built in Ukraine have been withdrawn.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:58 am

    Vympel wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Figured that, and it seems like a good option both economically and militarily... Why are the T-80's going to get chopped when the T-72 is technically older?

    That depends on what T-72 and what T-80 you're talking about. The T-80B series is not newer than the T-72B series by any significant degree. T-72Bs were built right up to the end of the USSR (and beyond I believe). The Russian force is clearly being rationalised to T-72B tanks - distinct from say T-72A tanks which you never see nowadays, and which are probably being exported to fight in Syria or something.

    EDIT: only a comparative handful of T-80Us exist. T-80UDs built in Ukraine have been withdrawn.
    No matter how you look at it, they are both of the same generation of MBT's. - If they retire some of the T-80's (in this case all of them) why not retire some T-72's along with it? I'm confused on why they'd retire the T-80 and not both when they are of the same age... The only explanation I can think of is that the T-72 is has more modified variants, but that's it...  The gas-guzzling problem could be fixed with a new, and/or upgraded engine and transmission etc.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:11 am

    Mike E wrote:
    No matter how you look at it, they are both of the same generation of MBT's. - If they retire some of the T-80's (in this case all of them) why not retire some T-72's along with it? I'm confused on why they'd retire the T-80 and not both when they are of the same age... The only explanation I can think of is that the T-72 is has more modified variants, but that's it...  The gas-guzzling problem could be fixed with a new, and/or upgraded engine and transmission etc.

    What part is confusing? The logic is rationalization of the tank fleet, that is basically it.
    Russia has more tanks that it needs, especially with increased emphasis on ready formations vs vast war stocks.
    Taking out parts of both tank fleets is pointless. You might as well get rid of one entirely and not complicate future operations. Simplifying your technical diversity is always a good thing.  

    There is no question of age- the T-80 is a fine tank (in fact you could easily argue it is better than T-72B without any upgrades). However the gas issue is there. Changing engine and transmission, well, you do not have a T-80 anymore, since it is very much designed to use a compact gas turbine. What other option is there, to buy 6TD from Ukraine Wink ? It is costly, there is no project to do so, and at the end of the day you might as well Kapremont a T-72 from storage (or even upgrade it, would probably cost no less then switching the T-80s turbine out) and slim your tank force down to one less vehicle.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:26 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    No matter how you look at it, they are both of the same generation of MBT's. - If they retire some of the T-80's (in this case all of them) why not retire some T-72's along with it? I'm confused on why they'd retire the T-80 and not both when they are of the same age... The only explanation I can think of is that the T-72 is has more modified variants, but that's it...  The gas-guzzling problem could be fixed with a new, and/or upgraded engine and transmission etc.

    What part is confusing? The logic is rationalization of the tank fleet, that is basically it.
    Russia has more tanks that it needs, especially with increased emphasis on ready formations vs vast war stocks.
    Taking out parts of both tank fleets is pointless. You might as well get rid of one entirely and not complicate future operations. Simplifying your technical diversity is always a good thing.  

    There is no question of age- the T-80 is a fine tank (in fact you could easily argue it is better than T-72B without any upgrades). However the gas issue is there. Changing engine and transmission, well, you do not have a T-80 anymore, since it is very much designed to use a compact gas turbine. What other option is there, to buy 6TD from Ukraine Wink ? It is costly, there is no project to do so, and at the end of the day you might as well Kapremont a T-72 from storage (or even upgrade it, would probably cost no less then switching the T-80s turbine out) and slim your tank force down to one less vehicle.
    I guess, it just seems counter intuitive to myself....
    "Too many? is true, but there can never be "too many in good shape" (or order).
    Simplifying is great, but simply throwing away tanks that run fine isn't... Like I said earlier, I'm sure that there are countries that would love to get their hands on a T-80 at bargain-bin prices. - They could give em' to Syria for all I care!

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:07 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:07 pm