Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:10 am

    Thats quite nice..  3000m/s is about mach 8.7 . Traditional Tanks kinetic salvo fly at mach 5.5  .So in theory
    the active protection could intercept even a plane hypersonic air to ground missile. Shocked  Hellfire is like 10 times slower ,less than Mach 1.0 its speed ,same , TOmahawks missiles too , so we are speaking here about what? RAil Guns projectiles? Brahmos2 ? thats very fast hypersonic weapons.. mmm.. seems overkill . For sure even if a heavy missile like tomahawk is intercepted the shock wave will still wipe the tank or at very least totally disable /damage all its electronics and sensors and optics and seriously injure the operators for the shock wave.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:12 am

    Vann7 wrote:

    Thats quite nice..  3000m/s is about mach 8.7 . Traditional Tanks kinetic salvo fly at mach 5.5  .So in theory
    the active protection could intercept even a plane hypersonic air to ground missile. Shocked  Hellfire is like 10 times slower ,less than Mach 1.0 its speed ,same , TOmahawks missiles too , so we are speaking here about what? RAil Guns projectiles? Brahmos2 ? thats very fast hypersonic weapons.. mmm.. seems overkill . For sure even if a heavy missile like tomahawk is intercepted the shock wave will still wipe the tank..

    The tomahawk will crush the tank by kinetic energy alone. Like a bowling ball against a pin.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:11 am

    Kinetic energy alone the tomahawk would shatter and have a marginal effect, but if its 100+kg warhead goes off the contents of the tank will be turned into jam.

    the main focus of the 3km/s interception capability is reportedly self forging fragments and future rail guns afaik.

    SMERCH and GRAD and URAGAN already have a wide range of top attack self forging fragment munitions with MMW radar and IR guidance... and have done for some time.

    3km/s is about 9.2 mach, with the speed of sound near sea level being about 320m/s.

    Most tank shells leave the muzzle at about 1.5-1.7km/s but by the time they get to the target they are travelling slower.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:19 pm

    Russia’s tank manufacturer criticized for high prices of new generation tanks

    MOSCOW, November 18. /TASS/. The price of the new Armata tank is too high, Oleg Bochkaryov, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Military-industrial Commission said Tuesday. The contract on production of Armata tanks will be signed with Russia’s leading tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod for three years, and the price of combat vehicles has already been defined, Bochkaryov said.

    Bochkaryov confirmed that the first Armata will be will be produced by the end of the year, and on May 9 the new tanks will take part in the Victory Day parade in Moscow. According to Bochkaryov, 24 machines on Armata platforms will be shown – 12 tanks and 12 heavy combat vehicles.

    It is suggested that the tank will have a remote control gun and the crew will be placed in an isolated crew cell.

    The Uralvagonzavod reacted to the accusations saying it will work on lowering the price.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What kind of vechile will be the "heavy combat" one? IFV/APC based on Armata?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:07 am

    This tank will have all the bells and whistles, including radar, and a range of optronic sensors, as well as APS and the latest ERA and the latest version of Nakidka etc etc.

    Of course the first production models will be expensive... but with the chassis standardised it will be produced in large numbers with a variety of electronics suites...

    It could even have a gun launched UAV... The three crew positions will have modular controls so from any one position you could be driver, gunner, or commander.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:05 pm



    translation of some key points of this interview :

    Nothing specific was said. Since its still classified for the most part, he didn't reveal any details. He confirmed what is already known:

    - will definitely be shown on May 9th Victory Day parade. There is also a chance it will be shown in September at an arms expo.
    - very high crew survivability
    - tons of automation
    - brand new design as a whole: suspension, armor, various systems
    - advanced targeting systems

    Armata is expected to be given to the army in 2017. Per presidents orders the Armata MBT's production will roughly number in 2300 units, with productions running into year 2020. This is just the MBT numbers, not counting all the other new armor fighting vehicles and etc.
    The rest of the interview is about the armor industry as a whole around the world. Indian partnership is going very smooth, lots of technology being licensed both ways, his corporation is helping India on their own Arjun tank upgrades and production. He talks about the homegrown operations - his corporation has come a long way, able to combine their efforts with other companies at home. They are now able to produce 10x more units than before, lots of money being put towards more R&D and future investments into the operation.

    Mentions Ukraine, the interviewer asks what the Ukrainian tank factories state will be after this whole ordeal. His company is not affected, or the whole homegrown operation. Majority of the parts were being supplied from Russia to Ukraine to build some of the components. All production issues will be mitigated and produced at home.

    In general the company is very active around the world, took on more orders at home and abroad than ever before and will continue to increase capacity and production numbers.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 2:35 am

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1078047.html

    Armata is dubbed T-14.

    IFV Armata being bought for sure, I am pleased.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:08 am

    TR1 wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1078047.html

    Armata is dubbed T-14.

    IFV Armata being bought for sure, I am pleased.

    So is this why they never bothered to go with the BMPT and BMPT72?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:32 am

    BMPT = fire support vehicle.

    Armata is being bought in IFV variant, so functions as a troop carrier.

    If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    TR1 wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1078047.html

    Armata is dubbed T-14.

    IFV Armata being bought for sure, I am pleased.

    So is this why they never bothered to go with the BMPT and BMPT72?

    What makes you say that? The main reason they didn't go with the BMPT72 is the same reason why they didn't go with T-90 AM/MS, their moving on completely to a different platform. Just because they didn't go with the BMPT72 doesn't mean they gave up on the BMPT concept, and while technically and IFV version of the Armata platform can act as the de facto BMPT, the reality is that a pure BMPT would have superior performance because it was designed for that very purpose. The IFV would have the anti-infantry armaments no doubt, but because much of the space would be dedicated to carrying soldiers, the IFV Armata would be limited to how much ammo and variety of weapons it could have mounted at any given time (lets not forget separating ammo from crew members concept). A pure-bred BMPT will have most of the crew space dedicated to ammo storage, combined with more ammo types and more weapon types could be equipped due to that significantly greater flexibility, making the pure BMPT have significantly greater potential and performance than a IFV acting as the de facto BMPT.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:24 am

    I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:49 am

    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    I thought T-14 is the name for the tank version of Armata only Question Question

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:28 pm

    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:01 am

    TR1 wrote:BMPT = fire support vehicle.

    Armata is being bought in IFV variant, so functions as a troop carrier.

    If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.

    OK. So this armata bmp will be predominantly a troop carrier with some firepower than. A heavy troop carrier. Sounds awesome. Cant wait to see this.

    -------

    http://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=3691

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:59 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    TR1 wrote:BMPT = fire support vehicle.

    Armata is being bought in IFV variant, so functions as a troop carrier.

    If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.

    OK. So this armata bmp will be predominantly a troop carrier with some firepower than. A heavy troop carrier. Sounds awesome. Cant wait to see this.

    A BMP is by definition the Russian equivalent of IFV.
    Armor level does not determine if it is an IFV or not, but generally speaking the armament (though in this case, it does appear to be a super-Puma type or something).
    It looks like they are buying both IFV and APC Kurganets for example- so in Russia there will be a Kurganets BTR as well as a BMP Kurganets.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:49 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:39 am

    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    We've seen official renders from KBP Tula plant of a Epoha-variant turret on the prospective Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata chassis:



    The fact they went with an external bustle with the Epoha-variant turret means that it will be completely separated from crew compartment, which is the only way it would be accepted by the Russian ground forces (unlike the Burlak upgrade). Such a light armament for self defense, and likely no internal ammunition means this is likely just a turret for self-defense for the APC versions of the various prospective chassis platform classes.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:06 am

    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahimtOnk4tk

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:29 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahimtOnk4tk

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.

    The issue is, both of these turrets likely take up the same internal volume due to the external ammo storage. Epoha seems more appropriate for the Armata BTR as the weight isn't an issue.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:15 am

    So is this why they never bothered to go with the BMPT and BMPT72?

    Technically the purpose of the BMPT... ie tanks support vehicle with armour and mobility of a tank that can engage enemy infantry in places that are too lethal for friendly infantry to operate, is redundant with the concept of Armata.

    Armata is all tank based vehicles so troop carriers and all other vehicles in the unit have tank level mobility and protection already.

    In practical terms all you need for a BMPT in an armata unit is the IFV with extra ammo in the troop compartment.

    In fact in many ways the armament of the BMP-3M is actually better for the BMPT than the armament of the BMPT based on the T-72 in my opinion. More hitting power with the 100mm rifled gun and good enough rate of fire with the 30mm shells and of course with the new timed fuse 30mm rounds less rounds should be needed for engaging enemy aircraft as they can be set to explode near the target so even if they miss they will shower the target with fragments anyway.

    I would assume shell sized 100mm guided missiles would be even more effective against aircraft too.

    If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.

    An IFV is designed to fight light enemy armour and infantry as well as hardened positions like bunkers and buildings reinforced with sandbags etc etc. As such with a tank protection and mobility level IFV would in many ways be very much the same as the BMPT except that the IFV has troops in the back.

    A version of the IFV perhaps with double the ammo supply replacing the troop compartment could be a useful BMPT substitution.

    The BMPT model shown shows a 120mm gun/mortar, which could be the other option... in many ways the BMPT could also be considered direct fire artillery intended to smash down structures and reach enemy infantry at angles a standard tank main gun can't reach, so a vehicle based on a mortar carrier but with other anti personel weapons fitted like a 6 barrel 23mm gatling and a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful.

    You could even take it further and say if the MBT version has an external gun mount and thelack of crew in the turret means frontal turret armour can be much thinner and lighter and therefore the gun can be mounted higher and well forward so the mount could allow artillery like elevation with a coaxial 2A42 cannon like the AMX-30 then the tank will be able to elevate and depress its main gun and a 30mm gun to hit infantry in the basement floors and 4th floors and above of high rise buildings then again the BMPT concept becomes again redundant as the tanks will be able to fend for themselves.

    Perhaps even a couple of RWS with a few Kords or KPVs and grenade launchers on an APC full of thousands of rounds of internal ready to fire ammo with the support of a couple of dozen unmanned tracked vehicle platforms with 23mm 6 barrel cannon to send into enemy territory to stir things up a bit.

    while technically and IFV version of the Armata platform can act as the de facto BMPT, the reality is that a pure BMPT would have superior performance because it was designed for that very purpose.

    I agree, though Ironically I think the BMPTs armament was a compromise... the Armata BMPT will have an unmanned turret which means more room for armament. I think the BMPT would be a good substitute for MBTs when the enemy lacks MBTs and to be used for supporting infantry. A 120mm gun/mortar round is every bit as effective as a 125mm HE round, yet is likely cheaper with a much longer tank barrel life expectancy. The main advantage of the tank was its superior optics and fire control system... which could easily also be fitted to the BMPT. In many ways the high elevation on the BMPT means much longer effective range with more than 13km range with laser guided rounds like Kitilov missiles for the 122mm artillery guns that is compatible with the 120mm gun/mortar (used on the 2S1 122mm gun vehicle and the 2S34 Hosta refitted with 120mm mortar guns).

    The 120mm gun/mortar seems to be a powerful and popular weapon with a range of ammo type options.

    The IFV would have the anti-infantry armaments no doubt, but because much of the space would be dedicated to carrying soldiers, the IFV Armata would be limited to how much ammo and variety of weapons it could have mounted at any given time (lets not forget separating ammo from crew members concept).

    Agree but these vehicles are supposed to be modular and I would suspect an IFV will have a turret that is unmanned so the different armament options will have the ammo load dictated by the size of the turret and the volume underneath available for that ammo. When converted into a BMPT however the troop compartment could have the seats removed and perhaps a double or triple ammo load installed in perhaps a pallet form so that the old empty ammo pallet can be removed as one... a small 1/3rd pallet could be fitted initially and the turret turned to a specific angle with armoured doors opening and allowing the ammo to feed into the turret magazines. When the pallet is empty and the turret is full, remove it, close off the turret and reload a full pallet of ammo. In combat the crew can push a button to open the firewall door and transfer ammo as needed to reload till the pallet in the rear troop compartment is empty and the vehicle needs to return to base to dump the empty pallet (for reloading) and then load a full pallet... The rear ramp door should make loading and removing pallets fairly straight forward.

    A pure-bred BMPT will have most of the crew space dedicated to ammo storage, combined with more ammo types and more weapon types could be equipped due to that significantly greater flexibility, making the pure BMPT have significantly greater potential and performance than a IFV acting as the de facto BMPT.

    This is very true... a custom designed BMPT vehicle could have a larger turret ring for more powerful weapons and larger ready to use ammo supply and of course if it is not related to the IFV version there is no need for access to the turret compartment from the troop compartment making that stronger in the event of an explosion in the turret compartment.

    Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    The purpose of the IFVs weapons is to fight its equivalent and to engage enemy infantry. The 30mm cannon lacks the capacity to take on enemy (NATO) IFVs at useful ranges so the Armata IFVs need a 57mm gun. It will also likely have 30mm or 40mm grenade launchers and Kornet-M ATGMs.

    The 30mm and Kornet-M armament is for infantry and armour respectively and would be the standard armament of an APC.

    IFV would need a 57mm gun and Kornet-M for enemy IFVs and MBTs respectively.

    Note these armaments are based on enemy equipment not your own.

    When NATO introduces tank based IFVs then the Armata IFV will likely get 125mm smoothbore guns or something very different....

    I thought T-14 is the name for the tank version of Armata only

    It is tricky as technically T-14 should apply to the MBT Armata, MBT Kurganets, MBT Boomerang, and MBT Typhoon.

    The IFV armata should be BMP-14, APC armata should be BTR-14, and scout car/recon/ATGM vehicle should be BRDM-14, command armata should be ACRV-14.

    Maybe they might use their codenames as a prefix... ie T-14A, T-14K, T-14B, T-14T, or perhaps h for heavy, mt for medium tracked, mw for medium wheeled, and l for light... ie T-14h, T-14mt, T-14mw, and T-14l.

    I think the codenames would work best... so the BMP-14mt would be the IFV version of the kurganets which might have a BMP-3M like armament.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    I agree... I suspect they will have such turrets on vehicles in all families because sometimes having extra troops is more useful.

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.

    Looks more to me like a RWS for light vehicles like Tigr or even armoured trucks or MTLB like vehicles.

    A single 12.7mm HMG would be a step back from current armament for BTRs, which is a 30mm cannon on BTR-82s.

    Epoha seems more appropriate for the Armata BTR as the weight isn't an issue.

    I dont thing weight would be an issue for Epoha for any of the four vehicle families, and would only be an issue for light unmanned support platforms (Unmanned land vehicles) and very light vehicles like Tigr etc. ie BRDM like vehicles.


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

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

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:26 pm

    I agree that having a mixed force of MBTs and IFVs leaves no niche open for the BMPT to cover really.

    The tanks in those cases would already have infantry support from the IFV squads, and auto-cannon, grenade launcher and other light-weaponry back-up from the IFVs themselves.

    But attaching BMPTs to MBTs would allow them to operate w/o supporting infantry at all; as GazB said - in places that you would be risking very heavy casualties if you try to deploy infantry (i.e. artillery hitting everywhere, very tight & entrenched enemy defenses, killzones & ambushes everywhere, etc...). If the BMPT is a vehicle that can fulfil that role - then the BMPT-class would be a highly invaluable asset indeed.

    Notio
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2012-02-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Notio on Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It is tricky as technically T-14 should apply to the MBT Armata, MBT Kurganets, MBT Boomerang, and MBT Typhoon.

    The IFV armata should be BMP-14, APC armata should be BTR-14, and scout car/recon/ATGM vehicle should be BRDM-14, command armata should be ACRV-14.

    Even though the tank killers for lighter brigades will roughly take the place of a MBT, I think it might not be quite accurate to equate them with Armata based MBT as they are different vehicles with rather different qualities and the roles of different brigades are not identical. To my understanding they will be tank destroyers as Sprut-SD is for a VDV division.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:12 am

    But attaching BMPTs to MBTs would allow them to operate w/o supporting infantry at all;

    Of course the BMP-1 was hailed as such a vehicle in the sense that some believed it could be used with the platoon mounted where everyone stays on the vehicle and fights from the vehicle.... testing in the middle east proved this to be a bad idea, but obviously the armata BMP is not the same in terms of sensors and situational awareness and of course armour and APS and other protection systems.

    Obviously these vehicles will have those sound based gun fire sensors so if anyone fires a rifle or pistol or machine gun the people on board will be able to plot their precise location and return fire rapidly... in a BMP you probably wont even hear the shot let alone work out where it came from.

    I think there will be situations where adding a BMPT to MBTs will be useful, and there will be other situations like COIN operations where a high velocity main gun is a waste, but a heavy HE shell would be useful and a heavy powerful vehicle could be useful.

    Even things like guard duty or convoy escort.

    The thing is that this vehicle could evolve from an IFV or it could evolve from an air defence vehicle (one of the types used previously in this role is the Shilka and the BTR-40 with dual use 14.5mm HMGs).
    I think if the new vehicle is based on the model shown it could be a reintroduction of the direct fire artillery as used in WWII like the Suka Su-76. This would mean a 120mm gun mortar platform with other armament fitted to make it more suitable against a range of targets.

    The thing is that with the Armata design it will have 3 crew, but do you use the front engine version and put extra ammo in the rear with a rapid reloading system with a ramp rear door, or do you use the standard MBT chassis with the rear engine and perhaps a drop in pallet ammo magazine... I thing the former would be easier but I don't really like front mounted engines.

    Even though the tank killers for lighter brigades will roughly take the place of a MBT, I think it might not be quite accurate to equate them with Armata based MBT as they are different vehicles with rather different qualities and the roles of different brigades are not identical. To my understanding they will be tank destroyers as Sprut-SD is for a VDV division.

    And I agree.... the MBT replaced all the different weight class tanks with perhaps the light tank role remaining for naval or airborne use.

    The new tanks should be designated heavy (armata) light (Kurganets) wheeled (Boomerang) and tankette or gun platform (Typhoon).


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:21 pm

    what about to make this thread sticky? armata platform will be the main subject of russian ground forces for years i guess

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:40 am



    The thing they call "Armata" in the panel on the right looks bizarre to me. Why would a main battle tank have some BMP turret?
    The location of the turret does not look right to me either, it is all the way at the back. They do not need to have this sort of
    arrangement to accommodate a separate crew compartment. There is lots of speculation and what looks like disinformation about
    Armata and we will have to wait until next May.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:56 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:56 am