Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share

    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 Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:35 am

    kvs wrote:

    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.

    The armaments are that of the Armata based BTR/APC. Armata is not a MBT, it's a vehicle platform that will form the basis for 'heavy' units with every vehicle (including Tank, IFV, APC, BMPT, Logistics, Recco, Recovery, ECM, SAM, UAV launcher and Command Post vehicles) in said units will all have MBT level armor. They decided to go in this direction to save money on logistics, as well as learning from Russian military experience  fighting in conflicts in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingueshetia were asymmetrical warfare played a major factor. The Epoha-variant turret that they're talking about has an external bustle were ammunation will be stored, and it's not likely any ammo will be stored internally within the vehicle chassis (separating ammo from crew space), which is the only way for an external ammo bustle to be put in to service in the Russian ground forces.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:58 am

    As said above the armata is a vehicle family base... it is not a MBT chassis.

    For heavy brigades all the vehicles will be armata based... MBT, IFV, command, tube and rocket artillery, gun and missile air defence, engineer, recon, etc etc

    The turret is well to the rear because this is likely the IFV/APC version of the armata with a front mounted engine and a rear troop compartment.


    _________________
    “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

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2545
    Points : 2678
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:12 am

    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:36 am

    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.

    ??

    Armata is the vehicle family name... the armata with a 125mm smoothbore gun will be MBT Armata... this poster show the infantry transport armata. There will be an armata command vehicle, and armata air defence vehicle, an armata tube artillery vehicle and likely also a rocket artillery armata vehicle.

    Every vehicle in an armata division will be armata based and will have comparable mobility and weight.

    the logisitics chain for that division will only need to carry parts and spares and support equipment for the armata platform.... they will all have the same wheels and engine and transmission etc etc.

    In the picture above the one on the left details a turret, while the right one shows that turret fitted to three of the vehicle families... boomerang, armata, and kurganets.

    the question is... what have they gone with regarding their IFV version of armata... perhaps there is no IFV version of armata and this turret is for the APC version... equating to the turret on the BTR-82 with no penetration into the hull to free up more space for the troop compartment.

    Or perhaps if this is the APC model with extended troop compartment and extra troops there is also an IFV model with a shorter troop compartment plus a turret section separated from the troops and crew and fitted with a 57mm high velocity gun to take out enemy IFVs and Kornet-M missiles to take on enemy tanks and light aircraft. The 57mm gun with laser guided shells would be effective against a range of targets, while an APFSDS round would be devastating to previous gen tanks and current and future gen IFVs.

    Lots of questions that should get an answer next year with the May Day parade showing IFV and MBT versions of the armata and kurganets.


    _________________
    “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

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2545
    Points : 2678
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.

    ??

    Armata is the vehicle family name... the armata with a 125mm smoothbore gun will be MBT Armata... this poster show the infantry transport armata. There will be an armata command vehicle, and armata air defence vehicle, an armata tube artillery vehicle and likely also a rocket artillery armata vehicle.


    The poster on the right, clockwise, has Bumerang, Kurganets and Armata beside each vehicle. This does not follow the naming convention you
    describe and that is why it is confusing.



    In the picture above the one on the left details a turret, while the right one shows that turret fitted to three of the vehicle families... boomerang, armata, and kurganets.

    the question is... what have they gone with regarding their IFV version of armata... perhaps there is no IFV version of armata and this turret is for the APC version... equating to the turret on the BTR-82 with no penetration into the hull to free up more space for the troop compartment.

    Or perhaps if this is the APC model with extended troop compartment and extra troops there is also an IFV model with a shorter troop compartment plus a turret section separated from the troops and crew and fitted with a 57mm high velocity gun to take out enemy IFVs and Kornet-M missiles to take on enemy tanks and light aircraft. The 57mm gun with laser guided shells would be effective against a range of targets, while an APFSDS round would be devastating to previous gen tanks and current and future gen IFVs.

    Lots of questions that should get an answer next year with the May Day parade showing IFV and MBT versions of the armata and kurganets.

    Yes, but I do not expect the tracked chassis on the lower right in the right panel to be the one used by the Armata MBT subspecies. So the label
    is simply nonsensical. The MBT will have the engine at the back so the turret cannot sit on top of it. If they are going to use the popular name
    Armata for the MBT (which everyone is using), then they should have done it on another poster with a rendering of the MBT chassis. Nobody
    is talking about the light tank variant when they use the name Armata. Whether the whole family is called that or not is not the issue.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:33 am

    The poster on the right, clockwise, has Bumerang, Kurganets and Armata beside each vehicle. This does not follow the naming convention you
    describe and that is why it is confusing.

    The turret is the standard for the APC... whether it will be an APC in a heavy brigade or a medium brigade. If that turret is accepted as the standard turret for the APC today that would make it the BTR turret and it would only be fitted to the 8 wheeled BTR-82.

    the future structure however means a brigade wont have a mix of vehicles... it will only have one vehicle type... so in an Armata brigade the APC vehicle will have this turret and will look like the vehicle indicated on this poster as armata.

    In other words the APC in the heavy brigade will be a combination of this turret and the armata chassis.

    The other vehicles all have their engines at the front... ie Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon are all front engined vehicles.

    The Armata is the exception... in the standard MBT version and some other models it will have a rear mounted engine. In the troop carrying model and presumably the artillery model and likely the ambulance model and others it will have a front mounted engine and ramp rear doors.

    Ramp rear doors are good for APCs and IFVS so this picture of armata has a front mounted engine and therefore a rear mounted turret. For MBTs rear mounted engines are better and the MBT the engine will be rear mounted.

    Yes, but I do not expect the tracked chassis on the lower right in the right panel to be the one used by the Armata MBT subspecies. So the label
    is simply nonsensical.

    You have to get out of your head the idea that armata means MBT. It does not mean MBT.

    Kurganets does not mean IFV (BMP) and Boomerang does not mean APC (BTR) and Typhoon does not mean scout car (BRDM-2)

    Armata will come in two chassis versions... engine to the front for various types like APC and/or IFV, Engineer vehicle, Command vehicle, Air defence vehicle etc etc AND Engine to the rear MBT. It is likely all the ammo in the Koalition is loaded into the turret so it will likely have a rear mounted engine too.... without hull ammo storage.

    Kurganets will be front engined and have an APC/IFV, engineer, etc etc.

    All four vehicles will have MBT, IFV/APC, BMPT, Engineer, Air Defence, Artillery, Recon, Ambulance, Anti tank missile vehicle, UAV control vehicle, ECM vehicle etc etc etc.

    The MBT will have the engine at the back so the turret cannot sit on top of it. If they are going to use the popular name
    Armata for the MBT (which everyone is using), then they should have done it on another poster with a rendering of the MBT chassis. Nobody
    is talking about the light tank variant when they use the name Armata. Whether the whole family is called that or not is not the issue.

    The purpose of the posters is to show off the turret, not the vehicle base. If KBP had developed a new Tunguska turret that was completely self contained and could be fitted to any vehicle from the 10 ton class to the 60 ton class they would do the same... ie first poster explaining the turret and its armament and capabilities and a second poster showing the vehicle platform families it could be fitted to.

    Of course with the Air Defence turret not requiring rear hull access they might show the Armata chassis twice... one with the front engined model and one with the rear engined model as it should be possible to fit that turret to both.

    In this case it is a troop carrier turret designed to support troops... you would not fit it to the MBT chassis of the armata because then the troops would have to sit in the middle of the vehicle under the turret. The turret would block their roof hatches and the engine to their rear would block their exit out the rear of the hull so they would be stuck in the vehicle.

    The poster above shows the turret to the rear because the engine is front mounted and the turret doesn't penetrate into the hull, so the troops sit below the turret and exit and enter in the rear ramp doors of the hull.


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:11 am

    All four vehicles will have MBT, IFV/APC, BMPT, Engineer, Air Defence, Artillery, Recon, Ambulance, Anti tank missile vehicle, UAV control vehicle, ECM vehicle etc etc etc. wrote:

    @Garry: I would like to ask one question. Can a lightweight chassis fulfill the role of MBT ? I don't think the protection and armour level of Kurganets, Boomerang, Taifun is good enough to be a MBT.

    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 Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:15 am

    Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.

    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 Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:22 am

    Zivo wrote:Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen.

    They're not tanks per say, but a light tank/anti-tank vehicle. The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0!

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Asf on Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:14 am

    The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0
    It won't, it isn't air-droppable ))

    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 Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:32 am

    Asf wrote:
    The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0
    It won't, it isn't air-droppable ))

    In all likeliness Kurganets-25 with modular armor will likely go the same way as a BMP-3 and BMD-4, so there'll likely be a Kurganets-25 BMP, Kurganets-25 BMD. Kurganets BMD will have less armor to be air-droppable, but we could very well see an external mechanism which allows the add-on armor shell to be air-dropped separately to be later attached. Were the Kurganets drives in to the external armor shell, and the external mechanism will allow the add-on armor to be applied after being air-dropped.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:59 am

    @Garry: I would like to ask one question. Can a lightweight chassis fulfill the role of MBT ? I don't think the protection and armour level of Kurganets, Boomerang, Taifun is good enough to be a MBT.

    In the context of the situation yes, I think it can.

    Remember that for WWIII against NATO the medium brigades will be fast moving highly mobile units that can hold ground but are likely to extensively use air support and artillery with a lot of smart attack weapons to engage targets at extended ranges.

    Against a third world country the biggest threat wont be from enemy MBTs... they wont likely even be present on the battlefield. More likely the MBT in medium and light brigades will be for direct gun fire support with a heavy gun HE round fairly accurately delivered from extended ranges due to excellent optics and communications and C4IR. Defending them will be a range of ceramic types of armour as well as NERA and of course an advanced version of Shtora, Nakhidka, and of course a new APS system that will make them mobile with heavy fire power but also hard to hit and hard to kill.

    Light brigades will be very highly mobile and likely air transportable... remember Typhoon is in the 10-15 ton class so existing Mi-26s can move them and the new helos being developed with the Chinese should be able to carry several vehicles each.

    It all comes down to correct use of unit types in the right situation.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.

    X2

    As long as they remember that medium tanks are actually light tanks and Typhoon will likely be a very light gun platform they should be fine.

    In all likeliness Kurganets-25 with modular armor will likely go the same way as a BMP-3 and BMD-4, so there'll likely be a Kurganets-25 BMP, Kurganets-25 BMD. Kurganets BMD will have less armor to be air-droppable, but we could very well see an external mechanism which allows the add-on armor shell to be air-dropped separately to be later attached. Were the Kurganets drives in to the external armor shell, and the external mechanism will allow the add-on armor to be applied after being air-dropped.

    It has been stated publicly that there will be a naval version of the Kurganets developed that is able to operate in high sea states and land on beaches effectively.

    What I suspect is that there will be perhaps two types of vehicle developed for the VDV... some in the light armour range based on Typhoon that can be air dropped, plus heavier vehicles based on Boomerang and Kurganets that can be air landed from short rough air strips.

    I can't see them wanting add on armour parachuted separately that has to be attached after landing... to much potential for stuff ups.


    _________________
    “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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5683
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Austin on Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:26 am

    MIC: single armored fighting compartment reduce costs, "defense"


    The same crew compartment is designed for advanced types of Russian armored vehicles of the future - it will allow the military industry significant savings, said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    "On the" Armata "(tank) for" Kurgan "(BMP) for" Boomerang "(BTR) should equal the fighting compartment ... We once developed, and leave for three cars," - said Bochkarev in the "National Defense" the radio station "CAPITAL FM" .

    He noted that the path of the new equipment for various types of armored vehicles (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc.) by a single combat compartment is the whole world.

    "Lower costs for spare parts, it is easier to train crews. Serious savings on the life cycle of products ... This technique reduces the cost," - said Bochkarev.

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141210/1037426900.html


    Bochkarev: a new guided missile will be created for the tank "Armata"


    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141209/1037421179.html

    The new guided missile will be created to equip its long-term Russian tank new generation "Armata", said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    "The new tank will have a new guided missile, with the best performance, with a very surprising performance for our enemy," - said Bochkarev in the "National Defense" on the radio station "Capital FM".

    He recalled that the Russian defense industry wide experience in the field of equipment tanks missiles, previously guided missiles were equipped with only the Soviet tanks.


    Full Ammo new generation tank "Armata" will appear in the Russian army


    A full line of ammunition for the future of a new generation of Russian tanks "Armata" will appear in the Russian army in 2017, said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, has repeatedly said that the tank on the new platform "Armata" for the first time will be shown to the public at the Victory Day parade May 9, 2015. A Commander of the Land Forces reported that the serial delivery of a new promising tank "Armata" is planned in 2016.

    "Ammunition will be in the army by 2017," - he said, noting that it will be composed and guided missiles.

    As described in the "National Defense" on the radio station FM CAPITAL Bochkarev, the Defense Ministry has set new requirements for this fire unit - "improve the characteristics of range, for power, for broneprobitiyu." This is now engaged in the Russian military industry, said deputy chairman of the board of MIC.

    "We are staying in the same caliber, who was the Russian Army - 125 mm. It is meaningful action, because we have accumulated a large supply of ammunition, and to change the size, it is necessary to rebuild a huge system of financial security," - said Bochkarev .

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141209/1037420583.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:50 am

    So the first part is pretty much what I have been saying... the crew positions and controls will be unified so the three crew can be driver, commander, or gunner without moving position. the sensors and weapons and electronics will be standardised over the vehicle types... so a MBT will have a 125mm gun and specific optics and sensors and equipment, whether it is an armata, a boomerang, or a kurganets.

    If there is a Typhoon MBT then it may have a high velocity 57mm gun... simply because a 125m gun would be too big for a 10-15 ton class vehicle and ammo storage would be too limited.

    This means if you are trained as a MBT tank crew you can go from armata, Kurganets, or boomerang and everything should be the same except mobility and protection of course... armata will snorkel, while the others will float...

    New ammo is excellent and introduced in 2017 would mean a nice step up in performance likely for existing vehicles too.

    We have seen the electronic thermal weapon sight video showing the use of a laser range finder and GLONASS allowing maps to be generated showing the location and video or still images of targets... transmitting that back to a division could allow a fire and forget tank launched missile to be fired at a target blindly with the soldier with a rifle that detected the target lasing the target so the missile can acquire the precise target to attack.... or it could just use positional data to find the threat itself.

    It is getting more and more like a video game....


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:12 am

    Sorry if my question is stupid, but one of my friend once joked about "my EMP weapons will disable all of your heavy tanks..." so sometimes, when thinking about electronic devices, I also think about countermeasure against EMP...

    I know that was a joke, but I cannot stop thinking about it.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:40 am

    Every weapon has a countermeasure and EMP is no different... electronics can be isolated from EMP effects just like a faraday cage will protect you from the dangerous effects of lightning.


    Makes you wonder what protects an EMP weapon from being disabled by another EMP weapon... Twisted Evil


    _________________
    “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

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Viktor on Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:38 pm

    The price of Armata development and production line has been alocated 54 bin Rubles

    The new tank Shoigu not afford


    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:19 pm

    After all, T-14 of 201x is similar to T-64 in 196x. Something have a breakthrough in technology and very powerful, but also very expensive initially.

    In 196x-197x Russia had to build a cheaper alternative (T-72), in 2014 probably T-90AM upgrade will used in the role similar to T-72 Question

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2545
    Points : 2678
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:28 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:After all, T-14 of 201x is similar to T-64 in 196x. Something have a breakthrough in technology and very powerful, but also very expensive initially.

    In 196x-197x Russia had to build a cheaper alternative (T-72), in 2014 probably T-90AM upgrade will used in the role similar to T-72 Question

    The war in the Donbas has shown that the T-64 was and is a POS. Small penetrating fragments often detonate the powder and blow off the turret.
    The T-72 has the shells and powder laid out horizontally thereby reducing the cross section and risk. There are likely some other details as well.
    The wiki sings the praises but reality says something else.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:14 am

    I don't think he meant it literally...

    The T-14 could be the expensive tank, but the technology for it is all new and will be shared with the lighter vehicle families.

    Mass production over time will reduce costs and upgrades will further improve performance.

    the T-14 Armata vehicle wont have vulnerable tank ammo and the crew will be the safest things on board the vehicle.

    It will have sensors to detect enemy fire and locate individual shooters and the type of weapon they are using.... that technology is already on BTRs and light vehicles.

    It will likely have new equivalents of Kaktus ERA, Shtora EO protection suite, Arena APS, Nakidka screening kit... it will likely have combined thermal and digital optical, and MMW radar sensors giving an all round picture of threats and targets around the tank at all times...

    It should be very 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

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1957
    Points : 1964
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:14 pm

    kvs wrote:

    The war in the Donbas has shown that the T-64 was and is a POS.  Small penetrating fragments often detonate the powder and blow off the turret.
    The T-72 has the shells and powder laid out horizontally thereby reducing the cross section and risk.   There are likely some other details as well.
    The wiki sings the praises but reality says something else.
    What do You expect to see even if Ukrainians were using T-90AM result would be the same. There are pictures of Ukr army positions destroyed by artillery as it was away from direct fighting. There were no cracters. All tanks had catastrophic kills but light vehicle weren't as bad damaged.
    T-64 was a neat tank and the best one in his time, but it's not adequate against threats it's facinag today, nor the way its being employed . I'm interest in the quality of those tanks as they seem to have rips were they shouldn't. Bad quality of metals or work could be the case.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  etaepsilonk on Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:58 pm

    Zivo wrote:Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.

    It looks flawed concept to me.

    For example, if there's "a high risk" object, like town, in need to be taken, those entire light brigades might be completely useless for that. As a result, specific "mono unit" for specific task would be management nightmare.

    Now compare this to current infantry, armored brigades with various numbers of mixed vehicles. MBTs (descendants of heavy tanks), and IFVs (descendants of light tanks) make brigade more universal.

    So, I predict units from those future brigades will be merged very often.
    ------


    Regular wrote: I'm interest in the quality of those tanks as they seem to have rips were they shouldn't. Bad quality of metals or work could be the case.

    Interesting. Would you like to provide some photos? Wink

    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 15, 2014 6:15 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    Zivo wrote:Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.

    It looks flawed concept to me.

    For example, if there's "a high risk" object, like town, in need to be taken, those entire light brigades might be completely useless for that. As a result, specific "mono unit" for specific task would be management nightmare.

    Now compare this to current infantry, armored brigades with various numbers of mixed vehicles. MBTs (descendants of heavy tanks), and IFVs (descendants of light tanks) make brigade more universal.

    So, I predict units from those future brigades to be merged very often.

    Have you actually been paying attention to this thread? It's already been established at ad nausem that 'high risk' 'Grozny' style environments would be handled by Armata brigades, medium and light brigades such as the VDV would have the predominate number of Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon vehicles. If it's only 'a dangerous object' as opposed to and entire city, than ground based attack drones and aerial drones could handle the job safer and cheaper than any other alternative...















    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  etaepsilonk on Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:43 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    Have you actually been paying attention to this thread? It's already been established at ad nausem that 'high risk' 'Grozny' style environments would be handled by Armata brigades, medium and light brigades such as the VDV would have the predominate number of Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon vehicles. If it's only 'a dangerous object' as opposed to and entire city, than ground based attack drones and aerial drones could handle the job safer and cheaper than any other alternative...



    Yes, if we talk about months-long siege battles. But imagine the situation:

    A light brigade is holding a frontline sector (infantry is good at defense). Suddenly, intel reports that enemy tank platoon popped-out in nearby village. HQ decides an attack should be made to eliminate the threat...

    Well, obviously,advancing light force might make some undesirable results, such as:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phase_Line_Bullet

    So tank attack might be preferable Wink

    And what would be more practicable, if a tank detachment from infantry brigade is sent (like it would probably have been done with a current structure) or rather an entire freaking heavy brigade?




    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 15, 2014 6:57 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    Have you actually been paying attention to this thread? It's already been established at ad nausem that 'high risk' 'Grozny' style environments would be handled by Armata brigades, medium and light brigades such as the VDV would have the predominate number of Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon vehicles. If it's only 'a dangerous object' as opposed to and entire city, than ground based attack drones and aerial drones could handle the job safer and cheaper than any other alternative...



    Yes, if we talk about months-long siege battles. But imagine the situation:

    A light brigade is holding a frontline sector (infantry is good at defense). Suddenly, intel reports that enemy tank platoon popped-out in nearby village. HQ decides an attack should be made to eliminate the threat...

    Well, obviously,advancing light force might make some undesirable results, such as:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phase_Line_Bullet

    So tank attack might be preferable  Wink

    And what would be more practicable, if a tank detachment from infantry brigade is sent (like it would probably have been done with a current structure) or rather an entire freaking heavy brigade?




    If were not talking about 'month long sieges' ground based drone attack vehicles would be much cheaper, mass produced quickly, and ultimately much safer (with far less political blowback). There's already plenty of those already in the works, and it'll end up proving to be much better than a mixed weight class brigade.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:00 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:00 am