Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share

    alexZam
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 409
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  alexZam on Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:43 pm











    Last edited by alexZam on Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

    alexZam
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 409
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  alexZam on Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:47 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:The image of Armata being transported by that KAMAZ 65525 was really helpful. put it in to corel draw and make some "measurement" based on it. So..

    The total length of Armata is around 9.5-10 meter, Hull length is 8 m, width is 3 m without ballistic skirt and 3.45m with ballistic skirt, total height is 2.9-3 m, roadwheel diameter is indeed the same 670mm as T-80. Turret length is 4 meter with 2.72 m wide though may not be accurate since it's still under tarps.

    Looks reasonable enough for me. but i would love to see better estimate.

    Roadwheels are apparently 700mm. So your measurements +5-6%..


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:09 pm

    So my measurements were more accurate based on 700mm wheels.


    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:27 pm

    Wouldn't it be funny if they revealed that the Armata MBT doesn't actually have an unmanned turret after all Laughing

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:43 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Wouldn't it be funny if they revealed that the Armata MBT doesn't actually have an unmanned turret after all Laughing


    Due to the reason that it has hatches to replenish the ammunition?

    There has to be at least a hole, somewhere on the tank, for replenishment.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 12:19 am

    In the end it is just a TT-14 (Teletank) completley unmanned and shoots ammunition which each ammunition have its own railgun. Rolling Eyes

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 01, 2015 1:17 am

    The non-ERA protected plate above the beak is IMO not heavily armored at all. The engine is well below the actual plate, and the protection probably comes into play for the most part right in front of the crew hatches.

    Weird solution, but that would make sense from what I have seen so far, IMO.


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 01, 2015 1:31 am

    Werewolf wrote:

    What are those two closed circle like fittings on the back side?

    The exact same things that is on the T-72 and the T-90.


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 1:36 am

    What for are they?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 01, 2015 1:45 am

    https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5008/5377444941_7bc3a9dd55_b.jpg

    Good pic- cooling fan installation.

    The fact that there are two on Armata- makes sense with new engine type.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 1:47 am

    Thanks.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 1:52 am

    Appearantly the engine spits oil.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 on Fri May 01, 2015 2:06 am



    Some foreign troops everyone will guess already showing in the training of the parade.  Smile



    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 01, 2015 7:10 am

    Can't wait for RAE 2015, It'll be nice if we could see a T-14 with the 152mm smoothbore fitted for exhibition.


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri May 01, 2015 7:43 am

    alexZam wrote:
    Roadwheels are apparently 700mm. So your measurements +5-6%..


    Thanks Very Happy hmm good to finally see something solid.

    Werewolf wrote:So my measurements were more accurate based on 700mm wheels.


    hmm Gratz respekt Width would be the remaining dimension left.

    Nonetheless i think my own result 3.45 m with ballistic skirt and 3 m without looks reasonable. Based on comparison with the KAMAZ truck.

    Alex555
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2014-01-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread

    Post  Alex555 on Fri May 01, 2015 8:41 am


    Laughing

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri May 01, 2015 9:18 am

    Alex555 wrote:
    Laughing

    Finally, photographic proof of anti-gravity repulsor technology !!  I'll bet a 100 kergons of gold-pressed latinum that the tarpaulin conceals a bi-phased tachyon cannon and dark-energy holo-field emitter.... Cool

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 01, 2015 9:24 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:
    Laughing

    Finally, photographic proof of anti-gravity repulsor technology !!  I'll bet a 100 kergons of gold-pressed latinum that the tarpaulin conceals a bi-phased tachyon cannon and dark-energy holo-field emitter....   Cool

    But I really want to know the dylithium crystal consumption rates... Wink

    Dima
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1035
    Points : 1050
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Dima on Fri May 01, 2015 9:25 am

    Has anyone prepared the new dimensions chart for T-14 compared to T-90?
    how much is the estimated weight?

    xeno
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 143
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2013-02-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  xeno on Fri May 01, 2015 11:44 am

    55T.
    Some guy on otvaga said insider mentioned 55t.
    I was really worried about it only has 50t...

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 12:40 pm

    Well that were the assumptions here as well ranging from 50-56t where ~56t would be the guessed number of fully combat loaded vehicle, which is pretty realistic imo.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 1:07 pm

    ERA tiles with 15-20mm steel/composite plates followed by ERA.



    My guess based on pics, so the lower "gap" beneath engine has ERA/NERA.


    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3597
    Points : 3632
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri May 01, 2015 2:00 pm

    Alex555 wrote:
    Laughing

    Come to the Dark side...

    What would be funny is to have the T15 roll with the Palacio de la Nacion (Capitolio) in LaHabana on the back ground... respekt  and then with enough creative editing troll some Amerikistani with it. For those who don't know, the WDC Capitol and Palacio de la Nacion are very similar...

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3683
    Points : 3795
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri May 01, 2015 2:06 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:
    Laughing

    Finally, photographic proof of anti-gravity repulsor technology !!  I'll bet a 100 kergons of gold-pressed latinum that the tarpaulin conceals a bi-phased tachyon cannon and dark-energy holo-field emitter....   Cool

    But I really want to know the dylithium crystal consumption rates... Wink

    It will not matter if Jeffrey's tubes end up being too narrow for efficient maintenance cry

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 on Fri May 01, 2015 9:35 pm


    ERGONOMICS - an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely —called also biotechnology, human engineering, human factors

    Im not really convinced in T-15 ,having the engine in front. .Any simple RPG grenade will penetrate the engine and shut down the armored vehicle. I prefer more the way it is with Terminator.. engine behind..  It will create also a problem to soldiers fighting near ,with those frames so extended outside.. it could literary decapitate a soldier if gets too close of T-15 and is in motion.. Is highly questionable why they did it that way.. Tanks or any armored vehicle should
    be friendly for troops fighting close to it.. imagine a soldier is wounded in combat inside
    T-15..and he needs medical help and the car in under fire.. the only place they will have to cover is getting close to the armored car.. that means dangerous for them if T-15 move in reverse.
    I hope they completely ditch the whole thing and go back to the drawing board.. in my opinion all armored vehicles or tanks ,should be friendly for troops to use it as cover in case of light weapons attack.  The way T-15 is setup will significantly make dangerous to do any fighting using it as cover.  The fact that the driver of a T-15 will not have freedom of movement and will need to be careful of not driving close to any soldier ,it creates an unnecessary anxiety for the operator of the vehicle.  Driving a T-15 is basically driving an armored car with potential Blades at the sides that could decapitate people..  any soldier will have to be 10 meters away of the vehicle.. this also will create problems to other tanks.. ie.. that a T-15 pass near a T14 or another T15 ,and tear away all is side armor.  Every other armored car will be ok.. but T-15 did no pass the most basic safety test.  Im sure ,others will notice this.

    mark my words.. as soon accidents start to happen.. either T-15 wounding soldiers near the tank or damaging other armored cars. it will be removed from service and send back to the drawing board and completely change the way the side armor is places.. more uniform ,and not with over extended surfaces that can crippled soldiers or damage other vehicles.  In looks indeed that who ever did T-15 were really amateurs in security and is their first Tank design..
    Also any mine or rocket grenade that miss ,will tear away the extended side plates,because it will offer a lot of resistance to any explosion or pressure. what will happen if T-15 needs to jump in water? will the side plates be teared away ? Hopefully they will improve the final design..to avoid accidents. Probably the T-15 was unfinished and they just added a temporary side armor ,at the last minute only for the parade ,but the final tank will be more elaborated its design and more uniform. Because the ergonomics so far are not there. Is quite not safe to be close to any T-15 while in motion.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Fri May 01, 2015 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:11 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:11 am