Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Sat May 30, 2015 11:58 pm

    So... 

    Is this "composite" that Kvs is describing "15% percent stronger" or is that just the steel variation used in the "composite"?

    Sorry for all the questions.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4658
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 31, 2015 12:17 am

    So back to the discussion concerning RWS's, I'm really liking the idea of having a 'cornflower' Vasilek RWS, aka 82 mm mortar RWS turret with significant depression and elevation (−1° to 85°). The Mortar bombs pack a nice punch in a small and compact package, as you can see here in this video at the ':14' second time stamp:



    ...The mortar bombs are the size of a coffee and soup thermos/vacuum flask, many can be packed (60 - 100) in the turret bustle. Vasilek 82 mm can fire mortar bombs up to 120 rounds per minute, ridiculously fast for a mortar cannon, with very little recoil as well, at range of 4.2 km with old Soviet legacy ammunition. 4.2 km's is close to the max range of many top of the line ATGM's, a serious modernization/mechanization of the Vasilek 82 mm could bring new ammunition which extends the mortar bomb range to 5 km's, maybe increase the fire rate to 200 rounds per minute, perhaps with a more powerful explosive chemical composition in the warhead?

    The range should be useful at taking out insurgent ATGM nests, especially combined with a anti-sniper system!

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 31, 2015 4:59 am

    Vann7 wrote:Omg ... this is big.. Shocked

    IRAQ denied M1A2 from US and bought instead T-72 B from RUssia..
    because the americans ones are less reliable than the Russian ones..?
    to be fair that turret was BTFO its hull with help of lots of high explosives, not ammo cookoff.
    Vann7 wrote:
    One of the things that a Syrian tank commander told ,that was using T-72 was the easy to maintain and repair them. You can repair them virtually with a hammer and welding and withing
    few hours after being hit by rocket grenades and penetrated ,most of the time they can be repaired. If you have a tank with lots of electronics and circuits it will be different . the T-72 follows the same principle of the Ak-47,, easy to use , with almost no maintainance need. ideal
    for long wars where the tank will need to be exposed to a lot of dirt and mud and dust..and bad terrain.
    nope dude, tanks are absolute maintenance hogs; the T-72 is no exception. actually its even worse; the T-72 is not a very maintainable vehicle. something breaks down in the vehicle and more likely you had that part/s replaced with a fresh one, with no repair on that replaced part/s done. it was after all designed to be expendable after a few battles like the mobilization T-34 a few generations before it. prolly the only way the Syrian T-72 tank park is working is by the massive parts storage they have stockpiled or worse cannibalizing. the engine is especially prone to breaking down after a months of use- most tanks in the field prolly had a few engine swaps by now.
    *edit: not necessarily true. for complex systems like engine they prolly get shipped back to factory for overhaul, and simpler parts could be fixed by local repair plant or simply discarded if not.


    Last edited by collegeboy16 on Sun May 31, 2015 7:30 am; edited 1 time in total

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 31, 2015 6:08 am

    It is true that most gears and what not were only meant to survive for a certain field work, but they are relatively simple systems and I heard that milling parts for it are not that difficult.

    Having quite a few autoCNC machines in a repair plant could probably produce a huge portion of parts needed.

    mutantsushi
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  mutantsushi on Sun May 31, 2015 6:47 am

    well i think the difference being that a mechanic in the field could think of working on T-72 engine, M1 gas turbine not so much...
    i mean, even the US wants to replace the engine with a diesel when they can get around to it...

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 31, 2015 7:16 am

    mutantsushi wrote:well i think the difference being that a mechanic in the field could think of working on T-72 engine, M1 gas turbine not so much...
    i mean, even the US wants to replace the engine with a diesel when they can get around to it...
    afaik its quite rare for engines to be fixed(i mean really fixing broken stuff not just operational maintenance like changing fluids,filters, minor parts replacement, that sort of stuff) in the field. most cases you had the recovery vehicle tow the tank back to rear area and had the engine replaced. with the abrams that takes 30 minutes, a leo2 the same but for a complete powerpack even, and a T-72, well lets just say it will take the better part of a day.

    sepheronx wrote:It is true that most gears and what not were only meant to survive for a certain field work, but they are relatively simple systems and I heard that milling parts for it are not that difficult.

    Having quite a few autoCNC machines in a repair plant could probably produce a huge portion of parts needed.
    >war torn Syria
    >autoCNC machines Razz
    its true that a lot of mechanical parts could be fabricated without difficulty- if you have the tooling. well if Assad ever needs parts he can always give uncle Vlad's voentorg a call and voila warehouses of T-72 parts on a ship!!!


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 31, 2015 7:45 am

    So back to the discussion concerning RWS's, I'm really liking the idea of having a 'cornflower' Vasilek RWS, aka 82 mm mortar RWS turret with significant depression and elevation (−1° to 85°).

    I totally agree... replace the four round clip with a belt feed and add a few alternative shell types and make it a gun/mortar and you have a very potent secondary weapon and primary weapon for lighter vehicles.

    the main question would be what are the overlaps with the 57mm AGL...



    _________________
    “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

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 31, 2015 8:39 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    mutantsushi wrote:well i think the difference being that a mechanic in the field could think of working on T-72 engine, M1 gas turbine not so much...
    i mean, even the US wants to replace the engine with a diesel when they can get around to it...
    afaik its quite rare for engines to be fixed(i mean really fixing broken stuff not just operational maintenance like changing fluids,filters, minor parts replacement, that sort of stuff) in the field. most cases you had the recovery vehicle tow the tank back to rear area and had the engine replaced. with the abrams that takes 30 minutes, a leo2 the same but for a complete powerpack even, and a T-72, well lets just say it will take the better part of a day.

    sepheronx wrote:It is true that most gears and what not were only meant to survive for a certain field work, but they are relatively simple systems and I heard that milling parts for it are not that difficult.

    Having quite a few autoCNC machines in a repair plant could probably produce a huge portion of parts needed.
    >war torn Syria
    >autoCNC machines  Razz
    its true that a lot of mechanical parts could be fabricated without difficulty- if you have the tooling. well if Assad ever needs parts he can always give uncle Vlad's voentorg a call and voila warehouses of T-72 parts on a ship!!!


    Is all of Syria war torn? Tartus is still functioning and the base is right there. They could build the repair facility with the AutoCNC machines (which Russia builds now of their own and various other models of various types). So that would defiantly still work. Not all of Syria is looking like 1939 Warsaw.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 31, 2015 11:42 am

    GarryB wrote:
    So back to the discussion concerning RWS's, I'm really liking the idea of having a 'cornflower' Vasilek RWS, aka 82 mm mortar RWS turret with significant depression and elevation (−1° to 85°).

    I totally agree... replace the four round clip with a belt feed and add a few alternative shell types and make it a gun/mortar and you have a very potent secondary weapon and primary weapon for lighter vehicles.

    the main question would be what are the overlaps with the 57mm AGL...


    I am not sure who provided couple of posts before a link with info from Russian MoD insider expert: 30mm is already approved. With some fundamentally new edition (not specified is ammo and gun or only ammo)

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 31, 2015 11:53 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    Is all of Syria war torn?  Tartus is still functioning and the base is right there.  They could build the repair facility with the AutoCNC machines (which Russia builds now of their own and various other models of various types).  So that would defiantly still work.  Not all of Syria is looking like 1939 Warsaw.


    1) Syrian Express - transports from BSD are visiting continuously Tartus with losta cargo?

    2) Poland mucho weaker enemy (both human and material resources)  than  France and UK in 39. Not to mention about technical level difference of tanks and airplanes. And war length was almost same length. France was attacked from one  side by Germans and Poland had 3 fronts. Soviets taking 45% of territory did not help to fight Germans either...and Warsaw till 7th of September was not tragic.

    fragmachine
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  fragmachine on Sun May 31, 2015 1:09 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:

    Is all of Syria war torn?  Tartus is still functioning and the base is right there.  They could build the repair facility with the AutoCNC machines (which Russia builds now of their own and various other models of various types).  So that would defiantly still work.  Not all of Syria is looking like 1939 Warsaw.


    1) Syrian Express - transports from BSD are visiting continuously Tartus with losta cargo?

    2) Poland mucho weaker enemy (both human and material resources)  than  France and UK in 39. Not to mention about technical level difference of tanks and airplanes. And war length was almost same length. France was attacked from one  side by Germans and Poland had 3 fronts. Soviets taking 45% of territory did not help to fight Germans either...and Warsaw till 7th of September was not tragic.

    Pssst! You're inviting Vann's theory about II RP attacking Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and well known sinking of American warships in Pearl Harbour by Polish Navy painted as Japanese, so US could retaliate with nukes! lol1
    We all know that Poles were the ugly aggressor don't we? lol1

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4658
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 31, 2015 1:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So back to the discussion concerning RWS's, I'm really liking the idea of having a 'cornflower' Vasilek RWS, aka 82 mm mortar RWS turret with significant depression and elevation (−1° to 85°).

    I totally agree... replace the four round clip with a belt feed and add a few alternative shell types and make it a gun/mortar and you have a very potent secondary weapon and primary weapon for lighter vehicles.

    the main question would be what are the overlaps with the 57mm AGL...


    The problem is we haven't seen much about the 57 mm AGL, outside of a few rare photos, which means it'll be a while before we see it in service. There's a saying "A bird in the hand, is better than two in the bush", I feel like Vasilek 82 mm RWS is a more likely candidate for a RWS because it's been in service forever, likely cost effective to produce, and we know much more about it than the 57 mm AGL.

    It's similar to the 45 mm vs 57 mm autocannon debate...there's people advocating for the 45 mm, instead of the more powerful 57 mm which unlike the 45 mm, is already developed and in service for years.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 31, 2015 2:32 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:Omg ... this is big.. Shocked

    IRAQ denied M1A2 from US and bought instead T-72 B from RUssia..
    because the americans ones are less reliable than the Russian ones..?
    to be fair that turret was BTFO its hull with help of lots of high explosives, not ammo cookoff.
    Vann7 wrote:
    One of the things that a Syrian tank commander told ,that was using T-72 was the easy to maintain and repair them. You can repair them virtually with a hammer and welding and withing
    few hours after being hit by rocket grenades and penetrated ,most of the time they can be repaired. If you have a tank with lots of electronics and circuits it will be different . the T-72 follows the same principle of the Ak-47,, easy to use , with almost no maintainance need. ideal
    for long wars where the tank will need to be exposed to a lot of dirt and mud and dust..and bad terrain.
    nope dude, tanks are absolute maintenance hogs; the T-72 is no exception. actually its even worse; the T-72 is not a very maintainable vehicle. something breaks down in the vehicle and more likely you had that part/s replaced with a fresh one, with no repair on that replaced part/s done. it was after all designed to be expendable after a few battles like the mobilization T-34 a few generations before it. prolly the only way the Syrian T-72 tank park is working is by the massive parts storage they have stockpiled or worse cannibalizing. the engine is especially prone to breaking down after a months of use- most tanks in the field prolly had a few engine swaps by now.
    *edit: not necessarily true. for complex systems like engine they prolly get shipped back to factory for overhaul, and simpler parts could be fixed by local repair plant or simply discarded if not.

    That is simply untrue. Most repairs on the T-72 are easy fixes. We're not speaking about airfilters, oil filters, we're speaking about rupture of fuel line, issues with NBC etc etc. The M1 is a maintenance hell, not the first time tankers tell about it. And if you DON'T have the log line to keep up with it, or the cost defies your imagination (Egyptian M1's refurbishment cost per decade double the price of the tank at 6 million USD) you are bound to have hightech over-expensive pill boxes. Did I tell you about fuel consumption? Czech cost for the 72M1/2/4 is about 120K USD. Russian one is roughly 80K. Ukrainian one about 100K per tank. You can't simply compare the prices. As for engine being prone to breakdown after a month use? Huehueheueh. The Abrams availability is under 10 hours between checks. The T72S's that the militias have been using ahve been going for weeks straight. WEEEKS. Never mind the T55's the Daesh assholes have been using some times without any service for months.

    I guess you are mistaking expendable for unreliable.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 31, 2015 2:37 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    mutantsushi wrote:well i think the difference being that a mechanic in the field could think of working on T-72 engine, M1 gas turbine not so much...
    i mean, even the US wants to replace the engine with a diesel when they can get around to it...
    afaik its quite rare for engines to be fixed(i mean really fixing broken stuff not just operational maintenance like changing fluids,filters, minor parts replacement, that sort of stuff) in the field. most cases you had the recovery vehicle tow the tank back to rear area and had the engine replaced. with the abrams that takes 30 minutes, a leo2 the same but for a complete powerpack even, and a T-72, well lets just say it will take the better part of a day.

    sepheronx wrote:It is true that most gears and what not were only meant to survive for a certain field work, but they are relatively simple systems and I heard that milling parts for it are not that difficult.

    Having quite a few autoCNC machines in a repair plant could probably produce a huge portion of parts needed.
    >war torn Syria
    >autoCNC machines  Razz
    its true that a lot of mechanical parts could be fabricated without difficulty- if you have the tooling. well if Assad ever needs parts he can always give uncle Vlad's voentorg a call and voila warehouses of T-72 parts on a ship!!!


    30 minutes for the Abrams? Lulz, do you have any idea of the cost of the said Engine? Do you also know what happens to the engine you just swapped? You have to open the big fucker and it takes forever to tear it down apart and put it back together. You're looking at opening an engine that cost TWO surplus T-72B's at current rate. 800K for the whole turbine. And the 30 minutes, heh, even GDLS says its a minimum of 2 hours from drop in to fire in. There isn't ANY thing cheaper or easier when things are put in perspective with an Abrams. Even survivability comes at a log price. You have to accept fighting the AMerican way. With your American Express always available.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 31, 2015 2:45 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:

    Is all of Syria war torn?  Tartus is still functioning and the base is right there.  They could build the repair facility with the AutoCNC machines (which Russia builds now of their own and various other models of various types).  So that would defiantly still work.  Not all of Syria is looking like 1939 Warsaw.


    1) Syrian Express - transports from BSD are visiting continuously Tartus with losta cargo?

    2) Poland mucho weaker enemy (both human and material resources)  than  France and UK in 39. Not to mention about technical level difference of tanks and airplanes. And war length was almost same length. France was attacked from one  side by Germans and Poland had 3 fronts. Soviets taking 45% of territory did not help to fight Germans either...and Warsaw till 7th of September was not tragic.

    The Soviets entered 17 days later when the whole Polish strategy was the Romanian defilade...IE the first thing they were worried before being attacked by the German, a Soviet attack. Shall we stop this nonsense about Poles being "knifed in the back"? Their general war preparations were geared towards the USSR, having the USSR attack was the LOGICAL vector according to Polish High Command. FFS even the grants Poland got from France were geared towards the USSR.

    The reality is that Poland got battered by Ze Germans and the whole Poland backstabbed by the USSR is partly bollocks; Poland was already a dead corpse by the 17th September. It wasn't just aware of its state. The USSR just came to collect its part of the bargain. For the Poles that attack by Russia was expected.



    Just a little map to show what and how. Poland's version of history is a big fat lie in regards to "the outcome". Both when one regards its pre-war preparations and campaign. Polish people always claim they were betrayed by Russia all while they were gearing to fight Russia and they were also the people that (like today) were all breaks out wrt to a Soviet pact against Germany.

    It was a disgrace for the USSR to profit from Nazi agression, but those were the times.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Regular on Sun May 31, 2015 2:58 pm

    AFAIK, newer T-90MS are easy to service as V-92S2F engine can be taken out quite easily and there is digital error reader too. Don't remember where I've seen it, it was in one of them shows.
    With older designs it was pain in the ass to even service them.
    Leo -2 seem to best thought out tanks when it comes to maintaince.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:06 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:06 am