Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Share

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:even under the one sided biased CFE agreement Russia was supposed to have 6,000 tanks in Europe, so clearly they wont be all Armata based MBTs...

    equally Russia does not need nor can afford an all armata armed force... there will be plenty of lighter units.
    They don't even have to all be MBT's... The K-25 125mm gun platform could replace the slot of the older tanks that are sitting around. - The tanks that no longer have enough armor to be relevant anyway... 

    Equip it with the 2A82-1M and Afganit and the thing will still pose a *major* threat to all Western vehicles. The penetration to go through the turret front on a SEP and APS to stop any incoming round. 

     - I like "Russian soldier girl" a little bit more...  Wink

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:43 pm


    marcellogo
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 44
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:39 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Infografics (from Vzglyad) Armata with 12,7mmgun instead of 7,62? Computer graphic imagination or ...

    Gunship if the one on your avatar would really be the average of your soldier girls, you wouldn't need any weapon to conquer almost an half of the world I love you I love you I love you

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:11 am

    You can say that again.  Laughing

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:10 am

    marcellogo wrote: Gunship  if the one on your avatar would really be the average of your soldier girls, you wouldn't need any weapon to conquer almost an half of the world I love you I love you I love you
    +
    Mike E wrote:You can say that again.  Laughing

    Careful she is Russian agent of influence her beauty is to distract you from dissemination of liberal values. You see how it works - you see liberal cutie-pie and 300miliseconds later you got your breakfast on keyboard.

    You see her and she poisons your mind so you forget the she visited Berlin in May 45 promoting Soviet aggressive attitude as  opposite to European integration values expressed by Adolf H. and his Kamaraden during whole life-cycle of Tausendjähriges Reich (1933-1945 )


    You see she was in good relations to tankists poisoning their minds Smile





    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:42 am

    They don't even have to all be MBT's... The K-25 125mm gun platform could replace the slot of the older tanks that are sitting around. - The tanks that no longer have enough armor to be relevant anyway...

    If they only intended to have armata based tanks there would be no need for the Armata based APC... armata would be the tank, kurganets the BMP, boomerang the BTR and typhoon the BRDM-4.

    The fact is that there will be units based on each family, so an armata unit, a kurganets unit, a boomerang unit and a typhoon unit... the wheeled units wont be deployed in the middle of the tundra and the tracked units wont be in places where there are a lot of roads...

    Only armata units will need armata tanks, kurganets units will need kurganets tanks and boomerang units will need boomerang tanks, while typhoon units will need typhoon gun platforms (I wont call them tanks because they will be in the 10-15 ton range with perhaps 6 wheels and might have a high velocity 45mm or 57mm gun and Kornets instead of a 125mm gun.


    _________________
    “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

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:Only armata units will need armata tanks, kurganets units will need kurganets tanks and boomerang units will need boomerang tanks, while typhoon units will need typhoon gun platforms (I wont call them tanks because they will be in the 10-15 ton range with perhaps 6 wheels and might have a high velocity 45mm or 57mm gun and Kornets instead of a 125mm gun.

    That's the idea behind the new designs but it's clear that we will still have T-72's and T-90's around for quite a while yet

    Alex555
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Alex555 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:13 pm

    Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:37 pm

    Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:44 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!


    I aggree, that is highly unlikely that Egnineers and designers themselfs with their superior education and knowledge would go into a 3rd grade childish dick measuring, such behavior is usual for yellow papers and tabloids of paid writers not even the PR department of such companies rely to such childish behavior. The big majority of PR from companies themselfs just usually tell its "Best in the World" or "Is among the best in the world" but they do not throw ape shit towards other companies, countries and their product.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Zivo on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:55 pm

    Alex555 wrote:Chinese tank maker Norinco claims that its VT-4 is superior to Russia’s deadliest armored fighting vehicle.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-this-chinese-tank-beat-russias-t-14-armata/
    Laughing

    Not likely, at the end of the day it's just a T-72 variant with all of the T-72's inherent advantages and problems. For a bit more money, you could get a T-90SM with more bells and whistles.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:I doubt Norinco would say that...EVER. Weapon manufacturers don't deal in we're better than 1 tank. The VT-4 (Aka MBT-2000/3000; Aka ZTZ 991/2/3XXX) is still a classical layout with all the drawbacks of the T72 series. Comparing that to the T-90ms would be quite normal, to Armata? It isn't even a final design yet!

    Pretty much. It just reads like poor journalism too me.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  cracker on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:32 pm

    the article is full LOL

    they claim "our tank can fire wide range of shells! much *****! including ATGM with 5km range! wowowow!!"

    among other ridiculous things... Yeah sure, that makes the VT-4 totally superior to... wait... equal to... T-64B of 1976, first tank shooting missiles through a standard gun.

    This is a joke to grab a maximum clueless chinese boys (fanboys), create a false advertising and such...

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:44 pm

    That Chinese marketing BS.

    They don't even get a working APS.. let alone integrating it to a tank. While newest T-72 and Armata comes in with APS as standard.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:52 pm

    cracker wrote:the article is full LOL

    they claim "our tank can fire wide range of shells! much *****! including ATGM with 5km range! wowowow!!"

    among other ridiculous things... Yeah sure, that makes the VT-4 totally superior to... wait... equal to... T-64B of 1976, first tank shooting missiles through a standard gun.

    This is a joke to grab a maximum clueless chinese boys (fanboys), create a false advertising and such...

    I heard of QC nightmares on chinese tanks. Didnt the curret fall off or became problematic on MBT-2000 in Peru tests?

    Also, the tanks were initially designed by Ukrainian company. Al Khalid actually, which is MBT-2000 variant.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:02 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    I aggree, that is highly unlikely that Egnineers and designers themselfs with their superior education and knowledge would go into a 3rd grade childish dick measuring, such behavior is usual for yellow papers and tabloids of paid writers not even the PR department of such companies rely to such childish behavior. The big majority of PR from companies themselfs just usually tell its "Best in the World" or "Is among the best in the world" but they do not throw ape shit towards other companies, countries and their product.
    if you truly believed that then i have a bridge to sell to you...
    anyhow, silly article aside, i cant help but think they futzed up the panoramic sight placement on the MBT 3k. the gunner's sight possibly blocks the 9 while the commander's MG definitely blocks the 6 of the panoramic sight. not the end of the world, but definitely mediocre tier.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:17 pm

    The diplomat? recently in RIA was info about increase funding of info warfare to make BRICS fight each other. et voila !
    Ethnic thigs will come soon as well.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:27 pm

    Actually the MBT-3000 or ZTZ-99A1/A2 or even ZTZ-96A do not share every problem T-72's have, they are improved versions while ZTZ-99A2 is equal and in some points superior to even T-90A and most western tanks. They for example do not scatter their ammunition in the turret inside, which is the major problem in after penetration effects compared with T-72's so that disadvantage they have dealt with, the other thing is most T-72b versions except the later versions do not have such a developed FCS like the ZTZ-96A, the overall performance maybe marginal in comperision of the overall leap between 2nd and 3rd generation of tanks but still better in performance, the other point is the overall protection and armor distribution. Of course i don't know like no one knows the exact armor composition, but the ERA coverage on ZTZ tanks is higher than the ERA coverage on T-72/90 tanks, i also do not know the effeciency of their ERA but is not less effecient than K5. So reading some of the statements is relative ignorant to the chinese tanks. You shouldn't underestimate their tanks, they are superior in everyway to any other 2nd generation tanks and their 3rd generation tanks 99A2 with some troubles still of higher value then Abrams or Challanger for that matter.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:49 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Actually the MBT-3000 or ZTZ-99A1/A2 or even ZTZ-96A do not share every problem T-72's have, they are improved versions while ZTZ-99A2 is equal and in some points superior to even T-90A and most western tanks. They for example do not scatter their ammunition in the turret inside, which is the major problem in after penetration effects compared with T-72's so that disadvantage they have dealt with, the other thing is most T-72b versions except the later versions do not have such a developed FCS like the ZTZ-96A, the overall performance maybe marginal in comperision of the overall leap between 2nd and 3rd generation of tanks but still better in performance, the other point is the overall protection and armor distribution. Of course i don't know like no one knows the exact armor composition, but the ERA coverage on ZTZ tanks is higher than the ERA coverage on T-72/90 tanks, i also do not know the effeciency of their ERA but is not less effecient than K5. So reading some of the statements is relative ignorant to the chinese tanks. You shouldn't underestimate their tanks, they are superior in everyway to any other 2nd generation tanks and their 3rd generation tanks 99A2 with some troubles still of higher value then Abrams or Challanger for that matter.

    No disrespect meant, but here werewolf you're out of your depth. REcently the Chinese got a Type-96 to the tank biathlon. It was found pretty unsatisfactory from the Russian crews that could interact with their Chinese counterpart on various little bits. There is a livejournal post somewhere here.

    As for the 99, the complement of ammunition on a 99 is 55 rounds according to people @Sinodefence/se. With the current bustle, you don't have enough room for 55 without putting them in the fighting compartment. There a other issues (weight for instance) that makes most 99's rather lardy. FCS like the 96A are you kidding me? They have a 35 year old FCS from the M60 barely upped and have had MANY accuracy issues under Sudanese and Somali ownership. Ask yourself why in the face of such cheap alternatives (and new!) do countries like Ethiopia and Venezuela still buy second hand Soviet Crap?

    It's easy, because the Chinese tanks so far are either untested or frankly shit. Era coverage doesn't mean much when your side armor is not better than 89 era 72B's.

    It has nothing with ignorance, it is based on what is known and stated by current owners of Chinese hardware.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 2672
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:21 am

    China is in a big hurry to advance so you get the sort of crap products that would be avoided via a long term, systematic
    development program instead of copy and paste short cuts.

    It will be interesting to see if China slows down and does it the right way or whether it will be in this catch up frenzy
    indefinitely. Even scientific articles from China have high crap fraction. They need to realize that the current
    approach is not working.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3236
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:26 am



    Russia should never sell armata to anyone.. same with Pak-FA or you will see it stolen in no time
    by a bribed soldiers by US and or reverse engineered .

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:07 pm

    Vann7 wrote:

    Russia should never sell armata to anyone.. same with Pak-FA or you will see it stolen in no time
    by a bribed soldiers by US and or reverse engineered .

    Consider this that in time Russians will perfect and improve whet is now. Something like like selling T-72 whne you have T-90MS.

    Selling Armata keeps factories and R&D running and keeps customer base. BTW High Tech is not that easy to reverse engineer


    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  cracker on Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:25 pm

    Problem: it's undeniable that the Ztz96G performed better than the T-72B4 in tank biathlon. Anyway, it seems to be, during the firing sequence, but, apparently the T-72B4 exploded the ztz in mobility, chinese even had to use a 2nd tank because the first had serious engine issue...

    But the Ztz litterally run super fast while shooting and apparently hitting targets, but the T-72B4 had to move very slowly... Still, the russian team won the match overall.

    It says something: either the russians prefer to slow down to shoot, because it's an old tactic etc... Or, the Ztz96G has much better stabilizer and somehow, FCS... I don't know... And frankly, i don't know if T-72B4 FCS and all stuff is worse than T-90A, which would make T-90A also worse than chinese tank.

    Have you seen the inside of any current chinese tank? ztz96G, ztz99G, mbt3000... They have automatic transmission, digitalised drive, etc full informatized elements. No russian tank beside T-90MS and T-14 have such things.

    Now, maybe all this shiny crap is total garbage and unreliable in chinese tanks... but still, they have it... one thing is for sure though, their engines either totally suck, of they must carbon copy german engines to have something useable.

    And the armour, is not as good as T-90A / Object 187 type armour... No way. The chinese tanks have a other way to protect their tank, and, it's just not as good, besides, composite blocks are probably worse, and ERA too.

    Other problem: their gun and autoloader are sure as hell not as good as the current russian standard 2A46M5 and related T-90A modified autoloader. Not even speaking of 2A82.

    Ammo? I don't know, their claims of 900mm pen APFSDS are totally bogus, i think current russian Svinets (BM48 or seomthing) totally dwarfs any chinese APFSDS. Also, i can't see their ATGM being better than the russian Refleks 9M119M.

    I think chinese tanks (modern) are quite good, i think russia should by one sample of each 3 tanks, i can't see china refusing... Or, they must buy them using a bribe to some country who wants to buy them... problem is, i can't see which...

    Russia already has T-64BM bulat Very Happy, i wish russia could pick up most tanks and learn from them


    Really the ZtZ96G FCS is a copy of the one on the M60A1 ??? tell me more

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:50 pm

    From what I can tell the -96 does not have a great FCS outside of the two thermals, one for both the commander and gunner. 

    The FCS/stabilization-system as a whole are not all that advanced and have been fielded for at least 2 decades. -  ISFCS-212

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:21 pm

    cracker wrote:Problem: it's undeniable that the Ztz96G performed better than the T-72B4 in tank biathlon. Anyway, it seems to be, during the firing sequence, but, apparently the T-72B4 exploded the ztz in mobility, chinese even had to use a 2nd tank because the first had serious engine issue...

    But the Ztz litterally run super fast while shooting and apparently hitting targets, but the T-72B4 had to move very slowly... Still, the russian team won the match overall.

    It says something: either the russians prefer to slow down to shoot, because it's an old tactic etc... Or, the Ztz96G has much better stabilizer and somehow, FCS... I don't know... And frankly, i don't know if T-72B4 FCS and all stuff is worse than T-90A, which would make T-90A also worse than chinese tank.

    Have you seen the inside of any current chinese tank? ztz96G, ztz99G, mbt3000... They have automatic transmission, digitalised drive, etc full informatized elements. No russian tank beside T-90MS and T-14 have such things.

    Now, maybe all this shiny crap is total garbage and unreliable in chinese tanks... but still, they have it... one thing is for sure though, their engines either totally suck, of they must carbon copy german engines to have something useable.

    And the armour, is not as good as T-90A / Object 187 type armour... No way. The chinese tanks have a other way to protect their tank, and, it's just not as good, besides, composite blocks are probably worse, and ERA too.

    Other problem: their gun and autoloader are sure as hell not as good as the current russian standard 2A46M5 and related T-90A modified autoloader. Not even speaking of 2A82.

    Ammo? I don't know, their claims of 900mm pen APFSDS are totally bogus, i think current russian Svinets (BM48 or seomthing) totally dwarfs any chinese APFSDS. Also, i can't see their ATGM being better than the russian Refleks 9M119M.

    I think chinese tanks (modern) are quite good, i think russia should by one sample of each 3 tanks, i can't see china refusing... Or, they must buy them using a bribe to some country who wants to buy them... problem is, i can't see which...

    Russia already has T-64BM bulat Very Happy, i wish russia could pick up most tanks and learn from them


    Really the ZtZ96G FCS is a copy of the one on the M60A1 ??? tell me more
    Check thé Type 85II & III dev.

    The base computer is the British version of the M21 FCS from the M60A2/3 that initially was sold to Pakistan. Since China was under embargo from 1989's Tian An Men, most of the upgrades, especially regarding the solid state electronics were simply either sourced via Pakistan or obtained by going around the Embargo by buying most items through dual use processes.

    Now the T96G FCS splashed the place, too bad last year Armenia was as effective as the T96G (both 77%) and Armenia had a T72B...so what's going on here? Armenian Brain equal to Jewish Hyperphysics? Nope simply the targets on the Biathlon are roughly  the same and the crews just have learnt their aiming process.

    Worse again, how many Chinese tanks are really those M1 copies? Lemme tell you, those who are used for photoshoots.  This is a 96's interior... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f7e_1411403328

    The 99G I agree is a different beast, but said before, the 99G is the exception to the rule...


    Last edited by KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:42 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The diplomat? recently in RIA was info about increase funding of info warfare to make BRICS fight each other. et voila !
    Ethnic thigs will come soon as well.

    Diplomat is CFR funded online media outlet . They run it from japan focusing on spreading pro-us propaganda and agenda in Eurasia to others . Sometimes they do sensible reporting rest take it with grain of salt .

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:39 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:39 pm