Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Share

    volna
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2013-03-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  volna on Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:19 am

    I've a question.
    Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?

    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 01, 2015 8:47 pm

    volna wrote:I've a question.
    Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?
    No reason it couldn't....not the other way around though.

    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 02, 2015 2:49 am

    Mike E wrote:
    volna wrote:I've a question.
    Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?
    No reason it couldn't....not the other way around though.
    both guns can fit all 125mm projectiles, yes that includes the vacuums. its the AL that precludes this from happening. and ofc. the fact that the newer rounds are a lot more powerful. if they dont blow up the gun in the first place they would eat the gun barrel at a prodigious rate.

    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 02, 2015 3:10 am

    projectiles are one thing, but 2A46 family shouldn't be able to use at all the 2A82 propelant charges. So, 2A46 could theorically shoot any 2A82 ammo using the less powerful standard propelant pack.

    But the only new projectiles in the T-14 are probably APFSDS, i don't see why the standard 125mm HEAT and HE need replacement... And a new ATGM too of course.

    it's like the good old 122mm guns, the D-25 family and M-62 family could shoot the exact same shells, but used 2 different propelant cases.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:11 am

    from an Indian blogger

    Russia's Armata T-14 Main Battle Tank: A Preliminary Assessment

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:26 am

    Austin wrote:from an Indian blogger

    Russia's Armata T-14 Main Battle Tank: A Preliminary Assessment
    wow, this article is pretty good. dude pretty much hit the nail on the head on most his points.
    ill just chime in that in the debate between unmanned turrets with external sensors versus commander on the cupola, its pretty much going to favor the former as technology moves on. and no, pulling yourself up from your seat, twisting your torso, and craning your neck to look around the tank doesnt sound as not cumbersome to me as opposed to toggling the monitor to display different external camera's view of their sector. display screens have also gotten better over the last 15 years, the graphics are now on the level of the ps2 Razz , and jostling around is not really an issue since the suspension is smooth as fck. i also dont get the problem with adding more stuff- complicated does not mean unreliable. look at thermometers, the ones where you point a laser beam at target is orders of magnitude more accurate than those glass thingies with mercury in them. same with additional sensors, electronics, and mechanicals; in fact those are hardened in the first place, not to mention you can duplicate them, add a layer of redundancy to each system. it could even be argued that if you lose your fancy sensors, electronics and mechanicals and are down to manual you are as good as mission killed anyway- your combat potential is down to single digit percentages of what it was before and best option is to fall back.


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:01 am

    Not bad article, have two things to address tho.

    The author of the article does not seperate specifically the point about ammunition storage in older soviet/russian tanks. He overall generalizes it as being flawed, the only flawed thing is the scattered around ammunition in the turret, not the ammunition in the carousel itself. The T-90A when leaving out the ammunition out of the turret has better survival chances then most tanks which leave their ammunition unprotected next to tank drivers, since the T-90 carousel is armored, so spalling and hot fragments can not ignite the ammunition. Ammunition in hard casings (metal) are also not directly affected from hot fragments however with fuel stored inside as "spaced armor" this significantly endangerous the unprotected ammunition storage on most western tanks.


    The other point is the APS system. The author gives the notion that it is vastly unliked in the west because it can harm infantry nearby, fact is it is the opposite, the west is trying since years to acquire APS complex. In war soldiers are valued less than armor, not to mention majority of engagements against tanks are very rarely with infantry taking cover around the tank itself. We have seen enough footage of different wars, iraq, lybia, syria, ukraine, georgia. Infantrymen tend not to stand that close to tanks, most of the time they do actualy what they are suppossed to do, Cover the tank while providing cover for the tank from inside buildings, so they can regain parts of cities and that is actually the only location were infantrymen are anywhere near a tank in Urban warfare.

    Other than that the article is not bad.


    Edit: One little point to add. The author is right, that the commanders coupla is important and very important to look around from time to time for himself without relying on time consuming electronics, but he misses a single point is that T-14 has Autotrack and autolockon capability which in normal eases his workload for searching for targets and that point also covers this so called "flaw" of GLATGM being Laser Beam Rider. The commander can guide the missile after the gunner has shot it and move on for searching for new targets if they don't have already one.

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:19 am

    Werewolf wrote:Not bad article, have two things to address tho.

    The author of the article does not seperate specifically the point about ammunition storage in older soviet/russian tanks. He overall generalizes it as being flawed, the only flawed thing is the scattered around ammunition in the turret, not the ammunition in the carousel itself. The T-90A when leaving out the ammunition out of the turret has better survival chances then most tanks which leave their ammunition unprotected next to tank drivers, since the T-90 carousel is armored, so spalling and hot fragments can not ignite the ammunition. Ammunition in hard casings (metal) are also not directly affected from hot fragments however with fuel stored inside as "spaced armor" this significantly endangerous the unprotected ammunition storage on most western tanks.
    but he did stress that point. in fact he mentioned the armored top cover of the carousel AL;that rounds stored here are safe from sparks and spall and the real danger are the rounds placed everywhere in the tank.
    Werewolf wrote:
    The other point is the APS system. The author gives the notion that it is vastly unliked in the west because it can harm infantry nearby, fact is it is the opposite, the west is trying since years to acquire APS complex. In war soldiers are valued less than armor, not to mention majority of engagements against tanks are very rarely with infantry taking cover around the tank itself. We have seen enough footage of different wars, iraq, lybia, syria, ukraine, georgia. Infantrymen tend not to stand that close to tanks, most of the time they do actualy what they are suppossed to do, Cover the tank while providing cover for the tank from inside buildings, so they can regain parts of cities and that is actually the only location were infantrymen are anywhere near a tank in Urban warfare.

    Other than that the article is not bad.
    true, its almost suicide to be near a tank when its fighting. makes me laugh about people complaining about the lack of external telephone on tanks.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:45 am

    I would suggest to comment on his blog so that we get response from the author of the article

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:49 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    but he did stress that point. in fact he mentioned the armored top cover of the carousel AL;that rounds stored here are safe from sparks and spall and the real danger are the rounds placed everywhere in the tank.

    Yes, but the overall context was not specific and was not mentioning that the rounds in the turret are left out nowdays, which have been proven in 2nd Chechnya to increase safety significantly, leaving only capsuled carousel ammunition a very good crew survivability even by penetration to the turret on par with any other tank and can be even higher depending on situation.


    collegeboy16 wrote:
    true, its almost suicide to be near a tank when its fighting. makes me laugh about people complaining about the lack of external telephone on tanks.

    The Infantry telephone station isn't used when the tank gets fired upon, it is used to provide information of the battlefield from infantry POW to the tank crew, since they have very limited observation of the field and the infantry might need to prioritize where the tank should provide fire support to achieve the necessary results.

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:18 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    The Infantry telephone station isn't used when the tank gets fired upon, it is used to provide information of the battlefield from infantry POW to the tank crew, since they have very limited observation of the field and the infantry might need to prioritize where the tank should provide fire support to achieve the necessary results.
    what? wireless radios arent a thing anymore? maybe the men could tap morse on the hull while they are at it?

    also, the ad hoc solution of leaving out ammo not in the AL is, as i said ad hoc and not a regular procedure, like dudes sitting on top of their APCs.
    commanders have to choose between increasing survivability when hit while halving combat persistence or the opposite. for missions like Georgia the latter would be a much better choice, but for special assault on fortress city the former is better. its also not fair to attribute the increased survivability during the second war to losing the extra ammo not in AL- tactics played a much bigger part here. no longer were they going in thunder runs which even with no ammo outside of AL would get them slaughtered albeit it would take more rpg teams and time. no, they pulled back and played overwatch this time, and blasted any punks exposed by infantry. rarely would they be caught in an ambush by rpg teams and in most threats that presented themselves the tanks were able to put their most armored fronts to the enemy since they dont come in all directions.

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:28 am

    Austin wrote:I would suggest to comment on his blog so that we get response from the author of the article

    I did.. regarding the penetrator length. Given the turret now unmanned..There's considerable freedom in stowing ammo... It can do like M1TTB (stowing it vertically) or other configurations.. Even "2 stage" Carousel but this limit the length of the penetrator.

    I'm still believe though that Grifel was developed for the 2A82. While the 2A83 use something else.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:31 am

    What is 2A82 and 2A83 are their two different guns ?

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:41 am

    Austin wrote:What is 2A82 and 2A83 are their two different guns ?
    2a82 is 125mm gun while 2a83 is T-95's 152mm gun.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:50 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    what? wireless radios arent a thing anymore? maybe the men could tap morse on the hull while they are at it?

    Radios are not existent in all troops or circumstances. When the tank is not fired upon from enemy forces, infantry can use it, not the best solution of course but a simple and non expensive solution, but not elegant or highly effective.


    collegeboy16 wrote:
    also, the ad hoc solution of leaving out ammo not in the AL is, as i said ad hoc and not a regular procedure, like dudes sitting on top of their APCs.
    commanders have to choose between increasing survivability when hit while halving combat persistence or the opposite. for missions like Georgia the latter would be a much better choice, but for special assault on fortress city the former is better. its also not fair to attribute the increased survivability during the second war to losing the extra ammo not in AL- tactics played a much bigger part here.

    The Autoloader (Carousel) ammunition isn't reduced or withdrawn it is always kept full, the ammunition that is stored openly without any protection inside the turret is the problem, this ammunition was left out only with 22 rounds in autoloader. The increased survivability wasn't counted in 2nd Chechen war by tactics, but soley on Penetrations to the turret without causing cook offs, even the 1st Chechen war showed only 3 out of 31 tanks had cook offs.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:53 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Austin wrote:I would suggest to comment on his blog so that we get response from the author of the article

    I did.. regarding the penetrator length. Given the turret now unmanned..There's considerable freedom in stowing ammo... It can do like M1TTB (stowing it vertically) or other configurations.. Even "2 stage" Carousel but this limit the length of the penetrator.

    I'm still believe though that Grifel was developed for the 2A82. While the 2A83 use something else.

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:09 pm

    Telephones were often put on the rear of western tanks to allow a stationary tank to communicate with the troops it is supporting... usually in urban areas where visibility is not good.

    I would suspect Ratnik will solve Russian communication issues with Russian soldiers better able to communicate with support forces including air power and with each other including the ability to send an image of a target or threat and its Glonass coordinates.

    Regarding APS being dangerous to troops... I think the weapon they are deployed to stop would be just as dangerous... plus troops almost never actually operate right next to tanks... it is simply too dangerous... whether that means getting run over or obliterated because they are standing near the muzzle of the main gun when it goes bang...

    Regarding remote weapon systems and situational awareness... sure the cameras would be relatively vulnerable, but even a fibre optic camera with a fish eye lens would be sufficient for close range viewing and driving and they could have optical ports a hairs width... not something that is easy to shoot out... and of course the alternative is the commanders head which is a bigger target by far and much more vulnerable.

    A tank could launch a hand sized UAV to fly 500m above the tank giving the tank crew a gods view of their own vehicle even with all the cameras and view ports destroyed... it could be fired out the main gun using a modest charge... or it could just fly out...


    _________________
    “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

    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 Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:21 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.
    its the first of several apfsds for the 2a83 gun to use(if it entered production back then)- look at the vast chasm between mangos and vacuums.

    marcellogo
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  marcellogo on Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:00 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.
    its the first of several apfsds for the 2a83 gun to use(if it entered production back then)- look at the vast chasm between mangos and vacuums.


    About Gun round for what I have understood, T-95, its 152mm gun and Grifel rounds are nineties/early 0 decades level of technology, while the 125mm gun and rounds of Armata are a decade ahead, able to whitstand a greater pressure and so almost equally effective than previous larger caliber ones.
    It doesn't means that there will not a six hinch gun on the Armata, just that they would wait until a more advanced version of it, comparable to the 125mm, would be ready.

    Alex555
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Alex555 on Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:41 pm

    Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:22 pm

    Alex555 wrote:Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html

    This article has me puzzled. Are they saying that they'll create an amphibious version of the Armata platform? There'll be some serious challenge developing it, but technology does advance over time. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath on this.

    ...But wouldn't that be hilarious if they made versions of the Armata platform that were both amphibious and air-droppable?!...lol1 It'd seem so improbable to pull off!

    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 03, 2015 11:33 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html

    This article has me puzzled. Are they saying that they'll create an amphibious version of the Armata platform? There'll be some serious challenge developing it, but technology does advance over time. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath on this.

    ...But wouldn't that be hilarious if they made versions of the Armata platform that were both amphibious and air-droppable?!...lol1 It'd seem so improbable to pull off!


    Looks like Kurs institute is either making PR to get moar money or.. or they are really doing some great things. From tonight´s Sputnik

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150603/1022896127.html

    4. Amphibious Vehicles on Armata Platform
    Russia's New Armata Tank Can Be Upgraded to Robot - Official
    The institute is about to install the new Armata platform onto amphibious vehicles. Marine ships equipped with the new impenetrable armor can go as fast as 14 — 16 km/h, have a sea-keeping performance of up to grade 5 and carry 50 soldiers or 8 tons of equipment. Furthermore, there are rumors coming from "Kurs" that military engineers plan to make the new T-14 Armata tank amphibious. Now that would be crazy!



    However this one is also looking good not about Armata though:
    1. Ice-cutting Laser
    Why is the Arctic Important for Russia?
    As Russia sets its eye on developing the Arctic and making it a key region in the near future, the institute has developed an original method of breaking the Arctic ice — an ice-slashing laser. The powerful laser will cut through the thick Arctic ice like a hot knife through butter by cutting off the top layers. After that Russian icebreakers can easily go through the rest of the ice.


    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 Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:39 am


    Media: China and India are interested in buying "Armata"


    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2018034


    MOSCOW, June 4. /TASS/. India, China and countries in Southeast Asia have shown interest in the new models of armored vehicles, shown in the May 9 Parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of Victory in the great Patriotic war. About this "news" told the assistant to the President on military - technical cooperation Vladimir Kozhin.
    Traditional partners of Russia are interested in buying infantry fighting vehicle and tank "Armata", he said. "The interest shown, new technology, it was expensive. Mostly it is our traditional partners: China, India and South-East Asia", - said Vladimir Kozhin.
    He explained that represented at the parade in the first place will go to the Russian Armed forces and only in the future will be supplied to the armies of other States. While foreign customers are satisfied with the Russian equipment that comes under current contracts.
    On red square on Victory Day in the composition of the mechanized column passed new items of military equipment armored vehicle "boomerang", infantry fighting vehicle "Kurganets", armored vehicles "Typhoon", a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on the platform "Armata" tank "Armata".
    The experts noted that the consignment can only speak in three years, the newspaper said.

    So time of big big shopping around the corner

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3560
    Points : 3595
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:26 am

    The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

    Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.

    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 Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:35 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:The Boomerang is about to become a star seller, Venezuela already having "some issues" with the ZBL9 and the Chinese themselves being in demand for modern wheeled chassis.

    Given the ZBL is marginally better protected than the BTR-80 series, the case is clear that the said vehicle will be in demand. What puzzles me is how well will the K-25 fare in the export market...it is a vehicle that albeit better protected has at least for now a less performant weapon combination when compared to its cousin BMP-3M.
    I'd say it has a "different" weapon armament than an "inferior" one.

    The 100 mm BMP-3 gun is flexible but against armor fires less effective missiles v. the Kornets on the K-25 IFV.

    Both model auto-cannons are similar w/o a distant advantage AFAIK.... So how would the BMP-3 have a superior armament? Maybe against personnel and structures but not armor, especially heavy armor.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:36 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:36 pm