Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:46 pm

    Mike E wrote:Any of you here seen Jordan's Falcon turret upgrade before? Kinda turns older Centurions, Chieftains, and Challengers in an Armata-like platform. - Unmanned turret with an autoloader, crew is located entirely in the hull with a separate ammo compartment. Just thought that it is somewhat a good idea... Wonder if Russia could do a similar kind of mutant-tank with the unmanned turret of the Armata and the hull of a T-90 etc. Course the hull would need to be raised and in general, enlarged quite a bit. But with the lesser weight of the turret more armor could be applied to the frontal glacis of the hull. Personally.... I think it would be a great idea for older T-72 chassis that are going to be scrapped eventually. It wouldn't require much modification (Falcon turret doesn't) and should be a cheaper and more efficient way of upgrading Russia's and possibly exports' land vehicle force. TBH the general idea is that it would be a BMPT-like vehicle with the gun of a MBT (Armata). Possibly it could function as a tank destroyer of sorts...
    it doesnt have a separate ammo compartment- afaik some rounds are still stored under the turret ring with the 2 crew member, and it uses a bustle autoloader for the rest. aside from that, there is not much point, especially if you have to make significant restructuring of the hull, and it does need a significant bit of beefing up to be at least comparable to frontal turret protection. not only that, armata unmanned turret more than likely uses a vertical carousel AL- no space for two dudes under the turret ring- the center space in the AL needs to be unoccupied so that the gun could depress.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs on Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Must be fan art.

    Not fan art.

    Official model shown at factory that would produce it if their design is selected... orders of magnitude higher than just fan art, but still not certain.

    I forgot the /sarc tag. The fan art is based on this model and previous guesses. But we will see in May what it really looks like.
    I don't want to be disappointed.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:10 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Any of you here seen Jordan's Falcon turret upgrade before? Kinda turns older Centurions, Chieftains, and Challengers in an Armata-like platform. - Unmanned turret with an autoloader, crew is located entirely in the hull with a separate ammo compartment. Just thought that it is somewhat a good idea... Wonder if Russia could do a similar kind of mutant-tank with the unmanned turret of the Armata and the hull of a T-90 etc. Course the hull would need to be raised and in general, enlarged quite a bit. But with the lesser weight of the turret more armor could be applied to the frontal glacis of the hull. Personally.... I think it would be a great idea for older T-72 chassis that are going to be scrapped eventually. It wouldn't require much modification (Falcon turret doesn't) and should be a cheaper and more efficient way of upgrading Russia's and possibly exports' land vehicle force. TBH the general idea is that it would be a BMPT-like vehicle with the gun of a MBT (Armata). Possibly it could function as a tank destroyer of sorts...
    it doesnt have a separate ammo compartment- afaik some rounds are still stored under the turret ring with the 2 crew member, and it uses a bustle autoloader for the rest. aside from that, there is not much point, especially if you have to make significant restructuring of the hull, and it does need a significant bit of beefing up to be at least comparable to frontal turret protection. not only that, armata unmanned turret more than likely uses a vertical carousel AL- no space for two dudes under the turret ring- the center space in the AL needs to be unoccupied so that the gun could depress.
    AFAIK the more recent models have separate ammo storage units within the hull. This could be exclusive to one vehicle though.

    chicken

    Posts : 99
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  chicken on Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:28 am

    kvs wrote:


    Must be fan art.

    Even better, not even MBT.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:47 am

    Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

    the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:



    To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

    this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:52 pm

    A Kurganets with a gun is not a MAIN battle tank, IMO.

    Not in any honest definition of the word.

    Also, I will bet Russian Army has no plans to buy such a vehicle in any case.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs on Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

    the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:



    To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

    this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.

    This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
    How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
    since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
    does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:36 pm

    This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
    How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
    since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
    does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

    This is not a BMPT it can not be a BMPT, because for that role you need armor on the same level as a real MBT. The definition of BMPT is Tank Supporting Vehicle and IFV's don't drive next to Tanks on the front line against enemy Tanks.

    This vehicle next to the truck is nothing else but an IFV plattform with 120/125mm cannon, russia did so far not use any kind of such vehicles and i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it. It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs on Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:43 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
    How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
    since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
    does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

    This is not a BMPT it can not be a BMPT, because for that role you need armor on the same level as a real MBT. The definition of BMPT is Tank Supporting Vehicle and IFV's don't drive next to Tanks on the front line against enemy Tanks.

    This vehicle next to the truck is nothing else but an IFV plattform with 120/125mm cannon, russia did so far not use any kind of such vehicles and i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it. It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.

    My bad, I thought BMPT stood for some glorified BMP. The only BMPT I could find is the "terminator" which uses a regular tank chassis. It looks
    nothing like the model picture I posted.

    chicken

    Posts : 99
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  chicken on Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:34 am

    kvs wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

    the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:

    To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

    this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.

    This is completely up side down.   The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
    How can anyone confuse them?   The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it.  The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
    since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90.  The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
    does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.


    The plaque in front of the leftmost vehicle reads "Боевая артиллерийская машина на унифицированном базовом шасси Армата", it uses the Armata chassis but its turret is not optimized for Main Battle Tank duty. The Kurganets with the big gun is something like the CV-90 with a 120mm gun.


    Last edited by chicken on Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:36 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : snip pics)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:32 am

    A Kurganets with a gun is not a MAIN battle tank, IMO.

    You are quite correct, but the term has already been rendered inaccurate already.

    The first MBT was the T-34, which had medium weight, good armour, good firepower, and good mobility.

    It was technically a medium tank but got good protection using sloping armour to maximise the protection it provided.

    Back then there were light, medium, and heavy tanks... light tanks tended to have machine guns and were really infantry support vehicles. Medium tanks were general purpose tanks that took ground and fought other tanks, while heavy tanks were to slog it out against heavy fortifications or attack enemy tanks at long range. They often had heavier guns so they were better against fortifications.

    In practise most were eventually replaced with one tank that gradually got special armour structures to keep weight to an average and a really big powerful gun.... in the Soviet Army the light tank was largely replaced by the IFV and APC with its  own organic firepower, while the heavy tank tended to be replaced by the long range ATGM vehicle.

    Currently the term MBT means the one heavy gun platform designed to take out any enemy vehicle, though western vehicles could be termed heavy tanks and therefore not Main Battle Tanks.

    The future structure of the Russian military involves the use of vehicle families so the return of light, medium, and heavy tanks, though in truth it will be medium tanks in the form of the Armata tank, and light tank in the form of the Kurganets tank vehicle, with the Boomerang and Typhoon best being described as light gun platforms.

    Also, I will bet Russian Army has no plans to buy such a vehicle in any case.

    The purpose of the introduction of the vehicle families is to reduce the different types of vehicles within one unit to one type to reduce the logistics tail and simplify support.

    Having an Armata based tank in a Kurganets unit full of IFVs with Typhoon scout cars totally defeats the whole concept.

    Having an Armata based tank in an armata unit full of armata based IFVs and armata based recon vehicles and scout cars is what they are aiming for.

    And if Afghanistan can stop APFSDS rounds then in practical terms the Kurganets tank will be a very formidable vehicle.

    The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
    does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

    the Glacis is the Glacis of the Kurganets vehicle family.

    the two middle vehicles in the photo you posted again show the IFV turrets on the Boomerang and Kurganets platforms with 57mm guns.

    In fact the turret is similar to this one shown for the APC version:



    And will be fitted to all the vehicle families APC variants as it does not penetrate into the vehicle and therefore maximises the troop compartment size.

    Note as an APC turret it is optimised for dealing with threats that infantry will come across in combat.

    In comparison the IFV turret has the 57mm gun for dealing with enemy IFVs as well as other threats the infantry will come across.

    i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it.

    Russia has been planning this for some time and we have seen lots of articles on the unification of sensors and weapons to create light, medium, and heavy units with vehicle families in each weight category.

    The problem posed was that in Chechnya a standard division had well protected tanks that lacked main gun elevation to deal with threats in upper floors of buildings and basement floors in buidings. IFVs had the elevation but their lighter protection meant they could be picked off leaving the MBTs vulnerable.

    Two solutions really... one is to make all Russian armour based on tank chassis... which would work but would be enormously expensive and slow down movement/mobility.

    the solution they chose was to develop units for different situations and environments.

    In the flat open steppe where targets can be detected at long range and engaged at long range you don't need so much armour... you just need good communications and coordination to detect and engage enemy targets rapidly and efficiently.

    In close up environments like hedge rows and forests and urban areas heavier armour is needed.

    they have selected 4 different vehicle platforms with 4 different engines and transmissions, but in terms of weapons and sensors they are developing suites like aircraft suites. With aircraft electronics they are called avionics. For armoured vehicles they will develop avionics for a MBT and those sensors and weapons and systems will be unifed between the four vehicle families.

    The crew stations will already be standard and the same across the different vehicles, so there will be three crew stations from which you can drive, command, or be gunner without shifting seat.

    the gunners controls will turn the turret and raise and lower the gun... push a button and those controls now drive the vehicle, or operate the commanders cuppola and perhaps even fly a small UAV or ground based unmanned vehicle.

    To repeat this is NOT a case that the Armata will be the MBT, Kurganets will be the new BMP, Boomerang will be the new BTR and the Typhoon will be the new BRDM... these are vehicle families and mixing them into one unit will defeat the entire purpose of using vehicle families to reduce the logistics tail.

    It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.

    The MBT model of the Kurganets has a 125mm smoothbore main gun and can be considered the next gen Sprut. It will operate with IFVs and APC versions and indeed artillery and air defence versions that fill out the fire power and make the unit mobile and powerful.

    Add on new NERA and of course the next gen Nakidka and Shtora-2 or 3 and Standard APS and modern ceramic modular armour and you will have a very capable little vehicle in the 25 ton class.

    My bad, I thought BMPT stood for some glorified BMP. The only BMPT I could find is the "terminator" which uses a regular tank chassis. It looks
    nothing like the model picture I posted.

    BMPT is an armoured vehicle that supports tanks in places where infantry in the open are too vulnerable to enemy fire. It is basically to a tank what infantry would normally be... protection from enemy infantry.

    The BTRT is a tank based APC, which would be armed with a 30mm cannon as I have pictured above with a non hull penetrating turret to maximise the troop compartment size.

    The IFV version in the model pic above has 57mm main guns and an as yet unseen turret.

    The left most vehicle in that photo had a stubby little mortar carrier turret, though I would expect only Typhoon will have a small mortar like that... perhaps an 82mm auto mortar?

    Heavier vehicles will have the 120mm gun/mortar with much better range and power.

    The Kurganets with the big gun is something like the CV-90 with a 120mm gun.

    Or more accurately it is an upgraded Sprut.

    For use in situations where the enemy has no MBTs or old ones like T-55s then you could get away with a light tank using communication and modern ammo and new thermals they wont know what hit them... and even if they get a shot off that is what APS is for.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:04 am

    These vehicles will be in service before 2017 am I correct? What GarryB wrote is a great way of explaining these vehicles. In Chechnya my uncle was in and although he did not go to Grozny he has seen urban combat, They would bring in Shilkas to take out terrorist teams in high buildings. BMPs and BTRs would be obliterated and after a while the officers took their heads out their bums and finally found out that you don't send poorly trained troops with huge amounts and attack a big city sadly, I mean those guys were barely equipped with maps. Shilkas were great but they were sitting ducks, The terrorists quickly found new tactics such as IED the hell out of a certain area where Russian forces are bound to come from, Or the usual 3 to 4 AT teams engage from multiple sides. Im not sure about the tactics put to use in the 2nd war but I know for sure what happened in the first war is not acceptable.

    I make huge sense of the Armata series, And Im sure NATO will not have a counterpart for a while. I'm looking forward to a new 57MM gun on a IFV would be great for Urban warfare, As it would just need to fire one or 2 HE rounds and you basically took out a whole room.
    Can't wait to see these tanks, Been waiting for Armata for a while now.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:40 am

    These vehicles will be in service before 2017 am I correct?

    2015 was the deadline for development AFAIK, with the next few years getting them into service and the bugs worked out.

    I would suspect the lighter vehicles would be fastest produced and would get into service first, though all the various modifications of each base vehicle will be developed together so work on the command vehicle in the armata unit will be related and likely coordinated with the work on the command vehicle in the Typhoon, Boomerang, and Kurganets units too.

    Some alterations will need to be made for the different weight class vehicles... for instance the Typhoon class in the 10-18 ton range with 4 and 6 wheel vehicles might be a bit light for 125mm smoothbore main guns and 152mm SPAs, so instead their gun platform vehicle (formerly known as MBT) might carry a long barrel 120mm gun/mortar, or perhaps even the 57mm high velocity gun, while their artillery units might have 120mm gun/mortars.

    It depends... they might say the light units are for use in COIN type operations and recon so engaging enemy tanks will be left to missile vehicles or artillery and CAS aircraft so the main gun platform might carry a 120mm gun/mortar to maximise its ability at direct fire support.

    It is going to be very interesting... Smile

    Shilkas were great but they were sitting ducks,

    And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

    That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

    Or the usual 3 to 4 AT teams engage from multiple sides.

    One tactic in an urban environment was to have teams with 5-6 RPGs and ammo carriers plus PKM MGs and SVD rifles. First the RPG teams would take out the light vehicles while the PKM and SVDs took care of any troops in the open. The MBTs were unable to engage enemy in upper floors of buildings or depress the guns to engage threats in basements except with their external 50 cals which had a max of 300 rounds or so. Once all the support light vehicles were taken out the tanks could be repeatedly hit from the sides and the rear and above till they cracked.

    In the first campaign the rebels were assisted greatly with the tanks not having explosive in their ERA arrays and the lack of training. I think they suspected the rebels weren't really up to much and the show of force of them rolling in in parade formation would sort them all out.

    I'm looking forward to a new 57MM gun on a IFV would be great for Urban warfare, As it would just need to fire one or 2 HE rounds and you basically took out a whole room.

    Actually I am thinking NATO will have to rethink its attack helicopter choices because a 57mm shell with laser beam riding should be able to hit targets at 10-12km, which is outside the range of western ATGMs currently used on their helos.

    In terms of taking out a room with an IFVs gun the Russians have had that 100mm rifled gun on the BMP-3 which is rather powerful and accurate too.

    I am surprised the west has resisted that little addition as direct fire HE power would seem to be very useful... even in COIN operations. Often a tank unit would need to be added to an infantry unit to add direct fire heavy HE fire power in a western unit, while the Russians already have direct fire HE fire power with their troops.

    I am quite looking forward to seeing the new vehicles too...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:48 am

    GarryB wrote:And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

    That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

    BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand. Question Question Question
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:11 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

    That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

    BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand. Question Question Question

    BMPT is not an air defense vehicle, BMPT = Боевая машина поддержки танков literally translated "Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support" either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  medo on Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:14 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

    That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

    BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand. Question Question Question

    BMPT is not an air defense vehicle, BMPT = Боевая машина поддержки танков literally translated "Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support" either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.

    BMPT was designed on experiences with effectiveness of AA guns in ground battles with their high elevation and high rate of fire. Problem of AA guns was in their weak armor and in expensive dedicated electronics (radars). BMPT improve exactly this. It have tank level armor and it doesn't have radars.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:54 am

    BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand

    Sorry, I did not explain myself well... the BMPT is a replacement vehicle... it does not replace air defence vehicles being used in the role of air defence... it replaces air defence vehicles being used in the role of ground support.

    Much like air defence vehicles in the past have been used for convoy escort to suppress enemy activity... in the East the ZSU-23-4 and BTR-40 with twin 14.5mm HMG and indeed twin barrel 23mm ZU-23 towed AAGs mounted on the back of trucks or BMDs are used against ground targets... in the US the Vulcan air defence vehicle (20mm gatling on an M113) and also the older Duster air defence vehicle (40mm twin guns in an open turret) were also used in the ground support role.

    In other words instead of tunguskas being for air defence and ZSU-23-4 vehicles firing on enemy ground forces you will have tunguskas being for air defence and BMPTs firing on enemy ground forces.

    either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.

    based on the scale of the model that 57mm gun (if it is 57mm and not 40mm) is a very short low velocity weapon. It is likely a grenade launcher.

    the 23mm gatling uses 23 x 115mm rounds with a very low muzzle velocity... about 700m/s.

    that would make it a fairly limited range weapon... probably 2.5-3km against ground targets and less for aerial targets. It would however be able to deliver a cluster of explosive rounds rapidly... more like a shotgun blast of rounds than a stream like a single barrel cannon.

    As such it would be effective against area ground targets in the open like ATGM teams or indeed light vehicles.

    that 57mm gun could even be an 82mm automatic mortar like Vasilek for heavier targets that 23mm rounds will just splatter against but don't justify 120mm main gun rounds.

    Note Israeli tanks often carry 60mm mortars to engage targets that don't warrant larger shells.

    You can carry rather more 82mm rounds than 120mm rounds.

    BMPT was designed on experiences with effectiveness of AA guns in ground battles with their high elevation and high rate of fire. Problem of AA guns was in their weak armor and in expensive dedicated electronics (radars). BMPT improve exactly this. It have tank level armor and it doesn't have radars.

    X2

    We had a discussion thread on the BMPT a while back in which I argued for the replacement of the two single barrel 30mm guns with a much higher rate of fire twin barrel 30mm cannon and to increase the number of targets it could engage with HE the addition of the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3.

    This model however has a 120mm rifled gun plus some sort of grenade launcher and a 6 barrel gatling which ticks all the boxes.

    the 23mm gatling has a devastating rate of fire, but the ammo is relatively compact being not much bigger than HMG ammo. the projectiles are taken directly from the Shilkas rounds so they have a heavy projectile for their calibre. the gatling has a very high rate of fire so in effect very short bursts will act like shotgun blasts that will bracket the area around the target and compensate for any manouver the target might perform between the shells being fired and impact.

    the 120mm gun/mortar offers more range and a heavier shell than the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and also uses in service standard ammo including laser guided artillery shells and mortar rounds and retains the high elevation capability and exceeds the heavy hitting HE shell power of the other weapon.

    the grenade launcher offers an alternative to the heavier gun/mortar and lighter cannon with a high elevation low velocity round able to drop over cover and hit dead ground.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:39 am

    @Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.



    Roughly translation into English wrote: silent BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:07 pm

    Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  medo on Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:01 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:@Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.



    Roughly translation into English wrote: silent BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

    BMPT is not an evolution of BMP. Similarity in name lead to wrong conclusion. Main task for BMP is to bring infantry squad and support it with fire power on the battlefield, so tank base BMP is not the same as BMPT, because BMPT doesn't carry any infantry or support it. BMPT bring a fire power, which tank doesn't have, in the same line with tank. BMPT was developed from Soviet / Russian experiences with AA guns in ground battles from Afghanistan and Chechnya. They have high rate of fire and high elevation, what is excellent in mountainous regions or in urban area, but they luck of armor or protection and a lot of space was taken by expensive electronics and radars. No one now will bring and use Tunguska or Pantsir in ground battles in the same way as ZU-23 on MT-LB and on BTR-D or ZSU-23-4 were used. They are too rare and too expensive.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:13 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

    2A82 is not 152mm.

    mutantsushi

    Posts : 282
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  mutantsushi on Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:14 am

    medo wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:@Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.
    Roughly translation into English wrote: silent BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.
    BMPT is not an evolution of BMP. Similarity in name lead to wrong conclusion. Main task for BMP is to bring infantry squad and support it with fire power on the battlefield, so tank base BMP is not the same as BMPT, because BMPT doesn't carry any infantry or support it.
    And further it is based on T-72 tank chassis, with no space for troops, so there is no "heritage" from BMP series, despite the name.  
    It apparently was renamed because the armament doesn't correspond to MBT type but is calibres normally seen on AFV/APC (but in larger numbers of guns, etc).
    That doesn't give it any link to actual BMP series.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:14 am

    BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

    A BMP is a troop transport vehicle with the fire power to take on battle field targets on its own without tank support including enemy vehicles of equivalent design. It is not designed to take on tanks as a primary function but has a defensive anti tank capability via ATGMs to defend itself if it finds itself in combat with enemy heavy armour.

    In the west it is called an IFV.

    A BMPT is completely unrelated to the BMP... the BMPT is not designed to transport troops, it is purely a fire power vehicle designed to inflict devastating fire power on enemy troops and troop positions, ambushes, etc etc.

    The first BMPTs were BTR-40s with twin 14.5mm HMGs, then Shilkas were used and if called on right now Tunguskas would be used for their high rate of fire small calibre cannon fire.

    The problem with these vehicles is that being air defence vehicles they only have protection that will stop small arms fire and shrapnel... even HMGs will penetrate their armour... and of course they have expensive radar and electronics to help detect air targets at long range and track them.

    The first custom designed BMPT was based on the T-72 chassis and had twin single barrel 30mm cannon.

    the evoution of the BMPT has nothing to do with troop transport and everything to do with the enormous firepower of air defence vehicles, but like the IFV its air defence capability is secondary too.

    The BMPT is not designed to take on enemy IFVs... that is what friendly IFVs will do, it is not designed to take on enemy tanks that is what friendly tanks are best at, the BMPT takes out infantry and ground positions before they take out friendly armour.

    A few kms away there will be Pantsir-S and TOR batteries that will take down most aircraft... the BMPT will no more be an air defence vehicle than any other IFV who will also likely fire on any aircraft that comes within range.

    Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

    When it gets a 152mm gun the volume created for electronics and the warhead will be huge, but the Armata MBT and the other MBTs entering service will have 125mm guns to start with.



    So to be clear the BMPT despite the BMP in the name is not just a tank based BMPT... in many ways the BMPT is to MBTs what an IFV is to infantry.

    The BMP supports and protects its infantry... whether they are mounted or dismounted.

    The BMPT protects MBTs from infantry attack... whether it is from long range snipers or ATGM teams...

    The BMPT would also be a useful convoy escort vehicle to defend against ambush.

    Its heavy armour means it is as well protected as a MBT, yet its firepower is optimised to engage infantry and light targets.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:05 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

    if memmory serves correct- a 10km range new atgm- could be top attack but dontttt quote me on tthis.
    also with regards to HEAT shells bigger is indeed better, but not just thicker but also longer, allowing for ttriple, quad and maybe more warheads.

    interesting thing to note is that the unmanned turret (provided its as spacious as T-95 turret) should provide an awful lot of space for ammo apart from main gun's. you could see hundred thousands of rounds MG stored- or a few thousands of 40mm caseless grenades. give them to and addon sentinel drone module on top of turret and anyone that so much as looks at it badly will be turned into human confetti before hey can say 'oh fck'
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:16 pm

    Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:37 pm