Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2141
    Points : 2306
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:34 pm

    T-95 vs T-14 comparison (from Otvaga)

    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 881
    Points : 957
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  zg18 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:16 pm

    T-14 Armata

    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  runaway on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:19 pm

    Bad resolution but i can clearly see side skirts, not much else.


    ult

    Posts : 649
    Points : 689
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  ult on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:43 pm


    ult

    Posts : 649
    Points : 689
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  ult on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:30 pm

    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:34 pm

    ult wrote:

    That should be the IFV variant. looking at the position of drive sprocket..hmm Front mounted engine.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:39 pm

    That almost looked like automatic mortar 2B1 and not a cannon.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10764
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:33 pm

    Werewolf wrote:That almost looked like automatic mortar 2B1 and not a cannon.

    maybe it has a like BMPT Terminator armament, not a cannon, but other sort of weaponry as IFV
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:49 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    ult wrote:

    That should be the IFV variant.  looking at the position of drive sprocket..hmm Front mounted engine.

    Plus the steeply sloped frontal hull resembles this speculative configuration of Armata:



    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10764
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:54 pm

    can u please post the photo at 800x600 scale?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:21 pm

    Breathing heavily intensifies.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:38 pm

    We're so spoiled. Smile
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:42 pm

    George1 wrote:can u please post the photo at 800x600 scale?

    How's this?

    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:28 pm

    Right click the image you want to post, then select "view image" or whatever, it'll open a new window. Then right click the rescaled image in the new window and select "view image info", this will open a new window. Under dimensions, this particular image says: "1,500px × 1,125px (scaled to 849px × 637px)"

    Go to the forum window, click the "insert an image" button, paste the url, and under width and height, paste the scaled numbers, 849 x 637. That way the image isn't squished and is reduced to a reasonable size. That's how I do it, I'm sure other posters have their own ways. I use Firefox, your browser may be different.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:24 am

    Plus the steeply sloped frontal hull resembles this speculative configuration of Armata:

    Probably extra armor because of the front mounted engine.


    What are your guesses...

    Will russia be so open and naive to show its new APS on Armata or Kurganetz or will they remove any APS system along with Radar to keep it secret as long as necessary?
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2141
    Points : 2306
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:37 am

    Werewolf wrote:Will russia be so open and naive to show its new APS on Armata or Kurganetz or will they remove any APS system along with Radar to keep it secret as long as necessary?

    Might be already mounted

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:39 am

    Cyberspec wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Will russia be so open and naive to show its new APS on Armata or Kurganetz or will they remove any APS system along with Radar to keep it secret as long as necessary?

    Might be already mounted


    Touché.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:48 am

    What are your guesses...

    The engine and transmission placement means the glacis is going to have to be thinner. The Merk IV has the same problem. To compensate, they added a spaced armor module.

    Might be already mounted

    Two separate units on the same side?
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2141
    Points : 2306
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:08 am

    Hard to say for sure....the pic is pretty blurry
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:05 am

    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:42 am


    It's the Chinese nuclear tank from C&C: Generals! Very Happy
    All it needs is a second barrel.

    Man this thing is just excessive. Now I can see why they cancelled the project.

    The current Armata concept is a lot more sensible and cost-effective.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:17 am

    Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Holy Shieetttt!!!! i come here after a week of school and find this!!! armatas, kurganets and even T-95. mein gott weinachten came early this year!!! one of the three is enough fap material to last me through the holy week but three, om. Razz

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:54 am

    I saw most of tanks have their weight concentrated to middle or back. Especially to armata i saw is concentrate to back. How that affect the adherence to road? Most important when reaching a hill. Or close to vertical pieces of road.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:01 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    I do believe that this is an entirely different turret and not the MBT turret at all. We know that the chassis are unified, but all people jumped immidiatley to the conclusion that this is T-14 MBT due the 7 road wheels. To me it does not represent the concept. The turret seems rather small for autloader with after turret bustle feeding system. The concept on T-64/80 and T-72/90 was two seperated ammunitions which are made of paper like material that are highly flammable, due this kind of ammunition the entire internal volume had to be reduced, meaning no fuel inside the vehicle, no pipes inside that could catch fire and end fatal for tank and crew. This turret seems tall, but rather shorter than expected and i don't think it houses a horizontal autoloader but a vertical one from the hull of it with seperated ammunition and propellant, from the looks of it, the chassis is larger than T-72/90 which means the fuel is back inside of the chassis which means non seperated ammunition, which probably means hard case ammunition will be used.
    That is the reason i doubt that this is T-14 turret.

    use of hard cased (and i assume unitary as well) ammo is pathetic step backwards. the current trend is liquid propellant/ ETC guns and i believe next iteration of the 2a82-1m is going to be just that. a brass case would be unnecessary and would even impede performance. besides, there is plenty of room for 32 shells and their propellant especially to have their own fully covered cassette in the AL compartment.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:07 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    I do believe that this is an entirely different turret and not the MBT turret at all. We know that the chassis are unified, but all people jumped immidiatley to the conclusion that this is T-14 MBT due the 7 road wheels. To me it does not represent the concept. The turret seems rather small for autloader with after turret bustle feeding system. The concept on T-64/80 and T-72/90 was two seperated ammunitions which are made of paper like material that are highly flammable, due this kind of ammunition the entire internal volume had to be reduced, meaning no fuel inside the vehicle, no pipes inside that could catch fire and end fatal for tank and crew. This turret seems tall, but rather shorter than expected and i don't think it houses a horizontal autoloader but a vertical one from the hull of it with seperated ammunition and propellant, from the looks of it, the chassis is larger than T-72/90 which means the fuel is back inside of the chassis which means non seperated ammunition, which probably means hard case ammunition will be used.
    That is the reason i doubt that this is T-14 turret.

    use of hard cased (and i assume unitary as well) ammo is pathetic step backwards. the current trend is liquid propellant/ ETC guns and i believe next iteration of the 2a82-1m is going to be just that. a brass case would be unnecessary and would even impede performance. besides, there is plenty of room for 32 shells and their propellant especially to have their own fully covered cassette in the AL compartment.

    What trend? There is not a single gun on tanks that uses liquid propellants.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:12 am