Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 11:56 am

    Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

    Very roughly:

    T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

    (Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

    Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

    Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 07, 2015 12:10 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

    Very roughly:

    T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

    (Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

    Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

    Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.
    thats assuming the T-14 follows a similar mass distribution to T-90, which is far from the truth.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 12:18 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

    Very roughly:

    T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

    (Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

    Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

    Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.
    thats assuming the T-14 follows a similar mass distribution to T-90, which is far from the truth.

    Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.

    Also how can the relative mass distribution per suspension member be different for two non-junk tanks?
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 07, 2015 12:30 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

    Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.
    like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Also how can the relative mass distribution per suspension member be different for two non-junk tanks?
    whats non-junk? anyway as ive said the different "mass distribution" means that some parts are heavier than others when compared to other tank and vice versa. where the weight is big, you put beefier supports- check out the two front wheels in the armata and the rearmost one.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 12:45 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

    Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.
    like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

    You don't need any rendering of the internals, the rendering of the road wheels is the one that matters. They put the road wheels where they need them.

    Look at Koalitsiya-SV's road wheels (those at the parade); why are the distances between the road wheels are more for the front ones than for the back ones, and why there are only 12 of them on this version?
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 07, 2015 12:47 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

    Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

    Did a little scaling in photoshop.

    The track width of Armata seems to be in order of 0.486-0.5 m With track pitch (Length of individual track segment) of 0.154m The total length of the track that contact with ground is around 5 meter.

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu May 07, 2015 12:57 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

    Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.
    like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

    That's just an assumption and not one justified by anything. What's the point of sacrificing revolutionary survivability just to
    shave off a few tons? Clearly small size and weight were not the one and only goal of the T-14 design.

    I get the impression that many people think the turret is a 0.25 inch sheet metal box with the external dimension that we
    can see. And it's poorly welded and has holes, I guess because hacks designed and built it. Whatever. I will claim that
    the turret has multilayered armour (it's like a Matryoshka doll Laughing) and has a type of ERA under a collection of plates which we
    can actually see. It is also damned heavy and sabot penetrators will be lost in those layers one after another without doing
    any damage to critical parts.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 1:12 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

    Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

    Did a little scaling in photoshop.

    The track width of Armata seems to be in order of 0.486-0.5 m With track pitch (Length of individual track segment) of 0.154m  The total length of the track that contact with ground is around 5 meter.  


    Thanks a lot. respekt

    Your numbers indicate a very low weight, around 40 t at a ground pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2. Shocked Very Happy

    T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu May 07, 2015 1:23 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:A T-14 stalled during today's rehearsal....oh my, let the fireworks begin What a Face


    The rest of the story is that they actually did not tow the tank away.  It sat there until the end of the rehearsal and then
    left under its own power.

    But the circlejerkers had a field day anyway.

    https://youtu.be/kKWF6lVQk5Y

    http://top.rbc.ru/society/07/05/2015/554b27d39a794786f2a65f11


    Last edited by kvs on Thu May 07, 2015 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 1:26 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:whats non-junk?

    I'll explain that later.

    anyway as ive said the different "mass distribution" means that some parts are heavier than others when compared to other tank and vice versa. where the weight is big, you put beefier supports- check out the two front wheels in the armata and the rearmost one.

    Those additional suspension members on the front 4 and the back 2 road-wheels would probably be only dampers, they would have no static role.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3451
    Points : 3569
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Thu May 07, 2015 1:28 pm

    well it looks they had problems to Tow the tank..



    Possibly the tracks got stuck?

    Update seems the tank reverse works.. it can move in reverse..


    Update 2.. lol.. well it looks they fixed the tank in 5 minutes,and no need to tow it..
    for sure the happy ending will not be reported by western trolls.. perhaps the driver
    of the tank forgot to add fuel to the tank. lol


    Last edited by Vann7 on Thu May 07, 2015 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 07, 2015 1:31 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Thanks a lot. respekt

    Your numbers indicate a very low weight, around 40 t at a ground pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2. Shocked Very Happy

    T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

    your welcome.

    Anyway i'll try again with other image.

    measuring from photos is kinda difficult, especially when taken from perspective. It really distort the size.


    Vann7 wrote:

    Possibly the tracks got stuck?

    Wrong setting of the transmission perhaps or it's really planned from the start. According to RT news the tank is able to roll by itself 15 minutes later.

    http://rt.com/news/256437-armata-stuck-moscow-parade/

    But i guess.. the "other side" is already start flame fest.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 1:35 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Anyway i'll try again with other image.

    That would be much appreciated.

    Based on the images available measuring the track width is hard. The length is easy; we have the 700 mm diameter road wheels.


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 1:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu May 07, 2015 1:40 pm

    Oh my god can you believe it ? lol! lol!

    http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

    There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti. lol! lol! Some on social media have also suggested the Armata tanks that have been seen in public so far are mock-ups, parts of which might even be made of cardboard or a similar material. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  It’s possible that the Armatas might not be ready for Saturday’s big parade, which will likely be the last major World War II anniversary in Russia to be celebrated by living veterans of the conflict.

    The debut of the Armata tanks shouldn’t worry the U.S. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1 ; while it will probably be an effective tank and bring Russia closer to parity with the West in terms of its military prowess, it’s not a game changer, says Galeotti.

    “There are still questions. The Russians are good at proclaiming new breakthroughs. Almost all of these new weapons systems over the past 10 years have actually come out late,” said Galeotti.

    Tanks are also relative dinosaurs in the age of modern warfare. While they look good in a parade and are large and intimidating, spying, drones, well-trained light infantry and cyberwarfare will form the battlefields of the future, says Galeotti. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 07, 2015 1:47 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

    If we assume a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2 (nice low ground pressure for a tank), the total weight would be 46 t. Very Happy

    At a ground pressure of 0.9 kgs/cm^2, the weight would be 52 t. Smile

    At a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2 (same as that for T-90S but "unlikely"), the weight would be 55 t.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 4985
    Points : 5093
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu May 07, 2015 2:51 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ? lol! lol!

    http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

    There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.  lol!  lol! ............... lol1 .................... 


    lol!  indeed!!!

    Remember this day people, for the first time in recorded history someone said that that Russian armored vehicles look better than they fight. lol1

    cracker

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  cracker on Thu May 07, 2015 2:57 pm

    cracker wrote:still not clear for me: 2A82-M1 and its autoloader, they can use the ammo and the propellant part of the 2A46 or only the ammo part and always use a new pattern bigger propelant part?

    The new propellant part is also like the old cardboard combustible or is it a safer design? (maybe a return to full metallic case)

    The missile assembly of the 2A46M-5 can be used in the 2A82 or the latter needs a new rear part?



    can someone reply?


    damn the thing in front of the GUM is... special.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 07, 2015 3:10 pm

    cracker wrote:
    cracker wrote:still not clear for me: 2A82-M1 and its autoloader, they can use the ammo and the propellant part of the 2A46 or only the ammo part and always use a new pattern bigger propelant part?

    The new propellant part is also like the old cardboard combustible or is it a safer design? (maybe a return to full metallic case)

    The missile assembly of the 2A46M-5 can be used in the 2A82 or the latter needs a new rear part?



    can someone reply?

    Casing alone won't determine propellant safety. Composition also play. and no.. metal casing has been abandoned in practically all tanks around the world. The only thing metal would be the primer stub.


    About the Armata though. It must be able to use the old 2A46 round, both the munition part and the 2nd propellant case, and so is the Refleks.

    Morpheus wrote:
    If we assume a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2 (nice low ground pressure for a tank), the total weight would be 46 t. Very Happy

    At a ground pressure of 0.9 kgs/cm^2, the weight would be 52 t. Smile

    At a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2 (same as that for T-90S but "unlikely"), the weight would be 55 t.

    Tried again with this image




    This time it gave me track width of 630 mm

    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 342
    Points : 351
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP on Thu May 07, 2015 3:26 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ? lol! lol!

    There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.  lol!  lol! ............... lol1 .................... 


    lol!  indeed!!!

    Remember this day people, for the first time in recorded history someone said that that Russian armored vehicles look better than they fight. lol1

    LOL, yes, for real, that is surely a first!

    And, having followed most the discussion this far, Armata is either a paradigm-busting leapfrogging of the western douches, or a dismal failure that can be attributed to incompetence and graft. Ve shall see, no?
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 07, 2015 3:41 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ? lol! lol!

    http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

    There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.  lol!  lol! Some on social media have also suggested the Armata tanks that have been seen in public so far are mock-ups, parts of which might even be made of cardboard or a similar material. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  It’s possible that the Armatas might not be ready for Saturday’s big parade, which will likely be the last major World War II anniversary in Russia to be celebrated by living veterans of the conflict.

    The debut of the Armata tanks shouldn’t worry the U.S. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1 ; while it will probably be an effective tank and bring Russia closer to parity with the West in terms of its military prowess, it’s not a game changer, says Galeotti.

    “There are still questions. The Russians are good at proclaiming new breakthroughs. Almost all of these new weapons systems over the past 10 years have actually come out late,” said Galeotti.

    Tanks are also relative dinosaurs in the age of modern warfare. While they look good in a parade and are large and intimidating, spying, drones, well-trained light infantry and cyberwarfare will form the battlefields of the future, says Galeotti. lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  

    Yeah well that's there with my son saying Putin broke his game. Now they need a new Battlefront 5 or what ever it is called. Anyway don't mind Bark Galeotti.

    Vympel

    Posts : 112
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2013-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vympel on Thu May 07, 2015 4:03 pm

    Shell ejection port confirmed

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  medo on Thu May 07, 2015 4:26 pm

    Vympel wrote:Shell ejection port confirmed


    Yep and this photo clearly show, that between actual turret and outside shape of turret is empty space, so there is actually nothing to be protected with heavy armor.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 07, 2015 6:07 pm

    Just got from Paralay.



    So.. the BREM-1M recovery vehicle cannot "pull" The Armata. I wonder if it can be used as indication that Armata's weight is above 50 metric ton (BREM-1's towing capacity)

    avatar
    alexZam

    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam on Thu May 07, 2015 6:36 pm


    (316Кб, 1600x1067)


    (1725Кб, 2560x1920)
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu May 07, 2015 6:56 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Just got from Paralay.



    So.. the BREM-1M recovery vehicle cannot "pull" The Armata. I wonder if it can be used as indication that Armata's weight is above 50 metric ton (BREM-1's towing capacity)


    Looks like the transmission is not disengaged. It would be stupid to drag a 50+ ton tracked vehicle since it requires an enormous
    pulling force and would destroy the paving completely.

    It was a transmission problem of some sort and later the tank moved off on its own. If it was really a mechanical breakdown
    in the transmission it would have to be hauled away. So it seems like it was some sort of operator error.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:37 pm