Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:44 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:Ok here is Armata MTI in action for the 4 panoramic cameras.



    The first circle points out the tracker detecting the head movement of the person, with the second circle showing detection of the moving feet.

    Now to see how integrated the panoramic system is to the rest of the electronic systems.  Only limited by the creativity of those programming it, and since it is a open architecture system, I am sure they will push it to the limit.

    Lets speculate on the functions this camera system could perform.

    1. 360 degree visibility, (given)
    2. Missile Approach Warning System
    3. Perhaps cueing for the APS?
    4. Add more if you think of anything.

    Thanks. Excellent posts, X-54. I am out of votes for today, but I will try to remember to up-vote some of your posts in the future.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:08 pm

    I suspect it will be separated from the defense system. Armata has dedicated radar panels for that purpose.

    Actually I would expect... considering other programs that the defence system is fully integrated and fused with other systems... so the MMW radar sensors will work together with EO systems like digital TV and Thermal sights and other sensors to detect incoming rounds.

    The optical sensors and autotracking systems appear pretty sophisticated and are probably based on the Shkval-M system for the Ka-50 and Su-25TM aircraft systems that automatically detected targets and tracked them in real time.

    What's interesting is since these panoramic cameras can ID a target's movement, theoretically, they could automatically queue the weapon systems. A very useful feature when hostile infantry are moving around in cluttered environments.

    I would expect they would also use radar and sound to do the same, with the systems all working together and complimenting each other in different situations to get the best results.


    There isn't a doubt in my mind that quadrotors will be used the same in the real world.

    I suspect a good part of army training will be on computer simulators built by germany that will include UAVs of all sorts of types... they can train 24/7 on any terrain without using any fuel or ammo... that is the sort of LAN party I would be keen to join... Twisted Evil

    ) AAD = a new chassis for Buk M3 and M4 (now with 12 missiles´ loaded) ?

    It is a universal chassis so it might be used with a range of SAMs to support the division, but generally the most common SAM based on the Armata would be teh SA-13 replacement (ie SOSNA-R) and the Tunguska and TOR replacements (ie Pantsir-SM and TOR-4 or 5 or whatever... Smile

    BUK is a higher level SAM that would likely not operate in the very front line... an advantage of having a range of 70kms or so.

    2) If I read correctly not only flying robots ? so maybe a docking station or swarm control for many small hunter killer pairs

    I would suspect every command version will have UAVs, and engineer models also a range of UAV options.

    I suspect even troop transports might even have a micro UAV to support its operations... but that is just my speculation.

    3) tracking individuals? My tops: Nabiulina, Yudeva, Chubais, Dvorkovitch, Gref so they try harder

    Well more likely for the coaxial and roof mounted remote weapons stations to engage enemy troops near the vehicle... with auto tracking the target will be toast in very short order when fire is opened.

    Vann; the M1A2 uses an American gun, with American armor, and American parts.

    120mm smoothbore of West German design, adapted armour of British design, and a Belgian Coaxial MG.

    To get back on topic; it makes sense that we will see SAM and SPAAG'S on the Armata chassis. Even missile carriers are likely

    I keep banging on about it... an Armata unit will consist of only armata based vehicles... the whole point is that all the vehicles in the unit have similar armour, similar mobility and similar fire power/sensors etc. That is automatic when every vehicle in the unit is armata based. From APC, IFV, MBT, Engineer vehicle, Bridging vehicle, artillery vehicle (tube and rocket), air defence vehicles, ambulance, transport and support, recon, everything.



    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:26 pm

    Would an 'active damping system' be something that Russia would ever consider for the Armata series of vehicles? The CV90 recently incorporated this technology.

    Source:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bae-breaks-tank-speed-record-f1-inspired-active-suspension-cv90-armoured-vehicles-1498782
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 189
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  x_54_u43 on Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:28 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:Would an 'active damping system' be something that Russia would ever consider for the Armata series of vehicles? The CV90 recently incorporated this technology.

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:34 am

    That "ADS" scans the land in front of the vehicle and adjusts the suspension accordingly, it doesn't have much use if the suspension system is already high performing.

    T-14 uses a passive suspension system on the 1, 2, and 7 road-wheels. It increases the stabilization of the vehicle by a high percentage, and allows for quicker turning (road-wheels can be locked up).

    Garry, read my last post.

    If disliking goes hand and hand with truthful posts, then lay them on! tongue
    avatar
    higurashihougi

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:53 am

    Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

    Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:40 am

    Would an 'active damping system' be something that Russia would ever consider for the Armata series of vehicles? The CV90 recently incorporated this technology.

    The BMD series of armoured vehicles have long had suspension that could be raised or lowered depending on the terrain and situation and the BTR series have had central tire pressure regulation systems. The Kurganets and Boomerang have been shown to be able to raise and lower their suspension too... I would expect they and the Typhoon and Armata all have active suspension already.

    If disliking goes hand and hand with truthful posts, then lay them on!

    What you replied with wasn't totally convincing...

    ie
    Not exactly. The M256 is a L/44, but it doesn't mean it is the L/44. It has a new recoil system, new breech, and slightly modified barrel. It's kind calling the 2A82 a 2A46; sure there are similarities, but in reality they are very different.

    M256 and L/44 are very similar in performance, however.

    You are aware that talking about a main gun of a tank as L/44 is a bit like talking about a pistol by calling it a 9mm?

    L/44 is a definition of barrel length... a 120mm L/44 gun is 44 calibres long, so it is 120mm x 44 = 5280mm or 5.28m long barrel/ The L/55 is 55 calibres long or 6600mm or 6.6m long. The M256 is an L/44 cannon.

    The M256 is a US modification of a west german gun... just like the Model 92 Barretta is not an American design either, but it is made in the US.

    Amusing from a country that claims the T-34 is an american design because the BT-7 used Christies suspension that had to be heavily modified for the several intermediate design steps that eventually resulted in the T-34...

    The coaxial MG on the Abrams is an M240, which is an American made FN MAG.
    The Armour is British designed and US made and slightly modified.

    The first gun the Abrams had was a 105mm rifled British gun that was replaced by a 120mm smoothbore gun designed in West Germany.

    Get over it.

    The Bradley is a copy of the BMP-2, the F-15 is a copy of the MiG-25, and lobby groups = corruption. Razz


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:53 am

    Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

    Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?

    Well the concept of BMPT is an armoured vehicle with the armour of a tank, but with firepower oriented to dealing with non heavy armour targets like ATGM teams and infantry or light infantry vehicles.

    So in fact the ideal combination should be an IFV with the troop capacity replaced by extra ammo with the armour of a tank... which should be an armata vehicle with a 57mm gun and lots of ammo... perhaps a couple of RWS on the rear deck above the troop compartment able to fire at multiple targets with PKM and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers... The crew of three could consist of a driver, a gunner, and a commander... perhaps a bow mounted PKM/40mm grenade launcher RWS operated over the frontal arc by the driver, plus the main turret operated by the gunner with 57mm main gun and perhaps PKT coaxial MG and perhaps a single barrel 23mm weapon based on the KPV for targets that don't require 57mm cannon shells as the 23mm shells have a heavy projectile with good HE capability in a small compact package that could be carried in enormous numbers... actually I think the model shown previously with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar, six barrel 23mm gatling gun and a 40mm grenade launcher would be the ideal mix with an extra bow mounted PKT with 40mm grenade launcher for the driver to deal with targets that appear in front of him.

    The thing about the Armata family is that they will be modular, so a wide variety of turrets will be produced from air defence to artillery and everything in between... for rear area units a "light" tank with a 57mm gun might be a very useful system with perhaps 300 rounds on board ready to kill any enemy IFV or light tank or low flying aircraft...


    _________________
    “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
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Militarov on Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:55 am

    Mike E wrote:I suspect it will be separated from the defense system. Armata has dedicated radar panels for that purpose.

    They should not be separated they should practice data fusion on this platform, its quite complex task especially in terms of organisation and software. What to show not to overinform crew and what to show to let them have great battlefield awareness, its very tricky task that people do not understand fully.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:59 pm

    I use "L/44" to describe the Rhm. 120 mm L/44, if that helps you out.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

    Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?

    Well the concept of BMPT is an armoured vehicle with the armour of a tank, but with firepower oriented to dealing with non heavy armour targets like ATGM teams and infantry or light infantry vehicles.

    So in fact the ideal combination should be an IFV with the troop capacity replaced by extra ammo with the armour of a tank... which should be an armata vehicle with a 57mm gun and lots of ammo... perhaps a couple of RWS on the rear deck above the troop compartment able to fire at multiple targets with PKM and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers...  The crew of three could consist of a driver, a gunner, and a commander... perhaps a bow mounted PKM/40mm grenade launcher RWS operated over the frontal arc by the driver, plus the main turret operated by the gunner with 57mm main gun and perhaps PKT coaxial MG and perhaps a single barrel 23mm weapon based on the KPV for targets that don't require 57mm cannon shells as the 23mm shells have a heavy projectile with good HE capability in a small compact package that could be carried in enormous numbers... actually I think the model shown previously with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar, six barrel 23mm gatling gun and a 40mm grenade launcher would be the ideal mix with an extra bow mounted PKT with 40mm grenade launcher for the driver to deal with targets that appear in front of him.

    The thing about the Armata family is that they will be modular, so a wide variety of turrets will be produced from air defence to artillery and everything in between... for rear area units a "light" tank with a 57mm gun might be a very useful system with perhaps 300 rounds on board ready to kill any enemy IFV or light tank or low flying aircraft...


    Ideal vehicle for Syrian conflict. IMHO terminator should have  57mm insted 2x30 with high angle to reach top floor, and couple of 40mm grneade launchers.

    WRT Armata´s Gatling it was 4 barrel AFAIK  so rather reminder of YAK 12.7 Gatling





    BTW long before T-15 in USSR...
    http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_27.html

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  max steel on Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:47 pm

    Russia Testing New ‘Stealth’ Paint Making Tanks Almost Invisible

    Tank crews in Russia’s central Chelyabinsk region are testing an advanced “stealth” paint that ensures low visibility against electronic surveillance systems, a military spokesman said earlier this month."The paint combines durability, surface self-decontamination capability, low observability for electronic surveillance devices and enhanced icing resistance," Central Military District spokesman Yaroslav Roschupkin added.

    Crews of T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles alongside defense industry personnel are running field tests of the new formula at the Chebarkul training range in Chelyabinsk region, just east of the Ural Mountains.The “stealth” paint’s color is fully in line with Russian military standards.


    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150923/1027412583/russia-tanks-stealth-paint.html



    the invisibility claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “These claims would have to be proven. Placing heat-generating components ‘deep inside’ in the vehicle won’t help; modern thermal technology is very sensitive and when the tank is moved, or a weapon is fired, or a person is exposed, the thermal signature will light up. Plus, no matter where the engine is, when an engine big enough to move a 40- to 50-ton tank is fired up, it will have a signature isn't it ?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Militarov on Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:36 pm

    max steel wrote:Russia Testing New ‘Stealth’ Paint Making Tanks Almost Invisible

    Tank crews in Russia’s central Chelyabinsk region are testing an advanced “stealth” paint that ensures low visibility against electronic surveillance systems, a military spokesman said earlier this month."The paint combines durability, surface self-decontamination capability, low observability for electronic surveillance devices and enhanced icing resistance," Central Military District spokesman Yaroslav Roschupkin added.

    Crews of T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles alongside defense industry personnel are running field tests of the new formula at the Chebarkul training range in Chelyabinsk region, just east of the Ural Mountains.The “stealth” paint’s color is fully in line with Russian military standards.


    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150923/1027412583/russia-tanks-stealth-paint.html



    the invisibility claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “These claims would have to be proven. Placing heat-generating components ‘deep inside’ in the vehicle won’t help; modern thermal technology is very sensitive and when the tank is moved, or a weapon is fired, or a person is exposed, the thermal signature will light up. Plus, no matter where the engine is, when an engine big enough to move a 40- to 50-ton tank is fired up, it will have a signature isn't it ?

    Lets say that "stealth" is used very often to describe "stealthy" or "discrete" vehicles. One cannot totally block detection in any spectrum, that is impossible, question is what lvl of "stealthy" did you achieve.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:07 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

    Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?

    Well the concept of BMPT is an armoured vehicle with the armour of a tank, but with firepower oriented to dealing with non heavy armour targets like ATGM teams and infantry or light infantry vehicles.

    So in fact the ideal combination should be an IFV with the troop capacity replaced by extra ammo with the armour of a tank... which should be an armata vehicle with a 57mm gun and lots of ammo... perhaps a couple of RWS on the rear deck above the troop compartment able to fire at multiple targets with PKM and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers...  The crew of three could consist of a driver, a gunner, and a commander... perhaps a bow mounted PKM/40mm grenade launcher RWS operated over the frontal arc by the driver, plus the main turret operated by the gunner with 57mm main gun and perhaps PKT coaxial MG and perhaps a single barrel 23mm weapon based on the KPV for targets that don't require 57mm cannon shells as the 23mm shells have a heavy projectile with good HE capability in a small compact package that could be carried in enormous numbers... actually I think the model shown previously with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar, six barrel 23mm gatling gun and a 40mm grenade launcher would be the ideal mix with an extra bow mounted PKT with 40mm grenade launcher for the driver to deal with targets that appear in front of him.

    The thing about the Armata family is that they will be modular, so a wide variety of turrets will be produced from air defence to artillery and everything in between... for rear area units a "light" tank with a 57mm gun might be a very useful system with perhaps 300 rounds on board ready to kill any enemy IFV or light tank or low flying aircraft...


    Ideal vehicle for Syrian conflict. IMHO terminator should have  57mm insted 2x30 with high angle to reach top floor, and couple of 40mm grneade launchers.

    WRT Armata´s Gatling it was 4 barrel AFAIK  so rather reminder of YAK 12.7 Gatling





    BTW long before T-15 in USSR...
    http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_27.html


    It wasn't the 4-barreled Yak-B 12.7x108mm, it was the 6-barreled Gsh-6-23 23x115mm, far more formidable with a heavier shell and double the fire rate.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:03 am

    I use "L/44" to describe the Rhm. 120 mm L/44, if that helps you out.

    I suspected as much, but L/44 describes the Rhm. 120mm gun the same way it describes the M256 L/44 gun that the US based on the west german gun...

    Like I said it is like describing the US Barretta 9mm pistol compared with the original 9mm pistol... the pistols are both 9mm just like the 120mm smoothbores are L/44 guns.

    the newer German 120mm smoothbore is 55 calibres long so would be an L/55.

    Ideal vehicle for Syrian conflict. IMHO terminator should have  57mm insted 2x30 with high angle to reach top floor, and couple of 40mm grneade launchers.

    With the 57mm gun not available then I thought a combination of 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 with a twin barrel 30mm cannon from the Hind and Su-25 would have been best in terms of HE power for hard targets and allowing long range guided missile engagements instead of 4 externally mounted Ataka missiles, plus the twin barrel 30mm cannon of the Hind and Frogfoot has a very high rate of fire for use in short bursts against aircraft or area ground targets.

    The BMPT concept was to replace using air defence gun vehicles in that role, so half a tunguska with a 100mm gun would cover all sorts of situations better than just two low rate of fire 30mm cannon.

    WRT Armata´s Gatling it was 4 barrel AFAIK  so rather reminder of YAK 12.7 Gatling

    I am referring to an old plastic model shown at a russian armour factory, not the computer generated fan art posted since then.

    the invisibility claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “These claims would have to be proven. Placing heat-generating components ‘deep inside’ in the vehicle won’t help; modern thermal technology is very sensitive and when the tank is moved, or a weapon is fired, or a person is exposed, the thermal signature will light up. Plus, no matter where the engine is, when an engine big enough to move a 40- to 50-ton tank is fired up, it will have a signature isn't it ?

    Of course it should be taken with a grain of salt, but you have to remember a battlefield will be littered with all sorts of things, so some paint on your tank to reduce its IR signature 10 times or changing it to look like something that is common around the place could lead to systems like Javelin becoming useless in the fire and forget mode because when it climbs up and looks down on the target area it might see thousands of rocks heated by the mid day sun that have a similar IR signature to the reduce IR signature of the tank sitting there... that means the javelin wont get a lock and will need to be manually fired like a Metis-M1... but still incredibly expensive... and in that mode 750mm armour penetration might simply not be enough and anyway lead to interception by APS systems.

    Nothing is perfect, but IR camouflage is always a good idea.

    An IR image is a fairly simple one with minor variations in temperature creating a detailed picture... so it would be rather straight forward to fake a false image... say a tank paint the emulates the IR signature of a ute (pick up truck in US language) or indeed a tractor... or even a small building.

    and at the same time use DIRCMs so that in the small window of time when you first detect the target and are trying to analyse the target to determine if it is an enemy or hostile target or a neutral or even friendly the targets dazzler could disable your IR sensor and identify you as a threat and launch a weapon at you then the IR camo can be very useful... even if with careful inspection it might be clearly a fake...

    Of course that is what sensor fusion is all about... a UK tank with the IR signature of a small car that sounds like it has a 1,200hp engine... well it makes you suspicious doesn't it...


    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:14 am


    Mike and Garry:

    Thanks for answering my queries.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  max steel on Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:15 am

    Best is Yet to Come: Mighty Armata’s Engine Power to Be Increased

    Engine power for the new Russian Armata tank will be increased from 1.5 thousand to 1.8 thousand horsepower. This was stated by Director General of “Uralvagonzavod” Oleg Siyenko in an interview to ‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta.’

    “Currently the (engine) has been created but the new invention is confidential. I can only say that the work on engine completion continues,” Siyenko said.

    Russia's armed forces will have 2,300 tanks by 2025. The cost to mass produce the T-14 Armata will be 250 million rubles (3.7 million dollars).
    Regarding the innovation of the Armata, the expert said that the main thing today is the protection of the crew, its survival and the possibility of gaining combat experience.

    Today the technical means of automatic target tracking and identification greatly exceeds human capability.

    According to him, Russian electronics mounted on combat vehicles demonstrate satisfactory reliability.

    Earlier it was reported that Russia's cutting edge piece of military equipment would not remain static. Its designers said that the Armata could well become the world’s first unmanned tank.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Militarov on Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:26 pm



    Last edited by Militarov on Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Militarov on Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:30 pm
























    Source: http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/07/blog-post_87.html#more


    Last edited by Militarov on Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:20 pm; edited 3 times in total
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:04 pm

    Focus: Russian tanks leave the German no chance
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Zivo on Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:10 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Focus: Russian tanks leave the German no chance

    They're talking about relikt equipped T-90 modifications right?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:38 am

    GLATMs may not be useful against enemy tanks all the time due to visibility issues, but it has changed the way western helicopters can operate... well known Russian GLATGMs have an anti tank range of about 5km but an anti aircraft range of about 8km which makes Apache helos very vulnerable.

    More importantly they haven't seen these new rounds as super rounds and replaced all existing rounds with these new missiles... they have just added a round that has several advantages and some disadvantages over conventional rounds.

    A target appearing at 1.5km will of course be engaged with APFSDS rounds as it is quicker and easier.

    Claims the Abrams is safer than other vehicles because its ammo is safe are deluding themselves.

    A full ammo load for an Abrams includes rounds inside the hull next to the driver, and having the rounds in the turret is not safe if hit by a HEAT warhead that sets off a HE round... blow out panels are fine for propellent type combustion.... in a sense a rifle bullet is an example where propellent is ignited in an enclosed space and the blow out panel is actually the projectile that is blown down the barrel to relieve pressure before another component has a catastrophic failure like the bolt.

    With a HE warhead being hit or simply APHE like a 57mm shell hit to the turret bustle the detonation is much more rapid and the pressure increase vastly more rapid and destructive... the blow out panels would shatter and so would the armoured door protecting the crew... with that weight of explosive even if the armoured door is not destroyed the shock wave passing through would turn the crew into pudding.


    _________________
    “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

    T-44

    Posts : 9
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2015-09-26

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  T-44 on Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Claims the Abrams is safer than other vehicles because its ammo is safe are deluding themselves.

    A full ammo load for an Abrams includes rounds inside the hull next to the driver, and having the rounds in the turret is not safe if hit by a HEAT warhead that sets off a HE round... blow out panels are fine for propellent type combustion.... in a sense a rifle bullet is an example where propellent is ignited in an enclosed space and the blow out panel is actually the projectile that is blown down the barrel to relieve pressure before another component has a catastrophic failure like the bolt.

    With a HE warhead being hit or simply APHE like a 57mm shell hit to the turret bustle the detonation is much more rapid and the pressure increase vastly more rapid and destructive... the blow out panels would shatter and so would the armoured door protecting the crew... with that weight of explosive even if the armoured door is not destroyed the shock wave passing through would turn the crew into pudding.

    Then are you implying people who claim T-14 is safer (which I do happen to think BTW) are also deluding themselves? Because once HE warheads are starting to explode/detonate, I don't think even a completely separated crew-module is going to survive... (although the Armata's ammo storage is undoubtetly better protected then the Abram's turret bustle; still, there's only that much armor you can apply to the sides of a tank).

    Basically you're saying: don't bother about propellants, the explosives are gonna kill you anyway. Not a very positive or helpful mindset, if I may say so, and it also ignores that insensitive munitions can often prevent a warhead from detonating (at least immediately), so separating ammo from crew is always helful, as it buys the crew time to bail if necessary. Besides, the hull ammo stored on the M1 is also separated from the crew and has its own blow-out pannels in the hull.
    Is it a perfect solution? No. Is Armata's better? Yes. Still, it's hardly a worthless or a "self-deluding" safety feature (as evidenced by combat BTW, see numerous penetrations of the turret and hull sides of M1s which didn't result in cook-offs, simply because there was no ammo that could be hit).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:36 am

    Then are you implying people who claim T-14 is safer (which I do happen to think BTW) are also deluding themselves?

    Actually I am implying that there is no such thing as an invincible tank and that war will never be "safe".

    The T-14 is safer because the ammo is stored in a place much less likely to be hit in real combat, so therefore a catastrophic explosion is rather less likely.

    Because once HE warheads are starting to explode/detonate, I don't think even a completely separated crew-module is going to survive... (although the Armata's ammo storage is undoubtetly better protected then the Abram's turret bustle; still, there's only that much armor you can apply to the sides of a tank).

    The armata design offers the crew the best possible protection but also the dangerous ammo the best protection too... the Abrams just protects the crew as long as the 8 rounds carried in the hull are not carried.

    Basically you're saying: don't bother about propellants, the explosives are gonna kill you anyway.

    No I am not. I am saying propellent explosions are vigorous but as long as there is enough venting capacity they wont necessarily kill the crew.

    Explosives need an explosion to set them off... it is called high explosive because it needs a detonator of low explosive to set it off. Nitroglycerin is not a high explosive... even a serious impact can set it off, but it is a powerful explosive.

    Modern electronic fuses actually make modern HE shells far more resistent to detonating when hit or in fires, so the HE content could just burn rather than explode.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:38 am

    Most fanbois think that the best tank always wins.... it does not.

    War is not Pokemon where one on one two platforms fight it out using their different skills to see who wins.

    Any decent enemy will use cunning and skill and exploit the weak points of their opponents... even the heaviest armoured tank is not safe from land mines... or even HMG fire directed at its tracks.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:30 am