Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1023
    Points : 1021
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:12 pm

    You said "a nice and confortable -20°C " ...

    -20°C is not confortable even in the desert hahaha
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2406
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:45 pm

    Balashikha (Moscow Region), December 22 - RIA Novosti.

    Tests of the new Russian tank "Armata" are on schedule, told reporters on Friday the commander in chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.

    OPK enterprises are debugging "Armata" and tuning and matching all components and units.
    "The works are carried out according to the schedule," - said the commander in chief.

    "The sample is designed in a modular fashion, using a unique digital and software solutions that opens up almost unlimited possibilities for its further modernization and robotics" - said the general.


    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 354
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  runaway on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:09 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

    ...........
    Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

    If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

    Yes will have, and is having. The time runs, and it makes more likely, as example, to see the T-14 with the 152mm weapon since the begin of the serial production.

    Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?
    I see some serious disadvantages with the upgunning, ammo not the least. A better way to increase the penetration is of course to make "hypersonic" rounds, and I talk about 4000-6000 m/s.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5919
    Points : 6023
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:23 pm

    runaway wrote:Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?

    Just talk.

    Gun was designed but was shelved for later because there is nothing in existence or on the drawing board anywhere in the world that requires 152mm to deal with it.

    Should something appear they will bring 152 back into play.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1770
    Points : 1793
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:18 pm

    runaway wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

    ...........
    Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

    If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

    Yes will have, and is having. The time runs, and it makes more likely, as example, to see the T-14 with the 152mm weapon since the begin of the serial production.

    Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?
    I see some serious disadvantages with the upgunning, ammo not the least. A better way to increase the penetration is of course to make "hypersonic" rounds, and I talk about 4000-6000 m/s.

    Despite what some people says to mislead others, Russia has a real weapon for this purpose. Between other new weapons Russia has a new tank weapon of 152mm with designation 2A83:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t6260p75-heavy-calibre-ammo-artillliery-ifv-tank-aa-naval-guns#203139

    There is not doubt that this weapon has been designed for its use on tanks. To note that this weapon has earlier designation than the 2A88 weapon of the 2S35, the works come since years and are likely very advanced. Its use on the Armata platform is very likely, and I expect it used too in the Kurganets and in the Bumerang platforms as anti-tank weapons.

    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/russia-developing-152-mm-tank-gun-and-small-battlefield-nuclear-weapons.html

    The situation is that there is a new real weapon, the 2A83, and there are 3 new real platforms where can be integrated, the Armata, the Kurganets and the Bumerang. Today the works are in the merge of the weapon and the platform.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10919
    Points : 11398
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:12 am

    Prospective Russian MBT T-14 Armata during the MoD trials with 1st "Shock"(udarnoi) Guards Tank Army(UGvTA), Western Military District (ZVO). Image ©️Минобороны России



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:22 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    runaway wrote:Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?

    Just talk.

    Gun was designed but was shelved for later because there is nothing in existence or on the drawing board anywhere in the world that requires 152mm to deal with it.

    Should something appear they will bring 152 back into play.


    Pitty it would look like Warhammer 40,000 tank then Smile  I guess we simply wait till some new qualitative stuff will be invented for tanks. Like "almost a railgun" electro chemical gun, not that new but couple years ago there were discussion and died. Now in October NATO announced they want to go this way. Looks like Burestwiennik did similar stuff in 2013... I wonder how probable this would be?






    Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun.

    The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.


    https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html
    https://vpk.name/news/89273_dlya_minoboronyi_izobreli_elektrohimicheskuyu_pushku.html


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:12 am


    Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun.

    The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.


    I cannot quite make this out is it saying that they plan for the T-14 tobe upgraded with an electrothermal version of the 2a82?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:29 am

    The 152mm tank gun has been developed and ammo for it designed and built, but the cost of introducing it into service was decided to be not worth it at the moment, so the rounds designed for it are being adapted to 125mm calibre to improve ammo for the 125mm guns in service.

    When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.


    _________________
    “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
    runaway

    Posts : 354
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  runaway on Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

    That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
    It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

    It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

    And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
    To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1770
    Points : 1793
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:02 pm

    Russia does not need to wait to some NATO country doing something to become then a follower.

    Russia is a leader on military technology. If Russia sees advantage, when Russia has the T-14 152mm ready, will go forward without wait.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:18 pm

    runaway wrote:
    GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

    That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
    It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

    It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

    And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
    To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

    I don't think the leopard 2a6 can wihstand the vacuum 1/2 rounds used by Russian tanks.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:49 am

    That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?

    I can't be sure, but vehicles are not designed to be invincible to everything... they have design goals... required performance levels and if you can find out what they are you can guess what your weapons will or wont be able to do to them...

    It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

    That is the purpose of secrecy... imagine if WWIII had started in the mid to late 1980s... the NATO forces would have had some very bitter pills to take very quickly... first their best fighters (F-15s) would keep getting shot down every time they tried to use their BVR missiles because passive radar models of the R-27 home in on the F-15s radar marking their targets for Sparrow attacks. But that would be OK because NATO prides itself on close in fighting... except R-73s and helmet mounted sights pretty much guarantee kills for MiG-29s and Su-27s in close range combat... but fortunately NATO does not rely on air power in its operations.... NOT.

    But they dodged that bullet so any potential lessons are forgotten.

    It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

    You are missing the point of the design... of course they can armour their turret the same way every other modern main battle tank is armoured... with the heaviest armour on the tank on the turret front. The question is why?

    On a conventional tank it is there to protect the crew but if all the crew are in the hull, why add 10-15 tons of weight to the turret to protect the empty space either side of the gun?

    And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?

    If a 120mm round... HEAT or APFSDS, penetrate the turret front and goes right through... front to back and goes through where the tank commander would be sitting if he was in the turret what difference does that make to the tank? There would be no ammo there, there will be no fuel there... so no fire... just a neat hole punched through. As long as the gun continues to work and the sensors continue to function what difference does it make to have a hole through the turret?

    To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

    Except if it gets hit by Hermes with a 30kg dual purpose HEAT warhead from the front where the TC sits then the TC dies and the gunner and loader likely bail out... does it have turret bustle ammo? If it does that is at risk of also being hit and burning.



    _________________
    “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
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:32 am

    runaway wrote:
    And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
    To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.


    and which source claims Leopard can do so??



    The-thing-next-door wrote:

    Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun. 

    The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.


    I cannot quite make this out is it saying that they plan for the T-14 tobe upgraded with an electrothermal version of the 2a82?

    That was what vpk.news claimed but is that officials? we yet have to know. Things always can change or source was not thet reliable. The truth is that Burestvennik was working on this topic and NATO started recently officially working on this topic. use Yandex and  NATO, electro thermochemical gun.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:23 pm

    We know the Russians and Soviets have done quite a bit of work on such gun types, so trying to combine that technology with existing weapons to upgrade their performance makes a lot of sense.


    The important thing to keep in mind that the high velocity 57mm gun is not in service because it is not ready yet... but prototypes have been seen mounted on actual vehicles.

    We know the 152mm tank gun is actually ready because new 125mm rounds that have new designs based on ammo developed for the 152mm tank gun are entering service.

    They clearly think 125mm is good enough for now... they could be wrong... lets hope they don't find out any time soon.

    And 152mm is only 27mm larger calibre than 125mm so the difference would not be that big really in the visual sense... the KV-2 and ISU-152 have already been there in terms of calibre of gun and in fact the Sheridan and a model of the M60 series also had 152mm guns... but they were so pathetic in performance I would not count them as MBTs.... they were missile tanks... light missile tank and medium missile tank respectively. suffice to say an M113 loaded with 10 TOW missiles is better armed and protected than a Sheridan.


    _________________
    “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
    runaway

    Posts : 354
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  runaway on Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:06 am

    GarryB wrote: You are missing the point of the design... of course they can armour their turret the same way every other modern main battle tank is armoured... with the heaviest armour on the tank on the turret front. The question is why?

    On a conventional tank it is there to protect the crew but if all the crew are in the hull, why add 10-15 tons of weight to the turret to protect the empty space either side of the gun?

    And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?

    If a 120mm round... HEAT or APFSDS, penetrate the turret front and goes right through... front to back and goes through where the tank commander would be sitting if he was in the turret what difference does that make to the tank? There would be no ammo there, there will be no fuel there... so no fire... just a neat hole punched through. As long as the gun continues to work and the sensors continue to function what difference does it make to have a hole through the turret?


    Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )
    I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.


    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 80
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 31
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  0nillie0 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:10 pm

    runaway wrote:[

    Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )
    I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.



    I understand your reasoning, but there are some factors which partially explain the (current) fairly light armor for the turret.

    Weight restrictions are obvious, but maybe not in the way you have considered.

    Firstly, the T-14 will weigh in above 48 tonnes combat weight (perhaps even as much as 50) in the current configuration. This is already significantly heavier than the T-72B3, and even the relatively heavy T-90 (for Russian standards). It is a well known fact that, unlike Western counterparts, the Russians put a large emphasis on weight restriction, based on the terrain and infrastructure where these tanks will be deployed. More armor on the turret also means a bigger, heavier turret drive, bigger components, and a bigger noise and heat signature. The cost of the base model will also increase.

    There is no doubt in my mind however that the turret design can be up-armored fairly easely should the sitation require it. I am sure that there is plenty of redundancy built in the afformentionned systems, for allowing a much heavier turret shroud to be installed... Especially taking into account the fact that the T-14 could potentially receive even more powerfull and heavier main weapon,

    In theory, protection against machine gun fire and artillery shrapnell should be enough. When fighting against other tanks or vehicles with autocannons, T-14's will rely on their superior offensive capabilities and situational awareness to actively neutralize the threats before its turret comes at risk. Lets also not forget the host of possible active protection complexes available. For urban combat, other vehicles will be more suitable. With the future integration of UAV and other advanced sensors, the gun of the T-14 will not always be its most vital part.

    Finally, armor or no army, any tank gun today can be damaged or destroyed by artillery shrapnel or heavy weapons fire, regardless if armor is present or not. So the argument may be moot to begin with. Guns can be fairly easely replaced in modern MBT's for that reason.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5919
    Points : 6023
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:19 pm

    You also need to keep in mind that content of turret of T-14 is much more durable than any other tank because it contains now crew

    Machinery is lot more durable than humans and even if something gets through it should not do anything too big
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:49 am

    Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )

    Isnt that the same for any tank?

    If it is the same for any tank why do they protect the turret front with the thickest armour and not the turret sides or rear?

    Or even the gun itself which is vulnerable to getting hit directly?

    The purpose of a tank is to move around the battlefield observing and destroying... sometimes observing and detecting targets is actually as important as destroying them.

    In a future battlefield each tank will collect information as well as use information to keep itself and others safe... a tank that can detect targets and pass that information to its fellow platforms and HQ can be as useful as one that can destroy said targets.

    Mostly if a tank is damaged... ie loses a track or its gun is disabled the decision is made... can it continue to contribute to this fight and can it make it out of their on its own. If no and no then the crew bail out and try to make it back to friendly territory... if no and yes then it will attempt to drive back to friendly territory.

    The point is that nothing is invincible so a loose shell fragment might get into the autoloader mechanism and jam the gun.. return to base and get it fixed and then head back into combat.

    Putting 10-15 tons of armour on the turret front so that the enemy can't just disable the main gun defeats the whole purpose of putting the crew in the hull under the heaviest armour in the first place.

    It is not an efficient use of armour.

    Protect the crew and prevent the fuel or ammo from being set alight because that can destroy the whole vehicle... everything else... if it is important duplicate it, if it isn't then it doesn't matter.

    I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.

    If you have an armour structure so good that the enemy is trying to take your main gun out rather than blow your tank to bits then you have a very good tank armour structure because even if or when the enemy succeed you can still drive back to a rear area and perhaps change to another vehicle or perhaps pop the turret off and replace it with a turret with a working gun and optics/electronics. Modular design might allow the gun to be taken out and a new gun installed in a half an hour.

    Any boxes of equipment of optics or sensors or whatever could be replaced... if damaged or if in need of an upgrade.


    _________________
    “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
    George1

    Posts : 10919
    Points : 11398
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:29 am



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    marcellogo

    Posts : 80
    Points : 86
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  marcellogo on Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:23 pm

    Just a precisation.
    When you talk to a relatively light protected turret did you refer by chance to the external structure covering the active protection system or instead to the real one (also if in this case it would be better to call it a Gun Pod)?



    Because the latter seems me the real opposite of something "lightly armored".
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:44 am

    Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

    And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...


    _________________
    “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
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:20 am

    GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

    And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

    How do you know the CG video is acurate?

    Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 80
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 31
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  0nillie0 on Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:36 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

    And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

    How do you know the CG video is acurate?

    Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.


    So basically all round protection against 40mm AP rounds? You would need 200mm of RHA at sides, roof and rear. This totally negates using an unmanned turret.
    Suspect

    Also, adding more armor to the turret so you can add even more armor and weight to the hull ? That makes no sense to me :s

    This not Merkava with unmanned turret. Weight is limited to 50-55 tonnes due to Russian doctrine, geography and infrastructure.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:47 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

    And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

    How do you know the CG video is acurate?

    Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.


    So basically all round protection against 40mm AP rounds? You would need 200mm of RHA at sides, roof and rear. This totally negates using an unmanned turret.
    Suspect

    Also, adding more armor to the turret so you can add even more armor and weight to the hull ? That makes no sense to me :s

    This not Merkava with unmanned turret. Weight is limited to 50-55 tonnes due to Russian doctrine, geography and infrastructure.

    I meant to say proection aginst 30 and 40mm APFSDS from the front and protection aginst 25mm form the sides but I was a little lazy.

    The point of protecting the turret front aginst autocannon is so that your rather expensive next gen MBT will not be put out of action by some slimy IFV gunner shredding all of your sensors with his autocannon MBT guns are less of a problem in this case as the do not fire in long bursts and are thus unlikely to hit even 1 of you FCS componets and if they do you have another and an emergency backup in the case of the Armata.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:39 am