Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share

    marcellogo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  marcellogo on Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:40 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.

    Well, just check for yourself.
    There are several close shots of what it's usually call turret:
    Just look how the active protection system tubes goes deep inside under the so called turret, same for the gunner optics situated so deep under that was necessary to cave in a very visible "wolf mouth" opening to allow it to have a sufficient field of vision.
    Beside that, about any picture would made you sure that what you call a turret has several opening in its bottom part i.e. it is not bolted on to the turret ring but it's instead "hanged2 to the top part of the gun containment structure.  
    So it cover parts that are still important enough to be protected almost from shrapnels, HMG and light caliber AA or IFV guns but not so much to require a tank like level of protection.
    At the same time such a structure would cause the premature detonation of RPG and ATGM Heat charges increasing the protection level of the gun pod itself

    The real turret, meaning with it the structure that rotate together with the gun itself is beneath with its own, well armored roof  at the same height of the hull's one.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1280
    Points : 1445
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:47 am

    So is it confirmed that the gun breech and autoloader will come out unharmed if they get a direct hit from a 120+mm sabot?

    Also, is the afghanit omnidirectional or does the tank have to rotate its turret to intercept a sabot?

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:52 am

    How do you know the CG video is acurate?

    What makes you think it is not accurate?

    The purpose of the unmanned turret design is to move crew ammo and fuel out of the turret and out of the firing line... do you think they would pack fuel and ammo in the turret anyway?

    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.

    What makes you think that is not what they have actually done?

    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.

    Do you think an enemy IFV commander will open up on an Armata tank when he spots one?

    Would you be attracting their attention when your job is to transport troops around the battlefield?

    I would mark its position on a map and send that data to the rest of my unit and then GTFO. Trading fire with an Armata tank armed with a 125mm gun with a 30mm or 40mm gun is stupid and dangerous...

    Also, is the afghanit omnidirectional or does the tank have to rotate its turret to intercept a sabot?

    None of their previous APS systems require turret rotation... they intercept when detected with an array of overlapping interceptors... turrets simply don't turn fast enough and turning in the middle of taking a shot can mean a bad miss but also a shot that reveals your location on the battlefield. If you fire you want to hit every time. If your turret turns every time something approaches your armour then the enemy could time their attacks to make your shots ineffective.


    _________________
    “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 Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    How do you know the CG video is acurate?

    What makes you think it is not accurate?

    The purpose of the unmanned turret design is to move crew ammo and fuel out of the turret and out of the firing line... do you think they would pack fuel and ammo in the turret anyway?

    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.

    What makes you think that is not what they have actually done?

    I was not saying that they did not do that I am just saying that is what I would have and they might have.


    GarryB wrote:Do you think an enemy IFV commander will open up on an Armata tank when he spots one?

    Would you be attracting their attention when your job is to transport troops around the battlefield?

    I would mark its position on a map and send that data to the rest of my unit and then GTFO. Trading fire with an Armata tank armed with a 125mm gun with a 30mm or 40mm gun is stupid and dangerous...

    Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

    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 14, 2018 6:14 am

    Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

    Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

    An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.


    _________________
    “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
    ZoA

    Posts : 50
    Points : 56
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  ZoA on Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:21 am

    In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

    That said such damage is usually repairable, and while it may cause tank to fail to complete the mission, it's crew will be safe and vehicle itself will be easily and quickly fixed in to combat ready condition, ad least in most cases.
    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 Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:28 pm

    ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

    Which is why the most commonly used tanks and IFV's in service with the Russian Ground Forces have a redundancy in optics for observation and firing the weapons. I suspect that the T-14 will receive a similar solution in one way or the other.

    It is generally not a good idea for an IFV to open fire on a MBT, unless you have favorable numbers, terrain (retreat cover) and tactical position (ambush), or in desperate self defense.
    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 Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:29 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:
    ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

    Which is why the most commonly used tanks and IFV's in service with the Russian Ground Forces have a redundancy in optics for observation and firing the weapons. I suspect that the T-14 will receive a similar solution in one way or the other.

    It is generally not a good idea for an IFV to open fire on a MBT, unless you have favorable numbers, terrain (retreat cover) and tactical position (ambush), or in desperate self defense.

    The gunner of the T-14 Armata has 3 sights 2 primary sights and 1 emergency sight.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5639
    Points : 5680
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

    Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

    An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

    T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1280
    Points : 1445
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:07 am

    None of their previous APS systems require turret rotation... they intercept when detected with an array of overlapping interceptors... turrets simply don't turn fast enough and turning in the middle of taking a shot can mean a bad miss but also a shot that reveals your location on the battlefield. If you fire you want to hit every time. If your turret turns every time something approaches your armour then the enemy could time their attacks to make your shots ineffective.



    Seems like you're wrong. The afghanit launchers turn out to be the 5 fixed tubes on each underside of the of the armata's turret all facing at varying degrees to the front. If a projectile is fired perpendicularly or from the back the turret definitely has to turn to intercept it, which, as you said is reallly bad. Its even worse with the T-15 where the afghanit launchers are on the hull.

    The russian should've put a turreted APS launcher on the turret roof like the israelis with their Iron Fist APS(which is specially designed to destroy APSFDS, the first ever APS to do so)  where it can fire at various angles and without the turret having to rotate, and also intercept top attack munitions unlike the current fixed configuration.

    Like that, except unlike the israelis, put more tubes per launcher turret or make the launchers reloadable..
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1654
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:29 am

    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

    Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

    An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

    T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.

    Then whoever was in command of those tanks did poor jobs since the IFV of US shouldn't be able to reach in automatic fire from their 25mm to the 125mm round of a t-72. Which leadse to believe that either it's Iraq you are referencing or it didn't happen.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:59 am

    In real world, engagement ranges are mostly within 3 km, and in european theaters even shorter, with typical engagement range not exceeding 2,5 km, 2 km being the most usual limit.

    About IFVs proactively engaging enemy's MBTs, it is usually done by specialized IFVs only.

    To effectively and with some chance of survival engage an MBT, you need to have at hand a suitable cover.

    Usually, in any mechanized infantry unit, some IFVs are tasked both with fire support and MBT's hunting roles: those are the IFVs that are likely to engage enemy's MBTs trying either to accomplish a mission kill or to fix them until better suited weapons take them out.

    About ATGM, usually they travel at relatively slow speeds: a HOT or a TOW missile, traveling at 300 m/s, gives an MBT at just 2 km around six seconds to return fire, and even an HEAT travels at four times that speed.

    Fire and forget missiles, like Javelin and Spike, have quite dramatically changed the risks, still a suitable cover is needed to avoid counter fire, and IFVs trying to deliver their own infantry usually do not take to have that suitable cover at hand for granted.

    So, the choice to have most of the electronics protected by relatively thin armour, while having most vital items very heavily protected without reaching enormous masses, makes perfect sense.

    In the worst case, a small caliber autocannon will accomplish a mission kill, but the slightest wrong decision by an IFV's commander will lead to the loss of the IFV, its three men crew and more or less all of the infantrymen onboard.

    In the best case, such engagement will only destroy or damage some sensors without hampering the MBT's ability to continue its mission, but if confronted by enemy's MBTs the Armata will offer a relatively small and heavily armoured target while most of the enemy's silhouette will make a useful target to kill the crew.

    The real point is what are the electronics hosted in the outer part of the turret.

    f they are not mission critical, their loss will result in a reduction of the MBT's efficiency but without making a mission's kill.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:53 am

    T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.

    When you dig them in they stop being tanks and start being gun positions that are better engaged by air power with bombs.

    Seems like you're wrong. The afghanit launchers turn out to be the 5 fixed tubes on each underside of the of the armata's turret all facing at varying degrees to the front. If a projectile is fired perpendicularly or from the back the turret definitely has to turn to intercept it, which, as you said is reallly bad. Its even worse with the T-15 where the afghanit launchers are on the hull.

    Do you know anything at all about Russian and Soviet APS systems?

    Do you think each of those 5 fixed tubes fires a laser that must be precisely aimed to hit the incoming threat, or do you think it might contain a HE round designed to spread fragments in the general path of an incoming threat designed to not damage the tank they are protecting or troops operating with the tank?

    The Arena munitions were launched upwards and directed interception fragments downwards into the ground,,, they have a fixed trajectory and a speed of operation that means if you are tracking an incoming threat you can time the release of the munition so that its interceptor fragments intercept the incoming threat.... the choice of the munition and the timing are calculated in real time... being able to move the turret just fucks up those calculations.

    Afghanit is designed to intercept APFSDS rounds moving at more than 1km per second there would be no time to move the turret any distance... that is as stupid as comparing it with Trophy, which does not intercept APFSDS rounds either.


    _________________
    “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 Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:44 am

    One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?
    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 Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:25 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

    Who says it doesnt have other capabilities?

    There are launchers installed in the roof, which are assumed to be part of the soft kill active protection system, more specifillay to launch projectiles which obscures the aerial view of the tank from optically guided and/or laser beam riding missiles.
    There are also trainable soft kill launchers which launch similar projectiles. Perhaps these can also have additional capabilities which we have yet to see in action.

    Also, we do not know of the electronic warfare capabilities of the T-14.

    The verry turret itsel even acts as additional protection against top attack munitions of you think about it.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 8:30 am

    One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

    The cheapest and easiest way to defeat Javelin in top attack mode is to use a laser to blind the missile... such a defence can be used repeatedly against multiple threats over and over and over again without any need for reloads.

    With its thermal seeker not working Javelin is a short range Metis-M that costs 50 times more than Metis-M and has similar range but less armour penetration.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos Yesterday at 10:36 am

    GarryB wrote:
    One thing I would like to know is why deos the T-14 not have an APS designed to defeat top attack missiles?

    The cheapest and easiest way to defeat Javelin in top attack mode is to use a laser to blind the missile... such a defence can be used repeatedly against multiple threats over and over and over again without any need for reloads.

    With its thermal seeker not working Javelin is a short range Metis-M that costs 50 times more than Metis-M and has similar range but less armour penetration.

    Smoke grenades and infra red decoys are said to work very well against those IR seaker missiles.
    avatar
    ZoA

    Posts : 50
    Points : 56
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  ZoA Yesterday at 5:34 pm

    Very similar to Javlin Israeli Spike ATGM seem to already have serious issues in maintaining lock on targets even in environment without active decoys or camouflage. In future those issues could be probably resolved with better algorithms and sensors, but as it stands now I strongly suspect modern day ATGM with IR guidance without man in the loop (Javlin and Spike MR) will be largely infective in realistic combat environment, especially if targets employ any kind of IR decoys or camouflage.

    https://southfront.org/field-experiences-spike-atgm-system/

    Anyhow until those issues are resolved beam riding is probably best and most reliable ATGM guidance method available.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:52 am