Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:19 am

    Mike E wrote:I believe the former layout is more accurate. It's akin to the Object 187.

    More "normal" sloped armour is inferior in the modern era of ceramics and APFSDS. Advanced composites operate more effectively at lesser angles of slope (particularly ceramics) and APFSDS ammunition dramatically reduce the effectiveness of LOS thickness vis-a-vis sloped armour (ie they angle themselves a few degrees when they impact the slope, thus reducing its line of sight thickness).

    T-72B etc composites effectively had to use rubber/metal layers in order to have any sort of effectiveness. Its flexing during penetration partially negates the aforementioned loss of thickness by long rods.
    So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

    If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

    And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2762
    Points : 2808
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:43 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

    If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

    And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?
    Wew, no need to make assumptions or make things up bucko.

    How do we know what is beneath the ERA (which is not, as you claim, "Malachit" to begin with)? The ERA does not float, there will obviously be a structure underneath, quite possibly a layer of armour.

    Look at the render of the flat configuration. The primary composite is as far forward as it can be to any practical degree (not to mention the potention of spacing itself being a method of protection here). And...

    Sure, I am not claiming this image is technically accurate. If you search Russian language forums, the consensus seems to be that the "flat" armour scheme is most probably true, give; it is both more in line with modern composites and uses composites.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:06 am

    Mike E wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    So you are saying Malachit ERA is strong enough to support tow hooks?

    If they were going to give the tank flat armor wouldn't the front of the hull be much further foward?

    And you do realise just how unreliable random internet images are right?
    Wew, no need to make assumptions or make things up bucko.

    How do we know what is beneath the ERA (which is not, as you claim, "Malachit" to begin with)? The ERA does not float, there will obviously be a structure underneath, quite possibly a layer of armour.

    Look at the render of the flat configuration. The primary composite is as far forward as it can be to any practical degree (not to mention the potention of spacing itself being a method of protection here). And...

    Sure, I am not claiming this image is technically accurate. If you search Russian language forums, the consensus seems to be that the "flat" armour scheme is most probably true, give; it is both more in line with modern composites and uses composites.

    So what exactly are these "modern composites"? I thought the composition of armor for modern tanks is classified so how would you know what the effects of sloping are?

    And if "modern composite" armor for some reason has degraded performance when sloped why on earth would the front turret of the both challenger tanks be sloped?



    The only Soviet project that comes to mind with flat armor was the Object 477 series
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1988
    Points : 2030
    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 Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:28 am

    Now i can see benefits of Yandex Uber deal Very Happy


    "URALVAGONZAVOD" WILL SOON SHOW DEVELOPMENTS ON THE UNMANNED "ARMATA"



    Nizhny Taigil, Feb 9 - RIA Novosti. "Uralvagonzavod" will soon show the public the developments on the unmanned version of the newest tank "Armata", the general director of the corporation Alexander Potapov said on Friday without giving the terms.


    "We do not stand still, of course, we think, we are working on this, after a while you will see the results of our achievements," Potapov told journalists on Friday at his company, where Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov arrived on a visit.

    Earlier it was assumed that the unmanned "Armata" could be created already in 2018. A year and a half ago, the head of the Main Automotive Armored Directorate of the Russian Defense Ministry, Lieutenant-General Alexander Shevchenko, stated in an interview with RIA Novosti that "the work has been put for two years."

    According to him, it is necessary "to create a digital device that will solve problems based on objective conditions," but the main issues related to the robotization of the tank have already been resolved, "it will be necessary to take literally one more step.
    "

    As for the conventional, manned versions of the Armata tank, the Russian Armed Forces until 2020 should enroll 100 units for trial operation, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said at the Army-2017 forum. According to him, the technology is expensive, so the military department does not yet seek to "force events" with serial purchases.


    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20180209/1514289997.html

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 220
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:16 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:

    So what exactly are these "modern composites"? I thought the composition of armor for modern tanks is classified so how would you know what the effects of sloping are?

    And if "modern composite" armor for some reason has degraded performance when sloped why on earth would the front turret of the both challenger tanks be sloped?



    The only Soviet project that comes to mind with flat armor was the Object 477 series

    No, modern composite have no problem with sloped arrangements, just as old composite did not have any issue.

    They have problems with curved surfaces, because the internal molecular structure could not be formed without irregularities acting as weak spots.

    So having the Challenger, or the Merkava, a sloped front turret depends only on specific characteristic related to turret's internal spaces coupled in the Merkava with the aim to reduce as much as possible the turret's proper ceiling, being it as in any tank lightly armoured.

    A possible minor advantage could be that a sloped armour will still deflect low and medium velocity shells, as in the WWII era, reducing the minor damages armour plates could receive during extended or high intensity fighting, and in turn reducing the frequency with which to repair or replace the external plating.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:02 am

    Old model full calibre armour piercing rounds can bounce when hitting a sufficiently sloped armoured surface... like a flat stone skipping off a surface of water.

    Modern APFSDS rounds don't skip or ricochet... sloped armour just slightly increases the amount of material the penetrator has to pass through to penetrate.

    Right now there are motor rifle divisions and tank divisions.

    There are many differences in force structure, but the main difference is that while both forces have tanks and IFVs the tank division is tank heavy and the motor rifle divisions are IFV heavy.

    The future division structure will likely add heavy, medium tracked, medium wheeled, and light wheeled divisions in tank and motor rifle versions.

    This means that instead of a first rate tank division or a first rate motor rifle division having T-90s as its MBT and BMP-3Ms as its standard IFV, that there will be heavy tank divs and heavy motor rifle divs with T-14s and T-15s as MBT and IFV, but there will also be medium tank and medium motor rifle divs with an IFV and MBT model of the Kurganets for the tracked divs and Boomerang for the wheeled divs... and there will be light wheeled Tank and Motor Rifle divs with Typhoon MBTs and IFVs... the former with a 6 wheeled vehicle like Sprut with a 125mm long recoil gun and perhaps an IFV with a 57mm grenade launcher and Bulat missiles...



    _________________
    “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 : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:Old model full calibre armour piercing rounds can bounce when hitting a sufficiently sloped armoured surface... like a flat stone skipping off a surface of water.

    Modern APFSDS rounds don't skip or ricochet... sloped armour just slightly increases the amount of material the penetrator has to pass through to penetrate.

    Right now there are motor rifle divisions and tank divisions.

    There are many differences in force structure, but the main difference is that while both forces have tanks and IFVs the tank division is tank heavy and the motor rifle divisions are IFV heavy.

    The future division structure will likely add heavy, medium tracked, medium wheeled, and light wheeled divisions in tank and motor rifle versions.

    This means that instead of a first rate tank division or a first rate motor rifle division having T-90s as its MBT and BMP-3Ms as its standard IFV, that there will be heavy tank divs and heavy motor rifle divs with T-14s and T-15s as MBT and IFV, but there will also be medium tank and medium motor rifle divs with an IFV and MBT model of the Kurganets for the tracked divs and Boomerang for the wheeled divs... and there will be light wheeled Tank and Motor Rifle divs with Typhoon MBTs and IFVs... the former with a 6 wheeled vehicle like Sprut with a 125mm long recoil gun and perhaps an IFV with a 57mm grenade launcher and Bulat missiles...


    How on earth would you make an MBT version of the Kurganets? Just use the existing Soviet 80s legacy tanks (T-72,T-80 and T-90) as your medium tanks as thier armor is too weak to be considered heavy you ould probably whant to equip all of them with an APS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:07 am

    How on earth would you make an MBT version of the Kurganets? Just use the existing Soviet 80s legacy tanks (T-72,T-80 and T-90) as your medium tanks as thier armor is too weak to be considered heavy you ould probably whant to equip all of them with an APS.

    The term MBT becomes redundant, and tanks come in light, medium and heavy models again... except the heavy is a 50 ton Armata, the medium and light tanks are Kurganets and boomerang and typhoons...

    A tank is an armoured gun platform that provides fire support to troops and hunts enemy equivalents... it has never been and never will be invincible anyway.

    Medium and light forces wont be used against heavy enemy forces... that is what the Armata forces are for.

    Medium and light forces will use superior optics, communication, and weapons to defeat less well equipped enemies on favourable terrain.

    The medium and light vehicle families will be fully amphibious and should be able to operate on soft ground like desert or snow or marshland...

    Seeing an enemy before he sees you and shooting him meant that in desert storm bit 70 ton tanks that needed their own fuel truck each was a bit of a waste... the mix of air power and ATGMs and they probably would have been able to do what they did with just IFVs much faster and much cheaper... all that energy moving fuel supplies to keep those big tanks moving... the vast majority of the targets they destroyed could have been handled with 100mm HE rounds from an IFV.

    The only time the 120mm gun was needed against enemy tanks at long range they could have fired Kornet and done the job much much cheaper.

    Even in a tank division it would only be the T-90 MBTs with better armour than the Kurganets or Boomerang... every other vehicle in the division would have inferior armour including the BMP-3 most likely.

    That means that in a Kurganets or Boomerang div most of the vehicles would actually be rather better protected from enemy fire.


    _________________
    “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 : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:53 am

    GarryB wrote:should be able to operate on soft ground like desert or snow or marshland...

    I believe the Armata can do that too but then again so could the Object 279 (It had extremely good crossing capacity) and probably the IS-7 aswell.

    Crossing capacity is all about ground pressure distribution not the actuall weight of your vehicle.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:22 am

    In flat wide open spaces you don't need heavy armour if you can see the enemy and engage them well before they see you.

    If you need to move fast then medium and light vehicles are much better suited to such terrain.

    In places where there is a good road system then wheeled vehicles are superior to tracked vehicles.


    _________________
    “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 : 1988
    Points : 2030
    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 Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:58 pm

    Talking about light tank on Kurganets:

    CV90120








    Turkish ugliness Smile

    Edit: I replaced pic, BTW love high heels hostess presenting in Islamic Turkey Jv tank with Islamic Indonesia :d





    and here they say that there is foreseen kinda of "Sprut" on Kurganets platform. Tank destroyer with 125mm gun.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201506081238-t6c0.htm


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:35 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:14 pm

    There is always the 125mm version of the Dragun turret I don't see why it could not be adapted for use on the kurg.


    Peŕrier

    Posts : 220
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:26 am

    It has to be seen whether the 15 tonnes between a standard Kurganet and a T-72 are worth the effort and the costs of pressing into service a 125 mm support fire version of the Kurganet.

    All of that provided that such 125 mm Kurganet still weight around 25 tonnes, of course, and that broadly speaking specific ground pressure of a Kurganet is significantly lower than that of a T-72.

    The same applies for specific power-to-weight ratio and so on: it could turn out that a T-72 is just the right complement to the several Kurganets' versions, and all it takes is some mechanical convergence in terms of engine and transmission for the logistic chain's sake.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1988
    Points : 2030
    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 Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:31 am

    Peŕrier wrote:It has to be seen whether the 15 tonnes between a standard Kurganet and a T-72 are worth the effort and the costs of pressing into service a 125 mm support fire version of the Kurganet.

    All of that provided that such 125 mm Kurganet still weight around 25 tonnes, of course, and that broadly speaking specific ground pressure of a Kurganet is significantly lower than that of a T-72.

    The same applies for specific power-to-weight ratio and so on: it could turn out that a T-72 is just the right complement to the several Kurganets' versions, and all it takes is some mechanical convergence in terms of engine and transmission for the logistic chain's sake.

    because Kurganets can swim and has power/weight like 32 HP/tonne? T-72B3 mod 2016 is 46tonnes and with engine 1120HP is lik e25 HP/tonne and weights 20 tonnes more then Kurganets. Besides Kurganets is a new design not from 70s? ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:42 am

    The whole point of developing a vehicle family is to shorten the logistics tail... having to have a T-72 MBT in a kurganets div means carrying spare parts for two types of vehicles instead of just for one.

    Having T-72s in a Kurganets div also means you need to add bridging equipment, or you need to find a spot in a river that is safe to ford because every single vehicle in your div is amphibious except for your T-72s...



    _________________
    “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

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 220
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:50 pm

    There are obviously logistic benefits into having just one single family of AFVs, but being Kurganet a tracked AFV going to replace the BMPs, it will end into mechanized divisions where until now MBTs are already in ORBAT.

    As I see it, while wheeled AFVs have really a different level of mobility, and because of that they benefit from having a dedicated direct fire variant, tracked ones do not differ in range, speed, cross country mobility and logistic footprint so much to make an accompaining MBT too sluggish.

    There are drawbacks of course, but there are many positive advantages.

    Until now, BMPs have for decades lived with and fighted along T-62s, T-72s and T-80s, and it could end that the Kurganets will do the same with the T-72B3s and T-90s making a dedicated 125 mm version of the Kurganet either redundand, or assigned only to specialized units requiring specific mobility characteristics.

    Around the world it is give or take just the same, even when fire support derivatives of IFVs are available, they have seen little or no use being the MBTs still the favoured tool for providing heavy direct fire and protection against enemy's armored forces.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:44 am

    You are not getting it... the whole purpose of vehicle families was because of what happened in Grozny... all the light vehicles were picked off and then the tanks were dealt with from upper floors and basement positions where the only thing the tanks could fire back with was their HMGs for about 50 rounds before needing reloading.

    the purpose of the vehicle families is improved mobility and protection because in current divs there are MTLB based vehicles and BMP based vehicles and BTR based vehicles all with different engines, some with tracks and some with wheels... some amphibious and some not... some very well protected, some very poorly protected.

    With the new vehicle families the protection level has gone up dramatically, and the crew are rather better protected being under armour and away from loose ammo and fuel.

    Most importantly if the Kurganets is just going to be a BMP then WTF is the point of the T-15?

    There are going to be units equipped with only Armatas, and other units equipped only with Kurganets and other units equipped only with Boomerangs and the same for Typhoons.

    Even in a Typhoon unit the ACRVs or command vehicles will be better protected than the barely rifle bullet proof of the modified MTLBs.

    The Kurganets and Boomerang are in the 25 ton class and will be better protected than either BMPs or BTRs of today.

    In the Armata units all vehicles will have tank level protection for their crews.

    It makes no point in mixing BMP-3s with Armata MBTs or putting Boomerang IFVs with T-90s...

    Until now, BMPs have for decades lived with and fighted along T-62s, T-72s and T-80s, and it could end that the Kurganets will do the same with the T-72B3s and T-90s making a dedicated 125 mm version of the Kurganet either redundand, or assigned only to specialized units requiring specific mobility characteristics.

    You are looking at this the wrong way around... there are plenty of older vehicles to operate with T-90s in conventional divs, given the choice of a Kurganets tank with a 125mm gun or a T-90 in the same unit the former will use the same tracks, the same engine, the same transmission, the same components and will be much cheaper to buy a 30 odd ton Kurganets vehicle with a 125mm gun than a 48 ton T-90... and cheaper to operate too.


    _________________
    “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

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 220
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:01 pm

    There is not only Urban environment combat.

    I would say Kurganets, and any other medium AFV, are intentionally not meant to fight in Urban environments.

    For such kind of operations, foot soldiers, heavy AFVs like T-15 or any specialized derivative and special forces inserted vertically are the way to go.

    Instead open spaces should be the reign of Kurganets and Co. given their good cross country mobility and reasonable protection level.

    In Urban environments, It won't be the 25 tonnes of a Kurganet to save crew and squad's lives when targeted by anyrhing more than the weakest RPGs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:05 am

    It depends of course... in soft marshland then lighter vehicles make more sense but in urban areas or flat open spaces against NATO where targets can be detected and engaged at extended ranges and the enemy is well equipped then choices need to be made as to what sort of forces are used.

    Having vehicle families allows options.


    _________________
    “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 : 11077
    Points : 11554
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  George1 on Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:54 pm

    Russian defense manufacturer to wrap up initial tests for T-14 Armata tank in 2018

    The Russian Defense Ministry intends to purchase around 100 tanks by 2020

    MOSCOW, February 22. /TASS/. Uralvagonzavod (part of the Rostec corporation) will complete initial tests for the T-14 Armata tank in 2018, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov told TASS.

    "This year, we are concluding the initial tests of the tank, which will be followed by operational testing," he said.

    The corporation’s head reiterated that the Russian Defense Ministry intended to purchase around 100 T-14s by 2020.

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said earlier that the Defense Ministry would make a decision after 2020 on awarding major contracts to supply Armata tanks to the army.

    The T-14 tank designed on the Armata platform was first unveiled in Moscow on May 9, 2015. The new fighting vehicle was outfitted with an unmanned turret and an isolated armored capsule for its crew for the very first time.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/991215


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

    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 377
    Points : 398
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  runaway on Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm

    George1 wrote:Russian defense manufacturer to wrap up initial tests for T-14 Armata tank in 2018

    The Russian Defense Ministry intends to purchase around 100 tanks by 2020

    MOSCOW, February 22. /TASS/. Uralvagonzavod (part of the Rostec corporation) will complete initial tests for the T-14 Armata tank in 2018, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov told TASS.

    "This year, we are concluding the initial tests of the tank, which will be followed by operational testing," he said.

    The corporation’s head reiterated that the Russian Defense Ministry intended to purchase around 100 T-14s by 2020.

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said earlier that the Defense Ministry would make a decision after 2020 on awarding major contracts to supply Armata tanks to the army.

    The T-14 tank designed on the Armata platform was first unveiled in Moscow on May 9, 2015. The new fighting vehicle was outfitted with an unmanned turret and an isolated armored capsule for its crew for the very first time.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/991215

    This is good news of course, and by 2020 we can expect large orders and real serial production. Perhaps even low level serial production earlier. Most interesting will be to see if they will upgun it with the 152mm in 2020.



    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1005
    Points : 1021
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:50 pm

    Even 100 by 2020 is not too shabby for early serial production. Thats 50/year, say one per week. Considering that T-14 are cutting edge, thats hardly insignificant.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 4:12 am

    I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

    And for what?

    There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.


    _________________
    “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 : 377
    Points : 398
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  runaway Yesterday at 10:02 am

    GarryB wrote:I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

    And for what?

    There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.

    Well with a 152mm gun you have a sort of ammunition that can destroy everything within kilometers...

    "It reportedly has a 125mm smoothbore cannon, and could possibly one day get a 152mm gun that fires low-yield nuclear shells, according to Task and Purpose."

    But seriously, the lower ammo capacity for 152mm and the more wear and tear of firing the thing speaks for that they will keep the 125mm for the foreseeble future



    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 318
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door Yesterday at 2:29 pm

    runaway wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I rather suspect they will delay the upgrade to 152mm tank guns as long as they can because the heavier round will be more expensive and reduce ammo capacity in vehicles carrying it and in rearmament vehicles, while the increased recoil will require stronger mounts and stabilisers which will likely wear out faster...

    And for what?

    There is still plenty of growth potential for the 125mm guns.

    Well with a 152mm gun you have a sort of ammunition that can destroy everything within kilometers...

    "It reportedly has a 125mm smoothbore cannon, and could possibly one day get a 152mm gun that fires low-yield nuclear shells, according to Task and Purpose."

    But seriously, the lower ammo capacity for 152mm and the more wear and tear of firing the thing speaks for that they will keep the 125mm for the foreseeble future




    Well if the leopard 2 gets a 130mm I doubt the Russian MOD will be keeping the 125mm.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:06 pm