Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:18 pm

    I hope the armata's gun will thermobaric ammo available What a Face attack
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Black Eagle would be rejected for the same reason the Burlak upgrade of the T-72 was rejected... all the ammo in the turret bustle is too vulnerable to enemy fire.

    In the T-95 and armata the ammo will be stored in the turret below the level of the turret ring.

    Bustles are much better than internally stored ammo since blowoff panels can be installed making it very safe for the crew.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:41 pm

    Mindstorm- Spasiba za detali.

    Appreciate you taking the time- Garry (or another MOD) could our discussion be moved to the Russian Navy thread? I think the post is very interesting, and should be in the appropriate place.
    Now I am off to read your link, submarine vulnerability to nuclear blast effect is something I know nothing about. Very Happy

    -TR1
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:22 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    The Black Eagle would be rejected for the same reason the Burlak upgrade of the T-72 was rejected... all the ammo in the turret bustle is too vulnerable to enemy fire.

    In the T-95 and armata the ammo will be stored in the turret below the level of the turret ring.

    Bustles are much better than internally stored ammo since blowoff panels can be installed making it very safe for the crew.

    Not exactly true. Bustles do have some major but rarely talked about drawbacks.

    First, in an engagement, against both armor and infantry, a tank is much more likely to get hit in the turret than the hull. IIRC soviet designers stated ~80% of the hits on the vehicle will be on the turret.

    Second, bustles make your tank much more vulnerable to top attack munitions and aircraft/gunships as the likely hood of the ammo cooking off is much higher as apposed to it being on the turret floor.

    Third, in case of catastrophic ammo loss, the resulting blast is just as likely to go through the thin armored plate under the bustle directly above the engine compartment as it is to go through the "blowout panels", as seen on M1's in Iraq.


    Every design has drawbacks. Armata's layout, with the crew placed in the highest protected part of the tank, with all the ammo and fuel stored far away behind firewalls, IMO is the best layout possible for crew survivability, excluding a drone AFV.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:45 pm

    An internal cookoff will kill the crew due to the explosion force not having any direction to escape while blowoff panels make the crew survive because the blast isnt directed at the crew compartment. Sure the engine will be destroyed if the bustle cooks off but is that worse than a blown off turret? Plus the abrams has the ultra flammable AGT-1500 with kerosene tanks wrapped around which would cause a problem in case of a cookoff but a diesel engine negates this.

    I wonder why the worlds best tanks leclerc, challenger 2, leopard 2A6, merkava 4, type 99 and T-90MS have bustles with blowoff panels
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:46 pm

    T-90MS doesn't really have a bustle- the shells are just stored in the rear box to make up for lack of space inside, it is not connected to combat compartment in anyway, nor the autoloader.
    If the T-90MS "bustle" is hit, there is no threat to crew, since the explosion will be external.
    What damage will it do to the rest of the tank? IDK, but I would hope they would test that.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:02 am

    Bustles are much better than internally stored ammo since blowoff panels can be installed making it very safe for the crew.

    Except that when the turret is unmanned there is no risk to the crew directly, whereas a turret bustle location for the ammo is very exposed to enemy fire.

    All the propellent stubs igniting at once is one thing, but all the HE shells detonating at once because they are hit by a HEAT round will destroy the vehicle.

    Even Abrams vehicles have been taken out by IEDs that are 50kgs or more of HE... each 125mm HE shell is about 20kgs of HE... times that by 10 and you have a small aircraft bomb inside the vehicle... it wont matter about blow off panels the shockwave will kill the crew without penetrating the armour.

    Certainly having a turret bustle with ammo separate from the crew is better than live ammo throughout the crew compartment.

    Having all the ammo below the turret ring with an armoured bulkhead between the turret and the crew compartment is even better because it protects both the crew and the ammo.

    A turret bustle on fire will burn out an entire tank... it will burn for hours at very high temperatures and the heat will be conducted by the armour to heat the entire tank... everything plastic will melt all the wiring will short out... it will be a write off. And don't think you can pour water on it to put the fire out... it is propellent and explosive... it has all the oxygen and fuel it needs and no amount of water will change that.

    Every design has drawbacks. Armata's layout, with the crew placed in the highest protected part of the tank, with all the ammo and fuel stored far away behind firewalls, IMO is the best layout possible for crew survivability, excluding a drone AFV.

    The armata is a from scratch design... as you point out... they have thought about their own experience... note their original lack of turret bustles was from their own experience during WWII where they found the easiest way for infantry to take out a tank was to put a block of HE under the bustle on the rear deck with a short fuse. The explosion would either flip the turret off and ignite the ammo in it, or it would just ignite the ammo... either way the heavy frontal armour of the vehicle became meaningless... Note normally if you put a large HE charge on armour it sends a shockwave through but unless it is a huge charge it will do very little damage.

    They have also looked at the experience of other armies like the US in Iraq.

    An internal cookoff will kill the crew due to the explosion force not having any direction to escape while blowoff panels make the crew survive because the blast isnt directed at the crew compartment.

    Explosives will take the line of least resistance... except when there is an enormous amount.

    An example is with land mines. With tiny mines wearing a good heavy strong pair of boots can greatly reduce the injury from standing on a mine.
    For normal sized mines however the general rule of thumb is a boot that goes up to your knee means you will lose your leg near the knee. A pair of gym shoes you will lose your foot at the ankle.

    The explosive takes the body part at the weakest area. Really powerful mines however can do further damage so even if your whole leg is not blown off it will need to be amputated anyway.

    Any sealed container like a tank will try to contain the explosion, which is really just a very sudden... you could say explosive increase in pressure. The increase is supersonic and travels as a shockwave of expanding hot gas. If it meets fuel or ammo further detonations will create further shockwaves. When a shockwave hits a flat solid object it usually reflects back the way it came and certain parts inside the tank can be damaged far more than other parts because of the way these explosive shockwaves are reflected and concentrated. Needless to say except for a very small explosion any weakness or opening in the turret will help release pressure. If a turret is fully sealed that doesn't mean that from all angles it has the same strength of the frontal armour. Some openings like periscopes and machine gun and main gun ports only have rubber seals. The crew hatches also will have rubber seals, which would all likely fail in the case of a penetration and internal explosion.

    Needless to say a catastrophic explosion it doesn't matter how many points of failure there are... they will all likely fail and all hatches and even the turret might be lifted from the hull due to the enormous pressure.

    Having said that for a penetration of a T-72 turret that does not have any loose ammo in the crew compartment and has the hatches open there will be supersonic debris and it would be very unpleasant and loud but unless hit directly by the penetrator both crew would likely survive.

    Sure the engine will be destroyed if the bustle cooks off but is that worse than a blown off turret?

    The temperatures generated by an engine fire will totally disable the vehicle... all plastic monitors and computers will melt, all wiring will catch fire or short out... a tank with a burnt out engine is no more use than one with a turret blown clear of the vehicle.

    I wonder why the worlds best tanks leclerc, challenger 2, leopard 2A6, merkava 4, type 99 and T-90MS have bustles with blowoff panels

    Probably to do with the fact that all the vehicles you mention except the Leclerc and T-90SM have human loaders who need to stand at the rear of the main gun to load it. Having ammo in the rear turret is handy for them to reach to load the main gun.
    The Leclerc has two crew in the turret as does the T-90SM so in the latter case the turret bustle allows them to carry more than the 22 rounds that are in the under floor cassette autoloader and the other box containing 8 more rounds, while for the Leclerc it performs the same function it does on the other western tanks... keeping the ammo separate from the crew.

    These considerations don't apply to the armata because the ammo is separate from the crew, while at the same time protected by the same heavy frontal armour that also protects the crew... I would say the western solution is good enough, while the Russian solution for the Armata tank is the best all round assuming the problem of situational awareness is sorted out (and I assume it has).

    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:45 pm

    Ok you beat me but I have a question:do blowoff panels ensure 100% crew survivability in case of a cookoff?
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3386
    Points : 3470
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:12 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I hope the armata's gun will thermobaric ammo available What a Face attack

    Thermobaric weapon could be developed from ordinary HE round. But I wonder if it will not explode inside gun when fired.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3336
    Points : 3420
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:12 pm

    medo wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I hope the armata's gun will thermobaric ammo available What a Face attack

    Thermobaric weapon could be developed from ordinary HE round. But I wonder if it will not explode inside gun when fired.

    I don't think there is anywhere near enough air or volume inside a gun barrel for such weapons to ignite properly.

    But the warhead is pretty small so I wouldn't think, with my doubtless limited knowledge of the subject, that enough mixture could be packed in to make such an ammo type feasible/powerful.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:35 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Ok you beat me but I have a question:do blowoff panels ensure 100% crew survivability in case of a cookoff?

    Nothing guarantees 100%, but by simple physics, and assuming freak accidents don't happen (bustle doors not open, that killed some crew in an Abrams IIRC), you can channel most of the energy away from the crew.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:12 am

    Detonators are not fitted to HE rounds till they are ready to fire, and normal HE will not explode unless you push a detonator into it... ie you need an explosion to detonate HE.

    The real problem is the propellent, which is designed to burn explosively.

    30-40 rounds of propellent going off at once will do some serious damage.

    In this case the Soviet and Russian tanks are much worse off than western tanks as the 120mm western ammo is one piece and has a metal case containing the propellent, so a penetrating hit needs to also penetrate the shell case to ignite it directly.

    What actually happens in the real world is that the tank is penetrated and the sparks and hot fragments start a fire which sets off the ammo in 2-3 minutes time.

    What tended to happen with T-80s was that with a ring of propellent stubs around the floor of the turret with highly inflammable cardboard exteriors exposed any penetrating hit ignited the stub propellent charges and blew up the tank.

    With the T-72 the loose ammo in the crew compartment was the problem because the ammo in the underfloor cassette magazine is armoured and separate from the crew... that is why the T-90AM keeps it... the change in the T-90AM and SM is that all that loose ammo is removed from the crew compartment so it also does not catch fire.

    Of note the Sheridan tank also has combustible propellent stubs and they pretty much had the same problem regarding internal fires.

    Blow off panels are a pressure release mechanism, but so is an open hatch. If the HE rounds are detonated then blow off panels wont help because the shockwave will be uniform and the pressure wave that does the damage will kill what it hits... we are not talking about pressure building up like propellent in a gun, we are talking about instant detonation like a HE charge. The difference is that propellent in the chamber of a gun will build up pressure and pushing that bullet down the barrel is the weak point or blow out panel... basically a designated point of failure.

    Replace that propellent with HE and detonate it in the chamber and the chamber and bolt and bullet will shatter because the pressure peak will be reached to quickly for the movement of the bullet down the barrel to release the pressure and the gun will fail in several places at once... it will blow up and gas will leak from all sorts of directions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:34 am

    Thermo baric means heat pressure.

    Very simply by mass a HE charge is about 1/4th fuel and 3/4ths material that generates oxygen rapidly to be consumed with the fuel.

    The idea behind an thermobaric round is that it is 100% fuel so it needs to be spread out so the air around the target can be used to ignite with the fuel.

    We are not talking about fuel like petrol that will just burn, we are talking about a powdered or liquid explosive that will detonate.

    Coal dust or flour will detonate if you get the right mix of air and fuel and a spark.

    Because there is no material inside a thermobaric round that generates oxygen and it is all fuel the explosion tends to be more powerful, though variations of air to fuel mixture can lead to variable results where some fuel doesn't burn because there is not enough oxygen.

    Most thermobaric charges have a small HE charge inside the thermobaric fuel to spread it rapidly to be followed by a detonator designed to ignite the main thermobaric material using the air around the target.

    Russian weapons tend to detonate as they spread.

    Thermobaric warheads tend to have lower velocity detonations compared with HE but the shockwave tends to be hotter and of course the oxygen is consumed near the target resulting in suffocation for those hidden from the blast...
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1161
    Points : 2047
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 27
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:06 am

    GarryB wrote:Detonators are not fitted to HE rounds till they are ready to fire, and normal HE will not explode unless you push a detonator into it... ie you need an explosion to detonate HE.

    The real problem is the propellent, which is designed to burn explosively.

    30-40 rounds of propellent going off at once will do some serious damage.

    In this case the Soviet and Russian tanks are much worse off than western tanks as the 120mm western ammo is one piece and has a metal case containing the propellent, so a penetrating hit needs to also penetrate the shell case to ignite it directly.

    What actually happens in the real world is that the tank is penetrated and the sparks and hot fragments start a fire which sets off the ammo in 2-3 minutes time.

    What tended to happen with T-80s was that with a ring of propellent stubs around the floor of the turret with highly inflammable cardboard exteriors exposed any penetrating hit ignited the stub propellent charges and blew up the tank.

    With the T-72 the loose ammo in the crew compartment was the problem because the ammo in the underfloor cassette magazine is armoured and separate from the crew... that is why the T-90AM keeps it... the change in the T-90AM and SM is that all that loose ammo is removed from the crew compartment so it also does not catch fire.

    Of note the Sheridan tank also has combustible propellent stubs and they pretty much had the same problem regarding internal fires.

    Blow off panels are a pressure release mechanism, but so is an open hatch. If the HE rounds are detonated then blow off panels wont help because the shockwave will be uniform and the pressure wave that does the damage will kill what it hits... we are not talking about pressure building up like propellent in a gun, we are talking about instant detonation like a HE charge. The difference is that propellent in the chamber of a gun will build up pressure and pushing that bullet down the barrel is the weak point or blow out panel... basically a designated point of failure.

    Replace that propellent with HE and detonate it in the chamber and the chamber and bolt and bullet will shatter because the pressure peak will be reached to quickly for the movement of the bullet down the barrel to release the pressure and the gun will fail in several places at once... it will blow up and gas will leak from all sorts of directions.


    you know GarryB : http://www.russiadefence.net/t1854p135-official-armata-discussion-thread.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:46 am

    Well, yes, I suppose this is an armata related thread... Neutral

    But I was expecting it to be more focused on modern tank design and what can be considered a success and what can be considered a failure.

    For instance using Apache helos as low altitude strike aircraft to take out long wave large fixed radar sites in Iraq before committing stealth aircraft was genius and likely not considered a normal use for the Apache. Later on of course when a unit of apaches were deployed to attack a ground force without preparation resulted in one apache getting shot down (reported as rifle fire which was dismissed in the west as propaganda... the same west that accepted claims of Hinds being shot down with small arms fire in Afghanistan... but I digress).

    What I am saying is even the best system can fail if misused and it can shine in unexpected uses if its strengths and weaknesses are taken into account.

    An attack on a radar site could have been a terrible failure if they had been prepared for such a thing and had appropriate air defence systems in place to defend the radars.

    Very simply a small rise 5km from the radar site on an otherwise open flat plain suggests that that rise should have AD assets nearby in case it is used by attacking helos to fire from cover. Those air defence assets should be hidden and protected of course.

    Anyway, if we merge the topics will they keep their order, or will the intermingling of posts make it unreadable?

    Ok you beat me

    Don't think of this in those terms.

    Perhaps you learned something you didn't know before... how can you consider that losing?

    I like to laugh at westerners that claim Russia lost the cold war... like getting democracy was some sort of punishment...

    Those same people often claim the Soviets lost the space race... they clearly won the space race, what the US won was the race to put a man on the moon. They didn't even take the first pictures of the far side of the moon, nor were they the first to land something on the moon.

    OK lets merge these two threads... Smile
    avatar
    AZZKIKR

    Posts : 41
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 26
    Location : singaporean

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AZZKIKR on Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:20 am

    If i may, what variants of the Armata will we see?

    MBT (Rear engined)
    AA (Pantsir) (Rear Engined)
    The Support Armata (Rear Engined)
    Coalition (Rear Engined)
    IFV (Front engined)
    APC..? (BTr-T, Front engined)

    Is that the likely scenario?

    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:07 am

    Not sure about the last one. The other ones on the list seem to be right though.
    avatar
    AZZKIKR

    Posts : 41
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 26
    Location : singaporean

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AZZKIKR on Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:34 am

    COme to think of it, with the high integration of technology ino the T-99, is it possible for an unmanned variant to be available?
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:39 am

    Since everything is digital, operation is almost completely mechanical with little human intervention. I would bet that remote operation is actually feasible. Whether this come to fruition is yet to be determined.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:36 pm

    MBT (Rear engined)
    AA (Pantsir) (Rear Engined)
    The Support Armata (Rear Engined)
    Coalition (Rear Engined)
    IFV (Front engined)
    APC..? (BTr-T, Front engined)

    To replace every vehicle in a current brigade with an armata chassis vehicle you would need:

    R for rear engined F for front engine

    MBT R
    AA Gun and Missile R(ie Pantsir-S1 turret)
    AA Missile R (ie TORM3)
    Engineer vehicle R (armoured recovery/repair vehicle like BREM-80U)
    Engineer vehicle 2 R (IRM engineer recon vehicle for toxic areas/rivers/ and BMR-3M mined areas/IED areas)
    Engineer vehicle 3 R (IMR-3M with grader blade and bucket obstacle clearing vehicle)
    Bridge layer R
    Command/communications/control vehicle F
    IFV F
    APC F (lighter armament more troops like BMO-T)
    BMPT R
    Mortar carrier F (like Vena)
    Koalition (replaces MSTA)
    Ambulance vehicle
    rocket artillery vehicle?
    TOS-1 F would also be useful too

    They have said there are 5 different electronic suites that have been created that are unified between the brigades so one is tank, one will be a command/recon suite, one will be air defence, and one will be artillery, and I guess there is a troop carrier/general use system.

    Most vehicles will have built in APS systems plus DIRCMs and anti sniper sensors etc etc as standard, I would expect, though with their data sharing they would only need one or two vehicles to actually find targets and threats.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    AZZKIKR

    Posts : 41
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 26
    Location : singaporean

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AZZKIKR on Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:39 pm

    therefore the armata we see with the 120mm gun/mortar fulfilles the bmpt or mortar carrier role? or does it condense both.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:42 pm

    COme to think of it, with the high integration of technology ino the T-99, is it possible for an unmanned variant to be available?

    That is very likely. Especially for the Mine clearing and river bed recon versions. They could be driven around by their crews till they get to a place where they need to do their job... perhaps an extra vehicle in the brigade could have double control sets and no turret and could be used by Mine vehicle crews to remotely control their vehicles.

    That same vehicle could be used as an operational trainer vehicle and also to control UAVs perhaps.

    Or perhaps it could be a function of a command vehicle so the crew get out and the vehicle is put on remote control and the command vehicle controls it.

    therefore the armata we see with the 120mm gun/mortar fulfilles the bmpt or mortar carrier role? or does it condense both.

    It could perform both roles I guess, though a dedicated mortar vehicle could carry more ammo... I would assume if they don't have guided shells they soon will so the number they need to carry to get the job done will be greatly reduced.

    I suspect they could certainly use that vehicle for both roles of mortar support and tank support and convoy protection.

    Austin

    Posts : 6840
    Points : 7229
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:31 pm

    The first test of combat platform "Armata" will be held in 2013

    YEKATERINBURG, August 24. (ARMS-TASS). The first tests of the unified combat platform "Armata", which is engaged in manufacturing of Research Development Corporation "Uralvagonzavod", will be held in 2013. At today's briefing CEO "Uralvagonzavod" Oleg Sienko, 2020 will be made more than two thousand units "Almaty was."

    "Now the company is an active manufacturer of armored vehicles. First tests will be held in 2013," - said Sienko.

    According to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, the making of "Almaty was" of great importance for the development of domestic arms. "This is not an armored car in the traditional sense, but the latest generation of a universal platform, based on which will create a BMP, rescue and other cars. Their basis - a modular system, and it will make repairs as quickly and easily, even in the field. Spoiled unit easily could be deleted and replaced with a new, "- said Rogozin.

    He also said that the Russian authorities are interested in the development of another military platform - "Kurganovets" manufacturers who engaged in "Kurgan". "In terms of combat characteristics" Kurganovets "similar to the" Armata. "But he has a slightly different armor class. Therefore, this war machine a little easier to combat platform, which is made by" Uralvagonzavod "- said Rogozin.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:39 am

    Alexei re-blogged a new report on Armata. I'm not really sure what to think of the write-up yet. It starts off mentioning the vulnerability of tank's roofs, and ends with talk of a new 135mm gun, and the inadequacies of ARENA, with no hint of Afghanistan APS in the article. scratch

    It does seem overly friendly to Armata's foreign counterparts, and critical of Armata's potential, mind you an AFV that doesn't even exist yet.

    Does someone literate in Russian want to provide insight, and translate some of the details?

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_14.html



    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:32 am




    Alexei re-blogged a new report on Armata. I'm not really sure what to think of the write-up yet. It starts off mentioning the vulnerability of tank's roofs, and ends with talk of a new 135mm gun, and the inadequacies of ARENA, with no hint of Afghanistan APS in the article.


    You ask to yourself the reason for : the enormous amount of very odd informations , the strange content infested by a mountain of factoids (covered by a false "dress" of professionalism ,but the technical level of which would better match the product of a student of an elementary school Rolling Eyes ) and the absurd line of argumentations (leaving the feeling of a riduculously biased agenda to be followed even if that produce comical twisting of facts ) present in this "article" ?


    Well Zivo you have had your knowledge with the "famous" Laughing Laughing Mikhail Rastopshin (a very well known mercenary "expert" ,since a very long time in the stable pay roll of Boris Yeltsin's era Russian oligarch traitors and foreign “Institutions” and Agencies ) writing for Nezavisimaya Gazeta , the journal of..... Boris Berezovsky (i believe that any further word would resuly offensive for the intelligence of the reader Rolling Eyes ).


    The task assigned to those guided media (very often backed and even strongly financed by "grey" foreign institutions and non governmental organizations operating in Russia ,in particular American and UK ones) is to sell a ruinous, inefficient, corrupt image of anything Russian-related :
    A large amount of those bashing article are obviously cited copiusly in Western media that work as true sounding-board for theirs contempt ; effectively the typical scarcely informed reader of similar articles receive the sense that i was reading the opinion of Russian expert of the sector... Razz Razz Razz ....who shouldn't have any apparent reason to act against the interest of its own nation, with the result that the opinion and the information contained appear much more convincing.

    Is sufficient to see the frequency with which similar low level, comically staged articles coming from Nezavisimaya Gazeta are cited in foreign analysis papers (together with those writed by other sold clowns such as Alexandr Golts clown ).


    Personally i am literally in love for similar trash articles by guys like Mikhail Rastopshin and Alexander Golts, when you return, very tired and enraged ,from a hard or difficult day at work nothing is capable to better give back the good mood than one of the freaky pieces conceived by those faithful zombie.


    In particular them represent ,for me, the best proof of the total correctness of a famous phrase of Albert Einstein :

    " Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."




    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:41 pm