Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7113
    Points : 7385
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:27 am

    Keep in mind, the Turret could be void of ERA armor that would more than likely make its way onto the tank, extending the length of the turret and increasing the weight. Much like how the side armor is not on either.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 817
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:44 am

    Hmmm how superimposing image without any reference of size can help ?
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:16 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Hmmm how superimposing image without any reference of size can help ?

    The wheels are a known variable. By using the diameter of the wheel as a measuring stick you can approximate the size of the T-14. It's all very scientific.


    Keep in mind, the Turret could be void of ERA armor that would more than likely make its way onto the tank, extending the length of the turret and increasing the weight. Much like how the side armor is not on either.

    True, since the T-14 appears to have a bustle, they may incorporate a highly sloped relikt array onto the frontal arc of the turret. However on both 195 and KBTM's model, the turret armor doesn't extend forward very far. In all likelyhood, the T-14 will have similar proportions.
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 470
    Points : 543
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  jhelb on Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:08 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Satellite navigation or TERCOM provides accurate guidance, which is, at the same time, inexpensive. This can also make the missile accurate enough for use of conventional warheads on the missile. The INS that is on a Tomahawk isn't accurate enough even for a "thermonuclear" warhead.

    Even if you neutrally jam the GPS or the TERCOM on a Tomahawk, it becomes useless irrespective of its warhead type.

    Morpheus Eberhardt, you explain things very well in all your posts that I have read so far. My vote and GOD bless you.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:28 am

    jhelb wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Satellite navigation or TERCOM provides accurate guidance, which is, at the same time, inexpensive. This can also make the missile accurate enough for use of conventional warheads on the missile. The INS that is on a Tomahawk isn't accurate enough even for a "thermonuclear" warhead.

    Even if you neutrally jam the GPS or the TERCOM on a Tomahawk, it becomes useless irrespective of its warhead type.

    Morpheus Eberhardt, you explain things very well in all your posts that I have read so far. My vote and GOD bless you.

    Thank you very much, jhelb. God bless you.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-04
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:07 pm

    When the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-04
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:34 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Russia is currently introducing ZUBR-11 30x165mm APFSDS rounds, the prior ZUBR-8 which is still in service has performance of up to 35mm RHAe penetration capability at 500m which is quite astonishing for an APDS round. I don't know how armored the best armored foreign IFV is but i doubt it will have much more than that. I've seen pictures of ScoutSV vehicle actually not thick armor and it also weights up to 42 tones, despite this mass it is less protected than T-55 tank. They are also equipped with ATGM's they will use ATGM's long before they close in with 30mm cannons.

    Sorry can't agree with you. The Scout SV has a very good protection and it has 40mm gun that it's much better than any 30mm gun in the West and in the East. All IFV in the West equipped with ATGM.

    The West has 35mm and 40mm guns on some of there APC/IFV, and even the T-15 will have a problem to stand against it.
    Non of those rounds would be capable to even damage Armata, not from front and unlikely from side, not with the thick applique armor.

    IFV are not going to pick on tanks/Armata, but all the other family should be careful.

    So better to start now and bring the 57mm to the IFV, learn who it’s work, check who good they are, and when the time come, and there will be a real need for telescopic round, then we have the units ready to do the change.
    The 57mm isn't finished yet and they are not in the rush, why waste money now for one kind of turret and rush an unfinished gun on the plattform when there is no hurry but will result only in unnecessary expenses with tight budgets.

    What you mean not finish, the gun is here on the PT-76, on the Atom, it maybe dont have all the smart thing, but let's start.

    victor1985

    Posts : 650
    Points : 681
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:17 pm

    AJ-47 wrote:When the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.
    Unless the smoke has some special components that would reflect back radar or laser beams it will be useless. Radar and laser can go trought smoke. Whit laser might be some problems but whit the radar waves....smoke cant stop it. Maibe if the tank pops up a lot of electrons near the tank to disturb laser beam seeker of missile.

    victor1985

    Posts : 650
    Points : 681
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:22 pm

    Maibe steam can disrupt laser and radar waves.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:31 pm

    Sorry can't agree with you. The Scout SV has a very good protection and it has 40mm gun that it's much better than any 30mm gun in the West and in the East. All IFV in the West equipped with ATGM.

    The protection of the ScoutSV can be seen here.



    It isn't that thick.

    And not all western IFV's have ATGM's. Marder 2, Puma, Worrior IFV in only some, which has only TOW and is a sitting duck when it uses it, since wire guided ATGM's can't be fired on the move. Like i said, they will deal with anything that is armored with ATGM's before they will risking closing in and trying to find out if they can penetrate it with 30mm or not.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:46 pm

    The trend in Russian AFV's is to have four ready to fire ATGM's anyways.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:21 pm

    Zivo wrote:The trend in Russian AFV's is to have four ready to fire ATGM's anyways.

    The later version of the Epoch turret may even hold more.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:59 pm

    So there's talk on other forums on T-14 Armata MBT's size, questions about "how could the T-14 MBT be of similar size to Leo-2's, M1A2 Abram's, Challenger 2's, Merkava 4's but maintain a weight of 52 tons?" Some measures are obvious and some less obvious.

    Here's some rough estimations that I made (nothing concrete by any means, so take my estimates with a grain of salt):

    The obvious measure was an autoloader, which obviously decreases the size and volume of the turret, combined with turret being unmanned (adding further reduction in weight and volume), which imo should decrease the weight of the turret by 10 tons. So a manned manual loaded turret on a M1A2 could be 22 tons (I don't know the exact figure), while a unmanned autoloader turret on the T-14 could be 12 tons. Plus the new steel implemented in the Armata platform has similar performance to the old MBT steel, but lighter to the point where it decrease the overall weight of a Armata MBT by 15%.

    So hypothetically speaking, if T-14 had a 'manned', 'manual loaded' turret using the older MBT steel, it would likely be 72 tons in absolute weight. But with the new lighter steel, the weight decrease would be 15% of 72 tons, which would be a decrease of 10.8 tons, which reduces the T-14's weight down to 61.2 tons. Next you add the unmanned autoloader turret's volume and weight reduction of 10 tons, the T-14 MBT's absolute weight is reduced down to 51-52 tons.

    The other variable here is that if  the 15% weight reduction claim already had the unmanned turret figured in with the T-14 already weighing 61.2 to 62 tons, then the 15% would of respectively reduced the weight down by 9.18 and 9.3 tons respectively, which would leave the absolute weight down to 52.02 and 52.7 tons respectively.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:03 pm

    IIRC, the combat loaded weight of the M1A2 SEP2 turret was mentioned somehwere with 25t, while i don't know the combat loaded weight of T-90A but i would range it between 10-14t. Since the turret of T-14 is unmanned and the interior is kept as tight as possible and the turret itself without applique armor is around 1/3rd of the width of T-90A i would range the turret weight combat loaded beneath 10t around 8-9t. So even if you have roughly equal weight for chassis of Leo2,M1 or whatever with beneath 50t than the total weight of T-14 shouldn't exceed 56t with all armor on. The turret is the main weight reduction, while there is of course newer materials that already have been reported to have more protective capbilities while being lighter, that is also worth into the count, but i still assume only the frontal 60° of turret and chassis are composite armor while rest is probably RHA steel with composite armor side skirts + ERA, so the weight reduction could be less than expected.

    mutantsushi

    Posts : 282
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  mutantsushi on Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:06 pm

    Comparing to Western autoloader designs would seem to provide a "cleaner" starting point of comparison to Armata...

    Nexter's Le Clerc weighs in at 57t in it's latest bloc variant, i.e. roughly 10% more than Armata.
    South Korea's K2 (which uses Nexter auto-loader) is 55t, i.e. roughly 5% more than Armata.
    K2 is essentially the newest, "best of breed" within US/NATO-aligned armor (drawing from multiple NATO vendors for subsystems),
    so it should realistically be the basis for any honest techincal comparative analysis of Armata, not decade old designs.
    (although even there Le Clerc's stats are not that far off, certainly not as far off as US/German/Israeli designs)

    Armata's steel supposedly weighs 15% less than T-90 steel, I'd be interested to learn how it compares to Le Clerc & K2 steel,
    because if the unmanned turret design itself might plausibly account for the 5% difference vs. K2, then that means that
    any weight advantage derived from steel is being "plowed back into" things like heavier armor and other weighty subsystems...
    (EDIT: reworded for clarity)

    Anyways, Armata clearly is not achieving some unfathomable amount of weight savings vs. Western state of art,
    At least, not unless you are ignoring Le Clerc and K2's clear technical achievements in armor capability,
    but since that position seems popular amongst those who prefer conflating US/Israeli/German designs as defining "Western", OK.

    victor1985

    Posts : 650
    Points : 681
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:08 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's talk on other forums on T-14 Armata MBT's size, questions about "how could the T-14 MBT be of similar size to Leo-2's, M1A2 Abram's, Challenger 2's, Merkava 4's but maintain a weight of 52 tons?" Some measures are obvious and some less obvious.

    Here's some rough estimations that I made (nothing concrete by any means, so take my estimates with a grain of salt):

    The obvious measure was an autoloader, which obviously decreases the size and volume of the turret, combined with turret being unmanned (adding further reduction in weight and volume), which imo should decrease the weight of the turret by 10 tons. So a manned manual loaded turret on a M1A2 could be 22 tons (I don't know the exact figure), while a unmanned autoloader turret on the T-14 could be 12 tons. Plus the new steel implemented in the Armata platform has similar performance to the old MBT steel, but lighter to the point where it decrease the overall weight of a Armata MBT by 15%.

    So hypothetically speaking, if T-14 had a 'manned', 'manual loaded' turret using the older MBT steel, it would likely be 72 tons in absolute weight. But with the new lighter steel, the weight decrease would be 15% of 72 tons, which would be a decrease of 10.8 tons, which reduces the T-14's weight down to 61.2 tons. Next you add the unmanned autoloader turret's volume and weight reduction of 10 tons, the T-14 MBT's absolute weight is reduced down to 51-52 tons.

    The other variable here is that if  the 15% weight reduction claim already had the unmanned turret figured in with the T-14 already weighing 61.2 to 62 tons, then the 15% would of respectively reduced the weight down by 9.18 and 9.3 tons respectively, which would leave the absolute weight down to 52.02 and 52.7 tons respectively.
    The question is: they reduced thw weight of armata by what you have said? Lets look at the size of entire armata. If looks larger would mean that extra weight has been added. But if the specifications shows that is a 50+ tons like normally means that not only the turret and autoloader were added. Because ok you reduce weight whit the autoloader and unmanned turred but weight would be added whit extra size. If the weight is normal means they have worked to something else either.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2119
    Points : 2212
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:10 am

    mutantsushi wrote:K2 is essentially the newest, "best of breed" within US/NATO-aligned armor.

    Why ? Question Question

    I thought the best would be Leopard 2Axx. Question And I heard that K2 is similiar to a Leopard strip off 8 tons of spaced armour.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 817
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:27 am

    Zivo wrote:
    The wheels are a known variable. By using the diameter of the wheel as a measuring stick you can approximate the size of the T-14. It's all very scientific.


    I'm still not sure if the armata's roadwheel is indeed 700 mm.

    victor1985

    Posts : 650
    Points : 681
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:54 am

    From the wheels you can calculate how many tons per wheel are and maximum weight wheels can support. That means you can find out weight of armata.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:23 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    The wheels are a known variable. By using the diameter of the wheel as a measuring stick you can approximate the size of the T-14. It's all very scientific.


    I'm still not sure if the armata's roadwheel is indeed 700 mm.

    Well Gur Khan mentioned 700mm roadwheels.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5568
    Points : 5580
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:22 pm

    Gur Khan is full of shit about many things regarding Armata.

    The wheels look identical to the T-80s.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5568
    Points : 5580
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:32 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    Which allows the T-14 to shed 10 tons of weight, and reducing ground pressure and maintaining high mobility likely T-90's level of mobility traversing cross-country terrain.

    Armata's going to have an insane power/weight ratio. I cannot wait to see them let this thing loose on a range.

    Worse than T-80, I expect.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-04
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:35 pm

    victor1985 wrote:
    AJ-47 wrote:When the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.
    Unless the smoke has some special components that would reflect back radar or laser beams it will be useless. Radar and laser can go trought smoke. Whit laser might be some problems but whit the radar waves....smoke cant stop it. Maibe if the tank pops up a lot of electrons near the tank to disturb laser beam seeker of missile.
    Smoke will stop laser. if you will operate radar you will get back fire in no time.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-04
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:08 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Sorry can't agree with you. The Scout SV has a very good protection and it has 40mm gun that it's much better than any 30mm gun in the West and in the East. All IFV in the West equipped with ATGM.

    The protection of the ScoutSV can be seen here.



    It isn't that thick.

    Look on the first wheel and see who tick is the protection there.

    And not all western IFV's have ATGM's. Marder 2, Puma, Worrior IFV in only some, which has only TOW and is a sitting duck when it uses it, since wire guided ATGM's can't be fired on the move. Like i said, they will deal with anything that is armored with ATGM's before they will risking closing in and trying to find out if they can penetrate it with 30mm or not.

    No Sir. All the modern IFVs has ATGM included the IFVs that you mention.
    They are not TOW but SPIKE RL that is "fire and forget" missile.
    ATGM can be defeated especially if they beam rider or radar guide.
    The 30mm will not penetrate the modern front armor of IFVs.
    APC don’t need to get into fight against IFVs that is not his job, leave it to IFVs and tanks.

    chicken

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2014-09-03

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  chicken on Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:16 pm

    AJ-47 wrote:

    It isn't that thick.

    Look on the first wheel and see who tick is the protection there.



    The one with the yellow bag inside?

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:23 am