[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:How about we wait for the tarp to come off before making judgements on the turret....but so far I like it, seems to be well protected.

Then what was all that talk how the armata turret didn't need to have any armor because it was going to bo extremely hard to hit?

Nobody said the turret won't have any armor. It was said that the turret needs much less armor, since it is unmanned and therefore much less internal volume meaning much less armor needs to protect the mechanism, gun and autoloader.

I have a question,isn't it too crowded to fit three crews side by side in Armata's hull?

volna wrote:I have a question,isn't it too crowded to fit three crews side by side in Armata's hull?

What do you think they do in a much smaller turret of foreign tanks, they also squeeze them in there and still enough space for working.

The frontal armor does indeed look immense. That sloping alone.... Combined with ERA, composites, and spaced armor (from what I gather?) it should be impenetrable to most, if not all NATO rounds. Too bad the turret hasn't been exposed, maybe we'll get a look before the 9th.

Gotta say the tank's a looker for sure.

Anything but total protection against any perspective or near future NATO round over the FRONTAL ARC would be a complete failure on the part of UVZ to competently make a hull.

This isn't ass old T-72B3 armor.

And here comes the negativity... 

No doubt it will be TR1, even the T-90's upper would be a major problem to NATO rounds, but this? No longer does it have a LFP weakspot, the sloping is a notch above, as is the composite and base materials.... And superior ERA AND spacing? We're talking over 1000 mm RHAe for both frontal plates, as a guesstimate of course. It wouldn't surprise me if the figure is even higher. Plus, with an active DS... This is really gonna make the US ****'s shut their trap, a tank lighter and better armored than their "bunker" the M1. 

No one knows about the turret, which is going to be interesting and hopefully top-notch as well. 

 At how a B3 with ERA could make an Abrams sweat.

How in gods name is that negativity?

Re-read my post.

Re. T-72, 25 year old protection is not making anyone sweat.

The way you phase it screams negativity... "Complete failure"....

That "ancient" armor could block an Abrams shells when combined with ERA. What's the problem with that? The T-72 platform was never meant to be a heavyweight armored behemoth anyway.

TR1 wrote:Re. T-72, 25 year old protection is not making anyone sweat.

You can upgrade T-72 with protection less than 25 yrs old, like Relikt, APS, etc etc, and in that case it can make someone sweat, for example M1 Abrams

Mike E wrote:The T-72 platform was never meant to be a heavyweight armored behemoth anyway.

Actually in Russia/Soviet standard, the T-64/72/80/90 are heavyweight. And Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger... are... super-heavy.

Complete failure if they don't manage to make it impervious to all NATO rounds. Obviously I expect that to be a minimum achievement.

We went over the T-72B3 story. It can't stop M829A3. Doubtful it can even stop A2. And that discounts the huge gaps with no ERA.

TR1 wrote:Complete failure if they don't manage to make it impervious to all NATO rounds. Obviously I expect that to be a minimum achievement.

We went over the T-72B3 story. It can't stop M829A3. Doubtful it can even stop A2. And that discounts the huge gaps with no ERA.

I don't think Russia and Germany plan to let their basal armour to take the full force of the penetrators. That's why Leopard has spaced armour and T-xx has ERA.

AJ-47 wrote:I don't like the idea of the carousel that holds the ammo to risky if the tank gets hit.

1. Why they didn't use small loader, maybe for 6 rounds for immediate fire, and the rest of the ammo will be under the floor and reload the small loader all the time?

2. is the round is in one piece, or it has 2 pieces like artillery gun?

the see-through cgi aint official, maybe it does contain fewer rounds or maybe theres no turret bustle ammo storage either.
but i agree with you, fewer rounds should be stored up there. if it was up to me id have the storage box span only the width of the mantle.

*whoops thought you were dissing the turret bustle ammo.
anyway the ammo in the carousel should be very safe- the vulnerable cardboard coated propellant charges are placed much higher well behind the thick side skirt applique armor so hits from the side would not brew up the tank as easily as it did the earlier T-xxs

as for mines the truncated cone arrangement of the container should disperse a lot of the blast energy from the those same propellant charges- the inert (except for apfsds, which has cardboard and propellant part) projectiles in the inner layers should shield them from hot fragments.

the rounds are two piece ofc.

New pics.

It is huge.
Now you can compare them with the guy standing beside...

This is what a T-80U looks like beside a guy(although this guy is tall, he is 1.9m tall), still you can imagine how big T-14 is...
Russians have a big modern tank finally, happy for you...

The hull height looks somewhere between an Abrams and Merkava IV.... It's long, but well sloped as a result, and the width looks manageable. Nothing to be worried about IMHO.

People seem to be worried about the height of the T-14

Just relax, the designers know what they are doing.

In my opinion, I think they do not place as much value as they did before with the whole "lower=better=harder to hit" concept.

With all the new sensors and weapons that the T-14 will be equipped with, they are most likely less concerned with a ambush type scenario where the vehicle would come under fire from other vehicles before the T-XX could destroy them.

Seems the designers do not think this is the case anymore.

Remember that the Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata vehicle families all likely have built-in concealment methods, such as the above photos showing the dual vents on the T-14. The most likely reason that was done for is to divide up the hot air column, increasing the surface area of the pipe that the hot air is in contact with, and increasing the time for any cooling measures to take effect. And looking at the shaping of the Bumerang, Kurganets, and Armata, they seem to be very suited for Low Observability against X-band radars.

The way the forward side ERA blocks on the Kurganets CGI models and real pictures available for viewing slope in to the hull.

The way the forward side ERA blocks also share the same frontal outline as the glacis.

The way the side ERA skirts on both Kurganets and Armata project outwards and away from the main hull, this seems to be a way of concealing the the wheels, torsion bars, and track in the top down, approximately 30 degrees from vertical in the frontal aspects, and 10 degrees from vertical on the side.

As well as any add-on measures such as Nadkidka that may not be shown yet.

I conclude that the designers have gone from concealment and minimization of profile to enemy ground forces in optical means of detection(Daylight Television, Low Light Television, Thermal, etc)

and have implemented wide scale concealment and profile minimization to both ground and air forces, in optical and radio means of detection.

What is also very impressive is that they have managed to satisfy the requirements for both wide-scale all out war against a superpower and at the same time, make a vehicle suited for close in urban environments.

What I mean by this is the classic ammo in the turret vs ammo under the hull.

The ammo in the hull is suited for wide-scale combat as in WW2, it was found that most shots that hit tanks were across the 60 degrees of the turret, Thus placing the ammo underneath the main armor arrays made sense and it decreased the likely chances of a ammo hit.

The ammo in the turret with blow-off panels is suited for urban situations where it becomes nearly impossible to keep the ammo in a least likely to be hit zone, so if a hit is made, then the crew stands a excellent chance of surviving, however in a wide-scale scenario, this was pointless as the crew would most likely be killed trying to run away and back to safety. If a tank can't survive in such an environment, then what chance does a 3 or 4 man group traveling on foot stand?

So they swapped the crew and ammo positions, now you can get the best of both worlds.

To sum it all up, this vehicle family is made to be the best in both wide-scale and urban conflicts and incorporates design solutions and technologies that are first in the world and first-class.

The notion that the Armata, Kurganets, and Bumerang are somehow "imitations" and "copies" of Western vehicle and design school is hilarious. No western vehicle can even hope to reach the forward thought put into this vehicle, no western vehicle family can possibly even speak of the integration this vehicle family has with the rest of the new Russian combined arms force, and surely no western vehicle can match the specifications nor the minimized logistical footprint that this vehicle family brings to the table.

I can't wait to see all the posts of "Russians copied us" and the "Russians went Western, haha!". Their delusions are a sight to behold.

In my opinion, I think they do not place as much value as they did before with the whole "lower=better=harder to hit" concept.

I think it has way more to do with the capsule. The crew are no longer distributed throughout the vehicle, so they cannot just place pieces were they fit, just look at the arrangement of loose ammo outside the autoloader on the previous generation of Soviet/Russian MBT's. On armata, the minimal dimensions of the hull is dictated by the amount of armor needed to protect the crew in the capsule, as such, armata has a big hull.  If you want to see how much armor there is around that capsule, look at the hatches. The upper glacis of Armata is highly sloped, and really thick, compare it with the highly sloped, but paper thin armor on the M1 Abram's upper glacis. Armata has a much higher density of armor protecting the crew than even the best western MBT's, while still being lighter weight.

such as the above photos showing the dual vents on the T-14. The most likely reason that was done for is to divide up the hot air column, increasing the surface area of the pipe that the hot air is in contact with, and increasing the time for any cooling measures to take effect.

Like a supercar's engine, it has twin turbos which each run off their own manifold in a mirrored configuration.



You get more power, and less heat using a configuration like this. While the engine is larger and more powerful than previous Russian tank engines, the IR "hotspots" may be comparable.

What is also very impressive is that they have managed to satisfy the requirements for both wide-scale all out war against a superpower and at the same time, make a vehicle suited for close in urban environments.

That really impresses me. It's easy to build a tank, it's easy to build a vehicle to fight asymmetric war, but it is hard to build one vehicle that can do both.

I can't wait to see all the posts of "Russians copied us" and the "Russians went Western, haha!". Their delusions are a sight to behold.

It's all over the internet already. I had someone try to tell me that the M1 and the merk 4 have isolated crew capsules the other day. Amateurs just see the big hull and say it's "western", whatever the fuck that means.


Anyways, here's some more speculative drawings. What I like about this one, is that the bustle is depicted as a magazine for the roof mounted weapons, in this case a 2A42, mounted similarly to the one on Objekt 195. Notice how the artist chose to incorporate bustle commonality with Epoha. Based on the recent images, the hull height in reference to the human silhouettes looks to be accurate. IMO, the APS on this drawing is wrong. Judging by the radial protrusions on the tarps above the turret ring, the APS should look more like what Burlak had (second image), and less like what the early photos of one of the Obj. 195 prototypes had (third image).

@Zivo

Interesting drawings, I have filed them away in my library, thank you. They will be useful to me later.

One thing, I very much doubt the designers have gone with a turbocharger system.

Turbochargers require tricky tuning to get right, the fuel-air ratio has to be perfect. This will be a nightmare for logistics and maintenance and it also becomes another thing to go wrong in battle or on the march.

They also wear out engines quicker than normal which would be counterproductive as they made Armata to be logistics efficient.

However, you may be correct on the height of the vehicle concerning the capsule, thank you for your suggestion, I will file that into my library as well.


However, I stand by with my statement on the transition from prioritizing low height for minimization of profile to prioritizing concealment across the board, from enemy tanks to enemy attack helicopters to JSTAR ISR platforms. Judging from the massive commanders sensor array, (I call it an array as it probably consists of several active and passive sensors), the designers are no longer forced to minimize the vehicle profile to such an extreme as they now have the luxury of a world-class sensor system to prevent occurrences and destroy enemy tanks before they even come into range, either with their own GLATGMs or calling sensor-fuzed submunitions to be delivered by other platforms.

What I am trying to say is that they no longer have to squeeze down the tank so low, in the end they lose a little to gain a TON in return, and that ton will easily make up for losing that little.

i will like to see a very close aprox.. based on research of the size of T-90 vs Armata tank, side by side.. and how everything is divided inside Armata.. Im not sure if we will see those in
Victory parade.

Supposedly, this is armata's engine, it's a X arranged V12 turbo-diesel "12N360". You can see the turbos poking out on the left and right sides.



Here's the less refined version of the same engine.





What I'm having trouble understanding is Armata has three crew, two hatches, and the hatches open different ways. Hatches are a weak spot, so it makes sense to put as few holes in the glacis as possible. Tough luck for the gunner. But why does the driver's hatch open and rotate, but the commanders hatch is just hinged? It seems odd to me.

I was reading this RT article on the Armata MBT http://rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/

It states:

A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.

Can this 12.5 mm HMG take out anti tank missiles like the Kornet, Brimstone or even cruise missiles like the Kh-29?

jhelb wrote:I was reading this RT article on the Armata MBT http://rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/

It states:

A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.

Can this 12.5 mm HMG take out anti tank missiles like the Kornet, Brimstone or even cruise missiles like the Kh-29?

>Trusting RT for anything except a direct quote from officials or designer
>Don't be naive

With autotracking being brought to the new Russian vehicles, (believe it or not, only 4 tanks I know of have autotracking, and two of them are Russian)

Anything becomes possible, and for one a Kh-29 is no cruise missile but rather a AGM-65 on super steroids and used for fortification busting.

Kornet could be intercepted if given enough time, it is supersonic. I don't know actually, It would be pretty simple if it was coming straight at you. But I doubt the Armata radar system has enough range to be able to turn the machine gun on it.

Brimstone would not be a problem as it is usually launched from aircraft which means either the aircraft or the munition itself is open to be destroyed, everything from anti-helo mines to Igla-S to S-500.

Would be a cool feature, mini-CIWS on tank.

Zivo wrote:Supposedly, this is armata's engine, it's a X arranged V12 turbo-diesel "12N360". You can see the turbos poking out on the left and right sides.



Here's the less refined version of the same engine.





What I'm having trouble understanding is Armata has three crew, two hatches, and the hatches open different ways. Hatches are a weak spot, so it makes sense to put as few holes in the glacis as possible. Tough luck for the gunner. But why does the driver's hatch open and rotate, but the commanders hatch is just hinged? It seems odd to me.

Well for one, engine looks dope as f@$k. Are you sure those are Turbos? They might be electric generators, for powering the battery etc. And instead of a APU, they could just shut off most of the cylinders right? I know new supercars do that now a days to make them less of a gas-guzzler.

Does anyone know its size? I think I might be able to fit it onto my old Mustang.

Interesting enigma with the hatches, I am going to hazard a guess and say that the left and right hatches are for the gunner and commander, and the driver can suck it. Then again I do not know. I for one hate the asymmetrical tanks with the driver shifted to one side. Can you find photos of the hatches? I have nothing on them.