Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+87
Book.
triphosgene
franco
eridan
Flanky
JohnSnow
calripson
:JunioR:
indochina
Captain Nemo
Zhukov-Patton
AbsoluteZero
Mindstorm
NITRO
TheGeorgian
nobunaga
auslander
Swede55
BKP
Siempre_Leal
KoTeMoRe
Shadåw
Khepesh
ebobat
zg18
Neutrality
archangelski
Alex555
Big_Gazza
Strizh
PapaDragon
Vympel
macedonian
rtech
Flyboy77
Mefesto
Acheron
alexZam
Bolt
sheytanelkebir
Redboy
medo
Orocairion
Austin
Cpt Caz
mack8
Kyo
MilSpec
kvs
Viktor
cracker
max steel
2SPOOKY4U
xeno
ult
Mike E
volna
smerch24
tanino
TheArmenian
Brovich
chicken
mutantsushi
Morpheus Eberhardt
jhelb
sepheronx
Regular
Dima
etaepsilonk
Cyberspec
VladimirSahin
KomissarBojanchev
AJ-47
Stealthflanker
victor1985
collegeboy16
Vann7
higurashihougi
George1
runaway
akd
flamming_python
Werewolf
GarryB
TR1
Zivo
magnumcromagnon
91 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    jhelb
    jhelb


    Posts : 1085
    Points : 1186
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  jhelb Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:59 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    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.


    Ok, so basically you are suggesting that the interception would depend more on the effectiveness of auto tracking than the 12.5mm?


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:Would be a cool feature, mini-CIWS on tank.

    But then the APS can also intercept incoming HEAT, SABOT rounds or ATGMs?
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18268
    Points : 18765
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  George1 Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:01 am

    New images of Armata

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 2012341_original

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 2012664_original

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 2012798_original
    2SPOOKY4U
    2SPOOKY4U


    Posts : 276
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:05 am

    jhelb wrote:
    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    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.


    Ok, so basically you are suggesting that the interception would depend more on the effectiveness of auto tracking than the 12.5mm?


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:Would be a cool feature, mini-CIWS on tank.

    But then the APS can also intercept incoming HEAT, SABOT rounds or ATGMs?

    What I gathered is that the commanders machine gun can SUPPOSEDLY(it is RT afterall) intercept in-flight munitions.

    A 12.7 round could shred the body of a missile, but I doubt it would do much to a tank round.

    Overall, yes I would say that the chances of hitting said munition would depend mostly on the sensor and it's autotracking function, as well as the accuracy of the 12.7mm round itself.
    But if it is a HEAT or APFSDS round, then forget it, that is what Afghanistan/Standard is for, whichever is mounted on Armata, I forgot.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:59 am

    Zivo wrote:
    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.
    it seems to me the most forward hatch(driver's hatch) is also for gunner's use- he just needs to shift a bit to the left to use it. now i could be wrong but since it is prolly out of reach of both driver and gunner they decided to make it automatic closing with push of a button, hence the opening and rotating.
    avatar
    chicken


    Posts : 110
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  chicken Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:49 pm

    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?

    If I recall correctly, current Afghanis APS figure is 1,700m/s (??), 3,000m/s is proposed objective of next generation APS that shares the same name as a Ukrainian APS(?)
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38762
    Points : 39258
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:25 pm

    There will only be one 125mm auto tracking gun and that will be the main gun smoothbore.

    I rather suspect they have confused the auto tracking 125mm gun with the APS system...

    Any HMG will be a 12.7mm weapon... not a 12.5mm which does not exist and would likely offer little advantage over existing 12.7mm weapons.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python


    Posts : 8988
    Points : 9050
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  flamming_python Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:34 pm

    I think you're all missing the fact that really, the height has effectively stayed the same between the T-14 and previous tank generations.

    By that I mean - the height up to which a direct hit can do critical damage to the tank. It's the same.
    Whereas for the T-90/T-80/T-72 series; a hit to the turret can destroy the tank completely and/or kill/knockout the crew - the same is true for the T-14 only for a hit to the hull - which in the T-14s case reaches upto a height around about the same as the heights that the T-90/T-80/T-72 turrets reached up to.

    A hit to the T-14s turret will at the most, disable the T-14s weapons systems. The crew will still be safe, the tank will still be mobile and operable. It's repair meanwhile would only be a matter of replacing the turret module with a new one, at the worst.

    It is true that the larger height and sillhoute increases the chances of a hit, and therefore the chance of some damage or other to the tank - but in terms of potential critical damage, the chances of such a hit are still exactly the same as for the previous generation tanks.

    The larger height also means that it would be a little harder for the tank to find cover; as such cover must be higher to be able to protect the tank effectively.

    So overall; an increase in the likelyhood of a hit dealing non-critical damage to the tank, and an increase in the difficulty to find cover behind which the tank can take position and fire from.
    Really, these aren't such significant trade-offs, when you consider the advantages that the T-14s design has enabled in return.
    max steel
    max steel


    Posts : 2930
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  max steel Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:28 pm

    The US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office : Russian third generation Armata Tank Specifications

    Large-scale deliveries of the new tanks and infantry vehicles are possible in 2017-2018. The advanced T-14
    tank, a heavy infantry vehicle and an armored evacuation vehicle are being designed on the basis of Armata.

    The tank’s main armament is the 2A82 125-mm smoothbore cannon, capable of firing high-powered munitions, including armor-piercing discarding sabot, guided missile, shaped-charge, and other types of munitions.

    The composite multilayered passive armor protection of the T-14 tank is built with steel made by electroslag remelting and is combined with new composites to protect the T-14 against the most advanced modern weaponry. The T-14 also has the Afganit active protection complex, capable of intercepting shaped-charged grenades, antitank missiles, and subcaliber projectiles.

    The Armata’s active defense deserves special discussion. In fact this is an individual anti-missile and anti-projectile tank defense system. It defends the vehicle from strikes, including those from the air. Thus, even the most modern Apache helicopter will not have a 100 percent chance of destroying a T-14 with its missiles. Active defense is situated along the entire perimeter of the turret at various levels, which ensures complete protection of the tank’s most important elements.

    The crew of three men is located in an armored capsule in the forward portion of the hull of the Armata.

    According to the specialists, the forward projection has multilayered, combined armor protection which can withstand a direct hit of any type of rounds which exist today, [including] sub-caliber and cumulative rounds. In addition, the forward hemisphere is covered with an active defense system which is also able to intercept any type of antitank munition, including sub-caliber rounds, something previously believed to be impossible in principle.

    The central compartment, where the ammunition stores are located, is protected in such a manner that it is not even threatened by grenadiers who have taken cover in basements. The lower side hemispheres around the turret are shielded by counter-missiles.

    The engine and the motor and transmission compartment are located in the rear of the hull. The diesel is domestically manufactured and it has a rather unconventional construction. The published power is not less than 1,500 HP.
    The hull is extended and it has seven drive wheels, which speaks to the fact that the tank is of an enhanced weight, possibly about 50 tons.

    The combat information and control systems are constructed using modern digital technologies and domestically manufactured solid-state basic elements. The probability of hitting the target with the first shot is close to 100 percent. Constant monitoring of the status of vitally important elements is provided. This allows a possible malfunction to be predicted well before it occurs. This, in turn, significantly enhances the reliability and maintainability of the complex armored vehicle. The hull is amply provided with video cameras. They allow the crew to observe the situation all around the tank. If required, zooming can be switched on, and a distant object can be viewed in detail. Heat sensing and infrared viewing capabilities are also available under any weather conditions, day or night.

    A video allegedly shows Russia’s brand new T-14 Armata tank. The Armata tank will be officially revealed to the public during the Victory Day parade on May 9.

    It has the T-14's seven wheel design and 125mm extended length smoothbore gun.

    20 Armata units have been manufactured and issued to troops for practical training.

    Armata tanks have been included in Russia's 2015 defence order, with 2,300 to be ultimately deployed over several years.


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 11133810

    avatar
    cracker


    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  cracker Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:27 am

    It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

    By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


    fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


    By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.
    Brovich
    Brovich


    Posts : 12
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-02-25

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Brovich Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:38 am

    cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)
    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.
    The 2A82 is will be "omnivorous". It will be able to use older types of ammunition. That's pretty much half the reason to keep using the 125mm, instead of a bigger gun.
    avatar
    cracker


    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  cracker Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:50 am

    yeah, seems logical, just wasn't sure....

    and for my other questions?
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:07 am

    cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

    By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


    fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


    By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.


    You may find it ridiculous or not but the decision and design to arm tanks with 23mm gatlins or 30mm high power cannon was made because of tanks piss poor capabilities in urban environments, where big cannons like 100/120 or 125mm have no elevation nor do they have rapid fire capability to engage infantry hiding in tall buildings which are just few meters away from the tank which can rain down RPG fire and destroy the tank where it is the weakest. The harsh environment of urban warfare has on several historical battles and occasions bound militaries to use non armored vehicles to do the dirty jobs like Shilka's or the Afghansky Shilka mod, which was suited with optical targeting system so it could aim at ground targets at close but also in far and burst them, it was later used in Grozny. It does not matter what tanks you use in urban warfare in an asymmetrical warfare be it T-55, M60, Leo1/2, M1, Chally2 or whatever, they are all shit in urban warefare, they lack armament and the necessary protection. The Armata T-14 with additional armament and higher protection than any tank before are good solution to that big problem, because urban warfare how unnecessary and stupid like it seems, there are cities that needs to be held under control otherwise you will lose more than just cities, you will lose the people who will feel left to die, you will lose territory, infrastructure, resources and political power.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:30 am

    cracker wrote:
    By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

    a 30mm coax like the T-95's is definitely not senseless or useless. suddenly you now have weapon capable of efficiently defeating softskins and infantry and the need to carry HE shells for the MG just for those targets is alleviated, freeing up space for more anti-armor rounds for example.

    but for AA gun/ commander's gun i think a kord is the maximum you can do- it would be slaved to commander's panoramic sight and i dont think a small mount would be able to contain recoil from even bigger weapons.

    and yeah, 2a82(-1m?) is definitely backwards compatible.
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1511
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:14 am

    Top down diagram of the glacis. It looks about right IMO.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 1stMv
    avatar
    tanino


    Posts : 41
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-04-02
    Location : Italy

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  tanino Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:34 am

    Good job Zivo. Certain to have three men on board?
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:59 am

    tanino wrote:Good job Zivo. Certain to have three men on board?

    Yes, they enter over the commanders hatch.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1405
    Points : 1481
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:14 pm

    So..from what's available..the dimension of Armata is as follows :

    Length :8.6 m
    Width : 3.5-3.78 m
    Total Height : 2.5-2.8 m
    Hull height from track base : 1.7 m

    Are those figures acceptable. Anyway i'm going to make a 3D model of Armata (thus why i need dimensions). looks to be a nice project.

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:34 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:So..from what's available..the dimension of Armata is as follows :

    Length :8.6 m
    Width : 3.5-3.78 m
    Total Height : 2.5-2.8 m
    Hull height from track base : 1.7 m

    Are those figures acceptable. Anyway i'm going to make a 3D model of Armata (thus why i need dimensions). looks to be a nice project.


    Well those dimensions are only correct when the 700mm wheels are correct otherwise with the 670mm wheels the dimensions would be.

    length: ~ 8m
    width no picture to compare
    Turret height 810mm
    Sensor height 570mm
    Chassis height at hatch location 1,62m (but from pictures that is unlikely since all soldiers look almost smaller than the hull)

    That would make the Armata 5-10cm taller than T-90's wind sensor height with Armata's TIS.
    Regular
    Regular


    Posts : 3868
    Points : 3842
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Ukrolovestan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Regular Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:38 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

    By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


    fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


    By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.


    You may find it ridiculous or not but the decision and design to arm tanks with 23mm gatlins or 30mm high power cannon was made because of tanks piss poor capabilities in urban environments, where big cannons like 100/120 or 125mm have no elevation nor do they have rapid fire capability to engage infantry hiding in tall buildings which are just few meters away from the tank which can rain down RPG fire and destroy the tank where it is the weakest. The harsh environment of urban warfare has on several historical battles and occasions bound militaries to use non armored vehicles to do the dirty jobs like Shilka's or the Afghansky Shilka mod, which was suited with optical targeting system so it could aim at ground targets at close but also in far and burst them, it was later used in Grozny. It does not matter what tanks you use in urban warfare in an asymmetrical warfare be it T-55, M60, Leo1/2, M1, Chally2 or whatever, they are all shit in urban warefare, they lack armament and the necessary protection. The Armata T-14 with additional armament and higher protection than any tank before are good solution to that big problem, because urban warfare how unnecessary and stupid like it seems, there are cities that needs to be held under control otherwise you will lose more than just cities, you will lose the people who will feel left to die, you will lose territory, infrastructure, resources and political power.
    Tanks weren't so shit when used correctly in Secon Chechen war in Grozny or when siege of Baghdad. There are better platforms now, but for example Ukraine would be loosing BMPTs like they lost tanks.
    Dima
    Dima


    Posts : 1222
    Points : 1233
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Dima Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:04 pm

    cracker wrote:By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

    and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.
    Hope you mean the multi-barrel cannon flanking the turret as seen on the model. I personally liked that cannon attachment as I believe such an armament can be used against anti-tank missiles provided there is sufficient devices to detect and track the ATGM.

    When I see videos like the ones below of TOW flying towards the Syrian tanks I personally feel probably a multi-barrel cannon with few bursts could have stopped it. Maybe Armata cannon have such a role which could also save the cassettes of APS which then only need to be expended for the much faster moving projectiles.



    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1405
    Points : 1481
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:08 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    Well those dimensions are only correct when the 700mm wheels are correct otherwise with the 670mm wheels the dimensions would be.

    length: ~ 8m
    width no picture to compare
    Turret height 810mm
    Sensor height 570mm
    Chassis height at hatch location 1,62m (but from pictures that is unlikely since all soldiers look almost smaller than the hull)

    That would make the Armata 5-10cm taller than T-90's wind sensor height with Armata's TIS.

    In short i'll have to work on it myself. time to dig info on 2A82's gun dimension. I think if the total barrel diameter is known (It's larger than the bore of course) We can use it as better reference



    Dima wrote:
    Hope you mean the multi-barrel cannon flanking the turret as seen on the model. I personally liked that cannon attachment as I believe such an armament can be used against anti-tank missiles provided there is sufficient devices to detect and track the ATGM.

    When I see videos like the ones below of TOW flying towards the Syrian tanks I personally feel probably a multi-barrel cannon with few bursts could have stopped it. Maybe Armata cannon have such a role which could also save the cassettes of APS which then only need to be expended for the much faster moving projectiles.

    The incentive of putting autocannon (30 mm and up) To a tank is basically a mean to "save ammo" The punching power of 30mm would be able to knock anything from wall till some IFV's. allowing main gun ammo to deal with much heavier target (say another tank or hardened bunker)

    For intercepting missile however, that cannon is not sufficient first it will have limited coverage and second it will running out of ammo very quickly and third.. the 30 mm or less might be too small to house suitable proximity fuze. Anti tank missile is very small target, even smaller than anti ship missile, thus making it very difficult to hit properly with such autocannon.

    More suitable weapon is basically another missile/rocket like what Drozd and Drozd II Use or a fragmentation "grenade" Like Arena. That would be able to provide necessary coverage and blast to take down missile attack.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:09 pm

    Tanks weren't so shit when used correctly in Secon Chechen war in Grozny or when siege of Baghdad. There are better platforms now, but for example Ukraine would be loosing BMPTs like they lost tanks.

    Well i didn't speak about tactics, but it should be clear that two different tanks with exact same tactics in exact same scenario the Armata would have much better chances to fight urban warfare effectively without the need of weakly armored APC/IFV and SPAAG's to enter cities where every building can have dozens of RPG's that must be a nightmare to fight in a tank not to mention when you are sitting in a paper thin IFV because the armor won't do shit when even a WW2 Bazooka hits you from any angle.
    avatar
    Vann7


    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5485
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:15 am



    New video composition of possible interior of Armata in 3d.. and more..

    avatar
    tanino


    Posts : 41
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-04-02
    Location : Italy

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  tanino Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:19 pm

    My job (old infographics style, today ONLY HTM5 INTERACTIVE on WEB) for IVECO DEFENCE.
    I'm waiting to collect data and images of the T-14. Then, if you want, I create interactive infographic and publish it on the forum?

    https://servimg.com/view/19195865/1

    as a collective project!

    Ok?

    ciao from Italy.
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Viktor Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:28 pm

    Interesting picture and article from Gur Khan blog - @Mindstorm have you any comments regarding height?

    Im not sure but Kruganets height seems a bit off?!

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 UDnF3ib

    LINK

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:52 am