[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

The new NERA is as effective as new ERA with the bonus that there is zero chance of sympathetic detonation of adjacent tiles and it can be used on light vehicles too... in that sense it supersedes ERA by offering the same performance without the disadvantages... and I can assure you it does not consist of two sheets of steel with rubber in the middle.

Of course. Instead it consists of two sheets of "insert preferred type of metal here" with "insert your exotic filler material name here" in the middle. The mechanism of operation of NERA, has not changed since its inception. In fact, there is less variation in NERA designs than there is of ERA designs, since NERA has to use a certain physical principle which causes a buckling of the outside plates due to the hydrostatic shock waves within the filler material. The best you can do with NERA is to change the filler material (such as in various soviet tanks, where everything from rubber to quartz was used) or to sandwich a multitude of such NERA layers (such as in T-72B).
However, with ERA, we have everything from moving plates to cumulative jets.

Counter moving armour plates that induce yaw and/or shear the kinetic penetrator (Kontakt-5), or shearing the kinetic penetrator via cumulative "knives" (Nozh) is much more effective than whatever NERA can offer.

ERA uses explosive for that effect... NERA does the same thing, but using the energy of the projectile to get the same effect.  

The problem is that this effect is not as powerful. I remember looking at a graph that had a comparison of the penetrating qualities of kinetic and chemical penetrators after passing through NERA/ERA, with the ERA being the most effective at reducing the penetrating qualities. I think up to 90%. In comparison, the best NERA designs achieve 60-70%.
If you are interested in more information about dynamic (ERA+NERA) armour design concepts, google for: "ОСНОВНЫЕ НАПРАВЛЕНИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ЗАЩИТНЫХ УСТРОЙСТВ ДИНАМИЧЕСКОГО ТИПА, ПРОБЛЕМЫ, ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ"
Also, to see more data about NERA designs (comparison of effects of different filler materials + comparison with ERA), google for: "Принципиальные особенности функционирования ЗУДТ невзрывного действия"

Are they going to mount ERA/NERA tiles right beneath the angled NERA/ERA tiles above the engine exhaust pipe, because there is a spot unprotected?

It's soo beautiful...top notch.

Werewolf wrote:Are they going to mount ERA/NERA tiles right beneath the angled NERA/ERA tiles above the engine exhaust pipe, because there is a spot unprotected?

That's a good question. By extrapolation of the fact that at each public appearance of this vehicle its armour coverage seems to be significantly iterated upon, we can assume that this is still not the final state of the vehicle that is going to be presented on the 9th of May.
Even after that day, I still expect modifications in the external armour modules of this vehicle as a result of testing and throughout its service.

Acheron wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Are they going to mount ERA/NERA tiles right beneath the angled NERA/ERA tiles above the engine exhaust pipe, because there is a spot unprotected?

That's a good question. By extrapolation of the fact that at each public appearance of this vehicle its armour coverage seems to be significantly iterated upon, we can assume that this is still not the final state of the vehicle that is going to be presented on the 9th of May.
Even after that day, I still expect modifications in the external armour modules of this vehicle as a result of testing and throughout its service.

I really hope so. When looking at the T-15 armor it seems like it lacks NERA/ERA on top near the engine compartment door, i hope they give both the engine compartment door and the gaps from it to the sideskirts to smoothen it up and providing more protection.

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/353888.html

Can anybody post a translation of this?

rtech wrote:http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/353888.html

Can anybody post a translation of this?

In two words - mad ukr.

well .. i know many will not like me to say any negative opinion about armata design..
but anyway..

Well. for me it looks like Armata pretty much was designed by Amateurs ,with zero experience
in aesthetics.. when it comes to visual look of the armored vehicles.. with the exception of
boomeran and koalition..  T-15 and T-14.. if it was a contest of exterior design.. will get
a score of 4 of 10.  that is not horrible but very amateurish.  Specially the T-15.. that you don't know whether the vehicle is finished or if it is missing parts.

If they all cared was protection.. they could have saved a ton of money by just changing the turret of T-90 for the armata turret.. and try to get all vehicles to use the T-90 body.. Is a mystery for me why they bother changing drastically so much the exterior design of T-90 , for a tank like armata.. if it was going to look so amateurish the design ,they could just attach things  on top the tank and be happy with it..


i mean if all they care is protection..functionality , why not just attach things on top of an
already decent design like T-90 ?

there is also serious design issues in armata ..that pose a major danger to soldiers lives outside.. for example the barbeque grill protecting the air vents on the sides of T-14.. are too far from the tank, If the tank moves , while soldiers are very near the tank.. they will get impaled or dismembered an arm by the grill. if that is the final version of Armata t-14 then definitively is a really bad design..  and t-15 looks like they just slapped covers on the sides to make it look like weird plane.  i really don't understand what the were thinking with such
protection placed that way.. covers only half .

when it comes to protection and weapons ,im sure Armata will beat anything the west have..
but when it comes to design it aesthetics is very amateurish ..  I don't think it was done by a computer at all.. the maintainance of Armata will be a nightmare too ,with so many holes ,open surfaces , spaces and mis aligned things.. specially if the tank enter in a swamp or mud.. they will need to remove the active protection to clean that tank. soldiers will have to be careful not to get their clothing or weapons stuck in armata reactive armor or the grill.

Anyway disappointed with the designers of Armata ,looks like their first tank .. or maybe the final version of the tank will be much different its design.. it doesn't look like anything we saw on the first page..models in plastic, that looked very modern and futuristic.

T-14 looks totally different to the plastic models they had in display for generals.
Something that really looked like a future tank..



any case im sure the tank protection will be best in the world.. and this is what really matters
in the end..

rtech wrote:http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/353888.html

Can anybody post a translation of this?

Using Google translate..

Opinion about the new Russian tanks "Armata"

Apr. 23rd, 2015 at 9:49 PM
tadz
Demonstration of two dozen cars on the basis of "Almaty was" - heavy tank and infantry combat vehicles is a serious claim of the Russian Federation (as the receiver of the USSR) to restore parity in tank development with the countries of the west. As it is well known to the mass appearance of tanks "Abrams", "Leopard 2", and later, and "Leclerc" position of the USSR moved from the leader to catch up. Projects future tanks late 80s reached the level of the working time for the disintegration of the USSR, and not to the tank then was sold all that is possible, on the verge of survival.
Immediately, I note that the question now is not about a huge margin, revolution and so on. It's about achieving KVTU foreign tanks (the latest versions of "Abrams" and "Leopard-2") with the planned superiority of VTU 25-30%.
True it will not be soon, those that know the history of compliance with the terms in at least 8-10 years.

From recent history is known and the same BMP-3, which required two decades of operational development and a series of more than 1000 units, and at first was the record for unreliability in the history of post-war tank USSR. Helped foreign customers. Without them, the machine would not take place. And the development of the T-34, T-54, T-64 and its modifications confirms the data as possible. Also known story of the transition to a new type of slave BPS "Hope" took 8 years. And the same alloy core required length of residence permit and, until recently, could not "pull", but he is not so great in comparison with the West. The same situation and now expects. The story of the same with the new BPS BV lasted from the end of the 80's and never ended.

Presented 20 items of course at this stage do not pass any test, in fact, the story resembles a demonstration in the prewar years, pre-production samples, which will require long-term operational development.
It is in question whether the ideology of a step in the right (particularly for the Russian Federation) direction. In my opinion - no.
In the history of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation have been sectors that have never been, to put it mildly, leading. That when Peter first, that under Stalin, Yeltsin and anyone else, such as the road was in trouble.
With electronics the same story, it is especially important for the tank "Armata", given to him chosen ideology, which did not dare to even the most developed countries in the field of electronics. What to say if the serial thermal imaging cameras in the Russian Federation, mounted on tanks, still come from France.
By the way, the ideology of "Almaty was" not new, was considered as an option, and in the 70s and 80s in the development of the new tank.

he is basically saying Russia lags behind the west in tanks ,in electronics in Night Vision..
and everything else.. in other words the West > Russia. and he goes as far to compare Armata with T80U ,how the protection capsule is nothing new.

That's interesting. The last roadwheel is raised from the ground...

Vann7 wrote:well .. i know many will not like me to say any negative opinion about armata design..
but anyway..

Well. for me it looks like Armata pretty much was designed by Amateurs ,with zero experience
in aesthetics.. when it comes to visual look of the armored vehicles.. with the exception of
boomeran and koalition..  T-15 and T-14.. if it was a contest of exterior design.. will get
a score of 4 of 10.  that is not horrible but very amateurish.  Specially the T-15.. that you don't know whether the vehicle is finished or if it is missing parts.

How something looks is absolutley irrelevant to its combat effeciency. We don't see all vehicles fitted with all applique armor and ERA tiles but we certainly know that they will have them in place either at 9th May or later. How do i know that? Because we have seen "everything" already to fill those gaps of left out NERA/ERA tiles.

Vann7 wrote:
If they all cared was protection.. they could have saved a ton of money by just changing the turret of T-90 for the armata turret.. and try to get all vehicles to use the T-90 body.. Is a mystery for me why they bother changing drastically so much the exterior design of T-90 , for a tank like armata..

That would be not possible, due the limitation of the T-90 chassis, it just has not necessary interior space to make armor at front thick enough then make armor it from side and from behind next to the autoloader carousel compartment, it just has not enough space to make it work.

Vann7 wrote:
if it was going to look so amateurish the design ,they could just attach things  on top the tank and be happy with it..

Attach what things on top of the tank?
The top of the tank already has RWS, APS, Counter Measures and optics maybe radar.

Vann7 wrote:
i mean if all they care is protection..functionality , why not just attach things on top of an
already decent design like T-90 ?

That is called T-90AM and they are doing it, but there are limitations to everything. Military industry and technologies are like hermit crabs, if you want to grow you need to get a new shell. The tank itself is not bigger, not in the dangerzone of common AT weapon hitzone.

Vann7 wrote:
there is also serious design issues in armata ..that pose a major danger to soldiers lives outside.. for example the barbeque grill protecting the air vents on the sides of T-14.. are too far from the tank, If the tank moves , while soldiers are very near the tank.. they will get impaled or dismembered an arm by the grill.

You watch to much gorey movies? Slat armor needs a certain distance from armor to reduce the chances of HEAT weapons detonating and forming an optimal penetrator, distance is key for that. Money doesn't grow on trees and russias budget isn't overblown like some others, so they use slat armor on the backside of the tank because it is less likely to be hit.

Vann7 wrote:
if that is the final version of Armata t-14 then definitively is a really bad design..

 

It is not the final vehicle that was mentioned more than once. They will get all the remaining stuff later, those pictures are not even official, just people shooting pictures whenever they can, nothing official about them.

Vann7 wrote:
and t-15 looks like they just slapped covers on the sides to make it look like weird plane.  i really don't understand what the were thinking with such
protection placed that way.. covers only half .

First you bitch about slat armor on Armata T-14 over the exhaust pipes of engine now you bitch about the best possible protection for engine with NERA/ERA tiles.

Vann7 wrote:
when it comes to protection and weapons ,im sure Armata will beat anything the west have..
but when it comes to design it aesthetics is very amateurish ..  

You know that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and is not something dogmatic? Many have said they like it. I prefer T-90A because it looks awesome, but i do like T-14 aswell.

Vann7 wrote:
I don't think it was done by a computer at all.. the maintainance of Armata will be a nightmare too ,with so many holes ,open surfaces , spaces and mis aligned things.. specially if the tank enter in a swamp or mud.. they will need to remove the active protection to clean that tank.

What holes? What open "surfaces"? What are you talking about?

If any tank enters mud or swamp it will be cleaned in the most common way, they drive several times through water pools they have on training grounds untill it is clean or major dirt is gone. It is much simplier than you make it. Problem becomes only when tank driver leaves his hatch open and then drives through mud then he will have a shitty day to clean up.

Vann7 wrote:
soldiers will have to be careful not to get their clothing or weapons stuck in armata reactive armor or the grill.

Only if they and their personal equipment is made of slimy goo that is attracted to mm wide gaps.

Vann7 wrote:
Anyway disappointed with the designers of Armata ,looks like their first tank .. or maybe the final version of the tank will be much different its design.. it doesn't look like anything we saw on the first page..models in plastic, that looked very modern and futuristic.

Does this resemble more the turret of the tank model or not?


Compared to that?

Based on that

That's interesting. The last roadwheel is raised from the ground...

Could be from rapid moving, you know when car is stopped or when it adjusts its gears then sometimes it jerks and since the engine is at the front it could be the case.

Or the engine is fat along with armor.

You are probably right with the breaking idea, seeing thtat the track has far less tension at the front and it's sagging.

Werewolf wrote:

That's interesting. The last roadwheel is raised from the ground...

Could be from rapid moving, you know when car is stopped or when it adjusts its gears then sometimes it jerks and since the engine is at the front it could be the case.

Or the engine is fat along with armor.

Go look carefully the armata MBT in miniatory plastic model in the table in previous image
and compare it with Armata the real one.. with all things and all armor.. You will notice the
plastic model with clean smooth surfaces ,everything perfectly aligned ,no grill on the vents too far from the tank.. becoming a danger for anyone near..could get stuck or seriously injured if they move near the tank for cover and get stuck in the grill.

Anyway i think is possible the final design they will tweak Armata exterior to be more uniform and rounded .. or possibly is a price thing.. to make it as simple as possible to lower the cost of the tank.. T-90am.. have a much more smoother and fluid surfaces . as if it was one unified
surface.




So i think possibly we are only seeing the prototypes of armata and the serial version will
have more uniform design . Maintainnance is also important of any tank..and not always you will have facilities near for it.. So the more uniform and closed are the surfaces the far easier
the maintainaces of the tank.

I think it's due to braking as well...

As for looks, personally the more I see of the T-14 the more I like it. Looks very solid. We'll have to wait for the turret but I suspect it will be something like the model posted above. ....the T-90 now looks like a toy in comparison

I Find the 90AM to be one of the best looking tanks of today, if not the best ever... The T-14 is no slouch either, and will become more refined over the production process. Not like looks matter anyway, Vann.... 

The reason the AM looks so "refined and rounded" is because of the basically appliqué ERA that is everywhere.

Put a tarp over the turret of the T-90MS and it will look like the T-14

Just gonna live this here....



(с)Денис Давыдоv

Dat engine deck....

Stealthflanker wrote:Hmm anyone complain about T-15's unusually long add-on armor "beak" ? It creates hull overhang which detrimental for obstacles climbing.

At the very least it seems to be sufficiently uplifted... We'll have to see trials to judge whether if it is a problem or not.

poor asphalt ...


and, this view gives a new dimension to the turret, nice

Thanks to otvaga guys again!

alexZam wrote:Just gonna live this here....



(с)Денис Давыдоv

Now we're getting somewhere....thanks for sharing

Two more pics from TASS HERE >>

TACC wrote:New Armata tanks roll through Red Square in May 9 parade rehearsal

xeno wrote:

TR1 wrote:http://topwar.ru/index.php?do=lastcomments&userid=60226

Intersting info from Alex, overall a relatively reliable "insider":

-152mm WILL be on the tank, but not right away. And it will be electrochemical, and has already been financed by the MOD.
-Tanks are not final products, half of the ones already made will be sent to Kubinka to be flogged the other back to UVZ. This includes the T-15.
-Protection.....make of this what you will, but I just translating what he said:
-traditional  ERA has become outdated in terms of potential
-instead they will use 'electro, plasma polymers, graphene" <--------anyone with a background should comment here.
-APS will be very advanced, multi-shot, with automatic reloading.
-Electrical transmission
-Claims crew in the next 5-6 years will be cut down to 2- FOR SURE.
-45mm has been chosen as firm replacement for 30mm- already has started testing with new rounds- YAY
-Armata program so far has full funding, no sequester.

Anyways yeah.
The guy has generally been proven more right than GurKhan has in their big Armata debate....how much of the above will come to fruition I cannot say.

Like a dream if were true...

BTW, can you clarify "-Electrical transmission" does he mean Armata has it now or in the future?

Like a dream? That depends. A lot of it sounds great. 2 man crew? No. Driving, fighting, and commanding the tank is too much work for two men.