[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Vympel wrote:

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.

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



(с)Денис Давыдоv

Vann7 wrote: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.

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 .

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..

Werewolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:

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.

Normally I would agree... but with an autotracker and an autoloader and therefore just needing to place the aim point on the target and fire the gun the gunners job is largely automated and could be performed by the fire control system while the driver drives and the commander continues to search for targets....

Strizh wrote:

 Does it looks like that there is a hatch on top of the turret and the turret is not unmanned?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Strizh wrote:

 Does it looks like that there is a hatch on top of the turret and the turret is not unmanned?

Even for an unmanned turret you most probably have to have service hatches and ammunition replenishment hatches.

Also the hatch is right behind the gun, not a suitable location for human presence, ingress, or egress.

PapaDragon wrote:

Dima wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

From this angle turret definitely looks like that scale model on the table...  

Strizh wrote:

 Does it looks like that there is a hatch on top of the turret and the turret is not unmanned?

KoTeMoRe wrote:There is a suspicious cutaway of the tarp. ON the turret...like a bulkhead.

Stealthflanker wrote:The image of Armata being transported by that KAMAZ 65525 was really helpful. put it in to corel draw and make some "measurement" based on it. So..

The total length of Armata is around 9.5-10 meter, Hull length is 8 m, width is 3 m without ballistic skirt and 3.45m with ballistic skirt, total height is 2.9-3 m, roadwheel diameter is indeed the same 670mm as T-80. Turret length is 4 meter with 2.72 m wide though may not be accurate since it's still under tarps.

Looks reasonable enough for me. but i would love to see better estimate.

flamming_python wrote:Wouldn't it be funny if they revealed that the Armata MBT doesn't actually have an unmanned turret after all