Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    2SPOOKY4U
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Wed May 06, 2015 3:29 am

    chicken wrote:What is the equivalent of Shtora in the T-14?


    What do you mean by Shtora?

    Shtora was a comprehensive system made up of LWR, Smoke, IR jammers, etc.

    The systems on the T-14 may not have direct equivalents, but when put together, are far superior to anything in the world.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 06, 2015 3:45 am

    AbsoluteZero wrote:[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Fne79lgyZu8
    damn, looks so fcking edgy i nearly zandatsu'd myself looking at it. Cool
    avatar
    chicken

    Posts : 109
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  chicken on Wed May 06, 2015 4:30 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    chicken wrote:What is the equivalent of Shtora in the T-14?


    What do you mean by Shtora?

    Shtora was a comprehensive system made up of LWR, Smoke, IR jammers, etc.

    The systems on the T-14 may not have direct equivalents, but when put together, are far superior to anything in the world.

    What is T-14's defense against laser designators? The Epoha lite on the Kurganets has a small 'dazzler' while the Epoha lite on the T-15 does not.
    2SPOOKY4U
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Wed May 06, 2015 4:47 am

    chicken wrote:
    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    chicken wrote:What is the equivalent of Shtora in the T-14?


    What do you mean by Shtora?

    Shtora was a comprehensive system made up of LWR, Smoke, IR jammers, etc.

    The systems on the T-14 may not have direct equivalents, but when put together, are far superior to anything in the world.

    What is T-14's defense against laser designators? The Epoha lite on the Kurganets has a small 'dazzler' while the Epoha lite on the T-15 does not.

    T-14's defense against laser designators are the metric ton of obscurant dispensers you see on the turret.

    Those dazzlers don't work against laser designators btw, they are meant to act as a non-depletable countermeasure against the flare-collimators of missiles like TOW, HOT, etc.
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2268
    Points : 2359
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed May 06, 2015 5:32 am

    Response from the West

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150505/1021737323.html

    Anybody know who is Grant Fisher from Brum, UK ?
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed May 06, 2015 5:57 am

    higurashihougi wrote:Response from the West

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150505/1021737323.html

    Anybody know who is Grant Fisher from Brum, UK ?

    Perhaps he might be one member of military forum like us.

    Anyway.. such response are expected. I've seen ppl comparing Armata with some old US concept like Tank Block III.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7590
    Points : 7987
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Austin on Wed May 06, 2015 6:08 am

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 20150505032529
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7590
    Points : 7987
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Austin on Wed May 06, 2015 6:09 am

    I am a bit confused some says the red box are Smoke Generator and Yellow one are APS ?

    Can some one clarify ?
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2732
    Points : 2887
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed May 06, 2015 6:18 am

    Austin wrote:I am a bit confused some says the red box are Smoke Generator and Yellow one are APS ?

    Can some one clarify ?

    I think we're all a little confused and are trying to work things out Very Happy




    cracker wrote:There is definitely no coaxial MG.... Sad

    They rely entirely on the RCWS station with the tiny PKT. Hope it's just prototype stage.

    Yes there is...it's paired with the main gun as usual. There's a small slit to the right of the main gun

    ________________________


    Regarding the APS system and top attack munitions, some info from a 2013 article on various APS including Afganit.


    Armored vehicles based on this platform will be equipped with active protection system "Afganit" — special charges allow you to deal with projectiles and missiles of the enemy at close range, no more than 15-20 m. in fact, this is a individual anti missile/AP shells defense system of the tank. It protects the machine from strikes, including from the air.

    From public sources of information known about the millimeter range of its radar, the middle line interception and a top speed of interception APFSDS – 1700 m/s. nevertheless, we can assume that, unlike domestic and foreign predecessors, in "Afganit" for the first time are planning to use protective ammunition with a shock core, described in Russian patent RU 2263268.

    The launcher consists of a mast, rotating in a vertical and horizontal plane.

    Additional guidance impact of the ammunition on the target by using the programmed initiation of one of the fuses arranged in a matrix form on the back of the block of explosive warhead.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 1376047097_16-afganit


    On the one hand, this innovative solution is the most effective for hitting a small speed APFSDS. On the other hand, the use of compact percussion kernel instead of a spatial stream of fragments requires a higher level of accuracy by the radar and fire control system APS.

    Before the prospective active protection systems is even more difficult task of intercepting high-speed kinetic missiles and percussion cores at a speed of approach of from 2500 to 3000 m/s. If we assume the best reaction time achieved in APS "Zaslon" to be 0.001 seconds, then the minimum line interception can be estimated at 4 meters (with a reserve).

    This means that all potentially dangerous projectiles/missiles/rocket propelled grenades flying over the roof of the turret below the specified height, must be caught at the earliest possible distance in relation to the combat vehicle.

    Source: http://topwar.ru/31710-sistemy-aktivnoy-zaschity-bronetehniki.html


    They even talk about engaging rockets fired from MRLS armed with tungsten projectiles and AHEAD type ammunition by coordinating the APS from several Armata vehicles
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed May 06, 2015 6:29 am

    Austin wrote:I am a bit confused some says the red box are Smoke Generator and Yellow one are APS ?

    Can some one clarify ?

    Well for now, both in the yellow and red boxes can be assumed as part of APS components.

    Me however inclined to believe that the red box is "hardkill" part of the APS, it contain munitions that can engage and destroy inbound ATGM's in flight. Those tubes are quite large in comparison with smaller tubes at the yellow box.

    The yellow box, is the smoke grenade discharger. The smoke grenade however may contain obscurant mix similar as Shtora's 3D117 that will interfere with inbound ATGM's seeker including top attack one.
    Zhukov-Patton
    Zhukov-Patton

    Posts : 13
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2015-03-30
    Location : USA

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zhukov-Patton on Wed May 06, 2015 6:35 am

    Cool tank. russia Just sent a fleet of M1A1s to the scrap yards. Twisted Evil Any idea how many will come out? A lot of the western comments on it are interesting.
    Kind of funny the people who respect the T-14 have better English then the Americans defending the Abrams or explaining why tanks don't matter any more. Rolling Eyes Regardless it should do well when will an export variant show up for sale and any ideas who will want to buy?
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 06, 2015 6:46 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Austin wrote:I am a bit confused some says the red box are Smoke Generator and Yellow one are APS ?

    Can some one clarify ?

    Well for now, both in the yellow and red boxes  can be assumed as part of APS components.

    Me however inclined to believe that the red box is "hardkill" part of the APS, it contain munitions that can engage and destroy inbound ATGM's in flight.  Those tubes are quite large in comparison with smaller tubes at the yellow box.

    The yellow box, is the smoke grenade discharger. The smoke grenade however may contain obscurant mix similar as Shtora's 3D117 that will interfere with inbound ATGM's seeker including top attack one.

    the big tubes are the hardkill, specially made for long rods. the article says the hardkill countermeasure is shock core based - prolly blast wave.
    it then makes sense for it to be in a big ass tube (as big as 125mm lel) if it wants to pack a lot of explosives- and propellant, since it has to race as fast as possible to the intercept point if it has any chance of beating long rods. not only that, the tubes are positioned in a forward facing 60 deg. arc - in a tank duel where it is engaging another MBT this is optimal.

    and besides nobody's shooting long rods from the top- why are there supposedly "APS" boxes full of long rod interceptors buried within on top of the turret in T-14? it only makes sense that those are obscurant, and could also be decoy, emp - basically softkill grenade dischargers- and they do look about the same as the past obscurant grenades.
    tho ofc. you can always swap some of those with real live frag grenades - theyll dud an RPG or even ATGM good if they explode nearby.
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4449
    Points : 4553
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Wed May 06, 2015 7:33 am


    Zhukov-Patton wrote:any ideas who will want to buy?

    Almost everyone will want an armata.. even USA.. to test their Abram against armata.. lol1
    But don't think Russia will sell to anyone who wants.. Smile

    Potential Buyers that Russia can agree to sell.. (Because everyone will want an Armata for
    country defense or testing).

    Then India is the most ideal buyer for them.. India already have lke near 1,000 T-90 tanks from Russia.. Algeria too.. and IRAN.. Belarus for sure will want and Kazakistan a few of them too..
    Vietnam.. North Korea will love to buy them.. and in Latin America ,i can see sales there too.
    Like Peru or Brazil.. Cuba could buy a dozen..for parades.. they love military hardware.. and new technology always helps morale of an army.. even if never used.. to know they have very modern technology always helps the morale .. Honestly i can see Russia selling as many they can make.. if the tanks works as they advertised.. But Russia will not be able to sell to everyone
    for security reasons.. So probably only India and IRAN and Vietnam will get them.. But it will take time .. because Russia alone needs 2,200 armata T-14 tanks.. i can see India buying 1,000 of them too.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2732
    Points : 2887
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed May 06, 2015 9:00 am

    APS coverage...according to this, only the rear is unprotected

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 H6Oyt
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23653
    Points : 24193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 06, 2015 9:08 am

    I'm disappointed they didn't find a way to make the turret smaller.

    Making it smaller just means everything inside it would be packed closer together so a penetrating hit would be more likely to take out several systems.

    Nevertheless the NSVT is too weak to be put on any modern vehicle other than an MRAP or jeep. Why the hell would they do that instead of making a RWS with the equally combat proven and far more powerful KPVT?

    I suspect it will be Kord rather than NSVT... and for many targets 12.7mm is good enough with a lighter weapon with less recoil.

    Even better it would've been to put a low velocity 23mm EGT, something completely feasible given the size of both the bumarang and kurganets.

    They are showing it with Kord at the moment, but it is possible they might convert to a different calibre later on...

    You might tell me that zany gadgets and automations will counteract the NSVT's lack of firepower but that doesn't adress range and armor piercing capability, something only imprved with a bigger gun.

    Against many battlefield targets 12.7 is already over kill.

    But it's still a bittersweet moment knowing that most of the weapons equpped are weaker than they should've been...

    Just consider them an indication... over the life span of the vehicles there will be armament changes.. even just from 125mm to 152mm eventually and of course 30mm to 45mm...

    The exciting thing is that it seems to be a modular add-on. So perhaps an autocannon could be attached, or a gatling gun, array of RPO missiles, MANPAD fitting, or whatever else might be called for.

    Or a 57mm belt fed grenade launcher...

    EDIT: That might explain early public "premiere". Not all parts are there yet.

    Or it is the exciting and erotic strip tease of the removal of canvas and then the attachment of the wooden leg and glass eye... clown

    Is obvious that for the Russians aesthetics means shit for them..

    German WWII uniforms were widely considered some of the best looking... in Stalingrad however soldiers found kit designed for looks rather than function could be lethal to the user.

    The barbeque Grill extended on the sides ,looks cheap as hell..and it even fails in ergonomics because people caught in a small arm fire ,that seeks cover from the tank will have to be really careful to not be impaled by the vent grill if the tank in motion.. Honestly i will have fired the designers team of armata.. Is not a disaster ,but it

    Only a fuckwit would seek cover beside an operational tank. A driver generally has pathetic vision very close to the tank and could decide at any time to turn or move forward or backwards... getting caught on the grill will be the least of your worries when 57 tons of tank crushes you into a sloppy red paste.

    Even if it doesn't move if it turns its main gun to the side and fires a round at a distant threat you will likely get barbecued faster than a sole fillet on a hot grill.

    that tiny turret with holes doesn't look like will survive a direct hit of any M1a2 tank.. with so few armor ..

    What do you mean survive? an APFSDS round and a HEAT round will both punch a neat little 60mm hole through the turret... in one side and out the other. there is no ammo or fuel or crewmen to hit... what are you expecting that penetration to achieve?

    it give the impression a single sabot hit in the turret is all that it takes to put out of combat the tank..

    How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

    And why do you think making it smaller would make it safer?

    Smaller means things crammed closer together... all the things needing to be in there will still be there but cramming them into a smaller turret just increases the chances that lots of things will be hit when the turret is penetrated instead of less things.

    How is that better?

    overall the tank looks was done by Amateurs and people with not much experience in design.. Russia should have hired a french designed to correct

    Brilliant idea... Attention the worlds press... we wanted to show the world our new concept armour designs this year but unfortunately they wont be ready because of sanctions from France... brilliant idea Vann... perhaps Russia should get some ideas on developing new ICBMs from the French too?

    They wont f&(*^ing work but everyone will agree they will look pretty and that is what is important.Rolling Eyes

    the fail ergonomics and questionable design of the tank..

    WTF does aesthetics have to do with ergonomics?

    Notice the side of Leclerc tank.. it follows a fluid design and do not have the barbeque side grill
    extended..so people get stuck ,or wounded if tank in motion.

    Hahaha... the barbecue grill is on the turret... 2m above the ground... I would think most infantry would not give a fk about the turret and be a bit more worried about those tracks at ground level...

    This are very basic things that in
    the west Engineering is practiced.. Ergonomics ,for safe interaction of people with machines or technology.. the leclerk was done like a modular tank..


    Actually ergonomics is about human machine interaction, so grills are actually a good thing... it is something you can grab and hold onto to prevent being dragged under the vehicles tracks and crushed to death.

    will stand a chance to take a direct hit of any sabot round of nato tanks. we will see..

    And while NATO tanks are punching 60mm holes in the Armata turret the crew and ammo and fuel are totally unharmed and firing back blowing the fk out of those western super tanks.

    If the western tankers are dumb enough to want to shoot holes in the armata tanks turret let them... they can do it all day if they like... it wont effect the mobility of the armata and it probably wont effect its ability to fire back and will be zero risk to the crew.

    I hope the Armata performance is far better than its amateurish design.

    Clearly the opinion of a man who doesn't understand the reasoning behind the concept of the unmanned turret...

    Sorry if i missed the discussion if it happened earlier, but what do you think the large aperture next to the cannon on the left is for? Maybe a coaxial cannon that was not ready yet? Optronics/electronics?

    Will be gunners sight behind armoured doors.


    That's a Nagmachon (APC based on the Centurion hull) with an armored OT.

    That turret looks like something you'd see on Lord of the Rings on the back of a giant elephant...

    They must be party room turrets with a mirror ball hanging from the ceiling.

    Indeed... all enormous turrets with strong frontal armour but fairly weak side and rear armour and hollow cavities inside with vulnerable crewmen to kill and maim... yeah that is much better... Rolling Eyes


    The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

    Of course... you have worked out their secret... it is made completely out of sheet metal... they left the canvas covers on for so long so they could remove the Mecano logos off all the bits...

    When fitted with Nakidka-2 there wont be any gaps or IR signature for Javelin to track.

    So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

    Why? To protect what? The odds on getting a direct hit on the main gun is tiny so why bother?

    If western tanks can just take out Russian tanks by blowing up their guns why can't Russian tanks do the same? You do realise the gun barrel and gun mantlet on all tanks world wide are weak points no matter the paper thickness of the turret front armour?

    What i would like to hear from the tank designers.. confirmation that the turret was made to survive direct hits of western Sabot rounds.. That the tank will work and gun continue firing
    if hit by one sabot round.. and not depends on APS for its survival.

    Why wouldn't it survive direct hits? what can a direct hit do to stop it even if it penetrates there is no ammo or fuel or crew there...

    That will be an imbalanced tank.. For me tanks needs to be balanced and not only protect people but also the tank too.. because practically speaking people can be easily replaced but
    a destroyed tank not.

    Well how about I play the devils advocate... the Abrams is crap... It doesn't look pretty. All that armour protecting the crew and the ammo but such weak armour around the rear of the turret and engine. No armour protecting the tracks. Even just a 14.5mm HMG burst will take a track completely off and the Abrams is a sitting duck... shoot off both tracks and then causally wander around the rear and shoot into the engine bay with that 14.5mm gun with AP and incendary rounds and the engine will soon be on fire and the whole vehicle will burn out... with just 14.5mm ammo... that is worse than a WWII tank. The Americans need to get tank design advice from the Swiss... they know how to make a nice kettle and could give those Americans a lot of good advice on how to make their tanks at least HMG proof. Twisted Evil

    So what are the final specs of Armata T-14 tanks ? the official numbers in protection and
    how it works..everything that there is to know..all those things already released?

    A pulsed battle laser in the 40 megawatt range...

    So does it have blow off panels for carousel loaded ammunition?

    Hard to say... with no crew in that section they might have an aggressive fire suppression system...

    So turret has a hatch, a

    Likely for maintainence and loading ammo.

    but if your turret gets penetrated at each engagement, leading to loss of operational capability (IE you can't fight back), the result is the same as you losing the crew to a penetration.

    Duplication of critical components with localised armour... ie firewalls separating items so a penetration will only damage what has actually been penetrated.

    ERA is the king of applique armor, most effective and much less expensive than repairing main armor.

    So if it is so easy to fit... why not wait until May 9th to fit it?

    Leopard 2 use spaced armour for the same function, spaced armour has less defense effect than ERA but it does not cause collateral damage to adjacents infantries.

    Old ERA was a threat to infantry... newer stuff is not. When they adapted it to work on APFSDS rounds they also reduced the HE content so the ERA brick remains intact and does not even set off nearby bricks... another important feature of newer ERA.

    I'm really starting to think that the "smoke launchers" might be dual-loaded with smoke and hard-kill APS shells.

    They do look like Drozd launchers...

    Then is not required that each tank have full 360 coverage . as long there is more than one tank and they are not all looking in same direction.. just 45 angles difference will be enough to cover
    more than 180 degrees. If a tank is hit from the rear door.. then indeed they are doing something wrong ,specially when armata reverse speed is the same as forward.

    APS coverage was not 360 degree with original ARENA or original DROZD. With it mounted on the turret however it could turn to cover any direction needed.

    The more I look at the Armata, the more I see the Israeli attempt to have one platform for all tasks (although the Israelis had many issues, including the cancelling of the Sholef SPG).

    A vehicle family designed for a range of tasks reminds you of an attempt by another country to do the same... OK...

    For an unmanned turret, it is actually rather large. Perhaps this was due to aesthetic choices. But if form follows function then
    what is taking up the space?

    Critical internal components will likely be well spaced apart and duplicated, and of course the hatch on top for human access for reloading and maintainence...

    I suspect it also contain IR and other form of obscurant material to help "decoy" or confuse inbound top attack munition. Making it a "softkill" system. Leaving the larger "tubes" around the turret for other threats.

    That would work, but a laser mounted in the panoramic sight with DIRCMs capabilities would be a longer term lower emission solution to optically guided threats...

    and no matter how thick armor is, having proper shape significantly adds to the protection efficiency. That's just basic physics.

    Angled armour plate will increase the effective thickness of armour but only full calibre penetrators are deflected by angled plate.

    Someone comes up with a new seeker and your entire system is useless!

    There is always a race between measure and countermeasure... a new guidance method simply requires a new grenade mix... it is usually cheaper to deploy a grenade than the weapon it is to defend against.

    I am sure that they are able to come up with a modern APS, no doubt. It's not like that they didn't know about top attack missiles but that they simply didn't give a fuck about it...

    So they go to the expense and trouble to develop four new generations of vehicles with unmanned turrets and armoured capsules to protect the crew and don't bother to fit an APS system that can look up...

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  max steel on Wed May 06, 2015 9:29 am

    Armata Tank Leaves Western Readers Awe-Struck, Causes Heated Discussion




    Russia's new Armata tank is set to undergo trials in 2016. Uralvagonzavod is expected to supply over 2,300 of the new tanks to the Russian military by 2020. Faster than an Abrams . T-14 Armata also could become "fully robotic," Russia's RT news reported . The new tank will weigh 48 tons and could hit speeds of more than 50 miles per hour, according to a spec sheet released by Russia's TASS news agency and translated by the U.S. Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. The three-person tank will be able to fire up to 12 rounds per minute from a 125 mm main gun that can fire multiple types of munitions, including guided missiles, with a range topping out at 8,000 meters.

    High-tech highlights include circular-view cameras, a heat sensor and the Afganit active protection complex, which reportedly uses radar[Ref-#1] to detect incoming threats and destroys them with a rocket.
    Abrams variants weigh in between 65 and 70 tons, according to General Dynamics Land Systems spec sheets, with a top speed of just more than 40 mph.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150505/1021737323.html#ixzz3ZLP4sj1k
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 06, 2015 9:38 am

    ^^^sure got the nice folks over at /k/ riled up. Razz
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 06, 2015 9:50 am

    Cyberspec wrote:APS coverage...according to this, only the rear is unprotected

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 H6Oyt
    whoops, i have to correct myself - it looks like anywhere but the 60 deg. frontal arc and the back has the hardkill interceptor- they are prolly confident of the frontal hull armor and just worried about sabots coming from anywhere but within the safe maneuvering angles(frontal 60 deg. arc).
    avatar
    tanino

    Posts : 14
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-04-02
    Location : Lana (BZ) Italy

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  tanino on Wed May 06, 2015 11:47 am

    As I say it is the Italian designer t-14 is wonderful.
    as infographic say that the new week meeting designers iveco defense time for coffee and I can anticipate that were amazed and surprised (t-15)

    hello to all from Italy.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5684
    Points : 5813
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Wed May 06, 2015 11:54 am

    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Cool tank. russia  Just sent a fleet of M1A1s to the scrap yards. Twisted Evil  Any idea how many will come out? A lot of the western comments on it are interesting.
    Kind of funny the people who respect the T-14 have better English then the Americans defending the Abrams or explaining why tanks don't matter any more. Rolling Eyes Regardless it should do well when will an export variant show up for sale and any ideas who will want to buy?

    Like the F-22 this tank should not be up for sale. It is too advanced. Russia should keep upgrading the T-90MS as an export model.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5684
    Points : 5813
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Wed May 06, 2015 11:59 am

    Cyberspec wrote:APS coverage...according to this, only the rear is unprotected

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 H6Oyt

    Reminds me of all the PAK-FA "stealth" angle "evaluations". BS. People should not rush to conclusions.

    I recall from the 888 war how T-72s were taken out by RPGs from the back. One would think that this sort
    of weakness has been removed in the T-14.
    runaway
    runaway

    Posts : 389
    Points : 404
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  runaway on Wed May 06, 2015 1:20 pm

    kvs wrote:
    I recall from the 888 war how T-72s were taken out by RPGs from the back.   One would think that this sort
    of weakness has been removed in the T-14.

    Tanks are not one man armies on their own, there will always be some weakness. But the above example with tanks in urban combat without infantry support... No

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  max steel on Wed May 06, 2015 1:44 pm

    How s.korean and japan tank fare against russsian one ?


    and China's type-099 mbt ?
    Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo

    Posts : 40
    Points : 53
    Join date : 2015-05-06
    Location : Croatia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Captain Nemo on Wed May 06, 2015 1:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 TPeimpUDkT8



    Is this rectangular hole on the left of the turret, for the mounting of a future coaxial gun, like some believe, or could it be for the ejection of used shell casings?


    .
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2268
    Points : 2359
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed May 06, 2015 2:18 pm

    max steel wrote:How s.korean and japan tank fare against russsian one ?

    These tank are only 55 and 49 tons, but the size of them are roughly similar to Leopard 2 families, so I suspect that these gals have much weaker armour protection, and cannot outcompete even North Korean Pukpoongho.

    kvs wrote:
    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Cool tank. russia Just sent a fleet of M1A1s to the scrap yards. Twisted Evil Any idea how many will come out? A lot of the western comments on it are interesting.
    Kind of funny the people who respect the T-14 have better English then the Americans defending the Abrams or explaining why tanks don't matter any more. Rolling Eyes Regardless it should do well when will an export variant show up for sale and any ideas who will want to buy?

    Like the F-22 this tank should not be up for sale. It is too advanced. Russia should keep upgrading the T-90MS as an export model.

    Actually Russian T-90 and German Leo 2 already outcompete the M1 Axx. No need for the celebrity to stand out.

    Sponsored content

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 30 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:26 pm