[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

And these are the T-14 design shortcomings as he sees them

That's it?

There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

Cyberspec wrote:

And these are the T-14 design shortcomings as he sees them

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/356485.html

Yet another individual who can X-ray photographs and see the underlying structure. The bottom left picture and the
associated "analysis" are ridiculous. He claims there is no effective shielding of the crew capsule from the sides of the
tank. He draws a couple of red lines, which he pulls straight out of his a** to "prove" his claim. What a joke.

So the designers went through the bother of designing a crew capsule and then stopped half way to protect it.
Those stupid Russians who cannot do anything right!

I did not do this in the past, but these days I check. The author of this analysis is Anderi Tarasenko. An Ukr. Perhaps
he has an axe do grind against Russians. Perhaps not. But his ruminations are basically worthless.

Werewolf wrote:There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

True...basically you're screwed no matter what. 

Traps are only a problem for smaller caliber rounds, and even then I doubt they'll be a problem on the T-14.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

True...basically you're screwed no matter what. 

Traps are only a problem for smaller caliber rounds, and even then I doubt they'll be a problem on the T-14.

Even 30-40mm cannon use APDS/APFDS or HE-FI rounds, no trapshots there.

It certainly needs a 3rd layer (ERA) on the turret.

@kvs
well he thinks the airconditioner is in the way of proper armour protection

kvs wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

And these are the T-14 design shortcomings as he sees them

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/356485.html

Yet another individual who can X-ray photographs and see the underlying structure.   The bottom left picture and the
associated "analysis" are ridiculous.   He claims there is no effective shielding of the crew capsule from the sides of the
tank.   He draws a couple of red lines, which he pulls straight out of his a** to "prove" his claim.  What a joke.  

So the designers went through the bother of designing a crew capsule and then stopped half way to protect it.  
Those stupid Russians who cannot do anything right!  

I did not do this in the past, but these days I check.   The author of this analysis is Anderi Tarasenko.  An Ukr.  Perhaps
he has an axe do grind against Russians.  Perhaps not.   But his ruminations are basically worthless.

Are you remotely surprised? People love to make the calculations simply by looking at the exterior. They have no access to the interior and especially for something new which hasn't already been destroyed or sent somewhere else to be verified, only pure speculations are had. The problem is when people start taking it at face value.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

True...basically you're screwed no matter what. 

Traps are only a problem for smaller caliber rounds, and even then I doubt they'll be a problem on the T-14.

Even 30-40mm cannon use APDS/APFDS or HE-FI rounds, no trapshots there.

It certainly needs a 3rd layer (ERA) on the turret.

It's not armor, so it's not trapping anything, even MG bullets, nor is it going to support heavy ERA. It is a thin shell literally held together with nothing more than small pins. It is clearly not part of the ballistic protection scheme of the tank. It might serve to reduce signature, or it might just be aesthetic.

akd wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

True...basically you're screwed no matter what. 

Traps are only a problem for smaller caliber rounds, and even then I doubt they'll be a problem on the T-14.

Even 30-40mm cannon use APDS/APFDS or HE-FI rounds, no trapshots there.

It certainly needs a 3rd layer (ERA) on the turret.

It's not armor, so it's not trapping anything, even MG bullets, nor is it going to support heavy ERA.  It is a thin shell literally held together with nothing more than small pins.  It is clearly not part of the ballistic protection scheme of the tank.  It might serve to reduce signature, or it might just be aesthetic.

Probably and i still hope for the scale model turret shape based on Obj 640.

More estimates about the hardware in Armata this time from charly .

kvs wrote:

I did not do this in the past, but these days I check.   The author of this analysis is Anderi Tarasenko.  An Ukr.  Perhaps
he has an axe do grind against Russians.  Perhaps not.   But his ruminations are basically worthless.

He's reliable when it comes to Soviet-Russian tank history. and no he has nothing to do against Russians etc.

His estimates however is bit problematic, because he don't have better source or not coming to arms expo and do measurement himself.

He's reliable when it comes to Soviet-Russian tank history. and no he has nothing to do against Russians etc.

Not so much against Russia directly but UVZ specifically

_____________________________________________________

Speculation on how the turret might look under the outer panels




_____________________________________________________

@Vann

Thx for the 'Charly' stuff ....it's pretty good for visual reference

.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Regular wrote:Magnum, Ok, I find You well spoken person, but what the hell?
Rocket artillery in asymmetrical warfare is very unlikely. Potential Russian adversaries are behind Russia when it comes to artillery and radiolocation systems so their presence even in asymmetric battlefield would be short. Artillery strike on Armata systems wont be devastating compared to other tanks. You will need direct hit to cause substantial damage to Armata platform. Ground radars are easy to detect, Russia has very good surface to surface ARM too. Just my thought, but big formation of tanks no matter how stealthy they are will show up in radar. Various uavs, spotters can do the same thing without too much hastle too. I'm glad Armata is didn't go for stealth trend, even stealth in fighter jets is overhyped thing imho

Is not about having one size fits all defense, it's all about layering defense. We've seen plenty asymmetrical use of rocket artillery in Eastern Ukraine. Stealth shaping in the turret combined with Nakidka camouflage should be very useful against artillery radar.

Maibe you have right but....others form of surveillance can find troops. Video IR and others. Did you know that every material emit radiation in a given spectrum ? Even stealth tanks. So no there is no such thing like invisible units. Layer those form and here we are.
Nakidka in my point is not very usefull.

Regular wrote:

indochina wrote:It can protect against Javelin ?

Not sure about protection, we won't truly know, but one thing can be deducted, that Javelin won't kill the tank. In most likely scenario it will damage or knock out something in the turret. Tank will be alive, Jav crew, well let's say they wilk have less chance to survive

Point is that javelin crew go closer to hit important area on tank. They looking for weak points in body of tank. And if they keep trying they will succeed. I'm not sure why i am so pesimistic when comes to resistance to javelin crew. Its a psychologic thing i am sure.

I'm not sure why i am so pesimistic when comes to resistance to javelin crew. Its a psychologic thing i am sure.

Victim of marketing campaign

The Javelin isn't some sort of silver bullet (more like a gold bullet in price). It has it's strengths and weaknesses like everything else....for starters it's relatively slow.

Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

still not clear for me: 2A82-M1 and its autoloader, they can use the ammo and the propellant part of the 2A46 or only the ammo part and always use a new pattern bigger propelant part?

The new propellant part is also like the old cardboard combustible or is it a safer design? (maybe a return to full metallic case)

The missile assembly of the 2A46M-5 can be used in the 2A82 or the latter needs a new rear part?

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

The alter would be closer to reality.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality? 

The alter would be closer to reality.

Thanks, I'll +1 when the clock my time hits 12. 

Funny how the media here keeps on quoting 48t, but it could just be a metric ton v. short ton complication or something. Either way they are misinformed... 

I think the 4 reverse and forward gear system is going to be huge in todays (and the futures) combat. As mentioned by many of you already, a slow reverse speed is what has been haunting most MBT's, at least in an urban situation. 

 - The reason for me asking has to do with it's power/weight ratio, which the M1A3 will be challenging itself. Aka arguments are in motion. 

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality? 

The alter would be closer to reality.

Thanks, I'll +1 when the clock my time hits 12. 

Funny how the media here keeps on quoting 48t, but it could just be a metric ton v. short ton complication or something. Either way they are misinformed... 

I think the 4 reverse and forward gear system is going to be huge in todays (and the futures) combat. As mentioned by many of you already, a slow reverse speed is what has been haunting most MBT's, at least in an urban situation. 

 - The reason for me asking has to do with it's power/weight ratio, which the M1A3 will be challenging itself. Aka arguments are in motion. 

55 tons may be "full load" and 48 tons is "stripping off sth". After all the T-14s on the pics are not the very final version.

Cyberspec wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there was some talk a good 6 months back about that 'stealth' was seriously taken in to consideration in to Armata T-14 MBT's design (outside of Nakidka camouflage) so is that the reason why T-14's turret looks like a menagerie of various polygons? Stealth shaping perhaps?

Tarasenko (aka Andrei-bt - aka Harkonen), UVZ's arch rival, seems to think so....with qualifications ofcourse

Everyone certainly has their own tastes and aesthetic preferences, but I like the architecture of the product.
Clearly much has been done to ensure the reduction of visibility in the radar range, which, however, more than offset by a wonderful exhaust both sides, making the tanks very visible in the infrared wavelength range.

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/355499.html

According to experts, presented at the Victory Parade models of equipment are likely pre-production prototypes that have completed or are completing factory tests.

"This is a pilot batches of samples, which this year, as a last resort - next year - will take to the stage of state tests.

According to Andrei Tarasenko, revolutionary design of the new tank, as well as conceptually new to the Russian infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the middle track ("Kurganets") and the wheel ("Boomerang") require a serious improvement for several years - in his words, it is inevitable for such machines in any country.

And these are the T-14 design shortcomings as he sees them

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/356485.html

Meh, I don't like being compared to Tarasenko, however the modular parts of the turret look like an odd menagerie of polygon shapes. The only reason that I could come up with to why they chose that path over shaping the turret towards a more robust clam shell turret (with lots more ERA) is that it serves the purpose of trying to maintain low observable/stealthy towards enemies with artillery radar (such as Zoopark-1).

Personally I would prefer the more robust clam shell turret, but I'm not too angry, clearly the turret objects and artifacts are modular in nature allowing them to be fitted then later taken off...one day the turret is more stealthy, while the other day the turret is more robust and durable.

edgy turret best turret imo. and lol @ it being supposedly not stealthy in IR. two smaller heat plume (exhaust) would cool away faster to ambient temp. than a big one.

also i really think the empty spot on the left side is for an auxilliary weapon mount. its not a reload hatch because literally under it is a hardkill interceptor, anything funny happens and that scene from kung pow where a mook gets a huge circular chunk of his torso removed gets reenacted for realsies. also not ejector port, since again, something funny happens and you now have cases blocking the way of the interceptor just below.

collegeboy16 wrote:edgy turret best turret imo. and lol @ it being supposedly not stealthy in IR. two smaller heat plume (exhaust) would cool away faster to ambient temp. than a big one.

Yeah well there is always the cool down alternative when it comes to it, like the diverters bolted to the Crocodile in Afghanistan.

This picture is interesting...




If charly guestimates are correct.. then the pink hardware in the tank is active protection
and it directly one of them pointing upwards to hit anything the sensors capture over the tank..with what could be a shotgun round of projectiles..  So there is something there pointing
upwards.. but it remains to be seen how the radars/sensors works.. they could rotate upward/to track incoming missiles top attack missiles or simply the tank use its network to share radar information from another tank.. so any tank near..will use its frontal or real looking radars to continue tracking the missile on a tank near him. or simply this are not final tank and only rushed for parade and the final tank will have more sensor and radars.. but also more protection.

So far armata do have a lot of potential and even the aesthetics ,but also the ergonomics ,can be taken to a new level with minor modifications ,for a complete stealthy design, the turret and the body.. and improve the side Grill positioning and more than anything reinforce the turret with more armor. as a bonus a 152mm gun.. for real pure power.  Russia could have special version of T-14 with 152mm gun ,only made for complete destruction of enemy tank ,without possibility of any survival..as a tank total destroyer ,that could escort a dozen of other T-14 with the 125mm gun.. The tank destroyer could trade speed for power ,it will not matter because it will not be in the front line but more like a Support tank.. to scare the enemy knowing no matter what they bring in the front line it will not stand a chance.  

Now if someone can photoshop how a 152mm turret will look in armata..  
will be cool to get a preview ..

So far the tank do have a lot of potential and with some few modification here and there
it can be taken to a whole new level..

A T-14 stalled during today's rehearsal....oh my, let the fireworks begin