Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Sat May 09, 2015 1:19 am



    You can see a bit under the sheet metal.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 09, 2015 1:29 am

    It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 422
    Points : 431
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP on Sat May 09, 2015 1:39 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    BKP wrote:Thanks for replies regarding bbc piece. And, yeah, the British press is a real pisser.

    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics...

    Interesting. If RF needs to develop the capability to produce 22nm chips, then I would guess it's considered a priority to do so.

    I remember reading a piece in (I believe) an IEEE publication a couple of years ago about the supreme difficulty in detecting trapdoors and other malicious code in firmware, much more so than in OS or application software. So I would hope that Russia would never opt to use western-designed chips in critical systems.

    My suggestion to you people is to do your research.  Let me help you:

    HAD TO REMOVE THE LINKS 'CAUSE I'M AN FNG

    All of these are chip R&D facilities making various chips for various purposes, some of these are made domestically in Angstrom, and some are made in China/Taiwan with 1 (Modules ARM) is co-developed in Fujitsu Japan.  Nanometer does not indicate instant reduction in power usage, as I should remind some of you, the Elbrus 2C+ operates within 40W, which is pretty darn good for a 90nm processor and operates significantly cooler and less power hungry than the AMD x86 processors running at 40nm and less.

    I've decided that I'm interested in this subject, so thanks for the links bruh. I'll be sure'n check them out. Very Happy

    I noticed that there was an article about MCST & Elbrus-4C on Russia Insider just the other day:

    h t t p ://russia-insider.com/en/business/russias-mcst-unveils-homegrown-pc-microprocessor-chips/ri6603
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 422
    Points : 431
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP on Sat May 09, 2015 2:59 am

    kvs wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics.

    Also I would say that in the future Armata tanks and IFVs should each have 2-3 small UAVs which are charged on board and launch and fly automatically above / in front of the vehicle as a forward scout and give a better Situational awareness for the crews. Those would also benefit from the 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption and improve the endurance of each UAV... Imagine that a "buttoned up" tank would be launching and recovering these small UAVs automatically, the commander simply having the feed from these cameras fed to him without having to think about launching or controlling an individual UAV. whilst one UAV is in the air, the other 2 are getting charged on the tank in their own "recharge stations" that they land into automatically when their power goes low.

    Such an addition would only cost maybe $100k per tank (with three thermal camera equipped UAVs). a small price for a dramatic improvement in SA.

    As was shown a few pages ago, there are a series of rear view cameras... so I imagine that the driver can drive the tank forward and backwards effortlessly without having to "think" about which direction he's driving in. when he engages reverse, his visor and controls automatically switch... perhaps he just has a little sign on his visor/screen with "R" on it.


    I just can't see UAV information processing requiring AI computing.  Augmented reality I call unnecessary information overload.  A system that tracks discrete objects and a human-digestible level of them is all that is needed.  Pushing a vast amount of pixels to do real time rendering of landscapes and
    pattern recognition is gross overkill.   I see these "VR" tools being more relevant for pilots and not tank operators.

    What a modern tank needs is high level sensors (spanning visible to IR emissions) and the ability to track the significant objects in its vicinity.  
    Sophisticated detection technology coupled with training will run circles around some pattern recognition system that "augments"
    the operator.  

    If there isn't a war in the next few years, Russia will reach the same IC resolution limits (< 5 nm) that NATO has to deal with.  Given
    Russia's previous performance is doing more with less by that stage it will be NATO that will in the clear disadvantage.  (BTW, I
    see this "throw more CPU resources at the problem" mindset in the civilian research field, the problem is that the problems involved
    are not one-parameter that they can be "solved" this easily.)

    Hmm. Now, I'm not disputing with you, because I just don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion yet, but, how do you know for sure that tankers wouldn't benefit from, say, a helmet-mounted VR display? Have you seen some studies indicating that?

    I admit that my instinct says this could be pretty sweet. Maybe it could be like the commander's mellon and torso were sticking up from the top of the turret, with the ability to swivel around 360° like he was seated in Dr. Evil's chair. There could be a transparent overlay of information collected from sensors and network input, like a HUD. Remote views could be constructed, etc. All this without the downside of having those actual body parts atomized by a passing projectile from any weapon you care to name...

    But, maybe that would all be superfluous, IDK.

    Actually, it would obviously be incredibly interesting to know what interface they did come up with, if it's something new or new-ish. But, looks like we won't know for quite some time. The UVZ chief said in an interview the other day that they intend to keep a lot under wraps for a good while (there was a link posted here).
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 09, 2015 3:20 am

    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat May 09, 2015 3:35 am

    I don't think they're going back to smooth looking turrets going by what's been said so far. Reducing the radar/thermal sig seems to be one of the requirements for the tank.

    Regarding equipping the tank with UAV's, IMO that sort of thing is better left to a dedicated recon vehicle. The data can then be passed on to the tanks....I suppose having a mini helicopter type UAV could be feasible and useful in some situations.


    Viktor wrote:
    Austin wrote:Interview with deputy general director of corporation "Uralvagonzavod" Vyacheslav Halitov.

    Armata : http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=2
    Kuragnets: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=3

    from your link:

    And we offered today its unprecedented level, providing, in addition to the passive armor with ceramic plates, a kind of "protective dome", consisting of active protection and the protection of the upper hemisphere, systems setting screens and electromagnetic protection.

    that settles some speculation Very Happy

    On the Ru Net there's some discussion that the grenade launchers can fire EMP grenades that burn the electronics of the ATGM's

    to repost this link from Niistali

    COMPLEX PROTECTION OF THE UPPER HEMISPHERE (CSWP)

    The principle of operation is based on the detection of an incoming high-precision munition, striking with the upper hemisphere, and disrupting its guidance system or a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or on a securable multi-spectral aerosol cloud and a false thermal targets.

    http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/uplook_protection/
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3763
    Points : 3864
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Sat May 09, 2015 4:21 am

    BKP wrote:
    Hmm. Now, I'm not disputing with you, because I just don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion yet, but, how do you know for sure that tankers wouldn't benefit from, say, a helmet-mounted VR display? Have you seen some studies indicating that?

    I admit that my instinct says this could be pretty sweet. Maybe it could be like the commander's mellon and torso were sticking up from the top of the turret, with the ability to swivel around 360° like he was seated in Dr. Evil's chair. There could be a transparent overlay of information collected from sensors and network input, like a HUD. Remote views could be constructed, etc. All this without the downside of having those actual body parts atomized by a passing projectile from any weapon you care to name...

    But, maybe that would all be superfluous, IDK.

    Actually, it would obviously be incredibly interesting to know what interface they did come up with, if it's something new or new-ish. But, looks like we won't know for quite some time. The UVZ chief said in an interview the other day that they intend to keep a lot under wraps for a good while (there was a link posted here).

    There is no clarity by what people mean by VR augmentation. If it is some graphics heavy image processing then it is BS that gets
    teenagers all excited but is more show than substance. The operator environment has been evolving towards discrete object
    tracking for a long time and Russian electronics are more than sufficient for the job.

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery/

    When I read the cursory overview of the functionality of such devices they are nothing to write home about. One would expect
    target tracking to be 360 even in the most basic system. We are long past having to stick your head out of the hatch to see the
    target. Presenting this information can be accomplished in many different ways and the VR graphics heavy format is not the
    obvious winner.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3763
    Points : 3864
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Sat May 09, 2015 4:29 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.

    The shape of the unmanned turret tells us a lot. There is no longer a need to bounce off incoming shell damage to protect
    the empty space inside the turret. The whole paradigm of the armour in the unmanned turret is different. Applying some
    simple analysis, the opposite of trying to exclude the damage outside some perimeter is to absorb the damage in a volume.
    The old case was severely constrained by geometry of having to protect the given perimeter encompassing the turret
    interior. In the case of the new turret there are many more options, including layer heterogeneous armour (ceramic,
    steel, rubber) through most of the volume of the turret. No anti-tank projectile in existence would be able to disable
    this turret and there is no point sloping it like before at the expense of turret volume. It seems like with the new
    paradigm, making the turret smaller is actually detrimental.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 09, 2015 5:08 am



    Some of the comments under the Ukro propaganda TV of the "paper Armata" was this.

    У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
    The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat May 09, 2015 6:47 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
    The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)

    Well put Laughing

    eridan

    Posts : 155
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  eridan on Sat May 09, 2015 8:48 am

    Does anyone have that photo from several days ago (back when t-14 had a tarp over the turret) where t-90 was passing right in front of t-14? So the image was two tanks almost perfectlyy side by side, with t-90 being in front and t-14 being visibly larger behind it?

    Vann7

    Posts : 3821
    Points : 3925
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 09, 2015 10:33 am

    Victory parade over.. and no armata failed ,at least not in front of cameras..

    It looked more impressive in the training that in Red Square , they were so few armata
    at red square and they passed too fast to see anything really. and the Big Letters of Victory parade covering half the screen. . No  

    any case we will not see Armata in service until 2018 ,so lot can change in the production models. Still was good to have a preview of them.  WOndering if the final specifications of the tank will be released , interested to see more about armata tank and T-15 sensors and technology and how it works.

    full moscow parade..




    avatar
    Shadåw

    Posts : 79
    Points : 84
    Join date : 2012-07-29

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Shadåw on Sat May 09, 2015 2:43 pm

    http://stream.1tv.ru/live

    Jump to.. in terms of hour and time 09:19:50

    Theres a reporter walking around the Armata and patting its armor.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 3007
    Points : 3039
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  franco on Sat May 09, 2015 4:15 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Victory parade over.. and no armata failed ,at least not in front of cameras..

    It looked more impressive in the training that in Red Square , they were so few armata
    at red square and they passed too fast to see anything really. and the Big Letters of Victory parade covering half the screen. . No  

    any case we will not see Armata in service until 2018 ,so lot can change in the production models. Still was good to have a preview of them.  WOndering if the final specifications of the tank will be released , interested to see more about armata tank and T-15 sensors and technology and how it works.

    full moscow  parade..





    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 09, 2015 6:51 pm

    kvs wrote:
    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.

    The shape of the unmanned turret tells us a lot.  There is no longer a need to bounce off incoming shell damage to protect
    the empty space inside the turret.  The whole paradigm of the armour in the unmanned turret is different.  Applying some
    simple analysis, the opposite of trying to exclude the damage outside some perimeter is to absorb the damage in a volume.
    The old case was severely constrained by geometry of having to protect the given perimeter encompassing the turret
    interior.  In the case of the new turret there are many more options, including layer heterogeneous armour (ceramic,
    steel, rubber) through most of the volume of the turret.   No anti-tank projectile in existence would be able to disable
    this turret and there is no point sloping it like before at the expense of turret volume.   It seems like with the new
    paradigm, making the turret smaller is actually detrimental.

    Making the turret smaller is never detrimental

    There is nothing you can armor on to the turret.

    You could if you wanted to however, you do not suffer the same volume sacrifices necessary for implementation of armor on manned turrets.

    But you are not seeing the big picture here, anything that could be armored, is no longer there.

    triphosgene

    Posts : 5
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2015-03-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  triphosgene on Sat May 09, 2015 7:24 pm

    [/quote]

    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.[/quote]

    Many different pieces of military hardware were parket at Manezhnaya sqare, most likely as backups. They were there before the mechanized part of the parade passed by.
    Take a loot at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrSzCnz9Sic at 54:15 timestamp.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 696
    Points : 755
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Book. on Sat May 09, 2015 7:43 pm



    If repost sry.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 09, 2015 8:50 pm

    Book. wrote:

    If repost sry.

    Very good post, we got to see really close-up views of the turret bits and bobs. Very Happy
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat May 09, 2015 9:50 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    Some of the comments under the Ukro propaganda TV of the "paper Armata" was this.

    У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
    The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)


    Someone should send them images of Illovaisk...
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 422
    Points : 431
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP on Sat May 09, 2015 11:25 pm

    Book. wrote:

    If repost sry.

    Look @1:43. The soldiers are lined up and standing more or less at attention. Then, there's one dude to the immediate left of the gun holding... what, a gift bag? Lol, did he just buy some bath salts or something?

    -------

    http://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7333

    Vann7

    Posts : 3821
    Points : 3925
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 10, 2015 12:20 am

    franco wrote:
    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.

    And ?

    The tanks are prototypes.. is an early preview of tanks they developing and will start trials in 2016 and will not go into service until 2018.  So im glad they lets us show their early prototypes
    before they go into service. Not to encourage nay sayers but your F-22 and F-35 have been failing even after going into production. The F-22 even had to be suspended it uses even AFTER final production several times because of faulty designed hardware and the F-35 too..

    So is nothing new.. it happens.. technology always needs refining. Specially when is a prototype and in under testing..But im sure in the case of Russia they will fix any issues by the time the go in service in 2018. Nothing to worry about.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sun May 10, 2015 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3763
    Points : 3864
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  kvs on Sun May 10, 2015 12:23 am

    Book. wrote:

    If repost sry.

    Good post.

    They mention that the turret is invulnerable to any modern anti-tank munition, but the context is mangled. It has
    reactive armour under those plates. I suspect the surface plates are like ERA bricks with a layer of explosive on the
    back. But there was a "hint" that this was not the only thing going. As I said, the designers have many more options
    when it comes to defending an unmanned turret.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun May 10, 2015 12:33 am

    You guys should be grateful they showed them publicly this year thanks to this important anniversary. Otherwise we probably wouldn't see them for another year or two...

    ---------

    Something we haven't mentioned so far I believe...the anti-mine system of the Armata

    The Armata platform is configured with an active mine countermeasure system, designed to detect or trigger mines ahead of the tank.
    The system is mounted on the lower front edge of the vehicle.
    Photo: vitaly-Kuzmin


    ...


    Defense Update wrote:Preliminary analysis of the new Russian Armata family of vehicles
    Arrow http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html#.VU6GhZOC29c
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 3007
    Points : 3039
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  franco on Sun May 10, 2015 12:37 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    franco wrote:
    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.

    And ?

    The tanks are prototypes.. is an early preview of tanks they developing and will start trials in 2016 and will not go into service until 2018.  So im glad they lets us show their early prototypes
    before they go into service. Not to encourage nay sayers but your F-22 and F-35 have been failing even after going into production. The F-22 even had to be suspended it uses even AFTER final production several times because of faulty designed hardware and the F-35 too..

    So is nothing new.. it happens.. technology always needs refining. Specially when is a prototype and in under testing..But im sure in the case of Russia they will fix any issues by the time the go in service in 2018. Nothing to worry about.

    Believe that is what I said in my last sentence. No fight here amigo.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3821
    Points : 3925
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 10, 2015 12:44 am

    kvs wrote:
    Book. wrote:

    If repost sry.

    Good post.

    They mention that the turret is invulnerable to any modern anti-tank munition, but the context is mangled.  It has
    reactive armour under those plates.   I suspect the surface plates are like ERA bricks with a layer of explosive on the
    back.   But there was a "hint" that this was not the only thing going.   As I said, the designers have many more options
    when it comes to defending an unmanned turret.

    Maybe the core internal turret is invulnerable.. but the thin metal sheet stealthy box in the outside ,is actually very weak ,bases on photos and close shots ,that shows the stealth hat ,is a thin steel sheet cover.so a single hit by any tank shell will completely wipe at very least all the optics and sensors and leave the turret on its bones.
    Losing all its APS capabilities. I hope they add more real armor to protect even the outher stealth cover of the turret and its sensors.. ideally make it completely solid and dense the whole stealth cover.
    Because doesn't look like the thin outside stealth skin on the turret,
    and its sensors/optics will survive either 30mm gun fire or a simple grenade explosive ,tearing away stealth cover ,with the attached optics and sensors .   Hopefully the final tank will have more real armor on the turret and make more solid the turret for protection of the sensors and optics and piece of mind.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:09 am