Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 444
    Points : 453
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP on Sun May 10, 2015 1:02 am

    Cyberspec wrote: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...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4509
    Points : 4668
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 10, 2015 3:46 am

    BKP wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote: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...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.

    I keep telling people that Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang are still prototypes...but no one is willing to listen. Of all the brand new modular vehicle platforms, Typhoon-K/U are the most mature, easily several years ahead of the formerly mentioned vehicle platforms.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Mike E on Sun May 10, 2015 3:56 am

    Vann7 wrote: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.
    No no no no no.... That is the against the whole point Vann...

    An incoming round will either hit overwhelming armor (of the actual turret) or nothing at all, and will pass right through. Because the rounds are almost certainly going to be KE or HEAT, the actual penetration will be extremely slim, and will most likely cause no damage to any sensors. Even if it does, it would probably be one at a time. I assume they'd be extremely easy to replace too.

    And like any tank... You can't bury the sensors in armor, they need to be external. If say the turret was hit by a HE shell, it would destroy most of the sensors, *but the same is true for almost every other tank*. 

    The idea behind this turret is truely innovative and impressing.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 898
    Points : 907
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  OminousSpudd on Sun May 10, 2015 4:38 am

    BKP wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote: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...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.

    ^This, very much this.

    The utter storm of criticism the Armata is receiving (the T-14 in particular, and I'm not just talking the opposition) is embarrassingly silly.

    1.) This is not the final production version. This one sentence takes all your speculation about the turret and takes a giant dump on it. Everything is subject to change.

    2.) Tanks have a long history in Russia, essentially shaping the modern MBT of today, they genuinely lead in this field. They won't bungle it, they're not a corrupt Lockheed Martin with the ludicrous funding of the Pentagon.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 10, 2015 4:52 am

    sumbitch, transformer in my college blew the fck off - missed the parade stream.
    anyway, glad there wasnt much fail in it -didnt have to work overtime in ridf on /k/ Twisted Evil

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 10, 2015 4:54 am

    Mike E wrote:

    An incoming round will either hit overwhelming armor (of the actual turret) or nothing at all, and will pass right through. Because the rounds are almost certainly going to be KE or HEAT, the actual penetration will be extremely slim, and will most likely cause no damage to any sensors. Even if it does, it would probably be one at a time. I assume they'd be extremely easy to replace too.

    And like any tank... You can't bury the sensors in armor, they need to be external. If say the turret was hit by a HE shell, it would destroy most of the sensors, *but the same is true for almost every other tank*. 

    The idea behind this turret is truely innovative and impressing.
    yeah, ironically those would have the best chance for inflicting a f-kill on t-14s. good thing the hardkill afghanit interceptors are there to blow them out of the way.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4509
    Points : 4668
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 10, 2015 4:55 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:sumbitch, transformer in my college blew the fck off - missed the parade stream.
    anyway, glad there wasnt much fail in it -didnt have to work overtime in ridf on /k/ Twisted Evil


    Are your sure it wasn't sabotaged by Hotel Moscow™️? Cool
    avatar
    alexZam

    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam on Sun May 10, 2015 5:53 am

    First attempt.



    Armata T-14 & T-15 http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14- … lysis.html


    Last edited by alexZam on Sun May 10, 2015 7:55 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 6:01 am

    Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...
    avatar
    alexZam

    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam on Sun May 10, 2015 7:57 am

    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...

    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sun May 10, 2015 7:59 am

    alexZam wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...

    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir

    The amount of pics lets the thread grow fast.
    avatar
    alexZam

    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam on Sun May 10, 2015 8:12 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    alexZam wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,
    I just posted that a few hours ago...
    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir
    The amount of pics lets the thread grow fast.
    Yeah. We been waiting for so long. They most likely roll out one of those Poligon or Voenaya Priemka in a month, so we will have more stuff to learn. Certainly, they will leave all classified stuff out and give a few hint here and there just another to spark more intrigue and cause some serious flood of opinions. Until it that it will be predictably slowing down. My background is in telecommunication, would love to hear those networking smart feature of those machines, BUT they should never reveal it. Just a main principe idea would be enough. If new gen IFV, tanks and APC would be in sync in realtime with each other and combat hq, I would be approving. But there is still a long way to go of furious testing and trials. However, I'm glad they are on a right path.
    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 10:23 am

    Possible (IMO likely) arrangement of dynamic armour under the outer panels....as you can see, both the top and sides are covered.



    The author of the CGI had posted this before the shape of the T-14 was publicly shown

    Vann7

    Posts : 3893
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 10, 2015 12:40 pm



    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement. If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides? Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?

    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .

    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.



    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 10, 2015 1:44 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement.  If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides?  Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?
    from the front, that is. the hull sides prolly are only a tiny fraction of the thickness and effectiveness of the frontal hull armor, the hard kill countermeasure is there anyway to pick up the slack.
    Vann7 wrote:
    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .
    ive read lots of stories about the dismal performance of the ukrainians but this is the first ive heard of such. considering they are hearing explosions inside the tank every time the gun fires i doubt they would be dissuaded by the sound of explosions outside the tank enough to abandon common sense and hightail it on foot, where suddenly explosions come not just with exponentially higher volumes but with free supersonic shrapnel.

    now aircraft OTOH...
    Vann7 wrote:
    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.
    thats the idea, yes. plus since it can drive backwards no prob. the thick frontal armor is always facing the enemy - historically everything from mounted knights to tanks had problems retreating under enemy fire since they would be shot to sh!t when their backs are turned. something like 3/4 to 90% of casualties in ancient battles were suffered under routs.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 10, 2015 2:01 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement.  If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides?  Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?
    from the front, that is.  the hull sides prolly are only a tiny fraction of the thickness and effectiveness of the frontal hull armor, the hard kill countermeasure is there anyway to pick up the slack.
    Vann7 wrote:
    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .
    ive read lots of stories about the dismal performance of the ukrainians but this is the first ive heard of such. considering they are hearing explosions inside the tank every time the gun fires i doubt they would be dissuaded by the sound of explosions outside the tank enough to abandon common sense and hightail it on foot, where suddenly explosions come not just with exponentially higher volumes but with free supersonic shrapnel.

    now aircraft OTOH...
    Vann7 wrote:
    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.
    thats the idea, yes. plus since it can drive backwards no prob. the thick frontal armor is always facing the enemy - historically everything from mounted knights to tanks had problems retreating under enemy fire since they would be shot to sh!t when their backs are turned. something like 3/4 to 90% of casualties in ancient battles were suffered under routs.

    What would although happen in Ukraine was that the crew would bolt as soon as there would be no more power with the tank. IE when the tank wouldn't be able to move despite the combat compartment being unscathed.

    Also knowing that Skiff ATGM's were used, the task of finding and killing the ATGM crews would be drastically altered.
    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 30
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Sun May 10, 2015 2:12 pm

    Some variation of how Armata looks without the light hull (not mine)

    So I think there is no need for a massive hull like on T-90MS or Leopard-2. The gun and the loader mechanism are well protected with armour and active armour from the top and all the optik and sensors are protected with the light hull from bullets and shrapnel.

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 10, 2015 2:31 pm

    k@llashniKoff wrote:Some variation of how Armata looks without the light hull (not mine)

    So I think there is no need for a massive hull like on T-90MS or Leopard-2. The gun and the loader mechanism are well protected with armour and active armour from the top and all the optik and sensors are protected with the light hull from bullets and shrapnel.


    We already know the lines aren't that clean, but I'm fine with that.
    avatar
    Da_Vinci

    Posts : 4
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2015-05-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Da_Vinci on Sun May 10, 2015 6:24 pm

    Another attempt for Armata turret
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4509
    Points : 4668
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 10, 2015 6:56 pm

    Da_Vinci wrote:Another attempt for Armata turret

    Remember to introduce yourself in the member introduction forum...
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sun May 10, 2015 9:02 pm



    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

    I am pretty sure that is the integrated plow, same kind used on T-90.

    Ant-mine systems that use jamming to prevent detonation look like metal boxes with dielectric paneling.

    I don't think we will be seeing anti-mine systems just yet.


    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 30
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Sun May 10, 2015 9:17 pm

    And onother one


    Firebird

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1010
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Firebird on Sun May 10, 2015 10:17 pm

    The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.
    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 30
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Sun May 10, 2015 10:39 pm

    Firebird wrote:The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.

    Having the crew in the back makes no sence, You have to much armour in the front and the engine = too much weight in the front, the vehicle is unbalanced

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Guest on Sun May 10, 2015 10:56 pm

    Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:33 am