Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 20, 2015 3:12 pm

    Regular wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:On this edition of MTV Cribs: Armata APC/IFV
    ]
    Looks pretty thin :/
    I was expecting something like that
    it is, tho what it lacked in thickness they made up for with sophitistication. the outermost plate could very well be ERA judging from the bolts holding it in place(as it is with other light ERA, like those in T-90MS sides).

    also, the door does not really needed to be protected - nobodies immediatley behind it, the passengers are well behind those massive blocks on either side of the door. even the crew are away from the center- trace a path the width of the door on a top view of the T-15 from back to front and youll see.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2238
    Points : 2230
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Regular on Wed May 20, 2015 3:22 pm

    Would You trust this or a meaty sandwitch armor + era? It might not be design flaw as it is easily fixable, it could be done on purpose to help inf to dismount. But in unconventional warfare You want bit more protection where possible.
    I hope final product will have thicker hatch. And better transmission Neutral
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed May 20, 2015 3:27 pm

    Yeah, because it is basic steel Rolling Eyes

    Btw, whats wrong eith transmission? Apparently transmission is perfectly fine but people need to be trained on using it.

    With your vast knowledge and expertise on tank building, you should apply to Uralvagonzavod and tell them they were wrong in their design.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 20, 2015 3:56 pm

    Regular wrote:Would You trust this or a meaty sandwitch armor + era? It might not be design flaw as it is easily fixable, it could be done on purpose to help inf to dismount. But in unconventional warfare You want bit more protection where possible.
    I hope final product will have thicker hatch. And better transmission Neutral
    well if i was a passenger id prefer a door that i can push open -its you and a handful other guys only viable exit, than a meaty door that is superfluous anyways.  

    and remember, there are hardkill interceptors just above it. Razz
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2238
    Points : 2230
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Regular on Wed May 20, 2015 4:08 pm

    Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

    You were sleeping last 20 days?

    Trained to use automatic transmission?

    What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

    Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
    There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

    Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2238
    Points : 2230
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Regular on Wed May 20, 2015 4:11 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Regular wrote:Would You trust this or a meaty sandwitch armor + era? It might not be design flaw as it is easily fixable, it could be done on purpose to help inf to dismount. But in unconventional warfare You want bit more protection where possible.
    I hope final product will have thicker hatch. And better transmission Neutral
    well if i was a passenger id prefer a door that i can push open -its you and a handful other guys only viable exit, than a meaty door that is superfluous anyways.  

    and remember, there are hardkill interceptors just above it. Razz
    I think You are right, but thanks to hydraulic assisted henches You can open even thicker hatches no problem. Still getting hit in the back would be my least concern in conventional warfare. I only wonder if crew capsule is separated from passenger compartament( no access through inner hatches), what do You think?
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed May 20, 2015 4:18 pm

    Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

    You were sleeping last 20 days?

    Trained to use automatic transmission?

    What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

    Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
    There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

    Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

    Yes, trained. Because both instances of the transmission issie required the professionals from uralvagonzavod to get it going as drivers made a mistake.

    As well, it is composite built. If you want 50inch plating, fine. But there is a reason why it is as thick as it is, and having slat armor behind and the space between.

    Like I said, go apply for a job with them. You seem to know better.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5252
    Points : 5455
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Wed May 20, 2015 4:45 pm

    T-14 vs T-90A comperision

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Jwg8qrya
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed May 20, 2015 5:09 pm

    Regular wrote:
    I think You are right, but thanks to hydraulic assisted henches You can open even thicker hatches no problem. Still getting hit in the back would be my least concern in conventional warfare. I only wonder if crew capsule is separated from passenger compartament( no access through inner hatches), what do You think?


    without internal pics we can only speculate, but i think they wont share the same crew capsule as the T-14 at least. also no need to separate the crew and passengers, nobody uses APHE anymore so any penetrations in the internal volume will either maim kill some unlucky bastard/s, damage some equipment, or just improve ventilation, not unlike a big boom inside.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3990
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 20, 2015 5:38 pm

    Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

    You were sleeping last 20 days?

    Trained to use automatic transmission?

    What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

    Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
    There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

    Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

    The rear plate on the Namer is a bolt on. The Azahrit as also a thin door with a tunnel. Same for the T-15. You can bolt on a Thicker plate, but given how it is flat, wouldn't be of much help, if you don't want that door to weight half a ton.The ramp makes a far more difficilt proposition to retro-armour that monster.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Z1

    See how "thick" the door really was. Hint look at the hull thickness at the door.
    Zivo
    Zivo

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Zivo on Wed May 20, 2015 8:23 pm

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 8779110

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Z1

    The T-15's rear entrance looks better designed. It has a wide ramp, with a second door built into it. It'll be easier for the PAX to dismount with the wider clearance, and if they loose hydraulics, they can still quickly exit through the emergency door. If the Israelis want to exit, they have to cram all their equipment through that narrow tunnel. Good luck stuffing a 6' soldier with an exoskeleton + armor through those exits.  Razz

    The cage armor is also a good choice. The add-on plate on the Israeli vehicles wont stop a direct hit from an RPG. At least the cage armor has a 50% chance to inert a basic RPG warhead, a flat plate has a 0% chance to inert a basic RPG warhead. Cage is also lighter weight than box armor.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3990
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 20, 2015 8:45 pm

    I don't think either the Namer or the T-15 aim to have their rear exists become RPG/ATGM magnet...Both have their own advantages. IMO the fact that you can have bolt on armour, instead of the cage is a good idea for the T-15. Remember that the NAMER is way different beast, and has a weaker armament. It would take a deep redesign to have compare to the current T-15 level.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5401
    Points : 5552
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed May 20, 2015 8:59 pm

    Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

    You were sleeping last 20 days?

    Trained to use automatic transmission?

    What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

    Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
    There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.


    Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

    You should be more polite and stop being so rude with people who disagree with you, especially considering the people who you're disagreeing with aren't warranting such an abrasive response. No need to be so boorish, instead of posturing like a psuedo-intellectual why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "What heavily armored vehicle could survive a 125 mm HEAT shell from the rear of their base armor?"

    Once you come to the realization that not one single heavily armored AFV on Earth has proven capable of defeating 125 mm HEAT shells from the rear with their base armor, and most AFV's are designed to survive heavy machine gun (12.7 x 99, 12.7 x 108, 14.5 x 114) fire with base armor from the rear only ...Then you'll come to realize that you threw a hissy fit for no apparent reason. Common sense next time please?
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3990
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 20, 2015 9:06 pm

    On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5401
    Points : 5552
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed May 20, 2015 9:23 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

    Actually from my understanding it comes down to weight restrictions related to ground pressure PSI, and the hindrance to mobility. Even if you have frontal armor on all sides, you'll have a tank that weighs over 100 tons with the mobility of a slug, that could still be annihilated by a PGM with a warhead as small as 30 kg of explosives.

    If were going to sacrifice mobility, you might as well create a fortified concrete/rebar-bunker, with 1-meter thick steel plating encasing the personnel quadrants...You'll have just as much mobility as a 100+ ton MBT, but have protection exponentially greater lol!

    But that's beside the point because even if the rear had 'frontal protection' there's a portion of the MBT that's significantly larger than the rear in area and has even thinner armor, it's call 'top armor'.
    2SPOOKY4U
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Thu May 21, 2015 2:12 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

    Actually from my understanding it comes down to weight restrictions related to ground pressure PSI, and the hindrance to mobility. Even if you have frontal armor on all sides, you'll have a tank that weighs over 100 tons with the mobility of a slug, that could still be annihilated by a PGM with a warhead as small as 30 kg of explosives.

    If were going to sacrifice mobility, you might as well create a fortified concrete/rebar-bunker, with 1-meter thick steel plating encasing the personnel quadrants...You'll have just as much mobility as a 100+ ton MBT, but have protection exponentially greater lol!

    But that's beside the point because even if the rear had 'frontal protection' there's a portion of the MBT that's significantly larger than the rear in area and has even thinner armor, it's call 'top armor'.
    \

    Frontal armor extends a bit over the top, I would say that the top armor is better than rear. This is an APC/IFV made to be able to operate effectively in urban combat, of which attacks from rooftop RPGs are commonplace.
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 21, 2015 7:30 am

    One thing i cant understand. Why to vehicles (tanks ,ifv, apc) the sides arent in v form? Would be the simplest way to make real protection. And does compensate lack of knowings in armour branch.
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  victor1985 on Thu May 21, 2015 7:42 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Looking at several pictures of RPG'ed T-64/72 older tanks appareantly do not have the fire suppression system, because the foam and aluminium in those tanks is very distingtive but tanks after 2005 or so should all have it.

    There is explosion retardant foam in the fuel tanks which prevents the fuel air mix needed for an actual explosion... in aircraft cooled exhaust fumes are used to purge oxygen from the fuel tanks to prevent explosion too.

    The system I was thinking of is for the engine compartment and is basically a rocket motor with a coolant that basically generates enormous amounts of fast moving gas that contains no oxygen... it effectively smothers the fire by rapidly removing oxygen from the engine compartment... a good way to deal with a fuel fire which still needs oxygen to burn...

    well, i thought so too - its only prolly limitation of current system and how they made it work, my mistake again(damn, cant get a break these days- must be a quota on mistakes i have to fulfill, school's not doing it do here we are Embarassed ). the one ive read about was for the French FCS, btw, and curiously it appears to not be fully auto- more like just adjusts fine aim.

    An IRST is an excellent comparison system... in terms of angular accuracy it is even more accurate than a radar, but it has no way of determining range with any accuracy... it is like the difference between watching a fly and hearing a fly... the precision with which you can track a fly with your eyes is limited when the fly is particularly fast or the room is not well lit, but a groggy fly in the middle of winter in a well lit white room is easier to track with your eyes than with your ears.

    With thermal optics you can accurately track targets and if you think about it as long as you keep a laser beam on the target and launch a missile that follows the beam you should be able to hit the target unless the missile runs out of fuel/range.

    There's a common misconception about flammable liquids. The liquids themselves aren't responsible for the incendiary effect, it's the fumes that are explosive, and that's largely because the oxygen in the air is a highly flammable accelerant. For all intensive purposes the flammable fumes would be inert in a oxygen deprived environment.

    When liquid fuels like Petrol and Diesel are heated to a very specific temperature they will actually detonate like plastic explosive rather than the lovely big orange fire balls you see in hollywood, but you are quite right... it is a fuel vapour/oxygen mix that is detonated in an engine and burns in the open air.

    This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

    Meh... it doesn't bother me if they want to hate and just remain ignorant... hopefully there will never be a chance to find out whose tank is the best...

    If a small laser could melt a little only the tip of incoming missile would be enoughbagainst apfsds.

    APFSDS rounds have very hard tips but even if you had a laser powerful enough to just soften it in the very few seconds between being fired and impacting the target... the heat transfer would not be enough and would pale incomparison with the heat transfer at impact with armour plate...

    the concept of electric armour AFAIK is usually based on an outer armour plate and an inner armour plate with an enormous electrical differential... when a penetrator hits the target... HEAT or APFSDS, the circuit is closed and an enormously high voltage of electricity is channeled through the penetrator... supposedly resulting in its destruction... The details are not clear however... will someone getting into the vehicle be at risk of being electrocuted and what if liquids... ie rain manage to ground the vehicle...
    I must ask: what is happen when a projectile meets electricity? As faw as i see would be a lot of electrons that runs into the projectile and warm up a lot. That would conduct to melt?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 21, 2015 8:16 am

    Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?

    Which version of Bradley or Abrams can do that?

    Neither would take 30mm autocannon from that direction.... the armata shown has the outer thickness of the door and the inner part that matches the whole thickness of the rear protection... considering the size I would suggest that would stop light cannon fire at least, which makes it rather better protected than the Abrams or Bradley.

    the large box structures either side means it likely wont even get exposed to enemy fire most of the time anyway.

    Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

    Talks by whom?

    I remember mentioning the only other attempt to give 360 degrees protection resulted in a 180 ton tank called the Maus which ended up having a mere 250mm RHA protection level all round.

    [quote]I think You are right, but thanks to hydraulic assisted henches You can open even thicker hatches no problem. Still getting hit in the back would be my least concern in conventional warfare. I only wonder if crew capsule is separated from passenger compartament( no access through inner hatches), what do You think?[.quote]

    The main ramp rear door is hydraulic, the small inset door is manual.

    The crew capsule is separated from the troop compartment and any turret that might be fitted. (ie 45mm gun turret).

    Frontal armor extends a bit over the top, I would say that the top armor is better than rear. This is an APC/IFV made to be able to operate effectively in urban combat, of which attacks from rooftop RPGs are commonplace.

    And the goal in combat is to not expose the rear of the vehicle to enemy fire... remember a single rpg round to an open rear ramp door would be devastating... and would be the goal of any competent enemy.

    One thing i cant understand. Why to vehicles (tanks ,ifv, apc) the sides arent in v form? Would be the simplest way to make real protection. And does compensate lack of knowings in armour branch.

    Angling armour increases its protection levels but also adds volume and it is easier to add volume in length than in width... simply because if you make the vehicle too wide you will find it wont fit on standard roads and will over hang the sides of trains and wont fit in aircraft designed to carry it.

    Equally bridging equipment will be too narrow etc etc.

    I must ask: what is happen when a projectile meets electricity? As faw as i see would be a lot of electrons that runs into the projectile and warm up a lot. That would conduct to melt?

    We are not talking about 250 volts... more like 2 million volts, and the intention is to vapourise the material further and blast the material apart so that it no longer forms a contiguous mass as a penetrator.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5252
    Points : 5455
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 21, 2015 4:27 pm

    roughly ssized T-90A overlay profile over T-14.
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 8800111

    Here you go pictures of how the core turret looks beneath the turret casing.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 294526_original
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 295046_original

    And T-15

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 295521_original
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 295790_original
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 295966_original
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 296261_original

    And an info poster

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 555dc03fbef34
    max steel
    max steel

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  max steel on Thu May 21, 2015 6:01 pm

    US Trying to ‘Beat’ Russia’s Armata


    A company from the United States presented its first remote-controlled drone tanks, an attempt to outdo Russia’s next-generation Armata and win the ‘arms race’.
    The great powers – the US and Russia – have started new arms race, both trying to present each other most advanced defense equipment and new military technologies, Stern magazine wrote.

    As Russia demonstrated its new Armata T-14 battle tank during the Victory Day Parade, the US took every effort to prove that it is keeping up with the time as well.

    Americans released pictures showing a new next generation remote-controlled tank. As in Russia, it is not a full-blown battle tank and not a real armored personnel carrier, but a comparatively compact tracked vehicle.





    The Ripsaw EV-2 is manufactured by Howe and Howe Technologies which specializes in radio-controlled, mainly non-military vehicles. So far, it is a pure development project. Although the tank looks impressive due to its high mobility and other characteristics, it was not specifically designed for the military, Stern wrote.
    The idea behind the project is clear: the drone tank should fight the enemy without putting own soldiers at risk. A similar project was already introduced by Russia a year before.
    The MRK-002-BG-57, nicknamed Wolf 2, makes a significant step towards the creation of a fully automated robot tank. Its electronics should be able to detect and target up to ten objects at the same time, the article said.










    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150521/1022419317.html#ixzz3amzgT2XB
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 21, 2015 6:15 pm

    Well.. FCS-2000 part II. For above unmanned vehicle.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5401
    Points : 5552
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 21, 2015 6:18 pm

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

    Actually from my understanding it comes down to weight restrictions related to ground pressure PSI, and the hindrance to mobility. Even if you have frontal armor on all sides, you'll have a tank that weighs over 100 tons with the mobility of a slug, that could still be annihilated by a PGM with a warhead as small as 30 kg of explosives.

    If were going to sacrifice mobility, you might as well create a fortified concrete/rebar-bunker, with 1-meter thick steel plating encasing the personnel quadrants...You'll have just as much mobility as a 100+ ton MBT, but have protection exponentially greater lol!

    But that's beside the point because even if the rear had 'frontal protection' there's a portion of the MBT that's significantly larger than the rear in area and has even thinner armor, it's call 'top armor'.
    \

    Frontal armor extends a bit over the top, I would say that the top armor is better than rear. This is an APC/IFV made to be able to operate effectively in urban combat, of which attacks from rooftop RPGs are commonplace.

    Just the frontal arc, once you get to the crew hatches (hatch spaces actually weakens the armor) the top armor stands significantly weakened in comparison to the rest of the frontal arc. That same reason is why you see top armor ERA near the crew hatches and not at the beginning part of the frontal arc.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 21, 2015 6:31 pm

    max steel wrote:
    A company from the United States presented its first remote-controlled drone tanks, an attempt to outdo Russia’s next-generation Armata and win the ‘arms race’.
    The great powers – the US and Russia – have started new arms race, both trying to present each other most advanced defense equipment and new military technologies, Stern magazine wrote.

    As Russia demonstrated its new Armata T-14 battle tank during the Victory Day Parade, the US took every effort to prove that it is keeping up with the time as well.

    Americans released pictures showing a new next generation remote-controlled tank. As in Russia, it is not a full-blown battle tank and not a real armored personnel carrier, but a comparatively compact tracked vehicle.
    ahahahahahahahahaha, who let the kids in the big boys competition? seriously, a half-baked BMD wannabe (like a BMD cant do any of those stunts) is the counter?!?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5401
    Points : 5552
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 21, 2015 6:51 pm

    Quick question: I know a lot of people where excited about the May 9th parade, however I believe RAE 2015 will blow us away even more with more new unique 'chess pieces' unveiled to the general public. Am I alone in believing this?

    Just a friendly reminder how spectacular RAE 2013 was:


    Sponsored content

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:18 pm