Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:33 pm

    Militarov wrote: "armatovskoy", interesting term, i am suprised its not "Abramovski" or "Aramamski", "Sidevindorski", those are terms they always loved to use.

    i doubt that the term is "armatovskoy" that is in russian like refering or mentioning something about armata so the sufix ovskoy is added.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5963
    Points : 5992
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:40 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote: "armatovskoy", interesting term, i am suprised its not "Abramovski" or "Aramamski", "Sidevindorski", those are terms they always loved to use.

    i doubt that the term is "armatovskoy" that is in russian like refering or mentioning something about armata so the sufix ovskoy is added.

    Yeah i know what is the point of adding ski, its somewhat similar to serbian "ić". However Armata is already a platform, its abit pointless adding it here. Also Armata is sort of already in Russian.

    They used this way of expressing themself when they tried to show how something Russian is either copied or made to be comparable to something on a west. You know they very often call PAK-FA "Raptorski".
    avatar
    franco

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  franco on Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:00 pm

    Undisclosed number of T-15 ordered to go with the 100 T-14 ordered last week.

    Defense Ministry ordered the BMP at the "Armata" platform

    On the "Uralvagonzavod" (DC) will produce BMP platform "Armata" for the Defense Ministry. Fighting Machine T-15 is able to destroy tanks, drones and helicopters.

    Between Uralvagonzavod and the Defense Ministry, as reported by RIA Novosti , long-term contract for the supply of BMP has been concluded. Earlier, it became known that "Uralvagonzavod" has received from the Defense Ministry order for a hundred tanks "Armata". So the issue of Uralvagonzavod machines on the same track platform is quite logical.

    BMP T-15 is designed to maintain the maneuverability of combat operations as part of armored and mechanized infantry units. "Armata" platform allows multiple versions of combat units. For example, the module "Boomerang-BM" circular rotation will be equipped with 30-millimitrovoy automatic cannon 2A42, coupled with a machine gun PKT.

    There in his arsenal and twin launchers for ATGM "Kornet". This will allow the "Boomerang-BM" to fire simultaneously on two air targets. including the unmanned aircraft.

    Module "Baikal" will boast a powerful gun, 57 mm. This is a revised version of the ship's anti-aircraft installations. It is able to hit the ground attack aircraft and attack helicopters at an altitude of 8000 meters.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Zivo on Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:43 pm

    franco wrote:There in his arsenal and twin launchers for ATGM "Kornet". This will allow the "Boomerang-BM" to fire simultaneously on two air targets. including the unmanned aircraft.

    Excellent, I was waiting for that.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:32 am

    GarryB wrote:Would comment on the 30mm vs 23mm question.

    First to be clear the 30 x 165mm ammo is a much more powerful round than the 23 x 114mm round.

    The 30 x 165mm round is a high velocity round effective in anti armour and HE use, and the 23mm round is like an enlarged 14.5mm HMG round with a much smaller shell case with much lower velocity.

    The 30mm would be best as a high velocity anti armour weapon as used on BMP-2 and BMP-3, but current and near future NATO IFV wont be penetrated by 30mm from effective battlefield ranges so the shift will have to be up to 57mm calibre weapons.

    Now the 57mm cannon shells are huge so it will mostly be used for anti aircraft and anti armour use... so what do you use against enemy infantry or soft ground targets?

    A 23mm cannon is a low velocity round with a small compact case so you can carry lots of rounds but the HE projectile is rather heavy and effective so it would be useful as a replacement for a 14.5mm HMG against soft targets... its 23mm HE shells being much more powerful because of their extra weight and size.

    Note the 23mm Shilka and ZU-23 round is a completely different round with a high velocity 23 x 152mm shell that takes up more space... the HE projectile is the same however so it is effective but gets there slower.

    Note the Mi-35M2 with the 23mm chin turret uses 23 x 114mm rounds and it would make sense to replace the 14.5mm guns in IFVs and APC with this 23mm round as its HE effectiveness is excellent with a small compact low recoil round.

    The fact that the 23mm can accommodate a decent HE payload and hold so many rounds is precisely why I think it should be a secondary weapon on the T-14 Armata and T-15 variants. It would also provide these vehicles with the ability to target hostile AT teams and fighters in elevated positions in urban engagements. What kind of velocities can we expect to see in the 57mm gun? How much do you think an unmanned turret [with a 57mm gun] would weigh in the T-15 Armata? When the T-15 gets the 57mm gun, the turret should be brought significantly forward -- which would afford it far greater flexibility in gun depression.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:20 pm

    The Hermes is supposedly unified in design with the SA-22 (Pantsir-SM) so having a large battery of Hermes missiles on an Armata chassis makes sense in that it can hit point ground targets and aerial targets.

    Its basic design has a long slender low drag missile on a solid rocket booster... the solid rocket boosters and standardised and come in a range of sizes and powers... and I would suspect a lofted trajectory would greatly increase effective range against both ground and air targets.

    A sustainer motor could easily be fitted to extend range and maintain a high flight speed... it could be a ramjet or scramjet to ensure high terminal speed.


    For relatively close air and ground targets I would suspect command guidance would be the best option for low costs, but MMW and IIR guided models would be useful against both air and ground targets in a fire and forget mode.

    What kind of velocities can we expect to see in the 57mm gun?

    I would think 1,100m/s for full calibre high velocity rounds, and perhaps 1,600m/s for APFSDS rounds, with standard rounds travelling at maybe 900m/s or so.

    The very rear mounted turret of the T-15 is because it does not penetrate the hull... with a 57mm gun it would need to be mounted much further forward like the 125mm gun turret of the T-14.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:57 pm


    Garry B wrote:

    I would think 1,100m/s for full calibre high velocity rounds, and perhaps 1,600m/s for APFSDS rounds, with standard rounds travelling at maybe 900m/s or so.

    That's incredible! It should have virtually the same kind of performance as the 60mm hyper-velocity gun.


    Garry B wrote:
    The very rear mounted turret of the T-15 is because it does not penetrate the hull... with a 57mm gun it would need to be mounted much further forward like the 125mm gun turret of the T-14.

    I would definitely love to see the turret brought forward. It would be an incredible improvement. The ATOM vehicle has a 57mm gun with 80-90 rounds in a small unmanned turret and I imagine that an unmanned turret for the T-15 could hold up to 110-120 rounds in a turret bustle. I like the fact that the rounds in the ATOM vehicle don't penetrate the hull and this could easily be done for the T-15.

    A new turret for the T-15 would add weight but I think that it would be worth it. The door in the T-15 Armata seems a little thin when compared to the rear door in the Namer APC.

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Viktor on Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:42 pm

    Price of Armata tank T-14 is 250 million rubles i.e. 3.8 million $ and it can go down in case of the large order thumbsup

    "Armata" tank for the military could become cheaper


    Last edited by Viktor on Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue May 03, 2016 5:34 am


    The new 125mm gun is really impressive and apparently has rounds that are just as potent as the 140mm were in testing. So if it can penetrate 1000mm of armor what kind of penetration can we expect from the 152mm? I remember reading Garry's post about the tremendous advantages that binary liquid propellants would provide and so I was wondering if this is something that the Russians might consider for the Armata. Like all things, binary liquid propellants would present its own disadvantages such as complexity, barrel corrosion and toxicity. Is it something worth pursuing?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7071
    Points : 7167
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue May 03, 2016 2:14 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    The new 125mm gun is really impressive and apparently has rounds that are just as potent as the 140mm were in testing. So if it can penetrate 1000mm of armor what kind of penetration can we expect from the 152mm? I remember reading Garry's post about the tremendous advantages that binary liquid propellants would provide and so I was wondering if this is something that the Russians might consider for the Armata. Like all things, binary liquid propellants would present its own disadvantages such as complexity, barrel corrosion and toxicity. Is it something worth pursuing?

    I red that even without penetration 152mm shell has enough kinetic force to take out any target, basically squashing it like a paper cup depending on the size.

    Most probably they will keep it simple, even without binary propellants this thing is already an overkill.


    Last edited by PapaDragon on Tue May 03, 2016 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

    DerWolf

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2015-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  DerWolf on Tue May 03, 2016 2:45 pm

    Would be great to see T-14 with the powerful 152 mm gun Smile
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 03, 2016 5:15 pm

    ISU-152 can kill and tank today regardless of its armor i doubt they will bother making 152mm rounds to overengineered or complicated they could use simple full-bore solid penetrators like in WW2 but they will have to make them Sabots to have the velocity to keep the time to neutralize targets as low as possible aswell enhance hprob.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 04, 2016 9:50 am

    The obvious problem with propellent is that it is designed to generate pressure rapidly and burn fast and clean... that means it has a lot of oxygen and a lot of fuel.

    The advantages of a binary propellent are that you can break the propellent down into separate compounds that on their own might not even burn let alone explode. They might be very toxic and certainly would not be safe materials to swim in, but by splitting them into two or more separate compounds you can make their storage easier and much safer... you could have storage tanks located throughout the tank because even when hit they wont burn or explode... it would only be when mixed together in the right ratio that the mixture becomes highly explosive... and it should only be mixed together in the breach of the main gun.

    this greatly reduces the risk of explosion on a vehicle and also makes loading much easier and quicker.

    The piping used for the internal barrel cleaning system could be adapted to deliver propellent even during firing to add mass and volume to the propellent during combustion...

    Regarding the use of a 152mm main gun... it would certainly be a thumper... but EM and plasma offers a few ways of boosting performance... note liquid propellent tends to be more powerful than solid propellent...

    Another advantage of 152mm shells is the extra volume allows for larger shaped charge warheads as well as more room for things like rocket motors and guidance fins etc etc.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed May 04, 2016 3:44 pm



    PapaDragon wrote:
    I red that even without penetration 152mm shell has enough kinetic force to take out any target, basically squashing it like a paper cup depending on the size.

    Most probably they will keep it simple, even without binary propellants this thing is already an overkill.

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    Werewolf wrote:ISU-152 can kill and tank today regardless of its armor i doubt they will bother making 152mm rounds to overengineered or complicated they could use simple full-bore solid penetrators like in WW2 but they will have to make them Sabots to have the velocity to keep the time to neutralize targets as low as possible aswell enhance hprob.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that a WWII era tank could easily take out modern tanks. The Russians have plenty of time to keep making upgrades to the Armata and so I think they'll introduce yet another revolutionary feature in the Armata in due time. A binary liquid propellant arrangement just seems too good to pass up. This tank will not have any competitors for decades more.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed May 04, 2016 5:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:The obvious problem with propellent is that it is designed to generate pressure rapidly and burn fast and clean... that means it has a lot of oxygen and a lot of fuel.

    The advantages of a binary propellent are that you can break the propellent down into separate compounds that on their own might not even burn let alone explode. They might be very toxic and certainly would not be safe materials to swim in, but by splitting them into two or more separate compounds you can make their storage easier and much safer... you could have storage tanks located throughout the tank because even when hit they wont burn or explode... it would only be when mixed together in the right ratio that the mixture becomes highly explosive... and it should only be mixed together in the breach of the main gun.

    this greatly reduces the risk of explosion on a vehicle and also makes loading much easier and quicker.

    The piping used for the internal barrel cleaning system could be adapted to deliver propellent even during firing to add mass and volume to the propellent during combustion...

    Regarding the use of a 152mm main gun... it would certainly be a thumper... but EM and plasma offers a few ways of boosting performance... note liquid propellent tends to be more powerful than solid propellent...

    Another advantage of 152mm shells is the extra volume allows for larger shaped charge warheads as well as more room for things like rocket motors and guidance fins etc etc.



    I really thought that the binary liquid propellant set up would slow down loading time and so I'm glad to hear that the opposite would happen.

    Thanks for all of this Garry. cheers
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 897
    Points : 906
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 22
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed May 04, 2016 8:26 pm

    Captain Stupid here, can I ask as to why 152mm (or equivalent calibre) direct fire guns were phased out in the first place if they were/are so effective at MBT destruction?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5963
    Points : 5992
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Wed May 04, 2016 8:33 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:Captain Stupid here, can I ask as to why 152mm (or equivalent calibre) direct fire guns were phased out in the first place if they were/are so effective at MBT destruction?

    Few reasons... Very expencive ammunition, low ammunition cappacity, too heavy for manual loading on MBT-s where speed is important, turrets needed to be bigger and heavier which would make whole vehicle more expencive and would damage its overall mobility. Some other reasons too but would require alot of text.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7071
    Points : 7167
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 04, 2016 9:41 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5963
    Points : 5992
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Thu May 05, 2016 2:01 am

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 05, 2016 2:52 am

    Militarov wrote:

    ...And GarryB said there wouldn't be a wheeled version of T-14 Armata....PFFFFTTT shows what he knows! Wink
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 05, 2016 1:49 pm

    Well certainly with no crew in the turret/ammo storage area it would be useful to purge the air with nitrogen so any spark or burning material quickly is suffocated.

    The ISU-152 was about the only Soviet vehicle that could defeat the Elephant and Tiger tanks at Kursk... they didn't do it by penetrating the armour, as shown in recent conflicts even a 50kg IED can destroy an M1 Abrams and kill its crew... a 152mm shell weighs in the range of 40-45kg and travels at about 900m/s.

    I would suspect the standard full bore 152mm shell will travel at a higher speed but 1,7km/s would be optimistic for a full calibre round.

    Of course with a range of about 70km the 152mm shell from Coalition would have a decent muzzle velocity I would expect.

    The simple fact is that a 152mm shell is very heavy and slow to load and the only vehicle that used it in a turret during WWII was the KV-2 which was very powerful but not very popular.

    When the T-34 entered service most anti armour guns on tanks were 37mm or 45mm or 50mm calibre long barrel high velocity weapons with poor or no HE capacity.

    the 76.2mm gun was a revolutionary design because it mixed both HE power and armour penetration perfomance... before it tanks were either anti tank vehicles with a 37mm or 45mm high velocity anti armour gun and a machine gun, or a short barrel 76.2mm gun firing HE shells... the former anti armour and anti enemy infantry and the latter anti infantry/fortification. The 76.2mm gun of the T-34 allowed decent penetration of armour and a decent HE shell for other targets... it was the first real MBT. Good mobility, good armour, good gun.

    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 897
    Points : 906
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 22
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu May 05, 2016 8:22 pm

    Thanks for the info Militarov, Garry.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:34 am

    GarryB wrote:Well certainly with no crew in the turret/ammo storage area it would be useful to purge the air with nitrogen so any spark or burning material quickly is suffocated.

    The ISU-152 was about the only Soviet vehicle that could defeat the Elephant and Tiger tanks at Kursk... they didn't do it by penetrating the armour, as shown in recent conflicts even a 50kg IED can destroy an M1 Abrams and kill its crew... a 152mm shell weighs in the range of 40-45kg and travels at about 900m/s.

    I would suspect the standard full bore 152mm shell will travel at a higher speed but 1,7km/s would be optimistic for a full calibre round.

    Of course with a range of about 70km the 152mm shell from Coalition would have a decent muzzle velocity I would expect.

    The simple fact is that a 152mm shell is very heavy and slow to load and the only vehicle that used it in a turret during WWII was the KV-2 which was very powerful but not very popular.

    When the T-34 entered service most anti armour guns on tanks were 37mm or 45mm or 50mm calibre long barrel high velocity weapons with poor or no HE capacity.

    the 76.2mm gun was a revolutionary design because it mixed both HE power and armour penetration perfomance... before it tanks were either anti tank vehicles with a 37mm or 45mm high velocity anti armour gun and a machine gun, or a short barrel 76.2mm gun firing HE shells... the former anti armour and anti enemy infantry and the latter anti infantry/fortification.  The 76.2mm gun of the T-34 allowed decent penetration of armour and a decent HE shell for other targets... it was the first real MBT.  Good mobility, good armour, good gun.


    Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+. Electro-thermal guns can reach even greater velocities, so there are great opportunities there as well. I hope to see electric-diesel engines in the Armata variants due to the fact that electric-diesel engines are quiter, fuel and energy efficient and provide excellent acceleration. Electric-diesel engines would apparently also allow platforms to accelerate forward and reverse at the same speed.


    If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret? The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:52 am; edited 1 time in total

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 273
    Points : 281
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:45 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5963
    Points : 5992
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 2:51 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

    Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:05 am