Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Share

    kumbor

    Posts : 88
    Points : 86
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kumbor on Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:06 am

    LMFS wrote:Two questions:

    1) Is 125 mm not enough? (i.e. something notably bigger being necessary to counter development of APS?)
    2) Would not the amount of ammo onboard be tank be notably reduced with this huge calibre?

    Thanks!

    125mm is still enough, as bigger calibres in the West are largely experimental. New construction of autolader in Armata enables new, longer KE projectiles to be used. 152mm gun on object292 proved the possibility of installing such a gun on tank chassis. Trials were successful, but number of rounds is notably reduced. Also, tank guns have limited elevation due to small space within turret, typically -5/+15 degs on T72 and variants. SP gun needs much bigger elevation in order to be useful as an artillery ordnance, while the express use of a tank is combat with other tanks.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:57 pm

    Thanks kumbor!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:48 pm


    I find that T-14 Armata MBT looks to me like heavy tank "танк прорыва" of the past, used in rather limited numbers on major directions of the attack as spearheads. They should be followed by the main mass of T-90, modernised T-80 and T-72BZs, as well as other armoured vehicles, BMPs and BTRs, including those with ATGMs.

    Except they are actually lighter than Tiger IIs and will be operated in divisions where every vehicle is armata based... ideal for urban combat... against very well equipped enemies.

    In-tank warfare whoever sees who first generally will get the kill.

    Normally would agree, but when one side has APS systems able to destabilise APFSDS rounds, then it might take quite a few shots to get a kill... if it is even possible from the front at long range...

    2) Would not the amount of ammo onboard be tank be notably reduced with this huge calibre?

    If they arm it with a BB gun they could carry millions of rounds.... Smile

    Larger calibre increases internal volume for smarter missiles and more powerful warheads.


    125mm is still enough, as bigger calibres in the West are largely experimental.

    125mm is enough but it has nothing to do with the size of western guns and more to do with western armour... they will change to 152mm when they think 125mm wont be powerful enough to do the job...

    SP gun needs much bigger elevation in order to be useful as an artillery ordnance, while the express use of a tank is combat with other tanks.

    Also as mentioned a self propelled gun is artillery so its primary round is usually HE... which benefits from being spun in flight to stabilise it and a big muzzle brake to reduce recoil.

    A tank gun relies on velocity (APFSDS) and calibre (HEAT)... and a long narrow projectile can't be spun fast enough to stabilise it... which is why darts and arrows and APFSDS rounds have fins to stabilise them (literally what FS stands for in APFSDS), and HEAT warheads don't like to be spun as that reduces their penetration.

    A tank gun is smoothbore with fin stabilised rounds because velocity is more important and no muzzle brake as they can damage sabots which effects accuracy of APFSDS rounds...

    Smoothbores are cheaper to make... easier to clean, can be lighter than a rifled gun and can either be shorter for the same muzzle velocity, or the same length with better performance.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 840
    Points : 840
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:50 pm

    The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range. The T-14 can hit targets that are 4 - 6 km away with KE and HEAT projectiles, 5 - 8 km away with gun-launched laser-guided missiles and 15 - 20 km away in indirect fire mode. With the 152mm gun they would be able to fire a KE projectile that could penetrate any armour in a distance of 5 - 6 km.

    kumbor

    Posts : 88
    Points : 86
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kumbor on Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:02 pm

    Hole wrote:The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range. The T-14 can hit targets that are 4 - 6 km away with KE and HEAT projectiles, 5 - 8 km away with gun-launched laser-guided missiles and 15 - 20 km away in indirect fire mode. With the 152mm gun they would be able to fire a KE projectile that could penetrate any armour in a distance of 5 - 6 km.

    But also, 152mm gun has immense recoil forces and carries less rounds, not more than 30 I think, in comparison with 42-44 in 125mm gun. We still don`t know nothing about gunwear in 152mm gun, which can be excessive, concerning pressure buildup, copper and powder residues in the barrel. On the other side, 152mm round not only can defeat any existing armour if KE, but can easily knock off tank turret if common HE. The effective hit distance depends more on FCS employed.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 840
    Points : 840
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:34 pm

    Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:14 pm

    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7074
    Points : 7168
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:58 am

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.

    125mm is already enough against any existing and future tank, that's why they shelved 152mm version for now
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 840
    Points : 840
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:58 am

    Or the old Sturmgeschütz is making a comeback.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:01 am

    The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range.

    Being able to hit a target at 6km with a 125mm APFSDS round is one thing, but it actually penetrating the armour of the target it hits is another thing entirely.

    A 125mm gun might be able to hit targets to 4-6km but a 5.56mm bullet from an M16 might hit a target at 800m too.

    5.56mm bullets have not proved very effective at ranges greater than 250m or so.

    In practical terms you are not going to normally be shooting targets in combat at more than 250m anyway... very occasionally you might spot something further away, but if it is camouflaged and moving and you are being shot at... having a .338 Lapua magnum chambered assault rifle with an effective range of 1.5km is of no real value without actually being a sniper.

    When the 125mm no longer penetrates enemy armour at useful distances they can revert to the 152mm main gun.

    They might create separate units with tanks fitted with 152mm guns and leave the rest at 125mm because the 125mm can still deal with 90% of battlefield targets.

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    The bigger gun also comes at a cost in terms of price and operational use...

    A 152mm gun would certainly have less ready to fire rounds, but then if your 125mm rounds are not penetrating... how useful will those extra rounds be?

    One could say fewer rounds of 152mm ammo is OK because it will need fewer rounds to do its job.

    If some hard target needs 152mm rounds to deal with it then Coalition can provide 152mm HE rounds for that role or indeed likely some sort of diving top attack anti armour round that is guided and packs a real punch...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:48 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.

    125mm is already enough against any existing and future tank, that's why they shelved 152mm version for now

    1.) I think you might be missing the bigger potential of a 152 mm cannon, and here's a hint, it's not tank warfare. Take the RPO Shmel launcher. It's thermobaric munitions at a 93 mm diameter has the same destructive potential as a 155 mm HE-Frag shell...now think about that potential scaled up to 152 mm cannon thermobaric shells. At 152 mm, you might see destructive potential rivaling a 203 mm HE-Frag shell, or maybe close to 240 mm mortal HE-Frag shelsl. While it's possible they could do something similar with with the 125 mm, the best thing a 152 mm shell could bring would be both the destructive potential and the extended range.

    2.) Now lets also think about the potential biggest threats to MBT's....short answer it's not other MBT's. The two biggest threats facing MBT's as of now (taking in to consideration the recent conflicts in the ME) are insurgents with man-portable ATGM's, and modern MLRS. In my opinion the 152 mm is better suited to fight these threats because of the additional range it could bring, that the 125 mm couldn't. Destructive potential without sacrificing extended range is the main point here.

    3.) With a guided thermobaric shells, at 152 mm, you could potential engage insurgents ATGM's from possible stand-off ranges as far as 10-15 km's, and destructive potential nearing a 203 mm HE-Frag shells. You could literally clear out a 5 story buildings harboring insurgents (think Syria, Chechnya), hitting every floor, hitting windows from opposite ends, either obliterating or suffocating them. 10 to 15 shells could potential see a partial collapse of one side of a multi-story building, killing many insurgents and exposing the rest in the process.

    4.) Using some technology from Koalitsiya, stand-off range shells could be developed, maybe with a glide-kit you could see a shell that has a range of 40-60 km's. Because it's smooth-bored, it wont have the 70 km range base standard that Koalitsiya has, so this is why a glide-kit would be necessary. Naturally this shell will be significantly less powerful than the thermobaric guided shell because it will be HE-Frag, and the warhead weight would be decreased as well in favor of extended range. This wouldn't be a problem because this shell's main purpose would be as a anti-MLRS munition, and most MLRS are minimally armored, the main purpose is it's range, giving it the ability to engage MLRS on a more even-footing. Even a UAV could be developed from that shell.

    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14's.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 840
    Points : 840
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:28 am

    There is artillery to do this.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:02 am


    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14

    That could be the commander version which usally has more thing inside to coordinate the tanks around.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:28 pm

    Hole wrote:There is artillery to do this.

    The same argument could be said for the 57 mm autocannon...there's already Sosna, Pantsir, Tunguska, Tor, so why do you need the 57 mm gun? Because the vehicle will be able the travel with the armored squadron with adequate armor. Also it's good not to put all your eggs in one basket, you could have artillery and MLRS 50 km's away, but it's good to have some heavy fire power within 10-15 km's, with better situational awareness. Also artillery is either lightly armored, or too big of a target. The 152 mm smooth-bore would be better suited for direct fire (as in shooting inside buildings), and thermobaric shells are better used hitting inside buildings, not as good as indirect fire (something that artillery would do, hitting on top of buildings). Also indirect fire of artillery isn't as good at clearing out floors in a building, because you limited to just hitting the top of the buildings, which gives insurgents time to escape through the lower floors. The direct fire from the smooth-bore will allow you to clear out each floor, and the thermobaric shells will consume the oxygen, leaving just dust and smoke in each floor, leaving them choking and blind. You would be able to clear out each floor, from the bottom floor to the top floor, leaving no room for the insurgents to escape. Again you could have direct fire from your artillery, but artillery is usually too big of a a target or too lightly armored, and it also defeats the purpose of artillery to get so close to the action. Also you could technically take on other MLRS with your own MLRS/Artillery, but it's always good not to put all you eggs in one basket, and just adding an additional ability to your T-14's, adding the capability would not be a huge cost expenditure because the numbers of 152 mm smooth-bore would significantly less than their 125 mm counter-part.

    Isos wrote: That could be the commander version which usally has more thing inside to coordinate the tanks around.

    No. The commander vehicle would be entirely different vehicle, probably based on the T-15 AFV, and not the T-14. The T-15 command vehicle would be heavily armored, but lightly armed, because most of the eternal space would be dedicated to people sitting at their desktop computers. Something like 3 crew members in the front (Driver, Commander, and light or heavy machine turret controller) and 8 commanders controlling various situational awareness scenarios within their Armata squadron. The T-14 152 mm smooth-bore compliments the 125 mm T-14 because it allows direct fire engagement with either AFV's or bunkered insurgents at safer stand off ranges, but their numbers should be significantly less than the 125 mm variant.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 840
    Points : 840
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:11 pm

    There´s already HE-FRAG munition for the 125mm gun. To kill some guys in a civilian building 300 metres before your tank you don´t need more power.

    What you want is a Sturmgeschütz, but that would be somehting else, not a T-14 tank. Where are we now? T-17? So lets call it the T-17 fire support vehicle.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:02 pm

    Hole wrote:There´s already HE-FRAG munition for the 125mm gun. To kill some guys in a civilian building 300 metres before your tank you don´t need more power.

    What you want is a Sturmgeschütz, but that would be somehting else, not a T-14 tank. Where are we now? T-17? So lets call it the T-17 fire support vehicle.

    300 meters is within the range of many man-portable ATGM's (i.e. Kornet-E max range of 5.5 km's), you'd need to be in a range beyond 6 km's to be safe, the 152 mm would have that over 125 mm. Also thermobaric shells also have nearly double the destructive power of HE-Frag shells, but are less effective in open-air outdoor engagements, however are vastly superior to HE-Frag's in indoor engagements, due to the fact that fragmentation shrapnel can get blocked within indoor interiors, meanwhile thermobaric munitions tend to 'bring-the-house-down.' Thermobaric shells also consume the oxygen within buildings, making it hard to breathe for the insurgents. As I mentioned before, you could potentially make a thermobaric shell for 125 mm, but the 152 mm would give the standoff range too comfortably engage ATGM infantry within safe distance.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:19 pm

    1.) I think you might be missing the bigger potential of a 152 mm cannon, and here's a hint, it's not tank warfare. Take the RPO Shmel launcher. It's thermobaric munitions at a 93 mm diameter has the same destructive potential as a 155 mm HE-Frag shell...now think about that potential scaled up to 152 mm cannon thermobaric shells. At 152 mm, you might see destructive potential rivaling a 203 mm HE-Frag shell, or maybe close to 240 mm mortal HE-Frag shelsl. While it's possible they could do something similar with with the 125 mm, the best thing a 152 mm shell could bring would be both the destructive potential and the extended range.

    TOS for ranges up to about 12km in the current version and Smerch out to probably 120km or more... plus coalition...

    Certainly no tank gun will be firing at targets more than 110km away.

    2.) Now lets also think about the potential biggest threats to MBT's....short answer it's not other MBT's. The two biggest threats facing MBT's as of now (taking in to consideration the recent conflicts in the ME) are insurgents with man-portable ATGM's, and modern MLRS. In my opinion the 152 mm is better suited to fight these threats because of the additional range it could bring, that the 125 mm couldn't. Destructive potential without sacrificing extended range is the main point here.

    Insurgents can be dealt with using standard weapons on IFVs and APCs and the roof mounted remote weapon stations on the Armata tank... while their RPGs will be stopped by APS systems.

    MLRS will be 40km plus away from the targets they are engaging... Russian MLRSs will be even further away... no tank will be in a position to deal with those.

    [quote[]3.) With a guided thermobaric shells, at 152 mm, you could potential engage insurgents ATGM's from possible stand-off ranges as far as 10-15 km's, and destructive potential nearing a 203 mm HE-Frag shells. You could literally clear out a 5 story buildings harboring insurgents (think Syria, Chechnya), hitting every floor, hitting windows from opposite ends, either obliterating or suffocating them. 10 to 15 shells could potential see a partial collapse of one side of a multi-story building, killing many insurgents and exposing the rest in the process.[/quote]

    Easier to just deal with the ATGM using APS and if you want to bring down a city block 12km away, then TOS...

    4.) Using some technology from Koalitsiya, stand-off range shells could be developed, maybe with a glide-kit you could see a shell that has a range of 40-60 km's. Because it's smooth-bored, it wont have the 70 km range base standard that Koalitsiya has, so this is why a glide-kit would be necessary. Naturally this shell will be significantly less powerful than the thermobaric guided shell because it will be HE-Frag, and the warhead weight would be decreased as well in favor of extended range. This wouldn't be a problem because this shell's main purpose would be as a anti-MLRS munition, and most MLRS are minimally armored, the main purpose is it's range, giving it the ability to engage MLRS on a more even-footing. Even a UAV could be developed from that shell.

    But why fit such things to your tanks? surely the anti MLRS role is better played by the Smerch at 120km plus...

    And coalition has guided shells with 70km range already... why waste time giving tanks the capability to do the same?

    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14's.

    Its main advantage is the ability to kill tanks at extended ranges so you would not just put one there on its own a couple of kms behind the other vehicles.

    A 152mm calibre gun unit would be deployed in an overwatch position to destroy enemy vehicles when they appear at long range... the other tanks will try to get closer where their 125mm guns will be effective...

    The same argument could be said for the 57 mm autocannon...there's already Sosna, Pantsir, Tunguska, Tor, so why do you need the 57 mm gun?

    the main gun on an IFV needs to be able to deal with enemy vehicles... its ATGM should deal with the heaviest enemy armour, but the main gun needs to be able to deal with the rest, and the 30mm is not powerful enough to deal with 32 ton NATO IFVS... and air burst 57mm shells will deal better with UAVs than 30mm cannon shells can.

    300 meters is within the range of many man-portable ATGM's (i.e. Kornet-E max range of 5.5 km's), you'd need to be in a range beyond 6 km's to be safe, the 152 mm would have that over 125 mm.

    A 125mm HE Frag round would be rather accurate as it is direct fired, and can hit targets out to about 10km with a relatively flat trajectory.

    If that is not powerful enough then the 220mm odd rounds from the current model TOS should be plenty of fire power.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:21 pm