[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Certainly if the west came up with some super tanks that required 152mm guns to deal with Russia would not need to completely replace all their 125mm guns with 152mm guns... they could probably add a few 152mm gun armed vehicles with each armoured division to deal with these few HATO super tanks while the rest of the tanks could take out everything else as normal... sort of like a heavy tank destroyer that operates together with normal tanks.

I think with the introduction of the new German Panther KF51, Russia will need larger caliber tank guns to compete with the Panther 130mm gun

Don t you thing that Armata resembles t 34-85? Especially in the turret area.

That's the design they used for all their tanks. Naked t-54, t-72... all have such design. A box with a round turret in the top. Then with add-ons it changes.

PhSt wrote:I think with the introduction of the new German Panther KF51, Russia will need larger caliber tank guns to compete with the Panther 130mm gun

Russia will develop their tank guns to defeat enemy armour, not as a dick-comparing exercise initiated simply because the Germans announce a new gun. The 2A82-1M and its modern ammo (or future enhancements of both) will be able to defeat any NATOstani armour in existence or comtemplated.  Until that changes, a 152mm tank gun and an Armata-class carrier will remain a generalised R&D project.

From t54 to t90 (not M) i am agree whit you. But t 34-85 and Armata are different from them and in the same time they have similar appearance to one another. The turrets of both look nothing like t54-t90.

Ah yes, the Panther. A tank that will stay in single digits amount.

It was another tech test bench and nothing more.

GarryB wrote:Didn't the 152mm gun have a variable charge system like the Coalition 152mm artillery system?

The modifications would be the ammo storage and handling system as well as the autoloader I suspect

The 2A83 didn't, but the 2A82 kinda, sorta uses one like it: It uses the old charge from existing rounds, and a special larger magnum charge for APFSDS shots. In addition, APFSDS rounds have an incremental charge attached to the projectile and naturally the longer APFSDS projectiles would have a larger propellant charge as well.

GarryB wrote:My understanding was that they looked at the potential future threats and the upgrade paths for the 125mm gun and thought it would continue to be effective for quite some time to come so the cost of changing to the new calibre could be postponed.

Certainly if the west came up with some super tanks that required 152mm guns to deal with Russia would not need to completely replace all their 125mm guns with 152mm guns... they could probably add a few 152mm gun armed vehicles with each armoured division to deal with these few HATO super tanks while the rest of the tanks could take out everything else as normal... sort of like a heavy tank destroyer that operates together with normal tanks.

That and the 2A83 gun dates back from the 80s so its plenty outdated by 2020. Advances in technology would have made it possible for a 125 mm gun with modern ammunition to have similar, if not better ballistic performance to the larger gun firing the ammunition of the time.

GarryB wrote:Would be interesting to see what drone and attack helicopter information could be shared with the T-14s in real combat along with platforms like the Su-57 with its radar and optical sensors detecting targets and offering real time live views of the ground in front of them...

Or the other way around, with the T-14 feeding information to artillery, aircraft and drones. You would have a hardened spotter directing accurate indirect fire, air and drone strikes and wreaking more damage than an entire battalion of tanks can with their guns.

PhSt wrote:I think with the introduction of the new German Panther KF51, Russia will need larger caliber tank guns to compete with the Panther 130mm gun

The gun is made to defeat enemy armor, not his gun. The KF51 is a Leo2 with a 130 mm gun; its not that hard to crack.

I think with the introduction of the new German Panther KF51, Russia will need larger caliber tank guns to compete with the Panther 130mm gun

You don't introduce a new gun to match or exceed your opponents potential guns, you introduce a gun when the enemy introduces tanks your current gun cannot penetrate over useful distances from useful angles.

Introducing a new gun with new ammo is not quick or easy or cheap... even when the new gun is already developed.

Don t you thing that Armata resembles t 34-85? Especially in the turret area.

First Russian/Soviet tank in a long time with an actual turret bustle of any decent size...

That and the 2A83 gun dates back from the 80s so its plenty outdated by 2020. Advances in technology would have made it possible for a 125 mm gun with modern ammunition to have similar, if not better ballistic performance to the larger gun firing the ammunition of the time.

But those same advances could be applied to the larger calibre gun to get even more performance from it.

When the Soviets went from high velocity 45mm guns on their tanks to medium velocity 76.2mm guns there was a dramatic reduction in ready to fire ammo as well as cost per round and rate of fire etc etc, but there was also a real shift in performance, the smaller calibre had good penetration in close but the larger calibre retained penetration at greater ranges, but the real clincher was that the larger calibre had a much more effective HE round and despite what you see in movies tanks spent most of their time shooting at all sorts of things that were not enemy tanks... they only made about 6K panthers and 1.5K tigers... spread over two fronts and thousands of kms the chances are that many T-34s would never come across a panther or tiger in combat.

Of course today the 125mm HE shell is pretty good and the improvement achieved by going to a 152mm calibre round is probably overkill most of the time, so the only rush to change would be if it was thought the 125mm could no longer do the job... which does not seem to be the case.

Combat Approved episodes for the T-90M show firing APFSDS at 5km with good hits on stationary targets... what more could you want...

Or the other way around, with the T-14 feeding information to artillery, aircraft and drones. You would have a hardened spotter directing accurate indirect fire, air and drone strikes and wreaking more damage than an entire battalion of tanks can with their guns.

Exactly... and it can call in corrections or even mark targets if it needs to.

What they seem to be doing with their attack helos is connecting them to front line vehicles so a helicopter can approach the area and scan the local area with MMW radar and transmit that view in real time to the tank commanders who can then pick out targets for the helicopter for them to engage and watch the attack in real time... a good way to minimise friendly fire issues and hit the targets the ground forces want hit.

Even translating that to an Su-25 with S-25ML laser homing rockets of rather large calibre... the vehicles on the ground could mark the target and the Su-25 could approach and fire up in a ballistic trajectory from 10km away the heavy rocket and as it closes in on its target the vehicles on the ground can mark the target for the 150kg payload to achieve a direct hit... how safe is that bunker now?

It will be interesting to see to what degree these tanks will be tested in battle. Considering that they were supposed to function in conjunction with other Armata platform vehicles (which are still not ready). I'm not sure if Pterodactyl drone for them is ready, as well. There was no news on that front. Also they were supposed to be network centric and working as a part of the Sozvezdie ASU TZ that had been only tested during exercises last year.

Impresive tank, lets see how it is in real war. The most real danger for it would be artilary shells or top atack missiles, APS dont work in that direction for what i know, and its also the least protected part of the tank.

caveat emptor wrote:It will be interesting to see to what degree these tanks will be tested in battle. Considering that they were supposed to function in conjunction with other Armata platform vehicles (which are still not ready). I'm not sure if Pterodactyl drone for them is ready, as well. There was no news on that front. Also they were supposed to be network centric and working as a part of the Sozvezdie ASU TZ that had been only tested during exercises last year.

That's because you're media illiterate and need people to spell shit out for you.

Like holy **** the Russians only have demonstrated in combat the fastest kill chains in particular the artillery arm and fratricide is literally unheard of.

How do you think they were able to do that if their tactical control system isn't operational?

DerWolf wrote:Impresive tank, lets see how it is in real war. The most real danger for it would be artilary shells or top atack missiles, APS dont work in that direction for what i know, and its also the least protected part of the tank.

Its not like the Afghanit APS has an electronic warfare suite on top of the kinetic countermeasures...

Oh wait, it does.

Slow down! My sarcasm-o-meter is breaking down! 

@ Pinay boy
You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension.
Just try to reread a message one more time.

Never try to be rude to someone that just rolled over you.
He might consider switching the reverse, you know ...

Wasn't rude at all. Just used his tone. If anything, he made a deflection and spoke about something completely unrelated.
Fact is that other Armata vehicles are not ready, as is not the observation drone. And Armata tank was touted as being a vital part of network centric warfare.
If you have a different info, feel free to share.

@TMA1
I love you too bro.

Edit: Just to add. I do agree with you that lyle6 very often makes good posts about tanks.

Fact is that other Armata vehicles are not ready, as is not the observation drone. And Armata tank was touted as being a vital part of network centric warfare.

With a massive project like the modernization of the armored fleet the deployment occurs in phases. In fact the original plan for the Object 195 was to serve as the command vehicle while the more numerous T-90 serves as the backbone of the armored fleet. That way the Russians can leverage the networked fighting capabilities of the new tank even though their small numbers would preclude effective combat operations. Drone or no drone (the Russians have a wide gamut of tactical drones anyhow, not sure why they can't use those) I see no reason why the Russians can't follow the same plan with the limited T-14s they have at their disposal.

Fact is that other Armata vehicles are not ready, as is not the observation drone. And Armata tank was touted as being a vital part of network centric warfare.
If you have a different info, feel free to share.

You think the Russians are so stupid as to make a T-14 tank that can only talk to T-15 BMPs and T-16 BREMs?

Net centric stuff is not about the nodes, it is about the command and communications structure... two of the Cs in the C4IRSTAR that they developed first before upgrading anything else... and are likely spending most of their efforts on.

All their vehicles need to be tied in to the new network that Ratnik is part of at the soldier level but all the other components of their armed units will also need to link in... which is what the T-72 upgrades are probably including... part of those communications upgrades will likely include net centric stuff so every tank and BMP and BTR and Ratnik equipped soldier can contribute to the information on the data network... drones and aircraft will contribute to that as well, but it is not just brand new vehicles that will be net centric... to work properly all your vehicles will be nodes on the network where previously the smallest node would be an HQ. This massively increases the data collectors which increases the quality and volume of data they collect. Making live maps of the friendlies and enemies more useful and accurate.

There is a video in the drone section (a few weeks old) where an UGV uses a teathered multi-copter drone.
Don´t know if that is the one for the T-14 but that doesn´t matter. As lyle6 stated, there are more than enough
operational drones.

@GarryB
This is why I specifically mentioned Sozvezdie ASU TZ which has been talked about for the last 20 years. There's even contract to deliver 40 brigade sets, if I am not wrong, by 2020, but that didn't go through as it should. They started limited tests only last year during exercises. And previously some tests with parts of the system were done in Syria.
Some links for further reading:

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3695861
https://topwar.ru/7866-ptk-asu-tz-sozvezdie-2m.html
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%A1%D0%A3_%D0%A2%D0%97
If anyone actually read my original message, Instead of jumping and starting to bark immediately, it clearly says that because Armata tank and ecosystem around it is not finished as it should be, full operability will be limited and their full potential in combat won't be able to be used. Simple as that.

People started barking because you are taking out some 10-15 years old things and whinning of how the Russkie lack this or that.
They don't.
This Constellation thing was around back in 2009, and appeared shortly after 080808.
And replaced several other types of data coordination&distribution systems Russkie had centralized ever since the 50s.
30 years ago a Su-27PU was capable to distribute air awareness data to the MiG-23s and 29s.
A MiG-31 Zaslon system could de facto carry all the coordination for a group of 6 planes, leading them to the target in an autonomous regime.
They could even fire bloody missiles!!
Sure, they did that with fog, mirrors, and tam-tams.
It is like watching people broadcasting from inside a dwell, who see only the blue light circle above.
Every single serious source on the ground is crying about how the Russkie artillery outmatches the Ukr one.
Oh sure sure, they are only citing the numerical superiority because nothing other would pass western censorship.
So please tell me, how the Ukrs lost some 5000 pcs of artillery they had? Including 1000 or so MLRS?!?
To 100k regular Russkie army units?
40k republican militias owning D-20s at most, and switched 152 cal only after integration into RusArmy structures??
To Chechens who are a riot police with RPGs??
Does it add up to you?
How many more artillery pieces could have a 100-150k regular Russian army?
By the OdB?
Even those new one, with tactical battalion grouping with enhanced artillery number?
Ever counted?
Or is it you who is barking around?