[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

RUMINT is that the grenade mortars on the Afghanit can also launch fragmentation rounds apart from special obscurant grenades. With complete hemispheric coverage in visual and UV/IR defending against kamikaze drones should be a breeze. Not to mention pop-up short range threats like RPG teams firing from behind cover or just ATGMs in general.

Now the only real problem is countering roving landmines...

No the classic mine clearing technologies no longer suffice. Mine rollers and trawlers do jack shit against mines layed behind, to the flanks, or right on top of the assault column. Its also damn near impossible to keep the demining vehicle intact when its leading the formation and bearing the brunt of enemy fire. They also slow the entire group to a crawl and prevent the combat elements from spreading out and deploying as much of their firepower...

We need an APS for mines. A combined multichannel - visual/thermal/radar sensor that looks for mines and low threats, and a bow mount weapon either an HMG or a GL to take out those threats from afar. This would severely limit the possible damage from remotely laid mines and allow the assault group to assume proper attack formation and actually use their firepower and mobility as efficiently as they can.

If you're equipping your frontline combat vehicles with APS against conventional threats it wouldn't make much of a difference to invest that extra cash against landmines wouldn't it?

lyle6 wrote:
We need an APS for mines. A combined multichannel - visual/thermal/radar sensor that looks for mines and low threats, and a bow mount weapon either an HMG or a GL to take out those threats from afar. This would severely limit the possible damage from remotely laid mines and allow the assault group to assume proper attack formation and actually use their firepower and mobility as efficiently as they can.

Add to this electromagnetic decoys like those mounted on the T-14 or the Listva to defeat magnetic influence fuzed mines should be standard issue as well.

Its really quite ironic, but instead of threats from the air, the main impediment to the UkroWehrmacht's advance came from below, from the humble minefield.

Really what fucked the Ukrainian armored spearheads thoroughly beyond repair is the rapid and unpredictable mass PTM-3/4 drops.

Unlike pressure fuzed TM-62s, these mines can be triggered by the vehicle simply passing through, not driving over the mine itself.

This is what's been killing all those mine rolling vehicles, as the rollers miss the magnetic mines which then detonate beneath the hull and destroy the vehicle.

And since they ran out of fast moving mine rollers to detect minefields with, they were forced to have the plow tanks just plow all the way through.

As you can imagine this slows the column to an absolute crawl. Slow enough that they make perfect targets for everything from attack helicopters, to howitzers, MLRS, you name it.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

That won't happen with the T-14. The electromagnetic decoy would detonate the magnetic mines well away from the vehicle while the classic roller and plow combo handles the remaining mechanical mines.

The Listva is even better.



Mount the HF projector on a much heavier vehicle like a tank with lots of extra power and that thing can cook (entire minefields).

They have been training at least 3 batches of armor cadets on the Armata platform by now.

That's as final as it can be.

Let it go.

Or not. Not even in active service and the T-14 is already ass-blasting AIDS-ridden NATO piggers.

There's always more room in the killing field...

Sprut-B wrote:
Or use Heavy Flamethrowers..
I don't think any minefield can survive a full volley of thermobaric bomberdment by Buratino

More modern scatterable mines outside of the fragile sensor-cued ones are highly resistant to overpressure. More archaic buried mines even more so.

If needed the VKs can drop some FAB-3000´s. 

A lot of people don't realize this, but when you get to the scale of equipment that Russia possesses you are inevitably going to run a de facto three-tier system. So ideally at any moment you should have the obsolescent stuff, the in-date stuff, and the next gen stuff. The in-date and obsolescent stuff you exploit in training and operations while the next gen stuff trickles in to replace the obsolescent stuff little by little. If you time it right, your next gen equipment should fully replace the outdated gear just in time for even more advanced stuff to come online.

So previously they have:
Legacy Soviet vehicles - T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M

Now they are aiming for:
T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M - T-14

The replacements don't exactly have to be 1-1, mind you, since the capabilities of the T-14 are exponentially greater than the T-90M, let alone the T-72B3.

This arrangement looks atrocious and not well thought out lol. They should mix up the tarp and astroturf fabrics together so it doesn't look so weird.

And what's up with that turret? The camouflage covers the sensor windows and the hard-kill mortars and the coax gun port. Talk about fire hazard.

There's also no need to cover the turret with camouflage as its already designed to have a low EM silhouette in the first place.

The astroturf is propably only used in a fixed position, when the tank is not in active use, to hide him better from drones.

Hole wrote:The astroturf is propably only used in a fixed position, when the tank is not in active use, to hide him better from drones.

The running gear only gets noticeably warmer than the ground when the vehicle is moving. In a static position you can dig tank trenches, drape overhead camo netting to better hide the tank.

Sure, but with the astroturf attached the tank looks like a grassy hill. 
And it is much easier to use than the old way:

AbramsX vs Armata: how does the new American combat tank compare with its Russian analogue?, 08.14.2023.

What is the vision of the American military-industrial complex about the future of tank warfare and what role does the AbramsX play in it? Sputnik analyzes it.

After its presentation to the public by General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights (Michigan), social networks have been filled with debates about the AbramsX combat tank. 

Photos from the event show civilians posing with the armored monster, painted gray and with at least five stylized AbramsX logos on the turret and on the front side skirts.

What are the features of the AbramsX?

General Dynamics has offered quite a few details about the characteristics of the tank prototype since it was first presented at an exhibition in Washington, DC, in October 2022.

Although it may look similar to a standard Abrams, the AbramsX has a declared weight of only 49 tons, 17 tons less than a fully loaded M1 Abrams. Its hull measures 7.9 meters long, 3.6 meters wide and 2.3 meters high.

The prototype has an unmanned turret design with a 120 mm XM360 smoothbore gun, and a crew of three people in the cockpit, one less than in the M1 (leaving out the magazine). In fact, there is a separate hatch for each crew member. Press images show that the tank's turret includes a 30 mm XM914 cannon, in addition to a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.

As expected in a new generation battle tank, the AbramsX will be equipped with artificial intelligence capabilities to reduce the workload of the crew, including the identification and prioritization of targets, as well as communications with friendly drones that act as reconnaissance or attack means.

The tank is expected to include 360-degree panoramic day/night thermal sights, one for the commander and one for the gunner.

General Dynamics also plans to equip the AbramsX with the Next Generation Electronic Architecture (NGEA in English), the same type that the defense giant has included in its future unmanned combat robots, which will allow them to navigate the terrain and avoid obstacles. Details are scarce, but these capabilities on the AbramsX could allow the tank to operate fully autonomously.

The designers are also working on a 'hemispheric' active protection system to detect and intercept anti-tank missiles and grenade launcher projectiles.

Will the tank actually be produced?

Arguably one of the most significant features of the tank is its electric-diesel hybrid engine, which is expected to improve fuel efficiency by up to 50% compared to the M1 (whose Honeywell multi-fuel turbine engine has made the current Abrams tank one of the heaviest gasoline-guzzlers in existence).

It is expected that the AbramsX will be able to operate in silent mode for short periods of time using electric power, which would allow the tank to sneak up on enemies, if the huge machine is not seen from several kilometers away.

It is unclear whether General Dynamics will get the necessary backing from the Pentagon to undertake further research and prepare the AbramsX platform for production. At the beginning of the year, the Deputy Secretary of the Army, Gabe Camarillo, made a statement to the American media without giving conclusive information.

Is the AbramsX an American Armata?

Both military experts and social media users could not help but find many important similarities between the AbramsX and the T-14 Armata, the new-generation limited-series Russian combat tank built on the Armata universal combat platform that was first presented in 2015.

The most prominent similarities include an unmanned turret design, a three-person crew sitting side by side, an autoloader, and plans for artificial intelligence integration. "Both the AbramsX and the Armata are perspective tanks," Dmitri Kornev, founder of the portal, told Sputnik MilitaryRussia.ru.

"The Armata is our future tank, and the AbramsX is currently an advanced American tank prototype. It is clear that our cars compete with the Americans, at least on paper," Kornev explained.

"We already have the Armata. At least it's already being tested. There is even a limited series production already; it is being produced, it is being tested by the military. The AbramsX is nothing more than a prototype. It is the only copy, and it is not even an experimental tank yet," he stressed.

Kornev pointed out several outstanding features that distinguish the two tanks, such as the 120 mm main gun of the AbramsX, versus the 125 mm main gun of the Armata. 

"Ours turns out to be a little bigger; in addition, a future 152 mm gun is being developed for the Armata. When it appears, it is clear that the firepower of the Armata will be far superior" to that of its American counterpart.

"Next, as for the design of the tank configuration. We don't know all the details, but the design of the AbramsX doesn't look like it will change much compared to the current Abrams such as the Armata, which changed quite revolutionarily compared to previous generations of [Russian] tanks," the expert stated.

Also, Kornev emphasized that the Armata is a true new-generation tank, which has a modular design. There is a separate module for the crew, another for the engine-transmission compartment and the third module is for combat.

"With the AbramsX, in all likelihood, everything is simpler. That is, a standard Abrams has been taken and slightly improved, so to speak. And the standard Abrams does not have this kind of modular design," Kornev said.

The military observer sees an apparent "parity" in the general characteristics of the unmanned turrets of the two tanks, "although judging by the appearance, the AbramsX prototype seems to have a bulkier turret, perhaps for storing ammunition. The dimensions of the Armata's turret are minimal in relation to the overall silhouette of the tank," he noted.

One of the aspects in which the AbramsX can outperform its Russian counterpart, if it comes to be manufactured, is its hybrid engine.

"That is, it will have electric propulsion and a diesel engine, with an operating principle similar to that of hybrid cars. They aim to halve fuel consumption, which is a significant advantage," Kornev stresses, explaining that a hybrid engine means lower mass, reduced noise levels and possibly higher acceleration characteristics, which could prove critical on the battlefield.

As for protection, Kornev is confident in the superiority of the Russian tank. "The Armata is one of the best protected tanks in the world. It has dynamic protection, spaced shielding, intelligent smoke grenades and an installable active protection complex," he specified.

"The AbramsX is simpler. That is, although it is possible to deploy dynamic protection on the tank, the simplest models may have only spaced armor, sometimes with uranium inserts. The exact composition of the tank's armor is still unknown, but most likely it will have less protection than the Armata, and perhaps even the T-90M Proriv [a third-generation Russian tank]," he added.

When all is said and done, Kornev expects the Armata to be less expensive than the AbramsX, although both will be expensive (the production of an Armata, for example, costs several times the price of a new T-90M). In fact, the military operation has shown that the principles of tank warfare have not lost their meaning, more than 80 years after the first mass deployment of armored vehicles during World War II.

After announcing the delivery of NATO battle tanks to Ukraine, Western officials and media confidently predicted that the German Leopard 1 and 2 and the British Challenger II would go through the Russian tanks and defenses like a hot knife through butter.

However, the stagnation of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the crushing of the Ukrainian armored columns by the Russian minefields, aviation and artillery have shown that the effective coordination of combined arms, intelligence on the battlefield, the competence of the commander and the skill of the tank crew are often much more important than the characteristics on the role of any tank.

Yandex Translate from Spanish

https://sputniknews.lat/20230814/abramsx-vs-armata-como-se-compara-el-nuevo-carro-de-combate-estadounidense-con-su-analogo-ruso-1142618143.html