Call it an Urban fighting vehicle, tank support vehicle, fire support vehicle, convoy protection vehicle or whatever. To me, when it looks like a tank, and it walk like a tank, and it quacks like a tank....
But the problem there is that every vehicle in a heavy brigade will be on an Armata chassis.
A layman would call MSTA 2S19 self propelled artillery a tank... it looks like a tank... but it most certainly isn't.
If this vehicle has a rifled 120mm gun I very much doubt it will be a high velocity 120mm like the British MBT gun... this will be a medium pressure weapon designed to fire a range of custom designed shells and mortar bombs like VENA.
This main gun is just one step above the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 and you wouldn't call a BMP-3 a tank would you?
So its certain that Armata Tank will have remote controlled/unmanned Turret from UVZ
Even T-95 had an unmanned turret. The concept from early on was to locate the crew under the heaviest frontal hull armour and have an unmanned remote turret.
But the new design from Omsk which is a BMPT class will have similar unmanned turret.
Likely most of the new vehicles will have unmanned turrets... especially those with significant guns because there is no point in having a MBT with its ammo separated from its crew if all your BMPs have crew in turrets full of HE ammo where a penetration will kill the whole platoon. Separate crew from ammo and fuel applies to all vehicles.
This new design looks too underpowered to be a BMPT even the present BMPT is too heavily armed. This one looks more like tank then BMPT
The concept is that all vehicles in an Armata brigade (ie a heavy brigade) need to have similar levels of protection and mobility... if you have to send the tanks ahead because your IFVs will get destroyed because it is too dangerous then you are splitting up your force which weakens it greatly. That is not to say you can lead an attack with your air defence vehicles or mortar carriers, but a BMPT by definition will not be fighting enemy tanks... it will fight enemy infantry units and in many ways this new design actually approximates the armament I suggested a while ago.
The difference is that they have come up with better armament... I suggested the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 for direct fire cheap HE firepower that can smash light bunkers yet can carry more ready to use ammo than 4 guided anti tank missiles. I also suggested that the two 30mm cannon be replaced with something firing at a higher rate to make it more effective against air targets but also more shock value against ground targets. And the 40mm grenade launcher was also my idea as low velocity HE rounds that can be dropped into shell scrapes and trenches or between buildings are useful too... it is notmal to get behind cover, but proper overhead cover is often much harder to achieve.
So the "tank" shown appears to play a role akin to the Vena (Firepower flexibility, in having a gun for both direct and indirect roles) as well as that of the BMP-T? Though interestingly, what happened to the twin barrled Koalitsiya?
This vehicle might possibly take on the roles of both Mortar carrier and BMPT, though I don't think it would have all the indirect fire control systems and equipment to fully fulfil that role. I would suspect a dedicated mortar carrier with the same main gun and perhaps RWS for a MG or light grenade launcher for close protection and a lot more main gun ammo would still be worth it so it can focus on its job. Having dual use vehicles might lead to the over use of the vehicle in one role which leaves a gap when a vehicle is needed in the other role.
Koalition is still going forward though to allow it to be air transported I suspect it might lose a gun to make the turret smaller. The Koalition replaces MSTA 2S19 and no 120mm rifled mortar/shell firing weapon can replace a 152mm gun firing much heavier shells to 80km range...
The main benefit I see is that the Support Armata (easier to describe) possesses more fire power compared to the BMP-T, but will it possess the same troop carrying capabilities..? Or did i confuse the bmp-t with the btr-t
BMPT... old or armata don't carry troops... they are tank support vehicles. BTR-T is the troop transport.
On looking closer, I do suspect that the actual gun might be a low velocity 152mm, perhaps with interchangability with the 120mm gun thru gun rings, to suit the situation. So in certain scenarios, where the koalitsiya system might be a disadvantage, (huge size makes it vulnerable when on mountain sides and such, also serves as a priority target by enemies), this system warrants the same level of firepower as a conventional artillery piece, where in its gun elevation would prove useful in mountainous regions as well urban fighting, essentially the "tank's" gun playing more of a mortar compared to the koalitsiya's howitzers. You reduce the range, but your higher trajectory allows for far greater firepower,as well as less affeced by terrain.
The first part of the barrel has a large cover, the gun itself is described as a rifled 120mm gun. I would think that considering the standard tank vehicle was designed with a 152mm gun but fitted with a 125mm gun that this vehicle could probably also take on a bigger gun, but I would expect the 120mm shells and mortar bombs are enough for the job at hand.
It have tank type main gun in a turret with similar elevation capabilities as other tanks.
It makes no sense to make a tank with a 120mm rifled gun. There is no advantage to having a 120mm rifled gun and a 125mm smoothbore unless they are completely different weapons for completely different purposes.
If the 120mm rifled gun is just the same gun or developed gun from the Vena then it makes perfect sense that this is a BMPT... the gun would not have the velocity to be a tank gun... just like the Vena is not a Sprut.
It only seems, they replace 12,7 mm AD machine gun with remotely controlled Gatling gun, be it AK-306 or GSh-23-6, with higher elevation, what make tank better for defending against targets in higher positions like on hills or in urban environment. This gun is not independent, so it have to move he whole turret for horizontal tracking, what could mean it use the same FCS as the main gun. If the radar over the barrel is not only for speed measuring, but also to detect targets (Credo type?), than Gatling gun could also be used as defense against top attack ATGMs like Javelin and Spike. Considering turret is unmanned, Gatling gun could have enough ammo to operate against such treats.
Sorry, but the idea that the gatling gun means this is a CIWS system simply doesn't make sense. If it was then why not attach the weapon to the rear of the turret in a fully stabilised 360 degree mount?
I think they went for a single gatling for rate of fire... in other words very short bursts of 5 shells at fleeting ground targets or aerial targets with longer bursts. They put a gatling gun there so they could get away with one gun instead of the two they would need for a rate of fire of 5,000-6,000 rpm.
1 ) What is the advantage of not having crew inside the turret and have an unmanned turret ?
2 ) The way i look at it is if they have crew inside the chassis they would be constrained by space as they would have very little space for LCD , Weapons control and comfort.
The gun turret needs the gun, and in this case the stabilising systems and sensors and of course ammo. By taking the crew out of the turret there is more space for ammo and sensors.
By steeply sloping the frontal armour there is plenty of space in the hull... the extra wheel means longer hull and even more space and at the same time a more steeply sloped frontal armour array that is both front and roof armour for the crew.
By having the crew all sitting side by side with unified displays and controls any one of them could drive the vehicle or fire the gun or command, so for normal operations one could sleep and the driver and commander can move the vehicle around or keep a lookout. When under fire of course all crew would be awake, but they can change roles without shifting position.
If an enemy can penetrate the front hull armour to get to the crew then good luck to them. Anti spall liners and of course vests and helmets and other protection should save the crew unless the penetrator actually happens to go through them physically they will be no worse off than in any other tank in that regard. In fact they will be safer low down in the hull.
Putting crew inside the turret would have given them huge space plus would have put the crew inside the most toughest part of armour now with crew being protected by chassis so close to each other i.e. 3 in row any hit in front of chassis will disable all 3 crews.
A big turret with crew in it is a big target. A longer hull is better protected and safer.
Even only Nakidka multispectral dissipating suit (thanks also to the synergetic reinforcing effect with the normal ground clutter) would be more than sufficient to put a similar helicopter vastly within engagement range of even only MBT's main gun with Ainet detonation-programmed rounds (to don't talk of Invar/InvarM....), therefore the gain obtained by that new generation of ground vehicles against those type of battlefield "counters" would be at best redundant.
Importantly too in this duel between helo and tank is that the modern thermals in a tank can detect a helo at very long range though heat and movement of the main rotors and tail rotor.
Even hiding behind a tree a huge engine plume coming out from the top of a tree suggests there is a helo behind it...