+59

chicken

mutantsushi

Strizh

Kyo

Big_Gazza

victor1985

OminousSpudd

AbsoluteZero

GarryB

kvs

Notio

higurashihougi

sepheronx

George1

Werewolf

Vann7

Cpt Caz

Vympel

volna

fragmachine

acatomic

Sujoy

Mike E

Asf

Cyberspec

mack8

magnumcromagnon

Stealthflanker

zg18

russianumber1

etaepsilonk

a89

NickM

AlfaT8

Regular

Neoprime

AJ-47

gaurav

Deep Throat

Viktor

Morpheus Eberhardt

Hachimoto

xeno

runaway

collegeboy16

Pugnax

Russian Patriot

flamming_python

Shadåw

Dima

KomissarBojanchev

Mindstorm

medo

marcellogo

AZZKIKR

Austin

TheArmenian

TR1

Zivo

63 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 27 ... 40

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur

Post n°351

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

collegeboy16 Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:30 pm

Hmm, I thought they were gonna use smaller road wheels for Armata, now they are showing it with
T-72's large road wheels? dunno

PS isnt it dangerous to have thermobaric rocket pods on top of the vehicle esp. if said vehicle
uses it for direct fire-fights, I mean thats probably the size of a conventional turret from the front
and is a juicy target for most AP weapons even HMG.

Regular

Regular: Posts : 3868
Points : 3842
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan

Post n°352

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Regular Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:03 pm

Exposed thermobaric munition won't do much against armour of parent vehicle when hit. Containers should be heavy armoured too and would help to went explosive power through front and back like explosive panels with two exits points. Only danger here I see is damage to optics and sensors. But most of them are doubled in vehicles so vehicle wouldn't be out of action. I believe construction bureau thought it 1000 times before. But knowing efficient engagement ranges and situational awareness of vehicles with modern optics HMG gunner would have very slim chances to hit those parts. It's just my opinion.

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°353

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

flamming_python Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:29 pm

Some noise over at gurkhan's blog about how the Armata's armour appears to be inferior to the T-72s..

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°354

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:18 pm

flamming_python wrote:Some noise over at gurkhan's blog about how the Armata's armour appears to be inferior to the T-72s..

Dumbest conjecture ever.

Khlopotov is just going full retard about UVZ lately.

Lately he has been ranting that Obj 195 was ready (proof?) and I don't think he gets that it is a vehicle for a Cold War that has ended.

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°355

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:47 am

I will bite your head off for something else
It is UVZ (Ural Vagon Zavod) and not UAZ which is Ulyanovsk Avto Zavod.

Anyways, thanks for the posts. I gave you my vote

My mistake, I meant to type UVZ, but it seems you understood me anyways. thumbsup

Some noise over at gurkhan's blog about how the Armata's armour appears to be inferior to the T-72s.

Dumbest conjecture ever.

Khlopotov is just going full retard about UVZ lately.

Lately he has been ranting that Obj 195 was ready (proof?) and I don't think he gets that it is a vehicle for a Cold War that has ended.

Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me.
Khlopotov is undoubtedly well informed, but it just seems like he's putting his expectations of Object 195 ahead of the realities of the Armata project.

Armata is not being built to charge across Europe.

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2465
Points : 2456
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°356

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

AlfaT8 Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:52 am

Zivo wrote:

Lately he has been ranting that Obj 195 was ready (proof?) and I don't think he gets that it is a vehicle for a Cold War that has ended.

Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me.
Khlopotov is undoubtedly well informed, but it just seems like he's putting his expectations of Object 195 ahead of the realities of the Armata project.

Armata is not being built to charge across Europe.

"Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me" Brings back memories of American ads on the Abrams.

"Armata is not being built to charge across Europe." Even though its unnecessary the possibility in future conflicts is still there.

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°357

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

flamming_python Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:59 am

There are a few things that strike me about the BMO-2/Armata chassis:

1) Despite being an Armata vehicle it has a crew of 2 rather than 3. I guess it makes sense as its role is to transport and support infantry, rather than fight in formation with other tanks and prioritise targets; which is a more complicated role. So the commander/gunner role may be combined on the BMO-2 and other Armata IFVs/APCs

2) It's high top speed; it's very fast for a heavy vehicle. The MBT version of the Armata will be a good few tons heavier no doubt; we could reach a weight of perhaps 55 tonnes. Which would still give it a power-to-weight ratio of 30.6 horsepower per tonne, more than any T-90 or T-80 version, with a top-speed greater than the T-84 (the fastest current Eastern bloc designed tank). Not quite on the level of the T-95, but the Armata MBT will still be among the fastest in the world alongside the Leopard 2 and Leclerc.

3) Confirming our previous information; the BMO-2 (and thus undoubtedly other IFVs) will be fitted with an active protection system.

Last edited by flamming_python on Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°358

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:44 am

flamming_python wrote:There are a few things that strike me about the BMO-2/Armata chassis:

1) Despite being an Armata vehicle it has a crew of 2 rather than 3. I guess it makes sense as its role is to transport and support infantry, rather than fight in formation with other tanks and prioritise targets; which is a more complicated role. So the commander/gunner role may be combined on the BMO-2 and other Armata IFVs/APCs

That's kind of odd given the crew layout of Armata. I wonder what will fill the space of the third seat in the armored capsule. Maybe the two crew just get more elbow room. Very Happy

Regarding APS, lets not forget when comparing Armata to T-72's, that the APS "Afghanistan" is supposedly able to intercept and destabilize APFSDS rounds. If correct, this is a massive revolution in AFV protection.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur

Post n°359

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

collegeboy16 Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:46 am

I think BMPT showed that the 3 crew of normal dimensions can fit inside the hull without much problems. My only gripe is that there would be less protection to the sides, which wouldnt be much of a problem if not for the fact that Armata is expected to go up against NATO type enemies and fight in urban areas. Apart from movement and APS, perhaps some attachable heavy side skirt with ERA/NERA designed to deflect rounds coming from the side would be enough solution to this problem.

Also regarding charging into Europe, I think that for the vast plains of Europe, Kurganets and Boomerang would be my bet to lead the blitzkrieg and force the enemy into pockets where Armata would mop them up.

NickM

NickM: Posts : 167
Points : 108
Join date : 2012-11-09
Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

Post n°360

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

NickM Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:07 pm

Zivo wrote:Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me.

Neither the Armata , the T 72 or T 90 can protect themselves against cruise missiles like Taurus or guided bombs like JDAMs?

APS is completely ineffective against cruise missiles & JDAMs .

They are basically sitting ducks .

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°361

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:28 pm

NickM wrote:

Zivo wrote:Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me.

Neither the Armata , the T 72 or T 90 can protect themselves against cruise missiles like Taurus or guided bombs like JDAMs?

APS is completely ineffective against cruise missiles & JDAMs .

They are basically sitting ducks .

That's what the Pantsirs are for...

Nakidka should also reduce the effect of aerial attacks.

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia

Post n°362

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Viktor Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:38 pm

I was hopping to see BMP-3M style turret on new tracked and wheeld chassis.

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°363

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

flamming_python Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:02 pm

Viktor wrote:I was hopping to see BMP-3M style turret on new tracked and wheeld chassis.

The Bakhcha-U?

Yeah I wonder where it went. There are some complaints over at gurkhan's site over that too.

Basically the latest drawings show a 30mm cannon togehter with 2 or 4 externally mounted AT missiles; as opposed to the Bakhcha-U which has a 30mm cannon, mounted together with a 100mm cannon, the later of which is also fully capable of firing AT missiles through the barrel; as many of them as happen to be carried within the hull.

So yeah, by all outside appearances it looks like a step backwards.
But personally I'd hold my judgement until we see the final variants, and the reasoning/justification for the selected configuration.

AJ-47

AJ-47: Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA

Post n°364

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

AJ-47 Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:35 pm

I agree that we don't need the 45mm gun in the Armata tanks as they will work closely with IFVs that have 45/57 guns, and also it might be difficult to install two autoloaders in the tank, so it's better to separate these guns between two vehicles. Instead of the 45mm gun, I’ll install the 2A42 30mm gun or the 2A72, and the Kord 50cal as coaxial.
The 30mm gun has 2 ROF, low: at 200-300 RPM, and high: at 550-800 RPM, the gun accept 2 type of different ammo like AP-T and HE-I, and has effective range of 2,500 meters.
These two guns will be installed externally on the right side of the turret. A 30cal will be installed in the turret as coaxial for the 125mm gun.

All those guns will be operate by the gunner, and will give him a wide range of weapons that he needs to engage any target.
1. 125mm against tanks and IFVs.
2. 30mm against APCs.
3. 50cal against light armor vehicles.
4. 30cal against infantry.

In the photo below we can see the turret of the T-64 tank, with GSh-23-2 on the right side of the turret, 50cal on the left side, and vision system between them.
I’ll replace the GSh-23 with GSh-30-2K. This gun has two ROF low: at 300 RPM, high: at 2,000-2,600 RPM, Muzzle Velocity: 960 m/s, and effective range: 2,500 meters. The 50cal will be replaced by 30cal.
The reason for the 30mm gun and not the 23mm gun is that the 30mm has a bigger warhead, a better range, faster MV, has a smart fuse that can be programmed, by the gunner, to detonate above the target.

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 T-64e-10

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 T-64e-10

The biggest enemy of the tanks in our days is not the enemy’s tanks, but the ATGMs and the RPGs. One of the weapons that we use against them is the APS. The APS consist of radar that detects the treat, and interceptors that will destroy the treats. The radar can also find the place, from were the missile has been launched, feed this info to the 30mm gun, that will open fire against the target automatically. In one second of fire it will drop 40 rounds that will explode all over the target, kill the fire team, destroy the launcher, and than the missile will get lost.

The Armata tanks are the first tanks and concept that is design and manufacture, in big quantities, in this decade from the ground up, and it needs to answer two major questions:
1. What kind of weapons the tank will carry.
2. Who the going to defend itself from ATGMs and RPGs.

IMO the tank needs to have the capability to do 3 things:
1. To attack the team that launches and guides the missile.
2. To destroy the connection between the missile and the launcher unit, as the missile is leaser beam riding.
3. To use APS to intercept the treat if it get close to the tank.

For the 1st line we need a gun that his round has high MV, high ROF, and big warhead. The gun that answers this requirement is the GSh-30-2K

For the 2nd line we need to have a system that can deliver big amount of smoke in a very short time. One of the weapons that can do that IMO is a rocket like the 127mm Zuni. In the USA this rockets come in pod that hold 4 rockets. We can install few pods like that (see picture) on the right side of the turret.
Those rockets when they will launch toward the launcher, they will create a big cloud of smoke, that will block the connection between the missile and the launcher, and the missile will lost his the riding beam and get lost.

Last edited by AJ-47 on Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°365

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:07 pm

NickM wrote:

Zivo wrote:Arguing armor levels based on weights of a vehicle we haven't even seen yet just seems inappropriate to me.

Neither the Armata , the T 72 or T 90 can protect themselves against cruise missiles like Taurus or guided bombs like JDAMs?

APS is completely ineffective against cruise missiles & JDAMs .

They are basically sitting ducks .

Man, you redefine stupid with every post.

Tell me sunshine, what tank CAN protect itself from cruise missiles?

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°366

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:58 am

Bakhcha-U doesn't isolate the ammunition from the crew. Besides, the turret would have be redesigned anyways as the gunner and commander seats are no longer part of it.

But personally I'd hold my judgement until we see the final variants, and the reasoning/justification for the selected configuration.

That's also my plan. In time, we will see what unfolds.

Edit: Here's the turret in question for those of you who missed it.

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 Qa5Hp

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 Qa5Hp

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°367

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:11 am

1) Despite being an Armata vehicle it has a crew of 2 rather than 3. I guess it makes sense as its role is to transport and support infantry, rather than fight in formation with other tanks and prioritise targets; which is a more complicated role. So the commander/gunner role may be combined on the BMO-2 and other Armata IFVs/APCs

It does make sense for the APC version to have a crew of two... think of it as a BTR-82 where the driver and gunner might stay with the vehicle and the commander might dismount with the ground troops.

Neither the Armata , the T 72 or T 90 can protect themselves against cruise missiles like Taurus or guided bombs like JDAMs?

APS is completely ineffective against cruise missiles & JDAMs .

They are basically sitting ducks .

Pantsir-S1 and TOR at short range, BUK at medium range and S-300V4 at long range will all protect Russian tanks from JDAMs and Taurus.

In fact even Igla-S has a proximity fuse to engage small UAVs so cruise missiles should be easily targetable too.

I was hopping to see BMP-3M style turret on new tracked and wheeld chassis.

For APC that would be over kill, especially as the net centric mortar unit attached to the brigade will likely be a VENA like vehicle with a 120mm gun/mortar and the other tube artillery unit attached will have Coalition 152mm guns with GLONASS guided shells on call ready to fire day or night and in all weather. Add to that the BMPT and MBT herself with 125mm gun fire for direct support and there will be no shortage of firepower within the unit.

the later of which is also fully capable of firing AT missiles through the barrel; as many of them as happen to be carried within the hull.

The BMP-3M turret is excellent and an ideal setup for an IFV as it provides excellent firepower, but the potential for enemy IFVs with MBT level protection means you need a 152mm calibre payload... so short of introducing a 152mm gun mortar with tube fired Kornet-EMs it makes more sense to go with a 45/57mm gun for the IFV and 30mm for the APC plus missiles. Of course the IFV will likely have missiles too...

The reason for the 30mm gun and not the 23mm gun is that the 30mm has a bigger warhead, a better range, faster MV, has a smart fuse that can be programmed, by the gunner, to detonate above the target.

Fair enough, though I think the 23mm has a tremendous advantage in having much smaller and more compact ammo while at the same time having a large projectile with a good HE payload for its calibre.

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 0_893b10

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 0_893b10

In the photo above you can see the difference in size, so by carrying 2-3 times more ammo you can compensate for the extra shell weight of the 30mm by firing 20% more ammo at a target and still come out better off.

For the 1st line we need a gun that his round has high MV, high ROF, and big warhead. The gun that answers this requirement is the GSh-30-2K

That is a big gun, though it is already used by Hinds and Frogfoots-feets.

The interesting thing is that on the latest model Hind the twin 30mm calibre gun scabbed on the side of the aircraft has been replaced by a twin barrel 23mm cannon because it can carry more ammo, has much less recoil that upsets aim less and is more accurate because of reduced recoil.

I have nothing against the 30 x 165mm ammo, it is a great round for aircraft, ground vehicles and the navy, but for the roles the Army wants it for equipping its IFVs and tanks I don't think is a good idea. I think a calibre and weapon closer in calibre and size to a HMG makes rather more sense. Very high rate of fire is not needed really, on the BMPT the use of a 23mm gatling is to allow short bursts to light up an area rapidly with fragments... the lower velocity of the 23mm round gives it a steeper trajectory and the 1-2 second delay will not be important anyway.

The chance of using it like a CIWS is zero in my opinion as the APS system will be concentrating on engaging the incoming threat and the crew wont want to distract that system from its job, though having the APS turn the turret and lay the main guns on the source of the incoming threat would be standard practise for all the vehicles in the unit.

For the 2nd line we need to have a system that can deliver big amount of smoke in a very short time. One of the weapons that can do that IMO is a rocket like the 127mm Zuni. In the USA this rockets come in pod that hold 4 rockets. We can install few pods like that (see picture) on the right side of the turret.

Smoke grenades, moving the vehicle, and an active threat interception system (APS) should be fine.

127mm Zuni rockets are huge and for the most part consist of large blocks of propellent designed to accelerate the rockets to high speed... which is a bit of a waste if mounted on a tank to generate a smoke screen.

Bakhcha-U doesn't isolate the ammunition from the crew. Besides, the turret would have be redesigned anyways as the gunner and commander seats are no longer part of it.

Plus Bakhcha-U is for IFVs and I think this armament is for an APC variant of armata/kurganets/boomerang/typhoon. They are clearly not ready to release information about the 45/57mm guns yet.

Just looking at the gun arrangement there is a large internal volume around the rear of the gun suggesting it is a standard design allowing for larger guns to be fitted I suspect, with this gun arrangement likely for APC or recon/scout vehicles.

What surprises me is the lack of a rear turret mounted 40mm grenade launcher as I thought that was a clever idea with the ammo spread over the top rear of the turret.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°368

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:16 pm

SO Klootov clarified on Otvaga that he was trolling about Armata armor, and is sure it will be very well protected.
He was protesting against what he thought were stupid UVZ info slides.

AJ-47

AJ-47: Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA

Post n°369

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

AJ-47 Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:23 pm

GarryB wrote:

The reason for the 30mm gun and not the 23mm gun is that the 30mm has a bigger warhead, a better range, faster MV, has a smart fuse that can be programmed, by the gunner, to detonate above the target.

Fair enough, though I think the 23mm has a tremendous advantage in having much smaller and more compact ammo while at the same time having a large projectile with a good HE payload for its calibre.

OK maybe we can make a trade. I'll agree with the GSh-23-2 on the right side of the turret, for adding the AGS-57 on the left side of the turret.
On top of the turret RWS with GSh-23-2 and 30cal will be OK with me.
The main effort should be who to defend the tank from tank's hunters.
On thing to remember there is no 23mm gun on APC/IFV, but there are many with 30mm

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°370

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:08 am

OK maybe we can make a trade. I'll agree with the GSh-23-2 on the right side of the turret, for adding the AGS-57 on the left side of the turret.
On top of the turret RWS with GSh-23-2 and 30cal will be OK with me.
The main effort should be who to defend the tank from tank's hunters.
On thing to remember there is no 23mm gun on APC/IFV, but there are many with 30mm

Don't think about this as making everything bigger. Each calibre has a purpose and virtues and flaws and you need to match the weapons with their features and flaws to the vehicles roles.

First of all the AGS-57 is a very new weapon that does not look very compact and likely has large bulky ammo... I rather suspect the Balkan 40mm grenade launcher with rather more powerful rounds than the 30mm AGS-30 and with a range of 2.5km would be a more suitable replacement for most vehicles to engage ground forces.

The size in rounds means the 57mm weapon might have a rather more powerful warhead but two 40mm grenades might be rather more effective than the one 57mm grenade and take up less space in the vehicle.

For many vehicles a weapon slightly more powerful than a HMG is what would be useful and HE payload is likely to be more use than AP performance because any vehicle with anti armour requirements will likely have either a high velocity 45/57mm gun or a 125mm gun, so a 23mm or 40mm grenade launcher will largely be used against soft targets most of the time. In such situations a 23mm or 40mm will be far more destructive and effective than any HMG.

With this in mind I would suggest that 23mm and 40mm weapons will proliferate and largely replace 14.5mm and 12.7mm weapons on light vehicles... especially when laser rangefinders and fire control computers and night vision devices make them very accurate and all weather and allow them to be used more effectively at longer ranges.

The twin barrel 23mm cannon is an amazing weapon... at 50kgs it is lighter than late model 12.7mm 4 barrel gatlings fitted to the Hind, and with a rate of fire of about 3,000-3,500rpm it can get shells down range rapidly.

For many ground targets its high rate of fire however is not needed and a dual fire mechanism would make it rather more capable... especially if SLAP type rounds could be developed in that calibre.

A RWS with dual feed... ie SLAP and HE would mean that at the push of a button the gunner can switch from anti personnel to anti armour and the ballistics computer can shift the point of aim automatically so you don't end up spraying rounds all over the place.

A rate of fire of about 500-600 rpm would be good enough for the vast majority of ground targets so a single barrel modification of the KPV could easily do the job... light, compact, cheap, and based on a gun already widely in service so parts and support should not be that difficult.

The only place for a twin barrel 23mm gun would be on the BMPT IMHO as short bursts at very high rates of fire would lead to a cluster munition like effect of large numbers of projectiles impacting almost at once with deadly effect.

On other vehicles like MBTs and APCs it would be more useful to have a small compact weapon with lots of ammo.

30mm means bigger weapon with more recoil that will likely be inadequate against most armoured targets and overkill for unarmoured targets... the shells would get to the target slightly faster but you will likely only be able to carry 1/3rd the number of shells a 23mm weapon could carry.

The 40mm grenade launcher has a low velocity so it can be fired over targets to land in areas high velocity rounds can't reach.

The 40mm and 23mm compliment each other and also offer a useful capability that the main gun cannot provide (ie main gun being 125mm or 45/57mm high velocity weapons). Enemy forces behind a wall could be engaged with main ammo by destroying the wall, but lobbing a burst of 20 x 40mm grenades makes more sense... would likely be more effective and keep heavier ammo for harder targets.

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia

Post n°371

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Viktor Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:53 am

Lots of interesting news here.

- first three Armata based tanks are completed
- three crew members that are able to replace each other
- possibility of reducing crew members to only two due to high level of automation

All three members of the crew of the tank "Armata" will be able to substitute for each other

Due to the high level of automation control system tanks, "Armata" has information on the possibility of reducing the number of crew members.

MOSCOW, September 6 - RIA Novosti. Crew newest tank "Armata" will consist of three people who will be able to replace each other, said in an interview with RIA Novosti former chief of the Armored Directorate Ministry of Defense, Colonel-General Sergei Maev.
Due to the high level of automation control system tanks, "Armata" has information on the possibility of reducing the number of crew members.
"The question that the" Almaty was "will be two members of the crew, not worth it. Still, there will be three members of the crew. Another thing is that they will be interchangeable, which allows the tank commander to operate this machine - it was before, but not in such amount as it is now. Today means allow the tank commander to take control of the instrument itself, "- said Maev, chairman DOSAAF Russia.
In the tank crew, he said, will include both employees on a contract basis and regular soldiers, "I think it will be a mixed principle, there may be one member of the crew will be contractor, two - conscripts, may - two crew members are contractors and one conscript, "- said the general.
Training specialists for admission to the military machine will take at least three months.

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130906/961266571.html#ixzz2e9iYUlJK

The first tank "Armata" created in Russia

Plants have completed production of three prototypes. Created samples are no worse, standing in service of the NATO countries, and in some ways surpass them.

Cuban (Moscow Region), 6 - RIA Novosti. First three samples of armored vehicles based on the latest heavy platform "Armata" created in Russia, including a tank, told reporters on Friday the head of the main Armored Directorate Ministry of Defence Lt. Gen. Alexander Shevchenko.
"Plants <...> have completed prototyping. This is the work on" Armata ", prepared three samples," - he said at the Central Museum of armored troops and equipment.
According to Shevchenko, it is a tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and armored car repair and maintenance.

Created samples are no worse, standing in service of the NATO countries, and in some ways surpass them, the general said.
All of these samples will be submitted to the military leadership of the country at the end of September at the exhibition in Nizhniy Tagil, summed up the chief of the department. In this earlier chapter "Uralvagonzavod" Oleg Sienko said that the tank "Armata" on this show is not submitted, "Do you think it is possible to make public the secret development?".

Tank on a platform of "Armata" will shoot both traditional shells and rockets, said in an interview with RIA Novosti former head of the Armored Directorate Defence, Colonel-General Sergei Maev.

Earlier in the day, the Defense Ministry in Kubinka took part in the ceremony of laying wreaths at the monument to the tank crews who died in August 1943 during the Smolensk operation.

Flowers at the memorial, in addition to Shevchenko, placed first deputy defense minister Gen. Arkady Bahini, Deputy Defense Minister Dmitry Bulgakov army generals and Nikolai Pankov, as well as the Commander of the Land Forces, Colonel-General Vladimir Chirkin.

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130906/961274930.html#ixzz2e9j0V6YB

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°372

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:06 am

"Created samples are no worse, standing in service of the NATO countries, and in some ways surpass them"

How humble of Mr Shevchenko.

What areas should even be comparable? Everything we know about Armata; mobility, armor, gun, crew protection, situational awareness, and serviceability, seem superior to any current gen tank out there, east or west.

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia

Post n°373

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Viktor Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:11 am

We have show in Nizhni Tagil starting in 20 days - I hope new info will be released.

TheArmenian

TheArmenian: Posts : 1880
Points : 2025
Join date : 2011-09-14

Post n°374

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TheArmenian Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:09 am

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 CzAxOS5yYWRpa2FsLnJ1L2k2MTQvMTMwOS85MS8zNjY1YmE1ZWUwOTIucG5n

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 CzQzLnJhZGlrYWwucnUvaTEwMS8xMzA5LzI4LzY2OTk3ODg0ODI2ZS5wbmc=

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 CzAxOS5yYWRpa2FsLnJ1L2k2MzUvMTMwOS8wNS85NGM2YTJiZTgzNzMucG5n

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 CzU4LnJhZGlrYWwucnUvaTE2Mi8xMzA5LzhmLzY3NjI4MTZmZDMwMy5wbmc=

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 15 CzAxOS5yYWRpa2FsLnJ1L2k2MzAvMTMwOS81Mi80NDUwZjQ1ZTk0MzgucG5n

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°375

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:54 am

So no really ground breaking revelations then... can be operated by two crew just means a driver and a commander can move the vehicle and engage targets on their own, though a gunner makes the team more effective as it frees up the commander from engaging targets so he can be looking for other targets and looking for threats.

The gun can fire shells and missiles...

Russia Defence Forum

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Similar topics

Similar topics