Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 25
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:43 pm

    Zivo wrote:To be honest, I have no idea what research Russia/Soviets have done regarding liquid propellant gun technology. It's hard enough finding material regarding US research into this field.

    The problems that seem to occur, like bubbles forming in the breech, and asymmetric burn causing detonations, are major hurdles to cross before you have a reliable and safe gun. As you mention, the US and the Russians have taken different paths in the past regarding development and practical application of weapon concepts. This enabled one party to produce something that the other has failed to do so.

    Perhaps the Russians can actually solve these problems. There must be some really advanced liquid fuel handling and ignition components on Bulava and the Kh-32. Russia is currently leading the pack in this field of research, and this technology is what is needed to produce an effective LP gun.
    Well, there is no crew in the turret so even if the thing leaks propellant or worse the explosion gases its ok though of course it must be able to fire a decent amount of rounds before it fails.

    However if they do introduce LP guns, I am curious if they will retain the 125 mm, since by that time it will compose about 50% of the new mbts armament and all of the older tanks. Advantages of reusing calibre will be econ., the heavy HE shell(w/ high velocity is lethal against anything without heavy armor) and more sophisticated rounds(top attack munitions, drones too).
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:47 am

    Lets be clear I have not read anything that suggests to me that the new armata tanks will have anything more than the new gun fitted to the T-90AM with longer rod penetrator ammo... to suggest they will put armata tanks into service in 2016 would be naive... having said that... these vehicle families are modular and will be in service for at least 30-40 years with armour, engine, and weapon and sensor upgrades at regular periods, so suggesting that in 2035 an armata MBT will have a powder propellent 125mm main gun is just as naive in my opinion.

    Certainly there are problems that need solutions and new technology might be needed... i have read that the technology in the Koalition does use some EM technology and also that new small arms being developed uses new previously not used technology too.

    With everything computerised and computer controlled then the idea of loading propellent to a custom level to optimise each shot perhaps starts to make sense with sniper ammo and with tank ammo.

    Propellant can be used more efficiently where smaller charges can be used to launch missiles or fire HE shells... the latter especially in lofted trajectories to land at a steeper angle.

    HE shells generally have a fuse in their noses and the walls of the shell make up the main shrapnel creating surface... with a gun fired at high velocity a round hitting a target point on means the fuse is pointing at the target and quarter the fragments are going straight up in the air, and another quarter down into the ground in front of the target with the other two quarters spraying fragments left and right sideways.

    A much lower velocity weapon like a grenade launcher, or a mortar or howitzer the shell comes in near vertically and the shell splinters create a nice even dense pattern that kills far more effectively.

    An external gun as fitted to the new Russian vehicles should allow the elevation to more effectively use HE shells as well.

    Note the ANIET electronic fuse system where the target is lased and the flight time of the shell to the target is calculated and as the round is loaded into the gun breach the electronic fuse is set to the time it would take for it to get to the target... the gun is elevated ever so slightly to raise the shell flight path to above the target and the gun is fired so the shell explodes above the target and rains down fragments over something like an ATGM team, sniper, MG nest, or hovering helo.

    It uses standard shells at the moment but a new HE shell with a rear mounted charge and a container of projectiles in the front means the round will blow forward a shotgun like blast of heavy shrapnel like a flying claymore mine or AHEAD round.

    With these new HE rounds it does make sense to directly hit the target horizontally or detonate the round a few dozens of metres short of a target.

    In the case of enemy troops in the open detonating the round 20m in front of the troops means the fragments will be well spread and able to hit a lot of enemy troopers with its dense blast of fragments.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1600
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:40 pm

    Can we expect the armata BTR-T variant to have firepower upgraded to a 57mm AC and inclusion of ATGMs? I would really want to see one if its weapon options to be twin 45mm cannons plus 8 ataka-Ts or an uparmored BMP-3 turret with a single 45mm cannon instead of the 2A42 and a 40mm Balkan AGL.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:21 am

    Can we expect the armata BTR-T variant to have firepower upgraded to a 57mm AC and inclusion of ATGMs? I would really want to see one if its weapon options to be twin 45mm cannons plus 8 ataka-Ts or an uparmored BMP-3 turret with a single 45mm cannon instead of the 2A42 and a 40mm Balkan AGL.
    Ooops... careful... BTR-T is a troop transport with tank level protection... almost literally armoured troop transporter-tank based.

    Such a vehicle is basically a heavy APC and would likely have an armament that is minimal to maximise the number of troops it carries... armament would be HMG or light cannon based... ie BTR-82/A with a 30mm cannon or 14.5mm HMG. A 40mm grenade launcher would also be appropriate.

    The 57mm and 45mm guns will be high velocity weapons for IFVs to be able to engage enemy IFVs like late model Bradleys etc.

    The BMP-T is not going to be optimised to engage enemy armour... for the most part its role is engaging targets tanks have problems with so high rate of fire light cannon, mortar/guns, and grenade launchers would all be ideal weapons.
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt


    Posts : 1928
    Points : 2037
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:46 am

    Zivo wrote:To be honest, I have no idea what research Russia/Soviets have done regarding liquid propellant gun technology. It's hard enough finding material regarding US research into this field.

    The problems that seem to occur, like bubbles forming in the breech, and asymmetric burn causing detonations, are major hurdles to cross before you have a reliable and safe gun. As you mention, the US and the Russians have taken different paths in the past regarding development and practical application of weapon concepts. This enabled one party to produce something that the other has failed to do so.

    Perhaps the Russians can actually solve these problems. There must be some really advanced liquid fuel handling and ignition components on Bulava and the Kh-32. Russia is currently leading the pack in this field of research, and this technology is what is needed to produce an effective LP gun.
    Here's just a snippet about historical research on the topic.

    http://strangernn.livejournal.com/806784.html

    Caveat: Of course, I am not implying that this material represents, in any way, the full extent of the development of liquid propellant and other exotic gun systems in Russia and their deployment in the Russian armed forces; on the contrary, ...
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5814
    Points : 6449
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 41
    Location : Croatia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Viktor Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:40 pm

    The newest tank "Armata" will take part in the Victory Parade in 2015
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1600
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:16 pm

    So any news if its entered testing yet?
    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:21 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:So any news if its entered testing yet?
    Hard to enter testing when it is not completed yet Wink
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1600
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:22 pm

    Weren't the prototypes already built or is there another shitty obscure delay?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:50 pm

    I have never seen any official report suggesting that armata would be in service before 2015... we have been told that prototypes will be revealed to high up officials late in 2013 which I think has already taken place and I don't think those prototypes are for show only.

    The main problem is that this is not a new tank... this is an entire new family of vehicles with new sensors and weapons and systems all integrated and able to work together... this is the 5th generation fighter of the land vehicle world.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1600
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 24
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:59 pm

    But do you think those super duper secret prototypes are starting to be tested or are they still mock ups?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:40 am

    They certainly will not be mockups now.

    There are lots of things to test including sensors and armour and weapons as well as engines and electronics.

    Making them modular should make them cheaper and easier to make and use, but a fully standard system needs to be developed and tested.

    We are talking about new vehicles for an entire brigade, so all the electronic support and engineer and troop transport and tank and command and artillery support and air defence vehicles need to be developed and tested.

    And that is Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon vehicle families and their other branch variants like special models for the Russian Naval Infantry, and the VDV.

    This is a big task... plus applying upgrades to existing vehicles and producing new vehicles for export etc etc.

    I am looking forward to the May Day Parades of 2015 and 2016...
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:50 am

    Even just the crew positions of the MBT... there will likely be one large or two large screens in all three positions showing various things like video footage from in front of and behind the tank in visible and thermal frequencies. Real time Video processing of the image will allow moving targets to be highlighted even when the tank is moving to make threats stand out with any crew member able to take control of driving or shooting.

    Sensor fusion will allow targets to be detected and target information displayed automatically and passed up to HQ and other vehicles in the unit, so when an enemy column of vehicles appears in the distance a digital video feed can be linked to HQ and nearby vehicles and its direction and distance together with the location of your own vehicle used to plot the location of the target vehicles on a map. This data reaches HQ and they decide to eliminate the entire column... but they don't want their forward deployed vehicles to give away their presence so 40km behind the front line a unit of SMERCH vehicles loaded with rockets fitted with self forging fragment anti armour submunitions fires a volley of 5 rockets or so in a pattern to cover the road the convoy is travelling down... seconds later the submunitions are released and as they fall they use IR and MMW radar sensors to detect vehicles... when they detect them they explode firing a self forging fragment down at the top of the target. They might include a couple of rockets loaded with 644 HEAT submunitions each just to spread the destruction and to kill exposed personnel with fragments.... and rip the road up a bit too.

    Equally if the column is a supply column with fuel and ammo then simple HE submunitions would suffice to shred the column in seconds.

    Of course another rocket could be launched with a UAV to watch the attack and assess damage and whether a follow up attack was needed.
    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:27 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:But do you think those super duper secret prototypes are starting to be tested or are they still mock ups?

    You will know once Rogozin has a photo session with one.
    Shadåw
    Shadåw


    Posts : 84
    Points : 89
    Join date : 2012-07-29

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Shadåw Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:58 pm

    Russia to Start Producing New Main Battle Tank in 2016

    News :3
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:35 pm

    Shadåw wrote:Russia to Start Producing New Main Battle Tank in 2016

    News :3
    Nothing really new, but it gives a nice summary of what's going on.

    I hope some images of one of the prototypes gets leaked soon.
    avatar
    etaepsilonk


    Posts : 707
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  etaepsilonk Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:10 pm

    There has been some discussion about Armata tank in another thread, but I think, it would be more appropriate to post this here.
    Since, as we know, the new generation Russian tank (Armata) won't be having a manual loader, and it very likely won't have a turret bustle, one-piece ammo is all but impossible, I don't imagine how you could move a long round around such a confined space (remember the horrible fire rate of T-62).
    Now, about autoloader. As we know, this tank has all it's crew in the hull, which mainly aims for increased free space in the turret. That means, a very spacious autoloader with high capacity and ROF is now possible. Although I don't know for sure, I may suspect that we will be seeing something similar to T-64/80 autoloader type (rather than T-72/90 type), but with rounds stored vertically, just as propellants (it would allow increased capacity, up to 30-32 rounds I think, as well as a bit longer rounds). Also, I had seen a very interesting photo of small "Armata" model, having guns and grenade launchers in the turret sides. I suspect Russians will be having a more powerful secondary armaments mounted on this tank (up to 30 mm cannons, ATGMs or rocket pods could be possible). Those armaments, because they're mounted on the side, have a probability to be modular (could be replaceable to suit different mission requirements or client weapon preference).
    What do you guys think about that?
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:24 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:There has been some discussion about Armata tank in another thread, but I think, it would be more appropriate to post this here.
    Since, as we know, the new generation Russian tank (Armata) won't be having a manual loader, and it very likely won't have a turret bustle, one-piece ammo is all but impossible, I don't imagine how you could move a long round around such a confined space (remember the horrible fire rate of T-62).
    Now, about autoloader. As we know, this tank has all it's crew in the hull, which mainly aims for increased free space in the turret. That means, a very spacious autoloader with high capacity and ROF is now possible. Although I don't know for sure, I may suspect that we will be seeing something similar to T-64/80 autoloader type (rather than T-72/90 type), but with rounds stored vertically, just as propellants (it would allow increased capacity, up to 30-32 rounds I think, as well as a bit longer rounds). Also, I had seen a very interesting photo of small "Armata" model, having guns and grenade launchers in the turret sides. I suspect Russians will be having a more powerful secondary armaments mounted on this tank (up to 30 mm cannons, ATGMs or rocket pods could be possible). Those armaments, because they're mounted on the side, have a probability to be modular (could be replaceable to suit different mission requirements or client weapon preference).
    What do you guys think about that?
    There's an interview with General Sergei Maev that Alexei Khlopotov posted earlier this year. He's one of the few people that has driven Object 195 and he stated Object 195 carried 40 rounds of 15Xmm ammunition. Since the layout is similar, Armata's magazine should carry at least 40 rounds.

    The model you saw was this one

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 6f845be524e0

    What this is, is KBTM's proposal for the Armata BMPT. It's main armament is actually a 120mm rifled gun/mortar. It also has a small bustle.

    KBTM produces some very interesting designs, but they haven't been able to sell their radical approach to armored warfare to the Ministry of Defense.

    Chances are, this is what the MBT will look like, or at least what UVZ will propose.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Armata0

    KBTM may produce a rival design based on the BMPT turret, but no one really knows what's happening.

    Regarding auxiliary weapons, it's anyone's guess. An MBT could benefit from have a 12.7mm coaxial gun, a 14.5mm weapon would be highly effective at dealing with infantry. 30mm would be overkill because a MBT doesn't need the additional anti-armor capability offered by the 30mm autocannon.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:50 am

    Since, as we know, the new generation Russian tank (Armata) won't be having a manual loader, and it very likely won't have a turret bustle, one-piece ammo is all but impossible, I don't imagine how you could move a long round around such a confined space (remember the horrible fire rate of T-62).
    One piece ammo doesn't make the projectiles longer... if anything it restricts the length of the projectile even shorter than two piece ammo.

    Very simply if you want to arrange your ammo in a circle around the floor of the turret in an underfloor ammo magazine then the length of the entire round is dictated by the diameter of the turret ring. Whether the ammo is one piece or two piece or three piece for that matter the length limit remains the diameter of the turret ring.

    Just because the armata MBT wont have ammo stored in a rear turret bustle does not mean there will not be a turret bustle area for the ammo to be loaded into the rear of the gun.

    Although I don't know for sure, I may suspect that we will be seeing something similar to T-64/80 autoloader type (rather than T-72/90 type), but with rounds stored vertically, just as propellants (it would allow increased capacity, up to 30-32 rounds I think, as well as a bit longer rounds).
    I don't know that vertically stored ammo would increase internal capacity... I would suspect two layers of ammo with 44 rounds stored in the autoloader ready to fire in 1125mm calibre is more likely along with perhaps a 4-6 round small autoloader near the gun chamber for rapid fire that is loaded from the under floor ammo cassettes... but that is just speculation on my part.

    Also, I had seen a very interesting photo of small "Armata" model, having guns and grenade launchers in the turret sides.
    That model was described as having a rifled 120mm gun, which makes it an automatic gun/mortar of the type fitted to the Vena gun/mortar system.

    From this it has been generally concluded that this vehicle is the BMPT of the Armata family... or one prototype from one factory anyway.

    (PS I liked that design a lot assuming it had a long barrel 40mm Balkan grenade launcher, 120mm gun/mortar, and a 23mm 6 barrel gatling.

    I suspect Russians will be having a more powerful secondary armaments mounted on this tank (up to 30 mm cannons, ATGMs or rocket pods could be possible).
    AFAIK there were suggestions of a 30mm coaxial gun on the T-95, but I suspect in the interests of ammo capacity they might go for a single barrel 23mm KPB (KPV HMG in 23 x 115mm calibre) which has a lot of punch but much smaller and more compact ammo (about HMG ammo sized rounds).

    It has a low velocity but a good HE shell with a good punch... it could also have a 40mm grenade launcher instead, plus HMG and coaxial MG.

    Those armaments, because they're mounted on the side, have a probability to be modular (could be replaceable to suit different mission requirements or client weapon preference).
    Modular would be a good idea and you could mix and match a range of weapons options.

    There is likely a fire and forget gun tube launched missile (Sokol-1) so ATGM option is probably redundant, and the rockets would likely be less useful than a HE shell, but light cannon or light mortar options would be interesting... a Vasilek 82mm automatic mortar mount with continuous belt feed would be a very powerful light addition that would allow targets to be engaged with heavy HE rounds in larger numbers than 125 or 152mm HE rounds could be carried... allowing more anti armour rounds to be carried.

    Most Russian tanks have a three quarters ratio of HE to anti armour rounds, so replacing a lot of those HE and HEAT rounds, which against many targets would be over kill anyway, with smaller lighter 82mm rounds means more shots at target, more targets engaged.

    ie lets take a double autoloader of 44 rounds as a base with perhaps 2/3rds of those being HE Frag and HEAT rounds in a COIN situation... that means 29 rounds of HE and HEAT and 15 anti armour rounds.

    With an 82mm mortar fitted with say 50 to 100 rounds you can either engage rather more targets, or rearm less often.

    The low velocity of the 82mm mortar means targets behind frontal protection can more easily be engaged too.

    What this is, is KBTM's proposal for the Armata BMPT. It's main armament is actually a 120mm rifled gun/mortar. It also has a small bustle.
    We need to keep in mind that the Russians aren't against all turret bustles... the T-90AM has a turret bustle... they just don't like storing lots of ammo there.


    Regarding auxiliary weapons, it's anyone's guess. An MBT could benefit from have a 12.7mm coaxial gun, a 14.5mm weapon would be highly effective at dealing with infantry. 30mm would be overkill because a MBT doesn't need the additional anti-armor capability offered by the 30mm autocannon.
    Another issue is that will what is basically an external gun mount the elevation of the main gun could range from great to amazing... if it can elevate to 60 degrees or more then a coaxial 30mm cannon would be redundant as it could fire at the upper stories of buildings... equally it could also have excellent depression... 20-30 degrees, which again means no need for auxiliary weapons to compensate for blind spots of the main armament.

    40mm grenade launchers, 12.7mm HMGs, 14.5mm HMGs, 23mm light cannon would all be useful with night and all weather optics  and stabilisers.

    I agree 30mm would be a bit heavy with enormous rounds taking up a lot of space.

    As mentioned above even a 57mm or 82mm automatic grenade launcher/mortar could add HE punch with a greater ammo supply than is possible with heavier calibres... ie for very heavy log bunkers then 125mm HE is excellent, but for troops in the field a burst of 2-3 82mm or 4-5 57mm HE rounds would likely be more effective than any single heavier shell... and overall take up less internal space in the vehicle.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 25
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I don't know that vertically stored ammo would increase internal capacity... I would suspect two layers of ammo with 44 rounds stored in the autoloader ready to fire in 1125mm calibre is more likely along with perhaps a 4-6 round small autoloader near the gun chamber for rapid fire that is loaded from the under floor ammo cassettes... but that is just speculation on my part.
    With the vertical AL, I count 56. Assuming the same diameter of propellant charge which is 140mm, stack 2 on each of 28 of the propellant holder, then fill the inner part with projectiles, and move the machinery to the corners.
    avatar
    etaepsilonk


    Posts : 707
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  etaepsilonk Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:31 pm

    To Zivo:
    "There's an interview with General Sergei Maev that Alexei Khlopotov posted earlier this year. He's one of the few people that has driven Object 195 and he stated Object 195 carried 40 rounds of 15Xmm ammunition. Since the layout is similar, Armata's magazine should carry at least 40 rounds."

    I see. Do you think ALL 40 rounds would have been carried in the autoloader?


    "What this is, is KBTM's proposal for the Armata BMPT. It's main armament is actually a 120mm rifled gun/mortar. It also has a small bustle."

    Oops Embarassed I thought that was Armata prototype from UVZ. Thank you for correction.



    "Chances are, this is what the MBT will look like, or at least what UVZ will propose."

    I see. It looks there is much space on the turret sides, which could be utilized by mounting secondary armaments there (smoke grenades could be mounted on turret top). I think, fitting just 7,62mm would be wrong.



    "Regarding auxiliary weapons, it's anyone's guess. An MBT could benefit from have a 12.7mm coaxial gun, a 14.5mm weapon would be highly effective at dealing with infantry. 30mm would be overkill because a MBT doesn't need the additional anti-armor capability offered by the 30mm autocannon."

    That's right, but I believe, that effectiveness of any particular armament really does depend in what battle environment tank would be fighting. 30mm would be very effective against buildings and trenches. Therefore, modular secondary armaments on turret sides would seem the best option for me.




    To GarryB:

    "One piece ammo doesn't make the projectiles longer... if anything it restricts the length of the projectile even shorter than two piece ammo.
    Very simply if you want to arrange your ammo in a circle around the floor of the turret in an underfloor ammo magazine then the length of the entire round is dictated by the diameter of the turret ring. Whether the ammo is one piece or two piece or three piece for that matter the length limit remains the diameter of the turret ring.
    Just because the armata MBT wont have ammo stored in a rear turret bustle does not mean there will not be a turret bustle area for the ammo to be loaded into the rear of the gun."

    I was under impression that two peace ammo was specifically created for easier handling, isn't it?

    About autoloader. Probably you didn't notice. I proposed to store both propellants and rounds vertically Smile  which would kind of remove the turret ring width limit, wouldn't it?

    And yes, it doesn't mean, probably. However, it would be the best interest for tank designers to limit the volume of the turret for weight reasons.





    "I don't know that vertically stored ammo would increase internal capacity... I would suspect two layers of ammo with 44 rounds stored in the autoloader ready to fire in 1125mm calibre is more likely along with perhaps a 4-6 round small autoloader near the gun chamber for rapid fire that is loaded from the under floor ammo cassettes... but that is just speculation on my part."

    Yes it is possible. But I believe that it would be very complex ("dense") design, and very hard to access in case of malfunction or maintenaince procedures. Vertical rounds just sound so much simpler. Besides, horizontally stored rounds have that nasty length limit, haven't they?





    "That model was described as having a rifled 120mm gun, which makes it an automatic gun/mortar of the type fitted to the Vena gun/mortar system.

    From this it has been generally concluded that this vehicle is the BMPT of the Armata family... or one prototype from one factory anyway.

    (PS I liked that design a lot assuming it had a long barrel 40mm Balkan grenade launcher, 120mm gun/mortar, and a 23mm 6 barrel gatling."

    Yes, I was corrected on that one. However, I don't think mounting cannons on BMPTs is a good idea. It's first goal is to increase safety for the crew, that means all ammunition and (possibly) fuel shouldn't be stored near the crew. Besides, I think that a BMPT with a cannon isn't really needed, because there is already existing vehicle in this category. It's called a tank Smile 




    "AFAIK there were suggestions of a 30mm coaxial gun on the T-95, but I suspect in the interests of ammo capacity they might go for a single barrel 23mm KPB (KPV HMG in 23 x 115mm calibre) which has a lot of punch but much smaller and more compact ammo (about HMG ammo sized rounds).

    It has a low velocity but a good HE shell with a good punch... it could also have a 40mm grenade launcher instead, plus HMG and coaxial MG."

    As I mentioned earlier, usability of secondaries varies greatly, so modular weapons would be the most flexible option.




    "There is likely a fire and forget gun tube launched missile (Sokol-1) so ATGM option is probably redundant, and the rockets would likely be less useful than a HE shell,"

    It is not, if thermobaric warhead is carried Smile And sure, ATGM is not better than HE shell, but it is, if long range accuracy is required.




    "a Vasilek 82mm automatic mortar mount with continuous belt feed would be a very powerful light addition that would allow targets to be engaged with heavy HE rounds in larger numbers than 125 or 152mm HE rounds could be carried... allowing more anti armour rounds to be carried."

    Eh, that would be very complex mounting... I think S-8 rocket pod could be a much better and mechanically simpler option than Vasilek. And if more firepower would be required, these could be pretty easily replaced by S-13 or, in case of emergencies, the S-24/25 buildings buster Twisted Evil  



    "The low velocity of the 82mm mortar means targets behind frontal protection can more easily be engaged too."

    Yes, but the downside of that is shorter range, it really would be the matter of preffered battlefield requirements, I think Smile 




    "We need to keep in mind that the Russians aren't against all turret bustles... the T-90AM has a turret bustle... they just don't like storing lots of ammo there."

    When I mentioned the bustle, I was thinking more along the lines of the bustle connected by doors, via which the ammo is supplied directly to the turret, like in Object 640 or that "Burlak" prototype. The structurally separate ammo storage bustle is, of course, possible.


    To collegeboy16:

    "With the vertical AL, I count 56. Assuming the same diameter of propellant charge which is 140mm, stack 2 on each of 28 of the propellant holder, then fill the inner part with projectiles, and move the machinery to the corners."

    Very interesting Smile  Could you elaborate a bit more if possible? Smile 
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 25
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:50 am

    Well if the T-95 can fit 40 15x projectiles and 40 1?x propellant charges, 56 smaller rounds isnt that far. Maybe they could use two nested autoloaders, one for the propellant charges and another for projectiles. The projectile AL would have another layer or two to fit 56 projectiles. When loading, the inner AL rotates which round a robotic claw would grab, then ditto for outer AL.
    The major problems with this design is the complexity and the added tendency to go boom due to more exposed propellant charges. So perhaps if they did use this kind of design they might relax the ammo capacity a bit, make it 50 rounds instead to make room for putting tougher metal skin for the cassettes etc.
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:37 am

    Yes, I was corrected on that one. However, I don't think mounting cannons on BMPTs is a good idea. It's first goal is to increase safety for the crew, that means all ammunition and (possibly) fuel shouldn't be stored near the crew. Besides, I think that a BMPT with a cannon isn't really needed, because there is already existing vehicle in this category. It's called a tank Smile
    Remember, in Armata the turret is completely unmanned. The crew is isolated in a heavily armored capsule in the frontal hull.

    When it enters service, it will be the safest tank ever produced.

    The gun/mortar is used because it has significant HE capability. As you can see in Syria, HE capability is very important when fighting infantry in buildings. It also has a 23mm gatling gun. This is an incredibly powerful tool to for suppressing infantry.

    The GSh-23-6 has such a high fire rate, when those HE rounds hit the target it will be like massive explosive shotgun blast. IIRC it's something like 10,000 rounds-per-minute with instantaneous wind up.


    An active protection system is being specifically designed for Armata. It will also have a laser warning system similar to the T-90. Both these systems can automatically align the gun to the direction were a threat originated. If an infantry team paints the BMPT with a laser, the system will detect it, swing the turret around towards the laser's source and warn the gunner with audio and visual cues. The same function can be preform by the APS by calculating the angle of the ballistic threat.

    Basically, if anyone decides they want to send an RPG or ATGM towards the BMPT or the tanks it's protecting, they're going to get an instantaneous 23mm response.

    One more thing, the Russians also have 120mm guided mortar rounds. I suspect that's what is kept in the bustle.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:56 am

    I see. Do you think ALL 40 rounds would have been carried in the autoloader?
    Unmanned turret... so yes all ammo needs to be in an autoloader or automatic ammo handler.

    For instance the 57mm cannon upgrade of the PT-76 has an autoloader with an ammo capacity of 20 rounds with a further 80 rounds in the hull. From what I can tell the loading of ammo into the 20 round auto loader is automatic, but a continuous burst of fire would empty the autoloader faster than it could be filled.

    Conversely if short bursts were used and the 20 round autoloader was continuously topped up from the main ammo store you could fire off all 100 odd rounds fairly rapidly.

    Oops Embarassed I thought that was Armata prototype from UVZ. Thank you for correction.
    Lots of companies will submit designs... the winners will be selected by the Army.

    I was under impression that two peace ammo was specifically created for easier handling, isn't it?
    It was introduced to allow rounds to be "bent" while moving them from storage to the chamber of the weapon.


    About autoloader. Probably you didn't notice. I proposed to store both propellants and rounds vertically Smile which would kind of remove the turret ring width limit, wouldn't it?
    You would still need room inside the turret and turret ring to load the ammo into the gun.


    Yes it is possible. But I believe that it would be very complex ("dense") design, and very hard to access in case of malfunction or maintenaince procedures. Vertical rounds just sound so much simpler. Besides, horizontally stored rounds have that nasty length limit, haven't they?
    If you want to load them into the gun they have to be rotated to horizontal at some stage anyway.

    Besides, I think that a BMPT with a cannon isn't really needed, because there is already existing vehicle in this category. It's called a tank
    Vehicles with 125mm guns to date cannot aim higher than about 30 degrees in elevation, while NONA and VENA can elevate their 120mm rifled gun/mortars to well over 70 degrees.

    Yes, I was corrected on that one. However, I don't think mounting cannons on BMPTs is a good idea. It's first goal is to increase safety for the crew, that means all ammunition and (possibly) fuel shouldn't be stored near the crew.
    IFV and MBT and BMPT will all have unmanned turrets...

    It is not, if thermobaric warhead is carried Smile And sure, ATGM is not better than HE shell, but it is, if long range accuracy is required.
    I meant external modular ATGMs are not needed as it will be able to fire tube launched ATGMs.

    Eh, that would be very complex mounting... I think S-8 rocket pod could be a much better and mechanically simpler option than Vasilek.
    Why complex? The Vasilek is already automatic in operation all you would need to change is the four round clip feed to a belt feed...

    And if more firepower would be required, these could be pretty easily replaced by S-13 or, in case of emergencies, the S-24/25 buildings buster
    If they need heavy rockets they have TOS, or GRAD/URAGAN/SMERCH.

    If they fitted the vehicle with S-8 rockets there would be little chance of reloads due to the length of the rockets let alone with S-13 or S-24/25.

    Yes, but the downside of that is shorter range, it really would be the matter of preffered battlefield requirements, I think
    Vasilek would be perfectly fine out to 4-5km or so and enable potent HE firepower to be rapidly delivered to the target.

    ... the US military even tested Vasileks on Humvees.

    One more thing, the Russians also have 120mm guided mortar rounds. I suspect that's what is kept in the bustle.
    All the Russian laser guided artillery shells are two piece and are designed to be fitted in standard ammo handling systems as standard rounds of ammo. Most have optical ports covered with armoured covers that are never removed by humans even during maintainence. They are designed to fall off mid course in their flight to the target.

    Regarding the GSh-23-6 there has been a frame from a video where one is mounted on an unmanned land vehicle for fire support... the ammo is compact but the HE projectile is heavy.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 25
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:35 am

    Zivo wrote:Remember, in Armata the turret is completely unmanned. The crew is isolated in a heavily armored capsule in the frontal hull.

    When it enters service, it will be the safest tank ever produced. Read about T-95 protection, apart from extremely thick armor in front of it, the crew capsule is also made of titanium! Also the 3 compartments are safe from each other, ie the engine gets blasted the fire wont spread to the ammo storage or if the propellant stored in the ammo storage goes boom the while tank does not burn out too.

    The gun/mortar is used because it has significant HE capability. As you can see in Syria, HE capability is very important when fighting infantry in buildings. It also has a 23mm gatling gun. This is an incredibly powerful tool to for suppressing infantry.

    The GSh-23-6 has such a high fire rate, when those HE rounds hit the target it will be like massive explosive shotgun blast. IIRC it's something like 10,000 rounds-per-minute with instantaneous wind up.
    imo KBTM proposal is best for armata BMPT and even kurganets BMPT. obviously it has better firepower than UVZs BMPT (terminator's twin 30mm is still less than gatling 23mm)

    An active protection system is being specifically designed for Armata. It will also have a laser warning system similar to the T-90. Both these systems can automatically align the gun to the direction were a threat originated. If an infantry team paints the BMPT with a laser, the system will detect it, swing the turret around towards the laser's source and warn the gunner with audio and visual cues. The same function can be preform by the APS by calculating the angle of the ballistic threat.

    Basically, if anyone decides they want to send an RPG or ATGM towards the BMPT or the tanks it's protecting, they're going to get an instantaneous 23mm response.yes, maybe if they placed the 23mm on top it could be programmed to fire on cue where APS saw threat, nothing supresses like gatling with HE shells.

    One more thing, the Russians also have 120mm guided mortar rounds. I suspect that's what is kept in the bustle.
    hehe,top attack HEAT rounds would make the BMPT anti-everything- even armor is not safe.


    Last edited by collegeboy16 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : make it more reader friendly)

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:43 pm