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

    Zivo
    Zivo


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:49 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:39 am

    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    We've seen official renders from KBP Tula plant of a Epoha-variant turret on the prospective Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata chassis:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 JCGXt

    The fact they went with an external bustle with the Epoha-variant turret means that it will be completely separated from crew compartment, which is the only way it would be accepted by the Russian ground forces (unlike the Burlak upgrade). Such a light armament for self defense, and likely no internal ammunition means this is likely just a turret for self-defense for the APC versions of the various prospective chassis platform classes.
    TR1
    TR1


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:06 am

    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahimtOnk4tk

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.
    Zivo
    Zivo


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:29 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:I'm guessing the reason they chose to go with displaying the MBT and BMP variants is because they will likely be the most common models, and they have a significant amount of front and rear engine hulls for testing and training. Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    Probably just Epoha-lite with 30mm for now.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahimtOnk4tk

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.

    The issue is, both of these turrets likely take up the same internal volume due to the external ammo storage. Epoha seems more appropriate for the Armata BTR as the weight isn't an issue.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:15 am

    So is this why they never bothered to go with the BMPT and BMPT72?

    Technically the purpose of the BMPT... ie tanks support vehicle with armour and mobility of a tank that can engage enemy infantry in places that are too lethal for friendly infantry to operate, is redundant with the concept of Armata.

    Armata is all tank based vehicles so troop carriers and all other vehicles in the unit have tank level mobility and protection already.

    In practical terms all you need for a BMPT in an armata unit is the IFV with extra ammo in the troop compartment.

    In fact in many ways the armament of the BMP-3M is actually better for the BMPT than the armament of the BMPT based on the T-72 in my opinion. More hitting power with the 100mm rifled gun and good enough rate of fire with the 30mm shells and of course with the new timed fuse 30mm rounds less rounds should be needed for engaging enemy aircraft as they can be set to explode near the target so even if they miss they will shower the target with fragments anyway.

    I would assume shell sized 100mm guided missiles would be even more effective against aircraft too.

    If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.

    An IFV is designed to fight light enemy armour and infantry as well as hardened positions like bunkers and buildings reinforced with sandbags etc etc. As such with a tank protection and mobility level IFV would in many ways be very much the same as the BMPT except that the IFV has troops in the back.

    A version of the IFV perhaps with double the ammo supply replacing the troop compartment could be a useful BMPT substitution.

    The BMPT model shown shows a 120mm gun/mortar, which could be the other option... in many ways the BMPT could also be considered direct fire artillery intended to smash down structures and reach enemy infantry at angles a standard tank main gun can't reach, so a vehicle based on a mortar carrier but with other anti personel weapons fitted like a 6 barrel 23mm gatling and a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful.

    You could even take it further and say if the MBT version has an external gun mount and thelack of crew in the turret means frontal turret armour can be much thinner and lighter and therefore the gun can be mounted higher and well forward so the mount could allow artillery like elevation with a coaxial 2A42 cannon like the AMX-30 then the tank will be able to elevate and depress its main gun and a 30mm gun to hit infantry in the basement floors and 4th floors and above of high rise buildings then again the BMPT concept becomes again redundant as the tanks will be able to fend for themselves.

    Perhaps even a couple of RWS with a few Kords or KPVs and grenade launchers on an APC full of thousands of rounds of internal ready to fire ammo with the support of a couple of dozen unmanned tracked vehicle platforms with 23mm 6 barrel cannon to send into enemy territory to stir things up a bit.

    while technically and IFV version of the Armata platform can act as the de facto BMPT, the reality is that a pure BMPT would have superior performance because it was designed for that very purpose.

    I agree, though Ironically I think the BMPTs armament was a compromise... the Armata BMPT will have an unmanned turret which means more room for armament. I think the BMPT would be a good substitute for MBTs when the enemy lacks MBTs and to be used for supporting infantry. A 120mm gun/mortar round is every bit as effective as a 125mm HE round, yet is likely cheaper with a much longer tank barrel life expectancy. The main advantage of the tank was its superior optics and fire control system... which could easily also be fitted to the BMPT. In many ways the high elevation on the BMPT means much longer effective range with more than 13km range with laser guided rounds like Kitilov missiles for the 122mm artillery guns that is compatible with the 120mm gun/mortar (used on the 2S1 122mm gun vehicle and the 2S34 Hosta refitted with 120mm mortar guns).

    The 120mm gun/mortar seems to be a powerful and popular weapon with a range of ammo type options.

    The IFV would have the anti-infantry armaments no doubt, but because much of the space would be dedicated to carrying soldiers, the IFV Armata would be limited to how much ammo and variety of weapons it could have mounted at any given time (lets not forget separating ammo from crew members concept).

    Agree but these vehicles are supposed to be modular and I would suspect an IFV will have a turret that is unmanned so the different armament options will have the ammo load dictated by the size of the turret and the volume underneath available for that ammo. When converted into a BMPT however the troop compartment could have the seats removed and perhaps a double or triple ammo load installed in perhaps a pallet form so that the old empty ammo pallet can be removed as one... a small 1/3rd pallet could be fitted initially and the turret turned to a specific angle with armoured doors opening and allowing the ammo to feed into the turret magazines. When the pallet is empty and the turret is full, remove it, close off the turret and reload a full pallet of ammo. In combat the crew can push a button to open the firewall door and transfer ammo as needed to reload till the pallet in the rear troop compartment is empty and the vehicle needs to return to base to dump the empty pallet (for reloading) and then load a full pallet... The rear ramp door should make loading and removing pallets fairly straight forward.

    A pure-bred BMPT will have most of the crew space dedicated to ammo storage, combined with more ammo types and more weapon types could be equipped due to that significantly greater flexibility, making the pure BMPT have significantly greater potential and performance than a IFV acting as the de facto BMPT.

    This is very true... a custom designed BMPT vehicle could have a larger turret ring for more powerful weapons and larger ready to use ammo supply and of course if it is not related to the IFV version there is no need for access to the turret compartment from the troop compartment making that stronger in the event of an explosion in the turret compartment.

    Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.

    So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?

    The purpose of the IFVs weapons is to fight its equivalent and to engage enemy infantry. The 30mm cannon lacks the capacity to take on enemy (NATO) IFVs at useful ranges so the Armata IFVs need a 57mm gun. It will also likely have 30mm or 40mm grenade launchers and Kornet-M ATGMs.

    The 30mm and Kornet-M armament is for infantry and armour respectively and would be the standard armament of an APC.

    IFV would need a 57mm gun and Kornet-M for enemy IFVs and MBTs respectively.

    Note these armaments are based on enemy equipment not your own.

    When NATO introduces tank based IFVs then the Armata IFV will likely get 125mm smoothbore guns or something very different....

    I thought T-14 is the name for the tank version of Armata only

    It is tricky as technically T-14 should apply to the MBT Armata, MBT Kurganets, MBT Boomerang, and MBT Typhoon.

    The IFV armata should be BMP-14, APC armata should be BTR-14, and scout car/recon/ATGM vehicle should be BRDM-14, command armata should be ACRV-14.

    Maybe they might use their codenames as a prefix... ie T-14A, T-14K, T-14B, T-14T, or perhaps h for heavy, mt for medium tracked, mw for medium wheeled, and l for light... ie T-14h, T-14mt, T-14mw, and T-14l.

    I think the codenames would work best... so the BMP-14mt would be the IFV version of the kurganets which might have a BMP-3M like armament.

    I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.

    I agree... I suspect they will have such turrets on vehicles in all families because sometimes having extra troops is more useful.

    I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.

    Looks more to me like a RWS for light vehicles like Tigr or even armoured trucks or MTLB like vehicles.

    A single 12.7mm HMG would be a step back from current armament for BTRs, which is a 30mm cannon on BTR-82s.

    Epoha seems more appropriate for the Armata BTR as the weight isn't an issue.

    I dont thing weight would be an issue for Epoha for any of the four vehicle families, and would only be an issue for light unmanned support platforms (Unmanned land vehicles) and very light vehicles like Tigr etc. ie BRDM like vehicles.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:26 pm

    I agree that having a mixed force of MBTs and IFVs leaves no niche open for the BMPT to cover really.

    The tanks in those cases would already have infantry support from the IFV squads, and auto-cannon, grenade launcher and other light-weaponry back-up from the IFVs themselves.

    But attaching BMPTs to MBTs would allow them to operate w/o supporting infantry at all; as GazB said - in places that you would be risking very heavy casualties if you try to deploy infantry (i.e. artillery hitting everywhere, very tight & entrenched enemy defenses, killzones & ambushes everywhere, etc...). If the BMPT is a vehicle that can fulfil that role - then the BMPT-class would be a highly invaluable asset indeed.
    avatar
    Notio


    Posts : 16
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2012-02-22

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Notio Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It is tricky as technically T-14 should apply to the MBT Armata, MBT Kurganets, MBT Boomerang, and MBT Typhoon.

    The IFV armata should be BMP-14, APC armata should be BTR-14, and scout car/recon/ATGM vehicle should be BRDM-14, command armata should be ACRV-14.

    Even though the tank killers for lighter brigades will roughly take the place of a MBT, I think it might not be quite accurate to equate them with Armata based MBT as they are different vehicles with rather different qualities and the roles of different brigades are not identical. To my understanding they will be tank destroyers as Sprut-SD is for a VDV division.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:12 am

    But attaching BMPTs to MBTs would allow them to operate w/o supporting infantry at all;

    Of course the BMP-1 was hailed as such a vehicle in the sense that some believed it could be used with the platoon mounted where everyone stays on the vehicle and fights from the vehicle.... testing in the middle east proved this to be a bad idea, but obviously the armata BMP is not the same in terms of sensors and situational awareness and of course armour and APS and other protection systems.

    Obviously these vehicles will have those sound based gun fire sensors so if anyone fires a rifle or pistol or machine gun the people on board will be able to plot their precise location and return fire rapidly... in a BMP you probably wont even hear the shot let alone work out where it came from.

    I think there will be situations where adding a BMPT to MBTs will be useful, and there will be other situations like COIN operations where a high velocity main gun is a waste, but a heavy HE shell would be useful and a heavy powerful vehicle could be useful.

    Even things like guard duty or convoy escort.

    The thing is that this vehicle could evolve from an IFV or it could evolve from an air defence vehicle (one of the types used previously in this role is the Shilka and the BTR-40 with dual use 14.5mm HMGs).
    I think if the new vehicle is based on the model shown it could be a reintroduction of the direct fire artillery as used in WWII like the Suka Su-76. This would mean a 120mm gun mortar platform with other armament fitted to make it more suitable against a range of targets.

    The thing is that with the Armata design it will have 3 crew, but do you use the front engine version and put extra ammo in the rear with a rapid reloading system with a ramp rear door, or do you use the standard MBT chassis with the rear engine and perhaps a drop in pallet ammo magazine... I thing the former would be easier but I don't really like front mounted engines.

    Even though the tank killers for lighter brigades will roughly take the place of a MBT, I think it might not be quite accurate to equate them with Armata based MBT as they are different vehicles with rather different qualities and the roles of different brigades are not identical. To my understanding they will be tank destroyers as Sprut-SD is for a VDV division.

    And I agree.... the MBT replaced all the different weight class tanks with perhaps the light tank role remaining for naval or airborne use.

    The new tanks should be designated heavy (armata) light (Kurganets) wheeled (Boomerang) and tankette or gun platform (Typhoon).
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18268
    Points : 18765
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:21 pm

    what about to make this thread sticky? armata platform will be the main subject of russian ground forces for years i guess
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15047
    Points : 15184
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:40 am

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 JCGXt

    The thing they call "Armata" in the panel on the right looks bizarre to me. Why would a main battle tank have some BMP turret?
    The location of the turret does not look right to me either, it is all the way at the back. They do not need to have this sort of
    arrangement to accommodate a separate crew compartment. There is lots of speculation and what looks like disinformation about
    Armata and we will have to wait until next May.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:35 am

    kvs wrote:[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 JCGXt

    The thing they call "Armata" in the panel on the right looks bizarre to me.  Why would a main battle tank have some BMP turret?
    The location of the turret does not look right to me either, it is all the way at the back.  They do not need to have this sort of
    arrangement to accommodate a separate crew compartment.   There is lots of speculation and what looks like disinformation about
    Armata and we will have to wait until next May.

    The armaments are that of the Armata based BTR/APC. Armata is not a MBT, it's a vehicle platform that will form the basis for 'heavy' units with every vehicle (including Tank, IFV, APC, BMPT, Logistics, Recco, Recovery, ECM, SAM, UAV launcher and Command Post vehicles) in said units will all have MBT level armor. They decided to go in this direction to save money on logistics, as well as learning from Russian military experience  fighting in conflicts in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingueshetia were asymmetrical warfare played a major factor. The Epoha-variant turret that they're talking about has an external bustle were ammunation will be stored, and it's not likely any ammo will be stored internally within the vehicle chassis (separating ammo from crew space), which is the only way for an external ammo bustle to be put in to service in the Russian ground forces.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:58 am

    As said above the armata is a vehicle family base... it is not a MBT chassis.

    For heavy brigades all the vehicles will be armata based... MBT, IFV, command, tube and rocket artillery, gun and missile air defence, engineer, recon, etc etc

    The turret is well to the rear because this is likely the IFV/APC version of the armata with a front mounted engine and a rear troop compartment.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15047
    Points : 15184
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:12 am

    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:36 am

    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.

    ??

    Armata is the vehicle family name... the armata with a 125mm smoothbore gun will be MBT Armata... this poster show the infantry transport armata. There will be an armata command vehicle, and armata air defence vehicle, an armata tube artillery vehicle and likely also a rocket artillery armata vehicle.

    Every vehicle in an armata division will be armata based and will have comparable mobility and weight.

    the logisitics chain for that division will only need to carry parts and spares and support equipment for the armata platform.... they will all have the same wheels and engine and transmission etc etc.

    In the picture above the one on the left details a turret, while the right one shows that turret fitted to three of the vehicle families... boomerang, armata, and kurganets.

    the question is... what have they gone with regarding their IFV version of armata... perhaps there is no IFV version of armata and this turret is for the APC version... equating to the turret on the BTR-82 with no penetration into the hull to free up more space for the troop compartment.

    Or perhaps if this is the APC model with extended troop compartment and extra troops there is also an IFV model with a shorter troop compartment plus a turret section separated from the troops and crew and fitted with a 57mm high velocity gun to take out enemy IFVs and Kornet-M missiles to take on enemy tanks and light aircraft. The 57mm gun with laser guided shells would be effective against a range of targets, while an APFSDS round would be devastating to previous gen tanks and current and future gen IFVs.

    Lots of questions that should get an answer next year with the May Day parade showing IFV and MBT versions of the armata and kurganets.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15047
    Points : 15184
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  kvs Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    OK, so the labeling on the poster is wrong. They are not showing the MBT variant of the Armata and they should not call what they
    are showing Armata.

    ??

    Armata is the vehicle family name... the armata with a 125mm smoothbore gun will be MBT Armata... this poster show the infantry transport armata. There will be an armata command vehicle, and armata air defence vehicle, an armata tube artillery vehicle and likely also a rocket artillery armata vehicle.


    The poster on the right, clockwise, has Bumerang, Kurganets and Armata beside each vehicle. This does not follow the naming convention you
    describe and that is why it is confusing.



    In the picture above the one on the left details a turret, while the right one shows that turret fitted to three of the vehicle families... boomerang, armata, and kurganets.

    the question is... what have they gone with regarding their IFV version of armata... perhaps there is no IFV version of armata and this turret is for the APC version... equating to the turret on the BTR-82 with no penetration into the hull to free up more space for the troop compartment.

    Or perhaps if this is the APC model with extended troop compartment and extra troops there is also an IFV model with a shorter troop compartment plus a turret section separated from the troops and crew and fitted with a 57mm high velocity gun to take out enemy IFVs and Kornet-M missiles to take on enemy tanks and light aircraft. The 57mm gun with laser guided shells would be effective against a range of targets, while an APFSDS round would be devastating to previous gen tanks and current and future gen IFVs.

    Lots of questions that should get an answer next year with the May Day parade showing IFV and MBT versions of the armata and kurganets.

    Yes, but I do not expect the tracked chassis on the lower right in the right panel to be the one used by the Armata MBT subspecies. So the label
    is simply nonsensical. The MBT will have the engine at the back so the turret cannot sit on top of it. If they are going to use the popular name
    Armata for the MBT (which everyone is using), then they should have done it on another poster with a rendering of the MBT chassis. Nobody
    is talking about the light tank variant when they use the name Armata. Whether the whole family is called that or not is not the issue.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:33 am

    The poster on the right, clockwise, has Bumerang, Kurganets and Armata beside each vehicle. This does not follow the naming convention you
    describe and that is why it is confusing.

    The turret is the standard for the APC... whether it will be an APC in a heavy brigade or a medium brigade. If that turret is accepted as the standard turret for the APC today that would make it the BTR turret and it would only be fitted to the 8 wheeled BTR-82.

    the future structure however means a brigade wont have a mix of vehicles... it will only have one vehicle type... so in an Armata brigade the APC vehicle will have this turret and will look like the vehicle indicated on this poster as armata.

    In other words the APC in the heavy brigade will be a combination of this turret and the armata chassis.

    The other vehicles all have their engines at the front... ie Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon are all front engined vehicles.

    The Armata is the exception... in the standard MBT version and some other models it will have a rear mounted engine. In the troop carrying model and presumably the artillery model and likely the ambulance model and others it will have a front mounted engine and ramp rear doors.

    Ramp rear doors are good for APCs and IFVS so this picture of armata has a front mounted engine and therefore a rear mounted turret. For MBTs rear mounted engines are better and the MBT the engine will be rear mounted.

    Yes, but I do not expect the tracked chassis on the lower right in the right panel to be the one used by the Armata MBT subspecies. So the label
    is simply nonsensical.

    You have to get out of your head the idea that armata means MBT. It does not mean MBT.

    Kurganets does not mean IFV (BMP) and Boomerang does not mean APC (BTR) and Typhoon does not mean scout car (BRDM-2)

    Armata will come in two chassis versions... engine to the front for various types like APC and/or IFV, Engineer vehicle, Command vehicle, Air defence vehicle etc etc AND Engine to the rear MBT. It is likely all the ammo in the Koalition is loaded into the turret so it will likely have a rear mounted engine too.... without hull ammo storage.

    Kurganets will be front engined and have an APC/IFV, engineer, etc etc.

    All four vehicles will have MBT, IFV/APC, BMPT, Engineer, Air Defence, Artillery, Recon, Ambulance, Anti tank missile vehicle, UAV control vehicle, ECM vehicle etc etc etc.

    The MBT will have the engine at the back so the turret cannot sit on top of it. If they are going to use the popular name
    Armata for the MBT (which everyone is using), then they should have done it on another poster with a rendering of the MBT chassis. Nobody
    is talking about the light tank variant when they use the name Armata. Whether the whole family is called that or not is not the issue.

    The purpose of the posters is to show off the turret, not the vehicle base. If KBP had developed a new Tunguska turret that was completely self contained and could be fitted to any vehicle from the 10 ton class to the 60 ton class they would do the same... ie first poster explaining the turret and its armament and capabilities and a second poster showing the vehicle platform families it could be fitted to.

    Of course with the Air Defence turret not requiring rear hull access they might show the Armata chassis twice... one with the front engined model and one with the rear engined model as it should be possible to fit that turret to both.

    In this case it is a troop carrier turret designed to support troops... you would not fit it to the MBT chassis of the armata because then the troops would have to sit in the middle of the vehicle under the turret. The turret would block their roof hatches and the engine to their rear would block their exit out the rear of the hull so they would be stuck in the vehicle.

    The poster above shows the turret to the rear because the engine is front mounted and the turret doesn't penetrate into the hull, so the troops sit below the turret and exit and enter in the rear ramp doors of the hull.
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 3011
    Points : 3098
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  higurashihougi Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:11 am

    All four vehicles will have MBT, IFV/APC, BMPT, Engineer, Air Defence, Artillery, Recon, Ambulance, Anti tank missile vehicle, UAV control vehicle, ECM vehicle etc etc etc. wrote:

    @Garry: I would like to ask one question. Can a lightweight chassis fulfill the role of MBT ? I don't think the protection and armour level of Kurganets, Boomerang, Taifun is good enough to be a MBT.
    Zivo
    Zivo


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:15 am

    Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:22 am

    Zivo wrote:Less of a "MBT", more of a Boomerang with a 125mm gun.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen.

    They're not tanks per say, but a light tank/anti-tank vehicle. The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0!
    avatar
    Asf


    Posts : 471
    Points : 488
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Asf Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:14 am

    The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0
    It won't, it isn't air-droppable ))
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:32 am

    Asf wrote:
    The Kurganets-25 125mm vehicle would be Sprut-B 2.0
    It won't, it isn't air-droppable ))

    In all likeliness Kurganets-25 with modular armor will likely go the same way as a BMP-3 and BMD-4, so there'll likely be a Kurganets-25 BMP, Kurganets-25 BMD. Kurganets BMD will have less armor to be air-droppable, but we could very well see an external mechanism which allows the add-on armor shell to be air-dropped separately to be later attached. Were the Kurganets drives in to the external armor shell, and the external mechanism will allow the add-on armor to be applied after being air-dropped.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:59 am

    @Garry: I would like to ask one question. Can a lightweight chassis fulfill the role of MBT ? I don't think the protection and armour level of Kurganets, Boomerang, Taifun is good enough to be a MBT.

    In the context of the situation yes, I think it can.

    Remember that for WWIII against NATO the medium brigades will be fast moving highly mobile units that can hold ground but are likely to extensively use air support and artillery with a lot of smart attack weapons to engage targets at extended ranges.

    Against a third world country the biggest threat wont be from enemy MBTs... they wont likely even be present on the battlefield. More likely the MBT in medium and light brigades will be for direct gun fire support with a heavy gun HE round fairly accurately delivered from extended ranges due to excellent optics and communications and C4IR. Defending them will be a range of ceramic types of armour as well as NERA and of course an advanced version of Shtora, Nakhidka, and of course a new APS system that will make them mobile with heavy fire power but also hard to hit and hard to kill.

    Light brigades will be very highly mobile and likely air transportable... remember Typhoon is in the 10-15 ton class so existing Mi-26s can move them and the new helos being developed with the Chinese should be able to carry several vehicles each.

    It all comes down to correct use of unit types in the right situation.

    "Protection" is relative to the class of vehicle. Heavy brigades will be used in high risk environments, light vehicles will be used in low risk environments. Keep in mind that Russia is planning on deploying Active Protection on a scale never before seen, which will vastly increase the survivability of Boomerang and Kurganets.

    X2

    As long as they remember that medium tanks are actually light tanks and Typhoon will likely be a very light gun platform they should be fine.

    In all likeliness Kurganets-25 with modular armor will likely go the same way as a BMP-3 and BMD-4, so there'll likely be a Kurganets-25 BMP, Kurganets-25 BMD. Kurganets BMD will have less armor to be air-droppable, but we could very well see an external mechanism which allows the add-on armor shell to be air-dropped separately to be later attached. Were the Kurganets drives in to the external armor shell, and the external mechanism will allow the add-on armor to be applied after being air-dropped.

    It has been stated publicly that there will be a naval version of the Kurganets developed that is able to operate in high sea states and land on beaches effectively.

    What I suspect is that there will be perhaps two types of vehicle developed for the VDV... some in the light armour range based on Typhoon that can be air dropped, plus heavier vehicles based on Boomerang and Kurganets that can be air landed from short rough air strips.

    I can't see them wanting add on armour parachuted separately that has to be attached after landing... to much potential for stuff ups.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:26 am

    MIC: single armored fighting compartment reduce costs, "defense"


    The same crew compartment is designed for advanced types of Russian armored vehicles of the future - it will allow the military industry significant savings, said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    "On the" Armata "(tank) for" Kurgan "(BMP) for" Boomerang "(BTR) should equal the fighting compartment ... We once developed, and leave for three cars," - said Bochkarev in the "National Defense" the radio station "CAPITAL FM" .

    He noted that the path of the new equipment for various types of armored vehicles (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc.) by a single combat compartment is the whole world.

    "Lower costs for spare parts, it is easier to train crews. Serious savings on the life cycle of products ... This technique reduces the cost," - said Bochkarev.

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141210/1037426900.html


    Bochkarev: a new guided missile will be created for the tank "Armata"


    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141209/1037421179.html

    The new guided missile will be created to equip its long-term Russian tank new generation "Armata", said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    "The new tank will have a new guided missile, with the best performance, with a very surprising performance for our enemy," - said Bochkarev in the "National Defense" on the radio station "Capital FM".

    He recalled that the Russian defense industry wide experience in the field of equipment tanks missiles, previously guided missiles were equipped with only the Soviet tanks.


    Full Ammo new generation tank "Armata" will appear in the Russian army


    A full line of ammunition for the future of a new generation of Russian tanks "Armata" will appear in the Russian army in 2017, said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, has repeatedly said that the tank on the new platform "Armata" for the first time will be shown to the public at the Victory Day parade May 9, 2015. A Commander of the Land Forces reported that the serial delivery of a new promising tank "Armata" is planned in 2016.

    "Ammunition will be in the army by 2017," - he said, noting that it will be composed and guided missiles.

    As described in the "National Defense" on the radio station FM CAPITAL Bochkarev, the Defense Ministry has set new requirements for this fire unit - "improve the characteristics of range, for power, for broneprobitiyu." This is now engaged in the Russian military industry, said deputy chairman of the board of MIC.

    "We are staying in the same caliber, who was the Russian Army - 125 mm. It is meaningful action, because we have accumulated a large supply of ammunition, and to change the size, it is necessary to rebuild a huge system of financial security," - said Bochkarev .

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141209/1037420583.html
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:50 am

    So the first part is pretty much what I have been saying... the crew positions and controls will be unified so the three crew can be driver, commander, or gunner without moving position. the sensors and weapons and electronics will be standardised over the vehicle types... so a MBT will have a 125mm gun and specific optics and sensors and equipment, whether it is an armata, a boomerang, or a kurganets.

    If there is a Typhoon MBT then it may have a high velocity 57mm gun... simply because a 125m gun would be too big for a 10-15 ton class vehicle and ammo storage would be too limited.

    This means if you are trained as a MBT tank crew you can go from armata, Kurganets, or boomerang and everything should be the same except mobility and protection of course... armata will snorkel, while the others will float...

    New ammo is excellent and introduced in 2017 would mean a nice step up in performance likely for existing vehicles too.

    We have seen the electronic thermal weapon sight video showing the use of a laser range finder and GLONASS allowing maps to be generated showing the location and video or still images of targets... transmitting that back to a division could allow a fire and forget tank launched missile to be fired at a target blindly with the soldier with a rifle that detected the target lasing the target so the missile can acquire the precise target to attack.... or it could just use positional data to find the threat itself.

    It is getting more and more like a video game....
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 3011
    Points : 3098
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  higurashihougi Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:12 am

    Sorry if my question is stupid, but one of my friend once joked about "my EMP weapons will disable all of your heavy tanks..." so sometimes, when thinking about electronic devices, I also think about countermeasure against EMP...

    I know that was a joke, but I cannot stop thinking about it.

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:07 pm