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


+87
Book.
triphosgene
franco
eridan
Flanky
JohnSnow
calripson
:JunioR:
indochina
Captain Nemo
Zhukov-Patton
AbsoluteZero
Mindstorm
NITRO
TheGeorgian
nobunaga
auslander
Swede55
BKP
Siempre_Leal
KoTeMoRe
Shadåw
Khepesh
ebobat
zg18
Neutrality
archangelski
Alex555
Big_Gazza
Strizh
PapaDragon
Vympel
macedonian
rtech
Flyboy77
Mefesto
Acheron
alexZam
Bolt
sheytanelkebir
Redboy
medo
Orocairion
Austin
Cpt Caz
mack8
Kyo
MilSpec
kvs
Viktor
cracker
max steel
2SPOOKY4U
xeno
ult
Mike E
volna
smerch24
tanino
TheArmenian
Brovich
chicken
mutantsushi
Morpheus Eberhardt
jhelb
sepheronx
Regular
Dima
etaepsilonk
Cyberspec
VladimirSahin
KomissarBojanchev
AJ-47
Stealthflanker
victor1985
collegeboy16
Vann7
higurashihougi
George1
runaway
akd
flamming_python
Werewolf
GarryB
TR1
Zivo
magnumcromagnon
91 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    BKP
    BKP


    Posts : 473
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  BKP Sat May 09, 2015 11:02 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:You guys should be grateful they showed them publicly this year thanks to this important anniversary. Otherwise we probably wouldn't see them for another year or two...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun May 10, 2015 1:46 am

    BKP wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:You guys should be grateful they showed them publicly this year thanks to this important anniversary. Otherwise we probably wouldn't see them for another year or two...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.

    I keep telling people that Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang are still prototypes...but no one is willing to listen. Of all the brand new modular vehicle platforms, Typhoon-K/U are the most mature, easily several years ahead of the formerly mentioned vehicle platforms.
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2619
    Points : 2651
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Mike E Sun May 10, 2015 1:56 am

    Vann7 wrote:Maybe the core internal turret is invulnerable.. but the thin metal sheet stealthy box in the outside ,is actually very weak ,bases on photos and close shots ,that shows the stealth hat ,is a thin steel sheet cover.so a single hit by any tank shell will completely wipe at very least all the optics and sensors and leave the turret on its bones.
    Losing all its APS capabilities. I hope they add more real armor to protect even the outher stealth cover of the turret and its sensors.. ideally make it completely solid and dense the whole stealth cover.
    Because doesn't look like the thin outside stealth skin on the turret,
    and its sensors/optics will survive either 30mm gun fire or a simple grenade explosive ,tearing away stealth cover ,with the attached optics and sensors .   Hopefully the final tank will have more real armor on the turret and make more solid the turret for protection of the sensors and optics and piece of mind.
    No no no no no.... That is the against the whole point Vann...

    An incoming round will either hit overwhelming armor (of the actual turret) or nothing at all, and will pass right through. Because the rounds are almost certainly going to be KE or HEAT, the actual penetration will be extremely slim, and will most likely cause no damage to any sensors. Even if it does, it would probably be one at a time. I assume they'd be extremely easy to replace too.

    And like any tank... You can't bury the sensors in armor, they need to be external. If say the turret was hit by a HE shell, it would destroy most of the sensors, *but the same is true for almost every other tank*. 

    The idea behind this turret is truely innovative and impressing.
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd


    Posts : 942
    Points : 947
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  OminousSpudd Sun May 10, 2015 2:38 am

    BKP wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:You guys should be grateful they showed them publicly this year thanks to this important anniversary. Otherwise we probably wouldn't see them for another year or two...

    Totally agree with this. Man, some of you guys got unbelievably worked up. This beast is a long way off from production. The sheet metal of the outer turret may simply be a placeholder for more durable material. Whatever the case, the final machine will be solid. I believe that. The people designing these things aren't dummies, and much testing and modification is yet to come.

    ^This, very much this.

    The utter storm of criticism the Armata is receiving (the T-14 in particular, and I'm not just talking the opposition) is embarrassingly silly.

    1.) This is not the final production version. This one sentence takes all your speculation about the turret and takes a giant dump on it. Everything is subject to change.

    2.) Tanks have a long history in Russia, essentially shaping the modern MBT of today, they genuinely lead in this field. They won't bungle it, they're not a corrupt Lockheed Martin with the ludicrous funding of the Pentagon.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 Sun May 10, 2015 2:52 am

    sumbitch, transformer in my college blew the fck off - missed the parade stream.
    anyway, glad there wasnt much fail in it -didnt have to work overtime in ridf on /k/ Twisted Evil

    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 Sun May 10, 2015 2:54 am

    Mike E wrote:

    An incoming round will either hit overwhelming armor (of the actual turret) or nothing at all, and will pass right through. Because the rounds are almost certainly going to be KE or HEAT, the actual penetration will be extremely slim, and will most likely cause no damage to any sensors. Even if it does, it would probably be one at a time. I assume they'd be extremely easy to replace too.

    And like any tank... You can't bury the sensors in armor, they need to be external. If say the turret was hit by a HE shell, it would destroy most of the sensors, *but the same is true for almost every other tank*. 

    The idea behind this turret is truely innovative and impressing.
    yeah, ironically those would have the best chance for inflicting a f-kill on t-14s. good thing the hardkill afghanit interceptors are there to blow them out of the way.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun May 10, 2015 2:55 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:sumbitch, transformer in my college blew the fck off - missed the parade stream.
    anyway, glad there wasnt much fail in it -didnt have to work overtime in ridf on /k/ Twisted Evil


    Are your sure it wasn't sabotaged by Hotel Moscow™️? Cool
    alexZam
    alexZam


    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam Sun May 10, 2015 3:53 am

    First attempt.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 RUSSIAN_NEW_ARMOR2

    Armata T-14 & T-15 http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14- … lysis.html


    Last edited by alexZam on Sun May 10, 2015 5:55 am; edited 1 time in total
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec Sun May 10, 2015 4:01 am

    Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...
    alexZam
    alexZam


    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam Sun May 10, 2015 5:57 am

    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...

    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf Sun May 10, 2015 5:59 am

    alexZam wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,

    I just posted that a few hours ago...

    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir

    The amount of pics lets the thread grow fast.
    alexZam
    alexZam


    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  alexZam Sun May 10, 2015 6:12 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    alexZam wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:Alex,
    I just posted that a few hours ago...
    Ups. My bad. The thread is rolling so fast, I thought I'm still on page 33. yes sir
    The amount of pics lets the thread grow fast.
    Yeah. We been waiting for so long. They most likely roll out one of those Poligon or Voenaya Priemka in a month, so we will have more stuff to learn. Certainly, they will leave all classified stuff out and give a few hint here and there just another to spark more intrigue and cause some serious flood of opinions. Until it that it will be predictably slowing down. My background is in telecommunication, would love to hear those networking smart feature of those machines, BUT they should never reveal it. Just a main principe idea would be enough. If new gen IFV, tanks and APC would be in sync in realtime with each other and combat hq, I would be approving. But there is still a long way to go of furious testing and trials. However, I'm glad they are on a right path.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec Sun May 10, 2015 8:23 am

    Possible (IMO likely) arrangement of dynamic armour under the outer panels....as you can see, both the top and sides are covered.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 143843_900

    The author of the CGI had posted this before the shape of the T-14 was publicly shown
    avatar
    Vann7


    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5485
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 Sun May 10, 2015 10:40 am



    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement. If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides? Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?

    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .

    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.



    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 Sun May 10, 2015 11:44 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement.  If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides?  Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?
    from the front, that is. the hull sides prolly are only a tiny fraction of the thickness and effectiveness of the frontal hull armor, the hard kill countermeasure is there anyway to pick up the slack.
    Vann7 wrote:
    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .
    ive read lots of stories about the dismal performance of the ukrainians but this is the first ive heard of such. considering they are hearing explosions inside the tank every time the gun fires i doubt they would be dissuaded by the sound of explosions outside the tank enough to abandon common sense and hightail it on foot, where suddenly explosions come not just with exponentially higher volumes but with free supersonic shrapnel.

    now aircraft OTOH...
    Vann7 wrote:
    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.
    thats the idea, yes. plus since it can drive backwards no prob. the thick frontal armor is always facing the enemy - historically everything from mounted knights to tanks had problems retreating under enemy fire since they would be shot to sh!t when their backs are turned. something like 3/4 to 90% of casualties in ancient battles were suffered under routs.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe


    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4227
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe Sun May 10, 2015 12:01 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:
    apparently the developers claim the capsule inside the tank ,cannot be penetrated
    by any know Tank Gun in the world..in existence today.which is a really ambitious statement.  If thats was true ,then it will mean how much? 1300mm protection in all sides?  Or maybe is more like 600mm protection but after a hit on the external Body near the crew.. . that is 800mm +600mm protection. or so?
    from the front, that is.  the hull sides prolly are only a tiny fraction of the thickness and effectiveness of the frontal hull armor, the hard kill countermeasure is there anyway to pick up the slack.
    Vann7 wrote:
    This could be interesting if true.. because one thing that was not rare in Ukraine to happen..
    is that a tank is hit by any anti tank weapon.. and the crew listen the explosion.. they panic
    and just leave the tank ,even if it was not penetrated.. no body wants to risk being caught
    inside of the tank while being fired anti tank weapons and pressure too much their luck .
    ive read lots of stories about the dismal performance of the ukrainians but this is the first ive heard of such. considering they are hearing explosions inside the tank every time the gun fires i doubt they would be dissuaded by the sound of explosions outside the tank enough to abandon common sense and hightail it on foot, where suddenly explosions come not just with exponentially higher volumes but with free supersonic shrapnel.

    now aircraft OTOH...
    Vann7 wrote:
    But if the capsule is a strong as developers claim ,this could essentially allow the crew to fight
    until the last bullet or sabot round was fired first. and the tank no longer could be used to
    fight. And even if without bullets or munition they could prefer to use the tank as a bunker and call for help.. really can't wait to see T-14 and T-15 too in action .. how is its defense. and intercepting sabot rounds in the case of the tank.
    thats the idea, yes. plus since it can drive backwards no prob. the thick frontal armor is always facing the enemy - historically everything from mounted knights to tanks had problems retreating under enemy fire since they would be shot to sh!t when their backs are turned. something like 3/4 to 90% of casualties in ancient battles were suffered under routs.

    What would although happen in Ukraine was that the crew would bolt as soon as there would be no more power with the tank. IE when the tank wouldn't be able to move despite the combat compartment being unscathed.

    Also knowing that Skiff ATGM's were used, the task of finding and killing the ATGM crews would be drastically altered.
    k@llashniKoff
    k@llashniKoff


    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 36
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff Sun May 10, 2015 12:12 pm

    Some variation of how Armata looks without the light hull (not mine)

    So I think there is no need for a massive hull like on T-90MS or Leopard-2. The gun and the loader mechanism are well protected with armour and active armour from the top and all the optik and sensors are protected with the light hull from bullets and shrapnel.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 SFU4l
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe


    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4227
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe Sun May 10, 2015 12:31 pm

    k@llashniKoff wrote:Some variation of how Armata looks without the light hull (not mine)

    So I think there is no need for a massive hull like on T-90MS or Leopard-2. The gun and the loader mechanism are well protected with armour and active armour from the top and all the optik and sensors are protected with the light hull from bullets and shrapnel.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 SFU4l

    We already know the lines aren't that clean, but I'm fine with that.
    Da_Vinci
    Da_Vinci


    Posts : 4
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2015-05-05

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Da_Vinci Sun May 10, 2015 4:24 pm

    Another attempt for Armata turret
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 A06bd4542fe9516897a93917ae76ced7
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun May 10, 2015 4:56 pm

    Da_Vinci wrote:Another attempt for Armata turret
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 A06bd4542fe9516897a93917ae76ced7

    Remember to introduce yourself in the member introduction forum...
    2SPOOKY4U
    2SPOOKY4U


    Posts : 276
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  2SPOOKY4U Sun May 10, 2015 7:02 pm



    Something we haven't mentioned so far I believe...the anti-mine system of the Armata

    The Armata platform is configured with an active mine countermeasure system, designed to detect or trigger mines ahead of the tank.
    The system is mounted on the lower front edge of the vehicle.
    Photo: vitaly-Kuzmin
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 T14_armata_counter_mine725
    I am pretty sure that is the integrated plow, same kind used on T-90.

    Ant-mine systems that use jamming to prevent detonation look like metal boxes with dielectric paneling.

    I don't think we will be seeing anti-mine systems just yet.


    k@llashniKoff
    k@llashniKoff


    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 36
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff Sun May 10, 2015 7:17 pm

    And onother one

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 29I1j
    avatar
    Firebird


    Posts : 1722
    Points : 1752
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Firebird Sun May 10, 2015 8:17 pm

    The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.
    k@llashniKoff
    k@llashniKoff


    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 36
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  k@llashniKoff Sun May 10, 2015 8:39 pm

    Firebird wrote:The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.

    Having the crew in the back makes no sence, You have to much armour in the front and the engine = too much weight in the front, the vehicle is unbalanced
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Guest Sun May 10, 2015 8:56 pm

    Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 38 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:20 am