[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Full report by defendingrussia.livejournal.com (technowars.ru):

Some interesting details if you zoom in...

collegeboy16 wrote:

max steel wrote:
A company from the United States presented its first remote-controlled drone tanks, an attempt to outdo Russia’s next-generation Armata and win the ‘arms race’.
The great powers – the US and Russia – have started new arms race, both trying to present each other most advanced defense equipment and new military technologies, Stern magazine wrote.

As Russia demonstrated its new Armata T-14 battle tank during the Victory Day Parade, the US took every effort to prove that it is keeping up with the time as well.

Americans released pictures showing a new next generation remote-controlled tank. As in Russia, it is not a full-blown battle tank and not a real armored personnel carrier, but a comparatively compact tracked vehicle.

ahahahahahahahahaha, who let the kids in the big boys competition? seriously, a half-baked BMD wannabe (like a BMD cant do any of those stunts) is the counter?!?

I love how they're labeling it a tank, yet claim it's not designed exclusively for military use. WTF. What else can a tank be designed for except carrying guns and armor? Selling icecream? Anyhow it's truly pathetic how they're trying to sway the generally uneducated public into believing this chassis is an almost complete MBT. It's not even as big as for an APC. The vehicle with the most comaparable size with this "tank" is the wiesel AFV.

This "future military" vehicle is one of the long line of auxillary equipment, along with toy drones, robot horses, load carrying exosceletons, inflatable "suicide" drone boats, etc. flaunted by the US military as beinsupposedly giving a massive edge that will make the american army nigh invincible.

The problem for these western fetishists is that IRL wars are not won by mechs, robot flys or katana wielding cyberpunk agents,but by bigger firepower and better armor.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
The problem for these western fetishists is that IRL wars are not won by mechs, robot flys or katana wielding cyberpunk agents,but by bigger firepower and better armor.

scratch mechs and robot flies, a cyberpunk agent sans the katana is just right for spec-ops in the future.

and its skill and technique that wins wars, not just raw firepower and armor. the Germans tore everyone a new asshole in the opening stages of WW2 with inferior tanks compared to their adversaries, using the new Blitzkrieg tactic.

anyway, the real reply is not gonna be until M1A3, by then the T-14 alpha series would be deployed with all the promised 1st block goodies like the 7m 2a82-1m gun, or maybe AESA radar for example.

collegeboy16 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
The problem for these western fetishists is that IRL wars are not won by mechs, robot flys or katana wielding cyberpunk agents,but by bigger firepower and better armor.

scratch mechs and robot flies, a cyberpunk agent sans the katana is just right for spec-ops in the future.

and its skill and technique that wins wars, not just raw firepower and armor. the Germans tore everyone a new asshole in the opening stages of WW2 with inferior tanks compared to their adversaries, using the new Blitzkrieg tactic.

anyway, the real reply is not gonna be until M1A3, by then the T-14 alpha series would be deployed with all the promised 1st block goodies like the 7m 2a82-1m gun, or maybe AESA radar for example.

On the German part, that's a myth. Germans tore everyone to pieces because they were organized and prepared to go the extra mile, the extra dead, to adapt, to improvise (not too much, they were ze Djörmans after all). Their initial campaigns were pretty so so. The German airwing had all sorts of shit happens in Spain. They were largely overconfident in Poland (although they beat up Poland pretty good). Had problems with French concentration of troops (although these guys were nowhere ready), had to go around various points we know know were strong points only in paper. The blitzkrieg was nothing special once you understand what the goals are. And it isn't a freaking tactic, it's a deep battle strategy. It's like a football game, man coverage or zone coverage, doesn't matter, what matters is the deep pass.

This is why, i don't buy the skill and technique alone. You could put freaking rambos in Debaltsevo and they'd lose against "traktorists and miners" becaue of the set up. The US doesn't need to reply for now, they still have the set up advantage, the legal advantage and the cash advantage. Their only issue is that they aim too high and don't care about the mess they create. That makes everything more difficult.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
On the German part, that's a myth. Germans tore everyone to pieces because they were organized and prepared to go the extra mile, the extra dead, to adapt, to improvise (not too much, they were ze Djörmans after all). Their initial campaigns were pretty so so. The German airwing had all sorts of shit happens in Spain. They were largely overconfident in Poland (although they beat up Poland pretty good). Had problems with French concentration of troops (although these guys were nowhere ready), had to go around various points we know know were strong points only in paper. The blitzkrieg was nothing special once you understand what the goals are. And it isn't a freaking tactic, it's a deep battle strategy. It's like a football game, man coverage or zone coverage, doesn't matter, what matters is the deep pass.

just going by what wiki defines as tactical meaning of the word blitzkrieg, " coordinated military effort by tanks, mobilized infantry, artillery and aircraft, to create an overwhelming local superiority in combat power, to overwhelm an enemy and break through its lines", you can take it up to them.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
This is why, i don't buy the skill and technique alone. You could put freaking rambos in Debaltsevo and they'd lose against "traktorists and miners" becaue of the set up. The US doesn't need to reply for now, they still have the set up advantage, the legal advantage and the cash advantage. Their only issue is that they aim too high and don't care about the mess they create. That makes everything more difficult.

skill and technique extends to higher arching plans, if the Ukrainian commanders suddenly gained excellent competency there would never been a Debaltsevo in the first place.

any news about Armata with badass looking turret with 30mm gun and something like 4 barrel Yak 12,7mm gun?

collegeboy16 wrote:
ahahahahahahahahaha, who let the kids in the big boys competition? seriously, a half-baked BMD wannabe (like a BMD cant do any of those stunts) is the counter?!?

My son got also remote controlled tank. Made in China

GunshipDemocracy wrote:any news about Armata with badass looking turret with 30mm gun and something like 4 barrel Yak 12,7mm gun?

Maybe a BMPT version of the Armata one day...

There's an oppinion that the T-14 might not even have a co-axial MG if previous unmanned turret projects are anything to go by





http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12206.htm

Cyberspec wrote:
There's an oppinion that the T-14 might not even have a co-axial MG if previous unmanned turret projects are anything to go by

wasnt there a small slot about the width of MG round diameter on the left side of the gun mantlet?

and losing the coax(parallax more like) is stupid. its a very good weapon for harassing the enemy at the very least, and a very effective weapon against exposed infantry at up to 2km with just the cost of minor increase in complexity and space consumed in the turret.

ill even say give the driver a front hull mounted MG, controllable by a thumbstick (actually add this to all controls, esp. for the gunner's since its very good for making fine adjustments even if everything around you is shaking). he has his own thermals already, just slave a gun to it.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:
There's an oppinion that the T-14 might not even have a co-axial MG if previous unmanned turret projects are anything to go by

wasnt there a small slot about the width of MG round diameter on the left side of the gun mantlet?

and losing the coax(parallax more like) is stupid. its a very good weapon for harassing the enemy at the very least, and a very effective weapon against exposed infantry at up to 2km with just the cost of minor increase in complexity and space consumed in the turret.

ill even say give the driver a front hull mounted MG, controllable by a thumbstick (actually add this to all controls, esp. for the gunner's since its very good for making fine adjustments even if everything around you is shaking). he has his own thermals already, just slave a gun to it.

Didn't Garry bring up the significantly big space on the side of the turret where a 30mm autocannon in place?

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
On the German part, that's a myth. Germans tore everyone to pieces because they were organized and prepared to go the extra mile, the extra dead, to adapt, to improvise (not too much, they were ze Djörmans after all). Their initial campaigns were pretty so so. The German airwing had all sorts of shit happens in Spain. They were largely overconfident in Poland (although they beat up Poland pretty good). Had problems with French concentration of troops (although these guys were nowhere ready), had to go around various points we know know were strong points only in paper. The blitzkrieg was nothing special once you understand what the goals are. And it isn't a freaking tactic, it's a deep battle strategy. It's like a football game, man coverage or zone coverage, doesn't matter, what matters is the deep pass.

just going by what wiki defines as tactical meaning of the word blitzkrieg, " coordinated military effort by tanks, mobilized infantry, artillery and aircraft, to create an overwhelming local superiority in combat power, to overwhelm an enemy and break through its lines", you can take it up to them.

That's a strategy to shorten the duration of combat, to hide the fact your country isn't geared for all out war. It's an overwhelming but short haul assault from 1 to 3 months in order to achieve effectively the control of the battlefield by creating "kessels"> kettles > "cauldrons". The tactics employed depend on set up, the goals are obvious, cut X-troop formation from its rear, harrass, suppress, annihilate. That's blitzkrieg and it ain't a "tactic"...(compare the blitzkrieg in Norway and Blitzkrieg in Crete)...It's not because WikiBS is tolerated that, it is true.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
This is why, i don't buy the skill and technique alone. You could put freaking rambos in Debaltsevo and they'd lose against "traktorists and miners" becasue of the set up. The US doesn't need to reply for now, they still have the set up advantage, the legal advantage and the cash advantage. Their only issue is that they aim too high and don't care about the mess they create. That makes everything more difficult.

skill and technique extends to higher arching plans, if the Ukrainian commanders suddenly gained excellent competency there would never been a Debaltsevo in the first place.[/quote]

Nope there wouldn't, Ukrops were pretty intelligent at trying to put a wedge in Debaltsevo. It was by the book etc. what wasn't intelligent is to have dug in a rag tag bunch of people, and slowly supply them under Donetsk Airport shelling cover.You need fast action and steady lines. Slowly slowly makes your intent obvious even to the worst
blind man.

This isn't on the Ukrop "ATO", it's on the state of decay Ukraine is since a decade. The inability of the UA stocks to deal with supply lines, can't be put on Ukrop military leadership. If anything, this time, unlike Illovaisk they cared for their men, including disobeying their on CoC bullshit about everything being fine in Debal. Anyway, as I said, Rambos or Von Clausewitz couldn't save the Debaltsevo Salient. Not from Masha Rasha's eyes.

victor1985 wrote:
I must ask: what is happen when a projectile meets electricity? As faw as i see would be a lot of electrons that runs into the projectile and warm up a lot. That would conduct to melt?

there si a strong discharge which creates very strong magnetic fields which slow down incoming projectile and deceleration is enormous. electric armor is one shot worth though.
but it explaines how defends agains afpds and HEAT too.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/physics-demo-lenzs-law-with-copper-pipe-10268/

First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

It like Eurotiger? no worry

Apparently it's not an official program yet. There studying various concepts and it's not clear whether it'll be an upgrade of existing designs or a completely new design.

From TASS in eng...

Germany, France plan to create competitor to Russian Armata tank by 2030 — media
http://tass.ru/en/world/796384

GunshipDemocracy wrote:any news about Armata with badass looking turret with 30mm gun and something like 4 barrel Yak 12,7mm gun?

Not precisely , but old VIM -alias Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky one of the maximum expert in the Sector and editor in chief of "Арсенал Отечества" - has revealed in Форум «Отвага» some details (surely with deeply reasoned "placet" by part of MoD ) about Armata MBT's turrett weapon suit among which the 30 mm gun with brand new type of ammunitions.

Other details concern the confirmation that the new medium caliber of choice for Armata, Kurganet-25 and Boomerang with Эпоху"station, in their production iteration, will be 57 mm while 45 mm is in the middle term development plan.


http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1164&p=2

From Otvaga:

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Bahahaha,

If it's anything like the Eurofighter's long and tortured development we might be lucky if we live long enough to see it, and by then the price will be so ludicrous and the maintenance so high the whole of Europe might be able to operate 100 of them. Perhaps a bit cynical, but you get the idea. If they chuck the UK into the arrangement the results will be even more morbid.

The West is losing the race to an opponent that's not even trying.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:From Otvaga:

Perspective is not the same if you resize T-90 image to match background posters you can see that quite clearly.

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Looking at the political atmosphere in the next 5 years i doubt they will finish this project but split half the way for own projects. Germany's MIC is in really bad shape. When Poland and Saudis ordered leo 2's our KMW could not keep up the pace of production to set met the dealines so by the end the production quality suffered, weldings were not finished or insufficient so that during transports the hull under its own weight has deformed itself for a few milimeters and other stuff. I'm in reserve and have met two guys that worked in KMW for few years one was a painter and just gave paint jobs to all KMW vehicles among them also to testbeds and prototypes like A7 and i know that from him that the quality was really to worry when they had to build more than they could with the limited amount of workers they have.

Not precisely , but old VIM -alias Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky one of the maximum expert in the Sector and editor in chief of "Арсенал Отечества" - has revealed in Форум «Отвага» some details (surely with deeply reasoned "placet" by part of MoD Wink Wink ) about Armata MBT's turrett weapon suit among which the 30 mm gun with brand new type of ammunitions.

Other details concern the confirmation that the new medium caliber of choice for Armata, Kurganet-25 and Boomerang with Эпоху"station, in their production iteration, will be 57 mm while 45 mm is in the middle term development plan.


http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1164&p=2

We already saw some posters for the new ammunition ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds.



And few other ammunition types like Airburst 30mm.

whir wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:From Otvaga:

Perspective is not the same if you resize T-90 image to match background posters you can see that quite clearly.

One reason I posted this was for someone checking to see if they have exactly matched them.


So you think that they haven't applied projective geometry correctly to categorically match the two images?


Of course, you don't need the same perspective. All that needs to be done is, for example, to scale them such that the major axes of the elliptical projected sides of the road wheels to have a ratio of 700 to 760.

i smell an MBT-70 in the making. both sides have arguably different priorities, Germany focuses on home defence while France leans on expeditionary.

besides Leclercs are still good for 10 years more in 2030 if we are to take the lifetime of tanks as 50 years before it needs to be urgently replaced.

T-14 doesn't seem to have a coaxial MG. I think here are some of the possible rationals.


1- The remotely controlled MG has probably enough stowage of ammunition to perform the role of a coax. Especially that it's controllable by any of the crew-members and also automatically. It can even follow the main gun if it is so wished. I think this is the primary explanation.

This also explains the choice of a 7.62 mm MG over a 12.7 mm one.


2- The various main gun rounds that have anti-personnel capabilities, in conjunction with remote fusing and sensor fusing, also in conjunction to the main gun's large ammunition stowage, can cover a lot of the coax roles.


3- The tank's various defensive subsystems can also have general and specialized anti-personnel capabilities that can satisfy part of the requirements for a coax.

If indeed there will be 30mm on Armata there won't be much need for coax mg. Ags would be more usefull esp with airburst capability, but it would be more needed for T-15 and BMPT Armata

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
1- The remotely controlled MG has probably enough stowage of ammunition to perform the role of a coax. Especially that it's controllable by any of the crew-members and also automatically. It can even follow the main gun if it is so wished. I think this is the primary explanation.
This also explains the choice of a 7.62 mm MG over a 12.7 mm one.

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals - meaning you lose Hunter killer capability every time you need to hose something with a machinegun. the Gunner could take the hunter role sure, but its pathetic with a rel. slow moving turret.

and the choice of a 7.62 over 12.7 is prolly due to them just not bothering to put one, like they did with the longer 2a82-1m gun. Its only a parade, no need to splurge on making the tank look battle ready. that mount could take a GL or a HMG just fine too. And besides historically the commander's anti-aircraft gun is always a 12.7 mm.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
2- The various main gun rounds that have anti-personnel capabilities, in conjunction with remote fusing and sensor fusing, also in conjunction to the main gun's large ammunition stowage, can cover a lot of the coax roles.

Going by Soviet and Russian ammo distribution 85% of rounds stored have anti-personnel capabilities, and these are HEAT and HE-frag, so 27 rounds.
HEAT however is only marginally effective in anti-personnel role, so you want HE-frag instead. but these only share 40% of the whole lot, so 13 rounds - not alot for most engagements, and not ideal for responding to basically isolated potshots with no clear view of enemy target.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
3- The tank's various defensive subsystems can also have general and specialized anti-personnel capabilities that can satisfy part of the requirements for a coax.

you mean the grenade launchers? true, but only for thisclose of engagements.