[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

runaway wrote:

GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

runaway wrote:
And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun. 

The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.

I cannot quite make this out is it saying that they plan for the T-14 tobe upgraded with an electrothermal version of the 2a82?

GarryB wrote: You are missing the point of the design... of course they can armour their turret the same way every other modern main battle tank is armoured... with the heaviest armour on the tank on the turret front. The question is why?

On a conventional tank it is there to protect the crew but if all the crew are in the hull, why add 10-15 tons of weight to the turret to protect the empty space either side of the gun?

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?

If a 120mm round... HEAT or APFSDS, penetrate the turret front and goes right through... front to back and goes through where the tank commander would be sitting if he was in the turret what difference does that make to the tank? There would be no ammo there, there will be no fuel there... so no fire... just a neat hole punched through. As long as the gun continues to work and the sensors continue to function what difference does it make to have a hole through the turret?

runaway wrote:[

Yes I know, but don't you think its a good idea to protect the gun itself? Otherwise just any hit in the turret risks the whole tank to loose meaning ( to shoot with the gun )
I think the whole idea of crew in the hull is great, that alone should spare lots of tons of armour for crews in turret. But surely its important for the tank to be able to continue operate with its gun so 10 tons of armour for the gun alone, instead of 40 tons for a crew in turret tank.

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

0nillie0 wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

So basically all round protection against 40mm AP rounds? You would need 200mm of RHA at sides, roof and rear. This totally negates using an unmanned turret.


Also, adding more armor to the turret so you can add even more armor and weight to the hull ? That makes no sense to me :s

This not Merkava with unmanned turret. Weight is limited to 50-55 tonnes due to Russian doctrine, geography and infrastructure.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:Nice video there.... thanks for posting.

And from that video it is pretty clear that from the front damaging the gun is not so easy...

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

GarryB wrote:

How do you know the CG video is acurate?

What makes you think it is not accurate?

The purpose of the unmanned turret design is to move crew ammo and fuel out of the turret and out of the firing line... do you think they would pack fuel and ammo in the turret anyway?

Anyway if I designed the Armata I would use a very small but very strong armor section to protect the gun breach and autoloader while giving the rest of the turret just enough armor to protect aginst 30mm and 40mm IFV guns therefor saving a massive amount of weigh allowing me to up armor the hull even further.

What makes you think that is not what they have actually done?

GarryB wrote:Do you think an enemy IFV commander will open up on an Armata tank when he spots one?

Would you be attracting their attention when your job is to transport troops around the battlefield?

I would mark its position on a map and send that data to the rest of my unit and then GTFO. Trading fire with an Armata tank armed with a 125mm gun with a 30mm or 40mm gun is stupid and dangerous...

ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

0nillie0 wrote:

ZoA wrote:In most European scenarios direct fire land weapon ranges over 2 km are only of marginal value because most targets are detected below that range. I think it is unwise to underestimate damage to optics and external equipment 25 mm gun can do at realistic detection and engagement ranges. Even in Syria that allows much greater engagement ranges because of desert environment there are plenty of evidence external equipment of T-90 suffered significant damage due to small calibre fire.

Which is why the most commonly used tanks and IFV's in service with the Russian Ground Forces have a redundancy in optics for observation and firing the weapons. I suspect that the T-14 will receive a similar solution in one way or the other.

It is generally not a good idea for an IFV to open fire on a MBT, unless you have favorable numbers, terrain (retreat cover) and tactical position (ambush), or in desperate self defense.

GarryB wrote:

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

None of their previous APS systems require turret rotation... they intercept when detected with an array of overlapping interceptors... turrets simply don't turn fast enough and turning in the middle of taking a shot can mean a bad miss but also a shot that reveals your location on the battlefield. If you fire you want to hit every time. If your turret turns every time something approaches your armour then the enemy could time their attacks to make your shots ineffective.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Last time I checked the US army uses its IFVs as fire support once they are in combat and even if they don't an IFV gunner would likely try and disable the weapon systems of a MBT that he suspects is targeting his vehicle in this cenario if the external part of the turret cannot protect aginst the IFVs gun all the MBTs FCS components will be shredded.

Then the US Army is fucking stupid and will get their asses kicked as those Armata tanks will be ripping them a new one well beyond the effective range of the 25mm guns their IFVs carry. Even with 30mm cannon they will be in serious trouble at distances they can't do much in return.

An IFV generally will have anti tank weapons in the form of ATGMs, but that is purely for self defence and will mostly be used in ambush type scenarios... their primary purpose is to move infantry around the battlefield and support their attacks... they are not there to fight tanks and would be slaughtered if they were stupid enough to try... the exception is at night in Iraq against T-55s where the enemy can't even see them... if they tried those tactics against Armata MBTs they will get raped.

T-72s didnt do any better than 55s aganist Coalition IFVs tbh, most got shredded while being dug up by those 25s.