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


+44
marcellogo
PapaDragon
George1
william.boutros
runaway
GarryB
thegopnik
The-thing-next-door
BenVaserlan
lyle6
caveat emptor
Begome
Sprut-B
Walther von Oldenburg
xeno
mnztr
Backman
diabetus
Broski
RTN
lancelot
Swgman_BK
galicije83
AlfaT8
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
limb
Mir
franco
JohninMK
ludovicense
flamming_python
Werewolf
Arrow
Arkanghelsk
Kiko
TMA1
ALAMO
DerWolf
sepheronx
Big_Gazza
Isos
sputnik
PhSt
Hole
48 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:56 pm



    RUMINT is that the grenade mortars on the Afghanit can also launch fragmentation rounds apart from special obscurant grenades. With complete hemispheric coverage in visual and UV/IR defending against kamikaze drones should be a breeze. Not to mention pop-up short range threats like RPG teams firing from behind cover or just ATGMs in general.

    Now the only real problem is countering roving landmines...

    No the classic mine clearing technologies no longer suffice. Mine rollers and trawlers do jack shit against mines layed behind, to the flanks, or right on top of the assault column. Its also damn near impossible to keep the demining vehicle intact when its leading the formation and bearing the brunt of enemy fire. They also slow the entire group to a crawl and prevent the combat elements from spreading out and deploying as much of their firepower...

    We need an APS for mines. A combined multichannel - visual/thermal/radar sensor that looks for mines and low threats, and a bow mount weapon either an HMG or a GL to take out those threats from afar. This would severely limit the possible damage from remotely laid mines and allow the assault group to assume proper attack formation and actually use their firepower and mobility as efficiently as they can.

    If you're equipping your frontline combat vehicles with APS against conventional threats it wouldn't make much of a difference to invest that extra cash against landmines wouldn't it?



    GarryB, LMFS, TMA1 and jon_deluxe like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Fri Jul 14, 2023 6:22 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    We need an APS for mines. A combined multichannel - visual/thermal/radar sensor that looks for mines and low threats, and a bow mount weapon either an HMG or a GL to take out those threats from afar. This would severely limit the possible damage from remotely laid mines and allow the assault group to assume proper attack formation and actually use their firepower and mobility as efficiently as they can.
    Add to this electromagnetic decoys like those mounted on the T-14 or the Listva to defeat magnetic influence fuzed mines should be standard issue as well.

    Its really quite ironic, but instead of threats from the air, the main impediment to the UkroWehrmacht's advance came from below, from the humble minefield.

    Really what fucked the Ukrainian armored spearheads thoroughly beyond repair is the rapid and unpredictable mass PTM-3/4 drops.

    Unlike pressure fuzed TM-62s, these mines can be triggered by the vehicle simply passing through, not driving over the mine itself.

    This is what's been killing all those mine rolling vehicles, as the rollers miss the magnetic mines which then detonate beneath the hull and destroy the vehicle.

    And since they ran out of fast moving mine rollers to detect minefields with, they were forced to have the plow tanks just plow all the way through.

    As you can imagine this slows the column to an absolute crawl. Slow enough that they make perfect targets for everything from attack helicopters, to howitzers, MLRS, you name it.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    That won't happen with the T-14. The electromagnetic decoy would detonate the magnetic mines well away from the vehicle while the classic roller and plow combo handles the remaining mechanical mines.

    The Listva is even better.



    Mount the HF projector on a much heavier vehicle like a tank with lots of extra power and that thing can cook (entire minefields).

    GarryB, zardof, Sprut-B, LMFS, Hole, Mir, Broski and like this post

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg


    Posts : 1690
    Points : 1809
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 33
    Location : Oldenburg

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:53 pm

    A noob question - is the T-14 in serial production or not?
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Thu Aug 10, 2023 8:36 pm

    They have been training at least 3 batches of armor cadets on the Armata platform by now.

    That's as final as it can be.

    Let it go.

    Or not. Not even in active service and the T-14 is already ass-blasting AIDS-ridden NATO piggers.

    There's always more room in the killing field...

    GarryB, Sprut-B, LMFS and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39422
    Points : 39920
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Fri Aug 11, 2023 1:45 am

    T-14 is a tank but the Armata is a vehicle chassis intended to be developed into the full range of all the vehicles in an armoured division... they will likely end up making 20 thousand Armatas, but only 1,500 of them will be T-14s.
    BenVaserlan
    BenVaserlan


    Posts : 58
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2018-06-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  BenVaserlan Fri Aug 11, 2023 6:59 am

    GarryB wrote:T-14 is a tank but the Armata is a vehicle chassis intended to be developed into the full range of all the vehicles in an armoured division... they will likely end up making 20 thousand Armatas, but only 1,500 of them will be T-14s.

    An issue might be war time production if for example UVZ's T-15 is chosen over the Kurganetz 25 produced by by Kurganmashzavod. Ideally, a different factor from UVZ would make the T-15 so UVZ can concentrate on T-14 and T-90M production. It seems that for the moment, the T-90M is like the original T-72 in this respect: a "mobilization tank" that can be built in larger numbers and more quickly than a more complex tank which back in the T-72's day was the T-64 and today is the T-14. I would argue the T-72 was a better tank than the T-64. Few here would disagree with the status of the T-14 being better than the T-90M.
    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 207
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 44
    Location : Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  galicije83 Fri Aug 11, 2023 8:12 am

    [quote="BenVaserlan"]
    GarryB wrote:

    An issue might be war time production if for example UVZ's T-15 is chosen over the Kurganetz 25 produced by by Kurganmashzavod. Ideally, a different factor from UVZ would make the T-15 so UVZ can concentrate on T-14 and T-90M production.  It seems that for the moment, the T-90M is like the original T-72 in this respect: a "mobilization tank" that can be built in larger numbers and more quickly than a more complex tank which back in the T-72's day was the T-64 and today is the T-14.  I would argue the T-72 was a better tank than the T-64.  Few here would disagree with the status of the T-14 being better than the T-90M.

    T90M is more complex than any sovite top of the line tank. It isnt cheap and simple as it was t72 in past. T72 was never batter than T64 tank because it lack FCS as it was on T64s, and until t90 in late 80s T72 didnt have proper FCS...on ather hand T64 and later T80s have it...

    Today T90M is top of the line tank as it was T64 and T80s in soviet era...
    Sprut-B
    Sprut-B


    Posts : 429
    Points : 435
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 31

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Sprut-B Fri Aug 11, 2023 10:16 am


    Add to this electromagnetic decoys like those mounted on the T-14 or the Listva to defeat magnetic influence fuzed mines should be standard issue as well.

    Its really quite ironic, but instead of threats from the air, the main impediment to the UkroWehrmacht's advance came from below, from the humble minefield.
    Really what fucked the Ukrainian armored spearheads thoroughly beyond repair is the rapid and unpredictable mass PTM-3/4 drops.

    Unlike pressure fuzed TM-62s, these mines can be triggered by the vehicle simply passing through, not driving over the mine itself.

    This is what's been killing all those mine rolling vehicles, as the rollers miss the magnetic mines which then detonate beneath the hull and destroy the vehicle.

    And since they ran out of fast moving mine rollers to detect minefields with, they were forced to have the plow tanks just plow all the way through.

    As you can imagine this slows the column to an absolute crawl. Slow enough that they make perfect targets for everything from attack helicopters, to howitzers, MLRS, you name it.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    That won't happen with the T-14. The electromagnetic decoy would detonate the magnetic mines well away from the vehicle while the classic roller and plow combo handles the remaining mechanical mines.

    The Listva is even better.



    Mount the HF projector on a much heavier vehicle like a tank with lots of extra power and that thing can cook (entire minefields).

    Or use Heavy Flamethrowers..
    I don't think any minefield can survive a full volley of thermobaric bomberdment by Buratino 🔥

    GarryB likes this post

    Sprut-B
    Sprut-B


    Posts : 429
    Points : 435
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 31

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Sprut-B Fri Aug 11, 2023 10:20 am

    For reference

    GarryB and Broski like this post

    BenVaserlan
    BenVaserlan


    Posts : 58
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2018-06-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  BenVaserlan Fri Aug 11, 2023 11:59 am

    galicije83 wrote:
    BenVaserlan wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    An issue might be war time production if for example UVZ's T-15 is chosen over the Kurganetz 25 produced by by Kurganmashzavod. Ideally, a different factor from UVZ would make the T-15 so UVZ can concentrate on T-14 and T-90M production.  It seems that for the moment, the T-90M is like the original T-72 in this respect: a "mobilization tank" that can be built in larger numbers and more quickly than a more complex tank which back in the T-72's day was the T-64 and today is the T-14.  I would argue the T-72 was a better tank than the T-64.  Few here would disagree with the status of the T-14 being better than the T-90M.

    T90M is more complex than any sovite top of the line tank. It isnt cheap and simple as it was t72 in past. T72 was never batter than T64 tank because it lack FCS as it was on T64s, and until t90 in late 80s T72 didnt have proper FCS...on ather hand T64 and later T80s have it...

    Today T90M is top of the line tank as it was T64 and T80s in soviet era...

    I should have clarified: IMHO, T-72 better in terms of cost-benefit analysis: value for money-time.

    GarryB likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:09 pm

    Sprut-B wrote:
    Or use Heavy Flamethrowers..
    I don't think any minefield can survive a full volley of thermobaric bomberdment by Buratino 🔥
    More modern scatterable mines outside of the fragile sensor-cued ones are highly resistant to overpressure. More archaic buried mines even more so.

    GarryB likes this post

    Sprut-B
    Sprut-B


    Posts : 429
    Points : 435
    Join date : 2017-07-29
    Age : 31

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Sprut-B Fri Aug 11, 2023 6:47 pm

    lyle6 wrote:
    Sprut-B wrote:
    Or use Heavy Flamethrowers..
    I don't think any minefield can survive a full volley of thermobaric bomberdment by Buratino 🔥
    More modern scatterable mines outside of the fragile sensor-cued ones are highly resistant to overpressure. More archaic buried mines even more so.

    By combining Buartino's slavo with other mine-clearing methods, Russian forces could swiftly eliminate the majority of mine and IED threats on the battlefield.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10953
    Points : 10933
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Hole Fri Aug 11, 2023 9:50 pm

    If needed the VKs can drop some FAB-3000´s.  Very Happy

    Sprut-B likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39422
    Points : 39920
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Sat Aug 12, 2023 9:30 am

    An issue might be war time production if for example UVZ's T-15 is chosen over the Kurganetz 25 produced by by Kurganmashzavod.

    Well no, existing tank divisions are not all going to get the T-90s replaced with T-14s and their BMP-3s are not all going to be replaced with T-15 and their BTR-82s are not all going to be replaced by K-?? Boomerang troop transports with 30mm Epocha turrets.

    A tank division will have all of one type of vehicle eventually so an Armata division will have T-14s, which means it will need T-16 recovery vehicles to pull the weight of Armata vehicle chassis, and the BMP in an Armata division will be the T-15, but all the other vehicles will be Armata based eventually too.

    The Kurganets will have its own divisions where the tank will be a Kurganets vehicle chassis with a T-14 turret mounted on it, and its designation will be B-??, and it will operate with BMPs and BTRs based on the Kurganets chassis so all the vehicles in the division will be Kurganets based.

    The Boomerang divisions will be the same as will the Typhoon divisions and DT-30 vehicle divisions.

    A tank will be developed... in this case the T-14 and its turret and systems will be fitted to all the different vehicle types to create tank or gun platform vehicles for all the different divisions.

    The idea is that the logistics tail for an Armata division or a Boomerang division or a Typhoon or Kurganets or DT-30 division will be shorter because there is only one engine type and one transmission type and one type of wheel and one type of track for the three tracked types etc etc.

    It also means all the vehicles will have a similar level of protection and mobility so everything should be able to keep up.

    It also means Armata divisions are going to be heavy and expensive, while with APS systems and all the other NERA and equipment even a Boomerang and Kurganets type vehicle will still be well protected but will have better mobility.

    Saying a Kurganets lacks the protection of a T-90 is true, but the vast majority of the vehicles in a current division would have rather less armour than the Kurganets standard vehicle and with modern APS and other special features it will still be a very good tank.

    It seems that for the moment, the T-90M is like the original T-72 in this respect: a "mobilization tank" that can be built in larger numbers and more quickly than a more complex tank which back in the T-72's day was the T-64 and today is the T-14. I would argue the T-72 was a better tank than the T-64. Few here would disagree with the status of the T-14 being better than the T-90M.

    The T-64 and T-80 weren't perfect tanks and had some problems, while the T-72 was the cheap mass production tank with good armour and a good gun and good mobility because it was not super heavy. The T-64 and T-80 were the best they could make them at the time, they were the expensive tanks with experimental features, some of which were applied to the simpler cheaper T-72 when they became affordable.

    The first T-72s had an optical rangefinder, but got laser rangefinders soon enough as they became less exotic and more affordable.

    Right now the upgraded T-72s are the bargain basement option, while the T-90 is a T-72 upgraded as far as possible without a complete redesign, while T-14 is a redesign to fix the basic problems and improve as much as possible everything they can improve.

    It will be a decade or more before Armata divisions and Boomerang divisions etc etc are fully equipped and operational, and I think Kurganets based T-14s will be the mass produced lighter tank they will build while the T-14 will be for urban warfare and heavy fighting against a well equipped peer enemy once they get them into service in useful numbers.

    The T-14 will coordinate with artillery and airpower in a way that makes all three much more effective... but the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 families will be just as integrated eventually.

    Today T90M is top of the line tank as it was T64 and T80s in soviet era...

    The T-90AM is the best they could make it without a complete redesign. The T-72 is upgraded with new stuff as it becomes affordable, so the T-64 and then the T-80 and now the T-90AM are their best tanks but not cheap and not mass producible. The T-72 is good enough but over the years has been upgraded with new bits as they become affordable and is superior to previous generations of tanks whether they are T-54/55 or T-62.

    T-14 is the best, and is designed from scratch, and the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 models will be the cheaper mass produced versions, but they will likely continue to use upgraded T-72s and then T-90s while they have them in production.

    The vast range of other family vehicles based on BMPs and BTRs and older MBT types will continue to be used and many could be converted to robot use as well moving forward... but the core plan seems to be vehicle family divisions for specific roles in specific places.

    Wheeled vehicles offer good mobility where the road networks are good, but then they do have cross country ability too and can work together to overcome soft ground.

    Or use Heavy Flamethrowers..
    I don't think any minefield can survive a full volley of thermobaric bomberdment by Buratino

    No matter what they use they will still use mine plows and mine rollers because nothing will remove every single mine from a field... except painstakingly clearing it by hand.

    I should have clarified: IMHO, T-72 better in terms of cost-benefit analysis: value for money-time.

    Without the T-72 their numbers tank would be the T-54/55 and slightly better T-62, so the T-72 might not be the best tank in the world or in the Russian military, but it certainly does the job it was intended to do which was replace the enormous number of older tanks in the role of main battle tank.

    Not only that but it meant the Soviets and Russians could keep their tank numbers up, which was easy with the T-54/55 but would be impossible with T-64 and T-80 and T-90 only.

    By combining Buartino's slavo with other mine-clearing methods, Russian forces could swiftly eliminate the majority of mine and IED threats on the battlefield.

    By combining different solutions you always get a better result, but no solution or combination of solutions will be 100% effective all the time.


    If needed the VKs can drop some FAB-3000´s.

    When they run out of FAB-5000s... and FAB-9000s.

    FOABs would just be excessive though... just showing off.

    Sprut-B, BenVaserlan and Broski like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Sat Aug 12, 2023 11:41 am

    A lot of people don't realize this, but when you get to the scale of equipment that Russia possesses you are inevitably going to run a de facto three-tier system. So ideally at any moment you should have the obsolescent stuff, the in-date stuff, and the next gen stuff. The in-date and obsolescent stuff you exploit in training and operations while the next gen stuff trickles in to replace the obsolescent stuff little by little. If you time it right, your next gen equipment should fully replace the outdated gear just in time for even more advanced stuff to come online.

    So previously they have:
    Legacy Soviet vehicles - T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M

    Now they are aiming for:
    T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M - T-14

    The replacements don't exactly have to be 1-1, mind you, since the capabilities of the T-14 are exponentially greater than the T-90M, let alone the T-72B3.

    GarryB, flamming_python, kvs, Sprut-B, LMFS, BenVaserlan and Broski like this post

    BenVaserlan
    BenVaserlan


    Posts : 58
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2018-06-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  BenVaserlan Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:48 pm

    An even "obsolete" tank is not obsolete in all roles.  These can be used as indirect fire artillery support the way the T-62s are used in the SMO.


    Last edited by BenVaserlan on Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB, zardof and Sprut-B like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39422
    Points : 39920
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 13, 2023 3:16 am

    So previously they have:
    Legacy Soviet vehicles - T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M

    Now they are aiming for:
    T-72B3/T-80BVM - T-90M - T-14

    Well yes, but the future goal... the place they expect to end up is previously they had high readiness units with all the latest stuff based in eastern europe and european parts of the Soviet Union, while second level units further back and third level units way out in the backwaters.

    In Soviet times that meant the first line units had all the latest vehicles and weapons and were full manned and ready to go in a weeks notice. The second line units had slightly older gear but still good, so the first line units had T-64 or later onT-80 and BMP-3, while the second line units had T-72s and BMP1 and BMP2, while the third level units got their stuff from storage... the first level were ready to go, fully manned and ready with the newest stuff, the second line might take four or five weeks to get together and up to scratch and used old reliable stuff with upgrades to make it effective, while the third level troops were skeleton groups that were largely unmanned and their arms and equipment came from storage so it would take 3-4 months to call them up and organise them into forces and many of them would not have served in the last few years and would be older.

    There were also tank brigades and motor rifle brigades and the difference was in the types of vehicles they had, where the tank brigade has tank platoons and a smaller number of infantry platoons on BMPs and BTRs, while a motor rifle brigade still had tanks but had more infantry in BMPs and BTRs and anti armour units with ATGMs...

    The point is that what they are trying to move to is divisions or brigades with one type of vehicle... they do have a lot of vehicles that are families of vehicles but that has not gone that well. Having half the vehicles in the division being based on BTRs and BMPs sounds good except there are three different BTRs and three different BMPs with different engines and tracks and transmissions and wheel types so it doesn't really standardise things at all.

    With the new vehicle families they will design a tank... we have seen the T-14 which is Armata based... but putting a T-14 Armata tank in with a Kurganets division ruins the plan because the whole point of a Kurganets division is that it is lighter and cheaper than an Armata division with its own engine and tracks and transmissions and wheels etc... putting a T-14 into a Kurganets Division would add the Armata engine and tracks and wheels and transmission to the logistics train.

    So instead what they do is they develop turrets and loadouts so for instance the T-14 tank turret could be fitted to the other vehicle types to create tank versions of all the vehicle families. The DT-30 is for arctic and very swampy ground where other vehicles simply cannot operate so its lack of heavy armour is no real disadvantage while its amazing mobility and fire power will give you an advantage over an enemy with no armour or stationary armour that can't move.

    They might decide the Typhoon four and six wheel vehicle family is too light to need a tank vehicle in which case a Typhoon vehicle with the Dagger turret with a high velocity 57mm gun might be used as the gun platform, but for Boomerang and Kurganets, the T-14 turret could be used to have a tank... for Typhoon and DT-30 they might use the Sprut turret with the long recoil Sprut gun for those lighter vehicles as a gun platform with 5km plus reach.

    What I am trying to say is that now they will be looking at upgraded T72s as the cheap numbers tank, and the T90AM and the main battle tank and the T-14 as the new heavy tank that will use C4ISTAR to dominate the battlefield with drones and air and artillery support to make it devastating... the T-14 might end up as the ground based drone directing drones and artillery and air strikes against enemy as they reveal themselves trying to deal with the T-14.

    For the future the T-72s will likely all become remote control and T-90s might go into storage to be saved until they are needed and the main in service tanks will be the T-14 and the B-14 equivalent and the K-14 equivalent and the gun platform models of the DT-30 and Typhoon.

    Has anyone seen any letter designations for Typhoon or DT-30 arctic vehicles?

    And it is the same across the board... the BMP turret will probably be the 57mm grenade launcher that is able to fire APFSDS rounds and heavy grenade bombs, while the BTR version will carry the 30mm cannon armed Epocha turret perhaps with the Kornet and Bulat missiles in retractable mounts (which would also be on the BMP turret) and the air defence vehicle will likely have the 2S38 turret armed with the high velocity 57mm gun, and of course there is the kord machine gun turret armed version of each vehicle type in the BRDM-2 type role or command or other roles...

    There are about 27 different armoured vehicle types in an armoured division from chem and bio to recovery and engineering and ATGM carrier... and they will standardise them across the vehicle families.

    The wheeled version of Coalition could use the same engine and wheels and transmission as Boomerang, because that is also the same engine used by Kurganets I believe, which perhaps could also be used by rocket artillery and the new TOS, and other vehicles in those units to keep the logistics tail as short as possible.

    BenVaserlan, lyle6 and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2880
    Points : 2872
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Arrow Sun Aug 13, 2023 8:28 pm

    Very Happy
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 91124f8e87465

    GarryB, zepia, zardof, Sprut-B, LMFS, BenVaserlan, lyle6 and like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Sun Aug 13, 2023 9:20 pm

    This arrangement looks atrocious and not well thought out lol. They should mix up the tarp and astroturf fabrics together so it doesn't look so weird.

    And what's up with that turret? The camouflage covers the sensor windows and the hard-kill mortars and the coax gun port. Talk about fire hazard.

    There's also no need to cover the turret with camouflage as its already designed to have a low EM silhouette in the first place.

    GarryB, BenVaserlan and TMA1 like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10953
    Points : 10933
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Hole Sun Aug 13, 2023 10:10 pm

    The astroturf is propably only used in a fixed position, when the tank is not in active use, to hide him better from drones.

    GarryB, Sprut-B, LMFS and TMA1 like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 1146
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  TMA1 Mon Aug 14, 2023 7:24 am

    I must admit I am very amused by the chieftain/lazerpig fiasco. LP still says he is sure the Armata engine is directly related to a ww2 tank engine. You don't have to be an engineer to see they are totally unrelated. In LPs world all V engines or boxer engines are directly related.

    The amount of rookie mistakes LP makes is cringy af. If I know more than LP does then you got a serious problem. Why anyone willingly connects to a spook operation like nafo is beyond me

    GarryB likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:31 am

    Hole wrote:The astroturf is propably only used in a fixed position, when the tank is not in active use, to hide him better from drones.
    The running gear only gets noticeably warmer than the ground when the vehicle is moving. In a static position you can dig tank trenches, drape overhead camo netting to better hide the tank.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10953
    Points : 10933
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Hole Mon Aug 14, 2023 6:17 pm

    Sure, but with the astroturf attached the tank looks like a grassy hill.  Very Happy
    And it is much easier to use than the old way:
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 001024
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 001725


    Last edited by Hole on Mon Aug 14, 2023 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB, kvs and galicije83 like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11356
    Points : 11326
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Isos Mon Aug 14, 2023 6:51 pm

    Pretty sure those skirt side protection would get stuck and taken off in a woody area.

    Nakidka proved to be very helpful against Thermals in Ukraine. They will increase the production to mount it on all their tanks.

    They also captured some sweedish IR blocking cammo on the CV-90 that they will study and see if there is anything interesting to be copied.

    GarryB and BenVaserlan like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 3006
    Points : 3054
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Kiko Mon Aug 14, 2023 9:27 pm

    AbramsX vs Armata: how does the new American combat tank compare with its Russian analogue?, 08.14.2023.

    What is the vision of the American military-industrial complex about the future of tank warfare and what role does the AbramsX play in it? Sputnik analyzes it.

    After its presentation to the public by General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights (Michigan), social networks have been filled with debates about the AbramsX combat tank. 

    Photos from the event show civilians posing with the armored monster, painted gray and with at least five stylized AbramsX logos on the turret and on the front side skirts.

    What are the features of the AbramsX?

    General Dynamics has offered quite a few details about the characteristics of the tank prototype since it was first presented at an exhibition in Washington, DC, in October 2022.

    Although it may look similar to a standard Abrams, the AbramsX has a declared weight of only 49 tons, 17 tons less than a fully loaded M1 Abrams. Its hull measures 7.9 meters long, 3.6 meters wide and 2.3 meters high.

    The prototype has an unmanned turret design with a 120 mm XM360 smoothbore gun, and a crew of three people in the cockpit, one less than in the M1 (leaving out the magazine). In fact, there is a separate hatch for each crew member. Press images show that the tank's turret includes a 30 mm XM914 cannon, in addition to a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.

    As expected in a new generation battle tank, the AbramsX will be equipped with artificial intelligence capabilities to reduce the workload of the crew, including the identification and prioritization of targets, as well as communications with friendly drones that act as reconnaissance or attack means.

    The tank is expected to include 360-degree panoramic day/night thermal sights, one for the commander and one for the gunner.

    General Dynamics also plans to equip the AbramsX with the Next Generation Electronic Architecture (NGEA in English), the same type that the defense giant has included in its future unmanned combat robots, which will allow them to navigate the terrain and avoid obstacles. Details are scarce, but these capabilities on the AbramsX could allow the tank to operate fully autonomously.

    The designers are also working on a 'hemispheric' active protection system to detect and intercept anti-tank missiles and grenade launcher projectiles.

    Will the tank actually be produced?

    Arguably one of the most significant features of the tank is its electric-diesel hybrid engine, which is expected to improve fuel efficiency by up to 50% compared to the M1 (whose Honeywell multi-fuel turbine engine has made the current Abrams tank one of the heaviest gasoline-guzzlers in existence).

    It is expected that the AbramsX will be able to operate in silent mode for short periods of time using electric power, which would allow the tank to sneak up on enemies, if the huge machine is not seen from several kilometers away.

    It is unclear whether General Dynamics will get the necessary backing from the Pentagon to undertake further research and prepare the AbramsX platform for production. At the beginning of the year, the Deputy Secretary of the Army, Gabe Camarillo, made a statement to the American media without giving conclusive information.

    Is the AbramsX an American Armata?

    Both military experts and social media users could not help but find many important similarities between the AbramsX and the T-14 Armata, the new-generation limited-series Russian combat tank built on the Armata universal combat platform that was first presented in 2015.

    The most prominent similarities include an unmanned turret design, a three-person crew sitting side by side, an autoloader, and plans for artificial intelligence integration. "Both the AbramsX and the Armata are perspective tanks," Dmitri Kornev, founder of the portal, told Sputnik MilitaryRussia.ru.

    "The Armata is our future tank, and the AbramsX is currently an advanced American tank prototype. It is clear that our cars compete with the Americans, at least on paper," Kornev explained.

    "We already have the Armata. At least it's already being tested. There is even a limited series production already; it is being produced, it is being tested by the military. The AbramsX is nothing more than a prototype. It is the only copy, and it is not even an experimental tank yet," he stressed.

    Kornev pointed out several outstanding features that distinguish the two tanks, such as the 120 mm main gun of the AbramsX, versus the 125 mm main gun of the Armata. 

    "Ours turns out to be a little bigger; in addition, a future 152 mm gun is being developed for the Armata. When it appears, it is clear that the firepower of the Armata will be far superior" to that of its American counterpart.

    "Next, as for the design of the tank configuration. We don't know all the details, but the design of the AbramsX doesn't look like it will change much compared to the current Abrams such as the Armata, which changed quite revolutionarily compared to previous generations of [Russian] tanks," the expert stated.

    Also, Kornev emphasized that the Armata is a true new-generation tank, which has a modular design. There is a separate module for the crew, another for the engine-transmission compartment and the third module is for combat.

    "With the AbramsX, in all likelihood, everything is simpler. That is, a standard Abrams has been taken and slightly improved, so to speak. And the standard Abrams does not have this kind of modular design," Kornev said.

    The military observer sees an apparent "parity" in the general characteristics of the unmanned turrets of the two tanks, "although judging by the appearance, the AbramsX prototype seems to have a bulkier turret, perhaps for storing ammunition. The dimensions of the Armata's turret are minimal in relation to the overall silhouette of the tank," he noted.

    One of the aspects in which the AbramsX can outperform its Russian counterpart, if it comes to be manufactured, is its hybrid engine.

    "That is, it will have electric propulsion and a diesel engine, with an operating principle similar to that of hybrid cars. They aim to halve fuel consumption, which is a significant advantage," Kornev stresses, explaining that a hybrid engine means lower mass, reduced noise levels and possibly higher acceleration characteristics, which could prove critical on the battlefield.

    As for protection, Kornev is confident in the superiority of the Russian tank. "The Armata is one of the best protected tanks in the world. It has dynamic protection, spaced shielding, intelligent smoke grenades and an installable active protection complex," he specified.

    "The AbramsX is simpler. That is, although it is possible to deploy dynamic protection on the tank, the simplest models may have only spaced armor, sometimes with uranium inserts. The exact composition of the tank's armor is still unknown, but most likely it will have less protection than the Armata, and perhaps even the T-90M Proriv [a third-generation Russian tank]," he added.

    When all is said and done, Kornev expects the Armata to be less expensive than the AbramsX, although both will be expensive (the production of an Armata, for example, costs several times the price of a new T-90M). In fact, the military operation has shown that the principles of tank warfare have not lost their meaning, more than 80 years after the first mass deployment of armored vehicles during World War II.

    After announcing the delivery of NATO battle tanks to Ukraine, Western officials and media confidently predicted that the German Leopard 1 and 2 and the British Challenger II would go through the Russian tanks and defenses like a hot knife through butter.

    However, the stagnation of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the crushing of the Ukrainian armored columns by the Russian minefields, aviation and artillery have shown that the effective coordination of combined arms, intelligence on the battlefield, the competence of the commander and the skill of the tank crew are often much more important than the characteristics on the role of any tank.

    Yandex Translate from Spanish

    https://sputniknews.lat/20230814/abramsx-vs-armata-como-se-compara-el-nuevo-carro-de-combate-estadounidense-con-su-analogo-ruso-1142618143.html

    GarryB, BenVaserlan, Mir and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 9 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:31 am