[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

D-20 is a 152mm piece
"Constellation thing" as you call it, is around for quite some time and it was not accepted in the service in first few iterations. Hence, latest version is marked 2M. As far as I read, they still did testing last year - 2021.
https://topwar.ru/189714-v-armii-rossii-pojavilis-soedinenija-sposobnye-vesti-masshtabnye-setecentricheskie-operacii.html
And Ukrainians didn't have 5000 artillery pieces. They had 10 thousand and Russians destroyed 20 thousand. There you go. Happy now?

Don't be a jerk more than usual, New Year is coming and you should feel the vibes in case you get spoiled by the Russian salad.
If the "constellation thing" is called "2M" - that would make it not only second-gen, but modified, agree?

Exactly. Modified since the first one didn't work as intended. It's all in the article posted on topwar in my previous post.

Sure.
And Toyota Corolla had its sixth gen because it was not working.

Again with deflections. At least read the article.

Dude.
This article is older than my daughter (the one you put first).
Just ... don't.
Eat Snickers or something.

Article is from December 2021. I'll paste it down below specially for you. Damn, all that pollution in Częstochowa must have left permanent consequences.
https://topwar.ru/189714-v-armii-rossii-pojavilis-soedinenija-sposobnye-vesti-masshtabnye-setecentricheskie-operacii.html

You can live closer to it than I do

caveat emptor wrote:"Constellation thing" as you call it, is around for quite some time and it was not accepted in the service in first few iterations. Hence, latest version is marked 2M. As far as I read, they still did testing last year - 2021.

Upon reading it appears that the Russians have kept refusing an inferior product until the manufacturer has delivered on all their requirements after which they have started buying it en masse.

NATO might not give a shit as long as the MIC turns a fat profit, but Russia clearly does.

I agree. First version must've been inferior to what they wanted.

Which is not to say it was useless or didn't work, just that it didn't work to a level they found acceptable...

Versions don't get official designations if they don't enter service.

Its the weekend so I finally had time to kill after work. Somebody tag RedEffect so he can make a reply vid and I can be famous too

RedEffect wrote:
T14 might have a hard kill active production system and protection against javelins but the most common killer of tanks in Ukraine right now seems to be artillery and no active protection system can stop under the shell falling on top of you from the sky

Not just any artillery, but guided artillery like Krasnopol or Excalibur. Ukraine can't mass enough artillery, be it gun or rocket, for saturation fires dense enough to reliably damage if not destroy dispersed armor, at least not without provoking excessive casualties from counter-battery fire. And if its guided like the Krasnopol shell its open to interference from the electronic protection half of the Afghanit. You can't kill what you can't see - well, technically you could, but chances are slim and almost nil with a moving, non-cooperative T-14 utilizing all its defensive assets, which is what matters.

RedEffect wrote:
Not to mention that T14 can also be detract and then abandoned by the crew where it would then fall into the hands of ukrainians just like the t90m tanks

This is just projecting into the future without taking into account the change in circumstances. The Russians lost or abandoned equipment because they don't have the men to spare for security and recovery. For its upcoming winter offensive the RAF will for the first time in the SMO, have a numerical superiority over the UAF in the field. The surfeit in manpower can be used to safe damaged equipment more reliably than before, amongst other new missions.

RedEffect wrote:
not to mention that the performance of T14 would add absolutely nothing to the war when looked from the greater scale sure it has far better combat survivability but since tanks are being mainly used as support vehicles in this conflict d14's Superior performance would have very little impact

Again, trending from premises that may or may not hold. Are we even sure the Russians are going to pull off more of the same artillery war but with newer, more effective equipment or are they going to switch-up their play style once more? Because if Russia wants to conduct the massive sweeping offensives to end large-scale resistance for good they need armored spearheads that can breakthrough the toughest enemy defenses and defeat the enemy's mobile reserves and remain intact for further thrusts - which is only possible if you possess massively superior armor. They don't even have to be numerous, as just a tiny crust for the spearhead's edge would do.

RedEffect wrote:
T14 is the only time they have left that has not seen any combat losses and thus has the best chances of being exported in the future

But the only way to guarantee zero combat losses is to not fight at all or fight ridiculously weaker opponents. More and more export customers are becoming perceptive when it comes to evaluating the combat performance from their prospective buys; curated trials and cherry picked examples simply won't do. As a matter of fact the very first T-90 is just a renamed T-72BU with all the baggage associated with the type from then recent conflicts. But that didn't stop it from becoming a smash commercial success with far more units sold abroad than its country of origin.

The countries buying russian equipment got experts that look into the real performance of stuff not what western MSM tells them to think.

The countries buying russian equipment got experts that look into the real performance of stuff not what western MSM tells them to think.

More importantly countries not buying Russian equipment for political reasons do tests and evaluations to prove they are bad to justify their political decision.

I think taking the T-14 to war makes sense... find its problems and test it out for real... if something does not work it is better to find it out here than to leave it and build thousands of them only to find they don't work against HATO countries when it is too late to fix.

How easy combat damage is to repair and how easily damaged in combat are important things the designers need to know about and real combat experience leads to the best revisions and upgrades that improve performance the most.

It was the turret bustle on the T-34 that led to later model Soviet tanks not having them... because enemy troops would put satchel charged under them to destroy a tank the HE charge could not otherwise damage... blowing the turret off is just as good as penetrating the armour... especially if the ammo is in the turret bustle.

Leopard 2 vs. T-14 Armata: Which is the best tank and what are its characteristics?, by Dmitri Stepin for RTI Spanish. 01.31.2023 

Last week the German government gave the green light to the supply of its main battle tanks to Ukraine.

Last week Germany gave in to the Ukrainian government's requests to provide it with its Moderna tanks as part of the war assistance in an attempt to counter the Russian special military operation.

Berlin has committed to deliver 14 Leopard 2A6 tanks to Kiev, as announced by German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit on Wednesday. In addition, the German authorities gave permission to other countries to supply the Ukrainian army with their own German-made Leopard tanks.

The goal of Berlin and its NATO partners, according to the official statement, is to quickly form two Leopard 2 tank battalions. For this purpose, the supply of tanks and ammunition is envisaged, in addition to the training of Ukrainian servicemen on German territory.

With all the Western military support and the Leopard 2, considered one of the best modern tanks, the Ukrainian Army is looking to turn the situation on the battlefield in its favor.

Russia, for its part, has a new generation tank, which has been highlighted by international media as an advance that leaves other countries' technologies behind.

The British Ministry of Defense reported two weeks ago, citing intelligence data, a concentration of T-14 Armata tanks at a range in the south of Russia, which had been associated with activities prior to their deployment to the conflict zone in Ukraine.

Leopard 2A6

Manufacturer: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann
External dimensions: up to 10.97 meters long (with the turret at 12 o'clock) and up to 4 meters wide.
Weight: 63 tons.
Crew: 4 people.
Engine: 1,500 horsepower.
Maximum speed: 70 kilometers per hour.
Driving range: 450 kilometers.
Armament: 120 mm cannon and 7.62 mm machine gun.

T-14 Armata

Manufacturer: The Uralvagonzavod Consortium (URVZ), based in the Russian city of Nizhny Tagil (in the Urals).
External dimensions: 9.5 meters long and up to 4.8 meters wide (with the protective side plates installed).
Weight: 55 tons.
Crew: 3 people.
Engine: 1,350-1,800 HP.
Maximum speed: 80-90 kilometers per hour.
Driving range: more than 500 kilometers.

Comparison by design

The peculiarity of T-14 Armata is that the turret is unmanned and all its systems are controlled remotely, while the crew is isolated in an armored capsule. A direct hit of a missile on the turret of the vehicle or tank can destroy some of the weapons, but the personnel will not necessarily suffer any damage, as happened with conventional models. In addition, the shells are deposited in the main body of the platform and not in the turret, which protects them from eventual detonation.
As for the German tank, it was designed according to the classic concept: the driver's compartment is located in the front, along with the driving instruments and part of the ammunition. The commander's seats, the magazine and the sight are located in the turret.

Armament in details

The Armata is equipped with a 125 mm smoothbore cannon with an automatic magazine, which offers the capacity of 12 shots per minute. The arsenal includes several types of projectiles, including guided missiles. It is also equipped with a 12.7mm caliber Kord machine gun and a 7.62 mm PKTM.

While the Leopard 2's armament includes a 120 mm cannon, manual magazine, and two 7.62 mm machine guns.

Armour

The Russian T-14, in addition to the armor, is equipped with a dynamic defense system, an optical-electronic equipment and another defense asset called Afghanit, the latter intended for the detection and destruction of missiles and projectiles. They are capable of simultaneously detecting and tracking up to 40 dynamic targets and 25 aerial targets within a radius of 100 kilometers. Based on their indications, the defense systems installed in the turret can eliminate these targets successively automatically.

In turn, the Leopard 2's armor is based on composite material technologies, including high-hardness steel, tungsten and non-metallic materials.

Although there are several examples of tank duels throughout history, equipment is not the only thing necessary to change the course of a conflict. Much depends on the work of intelligence, air support, infantry and artillery, as well as on the preparation of the crews.

Yandex Translate from Spanish

https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/456703-cernir-duelo-mejores-carros-combate-leopard-armata

They are capable of simultaneously detecting and tracking up to 40 dynamic targets and 25 aerial targets within a radius of 100 kilometers. Based on their indications, the defense systems installed in the turret can eliminate these targets successively automatically.

100km is excessive and rather unlikely... the APS system radars would not outperform the radar on Pantsir and TOR... perhaps an extra zero was added and they meant 10km radius or perhaps even 1km radius, which would be needed for high speed targets like APFSDS rounds.

In such a conflict an armoured thrust of Leopards would be rather easier to counter with a volley of Grad rockets with anti armour submunitions an top attack weapons.

The best weapons against tanks, are mi28 and ka52 with vikhr or izd 305

And su34 or su25 or su25 with bombs

The awesome firepower of aircraft and artillery are definitely a much bigger threat than a tank's main gun - but the problem has never been about lethality but finding your target. Long story made short: the T-14 is revolutionary because it combines unparalleles lethality, tactical mobility and survivability with advanced sensor fusion allowing it to act as a forward observer for the heavy hitters. The enemy is then presented with a dilemma: either disperse to avoid destruction by air and artillery and allow the armor spearhead to break through your defences and defeat your forces in detail, or form-up and get smashed by the on-call fire and air support, while the attacking armor crushes the survivors.

How is the armor of the T-14 rated?

How is the armor of the T-14 rated?

It's rated Top Secret.

Of course, but there are probably some estimates. Since you don't need to put armor in the turret, the front part of the hull will have impressive armor for sure.

NATO thinks the ballistic protection of the T-14 is >1m RHAe. Got them hot and bothered enough to invest in two oversized calibres with the full set of logistical problems associated with the move. They forgot to mention one has to get through Afghanit APS iron curtain first though. Luckily for the Russians they should have zero problems dealing with NATO APS given the prevalence of airburst fragmentation shells in the Russian armor loadout. Shoot one frag shell to destroy all external sensors including the APS, then switch to arrow shots for the coup de grace.

The only serious solution presented in the last decade was Rheinmetall's 130 mm gun and ammunition.
Yet the poor bastards forget, that Russkie already have 152mm tank gun and ammunition for it. Only didn't consider it necessary to apply, because there is not a single NATO tank that will withstand a 2A82 punch, with Vacuum travelling at 2km/s.

By the way, again, good luck handling an ammo shell that is 1.3m long. By hand. On the battlefield. On the move.
Yup, that will be epic.
Maybe they will train chimps for the role, those are smaller than man and three times stronger.
Yeah, that should work
NATO standard supersoldier is powered by bananas.

Chally 3 ain't gonna happen ALAMO. The KF51 and MGCS (if its going to be armed with a big ol cannon) will have autoloaders for the cumbersome unitary rounds.

Call me skeptical, but I hardly believe they will fit a whole ammo load of that size into a loader of any type.
What will left them with handling some part of that lodge sized rounds by hand.
The only thing that comes to my mind is a big, box like magazine the way it was done with Black Eagle. But the thing will be monstrous.
Leclerc hosts 22 pcs into a loader while being smaller. I would expect a similar number.
The thing starts to be hardly managable, so I would expect a rather serious job on changing the whole charge/propeller concept.