[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Hahaha... what thin armour are you talking about?

You do understand that is the vehicle shell and the composite armour goes on top of that.. plus of course the NERA and further proteciton from coatings (nakidka type materials) and of course APS systems and jamming systems on top of that...

The-thing-next-door wrote:
The armour looks illogicaly thin, especially the frontal array. Even with advanced ERA they would not be able to get adequate protection with that.

And yet NATO is set to introduce a heavier caliber main gun firing significantly more powerful armor piercing ammo just for this particular armor...

Curious. Its almost as if Russian armor technology has evolved to reduce the need for extensive air spaces in their design while maintaining or improving the protective qualities of the armor.

It is the base armour, the composite armour goes on top of it... just look at the hull image.

Look at where the front wheels are and the angle of the front plate... and think about the shape of the tank hull front...

That is not a vertical front it is angled backwards... but the T-14 has a steep forward under hull shape and the front wheels are not where near the front hull point.

Equally the turret structure that holds the optics and other equipment inside the turret... compare the shell above with the size of the turret of the T-14 which looks about the size of a manned turret, but much of it will be armour layers and empty space and redundant components all in the way of any shells hitting the turret.

The whole idea of an unmanned turret is so you don't need heavy armour because there is so little to actually protect.

It is vulnerable from the sides and rear... all turrets are vulnerable to the sides and rear.

If you want a tank that has side and rear and belly and top armour strong enough to protect it from anything you will end up with a tank bigger and heavier than a Maus... and it likely still wont be safe from Kh-29s and even Kh-25s let alone Kh-38s or LMUR.

What is the point of putting 20 tons of armour on the turret to protect the gun if all the enemy needs to do is take out your tracks...

Paralay made a very accurate model back on page 15 that is corroborated by this new model...

You are not getting it... look at the image of a T-14 tank... the tank hull front armour is not sloped like that... the hull front is a wedge shape with the point facing forward not a back angle slab.

The blue bit you drew in needs to have another wedge added to it to create the front sort of like this...

OK, I am not artist but I have drawn a red circle to show where the front wheel goes and a rough red line showing the rough outline of the hull front shape that can be composite and layers and air pockets and all sorts of protection from the front.



Remember the Armata has the entire crew in the front hull so that is where all the armour is... there is bugger all armour in the turret, but it is still the heaviest modern Russian tank so you actually think the front of the hull is paper thin?

Really?



That is just the hull structure without the composite armour added... that blue bit you added is inside the area where the frontal armour is located but it is not structural, it is modular so in the future it can be changed with new materials and designs. We have already seen a new frontal armour array being fitted that is thicker that has a different shape from the first prototypes.

One must ofcourse consider that a wedge shaped array offers rather inconsistent protection due to its variable thickness.

WHAT?

The hull front upper armour layer of the Abrams tank is about 20mm thick and could be penetrated by 30mm cannon shells fired from above. It achieves acceptable levels of protection because its protection is measured from shots taken from the front at a near horizontal angle that most ATGM or tank fire AP round would be following.

The reason the Leopard IIs and Abrams and Challenger tanks were so easily taken out by Russian fire was their thin top armour because all three have horribly thin top armour... most tanks have horribly thin top armour.

I was actually suggesting that the proportions of the model posted were wrong.

In what regard... the distance between the turret ring and the front nose tip of the hull with armour array fitted is quite large because it contains the entire crew of three men.

His T-14 model is more like what I would expect, though I will stand by my view on his T-15 model's total lack of composite arrays being unrealistic.

Look at the actual turret and the model of the turret above... essentially the T14 turret is pretty much all composite armour and empty space for optics and systems and equipment.

It is just basic physics, you can see the model above has a flat front angled slightly back.

What shape would you like them to place in front of that to give max protection?

Putting a triangle on there with a slight down slope, so it is not an equilateral triangle with the point in the centre... the shape of the lower hull needs to allow for a dozer blade to be fitted for self emplacement and also mine roller equipment.

Assuming the threat comes from a distance the penetration path is likely to be angled downwards slightly which would mean a triangle gives a chance for a full calibre HEAT round to be deflected slightly hitting the steeply angled upper surface, or having to go through the most material possible by hitting below the point of the triangle.

Both surfaces covered in ERA... I would assume steeply angled ERA is more effective and could actually deflect the penetrator to a parallel course instead of a penetrating one.

A triangular profile array on the other hand such as the area between the two red lines you drew has an LOS thickness of between 0 and from the back of the triangle to the tip of the triangle depending on where it is hit, again assuming a hit from the direct front for simplicities sake.

Hitting the bottom of the triangle means minimal thickness but also means missing the hull and going underneath the vehicle so extreme armour protection would not be required.

The front of the crew compartment appears too far forward not leaving enough space for an array of more than 30cm average LOS thickness,

The crew compartment starts very close to the turret ring... where do you think they could move it back to exactly?

Look at the drawing again... the actual structural hull of the vehicle is behind the front wheel... do you see the front wheel sticking out of the front of the tank?

That means the frontal armour array is at least the full diameter of the road wheel and is actually rather more than that...

>Bustle autoloader
Probably shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

The real question is how many countries are in each consortium to build these future super tanks and how long before disagreements in specs and more importantly where it will be built become toxic and lead to a breakup.

Fortunately the destruction of the German production industry means they will be producing theirs in the US.

The sheep of the west are so well trained that when you tell them about how much these things are likely to cost the response is not shock or indignation... most of the time it is that the west is rich and they can afford it.

There is so much scope for a story along the lines of the Emperor with no clothes... if it is expensive then it must be the best... but the wests greatest skills is in sales and marketing and propaganda, which is why the west spends so much and yet gets so little.

I remember reading a SciFi short story that was written in the 1950s and it was set well into the future but it was really looking at our problems now where the west is going high tech and super expensive and experimental while the communist enemy just makes things that work that are basic but are easy to produce in large numbers, which they do produce in enormous numbers.

The story is basically the trial of the top scientist and the enemy commander and it goes on about all sorts of issues like their new destroyer is much bigger than the enemy space ships, but because of its complexity it needs a support ship almost as big as the destroyer to carry all the technicians needed to replace the valves as they fail and of course all the replacement valves needed for a given mission. (That shows when the story was written). Then it goes on about all the new technologies they were working on... like one system that bends space so if you are surrounded by enemy ships you push a button and the space around your ship is warped and becomes several light years distance. The enemy ships disappear. Of course it sounds great but it also means that while you are now out of range of their weapons they are out of range of yours. During testing it seems the stretching of space effected the navigation system so you turn it on all the enemy ships can no longer hit you but you can't hit them either. And when you turned it off you were often enormous distances away from where you were when you turned it on leading to space craft leaving the battle and not returning. All these new technologies had faults and problems and while money and resources and ship losses dogged their side, the other side pumped out simple but effective ships and took out all the enemy planets and won the conflict. The court case ends with the enemy general demanding his own head science officer be executed for sabotaging their war effort... a case of a focus on technology for technologies sake instead of making things practical and able to be produced in useful numbers to have an effect.

The-thing-next-door wrote:What I find amusing is that the display model not only has a turret bustle vulnerable to anything more serious than small arms fire, but they have not devoted any of the freed up mass to side armour, or seemingly even to armour in nay direction.

It seems that the wests desire to mak their tanks lighter will mean that the T-72B3 will be sufficient well into the 2060s.

That's because they didn't spare much armor mass in the first place. The bustle autoloader in an unmanned turret would still require the same protection from the frontal arc as it would in a manned turret. And the ammo will still be exposed to off-angle attacks from FPVs, etc.

And yes, this also means they will not be able to provide enough armor mass to reliably protect against anti-armor fire from the T-14. A real challenger right there.

Btw the retarded two point trunnion mounting *lifts* the gun assembly everytime it has to shoot at something above the horizon to avoid the breech clipping the bottom of the turret (there is no turret basket that intrudes into the hull). Another excellence in armor design courtesy of the paste eating morons who brought you to the Leopard 2A4 sight weakspot.  

What drooling fanbois and other morons fail to understand is that simplicity of design requires more effort than Rube Goldberg "sophistication".
Any retard can come up with a complex design by layering shit concepts on top of each other, but to make a "simple" and functional design
requires IQ and effort.

What is fobbed off as "primitive" coming out of the USSR and Russia is actually more advanced than the fragile "sophisticated" crap put out
by the "advanced" west by corporate parasites. The endless wunderwaffen drool during the course of the Ukraine war highlights this rather
well.