Jump to content


Photo

Armata


  • Please log in to reply
951 replies to this topic

#21 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1356 PM

Stuart, new GLATGM "Sokol-1" should give you a hint, it's similiar concept to US XM1111 MRM-KE/CE.



#22 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 661 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1411 PM


All these small nozzles remind me the M47 Dragon missile. ^_^

1412191250-8df4de2d77441680cb152bd617706


Edited by Sovngard, 01 October 2014 - 1415 PM.


#23 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1430 PM

Basic top attack and indirect missiles will be nullified via APS.

 

Hence, you're back to old KE.

 

Light advanced ERA and [also light] thick composite/NERA armor makes it hard for KE to penetrate.

 

So, you need bigger guns.



#24 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1500 PM

Nope, bigger guns equate to slow rate of fire and there is the problem, given relatively equal numbers on a specific battlefield. Non-lethal hits in sufficient number degrade the systems of the most powerful tanks that simply can't fight well.



#25 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1554 PM

I agree that non-penetrating hits can effect the vehicle's ability to fight. 

However, there was numerous M1s hit with 125mm KE during ODS that were combat effective on non-penetrating hits.  Yeah, older rounds, but the current M1s make the latest Russian stuff about the same tier.  No to mention the friendly fire M829A1 120mm hits in the same battle on the frontal arc that didn't knock the tank out (I know there was at least one of these).

 

Of course, this doesn't matter with side hits, and side hits are also common, but you do try to bake your battle plan around facing the enemy no matter how you go about it.

 

I'd rather carry 20 sure kill rounds compared to 40-50 rounds that at best will penetrate the sides or cause disabling damage on a lucky hit along the frontal arc (gun tube, GPS, tracks and whatnot).



#26 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 661 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1608 PM

Yeah, older rounds, but the current M1s make the latest Russian stuff about the same tier.

 

 

That is easy to say...

 

No to mention the friendly fire M829A1 120mm hits in the same battle on the frontal arc that didn't knock the tank out (I know there was at least one of these).

 

Which one ?



#27 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1616 PM

(removed post -- was being stupid)

Edited by TTK Ciar, 01 October 2014 - 1617 PM.


#28 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 01 October 2014 - 1658 PM

 

Yeah, older rounds, but the current M1s make the latest Russian stuff about the same tier.

 

 

That is easy to say...

 

No to mention the friendly fire M829A1 120mm hits in the same battle on the frontal arc that didn't knock the tank out (I know there was at least one of these).

 

Which one ?

 

 

BM-42M isn't better than the latest 120mm rounds, and they can't penetrate the tanks firing them.  Hence, there's really no difference here.

 

One M829A1 hit the front slope (unsure if it was actually the front hull or front turret, but it had to be either one) of a M1A1HA without penetrating.  The driver was knocked around a little, but he was fine.


Edited by BLAH, 01 October 2014 - 1659 PM.


#29 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2014 - 2228 PM

More translated info:

A.NARYSHKIN: Good evening to all who listen to us, on the radio program "Arsenal", leading to the studio Anatoly Ermolin Alexander smoking and Alexei Naryshkin. Our guest today - Vyacheslav Halitov, deputy director of "Uralvagonzavod" for special equipment. What can boast?


A.KURENNOY: Still, returning to the tanks - do "Armata" platform, which will be a lot of different weapons - how to move work? When the show?

V.HALITOV: Decision of the customer, we will comply with the requirements for the first time show "Almaty was" will be done on May 9 Victory Day 2015. After that, I think we will demonstrate the customer already in combat use, specific demonstration of the components, the device at an arms fair in Nizhny Tagil in September 2015

A.NARYSHKIN: How many "ARMADA" now?

V.HALITOV: This is a complex machine, a sort of platform on which to create directly the tank creates a heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicle.

A.NARYSHKIN: CEO of the plant said that "Almaty was" no analogues either in Russia or abroad, that there is a fundamentally new?

V.HALITOV: That's true. We always, the Soviet Union, Russia, we always went ahead in terms of development it tanks. We have always offered not the usual technical solutions in the device machines. Suffice it to say, if you go through the chain - the best tank of the Great Patriotic War - T-34, it is generally a legend. The most massive tank in the world, which is now in operation in 57 countries around the world - T-72. Continued - T-90, which is also now successfully in military-technical cooperation in many countries. And, of course, of course. "Armata" I hope this is a continuation of a decent chain of tank construction.

"Armata" certainly has absorbed all the best, all the technical experience, who had previously created, has a completely different, different layout, different from the classical configuration, which now exists in the tanks has an advanced gun, more powerful engine.

A.NARYSHKIN: Computers for sure?

V.HALITOV: Digital - it's a long time, we have already passed this stage, it is already over,

#30 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 01 October 2014 - 2235 PM

Nice propaganda in that.

 

Most used doesn't mean "best".  T-72/T-64 and their kids are arguably the worst modern tank (other threads explain that), and the T-34 is far from being the best tank in WW2 (perhaps for the Soviets, but then the IS series can be seen as better tanks there).

 

Also, the "modular" concept isn't new; Merkava MBT and HAPC are there.  It wouldn't be hard to make a Merkava missile carrier and SPG too (they just have no need to).



#31 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1522 PM

Isn't that moving into Future Combat Systems territory? The very same concept of use was planned for the XM1202 MCS. Why bother with heavy armor on the level of current MBTs then?

#32 LeoTanker

LeoTanker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1602 PM

As much as I'd want to belive in all this (hey, who doesnt want to finaly get to see a brand new tank??)... I simply cant. No pics = no credibility.  Way to much huffing of hot air and bombastic claims from a certain direction as of lately Im affraid.  



#33 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1630 PM

 

Isn't that moving into Future Combat Systems territory? The very same concept of use was planned for the XM1202 MCS. Why bother with heavy armor on the level of current MBTs then?

 

No, tracked platform "Armata" will weight depending on variant and armor level between ~50 to ~60+ metric tons, and will have high levels of protections.

 

Future Combat System program was a nonsense, fantasy.

 

 

As much as I'd want to belive in all this (hey, who doesnt want to finaly get to see a brand new tank??)... I simply cant. No pics = no credibility.  Way to much huffing of hot air and bombastic claims from a certain direction as of lately Im affraid.

 

Russians like secrecy, however photos of at least one Object 195 prototype leaked, and 3 prototypes (MBT, ARV and HIFV?) of "Armata" platform are scheduled for presentation during Victory Day Defilade in 2015.



#34 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1654 PM

 

 

Isn't that moving into Future Combat Systems territory? The very same concept of use was planned for the XM1202 MCS. Why bother with heavy armor on the level of current MBTs then?

 

No, tracked platform "Armata" will weight depending on variant and armor level between ~50 to ~60+ metric tons, and will have high levels of protections.

 

Future Combat System program was a nonsense, fantasy.

Wasn't referring to Armata as much as Stuart's concept. I didn't have much faith in FCS either but perhaps the proliferation of top-attack weapons means we are slowly moving in that direction.



#35 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1710 PM

 

Wasn't referring to Armata as much as Stuart's concept. I didn't have much faith in FCS either but perhaps the proliferation of top-attack weapons means we are slowly moving in that direction.

 

No, we do not move in that direction if we use brain.

 

The only sollution to vehicles protection problem, is hollistic approach, which means : don't be detected (camouflage) -> don't be hit (active protection systems) -> don't be penetrated (adequate armor protection) -> don't be killed (adequate vehicle design to minimize effects of eventual hit that defeats armor).

 

Besides this, with advances in nanotechnology, we might reduce armor (and also verhicle weight), and increase it's protection levels on all surfaces of vehicle, I don't say it will happen today or tommorow, but at some point it will happen.

 

Lightweight vehicles that don't have any survivability, are useless on a battlefield. What would be the usability of APC's, IFV's or MBT's that can't survive on battlefield? None!



#36 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 02 October 2014 - 1812 PM

Not sure I agree. Such systems are very expensive, and are further going to erode the argument for maintaining MBTs at all. They hardly are getting cheaper as it is. Secondly, like any active system, its only of any use if its operational. And as we saw with the Russian ERA, when its gone, its gone. In a long period of combat, how long are such systems going to remain operational? You are going to be feeding rounds to protect the tank as much as you are rounds for the tank to use, and at that point you are starting to overload the logistic system.

Better imho to have a tank thats out of sight entirely, either behind a ride and engaging using remote sensors, or stealthy. The latter hardly ideal a solution in an MBT I would think, not to mention running into the cost problem.

 

After all, are we seriously saying that Hellfire is obsolete? Because I dont really see a replacement in sight. Yet we argue that we already have a viable solution to similar Russian systems. Just because its launched by a tank is irrelevant.

 

 

I doubt the price of fitting APS to a single tank is more expensive than a single ATGM fired at it (when both are mass produced).

Tanks are cheap.  Trying to take an objective without them will cost far more money.

You still need the heavy armor behind the APS, because there's still going to be KE rounds fired at the tank (plus missile bodies and fragments still coming in) -- this way you have protection against ATGMs and KE.  A win-win solution.

Indirect fire vehicles are here already; it's called artillery (guided rounds are here). :)  You still need a vehicle that rolls up to the objective and can take hits whilst continuing on.  Or, you build a heap of vehicles that can't take hits and Zerg rush the objective.  The latter doesn't seem to work today against competent defenders.
 

Hellfire is obsolete when used against a tank that can intercept it.  Most tanks can't today, which is why it's fine for an AT weapon.



#37 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2014 - 2223 PM

Armata_TankModel_1.jpg



#38 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 08 October 2014 - 0642 AM

Thats, I think, the Kurganets chassis light tanks series



#39 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 08 October 2014 - 0714 AM

Correct.



#40 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2014 - 1720 PM


I doubt the price of fitting APS to a single tank is more expensive than a single ATGM fired at it (when both are mass produced).

Tanks are cheap.  Trying to take an objective without them will cost far more money.

You still need the heavy armor behind the APS, because there's still going to be KE rounds fired at the tank (plus missile bodies and fragments still coming in) -- this way you have protection against ATGMs and KE.  A win-win solution.

Indirect fire vehicles are here already; it's called artillery (guided rounds are here). :)  You still need a vehicle that rolls up to the objective and can take hits whilst continuing on.  Or, you build a heap of vehicles that can't take hits and Zerg rush the objective.  The latter doesn't seem to work today against competent defenders.
 

Hellfire is obsolete when used against a tank that can intercept it.  Most tanks can't today, which is why it's fine for an AT weapon.

 

 

Why would you assume APS can't be made highly effective vs KE?

 

I know for a fact there are miniature warheads perfectly capable of taking out long rods, the interception is merely a fire control problem after that.

 

Yeah, you need enough armor to soak up the residual rod portions if they don't get deflected out of the path of the tank, but that's a far cry from the massive armor arrays needed to soak up intact KE.


Edited by Jason L, 08 October 2014 - 1722 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users