MikeyD Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Be careful falling too in love with high technology. It often has a way of coming around and biting the user in the behind. I'm reminded of Stryker MGS. A similar overhead gun design to the Russian vehicle, and high tech doo-dads galore. A year into its Iraq deployment is was very nearly judged 'combat ineffective' and funding halted. It just escaped by the skin of its teeth. The fanciest optics in the world are no good if the computer running them tends to overheat and crash at the most inopportune times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No bustle = bad idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The ammo goes uhm where? exactly? Oh, it's supposed to USE those weapons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No bustle = bad idea. Ammo is separated from the crew into a sealed compartment within the hull, blow out panels are provided. In general closest US tank project in concept to obj 195 and Armata would be the TTB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 AMAZING WORMHOLE OF SOVIET DESIGN! Tanks do better with one big weapon system and a fistful of MGs. Once you start adding more weapons you start impacting the ability of other weapons to do their job. Hah! You probably think the T-35 was a bad design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Ammo is separated from the crew into a sealed compartment within the hull, blow out panels are provided. In general closest US tank project in concept to obj 195 and Armata would be the TTB. At least they are learning that sitting on ammunition is a bad idea. I just hope the blow panels in the top of the tank are positioned well to mitigate shock injury to the crew Same Ikalugin from the Wargame forums I suspect? I hope that there wont be a million balance threads and "X is OP!" popping up when the game comes out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Charlemagne Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) ikalugin, on 13 Jan 2015 - 10:20 PM, said: You could access artist's depiction of Armata (the tnk version) here, I believe it is reasonably accurate to provide the general idea: http://rosinform.ru/photo/osnovnoy-tank-t-14--na-baze-tyazheloy-unifitsirovannoy-platformy-armata/ The actual vehicle would be accessible to public during the parade rehearsals - as parade vehicles pass through central Moscow for that. This design would really disappoint me. But maybe its more realistic considering the technical know-how of the Russian military industry (they had to get a hold of the French-designed Catherine FCS to level the playing field with western counterparts). Also, a vehicle like that shouldn't be that expensive or difficult to produce, so maybe their goal of 2,300 new vehicles by 2020 isn't so unrealistic then. About the T-14, I think it's a plausible design, and when you think about it, it's about time that someone did something new with MBT-design. Most current MBTs are based on old designs and thinking, and although they have been upgraded a lot, their value in certain combat situations and in different roles is limited. A design like the one that is suggested by the video I posted is a kind of hybrid T-72 terminator/T-90 MBT; it'll be able to engage infantry, IFVs, lightly armoured vehicles and helicopters with its 30mm cannon and 12.7mm Gatling gun, while saving its main gun ammunition for more deserving targets. Anyway, what about the TALON missile - a guided hydra-70 rocket?. This kit in supposed to be operational at this point, and is definitely a lot cheaper than a Hellfire missile (110,000 USD according to wiki). This would be a nice addition to the Apache for use against IFVs (if it's powerful enough?), infantry, bunkers and lightly armoured vehicles. BTW, to my understanding what separates a rocket from a missile is guidance, is this right? Edited January 14, 2015 by AtheistDane 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) At least they are learning that sitting on ammunition is a bad idea. I just hope the blow panels in the top of the tank are positioned well to mitigate shock injury to the crew Same Ikalugin from the Wargame forums I suspect? I hope that there wont be a million balance threads and "X is OP!" popping up when the game comes out. Crew is completely separated from the ammunition, ie they sit in an armoured and well protected capsule, which is separated from the ammunition compartment by a thick bulkhead. This image shows the overall obj 195 layout, which (as far as I know) was kept on the Armata: Yes I am the same old Ikalugin. I am but the third Wargame Forums member that I know of on this forum - Panzerkrautwerfer and BTR were here before me. Edited January 14, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This design would really disappoint me. But maybe its more realistic considering the technical know-how of the Russian military industry (they had to get a hold of the French-designed Catherine FCS to level the playing field with western counterparts). Also, a vehicle like that shouldn't be that expensive or difficult to produce, so maybe their goal of 2,300 new vehicles by 2020 isn't so unrealistic then. About the T-14, I think it's a plausible design, and when you think about it, it's about time that someone did something new with MBT-design. Most current MBTs are based on old designs and thinking, and although they have been upgraded a lot, their value in certain combat situations and in different roles is limited. A design like the one that is suggested by the video I posted is a kind of hybrid T-72 terminator/T-90 MBT; it'll be able to engage infantry, IFVs, lightly armoured vehicles and helicopters with its 30mm cannon and 12.7mm Gatling gun, while saving its main gun ammunition for more deserving targets. Anyway, what about the TALON missile - a guided hydra-70 rocket?. This kit in supposed to be operational at this point, and is definitely a lot cheaper than a Hellfire missile (110,000 USD according to wiki). This would be a nice addition to the Apache for use against IFVs (if it's powerful enough?), infantry, bunkers and lightly armoured vehicles. BTW, to my understanding what separates a rocket from a missile is guidance, is this right? Could you please be more specific in your criticism of the Armata layout? (note that the 3d model is only an artist's impression from the open source materials on Armata, not an accurate depiction). I would then try to elevate any doubts about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) My straight up criticism is that even though there is the protected capsule, a bustle autoloader is safer and more efficient - even though it may only have a smaller ammunition ready capacity. If it were up to me I would of just invested in Burlak and upgraded the entire fleet. Russians are good at that instead of building new platforms from scratch. I suspected that wargame wasnt enough for some of the community and they would come over here with the CMBS release - shame there isnt a link, on like, you know, some kind of online distribution system to suggest similar games to the types that those enjoy.... Edited January 14, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Well, why is it safer and more efficient? Combat statistics (including modern conflicts) show that not only do most hits occur on turret armour, but also that there is a trend of the increase of probability of a turret hit. Thus ammunition placement in hull is safer than placement of it in a turret. Morever, the move to get everything out of turret means that there is no need for turret to have heavy duty armour protection it would require otherwise. This in turn allows to move all the armour from the turret down into the hull, increasing the armoured protection of hull (where the critical components such as crew and ammo are) per same mass/technology level. Hence due to the new layout (not to mentioned improved armour technology) - Armata is expected to have very strong protection within the safe angles of manuever. The obvious problem with this layout is that the unmaned combat compartment is not as easy accessible by the crew in case of a failure (though as experience shows autoloader rarely fails), it is difficult to provide panoramical purely optical sights (this is not as bad as it may be seen, because most of panoramic scopes are either TV or TI based). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) While T-14 certainly has the potential to be interesting, I expect it will go the way of T-95. Accepted for adoption, then cancelled eight years later. Russians are too poor for such things, although T-14 does kind of resemble a poor man's T-95. Switching topics though, the budget we passed (http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2015/Army/stamped/0203735A_7_PB_2015.pdf) at the end of 2014 includes funding and a time frame for the M1A3, prototype should be finalized this year with pre-production to start in Q4 2015 and run through 2018. I am massively excited. It seems from what can be gathered that we are looking at a lighter more modern Abrams with the same upgraded protection the M1a2sepv2 has but increased fuel effeciency through the APU that's being added to the turbine engine. Also the new lightweight cannon is likely going to be the XM360e1, (more info here) which is an electrothermal-chemical gun. It can fire the existing shells of the Abrams, but early prototypes of this gun reached muzzle energies of 18MJ while Rheinmetal's cannon only reachs 14MJ. So lighter and more powerful. So even if the poor man's T-95 enters service it will be as nothing against the Reigning King of Tanks, Gen. Abrams. Edited January 14, 2015 by danzig5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) While T-14 certainly has the potential to be interesting, I expect it will go the way of T-95. Accepted for adoption, then cancelled eight years later. Russians are too poor for such things, although T-14 does kind of resemble a poor man's T-95. The funds are already allocated (under GPV 2020 program), at least 24 (LRIP vehicles) have already been produced. This year full scale production of Armata begins, as well as of other items (such as Kurganets IFV). The sources for the production numbers have been already provided by me in another thread, they come from the contracts for maintaining those vehicles in the "parade" grouping, the contracts for the Armatas has already been awarded and such, thus strongly suggesting that the vehicles in question already exist in that number. Edited January 14, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Regarding the T14 vs M1A3 matter - Armata by the nature of it's layout alone would provide at least comparable protection (due to the shift of armour mass from turret into the hull). 2A82 gun (the new 125mm gun) is said to have at least a 20 percent advantage over the L55 gun, providing about the same level of muzzle energy as this new gun you are talking about. The idea behind Armata was to create a common chassis for a number of vehicles (such as the tnks, IFV, SPG and so on), building upon the obj 195 program I do not see why it is viewed as "poor man T95". Edited January 14, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I look forward to see that becoming a reality, so M1A3 has someone to challenge it. Also I would buy a CMBS vehicle pack that was just prototype equipment in a heart beat. I mean I bought the CMBN vehicle pack and that mostly converted French, trash. (Sexy converted French trash but still..) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Regarding the T14 vs M1A3 matter - Armata by the nature of it's layout alone would provide at least comparable protection (due to the shift of armour mass from turret into the hull). 2A82 gun (the new 125mm gun) is said to have at least a 20 percent advantage over the L55 gun, providing about the same level of muzzle energy as this new gun you are talking about. The idea behind Armata was to create a common chassis for a number of vehicles (such as the tnks, IFV, SPG and so on), building upon the obj 195 program I do not see why it is viewed as "poor man T95". This link you had posted http://rosinform.ru/...atformy-armata/ appears to have a T-90MS hull with no real changes except the turret. T-90MS does not provide adequate protected against the M1A2, so I am hesitant to think Armata will offer exciting protection levels. If pressed I could concede adequate protection though. I have heard there may be new ERA present on the design, but measures like that only complement the underlying armor and do not serve as replacements. Edited January 14, 2015 by danzig5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) This link you had posted http://rosinform.ru/...atformy-armata/ appears to have a T-90MS hull with no real changes except the turret. T-90MS does not provide adequate protected against the M1A2, so I am hesitant to think Armata will offer exciting protection levels. If pressed I could concede adequate protection though. I have heard there may be new ERA present on the design, but measures like that only complement the underlying armor and do not serve as replacements. I said that it was an artist's impression. I won't go about the T-90MS (as it is another topic and not relative in any case to this forum, as the MS is the export designation), and would concentrate on Armata. As to the (front) hull - it has been desighned on the lines similar to the obj 187, something you should be capable of noting even from that most imperfect model (ie the front hull is completely different from the old T64 related developments). The point of this change is to get rid of the driver's hatch weak area (which was there since the first T64). Morever, as I have already said, the tank gets rid of turret armour but keeps the total mass at around the same level (55t class). This means that the hull would be further reinforced when compared to the T90AM (new shape, doesn't have the weak zones of T90AM) and obj 187 (increased thickness due to more mass being allocated to the front hull, new tech level). And this does not preclude Armata fielding new technologies such as new/improved materials, new ERA and others, those additions would further improve the already strong basic design, allowing the tank to remain competitive in the future. Edited January 14, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Or that the unmanned turret and armor didn't offer the weight savings indicated. Other artists concepts have a much larger turret assembly. Adding two more crew into the hull and still needing space for some turret function mechanisms doesn't leave a massive amount of room for protection, and I do not believe the vehicle has been lengthened or widened. Now that you mention it the drivers hatch area differs from T-90AM, but really only there. Otherwise shape is inline, and I am inclined to believe protection is as well. Edited January 14, 2015 by danzig5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This link you had posted http://rosinform.ru/...atformy-armata/ appears to have a T-90MS hull with no real changes except the turret. T-90MS does not provide adequate protected against the M1A2, so I am hesitant to think Armata will offer exciting protection levels. If pressed I could concede adequate protection though. I have heard there may be new ERA present on the design, but measures like that only complement the underlying armor and do not serve as replacements. This has nothing to do with Armata. It is fantasy art. Get off it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 -Other- 3d drawings depict not Armata but a separate project by Omsk, this confusion comes from a cannon manufacturing company showing models of various AFV projects, which included this Omsk project. The object 187 hull is not only different in form to the T64 derivative hull and precludes the weak zone forming in the driver's hatch area, but allows increase in the front hull armor thickness per same vehicle length reserve allocated. Obj 187 pattern hull could be seen here: http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/42560-1-f.jpg This means that per same vehicle length (which I strongly believe would actually be greater on Armata, as it is likely to use 7 road wheels like obj 640 and 195), considering mass increase for the frontal armour, it is obvious that the armour array would have both increased LOS thickness and mass. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 It seems less is known about this tank than I thought, I thought very little was known. I hope more information becomes available soon, as May Day is too far away. Certainly an interesting vehicle, perhaps nearing the quality of M1A2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) It seems less is known about this tank than I thought, I thought very little was known. I hope more information becomes available soon, as May Day is too far away. Certainly an interesting vehicle, perhaps nearing the quality of M1A2. Is this comparison of a 2015 vintage tank with 1991 vintage tank intended to be inflammatory? Edited January 15, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Is this comparison of a 2015 vintage tank with 1991 vintage tank intended to be inflammatory? Factual. The M1A2Sepv2 specifically, a tank of unmatched quality and much newer than 91. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Factual. The M1A2Sepv2 specifically, a tank of unmatched quality and much newer than 91. Can you please expand this comparison then, possibly providing some numbers into this comparison? P.s. when you intend to talk about a specific tank variant, then please specify the variant. Edited January 15, 2015 by ikalugin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) There's no way to tell how an Abrams would perform against a tank that we arent even sure on the physical dimensions of. Just saying "Because its unmatched" is silly. Edited January 15, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.