Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I should have said "upgrading" T-72s. So let me repeat... if Russia stopped procuring expensive T-90s because they have something better in the works, then why bother spending the money on upgrading T-72s that have been driving around since before you were a sparkle in your dad's eye (I hope that translates into an equivalent Russian idiom :D).

 

Did you know that T-90 was called T-72BU before it came into service? They're upgrading existing T-72s to T-90 level. Because it is far more cheaper than to produce new T-90s. They want more capabilities today, and don't want to spend too much money on it. I don't like it, especially B3s ERA, but there it is.

 

As for the BMP-3, yes we did discuss it. Very few were incorporated into the Russian military. Cost must have been one of the factors for this since, as you point out, factories were able to crank out 2 for export for every 1 for domestic use.

 

You quite often use only economic side of things as a cause. Correct reason would be "BMP-3s capabilities are not really worth their money". Which is not the same reason as "they don't have money for it".

 

Who said anything about downgrading? I'm advocating Russia build something better than the T-90 that is less expensive than the Armata. I am sure that can be done if "better" is defined as more survivable for the crew, shares common parts with IFVs, etc.

 

NO, you said:

 

 

What they should be trying to do is make a vehicle that is better than an upgraded T-72 but cheaper than a T-90.

 

And you are not even sure that it is possible to make it better than T-90 at the same time.

 

Now, lets think. What makes a tank crew protected? Classical design requires both frontal hull to be heavily armored, and the turret to be heavily armored. Simply removing ammo from the turret doesn't make it more strong and less prone to penetrations (tho it nullifies the danger of rounds exploding, but does not remove the danger completely). Crew is still in danger, unless we're talking Abrams/Challenger 2 level of armor, which is NOT cheap.

 

Unmanned turret design does not require the same amount of armor for the turret to make the crew safe. It is easier to increase hull's protection qualities than the turret's (due to angles). Therefore it is much cheaper. Everything is digital, so it does not really matter where you put it (for Russians with their auto loaders anyway).

 

Again, due to angles, making a very very heavily protected hull is easier than to make the same kind of protection for the turret. Here are few examples. Every one of them has hull as a max protected area. Everything else is less protected:

 

1, 2, 3

 

So the cheapest way to protect the crew is put it all somewhere in the most protected area. And it is cheaper to protect the hull.

 

Which is why at the very beginning of this debate I pointed out this very thing and you said they aren't intended to.

 

No no no no. I might have phrased it wrong. What I meant to say is that there's a certain "world level" that any tank needs to reach in order to just be "good". T-90 is barely there. Making something cheaper than T-90 will prevent it from reaching that level.

 

Not surprisingly, I disagree ;)

 

My argument still stands.

 

Here we agree, mostly. I do think Russia *must* develop a new set of vehicles. I also think it is smart to have as much parts overlap between them as possible. And for sure making cheap crap that still puts crews at unnecessary risk is a really stupid waste of money. But I also think it isn't smart to engage in a 20 year long program that is unlikely to be funded to the extent necessary to make a difference on the battlefield.

 

If the only alternative is to downgrade your forces (either through decrease of size or capabilities due to cheapness), then they might have no other choice.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts on the T-14.

 

The bizarre looking turret asymmetric looks like some effort at Stealth technology is being made, what with all the faceting, nonrectilinear openings and such. If so, it appears to be directed against ground level threats, since the roof is quite flat. While the turret front and gun mantlet are consistent with this notion, there is no effort to hide the gun barrel, as was done in the Poles' coming PL-01 with its diamond shaped shroud. Could the seemingly normal thermal jackets on the T-14 embody Nakidka? The Stealth tech, if that's what it is, seems to be geared toward the turret only and wasn't used at all for the FC assembly on top. The tank has completely radar unshielded (I think) external armor modules which make great radar reflectors. Alternatively, what we're seeing could be a particularly clever effort by GUSM (Strategic Deception Directorate) to screw with military-technical analysts and tie up a lot of expensive resources to sort this out. What is clear is that the APS is geared toward ground threats--unless it can operate like Quick Kill. No matter which way the turret points, there is 360 degree radar coverage around the tank. The hexagonal device on the roof is likely the cover plate for a top coverage radar, as seen in that manufacturer's ad posted somewhere in this or the other Armata thread. If so, then there are measures in place to address those threats.

 

Kurganets-25 APS radar installations

 

The question has been raised about the steel plates on the presumptive radar boxes on the Kurganets-25 (the pic with the big red lines on it). My assessment is that the plates are indeed armor and protect the otherwise exposed to grief electronics, while being removable for servicing the units.  Notice where that plate is on the rear unit. It protects the exposed side perpendicular to the antenna, and there is precious little visible from dead aft where the antennas are. If what we're seeing isn't a con job, then a reasonable explanation is that the larger antenna handles acquisition and tracking, while the smaller is the guidance link. The SA-8 GECKO/9K33 Osa/Romb does something similar. Likewise, the unit covering the right side has its right side covered vs fire from the rear, reinforcing my assessment. All other things being equal, form follows function. Since the radar units are on top of, rather than in the AFV, it makes sense to shield them from the most likely axes of fire. If I'm right, the core coverage approach continues around this AFV. I do note, though, there is a considerable difference between the MoD pic and the one I've addressed. Additionally, there's a pic of a Kurganets-25 which is considerably different in layout. 

 

Thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't get all that whinning about ugliness. For me all these vehicles look absolutely fantastic with all those stealthy surfaces, sensors and multiple launchers. 

As one guy pointed out, they are looking really futuristic, Battletech-like :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stealth aspect:

 

Radar operates in specific frequencies. These frequencies equate to specific wavelengths. Wave Lengths.

 

Long range aircraft search radars have wavelengths several meters long. Their azimuth controls create "boxes" several meters long (the wavelength) by 10's (to 100's) of meters wide (due to the mechanics of the azimuth/rotating system). Newer systems use digital waveform controls to tighten that azimuth. 

 

It can see NOTHING other than a "thing" in that box. (That's why air forces practice tight formation flying. If you can get 8 planes in one "box", the enemy may be surprised.) Some radar absorbance or aimed reflection will reduce the range at which the radar can pick up enough reflected energy to detect something in that "box". (Each box is, again, one wavelength long, and limited in the lateral dimension by the azimuth control system's sensitivity, but in case less than the wavelength.)

 

Enough of that...

 

Centimeter class radars can make out...centimeter scale items.

Millimeter wavelength radars can make out...millimeter scale items.

 

If I wanted to detect people, centimeter wavelength radar would work well. I would see man-size and man-shape blobs.

 

Similarly with vehicles.

 

If I want to IDENTIFY vehicles and people, then millimeter wavelength (or smaller) will allow all sorts of details to be seen. Things like wheel lug nuts, vision blocks, etc. Vehicles can be mapped down to the millimeter. This allows for automated "friend or foe" algorithms, etc.

 

This is why millimeter wavelength radars are used for ground systems. (For the most part).

 

The drawback to shorter wavelengths is attenuation when compared to longer wavelengths. (Rain, foliage (water has a specific wavelength which allows weather radars to work so well.) dust, all affect millimeter radar far more than meter wavelength.

 

However, I cannot see that any of the shaping seen on the A/K/B vehicles can affect millimeter wavelength radars to any appreciable degree. Every crack, crevice, flat-spot, and curve which is greater than 1 millimeter will act as a reflector.

 

 

The move to optical (laser) searching techniques (equivalent to a hyper small wavelength radar) renders it even more moot. If you can be more moot than just moot. ;)

 

 

I'm curious about the design and why it seems to be shaped for lowered RCS. The small-scale fit and finish seem to defeat the overall design.

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, honestly the answer for most of the NATO/West is count on the US military being strong enough to bail them out.  I'm of the mind we should go into the "border insurance" business, and for a modest fee (effectively the cost of stationing US troops plus a few billion or something) we'll be there if someone invades.

 

It's basically what most of NATO minus Poland seems to count on now, might as well make a buck doing it!

 

Luved this : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small cylinder launchers on the turret (including vertical launcher, facing top) : Afganit APS 

Large cylinder launchers at the neck of the turret: Aerosol-type smoke launcher

 

Are these correct? Or the opposite is correct? 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unclear.

 

Interesting that this concept art / fan art (don't remember origin) actually seems to have been pretty close on the crew and turret configuration

 

7.jpg.896x604_q90.jpg

t14-15.jpg

 

Likely something similar in shape is obscured by the "shell" and bustle.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unclear.

 

Interesting that this concept art / fan art (don't remember origin) actually seems to have been pretty close on the crew and turret configuration

 

7.jpg.896x604_q90.jpg

t14-15.jpg

 

Likely something similar in shape is obscured by the "shell" and bustle.

 

Told you :rolleyes: 

The turret superstructure likely looks like this inside the plate housings and inert space.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Told you  :rolleyes: 

The turret superstructure likely looks like this inside the plate housings and inert space.

 

Uh.  No.  You don't add weight, bulk, or much of anything on a tank unless you have to.  This isn't your Honda, adding spoilers and sweet sheet metal trim isn't a thing.  There's either something in that space, or it wouldn't be there.

 

Not to mention even if it's just sheet metal, a frontal hit is still welcome to firepower/total optics loss town.

 

Sounds like a certain giraffe-horse hybrid better start buttering up his hat though! 

 

 

Chassis commonality:

 

Armata tank clearly has a rear engine (based on overhead shots, upstream).

 

Amarta IFV has a front engine.

 

Which is interesting, as much as commonality keeps getting touted, it's getting closer to low order CVRT commonality than anything else, some shared parts but not quite the common series of hulls originally claimed.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chassis commonality:

 

Armata tank clearly has a rear engine (based on overhead shots, upstream).

 

Amarta IFV has a front engine.

 

If you look close enought you see that IFV chassis is the same as tank one just driving backwards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quite often use only economic side of things as a cause. Correct reason would be "BMP-3s capabilities are not really worth their money". Which is not the same reason as "they don't have money for it".

Economics is almost always a factor, so that is why I always cite it. You made the case that the BMP-3 was turned into a successful vehicle that other nations were willing to pay cost + profit for. Russia only has to pay cost for its units. So it seems you are saying that the countries buying BMP-3s are morons because even Russia feels they are a crap investment, even at Russia's lower acquisition point. I mean, the countries buying BMP-3s probably have BMP-1/2 or the ability to buy them cheap.

In the end it amounts to the same thing. Russia spent a lot of money and time developing a vehicle it didn't wind up using for itself and instead is still (largely) using even older and even less capable vehicles in place of it.

My argument is that is where Russia is headed again. Perhaps not as badly, and perhaps not equally so for each of the three major families of vehicles, but in the end at the strategic level Russia will wind up in the same place... the same place it is right now. A small portion of its military outfitted with the latest and greatest Russia can afford to produce and be incapable of defeating a NATO/Western equipped force with any degree of certainty.

 

And you are not even sure that it is possible to make it better than T-90 at the same time.

Of course not because I'm not a tank design engineer :)

 

Now, lets think. What makes a tank crew protected? Classical design requires both frontal hull to be heavily armored, and the turret to be heavily armored. Simply removing ammo from the turret doesn't make it more strong and less prone to penetrations (tho it nullifies the danger of rounds exploding, but does not remove the danger completely). Crew is still in danger, unless we're talking Abrams/Challenger 2 level of armor, which is NOT cheap.

 

Unmanned turret design does not require the same amount of armor for the turret to make the crew safe. It is easier to increase hull's protection qualities than the turret's (due to angles). Therefore it is much cheaper. Everything is digital, so it does not really matter where you put it (for Russians with their auto loaders anyway).

I am unsure it is cheaper. I am also unsure that Russia can even pull it off along with everything else it's trying to do at the same time under current and near future economic constraints. And I'm not even going to mention Russia's "brain drain" problem that has accelerated in the last 2 years, especially the last 1. Even the founder of Life News, the anti-Western and ardently pro-Russian "news" source, lives outside of Russia (New York City to be exact) :D

 

So the cheapest way to protect the crew is put it all somewhere in the most protected area. And it is cheaper to protect the hull.

Probably, but if the turret systems don't function as well as it needs to, or cost too much, or run into parts sourcing problems... then you're talking about a well protected crew that does absolutely nothing useful. This was one of the issues that was brought up a few dozen pages ago. Crew protection is a worthy goal to shoot for, but in the end it isn't the most important one.

 

No no no no. I might have phrased it wrong. What I meant to say is that there's a certain "world level" that any tank needs to reach in order to just be "good". T-90 is barely there. Making something cheaper than T-90 will prevent it from reaching that level.

As a military nation, all else being equal, I'd rather have 5000 Shermans than 500 Panthers. Even the Shermans that were prone to burning their crews alive.

Having said that, all things are not equal between the West and Russia. The 2008 reforms are supposed to address that and are. But to me, although it is less sexy, I'd rather pump the money into making a better functioning professional military than to have expensive tanks that have no margin of overmatch against my adversaries' tanks.

  

If the only alternative is to downgrade your forces (either through decrease of size or capabilities due to cheapness), then they might have no other choice.

This is not the only alternative. Two others:

1. Expand upon the "Hybrid War" doctrine in order to avoid needing to have good quality military equipment in the first place.

2. Focus government efforts to make Russia a better and more positive influence in the region so it doesn't need either traditional or Hybrid military interference to sustain a decent quality of life for the people of Russia.

The bottom line is, Russia is spending its limited resources in the wrong place. I understand that things like good command climate and mutually beneficial bilateral trade partnerships don't look so great in parades, so it is what it is.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OMG, guys, really? IFV version has infantry in the back. Of course engine is in the front. Gee...

 

Note, I was not critical of the engine placement.  I've always viewed anything to the opposite on an IFV/APC to be idiotic, the rear troop ramp is the only "good" choice.  Simply that one of the highlights of the whole line of vehicles was commonality, and to a degree, this does not appear to be as true as first let on.  I compared it to the CVRT line which is pretty much same drivetrain, suspension, and a lot of the sub assemblies, but different hulls and weapons installations.

 

Again, rear entry IFV=great improvement over the BMP3 exit plan.  But there's less common parts between the various new vehicles than originally let on.

 

 

 

Unmanned turret design does not require the same amount of armor for the turret to make the crew safe. It is easier to increase hull's protection qualities than the turret's (due to angles). Therefore it is much cheaper. Everything is digital, so it does not really matter where you put it (for Russians with their auto loaders anyway).

 

It really does not have to be cheaper.  The Stryker which logically is a lighter, wheeled platform SHOULD be less expensive than the tracked and better armored Bradley platform, but it costs more per unit largely because of the more advanced components and internals (the "new" Bradley stuff like the CITV is still largely bolted on top of vintage 80's era electrical harnesses, and much of the automotive systems are still dinosaur simple).  The cost is in the complexity of the system vs the mass of the armor, and an unmanned turret is going to be much complex.

 

 

 

 I'd rather pump the money into making a better functioning professional military than to have expensive tanks that have no margin of overmatch against my adversaries' tanks.

 

This to the nth.  The Russian military isn't working so hot in a lot of ways in terms of training and manning.  A stronger focus on those, plus modest improvements to the T-90 line ought to keep them better able to fight non-western foes if that really is the objective.

 

 

 

1. Expand upon the "Hybrid War" doctrine in order to avoid needing to have good quality military equipment in the first place.

2. Focus government efforts to make Russia a better and more positive influence in the region so it doesn't need either traditional or Hybrid military interference to sustain a decent quality of life for the people of Russia.

 

I think the first is the more likely/better option.  It's certainly the cheaper/low risk one, if the Ukraine breaks through tomorrow and puts everyone in Donbass against a wall Red Army style, then it's no big loss to Russia at large.  It's also low "heat" enough that it's not like it'll bring NATO or the UN in beyond sanctions which hurt, but are not the same as edging towards conventional war.

 

As far as option 2....yeah I might have loled at that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh.  No.  You don't add weight, bulk, or much of anything on a tank unless you have to.  This isn't your Honda, adding spoilers and sweet sheet metal trim isn't a thing.  There's either something in that space, or it wouldn't be there.

 

Not to mention even if it's just sheet metal, a frontal hit is still welcome to firepower/total optics loss town.

 

 

I disagree with that. The Leopard 2s V-shaped add-on armor is empty and also not particularily thick. Its only purpose is to destabilize sabots and prematurely trigger HEAT rounds. It is entirely possible that the Armatas turret follows the same concept and much of the turret is just "empty".

 

Leopard 2 add-on armor inside:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Keilpanzerung_Leopard_2A5.jpg

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/images/leopard_2a6_tower_01_of_27.jpg

 

and mounted on a vehicled:

 

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/LEOPARD2A6-BIG-08.jpg

 

EDIT:

 

The correct term for the Leopard 2s armor is 'spaced armor'. Wikipedia has a short description of how the Leopard 2s V-shaped armor works:

 

"An example for this construction is the armour of the Leopard 2 tank, which provides a slanted first armour stage (disturber), a specially hardened second stage (disrupter) and a softer third stage with high ductility (absorber). The disturber is to ideally deflect or at least manipulate the direction of incoming kinetic energy penetrators, which are then shattered and fragmented when hitting the disrupter. The absorber stage finally erodes and contains spalls and fragments."

 

The Russians could use the same technlogy in their Armata tank, which would explain the bulky turret.

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree with that. The Leopard 2s V-shaped add-on armor is empty and also not particularily thick. Its only purpose is to destabilize sabots and prematurely trigger HEAT rounds. It is entirely possible that the Armatas turret follows the same concept and much of the turret is just "empty".

 

Because it's armor.  What our resident petasusavor is referring to is simply a metal box filled with air around the working parts of the turret, that rounds will zip through without harming the tank.  It's also the angles of the armor on the add-on package that gives it utility (or at least is the optimal shape for such things), the shape of the Armata's exterior wouldn't do much at all against a conventional penetrator strike, might give stand-off to HEAT, but there really needs to be an armored structure under the outer metal shell for that to work.  It's more likely that its an armored structure, or even possibly NOT armored all and it's simply the engineering test bed for the turret.

 

Especially in terms of the frontal profile, a smaller, more radically angled turret would make sense if it's a Leo 2 type solution, but as the case is it's much too poorly shaped, and much too much volume to really make terribly much sense as either.  There's likely more than a few support systems located in the turret (gun, APS, optics, sensors, etc, etc) and those all need room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This to the nth.  The Russian military isn't working so hot in a lot of ways in terms of training and manning.  A stronger focus on those, plus modest improvements to the T-90 line ought to keep them better able to fight non-western foes if that really is the objective.

Which is why I raised the question of objectives at the start of this discussion. If A/K/B is designed to challenge NATO/Western existing military forces, not to mention those of 2020+, then I think it's a waste of money. If it's designed to beat up on horribly incompetent and underfunded neighbors who use Soviet era weapons, then it's a waste of money. If it's designed to make China sit up and take notice, it's a waste of money. Because this program has no chance of doing two of the three and is overkill for the third.

 

As far as option 2....yeah I might have loled at that.

Yeah, but it's still an option :D

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"

"Then don't do it"

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's armor.  What our resident petasusavor is referring to is simply a metal box filled with air around the working parts of the turret, that rounds will zip through without harming the tank.  It's also the angles of the armor on the add-on package that gives it utility (or at least is the optimal shape for such things), the shape of the Armata's exterior wouldn't do much at all against a conventional penetrator strike, might give stand-off to HEAT, but there really needs to be an armored structure under the outer metal shell for that to work.  It's more likely that its an armored structure, or even possibly NOT armored all and it's simply the engineering test bed for the turret.

 

Especially in terms of the frontal profile, a smaller, more radically angled turret would make sense if it's a Leo 2 type solution, but as the case is it's much too poorly shaped, and much too much volume to really make terribly much sense as either.  There's likely more than a few support systems located in the turret (gun, APS, optics, sensors, etc, etc) and those all need room.

 

Hmm. You might be right regarding the Armatas armor. But what is a petasusavor? I get 0 results if i google it.

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economics is almost always a factor, so that is why I always cite it. You made the case that the BMP-3 was turned into a successful vehicle that other nations were willing to pay cost + profit for. Russia only has to pay cost for its units. So it seems you are saying that the countries buying BMP-3s are morons because even Russia feels they are a crap investment, even at Russia's lower acquisition point. I mean, the countries buying BMP-3s probably have BMP-1/2 or the ability to buy them cheap.

In the end it amounts to the same thing. Russia spent a lot of money and time developing a vehicle it didn't wind up using for itself and instead is still (largely) using even older and even less capable vehicles in place of it.

My argument is that is where Russia is headed again. Perhaps not as badly, and perhaps not equally so for each of the three major families of vehicles, but in the end at the strategic level Russia will wind up in the same place... the same place it is right now. A small portion of its military outfitted with the latest and greatest Russia can afford to produce and be incapable of defeating a NATO/Western equipped force with any degree of certainty.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. First, I did not say that Russian MoD thinks BMP-3 is a bad vehicle. No. It has it uses, its pros and cons. But those countries did not use them for actual fighting yet, did they? Russia did. Also, there are other things involved, like lobbying, availability, kickbacks, etc.

 

And none of it counters my initial argument about the fact that Russia did produce 500+ BMP-3s, even that it was faulty at the beginning.

 

Of course not because I'm not a tank design engineer :)

 

Did not stop you from having this conversation.

 

I am unsure it is cheaper. I am also unsure that Russia can even pull it off along with everything else it's trying to do at the same time under current and near future economic constraints. And I'm not even going to mention Russia's "brain drain" problem that has accelerated in the last 2 years, especially the last 1. Even the founder of Life News, the anti-Western and ardently pro-Russian "news" source, lives outside of Russia (New York City to be exact) :D

Probably, but if the turret systems don't function as well as it needs to, or cost too much, or run into parts sourcing problems... then you're talking about a well protected crew that does absolutely nothing useful. This was one of the issues that was brought up a few dozen pages ago. Crew protection is a worthy goal to shoot for, but in the end it isn't the most important one.

 

So is it "probably" now? And how the turret would cost "too much"? I don't see any arguments to base such idea on, after I gave my argument why it should actually be cheaper.

 

And if they think that crew's safety means more than tanks operational capabilities after being hit, then that's their choice. Doesn't mean the design isn't cheaper.

 

As a military nation, all else being equal, I'd rather have 5000 Shermans than 500 Panthers. Even the Shermans that were prone to burning their crews alive.

 

The thing is, they already have thousands of "Shermans".

 

Having said that, all things are not equal between the West and Russia. The 2008 reforms are supposed to address that and are. But to me, although it is less sexy, I'd rather pump the money into making a better functioning professional military than to have expensive tanks that have no margin of overmatch against my adversaries' tanks.

 

They already do that.

 

This is not the only alternative. Two others:

1. Expand upon the "Hybrid War" doctrine in order to avoid needing to have good quality military equipment in the first place.

2. Focus government efforts to make Russia a better and more positive influence in the region so it doesn't need either traditional or Hybrid military interference to sustain a decent quality of life for the people of Russia.

The bottom line is, Russia is spending its limited resources in the wrong place. I understand that things like good command climate and mutually beneficial bilateral trade partnerships don't look so great in parades, so it is what it is.

 

Pfff. I'm not even gonna answer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the turret itself...

Each seam between pieces introduces structural weaknesses, and there are a LOT of seams. So even if what we're looking at is supposed to represent armor, it's apparently thin, has little cumulative mass, and is structurally prone to failure compared to a Western "slab" style turret. It could also be more expensive to manufacture in terms of labor compared to "slab" style turret and nearly certainly more than a traditional "frying pan" style Soviet/Russian turret.

So it appears to me that Russia has made an interesting design choice. Which is to field more of a WW2 type "tank destroyer" than a true tank. Meaning, a highly mobile weapon system designed to kill tanks but itself can not withstand a hit from another tank.

I do not necessarily think this is a bad idea, BTW. But it does kinda put the Armata into a different light when viewed in this way.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not what I'm saying. First, I did not say that Russian MoD thinks BMP-3 is a bad vehicle. No. It has it uses, its pros and cons. But those countries did not use them for actual fighting yet, did they? Russia did. Also, there are other things involved, like lobbying, availability, kickbacks, etc.

 

And none of it counters my initial argument about the fact that Russia did produce 500+ BMP-3s over a roughly 20+ year timeframe, even that it was faulty at the beginning.

I'm still not getting your point. They made 500 vehicles that cost too much and are being discontinued only 10+ years after they really started being fielded in significant numbers. I don't see how that helps your argument.

 

Did not stop you from having this conversation.

Nor you :D

 

So is it "probably" now? And how the turret would cost "too much"? I don't see any arguments to base such idea on, after I gave my argument why it should actually be cheaper.

See panzersaurkrautwerfer's post above. You are presuming you know more than you do. At least I admit that I don't know for sure one way or the other.

 

And if they think that crew's safety means more than tanks operational capabilities after being hit, then that's their choice. Doesn't mean the design isn't cheaper.

It's not a good choice if the operational capabilities are neutered by concern for crew safety. It also doesn't mean that it's cheaper.

 

The thing is, they already have thousands of "Shermans".

No, Russia currently has the equivalent of thousands of "Crusaders".

 

 

They already do that.

They need to do a lot more of it and faster. Money is part of the solution.

 

 

Pfff. I'm not even gonna answer that.

You said there was no alternative. There are. Why do you think Russia has invested so heavily in its Hybrid Warfare capabilities? Because it's something that has a chance of getting it what it wants. Look at Ukraine now. Is Russia using T-90s and BMP-3s in that war? No. If it had A/K/B available to it today, would it be using them in Ukraine now? No. So what's the value of them in a realistic conflict scenario?

As for the other option, admittedly that's got no chance of happening any time soon. However, Russia is a powerful regional player that could achieve most of its security needs through "soft power" if it played the game differently than it currently does. Obviously 0.00% chance of that happening, but it is still an alternative course of action if the military one is futile to pursue.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the turret itself...Each seam between pieces introduces structural weaknesses, and there are a LOT of seams. So even if what we're looking at is supposed to represent armor, it's apparently thin, has little cumulative mass, and is structurally prone to failure compared to a Western "slab" style turret. It could also be more expensive to manufacture in terms of labor compared to "slab" style turret and nearly certainly more than a traditional "frying pan" style Soviet/Russian turret.So it appears to me that Russia has made an interesting design choice. Which is to field more of a WW2 type "tank destroyer" than a true tank. Meaning, a highly mobile weapon system designed to kill tanks but itself can not withstand a hit from another tank.I do not necessarily think this is a bad idea, BTW. But it does kinda put the Armata into a different light when viewed in this way.Steve

Steve, it does not appear to be armor or structure, or to represent such. It is just a thin shell, for whatever reason. Various recesses and partial placement of external systems underneath make this pretty apparent. Core turret is probably a narrow armored box containing the gun, upper autoloader and main sight. You can see a rough outline in the topdown photos. Possibly something like what is seen in this old concept art posted previously:

http://rosinform.ru/assets/files/photosets/photos/7.jpg.896x604_q90.jpg

http://vietnamdefence.com/web/Uploaded/LIB/Photos/2012/t14-15.jpg

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underequipped, obviously. Not even smoke launchers equipped yet.

That huge hatch provides good maintenance access to the turret's systems. One of the obvious design issues with earlier turrets is that the whole turret had to be pulled off for major overhauls. This new design should avoid that need for the most part.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, it does not appear to be armor or structure, or to represent such. It is just a thin shell, for whatever reason. Various recesses and partial placement of external systems underneath make this pretty apparent. Core turret is probably a narrow armored box containing the gun, upper autoloader and main sight. You can see a rough outline in the topdown photos. Possibly something like what is seen in this old concept art:

Yeah, I saw your earlier post and followed the discussion. I guess it depends on if the outer shell is intended to be nothing but thick sheet metal or if there is an intention to have it serve some other purpose later in development. I suspect you are correct, though, that it's not going to be more than window dressing. Though I'm also at a loss as to why they would bother with the expense unless it serves some sort of purpose (even if just to protect something from the elements).

OK, so fundamental armor principles aren't (likely) being invalidated. Got it. Still, if we presume the concept art is relatively accurate most of my points are still intact. And that is the amount of protection afforded by this turret design is more akin to a M-10 or M-36 than to Sherman or Pershing.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...