Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

As I said before, I don't read much into the breakdown other than obviously the vehicles aren't really ready for the parade. More embarrassing was this:

1000x62515.jpg

But the Russians showed their sense of humor with the closing ceremony:

1000x5451.jpg

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was paraphrasing. Very accurately, I think.

 

What part of "I've never said anything like that" you do not understand? Never happened. Just as I've never said anything about "certainty of Russia producing the Armata in numbers" on "previous 10 pages", as Thewood1 here says. In fact, some time ago, I let you people know that numbers that circulating in media were misinterpreted and wrong. Didn't stop some from repeating those numbers, but hey, I've tried!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the tank destroyer thing.  The heavier APC/IFV type vehicles close with the enemy, but the tanks are to stay back out of easy direct fire of anything with sabots, and rely on the APS to deal with RPGs and ATGMs.

 

It's likely somewhere in the middle.

A M-10 tank destroyer has more in common with a tank than Armata does, and yet we don't call it a tank. So I also think (and have said as much pages ago) that Armata is perhaps more tank destroyer than tank. Maybe we need a new term for a vehicle like this?

From a physical point of view I don't think it is correct to call it a tank, but if it is used to replace true tanks (T-90, T-72, etc.) then it is serving the tank role. Which means that on the one hand "tank" doesn't fit, on the other hand "tank destroyer" doesn't either.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A M-10 tank destroyer has more in common with a tank than Armata does, and yet we don't call it a tank. So I also think (and have said as much pages ago) that Armata is perhaps more tank destroyer than tank. Maybe we need a new term for a vehicle like this?

 

Nah.  I think if it'd going down that route, it's still intended to be used as a tank in tank roles.  The thing that sets tank destroyers apart for me (or at least the M10/M18/M36 etc types) is the doctrinal use as a separate dedicated anti-tank system in tank destroyer units.  There's been plenty of tanks differently balanced in terms of armor, mobility etc, it just happens the Russians have chosen to possibly underarmor parts of their tanks in exchange for whatever reasons they're doing it for.

 

If Armatas instead show up in "303rd Tank Destroyer Battalion" or something, then I think it'd be worth calling them something separate though.

 

 

 

Yup, which is why I'm focusing on more productive things to talk about.

 

There's not much we can tell from it unless we see more Armatas chug to a stop because the laws of physics break down when trying to contain the massive power russia supreme, but this is a moment of schadenfreude, and after a few pages of hearing how ready the Armata is to rule the world, it's worth bringing up a few times.  

 

In terms of the Olympics stuff though, that's a very complicated set of equipment that can only be exercised completely a few times.  A tank going down a road at parade speed is something that can be done many times over.  If this was under more interesting circumstances, it might be worth questioning if the thing might just be immature (or a set of variables not yet tested, hot day+high altitude+low grade fuel or something, basically outside what basic testing would do), but it broke down going forward on flat terrain.  Again, it's too early to tell, but if your first impression of a car is the door falling off when the salesperson opens it for you, it might just be that the door pins were stolen in the night by hobos etc, and the rest of the car is great....but it opens a whole lot of questions if a tank has problems going forward on flat ground.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but in my understanding, big cylinders on both T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are APS kill munitions, that work similarly to Quick Kill. The difference between T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are smoke launchers and APS radars.

 

On Kurganets, new smoke launchers can be seen, mounted on the turret itself (both IFV and APC). I'm talking about long rectangular boxes with two circles ("exit holes") on each, here: 1, 2.

 

On T-14 and T-15, there are 4 boxes with 3x4=12 small cylinders, that look similarly to the usual Rissian 81mm smoke grenades Tucha and Shtora. But not identicall. But even the boxes appear to be different a little bit. Out of four on each vehicle, two are static, and two can rotate. Can be seen on photos in this post:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605769

 

And I talked about radars in this post:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605765

Yeah, I already checked about the radars. Ok, it seems my initial expectation about APSs seems wrong. Thanks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the Olympics stuff though, that's a very complicated set of equipment that can only be exercised completely a few times.  A tank going down a road at parade speed is something that can be done many times over.  If this was under more interesting circumstances, it might be worth questioning if the thing might just be immature (or a set of variables not yet tested, hot day+high altitude+low grade fuel or something, basically outside what basic testing would do), but it broke down going forward on flat terrain.  Again, it's too early to tell, but if your first impression of a car is the door falling off when the salesperson opens it for you, it might just be that the door pins were stolen in the night by hobos etc, and the rest of the car is great....but it opens a whole lot of questions if a tank has problems going forward on flat ground.  

 

 

Based on some "insider reports" (whatever they may be worth) it wasn't a vehicle breakdown per se but an error on the part of the driver that led to the tank being locked up so that it couldn't be towed.  A UVZ factory driver showed up, reset the tank and drove it off under its own power just 15 min. after the initial incident.  If it was a breakdown, it was rectified from the driver's position.

 

The unit parading with the tanks could not have had much time to train on them since by all accounts vehicles arrived only recently from the factory.  Maybe someone didn't like the idea of civilian factory drivers in the tanks in the Victory Day parade?  Results are predictable.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Based on some "insider reports" (whatever they may be worth) it wasn't a vehicle breakdown per se but an error on the part of the driver that led to the tank being locked up so that it couldn't be towed.  A UVZ factory driver showed up, reset the tank and drove it off under its own power just 15 min. after the initial incident.  If it was a breakdown, it was rectified from the driver's position.

 

It took me about five minutes to learn how to drive the Abrams in the mechanical sense.  I could drive through a training area that didn't have things I could break, down roads etc.  I'm not sure if I'd trusted my skills driving down a single lane road with cars on both sides, but driving a tank is not hard, and you have to proactively find ways to turn off the engine to really kill the tank*.  

 

It might be there's ways to really bone the tank and cause it to mobility kill itself, but I'm hard pressed to think of "oh of course he hit the itnerociter and now the flux capacitor is out of alignment!" sort of moments.  Driving a tank in a straight line is easy, and from that here's some fairly reasonable scenarios: 

 

1. The Armata has some serious user interface issues that can cause the operator to  shut down  the tank during strictly basic maneuvering operations.

 

2.  The Armata has a fault that can cause engine shutdown during normal operations.

 

3.  Russian Army drivers are not trained well enough to drive more or less in a straight line without breaking the tank.

 

Either way a 15 minute reset is interesting in that if it is just a matter of a driver error, it means it takes significant time to accomplish a restart, which is no good at all.  

 

*About the only "Do not do ever" thing we had to discuss was turning on the engine without the hull power on, as that could end badly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the tank destroyer thing, in addition to the doctrinal usage Armata reportedly weights in around 56 tons which puts it well within MBT territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the tank destroyer thing, in addition to the doctrinal usage Armata reportedly weights in around 56 tons which puts it well within MBT territory.

That would make the Hull incredibly well protected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me about five minutes to learn how to drive the Abrams in the mechanical sense.  I could drive through a training area that didn't have things I could break, down roads etc.  I'm not sure if I'd trusted my skills driving down a single lane road with cars on both sides, but driving a tank is not hard, and you have to proactively find ways to turn off the engine to really kill the tank*.  

 

Apparently the engine never shut down. Also, tank drove away shortly after the UVZ tech arrived, not 15 minutes after.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Regarding the tank destroyer thing, in addition to the doctrinal usage Armata reportedly weights in around 56 tons which puts it well within MBT territory. 

 

Yeah but weight might not be seen as a true deliminator, looking at some of the bigger German examples of 1945, or just the fact that a lot of AFV titles may have lapsed into archaic enough as to need redefining.

 

 

 

Apparently the engine never shut down. Also, tank drove away shortly after the UVZ tech arrived, not 15 minutes after.

 

Which makes it even weirder.  You build AFVs to be operated by someone with something like 8th grade education.  If someone can disable it that handily through operator error on flat ground, then it raises some questions about the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but weight might not be seen as a true deliminator, looking at some of the bigger German examples of 1945, or just the fact that a lot of AFV titles may have lapsed into archaic enough as to need redefining.

 

 

Which makes it even weirder.  You build AFVs to be operated by someone with something like 8th grade education.  If someone can disable it that handily through operator error on flat ground, then it raises some questions about the system.

 

Well the towing video clearly shows the vehicle is still in gear or some sort of brake while they try towing it. Doesn't work :D As to why a mechanic was needed to get it back in free / disable brake / whatever? Pure speculation and easy to ridicule ;-) Sometimes ridiculing is very in place :D

Edited by Lethaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the turret is really so thin, wouldn´t it contradict the super-duper capsule to protect the crew?

 

Sure, it will always make sense to the crew, but if your vehicle can´t prevent a weapon kill from a HMG, it´s not a tank, won´t be used as a tank and so, it doesn't need so much crew protection 

 

It must be a place holder if what the pics show is really that thin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the turret is really so thin, wouldn´t it contradict the super-duper capsule to protect the crew?

 

Sure, it will always make sense to the crew, but if your vehicle can´t prevent a weapon kill from a HMG, it´s not a tank, won´t be used as a tank and so, it doesn't need so much crew protection 

 

It must be a place holder if what the pics show is really that thin

 

I said it once and i will say it again: it could be spaced armor. Panzersaurkrauftwerfer said he thinks it is probably not, but if it isnt a place holder and it isnt a thick armor plate, spaced armor AFAIK is the only thing left that it could be. What else should it be? Sapced armor is compareably thin. The future will tell whether or not it's a place holder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the turret is really so thin, wouldn´t it contradict the super-duper capsule to protect the crew?

 

Sure, it will always make sense to the crew, but if your vehicle can´t prevent a weapon kill from a HMG, it´s not a tank, won´t be used as a tank and so, it doesn't need so much crew protection 

 

It must be a place holder if what the pics show is really that thin

 

Crew seating is in the hull. Design was so that mission kill of turret will not result in the fiery death of comrade tankist, like has been the case for the last twenty years.

 

The actual turret superstructure can probably have another outer array thrown onto it. As of now the plates don't have mounting spigots for any ERA, it doesn't look like there is any composite material or ERA under the plates either. Modularity of ERA has always been a key design feature for Russian armourers, K1,K5, Relikt can all be thrown on the same platform.

My guess is that it will have mountings under the housings we see on it today for some kind of ERA arrays that can go over the top in place of the plating. Kind of like was planned for Obj640. See how the actual turret superstructure is only a small portion of the actual turret profile with the mantlet being relatively close to the top of the ERA arrays and outside of the superstructure, and that the ERA arrays was bolted onto the top of this unmanned superstructure itself. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/640_armor.html

As this was Kaktus, and development has been discontinued, I think we will see the same in due course but another type of heavy ERA. Possibly the same type as some of the probable ERA plates protecting the ammunition storage area on the side of the vehicle hull. :)

 

Also, longest thread on BF Forums?

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

Was hoping someone would post the video of the Armata eating ***removed*** on parade.

 

So much half-assed sperging and speculation from folks with basically 0 goddamned actual information of it....asides from videos of half-finished prototypes doing their best impression of a tractor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Even after my objections, neither of you have provided a single quote of what I've allegedly said. VERY productive conversation indeed. Whatever.

I already said I was paraphrasing your position, not that you literally said that word for word. I think it's a language thing because others understood that it was not a direct quote. I do understand that you might not have picked up on that, other than the fact you know you didn't say it and therefore I obviously wasn't quoting you.

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...