Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

 

Seriously though, Steve, he obviously needs to have the last word on this (in his sarcastic way). For the sake of winding down this "debate", please let him have it.

Probably best if everyone lets it go. We are obviously at the point of irreconcilable differences. Let the lawyers work out who gets custody of the outhouse and the horseshoe pit and move on. Comments that are partisan will only keep it going.

The vehicle breakdowns in the parade prep make their own argument about systems status and potential teething issues. None of us can guess at long term decisions and results, none of us have any hard data or crystal ball and the vehicles absolutely will not make it into CM until they are in a production/information state to allow for that. In the meantime, it is all airbrushed tank porn and fun to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the turret still need to be NBC-proof? If not, all kinds of modular armor configurations are possible while not needing to stay airtight. Perhaps what we are seeing is just a placeholder that covers up the framework that armor modules get bolted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably best if everyone lets it go. We are obviously at the point of irreconcilable differences. Let the lawyers work out who gets custody of the outhouse and the horseshoe pit and move on. Comments that are partisan will only keep it going.

The vehicle breakdowns in the parade prep make their own argument about systems status and potential teething issues. None of us can guess at long term decisions and results, none of us have any hard data or crystal ball and the vehicles absolutely will not make it into CM until they are in a production/information state to allow for that. In the meantime, it is all airbrushed tank porn and fun to look at.

 

Ok, as a (Non US) lawyer I´ll try :P :

 

In the case of Armata Vs. Skeptics the Court finds as follow:

 

- That given the complete lack of evidence to support anything resembling technical specs, the only thing we deem proven is that Armata exist...sort off

 

- In light of the preceding ruling, on the question of who will have custody until majority of age, the Court awards it to LockandLoad because he cares about it the most

 

- The previous decision notwhistanding Steve is allow visitation rights to check on it from time to time and keep it honest on the question of future module inclusion

 

- And finally, Panzer, while not very fond of it, is appointed tutor, to teach T-14 how to be a proper tank and not some hybrid nonsense that every other tank in the yard will mock and bully

 

- No damages are awarded to any party since the only things affected are egos and prides and the Court finds that those have no monetary value on the Internet

 

And if everybody is unhappy with the ruling, we´ll know I did a good job  :D , as any lawyer knows usually the worst settlement is better than the best ruling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court thread! Every forum needs those!

 

Even tho Pablius brought up a a different case than the one I was angry about, I award him with  another nipple sneak peek.

 

pDdkisIdeP8.jpg

In other news, VP of the concern that manufactures Kurganets claims (in his interview with TASS) that their vehicle uses ceramic plates for passive armoring and is protected from top attacks.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See previous statements that the ERA could cause damage to the vehicle itself if not properly reinforced. As I understand it the primary problem isn't that it allows for a penetration, but rather encourages significant damage to the vehicle which is not easily fixed. ERA = Explosive Reactive ArmorNot sure how you can have ERA without the E part :DSteve

Well, in the case of the BMP-1 and Kontakt-1, the mounting surface could not be sacrificial as it was directly protecting crew. Detonation of ERA could injure the crew in that case. There is no technical problem with mounting ERA without heavy armor immediately behind, as can be seen on many side hull ERA installations. However, the chance of this shell on Armata being a base for ERA is very slim, because:

-it appears too lightweight to support heavy ERA, held together with cotter pins and clearly meant to be pulled off with ease to access equipment

-it partially covers external sensors, so mounting ERA over it would either obscure sensors or leave big gaps

-the angles serve no purpose for armor protection effectiveness of efficiency

I'm fairly certain the actual armor array is probably slab-sided and concealed beneath the shell, protecting only the gun and upper autoloader.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several IS BMP-1 have been lost in Syria because they just throw the ERA on there without a thought that the detonation would blow the vehicle up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all I can say is Lockandload has provided some great photo's. I am impressed with the amount of views and what we have seen from these posting.

I am also impressed with what Russia is trying to do here as to their next generation of armor.

I could care less with all the comments and speculations of how it will play out in the future and what will happen, The one thing I have learned is men are terrible at predicting future events and normally History proves that unexpected things happen plenty, not because it was not possible, but because nations or people were unwilling to predict it as a real possibility because they just did not want to see it that way. (In other words, the Human race loves to fool themselves into their own wanted beliefs.)

I can also tell, Steve is not showing any interest in adding these machines into the present game because it does not make logical sense. OK, what we need to be requesting is a new game with a new conflict breaking out around 2020 with these machines. Steve needs to stop being so logical and remember we all just want a game with new toys to play with. I will even be nice, no need to start that game until we manage to get some hard data on what these new machines can really do and what they are really made of.

This seemed an insightful post about the situation.  But Id be as surprised to see a new 2020  Ukraine war family as a module that includes Armata.  It doesn't seem like Steve is inclined to add it any time soon but to me it seems possible he may change his mind once more information about it is available.  I mean we've got the crazy rare super tank destroyer in CMFI,  it doesn't seem too far fetched  for preproduction Armata test vehicles to show up to fight the west.  maybe not 2017 but maybe by sometime 2018.  There could be a ceasefire, then combat reengages  after both sides positioned additional forces, then the situation gets desperate for Russia so they have to bring in the recently test proven but combat unproven Armata test fleet.  Kind of like the UKR campaign in CMBS but for Russia.  Maybe most of them get destroyed by western airpower and some mechanical breakdowns but Elephant type numbers manage to show up on the battlefield.

Anyway I think the Armata stuff all looks really cool and futuristic and I see why they wanted to wait for it instead of building more t90s and bmp 3's and such.  Would love to get a chance to play with it and against it some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armata in the game isn't entirely a dead duck. CMBS is like the other CM titles, eventually there's going to be a 'vehicle pack' or whatever they're called. If by then they have all the proper drawings and specs of the new Russian armor its going to take a will of iron for them not to add them to the game. But we're talking some ways into the future. They've been known to bend the rules a bit when doing later packs on their non-historical titles.

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my shout.

  • VDV/Marines.
  • Prospective Euroforce/Rebels when things have hopefully died down.
  • Crazy vehicle pack with final finishing patches for that game - EFV, T14, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheetmetal body around the turret reminded me of an anecdote I once heard. US tests on the Italian Centauro 8x8 armored car back in the early 2000s, while they were still working on Stryker, they found firing the 105 gun over the bow tended to smash the vehicle's headlamps. Ooops! That test was one reason why Stryker MGS gun never got a muzzle brake.

Looking at the sheetmetal shell on the Armata turret I get the impression the Russians probably found they needed to give minimal blast protection to their sensor array from their own exploding APS projectiles. The active defense involves popping a charge a few feet above the tank then BLAM! Quite a violent event. alternately - or in addition - the sensors get some small protection against airburst artillery too. If those high tech sensors are 1/3rd the total price of the tank you'd want to give the sensors a little cover.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there appears to be some sort of emerging consensus about Afghanit and how it works at the munition level, what's your take on my notion of how the radar modules are positioned for coverage, are screened by removable armored covers on their exposed sides and how these radar modules work and talk to the projectile in terms of guidance commands?

 

I concur that the faceting, lack of rectilinear openings and such on the turret front and portion just aft  of the turret centerline, when viewed from the side, support the notion of the use of Stealth tech. At first glance. I've seen the real deal F-117 Stealth Fighter  from 15 feet and have worked on such a program myself. I can assure one and all that those sorts of gaps, exposed fasteners and all manner of surface discontinuities would be wholly unacceptable. Aeronatical issues aside, too. Indeed, special RAM tape is used to cover gaps which might otherwise be detectable. That's been written about and, I believe, shown in open sources. I don't know for sure, but if this is a Stealth overlay, it's likely designed to operate vs conventional BSR, not MMW. Why? Because the MMW has enough resolution (I've seen what a 94 GHz MMW seeker sees when it looks at a tank from various aspects via WASP program) to see glint points and will get a return/s from the primary turret structure behind the much gapped overlay. It's possible the Russians plan to tape over the joints and the fastener assemblies, I suppose, but as currently configured, I believe it's far more show than go.

 

(goes to CMRT Forum and realizes he missed a point)

 

Forgot to mention that I see we're now back to a red star, as opposed to this one, which isn't all red. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how many bros the boomerang with the 30mm turret can contain? Infantry bros that is, not crew bros. If it can carry a full Russian squad I will state for the record it is my favorite non Typhoon new Russian vehicle. Typhoon-K, the MRAP thing with four wheels at the front is the best thing man has ever created. We should intro an exact copy into US service for no other reason that its appearance. Are there any plans known about Typhoon-K production and if it will be widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Bumerang with a turreted 30 mm and able to carry a full squad would be a good thing, but I have no answer to offer. The Typhoon-K looks like a cut down MAZ missile transporter, say, MAZ 543, for example. Would someone who knows the technology please comment on assertions that the Kriz can fly two missiles on a single LBR channel (or maybe MMWBR as well)? I have grave doubts about this. More importantly, I would like to know from BFC whether Kriz, despite there being nothing I've found on this in the manual, can engage two different targets  simultaneously while using two different means of target acquisition as well? The manufacturer says "Yes," but that doesn't mean the CMBS Kriz can do it. I view these issues as an offshoot of sorts from the discussions of the capabilities and design philosophies behind the various observed Kornet launcher configurations we're now seeing emerge.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how many bros the boomerang with the 30mm turret can contain? Infantry bros that is, not crew bros. If it can carry a full Russian squad I will state for the record it is my favorite non Typhoon new Russian vehicle. Typhoon-K, the MRAP thing with four wheels at the front is the best thing man has ever created. We should intro an exact copy into US service for no other reason that its appearance. Are there any plans known about Typhoon-K production and if it will be widespread.

 

160AP/340HEI, 2000 7.62mm. Typhoon-K? Mass production have already started, with 30 vehicles already in service. BTW, there's 3x3 version with RWS as well:

 

http://twower.livejournal.com/1550227.html

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/792555.html

 

vhsr298.jpeg

0_aa7ab_6abed72f_XL.jpg

 

ps: oh, I'm still sleeping. Passenger amount? No idea. Turret's presence inside should be minimal. I'd speculate either 6+3 or 8+3.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Very good analysis of new toys.

http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html#.VU3_LCF0yUk

Still of course a first guess... but by people who know what they are talking about.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Apologise if previously posted by others... probably has been.. haven’t looked.. ;).

 

Kinda, yeah. Got some things wrong too. BMP-2 and MT-LB reference is wrong. Also seriously doubt regarding gunner's hatch beneath the turret. Interesting thought about APS.

 

I get that impression about 4 front turning (steering) wheels again. On this particular photo. Looks kinda badass too. Rigid. Spartan. Not British kind of Spartan :lol: , but ancient Greece kind of Spartan.

 

PARAD_MOSKVA_150509_110.JPG

Oh, and since this bad boy didn't get much airtime today, he can have his own little parade.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still belive there's a package of additional armor for the sides?

If you mean Boomerang, then I'd say that it looks the least finished so far (and they've made only 4 of them so far, no smoke launchers and LWS sensors installed yet, getting behind other vehicles), and something is suppose to attach to the sides, as shown on these photos (look at attachment rings). Best guess? Something to cover the chassis. Anything more serious? Doubt it.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

 

I'd just like to see that same driver again, out in public. "Comrade Driver! You have embarrassed us.  We will send you to advanced driver school. Da. In gulag."

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...