Nerdwing Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) People just want a tank that can kill the Abrams, because the T-90 cant deal with it on equal terms is what this boils down to IMO. So if the Armata went ingame, what would its weapon stats be? Armor thickness from various angles? Amount of ammo carried, and proper ratio of ammo? Reload time for the autoloader? How fast would it pivot in place, or reverse? Hell how fast would it go driving forward even? If it can turn the tables on the Abrams, people would be happy. Anything less, and there'd be discontent. Oddly, wouldnt the Armata suffer BIGTIME from the "crew-only LoS" rule? The unmanned turret would just be sitting there rather than providing LoS. Also known as "The terrible conspiracy to disadvantage Russia by those monsters at Battlefront" Edited April 26, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Some People just want a tank that can kill the Abrams, because the T-90 cant deal with it on equal terms is what this boils down to IMO. So if the Armata went ingame, what would its weapon stats be? Armor thickness from various angles? Amount of ammo carried, and proper ratio of ammo? Reload time for the autoloader? How fast would it pivot in place, or reverse? Hell how fast would it go driving forward even? If it can turn the tables on the Abrams, some people would be happy. Anything less, and there'd be discontent. Oddly, wouldnt the Armata suffer BIGTIME from the "crew-only LoS" rule? The unmanned turret would just be sitting there rather than providing LoS. Also known as "The terrible conspiracy to disadvantage Russia by those monsters at Battlefront" Fixed that for ya... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Yep, my mistake there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 So if the Armata went ingame, what would its weapon stats be? Armor thickness from various angles? Amount of ammo carried, and proper ratio of ammo? Reload time for the autoloader? How fast would it pivot in place, or reverse? Hell how fast would it go driving forward even? I think that's why I really don't like the idea of it. There's the Russian claims that it is the ultimate tank that will destroy all other tanks 100%+2 and then there's not really much else on the matter. The T-90s and BMP-3s in CMSF were no big deal because broadly we knew what they could do. I'm leery of either having the mega Armata as a semi-fictional ultratank/IFV/whatever, or having constant whining on the forum because it can be destroyed in the first place with graphs and references in Russian showing how it is invincible to everything including smaller nuclear devices to support how unstoppable it is. If there's more data, which doubtless will emerge if it gets closer to service it ought to be not as much fiction, but right now it's like all those 90's simulators that inserted the T-95 based on some drunken drawings, or to give a high tier threat rather than have an accurate representation of Russian military hardware. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 It goes without saying that if we don't have good data on what this thing is, in reality, then it can't go into the game EVEN IF they swing into full scale production within the next year or so. So that's two things that need to happen before we can even think of putting Armata into the game.Let's also remember that many people claimed the T-90 would be the death of the Abrams when it was in the process of coming into full production. Claims simply don't mean anything to us without some data behind them.Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) Oh, those "Russian claims" again. Everyone's so worried about fanboy speculations these days. Anyway.. They just weren't fully equipped, I suppose, and get assembled as they go. Two leftmost rows, middle. 4 Boomerangs, all of them with early Epoch module equipped. I am glad to see it being fitted with proper weapons module! Edited April 27, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 T-15 rear. Definitely a door. Hard to say if there's also a ramp: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) Moar photos Shiny lights are shiny. We can see crew layout a bit better here. We can also see the thickness of the drivers lid. Looks more than other T- series. RE New Main gun: Its 2A82 certainly has more muzzle velocity than its predecessors and its main point is it can take longer sabot projectiles. Edited April 27, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Oh, those "Russian claims" again. Everyone's so worried about fanboy speculations these days.As the one that is responsible for putting this stuff into the game, selling it, and having to stand behind it... from my position, so far there is little more than "fanboy speculations" As I've said over and over again, until there is something more solid in both of these areas, it is impossible for us to put any of this into the game:1. Reasonable numbers fielded by the 2017 timeframe2. Reasonable amount of information about specs and performanceNotice that I've set the threshold at "reasonable" and not "perfect". Currently we are at "pure speculation" on both points and that is very far below "reasonable".The point of reminding people why we have a "reasonable" standard is because fanboys don't As has been said many times before, this isn't just about the current batch of Russian stuff but numerous systems that various nations have said would be produced over the years and yet haven't. That includes many systems from the US as well as Russia. Ukraine even has had a few neat looking things that never came to be. Anyway.. They just weren't fully equipped, I suppose, and get assembled as they go. Two leftmost rows, middle. 4 Boomerangs, all of them with early Epoch module equipped.Nice pics! Thanks.Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Moar photosShiny lights are shiny. We can see crew layout a bit better here. We can also see the thickness of the drivers lid. Looks more than other T- series. RE New Main gun: Its 2A82 certainly has more muzzle velocity than its predecessors and its main point is it can take longer sabot projectiles.Nice straight on front shots. A major break from previous Russian/Soviet tank designs is that the hull is proportionally taller than its width. You can really see that in these pictures.Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Is one of the Armata (third from right) in the third photo showing a busted suspension (first wheel)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Would love to see the T-90A and T-14 Armata side by side, but my impression is that the T-14 is much bigger overall (even sans the ERA boxes), taller, both absolutely and in terms of hull bottom and deck distance from the ground, and, for the wanter of a better set of terms, beefier and chunkier. Compared to all recent Russian tanks from the T-64 on, it is more akin to an Abrams than to them. It has a considerable and intimidating presence and impressiveness, which are never bad things in a AFV and especially a tank. Indeed, this is true for the Kurganets-25, the Bumerang, the Koalitsija, all of which stand out in this way. They are beasts compared to their predecessors and would appear to mark quite a departure from the "low profile at all costs" design approach with which we're all so familiar. The Bumerang in particular is a sterling example of the shift. In theory, this overall major increase in internal volumeshould make for greater crew and passenger hablitability, especially important now that there's so much more gear on each soldier than during the Cold War. This should also improve fighting the AFVs, which also benefit from improved ergonomics and modern sensors, displays and vetronics. I've been inside an MT-LB briefly, and it was cavernous compared to the BMP, which was not open to visitors at a military base's museum I visited. Kurganets would be, in relative terms, a full-size sedan to the BMP's subcompact. I look forward to learning more about these AFVs in the days ahead. Regards, John Kettler P.S. The Russians need MUCH taller fences to hide their vehicle park's occupants! Edited April 28, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Here's a question to ponder. It obviously makes a ton of sense to have a common hull, running gear, engine, etc. common between major AFV needs. On paper only a fool would argue against the theory, at least.Despite this being an excellent idea on paper, it has been the sort of thing that's been very difficult to put into practice. Only a few nations have tried this sort of thing in the past, with Israel being the only nation to do it an a serious way. However, their designs are not modular but instead conversions of older and/or captured tanks.The US spent a ton of money on the FSC program which is based around the modular concept. That program, however, was abandoned. IIRC in part because they had difficult with the common hull sharing when they got down to the details. The Stryker program was criticized for violating some of the original guidelines of sharing its design with the LAV-3 then violated it again when it ran into serious problems with MGS not working without more unique production requirements than was originally promised.The Russian concept of modularization seems to me to have that age-old engineering conundrum. And that is, no single design can do everything without compromising somewhere. For most nations the design tradeoffs between common platform and functionality has apparently precluded them from having a unified design. Or, like the Stryker program, something that on paper is a shared platform but in reality isn't in some cases.If we accept that no engineering and/or production concept is without drawbacks, then what are the drawbacks to the new Russian family of vehicles? There must be some. Since production, maintenance, and logistics are likely to be quite good, what is it that isn't so good?Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 All designs are inherently compromises. Those compromises are usually best aligned against the task at hand for the platform you're designing. A tank is heavy because it needs armor to do its job. A scout vehicle is lightly armored to keep its weight and size down so it can move quickly around the battlefield, etc. When you share a common fleet of vehicles you start making design comprises that overlap often to the detriment of the overall platform. You have a hull that's trying to make the room you need for an SPG while it's also trying to keep a low profile for the tank model. Your engine placement is optimal for SPGs and tanks, but it means the APC/IFV version either is modified enough to not really be part of the same vehicle family, or your troops are flopping out the top of the vehicle and over the sides. Etc, etc, etc. Stryker doesn't violate this too badly because at the end of the day, looking at all the different models the only really "weird" ones that are not conventional modified APC roles is the MGS (which is a bit of a dud because it's a cannon mounted on a wheeled APC, go figure). The FCS failed dramatically because it was trying to leverage technology to bypass a lot of the stuff that traditionally made shared hulls and such problematic (namely in terms of "electronic" active armor and such allowing for a tank-like platform that could have IFV level passive arrays), with said technology either being immature, or simply unable to deliver on the sort of protection required. Ultimately when it comes down to making the better mousetrap, on paper it sounds great if it can also be a badger trap, blender, and home entertainment system, but each step you make to turn the mousetrap into a better badger trap makes it less optimal as a mousetrap, while in turn the blender parts don't do much to help it be a home entertainment system. Which isn't to say there is not a total lack of merit. A "heavy" APC will share a lot with a tank in terms of everything but main gun and carrying troops, if you're willing to accept a massive turret you can use tank hulls to make an okay SPG. At the same time if you built a HAPC or a SPG from the trackpads up, they'd likely be superior performers to the "swiss army hull" design. It might be worth pondering that the "everything new, and from Armata" design has less to do with Russian strength and more to do with Russian economic weakness. They're not going to get an HAPC unless it has some huge parts commonality with other tanks. There's no money for a distinct SPG, or improved hull for one, but there is if we design it to fit the new tank Russia desperately needs given the state of its fleet. Basically it's a huge gamble that the core system pays off, or maybe even leveraging the real possibility that one platform may fail dramatically (unmanned tank turret will attempt to kill any red headed persons within FOV without crew input), but still leave some salvageable spin offs (but the IFV turret only aims at redheads, it doesn't shoot so that's okay). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 According to the BBC article the Armata is not going to be in service until 2020. That assumes it does not go the way of previous projects such as Black Eagle and gets cancelled. It sounds like a techically complex project which means expensive technical problems. It may very well be later than 2020 before the Armata is in service, assuming it ever is. Certainly far too late to see service in the 2017 Ukraine War! :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32478937 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) According to the BBC article the Armata is not going to be in service until 2020. That assumes it does not go the way of previous projects such as Black Eagle and gets cancelled. It sounds like a techically complex project which means expensive technical problems. It may very well be later than 2020 before the Armata is in service, assuming it ever is. Certainly far too late to see service in the 2017 Ukraine War! :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32478937 The same BBC article that reposts Russian media that says that Armata will have a crew of 2. That's definitely a whole new level of speculations. Or simple incompetence, I'm really not sure. The official word from manufacturer was that there would be a crew of 3. I saw the original Russian media reports. They are worthless piece of dirt. Re: commonality. I don't see any problems with their approach to commonality. There are several different chassis for each class that allow multiple types of vehicle to be built upon them. Around 7-10 different vehicles per chassis. The amount of parts commonality between different chassis is another matter. Electronics and weapon systems are very easy to integrate. Especially when they use the same weapons module for different vehicles. Same goes with C2, nav equipment and optics. As far as engines go, they all have different engines. Running gear and all that stuff? No idea. If smaller parts are common between them, and larger ones that require you to compromise are different, no problem there also. So what exactly are you talking about? Edited April 28, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Oh, and the original quote from Bochkarev's interview says that there will be ~100 Armata-chassis vehicles in 2016. That's the official word. http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=374006 Edited April 28, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Yeah BBC is okay for some stories. OSINT's gonna OSINT at the end of the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Took time to listen to the actual interview for more clarity. Bochkarev (officially) states the following: Technological studies and prototyping of unmanned turret MBT started in 80-90s with Obj 195, which had 2 actual prototypes built; these studies were used for Armata creation Actual Armata development took 3 years Crew of 3 Armata has an option of backing up (20-50 meters) to safety on it's own if the crew is unresponsive (when being hit) Armata can be remotely controlled from another vehicle Armata's AI can't fire on it's own (when crew is unresponsive) Main priority is crew safety Vehicles that are already built will be sent to Armed Forces (to different regions) for field trials later this year Pre-mass production (trials) numbers of Armata will be around 100 vehicles by 2016; did not specify if that's MBTs only or together with IFVs All new gen vehicles will be "in service" by 2016, so that Armed Forces can test them extensively before mass production Actual mass-production 2019-2020+ They do agree that "teething problems" are inevitable (hence few years for trials/improvements), but Armata is far from being "raw" at this point It can already fire (for those who have doubts) Boomerang and Kurganets-25 IFV will have same turret (with 30mm + ATGMs, as planned, and already shown on photos) Boomerang and Kurganets-25 have same engine (said to be very important for parts commonality and and repairs/maintenance) Same field trials-feedback-improvements cycle for Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles in 2016+ Vehicles that have already been built are a part of a larger (ongoing) contract, which should give Armed Forces more vehicles up to 2016 for trials Weapon module upgrade for IFVs in 2020 as planned (larger caliber, I guess 57mm) When they had to swap HMG RWS and 30mm weapon module in the field for one of the new vehicles, it took just 3 hours No export planned yet; possible export of downgraded export models, but not soon, main focus is internal market = Russian Armed Forces Everything is home made, no parts shortage due to import problems 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 So what exactly are you talking about? If you'll note I was talking about some more general families of vehicles. As the case is Armata falls more into "sharing a lot of the same parts" but well into the "we're basically building a whole series of mostly different vehicles all at the same time." Technological studies and prototyping of unmanned turret MBT started in 80-90s with Obj 195, which had 2 actual prototypes built; these studies were used for Armata creation Actual Armata development took 3 years Crew of 3 Armata has an option of backing up (20-50 meters) to safety on it's own if the crew is unresponsive (when being hit) Armata can be remotely controlled from another vehicle Armata's AI can't fire on it's own (when crew is unresponsive) Main priority is crew safety Vehicles that are already built will be sent to Armed Forces (to different regions) for field trials later this year Pre-mass production (trials) numbers of Armata will be around 100 vehicles by 2016; did not specify if that's MBTs only or together with IFVs All new gen vehicles will be "in service" by 2016, so that Armed Forces can test them extensively before mass production Actual mass-production 2019-2020+ They do agree that "teething problems" are inevitable (hence few years for trials/improvements), but Armata is far from being "raw" at this point It can already fire (for those who have doubts) Boomerang and Kurganets-25 IFV will have same turret (with 30mm + ATGMs, as planned, and already shown on photos) Boomerang and Kurganets-25 have same engine (said to be very important for parts commonality and and repairs/maintenance) Same field trials-feedback-improvements cycle for Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles in 2016+ Vehicles that have already been built are a part of a larger (ongoing) contract, which should give Armed Forces more vehicles up to 2016 for trials Weapon module upgrade for IFVs in 2020 as planned (larger caliber, I guess 57mm) When they had to swap HMG RWS and 30mm weapon module in the field for one of the new vehicles, it took just 3 hours No export planned yet; possible export of downgraded export models, but not soon, main focus is internal market = Russian Armed Forces Everything is home made, no parts shortage due to import problems It's a tank designed by Derek Smart! WATCH OUT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Backing up if crew is unresponsive.. Which means that the crew's biometrics will be monitored in real time.. Remote control.. Sounds like future warrior stuff Edited April 28, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 If you'll note I was talking about some more general families of vehicles. As the case is Armata falls more into "sharing a lot of the same parts" but well into the "we're basically building a whole series of mostly different vehicles all at the same time." After reading LnL's translation of Bochkarev's points that's the message I'm getting. Which isn't a bad thing at all if it is well thought out AND goes largely according to plan.For example, running gear has to be built to specs for the heaviest expected load. Even if the suspension designs are identical between a heavier and a lighter vehicle, the production is not. The lighter vehicle gets lighter (less expensive, weight, etc) components vs. the heavier vehicle. This means the engineering of the suspension design can be shared between the two vehicles, but the parts can not.If one has a common suspension system then the lighter vehicle must have the same suspension as the heavier vehicle. That means the engine has to be rated for higher torque and HP than it otherwise would need to be. Now if the engine is also shared between the lighter and heavier vehicles, that's not a problem. Maintenance will probably be higher for the lighter vehicle than it could otherwise be with lighter components, but perhaps not appreciably so.Cost is the main reason why nations have shied away from this strategy. Not just in terms of production cost, but also in terms of weight in the logistics chain. Perhaps the Russians have chosen to use a different formula for their cost/benefit analysis and have discovered that their traditional weakness in logistics is more expensive to fix than the cost of having more expensive, common non-tank parts. In theory there certainly are a lot of improvements that can be made to a logistics system by adopting common parts. In fact, this was a HUGE problem for the Germans in WW2 because even their domestic production used vehicle specific parts for a massive array of vehicles, whereas US and Soviet for the most part had fewer models with more parts commonality. Which made it easier to collapse the German's logistics capabilities than it otherwise could have been.In the end I think panzersaurkrautwerfer summed it up well. This is a huge gamble for Russia. None of us have enough information to know whether it will pay off or not.It's a tank designed by Derek Smart! WATCH OUT!You just dated yourself, sir And therefore, you will get my suggestion for the very first CM scenario with an Armata in it:"Armata vs. the Coke Machine" Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Took time to listen to the actual interview for more clarity. Bochkarev (officially) states the following:Technological studies and prototyping of unmanned turret MBT started in 80-90s with Obj 195, which had 2 actual prototypes built; these studies were used for Armata creationActual Armata development took 3 yearsCrew of 3Armata has an option of backing up (20-50 meters) to safety on it's own if the crew is unresponsive (when being hit)Armata can be remotely controlled from another vehicleArmata's AI can't fire on it's own (when crew is unresponsive)Main priority is crew safetyVehicles that are already built will be sent to Armed Forces (to different regions) for field trials later this yearPre-mass production (trials) numbers of Armata will be around 100 vehicles by 2016; did not specify if that's MBTs only or together with IFVsAll new gen vehicles will be "in service" by 2016, so that Armed Forces can test them extensively before mass productionActual mass-production 2019-2020+They do agree that "teething problems" are inevitable (hence few years for trials/improvements), but Armata is far from being "raw" at this pointIt can already fire (for those who have doubts)Boomerang and Kurganets-25 IFV will have same turret (with 30mm + ATGMs, as planned, and already shown on photos)Boomerang and Kurganets-25 have same engine (said to be very important for parts commonality and and repairs/maintenance)Same field trials-feedback-improvements cycle for Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles in 2016+Vehicles that have already been built are a part of a larger (ongoing) contract, which should give Armed Forces more vehicles up to 2016 for trialsWeapon module upgrade for IFVs in 2020 as planned (larger caliber, I guess 57mm)When they had to swap HMG RWS and 30mm weapon module in the field for one of the new vehicles, it took just 3 hoursNo export planned yet; possible export of downgraded export models, but not soon, main focus is internal market = Russian Armed ForcesEverything is home made, no parts shortage due to import problemsThanks for taking the time to list the details!Well, we do know one thing for sure... not everything on this list is going to happen either as planned or even at all. That's just the way these things go. Always. I don't care what nation, what timeframe, what type of government program... it never goes according to plan. The thing is we have no idea which components of the program are going to outright fail (and be pulled), which will perform so-so, which perform above expectations, and which falls into the category of doing what it was designed to do and nothing more/less.Of course I am thinking of a huge formation of Russian tanks are maneuvering on a training field with live ammo and they start shooting at each other because some 14 year old kid in his parent's basement has hacked the tanks and thinks it's more fun than World of Tanks Might have something to do with having watched this last night:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_ComputerSeriously though, it looks like Russia is on track to implement a realistic transition to the new vehicles. Roughly 3 years of field testing and reengineering, then mass production. Considering this is a huge gamble for them, it is absolutely smart to put in the testing time as described.Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Yeah BBC is okay for some stories.Yup! Mass media is NEVER a good source of information for technically complicated stories of any sort, especially not military. These are, after all, the same people that think everything that has tracks is a "tank".Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Yup! Mass media is NEVER a good source of information for technically complicated stories of any sort, especially not military. These are, after all, the same people that think everything that has tracks is a "tank". Steve Yeah this is so true sadly, ill never forget the Business Insider article I read describing how the failure of the F-35 insures Russian aerial superiority with there new high tech stealth fighter the T-50 Pak FA. I had a good laugh about that one. Edited April 28, 2015 by Raptorx7 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.