Armata soon to be in service.

[Stagler]

 

 

I'm imagining it taking a sabot like any other turret and being a firepower/mission kill.  It'll still be visible enough on thermal, and the FCS on most modern tanks can strike a target of that size just as well as an Abrams sized turret.  Crew might be okay maybe.  

 

As I said though man theres more redundant enert space for the sabot to pass through if hit frontally. Sensor is only one portion. Weapon is only one portion. There is a whole two areas around this that are just for ERA mounting. It would have to be well aimed at the weapon system or sensor to achieve an M kill. You couldn't get away with bopping anywhere on the turret and letting the spalling and internal shock turn the crew to porridge and beans as you can with basically any other tank.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Stagler

[Thewood1]

So, I am curious and no one seemed to answer my first question.  Where was the Armata in that video.  Did I just not recognize it?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

As I said though man theres more redundant enert space for the sabot to pass through if hit frontally. Sensor is only one portion. Weapon is only one portion. There is a whole two areas around this that are just for ERA mounting. It would have to be well aimed at the weapon system or sensor to achieve an M kill. You couldn't get away with bopping anywhere on the turret and letting the spalling and internal shock turn the crew to porridge and beans as you can with basically any other tank.

 

I think someone doesn't appreciate what a good penetration looks like, or understands what receiving end damage dynamics look like.  

[John Kettler]

Thewood1,

 

I see an Armata family Kurganets at 4:09 (seven roadwheels), but there is no T-14 (if that's an actual designator) Armata MBT anywhere in that vid. I say this having just watched it with head splitting concentration. The only MBTs I saw were T-90s. Believe me, I counted the roadwheels!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited April 4, 2015 by John Kettler

[akd]

There is nothing from the Armata family in that video, but then it ends rather abruptly...

 

Kurganets is a different platform.

Edited April 4, 2015 by akd

[John Kettler]

akd,

 

Appreciate the correction. I think I must've misunderstood something in this long, deep, to me technically complex thread. I thought Kurganets was part of the Armata family of AFVs, which I why I said what I did. As for the vexed Armata MBT, maybe the plan this year is to save the Armata MBT as the last stunning roll past, and that's why the video ends abruptly. Could it be the Russians finally employed basic security measures to avoid spoiling the surprise by chasing off the tank spotters, if you will?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Bit of a deceptive question.  The odds of a turret penetration on a Russian tank killing one crewman, but leaving the other crewman, the autoloader, and ammunition contained within the magazine unscathed is pretty low given the small internal space of the turret.  On the the other hand, the larger US type turrets makes loss of multiple crewmen in anything but a vehicle kill level hit much less likely.  If you've lost the gunner and commander the tank is likely damaged enough on that side to call it quits, you lose the loader there's enough space and stuff to make the odds of the same strike killing the commander or gunner doubtful.  You need some final destination level hits, or a catastrophic strike to lose two crewmen in a go.

 

In terms of an injured loader:

 

Short term:

 

Gunner or commander takes over loading.  The Commander's station can replicate all of the gunner's controls, and the CITV can fill in for nearly everything done by the gunner's primary sights (there's only the one LRF for the whole mess, and some other odds and ends).  

 

Long term:

 

Historically it's been stealing tankers from HQs, or even just borrowing non-tanker HQ personnel who are underemployed at the moment.  "loading" is pretty easy, it's just all the extra crap that goes with the care and welfare of the tank that takes a while to learn.

Internal space in both cases is separated by the gun, isn't it? There's T-90AM picture for comparison.

I'm imagining it taking a sabot like any other turret and being a firepower/mission kill.  It'll still be visible enough on thermal, and the FCS on most modern tanks can strike a target of that size just as well as an Abrams sized turret.  Crew might be okay maybe.

Well, so that's the point, isn't it? Maximum crew protection. Isn't that good?

[Battlefront.com]

The contours under the tarp varied some between the Kurganets "APCs" (I will call them that for now), but the overal size and shape seem fairly similar to Bumerang turret (tarp stretching out over all of top hull of Bumerang is distorting shape to a degree).

 

Could be something similar to this without the gun mounted:

That is the same thing I thought when I saw it. Weapon removed. Shape is otherwise a fairly conventional remote type shape.

No.  Even a turret the third the weight of the Abrams is still in the same weight class of moving around a spare BMP on a tractor-trailer.  In terms of forward repairs, it is not practical at all to have a space turret, at best you'll see a few at whatever theater level depot you have (so think the airhead/port facilities in Kuwait for operations in Iraq), but it is not the sort of spare that would follow a tank unit into battle.

This is (sorta) akin to the way the RWS can be .50cal or Mk-19. Even though these weapons are far easier to swap out than entire turrets, my understanding is they largely stick with a particular ratio and probably only swap out when the ratio changes due to breakdowns/losses vs. swapping in the midst of an ongoing operation. The thought of a depot sitting in the rear of a battalion stocked with turrets to swap out is not something that would work in reality. I don't think the Russian military is under any illusions about this, so I'm guessing there's no plans to have turrets "hot swapped" in any sort of tactical sense.

 

The absolute nadir of US vehicle design.

...

It's just sort of silly.

So what you are saying is you don't like FCS? Yeah, this is what happens when you let the hardware folks wine and dine too many Generals and Congressmen at exclusive golf clubs. That program wouldn't pass the straight face test of anybody who knows much about warfare, including us civilians in the peanut gallery.

Compare this to Land Warrior (now Nett Warrior) and Future Warrior. These concepts are rock solid and the technologies are alllllllllmost there. From a conceptual standpoint they are worth pursuing. Cost, on the other hand, is a different discussion.

Grozny gets weird with losses.  The picture painted by most accounts makes 30-49 look low.

I agree. 30-49 tanks seems rather low given the intensity and incompetency. One figure I found (a US Army study) put it around 300 total AFVs, but no breakdown of tanks.

 

I really wish I had kept the writeup we had to read.  It's hosted on some Benning run forum thing we had to use for CLC that I no longer have access to (or if I do, there's a password and login that I've long forgotten and I'm not even sure where/how to find the address to it).

Was it by chance "Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War" from Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony H. Cordesman prime author?

 

Good point about being mission capable. I've made my points regarding optics redundancy on T-90AM few posts ago. Gun mechanics redundancy is a different matter. It depends on armoring vs damage. This is why I made my comment regarding MBT vs TD difference. We need to see how exactly are they going to go with it.

It's kinda the same argument against AFVs with ATGMs as the primary weapon. "Why do I need a tank if I have a BMP-3 loaded with Kornets or a Stryker loaded with TOW-2?". For sure these "TD" type vehicles can cause a LOT of hurt on a massed tank formation. But once a single tank figures out where one of these "TD" vehicles is, that's the end of it.

 

And I haven't seen anyone around here complaining about Russian made autoloaders Anyone around who extensively operated those?

My impression, and I could be wrong, is that the current autoloaders are pretty good AS LONG AS THEY ARE WELL MAINTAINED. The older autoloaders were said to have regular problems with jamming and were slower to reload than their Western counterpart with a well trained crew.

 

As for the crew, it goes both ways. What's gonna happen if your loader gets injured? What if 2 people will get injured? An MBT with autoloader can be operated with minimal crew of two, losing situational awareness of commander's role, but still fire at high ROF. Can Abrams with crew of 2 compete with that?

The point that pretty much any hit on a current Soviet/Russian turret is likely to effectively render the turret useless, either through damage or casualties, is a pretty good one. However, that isn't the case with the Abrams at least. It's a big turret with a lot of protection, fire control systems, and more crew.

The "fisheye" picture of the Abrams turret gives a bad impression of the maneuver room in there. I've not been in anything other than a 1:1 scale Abrams simulator which (dang it!) lacked a real gun, so I'll let panzersaurkrautwerfer chime in with details.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

The point that pretty much any hit on a current Soviet/Russian turret is likely to effectively render the turret useless, either through damage or casualties, is a pretty good one. However, that isn't the case with the Abrams at least. It's a big turret with a lot of protection, fire control systems, and more crew.

 

Not exactly true. Even T-72, apart from doing its flying turret thing, also has a good track record of being capable of being used by one person in combat, and being repaired under fire to continue fighting.

 

But I don't see any reasons to compare T-72/T-90A with Abrams much at all, cuz, like I've said before, they are far from being "good" in my book. T-90AM autoloader allows manual loading. There are also Ukrainians with their T-80+ family tanks (with BM Oplot at the top), French Leclerc, Japanese Type-90 and Type-10, and Korean K-2. These vehicles say: you can in fact make a good tank with autoloader. With crew of 3. It's already working. And if one can make it even more crew-safe by doing an unmanned turret, then why not?

 

Added: Why did Koreans went from K1, which is based on M1 Abrams, to K2, which is like a hybrid of Western and Russian stuff, and went for autoloader and F&F top-down attack AT munition? And, AFAIK, K2 turned out to be rated by a lot of people as "best in the world".

Edited April 4, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

About the engine on Armata - it appears to be the regular 1500 hp, with reserves for increasing the power output up to 2200 hp or so. Given the expected mass of the Tnk and IFV versions (50-55t) this should provide better specific power than other modern tanks. The engine itself:

Edited April 4, 2015 by ikalugin

[Stagler]

I think someone doesn't appreciate what a good penetration looks like, or understands what receiving end damage dynamics look like.  

 

Not really.

 

http://d2oah9q9xdinv5.cloudfront.net/images/groups/1/3/2074/04903dd6617f.png

 

You aren't getting what I am saying. Read my old post thoroughly.

If there is nothing to hit but empty metal with nothing on the other side or ERA mountings then nothing will happen. The round will probably just carry on out the other side out the back of turret. The turret wont have much inside, unlike normal tanks. When we get a proper picture I will scrawl on it and demonstrate.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Stagler

[Thewood1]

I find it odd that there arguments going on for a tank that no one has any real confirmed sighting on.  Its sources quoting sources quoting sources.  Throw in a couple very fuzzy pictures.

 

btw, back to my Armata in the parade question.  That parade looked over.  There was nothing else coming down the road.  If the Armata was in that practice, I would think it would have been with the other tanks.

[Sublime]

Didnt the old Soviet autoloaders have a disconcerting habit of tearing off limbs of crew members? Or is that a myth?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: GCV Testing

 

I missed that.  Short story is we're at a weird spot in which our IFV has to be a serviceable recon vehicle too which makes the heavy APC model pretty much a nonstarter.  We're also loath to switch to a dual fleet for armored formation PCs so it really needs to be a "pretty good at everything" type vehicle vs an amazing urban combat platform but not good at dealing with open terrain.

 

To that end I might believe an unmanned turret for Bradleys as a compromise to get their weight down to fit more upgrades but I believe it's more likely we'll see the weight reductions if done in lightening other components, and eventually some sort of futureBrad that looks nothing like the GCV prototypes that were originally pushed (70 ton IFVs went down like the proverbial lead zeppelins) 

 

 

 

Internal space in both cases is separated by the gun, isn't it? There's T-90AM picture for comparison.

 

On the Abrams, only if the gun is locked back in full recoil (which is to say the gun's recoil system is broken and touching the back of the turret).  A lot of the thing you see the crewman leaning on are "guards" to keep him from getting struck when the gun fires.  They fold down out of the way.  Getting the gunner to the loader's position would be tricky because the commander would have to get out of the way, but passing behind the gun with the guards down and the weapon not in operation is not a problem at all.  Perspective is also screwy on that photo, makes the space look smaller than it is.

 

 

 

Well, so that's the point, isn't it? Maximum crew protection. Isn't that good? 

 

Sort of a two level answer:

 

1. In a firefight, what's the difference between a tank with a dead turret crew and one with a non-operational main gun?

 

2. The implication was the Armata held some major advantage in terms of fighting from the hull down.  It's not especially stealthy, and the stuff inside the turret is just as likely to break pretty bad when shot, and it's not a target small enough to really well evade a decent gunner at combat ranges.  The crew is less at risk for sure, but the tank turret itself is still pretty unmasked and subject to firepower kills.

 

 

 

Was it by chance "Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War" from Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony H. Cordesman prime author?

 

Maybe?  It's been a spell.  I more remember the discussion in class of Israeli doctrine and problems with tank crew training than the article itself at this point.

 

 

 

Added: Why did Koreans went from K1, which is based on M1 Abrams, to K2, which is like a hybrid of Western and Russian stuff, and went for autoloader and F&F top-down attack AT munition?   And, AFAIK, K2 turned out to be rated by a lot of people as "best in the world"

 

It's actually pretty much a hybrid of western and other western designs.  The autoloader is also a reflection of reaching the upper limit of shell weight to loader capability* (and takes a lot from the Leclerc), and the missiles/NLOS capability takes a lot from the terrain in Korea.  

 

In terms of the best in the world, it makes a lot of those lists...but as of a few months ago getting it to keep going forward on a regular basis was difficult.  I think the jury is still out

 

*Or at least that's one of the reasonings I got from some of our ROK counterparts

 

 

 

You aren't getting what I am saying. Read my old post thoroughly.

And I think you're neglecting the flaming hunks of metal that'd be rattling around, or the amount of force exerted on the turret while stopping a full on sabot strike.  

 

 

 

Didnt the old Soviet autoloaders have a disconcerting habit of tearing off limbs of crew members? Or is that a myth? 

 

I believe it's mostly a myth.  Perhaps there was danger involved with some vehicles that has since turned into "all autoloaders eat arms" as time has gone on.

[Battlefront.com]

But I don't see any reasons to compare T-72/T-90A with Abrams much at all, cuz, like I've said before, they are far from being "good" in my book. T-90AM autoloader allows manual loading. There are also Ukrainians with their T-80+ family tanks (with BM Oplot at the top), French Leclerc, Japanese Type-90 and Type-10, and Korean K-2. These vehicles say: you can in fact make a good tank with autoloader. With crew of 3. It's already working. And if one can make it even more crew-safe by doing an unmanned turret, then why not?

Oh, in theory there's a lot going for this design. The question is, as it always is, if theory and reality have a happy relationship with each other. Not just on the battlefield, but from a logistics standpoint. Think of it this way...

One of the big advantages of Soviet designs, going all the way back to the 1930s, is simplicity. Through and through, simplicity was the major goal of design, manufacture, maintenance, and operation. It allows for more cost effective allocation of resources (i.e. they are less expensive in all categories) as well as keeping with the Soviet doctrine of numbers. Not only of the weapons themselves, but the training required of those who operate them. The less training needed, the quicker you can crank out someone who can use the weapon adequately.

Remember, everything is a delicate balancing act when it comes to warfare. Look at how the Iraqis handle their Abrams. Look at how the IDF operated the Merkava against Lebanon. The best weapons in the hands of poorly trained crews and leadership doesn't work. Much better to have decent tanks in the hands of moderately trained crews because the balance produces better results. Of course the best tanks with highly trained crews is the best situation if your goal is to win battles with little chance of failure.

OK, so what's my point?

The Armata is violating one of the key principles of Soviet and Russian military equipment. It is moving away from simplicity of design, simplicity of production, and simplicity of maintenance at the very least. It might also move away from simplicity of operation, but nobody knows.

While I do not think it is a bad thing for Russia to try and break with such an important part of its military history, I think there should be concern/skepticism that it is ready to do so without making some mistakes in the process. Therefore, the idea that the Armata is going to be a huge success right out of the starting gate is, I think, a weak position to adopt.

 

Added: Why did Koreans went from K1, which is based on M1 Abrams, to K2, which is like a hybrid of Western and Russian stuff, and went for autoloader and F&F top-down attack AT munition? And, AFAIK, K2 turned out to be rated by a lot of people as "best in the world".

Autoloaders in and of themselves are not a bad idea. It's all about tradeoffs. Everything has a tradeoff. The autoloaders may work better for some designs on a whole than others. And we might very well be getting to the point where Western type thinking finds the current autoloader technology an adequate tradeoff compared to older technologies. Certainly the US has autoloaders in the Stryker MGS and, after some teething problems, it appears to be functioning well. And that vehicle could not exist without one.

Steve

[Stagler]

And I think you're neglecting the flaming hunks of metal that'd be rattling around, or the amount of force exerted on the turret while stopping a full on sabot strike.

Rattling around in where though? The force of the sabot exerted on minimal material would let the sabot pass through surely. They don't explode do they now?

The concept is untested on the battlefield but not otherwise untested. But to completely neglect it's capability is also a bad position to take.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In no way am I neglecting that it has advantages.  I'm just doubtful of the ability of much of anything to have a Sabot pass through it without some major damage.  "Light" armor targets like BMPs are still usually well wrecked by sabot strike, and unless there's some pretty lococrazy shock mountings for the turret systems, you could stand a fair chance of system loss.

 

It's all conjecture, but I wouldn't trust anything I couldn't get into in a pinch to tighten down cables, flip circuit breakers, or just hit with a heavy object until it moves back into place.  There's enough in a turret that breaks because it is Tuesday and someone at the plant two years ago was too busy sexting instead of doing QA/QC, let alone when a projectile chock-full of DU and optimism has struck it.  

[c3k]

About the engine on Armata - it appears to be the regular 1500 hp, with reserves for increasing the power output up to 2200 hp or so. Given the expected mass of the Tnk and IFV versions (50-55t) this should provide better specific power than other modern tanks. The engine itself:

 

That looks like two V engines linked at the crank. >< configuration. (4 banks of 3 cylinders.) Is that how it's set up?

[sburke]

Maybe I am missing something, but if you know the turret is not that well protected so a sabot round would pass through cleanly (giving Stagler the benefit of the doubt on whether that would actually occur) and you can get a weapons kill using a non sabot round, why are we assuming the NATO forces would waste a sabot round on a vehicle they can in all likelihood wreck the turret of with less?  Kind of like why bother firing sabot at a BMP.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

If it's covered in ERA the HEAT round is a pretty marginal choice.  Either way if the ERA triggers, or even just the fact the turret likely is made of some sort of armor the sabot will likely have some sort of effects, even if it's just the same as taking your cellphone and stoutly thumping it against a hard object.  

 

That's really my whole stick with unmanned turrets.  It's like needing to put a car up on a lift to get at the engine, or needing to remove the axle to change a tire, it's putting a lot of things that I as a tanker type want close at hand in a sealed box.  We're focusing on the combat damage because that's what's sexy, but from my exposure to both yankee imperialist and foreign designs, no armored vehicle is immune to breakdowns or mechanical malfunctions on a good day.  There's a lot that can go firepower kill level wrong in a turret, that a crew can fix in a few seconds.  An unmanned turret, especially one completely isolated from the crew seems to just be asking for broken wires, faulty sensors and the like to take a tank out of the fight but hard.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

On the Abrams, only if the gun is locked back in full recoil (which is to say the gun's recoil system is broken and touching the back of the turret).  A lot of the thing you see the crewman leaning on are "guards" to keep him from getting struck when the gun fires.  They fold down out of the way.  Getting the gunner to the loader's position would be tricky because the commander would have to get out of the way, but passing behind the gun with the guards down and the weapon not in operation is not a problem at all.  Perspective is also screwy on that photo, makes the space look smaller than it is.

 

What I'm trying to say is, looking at both pictures, it appears to me that there are two major damage zones so to speak, on either side of the turret. When Commander and Gunner are practically touching each other, what are the chances of one being injured and another one not to be?

 

Sort of a two level answer:

 

1. In a firefight, what's the difference between a tank with a dead turret crew and one with a non-operational main gun?

 

2. The implication was the Armata held some major advantage in terms of fighting from the hull down.  It's not especially stealthy, and the stuff inside the turret is just as likely to break pretty bad when shot, and it's not a target small enough to really well evade a decent gunner at combat ranges.  The crew is less at risk for sure, but the tank turret itself is still pretty unmasked and subject to firepower kills.

 

1. And here I'd suggest that T-14 is likely to be fitted with 30mm autocannon, just like T-95 was. Can be good against infantry/light vehicles, and help to suppress enemy tank, if it's within a reach. Not to mention the fact that tanks don't fight alone on the battlefield. There would be at least two more friendly tanks right next to it. What would you say?

 

2. No, the implication was that Armata has a major advantage of being super crew-protective when fighting from the hull down. Turret of any tank would be at such risk when fighting, but not people in case of T-14.

 

OK, so what's my point?

The Armata is violating one of the key principles of Soviet and Russian military equipment. It is moving away from simplicity of design, simplicity of production, and simplicity of maintenance at the very least. It might also move away from simplicity of operation, but nobody knows.

While I do not think it is a bad thing for Russia to try and break with such an important part of its military history, I think there should be concern/skepticism that it is ready to do so without making some mistakes in the process. Therefore, the idea that the Armata is going to be a huge success right out of the starting gate is, I think, a weak position to adopt

 

Armata MBT is the most skeptical thing for me at the moment as well. Doesn't mean I'm not excited to see how it all goes.

Edited April 4, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

What I'm trying to say is, looking at both pictures, it appears to me that there are two major damage zones so to speak, on either side of the turret. When Commander and Gunner are practically touching each other, what are the chances of one being injured and another one not to be?

They are, but they're angled, the gunner is below the commander in position.  A simple penetration to one has to be traveling in a fairly difficult direction to reasonably strike the commander and the gunner.  A catastrophic strike on that side of the tank could reasonably get both, however in that case it wouldn't matter if there's three or six men in the tank, the sort of strike to get both at the same time would likely firepower kill the tank (if not vehicle kill) anyway.

 

 

 

What would you say?

 

Not a fan.  I'm not being a douche in the sense "RUSSIA=DUMBY" with it, nearly as much as I tend to favor an HMG type weapon.  None of the other autocannon armed tanks have had much success, and usually they have a pretty stiff ammunition penalty that goes with cramming one on.

 

I guess I'd rather just hit IFVs with HEAT, BRDM/HMMWV type targets with .50 cal and call it good.  It gets back to what Steve was saying with simplicity, and it's a lot easier to build the tank around the cannon, and focus on cannon-ing good, than give it much more in the terms of "primary" type weapons.

 

I'm also dubious of "suppressing" tanks.   Looking at the historical tank vs tank fights, there really has not been room for suppressing fire, generally the first tank to spot gets the kill (weapons imbalance generally non-withstanding).  Being able to hose down an enemy MBT while my main gun reloads because I missed on the first go isn't a "bad" idea, I'm just not sure the cost in weight, complexity and impact on other systems pays off.  Same deal with initiating with the 30 MM, why wake them up when I can just kill them in their sleep with the main gun?

 

Might be nice wit helicopters though, but uncertain of if the tank would have good enough SA on a whole to justify it.

 

 

 

Turret of any tank would be at such risk when fighting, but not people in case of T-14.

 

No denying that. Just saying for the short term of "I have a tank platoon of three, but one of them has a broken turret so it's really only two" doesn't change if there's dead people in it or not.

 

 

 

Armata MBT is the most skeptical thing for me at the moment as well. Doesn't mean I'm not excited to see how it all goes. 

 

Yeah I can understand that.  I'm highly suspect of the "ubertank commeth!" estimates some corners are throwing out, but I don't think it's going to strictly be a bad tank.  Sort of time will tell if it's T-55 (earth shaking!) T-64 (very good but technically troubled) or T-35 (haha oh god Oleg what were we drinking when we did that one?*) in terms of its effects on the tank ecosystem.

 

*Just to be clear, not a snipe at the Russians in that case, just a good Russian example of "revolutionary" not being so great.  If this was a discussion on a new American tank I could list the M60A2 in the same spot, or any number of terribad interwar western european designs if the discussion was about those countries.  

[c3k]

C'mon, the M60A2 was a "bad" tank? Look at that uber-kool turret!  

[akd]

If it has a 30mm, it will probably be able to super-elevate, which would be the primary purpose. Any target that needs super-elevation will probably be neutralized very quick with 30mm. Both Afghanistan (mountains) and Chechnya (tall buildings) seem to have made a big impression on the Russian military in this regard.

[c3k]

^^^

Re: Super Elevate.

 

Yeah, that's a great characteristic to have. The 30mm round brings some hurt, against both infantry and helo's. Having high elevation is great, especially for MOUT and rough terrain.

 

However...

 

If this is going to be mounted as a secondary weapon, then you've got a LOT of issues.

1.) Secondary weapons are tough to coordinate with primary weapons. Not impossible, just difficult... See the multi-turreted tanks of yore.

2.) If it is co-axial with the main gun, then the elevation needs to be carried over to that main gun. That is HARD. Makes for a hugely tall turret.

3.) If it is not co-axial with the main gun, then it needs its own elevation mechanism outside of, and in addition to, the main gun. As well as its own sights and targeting system. That's a lot of excess baggage.

 

All the above are moot if you're not talking about having the 30mm as a secondary weapon on the Armata.