Armata soon to be in service.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The outer shell, yes. But the armor on the turret itself is unknown.

 

What I'm saying is in terms of passive arrays you need more space to achieve the sort of protection required to take a full on sabot hit.  So unless the cannon uses a wormhole for the breach and the loader, there's just not enough "bulk" evident to support large passive armor arrays under the shell, especially if the CGI stuff tossed about earlier is even only mostly right.  

[Stagler]

Probably be able to put different arrays on instead of the shell, modular design for armour is a key design feature for all the new platforms.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Stagler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Knock-knock. Who's there?

[Kieme(ITA)]

Probably be able to put different arrays on instead of the shell, modular design for armour is a key design feature for all the new platforms.

 

I think I agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer on this matter.

 

We could imagine an alternative outer shell, thicker and with ERA/NERA of some sort, but all this, in a way or the other, will need to be attached to the turret structure somehow, and even if robust strouts are used, there's no way to hold in place tons and tons of resistant material and guarantee their effectiveness (not to mention structural integrity) against kinetic energy projectiles.

Seems that all the protection effort went to the hull, leaving the turret relatively weak on pourpose, and/or resting a lot of hope on the active protection system. Either way the visual evidence doesn't really support the concept of a massive resistant turret capable of withstanding direct shots (such as the turret of a coventional tank), and the add-on argument has less supports than the turret itself has....

 

Thanks for the images L0ck, I don't understand all the writings on them, wonder if they are meant to be sold or anything, but this practice really ruins the pictures.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[John Kettler]

LOandLOad,

 

The angle on the first pic threw me, causing me not to immediately realize I looking at a Bumerang. for someone used to, in relative terms, clown car BTR series machines, this thing is huge, so much so that the crewmen almost look like little people compared to it. The deck is so high I think maybe preliminary VDV training is in order, specifically this. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_landing_fall#/media/File:Parachute_landing_fall.jpg

 

As for the Kurganets-25, are there any scale drawings so we can size compare it to a Bradley? Even sans flotation boxes, I believe it to be considerably larger overall, probably taller, too. For sure, the Bradley can't swim! Also, could someone please explain the MG armed Kurganets-25? To me that's a tremendously expensive way to make a MG mobile on the battlefield. Is this thing a command vehicle or something similar? Does anyone have any data or thoughts on what I said previously regarding how I thought the APS radar units might work? I had argued, based on similarity to the SA-8/Romb, that my view was the larger antenna, if you will, was probably the radar, while the smaller one probably functioned as the data link to the APS projectile, which many seem to believe is something like the Smart Kill system Raytheon is pushing. Certainly, that explanation is supported by the observed hardware configuration, a reasonable system concept and exploits already known, though much larger, long fielded SAM radar technology. For a whole bunch of reasons, I would expect this radar system to be of the MMW persuasion.

 

Kieme(ITA),

 

You are looking at digital watermarks, which are intended to prevent inappropriate use of private or copyrighted imagery. It looks as though Andrey Kryuchenko has signed his work, in English and Russian, with his name and gmail account address. His digital watermarks are pretty subtle compared to many I've seen.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 17, 2015 by John Kettler

[Stagler]

The mounting spigots for the alternative armour would be under what is on there for now. Who knows what weight they can support in regards to alternative options for turret armouring.

I don't think its as simple as "they forgot to armour the turret". It will have been built like that for a reason. One thing which might have been overlooked is that what is expected to come up against. What has most tank losses been attributed to in the last 30 years? The Russian opinion on this in light of their own experiences and what is going in on the middle-east, which is a likely model for future conflict, might be that the ATGM is the thing most likely to be facing down the T-14 on the battlefields of the next couple of decades. Therefor the reliance on a dual hard kill DAS system rather than armouring.

But tank on tank combat will not have been completely neglected in the design of the platform.

We will see anyway, ill look more into it as the vehicle develops of the next couple of months.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Regarding size.

I dunno, there's nothing yet. There were some fan made drawings with comparisons, but I don't really like those. This should do better IMO:

Bradley vs Kurganets

http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/photoessay/2014-06/hires_140617-A-SJ786-006a.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9743/156188502.60/0_22b3ac_5b7c2eba_orig.jpg

Stryker vs Boomerang

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/Stryker%20Infantry%20Carrier%20Vehicle.jpg
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/stryker-mgs-3.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5600/156188502.64/0_22bb62_bf275687_orig.jpg

 

APC turret on Kurganets.

It's currently fitted with 12.7mm MG, but looks upgradable. Maybe can house 30mm in future if needed, I dunno. Kurg APC may be a base for many roles. Think MT-LB.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The mounting spigots for the alternative armour would be under what is on there for now. Who knows what weight they can support in regards to alternative options for turret armouring.

 

I don't have drawings, but the sheer size and weight of the sort of armor required to get a reasonable protection against KE is a bit massive.  It's not going to be sometihng like bolt on armor, it's going to have to be something like the Dolly Parton armor that showed up in the 80's to achieve modest results.

 

It's a bit like claiming that just because we cannot see into the prototype for the next Honda Accord, doesn't mean we cannot rule out equipping it with a helicopter engine.  The size of equipment required, and the existing infrastructure appear incompatible by known means.  Which isn't to rule it out entirely, but it's to raise a lot of questions to as if it can be done.

 

 

 

I don't think its as simple as "they forgot to armour the turret". It will have been built like that for a reason.

 

I think that's a straw hat you're trying to eat.  I do not believe anyone has suggested it was anything but a purposeful choice to not have a well armored turret.  I went as far as to say the same thing you just went on about in terms of reliance on APS/ERA arrays.  I'm skeptical of same because that was supposed to be the sort of technology that would let the FCS waltz around the battlefield without much passive armor, but in....I'm reluctant to call wargaming and the numbers crunching side of development "practice' and paired with experience from Iraq/Afghanistan indicated, neither of those systems are fool proof enough to really rely on.  Your moat may be impressive, but the castle still needs walls and all.  It also adds to the complexity of the "defeat" system, if you have to make your way through ERA and not much else, then it requires a simpler weapons system.  If you've got to dodge APS, go through ERA, and then a thick passive array, the system gets more complicated and harder to execute.  

 

The Russians are not stupid.  They're just trying something that historically hasn't panned out, with technology that hasn't by most accounts matured to the point where it needs to be.  It's a gamble, and time will tell if it pays off (or not, the Armata could simply be the future T-64).

[c3k]

The Bumerang's amphibious drive modules are awesome. I want to know how long it'll be until troops use them for shredding cabbage for their borscht. Turn 'em on, put a bucket behind them, and toss a head of cabbage in it. KP duty just got fun!

 

OT: I cannot see how the smaller canisters (vertical orientation and mounted in the steerable arrays) are anything other than smoke grenades. The larger, horizontal, cylinders could hold APS projectiles. The energy needed to launch an interceptor fast enough to intercept a modern projectile fairly begs for a lot more rocket propellant than what the little cylinders could hold.

 

Jane's says they're part of the APS. I say they're smoke launchers.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Jane's isn't wrong. They say it's APS, and distinguish between soft-kill (Shotra is a combo of LWS, IR-dazzlers and smoke launchers) and hard-kill (Arena, Trophy, Drozd, etc). At the end of the day, the are all reactionary, "active protection systems".

Edited May 17, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Stagler]

The Bumerang's amphibious drive modules are awesome. I want to know how long it'll be until troops use them for shredding cabbage for their borscht. Turn 'em on, put a bucket behind them, and toss a head of cabbage in it. KP duty just got fun!

 

OT: I cannot see how the smaller canisters (vertical orientation and mounted in the steerable arrays) are anything other than smoke grenades. The larger, horizontal, cylinders could hold APS projectiles. The energy needed to launch an interceptor fast enough to intercept a modern projectile fairly begs for a lot more rocket propellant than what the little cylinders could hold.

 

Jane's says they're part of the APS. I say they're smoke launchers.

 

Your thinking of an exploding counter-projectile, what if it was simply like a larger 12 gauge shotgun round?

[John Kettler]

LOckAndLOad,

 

Appreciate the pics! Here's what the situation looks like to me. Using the soldiers as rough guides, the Kurganets-25, measured to the top of the hull of both vehicles, is much taller and, I believe, somewhat wider than the Bradley. These are eyeball measurements based solely on actual primary structure and don't include the flotation boxes, if that's what they are, on the Kurganets-25. The Kurganets-25 also appears to have narrower tracks than the Bradley, suggesting it may be lighter. There is no doubt whatsoever it is much longer and has far better ballistic shaping of the glacis plate, meaning less armor is required to get the same level of protection. Basic turret height (not counting the immense amount of tall stuff above the Bradley's turret roof), appears about the same, with the K's maybe being a bit lower. The Bumerang is much taller, I perceive, than the Stryker and, I think, wider. The fully rigged out Stryker pic is hard to work from, for there is an enormous amount of visual clutter to draw away the eye, hindering size estimation. The MGS pic is easier to work from, but isn't nose on. In aggregate, though, I still would argue the Bumerang is taller (to hull top) and somewhat wider than the Stryker. I have zero doubt that the CROWS is considerably taller than the Bumerang's turret, but I believe the Bumerang is still taller overall. Summarizing, both the K and the B are beasts and are much bigger than their nearest American counterparts. Am waiting to see both K and B with their ramps down. Your observations on the MG armed K are helpful. I strongly suspect I could get at least three vanilla MT-LBs for one K APC, especially with the radical difference in, well, the guts (stupid simple steam gauge level for the MT-LB relative to the practically Star Wars level all-digital K with its flat panel displays, modern radios, data links, electronic engine controls and such). 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 18, 2015 by John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

I think it is fairly clear that APS is

I think I agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer on this matter.

 

We could imagine an alternative outer shell, thicker and with ERA/NERA of some sort, but all this, in a way or the other, will need to be attached to the turret structure somehow, and even if robust strouts are used, there's no way to hold in place tons and tons of resistant material and guarantee their effectiveness (not to mention structural integrity) against kinetic energy projectiles.

Seems that all the protection effort went to the hull, leaving the turret relatively weak on pourpose, and/or resting a lot of hope on the active protection system. Either way the visual evidence doesn't really support the concept of a massive resistant turret capable of withstanding direct shots (such as the turret of a coventional tank), and the add-on argument has less supports than the turret itself has....

I'm in the same camp. However, this kinda gets back to my suggestion that Russia should design a tank to go up against it's most likely foe and not waste resources on designs that are intended to do more than that and yet have little chance of succeeding.

In the Ukraine theater, thus far, the biggest threat to Russian armor comes from Ukrainian tanks. That is because Ukraine has an extremely short supply of ATGMs and, thus far, nobody seems willing to sell them more. I suspect the same situation would exist if Russia found itself fighting pretty much any other non-NATO force. That means Russia's most probable adversary is one with a small supply of outdated ATGMs and a more plentiful supply of outdated tanks.

The APS system should be able to counter the weak ATGM threat Russia's potential adversaries have on hand. The systems they are likely to face are slower, less accurate, and not top attack. Provided the APS works reasonably well in battlefield conditions, then it probably matters very little what the turret armor is like.

The likely tank threat comes from outdated Soviet era models. I'm guessing that a single hit to the turret of an Armata by even the least upgraded T-64 or T-72 will result in a firepower kill. Kinetic energy alone might be enough to knock a system offline or damage the turret ring. Something less than catastrophic, but still taking the Armata out of action.

Where I think the Armata can compensate for this is that the average tank it might encounter will have little better than iron sights by comparison. For a hit to be effective the opposing tank must first score a hit The low profile of the Armata's turret should reduce the chances of a direct hit being scored. Dazzlers and other things should help as well.

Therefore, against a likely opponent under likely circumstances, I think the Armata's arrangement will work fine most of the time. Provided, of course, that the APS does what it is supposed to do.

Against a Western adversary... I don't think it has much of a chance of surviving a tank on tank battle. It also has to get into the battle without disruption from air and/or artillery, or destruction by any number of dismounted and mounted ATGM mounted systems. I don't think the turret armor will make much of a difference, one way or another, so why base design and acquisition decisions on a less likely scenario that is unlikely to be overcome even with maximum effort?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yeah, I remember some discussions with certain persons using phrase "it's worse, because it's Russian" as an argument. Don't even get me started.

The number of arguments I've had with customers who believe we under modeled something due to national bias is uncountable. Most frequently it happens with people that think German tanks were so well designed/made that they should be invincible even when being directed by tactical morons. We beg to differ

 

Previous page, photo with the driver. Left and right to his head, you can clearly see where roof ends and where these modules start, and what thickness they are. Same on other pictures. They don't look too thin at all.

A Javelin can defeat most side and even frontal armors protected by heavy ERA defenses. Thin roof armor defended by much thinner applique armor (which we don't even know what it is) doesn't stand a chance. In that respect, those plates are thin compared to the need.

Not that it really matters much. A Javelin can take out any Western tank too. It's just impossible to defend a vehicle against all threats equally well. So either the APS works and defeats enough of a top attack's strength, or it doesn't and it's all over for that vehicle.

 

The guy on otvaga2004 forums says he talked to Boomerang's driver in person and he said that it can carry 8 passengers, can do 100 kph, has just over 500 hp engine,

8 full passengers in addition to the crew? Interesting.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Against a Western adversary... I don't think it has much of a chance of surviving a tank on tank battle.

 

That's not even true of T-90s, unless we got it wrong in the game   

 

I think we need to not become so fixated on the turret that we forget that most of a tank is not turret. The Armata turret is small but the hull looks decidedly large-ish. I would almost bet money that it is massively armored across the front. That could mean that in our proverbial head-on mashup at 2000 meters the Abrams has to hit the turret, as apposed to not caring where it hits a T-90.

[Stagler]

I do believe when the numbers are run the turret is the place where tanks are hit the most because of the dynamics of combat and it having to be visible to itself present a threat.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

In the Ukraine theater, thus far, the biggest threat to Russian armor comes from Ukrainian tanks. That is because Ukraine has an extremely short supply of ATGMs and, thus far, nobody seems willing to sell them more. I suspect the same situation would exist if Russia found itself fighting pretty much any other non-NATO force. That means Russia's most probable adversary is one with a small supply of outdated ATGMs and a more plentiful supply of outdated tanks.

 

Yeah, so short that they use ATGMs against infantry, LOL.

 

Nah. That's not it, IMO. The more I think of it, the more I believe that they've put up much much more emphasis on APS defense-wise. The only logical explanation for such turret design is that they've managed to come up with APS that can deal with tank rounds. The difference in size between APS rounds on T-14 and Kurganets-25 suggests better performance for larger ones. Radars on T-14 and T-15 look upwards. There's a lot of smoke launchers, and all of them are new, on all vehicles (which is also a part of APS, but soft-kill), but again, on T-14 and T-15, even some smoke grenade launchers are facing upwards. Therefore I'd speculate that APS on T-14 and T-15 can work against top-attacks and tank rounds. APS on smaller vehicles has limited angles of coverage, and can only work against slower munitions. Latest Arena works up to 1000m/s munitions. Cylindrical shape of Afganit's munitions allows faster movement (much better aerodynamic qualities). They won't be going for a new system if it wasn't better.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I don't really see anything on the armata pointing upwards suggesting it's part of the APS capable of dealing with top-attack weapons. The best coverage of APS seems to me it's on the kurganets IFV, were the tubes on the hull cover 360°.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

It all depends on whether APS munitions are steerable or not. At least bigger ones, with more potential energy. There are also smoke launchers facing upwards. On Kurg, vertical angles, radar-wise, may be limited to something like 20 deg, as on Arena. Maybe more, like up to 45 deg, which is probably enough to deal with direct-attack overhead-exploding munitions.

Edited May 18, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Baneman]

... The only logical explanation for such turret design is that they've managed to come up with APS that can deal with tank rounds.

 

Surely if this was the case, it would make sense to rush that into production ASAP to upgrade all existing tanks with it - you wouldn't really need Armata if you could tack that sort of protection onto T72's / T90's.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Surely if this was the case, it would make sense to rush that into production ASAP to upgrade all existing tanks with it - you wouldn't really need Armata if you could tack that sort of protection onto T72's / T90's.

 

Close, but not exactly. APS is not a panacea. Reducing hit probability doesn't mean solving the problem of crew safety. You still need to protect the crew in case something goes wrong (APS failure to intercept/mechanical/due to damage, running out of APS munitions, salvo attacks, etc). But yeah, I do agree that upgrading existing tech with such stuff is more cost effective.

Edited May 18, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Side mounted seats for better mine/IED protection?

[c3k]

Your thinking of an exploding counter-projectile, what if it was simply like a larger 12 gauge shotgun round?

 

Then the vertical mounts would be totally wasted in all but a rare event. That's 24 rounds, wasted, unless something drops from about 80 degrees. (The Javelin is top-diving, but not that steep.)

 

The intercept tech seems (AIUI) to be based on EFP/HEAT. You've got to AIM the effect at the incoming projectile, and do so far enough away from the vehicle to disrupt the projectile. EFP's produce high speed slugs and modern tech allows the slug to be aimed. (That's the Israeli solution.) The Quick Kill (and Afghanit?) uses an interceptor which seems to have a HEAT-style warhead (based on the ring-and-rod shaped explosions they create) which sends their effect at the projectile.

 

Janes probably (as LnL hinted at) conflated a smoke shield which is hooked into the sensor array as part of an APS. At that point, it becomes semantics. Is an automatic smoke deployment system considered an "Active Protection System"? Not to me, but I don't get to determine definitions. To me, APS means it can physically intercept/destroy the projectile, not hide the vehicle. 

 

Ken

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I think everyone would agree that there shouldn't be a modern tank without a smokescreen system. Therefore, the only thing that is present that resembles such launchers is the one. It was pretty obvious to me the first time I saw it, and there are simply no other alternatives.

 

As for APS, I don't think  there's any point to spend billions on making an evolutionary tank design that can't deal with modern anti-tank threats, that can't "tank" stuff. Otherwise it's not a tank, but a tank-destroyer. Just as classical, passive defense armor thickness increased over the decades, active hard-kill protection also evolves, and it's only a matter of time when APS is capable of intercepting tank rounds. Which in turn leads to attempts to increase their speed. Next thing you know, everyone goes for combat lasers and railguns, hehe, but we're not there yet. At least not on tanks.

Edited May 18, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, so short that they use ATGMs against infantry, LOL.

Soldiers use what soldiers have, orders/regulations be damned. For all we know whomever fired that ATGM was demoted and sent to the rear after

From the start there were widespread reports of Ukraine being short on ATGMs, both in terms of quantities and in terms of ones that weren't duds. I've seen reports since then that this has not changed much because industrial capacity to produce new ones simply wasn't in place and purchasing them abroad is a "red line" for Russia. Certainly the couple of US fact finding missions to Kiev put ATGMs at the top of the list of things they need. Therefore, I restate what I said before... so far the Russian armor in Ukraine is mostly threatened by other tanks. Not exclusively, of course, but not nearly the sort of ATGM threat it would face against a Western adversary where every single Rifle Squad has enough ATGMs on hand to knock out a platoon of tanks.

 

I think everyone would agree that there shouldn't be a modern tank without a smokescreen system. Therefore, the only thing that is present that resembles such launchers is the one. It was pretty obvious to me the first time I saw it, and there are simply no other alternatives.

Smoke screens have multiple benefits so yeah, a vehicle without that capability would be a massive anomaly.

 

As for APS, I don't think  there's any point to spend billions on making an evolutionary tank design that can't deal with modern anti-tank threats, that can't "tank" stuff. Otherwise it's not a tank, but a tank-destroyer.

And that might very well be what it turns out to be. Which is why I've mentioned that possibility several times

We are in agreement though in that it is pretty obvious the APS system is critical for the protection of the vehicle. Which makes perfect sense to me since nobody, not even the US, has a passive defense capable of defeating a top attack ATGM of Javelin's strength. Clearly the only way to do that is through an APS. Therefore, the relatively thin armor on the top of the turret is most likely there to ensure that the residual effect of a disrupted incoming ATGM doesn't cause damage.

Steve