Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Recommended Posts

Hey, this may be a dumb question (I have no military background or experience, apologies), but what about developing a system on top of the turret that would act like a CIWS which you get on modern ships? Those seem pretty capable of taking out incoming air to surface missiles, could such a system protect a tank from an ATGM? A Javelin? Or is their size/weight too impractical to deploy on top of a tank turret?

Edited by VasFURY
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and f

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat miss

Posted Images

Re: CIWS

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM

 

Re: defeating Jav

 

Not entirely true, LOL. I had Javs hit roof ERA on Russian tanks with no damage to the tank. Many saw that actually, I imagine. Rare occurrence, but happens.

Doesn't change my point one iota. No weapon system is entirely effective in all situations all the time every time. I personally witnessed a Javelin test, in real life, where the Jav impacted the lower side hull instead of the top. The conclusion was a definite mobility kill and probable crew casualties. It wasn't supposed to do that, but it did. Still, the end result was satisfactory for the Javelin as the target was neutralized.

CM always takes oddball circumstances into consideration because real life simply frowns upon predictability. However, oddball circumstances are just that... not something that can be relied upon. Open up CMBS, put 10 fully ERA armored Russian tanks in a shooting gallery with a 10 Javelin teams and run the test 10 times. Then think "if I were a Russian tank crew, would I be satisfied with this level of protection". Then think "if I were a US commander, would I be satisfied with the results of my Javelins". Without having conducted the test, I'm pretty sure the answers are "No" and "Yes" :D

 

You also need stuff to defend against incoming arty.

Yes, excellent point. The number of tanks put out of action by Ukrainian artillery in the war so far has been surprisingly large.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

It would be a soft kill APS system then as it reacts to the attacker but doesn't destroy the projectile. Shtora is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grad and conventional artillery. There have been very few confirmed uses of cluster munitions by either side.

Steve

How do they achieve that level of density to KO all those tanks with HE?

In CM the only way I can mobility kill a tank with arty is to get multiple near misses or direct hits with 152mm+ and it's challenging even with PGMs. I imagine mobility killing just a platoon of tanks with area fire would take all the shells of multiple batteries in CM. And that's when you know exactly where they are.

Edited by Alan8325
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they achieve that level of density to KO all those tanks with HE?

In CM the only way I can mobility kill a tank with arty is to get multiple near misses or direct hits with 152mm+ and it's challenging even with PGMs. I imagine mobility killing just a platoon of tanks with area fire would take all the shells of multiple batteries in CM. And that's when you know exactly where they are.

From what we can tell, the tanks are in predetermined kill sacks (i.e. TRPs) with major amounts of artillery aimed at them. Remember this is fairly positional, static warfare for the most part, so this is practical in many cases.

The quantity, and size, of the artillery being used is beyond what you'd see in a Combat Mission game. Though, of course, that is up to the scenario designer. It's just that when you use that much artillery, it pretty much takes the fun out of things :D

The first major Russian bombardment from Russian soil (IIRC July) caused a few hundred casualties amongst a Ukrainian battalion that was stupidly sleeping out in a field almost as if they were on non-combat type maneuvers. The pictures of the destruction from that bombardment show how AFVs (no tanks IIRC) can fall victim to artillery.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

If this vid in fact represents the results of Grad strikes, then 2 x MBT, 1 x BREM, 4 x SPH, 2 x BM-21, many BMP-2 and 1 x UI BTR were destroyed, evidently with some soft skins as well, though I'm not at all certain they were Grad victims. See what you think.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a2_1407852495

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is the strike I mentioned above. The area was pounded by a massive quantity of directed Grad fire for a sustained period of time.

To test how CM handles artillery, put a bunch of armored vehicles in the open and direct fire on them for 1 hour with a couple batteries of heavy artillery. I am guessing not many will be functional at the end of that time.

During a normal CM game you'd never see firepower like this for as long nor with the targets staying perfectly still.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left is Kurganets IFV variant that appears to have some form of APS system installed, similar but not identical to the ones on T-14 and T-15.  Possibly Afghanit Lite?  Why?  APS is expensive and there is not much point fitting it to APCs.  Likewise, Boomerang does not have APS installed either.

Edited by akd
Link to post
Share on other sites

The long boxes common to IFV and APC turrets are labeled smoke dischargers on the Russian patent for the IFV turret. Also, just makes sense:

IFV - LWR, smoke, and APS (including box-shaped sensors around the perimeter of the hull that must be part of APS search/track/guidance)

APC - LWR and smoke only

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the Armata destroying enemy shells before they even impact the tank sounds so Over Powered.

On top of that the upcoming upgrade of a 152mm Cannon, although the Sheridan had one it was low velocity.

 

The 152mm cannon upgrade wont be standard on the platform for some time, if at all. It will be a proof of concept thing I should think. We will see anyway, it can be done, its been done before, it certainly wont be a low velocity gun either, but I dont think it will become the standard. Logistics of current shell stocks would indicate otherwise and it would be cheaper to just equip the first T-14 unit with a vehicle that can use its current munition stocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has been posted already but it's the best review of all four new Russian Vehicles I have seen.

http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution

Things that struck me as interesting or possibles!

The top mounted APS on the Armata turret roof look like they might be designed specifically to deal with Top attacks like Javelin.

The T-15 is a back to front T-14, an odd but typically Russian solution.

The T-15 could well be designed as an anti Infantry companion to the T-14 on the basis of recent Russian combat experience.

What do people think of the idea that the T-14 isn't actually a tank at all but rather a tank destroyer rather like those the U.S. used in WW2 and should be seen in that context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-15 is a back to front T-14, an odd but typically Russian solution.

I am not sure what makes you qualify it as "typically Russian solution", as I cannot think of any Soviet/Russian vehicle that has used the same design...

The T-15 could well be designed as an anti Infantry companion to the T-14 on the basis of recent Russian combat experience.

I know what you mean; and it is certainly not unreasonable to think of such approach, given Russian experiments with BMPT and such. However, T-15 (as seen during the recent parade) simply does not offer enough firepower to be a true anti-ATGM/RPG companion to T-14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Jane's recognizes that the only feature potentially capable of dealing against top-attack missiles consists in a canister of two sets of 12 devices each, which really resembles the cassic smoke grenade launcher tubes. Not onyl Jane's refers that it's unclear if such system is hard or soft kill form of APS (soft being smoke only), but also considers the possibilities that such device is just a storage for quick reload of the other launchers on the turret (horizontals).

 

Personally, as I stated before, I really don't see any device on the vehicle that suggests the capability of dealing with top-attack weapons, and now that I look at it again, the box on the left-rear of the turret appears to me to be a vertical launcher to cover the direct overhead of the vehicle with smoke if not really just a storage for additional munitions such as Janes also suggests as a possibility... also, consider that this device is not symmetrical, it's placed on a rear-side of the turret only, besides, the big thing missing is in my opinion a visible device for the radar that should identify the top-attack weapon in the first place...

 

Might be an excellent APS system, but I really see scarce evidence that it is capable of indentifying and intercepting top-attack missiles.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/

Gloomy forecast about Armata and Russian economy. The writer thinks that this "tactical weapon" might be a "strategical disaster" to Russian armed forces and Russian economy.

I think the author is too pessimistic in some sense, but generally his points are valid and important, and references are well provided. I also think Putin and Russia will be on the crossroad very soon.

What I know is, CAST already suggested several important points to Putin, and he accepted.

http://vpk.name/news/132125_putin_uchel_rekomendacii_centra_ast.html

IMO, clearly, Russians know that their financial future is quite disappointing, and try to do something. But I really, really think that they need to solve corruption problem and brain drain problem, otherwise there will be no chance to recover.

Edited by exsonic01
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, as I stated before, I really don't see any device on the vehicle that suggests the capability of dealing with top-attack weapons, and now that I look at it again, the box on the left-rear of the turret appears to me to be a vertical launcher to cover the direct overhead of the vehicle with smoke if not really just a storage for additional munitions such as Janes also suggests as a possibility... also, consider that this device is not symmetrical, it's placed on a rear-side of the turret only, besides, the big thing missing is in my opinion a visible device for the radar that should identify the top-attack weapon in the first place...

 

Might be an excellent APS system, but I really see scarce evidence that it is capable of indentifying and intercepting top-attack missiles.

 

Is vertically-luanched Quick Kill APS unable to intercept horizontal threats?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the author is too pessimistic in some sense, but generally his points are valid and important, and references are well provided. I also think Putin and Russia will be on the crossroad very soon.

Lol. When have they not been "on the crossroards"? Are you saying that they are in deeper trouble than when Putin took over in 2000? I seriously doubt that..

IMO, clearly, Russians know that their financial future is quite disappointing, and try to do something. But I really, really think that they need to solve corruption problem and brain drain problem, otherwise there will be no chance to recover.

Not only that, but they also need to find a cure for cancer and to define the meaning of life... no sweat, right?

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...