Jump to content

New russian tank Armata


Recommended Posts

Russian troops are receiving beta versions of a future armored tracked platform that could usher in the 5th generation conventional land tank, heavy APC, artillery and missile launcher and possibly fully robotic assault armored vehicle.

After five years of development, the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation has finalized manufacture of the first batch of Armata tanks and heavy personnel carriers. They have been included in Russia’s 2015 defense order, TASS said.

Reportedly, 20 units have already been manufactured and issued to troops for hands-on training.

The exact characteristics and appearance of the platform remain classified, though this might soon change as the new vehicles are on the verge of taking part in the Victory Day Parade on Red Square, May 9 this year.

A better chance to see these innovative battle vehicles of the future might be given to experts and public alike during Russia Arms Expo 2015 (September 9-12, Nizhniy Tagil).

Screenshot from youtube.com video

Mark this name: Armata

The new Armata armored tracked platform has reportedly combined and assimilated all the last decade’s major developments and innovations in battle vehicle design and construction.

The platform’s chief tank (T-14) sports an unmanned remotely controlled turret armed with a brand new 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore cannon. Its muzzle energy is greater than one of the world’s previously considered best cannons: the German Leopard-2 Rheinmetall 120 mm gun.

The 125 mm gun has 15-20 percent improved accuracy and its rolling fire angular dispersion has improved 1.7 times.

According to Russian media, the Armata tank might also come with a specially developed 152 mm gun, the most powerful ever cannon to be mounted on a main battle tank.

The tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters.

A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.

The tank’s crew is securely enclosed in a multi-layer armored capsule separated from the ammunition container. The vehicle is fully computerized and only needs two servicemen to operate it. Each can also deploy the tank’s weapon systems.

The tank’s targeting is reportedly done with an active-phased array antenna and a large variety of other sensors.

The Armata platform allegedly has a fully mechanized electric transmission, powered by a 1,200 HP diesel engine. For greater efficiency, maintenance and repair schedules have been extended.

Within its blueprint, the Armata armored vehicle has the potential to evolve into a fully robotic battle vehicle.

According to preliminary estimates, 2,300 units are required for the Russian army.

Edited by GAZ NZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites



If it does all that, please send me one, for I'd love to see it. Somehow, though, I doubt the Pentagon would let me have it long, but first, the people there need to know I have it. I therefore urge discretion in packaging and shipping it. May I suggest "tractor parts," since so much of the domestic manufacturing base is now gone? 


Douglas Ruddd,


I remember that pic. First saw it, I believe, over on the CMSF Forum. I've never understood why so many SF movies and such insist on using such lurid paint schemes. Unless this is for combat on Mars, in which case it's in the same color palette as NASA's portrayal of Mars.




John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, Panzer.


Now that I read it, 2 men crew on the armata? I wonder what an M1A2 commander would say... I know US (and most of other countries) have a strong feeling when it comes to the tank commander's position. And history tought us that the commander/gunner combo never worked that well (even though there was very low technology at that time)...

The 4th crew member debate (loader) is quite old and very extensive. Personally I Always seen it as ending with a tie (or draw) between the concept in favour of having a loader or an automatic machine... but the tank commander?

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



 I wonder what an M1A2 commander would say...


That a two man crew is stupid and asking for trouble.  


Even with advanced optics, the gunner is basically fixating on shooting once a target is engaged.  Having a separate tank commander, especially one with his own advanced optics means that instead of "spot target, shoot target, spot target, shoot target" each of those steps are happening at the same time, the commander is finding a target or if needs be maneuvering the tank in the wider sense (or imagine, you tell your driver to move to that there berm and get in a hull down position.  He's smart enough to pick his own spot on the berm, and select a position that'll be hull down, but he doesn't really have the situational awareness to do much else, and driving a tank is a simple job, but it's one that requires a fair amount of attention to do).  


Which is to say any two man tank assuming technological parity will be much slower to find targets, and will have generally poor awareness of what's going on around it.


The only crewman I consider  up for debate is the loader, as clearly he adds a lot of size to the tank, and all the "life support" requirements of a vehicle by a fair bit, however human loader performance is still on par if not better than autolaoders for speed, and the third set of eyes and hands in the turret makes managing the tank, both fighting, and out of contact a lot easier.  


I'd almost advocate for just having a fourth crewman autoloader or no because of their utility for things that weren't loading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd almost advocate for just having a fourth crewman autoloader or no because of their utility for things that weren't loading. 


In reading about WW II armor, one point that is sometimes made is that having a five man crew was very handy when maintenance and loading up needed doing. Trying to replace a track or a road wheel was mentioned as particularly labor intensive. Yeah, there was an ordnance section and all, but they were usually busy doing things that only they were equipped to do, so a lot still fell on the crews.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, a lot is probably getting lost in translation and crap journalism. 


Two crew member bit probably means that it will have crew of 3 but can operate with only 2 (because commander and gunner both have full control of weapon systems).


Radar fire control bit probably means the radar for the new APS is integrated with the fire control system, just like Trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very skeptical of the these Armata claims: the Russian claims, not Panzersaurkrautwerfer's. ;)


Even if something on tracks rolls past the reviewing stands, it doesn't mean anything. Paper mache, fiberglass, sheet metal, soft steel, and long dangerous looking things do not a tank make.


Still, it's interesting since it's the only new tank news out there. (Any word on a future Abrams? Or Leopard? Or Challie?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 2 man crew

Everything panzer saurkrautwerfer said. A 2 man crew is nuts. That statement alone makes me skeptical of the journalism. The author clearly never operated a tank or spoke to people who do.

The "fun" stuff we see in game is 1/10th of what a tanker does. All the things <tm> that need to happen during "down time" just got 100% more difficult with one (or as we do it, two) less dudes. Also, what about the platoon leader or company COs ride? Those guys are always in meetngs and other officer stuff. How does all the things <tm> get done when they are gone?

Yeah, two man crew is not something to brag about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha oh god.  My poor driver would haven't lasted more than a week.  As much as I tried to help (and got politely told by my gunner to please stop touching things), I still usually did no more maintenance on the tank than while hopping up onto the turret, asking my gunner or loader (whoever was on there when I mounted) "how's she looking?" then plopping my CVC on (tbh I'd rather have been on the tank than the meeting/briefing/whatever I'd just come from).


Trying to picture a two man crew keeping a modern tank running is pretty comedic, let alone the one poor CO/PL's driver hacking away at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel this TASS article is closer to reality, which feels unclean to say as TASS is rarely anything like close to reality. No mention of T-14 in the list of vehicles by 2020, but lots of T-72b3 upgrades. Also interesting is mention of purchase of T-90A (MS) which presumably is like the T-90AM in game. I've very impressed the CM devs have predicated with such accuracy the future of Russian army equipment. If this article is to be believed I cannot see a single discrepancy between the forces in the game and the planned Russian army of 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to have that T-72BZ with the commander's panoramic sight in a future module or patch. It would greatly help in spotting faster (the T-72b3 is already a quick draw) and give the russians another tank with hunter-killer capabilities to balance things out.

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
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.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...