• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
118
I don't think it was worth taking that fan art/CGI seriously anyway....it probably only provided a "flavour" of some of the Armata features.

I'm not to sure this looks like an "ordinary tank", if one considers a few things.
Just a couple of personal observations, that may or may not be correct.



Most of the productionised Soviet/Russian postwar tanks have followed a format, being made as compact as possible. One needs to see the T-series tank next to it's counterparts to fully appreciate this.
Thus, its size is already a departure from the ordinary.
The engine bay looks quite large too.




There is a crew member sitting halfway out of a hatch that appears alongside the turret near the front. This is unusual.
It has been pointed out on other sites that the hatch itself looks very thick.
There doesn't appear to be a bore or fume excavator on the main armament. If one looks at the canvas screen that is covering the turret, there appears to be a large rear turret bustle, which together probably means the entire turret is very likely unmanned with an autoloader and magazine.
The main armament also appears to be mounted higher than on previously produced Soviet/Russian tanks, which was a function of trying to keep it low and compact.


From what can be gathered, it likely has a crew of 3 all in the hull.


Either way, the above is mine and others speculation, based on grainy or indistinct images.
No doubt much more will be revealed and clarified over the next 6 or 7 weeks....
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
76
Looks like we might also see one of these on parade: http://www.military-informant.com/news/8569-v-seti-internet-poyavilos-video-tyazheloj-bmp-t-15-na-baze-armaty.html ?
 

Gildasd

Space fantasist
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Website
scifimeanderings.blogspot.com
ynm said:
The 20 - 30mm rotary cannon is a waste of weight and ammunition, if you rely on direct hit to destroy incoming projectile (hence the high rate of fire of the rotary cannon).
7.62mm to 12.7mm are better candidate because there is not much difference in a direct hit between 7.62 or 30mm (the incoming projectile will be destroyed in both cases). Even the thickest arty shell would be penetrated by 7.62 AP
But smaller calibre means much more ammunition, much lighter gun, and faster reaction time (important on land warfare and close range engagement)
20/30mm is far easier to equip with proximity fuses (especially the fancy forward looking ones) than smaller calibres.
The split casing can create a 0.25 to 0.5m2 "web" of supersonic steel that no missile can go through unshaved. I think the Ruskies have the brain power to develop the software and the actuators to shoot a 4 of 5 pattern making a literal flying chicken fence.
Who needs a direct hit? This has been the case since 1944 and the invention of such fuses.

These shells can also be used on exposed infantry with devastating results.
Think drunk Japanese Sushi chef, sharp knives and live fish.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,054
Gildasd said:
20/30mm is far easier to equip with proximity fuses (especially the fancy forward looking ones) than smaller calibres.
The split casing can create a 0.25 to 0.5m2 "web" of supersonic steel that no missile can go through unshaved. I think the Ruskies have the brain power to develop the software and the actuators to shoot a 4 of 5 pattern making a literal flying chicken fence.
Who needs a direct hit? This has been the case since 1944 and the invention of such fuses.



Honestly, 20mm is still too small for proximity fuzing. Even 30mm is on the small side -- I can't think of one in production. Rheinmetall has made an Airbursting Munition round for 30mm (scaled down version of AHEAD), which would be nasty, but the Russians haven't shown such a round yet, AFAIK.
 

ynm

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Gildasd said:
ynm said:
The 20 - 30mm rotary cannon is a waste of weight and ammunition, if you rely on direct hit to destroy incoming projectile (hence the high rate of fire of the rotary cannon).
7.62mm to 12.7mm are better candidate because there is not much difference in a direct hit between 7.62 or 30mm (the incoming projectile will be destroyed in both cases). Even the thickest arty shell would be penetrated by 7.62 AP
But smaller calibre means much more ammunition, much lighter gun, and faster reaction time (important on land warfare and close range engagement)
20/30mm is far easier to equip with proximity fuses (especially the fancy forward looking ones) than smaller calibres.
The split casing can create a 0.25 to 0.5m2 "web" of supersonic steel that no missile can go through unshaved. I think the Ruskies have the brain power to develop the software and the actuators to shoot a 4 of 5 pattern making a literal flying chicken fence.
Who needs a direct hit? This has been the case since 1944 and the invention of such fuses.

These shells can also be used on exposed infantry with devastating results.
Think drunk Japanese Sushi chef, sharp knives and live fish.
Didn't I suggest 35mm airburst in my post, IIRC? I only said about the waste of ammunition in 20/30 rotary cannon CIWS style. And I think 35 to 40 is actually better, since it can be used as anti more modern, better armored IFVs, APCs... when you don't need your main gun.

But this creates problem, now it seems kinetic missile is the only way to kill tank, most shaped charge ATGM will be kill from far distance. Compare the cost, volume, weight between ATGM attacker vs defender, the defender win by a far margin, even airforce is going to have a hard day
 

Gildasd

Space fantasist
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Website
scifimeanderings.blogspot.com
ynm said:
Gildasd said:
ynm said:
The 20 - 30mm rotary cannon is a waste of weight and ammunition, if you rely on direct hit to destroy incoming projectile (hence the high rate of fire of the rotary cannon).
7.62mm to 12.7mm are better candidate because there is not much difference in a direct hit between 7.62 or 30mm (the incoming projectile will be destroyed in both cases). Even the thickest arty shell would be penetrated by 7.62 AP
But smaller calibre means much more ammunition, much lighter gun, and faster reaction time (important on land warfare and close range engagement)
20/30mm is far easier to equip with proximity fuses (especially the fancy forward looking ones) than smaller calibres.
The split casing can create a 0.25 to 0.5m2 "web" of supersonic steel that no missile can go through unshaved. I think the Ruskies have the brain power to develop the software and the actuators to shoot a 4 of 5 pattern making a literal flying chicken fence.
Who needs a direct hit? This has been the case since 1944 and the invention of such fuses.

These shells can also be used on exposed infantry with devastating results.
Think drunk Japanese Sushi chef, sharp knives and live fish.
Didn't I suggest 35mm airburst in my post, IIRC? I only said about the waste of ammunition in 20/30 rotary cannon CIWS style. And I think 35 to 40 is actually better, since it can be used as anti more modern, better armored IFVs, APCs... when you don't need your main gun.

But this creates problem, now it seems kinetic missile is the only way to kill tank, most shaped charge ATGM will be kill from far distance. Compare the cost, volume, weight between ATGM attacker vs defender, the defender win by a far margin, even air force is going to have a hard day
I've seen the result of a Serbian T55 ambushed by a Triple A firing AA rounds (because that's all the Bosnians/Croats, whoever pulled the trigger had).
No penetration, be everything, including one track, all vision equipment was ripped off on one side of the MBT. The canon was gouged badly, shooting would have probably banana peeled it.
The general effect was a bit like an infernal cheese grater.
Some shards had even blocked the turret (lucky) - only the coaxial seemed ok.
That was 23mm, I can only imagine what 30mm would do.
20 to 30 is more than sufficient to neutralise (not necessary destroy) everything below a modern MBT.
 

Gildasd

Space fantasist
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Website
scifimeanderings.blogspot.com
lastdingo said:
Considering that he wrote about 'fancy forward looking ones', I suppose he misunderstood the AHEAD/ABM stuff for proximity fuzes.
I was thinking of the very basic ones for 20mm - the fancier models only can go in 30mm.
Germany had a proximity fuse for the 88mm in 1944 (only produced a few 1000) and the US had a 127 in industrial production in the same year.
France had a 35mm in 1978 and Bofor had a 40mm a bit earlier.
Even the active elements in a M734 fuse of 1970's vintage are only about 35mm wide.
I would be most surprised that this would be the ONLY electronic device that has not been miniaturised since.

There are big name patents floating about: http://www.google.be/patents/US3955507
However, other data seems to indicate that the USAF is only now starting to get off it's posterior: http://www.dgmarket.com/tenders/np-notice.do?noticeId=12217597

In any case this French article clearly states that Israelis have 20mm proximity fused shell that fits in a phalanx: http://www.dsi-presse.com/?p=6905
But they could be wrong...

I've asked some friends who know more what the practical limit is.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,054
I believe that article is wrong. The Phalanx C-RAM uses a self-destructing round to prevent returning live projectiles, but not a proximity fuze.

(Edit: I hate touch-screen keyboards and autocorrect).
 

Gildasd

Space fantasist
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Website
scifimeanderings.blogspot.com
TomS said:
I believe that article is wrong. The Phalanx C-RAM see an self-destructing round to prevent returning live projectiles, but not a proximity fuze.
It seems you are right.

There war private French-German in the 1970's to equip the twin barrel F2 20mm AAgun with proximity fuses, I have no idea where that went.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,087
Reaction score
1,147
T-15 IFV video

http://www.special-ops.org/not-just-tanks-armata-platform-heavy-apc-video-emerges/
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,198
Reaction score
860
TomS said:
The Phalanx C-RAM uses a self-destructing round to prevent returning live projectiles, but not a proximity fuze.
AFAIK, for that reason already during the times of WW II projectiles at least down to 20 mm
were fitted with a selfdestruction device, "Selbstzerleger" (self-disassembler) in German parlance
 

bigvlada

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
369
Reaction score
20
Gildasd said:
I've seen the result of a Serbian T55 ambushed by a Triple A firing AA rounds (because that's all the Bosnians/Croats, whoever pulled the trigger had).
No penetration, be everything, including one track, all vision equipment was ripped off on one side of the MBT. The canon was gouged badly, shooting would have probably banana peeled it.
The general effect was a bit like an infernal cheese grater.
Some shards had even blocked the turret (lucky) - only the coaxial seemed ok.
That was 23mm, I can only imagine what 30mm would do.
20 to 30 is more than sufficient to neutralise (not necessary destroy) everything below a modern MBT.
That was probably BOV-3, air-defence version with triple M55A4B1 20mm cannon and 1,500 rounds. This, alongside M53/59 Praga twin 30mm cannon was used by all sides.
 

Attachments

aam641

One needs a personality to have a personal text!
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
6
My 2 cents:
  • the turret looks quite large for an unmanned turret, yet too small to carry all of the ammunition
  • it does not look like there are any autocanons or such
  • no remote-controlled weapon station for the commander?
  • both the tank and the IFV seem to be missing a couple of ERA panels
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
239
The shots with the guy standing in the hatch, saluting from his place on the mighty bag tank, are pretty great. m
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
614
Not an expert in army projects, but here a video of the V-Day rehearsal.
V-Day Warm Up: Tanks, APCs, jets in rehearsal for 70th anniversary parade
Some 200 units of Russian military hardware were rolled out on a parade ground in Alabino, Wednesday, in preparation for Victory Day celebrations, set to take place on the Russian capital's Red Square on May 9.
https://youtu.be/NnyezEJkCt4
Code:
https://youtu.be/NnyezEJkCt4

Edit 1:
High-resolution picture at vitalykuzmin.net
Link: http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node%2F599
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,087
Reaction score
1,147
http://www.janes.com/article/50896/new-russian-heavy-armour-breaks-cover?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%2023.4.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Janes article showing some additional vehicles
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
Dragon029 said:
T-14 without it's turret [cover]

45 years later the T-74 finally enters service!


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8240.0.html
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Interesting that for a tank with an aft of turret bustle, the turret itself is quite wide for no occupants. I would conjecture that the large circular tubes are for an active protection system given their width is far to large for smoke dischargers and given that the configuration n looks similar to the original Drozd. Also not the placement so as not to interfere with the general armor arrays. I would guess the Russians didn't go with a trophy style system because of an interest in defeating apds rounds as well as ppg / guided munitions. The wide array of tubes may be to prevent a double firing disabling the system by getting inside the duty cycle of the first defensive shot (in theory Trophy can be defeated this way).
I would finally conjecture that the width of the turret is dictated by the reload system for this active defence system. Opinions anyone?
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
SORRY HORRIBLE SPELLING

Interesting that for a tank with an aft of turret bustle, the turret itself is quite wide for no occupants. I would conjecture that the large circular tubes are for an active protection system given their width is far too large for smoke dischargers and given that the configuration looks similar to the original Drozd. Also not the placement so as not to interfere with the general armor arrays. I would guess the Russians didn't go with a trophy style system because of an interest in defeating apds rounds as well as ppg / guided munitions. The wide array of tubes may be to prevent a double firing disabling the system by getting inside the duty cycle of the first defensive shot (in theory Trophy can be defeated this way).

I would finally conjecture that the width of the turret is dictated by the reload system for this active defence system. Opinions anyone?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
ubiquitous08 said:
Interesting that for a tank with an aft of turret bustle, the turret itself is quite wide for no occupants. I would conjecture that the large circular tubes are for an active protection system given their width is far to large for smoke dischargers and given that the configuration n looks similar to the original Drozd. Also not the placement so as not to interfere with the general armor arrays. I would guess the Russians didn't go with a trophy style system because of an interest in defeating apds rounds as well as ppg / guided munitions. The wide array of tubes may be to prevent a double firing disabling the system by getting inside the duty cycle of the first defensive shot (in theory Trophy can be defeated this way).
I would finally conjecture that the width of the turret is dictated by the reload system for this active defence system. Opinions anyone?

Trophy can defeat APFSDS and since two hard kill launchers are available one needs to (very) rapidly triple fire to get inside the response cycle . Russia isn't the Soviet Union in that it doesn't have the same kind of investment into R&D and weapons technology. The large size of many of the systems and the apparent lack of a hard kill APS is probably because they can't build anything smaller or better.


The crew arrangements of the T-14 are a bit hard to completely decipher. There are periscope outlets behind the position of the two glacis crew hatches. Which could imply four crew positions in the hull. However the driver's position does not have any periscope outlets in front of its hatch. So it could use those optics behind the hatch with the driver in a reclined position. Or just drive via closed circuit television. But if the driver reclines why doesn't the crew member to their right?


But whatever the crewing solution, unmanned turret, all in hull, etc. It would appear that these design solutions have not resulted in a smaller tank. The T-14 is as big as the western tanks including the turret. Which even if it doesn't have crew inside it will need some considerable armouring unless it will be vulnerable to rapid fire weapons like 20-40mm autocannons. The more volume needing protection the lower the level of protection can be for a given weight.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Trophy in its current form cannot defeat APFSDS http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/29253-m-84as/page__st__180

I could be wrong but the limited mass and velocity alone of Trophy would be ineffectual against such a round. Further evidence is the fact that Rafael themselves have posited a future capability against APFSDS. Note Rafael's own literature is very careful to refer only to RPG level threats and missiles not hardened kinetic energy penetrators.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
525
Reaction score
218
The only APS that already demonstrated able to defeat APFSDS shot was Iron Fist. It used explosive "grenade" to induce yaw or even deflect APFSDS flight path straight to the gound.

Throphy in other hand is similar as Arena. Using "shotgun like" fragmentation to shred inbound RPG's or ATGM. Such method have no effect toward APFSDS.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441

Attachments

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
stealthflanker said:
Throphy in other hand is similar as Arena. Using "shotgun like" fragmentation to shred inbound RPG's or ATGM. Such method have no effect toward APFSDS.

Trophy does not use a shot gun like frgmentation blast it is an EFP. Early versions created multiple EFP slugs like a scatter gun but was upgraded with more accurate fire control system to enable a single large EFP slug. The EFP has the potential energy to impart yaw into a long rod penetrator.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
525
Reaction score
218
Abraham Gubler said:
Trophy does not use a shot gun like frgmentation blast it is an EFP. Early versions created multiple EFP slugs like a scatter gun but was upgraded with more accurate fire control system to enable a single large EFP slug. The EFP has the potential energy to impart yaw into a long rod penetrator.
Scatter gun ? Well i see shotgun like working there. no differences to Arena except perhaps like you said it use EFP instead of blast-frag.

where i can read about this upgraded sensor suite and that xtra large sized slug ?


-------------------------
Anyway T-14 Vs T-90A From Otvaga forum.
 

Attachments

Dragon029

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
749
Reaction score
88
ubiquitous08 said:
Interesting that for a tank with an aft of turret bustle, the turret itself is quite wide for no occupants.
Minor side-note, but apparently this is the turret looks like without the armour, active protection, sensors, etc:

 
Top