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

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
39
New 'cold war' means new 'arms race' with new exaggerated claims of weapon performance and technology 'gaps'...?

Idiots (not referring to anyone in this thread - just humanity in general :) )
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Speculation about so called fourth and even 5th gen is not new. It has been in the Economist. 'Clean' being the word thrown around for decades. and if your not doing it, who is?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/INESAPTR1.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,812
Reaction score
572
Assuming it is a tank shell we are talking about here, it could be an enhanced radiation and/or directed effects shell. Which would be rather problematic for NATO at best.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Grey Havoc said:
Assuming it is a tank shell we are talking about here, it could be an enhanced radiation and/or directed effects shell. Which would be rather problematic for NATO at best.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Hybrid Warfare".
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,812
Reaction score
572
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_to_launch_production_of_new_combat_vehicles_based_on_kurganets-25_tracked_chassis_12804172.html

Still seems to be major production bottlenecks. Probably good news for programs like the BMPT though.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,812
Reaction score
572
Via the Tank-net topic on the 2017 Moscow Parade, a picture taken during the dress rehearsals showing a couple of T-14s without their side skirts:

 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Grey Havoc said:
Via the Tank-net topic on the 2017 Moscow Parade, a picture taken during the dress rehearsals showing a couple of T-14s without their side skirts:

Wow, thank you posting sir, wonder if we are going to stop seeing what the skirts look like in the press altogether.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Oops skirt appears the same this year.
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,415
Reaction score
448
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,731
Reaction score
1,478
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
840
Reaction score
166
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,415
Reaction score
448
kaiserd said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
I just got back from Moscow where I met with the head of the T-14 program. I then had tea with Vladimir Putin.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
840
Reaction score
166
bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
I just got back from Moscow where I met with the head of the T-14 program. I then had tea with Vladimir Putin.
Are you by any chance Michael Flynn? :)

(Apologies for the digression off the discussion topic...)
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
582
Reaction score
9
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
The article has some hyperbole, as is typical of that blog (and many others).
It's not all worthless, though. The problem is mostly that the author has no clue about what's important in tank designs or tank warfare.

Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,731
Reaction score
1,478
lastdingo said:
The article has some hyperbole, as is typical of that blog (and many others).
It's not all worthless, though. The problem is mostly that the author has no clue about what's important in tank designs or tank warfare.

Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
Bolded that for you.
 

Void

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
132
Reaction score
6
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Void said:
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
amen brother
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,415
Reaction score
448
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/serial-production-of-russias-deadliest-tank-to-begin-in-2020/
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
bobbymike said:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/serial-production-of-russias-deadliest-tank-to-begin-in-2020/
Thank you for the find and post.
still wanting a 152mm gun....
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,743
Reaction score
43
FWIW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2-85FSqmX4
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,415
Reaction score
448
http://www.janes.com/article/77812/russian-deputy-defence-minister-confirms-armata-order?utm_campaign=CL_Jane%27s%20360-Feb-14-2017_PC5308_e-production_E-6700_KP_0214_0550&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
156
Void said:
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
No idea why you think US army tankers having poor camouflage skill is a fact or how it can be a factor in US army vehicles lacking in meaningful top attack protection. It is a factor of placing the armour where the majority of attacks will come from. Mainly the frontal arc. Be it the M1, Challenger or the T-14, the attack versus defence balance will continue to be made with the best data available at the time. You mention the triad of armoured vehicles but perhaps there needs to be another element, information. New tech defence systems may mitigate the top attack vulnerablity.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,415
Reaction score
448
https://www.janes.com/article/82552/russia-unveils-t-15-hifv-armed-with-57-mm-cannon?from_rss=1

Russia has unveiled a variant of the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV) fitted with a 57 mm auto-cannon set in a remote turret at the Army 2018 exhibition being held in Kubinka, near Moscow, on 21-26 August.

The cannon is most likely based on that used by the previous AU-220M combat module. The cannon itself is based on an advanced version of the AZP-57 used by the S-60 towed anti-aircraft (AA) gun system.

The turret is equipped with an independent panoramic commander sight and an independently traversable gunner sight. The main armament is complemented by a coaxial machine gun and a bank of two 9M120-1 Ataka laser-beam-riding and/or radio-frequency-link guided missiles located on the right-hand side of the turret.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
bobbymike said:
https://www.janes.com/article/82552/russia-unveils-t-15-hifv-armed-with-57-mm-cannon?from_rss=1

[quoteRussia has unveiled a variant of the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV) fitted with a 57 mm auto-cannon set in a remote turret at the Army 2018 exhibition being held in Kubinka, near Moscow, on 21-26 August.

The cannon is most likely based on that used by the previous AU-220M combat module. The cannon itself is based on an advanced version of the AZP-57 used by the S-60 towed anti-aircraft (AA) gun system.

The turret is equipped with an independent panoramic commander sight and an independently traversable gunner sight. The main armament is complemented by a coaxial machine gun and a bank of two 9M120-1 Ataka laser-beam-riding and/or radio-frequency-link guided missiles located on the right-hand side of the turret.]
[/quote]
WOW, what a find. thank you bobbymike. w/ Armata not being fielded for now it seems there is a understanding that near a 60mm is the way to arm an IFV. 60mm makes sense for CRAMA/counter-UAS and potentially in/direct fire if emerging compact /nano-energetics are mature enough.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
39
That would necessitate advanced fusing though (which hasn't been demonstrated).
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
Avimimus said:
That would necessitate advanced fusing though (which hasn't been demonstrated).
Since 40mm is appears on the path so dont think 60 is a problem.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/06/22/new-40mm-air-burst-shotgun-breaching-rounds-developed-us-army-urban-combat-ndia-2017/

Once overheard a AAV program person about near 7km rg for a particular Bushmaster III.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
ammo storage is an issue for sure but

From our fellow traveler Antony Williams
pg 8 shows 50x 330mm Supershot and 57x 347mm SR

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Tuesday13975williams.pdf

https://www.armyrecognition.com/rae_2015_news_official_online_show_daily_coverage/new_bmp-3_ifv_fitted_with_a_gun_mount_system_au-220m_armed_with_a_57mm_automatic_cannon_10909152.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BNOBwaUcf4
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
971
Reaction score
9
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
64
donnage99 said:
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
Ammunition masses a whole load more than does soldiers. This leads to weight distribution problems, particularly for an amphibious vehicle.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
294
Reaction score
68
donnage99 said:
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
Not in case of T-15 (or Kurganets for that matter). It have unmanned non-intrusion turret, thus pushing it inside hull will take a significant amount of modifying vehicle. OTOH was done on Bumerang...
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
39
Quick question: The AU-220M and T-15 turret clearly don't have the Derivatsiya-PVO acquisition optics. But is it still possible that they could have the equipment to control the new guided round developed for the Derivatsiya-PVO? Or should we see these systems as completely different developments of the S-60?
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
39
It also occurred to me that a T-15 with the AU-220M could be a very effective weapon against the T-14. The 57mm could be very good at stripping ERA, Afganit, and sensors from the tank while one of the anti-tank missiles closed to finish it off. I wonder how effective 57mm high explosive rounds would be against optics in the tank as well? I wonder if one could produce a mission kill even without the anti-tank missile as a follow-up?
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
39
To answer my first question: In 2017 guided 57mm ammo was presented along with the AU-220M in the UAE... so it looks like it is possible (with some variant of the turret at least).

Also: https://twitter.com/russian_defence/status/991993713571389443
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
201
Reaction score
53
Website
www.quora.com
This looks like a depressing thread, where users talk about other tanks.

I will just make a huge post of what this entire thread is missing which is to talk about the specs of the tank itself.


“On "Armata", as well as on the T-50 fighter, the latest radar station with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) will be installed. There are no such solutions on any tank in the world. The system is capable of simultaneously leading up to 40 dynamic and up to 25 aerodynamic targets, controlling territory within a radius of 100 kilometers and automatically destroying targets up to 0.3 meters in size. Thanks to the presence of AFAR, Armata is positioned as a universal ground attack machine, which includes a full-fledged tactical missile system, an anti-aircraft defense system, an army reconnaissance and target designation complex, and the tank itself.”

The nearest line for intercepting missiles, shells or rocket-propelled grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed for intercepting armor-piercing subcaliber shells is 1700 m / s. In the future, it is planned to install an even more advanced Barrier protection system on Armata. It will already be able to intercept targets flying at speeds from 2500 to 3000 m / s.”


“Target hit range - 7000-8000 m” For laser systems


“The drone was called "Pterodactyl." The new lightweight UAVs is made of composite materials to ensure its durability and lightness. The cable-powered drone will be able to fly around the tank in a radius of 50-100 meters. It will also be able to ascend in the air for tens of meters. The portable radar and thermal night vision device will serve as the eyes of the "Pterodactyl."

Anyone can go use this for the radars. http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

https://en.topwar.ru/164860-tankovyj-kompleks-upravljaemogo-vooruzhenija-sokol-v.html I have heard one of the latest Sprinter ATGM has a 12km range, maybe the range of this new ATGM will be longer.


“A 152mm caliber 2A83 gun was planned to arm the promising Russian T-95 tank, which had just begun to be developed in those years. But the 2A82 125mm caliber was intended for completely different purposes. Namely, for the modernization of tanks of previous models. It was assumed that it would easily fall into place of the familiar 2A46 (D-81), in the worst case, with a slight refinement of the fighting compartments of the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.

The 2A82 tank gun with an auto-bonded and partially chromed barrel uses all existing 125 mm ammunition and new promising ammunition. In particular, the BPS "Vacuum-1" (tungsten), "Vacuum-2" (uranium) 900 mm long, OFS "Telnik" with an explosion on the trajectory and the 3UBK21 Sprinter rocket. For this, the chamber part of the barrel channel is made with an additional forward taper section offset forward to pinch the leading belt of the projectile being charged. During the development, the possibility of placing serial tanks in the combat departments was taken into account.”



“Russia claims the 2A82 can pierce the equivalent of one meter of Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA) at 2 kilometers using its new Vacuum-1 APFSDS round, which has a 0.9 meter long penetrator. If this claim is accurate, this would pose a real threat to top Western main battle tanks even at medium combat ranges”

Just looking at the Svinets-2 for being a uranium round had 90mm more penetration depth than the Svinets-1 which consists of Tungsten so there might be a possibility that the Vacuum-2 can go deeper.


“Apparently, the projectile for high-power guns in its appearance will be similar to other representatives of its class. He will receive a core of large elongation, equipped with a ballistic cap and armor-piercing damper in the head, as well as a stabilizer of a relatively small caliber. Earlier it was reported that the shells "Grifel-1" and "Grifel-2" will be equipped with cores of tungsten and uranium. At the same time, there are no data on the parameters of armor penetration of new shells.

According to various estimates, based on caliber and estimated energy indicators, "Slate" can penetrate at least 1000-1200 mm of homogeneous armor with an optimal angle of impact. However, there is evidence of some characteristic problems in the development of such ammunition. Due to certain objective limitations, the efficiency of the use of shot energy in 152-mm guns may be lower than in systems of a smaller caliber. Whether it will be possible to cope with such problems and make full use of the energy reserve of the propellant charge is unknown.”


I am hearing stories about these Grifel rounds having more than 1 meter penetration depth claims from a 152mm canon, so this might be a useful reference to the armata having a 152mm canon.


Title seems self explanatory although I don't think it would hurt for others to atleast post source references even if they are talking about other tanks other than the one on this thread.


Relikt has 1100–1300mm VS KEP. The Malachite will probably offer more or less protection than this. The claims for relikt armor are based on having 50% more protection than Kontact-5


Tank comes with additional protect with a 900mm vs RHA capsule.


claims of having lower infrared signature and lower RCS on radar.


“Uralvagonzavod, the company that introduced the ‘super tank’ Armata T-14 back in May, is now trying to step away from piloted military technologies and is eager to develop artificial intelligence.

"We will be able to show prototypes in 1.5 to 2 years. We are gradually moving away from crewed machines," Vyacheslav Khalitov, the company’s deputy director general, said Tuesday.

As an example, he noted that the Armata now requires three crew members.

“Then it will be two and then without them at all,” Khalitov said.”
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
294
Reaction score
68
What 100km spot range? What 8km laser attack range?! What counting ERA efficiency in mm and getting over meter?!?!

Do you really need to drag all those extremely old yellowpapers here?
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
201
Reaction score
53
Website
www.quora.com
What 100km spot range? What 8km laser attack range?! What counting ERA efficiency in mm and getting over meter?!?!

Do you really need to drag all those extremely old yellowpapers here?
All of that is posted on the sources. Do you want multiple sourcesO providing the same information? Or do you need something more convincing(which I will gladly help with)?

Do you really need to drag all those extremely old yellowpapers here?
To answer your question with a question. How come a thread created back in 2012 does not list those so called old yellow papers? This thread is exactly like this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/2s35-koalitsiya-sv-howitzer.24163/ and that is providing no specific information on a project even though range estimates, rounds per minute, etc have been listed from sources before or information like what rounds they will have in the future, etc depending on their ongoing developments. I was even thinking about providing more details on the belgorad or yasen-M among other Russian thread related developments but my biggest fears is how users here take it as feeling offended.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
294
Reaction score
68
All that is posted with shady shit like National Interest and contradicts both real info and empiric data. What laser attack range? What 100km spot range for radar?!
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
201
Reaction score
53
Website
www.quora.com
What laser attack range?
range estimates of what the T-14 can be. Estimates say for the laser range finder is over 5km but I am assuming it will be higher because the T-72B3 http://tank72.tass.ru/5/ says this for the 9,600 meters "Maximum range of target recognition by gunner’s sight TPV Sosna-U"

What 100km spot range for radar?!


“On "Armata", as well as on the T-50 fighter, the latest radar station with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) will be installed. There are no such solutions on any tank in the world. The system is capable of simultaneously leading up to 40 dynamic and up to 25 aerodynamic targets, controlling territory within a radius of 100 kilometers and automatically destroying targets up to 0.3 meters in size. Thanks to the presence of AFAR, Armata is positioned as a universal ground attack machine, which includes a full-fledged tactical missile system, an anti-aircraft air defense system, an army reconnaissance and target designation complex, and the tank itself.”

“New armor is not the only means of protecting the crew of “Almaty”. According to some reports, this tank will be the first to install new means of active protection against rocket-propelled grenades and sub-caliber shells. This is the latest development of the Kolomna Engineering Bureau - “Afganit”. From open sources it is known about it that the radar system works in the millimeter range, for the first time uses protective ammunition with a warhead like a strike core, and not fragmentation as before. The nearest line for intercepting missiles, shells or rocket-propelled grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed for intercepting armor-piercing sub-caliber shells is 1700 m / s. In the future, it is planned to install an even more advanced Barrier protection system on Armata. It will already be able to intercept targets flying at speeds from 2500 to 3000 m / s.”
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
53
Reaction score
16
I think that the Armata cannot escape this.


There was an earlier version of this that was successfully developed that may have been called "The Weapon of Sixty Miracles." For all Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank attacks.
 
Top