T-14 Armata

[Vlaad]

The 30mm 2a42 as well as gatling have no ammo storage/feed... 7 road wheels... Not sure what to think knowing how Russian military prefers 45-50 tones maximum this will prolly be heavier.

Nice model but it seems a bit far fetched to be real thing. Im no more than a curious type (read: not a tank expert) but I can see quite a few illogical things. All and all its a nice 3d model IMHO.

Also this may be interesting. at Sputnik International

"The latest rehearsal for what is planned to be the biggest Victory Day parade in Russia's recent history is scheduled for Friday, at 6:45 a.m., so it's possible that the Armata tank will appear as soon as this week.
However, the tank will appear in a camouflage that will distort it's silhouette and make it impossible to examine its exact configuration. The technique, practiced by car manufacturers to protect prospective models from espionage, will likely be adapted for the Armata. One existing technology to conceal a tank's shape is the Nakidka, developed by Moscow's Steel Research Institute, which also conceals a tank's thermal, infrared and radar signatures."

 

[karn]

I count at least 3 thermal/IR imagers/cameras.

No matter how safe it makes the crew the ability of the tank commander to get up out of the hatch and look around with is binocs should not be removed .. well thats just my opinion .. Keep in mind however this is "fan made".

The 30mm 2a42 as well as gatling have no ammo storage/feed... 7 road wheels... Not sure what to think knowing how Russian military prefers 45-50 tones maximum this will prolly be heavier.

Nice model but it seems a bit far fetched to be real thing. Im no more than a curious type (read: not a tank expert) but I can see quite a few illogical things. All and all its a nice 3d model IMHO.

Also this may be interesting. at Sputnik International

"The latest rehearsal for what is planned to be the biggest Victory Day parade in Russia's recent history is scheduled for Friday, at 6:45 a.m., so it's possible that the Armata tank will appear as soon as this week.
However, the tank will appear in a camouflage that will distort it's silhouette and make it impossible to examine its exact configuration. The technique, practiced by car manufacturers to protect prospective models from espionage, will likely be adapted for the Armata. One existing technology to conceal a tank's shape is the Nakidka, developed by Moscow's Steel Research Institute, which also conceals a tank's thermal, infrared and radar signatures."

Defence expos and military parades are just like car shows IMO.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

No matter how safe it makes the crew the ability of the tank commander to get up out of the hatch and look around with is binocs should not be removed .. well thats just my opinion ..

Sure, and a tank platoon commander who can read a map is a plus, too.

 

[Cadian]

Armata tanks are transported to take part in the Victory parade on 9th of May.

 

[Cadian]

Armata returns from a proving ground to UVZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE

 

[Broccoli]

I was expecting something with low silhouette since it has unmanned turret and crew is sitting in the hull.

 

[Cadian]

I was expecting something with low silhouette since it has unmanned turret and crew is sitting in the hull.

In fact, it is even larger than T-90:

 

[Vlaad]

Scale is a bit wrong compared to t-90 overlayed picture, namely, "Armata" iirc uses t-80 wheels that are smaller (consequently lighter) than those used in t-72/t-90 tank and wheels are matched in size. One more thing I notice is that thingy on picture should have superior gun depression compared to current tanks series in use (derivatives of t-80, t-72 and t-90), a thing that's been widely recognized by all fans/critics of Russian tank design.

But yea, it looks big however I'm highly dubious that RA will deviate significantly in its military doctorine concerning tanks. If scaled properly, "Armata" imho should be 10% bigger and its something to be expected. Reading so far from various sources it should not exceed 55t in full combat weight.

On more critical note, it does stand unusually tall for a thingy that's widely recognized as having unmanned turret. Not nearly as alleged t-95 but still... dayumn.

Either way, we still need to see more pictures. I always thought that 2a42 will be coaxially mounted with main gun... Silhouette looks more like more like m60 Patton than anything else. Maybe RA trolling us (as usual, dressing up their military assets)?

 

[sorcerer]

The First Glimpses of Russia's New T-14 Armata Tank (Video)
The First Glimpses of Russia's New T-14 Armata Tank (Video) - Russia Insider
fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/russias-new-t-14-mbt-of-armata-family.html

 

[Gloire_bb]

"Armata" iirc uses t-80 wheels that are smaller (consequently lighter) than those used in t-72/t-90 tank and wheels are matched in size.

They're intermediate(i.e. larger than t-80/Msta ones, despite simillar look).

Silhouette looks more like more like m60 Patton than anything else.

M103.

 

[Cadian]

Armata T-14 Tank:

Armata T-15 IFV:

T-15 video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bk-wgWOTiA

 

[Cadian]

(Maybe) An active protection system on T-15 IFV, red - launchers, green - radars.

 

[Austin]

Thats not an IFV but a Tank Fighting Vehical , Terminator types based on Armata Chassis

 

[Akim]

Either way, we still need to see more pictures. I always thought that 2a42 will be coaxially mounted with main gun...

the tank should provide only the functions of the tank. Don't need to overload the crew, there are war machines tank support

 

[Cadian]

Thats not an IFV but a Tank Fighting Vehical , Terminator types based on Armata Chassis

No, it carries a squad of infantry and has an inhabitant weapon module, which does not take place inside the vehicle.

"Terminator" concept is still doubtful, still has not entered service in Russian army.

This module:

 

[Austin]

The vehical shown atleast is a terminator type , it does not carry infantary certainly not a squad of it.

There would be other Armata chassis that would do it for infantary purpose.

Atleast we discussed this at mp.net and the consensus was there is no infantry in there

 

[Austin]

I think they should buy more of T-90MS that tank really looks good and has decent features.

I wonder why the Russian Army is not buy it , any idea ?

 

[Vlaad]

the tank should provide only the functions of the tank. Don't need to overload the crew, there are war machines tank support

To extent, yes, but we must keep in mind what exactly IS function of modern MBT... Battle tank on battle tank is more or less a fiction these days. So what tank crews are most worried about is infantry with ATGM or RPG and mostly well camoed or dug in in urban areas rather than other MBT. There is no denying firepower of 125mm gun but we need to take a look at side effects of such a projectile such as colateral damage and expense of firing such a weapon. In short, most of the time its overkill. So imho adding 30mm is more like having a right tool for right job rather than overloading crew with another weapon.

No, it carries a squad of infantry and has an inhabitant weapon module, which does not take place inside the vehicle.

"Terminator" concept is still doubtful, still has not entered service in Russian army.

This module:

Heh, no idea what RA is thinking but we can speculate. If I look at Kosovo case I must say terminator is rather appealing concept: Armored at least as MBT, flexible enough to aim at areas that are just not suited for MBT (gun depression/elevation) and being able to deliver precise, localized barrage vs low armored/infantry targets. Not as impressive as bull blooded MBT for sure but as I mentioned earlier, MBT function is rather blurry these days seing how much they are pressed into being exposed to urban combat. BMPT is a very, very nasty machine with more purpose for combat that MBT. There, i said it.

For proof, look at Syrian army combat videos...

I think they should buy more of T-90MS that tank really looks good and has decent features.

I wonder why the Russian Army is not buy it , any idea ?

IMHO they are unifying chassis for ease of manufacture, repair and maintenece, for easier integration of modern systems including ones under development.

Regarding t-90MS. in short its a t-90, a great tank, but its future and upgrades to me personally look like "if you put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig". I see the same for Abrams and Leopard.

Longer answer would be a little parallel, lets take cars for example: I want to upgrade, lets say an oldimer, lets say fiat 128 because I like it. I want a better engine with more power, now I have to completely change the out dated engine so I have to build new engine mounts. Now gearbox is an issue, so I modify that, so basically, entire front end of the car is changed. Now I need to change suspension, wheels, breaks, isolation, exaust, entire rear end... What I get is an entire new old (I love oxymorons ) car that is quite expensive. Now lets get back to tanks industry: They have to mantain every single special upgrade they made, all t-72/t-80 derivatives and there is quite a few. Same with T-90. One can imagine just how much effort it is... What im saying basically is, that RA depleted all the upgrades...

Sometimes, its just more efficient to get a new toy. It really is.

 

[Akim]

To extent, yes, but we must keep in mind what exactly IS function of modern MBT... Battle tank on battle tank is more or less a fiction these days. So what tank crews are most worried about is infantry with ATGM or RPG and mostly well camoed or dug in in urban areas rather than other MBT. There is no denying firepower of 125mm gun but we need to take a look at side effects of such a projectile such as colateral damage and expense of firing such a weapon. In short, most of the time its overkill. So imho adding 30mm is more like having a right tool for right job rather than overloading crew with another weapon.

This is not fiction. It is tanks produce coverage and a break through fortified, not as rare a tank duel. In the front projection tank almost frightening contact with ATGMs.Тhe tank should only be fought with tanks or other large gun emplacements, and support combat vehicle or heavy IFV with tank hazardous purposes.

 

[Cadian]

Heh, no idea what RA is thinking but we can speculate. If I look at Kosovo case I must say terminator is rather appealing concept: Armored at least as MBT, flexible enough to aim at areas that are just not suited for MBT (gun depression/elevation) and being able to deliver precise, localized barrage vs low armored/infantry targets. Not as impressive as bull blooded MBT for sure but as I mentioned earlier, MBT function is rather blurry these days seing how much they are pressed into being exposed to urban combat. BMPT is a very, very nasty machine with more purpose for combat that MBT. There, i said it.

For proof, look at Syrian army combat videos...

Here is a piece of discussion, I can't translate it right now, so can only give a link in Russian:
Gur Khan attacks!: Разбор �полетов�

The main problem is "30mm cannons are insufficient".