The Armata family of vehicles

[Silent Hunter UK]

Well, someone's got to start the discussion of stats for the new Russian 'crew-in-hull' tank and IFV...

[kato13]

Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

[unkated]

Data is a little thin on the ground for actual speed and range.

The gun is enough of a known quantity, though like all of the modern tank guns, the improvements in its penetractors over the last 20 years needs to be added in. To me, having it in a remote turret is not that different from a manned turret - movement is by the same hydraulic system; modern targetting systems don't require the gunned looking down the actual barrel. V2 had those silly remote turreted versions of the M1A3 and Leopard anyway; this is just an actual case of that. Of course, I'd ensure that turret controls is a possible critical hit, as well as turret traverse.

But then, I think a rework of technology, particularly targeting tanks, is called for in a modernized T2K system; these did not exist and a lot fo development went into these over the last 20 years....

If one takes the one that stopped in the parade as an example, maintenance may be high - or average range may be short :-)


Yes, I know these are prototypes, and the actual combat systems will supposedly have the bugs worked out. So, do you want the system as it works now, or as the Russians says it does (or will) when the bugs are all worked out. Since we know that all technology works perfectly, just as the designers say it will :-)

The key factor in evaluating this series of vehicles to me would hinge in its armor system - how well this (re)active armor system actually works, sections going off to attack incoming shells microseconds before impact.

[pmulcahy11b]

It's enough information to kick-start research. When I have time.

As for it being prototypical, well, it can go into the "Best Tanks That Never Were" page.

[Targan]

The Armata MBT seems to me to be as the original T2K described the T-90 (not the actual RL T-90).

[Askold]

The Armata malfunctioned during the parade, which was quite embarrassing to Russians.

Their first "official explanation" was that it was part of the show as they wanted to show their evacuation vehicle in action, their second "official explanation" was much more believable.

The factory had wanted to use their own employees as the drivers during the parade but the military insisted on using military personnel and since they had had only a month to get used to the tank they made some "user errors" and after the engine had stalled the tank had to be towed because they engaged the "hand brake" but did not realize it.

If you watch the videos you will notice that many of the drivers have trouble maintaining stable speed, the tanks accelerate and decelerate repeatedly as they try to stay in formation. This is a clear sign of the drivers not being used to driving these tanks. The tank that stalled probably did so simply because the driver accidentally something and based on the observation that when the the tank is being towed tracks are sliding rather than turning the hand brake explanation is also probably true.

So it is too early to say that the Armata is unreliable, but you can make a few assumptions from this incident:

a) The Red army has not yet managed to train crews for the Armatas properly. This is not a surprise since the tank is brand new and it takes a while to train crew for any tank.

b) Continuing from a, since I assume that the Red army will pick their best and brightest crew members as drivers and pilots to avoid embarrassments like this, so the fact that they still have trouble with the Armata means that it handles differently from their older tanks and familiarity with them does not help with the new tank.

[Targan]

I had assumed they'd had a transmission failure (engine running but the tank wouldn't move). Applying Occam's razor, the handbrake explanation seems plausible.

[Ancestor]

Does anyone have info on the planned production numbers for these vehicles?

[Raellus]

Information is spotty. Originally, the T-14 (Armata) was supposed to completely replace Russia's entire fleet of Category I tanks (T-90s, T-80s, and T-72s) within about 10 years. Now, due to sanctions and low global oil prices, I've read that Russia has scaled down their orders to 2000-2500 T-14s. I'm not sure what their acquisition plans are for the T-15 heavy APC (built on the Armata chasis), Kurganets IFV, and Bumerang wheeled APC.

[The Dark]

According to a Russian-language article I saw, the new 125mm 2A82 is only 52 calibers (the old 125mm was 51), but it has a longer breech to allow larger shells to be used. The T-14 Armata carries 45 rounds (32 in the autoloader, 13 others somewhere - I would assume somewhere else in the turret, based on the design philosophy, but I haven't seen confirmation of that). The Malachit ERA is allegedly a new type that uses a very tiny amount of explosive to vibrate the armor plate instead of projecting it at the incoming round, with the goal of breaking up HEAT jets or rod penetrators. It's said it still has the capability to fire AT-11 missiles, and there's talk of up-gunning it to a 152mm 2A83 cannon. That version would have much less ammunition (my estimate is around 16-18 in the autoloader and 10-12 spare), and there's very little information on the gun, but it's likely around 45 calibers in length. The active protection system consists of 10 hard-kill projectiles mounted under the turret facing forwardwith a 60 degree arc of fire and 48 soft-kill projectiles mounted on the turret, with 24 aimed outward and 24 aimed upward, which use multi-spectral smoke to cause laser or infrared guided missiles to lose track of the tank. Secondary armament is supposed to be a PKT with 1,000 rounds and a Kord 12.7mm with 300 rounds.

The T-15 Armata IFV has a turret with a 2A42 30mm cannon (500 rounds - 160 AP and 340 HE is standard load), a 7.62mm coaxial MG (2000 rounds), and 4 Kornet-EM (AT-14 Spriggan) missiles. It has the same hard-kill missiles as the T-14, mounted along the hull in a 60 degree arc, but doesn't appear to have any soft-kill launchers.

The Kurganets IFV (B-11) has the same turret as the T-15, appears to carry 20 hard-kill missiles (4 forward, 4 aft, and 6 on each side), along with 12 soft-kill smoke launchers on the turret and 6 or 7 infantry. The APC version (B-10) has only a 12.7mm Kord for armament, with no hard-kill launchers and 16 soft-kill launchers on the turret, and carries 8 infantry. Mass for the Kurganets is around 25 tonnes, with a top claimed speed of 80 kilometers per hour.

Now, these are all based on photographs from Victory Day parades, so it's entirely possible the deployed vehicles will be different, since the parade vehicles have not been combat-ready. All of the turrets mentioned are unmanned

[swaghauler]

According to a Russian-language article I saw, the new 125mm 2A82 is only 52 calibers (the old 125mm was 51), but it has a longer breech to allow larger shells to be used. The T-14 Armata carries 45 rounds (32 in the autoloader, 13 others somewhere - I would assume somewhere else in the turret, based on the design philosophy, but I haven't seen confirmation of that). The Malachit ERA is allegedly a new type that uses a very tiny amount of explosive to vibrate the armor plate instead of projecting it at the incoming round, with the goal of breaking up HEAT jets or rod penetrators. It's said it still has the capability to fire AT-11 missiles, and there's talk of up-gunning it to a 152mm 2A83 cannon. That version would have much less ammunition (my estimate is around 16-18 in the autoloader and 10-12 spare), and there's very little information on the gun, but it's likely around 45 calibers in length. The active protection system consists of 10 hard-kill projectiles mounted under the turret facing forwardwith a 60 degree arc of fire and 48 soft-kill projectiles mounted on the turret, with 24 aimed outward and 24 aimed upward, which use multi-spectral smoke to cause laser or infrared guided missiles to lose track of the tank. Secondary armament is supposed to be a PKT with 1,000 rounds and a Kord 12.7mm with 300 rounds.

The T-15 Armata IFV has a turret with a 2A42 30mm cannon (500 rounds - 160 AP and 340 HE is standard load), a 7.62mm coaxial MG (2000 rounds), and 4 Kornet-EM (AT-14 Spriggan) missiles. It has the same hard-kill missiles as the T-14, mounted along the hull in a 60 degree arc, but doesn't appear to have any soft-kill launchers.

The Kurganets IFV (B-11) has the same turret as the T-15, appears to carry 20 hard-kill missiles (4 forward, 4 aft, and 6 on each side), along with 12 soft-kill smoke launchers on the turret and 6 or 7 infantry. The APC version (B-10) has only a 12.7mm Kord for armament, with no hard-kill launchers and 16 soft-kill launchers on the turret, and carries 8 infantry. Mass for the Kurganets is around 25 tonnes, with a top claimed speed of 80 kilometers per hour.

Now, these are all based on photographs from Victory Day parades, so it's entirely possible the deployed vehicles will be different, since the parade vehicles have not been combat-ready. All of the turrets mentioned are unmanned

I see you just joined. Welcome to the forum sir!

[The Dark]

I see you just joined. Welcome to the forum sir!Thank you! I saw mention of the forum in the Facebook group a while back, and finally got around to signing up.

[pmulcahy11b]

The Armata series looks good. The trick is going to be whether the Russians have the money to properly develop (that's the biggest part) and eventually mass-produce it.

[CraigD6]

Is the turret a bit too angular? There seems to be an awful lot of shot traps there, where a projectile is more likely to do damage than skim off. Most modern tanks seem to go for sloped armour to try and deflect any incoming rounds, but are the Russians relying on their defensive systems to prevent a hit in the first place?

[Raellus]

Is the turret a bit too angular? There seems to be an awful lot of shot traps there, where a projectile is more likely to do damage than skim off. Most modern tanks seem to go for sloped armour to try and deflect any incoming rounds, but are the Russians relying on their defensive systems to prevent a hit in the first place?

Probably. Plus some of those angular segments appear to be blocks of passive armor and possibly bits of reactive armor as well. And it was supposed to be an unmanned turret, with the entire crew safely in the heavily armored, low-profile hull.

[The Dark]

A large portion of the visible turret is sheet metal. I've seen a couple pictures from the May Day parade preparations where a seam is visible, and it's a few millimeters of metal. As far as I know, the shape of the inner turret hasn't been publicly displayed.

That said, I do think the Russians are heavily relying on their active defenses. The publicly claimed weight for the tank is very light for its size (it's slightly longer and taller than an Abrams, a tiny bit narrower, and 10-20 tons lighter depending on Abrams version). Assuming the weight is accurate, I suspect there's minimal passive armor everywhere except the crew capsule (which is said to have protection equivalent to 900mm of RHA), simply because there's not the mass necessary for heavy armor. If the actives (both the Afganit and the NERA) fail, it should be fairly resistant to single-charge HEAT warheads due to the armored capsule and the slat armor on the rear, but I'm less certain of its ability against tandem-charge warheads or KE penetrators.