Known Internet Experts have concluded that Armata is not actually a tank. It only has 900 RHa and the side armor is very weak. It is better to call it a big MRAP.
Pic related is the body, you can clearly see the very thin side armor and the document below proves a more than 900RHa can penetrate the tank.
>I could have told you it was shit when they said they were changing how many crew it had due to poor performance from the side impacts
>Seventeen prototypes were ordered that year (only sixteen hulls were built). They had to have a maximum weight of 50 metric tons.
>In view of experiences in the Yom Kippur War, a higher level of protection was demanded than the prototypes's heavily sloped spaced armour. The weight class was increased to 60 tons.
>Leo-2 maximum combat weight 61.7-62.5 tons
>T-90 combat weight 46.5
>Armata prototype mass estimate 49 tons
>tanks never grow lighter
your point being?
>and? this only means that armata will likely grow to 60-65 tons as it iterates through production.
more to the point- they can still add a couple more hard layers to the armor on the frontal hull beak- with conventional tanks there is only so much additional thickness until you essentially impede the driver's access- see Leo 2A6 where they basically cut a chunk off the armor to make way for the driver and even then they have to lock the turret looking straigtht forward or backwrd if the driver wants to drive open hatch
>ITT OP thinks noone is smart enough to copy 3 lines of the PDF into google translate
seriously you turbocunts, this is a promo PDF made about the design of frame/structure of mine resistant vehicles/ V hulls.
It literally has nothing to do with the T14
Leo's turret is pretty fucking huge. I don't think T-14 can or needs to grow its turret more than it already is, not more than its tin shroud anyway.
>just PR stunt with no ceramics
yeah imma need several gallons of sauce on that claim m80boi
It seems to be a pretty drastic PR stunt considering they're equipping their entire fleet with them.
>it takes decades to weld more metal or something?
It takes decades to upgrade a design to take 10 more tons of weight, yes.
If russia wanted a 60 ton tank, it would have designed one. There is no evidence that the armata is going though a major design change.
The armata and the leo 2 are dimension wise, the same.
armata was found to be a substandard shooting platform in comparison to the t90am. expect the order for armata's to be scaled back to 100 or so to be paraded around and t90am production to pick up.
then why crew leaves a smoking abrams as soon as possible, after being hit by a mere RPG-29 for example?
I'll tell you why - because in a burning tank you can't tell a)what hit you b)how bad the fire is.
and mission kill is all that matters anyway.
you have weird turn-ons but ok
>The armata and the leo 2 are dimension wise, the same.
Also, small unmanned turret vs fucklarge manned turret. That alone is going to save you several tons of weight even if both are armroed the same.
>Length 10.8 m (35 ft)
>Width 3.5 m (11 ft)
>Height 3.3 m (10 ft)
>Length 2A6: 9.97 metres (393 inches) (gun forward)
>Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)
>Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)
>YFW the armata is taller.
>I would measure tank's height by distance to axis of leveled gun anyway.
Why? Is the M3 lee best tank ever then? Lol just kidding, but kind of weird.
>tall is a problem
Maybe, but 1 to two foot difference wont help either way
well its clearance above hedges, fences, parked cars, stuff like that, it's also often relevant to depression/elevation of main gun - its easier for taller tank to be in backslope hull-down. it's what matters in tank's height I think.
Well i mean i got decades of history behind 3 different western tanks that agree with me.
You dont even have anything that suggests that they are going to significantly upweigh it.
If you are going to do the equivlent of "NUH UH" without an iota of supporting evidence like an uneducated swine, then i have no reason to converse with you further.
I dont hold conversations with animals.
Thats fair, i would wager all the western tanks, and the armata now, are roughly equal.
what he means is that literally nothing precludes a decision to make a 60-ton tank if you have a 50 ton tank to add to, aside from million reasons like air transportability, railcar capacity, engines, production capability, actual reasoning behind the upgrade, etc. But not the time itself. Things can go faster or slower, or they can be instant if a decision was made by a single person in charge.
However T-14 is unlikely to be combat-proven anytime soon, so it won't be up-armored right away. So it may be decades, but not "just because decades period".
Ammunition cooks off, tank tosses its turret, crew may or may not die depending on how lazy they were about storing ammo (if stored properly, crew is fine. If stored Russian way, crew and 3 city blocks demolished, turret tossed into Chechnya).
Well the armored part of the turret is much smaller.
The Abrams turret was something like 19-22 tons. The T-90 turret was around the 13-15 range.
If the Armata only has like a 8-9 ton turret, that's 5 tons of weight to use on other things.
One the other hand, I doubt that even with an uncrewed turret it can get that low without compromising something. The gun itself is 2 tons.
>Ammunition cooks off & everyone dies?
propellant fire happens that gets vent out the top access hatch; no turret throwing anymore!. With fireproofing on the internals in the turret it should survive and be easy to overhaul in the field.
>Ammunition cooks off, tank tosses its turret, crew may or may not die depending on how lazy they were about storing ammo (if stored properly, crew is fine. If stored Russian way, crew and 3 city blocks demolished, turret tossed into Chechnya).
Funny, you don't know what you are talking about. The Russian way of storing ammo is the actual correct way. Back in Chechnya 2: electric boogaloo they figured if they just went in with 22 rounds in the horizontal AL for T-72B/90 tanks they drastically reduce the chance of catastrophic splosion already; as in you need a direct hit to the really hard to hit AL in the lowest part of the hull to do so.
>noone dies probably assuming they don't have tlatgm's inside or 200lbs of tnt or something. but the tanks will be pretty much useless
HE shells even with detonators screwed on takes hours of intense temps before they cook-off. A propellant fire event takes 30 secs at most to rage and then it sputters. Once you install blowout panels to relieve the pressure immediately all you have to worry about is heat damage that some bit of fireproofing will neuter- actually fire doesn't do much damage to internal stuff thats mostly metal anyway just burn the paint and wires off at most; the electronics and sensors are modules mounted on the outside or with separate enclosures from the internal compartment anyway so it should be easy to overhaul in the field.
>Neat thing about it is, unlike russian systems, its bolt on. You can put it on anything larger than a humvee.
operational on what? also it cant intercept APFSDS projectiles for shit; actually current and near future projected APS cant protect light vehicles like humvess against anything more than RPG threats - residual blast and fragments would fuck you up something fierce even if the APS done its job maginificently; there still needs that level of passive protection.
>Reminder that despite the massive size increase it gained barely any weight
motherfuckers included lots of extra space for future upgrades; they kinda will use it for the next half century and if other players put out clean sheet designs expect them to be xboxhuge as compared to their predecessors as well.
The proofs here indicate advanced trolling.
>Russian way of storing ammo is the actual correct way
It fucking is not, the very fact that you have to under load the tank for it to be even moderately safe should tell you that.
The point of safe ammo stowage is so your crew isn't killed in the event of a catastrophic explosion, which the Russian system utterly fails to do.
>The point of safe ammo stowage is so your crew isn't killed in the event of a catastrophic explosion, which the Russian system utterly fails to do
By definition a catastrophic kill is an event that kills both the crew and the tank. Those tend to happen when the crew is exposed to fuel and ammo when penetration happens even for brief periods like when the loader opens the ammo stowage door in an abrams so pretty much outright complete isolation of the crew from fuel and ammo storage is what can be fairly considered safe.
>It fucking is not, the very fact that you have to under load the tank for it to be even moderately safe should tell you that.
22 is actually plenty for most engagements.
>The M1 Abrams ammunition used in Operation Desert Storm was 30 percent of a
basic load over a four-day period[AFVs still present] compared to 18 percent of a basic load over a twentyone-day[AFVs are gone]
you would literally run out of fuel before consuming 14~15 rounds in 4 days of heavy fighting.
That's what she said.
Also, all you vodka-drenched Vlads...don't worry, we already have something to counter your massive lightly-armored mobile gun. Pic related.