>>28671498 I spoke to someone at TARDEC at one point about it. Her reply basically went like this:
>It's a good enough tank if it's legit, but we don't have enough data >It has some pretty neat ideas >It could match or even surpass the Abrams >Too bad we've been building something better for the last few years so it doesn't matter
As far as i'm informed the Armata is rather a platform than just a tank. The turret section can be modded so it can act as an AA, mobile radar system, SAM etc. In it's tank configuration it features the first unmanned turret, so there's that. I try put my aesthetic preferences aside and talk technical usefulness of the vehicle..
>>28671600 >>Too bad we've been building something better for the last few years so it doesn't matter kek'd. it will cost 2-3x as much yet it will still be vulnerable to fucking ATGMs like every other tank. At least Rusikes are putting in data links and remote control systems into theirs so they can be driven by remote tank crews.
Here's a vid of Saudi Abrams, with uranium plates upgrade, being BTFO with a Fagot ATGM (vid says it's Korent.. it's not. It's an ancient AT-4 Spigot aka Fagot).
>>28671498 I think Russia deserves credit for FINALLY catching on to the crew/ammo isolation meme. Not only that, but they managed to come up with their own solution to the issue without just mimicking the Abrams/Leo2 solution. I believe the Armata solution is actually superior to the Arbams/Leo2 solution in many ways.
Armata can literally do ye olde jack-in-the-box with the crew surviving unscathed.
>>28672005 >would be qualified for tank crews. its doctrine m8, they have a loader because its much easier to load different types of ammunition and while the autoloader is a good idea, the US has already played with it before and didn't buy into it.
Plus an autoloader is just another thing that can break down on you, except this time it can mean the entire tank is a liability due to the possibility of it not being able to fire
>>28672674 it does though. To have someone control more than one element of the tank is absurd. If you divide up the work you allow for the specialization of the components.
I assume that you mean the gunner should also be the commander, but the commander is supposed to maintain a "birds eye" perspective and also coordinate with other tanks/infy. If you also have him worrying about either driving/shooting or whatever you want to put him in, then he can't put enough focus on being the commander.
its basic division of labour man. I know its a bad comparison, but just look at assembly lines. You don't have one guy build an entire contraption, you have multiple people work on each individual piece. That way each person can specialize in their given task
>>28672782 I think driving and aiming/firing could be done almost entirely by computers. For tricky parts the commander could manually drive the tank, but for driving in formation, or down a road, an auto-driver is good enough.
>>28672544 >its doctrine m8, they have a loader because its much easier to load different types of ammunition and while the autoloader is a good idea, the US has already played with it before and didn't buy into it.
You can tell an autoloader which ammo you want. It's not a technological issue at all.
The doctrine is that they don't want one because women would be qualified. It's as simple as that.
>Plus an autoloader is just another thing that can break down on you, except this time it can mean the entire tank is a liability due to the possibility of it not being able to fire
Except that almost every other MBT has one and they don't break down.
>>28673040 Everything can break down. It's just that there are other things that can break down sooner than an autoloader (which is one of the simplest mechanical devices ever since it's "powered" by gravity and a single actuator. And autoloaders load faster than any human can anyway.
>>28671922 >it will cost 2-3x as much Actually - no. UVZ has working tank building conveyor. Serial production + modular design will make this tank pretty affordable. That's the fucking point of unified platform. >they can be driven by remote tank crews. It's safety/emergency measure, not something they're gonna use everyday.
>>28671498 I don't like the idea of moving towards APS being the end all be all, and then having it protected by armor that 80mm shell splinters can penetrate and damage the sensitive electronics inside.
>>28673200 First you say this: >Thats what the whole 5th gen thing is about, networking, clearer display of information, sensor fusion, etc. Then you say this: >Thats what the whole 5th gen thing is about, networking, clearer display of information, sensor fusion, etc.
If I were you I would look into these two topics: 1)Informantion overload, 2)Crew Resource Management.
The modern battlefield already taxes crews' abilities to observe, orient, decide, and act. Reducing the number of people who have to shoulder this much data is counter-productive.
The mimimum number of crew members should be 3. 1) Driver: responsible for vehicle status, Stores, tools, driving, front line preventative maintainance, and cooking. 2) Gunner: responsible for gun condition, coax gun, fixed gun, grenade launchers, ammo for all of the above, and front line preventative maintainance. 2nd in command. 3)Crew commander: responsible for cooridination of the two above roles. Scans for threats using built in sensors and also manages feeds from uav's and other sources. keeps track of other friendly forces and how the tank fits in with the overall plan/situation.
If you are watching the road you cant watch for the enemy and you cant look at the map. If you are watching the enemy you cant watch the road or look at the map. If you are looking at the map you cant watch the road and you cant watch for enemy.
>>28673687 >>28673724 Fucking ANCIENT sources retard. KSA has received upgrades which DO INCLUDE depleted uranium panels. KSA always gets the latest stuff because they're the biggest customer of US-made arms.
Just fucking THINK, José, if the latest Abrams got BTFO with a fucking 40 year old missile, just think what a new one would do to it. It would be just as bad.
ALL tanks are fucking death traps. There isn't a tank in the world that can survive shaped charges.
>>28671498 It's a very interesting development, it shows that the Russians have theoretically closed the gap in armour development.
The best things about the vehicle is it's layered defences. Russians have been doing Hard-Kill APS since the late Soviet era, and in the T-14 it's been designed with APS in mind, rather than being a bolt-on upgrade.
To my knowledge, no NATO tank uses hard-kill APS, so the Armata is ahead in that regard. Soft kill APS is also something that NATO hasn't widely adopted like the Russians have, at least to my knowledge.
I'm a little critical of the unmanned turret solution. In theory it should give superior performance to a manned turret, but that's just theory. How it works in practice we'll have to wait and see.
I like the hull, the turret looks funny. The idea is good, second only to unmanned tanks and bipedal robots exported from Japan.
Was surprised it uses an anti magnetic proximity fuse APS. Also I believe the problem that it is penetrable from the sides of the bubble is true, that's probably the purpose of the external ERA on the front side of the tank.
Russians have made a good novelty. The advancements are good but there are also disadvantages. That is why Chinese researchers that poured in blood, sweat and tears to cultivate the Chinese way of research and development did not lead this kind of technology. Because it is not as good as the current tank technology of China and will be like a sore thumb in the grand logistics scheme of China. The Chinese way of tanking is like the Yangtze river, swift, powerful, overflowing yet ever changing and firm. Novelties such as the Russian tanks are best for recreation and a few laughs.
In a situation that greatly benefits T-14, a single Type 99A, at most, can destroy 3-5 T-14s.
>>28673931 As (another anon and neutral here) it does make sense - it just makes an air gap and provides a flat surface to help facet the turret while the thicker armour is further in, requiring less armour surface area and therefore less mass.
>>28677465 Man, that's a first-class imitation of the classic Chinese-Patriot-on-the-Internet. It's all there: slightly odd grammar, nonsensical pro-China position, zero evidence provided, and especially bringing up China when nobody had mentioned them.
I guess if I had to shill Chinese armour to get a free pass through the Great Firewall of China, is do it too, but access to our memes is only with so much humiliation.
>>28677565 apparently it could literally be a paper tiger. It's twice the size of the t90am but only weighs 5 tons more. so unless they are using some kind of slav magic NERA it probably has horrible armor in it's current iteration.
Point out that under the cover are a lot of ugly bolted-in armor module blocks much like ERA blocks (one is obvious in the picture) and covers help with things like crew access, external wire runs, water ingress and so on.
You have good dubs, but your grammar is an unacceptable reply to a post that has shows honor and dignity and reason, before you reply, make sure to take attention to the words of your mouth, it is how the world gives the impression on your race.
The actual turrent is compact and heavily armored. However, the turret is covered with external sheet-steel "hat", which is designed to protect the turret sensors from weather, dirt and light fragments. In the first picture you can see the cotter-pins which hold the "hat" in place.
>>28676948 Angling is irrelevant all modern shells completely normalize. The only thing it does is marginally increase the thickness however you can put more armor on a flat surface anyway and it increases space inside the tank.
>>28677914 They wanted autoloader in MBT. It had 152mm gun. Shells and Shillelagh missiles were heavy. So, Germans had 120mm cannon and operational autoloader in their Kpz70. Soviets had 115mm (later 125mm) cannon and operational autoloader. US had operational autoloader who was very complex and unreliable. Because 152mm, duh. Attempts to make autoloader and blast panels in same time limited RoF to 6RPM. Krauts had better. Germans and Americans failed to finished MBT70 and they build a new tank from scratch leaving all expensive stuff outside. Autoloader was one of that things along with guided missiles and advanced suspension. It wasn't about crew efficiency or about reloading time. It was about fucked up MBT70.
>>28673985 Because he's a typical burger that has been from the birth taught that US is the bestest at everything and since Abrams can't defeat one then no one else can either.
Outside the lala-land both Israeli and Russian APS systems are decades ahead of everyone else and do indeed have the capability to defeat KE rounds. There's even jewtube videos of the Russian system in action demonstrating this.
>In it's tank configuration it features the first unmanned turret
Challenger 1 Falcon beat you to it. (And if you want to get onto 'not in service' things, the US had an M1 prototype with one too. But you could go even further back to the Comres 75 the British made post WW2)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.