GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

[Khand-e]

 

20-year-old soldier tried to correct canvas, moved by wind, touched the electric wire and started the fire. Soldier seems to news got serious injuries. The T-15 is on that photo.

 

Probably not from the electric lines either.

[LoooSeR]

Probably not from the electric lines either.

AFAIK from electric lines, not a tank/Heavy IFV itself.

[Khand-e]

AFAIK from electric lines, not a tank/Heavy IFV itself.

 

But by the boots and cane beatings of his commanding officer after being displeased with his lowly comrade seriously damaging a brand new prototype of your countries next major AFV family.

[AndreyKryuchenko]

IFV Armata

[AndreyKryuchenko]

IFV Armata

 

[AndreyKryuchenko]

IFV Armata
 

Full size:
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4507/8955119.d/0_9d07c_b3cb7b9d_orig

[AndreyKryuchenko]

BTR K-17 VPK-7829(Bumerang).

[LoooSeR]

Excellent photos. Now i can rest for a week 

[LoooSeR]

I typed "Armata pictures" in Google and i saw this thread in first page of Google search. 

[Belesarius]

I typed "Armata pictures" in Google and i saw this thread in first page of Google search. 

Sturgeon's House STRONK.

[LoooSeR]

I posting those here because Andrey is in bed (i think) 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

[AndreyKryuchenko]

T-14 Armata Tank

[LoooSeR]

SERBIA STRNG

 

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

"Protection suit for crews of new generation battle vehicles" 

[Tied]

stronk, glorious and original 

[Belesarius]

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150716/1024693020.html

 

So Koalitsiya-SV being turned into costal artillery.

[Belesarius]

Plans to mount 120mm mortars on Armata/Kurganets/Boomerang chassis?

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2015/russia-150715-sputnik01.htm

[Mike E]

Sputnik can be...very off in regards to military-focused articles. 120 mm mortars are small enough to be mounted on Kurganets or even BMD-4M's platform, no need for them on Armata IMO. 

 

So Koalition will be used for ground-to-ground, ground-to-ship, and ship-to-wherever. 

[Mike E]

Now that we know Armata won't be using the new steel for its' armor, does any one have a clue what specification steel it will use? Leclerc uses Triple-Hardness and the Type-10 one superior to that... I'm by no means worried about T-14's protection but using an advanced steel wouldn't hurt, maybe outside of budgets. 

 

And is there any credible information on the ME of Armata's armor as a whole? 

 

Sorry for the questions 

[LoooSeR]

We don't know what kind of steel Armata uses. I posted a link several pages ago about steel production for Armata in Volgograd and thats all what article said. Although from article it become obvious that wikipedia/some others medias claims about 44S-sv-Sh steel used in new vehicles are not true.

[Collimatrix]

Now that we know Armata won't be using the new steel for its' armor, does any one have a clue what specification steel it will use? Leclerc uses Triple-Hardness and the Type-10 one superior to that... I'm by no means worried about T-14's protection but using an advanced steel wouldn't hurt, maybe outside of budgets. 

 

And is there any credible information on the ME of Armata's armor as a whole? 

 

Sorry for the questions 

 

No modern MBT worth a damn will have most of the protection based on steel, even fancy laminate or micro-crystal steel (whatever that is).

 

There are several reasons:

 

1)  Triple hardness steel is limited to 150mm thick, at least as of the writings of Technology of Tanks.  The problem is that it's made of a sandwich of softer steel, ultra hard steel and then softer steel again ("softer" being a relative term here).  There are limits to how thick the ultra hard steel can be made, probably as a result of heat flow during heat treatment.  If a piece of steel is too thick, the heat doesn't transfer through it quickly.

 

Triple hardness steel has something like a 1.5x effectiveness, both in terms of mass and thickness, vs. RHA against KE and CE is my understanding.  So, a 150mm thick piece of triple hardness steel sloped at 60 degrees would be the rough equivalent of 450mm of RHA... which could be penetrated by 115mm HEAT rounds from the mid 1960s.  That's just not good enough.

 

2)  Ultra-hard steels are difficult to work with.  It was only in the 1970s when they figured out how to weld them without the welds cracking from vehicle vibration.

 

3)  As mentioned above, their protection relative to mass is uninspiring.  There are fancy composite arrays that are, pound for pound, at least twice as good.

 

So why use the damn things at all?

 

1)  Triple hardness steel and other fancy steel are some of the few technologies that are better than RHA on a thickness basis.  Many things outperform them on a mass basis, but they are all much bulkier.  So, when you need an area well-protected on a tank, but you can't make the armor there very thick (like say on the sides; tanks need to fit on trains), fancy steel is a good option.

 

2)  Fancy steel is still steel, so it's a suitable structural material for bearing loads.  Loads mostly generated by the better armor you put on top of it.

[Mike E]

No modern MBT worth a damn will have most of the protection based on steel, even fancy laminate or micro-crystal steel (whatever that is).

 

There are several reasons:

 

1)  Triple hardness steel is limited to 150mm thick, at least as of the writings of Technology of Tanks.  The problem is that it's made of a sandwich of softer steel, ultra hard steel and then softer steel again ("softer" being a relative term here).  There are limits to how thick the ultra hard steel can be made, probably as a result of heat flow during heat treatment.  If a piece of steel is too thick, the heat doesn't transfer through it quickly.

 

Triple hardness steel has something like a 1.5x effectiveness, both in terms of mass and thickness, vs. RHA against KE and CE is my understanding.  So, a 150mm thick piece of triple hardness steel sloped at 60 degrees would be the rough equivalent of 450mm of RHA... which could be penetrated by 115mm HEAT rounds from the mid 1960s.  That's just not good enough.

 

2)  Ultra-hard steels are difficult to work with.  It was only in the 1970s when they figured out how to weld them without the welds cracking from vehicle vibration.

 

3)  As mentioned above, their protection relative to mass is uninspiring.  There are fancy composite arrays that are, pound for pound, at least twice as good.

 

So why use the damn things at all?

 

1)  Triple hardness steel and other fancy steel are some of the few technologies that are better than RHA on a thickness basis.  Many things outperform them on a mass basis, but they are all much bulkier.  So, when you need an area well-protected on a tank, but you can't make the armor there very thick (like say on the sides; tanks need to fit on trains), fancy steel is a good option.

 

2)  Fancy steel is still steel, so it's a suitable structural material for bearing loads.  Loads mostly generated by the better armor you put on top of it.

Thanks for the very informative response, I appreciate it. 

 

1) If that's true the Leclerc is not as well armored as I originally thought. I know for a fact its' armor is based on THS with possible ceramic inserts. LOS of the Leclerc is greater than that though, so it must contain a lot of spacing. 

 

2) Correct...though 44c seems somewhat easy to work. Makes me wonder why they didn't just have it be the primary steel.

 

3) The idea is to have the high-hardness steel be part of the composite or laminate, not just a stand-alone. 

 

Not knowing Armata's ME is killing me for some unexplainable reason... Almost certainly it is higher than the older Soviet vehicles because of using ceramics. NxRA worked good but not fantastic. 

[Collimatrix]

I don't think that Leclerc's protection is mostly based on steel laminates; it would be a lot less bulky if that were the case.  I just think that it has steel laminates underneath.

 

The French were, AIUI, some of the first to really nail the metallurgy on that stuff.  Not surprising they'd swagger a bit about it.

 

My guess?  It's NERA on top of a steel laminate structure.  Why NERA?  Because fucking everything is NERA these days.

 

Some pictures earlier in this thread establish pretty convincingly that the flat steel plates we see on armata are just sheet steel covers, and not the actual armor.

 

Most likely explanation IMO is that armata has modular armor packages, just like leclerc or merkava IV, and we haven't seen the definitive armor package yet.