GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

[LoooSeR]

"....

   Correctly. Driver's wheel also can change positions. "Cheburashka" [gunner input device/joystick] have variable functionality (control of gunner sight/panoramic sight), like monitors. E.i. if tank commander wants to take control of the gun, it is done with a single click and he will have 100% same controls as gunner have, and vice versa."

 

   "Problem is not in the lack of buttons, but their number and location. Tank is not a plane and less buttons are needed, but even in tanks, engineers manage to design and locate the consoles so that you need to have octopus agility to quickly find anything and press it. 

   Look at the T-80 - on commander station - horizontal turret traverse mechanism. WHAT FOR ?! It hinders ... but the demands were - melee guidance ...   And for the sake of what? And even in Oplot it remained in place. "Super modern tank"... some even compare it with T-14. 

 

   In the T-14 the number and location of controls is optimized and it is located in the so-called "motor field" - easily accessible without changing position. And information providing means are located in the frontal arc. The field of view of human eye, though it is large, but in the periphery, "the resolution" is extremely low. You can notice the presence of the object, its movement. Understanding what it is writen or shown there - impossible. So it is necessary to bring it in the center of the view field. Hence the dependence of the size of the monitor on the distance from the eye. To change the viewing angle changing optical zoom is enough. And for observation of the surroundings, moving head or cheburashka [joystick] does not matter.

 

   Although .. again - despite the "easy" controls, it requires changes in the algorithms of the crew work. Of course nobody forbids from geting out with binoculars.  "

[LoooSeR]

"    but in general - a lot is still to come   A lot of free pace in the compartment. Wall is still empty, almost. TC have only communication unit to his right. You can cram a lot of things. In 15 years crew will "flow into" to their places likenow in T-series, Monitos will be even on the ceiling 

 

     ...and more about the habitability - air supply grille is clearly visible in upper the front and air "extractor" in the rear."

 

   About how to press buttons and touchscreen when moving: 

   "Body needed to be fixed so that the controls would not became a body weight support. Otherwise, you will not "control" much. A typical example - rally cars, planes and so on... If the Pilot will hold the steering wheel, he will not steer well.    

   Earlier in AFVs, people rested with their "backs" in the seat and foreheads on sights or observation devices.  A stable position with free hands. But it have a lot of restrictions... TC - holding on to the handle of the observation device - had problems with pressing something. He had to distract himself from observing, lose contact with the area.... 

   In the T-14 position is close to the race cars drivers position. You can rest with legs and back. On top of that, you can tied yourself to the chair in so-called controlled stoop pose, when the back is bent slightly at the waist, shoulder and head are vertical (vestibular system works best). 

   E.i. crew member is fixed, hands-free, OBSERVATION! is not limited. If attached to the chair, then legs become free, to work with pedals, for example."

[LoooSeR]

About side armor layout of the Armata HUTP:

 

 

   *claims that T-14 side armor is same as previous T-xx had*

   "See layers - it is plywood. A well knowledged people explained long time ago [ukrainian tank experts and tank 'experts']. Shot - pyrotechnics by Mosfilm, and therefore there is no rocking. There is no proper rocking after shot in the movies. And the rocking of the hull - tank was pulled by another tank with a rope (as in the "Beware of the Car" movie) .... 

    See damper/suspenion flange surface? This is where actual side plate is, and it is thicker than on old Ts. Side armor was thickened outwards with layered barrier. And now is not the thickness that determines the resistance of armor. " 

 

    (...)

 

    "....and "reasonable protection of side projections" or so-called "thick side" we had in 187, Molot and other "Perspective" tanks from the [soviet] times. The truth is it didn't covered entire side, and only the front part.

    By the way - this speaks in favor of the rear-engined layout of the tank, it is not necessary to stretch a thick side armor protection to the entire length of the machine."

   

   (...)

 

   "In T-14 crew is well covered by the frontal armor and from the side view crew compartment have small projection, easily covered by armor and does not get into the zone of highest probability of hitting [from the side as well]."

 

   (...)

 

   "even in urban areas of Grozny prepared, knowing where to shoot chechens, it was necessary to organize 5..7 penetrations, to knock out the T-80 from action. A irrecoverable losses - a couple of vehicles on the unit. Including landmines.

   And in the Great Ukraine, in the open fields, loss of AFVs has already exceeded 260. And irrecoverable losses..."

[Mike E]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825

 

   

 

(Sorry in advance) 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

 

 

[Mohamed A]

So uhh.. did the 2S35 do a show today? photo.rae2015.ru wasn't updated today.. I thought RAE 2015 is from 9 September to 12 September?

[LoooSeR]

Koalitsiya-SV was only located at static display. Vehicles belong to MoD, i don't remember MoD giving permission for using their new AFVs in the show.

[Mohamed A]

Koalitsiya-SV was only located at static display. Vehicles belong to MoD, i don't remember MoD giving permission for using their new AFVs in the show.

 

Didn't they say they'll do a show with it on Twitter or something?

[LoooSeR]

No. Only static display.

[Mohamed A]

No. Only static display.

 

Oh well.. Thanks for correction.

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

T-15

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

T-15 infantry compartment. AFAIK seats are not final. 6 to 9 soldiers plus 3 crewmembers.

[Mohamed A]

Youtube translation best translation. Confirmed.

 

Here's proof:

 

[Mike E]

LOL ^ I noticed that too 

 

Too bad Zvezda videos are always low-quality, it's better than nothing I guess. One thing I enjoyed was the subtle censoring, like of some components in the plant. 

 

A lot of in-depth information was skipped over as well. Best to keep it secret, I guess.

[Mohamed A]

A lot of in-depth information was skipped over as well. Best to keep it secret, I guess.

 

They have already shown more than what the NATO showed about their tanks in 30 years.

[Mike E]

They have already shown more than what the NATO showed about their tanks in 30 years.

Well, kind of true...but we didn't hear a thing about the composite, specifics about Afganit etc. We just "saw" a few things, without actually gaining knowledge on them. 

[Mike E]

Something is really starting to drive me nuts... Some T-14's have roof armor that have three layers of steel, and two layers of something else, maybe ceramics. Other T-14's (like the one in the Zvezda video) have a single layer of "something else" sandwiched with steel...and some have what appear to be one thick layer of just steel.

Why would there be so many different variants of roof armor? Outside of being produced at a different time, I am clueless.

[LoooSeR]

IDK what are you tallking about, but both tank and HBMP have same roof armor, some properties of which i posted in this thread. Roof is covered by "MERA", no ceramics-only armor modules were used.

[Mike E]

Not talking about the MERA/modules, rather the"base" armor itself. 

 

Compare these two images; 

 

and...

(Both of which have been posted here already, as I'm sure you'll remember.)

 

And then skip to 40:15 (18:27 shows the same thing) on the Armata video (I suck at screenshots, especially on a mac);

 

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

 

That to me seems like 3 different variations of roof armor, and they also look to have different thicknesses. 

 

Hatches also look a bit thicker, to my eye. 

[Belesarius]

There may be different variations.  From what's been posted these are early production/pre-production models.  A lot of the IFV pics didn't even have seats yet.

[LoooSeR]

Not talking about the MERA/modules, rather the"base" armor itself. 

 

Compare these two images; 

 

and...

(Both of which have been posted here already, as I'm sure you'll remember.)

 

And then skip to 40:15 (18:27 shows the same thing) on the Armata video (I suck at screenshots, especially on a mac);

 

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

 

That to me seems like 3 different variations of roof armor, and they also look to have different thicknesses. 

 

Hatches also look a bit thicker, to my eye. 

Look at them again.

 

~60-80 mm armor-grade steel base and MERA modules on top of it - this is a composition of the roof armor.

[LoooSeR]

Screenshots from video.

Gunner sight is open, one APS launcher is not loaded.

 

Hatches are very thick.

 

 

Armata engine with robotic gearbox (8 speeds both forward and reverse).

 

 

 

T-14 in production, rollers assembly in process.

 

Hull side armor shape is visible. 

 

That journalist is annoying. Place for autoloader and turret ring. Note that turret ring at sides shows thick hull side armor.

 

 

 

So romantic!

 

Frontal hull camera is open.

 

 

Ilya Demchenko, Deputy Chief Designer. Young guy. 

Not long time ago we had problem with young people in military organisations/companies.

 

Plenty of space for driver to look around from his hatch. Gun and mantlet are pretty high, giving enough space for driver head and even more.

Also, roof and other upper parts are covered in some sort of non-slippery paint.

 

 

 

T-15-class land battleship. And journalist.

 

APU help to launch engine on that battleship.

 

WOW. A telephone to speak with crew! 100% new Russian invention.

 

Seems to me T-14 also have this HIGH-TECH device.

 

T-14 and T-15 at test drive.