GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

[LoooSeR]

For future use

[LoooSeR]

With Berezhok turret

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Bronezhilet]

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

For future use

@Sturgeon if I clean this up a little, you'll make it an emote, right? Right!?

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

@Sturgeon if I clean this up a little, you'll make it an emote, right? Right!?

 

Possibly.

[David Moyes]

[LoooSeR]

Close-ups of T-15 with new unmanned turret

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

Spoiler

 

[AndreyKryuchenko]

Russian T-90M tank during a dynamic display at the Alabino firing range

 

Russian T-90M tank during a dynamic display at the Alabino firing range

 

Russian T-90M tank during a dynamic display at the Alabino firing range

[AndreyKryuchenko]

 

Armata IFV with 57mm canon, top view.

[LoooSeR]

[Kal]

On 8/30/2018 at 1:53 AM, AndreyKryuchenko said:

 

Armata IFV with 57mm canon, top view.

Now, thats an IFV.

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

[Jim Warford]

On 9/7/2018 at 4:10 AM, LoooSeR said:

 

Great pic...thanks!

 

[LoooSeR]

6 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

Great pic...thanks!

It could  have been better if they switched sides. On this pic vertical aimed smoke grenade launcher is not visible.

[heretic88]

Now it is totally obvious that rearming T-14 with 152mm gun is impossible. New tank needs to be designed.

In my opinion, T-14 is a massive waste of money and time. Fully agree with Hlopotov, Objekt-195 was ready for production, it was equal or better than T-14 in every way, it was a huge mistake of abandoning it. Yes it was expensive, but so is T-14. 9 years lost in vain.

 

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html

[Andrei_bt]

History repeats - in 1984 it was finally decided to chose 152 mm (490 and 490A were equiped with improoved 125 mm gun, like on Armata). Then they returned to 125 mm and will soon go to 152 mm.

[LoooSeR]

Commander's RCWS with open ammo compartment

[alanch90]

Spoiler

 

i think that announcement on the part of UVZ has to be read as a commercial pitch and not as a critique of the T-14 itself. As an argentinian this smells to me as a cheap trick on the part of UVZ to get more money. Why? Ill explain:

- UVZ was expecting big contracts for T-14. That didn´t happen and the MOD argued that aquiring the T-14  en masse wasn´t worth because they can get things done with current tank fleet. In other words, the T-14 capabilities werent superior enough compared to other 125mm armed tanks to justify the price tag. On the other hand, arming the T-14 with 125mm had other economic and logistical advantages and should have been easier for the transitional period until the new tank was adopted by the majority of units.

- Having been a commercial letdown, i expect that UVZ would have it be pretty difficult to export the T-14 (because its brand new technology, etc.), hence they are not making any money out of the design. The only solution from their point of view would be to offer the tank again to the  russian MOD.  For that, they have to make something to answer to MOD arguments to reject the tank in the first place, making it distinctively different from 125mm tanks in service so installing a new gun is an obvious choice. In addition, to secure even more funds for development from the government, UVZ is promoting this as the creation of a "new tank" instead of a modification of the already developed Armata.

Finally im surprised that UVZ hasn´t created a T-72/90 tank with the T-14 turret, like they did with Koalitsiya-SV. That should be way more attractive in terms of price for the government and also easier to get clearance for export.

 

[Scolopax]

5 hours ago, alanch90 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Finally im surprised that UVZ hasn´t created a T-72/90 tank with the T-14 turret, like they did with Koalitsiya-SV. That should be way more attractive in terms of price for the government and also easier to get clearance for export.

 

You would have to do some serious redesigning of the hull to accommodate the commander and gunner down with the driver, and I'm not sure if there would be an acceptable amount of room.

 

There was some Ukrainian concept (conveniently appearing after the T-14 had been unveiled for a little while) doing basically what you said but with a T-64.  The designers seemed to believe the they could stick everyone in the hull fine, but I'm doubtful it would have worked out.  The thing didn't go past that sole demonstration render so far as I know.  

 

[LoooSeR]

9 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

You would have to do some serious redesigning of the hull to accommodate the commander and gunner down with the driver, and I'm not sure if there would be an acceptable amount of room.

...

Koalitsiya already have 3 crew members in the hull, and hull looks like is using T-90 parts. At least i think it use some of T-90 parts.

[Scolopax]

I derped on the Koalitsiya, but I figure there is still a compromise on armor amounts.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Scolopax said:

I derped on the Koalitsiya, but I figure there is still a compromise on armor amounts.

Of course. Look at the Ukrainian design - it clearly gains a few tens of centimeters in height (the hull, that is). To compensate for the shallower angle of the armor, they have to extend the armor farther forward, which may create an unacceptably front-heavy design. But it's not something that cannot be fixed by moving some shit to the back.

[Xlucine]

13 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I derped on the Koalitsiya, but I figure there is still a compromise on armor amounts.

 

Don't forget the BMPT, that has 3 crew in the hull and is more likely to be designed to a similar armour basis as a gun tank