Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

This one is (or might be) indeed new - in a sense that it (probably) was created recently -
although it seems to be composed using two screenshots from TVC channel's program "Iron Logic. Special Report." (Zheleznaya Logika), aired back in February of 2016

My mistake. thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

For future use

Hey guys, look, a photo of Armata in Syria was posted!    Totally real!

Posted Images

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Possible layout of T-14 frontal armor







Im seriously doutbt if this layout is true:


1) Russian tank developers are definetly not idiot and sucht layout is pure stupidyty

2) Modern ERA like Relikt and newer solution need space after it's module to end "dezintegration" of long rods - in upper part in sucht layout we haven't space for this

3) it's seems that LOS of hull front is smaller 800mm IMHO it's close to 650mm.


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Militarysta said:

2) Modern ERA like Relikt and newer solution need space after it's module to end "dezintegration" of long rods - in upper part in sucht layout we haven't space for this


However "Malachit" works, it doesnt need the same kind of "stand-off space" as relikt does, at least not in the less angled (in comparison to T-90) UFP as in T-15 and possibly T-14.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

   So after "discussion" on one discord server about Vacuum shells and a gun for Armata i decided to post more comprehensive info on why i think Vacuum round info that is floating around can be wrong and a real, finished shell most likely don't exist or test version of the round will be changed when they enter mass production. I have tendency to remember conclusions of things i read, but not details, so this post will be also a refresh of memory, kek.


   So first bits of info before we get to Vacuum shells. New 125 mm gun was in works since mid 90s, and i would not be surprised if it was continuation of gun projects that USSR was developing for new gen of MBTs.

   Per GurKhan:


   A 152mm caliber 2A83 gun was planned to arm the promising Russian T-95 tank, which had just begun to be developed in those years. But the 2A82 125mm caliber gun was intended for completely different purposes. Namely, for the modernization of tanks of previous models. It was assumed that it could be easily mounted on place of the familiar 2A46 (D-81), in the worst case, with a slight refinement of the fighting compartments of the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.

   So, in 1995, following the results of the battles in Chechnya, the chief designer of the UKBTM Vladimir Potkin /.../ proposed installing a 2A82 gun with the "Precision-85" work in the T-90 tank.


   2A82 gun isn't a new weapon made specifically for Armata, but like Armata (in form of UTSh vehicles) was another project that was dragged from 90s and very likely to have the roots in Soviet projects from 80s. Also GurKhan;s remark about 2A82:


2A82 will not even be on the tank T-90M so expected by the Russian army. Just because, as it turned out, our domestic industry is not able to produce it.


   Here is a bit about shells, from Armeiyskiy Vestnik site about a news that Rosatom specialist will help with design of new shells for Armata guns from 2017


   For the 2A82 gun, an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile was created in the framework of the Vakuum R&D. An experimental batch was made, but the matter did not go further. In connection with the modernization of the gun for "Armata" they had to open a new R&D - "Vacuum-1." A new projectile with a length of 900 mm was designed.

   So, at least according to this, there was at least 1 re-design of Vacuum rounds and original version existed only as a test batch.


   And about news itself:


   Rosatom State Corporation will create ammunition of increased fireower for the new Russian T-14 tank on the Armata tracked platform. This was reported to TASS by Oleg Sienko - General Director of Uralvagonzavod

   Rosatom will probably work (or already working) on DU version of Vacuum-1 APFSDS (Vacuum-2). 


   Here is relevant bit:


   However, a year and a half ago there was information that the production of armor-piercing shells for a caliber of 125 mm was delayed. The General Director of the Uralvagonzavod complained that the requirements for shooting tests are constantly growing. “It can all turn into infinity,” he says. “And we would like the products to be delivered the troops as early as possible.”


   And another relevant part for Vacuum development - picture of Svinets and versions of it, from Andrey_bt LJ:



"Svinets" (one that is not S-1), the first on the left and its variants. It can be seen that it was a long time tormented.



   So let's make a synthesis of all those bits. Some of them are based on rumors, but still relevant IMO.

   1. Vacuums are still in development, as Rosatom specialist joined to R&D in ~2017. Most likely they will work on DU version, but design decisions from it may carry to Vacuum-1, or they also can be involved in Vacuum-1 development because of point 2.

   2. Oleg Sienko complained that the requirements for live fire tests are constantly growing. “It can all turn into infinity”, which may indicate that Vacuum-1 shell can/did receive changes according to increasing requirements from MoD.

   3. There are problems with 2A82 cannon for Armata, at least per GurKhan's claims. It also may get a redesign or smaller changes that can affect shell design (there are no big stockpiles of Vacuums laying around, so it is possible).

   4. Previous APFSDS had long and problematic development, at least according to what can be found on the net. Svinets had problems with stability after/during separation of sabo parts and went through several versions until recently was put into serial production.

   5. During discussion on that discord channel one of members told that entering mass production doesn't affect shell design. Well, let's just look at an AK - stamped automatic carabine that was designed to be mass produced. Test versions worked ok, but when it got to that whole "mass production" phase how many variants of AK were made because of problems with production? Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and then AKM, and this is from a top of my head, they went from stamped to much heavier milled receivers, different mags, different placement of rivets and so on. Dismissing possible problems and changes in design when it enters mass production is not exactly right way of thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Also interesting part i found:


   The prosecutor's office of the city of Vladimir conducted an audit of compliance with the licensing requirements of JSC “Tochmash”, located at: st. Severnaya, 1A, Vladimir, during which it was determined that on July 29, 2013 VPO “Tochmash” and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Arms Supply Agency concluded a state contract for development work “Development of ammunition 125 mm mm high-efficiency shots to a tank gun 2A82 ”, code “Armata — PBC”. In order to carry out work on the execution of the concluded contract of VPO Tochmash in the territory of the managing company of the open joint-stock company TVEL, located at 49 Kashirskoye Shosse, Moscow, 08/29/2013 a branch was established - a center for experimental design developments. The lease agreement for non-residential premises located at Kashirskoye Shosse, 49, p. 90, Moscow, with a rental period from 11/01/2013 to 10/31/2018, was concluded on 10/25/2013.

   This experimental facility should have worked until the ~end of 2018, working on new shells for Armata's gun, at least according to original contract.



   Director of FKP “Research Institute Geodesii” A.V. Vagin announced the preliminary results of work in 2016 and the main provisions of the enterprise’s activity program for 2017 and the planning period of 2018 and 2019.
The priorities in the test program are: testing the ammunition load of a 125-mm round for the Armata-PBC R&D (customer of JSC VPO Tochmash)

   Shells were planned to be in development/testing phase in 2017, 2018 and probably 2019.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...


   Some news about Armata.


   By the end of 2019, at best, 16 Armata tanks will be delivered to the troops instead of 44, which were supposed to be made in the schedule. Almost all the important units of the tank need to be improved. Therefore, for some time, troops will receive vehicles that are greatly simplified technically compared to the original requirements.



   In April 2016, the then Deputy Minister of Defense and current Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov announced the signing of a contract with Uralvagonzavod for the supply of 100 “Armata”. The plant management promised that the machine will go into mass production in 2017. But when the military was already preparing to see the latest tank at the training grounds, it suddenly turned out that the delivery time of the first batch was postponed until 2020.



   The latest Armat supply contract was signed at the Army 2018 forum. Officially, the Ministry of Defense simply extended the contract for an experimental batch of vehicles on the promising heavy tracked platform Armata. According to it, the plant should deliver 132 armored vehicles to the Russian army in the T-14 tank (Armata tank), T-15 infantry fighting vehicles on the same platform, as well as the BREM T-16 armored repair and recovery vehicles.

   It is already obvious that the contract will be disrupted at least in terms of delivery time. By the end of 2019, out of 44 units planned for production, the army will receive a maximum of 16, of which a quarter will be ARVs. This is just a company of tanks. Most likely it will become a PR project, they will be shown to foreigners and journalists. Since 2020, all these tanks will undergo test-military operation in the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division of the Western Military District.



   One of the reasons is serious flaws, due to which the representatives of the special reception have doubts about the combat effectiveness of the “miracle weapon”. According to reports, a number of weapons systems that the T-14 Armata tank is equipped with need further testing and experimental operation in existing military units.



   In the publication by “Military-Industrial Courier”, it was suggested that almost all important units of the tank — a power plant, transmission, sighting system — might need refinement. Even the armor that was used on the demonstration samples was made using foreign technology.



   The fact is that “Armata” is crammed with various auxiliary systems and electronics/.../ But all these "bells and whistles" significantly complicate the design of the combat vehicle. This leads to the fact that the requirements for those who repair and maintain new equipment are significantly increased. The qualification of mechanics should be no worse than that of the engineers of Uralvagonzavod. Where the army will find so many high-class specialists, as is customary with the military, for little money, is unclear.

   Since Russian industry is not able to solve all problematic issues in a short time, simplified versions of tanks will go to the army first. Perhaps, in order not to purchase a large number of "unrefined" tanks, production plans could be deliberately reduced. On the other hand, it is not clear why tanks enter the troops, the readiness of which is worth doubting. Perhaps this is a tacit agreement between the military and industry, because the failure of the contract is a serious matter. Moreover, in recent years, the authorities have been doing PR for Armata as a technical achievement that they don't want to admit to now people that they have problems with project.



   The main indicator that the Russian military-industrial complex could not cope with the production of "Armata" may be the decision to modernize old models of armored vehicles. It seems that in anticipation of the latest development of domestic tank building, the army is twisting as it can. Under various contracts, the T-90M "Breakthrough-3", T-80BVM, T-72B3M tanks with domestic sighting and observation systems — about 400 units in total — will be delivered to the troops by the end of the year. Well, as long as there is no “Armata”, an old proven technique will help out.


   And to add to article above:


Army General Oleg Salyukov answering questions, one of which was about Armata


   - Exactly a year ago, you said that the tanks “Armata”, BMP “Kurganets-25”, armored personnel carriers “Boomerang” are at the final stage of development. We see them at the military parade on Red Square, at the International Military Technical Forum "Army" in the Patriot Exhibition and Convention Center. When will they appear in units of the Ground Forces?


   - Yes, indeed, the Armata tank, BMP Kurganets-25, and Bumerang armored personnel carriers are well-known are the final stages of development. According to their characteristics, taking into account the existing modernization potential, they will certainly surpass the best foreign models by ten years.
   Considering that the samples are completely new, with a large number of innovative solutions and technologies, the enterprises of the military-industrial complex make a 100-percent transfer from the imported element base, which was used in the components and assemblies of these samples of armored weapons and equipment during its development, to the domestic element base, in connection with which the prototypes are debugged, their parts and assemblies are tuned and redesigned. The work is carried out in accordance with the planned dates.
   In addition, state contracts have already been concluded for the supply of a pilot batch of promising samples for their pilot military operation. I emphasize once again - all samples will be based on the domestic element base.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that i think about it, the narrative about the program failing to meet its goals because of a failure on the part of the industrial-military complex is preferable, from the POV of the Government interests, instead of admitting that the whole economic policy is failing which leads to a lack of funding and resources. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One word: agony. 

Seriously. Why not dump the whole project? Just a waste of money, for nothing to gain. A few barely functional tanks used for propaganda? Worth it? I think buying more T-90M with added APS would be far better and logical decision.

Most of these new projects (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang) doomed it looks like. The 2S35 is probably the only one worth saving, probably mature enough to start serial production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

One word: agony. 

Seriously. Why not dump the whole project? Just a waste of money, for nothing to gain. A few barely functional tanks used for propaganda? Worth it? I think buying more T-90M with added APS would be far better and logical decision.

Most of these new projects (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang) doomed it looks like. The 2S35 is probably the only one worth saving, probably mature enough to start serial production.

You right. Russia could not afford a new tank 10 years ago. It can’t even now. T-90M have some troubles with his subcaliber shells. But this isn't much troubles and can be solved. 
At the moment, we have a long project that does not fit into any time frame. It just touched the future. A more realistic layout of past developments (I mean Object 195).
Personally, I regret that the Ministry of Defense followed the path of new tanks and large expenses. And not along the path of further modernization of the T-90

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason these projects are not outright cancelled its because they got too big to fail. No one, the government or the industrial complex, can afford to pay the price either economical or political and now they are just trying to save face. What we should be asking ourselves is why to launch such a pharaonic project which is proving to be unachievable. My opinion is that ten years ago the government was much more optimistic (or delusional?) about the economic development of Russia, but then Ukraine and Syria happened, and sanctions on top of a worsening world economic situation. Could have they have forseen the worsening of the economic situation? Well, they should have but facing that reality meant recognizing they´re own failings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...





   Guidance Counteraction System (Armata)

   It is intended to protect AFVs from defeat by existing and promising high-precision weapons.


   Carries out:

  • registration of pulsed and modulated laser radiation, laser rangefinders and laser ATGM guidance systems in all wavelength ranges;
  • detection of attacking ATGMs using the ultraviolet radiation of a rocket engine;
  • creating interference with guidance and aiming systems in the laser, infrared and radar wavelength ranges.


  • 360 degrees protection of AFV, including the upper hemisphere;
  • increased protection of AFV by 1.5 times.


   Small addition, the "interference with guidance and aiming systems in the laser, infrared and radar wavelength ranges" is done using grenades (smoke and other warheads are avaliable)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

The fact that ATGMs are detected by optical means only reinforces the claims that the APS can intercept KE, detected with the radars.

 I don't follow this logic. How detection of ATGM launch by soft kill APS is connected to interception of KE by hard kill APS, which is separate system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
      PART 1
      Object 292
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • By seppo
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 

      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS

      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

  • Create New...