GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

[DIADES]

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

Of course trunnion position and breech length are important, but you talked specifically about the height of the whole turret as a unit relative to the placement of the gun. You said it's a negating factor and I corrected you by saying it's a contributing factor. 

 

I think we are misunderstanding each other.  My original post was poorly worded.  So, my intention was to point out that the trunion is very low and the turret roof is high in the context of hull down.  Yes, assuming the glacis is out of the way, more depression for any given gun behind trunion length and trunion height will push the roof up.  But the combination of all the geometry is what limits real world tactical use.  If the crew finds a perfect forward slope (one that matches max depression), they will have a lot of turret sticking up above the barrel compared to, say, a Leo or Abrams.

[LoooSeR]

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

LOL, so can a Sheridan

 

Difference is that Soviet/Russian GL-ATGMs are used in combat (Syria, Bastions for example).

 

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/glossary/glossaryh.htm

 

apparently i need an image to explain hull down and why one does not want a lot of turret above the trunion.  Yeah, I know its only a Sherman and a simplified image.  If somebody can provide accurate T14 (please image a triumphant brass chorus) line image and trunion position, I will happily construct appropriate comparative diagram with Leo (Long Live The King)

1) T-14 turret is much more narrower compared to "western" MBTs that tend to have better gun depressions compared to "eastern" tanks. This means that frontal projection that is visible for enemy could be about same or smaller than on those "western" MBTs in hull down position.

 

2) T-14 turret could be designed with 152 mm cannon in mind. At least size of that thing are not that far from Object 195's cathedral.

 

3) It is unmanned, so hits in frontal parts are not going to take out crew

 

4) for my eye, distance between gun tube and turret roof doesn't look much bigger than on some other tanks in service.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[LoooSeR]

   Night rehearsals of Victory Parade, photos by Andrey Kryuchenko

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Pascal]

19 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

1) T-14 turret is much more narrower compared to "western" MBTs that tend to have better gun depressions compared to "eastern" tanks. This means that frontal projection that is visible for enemy could be about same or smaller than on those "western" MBTs in hull down position.

 

Aren't the turrets just wide, because of the side armor on the turrets.From the front they may seem wide but the extremities of a turret is just the side armor, no internals at all.

 

So in situation where an Abrams will be hit in the turret side extremities, the crew would not be harmed at all in the case of an T-14 it will be a miss.

 

The visibility of the turret in hull down position is the same really.

 

The winning points for the T-14 is the fact that in cases where a turret is hit it will only have to deal with the damaged hardware of the tank not causalities and hardware.

 

Plus, turret down position with a commanders sight like on a T-14, where just the sight and the machine gun is seen and also no blind zones at all is considered to be characteristics of the chosen one.

 

Not forgetting also the delicious weight savings for not having to deal with armor on a turret for the crew.

[XhaxhiEnver]

Hello comrades. 

First post here. 

I just wanted to drop by this.

 

 

As you can see physically there is no issue regarding depression. 

Because the more centrally placed turret and L52 gun, it could have been, BUT, because of that "high roof" AND L52 (again) angled on a slope the results are the same. 

Ironically, the "real estate" exposed by both sides is the same. With the current M1A2SepV3 (M1A2C) the "real estate" is even a tad bigger for the M1...

 

 

[heretic88]

I think main problem with T-14 turret is protection against autocannons. I highly doubt its sides can resist 30x173 APFSDS. So for example even a Stryker Dragoon would be a serious threat (mission kill only, but thats enough). No such issue with normal manned turrets.

[XhaxhiEnver]

That relies on the wager that a lighter vehicle would manage to come close enough to fire its gun within effective range. 

[alanch90]

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I think main problem with T-14 turret is protection against autocannons. I highly doubt its sides can resist 30x173 APFSDS. So for example even a Stryker Dragoon would be a serious threat (mission kill only, but thats enough). No such issue with normal manned turrets.

Most if not all current MBT are vulnerable against 30mm  to the sides of their hull.

However, T-14 hull at least in the area of the crew compartment is likely to resist that. On the other hand, the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm which is about what 30-40mm can pen at close range. And i dont think that an IFV, which are normally very voluminous vehicles, can get close enough without being spotted and fired upon with the tanks main gun. Nevertheless a burst of 30mm fire can and most likely will take out a lot of the turret exposed sensors and sights, which would happen to any MBT.

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

That relies on the wager that a lighter vehicle would manage to come close enough to fire its gun within effective range. 

 

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Most if not all current MBT are vulnerable against 30mm  to the sides of their hull.

However, T-14 hull at least in the area of the crew compartment is likely to resist that. On the other hand, the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm which is about what 30-40mm can pen at close range. And i dont think that an IFV, which are normally very voluminous vehicles, can get close enough without being spotted and fired upon with the tanks main gun. Nevertheless a burst of 30mm fire can and most likely will take out a lot of the turret exposed sensors and sights, which would happen to any MBT.

 

This "it shouldn't happen in the first place" mindset is counter-productive.

Over the past century of tank development, a lot of progress was made solely on the realization of "oh shit, it happened".

 

The British built a sub-par tank because they probably didn't think Russia would field anything advanced enough until the Challenger 2 is replaced.

The Israelis failed to invest in an APS because they didn't think guerilla AT units could hit their tanks' flanks with such (relative) impunity. 

The Indians have never finished the Arjun project because their entire acquisition process is just FUBAR, or at least was, for a very long time.

 

None has exact knowledge of the side armor of the T-14. I'm willing to bet that it's adequate against autocannons. 

 

When it comes to the hull, basically every tank today is resistant enough against 30mm autocannons. Every family of tanks (i.e Merkava variants, Abrams variants, Leclerc variants etc etc) has a ready-to-install armor kit that would make it basically immune to fatalities from autocannons.

[heretic88]

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

the thickness of the turret sides seems between 100-200mm

I have serious doubts about that. The Objekt-477 had only 50mm armor on the turret sides where the gun was mounted. (according to paralay's drawings). Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS. The gunner's sight is also in a vulnerable position, far more exposed than on the Abrams, or even T-72.

[XhaxhiEnver]

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 

This "it shouldn't happen in the first place" mindset is counter-productive.

Over the past century of tank development, a lot of progress was made solely on the realization of "oh shit, it happened".

 

The British built a sub-par tank because they probably didn't think Russia would field anything advanced enough until the Challenger 2 is replaced.

The Israelis failed to invest in an APS because they didn't think guerilla AT units could hit their tanks' flanks with such (relative) impunity. 

The Indians have never finished the Arjun project because their entire acquisition process is just FUBAR, or at least was, for a very long time.

 

None has exact knowledge of the side armor of the T-14. I'm willing to bet that it's adequate against autocannons. 

 

When it comes to the hull, basically every tank today is resistant enough against 30mm autocannons. Every family of tanks (i.e Merkava variants, Abrams variants, Leclerc variants etc etc) has a ready-to-install armor kit that would make it basically immune to fatalities from autocannons.

 

 

I beg the pardon of you all here but you seem to forget a couple of things about "tank development", the vehicle at hand and how generally military institutions tend to operate.

 

a. We are talking about a specific situation which in recent history has happened very few times. That is IFV auto-canons penetrating the sides of an MBT turret.

 -These cases have been proven in ODS and Ukraine recently.

 -The said cases had happened due to both tactical errors, material inferiority of the MBT's and generally a very poor state of the MBT unit who got attacked.

 -The case of ODS (73 Easting) while much talked about, was a situation that happened because the Iraqis were overrun by the US tactical group. The fact that the Iraqis in static dug-ins were in one case taken out by 25mm (some say from the rear of the Turret at point blank range) is basically an outlier and is no basis for concern (The T-72's were being smacked by US heavy armor and FCS capability). 

 -In the case of the 2nd Separate TB of Ukraine that was ambushed by LNR (cough Russians cough) BMP's and lost 3 T64BV to penetrating shots, is also something that is an outlier. And relies on a bad tactical decision from the CO's. As such the fact that both sides came that close, is an outlier. As BMP's would rarely venture that close. Before you bring up Thunder Runs of 2003 fame, the level of luck and speed and organization versus the lack of all those in Ukraine, should be pressed forward.

 

b. We are talking about a vehicle which by nature is going to be engaged in a unit. A unit that will cover angles, operate with other supporting vehicles. If your cohesion and inter-operation as a unit breaks down at that point, then again, there's no level or armor that would help you. 

 

c. The "it shouldn't happen" is exactly why you have a doctrine which lays out objectives, TTP's and thresholds to evaluate those. Both in capability and efficiency.

If your military unit can't establish its goals (which are mainly military translations of political calculus), pursue them within the threshold of violence and losses then a review is in order. But those doctrinal lines cannot simply be to make everything "unkillable". Because cost for starters. Furthermore, a case of "making" things "unkillable" in first glance will always have an escalation. This escalation is only possible if the conflict at hand isn't terminated. In the case of Israel, that conflict is unsolvable. But in the case of Russia or the US, the conflicts recently have all been solved (on their "hot" phase) rather quickly. 

 

d. The vehicle we are talking about is satisfactory when taking into account how a military unit should operate.  Furthermore its layout makes it easier to both up-armor if need be, but also protect as it is. 

[LoooSeR]

https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/11821827.html

   Kek, Pantsir is huge.

 

Spoiler

 

[Zadlo]

9 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS.

 

I would agree with that but only if it refers to turret's 'citadel' armor thickness.

Between the citadel and possibly thin outer layer covering APS parts from MG and AMR rounds there's a lot of free space which 30mm APFSDS has to 'travel'.

[alanch90]

10 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I have serious doubts about that. The Objekt-477 had only 50mm armor on the turret sides where the gun was mounted. (according to paralay's drawings). Maybe it was improved on T-14, but I dont think its thicker than 80mm, which is easily penetrated by 30mm APFSDS. The gunner's sight is also in a vulnerable position, far more exposed than on the Abrams, or even T-72.

See the section between the gunners sight and the guns mantlet? I think thats the physical thickness of the turret sides.

[Ramlaen]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:48 PM, XhaxhiEnver said:

Hello comrades. 

First post here. 

I just wanted to drop by this.

 

 

As you can see physically there is no issue regarding depression. 

Because the more centrally placed turret and L52 gun, it could have been, BUT, because of that "high roof" AND L52 (again) angled on a slope the results are the same. 

Ironically, the "real estate" exposed by both sides is the same. With the current M1A2SepV3 (M1A2C) the "real estate" is even a tad bigger for the M1...

 

 

 

The T-14 has good depression but your graphic is misleading by making those tanks the same size.

[XhaxhiEnver]

They are not the same size. They are close, not similar. There is a .9m difference in hull length. A .12 to .25 in hull height. 

 

What the graphic is showing is that once placed on the same firing line. The gun geometry is relatively similar. 

 

Yes the T-14 is comparable in size to the M1A1.

[Ramlaen]

6 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

Yes the T-14 is comparable in size to the M1A1.

 

To illustrate.

 

 

[XhaxhiEnver]

Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things. First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m.

 

Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall) means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m ; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head.

 

Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track « thread » while in your picture there are two. While the front two have 2 threads while in your picture almost three.

 

Reporting the distance we find  on these images the Abrams results 2,3m high at roof and Armata at 2,7m high.

While again according to your own images the hull length for the Abrams is 8,3m (converted)...While according to all sources it doesn’t get past 8.

 

 

I could discuss this further but as a person I don’t like being taken for a ride.

 

You should be more « careful » when you try such things. Not every one is gullible.

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things.

 

For starters, I did not make the graphic just as you did not make the graphic you posted that it refutes.

 

Quote

First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m.

 

Do you think that ~1.88 meters is too low? Because depending on the source it is even lower than that.

 

Quote

Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall)

 

My own math puts it at a little under 50cm tall so I will take your word for it.

 

Quote

means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head.

 

Photos like this?

 

 

If you want to argue that the turret roof is only .3 meter above the gun then go ahead.

 

Quote

Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track « thread » while in your picture there are two. While the front two have 2 threads while in your picture almost three.

 

The creator of the image does appear to be off by ~2 track pads.

 

Quote

Reporting the distance we find  on these images the Abrams results 2,3m high at roof and Armata at 2,7m high.

While again according to your own images the hull length for the Abrams is 8,3m (converted)...While according to all sources it doesn’t get past 8.

Is the 8.3m your math from the image? Because it isn't what I get.

 

Quote

I could discuss this further but as a person I don’t like being taken for a ride.

You should be more « careful » when you try such things. Not every one is gullible.

All you seem to have done is suggest that the T-14 is actually taller than reported.

 

[Kal]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:41 AM, alanch90 said:

See the section between the gunners sight and the guns mantlet? I think thats the physical thickness of the turret sides.

Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements  direct attached to the gun.  

 

Probably not much good directly perpendicular,  but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.

 

 

[alanch90]

9 minutes ago, Kal said:

Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements  direct attached to the gun.  

 

Probably not much good directly perpendicular,  but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.

 

 

Well, there are explosive elements directly in the roof, and underneath those there is some composite armor. In my opinion, the same thickness and composition than the armor in the crew compartment roof, meaning much more than M1, Leo 2, whatever, but less than Merkava 4.

Also my opinion is that the side turret armor is pure steel, and if its that thickness that i sugested should be about or more than 200mm which from the POV of the frontal arc, should be able to resist most if not all APFSDS shots fired from 30-40mm autocannons (about 50mm and above i dont know) at normal combat ranges. Another advantage of a pure steel composition is that it would serve both as ballistc protection and structural support functions.

[XhaxhiEnver]

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

For starters, I did not make the graphic just as you did not make the graphic you posted that it refutes.

 

 

Do you think that ~1.88 meters is too low? Because depending on the source it is even lower than that.

 

 

My own math puts it at a little under 50cm tall so I will take your word for it.

 

 

Photos like this?

 

 

If you want to argue that the turret roof is only .3 meter above the gun then go ahead.

 

 

The creator of the image does appear to be off by ~2 track pads.

 

Is the 8.3m your math from the image? Because it isn't what I get.

 

All you seem to have done is suggest that the T-14 is actually taller than reported.

 

 

 

 

The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 

1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. 

 

In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue print is off by more than "2 track pads". Following up we also have little problem. The front section (imaginary line over the lights) sits at 1.62m height. With the sketch again we have a minimum of 1.8m at the "beak". That's not possible. 

 

That photo while not aiming at 0deg, clearly shows that the "beak" isn't a 1.8 and the gun is going to come slightly over the serviceman's head. Unless that man is 2m tall, I can't really understand how that "sketch" corresponds to reality. Nevermind the swap for a M1 early run. 

 

If the gun is aimed at 2.1m then the roof isn't at .3m, but half a meter above. Which gives ample room to aim lower (even with a bigger breech).

 

With the recalculus, at best I find out a 7.76m hull from your image; about .2 m shorter than most sources. 

 

The T-14 is about 3.3 with the TCIV. It is about 8.7m long in hull. And it is about 2.6m tall. This gives it both better depression than previous Soviet/Russian designs while having a typical central location on the hull contrarily to the M1.

[LoooSeR]

Quote

   The company "Mikran" has developed a cassette of remote launched individual system of operational tactical intelligence "Eye"/Glaz, designed for installation on combat vehicles, in particular, on the Russian tank T-14 "Armata", reported TASS at MILEX 2019.
   It is noted that the development extends the capabilities of the system "by combining rocket launchers into one cassette with the ability to automatically start in the direction chosen by the operator."
   The cassette is a unit with seven individual containers-rocket launchers of the Glaz complex, which also includes a receiving device mounted inside of the tank, and a rotatable launcher mechanism.
   In January, TASS reported on the development of the Eye system in the interests of the Defense Ministry, which is a mini-device launched from a hand-held rocket launcher with a parachute that rises to a height of 300 meters, then throws a device with a high-resolution camera, the image of which is transmitted to the fighter’s tablet . The system has been tested in Syria.

[Mighty_Zuk]

That's a nifty idea! However considering the complexity of such systems, I thought a tethered drone would appear first.

[Ramlaen]

14 hours ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 

1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. 

 

In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue print is off by more than "2 track pads". Following up we also have little problem. The front section (imaginary line over the lights) sits at 1.62m height. With the sketch again we have a minimum of 1.8m at the "beak". That's not possible. 

 

That photo while not aiming at 0deg, clearly shows that the "beak" isn't a 1.8 and the gun is going to come slightly over the serviceman's head. Unless that man is 2m tall, I can't really understand how that "sketch" corresponds to reality. Nevermind the swap for a M1 early run. 

 

If the gun is aimed at 2.1m then the roof isn't at .3m, but half a meter above. Which gives ample room to aim lower (even with a bigger breech).

 

With the recalculus, at best I find out a 7.76m hull from your image; about .2 m shorter than most sources. 

 

The T-14 is about 3.3 with the TCIV. It is about 8.7m long in hull. And it is about 2.6m tall. This gives it both better depression than previous Soviet/Russian designs while having a typical central location on the hull contrarily to the M1.

 

-the gun height of an Abrams did not change between the 105mm gun and the 120mm gun

 

-a 2.1 meter gun height for the T-14 appears to be more accurate than the 2.3 meter height you previously said

 

-I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the T-14's gun depression when I agree with you that it has good gun depression.