Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or any indication of the actual shape of the armour arrays underneath - I look forward to the better views we'll have from the parade

armata(3).jpg

 

     Basically it looks like this. Currently thin steel plates cover it, but under it there is something very similar to that model. Gunner sight, commnader sight, RCWS, APS layout, hatch for ammunition/ejection, gun location in turret, frontal turret armor slope and size - all is looking very similar to this render. IIRC this is 3D model from official presentation of Armata project. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ptApZIq.jpg

 

Yuri Pasholok's guide to posting about the Armata.

 

Suspension:

6 wheels? Obsolete, no modernization potential.

7 wheels? Excessive, heavy.

 

Exhaust:

Side? Hard to conceal, makes tank vulnerable.

Rear?  Impedes the tank's movement in a column.

 

Optics:

Direct optical channel: makes the tank expensive and complicated, signifies primitive electronics.

No direct optical channel: the system is unreliable, the tank becomes blind after the smallest mishap.

 

Protection:
Side armour is insufficient (always)

Top armour is insufficient (always)

 

Active protection system:

No? Any tank without active protection has no future.

Yes? Active protection reveals the tank and impedes cooperation with infantry.

 

Reactive armour:

Poor (always)

 

Fire control

Poor (always)

 

Sights:

Poor (always)

 

AA machinegun:

12.7 mm: excessive obsolete caliber, all the cool kids have 7.62

7.62 mm: insufficient obsolete caliber, all the cool kids have 12.7

 

Armament:

125 mm: insufficient and obsolete caliber for an MBT.

152 mm: excessive caliber, signifying primitive shell technology

 

Cost:

Less than 5 million: disposable garbage

More than 5 million: kickbacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Armata could be made of paper mache and use fucking cell phones for its vision blocks, and it would still be the most significant tank design in a decade.

Well, the Russians have finally surpassed the West in making a tank that is absolutely hideous.  I thought the LeClerc and the K2 were ugly, but this thing....

 

But then, I think just about every tank introduced since 1979 is ugly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shtora-2

attachicon.gifJwNzo.jpg

I don't see how they are same system. Grenade launchers are mounted with >0 elevation, to make smoke screen big enough in terms of height. Kurganets-25 IFV have tubes, that are orientated horizontally with 0 elevation. And unmanned turret already have smoke grenades mounted on it, as Kurganets APc.

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...