Mad Mecha Guy | 04 May 2015 1:27 p.m. PST |
Daily Mail has some pictures of Armata on parade link The Turret looks odd, like they dropped an outer layer on it |
cwlinsj | 04 May 2015 1:50 p.m. PST |
So the tank version's turret is rather conventional-looking and there are no mini gun turrets on either side as was depicted in early artists renderings. I'm kinda disappointed. Looks like a copy of Western tank designs. |
Tgerritsen | 04 May 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
Wow, unusually tall for a Russian tank. Russians have typically had very low profile tanks, and this looks very tall. |
javelin98 | 04 May 2015 2:57 p.m. PST |
Darn it… now I have to go back and redesign my 3mm version. *sigh* |
Intrepide | 04 May 2015 3:16 p.m. PST |
Calling QRF… Calling QRF… |
David in Coffs | 04 May 2015 8:34 p.m. PST |
Aren't these just computer images? Rather than photos |
GeoffQRF | 05 May 2015 5:06 a.m. PST |
|
David in Coffs | 05 May 2015 5:30 a.m. PST |
Thanks Tango! I don't know why but the article looks different now.. Perhaps I was distracted by page 3 or the lack of Tory politition in kinky love triangle with Scottish independence advocate in kilt with bag pipes. |
BattlerBritain | 05 May 2015 5:43 a.m. PST |
Is it me or is the tank commander now placed in the hull with no crew in the turret? I can't see any pictures with a commander standing with head out of the turret. |
Gaz0045 | 05 May 2015 7:09 a.m. PST |
Yep, TC is the 'higher' figure of the two exposed at the front…..it does seem to be a tall vehicle compared to other Russian designs…….. |
latto6plus2 | 05 May 2015 7:16 a.m. PST |
No turret crew would be logical in terms of survivability and a pretty radical design jump. Maybe that outer layer is just disguising a very small, heavily armoured external gun pod. That would be cool. |
Defender1 | 05 May 2015 7:27 a.m. PST |
Looks like a nice, fat target to me! |
kabrank | 05 May 2015 7:36 a.m. PST |
Defender1 As do all modern MBT. Size from scalings is approx that of an M1 [but with a smaller turret] and so larger than T72/T80 series. Includes good integral Active Defense System which may make it hard to hit |
Barin1 | 05 May 2015 8:02 a.m. PST |
link more pics from parade rehearsal. One of my colleagues had all this stuff running yesterday on the street right below his windows ;) |
Gaz0045 | 05 May 2015 9:30 a.m. PST |
Cheers Barin1, great set of photos………… |
Lion in the Stars | 05 May 2015 9:35 a.m. PST |
That does look like a dummy outer layer on the turret… |
cwlinsj | 05 May 2015 9:49 a.m. PST |
Great pictures! They just grow on you the more you look at them. |
MCV 80 | 05 May 2015 12:55 p.m. PST |
@javelin98: You have been warned : TMP link However, keep the designs you already have and sell them as Near Future. Furthermore add an updated design for the Armata which has now been presented for those who want the current version. Just my 2 cents. Kind regards, Benjamin |
BattlerBritain | 05 May 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
From a discussion on the Flashpoint:Red Storm forum here's a great top down view of a T-14: link Interesting are the fuel tanks at the rear and side of the tank in a semi-fixed position? Fuel as armour? It's been tried before: diesel is actually a flame inhibitor. Does also make me think that the turret is un-manned. That suggests to me that the crew would use some sort of remote video link for sighting and engagements. It would also suggest better protection for the crew, should, say, the ammo cook-off ala T-72. |
Charlie 12 | 05 May 2015 3:59 p.m. PST |
The 3 man crew (according to the info out there) is entirely down in the hull. Couple of things strike about this newest Russian design: 3 man crew- Anyone who has ever crewed a tank (or any track) knows how much maintenance is involved. I can't see a 3 man crew handling it. Which means the maintenance support must be coming from higher up. Which means you really didn't cut manpower, you just shifted it. All the crew in the hull- Nice idea and simplifies some things. But that does take the TC out of his traditional 'head out of the turret' position. That can't be good for situational awareness (and CITV is nowhere near replacing that). |
Charlie 12 | 05 May 2015 4:03 p.m. PST |
"The idea the crew in the hull is not new, but it's certainly the first major tank that has utilized this idea." The US fooled around with the concept back in the late 80s-early 90s. Took a M1 and mounted a crewless turret (w/autoloader) and moved the TC down into hull. Just a concept vehicle that never went any further. |
Ascent | 05 May 2015 10:36 p.m. PST |
Russian/soviet tanks have had a 3 man crew since the T64. I would have thought that with a crewless turret they'd have taken the opportunity to reduce the height of the vehicle, surely that's one of the greatest benefits? |
David Manley | 05 May 2015 10:54 p.m. PST |
Situational awareness was one of the big concerns over the optronic masts on the Astute SSNs, there were worries from senior officers, old and bold submariners that the fact that the CO wasn't pointed in the direction that he was looking would be a big issue. Didn't happen, and one reason cited was the "Nintendo Generation" crews who were used t seeing the world on a screen and who were quite able to put together an accurate world in their heads on that basis (also seen as a key enabler for distributed command and control systems, moving away from centralised hubs where the CO has to be able to see everything and "reach out" personally to his subordinates). OK, so thats a maritime example but it probably holds true on land as well. The turret design is interesting, almost as though there are some significant elements that aren't there yet….. |
Charlie 12 | 05 May 2015 10:59 p.m. PST |
Ascent- You are so right. Somehow, I had it stuck in my head that they had 4 man crews (with the loader tending to the autoloader). And you're right, that is an awfully tall vehicle for a Russian design. |
latto6plus2 | 06 May 2015 2:34 a.m. PST |
Might just be more and more difficult to find enough guys under 5'4" to crew traditional soviet designs. Or it may be a shift to a design that can take advantage of hull down etc |
The Archer | 06 May 2015 6:49 a.m. PST |
Any chance to find a side-by side comparison of this tank and perhaps a 72 or 80/84? |
cwlinsj | 06 May 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
While I agree that the front 1/3 of the turret looks to be a facade, I see several set of smoke/grenade dischargers. Left & right of turret rear holds dischargers, and the left side holds reloads -or even an auto reloader. Look at posted link above for top-down picture. Then there are 2 more sets of larger discharger/launch tubes of some kind at bottom of turret sides. These are more evident in the IFV version. Does anyone know what these largess tubes are for? They appear to be too small for ATGMs. |
Legion 4 | 06 May 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
3 man crew- Anyone who has ever crewed a tank (or any track) knows how much maintenance is involved. I can't see a 3 man crew handling it. Which means the maintenance support must be coming from higher up. Which means you really didn't cut manpower, you just shifted it. I thought the same … You were a Tanker and I was Mech. We know about catering to the Iron Monsters usually takes time and more than 3 troopers … Their attached maintenance crews may/will have to be bigger too ? |
paulgenna | 07 May 2015 6:27 a.m. PST |
Remember the Soviet approach is for a lead unit to punch through the enemy and then the follow on forces would exploit the penetration. If this is still followed, then heavy maintenance by the crew is only really needed until they achieve the breakthrough. After this, they into a reserve component and the attached maintenance can take over the lions share of the work. |
Legion 4 | 07 May 2015 6:53 a.m. PST |
All true … and yes, generally like in the original Blitzkrieg tactics and techniques. The lead units break thru the enemie's front and then follow on forces exploit the break through. Regardless, if your stuff is broken down, you can't fight with all available firepower. But again, the Russians never were ones to have a shortage of forces when they wanted to force a penetration … And were usually willing to take large losses in doing so. |
MCV 80 | 07 May 2015 7:08 a.m. PST |
Then there are 2 more sets of larger discharger/launch tubes of some kind at bottom of turret sides. These are more evident in the IFV version.Does anyone know what these largess tubes are for? They appear to be too small for ATGMs. In my opinion these are part of an Active Defence System. As I first saw them I had to think of the DROZD APS/ADS. Cheers, Benjamin |
GeoffQRF | 07 May 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
Probably. She's supposed to be an automaton, they are called Uhrwers in the setting. |
GeoffQRF | 07 May 2015 12:22 p.m. PST |
…bug! That was reporting that it broke down. Allegedly driver error, although it was acknowledged that it had also broken down twice before. |
GeoffQRF | 08 May 2015 6:02 a.m. PST |
Looking at it, I'm wondering if the small tubes on top are some form of active defense, and the larger tubes under the turret are smoke dischargers. |