Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates

[Feanor]

More high resolution photographs, including the weird sideskirts on the Armata IFV.

http://img.gazeta.ru/files3/781/6650781/upload-RIAN_02610984.HR.ru-pic4_zoom-1000x1000-79046.jpg
Gur Khan attacks!: "Ðрмата" в High Resolution
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1274522.html

 

[bdique]

More high resolution photographs, including the weird sideskirts on the Armata IFV.

http://img.gazeta.ru/files3/781/6650781/upload-RIAN_02610984.HR.ru-pic4_zoom-1000x1000-79046.jpg
Gur Khan attacks!: "Ðрмата" в High Resolution
bmpd - Еще "Ðрмата" вблизи

Hi Feanor thanks for the pics. Guess I was right abt seating positions of driver and commander hehe.

Re sideskirts. The engine is allegedly at the front. Guess no effort is spared to protect it from small arms fire in an urban setting...

 

[alexkvaskov]

Word is going round the Armata is equipped with non explosive reactive armour.

DT members who know their stuff, is this valid on any level?

 

[wsb05]

Word is going round the Armata is equipped with non explosive reactive armour.

DT members who know their stuff, is this valid on any level?

yes, armata and kurganet. This seems to be the prevailing opinion at this stage,
even though there were talksquite a while back about kaktus armour ERA being the next best thing.

 

[Feanor]

Two pieces of news. First off we have the Kurganets with the cannon equipped module.

Берлога Бронемедведа - Ð’Ñе интереÑное крупным планом

Second off it appears that the combat module they currently carry is not the Epoha, it's a module called the Bumerang-BM, while the Epoha is the planned module for later carrying a higher caliber weapon, likely either a telescoping 45mm cannon, or the 57mm S-60, hopefully with some modern rounds for it.

nortwolf_sam - Олег Бочкарев об "Ðрмате", "Курганце", "Бумеранге" и "Тайфуне"

Personally, I think their biggest deficiency is lack of modern ammo.

 

[bdique]

Two pieces of news. First off we have the Kurganets with the cannon equipped module.

Берлога Бронемедведа - Ð’Ñе интереÑное крупным планом

Second off it appears that the combat module they currently carry is not the Epoha, it's a module called the Bumerang-BM, while the Epoha is the planned module for later carrying a higher caliber weapon, likely either a telescoping 45mm cannon, or the 57mm S-60, hopefully with some modern rounds for it.

nortwolf_sam - Олег Бочкарев об "Ðрмате", "Курганце", "Бумеранге" и "Тайфуне"

Personally, I think their biggest deficiency is lack of modern ammo.

Feanor, thanks for the updates. Cannon-equipped Kurganets, I was just waiting to see when they would make an appearance

Regarding ammo...I'm not so sure if it is just the ammo that might be an issue, or if the whole autocannon system needs modernising. Friend of mine was part of a bilateral exercise between the SAF and the Indian Army. There was a cross-training segment, and he got to try being a BMP-2 gunner. His background was in operating the 25mm Bushmaster.

His take was that the RoF of the BMP-2 autocannon was amazing, but the accuracy at medium range (while stationary) was poor. Given what you mentioned about modern ammo, perhaps that might help to address the accuracy issue...

 

[alexkvaskov]

His take was that the RoF of the BMP-2 autocannon was amazing, but the accuracy at medium range (while stationary) was poor. Given what you mentioned about modern ammo, perhaps that might help to address the accuracy issue...

The low accuracy is probably more to do with crappy optronics and FCS.

 

[bdique]

The low accuracy is probably more to do with crappy optronics and FCS.

It is possible, but I wouldn't know. There's limits to what can be discussed freely, you see.

What I'd give to be at the gunner's seat...

 

[Feanor]

And officially unveiled. I see an APS but no secondary autocannon, or automatic grenade launcher. And that turret has some weird shapes to it.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Ð*аÑкрыт облик новой техники
Gur Khan attacks!: Ð’Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ñ Ñ€ÐµÐ¿ÐµÑ‚Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð² МоÑкве
Gur Khan attacks!: "Ðрмату" раздели
https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/h...98_10153811363457166_806215399343583071_o.jpg
https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/h...7_10153811363167166_6261029747396841791_o.jpg
https://2ch.hk/wm/src/1558198/14307563772960.jpg

 

[alexkvaskov]

What's that little box on the glacis? Part of the active protection system?

Overall, seems to be a massive doctrinal shift for the Russian army - these vehicles definitely emphasize protection and situational awareness to an extent greater than their predecessors.

 

[Waylander]

I like the look of the T-14 but I don't understand why they haven't put the main optic onto the roof?

You get better protection from artillery fragments this way but you miss out on the ability to observe while in turret down cover and create a ballistic weak point just like with the Leopard II up to A4 or the Arjun. Is there something I miss?

I expect the whole on the left of the turret to be the provision for the envisioned 30mm AC module?

 

[Feanor]

I like the look of the T-14 but I don't understand why they haven't put the main optic onto the roof?

You get better protection from artillery fragments this way but you miss out on the ability to observe while in turret down cover and create a ballistic weak point just like with the Leopard II up to A4 or the Arjun. Is there something I miss?

There appear to be two main optics, the panoramic sight on the roof, and the gunner sight on the left side of the turret. Given that all the sights are supposedly electronic, it's entirely possible that both sights lead to both commander and gunner monitors.

I expect the whole on the left of the turret to be the provision for the envisioned 30mm AC module?

There are holes on the left and right side. Speculations include a 30mm grenade launcher, a 57mm grenade launcher, a 30mm autocannon, etc. There is a plan currently for an incremental upgrade to the combat modules on all the new platforms, including a new auto-cannon module. It may be that a 45mm telescoping munition autocannon will replace the 2A42 around 2020, and get installed on the Armata. There is also a lot of speculation about potential up-gunning of the Armata to 152mm eventually.

 

[Waylander]

I fully expect the signal of the optics to be transported completely electronically. This makes me even more curious about the placement of the main sight.

In the past getting a decent optical signal to the gunner took part inthe considerations about placement of the main sight. A fully electronic signal places no boundaries on the placement of it.

 

[Feanor]

I fully expect the signal of the optics to be transported completely electronically. This makes me even more curious about the placement of the main sight.

In the past getting a decent optical signal to the gunner took part inthe considerations about placement of the main sight. A fully electronic signal places no boundaries on the placement of it.

I think the vulnerability of the top sight may have had something to do with it. I've heard rumors that the combat module borders on disposability, meaning it's easily replaced even if destroyed. So it might be that in a "hull down" position, the turret would be the exposed component, being unmanned. Keep in mind this is all speculation, on my part, based on what I've heard and read places.

Anyways, placing the gunner sight on the roof doesn't help with employment of the gun unless the turret is also above the level of entrenchment. In which case you might as well place the main gunner's sight at the same level as the gun. If it's just a question of situational awareness then the panoramic sight may have been deemed enough. There's also a strange box being the panoramic sight and machinegun elevation tower. I'm not sure what it does. It certainly doesn't look like an optic.

When I went through tank integration training, the USMC tankers told us that Iraqi snipers would try to shoot out the optics on their M1A1s. Clearly the panoramic sight is considerably more vulnerably then the regular top-sight on say a T-72. And of course the arrangement of the gunner's sight in the body of the turret next to the cannon is even more protected. That may have been the logic.

EDIT: One observer pointed out a lack of a coaxial machinegun, and only a 7.62 on the roof. Which is even stranger given that a 12.7mm module of the same kind was tested earlier.

 

[Nick underscore]

Overall, seems to be a massive doctrinal shift for the Russian army - these vehicles definitely emphasize protection and situational awareness to an extent greater than their predecessors.

I must fully agree. I would like to see more, once more information is released over time. This generational design change looks (to me at least) very asthetically pleasing on the eye.

Promising

EDIT; Some of the financial numbers. - Moscow shows its military mettle in run-up to Victory Day parade - FT

 

[Waylander]

I would expect one to protect the turret as much as possible.

The premier function of a tank is to provide firepower mobility and protection for breakthrough and exploitation as well as defense and delay actions.

IMO this role is compromised with a less well protected turret. One not only has to be able to replace damaged modules quickly (which is defenitely a good thing) but to stay in the fight as long as possible.

As for employment of the gun. An optic on the roof allows you to observe while being turret down. Getting spotted is much harder this way and putting hurt onto the enemy is just a question of driving some way forward to expose the gun and give the enemy echelon a healthy hello.

It is defenitely a question of different priorities but IMO the better protection against artillery fragments and small arms is not worth the drawbacks.

As for coax. The slot on the right side of the gun may just be a placeholder for the still to come real coax.

 

[bdique]

@Waylander,

The protection level on the T-14 actually appears impressive. The active protection system seems to be designed to protect the spot where the turret meets the chassis - the classic weak point. You've got a turret that seems to be able to survive a high-threat environment i.e. multiple RPG salvos, remote weapon system. Even if the T-14 suffers a weapon system kill, the crew should theoretically be able to survive the battle, drive back to the maintenance depot in one piece and live to fight another day - with a new turret.

Also, I need some help understanding the 'optic on the roof.' Is this the equivalent of the L2's commander sight? If that is correct, in the case of the T-14, wouldn't the 'optic on the roof' be the sighting system installed as part of the remote weapon station? (Feanor refers to this as panoramic sight)

Assuming both commander and gunner have shared sights, I think the T-14 has a basic ability to 'drive forward from cover and say hello'.

By the way, regarding the coax, the slot doesn't seem right - I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to allow the same angles of elevation that the main gun can achieve. The slot may have another function i.e. air intake for cooling some of the systems? I'm really just guessing here...

@Feanor,

Are there any safeguards on the T-14 to prevent the remote weapon system MG from shooting off the active protection system sensor/antenna? Sorry...I know it sounds stupid...but hey, you only learn if you ask right?

Also, it seems like the Armata, the Kuragnets, Bumerang...despite have two different turret configurations, the turrets seem optimised for urban operations i.e. high angle of elevation.

Do both types of turrets have active protection system? Any idea why there are two turret designs instead of a single one?

Sorry guys, I asked a lot of questions...long day for me, had to get all the questions out of my mind before I can sleep peacefully

 

[bdique]

I must fully agree. I would like to see more, once more information is released over time. This generational design change looks (to me at least) very asthetically pleasing on the eye.

Promising

EDIT; Some of the financial numbers. - Moscow shows its military mettle in run-up to Victory Day parade - FT

My personal hypothesis is that the Russians are incorporating all that they have learnt from urban fighting into these latest vehicles. This might be the beginning of a much more versatile Russian armoured force.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Also, I need some help understanding the 'optic on the roof.' Is this the equivalent of the L2's commander sight? If that is correct, in the case of the T-14, wouldn't the 'optic on the roof' be the sighting system installed as part of the remote weapon station? (Feanor refers to this as panoramic sight)

That bucket-like sight is the commander's panoramic sight, i.e. the tank's primary combat optic. The RWS doesn't seem to have its own dedicated optic like some others out there; I assume it would rely on the commander's sight.

Also, it seems like the Armata, the Kuragnets, Bumerang...despite have two different turret configurations, the turrets seem optimised for urban operations i.e. high angle of elevation.

Do both types of turrets have active protection system? Any idea why there are two turret designs instead of a single one?

Both the new APC and IFV have the heavy 30mm and light (I think it's a .50 cal) turrets. The light turret is for basic self defence in low threat environments where the 30mm is overkill, while the heavy turret enable a heavy, standoff solution - that's my view.

 

[Feanor]

More photos from different angles. Note the rear facing APS tubes and radar panels, and the upwards pointed grenade launchers, different from the forward pointed ones. Not sure what exactly the difference is.

Берлога Бронемедведа - Вид Ñверху
Берлога Бронемедведа - Еще наÑчет размеров
Берлога Бронемедведа - Т-14 / Т-15: Ñ„ÐÑ Ð¸ профиль
Берлога Бронемедведа - "Курганец" вокруг