Known Internet Experts have concluded that Armata is not actually a tank. It only has 900 RHa and the side armor is very weak. It is better to call it a big MRAP.
Pic related is the body, you can clearly see the very thin side armor and the document below proves a more than 900RHa can penetrate the tank.
http://it-claim.ru/Education/mami_project/presentations/spectech.pdf
nice try, but fyi some of us can read russian
now fuck off
>>28565490
Lol found the vatnik.
I have given the proofs.
Do what you must, I've already won.
>>28565501
shits not the same you dumbkopf.
>>28563895
I could have told you it was shit when they said they were changing how many crew it had due to poor performance from the side impacts
>>28565598
>I could have told you it was shit when they said they were changing how many crew it had due to poor performance from the side impacts
proofs?
>hurr structural skid is the armor durr
>it's the heaviest russian MBT for no reason durr
>>28565651
Thats like the winner of the special olympics.
Russian tanks are light as fuck.
>>28565655
armata prototype is as heavy as leo 2 prototype.
>>28565661
The leo 2 was orginally supposed to be a lighter tank.
Right now its more than 10 tons under the 2a6.
Its only about 3 tons more heavy than a base T90
>>28565670
To add, the armor findings makes sense as the tank is only slightly heavyer than the t-90. The t-90s base armor rateing is about 550-650 vs apfsds (note: base armor)
>>28565670
>Seventeen prototypes were ordered that year (only sixteen hulls were built). They had to have a maximum weight of 50 metric tons.
>In view of experiences in the Yom Kippur War, a higher level of protection was demanded than the prototypes's heavily sloped spaced armour. The weight class was increased to 60 tons.
>Leo-2 maximum combat weight 61.7-62.5 tons
>T-90 combat weight 46.5
>Armata prototype mass estimate 49 tons
>tanks never grow lighter
your point being?
>>28565715
>your point being?
The armatas weight is 50 tons, give or take. 50 tons was found to be 10 metric tons to light...in 1973.
>>28565590
Whats all that shit in the middle
Fuel?
>>28565731
and? this only means that armata will likely grow to 60-65 tons as it iterates through production.
>>28565744
ammunition
>>28565753
So what happens when they are shot in the side?
Ammunition cooks off & everyone dies?
>>28565769
noone dies probably assuming they don't have tlatgm's inside or 200lbs of tnt or something. but the tanks will be pretty much useless
>>28565769
it cooks off and possibly blows the turret off, but nobody dies, because there's no crew outside armored capsule.
>>28565746
>and? this only means that armata will likely grow to 60-65 tons as it iterates through production.
more to the point- they can still add a couple more hard layers to the armor on the frontal hull beak- with conventional tanks there is only so much additional thickness until you essentially impede the driver's access- see Leo 2A6 where they basically cut a chunk off the armor to make way for the driver and even then they have to lock the turret looking straigtht forward or backwrd if the driver wants to drive open hatch
>>28565746
can't wait to see more burning transmitions if thats the case :^)
>>28565746
>and?
It took decades for the leapord to grow above 60 tons. The orginal leo 2 was 55 tons.
>>28565773
>tank is useless if it is killed
no shit?
>>28565785
so it ate a lot, or what?
what are you trying to say? it takes decades to weld more metal or something?
>>28565786
abrams can keep fighting even if their ammo cooks off albeit just the coax and hatch guns leo2 and russian designs can't
>>28565731
>50 tons was found to be 10 metric tons too light... for a larger tank that required 4 crew members
FTFY
>ITT OP thinks noone is smart enough to copy 3 lines of the PDF into google translate
seriously you turbocunts, this is a promo PDF made about the design of frame/structure of mine resistant vehicles/ V hulls.
It literally has nothing to do with the T14
>>28565821
please m8 it's been known for atleast a month now by various tanks autist groups that the armata is just a pr stunt it litteraly has no fucking ceramic in it.
>>28565778
Leo's turret is pretty fucking huge. I don't think T-14 can or needs to grow its turret more than it already is, not more than its tin shroud anyway.
>>28565831
b-but the russians keep telling me they can afford to put the 152mm meme gun on it
>>28565810
that's speculation. ammo cooking off in any tank = mission kill.
>>28565828
>just PR stunt with no ceramics
yeah imma need several gallons of sauce on that claim m80boi
>>28565828
Source pls?
It seems to be a pretty drastic PR stunt considering they're equipping their entire fleet with them.
>>28565839
the capacity is there, however its unlikely that this will cause turret to grow forward rather than backward.
>>28565840
shit can still fight its way out anything but catastrophic kill or mobility kill on an abrams is irrelevant
>>28565828
>adpop this hard
>>28565796
>it takes decades to weld more metal or something?
It takes decades to upgrade a design to take 10 more tons of weight, yes.
If russia wanted a 60 ton tank, it would have designed one. There is no evidence that the armata is going though a major design change.
>>28565820
The armata and the leo 2 are dimension wise, the same.
>>28565845
armata was found to be a substandard shooting platform in comparison to the t90am. expect the order for armata's to be scaled back to 100 or so to be paraded around and t90am production to pick up.
>>28565857
then why crew leaves a smoking abrams as soon as possible, after being hit by a mere RPG-29 for example?
I'll tell you why - because in a burning tank you can't tell a)what hit you b)how bad the fire is.
and mission kill is all that matters anyway.
>>28563895
>Known Internet Experts
lol, as they say
>>28565887
are you talking about poorly trained saudi or iraqi vids because this is literally the only time that happens and they aren't supposed to do that.
>>28565887
>abrams
>burning
so I guess you don't know about the xenon fire suppression system abrams never fucking light on fire m8 unless it's their blow out pannels
Why is it so long?
>>28565907
>puts out fire
>crew suffocates
>>28565922
*Halon
>>28565909
Most of things turret had went to hull, so space for three in front, and a fat capsule.
>>28565972
have you seen how small that crew capsule is imagining having three people in it and someone farts.
>>28565981
you have weird turn-ons but ok
>>28565869
>The armata and the leo 2 are dimension wise, the same.
Nope.
Also, small unmanned turret vs fucklarge manned turret. That alone is going to save you several tons of weight even if both are armroed the same.
>>28566017
>small
>>28566017
Yes.
Armata
>Length 10.8 m (35 ft)
>Width 3.5 m (11 ft)
>Height 3.3 m (10 ft)
Leo 2
>Length 2A6: 9.97 metres (393 inches) (gun forward)
>Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)
>Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)
>YFW the armata is taller.
>>28566053
height by roof or by optic mount?
>>28566123
I would assume mg mount but honestly does it matter? Talking a foot or two difference.
>>28566133
depends. Armata is pretty fucking tall, and people like to say its an issue.
I would measure tank's height by distance to axis of leveled gun anyway.
>>28566152
>I would measure tank's height by distance to axis of leveled gun anyway.
Why? Is the M3 lee best tank ever then? Lol just kidding, but kind of weird.
>>28566152
>tall is a problem
Maybe, but 1 to two foot difference wont help either way
>>28565869
>It takes decades to upgrade a design to take 10 more tons of weight
It really doesn't.
>>28566170
well its clearance above hedges, fences, parked cars, stuff like that, it's also often relevant to depression/elevation of main gun - its easier for taller tank to be in backslope hull-down. it's what matters in tank's height I think.
>>28563895
>side armor is weak
So just like every MBT?
>80-90 km/h speed
Impressive.
>>28566178
Well i mean i got decades of history behind 3 different western tanks that agree with me.
You dont even have anything that suggests that they are going to significantly upweigh it.
If you are going to do the equivlent of "NUH UH" without an iota of supporting evidence like an uneducated swine, then i have no reason to converse with you further.
I dont hold conversations with animals.
>>28566185
Thats fair, i would wager all the western tanks, and the armata now, are roughly equal.
>>28566262
What about Afganit? Do Western tanks have anything similar?
>>28566284
Trophy.
>>28566284
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Kill
Its operationally ready.
Neat thing about it is, unlike russian systems, its bolt on. You can put it on anything larger than a humvee.
>>28566262
what he means is that literally nothing precludes a decision to make a 60-ton tank if you have a 50 ton tank to add to, aside from million reasons like air transportability, railcar capacity, engines, production capability, actual reasoning behind the upgrade, etc. But not the time itself. Things can go faster or slower, or they can be instant if a decision was made by a single person in charge.
However T-14 is unlikely to be combat-proven anytime soon, so it won't be up-armored right away. So it may be decades, but not "just because decades period".
>>28565769
Ammunition cooks off, tank tosses its turret, crew may or may not die depending on how lazy they were about storing ammo (if stored properly, crew is fine. If stored Russian way, crew and 3 city blocks demolished, turret tossed into Chechnya).
>>28566298
Nice.
>>28566302
Well obviously if they choose a redesign it would be much shorter. Nothing however points to a redesign, and historically it has been decades for such natural weight growth
>>28566239
>Impressive
Sorry but that is not Chinese
>known internet experts
Sounds like "polish intelectuals"
>>28566490
>not ukrainian hohols
>>28565909
Reminder that despite the massive size increase it gained barely any weight
Do the math on how much armor it must have
>>28567405
Well the armored part of the turret is much smaller.
The Abrams turret was something like 19-22 tons. The T-90 turret was around the 13-15 range.
If the Armata only has like a 8-9 ton turret, that's 5 tons of weight to use on other things.
One the other hand, I doubt that even with an uncrewed turret it can get that low without compromising something. The gun itself is 2 tons.
>>28565769
>Ammunition cooks off & everyone dies?
propellant fire happens that gets vent out the top access hatch; no turret throwing anymore!. With fireproofing on the internals in the turret it should survive and be easy to overhaul in the field.
>>28566303
>Ammunition cooks off, tank tosses its turret, crew may or may not die depending on how lazy they were about storing ammo (if stored properly, crew is fine. If stored Russian way, crew and 3 city blocks demolished, turret tossed into Chechnya).
Funny, you don't know what you are talking about. The Russian way of storing ammo is the actual correct way. Back in Chechnya 2: electric boogaloo they figured if they just went in with 22 rounds in the horizontal AL for T-72B/90 tanks they drastically reduce the chance of catastrophic splosion already; as in you need a direct hit to the really hard to hit AL in the lowest part of the hull to do so.
>>28565773
>noone dies probably assuming they don't have tlatgm's inside or 200lbs of tnt or something. but the tanks will be pretty much useless
HE shells even with detonators screwed on takes hours of intense temps before they cook-off. A propellant fire event takes 30 secs at most to rage and then it sputters. Once you install blowout panels to relieve the pressure immediately all you have to worry about is heat damage that some bit of fireproofing will neuter- actually fire doesn't do much damage to internal stuff thats mostly metal anyway just burn the paint and wires off at most; the electronics and sensors are modules mounted on the outside or with separate enclosures from the internal compartment anyway so it should be easy to overhaul in the field.
>>28566298
>Neat thing about it is, unlike russian systems, its bolt on. You can put it on anything larger than a humvee.
operational on what? also it cant intercept APFSDS projectiles for shit; actually current and near future projected APS cant protect light vehicles like humvess against anything more than RPG threats - residual blast and fragments would fuck you up something fierce even if the APS done its job maginificently; there still needs that level of passive protection.
>>28567405
>Reminder that despite the massive size increase it gained barely any weight
motherfuckers included lots of extra space for future upgrades; they kinda will use it for the next half century and if other players put out clean sheet designs expect them to be xboxhuge as compared to their predecessors as well.
>>28571785
>motherfuckers included lots of extra space for future upgrades
That only makes the issue worse
>>28563895
The proofs here indicate advanced trolling.
>>28571633
>Russian way of storing ammo is the actual correct way
It fucking is not, the very fact that you have to under load the tank for it to be even moderately safe should tell you that.
The point of safe ammo stowage is so your crew isn't killed in the event of a catastrophic explosion, which the Russian system utterly fails to do.
>>28572394
Can't handle the proofs?
>>28574683
>The point of safe ammo stowage is so your crew isn't killed in the event of a catastrophic explosion, which the Russian system utterly fails to do
By definition a catastrophic kill is an event that kills both the crew and the tank. Those tend to happen when the crew is exposed to fuel and ammo when penetration happens even for brief periods like when the loader opens the ammo stowage door in an abrams so pretty much outright complete isolation of the crew from fuel and ammo storage is what can be fairly considered safe.
>>28574683
>It fucking is not, the very fact that you have to under load the tank for it to be even moderately safe should tell you that.
22 is actually plenty for most engagements.
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a451782.pdf
>The M1 Abrams ammunition used in Operation Desert Storm was 30 percent of a
basic load over a four-day period[AFVs still present] compared to 18 percent of a basic load over a twentyone-day[AFVs are gone]
period.
you would literally run out of fuel before consuming 14~15 rounds in 4 days of heavy fighting.
>Known Internet Experts
>>28565909
That's what she said.
Also, all you vodka-drenched Vlads...don't worry, we already have something to counter your massive lightly-armored mobile gun. Pic related.
