T-14 armata

[darthcenk77]

hello dear tankers,
are you thinking to implement t-14 armata to the game?

[DRG]

Yes, of course


and all the other recently revealed Russian vehicles in the next upgrade

[darthcenk77]

Originally Posted by DRG

Yes, of course


and all the other recently revealed Russian vehicles in the next upgrade

thank you any idea when?

[DRG]

probably March or April or later depending how real life intervenes

[Aeraaa]

I'm actually curious how will you model the armor of the tank. From what I know so far, the turret offers just adequate protection against 30mm shells at most, enough to protect the tank's vital components against IFV weapons. The real protection comes from the fact that there isnt any crew in the turret to speak of.

[DRG]

Source???

I understand this was question of curiosity BUT...........I'm fairly certain that no matter what I put in for armour protection someone....... ( who's closest contact with the tank will be the internet ).....is going to tell me we have it all wrong .......ALL of the armour values for MBT's in the game are estimates......NONE of the real data is common knowledge so the best we can do is look at what we have for previous models then ask ourselves why would anyone built a new multimillion $ tanks with LESS protection that in the past....then we go from there.
One source claims the "basic" protection is proof against 25 mm APDS-T ( STANAG 4569 Level 5 protection ) then there is reactive and spaced armour on top of that but I don't think armour of 12 would go over well no matter how much HEAT and reactive armour I added and to put that into perspective 12 is the front armour of a Tiger 1. I have to think there is better "basic" protection on a T-14 than that.

Until someone puts a big hole in one then it's analysed and the results published.....which will never happen ...... all we can do is guess and debate the issue with everyone who thinks we guessed wrong one way or the other

More than one source claims "low-silhouette of the tank "........ it's 3.3 meters tall ( !!!).... the Abrams is 2.44m ------ the Challenger 2 is 2.49m the T90 is 2.22 so IDK where "low-silhouette " comes in or what they are measuring...... The SHERMAN was 2.74 m
tall and this things 3.3 ? It's only ""low-silhouette" when it's behind all the other MBT's in the world. I suppose hiding behind a T-90 and firing over top WOULD give increased protection........... that turret is massive compared to previous designs

The T-90 looks almost "sporty" in comparison



Don

[MarkSheppard]

Since this is a thread on the ARMATA, some more photos and an estimate from TANKNET -- it appears that the Russians might be using advanced heavy ERA to make up for a thinner armor profile than usual.

"Armata is supposed to be using a new type of steel which should provide the same protection to basic RHA steel at 15% reduced thickness. "

This new steel (44S-sv-Sh) is apparently a weldable/machinable version of earlier High Hardness Steels (HHS); which offers slightly better protection per weight/area unit, without having to have the same amount of supporting structure as earlier armor steels (accounting for the reductions).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There is a reason(s) I'm holding off holding off on this tank...
1) It's outside the window Don and I have discussed for submission of new items which is within a year or our six month "SWAG" with a later possible date change.

2) We still don't know enough about this tank...
A. Size wise it compares to the German LEO 2A7+ however, it sits 20 tons less then the LEO which is at about 67.5 tons.

B. It's not even clear whether the ARMATA really has ERA or not. Some say it's a thicker form of Ceramic Armor which is what it looks like when compared to the MERKAVA Mk4b.

C. The "new" ERA on some sites is being described as being named "MALAKHIT" and you'll see it spelled very similar to this, but, this presents a major problem because that ERA was around in the late 80's - 90's and proceeded RELECKT (Pardon my spelling.).

D. The steel armor is of a composite nature no news here that's been around but, the newest tank to have this still highly classified (As is it's MG shells of a new tungsten warhead and propellant configuration.) type armor would be Japans TYPE-10 which the experts agree is generally in the "middling" section of most "Top 10" lists. They also agree it's one of the most underrated tanks out there in terms of protection and performance. Based on configuration to some extent, size and weight it would be a safe bet to look to the MERKAVA Mk 4b and TYPE 10 for some guidance as close/or at least distant cousins to the ARMATA.

E. The ARMATA is just about now or by May to start full operational test evaluations until the end of the year. If all goes well well then production will start around mid 2017 - 2018 and that's fairly well agreed upon by the the refs. However this does not mean acceptance of the system by the Army because they have around 24 ARMATAS to play with. Case in point the F-35C the USMC has an operational squadron (July 2015.) but they're not flying missions and really haven't even completed operational "carrier" ops yet. Or Sweden's ARCHER 155mm SPA and Don will love this, Sweden just took delivery of the first four systems last Sep. and they just were integrated into an operational unit earlier this month, however, that doesn't match what's in the game which is JAN 2012. Also Norway well, they NEVER got theirs because they dropped out of the joint program in 2013 because it didn't meet certain unspecified requirements (There's a lot of discussion that Norway's MOD too make room for funding of their F-35A fighters had to make deep cuts into their defense budget ARCHER was just one of the programs to be cut. As Norway has also cut their F-35A order to due the drop in value of the EURO vs. the U.S. Dollar.) And as a side note it's REALLY making our Ann. trip to Ireland a real bargain now!! )

Do you see where I'm heading with this!?! If not, Don PLEASE do the following...
NORWAY/DELETE/ARCHER 155mm/UNITS 600 and 601/Due to contract non-compliance issues by both parties. No units (24) were delivered. Refs below./

Now to be perfectly clear, everything we had said they were operational well speaking for myself, I won't make that mistake again. We spent so much of our time especially about 3-4 years ago fixing, modifying and deleting equipment even down to the pictures provided for said equipment out here of stuff people had to have now, when it should've been later or not at all, it's no wonder why some of us needed a break out here besides the life issues that came up.
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...n-battle-tank/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._12809154.html
http://www.janes.com/article/57781/a...h-army-service
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-the-plug.html
http://www.janes.com/article/57738/n...ery-contenders

This is not an "attack" on anyone but, hopefully maybe a pause. I only came across the ARCHER issue for instance because everyday maybe except on my days off I read my "daily paper" which normally consists of JANE'S/DID/ARMY RECOGNITION and ARMY TECHNOLOGY then there's about five others I hit about 3/4 times a week. That's how I found that or as Don knows, why I post when equipment deliveries are completed to "close the books" it all boils down to "there's something new", tracking/research, submission and followup. And I haven't always been successful myself-i.e. ARCHER.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

done

[DRG]

We don't have a "prototype" class in MBT like we do in WW2 ( because we need SP SAM in MBT.... ) but it would come in handy if we did. We will be putting the T-14 in ( in spite of all the reasons we should hold off....... ) but it won't appear in game until the middle of 2018 and we are being generous with that date