Military Review

"Armata" and predecessors. Ideas of old projects in the new tank

51
Despite the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian designers continued to develop armored vehicles. Options were developed to upgrade existing tanks, and besides, completely new projects were created. It was expected that the latter in the near future could reach serial production and lead to the beginning of the rearmament of the army. Nevertheless, for a long time the further fate of the bold developments remained in question, but in the end they were abandoned in favor of a new project.


As a potential replacement for existing tanks in the past, cars known under the working designations “195 Object” and “640 Object” were considered. According to known data, in these projects new ideas were proposed that were not yet typical for domestic tank building, which allowed to get a noticeable increase in characteristics and overall efficiency. A few years ago, work on these projects was discontinued. At the same time, officials noted that certain ideas and solutions worked out within closed projects will be used to create a promising tank, now known as the Armata T-14.


Tank T-14 "Armata". Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


Unfortunately, fans of military equipment, most of the information about the projects "Object 195", "Object 640" and T-14 is still closed. For this reason, the considerable amount of data currently available is based on individual fragmentary messages or even on estimates and assumptions. However, even in such a situation one can see which specific developments of closed projects could find application in creating the newest domestic tank.

Recall that the main battle tank "Object 195" was created by the Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau (Nizhny Tagil). The development started before the collapse of the USSR and was implemented in the framework of the Improvement-88 program. The aim of the project was to search for new constructive solutions capable of obtaining the highest possible characteristics. At the same time, engineers had to abandon a number of traditional ideas.

According to known data, the development of technical documentation was completed no later than the second half of the nineties, and soon the Uralvagonzavod enterprise built at least one experienced tank. Then, probably, the “195 Object” came to the test, during which it confirmed or denied the calculations of its creators. Some of the project work continued until the end of the two thousandth.

In the spring of 2010, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense announced the discontinuation of the development of an existing project in favor of the new Armat program. A little later, the corporation "Uralvagonzavod" announced plans to complete the creation of the T-95 tank, but without the support of the military. According to the statements of that time, the army considered the proposed tank as obsolete and inadequate. After 2010-11, there have been no new reports about the “195 Object”, which may indicate a complete shutdown of work.


640 Object Schema. Figure Wikimedia Commons


In 1997, the Omsk Transport Engineering Design Bureau for the first time showed its own version of the tank of the future called “640 Object”. This armored vehicle was also called the “Black Eagle”. Later, the second experimental version of the tank on the recycled chassis appeared and was shown. Both versions of the tank received a characteristic low-profile turret, which, however, was always closed by a camouflage net.

Rumors and fragmentary data about the continuation of work on the "640 Object" with the possible adoption in the future appeared for several years, although it was never a matter of specific dates or figures. In 2009, the leadership of one of the structures of the Ministry of Defense indicated that no “Black Eagle” tank or “640 Object” exists. However, already in 2011, it became known that some of the achievements of a “non-existent” project would be used in the development of the Armat platform.

In 2015, the first public demonstration of a promising T-14 tank, built on the basis of the Armata universal platform, took place. Despite the extremely limited amount of data available, it was possible to understand that the new project actually used some or other developments on the older “195 Object” and “640 Object”. This has led to a certain external similarity, as well as the appearance of some common features that cannot be seen from the outside.

According to known data, both projects of the recent past provided for a significant reworking of the traditional layout, which significantly increased the security of the crew. The new project "Armata", as can be judged, borrowed similar ideas from the T-95 tank. So, in front of the T-14 hull an isolated armored capsule is placed with the jobs of the entire crew. Behind it there is an automated fighting compartment, and the feed contains power units. The Black Eagle project offered a different layout. In general, it was similar to the classic, but provided for the placement of the entire crew below the roof of the hull.

"Armata" and predecessors. Ideas of old projects in the new tank
"Black Eagle" at the site. Photo Militaryrussia.ru


According to the experience of operation and combat use of modern tanks, both of the old projects suggested using their own body armor, as well as dynamic and, possibly, active protection. To counter some threats, tanks could carry the Blind optical-electronic suppression system. The new project "Armata" also uses such approaches. It is proposed to install Malachite Dynamic Protection Blocks over the hull armor. Protection of the tank from flying ammunition rests on the complex "Afghan". A characteristic feature of the T-14 tank is the "double" armor protection of the crew. In addition to the external case, it is protected by the armor of the inner habitable capsule. The new project was mine protection, which included reinforced bottom panels and means for the remote disposal of explosive devices.

Earlier it was reported that the tank "Object 195" is completed with an X-shaped diesel engine with a capacity of at least 1500-1600 hp. Later it became known that the power plant of this type is used on the T-14 armored vehicle. At the same time, according to reports of recent years, the engine "Armata" will be able to develop power to 1800 HP The driver will be able to independently select the maximum power.

Tanks "Object 195", "Object 640" and "Armata" differ from their predecessors in the layout and design of the chassis. In connection with the growth of combat mass and some increase in the size of the hull, we had to use a chassis with seven support rollers on each side instead of the “traditional” six. However, the similarity of the new models ends there. The Black Eagle and T-95 should have been completed with a torsion suspension, while the T-14 project involves the use of an active suspension. Automation should monitor the features of the route and change the parameters of the shock absorbers. This should increase the mobility of the tank on rough terrain, and in addition, improve shooting accuracy in motion.

In the projects "Object 195" and "Object 640" different approaches to the creation of a fighting compartment were used. Nizhny Tagil tank received branch monitors, fully serviced by automatic. In the case of the Omsk project, a low-profile tower was used, and crew jobs were placed below the hull roof. In addition, two tanks differed weapons. Using the available capabilities, the authors equipped the T-95 with a more powerful 152-mm tool.


"195 object". Figure Wikimedia Commons


The T-14 project, like the “195 Object”, uses an uninhabited fighting compartment, all actions in which are carried out only by automatic commands from the crew. Devices with remote control are responsible for targeting weapons, preparing weapons for firing, etc. Human participation is necessary only when preparing an armored vehicle to enter the battlefield. After that, all the main tasks are assumed by automatics.

Taking the main layout ideas from its predecessor, the Armata tank did not borrow more powerful weapons. At the request of the customer, this project uses a gun-launcher caliber 125 mm. This gun, which received the designation 2А82, is capable of using all existing domestic tank shots for various purposes. In addition, new ammunition is being developed for it. However, in the future, the Armata project may make certain changes aimed at increasing the firepower. It was repeatedly reported that a new modification of such a tank could get an 152-mm gun.

Tanks "Black Eagle" and T-95 different composition of additional weapons. Thus, certain targets for which the 152-mm gun would be redundant, the tank "Object 195" had to attack with the help of the 30-mm automatic gun 2-42. The project "Object 640" in this regard was more conservative: the tank gun was complemented by a pair of machine guns of different caliber. In the main T-14 tank, the approach characteristic of the 640 Object and other previous projects is implemented. It is equipped with two machine guns, paired and anti-aircraft; and the second is mounted on a remotely controlled combat module.

There is no exact information about the fire control systems developed for the experienced tanks of the nineties. It is only known that the characteristic layout of the "195 Object" required the creation of new sighting devices based on optical-electronic components. Due to the impossibility of using traditional optics, the crew should rely on video systems that output the signal from the cameras to the screens of workplaces. Tank "Armata" also received an isolated crew capsule, in connection with which it is completed only with optical-electronic sighting devices.


Experienced T-95 at the landfill. Photo Militaryrussia.ru


According to known data, the project "Black Eagle" provided for the construction of only a tank that differs from the existing equipment with enhanced characteristics. Similarly, the situation with the "Object 195", but from a certain time indicated that the chassis of the main tank in the future may be the basis for other types of armored vehicles. On a sevenkat chassis with a powerful engine, it was possible to build self-propelled artillery installations, tank support vehicles, engineering equipment, etc.

The project under the code "Armata" developed these ideas. From the very beginning, it envisaged the creation of not a specific combat or special vehicle, but a universal tracked platform that could be used in various projects. Taking into account the needs of the army, the tank became the first variant of equipment based on this platform. Also developed a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and repair and recovery vehicle. In the foreseeable future, new unified designs are expected.

At the turn of the decades, the Russian Ministry of Defense determined how armored troops would develop in the foreseeable future. Apparently, by this time the project "Object 640" was no longer considered as a possible replacement for the existing technology. The future of the army was tied to an alternative development, the “195 Object”. However, this tank could not reach mass production and operation in the army.

At the very end of the last decade, the command of the armed forces decided to abandon the existing T-95. With all its advantages, this tank turned out to be too complicated and expensive for mass production. The army required equipment with sufficiently high characteristics and a number of advantages over modern models, but at the same time having acceptable economic and operational indicators. It is these considerations that led to the closure of the 195 Object project in favor of the new Armat program.


"195 Object", view of the board and the stern. Photo Nevskii-bastion.ru


It should be noted that such a decision of the military department was criticized by experts and lovers of military equipment. Until now, they remind that by 2010, the “195 Object” managed to go through a significant part of the tests and refinements, and it took a lot of time to develop the “Armata”. As a result, industry and the army, having received economic and other benefits, were forced to pay for them with the loss of time. The announced deadlines for the supply of serial T-14 to the troops are still used as an argument in favor of this opinion.

The development of a new unified platform and equipment at its base was entrusted to the research and production corporation Uralvagonzavod, the only Russian tank manufacturer at the moment. The corporation by this time included both developers of future tanks from the nineties, and their experience could be used in the new program. The well-known results of the T-14 project clearly show what developments in previous projects were used to create a promising tank.

Indeed, from a certain point of view, the new T-14 tank looks like a redesigned, improved and somewhat simplified version of the previous T-95. You can see that the "Armata" is inferior to the "Object 195" only in terms of the caliber of the main and the composition of additional weapons. In other respects, two tanks are at least equal. Modern radio-electronic systems, improved protection and other innovations should give a newer tank noticeable advantages over its predecessor.

Known problems of the nineties caused a serious blow to the development of the national armored vehicles. Developed and tested new tanks, but they could not bring to mass production due to lack of funding. And by the time the required capabilities appear, the existing new projects are morally outdated. As a result, the Ministry of Defense had to launch a completely new program, in which, however, it was proposed to use the existing developments.

Available information shows that the existing solutions, developed in the framework of the new project, have not disappeared and have found application. At the same time, they were connected with new ideas, as a result of which a main battle tank appeared, having great advantages over both domestic and foreign models. In the foreseeable future, the armored T-14 “Armata” will be put into service and will begin to be supplied to the troops. Thus, the developments of the eightieth-nineties, after a certain rethinking, will still give a real result in the context of updating the fleet of army vehicles.


On the materials of the sites:
http://uvz.ru/
http://nevskii-bastion.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://btvt.info/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-313.html
Author:
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 19 February 2018 06: 54
    +9
    old songs about tanks, nothing new.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 20 February 2018 06: 37
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      old songs
      Yes, dear Andrey Yuryevich, and, these songs are not about the main thing, but about the controversial, if not harmful ... We read, - "At the very end of the last decade, the command of the armed forces decided to abandon the existing T-95. With all its advantages, this tank turned out to be too complicated and expensive for mass production. The army required equipment with sufficiently high characteristics and a number of advantages over modern models, but at the same time having acceptable economic and operational indicators. Such considerations led to the closure of the project "Object 195" in favor of the new program "Armata" ". Those who welded dough on "Armata" (as well as those who hacked into an 195 object) will ever answer for this adventure, in which they sabotaged the fine-tuning of a practically finished 195 object (T-95), lost time, and only in OKRy and R & D vbuhali 64 billion rubles. The base will prove to be unsuccessful, and all the equipment that was already designed for this still raw platform, expensive and complex, will not be successful either. The equipment is not assigned as a platform, and it is not born as a platform in order to use the base, it must first be recognized as successful and technological, to master its industry. If they want to ruin the country with such a “golden platform”, to reduce the production of the new T-14 tanks themselves, then this is the “right way”. On the 195 object, there is an interesting interview from 2013 of the year.
      A special role in the creation of the tank of the future was played by the Chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF), Colonel-General Sergei Mayev. From 1996 to 2003 for the year, he served as Chief of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OCR "Perfection-88"). The editor-in-chief of Rosinformbyuro, Vyacheslav Prunov, managed to talk with the patriarch of the Russian tank construction industry.
      Sergey Maev: “Armat” will need to pull up to the level of T-95
      - It was planned, in 2005, to complete state tests and to launch it (car, T-95) in the series. In the first year they had to make 100 machines, then 300 machines. This is ahead of the development of the world tank building years on 15. Two years ago, at an exhibition in Paris, I saw the layout of the Leopard, in which German designers tried to somehow replicate the T-95 to accommodate the crew, ammunition and the gun and the elements of technical vision. But it was just a layout.
      - And we already had a new generation car in the metal.
      - And we have two samples of T-95 already departed 15 thousand. Km. And the gun has already made 287 shots. The tank was ready. It was necessary to create a third option, conduct a full-scale revision, based on the first and second samples, and on the third option, conduct state tests, make some changes and launch the series. And we would have the best tank in the world.
      - But what happened? Why abandoned the finished T-95 and opened a new work on "Armata"?
      - What happened is difficult to explain. I was at one of the meetings of the military-industrial commission, when the customers spoke, and Nikolay Yershov was the head of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, I told them that in order to finish this car, one more tank had to be made, to spend about 500 mln. rubles,
      - Well, this is not fantastic money.
      - Yes, they remained, the money. The creation of T-95 was not allocated a lot, total 2.2 billion rubles. And when I left, we had 700 million left. 400 million to make a third car and 300- for state tests.
      But, I was objected that the machine is structurally too complicated and it will not be mastered and will be very expensive. And I said: “Yes, it is expensive and complicated, but now you will not spend 700 millions of rubles, but much more, simplify the specifications and make the car. Which class will be lower. " So I said: "You will do ... ka (Ubudka)."
      - So, creating “Armata”, did the designers take a step back?
      - Creating T-95, we went to a new class of car. Unfortunately, it is lost. The paradox is that “Armata” will need to be dragged by characteristics to the level of “Improvement-88”. But the enemy is not in place.
      - Do you think “Armat” will be worse than T-95?
      - Well, of course, it will be worse than "Improvement-88". I think so. But the new just does not come. It was necessary to squeeze all the will into a fist and bring the T-95 to mind. In the 2005 year, we could actually begin to release a new tank. It is now -2013 year. Eight years have passed!
      “And yet, why didn't the T-95 be adopted?” Why put an end to the already finished best tank in the world? Why undertook a new, dubious development work? Could it be money? After all, KB lives by development?
      - Forgive me, Lord! It seems to me that there are only personal motives. I wanted Ershov to become an outstanding tanker. I warned him: "You will be kicked out in a year!" And so it happened.

      Figure T-95 (195 object). Photo tank.
      1. Ber
        Ber 22 February 2018 06: 03
        +4
        Those who welded the dough on "Armata" (like those who hacked the object 195) will ever be responsible for this adventure, in which they sabotaged the refinement of the practically finished object 195 (T-95), lost time, and only in OKR and R&D swelled 64 billion rubles. The base will turn out to be unsuccessful, and all the equipment that was already designed for this still crude platform, expensive and complex, will not be successful.


        After the visit to UVZ, the creator of the Abrams tank, in my opinion somewhere in 2003-2005, two projects 195 and 640 are closed, if I need to try to remember and find the exact date of the visit of the American delegation.

        Most likely there was a request at the top, in exchange for something, and the projects were closed.
        It’s time for people to bring KOBA to power, and to carry out a cleaning that is tougher than it was in 37,
        it is generally a question of the survival of the Russian people.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 23 February 2018 12: 22
          +4
          Quote: Ber
          Most likely there was a request at the top, in exchange for something, and the projects were closed.
          Most likely so ... "Black Eagle", T-95, could be our best tanks. So many years have been lost, the funds have been spent ... “Armata” continues to be promoted as a miracle platform, nothing changes, moreover, T-14 is already laid for the on-board computer of the message and in English as well as the tank is ready to sell for export . Alien lobby, sabotage and sabotage, as if.
  2. svp67
    svp67 19 February 2018 06: 57
    +2
    You can see that the “Armata” is inferior to the “Object 195” only in caliber of the main and the composition of additional weapons.
    And this is not good ... Although he has always been an opponent of tank overload with weapons, but in the form in which we now see the T-14, it is just NECESSARY to return an additional 30-mm automatic cannon to the tower, but also Do not forget about the machine gun, but it is better to install an automatic grenade launcher in an uninhabited tower. Only in this way can this tank be made a truly formidable combat vehicle, and not a disposable firearm, after the expenditure of shells, turning into a target
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 19 February 2018 07: 37
      +10
      why shy then? You can still put anti-aircraft missiles and cram ptura.
      it is a tank and not a robot of their Pacific frontier.
      1. svp67
        svp67 19 February 2018 07: 43
        +1
        Quote: cariperpaint
        You can still put anti-aircraft missiles and cram ptura.

        There are ATGMs there in the BC, but an analogue of the “POWDER”, but with a vertical launch, would not hurt.
        Quote: cariperpaint
        it is a tank and not a robot of their Pacific frontier.

        Just this is already a robot. There is NO access to the cannon on the battlefield, to replenish the bk, only in the rear, and the bk that the "cat cried" means to spend it very carefully ... That's why I stand up for additional weapons, in case of failure of the main gun, there is a chance still at least somehow shoot ... and save the main caliber bk, otherwise the grenade launcher will have to be fired from the gun.
        1. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint 19 February 2018 07: 49
          +3





















          you want to cram the unwrapped into one machine. for these purposes that you are talking about there are other cars and the tank should take on specific tasks for which it was created
          1. svp67
            svp67 19 February 2018 07: 52
            +2
            Quote: cariperpaint
            and the tank should take on specific tasks for which it was created

            And what? And most importantly, what are the "tools"?
            1. cariperpaint
              cariperpaint 19 February 2018 07: 55
              +3
              in defense - they support motorized rifle troops in repelling the enemy’s advance and launch counterattacks and counterattacks;
              on the offensive, they cut through the enemy’s defense line and wedge themselves into defensive orders to a great depth.
              1. svp67
                svp67 19 February 2018 07: 58
                +3
                Quote: cariperpaint
                on defense

                Quote: cariperpaint
                upon the onset

                Do you understand the question? What "tool" will he do all this? ONE tank gun, with a VERY limited bk and a modular machine gun mount on the turret? I remind you that it’s not possible to get into the tower in order to eliminate any malfunction, that is, it’s enough to knock out the AZR and the entire tank is EMPTY.
                1. cariperpaint
                  cariperpaint 19 February 2018 07: 59
                  +4
                  The tank does not fight separately from the rest of the troops, but clears the fortified enemy defenses for the infantry and enjoys the fire support of artillery (and attack aircraft) where the enemy’s defense is dangerous for the tanks to advance to the firing position. A tank is an assault means. He should not fight such goals on his own. The safe movement of tanks and their unhindered advancement to a firing position is a task for other forces interacting with them on the battlefield. Own aviation and air defense systems will fight enemy aircraft. I repeat once again that a tank is a machine that must fulfill its tasks. in the range of their weapons.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 19 February 2018 08: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: cariperpaint
                    The tank does not fight separately from the rest of the troops,

                    Yes, what are you saying ... Thank you for the "educational program", that is, when an enemy grenade launcher or machine gun ready to fire appears in the gunner’s field of vision, the gunner, instead of hitting him with a machine gun, will decide whether to spend the projectile on him or urgently yelling on air asking for the help of infantry or artillery. He will not yell, I’ll say right away, but he will spend the shell. Which, at the right time, may not be enough.
                    1. cariperpaint
                      cariperpaint 19 February 2018 08: 05
                      +1
                      Of course he will do everything possible to destroy him. But it’s most likely that it will not come to that.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 19 February 2018 08: 07
                        0
                        Quote: cariperpaint
                        But it’s most likely that it will not come to that.

                        Weak consolation, when at the very peak of the battle, the tank commander suddenly realizes that the tank was left without a battalion, which means it is EMPTY.
                    2. cariperpaint
                      cariperpaint 19 February 2018 08: 08
                      +2
                      it’s not an educational program. these are the basics. when leaving for an attack, tanks will not stop to destroy targets such as a machine gun.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 19 February 2018 08: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: cariperpaint
                        when leaving for an attack, tanks will not stop to destroy targets such as a machine gun.

                        Of course, he is OBLIGED to hit him on the move, otherwise why is he on the battlefield and needed, how not to clear the way for the infantry with his fire, armor and tracks. A machine gun, this is a very strong obstacle to the movement of infantry.
                    3. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 19 February 2018 08: 46
                      +7
                      Quote: svp67
                      will decide whether it is worth spending a shell on it or urgently yelling on the air asking for the help of infantry or artillery

                      To do this, they have now created the BMPT Terminator, so that it covers the tank from such troubles as, for example, an enemy grenade launcher.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 19 February 2018 08: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        To do this, they have now created the BMPT Terminator, so that it covers the tank from such troubles as, for example, an enemy grenade launcher.

                        A tank is an OPERATIVE firearm designed to solve any combat missions "here and now" to ensure non-stop infantry movement.
                      2. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 19 February 2018 09: 21
                        +7
                        Quote: svp67
                        A tank is an OPERATIVE firearm designed to solve any combat tasks "here and now" for the non-stop movement of infantry.

                        But he, like any armored vehicles, needs to be covered by the same Terminators and infantry. If a tank exchanges its BK in order to destroy entrenched ATGM fighters, then it will not have enough BK to fight its own kind.
                2. Atlas
                  Atlas 19 February 2018 17: 27
                  0
                  Well, maybe then BMPT will come in handy ??? otherwise they can’t find any application for it ...
        2. mvg
          mvg 19 February 2018 13: 11
          +1
          Draw a situation when there are not enough 40 shells. In lokalka, as in Donbas, 7-10 shells are enough. In the strategic version, the tank’s lifetime is a penny.
      2. Cruorvult
        Cruorvult 19 February 2018 07: 51
        0
        Exactly, the DPRK has a peep :-D
    2. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 19 February 2018 08: 13
      +2
      Instead of an anti-aircraft 12.7 mm machine gun, it is better to put a remotely controlled 20-30 mm anti-aircraft gun, because the machine gun has a small effective firing range. It is also useful for firing lightly armored targets and probing buildings for ambushes.
      And as you rightly noted, the AGS will not be superfluous either.
      1. otto meer
        otto meer 19 February 2018 10: 26
        +1
        Quote: Razvedka_Boem
        Instead of an anti-aircraft 12.7 mm machine gun, it is better to put a remotely controlled 20-30 mm anti-aircraft gun
        The body mass of 2A14 is about 300 kg., The mass of the box for 50 rounds is 35 kg., Plus remote control modules, plus shoulder straps. The total will be around 1,5 tons. Weight 6G27 - 25 kg. Box for 20 rounds of 14 kg. Plus remote control. Plus installation. Feed system. In total about 350-400 kg. Total - read 2 tons. And do not forget about the dimensions either. And about the functional congestion of the crew. Hence the question - how to place all this on a tank? Of course I would like, and it will not be superfluous, but we must also be realistic.
        1. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 19 February 2018 11: 34
          0
          I think I can actually install the 20 mm gun module, and the coaxial machine gun can be delivered 12.7 mm.
          1. prodi
            prodi 19 February 2018 12: 21
            +1
            the most correct thing is to give each tank platoon a “terminator” of the “melon” type, only with all standard ammunition of a 125 mm tank gun. And, yes, a couple of MANPADS won't hurt him
            1. prodi
              prodi 19 February 2018 19: 53
              0
              or maybe it’s more reasonable to make such “terminators” with large elevation angles of the shortened cannon the main battle tank, and the T-14, just the terminator attached for reinforcement, in case of (rare) encounter with real tanks?
          2. otto meer
            otto meer 19 February 2018 12: 35
            +1
            Quote: Razvedka_Boem
            I think I can really install the 20 mm gun module
            Of course it would be a real desire, but whatever one may say, you still can’t get away from the weight and size. That is, at the exit we get a blotch on a tower at least half a meter high and a minimum length of 2. And weighing a ton (well, back and forth). Here is something like this is it worth it? Honestly, I don’t know.
            Quote: Razvedka_Boem
            and the coaxial machine gun can be put 12.7 mm

            But with this, given the uninhabited tower, I probably agree.
        2. mvg
          mvg 19 February 2018 13: 14
          0
          Forgot to say that the crew of 3 people and the commander is not a hydra about 5 goals
          1. otto meer
            otto meer 19 February 2018 16: 10
            0
            Quote: mvg
            Forgot to say that the crew of 3 people and the commander is not a hydra about 5 goals

            Quote: otto meer
            And do not forget about the dimensions either. And about functional crew congestion.
        3. svp67
          svp67 19 February 2018 17: 59
          +1
          Quote: otto meer
          Hence the question - how to place all this on a tank? Of course I would like, and it will not be superfluous, but we must also be realistic.

          The armament is similar to BMP-3, but the turret with anti-shell armor ... Why in the 80s they could, but now they can not?
          1. otto meer
            otto meer 20 February 2018 11: 49
            +4
            Quote: svp67
            Why in the 80s they could, but now they can’t?
            Honestly, I did not quite understand what you brought this photo to. And where did you read about the impossibility of placing a DUBMa on a tank with a 20-30 mm machine gun? The question is not about the possibility of accommodation. The question is the appropriateness of this module. My personal opinion (I emphasize - personally mine) is that the placement of additional weapons on the main tank unbalances the car, weakening its primary characteristics. An attempt to make a wunderwafle out of a tank by hinging on it additional modules for various purposes was initially failed. At the exit, we get a machine that knows everything on paper, but in practice, nothing. A tank should never act alone. The whole history of the use of tanks is proof of this. Starting from the first world. I know well the aspects of using a tank in a city. When a tank is used as a kind of universal fighter who, alone or in a couple, "moves forward and destroys" is always a failure. And installing DUBM on it will never fix the situation. With or without DUMB, the tank will burn like a candle. But providing the tank with normal infantry support fundamentally corrects the situation. A platoon, even many - two infantry squads, few sappers, control and a tank. It’s quite serious already. I think it will happen in other situations too. Yes, the tank is the main striking force, but without support it is a deaf-mute giant with pood fists. Therefore, we must not strengthen the tank by hanging dopa on it, but provide it with normal support.
            1. svp67
              svp67 20 February 2018 14: 42
              0
              Quote: otto meer
              But providing the tank with normal infantry support fundamentally corrects the situation. A platoon, even many - two infantry squads, few sappers, control and a tank.

              I won’t even argue, but will a tank, with such a complex of armaments that now stands on the "Armata", be able to provide infantry with normal support? Here I am talking about. The presence of a weapon in which the crew, without leaving the battle, even eliminating the distortion of the tape, can not only cause doubt, but also concern me. At the right time of the battle, the tank can turn into just an “armored wagon”
              1. otto meer
                otto meer 21 February 2018 09: 56
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                I won’t even argue, but will a tank, with such a complex of armaments that now stands on the "Armata", be able to provide infantry with normal support?
                I think that is quite. Moreover, as it seems to me, at the moment the composition of the Armament’s turret armament is intermediate, judging by the clearly "empty" places on the outer casings. And most likely it will change. 72-ka with its full-time copes. Pekhtur doesn’t even need much - a gun, anti-aircraft turret and armor to hide in tight places. That's all the requests. She and her own have enough means of amplification. And if it’s not enough, everything is decided by the addition of separate calculations - chemists, technicians, etc. And if this is not enough, and everything is done wisely, you can always ask for support (even in conditions of dense development, this is a resolved issue).
                Quote: svp67
                The presence of a weapon in which the crew, without leaving the battle, even eliminating the distortion of the tape, can not only cause doubt, but also concern me.
                Yes, I agree with that. Also, the lack of duplicated manual drives for turns, guidance and simple optics is still in question. But these requirements are more under a big vigorous war, and here the crew’s protection was put at the forefront. Maybe this is the right approach - time will tell.
                Quote: svp67
                At the right time of the battle, the tank can turn into just an “armored wagon”
                Again, with a normal approach to business, even this is not so scary. Although extremely unpleasant, but not fatal. As a rule, tanks operate in pairs. One broke down - the second will cover the damaged waste, and the infantry will provide both. But all this requires coordination of actions, communication, normal competent management, etc., etc. is all this in our army? Hardly, I doubt it.
    3. Graz
      Graz 19 February 2018 13: 01
      0
      Quote: svp67
      And this is not good ... Although he has always been an opponent of tank overload with weapons, but in the form in which we now see the T-14, it is just NECESSARY to return an additional 30-mm automatic cannon to the tower, but also Do not forget about the machine gun, but it is better to install an automatic grenade launcher in an uninhabited tower. Only in this way can this tank be made a truly formidable combat vehicle, and not a disposable firearm, after the expenditure of shells, turning into a target

      there is bmpt, do not mix already with a hedgehog, here about such homemade products in the DPRK, in my opinion there was an article on
  3. vlad007
    vlad007 19 February 2018 07: 05
    0
    In addition, what is said in the article, in the Omsk “Object 640” (“Black Eagle”) the 7-roller chassis was used for the first time, in “Armata” also the 7-roller chassis.
    1. svp67
      svp67 19 February 2018 07: 44
      +1
      Quote: vlad007
      In addition, what is said in the article, in the Omsk “Object 640” (“Black Eagle”) the 7-roller chassis was used for the first time, in “Armata” also the 7-roller chassis.

      No, not in the first. Before that, everyone was experimenting with seven rollers, there was a T-64 about seven rollers
      And do not forget about the IS-4
    2. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 19 February 2018 07: 50
      +1
      Incredibly, 195 has the same 7, 299 - 7, and even Kharkov 477 - 7, which appeared 10 years before the 640th. This is due to the increase in mass and dimensions, the 640th has nothing to do with it at all.
  4. cedar
    cedar 19 February 2018 08: 07
    +5
    Quote: svp67
    You can see that the “Armata” is inferior to the “Object 195” only in caliber of the main and the composition of additional weapons.
    And this is not good ... Although he has always been an opponent of tank overload with weapons, but in the form in which we now see the T-14, it is just NECESSARY to return an additional 30-mm automatic cannon to the tower, but also Do not forget about the machine gun, but it is better to install an automatic grenade launcher in an uninhabited tower. Only in this way can this tank be made a truly formidable combat vehicle, and not a disposable firearm, after the expenditure of shells, turning into a target


    And then why BMPT "Terminators" ..? Moreover, "Terminator 3" on the platform of Almaty ..?
  5. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint 19 February 2018 08: 10
    +1
    svp67,
    leaves the battle and a reserve enters its place. and by the way, you understand that for 30 mm and other things, too, a bq is needed which still needs to be placed somewhere.
  6. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint 19 February 2018 08: 15
    +1
    svp67, then depending on what order.
  7. Radikal
    Radikal 19 February 2018 12: 18
    +2
    At the same time, officials noted that certain ideas and solutions worked out as part of closed projects will be used to create a promising tank, now known as the T-14 Armata.
    A worthless tank is nowhere, both in concept and in appearance. Only one “window”, or rather a “window” on the right (if you look at the tank in full view), on the tower says a lot. It was interesting to shell the tower, including from small arms — how many “flew” into this “window” after that, and most importantly, what remained of the whole? winked There is no need to talk about the shape of the tower at all - a square "growth" of some kind, not a tower! Straight "Tiger" of some times of the Second World War. wassat But the "Black Eagle" really looks like an eagle! good
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 19 February 2018 15: 34
      +3
      You don’t understand that in the traditional sense of the tower there is no tower at all?

      There is only a breech gun, closed from the sides and from above. The rest is just a lightweight casing.

      And the windows of optics on all tanks are the same.
  8. Some kind of compote
    Some kind of compote 19 February 2018 12: 31
    +15
    In a battle I would run it
    So no questions asked
    But the news will not give
    And this is probably right
  9. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 19 February 2018 14: 30
    +1
    I suppose that the surprises with weapons on the “Armata” are far from over. The very appearance of the tower, rather, resembles a fake element that imitates it. But I am also for the universalization of weapons. It should definitely be more, and it should provide multifunctionality. Especially the experience of Syria pushes this. Fights in the city or us. point greatly weaken the capabilities of the tank due to the limited capabilities of existing weapons. Those Israelis are constantly taking this moment into account, and are trying to shove something adequate into their Merkava. Merkava is not a panacea, but still.
  10. Radikal
    Radikal 19 February 2018 21: 30
    0
    Quote: Conserp
    You don’t understand that in the traditional sense of the tower there is no tower at all?

    There is only a breech gun, closed from the sides and from above. The rest is just a lightweight casing.

    And the windows of optics on all tanks are the same.
    Here's how - a lightweight casing! What then will remain of the fact that under this "cover", if a high-explosive projectile arrives there, let alone a cumulative one! And yet, demonstrate the tank, where the same "window" as that of "Almaty"! sad
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 19 February 2018 23: 55
      0
      something to sacrifice. if they put a well-armored tower, then I don’t even want to imagine the weight of the car.
  11. Radikal
    Radikal 19 February 2018 21: 32
    0
    Quote: Some Compote
    In a battle I would run it
    So no questions asked
    But the news will not give
    And this is probably right

    This is wrong! winked
  12. Radikal
    Radikal 20 February 2018 01: 40
    0
    Quote: cariperpaint
    something to sacrifice. if they put a well-armored tower, then I don’t even want to imagine the weight of the car.

    What are you about?! Compare the weight of the T-14 towers, and at least the T-90, and the weight of these tanks, respectively!
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 20 February 2018 22: 04
      0
      Do you know their weight?)))