"Armata" - the tank of the future

For many years, Russian tankers associated their hopes for re-equipment with the “Object-195”, which was widely advertised, and the specialists of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (OJSC “UKBTM”) were close to implementing the project and putting it into production. But in 2010, funding for the project "Object-195" was frozen, and already in the current year the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the cessation of further work on the creation of the expected project. The reasons why the work was completely stopped were called two - the failure to comply with modern requirements for tanks, and high total price. As an alternative, work began on the Armata project - a tank that will be the best in the world, as they say in the Ministry of Defense. But is this so, and what are the true reasons for the refusal of further work on the almost finished project "Object-195"?

As you know, work on the creation of the T-95 tank (“Object-195”) was started in the Uralvagonzavod design bureau shortly before the collapse of the USSR. According to the plans, it was supposed to be a completely new tank, which combined a high degree of protection of the crew and completely new means of firing. As the main protection of the crew, an airtight capsule was to be used, which separated the people ’location from the ammunition storage area and weapons.

For a long time, all work on the creation of the T-95 was strictly classified, and only after the construction of the first test prototypes did the tank become aware of a wide range. This year were published the first photos of one of the prototypes. The combat vehicle was extremely unusual. The tank visually looks taller and bigger than T-90A. The first thing that catches your eye is its excellent security. Between themselves, the testers called the T-95 "Iron Kaput", many who saw the pictures for the first time were truly surprised by the unusualness of the new tank.

The T-95 tank has a unique layout - the crew is housed in a separate armored capsule. Armament and full ammunition - in a separate fully automated combat compartment. The engine compartment is also located in a well-protected aft. The tank is protected in the frontal projection, enhanced protection is also on the sides and on top. The tower is uninhabited, with this in mind, made in a rather narrow form. The main armament (smooth-bore 152-mm gun, capable of firing guided missiles) is located in the tower and is located quite high, which is also an advantage. When firing from barriers, it is enough to push the barrel and observation devices, while the entire tank is in a protected area.

The machine is equipped with a powerful (1600 hp) diesel engine and hydromechanical automatic transmission. Taking into account the external overall size, the weight of the tank is relatively small - 55 tons, which makes it possible to speak of its excellent maneuverability.

The power of the sub-caliber projectile fired from the T-95 gun makes it possible to penetrate the defense of absolutely any NATO tank at all points of the frontal projection and destroy the enemy’s armored vehicles with virtually one aimed shot. The crew receives all the information about the situation on the battlefield from the thermal, television and laser sensors directly on the monitor screen. Current operational information about the interaction with other tanks, as well as tactical tasks of the command are also displayed on the screen, which allows the crew to constantly monitor the situation.

But, despite the excellent performance, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to abandon further work on the creation of the T-95. The main reason is the high price, according to unofficial information - the tank does not meet the requirements for modern weapons. This became clear from the unflattering recall of the commander of the Ground Forces Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another modification of the T-72 and nothing more.

The hypothetical image of the tank "Armata". The author of the tank is named as "T-99" Priority. "The figure was created based on images of a promising modification of the T-90 tank, the author Aaron Sheps based on information from Gur Khan, http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru, http: // alternathistory. org.ua, 2011

Along with the announcement of the cessation of work on the “Object-195” from the Ministry of Defense, there was also a message about the commencement of work on the creation of a tank under the code name “Armata”, which should become the main tank of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. A specific task has been set before the designers - by 2015, the tank should be on the production line. The Ministry of Defense backed up its tasks with quite generous funding, which makes it possible to speak of a serious approach to the implementation of the program.

At the same time, experts are confident that creating a fundamentally new machine in such a short time will fail, and, obviously, the Armata will be a modified and refined “Object-195”, but somewhat cheaper, which means it is easier both in terms of protection, and the firing system.

As the former first deputy chief of the Armored Armed Forces Directorate of the Defense Ministry, Lieutenant-General Y. Kovalenko, stated, “in the future, the Armata tank should become the main combat unit of the Russian Ground Forces armament.”

In the automatic loading of the new tank will be 32 ammunition for various purposes, and the combat vehicle itself will be able to fire while moving. According to Kovalenko, in the “Armata” the design techniques of the MBT of several other projects, including the “Black Eagle” project, will be applied. Other tactical and technical details of the perspective tank Kovalenko did not elaborate, but you can try to present his appearance. Undoubtedly, the tank "Armata" will have less weight than the "Object-195", within 50 tons. The chassis will use the traditional for Russian tanks system with six, rather than seven, as in the “Object-195”, pairs of road wheels. In order to reduce the final price, as well as simplify production, it is possible that designers will abandon the use of titanium armored alloys.

It is assumed that the "Armata" will be armed with a proven 152-mm smooth-bore gun. The same tool is used on the new version of the T-90AM. The capabilities of this gun are sufficient to destroy any NATO tank.

Based on the above information, we can conclude that the Armata really has every chance of becoming the main tank of the Russian Armed Forces, the only thing that can hinder the implementation of the project is the unpredictability of officials from the Ministry of Defense who can stop work at any time. Unfortunately, there are examples of this.

Sources of:
http://army-news.ru/2011/04/novyj-tank-armata/
http://www.argumenti.ru/army/n293/111496
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-519.html

Comments

[Cedric]

"The capabilities of this cannon are sufficient to destroy any NATO tank."
Forgot to add .... from five meters.

[LESHA pancake]

yeah Georgians will tell you about these five meters

[Superduck]

Did Georgians have tanks of NATO countries? T72 Israeli modernization versus T72 Russian modernization but all with the same gun. And that kind of tank duels weren’t, everything was either destroyed by ATGMs or aircraft.

[huginn]

Does it bother you that the armor penetration of the Abrams shells is lower than that of the T-80U?

[Superduck]

Looking where, with what and from what distance. I think that from just 5 meters everything is not bad for him even with a cast-iron blank.

[avdkrd]

You’re a pro-NATO writer, what idea do you have about NATO armored vehicles? The strength of NATO is not in technology - it is shit, the strength is that NATO has a clear concept of use, and the level of integration and interaction of the military branches is still inaccessible to us. The entire line of 125mm guns has a bunch of advantages over Western models, starting with the fact that they were the first smooth-bore serial tank guns. They have been leaders in energy for many years and will continue to lead as much in the future. Of course, if you do not compare the first 125k with the latest samples from Leopard, but compare the equivalent models (by year of manufacture). The 2A46M-5 gun was adopted in 2005 and has an overwhelming advantage in terms of efficiency and the price-quality criterion (and this is manufacturability), and the newest 2A82. the smoothbore gun of increased power with an auto-coupled and partially chrome-plated barrel 2A82, in principle, has no analogues in the world both in terms of power and accuracy.

[Viking]

Quote: avdkrd

the strength is that NATO has a clear concept of application, and the level of integration and interaction of the combat arms is still inaccessible to us

Like the Germans in the initial phase of the war. They also took a lot in particular thanks to the clear interaction between the military branches and their competent use. But then, when these schemes began to fail, their flexibility and lack of communication and interaction began to creep out.

[w.ebdo.g]

You have simply and precisely expressed the benefits of 125 smoothbore.
and manufacturability on this list immediately stands for accuracy and power ...
and 125 mm shells are placed more than 152 mm

[StrategBV]

You don’t use the brain, go to VKontakte, oh young troll

[Simon bolivar]

Why do they think again one day? Why did the Union create equipment that overtook its time for decades? After all, the armor resistance of NATO armored vehicles also does not stand still. And where 125mm guns are enough today, tomorrow may not be enough.

[Corsican]

Imagine a hypothetical super tank invading the territory of the Russian Federation. With knowingly overestimated characteristics. Well, as you want. The monster is armed with a promising 140 mm German weapon with a nonexistent automatic loader that will allow you to shoot every 4 seconds. With an incredible shell that allows you to immediately pierce a pair of t90 or abrams going in a column one after another. Frontal armor is not less than 1300 mm, otherwise another 5 km like a cornet. Side and aft armor 700mm. Above and below 300mm. And with a speed of more than 100 km / h. Yes, even able to use our bridges for this i.e. weighing less than 50t. Or able to overcome the water barrier by swimming or along the bottom. Only such a tank is suitable for a blitzkrieg in our vast country. The rest will not go anywhere beyond the borders. And it will be interrupted by ATGMs, anti-tank cluster missiles, shells and bombs. We have a great deal of skill in this matter. So, we welcome all those who do not have the above characteristics, otherwise all this PT junk expires. Fearfully???
Well, where do we go with a 125mm gun against such a monster ??? How to cope with a projectile that pierces everything and everyone ??? Armata can take shelter even in small places in the area. And from your cannon to shoot corrected missiles. It is enough to get into the caterpillar of the enemy moving towards the enemy, he will be deployed by the side armor with the armata easily penetrated by the gun. In between shots, the car can simply "crouch" hiding in the folds of the terrain due to its very low silhouette and emerging again to finish off a static target. Or drive the reinforcement into a trench at the same height to hide the tank lying on its belly. And disguise it with high quality. When the adversary passes the armata literally appears from under the ground and shoots him in the back. And that's not counting the banal flanking maneuvers. And without even assuming that the armata will be modernized. I believe that this tank is no less revolutionary than the T34 or T64 at the time.

[George Sviridov]

what's the difference with what distance if the main anti-tank ammunition is cumulative? the main thing is to hit, and it will break through 10km.

[Sivan]

In fact, sub-caliber shells seem to be more effective against modern tanks. And there the effective range is small.
If not, correct me.

[George Sviridov]

and what difference does it make for cumulative shells?

[Fluffypuffs]

5 meters? Funny really. You should familiarize yourself with the technical specifications, Armata - surpasses all possible tanks, even Western analysts have already recognized this.

[45kep]

Everything is fine, but why in the article about Armata to insert a photograph (upper) of the Kharkov Yatagan is not clear.

[Andrei]

The first photo shows the tank "Oplot"

[Joker]

By cannon - at the given moment its potential is not exhausted, another thing is that there are no modern shells. A gun without sensible shells is the same as a car on summer tires on ice, there is potential and it is impossible to realize.

With the object 195, as I understand it, everything is not going smoothly either, the backup control system (that is, manual) is absent in principle, that is, when electronics fail, it is a heap of metal.

Here you can still see:
http://btvt.narod.ru/voprosi/voprosi.htm

[Superduck]

Quote: Joker

another thing is that there are no modern shells.

Chobitok (on the tape ru) wrote that in the warehouses there are in number subcaliber shells with a uranium core. Given the higher shot energy of 125mm versus 120mm, there should be sufficient armor penetration, especially since the 90th was already going like a gun with improved ballistics, I do not remember the model unfortunately. Another thing is that there was nowhere to test them in the business of the Russian army, thank God.

[Joker]

Quote: SuperDuck

Chobitok (on the tape ru) wrote that in the warehouses there are in number subcaliber shells with a uranium core.

- if true, then this is very good.

[Superduck]

As far as I understand, the American-English chobham armor is more sharpened against cumulative shells, so this should work fine.

[George Sviridov]

And when did chobhem become shipped to America? The British did not share the secret with either the Americans or other Europeans.

[Passing]

Of course there are, they are called 3BM-48 Lead, they were put into service in 1991, but in fact, after two modernizations of Abrams in 1992 and 2000, these shells do not provide its guaranteed defeat with one hit. Therefore, all these years the main hope was for a more recent tungsten 3BM44M Lekalo (1997), but even in comparison with the latest American M829A3 (2002) and especially German tungsten DM53 it looks pale.
In general, depleted uranium, at high speeds of interaction with the barrier, does not have significant advantages over the tungsten alloy.

[Passing]

The modernization potential of the 2A46 cannon has long been exhausted. Or rather, not only cannons, but the entire bundle of automatic loader-projectile-cannon. Upgrading one thing will not work, you need a seriously modernized AZ, which would fit long "crowbars", you need a new BPS (possibly Lead-2), you need a new gun with an increased chamber and max pressure (probably a 2A82 cannon). All this is implemented in the T-90M, which is only going to be presented in Nizhny Tagil this year, but it should be done all ten years ago.

[Superduck]

Yes, I also heard a lot about the problem of long ammunition. Interestingly, the 120mm Ukrainian gun with a machine gun (Yataganovskoye) is deprived of this drawback, do not know? It is under NATO type standard ..

[Passing]

Well, yes, at Yatagan, half of the ammunition is located in a crazy niche, like Western tanks, and also equipped with AZ.
But, IMHO, this Ukrainian cannon is raw, at the prototype level, which is indicative - the Ukrainians were forced to order a barrel for it by a Western company, they themselves did not pull it.

[CC-18a]

2A46M-4 and M-5 (aka 2A82) accepts all domestic ammunition, including elongated ones. This gun, by the way, was developed not least for promising elongated ammunition. Read in detail about the new modernized guns of the 2A46 series, what they changed, what they added and why.

So the modernization is not exhausted, in any case, even if the last modifications installed on the T-72BM and T-90A are close to exhaustion, they will accept Lead-2 and the pattern and will accept those that appear in the future.

Long NATO ammunition because it is long because it is solid, and we have 2 parts, we do not need to have the same long. A fool is one who believes that making longer will get better. The main task is not lengthening, but increasing penetration, and this can be done in different ways and by different means.

As far as I remember, they wanted to increase the caliber on the armada, as it was from the Moscow Region that I wrote the requirements for the armada.

[CC-18a]

puts some cons for the facts.

[456]

Damn, where’s the Yatagan’s photo? Go back! It was fun!

[465]

Why did you delete the koment? and return the picture!

[Superduck]

Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another modification of the T-72 and nothing more.

Wasn’t it about the T-90?
Well, why, I think that the t-72 concept is approaching the modernization limit, a qualitative leap cannot be made already, a new layout is needed, unless Russia develops the MBT direction (of course, as an alternative to buy helicopters and attack aircraft + powerful infantry fighting vehicles). Nobody knows what will be in the arm of the experienced tanks, sometimes it seems to me that this is a PR move to calm the public against the background of a certain degradation of the industry, but it is real that with the T-90 AM this will be the same. However, with the current risks of Russia, the 90th is quite enough. Although by analogy with the ZIS-2 cannon which was redundant, but when tigers and panthers appeared, it turned out that the design bureau should smoke the topic, produce experimental batches, and run in the troops. And the people will like and not to degrade the design bureau, however, at least Omsk should be brought back to life so that there is competition.

[datur]

but unfortunately fighting hamsters from mo and greedy bureaucrats once again all hijack and plunder.

[Fluffypuffs]

Are they getting fit? Space is the leader, economy is the 5th in the world, the standard of living is top 20 of the planet, science is top 4 of the planet, we have absolute superiority over all countries of the world in military craft. Many have stolen something that disagree?

[MaxArt]

Friends, I didn’t understand something?

Firstly, is there at least some photos of the T-95 ???? I have never met!
And secondly, the development of a family of universal platforms is long overdue. It is high time to create universal chassis of a heavy and not only class, and on these skeletons you can already grow tanks, self-propelled guns, and anything else. So the development of Armata and generally unified platforms is IMHO, a very logical move.

[Joker]

Quote: MaxArt

Firstly, is there at least some photos of the T-95 ???? I have never met!

There is something infa
http://btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html

As for the single chassis - it's high time.

[clean]

MaxArt
So the development of Almaty and generally unified platforms - IMHO, is a very logical move. -I agree completely.

[Stefano]

Yes, but it’s worth noting that they always tell us that in Russia, designers again made a miracle of technology. But it’s not a miracle it’s in service, but old and cheap developments, and all that is expensive for Russia, we are again for sale. And they constantly refer that everything is expensive and, moreover, that we live in peace regarding a time when we need to arm ourselves. And God forbid the war begins, these developments will not be fed to us at all.

[Sad]

The fact that the refusal to further develop the T-95 is another huge mistake, said Colonel-General Mayev, he explained his vision of the situation as follows: “I was closely involved in the creation of the T-95 tank, and was the direct leader of this project as the head of the Main Automobile-Armored management. I regret that we could not put the T-95 next to the "Leopard of the Future", I am sure that all of Europe would be shocked to see what modern solutions are used in this tank. It would truly be a sensation! I can safely assure that what we have in the T-95 combat vehicle will appear in Americans or Germans no earlier than ten years from now. Naturally, these will be technological and design solutions in a completely new form, and it is very disappointing that the ideology that we have laid into this tank will “shoot” there in the West, but not here. For some reason, "hacked"? For me personally, this is an incomprehensible and very big question. The tank was already at the exit. It was only necessary to build another model of the combat vehicle and conduct sensible, diverse state tests, on the basis of their results, refine the vehicle and prepare it for production! This tank would surely provide the Russian Armed Forces with a huge advantage over the next 20 years. And all those design know-how that had been incorporated into it would undoubtedly become a kind of locomotive that would carry all the developments in the military-technical industry for the ground forces for another half a century! On the T-95 for the first time were involved in new technological solutions in terms of the layout of the machine! Of course, these developments and technologies have not disappeared anywhere, but the trouble is that they will remain unrealized. ”

[pasha]

this is the same old trash t-72! and there isn’t any new tank! Russia is still buying German leopards, there aren’t any other options! the price, the quality of Russian tanks brought the Ukrainians! if Russia wants to get its new super tank then Russia must fight with China or with the NATO! then maybe the Russians will be able to create a tank such as the legendary T-34.

[Draz]

what a fat troll

In general, we need to look at everything more and more globally, for example, it is a question for me why such contradictory information comes out from the Ministry of Defense, this is such a type of work, no one will just say anything out of the blue, all these "statements" are declared from above. That is, we are told that the tank is at the stage when it can be put into production, I think it has already been tested, and there are several vehicles of different modifications. That it will go into service and this is included in the funding plans. And we are immediately told that there are no plans, that they are outdated and do not correspond to "modern requirements", the big question is what these "modern requirements" are. The question is again, do we need these tanks right now? You can continue research, testing, find new technical solutions, develop ideas. Then the methods of using tanks are now different. Confused by these super powerful tanks if there is no air supremacy. The tank is now, in my opinion, not a means of breaking through as it was in the Great Patriotic War, but a mobile firing point, in fact, like any armored vehicle, is a support for the infantry. The main burden of military craft is now on the shoulders of infantry-artillery-aviation.

[Serush]

Another ignoramus. How to get it ...
At least write without errors! In Russian.....

[Komsomolets]

Poor Pavlik never learned to write in Russian. Even your own name with a small letter.

[George Sviridov]

Leopold is a complete cornerstone, if we take NATO tanks, then Leclerc is in first place in quality and firepower. If you choose the price / quality, then you should look at the Turkish tanks.

[Fluffypuffs]

Firstly, Russia is the leading nuclear space superpower. Secondly, Russia buys almost nothing in terms of military equipment, but it sells it to 100+ countries of the world. And the word Russia, educated people (whom you are not, and are unlikely to ever be) are written with a capital letter. You should familiarize yourself with the technical specifications, Armata - surpasses all possible tanks, even Western analysts have already recognized this. Outskirts do not know how to do anything, and never knew how. Anyway, this is a conversation about a pseudo-state, I do not think that such things are worth mentioning here.

[Draz]

A simple example of the United States in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, initially delivered air and artillery strikes. After that, the motorcycle infantry landed. Aviation operates in Libya, and tanks are useless when they are immediately bombed on the march. It is necessary to allocate more money for air defense and aviation, and modernized tanks will also cope with the support of the infantry as heavy firing points. Actually, a more important point in financing armored vehicles is better to be given not to tanks, but to BMP \ BTR \ BMD. Lightweight, mobile with high firepower. More suited to supporting infantry than tanks. For example, SAO "Sprut", the same 125-mm tank gun is not inferior in power, only on the BMD chassis.

[Joker]

And incapacitated (Octopus) burst and small-caliber guns.

Octopus is a tank destroyer and has other tasks, so it’s too early to bury heavy equipment.

[Draz]

Depends on the commander how to use the entrusted equipment. Let them into the frontal, then of course they will burn it, but only if you throw it into the frontal T-95 they will also burn it as it is not sad. I am not saying that it is necessary to bury it, just the tasks have changed somewhat. Now the ball is ruled by one who has air supremacy. And if we had at least 100500 of these tanks, the same antediluvian cobras and Apaches would burn them. Priorities need to be set. Do you need a new tank? Yes! Now? Not! We will continue to develop, experiment, our budget is not the same as that of the United States, and it’s impossible to overcome everything at once, we must choose.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

Rather, it seems, everything is decided not so much by air superiority as by satellite intelligence, with resolutions of tens of centimeters in almost all spectra and in real time. There will be no "situational awareness" - there will be no "air" and everything else ... And if one has it, and the other does not, then both tanks and infantry ... and all the king's men are in flight! - everything will be covered from the air, even by traitors, even by missiles. IHMO needs to vbuhivat everything as soon as possible into space)) and the means of countering the enemy's space reconnaissance ... well, in fundamental science)) (without it, nothing!) . will be a bunch of scrap metal suitable only for museums and the fight against the papus in Africa!))

[AK-47]

Today we are not able to fight either against Japan in the Far East (the group does not allow it) or in the southern, strategic Caucasus direction, where the Turks will destroy us within a few days. Not a single Iskander that was shown was in the troops. I would call the last Russian T-90 tank the main tank of the Indian army, because we have only 90 of them. Even less is our BMP-3. According to some sources, - 12, one regiment was disbanded. According to others, two stand on the Shot courses. And BMD-4 - no more than 15 troops. So there’s nothing for us to fight. ” http://pravoslav-voin.info/voin/364-vperedi-finalnaya-sxvatka-s-rossiej.html

By 2015, we are unlikely to have more than 150 missiles. Perhaps we had a plan that we would have another hundred naval "Clubs", but there is no hope for its creation. And if you compare them with the American prototypes of 15-20 years ago, then the “Poplar” and “Bulava” are inferior even to them in their characteristics. With such dimensions, the absence of metal, I'm not talking about armor, all this is easily detected and destroyed. The emphasis on mobile carriers such as “Poplar” is completely erroneous.

[WADIM]

I DO NOT AGREE TO YOU. AND FURTHER DO NOT READ THIS NONSENSE! I RECOMMEND YOU ... http: //nvo.ng.ru/ AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER ... MANY ANALYTICAL ARTICLES ... AND HERE HERE PAID ...

[Piligrim]

What the ...?
Turkey in a week, in three days ?!
You are like a grandmother on a bench at the entrance, chatting not know what! Just to defeat girlfriends with their news. And therefore, the more delusional and absurd it is, the more surprised people are around. and attention to your little person, which is exactly what you are trying to achieve.

[Fluffypuffs]

You do not belong to "us", argue within the framework of your pseudo state. Russia is the world's leader in military power, has a leading modernized stock of weapons, tanks and other things. The only country. which barely barely runs up to the Russian Federation in power - the United States. All. The rest of the world is not Russia's competitor.

[APASUS]

("Object-195") did not pass, because it is very expensive !!! But the next modernization of the T-72 called Armata will take place !!
What stupid people are sitting there in the Moscow Region!

[Motherland]

The point is to leave the old, now the "Object-195" does not suit the Ministry of Defense, not only in price, but also the fact that supposedly does not meet modern requirements. They now decide to take "Armata" and what? Until they bring it to their senses, until they accept it, agree with the factories, it will become obsolete.
Anyway, "Russians make bad cars, but good tanks"

[Denis]

Quote: Pasha

the price, the quality of Russian tanks brought the Ukrainians!

still know where, if not a secret?

[Kashaverskiy]

"This became clear from the unflattering response of the commander of the Ground Forces, Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another modification of the T-72 and nothing more."
the paradox is that this is a new machine, completely new. And not the modernization of the T-72, albeit as deep as the T-90. Although, of course. she takes into account the experience of the T-72. If this is distorted, then Leclerc is just the 15th modernization of the Renault FT-17 tank from the time of World War I ... The main technical solutions came from him - a turret, and not from the British - a stationary cabin with track-fitting body ...
The T-95 wasn’t accepted due to its high technical perfection and complexity, and not because it is outdated ... To produce new parts (and most of them are to take at least the same changes as compared with the T-90 - from the T-95 the new KP, control - for sure the helm, as in the Western models, and not as in the T-72 and the first T-90 weights ... and much more.)

[disaster]

Even if they are done, they will make the near future for the air defense helicopters

[disaster]

Even if they are done, they will make the near future for helicopters and air defense systems *

[uralkos]

Regarding the gun, I agree that you can leave the one that is on the T-90am. But, we need a new shell, active-reactive. Like Merkava 4. The projectile’s flight speed is higher than the speed of sound, and penetration depends not only on the penetration of the filling, but also on the kinetic energy that accompanies the projectile and also has a great impact on the target’s destruction. And surely we need a programmable anti-personnel projectile.

[George Sviridov]

An active rocket projectile for tanks is nonsense, at least in the near foreseeable future.
And the future belongs to guided cumulative missiles with tandem warheads.
Shrapnel ammunition exists, and is slowly developing.

[Artem6688]

Great news. I hope that they will create and launch mass production.

[Protey]

"The only thing that can hinder the implementation of the project is the unpredictability of officials from the Ministry of Defense, who can stop work at any time. Unfortunately, there are examples of this." -
It’s sad, but quite possible, but an example is the purchase of foreign armored vehicles (IVECO). Domestic developments are no worse, and in some ways surpass the same Italian! The current Minister of Defense, who specialized in the sale of furniture, appliances - a dark forest! Maybe the tanks will want to take a second-hand!

[bask]

Armata is a unified platform of the future but not a tank. A tank with an uninhabited tower in the city and mountains is not combat capable. And it is still necessary to board until the future. Apart from the T90 C, no one saw anything new for export to India.

[ko88]

for many years rumors have been heard about the publication of a completely new tank, we will wait

[marat1000]

Yes, there will be no new tank, again the next modification of the T-72 will come out and that's all

[Campo731]

Hurry up to finish it

[Fenix]

The main thing is not to face dirt

[CheByrashka]

Great news! D. Rogozin promised that, at the parade on May 9, 2015. Armata - will participate !!! Glory to the New Russia! The ice has broken.

[antiput]

Here is your ARM

[stalin1222]

I had the same story with the Black Eagle, well, since I talked that Armata will be at the parade, it will most likely be launched into production, rather than the 'planned' Black Eagle

[Fluffypuffs]

Already shown. The West is in shock.

[unknown13]

Good day to all. If the armata is the best tank in the world, then why doesn’t it show on the Roligon? It is stated that he shoots at 8 km. Then really would not have shown all its capabilities on TV and in net? And it is stupid to say that it’s unfounded that he’s showing off by the very same thing! The power of the engine is 1500ls, and the weight is 55 tons, and then read the hp per ton of the tank!

[Ambassador]

VERY LONG READ THESE PASQUILI DID NOT SEE ANY TECHNIC SUCH AN IMPRESSION THAT THE CHILDREN WRITE OF TANKS WRITING THIS WRITTEN ...