Armata -- GHQ Manhattan Project Needed...

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:42 am

So... what are the Armata's specs? How do you integrate them into a game when you have no idea how they are protected? Maybe Putin can put out a special games release that rules makers could include...

paul · Post by **paul** » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:04 pm

I would say incremental increases compared to the T-90. Maybe in the range of 15-20% increases in armor and penetration. Penetration could be pretty similar to the T-90 if the rounds are made the same way and no real changes in the gun system. Since it still has an auto loader I would not adjust the rate of fire. Speed should be higher as well.

sultanbev · Post by **sultanbev** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:38 am

Provisional stats in my rules:
T-14 Armata 2015P
speed 75kmh road, 33kmh cross-country
turret armour 60cm-20cm-10cm front -side-rear, all ceramic layer
hull armour 70cm ceramic layer and ERA front, 30cm ceramic layer and ERA side, 20cm hull rear SLAT
roof armour: extra
fire control: IFCS-stabilised
weight: 57t
125mm gun, cupola MG, Auto Defence System, Smoke Dischargers, Smoke Generator, Thermal Imaging, crewless turret.
Crewless turret invokes new rule, if the tank is ko'd in turret (but not blown up) the tank is considered knocked out for firing purposes, but not platoon morale purposes, as technically crew are safe in hull.

Ammo options:
BM42M FSAPDS: effective range (70% to hit static target in open) 2250m; penetration 55cm/2km/90*, 65cm/0m/90*
BK29M tandem HEAT: effective range 1750m; penetration 70cm/3000m/90*
HE, effective range 1750m, penetration 1cm/4000m
AT-11 Refleks ATGW: 90%/500-5000m, penetration 90cm tandem HEAT

Feel free to debate

In particular, is there a more modern FSAPDS round than the BM42M available?

Mark

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:01 am

Anybody think GHQ will give us a modified M1 Tank Turret Test Bed, something we looked at in the early '80s (I was at the Armor Board at the time it began)? It was an elevated gun, a la the 105mm Stryker MGS with the crew sitting in the hull front three abreast.

With the MGS and the M1(TTB), we obviously know how to do it. It's an interesting comparison. And to think, the MBT-70 put all the crew in the TURRET! For MBT-70, the driver would have had to have his personal Dramamine dispenser, what with the hull going one way and the turret going the other!

There were also several prototype light tanks with the crew mounted low in the hull.

javelin98 · Post by **javelin98** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:56 am

I actually got tired of waiting and made my own, but the imprecision of Sketchup and price point of Shapeways pretty much made them a non-starter. Come on, GHQ! Your fans are waiting!

I made the whole Russian family -- the T-15 IFV, Pantsir ADA vehicle, Koalitsiya SPA, MTU AVLB, and Kamaz Typhoon APC. But again, the prices are just too high and the precision of my CAD sculpting just ain't there yet.

paul · Post by **paul** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:17 pm

Nicely done CADD drawings. I'm looking forward to the new Russian vehicles coming out. My wallet will not but my eyes will.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:55 pm

I don't understand all this hurry to have the Armata. Today it is a "future" tank with only some prototypes under test. The sries production is given as2017-2027 at a rate of 120 tanks per ywear-

This program is partially du to thevvery high cost of the new tank-

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:55 pm

I don't understand all this hurry to have the Armata. Today it is a "future" tank with only some prototypes under test. The sries production is given as2017-2027 at a rate of 120 tanks per ywear-

This program is partially du to thevvery high cost of the new tank-

paul · Post by **paul** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:46 pm

The day those 120 tanks hit the field, I want GHQ to have a model. I will get a regiment on day one.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:51 am

Get'em Paul, my Pumas will smash your force, with some help from friends.

Javelin98, PM sent.

7.62 · Post by **7.62** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:55 pm

No need for the T-14 just yet. In fact I feel there are too many upgraded T72 and T90's floating around right now. Who knows who could end up with these dangerous and nasty machines. Enough of this war mongering.

What we need in these challenging economic times are modern civilians and commercial transports to provide peaceful economic growth.
New additions to the building range would help too. More factories, breweries, homes for the new civilians etc.
Schools, libraries, banks, gas stations, offices and stores for self assembly furniture.
Not to mention public transport!
We could build so much more beautiful peaceful terrain if we did not have to allocate so much to defence.

This year alone I have had to spend a small fortune to upgrade my military to counter a madman with T62's on my doorstep. The likes of these people do not need to get access to any more modern equipment.
Thank you.

PS. I wish I could stop the buying of my CV90's, MBT's, new subs and helicopters but I signed a contract

Quartette · Post by **Quartette** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:30 pm

I wouldn't hold your breath for significant armata production. I don't think the budget will be there at the moment - Russia has too many different priorities competing for funds in a highly restricted fiscal environment.

To reference the running joke: The Armata is a phenomenally powerful tank, just one battalion can destroy an entire budget.

paul · Post by **paul** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:02 pm

The F-35 is a budget buster but we are still planning to build it. Like I said, once the first 120 are built I'm prepared to buy a regiment worth.

I agree about all the variants. I'd prefer newer items like more Russian and Chinese aircraft.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:05 pm

Mick,
I feel your economic pain, shared budget/fiscal constraints 7.62 as you do.
Intel report/** CENSORED **: Camastan does not have specific plans to contract and purchase T-14 as of now. Plenty of discussion in the cabinet and military leadership circles on the T-14 and the needs of the Camian Army.
.
If Camastan did deploy T-14, there would be a 25% reduction in personal directly related to having crews on the T-14 of 3 personnel vs a crew of 4 on the T-62. The T-14 would be significant upgrade in capability for the Camies, much improved mobility, armor protection and firepower, improved maintenance for the next decade or two. The question is is the technological infastructure in place for Camastan to support the most recently designed, and produced tank in the world?
.
As Camastan receives delivery of heavy equipment for farming and industrial functions, the T-14 scale and scope of the deliveries could be easily hidden from the prying eyes of Balzac and other military intel sources. That is until the formations have in the field trainng on the Field of Cama military base. Although 1/2 to 2/3 could be stored in enclosed facilities as crews rotate for the their training cycle.
.
Will Camastan if the T-14 is purchased has the lastest technological capabilities build in or will the less capable lower cost T-14 vehicles be sold to Camastan? This remains to be seen.
.
Republic of Paulson has high degree of of interest in the acquisition of the T-14 Armata MBT, at least a Brigade in strength. They like the proposed reliability, firepower, armor protection including the crew in the hull of the MBT for survivability. The question here is if the ROP can effectively train, deploy and then fight!! They have a low education of the mass of society. Their officer corp is professional along with the NCOs. The political and military leadership are belligerent to neighboring states periodically. ROP also has a favorable relationship with other military states, which is a concern to developed societies.

PostHumanRepublican · Post by **PostHumanRepublican** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:16 am

Suppose I can toss one of these up onto Shapeways. I still need to make a IS-4 pack. A few people bought them single and spoke very highly of it.