Armata gun

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Wed May 18, 2016 1:28 am

A few data on the Armata gun.

It is a new 125mm gun with a longer barrel and built of stronger steel. The immediate visual differene is the lack of a fume extractor. No need for it as there is no crew in the turret.

But most important is the new autoloader which will handle complete ammunitiom instead of two parts ones as done up to now. This will mean shorter reloading time and new ammunition.especially APFSDS. These will have much longer rods than the existing ones. It seems that the rod of the new Vulcan ammunition has a rod longer than the last Rheinmetal APFSDS.

paul · Post by **paul** » Fri May 20, 2016 3:54 am

Will it have as much penetrating power or more than the Rheinmetal APFSDS? Has the gap between the Soviet armor and the US closed with the new barrel and rounds?

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Fri May 20, 2016 10:00 pm

Up to now the length of APFSDS rod was limited by the two parts ammunitions. The new one piece ammunition have much longer rods. It seems they are longer than Rhenletall ones but this is not sufficient to state their penetration capablity as the diameter s unknown and the effectiveness is given by the rapport between length and diameter of the rod.

In any case the gap will close as the new ammunition are more effective of the existing ones and the loading cycle will be faster.

paul · Post by **paul** » Sat May 21, 2016 9:27 pm

Would love to see GHQ put out the Armata. Italy appears to only have 30 Ariete that function now a days so the Armata should not need thousands or even hundreds to warrant its production.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sat May 21, 2016 11:51 pm

I don't knpow where you get the number of 30 anks but there is a big difference between Ariete and Armata. The first has been in operation for many years while of the second is known only the prototype shown on parade. The operational tank may hjave different details so it is a bit too early to produce a model of it.Remember what happened with the Puma.

BTW the number of existing vehicles is irrilevant. The Ariete produced by GHQ is the up-ar,mpured verion sed in Irak in 6 tanks only. In t.he catalog there are various models built in small number.

paul · Post by **paul** » Sun May 22, 2016 12:15 am

Tammy,

Here is the article:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /84642530/

Paul

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sun May 29, 2016 1:50 pm

YOUare right. I have found smilar numbers on other sources. So few that a special financng of some million Euros to buy Ariete spare parts has been approved at the start of thisyear. However thedexisting Ariete are still 200 against ? Armata in serial production

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Mon May 30, 2016 6:16 am

Italy with 30 tanks, the Dutch with zero, (unless something has changed). NATO has been too swift in their cutbacks, underestimated the Russians. The US do not have any tanks in Europe, Putin threatens several countries for retaliation.

Not a good position to be in.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Mon May 30, 2016 10:56 pm

Removed comment with apologies. This is not the place.

paul · Post by **paul** » Tue May 31, 2016 2:03 am

Honestly, the US should not have to have 9000 M1's active at any time. NATO should be supplying the majority of equipment and manpower for the defense of Europe. We can leave in maintained depots a couple of divisions of armor and APC's. Switching to a lighter force is needed but not the majority of our armored forces. The Marines represent a good balance of armor and infantry. We should have several Army divisions built along the same line. Cutting our troop strength is absolutely stupid. We need increase the numbers again and look at the LRS and F-35 as places to cut back.