T-14 Armata

[Montmorency]

Why do you think the non-MBT Armata will have similar defensive capacities to the MBT? It takes more than MBT-grade suspension, tracks, and active protection...

[Husar]

Why do you think the non-MBT Armata will have similar defensive capacities to the MBT? It takes more than MBT-grade suspension, tracks, and active protection...

http://www.military-today.com/apc/armata_heavy_ifv.htm

It seems that Armata heavy IFV has similar level of protection as Armata main battle tank.
[...]
The Armata is one of the most protected, if not the most protected IFV in the world. It seems that in terms of protection it is superior to most heavy armored personnel carrier and heavily-armored vehicles such as German Puma IFV.
It has been reported that it has newly-developed armor, made of steel, ceramics and composite materials. Also it has been reported that Armata has a Malakhit add-on explosive reactive armor of new generation. A front-mounted engine provides additional protection. As usual this armored vehicle is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. It has been reported that it will be fitted with new Afganit active protection system. It seems that it also has a new countermeasures system that reduces the chance of being hit by enemy ATGW with semi-automatic guidance.
Due to its superior armor protection the Armata heavy IFV can carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support on modern battlefield. It can be deployed on the battlefield alongside Armata tanks, not behind them. Recent conflicts revealed that in combat IFVs are usually kept in a safe distance from enemy firing line due to their vulnerability to anti-tank weapons.

However, the Armata IFV will not be the new mainstream IFV and more likely be a vehicle for specialist/elite troops (also mentioned in the link).

The Kurganets-25 is more likely to take over the more mainstream tasks: http://www.military-today.com/apc/kurganets_25.htm

The Kurganets-25 IFV has a modular armor with add-on modules. Protection level can be tailored to counter specific threats. It seems that this vehicle can be fitted with newly-developed Drozd-2 active protection system. Also is seems that it comes with newly developed countermeasures system, the reduces the chance of being hit by enemy ATGW with semi-automatic guidance.

Not that military today is 100% reliable but I don't think Kage made that up.

[Montmorency]

Interesting, I had not seen that link. From what I read here and in other sites, the T99 Armata is a universal chassis of specially-designed steel, and that for the purposed variants (MBT, IFV, etc.) the real similarities will be in active protection and advanced armor accessories. In other words, the T15 (IFV variant) would not for the most part have equivalent thickness core hull armor as the T14 (MBT variant), but would have similar optic and APS, and crucially, would be able to layer on the new grade of composite and reactive armors developed specifically for the T14/T99, and the cancelled T95 project.

In other words, sure, it will have very good overall protection compared to all other armor in its class, but if actually hit in any part by some anti-tank projectile would not have as good a chance at resisting penetration as the MBT variant in a homotopic portion.

[Montmorency]

I recalled that Battlefront had recently put out a new Combat Mission title to simulate a potential conflict in Ukraine in the near future.

As it turns out, there is a cool thread on the Armata in the forum there.

[Husar]

I recalled that Battlefront had recently put out a new Combat Mission title to simulate a potential conflict in Ukraine in the near future.

As it turns out, there is a cool thread on the Armata in the forum there.

The guy who made post #5 there is probably eating his hat now.

As for the T-15, it's not an MBT, but neither is the Armata fully armored like an MBT. My feeling, and that does not have to say a whole lot, is that the entire platform is more based around a medium armor concept where every vehicle has a relatively good protection against a lot of AT systems but no special emphasis was given to the protection againstthe heaviest weaponry the system might encounter as that is either for the active protection to deal with or simply not worth the additional effort/weight. The MBT hull may differ in that, but the turret is apparently not really made to withstand hits by heavy ATGMs or tank sabots. What seems to be new for Russia is the emphasis on crew protection as the crew compartment is said to be the most well-armored part of the MBT.

On the other hand, if the gun/ammo is actually more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 with DM-63 or the American L/44 with the M829A3, then it might pose a serious threat to western MBTs simply due to how reliable it may be in killing them first, potentially before they can react due to the automation. Your link mentions radar to find enemies, if that is turned into a proper point and click measure for the crew, the Armata might just get the first shot versus a tank where the commander has to visually identify the enemy. In that case the armor might be less important if both tanks can penetrate the other.

[Kadagar_AV]

The guy who made post #5 there is probably eating his hat now.

As for the T-15, it's not an MBT, but neither is the Armata fully armored like an MBT. My feeling, and that does not have to say a whole lot, is that the entire platform is more based around a medium armor concept where every vehicle has a relatively good protection against a lot of AT systems but no special emphasis was given to the protection againstthe heaviest weaponry the system might encounter as that is either for the active protection to deal with or simply not worth the additional effort/weight. The MBT hull may differ in that, but the turret is apparently not really made to withstand hits by heavy ATGMs or tank sabots. What seems to be new for Russia is the emphasis on crew protection as the crew compartment is said to be the most well-armored part of the MBT.

On the other hand, if the gun/ammo is actually more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 with DM-63 or the American L/44 with the M829A3, then it might pose a serious threat to western MBTs simply due to how reliable it may be in killing them first, potentially before they can react due to the automation. Your link mentions radar to find enemies, if that is turned into a proper point and click measure for the crew, the Aramat might just get the first shot versus a tank where the commander has to visually identify the enemy. In that case the armor might be less important if both tanks can penetrate the other.

Our modern offensive capabilities tank vs tank FAR excell our defensive capabilities...

So we're back in the Hollywood Wild West, who draws first...

[Gilrandir]

Didn't read a single post in this thread, but I found this article on the subject by the leading Russian military expert. It is in Russian and I couldn't find an English-language version, yet I hope others with more skills in working with the Internet may do this.
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/comments/68416.html