What's new

Armata's state of the art gun is going to be a game-changer

looks like the russians based everything they got on the armata's chassis , they even made out an IFV of armata

Armata platform design is top notch russian engineering capabilities. Highly CAD based and based on simulation algorithms.

Thats the reason why this platform entered service so soon. Even in prototype phase, they can be send into battle any day.
 
Armata platform design is top notch russian engineering capabilities. Highly CAD based and based on simulation algorithms.

Thats the reason why this platform entered service so soon. Even in prototype phase, they can be send into battle any day.

well i don't question russian engineering , but this armata tank gives you the de ja vou , it's like you saw it somewhere else before ...
 
[video]
Notice the sound at 1:38 when he taps the barrel.

Hi,

If you stop the video at 1:38---you will notice that the barrel is covered with some kind of material----the seem of which can easily be seen along the length of the barrel.
 
well i don't question russian engineering , but this armata tank gives you the de ja vou , it's like you saw it somewhere else before ...

There is nothing comparable to Armata on the planet.

This is indegenous russian design. It is designed as a future robotic vehicle for the most propably biggest tank war ever in the future.

Russian defence minister said, they develop a gun/shell for armata, which can burn to a meter of steel.

Most propably already tested and certified from Russian engineers...
 
Stop shitting and emberassing yourself fanboy.

this canon is not new as you claimed. It was already designed in mid 2000s and tested on T-90 MBT.


You sound like a fool. You have zero evidence for your claims, everything you say is literally wrong. Again, the T-14 sabot rounds are 900mm long, therefore it is impossible that the autoloader is from a T-90, get that through your head. The 2A82M1 is said to be more accurate and have higher breach pressure then any previous canon.

As for the 2A82M1 being designed in the "mid 2000s", where is the proof? And just so you know, the Armata program began around 2010, does this mean it's old? It takes years to design, tests and redesign weapons systems.

Hi,

If you stop the video at 1:38---you will notice that the barrel is covered with some kind of material----the seem of which can easily be seen along the length of the barrel.


It's a thermal sleeve i have already explained it to him.
 
You are just stupid.

The design for the 2A82 gun goes even back to mid 90´s, you dumb foolish fanboy.





First off the 2A82 and the 2A82M1 are two different guns. Also back your talk with sources. Let me say that again, use sources. Everything you say is your opinion and wrong.





Armata programm did not begin in 2010. Are you realy stupid/retarded?

Armata design goes back to T-95 black eagle. Also from the mid 90´s






The T-95 and Armata program are two different programs :lol: the T-95 was cancelled in 2010 and the Armata program began around the same time, so why would they cancel the T-95 only to start over with the T-14? I'm sure that some of the experience from the T-95 carried over but the two tanks are very different.






All the ground work was based in that time.

maybe for you it takes years to stop your bullshit. but the designers don´t sit day and night on such programms for decades. They work on many projects according to the relevance, only if they have the opportunity to work when they get enough budget for the specific project. So that means 2A82 gun was developed in 1995 "Object 195" and worked on sporadicly, until it was finished in 2005.





The T-95 "object 195" used the 2A83 152mm gun :lol:

You have no clue what you are talking, you don't even know what tank uses what gun yet claim they are all the same. You can't back any of your claims for the 2A82 or 2A82M1 with a single source, everything you say is wrong---everything. You seem to even call the 2A82M1 designers liars, while in reality you know nothing. Tell use again, since when could a T-90 fit 900mm sabot rounds in it's autoloader? :lol:




All projects waiting in the shelfs to be completed over time. many of them date back to soviet times.

and now piss off you little prick!





Kids like you needs some soap in the mouth, there is a reason you have been banned many times.
 
Shut the crap senheiser.

2A82 and 2A821M are the same gun, you faggot.

But back to "Object 195"

Russian defence Minister already declared that they have the 152mm gun ready for Armata. In fact your beloved small calibre junk 2A821M will be abolished soon and the serial production will go on with Object 195 main gun the 2A83.

125mm is simply not enough to penetrate heavy tanks like leopard2A7 or M1A2 SEP from distances above 1000m.

you stupid low life worm.

lel


Nice proof, as usual i knew you had zero sources to back your claim. I hope this time when they ban you that they don't let you come back.
 


Did you even read your link? :lol: that just talks about the future 152mm gun, which has nothing to do with the 125mm version. And if you read my earlier posts i mentioned the 152mm gun several times, so you bring nothing new. What is that post even supposed to prove?




You are desperate, now you are pulling up random articles without even reading them, not surprised, just like you claimed the T-95 used the 2A82 when in fact it used a 152mm gun :lol: I but i don't know if that was as dumb as you claiming that the T-14 uses the same autoloader as the T-90.
 
Did you even read your link? :lol: that just talks about the future 152mm gun, which has nothing to do with the 125mm version. And if you read my earlier posts i mentioned the 152mm gun several times, so you bring nothing new. What is that post even supposed to prove?

You are desperate, now you are pulling up random articles without even reading them, not surprised, just like you claimed the T-95 used the 2A82 when in fact it used a 152mm gun :lol: I but i don't know if that was as dumb as you claiming that the T-14 uses the same autoloader as the T-90.

Yes the same Autoloader with modifications.

And the 2A82 was also mounted before on T-90 for firing tests. The gun is not newly devoloped like you wimp claimed.

It is 20 years old design.

Soviets were decades ahead of their time.

An Autoloader is the easiest maschine you can imagine.But maybe this is rocket science for a little wimp like you?

Autoloader. Simplest machine. if you need changes,than make changes.no need for new loader.

l-7oob_13036710011.jpg
 
Yes the same Autoloader with modifications.

Wow, and you know this how? Not a single photo of the autoloader exists. The CEO of Uralvagonzavod has already said that the T-14 auto loader can detect malfunctions before they happen, something that the T-90 autoloader can not do. Furthermore, if the T-14 is using or will use a 152mm gun the autoloader from a T-90 will never work.




Interview with Uralvagonzavod CEO deputy, Khalitov, V.





And the 2A82 was also mounted before on T-90 for firing tests. The gun is not newly devoloped like you wimp claimed.

It is 20 years old design.

Soviets were decades ahead of their time.




No one is talking about the 2A82, i am talking about the 2A82A1. Of course you will just claim it's the exact same gun but will offer no proof.
 
Last edited:
Wow, and you know this how? Not a single photo of the autoloader exists. The CEO of Uralvagonzavod has already said that the T-14 auto loader can detect malfunctions before they happen, something that the T-90 autoloader can not do. Furthermore, if the T-14 is using or will use a 152mm gun the autoloader from a T-90 will never work.

Interview with Uralvagonzavod CEO deputy, Khalitov, V.

No one is talking about the 2A82, i am talking about the 2A82A1. Of course you will just claim it's the exact same gun but will offer to proof.

So the "new" loader can detect faulty actuators?

big deal. this is made with just a single control unit, which just measures the needed electrical energy for every move of an actuator. It compares it to programmed data.And if the data does not match,than it will tell you the part needs maintenance.

a simple pocket calculator can do that.big deal! but that must be rocket science for you Mr. little whimp.

do you even now what an actuator is, wormboy? :-)
 
So the "new" loader can detect faulty actuators?

big deal. this is made with just a single control unit, which just measures the needed electrical energy for every move of an actuator. It compares it to programmed data.And if the data does not match,than it will tell you the part needs maintenance.

a simple calculator can do that.big deal! but that must be rocket science for you Mr. little whimp.

do you even now what an actuator is, wormboy? :-)





The T-14 uses sabots that are 900mm long and impossible for a T-90 autoloader to fit. But you claim it's just a modification. The T-14 autoloader has software that enables it to detect possible malfunctions before they even happen, again you claim it's just the same thing. Notice you can not back your claims.

Your problem is that you make many claims that you can not back and when i bring in sources that discredit you, you automatically start making things up because you do not want to admit that you were wrong.

Until you can support your claims (you never will) with solid proof and not opinions you will be nothing more then a dancing jester with egg on your face.
 
The T-14 uses sabots that are 900mm long and impossible for a T-90 autoloader to fit. But you claim it's just a modification. The T-14 autoloader has software that enables it to detect possible malfunctions before they even happen, again you claim it's just the same thing. Notice you can not back your claims.

Your problem is that you make many claims that you can not back and when i bring in sources that discredit you, you automatically start making things up because you do not want to admit that you were wrong.

Why do i need backing?

I know what an actuator is. You even don´t know that. What can i discuss with a dumb fanboy like you? You have zero clue beside wikipedia.

The autoloader is the same,with modifications. Why should uralvagonzavod create new autoloader? it is a simple maschine. They just change the dimensions.change some details and add some new electrical goodies.

THATS ALL!

The control computer is just a nice detail. The technology was developed for civilian industry/Otomotive sector. Nothing special. Every high quality car has this.

It is just a nice detail to have.nothing more.
 
Why do i need backing?

I know what an actuator is. You even don´t know that. What can i discuss with a dumb fanboy like you? You have zero clue beside wikipedia.

The autoloader is the same,with modifications. Why should uralvagonzavod create new autoloader? it is a simple maschine. They just change the dimensions.change some details and add some new electrical goodies.

THATS ALL!

The control computer is just a nice detail. The technology was developed for civilian industry/Otomotive sector. Nothing special. Every high quality car has this.

It is just a nice detail to have.nothing more.



Again, you have nothing :lol: Notice i can back every single statement up while you can not. There is zero proof that the T-14 autoloader is the same as in the T-90 or even a modified version. Yet i have given more then enough evidence showing that the T-14 autoloader is drastically different. So far you are losing the argument and pretty badly. Again where is your proof the T-14 autoloader is the same as the T-90--i have given proof it is not the same, you have given proof of nothing. Your opinions, which are always wrong do not count as proof.

Just because you say it's the same does not make it true especially when i can prove it's not the same. Learn how to debate properly, this isn't pre-school.
 
Back
Top Bottom