American view on Abrams and Armata
We have already discussed more than once the materials of the American magazine "The National Interest". Funny publication, something like the Russian "Military Review". But for the Americans.
Another material devoted to modern combat vehicles, and specifically tanks, attracted attention and made brains and logic strain.
"Russian tank T-14" Armata "against the Japanese" Type 10 "and the American M1" Abrams ": who will win?"
Article rather big. Article, one might say, soulful. The magazine seems to be doing a good job, comparing its technique (it is clear that the best in the world) and ours. But in this case, the Americans are clearly unmarried.
For some reason, in comparing the capabilities and characteristics with "Abrams" and "Armata" it turned out ... a Japanese colleague. Type 10. Very original and strange. Not "Leopard", not "Merkava" at the worst. Japanese.
It's simple. The authors took the articles of two authors, Kayla Mizokami and Sebastian Robin, well shaken up in a shaker and proclaimed: “Let there be a discussion!” That is, in our opinion, srach.
As I understand it, the Japanese Type 10 was inserted precisely so that the Abrams looked more or less worthy. Although, it should be noted that the authors tried very hard to be objective. And they almost succeeded.
Type 10 will not disassemble for parts, it is quite specific machine, sharpened just under the narrow roads of Japan with a strong mountainous terrain. Lightweight (40 t) and fast, and the presence of a continuously variable gearbox allows you to move at a good speed in both directions.
There is nothing supernatural in armaments, with the exception of the С41 system, which allows you to form wireless information networks directly on the battlefield and exchange the received data not only between tanks, but also with other units.
So I agree with the Americans that the tank for its area is very good, but not “vundervaffe” for sure.
“Armata” got more.
The authors of the journal did a good job at first treading on T-72, telling how successfully Abrams coped with this tank in many conflicts, and hinted that T-90 would suffer, if that, the same fate. As a further modification.
But we are talking about “Armata”, which is in no way a continuation of the chain of upgrades of the T-72 ...
And here, forgetting about the Japanese, the authors rush to Europe and almost Europe, claiming that the Abrams is a very good tank, quite comparable to such machines as the German Leopard 2, the French Leclerc, the British Challenger 2 and Israeli Merkava-4. However, having made a reservation that the Abrams will definitely not have to meet with these tanks on the battlefield, for allies and all that.
It is difficult to trace the logic, but it seems to me that I could understand what the Americans wanted to say.
Undoubtedly, “Leopard” and “Merkava” are very worthy cars. In my mind, I will not have anything else to say. But just for this course is calculated. If “Abrams”, according to the authors, is no worse than “Leo” and “Merkava”, but it is being compared with “Almaty”, then logically ... “Armata” is no different from all those listed. And will not have much superiority over them.
Stupidity? Stupidity, but quite logical.
Let's talk about the difference of the tanks of the third and fourth generations. Still, the "Armata" is significantly different from the counterparts of the "Abrams", as the tower does not say.
By the way, about the tower.
Thank God, it’s not a secret to Americans that the T-14 is the only tank in the world that has an uninhabited tower. Hence the very significant protection of the crew, which from the armored capsule carries out firing from all barrels and PU. And the ammunition is also in the tower. Separated from the crew.
"Abrams"? Tower "inhabited". There is actually half the crew. And, importantly, ammunition. The BC is separated by a curtain and panels, but the first 6 shells still lie directly next to the loader.
Armor.
Americans argue that Abrams is the fattest in terms of booking. Cunningly slightly, of course. Yes, the armor of their tank in terms of numbers is really the thickest, but the crew’s happiness is not in numbers. And in such a concept as "equivalent protection".
We begin and end with the fact that there is no active protection system for Abrams, and God forbid that it should appear in the year to 2025. In this regard, Abrams loses not only to Armata, but also to Merkava with a bang.
And "Armata" is considered more secure than the "Merkava". Mainly due to new materials from the Research Institute of Steel and the Malachite system. Steel with special properties, not giving fragments, in conjunction with composite materials. So with a smaller, than the "Abrams", the thickness of the armor "Malachite" makes the effective thickness of the frontal booking equivalent to 1400 mm, side - 1100 mm.
And the most powerful American sub-caliber projectile M829A3 is capable of penetrating the armor of all 825-mm.
In addition, as the Americans honestly noted, the Abrams suffered greatly from mines. The negative experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen forced the developers to install an additional armor plate on the bottom. The result was generally positive, but I also added a half tons more and so to the considerable weight of the tank.
The "Armata" mine protection is still more elegant. The protection equipment distorts the magnetic field of the tank, and the mine explodes outside its projection.
But what can I say, after all, the difference in 30 years is a lot.
Active protection.
On the Abrams, alas, it is not. To call the existing infrared gun, which can dazzle the infrared homing heads, cannot be turned as active protection.
On the "Armata" set of active protection "Afganit", just what distinguishes the fourth-generation tank from the previous ones. Yes, some of the capabilities of the system seem fantastic, but here either they believed that the minds and hands of Tula from the Instrument Design Bureau could or could not believe.
But the "Shell" also once seemed fiction. And developed in the same place ...
"Afghan". It is intended for the destruction of any missiles and projectiles flying up to a tank that have a speed of up to 6 M. That is, hypersonic. For the detection of ammunition, two systems are used: optical-location, operating in the visible and infrared bands, and radar.
The radar installed on the Armata has four active phased antenna arrays, which makes its response almost instantaneous. Actually, nothing supernatural. They took offal from the "shell" and stuffed it into the tank. Do you know how long?
The “Armaty” radar is capable of simultaneously accompanying 40 ground and 25 air targets at a distance of up to 100 kilometers. By the way, the presence of two parallel systems, optical and radar, solving the same tasks, allows to increase the reliability of work, since nobody has canceled the enemy EW facilities. And of course, the optical system copes with its duties with the radar turned off if necessary.
Two methods are used to destroy shells and rockets. Apply grenades installed in mortars around the perimeter of the tank tower. The ammunition is intercepted within 15 − 20 radius of meters with grenade fragments flying at an angle of 20. Ammunition, whose speed is lower than the speed of sound, can be destroyed by bursts of large-caliber machine guns, aimed at the target using radar. Fantasy? Maybe.
Afganit has one more function, in case all the grenades that hit enemy ammunition are used up. Radar, detecting a flying projectile, can independently turn the turret with its frontal side towards the projectile.
There is one more useful ability: setting up an aerosol curtain. The veil consists of ordinary smoke, which is added to the smallest metal powder elements. This makes the tank invisible not only visually or for the laser, but also for the enemy radar.
In the arsenal of "Abrams" while only smoke.
Armament.
Here the Americans surprised me with a term that the dictionary translated as “redundancy”. Say, 152-mm gun "Armata" is too strong. Isn't it fair? So we are not preparing for the Olympic Games, but to fight if we burn. And the fact that our gun can turn any tank into scrap metal is a problem for anyone, but not ours.
Yes, there is an option "Armata" with a 125-mm 2-82 cannon, but even this weapon is qualitatively stronger than the Abrams "reynmetal" cannon. And more powerful, and more accurate.
And the fact that the Americans were not able to overpower the automatic loader today is simply raising “Armata” over the “Abrams”. 10-12 shots with a caliber of 152-mm per minute with a range of targets in 7000 meters against 3-x shots with a caliber of 120-mm per minute and a range 4600 meters ...
Such a comparison is not serious.
Speed and ride quality.
Engines are equal in power. 1500 hp But the weight ... “Armata” with its 48 tons has the 31 hp / t figure. Abrams with minimum 63 tons - 24 hp / t.
Ground pressure: “Armata” - 0,73 kg / sq. Cm., “Abrams” - 1,07 kg / sq. see. Well, the maximum speed of “Armata”, naturally, is higher. 80 km / h vs 67 km / h.
Of course, all this is reflected in both terrain and maneuverability. Americans honestly note the problems of "Abrams" if necessary to cross the barriers on the bridges.
So where are the classmates here?
I have not seen.
Most importantly, what is behind the material? What, as they say, the heart will calm down?
The conclusion from the Americans is correct, albeit covert. Abrams is not a rival to Armata. Totally. And this is well understood in the US Department of Defense. And therefore, continuing to talk about the fact that the Abrams, if not the best tank in the world, is not the worst, they start plotting another global modernization.
What is this about? That the first 7 machines of the new V3 M1A2 SEP modernization are ready, which will have to go to the troops in 2020 year. The quantity is not specified.
What is included in the upgrade:
1. New auxiliary power unit (VSU). The favorite target of the Afghan Mujahideen and Iraqi grenade launchers. It should improve energy supply and reduce fuel consumption is not the most economical engine in the world.
2. The advanced infrared guidance system sensor (FLIR) should increase the accuracy of the instrument.
3. Remote control of the machine gun on the tower.
4. The system of "programmable explosion of the projectile." Must allow for the remote blasting of a high-explosive projectile "directly above the enemy troops."
5. M829A4 APF - modernization of ammunition with a core of depleted uranium, in theory, the developers should defeat our Relic system. About "Afghan" note, not a word.
6. Active Protection System (APS). Here is a surprise! It turns out that Israeli APS "Trophy" compatibility tests are in full swing. And, perhaps, this system will be purchased and installed on the Abrams of the new generation.
7. Perhaps (!), A laser irradiation sensor (LWR) will be installed after all.
Where can I see “classmate” of “Almaty”, which is not inferior to her? Even with all the "innovations" of the rival, "Armata" is not observed. The maximum is a worthy contender for T-90 or T-72B3.
Team TNI great. Well worked, do not say anything. Indeed, Americans should not be afraid of “Armata”, out of everything 100 units will be released so far, and they already have 7 new modifications of Abrams. And by the 2020, they will release more 200 machines. And "Abrams" is not worse than "Almaty". So, America, sleep well.
Why not? All the same, it is unlikely that the dust of Oklahomshchina will be swept up by the Armat tracks This is not our style. Still, the enemy is better overestimated than underestimated. Then, “in case of something”, the possibilities of “Armata” will not become a cold shower for hot heads.
And we already know that our tank is better. And the Americans do not need to know.
Another material devoted to modern combat vehicles, and specifically tanks, attracted attention and made brains and logic strain.
"Russian tank T-14" Armata "against the Japanese" Type 10 "and the American M1" Abrams ": who will win?"
Article rather big. Article, one might say, soulful. The magazine seems to be doing a good job, comparing its technique (it is clear that the best in the world) and ours. But in this case, the Americans are clearly unmarried.
For some reason, in comparing the capabilities and characteristics with "Abrams" and "Armata" it turned out ... a Japanese colleague. Type 10. Very original and strange. Not "Leopard", not "Merkava" at the worst. Japanese.
It's simple. The authors took the articles of two authors, Kayla Mizokami and Sebastian Robin, well shaken up in a shaker and proclaimed: “Let there be a discussion!” That is, in our opinion, srach.
As I understand it, the Japanese Type 10 was inserted precisely so that the Abrams looked more or less worthy. Although, it should be noted that the authors tried very hard to be objective. And they almost succeeded.
Type 10 will not disassemble for parts, it is quite specific machine, sharpened just under the narrow roads of Japan with a strong mountainous terrain. Lightweight (40 t) and fast, and the presence of a continuously variable gearbox allows you to move at a good speed in both directions.
There is nothing supernatural in armaments, with the exception of the С41 system, which allows you to form wireless information networks directly on the battlefield and exchange the received data not only between tanks, but also with other units.
So I agree with the Americans that the tank for its area is very good, but not “vundervaffe” for sure.
“Armata” got more.
The authors of the journal did a good job at first treading on T-72, telling how successfully Abrams coped with this tank in many conflicts, and hinted that T-90 would suffer, if that, the same fate. As a further modification.
But we are talking about “Armata”, which is in no way a continuation of the chain of upgrades of the T-72 ...
And here, forgetting about the Japanese, the authors rush to Europe and almost Europe, claiming that the Abrams is a very good tank, quite comparable to such machines as the German Leopard 2, the French Leclerc, the British Challenger 2 and Israeli Merkava-4. However, having made a reservation that the Abrams will definitely not have to meet with these tanks on the battlefield, for allies and all that.
It is difficult to trace the logic, but it seems to me that I could understand what the Americans wanted to say.
Undoubtedly, “Leopard” and “Merkava” are very worthy cars. In my mind, I will not have anything else to say. But just for this course is calculated. If “Abrams”, according to the authors, is no worse than “Leo” and “Merkava”, but it is being compared with “Almaty”, then logically ... “Armata” is no different from all those listed. And will not have much superiority over them.
Stupidity? Stupidity, but quite logical.
Let's talk about the difference of the tanks of the third and fourth generations. Still, the "Armata" is significantly different from the counterparts of the "Abrams", as the tower does not say.
By the way, about the tower.
Thank God, it’s not a secret to Americans that the T-14 is the only tank in the world that has an uninhabited tower. Hence the very significant protection of the crew, which from the armored capsule carries out firing from all barrels and PU. And the ammunition is also in the tower. Separated from the crew.
"Abrams"? Tower "inhabited". There is actually half the crew. And, importantly, ammunition. The BC is separated by a curtain and panels, but the first 6 shells still lie directly next to the loader.
Armor.
Americans argue that Abrams is the fattest in terms of booking. Cunningly slightly, of course. Yes, the armor of their tank in terms of numbers is really the thickest, but the crew’s happiness is not in numbers. And in such a concept as "equivalent protection".
We begin and end with the fact that there is no active protection system for Abrams, and God forbid that it should appear in the year to 2025. In this regard, Abrams loses not only to Armata, but also to Merkava with a bang.
And "Armata" is considered more secure than the "Merkava". Mainly due to new materials from the Research Institute of Steel and the Malachite system. Steel with special properties, not giving fragments, in conjunction with composite materials. So with a smaller, than the "Abrams", the thickness of the armor "Malachite" makes the effective thickness of the frontal booking equivalent to 1400 mm, side - 1100 mm.
And the most powerful American sub-caliber projectile M829A3 is capable of penetrating the armor of all 825-mm.
In addition, as the Americans honestly noted, the Abrams suffered greatly from mines. The negative experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen forced the developers to install an additional armor plate on the bottom. The result was generally positive, but I also added a half tons more and so to the considerable weight of the tank.
The "Armata" mine protection is still more elegant. The protection equipment distorts the magnetic field of the tank, and the mine explodes outside its projection.
But what can I say, after all, the difference in 30 years is a lot.
Active protection.
On the Abrams, alas, it is not. To call the existing infrared gun, which can dazzle the infrared homing heads, cannot be turned as active protection.
On the "Armata" set of active protection "Afganit", just what distinguishes the fourth-generation tank from the previous ones. Yes, some of the capabilities of the system seem fantastic, but here either they believed that the minds and hands of Tula from the Instrument Design Bureau could or could not believe.
But the "Shell" also once seemed fiction. And developed in the same place ...
"Afghan". It is intended for the destruction of any missiles and projectiles flying up to a tank that have a speed of up to 6 M. That is, hypersonic. For the detection of ammunition, two systems are used: optical-location, operating in the visible and infrared bands, and radar.
The radar installed on the Armata has four active phased antenna arrays, which makes its response almost instantaneous. Actually, nothing supernatural. They took offal from the "shell" and stuffed it into the tank. Do you know how long?
The “Armaty” radar is capable of simultaneously accompanying 40 ground and 25 air targets at a distance of up to 100 kilometers. By the way, the presence of two parallel systems, optical and radar, solving the same tasks, allows to increase the reliability of work, since nobody has canceled the enemy EW facilities. And of course, the optical system copes with its duties with the radar turned off if necessary.
Two methods are used to destroy shells and rockets. Apply grenades installed in mortars around the perimeter of the tank tower. The ammunition is intercepted within 15 − 20 radius of meters with grenade fragments flying at an angle of 20. Ammunition, whose speed is lower than the speed of sound, can be destroyed by bursts of large-caliber machine guns, aimed at the target using radar. Fantasy? Maybe.
Afganit has one more function, in case all the grenades that hit enemy ammunition are used up. Radar, detecting a flying projectile, can independently turn the turret with its frontal side towards the projectile.
There is one more useful ability: setting up an aerosol curtain. The veil consists of ordinary smoke, which is added to the smallest metal powder elements. This makes the tank invisible not only visually or for the laser, but also for the enemy radar.
In the arsenal of "Abrams" while only smoke.
Armament.
Here the Americans surprised me with a term that the dictionary translated as “redundancy”. Say, 152-mm gun "Armata" is too strong. Isn't it fair? So we are not preparing for the Olympic Games, but to fight if we burn. And the fact that our gun can turn any tank into scrap metal is a problem for anyone, but not ours.
Yes, there is an option "Armata" with a 125-mm 2-82 cannon, but even this weapon is qualitatively stronger than the Abrams "reynmetal" cannon. And more powerful, and more accurate.
And the fact that the Americans were not able to overpower the automatic loader today is simply raising “Armata” over the “Abrams”. 10-12 shots with a caliber of 152-mm per minute with a range of targets in 7000 meters against 3-x shots with a caliber of 120-mm per minute and a range 4600 meters ...
Such a comparison is not serious.
Speed and ride quality.
Engines are equal in power. 1500 hp But the weight ... “Armata” with its 48 tons has the 31 hp / t figure. Abrams with minimum 63 tons - 24 hp / t.
Ground pressure: “Armata” - 0,73 kg / sq. Cm., “Abrams” - 1,07 kg / sq. see. Well, the maximum speed of “Armata”, naturally, is higher. 80 km / h vs 67 km / h.
Of course, all this is reflected in both terrain and maneuverability. Americans honestly note the problems of "Abrams" if necessary to cross the barriers on the bridges.
So where are the classmates here?
I have not seen.
Most importantly, what is behind the material? What, as they say, the heart will calm down?
The conclusion from the Americans is correct, albeit covert. Abrams is not a rival to Armata. Totally. And this is well understood in the US Department of Defense. And therefore, continuing to talk about the fact that the Abrams, if not the best tank in the world, is not the worst, they start plotting another global modernization.
What is this about? That the first 7 machines of the new V3 M1A2 SEP modernization are ready, which will have to go to the troops in 2020 year. The quantity is not specified.
What is included in the upgrade:
1. New auxiliary power unit (VSU). The favorite target of the Afghan Mujahideen and Iraqi grenade launchers. It should improve energy supply and reduce fuel consumption is not the most economical engine in the world.
2. The advanced infrared guidance system sensor (FLIR) should increase the accuracy of the instrument.
3. Remote control of the machine gun on the tower.
4. The system of "programmable explosion of the projectile." Must allow for the remote blasting of a high-explosive projectile "directly above the enemy troops."
5. M829A4 APF - modernization of ammunition with a core of depleted uranium, in theory, the developers should defeat our Relic system. About "Afghan" note, not a word.
6. Active Protection System (APS). Here is a surprise! It turns out that Israeli APS "Trophy" compatibility tests are in full swing. And, perhaps, this system will be purchased and installed on the Abrams of the new generation.
7. Perhaps (!), A laser irradiation sensor (LWR) will be installed after all.
Where can I see “classmate” of “Almaty”, which is not inferior to her? Even with all the "innovations" of the rival, "Armata" is not observed. The maximum is a worthy contender for T-90 or T-72B3.
Team TNI great. Well worked, do not say anything. Indeed, Americans should not be afraid of “Armata”, out of everything 100 units will be released so far, and they already have 7 new modifications of Abrams. And by the 2020, they will release more 200 machines. And "Abrams" is not worse than "Almaty". So, America, sleep well.
Why not? All the same, it is unlikely that the dust of Oklahomshchina will be swept up by the Armat tracks This is not our style. Still, the enemy is better overestimated than underestimated. Then, “in case of something”, the possibilities of “Armata” will not become a cold shower for hot heads.
And we already know that our tank is better. And the Americans do not need to know.
Information