Military Review

Tank war: Russia creates a platform to fight Abrams

94



The Abrams tank has been considered for decades a tank "Number one" in the world. However, experts say that the T-14 Armata, the next-generation platform being developed by Russia, may cast doubt on the superiority of Abrams.

As noted in the report “The most important task of modernizing the army: New Big Five for the 21 century”, published by the Washington-based Analytical Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “The American tank today has not changed much, it is very similar to the tank that was developed in 70 years At the same time, having passed a series of upgrades, it still remains a formidable weapon system with a huge combat potential. ”

According to the authors of the report McCormick and Hunter, “The current version of the Abrams tank - M1A2 System Enhancement Program v2 Abrams is an extraordinary machine. For its steel-encapsulated depleted uranium armor, the Abrams tank is, according to some experts, a “almost indestructible” system. ”

At the same time, Russia is investing in its Armata T-14 tank, which is advertised as a next-generation battle tank with advanced weapons, defense systems and an uninhabited tower. According to Russian media reports, Moscow plans to manufacture 100 platforms for the 2020 year, while the tank is currently undergoing troop testing.

Abrams weighs more than 71 tons and, thanks to a powerful gas turbine engine, can develop a maximum speed of 42 miles / h; here it surpasses any tank that Russia has in service, including the T-72B, T-80 and T-90.

However, according to the authors of the CSIS report, there are certain design characteristics that align the capabilities of the Abrams tank and Russian tanks.

While the United States battle tanks rely on heavy armor for protection, the Russian fleet consists of smaller, lighter platforms that use counter systems such as active defense systems to combat anti-tank missiles and anti-tank grenades.

Russian active defense systems are effective "against most modern anti-tank guided missiles, thus compensating for some lack of armor, but they are not well resisted by the FMG-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles in the top attack mode."

“A robust, active defense system created from scratch is likely to be a key component of the Armata’s T-14 tank,” said David Johnson, lead specialist at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Research.

In the case of the tank "T-14 ... you do not screw the active protection on the bolts. You simply integrate it into the machine at the design stage. ”

Meanwhile, the American Army Research Armored Center is undergoing active defense systems that will be installed on the Abrams tank. “The question is how effective it will be after installation,” he noted.

Hunter from the CSIS center said that the importance of deploying an effective active protection system cannot be underestimated. “This is an urgent need that needs to be translated into reality as soon as possible. The T-14 tank will have a number of other improvements, including an uninhabited tower, which will provide the crew with better protection. It will also reduce the crew from four to three people and get a lighter system, which is likely to weigh significantly less than the Abrams tank. ”

“People are released and this gives you the opportunity to deploy another tank with the same number of troops,” he said. “This means that the Armata will be able to drive on roads that the Abrams tank cannot navigate.”

The CSIS report notes that a large mass of the American tank is the main limiting factor. “The large mass of Abrams makes it just a logistic nightmare. Due to the weight restrictions for European roads, this platform is too heavy for American heavy hauls and must be transported by German and British heavy tugs. ”

Johnson said that the mass of the system is increasing due to the constant addition of passive armor and bottom armored launchers to conduct urban combat. This can create big problems during ground operations.

According to the agency RAND Corporation "Enhanced deterrence on the eastern flank of NATO", the Russian army is able to reach the capitals of Estonia and Latvia in 60 hours.

From the CSIS report: “While the Abrams could qualitatively outperform Russian tanks, this advantage means little if it is not used in a real battle ... Russia will be able to more freely move its armored units throughout Europe, surpassing American defenders.”

Hunter said that Russia is known for its “sudden strike and capture” operations, in which it uses the excellent maneuverability of its vehicles to quickly capture the target area.

“They don’t need a lot of troops for this. This is a real challenge for the USA. However, the Russians can’t afford to buy many Armat tanks, ”noted Hunter.

“Their budget remains very thin,” he remarked. “A kind of open-ended question: how many of their forces are they really going to be and are able to modernize on the assumption that their budget is very limited.”

Tank war: Russia creates a platform to fight Abrams


According to news agencies, Russia initially wanted to build 2300 systems by 2020, but later reduced this number to 100 platforms.

“At the same time, Russia can start selling tanks to countries that are not very friendly to the United States.” Russians are great experts, ”said Hunter. “Some of these systems that the Russians produce and that we worry about, we may not see in battle with Russia, but we may see them in a war with someone else.” And buyers can become North Korea, Iran and Syria. "

Johnson remarked that the Russians are happy to sell weapons to countries that the United States is wary of. He suggested that they could sell a less functional platform than the one they have in their arsenal.

“Since Russia is developing its Armata tank, we should not lag behind. Therefore, the American army is taking its first steps towards the deployment of a new tank, ”said General Mark Milli, chief of the army general staff, in his speech at the national press club in Washington. “We really need a new armored platform for our mechanized infantry and our armored units.”

When asked about the true purpose of the Armata tank, which according to plans should be put into service in 2020, Millie did not voice the degree of threat that the tank could pose to both the United States and their NATO allies.

“However, Russia is fundamentally undoubtedly a serious threat to the United States,” Milli said. “The country has made significant investments in upgrading its conventional weapons systems over the past 15 years.”

Milli heads an analytical group that studies innovative technologies and develops the concept of a new American tank. "The army is considering a number of new technologies that can be implemented in a similar system, including new armor."

“First of all, what we are paying attention to in this project is the material, the armor itself,” he said. “If a large amount of research and development is carried out, then we will be able to discover a new material ... much lighter in weight, but with the same level of protection.” This will be a real big breakthrough. Modern ammunition is also on our list. ”

“We have been using kinetic or powder projectiles for five centuries now, but now we see the advantages of non-powder kinetic systems,” he noted. “Two developing weapons systems — lasers and rail cannons — can be considered promising.”

“Robotization will also be the basis of any new machine that the army will buy,” Milli said. “Perhaps we need to achieve dual use so that the commander on the battlefield can, if necessary, select a machine mode, habitable or uninhabited.” He can switch the toggle switch and then the tank becomes a robot. Although the Abrams platform is almost forty years old, many of its components have been updated and roboticism is quite possible. ”

“Today we have a good, reliable tank. The M1 tank we see today visually looks exactly like a tank from 80 when I was a second lieutenant. But, of course, this is not the same tank. Internal stuffing, its fire control, power plant, armor, etc. Everything has been updated and modernized over the past years. ”

According to Hunter, although the army is interested in the emergence of a new system, the reality is that it has limited funding in order to conduct some kind of research.

In accordance with 2011, the Budget Expenditure Act, research and development budgets for this topic were completely cut, and in some cases were reduced by 70 percent.

“At the moment, there are simply not too many funds in the army’s budget for research of anything. They conduct some basic research, scientific and technological, to try to create opportunities in the future, to do something interesting in terms of modernization, but now there is nothing really valuable to buy in the near future. But it is obvious that this situation needs to be corrected. ”

Paul Sharr, director of national security programs at the New American Security Center, remarked that the army should be careful if it wants to deploy a new tank.

“I don’t see any gain right now in order to go and create a new tank,” he said. “In general, when people at the Pentagon use the phrase“ next generation, ”I tense up a bit because we all saw a kind of breakthrough thinking during the transformation era of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.”

“Officials often blurt out a list of urgent, expensive needs, many of which are technologically impossible to fulfill.”

The army must be sure that any such undertaking will not follow in the footsteps of the closed program Combat Systems of the Future (Future Combat Systems), which was canceled after spending billions of dollars and a minimum of what would really go wrong. “The army must also compromise between maneuverability, lethality and survivability,” he added. “At the same time, it’s unrealistic to have high levels of all these characteristics in one machine.”

Hunter remarked that although the time for the resignation of the Abrams tank would come sooner or later, this day has not yet arrived. “There is a lot of work to be done regarding improvements and updates. You can upgrade the engine by making the car more mobile. In theory, you can develop new types of ammunition that can provide additional firepower and simplify logistics. A lot can be done today with the Abrams tank in order to maximize its combat capabilities. ”

Materials used:
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
www.vitalykuzmin.net
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard
    Vard 9 January 2018 12: 43 New
    37
    The Abrams tank has been considered the number one tank in the world for decades ... No further reading ...
    1. Lock36
      Lock36 9 January 2018 13: 48 New
      43
      I do not agree: you must read that
      Quote: Vard
      Abrams is considered by some experts to be an “almost indestructible” system. ”

      If there was no RPG-7, then in general it would be eternal.
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 9 January 2018 17: 33 New
        15
        Quote: Lock36
        I do not agree: you must read that
        Quote: Vard
        Abrams is considered by some experts to be an “almost indestructible” system. ”

        If there was no RPG-7, then in general it would be eternal.

        This one comment is better than the whole article.
      2. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 9 January 2018 21: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Lock36
        If there was no RPG-7, then in general it would be eternal.

        Not a single Abramas has yet been burned with a hand grenade launcher, there are at least 2 videos on the network where Abrams holds a Vampire or its analogue.
        1. dokusib
          dokusib 10 January 2018 10: 44 New
          +7
          There are at least twice as many videos where Abrams is beaten from RPG 7. Or is Internet censorship in Switzerland? Then just ask yourself the question why are all these kits for battle in the city designed? In several generations?
      3. Gartny
        Gartny 10 January 2018 11: 02 New
        +5
        If there wasn’t a Faustpatron, there wouldn’t be an RPG-7. And in fact, more T-7s and T-72s were destroyed from RPG-80 than Abrams tanks.
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 11 January 2018 11: 52 New
          +9
          Only about the T-72 no one ever wrote that he was "invulnerable" and all that.
          Hang iron at 70 tons and fantasize.
        2. master2
          master2 23 March 2018 22: 40 New
          +1
          Done agree! And how can you compare Abrams who went through more than one war and proved himself to be quite good with Armata, who just got off the assembly line in single copies, not really tested, fought at best in the training ground and in the languages ​​of ala-patriots. And regarding RPGs, count the damaged T64, T72, T80, the bill goes to dozens, if not hundreds, in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, against two or three videos with Abrams. The huge firepower and invulnerable armor of Almaty are nothing more than an advertising combo that has not been verified by anyone.
    2. alavrin
      alavrin 9 January 2018 14: 14 New
      +5
      You just have to skip this. You can always find or suck out some criteria by which your favorite tank will be the best)
    3. Artek
      Artek 9 January 2018 15: 29 New
      +1
      we created a tank, not a platform.
      1. Nulgorod
        Nulgorod 9 January 2018 15: 56 New
        +6
        Actually: it’s a platform.
        "In total, a family of 28 vehicles is planned to be created on the basis of the Armata universal combat platform."
        1. Artek
          Artek 9 January 2018 16: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Nulgorod
          Actually: it’s a platform.
          "In total, a family of 28 vehicles is planned to be created on the basis of the Armata universal combat platform."

          Talk about tanks is about Abrams and T14.
          1. Nulgorod
            Nulgorod 9 January 2018 16: 08 New
            +6
            T14 - one of 28 cars on the Armata platform.
            1. Artek
              Artek 9 January 2018 16: 10 New
              0
              in the title
              Tank war: Russia creates a platform to fight Abrams


              To fight tanks you need a tank, not a platform.
              1. Nulgorod
                Nulgorod 9 January 2018 16: 19 New
                +5
                And also aviation, artillery and anti-tank ... What is the dispute request ?
              2. g1washntwn
                g1washntwn 10 January 2018 07: 26 New
                +3
                Why only tank against tank? The fight against tanks implies not only its complete destruction. BMPT or purely anti-tank platform than you do not like to deal with abrashkami? Mines with guidance to the mortar system, cluster heads to MLRS, etc., etc.
              3. Old
                Old 10 January 2018 18: 32 New
                +2
                To fight tanks need anti-tank weapons. A lot of them. And according to the experience of the Second World War, the loss of a tank in tank duels is a relatively rare case. The main objective of the armored penetration of enemy defenses to the operational depth, maneuver, the destruction of the rear structures and communications ...
                And I don’t understand how Americans imagine this in the conditions of Europe or our impassability.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 11 January 2018 06: 44 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Old
                  And I don’t understand how Americans imagine this in Europe

                  So take an interest, 40 years of preparation, after all.
                  Quote: Old
                  or our off-road.

                  They will not go to Omsk. Moscow is 600 km from NATO.
                  1. Sasha_Sar
                    Sasha_Sar 11 January 2018 11: 51 New
                    +6
                    Yes, you will be blocked by the traffic police of Germany, without going beyond the borders of NATO laughing Overload, dimensions, etc.
                  2. Old
                    Old 11 January 2018 15: 45 New
                    +5
                    40 years? Pobol ... The first plans appeared in 1945. But getting to Moscow is not a trivial task either. Roads in the American representation at that time will be gone. And on the territory of Belarus all the same swamps, ravines, and rivers remained ... There is simply no room for maneuver for such monsters. This is not the Iraqi desert ... Well, it’s excusable to you how do you know in Canada about this.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 05: 46 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Old
                      40 years? Pobol ... The first plans appeared in 1945.

                      As I understand it, it's about English. It is difficult to take seriously the idea of ​​raiding 8-10 Soviet fronts by British forces, even without Americans. And it is strange to expect this from the Americans of the 45th model year.
                      More or less seriously, the conversation went from the 49th to 09.11.89/XNUMX/XNUMX, when the GDR ended, and with it a lot of other things.
                      Quote: Old
                      Well, it’s excusable to you how do you know in Canada about this.

                      Really. How do you know that the beautiful Moscow Abrams that are closest to the heart of the Soviet Motherland are located in the Riga region, it seems. They trash Soviet land with their caterpillars.
                      1. Old
                        Old 12 January 2018 16: 14 New
                        +1
                        Yes, you are a debater!) Demonstrate your erudition. Who needs this? What kind of nuclear weapons in a civil war? Forgot already what started? Just to fuss. Give everyone an earring! My word will be the last! Like a woman ...
                        It was about the Abrams. That they are heavy. And this is their big minus.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 19: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: Old
                        Yes you are a debater

                        Having fun on the road
                        Quote: Old
                        What kind of nuclear weapons in a civil war?

                        Why is the idea bad? Find somewhere the map of the 18th year. Look, on her, “from whom” are the yars now, from whom the governors, from whom the SLBM. Ivanovo, Orenburg, Murmansk regions, Kamchatka, EMNIP.
                        Quote: Old
                        It was about the Abrams.

                        Well, no one is interested in looking at Vika and finding out that the ground pressure of the first abrasives is exactly like that of the T-90A, and that of non-Russians is 10% higher. It is not interesting to know the weight of the shunting locomotive CME-3, especially the main VL-10, before discussing the bridges.
                        But I want to imagine how they are drowning in the Pripyat swamps, and masturbate. Out of politeness, I supported the idea.
                  3. Soho
                    Soho 12 January 2018 07: 18 New
                    +3
                    Cherry Nine Yesterday, 06:44 ↑
                    Quote: Old
                    or our off-road.
                    They will not go to Omsk. Moscow is 600 km from NATO.

                    And what did you want to prove with this crazy phrase? Updated variation on the theme of 1812? Like, "we’ll capture Maskva, and then the ruska will surrender right there?" ...
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 07: 38 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Soho
                      that this crazy phrase they wanted to prove?

                      Prove it? Absolutely nothing. It was only that General Dirt and General Frost can screw up. It is possible that the capitalists started global warming precisely with the goal of destroying Russia.

                      But the NATO ground operation in Russia, unfortunately for the liberal public, is possible only if a civil war begins with the use of nuclear weapons. That is unlikely, but not impossible.
                      1. Soho
                        Soho 12 January 2018 07: 51 New
                        +2
                        Cherry Nine Today, 07:38 AM
                        But the NATO ground operation in Russia, unfortunately for the liberal public, is possible only if a civil war begins with the use of nuclear weapons

                        NATO ground operation during the civil war in the Russian Federation with the use of nuclear weapons .... wow! with all due respect, but today you have surpassed yourself laughing
                        It is possible that the capitalists started global warming precisely with the goal of destroying Russia.

                        so far, only cries from the directly opposite camp are heard that they say that Puten’s weapon is frost in the USA)))
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 08: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: Soho
                        today you surpassed yourself

                        Thank. I'm trying to grow above myself.
                        On the other hand, tempora mutantur et nos mutantur in illis. A couple of years ago it was really hard to imagine such radical options.
                        Quote: Soho
                        frost in the usa is puten's weapon

                        I have not heard. Who's screaming RT?
                      3. Barmal
                        Barmal 12 January 2018 12: 21 New
                        0
                        If we are talking about the possibility of a civil war in a united Europe, then the use of nuclear weapons against partners who have lost coast and control over their nuclear weapons, as an act of preventing an attack on the Russian Federation, is quite real.
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 15: 06 New
                        0
                        Quote: Barmal
                        civil war in united Europe,

                        In Europe, this is unlikely.
                        But in the period of the collapse of the USSR, peripheral armed conflicts in memory of 4 may have been forgotten. They didn’t get to the nuclear weapons then, but people were more kind then.
                        Quote: Barmal
                        use of nuclear weapons in relation to partners

                        You are right if the partners consider that the situation is completely out of control, they may decide to take a counter-force strike.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Magic archer
      Magic archer 9 January 2018 16: 02 New
      +5
      I agree. Even in all kinds of western ratings Abrams is inferior to Leo-2. And if you ask for example whose Jews the tank is better, then I know in advance what they will answer wink
      1. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 9 January 2018 22: 21 New
        +3
        The Americans still have the freshest mass experience of using tank formations against other armies, Iraq 1991-2003 and their entire system, from logistics, crew experience, to the performance capabilities of their vehicles, all the same, so far, neither for the Russian army, nor for others out of reach level. The Jews of course have very advanced cars, crews and a common system, but their latest experience is still a thing of the past. An article about what will happen when Russia is armed with new, potentially dangerous platforms for Abrams and how to react. Efficient tank formations in the 21st century are not only tanks, but also logistics and communication / reconnaissance systems, where, in comparison with NATO, the “horse didn’t roll around” in Russia.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 10 January 2018 01: 21 New
          +4
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          Efficient tank formations in the 21st century are not only tanks, but also logistics and communication / intelligence systems, where, in comparison with NATO, the “horse didn’t lie around” in Russia.

          Actually, this is a fairly simple idea. American Abrams are without a doubt the best in the world. Egyptian Abrams is without a doubt no. Perhaps even worse than the Algerian T-90 or Saudi Leo 2A7 (but this is not accurate).
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 9 January 2018 16: 12 New
      10
      Quote: Vard
      The Abrams tank has been considered the number one tank in the world for decades ... No further reading ...

      That is, the T-90, Leopard, Leclerc are not tanks at all ... wassat It’s like with auto-training, I don’t want out of necessity, I don’t want out of need ... I don’t need ... I don’t need ... wassat
      1. NF68
        NF68 9 January 2018 17: 04 New
        +2
        The world bigwigs of the oil and gas business are at a loss. The replacement ratio, that is, the ratio of explored and recovered oil and gas reserves, reached a simply disastrous figure - 11%. Even taking into account the further growth of this figure due to technology, the maximum that the world economy can count on in the future is one fifth of the oil and gas that was produced. And the worst thing for the West is that most of these resources have been explored in Russia ...


        English Challengers are not tanks either.
        1. AUL
          AUL 9 January 2018 20: 39 New
          +1
          Dummy article. Transfusion from empty to empty. The meaning of this publication?
          1. dokusib
            dokusib 10 January 2018 10: 48 New
            +1
            The US Army is very worried that it is not allowed to the pie, which is shared by the fleet and the Air Force wink
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 10 January 2018 01: 26 New
          0
          Quote: NF68
          World oil and gas industry bigwigs

          And where is this nonsense from?
    6. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 January 2018 01: 17 New
      +2
      I’ve seen the opinion of competent people that Abrash is the only existing tank, which does not beat Yaga gold which still has armor, at least frontal.
      1. Sharky
        Sharky 10 January 2018 03: 56 New
        +6
        which still has armor, at least frontal.

        Do you think other tanks have no armor at all?
        Meanwhile, the mass of Abrams has already exceeded 70 tons. I would very much like to see how this car with frontal armor flounders in the thaw of the eastern font, cannot get out of a regular ravine, runs out of fuel and the crew professionally leaves the car under the sweeping chatter of a T90 tank machine gun, which jumps over the same ravine laughing.
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 11 January 2018 11: 56 New
          +6
          Quote: Sharky
          I would very much like to see how this car "with frontal armor" flounders in the thaw of the Eastern Font

          Lord, this super tank in peacetime cannot be delivered from the western border of Poland to the eastern one - it doesn’t pass through the envelope, the bridges cannot withstand.
          What a slut?
          1. Sharky
            Sharky 18 January 2018 17: 55 New
            0
            I meant the eastern front from the point of view of NATO. For us it will be the western front of course hi.
    7. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 10 January 2018 23: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: Vard
      The Abrams tank has been considered the number one tank in the world for decades ... No further reading ...
      I did not have time, I got ahead crying but it is gratifying that I am not the only one of such an opinion. drinks
    8. Megatron
      Megatron 12 January 2018 23: 51 New
      +1
      According to the agency RAND Corporation "Enhanced deterrence on the eastern flank of NATO", the Russian army is able to reach the capitals of Estonia and Latvia in 60 hours.



      Maybe in 6 hours, not 60 ??
  2. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 9 January 2018 12: 50 New
    +3
    somehow very ... meeeleelenoooo ... reacted to the armature)
    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 9 January 2018 22: 41 New
      +5
      Quote: K0
      reacted to armature


      Reacted to what? Where is this Armata? Parades do not count. But Abramsov SEP 2 for one and a half thousand, maybe more, on the approach of SEP 3. + literally all the NATO armies have modernized their MBT, the Leclerca phrases, Brita Challengers, the rest of Leo2. That is, on a European theater of operations, NATO can completely expose from active resources under 2000 MBTs, and the Russian Federation no more than 1000 T-90 and T-72B3 of all versions. With LA, the ratio is even worse for the Russian Federation. It is not clear where the scenarios in which the Russian army will be able to control Europe are being drained. To the Baltic states, yes, quite, but again a war with NATO, which surpasses Russia both quantitatively and qualitatively in conventional weapons.
      1. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 9 January 2018 22: 54 New
        +7
        Quote: karabas-barabas
        but again, the war with NATO, which surpasses Russia both quantitatively and qualitatively in conventional weapons.

        Yes Yes Yes! We also saw the landing of Nata on the coast, landing of the Hamers, ram bridges in Poland, and much more, from which we all hid under the covers. laughing laughing fellow tongue
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 10 January 2018 01: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: karabas-barabas
        which the Russian army will be able to control Europe.

        Andrei from Chelyabinsk broke out about this recently (in relation to aviation).
        You are not right about the forces of NATO; NATO sank very much during the peaceful years on the Central European theater of operations. The Bundes (and they are this theater) are not at all the same 30 years ago. Not to mention earlier times)))
      3. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 10 January 2018 05: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: karabas-barabas
        Reacted to what? Where is this Armata? Parades do not count. But Abramsov SEP 2 for one and a half thousand, maybe more, on the approach of SEP 3. + literally all the NATO armies have modernized their MBT, the Leclerca phrases, Brita Challengers, the rest of Leo2. That is, on a European theater of operations, NATO can set itself out of active resources under 2000 MBT

        where does such powerful grass come from?)) you should read, so in NATO all MBTs have been upgraded to the latest version, only for some reason news about modernization is regularly published for some, then for others ... and then at the NATO competitions the t-64 makes them. ..and yes - a very dangerous tank, if you put his forehead against the tank a generation or two lower. this caption to the photo looks especially impressive "1- Tank M1A1" Abrams ", incapacitated as a result of fire BMP M2" Bradley "in the rear of the hull."
        http://www.btvt.narod.ru/5/iraq2003/2003.htm
        1. dokusib
          dokusib 10 January 2018 10: 53 New
          +2
          By the way, there is a photo of Abrams incapacitated by RPG 7 fire.
  3. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 9 January 2018 13: 03 New
    +8
    But how so? !! Here at VO a hundred times have been cheated on the unfortunate “abrashka”, and now it turns out that a super new platform needs to be created against him? !!
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 9 January 2018 20: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      But how so? !! Here at VO a hundred times have been cheated on the unfortunate “abrashka”, and now it turns out that a super new platform needs to be created against him? !!

      Of all the Western tanks, Abrams is the most massive, so it is against him and against the leopards.
    2. LastPS
      LastPS 9 January 2018 23: 17 New
      +1
      This is a typical Western press, their main thesis is "we need more than a military budget, otherwise evil Russian ...".
  4. raw174
    raw174 9 January 2018 13: 31 New
    +6
    I heard somewhere that in a US battle strategy, a tank should not fight an enemy’s tank if it isn’t two-head stronger (it can with a T-54 and T-62). Equal enemy tanks should make out wings and rockets ... Abrams and not must meet with the T-14 in battle.
    1. sd68
      sd68 9 January 2018 16: 44 New
      +3
      and this is in any strategy.
      "tanks do not fight tanks"
      1. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 9 January 2018 22: 56 New
        0
        Quote: sd68
        and this is in any strategy.
        "tanks do not fight tanks"

        Read the combat manual. Tanks for tanks in second place, in the first means of nuclear weapons.
        1. sd68
          sd68 10 January 2018 21: 54 New
          +1
          so it was in the Battle of the Red Army.
          Only life quickly made adjustments. Tanks quickly end in oncoming battles.

          "September 19, 1942

          Directions of Comrade Stalin

          Tanks should not accept tank battles, but act against manpower, machine guns, and gun crews. Revise statutes in this regard.
          Write instructions on the combat use of tanks. Tanks should not be used against tanks. "
          1. kirgiz58
            kirgiz58 10 January 2018 22: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: sd68
            Directions of Comrade Stalin

            You do not confuse the instructions of the commander of the armies, fronts with the duties of commanders of tank units. But the latter have the duties written "first of all to destroy tanks and other armored vehicles, artillery, anti-tank weapons and manpower of the enemy." And this sequence in the blood (in the genes) of each tanker. So the enemy tank is the first goal in our army.
        2. sd68
          sd68 10 January 2018 22: 13 New
          0
          this charter?
          http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/0/g/2005_bu3.p
          df
          Honestly, I did not find that the PTO was laid on tanks under this charter.
          there it is
          112. Upon detecting the transition of the enemy to the attack, at the command of the commander (signal to the observer)
          a squad is immediately made for battle. Fire on the enemy opens with the approach
          him to the range of the actual fire weapons of the squad. After producing two or three bursts
          (grenade launcher shots) firing positions are changing.
          As the enemy approaches the front line of defense, the fire is brought to the highest
          voltage. Tanks and other armored vehicles of the enemy are destroyed
          anti-tank guided missiles, infantry fighting vehicle fire, grenade launchers and
          anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades ....
          1. kirgiz58
            kirgiz58 10 January 2018 22: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: sd68
            this charter?
            http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/0/g/2005_bu3.p
            df

            This charter, only you didn’t bother to read up to танк in defense (offensive), tank platoon on the defensive (on the offensive), then take the second part of the "company, battalion" and read the same about tank company и tank battalion.
    2. LastPS
      LastPS 9 January 2018 23: 20 New
      +1
      This is a general principle. As for the US Army, they have it in the absolute, they will not start a ground operation with full dominance in the air, and when the Americans completely dominate the air on earth, usually there’s nothing left that can offer serious resistance, or even if there is, it is quickly washed into powder by the same aviation.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 January 2018 01: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: raw174
      a tank must not fight an enemy tank if it is not stronger by two heads (it can with a T-54 and T-62)

      This is the only sensible tactic with an overwhelming advantage.
      Quote: raw174
      with T-54 and T-62

      Iraqi T-72 carried out without question
      1. 4thParasinok
        4thParasinok 10 January 2018 23: 44 New
        +2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Iraqi T-72 carried out without question

        1. with huge questions. Even in the Air Force film about the Abrams, it is told how after the war in Kuwait they learned that their guns only with 100m could not always penetrate the T-72's frontal armor and lo and behold, after buying the guns from the Germans they were able to penetrate the T-72 through the side. .. I repeat IN BOARD,
        2. More than 95% of the destroyed Iraqi tanks were shot down by aircraft and from munitions. Abrams only from a distance distracted attention ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 January 2018 06: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          Even in the Air Force movie

          Another is studying history on TV.
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          Once again I will repeat BOARD,

          That is, what tanks were discussed, we don’t remember which tanks were in Kuwait except for Abrash. OK.
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          More than 95% of the destroyed Iraqi tanks were shot down by aircraft and from stocks.

          This is also taken more or less from the ceiling. But airborne drivers such figures may well lead in ZhZshechki. They will not lie, infa weaving.
          1. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok April 13 2018 22: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Another is studying history on TV.

            sometimes there, through the stupidity of amers and the British, facts are told that pass under the heading "Top Secret", but you just need to know what to watch and how ...
  5. K-50
    K-50 9 January 2018 14: 00 New
    +1
    Abrams weighs over 71 tons

    Campaign must use special conveyors for railway transportation. Max load capacity I saw 68 tons. They don’t seem to be channeling here, but how many such cars do they have? Again, not every bridge will miss such a thing.
    It will also reduce the crew from four to three people.

    It’s strange. Have we had a crew of three for a long time or have the "experts" not been aware of this? belay laughing
    Russia will be able to move its armored units more freely throughout Europe

    What shall we do there? On a tank tour? So our grandfathers already traveled, so we don’t learn anything new. request yes laughing
    their budget is very limited

    We will bring out a dozen, another, third yards of "greens" of their state government bonds and stamp as much as necessary. yes
    Two developing weapons systems - lasers and rail guns - can be seen as promising "

    Not earlier than the second half of the XNUMXst century. yes
    Oh, these "expert storytellers" with their own fairy tales. laughing
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 January 2018 14: 00 New
    +1
    Well ... uh ... the whole "world", several times, looks at the "Armata" ... the "basic" option. And who said that there would be no "expediency" to create modifications? The "base" version is equipped with a diesel ... but why not the "Arctic" version with a gas turbine engine? It’s time for Russian developers to think about the export option ... like T-74

    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 9 January 2018 23: 24 New
      +1
      And this is not so simple. For example, a tank engine is a very complicated thing, because it must be compact and at the same time give out so much torque to accelerate 60+ tons like a car, have an acceptable resource and ease of maintenance for the crew. The T72 T 90 motor has already been redesigned for cars up to 45t. a wonderful motor, but for Almaty you need a new one and as you can see from MTO it is huge. What and how is there with the performance characteristics of a new (in my X-shaped) motor is not known whether the unit is really promising. As I understand it, both the automatic transmission and everything around is created for movement from scratch, and all this is not an easy task. If it didn’t happen that the gas turbine engine from the T-80 will be the only alternative for the new platform.

      P.S. What is this picture of a tank? First fiction on the topic of Armata?
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 January 2018 03: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: karabas-barabas
        And this is not so simple. For example, a tank engine is a very complicated thing

        And in Russia it is almost a tradition, not to look for easy ways! wink (as in "communism" lol ) Putin, Shoigu will say: it is necessary! Will do!
        Quote: karabas-barabas
        What and how is there with the performance characteristics of a new (in my X-shaped) motor is not known whether the unit is really promising.

        On the "Armata", indeed, an X-shaped engine ... Well, oooo .... The world’s design idea came to a consensus that such a scheme is promising ....

        Quote: karabas-barabas
        What is this picture of a tank? First fiction on the topic of Armata?

        Not really. This is the Soviet heritage of the past: the work of the Kharkov Design Bureau (Morozov) ... "object 450" or T-74 An interesting "thing"! This can be said, "the beginning of the ideological concept of T-95," Almaty "!
  7. Days
    Days 9 January 2018 14: 11 New
    +5
    This will also reduce the crew from four to three people and get a lighter system, which is likely to weigh significantly less than the Abrams tank

    Hunter from the CSIS center is not aware that there are 3 people in all Russian tanks ... MDE
    1. Vard
      Vard 9 January 2018 14: 19 New
      +6
      Well, they consider automatic charging for a person ... tolerance however ...
  8. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 9 January 2018 15: 25 New
    0
    Russia creates a platform to combat Abrams

    I do not want to believe that Russia will go on the wrong path as the Germans in World War II, making an anti-tank tank.
    1. Nulgorod
      Nulgorod 9 January 2018 15: 59 New
      0
      Americans went laughing But we have not yet departed from the principle of "catching up and overtaking America" recourse
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 9 January 2018 20: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      I do not want to believe that Russia will go on the wrong path as the Germans in World War II, making an anti-tank tank.

      The T-14 is not an anti-tank tank, it is just a new tank for our army.
  9. Troll
    Troll 9 January 2018 17: 53 New
    0
    “People are released and this gives you the opportunity to deploy another tank with the same number of troops,” he said. “This means that the Armata will be able to drive on roads that the Abrams tank cannot navigate.”


    Or a translation error or a typo. Bo, if everything is correct, the crew weighs a couple of tons.
  10. Doliva63
    Doliva63 9 January 2018 20: 26 New
    +3
    To fight against abrams, create a tank - why, if for this a bunch of everything and everything has already been created that will make it better than any tank? Stupidity for internal use.
  11. Proton
    Proton 9 January 2018 20: 27 New
    0
    How can a tank be the best if it is burned with ammunition from “the time of the conquest of Ochakovo” laughing , in any modification
    1. passerby5
      passerby5 10 January 2018 11: 30 New
      0
      Yes, cocktails, too, any burns ....
  12. Sailor
    Sailor 9 January 2018 21: 02 New
    +1
    Is Abrams faster than our 80s (the author indicated T-80), are there tankers?
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 9 January 2018 21: 23 New
      0
      It’s not fast. This author is engaged in advertising. Tanks, it doesn’t matter whose, it is not recommended to drive at speeds above 70km / h.
    2. kirgiz58
      kirgiz58 9 January 2018 23: 02 New
      0
      At our tankodrome, I double the abrash, if he gets to the finish line at all.
      1. Gartny
        Gartny 10 January 2018 11: 22 New
        0
        To dream is not harmful.
        1. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 10 January 2018 14: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: Gartna
          To dream is not harmful.

          We dream to see the abrash in the latest modification, pumped to the top, at the biathlon. But they are not destined to come true. And why? Afraid to justify .. More correct even: you know what is guaranteed about .. So it turns out that from our dreams, it becomes harmful to you. tongue I know that now you will begin to sculpt excuses, that your tactics are different, etc. etc. wink Well, then call us to your competitions and you will no longer rake from the Swiss, but from ... well, you yourself know. laughing
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 January 2018 06: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: kirgiz58
            at the biathlon.

            A biathlon does not have the same relation to reality as a real biathlon to a shooting battle.
            1. Lock36
              Lock36 11 January 2018 12: 06 New
              +2
              But even there you are afraid to appear)))
  13. shinobi
    shinobi 9 January 2018 21: 18 New
    +2
    Something that the author’s optimism is incomprehensible to me. These "indestructible" tanks are harnessed from completely outdated systems. There are no forehead tank battles of the type of World War II. Yes, and as a rule, a more nimble machine wins with equal cannon armament. Principle hit-change position , no one canceled.
  14. Viktor.N.Aleksandrov.
    Viktor.N.Aleksandrov. 10 January 2018 00: 27 New
    +1
    Bullshit of a drunken hedgehog.
  15. Sasha75
    Sasha75 10 January 2018 02: 27 New
    0
    But nothing that there are less and less of them is an endangered species in the Red Book; soon it will be necessary to enter them 2500 of them in 2000 or a little more. And where he will fight with our tanks in Texas or Alaska, let’s see))). And a medal for the city of Washington shone on his chest. It’s real, if something starts, the first will run the Americans to rob the Poles and Hakhly the Mexicans will not leave anything.
  16. tchoni
    tchoni 10 January 2018 08: 15 New
    0
    Just a sober look at the tanks
  17. The comment was deleted.
    1. kirgiz58
      kirgiz58 10 January 2018 14: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Gartna
      , tank TTB was created on the Abrams platform back in the 90s

      Why are you arguing so weakly? There is also M1 CATTB, so it has 140mm fluff. P1 trifle then? laughing
  18. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 January 2018 15: 05 New
    +3
    Here is Abrams with a useful supplement - Trophy.
    She covers the weak sides of the tank from ATGMs.
    1. TARSUS
      TARSUS 10 January 2018 21: 37 New
      0
      The T-90 board is even weaker if that.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 14 January 2018 16: 23 New
        0
        Quote: TARS
        The T-90 board is even weaker if that.

        no
  19. Raider
    Raider 10 January 2018 21: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Gartna
    comparing “Abrams” and “Armata” is stupid by definition, for what is the point of comparing what is with what is possible? By 2020, 100 armatures will be delivered to the troops, and what? By 2020, the United States will have developed a more advanced model than the existing Abrams - this is first. Secondly, if production is launched in the USA, they will quickly organize in-line production and will not be limited to the number of “mythical” 100 pieces. Thirdly, on the Abrams platform, a tank TTB was created back in the 90s, which was not launched into the series, but to think that the Americans are taupe, it means to be a "perky clown."

    Probably absolutely correctly said + these tanks cannot be compared even on the basis of mass. One clean tank destroyer, which is served by trawls and mechanisms for additional movement. By the way, it seems like a lot of complaints about Abrams regarding the protection of the gas turbine engine. After all, they are very demanding on the quality of air cleaning.
    Quote: karabas-barabas
    Quote: Lock36
    If there was no RPG-7, then in general it would be eternal.

    Not a single Abramas has yet been burned with a hand grenade launcher, there are at least 2 videos on the network where Abrams holds a Vampire or its analogue.

    The most widely used in military conflicts are by far the Soviet tanks from the T-54, etc., then probably the Chinese "clones". It is clear purely mathematically that the losses among the tanks will be precisely among them. But this speaks not only about this, but shows how repairable the tanks are even in the conditions of artisanal services by unqualified personnel, even after several decades of graduation from the factory, i.e. simply put about reliability. “Abrams” and “Merkava” participate in such a number and number of conflicts. There will be something to compare.
    All three of these tanks are designed for different combat conditions, "Chariot" - the city, "Abrams" - the tank destroyer, the T-72 series, etc. more universal. They were built by different tank schools. But the weight of the cars! Even the Merkava of various issues is 40-50% heavier than its Soviet counterpart at that time, but what about the American?
    What is the comparison? Deuro medium (main) and heavy tanks? Merkava did not go further than the desert and semi-desert, Abrams also did not go through long operation (not garage storage) in conditions of low temperatures and heavily rugged wetlands (just do not write about Alaska and Estonia)
    It is foolish to argue from the conflicts of Israel and the war in Iraq about the superiority of one tank over another. You don’t forget about the cost of tanks and maintenance, what labor costs for the manufacture of one machine, the time it took to prepare the crew for operation, etc. The possibility of further modernization and strengthening of armaments (152 mm), (and “Armata” is the platform) that's all in the complex probably give the ratio of the best tank.
    "Leclerc" that you do not remember?)))))) There losses seem to be only one tank commander. He surpassed your Abrams and Merkava. By the way, there is the same automatic loader, instead of a black man.
  20. Kolyan Realov
    Kolyan Realov 12 January 2018 12: 44 New
    0
    For Abrams
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLyj3trldoo
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 12 January 2018 14: 50 New
      0
      Sorry, what do you see on this video?