Military Review

Tank war: modernized M1 Abrams against "Almaty"

65
Comparisons of modern and promising armored combat vehicles are popular, which leads to the appearance of new and new publications on this subject. A few days ago, the American publication The National Interest re-published its views on a hypothetical battle involving promising tanks. It is noteworthy that this time we are talking about the battles of the distant future, in which only the developed vehicles are to participate.


15 May published an article "Tank War: America's New 'M1 Abrams vs. Our Deadly Armata (Who Wins?) ”(“ Tank war: the “new” American M1 Abrams against the deadly Russian “Armata”. Who will win? ”) The article was authored by The Buzz and Security.

At the beginning of the article, the authors briefly outlined the possible prerequisites for a conflict involving the newest tanks of the leading countries of the world. If the contradictions between Russia and the United States lead to the start of open clashes in Europe, such a conflict risks developing into a full-scale nuclear war. Thus, the potential Third World War risks ending with an atomic Armageddon.



However, there are other unlikely scenarios. For example, in the late twenties, in the Kaliningrad region, an unintentional clash of different armies could occur. Its consequence will be a local conflict in which the newest tanks of the American and Russian armies will collide with each other.

The authors believe that by the mid-twenties, the basis for the fleet of armored vehicles in the United States would be tanks like M1A2 SEP v.4, upgraded in accordance with the promising project of General Dynamics Land Systems. From existing tanks in the version of SEP v.2 (already available in the army) and SEP v.3 (production began in the recent past) they will differ in improved means of detection, communication systems and enhanced protection. However, the M1A2 SEP v.4 tank will still be similar to the current Abrams.

The Russian ground forces, according to the editors of the publication, will use a mixed fleet of armored vehicles. It may include T-72B3М, T-80BVM and T-90М tanks. In addition, the army will have some new Armata T-14. The most formidable component of such a tank army, at least on paper, is the T-14 tank. It has advanced defenses and an uninhabited tower, and also shows high mobility characteristics.

The National Interest cites the assessments of Stefan Bühler, the captain of the Swiss army and the commander of a tank company, now a graduate student at the University of Applied Sciences and an explosives specialist. In mid-April, the Internet publication Offiziere.ch published an article by Bühler entitled “The T-14 Armata from a technical point of view” - “T-14“ Armata ”from a technical point of view”. In it, the specialist reviewed known information about the Russian tank and made certain conclusions.

According to the American edition, Captain Bühler noted the higher energy performance of the Russian tank. From the point of view of the specific pressure on the ground, the T-14 tank is similar to foreign combat vehicles. At the same time, it has a markedly higher power density. Thus, the Armata with the 48 t combat mass should be more maneuverable than the American Abrams tank or the German Leopard 2.

In terms of engine power, the T-14 tank is equal to the Abrams and Leopard-2. At the same time, it only weighs 48 t and therefore turns out to be 20% lighter than its competitors. S. Buhler indicates that the specific power of the “Armaty” is 31,3 HP. per tonne or 22,9 kW per tonne. In the considered foreign tanks, this parameter is at the level of the 24 HP. or 17,6 kW per ton. The Russian tank in the existing configuration uses tracks of smaller width than the M1A2 or Leopard 2. However, this is compensated by a low mass, and therefore the specific surface load of all three machines is approximately equal.

Also, Captain Bühler addressed the issue of protection and survivability. The T-14 project provides for the use of combined hull armor, on top of which dynamic and active protection is installed. Such a combination of means of protection can provide higher resistance to anti-tank weapons and survivability on the battlefield than the armor and mounted blocks of the Abrams. Also, the construction of the tower should have a positive effect on the overall indicators of protection and survivability. The crew is outside, and therefore the risks to it are reduced.

Based on all these data and estimates, S. Buhler makes an interesting conclusion. He assumes that the Russian tank T-14 "Armata" gives its crew more powerful protection than modern foreign models of armored vehicles. With all this, such a combat vehicle is noticeably lighter than its competitors.

With regard to detection tools and optical-electronic systems, then, according to S. Buhler, in this area the advantage will remain with American armored vehicles. The Russian industry is still lagging behind in this direction, and this affects the capabilities of technology. However, according to the expert, optical devices are still a problem for any tank. Modern optical-electronic means, as well as their optical predecessors, are still afraid of enemy fire and may receive mechanical damage. Despite all the progress, optics are the Achilles heel of any tank, including the T-14.

In the context of the uninhabited tower, another disadvantage of the promising Russian tank is mentioned. S. Bühler indicates that the commander of the Armata tank will not be able to look out of the hatch and look around, raising the so-called situational awareness. However, in practice this problem is solved with the help of modern technologies, namely, through video surveillance. Among experts there is a dispute on the topic of the real possibilities of video systems. There is a dispute over whether optical-electronic systems will be able to provide the same overview as traditional optical instruments.

To answer this question, Captain Buhler suggests recalling the successes. aviation industry. The pilot of the F-35 fighter has a helmet with a helmet-mounted display system. Receiving a signal from a plurality of cameras installed over the entire surface of the aircraft, the on-board computer creates a three-dimensional picture and displays an image corresponding to the pilot's direction of view on the helmet-mounted display. This technology was developed by the Israeli company ELBIT Systems and is called Iron Vision. If something like this will be used on the T-14 tank, then its commander will not only not have problems with visibility, but will be able to see much more than the tankers in a traditional inhabited tower.

The National Interest article does not end with the most original or unexpected conclusions. Its authors believe that the T-14 Armata and M1A2 SEP v.4 Abrams tanks have similar technical characteristics and combat qualities. As a result, none of these combat vehicles has a decisive advantage over a competitor. However, more sophisticated observation and detection tools available on the Abrams tank, as well as other military doctrine and, probably, more effective training of personnel may give the American army some advantage, even if not the greatest.

However, as foreign authors write, if war ever begins between Russia and the United States, “low-level” tactical issues will be far less of a problem than the risk of total nuclear mutual destruction.

***

Comparisons of another modernization of foreign tanks with the newest Russian model, built with the use of fundamentally new ideas, are no longer new, but still remain relevant and attract attention. How long it will last - we can only guess. It can be assumed that the current stage of comparisons will last exactly until the appearance of a new tank of Russian or foreign development. And again, the "rivals" of a completely new machine will be the upgraded samples of existing models.

It should be noted that the authors of The National Interest used a specific approach to the selection of "contestants". They decided to compare the existing T-14 tank with the modernized M1A2 SEP v.4, which is currently being prepared for delivery to the troops, which is still under development. Indeed, these machines may encounter on the battlefield in the late twenties, but in our time, such a comparison looks at least ambiguous.

Since the developers of the technology are not in a hurry to share the details of their projects, specialists and the public have to rely on various estimates, assumptions and forecasts. At the same time, certain features of the current situation are noticeable without additional information. All of them are reflected in the article “The T-14 Armata from a technical point of view” authored by Captain Stefan Bühler for Offiziere.ch, which the National Interest edited several times.

Completing his material, the Swiss officer reminds that all information about a promising Russian tank should be viewed critically. Despite this, it is obvious that the Russian defense industry, having received the necessary political support from the Kremlin, successfully implemented the concept of a tank with an uninhabited tower. Meanwhile, designers from foreign countries are engaged in desperate attempts to extend the life of armored vehicles, the development of which began in the seventies, due to limited innovations.

S. Buhler notes that the T-14 tank in its current form still has flaws and various “childhood diseases”. However, this situation has a characteristic detail. According to the most optimistic estimates, the West will be able to present the first prototype of its promising tank only for the next three to five years. By this time, the Russian specialists will have many years of practical experience gained with the help of “Almaty”. Even the perceived superiority of foreign industry will not allow reducing such a lag within a reasonable time.

Captain Buhler calls to recall history tank building. Russian experts have made a revolution in this area several times. However, they did this not because they had a completely new idea - but for the reason that they had the courage to take a step forward.

As the events of recent years show, Russia has again proved to be bold enough for the next step forward. She already has, at a minimum, experienced and pre-production tanks of a fundamentally new model, while the main foreign competitors are once again modernizing their old equipment. Of course, in the event of a collision between large countries and powerful armies, the conflict risks quickly moving into the stage of exchanging nuclear missile strikes, but such fears are not a sufficient reason for abandoning new armored vehicles. This means that the development of tanks will continue, and with it will continue attempts to compare different samples.

Article "Tank War: America's 'New' M1 Abrams vs. Anxiety Dead Armata (Who Wins?) ":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/tank-war-americas-new-m1-abrams-vs-russias-deadly-armata-who-25841

The article “The T-14 Armata from a technical point of view”:
https://offiziere.ch/?p=33534
Author:
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Login_Off
    Login_Off 18 May 2018 04: 55
    +8
    Let them come to the tank biathlon and then we'll see. Scribble unfinished.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 18 May 2018 05: 09
      +6
      At the biathlon updated (not much) old T-72.
      1. Separ DNR
        Separ DNR 18 May 2018 05: 17
        +7
        the modernized M1 Abrams against "Almaty"
        What to compare?
        Tanks of different generations, if you like, of different ideology of application (God forbid, they should not be used for their intended purpose, but if used, then wisely) ...
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 18 May 2018 05: 36
          +3
          Quote: Separ DNR
          What to compare?
          As I understand it, this is not quite a comparison.
          Everyone understands that renewal of generations is necessary, but it is not entirely clear in which direction to move.
          So they seek out the advantages and disadvantages, so that their the next generation was better our "next" in the form of Armata platform. Perhaps Armata itself will be intermediate.
          1. Elk
            Elk 18 May 2018 12: 29
            +2
            In what military conflicts did “Stefan Buhler - Swiss Army Captain and Tank Company Commander” gain combat experience to compare the combat use of these vehicles? Internet Prokhorovka?
            1. Curious
              Curious 18 May 2018 13: 45
              +2
              And in what military conflicts with oncoming tank battles did all today's tank commanders and, in general, commanders of all armies of the world have gained combat experience?
              1. MPN
                MPN 18 May 2018 20: 12
                +6
                If contradictions between Russia and the United States lead to open clashes in Europe,
                We’ll see, maybe in California ... wink
                1. Gennadich
                  Gennadich 19 May 2018 01: 42
                  +1
                  yeah, we’ll throw our hats
            2. akunin
              akunin 18 May 2018 15: 06
              +3
              into "tanchiki" on an 8 bit "dandy".
    2. raw174
      raw174 18 May 2018 07: 11
      +1
      Quote: Login_Off
      Let them come to the tank biathlon and then we'll see.

      These competitions are also not an indicator for the tank. The speed of movement is first decided there, but this is not the most important parameter for the tank ...
    3. Yodzakura
      Yodzakura 18 May 2018 07: 38
      +5
      Biathlon is a contest and not a war, not only tanks participate in a war
      1. dog breeder
        dog breeder 18 May 2018 11: 11
        +1
        You're right! People are also involved in wars.
  2. Cherkashin Ivan
    Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 07: 10
    +3
    The opinion of the amateur. The Americans had no tank factories left. The constant modernization of Abrams is evidence of this. So even if we accept the idea of ​​the “equality” of Abrams and Almaty, by the end of the 20s Russia will be able to produce the next generation of technology, but the USA will not.
    You can recall the 40s, when almost from scratch the Americans and technology developed (not very bad) and built factories. I think it will be impossible to repeat such a feat now, or VERY expensive. The country of speculators and bankers or bankers-speculators is not capable of this.
    1. Yodzakura
      Yodzakura 18 May 2018 09: 48
      +2
      What is the problem of setting up tanks for the usa?
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 10: 10
        +3
        He wrote that he was an amateur) I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that the design of the tank and iPhone are different. As far as I remember, Abrams was designed. How old are these designers now? In the 70s, the United States was a very powerful industrial power. And from the 40s this industry was actively withdrawing abroad. It turns out that there is no production and engineering base. How to stamp tanks in such conditions?
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 18 May 2018 11: 46
          +1
          None of the countries in the world strategically important production goes abroad, do not write nonsense. Look at the statistics of industrial production growth and GDP of the mattress which has been continuously stable growth for a year. And for reference. All production that are outside the country in the statistics of production growth and GDP come in. hi
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 11: 51
            0
            When you find a quote where I said that a tank or other military production was withdrawn, then you will talk to me about nonsense. In the meantime, wipe the glasses.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 18 May 2018 11: 47
          +10
          Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
          In the 40s, the United States was a very powerful industrial power.

          The United States is now the second largest industrial country in the world in terms of shaft. Moreover, its scientific, engineering and technological capabilities are by far the best in the world.
          Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
          How to stamp tanks in such conditions?

          No way. The US Army has 10 “heavy” brigades of 87 vehicles each, and 6 more brigades in the National Guard. At the same time on the balance of approx. 3 thousand Abrams, the same amount is still in storage. There is no need for new cars. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the post-war era, when an excess of Shermans actually halted American tank building.
          Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
          You can remember the 40s

          It is better to recall the 50s when the Americans in Korea found out that you couldn’t live with Sherman, and in a couple of years they put into production a second, then a third Patton. All 50 years they made them faster than the USSR T-54.
          The difference is that Abrams, unlike Sherman in Korea, fights mainly with the tank against which he was created (T-72, moreover, modifications of the 80s). So coping more than. Since Armata will never become a new T-54 (in terms of quantity and prevalence), there is simply nothing for partners to change Abrash for.
          We took it out of the brackets that the tanks are now fighting not with tanks, but with Faustniks from Volkssturm.
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 12: 04
            +1
            It’s hard to argue with you. I’m telling you about the tank industry and if you want about heavy industry, about tank designers, etc. And you tell me about the industrial production of NKiOKR in a vacuum. I will not even argue about the criteria for evaluating all this wealth (GDP and other heresies).
            The article refers to the meeting of Armata and Abramsov in ten years. Do you think that during this period the Russian Federation will not be able to produce 800-1000 tanks?
            And most importantly, how much longer will your Abrash remain in service?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 18 May 2018 12: 53
              +3
              Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
              And most importantly, how much longer will your Abrash remain in service?

              At least for now, his probable opponent will be the T-72/90.
              Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
              The Russian Federation will not be able to produce 800-1000 tanks?

              10 regiments? Almost sure not. By the way, from similar reasons. Just no reason.

              Tank regiments, if you did not know, now 10 are. + 3 brigades.
        3. Yodzakura
          Yodzakura 18 May 2018 11: 48
          +1
          So you answered who you are
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 12: 07
            +1
            Very informative) you just crushed me with your arguments)
    2. Aro roll
      Aro roll 18 May 2018 11: 10
      +1
      In the United States I make corps for intents, and this is the same corps as for merkava.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2018 11: 30
        +1
        I honestly don’t know what “intent” is, but it seems to me that a modern tank is something more than a hull. The brothers of these buildings have entire fields, and they cannot reanimate them.
        1. Aro roll
          Aro roll 18 May 2018 11: 45
          0
          Americans are constantly upgrading their and others' corps. On the picture,
          the very one, "intent."
          1. yehat
            yehat 23 May 2018 14: 55
            0
            intent is the exorbitantly swollen ego of the Israeli infantry)))
            still mouse adapted for BMP tasks
    3. Gennadich
      Gennadich 19 May 2018 01: 43
      0
      agaga .. who writes such stupid manuals to you?
    4. TARSUS
      TARSUS 20 May 2018 01: 53
      0
      The amateur is you. Based on your logic, then Russia has no plants anymore, since they are only modernizing the T-72, T-80, T-90.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 20 May 2018 07: 43
        0
        Are you talking to me? I don’t remember when they managed to switch to you. About the amateur, I immediately spoke about myself. The Russian Federation has a tank factory, UVZ for example. In addition to modernizing the T-72,80,90, there is also the T14 and machines from its family. And yes, I have at least some kind of logic. And you argue at the level of "myself".
        1. TARSUS
          TARSUS 20 May 2018 20: 24
          0
          Clarify immediately, the T-14 and its family only in parades.
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 21 May 2018 07: 10
            0
            Stop poking me already. For those who are on an armored train. I am talking about the possibility of creating and building a tank, the availability of designers and a plant. So simple enough for even you to understand?
            1. TARSUS
              TARSUS 23 May 2018 14: 50
              0
              Googly tank factory in Lima and don’t carry heresy.
              1. Cherkashin Ivan
                Cherkashin Ivan 24 May 2018 06: 52
                0
                Hmm, I'm not going to talk to such a haml anymore. You’ll talk like that in your farmyard.
      2. yehat
        yehat 23 May 2018 14: 56
        0
        and the Russian Federation does not have tank factories - only wagon and tractor)))
        we are not militarists like Jews or Germans. fellow
  3. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 18 May 2018 07: 11
    +9
    All these articles are foreign, with a claim to a serious analysis, in fact, cheap campaigns, are not very intrusive (but if you collect all the articles in a heap, then they are very intrusive!) PR your technique, remembering that this is, above all, a product that brings good money. This is their concept! If we take into account the experience of the Iraqi and Syrian wars, and the conflict of the Saudis with Yemen, then both Abrams and Leopards are not so handsome as they are written about!
    Our tank builders are in the first place, all the same, the combat capabilities of the created technical equipment! And the goods, and so on, then. And thank God that this is not the other way!
  4. vlad007
    vlad007 18 May 2018 09: 28
    +3
    Electronics (video cameras, etc.) are the most unreliable in a tank. Someone at VO suggested shelling the tank with Shilka (1000 rounds per minute) and see what was left of the electronics.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 18 May 2018 11: 04
      0
      So, we must abandon the American path and fill them with "armored meat", i.e. twenty times the number of tankers of the PT-76 level with "Cornets" and autocannons. They don’t have enough shells and time ... They’ll just go crazy and give up! It remains only to figure out how to hide these tanks from the thermal imagers of the abraches in order to get to the distance of the fire.
  5. alexnmv5
    alexnmv5 18 May 2018 09: 57
    +5
    Not indicated is the main drawback of Abrams - the engine. This tank is designed for a quick war, in conditions of complete superiority on the battlefield. And if the enemy is able to cut off timely fuel supplies, what will they ride on. Gluttony and moodiness in fuel quality will inevitably lead to big problems in a big war on an equal footing. Spare parts are expensive. Difficult to repair on site. The Germans had already passed this, the tanks were good, but problems with on-site repairs and the moodiness for the quality of gasoline nullified all the advantages.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 18 May 2018 10: 31
      +5
      Quote: alexnmv5
      Not indicated is the main drawback of Abrams - the engine.

      Because there is no such drawback. Under Abrams, there has long been a Europack at 2K hp. Americans simply do not consider it necessary to put it.
    2. Korax71
      Korax71 18 May 2018 11: 52
      -1
      Gonevo is full. The resource of his gas turbine engine is higher than that in 92s2f. Do not use the information of the times of the war in Iraq. Moreover, the problem was not in the engine, but in the air purification system and grace will descend into your life bully
  6. Andrey Nikulnikov
    Andrey Nikulnikov 18 May 2018 11: 08
    0
    In the Kaliningrad region, Abrams will not be able to fight. There is swampy terrain and they all will sit on their belly there and this will end their war. And moving along the roads they will be just targets. This is East Prussia and all roads there are arranged in such a way as to facilitate defense, including anti-tank defense. And the defending side will be just Russia. So you don’t have to be a major specialist in tank building to make a conclusion about the tank war in our Kaliningrad region.
  7. the47th
    the47th 18 May 2018 11: 10
    0
    Initially, Abrams sawed with the Germans since the 60s. Adopted in the 80s unfinished, with the old L7. The Germans are similar. Soviet / Russian engineers have been creating Armata since the 80s. Fundamentally new tanks will be created not 3-5 years, as many people think, but 10-20 years.
  8. tazilion
    tazilion 18 May 2018 11: 14
    0
    Better Abrams or Armata?
    L Ab And Ar Z where is the choice of "L" from LZ, then the choice of "Ar" from AbAr
    5 6 3 6 1 where the choice is "5" out of 135 and the right one is "6" out of 66
    Elementary simple if you know the logic of choice, at least from the multiplication table.
  9. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 18 May 2018 11: 15
    +1
    What does it mean to meet, Prokhorovka or something. It seems that they wanted to bring a drone to cables to fit the arm to increase the viewing range. For T14, as I see the concept of a hunter paired with two terminators. For a breakthrough T90 T80.
    P.S. Kaliningrad they want to chop off, swung.
  10. Dababi
    Dababi 18 May 2018 11: 27
    0
    A former company commander of the Swiss army, he is a very serious expert on possible ground operations at the Northwest Theater of Operations (theater of operations). Where, probably, according to the expert’s calculations, half of Switzerland’s armored fleet will also participate - as a part of as many as two tank platoons. Serious expert research!
    1. Curious
      Curious 18 May 2018 13: 49
      0
      No, compared to the site-based sofa naval commanders, some Swiss is not even zero.
  11. Volodya Nigmetov
    Volodya Nigmetov 18 May 2018 12: 06
    +1
    Quote: Login_Off
    Let them come to the tank biathlon and then we'll see. Scribble unfinished.

    What will biathlon decide? Who is faster reliable more accurate? Whose crews are better prepared? No more. It is needed and it’s good just for these purposes. The real picture can only be shown by a real clash. Biathlon how can you not say it's like a Soviet lightning for adults enemy Then you can say yes armata strength! In the meantime, one can only believe in God and nothing more. Who really is stronger than the unknown Only hypotheses Maybe merkava In this unit, the achievements of the USA of Israel and the USSR have merged together How did it happen? Well, the United States, Israel, Israel’s friends, and at one time Israel had a lot of designers who took with them everything that lay bad and lay bad at that time. The only problem is the merkava tank for local conflict. How it behaves with a worthy rival is another question I wrote in B About about my proposal of the Russian Ministry of Defense to create a real training ground for comparing performance characteristics of tanks of different countries and models. They simply fenced off the territory. For example, let’s say T90 abrams centurion merkava and let them cut so that there are no victims, of course, everything is remote control and telecontrol But real warheads already have On which to mount on 5-7 shells is not a problem All honestly live on air for the whole world Crews or from HERE to take the best or at the request of the participating countries each each in biathlon Imagine such a transfer? In general, if interested, this is what the Russian Defense Ministry answered That's how it goes
    1. Serzh_R
      Serzh_R 18 May 2018 15: 18
      0
      I already wrote in В О about my proposal of the Ministry of Defense of Russia to create a real training ground for comparing performance characteristics of tanks of different countries and models. Simply speaking, the territory is fenced off. Let’s say T90 Abrams Centurion Merkava is let out and chopped off. real

      You are a little ahead of Harry Harrison in the book "A planet with which they do not return."
      According to intelligence reports, another planet has already been selected. At the moment, the warring parties are negotiating at the highest level about what steps should be taken to transfer hostilities to this planet.
      1. Volodya Nigmetov
        Volodya Nigmetov 19 May 2018 07: 34
        0
        You misunderstood me. In my appeal to the Ministry of Defense, there was not a word like I'm the first. I do not pretend to be the leader in this matter; I am not against Harry Garrison's superiority. Although I confess I have not read the book and I am not familiar with the author. to compare technology Well, the show will not hurt. It will pay for everything that is important. If Harry Harrison has a patent, you need to try to buy it. And the Ministry of Defense needs it, as there are foreign vehicles without it or it will be illegal. Yes, and they have experience. in the end And Harry Garrison my respect
  12. Vanych
    Vanych 18 May 2018 15: 36
    +1
    every cow will not be banished
  13. Radikal
    Radikal 18 May 2018 16: 15
    0
    In the context of the uninhabited tower, another disadvantage of the promising Russian tank is mentioned. S. Bühler indicates that the commander of the Armata tank will not be able to look out of the hatch and look around, raising the so-called situational awareness. However, in practice this problem is solved with the help of modern technologies, namely, through video surveillance. Among experts there is a dispute on the topic of the real possibilities of video systems. There is a dispute over whether optical-electronic systems will be able to provide the same overview as traditional optical instruments.
    During the battle, these video surveillance systems can be destroyed or disabled, and then ...? sad
    1. Salx
      Salx 21 May 2018 00: 17
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      In the context of the uninhabited tower, another disadvantage of the promising Russian tank is mentioned. S. Bühler indicates that the commander of the Armata tank will not be able to look out of the hatch and look around, raising the so-called situational awareness. However, in practice this problem is solved with the help of modern technologies, namely, through video surveillance. Among experts there is a dispute on the topic of the real possibilities of video systems. There is a dispute over whether optical-electronic systems will be able to provide the same overview as traditional optical instruments.
      During the battle, these video surveillance systems can be destroyed or disabled, and then ...? sad


      Choose one of two answers ... for which there will be a more fatal bullet, splinter, shell ...
      Answer 1: - for video surveillance;
      answer 2: - for the skull of the "curious" commander

      .. and ..., and then what?))))
  14. 1970mk
    1970mk 18 May 2018 19: 46
    +1
    I do not understand such articles! Armata? There is no such tank! There is a prototype! When will then be comparable. It's like comparing American 5th generation fighters! Which is not there! Engines are not ready, equipment is not ready. Nonsense
  15. Bo Yari
    Bo Yari 19 May 2018 03: 14
    0
    [/ quote] the army will have some of the latest T-14 Armata [quote]
    ............... literally two or three ..
  16. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 19 May 2018 10: 29
    0
    It is necessary to persistently improve those tanks that are now in storage. They will make up the bulk of our tank armies, the infrastructure for the immediate deployment of which in the west of the country should be prepared now. And they, if necessary, will crush the land forces of the West.
  17. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 19 May 2018 14: 49
    0
    I’m thinking everything - even if Armata is a bluff, soap bubble, plywood and plastic, as someone wrote on VO- how much dough has swollen with her lackeys, trying to do something that can withstand it! hardly we will ever know!
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 19 May 2018 17: 00
      0
      Quote: serg.shishkov2015
      trying to do something that can resist her!

      Excuse me, are they doing something? Abrams Block 3, let's say?

      https://masterok.livejournal.com/1839851.html
      1. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 20 May 2018 06: 16
        0
        they should already carry out some R&D! and the fact that we do not know about them yet does not mean that they are not there, logic speaks of the need for a reciprocal move
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 20 May 2018 12: 57
          0
          Quote: serg.shishkov2015
          they should already carry out some R&D!

          Who should? I posted a photo of the American Armata of the 80s.
          Quote: serg.shishkov2015
          that we don’t know about them yet does not mean that they are not,

          Do you see a gopher? (with)
          1. serg.shishkov2015
            serg.shishkov2015 21 May 2018 06: 39
            0
            with your flag you really do not want OUR Armata to be! that’s rude! Adieu!
  18. Nikolay Vasilievich
    Nikolay Vasilievich 19 May 2018 21: 47
    0
    By that time, I hope our already modernized Uranus will solve combat missions, and the tanks will most likely go to the second plan ...
    1. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 20 May 2018 08: 22
      0
      the fact that robots will die instead of people is great, but it’s better if there were no wars at all! but in current realities this is unscientific fiction!
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. Radikal
    Radikal 21 May 2018 00: 23
    0
    Quote: SAlx
    Quote: Radikal
    In the context of the uninhabited tower, another disadvantage of the promising Russian tank is mentioned. S. Bühler indicates that the commander of the Armata tank will not be able to look out of the hatch and look around, raising the so-called situational awareness. However, in practice this problem is solved with the help of modern technologies, namely, through video surveillance. Among experts there is a dispute on the topic of the real possibilities of video systems. There is a dispute over whether optical-electronic systems will be able to provide the same overview as traditional optical instruments.
    During the battle, these video surveillance systems can be destroyed or disabled, and then ...? sad


    Choose one of two answers ... for which there will be a more fatal bullet, splinter, shell ...
    Answer 1: - for video surveillance;
    answer 2: - for the skull of the "curious" commander

    .. and ..., and then what?))))

    And let's better remember the Great Patriotic War - there on tanks there was no this very thing that .... So what? wink
  21. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 21 May 2018 08: 09
    +1
    I’m on a sofa, which I wrote about right away, but in real life, in my circle, the main expert on weapons and people ask me about the prospects of Almaty! We are all patriots of Russia, although we do not shout about it, and we really want our OUR army to have the best weapons!
  22. Volodya Nigmetov
    Volodya Nigmetov 22 May 2018 11: 30
    0
    Quote: Radikal
    Quote: SAlx
    Quote: Radikal
    In the context of the uninhabited tower, another disadvantage of the promising Russian tank is mentioned. S. Bühler indicates that the commander of the Armata tank will not be able to look out of the hatch and look around, raising the so-called situational awareness. However, in practice this problem is solved with the help of modern technologies, namely, through video surveillance. Among experts there is a dispute on the topic of the real possibilities of video systems. There is a dispute over whether optical-electronic systems will be able to provide the same overview as traditional optical instruments.
    During the battle, these video surveillance systems can be destroyed or disabled, and then ...? sad


    Choose one of two answers ... for which there will be a more fatal bullet, splinter, shell ...
    Answer 1: - for video surveillance;
    answer 2: - for the skull of the "curious" commander

    .. and ..., and then what?))))

    And let's better remember the Great Patriotic War - there on tanks there was no this very thing that .... So what? wink

    The tankers simply died and all died due to the lack of radio stations (wave the flags under the shelling) due to the lack of electric drives (the turret drive was organized by many cars. Who doesn’t understand that it is standing next to the starting diesel engine from the launcher) Terrible injuries were received if at all survived from the rollback guns on the famous t 34 (just on the first models, the seats were not mounted on the shoulder of the tower and therefore didn’t rotate with it and in the heat of battle whoever looked at where the gun would roll back) There was a mass phenomenon like smallpox When a blank hit the body of the scale, even without breaking the crew is out of order instantly And then in life they walked with this blackpox on the body and face recognizing each other - brother tanker