Military Review

New shells will allow Abrams to remain in the US Army for decades

71

According to current Pentagon plans, the main combat Tanks M1A2 Abrams will remain in service for the next several decades. They are planned to be regularly repaired and modernized. At the same time, the military is not going to abandon the existing 120-mm gun M256A1. To increase the combat qualities, it is planned to continue to improve the LMS and create new ammunition.


New shells for the old cannon


Over the past few decades, the Pentagon and the American industry have been exploring the possibility of a radical upgrade of the MBN M1A2 MBT weapons, but in the end everything remained the same. Tanks, as before, carry 120-mm M256A1 guns with a barrel length of 44 caliber. Their replacement is not planned in the future - with all the updates and improvements, the Abrams will retain their regular weapons.

It is proposed to increase combat characteristics by improving other components of the weapons complex. Ammunition plays an important role in this process. With a view to the future, new unitary 120-mm shots with promising shells are being created. Some of them have already been put in series.

Armor-piercing M829A4


In early May 2019, it became known about the Pentagon’s plans to purchase shots with an armor-piercing firing projectile-caliber projectile (BOPS) type M829A4 AKE (Advanced Kinetic Energy). This product is part of the well-known M829 family and has some features that enhance the basic characteristics.

The M829A4 shell has been developed since 2011 with the participation of several organizations. Design work took several years, and in the 2014, the projectile was put to the test. They were followed by the first contract for the production of another prototype batch of ammunition. To date, all work has been completed, and the US Army has placed an order for the full-fledged release of shells. Serial production is carried out at one of the sites of Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (formerly Orbital ATK).

New shells will allow Abrams to remain in the US Army for decades

Shells of several types. In the foreground is a split layout of the latest M829A4. Sturgeon's House Photos

The M829A4 product is based on the solutions of previous projects, but has significant differences. The core is made of depleted uranium and has an improved design, due to which the energy of the propelling charge is used more efficiently. The exact penetration indicators are not called, but it is claimed that the projectile can hit any modern or promising tank.

The project also included the improvement of other components of the shot. Recycled partially burning sleeve and improved propellant charge. The detachable master device consists of three polymer elements of improved design.

The M829A4 BOPS is fully compatible with the M829A4 guns, however, it requires updating the LMS software due to different ballistics. Some innovations increase the safety of the projectile at all stages, up to loading the gun.

Serial production of M829A4 shells will increase the fighting qualities of tanks, as well as gradually upgrade the arsenals of tank units. The release of such ammunition will continue over the next few years. As armored vehicles continue to operate, old M829 shells will be used up, and the modern A4 will become the main one in its class.

Multipurpose AMP


The development of the AMP (Advanced Multi-Purpose) project continues, the result of which should be a new multi-purpose projectile. Now the ammunition MBT M1A2 includes several different shots with cumulative, cumulative-fragmentation, high-explosive, and other shells. Unified practical shots are also used. According to the results of the AMP program, three different shells will be replaced with just one.



Product M830A1. Photo Fas.org

The XM1147 AMP product has been developed by Northrop Grumman / Orbital ATK since 2013. Various tests were previously reported, but adopting the projectile for armament is still a thing of the distant future. Serial production and operation are expected no earlier than the beginning of the twenties. The introduction of AMP shells is associated with the next modernization of tanks, necessary for the installation of some equipment.

According to well-known data, the AMP shell must have a special design that ensures the formation of a cumulative jet, shock wave and fragments. He also needs to get a programmable fuse. The carrier tank, respectively, needs a programmer and some improvements to the LMS.

Depending on the mode of operation of the fuse, AMP will be able to perform the functions of a cumulative, high-explosive or fragmentation projectile. After being put into service, it will immediately replace the three current ammunition, which will simplify the compilation of the ammunition of tanks without any loss in combat effectiveness.

Continuation and resumption of production


Interesting not so long ago news in the context of the AMP program. It was previously assumed that in the future, the AMP will replace four current ammunition. One of them was to be a high-explosive M908, designed to destroy buildings and destroy obstacles. In the future, such tasks were proposed to be solved using one of the XM1147 modes.



M1147 AMP shell at the time of separation of the master. Photo Shephardmedia.com

In the recent past, the M908 projectile shot was discontinued from mass production. However, production lines are now being restored. The Pentagon decided that the new AMP product could not be a full replacement for the M908. While M1A2 Abrams tanks from combat units can use the available stock in the arsenals, but soon they will receive ammunition of the new release. Whether the M908 will receive a replacement in the foreseeable future is unclear. XM1147 AMP was the only contender for this niche.

The Pentagon continues to order other ammunition of the old types. So, in October last year, General Dynamics received another order for the production of M1002 training shells. Such a shot is intended to train tankers in the use of munitions of the M830A1 type. Shells of two types have the same ballistics, but M1002 differs in shape and content. In addition, it has a tracer to facilitate tracking of the results of shooting.

In the future, the M830A1 shell will have to give way to the promising XM1147, but over the next few years it will retain its position. Together with him, the practical M1002 will remain in service, which is not yet going to be abandoned. Moreover, it can undergo modernization, after which it will be used when training in firing new shells.

General trends


The American command has specific plans to modernize MBT, including affecting ammunition for tank guns. The development and development of new shots with the temporary preservation of some existing ones is proposed and carried out. These plans have two main trends.



Northrop Grumman M1002 Projectile Advertising

The first concerns the technical characteristics of new products. Promising samples in key parameters should exceed existing ones. The second idea is to reduce the number of shots used without narrowing the range of tasks. After the successful implementation of AKE and AMP projects, only two shells will become the basis for the M1A2 tank ammunition. Now for the same purposes, five types of products are used. The benefits of such a replacement are obvious.

However, not all current plans can be implemented in minimal time and at minimal cost. For example, an XM1147 shell equipped with a programmable fuse will have to be used with a gun that has an appropriate programmer. Such a device will be introduced only in the next Abrams MBT modernization project no earlier than the beginning of the twenties.

Thus, the development of MBT M1A2 Abrams continues and affects all the main elements of the armored car, including her weapons and ammunition. It is expected that all these measures will allow tanks to maintain high tactical and technical characteristics for a long time and meet current requirements in the future.
Author:
Photos used:
https://www.army.mil/
71 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 06: 15
    -9
    In general, the Americans are not going to fight with our new tanks.
    1. Fraracol_2
      Fraracol_2 11 December 2019 06: 26
      +15
      What are you talking about, and what new ones?
    2. Cryvedco
      Cryvedco 11 December 2019 06: 37
      -4
      Yes, and the reduction of blacks is not expected, which is also not bad in every sense.
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 11 December 2019 10: 55
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In general, the Americans are not going to fight with our new tanks.

      With all ten Armats? Well, they write that theirs new BOPS can hit any modern or promising tank. It remains to somehow manage to somehow get together somewhere on the battlefield.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 11: 03
        +2
        Quote: Kalmar
        With all ten "Armats"

        There are already at least 20 of them, and the plans are at least 200 tons, not counting the export prospects, and the T-90 "Breakthrough" is not old at all
        Quote: Kalmar
        Well, they write that their new BOPS can hit any modern or promising tank
        Amertse writers are still. Psaki will not let lie.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 11 December 2019 11: 25
          +10
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          There are already at least 20

          This changes the case))

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          and plans of at least 200 tons

          It seems like the question of their purchase has not really been resolved yet - expensive.

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Amertse writers are still

          So everyone sins this, and theirs and ours, good, there are few people who want to verify the validity of these theses on themselves.
      2. 5-9
        5-9 11 December 2019 14: 12
        +2
        I'll tell you more, and the T-55 can hit any modern or promising tank...
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 11 December 2019 14: 20
          +3
          Quote: 5-9
          I'll tell you more, and the T-55 can hit any modern or promising tank ...

          In the frontal projection - perhaps only courage and recklessness. But on board or ass - yes, quite.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 11 December 2019 15: 00
            -4
            And in the frontal - easy (if death is not terrible). In M1, 40% of the frontal is weakened zones (in others it is slightly better). There is a vidos of fireworks from the M1A2SA tower after launching into the frontal projection of the Bassoon arr. 1973 and falling into the side of the rear of the tower tower (prest, small angles of safe maneuvering).
            But hitting the unremitted T-14 zone is already arrogant bragging, and even with the T-90A it’s not a fact what will happen.
  2. Monar
    Monar 11 December 2019 06: 47
    -4
    equipped with a programmable fuse, will have to be used with a gun that has an appropriate programmer.

    What for? Add a programmer to a black man. Let it program while charging. wink
    But here is the interesting thing. All new projectile ammunition. If for armor-piercing and cumulative it is logical, then for high-explosive and fragmentation it looks like a strange solution.
    Specialists, if not correct, specify.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 07: 09
      0
      Quote: Monar
      If for armor-piercing and cumulative it is logical

      For kuma, subcalibration is also useless; high speed is even harmful to him. I see one (more precisely one and a half))) explanation. This preserves the stability of the ballistics of the projectile and less barrel wear (less gas breakthrough and polymer sump).
      1. Monar
        Monar 11 December 2019 07: 48
        +2
        I did not know about kumas. Thanks for the clarification. I read literature. Interesting.
        The very idea of ​​a universal shell certainly looks tempting. But the case when the universal is obviously worse than the specialized one. Well, elementary logic. For shrapnel you need to have a bunch of iron on board. Desirable ready-made striking elements. Which fly in different directions on contact. For armor-piercing - the most lightweight shell. With a rigid shaft. Which figs you can break. For the cumulative one, the same excess iron on the "board" is not ice (as far as I know) ...
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 11 December 2019 08: 20
          +3
          Quote: Monar
          I didn’t know about kumas

          The effectiveness of the kuma depends on the diameter of the funnel and does not depend on the speed of the projectile. From the point of view of the breakdown qualities, the sub-caliber godfather is wrecking. On the other hand, for penetrative qualities, Americans have kinetics, so far as they are.
          Quote: Monar
          universal is obviously worse than specialized

          It's not a problem. For most tasks, the 120mm landmine power is redundant, while for a minority of tasks, they use the helphaer as Americans are not greedy.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 11: 15
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            independent of projectile speed

            The formation of the pestle still depends, otherwise the contact sensor would not be carried forward. Zero speed is ideal in general.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 11 December 2019 11: 48
              +3
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Ideally generally zero speed

              You're right. I mean, high speed does not add penetration (but lowers it). Awkwardly worded.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 11: 57
                0
                Americans shirk to the last from PF, because with PF their favorite kick-out panels will turn into fiction. Their station wagon is not particularly explosive.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 11 December 2019 14: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Americans shirk to the last from PF, because with PF their favorite kick-out panels will turn into fiction.

                  As Soviet practice shows, the most dangerous projectile as a rz is still cumulative.

                  Moreover, at the present time, moreover, successfully, the improvement of HE ammunition is ongoing in terms of reducing their danger in terms of detonation
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 14: 47
                    +2
                    Do not quite understand? The fact that the COP has a very sensitive fuse is understandable. But due to the smaller amount (much smaller) of explosives than the RP, the KS knocked out the panels in the Abrams combat station, but there is no armored shutter. In the case of RP detonation, the armor plate did not save. It's about the detonation of BC, I’ll clarify just in case.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 December 2019 15: 09
                      +2
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      In the case of RP detonation, the armor plate did not save.

                      That's the whole point, that HE shells are already safer than cumulative in terms of the possibility of this very detonation
                      Moreover, they are actively working on explosives with low sensitivity.
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 15: 20
                        +2
                        Well please
                        Quote: Spade
                        That's the whole point, that HE shells are already safer than cumulative in terms of the possibility of this very detonation
                        but she is not excluded, right? Again,
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The cop knocked out the panels in Abrams' combat station, but there was no armored shutter. In case of RP detonation, the armored shutter did not save
                        . While there are no shells in the Abrams BC, despite all their safety, correct if I'm wrong.
                      2. Ramzaj99
                        Ramzaj99 11 December 2019 17: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        While there are no shells in the Abrams BC, despite all their safety, correct if I'm wrong.

                        That's why kick panels work because the knock is not possible; gunpowder burns out. If there were PFs, no panels would save, it would tear it to shreds.
                      3. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 18: 23
                        -1
                        Imagine for a moment that detonation is possible, well, there the k-jet got into the warhead, or into the detonator, although what I mean is impossible, impossible, because it’s a godfather. explosive shells not a gram.
                      4. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 12 December 2019 00: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        That's why kick panels work because the knock is not possible; gunpowder burns out.

                        And this is the result of what?

                        (no rear of the turret, no armored partition)
                      5. Ramzaj99
                        Ramzaj99 12 December 2019 17: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        And this is the result of what?

                        Kick panels do not always work. Depending on the hit. What will happen if you ignite a huge amount of gunpowder in a confined space need to be explained? This is the case. If the OF were pulled, there would be nothing to photograph.
                      6. sharp-lad
                        sharp-lad 11 December 2019 23: 34
                        +1
                        high-explosive M908, designed to destroy buildings and destroy obstacles
                        Oops.
                      7. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 12 December 2019 05: 20
                        +2
                        Quote: sharp-lad
                        high-explosive M908, designed to destroy buildings and destroy obstacles
                        Oops

                        Your oops does not work, because M908 High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tracer (HE-OR-T) (XM908 1997; M908 2003)
                        High explosive explosive ordnance designed in 1996 by order of South Korea. An equally interesting development, which is the M830A1 case, with the replacement of the head non-contact fuse with a high-strength concrete piercing tip. The shells are no different, as a result of which any M830A1 can be modified in the M908 by replacing the fuse with a tip, and vice versa.

                        Explosives in it are no less than in purely cumulative M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank Multi-Purpose Tracer (HEAT-MP-T, or MPAT)) (1984)
                        (HEAT-MP-T ,: multipurpose, high-explosive fragmentation-anti-tank tracer)
                      8. sharp-lad
                        sharp-lad 12 December 2019 20: 33
                        0
                        Oops. And thanks for the detailed answer. hi smile
                      9. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 18 December 2019 12: 20
                        0
                        While there are no shells in the Abrams BC, .... well, if there is a stretch of it. although universal, but here's the catch, unitary 120 mm rounds (28 kg), or rather shells weighing no more than 14 kg of which 6 kg fall on the cumulative part on the shell body and HE part which weighs no more than 8 kg, this is the maximum weight for a unitary shot of 120 mm NATO, if you compare with the Soviet (Russian) HE 125mm projectile then 23 kg versus 8 kg is still a big difference, and the HEs never have redundancy, on the contrary, the more powerful the caliber, the better unfortunately the states cannot brag about it
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 11 December 2019 08: 44
          +3
          Cumulative and "universal" (based on cumulative ...) caliber shells! "Versatility" is achieved due to the selection of metal for the projectile body (optimal thickness, "blasting" of the metal ...), selection of explosives, electronic (programmable) scheme of "multipoint initiation" of explosives .... Some design features of "building" "universal "shell!
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 11 December 2019 09: 10
            +2
            PS Increasing the "power" of "Abrams" goes through the cannon ... by increasing the combat qualities of the gun. Along with the "introduction" of new "free-falling" shells, the development of guided (adjustable) tank shells, both cumulative homing shells of the MRM-CE type, and kinetic (hypersonic) homing shells MRM-KE is underway ... Among the projects of "smart" shells there is and the so-called "self-aiming" tank shell STAFF ....
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 11 December 2019 09: 41
            +1
            And also due to the space occupied by the cumulative funnel in a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. And it could have been explosives.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 11 December 2019 10: 16
              +1
              Quote: bk0010
              And also due to the space occupied by the cumulative funnel in a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. And it could have been explosives.

              You noticed that correctly! In this case, there are options for solving such a "problem" ... This is implemented in the so-called "multipurpose" ammunition (warhead) ... For example, a "mini-charge" is placed in the cumulative funnel of a shaped charge projectile ... detonation (sequence detonation ... the timeliness of detonation of both the "mini-charge" and the main projectile ...) is carried out by the electronic circuit of "multipoint initiation" ... If necessary, the "mini-charge" is fired off before the "triggering" of the cumulative (!) ...
          3. Monar
            Monar 11 December 2019 16: 58
            0
            Please clarify. How can the XM1147 AMP projectile, which is dropping after launching from the barrel, be a caliber?
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 12 December 2019 08: 34
              +1
              By no means did I mean specifically XM1147! I just described a general idea of ​​measures for the possible implementation of a "universal" projectile based on cumulative ... That is, what was written in the "military-themed" magazines of the end of the last century. Most likely, it was. "Foreign Military Review" ... he was then "in the lead" for me! PS In any case, the "sub-caliber" of the XM1147, like the M830A1, is not comparable to the "sub-caliber" of BOPS ...
              1. Monar
                Monar 12 December 2019 08: 53
                0
                Thanks for the clarification. I just read that if there is a bullet (admin forgive me) that it is intended only for the projectile to go through the caliber of the barrel, and then it is already reset, then this is definitely a sub-caliber. Regardless of the degree of subcalibration.
        3. kvs45
          kvs45 11 December 2019 15: 47
          +1
          "But the case when the universal is obviously worse than the specialized one. Well, elementary logic. For the fragmentation, you need a bunch of iron on board."

          A small amount of explosives directly adjacent to the funnel is involved in the formation of cumulative jets (see mining equipment "torpedoes for destroying stuck drill heads", they are reusable cumulative action).
          PS. For godfather. jets important caliber, density of the material of the funnel and the speed of detonation of explosives (mainly)
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 12 December 2019 07: 38
            +1
            Quote: kvs45
            For godfather. jets important caliber, density of the material of the funnel and the speed of detonation of explosives (mainly)

            You said all this well, tovarisch ... but forgot one more "little detail": the shape of a "funnel"! The shape of the "funnel" is a very important factor in the formation of the "stream"; its "structure and armor-piercing" ...
    2. Yuriy77
      Yuriy77 11 December 2019 08: 59
      +1
      For cumulative just the caliber is very important - the maximum penetration directly depends on the diameter of the base of the cone (funnel) lined with metal.
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 12 December 2019 00: 27
      0
      Speaking of ammunition.
      They still have this:
  3. Indifferent
    Indifferent 11 December 2019 07: 04
    -10
    Americans forgot how to make tanks! So invent shells to at least something to oppose. They still have the only tank factory in Ohio. And that last tank was made in 2001. Then he was engaged in the production of tanks for other countries and in the repair of his own. He was recently visited by Trump. They want to revive it. But so far it turns out badly. So they took up at least shells. And this is not from a good life. Overcame USA!
    1. Monar
      Monar 11 December 2019 08: 14
      +6
      How did you decide this? Is the Abrams not a modern tank? And the factory made tanks for export. Upgraded his own and others, what's the difference?
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 11 December 2019 09: 51
        0
        Abrams Abrams are different. The most modern are somewhere around two hundred; however, they want to upgrade to 700. New machines are no longer produced, and the line has been dismantled (the problem of restoration is most likely money and the establishment of the supply chain anew). Modernization is due to the filling (MSA, KAZ ...) and shells. That, in general, is cheaper for Americans with sufficient efficiency. Fortunately, the dimensions of the "box" allow a very wide range of upgrades.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 11 December 2019 15: 31
          +2
          Quote: dzvero
          The most modern somewhere around two hundred; True, they want to upgrade to 700.

          For what? The question is not idle if you look at the world map and see that there is an ocean between us. To fight with Mexico? Mattresses are much more relevant in this format, to build up not the land component, but the fleet. However, they are doing this. To confront the Eurasian continent, the Anglo-Saxons have Leklers, Leopards, etc. ... if you tear the strongest EU countries away from the Anglo-Saxons feeder, then at least 700, at least 7000 Abrams will be like a cart in front of the mare.
          1. dzvero
            dzvero 11 December 2019 15: 46
            0
            Most likely they want to be independent from their allies. Germans don't have many modern Leopards. The British have Challengers too. The French are on their own and the US clearly does not rely on their Leclercs. So they expect to scrape together 200-1000 tanks (1200 of their own, 700-400 allied ones) against 500 (predicted) Armata. After all, during WWII, seven Shermans against the Tiger / Panther was the very thing. So they try not to "blunder". And the pocket does not pull the stock. Who knows where their hard time or the old / new president will throw them ...
            1. KrokodilGena
              KrokodilGena 18 January 2020 18: 13
              -1
              Quote: dzvero
              The Germans do not have so many modern Leopards. The British Challengers, too. The French themselves obviously do not rely on their Leclercists for themselves and the United States. So they count against 200 (forecasted) Armats to scrape together 1000-1200 tanks (700 of their own, 400-500 allied). Indeed, during WWII, seven Shermans against the Tiger / Panther was the very thing.

              In countries such as Germany, the United States, to establish mass production and modernization of tanks in the shortest possible time is not a problem, with their industrial potential. They are not in the situation of the 3rd Reich of the 40s. Heavy engineering is 90% specialists, the rest of the premises and tools.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 12 December 2019 00: 36
            +3
            Quote: NEXUS
            For what?

            Nonetheless :
            USA -
            775 M1A1SA,
            1609 M1A2 SEPv2
            (more 3500 M1 / M2 in storage) [74] and
            447 M1A1 in the ILC,
            as of 2017 [75]
            (information from Wiki)
        2. KrokodilGena
          KrokodilGena 18 January 2020 16: 58
          0
          Quote: dzvero
          The most modern somewhere around two hundred; True, they want to upgrade to 700.

          Oh really? In my opinion, more than 1300 went through modernization to the level of SEP3. It is foolish to lie down and hope that at some hour X Americans will arrive on non-modernized tanks, we must proceed from the fact that the Initi will be in full mincemeat, with KAZ, etc.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 11 December 2019 08: 21
      +6
      Quote: indifferent
      Overcame USA!

      Yes Yes.
    3. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 11 December 2019 08: 47
      -4
      Not only tanks, but also spaceships. Therefore, they think how to make holes in strangers. Only a woman with a drill does not roll against the "Armata", so they push, inventing shells.
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 11 December 2019 07: 46
    +4
    Looking at how much anti-tank weapons enter the line forces, tank strategists really need to try to find a decent, effective use of tanks on the modern battlefield !!!
    Not against irregular units, namely against a full-fledged, equipped army!
    The advancing tank armada has not been foreseen for a long time, no one is proposing something else!
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 11 December 2019 08: 23
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      against a full, equipped army!

      Against a full-fledged, equipped army, there are other methods. And tanks are used where they are useful.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 11 December 2019 14: 38
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        Against a full-fledged, equipped army, there are other methods. And tanks are used where they are useful.

        It was assumed that tanks would be useful precisely on the "linear, main" battlefield. The thing is expensive and costly, if it is wise to have, use and maintain them, not for secondary tasks.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 11 December 2019 15: 27
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          It was assumed that tanks will be useful precisely on the field of "linear, main" battle

          It has long been assumed. In the last 50 years, it is believed that no ground equipment, at least by large masses, will reach the main battlefield
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 11 December 2019 17: 51
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            In the last 50 years, it is believed that no ground equipment, at least by large masses, will reach the main battlefield

            And why is that?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 11 December 2019 18: 16
              +1
              Quote: rocket757
              And why is that?

              See Air / Ground Operation. By the end of the Cold War, the most expensive part of the American tank division was the Apache brigade.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 11 December 2019 18: 26
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Apache team.

                These are plans, how it could actually go, now one can only guess.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 11 December 2019 18: 42
                  +2
                  Quote: rocket757
                  These are plans for how it could actually go.

                  It went beyond all expectations. The divisions just from Germany went to Iraq and danced exactly the ballet that they had learned. The land part of the operation then made the strongest impression on the understanding people.

                  The Wehrmacht is alive.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 11 December 2019 14: 15
      +2
      What to look for is MBT (and TBMP) the most stable thing in the conditions of the use of WMD ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 11 December 2019 14: 35
        0
        An exceptionally bad option, but for everyone.
  5. Yrec
    Yrec 11 December 2019 09: 31
    -4
    Apparently, the mattresses continue to see their tanks as tank destroyers, although in our time the battlefield is oversaturated with weapons based on different bases and ranges. Rolling out a tank for a direct shot at a distance of about 1,5 km will be fatal for him. The actions of tanks in this form is possible only with full dominance in other forces and means.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 11 December 2019 14: 18
      +2
      It’s hard to hit a tank with a Kuma with a guarantee (it was 5-7-9 penetration in Chechnya that the tanks themselves crawled out), unless a Kuma with a large reserve of armor penetration for high armored impact or in a good place, and a crowbar having broken through the armor is much larger misfortune brings ... therefore, the tank as a PT-means has the right to exist.
  6. 5-9
    5-9 11 December 2019 14: 12
    +1
    M829A4 is the M829A3 of a healthy person, doped up and which their defense industry can do so that half is not thrown into the marriage. The main OBPS of US Army - M829A2 and so it will be for years (the bed will not go out), but in the meantime they will slowly make A4 .... In principle, A2 should be enough for almost all combatant tanks in the world. A4 (and A3) is the ultimate projectile for Rheinmetal-120, in principle, it can be seen in the section that it occupies its entire length, you can’t squeeze out a larger PSU.
    OFS did not dare to include in the composition of the BC.
    In general, "we do not need tanks, we are not going to participate in tank battles."
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. TARS_LOL
    TARS_LOL 11 December 2019 16: 01
    -7
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Americans shirk to the last from PF, because with PF their favorite kick-out panels will turn into fiction. Their station wagon is not particularly explosive.

    Examine the mate part, finally, comrade, it makes no difference which shell in the ammunition tank: KUM, OF, OBPS, and so on, detonates gunpowder in 99%, and it, in turn, undermines both HE and KUM shells.
    1. Ramzaj99
      Ramzaj99 11 December 2019 17: 50
      0
      Quote: TARS_LOL
      Examine the mate part, finally, comrade, it makes no difference which shell in the ammunition tank: KUM, OF, OBPS, and so on, detonates gunpowder in 99%, and it, in turn, undermines both HE and KUM shells.

      It does not even make sense to comment on this nonsense)))
    2. Ant137
      Ant137 14 December 2019 19: 53
      +1
      It's true. Only after the detonation of one powder charge (3-4 kg of TNT for a charge like 4Zh40) does it not need to undermine anything else.
  9. TARS_LOL
    TARS_LOL 11 December 2019 18: 07
    -5
    Quote: Ramzaj99
    Quote: TARS_LOL
    Examine the mate part, finally, comrade, it makes no difference which shell in the ammunition tank: KUM, OF, OBPS, and so on, detonates gunpowder in 99%, and it, in turn, undermines both HE and KUM shells.

    It does not even make sense to comment on this nonsense)))

    Will there be an argumentation, or will they blurt out anyhow? Here I observe how 90% of the audience does not even have basic concepts of how detonation of ammunition in a tank occurs.
  10. TARS_LOL
    TARS_LOL 11 December 2019 18: 10
    -5
    Quote: Ramzaj99
    Quote: TARS_LOL
    Examine the mate part, finally, comrade, it makes no difference which shell in the ammunition tank: KUM, OF, OBPS, and so on, detonates gunpowder in 99%, and it, in turn, undermines both HE and KUM shells.

    It does not even make sense to comment on this nonsense)))


    Here you are, the t-72 has HE shells available, guess why they didn’t detonate? Maybe for a start it is worth studying the properties of gunpowder, and then komenty clatter?
  11. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 11 December 2019 20: 01
    -1
    Quote: Creedco
    Yes, and the reduction of blacks is not expected, which is also not bad in every sense.

    Americanophile liberoids have busted you.
    And the thought expressed by you is really deep.
    One "extra" crew member, according to our classification, is the economy of interior space, rations, and so on.
    PS It is unfortunate that American ideology has so penetrated the minds and blood of some of the special readers of our site. They are embarrassed to call a Negro, a Jew, etc. But these are literary and well-known words, it’s not shameful to use them in Russia. The great Russian writers, the creators of dictionaries, used these very words - Negro, Jew, etc. and nobody, including Jews and Negroes, did not cringe.
    For liberoids-mericanophiles, psychiatrists recommend digging deeper, and when communicating with their Moms and Dads, call them "Parent No.
    1 "" Parent # 2 ".
    After fleeing to the USA or Israel, they will be counted.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 12 December 2019 10: 09
    +1
    Quote: Monar
    only for the passage of the projectile in the caliber of the barrel, and then it is already discarded, it is definitely a sub-caliber. Regardless of the degree of subcalibration.

    I believe that you are right ... only now I drew attention to some nuances: in some articles, the authors seem to avoid calling shells like the XM1147, M830A1 sub-caliber ... even, there is such a designation - "sub-caliber" ... .e. , in quotes! Perhaps this is found in the first publications ... from "habit"!
  13. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 18 December 2019 07: 16
    0

    After the successful implementation of AKE and AMP projects, only two shells will become the basis for the M1A2 tank ammunition. Now for the same purposes, five types of products are used. The benefits of such a replacement are obvious.

    But not once. This station wagon is in no way less than any replacement. The effectiveness of a station wagon is in every way less than that of a specialist. So what are the benefits? Worst for big money. The reluctance of Americans to invest in new armored vehicles shows that they intend to win the war in the air in the old fashioned way.
  14. lot
    lot 24 December 2019 08: 24
    0
    at least an overview of what new ammunition. Well accepted and accepted. well 3 in one. nothing about the article.