From Iraq to the Baltic States: Main Problems and Disadvantages of the Abrams Tank


The United States continues to increase its military presence in Poland and the Baltic countries. Under the guise of military exercises, personnel and armored vehicles, including the famous American ones, are being transferred to Eastern Europe Tanks Abrams.


M1 Abrams - the most famous American tank, which is in service with the US Army and Marine Corps. It entered mass production back in 1980 and has since remained the main tank used in the US armed forces.

For a long time, “pocket” US military experts assured that the Abrams was perhaps the most advanced tank that far surpasses Russian combat vehicles. But already the second war in Iraq dispelled myths about the invulnerability of the American tank. He turned out to be quite “mortal,” moreover, ordinary rebels knocked out tanks with old Soviet-made grenade launchers. In the event of a successful hit from the grenade launcher into the side of the machine, it is possible to literally put it out of action with just one shot, which by no means adds “Abrams” combat readiness and authority. And if American tanks were undermined by Iraqi rebels with their obsolete weapons, what can we say about situations where the tank will be opposed by soldiers of the modern regular army with good weapons.

In addition, during the war in the Middle East, it turned out that tanks in the field consume much more fuel than expected. Many parts of the combat vehicle constantly failed. Particularly difficult was the situation with the fire control system and the radio station, which quite often broke at the most inopportune moments, and the tanks lost the ability to complete the tasks.

The American tankers themselves complained about problems with the hydraulic drive of the tower. At the junction of the pump with the drive, the system was leaking, and since the tank’s hydraulics were filled with fire-retardant FRH fluid, skin contact and burns could occur if hit by crew members. By the way, the driver himself in the tank is in a reclining position, which is not so convenient, but also makes it difficult to evacuate him in case of injury. There are many other questions to the convenience for the Abrams crew, especially when compared with other, including modern Russian, tanks.


It is no coincidence that Donald Trump announced that the United States is going to spend more than $ 6 billion on the modernization of its main tank.

Speaking at a tank plant in Ohio, Trump emphasized that this amount is almost twice the amount that his predecessor Barack Obama spent on the purchase and improvement of Abrams.

Obviously, such financial injections into tanks are made for a reason. The American leadership received comprehensive information about the shortcomings of the tank, confirmed by the sad experience of fighting in Iraq and other "hot spots". But they also do not want to develop a new tank in the USA. After all, spending $ 6 billion on upgrading a proven combat vehicle is in any case cheaper than spending on the design and production of new tanks, which still do not know what kind of “pig in a poke” the American military will present. So in the foreseeable future it is hardly worth waiting for the appearance of a new mass American-made tank, but the Pentagon will not spare the money to improve the existing modifications of the Abrams.

In the meantime, the American leadership is discussing the modernization of the tank, thirty "Abrams" took part in military exercises in Lithuania. American "Abrams" are not being flown to Poland and the Baltic states to work out actions against Syrian or Iraqi militants. It is clear that all military maneuvers conducted by NATO in Eastern Europe are directed against Russia. But in the conditions of the same Baltic, there are a lot of problems for the “Abrams”. One of them is bridges, which initially were simply not designed for the movement of such heavy equipment. There are also problems with the transportation of tanks by rail, for example, from Poland to the Baltic states, given the need to change wheelsets when switching to the "Soviet" gauge.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bessmertniy 21 January 2020 07: 56 New
    • 9
    • 9
    0
    Interestingly, in the Baltic States, "Abrams" can burn just as well as in Iraq or better !!! ??? what
    1. carstorm 11 21 January 2020 08: 21 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      but they don’t need to burn there) with the amount that is located there they will not be able to leave the park. stuffing them in there was a stupidly political move, since from a military point of view, this makes no sense.
  2. Vasily Ponomarev 21 January 2020 07: 58 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    perhaps the most advanced tank that far surpasses Russian combat vehicles. But already the second war in Iraq dispelled myths about the invulnerability of an American tank. He turned out to be quite “mortal - wow, then this tank is not immortal, well, thank God, the truth is some strange examples, although they told how it behaves against the 72, and not about grenade launchers
    1. rich 21 January 2020 08: 10 New
      • 11
      • 6
      +5
      For a long time, US military experts assured that the Abrams was perhaps the most advanced tank in the world. But already the second war in Iraq dispelled myths about the invulnerability of an American tank. He turned out to be quite "mortal",

      1. Starover_Z 21 January 2020 08: 40 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Rich
        He turned out to be quite "mortal",

        Good cutting, impressive ... Not everyone can watch with bitterness on the rollers how the T-72 is knocked out!
        The Diamonds are on!
        1. neri73-r 21 January 2020 09: 52 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Starover_Z
          Good cutting, impressive ... Not everyone can watch with bitterness on the rollers how the T-72 is knocked out!
          The Diamonds are on!

          It’s clear, since all such videos are carefully cleaned from the air and neta, so as not to drop “the best tanks of the world”, Abrams, Merkava, Leo, etc. in the eyes of potential buyers.
    2. Octopus 21 January 2020 08: 12 New
      • 10
      • 4
      +6
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      wow, then this tank is not immortal, well, thank God, the truth is some strange examples, although they told how it was against t 72

      So there are no examples, for some reason. There examples are:
      1. Fell from the bridge.
      2. I ran into half a ton of explosives.
      3. (Not) successfully received on board or rear.
      4. (The main option) fell into the hands of Iraqi tankmen.

      As for Abram, as he thought: the turret tank destroyer, the new Panther, there are no special issues. But there is no such role for the tank for the last 30 years.
      1. bessmertniy 21 January 2020 08: 25 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        The variety of possibilities for the death of “Abrams” is pleasantly pleasing. hi
      2. Zabvo 24 January 2020 12: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, you’re right, Abrams was created as an anti-tank weapon, their concept is such Abrams destroys tanks, Bradley grinds the infantry, and Apache covers it all from the air. After the collapse of the Union, Abrams began to sculpt a bunch of machine guns, although you could just give OFS and that's it.
        1. Octopus 24 January 2020 13: 09 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: ZABVO
          it would be possible to give just OFS and all.

          They have OFS. And just its universal OFS with remote detonation should cause much more interest than scrap.
          Quote: ZABVO
          them a concept such Abrams exterminates tanks, Bradley grinds infantry

          What is more interesting, in Iraq 2003 it turned out the opposite. In a normal situation, in a clash of ground forces, an Iraqi tank received ATGM from Bradley. ATGM hits further. The tank was rather used as an emergency option, so to speak, a weapon of last chance.
          1. meandr51 26 January 2020 21: 02 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            It is in the desert. Poland has a different landscape. There will be no further guns.
          2. Zabvo 27 January 2020 18: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Wow, I’ve talked about the general melikanktsiya concept that Abrams is an anti-tank weapon. There is no OFS, but correctly, as you said, a universal projectile, but they still need to bring it, but there is already scrap.
    3. Alf
      Alf 21 January 2020 21: 20 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      although they told how he behaves against the 72, and not about grenade launchers

      And where did Abrams fight with MODERN versions of the T-72? In the Gulf? So there were no modern versions of the T-72 there, and no tank battles were noticed, mainly Warthogs and other flying riffraff fought against the 72s.
      1. Octopus 22 January 2020 00: 58 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Alf
        there were no modern versions of the T-72, and tank battles were not noticed, mainly Warthogs fought against 72

        1. “Basically” does not mean “exclusively”.
        2. Yes, B3 did not fight with the Abrams. Which of them is considered invulnerable about this?
        1. meandr51 26 January 2020 21: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, no one. It all depends on the command, strength and personnel. The technique is comparable.
    4. meandr51 26 January 2020 21: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Tanks with tanks almost do not fight. Armies and weapons systems are fighting in cooperation. If it is interesting who is stronger: a whale or an elephant, then see how the Hussites deal with them. T-72B3 in case of no worse than a sip ...
  3. certero 21 January 2020 08: 04 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Modern pturms absolutely do not care Abrams there or not Abrams.
    1. maidan.izrailovich 21 January 2020 10: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Modern pturms absolutely do not care Abrams there or not Abrams.

      Well, actually the video coming from Syria shows that not all tanks equally easy can hit with modern anti-tank weapons. .
  4. vvvjak 21 January 2020 08: 15 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Without mentioning the "Negro - Charging" some kind of inferior review of the shortcomings of the "Abrams". Everywhere there is - but not here, maybe they forgot? what
    1. Private-K 21 January 2020 09: 01 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      By the way, yes. For those who boast of their high-tech amers, the lack of automated loading of the Abrams tank is an object of objective ridicule.
      1. Den717 21 January 2020 09: 47 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        By the way, yes. For those who boast of their high-tech amers, the lack of automated loading of the Abrams tank is an object of objective ridicule.

        I would not laugh ahead of time. Our AZ / MZ has weak points, for example, the dimensions of the shot, which negate our "property". And the lead with vacuum to 2A46 may not work. And the Negro will push anything into the pipe. laughing
        1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 10: 34 New
          • 3
          • 6
          -3
          Quote: Den717
          And a black man will stuff anything into a pipe

          Hmm ... repeat
          1. Octopus 21 January 2020 11: 21 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Yes, the Negro-loader is longer than Mango, there's nothing to be done.
            1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 11: 27 New
              • 4
              • 8
              -4
              Quote: Octopus
              Negro-loader longer than Mango

              How does a wedge shutter work, never seen before? I'm afraid the Negro will not like it:


              UPD: and what, animashki and do not work? Well-oooh ... so uninteresting negative

              In short - the meaning is about the same as in guillotine shears)))
        2. Private-K 21 January 2020 19: 05 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Our AZ / MZ has weak points, for example, the dimensions of the shot, which negate our "property". And the lead with vacuum to 2A46 may not work.

          Do you reproach the AZ / MZ of the development of the late 1960s for not wanting to get into them the extended charges of the 2010-20s?
          The Russian Federation, by the way, has a READY frenzied AZ (like Leklerkovsky, only more interesting - batch reloading) on ​​the topic Burlak.
          1. Den717 21 January 2020 19: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Private-K
            The Russian Federation, by the way, has a READY frenzied AZ (like Leklerkovsky, only more interesting - batch reloading) on ​​the topic Burlak.

            Of course, there is ... But not on the equipment that is in the army today. Therefore, we can say - it is conditional. And I do not reproach at all, but say that there are no unambiguous phenomena. Each phenomenon has its plus and minus. Knowing this allows you to compensate for the disadvantages and strengthen the pros. Did I understand clearly?
        3. Alf
          Alf 21 January 2020 21: 22 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Den717
          And the Negro will push anything into the pipe.

          Especially “good” it turns out in cross-country traffic.
          1. Den717 21 January 2020 21: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Especially “good” it turns out in cross-country traffic.

            When a “Negro” doesn’t do it especially well, he loses his salary, trains and starts to turn out right. Such AZ / MZ as finances works well for them. This can be seen in the figures of the generals, especially when compared with ours. laughing
        4. ser56 23 January 2020 11: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Den717
          And the Negro will push anything into the pipe.

          There are always restrictions - for example, the distance from the cutoff bolt to the armor ....
          1. Den717 23 January 2020 13: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: ser56
            There are always restrictions - for example, the distance from the cutoff bolt to the armor ....

            I think yes. But modern and promising shells so far, apparently, fit into these limitations. At our AZ / MZ these restrictions are tougher.
            1. ser56 23 January 2020 13: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Den717
              At our AZ / MZ these restrictions are tougher.

              How reasonable is it to require tanks of the 1970s to demand compliance with current challenges after 50 years? Anyway - is this BOPS really needed in the ammunition of our tanks, given the presence of the Reflex-M guided missile with a tandem warhead and 900mm penetration armor?
              1. Den717 23 January 2020 13: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ser56
                How reasonable is it to require tanks of the 1970s to demand compliance with current challenges after 50 years?

                Any defense must meet modern challenges. Otherwise, this defense is worthless. Another thing is the balance of the necessary sufficiency of funds, its cost and the ability of the country's economy to maintain the necessary level of defense with an adequate social standard of living. Arms age issues are more relevant to manufacturing technology. For the sake of solving these problems, they also develop state management systems.
                Quote: ser56
                Is BOPS needed at all

                I think that is needed. Scrap is not subject to the effects of electronic warfare, active protection systems BTT. But then, while discussing modern BOPS, we evaluate its ability to penetrate armor in the most protected projection of the tank. But in a real combat situation that which is not taken in the forehead will be taken from the flanks. An example of this is the beaten Pz-V near Kursk. They beat them decently, and without defeating the VLD. Reflex, of course, is a promising thing, but smoothly on paper, and in the field there is dust, fumes and other unplanned "joys" for the laser beam.
                1. ser56 23 January 2020 16: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Den717
                  Any defense must meet modern challenges.

                  however, having only the latest weapons in service is not possible! and the probable enemy does not have it alone ... therefore, they launch Armata, and upgrade the T-72 ......
                  Quote: Den717
                  ohm is not subject to the effects of electronic warfare, active protection systems BTT.

                  I'm not sure about active protection - hitting an attacking element can change the geometry and / or give disturbance during flight request
                  Quote: Den717
                  by breaking through armor in the most protected projection of the tank.

                  those. refute yourself? request
                  Quote: Den717
                  and in the field of dust, children and other unplanned "joys" for the laser beam.

                  But for an optical sight?
              2. Vanches 28 January 2020 12: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                In addition to the BPS, there is also a TOUR, we have to make a rocket in two parts, amers are easier and there are no restrictions on elongation http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-01-31/8_armata.html
    2. Jack O'Neill 21 January 2020 09: 45 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Without mentioning the "Negro - Charging" some kind of inferior review of the shortcomings of the "Abrams". Everywhere there is - but not here, maybe they forgot? what

      Is manual loading really a "flaw"? Why?
      Do you know why we began to put AZ / MZ? No?
      1. vvvjak 21 January 2020 10: 10 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        Is manual loading really a "flaw"? Why?

        I somehow did not plan to arrange another "srach" about the advantages and disadvantages of AZ / MZ. I just came to work, brewed coffee and I see the title of the article: "The main problems and shortcomings of the Abrams tank", well, I think, I read once again about the "Negro - Charging", and then the "bummer".
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        Do you know why we began to put AZ / MZ? No?

        To reduce the reserve volume (well, as one of the reasons, let’s say so).
      2. Private-K 21 January 2020 13: 17 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Is manual loading really a "flaw"? Why?

        Manual loading requires an additional chela - charging. Which requires additional internal volume. Moreover, this volume, more than any other crew member, is spinning.
        The additional internal volume per loader, this is approximately an additional 30% of the internal volume. And this, in principle, increases the "parasitic" mass of the tank. In the presence of AZ / MZ, a tank weighing 40 tons has the same reservation level as 55 tons with a charging person.
        1. Jack O'Neill 21 January 2020 13: 26 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Manual loading requires an additional chela - charging. Which requires additional internal volume.

          Right!

          And this, in principle, increases the "parasitic" mass of the tank.


          And now we can recall the TK for our tanks, such as the T-64, for example. MZ / AZ - a necessary measure, in view of the refusal of the loader due to the layout of the tank.

          Amers had AZ in the same MBT program, but already in XM-1 they refused it.
          1. Sanichsan 21 January 2020 15: 28 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            And now we can recall the TK for our tanks, such as the T-64, for example.

            a good idea! Remind me why we have in TK a limitation on the mass of the tank, and in the USA the Abrams already cheerfully jumps to 70 tons?
          2. Private-K 21 January 2020 19: 01 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            You are incorrectly formulated. AZ / MZ is not a “forced measure”, but obvious scientific and technological progress. hi
            Amers in the development had a lot of things.
            In fact, we have what we have: the lack of our own workable tank AZ.
            And the French have it.
            But there are Japanese people.
            And the South Koreans, and those also have.
            But the "world high-tech hegemon" - no.
            And with the mass of the tank of extreme modifications Abrams - burns. Already 70 tons. For a Middle East theater of warfare with hard, dry soils, it is still back and forth, and for soft and moist soils of an East European theater of war, it is very doubtful (they will sit on the belly); only asphalt and gravel roads remain.
            And put it in Abrams AZ - you can, by reducing the internal volume, reduce the weight of the tower (new) tons by 10 without losing the level of protection.
            1. Jack O'Neill 21 January 2020 19: 17 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              You are incorrectly formulated. AZ / MZ is not a “forced measure”, but obvious scientific and technological progress. hi

              It is forced, since the volumes of the reserved space simply did not tumble to shove the inedible, namely, the loader.

              In fact, we have what we have: the lack of our own workable tank AZ.

              So yes, they have no serial AZ.

              And the French have it.
              But there are Japanese people.
              And the South Koreans, and those also have.
              But the "world high-tech hegemon" - no.

              So not needed. I do not think that it would be difficult for amers to make AZ during design

              And with the mass of the tank of extreme modifications Abrams - burns. Already 70 tons. For a Middle East theater of warfare with hard, dry soils, it is still back and forth, and for soft and moist soils of an East European theater of war, it is very doubtful (they will sit on the belly); only asphalt and gravel roads remain.

              They increase protection, in the first stage of the tower, therefore the weight is growing.
              Also, Americans can build a bridge with an engineering machine.
              In Nama, the Americans on the M113s got into the mud, so much so that neither Pattnon nor the ARV could pull out.
              In the north, by the way, they drowned with the T-54 no worse, but what is it, the PT-76 were awesome.

              And put it in Abrams AZ - you can, by reducing the internal volume, reduce the weight of the tower (new) tons by 10 without losing the level of protection
              .
              It’s possible, it’s possible to put a AZ like a Japanese one, with a BC in the tower. But the amers do not need this, they already have norms.
              1. Octopus 22 January 2020 15: 20 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                I do not think that it would be difficult for amers to make AZ during design

                The first AZ was made by the Americans. In the year 1943. Played, said no.

                Now AZ is on cannon strikeers.
  5. Free wind 21 January 2020 08: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    the key to 14 ... take it and pull it up ....
    1. novel66 21 January 2020 08: 21 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      14 inches?
  6. smaug78 21 January 2020 08: 20 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    There are many other questions of convenience for the Abrams crew, especially when compared with other, including modern Russian, tanks. - what, do not specify?))) Article-propaganda ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Private-K 21 January 2020 09: 03 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Well, in Armata, the crew is definitely more convenient than any other.
  7. maden.usmanow 21 January 2020 08: 28 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    There are many other questions of convenience for the Abrams crew, especially when compared with other, including modern Russian, tanks.


    Yes, in T 72 very conveniently crew, as in T 90. So much space.
  8. Pecheneg 21 January 2020 08: 34 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    All tanks are burning, everywhere, but not always. All the same, people are fighting. In most cases, the attitude is incorrect or negligent and leads to losses.
  9. smaug78 21 January 2020 08: 35 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    There are many other questions of convenience for the Abrams crew, especially when compared with other, including modern Russian, tanks.


    Yes, in T 72 very conveniently crew, as in T 90. So much space.

    And do not say good So I sit and think, T72 / 90 - the amount of reserved space is less than that of Abrams, but according to the author it is still more convenient ... Propaganda, you know ...
    1. wayden 21 January 2020 09: 04 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Is there anything less in Russian tanks per person?
    2. neri73-r 21 January 2020 09: 54 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: smaug78
      And don’t say good. So I am sitting and thinking, T72 / 90 - the amount of reserved space is less than that of Abrams,

      Yes, as a result of which both the silhouette is lower and less weight and armor are stronger.
    3. Sanichsan 21 January 2020 15: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: smaug78
      Propaganda, you know ...

      and you, sorry, sleep on the bed or go to the forest, where is there more space? space is not equal to convenience wink
  10. Yrec 21 January 2020 08: 54 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The main problem of "Abrams" is that it is expensive in production and awesomely expensive and difficult to operate. To maintain it in combat readiness in the army, it is necessary to maintain repair parts with highly qualified specialists and a large number of expensive spare parts (everything there just changes completely). Despite the fact that "Abrams" is in service with many countries, in real combat operation (and not 2 times a year in parades), 2 states - the USA and KSA can afford it. The economy of war is inexorable - it is necessary to quickly make up for the loss of technology. Wunderflags can only be smashed by the Papuans.
  11. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 14 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Quote: wayden
    Is there anything less in Russian tanks per person?

    Well, who's stopping you from calculating how much for each crew member there is a volume, see a photo of who has more space. And nothing that T72 / 90 have no kondeya?
  12. wayden 21 January 2020 09: 16 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    The main advantage of Abrams is a very good, powerful gun. And also a powerful forehead with a high probability of withstanding any projectile.
    The main problems are the low range of the course, a very strong overheating in the desert, which further reduces this course. And the most piquant is the horizontal dimensions that do not allow the tank to crawl into the narrow railway tunnels of the old European woman, which is why quite a few paths are stupidly closed for this tank. This is much more serious than the inconsistent bridges. The railway bridge will survive, but the tunnel will close the entire branch.

    In general, his security is greatly exaggerated. The tank is protected only in front, its sides and rear are so thin that even a large-caliber machine gun, not only a small cannon, and even more so a grenade launcher, will take it apart. It’s a shame for a tank, it should be designed for battle in the conditions of all-round defense, in fact, the Russian BMP is more protected than him. On the other hand, it is comparatively restored.
    1. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 19 New
      • 6
      • 7
      -1
      We are waiting for amazing stories about the thick-skinned rear of Russian tanks ... At the same time, we recall our burning tanks in Grozny ...
      1. wayden 21 January 2020 09: 22 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Only after the absence of amazing stories about how a sniper with a powerful rifle stopped punching the side of the abrams sideways. Stopping a heavy tank, lol.
        1. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 23 New
          • 5
          • 8
          -3
          They also write on the fence. And you about “We are waiting for amazing stories about the thick-skinned backside of Russian tanks ... At the same time, remember our burning tanks in Grozny ...” are you able to tell or merged?
          1. wayden 21 January 2020 09: 36 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            Are you hinting at yourself? Why is there so much zeal in protecting this technique? Household toys?
            Russian / USSR tanks were never positioned as invulnerable or the best in the universe, unlike. The problems in Chechnya were with the command that abandoned the tanks without cover and the fundamental shortcomings of the T-80 tank, with a horizontal conveyor of the automatic loader, which made it easy to detonate the T-80 ammunition from its top position, i.e. in urban conditions. In the Russian army, these Kharkov tanks have long been decommissioned.

            However, the fact remains: Russian tanks around the world are sold many times better than extolled Abrams. To be more precise, almost nobody needs abrams for their own money. They buy either Russian, or German, or Chinese, or quite old.
            1. Octopus 21 January 2020 10: 53 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              Quote: wayden
              Russian / USSR tanks were never positioned as ... the best in the universe, unlike

              Seriously?
            2. Alf
              Alf 21 January 2020 21: 27 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: wayden
              T-80 from the top position, i.e. in urban conditions. In the Russian army, these Kharkov

              ??
          2. dvina71 21 January 2020 09: 50 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: smaug78
            "able to tell or merged?

            listen to the participant of those events ..
            1. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 57 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              It is unlikely that local cheers (((
            2. Star Destroyer 21 January 2020 10: 45 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              The guy is a real hero, there is no stov.
              But there is a question, what killed the tank. Does LNG9 have armor-piercing / sub-caliber ammunition? For some reason, I hit that only fragmentation grenade and anti-tank (cumulative) grenade.
    2. Octopus 21 January 2020 11: 17 New
      • 6
      • 8
      -2
      Quote: wayden
      The main problems are the low range of the course, a very strong overheating in the desert, further reducing this course

      Interestingly, the Americans are still not aware of this main problem. MTU Abrams Diesel Kit has been around for 20 years.
      Quote: wayden
      the most piquant is the horizontal dimensions

      Old European Railway Dimension (PPI) - 3.15m. T-72 will not fit in it either.
      Quote: wayden
      its security is greatly exaggerated. The tank is protected only in front, its sides and rear are so thin

      It turns out that some are not aware that the idea of ​​circular equal-strength protivosnaryadnoy booking from the time of Matilda is outdated.
      Quote: wayden
      so thin that even a heavy machine gun will take it apart

      As soon as an American tank got large-caliber from the APU located in the tower basket (and filled the engine compartment with burning gasoline), Russian patriots wrote it off forever. The fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine immediately after this incident was hung in a box on a motor, and in the latest modification was removed under armor, no one is interested.
      1. Sanichsan 21 January 2020 15: 52 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        Interestingly, the Americans are still not aware of this main problem. MTU Abrams Diesel Kit has been around for 20 years.

        Browning M2 is 87 years old and the US continues to claim that it is a great machine gun and release it wink the fact that the US is releasing something does not mean that it is great. that means the US can release it yes
        Quote: Octopus
        Old European Railway Dimension (PPI) - 3.15m. T-72 will not fit in it either.

        it's good that you paid attention to it. the piquancy lies in the fact that neither Leclerc (3.75) nor Leopard (3.25) fits into these dimensions along the line laughing how will they go to the front? on the only railway line prepared? in the age of cruise missiles and precision weapons? wassat
        Quote: Octopus
        As soon as an American tank got large-caliber from the APU located in the tower basket (and filled the engine compartment with burning gasoline), Russian patriots wrote it off forever.

        Why not? request Are you, and your fellow amerophiles, constantly trying to write off the T-72 based on the defeat in Grozny? why do not we have the right to laugh at the "most invulnerable" American tank which was knocked out of a machine gun? in my very funny failure of American propaganda wink
        1. Octopus 21 January 2020 16: 15 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: SanichSan
          that the US is releasing something does not mean that it is great. that means the US can release it

          You mean that the Americans are not averse to delivering an Israeli KAZ and a German cannon, but a Westing attack is to put a German MTO? They for themselves studied the topic of Belarusian oysters up and down a hundred years ago.
          Quote: SanichSan
          go to the front? on the only railway line prepared?

          Normally reach, most roads are built on a wider dimension. And it will be very necessary - they will take me on a trailer like Merkava.
          Quote: SanichSan
          Are you trying to write off the T-72 based on the defeat in Grozny?

          Not in Grozny. According to Grozny, everyone understands that rams climbed into the city. In Iraq.
          Quote: SanichSan
          failure of American propaganda

          I don’t know what your relationship is with propaganda. Does someone tell you that the tower basket is invulnerable?
          1. Sanichsan 21 January 2020 16: 33 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            You mean that the Americans are not averse to delivering an Israeli KAZ and a German cannon, but a Westing attack is to put a German MTO? They for themselves studied the topic of Belarusian oysters up and down a hundred years ago.

            as you see wink and the gun is not German, but manufactured under a German license and is slightly different. Why are you broadcasting a propaganda lie? KAZ is the only non-American that Abrams has, and then on a meager scale.
            Quote: Octopus
            Normally reach, most roads are built on a wider dimension. And it will be very necessary - they will take me on a trailer like Merkava.

            Cheto in NATO do not share your optimism. Logistics problems in all recent major exercises.
            Quote: Octopus
            Not in Grozny. According to Grozny, everyone understands that rams climbed into the city. In Iraq.

            enchantingly repeat that is, everyone understands Grozny, but how does the export T-72 differ from those in the Soviet and Russian army, no one understands? So? about the fact that the export were cast towers, and not with combined armor, you do not know? Is the Iraqi T-72 without DZ also a secret? what
            Quote: Octopus
            I don’t know what your relationship is with propaganda. Does someone tell you that the tower basket is invulnerable?

            By the way about propaganda ... do not tell me where the bike came from that the T-72 does not pierce Abrams in the forehead? is there evidence photos not broken? examples of non-fatal injuries? or just a “statement of authoritative sources” based on data from Wikipedia? bully
            1. Octopus 22 January 2020 01: 49 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              Quote: SanichSan
              as you see

              As I see, the Americans do not consider the gas turbine engine as a solution requiring an urgent replacement. It is difficult to say how objective this is, and how much the desire to consider oneself the most intelligent makes itself felt.
              Quote: SanichSan
              and the gun is not German, but manufactured under a German license and is slightly different

              So what? You said this to the fact that the Americans with Rolls-Royce on German engines could not agree on localization?
              Quote: SanichSan
              Logistics problems in all recent major exercises.

              There are no problems with logistics per se. There are problems with the collapse of East European railway, as far as I am in the know. Either the dispatcher went home, before the strike, then the carrier demolished the pillar of the tank.
              Quote: SanichSan
              about the fact that the export were cast towers, and not with combined armor, you do not know? Is the Iraqi T-72 without DZ also a secret?

              And what does that change?
              Quote: SanichSan
              Do not tell me where the bike came from that the T-72 does not pierce Abrams in the forehead? is there evidence photos not broken? examples of non-fatal injuries?

              Who and for what purpose will conduct such tests and publish their results? In order to convince you to buy Abrams? Do you have money for this?
              1. Sanichsan 22 January 2020 15: 26 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Quote: SanichSan
                about the fact that the export were cast towers, and not with combined armor, you do not know? Is the Iraqi T-72 without DZ also a secret?

                And what does that change?

                probably the fact that in Iraq there were, to put it mildly, not the T-72s on the basis of which one can judge the security of the T-72s that are in service with the Russian army. wink I remember you recently wrote that everything is clear with Grozny, but Iraq is so ... it’s indicative, like.
                if you suddenly forgot, it's about propaganda. Considering how loudly American propagandists shout about the backwardness of the T-72 on the basis of the Iraq war, we have every right to scoff at the “most protected” Abrams tank, which disabled the 14mm bullet and remind us how Abrams are now burning hot in Yemen. if your curators don't like it, then ... it's very good laughing
                Quote: Octopus
                Who and for what purpose will conduct such tests and publish their results?

                the purpose of such research is obvious whether your tank burns from the first hit or withstand several hits of enemy shells and save the lives of tankers.
                publication? firstly it’s really good advertising, secondly it’s useful from the point of view of propaganda.
                but if there are no such publications, then apparently there’s nothing to brag about and the US prefers to remain silent on this subject.
                Quote: Octopus
                In order to convince you to buy Abrams? Do you have money for this?

                uh no bully everything is much more serious here. it's not about selling, but about the ability of the United States to protect its business and recent events show that with the projection of power, the United States is not doing as well as in 2000.
                By the way, here's another interesting fact, the Marine Corps, those who will carry out the projection of force in a real conflict are armed with M1A1 tanks. not even M1A2, not to mention all sorts of ceremonial CEP3 ...
                1. Octopus 22 January 2020 16: 32 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  probably the fact that in Iraq there were, to put it mildly, not those T-72s on the basis of which one can judge the security of T-72s that are in service with the Russian army

                  And who judges them? In Iraq, there was different armor and other shells, all of a sudden.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  but Iraq is yes ... it’s indicative, like.

                  You see, there is completely different indicative. It is indicative that a tank blitzkrieg is still alive and the Wehrmacht capable of executing it is still alive. Characteristically, they managed to execute the blitzkrieg on such heavy and such voracious tanks, generally without railways.

                  We reached Baghdad nonetheless.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  given how loudly American propagandists shout about the backwardness of the T-72 on the basis of the Iraq war, we have every right

                  I have no idea what kind of relationship you have with American propaganda. If your guideline for propaganda is the Discovery Channel’s “10 Best Tanks” program, then please.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  Abrams are now burning hot in Yemen.

                  We didn’t know something about the Arab tankers before? What is the difference between the Abrams in Yemen and the T-72 in Syria?
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  publication? firstly it’s really good advertising, secondly it’s useful in terms of propaganda

                  Advocacy against whom? American tankers are unlikely to be tormented by the question "why didn’t they give me the T-72?" Buyers, if they are interested, can conduct a tender and answer their questions independently.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  if there are no such publications, then apparently there’s nothing to brag about and the United States prefers to remain silent on this subject

                  If there are no publications, then obviously no one considers it necessary to publish such. Especially in order to convince you that 80 cm M829A4 is longer than 57 cm Patterns.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  recent events show that with the projection of power, the US is not doing as well as in 2000

                  They show you, they don’t show me.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  Marine Corps, these are those who will carry out the projection of force in a real conflict, armed with M1A1 tanks

                  Yes, the ILC is really shaving in American garbage dumps. What will happen to their opponents?
                  1. Sanichsan 22 January 2020 17: 04 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    you decide wink
                    or
                    Quote: Octopus
                    It is indicative that a tank blitzkrieg is still alive and the Wehrmacht capable of executing it is still alive.

                    or all
                    Quote: Octopus
                    We didn’t know something about the Arab tankers before?

                    and the blitzkrieg is very doubtful for a country of Iraqi scale. how much time did they pick there? I'm about surgery. so they are still forced to sit there.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    They show you, they don’t show me.

                    hmm .. it's probably even good bully
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Yes, the ILC is really shaving in American garbage dumps. What will happen to their opponents?

                    as the conflicts of the last 5 years have shown, their opponents will have Cornets, ToW and other variations on this subject, quite capable of destroying M1A1 in the forehead with one hit.
  13. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 25 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Private-K

    maden.usmanow
    Offline
    maden.usm

    Is Armata a serial tank with a long experience of operation in the army? laughing
  14. smaug78 21 January 2020 09: 42 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    I haven’t laughed like that for a long time laughing laughing laughing We look at where the M-T is located at the T-80, and again I am waiting for amazing stories about the differences between the M-T-80 "these Kharkov tanks have long been decommissioned." and T-80BVM. Learn T-64 from T80 to distinguish for a start. And what about "about the thick-skinned rear of Russian tanks ..." with the numbers, please, comrade talker ...
    1. wayden 21 January 2020 09: 57 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      Obviously not from a big mind. Learn to distinguish, for starters, the conveyor from everything else. Make an effort, find the scheme of your favorite tank ukro and how the conveyor is located. Suddenly, it may turn out that from the top window the shooter with a grenade launcher without straining can blow up the tank’s ammunition with a probability close to one. If it gets into a standing tank well.
      With the t-72, such a focus is considerably difficult because of the vertical arrangement of the shells and their greater recession behind a thin roof.

      And yes, do not bother about bvm. T-80 will not be produced (even in Ukraine, lol) and will not be produced. Nevertheless, there are still quite a lot of them and are looking for ways to refine them, even so. Still, the device was not bad in its own way.
      1. smaug78 21 January 2020 10: 06 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Ridiculous, T-80 and T-72 burned in Grozny. AZ and MZ are located under the tower.

        Let’s continue to talk about the vertical arrangement of shells at the T-72. And do not download, I did not ask you about the production. Although continue to make people laugh further ...
        And the horse "about the thick-skinned back of Russian tanks ..." with the numbers, please, comrade talker ... "able to answer? laughing
  15. V.I.P. 21 January 2020 09: 52 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    According to the experience of battles in the Middle East, Israeli KAZ Trophy is being purchased for Abrams. Tests and its integration on abrams have already passed. By the way, Germany also buys trophies on a leopard. And the English challenger is now testing for compatibility with the trophy ..... In addition, there is a modernization of the abramsya SEP 3 -additional armor on the sides (for fighting in the city). Well, the forehead in American tanks there is depleted uranium, and the fact that they sell to all other countries is another filler (it holds BOPS worse). And unlike our leaders from the Moscow Region, who thought up a bunch of KAZ (as many as 3 types), all developed countries put KAZ on combat tanks, and not on ostentatious front doors.
    1. dvina71 21 January 2020 10: 03 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: V.I.P.
      But forehead in American tanks there is depleted uranium

      If I’m not mistaken, the upper frontal part there is something approx. 30 mm .., without any damage .. This part is certainly not available for the tank gun bops .. However, there is a question what will happen to this tank under the artillery artillery strike .. And how KAZ will cope with the artillery battery MCA-S?
      1. Octopus 21 January 2020 10: 49 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Quote: dvina71
        how will KAZ deal with the artillery bomb of the MCA-S battery?

        No way. The Americans are very well placed counter-battery struggle.
        1. dvina71 21 January 2020 10: 51 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: Octopus
          The Americans are very well placed counter-battery struggle.

          Funny joke...
      2. Star Destroyer 21 January 2020 14: 04 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        If I'm not mistaken, the upper frontal part there is something ok 30mm
        80 mm
        Funny joke...
        and the question of whether the VLD of a tank can withstand an artillery shell is not a funny joke?)))
        1. Sanichsan 21 January 2020 15: 57 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Star Destroyer
          and the question of whether the VLD of a tank can withstand an artillery shell is not a funny joke?)))

          withstand it, it will withstand it, but the tank is likely to fall apart wink
          1. Octopus 22 January 2020 01: 52 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: SanichSan
            but the tank is likely to fall apart

            If you are not in the know, cluster munitions are used against tanks with mounted fire. OFS are practically not dangerous to them. So no, it will not fall apart, but it can lose mobility if it falls under a cloud of damaging elements.
            1. Sanichsan 22 January 2020 14: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              If you are not in the know, cluster munitions are used against tanks with mounted fire.

              yah! belay truth? right? this is news ... # sarcasm
              Quote: Octopus
              OFS are practically not dangerous to them.

              the bad news wink even a 120mm mine when it hits the turret causes breaks and damage to the crew by shrapnel of armor. the tank is blind and with a jammed tower. a direct hit of a more serious caliber may well destroy the tank in welds.
              Quote: Octopus
              So no, it will not fall apart, but it can lose mobility if it falls under a cloud of damaging elements.

              if you suddenly do not understand, then it is discussed what will happen with a direct hit of 152mm in the upper projection. not the efficiency of firing HE shells, it is not a question of whether the HE shell can penetrate the frontal sheet ...
              1. Octopus 22 January 2020 15: 35 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: SanichSan
                even a 120mm mine when hit in a tower causes breaks and defeat

                Get a mine in the tank tower? OK good luck.
                Quote: SanichSan
                direct hit of a more serious caliber

                Do it.
                Quote: SanichSan
                what will happen with a direct hit of 152mm in the upper projection

                Defeat the car. What is there to discuss?
                1. Sanichsan 22 January 2020 16: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Get a mine in the tank tower? OK good luck.

                  you photo Ferdinand after a direct hit FAB250 here attach or you will find wink I also recommend reading Carius’s memoirs. we have published under the name "Tigers in the mud." writes interesting things. for example, one of the most dangerous enemies is called mortars. I recall that he is talking about 1940-45. then adjustable ammunition was not particularly used, unlike today wink
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Do it.

                  yes regularly do. wink Look at the photo of Ukrainian equipment unrolled in the Ilovaisk boiler by artillery.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Defeat the car. What is there to discuss?

                  let's clarify, not just defeat, but in most cases, burning and not rarely complete destruction. like that:

                  or as
  16. smaug78 21 January 2020 10: 20 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: wayden
    the shortcomings of the T-80 tank, with a horizontal conveyor of the automatic loader, which makes it easy to detonate the T-80 ammunition from its top position, i.e. in urban conditions. In the Russian army, these Kharkov tanks have long been decommissioned.

    These are your words?
    Quote: wayden
    T-80 will not be produced (even in Ukraine, lol) and will not be produced. Nevertheless, there are still quite a few of them and are looking for ways to refine them, even so.

    How inconsistent are you, or is there no difference for you between decommissioning, modernization, and production? laughing laughing laughing
  17. Usher 21 January 2020 11: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Another “article” about nothing, the only thing that I learned was that Abrash had a hydraulic drive, which is strange of course.
  18. smaug78 21 January 2020 11: 33 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: neri73-r
    Quote: smaug78
    And don’t say good. So I am sitting and thinking, T72 / 90 - the amount of reserved space is less than that of Abrams,

    Yes, as a result of which both the silhouette is lower and less weight and armor are stronger.

    And the conversation was about the comfort of the crew ...
    And where can I see the formulas for the dependence of the "strength" of the armor on the volume of the reserved space? "Armata" was precisely designed by pests ...
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 11: 49 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Quote: smaug78
      And the conversation was about the comfort of the crew

      Dear, stop already ...

      1. The comfort of the crew is far from the main thing in the tank.
      2. Personally, "rode" on the T-55 and T-64. There is more space in the T-55, but riding in the T64 is more convenient (guess why three times).

      Yes, this is not about mehan, it’s understandable - the fact that there, what is there is the same, he has a special place.

      Something like that.
  19. The comment was deleted.
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 12: 04 New
      • 3
      • 7
      -4
      Quote: smaug78
      the conversation was about comfort

      Welcome.

      I affirm that it is more comfortable in ours. Because you’re sitting like a glove, and you don’t wander around the fighting compartment ...

      Refute yes
  20. smaug78 21 January 2020 12: 03 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: smaug78
    And the conversation was about the comfort of the crew

    Dear, stop already ...

    1. The comfort of the crew is far from the main thing in the tank.
    2. Personally, "rode" on the T-55 and T-64. There is more space in the T-55, but riding in the T64 is more convenient (guess why three times).

    Yes, this is not about mehan, it’s understandable - the fact that there, what is there is the same, he has a special place.

    Something like that.

    Dear, stop you, because the conversation was about him:
    "There are many other questions for the convenience of the Abrams crew, especially when compared with other, including modern Russian, tanks."
    PS Condey on the T90-M probably just wanted to put it, but the "Armata" just designed the pests ...
    Yes, and "rode" or fought ?.
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 12: 18 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      Quote: smaug78
      Yes, and "rode" or fought?

      I did not participate. Teachings wink

      But ours are still more convenient. Conde - relevant, probably in Syria, India, and other exotic. We in our middle lane were doing fine without him (khe-khe).
  21. smaug78 21 January 2020 12: 29 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: smaug78
    Yes, and "rode" or fought?

    I did not participate. Teachings wink

    But ours are still more convenient. We in our middle lane were doing fine without him (khe-khe).

    To say so, one must at least ride the foreign tanks with kondeem at the exercises ...
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 12: 35 New
      • 3
      • 9
      -6
      Quote: smaug78
      To say so, at least

      Man, don’t tell me, "what is needed to." And, I repeat, a condo is not at all important in a tank, it is not a representative limousine.

      Fight on our - more convenient. Even educationally. Living is probably more convenient in theirs.

      Just imagine at a pace walking along the easy intersection Abrashu with a Negro-loader reeling around in the BO ... brrrrrrr ... negative

      Abrash - more comfortable. T64, T72, T80 (in the rest, please, was not) - more functional. Something like this yes
  22. Ratmir_Ryazan 21 January 2020 12: 32 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    With these articles we reassure ourselves ?!

    Abrams surpasses our tanks in armored penetration of BOPS and is capable of hitting the T-72B3 / T-90 in the frontal projection from 2 km, since it is capable of penetrating 850 mm of armor with modern BOPS, but ours are not from the same distance, as they penetrate less than 540-650 mm, Abrams are protected in a frontal projection more strongly.

    And on board from an RPG, you can hit any tank and our tank breaks at least.

    We need to redo both guns and automatic loaders so that our tanks are at least as good.
  23. smaug78 21 January 2020 12: 36 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: smaug78
    the conversation was about comfort

    Welcome.

    I affirm that it is more comfortable in ours. Because you’re sitting like a glove, and you don’t wander around the fighting compartment ...

    Refute yes

    Yawning:
    1. Your statement is just your personal opinion, which does not interfere with the opinions of other tankers. And it is only your IMHO, since you did not ride in the same "Abrams".
    2. In "Armata" there is more space for the crew to work than in modern Russian Russian tanks.
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 12: 45 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Quote: smaug78
      Yawning

      Clear laughing

      Have you seen the tank yourself, except in HERE? I don’t even ask if they had taken ...

      Rhetorical question, come on in, I’m not holding you back anymore yes
  24. smaug78 21 January 2020 14: 09 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: smaug78
    Yawning

    Clear laughing

    Have you seen the tank yourself, except in HERE? I don’t even ask if they had taken ...

    Rhetorical question, come on in, I’m not holding you back anymore yes

    Abrams, just as seen on TopWar? I don’t even ask if they had taken ... So blow your cheeks elsewhere ... laughing
    With "Armata" the drain is also counted ...
    1. Golovan Jack 21 January 2020 14: 15 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Quote: smaug78
      Abrams, just as seen on TopWar?

      What I saw - I said.

      Quote: smaug78
      With "Armata" the drain is also counted ...

      Pure chat have gone, or what? It’s in vain, if so request
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. smaug78 21 January 2020 15: 04 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Golovan Jack
    Quote: smaug78
    Abrams, just as seen on TopWar?

    What I saw - I said.

    Quote: smaug78
    With "Armata" the drain is also counted ...

    Pure chat have gone, or what? It’s in vain, if so request

    Only you shake the air. What to do if you are replaced with knowledge and logic by hurray laughing
  27. smaug78 21 January 2020 16: 47 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: SanichSan
    Quote: smaug78
    Propaganda, you know ...

    and you, sorry, sleep on the bed or go to the forest, where is there more space? space is not equal to convenience wink

    Are you probably more comfortable sleeping on a folding bed than on a double bed? And let's tell and show why the combat work of the crew in tanks of the T-72/90 family is more convenient than in Abrams. And probably, the MO’s decision to increase the size of the BO in "Armata" for the convenience of the crew from the crafty, as well as installing the kondeya on the T-90M? laughing
  28. The comment was deleted.
    1. 75 Sergey 21 January 2020 21: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Does he turn the turret towards the strike automatically?
  29. 75 Sergey 21 January 2020 20: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Hurry up, tired!
  30. About 2 26 January 2020 09: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The author forgot to mention the manual loading of the abrams gun
  31. Gosha Smirnov 28 January 2020 12: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Abraha has only one significant drawback - the high price and very high weight. All other flaws in even larger quantities are present in the rest of the inventory. Remarkable tank. The T72-T14 family is utter slag and is not near.