Military Review

In the US, publicly showed prototypes of "light tanks"

135
In the US, publicly showed prototypes of "light tanks"

Prototype combat vehicle Griffin II


The first public demonstration of prototypes of tracked combat vehicles with cannon weapons (light tanks) developed under the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. It is reported by the Pentagon press service.

On April 23, 2020, U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy visited the General Dynamics Ground System and BAE Systems in Detroit, where he got acquainted with the prototypes of the presented vehicles created as part of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. This program provides for the creation of a tracked combat vehicle weighing no more than 32 tons, equipped with cannon weapons of 105 or 120 mm caliber and an active defense complex.

On December 17, 2018, the United States Ground Forces entered into two contracts with BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) for more than $ 375 million and $ 335 million, respectively. Under the agreement, each firm was to build 14 prototypes over the next 12 months for further testing. According to the test results, by the end of 2021 one of the samples will be selected, and in 2022 it is planned to begin mass production. In total, it is planned to purchase 504 serial MPF machines.


A prototype combat vehicle based on the light tank M8

The U.S. Department of Defense will choose from two samples: BAE Systems has proposed a new version of the M8 Armored Gun System, developed by FMC at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s to replace the M551 Sheridan light tank. The M8 tank had a combat weight of 19 to 25 tons, depending on the version of the interchangeable protection kit and was equipped with a 105 mm M35 gun in a remote installation with an automatic loader. Judging by the new prototype of the MPF machine based on the M8, the updated version has enhanced armor reservation and gun installation.

General Dynamics offers the all-new Griffin II light tank. Griffin II is a symbiosis of the modified turret of the M1A2SEPv2 Abrams tank and the ASCOD 2 chassis. The new 120mm XM360 cannon was chosen as the gun. The combat weight of Griffin II reaches 38 tons.
Photos used:
www.flickr.com/photos/sec-army-pao
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 26 2020 09: 00 New
    +9
    How long have Americans been struggling to create an effective light tank. So far, to no avail.
    Lightness comes at a price too high - the life of crews in upcoming battles. Perhaps modern KAZ will change the situation.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent April 26 2020 09: 08 New
      24
      General Dynamics offers the all-new Griffin II light tank. Griffin II is a symbiosis of the modified turret of the M1A2SEPv2 Abrams tank and the ASCOD 2 chassis. The new 120mm XM360 cannon was chosen as the gun. Griffin II combat weight reaches 38 tons

      Earlier, I have already spoken about the mass of this "light tank" in a similar way, but the comment was received negatively.
      But still, I repeat - The mass of 38 tons (and it can still increase) is not a characteristic light tank in the common sense.

      Such a mass is already close, for example, to the MBT T-80, with 42 tons of mass ...
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 April 26 2020 09: 26 New
        10
        For Americans, it's under 40t. Their distinctive feature is the rapid deployment of tanks by air. Including and parachuting.



        Both platforms (Ajax and M8) passed the landing tests. In fact, they are now taking the tower and all kinds of electronics, KAZs, and a generally arranged solution. Ajax (Griffin) is a more modern and modernizing unit. The M8 is a child of the Cold War in make-up, but it’s African (though the tank is now BAE, the entertaining fully American General Dynamics castling took the European Ajax chassis, and the American branch of the British BAE uses the American M8 chassis).
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 26 2020 09: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: donavi49
          Ajax European chassis

          In the sense of ASCOD?
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 April 26 2020 09: 53 New
            +8
            Yes, but this is the base platform, and here they made a British decision for Griffin on this platform, and it is somewhat different from even ASCOD 2, and it has gone very far from ASCOD.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 April 27 2020 00: 11 New
              +1
              Throughout this event, it is interesting: who will buy and how much?
              If there is a lot and the army - it means against us.
              If a little and marines - then against China.
              And in our forests and on the islands in China, Abrams is heavy and inapplicable. hi
              1. Alexander mosin
                Alexander mosin April 27 2020 17: 21 New
                -2
                Quote: Alex777
                And in our forests and islands in China, Abrams is heavy and inapplicable.

                This is all nonsense, what difference does Abrams have when the pressure on the ground is important, in kg / cm. Abrams is heavier than T-72B3, T-90 as much as it has more track area when it touches the ground. You can finally see various tenders, from Sweden, Finland, or Greece, where T-80 / T-72 and Leo2 participated, for example, there were no advantages in cross-country ability for Soviet-Russian tanks. Even if you imagine the war against the United States in the territory of the PRC, or the Russian Federation, you can hardly expect that the Africans will leave their Abrams at home.
                1. Fmax
                  Fmax April 28 2020 02: 53 New
                  +2
                  there is a chip in overcoming water barriers. Where to get bridges for abrams ...
                  1. Alexander mosin
                    Alexander mosin April 28 2020 03: 16 New
                    -2
                    The problem with the bridges is just as far-fetched as the weight, which supposedly interferes with cross-country ability. Where necessary, the engineering troops will send the crossing in the shortest time. Can a trailer with T-72/90 on board move along bridges? Do you think that in the Russian Federation there are only rope bridges? For some reason, the Wehrmacht was not prevented not only by the lack of bridges, but also by roads so that they could reach Moscow and even reach Stalingrad.
                    1. Alex777
                      Alex777 April 28 2020 10: 58 New
                      +1
                      You are very off topic. Alas. hi
                      1. Alexander mosin
                        Alexander mosin April 28 2020 16: 39 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Alex777
                        You are very off topic. Alas.

                        A very strong argument! Add that I’m a Russophobe, since I don’t repeat any nonsense a la - Abrams can only ride the roads, not a single bridge can stand it, because the bridges in the Russian Federation can withstand exactly 48 tons!
                      2. Alex777
                        Alex777 April 28 2020 18: 07 New
                        +1
                        Where necessary, the engineering forces will make the crossing in the shortest time.

                        Just ask: what is the size and capabilities of these NATO forces.
                        It's nothing personal. hi
                      3. Alexander mosin
                        Alexander mosin April 29 2020 19: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alex777
                        Just take an interest:

                        I know. You can see how the engineering troops build bridges and what opportunities they have for this. And I don’t see any particular problems, Russia is not a continuous swamp.
    2. Reserve buildbat
      Reserve buildbat April 26 2020 10: 23 New
      14
      Air transport and parachute landing of 40 tons of tanks? What do you smoke there? On the frames of the chronicle S-130, which can barely tear 20t from the ground. Learn materiel, shitty somehow propaganda.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 11: 01 New
        11
        this M8 could be thrown off .. they had one weight category with our Octopus, and here it was up to 38 tons, in fact, you can carry it, but dumping is fraught ..
        1. Military77
          Military77 April 26 2020 11: 37 New
          18
          Why? You can reset, but only once)))
        2. jonht
          jonht April 26 2020 11: 39 New
          +5
          Well, what if instead of a big bomb, an American "light" tank?
          I think if the BC explodes on impact, the funnel will be good wassat
          Joke.
          PS. Hamers already threw in Germany, it turned out not very with damaging factors. hi
          1. Reserve buildbat
            Reserve buildbat April 26 2020 11: 43 New
            +2
            And what to raise? Do you rent an IL-76 from Russia? laughing
            1. Oleg83
              Oleg83 April 26 2020 12: 24 New
              +8
              Quote: stock buildbat
              And what to raise? Do you rent an IL-76 from Russia? laughing

              C-17 Globemaster
              1. Reserve buildbat
                Reserve buildbat April 26 2020 12: 25 New
                +1
                Breaks down. There is enough carrying capacity, but it is not designed for such a concentrated load.
                1. Oleg83
                  Oleg83 April 26 2020 12: 36 New
                  +3
                  Quote: stock buildbat
                  Breaks down. There is enough carrying capacity, but it is not designed for such a concentrated load.


                  C-17 Bradley transports water 2 (under the terms of the tender, a new BMP must also have the same mass and transported C-17) or am I mistaken?
                  And these light tanks have the same mass as Bradley
                  1. Reserve buildbat
                    Reserve buildbat April 26 2020 12: 50 New
                    +5
                    The question is, TRANSPORTING or LANDING. These are "two very big differences." Mriya can transport 4 T-80s, but only from the airfield to the airfield. Here is the same trouble)
                  2. Oleg83
                    Oleg83 April 26 2020 13: 17 New
                    +3
                    Quote: stock buildbat
                    The question is, TRANSPORTING or LANDING. These are "two very big differences." Mriya can transport 4 T-80s, but only from the airfield to the airfield. Here is the same trouble)

                    Carries, almost 40t is still problematic to drop (the landing of the Octopus is 18t)
                    Only the Swedish Strf 90 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strf_90) and only the lightest 23t can adapt to NATO
          2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) April 26 2020 16: 23 New
            0
            IL-76 learned to carry something dimensional?
            1. Reserve buildbat
              Reserve buildbat April 26 2020 16: 28 New
              +1
              Is BMD a trifle? A couple of them plus the paratroopers. Or is "oversized" no less than an abrashka or a carrot? So we don’t have such big ass laughing
              1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) April 26 2020 16: 37 New
                +1
                BMD is a trifle

                It’s nice for the great mighty one who can afford to have her own transporter for each model of equipment.
      2. Sniper Amateur
        Sniper Amateur April 28 2020 03: 07 New
        -2
        Here I am my age (although a young soul and member good ) Chef gently whispers in his ear that
        from the board of this product:
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-133_Cargomaster
        - in the 1960s, quite successful airborne landing of the M48 tank was carried out on an amorphous platform by the "pull-off" method. wink
    3. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat April 26 2020 11: 39 New
      +6
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      Air transport and parachute landing of 40 tons of tanks?

      What's wrong with that? If desired, both 70-ton abrams and 200-ton mouses are completely landing, the main thing is that two points would be provided:
      1) a braking system for this mass is implemented - it is solved due to the number of domes and a higher reset point, well, or the power of a jet brake
      2) the aircraft stabilization system is implemented when the balance is changed and there is sharp relief - it is solved due to the emf and mechanization
      So the main question is expediency, and judging by our Airborne Forces it is more expedient to have weaker equipment, but in larger numbers
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 April 26 2020 14: 57 New
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        If desired, both 70-ton abrams and 200-ton mouses are completely landing, the main thing is that two points would be provided:

        Another third point is a transport plane, which will lift that kind of weight painlessly ...
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat April 26 2020 16: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Albert1988
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          If desired, both 70-ton abrams and 200-ton mouses are completely landing, the main thing is that two points would be provided:

          Another third point is a transport plane, which will lift that kind of weight painlessly ...

          At the present time, this is not so relevant, because the progress of aircraft engines does not stand still. Yes, and "painlessness" is just about point "2" due to which the laminar air flow at the wing and engines breaks down.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 April 26 2020 21: 14 New
            0
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            At present, this is not so relevant, because the progress of aircraft engines does not stand still.

            It’s not just the engines, there’s a lot to be done over the glider — you’ll show me another plane that will lift at least a couple of abrashs, not to mention some hypothetical "200-ton mouse".
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            Yes, and "painlessness" is just about point "2" due to which the laminar flow of air at the wing and engines breaks down.

            And that too ...
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat April 26 2020 21: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              It’s not just the engines, there’s a lot to be done over the glider — you’ll show me another plane that will lift at least a couple of abrashs, not to mention some hypothetical "200-ton mouse".

              *) well, for the sake of all khalivar, the record for the an-225 = 156t is just under two abrams (<65t), well, the Stratolaunch Model 351 has a design 250t so that the mouse + SP + fairing must pull wassat
              *) But seriously: you did not understand me, the VTA is limited by the power plant, not the glider, so the glider can be made under any load as long as the engines pull. But no one makes such aircraft because there is practically no benefit from them. Judge for yourself who needs a "super-truck" if he needs 5-10 km of runway during takeoff, and all have 3 km or even less. This is what limits the development of the super-heavy VTA, while the "airframe durability" questions about the quality of production, modeling, engineering and technical education, etc.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 April 26 2020 21: 59 New
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                But no one makes such aircraft because there is practically no benefit from them. Judge for yourself who needs a "super-truck" if he needs 5-10 km of runway during takeoff, and all have 3 km or even less.

                That is the point! And how much will the development cost ... So it is easier to make a landing machine easier, sorry for the pun))) The question then is - why so heavy the car, right up to 38 tons ?!
                1. shinobi
                  shinobi April 27 2020 01: 12 New
                  +1
                  Why speak? Because the Yankees are trying to shove something that is not shoved into a light machine.
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 48 New
                  0
                  Quote: shinobi
                  Why speak? Because the Yankees are trying to shove something that is not shoved into a light machine.

                  That is, to combine a small mass and mobility with thick armor ... As a result, neither mobility / lightness nor thick armor.
              2. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 27 2020 01: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Albert1988
                And how much will the development cost ... So it’s easier to make the landing machine easier, sorry for the pun)))

                This is a highly controversial statement, and the final result of the comparison depends on who considers what, and more precisely what is put in the common denominator.
                Quote: Albert1988
                The question then is - why

                And then to once again stand on a rake. For many years now, I have generally noticed a strange tendency that the work of analysts and developers is transferred to design engineers, design engineers, and even technical engineers. The result is garbage ... (in my opinion, here is either the problem of different professional thinking and / or the problem of education in the field of analytics (there is no such school subject))
              3. Albert1988
                Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 51 New
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                This is a highly controversial statement, and the final result of the comparison depends on who considers what, and more precisely what is put in the common denominator.

                Any aircraft is more expensive to develop than a BBM. It’s another matter if an aircraft is being developed for a wide range of tasks and its development cost will be paid off in other areas, but you yourself said that such an aircraft will have overclocking acceleration, not all airfields will accept it.
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                And then to once again stand on a rake. For many years now, I have generally noticed a strange tendency that the work of analysts and developers is transferred to design engineers, design engineers, and even technical engineers. The result is garbage ... (in my opinion, here is either the problem of different professional thinking and / or the problem of education in the field of analytics (there is no such school subject))

                Or the lobby is to blame here - note that a finished chassis is taken that is not intended for airborne landing and an almost finished tower is already taken. just plainly lighter than the original. That is, they blinded from what it was to give orders to the relevant companies.
              4. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 27 2020 14: 01 New
                0
                Quote: Albert1988
                Any aircraft is more expensive to develop than a BBM.

                Not a fact, for example, I compared for myself in different ways and the results were very different and ambiguous (though I compared VTA with VVPZ (VTOL) under one heavy armored vehicle, and not "super-trucks"). You add to the denominator the cost of development, production and operation, and not only technology but also its means of production, personnel training, etc. etc.
        2. Sniper Amateur
          Sniper Amateur April 27 2020 23: 13 New
          -2
          well, for the sake of all khalivar, the record for the an-225 = 156t is just under two abrams (<65t)

          Even "Ruslan" had a record of 171 tons. And "Mriya" had 254. It holds 5 tanks.
  • Alexander mosin
    Alexander mosin April 27 2020 17: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
    So the main question is expediency, and judging by our Airborne Forces it is more expedient to have weaker equipment but in larger numbers

    It should be judged by combat use. It is not yet clear which is better, weakly protected, but in greater quantity, or with serious protection, but less. So in an armed clash, the danger for airborne equipment will begin already from 50 caliber machine guns, M2 with a bang with its armor-piercing can pierce BMDs, especially "anti-material rifles", and then 25-40mm BMPshek and armored personnel carriers. How to answer the Airborne Forces in this situation? 2A42, or 2A72, not a single American armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle is taken head-on, Derivation from its 57mm is probably more powerful .., but she is like Armata, nothing is clear about her, up to the plans of the Ministry of Defense with her. So what remains? 2nd generation ATGMs? Against a high-tech enemy, ATGMs with laser guidance and target holding can become a big problem for the ATGM calculations themselves, since modern machines instantly detect laser irradiation and can plant a projectile at the source, throw a smoke screen and knock it down. The Americans, on the other hand, have a third-generation ATGM system, fire-forget.
  • Lara Croft
    Lara Croft April 26 2020 11: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: stock buildbat
    Air transport and parachute landing of 40 tons of tanks? What do you smoke there? On the frames of the chronicle S-130, which can barely tear 20t from the ground.

    Yes, the S-130 could transfer the Shermans, which were removed from service with the 82nd Airborne Division of the 18th Airborne Forces of the US Army during the XB period ... but it weighed less than 20 tons ...
    M551 Sheridan had a length of 6,3 m with a width of 2,8 m and a height of 2,95 m. The combat mass of mass-produced vehicles is OK. 15,2 tons The tank could accelerate on the highway to 70 km / h or up to 5 km / h on the water. Cruising on the highway - 565 km. It could be transported by military transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as landing in various ways.

    https://topwar.ru/161860-legkij-tank-m551-sheridan-ssha.html
    On the other hand, the United States has the S-5 and S-17, however, they will only be able to transport the tank indicated in the article by landing method (possibly combined, although hardly likely) ....
  • Navat
    Navat April 26 2020 13: 48 New
    -2
    And what KAZs go there?
    1. Fmax
      Fmax April 28 2020 02: 59 New
      0
      Israeli trophy looks like ...
  • knn54
    knn54 April 26 2020 09: 56 New
    +1
    I am not a tanker, but structurally the "British" and "American" are very similar. Except that the first one has a 105 mm rifled, and the Yankees have a turret from Abrams and a 120 mm gun.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 26 2020 10: 19 New
    +6
    Yes, the light tank that you find fault with, it’s just under fat bass body-positive Americans created! laughing
    1. for
      for April 26 2020 13: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      that you find fault, it’s just created under the fat bass of body-positive Americans!

      And as a trophy for our generals.
  • Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev April 26 2020 11: 54 New
    +6
    they all are not like people)
    although in fact these are already "medium tanks"
  • Aborigen4ik
    Aborigen4ik April 27 2020 04: 20 New
    +1
    That's right!
  • Alex777
    Alex777 April 27 2020 10: 46 New
    0
    To take a tower from a 70-ton tank and put it on a light tank is an impressive decision.
    In the photo, the thickness of the hull side armor is such that I venture to suggest: 57 mm of high ballistics in this side of the hole will drill quickly and a lot. hi
    1. Alexander mosin
      Alexander mosin April 27 2020 18: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Alex777
      I’ll venture to suggest: 57 mm of high ballistics in this board of holes will drill quickly and a lot

      And is something already known for 57mm high ballistics? Line BC with Podkallibernymi and their penetration? We still have to be able to approach the sides, but hardly in the forehead. Yes, and there’s nothing to say at all until this Derivation is brought to mind and that ultimately works out. In addition, the naked Tank in the photo, in a transportable / airborne state, is already bolted in place.
  • 113262a
    113262a April 26 2020 12: 53 New
    +3
    t-64-exactly 38 tons
  • Alexander mosin
    Alexander mosin April 27 2020 16: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: Doccor18
    How long have Americans been struggling to create an effective light tank. So far, to no avail.

    To no avail? Minimum 3 tanks to choose from. They have no problem developing such a tank, the problem is choosing. By the way, the M8 can carry a 120mm gun and has a AZ. In addition, he has a full body kit has serious protection, besides they can deliver KAZ. The Americans pulled rubber because they wanted an acceptable level of protection and now that there is a choice from KAZ systems, they can only choose from ready-made machines.
  • figwam
    figwam April 26 2020 09: 02 New
    -1
    Off-topic.
    On Yamal, the Mi-26 collapsed during an emergency landing.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent April 26 2020 09: 09 New
      10
      Quote: figvam
      On Yamal, the Mi-26 collapsed during an emergency landing.

      With the crew, what? Are you alive?
      1. figwam
        figwam April 26 2020 09: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Insurgent
        With the crew, what? Are you alive?

        Yes, there were 8 reportedly all alive, but there are serious injuries. It’s good that it didn’t catch fire.
  • Amateur
    Amateur April 26 2020 09: 09 New
    +4
    And what's that? The driver’s hatch as on the T-34?
    1. Avior
      Avior April 26 2020 09: 36 New
      -1
      In the new Family Guy, as can be seen from the picture, the upper frontal sheet is at a small angle, almost horizontally
      And in the m8, the sunroof is really worth it
      They do not expect that they will shoot at him with armor-piercing ones?
  • prior
    prior April 26 2020 09: 20 New
    -5
    Due to internal problems in the United States, a civil war will soon begin between the Democrats and the Republicans, between whites and colors, in short with everyone, and a light tank will be very relevant and in demand.
    Waiting, sir ...
    1. mark1
      mark1 April 26 2020 09: 38 New
      +9
      Quote: prior
      a light tank will be very relevant and in demand.

      Then they need not prepare "light" tanks, but armored trains - keep the highways from motorized cars from the prairies
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Navat
      Navat April 26 2020 13: 50 New
      -2
      Quote: prior
      Due to internal problems in the United States, a civil war will soon begin between the Democrats and the Republicans, between whites and colors, in short with everyone, and a light tank will be very relevant and in demand.
      Waiting, sir ...



      Prior, I appreciate your sense of humor)))
    4. Aborigen4ik
      Aborigen4ik April 27 2020 04: 23 New
      0
      I'm shocked with the current VO sad
      Why is it so minus that for any attack towards the crafty overseas "partners"?
  • Double major
    Double major April 26 2020 10: 01 New
    +2
    And what's new? They put a tank tower on the BMP-shku ... But the armor remained bulletproof ... We have such BMPs, with a gun, for many years.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi April 27 2020 01: 19 New
      +2
      But nothing is new under the moon. This comrade thought that these devices are intended to drive lightly armed groups of the population and I agree with him. On the other hand, against the army branch, he lives until the grenade launcher takes aim.
      1. Alexander mosin
        Alexander mosin April 27 2020 18: 19 New
        -1
        Quote: shinobi
        Then the comrade thought that these devices are intended to drive lightly armed groups of the population and I agree with him.

        I agree with what, with delusional fantasy, that this tank was created by people to drive?))
        Quote: shinobi
        Against the army branch, he lives until the grenade launcher takes aim.

        Yeah, a martyr grenade launcher, with very small chances to approach unnoticed altogether and burn such a machine from an RPG. In addition to passive armor and armored screens, which should keep all kinds of RPGs and LNGs, there is also KAZ. BMDs and BMPs have even weaker armor, but something the Russian Armed Forces do not worry about using them in all sorts of conflicts.
        1. shinobi
          shinobi 1 May 2020 03: 40 New
          0
          Yes, yes, the statistics of the loss of armored vehicles in Afghanistan and two Chechen armies, for general education.
    2. Alexander mosin
      Alexander mosin April 27 2020 18: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: Twice Major
      But the armor remained bulletproof ... We have such infantry fighting vehicles, with a gun, for many years.

      Why is it just bulletproof armor? There armor is more serious than that of BMP 1,2,3, in all places, I can no longer compare with BMD. Even with Humvee, armor is stronger than bulletproof.
  • Graz
    Graz April 26 2020 10: 04 New
    +1
    even I doubt that the griffin of 38 tons can be dropped with a parachute system, the m8 passed all these tests at one time, for the American Airborne still the m8 is more sensible, but for the ground forces if they need LT, the griffin is more about
  • Lionnvrsk
    Lionnvrsk April 26 2020 10: 04 New
    +8
    Well, now I'm calm for Polish roads and bridges! laughing
    1. Grits
      Grits April 26 2020 11: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: LIONnvrsk
      Well, now I'm calm for Polish roads and bridges!

      So for this, apparently, they are preparing.
    2. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi April 26 2020 12: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: LIONnvrsk
      for Polish roads and bridges is calm!

      Shaw, no landmine will take?
  • Izotovp
    Izotovp April 26 2020 10: 08 New
    +4
    Such a machine can cause many problems on the battlefield, strengthening advanced units.
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 10: 57 New
      +4
      provided that the enemy will not have tanks and infantry fighting vehicles ..
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha April 26 2020 11: 37 New
        +4
        Yeah, and anti-tank systems. Such an enemy, without tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and anti-tank systems. No one comes to mind except penguins in Antarctica and Hare Krishnas.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 12: 55 New
          +1
          Well, they can stir up KAZ against anti-tank systems .. but this is +2 tons. There is a feeling that they are trying to shove the unapproved .. so that there is a full tank, but up to 38 tons, it was convenient to carry the plane .. the problem is that 38 tons, ideally, can give only about 200 mm of armor in the forehead .. that is . any tank with a 105 mm cannon can destroy it at a distance of 2 km .. and if you take our tanks, it can also penetrate from 3 km .. For me, it was either necessary to upgrade the M60, or to make a normal tank in weight up to 45 tons
          1. Alexander mosin
            Alexander mosin April 28 2020 03: 28 New
            -1
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            the problem is .. that 38 tons ideally can give only about 200 mm of armor in the forehead ..

            A very interesting statement!)) Is this generally what follows? Do you want to say that the forehead of this car is weaker than the sides of the German Puma, which in the full RPG body kit around the entire machine holds? The whole muzzle will be guaranteed to hold Mango type BOPs, which, by the way, can be seen in the muzzle, by the mounts for additional screens and DZ, and against the Cornets and the like there are a lot of types of effective protection adopted for armament.
    2. Graz
      Graz April 26 2020 12: 03 New
      +1
      nobody will keep light tanks in the advanced units (unless it is an airborne force)
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp April 26 2020 12: 26 New
        -2
        Airborne Forces, KMP, aeromobiles. This is an analogue of our Octopus.
        1. boriz
          boriz April 26 2020 12: 46 New
          +2
          That's just Octopus can swim, but these?
          1. Izotovp
            Izotovp April 26 2020 12: 51 New
            0
            I agree. It’s more difficult for them.
        2. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 12: 56 New
          +2
          no, this is not an analogue, because on the one hand it is heavier and better armored, and on the other hand it is not mobile like our Octopus ..
          1. Izotovp
            Izotovp April 26 2020 13: 02 New
            0
            Tactically, he is likely to occupy the same niche as the Octopus. It's just that their tanks were always heavier.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 22: 33 New
              0
              rather try to borrow. I personally wait when our announce that they will do LT Octopus based on BMP-3
  • Free wind
    Free wind April 26 2020 10: 25 New
    0
    Griffin2 has a front engine, well, they couldn’t pull the cardan through the whole tank like the Germans, to the transmission, which is clearly from the front. These dudes are not fighting with the vulture, they are not fighting with the macaronovirus, there are no masks, some are irresponsible.
    1. Alex_You
      Alex_You April 26 2020 12: 17 New
      +1
      And what is wrong with the front MTO? The tank is lightweight, additional protection in the form of MTO will not hurt, and the tower is shifted back.
  • awdrgy
    awdrgy April 26 2020 10: 32 New
    +5
    Interestingly, he holds on board the CPV or zu-23-2?
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov April 26 2020 10: 57 New
      +5
      Zushka.From KPVT they now have a standard of protection
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 26 2020 10: 51 New
    +3
    Something among the Americans Griffin-ov divorced! To .... chords and more! Tank, BMP, missiles! And there’s an airport and a bunch of namesake American Griffins!
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 26 2020 10: 52 New
    +4
    Griffin is like Merkava. Front engine.
    The driver is not centered.
  • Klingon
    Klingon April 26 2020 11: 00 New
    +6
    hmm ... truncated Abrams in 38t.
    and since the gun and the tower are the same, then chocolate Joe also remains in place laughing
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith April 26 2020 11: 38 New
    +7
    Nichrome yourself, is this a shed - a "light" tank?
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy April 26 2020 11: 56 New
    +4
    In the US, publicly showed prototypes of "light tanks"
    Brad. fool It should be like this “less heavy tanks” repeat
  • Amin_vivec
    Amin_vivec April 26 2020 12: 36 New
    +2
    With one KAZ and without DZ))) It’s very bold))) Although then the DZ will still appear, and the tank’s weight will become normal 45-50 tons))))
  • Oleg83
    Oleg83 April 26 2020 12: 40 New
    +2
    The U.S. ILC is going to abandon tanks, such a light tank would suit them
  • Maas
    Maas April 26 2020 12: 45 New
    +2
    Somehow he's too tall. Such a colossus is not too similar to a light tank.
  • Incompetent
    Incompetent April 26 2020 13: 18 New
    -2
    The prototype Griffin II combat vehicle looks very impressive! In my purely subjective opinion, the T-72B3 will be able to withstand it in force. Amerikos has a tower from the new Abrams and I won’t be surprised if KAZ is also available. We should rather introduce new models into the troops so that parity is ..
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 26 2020 15: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Incompetent
      because amerikos tower from the new Abrams

      You can ask - what does it mean "from new abrasms" - do they have a new one? Did I miss something? And then, the Abrashi tower weighs about 30 tons, the whole griffin 2 machine weighs 38 tons, that is, its body weighs only 8 tons? How does he fight with such a center of gravity?
      Quote: Incompetent
      and I won’t be surprised if KAZ is also available.

      And how will KAZ save him from the T-72? The T-72 will light up the griffin with BOPS, even if it is old, and KAZ is not "Afghani" amers - BOPS does not take ...
      1. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 April 26 2020 20: 39 New
        +3
        Quote: Albert1988
        how does he fight with such a center of gravity?

        And he does not fight anywhere, for only the sample hatched. And then the demon knows him ... request
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 April 26 2020 21: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Paranoid50
          And he does not fight anywhere, for only the sample hatched. And then the demon knows him ...

          Yes, everything is clear with such a machine - the tower there is heavily chipped in terms of armor, so, given the layout, which in itself increases the weight, the armor there is very, very modest - our old "mango" will beat it at the departure of kilometers from 2 ...
          1. Paranoid50
            Paranoid50 April 26 2020 21: 22 New
            +3
            Quote: Albert1988
            the armor there is very very modest

            They are haunted by the old concept of "cavalry" tanks. yes
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 April 26 2020 21: 31 New
              +1
              Quote: Paranoid50
              They are haunted by the old concept of "cavalry" tanks.

              Rather, they have a need to make an analogue of our octopus or BMP-3, but they despair the desire to weigh heavier with armor, and something medium comes out - a very bad tank (in terms of security) and a very poor airborne armored infantry fighting vehicle (in terms of mobility and transportability)
      2. Alexander mosin
        Alexander mosin April 28 2020 17: 04 New
        -1
        Quote: Albert1988
        But how will KAZ save him from the T-72?

        The Germans several years ago stated that their KAZ AMAP ADS is capable of intercepting targets up to 2000m / s. Unlike Afghanistan, which no one has ever seen, especially its tests, AMAP ADS were demonstrated back in 2009. I believe that the latest Jewish KAZ cope with BOPS. In addition, even if KAZ does not intercept the Mango BOPS, then judging by the mounts on the VLD, the machine receives additional armor and can DZ, which should be enough for Mango, or their Chinese counterparts.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 April 28 2020 17: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Mosin
          The Germans several years ago stated that their KAZ AMAP ADS is capable of intercepting targets up to 2000m / s.

          This, dear, declared goal speed, but what is the type of goal? BOPS and ATGM - so far, as they say in Odessa, there are two big differences, it’s more difficult to intercept the first one than the second)))
          Quote: Alexander Mosin
          Unlike Afghanistan, which no one has ever seen, especially its tests, AMAP ADS were demonstrated back in 2009.

          How can I tell you that you can demonstrate anything, moreover, if this thing was shown in the work, then there are no special secrets in its action ... Do it yourself, deducing ...
          Quote: Alexander Mosin
          I believe that the latest Jewish KAZ cope with BOPS.

          Only now, none of the creators of the "European KAZ" has not officially announced this yet, so believe anything - reality will have it ...
          Quote: Alexander Mosin
          In addition, even if KAZ does not intercept the Mango BOPS, then judging by the mounts on the VLD, the machine receives additional armor and can DZ, which should be enough for Mango, or their Chinese counterparts.

          Again, DZ has very little effect on BOPS, it works strongly against cumulative, but "armored breakers" are already much more difficult to keep. So you need thick passive armor, but it is not, because then the mass of the car will be completely oh-she-she ... And no DZ will effectively protect thin armor from BMP ...
          So it turns out the machine is not intended to fight with serious tanks, or is it intended to fight only with blind tanks, which they will not be able to see first, I admit here)))
          1. Alexander mosin
            Alexander mosin April 28 2020 18: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            How can I tell you that you can demonstrate anything, moreover, if this thing was shown in the work, then there are no special secrets in its action ... Do it yourself, deducing ...


            And what should be the secrets in the action of KAZ? No ATGMs fly at such speeds, which means it’s the opposite of BOPs. If even dill Barrier intercepts BOPs.

            Quote: Albert1988
            Only now, none of the creators of the "European KAZ" has not officially announced this yet, so believe anything - reality will have it ...


            I will believe that I consider it necessary, because I proceed from their technological level, which in this topic is no worse than the Germans.

            Quote: Albert1988
            Again, DZ has very little effect on the BOPS, it works strongly against cumulants, but "armored breakers" are already much more difficult to keep.


            This applies to such DZs as Kontakt1, or 5 and their peers, more modern DZs, such as dill Knives / Duplets, are kept and this was demonstrated in real combat.

            Quote: Albert1988
            So you need thick passive armor, but it is not, because then the mass of the machine will be very oh-oh-her ...


            And who said that this Griffin's forehead has insufficient passive armor? In addition, his engine is in front, which additionally provides protection + additional armored plates and DZ.

            Quote: Albert1988
            So it turns out the machine is not intended to fight with serious tanks, or is it intended to fight only with blind tanks, which they will not be able to see first, I admit here)))


            You do this, although you do not have any data on the thickness and composition of the armor of the forehead of this Tank. BOPS Mango in comparison with modern BOPS has not only significantly lower armor penetration, but also the problem of speed loss for every 100m, 2 times in comparison with long, thin crowbars like DM63. But you also have to understand why they are made! For the American Airborne Forces, airborne and sudden attack, capture of important objects and hold before the main forces pull up. This tank is not an ash tree for dueling at point blank range, but others have nothing close to support their airborne forces. Octopus is not an example, due to lack of armor. And again, blind tanks, the SLA of Russian tanks is seriously inferior to the western ones, sights are at the level of the late 80s, so from a distance Griffin will shoot them with impunity and will quickly detect them.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 April 28 2020 19: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              And what should be the secrets in the action of KAZ? No ATGMs fly at such speeds, which means it’s the opposite of BOPs.

              When the S-300 was released, the speed of the targets it hit was only for the ICBMs, but this does not mean that it could shoot down ICBMs ...
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              . If even dill Barrier intercepts BOPs.

              Don’t joke like that, no one can intercept BOPS so far, except for Afghanite, but there aren’t a lot of it yet ...
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              I will believe that I consider it necessary, because I proceed from their technological level, which in this topic is no worse than the Germans.

              Well, you can dream up even a proton revolving carbolizer ... Based on technology - while no one is effectively intercepting BOPS ...
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              This applies to such DZs as Kontakt1, or 5 and their peers, more modern DZs, such as dill Knives / Duplets, are kept and this was demonstrated in real combat.

              This applies to all DZ, and the "ukropskie" in battle proved only that they cripple their carrier during detonation is almost stronger than the ammunition itself, which they reflect ...
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              And who said that this Griffin's forehead has insufficient passive armor?

              Its mass is 38 tons with such dimensions ...
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              In addition, his engine is in front, which additionally provides protection

              The front location of the engine DOES NOT provide protection, especially from BOPs, it was proved back in the Second World War, when ordinary caliber armor-piercing vehicles pierced vehicles for take-off along with the dvigol ... The front location of the engine makes it convenient to evacuate / disembark from the vehicle, for which such equipment was adopted on Merkava .
              Quote: Alexander Mosin
              You do this, although you do not have any data on the thickness and composition of the armor of the forehead of this Tank.

              There is quite data for itself - its mass and approximate dimensions are known, plus it is known which chassis and tower are taken, the rest can be estimated approximately.
              But I agree - it is worth waiting for military use - where and against whom will it be used and will I be laden with tons of additional armor before use, which will be carried separately, but then what is the point in this machine?
              1. Alexander mosin
                Alexander mosin April 29 2020 19: 05 New
                0
                Quote: Albert1988
                When the S-300 was released, the speed of the targets it hit was only for the ICBMs, but this does not mean that it could shoot down ICBMs ...

                So the S-300 did not create against ICBMs, why this comparison? And KAZ creates dangerous interceptions for tank interception, no matter what flies into it. Do you understand the principle of operation of all KAZs? And why hadn’t it been possible to intercept the scrap before? You believe, for 2-3 decades did not advance in technology ?? And I’m pretty sure that the Jews did learn how to intercept BOPS, but they have several types of first-generation KAZ on the market that need to be sold. And secondly, you see, at the moment only ATGMs are threatening Western tanks, since BOPs of potential opponents do not penetrate any Western tank in the frontal projection, passive armor is sufficient. But for light tanks, of course, the same Mango is dangerous in the forehead, but light tanks are not created for duels, but for landing and quickly seizing the bridgehead, a situation where the enemy is taken by surprise and he does not have time to deploy a serious, organized rebuff.

                Quote: Albert1988
                Don’t joke like that, no one can intercept BOPS so far, except for Afghanite, but there aren’t a lot of it yet ...

                Nobody saw this Afghanite in the eye, but he is the only one who can .. But the video of the Barrier tests is on the network, where this KAZ, including BOPS, is intercepted.

                Quote: Albert1988

                This applies to all DZ, and the "ukropskie" in battle proved only that they cripple their carrier during detonation is almost stronger than the ammunition itself, which they reflect.


                DZ Duplet on the T-64BM Bulat was tested in combat against the firing of T-72B3 BOPS. The tank withstood the hit, having lost a couple of blocks on the left, remained combat-ready and burned back the T-72B3 with return fire. This is a well-known episode from Debaltseve, and Kobzon even visited a burnt mechvod. Where is the DZ Knife, or are the doublets mutilated by the crews? You do not confuse with the detonations of the damaged T-64A with Contact 1 ??

                Quote: Albert1988
                Its mass is 38 tons with such dimensions ...


                And what size is it? He has a platform from the BMP, much smaller in size than from the M1.

                Quote: Albert1988
                The location of the engine in front does NOT provide protection, especially from BOPs, it was proved back in the Second World War, when ordinary caliber armor-piercing vehicles pierced vehicles for take-off along with dvigl ...


                I love examples from the Second World War ... And even during the Second World War tanks from ATGMs knocked out .. There is also combined armor in front of the engine, as well as after the engine and it doesn’t give anything ?? !!


                Quote: Albert1988
                There is quite data for itself - its mass and approximate dimensions are known, plus it is known which chassis and tower are taken, the rest can be estimated approximately.


                No, it’s impossible, not knowing the layout of the armored hull, the composition and thickness of the armor. Modern armored steel is 50% more armored than armored 60-70x with the same weight, plus composites and ceramics.

                Quote: Albert1988
                But I agree - it is worth waiting for military use - where and against whom will it be used and will I be laden with tons of additional armor before use, which will be carried separately, but then what is the point in this machine?


                The point is in air transport and air landing. Add. armor is screwed in the field for 15min.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 April 30 2020 13: 27 New
                  0
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] So the S-300 was not created against ICBMs, why is this comparison? [/ quote]
                  In addition, air targets can be very different.

                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] A KAZ is created to intercept a tank of dangerous projectiles, no matter what flies into it. [/ quote]
                  You are mistaken - It’s very important because the differences between the ATGM and the BOPS are, of course, not the same as between the aircraft and ICBMs, but still very large))) To begin with, that intercepting a missile practically guarantees its destruction, but you can intercept the BOPS , but here it’s almost impossible to destroy it at the same time, and knocking it off course is also a very difficult task))))
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] since BOPSs of potential opponents do not penetrate any western tank in the front projection, passive armor is sufficient. [/ quote]
                  Well, yes - against the doptopic BOPSs that are in service with all kinds of third world countries there - of course, if they have BOPSs at all, and not the same cumulative and also old ones ...
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] But for light tanks, of course, the same Mango is dangerous head-on, but light tanks are not created for duels, but for landing and quickly seizing a bridgehead, situations when the enemy is taken by surprise and he does not have time to deploy a serious, organized fight back. [/ quote]
                  Only when taken by surprise can you run into enemy tanks ...
                  Even if we assume that in this case the destruction of tanks will be assigned solely to other means, then the very fact of meeting such a machine with a full-fledged MBT cannot be ruled out.
                  [Quote = Alexander Mosin] No one has seen this Afghanit in the eyes, but he is the only one who can .. But the video of the tests of the Barrier is on the network, where this KAZ, including BOPS, intercepts.
                  [/ Quote]
                  Dear)))) Barrier - there is a banal light cosmetic modernization of the old Soviet development, as, in general, everything that modern Ukraine "develops", and he intercepts BOPS. maybe and maybe, but at the same time seriously affect the BOPS ...
                  And in the video a lot of things can be shown - this has already been popularly explained to all of us on the Internet))))
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] DZ Doublet on T-64BM Bulat was tested in combat against shelling by BOPS T-72B3. The tank withstood the hit, losing a couple of blocks on the left, remained combat-ready and set fire to the T-72B3 with return fire. This is a famous episode with Debaltsevo, and Kobzon even visited a burnt mechanic. [/ quote]
                  Well, about the tales of Ukrainians about rebars burned, we remember)))
                  Suppose we really determined that it was a BOPS, suppose we found the core itself later ... But there is one thing, but at what angle did this BOPS light up in the tank? This is in case this tale is real. What about the knife and the doublet - when they hit them, they detonate with such force, and more containers are conceived than necessary, which cause severe shell shock in the crews.
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] s not to be confused with the detonations of the wrecked T-64A with Contact 1 ?? [/ quote]
                  The T-64 was detonated not because of contact, but because of the detonation of the ammunition and flew into the trash in general because of the quality of steel below the baseboard ...
                  And they detonated like that with any remote sensing in case of damage to the ammunition.
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] [quote = Albert1988] When the S-300 was released, the speed of the targets it hit was only for the ICBMs, but this does not mean that it could shoot down ICBMs ... [/ quote]
                  So the S-300 did not create against ICBMs, why this comparison? And KAZ creates dangerous interceptions for tank interception, no matter what flies into it. Do you understand the principle of operation of all KAZs? And why hadn’t it been possible to intercept the scrap before? You believe, for 2-3 decades did not advance in technology ?? And I’m pretty sure that the Jews did learn how to intercept BOPS, but they have several types of first-generation KAZ on the market that need to be sold. And secondly, you see, at the moment only ATGMs are threatening Western tanks, since BOPs of potential opponents do not penetrate any Western tank in the frontal projection, passive armor is sufficient. But for light tanks, of course, the same Mango is dangerous in the forehead, but light tanks are not created for duels, but for landing and quickly seizing the bridgehead, a situation where the enemy is taken by surprise and he does not have time to deploy a serious, organized rebuff.
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 April 30 2020 13: 27 New
                  0
                  [quote = Albert1988] Don’t joke like that, no one can intercept BOPS so far, except for Afghanite, but there isn’t much of it yet ... [/ quote]
                  Nobody saw this Afghanite in the eye, but he is the only one who can .. But the video of the Barrier tests is on the network, where this KAZ, including BOPS, is intercepted.

                  [quote = Albert1988]
                  This applies to all DZ, and the "ukropskie" in battle proved only that they cripple their carrier during detonation is almost stronger than the ammunition itself, which they reflect. [/ Quote]

                  DZ Duplet on the T-64BM Bulat was tested in combat against the firing of T-72B3 BOPS. The tank withstood the hit, having lost a couple of blocks on the left, remained combat-ready and burned back the T-72B3 with return fire. This is a well-known episode from Debaltseve, and Kobzon even visited a burnt mechvod. Where is the DZ Knife, or are the doublets mutilated by the crews? You do not confuse with the detonations of the damaged T-64A with Contact 1 ??

                  [quote = Albert1988] Its mass is 38 tons with such dimensions ... [/ quote]

                  And what size is it? He has a platform from the BMP, much smaller in size than from the M1.

                  [quote = Albert1988] The location of the engine in front does NOT provide protection, especially from the BOPs, it was proved back in the Second World War, when ordinary caliber armor-piercers pierced cars to fly out with dvigl ... [/ quote]

                  I love examples from the Second World War ... And even during the Second World War tanks from ATGMs knocked out .. There is also combined armor in front of the engine, as well as after the engine and it doesn’t give anything ?? !!


                  [quote = Albert1988] There is quite some data for itself - its mass and approximate dimensions are known, plus it is known which chassis and tower are taken, the rest can be estimated approximately. [/ quote]

                  No, it’s impossible, not knowing the layout of the armored hull, the composition and thickness of the armor. Modern armored steel is 50% more armored than armored 60-70x with the same weight, plus composites and ceramics.

                  [quote = Albert1988] But I agree - it is worth waiting for combat use - where and against whom will it be used and will I weigh tons of additional armor before use, which will be carried separately, but then the point is in this machine? [/ quote]

                  The point is in air transport and air landing. Add. the armor is screwed in the field for 15 minutes. [/ quote]
                  If a simple caliber projectile took armor in the forehead, flew through the fighting compartment and punched or knocked out the rear armor plate - that says a lot.
                  And yes - combined armor is more from cumulative, BOPs are blocked by the density and size of the armor.
                  And yes - the front location of the engine saves from cumulative, and the BOPs put it in a good way - it will break through both layers of armor and the engine and fly into the BO.
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] No, you can't, not knowing the layout of the hull, the composition and thickness of the armor. Modern armored steels are 50% more armored than 60-70x armored steels with the same weight, plus composites and ceramics. [/ Quote]
                  Composite materials and ceramics. just like steel - this is not a panacea, this is one, two - if the armor can be so lightened, why are Western tanks almost up to 70 tons almost grown?
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] And what size is it? He has a platform from BMP, much smaller in size than from M1. [/ Quote]
                  Strongly not a fact - the body volume of modern infantry fighting vehicles is not less than that of MBT))))
                  [quote = Alexander Mosin] Meaning in air transport and airborne landing. Add. the armor is fastened in the field in 15 minutes. [/ quote]
                  In 15 minutes you won’t have time to physically fasten it, this is one, two, but what's the point in such road transport? Carry armor and drive anyway? If you only carry different planes and with a lower carrying capacity, which means you can sit on a larger number of airfields)))
    2. shinobi
      shinobi April 27 2020 01: 41 New
      +1
      The whole thing is that all the Yankees armored vehicles have more or less serious armor only in the frontal projection. The new Abrasha tower does not give much in terms of security.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 26 2020 14: 08 New
    +4
    If you look soberly to the situation, you need a base from the average BMP shooting range Kurganets (boomerang) and BO type of our SPRUT ..... Maybe lengthen to the rink.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 26 2020 15: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      If you are sober to the situation,

      If you take a sober approach to the situation, it is generally not clear what they are counting on with such a machine - the mass is huge, and the armor is clearly not tank ... At the same time, it will not be able to swim and calmly land from aircraft, like the same octopus ...
    2. avdkrd
      avdkrd April 27 2020 02: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      If you look soberly to the situation, you need a base from the average BMP shooting range Kurganets (boomerang) and BO type of our SPRUT ..... Maybe lengthen to the rink.

      I agree with the type of base, but the BO defines the concept of application. If this is a light tank, then 57 mm is already enough firepower combined with ATGMs, the module from BMP3 is even better in my opinion.
      It all depends on the place in the battle formations and the concept of application.
      If such a tank will be thrown on the motorized rifle regiment in the forehead, then its fate will be sad both on the chassis from Kurganets and from the BO from Sprut. Security is lower than the default MBT. If you use LT as an aircraft mobile replacement for MBT, for example, when seizing bridgeheads and offensive operations in low-intensity conflicts, then in combination with UAVs and good situational awareness, this can be a good tool.
      For amers, perhaps a reasonable idea is to create LT. Its functionality may be revealed in their military campaigns. For a reasonable budget, this idea is not so good. What can't BMP 3 do compared to LT? A little more modern devices related to the awareness of the crew and units, the same Dragoon easily devotes both amer prototypes. Although it does so.
      The same Octopus is an LT with tank firepower, which in my opinion lacks modular reservations, but it is not in our army simply because there is no niche for it.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 27 2020 08: 24 New
        +1
        Octopus, for the sake of landing, is made on the basis of BMD .. hence the level of booking .. the concept of use must be watched. It is unlikely that there are tank attacks in it.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Octopus, for the sake of landing, is made on the basis of BMD .. hence the level of booking .. the concept of use must be watched. It is unlikely that there are tank attacks in it.

          So here is the choice - either landing, or tank attacks ... At the same time it will not work.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 27 2020 14: 13 New
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            So here is the choice - either landing, or tank attacks ... At the same time it will not work.

            Nefakt, take light / medium armored troop-carrier with modular reservation and transport a reinforced heavy tank armor for it with a separate side or flight. The main thing here so that modular booking is modular in reality, and not on paper. Airmobile units already have a similar system, there is only a smaller scale there, based on armored vehicles, not tanks .. (look for information from military exhibitions for MTR and DRG)
  • Zlo
    Zlo April 26 2020 17: 41 New
    +1
    In Belarus, wedges are coated with stealth technology. So I think our tanks are flying light. They fly and heavy, only low-low.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 26 2020 19: 11 New
      0
      The Belarusian 2T is generally an interesting beast, far ahead of its time in terms of the use of stealth technologies on BTT ...
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 27 2020 08: 24 New
        0
        Bullshit, it seems to me.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Bullshit, it seems to me.

          You shouldn’t be so! At one time it was a very interesting car, now. Of course, she doesn’t look like that anymore, but still ...
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 27 2020 11: 05 New
            0
            What is he for?
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 April 27 2020 11: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              What is he for?

              BRDM)))) Although today, I admit, the concept is a little outdated, but for the beginning of the 00s there was a very progressive machine)
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek April 27 2020 13: 10 New
                0
                There is an option and BMP3 ... and already lighter cars like the Tiger. And the most interesting is that the Belarusians themselves did not take it into service.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 April 27 2020 17: 50 New
                  0
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  There is an option and BMP3 ... and already lighter cars like the Tiger.

                  BMP-3 is still not stealth, and the Tiger still does not have such a cross. But I agree - now the concept is somewhat outdated.
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  And the most interesting is that the Belarusians themselves did not take it into service.

                  There was infa that they exploited several units. And the fact that they didn’t take it en masse is understandable - there wasn’t much money.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek April 27 2020 18: 52 New
                    0
                    And for the Russian Federation to adopt another chassis .... as it is not very right. Belarusians had to push the tower. Maybe they would succeed.
                    1. Albert1988
                      Albert1988 April 27 2020 19: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Zaurbek
                      And for the Russian Federation to adopt another chassis .... as it is not very right. Belarusians had to push the tower. Maybe they would succeed.

                      Let's just say, then Russia could not accept anything new - not a whole chassis. not even a separate tower, but now the train has left - because we don’t want to depend on the supply of military equipment from the CIS ...
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek April 27 2020 20: 39 New
                        +1
                        As practice shows .... that's right! But Belarusians can learn and offer what is prohibited for sale in the Russian Federation ....
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity April 27 2020 07: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Zlo
      So I think our tanks are flying light. They fly and heavy, only low-low.

      It depends on how much in "TNT equivalent" to fill the tank.
  • avdkrd
    avdkrd April 27 2020 01: 59 New
    +2
    Somehow it was not at all impressed. The feeling of helplessness of American designers.
    Maybe a loss of competence?
    Structurally archeity is simply striking. Soviet Object 934 "Judge" was an order of magnitude more advanced machine. It is clear that modern devices can provide much more functionality, but this does not mean that by placing a laser sight on a bow, you can get a better result than with a laser sight on a musket.
    The Polish version of the light tank based on pl-01 looks deadly in comparison with these crafts,
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 55 New
      0
      Quote: avdkrd
      Somehow it was not at all impressed. The feeling of helplessness of American designers.
      Maybe a loss of competence?

      Rather, lobbyism - businessmen come to the drafters of the order and say - put our tower! and take our chassis, and our gun! Etc. So it turns out an unbalanced hybrid ...
  • riwas
    riwas April 27 2020 06: 02 New
    +3
    More pictures.


    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 27 2020 10: 55 New
      +1
      Cropped tower abrashi on BMP chassis ...
  • Alecsandr
    Alecsandr April 27 2020 11: 30 New
    +2
    In the photo, this "light" tank already pulls the middle rank. Apparently they realize that Abrams is too heavy to ride in Europe and trample European lawns.
    1. Sniper Amateur
      Sniper Amateur April 27 2020 23: 25 New
      -2
      Based on restrictions on road bridges - a tank for a war in Europe can already be made 80-ton without problems ..
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 April 28 2020 17: 58 New
        0
        Quote: Sniper Amateur
        Based on restrictions on road bridges - a tank for a war in Europe can already be made 80-ton without problems ..

        Only here most bridges and roads in the same Baltic-Poland do not agree with you, to say the least)))
        And besides the roads there is also rough terrain, and from there an 80-ton machine will demonstrate all the richness of European languages ​​in obscene expressions, we will still learn from them obscene language in Russia!
        1. Sniper Amateur
          Sniper Amateur 3 May 2020 10: 48 New
          -2
          It was not I who believed, the "British" imperialists believed. smile They say that the integral mobility of an 80-ton tank compared to 60-ton when using cars within the geographic borders of NATO in Europe and Asia Minor will fall by an average of only about 10%.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 29 2020 11: 09 New
    0
    A sort of more protected Octopus-D in the American version. So they need such a car.