Military Review

A schematic comparison of the T-14 Armata tank with the Merkava, Abrams and other tanks is shown.

186

"It is better to see once than hear a hundred times". This phrase “techies” is changed to the option “It’s better to see a chart or diagram once than look at the numbers a hundred times”. Apparently, it was this approach that those who presented a schematic view of the visual comparison decided to implement on the network tankscreated in different countries of the world.


In the Twitter account of a Canadian engineer from Toronto, Mikhail Mikhailovich, a series of images appeared, where he visualizes the comparative characteristics (in terms of size) of such tanks as the Russian T-14 Armata, Israeli Merkava, American Abrams, French Leclerc, German Leopard 2, Chinese Type-99, and Ukrainian T-84BM Oplot.

Such visualization shows that the T-14 Armata is longer in the hull of each of the tanks with which this comparison is made.



If we talk about specific numbers, the hull length of the new generation T-14 Armata Russian tank is 8732 mm with a height of 2,7 m. The same performance with the American M1A2 Abrams - 7925 mm and 2,4 m, with the Israeli tank Merkava "- 7450 mm and 2,66 m, at Oplot - 7075 mm and 2,28 m, at the German Leopard 2 - 7700 mm and 2,79 m, for Leclerc - 6880 mm and 2,95 m. By the way , the Chinese Type 99 is 14 cm longer than the Russian T-12 in length with the cannon. The height data may vary due to the fact that we are talking about accounting for add-ons and certain weapons over the tower.

Based on these indicators, we can judge how much they correspond to the above comparison schemes of armored vehicles.
Photos used:
Twitter / MihajlovicMike
186 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NIKN
    NIKN 23 June 2020 10: 09 New
    30
    Our gun is longer ... :)
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 23 June 2020 10: 23 New
      29
      And even thicker.
      1. blackice
        blackice 25 June 2020 04: 46 New
        +8
        And this is when it’s cold. laughing
    2. Civil
      Civil 23 June 2020 10: 28 New
      +6
      Not a correct comparison, the t-14 tower is uninhabited!
      1. Trevis
        Trevis 23 June 2020 10: 38 New
        +8
        Quote: Civil
        Not a correct comparison, the t-14 tower is uninhabited!

        And with what to compare then?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 23 June 2020 11: 02 New
          20
          Quote: Trevis
          And with what to compare then?

          What is the meaning of these comparisons? Face off cannabis guns?
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 23 June 2020 11: 29 New
            16
            Dimensions. The article deals only with this.
          2. orionvitt
            orionvitt 23 June 2020 15: 55 New
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            What is the meaning of these comparisons?

            In dimensions. A big goal is always more convenient. It is conventionally believed that a decrease in the height of the tank by 10 cm is a decrease in the probability of its destruction by 10%, respectively. Reduced height by 0,5 meters, compared with the enemy, received minus 50% percent of the probability of defeat.
            1. poquello
              poquello 23 June 2020 19: 19 New
              +2
              Quote: orionvitt
              Quote: NEXUS
              What is the meaning of these comparisons?

              In dimensions. A big goal is always more convenient. It is conventionally believed that a decrease in the height of the tank by 10 cm is a decrease in the probability of its destruction by 10%, respectively. Reduced height by 0,5 meters, compared with the enemy, received minus 50% percent of the probability of defeat.

              there was such a dogma, but since that time the radar on the tank appeared, the aircraft intensified, the tracking systems are new, IMHO the main thing is the impact of the shock wave, stability, well, they’ll check the pipe
            2. Camel
              Camel 23 June 2020 19: 31 New
              +9
              It is conventionally believed that a decrease in the height of the tank by 10 cm is a decrease in the probability of its destruction by 10%, respectively. Reduced height by 0,5 meters, compared with the enemy, got minus 50%

              And reduced by 1 meter, got an invulnerable tank? The truth is small, but absolutely invulnerable! wassat A tank with a height of 0,5 meters (well, such a small winked ) one appearance of his incapacitates the enemy. So?
              1. orionvitt
                orionvitt 24 June 2020 15: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Camel
                So?

                Not this way. You need to read carefully. I have written "Conditionally considered" and "compared with the enemy." And your speculation "got an invulnerable tank" is not even drawn to irony.
                1. Camel
                  Camel 24 June 2020 16: 22 New
                  +1
                  Colleague, I'm sorry, but “Conditionally considered” is just very funny! And who sets these conditions? Well, about the percent of invulnerability of the tank, I didn’t want to pin you up, but this very convention. Sorry if it was a shame. hi
                  1. orionvitt
                    orionvitt 25 June 2020 06: 21 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Camel
                    And who sets these conditions?

                    Do you even understand the difference between conditions and conventions? In meaning, these are completely different things. However, as I look, you do not care. Your own wave is more important.
            3. Anton Valerevich
              Anton Valerevich 23 June 2020 19: 58 New
              +2
              Now the accuracy of the guns is such that the desire to reduce the projection area of ​​the tank is meaningless.
            4. kris_67
              kris_67 24 June 2020 11: 13 New
              +4
              FGM-148 do not care what height he hits the roof.
            5. Bryanskiy_Volk
              Bryanskiy_Volk 24 June 2020 22: 56 New
              +4
              never argue with fools - a waste of time hi
            6. cat striped
              cat striped 25 June 2020 10: 36 New
              +1
              Correct me if I'm wrong - a decrease in height by 1 meter and the tank is almost invulnerable?
        2. Elena Zakharova
          Elena Zakharova 26 June 2020 10: 39 New
          0
          There are no analogues; all world tank brands lagged behind us.
      2. demo
        demo 24 June 2020 10: 24 New
        +1
        Let the crew climb out of the Ambrams.
        And then everything will be ok!
    3. iouris
      iouris 23 June 2020 10: 46 New
      +2
      The task is usually formulated as follows: "Do as" they have, "but a half meter longer."
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 23 June 2020 10: 10 New
    +1
    Well, it turned out more than usual, more than others ... the only question is the content of this more! How much will it be or not, in front of everyone else?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 June 2020 11: 29 New
      +7
      Quote: rocket757
      How much will it be or not, in front of everyone else?

      Just like at a casting in a p.o.s.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 23 June 2020 11: 42 New
        +1
        Hardly ... destructive power is not comparable.
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 23 June 2020 11: 59 New
          +8
          The fact that “Armata” lost the advantage in smaller dimensions (the Soviet school) and became the best target was noticed immediately with its appearance at the parade.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 23 June 2020 12: 35 New
            +5
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            The fact that “Armata” has lost the advantage in smaller dimensions

            There is a lot of controversy among experts ... what is needed, good, effective protection, or to the maximum use of the advantages of low visibility, maneuverability and speed ???
            I don’t know, therefore I don’t dare to judge ... but I understand how important it is now to be equipped with a developed, effective system of reconnaissance / control of the surrounding space, communications and various elements of active protection, including electronic warfare.
            The strongest and most skilled will win the dispute, this is obvious.
            1. VO3A
              VO3A 23 June 2020 12: 58 New
              -8
              Tanks play a secondary role in modern warfare and are not used as striking force in the 3rd echelon of military operations for final stripping and for protecting important non-stationary objects ... And to crush partisans: the larger the size, the better and worse ... for sale, to the same partisans, so that they would fight among themselves ... That’s why ARMATA hung .. Not needed ... yet ... We don’t know how to use, or rather, did not create conditions for its use ...
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 23 June 2020 13: 05 New
                +5
                It is difficult to say how it will be ... there have been no serious conflicts for a long time, and what was without heavy equipment in the forefront was not complete, yet. With one degree or another success / defeat.
                1. VO3A
                  VO3A 23 June 2020 13: 08 New
                  -4
                  Yeah, in the Soviet country they knew the directions of possible attacks by fascist Germany ... but they didn’t cover them, It's hard to say how it will be
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 23 June 2020 13: 14 New
                    +4
                    Everything always depends on the political leadership ... and then down the chain.
                    For the most part, it turned out that we were not just not in time, we were poorly prepared, but we also made tragic mistakes both in the process and initially.
                    For mistakes, for "study", our people had to pay the full price.
                    1. VO3A
                      VO3A 23 June 2020 13: 18 New
                      -15
                      I'm afterrebuttals "TASS a week before the war, I don’t want to hear anything about Stalin ...
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 23 June 2020 13: 39 New
                        +7
                        Nobody likes to admit their mistakes.
                        The mistakes of the supreme rulers always prove to be very painful for the country, the people ...
                        But, only one who does nothing does not make mistakes ... This also has to be recognized, because the way it is.
                    2. gvozdan
                      gvozdan 23 June 2020 15: 06 New
                      15
                      No other country that fought the Reich passed the exam at all. And the price that the country paid nothing compared to the possible consequences of losing in the Second World War.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 23 June 2020 15: 10 New
                        +1
                        it is also necessary to realize and remember always. not everyone wants to accept this, but ... people are not the same, it is also necessary to realize and draw the appropriate conclusions. Everyone makes a choice for themselves!
                      2. The leader of the Redskins
                        The leader of the Redskins 23 June 2020 17: 19 New
                        -13
                        Sorry, but I do not agree with you. You still forgot the UK. She has fought with the Reich since 1939. The longest. Moreover, on several fronts. And she won.
                      3. poquello
                        poquello 23 June 2020 19: 25 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
                        Sorry, but I do not agree with you. You still forgot the UK. She has fought with the Reich since 1939. The longest. Moreover, on several fronts. And she won.

                        and you look, there should be some popuas who declared war on the Reich, including not a united Britain
                      4. mark2
                        mark2 23 June 2020 20: 46 New
                        12
                        She would still be at war with the Reich, if the USSR lost its part of that war.
                      5. Herman 4223
                        Herman 4223 25 June 2020 06: 32 New
                        +1
                        If the USSR lost, Britain would become a German colony. Something the Japanese would snatch.
                    3. rocket757
                      rocket757 24 June 2020 05: 43 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
                      And she won.

                      You can now say differently ... but she really did not lose this battle. This should stop .....
                    4. nemez
                      nemez 24 June 2020 17: 15 New
                      +3
                      Nothing that even the British themselves call their war strange? And that declaring war and fighting is a bit different things. Mexico also fought with the Reich, and Peru.
                2. Ingenegr
                  Ingenegr 23 June 2020 23: 58 New
                  +9
                  It’s good to speak for the tragic mistakes now, after over 8 decades and reading a lot of memoirs, error analyzes, etc. Conditionally - a middle-aged boxer, after several times viewing the record of the final fight of the Olympics, will be able to "analyze" the mistakes of fighters both in battle and in the preparation process. Only the battle result will not be affected. And in the course of the battle, and especially before it, the middle peasant, apart from the nonsense, is unlikely to be able to give out a valuable and most important, drawing of the battle leading to victory. Moreover, watching the battle for the first time, most of the mistakes he did not even see.
                  Now I know for sure what Admirals Makarov and Avelan needed to do in 1904, because all the events of those distant years were just now not taken apart from all sides. For me, this column is "given." It is hundreds and thousands of times longer than the column “find” and “solution”. And in 1904, the column "given" was almost empty.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 24 June 2020 05: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: Ingenegr
                    It’s good to speak for the tragic mistakes now, after 8 odd decades

                    To say, give grades ... it was, it will be so. That's why he and the experience of his ancestors, the lessons of history, Schaub learns from them.
                    That is the attitude to those events, this is a question ... of education, probably. As taught, so be it.
                  2. Aag
                    Aag 24 June 2020 18: 32 New
                    0
                    Great comment. hi
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 23 June 2020 16: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        The fact that “Armata” has lost the advantage in smaller dimensions (Soviet school) and has become a better target,

        And can you find out in what battle Armata participated, what do you so peremptorily affirm that she lost something there? Moreover, the question is, are you sure that the T-14 will be MBT?
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 23 June 2020 17: 21 New
          0
          You can find out the opinion of my teachers at KVTIU, who noted in class that our tanks (T64 and T-72) have a lower silhouette, which gives them an advantage in camouflage and detection. Compared to tanks of a potential enemy.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 23 June 2020 18: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            You can find out the opinion of my teachers at KVTIU, who noted in class that our tanks (T64 and T-72) have a lower silhouette, which gives them an advantage in camouflage and detection. Compared to tanks of a potential enemy.

            I’ll probably tell you a seditious thing for VO, but the T-14 with a gun of even increased power of 125 mm is nothing, from the word at all. The meaning of the new tank itself was not only in an uninhabited combat module, but also in a 152 mm cannon. And work on such projects was still in the 80s in the USSR. The same object 195 will plug the T-14 into the belt, and without particularly sweating, in spite of the entire T-14 PR.
            The question is, why our army ANOTHER one tank with a 125 mm gun, and even heavily weighted?
            1. The leader of the Redskins
              The leader of the Redskins 23 June 2020 18: 21 New
              -2
              This is what I plus you. PR. In fact - pure PR ...
            2. Albert1988
              Albert1988 23 June 2020 18: 42 New
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              The meaning of the new tank itself was not only in an uninhabited combat module, but also in a 152 mm cannon.

              The machine with the 152 gun was already - canceled for the most part precisely because of this gun ...
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 23 June 2020 18: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Albert1988
                The machine with the 152 gun was already - canceled for the most part precisely because of this gun ...

                canceled, such as Serdyukov with his prostitutes. It was this desman that killed the object 195. If they brought Object 195, T-14 to mind, it smokes nervously and not even in the vestibule.
                Booking does not stand still, but the 125 mm caliber has already become insufficient in terms of armor penetration and range.
                And whoever does not understand this, let him accelerate and kill himself on the door jamb.
                As for the calibers ... so we have a full ass with that. I said about the T-14 ... what about Barberry and me? They put a 57 mm cannon, a very modernized one, but an old-time cannon. The cannon is time-tested, reliable, but ... do we have new shells for it? Russian vegetable throughout makeup!
                Kurgan ... they put a 30 mm cannon, which they shoved both on helicopters and on infantry fighting vehicles and where else imagination will allow. But what about the nomenclature of shells do not tell? It is out of date, and the caliber itself is out of date in the 90s. And we do not itch to develop a 40 mm gun for Kurganets. But why, if there is a bunch of shells in the warehouses. And it doesn’t matter that they are outdated godlessly.
                About Terminator only obscene ... the developer himself said that the army asked for a "sledgehammer" to mow manpower, and they made a very expensive "sniper rifle", with a claim to anti-aircraft guns. And again, what is there for the caliber, and what shells? That is, the developers put a bolt on the requirements of the army.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 23 June 2020 18: 56 New
                  +5
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  canceled, such as Serdyukov with his prostitutes. It was this desman that killed the object 195. If they brought Object 195, T-14 to mind, it smokes nervously and not even in the vestibule.

                  Do you know who made the final decision there? For a minute, I remind you - 2A83 has a resource of 200 shots! While a normal tank gun (the same 2A82) has a resource of more than 1000 shots ...
                  Two - all the electronics of object 195 are out of date during development ...

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Booking does not stand still, but the 125 mm caliber has already become insufficient in terms of armor penetration and range.

                  Who told you that? Americans won - not that they have 125, 120 mm caliber, but due to the characteristics of the projectile they achieve excellent armor-piercing!
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  They put a 57 mm cannon, a very modernized one, but an old-time cannon. The cannon is time-tested, reliable, but ... do we have new shells for it?

                  Can you prove that not?
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Kurgan ... put a 30 mm gun

                  Here at VO there’s just an article about installing a 57-mm low-ballistic gun on a Kurgan - against the infantry and light equipment, that’s it.

                  You, dear, keep in mind that all this is a secret topic, no one will tell us what is being done and how, well, they showed cars to promote, and that’s all - and what’s with their exact characteristics is all a fortune-telling on coffee grounds degree of freshness ...
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 23 June 2020 19: 02 New
                    -5
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Do you know who made the final decision there? For a minute, I remind you - 2A83 has a resource of 200 shots!

                    It was with indicators in the 90s, when everything was developed. And what happened, do not recall? If sclerosis doesn’t fail me (correct if I forgot), there were works to increase the trunk resource. And it seems like successful ones. And that was in the 90s! How much time has passed?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Who told you that? Americans won - not that they have 125, 120 mm caliber, but due to the characteristics of the projectile they achieve excellent armor-piercing!

                    By and large, the Americans generally do not need tanks in such quantities. Who to fight with Mexico? We are the continental power against which half the world has revolted. And the land parts are much more relevant to us than mattresses.
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Can you prove that not?

                    Name at least one new projectile under 57 mm ...
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Here on VO there’s just an article about installing 57 mm on Kurgan

                    Why on Kurganets 57 mm? There is 40 mm for the eyes. To weight the car? And what will happen? Get another Barberry.
                  2. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 23 June 2020 19: 13 New
                    +2
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    It was with indicators in the 90s, when everything was developed. And what happened, do not recall? If sclerosis doesn’t fail me (correct if I forgot), there were works to increase the trunk resource. And it seems like successful ones. And that was in the 90s! How much time has passed?

                    Increased - at the cost of great efforts for 2007, the resource was brought already! up to 400 shots ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    By and large, the Americans generally do not need tanks in such quantities.

                    Nevertheless, on old abrashas with old cannons, armor-piercing was increased very seriously - just something new BOPS did, what is stopping us?
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Why on Kurganets 57 mm? There is 40 mm for the eyes. To weight the car? And what will happen? Get another Barberry.

                    https://topwar.ru/172401-v-seti-obsuzhdaetsja-novejshaja-versija-bmp-kurganec-25-s-kompleksom-bulat-i-57-mm-pushkoj.html#comment-id-10530437
                    That's what will happen)))
                    You surprise me something, dear Nexus)))
                  3. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 23 June 2020 19: 21 New
                    -6
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Increased - at the cost of great efforts for 2007, the resource was brought already! up to 400 shots ...

                    2007 year! The 20th is already in the yard ... what prevented the barrel resource from being brought to 1000? Religion?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Nevertheless, on old abrashas with old cannons, armor-piercing was increased very seriously - just something new BOPS did, what is stopping us?

                    So what kind of shells do they use on that gun? About twenty meters ... or am I mistaken? We have 125 mm Mango M ... even with the letter M this shell with insufficient armor penetration. And we are putting the Mango-M into the T-90M troops with a subcaliber. Vigorous overpower, do not let not take!
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    You surprise me something, dear Nexus)))

                    What? I’m saying that it’s boiling.
                  4. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 23 June 2020 19: 29 New
                    +4
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    2007 year! The 20th is already in the yard ... what prevented the barrel resource from being brought to 1000? Religion?

                    Considering that they are still working on this tool, the resource is obviously being prevented by something more serious - technological problems, for example ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    So what kind of shells do they use on that gun? About twenty meters ... or am I mistaken?

                    The length of the BOPS core is about 900 mm for amers,
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    We have 125 mm Mango M

                    Look what shells are being made for the 2A82 on the T-14 - the same "vacuum", for example)))) Given the characteristics of the gun - the penetration will be very, very.
                    And for the T-90M there is already a "pattern."
                    If you are concerned about the shell theme, then alas, the new shells are going very tightly with us, making it more difficult to develop shells for 152 mm ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    What? I’m saying that it’s boiling.

                    Everything should be sober - one of my father’s colleagues who works on sights for the T-14 now said back in the 17th year that it wasn’t worth waiting for the T-2025 before the year 14, since the 15- year cars were less than six months old, these were, literally, the very first samples.
                  5. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 23 June 2020 19: 37 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Considering that they are still working on this tool, the resource is obviously being prevented by something more serious - technological problems, for example ...

                    And where are the technical and technological problems?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Look what shells are being made for the 2A82 on the T-14 - the same "vacuum", for example)))) Given the characteristics of the gun - the penetration will be very, very.

                    Yes, even Vacuum-M LET'S DO ... Caliber 125 mm OUT OF DATE. And in light of the fact that missiles are being developed all over the world that hit both more accurately and farther than any projectile, 152 mm is much more promising in this perspective.
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    If you are concerned about the shell theme, then alas, the new shells are very tight with us

                    We are not only tight with shells, we have full ass with new gunpowders.
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    T-14 now said back in the 17th year that before the year 2025

                    For me, all this new armored vehicles must be equipped with weapons from scratch. No matter how it sounds wild. Here's an example ... I look at the Boomerang ... drina like three sheds. And what is it worth? Either a dead machine gun, or a 30 mm gun. Well then, they would have finished the “Sleeve” only with a ramp at the back and the whole business. Why was it tricky to build such drina, and equip it with such weapons?
                  6. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 23 June 2020 19: 48 New
                    +3
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And where are the technical and technological problems?

                    Maybe the problems are because the industry has not worked for more than 20 years? Americans started developing new BFPSs in the early 90s and by the end of the first half of the 2000s they got the result! What to say about us, moreover, to show the tank at the parade, is okay, but to say something about shells for this tank is already quite closed ...
                    And about all kinds of "analogues" or their absence - what prevents you from listening to this tinsel. choosing only relevant information?
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    .125 mm caliber OUT OF DATE.

                    Again - where did you get this? Nobody is in a hurry to switch to large calibers, the Americans won - for 120 mm, an excellent bops and an excellent OFS were done!
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And in light of the fact that missiles are being developed all over the world that hit both more accurately and farther than any projectile, 152 mm is much more promising from this angle.

                    Missiles is a completely different topic, and then - under 120 mm, missiles are also well developed, so it prevents us from developing under 125, especially since we are pioneers in this field ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    We are not only tight with shells, we have full ass with new gunpowders.

                    Then what kind of 152 mm caliber are we talking about? Such a tool will require not only fundamentally new shells, but also fundamentally new gunpowders, without which it will not be effective.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    For me, all this new armored vehicles must be equipped with weapons from scratch.

                    If you look, you’ll see that this is being done - they put 15 mm “Tumioku” on the T-57, the same 57 mm on the kurgan, but the short barrel against the infantry that they put on the boomerang - most likely the same as on the kurgan .
                    Just don’t get carried away - the Americans have already put 105 mm on their strikers, as a result, neither this nor that happened ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Why was it tricky and build such drina, and equip it with such weapons?

                    And you will delve into the special features of modern wheeled armored combat vehicles - you will see that the main thing is there, and in the end they will put the weapons that this machine will pull, otherwise it will be like with anti-tank strikers ...
                  7. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 23 June 2020 19: 59 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Maybe the problems are because the industry has not worked for more than 20 years?

                    But didn’t it work? Was there a quarantine or the coronovirus mowed all the specialists?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Again - where did you get this? Nobody is in a hurry to switch to large calibers, the Americans won - for 120 mm, an excellent bops and an excellent OFS were done!

                    Yes, at least from the experience of the Second World War. St. John's wort had a comparable range with the Tigers, however, even if the shell lay nearby, the Germans turned over. Yes, and then the explosives of 152 mm more than twice as much. 3,4 KG vs. 7,2 (if you haven’t forgotten). As they say, feel the difference.
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Then what kind of 152 mm caliber are we talking about? Such a tool will require not only fundamentally new shells, but also fundamentally new gunpowders, without which it will not be effective.

                    Even at the first stages, with old gunpowder, such a projectile that flies into the tank (ANY) is guaranteed to destroy it, and it does not matter where it flies.
                    At the same time, the range will increase very noticeably. Or even here you do not agree?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    If you look, you will see that this is being done - on the T-15 they put 57 mm “Mukioku”

                    I already told you that there are no NEW shells for 57 mm. Or they are super duper nano classified.
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    on the same Kurgan 57 mm,

                    Complete idiocy ... on a lighter platform than Barberry, they put a similar gun. Then there are two questions. First, how much will this poor Kurganets wind on shooting (especially automatic)? And the second, what’s the accuracy?
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    which this machine will pull, otherwise it will be like with anti-tank strikers ...

                    Yeah ... they are going to put 125 mm on Boomeran, ala a wheeled tank of the Octopus type.
                  8. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 24 June 2020 01: 06 New
                    +4
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    But didn’t it work? Was there a quarantine or the coronovirus mowed all the specialists?

                    Dear Nexus! Here ernichanie is inappropriate - you perfectly understand what problems we had in the 90s - the beginning of the zero, and what they were objectively caused by ...
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Yes, at least from the experience of the Second World War. St. John's wort had a comparable range with the Tigers, however, even if the shell lay nearby, the Germans turned over. Yes, and then the explosives of 152 mm more than twice as much. 3,4 KG vs. 7,2 (if you haven’t forgotten). As they say, feel the difference.

                    The Su-152 was just a compromise option - 152 mm of shelter was shoved there for lack of anything at that particular moment, then a normal 122 mm gun appeared and the SU / ISU-122 turned out.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    I already told you that there are no NEW shells for 57 mm.

                    I don’t know where you got the info, but the development of new shells for this caliber is in full swing, including shells with a programmable fuse
                    And the old shells are also not very bad.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Complete idiocy ... on a lighter platform than Barberry, they put a similar gun.

                    Nexus, what are you! The gun is completely NOT similar - on the Kurgan stands 57 mm low ballistics - a short-barreled gun that does not crash for you 10 km, like the AU-220 gun, but it is the most infantry. Naturally, the mass and recoil of such an instrument is much less than that of a hefty thing, which is now on the T-15))
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Yeah ... they are going to put 125 mm on Boomeran, ala a wheeled tank of the Octopus type.

                    I have not heard about this, as a more complete infa will appear - we'll see. Although, most likely, a module with a 57 mm short barrel will be installed on it as well as on Kurgan.
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • bayard
    bayard 23 June 2020 19: 41 New
    -2
    Quote: NEXUS
    The question is, why our army ANOTHER one tank with a 125 mm gun, and even heavily weighted?

    Everything is true about the gun - such a seven-pack chassis can only be justified with a more powerful weapon, greater capabilities in the range of destruction and the destructive ability of ammunition (including high-explosive). Therefore, they again spoke about 152 mm. a cannon for "Almaty" ... and suddenly it turned out that all this was in vain! It was just necessary to adopt Project 195, or freeze it at zero until better times - when the country was ripe for the rearmament of the tank fleet.
    But the heavy Armata is just not - only 5 - 7 tons heavier than the T-90, but the thrust-weight ratio ... is good.
    But it is a VERY big target.
    Like the Kurganets-25.
    Gigantomania of the period of President Medvedev (the technical task was formed precisely under him), like many other things, initiated by this citizen, turned out to be completely unclaimed.
    We have .
    In any case, the Army does not want this.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 24 June 2020 01: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: bayard
      Everything is true about the gun - such a seven-wheeled chassis can only be justified with a more powerful weapon

      The seven-wheeled chassis is not "justified" by the gun - it is due to the placement of the crew outside the tower, which seriously increases the overall size. Moreover, I will tell you - the tracked base of the armata is longer. than the same abrashi or leo is only 20-30 cm, does those machines also have a "more powerful weapon"?
      Quote: bayard
      Therefore, they again spoke about 152 mm. a cannon for "Almaty" ... and suddenly it turned out that all this was in vain!

      Or maybe everything from the fact that 2A83 could not bring to mind and not yet the fact that they can? Although according to rumors, work is still underway.
      Quote: bayard
      But the heavy Armata is just not - only 5 - 7 tons heavier than the T-90, but the thrust-weight ratio ... is good.

      Speaking of overweight - do you know how much a 152 mm tank gun weighs? So - about 10 tons ... Not bad - plus a dozen tons to the mass only due to the gun ...
      Quote: bayard
      But it is a VERY big target.

      Aha, is it nothing that the same abrams has a much larger frontal projection area?
      Quote: bayard
      We have .
      In any case, the Army does not want this.

      Who told you that? The machine passes tests, shortcomings are revealed and eliminated.
      And most importantly - in modern warfare, the silhouette, size - no longer matters - high-precision weapons will still hit, no matter what size the target is, and if it also hits from above - then there is generally a difference in size between different vehicles ...
      1. bayard
        bayard 24 June 2020 04: 52 New
        -2
        Quote: Albert1988

        Or maybe everything from the fact that 2A83 could not bring to mind and not yet the fact that they can? Although according to rumors, work is still underway.

        Rather, because I would have to develop a whole line of new ammunition in this caliber for her and produce this entire line. For the whole new park. Decided it would be too expensive. A gun would have been brought if it had not been abandoned.
        It was the ammunition that was called the cause. We decided that it would be 125 mm. Then it will be possible to use shells from old stocks.
        That’s how they explained then - 195 roads and need new shells, which are currently redundant in power, so we will order more simply and with a 125 mm gun.
        And when the tank was done and shown ... it started ...
        Too big, expensive and complicated, and the gun "only 125 mm. ...". A higher price does not give a real increase in combat capabilities, in proportion to its growth, relative to the T-90MS. Plus there will be problems with the development of the troops, repair and maintenance, spare parts ... better T-72V3 - ​​cheap and cheerful. In any case, the T-90MS will have combat value ... almost the same as the T-14, but it is almost half the price.
        And it’s easier for crews to master.
        And with spare parts it’s easier, because a lot of T-72 will do.
        And in order for this new cuttlefish to justify the whole haemorrhoids by putting it into production, difficulties in mastering, maintenance and repair, new repair facilities and spare parts and cost sets ... It must be a true breakthrough in combat capabilities.
        This can only be justified with a new caliber gun of the order of 152 mm. with a completely new level of ammunition power, to crush particularly powerful fortifications with direct fire at a greater distance than their predecessors and the ability, if necessary, to use low-power nuclear warheads (for self-propelled guns from tanks during a breakthrough, can also lag behind).
        And without these capabilities, this snag in the army is not needed for nothing.
        T-90MS, T-72V3 and the updated T-80 will perfectly cope with all the tasks themselves.
        hi
        1. Ded_Mazay
          Ded_Mazay 24 June 2020 06: 52 New
          -1
          Quote: bayard
          And in order for this new cuttlefish to justify the whole haemorrhoids by putting it into production, difficulties in mastering, maintenance and repair, new repair facilities and spare parts and cost sets ... It must be a true breakthrough in combat capabilities.
          This can only be justified with a new caliber gun of the order of 152 mm. with a completely new level of ammunition power, to crush particularly powerful fortifications with direct fire at a greater distance than their predecessors and the ability, if necessary, to use low-power nuclear warheads (for self-propelled guns from tanks during a breakthrough, can also lag behind).
          And without these capabilities, this snag in the army is not needed for nothing.
          T-90MS, T-72V3 and the updated T-80 will perfectly cope with all the tasks themselves.

          lol lol lol
          Something this description reminded me of ...
        2. bayard
          bayard 24 June 2020 07: 42 New
          -1
          Quote: Ded_Mazay
          Something this description reminded me of ...

          Wow what! Almost "Armata". fellow
          In Donetsk, I am watching for the consequences of the impact on the buildings and capital structures of tank ammunition. And on the impact of 152 caliber shells. And more than once on this site he expressed that for a real war, “Armata” with 125 mm. a gun (and for the money) is not needed. Russia has thousands (many thousands) of T-72 and T-80 tanks at storage bases, which have a full modernization potential and an untouched resource at all. Are they in junk? How MBT they are fully justified.
          And the new tank needs new features, new qualities. And not ryusheki in the form of a capsule with a sofa and displays on the floor of the cabin. What can it do beyond the capabilities of the T-90MS? Besides the "greater crew protection" and its convenience?
          And is the MO ready to pay for it?
          In addition to being a reserve officer, I also understand something in the economy - one of my programs saved the leading branch of the Russian economy back in 1992 from collapse, followed by bankruptcy and sale to foreigners, because it was completely privatized in the first months after the Belovezhskaya collusion. This program concerned economics and finance. Therefore, as the Russian Defense Ministry, I can ask - what is the tank for 4,5 million dollars. better than the tank for 2,5 million dollars. ? And how much better? Is its combat effectiveness really 80 - 90% higher than that of the T-90MS?
          Not ?
          And how much?
          So I heard that 15% of the aggregate characteristics. repeat
          More?
          And how much?
          Even if it’s 30% ... it still doesn’t hit the price. request
          Though you crack. yes
          Therefore, in the Moscow Region, and any financially competent officer ... and even an accountant lol will say that it is better to purchase two T-90MS and get combat effectiveness 1,5 times higher than from one T-14.
          And to cover this bookkeeping with nothing but export supplies ... nothing. Therefore, the MO is not in a hurry. Although a lot of money was spent on development ... and the tank seemed to work out ... Now, if the Indians and someone else bought a thousand dollars ... And with this money a new version with 152mm. to finish with a gun ...
          Even if the new version of the T-14-152 is one and a half times more expensive than the existing Armata, its new qualities can still justify its purchase - it will already be a completely different tank - a special purpose tank.
          And the T-90, T-80 and T-72 will remain the best MBT of our time in terms of a combination of characteristics.
          hi
        3. Dangerous
          Dangerous 24 June 2020 10: 57 New
          +1
          What does it mean "except for the crew’s security and convenience"? This is not enough for you ?? And what, on tanks of the T72 family there are active protection systems? All subsequent samples are always more expensive than the previous ones.
        4. bayard
          bayard 24 June 2020 13: 05 New
          -3
          And what prevents such systems (active protection) from placing them? Tanks are already there. Finished. After remotorization and BEO updating, it is enough to simply hang elements of this protection on them according to the T-80 or T-90MS variant. And you will be a doll of armored forces.
          Move to 1130 l \ s has long taken root on it. Nobody bothers to make a more perfect “lining” of the T-72 - there are no technical barriers. Avionics at the T-90 level has long been set.
          It turns out cheaply and angrily.
          The T-80 is even better - 1200 l / s capacity, and the weight is slightly less than the T-72. The modern version of modernization is quite satisfactory.
          We have THOUSANDS T-72 and T-80 at storage bases.
          With almost untouched resource.
          All of them can be put into operation through modernization.

          And the T-14, I, as a former businessman (now just in Donetsk), would never have bought it. Better a pair of T-90 or five pieces of T-72V3.
          And yes, even on the Soviet T-72 there were elements of active defense. And on our tanks in the DPR such KAZs have stood and are standing.
        5. Albert1988
          Albert1988 24 June 2020 13: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          And what prevents such systems (active protection) from placing them?

          Probably because then everything else will have to be removed from them - you look at how the Afghanite looks like, what is included in it, the T-14 was originally designed for close integration of KAZ, it is an integral part of it ... And put on our old cars - there have already been attempts, only the arena of some modification is becoming, but its effectiveness is a big question.
        6. bayard
          bayard 24 June 2020 15: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Albert1988
          Probably because then you have to remove everything else from them

          But after all, they put it on the T-90. What prevents the same thing from being done on the T-72?
          Without gaps?
          How about the upgraded T-80?
          I do not see technically unsolvable problems. request
          And I, like you, are very worried about the security of our guys in the tanks.
          Believe the one who is 6 years old in the war.
        7. Albert1988
          Albert1988 24 June 2020 18: 16 New
          0
          Quote: bayard
          But after all, they put it on the T-90.

          Alas, there is no Afghan on the T-90! I repeat - only the latest version of the arena can get up on old tanks ...
          Quote: bayard
          What prevents the same thing from being done on the T-72?
          Without gaps?

          Are you sure that we are talking about the same thing? Afghanite is KAZ - a complex of active defense - a system that knocks down rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, etc. before they reach the tank. And you mean DZ - dynamic protection, yes - it can be anything you like on the T-72 and T-90 ... On the T-72B3, the first options apparently saved ...
        8. bayard
          bayard 24 June 2020 23: 30 New
          +1
          Yes, we are really talking about different things, today is a troublesome day. Indeed, you can’t put “Afganit” on any tank, but there is no absolute defense - KAZ always has its own limitations, it does not cover the upper hemisphere, and the enemy has been betting on defeat from above for more than a year, and will it not work out that having spent a lot of money on the most sophisticated KAZ, having designed and built new tanks, we will find ourselves in a very interesting situation? Tank, it's still a consumable resource in the war, alas. But at the same time, tanks are becoming more and more expensive and more complicated, already so much so that another commander will think ten times to send such an expensive thing to battle ... and send assault groups to battle ... with inevitable losses.
          The price should still be within reasonable limits, and the tank should be a mass phenomenon, otherwise you will have a “white elephant”, which is scary to send into battle - so expensive. As happened with the battleships in the WWI - they built it, they burned the darkness on that money, and the war came and ... kept them in the bases, because ... they were very expensive ... but any penny submarine could send this mountain of military iron on the decoration of the bottom landscape.
          And with tanks, too, the main thing in this matter is not to overdo it.
          The tanks at our storage bases were piled up, their modernization can be brought to very decent perfection ... and here they are at war - money has already been spent on them.
          And of course, new ones are needed, but just like machines are a cut above their predecessors, with new combat capabilities. Complementing the bulk of MBT. Like the IS-2 battalions against the backdrop of the massive T-34s.
          What is the current if the commander saves the lives of the crews of several T-14s, but fails to fulfill the combat mission and sets up the infantry, because he could not ensure mass use, or did not have the caliber power to repay the firing points of the fortified area in urban development? 125 mm. You can only hit the windows directly. A high-explosive shell falling into the main wall leaves a hole with a diameter of about 1 m. + -, taking out at best a couple more light partitions. And the shell is 152 mm. caliber, falling into such a wall, brings down the whole staircase. Several of these hits, and the whole building in the clubs of dust and smoke collapses, burying all the ATGM calculations, machine-gun nests and snipers under it ... Dust and smoke clubs cover the enemy’s calculations in the neighboring buildings ... assault groups can be advanced.
          A tank with exactly such capabilities and the power of a gun will be in high demand as a quality complement to the existing MBT.
        9. Albert1988
          Albert1988 25 June 2020 00: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          KAZ always has its own limitations, it does not cover the upper hemisphere, and the enemy has been betting not just the first year on defeat from above

          To cover the upper hemisphere there is still an “umbrella” - soft-kill, as our partners say, but still very effective ...
          Quote: bayard
          The price should still be within reasonable limits, and the tank should be a mass phenomenon, otherwise you will have a "white elephant"

          If you produce a batch of at least 500-600 cars, the price will already be much lower. the problem is that this is not so much needed - you need good BMPs, which are still quite dumb, except for the T-15, but it has very specific tasks, but the Kurgan is in no hurry ...
          Quote: bayard
          And of course, new ones are needed, but just like machines are a cut above their predecessors, with new combat capabilities. Complementing the bulk of MBT. Like the IS-2 battalions against the backdrop of the massive T-34s.

          This is a question - HOW to use new machines - it’s more logical to make entire units consisting of new equipment, then the capabilities and techniques will be revealed 100% and the capabilities of such units will increase by an order of magnitude.
          Quote: bayard
          And the shell is 152 mm. caliber, falling into such a wall, brings down the whole staircase

          This is a big question - do we need tanks that will bring down porches when there are self-propelled howitzers ...
          And then - why did this 152 mm caliber surrender? What do not like, for example 135 mm or 140 mm? All the same, the gun will be completely new, and the shells for it will be completely new ...
          By the way, there are serious fears that a 152 mm tank smooth-bore gun will be able to fire effectively only with BOPs - a shot with a caliber projectile will require so many explosives that the tank will not withstand the return ...
          Quote: bayard
          Dust and smoke puffs cover the enemy’s calculations in neighboring buildings ... assault groups can be advanced.
          A tank with exactly such capabilities and the power of a gun will be in high demand as a quality complement to the existing MBT.

          For such an enemy sawing, amers, for example, have tank shells with programmable or remote detonation at the right point ...
        10. bayard
          bayard 25 June 2020 01: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Albert1988
          And then - why did this 152 mm caliber surrender? What do not like, for example 135 mm or 140 mm? All the same, the gun will be completely new, and the shells for it will be completely new ...

          They’ve already worked on this weapon - since the late USSR, they were going to put it on the T-95, so there was a reserve. And the experience of the last phase of the Second World War says that we need to return to the concept of a heavy tank with an instrument of special power. This and the experience of the battles in Grozny showed - are needed. When our troops entered Germany and the question arose of taking German cities with strong capital buildings, the IS-2 and ISU-152 fell very well for picking up long-term enemy firing points. And when they entered Berlin, the Stalinist Sledgehammers dragged into its streets ... for houses are very strong in Berlin. yes So in the late Union they remembered that experience, because not only against Abrams such a caliber was chosen. The war was planned in Europe.
          Fast.
          And there at home ...
          Strong.
          So the experience of the war in Syria showed how heavy fighting in urban development is. Although there houses ... are not very strong.
          And artillery about six inches on direct fire is far from always dragging out, and self-propelled guns too. And from a closed position it is ... troublesome ... target designation, adjustment ... precious time is wasted. And then r-time - rolled out "Armata-152", smiled a couple of times, the building and settled. smile
          ISU-152 did not just hastily pile - there was a need.
          It would be nice to return to the concept of heavy tank brigades.
          And the “Armata” in its present form is for dueling situations with enemy tanks.
          It would be a good symbiosis.
        11. Albert1988
          Albert1988 25 June 2020 18: 16 New
          0
          Quote: bayard
          They’ve already worked on this weapon - since the late USSR, they were going to put it on the T-95, so there was a reserve.

          Of course, there is a backlog, but here is one question - how much of this backlog is implemented? It may so happen that everything will have to be redone from scratch ...
          Quote: bayard
          And the experience of the last phase of the Second World War says that we need to return to the concept of a heavy tank with an instrument of special power.

          Well, as I think, it’s too late to rely on the experience of the Second World War, a tank with a cannon of increased power in modern conditions can take place, but rather, like a kind of anti-tank self-propelled gun, throwing scary BOPs against which no passive armor and DZ will definitely help , and KAZs will be almost powerless ...
          Quote: bayard
          when our troops entered Germany and the question arose of taking German cities with strong capital buildings, the IS-2 and ISU-152 fell very well for picking up enemy long-term firing points

          Now the shells are a little different, and the methods of picking it up, too, now the shell will not destroy the house, it will fly into the window and explode inside, gently spreading on the walls of everyone who is there ... Well, or this will be done by aviation ...
          Quote: bayard
          So the experience of the war in Syria showed how heavy fighting in urban development is.

          In any case, they are difficult - such an army as Syria can act against partisans very badly ...
          Quote: bayard
          And artillery about six inches on direct fire is far from always dragging out, and self-propelled guns too

          Self-propelled guns will be more likely to hit not with direct fire, but with mortar fire with sniper accuracy because of the neighboring high-rise building - he threw the shell exactly at the roof, it pierced the 3 upper floors and exploded on the floor where the enemy is hiding. New shells - that's what you need! You can even delay the increase in calibres ...
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 13: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    It turns out cheaply and angrily.

    Cheap and cheerful are the corpses of our guys ...
    We need cars with good crew protection. The T-72B3 is a temporary measure until newer cars go.
    Because, following such logic, it’s necessary to fight on the T-34, put new devices on it, all kinds of thermal imagers, panoramic sights and KAZs, because no one bothers ...
  • bayard
    bayard 24 June 2020 15: 47 New
    +2
    Eugene, do not distort. You want to say that the security of the crew of the T-90MS ... low?
    Separate speech about the T-72V3 is the most budgetary version of modernization possible.
    I rely on the practical experience of our conflict, which is already 6 years old. And also on the experience of WWII, where it was clearly proved that mass always beats quality in a limited series.
    The Germans had the best tanks in the second half of WWII for the entire set of characteristics ... except for the mass production. And our veterans recalled that yes - the “Tiger” and “Panther” were good, but we rolled out 5, or even 10, of our T-34s against each of them ... and even with losses, we decided the matter in our favor.
    Mass with "Armata" is not possible in principle.
    This is an axiom.
    On its basis, you can make a very good tank "special purpose", which will operate in conjunction with quite a massive T-72V3, T-80 and T-90MS.
    But it must first be done.
    And what is it to lose comrades in arms, and bury young boys, I know from personal experience.
    But any commander will prefer at the moment instead of one T-14, two T-90MS or 5 - 6 T-72V3. Just because it is the BIGGEST NUMBER OF TANK.
    Russia has a limited military budget and it must be spent sparingly, with maximum practical impact.
    That's life . request
  • nemez
    nemez 24 June 2020 17: 25 New
    0
    There is nothing to add.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 17: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    Eugene, do not distort. You want to say that the security of the crew of the T-90MS ... low?

    Definitely lower than the T-14 and significantly.
    Quote: bayard
    I rely on the practical experience of our conflict, which is already 6 years old.

    As practice has shown, when creating an army, one must very carefully choose the conflicts to rely on - before the Great Patriotic War they decided to rely on the experience of the "winter war" - it was only to the detriment, but the experience of Khalkhin-Gol somehow forgot ...
    Quote: bayard
    The Germans had the best tanks in the second half of WWII for the entire set of characteristics ... except for the mass production. And our veterans recalled that yes - the “Tiger” and “Panther” were good, but we rolled out 5, or even 10, of our T-34s against each of them ... and even with losses, we decided the matter in our favor.

    Then there was one war, now another. And the German tanks were not the best - they had the best optics in the world and ... actually everything else was produced efficiently, but something super-duper was not outstanding.
    By the way, about the T-34 - before the war this car was criticized even worse. than the T-14, stating that there is a BT - "excellent tanks" and why do we need this "cuttlefish" T-34! The result is known - 34 matches saved us, while BTs burned together in the fields ...
    Quote: bayard
    Mass with "Armata" is not possible in principle.
    This is an axiom.

    This is a loud statement, no more. The same UVZ is capable of producing hundreds of valves per year. The question is that you don’t need such a huge number of tanks!
    Quote: bayard
    But any commander will prefer at the moment instead of one T-14, two T-90MS or 5 - 6 T-72V3. Just because it is the BIGGEST NUMBER OF TANK.

    Let's estimate the situation - we have a conflict - a hypothetical one - 10 T-72B3 against some "bulat". What will be the outcome? Now let’s imagine a situation - instead of 10 T-72 against the same 10 “Bulat” 2 T-14 come out - the result is two armats successively shoot all “Bulat” in a dash, because they have total superiority in situational awareness, ability to penetrate armor, range fire and security, moreover - bulat shells, even BOPs simply do not reach T-14, since they are intercepted by Afghanistan (capable of intercepting up to 10 targets at the same time, or maybe more, 10 - this could be antediluvian).
    Let’s say then, on these 2 armata, jumps with javelins come out - the "umbrella" system will dazzle the heads of the javiks, and if the java does reach and hit the tank, the crew has enough time and opportunities to get out and stay alive, and the crew is the main thing in any tank.

    So think further.
    And if the war is not against the underdeveloped Svidomo? Should the war be against a well-equipped army? There are already problems with the T-90M, not like the old T-72 ...
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 11: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    So I heard that 15% of the aggregate characteristics.

    And I heard that "the Earth will fly on the celestial axis" and what? Few grandmothers on the benches chatting ...
  • bayard
    bayard 24 June 2020 13: 12 New
    -2
    Not grandmothers were talking about it.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 13: 28 New
    0
    Quote: bayard
    Not grandmothers were talking about it.

    Og, representatives of the institution that did not see this tank in their eyes, because they do not have access ...
  • bayard
    bayard 24 June 2020 15: 10 New
    0
    Eugene, I wrote to you that I’m not against what the state has already allocated for the purchase of these new products. Let the industry now build, and military operation prove its combat value and value for money.
    And I have no doubt whatsoever that the assigned price corresponds to its cost. I say that it is precisely its combat value that has not yet been proved by practical exploitation in the troops.
    Let everything go as it goes. And time will tell.
    And before that, not the General Staff, nor the MO will give a visa for the bulk purchase of this tank.
    Preliminary estimates are as I indicated. And let practical exploitation judge us.
    And the fact that the Armata program itself was a mistake is by no means said not only by me, but also by leading experts - generals of the armored forces.
    T-95 (195) was much more balanced. So it was necessary to finish it.
    Do you even remember how this program began?
    Who signed the verdict and gave the order?
    And what words?
    There was a direct ban on using the previous backlog.
    It was prescribed to do without fail from scratch and without relying on previous experience.
    Medvedev, he is such a ... leader ...
    So it turned out that there is.
    But the then commander of the armored forces was warned - “they will put you in prison for this,” and then you still have to return to what was originally ... But he retired before passing THIS.

    “Armata”, it’s like the “Panther” of the Wehrmacht in WWII - weight (and size) like a heavy tank, a gun, like a medium one. But at the same time, better security and greater ammunition. True, the industry was not able to produce this thing massively ... And the price ... But Hitler had no choice.
    True, no one removed the T-4 from production.
    And we have such a choice - to confine ourselves to a small series so far, move it to the foreign market, and then, based on experience and a new backlog, decide what and how. smile
    You understand, Eugene, no one in charge of the MO budget will approve mass purchases of those that have not proved their effectiveness on the basis of the price-quality ratio. If he proves, they will give money.

    After all, even in the Union they pulled as many as 3 (THREE) MBTs simultaneously: T-64, T-72 and T-80, although it was the tank specialists who suggested choosing a single chassis - the best of the three (T-80 was without a doubt ), a single tower - out of three (the T-72 tower was certainly one) and the best BIUS (the T-80 was better, but the T-64, especially the thermal imager, was not bad), and to execute the tank in two versions of the GEM - diesel and turbine for different climatic conditions.
    Not fused.
    The lobby won.
    And at the same time they drove all three, completely different tanks.

    Now the situation is different - the mass of almost new tanks in storage. With huge modernization potential.
    This must be taken into account, because no one will succeed in littering money, as in Soviet times ...
    To such a delicate matter you need to apply not only ambitions (which are good in terms of having the best and as soon as possible), but also common sense.
    And still it will be as it will be.
    hi
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 17: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    I say that it is precisely its combat value that has not yet been proved by practical exploitation in the troops.

    To begin with, the machine must, firstly, be spared the inevitable "childhood diseases", secondly, it must be run-in at the landfills and in parts in order to identify all possible design flaws and work out the systems so that all this sophisticated electronics works just as reliably and reliably like Kalash darling.
    And only then can it be applied in conflicts! Moreover, there are a lot of them now.
    But this also has a flip side - it is possible to prematurely spotlight the possibilities before the adversary and allow him to identify potential vulnerabilities.
    So this must be done carefully.
    Quote: bayard
    “Armata”, it’s like the “Panther” of the Wehrmacht in WWII - weight (and size) like a heavy tank, a gun, like a medium one. But at the same time, better security and greater ammunition.

    Here you have made a not quite correct comparison - the mass of the T-14 is very small, especially compared to Western tanks - tons of 50-55 by assumptions. And then - you can’t just take and compare the masses of T-14 and other tanks in the usual sense - the T-14 does not have a heavy tower, which, for example, the Abrashi, weighs about 30 tons! The T-14 tower is a tiny box, 1 meter wide, about 2 meters long and also about a meter high, even less ... Moreover, a sub-projection of such a crumb can have protection equivalent to a meter with a hook of homogeneous steel easily))))
    The T-14 cannon at the moment is the largest and most powerful among MBTs in the world, all these attempts by some of our "partners" to put something like 140 or 130 on existing vehicles failed miserably!

    Quote: bayard
    The lobby won.
    And at the same time they drove all three, completely different tanks.

    And just for this, armata is made - as a universal chassis for a wide BBM family))))
    Quote: bayard
    Now the situation is different - the mass of almost new tanks in storage. With huge modernization potential.

    I will disappoint you - the modernization potential of the wonderful T-72/80/90 line has already been exhausted - the T-90M or T-90MS is the maximum that can be squeezed out of this platform until they are enough, and then only something new - that's how times for this armata and done.
    Quote: bayard
    To such a delicate matter you need to apply not only ambitions (which are good in terms of having the best and as soon as possible), but also common sense.
    And still it will be as it will be.

    What we are observing is that a new technology is being gradually and thoroughly tested, without haste and in secrecy ...
  • Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 24 June 2020 17: 07 New
    0
    Your accounting logic in a war will not work. hi
    PS
    Quote: bayard
    Russia has thousands (many thousands) of T-72 and T-80 tanks at storage bases, which have a full modernization potential and an untouched resource at all.

    They have no modernization potential.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 11: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: bayard
    Rather, because I would have to develop a whole line of new ammunition in this caliber for her and produce this entire line.

    And that too! By the way, I was a little mistaken - by the year 2007, the 2A83 resource managed to reach just 200 with a few shots! 400 shots - it’s kind of as planned only! So the gun is not corny ready ...
    Quote: bayard
    A gun would have been brought if it had not been abandoned.

    I repeat once more - if, from 2001 to 2007, the resource had been increased from 100 shots to 200, then we would not have been able to ... More than that, what prevents it from starting the machine with a more familiar gun, running it in, and only then putting it into series with the finished 152 mm beast? Moreover, as I already wrote, infa slipped that work on 2A83 is still in progress ...
    Quote: bayard
    Too big, expensive and complicated

    Dear who said that? That's right - journalists, iksperdy and Western propagandists of all stripes ... None of the military officially made such claims against the car ...
    Quote: bayard
    only 125 mm.

    This gun now has the best ballistic characteristics of the tank guns available in the world, as well as the highest armor penetration, still only?
    Quote: bayard
    the price does not give a real increase in combat capabilities

    Where did you get information about the final price of the serial product and the real increase in combat capabilities?
    Quote: bayard
    Plus there will be problems with the development of the troops, repair and maintenance, spare parts.

    This is being decided ...
    Quote: bayard
    relative to T-90MS

    Regarding the T-90MS, the capabilities of the T-14 greatly increase significantly, especially in terms of situational awareness ...
    Quote: bayard
    In any case, the T-90MS will have combat value ... almost the same as the T-14, but it is almost half the price.

    It will not, because it does not have many possibilities ...
    Quote: bayard
    And in order for this new cuttlefish to justify the whole haemorrhoids by putting it into production, difficulties in mastering, maintenance and repair, new repair facilities and spare parts and cost sets ... It must be a true breakthrough in combat capabilities.

    Dear, who are you? Constructor, a tanker with a great length of service, who equally exploited both the T-90/80/72 and T-14 in combat conditions to say so?
    And then all the experts from the couch!
  • bayard
    bayard 24 June 2020 14: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Dear, who are you?

    More (in the past) in combat command and control and operational control. And yet, to some extent, as an economist and specialist in macroeconomics, I can make some conclusions. And what is surprising, these conclusions coincide with the opinion of a considerable number of specialists from the General Staff.
    I am not at all opposed to the production of a couple of hundred T-14s in the present form for the very break-in in the troops, but ONLY in such and no larger series.
    On the other hand, the tank turned out to be really good, and its export potential is quite encouraging.
    Therefore - a couple of hundred to yourself, and 500 - 1000 pcs. for export, and for the money raised - a new version with a 152 mm gun. And in this version, the tank can be purchased in a quantity of 600 - 1000 pcs. least .
    And no one, including the General Staff, should already have objections. smile
    And no one in the troops will complain about the new equipment being received, for they will know why there is one. wink

    Quote: Albert1988

    I repeat once more - if, from 2001 to 2007, the resource had been increased from 100 shots to 200, then we would not have been able to ... More than that, what prevents it from starting the machine with a more familiar gun, running it in, and only then putting it into series with the finished 152 mm beast? Moreover, as I already wrote, infa slipped that work on 2A83 is still in progress ...

    Well, after all, they themselves showed progress in the development and completion of the gun ... smile But now it’s already 2020.
    Let the guys work, they will succeed.
    And there will be a beast. good bully drinks
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 18: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    And what is surprising, these conclusions coincide with the opinion of a considerable number of specialists from the General Staff.

    How can I tell you - no one has officially published the opinions of specialists from the General Staff, besides the opinion that "we must first break in the equipment, and then make decisions on its adoption."
    Quote: bayard
    I am not at all opposed to the production of a couple of hundred T-14s in the present form for the very break-in in the troops, but ONLY in such and no larger series.

    How to say - they already ordered 140 - 80 T-14s, 40 T-15s and another 20 T-16s, this batch will be tested.
    Quote: bayard
    Therefore - a couple of hundred to yourself, and 500 - 1000 pcs. for export ,

    But this is in no case! For export mono and T-90, but the T-14 - this is only for us! Are you a secret electronics for export! So that tomorrow the Americans can take it apart by screw, disassemble and test all its capabilities and vulnerabilities! Get involved!
    Quote: bayard
    Therefore - a couple of hundred to yourself, and 500 - 1000 pcs. for export, and for the money raised - a new version with a 152 mm gun.

    And this is already a question - what larger caliber to take - why not pay attention to the 130 mm that was once used on some of our heavy tanks? Such a tool will already have a much larger mass of the projectile, but it will be easier to manufacture than 152 mm and have less weight and a longer resource, and it will be much cheaper.
    Quote: bayard
    And no one, including the General Staff, should already have objections.
    And no one in the troops will complain about the new equipment being received, for they will know why there is one.

    Everyone already knows this - to replace an outdated current one, the main thing is that this new equipment should work and properly perform the tasks assigned to it! To do this, everything must be carefully run in and work out!
    Quote: bayard
    Well, after all, they themselves showed progress in the development and completion of the guns ... But now 2020 is already

    Here is information on this issue, by the way dumb request at least i didn't find ...
    Quote: bayard
    Let the guys work, they will succeed.
    And there will be a beast.

    Of course it will)))) Yes, and the beast will be anyway))))
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 01: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    Compared to tanks of a potential enemy.

    For which years is it relevant? Times change...
  • venik
    venik 23 June 2020 18: 52 New
    +4
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    The fact that “Armata” has lost the advantage in smaller dimensions (Soviet school) and has become a better target

    ========
    Respected! When a tank is spinning half a kilometer from you and shoot according to YOU - It is 40 cm shorter or 40 cm shorter .... You will be absolutely "nevermind" !!! Believe me!
    The question will only be: HOW it will spin briskly, HOW to shoot accurately and HOW it will be well protected! And the "plus - minus" 40 cm - this you definitely DO NOT notice!
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 24 June 2020 01: 37 New
    +4
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    The fact that “Armata” lost the advantage in smaller dimensions (the Soviet school) and became the best target was noticed immediately with its appearance at the parade.

    Who noticed? And then - did you compare this machine with other tanks in a frontal projection? Nothing that the frontal projection of her tower is about 1 meter square! Everything else is a body kit ... And is there anything that the crew sits in the hull, which will still be much more difficult to target than a tower?
  • bald
    bald 23 June 2020 10: 14 New
    +9
    It is not strange, but on the issue of the article, the attitude to the configuration of tanks is like a woman who likes something. But ATGM - it’s for him ....
  • fider
    fider 23 June 2020 10: 16 New
    10
    Why is the front projection not compared?
    1. lucul
      lucul 23 June 2020 10: 25 New
      +7
      Why is the front projection not compared?

      Yes, because the attack itself is refuted)))
      This is a selective manipulation of authors - I see there, I do not see there)))
    2. Elephant
      Elephant 23 June 2020 14: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: fider
      Why is the front projection not compared?

      But because it’s more convenient to shoot at the barrel. Well, or as in the case of Javelin - from above.
    3. boris epstein
      boris epstein 23 June 2020 16: 34 New
      +2
      The width of the tank should fit on a railway platform, that is, fit into the dimensions of the railway structures. Therefore, the front projection is unlikely to be very different (except for the height, of course).
      1. romanru4
        romanru4 23 June 2020 18: 53 New
        +1
        Merkava is much wider. It does not limit the dimensions of the railway platform.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 23 June 2020 10: 25 New
    13
    Our tank is the largest, it will crush everyone. Scream all ... :)
  • amr
    amr 23 June 2020 10: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: NIKNN
    Our gun is longer ... :)

    ... longer and thicker!
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 23 June 2020 10: 33 New
    +7
    I think the most important comparison is the length of the part of the caterpillar that is on the ground. I don’t know what to call it right. Contact spot or something like that. This parameter directly affects mobility and maneuverability. A length with body kits is important only in the city.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 23 June 2020 11: 00 New
      +5
      Quote: garri-lin
      I don’t know what to call it right.

      The caterpillar base of the T-14 is only 20 centimeters larger than that of the Lera ...
      But about the height - greatly overestimated our car, especially in the part of the body ...
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 23 June 2020 14: 20 New
        +2
        Maybe this is justified. On photographs of interiors t and 14, open hatches are sometimes visible. There are really mines. The thickness of the roof is very large. Plus, the clearance seems to be bigger. But it is not exactly. This extra ten cm of height has developed.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 23 June 2020 14: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: garri-lin
          On photographs of interiors t and 14, open hatches are sometimes visible. There are really mines. The thickness of the roof is very large.

          According to the model, if calculated, then there will be 20 centimeters there.
          Quote: garri-lin
          Plus, the clearance seems to be bigger.

          If more, then most likely, it is immaterial ...
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 23 June 2020 16: 11 New
            +2
            There are two nuances, it is not known which final option will become mass in the troops. And it is not known when exact data on all geometric dimensions will be made popular. Well, plus it’s absolutely incomprehensible where in the projections of the hull is the armored housing and where are the external screens.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 23 June 2020 16: 55 New
              +2
              Quote: garri-lin
              There are two nuances, it is not known which final option will become mass in the troops.

              Apparently, the machine will not change outwardly, except for small details, all the innovations will be in the filling - more advanced sights are already set there, etc.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 23 June 2020 20: 15 New
                +1
                Well actually yes. There will be no major changes.
    2. fider
      fider 23 June 2020 11: 14 New
      +4
      garri-lin
      Ground pressure is called.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 23 June 2020 14: 16 New
        +1
        Pressure is a remoteness. I meant exactly the length of that part of the track that rests on the ground. The longer the harder it is to turn. And out of the track. And many more minuses.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 23 June 2020 14: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: garri-lin
          . I meant exactly the length of that part of the track that rests on the ground.

          This is called the track base length.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 23 June 2020 16: 07 New
            +1
            Thank. Click will remember the term.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 23 June 2020 16: 59 New
              +2
              Quote: garri-lin
              Thank. Click will remember the term.

              Everything is simple here - like the wheelbase - the longitudinal distance between the front and rear axles (in the case of a two-axle vehicle), the base of the tracked vehicle will be the distance between the "axles" of the outermost track rollers.
  • unhappy
    unhappy 23 June 2020 10: 35 New
    +8
    Today it doesn’t matter - the hit will be despite the geometry. We need to think more about the quality of protection and survivability. And preferably shoot first winked
  • lucul
    lucul 23 June 2020 10: 36 New
    +8
    In the Twitter account of a Canadian engineer from Toronto, Michael Mikhailovich appeared a series of images,

    In short - Filkin’s letter he did)))
    See for yourself: T-14 Armata is 8732 mm with a height of 2,7 m. The same performance with the American M1A2 Abrams - 7925 mm and 2,4 m,

    Where is the height difference of 30 cm? )))

    Or here: T-14 Armata is 8732 mm with a height of 2,7 m. For Leclerc - 6880 mm and 2,95 m.

    Where is Leclerc above Armata at the same 25cm? )))
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 23 June 2020 11: 17 New
      +8
      Quote: lucul
      Where is the height difference of 30 cm?

      I was not too lazy, measured the dimensions in the figure with a ruler, and recalculated accordingly to the scale (approximately 1:31). Yes, it turned out about 30 cm. I measured the height on the upper part of all add-ons, excluding antennas. Try and you do not measure by eye.
  • janin
    janin 23 June 2020 10: 42 New
    17
    All presented MBTs are tanks that are located in combat units of their countries. some who took part in military operations. and their strengths and weaknesses ... are known to everyone. there is nothing apart from declarative information about our Armata. not a correct comparison.
    1. Ramzaj99
      Ramzaj99 23 June 2020 12: 38 New
      +4
      Quote: janin
      All presented MBTs are tanks that are located in combat units of their countries. some who took part in military operations. and their strengths and weaknesses ... are known to everyone. there is nothing apart from declarative information about our Armata. not a correct comparison.

      And the fact that Oplot is not at all its own model of the tank, but the modernization of a long-existing machine, and indeed the project is closed and the tank is discontinued, does it bother him in this comparison ??)))
    2. 5-9
      5-9 23 June 2020 12: 53 New
      0
      That's amazing, right? Tanks that are 40 years old - much is known about them, but about the weapons that have not yet been adopted (the newest, secret, which will appear in the best case in 2035) T-14 - no ... it would be necessary for him to Syria, but for a land mine - to see in his armor also half the size of the filler is armored air as in Abrams or not :)
      1. Elephant
        Elephant 23 June 2020 14: 34 New
        0
        And suddenly, in the fighting, the T-14 will show itself poorly. What then with the prestige of the country, and the developers of awards and prizes have long received ...
        1. 5-9
          5-9 23 June 2020 14: 43 New
          0
          Do you propose to arrange a war to make a decision on adoption? Who will we test on?
          And then without war - it’s not safe, before the war no one knew that Abrams could be burned from a 12,7 machine gun and the ancient Bassoon leads to fireworks when starting from the frontal projection? With others, too, it doesn’t work out very well in a real war .. one Leclerc is so disgraced so far ..
  • pytar
    pytar 23 June 2020 10: 43 New
    +7
    Until now, the dimensions of Soviet / Russian tanks due to the density of the line-up were noticeably smaller than those of the western ones. Accordingly, the mass and area of ​​the lesion were less. This was a plus. In Armata, a lineup with an uninhabited turret and an armored capsule for the crew led to an increase in size and weight. On one side, the affected area became larger, and on the other, the crew protection level increased. As for cross-country ability in comparison with the T-72/90, it is unlikely that Armata has it higher.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 23 June 2020 11: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: pytar
      On one side, the affected area has become larger,

      But, but - the defeat area in this case cannot be calculated like a conventional tank!
      1. pytar
        pytar 23 June 2020 12: 09 New
        +2
        But, but - the defeat area in this case cannot be calculated like a conventional tank!

        Of course, in view of the characteristics of the Armata line-up, the area of ​​defeat has a different meaning. Critical areas for the crew, guaranteed better protected. But the rest ... The separation of the tower, the crew capsule, the engine, should have allowed to flatten the line-ups, while improving the conditions for the crew. That sharp increase in size is confusing ... It seems that the T-14 is somehow disproportionate, especially if we compare it with the handsome T-72/90! Of course, the impressions are external, as we really do not know how it is. hi
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 23 June 2020 12: 21 New
          +4
          Quote: pytar
          It seems that the T-14 is somehow disproportionate, especially if we compare it with the handsome T-72/90!

          Dear, I’ll soon post pictures of my T-14 and T-90M models — let's compare it — you’ll see that the T-14 is not so big - the body itself has grown by the length of the capsule and that’s all, well, the height has grown somewhat due to the very thick roof ...
          1. pytar
            pytar 23 June 2020 12: 44 New
            +4
            Good! I personally will be interested! good
          2. Camel
            Camel 23 June 2020 20: 45 New
            +2
            Yes, we are really looking forward. True, interesting!
  • Yurahip
    Yurahip 23 June 2020 10: 48 New
    +8
    Well the news however! All tanks in 1-35 have been doing plastic for a long time. Bought, assembled, compared. And pleasure on self-isolation, and informative.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 23 June 2020 11: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Jurachip
      Well the news however! All tanks in 1-35 have been doing plastic for a long time. Bought, assembled, compared. And pleasure on self-isolation, and informative.

      Here's how to get to my models - check))))
    2. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 23 June 2020 11: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: Jurachip
      All tanks in 1-35 have been doing plastic for a long time.

      And in the 72nd - already compared at home.)
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 23 June 2020 11: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: Paranoid50
        And in the 72nd - already compared at home.)

        So it seems to me that the figures of the T-14 are greatly exaggerated ...
    3. paco.soto
      paco.soto 23 June 2020 13: 11 New
      +4
      With a smile: I apologize for interfering, but thank all the participants in this thread for the idea! After all, buying and finding time to glue the model will be nostalgic memories.
  • 113262a
    113262a 23 June 2020 10: 54 New
    +7
    Again, the dismemberment of an unkilled medvel? Where is that Armata yet! In our training center in Elani, on the tactical field, was Abrams's dummy! Real size. Miss the hell! From all projections! And here it is ... Also with a bunch of tin entrails on the tower! Stealth? No, not heard!
    1. Yura
      Yura 23 June 2020 11: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: 113262
      Also with a bunch of tin entrails on the tower! Stealth? No, not heard!

      Heard, this is when the whole is hung with tin cans (visual mimicry, leading to a stupor of the enemy with a noise shock) and buried in the ground so that no one sees. winked ))
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 23 June 2020 10: 56 New
    -7
    T-14 Armata from the very beginning cut his eye with his HUGE, about such people say - "the dream of a grenade launcher." Huge, tall, expensive and unfinished. An old Soviet sore - even with an uninhabited tower, the barrel is located low to the hull (this is at the enormous height of the tank itself and its tower), as a result of which the gun barrel should always be directed upward when moving. I have no idea why everyone praises him so, in every way. For crew security? Well, that’s a huge plus. But ... The sense of this crew, if the tank itself is a huge target, all the weapons and sighting systems of which is located in the tower, which itself is very high and is the most vulnerable point of the tank - hit ATGM or projectile, mines and even partial the defeat of the tower and its elements deprives the crew of everything - weapons, visibility, aiming, radars, etc. Yes, the crew in the capsule is more likely to survive. But for what? To enter the battle, get the first hit on the tower and defeat the tank and fly from it, leaving several hundred million rubles on the battlefield ?! I don’t need to talk about KAZ, even the best in the world that stands on the Merkavas - and it saves only from the first round of an ATGM or a shell. When firing a machine gun at the turret, KAZ glitches and misses even the first anti-tank shell, plus KAZ glitches in smoke, with neighboring fuses. And Russian KAZs are insanely expensive, and in terms of efficiency they are many times worse than Israeli ones.
    In short, they created some sort of huge target with a bunch of unfinished solutions at a huge development cost. And they themselves do not know what to do with it - it’s too expensive for the army, nobody needs to sell it.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 23 June 2020 12: 10 New
      +8
      "When firing a machine gun at the tower," ///
      ----
      Tank-to-tank firefights usually occur at distances much greater than effective firing from heavy machine guns.
      Americans shoot in the afternoon from 2-2.5 km, at night from 2 km. Optics and KAZs are covered by armor and bulletproof crystal glasses.
      Count on the shooting of tanks only accounts for the gun.
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 23 June 2020 13: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "When firing a machine gun at the tower," ///
        ----
        Tank-to-tank firefights usually occur at distances much greater than effective firing from heavy machine guns.
        Americans shoot in the afternoon from 2-2.5 km, at night from 2 km. Optics and KAZs are covered by armor and bulletproof crystal glasses.
        Count on the shooting of tanks only accounts for the gun.

        As I understand it, he meant that the simultaneous firing of a machine gun and a gun or a grenade launcher confuses KAZ ... and reduces its efficiency very much.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 23 June 2020 14: 17 New
          +5
          It depends on which KAZs ... recourse
          KAZ Trophy is controlled by radar. The radar will cut off the bullets, as too small an object; the KAZ’s “shooter” does not have time to react to the OBPS projectile either (I believe, but I’m not sure) there will be no reaction to the projectile. And rockets and grenades will bring down.
          1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
            GELEZNII_KAPUT 23 June 2020 14: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            It depends on which KAZs ...
            KAZ Trophy is controlled by radar. The radar will cut off the bullets, as too small an object; the KAZ’s “shooter” does not have time to react to the OBPS projectile either (I believe, but I’m not sure) there will be no reaction to the projectile. And rockets and grenades will bring down.

            Well, the message is clear ... Odessa computers are loaded with the inscription "Do you still have a case or just poke ?!" laughing
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 23 June 2020 14: 46 New
              +4
              Each missile defense system, as well as air defense systems, has technical limitations. But it's better to intercept something than nothing. Trophy was designed and tested in combat against anti-tank missiles and RPG grenades. But the tank has many other enemies: shells, “crowbars”, ground mines, side land mines.
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 23 June 2020 18: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: GELEZNII_KAPUT
          As I understand it, he meant that the simultaneous firing of a machine gun and a gun or a grenade launcher confuses KAZ ... and reduces its efficiency very much.

          KAZ afghanite is deeply integrated with the vehicle’s BIOS, which minimizes the possibility of "confusing" it this way - everything, as the respected Vojaka wrote, the radar will determine what flies into the tank and prevent false triggering.
  • Alexga
    Alexga 23 June 2020 11: 05 New
    +9
    This phrase “techies” is changed to the option “It’s better to see a graph or chart once than look at the numbers a hundred times”

    With the rights of a “techie” tank with 26 years of experience, I will allow myself to express a number of my thoughts on this subject. It is very strange that UVZ took the path of increasing the dimensions of its samples. I once witnessed the work of General Venediktov in making decisions on the modernization of manufactured models. The main requirement was not to increase the weight of the new elements and to comply with the existing dimensions of the machine. Now they have completely forgotten about it. It is surprising why they made a remotely controlled anti-aircraft machine gun? We got more than half a meter of additional machine height, but you can’t even imagine what kind of target we will hit with this machine gun. Well, maybe a helicopter that happened to be nearby, if we can find it. Although the enemy’s helicopter will hover somewhere in 5-6 km, but for us it will be inaccessible. Therefore, I believe that having sacrificed the dimensions of the car, the result of achievements is quite low. But it’s cheaper to create a weapon piercing through armor than to protect this armor from hitting weapons. Yes, you can talk a lot about this topic. As for Almaty, it is generally difficult here. I have a question. Purely hypothetically imagine, electricity disappeared into the tank. There can be many reasons, tankers will agree with me, this is very common. Under these conditions, is it possible to manually detect the target in the sight, load the gun, fire a shot and hit the target? And from a machine gun too. Well, if a mechanic with his head, then he will be able to start a tank, albeit with violations of the rules, and take him out to some shelter if he is lucky. And what kind of car on the battlefield do we have? On such trifles as how to open the roof over the engine it was already difficult on the T-72, I generally am silent about modern cars. But this is purely my opinion. What do you think? I must say right away that I respect the UVZ and its design bureau with the greatest respect, they always made a tank for battle, and not for ballet and parquet events.!
    1. mkop
      mkop 23 June 2020 11: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: AlexGa
      Purely hypothetically imagine, electricity disappeared into the tank. There can be many reasons, tankers will agree with me, this is very common

      Of course, I did not deal with tanks. But I am also a techie, both by education and work. Question allow? And why in the tank there is a power failure, and even often? After reading your comment, I realized for myself this: this is a completely normal situation. But from the point of view of the reliability of equipment, doesn’t it seem to you that it’s strange that in a tank (in general, in any equipment) often electricity is missing? Why, when using civilian equipment, is this considered abnormal at all, but not in the tank?
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 23 June 2020 12: 05 New
        +1
        The causes of the disappearance of electricity almost always arise due to violation of the operating rules. Everything is made up of little things. The mechanic did not tighten the battery terminals normally, they instantly burn off when the engine starts, high amperage, tightened with one cry instead of two, broke the terminal, did not use the necessary washers on the terminals, did not correctly fix the battery in place, they shifted and closed to ground. Maxim, you can write a lot. The problem is in the training of the crew, someone somewhere freeloaded by his laziness. But I said that a similar malfunction occurred on the battlefield, and what to do next? Any machine must have a high level of foolproofness. With this, questions already began to arise on the T-72B. Example, on the electro-pneumatic valve for starting the engine with air, the lever of the manual drive was removed, and that's it, a headache started.
        1. mkop
          mkop 23 June 2020 12: 53 New
          +2
          OK. But fool resistance should not be decided by refusing electrification, etc. of things. Fool resistance should be solved by a method that should exclude improper actions of the crew, maintenance personnel, etc. I believe that the cause should be corrected, not the effect.

          In general, any new technique at first seems complicated, incomprehensible, etc. But I don’t think that fools are sitting at UVZ who, well, don’t understand what they’re doing and don’t provide for such things as manual control. I think where it was possible to do - it is done. ANY technique is a compromise from constructive solutions, Armata cannot be an exception.

          PS. The example you have cited - with a manual backup on the valve, is not foolproof at all, but a simple redundancy. In general, the term "protection from the fool" does not imply redundancy as such, but rather the exclusion of improper actions on the part of man.
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 23 June 2020 13: 46 New
            +1
            You basically did not understand me. I’m talking about the fact that in case of electrical equipment failure, the crew should have the option of using weapons in manual mode. And it is impossible to refuse electricity in the tank. And at UVZ, the smartest engineers and designers are sitting, but managers are managing them, for whom you need to create a product for sale, and not weapons to protect your state. It's my opinion. It was not for nothing that at first I said that I was a tank doctor with 26 years of experience. And what I'm saying is my experience in different regions and conditions. And with an air-start valve, you would try it yourself. There is a wire hook in the spare parts, which has a habit of getting lost, and it’s extremely inconvenient to use it.
            1. Alexga
              Alexga 23 June 2020 13: 56 New
              +1
              I will add. Foolproofness should protect the car from improper crew actions. No matter what he is trained, errors still occur, and the machine must remain in working condition
        2. Free wind
          Free wind 23 June 2020 13: 28 New
          -1
          It is necessary to do protection not from the fool, but from the clever, and even who imagines himself clever. Now the batteries are not serviced go. and the instruction says to remove the batteries and store them, after two three such removals, to the terminals of Tryndets. And some kind of stubborn one, that's to take it off and take it away. And 135 in a wooden box weighed 70 kilograms. Now it’s certainly easier. But now, in general, the gelled ones have gone, but they are not letting them out of us and are not going to release them. and the instructions will not be canceled. Yes, the same relay regulator can not do normal. from a jump from 24 to 35 volts, what can I say.
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 23 June 2020 13: 54 New
            0
            It is necessary to do protection not from the fool, but from the clever, and even who imagines himself clever.

            I hope this is not about me.
            Now the batteries are not serviced go. and the instruction says to remove the batteries and store them, after two or three such removals, to the terminals of Tryndec.

            Yes, there were such, OPTIMA was called, complete junk, I know who accepted them for service, quit on time, his place is behind bars. They paid the money to the Americans, and they are even weak for the BMP. I did not come across 135, the best is the old model 6STEN140M. They require accuracy in maintenance, but are reliable. But what, now batteries on armored vehicles on the machines are not installed during short-term storage?
      2. 113262a
        113262a 23 June 2020 12: 15 New
        +3
        There are a lot of reasons! Water got into the VKU after sitting in a marching driver caught a dolphin, the same VKU was damaged after landing on the stump with its bottom, hit of spent cartridges from a machine gun or the entire cartridge case into the wiring or into the VKU. (VKU-rotating contact device, if cho!)
      3. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 23 June 2020 14: 16 New
        0
        Of course, I did not deal with tanks. But I am also a techie, both by education and work. Question allow? And why in the tank there is a power failure, and even often? After reading your comment, I realized for myself this: this is a completely normal situation. But from the point of view of the reliability of equipment, doesn’t it seem to you that it is strange that electricity often disappears in a tank (and indeed in any equipment)? Why, when using civilian equipment, is this considered abnormal at all, but not in the tank?

        This is all because of AvtoVAZ, he suggested to us that our equipment always fails ... while the Japanese one for some reason doesn’t have anything to do with tanks, but I hope they work like a Japanese Toyota!
    2. A1845
      A1845 23 June 2020 12: 41 New
      +4
      Quote: AlexGa
      Under these conditions, is it possible to manually detect the target in the sight, load the gun, fire a shot and hit the target?

      As far as you can understand from the available materials, the crew is devoid of optical surveillance tools, there are only visualization tools of an unknown level. The issue of situational awareness of the crew is not disclosed. Presumably, everything is not easy here.
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 23 June 2020 12: 47 New
        +3
        So it turns out that the fur driver has optical surveillance devices, he can ride. The commander and gunner have something to look forward, but the aiming means are only electronic. Well, electric starters are only remote. Somehow, price and quality are difficult to forgive. You can invest in R&D and production, but what happens is a question.
  • Dmitry Makarov
    Dmitry Makarov 23 June 2020 11: 11 New
    +6
    Tank "Oplot" does not exist, several units were created in artisanal conditions, it is not worth even mentioning it.
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 23 June 2020 11: 18 New
      13
      Quote: Dmitry Makarov
      Tank "Bastion" does not exist,

      Duc, this is to the author. And the author is
      Canadian engineer from Toronto Michael Mikhailovich
      Conclusion: without the "Bastion" it was impossible in any way, because the "countrymen" would be offended. laughing
      1. Alexander Mironovsky
        Alexander Mironovsky 23 June 2020 17: 16 New
        +1
        In fact, even Thailand were delivered ..
        1. Paranoid50
          Paranoid50 23 June 2020 17: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Mironovsky
          even Thailand were delivered ..

          Well, who does not remember this "deal of the century" ... fellow The Thais are still coming up. laughing
    2. Insurgent
      Insurgent 23 June 2020 11: 53 New
      +6
      Quote: Dmitry Makarov
      Tank "Oplot" does not exist, several units were created in artisanal conditions, it is not worth even mentioning it.


      Let me challenge your statement.

      I, as a citizen of the DPR, was interested in the availability of this or that equipment / weapons from ukrovoyak, and I can object to you that the T-84BM Oplot exists in several dozen copies.

      About 10 units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (as much as they could afford), and 49 BM “Oplot-T” export units as of March 26, 2018, are in service with the Thai army ...
      1. paco.soto
        paco.soto 23 June 2020 13: 05 New
        0
        I, as a citizen of the DPR, was interested in the availability of this or that equipment / weapons from ukrovoyak, and I can object to you that T-84BM ***

        Thank you for the information.
  • satelit24
    satelit24 23 June 2020 12: 08 New
    +3
    like abrasha for more should be!?
  • Wolf
    Wolf 23 June 2020 12: 20 New
    +1
    The meaning of the comparison that shows the SURFACE of the Caterpillar, if you add the WEIGHT, indicates the patency of the tank, as well as the profile of the target.
  • Volzhanin64
    Volzhanin64 23 June 2020 13: 55 New
    -1
    Wacky comparison.
    It would be better compared by performance characteristics, firepower, security and other characteristics.
    And it’s like in football: you can compare Maradon and Dziub by growth and conclude that from the last one an order of magnitude more outstanding football player than the first
  • bk0010
    bk0010 23 June 2020 14: 52 New
    0
    Oh, and nichrome ... Our tank was fed to the size of a Leopard ...
  • Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 23 June 2020 14: 54 New
    +1
    Well, I don’t believe that it weighs about 50 tons. It is larger than Abrams and Leo, and they are 60 tons
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 23 June 2020 15: 08 New
    0
    it would be nice to also indicate the clearance and weight of the compared
  • IC
    IC 23 June 2020 16: 25 New
    -1
    Tank Comparison is a sports game. Their role in modern conditions is local wars in the fight against weakly armed populations. And if the enemy has ATGMs, the fate of the tanks is sad. Example, the battles in Grozny. Therefore, in many NATO countries, the minimum number of tanks left. At the same time, financing of new projects is minimized.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 24 June 2020 10: 35 New
      0
      Example, fights in Grozny
      The use of tanks in the city has its very great specifics ... Tanks in this case are used exclusively as mobile artillery ... In urban battles, what’s lost is why tanks are traditionally designed and built - frontal attack over a long distance ... As a result, relevance thick frontal armor of the tank and the relevance of protecting the tank from ATGM hits from the upper projections is very increasing ...

      Grachev generally promised to throw the Chechens with their hats in 2 hours - a pearl from the usual wedding general dress of the era of the 90s ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Sergey Meshnyakov
    Sergey Meshnyakov 23 June 2020 18: 16 New
    +1
    The larger the tower, the higher the likelihood that it will be demolished to hell by the ATGM rhinestones, so Armata does not live long with such a tower. While Merkavu, not a single tank yet, surpassed survivability.
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 24 June 2020 11: 12 New
      0
      And what is wrong with the tower of Almaty? Remove the cover and hinge and get just a gun rolled up in armor
  • Alexander Zima
    Alexander Zima 23 June 2020 19: 23 New
    -3
    The author wants to say that a shell or a missile will not get into a small tank .. as soon as the flies fly .. and Armata is not penetrated .. it doesn’t fix the tower size .. it has the highest class of protection ...... so there’s a comparison of size. does not play any role ... the main thing is the protection of the armor.
  • Mihail59
    Mihail59 24 June 2020 07: 07 New
    0
    This means that happiness is not in size, but in its capabilities, and with the development of electronics it is still necessary to approach it at a distance of defeat, especially since it was created for future battles where it will not be used alone. I think so... bully
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 24 June 2020 10: 10 New
      +1
      Moreover, it was created for future battles where alone
      Any combat clash has its surprises and can always go differently from what KB thinks about it. And the talent of any designer is precisely to create weapons taking into account extreme situations ... One of the extreme situations is just fighting alone! !! And also for tanks, for example, these are operational actions in a limited space, quick overcoming of obstacles in their path, and so on ...

      Russia is a huge country and tanks need to be transferred quickly from one part of the country to another — moreover, equipment can be either in conditions of great cold and in conditions of heat .... Equipment must quickly travel long distances and often under its own power ... Here in T designs -72, T-80, T-90 is all well thought out, but in the construction of Almaty it is somehow not very noticeable !!! And in general, how successful and practical is the concept of a tank with an uninhabited tower? and how perfect and versatile is its electronics? - these are still unanswered questions ...

      Any weapon is as good as it is universal !!!
      1. d4rkmesa
        d4rkmesa 24 June 2020 18: 14 New
        0
        "Russia is a huge country and tanks need to be transferred quickly from one part of the country to another - moreover, equipment can be in conditions of great cold and in heat ... Equipment must quickly travel long distances and often under its own power ..."
        Something went wrong. Tanks are usually transported either on a railway platform or on a special trawl, like any other tracked vehicle. What is “under its own power” to storm the English Channel? If you want the equipment to go far and often under its own power, it should be wheeled. And this is a fairly popular concept in some countries.
  • Allexir
    Allexir 24 June 2020 08: 19 New
    +1
    And how did these vile Russians manage to make it the easiest of all with such dimensions !?
  • Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 24 June 2020 08: 35 New
    +2
    - What cucumber do you want?
    - I do not care for me for a salad
    It all depends on the assigned tasks that the tank must perform, it is for this that it is designed and built.
  • madjik
    madjik 24 June 2020 09: 45 New
    0
    if the tower is uninhabited, so what x .. do this size?
    1. Region68
      Region68 24 June 2020 11: 06 New
      -1
      This is probably a stealth body kit
    2. Dangerous
      Dangerous 24 June 2020 11: 14 New
      0
      There is a casing and attachments, the tower itself is large enough to cover the gun
  • geologist
    geologist 24 June 2020 10: 00 New
    0
    You can put a plus for the ability to scale drawings. At one time I put together
    Photo of I-16 Polikarpov fighter with Mikoyanovsky MIG-1. It turned out that they look like brothers in silhouette, especially in the back. Only later did materials appear on the network that the MIG-1 had grown out of Polikarpov’s company. In general, adding pictures is an interesting thing, but you need not to stop and go to three-dimensional models. There are also many interesting things. You can mold your own projection of a light aircraft, car or yacht.
  • Zurab Tsalikov
    Zurab Tsalikov 24 June 2020 11: 06 New
    +1
    Honestly surprised. I did not expect that “Armata” is larger than “Abrams”, “Merkava” and “Leopard”. If this is true, then it seems that “Armata” stands out sharply and refutes the standard approach of the Russian school of tank building - a low profile, to cling to the ground as much as possible. Apparently, now there are other priorities - the tank should be equipped with computerized anti-tank systems. But in any case, this is unexpected.
    1. Alexey from Perm
      Alexey from Perm 25 June 2020 05: 43 New
      0
      yes unexpectedly, given that the tower is uninhabited. But it gives an answer why the armature was not accepted into service and probably will not be accepted, I would like to look at the developers. More dimensions, more weight, you need a more powerful engine, more fuel, more expensive and metal-intensive. Karoche, nobody needs such Armata. Developed by a muddle.
  • ELEZKIY
    ELEZKIY 24 June 2020 11: 57 New
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    And she won.

    You can now say differently ... but she really did not lose this battle. This should stop .....

    she did not come to the battle .... Anglo-Saxons - cowards and jackals.
    1. Oleg Salov
      Oleg Salov 24 June 2020 20: 41 New
      0
      And you noticed that the English tank is not represented here, suggests that such crap is not worthy to be here, it is worse than even the Ukrainian Oplot.
  • Crimea26
    Crimea26 24 June 2020 20: 32 New
    0
    Well, in height with the main western cars - almost the same. But there are towers with "meat filling" ....
  • Oleg Salov
    Oleg Salov 24 June 2020 20: 34 New
    +1
    And this is all a comparison, I’m shocked, as an artilleryman to a tankman I’ll say, I’m in shock.
  • remal
    remal 24 June 2020 21: 09 New
    0
    Armata t-14 weight 55 tons.
    The shell-ME weighs 8,250 tons.
    The shell ammunition is also under the tower and the crew is also 3 people. So you can cross. Missiles are only easier to make and adapt them to the T-14 charging systems.
  • Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 25 June 2020 05: 38 New
    +1
    Sadly, this is how our designers managed to surpass everyone in size with an uninhabited tower .. It becomes clear now why Armata did not go into the series ... Perhaps it’s even logical
  • gromoboj
    gromoboj 25 June 2020 19: 22 New
    0
    What did you want to show with this comparison? What is the t-14 tallest and longest?
  • VladVlad
    VladVlad 26 June 2020 16: 26 New
    0
    Jewelin from above, with one shot destroys all tanks.
  • ben.reis
    ben.reis 27 June 2020 07: 27 New
    0
    Armata is the best and most beautiful!
  • skobars
    skobars 28 June 2020 20: 53 New
    0
    Hefty fool, it will be easier to get than other tanks. And this is definitely a minus.