The West compared the Russian T-14 "Armata" and the American "Abrams"

The Russian T-14 Armata tank haunts Western journalists and military experts. On the pages of newspapers and magazines with constant periodicity there are new and new articles and notes dedicated to the new "Russian tank". Foreign experts especially like to compare the" Armata "with the tanks of the NATO member states, which are in service at the present time. Another article on this topic appeared in the American magazine The National Interest.

The magazine once again compared the T-14 "Armata" tank with the American MBT M1 Abrams. The publication notes that the Russian T-14 Armata tank is superior to the American tank in several respects. The first is mass and speed. "Armata" weighs 49 tons and is capable of speeds up to 90 km / h, while the American tank weighs 62 tons and its speed does not exceed 55 km / h. Secondly, the caliber of the T-14 cannon is 125 mm, while the Abrams has 120 mm, moreover, the rate of fire of the Armata is higher thanks to the automatic loader, while in the Abrams the rate of fire depends on the actions of the loader. And the most important advantage of the Russian tank is the uninhabited tower and the crew in an isolated armored capsule.

It should be noted that the authors of this article did not say anything new, only repeating old publications that came out all past years in various editions. Tank T-14 "Armata" has already been compared with the American "Abrams", and with the German "Leopard" and the French "Leclerc", in general, with almost all modern tanks.

Meanwhile, the Defense Committee of the House of Commons of the British Parliament said that the main battle tank of the British Army Challenger 2 has not been modernized for a long time and therefore is significantly inferior to the Russian T-14 Armata tank.

In turn, the American magazine Forbes, relying on data from the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC), which announced that the T-14 Armata tank is being prepared for export deliveries, named potential buyers of the tank. According to the journalists of the publication, India and China will become the main buyers of the tank. In addition, interest from Algeria and Egypt is not excluded. At the same time, it is emphasized that it is unlikely that many applications for a Russian tank will come from the Middle East, since "it is too complicated and therefore problems with its operation may arise."

Recall that the Russian Armed Forces should receive 132 T-14 tanks and T-15 BMPs on the Armata platform by the end of 2021.

Comments

[APASUS]

At the same time, it is emphasized that it is unlikely that many applications for a Russian tank will come from the Middle East, since "it is too complicated and therefore problems with its operation may arise."

I have not seen simple American weapons, they are all stuffed with electronics and require very serious knowledge to maintain. However, for this reason, the demand does not fall

[vfwfr]

The measurement system is different, roughly speaking. Buy those who bought even during the union. China is a separate case ...

[Vladimir16]

the Russian T-14 Armata tank is superior to the American one ...
The first is mass and speed. "Armata" .49 tons .. speed up to 90 km / h, ... an American tank weighs 62 tons and its speed does not exceed 55 km / h. ...,
caliber of the T-14 cannon ..125 mm, .. for the "Abrams" - 120 mm

It is reasonable to compare these parameters with the T-72, T-80 and T-90 of which in the troops of a THOUSAND!

And we'll wait for the T-14. So far, he is only an irritant for the press and "analysts".
At the moment, the country is protected by other tanks and they are no worse than the Abrams, and according to the indicators indicated in the article, they are better than the Americans. And I repeat - there are THOUSANDS.

[carstorm 11]

demand for American weapons is not created at all by supply), especially in the BV) NATO has long been a state market and not collective security)

[Prisoner]

"However, for this reason, demand is not falling." (c) However, demand is not falling for this reason.

[Thrifty]

Abrashka must be compared with 90 of any modification, because T14 is a completely different generation of tanks, there are simply no such tanks in the world, from the word in general.

[Finches]

Americans, you, most importantly, do not forget to remove the nigra-loader and change it to white ...

[mojohed2012]

Yes, replacing a black loader with a white one is required, otherwise some kind of racism turns out!
And in general, blacks should not serve in the army with them, otherwise, you understand, almost 3 centuries before that they plowed on plantations, and one of the presidents promised them 14 acres of land to each, but did not give them, i.e. they threw the blacks, and then, they put the shells at the tank gun to push the shells into the barrel.
No, let the whites push, and let the blacks sit at home, paint with spray cans everywhere BLM and defund the police and receive increased benefits due to the fact that their ancestors were somehow humiliated there.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: mojohed2012

Yes, replacing a black loader with a white one is required, otherwise some kind of racism turns out!

Exactly. The charger, in the light of new trends, should be white. Where that he loaded will fly is determined by the black (gunner). And the commander should be blue. And what color is "blue" - is the question here?

[SASHA OLD]

And "blue" should be yellow ...
Or redskins!

[orionvitt]

Quote: APASUS

However, for this reason, demand does not fall.

The demand for American weapons directly depends on the political dependence of the buyer on the United States. The Americans do not sell their weapons, they impose them. Like you are an ally, so you just have to buy an American one, otherwise it will be bad. Let's tighten the nuts. No market, protectionism and pure political pressure. I heard this "story", with which I agree:
If there is a lot of money, they buy German weapons.
If there is little money, they buy Chinese weapons.
If they want to make money on kickbacks, they buy American weapons.
But if they are going to fight, they buy Russian.

[APASUS]

Quote: orionvitt

The demand for American weapons directly depends on the political dependence of the buyer on the United States.

Rather, from a set of measures, including from patronage. The Americans, along with the sale of weapons, are engaged in banal "protection"

[Crimean partisan 1974]

again twenty-five .... in the light of recent events in the states, the abra are deprived of black loaders .... that's it. what comparisons can be

[Irek]

As they dare to bark at the owner, the super - duper "Abrams" is not praised.

[businessv]

Recall that the Russian Armed Forces should receive 132 T-14 tanks and T-15 BMPs on the Armata platform by the end of 2021.

Good news! Really finished? Comparing the T-14 and the Abrams is like cramming something unproductive!

[Free wind]

Very interesting. Developers say the mass of the T-14 is 56-60 tons, depending on the configuration, in the article 47 tons. Speed ​​75-90 km per hour, in article 90, without a bazaar.

[AlexVas44]

... the authors of this article did not say anything new, only repeating old publications,

So this article also repeated everything old. Apparently I really want ...

[Mytholog]

To compare the forty-year-old tank of the N-th modernization with the one undergoing trial operation ... Well, sofa experts - they are, yes.

[Senka naughty]

the authors of this article did not say anything new, only repeating old publications

So we have the same parrots sitting on VO, so they also dig and graze outright nonsense. Comparing tanks of different generations is no longer news, of course.

[BAI]

132 T-14 tanks and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles on the Armata platform by the end of 2021.

Now - the middle of 2020. Well, the pace. Especially when you consider that Abrams has been serially produced for 100 years, supplied to different countries and takes part in various military conflicts.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

that "Abrams" has been mass-produced for 100 years ...... what to lie then .... 50 maximum like the T-72 .... but let's face it with the loading system. -negr where charging can not come into place in contrast to PP, by the presence of the more presence of BCCH. the T-72 has, and in the abra, the specific load on the ground. for 72 - no more than 0.92 kg per square meter. for abra for 1 kg per Mkv. he sat in the mud as in the old days, the Tiger sat, and so on little things. range at one gas station, the possibility of underwater passage if there is no pontoon park. .... the whole calculation is as follows. T-72 tank-fighter and abra so. deterrent tank of the second if not the third echelon

[Brylevsky]

let's face it with the loading system

You can also measure the thickness of the frontal armor (61 tons versus 45 for the T-72 did not appear from scratch?), As well as the power of armor-piercing shells. To this I would also add the location of the ammunition ... with cardboard sleeves. I am not a tanker and I have nothing to do with armored vehicles, but I have seen enough in the photo and video with the "crazy" T-72 - 80, - 90. Well, the ten-meter fountain of flame into the sky from the open tower hatch is generally enchanting ... and there is no getting away from it: all our tanks with AZ are not free from this drawback, despite some of their positive qualities; “Abrams”, with all its minuses (“minuses” from our point of view, not the Americans), has no such drawback: there the upper panels of the ammunition rack niche give a chance for the crew to survive when a shell hits it, and we don't even have this chance ... It turns out that if uranium "scrap" flies into our T-72 "successfully", then there will be no one to escape from the flashed tank.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

The above panels of the ammunition storage niche give a chance for the crew to survive when a shell hits it, but we don't even have this chance. It turns out that if uranium "scrap" flies into our T-72 "successfully", then there will be no one to escape from the flashed tank ............ getting into the niche of the abra tower is a kirdyk tank forever. and hitting a crowbar in a T-72 is a grandmother for two said. ... in any case, the T-72 withstood 24 hits from anti-tank weapons. at which he returned to the base on his own. ..I don’t remember such cases when it happened with Abra or Leo in the light of recent events.

[Brylevsky]

getting into the niche of the abra tower is a kirdyk tank forever.

It turns out that if a shell hits the niche with the Abrams' kit, then the tank is over, and if a shell hits the fighting compartment, where everything is together, both the crew and the ammunition, then it’s not a fact that our tank too, - end? Excuse me, aren't you from the Youth Army? Where is the logic? At "Abrams" the crew is separated from the ammunition by armored panels + the roof of the niche with shells (mind you - not cardboard), these are knockout plates, - this is bad, OK; the T-72 (and all the others) separates the crew from the ammunition nothing: in the T-72 and T-90 the crew sits on it, in the T-64 and T-80 he is around him - it's not a shit, guys! Where is the logic?
Maybe the T-72 could withstand 24 PTS hits, I don’t argue with that (especially when all the cumulative jets are past the AZ carousel and fuel tanks in the fighting compartment, right?). But I also saw a video on "You tube", where just one RPG-29 hit turned the Syrian T-72 into a crematorium, what about that? Yes, during the war in Georgia, there was a case when a Georgian T-72 was destroyed with just one shot from an RPG-7 ... just a specialist shot. Have you already forgotten the tanks of the 131st Motorized Rifle Brigade during the New Year's assault on Grozny?

I don’t remember such cases when it happened with Abra or Leo in the light of recent events.

You don't remember because you didn't see. And they didn't see it, because they didn't show it to us. And they did not show it, because ... in general, this moment has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Sitting astride a barrel of gunpowder, will you feel comfortable fighting? I forgot to add ... the cannon in the direction of the tank, the elevation of the barrel is "0", - as a mechanic - should the driver normally leave the control compartment? This is in the T-72 and T-90. Now, let's complicate the task: the mechanic - the driver sits in the T-80, the conditions are the same. As in this case fast leave the workplace?

[Crimean partisan 1974]

At the Abrams, the crew is separated from the ammunition by armored panels + the very roof of a niche with shells ....
even watched a lot of videos about abra and about leo-2. I did not see what the crews were saving ...
But I also saw a video on "You tube", where just one hit from an RPG-29 turned the Syrian T-72 into a crematorium, ..... in vain did not see it, this is a production with a selfish purpose, I can tell you why .... but to our rams. ... vidio shows a grenade crashing into the stern. but there is no characteristic leading explosion. and then a flame bursts out of the hatches .... it gets into the aft ammunition storage tank, the tower comes off the tank, and here. gin, and another interesting point. .... smoke comes out of the gun. and this is when the breech is closed .... draw conclusions
when the Georgian T-72 was destroyed with just one shot from the RPG-7 ... a specialist just shot ... even a specialist would not disassemble an empty tank, but as you know, the Georgians threw all the tanks ... and so the only possible way to fill up the T -72 "drive" from the seven into the carousel between 3-4 rinks, but this is not an easy task, unlike, for example, as in the T-64. where are the rollers of a smaller diameter .....
... And the tanks of the 131st motorized rifle brigade during the New Year's assault on Grozny, ....... Duc, they rode like a parade. even rubber aprons were not, not to mention the body kit. and there was no question of combat security at all ... they went to their death thanks to Pasha Grachev ...
Sitting astride a barrel of gunpowder, will you be comfortable at war? ... it's too late for me. but my first-born is just on a bug (T-72B3) with a mechanic drive at the moment, it's hot now. teachings

[Brylevsky]

voschet hit in the aft ammunition storage tank, the turret comes off the tank, and here. gin,

There, the cumulative jet did not hit the fuel tank, but the automatic loader; I first ignited one powder charge, then all the others flared up from it - just the nature of the flame indicates that it was the gunpowder that first caught fire: the flame is yellow-orange, bright, with a roar, - in fact, a column of fire, practically without smoke; the fuel tank does not burn like this: the flame is more intense red, and its speed is slower and there is a lot of thick, black smoke. The tower did not fly off only because one of the tower hatches was opened - all the pressure of the expanding gases flew out through it, both into a pipe, and so through the open bolt of the gun - and I do not see any contradictions or consperalogy in this fact. Well, the shutter was open, so what? But the crew, I suppose, this did not help anymore ... This is to the question of what is better: when the ammunition load is in the manned fighting compartment, or when it is out of it.

And the tanks of the 131st motorized rifle brigade during the New Year's assault on Grozny, ... Duc, they drove like a parade

The truth, known since the storming of Berlin: a tank without infantry cover on the streets of the city is a coffin on wheels. Any. Only in the case of the Abrams, when its ammunition detonates, the crew still has a chance to escape, while ours do not. That's the whole difference. In mathematics. We have "minus three" young lives, and what about them? And they have ... at least one, but it will survive. With all this, I can't say that I will be happy about it ... Such is the puzzle.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

just the nature of the flame indicates that it was gunpowder that caught fire first: .... okay. you have to clarify something about the video from the T-72,
1, the grenade jet from the Vampire hitting the stern of the T-72 had to go through what would "get" to the tank rack about 3 meters. at what overcoming the diesel engine, which has almost the entire structure of cast iron (refractory) ... sorry, but grenade launchers do not have such grenades and are not expected in the foreseeable future.,
2. The Vampire has a lead charge. it explodes first, ... but in the vidio explosion, there is no leading charge from the word at all ...
3.The nature of the flame indicates that it was gunpowder that first lit up: the flame is yellow-orange, bright, ... take my word for it as a person who gave 23 years to the Fire Department
Security. this is how it is not gunpowder that ignites, but salary vapors, that is, initially heated
4, the gun breech can only be opened when cleaning the gun under basic conditions. but as you can see on the video, there are no basic conditions, the tool is raised and in general there are no prerequisites for this operation to be performed
Only in the case of "Abrams", when its ammunition detonates, the crew still has a chance .... yes, Abrams does not have this chance, this is a myth
Well, in conclusion, I will give a photo when an RPG grenade flies into a T-3 between 4-64 rinks, in 72 I will repeat it more difficult. larger rollers

[Brylevsky]

Why did you decide that the hit was in the stern? I saw in the video a hit in the rear of the turret ... and from the point of view of the shooter, this is logical: firstly, this is one of the most vulnerable parts of the tank; secondly (and this is the main thing), the cumulative jet will not need to overcome an extra distance inside the tank: if you shoot from above to the bottom, it will go straight into the AZ's ammo rack ... which I said earlier when I described the nature of the flame.
There is one moment in your conclusions that is not clear to me: as I understand it, you think that between the explosion of the leading and the main charge there should be a time that a person is able to fix? Are you able to capture time intervals as long as a few microseconds? Or how long does it take between the explosion of the main and the leader? I just do not know ... I assumed about microseconds.
You offer to take your word for it, but I'm sorry, I don't believe you. I know well how the gunpowder burns; saw it; and therefore I believe that "steam solariums" (where? in the fighting compartment of a tank? In such an amount ?!) cannot burn with this effect: only gunpowder can burn like that. The fuel in the fighting compartment caught fire much later ...

the gun breech can only be opened when cleaning the gun under basic conditions.

Is not a fact. What prevents you from opening it in combat conditions? Like the turret hatch ... Is the blockage worth it, or what? Or does the tank commander decide for himself based on the conditions of the combat situation?

[Crimean partisan 1974]

interesting to talk to you ... let's start
that between the explosion of the leading and the main charge, time must pass, .... how long do you need, the leading charge bangs outside. he is immediately visible .. but he was not, the hit was not in the tower, judging by the video. because hitting the tower would not lead to anything there simply is nothing to explode, the "carousel" is located between the BO shelf and the bottom, that is, in the hull, but not in the rear of the tower ..... nevertheless, the explosion of the leading charge is not it was ... from a word at all
(where? in the fighting compartment of the tank?, ... yes. two storage tanks, aft between the power plant and the fighting compartment. the second front to the right of the mechanic drive., are called internal tanks. in the openings of which the ammunition is located, the burning in these fuel tanks are used in first of all, they are not tektirovanny.therefore, vapors of hare residues accumulate ..... with this effect they cannot burn: .... but they did not burn.they detonated .... there is such a fire classification ---- smoldering- combustion and detonation .... well, to understand the topic
Is the blocking worth it, or what? ..... yes, certainly, such a safety technique, I will not give it to you in full profile, read it. you learn a lot .... AZ is not a black loader for you. everything is strictly and automatically. and automation has no feelings and no human factor. she either works or not

[Brylevsky]

time must pass between the explosion of the leading and the main charge, .... how long do you need, the leading charge bangs outside. it is visible immediately .. but it was not

Yes, time must pass between the explosion of the main one and the "provocateur". From 150 to 300 microseconds ... So, even with a delay of 300 μs, you will not catch the difference between them: two explosions will merge into one ... Consider: 1 μs = 0,000001 sec., Multiply 300 by 0,000001, we get ... 0,0003 seconds. You (and no one in general) are physically unable to track such a period of time between two events, which means that two explosions (if it was still an RPG-29, and not something else) merged into one.
So take your time to draw your own conclusions ...
I am not in the materiel of tanks, because I am not a tanker. You say that blocking will not allow opening the shutter of a tank gun, because:

the gun breech can only be opened when cleaning the gun under basic conditions.

Uh-huh. I'll take my word for it. And then, believe me in a word that the personnel of one of the gun turrets of the cruiser "Admiral Senyavin" during the firing with the main caliber received a "lingering shot" in one of the turret barrels; disabled the shutter lock; opened the shutter, after which the burning powder cap fell onto the feed elevator and further to the bottom, into the powder magazine ... This is how it sometimes happens in life.
Listen, well your arguments are far-fetched. Who needs to organize this "circus" with the spectacular destruction of the T-72? There were few of them, perhaps, in Iraq and in Chechnya? Or where else? All potential buyers are well aware of the pros and cons of this tank and there was no point in arranging this spectacle in order to damage its reputation, can you understand that? It's just that a tank platoon fell into a well-organized ambush ... and there is no "conspiracy" in this.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

and this means that two explosions (if it was still an RPG-29, and not something else) merged into one ....... there was no external explosion, and the impact was in the stern. So what. and then puff and not baaaabah .....
I am not selenium in the materiel of tanks ... so why bring other systems !!!! breech in the T-72 (exactly as in the T-64 and T-80) only when the barrel is zero along the vertical of the hull. that is, on the loading line. to zero, you can manually charge it without any problems, but .... the hedgehog barrel will be a degree more or less. then the breech cannot be unlocked. even with a sledgehammer (so for the sake of fun it will still be useless) .... in our case, the dispute the trunk was with a certain degree ...... how to be ..... so pull for anything. automatic loading is as the fathers created the way it is .......
and there is no "conspiracy" in this ..... but here you are mistaken ...... at that time vidio RPG-29 was preparing for a tender in this region ....... read at your leisure. there is a whole the story was .. "I will take, I will not" ... well, that's demonstrated. the truth is extremely ridiculous .... everything is interesting, and the grenade flies. and a torch, and a charred dude. (I wonder what he did there), but as expected, the tower was not torn off. but should have been torn off. but ... as they say, the wolves are safe and the sheep are full, or, on the other hand, the radish is not sweeter ... well, something like this ... and
and you also have a test ....... what do you think was in Lutsk, staging or reality? don't give me a chance to laugh at you

[Brylevsky]

and you also have a test ....... what do you think was in Lutsk, staging or reality? don't give me a chance to laugh at you

Staging.
Perhaps you `re right. I mean the position of the tank's gun at the moment of its explosion. How was she there? Not in the "loading position", that is, it turns out, the shutter should have been closed ... it remains only to correlate the angle of loading the gun according to the "service manual" with what is on the video ... But only you don't mean that at all, and not about that ... Where did the discussion begin? The fact that the ammunition load is in the manned compartment of the tank is evil. In the case of the Abrams, this evil is not as pronounced as in the case of our tanks. I meant it.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

In the case of the Abrams, this evil is not as pronounced as in the case of our tanks. I meant it ...... finally we all got close to our rams ..... you watched the vidio busurman who fired at Leo-2 and Abra ..... even though I didn't see there what would someone after explosions when hit by ATGM or anyone who jumped out of the tank. but from the defeat from the TOU in the T-90, I saw that the operator-gunner jumped out and the tank began to crawl away .... it's like !!!!! with expressions .... and what does this video is not staged. when one by one leo began to flare up .... did not really see that someone would leave the car .... what does the T-72 shaft and post-new video do not matter. but with 10 bakso-millionth Leo-2 and abra this is not about rolls. well, or not prosinusid, ... expensive ... and at what a lot at a time

[Brylevsky]

What is it like!!!!!

This is so that in the case of foreign tanks the ATGM got into the lateral projection of the turret (these are the ones that I saw), and in the case of the "famous" video from the T-90 - into the frontal one, moreover with dynamic protection. ATGM got into a container with explosives specially designed for this, that's the whole trick. If the hatches in the turret were closed, then the crew would have no problems at all after that ... So maybe it was not necessary to shoot at the frontal projection, and even from the remote sensing? So ... Be the ATGM operator a little smarter, the video could have turned out completely different. And so, - handsome, he made a good advertisement ... He did a very good advertisement, this cannot be taken away from this video.
I'm already tired of discussing with you. I would like to end the conversation at this point. Everyone remained unconvinced and history, as usual, will put everything in its place. New thematic videos and photos won't keep you waiting long ... unfortunately.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

good night, and me too, now I will look at Oleska Medvedev at the Cosmos. even for five years already I can not finish watching. a couple of minutes and that's it. in space

[Looking for]

never seen a tank on wheels !!!

[Brylevsky]

never seen a tank on wheels !!!

Okay, on the rollers ... and on the tracks.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Brylevsky

It turns out that if a shell hits the niche with the Abrams' kit, then the tank is over, and if a shell hits the fighting compartment, where everything is together, both the crew and the ammunition, then it’s not a fact that our tank too, - end?

According to statistics, most of the hits are hits in the tower, where Abrams has ammunition. The T-72 ammunition load is located in the carousel at the bottom of the tank - the most protected place. Additional ammunition is another matter, it is crammed into all free places and most often, hitting it led to the death of the tank and the crew. In combat conditions (the same Chichnya, second company), the tank's ammunition was only in the carousel and the rack tank, the rest were not loaded.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Brylevsky

You can also measure the thickness of the frontal armor (61 tons versus 45 for the T-72 did not appear from scratch?)

And the size cannot be compared?

Quote: Brylevsky

but in the photo and video with the "crazy" T-72 - 80, - 90 I've seen enough.

This is because the T-72 is the most belligerent at the moment. If the Abrams are involved in hostilities, then there are enough burned ones among them. True, due to the different location of the ammunition, they burn differently. For example: there is no rear part of the tower (there was ammunition in it), the armored door is open for combat, that is, the crew is not alive.

And the question that I have already asked more than once: the video, where the T-72-90, after being hit by an ATGM, leaves on its own, is full in net. Give links to a similar video, where, after being hit by an ATGM, Abrams (or Leopard) leaves the place of defeat

[Vitaly gusin]

The magazine once again compared the T-14 "Armata" tank with the American MBT M1 Abrams. The publication notes that the Russian T-14 Armata tank is superior to the American tank in several respects.
There is always superiority and there are disadvantages, and when these are pointed out it is called a COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGY.
About what, you can see the link
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/tank-war-russias-t-14-armata-vs-americas-m1-abrams-who-dies-164331

[Izotovp]

China shouldn't be sold. They will quickly copy. And the Indians will merge all the secrets with the Americans.

[Clueless]

Comparing Armata to Abrams is the same as comparing tanks from Star Wars to Abrams. The technique is not accepted for service, the comparison is not correct from the very beginning.

[kind]

Tanks with tanks rarely fight. They are designed to support the infantry. Therefore, an important criterion is protection against anti-tank weapons.

[BAI]

Tanks with tanks rarely fight.

There is such a book. And everything is written there. And nothing has changed.

[123456789]

Tank Armata T-14

[Crash]

It should be noted that the authors of this article did not say anything new.

So what is the article about? Is the news over?

[Alien From]

Such articles only shake the air!

[_Ugene_]

forgot to compare quantity

[Alexey from Perm]

I would like to see Armata driving at a speed of 90 km / h. I'm afraid I just won't see it, the journalists are lying)