Military Review

T-14 against M1A2C / D. The difference in development approaches

79

Ceremonial calculation tanks T-14. Photo by NPK "UVZ"


Russia and the United States continue to develop their tank forces with an eye to the distant future, but they use different approaches. Russian industry has developed an entirely new T-14 Armata main battle tank, while American specialists continue to modernize the existing M1 Abrams. Both approaches are broadly in line with the needs and desires of the customers - but produce very different results.

The difference in approaches


At present, a major program of updating the tank forces is being implemented in our country. The modernization of the available MBT T-72, T-80 and T-90 according to modern projects is being carried out, which makes it possible to increase their characteristics and extend the resource. In parallel, work continues on a fundamentally new family of armored vehicles, including MBT. The T-14 tank was successfully brought to production of an experimental military batch and will reach combat units in the foreseeable future.

The only MBT in service with the United States remains the M1 Abrams. At the same time, machines of several modifications are operated simultaneously, both quite old and modern. Not so long ago, the combat units received the first serially upgraded M1A2C tanks (previously designated M1A2 SEP v. 3), and the production of such equipment continues. New upgrades are carried out “on top” of the old ones, and tanks gradually receive new and new components and functions.


T-14 in 2016. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The theoretical study of the next generation of tanks has already begun, but the appearance of real samples of this kind is attributed to the distant future. In the near future, it is planned to continue modernizing the Abrams. A new project M1A2D (M1A2 SEP v.4) is being created right now. In the past, it was reported that the M1A3 modernization project was being developed with a larger list of innovations.

Thus, during this decade, the Russian army will continue to operate the existing tanks of several types, but in an updated form. Over time, serial T-14s of the next generation will be added to them. In the US Army, the situation will not change dramatically. The Abrams will remain in service, but with new units and improved characteristics. How soon this situation will change, and when the new American tank will appear is unknown.

Benefits of novelty


According to the available data, the T-14 MBT has many important advantages over the previous generation tanks. Moreover, all of them to one degree or another are connected precisely with the novelty of the project. The Armata platform and the equipment based on it were developed from scratch, due to which there were no significant restrictions associated with the “continuity of generations”. In other words, the T-14 project was made using only modern components that give the best performance.

A new armored body with improved protection has been developed for "Armata". Also used are the dynamic and active protection of the latest models - "Malachite" and "Afganit", respectively. Other solutions have been applied to increase survivability and stability. So, instead of the traditional tower, an uninhabited unit with a minimum cross-section is used, and the crew is moved into a single compartment with maximum protection.


"Armata" at the exhibition in 2018 Photo Wikimedia Commons

The power plant and chassis were originally developed with the growth of basic characteristics in mind. The 12Н360 engine was created especially for the platform with the ability to change power by forcing. An automatic transmission is used. The chassis received seven road wheels per side; active suspension was reported. The power plant and chassis are controlled by automation.

The new uninhabited fighting compartment has a 125-mm 2A82-1M smoothbore cannon with an automatic loader. For her, a new generation of tank shells with enhanced characteristics has been created, which ensures the fight against all typical targets. The possibility of using tank guided missiles remains. Auxiliary weapons include a coaxial and anti-aircraft machine gun. The latter is installed on a remote controlled module.

For the T-14, a fundamentally new fire control system has been created, which includes a lot of different means. So, the observation of the situation and the detection of targets is carried out using optical means operating in the visible, infrared and ultraviolet ranges. Radar facilities have been introduced. Data from all detection systems can be used both for firing and for targeting active protection. In addition, the electronics of the tank works within the framework of the Unified Tactical Control System and is capable of transmitting and receiving data on targets on the battlefield.


T-14 tanks being assembled. Shot from the reportage of the TV company "Zvezda"

Due to the use of fundamentally new solutions and components of the MBT, the T-14 radically differs from previous Russian-developed armored vehicles. The overall combat effectiveness of such a tank is several times higher, due to which it is of great interest to the army - and a great danger to a potential enemy.

The importance of modernization


In the United States, it is considered expedient to continue the development of the M1 Abrams tank with the gradual replacement of certain components, the introduction of new systems, etc. So, in the past, there was an increase in armor and an update of fire control equipment, and recent projects include the introduction of new means of power supply, promising ammunition, etc.

The current M1A2C modernization project proposes the transfer of the auxiliary power unit under the armor, inside the engine compartment, which will reduce its vulnerability to major threats. The power unit also gets a Vehicle Health Management System. This does not change the engine and transmission. Moreover, the issue of remotorization has not been considered for a long time.

The standard armor of the hull and turret in the M1A2C project is supplemented with overhead means. The frontal projection receives additional ballistic protection. Provides for the installation of dynamic protection ARAT on the side screens. The active protection Trophy has been tested and is being prepared for implementation on combat tanks. The bottom receives additional armor plates to enhance mine protection.


Upgraded tank M1A2C. Photo Leonardo DRS

The standard 120 mm M256 cannon remains in the manned turret. New infrared devices of the gunner and commander with increased characteristics are introduced into the FCS. For the first time, a programmer is used to enter commands into controlled projectile fuses. Auxiliary weapons are being improved through the use of the new low-profile CROWS DBM.

A new project for the modernization of the M1A2D is being developed, which provides for further innovations. First of all, it will affect the MSA. The existing optical and infrared cameras will be replaced with new ones, as well as the laser rangefinder will be updated. The meteorological sensor unit will also be replaced. Combat qualities will be improved through the introduction of new shells, incl. multipurpose XM1147 with programmable fuse.

There are no plans to rework the armor, but new means of protection will appear. So, a set of laser radiation sensors will be introduced. The system of smoke grenade launchers will be able to shoot ammunition in the direction of the radiation source to timely hide the tank and escape from the attack.

Production rate


Currently, the Russian industry is engaged in the production of a pilot batch of T-14 tanks and other vehicles on the Armata platform. According to the plans of previous years, 132 units. equipment of various types should have been transferred to the army until 2021 inclusive. Part of this order has already been completed, but the exact number of tanks built remains unknown.


Experienced tank M1A2C with an incomplete set of equipment, 2018 Photo by US Army

According to various estimates, over the next few years, the T-14 will go through all the necessary procedures and will be officially adopted into service. At the same time, serial production will begin, and then the equipment will be mastered by combat units. How many tanks and when to enter the army has not yet been specified.

The American industry introduced the M1A2 SEP v.3 prototype several years ago, and it has been undergoing trials since 2015. The deliveries of serially modernized equipment began in 2017-18; the first units on the updated tanks reached full readiness in 2019-20. In the coming years, it is planned to upgrade all existing M1A2 SEP v.2 tanks. At the same time, significant quantities of equipment of other modifications will remain in the troops.

The next project M1A2D / SEP v.4 is still under development. A prototype of this type will be built only in 2021, and several more years will be spent on testing and other activities. Serial tanks of this type will enter the troops no earlier than the middle of the decade, and several more years will be spent on the supply of a sufficient amount of equipment and the formation of combat-ready units.

Similarities and differences


The Russian and American armies receive new armored vehicles that meet the latest requirements and built using the most modern technologies. However, the methods of its creation were radically different. One tank, the production of which is currently being developed, was developed from scratch, and the other, designed to compete with it, is another version of the development of a fairly old model.


The tank is being tested. US Army Photos

Both approaches have their pros and cons. So, creating a completely new design allows you to get rid of the limitations of existing platforms and improve performance, but it turns out to be quite expensive and time-consuming. Modernization of a finished tank is faster and cheaper - but it does not allow solving some problems without fundamental changes to the original sample.

From the point of view of technologies and prospects, at the moment the Russian approach used in the "Armata" project looks more interesting and useful. Against this background, the next modernization of the Abrams looks like an attempt to catch up with a competitor without wasting time and money on a fundamentally new tank. Judging by the published data, this task will be partially solved, albeit with a noticeable delay.

It turns out that in the current confrontation between the advanced MBTs from the leading tank-building powers, the Russian approach with the creation of a fundamentally new combat vehicle turns out to be more effective and promising. However, this state of affairs will not last forever. The US is already planning to create a new tank, and in the distant future it will be able to change the situation by becoming a new leader. But the timing of this remains unknown.
Author:
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 27 November 2020 06: 38
    +1
    The US is already planning to create a new tank, and in the distant future it will be able to change the situation.
    Everything flows, everything changes. And the good is replaced by the best.
    1. shonsu
      shonsu 1 December 2020 01: 46
      +1
      I also noticed this phrase. I even think that one of the goals of creating the T-14 is to force the United States to fork out for a new tank. Together with the renewal of the fleet, the air force and the nuclear triad, it should have a good effect. laughing
    2. RealPilot
      RealPilot 4 January 2021 15: 12
      +1
      Abrams is already heavy ...
      The bridges in the Baltics do not hold up, the trains are poorly loaded.

      And if you add body kits to him, then we will see a decrease in mobility and a complication of logistics. Plus, high-tech toys are not always reliable, there may be surprises in real combat and in our climate.

      In the desert, its weight is not so important, there the soil is kept. But the dirt on the way to our cities is another challenge. You can't peel off with a handkerchief ... and you can't get out without a log wink
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 27 November 2020 07: 25
    0
    Another and not correct ode to "armata".
    How can you compare tanks from different periods? So then it's better with the "Sherman" - the difference will be even more noticeable!
    About what is known about the "armature" only from advertising booklets and the transfer "state acceptance", I generally keep quiet!
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 27 November 2020 15: 04
      +12
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      How can you compare tanks from different periods?

      They were not compared in the article, the approaches to the development of tanks were compared (to make a new one or modernize an old one).
    2. bar
      bar 28 November 2020 15: 17
      +6
      How can you compare tanks from different periods? So then it's better with the "Sherman" - the difference will be even more noticeable!

      The most modern tanks available today with us and with striped ones are compared. If the striped ones still rode the "Shermans", they would be compared with them.
  3. Per se.
    Per se. 27 November 2020 07: 45
    +15
    The Armata platform and the equipment based on it were developed from scratch, due to which there were no significant restrictions associated with the “continuity of generations”.
    Not entirely "from scratch", there was a practically finished tank, "Object 195". The whole point in an uninhabited turret gave a new caliber of 152 mm gun.

    As for the "platform", they have always been created on a time-tested, successful and technological base, which has already been mastered by the industry. It was necessary to guess from scratch to develop a whole series for the "headset", on a crude, complex and expensive base.

    Here is a diagram of the T-14.

    In principle, the location of the automatic loader differs little from the T-64 / T-72 / T-80 / T-90 schemes, and in the event of a detonation of the ammunition load, the armored capsule is unlikely to save the crew. Below is a photo of the defeat of one of the most protected tanks, the Merkava.



    Will the thin partition save the crew in the T-14, and how much will it? The idea of ​​a super tank with a 152 mm cannon, which was to become the T-95 (object 195), was abandoned. We chose a "budget" tank for a "platform", where a 125 mm gun, even an improved one, does not give the T-14 much advantage over the modernized T-90. At the same time, the tank turned out clearly not for maneuverable, close combat, and it is unlikely that it can become the main one, completely replacing the T-72 / T-90.

    What is the point in comparing the T-14, which is still being tested, to the American Abrams main tank? So, the lyrics are ahead of the rest in the "platform-headset" area from zero ...

    What seems more reasonable is to make a heavy anti-tank SPG based on the mastodon BMP T-15.
    For a "long arm" with a 152 mm cannon, this will already make it possible to smooth out the problems of remote control of weapons, hitting enemy tanks from a distance inaccessible to return fire.



    Also, modern anti-tank missiles have become much more advanced. Here the idea from the Soviet "missile tank" IT-1 could be revived on the basis of the T-90, with a 57 mm automatic cannon.
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 27 November 2020 11: 10
      +11
      in case of detonation of ammunition, the armored capsule is unlikely to save the crew


      In BO T-14, a whole range of measures has been implemented to prevent penetration, ignition, high pressure and detonation of ammunition. The armored partition is only one of its elements, and the last one.

      I had to guess from scratch to develop a whole series for the "headset", on a crude, complex and expensive base


      Should have kept squeezing all the juice out of the 60s platform, yeah. And you would think 195 would be so cheap.

      one of the most protected tanks, "Merkava"


      This is that 60-ton pneumatic loner, which, due to the flawed layout, has no normal armor anywhere? Although not, there is something in the tower from the COP. Thanks, I broke through.

      The 125 mm cannon, even an improved one, does not give the T-14 much advantage over the modernized T-90


      Just think, new OBPS, TUR, OFS with controlled detonation, large muzzle energy. Real little things.

      At the same time, the tank turned out clearly not for maneuverable, close combat, and it is unlikely that it can become the main one, completely replacing the T-72 / T-90


      And for what fight? He will replace them. Gradually, as other generations crowded out the previous ones.

      What is the point of comparing the T-14, which is still being tested, to the American Abrams main tank?


      Isn't it possible?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 27 November 2020 13: 15
        0
        Quote: Hermit21
        Isn't it possible?
        You can, everything is possible. You pulled phrases out of context, laid out heaps, like, divide and conquer, and what?
        In BO T-14, a whole range of measures has been implemented to prevent penetration, ignition, high pressure and detonation of ammunition. The armored partition is only one of its elements, and the last one.
        Do you want to say that detonation of ammunition is simply impossible in principle? It was about a capsule during detonation. The rest is in the same forced-patriotic spirit, apparently, either from young optimism, or your work is like a network ideological "firewall". There is no desire to debate on such arguments, therefore, let us stay with ours, all the best, Hermit Hermit.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 27 November 2020 15: 50
          +6
          It is possible, but achieving this will be many times more difficult than in the current generation. After all, there is a remote control, and passive booking with a multilayer board, and all sorts of anti-splinters, knockout panels, additional booking of AZ, measures for
          immediate release of pressure, more aggressive PPO than that which can be placed in an inhabited BO, unwilling to ignite when gunpowder and explosives penetrate and detonate. In general, in order for the T-14 to explode the BC, you need to try very hard
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov 27 November 2020 23: 38
          +5
          Quote: Per se.
          You want to say that the detonation of ammunition is simple

          Knockout panels + armored capsule = the energy of the explosion "flies" out ...
          It's like a directed blast.

          Well, plus yes, as said above - fire systems, which do not need to take into account the presence of a person inside (you can use chemistry and methods inaccessible to habitable volumes).
      2. English tarantas
        English tarantas 27 November 2020 13: 28
        -3
        This is that 60-ton pneumatic loner, which, due to the flawed layout, has no normal armor anywhere? Although not, there is something in the tower from the COP. Thanks, I broke through.

        The photo was Mk2 or even Mk1 on them there is almost no armor at all, but the photo was presented not for that, but as a clear example of what happens to any tank when an ammunition battery is blown up.
        Just think, new OBPS, TUR, OFS with controlled detonation, large muzzle energy. Real little things.

        All this can be done on the T-90 as well, NATO members do an excellent job with a significant increase in gun characteristics in the realities of tanks of the 80s.
        Isn't it possible?

        Can. And who is stronger: Jackie Chan or Rambo?
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 27 November 2020 15: 54
          +5
          Only for this, you need to make an insert in the body so that the AZ can accommodate longer shells. And so, if necessary, they will put 2A82 in the T-90M. But as the current generation do not fuck around, it will not work to achieve the same set of characteristics as in the T-14
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 27 November 2020 23: 34
            -4
            Cutting the tank, by the way, is the most stupid idea, they made a stern niche on the Breakthrough, is it not an option to move the AZ there? And I think the T-90 will have 2a82
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 28 November 2020 08: 15
              0
              In that volume, the normal number of shells in a mechanized ammunition rack is unlikely to fit
              1. English tarantas
                English tarantas 28 November 2020 19: 00
                0
                Doesn't it bother you that out of about 90 rounds of ammunition in the T-40, 22 can fit in the AZ? I won't answer you anymore, like with a child ...
                1. Hermit21
                  Hermit21 28 November 2020 21: 22
                  +1
                  No, it doesn't bother. Add in the projectile supply system, some kind of booking, and you will understand that even for 22 projectiles you need a turret-backed AZ of decent dimensions. And if you want it for 2A82, you need to increase its length
      3. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 27 November 2020 23: 32
        0
        Quote: Hermit21
        Just think, new OBPS, TUR, OFS with controlled detonation, large muzzle energy. Real little things.

        By the way ... as far as I understand, penetration by sub-calibers depends on their length. And on old tanks this parameter was limited to the loading barban.
        On the T-14, how about the dimensions of the "carousel"? Are you planning to use more punchy sub-calibers?
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 28 November 2020 08: 17
          -2
          In T-14 vertical AZ, OBPS became longer. But the future, after all, belongs to guided missiles
      4. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 10: 08
        +1
        so on topvar it is impossible to compare "great western technique" with "Russian crafts" laughing And in fact, the T-14 is a new tank + counterintelligence is working very seriously on it ... so it's funny that the tank is in trial operation in a number of units, but since no one with phones is allowed to the tank, there are no photos and videos, which actually creates vacuum of information and shouts of "no tank" .. Although personally I'm waiting for the T-72/90 to put a gun from the Armata ...
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 28 November 2020 19: 04
          -3
          so on topvar it is impossible to compare "great western technique" with "Russian crafts"

          It is possible, only cotton wool resorts and there is no constructive dialogue. "we all have wunderwaffe and for a penny, and there is scrap metal of the 30s"
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 29 November 2020 13: 19
            0
            well, where do the legs grow from? we are used to remembering "but in Grozny the tanks were throwing towers, but in Iraq none of the Abrams were knocked out" ... the truth is that the Abrams were knocked out and that, for example, as a result, the Iraqis lost Abrashek as much as ours in Chechnya are silent ... just as they shouted that the Leopards-supertanks ... until their Kurds from the old anti-tank guards began to burn them and they were not scattered with pieces of corps .. laughing
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas 29 November 2020 13: 45
              0
              Ah, well, that's what I mean. Mieus was thrown at once. And the fact that the Americans in 91m more actively and more used Abrams, with less losses? And the fact that the ISIS is even more prepared for the fight against tanks than the Chechen terrorists, and the fact that the Iraqis fought with ISILs longer and more than ours fought in the Caucasus. And the fact that the leopards of the Turks, if not the same age, then older than the ATGM from which they received. In addition, in calculating losses, the first role is played by the situation of use itself, the situation on the battlefield, the actions of the parties to the conflict, tactics, operational plan and actions. But about the technical component: the Abrams of the Americans withstood the shelling from the RPG-7, including on the sides, and you can find videos and photos on the Internet, and what does the T-72 look like, which caught the RPG on board, despite the fact that both tanks are very good in the forehead show themselves.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 29 November 2020 21: 25
                -1
                by ... the timing of losses is comparable to the timing of active combat bases in Chechnya, and from our side all tanks, from PT-76 to T-80, are taken into account, and the Iraqis have clean abrashes, about ATGMs, there are exactly that leopards, and maybe older tbo ATGM bassoon from the 70th year, and the Leopard from the 79th year + hardly the Kurds had the most modern shots to the ATGM ... about "abrashi withstood hits" .. well, the T-72 kept hits, including in the side .. about "here's the shots to the side" .. this is when they hammered from the extreme distance and it is not clear where there are shots from the M72 and old RPGs arriving? .. oh yeah ... the funny thing is that you cry about "but cotton wool puts me on diza" and himself you act in a similar way and write in the style of "super abrams, but your T-72 UG"
    2. English tarantas
      English tarantas 27 November 2020 13: 23
      -6
      Judging by the T-14 scheme, and by just looking from the outside, it also does not shine with the armor of the hull's forehead, if only from cumulants, but they will not be beaten by the passport, but by OBPS.
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 27 November 2020 15: 56
        +1
        Do you determine the diagnosis at a distance, treat it by photography?
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 27 November 2020 23: 37
          -5
          Compare with the thickness and characteristics of the armor of existing analogues, most likely Armata did not make a revolution in materials science. The worst thing there is only Malachite.
          1. Hermit21
            Hermit21 28 November 2020 08: 12
            +2
            Does anyone from the uninitiated know the thickness and composition of the T-14's armor? "Measurements" by photographs is such a thing, and reality can unpleasantly surprise those who believe in them
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas 28 November 2020 18: 52
              -4
              If you have not received at least elementary school education - your problem. You open an Internet search engine, find out the dimensions of the Armata, print out the diagram on a piece of paper, take a pen and a ruler and with a couple of simple manipulations you will find out almost the exact thickness. Again, judging by the diagram in the picture, I do not know if it is official, but given that the layout of the tank is known from the Ministry of Defense, it is most likely as in the picture.
              by photos - this is the case, and reality can unpleasantly surprise those who believe in them

              I'm afraid one physical and philosophical paradox will put you in a stupor, if you do not see something, then how can you be sure that it exists at all? So you believe that you have a stomach, and why do you believe, did you see it with your own eyes?
              1. Hermit21
                Hermit21 28 November 2020 21: 17
                +2
                print out the diagram on a piece of paper, take a pen and ruler


                That's it, about such determinants of a diagonal from a photo and speech
    3. neri73-r
      neri73-r 27 November 2020 15: 07
      +3
      Below is a photo of the defeat of one of the most protected tanks, the Merkava.
      According to The National Interest! laughing laughing laughing
    4. neri73-r
      neri73-r 27 November 2020 15: 08
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      hitting enemy tanks from a distance inaccessible to return fire.

      Fighting exclusively in the steppe! wassat
    5. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 29 November 2020 18: 13
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      What seems more reasonable is to make a heavy anti-tank SPG based on the mastodon BMP T-15.
      For a "long arm" with a 152 mm cannon, this will already make it possible to smooth out the problems of remote control of weapons, hitting enemy tanks from a distance inaccessible to return fire.

      Also, modern anti-tank missiles have become much more advanced. Here the idea from the Soviet "missile tank" IT-1 could be revived on the basis of the T-90, with a 57 mm automatic cannon.

      The second excludes the first. The place of an anti-tank self-propelled gun of the type ISU-122, SU-100, SU-122-54 (the last Soviet one) in the modern armament system of the ground forces has long been firmly occupied by “modern anti-tank missiles”, which “have become much more perfect” and “hit tanks enemy from a distance inaccessible to return fire ". So that you almost said everything correctly, you just need to rearrange a little in places :-).
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 November 2020 08: 48
    +6
    The only MBT in service with the United States remains the M1 Abrams. NATO almost created a single tank and disagreed not in approaches but in lobbying the interests of industry.

    She is proud that we do not need 4 types of tanks in service. And the prospect of Abrams (as a platform) is that it was originally more carrying capacity and allows you to increase the weight up to 70 tons. And for this we had to make T-14 and T-15, tk. the T-90 trolley no longer pulls an increase in the reservation or caliber, or the KAZ installation (which is also an increase in weight), does not pull either the cart or the Diesel (from which all the juices are squeezed out, and there is nothing to replace in this size)
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 27 November 2020 10: 57
      -5
      What nonsense? "Arena-M" will be on 90M, B3M, 80BVM. The tests were going on last year.

      allows to increase the weight up to 70tn


      True, you have to strengthen the chassis, but that is. And this is not a benefactor, but a fee for the chosen layout and four crew members
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 November 2020 12: 06
        +1
        You can't do the same on a T90.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 27 November 2020 12: 35
          +1
          How exactly? Reinforce the chassis? Increase the weight to 70 tons?
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 27 November 2020 14: 47
            0
            Increase weight, strengthen chassis, no diesel
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 27 November 2020 15: 41
              +2
              Someone does not understand that the T-90 does not need to grow fat to 70 tons in order to maintain an adequate level of booking and survivability due to the difference in concepts and layout.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 27 November 2020 19: 07
                +1
                And who thinks that our armor made of alien metal and in a thin form protects better? Or oh that the new turret and cannon are lighter than the old ones? Or that the T90M felt better?
                1. Hermit21
                  Hermit21 28 November 2020 10: 28
                  +1
                  subtle


                  Where exactly? Frontal armor cannot be directly compared without all the data, but it has become more resistant compared to the T-90A. The sides and roofs in our current generation tanks have always been thicker than most Western ones. The safe maneuvering angles of the tower are also ours. This is a consequence of different layout approaches.

                  Or that the T90M felt better?


                  Got heavy. But the bottom line is that it is enough for him to be up to 48-50 tons in order not to concede and even surpass the western concept in defense.
            2. Alf
              Alf 27 November 2020 19: 26
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              strengthen the chassis,

              Put on a couple more rollers and redo the hull? The task is not very different from creating a new tank. They lengthened the hull, installed the 7th pair of rollers, increased the booking, and stuck a new cannon into a NEW (it doesn't fit into the old) tower. We got a new tank. The point is to fence a garden?
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 28 November 2020 10: 37
                0
                ... and got T14
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 28 November 2020 14: 25
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And the prospect of Abrams (as a platform) is that it was originally more carrying capacity and allows you to increase the weight up to 70 tons. And for this we had to make T-14 and T-15, tk. the T-90 bogie is no longer able to increase the armor, the caliber, or the KAZ installation (which is also an increase in weight),

      before you write nonsense, read what is the reason for the limitation of 60 tons (even for the T-14) for Soviet and Russian tanks. hi
  5. Yarik
    Yarik 27 November 2020 09: 07
    +2
    "We wanted the best. But it turned out as always." What is the point of comparing a clearly crude and unfinished tank? Not an article, but some sort of deflection in front of someone.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 November 2020 10: 22
      +3
      The most important thing is that they focus on non-existent distinctions. Like they are modernizing, and we are creating a new one. Are we not modernizing tanks? A whole army of modernizations of all types of tanks is in parallel with the creation of Armata.
    2. sgrabik
      sgrabik 27 November 2020 15: 07
      +1
      Almost all new weapons at the beginning of their journey are usually crude and unfinished, but in the process of trial operation in parts, refinement and improvement of the design, they get rid of flaws and the already worked out and thoroughly tested version is launched into the series !!!
  6. Maks1995
    Maks1995 27 November 2020 09: 23
    +2
    Yes that's right. Ours also modernize endlessly.

    The 3rd generation of Armat has been attending parades (and maybe more)
    And the T-72 is already M3, if not the M4, and the T90 - there are also 2-3 upgrades

    I would like more specifics from articles, rather than general words ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 27 November 2020 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Max1995
      The 3rd generation of Armat is already attending parades

      How is it known? What is the difference ?
  7. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 27 November 2020 09: 46
    +13
    The author somehow missed the main difference between T14 and M1A2C.

    Both vehicles appeared in 2015, T14 at Red Square, M1A2C at the training ground. In the summer of 2020, the first unit equipped with the M1A2C reached operational readiness (3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division), and what happens in T14 is full of news in the future. And recently - bad news.
  8. Hermit21
    Hermit21 27 November 2020 10: 52
    -2
    To catch up with the T-14, at least in its current form, we need a "modernization" of the Tu-22M3 type. When only the front landing gear remained of the Tu-22
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 November 2020 10: 55
      +2
      Quote: Hermit21
      To catch up with the T-14, at least in its current form, we need "modernization" like the Tu-22M3

      It was
    2. Alf
      Alf 27 November 2020 19: 29
      +2
      Quote: Hermit21
      To catch up with the T-14, at least in its current form, we need a "modernization" of the Tu-22M3 type. When only the front landing gear remained of the Tu-22

      Create another tank? Is it not bold? How much love with one ...
  9. English tarantas
    English tarantas 27 November 2020 13: 19
    -1
    The Armata platform and equipment based on it were developed from scratch

    Hahah.
    Against this background, the next upgrades of the Abrams look like an attempt to catch up with a competitor without wasting time and money on a fundamentally new tank. Judging by the published data, this task will be partially solved, albeit with a noticeable delay.

    Give a comparative list of the characteristics of the installed equipment and see who is catching up with whom. Armata with one aim for all tasks, of course without an optical channel or Abrams, which Armata is catching up with in terms of fire characteristics?
    As always, the article is about nothing, I read it hoping that what I already know is an introduction and then there will be new information, a detailed comparison, and then the article is over, it's hard to even call a review. Eh, someday the author's name will be at the beginning of the article.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 27 November 2020 21: 52
      -3
      Why would she need an optical device with such a concept?) Or are you arguing with the concept? Well, everything has its pros and cons.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 29 November 2020 14: 28
        0
        Shelling from the KKP or even just hand-held small arms, artillery of various calibers, for example, just an 80mm mortar, anti-material rifle fire, an enemy tank's projectile hit, a laser beam that burns out optics, setting up interference in IR and UV spectra. And the tank is blind, then the crew gets out of it and goes (runs) home. Tank of the future, yeah.
        I do not argue with the concept, the absence of an optical channel, just a fact, but one sight, one for many tasks.
  10. tank64rus
    tank64rus 27 November 2020 15: 17
    +2
    Recently in the United States at a scientific conference were presented four concepts, "tank of the future" and Abrams as a platform for this is just one of the options. Information about this is on the VO website. The Americans and the rest of the West took the appearance of Armata as a challenge and therefore they will do everything to overtake Russia. The issue has not only military but also political significance. Well, we again cut the military budget, do not forget at the same time military pensioners again showed them ... care.
  11. Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 27 November 2020 15: 37
    +3
    "From the point of view of technologies and prospects, at the moment the Russian approach used in the Armata project looks more interesting and useful. Against its background, the next modernization of the Abrams looks like an attempt to catch up with a competitor, without wasting time and money on a fundamentally new tank. published data, this task will be partially solved, albeit with a noticeable delay "

    - while there is nothing to catch up, until at least one fully equipped battalion appears, it is not known how long it will take. If the product has a high percentage of novelty (more than 70%), then fine-tuning and debugging is seriously delayed. in fact, we can see this on the example of "Armata". previously abroad they experimented with the layout and built prototypes, but decided to modernize the existing one, whose approach is more correct - time will tell. in the foreseeable future (the next seven to ten years), the basis of the Russian tank fleet is the modernized T-72 and T-90, so the situation does not change dramatically, and the Abrams, although outwardly similar to the base machine, has changed a lot inside and meets the requirements of the time.

    The question with Armata is how long it will take to fine-tune the vehicle and all its systems (including active protection), and what is the level of side protection in the area where the crew is located? After all, now the entire crew sits in front, shoulder to shoulder, and as a result of one hit on the side can be incapacitated. and side protection also depends on the side gauge, which is limited by the limited width of the tank due to transportation requirements.
  12. dgonni
    dgonni 27 November 2020 16: 12
    +1
    The author wrote everything correctly. There is only one small BUT! The mattress tank is in the army and is being modernized! And Armata is only in trial operation and its production is a big question!
  13. zinoviy
    zinoviy 27 November 2020 18: 17
    -1
    The difference is that there is Abrams and there is no Armata, you need to start with this and then measure up with "pussy".
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 27 November 2020 21: 51
      +1
      So against abrashka there is quite adequately supplied t 90 m) d
  14. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 27 November 2020 21: 26
    +4
    Yes, empty article.
    no clear comparison, no cost, water, yes water.
    Only the old dates are named, when that ....
  15. StarTroopers
    StarTroopers 27 November 2020 22: 36
    -3
    Quote: Per se.
    In principle, the location of the automatic loader differs little from the T-64 / T-72 / T-80 / T-90 schemes, and in the event of a detonation of the ammunition load, the armored capsule is unlikely to save the crew. Below is a photo of the defeat of one of the most protected tanks, the Merkava.

    What nonsense? What does Merkava and Armata have to do with it? Merkava is a non-tank without armor. He has a BC inside the fighting compartment along with the crew, like everyone else.
  16. Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 27 November 2020 23: 55
    +1
    Now with tanks it is generally not clear.
    The country that wins the air will provide itself with the opportunity to destroy all armored vehicles from the air.
    Therefore, it is not clear for which theater of operations and for which tasks to develop the concept of the tank of the future.
  17. Recoil
    Recoil 28 November 2020 00: 08
    0
    what does the author compare? plywood, which even at the parade could not pass, with the 5th modernization of the serial car?
    Author, go to Putin for a tin order, balabol!
  18. kventinasd
    kventinasd 28 November 2020 02: 20
    0
    I hope blacks and other BLMs will finally finish off America in the next decade and they will no longer have time for tanks laughing
  19. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 09: 22
    -6
    Yes, looking at the attempts to modernize Abrashka, Zadornov's words "Well, stupid" come to mind.
    How much can you hang on this shed, which is not supported by bridges anyway? Will they feed up to 80 tons?
    We have already passed the outer armor plates on the cheekbones of the tower, "Ilyich's eyebrows" were called. How are they? Biden, it seems, does not have prominent eyebrows, with Brezhnev only insanity has in common, and even then Ilyich came to power in his right mind.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 29 November 2020 17: 08
      +1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      We have already gone through the outer armor plates on the cheekbones of the tower, "Ilyich's eyebrows" were called.

      External armor plates ... are you talking about the last photo with the caption "Tank on trial. Photo by US Army"? So this is not overhead armor, but mass imitators - loads hung on the turret of an experienced tank in order to bring its mass to the planned after modernization. The photo shows that the tank is driving along a special track with artificial irregularities, i.e. test either the suspension or the stabilizer of the gun.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 29 November 2020 17: 18
        -2
        The standard armor of the hull and turret in the M1A2C project is supplemented with overhead means
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 30 November 2020 04: 53
          +1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          We have already gone through the outer armor plates on the cheekbones of the tower, "Ilyich's eyebrows" were called.

          Quote: Narak-zempo
          The standard armor of the hull and turret in the M1A2C project is supplemented with overhead means

          These are Ilyich's eyebrows:
          those. additional external armored structure to protect the T-62 turret.
          And this box is on the front of the tower:

          not overhead armor! These are just loads. As well as on the lower front plate of the hull.

          Look here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26606/picture-of-newest-m1-abrams-tank-variant-with-previously-unseen-turret-armor-emerges.html
          "Earlier pictures of the prototype M1A2 SEPv3s show weights on the front of the turret, as well as similar weights on the hull front.
          Thesis surrogates were supposed to simulate the added weight of the SEPv3's Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). There had been no indication, however, that the final turret shape would change significantly.
          The prototype for the preceding M1A2 SEPv2 variant was also tested with surrogate weights to simulate that version's new Heavy Armor Package 3 (HAP-3) passive armor upgrade. The final design, however, did not feature any radical changes to the turret general shape. "

          "Earlier images of the M1A2 SEPv3 prototype show goods on the front of the turret, and similar weights on the front of the hull.
          These surrogates were supposed to mimic the additional weight of the new generation SEPv3 (NGAP) armor package. However, there was no indication that the final shape of the tower would change significantly. 
          The prototype of the previous M1A2 SEPv2 variant was also tested with surrogate weights to mimic the new Heavy Armor Package 3 (HAP-3) passive armor upgrade of this version. However, in the final version there were no fundamental changes in the overall shape of the tower. "
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 30 November 2020 09: 27
            -2
            Yes, I understand that these are test loads.
            But, judging by the text of the article, they imitate real "eyebrows" that will be hung in the future.
            There is no mention of the new tower, but only of the linings.
  20. Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 28 November 2020 17: 31
    0
    Comparison of T-14 versus M1A2C / D is fundamentally incorrect, and approaches are far-fetched here. Comparison of T-90M and M1A2C / D is more appropriate and interesting.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 30 November 2020 09: 30
      -1
      It will not be "approaches" that will fight, but tanks.
      And the striped ones are planning to oppose the "Armata" to the overfed Abrashka. So the comparison is correct.
      1. Lied71
        Lied71 2 December 2020 08: 31
        0
        \ to oppose "Armata" striped are planning to overfed Abrashka \
        Come on? Do we already have the same number of armatures as Abrams ?, and I also think tanks will be suppressed by drones.
  21. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 28 November 2020 23: 06
    0
    It is impossible to evaluate performance characteristics in isolation from modern realities. It is necessary to take into account the capabilities of tanks and their chances on the modern battlefield. The entire development of tanks nullifies the achievements of drones.
  22. Lied71
    Lied71 2 December 2020 08: 24
    +1
    \ and American specialists are still continuing to modernize the existing M1 Abrams \
    And what's wrong with that ?, mb its modernization potential has not yet been developed? The volumes are large, a lot of things can still be introduced into it, which cannot be said about our 72-90.
    \ but give completely different results. \
    Still different tvd, developed for different tasks.
    \ which improves their characteristics \
    Come on? That normal shells will start to be fired ?, similar in characteristics to M829A3 and M829A4, in sufficient quantities? Everything rests on the automatic loader, which determines the length of the shells, and therefore the armor penetration. Besides, how do you plan to increase the armor protection?
    \ At the same time, machines of several modifications are operated simultaneously, as rather old \
    As if ours is not the same, besides the 90 is the more expensive version of the 72.
    \ Over time, serial T-14s of the next generation will be added to them. \
    To further complicate the logistics, the 72-90 crews most likely will not be able to replace the T-14 crew in case of anything, similarly for the technicians.
    \ T-14 is made using only modern components that give the best performance. \
    The T-14 with 125mm is a crutch, not an innovation, the innovation would be a larger caliber of the cannon, it would be possible at least in parallel to develop shells and upgrade the 152mm gun, as the Germans do with their 130, which, as before, 120 can go to armament of US tanks, whether the T-14 will withstand a shell from a 130mm cannon, that is the question.
    \ From the point of view of technologies and prospects, the Russian approach used in the "Armata" project looks more interesting and useful at the moment. \
    Come on ?, how with our kazs or ammunition with our financing of the armed forces? you will need to use ATGM, the number of which is very limited, while Belgium for the same gun has an M2 projectile with armor penetration 42mm \ 8m, 27mm \ 1000m.
    \ Against its background, the next upgrades of Abrams look like an attempt to catch up with a competitor \
    They do not need this, since it will be possible to suppress our T-14s and aviation, while the main enemy of the Abrams will be the T-72, which it will be easy to sew on the forehead.
  23. Pas2x
    Pas2x 22 December 2020 15: 01
    0
    The Americans' approach to modernizing a single tank has one important plus. All infrastructure, repair facilities, ammunition and spare parts depots, crew training are unified. For us, sculpting a new technique to create all this from scratch. Expensive and cumbersome. And during hostilities, this can have a very negative effect. It seems that developing more promising ammunition and armor could be more helpful ...
  24. Rostislav
    Rostislav 9 January 2021 13: 01
    0
    The US is already planning to create a new tank, and in the distant future it will be able to change the situation, becoming the new leader[i] [/ i].

    I doubt it. The best American tanks are considered exclusively by penguins, well, psheks with Baltic limitrophes, where can they get from the master's boot.
  25. Robert Korsunsky
    Robert Korsunsky 21 February 2021 12: 28
    0
    The future belongs to "unmanned" tanks equipped with missiles and machine guns for self-defense. In this case, the mass and size of the tank will decrease, it will be faster, less noticeable, and it will be easier to transport and drop it if necessary. And the loss of such a tank will not be a big tragedy associated with the death of the crew, since it (the crew) will not be there.