"Will lead NATO armored forces": the place of the new British MBT on the battlefield

Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land will carry out a deep modernization 148 tanks to the new Challenger 3 standard, extending the service life of the British MBT family (main battle tanks) until 2040.

£ 800 million is allocated to improve the machines. According to the executor, according to the results of the program, the tanks will receive a new 120-mm smooth-bore cannon, "using the world's most advanced ammunition"; a new set of scopes that provide tank commanders with enhanced day and night guidance; new modular armor; active protection system; a tower that can also be installed on tanks of allies and partners.

The British army will be deadlier, better protected and better connected than any of its opponents. Challenger 3 is a manifestation of this change and will underpin our combat capabilities.

- explained in the British General Staff, indicating that the "digital open architecture" will allow him to control the entire battlefield, integrating individual combat units into a single whole.

This is the winner of the battles

- believe in the General Staff.

Great Britain will remain at the forefront of MBT development [...] Challenger 3 will lead NATO armored forces on the battlefields from today until 2040

- says the British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, pointing to the location of the new British tank on the battlefield.

Comments

[Lara Croft]

Soon every day they will write articles on VO about the Challenger-3 MBT ....

[knn54]

-UK will remain at the forefront of MBT development.
The Germans are working on the revision. The English cannon is being replaced by the .KAZ from Israel, most likely.
Such is the "cutting edge" turns out.

[Lara Croft]

Quote: knn54

-UK will remain at the forefront of MBT development.

Do not blaspheme. Everyone knows that

at the forefront of MBT development

are the labor collectives of the BTZ them. "Malyshev" or about MBT "Oplot" have not heard?

[Split]

They usually fall from the edge, especially from the front, and from the back ... the golden mean. But I believe that in spite of the decay ... our tank armada, in spite of some of the outdated tanks ... will simply dump them with scrap metal in the La Manche, or in Dunkirk ... it will be symbolic
Many people forget that ours (well, not ours have identities), starting from 55 - have radiation protection and filtration ... xs how long will it withstand ... but the T-80 should have reached the lamanche at that moment with their speed? True, they planned to take gasoline, the GTE ate everything

[Ruslan Sulima]

United Kingdom will remain at the forefront of MBT development.

They smiled, you just don’t say this with the kram, otherwise they are already claiming a prize ...

[Alex777]

will lead NATO armored forces on the battlefields

Am I getting it right that Challenger 3 is now the main target on the battlefield? They knock out and that's it - victory in your pocket?

[Ruslan Sulima]

Soon every day they will write articles on VO about the Challenger-3 MBT ....

By the way, yes, we are not threatened, especially Russia. Are you getting ready to clean up your own on the islands?

That's how I imagined how some ukropreserativ walked around my house ...

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Ruslan Sulima

Are you getting ready to clean up your own on the islands?

Not at all. They will be placed in the "decaying" FRG ...

[Ruslan Sulima]

Not at all. They will be placed in the "decaying" FRG ...

From dill conservatives?) I think they will not be allowed further than Poland ...
It turns out that you are talking about the tanks that are needed to hold back the rushing mass of people) Nafig of Germany, Ukrainian slaves?)
But what about England itself without Ireland, Scotland, I'm not even afraid of this word Australia?))

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Ruslan Sulima

From dill condoms?)

What do they have to do with it? The main enemy of NATO is the Russian Federation.

I think they will not be allowed further than Poland ...

Who won't let you in? And what are the British tanks to do east of the FRG?

It turns out that you are talking about the tanks that are needed to hold back the rushing mass of people)

Where does it come from and where did you see it in my comments?

But what about England itself without Ireland, Scotland

Well, so far we have the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland (you kind of had to go to school in geography and English lessons) ...
Even if we assume that Great Britain will go under water, fall apart, etc., what does the Donbass care about, will you become richer?

[Ruslan Sulima]

Well, so far we have the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland

Fell for this phrase))) Lisa, is it you? !!)
But seriously,
They are afraid of another wave of refugees in the event of a serious development of events. They will not fit in, but they are not ready to receive a fascist one.
For the gifted, I repeat - they will let them go to Poland at the most, in Germany they are not needed. You still have a question, why are there tanks on the eastern border of the FRG?)
Yes, what does Donbass have to do with it?

Lisa, are you offended? Call back your couch)

[Ruslan Sulima]

Come on, la-la will not breed, somehow I think so ...

[Uncle lee]

UK will remain at the forefront of MBT development

This is what the English scientists predicted! The most learned scientists in the world!

[marchcat]

There was a serious "war" for leadership, in the development of MBT, between Britain and Krajina ... who is the "real" leader after all?

[Uncle lee]

This is the obviousness itself!

[Herman 4223]

Is it like a winner in Dunkirk?
Smell a little fried and evacuate?

[Murmur 55]

Yeah, and the hope to serve me behind the Channel and maybe the United States will help.

[Torins]

British tanks have always been so-so, let's see)

[nPuBaTuP]

Well 10s in WoT are pretty good

[Torins]

Thank God that does not reflect the real state of affairs on the battlefield))

[Incvizitor]

All Valentine and Matilda norms were only poor tools.

[svp67]

Great Britain will remain at the forefront of MBT development [...] Challenger 3 will lead NATO armored forces on the battlefields from today until 2040

You can't praise yourself, who else will do it ...

[Xlor]

I hope his place will not be on the battlefield, but in the outhouse ...

[Cat Alexandrovich]

"The British Army will be ... better tied up than any of its opponents" ... Strange BDSM statement smacks of BDSM.

[cniza]

The British army will be deadlier, better protected and better connected than any of its opponents.

British tank crews with relatives of British scientists ...

[paul3390]

148 tanks will lead NATO .. ​​Some kind of dream of reason ... Well, that's it - now we are definitely a khan, lethal armored troops of Great Britain will attack us .. I understand that it's time to surrender from horror?

[Alex_You]

Should not be underestimated. 148 of these, plus 200 German, etc.

[Murmur 55]

So what? Do you think they will go as in V. O. V. The number of tanks can neutralize the number of anti-tank systems in the infantry.

[Alex_You]

And how did Reinmetal persuade the Britts to abandon the "most accurate and best" gun in the world, the L-30 rifled? By the way, the replacement of the gun implies a complete replacement of ammunition, as well as revise the requirements for the selection of loaders, because a unitary 20 kg projectile will have to be pulled instead of a separate-sleeve one. Well, at least the caps in the tank will finally sink into oblivion.

[Viktor Sergeev]

New guns, new ammunition, this will allow you to steal a lot of good money.

[Viktor Sergeev]

I'm wondering: do they themselves believe in their delirium, or are they just pouring an excuse into the ears of the People?

[Evil 55]

But the penetration at the T-72 was not shown ... you see, the projectile is rather weak

[petrol cutter]

Honestly ... Why does Britain need a tank. Well, why? Where will they go on it?
Somewhere to land with them ... Where? ..
Plus the service, other problems ...
Honestly, I don't understand ...

[bk0010]

Quote: Petrol cutter

Why does Britain need a tank.

A tank is a good thing, needed even on the island. And then after Dunkirk, the British even armed themselves with stakes to repel the landing. A tank is much better than a stake. In addition, only the tank can operate under the "mushroom". And in general, 150 tanks is a trifle, it makes no sense to save on this if the army is larger than the Estonian army.

[petrol cutter]

Well it is clear. The tank is a good thing and even useful in places.
But after all, R&D on the tank, preparation of the production for the manufacture of a tank .... Steel production for the manufacture of armor, the manufacture of a gun with the specified parameters. Manufacturing of the engine. Making ammunition for a cannon.
A lot of questions arise when creating a certain combat vehicle.
And that's not all ...
This is just the beginning!

[Murmur 55]

How did they not burst from the current pathos, who really has phantom pains for a lost empire

[rocket757]

The British army will be deadlier, better protected and better connected than any of its opponents. Challenger 3 is a manifestation of this change and will underpin our combat capabilities.

Who, HERE, needs this crazy commercial?

[cniza]

Good time!

Uh-huh, especially manual charging ...

[rocket757]

Welcome
By today's standards, requests, normal, average MBT.
Well, they want something like that, such ... but it does not exist and is not expected in the foreseeable future.

[cniza]

Such an impression. that they just calm themselves down, realizing that we are not going to fight ...

[rocket757]

This is the MAIN THING! We no longer need anything in that direction, but they seem to have stopped letting those over there.
Let them balabolyat, complacency is also a variant of existence.

[cniza]

Quote: rocket757

Let them balabolyat, complacency is also a variant of existence.

If only they didn't pour dirt, but as in this article - then on health ...

[rocket757]

The frog croaks in its swamp, about its swamp .... let her.

[mojohed2012]

We burned them, we burn them and we will burn them, even if you call them 100503 Challenger!

[pytar]

Interestingly, the appearance of the T-14 "Armata", in fact, did not cause much excitement about Western partners. Instead of accelerating the development of new tanks, they were satisfied with the modernization and improvement of the combat characteristics of the old ones. Western countries either do not consider "Armata" so dangerous, or in view of the insignificant quantities and uncertainty about the timing of deliveries to the army, do not see it as a threat worth high costs.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: pytar

do not see it as a costly threat.

It. The only advantage of armata over the T-72/80/90 of extreme and promising modifications is the increased survivability of the crew (respectively, over the western ones, and this is not). No others. There are more cons. High price; huge dimensions, larger than all Western heavy tanks; complex, fully digital, control system that excludes manual control; it is necessary to completely rebuild production. In addition to this, sanctions, which closed access to paramilitary equipment. And the resulting technical difficulties. This project will be gradually merged, there are no prospects.

In my opinion, it is necessary to make a single unified Burlak-type turret with KAZ and modern optical-electronic systems for all T-72/80 tanks. Unify as much as possible.

[pytar]

It is logical! It turns out that Armata appeared a bit early ... For such a machine, the level of robotization / electronics / should be very good. tall! Moreover, the current state of Russia. electronics raises a lot of doubts. And the price is really high, especially with such piece production!
It seems to me that Armata turned out to be something between the current classic tanks and future robotic tanks with AI. Looks questionable in terms of efficiency / cost. Similar to other super-tanks from the past, which were mainly used for propaganda.

[OgnennyiKotik]

The key problem is that this tank was promised to be in production. If approached as an experimental one there would be no questions. We ran in technologies, made a reserve for the future and modernization of current tanks and moved on to the next project. The number of tanks that did not go into production is many times greater than the serial ones, which is logical. Everything would be like a Boxer or a Black Eagle. And here they have already announced the date of mass production, now it is not convenient for them to roll back.

And regarding the fully automated tank turret, a good example is the M1128 Stryker. 142 pieces were serially produced, they were run in, they came to the conclusion that such a design was unreliable, and they write it off. True, our carousel-type AZ would probably have shown itself better, there is a straightforward tricky system.

[pytar]

I guess Armata was nominated for propaganda reasons! According to the results - for domestic consumption, because in the West few people were impressed by it ... There were analogs among Western experimental developments. Kolega Konnick (Nikolay) mentioned one of them.
Obviously, Armata is a very complex, expensive project, it is not ready for real production! And if and when it is ready, it will already be outdated!

[Albert1988]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

And regarding the fully automated tank turret, a good example is the M1128 Stryker. 142 pieces were serially produced, they were run in, they came to the conclusion that such a design was unreliable, and they write it off.

You, dear, forgot the context - the unreliability got out there due to maximum relief, since such a turret had to be installed on a light car, the striker in this version could only fire in a narrow front sector - it was impossible to shoot "sideways" - you could roll over or damage the chassis. We have no such limitation. Moreover, a promising MBT among amers is very likely to have an automatic turret.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Albert1988

due to maximum relief,

I agree. One of the many reasons. I think that it was possible to bring to mind, but for the sake of 142 cars it makes no sense. There is a "light" tank on the way. True, it is for light brigades, but Stryker brigades can also be reinforced. Moreover, BMP with a 30 mm cannon have already appeared in the Stryker units. Previously, only with machine guns they were completely sad.

Quote: Albert1988

could only fire in a narrow front sector - it was impossible to shoot "in the side" conditionally

Quote: Albert1988

a promising MBT among amers is very likely to have an automatic turret.

With a high degree of probability, the new MBT will not be in principle, they will switch to robotic light / medium platforms. And projects of various tanks wagon: crewed with AZ, optionally or completely unmanned, light / medium / heavy tracked and wheeled platform, etc.
There is an option for upgrading Abrams to remotely controlled / robotic.
In fact, there is a project for new "light" tanks and the modernization of Abrams. Everything else is as experimentation.

[Albert1988]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

I agree. One of the many reasons. I think that it was possible to bring to mind, but for the sake of 142 cars it makes no sense. There is a "light" tank on the way. True, it is for light brigades, but Stryker brigades can also be reinforced. Moreover, BMP with a 30 mm cannon have already appeared in the Stryker units. Previously, only with machine guns they were completely sad.

The light tank most likely appeared because it was a bad idea to place such firepower on a wheeled chassis.

As for the video - in the second video, the vehicle is firing with the turret rotated 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the hull. In the second video, the car bounces unrealistically, and this is when it is on a perfectly horizontal highway.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

With a high degree of probability, the new MBT will not be in principle, they will switch to robotic light / medium platforms. And projects of various tanks wagon: crewed with AZ, optionally or completely unmanned, light / medium / heavy tracked and wheeled platform, etc.
There is an option for upgrading Abrams to remotely controlled / robotic.
In fact, there is a project for new "light" tanks and the modernization of Abrams. Everything else is as experimentation.

Let's just say - there will be a revision of the old MBT concept, for the amers it is exactly. They made abrashi to resist the crowds of Soviet T-64/72/80 in the European theater of operations. Now, in the conditions of "colonial" wars with an extremely weak enemy, it is not protection against BOPS that comes to the fore, but protection against ATGM (presence of KAZ), good resistance to mine explosions, and, most importantly, mobility. So wait and see what the Yankees come up with in the end.

[lucul]

No others. There are more cons. High price; huge dimensions, larger than all Western heavy tanks; complex, fully digital, control system that excludes manual control; it is necessary to completely rebuild production.

Another nonsense. The dimensions have already been discussed, they are the same as those of NATO tanks. Armata was designed for 152mm cannon, it is completely ready for its installation. An uninhabited tower from above protects the tank's crew from attacks from above (UAV, helicopter) This tank is already for network-centric wars. Especially amused

complex, fully digital, control system that excludes manual control;

How do you get into an uninhabited tower, do something there by hand? )))
Everything there is good for Armata, it's another matter that there are no opponents for it, because the new 125mm cannon, which can be installed on our old tanks, has 1mm armor penetration, which is enough to penetrate all Western tanks head-on, and with the possibility of further increased armor penetration.

[Albert1988]

Quote: lucul

Another nonsense. The dimensions have already been discussed, they are the same as those of NATO tanks.

How can I say - T-14 is longer than Abrams and Leopard-2 by as much as 20 cm! How much horror!

Quote: lucul

How do you get into an uninhabited tower, do something there by hand? )))

The most interesting thing is that in modern Western MBTs, digitalization has reached such proportions that manual control there makes no sense ...

[Gregory 1]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

There are more cons. High price; huge dimensions, larger than all Western heavy tanks; sophisticated, fully digital, control system that excludes manual control; it is necessary to completely rebuild production. In addition to this, sanctions, which closed access to paramilitary equipment. And the resulting technical difficulties. This project will be gradually merged, there are no prospects.

Not tired of writing lies? Read more literature on tanks.
Advantages of Armata:
The main advantage of the "Armata" over its competitors lies in the vehicle class - it is no longer just a tank, but a multi-purpose tactical combat platform suitable for special operations, tank battles, detection and elimination of enemy missiles. It can be used with equal success when destroyed as groundAnd air targets.
The difference between "Armata" and "Abrams" is already visible in the parameters of engine performance. With the same engine power of 1500 hp. the weight of the Russian combat platform is 48 tons, American tank - 63 tons, which allows the T-14 to reach speeds of up to 75 km / h and cover a distance of 500 km, while the M1 can only accelerate to 67 km / h and cover a distance of 460 km.
In addition, there is a fundamentally important point: "Armata" today is the only tank in the world that has an unmanned turret, which significantly increases the survivability of both the crew and the vehicle itself.
The Abrams is equipped with dynamic armor protection, which is an additional shell hung on the hull of the tank, stuffed with explosives, which undermines and partially damages the enemy's ammunition that has flown in.
The Armata is also equipped with dynamic armor protection (Malachite), but it is noticeably more effective than on the American vehicle. Latest composite materials и special steel in 95% of cases capable of destroying the strong core of any sub-caliber projectile.
The M1 is also equipped with the Softkill active protection system, the purpose of which is to interfere with the tracking systems of semi-automatic anti-tank missile systems. That's all. The Softkill cannot be compared with the Afghanit active protection system installed on the T-14.
Afghanit uses two defense systems to detect targets that pose a threat to the safety of the machine - optical-location и radar... The "Armata" radars, which have 4 active phased antenna arrays, are capable of almost instantly recognizing a threat and accompanying air targets flying at hypersonic speed at a distance of up to 100 kilometers.
Interception of fast warheads is carried out within a radius of 15 to 20 meters with grenade shots.
We can further consider the shortcomings of the Abrams, Challenger and other NATO tanks. The Armata is far superior to NATO tanks. I have not yet talked about the unmanned turret, the presence of the crew in the protective capsule, the rate of fire and armor penetration of the gun, and so on.

[OgnennyiKotik]

I'll go + you, make me laugh further
Why don't you tell all your Nicky? Grigory 1 / Tonev / Dred / PPSh / Ali / SETSET / I. Vasya - I need all the options for the collection

[Torins]

Armata's cannon is old, so they don't expect a surprise

[Albert1988]

Quote: Torins

Armata's cannon is old, so they don't expect a surprise

This old cannon is the most powerful they have now ... Only a serious increase in caliber (up to 130-140mm) can somehow rectify the situation. And there is still 152mm in stock (although there is still a lot of work to do)

[Torins]

So I'm not saying that this is a bad gun, it's just that in Europe they don't see the wunderwolf in the armature, that's all) However, these are their problems)

[Albert1988]

Quote: Torins

it's just that in Europe they don't see the wunderwaff in the armature, that's all)

How to say - it was after the demonstration of the T-14 that the Europeans started talking about the modernization of old tanks and the development of new ones, at the same time they started talking about increasing the caliber of tank guns to 130-140mm. So the T-14 made a strong impression on them, strong, considering that until the 15th year they generally declared that tanks were "everything", like that Izya from the anecdote ...

[lucul]

Interestingly, the appearance of the T-14 "Armata", in fact, did not cause much excitement about Western partners.

They first rushed to open a new R&D on MBT, and then they calculated the costs, especially in light of equipping the Armata with a 152 mm cannon. And they realized that to counter the Armata, with a 152mm cannon, they needed new armor made of the latest alloys (50% stronger than the old one and 50% lighter) and a new engine with twice the power density.
We calculated the costs, and decided to get off with a simple external reystaling of tanks.)))

[pytar]

It seems to me / with the persuasion that I am not an expert on the topic / that the increase in calibers has already reached its physical limit. This is in view of the increase in the mass of equipment, the limited volume of the cases, and so on. problems. Monstrous colossus, have fatal flaws. That is why it looks more logical what they do in the West! Namely, they improve the destructive ability of ammunition and hit accuracy, and also reduce the visibility of equipment / camouflage /.
The emergence of new types of small-sized ammunition with a huge lethality, robotic combat vehicles with AI, as well as camouflage systems drastically reducing the visibility of combat vehicles on the battlefield, is not excluded. High technologies fundamentally change the balance of power, should bring the situation out of the impasse!

[lucul]

that the increase in calibers has already reached its physical limit.

In 120mm, yes, next in line is 150mm.

and also reduce the visibility of the technique

Can you strongly disguise an elephant?

High technologies fundamentally change the balance of power, should bring the situation out of the impasse!

High technologies are network centric. And Russia has a ready-made tank and an aircraft for them. It remains to bring up all the other branches of the armed forces to this level.

[pytar]

In 120mm, yes, next in line is 150mm.

Rheinmetall presented, if I am not mistaken, a 140 mm cannon, the French also have 130 mm, but 150 is already the limit, and there is no particular point, I think. In all cases, kinetic weapons suffer from a lack of accuracy at extreme ranges and with moving targets. The kinetics, the lethality of ammunition will be increased, most likely using new physical principles, with a decrease in calibers.

Can you strongly disguise an elephant?

Unlikely. Therefore, you cannot make an elephant, it is better to make a chameleon. Whoever notices first will win.

High technology is network centric

Not only. I would suggest a "tank" with a smaller caliber gun, and for the destruction of "elephants" - a container vertical launch of ATGM / small-sized multifunctional missiles robots /. Something like the Torahs. They will be able to hit enemy armored vehicles from all angles, intelligently hitting vulnerable spots. Full robotization, unmanned AI, highly mobile, electric / hybrid / control systems, camouflage / camouflage / in all spectra. And of course the centricity!

[Albert1988]

Quote: pytar

but 150 is already the limit, and there is no special sense, I think.

There is a certain sense - if NATO installs 130-140mm, then we install 150mm and NATO will have nothing to answer.
But I totally agree that this is the limit.

Quote: pytar

Unlikely. Therefore, you cannot make an elephant, it is better to make a chameleon. Whoever notices first will win.

That is why the same "armata" has a great emphasis on enemy detection systems - full-fledged radars and, in the future, its own mini drone.

Quote: pytar

I would suggest a "tank" with a smaller caliber gun, and for the destruction of "elephants" - a container vertical launch of ATGM / small-sized multifunctional missiles robots /.

The point is that "elephants", that is, tanks with thick frontal armor, are better to hit with armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles - abbreviated as BOPS, since missiles are very easily knocked down by active protection systems (such as an Israeli windbreaker or an iron fist). And it is very difficult to intercept BOPS using such a system, especially if it is a very large BOPS for a 150mm cannon. Plus shells are always much cheaper than rockets. After all, a tank with a 152mm cannon will not only fire anti-tank shells - it will also have very powerful high-explosive and concrete-piercing shells.

[pytar]

There is a certain sense - if NATO installs 130-140mm, then we install 150mm and NATO will have nothing to answer.

So far, do not rush, because modern 120 mm can cope with the tasks facing tanks. The advantages of 150 mm are highly questionable. Take a ruler and see what 15 cm is! How many of these can be reduced in a tank and how much should the weight of the tank be? It is clear that the muzzle energy and power of such an ammunition is huge, but this does not give an advantage in efficiency! The fact is that with large calibers, the muzzle velocity is lower, respectively, the accuracy is lower, but I think you perfectly understand this.

That is why the same "armata" has a great emphasis on enemy detection systems - full-fledged radars and, in the future, its own mini drone.

This increases the efficiency! Undoubtedly! The problem with radars is that they unmask the tank, and stealth is just as important! All subtlety in the balance of performance characteristics!

The point is that "elephants", that is, tanks with thick frontal armor, are better to hit with armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles - abbreviated as BOPS

You need to beat them in vulnerable spots. And better, without much rumble! BOPS also has a place to be, but to make an absolute out of a large caliber, it seems to me too much, a mistake.

since missiles are very easily knocked down by active defense systems (such as an Israeli windbreaker or an iron fist)

The missiles are progressing. Their speed and maneuverability are increasing. They can be launched in one gulp / swarm /, from batch systems. No defense can handle that.

Plus shells are always much cheaper than rockets.

Cheaper, but let's think about it! On fixed targets! A rocket is not a problem! And in general, since tanks and other armored vehicles are becoming more and more sophisticated and expensive, is it worth saving on means of destruction to the detriment of efficiency? Tomorrow there will be more effective systems for detecting the objects from which the shot is fired! The more powerful the shot, the easier it is for computers to determine the coordinates of the ego, and give the command to the missile! Each shot of the tank is unmasked and may be the last one! It's time to be quieter, more important is the power of computerized systems.

After all, a tank with a 152mm cannon will not only fire anti-tank shells - it will also have very powerful high-explosive and concrete-piercing shells.

The tank does not need this, this one has an SPG with guided ammunition. From 40-50-70 km they will hit the mark!

[Albert1988]

Quote: pytar

So far, do not rush, because modern 120 mm can cope with the tasks facing tanks.

I agree, but talk about a larger caliber is actively going on among the Western military, so it remains only to wait.

Quote: pytar

The advantages of 150 mm are highly questionable. Take a ruler and see what 15 cm is! How many of these can be reduced in a tank and how much should the weight of the tank be? It is clear that the muzzle energy and power of such an ammunition is huge, but this does not give an advantage in efficiency!

I agree - there are many minuses - a small ammunition load, a huge weight of the gun itself - the Russian 152mm 2A83 tank gun, developed for the "father" of the armata - object 195, weighs 5 tons! But there is one indisputable advantage - an APCR round for a 152mm cannon will simply not be stopped! No armor can hold him. And it's not a fact that KAZ will cope with it. And his initial speed will not say that it is small - experimental BOPS for 2A83 developed (though rumored) 1700 m / s - for such a huge projectile, this is a lot.

Quote: pytar

The fact is that with large calibers, the muzzle velocity is lower, respectively, the accuracy is lower, but I think you perfectly understand this.

Below, yes, but the accuracy can be increased by other methods.

Quote: pytar

This increases the efficiency! Undoubtedly! The problem with radars is that they unmask the tank, and stealth is just as important! All subtlety in the balance of performance characteristics!

Radars, in principle, can work in a passive mode, or turn on at the right time for a short time. On the other hand, the radars of Western cars with active protection work constantly and somehow they live with it.

Quote: pytar

The missiles are progressing. Their speed and maneuverability are increasing. They can be launched in one gulp / swarm /, from batch systems. No defense can handle that.

Active defense has long been able to shoot down several targets at the same time, speed also does not really matter, if BOPS have learned to intercept (iron fist, Afghanite), then any missile will be intercepted, plus the missiles are very expensive and very vulnerable.

Quote: pytar

Cheaper, but let's think about it! On fixed targets!

And on the moving one too - fortunately, modern electronic fire control systems are very very good at taking moving targets.

Quote: pytar

A rocket is not a problem! And in general, since tanks and other armored vehicles are becoming more and more sophisticated and expensive, is it worth saving on means of destruction to the detriment of efficiency? Tomorrow there will be more effective systems for detecting the objects from which the shot is fired! The more powerful the shot, the easier it is for computers to determine the coordinates of the ego, and give the command to the missile! Each shot of the tank is unmasked and may be the last one! It's time to be quieter, more important is the power of computerized systems.

You are certainly right, but in addition to this, radio-electronic warfare is also developing, and if the Americans are already complaining about Russian electronic warfare systems in Syria, then any missiles with advanced electronics will only get worse, and the projectile in this situation will clearly win.
As for unmasking - so tanks in modern combat are used in such a situation when it is fundamentally not important whether the enemy sees him or not, the main thing is to hit the target. Because the enemy will see the tank anyway - this is a front-line vehicle. Therefore, the tank will be protected from the enemy with all sorts of ATGMs by means of electronic warfare and KAZ,

Quote: pytar

The tank does not need this, this one has an SPG with guided ammunition. From 40-50-70 km they will hit the mark!

Here I disagree - the tank is a vehicle of direct support and high-quality reinforcement of the infantry, it and the self-propelled guns have slightly different tasks. The self-propelled guns are somewhere far away, and the tank - it is here, directly on the front line, covering the soldiers with its armored carcass. But I agree that 152mm is very redundant for most purposes. Therefore, there is an assumption that the same armata with a 152mm cannon (hypothetically) will not work exactly like a tank, but as an anti-tank SPG.

[nemez]

You are funny Bulgarians. Ukrainians remind.

[nks]

Quote: pytar

Rheinmetall introduced, if I am not mistaken, a 140 mm cannon, the French also have a 130 mm

Exactly the opposite - Rheinmetall introduced 130mm, and the French have (and for a long time) 140mm.

[ANB]

... what they do in the West! Namely, they improve the destructive ability of ammunition and hit accuracy, and also reduce the visibility of equipment / camouflage /

Go to Kubinka, compare the sizes of T90 and Abrams. I somehow can't even imagine how you can disguise the Abrams or the Leopard.
The T14 has just grown to the size of Western tanks. But there it is filled with all the heart.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: ANB

Go to Kubinka, compare the sizes of T90 and Abrams. I somehow can't even imagine how you can disguise the Abrams or the Leopard.
The T14 has just grown to the size of Western tanks. But there it is filled with all the heart.

Yeah. That itself ..
Chests without handles ..

[Albert1988]

Quote: ANB

Go to Kubinka, compare the sizes of T90 and Abrams.

It's a pity only there is no Abrams ... Not yet.

Quote: ANB

The T14 has just grown to the size of Western tanks. But there it is filled with all the heart.

The main thing is not to forget that there is a real tower - this is a box with dimensions of 1m * 1m * 2m - everything else is a body kit, you still need to get into its frontal projection. And the western cars have, although very heavily armored, but still hefty garden houses, breaking through which will definitely mean 3-4 corpses and a destroyed tank. And for the T-14, even if the turret is breached, it is not a fact that the vehicle will be completely disabled and will not be able to escape on its own.

[ANB]

... And for the T-14, even if the turret is breached, it is not a fact that the vehicle will be completely disabled and will not be able to escape on its own.

Here I am talking about the same thing. The hull has grown, but the turret has decreased, the hull protection has been strengthened. At the same time, it is not known in advance whether there is a crew in the hull at all.

[Albert1988]

Quote: ANB

At the same time, it is not known in advance whether there is a crew in the hull at all.

Even if it is there, then a dilemma will arise - where to shoot: into the hull, which is difficult to hit, to disable the crew, or into the tower, which is uninhabited and very small, and it is not a fact that even its defeat will completely disable the vehicle.

[Konnick]

Interestingly, the appearance of the T-14 "Armata", in fact, did not cause much excitement about Western partners.

They already went through this 40 years ago [center]

[Albert1988]

And the project came to a standstill only due to the collapse of the Union and the cessation of active development on the projects of promising Soviet tanks (boxer / rebel / hammer and then still a promising object-195)
The block-3 Abrams you presented was a testing platform for technologies - the promising machine itself had to be completely new1.
By the way, the latest news from the American coast suggests that the Americans have resumed the program of a promising MBT, which will be very similar to the picture you presented. You can google it - you will find many interesting things.

[Cer59]

crap in the war between Iraq and Iran, now diarrhea about a new war?

[501 Legion]

without an automatic loader, it's just ridiculous to look at this "new" tank

[Albert1988]

Quote: 501Legion

without an automatic loader, it's just ridiculous to look at this "new" tank

Well, the Germans and Americans somehow live without a machine gun, here is funnier cap loading (that is, the rate of fire is about the same as that of the IS-2), and the speed on the highway (!) 57 km / h ...
Here is something to "laugh at".

[TatarinSSSR]

Some kind of war of video clips between opponents or competitors ... In each such video, all equipment is unbeatable and destroys cartoon or real equipment without a miss. And reality is often not at all like in the reactionaries ...

[Al_lexx]

No matter how I look at NATO tanks, every time I see mobile anti-tank guns.
All, well, very heavy. Well, or it looks like this. Even our T-14 is middleweight among them. There is no question of the T-90. Not to mention the T-80. Like swallows among the seals.
However, different schools, in many ways.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Al_lexx

No matter how I look at NATO tanks, every time I see mobile anti-tank guns.
All, well, very heavy. Well, or it looks like this. Even our T-14 is middleweight among them. There is no question of the T-90. Not to mention the T-80. Like swallows among the seals.
However, different schools, in many ways.

By the way, the same Americans, having screwed on the planned M1A3 abrams of 68 tons, somehow became very worried about such a mass and began to actively develop "light" tanks weighing 35-40 tons))))

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Albert1988

By the way, the same Americans, having screwed on the planned M1A3 abrams of 68 tons, somehow became very worried about such a mass and began to actively develop "light" tanks weighing 35-40 tons))))

Recently, about PPP ..))
As one State gunsmith said ... Americans make five parts that do one thing. The Russians make one detail that performs five functions.)))

[Albert1988]

Quote: Al_lexx

Recently, about PPP ..))
As one State gunsmith said ... Americans make five parts that do one thing. The Russians make one detail that performs five functions.)))

Well, what to take from them - if you are paid $ 1 for 1 part, and $ 5 for 5 parts! Here, willy-nilly, you will make not 5, but 10 details))))

[Al_lexx]

Here, willy-nilly, you will make not 5, but 10 details))))

Exactly!))

[Albert1988]

Quote: Al_lexx

No matter how I look at NATO tanks, every time I see mobile anti-tank guns.

No wonder - they are the advanced anti-tank guns, their task was to resist our T-64/72/80 tank avalanche, which in a single impulse was supposed to rush to the English Channel, so the emphasis was on anti-tank shells and thick frontal armor, and mobility and ease of transportation faded into the background.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Albert1988

No wonder - they are the advanced anti-tank guns, their task was to resist our T-64/72/80 tank avalanche, which in a single impulse was supposed to rush to the English Channel, so the emphasis was on anti-tank shells and thick frontal armor, and mobility and ease of transportation faded into the background.

This is understandable.
The funny thing is that there is no avalanche. They are fighting against the abreks with these mobile pillboxes.
In the same Iraq, more than half of the losses in tanks, minke whales got from breakages.
I remember the Kursk Bulge ...
And even then .. they do not like and do not know how to fight and die with dignity. One word is schismatics.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Al_lexx

This is understandable.
The funny thing is that there is no avalanche. They are fighting against the abreks with these mobile pillboxes.
In the same Iraq, more than half of the losses in tanks, minke whales got from breakages.
I remember the Kursk Bulge ...
And even then .. they do not like and do not know how to fight and die with dignity. One word is schismatics.

Actually, the wars against the abreks and other barmaley showed that 60-ton fools:
a) it is very difficult and expensive to drag across the sea-oceans
b) not all bridges / roads / terrain types can be walked on them
c) the barmalei have only ATGMs from the anti-tank systems, from which KAZ will better protect than passive armor, and it is necessary to defend against mines by means of sappers.

So the Yankees came up with the idea of ​​making it "easier" - only 35-40 tons, so that the gun was 120mm, the armor is obviously much thinner, but the speed and cross-country ability are higher.

[Al_lexx]

a)
b)
at)

Nuuu .. it's obvious.
However, this is a pure Yankisov mix. They understand nothing in war except suppressive fire from cover. Shoot everything that moves and hide. This is their war.
Of course, they have some kind of special forces and other black waters. And how much of that special forces?
Whether it is the Germans, those that were then. Those, yes, a serious enemy, you can't take to the kontakion. And even then, now in the Bundeswehr, almost half of the ponaehavites. No, they have armies opposite us. Fact (China, which is at all - ballet troops, in Tiananmen). Therefore, they piss and throw sanctions over the left shoulder.
I think so..

Finally, oooh wondering what they can do easier. Considering that they do not have our school of maneuverable tank combat and their enduring love for five details that carry out one function.

[demiurg]

"Will lead NATO armored forces"

The thunder of fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel
The cars will go on a furious campaign,
When Comrade Johnson sends us into battle,
And the Queen will lead us into battle!