US ground forces will fund R & D to upgrade the Abrams MBT

111

The US Ground Forces Command signed an agreement with General Dynamics and Systems, which includes research, development and testing in preparation for a proposal to modify the design of the Abrams MBT.

The cost of the agreement is estimated at 395,463 million dollars. The works will be performed at the Sterling Heights facility (Lima, Ogio).

It is assumed that work will continue until April 30 2020. The competition procedure was conducted via the Internet. The US Army received an offer from one bidder.

COMMENT TSAMTO

Over the past year, the US Army command has led an active discussion with Congress about issuing an order from General Dynamics for the supply of additional Abrams MBTs.

Management SV believes that additional MBTs are not needed at present, and considers it appropriate to renew orders in FN 2017. as part of an ECP (Engineering Change Proposals) modernization project.

At the same time, some legislators proposed to continue the production and modernization of МХNUMXА1 to МХNUMXА1 SEP variant (for actions in populated areas) for transferring them to the reserve of the US Army and National Guard. In their opinion, this will allow you to avoid stopping the line and wasting time and expenses on its reopening in the future for the production of new MBTs.

In May of this year, the US Army Command announced that at the current stage, the allocation of funds for research to create the next generation Abrams is a preferable option than purchasing additional MBTs.

As expected, the upgraded tank will require more electricity, the integration of digital systems and, possibly, the replacement of the transmission and engine.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    26 September 2012
    we make a new tank - a conventional enemy immediately orders a deep modernization ... we also need to work ahead of schedule!
    1. Antipetian 2
      +6
      26 September 2012
      And then! http://player.rutv.ru/index/iframe/video_cid/44708/acc_video_id/448478
      At the end of the video, Anatoly Eduardovich says that by the end of 2013 there will be a prototype of the "Armata". It clearly states:
      - But what about purely domestic technology? While we are standing near this car, I also wanted to ask you a forbidden question. What is happening with the T-90? Will we have our own tank or will we buy German?

      - There will be our tank, there will be no German. Moreover, now there is serious development work. At the end of 2013, we should already receive the first test sample.

      There is also interesting and encouraging information about Lynx, here is the text of the interview:
      http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=913728&cid=7

      Although it seems to me that they will show purely "Armata", without a tank on it (purely personal opinion) wink
    2. +4
      26 September 2012
      I doubt very much that this is the answer. Tanks are the last thing that will be used in a possible war against us.
      1. Antipetian 2
        +2
        26 September 2012
        Strategic Rocket Forces - 100% guarantee of our safety. The only thing that threatens us is some kind of locale in Asia or the Caucasus
  2. +2
    26 September 2012
    By the way .. As I understand it in the states, there is no question of creating a new MBT.
    1. Alexey Prikazchikov
      0
      26 September 2012
      It was. There would be a very promising platform. Yes, I don’t know the dumb money now, but for some reason the program was hacked.
    2. 0
      26 September 2012
      Quote: nik23sib
      . As I understand it in the states, there is no question of creating a new MBT.


      In fact, one expert on armored vehicles told me that the ABRAMS tank is wonderful. It’s easy to rebuild it and fit any terrain and modernize for another 20 years. Of course I like our tanks more, but if we talk about the T90. Other tanks are morally older than the Abrams. Abrashek crammed a lot of electronics. And in the negative it can not be determined
      Now, If we had solid T90s in service ... Well, yes, it would be great. And then we have the basis of the T80 and, alas, is not always in the best condition.
      1. +1
        26 September 2012
        Like it and under any terrain to rebuild quickly and modernize another 20 years, you can
        bauris chtoli?
        Other tanks are morally older than the Abrams.
        Et in what?
        And then we have the basis is the T80 and alas, is not always in the best condition
        Not anymore. Now they are transferring to T-72B2, and this is a completely different song))))
        1. Antipetian 2
          -1
          26 September 2012
          Abrams - from DShK! It was the same!
        2. -1
          26 September 2012
          Quote: leon-iv
          Other tanks are morally older than the Abrams.
          Et in what?


          There are a lot of electronics in Abrams. With what is useful.

          Not anymore. Now they are transferring to T-72B2, and this is a completely different song))))

          Well, the T72 is a second generation tank. I don’t know how much cooler the Slingshot, but in any case it’s far to the T90!
          1. Antipetian 2
            +2
            26 September 2012
            "Wagon" MC looks askance at you with disbelief
          2. +2
            26 September 2012
            There are a lot of electronics in Abrams. With what is useful.
            Whatever you take a closer look at studying TIUS on the T-72B2, you will discover a lot for yourself.
            I don’t know how much cooler the Slingshot, but in any case it’s far to the T90!
            This SLA slingshot is much better than on the T-90A and comparable to the T-90SM
      2. +1
        26 September 2012
        Here read the article http://btvt.narod.ru/spec/iraq/abrams_2003_demage.htm

  3. +2
    26 September 2012
    What is the article about? Explain, please, to wretched ME. I can write such a story about the evolution of my shoes from kindergarten sandals to sneakers.
  4. +4
    26 September 2012
    and now let's go back a little to the topic http://topwar.ru/19109-ukrainskie-sistemy-zaschity-tankov-hotyat-ispolzovat-v-na
    to.html


    The other day, the plant them. Malysheva manufactured and shipped four T-80UD tanks to the United States. According to Defense Express, a representative of the Ukrainian tank building industry, the armored vehicles have different equipment and protection systems. In particular, three tanks are equipped with the latest Ukrainian development - a complex of built-in dynamic protection with “Knife” modules, which makes it possible to defend against all types of anti-tank weapons, including the most formidable - armor-piercing projectile.

    But, judging by the configuration of the tanks delivered to the USA, it can be assumed that the American military is not at all interested in how to break through the armor of Soviet tanks and thus produce new ammunition. Many experts are confident that the United States is interested in a new Ukrainian development - the Knife dynamic defense system. Given that three of the four vehicles are equipped with this protection, the US military wants to see firsthand the difference in how a protected tank behaves compared to an unprotected one. If the Ukrainian Knife defense is as good as its designers declare, it is possible that the United States will purchase it to protect its tanks, and in the future, possibly for armored personnel carriers.

    and now we are discovering what the General Dynamics Land Systems is doing and together we understand why this is all done.

    dear Ukrainian colleagues spent you. Nobody will buy anything from you.
    1. +1
      26 September 2012
      Quote: vorobey
      You were led

      And the point was to them to buy tanks at all, if they can buy separately and separately.
      http://fcct-microtek.com/a_knife_ru.html
      Quote: vorobey
      http://topwar.ru/19109-ukrainskie-sistemy-zaschity-tankov-hotyat-ispolzovat-v-na


      to.html

      And look at this old news - tanks were delivered in 2004.
      Or are you talking about something 2011-2012?
      1. +2
        26 September 2012
        Andrew welcome
        quote
        Negotiations on the purchase by the US military of a batch of Ukrainian tanks have been ongoing for more than two years. For the first time, the possibility of the acquisition by the United States of Ukrainian heavy armored vehicles became known in March 2011. After negotiations in Washington, the former Minister of Defense of Ukraine Alexander Kuzmuk

        I do not think that Ukraine would separately sell three security kits.
        1. 0
          26 September 2012
          Quote: vorobey
          For the first time on the possibility of the acquisition by the United States of Ukrainian heavy armored vehicles became known in March 2011

          This is the rush of the author of the Murzilka. The T-80UD was sent back in 2004 - how can this be the first time in 2011?
          Quote: vorobey
          I would sell three sets of protection.

          For the United States would sell, only the price is more expensive and all things.
          1. +2
            26 September 2012
            Andrei, even with my shitty English, I could make out what was going on there and presentations at the arms exhibition in Aberdeen. indeed, Ukraine brought their cars there for test trials, but there was no talk of food.
            1. 0
              26 September 2012
              http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/tag/%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%97
              Read here.
              Even on Wikipedia, the T-80 article has this information.
              And I follow the Ukrainian tanks, there hasn’t been such in recent years? And why there is no talk about the Barrier? By the way, he was ONLY being developed in an early article to which you gave the link, and he has been ready for several years.
              And I don’t understand what’s the reason for the concern, the Russian Federation has a relict that’s 5 times cooler, KAZ has Afghanite and so on.

              And why in general T-80 and not a stronghold? T-80 was already with the Yankees of the Russian Federation sold the T-80U to South Korea. And even earlier were.
              1. +1
                26 September 2012
                Andrey, we don’t have a headache. This is now your problem.

                Yours hoped that they would buy knives from you.
                1. 0
                  26 September 2012
                  Quote: vorobey
                  This is now your problem

                  Well, this is one thing. And as for the problems - 4 tanks were fused, and that's good.
                  There is no American .. Knife .. still no, they haven’t got a KAZ either. And the market-market is a complicated business, Ukraine could have gained access to the Iraqi market if it hadn’t been for cooperation with the USA. Jews and Swedes have sent their studies BMP, and nothing.
                  1. +1
                    26 September 2012
                    Andrey, I just linked this purchase with the modernization of the abrams. That's all, and the conclusions, access to the markets is the business of your defense industry. Americans simply use your achievements in their own. And they need T80 only as a model for comparison and calculations on mobility. since I agree with you that the T80 is the best representative of the family.
                    1. +2
                      26 September 2012
                      Quote: vorobey
                      linked this purchase with abrams upgrade

                      Vryatli everything was so.
                      Quote: vorobey
                      And they need T80 only as a model for comparison and calculations on mobility

                      They’ve been with them since 1992, then in 2006 the T-80 U got to the South Korea.
                      Quote: vorobey
                      Americans just use your best practices in their

                      Maybe it just doesn’t have to be so tragic --- this is already world practice, I’m also pretty sure that all information on Merkava is available to Americans. Its DZ and KAZ.
                      Quote: vorobey
                      T80 - the best member of the family
                      And then his descendant Oplot)))))
                      1. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Kars
                        He has been with them since 1992


                        Andrey compare modifications of 92 and 2012 and draw conclusions. in 92 I do not exclude one could fall into the hands. again, in what configuration did they go to Korea. there are many but. I can’t judge. we will see.
                      2. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        modifications of 92 and 2012 and draw conclusions

                        And what conclusions can it be? Bars didn’t go further than the prototype, they did not undergo deep modernization in the Russian army (T-80BV T-80U), if I did not miss anything, all efforts on the T-90 were abandoned.
                        Ukraine sold T-80UD to Pakistan, the United States also had access to them, and they seemed to be pro-graded. The standard T-80U were sold to the Koreans because they were sold not from special preparations, but from MO stocks.
  5. +1
    26 September 2012
    One word - Give tanks to the states - who doesn't even have cockroaches in their heads, but locusts !? I understand that Ukraine is striving for NATO, but this is a "KNIFE" in the back ...
    1. +5
      26 September 2012
      Neither yourself nor people.
  6. 0
    26 September 2012
    This is an example to our bureaucrats in Moscow Region. The tank remains a tank, is outdated, modernize. Handing the tank over for scrap is a simple and not cunning business.
    1. +4
      26 September 2012
      And what are our bureaucrats doing in MO? Especially with the old 72
      1. Antipetian 2
        -2
        26 September 2012
        Offer them BMPT and BTR-T? Thank you, "I'll stand on foot" with such prospects. About "Buratino" I will not say anything, but the weapon is very specific
        1. +3
          26 September 2012
          Peter is too lazy to prove something to you, read the old articles on armored vehicles or my old komenty, there I clearly explained everything to mine
          1. Antipetian 2
            -3
            26 September 2012
            No, I won’t read your comments. Murakhovsky and Courage-2004 will be more authoritative.
            1. +2
              26 September 2012
              how old are you lad if you are so categorical.
              1. Antipetian 2
                -2
                26 September 2012
                Well, what do you immediately hint at insults? I have a different opinion about the BTR-T and BMPT
                1. +2
                  26 September 2012
                  Quote: Antipetyan 2
                  I have a different opinion about the BTR-T and BMPT

                  Can you voice it?
                  1. Antipetian 2
                    -2
                    26 September 2012
                    Not needed, because they do not meet the stated requirements. Now you
                    1. +2
                      26 September 2012
                      As for the BTR, I agree, as for the BMPT, no.
          2. Yarbay
            +3
            26 September 2012
            Quote: vorobey
            Peter too lazy to prove something to you

            Good afternoon Sparrow!
            I would not advise you to argue with Peter at all !!))))
            Too much)))))))))))
            1. +4
              26 September 2012
              Quote: Yarbay
              Too much)))))))))))


              I'm already starting to understand. Greetings Alibek.

              I'm not boo, I'm not boo, but IMHO. heavy interlocutor. A spotted angel is simply against its background. Zhenya I hope you are not offended by me?
              1. +2
                26 September 2012
                Quote: Yarbay
                I would not advise you to argue with Peter at all !!))

                Hi Alibek, I remember Omar almost got in without understanding who he was dealing with, now the networks are set up for Sani. He told him about tanks and Petit only trunks on his mind wassat
                1. Yarbay
                  +2
                  26 September 2012
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  Hi Alibek, I remember Omar almost got without understanding

                  Omar is too young)))) he can))))
                  With respectable comrade Sparrow, we already need to be very careful))))
                  As for networks, I agree)))
                  It acts very subtly)) knows whom you can buy with what)))
                  1. +2
                    26 September 2012
                    Quote: Yarbay
                    Omar is too young)))) he can)))

                    Soon the queue will have to be occupied, and the turnout will turn into .............. with a military bias of course laughing
  7. +1
    26 September 2012
    IMHO. If in the tower of the indescribable "Mastrubator1A2" there are still a nigga and two egg-headed snowballs, we can assume that in the tanks we will make a leap forward a couple of hulls ...
    1. +1
      26 September 2012
      And considering that due to the heavy turret a separate engine is used, which is easily set on fire with 12,5mm machine guns or an RPG shot, interest in the tank disappears even more ...
  8. 0
    26 September 2012
    Why do you think so? After all, there are no statistics on the use of tanks WITHOUT cover (with the exception of our Chechnya). Sensible statistics. Here's your comment about a nigga - charging a little off topic. Yes, our tanks are equipped with AZ. But, at the same time, the tower is the most protected place of the tank. Where, if not in the tower, to hide people? For today?
    1. Antipetian 2
      -3
      26 September 2012
      Are you kidding !? The flying tower is the main feature of Teshek at all times. On "Armata", as well as on the 195th, there will be a capsule under the VLD, in the nose of the car.
      1. +2
        26 September 2012
        Excuse me Peter, are you a tanker?
      2. +4
        26 September 2012
        Antipetian 2

        Excuse me, isn’t you not so close to Pupyrchatyi arguing about F-35? wink
        1. +3
          26 September 2012
          Joker,
          Oleg welcome. No, it’s not like him. then I read his comments since he didn’t want mine. You know for a long time with such pleasure I didn’t minus anyone, just to bring to life. A person does not know that suddenly a sparrow is Murakhovsky.
          1. +5
            26 September 2012
            vorobey

            For how he defends his opinion laughing Rams rest laughing (no offense, stubborn pipets just)
            1. +3
              26 September 2012
              Quote: Joker
              Rams rest


              peacocks you say heh (comrade Sukhov)
            2. +2
              26 September 2012
              Quote: Joker
              For how his opinion defends his sheep rest

              The glands are torn from such advocacy wassat
          2. Yarbay
            +3
            26 September 2012
            Quote: vorobey
            Oleg welcome. No, it’s not like him. then I read his comments since he didn’t want mine.

            He, for sure))) is suitable on the same side)))
            Then there will be a sharp bet offer)))
            The same handwriting)))
          3. +3
            26 September 2012
            Quote: vorobey
            You know for a long time with such pleasure I didn’t minus anyone, just to bring to life.

            Sanya, do not cross borders, we live in a democratic country, and Barack Obama himself defends the interests of Antipetian laughing Tolerance should be tolerated wassat
        2. Antipetian 2
          -2
          26 September 2012
          And then! And I proved to him! He did not refute a single point! wink
          1. +5
            26 September 2012
            My friend, what have you proved? That you know how to copy ONE table with a bunch of incorrect data?
            I think I asked you there, for example, about the average aperture. About which of the F35 aircraft is listed in the table (but there is a difference, for example, in flight range, tank volume, weapons, etc.). In addition, the table compares serial, small batch, and prototype aircraft. So what have you proved?
            1. Yarbay
              +2
              26 September 2012
              Quote: Pimply
              My friend, what have you proved? That you know how to copy ONE table with a bunch of incorrect data?

              I am surprised at you)))
              Look for troubles?))))
              1. +3
                26 September 2012
                Just do not like persistent in their stupidity boobs 8)
                1. Antipetian 2
                  -1
                  26 September 2012
                  Where is the evidence that they threw you in a personal?
                  1. +2
                    26 September 2012
                    Quote: Antipetyan 2

                    Where is the evidence that they threw you in a personal?

                    Ohhhh, yeah you're burning and looking laughing
                    1. Antipetian 2
                      -3
                      26 September 2012
                      And then! I'm waiting! I want to read the "refutation". I hope not for the authorship of Maxim Kalashnikov or Komsomolskaya Pravda?
                      1. Yarbay
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        And then! I'm waiting! I want to read the "refutation

                        Are you sure??))))))))))
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        I hope not for the authorship of Maxim Kalashnikov or Komsomolskaya Pravda?

                        I mean, you already .................)))))))))))
                      2. Antipetian 2
                        -4
                        26 September 2012
                        Why is my mail empty?
                      3. 0
                        26 September 2012
                        Also, the question is why you have a wallet and a refrigerator is empty !!! Enough tolerating this!!!!
                  2. +2
                    26 September 2012
                    Maybe you can explain what kind of evidence and in which personal I "should" have thrown you?
                    I remember that I refused to conduct a conversation through a PM. And to prove with an example of a table full of errors is already ridiculous. They poked a finger at one mistake, poked a finger at the second, third, fourth. Once again I ask - can you tell me what the average aperture is, for example?
              2. +1
                26 September 2012
                Quote: Yarbay
                I am surprised at you)))
                Look for troubles?))))

                Maybe " bully true "love
                1. +3
                  26 September 2012
                  No, Sasha, I'm sorry, but I prefer to give wink
                  1. Odessa
                    +1
                    26 September 2012
                    Pimply,
                    No, Sasha, I'm sorry, but I prefer to give

                    We have now apologized for the normal orientation. laughing
            2. +2
              26 September 2012
              Eugene, please do not start, otherwise I won’t stand another proposal in the style of Monica, I have been scolding from the past. laughing
              1. +1
                26 September 2012
                Himself cried 8)
        3. +2
          26 September 2012
          Quote: Joker
          Excuse me, isn’t you not so close to Pupyrchatyi arguing about F-35?

          Hi Oleg, it was he and I found a rebuttal. wassat If you need to take it off, he promised everyone something laughing
          1. +2
            26 September 2012
            Kadai Sash, he promised Pupyrchaty, not us if that laughing So let him take thanks hi he really doesn't really agree with that drinks
            1. +1
              26 September 2012
              Quote: Joker
              he really doesn't really agree with that

              Well, a man promised, you can’t refuse Antipetian winked Zhenya Pupyrchaty, you are lucky today is your day and hot night wink I throw off the denial in PM, grab the champagne laughing
            2. +2
              26 September 2012
              I've already proposed to transfer this offer to someone
              1. +3
                26 September 2012
                Quote: Pimply
                I've already proposed to transfer this offer to someone

                Modesty, well this is commendable wink Only once you got a card and then you might like it wassat
                1. +2
                  26 September 2012
                  Sasha, you’ll post a rebuttal here, and then suddenly Petka will start to excuse himself laughing
                  1. Antipetian 2
                    0
                    26 September 2012
                    With pleasure! I'm waiting!
      3. +1
        26 September 2012
        Turret Tower is the main feature of Teshek for all time.
        Did they tell you from Discovery? Ali Where?
        1. +4
          26 September 2012
          Leon welcome, why refute the obvious fact. really the view of the guy’s torn towers is terrifying. He is not aware that from the detonation of the BZ the effect inside is the same. At M1, the case bursts, for example.
          1. Darck
            +1
            27 September 2012
            He is not aware that from the detonation of the BZ the effect inside is the same.
            Seriously the same, yes? At first it’s not the ammunition that detuns, but the shells are burning, if you can fade the abrams at that moment, then you fry it lively on the T72. So this is far from the same. After detonation, the Abrams can be restored, and the T72 breaks into small ones pieces. I have not seen, not one case, the death of the crew from the detonation of the BC on the abrams, at T72 there are not a few such cases. So this is far, far, far, not the same.
            1. +3
              27 September 2012
              Quote: Darck
              At first, it’s not the ammunition that detanates, but the shells are burning,

              \
              Dark in the first place at 72 there are no shells, there are charges in a tight combustible closure and a pallet. In addition, you saw the AZ device live as a charge lies in it.
              Thirdly, can you voice the standard for a crew drop-out?
              landing landing is that pre-automation trains first of all in any carriage. I once told how I once burned by my own stupidity in a T64 combat station. flew out from under the breech guns faster than a cork from champagne. Arguing just for the sake of argument is one thing but is there any point.
              1. +3
                27 September 2012
                Darck,

                Alex, by the way, I asked a question below, why are hatches open on all ripped towers, are there versions?
              2. Darck
                0
                27 September 2012
                there are no shells there are charges in a tight combustible closure and a pallet

                This is called a combustible sleeve.
                In addition, you saw the AZ device live as a charge lies in it.
                Thirdly, can you voice the standard for a crew drop-out?
                landing landing is that pre-automation trains first of all in any crew.
                Again, these theoretical ones seem to be ... but alas, reality is a cruel thing, what you did at the training ground and in training, without the influence of other factors, in reality it will be much more difficult, and sometimes it’s not possible at all. I doubt that in training , they fired at you and you shell-shocked left the tank when the shells lit up, at overpressure and a huge temperature, in a split second you open the hatch and fall out. There is evidence of the death of Russian and Georgian crews due to the ignition of the BC and its detonation. So your opinion doesn’t affect reality.
                This is not a T72 but nevertheless, the liners burn perfectly.
            2. +2
              27 September 2012
              Quote: Darck
              After detonation, BC Abrams can be restored


              Are you serious?

              Quote: Darck
              .I do not saw, not one case, the death of the crew from the detonation of the aircraft at the abrams, at T72 there are not a few of such cases


              You can ask what you have to do with this. if direct I’m happy to talk and listen to an authoritative opinion.
              1. Darck
                +1
                27 September 2012
                Alex, by the way, I asked a question below, why are hatches open on all ripped towers, are there versions?
                It could be anything from overpressure to the fact that the crew left the car or they stupidly did not close the hatches. But I think you wanted to say that the crews left the car.
                Are you serious?
                Absolutely.
                if direct I’m happy to talk and listen to an authoritative opinion.
                Am I a tankman? No.
                1. +2
                  27 September 2012
                  Quote: Darck
                  Alex, by the way, I asked below why all hatches are ripped open, are there versions? Maybe anything, from overpressure to the fact that the crew left the car or they stupidly did not close the hatches. But I think you wanted to say that the crews left the car. Are you serious? Absolutely.


                  alex then another question. is this your subjective opinion?

                  And you are aware that any metal that has undergone thermal treatment no longer has the same properties. Specialists metalworkers will confirm. it's me about the restoration of Abrams.
                  1. Darck
                    0
                    27 September 2012
                    Alex
                    If you write names, then write with a capital letter.
                    then one more question. is this your subjective opinion?
                    What are you talking about ?
                    And you are aware that any metal that has undergone thermal treatment no longer has the same properties
                    Not any.
                    it's me about the restoration of Abrams
                    What exactly does not suit you, in restoring the abrams after the explosion of the BC?
                    1. +2
                      27 September 2012
                      Quote: Darck
                      If you write names, then write with a capital letter


                      sorry wrong.

                      Quote: Darck
                      And you are aware that any metal that has undergone thermal treatment no longer has the same properties. Not any


                      And which metal is not susceptible.
                      1. Darck
                        -1
                        27 September 2012
                        And which metal is not susceptible.

                        If you wanted to ask which metal does not lose its properties, then for example tungsten depends on the thermal conductivity of the metal.
                      2. +1
                        27 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        And you are aware that any metal that has undergone thermal treatment no longer has the same properties. Specialists metalworkers will confirm. it's me about the restoration of Abrams.








                        Quote: Darck
                        What exactly does not suit you, in restoring the abrams after the explosion of the BC?

                        Quote: Darck
                        If you wanted to ask which metal does not lose its properties, then for example tungsten depends on the thermal conductivity of the metal.


                        Let's not flood it is specifically about the armor plates of Abrams.

                        I realized that you are claiming that after the explosion of the warhead, the abrams is to be restored. So?
                      3. Darck
                        0
                        28 September 2012
                        Let's not flood it is specifically about the armor plates of Abrams.
                        If we are talking about Abrams armored plates, then here, any metal loses its properties, let's already have info on Abrams. Abrams is very tenacious, there is a photo of Kazhun, they tried to destroy him, the crew threw a termite grenade into the cabin, the second abrams shot him in the BC area , then Maverick was allowed into the tank, the tank wasn’t completely destroyed, the Iraqis tried to kill him, so the Americans had to give another Maverick. If the abrams completely burns out, then no one will restore it. But there is such a thing when the BC burns out during an explosion only the tower or the armored curtains can withstand, the tower is cut, the entire filler is pulled out and the tank is taken to the states for restoration. Its entire tower is welded, it will not be possible to disassemble it, change the fillers and assemble it. not frail heat treatment.
        2. Antipetian 2
          -6
          26 September 2012
          You cheered me, incredibly simple
          1. +6
            26 September 2012
            Antipetyan 2,

            And what do you dislike about the turret tower?

            You did not answer the question, are you a tankman?

            1. Antipetian 2
              -6
              26 September 2012
              No, I’m not saying that this is bad. A brand name, a brand or something, and we are recognizable all over the world!
              1. +2
                26 September 2012
                Quote: Antipetyan 2
                A brand name, a brand or something, and we are recognizable all over the world!


                And what is this fraught with for the crew?

                Expand the topic. I will not catch your thought from any of your short posts. And on armature there will be no tower otletayki? or T95?

                You didn’t answer, did you see a live tank?
                1. Antipetian 2
                  -6
                  26 September 2012
                  Tank T-95 does not exist in nature. There is object 195, dear. Let's see how it will be there. In general, I never claimed that a tower that flies very far away is bad. This has its undeniable advantages
                  1. +3
                    26 September 2012
                    Peter, have you seen the tank in the picture? Answer please. Your knowledge and IMHO certainly inspire respect, but in addition to the pictures, you can pronounce clearly or not clearly two or three words in the argumentation of your point of view.

                    Kars is not a tanker but a sober theorist who adequately judges and expresses an opinion than arouses respect. Unfortunately you have neither knowledge nor adequacy.

                    The principle take shit and majeure here somehow does not work. if you smear, then clearly argue
                    1. Antipetian 2
                      -4
                      26 September 2012
                      Am I insulting someone? Where do you see my "inadequacy"? You have negatively minus me. So sorry. No, I'm not a tanker. But a torn off tower is normal and there is nothing to be ashamed of, IMHO, as you say
                    2. +3
                      26 September 2012
                      All the same, I prefer to call myself an amateur. For a theoretician, I could not even read the T-64 operating instructions

                      As for the explosions of the BC - they all explode, for a tank this is very bad.
              2. Tirpitz
                +2
                26 September 2012
                The photoshop is in the photo, since at such an angle the earth would not have kept the heavy tower. The tower must certainly lie on the ground.
                1. Antipetian 2
                  -3
                  26 September 2012
                  Of course. This cannot be!
                  1. +2
                    26 September 2012
                    Peter, you probably do not know that detonation instantly occurs extremely rarely?

                    can you argue in which case detonation is possible? As a tankman, I know, and Leon recently butted too with one thing about this. Your word.

                    About the carpet. I minus you two times in total. one from the bottom of your heart when you flew from the corporal, and the second for the seed to answer the question. come on you, you are somehow uncomfortable
                    1. Antipetian 2
                      -8
                      26 September 2012
                      I know that not right away, thanks. Powder charges or warheads on projectiles may catch fire. It all depends on each case. Now tell me where you served and why you are building a tank expert from yourself. I already saw your VAF about aviation
                      1. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        Powder charges may catch fire or Warhead on shells


                        It was very deep. you don’t even know anything about the design of the tank.

                        served in the navy so go?

                        And why not (about the expert) we here endure your authoritative opinion, can you tolerate mine and a number of comrades?
                      2. Antipetian 2
                        0
                        26 September 2012
                        What? Can't an OFS or a cumulative projectile bang? You wrote me "T-95" in two comments above, but I endure it.
                      3. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        wrote "T-95", but I endure


                        Well, I probably got excited http://topwar.ru/648-t-95-i-obekt-640.html

                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        And what? Can't warheads bomb

                        you'd better keep silent. This is precisely the rare case when detonation occurs before the crew manages to leave the car. Warhead - called a shell if you did not know and it does not burn.

                        I can’t understand Petya, why are you torturing yourself like that.
                      4. Antipetian 2
                        -4
                        26 September 2012
                        And what's the matter, I wrote everything correctly, why are you finding fault? I said everything correctly, but about the "T-95", it's just a gun incompetence
                      5. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        I wrote everything correctly, why are you finding fault?

                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        Quote: Antipetian 2A what? Can't warheads bomb


                        You caught on time and corrected
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        Quote: Antipetian 2Powder charges or warhead on shells can catch fire


                        Well, I’ve already heard about your cannon, and as for my cannon, I bought it for that and sell it

                        • The well-known Russian T-95 tank, also known as the “Object 195” or the “Improvement-88” project, was supposed to become, according to the plan of the developers, a promising Russian 4th generation tank. The tank was developed by the design bureau UKBTM in Nizhny Tagil.
                        • There is evidence that this vehicle has already passed state tests in 2008, and in July 2010 the tank held a private display at the Defense and Defense - 2010 exhibition.
                        http://army-news.ru/2011/01/tank-t-95/

                        and Murakhovsky says that the object is 195 or is it not the same thing.
                      6. Antipetian 2
                        -1
                        26 September 2012
                        There is no T-95, there is just an "object". This is only in murzilkas - T-95
                      7. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        There is no T-95, there is just an "object". This is only in murzilkas - T-95


                        Dad, you're driving. there is no such word son, you are strangely persecuting, but there is no such word.

                        Petya, T72 following your logic there Is no object 172.
                      8. Antipetian 2
                        +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Dear friend, you "shine" with knowledge again. Name and index, like T-72, or there T-90 introduced upon adoption by order either MO, or the President. In the USSR, SovMin seems to be, I don’t remember exactly. Fact - Object 195 is not a T-95, but just an experienced carriage, and the T-95 is an invention of journalists. And you’re calling me a little boy, you’re my specialist, beloved wink
                      9. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        Petya, T72 following your logic there Is no object 172.


                        This is for you to catch up. Ate a sparrow?

                        right now I’ll get a shovel.
                      10. Antipetian 2
                        -4
                        26 September 2012
                        Dear friend, you "shine" with knowledge again. The name and index, like the T-72, or there the T-90 is introduced after being adopted by the order of either the Ministry of Defense, or the President. In the USSR, the Council of Ministers does not seem to remember exactly. Fact - Object 195 is not a T-95, but just an experimental wagon unit, but a T-95 invention of journalists. And you call me names as a little boy, you are my specialist, beloved

                        What do you think? You are a specialist.
                      11. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        Well, I’ve already heard about your cannon, and as for my cannon, I bought it for that and sell it
                        Sanya, he is not worth your shovel. Right now grunt and shut up. Will start to get in PM. So Olezhik tried to get me somewhere for a couple of weeks and nothing, calmed down with confidence that he was right. So treat the baboon as well, this is a provocation. They cheer stop shouting.
                      12. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Zhenya, I’m sending woodpeckers faster. there are no warnings.
                        с by mountain By the way, we were very nice talking there.
                      13. Antipetian 2
                        -2
                        26 September 2012
                        Dear friend, you "shine" with knowledge again. The name and index, like the T-72, or there the T-90 is introduced after being adopted by the order of either the Ministry of Defense, or the President. In the USSR, the Council of Ministers does not seem to remember exactly. Fact - Object 195 is not a T-95, but just an experimental wagon unit, but a T-95 invention of journalists. And you call me names as a little boy, you are my specialist, beloved
                        Well? Why don't you answer? You just screwed up making yourself an expert. T-95 you see!
                      14. +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Ak is called Ak-47 by people who have a direct relationship to weapons. AND? This does speak of their lack of professionalism. No, it just says that there is an established terminology that may differ from the specific terminology
                      15. Antipetian 2
                        0
                        26 September 2012
                        The fact is that even if you use the T-95, you must understand that this is wrong, and to draw an analogy with the t-72 is stupid, because:
                        the name and index, such as the T-72, or there the T-90 is entered after adoption by order of either the Moscow Region or the President. In the USSR, SovMin seems to be, I don’t remember exactly. Fact - Object 195 is not a T-95, but just an experienced carriage, and the T-95 is an invention of journalists.
                        And you prove to me here that the T-95 is the official name because of ignorance and unprofessionalism.
                        Ak is called Ak-47 by people who have a direct relationship to weapons.
                        Well, well
                      16. +1
                        26 September 2012
                        If you could read and listen, you would already read above
                        Quote: vorobey
                        wrote "T-95", but I can put up with Well, I probably got excited http://topwar.ru/648-t-95-i-obekt-640.html


                        This is the first. Second in points
                        - does object 195 exist? - exists (the layout is not the layout is not important)
                        - t95 people stuck to it. pasted it you will not deny Peter.
                      17. Antipetian 2
                        0
                        26 September 2012
                        t95 glued to him in the people

                        But what then are you telling me that the T-72 is the 172nd following my logic? Hinting that I'm wrong and the T-95 is the same object 195?
                      18. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Petya do you have verbal diarrhea?
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        But what then are you telling me that the T-72 is the 172nd? Hinting that I'm wrong and the T-95 is the same object 195?


                        if something seems to you drink valerianochki.
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        And you prove to me here that the T-95 is the official name because of ignorance and unprofessionalism

                        Specifically, where and how I said it. if this is your speculation and you do not give my quote with this statement, you will apologize.

                        And what is the index of armata? This is the case for general development.
                      19. Antipetian 2
                        -2
                        26 September 2012
                        Okay, please forgive me, Comrade Marshal, you’re right, I’m a complete incompetent layman and I don’t understand the topic. AND Petya, T72 following your logic there Is no object 172. I just misunderstood you. I also admit that a flying tower is normal and that tanks detonate instantly in only 1 case per million. I am also ashamed that I posted photoshop with torn towers stuck in the ground. I just misunderstood you, you are absolutely right. Will not happen again. Let me go?
                      20. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        Let me go?


                        Petya, why are you like that. not a marshal but just a captain (stock). Nobody called you a layman. you read a lot about tanks and by the way I lived a lot and didn’t even ask myself a question and didn’t know who assigns the indices of T to the tanks.
                        All these torn towers are just an effect, take a word to the moment when they tear off the crew tower in the tank either no longer or it doesn't matter to him anymore.

                        the armored capsule, as you noted on new projects, will also not save from detonation, and the uninhabited turret in this case is plus and not minus. I think so.
                        just learn to argue and listen to your opponent. For example, I can not stand Tirpitz and pimply, and they know about it. This is personal, but when there is a discussion on either I don’t get into what I don’t understand or I enjoy reading their posts at times and even plus. So lay back your youthful maximalism and come on.
                      21. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Antipetyan 2,
                        Quote: Antipetyan 2
                        torn towers stuck in the ground


                        Petya I have a question for you if you come back here. why on all the torn towers hatches are open? Kars and I have already discussed this. did not come to a consensus.
                      22. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        There is one photo here that really embarrassed me. A photo of wrecked Georgian tanks in Tskhinval. They say that a funnel and pieces of metal are all that remains of the T-72 whose tower on the notorious photo broke a concrete ceiling.
                        Or is it a setup?
                      23. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Andrey, drop the link to the original, here the increase is weak. The location of the bottom hatches is similar to the bottom. The effect of a bomb.
                      24. +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Photos are not mine. Look at this topic.
                        http://topwar.ru/18522-bespristrastno-o-tankah-oplot-m-i-t90ms.html#comment-id-5
                        69830
                      25. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Andrey looked there, too, there is no increase. but there are other angles. I think it’s a bomb, and I grabbed the other two next. so that the flier can safely hang the order.

                        By the way, notice, this is a Ukrainian tank so scattered (I joke)
                      26. +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        so that you can safely hang the order

                        that's the joke --- that RPGshniki hang the medal on themselves --- to be a bomb, I wouldn’t bother.
                        Quote: vorobey
                        Ukrainian tank so scattered
                        that is, that is. I was offended by the Georgians for that. (although it’s all the same Soviet, or even UVZ)))))) our only did it to him,
                      27. +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Kars
                        RPG officers hang the medal on themselves


                        yes let them hang, the main result.
                      28. 0
                        26 September 2012
                        I have speculations that the Georgians, not expecting to meet the enemy’s armored vehicles, were loaded only with the OFS and still took over the load of ammunition. But such a total detonation is not typical for Soviet tank ammunition.
                      29. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Kars
                        not typical of Soviet tank ammunition.


                        I can put forward another version - this is the result of a volumetric explosion (a consequence of the leakage of diesel fuel from the middle tank as a result of an RPG, the ignition of the cartridges of charges as a result of the fire, the evaporation of the solarium and, at a critical temperature, the simultaneous detonation of shells in the conveyor). How?
                      30. Alex 241
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Sorry to interfere, maybe PTAB 2.5-M2 was covered from the air?
                      31. +2
                        26 September 2012
                        not excluded.
                      32. Alex 241
                        +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Although it is unlikely that it would be possible to pour these things in the city from a container in the city. A large area would be covered.
                      33. Yarbay
                        +1
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Sorry to interfere, maybe PTAB 2.5-M2 was covered from the air?
                        Then jewelry work !!
                        weird!
                        reminds me of something
                      34. Alex 241
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Hi Alibek, I already turned on the brains, I unsubscribed above.
                      35. Yarbay
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Hi Alibek, I already turned on the brains, I unsubscribed above.

                        Hi Alex !! I read your opinion!
                        In 93 I saw something similar, I even remember filming there !!
                        two tanks were in such a state !! I am not a technical specialist, but I remember there were many versions, you know everyone likes to discuss!
                        Several completely different teams began to chase this thing for themselves !!
                        I still don’t understand how it could turn around like that !!
                        I was more inclined then that the scouts blew up or the enemy blew himself up, but how many explosives were needed !!
                      36. Alex 241
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        Alibek, it’s hard for me to say anything, I did not see the nature of the destruction. Maybe they used isobaric ammunition?
                      37. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        If the ammunition exploded, it’s quite possible.
                  2. Yarbay
                    +4
                    26 September 2012
                    Quote: Antipetyan 2
                    Of course. This cannot be!

                    You are clearly confused)))
                    The fact that this photo is possible)))
                    The fact that on the previous Tirplitz is right-fantasy!
                    The barrel of the tank will not hold the tower itself !!
            2. +3
              26 September 2012
              Quote: vorobey
              You did not answer the question, are you a tankman?

              Sanya, he’s not a tanker, in a recent topic he offered sex services for denials and Omar almost fell for it, but when he found out that the girl’s name is Petya .............. then I think he understood who he was wassat
              1. +4
                26 September 2012
                Sanya, I want the man himself to answer whether he saw the tank live or not.

                he cannot even read carefully. I did not say that T95 is in nature; I just asked a question how the shoulder strap of tower 72 will differ from Armata or T95 (figuratively).

                And how does the capsule protect the crew from the detonation of BC?
                1. +2
                  26 September 2012
                  Quote: vorobey
                  Sanya, I want the man himself to answer whether he saw the tank live or not

                  Sanya, I saw the tank live, but I wasn’t inside and I’m not a tanker at all, so I don’t get upset, I just read comments so much more useful. And he vryatli will answer you, there in the topic of upgrading American B2 and installing new radars on them, this news pleased him. You are talking with a NATO arms and ideology honorary.
                  1. Antipetian 2
                    0
                    26 September 2012
                    It was ironic. In general, I read "carriages"
                    1. +4
                      26 September 2012
                      Quote: Antipetyan 2
                      the irony was. In general, I read "carriages"


                      What about the Chinese tanks?
                      1. Odessa
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        vorobey,
                        What about the Chinese tanks?

                        Keep about the Chinese tanks, just stay away from the comrade, you never know ...
                      2. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        Esther welcome you. I just meant it. that the Chinese are so stupid and not programmatic that they took the Soviet and not the German or American layout as the basis.
                      3. Odessa
                        +2
                        26 September 2012
                        vorobey,
                        Esther welcome you. I just meant it. that the Chinese are so stupid and not programmatic that they took the Soviet and not the German or American layout as the basis.

                        And when did the Chinese differ in their special intelligence? What they saw next and copied. Here I heard that something will be built according to the type of Baikonur space station in the Far East, after a few months look for a full copy in China.
                      4. +3
                        26 September 2012
                        At the same time, they crammed into the new German diesel and EMNIP not tank but boat ones. Well then, let them continue to bite the cactus comparing a hedgehog with a snake.
                      5. +4
                        26 September 2012
                        Quote: vorobey
                        I just meant it. that the Chinese are so stupid and not programmatic that they took the Soviet and not the German or American layout as the basis.
                        Hi Sanya. And think how much our layout wins? And our engineers are the most stupid so as to seat the crew?
                      6. +4
                        26 September 2012
                        Eugene is still about me. here just a little boy treats everyone.
          2. +2
            26 September 2012
            Quote: Antipetyan 2

            You cheered me, incredibly simple
            And it would be something to breed. You slept yourself laughing
            1. +7
              26 September 2012
              Eugene, but I know which new engine will go to Abrams. they want to increase power.
              1. +2
                26 September 2012
                Quote: vorobey
                But I know which new engine will go to Abrams.

                Sanya 100500 + good It’s easy to envy my engine. Right now I’ll choke on my saliva laughing
              2. +4
                26 September 2012
                Quote: vorobey
                Eugene, but I know which new engine will go to Abrams. they want to increase power

                They still did not suit the caliber
                1. +2
                  26 September 2012
                  The silencer, by the way, is the largest in the world 8)
    2. 0
      26 September 2012
      You do not have statistics ... and it was about promising MBT in particular about Armata, or are you in the subject? laughing
  9. rinzhak
    +1
    26 September 2012
    Abrams M1 upgrade - only spoil laughing
    1. 0
      26 September 2012
      Quote: rinzhak

      Abrams M1 upgrade - only spoil

      My answer is depends on what do you mean. There is electronics in one tank, like the Skolkovo as a whole. But the armor and the engine are quite enough to charge.
  10. 0
    26 September 2012
    It was not for nothing that they bought an 4 tank from Ukraine ... looked, now they started to upgrade ....... I hope they won’t get anything good!
  11. Drappier
    +2
    26 September 2012
    They do not produce them with 93, they only upgrade, news as news.
  12. rinzhak
    0
    26 September 2012
    Quote: Manager
    But the armor and the engine is quite where to charge.

    American engine! although once on the Zvezda channel, military designers said that there was no ventilation system adapted to sandy areas. But maybe the experience of both Iraqi warriors has already been amended. Does thickening armor make sense? although in comparison with the Russian tank there is no active reactive armor.
  13. +3
    26 September 2012
    A neighbor, a veteran of the Second World War, a tanker, fought the entire war in amerovsky "Sherman" - the car, he says, is good, but if they get it down, you have to get out quickly, the skin burns more smelly and poisonous inside! And so our muzzles are not in scars like "34" were not! It was possible to move there!
    1. Tjumenec72
      0
      26 September 2012
      Yeah, "wonderful" car - even the amers themselves called it a lighter)
      Ronson Lighter - Light up the first time, every time!
  14. Darck
    0
    27 September 2012
    It was not for nothing that they bought an 4 tank from Ukraine ... looked, now they started to upgrade ....... I hope they won’t get anything good!
    What to look there? Most likely they will experience a new OBPS.

    Syrian T72 and RPG7 in the forehead, shot a coperfield.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"