AbramsX: the "Abrams" with an uninhabited tower have already appeared

122
Of course, we are not talking about all the Abrams, but about one tankpresented to the general public by General Dynamics. The machine, called AbramsX, has an uninhabited tower, a hybrid power plant, the location of the crew in an isolated module and other novelties, for which it has already been dubbed the American "Armata". The contraption turned out to be interesting, but to inflate news we will not talk about its appearance as a threat to our tanks. This is still a prototype, although the term technology demonstrator would be more appropriate here. However, no one bothers us to consider it in more detail, so let's go.

AbramsX: the "Abrams" with an uninhabited tower have already appeared
Source: alternathistory.com

Uninhabited tower and layout features


We will not digress strongly from the topic, but one circumstance cannot be ignored. It lies in the fact that the uninhabited tower, which they began to talk about especially often after the appearance of the T-14 Armata, is by no means a tribute to fashion. Such an arrangement is resorted to only in one case, when the design of existing tanks loses all reserves for improving armor protection. And it, this improvement, is always accompanied by an increase in the mass of the combat vehicle. Therefore, in order to keep the mass of the tank within reasonable limits, it is necessary to reduce the armored volume. It can be reduced as much as possible only by using an uninhabited tower - there is no crew there, smaller dimensions, less weight. The released reserves, respectively, go to protect the forehead and other projections.



This problem will manifest itself in the Abrams in the foreseeable future. So far, they have room to “get fat” in armor and mass, but there are fewer and fewer options for upgrading protection. General Dynamics is well aware of this, which is why they presented their AbramsX concept, clearly hinting that someday they will have to leave the classics in the layout. But what exactly are the developers offering?

Yes, the novelty has a really uninhabited tower. There are no places for the crew, but access to the main units in it is available both from the outside through special hatches, and, most likely, from the inside. At the same time, one can notice that, as one would expect, the dimensions of this part of the tank have clearly decreased both in width and in height. On the front photos, these changes are practically invisible due to the fact that the tower is equipped with large modules from the sides, but without them, the result of “weight loss” is obvious.


One of the tower layouts for AbramsX in the "bare" form. Source: alternathistory.com

It is noteworthy that the Americans did not change their traditions in terms of the placement of ammunition. The main ammunition rack, consisting of 19 unitary shots, is located in the aft niche of the turret, but, unlike conventional Abrams, it is now mechanized. The gun is loaded using an automatic loader. So far, nothing is really known about its design, but, most likely, we are talking about a conveyor type, when shots are placed in cassettes on a movable belt in two rows. The declared rate of fire is up to 12 rounds per minute. Whether the tank has additional ammunition, there is no information yet.


For example: the conveyor automatic loader of the MVT-70 tank. Source: en.wikipedia.org

The introduction of an uninhabited tower naturally affected the entire layout of the tank - the tankers need to be put somewhere. They did not reinvent the wheel here and placed the crew in the same way as we did in the T-14 - in the bow of the hull. There, under the frontal armor, there are places for three: commander, gunner and driver. The fourth in the person of the loader, for obvious reasons, is now absent, which is a pity - one more working hand in the maintenance of the combat vehicle will not interfere.

Of course, moving the crew jobs to the bow of the hull into a single compartment has a number of advantages. Firstly, their security is higher, although we have already said that the mass reserve released due to the uninhabited turret is spent on hull armor. Secondly, the interaction between tankers is facilitated and literally goes to a new level. What can I say, it’s not for you to command the “mechanic driver” with kicks.


Crew location in AbramsX. On the left is the driver, in the middle is the gunner and on the right is the tank commander. Source: alternathistory.com

But there is one fat minus, which is that the crew becomes completely dependent on technical vision. Yes, there are cameras and panoramic surveillance devices. But in the event of a complete blackout of the vehicle or damage to the sights, neither the gunner nor the commander has backup optical channels. Just as there is no way to lean out of the hatch and look around the area around the tank, the tower standing behind and the low height of the vehicle body will interfere. Although this is a question for all tanks with an uninhabited turret without specific reference to models.

Armament and sights


Recently, Western tank builders have been constantly mentioning new guns, showing off their calibers, so when the first news about AbramsX appeared, there was a feeling that now we will be shown a tank with at least a 130-mm gun, and even better with a 140-mm gun. But the reality turned out to be more prosaic.

The 120mm XM360 smoothbore gun was used as the main armament of the AbramsX. The American index system, of course, can sometimes be confusing, but we will make an explanation. This is an analogue of the standard 120-mm Abrams cannon, which consumes exactly the same shells and even more, but at the same time it is very different in terms of design.


Contacts for programming ammunition in the breech of the XM360 gun. Source: otvaga2004.ru

The XM360 was originally developed for a promising light tank, so everything is done in it to facilitate the design and reduce the recoil force: a lightweight breech, a cradle with titanium elements, symmetrical recoil devices, a muzzle brake and a barrel made of composite materials. In addition, there are other nuances.

Firstly, the XM360 is a modular system, so it allows you to switch to a 140-mm barrel caliber without any special modifications. Secondly, the gun allows the use of self-monitoring sensors and recoil devices, which is important for a tank with an uninhabited turret, in which the crew does not have direct access to the gun. Thirdly, the XM360 shutter is equipped with electronic contacts for programming homing and guided projectiles before firing.


Tests of the XM360 gun in a climatic chamber. Source: otvaga2004.ru

Such characteristics, of course, open up a wide range of used shells for AbramsX. It includes the M829A1..4 feathered sub-caliber projectiles, M830 HEAT shells, M908 concrete-piercing shells, as well as buckshot ammunition, which have already become classics. The assortment is complemented by universal projectiles with controlled detonation M1147 and, in the future, guided anti-tank type XM1111, if they are ever put into production.

The ammunition load, frankly, is very serious, but what about additional weapons? The 7.62-mm machine gun coaxial with the cannon is of little interest to us - the thing is standard and unremarkable. What about on top of the tower? There is a remote-controlled installation with a 30-mm automatic gun M230LF with a chain drive.

Unlike the automata we are used to (guns, not those that we might think of), which use the energy of powder gases in their automation, the M230LF is powered by an electric drive. The M230 itself is far from the latest and is used, for example, on American helicopters. However, unlike the standard version, the M230LF cannon provides a higher muzzle velocity, but with a rate of fire reduced to 200 rounds per minute.


View of the ML230LF automatic gun. Source: alternathistory.com

The decision to install a 30mm machine is quite logical, since not all targets on the battlefield require the use of a main gun. Basically, of course, this is infantry and lightly armored and unarmored enemy vehicles. Here you can even cite as an example such a banal thing as the calculation of an anti-tank missile system - in practice, it is extremely difficult to destroy it from a tank gun, but a burst of automatic “small things” does this quite successfully.

However, the M230LF automatic cannon is not the only option for equipping the tank. The remote-controlled installation itself is modular, so it is quite possible to put something else there. Instead, you can install 7.62-mm and 12.7-mm machine guns, a platform for drones Switchblade type, as well as an automatic grenade launcher or a Javelin launcher. Everything, as they say, at the request of the customer.

The main armament is controlled using an automated system that can be interfaced with sources of external target designation both from friendly units and according to navigation data from satellites. It also includes a set of sensors for preparing a shot, which monitor such parameters as wind speed and direction, atmospheric pressure, range to the target, its speed and direction, as well as the spatial position of its own tank. They even declare the possibility of using artificial intelligence technologies, which will help the crew to seek out targets, navigate the terrain and monitor tank systems.

This is all clear. A modern fire control system and "artificial intelligence" in advertising booklets for various kinds of prototypes no longer surprise anyone. There is another interesting thing here.

AbramsX is perhaps one of the few (if not the only) tanks that have two panoramic sights installed at once: one for the commander, and the second for the gunner. Usually "panorama" is the privilege of the commander, and even then not on all tanks, but here the second one appeared. Such a maneuver of design thought should bear fruit in several aspects at once.

First of all, this, of course, will affect the reduction of blind spots around the tank, which is especially important, given the uninhabited tower. In addition, the commander's and the gunner's ability to search for targets are almost completely equalized, since the latter in serial tanks is usually content with a fixed sight with a fixed field of view. In this case, both crew members become completely independent of each other.


Panoramic gunner's and commander's sights on the roof of the turret. Source: alternathistory.com

Both panoramic sights have the same set of channels - television and thermal imaging - and also have laser rangefinders and independent two-plane stabilization. Both that and the other "panorama" is adapted for firing from a cannon, so the commander and gunner can hit targets with equal success.

In addition to everything, AbramsX is equipped with all-round video cameras, the image from which is available to all crew members.

Tank security


Talking about the security of a prototype or even just some kind of concept is a thankless task. If not all the data on the resistance of the armor of serial tanks are present, then what can we say about the exhibition sample? It's good that at least the mass is known. It is at the level of 49 tons. And here it becomes clear that, most likely, the Americans followed the path of their German colleagues, who presented their Panther this summer. That is, they did not pay special attention to booking.

In fact, AbramsX dropped almost 17 tons in weight when compared with the latest Abrams serial modifications. Yes, his tower is uninhabited and reduced in size, but armor seems to be present in it. Given the fact that an increase in resistance to projectiles, especially sub-caliber ones, invariably leads to an increase in mass, the decision of General Dynamics looks strange. Here, an indicator of 55-60 tons would be more appropriate to talk about more powerful armor than existing tanks.

Of course, the developers managed to make a statement that the protection of the tank is provided by the most modern composite materials. However, such reports should not be trusted yet. All that can be said now is that the armor level of the AbramsX is unlikely to exceed the Abrams modifications of the M1A2 SEP v.3 type.


Source: General Dynamics

An addition to the passive protection on the AbramsX is the modernized Israeli-developed Trophy active countermeasures complex. Much has been said about this system. It does not work against feathered sub-caliber shells, but it copes quite well with cumulative weapons in the form of guided missiles and anti-tank grenades, destroying them on approach with a fragmentation stream from counter-munitions fired towards them.

Also, the state of protective equipment includes a laser warning system that reacts to laser rangefinders and target designators of anti-tank weapons, informing the crew about this and firing aerosol grenades towards the radiation source in order to hide the car from view. In addition, dynamic protection, which is part of the urban combat kit, can optionally be installed.

Power point


Perhaps the engine compartment of the AbramsX has undergone changes that are clearly not inferior in scale to an uninhabited tower and the location of the crew in the nose of the hull.

Abandoned gas turbine engine. The very one that was an invariable attribute of all serial "Abrams". Apparently, the issue of fuel economy was still raised to the appropriate level. Although some sources claim that the replacement of the engine even became a continuation of the Pentagon's environmental policy.

In general, now the tank has a hybrid power plant, consisting of diesel and electric engines. Presumably, the international corporation Cummins, together with the army research center, was engaged in its development.


Source: alternathistory.com

Judging by some reports, the diesel power is 1500 horsepower, but there is really no information on its electric counterpart. It can be said that the power unit is made in parallel, as a result of which the tank is able to move both solely due to the piston engine or electric traction, and in combined mode. This mode, by the way, provides a combat vehicle speed of more than 60 kilometers per hour and at the same time allows you to greatly save fuel - its consumption is about 50% lower than that of the Abrams gas turbine engine.

It should be noted that the movement due only to the electric motor marketers managed to expose as stealth technology, which reduces the sound visibility of the tank and allows you to covertly attack the enemy without rattling a diesel engine. Of course, this component is present in the concept, but it cannot be considered the basis. After all, electric traction is also a way to save fuel, as well as the ability to evacuate a tank if the diesel engine or dry fuel tanks are damaged. At the same time, the parameters of the batteries are not reported.

Conclusions


The AbramsX developers directly said that their product does not claim to be the ideal tank. Say, maybe you won’t accept the car for service, but it will be a kind of bridge between the past generation of tanks and the future. And it's hard to disagree with that.

General Dynamics decided to put their "concept car" on the "expensive-rich" principle, introducing into it all the most expensive things that could be thought of. An uninhabited turret with advanced electronics, a light gun with a composite barrel and a modular design, a hybrid power plant. Many manufacturers of armored vehicles act on the same principle, but everything often ends the same way - nothing is accepted into service.

In general, the tank looks very interesting and could even show high efficiency on the battlefield. It is possible that the Americans will still come to the layout with an uninhabited tower in the Nth number of years, when the classic Abrams will finally use up all the reserves, but without all this tinsel, because both composite modular guns and hybrid engines are very expensive. Expensive and with vague prospects.

Overseas, they also know how to count money, and their defense department, in terms of conservatism, can give odds to other states. Suffice it to recall how the Javelin was accepted into service or determined with a light tank. Pretty - they will find a cheaper alternative. AbramsX is just to dream, to plunge into the future.

Some technical specifications:
- crew: 3 man
-Weight: about 49 tons
- Length without gun: about 7.9m
- Width: about 3.6m
-Height: about 2.3m.
-Main armament: 120mm XM360 smoothbore gun
-Ammunition for the gun: 19 shots (additional stacking in the hull is possible)
-Additional weapons:
7.62 mm coaxial machine gun
30mm ML230LF autocannon, upgradeable to machine gun, automatic grenade launcher, Switchblade drone pad or Javelin launcher
- Power plant: hybrid diesel engine + electric motor
-Maximum speed: more than 60km/h
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    19 October 2022 04: 45
    Not an expert in this matter, but I liked the tank. I think experienced members of the forum will appreciate the pros and cons of the prototype. The main thing is when will the enemies be able to put in a series?
    1. +8
      19 October 2022 04: 53
      Quote: ASAD
      The main thing is when will the enemies be able to put in a series?

      As soon as the T-62m2 appears, they will immediately appear ...
      1. +1
        19 October 2022 07: 23
        The next generation or and will appear that will be optionally manned.
        Or maybe all the tanks will work in a single network without a crew.
        1. +5
          19 October 2022 09: 10
          Good morning .
          I have a question that is not answered in the article.
          How much should an electric motor battery weigh?
          For a tank with this weight, it should be quite large.
          And how much is enough?
          My neighbor has a battery car , he says the battery weighs almost one - third of the weight of the car itself , and lasts ~ 400 km .
          If we compare this tank with a car, then the weight of the battery is at least 10 tons.
          1. +8
            19 October 2022 10: 53
            Quote: Blacksmith 55
            If we compare this tank with a car, then the weight of the battery is at least 10 tons

            You are confusing an electric car with a hybrid. A tank purely on electricity does not need to go anywhere, especially 400 km. They will supply the usual 100 kWh from the same Tesla.
            1. 0
              19 October 2022 12: 29
              Off-road 1500 hp ~ 1000 kW. A 100 kWh battery will last for 6 minutes.
              1. +8
                19 October 2022 13: 22
                The whole electric bike should not pull the tank by itself at all. Help with acceleration, power supply of electrical systems in the parking lot. And you overestimate the need for power for a 50 ton machine. Of course, it will reduce agility, but just to pull the 65-ton Ferdinand, 530 horses were enough.
                1. +1
                  19 October 2022 13: 36
                  Quote: Negro
                  The whole electric bike should not pull the tank by itself at all. Help with acceleration, power supply of electrical systems in the parking lot. And you overestimate the need for power for a 50 ton machine. Of course, it will reduce agility, but just to pull the 65-ton Ferdinand, 530 horses were enough.

                  The same Tesla S Plaid has 1034 hp with a 100 kW battery and nothing.
                  1. 0
                    19 October 2022 18: 12
                    Judging by the photographs, this tank can turn the turret a little more than 180º (forward and sideways). The engine compartment and the low front and side edges of the tower will not allow it to turn back.
                    1. 0
                      20 October 2022 10: 17
                      I don't think so. The tower rotates 360 degrees. Looking at the tower of the Leopard - Revolution, hung with modules, it also seems that the entire body kit on the engine plate will be blown away when turning, but it does not pass with a gap.
                2. 0
                  21 October 2022 12: 58
                  The whole electric bike should not pull the tank by itself at all.

                  You are misinterpreting the term "hybrid". The term suggests that the diesel engine of the tank has a generator in the load, and the tank tracks are pulled by electric motors. That is, the energy of the engine through the generator rotates the electric motors pulling the tracks, or the battery provides energy to the electric motors.
                  That is, if the engine is not running, only the battery moves the tank. To maintain regular off-road mobility (battlefield), it is necessary to use the entire estimated power of the system, i.e. 1500 hp.
                  With the battery you specified, you have 6 minutes of movement. What is not clear here?
                  1. 0
                    21 October 2022 13: 24
                    No, everything is clear. You yourself came up with absurd requirements for the car and now you are exposing yourself, they say, the Americans are rubbing their glasses. Real Americans did not promise anyone either full electric propulsion for a long time, much less 100% preservation of mobility on an electric ship.
                  2. 0
                    9 December 2022 00: 26
                    You are describing a "full hybrid". But for such a machine, diesel is not only an acc. charges, but also turns the transmission itself, together with the electric motor.
                    1. 0
                      9 December 2022 11: 12
                      If the engine itself pulls the tank, then there is a gearbox and all drive control. That is, an electric motor is a kind of appendage to standard equipment. What for?
                      1. 0
                        10 December 2022 03: 22
                        Because the engine develops max. torque from 0 rpm. What is more important than max. power. Resp. diesel can be made smaller, lighter, with a longer resource. Working in a narrower range of revolutions, torques and powers, such a diesel engine is also more economical. That's 50% fuel savings. Hybrids have a great future. Full electric cars have only one future - toys for hipsters.
                      2. 0
                        11 December 2022 15: 06
                        In order for the electric motor to rotate, it needs to be powered by something. If your diesel is connected to the transmission (i.e. tied in terms of speed and cannot also power the electric motor), who feeds the electric motor?
                      3. 0
                        11 December 2022 16: 40
                        That's what the battery is for. Energize the engine when starting and accelerating. Charged by a diesel generator when the engine is not running, the car is in place. Buffer battery. And the main energy is from the tank, from the solarium.
                      4. 0
                        12 December 2022 12: 23
                        That is, instead of one additional downshift in the box to ensure starting in especially difficult conditions (as everyone does), will you stick an electric motor with a transmission and a battery with a generator? And save on this? Marvelous.
                      5. 0
                        12 December 2022 12: 45
                        Yes, a lot of wonder. Savings due to the fact that the mode of operation of the internal combustion engine is leveled. And then he always resizes. Both in terms of torque and power. To move at a steady speed, even less than half of that max.
                        power at which the engine is rated. And in the minimum flow mode (g / hp / hour), the engine rarely works, almost does not enter. Here the hybrid scheme allows you to take the best from Eldvig and diesel. The connection is that they complement each other.
                      6. 0
                        13 December 2022 12: 22
                        1 For "aligning the operating mode of the internal combustion engine. Both in terms of torque and power." gearbox is used. Thanks to her, the engine works in the fork - torque-power.
                        2 Tank engine power is calculated on the basis of a steady movement in the most difficult anticipated conditions and you cannot reduce its power in any way. The battery just needed for this will not fit into the tank. And why?
                        3 The hybrid "twisting" scheme that you advocate here is suitable only for short-term work, for example, the rapid acceleration of a passenger car, or the shuttle movement of a bus - acceleration and deceleration. In military equipment, where long-term work is required at high loads (off-road, for example), it is unsuitable.
                      7. 0
                        13 December 2022 23: 25
                        And who said that this scheme is ideal for a tank? I just described in the hybrid which node is responsible for what. And if it does not work out, then the Americans will not return the money for the experiment anyway.
          2. 0
            28 October 2022 08: 30
            It's not even the weight, but the volume. The battery, if it is lithium, loves peace. One hit, even without penetration, and a fire is guaranteed. And don't put it out...
    2. +16
      19 October 2022 09: 54
      Quote: ASAD
      The main thing is when will the enemies be able to put in a series?

      Closer to the 30s, if necessary. In 25-27, the M1A2D, a minor upgrade, will go into production.

      The most up-to-date and ready-to-series "new" tank is EMBT.
      Hull from Leopard 2, heavily redesigned turret from Leclerc.

      Immediately the ability to put a 120 mm or 140 mm gun, tested on Leclerc, respectively, under 130 mm needs to be completed.

      It costs AZ, but added 4 crew members, an operator of on-board systems (UAVs, turrets with a 30mm cannon, and other reconnaissance equipment). The driver and operator are together in front, the commander and gunner are in the hull below the turret. I think this composition and arrangement is optimal. The commander is already overloaded, the operator, together with the quasi-AI, needs 100%. In the event of a breakdown, the possibility of mechanical control is retained.

      Extremely high firepower.
      Main caliber - 120/140 mm gun
      Optional - 30mm autocannon on separate turret
      Coaxial with the main gun 12,7 mm machine gun
      Coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun with a panoramic sight.
      Three pairs of eyes can conduct reconnaissance and independently fire.

      KAZ naturally exists. Their radars can be modified to full-fledged ones and used for air and ground reconnaissance, to search for drones, equipment, and tank-dangerous infantry. Their most important use is for counter-battery combat, in a matter of seconds to find out where the fire is coming from.

      Cameras all around and everything newfangled. The engine is a new 1500 diesel, it is smaller than the current one. You need to add a UAV unit, the same HERO 120, this is not a problem if there is an operator.

      Almost everything is in mass / pre-series production, only modernization is needed. Here it can be launched in the 25th year in a series.
      1. +4
        19 October 2022 10: 02
        Thanks a lot for the detailed answer!
    3. +1
      19 October 2022 10: 20
      I don't think until 2030. But the tank is valid, if 155 mm is installed in it, then all the tanks will smoke on the sidelines. There will be a worthy result, a competitor to Armata, but they were late. I should have thought about this 30 years ago.
      1. +7
        19 October 2022 10: 42
        155 caliber for a tank is redundant. Variants with a 130/140 mm gun have been tested and there are no problems putting them into production.
        But if you want, here it is. Uninhabited automatic module AGM, 155 mm, 30 rounds in AZ, firing at mounted and direct fire.
        In this case, based on the Leopard, the crew is 2 people in the hull.


        This is how this module works on the basis of the Boxer, in the light tank mode (hunter-killer.
        1. 0
          20 October 2022 00: 59
          Looks kind of inconsistent. Attached module on a tracked chassis.
          1. +1
            20 October 2022 01: 15
            Quote: stankow
            Looks kind of inconsistent. Attached module on a tracked chassis.
            Of the tracked, with this BM, there is also such an option (AGM "Donar")
  2. +1
    19 October 2022 05: 01
    The gun is loaded using an automatic loader.
    Where is the Negro Delhi? Not tolerant! sad
    As there is no opportunity to lean out of the hatch and look around the area around the tank
    Well, like blind moles!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -2
      20 October 2022 21: 38
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      Well, like blind moles!

      Solved.

  3. +4
    19 October 2022 05: 05
    There are many advantages to the design of tanks with an uninhabited turret. For me personally, I also see a minus: electronics. The tank on the battlefield is constantly moving, they are firing at it. It's a constant shake. Under such conditions, the electronics must be very reliable and well protected. Well, an alternative option is needed for viewing from the car.
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 05: 19
      Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
      There are many advantages to the design of tanks with an uninhabited turret. For me personally, I also see a minus: electronics.
      But with modern sights, very complex and expensive, and remote modules, the whole difference will be a slightly longer wiring length from the sight to the screen and some kind of contact ring. Those. a completely unimportant difference in reliability.
      So far, they have room to “get fat” in armor and mass, but there are fewer and fewer options for upgrading protection.
      Abramsov is already not all holding railway bridges!
      What can I say, it’s not for you to command the “mechanic driver” with kicks.
      Did the author remember the thirty-four-76 mm? And then after all, already on the T-34-85 it was somewhat problematic (impossible).
      The M230LF is powered by an electric drive.
      Yeah, well, for the "demonstrator" it will work.

      All that can be said now is that the armor level of the AbramsX is unlikely to exceed the Abrams modifications of the M1A2 SEP v.3 type.
      Well, it seems that the Americans are firmly convinced that only they can do rooftops ...
      1. +6
        19 October 2022 09: 38
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Yeah, well, for the "demonstrator" it will roll

        A series of cheyngan guns for a hundred years at lunchtime. Just a more reliable system than a gas engine. The misfire cartridge simply scrolls further and is ejected.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Well, it seems that the Americans are firmly convinced that only they can do rooftops ...

        It is impossible to protect the upper projection with armor. This is work for active protection and development of information means - so that the tank sees the calculation earlier than its calculation. This is theoretically possible when the machine is operating in an information network.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Abramsov is already not all holding railway bridges!

        The shunting diesel locomotive (ChME-3) weighs 123 tons. Main (2TE10U) 276 tons.
        1. -2
          19 October 2022 10: 01
          Quote: Negro
          A series of cheyngan guns for a hundred years at lunchtime. Just a more reliable system than a gas engine. The misfire cartridge simply scrolls further and is ejected.
          It is especially reliable in the absence of voltage in the network, right? wink
          Quote: Negro
          It is impossible to protect the upper projection with armor. This is work for active protection and development of information means - so that the tank sees the calculation earlier than its calculation. This is theoretically possible when the machine is operating in an information network.
          What, absolutely? Both spaced armor and remote sensing do not work? Everything works, it's just a matter of the power of the ammunition.

          Quote: Negro
          The shunting diesel locomotive (ChME-3) weighs 123 tons. Main (2TE10U) 276 tons.
          Yes, but with automobile heavy bridges, it’s definitely tense.
          1. +3
            19 October 2022 10: 07
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            It is especially reliable in the absence of voltage in the network, right?

            If the tank has no electricity, then it is out of combat. At the very least, the loss of power on the module disables the power drives and the scope. So it doesn't matter.
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Both spaced armor and remote sensing do not work?

            Of course not, the roof is just too big.
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Yes, but with automobile heavy bridges it’s definitely tense

            Any normal bridge will withstand three 20-ton trucks.
            1. 0
              19 October 2022 10: 15
              Quote: Negro
              If the tank has no electricity, then it is out of combat. At the very least, the loss of power on the module disables the power drives and the scope. So it doesn't matter.
              The difference is in the power of generation and consumption (although in the case of a combo it’s probably uncritical) and in the fact that the tank will be completely without means of self-defense.
              Quote: Negro
              Of course not, the roof is just too big.
              Amer's tanks, of course.
              Quote: Negro
              Any normal bridge will withstand three 20-ton trucks.

              On an area of ​​15-20 square meters? Elementary physics says no.
              1. -2
                19 October 2022 10: 30
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                The difference is in the power of generation and consumption (although in the case of a combo it’s probably uncritical) and in the fact that the tank will be completely without means of self-defense.

                The 30mm cannon is not a self-defense weapon and there are no manual controls. And about self-defense in America, there is a very heated, albeit highly specialized, dispute about whether to give tankers normal assault rifles or not.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Amer's tanks certainly

                26 square meters top projection T-90.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                On an area of ​​15-20 square meters? Elementary physics says no.

                Elementary physics says that an ordinary euro truck weighs 36-38 tons. So up to 76 tons, no problems will arise for sure if the bridge is not plundered in peacetime.
                1. -1
                  19 October 2022 10: 59
                  Quote: Negro
                  The 30mm cannon is not a self-defense weapon and there are no manual controls.

                  Well, we will assume that the Americans simply do not know how to use normal automatic guns.

                  Quote: Negro
                  26 square meters top projection T-90.
                  Tanks do not go up with tracks, so the load area is measured along the lower branches. Abrams has 15 squares.

                  Quote: Negro
                  Elementary physics says that an ordinary euro truck weighs 36-38 tons. So up to 76 tons, no problems will arise for sure if the bridge is not plundered in peacetime.
                  Only these 38 tons are distributed on 5 axles, 4 of them with double slopes and 13 meters long. A 76 tons laughing for 26 min. meters, compare with 4,6 meters of the length of the Abrams tracks, and tell physics.
                  Well, the carrying capacity of bridges - immediately after 50 tons there are 100 guess which bridges are smaller.
                  1. +2
                    19 October 2022 11: 15
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    well, let's assume that the Americans just don't know how to use normal automatic guns.

                    This is a normal automatic gun.
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    accordingly, the load area is measured along the lower branches.

                    It was about the area of ​​​​the upper projection to protect against roofers.
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    immediately after 50 tons there are 100 guess which bridges are smaller.

                    Well, you see how simple it is. On the 50-ton bridge, the T-90 barely passes, but does not pass at all on the conveyor. Since the idea of ​​climbing into 50 tons in the west was abandoned for 50 years, you can not do nonsense and don’t sacrifice anything in the name of lightening the car.

                    Exactly also in the 30s, everyone was perverted to get into 20 tons. And then, as it came to the point - somehow they don’t care, these 20 tons didn’t rest against anyone.
                    1. +1
                      19 October 2022 11: 43
                      Quote: Negro
                      This is a normal automatic gun.

                      With an external drive? Funny. So 125 mm can be called an automatic gun.
                      Quote: Negro
                      Well, you see how simple it is. On the 50-ton bridge, the T-90 barely passes, but does not pass at all on the conveyor. Since the idea of ​​climbing into 50 tons in the west was abandoned for 50 years, you can not do nonsense and don’t sacrifice anything in the name of lightening the car.
                      Logic, just like physics in your performance! It's like closing your eyes hoping that if you can't see the problem, then it doesn't exist.

                      Quote: Negro
                      It was about the area of ​​​​the upper projection to protect against roofers.
                      Ah, yawned here. Well, M1 has almost 29 squares, but the structure is more important. The T-90 has almost the entire forehead of the hull covered with powerful combined armor, while Abrams has a thin sheet, and a healthy one at that. The habitable projection of the T-90 tower is much smaller than that of Abrams, isn't it? The T-90 does not have a stern location of the BC, even where there is a separate basket without communication with the tower. Abrams has a quarter of the tower area and most of the BC. The engines are covered about the same.
                      The conclusion is simple, Abrams is just a hole against rooftops, and even so, excess mass will not allow it to normally cover at least remote sensing.
                      1. +1
                        19 October 2022 12: 16
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        With an external drive? Funny.

                        Well, laugh. Electric guns wagon, including all western gatlings.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        It's like closing your eyes hoping that if you can't see the problem, then it doesn't exist.

                        It's like, in addition to General Frost and General Dirt, come up with General Most and sit like in a house.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The conclusion is simple, Abrams is just a hole against rooftops, and even so, excess mass will not allow it to normally cover at least remote sensing.

                        It’s impossible to believe it, but in the fall of 2022 there are still people who don’t know that the tanks of the Soviet school have very serious problems with modern anti-tank weapons in general and roof-breakers in particular.
                      2. +3
                        19 October 2022 13: 55
                        Quote: Negro
                        Well, laugh. Electric guns wagon, including all western gatlings.
                        This is because they failed in guns with a rotating block of barrels and a gas drive.


                        Quote: Negro
                        It's like, in addition to General Frost and General Dirt, come up with General Most and sit like in a house.

                        Yes, it's better than imagining that two trucks will load the bridge like one tank.

                        Quote: Negro
                        It’s impossible to believe it, but in the fall of 2022 there are still people who don’t know that the tanks of the Soviet school have very serious problems with modern anti-tank weapons in general and roof-breakers in particular.
                        And what tanks, what type, what year? BUT?
                        And then after all, even without roof-breakers, Western tanks have problems no less, if not more.
                      3. 0
                        19 October 2022 14: 24
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        This is because they failed in guns with a rotating block of barrels and a gas drive.

                        This is because the gas driven system works up to the first misfire cartridge, while the electric one digests them without problems. Everyone knows that Western ammunition is of much lower quality than Soviet. Is it true, is it true (crying)?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Yes, it’s better than imagining that two trucks will load the bridge like one tank

                        What to do, the weight does not depend on the shape of the object In order for a 6-meter tank to fall between the supporting beams, and the truck to pass, you need to somehow fit too well with the design of the bridge. I have not heard of such cases.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And what tanks, what type, what year? BUT?

                        All that was found, up to and including the T-90M.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        even without roof-breakers, Western tanks have no less problems, if not more

                        Yes Yes. I remember in 2003 in Iraq, the KKP managed to set fire to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was in a turret basket. As a result, burning fuel flooded the engine compartment and the tank was abandoned.
                        After such an incident, of course, the APU will be transferred to the engine compartment, behind the armor, on the next modification, but this does not prevent tank patriots from rushing around with this single case for 20 years now.

                        At the same time, no one even tries to count turrets.
                      4. +1
                        19 October 2022 14: 39
                        Quote: Negro
                        This is because the gas driven system works up to the first misfire cartridge, while the electric one digests them without problems. Everyone knows that Western ammunition is of much lower quality than Soviet. Is it true, is it true (crying)?

                        What, and the rupture of the sleeve is even nothing to worry about? laughing In general, both pneumatic and pyro-recharge exist. Well, it’s absolute waste to read about an electric gun with a rate of fire of 200 v. min.
                        Quote: Negro
                        What to do, the weight does not depend on the shape of the object In order for a 6-meter tank to fall between the supporting beams, and the truck to pass, you need to somehow fit too well with the design of the bridge. I have not heard of such cases.
                        What kind of beams? You don’t seem to have heard of spans, of point loading there, not to mention “cases”.


                        Quote: Negro
                        All that was found, up to and including the T-90M.
                        Yes, yes, everything without exception is from the Javelins and the NLAU, no mines, no artillery, no throws, only Roofbreakers. Rub someone else.


                        Quote: Negro
                        Yes Yes. I remember in 2003 in Iraq, the KKP managed to set fire to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was in a turret basket. As a result, burning fuel flooded the engine compartment and the tank was abandoned.
                        Good memory, but I'm not talking about this, but about the Turkish Leopards-2 in Syria. And on other zap.tanks, ATGMs practically did not work, they were very lucky in this.
                      5. 0
                        19 October 2022 15: 18
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        pyro-recharging exists. Well, it’s absolute waste to read about an electric gun with a rate of fire of 200 v. min.

                        Yeah, this reload exists on tank modules. And yes, one of the advantages of electric guns is that the pace can be adjusted as you like.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What kind of beams? You don’t seem to have heard of spans, there’s a point load there

                        Don't tell me sopromat here. You tell us about the tank that failed on the main bridge.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Yes, yes, everything without exception is from Javelins and NLAU, no mines, no art, no throws, only Roofbreakers

                        You see, the reasons for the loss of Russian tanks are of no interest to anyone. It was the Americans who sucked each number by numbers, they lost a company during the entire active phase, and who counts the Russians at all? This is all slander of the CIPSO.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        but about Turkish Leopards-2 in Syria

                        No idea what was wrong in Syria. The Turkish army is not among the first-class.
                      6. +1
                        19 October 2022 17: 45
                        Quote: Negro
                        After such an incident, of course, the APU will be transferred to the engine compartment, behind the armor, on the next modification, but this does not prevent tank patriots from rushing around with this single case for 20 years now.

                        And they made such tanks (M1A2SEP) as much as fifty, and later tanks began to be produced without APU at all (and without additional batteries - there was such an option, instead of APU).
                        There was another case when a cannon (caliber 25mm) was accidentally fired from a cannon in a column of BMP Bradley. They hit Abrams in the stern, in the engine cooling grate - the engine failed.
                      7. -2
                        19 October 2022 20: 58
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        they began to produce without APU at all (and without additional batteries - there was such an option, instead of APU).

                        That is, they always drive the turbine to make the electronics work? Oh well.
                      8. +1
                        19 October 2022 21: 04
                        Quote: Negro
                        That is, they always drive the turbine to make the electronics work? Oh well.
                        Exactly. And fuel, at this time, eats like crazy.
                        If you have other information, please share. I have been tracking the issue of the movement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine along Abrams for a long time.
                        First it was at the stern, then on the tower, then on the fender. And then, it was completely removed.
                        Where she was inside the motor photo did not come across:
                      9. -2
                        19 October 2022 21: 14
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Exactly. And it eats fuel like crazy.

                        What amazing news. The M1A2 SEPv3 doesn't have an Auxiliary Power Unit, nicely recorded. And lightcaming turbines, someone told me here, they haven’t been produced for 20 years, checkmate the damned Pentagon!
                      10. 0
                        19 October 2022 21: 53
                        Quote: Negro
                        What amazing news. M1A2 SEPv3 no Auxiliary Power Unit, nice, recorded.
                        How about reading what I wrote?
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        And they made such tanks (M1A2SEP) as much as fifty
                        And where is it written about V-3? And in these, these lines, what is not clear?
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        and later tanks began to be produced without APU at all (and without additional batteries - there was such an option, instead of APU).
                      11. +1
                        19 October 2022 22: 28
                        Well, if you are interested, then the M1A2C has an APU: 10KW LOW PROFILE APU. He is in the stern, next to the main engine, under the armor. On the M1A2 SEPv2, the APU is located there.
                        Link to the manufacturer's website:
                        https://marvinland.com/product/10kw-low-profile-apu/
                      12. +1
                        19 October 2022 22: 38
                        Quote from cold wind
                        https://marvinland.com/product/10kw-low-profile-apu/
                        Thanks for the info .
                      13. +1
                        19 October 2022 14: 32
                        With an external drive? Funny.

                        And what's funny? For a gun intended for installation on an armored vehicle, the additional mass (actually of the electric drive itself) is insignificant from the word "absolutely".
                      14. 0
                        19 October 2022 14: 46
                        Quote: Terran Ghost
                        And what's funny? For a gun intended for installation on an armored vehicle, the additional mass (actually of the electric drive itself) is insignificant from the word "absolutely".

                        Uh-huh, network load, reliability is also useless? Yes, and BBs are different in weight. Well, insanity in an electric gun with 200 rounds per minute is understandable not only to everyone.
                      15. +1
                        19 October 2022 15: 15
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Reliability is also useless.

                        And where did you get the idea that an automation system with an external drive has fundamental problems with the reliability of operation in comparison with a gas exhaust scheme or a scheme with barrel recoil during its short stroke?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Yes, and BBs are different in weight.

                        There, the question is about 5-8-10 kilograms plus the autocannon's body weight on this very external automation drive itself. For a gun that is placed on a combat vehicle, this is a figure of nothing. From the word at all.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Well, insanity in an electric gun with 200 rounds per minute is understandable not only to everyone.

                        Really not clear. What role does the regular autocannon ammunition play here?
                      16. -1
                        19 October 2022 15: 24
                        Quote: Terran Ghost
                        And where did you get the idea that an automation system with an external drive has fundamental problems with the reliability of operation in comparison with a gas exhaust scheme or a scheme with barrel recoil during its short stroke?

                        Since the extra link is the motor, then the current or air supply line. The motor may fail, and the line may be interrupted, short.
                        Quote: Terran Ghost
                        There, the question is about 5-8-10 kilograms plus the autocannon's body weight on this very external automation drive itself. For a gun that is placed on a combat vehicle, this is a figure of nothing. From the word at all.
                        Well, let's say, but for example, on an airplane it is already felt.
                        Quote: Terran Ghost
                        Really not clear. What role does the regular autocannon ammunition play here?
                        Well, if you miss the word "minute", then of course it is not clear how the drive and the ammunition load are connected, but if you pay attention, it is clear that the RATE of fire is 200 m. with such a drive, insanity is complete.
                      17. -1
                        19 October 2022 20: 50
                        Quote: Terran Ghost
                        And where did you get the idea that an automation system with an external drive has fundamental problems with the reliability of operation in comparison with a gas exhaust scheme or a scheme with barrel recoil during its short stroke?

                        The citizen is trying to tell how much smarter he is than engineers Hughes and GE. And at the same time buyers of their products.
        2. +1
          19 October 2022 15: 45
          You know what's the funniest thing? Armata is already larger than Western tanks. Even no one calls her a “dream for a grenade thrower”.
          Its weight before military trials was 55 tons. Relative to the first samples, changes were made (additional booking) of the frontal part, possibly the tower. After all import substitutions, the weight will easily jump beyond 60+, and "western" tanks can reduce the weight to the T-90M level, i.e. 48-49 tons.

          After that, these same people (who blamed the Abrams and Leopards for shedding and heavy weight) will prove that our heavier and overall Armata is better and that even under Stalin all bridges were planned with a large margin and even 100+ ton equipment is not a problem for them and for railway even 200+ will not cause problems.
          As they say, hide.
          1. 0
            19 October 2022 17: 07
            Quote from cold wind
            You know what's the funniest thing? Armata is already larger than Western tanks. Even no one calls her a “dream for a grenade thrower”.
            Its weight before military trials was 55 tons. Relative to the first samples, changes were made (additional booking) of the frontal part, possibly the tower. After all import substitutions, the weight will easily jump beyond 60+, and "western" tanks can reduce the weight to the T-90M level, i.e. 48-49 tons.

            It’s not good to start comments with a stupid tryndezha, the initial weight of 48 tons is indicated, and 55 with a full body kit. Well, insanity about the larger size of Biden suck it in. The hulls with seven-roller chassis are comparable in size, but the tower is noticeably smaller, although higher, due to the thick, very thick roof.
            Quote from cold wind
            After all import substitutions, the weight will easily jump beyond 60+, and "western" tanks can reduce the weight to the T-90M level, i.e. 48-49 tons.
            Some kind of stupidity about "replacement", that they brought armor, weapons and wheels from behind a hillock? Don't talk nonsense. Well, the nonsense about 48-49 tons for lighter tanks, again, leave Biden. Abrams M1 from 52 original tons to 63 M1A2 got fat, excluding SEP upgrades and TUSK kits!
            1. +1
              19 October 2022 20: 24
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Abrams M1 from 52 original tons to 63 M1A2 got fat, excluding SEP upgrades and TUSK kits!
              From my old notes (I don't remember where I got it from):
              M1------- 55,7 tons 54,43t)
              IPM1----- 57,0t. (search by NSN - 122000 pounds / 55,3t)
              М1А1----- 61,3t. 57,2t.)
              M1A1NA--- 63,7t. (NSN, of course, is silent, because number one for all M1A1 sub-options)
              M1A1NS--- No data
              М1А2----- 62,1t. (when searching on NSN, a combat weight of 130000lbs / 59t)
              M1A2SEP-- 63,1t. (NSN one for M1A2 and M1A2SEP, so not verifiable, on the other hand in the GDLS booklet for М1А2 a value of 69,54 "short" tons is given, which roughly corresponds to 63 metric tons).
              1. 0
                20 October 2022 03: 22
                SEP up to 3 seems to have been brought.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                when "piercing" by NSN code
                What is it I found out, the question is - how did you search ?!
                1. +1
                  20 October 2022 09: 52
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  The question is how did you search?

                  smile I just copied this entry from someone else's dispute.
                  1. +1
                    20 October 2022 10: 26
                    All this talk about the weight of tanks in favor of the poor. Tanks will retain mobility even with a mass of under 80 tons. The same merkava in the latest modifications weighs heavily over 70 tons.
                    The main problem is air mobility. The C-17 has a maximum payload of 77 tons, and it does not fly very far. Now he can take 1 Abrams and nothing else. About roads, bridges, patency, etc., all this is nonsense. The patency of Western tanks is 10 percent worse than our Teshek, the infrastructure is designed for even greater loads.
                    1. 0
                      30 December 2022 19: 17
                      Today I saw a video, the T-90MS in the NWO was driving across the field, through the black soil, and it was not easy for him, every now and then it seemed that he was about to sit down on the ground with the bottom. Now imagine what will happen there with a monster under 80 tons (and not 40+), he will not only not move - he will drown.
  4. +6
    19 October 2022 05: 15
    The Americans have a very extensive test base, so they quickly create and test different ones on stands. Their research centers, created during the Cold War, are still working. And they have evolved a lot. And most of our Soviet scientific centers closed and went bankrupt long ago.
    The tank is original in appearance, made in a streamlined "without nails" type.
    But such tanks are needed only for long-range battles, since in an urban environment a Syrian boy will jump onto the tower and flood all the optics with paint and the tank is immobilized :))
    1. +2
      19 October 2022 10: 23
      Quote: Zx_spectrum
      But such tanks are needed only for long-range battles, since in an urban environment a Syrian boy will jump onto the tower and flood all the optics with paint and the tank is immobilized

      And if a Syrian little boy jumps on our tank and fills all the optics with paint, will the tank continue the battle unhindered?
    2. +3
      19 October 2022 10: 26
      The Americans work in a network, so the tank is not a separate unit, but part of a bunch. and the boy will be filmed by a drone or an infantryman. ours, too, at least at the level of declarations, they are trying to go towards this, the SVO has revealed a lot of shortcomings, but it has also given a lot of experience (for example, the underestimation of drones has stopped)
    3. +5
      19 October 2022 11: 37
      Amers have tremendous competition, any innovation is welcome, not a standard way of thinking, almost any company can roll out its project, and if it is interested in mo, funding will be allocated for it. Everyone understands how things are with us, the Kalashnikov concern alone is worth something, the lobby is cruel, and the release of promising new products is almost impossible.
    4. +1
      19 October 2022 12: 57
      He won’t jump, there is a 30mm autocannon - he will brush it off with a barrel.
  5. +2
    19 October 2022 06: 42
    Keeping part of the BC in the tower is a very controversial issue. Moreover, if a breakthrough can only leave 22 shells in the tank and go into battle with an empty turret niche, the abrams will not be able to do that.
    1. 0
      19 October 2022 10: 20
      Quote: demiurg
      Keeping part of the BC in the tower is a very controversial issue.

      All Abrams keep the BC in the tower (more precisely, in the crazy niche). Not a part, but the whole BC. And they won more than one war like that.
      1. +2
        19 October 2022 11: 29
        Not yet a war, but local conflicts
    2. 0
      19 October 2022 13: 05
      In general, I would make the tower at the back as close to the armor as possible and without lower armor. And in the armor behind the tower there is a hatch and a lift. What for? everything is very simple, at the bottom there are packs of shells in an armored capsule, using a lift to load a magazine for 10 shells, in the tank itself a certain number of such clips, throw an empty wire magazine back through the armored shutter. Why through the hatch, and not in the tower itself? Because the conveyor in the tower itself takes up space near the breech, and with a hatch, the breech can be of any size, and the tower itself can be without a column, which means more space for booking an "ammunition depot".
  6. +7
    19 October 2022 07: 54
    "American Armata, American Armata" .... Did the author hear about the M1 TTB Abrams? ... this modification was tested 30 years before the armata was rolled out, and it was abandoned on the then elemental (but this is not certain) base ...
    1. +8
      19 October 2022 08: 35
      It's just new, well-forgotten old.


  7. +1
    19 October 2022 08: 30
    Here you go. There were 67 tons - he could not ride on Soviet bridges. Became 49 tons - and can. How is it thought provoking
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 09: 40
      Most Soviet bridges normally hold three 20-ton trucks.
  8. -5
    19 October 2022 09: 19
    Clearly, they are trying to catch up. Let's see
  9. +1
    19 October 2022 09: 25
    And something tells me that the amers will have it before our Almaty ...
    And you don’t have to produce the hulls, stupidly, as usual, the old Abrams are sorted out, the stuffing is thrown out, and oops, you have a crewless turret and a crew in an armored capsule ...
    1. 0
      19 October 2022 09: 41
      Quotes from the author
      "According to some data, the diesel power is 1500o / s"
      "It should be noted that the movement due to only the electric motor, marketers managed to expose as stealth technology, which reduces the sound visibility of the tank and allows you to covertly attack the enemy without rattling a diesel engine"
      Is it on batteries?
    2. -1
      20 October 2022 14: 02
      How can it be earlier than Armata, if Armata has already been presented at the parade? Stupidly seen, copied, supposedly cool.
  10. 0
    19 October 2022 09: 39
    "Ammo load of 19 shots", "the crew becomes completely dependent on technical vision" - look like the main disadvantages.
    Electronics is great, but if without it it's just a metal crypt, it's dangerous to go into battle on such a machine. Ammunition for the main gun is small, given the preservation of the previous caliber.
    But the presence of a 30-mm chain gun looks like a plus, something that almost all modern tanks do not have. This can perhaps also be attributed to the weight loss of the car - apparently the tanks and theater of operations of the potential enemy were taken into account, it’s clear which ones)
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 09: 51
      Ammunition norms, ours, too, only infect and drive into the carousel ...
      Isn't it dangerous in Armata?))))
      1. 0
        19 October 2022 18: 40
        Yes, it’s understandable that it’s dangerous, it’s just that ours, in principle, have such an opportunity to carry the same amount (22 or 20 as there) in the pack, but here there is either no information or no longer provided. I'm talking about something that is not enough. And for detonation, I don’t care, it’s clear where 20 is there and 40, the tower will fly far away) On Armata xs how much, there’s no information like. Oh well, unlike Almaty, this demonstrator has a chance to go into series ...
        1. -2
          20 October 2022 14: 04
          That Armata, that this crap - saw projects. Like the Anchar and the Comanche helicopter.
          1. 0
            20 October 2022 17: 07
            Are you talking about PL? Well, nevertheless, it is not entirely correct to compare piece production for the fleet with serial helicopters or tanks. And yes, quite. It's just that Amers have the principle "stole, but did", while we have the opposite)
            1. 0
              20 October 2022 18: 49
              In fact, this is the same sabotage as ours. A padded expensive copy is money thrown to the wind. And for the series - in general in Supermax.
  11. 0
    19 October 2022 10: 16
    In general, now the tank has a hybrid power plant, consisting of diesel and electric engines.

    The hybrid power plant must include a battery of considerable capacity. Otherwise, it's just an electric transmission, which is a hundred years old in the afternoon.
    1. +2
      19 October 2022 10: 47
      They will supply the usual 100 kW / h from an electric vehicle.
  12. +2
    19 October 2022 10: 29
    But in the event of a complete blackout of the vehicle or damage to the sights, neither the gunner nor the commander has backup optical channels.

    This is not a problem at all these days. Put a few penny webcams around the perimeter, connect them to a laptop or tablet with an increased battery, and an autonomous backup system for monitoring the external situation is ready. Three hundred dollars.
  13. -1
    19 October 2022 10: 32
    AbramsX: the "Abrams" with an uninhabited tower have already appeared

    Unemployment will rise among the Negroes! fellow
    What do they need to return to the galleys now? what
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 10: 49
      Quote: K-50
      What do they need to return to the galleys now

      We are filming in xxx, mother nature made us happy. Well, even repchik, basketball, full of cases.
  14. -1
    19 October 2022 10: 54
    . In general, now the tank has a hybrid power plant,

    You can imagine how much such a tank would cost. But this is not the most important thing. What is more important is how complex its design is. There is no question of any (even simple) repairs in the field. Yes, the tank is beautiful and high-tech, but it is not for war. Minus.
    1. 0
      19 October 2022 11: 21
      Yes, xs, maybe there will be a modular system, recently they have been very exaggerating this. As an example: Tesla electric engines with batteries are pushed everywhere, a lot of mod restaurants have gone, a hurricane is also thrown at some kind of wheelbarrow of the 80-90s.
    2. 0
      19 October 2022 18: 44
      More in jest:
      I once read about the idea of ​​using bacteria that destroy oil products. When using such a BO, all tanks will stand up, but this one will go;)
  15. 0
    19 October 2022 11: 18
    Judging by the speed with which space-x was finished, abrams-x may begin to enter the troops in five to seven years
  16. 0
    19 October 2022 11: 31
    Quote from cold wind
    Hull from Leopard 2, heavily redesigned turret from Leclerc.

    Interestingly, Leclerc did not please the corps.
    Too expensive?
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 11: 41
      Yes, Leclerc has an unreasonably unique and expensive engine with a running gear. Accordingly, the layout is slightly different.
      The second and main reason, the body of Leclerc is much smaller than the Leopard 2. If you remove the screens, then the difference is even greater. Accordingly, there is no room for the operator and the commander with the gunner cannot be placed below the turret shoulder strap.
      For comparison with Armata. The EMBT tower is smaller than that of the Leopard.
      1. 0
        19 October 2022 12: 35
        Those. the French went by reducing costs, instead of designing a new building.

        I wonder how they will proceed with Leclerc, the path of its modernization.
        1. +2
          19 October 2022 12: 54
          This is the project of the European tank. Germany, France, Italy participate in it. They want to reduce the unit cost by increasing the quantity. In addition, a lot of countries in the world are armed with Leopards 2, they can be upgraded. In general, the Germans have 3 options for upgrading the Leopard: the continuation of the 2A7 ++ line, the Panther with a 130 mm cannon and the EMBT with a 120/140 mm cannon. The choice is wide, by the way, the Germans offered to put a 2 mm cannon on the Challenger 130 from there, the Panther's legs grow.
          The French are currently upgrading their 150 tanks to the level of Leclerc XLR in 2028, they will finish the work.
          1. 0
            19 October 2022 12: 58
            I am aware of the European tank.
            But it turns out that Leopard can be converted into EMBT, but Leclerc cannot.
            It turns out that his reserve for modernization is exhausted, since a new tower cannot be delivered.
            1. +1
              19 October 2022 13: 06
              It turns out like this. Of course, you can adapt something from EMBT, but I don’t see the point. There are few Leclercs (850+ produced, operated by 400 ~ 500 by three countries), they have not been produced since 2008, it is cheaper to find hulls from Leopard 2. Moreover, not so many tanks are needed now.
              1. 0
                19 October 2022 13: 15
                And what kind of new engine will be in the tank?
      2. 0
        19 October 2022 20: 03
        Quote from cold wind
        For comparison with Armata.
        Comparison with Abrams

        The supporting surface is practically the same. The front part of the hull of the T-14 is longer due to the anti-mine equipment, which is located in front of the caterpillar. Behind the T-14 there is a large overhang: the APU sticks out on the left, and the external tank on the right (if the tank is pierced, the fuel will drain behind the tank)
  17. 0
    19 October 2022 13: 18
    which is a pity - one more working hand in the maintenance of a combat vehicle will not interfere.
    It's not a question, but why drag them under armor, let them sit in a position.
    But there is one fat minus, which is that the crew becomes completely dependent on technical vision.
    Not necessarily: you can make a purely optical periscope (for peace of mind).
    Here you can even cite as an example such a banal thing as the calculation of an anti-tank missile system - in practice, it is extremely difficult to destroy it from a tank gun, but a burst of automatic “small things” does this quite successfully.
    Seriously?
    First of all, this, of course, will affect the reduction of blind spots around the tank, which is especially important, given the uninhabited tower.
    I don’t understand why the tank shouldn’t be hung around the tank with two dozen analogues of web cameras, a penny thing. They shoot, cover up - not a great loss: 5 more see the same place. Plus, I would make backup surveillance equipment raised from under the armor in case the main ones are destroyed.
    1. +1
      19 October 2022 13: 31
      Quote: bk0010
      I don’t understand why the tank shouldn’t be hung around the tank with two dozen analogues of web cameras, a penny thing. They shoot, cover up - not a great loss: 5 more see the same place. Plus, I would make backup surveillance equipment raised from under the armor in case the main ones are destroyed.

      So the cameras are set in a circle. All new projects have them. They connect quasi-AI to them to analyze the video stream, which helps to identify targets, dangers, and control the tank.
      The second implementation is a system for "transparent" armor. When the information from the cameras is fed to the special goggles of the crew, they literally see everything 360 degrees.

      All this allows you to repeatedly increase situational awareness.
  18. 0
    19 October 2022 14: 55
    Quote: Civil
    The next generation or and will appear that will be optionally manned.
    Or maybe all the tanks will work in a single network without a crew.

    the crew will remotely control the tanks. Then, in general, the capsule for the crew from the tank can be removed
  19. ASM
    0
    19 October 2022 15: 13
    Even Okr will not pass. Abrams have not been produced for a long time, and no one will develop a new direction on a corpse. Here on the new "carts", maybe, but taking into account their new characteristics and weight distribution.
  20. +1
    19 October 2022 16: 58
    Quote: yuriy55
    As soon as the T-62m2 appears, they will immediately appear.

    Let's make a knight's move and install the T-62 uninhabited tower laughing
  21. 0
    19 October 2022 19: 48
    It's strange, but why are there people in the tank, that is, damn soldiers?
    The tank must be controlled from a distance, several tankers among a swarm of tanks, albeit light and cheap, but with guns.
    To protect against various jamshuts and javelins, a swarm of automatic drones with AI from above.
    Here, even the restored T-34s with the Vovochka robot at the helm and at the cannon will be able to effectively influence the outcome of the war.
    But it's not tomorrow morning. Only the day after tomorrow maybe.
    And tomorrow morning you need to put the old 2A46 cannon on the armature, which I have been making for a long time, although not 100% good, but it has been in the series for a long time. I will do even more. If they give, in the sense they will not interfere.
    But besides my gun, there is a lot more for the tank...
    True, they just said that we need to work a lot more, as for the front, everything is for victory, martial law, according to concepts, we will strengthen our power. The main thing is to deal with the officials, who all these fat years were not thinking about the country, about its defense capability, but only how to fill their personal pockets with thick bundles of banknotes.
    And this is probably the most dangerous enemy of our state.
    Programmers and signalers with drones are our mustache.
    This is the end of fairy tales
    Who understands what - well done!
    1. 0
      19 October 2022 20: 03
      Well, just to add.
      The tanker looks at the world not only leaning out of the hatch of the tank. He looks into the narrow bulletproof glass that protects him.
      Why can't damn cameras look at the world around them through the same armored glass? Which are quite reliable protection from damage.
  22. 0
    19 October 2022 21: 23
    With such dimensions and an uninhabited tower? Doubtful. Or will it be like going to the moon? A bunch of speculation, lies and assumptions ... feel
  23. 0
    20 October 2022 00: 32
    Cheap ammunition against this tank, enamel balls.
  24. 0
    20 October 2022 09: 40
    Give me the money, I'll make you an uninhabited t62., and don't pay for a trophy thE miS.
  25. 0
    20 October 2022 09: 47
    Although I only sat at the levers in the tank, I can say more about infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.
    But as we were taught in the glorious Omsk VOKU. When firing, they cut down all electrical systems, charging 2A42 - only mechanical charging, shoot everything like that. All this was motivated by the fact that in battle the probability of getting out of all the amenities is very high, learn to do everything with your hands ... and quickly. Of course, electronics has now stepped far ahead in terms of reliability and capabilities. Well, that's how buggy (constantly !!!) all sorts of newfangled electronic systems, I encounter every other day on cars. The hope of Americans for one electronics, for me is so doubtful, especially in weapons. IMHO
    Further, looking at this miracle of hostile technology, the question is .... And how does the crew leave the equipment!?!? Abrams has a mechanical driver who is still a gymnast, and now there are three of them "gymnasts" .... There is no way to add hatches where the tower interferes. So they knocked out and the crew in the capsule sits and waits to be either captured or pulled out for repairs. Although I may be wrong.
    Regarding the closure (blinding, painting over and the like) of the cameras. So our armored vehicles can also be stopped, and this was done with single vehicles. In short, not an argument. Personally for a circular review! For in the armor, those who are in the tank will understand, nothing is visible! Whoever sees it first is more likely to win. And yes, quite sensible thoughts were said here both about spare cameras and about their protection / booking.
  26. 0
    21 October 2022 00: 19
    Well, what can I say, I think the Americans will not be in a hurry to produce such tanks, for which they looked at how Putin and Shoigu puffed out their cheeks with Armata, but it turned out to be zilch, there is no tank, like the SU-57, in single copies, no money to release them and they will not appear in this government, and the Americans know this. The Americans looked at how our T-90 Ukrainians click and they need to hurry. While our government was acquiring yachts and palaces and sawing the budget and hiding state revenues in offshore companies, they built planes, built ships, and supplied Ukraine with weapons. You look at how the war is going on, how our soldiers are fighting almost at their own expense with obsolete Soviet weapons, you look at what supply comes with scrap metal and junk, your heart bleeds, the guys are thrown like cannon fodder, they don’t appreciate people at all, Stalin is not enough to put things in order, now you understand why he shot and put him in camps, to collect this shobla of pests in power, 100 pieces of Gulags will be packed to capacity. And the Americans will release a tank and no worse than Almaty and there will be at least 1000 of them, and we, like the SU-57-3 pcs,
    and with them we are going to fight with NATO.
  27. 0
    21 October 2022 04: 13
    Don't you think that the age of tanks is already over?
    It is necessary to create ultra-long-range self-propelled guns, with satellite guidance.
    And create landing types of MLRS with satellite guidance, i.e. two guides mounted on armored cars.
    Well, UAVs with long-range air-to-ground missiles - approximately 10 km.
  28. 0
    24 October 2022 18: 07
    49 tons tank weight without batteries? If together with batteries, then what is the weight of the armor and in this case how effective is it?
    Trophy's active armor has a number of disadvantages, including that it radiates strongly, as a result of which it is very clearly visible in the radar spectrum and a good target for anti-radar missiles.
  29. 0
    28 October 2022 02: 37
    Since the mid-80s, cowboys have been promoting such an arrangement (three crew, an uninhabited tower, AZ), but with the collapse of the USSR, the topic was pushed aside.
  30. 0
    8 November 2022 13: 27
    The driver in Abrams is in a reclining position. Otherwise, it is impossible to place it. And now? the gain of the engine is also small, but problems can be completely raked ..
  31. 0
    28 February 2023 13: 55
    looks normal ... analogue of the t-14 is almost an almost complete copy
  32. 0
    14 September 2023 20: 13
    Beautiful tank and standard characteristics