Military Review

Prototypes tank "Armata"

108
Prototypes tank "Armata"



At the end of September this year at the XI International Exhibition of Arms, Military Equipment and Ammunition in Nizhny Tagil REA-2013, a closed display of a full-scale perspective model will be held tank "Armata". The developer of the tank is the Design Bureau of OJSC Uralvagonzavod. Design work has been ongoing since 2011. The planned deployment date is 2015.

The latest development of Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), the Armata tank, will not be presented at the upcoming exhibition in September in Nizhny Tagil due to the secrecy of this development. About this at a meeting in the government dedicated to the organization of this exhibition, told the news agencies the director general of the UVZ Oleg Sienko.

Editorial "VO"


According to reports by representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Armata will weigh up to 50 tons, a running gear with six track rollers and a smooth-bore 125 mm caliber gun with remote control. The layout of the hull is classic - the nose compartment of the control, the central combat compartment and the aft engine-transmission compartment. The crew is located in the control compartment in a specially protected module, separated by an armored barrier from the uninhabited fighting compartment and the tower. The tank will be equipped with tandem dynamic protection of the new generation “Malachite” and the active protection complex “Afganit” with millimeter-wave radars.

Despite the novelty of the project of the new armored platform, “Almaty” has historical prototypes.



First of all, this is one of the variants of the experienced tank “Object 292”, developed at the Design Bureau of the Kirov Plant in the 1991 year. A crew of three was housed in an armored nasal module. As a weapon was used gun installed in the casemate tower above the uninhabited fighting compartment. The shots in the carousel loader were placed in a vertical position. In contrast to the Armata project, a pilot with seven pairs of road wheels and a rifled 152 caliber gun were used in an experimental tank. The estimated weight of the “292 Object” was on the order of 60 tons.



Secondarily, it is an experimental tank "Object 187", developed at the Design Bureau of Uralvagonzavod in the 1988 year. Unlike the base model T-72, it had an elongated body while maintaining the chassis design with six pairs of road wheels, which helped significantly increase the size of the control compartment, place the driver’s observation devices on the roof of the body and eliminate the weakened reservation zone in the upper frontal part.



The length of the hull without fenders was equal to the 7,2 meter, width - 2,17 meter. Overall width of the tank without side screens was 3,12 meters.
The main engine used was an X-shaped diesel engine A-85-2 with 1200 horsepower, which, together with the elongation of the track surface, increased the combat weight of the tank to 50 tons while maintaining a high level of power supply and relatively low ground pressure. Hydraulic volumetric transmission was used in the transmission. The caliber of a smooth-bore gun 2А66 was 125 mm, the shots in the carousel automatic loader were located in a horizontal position.

The “187 object”, as well as the “Armata”, was to become the basis for producing a complete set of vehicles of a single armored platform - heavy infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled artillery, BREM, engineering vehicles, self-propelled anti-aircraft complex, logistics equipment, etc. .

In the third turn, this is a draft design of a tank with an uninhabited fighting compartment and a casemate tower, developed in 2007 in the Design Bureau of Uralvagonzavod OJSC. The sketch drawing is in the title of this article. It combines the constructive solutions of the “292 Object” in the part of the turret and the accommodation of the crew with the constructive solutions of the “Object 187” in the part of the chassis and armament.

The only thing that is not represented in the sketch is the mounted modules of composite armor on either side of the tower’s casemate (according to the type of reservation of the turret of the Merkava Mk.4 tank). It seems that this is exactly what the future Armata tank will look like.

Unlike the general layout of the Armata, its armament and main equipment are not represented by prototypes, but by fully developed samples.
First of all, it is a diesel engine A-82-2 produced by the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. The X-shaped four-stroke water-cooled diesel engine under the title 2В began to be developed at the beginning of the 1970-s. Engine power varied from 300 HP (4 cylinder) to 1600 hp (16 cylinders). The latest 2B-16-2 engine in the version with lowered to 1200 hp capacity planned to install a new tank T-80. The 2В-16-2 engine was incorporated into a single monoblock - the MTU-2 engine and transmission unit, which consisted of a diesel engine, hydrodynamic transmission, electro-hydraulic control system, cooling system and air filters. Monoblock occupied volume in 3,6 cubic meters. During the T-80 maintainability check, a team of four was able to replace the candy bar in 65 minutes.



However, the leadership of the Soviet Armed Forces made a willful decision to launch a T-80 series with a gas turbine engine, which at that time seemed more promising.

In 1988, the 2В-16-2 diesel engine and the MTU-2 installation were recommended for serial production and used as part of an experimental 187 Object tank, after which all documentation went into the archive. In the 1990s, the Ministry of Defense of Russia attempted to preserve the family of X-shaped diesel engines. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant ordered the modernization of a unified power plant. As a result, a unique 12-cylinder engine with a factory designation 12H360 (12ЧН15 / 16), equipped with gas turbine supercharging and intermediate air cooling, was created. Maximum engine power is 1500 HP at 2000 revolutions per minute and weight 1550 kg, Dimensions 12Н360 -: length 81,3 cm, width 130 cm, height 82 cm.



Special attention should be paid to the small length of the engine, for the first time in the practice of domestic tank building, allowing to place the fuel tank inside the engine compartment following the example of the Leopard 2 tank, completely eliminating the danger of fuel ignition in the habitable control compartment.
Also of considerable interest is the new 125-mm smoothbore gun of increased ballistics 2А82 developed by OJSC “Plant No. 9”. The gun has an elongated barrel and an enlarged charging chamber, which makes it possible to effectively use promising armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells of increased power with a uranium core of the “Lead-2” type. The muzzle energy of the gun is at the level of the muzzle energy of the 120-mm gun Rheinmetall L55, installed on the latest modification of the Abrams М1 А2 SEP tank.



Created for А282 new carousel automatic loader almost retained the dimensions of the former, used with the 2А46 gun in T-72 and T-90 tanks.
As the fire control system of the tank gun on the prototype of the Armata tank, the Kalina SSM (installed on the T-90MS tank) manufactured by the Belarusian JSC Peleng will be used, including the multispectral panoramic observation device of the Commander Falcon Eye and the combined aiming sight of the SOSNA-U PNM gunner, a digital ballistic computer and a set of sensors for firing conditions, providing a target range with a direct shot to 7 km at any time of the day in fog, dust and smoke conditions aves.



The Kalina SUO is integrated into the automated control system of the tank battalion. The equipment of the system for setting up aerosol and smoke screens and the automatic identification of "friend or foe" is connected to the MSA. Information exchange is carried out via a multiplex channel in accordance with the GOST R 52070-2003 protocol (the Russian equivalent of the American military standard MIL-STD-1553) in real time.



The most important difference between the Kalina SUO and previous domestic developments in this area is the ability to auto-follow the target after it is selected by the commander and captured by a computer system until the shot is fired (realization for one crew member of the combined hunter-gunner function).



In addition, the presence of a large number of thermal imaging cameras connected to the SLA provides all crew members with a view from the tank in the vision mode.



The number of the crew of the tank is one of the main parameters that determine the armor volume and, consequently, the degree of protection of the tank (the ratio of armor weight to the armor volume). Currently, the T-90 tank (11 cubic meter) is the leader in this parameter, the Abrams MXXUMX A1 SEP tank (2 cubic) has the average index, the Merkava Mk.18 tank (4 cubic) is in the last place. m). The degree of protection directly depends on the survival rate of the tank on the battlefield.

The use of an automatic loader on Soviet T-64, T-72 and T-80 tanks made it possible to abandon the presence of a loading crew. The transition to an uninhabited fighting compartment in combination with a target tracking machine allows you to additionally abandon the gunner, which will reduce the volume of the control compartment while building comprehensive protection for the crew’s armored capsule. The consequence of this should also be a change in the organizational and staffing of tank units (similar to aviation) by increasing the number of military personnel and equipment providing maintenance, repair and evacuation of tanks, as well as their supply of ammunition and fuel.

Another necessary solution should be the inclusion of the automated complex for searching and detecting targets, consisting of devices with radar, thermal imaging, laser and acoustic channels, using unmasking signs of targets (moving on the ground, natural radiation of heat, operation of laser and infrared instruments, flash and the sound of a shot, the noise of the engine and chassis). Such a complex will be able to process and transfer to the commander’s display the necessary information for making a decision on hitting the target, followed by automatic tracking of the target, loading the gun and aiming it at the target with all necessary amendments to the shooting conditions.

The source of information:
Yu.M. Apukhtin, A.I. Mazurenko, E.A. Morozov, PI Nazarenko. The problem of reducing the number of crews of the main tank. "Bulletin of armored vehicles", No. 6 for 1980,
Author:
108 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado 29 June 2013 07: 43 New
    15
    Now only one fortune-telling has remained, we will collect Armata on the Internet laughing
    But all forecasts have a basis - the basic modules and layout principles are quite logical and do not go beyond the principle of moderate novelty when changing generations.
    1. vadimus
      vadimus 29 June 2013 10: 53 New
      13
      Europe is reducing the number of tanks, Asia, on the contrary, is increasing, and we are waiting ... I hope the results will justify our expectations and the expectations of our army ...
      1. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 14: 17 New
        +4
        Quote: vadimus
        Europe reduces the number of tanks, Asia, on the contrary increases, and we are waiting ...

        We do not wait, but develop what can not please!
        And the phrase that "The latest development of Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) - the Armata tank - will not be presented at the upcoming September exhibition in Nizhny Tagil due to the secrecy of this development", says that the dream is closer than ever to being realized and God help them!
        Although, of course, at least one eye. And I would really like to look at what turns out to be ...
        1. Mohomax
          Mohomax 30 June 2013 02: 36 New
          0
          We all look forward to this machine, success designers want to see, and even more want to be proud of the technology so that America with its Abrams buries, Israel with Merkava, Russia is the heir to the USSR and we are the heirs of that legendary tank school. And the power of our designers to build a truly awesome machine
          1. Donvel
            Donvel 30 June 2013 19: 46 New
            0
            Russia is the heir who drank his inheritance.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 30 June 2013 20: 13 New
              +1
              Quote: DonVel
              drunk his inheritance.

              Are you taking part?
              1. Donvel
                Donvel 1 July 2013 19: 31 New
                0
                But what about! Otherwise they will say that Putin is an alcoholic.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 1 July 2013 20: 20 New
                  +1
                  Quote: DonVel
                  But what about! Otherwise they will say that Putin is an alcoholic.

                  For three this is a holy thing!
                  1. Donvel
                    Donvel 1 July 2013 20: 53 New
                    -2
                    How? Did you not know?
      2. Tykta
        Tykta 29 June 2013 14: 31 New
        +6
        what is interesting in the last war in Asia there was not a single medium or heavy tank capable of fighting on equal terms with our medium and heavy tanks, their medium tanks in characteristics resembled our light tanks more.
        we recently signed an order for the disposal of 8 tanks, Serdyukov tried, so it's stupid rhetoric, instead of even open conservation - destruction ... new tanks, new equipment is all chatter
        1. chauvinist
          chauvinist 29 June 2013 16: 21 New
          0
          Recycled frank junk, I doubt that now you can fight on t-55, t-62 and t-64.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 29 June 2013 16: 36 New
            10
            Quote: chauvinist
            Recycled frank junk, I doubt that now you can fight on t-55, t-62 and t-64.

            You can fight on T-62 and T-55, the question is in technical condition, can stored equipment go into battle without major repairs and are there any spare parts for it?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 29 June 2013 18: 38 New
              +9
              In my opinion, the article has many inaccuracies.
              The second picture above is the layout of an American tank.


              Object 187 is an evolutionary machine developed on the basis of the T-72, which claimed the place of the T-90. This object has nothing to do with the new platform.
              The closest relative of the tank on the Armata platform is object 195. They also promised to use the developments from object 640 (Black Eagle) in Armata, but they did not specify that it would be specific.

              It has been stated more than once that in Armata the crew will sit in a separate armored capsule, separated from the fighting compartment by an armored partition, which should increase the survival of the crew at times. I think only for the sake of this it was already worth messing with this project.
              And if other parameters of the tank rise (such as active, passive defenses, powerful SLA, power and accuracy of weapons, mobility, etc.), then the transition to a new platform will pay off any costs.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 29 June 2013 18: 42 New
              +4
              Quote: Setrac
              can stored equipment go into battle without major repairs

              The technique of cropped parts is certain. And besides them, where else can you find the 62nd, only abroad!
              The cropped part is when the number of soldiers in the ranks of the ordinary and junior command personnel is minimized.

              The equipment in them is on conservation.
              But only in 11 and 12 such battles were around them. At 11 it’s kind of closed, at 12 they revived ...
              Quote: Setrac
              and are there any parts for it?

              There are drawings. There will be financing, there will be spare parts.
              1. old man54
                old man54 29 June 2013 19: 14 New
                +1
                Quote: Cynic
                There are drawings. There will be financing, there will be spare parts.

                spare parts for equipment that has not been withdrawn from service, even if it is in storage and conservation must be available in the aircraft’s warehouses. If this is not the case, then all the questions are for the leadership of the Armed Forces, although there it seems they are not thinking about the army, but about bank accounts ...
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 30 June 2013 18: 10 New
                  0
                  Quote: old man54
                  must be available in stocks of aircraft.

                  You do not even imagine the non-obviousness of your statement.
                  A tank, if it is not in operation and does not fight, but stands on conservation, is not subject to breakdowns.
                  55-ki and 62-ki are simple and reliable as scrap.
                  Here other nuances _ There is no protection from fools.
                  1. old man54
                    old man54 1 July 2013 12: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cynic
                    You do not even imagine the non-obviousness of your statement.
                    A tank, if it is not in operation and does not fight, but stands on conservation, is not subject to breakdowns.
                    55-ki and 62-ki are simple and reliable as scrap.

                    Well, do not tell my dear! If a / m, including a tank, will stand idle in the air without the proper departure of 10 years, let’s say, then it’s not at all a fact that we’ll say that the elements of the engine will not fail. So that ...
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic 1 July 2013 16: 19 New
                      -1
                      Quote: old man54
                      without proper care 10 years let's say

                      That you are very streamlined expressed.
                      Without proper supervision any device at once becomes unusable, if not disappearing at all!
                      Just reminding
                      Quote: Cynic
                      The equipment in them is on conservation.

                      Talk about this.
                      drinks
                    2. igor.borov775
                      igor.borov775 4 July 2013 22: 23 New
                      +1
                      Hi, you have a poor idea of ​​the conservation system, I was stunned when they removed and launched the dreadnought-fleet of the year 2007 and the Zil-157 convoy and nothing rotted. Everything was fine. Our drivers drove off to drive such engines without hydrach and other bells and whistles. It all depends on the attitude. our managers from the army
          2. Cynic
            Cynic 29 June 2013 18: 48 New
            +6
            Quote: chauvinist
            I doubt that now you can fight on the t-55, t-62 and t-64.

            And what is the actual question

            и
          3. old man54
            old man54 29 June 2013 19: 08 New
            +9
            Quote: chauvinist
            Recycled frank junk, I doubt that now you can fight on t-55, t-62 and t-64.

            and if a more or less serious "fuss" begins, a war of attrition, and not like in 2008 - 5 days and that's it! Tanks will quickly go out of order during a DB, like in 1941, where will we quickly take a replacement for them ??? Ask NATO for a new lend-lease ?? :)) Or do you, my dear, think that it is better to conduct frontal battles without tanks at all than to go to break through the front with "outright old"?
            Ask the Syrian army about this, I think they have well learned this question now !!
            Do you think the generals were the only fools in the USSR? :) So they just created technical reserves for a reason, stored it, namely in case I described to you, or if the main tank production plants were already disabled. Oh, strategist: (((
          4. Joker
            Joker 29 June 2013 20: 31 New
            0
            I doubt that you can now fight on t-55, t-62 and t-64

            You can even as, that's only after upgrading and thorough repair, and this all in a coupe will cost as 1.5 new T-90, if on a relatively fresh T-72 upgrade to the level of T-90 stands as T-90. So it is easier to dispose of, besides, T-72 is being modernized slowly and given to the troops, but for now we are waiting for Armat.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 30 June 2013 18: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Joker
              if the relatively fresh T-72 upgrade to the T-90 level is like the T-90.

              With numbers please.

              Hm.
              But essentially the difference is between them ?!
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 30 June 2013 22: 37 New
                +1
                Expensive modernization of the T-72 costs like the new T-90 due to the fact that you have to do the dismantling of old equipment (which also costs money) + welding work (cutting something off and welding something) which is much easier to do from scratch than to remake the already finished.
                Probably only cheap modernization options justify themselves. Something like: sweeping the power unit to a more powerful one, installing a new dynamic protection, installing a new automatic loader (for long bops) - which now goes to the troops.
                And if for all this there’s also a new SLA, then it’s probably more profitable (cheaper) to take a new tank, rather than an upgraded one.
          5. Hariva
            Hariva 29 June 2013 20: 56 New
            +2
            Depends with whom. Heh heh. Look at the Baltic states as many as 5 t72s. Well, with a dozen of the 55s, they can well be gored))).
            Exaggerating of course, God forbid war with still close peoples, but still ....
          6. theadenter
            theadenter 30 June 2013 02: 29 New
            10
            I would ride a rusty T-34 in the event of a serious mess. And the old mortar would be dragging with the guys. And the machines would use what they give. And here you are sorting the porridge with a fork.
            1. Joker
              Joker 30 June 2013 03: 19 New
              +1
              Well, do not grind nonsense, you look like Americans are armed, each soldier has a grenade launcher, an RPG mountain for them is your 34 for one tooth, we need machines with dynamic protection, this is not the second world where the RPG was once and missed and destroyed tanks either with tanks or with PT guns, now with an RPG you can safely flash the coolest tank of the Second World War, besides keep in mind that you need to allocate money for storage, repair, and rebuild production lines for old tanks. This is not a PPSh with which you can still fight, this is a complex technique that is improved every decade, unlike firearms, for the improvement of which it is not enough to change the design and add buns like sights. Enough to live in the Stone Age, you will fly to the corncob against F-35 laughing
              1. old man54
                old man54 30 June 2013 04: 05 New
                +4
                Quote: Joker
                Well, don’t grind nonsense, you look at how the Americans are armed, each soldier has a grenade launcher,

                it’s you grinding rubbish! :)) In case of a serious protracted war (not nuclear) in the USA, all this modern mischief will also end quickly, depending on how the database will unfold. All this modality for local wars or for the initial stage of serious wars.
              2. Garysit
                Garysit 30 June 2013 10: 33 New
                +5
                That you grind nonsense. But how many actually serious technology they have, the same percentage of junk as ours. Their advantage is only that they can use the combined efforts of technology, but we do not. Recently, the site cited indicators on types of NATO equipment and ours. See table. And against your beloved RPG, we will tank the tanks with shell-nets from old soldier beds and forth !!!!!!
                1. ViPChe
                  ViPChe 30 June 2013 17: 52 New
                  +4
                  good No one will surpass our folk savvy and natural craftsmanship of Kulibinsky. In the event of a protracted conflict, we will drag them into the partisan war in any way. And here we have no equal laughing
          7. Tykta
            Tykta 9 July 2013 00: 00 New
            0
            the old stuff that was disposed of, well, let's say, from similar old ones captured from Egypt, Israel reconstructed the Punisher heavy armored personnel carriers, they are not at all embarrassed by the old age of these tanks, on the other hand, the tank itself is a huge problem for any enemy. the police state, already sold to the invaders, does not need an army, does not need heavy armored vehicles to defend the borders, they need armored personnel carriers and drones ... well, punishers in the end ...
        2. ViPChe
          ViPChe 30 June 2013 17: 42 New
          0
          :-) There was nothing left to preserve at the time of the decision, although odious. They reduced the states, bases, military units and threw tanks for looting. What are they like - remember the incident with the winter forest dump T-72 in Siberia about 8 years ago. And went to the disposal of BTT, plundered by a local tribe of lancelops for surrender to drag and color.
      3. Joker
        Joker 29 June 2013 20: 28 New
        0
        Europe reduces the number of tanks, Asia, on the contrary increases, and we are waiting ...

        We have enough of them both on those and on others now, with a vengeance, do not forget that we are not just sitting waiting, T-72 is being modernized now.
  2. papik09
    papik09 29 June 2013 07: 54 New
    +7
    I would like Russia to build this tank as soon as possible. hi
  3. svp67
    svp67 29 June 2013 08: 13 New
    +4
    It’s much controversial, in particular, it’s hard to imagine how the designers managed to make a separate armored capsule for the crew without increasing the length of the hull and, accordingly, without increasing the number of rollers ...
    And a little blooper
    The length of the hull without fenders was 7,2 meters, width - 2,17 meters
    It should be: The length of the case was 7,2 meters, width, without fenders - 2,17 meters
  4. Kars
    Kars 29 June 2013 08: 52 New
    14
    “Armata” will have a weight of up to 50 tons, a chassis with six track rollers and a smooth-bore gun of 125 mm caliber with remote control. The classic layout of the hull is the bow control compartment, the central fighting compartment and the aft engine-transmission compartment. The crew is located in the control compartment in a specially protected module, separated by an armored partition from the uninhabited fighting compartment and tower. The tank will be equipped with a tandem dynamic protection of the new generation “Malachite” and an active protection complex “Afghanistan” with millimeter-wave radars.


    The characteristics are not particularly impressive especially against the background of hysteria of the PR program. And if you think about the price that they will set. The weight of up to 50 tons is very doubtful. Okay, all hope for Malachite and Afghanistan (fun geological names. As a fan of tank technology I will hope for the best.
    1. Vlad_Mir
      Vlad_Mir 29 June 2013 11: 24 New
      +6
      Nobody has seen a tank yet, there was no exact information, and already so much pessimism!
    2. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 14: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      Characteristics are not particularly impressive especially against the background of hysteria PR program.

      Well, if they don’t want to show, then maybe TTX is also some kind of tricky move, so that sworn friends do not greatly envy and strain. Not?
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 June 2013 15: 09 New
        +3
        Quote: Apologet.Ru
        Well, if they don’t want to show, then maybe TTX is also some kind of tricky move, so that sworn friends do not greatly envy and strain. Not?

        And then why talk about Armata at all? They would have done quietly the 796XX object and no one would have discussed anything.
        Quote: Vlad_Mir
        Nobody has seen a tank yet, there was no exact information, and already so much pessimism!
        And what about the tank? Now the information provided in the article is being discussed and nothing more. For example, a kabsula with all three tankmen .. seems to be not the best solution. This means one successful hit and everyone is either dead or injured. I also think that 3 people and an assault rifle it is not enough loading, it is necessary 4 and AZ, to place in two isolated compartments with duplication of management. About an anti-aircraft / self-defense firing point nothing is said.
        1. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 20: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          And then why talk about Armata at all?

          So that the "toad" crushed them ahead of time. Plus, you need to take into account the fact that the information is mostly not official, not from the developer's design bureau. Yes, so we have something to talk about ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 29 June 2013 20: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: Apologet.Ru
            So that the "toad" crushes them ahead of time

            And if they laugh? Http: //warfiles.ru/show-33810-armata-pyl-v-glaza.html Even Gurchik is indignant.
            Quote: Apologet.Ru
            Plus, you need to consider that information is mostly not official.

            How many people went under the article .. the disclosure of state secrets ..?
            Quote: Apologet.Ru
            Yes, here we have something to talk about.

            Thank you very much for that.
            1. Apologet.Ru
              Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 22: 02 New
              +2
              Actually, for now, laughter for no reason, you yourself know a sign of what.
              In addition, the one who laughs without consequences is good to laugh. As our alte German kameraden say - Ende gut, alles gut! (All is well that ends well!)
              Quote: Kars
              How many people went under the article .. the disclosure of state secrets ..?

              And what specific information is already there?
              For the product, only general references to "mysterious reliable sources in circles" ...
              1. Kars
                Kars 29 June 2013 22: 11 New
                +1
                Quote: Apologet.Ru
                And what specific information is already there?

                We may not, but those who need it and who are willing to pay already have it.
                Quote: Apologet.Ru
                to "mysterious reliable sources in circles" ..

                Anyway, there is someone to plant))

                Most read:

                Tank "Armata" will learn to shoot down enemy missiles and shells
                The crew of the tank "Armata" will save the "capsule of life"



                Tank "Armata" will not go, but sail across the battlefield

                Tank "Armata" should get smart weapon

                Viktor Murakhovsky: work on sights for "Armata" is in full swing


                Engine for "Armata"



                Tank "Armata" will receive modern guns and fire control system

                "Armata" - heavy armor for infantry


                And everything is secret))) how can it be shown if so much has been written))
                1. Apologet.Ru
                  Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 22: 29 New
                  0
                  Thank you, colleague, I read all this. But I would not want to consider the modern descendants of the Chekists bully d. morons. Yes, and the leadership of the design bureau with the Defense Ministry also does not look like them. We will wait for a real result, and there we will recall (maliciously) annoying blunders to each other wassat
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 29 June 2013 22: 34 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Apologet.Ru
                    We will wait for a real result, and there we will recall (maliciously) annoying blunders to each other

                    Well, it will be difficult for me to recall something. If, of course, Armata does not go into series in 2014)))

                    And by the way, something none of the Western ..friends .. does not jerk.
                    Quote: Apologet.Ru
                    Yes, and the leadership of the design bureau with the Defense Ministry also does not look like them.

                    Is that one of them was a general who at an international exhibition said that the T-90 is 17 modernization of the T-72 and cheaper to buy Leopards?
                    1. Apologet.Ru
                      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 22: 37 New
                      0
                      And this is from the old leadership, there is no such thing in the new repeat
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 30 June 2013 15: 06 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Apologet.Ru
                        And this is from the old leadership, there is no such thing in the new

                        something is doubtful to me.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 30 June 2013 17: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              And if they laugh?

              He laughs best who laughs last.
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 30 June 2013 16: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          but I think that 3 people and a charging machine is not enough, you need 4 and AZ, placed in two isolated compartments with duplication of control.


          What for? Isn’t it better to isolate the crew of three people in 2 capsules - in one gunner and commander, in the other - a driver? 4 people will deprive MBT of one of its advantages - smaller size and weight in comparison with Abrams and Leopard.
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 30 June 2013 16: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      The transition to an uninhabited fighting compartment in combination with a target tracking machine allows you to additionally abandon the gunner, which will reduce the volume of the control compartment while building comprehensive protection for the crew’s armored capsule.


      Does it scare me more? How is an author going to fight without a gunner? The prior art is not so great as to completely exclude a person from the battle. And then - 2 people are more difficult to maintain BM than 3.
  5. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 29 June 2013 09: 53 New
    0
    Interestingly, the author knows that it is impossible to determine the protection of the crew by the weight of the armor today. For armored modules, for example, on the Mk4 are made of combined materials and this "sandwich" does not fit into standard armored calculations.
    1. Argon
      Argon 29 June 2013 11: 02 New
      +7
      Dear Aron Zaavi, it is quite possible, since non-metallic elements worsen the properties of armor resistance in terms of ballistic characteristics, (significantly increasing the anti-cumulative properties), then the specific fraction (of non-metal) from a unit of mass is a relatively well-defined value (for each combination of the type of components, there is a coefficient There is also a formula that includes, in the volume / mass ratio, the average value (also a coefficient) of dynamic protection. In this ratio, you can even include a value (coefficient of course) that determines the "increase" of protection against KAZ. Do you really think that the Chinese or the French are on Do they pour armored modules from granular cast iron in their latest tanks? There is also a complaint to the author, I think the comparison with all sorts of "leopards" is an insult - it is enough to compare the volumes of MTO, the ratio of the volumes of MTO and the total booked. After all, it all started with him, though it dragged on, now Ukraine is a separate state.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 29 June 2013 13: 54 New
        0
        Well, let’s say the resistance of a composite multilayer armor to a subcaliber depleted uranium shell was not so clear.
        In Israel, it was studied very tightly and for a reason Merkava received the armor that she received.
        The result of shelling of multi-layer armored bomber shells with air gaps and sand inserts is very interesting.
        It’s not just that they return to subsonic speeds of sub-caliber ammunition.

        The Boxer object is quite interesting. It is a pity that now this foreign product will be. If it will be.
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 June 2013 15: 12 New
          +5
          Quote: dustycat
          It’s not just that they return to subsonic speeds of sub-caliber ammunition.

          Where is this coming back? For the first time I hear about kinetic armor-piercing ammunition with subsonic speed. There are, of course, obscure stories about the decrease in the speed of the BPS, but they are there that they are designed to break through the DZ without initiating VV. And then there is a speed of more than 1200 m / s
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 29 June 2013 15: 19 New
            10
            Quote: Kars
            the first time I hear about kinetic armor-piercing ammunition with subsonic speed

            There are such. Their action on the target is as follows: flies up and gently knocks on the armor. The tankman opens the hatch to ask "who is there." And a subsonic sub-caliber projectile flies in to arrange a bloody meat grinder there
            1. Kars
              Kars 29 June 2013 15: 25 New
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              Their action on the target is as follows: flies up and quietly knocks on the armor.
              No tanker asks, Who is there ..
              DBPS - a gift for you from MTS and further according to the scenario.
              1. djon77
                djon77 29 June 2013 21: 05 New
                -1
                and if the tankman with a hangover and does not want to open?
            2. aksakal
              aksakal 29 June 2013 15: 50 New
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              There are such. Their action on the target is as follows: flies up and gently knocks on the armor. The tankman opens the hatch to ask "who is there." And a subsonic sub-caliber projectile flies in to arrange a bloody meat grinder there

              laughing laughing Why do tricksters with an unremarkable one reveal a terrible secret? laughing laughing Now they will come up with an antidote - like "knocking three times", etc. laughing
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 29 June 2013 15: 56 New
                +4
                Then they also need to keep the shutter wedge constantly closed. The projectile is sub-caliber, thin. The guns can easily crawl through the barrel bore.
                1. Apologet.Ru
                  Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 21: 02 New
                  +2
                  In the newspaper, I don’t remember the name, I wrote it at all, and the photo was that on the Desna River in the Chernigov area at the end of the 80 they found a sunken tank from the Second World War, completely closed, with hatches closed, to see who drowned during the crossing. And when the hatch was barely opened, they found inside the hull of the tank a huge living catfish, which, even back in those days, swam through the trunk in small fry and grew up in proud solitude. And you say sub-caliber ...
  6. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 29 June 2013 09: 57 New
    +2
    The most interesting thing is the concept of the tank. 2 or 3 person in a carriage. The transmission, engine, electronics and linkage are basically familiar. It is a pity that there is no version with a gas turbine engine. Sometimes speed is more important.
  7. Albert1988
    Albert1988 29 June 2013 10: 25 New
    +5
    It’s strange that they write in an article about 6 ice rinks and a classic lineup - already on the website there have been reports that the ice rinks are 7 and the front location of the MTO, moreover, this was also written by the mechanic. One gets the feeling that the author is posting rather old information
  8. facktor
    facktor 29 June 2013 10: 36 New
    +4
    Why is everyone talking about how a tank should be? Why is there no discussion of the tasks solved by the tank in the theater of operations? In which theater: in the field (desert, forest, swamp, ...), city, coast, water barrier, etc.? If we assign the main task of the tank to suppress enemy fire weapons, which the infantry cannot cope with at the required range, then, I repeat, the slightly altered TOR air defense system will be the best tank.
    We will give "TOR" two vertical electric drones powered by the main vehicle by wires and transported to the left and right by 10-50 m (forward- ..., take any combination, but left-right gives a stereo base for determining the range by passive means. they must also be for maintaining combat effectiveness with one drone) and rising to 50-100 m. We start the "TOP" with 12-24 missiles, simpler with a range of 10-12 km, attack targets only from above and destroy the enemy without protruding from behind the hill. What can the best classic tank do against such tactics?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 29 June 2013 10: 52 New
      +2
      Well, it’s right you get artillery and not a tank, a modern tank should perform a fairly wide range of tasks, which, however, may vary depending on the strategy of its use in a particular army, design features depend on this in many respects (compare T-90 and Abrams ) - but Kars will tell you better. And the armata should become a new tank that feels good in modern warfare.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 29 June 2013 13: 58 New
      +1
      What you are describing is the task for the complex from the department of drones and SZO Smerch with an intellectual warhead.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 29 June 2013 16: 44 New
      +1
      The task of the tank is simple and understandable - to break through the enemy’s defenses in a bottleneck, go behind enemy lines, occupy the transport line and prevent the supply of enemy troops. All other tasks are related or not decisive.
  9. facktor
    facktor 29 June 2013 11: 05 New
    0
    This is not artillery, but an aircraft-helicopter-self-propelled gun. But "a wide range of tasks" .. - about nothing.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 29 June 2013 11: 22 New
      +3
      Fighting fortified points, suppressing enemy infantry, fighting enemy armored vehicles, in some cases serving as a fortified firing point, may not be a wide range of tasks that a tank is capable of performing if necessary, but sufficient - it is not always justified to spend an expensive missile on destruction object that can be smashed with a simple cheap shell from a tank gun. And to conduct guided missile fire - our tanks have long been able to, and adjustment from drones - so this possibility could be added to any technique if the drones themselves and the corresponding equipment would))
  10. Algor73
    Algor73 29 June 2013 11: 07 New
    0
    If this is all that is foreseen, then the Armata is not a revolutionary tank. The tank will not be bad, but I did not see any special advantages from the currently existing best samples (even the T-90MS) in the forecasts. Maybe he is really classified to such an extent, and this is all guesswork and speculation.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 29 June 2013 11: 26 New
      +3
      I recommend that you go around the site and read articles about the armature that have already been written - there isn’t much in this article, and look at the comments of the Mechanic - it is somehow related to the development of this machine. I also want to add that Armata is not a tank, but a platform on the basis of which you can create a tank, self-propelled guns, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which will greatly facilitate production.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 29 June 2013 12: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Albert1988
        which will greatly facilitate the production.

        Cheaper, to be exact.
        As for the relief in production, this is a flight of management’s imagination.
        If only in service ...
        laughing
  11. Cynic
    Cynic 29 June 2013 11: 12 New
    0
    It’s not long to wait, it’s like they’ll show it all the same in autumn!
    And so
    Everything new is well hidden old.

    drinks
  12. family tree
    family tree 29 June 2013 11: 39 New
    +4
    The source of information:
    Yu.M. Apukhtin, A.I. Mazurenko, E.A. Morozov, PI Nazarenko. The problem of reducing the number of crews of the main tank. "Bulletin of armored vehicles", No. 6 for 1980,
    Ltd! Nostradamus smokes on the sidelines wassat
  13. sevtrash
    sevtrash 29 June 2013 11: 57 New
    +1
    The caliber 140-150 mm is kind of promising, at least the possibility of subsequent replacement, if not initially, should be provided.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 29 June 2013 12: 21 New
      0
      152 was kind of like at object 195, they decided to put 125 on the armature, although if you take into account that the design is modular, then it’s quite possible to shove a caliber
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 29 June 2013 12: 59 New
        0
        Rather, there is no developed-finished gun of this caliber.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 29 June 2013 15: 49 New
          0
          Oddly enough it should be - at least a prototype. But to Object 195, it was supposed to stand according to descriptions that can be found on the network. Because of this, by the way, this object had an unreal silhouette
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 29 June 2013 13: 03 New
      +3
      The magic word is ammunition ...
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 29 June 2013 16: 24 New
        0
        Muzzle energy can be 2 times higher, armor penetration by 40%. Probably have to increase the caliber again, only when.
  14. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 29 June 2013 12: 02 New
    +5
    So, when we see the "Armata" itself and the MBT on its base with our own eyes, then we will talk about it. For now ... For now, let's be patient ...
  15. 73petia
    73petia 29 June 2013 12: 57 New
    0
    The second photo in the text is in my opinion of some kind of American experienced tank. It is often posted on various tank forums. What does it have to do with "Armata"?
  16. Scotch
    Scotch 29 June 2013 13: 33 New
    0
    Yesterday I watched the conference of the Russian newspaper, there one of the speakers openly spoke about Armata. Waiting for bully
  17. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 29 June 2013 14: 46 New
    +4
    ... providing a range of destruction of targets with a direct shot to 7 km at any time of the day in fog, dust and smoke screens ....

    This is at what initial speed the projectile must be spit out, so that the direct range was 7 km ???
    It seems that the author has gone through a bit. Although rather confused the expressions "direct shot" and "direct fire".
    Not enough information, and of course, thanks for the article, especially for 1980.

    We are waiting for Armata, we are waiting.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 29 June 2013 15: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv


      This is at what initial speed the projectile must be spit out, so that the direct range was 7 km ???

      What's the problem? Our tankers have a regular exercise "Long Distance Shooting". This is a shooting range of 5-8 km.
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 June 2013 15: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Our tankers have a regular exercise "Long Distance Shooting"

        What type of projectile? BPS? OFS? CBS?


        and a direct shot is still a definite term.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 29 June 2013 15: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          direct shot is still a certain term.


          Ага.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 29 June 2013 15: 51 New
            +2
            I will copy for a complete understanding of the issue:

            The distance of a direct shot is the greatest aiming range, when fired at which the average trajectory does not rise above the height of a given target.

            http://handguns.g00net.org/ballistic/glava53.htm
        2. vladimir VR
          vladimir VR 29 June 2013 16: 31 New
          0
          This exercise is Long Range Shooting as part of a platoon, a company at a range of 2500-3000 for a platoon and 3500-4500 for a company, respectively. Ammunition-OF.
        3. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 29 June 2013 19: 32 New
          +4
          I won't lie, I don't know. I just spent a lot of time with the tankers during the exercises and communicated with them. By the way, three years ago, the reservists at the MAGAHs outplayed the full conscripts on the Mk4 in exercises. Including in an arrow at a target of 5 km. So much for the "oldies" and 105mm versus 120.
          1. Prohor
            Prohor 30 June 2013 15: 49 New
            0
            So much for the "oldies" and 105mm versus 120.
            A good argument for the debate was about the T-55/62!
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 29 June 2013 15: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        What's the problem?


        That is no problem, Aron.
        There is simply the concept of a “direct shot”, but there are varieties of firing: “direct fire” and “from closed firing positions”.
        The author clearly had in mind an increase in the direct fire range and not in the range of a direct shot.
        No complaints, Toko with phrases comrade needs to be careful, otherwise the ear cuts.
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 29 June 2013 15: 36 New
        +8
        And what about regular exercises? Ammunition with a direct firing range of 7 km will be the tower of the tanks to tear off when the armor is not broken.

        Take, for example, the MT-12 anti-tank gun. The range of a direct shot at a target height of 2,7 m (tank) armor-piercing projectile - 2130 m; its initial velocity is 1575 m / s. I do not want to deal with the problems of external ballistics, so let's take a rough look. For a direct shot range of 7 km, a projectile is needed with an initial velocity in the region of 5000 m / s
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 29 June 2013 15: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          Ammunition with a direct firing range of 7 km will be the towers near the tanks to tear off when the armor is not broken.


          Quote: Spade
          For a direct shot range in 7 km, a projectile with an initial velocity of about 5000 m / s is required


          More precisely and you will not tell.
        2. ramsi
          ramsi 30 June 2013 07: 55 New
          0
          and if you attach a "small motor" to this projectile, so that it does not lose this speed of 1575 m / s up to 7 km
          1. old man54
            old man54 30 June 2013 15: 31 New
            0
            Quote: ramsi
            and if you attach a "small motor" to this projectile, so that it does not lose this speed of 1575 m / s up to 7 km

            it has been used for a long time, but it’s not called a projectile, but it’s already a rocket, it is fired from a standard MBT gun starting with the T-72.
            1. ramsi
              ramsi 30 June 2013 16: 21 New
              0
              in my opinion there is a subsonic rocket, or something about it
  18. xomaNN
    xomaNN 29 June 2013 14: 51 New
    0
    It's time, it's time to wipe the nose designers of all kinds of abrams :))
  19. old man54
    old man54 29 June 2013 15: 00 New
    0
    The article leaves a strange impression, raises more questions than answers them. But I put the "+" on the author. If everything goes as the author of the article describes, then the tank will be very serious, just not to overdo it with new items in the form of electronics, otherwise it may turn out to be the Achilles heel of Armata, especially on the battlefield.
    I was very surprised and puzzled by the concept of placing a tank on an 2 crew member. Although of course it is logical, to date. I thought about it and figured that with the current pace and prospects of electronics, tank BIUSs, you can safely imagine a line-up of the future MBT 1-th crewmanresponsible for controlling the movement of the machine, at the same time evaluating the general situation on the battlefield and also issuing commands to the command center of the gun control system to destroy certain targets. Tempting picture, isn't it? :)
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 29 June 2013 15: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: old man54
      you can safely imagine the line-up of the future MBT by 1 crew member


      And the Swiss, and the reaper, and the dude on the pipe.
      It will be too much for one crew member;

      Quote: old man54
      if only we didn’t go too far with the latest in the form of electronics,


      I agree.
      I hope the duplication of management traditional for our technology will be up to standard. It will be more difficult to do from a capsule, this question is of great interest.
      1. old man54
        old man54 29 June 2013 19: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        And the Swiss, and the reaper, and the dude on the pipe.
        It will be too much for one crew member;

        Well, the whole point is in that BIUS, universal, which is not yet. :)) In fighters today they make "glass" cockpits with a huge monitor such as a tablet, a "fire-forget" missile system, why, over time, such a level of automation and electronics in the tank is impossible to reproduce? :)) Once in the tanks the crew was 5 people (T-34-76); during the 1st WW on German tanks, the crew reached 7/8 people; today they are seriously discussing a crew of 2 on a tank without reducing its functionality. On the strategic bomber of the 2nd MB V-17, the crew reached 12 people, but today their V-2 strategist has only 2 pilots. Think for yourself further.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 29 June 2013 21: 08 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          In fighters today they make "glass" cockpits with a huge tablet-type monitor, a "fire-and-forget" missile system


          Yes, no problem, Andrei, only a tank is a more massive combat unit compared to an airplane. No one will make such expensive mass toys in the foreseeable future.

          In the meantime, one tanker in the carriage does not roll.
          In addition to operating the vehicle, it is necessary to "tinker" with weapons, and this is already two people.
          Electronics and all other pribluda are very necessary for the tank commander, his task is to control the entire terrain and give target designation to the gunner, and while he is "fiddling" with the goal, find him the next victim.
          Here in this (the necessary devices for the commander) we have a problem. I’m writing not unfounded.

          As it may not seem strange, but destroying goals is easier than finding them in time and setting liquidation priorities — these are the necessary directions for modernization.

          Reducing the crew to 2-x people is possible if you combine the responsibilities of commander and gunner. And this means giving him the opportunity to see both "panoramic" for finding a target and "narrowly" with a strong magnification, for its destruction. They are trying to do, but it is not so simple.
          Those. even reducing the crew to 2's is quite problematic.
          Moreover, the main ammunition of the tank is unguided weapons for direct fire, and not guided expensive aircraft missiles (KVV is only an addition to the tank ammunition).

          Quote: old man54
          Once in the tanks the crew was 5 man (T-34-76)


          You probably meant the T-34-85.
          1. old man54
            old man54 30 June 2013 04: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Aleks tv
            You probably meant the T-34-85.

            Yes, you're right, thanks for correcting me. :) Indeed, the T-34-76 crew was 4-man, the tank commander also combined the functions of a gunner.
        2. ViPChe
          ViPChe 30 June 2013 18: 09 New
          -1
          If the tank flew and had a glass cockpit, it would be an airplane, well, as a last resort, a "carlson" with a motor laughing
  20. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 29 June 2013 15: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Algor73
    If this is all that is foreseen, then the Armata is not a revolutionary tank. The tank will not be bad, but I did not see any special advantages from the currently existing best samples (even the T-90MS) in the forecasts. Maybe he is really classified to such an extent, and this is all guesswork and speculation.

    Let it not be completely revolutionary, let it be updated!
    Here on the site the other day there was an article about the F-35, as a failed version of the 5th generation fighter. We spent a mountain of billions, but at the end ...
    The updated F-18 is cheaper and no worse.
    So, it is better "we go the other way!" Than to sculpt from scratch and get a "child" - a disabled person!
    1. Alwizard
      Alwizard 29 June 2013 16: 49 New
      0
      Development "from scratch" exacerbates the situation with the "childhood" diseases of technology, but at the same time creates the preconditions for a qualitative leap in the industry, as happened with the F-35 you mentioned. A crude machine at this stage made it possible to develop, implement and test hundreds of technical innovations, creating a groundwork for both modernizing the F-35 itself and other aircraft in service, and introducing new technologies into other branches of the military-industrial complex. It is impossible to endlessly modernize the T-72, if you do not mind your tankers, of course.
  21. vladimir VR
    vladimir VR 29 June 2013 16: 34 New
    +1
    If the crew is 2 people, the CT will fire, and who will command the unit in battle?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 29 June 2013 18: 14 New
      +1
      The unit commander will not be on the tank. He is going to load information to the limit. At least 3 flows of information from his unit, one from the commander of the infantry unit and one from the senior commander. He physically will not be able to perform the functions of a tank commander.
      1. Hudo
        Hudo 30 June 2013 12: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        The unit commander will not be on the tank. He is going to load information to the limit. At least 3 flows of information from his unit, one from the commander of the infantry unit and one from the senior commander. He physically will not be able to perform the functions of a tank commander.


        From what level, may I clarify? The commander of a tank platoon, for example, does not need anyone for nothing with his "streams of information" in isolation from his tanks.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 June 2013 16: 32 New
          0
          Should the tank platoon commander command his tanks, or are you hoping for self-organization?
          1. Hudo
            Hudo 30 June 2013 19: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Tank platoon commander must command his tanks


            OBLIGED (!!!) to command their tanks while being directly in battle formations, as well as the commander of a tank company in his regular tank. And the commander of the tank battalion is also in his tank, and for accepting 3 or more information flows he has a NS (sitting now in BMP-2K and having in his direct subordination a whole platoon of communications).
            That's true, I do not understand how it is.
            Unit commander will not be on the tank
            , like the Germans during the WWII in a command tank with a log instead of a gun?
  22. uzer 13
    uzer 13 29 June 2013 17: 06 New
    +1
    When will they finally assemble these new devices in one iron box, which is called a tank? And what is so secret that this tank can not be shown? Only equipment can be secret, as it is inside and no one sees it. cannon of tanks and so completely, really need to do one more? You can put the same equipment on existing ones and get the same result at the output.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 29 June 2013 17: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: uzer 13
      And what is so secret that this tank cannot be shown?

      In appearance, you can learn a lot, and since Russia is a legislator in tank building, for countries such as Germany and the USA this will give a concept in which direction to work.
      1. uzer 13
        uzer 13 29 June 2013 18: 54 New
        +1
        American tanks are equipped with sights and night vision devices, which we don’t have at all, and by their appearance, it is possible to determine the absence of such devices. Unfortunately, neither Germany nor the USA are inferior to us in tank building, and now the Chinese are attacking heels.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 29 June 2013 19: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: uzer 13
          American tanks are equipped with sights and night-vision devices, which we don’t have at all, and in appearance, it is possible to determine the absence of such devices

          Details, please ?
          About the presence or absence of sights and night vision devices on our tanks.

          И

          1. uzer 13
            uzer 13 29 June 2013 20: 02 New
            +2
            Yes, here, on topwar there was a recent article about these sights, look in the archives. If you are a tanker, then study the technique of a possible enemy, otherwise they will kill you from a distance of 5 km, and you won’t even know about it, comrade patriot domestic tank and instrumentation.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 30 June 2013 18: 19 New
              0
              Quote: uzer 13
              Yes, here, on topwar there was recently an article about these sights

              It was.
              Quote: uzer 13
              then learn the technique of a possible adversary

              Interestingly, you did not understand the banter in my question, or did you pretend that you did not understand?
              To your words
              Quote: uzer 13
              American tanks have sights and night vision devices that we don’t have at all
              belay
              The question is quite natural
              Quote: Cynic
              Details, please ?
              About the presence or absence of sights and night vision devices on our tanks.

              lol
        2. old man54
          old man54 29 June 2013 19: 34 New
          0
          Quote: uzer 13
          Unfortunately, neither Germany nor the USA are inferior to us in tank building, and now the Chinese are stepping on their heels.

          Forgive me, but this is rare nonsense, about the PRC !!! :)
          1. uzer 13
            uzer 13 29 June 2013 20: 09 New
            0
            They already produce tanks at the T-90 level, with more advanced electronic equipment. Again, there was such news on the same site.
            1. deputy ___ watered
              deputy ___ watered 29 June 2013 22: 48 New
              0
              6 years ago, a friend of mine attended a training exercise in China. In the course of the exercises, in his words, the worst rating could be given to the tankmen, both in terms of unit management and interaction, (one company reached the attack line at 10 min later) by preparing the equipment for the task (along the whole depth of the task there were 16 tanks with failed battalion)!
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 30 June 2013 18: 02 New
              0
              Quote: deputy ___ watered
              They already produce tanks at the T-90 level,

              And?
              Sound model please.
              A case not about the 99th conversation?
  23. Marconi41
    Marconi41 29 June 2013 18: 36 New
    0
    You just need to wait a bit and when the tank rolls out to the tank race track, then there will be something to discuss. In the meantime, all this is pure fantasy. By the way, 2 crew members are clearly few. The tank commander conducts an overview of the battlefield and gives target designation, but does not shoot. Whenever a commander shoots himself, he sees much less whether he is at least a tankman, at least an infantryman.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. CrazyMishka
    CrazyMishka 29 June 2013 20: 28 New
    0
    I hope its cost will be adequate.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Flash_96
    Flash_96 30 June 2013 11: 38 New
    +1
    It is necessary to increase the culture of maintenance of equipment and technical service in the units and storage bases, otherwise it may happen that when "the harsh hour strikes", they will not be able to start a single car, incl. because of non-ferrous metal parts removed and impregnated by someone, etc. !!!
    1. True
      True 30 June 2013 12: 02 New
      -1
      At 41, a significant portion of taknoks simply did not start or quickly died out. Reasons: not enough fuel, quickly broke down, conscripts could not handle the new equipment.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  28. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 30 June 2013 13: 40 New
    0
    I believe that the best tanks will be Russian. The basis for this belief is the unsurpassed tanks and self-propelled guns of the times of the Great Patriotic War. Indeed, after 45 years, all world tank building unconditionally accepted the principles and ideology of Soviet tank building. The Soviet, Russian school of tank building is ahead. One desire - to quickly see our newest tanks in hardware!
  29. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 30 June 2013 20: 58 New
    0
    you read such articles - after all, the Soviet school of tank building is a thing !!))) and according to x .. who thinks differently, the story from the 20s of the 20th century shows everything perfectly .. that our design engineers together with others persons ,, who participated in the creation of new tanks and the entire BTT .... - well done ..))))
  30. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 1 July 2013 13: 01 New
    0
    This killed me: At the end of September this year at the XI International Exhibition weapons, military equipment and ammunition in Nizhny Tagil REA-2013 will be held closed Show full-scale mock-up of a promising tank "Armata"
    Like in secret (closed show), but to all interested foreigners at the exhibition! Or at an exhibition, but exclusively to Russian participants, so that foreigners die of curiosity! wassat
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 1 July 2013 16: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Black Colonel
      This killed me: At the end of September this year on the ...

      Are you talking about the old or the new-old?
      They spoke about the closed show right away. Then, like there will be no closed _ sights are not ready, then, this.
      A couple of days ago on TV slipped in the news _ It will still be shown, without details.
      hi
  31. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 2 July 2013 01: 21 New
    0
    Well, what are you missing: the engine - showed, the gun - painted, the MSA - is, the rest can be thought out by yourself ... lol
  32. Tankomaster
    Tankomaster 4 July 2013 17: 31 New
    0
    Everything is possible to write, but not many can go to work in KB.
    If the crew is 2 people, the escort machine will not replace the gunner, and the commander will not be able to monitor the battlefield and conduct accurate, aimed fire.
    The simplest example is the T-34-76, there was a good tank, but at the beginning of the war it was shot through due to the fact that the commander did not observe the battlefield, but fired from a cannon.
  33. roial
    roial 5 July 2013 23: 51 New
    -1
    The second photo in the article is not a photo of the experimental Object 292 tank, but a photo of Abrams Block III developed by General Dynamic Land Systems in the mid-80s



    "292 Object"
  34. Falstaff
    Falstaff 8 October 2015 20: 05 New
    0
    Heh ... in the second photo of the author, even the chassis from M1 did not bother. So here you are what Abrams Block 3;) Interestingly this is SRV or TTV.