Military Review

Where did that go?

59
The Israelis, whose experience was undoubtedly taken into account by Omsk designers, have long been widely using heavy tracked armored personnel carriers "Akhzarit" in military clashes in urban areas, remade again from our Russian tanks T-54/55 captured during previous Arab-Israeli conflicts. The first cars appeared back in 1987, and today there are already about one thousand of them in the Israeli army! Of the total mass of 44 tons, more than 14 tons falls on the armor, and the armament consists of only one remotely controlled machine gun, although three more can be installed at the top completely open.


A more modern American diesel engine with the same power turned out to be much smaller than the Soviet one and made it possible to rearrange the engine compartment, allocating space for the rear "tunnel" in it, through which the crew can leave the car under enemy fire if necessary.

It is believed that after the end of the Second World War, American tank building was in a state of hibernation, from which the Korean War forced him to wake up. This led to rapid development and launch into a series of heavy classic tank M103. Already in April, 1952 was presented for consideration three projects of new heavy tanks, an interesting feature of which was the use of frontal armor plates with a backward slope - it was believed that this would strengthen their security. Of greatest interest was the third project, according to which it was supposed to install an 175-mm cannon with an automatic loader on the tank. The weight of the machines was supposed to be 62 tons. True, all these projects were rejected, but it became obvious that promising tanks needed even greater broadening of the turret charm, up to the diameter of 2,7 m, which allowed the use of a tower with a low silhouette and a higher level of armor protection.

Experienced towers under such a shoulder strap were tested already in 1954, and the tests confirmed the engineers' assumptions. This was followed by new designs of a heavy American tank with various options for installing guns, including the 105-mm smoothbore tank gun T120. In the process of developing a design of a tank with an 105-mm gun, it turned out that the turret with it could well be installed on the chassis of the new medium tank T95, which received the designation T95-X4. However, this tank seemed to the American military too revolutionary, which is why it was eventually rejected in favor of the more traditional M60.

After the French, the Americans also experienced several cars with “swaying” towers and an automatic loader. On some of them, for example the T58 tank, even an 152-mm gun was installed. But despite the obvious convenience of this scheme, for universal tanks of the US Army, it turned out to be unsuitable only because the junction between the upper and lower parts of the turret could not be reliably sealed. Meanwhile, it was during these years that the tank began to install protection systems against weapons mass destruction, and the tanks themselves were supposed to be used on the edge of a tactical nuclear strike. It is clear that any leakage of armor joints under these conditions would nullify all the efforts to protect the crew, which is why such towers took root only in France, as well as on French-built tanks in a number of nuclear-free countries.

In France itself, the “swinging” FL 10 type towers were placed not only on tanks, but also on EBR 90 armored cars - a very futuristic vehicle design with two pairs of all-metal wheels in the middle of the hull, which could be lowered and raised. In fact, it was not even so much an armored vehicle, as a highly original wheeled tank with solid armament and reservation. When driving on the highway, two pairs of middle wheels were raised, and the car could move along it at high speed. However, when she moved out onto the ground, these wheels immediately sank, which helped her to mix easily on the road.

Where did that go?

Armored car EBR90 with a swinging tower FL 10


In the USA, the experiments on the tanks with a swinging turret were considered unpromising, and it was decided to return to the project of a heavily armed tank with an 120-mm gun, which could fight Soviet tanks at a great distance. The first project received the designation T110, but was rejected by the military because of too large dimensions of the machine, which did not allow its transportation on a railway platform through the tunnels of the standard sample. In the process of evolution of the project, the tank received the casemate, then the tower location of the gun, and its drivers were moved to the nose of the hull, then to the fighting compartment. One of the problems of a tank with a casemate deployment of weapons was the mask of a cannon, which was supposed to be 230 mm thick armor, but at the same time would weigh 2 tons. In addition, according to American standards, the corners should be provided with vertical fire from + 20 ° to -10 ° That was difficult for the casemate scheme, especially in the case of a downward inclination of the trunk. Of course, you could do with smaller angles. But here, the designers apparently remembered the experience of the British, who, using the example of their heavy tank, the Conqueror, could see that the declination angle -7 ° was not sufficient for low-lying targets, and kept the same angle unchanged.


English experimental tank "Centurion" Mk. III with 120-mm tool L1



American heavy tank M103


As a result, the Americans again returned to the turret version, and it turned out that in this case it is possible to completely meet the assumed mass of the machine in the 50 t. The tank received an epaulet of 2,15 m in diameter - the same as the МХNUMX tank, but its crew was reduced to four exceptions second loader. The project entered the official stage and was made in a full-size mockup, but by this time the Americans decided to abandon the development of the T103 program, and in relation to the M110 tank, limit it to upgrading.

The interest of the military in designing new heavy tanks instantly found a response among various firms that offered them their often very original designs. One of them was the project of the heavy tank “Hunter” (“Hunter”), presented in September 1953.


Project of the American heavy tank "Hunter"


The final version of the tank had a rather unusual body shape and two 105-mm guns, stabilized in two planes and firing active-projectiles. The driver was located in the center of the car behind a heavily inclined armor plate. Behind him between the two guns in a small single-seat tower was the gunner. In this case, the guns themselves had a rigid attachment to the tower and were equipped with automatic loaders for seven shells each, with the rate of fire of each of the guns up to 12 rpm. Considering that 80 shells were still in the tank hull, its total ammunition was 94 projectile - an excellent indicator for any machine of this type.

The tank should also have a strong machine-gun armament, consisting of two 7,62-mm machine guns, paired with guns, and another one or two 12,7-mm on the commander's turret. The workplace of the tank commander was covered by a rising roof section. To the left of the commander, immediately behind the guns, there was a loader, replenishing the automatic loaders of both guns.

The rising section of the roof limited the horizontal firing angle of the tower 200 °, and a full circular attack could be carried out at the elevation of the guns at 20 °. The engine had a hydraulic transmission that powered the 12 hydraulic motors running on each of the road wheels. Such a running gear allowed the tank to move, even after losing one of the tracks or several road rollers, and to use cast rubber tracks.

“Hunter” turned out to be very squat and low-power, which, together with the use of booking using elements from ceramics, would provide him with good protection against cumulative projectiles.

Since the entire roof of the commander’s compartment was hinged and hydraulically actuated, it could be easily opened, if necessary, both for leaving the damaged tank and for maintaining it. Nevertheless, the revolutionary nature of the project did him a disservice, because of the conservatism of the military, its development was eventually discontinued. Interestingly, as one of the reasons for the rejection of this machine, pointed to the difficulty of sealing the shoulder strap of a small tower, recessed inside the case.

It is possible that there could accumulate water, as well as various metal debris, such as fragments of a projectile, which, in turn, could easily lead to breakdowns of the mechanisms of rotation of the tower, especially in winter.


Project of the American heavy tank H-3


In August, 1955 considered projects of tanks with cermet armor and 120-mm gas-dynamic tools with a gaseous propellant from a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen and helium. It was assumed that the armor penetration of such a weapon using a sabot projectile with a diameter of 30 mm would be 150 mm at an angle of 60 ° at a distance of 2000 m. tank at the level of 30 t.

Two other projects included tank armament with a low-impulse gun of 120-mm caliber for firing a high-explosive projectile at a distance of 1000 m, and for fighting tanks at long distances - installing guided missiles on it. At the same time, the driver had to be in the turret on all three tanks of this project.


American "atomic tank" project TV-1


However, the most unique was to be the American "atomic tank," that is, a tank driven by a small-sized nuclear reactor placed directly in the car. According to one of the projects, the weight of the tank should have been 70 t, with the thickness of its frontal armor up to 350 mm.

Armament - modified 105-mm gun Т140. The power plant of the tank, in addition to a small-sized nuclear reactor with an open gas circuit of the coolant, also included a gas turbine, which received gas from the reactor and put it into action. It was believed that such an installation would provide the engine with up to 500 hours of continuous operation at maximum power, but at the same time, few of the project authors doubted that the “atomic tank” would be very expensive, and due to the high level of radiation and unsafe for it own crew, which will have to be changed very often to prevent people from getting high doses of radiation.

Extremely interesting and original heavy tanks were developed at that time in the USSR, where the design of a new Soviet heavy tank was also practically started in 1955. The tank was developed immediately in two versions: the “277 object” had a diesel engine "- gas turbine, and both options differ only in the engine compartment. Elements of anti-nuclear protection were installed on the tank “278 object” for the first time. The 277-mm M-130 rifled gun had an automated loader that allowed the 65 – 10 firing rate / min. The gas turbine engine for the “15 object” was supposed to have a power of 278 l. c, however, as a result, work on these machines were stopped. In KB Z. Ya. Kotin in Leningrad, under the leadership of L. S. Troyanov, the project of a unique heavy tank on four tracks - “an 1000 object” - was created and implemented in metal. With a mass of 279, the tank had a cast turret, and its hull was welded from four cast armored blocks. The tank reservation was unprecedented for all Soviet vehicles: the maximum thickness of the turret armor on it was 60 mm. Both the tower and the hull were not penetrated by domestic X-NUMX-mm and 305-mm armor-piercing shells of cumulative shells from any distance and at any angle.


Soviet experimental tank "object 278"



Soviet experienced heavy tank "object 279"


In the undercarriage of the tank, the designers used a four-track propulsion unit that provided the tank with extremely high maneuverability and precluded its landing on the bottom. But it turned out to be very difficult and time consuming to repair and maintain.

Comparing the data in time, it should be noted that the designers lost their interest in the creation of new heavy tanks both in the USA and in the USSR almost at the same time - at the turn of the 1960s, as if by some mutual agreement. But the British designers did not go for it, and all their tanks were heavier than both American and Western European machines. Considering that the mass of the tank can be increased to 60 t, they assumed that most bridges in the European TDV still have a load capacity of up to 20 t, therefore they are equally likely to fail under both the 50-ton and tank, while bridges with load-carrying capacity of 60 and 50 t are fairly uniformly distributed in Europe. It was noted that light and low, but at the same time possessing powerful armor and armament, Soviet tanks can perfectly fight on open plains. However, on the territory of Germany, which in the event of a new war, they would have to pass, they would be on the ground more suitable for infantry action, and their high mobility was no longer a trump card. That is why the choice of British engineers seemed more preferable to the British military. At the same time, it is easy to notice something else, namely that the technical solutions worked out by American engineers, such as: smooth-bore guns, combined cermet armor and installation of guided missiles on tanks, soon appeared in tanks designed in the USSR. But for some reason, the American military suddenly made much more traditional solutions, embodied for many years in the M60 tank.


American main tank M60AZ
Author:
59 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 5 October 2013 08: 16 New
    0
    We walked along the same rake. The tank must successfully fight and not show aerobatics.
    1. T-100
      T-100 5 October 2013 14: 45 New
      +2
      Our tanks are more beautiful and pleasing to the eye)))
  2. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 5 October 2013 08: 30 New
    22
    A very chaotic article ... Starting with the table of contents ... Having started reading it, I thought about the heavy BMP and the ways of its development. But it turned out that the article was about tanks ... Then what was the introduction about Ahzarit to?
  3. UVB
    UVB 5 October 2013 08: 34 New
    12
    Object 279 in the tank museum in Kubinka.
    1. bask
      bask 5 October 2013 09: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: UVB
      Object 279 in the tank museum in Kubinka.

      The tank, ahead of time, is so 50 years old.
      And the ideas of object 279, still return, at a new technological level.
    2. pinachet
      pinachet 6 October 2013 21: 01 New
      +1
      it is strange that this tank is not in the world of tanks.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 6 October 2013 22: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: pinachet
        it is strange that this tank is not in the world of tanks.

        There is nothing strange here. The faction of the USSR and Germany has wartime tanks, however, to preserve the balance for other countries, post-war tanks were brought into play.
      2. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 7 October 2013 14: 36 New
        0
        nothing strange considering
        Reserving the tank was unprecedented for all Soviet vehicles: the maximum thickness of the turret’s armor on it was 305 mm. Both the turret and the hull were not penetrated by Russian armor-piercing shells of 122 mm and 90 mm cumulative shells when fired from any distance and at any angle.

        How to defeat him wassat
  4. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 5 October 2013 10: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: bask
    The tank, ahead of time, is so 50 years old.
    And the ideas of object 279, still return, at a new technological level.

    Dead end in tank building. Extinct dinosaur. Nevertheless, the development of such ideas allows you to choose the right direction.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 5 October 2013 11: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Aristocrat
      Extinct dinosaur

      can it be more correct to say - an unborn monster?
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 5 October 2013 14: 45 New
        0
        And so and so it will be true.
  5. Dronza
    Dronza 5 October 2013 10: 51 New
    +5
    279 object.
    1. cumastra1
      cumastra1 5 October 2013 17: 58 New
      +1
      so here it is .... flying saucer ....
    2. wei
      wei 6 October 2013 19: 55 New
      0
      I have one impression that such a tank must certainly be floating laughing
      1. svp67
        svp67 6 October 2013 19: 56 New
        0
        Quote: wei
        that such a tank must certainly be floating
        ... and flying. belay
  6. APASUS
    APASUS 5 October 2013 12: 24 New
    +4
    The article is a little weirdly written, we started from one and ended up with another.
    Here's an option for upgrading the T-72, just for Israel and the combat conditions in the city
    1. Pamir210
      Pamir210 6 October 2013 11: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: APASUS
      upgrade option T-72, just for Israel

      the car in the photo is not related to Israel.
      this is Modern .. Slovakian modernization for its armed forces
      1. svp67
        svp67 6 October 2013 11: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Pamir210
        this is Modern .. Slovakian modernization for its armed forces
        Well, they offered it for export, but only with customers, as it were not lucky ...
        1. Pamir210
          Pamir210 6 October 2013 17: 06 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          Well, they offered it for export,

          what?
  7. washi
    washi 5 October 2013 13: 13 New
    +5
    Just look at the history of our tank building. Back in 1943 there was a tank project with a front engine compartment (Merkava). ALL modern tank building is the development of our and German tank building
    1. atalef
      atalef 5 October 2013 13: 19 New
      -7
      Quote: Vasya
      ALL modern tank building is the development of our and German tank building

      Why not Italian?
      The Renaissance tank, considered the main prototype of modern tanks, was to be built from wooden and metal parts. The mechanism by which the movement was carried out consisted of wheels, gears and handles. The tank was supposed to move through the muscular strength of the crew, presumably among eight people [1]. Guns should be located around the perimeter of the structure. An observation tower was to be built upstairs. The tank was supposed to be so high that stairs had to be installed inside.

      or then English?
      Finally, the first English model of the tank was ready in 1916, when it was tested, and the first order for 100 vehicles went into production. It was a Mark I tank - a rather imperfect fighting vehicle, produced in two versions - “male” (with cannon weapons in side sponsons) and “female” (only with machine-gun weapons).

      And the first truly successful T-34 tank had a chassis invented by American Christie.
      The chassis of the T-34 tank, made on the basis of the Christie system, had five pairs of large rollers with an interval between the second and third pairs. The suspension of each roller was independent and suspended perpendicular to the coil spring inside the housing. The drive sprocket was installed at the rear, which reduced vulnerability. The same system was used on BT series machines.
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 5 October 2013 14: 55 New
        +6
        And the first truly successful T-34 tank had a chassis invented by American Christie.

        You are confused with the wheeled-tracked chassis of the BT tank. The T-34 is a conceptually new tank that has nothing to do with the BT tank and especially Christie. The T-34 uses only a caterpillar propulsion engine, a diesel engine, and anti-ballistic armor. The only connection is the Kharkov plant that developed the BT and then the T-34. To say that the T-34 further development of the American machine is fundamentally wrong.
        1. rexby63
          rexby63 6 October 2013 15: 15 New
          +2
          I would argue with you. The suspension, both in the BT series and in the T-34 series, had a common “dad” - John Christie.
          1. Jager
            Jager 6 October 2013 22: 28 New
            +4
            Then we can say that the Formula 1 cars and Kulibin's “scooter” have common roots. The difference here is this. BT had the design of the Christie chassis, and the T-34 had the chassis CHRISTIAN SCHEME. The weight category of these machines is completely different, different and chassis design.
            In general, the T-34 was recognized by the UNSUCCESSFUL machine as the customer - the Red Army (oh, I feel, now the guano will fly into me from all sides). The T-34 was to be replaced in production by another T-34M machine by the fall of 41, having slightly more than significant differences with the "source".
            First of all, on the way. But the war prevented these plans.
            The article is chaotic and incomprehensible. What did the author want to tell her?
            1. mirag2
              mirag2 7 October 2013 06: 48 New
              0
              Although the article is chaotic, it mentions original designs.
            2. rexby63
              rexby63 7 October 2013 12: 36 New
              -1
              Then we can say that the Formula 1 cars and Kulibin's “scooter” have common roots.


              You already exaggerate this

              by the fall of the 41st


              Yah. A B-5 with a planetary gearbox did not. Having an example with B-2, how much it was "mocked", one can only guess how long the "minders" would mess with a 600-horsepower engine.

              First of all, on the way


              Running gear is already secondary, primary is crowding, blindness and transmission
          2. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 9 October 2013 11: 51 New
            0
            Do not confuse the suspension and chassis. Papa Carlo’s chassis from the states is wheel-tracked, the T-34 chassis is tracked. Copying technology was common, including ours. But you should not attribute the merits of Kharkiv to Americans. Not that case. You can’t even drag it by your ears.
            1. rexby63
              rexby63 9 October 2013 17: 47 New
              0
              Do not confuse the suspension and chassis


              I do not confuse. John Christie didn't invent the caterpillar chassis, it happened a little earlier, but the candle pendant is his. And all the tanks that used this type of suspension, BT and T-34, British Covenanter, Crusader, Jewish Merkava, they used Christie’s invention
              1. Aristocrat
                Aristocrat 10 October 2013 12: 29 New
                0
                Your logic is clear to me. Then why scold RossAvtoprom? We then drive in fact on foreign cars. After all, the American suspension is MAKFERSON:) The gasoline engine, like the diesel, is German (Gottlieb Daimler and Rudolph Diesel)

                If you talk like that, the T-34 is a Chinese tank! :)
                After all, his gun uses gunpowder invented by the Chinese in antiquity :)
                We will remember who else invented what else? :)
                Or just admit that it doesn’t matter who invented what when, is it important who designed (didn’t copy) a specific sample?
                1. rexby63
                  rexby63 10 October 2013 17: 40 New
                  0
                  Again you exaggerate. And as a result of our dispute, your last question is appropriate. Was Christie genius or not, but the main designer of the most famous tank is Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin and only he. And this is primary. And what contribution the American Christie, the Russian Gypsies and Morozov made to this tank - this is already secondary. Although the merits of Alexander Alexandrovich are a priori incomparably higher than the merits of John Walter (in relation to the T-34)
                  1. Aristocrat
                    Aristocrat 10 October 2013 20: 19 New
                    0
                    Koshkin is all just the main costructor. He is genius or his genius and simple constructors (or all taken together) are not so important. The important thing is that the malicious snouts of our Middle Eastern "friends" that they say the T-34 is an American tank can be translated from "Hebrew" as "you are not good for anything in Russia, and even your best tank is the merit of the Americans."
                    And the first truly successful T-34 tank had a chassis invented by American Christie.
        2. svp67
          svp67 6 October 2013 15: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: Aristocrat
          To say that the T-34 further development of the American machine is fundamentally wrong.
          But this is the truth of life ... Tank Christie, we have BT2 - BT5 - BT7 - BT7M - A20 - A32 - T34 The chain is like this, and T34 was created just like BT development ... even the constructor did not argue with this. But the T34M, had it been put into production, really would have been a development of "German influence" ...
          1. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 9 October 2013 14: 17 New
            0
            The chain is different. If you continue the chain, then the modern ukrainian OBT Oplot is a slightly modernized Christie tank? :) Only on the basis of the fact that at the dawn they used the Christie tank as the basis? The chain was just interrupted on the T-34. For the T-34 is not a continuation of BT-Christie. And an alternative project! Which was created contrary to Christie's (wheeled-tracked) scheme, beloved by our parquet generals.
      2. azilan
        azilan 5 October 2013 15: 09 New
        +1
        Hello! They wrote the same modern! Or would you just argue?
      3. washi
        washi 5 October 2013 19: 31 New
        +3
        Maybe we recall another "walk-the-field." By the way, the Russian invention against nomads.
      4. Setrac
        Setrac 6 October 2013 03: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: atalef
        Why not Italian?

        If American tanks were in iron, although in single copies, then your so-called "Renaissance tank" is just a drawing on paper without any scientific and technical justification. With the same success, a ten-year-old child drawing a starship can be called a designer of spaceships.
        Quote: atalef
        or then English?

        I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in 1915 an armored mobile combat device was created, developed by engineer Nikolai Lebedenko, and in the same year Britain made the decision to build tanks. Moreover, in the same 1915 the "All-Terrain Vehicle" by Porokhovshchikov was created.
      5. rexby63
        rexby63 6 October 2013 15: 09 New
        +3
        had a chassis invented by American Christie.


        Christie's pendant is far from being a “gut” in the T-34, and this was recognized by both our and not our designers. Long before the Aberdeen tests on the T-34, it was planned to deliver a torsion bar suspension that proved to be excellent, but the evacuation of almost the entire tank industry from west to east prevented a thirty-four with a softer ride
        1. postman
          postman 6 October 2013 23: 16 New
          0
          Quote: rexby63
          long before the Aberdeen tests on the T-34 planned to put a torsion bar suspension

          ?
          Yes?
          After all, it did not hurt to put on the KV-1! In spite of
          Quote: rexby63
          evacuation of almost the entire tank industry from west to east

          And AI were in early 1942, no one ever thought to put on the T-34 TP.

          T-43 - torsion bar suspension.
      6. denisey
        denisey 7 October 2013 00: 42 New
        0
        Quote: atalef

        And the first truly successful T-34 tank had a chassis invented by American Christie.

        No, the first tank was invented in Israel in 1916
    2. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 5 October 2013 14: 49 New
      +8
      And I somehow naively believed that the French ... Most MBT (overwhelming) is built on the classic French layout (front-control, medium-combat, rear MTO).
      Besides. Maybe not the "development of our and German tank building" but still the "school of tank building"?
    3. svp67
      svp67 6 October 2013 11: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      ALL modern tank building is the development of our and German tank building
      Well then, English and French ...
      Here is the most “classic”, more classical and you can’t imagine - FT17

      And here is the "English" "Whippet," why not the progenitor of "Merkava"

      And note, both tanks appeared much earlier than the Second World War lol
  8. lelikas
    lelikas 5 October 2013 13: 20 New
    +5
    Quote: Aristocrat
    A very chaotic article ... Starting with the table of contents ... Having started reading it, I thought about the heavy BMP and the ways of its development. But it turned out that the article was about tanks ... Then what was the introduction about Ahzarit to?

    Absolutely the same opinion.
  9. ran nearby
    ran nearby 5 October 2013 15: 58 New
    +2
    I wonder why all American tanks are so ugly?
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 5 October 2013 18: 01 New
      +2
      A nation that has grown out of the scum of European society cannot think of the high :)
      (I hope everyone remembers that America is populated by runaway criminals, sectarians, etc., who fled from Europe?)
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 5 October 2013 19: 01 New
        +4
        The only world superpower today cannot be formed from garbage. Bold adventurers populated America, and they fled not from something, but from wealth and a better share.
        But the tanks, although according to all the operational indicators of their time, corresponded - and indeed, the Abrams was the first to come out in the face.
        1. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 5 October 2013 22: 56 New
          +3
          Why can't it? In-in. I am talking about adventurers, sectarians, mushroves and other scum.
          Someone from something, who is behind easy prey. It's no secret that the law as such in the states did not exist. The most important law is the principle of Colt. Who has more Colt, sorry, who took out the Colt from the holster earlier and hollowed his head to his opponent and he won in a friendly discussion. Since then, in principle, nothing has changed. America has more Colt and America loves to take out a holster like a cowboy on a ranch or in a saloon. Dear Saddam, you're wrong! And blew smoke from the trunk. Assad you're wrong ... How it ends, we'll see.
          1. Apologet insane
            Apologet insane 6 October 2013 16: 01 New
            0
            Do you also belong to Cossacks?
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 6 October 2013 23: 36 New
              0
              Do you also belong to Cossacks?
              Are you me
              1. Apologet insane
                Apologet insane 7 October 2013 06: 46 New
                0
                Yes to you. The territory on which the Cossacks formed was also
                Quote: Aristocrat
                populated by runaway criminals, sectarians, etc., who fled from
                Russia.
                1. v.lyamkin
                  v.lyamkin 7 October 2013 10: 35 New
                  +1
                  The history of the appearance of the Cossacks and the states of America is similar only in appearance. But in fact, the difference is obvious. Firstly, the Cossacks were formed mainly from representatives related peoples already having a long and rich history. Secondly, the guests of America began by cutting out the hosts, which immediately left an imprint on the rest of the story. Cossacks settled in uninhabited border areas and mastered them. There are other significant differences, but this is no longer the topic of comment. So that Apologet insane in vain you reacted so much to Aristocrat's reasoning.
                  1. Apologet insane
                    Apologet insane 7 October 2013 12: 25 New
                    0
                    At first, no Indians were slaughtered. The real war unfolded due to the excessive belligerence of some tribes that used terrorist tactics to attack civilians, instead of openly confronting the army of colonists. And the Cossacks fought for territory with the Turkic peoples, exchanging mutual raids with them.
                2. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 9 October 2013 11: 34 New
                  0
                  What tells me that you are a Cossack and are waiting for the raids. And since they are not there, you are trying to provoke him :) I can’t say anything about the Cossacks because I’m poorly informed. I can only say that in the south it Edistvennoe force that is able to protect the people from the niggers t.v.a.r.ey.
        2. Jager
          Jager 6 October 2013 22: 31 New
          0
          And I like M-60 more. It does not have that depressing "heaviness" as in "Abrams".
          1. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 6 October 2013 23: 19 New
            -1
            And I like M-60 more. It does not have that depressing "heaviness" as in "Abrams".

            Your post is funny. Do you evaluate tanks exclusively from an aesthetic point of view?
            In addition to technical, I have an art education, in addition I am a photographer (including a “nude”;)), but still inclined to pay attention to the “inclination” of armor and other performance characteristics of MBT :)
      2. Pamir210
        Pamir210 6 October 2013 11: 01 New
        +1
        broadcasting funny))
        1. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 6 October 2013 12: 29 New
          +2
          It is a pity that my humor is full of sadness ...
      3. v.lyamkin
        v.lyamkin 7 October 2013 10: 25 New
        +1
        Why be offended by the truth, I support the Aristocrat about the history of the creation of modern states in America.
    2. Prapor-527
      Prapor-527 6 October 2013 20: 39 New
      +1
      They galloped ahead of those who had gone ahead, and it turned out somehow like that ...
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 October 2013 17: 25 New
    +1
    Lightly unsystematically written. But the illustrations are great. Did the artist perform watercolors and ink?
  11. samoletil18
    samoletil18 5 October 2013 22: 32 New
    +1
    Article about infantry fighting vehicles or tanks?
  12. svp67
    svp67 6 October 2013 09: 22 New
    +3
    You look at most American and English projects - some kind of "dream of reason"
  13. gusar007
    gusar007 7 October 2013 04: 13 New
    0
    A bit messy article