Military Review

Bundeswehr received the first tank Leopard 2A7

79
December 10, Germany hosted the transfer of the first production tank Leopard 2A7. Currently, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is fulfilling an order for the construction of 20 such armored vehicles. Most of the work on the order has already been completed. The transfer of the last tanks of the series should take place in the near future. It is expected that the implementation of the current and next orders will significantly increase the combat effectiveness of tank units.




The ceremony of handing over the first tank Leopard 2A7 was held at the Munich plant of the company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW). The car was personally received by the inspector general of the land forces, Lieutenant General Rainer Korf. The inspector general noted that the troops were more than satisfied with the new tank, and also called the day when the first vehicle of the new modification was handed over to be a good day for the army. So far, the Bundeswehr should receive only two dozen armored vehicles of the new model. In the future we plan to make new orders that will significantly increase the number of such equipment.

In the plans of the German Ministry of Defense there is a re-equipment of all existing Leopard 2A6 tanks before the modification of 2A7. It is noteworthy that the updated tanks now being transmitted are of precisely such "origin". The currently upgraded Leopard 2A7 tanks previously belonged to the 2A6NL modification built for the Netherlands. After the Netherlands abandoned tanks, part of the decommissioned "Leopards" was bought by Canada, which recently transferred several cars to Germany. The latest gear was compensation for Leopard 2A6AM tanks, previously owned by the German army and transferred to the Canadian military.

Due to the small number of upgraded tanks Leopard 2A7 is transferred only to one unit. The 20 tanks will be transferred to the 203 tank battalion deployed in Augsdorf. Currently, this unit has 44 tanks Leopard 2A6. In accordance with existing plans, in the future, this battalion, as well as other tank units of the Bundeswehr, must be fully transferred to tanks model 2A7.

The main tank Leopard 2A7 (also known as 2A7 +) was created to meet the requirements of modern armed conflicts. Local wars of recent decades have shown that for effective combat work in urban and other specific conditions, tanks should have a number of features that increase their level of protection and other basic characteristics. The Leopard 2A7 project was first introduced in 2010.

Upgraded tanks receive a set of new reservations, providing an increased level of protection against various weapons. Declared vserakurskaya protection against anti-tank grenades common models. The hull and the tower can be equipped with mounted additional booking elements, but the first shown instance of the Leopard 2A7 tank was not equipped with them during the transfer. On the bottom of the car it is proposed to install additional reservations to protect against mines and other explosive devices.

Tank new model saves 120-mm smoothbore gun Rheinmetall Rh 120 with barrel length 55 caliber. During the modernization of the gun gets a full set of electric drives. The latest sub-caliber Rheinmetall DM63 APFSDS-T and programmable high-explosive fragmentation Rheinmetall DM11 are included in the ammunition. Such an upgrade of ammunition, as expected, should expand the capabilities of the tank to destroy armored vehicles or other targets.

Additional armament of the tank Leopard 2A7 consists of one coaxial machine gun caliber 7,62 mm. Earlier it was claimed that the project "2A7" implies the use of a remotely controlled combat module KMW FLW 200, equipped with an 12,7-mm machine gun M2HB. This combat module is designed to monitor the situation near the tank and the destruction of infantry or enemy light equipment approaching it and posing a threat. Nevertheless, for financial reasons, the upgraded tanks have not yet received a combat module. Perhaps these units will be installed later.

An interesting innovation is the auxiliary power unit. This unit is designed to provide energy to all systems of the tank when the main engine is off, which reduces fuel consumption and the overall cost of operating vehicles.

For greater convenience of the crew and to improve the performance of combat missions, the Leopard 2A7 tank is equipped with an upgraded driver's hatch with new surveillance systems, as well as new air conditioning and a number of other equipment. The commander and gunner of the tank have modern sighting equipment, the design of which uses third-generation thermal imagers. It was originally claimed that the commander’s workplace is equipped with a stabilized panoramic sight with a laser range finder, a video camera and an Airbus Defense and Space PERI-17A3 thermal imager. Nevertheless, according to some sources, tanks recently refitted received panoramic sights of a different model. These are older PERI-17A2, equipped with new thermal imagers.

Now KMW is completing the first order for the supply of 20 retrofit tanks. In the future, the German Defense Ministry plans to modernize the entire existing fleet of Leopard 2A6 tanks. The German armed forces in total have approximately 2,3 thousand tanks "Leopard-2" of all modifications. According to the directory The Military Balance 2013, in the German tank units there are 322 tanks of the machine Leopard 2A6. According to more recent German media reports, the number of such equipment is about a hundred less.

Exact volumes and terms of modernization of the existing equipment have not yet been announced. Probably, the army will receive only a few dozen “Leopards” in the 2A7 variant, while other tanks will remain in their current form. The exact number of repaired and upgraded armored vehicles will be determined taking into account the existing financial possibilities. Re-equipment of the entire fleet of Leopard 2A6 tanks may be too expensive for the German armed forces.





On the materials of the sites:
http://kmweg.com/
http://janes.com/
http://militaryparitet.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Fedya
    Fedya 16 December 2014 06: 48 New
    26
    It is noteworthy that the updated tanks that are being transferred are of precisely this “origin.” The currently upgraded Leopard 2A7 tanks previously belonged to the 2A6NL modification being built for the Netherlands. After the Netherlands abandoned the tanks, part of the decommissioned Leopards was bought by Canada, which recently transferred several cars to Germany.
    Leopard cycle in nature! Or the return of the prodigal sons.
    1. jjj
      jjj 16 December 2014 12: 12 New
      +7
      This moment also puzzled me somehow. The principle "You - me, I - you" is somehow not quite suitable in strengthening the defense capability. But the West has its own dispositions. And if the new tank is a modernization of the mechanic's hatch and hinged armor, then it seems that the defense of Germany is also very interesting. And I forgot - they have Frau in command of the troops. Visage and new accessories to be in trend
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 16 December 2014 16: 42 New
        +3
        Party of 20 tanks. belay It's like talking about airplanes. And dear probably, judging by the party. Either support the manufacturer, or there was some kind of backlog in the cases and components. I don’t understand otherwise.
        They will probably order tanks soon, like RF planes. laughing
  2. MAIGOR
    MAIGOR 16 December 2014 07: 04 New
    33
    To beat on it from something like RPG-28. I'd like to see the result. soldier
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 16 December 2014 07: 30 New
      +2
      What kind of sportsman you are))) I remember one Bedouin Apache from his grandfather’s cryvodulka stuck in the sand))) so beat the shaitan cart exclusively with bottles, otherwise they will be accused of unsportsmanlike behavior.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 17 December 2014 03: 55 New
        +1
        That Apache sat down on a forced one because of malfunctions, and Iraqi propaganda made an absurd story about his being shot down from a gun.
    2. corporal
      corporal 16 December 2014 10: 34 New
      +3
      You can certainly beat, but how much they will beat our dishes ....
      1. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 16 December 2014 11: 10 New
        +6
        Quote: Corporal
        You can certainly beat, but how much they will beat our dishes ....


        In order not to be ingested there is, for example, a cornet :)
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 16 December 2014 17: 44 New
          +5
          And it’s better not to stand on ceremony and not to be sentimental, but just to just pull than the more powerful with the Su-25. A very offensive effect will turn out - all such a modern and ultranovy tank was dismantled from a rather ancient Grach.
          1. Dimka off
            Dimka off 17 December 2014 12: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Basarev
            pulnut more powerful with the Su-25.

            For example X-25. The tank will not stand 100% laughing
        2. corporal
          corporal 16 December 2014 20: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          In order not to be ingested there is, for example, a cornet :)

          But they have Toe, Javelin, and of course Bill2 for this occasion.
          So here it is necessary to think whose vluplyalka is cooler.
          If you honestly, we must admit that we are slightly behind.
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 17 December 2014 06: 30 New
            0
            It is difficult to judge this until they showed Armata.
            1. different
              different 17 February 2015 23: 22 New
              0
              until the armature was shown it is not at all, I don’t understand why they are comparing the current innovation equipment with what is not at all?
            2. different
              different 17 February 2015 23: 22 New
              0
              until the armature was shown it is not at all, I don’t understand why they are comparing the current innovation equipment with what is not at all?
  3. PSih2097
    PSih2097 16 December 2014 07: 07 New
    +6
    that the tower in the first photo (Leopard 2A7 MBT Revolution) is different from the bottom ones, which are just 2A7 ...
    1. gjv
      gjv 16 December 2014 11: 03 New
      +5
      Quote: PSih2097
      that the tower in the first photo (Leopard 2A7 MBT Revolution) is different from the lower ones, which are just 2A7

      The lower ones seem to be modifications 2A6. Although you can still look for differences. Here's a photo of the tank that Krauss-Maffei Wegmann demonstrated at the Eurosatory as the Leopard 2010A2 + in 7.
      1. predator.3
        predator.3 16 December 2014 14: 53 New
        13
        our answer to cherberlen ?! what
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 16 December 2014 18: 33 New
          11
          unfortunately only the alleged (fingers sky) 3D model of "armata". But I agree that it is sooo beautifully drawn.
        2. walter von berg
          walter von berg 19 December 2014 17: 13 New
          0
          shitty then our answer came out
        3. Am
          Am 22 December 2014 00: 08 New
          +1
          as the parade will show, so will be the answer laughing otherwise the picture is certainly beautiful wink
  4. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 16 December 2014 07: 30 New
    15
    Today is one of the best tanks, we are waiting for Armata ...
    1. Zigmars
      Zigmars 16 December 2014 08: 39 New
      14
      The current rivals of “Armata” are really tough nuts. Leclerc, Merkava Mk.4, now this unit ... A difficult task is facing our designers - and I really hope that we will not lose face. But still, to be honest, there are certain doubts - especially with regard to the LMS and electronic filling, devices. It's no secret that in these things we traditionally lag behind Western competitors.
      "Armata" is being created as a fundamentally new tank, a tank of a new generation - which means that not only the layout of the tank should be new - as declared by the designers. Fundamentally new solutions should relate to practically everything: not only the cardinal improvement of the "old" units, but also what “new” units will be introduced into its design. For example, the idea of ​​the Germans to place an auxiliary electric motor in their Leopard 2A7 is, in my opinion, a very interesting solution. And the question immediately arises: will there be something like that in the "Armata"?) Finally, the most important thing: what will the new tank be like in battle, what will be its effectiveness, how great will it have chances to emerge from the battle as a winner? ..
      There is not much to wait, and soon we will all see. The fifth generation T-50 falcon has almost settled in the sky, and the deadly Boreas and Yaseni have recently begun to carry out an intense military watch in the seas. Hopefully this time we will succeed.
      1. karelia-molot
        karelia-molot 16 December 2014 10: 13 New
        +5
        Our APU mastered another BMPT-90. The thing is useful, but nothing revolutionary. And the best car will be the one that is better balanced, one way or another. IMHO.
        1. uwzek
          uwzek 16 December 2014 16: 14 New
          +1
          Much earlier. On all commander tanks, additional diesel is used regularly, it is mainly used for quiet powering of the HF radio station. By the way, for Iraq they are making T-90s with installed APUs. The design has long been developed ...
      2. tan0472
        tan0472 16 December 2014 13: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Zigmars
        For example, the idea of ​​the Germans to place an auxiliary electric motor in their Leopard 2A7 is, in my opinion, a very interesting solution. And the question immediately arises: will there be something like that in "Armata"?)

        Why not? Attach a mounted diesel generator (can be behind the tower). He will provide the work of electronics and heating the tank. And if it is also made removable, the crew will be able to provide themselves with comfort even in the field.
      3. REZMovec
        REZMovec 16 December 2014 15: 54 New
        +2
        Where are you helper electric motor did you see? The auxiliary power unit is a diesel generator. Sense of an electric motor? Where to get electricity in the field? To look for power lines and to throw wires ???
      4. Lukov
        Lukov 16 December 2014 20: 15 New
        +1
        Well I do not know. Donald Cook with all his electronics has already been eaten by our "lagging" khibins.
      5. Dimka off
        Dimka off 17 December 2014 12: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Zigmars
        Leclerc

        Is this a tough nut?) Leopard, yes. And the Frenchman is unlikely)
        1. Serzh73
          Serzh73 18 December 2014 17: 11 New
          +2
          Is this a tough nut?) Leopard, yes. And the Frenchman is unlikely) [/ quote]
      6. Am
        Am 22 December 2014 00: 09 New
        +1
        “Armata” rivals? And where is “Armata” then? laughing
  5. zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 16 December 2014 07: 37 New
    +6
    I wonder how much the mass of the tank increased with all the pribluds and reinforcements? Or the Germans won't let Hitler's laurels with the "mouse" calm down. So you look, and not one bridge can withstand it.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 16 December 2014 08: 41 New
      +4
      Quote: zadorin1974
      So you look and not one bridge can stand it.

      Well, yes, there are "gayropeans" there, they don't think about bridges ...
    2. Zigmars
      Zigmars 16 December 2014 08: 57 New
      +7
      according to reports, the mass can reach 70 tons
      http://lenta.ru/news/2010/06/28/leopard/
    3. dumkopff
      dumkopff 16 December 2014 11: 11 New
      10
      It seems to me that everything depends on the concept of application and on the features of the theater.
      Like a tank for a big, classic war, i.e. equal rival, massive use of technology, operations on open spaces of thousands of kilometers - not the thing. He is good, very good. But it’s only expensive, it’s complicated, and probably also requires competent, well-trained specialists during operation, mobility is low. For the railway platform, 70 tons is the limit. If it gets out of this framework, then all - goodbye railway transport. Moreover, for sure, during transportation you will have to remove screens. They seem to add 30-35 centimeters on each side. And he has his own width - exactly fit into the railway platform. And these dismantling assemblies, I suspect, consume a lot of strength and nerves. In extreme cases, it will fit into the global master or Galaxy in the amount of 1, but the starlifter is no longer available (you can transport the T-72 to the IL-76). True, it is very likely that they will have to be understaffed.
      But for warfare of low intensity - that’s it. Savages punish there, or conduct a peacekeeping mission. The crew is protected, it’s convenient to ride, a lot of tanks aren’t needed, repairmen and other nishtyaks are always nearby, logistics is established.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 17 December 2014 19: 16 New
        0
        [quote = dumkopff] It seems to me that everything depends on the application concept and on the features of the theater.
        That is true. I think no one will say that the Germans are stupid and creating their own (excellent!) Tank do not understand anything in military affairs?
  6. Crang
    Crang 16 December 2014 07: 50 New
    +6
    Especially the sight pleases. He campaign conditionally periscopic. Installed directly in the frontal plate of the tank turret.
    1. Doznanied
      Doznanied 16 December 2014 08: 03 New
      +5
      Part of the frontal projection of the tank tower, protected by an energy screen. wink wink wink
    2. Kars
      Kars 16 December 2014 14: 07 New
      +4
      Quote: Krang
      Installed directly in the frontal plate of the tank turret.

      In the title photo, the upgraded A4.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 December 2014 19: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      Especially the sight pleases. He campaign conditionally periscopic. Installed directly in the frontal plate of the tank turret.

      The sight is sufficiently protected from damaging elements and blast wave. Pay attention to how it is buried between the elements of the armor. Damage is possible only with direct fire. And it is striking that some confidence of people not far away is that there are not experienced design engineers who repeatedly tested their designs at the training grounds, but stupid suckers! Such an attitude towards a potential adversary has never brought to good.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 December 2014 08: 53 New
    -1
    In battle, such a "wunderwaffe" is unlikely to meet. The Germans are true to themselves. At one time, having created a very good tank "Tiger", a dangerous enemy for any of our tanks, they did not think that it is better to have ten good tanks than one excellent one. There are about 800 tanks in Germany now. At this rate of modernization, in a few years they will have 4 hundred very good tanks. So who are they going to scare?
    1. Crang
      Crang 16 December 2014 09: 11 New
      +4
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      . At this pace of modernization, in a few years they will have 4 hundred very good tanks. Well, and who do they scare?

      And we think by this time there will be tens of thousands of T-14s right? Even the T-90 and T-90A tanks we now have no more than 600. But the release of the T-90 began in 1992. 24 years ago.
    2. vomag
      vomag 16 December 2014 09: 47 New
      +4
      didn’t think it’s better to have ten good tanks than one excellentVery thought! therefore, they had grooves, and 3-4 types of PTs, and panthers + very cool optics (tigers were used as a battering ram in the breakout area) then they threw them where they didn’t get, so to speak, closed their gaps ....
    3. exiv200gt
      exiv200gt 16 December 2014 10: 11 New
      +5
      There are about 800 tanks in Germany now. At this rate of modernization, in a few years they will have 4 hundred very good tanks. Well, and who do they scare?

      You just do not forget that in case of war, Germany = NATO, and this is a completely different number of tanks. Here it will not be easy for us, so now we are trying at a furious pace to build up the army.
  8. Crang
    Crang 16 December 2014 08: 54 New
    +3
    One thing is good in this tank - the side is very powerfully protected. Not a couple of ours with their frail, detached rubber screens.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 December 2014 09: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      One thing is good in this tank - the side is very powerfully protected. Not a couple of ours with their frail, detached rubber screens.


      That's how it is. Just do not forget that a machine that has grown in width will be much more difficult to control when fighting in the conditions of us.points, as well as to repair or replace the track, track or support rollers if the chassis is damaged in battle.
      It must be remembered that a stationary tank on the battlefield is an excellent target.
      So what about "good", maybe you shouldn't rush?
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 16 December 2014 10: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      One thing is good in this tank - the side is very powerfully protected. Not a couple of ours with their frail, detached rubber screens.

      Remember the statements of Ukrainian tank lovers about the correct attachment of side screens on their tanks. As practice has shown, even "correct" fasteners usually live up to the first meeting with any more or less capital structure. The same, most likely, is the case with Lyopa.
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 December 2014 14: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        practice even the "correct" mounts usually live up to the first meeting with l

        these are tankers' problems, they want to live longer let them drive more carefully.
        Here is a good board
        1. Crang
          Crang 16 December 2014 14: 38 New
          +1
          This bullshit is complete. It comes off instantly.
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2014 14: 41 New
            +3
            Quote: Krang
            This bullshit is complete. It comes off instantly.

            Skazachnik.Look and cry the only side with protection from tandem anti-tank ammunition. And so give the fool a diamond forge he will break it or lose it)))
  9. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 16 December 2014 09: 27 New
    +2
    Most likely, the appearance of such a modification "Leo" suggests that this tank was created for individual assault formations / subunits and will be the standard equipment of this class, in their composition.
    And the rest and previous modifications will be enough.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 December 2014 09: 27 New
    +7
    He overtook Merkava-4 in weight.
    The new Leopard reaches 70 tons,
    against 65 Merkava.
    1. vomag
      vomag 16 December 2014 09: 58 New
      +4
      If this is so 70t, then they will face the same problems as in the 2nd world war with Ferdinand (of course it would be nice to look at the declared Specific Ground Pressure), but I’m sure the problems will be the same ...
    2. bmv04636
      bmv04636 16 December 2014 11: 34 New
      0
      and according to the wiki Merkava Mk.4M weighs the same 70 tons
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 December 2014 14: 04 New
        +7
        I also think that a four weighs at least 70 tons. To know better the characteristics of the passive armor modules. And so the 4 Carrot for me is a white elephant, it constantly slips. In anticipation of the hryvnia’s fall, so that the money doesn’t disappear, it takes a triple, it’s tempting to do this))))
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 16 December 2014 15: 52 New
          +5
          In the last operation in Gaza did not lose a single
          tank and TBTR. Militants didn’t shoot from RPG-7, as usual
          (they were disappointed in him), but from the ATGM. KAZ successfully worked several times
          "Windbreaker", although they fired rockets almost point-blank.

          There were pictures of metal-ceramic modules broken in battle on the network.
          In thickness, they are 20-25 cm, the composition is not disclosed, of course.
          By weight, they are somewhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the steel armor of the same
          equivalent to armor resistance.
        2. Tuesday
          Tuesday 17 December 2014 19: 26 New
          0
          Yes, handsome. It is interesting to see what happens.
  11. Crang
    Crang 16 December 2014 09: 33 New
    +8
    Quote: wanderer_032
    Just do not forget that a machine that has expanded in width will be much more difficult to control when conducting a battle in the conditions of us.

    With what? Same. On the contrary, fighting in the city will be much safer. This in the field you can still turn your forehead to the enemy. The city is not a fact that you will succeed.
    Quote: wanderer_032
    as well as repair or replace the track, track or support rollers in the event of damage to the undercarriage in battle.

    Yes, much harder. But if this armor is not there and the cumulative rocket breaks the board - then nothing will need to be repaired at all. There will be charred scrap metal with firebrands inside.
    Quote: wanderer_032
    It must be remembered that a stationary tank on the battlefield is an excellent target.

    There is much more chance of becoming "immobile" without proper on-board protection.
    Quote: wanderer_032
    So what about "good", maybe you shouldn't rush?

    It was necessary to rush with this good YESTERDAY.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 December 2014 09: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      With what?


      In the heat of battle, changing position you can easily break off any screens about obstacles, including and such.
      A view from the inside of the tank is significantly limited. Especially for mechanical water.

      Quote: Krang
      There is much more chance of becoming "immobile" without proper on-board protection.


      To become motionless, it is possible with such screens. For example, when hitting a serious obstacle that will entail a break in the track, either on a mine or IED.
      So screens are not an absolute medium of all problems.
      1. Crang
        Crang 16 December 2014 10: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: wanderer_032
        In the heat of battle, changing position you can easily break off any screens about obstacles, including and such.

        It is not true. Show me at least one photo of the same "Abrams" with the screens torn off. You will not find one. Powerful, armored screens will easily take down any obstacle. Including the brick wall of the house. But our tanks tear their frail rubber screens in the first battle, or even before the battle - on the march. About any, the slightest obstacle.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        You can become motionless, and with such screens

        Can. But more likely to become motionless without screens.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        So screens are not an absolute medium of all problems.

        Screens are a very powerful reinforcement to airborne protection, which they strengthen at times. In comparison with a simple monolithic board.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 December 2014 10: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Krang
          Screens are a very powerful reinforcement to airborne protection, which they strengthen at times. In comparison with a simple monolithic board.












          Enough, or else show?
          1. Crang
            Crang 16 December 2014 11: 02 New
            +5
            Quote: wanderer_032
            Enough, or else show?

            What did you show me then? Destroyed NATO armored vehicles or what? So what does it mean? Any tank can be destroyed without a doubt. This means that you can no longer work on their characteristics, right? Ours burn in the same way. But what is characteristic - even on the "Abrams" turned into scrap metal, the side screens are usually intact. What were you arguing with me about?
            Quote: wanderer_032
            In the heat of battle, changing position you can easily break off any screens about obstacles, including and such.

            What is it - they are all so "about obstacles" or something exploded. Or did you deliberately misunderstand me? Again.
            Quote: Krang
            Show me at least one photo of the same "Abrams" with the screens torn off.

            For those who are especially "smart", I will clarify. Show me at least one photo of a working Abrams with a side screen torn off "on an obstacle"?
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 16 December 2014 11: 32 New
              +4
              Quote: Krang
              But what is characteristic - even on the "Abrams" turned into scrap metal, the side screens are usually intact. What were you arguing with me about?


              Screens are a very powerful reinforcement to airborne protection, which they strengthen at times. In comparison with a simple monolithic board.

              Your words? So here's one last thing for you.












              1. Crang
                Crang 16 December 2014 11: 49 New
                +2
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Your words? So here's one last thing for you.

                Yes mine. Are these yours?
                Quote: wanderer_032
                In the heat of battle, changing position you can easily break off any screens about obstacles, including and such.

                Once again, I urge you to bring me a photo active, workingabout Abrams with a screen torn off an obstaclebut NOT as a result of shells or missiles.
              2. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 16 December 2014 12: 05 New
                +2
                And the fact that there is no photo of "Abrashek" with torn off screens in street battles ...
                So the campaign "democratizers of the whole world" did not even reach this level, they were burned even on the outskirts, or on the approaches.
                Or they clung to the houses very quickly, they were afraid to get a "fiery cocktail" from the nearest window.
                From all this, one can evaluate the battle tactics used by the "democratizers of the whole world".
                In street battles, they tried not to climb.
                1. Crang
                  Crang 16 December 2014 12: 54 New
                  -1
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  And the fact that there is no photo of "Abrashek" with torn off screens in street battles ...
                  So the campaign "democratizers of the whole world" did not even reach this level,

                  This is nothing more than an excuse. They got to street fights. And they burned them there many times. And they clung to the walls.
              3. SARANCHA1976
                SARANCHA1976 16 December 2014 14: 04 New
                +2
                Well, and what has been shown here ... M1A2 with ordinary metal sheets, a little better than 72chnoy our rubber already last century. Now all the abrams in Iraq are equipped with SEP with the same multi-layer side screens. Old versions of the Iraqi army only were passed on to them by the Americans. Yes, and most of the photos above cars destroyed by bombings. I read komenty, people really having an idea about tanks, their combat use of unity. It seems that knowledge is taken from World of Tanks
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 16 December 2014 14: 38 New
                  0
                  Quote: SARANCHA1976
                  Well, what has it shown ...


                  And you look at the "Bradley" with enhanced protection, SEP on "Abrams" is practically the same.





          2. Dimon-chik-79
            Dimon-chik-79 16 December 2014 11: 04 New
            +3
            Please show me the cases when the screens save the cars and, most importantly, the crew from death, because there are much more such cases. Just for obvious reasons, there are more pictures of destroyed equipment in the "network"
          3. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 16 December 2014 11: 21 New
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            It is not true


            It's true. A brick fence may still have screens and remain.
            But monolithic reinforced concrete, bearing walls of high-rise buildings, etc. such screens will not stand. Fly off at a time, along with the attachment points.
            The side screens of our 72s, 80s and 90s have the disadvantage that the mounting loops are weak. Rubber on them is used not simple, but reinforced.
            You just need to strengthen the fixing loops and "tiles" with the KDZ hang so much that they cover the sides along the MTO.
            You can also make the sides of the armored hull using combined armor containing composite materials.
            Or make hinged containers containing composite armor and fasten them with the help of bonoks, directly on the sides of the armored hull.
            Plazmorez for cutting metal to help. Now there are laser installations for metal cutting. Cut what you want and how you want.
            And leave the outer screen flexible, reinforcing its fasteners. KDZ is also desirable to leave.
            The machine will get heavier of course, but such a design will be more reliable than one massive and heavy screen.
            1. Crang
              Crang 16 December 2014 11: 34 New
              +4
              Quote: wanderer_032
              A brick fence may still have screens and remain.
              But monolithic reinforced concrete, bearing walls of high-rise buildings, etc. such screens will not stand. Fly off at a time, along with the attachment points.

              And the monolithic reinforced concrete will be demolished. Armor steel is much stronger than concrete.
              Quote: wanderer_032
              Rubber on them is used not simple, but reinforced.

              This does not change anything. Though metal do. But if they are from tin St.3 1 mm thick they will still be torn, bent and demolished.
              Quote: wanderer_032
              You can also make the sides of the armored hull using combined armor containing composite materials.
              Or make hinged containers containing composite armor and fasten them with the help of bonoks, directly on the sides of the armored hull.

              WHAT FOR? Here the whole point is in spaced out armor. Which is much stronger monolithic.
              Quote: wanderer_032
              And leave the outer screen flexible, reinforcing its fasteners.

              All this is garbage. Tear off anyway.
              1. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 16 December 2014 12: 34 New
                +4
                Quote: Krang
                And the monolithic reinforced concrete will be demolished. Armor steel is much stronger than concrete.


                Who are you by profession, if not secret? What so boldly declare about such things.
                Have you ever dealt with such materials at all?

                Quote: Krang
                But if they are from tin St.3 1 mm thick they will still be torn, bent and demolished.


                Which article 3? Do you even think that you are a city?
                Reinforced rubber is made using a completely different technology.
                It is based on a metal or polymer cord, then this cord is welded with rubber of a special composition, which has increased strength.
                The output is sheets or tapes made of a material that can withstand very strong tensile loads.

                If you are round "Vasya" in such things, then do not write such nonsense anymore.

                Quote: Krang
                WHAT FOR?


                And then, to cover the weakened affected areas of the armored corps, without increasing the external dimensions of the tank.

                Quote: Krang
                Here the whole point is in spaced out armor. Which is much stronger monolithic.


                You are talking nonsense again. Do you even understand what the terms "spaced armor" and "monolithic armor" mean?

                Quote: Krang
                All this is garbage. Tear off anyway.


                Horse bullshit. According to your "scribbles" it is clear that the "techie" of you, to say the least, is not important.
                You probably only see pictures in the computer.
                1. Crang
                  Crang 16 December 2014 13: 32 New
                  +3
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  Who are you by profession, if not secret? What so boldly declare about such things.

                  I personally saw how the T-72AV backing away from the enemy in reverse crumbled and demolished the reinforced concrete column of the slab high-rise building with the edge of the drive sprocket and caterpillar. And with such ease that I did not even notice. The screen naturally tore off.
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  Which article 3?

                  Standard steel Art. 3. The cheapest is the same, but it does not differ in strength.
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  It is based on a metal or polymer cord, then this cord is welded with rubber of a special composition, which has increased strength.
                  The output is sheets or tapes made of a material that can withstand very strong tensile loads.

                  Anyway, this is complete crap.
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  And then, to cover the weakened affected areas of the armored corps, without increasing the external dimensions of the tank.

                  A composite screen with a thickness of 50-70mm will not greatly increase the external dimensions. Curved rubber-fabric screens, grilles, all kinds of hinged VDZ panels on hinges - this increases the dimensions even more.
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  You are talking nonsense again. Do you even understand what the terms "spaced armor" and "monolithic armor" mean?

                  I understand perfectly. And you do not seem to. Offers to mount DZ directly on the 80mm side of the tank. And leave the screen rubber. This bullshit is complete. No one does that.
                  1. wanderer_032
                    wanderer_032 16 December 2014 14: 31 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Krang
                    Offers to mount DZ directly on the 80mm side of the tank.


                    Perhaps you did not quite understand what I was talking about, I will try to explain in more detail.
                    I didn’t offer DZ to be mounted on the sides, but panels made of composite materials, in those areas where the track rollers do not cover the side armor of the armored corps. Those. This is an additional armor panel made of composite materials.

                    Or change the technology for the production of armored hulls immediately at the factory, making side armor with composite filler, i.e. about the same as on the tower.
                    Technically, this is possible.
                2. uwzek
                  uwzek 16 December 2014 17: 05 New
                  +4
                  In vain you run into a person. Of course, not a rubber screen breaks, but the shelf itself, which is not rubber, but just tin. They (shelves) also rot beautifully ...
                  And the screens on the shelves of the tank just serve as a diversity booking.
                  Tanks (I personally) did not just see them, I see them every single day. On the "fittings" the shelves of a different design. More modern shelves can be placed on our other tanks, but the one who pays the money calls the tune ...
            2. uwzek
              uwzek 16 December 2014 16: 48 New
              +2
              Our screens do not hang on hinges, but are screwed to the nipple shelves with M8 bolts (about a dozen on the screen). It's about rubber shields. Dynamic protection plates hang on very durable hinges.
              It makes no sense to screw additional armor on the sides - the idea of ​​screens is to use the width of the tracks in an effective reservation, and so your track will increase.
              More advanced screens have long been developed, they just do not order. By the way, the Iraqi T-90s I mentioned will have reinforced regiments with a different shielding scheme ...
          4. Mairos
            Mairos 16 December 2014 13: 31 New
            0
            So what? What do these photos prove?
          5. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2014 14: 00 New
            +2
            Quote: wanderer_032
            Enough, or else show?

            2 and 3 photos, this is a fire in 1990 at the Camp Doha base, not military losses.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 16 December 2014 14: 48 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              2 and 3 photos, this is a fire in 1990 at the Camp Doha base, not military losses.


              What did he come from, don’t you know, by chance?



              And which ones are these?
              1. Kars
                Kars 16 December 2014 16: 06 New
                +6
                Quote: wanderer_032
                What did he come from, don’t you know, by chance?

                Mac Kane ran through.
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 16 December 2014 16: 29 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  Mac Kane ran through.


                  Credit laughing
          6. Kassandra
            Kassandra 18 December 2014 21: 52 New
            0
            it's all the victims of smoking in a car shot several times from different sides
            the can of pepsikola left by the driver while he came out, too, was patched up and returned to duty.
  12. Tanks
    Tanks 16 December 2014 09: 34 New
    +4
    Dangerous tank. I hope this is an overcoming barrier for chrysanthemums. The nearest neighbors of the Poles have a spike. The French have a javelin. So let them drive the Mujahideen away from our borders.
    1. Crang
      Crang 16 December 2014 09: 45 New
      -2
      Ours is better. The current side screens are replaced by more powerful, composite ones.
      1. wk
        wk 16 December 2014 11: 06 New
        -2
        Quote: Krang
        Ours is better.

        and in more detail? than? characteristics? or maybe a real experience of application .... about all "ours" including the Ukrainian ones, we can say that they have a very graceful tower on t 64 in Donbas and t 72 in Syria ... this is thanks to the cap charge exactly in a circle placed in a stupid loader ... imagine the situation: the blank got into the tank, its energy was not enough to knock out and destroy, but it was enough for the molten metal to splash on the cap charges ... the crew dies, the tower performs a dizzying somersault ... and when in the presence of a unitary charge, the tank could remain in service ... a similar thing can happen from a cumulative jet ... and the failure of the loader from dynamic action? and the engine? which does not stand up to criticism .. the lack of a steering wheel, an autonomous power source, an air conditioner, (jokes about a dry closet are not accepted!) try to sit inside the hot armor for at least twenty minutes ... among other things, I believe that the quality of the armor of a German tank is higher ... remembering tank biathlon and the disgusting shooting of t 72 (here the human factor does not flow, since the best of the best are attracted), you can think about the weapon. facts are stubborn things.
        1. Crang
          Crang 16 December 2014 11: 47 New
          +7
          Quote: wk
          what about the engine? which does not stand up to criticism ..

          Whose critics? The engine is excellent. Even the 840-strong. High-torque and powerful. Everyone is talking. And the Syrian tankers too.
          Quote: wk
          that they have a very graceful tower flies off at t 64 in Donbas and at t 72 in Syria ....

          Mostly at the T-64. The T-72 is rare. This is called - no need to load non-mechanized ammunition stowage "at school" in positional battles. Leave only AZ and you will be safe (he is under the polic).
          Quote: wk
          and in more detail? than? characteristics?

          Our frontal armor is more powerful, mobility is better, gun is better, there is URO, there is AZ. Although there are disadvantages.
          Quote: wk
          lack of helm

          I don’t remember that anyone would have special problems with this.
          Quote: wk
          autonomous energy source,

          There is a small removable. You can easily put on the T-72 or T-90. True, he is not protected.
          Quote: wk
          air conditioner

          In our strip, he is not particularly needed. Likewise, on most western tanks there is no kondeya. And so - on the T-90S and T-90SM there is a standard condo.
          Quote: wk
          among other things, I believe that the quality of the armor of a German tank is higher ....

          WHO SAID? Bullshit. Armor protection is traditionally a strong point of the national tank school.
          Quote: wk
          remembering tank biathlon and disgusting shooting t 72

          Not so disgusting. So the Chinese did not shoot perfectly. I don’t think that firing NATO-manufactured serial tanks with mileage and ordinary soldiers inside (and not factory engineers) would be much better. How much they were offered to take part in the competition. They stubbornly refuse. Why? There must be a reason. Apparently not everything is so perfect.
          1. wk
            wk 16 December 2014 12: 32 New
            -8
            in general, you did not convince me ... if by shooting, then in the 14th year, machines with a different gun that weren’t on mass vehicles were specially made for the TB, and in the 13th year the shooting was disgusting and again, there were not ordinary soldiers, but the best of the best (some of the crew are officers) ... in the summer due to solar radiation, the armor is heated even in cloudy weather ... there are no special problems without the helm, but it’s better with it ... like with the automatic gearbox, about powerful armor we need laboratory and polygon comparative tests ... mobility is better for any NATO tank, a competitor with them only t 80, which by the efforts of lobbyists with UVZ removed from service ... he has a better gun and suspension softer, and therefore firing accuracy on the go ... AZ is more of a disadvantage than an advantage ... engine successor t -34 purchased in the USA in the late 30s finally outlived itself at the turn of 750 hp and all of its further modernization went sideways on its reliability ... the latter seem to have 1150 hp, and so they exist nominally at the time of start-up, and then the engine overheats and loses up to 40% of power ... google article where t 90 is compared with t 80UD ... and the Syrian tankers simply have nothing to compare.
            1. Crang
              Crang 16 December 2014 13: 12 New
              +4
              Quote: wk
              in general, you did not convince me ... if by shooting, then in the 14th year, machines with a different weapon, which are not available on mass vehicles, were specially made for heavy vehicles,

              This is not because of the gun, but because of failures in the work of the LMS, which, moreover, many did not fully use (for speed).
              Quote: wk
              and the best of the best (some of the crew are officers) ...

              But not ours, but all sorts of chocks there and Asians. Our and Belarusian T-72Bs fired quite normally. But there is not just accuracy needed. There you must be able to configure and correctly adjust the OMS. Forces of the crew alone is generally difficult to do.
              Quote: wk
              There are no special problems without the helm, but it’s better with him ...,

              Better, but not so much as to suffer directly without him.
              Quote: wk
              as with the automatic gearbox,

              A classic hydromechanical automatic transmission clogs up a certain amount of engine power. Ours went the other way. A "robot" - automatic gearshift is put on a conventional manual gearbox.
              Quote: wk
              mobility is better with any NATO tank,

              Worse. Mobility is not only about maximum highway speed. This is the average off-road speed, and cross-country ability, and the ability to overcome water obstacles / cross bridges, and the cruising range, which determines how many kilometers a tank can go before a long and unsafe refueling operation, and the ability to transport a tank by rail, tractors and planes. There is tactical, operational-tactical and strategic mobility. In almost all respects, the T-72 is better than NATO tanks and better than the T-80. As for the maximum speed on the highway, the T-72 is also not the slowest: T-72B, T-90 - 60km / h, T-72BM / B2 / B3, T-90A - 65km / h, T-72B3M, T-90SM - 70 km / h. For comparison, the "Merkava" MK.1 - 48 km / h, "Challenger-2" - 56 km / h, "Magah-7" - 48 km / h. "Abrams" М1А2SEP - 66 km / h.
              Quote: wk
              he has a better gun

              It's better? Do not carry nonsense. On the T-80U there is a 125mm 2A46M-1 gun, the absolute analogue of the 2A46M gun on the T-72B. Just one under the Ministry of Health, and the other under AZ. Some of the latter T-80Us have 2A46M-4 - an analogue of 2A46M-5 on the T-90A and T-72BM / B2 / B3. The difference again is AZ / MZ.
              Quote: wk
              . engine T-34 heir purchased in the USA in the late 30s

              B-2 is not the heir to the United States by any means. You are confusing something.
              Quote: wk
              and all his further modernization went sideways on his reliability ...

              T-72B engine in 840hp It is considered the most reliable and resource engine. Do not talk nonsense. The same is a 1000-horsepower engine. This is the turbo-piston engine of the TD series on the T-64. This yes is trash.
              Quote: wk
              google article where t 90 compare with t 80UD ...

              I know this article. And I know WHO compares there. It’s like I’m not a NUB to believe these charlatans.
              1. wk
                wk 16 December 2014 14: 05 New
                -5
                not a turbo-piston, but a two-stroke turbodiesel (two-stroke, by virtue of their design, can only be with a turbine) is not without drawbacks, but in general it is preferable ... google (I am not friends with the Internet myself) about B-2, it was installed together with the box ... attention of the 1912 sample, and got rid of it only at 34-85 ... if you have more accurate information where it was purchased - share it, but you understand that the Soviet industry could not create its own diesel engine with such parameters in the late 30s (as in the future with rare exceptions) but the engines of the TD series seem to be of domestic development, in any case, I have not read about their "donor" anywhere ... the fact that machines consume engine power belongs to archaic units and, alas, it does not apply to modern ones ... here the boxes "robots" showed their unreliability and efficiency lower than expected ... in fact, not everything is as good as on paper ... Did you write something about the t-90cm there? how can you write about a car built in one! copy!
                1. Crang
                  Crang 16 December 2014 14: 49 New
                  +3
                  Quote: wk
                  not a turbo piston, but a two-stroke turbodiesel

                  He did not initially have a turbine. There are two pistons in one cylinder which move towards each other with a slight shift. What achieves good purging and filling the cylinder. Therefore, turbo-piston.
                  Quote: wk
                  not without flaws but generally preferable ....

                  Uh-huh. Fuck there is "preferable". A highly revving engine with a working volume of just over 10 liters (like the KamAZ) is never preferable for a tank. Not only is there no reliability in terms of reliability, it is very demanding on settings and adjustments, as well as oils. It also has a very cool power characteristic (miracles do not happen). Nifiga does not pull from idle. These T-84s cannot enter the transporter. Deaf. Until you hit the gas on the floor - nifiga does not go. Also T-64. Even worse.
                  Quote: wk
                  about B-2, it was put together with the box ... attention to the 1912 sample,

                  That's bullshit. I won’t even comment.
                  Quote: wk
                  but the engines of the TD series are similar to domestic development, in any case, I have not read about their "donor" anywhere

                  From the German diesel and aircraft engines they were torn apart.
                  Quote: wk
                  the fact that automatic machines eat engine power belongs to archaic units and alas, this does not apply to modern ones ...

                  Relate. This is a fundamental drawback of this design.
                  Quote: wk
                  Did you write something about the t-90cm there? how can you write about a car built in one! copy!

                  One or ten. Not too much difference.
                2. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 16 December 2014 17: 44 New
                  0
                  Quote: wk
                  not a turbo piston, but a two-stroke turbodiesel (two-stroke due to their construction can only be with a turbine) not without flaws but generally preferable .... google (I myself am not friends with the Internet) about V-2,

                  And what is the Junkers aviation diesel model of the 30th year (5TDF and its derivatives) preferable to the V-2?
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. REZMovec
              REZMovec 16 December 2014 16: 29 New
              +1
              Goodies! The B-2 engine was not bought in America in the late 30s. Its development began in 1931 at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant. Initially, it was supposed to become aviation, hence a lot of aluminum, then aviation-tank. As a result, it became purely tank. Here, read at your leisure http://www.redtanks.bos.ru/v2_sozd.htm
            3. uwzek
              uwzek 16 December 2014 17: 52 New
              0
              The gun on biathlon tanks is the same as on all other machines. The engine is more powerful and the automatic gearbox is (therefore they did everything on the line).
              Car drivers have been training since April and mastered the equipment, and new panoramic sights were brought to mind already in Alabino (our guns were shot quite adequately).
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 16 December 2014 16: 02 New
            0
            "Ours have more powerful frontal armor, better mobility, better cannon,
            there is URO, there is AZ. There are drawbacks though. "///

            About frontal armor - is doubtful. All hope is there for the right
            operation of remote sensing. And DZ is a rather unpredictable thing.
            Passive armor is thinner under DZ.

            And about the gun. On the T-90, like, put an advanced gun,
            tougher. And then on the T-72 it is thin-walled and vibration
            nullify all accuracy in fluent shooting.
            And the number of shots withstood several times less
            German
            1. Crang
              Crang 16 December 2014 16: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              About frontal armor - is doubtful. All hope is there for the right
              operation of remote sensing. And DZ is a rather unpredictable thing.
              Passive armor is thinner under DZ.

              What is doubtful then? Our stupidly larger size and better filler.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And then on the T-72 it is thin-walled and vibration
              nullify all accuracy in fluent shooting.

              She had no special vibrations. Is that a bigger bend when fired. But there are excellent backlash mechanisms, symmetrical load distribution of the shot and a much larger volume of the charging chamber versus the 120mm NATO cannon. With a longer barrel length than the early 120-current.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And the number of shots withstood several times less
              German

              That is yes. Not several times, but twice.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 17 December 2014 10: 58 New
                0
                "What's dubious? Ours have stupidly larger dimensions and better filler." ///

                [frontal armor] Both the size is larger and the filler is better ... Why then?
                to insure DZ?
                DZ on the forehead - only in Russian tanks.
          4. goose
            goose 16 December 2014 18: 07 New
            +1
            Well done! I would say a hammer !!! He opposed all rumors with logic and facts.
          5. The comment was deleted.
          6. Dimka off
            Dimka off 17 December 2014 12: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            They stubbornly refuse. Why? There must be a reason. Apparently not everything is so perfect.

            Piss) If everything was so cool, then we would come to the Leopards and Abrams and win the biathlon. And so they are afraid.
        2. uwzek
          uwzek 16 December 2014 17: 40 New
          +1
          They put the air conditioner on the T-90 for almost fifteen years. The dry closet by the way is available on the BMR sapper.
          Cartridge charges are gunpowder in pouches. They are used in long-range artillery, in tank guns never.
          Now no one has a good iron harrow - any one beats at a time.
          Keep silent about biathlon. The tanks on which we drove completed right at the training ground a couple of weeks before the start of the competition, the crews did not master new cars and months ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2014 18: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: uwzek
            Cartridge charges are gunpowder in pouches. They are used in long-range artillery, in tank guns never.

            English on Chieftain / Challenger with guns L11 / 34
  13. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 16 December 2014 11: 27 New
    +6
    Not everything is so simple and inevitable in the battle of armor for the survivability of a tank



  14. Vadim237
    Vadim237 16 December 2014 11: 31 New
    -4
    According to OBPS, the Germans circumvented us significantly.
    1. Crang
      Crang 16 December 2014 11: 53 New
      +6
      Quote: Vadim237
      According to OBPS, the Germans circumvented us significantly.

      Yes, not bypassed. Our "Lead-2" is no worse.
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 December 2014 13: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        Yes, not bypassed. Our "Lead-2" is no worse.

        How do you know? A simple ... lead ... no one has seen in the army.
        1. Crang
          Crang 16 December 2014 14: 51 New
          +5
          Quote: Kars
          How do you know? A simple ... lead ... no one has seen in the army.

          In an American serf woke up ... Che Karsushka - gave the light yes? Need to take a moment?
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2014 16: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            In an American serf woke up

            Hello zombies
            Quote: Krang
            gave light yes?

            There have been no blackouts in Zaporozhye yet.
            Quote: Krang
            Need to take a moment?

            Yes, at least for a moment, at least for a moment, no one saw the 1 lead in the troops, otherwise they would have sold it to the Indians.
            1. Crang
              Crang 16 December 2014 16: 20 New
              +5
              Quote: Kars
              Hello zombies

              So zombies you are Karsushka. Exactly you. I was just like a Soviet, Russian person, and so I remain.
              Quote: Kars
              There have been no blackouts in Zaporozhye yet.

              Will be.
              Quote: Kars
              Yes, at least for a moment, at least for a moment, no one saw the 1 lead in the troops, otherwise they would have sold it to the Indians.

              Are you going to prove that BOPS "Lead-2" does not exist in nature? What is this fake?
              1. Kars
                Kars 16 December 2014 16: 30 New
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                So zombies you are Karsushka. Exactly you.

                All zombies say so)))
                Quote: Krang
                Will be.

                maybe
                Quote: Krang
                Are you going to prove that BOPS "Lead-2" does not exist in nature? What is this fake

                It may well be. But certainly far from mass production. As well as the fact that if there are characteristics are unknown, especially to you.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 16 December 2014 16: 30 New
        +1
        Our army is armed with neither Lead 1 nor Lead 2, alas.
        1. goose
          goose 16 December 2014 18: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          Our army is armed with neither Lead 1 nor Lead 2, alas.

          Who told you? There is, only a little expensive, because few people saw them in the army.
          And with the SLA there are brookuksovki, not every tank can use them.
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2014 18: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: goose
            There is, only a little expensive, because few people saw them in the army.

            Maybe at least one of those who saw them responds? Who produced them at the factory? Who saw boxes with them in the warehouse?
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 December 2014 23: 03 New
            +2
            Those who are engaged in the production of tank ammunition told me the most modern OBPS which we now mass-produce is Mango-M, it didn’t come to the production of Lead due to the long length of the shell and the lack of funding, now we are developing new OBPS.
  15. Opponent
    Opponent 16 December 2014 12: 48 New
    +2
    [quote = Krang]

    And the monolithic reinforced concrete will be demolished. Armor steel is much stronger than concrete.

    They wrote to you in RUSSIAN that they would demolish the mounting points of the screens along with them. Or are they, in your opinion, cast along with the main armor?))))) Yes, and about the latter, not everything is so simple)).
    http://3rm.info/uploads/posts/2014-09/1410202182_tank-3.jpg
  16. Memorandum
    Memorandum 16 December 2014 13: 53 New
    0
    he is without active armor or something ... Hmm
  17. Kars
    Kars 16 December 2014 13: 58 New
    +3
    The very fact that the Bundeswehr gets new, not modernized b / y after many years of tank fleet reduction says a lot, but certainly not about peaceful prospects.
    By the way, this is a pretty strong blow to a professor who is not a fan of tanks, just like Germany is buying new tanks.
    And in the title photo of the article, the upgraded A4 standard of evolutions, not A7
    1. viruvalge412ee
      viruvalge412ee 16 December 2014 17: 53 New
      0
      The answer is probably Kars Tank — this tank. For women, a good goal. Good, I repeat, the goal. look good! Tall, handsome, in trousers and clean boots, Nariman. In a war, it seems, tall and stately in clean boots, they are only crap (from the concept of creep) as bullies. Bullshit for the Baltic states and Khokhloeb.
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 December 2014 18: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: viruvalge412ee
        The answer is probably Kars Tank — this tank. For women, a good goal. Good, I repeat, the goal. look good! Tall, handsome, in trousers and clean boots, Nariman. In a war, it seems, tall and stately in clean boots, they are only crap (from the concept of creep) as bullies. Bullshit for the Baltic states and Khokhloeb.

        understood nothing.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 17 December 2014 11: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          understood nothing.

          Where do we simple lapotinki (in your case - simple embroidery) to understand the high syllable of this creak.
  18. NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 December 2014 15: 04 New
    +1
    I'm sitting here reading the comments ... someone says that our Russian tanks are junk in comparison with the "Abrashs" and "Leopolds", someone proves that Western tanks are complete bullshit. Here's what I thought: "Merkava" -65 tons, "leopard" -70 tons, "Abrams" about 70 tons ... our tanks barely reach 55 tons. A question for smart men in tank building, if you add any different things to our tanks, from ammunition to electronics, thus, having equalized the mass of our cars with the western ones, I wonder what assessment they will give then? And also a passing question - I remember the Second World War, where is the wonderful and terrible German "tiger", which was collected for a long time and which had a lot of problems both with the engine and with cross-country ability, mobility ... but in terms of performance it was better than our T-34s and quarters. So why then did the tiger not become a breakthrough tank, and also did not become the best tank of the Second World War?
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 December 2014 16: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      merkava "-65 tons," leopard "-70 tons," abrams "about 70 tons.

      Is-Xnumx planned in xnumx tons.
      And on the issue of filling, take as a sample Leckler + - 2 tons
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 December 2014 17: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      So why didn’t the tiger become a breakthrough tank


      He was him, but not for long. It was with the help of this heavy armor that the Germans broke through the 2nd defensive line of the 3rd on the Kursk Bulge from the Belgorod-Oboyan direction.
      And the third lane was already almost completely broken through, they were stopped only at the cost of heavy losses in the oncoming battle.
      Our happiness is that the "Tiger" was expensive and laborious in production, as well as the fact that the Germans did not immediately transfer them all for their "Citadel".
      The Tigers were scattered throughout the Eastern Front. Those who participated in Operation Citadel were not enough.
      In further large-scale operations, the strategic initiative completely passed into the hands of the Red Army and no "Tigers" could hold back its onslaught.
  19. LvKiller
    LvKiller 16 December 2014 15: 48 New
    +1
    There is no reception against scrap? Or are we so far from the great enlighteners? Are the new "leopards" no longer melting from the effects of nuclear weapons? Not? Is 20 pieces really enough for the occupation of the Russian Federation from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok? Exactly?
  20. Crang
    Crang 16 December 2014 15: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: LvKiller
    Are the new "leopards" no longer melting from the effects of nuclear weapons?

    And the T-55 did not melt.
  21. JonnyT
    JonnyT 16 December 2014 16: 03 New
    +3
    ah leopard! the most formidable contender of the entire NATO fleet. Interestingly, the last modification was saved from "children's sores"? pictured is one of the leopard sores in Afghanistan.

    P.S. the sight and base of the gun are still "Achilles heel"
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 December 2014 16: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: JonnyT
      pictured is one of the leopard sores in afghanistan


      Rubber tires for road wheels are not only a headache for German tankers.
      On our tanks, they wear out the same way. Either from long movement at high speeds, or from long operation in mountainous desert areas where there are a lot of stones and sand.
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 16 December 2014 22: 44 New
        +1
        I agree.
        Here's another info on Leo, 6 is true, but I think the SOU too:

        The standard German SLA is EMES 15 with independent stabilization in two planes. The main gunner’s sight is integrated with a solid-state ND-YAG (Neodymium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Germanium) laser rangefinder and an 120 element CdHgTe (cadmium-mercury-tellurium) Zeiss thermal imager, which is associated with the OMS. The eight-time auxiliary telescope FERO-Z18 is mounted coaxially for the gunner. The commander has an independent periscope, Rheinmetal / Zeiss PERI-R 17 A2. The PERI-R 17 A2 is a stabilized panoramic periscope scope that provides 3600 visibility and is designed for day / night surveillance and target detection. The thermal picture from the periscope of the commander enters the monitor in the tank. Initially, the production of thermal imagers was not established and, as a temporary measure, low-light television cameras (LLLTV) were installed.
        The LMS equipment provides 3 values ​​for the range to the target in 4 seconds. Data is transmitted to the computer of the fire control system and used to make decisions. Since the gunner’s sight is integrated with the laser rangefinder, he can therefore directly see the results of the calculations in digital form. The maximum range of the rangefinder is 10000 meters with an error of 20 meters at 10 km. The SLA allows the Leopard 2 to destroy a moving target while moving over rough terrain.
  22. albanian
    albanian 16 December 2014 16: 19 New
    +3
    It’s strange that such a debate about tanks in cities, well, create a hundred other special tanks for the city, if so.
    And the rest is even better to use vsezh properly, to break through the fortified sections of the front, in the current realities for maneuverable combat. It doesn’t need mega sides and billions of dollars for survival \ amenities \ other, since the tank lives in battle for minutes, how much good is not in it.
    It is another matter to reconsider the current and future threats, now a new tank is already being made for them.
    Now it turns out the tanks of the 70s, which are designed for completely different tasks, are trying to fit into modern requirements, laced with whistles and fakes.
    There, the creators of the Merkava partially went along this path, now they are everywhere shouting that their urban combat vehicle is very good and they call it a tank, but it is not a tank in the sense of the word that was put into it 30-40 years ago.
    So do not try to sit on two chairs, candy for children, flowers for women and everything will be buzzing)
  23. xomaNN
    xomaNN 16 December 2014 16: 20 New
    +3
    Extra confirmation - it's time for "Armata" to show itself. And prove in practice who is the best hi
    1. Marko
      Marko 16 December 2014 18: 22 New
      -2
      well show and? Until serial production and receipt in parts of another 15 years ...
  24. valokordin
    valokordin 16 December 2014 18: 17 New
    0
    The number of tanks in Germany (not to be confused with the federal republic of Georgia) is comparable to the number of tanks during the attack on the USSR. It would be necessary to try out new tanks in Ukraine, and we should supply the militia with bumblebees and sunbeams with napalm. I think no tank can stand against napalm. Death to ukrofascists and deutsche Nazis.
  25. goose
    goose 16 December 2014 18: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Albanian
    And the rest is even better to use vsezh properly, to break through the fortified sections of the front, in the current realities for maneuverable combat. It doesn’t need mega sides and billions of dollars for survival \ amenities \ other, since the tank lives in battle for minutes, how much good is not in it.

    This is an unproven statement that the tank lives for minutes. With proper management, it is almost invulnerable, and also makes it everywhere to carry a PTO, which is against infantry in any way, and is rather cumbersome.
    And in the city, a tank is almost not needed, there are enough tactics for assault groups. Although in some cases the spectacular appearance of tanks led to the effective solution of operational problems.
  26. NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 December 2014 19: 12 New
    -1
    Quote: wanderer_032
    It is our happiness that the "Tiger" was expensive and time consuming in production

    And at the expense of a breakthrough tank, I would argue with you, because in a direct collision, at an average distance, the advantage of its cannon was completely zeroed out. There was no "tiger" even in that short time, on the Kursk Bulge, a breakthrough tank. connection with those events, answer me if there is a war with Germany or America tomorrow, which tank will be preferable, the one that will be filled to the top with super modern electronics, protected by armor, but which needs to be built for a long time, or, in some way inferior (in detail for the most part), but in some ways superior and at the same time light tank, which during the time they will make Abrasha or Leopold, you can release 3 tanks? In war conditions, soldiers do not care about whose tank is cooler if there are three enemy tanks at the factory they are sawing out, and their tanks are nearby and ready to go into battle, and there are more of them every day. and maybe more.
  27. air wolf
    air wolf 16 December 2014 19: 55 New
    0
    I hope our Tagil will draw conclusions ...
  28. kplayer
    kplayer 16 December 2014 23: 08 New
    +3
    Perhaps I repeat, but in the photo Leopard-2A4 Evolution (-2SG) of the army of Singapore. Evolution / Revolution versions are only for A4 modification, or earlier. In the remaining photos - Leopard-2A6 Canadian (A6M), Greek, and German army.
    A distinctive feature of the Leo-2A7 is the reinforced armor protection of the frontal part of the hull, as on the Swedish tank Strv.122 (A5), the Spanish A6E, the Greek A6HEL, and also installed the FLW-200 DBM. The combat weight of the A7 is 63t, the base A6 is 60t.

    Evolution

    A7
  29. Crang
    Crang 17 December 2014 07: 01 New
    0
    His armor is flimsy of course. Frontal. I understand our foreheads. T-64BV and T-80BV up to 600mm overall. T-72B up to 750mm. T-90A up to 1000mm. And plus DZ. Figs punch. And here - not really. This wedge is in the forehead of the tower - it is empty inside.
  30. Mars
    Mars 17 December 2014 08: 48 New
    +1
    So far, they are throwing our economy and euro better than tanks, and our oligarchs are their helpers, and they don’t have Gazprom’s shares
  31. Pafos
    Pafos 17 December 2014 11: 34 New
    +2
    There is an antidote! Bay under the tower is simply magnificent wink
  32. kplayer
    kplayer 17 December 2014 19: 21 New
    +1
    Guys! Where did you get in your comments that the combat weight of the new "Leopard" is 70 tons?
    But just in case, the sign "70"In the photo - the speed limit for the vehicle, and not its mass (t.).
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 17 December 2014 22: 29 New
      +1
      Sorry! - mass, but not in the metric system (tonne), but in short tons, or so-called american tons (1 short ton = 2000 pounds = 907,18474 kg.), I.e. 70 short tons = 63,5 item, sometimes affixed to NATO technology.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  33. martin.do
    martin.do 17 December 2014 22: 16 New
    0
    Yes scary HO-KA! but there’s a cracker for her too repeat
  34. bublic82009
    bublic82009 17 December 2014 22: 54 New
    +1
    any tank always has two weak points. this is the track and roof especially the engine
  35. Andrey77
    Andrey77 18 December 2014 23: 56 New
    0
    There are weaknesses. But the next cat from the Germans turned out to be beautiful. So I want to ask a question, they have invited designers there ...
  36. gozmos
    gozmos 19 December 2014 15: 45 New
    0
    Jews are cooler)))
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 20 December 2014 03: 14 New
      0
      there are wadi and salt lakes and not rivers and swamps.
  37. Pfcts
    Pfcts 19 December 2014 23: 28 New
    0
    question to the experts: why on the leopard rear view mirrors?
  38. gla172
    gla172 21 December 2014 08: 16 New
    0
    I don’t know how anyone, but for me, even old dinosaurs like T-35 or 28 will be prettier!
  39. Xent
    Xent 21 December 2014 18: 15 New
    +1
    The author, in my opinion, could not explain what the nail of the article is. The Germans announced something else, but so far they are doing something completely different. Well, as far as I understand, the A7 does not have everything that it should have. So far, a completely different configuration.
    PS I don’t know exactly how our T-72s have, but the resource of the Rheinmetall Rh 120 gun is from 2500 to 3000 rounds.