"Armata" as a unified tracked platform

45


The advertising company, which is maintained by Uralvagonzavod in the media on the presentation of its products, which are part of the Armata UGP, causes a dual reaction.

On the one hand, it is possible to note the priority of UVZ in the development of the head product of the Armata family - tank T-14, with crew separated from ammunition and fuel. On the other hand, the claimed technical implementation of this idea is completely leveled by visible miscalculations regarding the layout of the tank and its security.

The first thing that catches your eye is the large, if not to say huge, dimensions of the T-14, which are clearly not in line with its weapons. For reasons that are inexplicable from the point of view of common sense and traditions of the national school of tank construction, the UVZ presented a machine that exceeds the size of any main battle tank, including foreign ones.



Zabronevy volume of the hull and turret T-14 is 20 cubic meters, which is almost two times more than the similar indicator T-90 (weighing 48 tons) and almost equal to the volume of Abrams M1A2 SEP (weighing 63,1 tons). If we equate the weight of the T-14 to the weight of the American tank, then the level of protection of the T-14 in comparison with the T-90 will be less by 50 percent. It may seem that T-14 is better protected in the frontal projection, however, this was not possible to achieve - the size of the area of ​​the armored frontal surface is at the level of the American tank.

Representatives of the UVZ invariably remind of the arrangement in the so-called crew capsule in the T-14, which has additional protection compared to the hull of the tank. But watching the video frames of the reportage of the TV channel “Zvezda” does not confirm the presence of any additional armor obstacles in the control compartment, except for the frontal part and the sides of the body itself, which is not surprising given the longitudinal placement of three crew members. Consequently, the protection of tankers in the T-14 is at the same level as the protection of the tank itself (see above).

But, maybe, the reduced protection from the side of passive armor is compensated by the special properties of the active protection complex installed on T-14?

KAZ of the tank is a development of the Soviet Drozd complex, developed about forty years ago and installed on T-55AD tanks. This type of active protection with fixedly mounted launchers on the tower has two significant drawbacks:
- limited view of the protection of the tank, usually in sectors of 45 shelling degrees on either side of the axis of the gun;
- reduced kinetic impact on the attacking artillery shell / anti-tank missile / rocket grenade.

Limited sectors of firing of launchers force them to direct the tank turret at the target, which reduces the speed of the KAZ type Drozd by several orders of magnitude compared to alternative systems, and also removes the gun from the combat state for the duration of the turret rotation in order to intercept the attacking ammunition.

"Armata" as a unified tracked platform

As a striking element, KAZ of the “Drozd” type uses a grenade with a fragmentation warhead, when undermined, a radial stream of fragments is created that is directed along the entire circumference. The projection of the target gets no more than 10 percent of the flow, which is clearly not enough to destabilize the cumulative projectile or sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile. The only targets of KAZ "Drozd" remain only rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles.

Alternatives to the KAZ of the Drozd type are the Russian Arena complex and the Israeli Trophy system. They belong to all-range systems, while the Russian complex has a zero time turning the launcher towards the target, the Israeli system - time, measured in tenths of a second. The tank gun at the same time is aimed at its goals regardless of the work of the KAZ.

As a striking element, alternative systems use firing plates of explosive with a metal lining, which, when exploded, produces a narrow stream of fragments, 90 percent of which are directed to the projection of the target. Only such systems with modernized metal cladding to form a shock core instead of a stream of fragments can in the long term intercept also heavy caliber and small-sized sub-caliber shells.

Thus, the KAZ of the type "Drozd" impairs the protection of the T-14 compared to other main battle tanks on which alternative active protection systems are installed or will be installed.

But maybe the lowered protection of the new tank is redeemed by the increased power of its weaponry? On the version presented to the public, the 125-mm gun 2А82, the muzzle energy of which corresponds to the 120-mm NATO gun with a barrel length 55 caliber, which is installed on the latest modifications of American and German tanks, is installed. There is a parity of armament, and no more.

True, the T-14 has an 152-mm 2А83 gun with an initial speed of 1980 m / s, but this potential is completely depreciated by the presence of several 140-mm guns in the arsenal of NATO countries, the muzzle energy of which is at the level of the Russian gun of a larger caliber . One of these guns has already been installed on the Abrams M1 serial tank with an upgraded turret and ATACS automatic loader. Consequently, the parity of armament will continue in the future.

In conclusion, it is necessary to touch the most advertised "chips" T-14 - providing the crew with 100-percent technical vision with the possibility of reducing the number of tank crews to two after the expansion of the onboard TIUS capability.

However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that technical vision is limited only to the installation of new surveillance devices - television / thermal cameras, placed around the perimeter of the hull. Except how to create a circular review, these cameras do not know how. The aiming of the gun on the target is carried out by the previously developed method - using a single panoramic sight with independent drive. This means that after selecting a target and putting it on autotracking while the turret is turning on the target, the panoramic sight is removed from work as a means of observation, since it continuously monitors the target until the second sight directly connected to the gun is put into operation.

It is necessary to quickly change the situation, remove the panoramic sight (bearing the well-deserved name “bucket” due to the volume of the armored hull), place high-quality cameras around the perimeter of the tower, which continuously form a circular panorama with a virtual aiming grid. Only then can the tank commander, having captured the target and set it to auto-follow for the period when the turret turns to the target, will be able to instantly switch to the search for the next target. Then you can exclude the operator-gunner from the crew and reduce the size of the control compartment.



The increase in layout density will also be facilitated by the rejection of the use of tablet displays as a means of displaying information, the number and dimensions of which in the T-14 have reached the level of a home theater. It's time to switch to helmet-mounted devices by analogy with aviation or use the existing inexpensive binocular displays of the type NSI-05.1 manufactured by JSC Design Bureau Display (Republic of Belarus).

From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the technical solution of the T-14 needs to be fundamentally processed in order to eliminate the backlog of modern modifications of the main battle tanks.

First, it is required to lower the height of the tank on the hull roof from 1,8 to 1,4 meter within the internal dimension required for the vertical placement of new 125-mm projectiles (900 mm in length) in the turret loader.

Secondly, it is required to use a low-profile armored turret without an external casing instead of the current high-profile one with the placement of all KAZ launchers, electronic components of sights and observation devices inside the tower, and not in a light-armored casing.



Thirdly, it is necessary to significantly compact the layout of the hull, thereby reducing its length and moving to the chassis of six pairs of road wheels, which will reduce the parasitic space and weight of the undercarriage of the tank.

Fourthly, it is required to replace the KAZ of the type “Drozd” with an all-view active protection system, possessing zero time of aiming at the target and using a striking element in the form of a shock core.

It remains unclear how much UVZ is capable of carrying out such optimization of the T-14 design, even taking into account the declared title of the Armath family as a unified tracked platform.
Our news channels

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

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    18 September 2015 05: 36
    Representatives of UVZ invariably remind of the arrangement in the T-14 of the so-called crew capsule, which has additional protection compared to the tank hull. But viewing the video footage of the Zvezda TV channel does not confirm the presence of any additional armored barriers in the control department, except for the frontal part and the sides of the hull itself, which is not surprising, given the longitudinal placement of three crew members.
    and does the author take into account the bulletproof armor between the command and control units, which should hold the energy of the bk explosion,?
    The rejection of the use of tablet displays as a means of displaying information, the number and size of which in T-14 reached the level of a home theater, will also contribute to an increase in layout density. It is time to switch to helmet-mounted devices by analogy with aviation or use existing inexpensive binocular displays of the type NSI-05.1 produced by OJSC Design Bureau Display (Republic of Belarus).
    The right device. But you shouldn't give up displays either, you just have to have a duplicate system, but not one. And it's time to move from "ribbed" helmets, to helmets of the type of aviation or motorcycle, from Kelavr
    It is necessary to quickly change the situation, remove the panoramic sight (bearing the well-deserved name “bucket” due to the volume of the armored hull), place high-quality cameras around the perimeter of the tower, which continuously form a circular panorama with a virtual aiming grid. Only then can the tank commander, having captured the target and set it to auto-follow for the period when the turret turns to the target, will be able to instantly switch to the search for the next target. Then you can exclude the operator-gunner from the crew and reduce the size of the control compartment.
    At the expense of the "bucket" it may be true, but the third crew member should not be removed, it is not necessary to overload the commander.

    Personally, I would really like to see the following changes:
    - Mandatory change of the commander’s hatch, according to the model, but rather unification with the fur-water hatch.
    - if possible, installing a third hatch and castling the gunner and commander
    - change of the fodder plate, of the "western" type, to create the possibility of rolling out the entire MTBlok from the MTB.
    1. +2
      18 September 2015 09: 00
      firstly, the power plant is there and so is separated "once" this moment has already been shown by TC Zvezda
      secondly, there it is already planned to rearrange the crew, at least 3 options are there, as I understand it, it is planned to finally solve after the tests, most likely military ...
      thirdly, Ala Oculus Rift glasses have a serious drawback, they cannot be used 24/7 because vision problems begin and, in some cases, with spatial orientation.
  2. -5
    18 September 2015 05: 43
    Worthy of criticism. Plus. Rest on our laurels is definitely not worth it!
  3. +33
    18 September 2015 05: 58
    I have always wondered where such "nuggets" come from in Mother Russia that, according to scanty data on a classified sample, UVZ gives such comprehensive recommendations ?! It seems to me that UVZ made tanks before this "expert" appeared in his parents' project.
    1. +9
      18 September 2015 06: 11
      Good question, I went to UVZ to work on how to squander such valuable information on sites.
    2. +6
      18 September 2015 07: 37
      Quote: UI-Spb
      I have always wondered where such "nuggets" come from in Mother Russia that, according to the scant data on a classified sample, UVZ gives such comprehensive recommendations ?!

      That's for sure. Well, I would also understand if the skating rinks were square on Armata, or there were euro-windows on the sides, i.e. something very obvious, and so ...
    3. 0
      18 September 2015 07: 37
      Quote: UI-Spb
      I have always wondered where such "nuggets" come from in Mother Russia that, according to the scant data on a classified sample, UVZ gives such comprehensive recommendations ?!

      That's for sure. Well, I would also understand if the skating rinks were square on Armata, or there were euro-windows on the sides, i.e. something very obvious, and so ...
    4. +1
      18 September 2015 13: 13
      And God forbid, they will do them after the death of the author of this opus.
  4. -2
    18 September 2015 06: 06
    It started, the next stage of the Govnosrach in Armata was opened.
  5. +5
    18 September 2015 06: 20
    Fans of criticizing everything that would not be done with us have not yet translated in Russia. And interestingly, these critics have not done anything worthwhile in their entire lives. The one who does nothing is not mistaken.
  6. +1
    18 September 2015 06: 37
    For me, a flat classic Soviet tower, more preferable. Than American irons.
    1. +3
      18 September 2015 07: 16
      it’s good that you don’t choose towers for Russian tankers.
  7. -18
    18 September 2015 07: 48
    I have a suspicion that Armata (or what is shown to us) is a big hoax (a doll). Well, such a rod cannot be a good tank ... stop
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      18 September 2015 09: 55
      WhoWhy (1) RU Today, 07:48 AM
      I have a suspicion that Armata (or what is shown to us) is a big hoax (a doll). Well, such a rod cannot be a good tank ...

      Of course it can’t, the new tank should be like that laughing
      1. 0
        18 September 2015 13: 17
        ))))))) This is normal, although the reserved volume is a bit big (after aftar).
    3. +1
      18 September 2015 13: 40
      Watch a movie about Armata. It’s clear that it’s for advertising. But the tank is very very good. The author of this article does not even know that so far not all her inherent equipment is being put on Armata, because military tests will still be carried out, and there the equipment will do. And in size, let him look at and compare the Israeli tank. Merkava is still that barn, but nothing, it’s fighting and not bad. It’s obvious that the toad is strangling us because of the tank, yes even gives the Belarusian military-industrial complex advertising. Let the Belarusians do something worthwhile, otherwise they take everything from us, he himself has been there many times and has seen what they are going to fight.
  8. +17
    18 September 2015 07: 50
    Damn so much nonsense is written that laziness is even taken apart. Well, the author would criticize the T-72 / 90, as a well-known tank along and across. And then with a clever look he gives recommendations to UVZ on a secret tank, according to the technical characteristics of which it is known with a gulkin nose !!! Deserved minus.
  9. +8
    18 September 2015 08: 36
    Minus!!! Dozens of foreheads with higher education are sitting in the design bureau, who for years, decades invent, test, bring technology to mind ... They have enough data of different sizes for Leninka! And then the sofa ANALYTIC is drawn, who knows much more of theirs (he is smart, and they are fools !!!) and begins to say that everything is new bullshit !! request
    Well, I would say at the end that it’s like my personal opinion, which may differ from the opinions of others ... So no! Ugh ...
    1. +4
      18 September 2015 09: 03
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Minus!!! Dozens of foreheads with higher education are sitting in the design bureau, who for years, decades invent, test, bring technology to mind ... They have enough data of different sizes for Leninka! And then the sofa ANALYTIC is drawn, who knows much more of theirs (he is smart, and they are fools !!!) and begins to say that everything is new bullshit !!

      I would not immediately throw caps. Himself a former security systems developer. I had to see a lot of things, both ours, and not so ours ... Dozens of foreheads with higher education did all this, and if you pick a product, then this pops up sometimes ... There is a time limit, budget, just sometimes disorganization.

      PPKS in a saying: You know less - sleep better !. : D

      Perhaps the author and the case says, even if by a few percent. One can only guess why the designer chose such a solution. I personally have no doubt that it was carefully weighed.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  10. +2
    18 September 2015 08: 42
    Quote: Wedmak
    Damn so much nonsense is written that laziness is even taken apart. Well, the author would criticize the T-72 / 90, as a well-known tank along and across. And then with a clever look he gives recommendations to UVZ on a secret tank, according to the technical characteristics of which it is known with a gulkin nose !!! Deserved minus.

    I agree.
    For example

    KAZ of the tank is a development of the Soviet Drozd complex, developed about forty years ago and installed on T-55AD tanks. This type of active protection with fixedly mounted launchers on the tower has two significant drawbacks:
    - limited view of the protection of the tank, usually in sectors of 45 shelling degrees on either side of the axis of the gun;
    - reduced kinetic impact on the attacking artillery shell / anti-tank missile / rocket grenade.

    Limited sectors of firing of launchers force them to direct the tank turret at the target, which reduces the speed of the KAZ type Drozd by several orders of magnitude compared to alternative systems, and also removes the gun from the combat state for the duration of the turret rotation in order to intercept the attacking ammunition.


    Complex of active protection "Afganit"
    The tubes of charges, which are located at the bottom of the tower, namely the slot in the black cover "rifle slot", from which the striking element of the KAZ "Afganit" flies out. The black cover can be rotated 360 degrees to guide the element in the desired direction. The arrangement of the tubes (there are 5 of them) allows you to cover almost the entire side - I see no reason to rotate the tower.
    He better read
    http://interpolit.ru/blog/chto_iz_sebja_predstavljaet_t_14_armata/2015-05-07-503
    0

    about this system, with photos and detailed comments about this system.
    1. +1
      18 September 2015 10: 35
      Thanks, read. A very unexpected conclusion of the author about the tower as a consumable, given the amount of electronics and other devices in it.
      For some reason, I thought that the cylindrical charges under the tower are one charge, and not several tens with the possibility of changing the direction of the shooting.
      And the criticism of the tower reservation is understandable, but the question is - how many shots must be taken from the same KPVT in order to damage tower devices so that the tank leaves the battle? And how much this KPVT carrier will live after the first shots at the T-14. With a firing range of 2000 meters, the chances of getting into a tower with critical destruction are not so great, but it’s easy to get an answer from a cannon.
      1. 0
        18 September 2015 13: 59
        Quote: Wedmak
        Thank you, respected.

        It was not for you, okay.

        About the tower as a consumable. Also on the tower more informative, excerpts if anyone is too lazy to read.
        This "consumable" still needs to be spoiled with something.
        http://army-news.ru/2015/05/vidimye-preimushhestva-perspektivnogo-tanka-t-14-arm
        ata /

        Firstly, this tower, in view of its “uninhabitability” (lack of extra volumes for arranging the commander and gunner’s seats) to ensure good armor protection from cumulative and armor-piercing shells, does not at all need a “radical” increase in physical dimensions, since the entire reserved volume is only necessary for the installation of compact optical and electronic electronic surveillance and fire control equipment, as well as for the placement of an automatic loader. Therefore, the profile of this tower is much smaller, and the armor resistance of compact frontal armored plates installed at angles of 30-50 ° to the longitudinal axis of the barrel is not less than that of the T-90MS or the British Challenger 2. Looking at this tower, it may seem that it is quite high, and makes the tank more visible and vulnerable on the ground, but it's not so simple.

        If you look at the photographs of the frontal projection of the tank, you can clearly see that the roof of the turret is 300-350 mm higher than the “mask” of the gun with mounting pins, which indicates an emphasis on increasing the armor level of the upper armor plate of the T-14 turret to 260-300 mm, and the minimum angles of approach of the shells of the enemy to the normal. Such armor protection is the last frontier when fired from Javelin anti-tank systems, when approaching FGM-148 ATGMs at angles of 30-60 degrees. to the normal, and together with the established DZ, it is able to prevent penetration of the upper armor plate of the tower. The MBT T-90S / MS, T-80U and others have much less armor than the upper armor plate, therefore, these tanks can be protected from the Javelin only thanks to the KAZ Arena.

        Much can be said from the T-14 photo when viewed from above (see below). The trunnion mounting mechanism for the 125 mm 2A82-1M gun is far ahead and is protected by a special gun mask fixed to the base of a single frontal armor plate, which provides a significantly higher level of durability of the main gun embrasure in contrast to the embrasures of tanks of the T-64 and T- families 72, where at the place of the "flimsy mask" of the gun the resistance from the BOPS is almost 2 times lower than in the area of ​​the "zygomatic" armor plates of the tower, which to this day is considered the main "illness" of our serial MBT

        The only weakened place of the tower can be considered only a deep niche with mounted armor of the gunner’s sighting device (also the alleged embrasure for installing a 30 mm AP). Next, we proceed to the reservation of the T-14 building - the Armata platform


        Just a mark of armor steel I would like to recall
        45-48HRC. It is this combination that makes it possible to reduce by 15% the thickness and, accordingly, the weight of the armored structures made of new steel without compromising the protective characteristics and survivability at low temperatures.
    2. 0
      18 September 2015 16: 56
      Guys do not believe the Internet "on the word" I also read this article about the "ARROW SLIT", moreover, on a not bad site like. Why are such people allowed to post articles on serious sites. They then begin to link, in full confidence that it is Pravda. Moreover, after a short period of time I saw links on other sites to his article. Just type in Google "shock core". "Sight slits" are probably just holes in protective covers (covers) to catch with a finger and take off. In a recent film on the "Zvezda" channel about Kurganets, there are shots where these covers were removed. To shoot down a rocket, and even more so a sub-caliber projectile, a certain mass and speed are needed, and to form an impact nucleus, an area of ​​the plate from which the impact nucleus will be formed is also needed (speed is about 3000 m / s). It flies along the axis of the tube (mortar), with a possible deviation of up to 15 degrees from the axis. And what Andrei Vasiliev wanted in this article is that we already have such a tank, the T-90 (6 rollers, the profile is lower, on the T- 90MS like the crew is practically taken out of the tower) I almost forgot, personally, my opinion is that each KAZ tube has 3-5 charges, well, I hope so. If you look at a charge device of the "shock core" type, it should fit. The last charge ( rear) either should fit within 15 degrees from the axis of the tube (mortar) during departure so as not to touch the edges of the walls of the tube, or when the front charges are fired, the rear ones move to their place in order to fit into the firing sector 15 degrees from the axis.
  11. +1
    18 September 2015 08: 45
    The article left a double feeling ... Well, as the saying goes, "The war plan will show what kind of thing it is ....!
  12. -6
    18 September 2015 08: 48
    Something seems to me that such an enormous amount of advertising information on this unified platform, the entire first serial batch, is more economically feasible to export, without even transferring it to trial operation in our own troops. But all the proceeds from this sale should be invested in some more useful and profitable business.
    1. +2
      18 September 2015 14: 47
      Quote: venaya
      Something seems to me

      Must be baptized

      Quote: venaya
      the entire first production batch economically feasible to export

      Economization?

      Quote: venaya
      without even transferring it to trial operation in their own troops

      "production batch"without" trial operation "is something new in tank building ..

      Quote: venaya
      invest all the proceeds from this sale in some more useful and profitable business

      Do you already know what? Address to UVZ, there to you .. you .. will be treated laughing

      Total: do not write nonsense, here it is enough without you ..
      1. -4
        18 September 2015 20: 28
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        Quote: venaya
        Something seems to me

        Must be baptized

        Quote: venaya
        the entire first production batch economically feasible to export

        Economization?

        Quote: venaya
        without even transferring it to trial operation in their own troops

        "production batch"without" trial operation "is something new in tank building ..

        Quote: venaya
        invest all the proceeds from this sale in some more useful and profitable business

        Do you already know what? Address to UVZ, there to you .. you .. will be treated laughing

        Total: do not write nonsense, here it is enough without you ..

        Thanks for the comment! ... I feel an exciting topic.
        "Total: do not write nonsense, here it is enough without you .." - Here, here, to the very point, even more than enough.
        Apparently with humor on "VO" oh how bad!
        In the land of money "with a gulkin ...", and the commentators' audience here rolled their lips ...
        It is precisely by the number of minusculeers, as I believe, in this case, you can approximately determine the number of commentators who do not have both a sense of humor and therefore inadequate commentators with naturally inadequate comments.
        Nevertheless, state-owned money must be saved and always expected and calculated on a wide, economically viable export (of course, to the maximum extent possible to exclude the possibility of military-technical espionage).
        1. +1
          19 September 2015 10: 56
          Quote: venaya
          Nevertheless, state-owned money must be saved and always expected and calculated on a wide, economically viable export (of course, to the maximum extent possible to exclude the possibility of military-technical espionage).

          I don’t know how about humor, but essentially you write .. mmm .. strange things ..

          - How can you export a tank in which "new" (in the sense of ideology) is almost everything literally, and at the same time "exclude the possibility of military-technical espionage" ??

          Quote: venaya
          the entire first production batch economically feasible to export, not even transferring to trial operation in their own troops. But to invest all the proceeds from this sale into some more useful and profitable business

          - How can a tank be launched into serial production that has not passed military tests?
          - How can you say about a still secret tank that it is "not a real thing"?

          I do not understand (c)

          And you write just that. For that, and cons, and rightly so. IMHO.
  13. +2
    18 September 2015 09: 13
    The first thing that catches your eye is the large, if not to say huge, dimensions of the T-14, which are clearly not in line with its weapons. For reasons that are inexplicable from the point of view of common sense and traditions of the national school of tank construction, the UVZ presented a machine that exceeds the size of any main battle tank, including foreign ones.

    About the size
  14. +1
    18 September 2015 10: 12
    everything is bad, everything is terrible, ahhh, everything is gone. Russian tanks are again the worst. And everything in them is bad and everything is wrong. Especially, not as I wanted. Well, take and develop your super-duper tank, in your state, at your ural plant.
    But why did the Syrian tankers treat their so retarded seventy-two with such tenderness.
  15. +2
    18 September 2015 12: 26
    oooh another couch expert. no analytics.
  16. +1
    18 September 2015 15: 27
    can the author prove his opinion to those designers, constructors and engineers who participated in the development of the T-14?

    I was especially pleased with the verdicts like "what is required, this is required" ....)))))
  17. 0
    18 September 2015 20: 18
    The T-14 Armata was first shown to reporters on the Zvezda television channel at the training ground.
    https://youtu.be/TCGdvMkDlVc
  18. +1
    19 September 2015 16: 49
    In my opinion, the author of the article is largely wrong. Especially wrong with regard to sealing the layout of the tank. By compacting the layout of the tank and reducing the reserve volume, you will sharply reduce the modernization potential of the tank
    it is required to lower the height of the tank on the roof of the hull from 1,8 to 1,4 meters within the internal dimension necessary for the vertical placement of new 125 mm shells (900 mm long) in a turret automatic loader.

    Excuse me, the armored capsule is already too tight for the crew on the armature, if you also reduce the height, then the crew will lie on top of each other or what? And I doubt that such a lowering of the hull will allow the installation of x-shaped internal combustion engines in the tank
    A decrease in the height of the tower and the hull will lead to a decrease in the elevation / declination angles of the gun, and this is a critical parameter, especially in battle in urban areas. And the 152mm gun will be difficult to squeeze into such a small tower

    In general, this concept of "the minimum volume and weight of the tank" seems to have been implemented in the T-64 tank, and in the end it turned out not very well.
    A modern tank should have sufficient armor volume, even at the cost of increasing dimensions and weight and worsening the reservation. This increases the opportunities for its modernization. In the end, the survivability of the tank is determined not only by its armor and dimensions, but also by the internal layout of the tank. In Western tanks, it is clearly better - a larger armored volume allows for more successful and more secure deployment of ammunition and fuel supply.

    This difference in layouts proved to be especially good in the Arab-Israeli wars, when the Israeli "centurions", even having received armor penetration, could sometimes continue the battle or at least evacuate the crew from the damaged tank, while the penetration of the T-62 armor often led to death tank and crew
  19. 0
    19 September 2015 21: 54
    Level "I'm mom's expert." Lately, idiots have a complication. Autumn probably.
  20. +1
    20 September 2015 09: 03
    THE MOST FUNNY THIS IS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ANALYZE AND DISCUSS THIS MEGAFEERIC Nonsense !!))) AND LAY OUT YOUR THOUGHTS HERE))) PEOPLE WHAT WITH YOU ?? DO YOU DO ANYTHING ??? Read, minssey and go on! Better to read the Shestopera, it will be more useful !!))

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

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