In the US, demonstrated the latest modification of "Abrams"

General Dynamic Corporation for the first time demonstrated in Washington at the exhibition AUSA 2015 the latest modification tank M1 Abrams - a variant of M1A2 SEP v.3, reports the blog bmpd with reference to armyrecognition.com.




According to the resource, the main differences of the M1A2 SEP v.3 modification from the previous one (SEP v.2) are:

“An introduction to the ammunition of a new 120-mm sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile M829EX4 (M829A4) of enhanced armor penetration.

- Introduction of the Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) ХМ120 type "High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer - HEMP-T) with a programmable fuze to the ammunition package of the new 1147-mm multipurpose shot. Thus, unification of the tank ammunition will be achieved on the basis of just two shots - the multipurpose ХМ1147 AMP and the armored-piercing sabot M829E4 AKE.

- Modernization of the tank fire control system with the installation of Ammunition Data Link equipment (ADL), which allows firing AMP shots with a programmable fuse.

- Installation of new thermal imaging devices IFLIR in the gunner’s sight and independent commander’s panoramic sight, with an image output on high-definition displays.

- Installation of the Commander's Remote Operated Weapon Station Low Profile (CROWS-LP) remotely controlled by the commander of the tank onto the roof of the turret of the tank with the 12,7-mm MXXUMX machine gun. The module is equipped with a round-the-clock surveillance and aiming system, which allows it to be used as the actual second panoramic sight of a tank crew. ”


It is assumed that the upgrade to the level of SEP v.3 will begin in the next fiscal year. For these purposes, an amount of $ 367,9 million has been budgeted for.
Photos used:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Velizariy 14 October 2015 15: 37 New
    • 42
    • 0
    +42
    Serdyukov would envy the chinory there)
    1. Baikonur 14 October 2015 15: 42 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      They try to raise the “face” from the mud after an aprot of “armature”! Like our new Abrams (which RPG can slam), too, does not bast! + dough file!
      1. marlin1203 14 October 2015 15: 53 New
        • 18
        • 0
        +18
        I understand everything, weight over 60 tons, sandwich armor and all that ... But doesn’t this dynamic trough need dynamic protection? what
        1. st25310 14 October 2015 15: 57 New
          • 29
          • 0
          +29

          There is no shell capable of hitting ARMATU!
          1. st25310 14 October 2015 16: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Who is the minus? Deputy Director Khalitov told you in Russian that there is no shell capable of hitting ARMATU! Or do you know him better?
            1. kocclissi 14 October 2015 16: 49 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              It’s probably hard to come up with something new, when everything new has been invented before ........
              о
            2. sa-ag 14 October 2015 17: 21 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: st25310
              Deputy Director Khalitov told you in Russian that there is no shell capable of hitting ARMATU!

              Did they try to break through its depleted uranium core?
            3. pilot bin-bom 14 October 2015 21: 28 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Have you tried a subcaliber of depleted uranium at a distance of a direct shot?
              if not, why la-la.
              1. Vadim237 14 October 2015 23: 31 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -2
                Well, this can be calculated by knowing the thickness, tensile strength of the armor, impact strength, speed, mass, strength and diameter of the OBPS.
          2. Bird the Talker 14 October 2015 21: 31 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            very rarely can one hear, so competently submitted commentary, respect to Halitov.
        2. NEXUS 14 October 2015 16: 18 New
          • 15
          • 0
          +15
          Quote: marlin1203
          I understand everything, weight over 60 tons, sandwich armor and all that ... But doesn’t this dynamic trough need dynamic protection? what

          And I already thought that the negro-loader was also modernized. And the engine of the tower was left. A good target for a simple and tested RPG-7.
          1. RBLip 14 October 2015 16: 24 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: NEXUS
            And I already thought that the Negro-loader is also being modernized.

            also the first thought was - the blacks were sent to retire, now they scored new ones ...
            1. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 10: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              No, they were upgraded - everyone was given a free membership to the rocking chair.
          2. figter 14 October 2015 17: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            NEXUS
            And I already thought that the negro-loader was also modernized. And the engine of the tower was left. A good target for a simple and tested RPG-7.

            Will Negro-DMN-M (Long Arm with a Motor in an EN Place)?
            1. Aqela 15 October 2015 09: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Oh, how are you kidding blacks-loaders laughing
        3. vorobey 14 October 2015 16: 22 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          Quote: marlin1203
          But is this trough really not needed dynamic protection?


          why is it not so bad burning ...
          grinned at RPG 29 ... and winked at the "Competition" .. - The movie magazine will help us split the nut of knowledge ... I want to know everything ...
        4. Karlovar 14 October 2015 17: 06 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          They are imprisoned under the Papuans with bows ....
          1. Vladimirets 14 October 2015 18: 48 New
            • 16
            • 0
            +16
            Quote: Karlovar
            They are imprisoned under the Papuans with bows ....

            The tank is not bad, too far-stained, but not bad. You can minus.
            1. vorobey 14 October 2015 19: 34 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Vladimirets
              You can minus.


              Well, for the time being, I’m allowing you for a compass .. laughing Hi Zheka ..
              1. Vladimirets 14 October 2015 22: 04 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: vorobey
                Well, for the time being, I’m allowing you for a compass ..

                Sanya, you are allowed to slap two by status. yes Great. drinks
                Quote: vorobey
                and he knows how to fly, judging by the movie "team A" and swim under water

                At least he is clearly no worse than the T-72B3.
            2. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 01 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              But I won’t! really good, and the new modification, whatever the sofa cap-kickers would say, really strengthened the already good opportunities hi
            3. Corsair 14 October 2015 21: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Vladimirets
              The tank is not bad, too far-stained, but not bad.

              wassat and he knows how to fly, judging by the movie "team A" and swim under water, though the colonel was too smart and inventive there, it is doubtful that such amers will have such ...

              http://vk.com/video54566323_168165762 вот здесь отрывок
            4. Zai pali 15 October 2015 17: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Vladimirets
              Quote: Karlovar
              They are imprisoned under the Papuans with bows ....

              The tank is not bad, too far-stained, but not bad. You can minus.


              I don’t think he would have been popular in the big tank war. The problem is that it is not expected.
        5. Observer2014 14 October 2015 18: 56 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          In the US, demonstrated the latest modification of "Abrams"
          And the black man that shoves manually, the shells in the gun also upgraded ?!
        6. Shurik70 14 October 2015 22: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: marlin1203
          I understand everything, weight over 60 tons, sandwich armor and all that ... But doesn’t this dynamic trough need dynamic protection? what

          So all American strategies come from the fact that they will shoot and kill, and opponents will shoot from the muskets.
          laughing
      2. Lissyara 14 October 2015 16: 01 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        In! In! And I'm talking about too. The product 6Г3 (in the common people RPG-7 "shaitan pipe") costing 120 bucks "with a bang" works against a six-wheel drive machine.
      3. Starover_Z 14 October 2015 16: 38 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Either the article is stingy or the translation is incomplete:
        And where is the PR? recourse
        Where are the phrases about invincibility and determination to destroy other people's tanks,
        in particular, “Armata” with one shot?
      4. northern 14 October 2015 18: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And did the negros charge, too, a new, shortened sub-caliber?
      5. ejov1976 14 October 2015 18: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        We wanted to spit on your abrams ...
        1. Semen Semyonitch 14 October 2015 22: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Two girls sat on the roof and spat on passers-by ... One is good, the other is bad ... The bad hit 3 times, and the good 5 .... And because good always wins ... laughing
      6. Baloo 14 October 2015 20: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And I like, a good target, it will burn beautifully wassat
      7. PSih2097 14 October 2015 21: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Baikonur
        Type our new Abrams (which RPG can slam)

        DShK in the aft of the tower ...
    2. avg
      avg 14 October 2015 15: 51 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      For these purposes, the budget includes an amount of $ 367,9 million.
      It’s more correct to write: “For a start, the sum of $ 367,9 million is included in the budget for these purposes”
      1. KazaK Bo 14 October 2015 16: 10 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        avg. It’s more correct to write: “For a start, the sum of $ 367,9 million is included in the budget for these purposes”

        Those who know this subject - and HOW MUCH IS THIS TANK NOW ... If memory serves, before it cost around 10 "lemons" ... And now? And how many buyers will this tank have now? After all, the "fighting life" of the tank is already very short in battle ...
        How is it with the ratio "PRICE-QUALITY" ???
        ... or else, I'm sorry, but for now only slogans ..
        1. Lissyara 14 October 2015 16: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Boris, well, 10 you have set aside. The previous "model" cost 6 lyamov, + - 200 thousand "raccoons".
          1. Basarev 14 October 2015 16: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They call the projectile and sight a modification?
            1. Sid.74 14 October 2015 18: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Some kind of nonsense, controlled commander module and immediately open machine gun with a very leaky stitcher.
              1. SSeT 14 October 2015 20: 46 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                And in your opinion, a scrap of a NEW generation with radically increased penetration, a multi-mode programmable OFS SERIAL NEW generation, the best of the available thermal imager and DBM with duplication of gearboxes - is that not a STRONG modification ?? It gives a lot of quality enhancements, by the way, this is not an ala T72B3 craft
                Think at least sometimes what you write, if, of course, the thinker has already grown
              2. SSeT 14 October 2015 20: 49 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                This is an additional option, negro-pitching on patrols to protect and block posts. 2 remote machine guns and 4 eyes are always better than the 1st and 1st pair of eyes! So-and-so (well, a black man is not so sorry as a commander, therefore only a visor)
              3. SSeT 14 October 2015 20: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: SSeT
                This is an additional option, negro-pitching on patrols to protect and block posts. 2 remote machine guns and 4 eyes are always better than the 1st and 1st pair of eyes! So-and-so (well, a black man is not so sorry as a commander, therefore only a visor)
        2. ejov1976 14 October 2015 19: 03 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          pobayayu)) This box is worth MILLIONS of Amer Rubles and makes its way through and several thousand of them and how many different Soviet-Russian tanks in the same RF))))))? Tens of thousands and everything from 34 RCTs is in excellent condition. Take off the monument and go into battle.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock 14 October 2015 19: 13 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            But there is no active defense system. What will happen when a direct hit ATGM Cornet or RPG-29,32?
            1. SSeT 14 October 2015 20: 54 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              And reinforced armor, especially with PPS and the new OFS, is just against them. Like new thermal imagers. They change the application concept, hence such changes and the lack of KAZ
  2. A-Sim 14 October 2015 15: 38 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Sawing beetles. This coffin will bring dividends to their grandchildren.
    1. Sasha 19871987 14 October 2015 15: 40 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Well, I don’t know, I prefer the photo of BURNING ABRAMS ...
    2. lelikas 14 October 2015 15: 44 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: A-Sim
      Sawing beetles. This coffin will bring dividends to their grandchildren.

      And not small - they still need, at least, remote sensing kits.
      1. clidon 14 October 2015 15: 53 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        DZ kits on the Abrams are placed only in urban modernization and on the sides - the forehead there is already thick. But something like "Trophy" easily.
        1. lelikas 14 October 2015 16: 06 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: clidon
          DZ kits on the Abrams are placed only in urban modernization and on the sides - the forehead there is already thick. But something like "Trophy" easily.

          Of course. Maybe they’ll finish their Quick Kill.
        2. dvina71 14 October 2015 16: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: clidon
          DZ kits on the Abrams are placed only in urban modernization and on board - the forehead there is already thick

          EMNIP vld at him 90mm .. or whatever his detail is called in which the hatch is a mechanical drive. This detail is invulnerable to a projectile fired from the same plane with an abrams, but if you shoot from above .., and this is two fingers on the asphalt in the city.
          1. Albert1988 14 October 2015 17: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: dvina71
            or whatever his detail is called in which the hatch is a mechanical drive.

            VLD - she is the most darling.
            Quote: dvina71
            he has 90mm wld ..

            Not only she - in principle, his tower roof is very cardboard, that is, it is very easy to break through it with a mounted fire (or fire in the upper floors of buildings), given the huge tower roof area. So no matter how you upgrade this car, it is unlikely that you can seriously improve its characteristics.
          2. clidon 14 October 2015 20: 33 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Any tank has its own weakened zones and they are generally well known. But in general, there the forehead of the tower and the NLD are very, very serious
            1. Albert1988 14 October 2015 21: 09 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: clidon
              Any tank has its own weakened zones and they are generally well known. But in general, there the forehead of the tower and the NLD are very, very serious

              Of course, the Abrashi lobeshnik is equivalent to like 900 mm of homogeneous steel, and NLD, if the memory is not changed, is equivalent to 600 mm. The problem is different - on existing machines, such zones are well known to everyone, and most importantly it is not possible to fundamentally increase their protection - a new tank is needed (armata is bish))))
              1. clidon 14 October 2015 21: 42 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                If we take into account the general attitude in the states towards tanks, I don’t think that they will have something new in service before the year 2030.
                1. Albert1988 14 October 2015 22: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: clidon
                  I don’t think that they will have something new in service before the year 2030

                  If not later ...
          3. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It is reinforced with him, if not noticed. Yes, the conception has changed - now he will not climb on the erpoghe and ptursa from the upper floors
            1. Albert1988 14 October 2015 21: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: SSeT
              It is reinforced with him, if not noticed.

              In any case, it will not be possible to greatly increase the thickness of the NLD in the case of Abrams, and the tower roof does not seem to be strengthened, if not strengthened (otherwise the height of the tower would have increased quite noticeably), so it’s unlikely that the amers will be able to completely overcome this drawback. And it’s not so much the ATGMs from the upper floors in the city that will pose a great danger, as the emergence of our warriors and our allies ala "javelin" or "spike", but this should not be completely ruled out.
  3. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 15: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Introduction to the ammunition of the new 120-mm sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile M829EX4 (M829A4) of enhanced armor penetration.

    - Introduction to the tank’s ammunition of the new 120 mm Advanced Multi-Purpose with Tracer (HEMP-T) Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) XM1147 with a programmable fuse. Thus, the unification of the ammunition of the tank will be achieved on the basis of only two rounds - the multi-purpose XM1147 AMP and the armor-piercing armor-piercing M829E4 AKE.


    And they no longer need a cumulative shell?
    1. voyaka uh 14 October 2015 16: 48 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      The multi-purpose projectile has a cumm. But she’s not against MBT,
      but against lightly armored targets and concrete.
      Anti-tank cumm shells now almost stopped
      apply in tanks. Their power with caliber 120-125 mm is not
      enough to overcome the frontal armor of modern MBT.
      1. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 17: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But what about the ATGM? They are not all 152mm
        1. voyaka uh 14 October 2015 17: 29 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          ATGMs - not less than 150 mm.
          RPGs are usually smaller in caliber, but they have frontal armor
          they don’t take it anymore: from the side there, from below, from behind ...

          The Americans already in the 1st Iraqi had only OBPS
          in the ammunition tank.
          1. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 17: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Attack and Whirlwind at 130mm. And they are not considered obsolete, as I understand it.
            RPGs 29,30,32 on 105 mm (700-750 mm homogeneous without DZ) - these also do not take?
            1. voyaka uh 14 October 2015 17: 43 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              750mm
              And the equivalent of the armor of the forehead of the tower and the body of Abrams from the COP is about 900 mm
              1. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 17: 49 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Ok, with RPG everything is clear.
                Reflex-M - 900mm without DZ. Thus, the Attack and the Whirlwind should be even deeper.
                1. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 10 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  So no one will be saved from heavy birds, IF they get, but! they are damped by interference quite simply now. I think it’s not in vain that these interesting diplomatic boxes appeared on his face :)
                  So shta ... don't flatter yourself
            2. just exp 14 October 2015 17: 46 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              cumulative artillery guns were always inferior to ATGMs of the same caliber in penetration, I don’t remember the details, but it’s something like the warhead of an ATGM is longer, since a projectile has a caliber (funnel width) that comes closer to the end of the projectile, whereas a missile the full gauge width immediately follows the fairing.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 18: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                cumulative artillery guns were always inferior to ATGMs of the same caliber in penetration, I don’t remember the details, but it’s something like the warhead of an ATGM is longer, since a projectile has a caliber (funnel width) that comes closer to the end of the projectile, whereas a missile the full gauge width immediately follows the fairing.


                interesting remark. Reflex - 900mm, 3BK31 - 800mm.
                Those. voyaka uh actually right. Promising shells (for the T-14) keep in mind, but no more.

                PS Although the questions did not end))) If the length is cum. a shell affects armor penetration, why not increase it? Subcaliber lengthen and nothing.
                1. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 18: 25 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  I'll argue with myself laughing :
                  Perhaps it is easier to defend against cumulative ammunition - DZ, lattices, screens, composite armor, etc. ATGM easier to kill with KAZ than BOPS.
                  1. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 14 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    EXACTLY! You have come to the absolutely correct conclusion - this, by the way, served as a refusal by the amans from tank cops - they are no longer needed now, in such a caliber, from the word at all. There is a funnel in the universal OFS, but it is only for LBT and wall break! hi
                    1. Sukhoi 14 October 2015 23: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Is this a global trend, or just an American feature?
                    2. dvina71 15 October 2015 00: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: SSeT
                      In the universal OFS, the cum funnel is

                      Nuka tell me, can it be a caress, how can this kumvoronka help against concrete walls? And then a shell is a miracle ... and BT crumbles into small cabbage and breaks through walls .. and all with one shell ..
                      1. clidon 15 October 2015 06: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        She breaks through such walls. Speeds then what expiration ...
                  2. dvina71 15 October 2015 00: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Sukhoi
                    Perhaps it’s easier to defend against cumulative ammunition - remote sensing, gratings, screens

                    This is all and still AB on the tank there is up to the first 120mm landmine next to the tank .. So to refuse a projectile that does not lose its power from a distance .. is ridiculous somehow .. This is everything for an American .. became and shoot a bunch of commies crawling at you ..and the best thermal imager to help ..
                    Russian fight differently .. and I must say more successfully than others.
            3. kot stepan 15 October 2015 12: 06 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              At art. the shell is a thick-walled body that must withstand huge overloads when fired without irreversible deformations. ATGM housing is relatively thin-walled, respectively, more than the "useful" volume is occupied by explosives. Those. on the caliber of ammunition, you can draw some conclusions, but you need to consider the features ...
          2. cth; fyn 14 October 2015 17: 38 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            But their marines were lucky, they had not yet switched to Abrams, and they had an office on their M-60
      2. Disant 15 October 2015 00: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        why so. I think a cumulative shell with a triple cumulative charge ..
        "Start-2" with the help of a triple cumulative charge pierces up to 660 mm of armor for the built-in dynamic protection or 680 mm for the mounted. the body in the front projection is weak
      3. Disant 15 October 2015 00: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        what about
        - cutout in the mask of the gun under the head of the driver’s mechanic (thickness about 300mm).
        - The cutout between the hull and the tower: represented by the lower frontal part of the tower, going up to the shoulder strap (the thickness gradually decreases from 850mm to 300mm.
        - gun mask itself
        - frontal projection of the body
        quite a cumulative projectile should be enough to break through
  4. sinukvl 14 October 2015 15: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is that the answer to our "Armata", that would console his vanity? Do not be comforted, as you call the yacht so it will sail (Abrams is named after General Clayton Abrams, Our Armata bears the name not only of the Russian gun, but also from the Turkic translates as “the power of the fathers”, and in many European languages ​​it is translated as army, armada)
    1. kil 31 14 October 2015 15: 42 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      It is assumed that the upgrade to the level of SEP v.3 will begin in the next fiscal year. For these purposes, an amount of $ 367,9 million has been budgeted for.
      Somehow not enough, I'm used to hearing numbers in yards from them. It didn’t even reach the floor of the yard. request
      1. yushch 14 October 2015 15: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        <! - QuoteBegin wink Kil 31 -> <div class = "title_quote"> Quote: wink Kil 31 </div> <div class = "quote"> <! - QuoteEBegin -> [quote]
        It is expected that upgrades to SEP v.3 will begin next fiscal year. For these purposes, the budget includes an amount of $ 367,9 million. [/ Quote] Something is not enough, I'm used to hearing numbers in yards from them. It didn’t even reach the floor of the yard. request[/ Quote]

        This is to ensure that the Senate Committee on Defense of the loaves of bread relaxes, and as it relaxes, they will be planted with the most tomatoes in numbers in yards. They are virtuoso sawflies, our sawflies are suckers compared to them.
        1. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 29 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          For it’s really modernization, they haven’t been producing NEWs for a long time - they are sawing old ones at a single tank factory. BUT! they do it very efficiently, there is a real conveyor belt, everything is debugged to the smallest detail, the cost is like a Renault factory. There 90% of the amount for a new kit goes. And the series is not voiced 370 lyamov say for a hundred - and not cheap at all
          1. kot stepan 15 October 2015 12: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, the American comrades made a film about modernization. Everything is fine, but, now, an interesting question: if they no longer produce tank engines for the Abrams from the late 90s, but constantly repair and restore them ... what is their resource ?! Or are they still producing new engines?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 October 2015 15: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Kil 31
        Somehow not enough, I'm used to hearing numbers in yards from them. It didn’t even reach the floor of a yard

        Dear Kil 31, you just inattentively read the message :)
        Quote: Kil 31
        It is expected that upgrades to SEP v.3 will begin next fiscal year.

        Those. - will begin next year, 2016. But in what year it will end, not a word is said request
        Quote: Kil 31
        For these purposes, the budget includes an amount of $ 367,9 million.

        Those. in 2016, they will spend 367,9 million. And in subsequent years? laughing
        How many tanks are they going to modify in 2016? 1000? 300? One and a half? laughing
        1. kil 31 14 October 2015 16: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Those. in 2016 they will spend 367,9 million. And in subsequent years, how many tanks are they going to modify in 2016? 1000? 300? One and a half
          Well yes. I didn’t think how many tanks the money was. Another thought came to me. How much money was allocated from the budget to factories for the invention of new electronics and ammunition. It was not for their money that they decided to invent new equipment and ammunition. They received an order and money from the Pentagon. That would know the amount. hi
        2. Bayonet 15 October 2015 07: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How many tanks are they going to modify in 2016? 1000? 300? One and a half?

          We clearly know what will happen in 2020, and they are all silent ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. lelikas 14 October 2015 15: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sinukvl
      This is that the answer to our "Armata", that would console his vanity?

      It’s even a pity that they are not Ukrainians — they would already have read that their new projectile is breaking everything that moves! and what doesn’t move - the tank moves and breaks through! .
      1. jjj
        jjj 14 October 2015 16: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: lelikas
        It’s even a pity that they are not Ukrainians — they would already have read that their new projectile is breaking everything that moves! and what doesn’t move - the tank moves and breaks through! .

        They have everything in the subject. No words needed
    3. Longmire 14 October 2015 15: 58 New
      • -10
      • 0
      -10
      Quote: sinukvl
      This is that the answer to our "Armata", that would console his vanity

      is it a planned modernization, and by the way, how old have Armat, 2.5 prototypes already been riveted there? laughing
      1. avt
        avt 14 October 2015 16: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Longmire
        is it a planned modernization, and by the way, how old have Armat, 2.5 prototypes already been riveted there?

        Do not swagger, there will be enough of the maydown banderlogs that the militias have selected and repaired, but this is not for the Ukrainians, for a more serious enemy - we will be in time, we will finish it and put it in a series.
      2. Scoun 14 October 2015 16: 17 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Longmire
        Quote: sinukvl
        This is that the answer to our "Armata", that would console his vanity

        is it a planned modernization, and by the way, how old have Armat, 2.5 prototypes already been riveted there? laughing

        But how do you “dare” write something about the Americans in a positive way ?! You are a mishandled "Cossack", it’s only we have the right to upgrade the T-72 and this is not a cut but there is a modernization. laughing ++))
        And you spoil your karma with ur comment quack quack crackers)))
        No ** I, Americans have to sit down, cry. give up with the words aaa! the Russians have "Armata" and we have cured the polymers! At the same time, tactfully keeping silent that in the near future, Armat, like the T-90 with a gulkin nose and the main battle tank in various modifications (with which it is not always successful), remains the T-72.
        laughing
        Damn, at such a pace, I’ll soon jump to trolling utryakryalok)))
        1. Altona 14 October 2015 18: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Scoun
          No ** I, Americans have to sit down, cry. give up with the words aaa! the Russians have "Armata" and we have cured the polymers! At the same time, tactfully keeping silent that in the near future, Armat, like the T-90 with a gulkin nose and the main battle tank in various modifications (with which it is not always successful), remains the T-72.

          --------------------
          Yes, everything is fine, the Americans’s most beautiful tank, just let it ride off the highway and climb into our non-chernozem region, loam in the Middle Lane, see how this railway wagon (by weight) on the tracks works ...
      3. Major Yurik 14 October 2015 16: 22 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Longmire
        Quote: sinukvl
        This is that the answer to our "Armata", that would console his vanity

        is it a planned modernization, and by the way, how old have Armat, 2.5 prototypes already been riveted there? laughing


        Enough for you, just keep in mind - TANKS OF KLOPA DO NOT CRUSH! negative
      4. Albert1988 14 October 2015 17: 13 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Longmire
        how quickly have Armat, 2.5 prototypes already been riveted there?


        At least 10 pieces, if you keep in mind the T-14 tank, and in general there are dozens of 3 vehicles based on the “Almaty”)))
  5. Maksus 14 October 2015 15: 40 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    All the same, the Americans are still strong; it’s too early to take them off. Everything is their way - and the tanks are upgraded and the army is at war. They will not give peace to the world ...
    1. vovanpain 14 October 2015 15: 45 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      They’ll upgrade the tanks, but they’ll either fight from afar or with the wrong hands, but they don’t have to put their caps on, you are right.
      1. Maksus 14 October 2015 15: 51 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        About "by the wrong hands"here yes, you can’t argue. But in"from afar"I see nothing wrong. A living soldier is better than a dead soldier, isn’t that so?
  6. Cananecat 14 October 2015 15: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Then v4; v5; v6 ... the relatively fair selection of dough from Congress continues.
    1. DIVAN SOLDIER 14 October 2015 15: 48 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      And what do we have, t72 B3 B4 B5 ????
      1. afdjhbn67 14 October 2015 15: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        And what do we have, t72 B3 B4 B5 ????


        Well, why else B1, G1, D1 .. etc.
  7. gukoyan 14 October 2015 15: 42 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    I see them thieves in the open already grandmas begin to steal))
  8. Gormenghast 14 October 2015 15: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Something announced improvements do not pull on a new modification.

    And, most importantly, all modifications - as you can easily see - are offensive in nature, which confirms the essentially aggressive and militaristic nature of the United States.
  9. X Y Z 14 October 2015 15: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A cart for colonial wars and heavy cutting of dough. Other use is not intended.
  10. demo 14 October 2015 15: 43 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Interestingly, does the tank meet California requirements in terms of nitrogen oxide content in its exhaust?
    Or only Volkswagen for 18 lard can be shod.
  11. tihon4uk 14 October 2015 15: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The turret with a machine gun could be made smaller, more compact.
  12. Denis DV 14 October 2015 15: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And most importantly, they feel that this is the latest version of the tank drinks
    1. clidon 14 October 2015 15: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why the last? It will be easy and "Abrams M1A3". It is unlikely that in the next 10 years there will be adopted a completely new tank.
  13. K-50 14 October 2015 15: 45 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    According to the resource, the main differences between the modification of M1A2 SEP v.3 from the previous one (SEP v.2) are

    Without KAZ and dynamic protection all this is just firewood request laughing
    1. clidon 14 October 2015 15: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They put DZ on the sides, KAZ (Trophy applicant number 1) will also be easy, it’s not difficult to integrate it.
      Our tanks now also do not have KAZ.
      1. Vadim237 14 October 2015 23: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Like new shells - this new OBPS for Abrams is likely to break all of our dynamic defense systems
  14. Rurikovich 14 October 2015 15: 47 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    As far as I know, in the FSA “Abrams” have not been produced for many years. Everything is focused on the modernization of what is available. There are two plants for this, on one they are disassembled into cogs, on the other they are assembled and improved. Even after the battles, everything that remains of the tank is collected and taken out. And in order to reduce the number of these tanks, it is necessary to disassemble so that the main elements of the hull and turret do not lend themselves to restoration. Only then will the tank be considered destroyed. Then restoration will be more expensive than production. These are capitalists, and they love the expense of money wink
    hi
    1. Monos 14 October 2015 16: 01 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      smile Well, why be sure to chicken? Just leave the battlefield behind you. Scrap metal is also useful to us. wink
      1. Rurikovich 14 October 2015 16: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It is also an option wink
  15. ratfly 14 October 2015 15: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I opened the article with alarm, expecting a lot of dirty tricks, but with relief I saw only changes in the body kit and the unification of ammunition for a lot of loot ...
    1. clidon 14 October 2015 15: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Modernization is the same. Of the most significant, there are actually new ammunition.
    2. Longmire 14 October 2015 16: 01 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: ratfly
      I was anxiously opening an article

      and the tank itself does not cause alarm? Do you throw your hats?
      1. Alexander Romanov 14 October 2015 16: 02 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Longmire
        Do you throw your hats?

        In large fields.
        1. dsi
          dsi 14 October 2015 16: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Poplar also does not roll on the road. He needs goals.
          1. Alexander Romanov 14 October 2015 17: 25 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: dsi
            Poplar also does not roll on the road. He needs goals.

            The whole continent in the form of a target.
            1. dsi
              dsi 14 October 2015 18: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The whole continent in the form of a target.

              Is not a fact. The target is for mercenaries, etc. etc. How shallow you think ...
              1. dsi
                dsi 14 October 2015 19: 24 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I need to clarify something ...
      2. Albert1988 14 October 2015 17: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Longmire
        Do you throw your hats?

        BOPS ...
  16. bmv04636 14 October 2015 15: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Interesting Negro loader still left. And Che didn’t understand KAZ. No Jews clamped?
  17. rubidiy 14 October 2015 15: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    something the sum does not inspire ... what
  18. IAlex 14 October 2015 15: 50 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    A good tank, though a bit old, but it has already been tested and has participated in many conflicts ...
  19. bocsman 14 October 2015 15: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Interestingly, they removed their notorious additional generator from the rear of the tower ?!
    1. Th1nker 14 October 2015 16: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Removed from the time of the first version of the M1A2 SEP, the APU was removed from the turret basket, due to its high vulnerability, and an option was developed to install a new auxiliary unit (Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit) in the fenders on the left side. At the moment, the project has not been implemented and the tanks are supplied only with an additional battery, which allows the tank to function for up to 10 hours in "silent" mode.
  20. McLuha-MacLeod 14 October 2015 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All their tankers are already sick from their tank depleted uranium armor
    1. IAlex 14 October 2015 15: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, passengers and Boeing pilots have not yet complained ...
    2. Vadim237 14 October 2015 23: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But the armor does not fonit and shells, too, so they have nothing to hurt.
  21. Mikhail Krapivin 14 October 2015 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It will burn like a darling ...
  22. 3 Gorynych 14 October 2015 15: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Judging by the picture, because of this, even a loser will not miss! A good target ..
  23. mpzss 14 October 2015 15: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    most importantly, they did not write anything about armor protection ... either they darken or just made a new body kit, added two types of shells (and I think they are quite expensive) and now they ask for money!
  24. Persifal 14 October 2015 15: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I do not understand. Where are guided missiles? Where is the dynamic protection? Where is the active defense? Some kind of coffin ...
  25. JonnyT 14 October 2015 15: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    against t-xnumx prepared. unpleasant news of a new shot ...
    1. Engineer 14 October 2015 16: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I’ll tell you more: all the tank’s shots before that were designed specifically to destroy Soviet, and now Russian, in short, Russian tanks.
  26. Engineer 14 October 2015 15: 57 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    A remote-controlled combat module appeared on an American tank !!!! After 35 years, he still appeared.
  27. Bort radist 14 October 2015 16: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The news appeared at one of the factories of the Leningrad Region invented paint. BMP and tank become invisible to radars and thermal imagers.
    1. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And also for the eyes! and the smell of logan is indistinguishable!
      Believe these tales less - such a “paint” has been invented every 3 years already for about 30 years (in fact, 70 - before that it was “radiation-protective-absorbing”)
  28. greshnik80 14 October 2015 16: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As I understand it, the charger remains with them? Automatic loading is not provided?
  29. evil partisan 14 October 2015 16: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As I understand it, they have already decided on Ukrin that they will be delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine firstwinked . For nothing repeat .
    1. Baloo 14 October 2015 22: 03 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      I doubt the Macington macaques are dumb, but not so much. Again, the geyropa asks and asks for tanks, planes ... such as protect, protect ...
  30. Aleksey_K 14 October 2015 16: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Good photo. Visitors to the exhibition are not at all interested in modernization, which is difficult to evaluate or touch. Everyone is standing with their backs to Abrams. Another thing is the demonstration in Nizhny Tagil. Everything is clearly visible: speed, maneuver, fire and accuracy, and at the same time the flight of the tank.
    1. NEXUS 14 October 2015 17: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Алексей_К
      Everything is clearly visible: speed, maneuver, fire and accuracy, and at the same time the flight of the tank.

      If Abrash takes off, after landing, they will not only collect bolts and nuts, but also scrape off the crew with the loader from the walls. Although I think it will be easier to paint over.
      1. Vadim237 14 October 2015 23: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Abrams at least does not fly apart when an ATGM gets into it, unlike our tanks.
        1. NEXUS 15 October 2015 00: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          Abrams at least does not fly apart when an ATGM gets into it, unlike our tanks.

          But the turret’s engine is easily damaged by one shot from an RPG-7. They say that a large-caliber machine gun of 14,5 mm flashes the armor that protects the turret’s engine.
          And about our tanks "scatter", so in war as in war. Do you think that this is an indicator by which we can say that our tanks are worse? Hmm ...
          1. Vadim237 15 October 2015 09: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Safe crew yes.
  31. Sasha75 14 October 2015 16: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And how they upgraded the automatic Negro's automatic loader was changed to a very healthy Negro)))).
    1. cth; fyn 14 October 2015 17: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      On two blue blacks.
  32. Korney84 14 October 2015 16: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Tank for pumping from Xzibit: the main thing is to stick more monitors)))
  33. Belarus 14 October 2015 16: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Let them modify it as they want, but as they burned, the M1 Abrams will burn well. These tanks are designed for those countries where the weapons are not developed or they are very old. For example, until recently in Syria it might have shown itself but not now.
    In reality, these tanks can only show themselves in battle. And the question remains: how much does this tank cost ??? And is it worth that kind of money ???
  34. RUSIVAN 14 October 2015 16: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the US, the latest modification of the Abrams was demonstrated.
    The tank itself is 50% of the whole, the remaining 50% is the crew of the tank, on which the success of the tank depends, and the crew needs motivation, courage and the ability to fight ...
  35. sergeyzzz 14 October 2015 16: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: demo
    Interestingly, does the tank meet California requirements in terms of nitrogen oxide content in its exhaust?
    Or only Volkswagen for 18 lard can be shod.

    These 18 lard new tanks and stick. I would use a Volkswagen emblem on a tank in their place. lol
  36. Coconut 14 October 2015 16: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    General Dynamic Corporation for the first time demonstrated in Washington at the AUSA 2015 exhibition the latest modification of the M1 Abrams tank - the M1A2 SEP v.3 variant, the bmpd blog reports with reference to armyrecognition.com.

    yes yes ... on such or almost such a Taliban with an igil katayutso..a they shout that they took away from Iraq wassat
  37. slaw14 14 October 2015 16: 26 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    As a friend of RPG-7 said:
    "I picked it and will continue to pick it"
    1. Baloo 14 October 2015 21: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Respect and respect for your friend and his parents especially. I’ll go get the medicine for their health. bully drinks
  38. tchoni 14 October 2015 16: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Here you don’t just have to find fault. They are very smart people. In addition, underestimating the enemy is very dangerous. It is clear that Abrash will not be able to reach how many do not upgrade it, but, firstly, the tank and the tank do not converge so often in battle, so that it would be very critical. And the second, while we are riveting a thousand Armats in a crisis, we’ll modernize our thousand abrashks five times.
    1. NEXUS 14 October 2015 16: 43 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: tchoni
      And the second, while we are riveting a thousand Armats in a crisis, we’ll modernize our thousand abrashks five times.

      And as for the T-90 “BREAKTHROUGH”, you somehow kept silent, but in vain. And in the near future there is an idea to make a remotely controlled T-90 (not all of course, but I think in sufficient quantities). And Abrash is expensive and heavy and without an automatic loader With regards to vulnerability, excuse the tower engine as it was not humanly protected, it remained so. And the RPG-7 in the east for $ 150, when hit by this engine, makes this upgraded tank for 8 million in a pile of rusty iron.
      1. tchoni 15 October 2015 20: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If the plans for the modernization of our army remain as they were two years ago, then the picture will be as follows. on tank troops at least.
        500-600 T-90
        + 1700-2000 T-72 upgraded to level B3 or another higher level. Koi will be smoothly replaced by "Armata" at the speed of a battalion-regiment per year for 10 years.
        In the case of Abrashi, I say that this is an asymmetric response to our "Armata" and not at all stupid. Because the technical flaws of the tank can be compensated for by the tactics of its use, information support of the crew, increasing the efficiency of logistics services.
        And there is absolutely no reason to relate to the Americans, led by an African American, captainly and contemptuously. It may go sideways. In the same Syria, let’s say.
  39. MolGro 14 October 2015 16: 29 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4

    Yes normal tank !! It burns beautifully!
    1. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      By the way, it is EXTREMELY a successful hit - at the junction of the bathhouse with the BC and the fighting compartment - and the protective shutters also got into the BC! 1 in 100000, LUCKY!
      P.S. 2nd case nothing - hit and hit, only the dust went
      1. MolGro 17 October 2015 16: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, he makes his way to the forehead of the tower!


        and the tower flies off beautifully


  40. Shadowcat 14 October 2015 16: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Nah ... the most important modernism is not pumped. Where are the jams? Which is + 5% to the reload speed?
  41. lopvlad 14 October 2015 16: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    These modifications of Abrams are simply an attempt to extend the life of a tank in the late 70s.
  42. ALEA IACTA EST 14 October 2015 16: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In their place, I would not concentrate on upgrading Abrams, but on creating a new generation tank, as opposed to Armate.
    1. AlNikolaich 14 October 2015 21: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      In their place, I would not concentrate on upgrading Abrams, but on creating a new generation tank, as opposed to Armate.

      Colleague, the Americans are doing everything right! They have a new tank and are not in the project. And appropriations
      Congress did not allocate for the development of a new machine ... So, when they will have a new tank will be unknown. And the modernization is timely. As a result, the funds will be justified. Tactical improvement
      characteristics, a reduction in the nomenclature of shells, increased combat power. Not bad!
      With regards to Almaty, how soon will it go en masse to the troops?
  43. Bort radist 14 October 2015 16: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "In the US, the latest modification of the Abrams has been demonstrated."
    As they say in aviation - The last and the last is a big difference.
    1. Aleksey_K 14 October 2015 23: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Bort Radist
      "In the US, the latest modification of the Abrams has been demonstrated."
      As they say in aviation - The last and the last is a big difference.

      In Russian, the more correct expression is "last". And the expression "extreme" is a big uncertainty. For example, a line of people always has two edges, these are the "first" and "last". Or, for example, when gunners knock out tanks on a march or in a narrow place where tanks cannot turn around, they first hit the “last”, and then the “first”, but not the “extreme” ones.
  44. roskot 14 October 2015 17: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The main thing in the instructions. And it says there’s no way closer than 30 km to Armata.
  45. slizhov 14 October 2015 17: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is necessary to something with our brand new HOLIDAY, however ... :)
  46. alstr 14 October 2015 17: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But I have a question? If you take down the big garbage on the tower, then it turns out that it will be impossible to shoot new-fangled shells (these are those with remote detonation)?
    If so then it’s absolutely wonderful to shoot on the roof and the whole tank is not dangerous.
  47. Maksus 14 October 2015 18: 07 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Comrades, writing about the automatic loader - read the characteristics of the shells - the length of the American BOPS 980mm, can you imagine what size the carousel and shoulder strap of the tower should be in order to automatically charge it ???? That's why they work nigra.
    But our BOPSs are short, but from Almaty we can get a normal shell, but for now, in this field we are losing NATE.
    1. Rader 14 October 2015 21: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Maksus
      Comrades, writing about the automatic loader - read the characteristics of the shells - the length of the American BOPS is 980 mm, can you imagine what size of the carousel and shoulder strap should be in order to automatically charge it ???? That's why they work nigra ...

      Hmm .... ??? And what do AZs now only do of the carousel type do? And the French with drum AZ? And the last of the French AMX 56 Leclerc with a conveyor belt? And object 640? And on the abrams platform they also wanted to create a tank with an AZ and an uninhabited tower, but it didn’t grow together ... So if we really wanted to, there would have been an AB for the abrams or his successor, there are not so many technical difficulties.
      1. Maksus 14 October 2015 23: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The drum mechanism has drawbacks - it is impossible to quickly reload, the same AMX-13, shot its shells at a high pace and went to the rear to reload. And Leclerc was originally designed for AZ, like the Panther K2. Installing a AZ in Abrams will lead to such a cost of remaking that it is easier to wait for lasers and plasma guns)))
    2. SSeT 14 October 2015 21: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Maksus: You are tagging beads in front of sweet .. you know yourself! Shkolota just does not understand that there is a different engineering approach - they subtracted from Koshkin about the "nigra" - well, that’s frolic! it’s not clear that there are technical circumstances (the new unitary unit is longer than the 152nd from 2A83), about the fact that our tankers for the 4th are only in favor, because then, in general, or it’s stupidly a ghusl to change at -30 better than the 4th, that people are more dynamic in a number of situations, and indeed 4> 3, that the AZ is too bulky with our low-armored volume, that it is better to keep watch on the 4th post with 2 machine guns than with the 1st, what .. what .. what .. is dozens of these WHOOOO!? EE, about which schools or offsplankton does not even suspect, but by the way, see my upper phrase! hi drinks
      1. Shadowcat 15 October 2015 03: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But half a liter for three is more convenient to share than for four) drinks
  48. Yak28 14 October 2015 20: 07 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Now there are a lot of various ATGMs, grenade launchers in the troops, + helicopters that have shown themselves very well as tank killers. I am silent about aviation, artillery and missiles. In my opinion, tank columns are not formidable like in the Great Patriotic War. Now nobody is tanks don't scare
    1. Maksus 14 October 2015 20: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, don't scare. Do you know how far you can hit a tank type target from a grenade launcher? And to get out of the gun into a moving object? Actually, ATGMs and helicopters with ATGMs are terrible for the tank, but some are difficult to carry and expensive, others are very afraid of air defense. A tank is a force, and in itself, but with the presence of support in the form of infantry - this is already fear and horror. And it’s not a fact that a grenade or ATGM hit will destroy the tank.
      1. Yak28 14 October 2015 21: 58 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Well, for example, a Cornet or similar kilometers will shoot for 4-5, grenade launchers are certainly much closer, in a city a couple of hundred meters is just enough. But if you compare the cost of the ATGM and the tank, the difference will be wow.
        Of course, if the tanks come with the support of infantry, aviation, then everything is clear. But I mean that the tank, as I believe, is not such a formidable force as it was before. The Ukrainians with tanks and aviation did not achieve much, and Iraq at one time had more than a thousand tanks and the result is zero. And of course the tank is the most massive and well-armored unit
        1. Maksus 14 October 2015 23: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Have you seen a tank near? Damn, you can crap one's pants on the kind of 80 coming to you, even if you are firmly convinced that this is the tank of your TB. And if he shoots at the same time?
          1. voyaka uh 15 October 2015 11: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            for Maksus:
            That's for sure! I have from my own infantry support tanks
            the hair stood up under a helmet ... lying, and the earth is shaking,
            as in an earthquake - 50 tons of steel creeps nearby.
            A tank, even an old one, is a frightening thing.
    2. SSeT 14 October 2015 22: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yak28 SU: You just didn’t see him live, and you can’t imagine what kind of power in capable hands!
    3. Shurik70 14 October 2015 23: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Yak28
      In my opinion now tank columns do not represent a formidable force as in the great Patriotic war


      Any technique is effective with skillful use.
      Massive tank attacks with hurricane fire sweeping obstacles showed themselves very well in Iraq.
      I believe that the Americans will also modify tanks for this tactic - to shoot faster, further, more powerful, with increased ammunition.
      True, there were no missiles in Iraq for a massive response. Type Solcepёka, for example. And so they would have covered the whole brigade with one salvo.
  49. ssn18 14 October 2015 20: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "For these purposes, the budget includes an amount of $ 367,9 million."

    It was from this point that one had to start!
    For the exceptional ones, the main thing is to cut the loot, but the fact that a new abrash appears is far from a fact. And the most interesting examples are many.
  50. RUS69 14 October 2015 22: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Maksus
    Well, don't scare. Do you know how far you can hit a tank type target from a grenade launcher? And to get out of the gun into a moving object? Actually, ATGMs and helicopters with ATGMs are terrible for the tank, but some are difficult to carry and expensive, others are very afraid of air defense. A tank is a force, and in itself, but with the presence of support in the form of infantry - this is already fear and horror. And it’s not a fact that a grenade or ATGM hit will destroy the tank.

    Yes and not the fact that gets.
    T 14 for this and developed as a complex sorry for offtop
    Unlike traditional tanks, the T-14, like all combat vehicles of the Armata family, is not intended for single combat, but for working with a group of various combat vehicles in one tactical link, performing the function of reconnaissance, target designation and remote control through the ESU system TK (unified tactical link management system) of the Sozvedie concern [23] [25], which allows all Armata vehicles to receive an operational situation in real time and automatically calculate ballistic data for fire control systems in a scenario of hitting targets with more than one Armata ”, And attacks the target as a whole group at once. Due to AFAR, the T-14 radar in the tactical link is positioned as a complex of army intelligence and target designation [17]. Direct destruction of targets can be carried out not by the T-14, but by the BBM of its tactical link. For example, a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle Armata T-15 is capable of using air defense guns 2A42 [26] and 9M133FM-3 Kornet anti-aircraft missiles [27] to fire at air targets found by T-14. For firing T-14 with the help of another BBM, structural changes are introduced into them, in particular, all armored vehicles with the Epoch combat module (T-15, Kurganets-25) received completely remote control fire, including in the capture and tracking of targets. [28] It is proposed to expand this scenario of the remote delivery of targets from the T-14 to the ability of the T-14 to control missiles and guns of an attack helicopter paired with the T-14 [29]. Uralvagonzavod through its Technowars magazine announced that it plans to make the T-14 itself remotely controlled [30]