Military Review

Projects of main battle tanks in NATO countries

78

German army wants to modernize its fleet of 328 tanks Leopard 2 (pictured option 2A6) to standard 2A7


Without developing new machines, the NATO countries, seeking to maintain their capabilities in the field of MBT, have no alternative but to restore and update their existing machines. Consider the currently implemented program.

The main battle tank (MBT) is one of the most expensive and lethal ground combat systems in service with most armies. Most of the current generation of NATO’s MBT, designed in the 70 and 80 of the last century, is projected to remain in service for the next 20 or 30 years and operators in France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States are taking on modernization projects to maintain combat effectiveness their tanks.

ABRAMS is progressing

Since the M1 Abrams tank, created by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), entered service with 35 years ago and replaced the M60 tank with the 105-mm gun, it has taken full advantage of the continuous improvement process funded by the US army. For the army of this country, more than 8800 M1 tanks were manufactured in various versions (the most famous M1, M1A1 and M1A2), while the 403 machines M1A1 were supplied to the Marine Corps. M1 tank was exported to Australia (59 tanks M1A1 AIM from the presence of the American army), Egypt (over 1000 M1A1 co-production in the country), Iraq (140 M1A1M from the presence of the American army), Kuwait (218 new M1A2) and Saudi Arabia (330 new M1A2).

The M3273 1, made in 1979-1985, was armed with a Royal Ordnance 105-mm L7 cannon. Then they began to produce the M1A1 variant, armed with an 120-mm smooth-bore M256 gun, based on the Rheinmetall L44. While the M1A1 was practically a new tank, most of the M1A2, which began to enter service with the 1993 of the year, represent upgrades to previous M1 or M1A1 models.

In order to cope with the challenges of asymmetric warfare in Iraq, in the form of, for example, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), RPG attacks and snipers in urban areas, the organization responsible for the Abrams project launched a modernization kit program in 2005, which subsequently received TUSK designation (Tank Urban Survival Kit - a set of additional equipment and reservations for the Abrams tank, enhancing its combat capabilities in the city). In August of 2006, she issued a contract to GDLS for 45 million dollars to manufacture and install 505 of such kits.

The TUSK kit includes: armored screens for the loader and the commander, providing protection against small fire weapons and shell fragments or IEDs when working with an open hatch; Abrams Tile I and II dynamic protection units, providing higher levels of ballistic protection; stabilized remote commander combat module providing protection against snipers or IEDs; machine gun on the barrel for precision firing Counter-Sniper Anti-Materiel Mount; and a thermal loader sight with a helmet-mounted display, which provides a picture when firing an 7,62-mm M240 machine gun.


Tank Abrams in picking TUSK

In addition, the kit includes additional elements: a telephone for communication with infantry (TIP) and other dismounted units; thermal sight for 12,7-mm machine gun; power of vision (review) driver; power switchboard; additional booking bottoms; energy absorbing driver's seat; rearview camera driver; a canopy to create shade and reduce the temperature inside the tank during operations in hot areas; and a crew conditioning kit.

Modular approach

The TUSK modular suite allows users from different elements to build a system that matches current threats. When the Marine Corps deployed a company of M1A1 tanks in Afghanistan at the end of 2010, he selected three items from the TUSK kit: bottom reservation; thermal imager for the commander's 12,7-mm machine gun and armored shield for the loader. The hull before that, as part of its program to increase the fire power of the tank, the M1 installed a second-generation front-view thermal imaging system and a TIP telephone.

After the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, TUSK kits were rebuilt and redeployed to prepare for future deployments.

The US Army plans to leave M1 Abrams tanks in operation of its armored brigades until about the 2050 year. “The army’s strategy to modernize the Abrams fleet revolves around issues of progressive modernization of the platform through a combination of technological innovations and product improvements based on evolving threats and available technologies,” said Rob Brown, an assistant to the head of Abrams tank, in an interview in January 2014. in the Doctrine and Combat Training Command TRADOC.

The current Army Standard for Upgrade is the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package - System Upgrade Kit) version of 2, which is based on the previous version of M1A2 SEP v1, deployed in the middle of 2009. GDLS describes the M1A2 SEP v2 as “the most technologically advanced tank in the world.” According to military sources, M1A2 SEP is notable for “improved microprocessors, color displays, a large amount of memory, an improved human-machine interface, and a new operating system that runs software for a common combat space.”

“Both the main GPS gunner and the independent thermal imager of the CITV commander from the M1A2 SEP kit are based on the new thermal capabilities of the second-generation FLIR technology. The M1A2 SEP kit includes a reservation for the front end and sides, which increases the survivability of the crew. The M1A2 SEP standard tank is also fitted with a fully rebuilt Total Integrated Revitalization (TIGER) engine and an upgraded transmission, which increases the reliability and service life of the power unit and chassis systems. "

The kit also includes color displays and thermal sights, a remote-controlled commander CROWS II combat module (Commander's Remote Operated Weapon Station II), a Thermal Management System (TMS) thermal control system and a TIP telephone.

The original SEP v2 multi-year contract, issued in February 2008, provided funding for the upgrading of 435 M1A1 tanks to a new configuration; As a result, by the end of 2013, approximately 1600 tanks from 2400 tanks M1 armies were refined to this standard. In January, 2014, the company GDLS received an order worth 72,7 million dollars for the serial upgrading of another 12 M1A1 tank to the standard M1A2 SEP v2, and in February 2015, the company received a contract to upgrade six more pieces. Works under these contracts will continue until January 2017.

In the fiscal year 2016 fiscal year, the army stated that “M1 is on the edge of its volume, mass and cooling capacity or even exceeds it” and explained that it is implementing a number of proposals to make design changes to support current integrated systems and simplify embedding. technologies developed under other priority programs. The Army has requested 77,6 million dollars for research, design, testing and evaluation work on these proposals and the integration of the improved thermal imaging system IFLIR and 367,9 million dollars for financing the start of production of the components provided by the Abrams design changes, and their integration into 2017 fiscal year.

According to the army, “the proposal for making changes under number 1A is aimed at interoperability in the new network and system deficit of electrical power in order to integrate the approved requirements, improve survivability and update the electronics in order to eliminate obsolescence and significantly increase combat stability.” In particular, the upgrade includes a modified Handheld Manpack Small (HMS) communication system, a new 1000 Amp generator, a power distribution system (a new slip ring, a battery monitoring system, and an auxiliary power unit), a radio electronic control kit with radio-controlled VCA (CREW / Duke 3) , the next generation of armor, a communication channel with ammunition for firing intelligent shells (currently under development) and the replacement of six quick-change blocks for quick-change modules.


MBT M1A2 System Enhancement Package v2

Assessment process

GDLS delivered nine M1A2 ECP 1A prototypes to test sites in Aberdeen and Yuma. The tests will be carried out in two stages: control tests of the product in 2015-2018 years and acceptance tests of the product scheduled for the 2018-2020 years.

The proposal for amending Abrams ECP 1B, previously known as ECP 2, consists mainly in improving mortality and, in accordance with existing plans, mass production of its components will begin in the 2020 year. The main emphasis is placed on the integration of IFLIR and the communication channel with ammunition, which will allow the tank to fire with new XM1147 HEMP-T ammunition (High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer - high-explosive fragmentation universal with tracer) developed by the weapons research center.

In July, the US Army issued contracts to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems and Orbital ATK for the development of this munition and, according to the schedule, the production of the projectile batch of shells should begin in the 2015 year.

As part of the ECP 1B proposal, the army is also seeking to further improve its surveillance and targeting sensors, including “color cameras and laser systems. Other potential improvements include an improved life support system, a laser warning system receiver and a smoke screen installation system. Research will be conducted on alternative solutions to evaluate other potential upgrades. ”

In October 2013, at the AUSA 2013 exhibition, GDLS identified the potential for further upgrades. She presented the Abrams tank with a new power unit consisting of a diesel engine MTU 12V 883 with a power 1500 hp, a new cooling system and an Allison automatic transmission, which is proposed as a replacement for the gas turbine engine from Honeywell. According to GDLS, this upgrade will allow M1A1 / M1A2 tanks to significantly improve performance and reduce operating costs by 14%.

Tireless Leopard

The Leopard 2 tank was jointly developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall in the 70s of the last century as a replacement for the Leopard 1 tank of the German army armed with an 105-mm cannon; its production was divided between these two companies. From 1979, approximately 2125 tanks were manufactured for the local market. As well as the Leopard 1, the second option was successful in the export market; 17 countries bought new or used Leopard 2 tanks. At the beginning of 2013, Qatar became the last buyer of new cars when it ordered the 62 tank Leopard 2A7 + with deliveries scheduled for the end of 2015 of the year. This contract increased the number of Leopard production tanks to almost 3550 machines.

In order to meet the needs of the German army and foreign customers, the Leopard 2 tank was continuously upgraded and improved. Early models (up to 2A4) are distinguished by vertical armoring of the tower, while subsequent versions (up to the last 2A7 ++) are distinguished by inclined armor. Starting with the Leopard 2A6, the 120-mm smoothbore Rheinmetall L44 gun was replaced with the more powerful 120-mm smoothbore L55 gun.

In the middle of 2010, KMW showed the tank Leopard 2A7 +, a further development of the configuration Leopard 2 PSO (Peace Support Operations - peacekeeping operations), which in turn was shown in the middle of 2006. This configuration has incorporated all the wishes and requests of the Canadian and Danish armies, whose contingents deployed their Leopard 2 tanks in Afghanistan.

Canada received 20 2A6M tanks from the presence of the German army, upgraded by KMW to 2A6M CAN configuration. Hinged lattice screens were installed along the sides and in the stern of the hull and turret in order to provide additional protection against RPGs, as well as Canadian radio stations and radio electronic suppression equipment. Later, the air conditioning system and a camouflage system for mobile objects Mobile Camouflage System from Saab Barracuda were installed on the theater.

The Leopard 2A7 + version provides a wide range of possible upgrades, although KMW expects that Germany and other German tank operators will not select all options for financial reasons. The new model has a KMW FLW 200 rooftop installed on the roof and an enhanced booking kit that provides all-round protection as well as protection from weapon systems that attack from above. Day and thermal cameras allow all crew members to control the situation around the vehicle. The commander has a new, mounted on the roof stabilized panoramic sight with daytime channels and a laser rangefinder, while the driver has a new day / night camera and a seat suspended from the ceiling, increasing the likelihood of survival.

The 2A7 version + standard MTU power unit with 1500 horsepower. he was left, at the same time, he received new flight reducers, new tracks from Diehl, an improved torsion bar suspension and braking system, which was the result of an increase in the weight of the machine. For operation at high temperatures, an air-conditioning system was installed, as well as a telephone to communicate with the infantry. If necessary, for example, in case of unavailability of engineering units, a front dozer blade can be installed to clear obstacles and quickly open a firing position.

For operations in Afghanistan, Canada urgently needed tanks Leopard 2. Therefore, Germany "occupied" 20 tanks 2A6M (the best that was in the warehouses of Germany) Canada, provided that they will be returned in the "as delivered" state. However, since the tanks, upgraded to the configuration of the 2A6M CAN, were seriously “battered” during the operation, there was no point in returning the original vehicles.

Instead, Canada bought 20 Dutch tanks Leopard 2A6NL (as well as 80 2A4NL tanks stored) and paid KMW to upgrade them to 2A6M for further delivery to Germany. However, Germany took advantage of the fact that these tanks are being upgraded at the KMW plant and ordered their revision to the standard 2A7. In December, 2014, Germany received the first 20 tanks, Leopard 2A7, and now the German army and KMW are hoping for government funding to upgrade the entire tank fleet to the 2A7 standard.

The German government responded to the events in Ukraine and increased the number of Leopard 2 tanks remaining in service from 225 to 338 and the army is now awaiting funding for the modernization of these tanks to the 2A7 configuration.

Tanks for export

As a foreign market, Rheinmetall has developed its own Leopard 2 retrofit kit. The Revolution MBT, shown at Eurosatory 2010, consists of 12 modules that allow customers to select items that fit their needs and budgets. Rheinmetall describes this upgrade as “revolutionary” because it offers a new “protection kit, along with an increased set of intelligence and surveillance systems with a relatively modest increase in mass.”

Projects of main battle tanks in NATO countries

MBT Leopard Revolution

The passive booking system developed by IBD Deisenroth provides an increase in the level of perimeter protection and includes modules for protecting the hull and turret from IEDs, the bottom from mines and the roof from fragments of shells.

Rheinmetall offers two options for enhancing the capabilities of the tower. In accordance with the first, the main analog system is retained and modern components are added, for example, a laser range finder, a commander's periscope and a thermal imager arrow. According to the second variant, a full revision of the main system is carried out in order to obtain an integrated digital tower with a shorter response time and a higher probability of hitting the first shot.


The British Army plans to launch a life extension program, the implementation of which will allow the Challenger 2 tank to remain in service until 2035.

Rheinmetall's stabilized optoelectronic sensor system, SEOSS (Stabilized Electro-Optical Sensor System) from the company, provides the commander with improved observation capabilities at night, has an increased range and high elevation angles (up to 70 °), while the situational awareness system provides circular all-round An overview of the immediate environment with automatic warning and tracking functions. New information management system provides tracking of their forces and visualization of the enemy forces.

Other improvements include: a brake that allows the commander to stop the tank in critical situations; roof mounted, stabilized; improved air conditioning system, combined with the new concept of isolating the fighting compartment, improved ventilation and thermal protection of the store; and an external two-way communication system that allows the crew to communicate with dismounted infantry. The customer can either keep the original L44 cannon, or replace it with a L55 cannon.

Rheinmetall bought several Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and Switzerland, which they offer to resell as MBT or convert to Kodiak engineering vehicle. In December, 2012 Indonesia bought the 103 tank Leopard 2A4 from Rheinmetall, of which the 61 machine is upgraded to the configuration of Leopard 2 RI (Republic of Indonesia), which includes many of the elements of the Revolution kit.

City Warriors

Nexter from 1992 to 2008 put 406 tanks of the French army in Leclerc for the year, and also produced 1994 tanks for the United Arab Emirates from 2008 to 388 year of 46 tropical tanks, 2008 repair and recovery vehicles and two driving instruction machines. French tanks were manufactured in three series, each of which included numerous improvements; the last series is called Série XXI. In the final version of the 254 defense budget of the year, the Leclerc fleet was reduced to 2013 MBT, and later, in accordance with the 200 defense budget of the year, this number was reduced to XNUMX vehicles, which is enough to arm two armored brigades.

In the middle of 2006, Nexter showed a Leclerc Action en Zone Urbaine (AZUR) retrofit kit, specially designed for urban warfare, which includes an additional comprehensive protection system and an improved situational awareness system. New modular side screens of composite armor expanded from the front to the end of the fighting compartment, the back of the chassis protect lattice screens. The upper sheets of the engine compartment were modified to increase protection against incendiary bottles.


Tank Leclerc in picking AZUR

The panoramic camera installed on the roof allows the commander to conduct round-the-clock observation, and the close protection is improved by installing an 7,62-mm DBMS on the roof. GALIX grenade launchers are installed on each side of the tower, which can fire GALIX 4 smoke grenades, smoke screen grenades in the GALIX 13 infrared spectrum and grenades with limited GALIX 46 damaging effects.

Instead of standardly installed diesel fuel tanks for long-range crossings, discharged containers for additional equipment and weapons, such as ammunition for dismounted infantry, can be installed. The AZUR kit also includes a phone for contacting infantry. A complete AZUR kit can be installed on a tank in less than half a day using standard tools and equipment. In 2011-2012 for years, Nexter produced an unnamed number of AZUR kits for the UAE.

In March, 2015 of the French DGA Defense Department issued Nexter a contract worth 330 million dollars to upgrade 200 Leclerc and 18 BRAM DCL to Leclerc Renové and DCL Renova to extend the service life of the machines and then 2040 of the year. The Office describes the contract as a third project launched as part of the SCORPION French Army Armored Equipment Renovation Program (Synergie du Company Renforce par la Polyvalence et l'InfovalorisatiON — a combination of reliable contact through versatility and information value).

Upgrades include new booking kits to better match threats, such as VCAs, the installation of new tactical digital radio stations developed by Thales under the CONTACT digital communications program (Communications Business TACtiques et de TeatrE), and the integration of upgraded machines into the tactical network-centric SICS information system (System d 'Information et de Commandement SCORPION), developed by Bull and Thales.

British tank CHALLENGER

The BAE of BAE Systems, the Challenger 2, began to enter service with the British army in 1993 as a replacement for the previous Challenger 1; The supply of 386 tanks ended in the 2002 year. Another 38 machine was made for Oman. As a result of the revision of the British defense budget 2010, the Challenger 2 fleet was reduced to 227 vehicles, which is enough to equip three Type 58 armored regiments (one in each of the three motorized infantry brigades). The decommission date for the Challenger 2 was moved from 2028 to 2035 year.

The Challenger 2 tank, although with significant modifications, maintains the hull of its predecessor, it has a new turret installed, armed with an 120-mm high-pressure rifled L30A1 gun, it is the only NATO tank with a rifled 120-mm gun. This forces the UK to finance the development of its own ammunition without the hope of reimbursing the cost of exports.

For the invasion of Iraq in 2003, BAE Systems supplied retrofit kits for 137 tanks. As part of several urgent operational requirements, the company carried out further refinements in order to modernize the number of tanks sufficient to arm the compound deployed in this country during the subsequent stabilization operation. These modifications included additional armor, including bottom plates, electronic silencers for IEDs, mounted on the roof of the Selex Enforcer, equipped with an 7,62-mm machine gun, new night-vision devices for the driver and rear-view camera, a modified air filter for the power unit and a new cooling system.

Together, these improvements have increased the mass of the Challenger 2 from 62,5 tons to almost 75 tons, which in turn reduced the power density.

At the end of the 90s, the British Army planned a CSP (Capability Sustainment Program) program to extend the life of the Challenger 2, which included the Challenger Lipness Improvement Program (CLIP), which included the replacement of the L30AXNX gun Rheinmetall L1 gun caliber 55 mm. As part of a demonstration program, the 120-mm L120 smoothbore gun was installed on the Challenger 55 and tested in the 2-2005 years by the armored test office. However, budget cuts did not allow the CSP program to continue.

The new government review of strategic defense and security, which is scheduled to be published by the end of 2015, is expected to include a program to extend the life of the Challenger 2 to 2035. The new project is less ambitious compared to the CSP program, since the L30A1 gun will be left, and the emphasis will be on wear and obsolescence. It is expected that a new power unit and a new optoelectronics will be installed.

General Dynamics UK and Lockheed Martin UK are more likely to compete with BAE Systems Combat Vehicles UK for CSP. It is assumed that the invitation to bid for the evaluation phase will be published in 2016 year.

Comment

At the annual exhibition-symposium of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA 2015), held in Washington from 12 to 15 in October 2015, the American corporation General Dynamics for the first time publicly demonstrated the latest modification of the main American tank M1 Abrams - version M1A2 SEP v.3 (until now, the M1A2 SEP v.2 version was the most advanced in the US Army).


Prototype of a modernized American tank Abrams M1A2 SEP v.3 at the AUSA 2015 exhibition

The main differences between the M1A2 SEP v.3 modification and the SEP v.2 modification:

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

An introduction to the ammunition of the new 120-mm Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) ХМ1147 high explosive multi-purpose tracer (HEMP-T) multi-purpose multipurpose shot with a programmable fuse. Thus, unification of the tank ammunition on the basis of just two shots will be achieved - the multipurpose ХМ1147 АMP and the armor-piercing sabot M829E4 AKE.

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

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

Installation of the Commander's Remote Operated Weapon Station Low Profile (CROWS-LP) mounted on the roof of the turret of a tank, commanded by a commander of a tank, with an 12,7-mm M2 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 the tank crew.

Modernization of tanks of the M1 family of the US Army to the level of M1A2 SEP v.3 will most likely be carried out from the 2016 of the fiscal year (replacing the ongoing modernization to the level of M1A2 SEP v.2), to which the budget of the specified fiscal year should be allocated 367,9 million. .

Materials used:
www.shephardmedia.com
www.gdls.com
www.kmweg.com
www.rheinmetall.com
www.nexter-group.fr
www.bmpd.livejournal.com
www.baesystems.com
www.ausameetings.org
www.wikipedia.org
Author:
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kenvas
    kenvas 26 October 2015 07: 14 New
    +4
    All Western MBT vehicles are not very bad in principle, but they are all “Tiger-like”, and we all know how the Great Patriotic War ended and what happened to the vaunted Tigers ... And you T34 is still considered the best tank of all time, according to the same striped. But the main thing - the main thing is the strength and spirit of people, and Russia will give everyone a head start here!
    1. bolat19640303
      bolat19640303 26 October 2015 08: 39 New
      32
      Quote: kenvas
      All Western MBT vehicles are not very bad in principle, but they are all “Tiger-like”, and we all know how the Great Patriotic War ended and what happened to the vaunted Tigers ... And you T34 is still considered the best tank of all time, according to the same striped. But the main thing - the main thing is the strength and spirit of people, and Russia will give everyone a head start here!

      No matter how you relate to the "tiger-like" MBT of a potential adversary, they remain a very strong and worthy adversary. Moreover, the economic capabilities of the leading NATO countries allow improving their MBT in terms of "protection-firepower-mobility." And one will have to reckon with this, and not rely on chance, in no way diminishing the importance of fortitude.
    2. orskpdc
      orskpdc 26 October 2015 09: 51 New
      -43
      The T-34 is the best only in terms of the quantity produced, and in combination of characteristics, in 41 it lost the Pz-III and Pz-IV.
      1. marline
        marline 26 October 2015 10: 30 New
        10
        Quote: orskpdc
        The T-34 is the best only in terms of the quantity produced, and in combination of characteristics, in 41 it lost the Pz-III and Pz-IV.

        Is it true?
        To begin with, answer 2 questions: From what distance could the T-34 penetrate the armor of the Pz-III and Pz-IV? At what distance did the Pz-III and Pz-IV penetrate the T-34 armor?
        The only major advantage of Pz-III and Pz-IV in 41g. - this is their number.
        And by the way, if the Pz-III is such an imba, why were they removed from production after the first clashes with the T-34? and why was it to develop the Tigers and Panthers ???
        1. vomag
          vomag 26 October 2015 10: 57 New
          14
          What can I say ... orskpdc is an ordinary Troll, just minus it and that's it ... And about the slot they were discontinued after the first clashes with the T-34here you are mistaken the groove was discontinued in 1943 and switched to the production of assault guns on its platform (for short) ...
          1. orskpdc
            orskpdc 26 October 2015 15: 06 New
            -7
            Well, say ....
            And better go to the "Tanchiki" play. We don’t read books, the head hurts and does not want to think.
            What kind of designer should be in order to put a tank in the fighting compartment, and the driver’s hatch is the weakest point. The military really did not want to take the T-34 into service. But not because they were stupid, but because after testing revealed EIGHTY design flaws. Passing tests at the training ground, the crew (with hatches closed) found no more than twenty percent of typical targets, that is, the tank was BLIND.
            But there is a cannon, armor, and made in the USSR, for URY, URY this is the most important thing.
            1. marline
              marline 26 October 2015 17: 14 New
              +9
              Quote: orskpdc
              ... But there is a cannon, armor and made in the USSR, for URY, URY it is the most important thing ...

              You just don’t like everything Russian ...
              I will not answer the rest, they answered below.
              Read the story of your beloved Sherman and Abrams ... how many imperfections were there ...
              And yes, the T-34 has a gun, armor, and was made in the USSR and from these tanks they shot at the Reichstag ... and not from T3 and T4 at the Kremlin ...
              1. orskpdc
                orskpdc 26 October 2015 20: 20 New
                -7
                So you, too, are only URA, URA and again URA
                1. anti-Semite
                  anti-Semite 28 October 2015 19: 13 New
                  +1
                  Hurray is a battle cry with which our ancestors went to death defending their homeland and if it weren’t for their feat, you wouldn’t be joking at their memory but would die in the mine for the glory of the Reich, the super tiger wouldn’t enter Moscow, but t 34 Berlin visited
              2. mirag2
                mirag2 27 October 2015 19: 48 New
                0
                You just don’t like everything Russian ...
                - by no means, he means "urapatriots" - but actually this is an ordinary schoolboy: "not because he was dumb, but because" he is not literate.
            2. svp67
              svp67 26 October 2015 18: 27 New
              11
              Quote: orskpdc
              What kind of designer need to be in order to put a tank in the fighting compartment

              You do not have knowledge of the design of the T-34. At the first T34, fuel tanks were not located in the fighting compartment. And since this tank was created through the phased modernization of BT tanks, the location of the fuel tanks on the first T-34s was like on a BT, namely between the two armored barriers that covered Christie’s suspension, on the sides of the tank ... So that no longer hit
              Quote: orskpdc
              The military really did not want to take the T-34 into service

              I will tell you a secret, the need of the Red Army for such tanks was so great that the T34 was put into service even before it was put into production, not even looking at the identified shortcomings. The leadership, including the military, believed that these shortcomings could be overcome in the process of operation and production
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. orskpdc
                orskpdc 26 October 2015 23: 14 New
                -5
                Quote: svp67
                the location of the fuel tanks, on the first T-34s was like on a BT, namely between two armored barriers

                and the description of the t-34 is different, probably who composed it did not know this.
                Who knew that .....
                “Of the eight fuel tanks installed in the tank’s hull, four front tanks (upper and lower and left and upper and lower), pairwise interconnected by dyurite hoses, are installed in the fighting compartment, two middle tanks in the engine compartment and two aft tanks transmission compartment.
                Source: http://www.wio.ru/tank/manual/t34manual4-2.htm "
                1. svp67
                  svp67 27 October 2015 03: 32 New
                  +3
                  Quote: orskpdc
                  and the description of the t-34 is different, probably who composed it did not know this.
                  Who knew that .....

                  Here is a schematic layout of the fuel tanks and it shows that the fighting compartment is fenced off from the tanks with sheets of armor. Armor is presented in the form of gray dimming.
                  1. orskpdc
                    orskpdc 27 October 2015 07: 16 New
                    -4
                    Yes, I found "behind vertical bulwarks made of sheet steel" and probably 0.5 mm thick.
                    And it says here that the tanks are BO.

                    "The commission’s commissioners, engineer-colonel Gurov and an associate professor at MVTU Krutov, after examining the consequences of the blown up tanks, suggested that the damage was caused by the explosion of the front fuel tanks located in the T-34 after exposure to some German-specific ammunition."
                    "The best ratio for the detonation of the T-34 fuel tank is caused when it is filled with fuel by 10-15% of the volume and when the armor-piercing projectile sample 38" mouth "ruptures inside the tank, containing 80 grams of TNT and 20 grams of phlegmatized ten. The rupture causes an immediate detonation of fuel vapors, which develops with the action of the projectile, enhancing its fragility by 2-4 times, which corresponds to the impact of 105-122 mm armor-piercing projectile.
                    Countermeasures:
                    1. Prevent the placement of fuel tanks in the fighting compartment of the tank.
                    2. During the battle, first consume fuel from the rear tanks, since their defeat is not so likely
                    3. To strive by constructional measures to reduce the accumulation of fuel vapors and the formation of high concentration fuel vapors inside the tank. For example, to introduce the supply of fuel from the tanks by replacing it with a non-combustible liquid, or gas that does not support combustion ... Organize a purge before the battle of the fuel tanks with carbon dioxide, exhaust gases, or constantly ventilate the front tanks.
                    4. To reduce the volume of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment of the T-34 by at least half.
                    5. Place fuel tanks behind airtight armored baffles ...
                    "
                2. svp67
                  svp67 27 October 2015 03: 33 New
                  +1
                  Here is another diagram, it again shows how the tanks are located behind an armored barrier. You yourself, if you wish, can dig and see. Much has been written about this.
        2. orskpdc
          orskpdc 26 October 2015 14: 15 New
          -11
          on
          T-34
          Gun Name: F-32 (76 mm)
          Penetration with the best projectile, mm, at a distance of 100/500/1000 m: 76/70/64
          Pz III
          Gun Name: KwK36 (37mm)
          Penetration with the best projectile, mm, at a distance of 100/500/1000 m: 75/38/18
          Pz IV
          Gun Name: 7,5 cm KwK 37 L / 24
          Penetration with the best projectile, mm, at a distance of 100/500/1000 m: 100/100/100
          1. Forest
            Forest 26 October 2015 15: 01 New
            +8
            The best penetration for an 37 mm gun is 64 mm for a Panzergranate 40. The standard Panzergranate 39 is about 40 mm on 100 m.
            1. BV330
              BV330 15 November 2015 15: 46 New
              0
              Here 34-ka and was calculated on the non-penetration of a 37-mm gun.
              The only misfortune is that it turned out that by the end of 41 at the Panzerwaffe, the 50-mm main gun on three-wheelers became.
              And 34 armor protection until the end of the war on the hull did not change, unfortunately. (((
          2. Amurets
            Amurets 26 October 2015 15: 47 New
            10
            The F-32 gun was never put on the T-34. Until January 1941, the Kirov L-11 was put. From January 1941, the following were put together: not accepted for service until July 1941, the F-34 gun and the L-11 gun. I don’t remember the month, it seems October 1941, only the F-34 gun was put on the T-34. Since that time, instead of the F-32 cannon, the F-34 cannon was also placed on the KV tank of the Chelyabinsk assembly. The F-32 cannon was specially designed for the KV tank since the L-11 originally used had an organic defect and the KV tank did not pass with it tests. The F-32 gun was never produced at artillery factory No. 92, was produced only by the Leningrad Kirov factory. All guns of the Grabin gun were produced at the factory No. 92. See Grabin. Weapon of victory. Shirokorad: The genius of Soviet artillery.
            1. orskpdc
              orskpdc 26 October 2015 16: 29 New
              -7
              “The F-34 gun was not only powerful, but also cheap and technologically advanced. The cost of the F-34 was almost 20% lower than the F-32, which was reflected in the volume of their production. All the stories about the lack of the F-34 the T-34 tank was equipped with F-32 guns and “forty-five guns,” you need to read exactly the opposite. The only tank gun, which was produced in 1941 in the required quantity, was the F-34 (factories No. 92 and No. were engaged in its production 13), and F-32 was just missing (hardly issued by the Kirov Plant). " Tank power of the USSR. Part 2. In difficult times, Svirin Mikhail
          3. Hort
            Hort 26 October 2015 15: 57 New
            0
            The T-3s at the Fritz were also equipped with a 50mm gun, which quite well coped with the armor of the T-34. And they stopped their mass production later, when the T-4 with long-barreled guns appeared, which the Germans had "workhorses"
          4. combat192
            combat192 26 October 2015 18: 40 New
            +4
            Young man, stop clogging the chat with data from the game !!!
          5. svp67
            svp67 26 October 2015 18: 45 New
            +4
            Quote: orskpdc
            on
            T-34
            Gun Name: F-32 (76 mm)

            You have again FAILURE. The F-32 was placed on the KV tank, and the F-34 was installed on the T-34 and not otherwise, since the F-34 was more technologically advanced and cheaper than the F-32 and it was produced more and more, but the F- 32 was in short supply.

        3. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 26 October 2015 18: 06 New
          +3
          After 42 years, the T-4 with a 75mm / 43 caliber gun, with onboard anti-cumulative screens, shot through the T-34 from a distance of 1000m. It is believed that Germany needed to rely on the mass production of this particular tank
        4. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 26 October 2015 18: 06 New
          0
          After 42 years, the T-4 with a 75mm / 43 caliber gun, with onboard anti-cumulative screens, shot through the T-34 from a distance of 1000m. It is believed that Germany needed to rely on the mass production of this particular tank
        5. combat192
          combat192 26 October 2015 18: 37 New
          +6
          orskpdc takes Old from a very "reputable" source - "World of Tanks". Rather, from their own hand-handed experience playing the T-34.
        6. Logos
          Logos 26 October 2015 18: 46 New
          +2
          And by the way, if the Pz-III is such an imba

          I recommend playing less in world of tanks and reading specialized literature instead. In 1941, the T3 and T4 were well-developed and reliable machines, unlike the "raw" and unreliable T34, most of which had no effect in the border battles of the summer of 1941. T34 was more or less brought to mind only by 1942, then only he and began to exceed T3 and T4

          An example is the tank battle near Brody, where 800 German tanks routed the Soviet military group with 3 tanks, including and with the praised t34
          1. marline
            marline 27 October 2015 09: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: Logos
            ... and the unreliable T34, most of which had no effect in the border battles of the summer of 1941. More or less they brought the T34 to mind only by 1942, only then it began to surpass T3 and T4

            German tankers had a different opinion ... Katukov and Lavrinenko join them
            Quote: Logos
            An example is the tank battle near Brody, where 800 German tanks routed the Soviet military group with 3 tanks, including and with the praised t34

            This is when the thirty-four and HF were able to stop only with the help of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns ??? Do you think this proves that the tank is bad?
            In the end, the handshaking of the application still does not mean anything ... I don’t poke a finger that the Tigers and Panthers in the 44th merged T-34-76 due to their misuse by the Wehrmacht, oh, yes ... You but the Germans are surely firmly convinced that your Fuhrer simply aligned the front line ...
        7. The comment was deleted.
        8. yehat
          yehat 27 October 2015 22: 53 New
          +1
          PzIII had certain advantages:
          the presence of an intercom, radio communication, a commander’s cupola, 5 crew, optics, a 50mm long-barrel gun had a decent penetration and rate of fire, especially with a sub-caliber projectile (and guns and shells were rare in 41, but were), anti-fragmentation, presence already well-developed engineering solutions to support the tank - repair, crossing rivers, etc.
          I would also call equipping MG-34 with special tank machine guns.
          The plus is ergonomics, the central location of the tower.
          the main reason why PzIII was abandoned is the impossibility of making it significantly more powerful than it was in the 41st year. This is easy to see by comparing the PzIIIm and T34-85, tanks of the end of 43 years.
          in comparison with t34 \ 41, clanging so that you can hear for 5 kilometers,
          PzIII was much quieter and therefore inconspicuous.

          t34 \ 41 had its advantages -
          patency
          reserves for weighting the structure, turret width, engine and overall endurance, unpretentiousness, a more powerful gun that allows you to shoot high-explosive bombs efficiently, ricocheted corners of armor, solid round-robin booking
          T34-85 is a completely different machine, where they closed a lot of primary problems,
          including, on the basis of vast combat experience, and in 44 he was at the level of
          Technical Report Pziii Sample 41 years.

          this one is rude and about the most important thing.
      2. james
        james 26 October 2015 17: 50 New
        +1
        HELP YOU.
        Read, the mot is wiser.
        By Belton Cooper Deadly Traps. These are memoirs, not fiction.
        http://fanread.ru/book/9382299
        1. Den_tw
          Den_tw 6 November 2015 20: 37 New
          0
          Thanks, james, for the book. I downloaded and read excitedly. I advise everyone.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. svp67
        svp67 26 October 2015 18: 07 New
        0
        Quote: orskpdc
        and in combination of characteristics in 41 he lost Pz-III and Pz-IV.

        Saying "A", say the rest of the letters ... Name all the characteristics included in this "totality", and there we will already conclude who was the best in the 41st year ...
        1. Logos
          Logos 26 October 2015 21: 00 New
          +6
          Yes, even the absence of radio communications on most Soviet tanks in 1941 would be enough. If the German tank units in the attack acted in a coordinated manner, the group of Soviet tanks in the attack was a crowd stupidly traveling behind the lead tank. The head tank was knocked out - everything, now each on its own. The situation was aggravated by the poor visibility of the t34 and the fact that the commander served as a gunner. Having chosen one goal, he lost sight of the rest of the battlefield, where the other Fritz could feel completely safe.

          Our historians love to boast of Soviet armor, giving examples of how the T34 in 1941 withstood dozens of hits before being hit. And no one pays attention to the moment that the crews of these tanks often simply did not see where they were firing at, and even when they saw, they could not transmit data to the allied tanks without walkie-talkies and request help

          T-34 in 1941 can be likened to a boxer - very strong and strong, but almost blind, deaf and dumb
          1. marline
            marline 27 October 2015 10: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: Logos
            T-34 in 1941 can be likened to a boxer - very strong and strong, but almost blind, deaf and dumb

            I realized that Soviet designers had to cut a window into all the VLDs, then the review would be just wonderful ... though it would not be a tank anymore ... but the review is more important ...
            As if any tank is always a compromise between the most diverse characteristics and criteria, and you need to evaluate them together. And therefore, you would write, for starters, weights for each characteristic, and then we would all discuss with pleasure how important the review and the radio are in the tank.
            And yes, afterlife does not make you smarter than designers ...
          2. svp67
            svp67 27 October 2015 23: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Logos
            And no one pays attention to the moment that the crews of these tanks often simply did not see where they were firing at, and even when they saw, they could not transmit data to the allied tanks without walkie-talkies and request help

            Dear, how much anger and pathos. Actually, I will not deny that the lack of normal radio communication is certainly not a positive quality, but this is not only the case. In 1941, we generally had a lot that was lame, and on both legs at once, including the order of interaction between tanks and artillery. No matter how good the tank was, it still needed support for artillery, but it was believed that the tank itself could handle it. The task of the tank is to directly support the actions of the infantry on the battlefield, and everything that prevents the advancement of the tank should be immediately suppressed by artillery strikes. In this regard, the Germans in 1941 were the standard. They had an advanced artillery gunner, almost in the thick of the battle and for his normal work, he was given a specially designed mobile station based on the tank. That is why, after the very first volleys of our anti-tank artillery, its positions were very quickly covered by return fire from artillery and mortars.
    3. Stelth1985
      Stelth1985 26 October 2015 11: 21 New
      +7
      Our machines have a lack of aiming and pointing devices. We always lagged behind. And the worst thing is that they did not pay much attention to this. The tank division was designed for 20 minutes of battle, then the withdrawal to the rear and the complete re-equipment of the materiel and people. And it’s impossible. You need to work very hard on sights, NVDs and ammunition in order to overtake the West in this. Otherwise, we have advantages, since the domestic school of tank building has always overtaken the West. Cars are good and reliable. AND! Yes! Does not interfere with the amenities of the crew. After all, long marches on their own are not ruled out. Modified thirty-four, and if used correctly, will now be able to fight. What can we say about newer cars.

      For the Honor and Glory of the ancestors!
    4. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 27 October 2015 00: 11 New
      +2
      Yes, but how many Sherman and T-34s were put on each tiger? Local conflicts are in fashion now, and people need to be protected.
      1. Stelth1985
        Stelth1985 27 October 2015 05: 54 New
        +2
        I agree. BUT! Do not forget that they were T-34/76. The range of destruction of guns which against the Tiger was not more than 500 m. At long ranges, these guns could not penetrate the frontal projection. That is why our tankers were tearing at full speed for rapprochement in order to deprive the Tiger of advantages in firing range and agility. 34ka is much more maneuverable than the Tiger and could bypass it and ours used it. However, I think this approach is not correct during the war years, associated with heavy tanks and increased weapons 34ki. T-34/85 needed to be released at 42m, and not at 44m. This would dramatically change the nature of the war that year. In short ... the point is to always increase the firepower of each combat unit, sighting systems, their duplication. As well as expanding the range of ammunition in terms of power. We need the latest types of ammunition for tanks, artillery. Next, you need to create a powerful howitzer gun, capable of supporting the advancing cruising tanks in the second echelon with fire. That was exactly what happened during the Second World War. It was the howitzer guns that inflicted tremendous damage to the Nazi menagerie. 85ki and 100ki, as well as 122x and 152x self-propelled guns were much more dangerous than tanks. That is, a complete review of the tactics and strategies for using tank troops is required, just like infantry tactics. This is necessary, because it is the organization and interaction of all arms of arms that breaks the ridge of the enemy, and not the super-sophisticated armaments. That is why the Soviet Army (Red Army) has never been able to defeat. The Soviet Army was far more organized for a front war than the current one. Not to mention the practically endless production potential of the USSR. Now there has happened a war similar to the Second World War, the current army is * pumping everything for a couple of months. Will consume those reserves that are, and then with what to fight ??? The USSR was able to wage a protracted war for years. After all, people were different. Now what? I’ve “fought” with one on this subject, so to speak. Grandfather fought with him, but he does not recognize the merits of the USSR. With this attitude, the army will surrender everything. After all, this is not about the battalion of two green men, but about the army, where I will fight millions of people! So try to recruit motivated, disciplined and trained soldiers in such numbers. This is the trouble now - in a society that has degraded and forgets its Glorious Past!
        1. yehat
          yehat 27 October 2015 23: 34 New
          -2
          you forgot something: the Germans successfully destroyed the personnel army in the first 6-7 months
          the war was won by trained, gained experience, but the militia.
          therefore, do not la la about the modern army. Moreover, our war and the Great Patriotic War have learned so many lessons that the army only due to this already has some potential.
          1. ILDM1986
            ILDM1986 28 October 2015 10: 22 New
            0
            Dada militias flew airplanes, fired from artillery, drove tanks, drowned Germans in boxes and submarines, engineering troops and supply services, officers and senior command personnel — all policeman militias. but, I forgot, the Germans were thrown into corpses, and they were so literate and skillful Uberzold soldiers who could not do anything. By the way, did the Germans also fight at the end of the war? Well, thank God the Americans and the British remained the real army, but it already became scary.
          2. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 28 October 2015 13: 45 New
            -1
            They took out, even when I didn’t notice this in Chechen, I studied in a new way.
      2. shishkin7676
        shishkin7676 18 November 2015 13: 24 New
        0
        The statistics are huge, I met that for every Panther there were five Sherman or nine T-34s.
  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 26 October 2015 07: 53 New
    +2
    There is something to work for our Kulibin, the bourgeoisie do not sleep. Moreover, “Armata” spurred our most likely opponents to further improve the old ones and think about developing new MBTs.
  3. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 20 New
    10
    It is necessary to lean on effective KAZs. ATGMs are developing rapidly,
    the development of passive armor and dynamic defenses lags behind.
    And not in all places of the tank they can be placed.

    Reflect a fancy ATGM like that: flying over a tank, with a shot down,
    or making a slide ... - with the help of armor is a disastrous thing.

    And you can shoot him down. A little damage to the cone is enough - and it is neutralized.
    1. Major_Vortex
      Major_Vortex 26 October 2015 11: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It is necessary to lean on effective KAZs. ATGMs are developing rapidly,
      the development of passive armor and dynamic defenses lags behind.
      And not in all places of the tank they can be placed.

      You can rely on one KAZ to the first stage of a 30-mm gun. In the tank, the balance of all characteristics is important. In NATO, there is even a substandard for all armored vehicles, armor should keep a line of Vladimirov's machine gun. This is even all kinds of self-propelled guns. Otherwise, this is not a military technique, but a sham.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 October 2015 14: 07 New
      0
      Our army with KAZs destroying destroying missiles on approaching the tank is completely sad, there is no mass production of either Drozd or Arena, and most likely there are no such systems either on Armata or Kurganets.
      1. Forest
        Forest 26 October 2015 15: 02 New
        +5
        They are on the new armored vehicles, and the lazy just did not mention Afghanistan.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 26 October 2015 19: 15 New
          -3
          Armata only has aerosol and smoke grenades on the tower, nothing else is there, and Afghanit is more like an invention of journalists.
          1. Forest
            Forest 26 October 2015 20: 30 New
            +3
            Then the Israeli Toffi can be attributed to fiction. From above on a tower rows of KAZ charges are visible.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 27 October 2015 00: 40 New
              0
              Armata has the Umbrella system aerosol grenades on the tower, it, like Shtora, creates a curtain from the homing heads of rockets that hit the roof, and those grenades that are under the tower are needed just to create a smoke curtain and there aren’t any KAZ intercepting grenades and missiles in the distance, just as Kurganets does not have them either. And the Israeli KAZ Toffi complex is real, demonstrated and already launched into serial production, and Afghanit is an invention of pure water.
              1. snc
                snc 27 October 2015 09: 36 New
                0
                KAZ combat units at T-14 under the tower, and at Kurganets along the perimeter of the hull, in the form of tubes. The arena will be standard for the T-72b3m.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 27 October 2015 23: 45 New
                  0
                  Under the tower at Almaty guides for smoke grenades. The arena will be full-time on T 72B3 only for export, at the request of the customer.
              2. marline
                marline 27 October 2015 10: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                ... and Afghanit is a fiction of pure water.

                Apparently, one grandmother in the market said infa 100% ???
                From information from UVZ on T-14 Armata KAZ "Afganit" was installed. Provide a source from which it follows that this is disinformation.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 27 October 2015 23: 41 New
                  0
                  In the Polygon program, they did not say a word about the protection of intercepting missiles and grenades, aerosol and smoke grenades were installed on the tank, and there were no anti-missiles on Armata.
                  1. marline
                    marline 28 October 2015 12: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    In the Polygon program, they did not say a word about the protection of intercepting missiles and grenades, aerosol and smoke grenades were installed on the tank, and there were no anti-missiles on Armata.

                    Recall what it said about the mass of the tank? nothing, the output of the tank has no mass laughing laughing laughing
                    In the report of the "star" after the Victory Parade, KAZ was mentioned; Khalitov, also recently confirmed this in an interview.
                  2. Forest
                    Forest 28 October 2015 12: 49 New
                    +1
                    The program talked about active protection. No need to pull. And the fans said in an interview.
                  3. anti-Semite
                    anti-Semite 28 October 2015 19: 21 New
                    +1
                    But did you expect that on TV they will show in detail all the secrets of the latest tank? the arena has been developed for a long time so I see no reason to consider afghanit a fiction
              3. Forest
                Forest 27 October 2015 11: 45 New
                0
                This means that both developers and the military specifically lie that there is KAZ.
          2. yehat
            yehat 27 October 2015 23: 40 New
            0
            not the fact that everyone showed.
            during tests and parades it is not necessary to weigh the tank with maximum protection.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 26 October 2015 18: 09 New
      0
      Soon, I feel that ATGMs will shell tanks when approaching ...
    4. yehat
      yehat 27 October 2015 23: 37 New
      0
      it is not necessary to lean on to strengthen the defense, but on the harmonious interaction of intelligence and means of destruction. Universal protection is a priori redundant and cannot be massive.
    5. anti-Semite
      anti-Semite 28 October 2015 19: 18 New
      0
      but KAZ has 2 serious disadvantages, firstly it is itself vulnerable to heavy machine guns and automatic small-caliber guns, and secondly, today the cost is so high that it is not economically possible to equip all
  4. snc
    snc 26 October 2015 12: 55 New
    +1
    The threat from small-caliber artillery for KAZ, DZ and sights IMHO is exaggerated. You need to go a relatively short distance (1 km or less) to the tank and give it a long line. And even this does not guarantee the loss of both sights. So if the tank crew is well prepared and on guard then this trick is suicidal.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 October 2015 13: 48 New
      0
      Now in Germany they are developing a system for detecting the flight path of bullets and shells, in other words, you open fire on the tank, the equipment determines the direction and range where you are located, turns the gun and shoots at you.
      1. would
        would 29 October 2015 12: 06 New
        +1
        Such systems already exist in two versions: Acoustic detection, radar. The development, as I understand it, primarily relates to combining the fire detection system with the "robot" of the tank.
    2. Major_Vortex
      Major_Vortex 26 October 2015 14: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: snc
      The threat from small-caliber artillery for KAZ, DZ and sights IMHO is exaggerated. You need to go a relatively short distance (1 km or less) to the tank and give it a long line. And even this does not guarantee the loss of both sights. So if the tank crew is well prepared and on guard then this trick is suicidal.

      Now 30 mm not only walk, but also fly. In general, a lot of things can fly.
      1. snc
        snc 27 October 2015 09: 39 New
        0
        What flies is engaged in air defense, not tanks.
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 26 October 2015 12: 57 New
    0
    The article proves that the bourgeoisie do not see the prospect of the massive use of armored forces in either local or global conflicts. In global conflicts, the role of the main striking force, apparently, is planned to be given to tactical nuclear munitions, and in local conflicts, the bulk of the tasks will be assigned to aviation (suppression of fortified firing points and other "bunkers") and motorized infantry formations (for which more MCUs and other "semi-tanks")
    MBT, it feels as if the role of a sort of “heavy special forces” is to be played, which should operate where lighter forces cannot operate. And, because of this, our “sworn friends”, as it seems to me, are not in a hurry spending money on the next program for developing a new tank, but prefer to modernize old people
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 26 October 2015 15: 57 New
      0
      Quote: tchoni
      other "half tanks")

      Yes, "confused" are very effective in close combat, I won’t say anything about the rest, since the situation on the battlefield is changing rapidly, what is the trained troops and many other factors
    2. marline
      marline 26 October 2015 17: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: tchoni
      The article proves that the bourgeoisie do not see the prospect of the massive use of armored forces in either local or global conflicts.

      And why are tanks needed when the task is to drive the Zulus? There is no Soviet Union and a Plan for the English Channel ... But those 3,5 old Soviet tanks that Aboriginal people have can be burned from the air from helicopters.
      Although, the same Israelis, quite a ride on tanks.
  6. Peterhof 73
    Peterhof 73 26 October 2015 14: 01 New
    +2
    Thank you for the article. Very detailed and accessible stated.
  7. Free wind
    Free wind 26 October 2015 15: 11 New
    0
    The Americans also came to the German diesel engine, is it really such a good engine. I do not like some characteristics of it, for example, very high revs. Many foreigners have 2 reverse gears, with a maximum speed of 30 km per hour.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 26 October 2015 16: 08 New
      0
      Yes, the engine is good, the best, at least of those that are available. GTU, if you are interested, could not stand the desert test. E. Babilonsky describes this problem well in the book "The main battle tank of Russia. By the way, our tankers also faced the same problem." during the USSR on T-80 tanks in the deserts of Central Asia.
  8. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 15: 13 New
    0
    The weight of the modernized Challenger-75 tons is surprising. Where are they going to go with him? How will he cross the bridges, for example, wetlands, it seems like they dumbly hung a bunch of armor ...
  9. Hemdall
    Hemdall 26 October 2015 15: 21 New
    0
    or maybe a tank like an aircraft carrier is already out of date?
    1. mvg
      mvg 26 October 2015 19: 17 New
      0
      And the aircraft carrier is already outdated ???? And why is it now being built by India and China and England and America and is Russia going to? Plin, I need to urgently tell Serge about this ... He will bring this info to Vova!
  10. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 15: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Quote: Dimon19661
    Surprising weight of the modernized Challenger is 75 tons

    Merkava 70 tons rides. It seems that no one really complains. The British since WWII have loved that harder.

    And the general idea is obvious. Our Western partners simply scored on heavy machines and are developing all kinds of junk by flashing / upgrading electronics. Sooner or later, they will switch to open solutions, and everything will become even more fun.

    Merkava and created lightly for another war
  11. CRASH
    CRASH 26 October 2015 21: 37 New
    +1
    All of their tanks are united by the Rheinmetal L7, the best gun for more than 10 years.
  12. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 27 October 2015 00: 07 New
    0
    Quote: orskpdc
    ... the tank was BLIND.
    But there is a cannon, armor, and made in the USSR, for URY, URY this is the most important thing.


    You forgot about the engine of 500 hp, the best maneuverability and maneuverability. Yes, the T-34 was blind until mid-1942, but they went into battle with open hatches, and the connection was disgusting, but in order for the T-34 to knock out a troika with a short 50-mm gun, it was necessary to approach less than 500 m and still occupy such a position when firing, so that the shot is fired normal to the T-34 armored personnel carriers (from the instructions of the Wehrmacht tank forces to combat Soviet tanks, by the way, this instruction was issued in 1943). Our tankers needed only one shot at the armor to find the Germans and smash him to the full 6-kilogram blank, which was guaranteed to break through in the 41st - early 42nd armor of any German tank from a distance of more than 1000 m. And the sense of Zeiss optics if we get our tank can not be? You’re not reproaching them with idiots.
    1. BV330
      BV330 15 November 2015 16: 11 New
      0
      And as soon as the Germans by the end of 41 had some tanks still in the army? With such an overwhelming superiority, the 34-ok ...
      For reference, the 50-mm sub-calibers “had a bite” on the inclined 34-k armor and perfectly pierced at least the sides from the same kilometer. So much so that it seemed like they were shooting from somewhere above.
  13. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 27 October 2015 00: 41 New
    +1
    <! - QuoteBegin

    An example is the tank battle near Brody, where 800 German tanks routed the Soviet military group with 3 tanks, including and with the praised t34 [/ quote -> <div class = "title_quote"> Quote:

    An example is the tank battle near Brody, where 800 German tanks routed the Soviet military group with 3 tanks, including and with the praised t34 [/ quote </div> <div class = "quote"> <! - QuoteEBegin ->
    In this battle, your vaunted German tanks completely defeated the rifle units of the Red Army, with our tanks they entered the battle occasionally and not always successfully. And our tanks were torn apart by our native command into small groups, and even for 3 days of fighting, they were forced to march along the szyuchny route for more than 400 km without refueling normal and normal maintenance, without a closure service. As a result, non-combat losses ranged from 60 to 80% (breakdowns, lack of fuel), in the battle with collisions with tanks and infantry, we lost only 10 - 20% of equipment. And by the way, it was under Brody that the Germans first had to switch to tactical defense, and it was after the attacks of our tanks. Unfortunately, again, our command was not concerned about the development of success. So under Brody, it was not the technical superiority of the Germans that manifested themselves, but their superiority in coordinating and commanding the troops.
    1. orskpdc
      orskpdc 27 October 2015 09: 58 New
      -1
      Quote: Fil743
      Our tankers needed only one shot at the armor to find the German and smash him to the full 6-kilogram blank

      It must first be discovered.
      Quote: Fil743
      in order for the T-34 to hit a troika with a short 50-mm gun, it was necessary to approach less than 500 m and even take such a position when firing that the shot was fired normal to the T-34 armored personnel

      Look at the progress the Germans have made!
      "When a shell hits an angle of ninety degrees, all shells have practically the same efficiency. But this does not happen in life. Therefore, a shell with an armor-piercing tip becomes the most effective. The tip itself is a soft metal cap. When it is slanted, it sticks to the armor and does not give the shell "In this case, the process of turning the projectile to the vertical occurs. Moreover, the longer the projectile, the more active the retraction"
      1. ILDM1986
        ILDM1986 28 October 2015 10: 52 New
        0
        But can you link to an article where it says exactly how many degrees and which shell does it complete? and they write so much about it, and always so vaguely general phrases that I get the impression that the turnaround is 2-4 degrees, no more, respectively, a giant growth of armor penetration cannot be in principle.
  14. Logos
    Logos 27 October 2015 13: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: merlin
    Quote: Logos
    T-34 in 1941 can be likened to a boxer - very strong and strong, but almost blind, deaf and dumb

    I realized that Soviet designers had to cut a window into all the VLDs, then the review would be just wonderful ... though it would not be a tank anymore ... but the review is more important ...
    As if any tank is always a compromise between the most diverse characteristics and criteria, and you need to evaluate them together. And therefore, you would write, for starters, weights for each characteristic, and then we would all discuss with pleasure how important the review and the radio are in the tank.
    And yes, afterlife does not make you smarter than designers ...

    Even in tests of state acceptance, it seems that in 1940 the commission noted these shortcomings and recommended that they be eliminated by establishing a com. turret of the T3 type (the Germans handed over one T3 to the Soviets after the conclusion of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and Soviet designers were very impressed with some of the characteristics of this tank). As a result, by 1942-43, serial towers and MK4 surveillance devices began to be installed on serial machines
    how important is the review and walkie-talkie in the tank

    Not just important - but mandatory. A tank without a good view and communication is a blind and deaf disabled person. And if a fighter is blind and deaf, then a little heroic strength and strong armor will help him little.
    And yes, aftertaste does not make you smarter than designers.

    Designers and senior army officials were well aware of these shortcomings of Soviet tanks since the Spanish Civil War, but the underdeveloped radio engineering industry of the USSR did not allow equipping all tanks with walkie-talkies. But tanks, not even all planes had it, and the presence of a walkie-talkie is much more important for an aircraft than even a tank

    As for the review, then in t34 its improvement in itself would not give anything, because the commander also served as a gunner and could not constantly monitor the battlefield. This drawback was finally eliminated only in t-34-85

    By the way, the French had exactly the same problems - their tanks were armed and armored much better than the T3 and T4, but poor visibility, combining the commander of their duties and the duties of a gunner and a walkie-talkie on not all tanks led to the fact that in the 1940 war they did not show themselves
    1. marline
      marline 27 October 2015 21: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Logos
      Not just important - but mandatory. A tank without a good view and communication is a blind and deaf disabled person. And if a fighter is blind and deaf, then a little heroic strength and strong armor will help him little.

      Yes, I see that it doesn’t smell of objectivity ... You don’t exaggerate, the T-34 was not so blind and deaf - you forget that a lot depends on the crew, and at the beginning of the Second World War our tankers with experience were very sad, In addition, the tube radio on the tank, by definition, can’t work well, because the tube ...
      The previous post was written just to add objectivity ... A tank is not just an armored shed with caterpillars, it is also a combat vehicle, which the state can build in series now and here. A single supertank will not do you at the weather front ...
      You correctly noted that in the thirty-four there were many shortcomings, but this particular machine was the one that the industry could produce in the USSR (and this was during the Second World War - women and children) in thousands of pieces and there was no other such tank.
  15. holgert
    holgert 27 October 2015 15: 55 New
    0
    If you return to the main topic of the article ----- all western tanks are “Germanic” (except * Abrams *) --- is this a trend or a scientific concept ?? Our “Armata” have too many angles, and the western they are not at all. Is this good ????
  16. _dimasik_
    _dimasik_ 27 October 2015 20: 57 New
    +1
    A very good article. thank.
    As a logical continuation, you can write an article about the combat use of these tanks. As I understand it, in addition to the Frenchman, everyone participated in the battle in various modifications.
    1. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 30 October 2015 17: 06 New
      0
      As I understand it, in addition to the Frenchman, everyone participated in the battle in various modifications.

      “Leclerc” also managed to check in Yemen:
      http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/375196.html
  17. Xwazilb
    Xwazilb 14 November 2015 12: 44 New
    0
    And what do they delay with the development of a new platform? Or they have a completely different concept of technology and its application for the year 2030.