Military Review

Size comparison of T-14 with other MBT

178
Not so long ago, in the comments we talked about comparing the dimensions of the T-14 with the T-90 and Abrams. The size of Almaty was taken from the Internet (Fig. 1), counted from the diameter of the roller, taken for 700 mm. The resulting results caused some doubts, after which I decided to recalculate using the photos of T-14 and T-90 being near (Fig. 2). All calculations are carried out taking into account all protruding elements, except for thin antennas.



Fig. 1 T-14 Armata



Fig. 2 That same photo


Knowing the length of the T-90 case in mm 6860 and the width in mm 3780, we calculate the dimensions of the T-14. We get: body length 8677 mm, width 4448 mm, length with the gun forward 10642 mm, height along the control unit 3244 mm, on the roof of the tower 2723 mm. The area of ​​the onboard projection 17,28 m2, of which the tower 4,06 m2; frontal area 8,43 m2, of which 2,76 m2 towers.

Most modern a tank in the Russian army before T-14 was T-90A (Fig. 3). Its length with the gun forward is 9530 mm, the height along the roof of the tower is 2230 mm, and the height along the DPU is 2732 mm. The area of ​​the side projection (excluding external tanks) is 11,37 m2, of which the towers are 3,29 m2; the frontal projection area is 6,18 m2, of which the tower is 2,63 m2. It is worth considering that a significant part of the tower’s area falls on the body kit, in which the devil will break his leg.

Size comparison of T-14 with other MBT

Fig. 3 T-90A


For a long time, it was generally accepted to compare the T-90 with the American Abrams (Fig. 4). For comparison, taken version M1A1. The length of the body is 7920 mm, the width 3660 mm, the length with the forward gun 9830 mm, the height of the 2822 anti-aircraft machine gun mm, the height of the tower roof 2430 mm. The area of ​​the onboard projection 15,22 m2, of which the tower 4,80 m2; frontal area 7,56 m2, of which 3,42 m2 towers.


Fig. 4 M1A1 Abrams


We can assume that Europe now has a single tank - the German Leopard (Fig. 5). The length of the hull is 7720 mm, the width is 3700 mm, the length with the cannon forward 10300 mm (for tanks with the L55 gun), the height of the 3040 mm sights, the height of the 2790 tower roof. The area of ​​the onboard projection 16,56 m2, of which the tower 5,36 m2; frontal area 7,56 m2, of which 2,73 m2 towers.


Fig. 5 Leopard 2A6


The French Leclerc (fig. 6) is not as common as its German counterpart, but also a modern and dangerous machine. The length of the body is 6880 mm, the width 3710 mm, the length with the gun forward 9870 mm, the height of the 2950 mm sights, the height of the tower roof 2530 mm. The area of ​​the onboard projection 14,73 m2, of which the tower 4,74 m2; frontal area 7,12 m2, of which 2,78 m2 towers.


Fig. 6 AMX-56 Leclerc


Another representative of European tank building is the English 2 Challenger (Fig. 7). The length of the body is 7400 mm, the width 3520 mm, the length with the cannon forward 10740 mm, the height of the 2930 mm sights, and the roof of the 2490 turret mm. Side projection area (excluding external tanks) 15,16 м2, of which 4,87 м2 towers; frontal area 7,14 m2, of which 2,52 m2 towers.


Fig. 7 Challenger 2


On the basis of Leopard in Italy made their car - С1 Ariet (Fig. 8). The length of the hull is 7590 mm, the width is 3800 mm, the length with the cannon forward 9670 mm, the height of the 2960 mm machine gun, the roof of the 2500 turret mm. The area of ​​the onboard projection 15,75 m2, of which the tower 4,44 m2; frontal area 8,42 m2, of which 3,12 m2 towers.


Fig. 8 C1 Ariete


The most unusual modern tank is the Israeli Merkava Mk.4 (fig. 9). The length of the hull is 7800 mm, the width is 3720 mm, the length with the cannon forward 8800 mm, the height of the 3020 mm machine gun, the roof of the 2600 turret mm. The area of ​​the onboard projection 16,53 m2, of which the tower 5,73 m2; frontal area 8,37 m2, of which 3,29 m2 towers.

Fig. 9 Merkava Mk.4


As you can see, the T-14 has the largest size among the existing tanks, and the tower fits into the size of Western machines. UVZ gives the mass of Almaty in 48 tons, which is within the T-90, which is less by one-third in the on-board projection, which means either thin passive protection or false information about the tank.


Fig. 10 Silhouettes of the above tanks


Eastern European production tanks based on T-64, T-72 and T-80 for comparison did not take. The projections of the Asian tanks are not found.
Author:
178 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. i80186
    i80186 13 February 2016 07: 44
    55

    As you can see, the T-14 has the largest size among the existing tanks, and the tower fits into the size of Western machines. UVZ gives the mass of Almaty in 48 tons, which is within the T-90, which is less by one-third in the on-board projection, which means either thin passive protection or false information about the tank.

    This means that the T-14 instead of the tower, weighing 20 tons, has something similar to the one shown in the picture. This means that the hull, where all vital organs are located, is protected much more impressive than all tanks with an inhabited tower, where the mass of the tower is about half the mass of the tank. Moreover, the profile of the hull, where the entire crew, BC, fuel and engine, is even below the profile of the T-90.
    1. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 13 February 2016 08: 41
      +6
      I agree, most likely it looks something like this!
    2. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 13 February 2016 08: 57
      +5
      Well, not lower ... But for the rest I completely agree. Add:

      If modern cumulative ammunition gets into the tank, it is very likely to break through the armor and the damaging factors will get to the internal important elements (people, ammunition, engine, transmission, etc. ...). If the tank is tightly packed, the probability that the cumulative stream will hit such elements and disable the tank is very high. If the tank is less densely configured, then the probability that the cumulative stream passes by the vital elements of the tank increases. Although not 2 times, but in terms of security and +10 ... + 20% is already very significant and IMPORTANT.
      1. i80186
        i80186 13 February 2016 09: 07
        20
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        Well, not lower ...

        The frontal projection of the hull below the T-90 tower, and this is the most protected place. Moreover, making the combined protection of a direct VLD plate is much easier than towers. The constructor goes the right way.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 13 February 2016 09: 14
          +3
          Yeah, that’s what you meant ... I didn’t understand right away. If you look at the issue like that, then yes ...
      2. igorkuzik
        igorkuzik 13 February 2016 10: 01
        +1
        Composed
      3. King, just king
        King, just king 13 February 2016 12: 01
        +7
        Yes, but with an increase in the total length, there is a possibility of getting the "battleship" Sevastopol "" with relatively thin armor "smeared" along its entire length. Or the other extreme "all or nothing" - i.e. powerful citadel-capsule crew with armored extremities.
      4. Alekspel
        Alekspel 13 February 2016 18: 51
        +1
        Have you ever sat in a tank? If the cumulative jet gets inside, the crew will definitely have a kayuk due to the instantaneous pressure drop. So it is tightly or loosely arranged for people to be indifferent.
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 February 2016 19: 30
          21
          Quote: Alekspel
          , the crew is uniquely kayuk due to the instantaneous pressure drop.

          this is the legend that Popel’s memoirs started about, it seems, about Faustpatron.
          There are many obvious cases when cumulative ammunition fell into tanks, and there is no pressure drop, and crew members were injured and killed by a cumulative jet, and fragments. In this case, it is individual crew members.
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 13 February 2016 21: 53
          +2
          There will be no increase in pressure from the fact that the body is pierced by a 10-20mm hypersonic metal jet. But if during the hit the hatches in the tank are opened, then the blast wave will fall inside and shell up everyone inside.
          1. goose
            goose 16 February 2016 14: 12
            -1
            Quote: cast iron
            There will be no increase in pressure from the fact that the body is pierced by a 10-20mm hypersonic metal jet. But if during the hit the hatches in the tank are opened, then the blast wave will fall inside and shell up everyone inside.

            And due to what shell shock? When fired, the gunpowder burns even more, but it does not shock anyone, and even there is no discomfort.
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 21 February 2016 02: 19
              +3
              Concussion from an EXPLOSIVE WAVE, which is formed as a result of the detonation of a cumulative ammunition and which MAY BAKE AND DRAIN into OPEN HATCHES. If the hatches are closed, then the blast wave does not penetrate inward and does not concuss anyone. In this case, the hole from the cumulative jet is too small for the blast wave to penetrate into the tank. The myth of the increase in pressure from a cumulative jet is a myth of uneducated people. Perhaps it arose as a result of the fact that in some conflicts tanks with open hatches fell cumulatively and accordingly received shell shock, but most sergeants and junior officers were not educated, so they mistakenly thought that shell shells received from the cumulative stream.
        3. Per se.
          Per se. 15 February 2016 00: 45
          +1
          Quote: Alekspel
          So it is tightly or loosely arranged for people to be indifferent.
          It is not at all indifferent, especially if "densely not densely" is understood closely not closely, and, conveniently, it is not convenient. For comparison, the layout of the "Black Eagle" tank, where not the crew, but the automatic loader was placed in a cramped capsule. In "Orel" the crew is spaced apart, and the tank itself acts as an armored capsule, with enhanced crew protection, where each tanker has his own hatch and spacious internal volume. It is a pity that there is no comparison of the size of the T-95 with the T-14, and indeed, if we compare, it was possible to compare the cost, manufacturability, combat prospects of various tanks. The T-95 tank was not intended as a "platform", it was a reinforcement tank, a supertank with a 152 mm gun, for which the space of an uninhabited turret was allocated, for a 152 mm gun it was a justified, necessary decision, but for a 125 mm ... In addition, it is a dubious pleasure to make bridgelayers, repair and recovery vehicles and other units on the expensive and complex base of "Armata", especially since the "platform" did not appear with the "Armata", it has long existed without PR for a whole family of different machines. , on a reliable and mastered T-72 / T-90 base. The diagram shows the layout of the "Black Eagle" tank (arrow for a capsule with an automatic loader and ammunition), which was stupidly (criminally) stabbed, just as the Omsk Tank Plant was bankrupted.
        4. would
          would 15 February 2016 16: 17
          +6
          No pressure drop occurs as comrades noted. This is physically impossible without a break in the armor and with tightly closed hatches. The cumulative jet pierces (or rather, washes away) a small hole in the armor, moreover, tightly clogs it at the moment of penetration. The shock wave in this situation is not able to enter the tank, but the jet itself cannot make significant changes to the pressure inside the tank. This myth is very old and it was tested in the USSR: They took cells with rabbits, put them inside the tank and hit it with a cumulative shell. Not a single rabbit was found to have been injured by a certain pressure drop. Now there are a bunch of different cool sensors and they also do not record any difference. Roughly speaking, a tank’s defeat by cumulative ammunition without a break in armor, without a jet getting into the crew or important elements is unable to harm the crew. This has been proven by frequent similar cases.
        5. goose
          goose 16 February 2016 14: 10
          +1
          Quote: Alekspel
          Have you ever sat in a tank? If the cumulative jet gets inside, the crew will definitely have a kayuk due to the instantaneous pressure drop. So it is tightly or loosely arranged for people to be indifferent.

          You just didn’t sit, and you didn’t see how the cumulative jet gets into the tank, but I saw it. there is no pressure drop there. It’s stupid if the jet got into it or hit it with debris - a corpse, didn’t hit anything and hit the shells - not a corpse.
        6. Idiot
          Idiot April 6 2016 19: 53
          0
          Have you survived the cumulative jet?
        7. Idiot
          Idiot April 6 2016 19: 53
          0
          Have you survived the cumulative jet?
      5. goose
        goose 16 February 2016 14: 07
        0
        And if the tank is arranged less tightly, then it suffers either overweight or lack of reservation.
    3. Pajamas
      Pajamas 13 February 2016 12: 07
      +4
      Quote: i80186

      As you can see, the T-14 has the largest size among the existing tanks, and the tower fits into the size of Western machines. UVZ gives the mass of Almaty in 48 tons, which is within the T-90, which is less by one-third in the on-board projection, which means either thin passive protection or false information about the tank.

      This means that the T-14 instead of the tower, weighing 20 tons, has something similar to the one shown in the picture. This means that the hull, where all vital organs are located, is protected much more impressive than all tanks with an inhabited tower, where the mass of the tower is about half the mass of the tank. Moreover, the profile of the hull, where the entire crew, BC, fuel and engine, is even below the profile of the T-90.

      Still, with the mind, we need to compare the ratio of composites in the design of both machines.
    4. alexanderrzn
      alexanderrzn 13 February 2016 13: 18
      +1
      and about the false data about the tank, it’s a thought, is it possible to compare the support area of ​​the caterpillar of the armata of the same t90? maybe the real difference in weight will come up? not simple they are wider and longer ....
      1. Alf
        Alf 13 February 2016 18: 00
        +2
        Quote: alexanderrzn
        maybe the real difference in weight will come up? not simple they are wider and longer ....

        In fact, the T-14 mass of 55 tons flashed more than once.
    5. Aleksander
      Aleksander 14 February 2016 05: 54
      -1
      Quote: i80186
      So the building, where all vital organs are located, is protected much more impressive than all, where the mass of the tower is about half tank mass

      This, in my opinion, means something else, namely that the gun (which is located in the tower) is protected much worse than tanks with an inhabited tower. And the purpose of the tank is shoot. Or am I wrong?
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 14 February 2016 11: 46
        +4
        Quote: Aleksander
        This, in my opinion, means something else, namely that the gun (which is located in the tower) is protected much worse than tanks with an inhabited tower. And the purpose of the tank is to shoot. Or am I wrong?

        It’s much easier to protect only a gun than a gun and three crew members with their living space.
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 13 February 2016 07: 55
    26
    Quite an interesting comparison! By the way, it also seems to me that for some reason the designers are cunningly speaking about such mass-dimensional data. It’s very large for the declared 48-50 tons! I have a suspicion that the tower will be different, smaller in height and angle frontal armor plates is different, but it will be later. Plus, everything is likely to be working on a new gun with an increased caliber. So wait and see if our guesses are true hi
    1. Yarik
      Yarik 13 February 2016 12: 31
      +5
      I absolutely agree with you about the tower, because most likely, after 5 years there will be a new gun, and maybe earlier
    2. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 14: 15
      0
      What's so big? Empty squares stand in the bow and stern, weigh nothing. In fact, the dimensions along the length of the Leopard and Armata are approximately the same, if these adjustments are not included in the drawing.
  3. blizart
    blizart 13 February 2016 08: 23
    18
    The French Leclerc (Fig. 6) is not as widespread as his German counterpart, but is also a modern and dangerous machine
    Our beginning. headquarters passed coursework on mining in France. Under the smoked goose and moonshine poisoned tales. Most often about the coffee maker in "Leclerc" and about the incomprehensibility of the French tankers about his joke about scalded eggs. Well, that is, they completely exclude getting into their coolest car while brewing coffee. Belief in your technique!
  4. Professor
    Professor 13 February 2016 08: 32
    49
    The author, it would not be bad to reduce the data in a comparative table. Easier to read. hi
    1. Forest
      13 February 2016 12: 39
      +8
      Yes, somehow I couldn’t insert it from the Excel, but I didn’t think of doing something together with the calculation of the areas. fool
      1. Professor
        Professor 13 February 2016 17: 36
        +5
        Quote: Forest
        Yes, somehow I couldn’t insert it from the Excel, but I didn’t think of doing something together with the calculation of the areas. fool

        It was possible to make a picture from Excel, I always did. By the way, it’s not too late.
  5. kvs207
    kvs207 13 February 2016 08: 45
    +5
    And it would be nice if the silhouettes of the frontal projections are near or fit them into each other.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 February 2016 16: 57
      11
      Quote: kvs207
      And it would be nice if the silhouettes of the frontal projections are near or fit them into each other.

  6. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 13 February 2016 09: 04
    +7
    It is foolish to think that our designers covered the entire internal volume of the tank with maximum armor.

    What we see outside is the outer armor, very thin and light. Take the same tower. Outside - thin and light sheets of external protection. The main armor covers the vital elements of the tower at a much closer distance to them, that is, the area of ​​the main armor is much smaller than what we see from the outside.

    Like in submarines that have an outer light hull and an inner strong hull, which is significantly smaller.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 14 February 2016 14: 05
      +2
      Well, they said that the crew is in armored capsule!
  7. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 13 February 2016 09: 06
    10
    The addition of the seventh roller already speaks of the increased weight of the machine. It will, of course, be smaller than its Western counterparts, but this tank has a number of innovations in comparison with the usual T-72 and their heirs up to the T-90. These are new requirements for protection and complete automation of firing processes. Yes, and also a lot of "bells and whistles" that increase the characteristics of the car and require their percentage of the weight.
    So there is nothing surprising here. And in the process of production and service, the designers will somehow find ways to reduce the strength.
    They probably just thought that the SAZ standing on the T-14 was blocking the downsides of the increased projections of the tank. There is nothing to be done - any technique is primarily a compromise, when sometimes some characteristics are sacrificed for the sake of others. Only time and experience in combat use prove or disprove this axiom.
    The tank is new. new ideas, therefore there is a wary perception, especially if you start to delve into various kinds of comparisons wink hi
    1. 19001900
      19001900 14 February 2016 22: 59
      0
      I suspect that the addition of rink 7 is associated not so much with the increased mass of the vehicle, but with the turret moving backwards due to the need to place the crew capsule on the armor.
    2. cheguevarazhiv
      cheguevarazhiv 19 February 2016 12: 18
      +1
      And notice how "cleaner" the outer planes of the Armata T-14 look in comparison with the family of Soviet tanks. Almost everything is removed under the armor
  8. Hammer
    Hammer 13 February 2016 09: 13
    20
    Did the Massad steal the Merkava drawing? smile
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 13 February 2016 11: 08
      +6
      Quote: Hammer
      Did the Massad steal the Merkava drawing? smile

      Professor! Parry!
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 13 February 2016 09: 21
    10
    How I admire the dances with a tambourine around the dimensions ... This is like the argument of children about which car is faster: red or black :-).
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 February 2016 11: 44
      +7
      Well, not really, this is an important issue of logistics and camouflage and other issues related to the dimensions of the equipment.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 13 February 2016 11: 59
        +4
        it is yes. but, dimensions, this is not the cornerstone, which in itself determines the quality of the tank. It is fundamentally wrong to consider them in isolation from the design, purpose, and even the tvd of using the machine ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 February 2016 12: 15
          22
          Quote: tchoni
          it is yes. but, dimensions, this is not the cornerstone,

          Then why have the last ten years been so proud and worn that the T-90 is smaller than Abrams? And as the armata turned out to be larger than Abrams, so the dimensions became children's fun.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 13 February 2016 13: 58
            +2
            so I was always interested in this question. "Why" :-)
            and the answer to it, I'm afraid, will be "patmuchtonadmin" or "patamuchtopatriots" ...
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 13 February 2016 21: 57
              +7
              Because with the classic line-up, when most of the crew is sitting in the tower, the projection area and height are some of the most important characteristics. When there is no one in the tower, and all the people are sitting at the level of the T-90 mechvod. That and assessments with priorities are changing.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 14 February 2016 11: 21
                +1
                Well, let's say there is no one in the tower, so you don’t need to defend it already? Sense of this tank with a damaged gun, or automatic loader?
                1. dzeredzavkomimu
                  dzeredzavkomimu 15 February 2016 00: 46
                  +1
                  mmmmm, and the presence of the crew in the tower, how will this situation change? In the T-90, now you won’t put the same charge into the manual charge, so what?
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 15 February 2016 00: 54
                    +2
                    Quote: dzeredzavkomimu
                    in t-90, now you’ll not put the same charge into the manual charge

                    Be surprised - "stick it in" ..

                    Quote: dzeredzavkomimu
                    the presence of a crew in the tower, how will this situation change?

                    I didn't quite understand what you meant by "this situation", but:

                    - Armata, first of all, was conceived as a unified platform
                    - including, and as a platform for infantry fighting vehicles (T-15)
                    - in the BMP, the crew has nothing to do "in the tower" .. there, in this place, the landing party is sitting yes

                    Something like that.
                2. cast iron
                  cast iron 21 February 2016 02: 14
                  0
                  For example, a 152mm OFS shot at the Abrams destroyed the gun, sights and gun drives. And what are you going to do with all this? You ask stupid questions.
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 14 February 2016 11: 50
                +2
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 17 February 2016 19: 57
                  +1
                  I remembered.
                  The transmission with an X-shaped engine was installed at least on 5 objects. Of these, I know the hull length only at Objects 167. It is only 72cm longer than the hull of the T-30 tank (in the vicinity of this). That is, even if the tank became longer only because of the size of the transmission, then this is only 30 cm.

                  2. The fighting compartment of the tank (in the hull) cannot take up more space than from side to side, and therefore, the same length. In other words, it is almost the same size as the T-64-72-80-90 tanks. And if we take into account that the internal size of the free space in the tower of the T-14 is less than that of the above, then the volume of the fighting compartment of the new tank is less than that of old tanks.

                  3. The armored capsule. As a driver of a medium tank, I can say that he has enough space to sleep at full height in his spare time, so the capsule should not be longer than + 30-40 centimeters (well, a maximum of 0,5 meter). Add more to anything.

                  4. frontal armor. Nobody will say for sure, but we will not go to the point of absurdity. Let it be twice as thick. And that 44cm. Let 0,5 meter.

                  To summarize. I can logically explain the lengthening of the tank by 30 (transmission) +50 (armored capsule) +30 (increase in frontal armor) = 110cm.
                  That is, a little more than a meter.

                  Where am I mistaken?
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 13 February 2016 16: 29
            +4
            Smaller sizes - less weight of the armor with the same level of security. Size matters laughing , but there are more important parameters.
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 14 February 2016 08: 35
              -1
              Here. If the machine copes with its tasks - I do not care what size it is.
          3. MMX
            MMX 13 February 2016 18: 54
            +4
            Quote: Kars
            Quote: tchoni
            it is yes. but, dimensions, this is not the cornerstone,

            Then why have the last ten years been so proud and worn that the T-90 is smaller than Abrams? And as the armata turned out to be larger than Abrams, so the dimensions became children's fun.


            Any tank is created for a specific technical task. If someone thinks that the size and mass of Soviet tanks appeared as a result of the random number generator, then I can’t call such a person a moron.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 February 2016 19: 31
              +2
              Quote: MMX
              if someone thinks that the size and mass of Soviet tanks appeared as a result of work

              I don’t know who thought what - but always tried to minimize the sizes, it is a fact.
              1. MMX
                MMX 13 February 2016 20: 42
                +4
                Quote: Kars
                Quote: MMX
                if someone thinks that the size and mass of Soviet tanks appeared as a result of work

                I don’t know who thought what - but always tried to minimize the sizes, it is a fact.


                Undoubtedly, otherwise they would issue another technical task for the product. What were you guided by? There are many factors and not from the ceiling.

                Anyway, everyone would like to reduce their size and weight.
                The perfect tank: small, mobile, impenetrable and deadly.
              2. goose
                goose 16 February 2016 14: 20
                0
                Quote: Kars
                I don’t know who was thinking - but always tried to minimize the size, this is a fact.

                In Armata, the reservation sizes are also optimized. And that is a fact. The dimensions of the M1A2 SEP are also inflated, but no one draws all these screens, screens, drawers and APU.
                In Merkava and Armata, this kit is not so easy to throw out, because in the figures they seem bloated.
          4. cheguevarazhiv
            cheguevarazhiv 19 February 2016 12: 20
            -1
            Do not forget this PLATFORM for many types of military equipment and BTMP T-15 including, not a specialized chassis for a tank .... therefore a middle ground is found
    2. Andrey Skokovsky
      Andrey Skokovsky 13 February 2016 12: 32
      -4
      a strong impression was created that the author tried to groan Armata comparing warm with soft

      so I want to remind the author that our country is actually the leading world country in the development of heavy military equipment,
      we don’t really know how to do cars, but with tanks we are doing fine
      and if the leading engineers decided that the armata should be like that, then it's probably better to think about why they decided to set such a direction for the development of the tank and why, and talk about that
      and not consider yourself smarter than specialists of the uralvagonzavod

      article minus, because not all intellectual efforts are commendable,
      sometimes the hunt from a particularly clever head is a little nonsense to shake .......
      1. Forest
        13 February 2016 12: 42
        19
        Explain where the T-14 was here? Do you need to compare it with foreign cars?
        1. Andrey Skokovsky
          Andrey Skokovsky 13 February 2016 13: 18
          -2
          Quote: Forest
          Explain where the T-14 was here? Do you need to compare it with foreign cars?

          you writing above
          "the truth, as the eastern wisdom says, is not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of the listener" .....

          write a continuation article where it will be clearly laid out on the shelves why the dimensions of the machine in the modern war became an unimportant factor compared to the capabilities of the tank,
          why today the dimensions of tanks, armored personnel carriers, fighter jets are increasing in comparison with vehicles of previous generations,
          Tell us about the new global criteria for evaluating military equipment that arose with the advent of the next Russian tank,
          then everyone will say thank you for the work done
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 February 2016 16: 17
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
            write a continuation article where it will be clearly laid out on the shelves why the dimensions of the machine in the modern war became an unimportant factor compared to the capabilities of the tank,

            Or maybe you write?
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 13 February 2016 16: 06
        +1
        so, in my opinion, it doesn’t seem like he would be cherishing it ... I just calculated the dimensions.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 13 February 2016 21: 59
          0
          Counted incorrectly. The scale of the photographs, from which the author fantasizes sizes, are different.
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 February 2016 10: 35
    +6
    "Armata" is a completely new concept of a tank, with an uninhabited turret, which has no analogues. The security of this tank cannot be compared with the tanks of the standard scheme, IMHO. It is clear that no one will shoot such an expensive "toy" with modern ammunition, or maybe it is worth arranging a "crash test"? Putting the dummies in the crew seats ... Well, I don't know. The money is not small for the manufacture of such a layout. But something tells me that the result will be very in favor of "Armata".
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 12: 52
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      It is clear that no one will shoot such an expensive "toy" with modern ammunition,

      But this is not a fact - for it they could have made a stand that fully reproduces the basic designs of the tank (I am not a specialist, unfortunately, and I do not know exactly how to call it) and fire at it already - the data are obtained as close as possible to reality, and "real "You don't need to smoke the tank. And with mannequins instead of a crew - this is a standard practice. There are footage of a "typhoon" blowing up on a mine, inside there were dummies imitating the crew. So, I think that both the T-14 and the T-15 were also roughly tested.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 February 2016 15: 21
      +7
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      It is clear that no one will shoot such an expensive "toy" with modern ammunition ....

      Is not a fact. Dad T-14 (object 195), during the tests they killed as many as two pieces, and he will be more expensive than the T-14.
      1. 11 black
        11 black 13 February 2016 16: 36
        +3
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Is not a fact. Dad T-14 (object 195), during the tests they killed as many as two pieces, and he will be more expensive than the T-14.

        On Ob-195 there is an 2A83 gun with a caliber of 152 mm - I strongly suspect that it was not for nothing that the MO showed the shown version of the armata as the MEDIUM tank, I assume that the shown version really weighs 48, the tank is also designed for the 152mm gun
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. zaoneginden
      zaoneginden 14 February 2016 00: 08
      +1
      On the uralvagon they are killed to the fullest on a run-in))) such harsh conditions as we have in the Russian tests are nowhere to be found!
  11. fa2998
    fa2998 13 February 2016 10: 45
    +2
    Quote: kvs207
    And it would be nice if the silhouettes of the frontal projections are near or fit them into each other.

    But so it is clear that our deserted tower is larger than those in which there are 2-3 crew members. And the side projection is solid. There is no doubt that "their" tanks with a smaller projection weigh 55-60 tons. With the same reservation, ours should weigh 65- 70 tons instead of 48. hi
    1. greshnik80
      greshnik80 13 February 2016 11: 13
      +4
      Reservation is different.
      Firstly, the uninhabited tower does not have a large internal volume, therefore it does not need powerful armor protection. There are only AZs and devices hung behind them, covered by bulletproof and anti-shatter armor.
      Secondly, specifically for the new tank, armor steel was developed, which, with a mass and thickness of 15% less, gives the same security characteristics as the T-90 armor.
      All this together gives savings in weight with increased dimensions.
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 February 2016 12: 17
        +4
        Quote: greshnik80
        Firstly, the uninhabited tower does not have a large internal volume

        Do you think the AZ has a lower density than the density of the Negro loader? And you still need to book it, otherwise at the exit you can get a tank without main weapons from the influence of a heavy machine gun or a simple RPG.
        to place all hopes on afghanite is extremely nonchalant.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 13 February 2016 12: 56
          +3
          Quote: Kars
          Do you think AZ has a lower density than the density of a Negro loader?

          The AZ in this case is most likely located not in the tower, but in the hull, so only the breech of the gun and the fire control device remain in the tower. And if you book a volume in which only the above is located, then even with a very solid booking, the weight will be small. Pay attention to the photo - the quality there sucks, but you can see that the tower itself is very small.
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 February 2016 13: 46
            +2
            Quote: Aspeed
            Well, the tower is not only loading, there the whole gang except the driver’s gear sits. Sat before

            Well, there was just an empty place for them, which weighs little.
            Quote: Albert1988
            AZ in this case is most likely located not in the tower, but in the building

            It's hard to guess here.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 13 February 2016 16: 13
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              It's hard to guess here.

              I totally agree, but I think when they show the tower "naked", it will be possible with a good probability to guess where the AZ is, depending on its type.
            2. ILDM1986
              ILDM1986 13 February 2016 16: 39
              +1
              the loader takes up more space than the AZ (simply because the gun is charged along the shortest possible trajectories), accordingly, a smaller volume must be booked, and this difference levels the difference in density between the AZ and the loader. With the reinforcement, due to the scarcity of data, we proceed from the fact that with a mass of 50 tons and dimensions of an Abrams, it is possible to achieve similar / greater armor protection only by non-trivial methods, for example, by reducing the armor volume of the tower and placing "excess" equipment in a lightly armored box. The appearance of the seventh cat was necessary for the maximum unification of the chassis and the creation of modernization potential.
            3. goose
              goose 16 February 2016 14: 24
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Well, there was just an empty place for them, which weighs little.

              There was an empty seat reserved, so it all weighs an extra couple of tons.
        2. All terrain vehicle
          All terrain vehicle 14 February 2016 02: 25
          -3
          I’m not reading the first material, everywhere in the comments they refer to Afghanite, and to the act. protection. But, there is no direct confirmation anywhere that AZ is used at the rebar, not in any interview or in the programs of the star.
          There is NO active defense on armature (meaning protection that knocks down rockets with a strike core). IMHO
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 February 2016 12: 00
            +6
            Quote: Rider
            I’m not reading the first material, everywhere in the comments they refer to Afghanite, and to the act. protection. But, there is no direct confirmation anywhere that AZ is used at the rebar, not in any interview or in the programs of the star.
            There is NO active defense on armature (meaning protection that knocks down rockets with a strike core). IMHO

            Do you see the pipes at the bottom of the tower? what do you think?

            The same protection and the T-15 is
            1. All terrain vehicle
              All terrain vehicle 14 February 2016 12: 19
              -6
              Maybe smoke bombs, etc. Note that officially nothing is said about AZ.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 14 February 2016 12: 56
                +2
                Quote: Rider
                Ro AZ officially said nothing.

                It has been said more than once - carefully read the statements of the defenders, and smoke bombs - this is in a small rotary installation on the tower - sticks out just below the commander’s sight - take a closer look.
              2. ILDM1986
                ILDM1986 15 February 2016 08: 39
                +1
                AZ is usually an automatic loader. about active protection on the Internet, there are mostly inflations of dubious reliability. more or less accurately we can say that turret mortars are a semblance of a "thrush", only on what principle the striking elements work (fragments or an impact core) is unknown. and rectangular multi-charge units are mortars of masking protection elements, working simultaneously as a smoke screen (protection against Hellfire, TOW, Fagot, Skif, Stugna-P, etc.), multispectral curtain (including IR range protection against Spike, Javelin) and a curtain opaque for millimeter radars (by throwing out a cloud of miniature dipoles - protection from JAGM, Brimstone)).
                that’s basically all that you can confidently say. There is also various information about the electromagnetic destruction of anti-tank systems, anti-missile anti-aircraft machine gun, AFAR radars, etc. but so far these are nothing more than words. maybe some of this was in the original version of the T-14, but whether it will survive to the final version - we will wait and see.
      2. Ronino
        Ronino 13 February 2016 13: 14
        +3
        Booking even an uninhabited tower is necessary.
        The same automatic loader can be disabled ... I'm not talking about optics.
  12. AleBors
    AleBors 13 February 2016 11: 02
    +1
    Interesting article. I agree with most comments that what we saw at the parade and what actually is has, to put it mildly, differences. Yes, and published data, for that published, few know the truth.
  13. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 13 February 2016 11: 10
    +2
    Interesting, but incomprehensible: how to compare the performance characteristics by weight and dimensions.
    The article, apparently, is designed for forum users-tankers and having something to do with tanks.
    1. Rader
      Rader 14 February 2016 00: 32
      +2
      The author of the article, in fact, does not compare the performance characteristics of these tanks. The article presents a comparison of the dimensions and dimensions of the frontal and lateral projections, and on the basis of these data it expresses doubts about the mass of the T-14. So I read article + with interest and there is something to think about.
  14. svp67
    svp67 13 February 2016 11: 19
    0
    Tanks produced in Eastern Europe, based on the T-64, T-72 and T-80, were not taken for comparison.
    Why? They will not differ in size very much from our T-90, but the Korean K-2 and the modernized Turkish M-60 could be imagined ...
    1. Forest
      13 February 2016 12: 50
      +1
      I did not find the projections. If anyone can - drop it in PM, then you can make a pivot table.
  15. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 13 February 2016 11: 30
    +3
    It is not grateful to compare the "gift of God" with scrambled eggs! And in general, let's wait a little bit and God willing we will see what the T-14 "Armata" really is, and then we will argue, but now all this is just "rustle of nuts"!
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 13 February 2016 12: 08
      +2
      Well, I want to now somehow evaluate our tank, understand the prospects and opportunities.
  16. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 13 February 2016 11: 42
    +2
    The table would still have the main dimensions for a visual comparison, otherwise it’s clear from the small silhouettes that the t-90 is the smallest
  17. Voodoo
    Voodoo 13 February 2016 12: 17
    0
    A good review ... here too in the subject ... along the T-72 and Abrams. As for Almaty, I personally doubt its high combat qualities. The most vulnerable element of the tank is the tracks and rollers. A penny mine will stop this splendor and do what you want with it ... and there are enough other weapons. And the money costs a lot. Purely front tank))) Remember the T-35 and the like. In my opinion, the T-90 will be more effective in battle. Low silhouette, mobile, normal booking, etc. And in the fight against the potential enemy’s tanks, ammunition is also of great importance ... that is the direction to go. Well this is IMHO.
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 February 2016 12: 26
      +8
      There is clearly someone flatters))))
    2. Forest
      13 February 2016 12: 49
      +6
      Here either the T-72 was reduced, or the Abrams was increased. Here the 72-ki gun is opposite the American driver’s mech, in reality, the driver’s devices on both tanks are somewhere at the same height. Dimensions can’t save from the mine. The T-35 was bad not because of its size, but because of poor mobility, poor reliability, outdated weapons, lack of rear connections and multi-turret.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 13 February 2016 13: 23
          +8
          Quote: Conscience
          add electronic warfare and the tank will not completely "kill".

          You see what the thing is - this is the T-90 REB that will not fit in any way, corny because there is no space - precisely because of the small size of the tank. After all, you don’t think that the T-14 has such dimensions only because the designers wanted to make a large tank?
      2. Voodoo
        Voodoo 13 February 2016 14: 12
        0
        I agree ... maybe the proportions are not met ... well, we have what we have)))
    3. Conscience
      Conscience 13 February 2016 13: 20
      0
      I support you - I also like T90 - add electronic warfare and the tank will not be completely "killed".
    4. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu 15 February 2016 00: 51
      0
      It seems to me that the front armata is not the final option
    5. minirulet
      minirulet 15 February 2016 16: 48
      -1
      Debatable. The T-14 is better if only because it has the best armor, active and passive protection, and most importantly the best crew protection! People are the most valuable resource, not tanks!
  18. Alexy
    Alexy 13 February 2016 12: 45
    0
    T-14 is one third more than T-90. What about weapons?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 13: 27
      +6
      Quote: Alexy
      What about weapons?

      And what about weapons? The new 2A82 gun with significantly better ballistic characteristics and new ammunition (900 mm long against the old 70).
      More than that, the T-14 has a clear case. The whole crew sits there, with the dimensions of the turret it’s more difficult. After all, most of what we see is just an external casing of thin metal that no one has seen under it, there is only one The photo is of very low quality, it seems like from a factory.
      And lastly - they are going to install the 14mm 152A2 cannon on the T-83, which was developed for the previous project "object 195", which, believe me, had exactly the same dimensions as the T-14 (but no one doubted its characteristics))) )))
  19. Algetxnumx
    Algetxnumx 13 February 2016 12: 53
    +3
    Quote: Mera Joota
    Professor! Parry!

    So he stole!
  20. johnny
    johnny 13 February 2016 12: 54
    +3
    4448 width for Almaty versus 3780 for T-90, the difference is 668 mm!
    author of you smoked? even the photo above shows that there is no such difference.
  21. johnny
    johnny 13 February 2016 13: 09
    +3
    Well, where is the difference of 668 mm?
    1. Forest
      13 February 2016 13: 17
      -1
      I do not know by what dimensions the T-90 was taken, I did not measure it. Most likely on tracks. He took Armata on the trellises, and they are quite far from the tracks. The length, width, height on the roof of the tower is already known, they did not touch. I measured the height on the DPU / sights and the length with the gun forward in some cars.
      1. johnny
        johnny 13 February 2016 13: 35
        +1
        Well, if you don’t know why to put disu?

        from wikipedia T-90
        Width housingmm 3780
        Track, mm 2790

        Who measures the dimensions of the tracks? fool

        and even with bars there is no such difference ...

        The length, width, height on the roof of the tower is already known, they did not touch


        how is it known? from that picture of the very first?

        no, it’s definitely better for you not to write such things ... just mislead people.
        1. Forest
          13 February 2016 14: 42
          +2
          On Wiki, the dimensions of Abrams 3 times changed, with 20-30 cm at a time. By caterpillars often found a measurement of the size of the tank. Lattices are not an antenna that can bend and straighten without breaking. The dimensions in the first figure are incorrect, at least read, there is not much text. Dimensions T-14 calculated everything, for existing tanks I did not see the point of looking for something with which you can compare and get the size if the data is already known.
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 February 2016 14: 49
            +1
            Thank you for what you did. And you still can’t convince the offended Zhonni. Let him consider that the armata is less.
            1. johnny
              johnny 13 February 2016 16: 58
              0
              Quote: Kars
              armata less.


              .... no more and no less than their competitors.
          2. johnny
            johnny 13 February 2016 16: 42
            +3
            Quote: Forest
            On Wiki, the dimensions of Abrams changed 3 times, with 20-30 cm at a time.

            I brought the wiki to make it easier for you to find. The T-90 did not change any size of 20-30 cm.

            By caterpillars often found a measurement of the size of the tank.


            do not carry nonsense. Track Width at T-90 3370mm

            total width 3780 mm

            in the book "Fighting vehicles of the Uralvagonzavod T-72" you can see in the appendix.

            and I still don’t understand how did you find the difference in width 668 mm? Would make an overlay, attached a scale ruler, and bullshit is all your comparison. In the photo above where I put both tanks, this is visible.

            only Mr. Trololo Karsik rejoices in such articles. Do not turn into the same trololo!

            and yet, the grilles do not increase the frontal projection area ...
            1. Forest
              13 February 2016 19: 03
              -1
              You compared the tanks to the frontal parts, where the T-14 is still wider, as can be seen in your comparison. And the grilles do have their own dimensions, and in some passage the tank can carry them.
              1. johnny
                johnny 13 February 2016 20: 53
                +2
                Quote: Forest
                You compared the tanks to the frontal parts, where the T-14 is still wider,


                wider but not by much.

                I got a difference of 129 mm (approximately of course)

                To do this, I scaled the famous photo from above, took the dimensions of the T-90 3780 mm as a basis, measured and received such results. I must say that the photo is very distorted! and some kind of correct result cannot be obtained from it. everything is approximately. And then you have two decimal places after the decimal point)
                More or less accurately, you can measure the width of the body next to a crack in the asphalt, where the shooting angle was about the same.

                And the grilles do have their own dimensions, and in some passage the tank can carry them.


                They have of course, but they do not fall into the projection area when fired from the front. What will happen to the tank if it is pierced by a shell in front? nothing. and if they are torn off in some kind of driveway, then there will already be nothing to flash) A Stronghold, with its sides protruding in the opposite directions for half a meter with DZ, will generally be the most vulnerable with such logic.
                1. Forest
                  14 February 2016 00: 19
                  0
                  Then you need to subtract from the projection area and the layers of armor. In Leo there, even taking into account the overlays, up to 1 m2 can exit.
                  1. johnny
                    johnny 14 February 2016 09: 10
                    -1
                    Quote: Forest
                    Then you need to subtract from the projection area and the layers of armor. In Leo there, even taking into account the overlays, up to 1 m2 can exit.


                    as a rule, getting into the armor leads to a defeat or failure of the tank or its systems, unlike getting into various crazy boxes and grills, machine guns on the tower behind which there is no tank body.

                    When Leo gets into the side of the front of the tower, the suo and the gun will be disabled. Therefore, it can not be subtracted.
      2. johnny
        johnny 13 February 2016 13: 58
        +3
        Quote: Forest
        He took Armata on the trellises, and they are quite far from the tracks.


        and then I would take the height along the antenna ... then it would be even more)

        The width of the Armata on the rut and the width is probably the same as that of the T-90. After all, it was required that it could also be transported on railway platforms, tractors, etc. and these are standard things ....
  22. Conscience
    Conscience 13 February 2016 13: 14
    -1
    I will not talk about all the inconsistencies in the new tank, one question - why the hatch hinged?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 13: 29
      +1
      Quote: Conscience
      I will not talk about all the inconsistencies in the new tank, one question - why the hatch hinged?

      Is there any problem with this?
  23. rubidiy
    rubidiy 13 February 2016 13: 14
    +7
    again, the article without setting a task and a conclusion ... will have to myself. hi
    All lovers of tanks and measuring with a ruler of known body parts should understand the tasks for which this or that tank is designed. There is a concept of military doctrine that defines the main threats, ways to counter them and, accordingly, the definition of the actions of troops in these conditions.
    T-90 - a tank that should operate in the vast Motherland. A low silhouette, high cross-country ability in a compartment with guided projectiles make it a tank that is deadly at distances at which the enemy will not soon be able to open fire, even if there is direct visibility.
    In this regard, heavy and tall NATO tanks will have to be in a knowingly disadvantaged position.
    But nothing stands still. The number and quality of roads is increasing, urbanization is in full swing, and battles are moving to cities. Under these conditions, a higher degree of protection of the sides, roof and stern of the tank will be required. Height is no longer critical. Dimensions of Almaty have grown so much because it is protected from cumulative anti-tank grenades on all sides by Dynamic Defense. The crew, as you know, is located in the tank’s hull, which also added height, and the removal of ammunition to the stern of the turret added to its length, so now everyone is equally uncomfortable waving the barrel. It should also be noted that KAZ also covers the upper projection of the tank, which cannot be said about the other modern MBTs.
    Personally, I was only puzzled by the machine gun turret on the roof of the tower. It is clear that you can put NSVT there, but for an uninhabited tower I would like something that could conduct effective fire on the upper floors of buildings.
  24. gallville
    gallville 13 February 2016 14: 12
    -1
    rubidiy
    Put a deserved minus.
    Quote: rubidiy
    T-90 - a tank that must operate in the vast Mother Motherland. A low silhouette, high cross-country ability in a compartment with guided projectiles make it a tank that is deadly at distances at which the enemy will not soon be able to open fire, even if there is direct visibility.

    On open spaces mother Motherland including and European TVD line of sight 2,5km. This is the firing range of bops obt both Soviet legacy and Western tanks. Therefore, it is precisely on Mother Motherland that the t-90 has no advantages in range. As well as armata.
    Quote: rubidiy
    The crew, as you know, is in the tank’s hull, which also added height,

    It just didn’t add height. Because The driver and before sitting in the housing a place for the other two received by lengthening the chassis to the roller.
    Quote: rubidiy
    and the removal of ammunition into the stern of the tower added to it are long,

    In armature bk in the machine body. Ask a question before doing cheers-patriotic posts.
    Quote: rubidiy
    It should also be noted that KAZ also covers the upper projection of the tank, which cannot be said about the other modern MBTs.

    How difficult it is to install KAZ on any other cart .... This is really the uniqueness of the armata ... Kaz which can be put on any car - at least on KAMAZ.
    Quote: rubidiy
    NSVT put, but for an uninhabited tower I would like something that could fire efficiently on the upper floors of buildings.

    From BTT adequately protected and armed BMP (not 30mm) is not suitable? (I will not say anything about infantry escort).
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 21: 00
      0
      Quote: gallville
      It just didn’t add height. Because The driver and before sitting in the housing a place for the other two received by lengthening the chassis to the roller.

      The heights were most likely added by the U-shaped bottom and the corresponding suspension (in the "Military Acceptance" program this was clearly seen in the unfinished samples that were shown at the factory) and the thick armor of the hull roof (there are many photographs where you can estimate the thickness of the hatches, just as an example )
      1. Forest
        14 February 2016 00: 22
        +2
        Not quite so - in the case in the T-64 and its descendants sat only the mechanical drive, almost reclining. All 3 crew members are sitting here with great convenience as in some kind of MCC.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 14 February 2016 12: 14
          +1
          Quote: Forest
          Here all 3 crew members sit with great convenience as in some kind of MCC.

        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 14 February 2016 12: 57
          0
          Quote: Forest
          Not quite so - in the case in the T-64 and its descendants sat only the mechanical drive, almost reclining. All 3 crew members are sitting here with great convenience as in some kind of MCC.

          And this is also an important point.
      2. minirulet
        minirulet 15 February 2016 16: 53
        -1
        Here I was amazed by this program "Military acceptance". They took and showed almost an open device of the tank. Ponty is more expensive than money) IMHO, it was generally impossible to show not the insides of the tank, not the insides of the capsule!
  25. Hammer
    Hammer 13 February 2016 15: 44
    +2
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Conscience
    I will not talk about all the inconsistencies in the new tank, one question - why the hatch hinged?

    Is there any problem with this?

    The character means what to do if the gun lays down? Answer: get out of the mechanical plant hatch.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 20: 49
      +1
      If the gun lays down unsuccessfully, the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter what kind of hatch there will be - a hinged or some other - you still can’t get out ...
  26. realist
    realist 13 February 2016 15: 50
    +2
    some garbage can not be of such dimensions, transported by rail as? there cannot be a width much larger than existing tanks.
  27. Litsvin
    Litsvin 13 February 2016 16: 13
    +2
    MR. OFFICERS... I propose the easiest way to find out who is cooler, and stop all disputes once and for all. We will buy Armata from the Urals, Leo-2A7 from the Germans, Leclerc from the frogs, Challenger 2 from the oatmen, Merkavu 4 from the Jews, and Abrams from the Americans.
    And then "in an open field" we will conduct an experiment "in nature" - whoever survives is the coolest.

    The only thing that I am 100% SURE of before starting the experiment is that "Armata" was made by the SMARTEST people and embodied in metal all the best domestic and foreign experience in designing tanks.

    Well, let's start up the "hat in a circle" to raise funds for the experiment ???????????? smile smile smile
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 February 2016 16: 25
      +4
      Quote: Litsvin
      Well, let's start up the "hat in a circle" to raise funds for the experiment ????????????

      about 50 million bucks)) the hat should be big.
      1. Litsvin
        Litsvin 14 February 2016 00: 10
        +2
        Take the box, for example, from the TV. Will go ??? drinks
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 February 2016 16: 58
      +1
      The lekler has the whole chip in a team fight alone, he loses a lot of his advantages
  28. Earnest
    Earnest 13 February 2016 16: 16
    +3
    Quote: Voodoo
    A good review ... here too in the subject ... along the T-72 and Abrams

    An old fake drawing, criticized for many times. The silhouette of our tank is reduced from populisconsiderations laughing
  29. pimen
    pimen 13 February 2016 17: 09
    0
    well, with such a comparative (with the T90) increase in length, the question arises: judging by the mechanically driven hatch pushed back, the front axle barely pulls up to a meter in frontal armor.
    But even with the addition of armored capsules - aren't the guys too swinging?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 February 2016 20: 56
      0
      Quote: pimen
      well, with such a comparative (with the T90) increase in length, the question arises: judging by the mechanically driven hatch pushed back, the front axle barely pulls up to a meter in frontal armor.

      Why do you think that the frontal armor should be exactly one meter thick? It is desirable to strengthen the armor due to qualitatively new materials, and not a banal increase in thickness. Moreover, even from the picture in the article, it is clear that the hatches on the reinforcement have moved significantly back in comparison with the T-90, so that the thickness of the frontal armor there has increased very decently, and there is no vulnerable "cleavage" zone.
      Quote: pimen
      But even with the addition of armored capsules - aren't the guys too swinging?

      And what do you think? Let's count - an armored capsule (with a thick wall between it and an uninhabited fighting compartment), then the same fighting compartment, but it's the same size as the standard "Teshek", MTO for a new more powerful engine. So an increase in the size of the case comes out.
      1. pimen
        pimen 14 February 2016 07: 33
        +1
        running meter of frontal armor is the minimum that a new car would like in my simple sight, but even with an armored capsule its length seems excessive. It seems that they put in it not a new X-shaped engine, but added pots to the old one and stuck it along, and not across
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 14 February 2016 11: 13
          -2
          Quote: pimen
          running meter of frontal armor is the minimum that a new car would like in my simple sight,

          Namely, that is simple, therefore, first you need to find out what the specialists think about it.
          Quote: pimen
          It seems that they put in it not a new X-shaped engine, but added pots to the old one and stuck it along, and not across

          Have you seen the dimensions of this X-shaped? He is there oh-oh not so small. and then - everything is MTO as a single module, and this slightly increases its size, so its normal length, especially when you consider that the armor between the capsule of the crew and the fighting compartment is also not thin, because the detonation of the ammunition must be maintained so that the crew does not get in a jar.
          1. pimen
            pimen 14 February 2016 12: 42
            0
            Damn, well, the X-shaped engine should be half as long with the same displacement by definition. In addition, the box was said to be ordinary, only a robot. In theory, the MTO should remain at its former dimensions, even with an increase in the power of the power plant
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 14 February 2016 12: 54
              -1
              Quote: pimen
              Damn, well, the X-shaped engine should be half as long with the same displacement by definition.

              Ha, so the fact of the matter is that the X-shape here was made not to make it compact, but to increase the number of cylinders (to increase power, of course), so in length it is the same as the standard V-shaped engines, just 2 times more cylinders in it. By the way, now such a scheme is recognized as not very good (due to the complexity of repair and production), and the X-shaped engine will be abandoned in the future, since modern technologies make it possible to design a "simple" V-shaped engine of the same power and size. which now has an X-shaped.
              Moreover, the MTO should also have a good engine cooling system, and possibly also a system that pumps cold air into the exhaust gases so that the dviglo does not glow like a flashlight in the IR range. And an additional power plant must be shoved somewhere. So it turns out a huge ass .. face. Which, however, is no more than that of Western cars such as Leo or Abrasha.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 14 February 2016 13: 53
                +3

                1. pimen
                  pimen 14 February 2016 14: 17
                  0
                  not very visible from this angle: four pots per head, or three? But, in general, very compact. And at the same time, the difference is two meters in length along the body ... well, the armored capsule is one and a half, it can be slightly shifted under the tower, the rest, it turns out the forehead
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 14 February 2016 15: 28
                    -1
                    Dear, what did I write to you? Firstly, there’s a very spacious armored capsule, plus really increased thickness of the frontal armor (and the angle of inclination is also increased and decent), plus - a thick partition between the capsule and the tower (the crew must be protected from detonation of the BC, which is located in the hull), plus all MTO - engine, plus transmission, plus gearbox - all this is a separate module, which is easily dismantled as a whole, and this also slightly increases the volume.
                    So it turns out the car is much longer.
                    1. pimen
                      pimen 14 February 2016 15: 57
                      0
                      Well, not everything is so certain. And maybe, nevertheless, it made sense to remove the AZ and the ammunition from the hull to the tower and the tower niche (all the same large), move the tower to the MTO, and the MTO with the armored capsule. To prevent misalignment, bring the frontal armor to the running meter, or even more, and, yes, recall the Fritz chess suspension. Perhaps then it would be possible to squeeze a meter and a half out of two at the cost of lowering ammunition
                      1. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 14 February 2016 18: 54
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        Or maybe it still made sense to remove the AZ and the ammunition from the hull to the tower and tower niche (still large)

                        Well, this is already a question for the designers - most likely it is just very long and difficult to develop a conveyor AZ, and the "carousel" technology has long been worked out. Yes, and when the AZ is placed in the aft niche of the tower (where the armor is cardboard), it can be easily disabled than if it is in the hull (evaluate the protection of the sides of the T-14), but the consequences of the detonation of the ammunition in the AZ for the tank in this case are easier.
                        Quote: pimen
                        move the tower to the MTO, and the MTO with an armored capsule.

                        In principle, such an option was considered, and in principle, in this case, the greatest protection of the crew will be achieved, but there are a number of very significant drawbacks:
                        1) an unambiguous platform overload - in front there is a thick lobovuha + heavy MTO, in the middle a heavy capsule of an ecmage (since no one canceled the protection from the sides, in the upper hemisphere and the partition between it and the MTO and the fighting compartment) and the back is a heavy tower (as it should be well-armored and plus BK, gun, etc.)
                        2) Placing the tower strictly at the stern of the hull will impose some restrictions on the maneuverability of fire
                        So, in principle, ours chose the most convenient and cheapest option with acceptable shortcomings.
                      2. pimen
                        pimen 14 February 2016 19: 25
                        0
                        the tower is completely aft is not needed - overweight of the tail (no armor for the counterweight is enough), difficulties even with minimal routine maintenance of the MTO. But to move it by a meter is quite realistic, and one and a half is not a first approximation. The armored capsule partition can be thinner: there is only a tank between it and the MTO. At the expense of the new AZ? Well, like, the Black Eagle rode with such a scheme. The ammunition rack in the turret should be covered by armor capable of withstanding 40mm caliber, but the main hope, of course, is dynamic and active protection. At the expense of overweighting the platform - well, let's not forget that we "cut out" at least a meter of the armored hull. Weight gain is likely to happen, for some reason it always happens. But somehow the Fritzes fought on their "wunderwaves" in Russia
                      3. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 14 February 2016 19: 38
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        But to shift by a meter is quite real, one and a half - this is not in the first approximation.

                        Then the question is - how to "move the tower" without changing the layout of the machine and not lengthening the chassis? And why do this in principle? And the current scheme looks like this.
                        Quote: pimen
                        The septum of the armored capsule can be thinner: only a tank between it and the MTO.

                        Hmm, I still can’t understand how you are going to place the tower, if our capsule borders on the MTO? But let's say - the tank is really quite good protection (in Abrash’s tank, which has an internal structure in the form of honeycombs, it is located just behind the frontal sheet of the hull (it serves as an excellent additional protection against cumulative shells, by the way). But there is also a fighting compartment - and between he and the armored capsule will definitely have to make a powerful partition (even if the BC and AZ are in the aft niche) - after all, most gifts will fly to the tower, which means that you still need to defend yourself.
                      4. pimen
                        pimen 14 February 2016 20: 09
                        0
                        removing the carousel and AZ from the hull, we get absolutely unnecessary free space under the tower. What are the limitations? The cannon plays with the breech down, but the elevation angles of the tank guns are traditionally not great, which means that a particularly deep niche under the tower is not needed. In my opinion, a possible "move" for the breech down should be above the tank. The fighting compartment is completely in the turret: both the AZ itself and the ammunition rack in the turret niche. Here they removed the tower from the shoulder strap with a crane - they also removed the fighting compartment. You need to close the tower head-on as usual
                      5. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 14 February 2016 20: 36
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        and AZ from the building, we get absolutely unnecessary free space under the tower.

                        It’s just that in this case, really well, a lot of space will be freed up, and the tank’s tank is not so large as to occupy the entire turret space in this case. And then I am tormented by vague doubts that the tanks (as, incidentally, the rest of the equipment) are designed so that access to all components (including the fuel tank) can be made without additional means, ala crane, etc.
                        Moreover, here we are reasoning with you about the layout and length and somehow forget that the T-14 tank is made on unified chassis! And unified with whom? With self-propelled guns, ARVs, but above all with heavy infantry fighting vehicles! And in the case of the T-BMP, you can’t talk about the compactization you are proposing - the separation of the landing will not give you anything to move anywhere. And since the chassis is the same for everyone, the tank is so long.
                        But this also has its advantages: the internal layout will not be too well-groomed, which means that the probability of damaging an important node when breaking through the armor will be less.
                      6. pimen
                        pimen 14 February 2016 20: 48
                        +1
                        At the expense of the complexity of access to the units, they removed the Fritz’s tower in order to replace the box, and how long does the tank live there? .. But at the expense of uniformity, you’re right, there’s nothing for me to cover, different cars
                      7. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 14 February 2016 21: 13
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        At the expense of the complexity of access to the units - they removed the Fritz tower in order to replace the box

                        Do you know how difficult it was for them to repair tanks in the field? This, by the way, was one of many factors that greatly reduced their chances of winning a long war (as is the case with us).
                        Quote: pimen
                        and how long does the tank live there? ..

                        It used to be that a tank lived on average no longer than an hour, a modern tank lives a very long time. Moreover, it’s impossible now to stamp tanks like pies because of the complexity and high cost, and maintainability is also an important characteristic - do not drag the 50-60 tonne colony to the base to eliminate minor damage (while the T-14 weighs only 48 tons I somehow I do not believe).
                        Quote: pimen
                        But at the expense of uniformity, you’re right, there’s nothing for me to cover, different cars turn out

                        After all the discussion, it seems to me that this is the main reason. See: self-propelled guns and tanks have the same layout - they shoved a coalition onto the T-90 chassis without changing its length. There are no special problems with ARVs either. But the T-BMP is yes - there is a hefty landing compartment and it can be located only in the aft (otherwise it is inconvenient and unsafe to land), so in any case, the chassis must be adjusted to the T-BMP, and, of course, you can’t compact it .
                      8. pimen
                        pimen 14 February 2016 21: 23
                        0
                        I'm not going to talk about repairs in the field and the lifetime of the tank, as for the Coalition, pay attention to its "superstructure" (and do not forget that it does not really need armor). But to "adjust" the layout and fighting qualities of the tank for an infantry escort vehicle? .. Well, this is my personal opinion
                      9. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 14 February 2016 22: 24
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        regarding the Coalition, pay attention to its "superstructure"

                        if you mean a slight increase in the height of the T-90 chassis on which the coalition now rides, then when it is installed on the armature, this most likely will not happen.
                        Quote: pimen
                        and don’t forget that she doesn’t really need armor

                        Well, it doesn’t really matter, although it’s all the same - the armored capsule will not harm her (the crew will be calmer).
                        Quote: pimen
                        But to "adjust" the layout and fighting qualities of the tank to the infantry escort vehicle? ..

                        The layout here just do not fit, the size of the chassis remains the same, yes. But how this will affect the combat qualities is not a fact that is negative, for the T-15 is clearly much heavier than the T-14, and the chassis pulls it normally, so the dynamic characteristics of the T-14 should not be reduced due to the chassis .
                        Moreover, the dimensions of the T-14 given in the article are seriously increased, in terms of dimensions it is clearly about the same as most Western cars, but they feel fine quite well.
              2. ILDM1986
                ILDM1986 14 February 2016 22: 18
                +1
                Quote: pimen
                removing the carousel and AZ from the hull, we get absolutely unnecessary free space under the tower. What are the limitations? The cannon plays with the breech down, but the elevation angles of the tank guns are traditionally not great, which means that a particularly deep niche under the tower is not needed. In my opinion, a possible "move" for the breech down should be above the tank. The fighting compartment is completely in the turret: both the AZ itself and the ammunition rack in the turret niche. Here they removed the tower from the shoulder strap with a crane - they also removed the fighting compartment. You need to close the tower head-on as usual

                and we get the same t-90 at the output, only an out-of-place price, low modernization potential, similar armor and weapons, lower unification, and the crew again sits with the fuel. and where will you plant the driver? also in the tower? Or how to sit alone on the T-80?
                IMHO, in addition to the current version, you can consider the front location of the MTO, a capsule for 3 people is located in the stern, in the center of the AZ, a small-sized tower with a massive lightly armored box remains. only problem is how to repair the engine and transmission if the MTO is closed by a massive armor plate.
  30. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 14 February 2016 18: 33
    +1
    Quote: pimen
    not very visible from this angle: four pots per head, or three?

    The engine, somewhere half as long as those now on the T72, T-90 are.
    1. pimen
      pimen 14 February 2016 18: 59
      +1
      thanks, see the same 12 pots
    2. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu 15 February 2016 00: 59
      0
      X-shaped engine, 4 blocks of 3 pots, the t-72 has a v-shaped 2 blocks of 6 pots, therefore, twice as shorter
  • goose
    goose 16 February 2016 15: 21
    0
    Quote: Albert1988
    So it turns out a huge ass .. face. Which, however, is no more than that of Western cars like Leo or Abrasha

    At Abrams, the ass should be smaller due to the compact turbine.
  • goose
    goose 16 February 2016 15: 20
    0
    Quote: pimen
    Damn, well, the X-shaped engine should be half as long

    So what, it’s still worth it.
    The main dimensions are tanks, filtration and cooling system.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 February 2016 20: 08
      0
      Quote: goose
      So what, it’s still worth it.

      An X-shaped engine is placed along the tank.
      Quote: goose
      The main dimensions are tanks, filtration and cooling system.

      Tanks inside the tank are inscribed in a space free from other equipment. Something like: a storage tank, where fuel takes place between the cells with shells,
      in the nose, next to the fur water, where you can’t push anything else,
      in the corner, between the engine compartment and the combat compartment, etc.
      In general, the tank only adds to the length of the tank on the T-80. On the rest of ours, I did not notice this.
      Air purification takes up a lot of space on Abrams. On our filters, however, they are mainly not with panels, but with a cyclone type (the main part of the dust is removed in cyclones, and after-treatment with cassettes). Our sizes are not large.
      But the radiators, yes. At facility 187, the hull was elongated (at the top) in part because of this.
  • sohosha
    sohosha 13 February 2016 18: 42
    +2
    Not tanks fighting, people.
    1. Litsvin
      Litsvin 14 February 2016 00: 09
      0
      Let us put you in the Soviet "Mickey Mouse" / "Cheburashka" and put you up against the old, trophy "Panzer-4". You will navoyuete a lot, dear ??? drinks
      1. sohosha
        sohosha 14 February 2016 04: 29
        +1
        The best technology is where people and the state respect and value people in military uniforms.
        1. Litsvin
          Litsvin 14 February 2016 11: 43
          +1
          Sorry Shanouns, but in the first phrase you said that "people are fighting", thereby completely ignoring the topic of "technology". Then, after my joke, when I suggested that you "fight" on the "BT" against the "Pz-4", you already wrote about "the best shadow". You contradict yourself ... Nemecium toast "Hrozit-SIMPLE" drinks
  • Ivan Ivanych
    Ivan Ivanych 13 February 2016 22: 08
    0
    cannot weigh more than 50 tons because bridges are designed for such a load back in the USSR
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 14 February 2016 12: 59
      +1
      So you don’t take into account modern bridges?
    2. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 15: 26
      0
      Quote: Ivan Ivanovich
      cannot weigh more than 50 tons because bridges are designed for such a load back in the USSR

      There is also a pontoon park, airplanes, railway bridges and a tiny fleet of motor transporters. That’s just IL-76 does not carry more than 50 tons.
  • infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 13 February 2016 23: 11
    -3
    Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
    a strong impression was created that the author tried to groan Armata comparing warm with soft

    so I want to remind the author that our country is actually the leading world country in the development of heavy military equipment,
    we don’t really know how to do cars, but with tanks we are doing fine
    and if the leading engineers decided that the armata should be like that, then it's probably better to think about why they decided to set such a direction for the development of the tank and why, and talk about that
    and not consider yourself smarter than specialists of the uralvagonzavod

    article minus, because not all intellectual efforts are commendable,
    sometimes the hunt from a particularly clever head is a little nonsense to shake .......


    You are either a provocateur or a Troll, or just a dim-witted cheer patriot.
    And with such a position: "we are all stupid here, but they are smart and know what is best without us," you shouldn't even communicate on the forum.
  • Mit_off
    Mit_off 14 February 2016 00: 52
    +2
    The author of this "work" saw the T-14 in nature? I saw in N-Tagil. He (the tank) is smaller than it seems, he was surprised himself. Dimensions are comparable to the T-72, which was next to it. The T-14 is larger than the T-72, but not dramatically.
    1. alexqazw
      alexqazw 14 February 2016 12: 33
      +1
      Well, I’d measure it with a tape measure, otherwise they’ll bazaar here on the basis of some pictures.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 14 February 2016 12: 59
        0
        Quote: alexqazw
        Well, I’d measure it with a tape measure, otherwise they’ll bazaar here on the basis of some pictures.

        Yeah, they’ll let you come up and try it right)))))) And yet all the performance characteristics themselves will tell)))))
  • kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 14 February 2016 05: 34
    +1
    Yeah! Cool guys are tankers ... especially judging by the comments.
  • Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 14 February 2016 16: 11
    0
    Until the tank fights, and in large quantities, nothing concrete can be said about it, it will be idle talk. Let's not get sick, but wait for some sort of war involving this tank.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 14 February 2016 20: 40
      +1
      Quote: Former battalion commander
      Let's not get sick, but wait for some sort of war involving this tank.

      Better not, because a war in which he could theoretically be able to participate with a very high probability may all of us really not like it.
      And the conflict in Syria by the time the T-14 goes en masse to the troops is already over, I hope)))))
  • Vasily Matveev
    Vasily Matveev 14 February 2016 20: 04
    +1
    T-90 skating rink - 750 mm. Good quality fake. The size of the t-14 is the same as the t-90 (comparable). This was especially clearly seen at the exhibition in N. Tagil, where the coalition assembled on the basis of the T-90 stood next to the T-14. You can carefully watch the broadcast of the parade, making measurements relative to the marking line.
    1. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu 15 February 2016 01: 06
      0
      in any case, the length was increased, the seventh roller was added, it’s approximately plus 1 m in length, no one will increase the width, the dimensions of the railway platform are limited, and the height is easy to calculate, knowing the diameter of the rollers is 750 mm, like t-90, how many rollers climbs in height? that's all the calculations, and marking on the pavement is not needed
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 15 February 2016 20: 08
        0
        Quote: dzeredzavkomimu
        knowing the diameter of the rollers 750mm, like t-90, ....

        Roller Diameter
        T-14 (T-15) -700mm
        at t-80 ---- 670mm,
        t-90 ----- 750mm
        T-64 ----- 555mm
  • Vasily Matveev
    Vasily Matveev 14 February 2016 20: 05
    +1
    You can carefully watch the broadcast of the parade, making measurements relative to the marking line.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vasily Matveev
    Vasily Matveev 14 February 2016 20: 08
    +1
    The diameter of the roller is 750 mm. Good fake quality, but still fake. At the exhibition in N. Tagil, they stood next to the Coalition made on the basis of the T-90. Approximately the same chassis length.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 14 February 2016 20: 53
    +2
    I read both the article and the comments. Got it: the red car drives faster than the purple one. Take the yellow one, it's prettier love .
    Or am I just not a tanker?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 14 February 2016 22: 43
      0
      Quote: samoletil18
      the red car drives faster

      Quote: samoletil18
      Or am I just not a tanker?

      Well, I don’t know about the tanker, but you are not a fan of Warhammer 40000 for an hour? There, too, you know, some have "red tanks go faster" ...))))))))))
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 15 February 2016 22: 03
        0
        I heard about the toy. But never used. hi
  • In100gram
    In100gram 14 February 2016 21: 14
    +1
    We need a very good tank. Characteristics by weight and armor are not reliably known. But if they say Best, it remains to believe
  • Kir1984
    Kir1984 15 February 2016 10: 43
    +1
    thanks to the author, very interesting
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 16 February 2016 06: 23
    0
    Something the author bent with a width of 4 meters! This clearly goes beyond the permissible size of the cargo when transported by rail. Railway transportation in Russia is considered to be included in the overall dimensions if the cargo dimensions do not exceed 13.3 meters in length (this is the length of the platform), 3.25 m wide and 5.3 m high. hi
  • merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 18 February 2016 05: 16
    0
    I honestly do not understand the author of the article what he was trying to say; whether he drew geometry, or judged what data they had: military, technical. But it’s interesting where this knowledge came from, and besides, as long as the current layout of Almaty. Yes and comparisons, frankly speaking, of a superficial nature, the type of more or less is not good or badly.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 18 February 2016 05: 24
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    I especially liked the phrase: the most unusual Merkava tank. And that the future Armat tank is still ordinary or not, the Merkava tank is an ordinary tank of limit parameters with a different approach to engineering.
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 22 February 2016 00: 47
    0
    Only one thing is clear - this is a huge number of people in the country who can not resist and do not justify domestic developments of anything. And they do it so frantically that even foreigners are so shy. When discussing the comparison of abrams and t90, then a large size is good. When our tank, according to someone’s calculations, is larger than our tank, it’s bad. Moreover, in the new development there is an uninhabited tower and an automatic loader, and much more, but you can’t talk about it when you want to justify.
    Here are the claims to t-72-90
    1) a small number of shots in the automatic loader (in the t-14 increased from 22 to 32)
    2) the vulnerability of ammunition in the AZ and therefore the crew (in t-14 it was decided by an uninhabited isolated tower)
    3) a small tank is worse than heavy (t14 is now heavy in size and slightly heavier according to claims)
    4) T90 is an upgraded T64 (T14 is a new tank, a new base with the ability to install more powerful 152 guns)
    At the same time, apart from our machines, only the lekler has the AZ, only we have an isolated crew and an uninhabited tower (often a hit part).
    Our designers consistently solve all problems to the best of real possibilities.
    Now clinging to size. If after a while a new tank appears in which there will be everything that is in T14 but at the same time it will be the same size as the T90 - what then will the ever-dissatisfied experts sing? (They will probably say that this is not a new tank, but an upgrade of the old T90).

    And such a story is repeated in all types of weapons. People cannot just be happy for a country and its army. Apparently the inferiority complex grafted in the 90s affects.
    1. jago13
      jago13 4 June 2016 02: 51
      0
      and what kind of joy is the country ??? that the ural car factory blackmails the country ,, ??? knocking out money for the t-72 version of the limousine ??? how much do you think it costs 4 lsd monitor 20cm with hd 720 pixels and 4 cameras well 500 bucks for which comrade sienko will require 5-000 dollars for you probably a penny and even comrade you forgot about the fully covered armor meshes that develop a complete lack of armor eyes woe patriots there is no fire control system on the tank, the accuracy of the shooting depends on the gunner and not on the digital suo, and on the video of shooting the armor 000 cm misses a fixed target from a distance of 8 m while the tank is also standing and the gunner takes 000-000 minutes to aim, recount at a distance of 15 meters how far the projectile will deflect ??? what to expect from the old gun made by the old technology lengthened by 100cm and removed the ejector and what ?? UTB made her a super gun ,,, ????

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQLG0bOy7SY

      Yes, and the armature is really wider by 50 cm min due to the new design of the dz

      Before the conflict with Alfabank, Sienko requested a total of 100 billion from the government, which is a record amount even for the industry. From that, Medvedev specifically promised that he would turn to Vnesheconombank so that Vnesheconombank would consider providing financing to Uralvagonzavod. Also a funny sequence, the head of Vnesheconombank said that the Central Bank is going to provide part of its profit to increase the capitalization of Vnesheconombank. That is, the Central Bank conducts operations, makes money on exchange rate hikes, it transfers part of this profit to Vnesheconombank and Vneshekonobank finances Uralvagonzavod from part of this money. In fact, the point is that the money that is earned, including by devaluation, from which the entire population suffers, will be used to support Uralvagonzavod.