Fórum Defesa Brasil

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2268.html

SidePRO-RPG armor
The Swiss company RUAG is offering a wider array of add-on armor types for enhancing the protection of older combat vehicles. It offers three main families of protection products: under the SidePRO brand, armor protection systems for protection the vertical aspects of a vehicle (so the front, sides and rear) are offered, while the RoofPRO brand includes protection systems for the vehicle roof. Lastly the MinePRO brand contains protection solutions for wheeled and tracked vehicles against IEDs, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.
Aside of SidePRO-KE/IED, which provides ballistic protection against armor-piercing ammunition, explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and fragments from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the SidePRO family of products also includes the SidePRO-Lasso anti-RPG net, the SidePRO-ATR armor modules for heavy vehicles and the SidePRO-RPG passive armor. SidePRO-KE/IED requires at least 7 milimetres of steel armor for backing and apparently consists of conventional ceramic armor or (spaced) metal armor depending on application.

The most interesting offer from RUAG's armor protection portfolio seems to be the SidePRO-RPG passive armor system; for all the other armor types there seem to be similar solutions offered by other manufacturers; for example the SidePRO-Lasso armor is nearly identical to AmSafe's Tarian RPG net, while SidePRO-ATR appears to be very similar to the heavy AMAP solution used on the Leopard 2 Evolution and other vehicles.


The SidePRO-RPG armor modules are less than 250 mm thick; this is broadly comparable to other passive and reactive armor solutions against RPGs. For example the original Chobham armor package developed as upgrade to the Chieftain tank included 204 mm thick side armor modules consisting of spaced steel plates and plastics layers. The SidePRO-RPG armor provides protection against the RPG-7 firing the PG-7V, the PG-7VM or the PG-7VL ammunition. The PG-7VL is the most capable of the mentioned ammunition types, using a 93 mm diameter warhead to penetrate up to 500 mm of armor steel. However it should be noted that all of the RPG-7 rounds mentioned in the SidePRO-RPG marketing material by RUAG use single stage shaped charge warheads, not a single one is using a tandem warhead arrangment. This implies that the SidePRO-RPG armor is not capable of defeating RPGs with tandem shaped charge warheads. Given a thickness of less than 250 mm, the SidePRO-RPG armor reaches a thickness efficiency of up to 2 or more against RPGs with a single shaped charge warhead. This seems to be quite good performance, although not necessarily better than other passive (non-explosive) armor systems against RPGs.

The SidePRO-RPG armor has an areal density of only 45 kilograms per square-metre, which is equivalent to a 5.7 mm thick steel plate! Slat armor (also known as cage armor and bar armor) can be slightly lighter with a weight of only 25 kg/m² when using lightweight aluminium alloys, while flexbile net armor such as SidePRO-Lasso and the Tarian RPG-net can weigh less than 20 kg/m². However the latter two types of armor are known to fail on a regular basis and provide protection against RPGs in only between 50 to 65 percent of all cases. In the other cases the penetration of the RPG is nearly unaffected by the slat/net armor. The SidePRO-RPG armor seems to not suffer from the same issues due to a completely different design.

Defeating a RPG-7 firing a PG-7VL round with 500 mm penetration seems nearly impossible, when the weight of the armor equals to only 5.7 mm steel per metre. Essentially the armor has to provide about 88 times as much protection per weight then armor steel (if one ignores that the base armor might be required to absorb some leftover penetration capabilities of the liner fragments)... this is far beyond the capabilities of most explosive reactive armors (ERA), which usually reaches only about 20 times the protection of an equally heavy steel plate against shaped charges. Slat armor can reach a higher mass efficiency by cutting the fuze wires of a RPG and then crushing the warhead. SidePRO-RPG however is not working in the same manner. So how is this light-weight armor capable of stopping RPGs?



The answer to this question is given in a number of patents from RUAG. Apparently the SidePRO-RPG armor modules consists of an array of metal spikes, which are evenly spaced along the armor module and slightly less than 250 mm long. The distance between the spikes is smaller than the warhead diameter, so that multiple spikes are guaranteed to damage the RPG projectile. There are different options on how the spikes actually work; most likely they prevent the shaped charge jet to properly form, disturbing the metal liner when it collapses after the explosive filler detonates. In tests of similar armor concept against a shaped charge artillery submuntion, which was capable of penetrating 200 mm armor steel, a single thin rubber spike disturbing the jet fromation reduced the penetration to only 3 to 25 milimetres, depending on the spike location. Given that in case of SidePRO-RPG multiple spikes are expected to interfere with the jet fromation, the protection provided by it should be even higher. Armor based on this principle is used on the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 and the Puma IFV to protect the roof against artillery submunitions.
Alternatively the metal spikes might be capable of piercing through the metal liner, before the fuze is triggered. This would lead to a great reduction in penetration capability, a number of hardkill active protection systems rely on piercing the warhead/liner of RPGs (via metal fragments) in order to reduce their penetration performance to a minimum. However given that the metal spike length is limited to 250 mm and the in-built standoff of the PG-7VL at the center section of the warhead is more than that, this seems rather improbable.

Furthermore the armor module contains a crumple shield made of a polymer (i.e. plastic) and is covered by some sort of thin ballistic foil, metal or plastic. An optional layer of perforated armor can be installed inside of the module, which provides protection against heavy machine gun ammunitions or smaller medium calibre rounds, depending on the existing base armor.

RUAG's armor is an interesting concept for upgrading older vehicles, which can only support a limited amout of additional weight, without adopting slat or net armor. The armor has been tested on the M113 armored personnel carrier (APC) and has been showcased on the APC version of the French VBCI 8x8 vehicle. Both these vehicles have rather limited amounts of base armor.

Viktor Reznov escreveu:

Arariboia escreveu:Fala pessoal, tava lendo uns forums russo e tem em todos a informação que israel vai participar do tornei de Tanques esse ano na Russia.

Eles vão levar qual tanque pra capotarem lá?

Tive que te citar. Olha os que os israelenses acabaram de fazer nas colinas de Golã:



http://english.almanar.com.lb/356398


É um dom pra capotar tanque que eu nunca vi.

Explosive Reactive Armor - some history, some types
Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) is a type of modern special armor. ERA is formed by using one or multiple layers of high explosive between armor plates.
ERA can be manufactured as add-on armor or integrated into the armor of a vehicle. Add-on ERA usually consists of a smaller tiles or boxes, which are attached to the vehicle by bolts. The use of smaller tiles reduces weakspots once the ERA has been detonated.



The working mechanism of the most common types of ERA follows a very simple design. A layer of high explosives is sandwiched between two metal plates, together this is forming a reactive element. When being penetrated by a shaped charge jet or another projectile, the high explosives will detonate and propell the two metal plates into opposing directions. This has two effects: more mass (metal) is moved into the path of the projectile and the converse movement of the metal plates will have a disrupting effect on the projectile, shattering the shaped charge jet.
To properly work however, the reactive element has to be inclined in relation to the penetration path of the shaped charge jet.
Heavy ERA is able to destroy or at least damage modern armor-piercing ammunition like the long-rod penetrators used in APFSDS ammunition.





Blazer ERA uses an insensitive explosive filler, which does not detonate upon penetration by small arms and medium caliber ammunition up to 23 mm AP. Upon penetration by a shaped charge jet, the steel plates accelerate to a velocity of approximately 800 meters per second. Blazer ERA could reduce the penetration of an RPG-7 projectile from 300 to about 100 milimeters into steel, although the absolute figures are depending on the angle of impact.

.

However Blazer in it's original form had a number of drawbacks. It provided rather poor coverage on many vehicles (including the M48, M60 and Centurion tanks), leaving unprotected gaps in the layout. Due to using many different shapes of ERA tiles, Blazer was a logistical burden compared to other types of ERA.

Blazer has been succeded by the Super Blazer ERA in the 1990s/2000s. Aside from being more effective than it's predecessor, Super Blazer also offers some amount of protection against kinetic energy penetrators and is not being initiated by KE ammunitions up to 23 mm AP and fragments from artillery and mortar rounds detonating as close as 2 metres away.

The Soviet Union was the second country to adopt explosive reactive armor in form of their Kontakt ERA, which was first introduced in 1984. In most forms Kontakt ERA uses two reactive elements, although there might have been versions with just one reactive element. The reactive elements are located in rather small boxes (314 x 148 mm base area) with three milimeter thick steel walls. The reactive sandwich with the designation 4S20 consists of a 2 mm thick steel plate, a 7 mm thick explosive and a 2 mm thick steel plate. A Kontakt ERA tile with two reactive sandwich plates has a weight of 5.7 kilograms without attachment bolts. About 151 tiles are used for a tank (although the number varies depending on tank type and surface area).



Just like Blazer, the original Kontakt ERA did not provide any protection against armor-piercing ammunition and used insensitve explosives in order to prevent the detonation by small arms fire.
According to Russian sources, Kontakt ERA provides protection equivalent to up to 400 mm rolled steel armor (RHA) when hit by single-stage shaped charge warheads. Unlike Blazer, Kontakt provides protection at a greater amount of angles, because of the use of two reactive elements aligned at different angles. The smaller size of the Kontakt tiles is also favorable.

Kontakt-5 was the Soviet follow-up development to the original Kontakt ERA, which was designed to also provide protection against armor-piercing ammunition. Unlike the previous generation of Kontakt ERA, Kontakt-5 was considered "integrated ERA" by the Soviets, because of the mounting mechanism and the. Kontakt-5 is a type of heavy ERA.
Kontakt-5 uses a heavy steel shell, into which the 4S22 reactive element is inserted. Depending on where the tile is used, one or two reactive elements are installed. The 4S22 reactive elements are using more powerful explosive fillers with a TNT equivalency of 0.33 kilograms compared to the 0.28 kilograms of the earlier 4S20 reactive element of Kontakt-1.



Nii Stali claims that Kontakt 5 ERA provides protection equivalent to 400-500 mm steel against RPGs and ATGMs, 200-250 mm steel against HEAT tank and artillery ammunition, and reduces the penetration of APFSDS by 20%. This is said to increase the armor protection of the T-72B by factors 1.2 against APFSDS and 1.9-2.0 against shaped charges. Nii Stali also claimed that a T-55 eqiupped with Kontakt-5 ERA is able to resist APFSDS ammunition with up to 400 mm penetration.
Kontakt-5 provides protection against APFSDS by using a combination of more powerful explosives charges and thick coverplates - this results in shattering of the penetrator or bending of the rod. However more modern types of APFSDS can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA without being destroyed or strongly deformed.

The DYNA reactive armor was developed 1988 by the Czech repair facility in Novy Jicin together with the military technical institue of Slavicin. Unlike the previous mentioned types of reactive armor, DYNA does not use reactive elements formed by simple steel plates with explosives sandwiched inbetween, but rather uses rhombus shaped elements. These consist of a thin-walled hollow steel rhombus which is coated with a layer of explosives. The explosvies are covered by another thin steel layer.Each ERA tile for the frontal armor of the local T-72M4Cz versions holds a number of rhombus shaped elements. Based on photographs it appears to be up to five rhombi in a DYNA tile



According to figures from the Czech military, when mounted onto a T-72M1 the protection is increased to 1.3 times the original protection against APFSDS, and to 2.2 to 2.7 times the original protection against RPGs and missiles.
The construction of the DYNA reactive armor used for protection the tank's roof and hull might be different, at least the thickness of the used ERA modules is different.

This new, more deadly version of the M1 Abrams tank is on its way to the fight

The Army is preparing to receive delivery of its first of six newly-upgraded MIA2 SEP v3 Abrams Main Battle Tank pilot tank vehicles — specifically engineered to keep pace with fast changing technology and counter major armored warfare threats for decades to come.
The Army is now building the next versions of the Abrams tank – an effort which advances on-board power, electronics, computing, sensors, weapons and protection to address the prospect of massive, mechanized, force-on-force great power land war in coming decades, officials with the Army’s Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems told Scout Warrior.
The first MIA2 SEP v3 tank, built by General Dynamics Land Systems, is slated to arrive as soon as this month – as part of a delivery of initial prototype vehicles, developers said.
“The Army’s ultimate intent is to upgrade the entire fleet of M1A2 vehicles — at this time, over 1,500 tanks,” Ashley Givens, spokeswoman for PEO GCS, told Scout Warrior.
The first v3 pilot vehicles will feature technological advancements in communications, reliability, sustainment and fuel efficiency and upgraded armor.

This current mobility and power upgrade, among other things, adds an auxiliary power unit for fuel efficiency and on-board electrical systems, improved armor materials, upgraded engines and transmission and a 28-volt upgraded drive system.
“The Abrams has been around since early 80s, and the original designers were forward thinking to build in the provisions for continual upgrade. Over the years, there have been significant improvements in sensor capabilities, power generation, mobility, lethality, survivability, armor and situational awareness,” Donald Kotchman, Vice President, Tracked Combat Vehicles, General Dynamics Land Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview.
In addition to receiving a common high-resolution display for gunner and commander stations, some of the current electronics, called Line Replaceable Units, will be replaced with new Line Replaceable Modules including the commander’s display unit, driver’s control panel, gunner’s control panel, turret control unit and a common high-resolution display, developers from General Dynamics Land Systems say.

Facilitating continued upgrades, innovations and modernization efforts for the Abrams in years to come is the principle rationale upon which the Line Replacement Modules is based. It encompasses the much-discussed “open architecture” approach wherein computing standards, electronics, hardware and software systems can efficiency be integrated with new technologies as they emerge.
Kotchman added that moving to Line Replaceable Modules vastly improves computing capacity, power distribution and fire-control technology for the Abrams.

“The principle difference between the Line Replaceable Unit and Module is modularity. Currently to initiate a repair or an upgrade of a LRU, you must remove the entire unit from the tank, take it to a test bench and make the changes. Under the Line Replaceable Module concept, internal diagnostics isolates and determines failure at the card level. The card has been constructed such that you can remove it and replace it without damaging it,” Kotchman said. “Similarly, when new capability is introduced or increased computing power is required, changes can be made at the card level rather than redesigning the entire unit.”
This M1A2 SEP v3 effort also initiates the integration of upgraded ammunition data links and electronic warfare devices such as the Counter Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Device – Electronic Warfare – CREW. An increased AMPs alternator is also part of this upgrade, along with Ethernet cables designed to better network vehicle sensors together.
The Abrams is also expected to get an advanced force-tracking system which uses GPS technology to rapidly update digital moving map displays with icons showing friendly and enemy force positions.
The system, called Joint Battle Command Platform, uses an extremely fast Blue Force Tracker 2 Satcom network able to reduce latency and massively shorten refresh time. Having rapid force-position updates in a fast-moving combat circumstance, quite naturally, could bring decisive advantages in both mechanized and counterinsurgency warfare.
The GDLS development deal also advances a commensurate effort to design and construct and even more advanced M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams tank variant for the 2020s and beyond. The v4 is designed to be more lethal, better protected, equipped with new sensors and armed with upgraded, more effective weapons, service officials said.


The Abrams Integrated Display and Targeting System, or AIDATS, upgrades the thermal and day sights on the stabilized commander’s weapon station through a state-of-the-art, high definition camera and permanently-mounted color display. The AIDATS program is part of a suite of systems being developed by Armor and Fire Support Systems at Marine Corps Systems Command to increase the accuracy, range and lethality of the M1A1 Abrams tank on the battlefield. (USMC Courtesy Photo)

“The current M1A2 SEPv3 production will transition to the v4 configuration in 2023. The v4 upgrade is currently scheduled to begin production in 2023 with fielding in 2025,” Givens said.
The Army-GDLS deal is also the first contract is for SEPv4 upgrades, which include the Commander’s Primary Sight, an improved Gunner’s Primary Sight and enhancements to sensors, lethality and survivability.
“General Dynamics Land Systems will deliver seven prototype M1A2 SEPv4 tanks to the Army. The contract has an initial value of $311 million,” a company statement said.
Advanced networking technology with next-generation sights, sensors, targeting systems and digital networking technology — are all key elements of an ongoing upgrade to position the platform to successfully engage in combat against rapidly emerging threats, such as the prospect of confronting a Russian T-14 Armata or Chinese 3rd generation Type 99 tank.
The SEP v4 variant, slated to being testing in 2021, will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, Army developers told Scout Warrior.

While Army officials explain that many of the details of the next-gen systems for the future tanks are not available for security reasons, Army developers did explain that the lethality upgrade, referred to as an Engineering Change Proposal, or ECP, is centered around the integration of a higher-tech 3rd generation FLIR – Forward Looking Infrared imaging sensor.
The advanced FLIR uses higher resolution and digital imaging along with an increased ability to detect enemy signatures at farther ranges through various obscurants such as rain, dust or fog, Army official said.
Improved FLIR technologies help tank crews better recognize light and heat signatures emerging from targets such as enemy sensors, electronic signals or enemy vehicles. This enhancement provides an additional asset to a tank commander’s independent thermal viewer.
Rear view sensors and laser detection systems are part of these v4 upgrades as well. Also, newly configured meteorological sensors will better enable Abrams tanks to anticipate and adapt to changing weather or combat conditions more quickly, Army officials said.
“Meteorological sensors are being integrated into the fire control system. It provides information into fire control algorithms that help increase the accuracy and precision of your weapon system,” Givens added.
The emerging M1A2 SEP v4 will also be configured with a new slip-ring leading to the turret and on-board ethernet switch to reduce the number of needed “boxes” by networking sensors to one another in a single vehicle.

Advanced Multi-Purpose Round

The M1A2 SEP v4 will carry Advanced Multi-Purpose 120mm ammunition round able to combine a variety of different rounds into a single tank round.
The AMP round will replace four tank rounds now in use. The first two are the M830, High Explosive Anti-Tank, or HEAT, round and the M830A1, Multi-Purpose Anti -Tank, or MPAT, round.
The latter round was introduced in 1993 to engage and defeat enemy helicopters, specifically the Russian Hind helicopter, Army developers explained. The MPAT round has a two-position fuse, ground and air, that must be manually set, an Army statement said.
The M1028 Canister round is the third tank round being replaced. The Canister round was first introduced in 2005 by the Army to engage and defeat dismounted Infantry, specifically to defeat close-in human-wave assaults. Canister rounds disperse a wide-range of scattering small projectiles to increase anti-personnel lethality and, for example, destroy groups of individual enemy fighters.

The M908, Obstacle Reduction round, is the fourth that the AMP round will replace; it was designed to assist in destroying large obstacles positioned on roads by the enemy to block advancing mounted forces, Army statements report.
AMP also provides two additional capabilities: defeat of enemy dismounts, especially enemy anti-tank guided missile, or ATMG, teams at a distance, and breaching walls in support of dismounted Infantry operations
A new ammunition data link will help tank crews determine which round is best suited for a particular given attack.
Overall, these lethality and mobility upgrades represent the best effort by the Army to maximize effectiveness and lethality of its current Abrams tank platform. The idea is to leverage the best possible modernization upgrades able to integrate into the existing vehicle. Early conceptual discussion and planning is already underway to build models for a new future tank platform to emerge by the 2030s – stay with Scout Warrior for an upcoming report on this effort.

Active Protection Systems

As part of this broad effort to accelerate Abrams technological advancement into future decades, the Army is fast-tracking an emerging technology for Abrams tanks designed to give combat vehicles an opportunity to identify, track and destroy approaching enemy rocket-propelled grenades in a matter of milliseconds, service officials said.
“We are always looking for ways to enhance the protection provided on our combat vehicles and we recognize Active Protection Systems as one of our highest priorities towards this end,” Givens said.
Active Protection Systems, or APS, is a technology which uses sensors and radar, computer processing, fire control technology and interceptors to find, target and knock down or intercept incoming enemy fire such as RPGs and Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, or ATGMs.
Systems of this kind have been in development for many years, however the rapid technological progress of enemy tank rounds, missiles and RPGs is leading the Army to more rapidly test and develop APS for its fleet of Abrams tanks.
The Army is looking at a range of domestically produced and allied international solutions from companies participating in the Army’s Modular Active Protection Systems (MAPS) program, an Army official told Scout Warrior.

US Army M1A2 Sep V2 MBT tanks fitted with Israeli Trophy active protection system

The US Army has finally decided to install the Israeli-made Trophy active protection system on M1A2 Abrams SEP V2 main battle tank (MBT)in response to an urgent request. In September 2017, United States governments has published a contract to its official website announcing a contract for General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. to integrate Trophy on an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2 MBTs.


Rafael Trophy active protection system mounted on Abrams M1A2 main battle tank

Israel army has been deploying the Trophy active protection systems on its Merkava IV tanks since 2009. It has also been installed on the Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle and the Eitan, a new wheeled armored personnel carrier set to be introduced into Israeli infantry battalions next year.

Trophy is a situational awareness and Active Protection Hard Kill (HK) System (APS) which is available in three main configurations: HV (Heavy armored Vehicle), MV (Medium and Light Armored Vehicle) and LV (Light Armored Vehicle). Both configurations dramatically boost the force’s survivability, and provide a vital add-on capability for the maneuvering combat teams.

Trophy-HV protects heavy (>30 ton) and medium weight (>15 ton) armored vehicles from a wide variety of threats ranging from rockets, ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) and platform-fired High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds. Trophy-HV offers 360° protection in azimuth, as well as extensive elevation coverage, while maintaining a pre-defined safety zone for friendly troops on the ground. The neutralization process is initiated only if the threat is about to hit the vehicle.

The first battlefield success of the Trophy occurred on March 1, 2011, when the system knocked out a rocket-propelled grenade fired at close distance to an IDF (Israeli Defense Force) Merkava Mark-IV tank close to the Gaza border. The Trophy system was also effective during other operations, including Operation Protective Edge in 2014, when no Israeli tanks were lost in Gaza.


sraeli army Merkava IV main battle tank equipped with Rafael Trophy active protection ystem (Photo source Rafael)

https://www.armyrecognition.com/october ... ystem.html

OSÓRIO!!!!





Posição do comandante do CC.....


Posição do motorista....




Rádio comunicações......


'

Até hoje acho o desenho do Osório moderno...

Mesmo depois de mais de trinta anos, ainda uma visão magnífica o nosso EE-T1.
Se tivesse vingado talvez hoje estivesse em sua variante 3 ou 4.

abs.

Indonesia Army - Leopard 2RI Main Battle Tank In Action

Já que o tópico do Leo 1A5 está virando um tópico sobre blindados em geral, resolvi trazer esse link para cá para ver se o povo se anima a continuar aquela discussão por aqui:
http://armypress.dodlive.mil/files/2016 ... e-Mold.pdf

General Dynamics LAV 700

Agência Europeia de Defesa lança o Projeto OMBT-Leo2


A Agência Europeia de Defesa (EDA) lançou um projeto para aumentar as capacidades das Viaturas Blindadas de Combate Carro de Combate (VBCCC) em serviço no continente europeu, este projeto recebeu o nome de "OMBT-Leo2".

No âmbito do projeto, a EDA espera transferir as plataformas disponíveis de Leopard 2 A4 que estejam excedentes em certos países para outros Estados-Membros.

A iniciativa, conjunta e compartilhada, em um primeiro momento concentrar-se-á na locação ou venda do Leopard 2 A4 visando sua redistribuição. Posteriormente, esses carros de combate podem receber um pacote de atualização, transformando-os na versão 2 A7.

A atualização das VBCCC para versões mais modernas deverá ter um impacto positivo no setor de defesa europeu e também contribuirá para a manutenção da excelência da Base Tecnológica e Industrial Europeia (EDTIB).

O estudo de viabilidade produzido pela EDA fornecerá informações sobre o conteúdo e os custos do pacote de Suporte Logístico Integrado que poderá ser fornecido pelos parceiros industriais.

O pacote abrange a manutenção periódica e agendada, além dos valores estimados dos custos do ciclo de vida dos blindados atualizados, de acordo com a EDA.
http://www.defesanet.com.br/tank/notici ... OMBT-Leo2/

Programa de atualização da VBCCC Abrams


A Viatura Blindada de Combate Carro de Combate (VBCCC) Abrams é o principal blindado utilizado pelo Exército e pelo Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais dos Estados Unidos da América (EUA).

Produzido pela General Dynamics, entrou em serviço em 1979. Hoje é utilizado pelos seguintes países: Egito, Kuwait, Arábia Saudita, Austrália e Iraque. Desde que entrou em serviço foram produzidas três versões principais: o M1, M1A1 e o M1A2.

O Abrams foi largamente testado em combate, sendo utilizado nas Guerras do Golfo, Afeganistão e Iraque. O CC M1 Abrams possui um canhão 105 mm, já o M1A1 e o M1A2 estão equipados com um canhão de 120 mm como armamento principal. O carregamento em todas as versões é manual e o seu alcance efetivo acima de 4 km.
O armamento secundário consiste em uma metralhadora coaxial de 7,62 mm, uma MG de 7,62 mm instalada sobre a escotilha do atirador e uma MG de 12,7 mm na escotilha do comandante da VBCCC.

O M1A2 Abrams possui um motor com turbina a gás multicombustível, que desenvolve 1.500 cavalos de potência. Pode funcionar com gasolina, diesel ou querosene de aviação.

Sua principal desvantagem é o alto consumo de combustível. O motor pode ser substituído em 30 minutos. Em 1999, em decorrência de um programa de atualização, foi implementado um Pacote de Melhoramentos do Sistema denominado M1A2 System Enhancement Package-SEP. Desta forma, o Abrams foi atualizado para a versão M1A2 SEP.

Hoje existem as versões M1A2 SEP, SEPv2 e SEPv3. A VBCCC M1A2 SEP Abrams possui alta tecnologia e uma blindagem aprimorada. Esta blindagem mantém os componentes da versão M1A2 com a adição de urânio empobrecido e podendo ainda receber um revestimento de grafite, tornando este carro um dos melhores do mundo no quesito proteção.

Além disso, possui a capacidade de ser equipado com blindagem reativa explosiva. O blindado está equipado com o mesmo armamento da versão M1A2 porém no SEPv2 foi adicionada uma estação de armas operada remotamente, com uma metralhadora de 12,7 mm.

A versão SEPv3 é a mais moderna da VBCCC Abrams e possui uma maior proteção contra dispositivo explosivo improvisado (IED). Está equipado com um GCB (gerenciador do campo de batalha) digital baseado em tempo real. Pode ser transportado por aeronave de transporte militar C-5 Galaxy ou C-17 Globemaster III.

A empresa General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) e o Exército dos EUA estão trabalhando em uma nova atualização para os Abrams. O projeto visa desenvolver e integrar várias mudanças de engenharia no Abrams M1A2 SEPv3, modernizando ainda mais a VBCCC.

A próxima versão será o SEPv4, com foco na letalidade, melhorando o sistema de controle de tiro primário do comandante e do atirador, além da capacidade para efetuar disparos com munições 120mm multipropósito, que reúnem, em uma única munição, uma enorme gama de capacidades.

Além dessas versões, o Abrams possui a capacidade de receber um KIT para área humanizada. Este foi desenvolvido para aumentar a sua capacidade de proteção em ambiente urbano, melhorando a proteção, o poder de fogo e a consciência situacional da guarnição.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/tank/notici ... CC-Abrams/

eligioep escreveu:OSÓRIO!!!!





Posição do comandante do CC.....


Posição do motorista....




Rádio comunicações......


'

Desperdício. E pensar que a Engesa hoje poderia ser uma Embraer dos tanques...