In the first Iraq war, they had Russian tanks and were boasting about those these “desert” tanks were superior to the Abrams.
Then, the USA rolled in with GPS and one-shot all those wittle tanks while moving at the same time before the Iraq tanks could even get in range. It was amazing.
So if this thing has a good fire rate, okay. What about it’s tracking ability because the Abrams won’t be sitting still and it will be hitting you at a good range. This Russian tank seems better suited in urban situations.
The 57 mm gun is really meant for a tank. It seems to be a pretty upgrade option for infantry fighting vehicles or light tanks, at least on paper. Most Russian and Western IFVs currently carry much smaller caliber weapons (up to 35mm).
First, I'm sure that there are Freepers who can confirm this, but I don't think that the M1 has frontal armor a meter thick.
More important..... the article smells like BS. Picture if you will, Stalin in a bunker. It's 1941, and the Russians have their back against the wall. They're presented with a weapon that has 'excessive armor penetration ability' and can defeat all of the German tanks.
Stalin says, "Nope, this gun is much too powerful. We should use something else."
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
High rate of fire is good, and I guess needed by smaller caliber weapons. No doubt they could mess up tracks, optics, etc. But if your plan is to engage with lots of rounds... You need to be able to get lots of rounds forward to your combat units. That's a very active supply train full of volatile material - just the kind of thing "deep strike" is meant to take out. Just the kind of thing to be vulnerable to even a small munition fired from a drone. They may have some interesting capabilities, but in a war zone, moving tons of ammunition around in support is going to be problematic. Precision weapons reduce the logistics tail.