Tricky comments. Europe now has three problems: fools, roads and a tank division
Of course, it cannot be said that we have only two problems, that is, fools and roads, there are more of them. But in Europe, if you dig deeper well, you will get the same amount, if not a bigger number. But let's talk about the newfound, namely, a new sleeping pill for Europe. I mean, with which Europeans can now sleep peacefully. About American tank division.
Yes, a division, especially a tank one, is a powerful offensive means. Nobody will argue here. Especially American, armed with all the "best in the world."
17 000 personnel. 290 tanks "Abrams". 330 units BMP and BRM "Bradley" plus 348 armored personnel carriers (М113). In addition, 24 installations MLRS, 24 mobile SAM "Avenger", 50 helicopters "Apache", 30 "Black Hawk", 54 "Kiowa" and 12 EW helicopters. As anti-tank weapons 60 units "Tou", 312 ATGM "Dragon".
Impressive? Definitely. But, as always, there are nuances.
US military experts believe that the success of modern combined-arms combat depends on high firepower, striking power, and troop mobility. Our military hold the same opinion.
In this regard, the presence in Europe as a springboard of the likely theater of operations of a tank division is fully justified. This compound will also serve in defense as a means for counterattacks and even more so in the offensive.
We thought the same way during the Cold War, because there was a plan for a tank breakthrough to the English Channel. It was so? It was. Do not deny.
That's just for the conquest of Europe, and moreover, until the moment the Yankees swam across the Atlantic, we, in the USSR, had about 40 000 tanks of various modifications. Of which half could, if necessary, go on such a cruise. With a high probability of washing the caterpillars in Dunkirk or Le Havre.
And here lies the nuance. And on what would ours go tomorrow hypothetically to conquer Europe?
That's right, on the T-72.
This car is able to carry out such a cruise. We already wrote about this when we compared T-64 and T-72.
It can be long and dreary compare "Abrams", "Leo" and T-72, but I now compare not armor and weapons. More modest characteristic, which is a big point.
It has never been widely covered, but why did the designers of the USA and the USSR go so far in terms of ... weight? And everything is simple. Our government, when the concept of developing new machines was approved, took into account the possibility of action in the European theater of operations.
From here to you and a difference in weight: 41 ton at T-72 and 60 + at "Abrams".
And the specific pressure on the ground is not weak: 0,83-0,87 kg / cm. sq. we have 1,01-1,07 from an American.
And the power reserve is also an important feature.
To 700 km on the roads and to 550 on the crossroads at T-72 and to 480 at Abrams on the highway. For some reason, in open sources there is no figure that tells how many МХNUMX can pass where there are no roads. But by analogy with the "Leo", I do not think that more 1 km.
Already today one can hear from Europe that the European roads and especially the bridges for the M1 are a stumbling block. The roads are narrow and the bridges are weak. And in addition to everything else, and a very decent population density per square kilometer.
Yes, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan ...
Of course, with the proper skill and skill, you can plant in the mud completely any tank. Both M1 and T-72. What is shown in the video. But again, the aspect is dirt, ours, which is chernozem, that is not black-earth (go and figure out which one is cooler) - this is a matter of the usual. For the Russians.
And Wang, that the problems of the Russian crews, on lighter tanks, and even "sharpened" under the European theater, will be much less. Yes, the Polish and Baltic swamps are a serious thing. But one thing after the Aberdeen proving ground in Maryland, and quite another thing, for example, the proving ground in Boguchar. I do not know how in Maryland, and in the spring Boguchar the whole question was "just above the knee or slightly below."
But we all know that Russia will not come “again” to this war in Europe.
And if you come? Let's face and truth. Almost 300 "Abrams" - this is serious. But here the third nuance is that these tanks were not destined to be a single armored fist. They will be spread over the vast territory of the Baltic States and Poland at the level of the BTG (battalion tactical groups). It is easier to post and maintain. It was originally intended.
Tell me, what is Europe? And there is their own army!
Laugh together
Take the countries of the first line, which, as planned, must be protected first of all:
Poland: Leopard 2A5 - 105, Leopard 2A4 - 142, T-72М - 505, PT-91 "Twardy" - 233.
Romania: T-55 - 250, TR-580 - 42, TR-85 - 91, TR-85M1 "Bizonul" - 54.
Czech Republic: 154 (T-72 and its modifications).
Slovakia: 245 (T-72M).
Hungary: 155 (T-72).
Germany: 365 1 and 2 generation 500 and about XNUMX in reserve.
I do not know how much the figures relating to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary should be divided. But in any case it is necessary to divide. I don’t even speak about Romania, if there are any, there are numbers.
Let them think further that they can. Nobody forbids to think.
I will not dig much of our capabilities, because we will not come to war anyway. But hypothetically, that one thousand tanks that are in ZVO (4-I separate Guards Tank Kantemirovskaya division (military unit 19612), 1-I Ural-Lviv tank brigade (military unit 63453), 6-I Czestochowa tank brigade (in / h 54096), 1-th Guards Tank Regiment 2-th Guards MSS (military unit 58190)) - is already a reason for reflection.
I repeat, we will not come to war, but if anything, we just have something to meet. Even now, while work on the creation of the 1-th tank army go. And what to drive back, because just in service with these units are "tanks of fast war" (T-80 and T-90), and tanks "for long-term use" (T-72).
And, of course, the Urals and Siberia behind. Both in terms of production and repair plants, and in terms of reserves. And storage bases, on which there are still about 10 thousands of tanks available.
Based on the foregoing, is there any sense of the American tank division?
In wartime - definitely not. Tanks that are not particularly suitable for this theater and repair facilities overseas. Yes, quick repairs can be done on the spot, and if not? And in wartime "if" we remove.
In peacetime - a great sense.
It is not known yet how Trump will evaluate all this, but even if he is satisfied with everything, it is only because who will pay for everything? That's right, Europe. This has been repeatedly discussed. And quietly peacefully pushed to the bases of American cars, quietly defending, because God forbid to go somewhere, will bring a good income to the US treasury.
Here in this plan and understand, and approve. A good idea. It’s not enough for one tank division to accomplish anything in the direction of Russia. Too little. Considering also the fact that we will fight not only with tanks, but with more unpleasant things, such as the same fairly accurate Iskander, which will quite easily fly to their bases. Well, then according to plan, until complete annihilation.
But to clearly show why the Europeans will "unfasten" their "roof" - completely.
In general, sleep well, Europe. But do not forget to transfer payments on time. Although ... the division is enough to remind.
Materials used:
http://manzal.livejournal.com/532790.html
Combat technical characteristics of the tank // Tank "Ural". Technical description and instruction manual.
Materiel Fielding Plan for the M1A1 Tank, 1991.
Information