Military Review

Syrian experience: T-90С tanks have become more secure

35
Russian Tanks received a new protection for airborne projections, which will dramatically increase resistance to cumulative ammunition of various types, reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta With reference to the video material of the channel "Russia 1".




On Sunday in the program "News of the Week" with Dmitry Kiselev was demonstrated a new version of the Russian export tracked combat vehicle.

“Judging by the video frames, the tank is equipped with new airborne and lattice screens, which have already been successfully tested on the latest versions of the T-72B3 during the Zapad-2017 exercises,” the article says.

The newest protection option also provides for the installation of additional modules “reactive armor” in the so-called “soft” case.



The newspaper, citing military experts, notes that "it pushed the experience of military operations in Syria to such modernization, as well as the use of armored vehicles in other local conflicts, where tanks were very often hit in less protected sides."
Photos used:
TV channel "Russia 1"
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jedi
    Jedi 12 December 2017 11: 55 New
    +8
    Such modernization was prompted by the experience of military operations in Syria, as well as the use of armored vehicles in other local conflicts, where tanks were very often hit in less protected sides

    The invaluable combat experience is systematized, analyzed and poured into such modernizations. good
    1. Scalpel
      Scalpel 12 December 2017 11: 58 New
      0
      And also in the development of new weapons. The eternal war.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 12 December 2017 14: 53 New
        +3
        This "soft" armor on any car is easy to hang and is quickly replaced.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 13 December 2017 00: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Shurik70
          This "soft" armor on any car is easy to hang and is quickly replaced.

          Is it fence resistant?
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 13 December 2017 07: 26 New
            0
            Quote: prosto_rgb

            Is it fence resistant?

            Interest Ask :)
            For sure, whatever the fiberglass goes. Or something else, no less durable.
            1. prosto_rgb
              prosto_rgb 14 December 2017 01: 16 New
              +1
              Quote: Shurik70
              For sure, whatever the fiberglass goes. Or something else, no less durable.

              I'm not talking about the bag itself, about its stability on the armor
              Syrian tankers complained about the weakness of mounting rubber-fabric screens with dynamic armor on the T-72: when maneuvering in urban areas, they are constantly torn down by fences, building corners, piles of "construction" debris and the like
              that's what the question is
    2. novel66
      novel66 12 December 2017 11: 58 New
      21
      too shy to ask repeat , and what was previously not clear that
      "where tanks were often struck in less protected sides"
      1. Nikolay R-PM
        Nikolay R-PM 12 December 2017 12: 10 New
        +4
        On the first ah-1g, the side windows were also not bulletproof, apparently, the need for booking was not obvious. So here they could motivate the non-installation of additional means of increasing survivability with increasing mass and a decrease in specific power, but the range with real combat conditions introduced amendments. It was previously supposed that the protection of vulnerable projections could be ensured by battle formation or interaction with motorized rifles
        1. novel66
          novel66 12 December 2017 12: 12 New
          +9
          Koshkin, “armored humor” - “When landing in Sicily, American tankers enriched themselves with new combat experience, which stated that anyone could be hit in the ass,”
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 12 December 2017 13: 58 New
            +1
            So it was. When American tankers landed in Sicily
            in the summer of 1943, the Italian army immediately fled, and the local
            the population greeted them enthusiastically. Italy capitulated.
            The offensive stopped when the Wehrmacht entered Italy from the north,
            German airborne divisions, Ferdinandas from the East, were introduced into Italy
            front ...
            1. novel66
              novel66 12 December 2017 14: 11 New
              +2
              in "trick-22" there was one interesting argument of an old Italian, that the Italian soldiers are cowards, but that is why Italy will win the war
      2. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 12: 13 New
        +3
        "where tanks were often struck in less protected sides"

        the T-90 board has a reservation of 80 mm
        + 25 mm anti-cumulative screens
        + atomic lining replaced with a ceramic plate also 110 mm equivalent to resistance from ATGM 440 mm normal + 80 mm side = 520 mm + screen 25 mm - equivalent 200 mm = 720 mm
        if at an angle of 60 deg. = 680 mm. + screen, equivalent to 260 mm = 940 mm.
        Cornet (1200 mm), of course, is not an obstacle, but Reflex (900 mm) and Bassoon (600 mm) will stop
        and, accordingly, all RPGs "seven" - "sideways"
        1. Mimoprohodil
          Mimoprohodil 12 December 2017 15: 30 New
          +1
          I'm afraid to imagine how much you book on your forehead. Probably 5 meters
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 16: 37 New
            +2
            not yet considered.
            frontal integrated dynamic protection with kick panels
            + internal two spreading plates
            this DZ has no equivalent so breaks scrap of any length
            and effective against tandem warheads
          2. aws4
            aws4 13 December 2017 01: 57 New
            0
            Well, judging by my calculations, if you translate into his calculations, then the forehead of the tower will turn out somewhere around 3-3.5 meters so do not slander a person laughing
      3. Berkut24
        Berkut24 12 December 2017 12: 17 New
        +6
        It seems that you do not really understand how the state machine works. Any offer should be justified for the allocation of money. Therefore, in applications they write "Based on ....", apply statistics, indicate the tactical situation for collecting statistics, a list of weapons used, then hit patterns and points of destruction, etc. After that, options for solving the problem, estimated cost and implementation time are proposed. after which the commission, on the basis of an expert opinion, decides what to do next within the existing budget. And just to fantasize is to create another “Navozets”, rolled in 2 layers with “Knife” tiles, but which has not become more protected from this.
        If there is no justification, but only assumptions, then what can we talk about? The troops were supplied with T-72B3, where the Ministry of Defense specifically saved on active defense. For the very banal reason that the military now has no more money, and the justification for strengthening the protection was not documented, although UVZ offered different options. The conflict between the desires of the manufacturer and the capabilities of the buyer has always existed. Here appeared proven statistics on Syria and T-72B3 MO agreed to bring to the level of T-72B3M. The same garbage with the T-90. In this regard, the entire Ukrainian armored eater is just a gag without justification.
        1. activator
          activator 12 December 2017 12: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Berkut24
          . Here is the proven statistics on Syria and T-72B3 MO agreed to bring to the level of T-72B3M.

          The strange situation is that everyone understands the MO must be proved in the next war, otherwise there was no such opportunity before and no one even suspected the eternal problem of Soviet-Russian tanks with their constantly bare sides. Americans and Jews hung an armored plate aboard, reasonably believing that it was better to be in battle with such than with dynamic protection left somewhere on the first fence.
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 12 December 2017 13: 56 New
            +2
            It is clear to everyone that a trillion dollars would be needed and all problems will go away. But having almost the 1st or 2nd most powerful army in the world, Russia has a Trishkin military budget caftan, which is in 3rd or 4th place, slightly surpassing Saudi Arabia, India and France. And this is a budget that has to be justified and protected every penny.
            And something did not help the Americans hanging aboard the armored plate. Abrams continue to burn on board the old tandem RPG-7. But budgets are not comparable.
            1. activator
              activator 12 December 2017 15: 20 New
              0
              Quote: Berkut24
              It is clear to everyone that a trillion dollars would be needed and all problems will go away.

              72b3 tons were taken into service with expensive oil, having Chechen experience behind them, then they saved, now they will pay.
              Quote: Berkut24
              And something did not help the Americans hanging aboard the armored plate. Abrams continue to burn aboard

              this is not an argument because even the dynamic defense did not help during the storming of the formidable, and the Arabs when their Jews soaked even Allah did not help, although they prayed earnestly to him.
              With a stove on the sides, I think in t 72 it would be much calmer for the tankers
              1. Berkut24
                Berkut24 12 December 2017 15: 30 New
                +7
                T-72-B3M to help you, I already wrote.
                As for Grozny, no protection will save the stupid general who was planning to take the city as one regiment in full dress. from the word "completely".
            2. Awaz
              Awaz 13 December 2017 15: 32 New
              +1
              I would still not say the word "efficiency", but it is necessary to compare the budget expenditures of the Russian Federation and those of the United States slightly, taking into account some specifics. In the United States, the bulk of the budget goes to the maintenance of vast infrastructure around the world. The Russian Federation does not have this. The cost of armaments and providing drugs in the Russian Federation can be dozens of times cheaper. Therefore, with a huge difference in the budget, the real content in the Russian Federation, although inferior, is not as catastrophic as it seems
      4. Romanenko
        Romanenko 12 December 2017 13: 14 New
        +2
        Apparently it wasn’t, the tanks were built for the European theater of war and oncoming fights in the field, but here is a completely different distribution, the dynamics were well hung on them, because at one time Baghramyan categorically forbade spoiling the tank’s appearance with some cubes with explosives
        1. novel66
          novel66 12 December 2017 13: 25 New
          +2
          and the tower was polished so that the shells would slide off better?
          1. Romanenko
            Romanenko 12 December 2017 14: 54 New
            +1
            Take the time adjustment, in those years, active protection systems were rather weak compared to the modern level. And in some way even dangerous for the tank itself.
            By the way, now it is still relevant for the T-64 and Bulat. There, AZs are often "neutralized" in the troops.
            At the same time, the tanks themselves were developed taking into account the achievements of the bourgeois art systems and for the reservation of the forehead quite consistent with the tasks. So you got excited about polishing, the tank is not an airplane - it doesn’t need clean aerodynamic contours
            1. novel66
              novel66 13 December 2017 09: 37 New
              +2
              jet tanks must be polished lol
        2. activator
          activator 12 December 2017 13: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Romanenko
          Apparently there wasn’t

          And were there two Chechens on Mars? request
          1. Romanenko
            Romanenko 12 December 2017 14: 48 New
            +2
            Look through the calendar, Marshal Baghramyan commanded the TV of the USSR long before Chechnya.
            Well just uncomfortable so guys.
            To object if only to object ...
            1. activator
              activator 12 December 2017 15: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: Romanenko
              Look through the calendar, Marshal Baghramyan commanded the TV of the USSR long before Chechnya.

              You need to look through the calendar, the Chechens and the storming of the formidable were before the Syrian, that it was necessary to protect the sides then it was not clear? This is to your words that before Syria there was no reason
              1. Romanenko
                Romanenko 12 December 2017 22: 11 New
                +1
                Have you ever carefully read my first comment?
      5. Awaz
        Awaz 12 December 2017 16: 28 New
        +2
        unfortunately, some "specialists" do not have such a concept - logical validity. They adhere strictly to instructions with the top and regulations, invented back in imperial times. (really came across). And until there is a complaint from the consumer, they will never go to review what they invented. Okay, in my work - bullshit, but in military technology it’s someone’s human life.
      6. Alekseev
        Alekseev 12 December 2017 18: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        I’m embarrassed to ask what was not clear before

        It was clear. yes
        And screens with DZ were hung up since the mid-80s.
        What about now? Improve ... Like everything in this world.
  2. Leprikon5656
    Leprikon5656 12 December 2017 14: 27 New
    0
    Quote: Romario_Argo
    "where tanks were often struck in less protected sides"

    the T-90 board has a reservation of 80 mm
    + 25 mm anti-cumulative screens
    + atomic lining replaced with a ceramic plate also 110 mm equivalent to resistance from ATGM 440 mm normal + 80 mm side = 520 mm + screen 25 mm - equivalent 200 mm = 720 mm
    if at an angle of 60 deg. = 680 mm. + screen, equivalent to 260 mm = 940 mm.
    Cornet (1200 mm), of course, is not an obstacle, but Reflex (900 mm) and Bassoon (600 mm) will stop
    and, accordingly, all RPGs "seven" - "sideways"

    Bro, in real combat it’s not always the same as in World of Tanks.
  3. gaudin
    gaudin 12 December 2017 16: 11 New
    +3
    Quote: activator
    this is not an argument because even during the storming of the formidable, dynamic defense did not help

    Especially when she was not there, the boxes were empty.
  4. Sergey53
    Sergey53 12 December 2017 17: 23 New
    +1
    How many write that the frontal part around the gun is not protected. Everything is as usual in the photo, without changes. Even if they plan to put something there, why not make a removable set of dynamic protection in these places?
    1. Romanenko
      Romanenko 12 December 2017 22: 19 New
      +1
      There is everything that is needed and the appearance of insecurity is simply due to a fundamentally different type of remote sensing.
      The place near the sight seems completely naked, but modern DZ shoots protective elements at intercepting a projectile, and does not meet him clinging to armor, as on older models.
      Development of remote sensing is a continuous history of options.
      The earliest versions lay on the armor and sometimes carried out group detonation at the test stage, which led to grave consequences for the crew, no less severe than breaking through.
      Modern protection works comprehensively, both contact and proactive.
      Abnormal operations of the old versions of the defense, by the way, were repeatedly noted in Ukraine in the conflict zone, on the T-64, as a result of which the army team gutted the DZ blocks locally, leaving only the appearance of its presence.
      It’s not hard to guess how this ended for the “rationalizers”