Military Review

Discusses a video of a T-72 tank surviving an ATGM in Syria

118
In the social network Facebook posted a video with a tank T-72M1 of the Syrian government forces after he got hit by an anti-tank missile in the upper part of the tower, which is traditionally considered the least protected place.




Although the cumulative charge of the ATGM, as the tankers themselves stated, “partially penetrated the compartment with people,” the crew survived, having received a shell shock.

However, when reviewing the video, we can conclude that there was still no through penetration of the tower. Ammunition hit more tangentially.

Social network users noted that the combat vehicle was not equipped with dynamic protection, so the survival of the Syrian military can be considered a combination of good luck, good armor, shot parameters and crew skills. However, if such a system were available on it, then, with a high degree of probability, damage to the armored car itself could have been avoided. Some experts have suggested that this is not about ATGMs, but about a shot from an RPG.


The day before from Syria came news the aggravation of the situation, including clashes between government forces and the invading Turkish units. Due to the complication of the situation in Ankara, the introduction of additional forces into the territory of the neighboring state was not ruled out.

During the battles in the SAR, the parties to the conflict repeatedly used the anti-tank systems Fagot, Kornet, as well as the American Tow of various modifications. Their "victims" were the Syrian tanks T-62, T-72 of Soviet and Russian production, as well as the Turkish Leopard-2.
118 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 14: 16
    +6
    I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?
    1. Edik
      Edik 30 October 2019 14: 37
      +27
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?

      They’re just very, very lucky! Second birthday! The cumulative stream went horizontally into the roof armor ...
      1. Leopold
        Leopold 30 October 2019 15: 35
        +24
        Well, not really like that. I will hold my opinion, but here is a detailed shot from the video, please, for a detailed review.
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 30 October 2019 22: 20
          +5
          Judging by the video, the tangent really entered
          1. Leopold
            Leopold 30 October 2019 22: 42
            +20
            So it turns into the roof? Not in the frontal?
            Syrian tankers - health and many years. God saved them for future military affairs.
            1. cradle
              cradle 31 October 2019 02: 18
              +8
              God was by no means a Jew, but a Russian. laughing
              1. Chaldon48
                Chaldon48 1 November 2019 05: 48
                +4
                You seriously believe that a somn of gods of different nationalities is circling over the Earth, which flies in orbit around the Sun at a speed of 30 km / s, while the Sun itself flies around the center of the Galaxy at a speed of 100 km / s.
                I think God is one, just different peoples call him differently.
                1. t7310
                  t7310 1 November 2019 13: 55
                  0
                  where do you think god came from?
                  1. Chaldon48
                    Chaldon48 2 November 2019 09: 44
                    +1
                    t7310, You want too much from me, I never declared myself a theologian, I'm actually a chemical engineer by profession, and the fact that God is one is my personal conviction.
                2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Dzungar
            Dzungar 31 October 2019 09: 01
            0
            Extremely far from reality pictures ... This edge of the armor where the missile hit is not a roof, but rather a frontal one passing into the side armor of the tower, and the direction of the cumulative stream from top to bottom at a slight angle. In this case, the cum jet goes inside and either hits the sights, or goes lower
      2. loki565
        loki565 30 October 2019 15: 44
        +4
        Rather, it was extinguished by a multilayer package of armor
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 30 October 2019 16: 26
          -1
          There was no package, read the message.
        2. Sergey10789
          Sergey10789 31 October 2019 08: 34
          +1
          There is no multilayer bag at this point. Just the direction of the jet fell into the thickness of the roof. That's all!)
          1. loki565
            loki565 31 October 2019 12: 02
            0
            There is no multilayer bag at this point. Just the direction of the jet fell into the thickness of the roof. That's all!)

            It is there that he is, if he went to the roof the blow would be from bottom to top because the roof in this place rises at an angle.

            1. Sergey10789
              Sergey10789 31 October 2019 13: 22
              +2
              I do not presume to say with one hundred percent certainty, but I am not sure that the "reinforcement" in the roof of the tower in the photo is an element of multilayer armor. Indeed, on the same site where you took these photos, there is a section of the t-72m1 tower in the frontal projection, with an explanation, they say that this is the sand rods, as an element of multilayer armor. And they are slightly different from this "reinforcement". But I can say with 80% accuracy that the booking of the roof of the T-72 turret is homogeneous for the native aircraft. As well as feed. VLD, NLD, front and side projections of the tower are covered with multilayer armor. But not a roof. Maybe the latest versions of the towers have a different design. Not in the know.
      3. Bogatyrev
        Bogatyrev 31 October 2019 21: 36
        0
        Yes, I think it’s stuck in the sand, which is between the layers of armor. The armor is not homogeneous there, even if there is no DZ.
    2. Professor
      Professor 30 October 2019 15: 24
      +3
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?

      Can. It all depends on how far the cumulative stream formed.
      1. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 15: 28
        +2
        Quote: Professor

        Can.

        Simply, I dug a little and wherever I dug, categorically - "no".
        But the video is "there"!
        Your deeds are wonderful - Lord!
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 30 October 2019 16: 30
          +12
          All confused. The kinetic energy of the projectile is one thing - rebound. The cumulative jet does not matter at what angle to meet with the armor. Just burned through the thickness increases and ...... no penetration. feel
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 16: 40
            +10
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Just burned through the thickness increases and ...... no penetration.

            There is no jet exit on the video. So the jet "drilled" the course in the armor and ended there, it turns out? What thickness is there? The guys were born in tank helmets, definitely!
            1. Romka47
              Romka47 1 November 2019 12: 57
              0
              As I understand it, Vasily means that the jet entered "from the end" of the tower roof, and moved along the armor (well, quite roughly speaking), so the armor did not end until the jet stopped altogether.
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 1 November 2019 16: 01
                +1
                Quote: Romka47
                the jet entered "from the end" of the roof of the tower, and moved along the armor (well, quite roughly speaking) so the armor did not end until the jet stopped altogether.

                What did I say?
                Quote: Vasyan1971
                So the jet "drilled" the course in the armor and ended there, it turns out?

                It meant "along". Therefore, I asked:
                Quote: Vasyan1971
                What thickness is there?

                In the sense: is the thickness of the armor enough for the jet to pass and not to burst out anywhere. It’s the same as drilling a sheet of metal not across and inside in thickness. Well, you understand, in short ...
          2. Sergey10789
            Sergey10789 31 October 2019 08: 43
            +6
            Well, firstly, cumulative ammunition does not burn through the armor, but they also pierce it in the same way. The temperature of the cumulative jet is not enough to melt the armor. Secondly, with an increase in the contact angle, not only does the thickness of the armor increase along the normal, the probability of deviation of the direction of energy also increases. And this is all true for kinetic ammunition and for cumulative. The chip of the cumulative ammunition is that with an increase in the range to the target, penetration does not drop, because for a cumulative jet, the speed of the ammunition itself is not important.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 31 October 2019 20: 41
              0
              Quote: Sergey10789
              Well, firstly, cumulative ammunition does not burn through the armor, but they also pierce it in the same way. The temperature of the cumulative jet is not enough to melt the armor.

              Thank you for the competent explanation, because here such fantasies about the jet have gone that you begin to doubt whether people even know how the cumulative charge works. By the way, it is precisely the speed, approximately at the cosmic level, that does not burn through, but breaks through armor with explosion products - as far as I remember from theory.
            2. Romka47
              Romka47 1 November 2019 13: 01
              0
              I support, therefore, the projectile to the "KUMUL" is twice weaker than to the BOPS, which is why, for example, they are not particularly fond of them in DONBASS, it flies slowly and in an arc, it is more difficult to get into the distance (given that the rangefinders work halfway there). lies in the crosshair for a kilometer. (memories of an LPR tanker)
          3. Sergey10789
            Sergey10789 31 October 2019 13: 34
            -2
            Well, I do not agree. I do not agree at all. Any gas welder will prove the opposite to you. When a cumulative jet / ordinary armor-piercing projectile / gas welding flame / sand jet from a sandblast meets at a right angle, all energy is directed to a small area, respectively, the contact area is minimal and the efficiency is maximum. As the angle changes, the contact area increases and part of the energy goes nowhere at all. With an increase in the angle at a certain moment, we get a situation where almost all the energy will be reflected from the contacting surface. There you are. In general, an example of a rebound!)
        2. Eragon
          Eragon 31 October 2019 09: 26
          +1
          Quote: Vasyan1971
          Quote: Professor

          Can.

          Simply, I dug a little and wherever I dug, categorically - "no".
          But the video is "there"!
          Your deeds are wonderful - Lord!

          Without the Almighty, it could not have done. At least the angel was sitting exactly on the tower.
          A case from the same category that fell from the ninth floor and fell on a single tree, escaping with a couple of fractures.
          This should not be, but fortunately, sometimes it happens.
          1. Bogatyrev
            Bogatyrev 31 October 2019 21: 38
            0
            Once again - when breaking through at an angle, the jet gets stuck in the sand between the layers. Do not forget that the armor there is not homogeneous.
      2. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 16: 42
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        It all depends on how far the cumulative stream formed.

        And at what distance is such a case possible? Remote operation, marriage, mercy of Allah?
      3. Doliva63
        Doliva63 30 October 2019 18: 30
        -1
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: Vasyan1971
        I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?

        Can. It all depends on how far the cumulative stream formed.

        Well, given the desert nature of the terrain, in Syria the cumulative stream is clearly formed much more than 2 meters, as is customary, for example, on the air traffic control unit.
        1. Leopold
          Leopold 30 October 2019 20: 54
          +6
          Valentine hi It’s not very good at such a distance. 2 km far away for her. drinks
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 30 October 2019 21: 27
            +4
            Quote: Leopold
            Valentine hi It’s not very good at such a distance. 2 km far away for her. drinks

            so it depends on how much to pour before the shot laughing drinks
            1. Leopold
              Leopold 30 October 2019 21: 29
              +1
              I admit, I asked a bad question. I beg your pardon. wink good drinks
            2. Leopold
              Leopold 30 October 2019 22: 12
              +1
              In compensation, I propose a song to smooth out.
        2. missuris
          missuris 31 October 2019 03: 32
          +1
          what game did you write? the cumulative jet flies literally a few meters, and already at this length in flight begins to break and separate drops of alloy fall off from it. shock cumulative nuclei fly a couple of tens of meters. in the case of these tankmen, they were shell-shocked, and one was wounded either by fragments of armor or particles of a cumulative jet, i.e. the jet pierced the armor, but did not hit either the shells or the crew.
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 31 October 2019 05: 07
            +3
            Quote: missuris
            what game did you write?

            That's it. Look - it may come to the conclusion that most likely everything happened just like that because of the defective charge itself (incomplete, incomplete operation). That is, the jet power was simply not enough:
          2. Doliva63
            Doliva63 31 October 2019 15: 53
            +1
            Quote: missuris
            what game did you write? the cumulative jet flies literally a few meters, and already at this length in flight begins to break and separate drops of alloy fall off from it. shock cumulative nuclei fly a couple of tens of meters. in the case of these tankmen, they were shell-shocked, and one was wounded either by fragments of armor or particles of a cumulative jet, i.e. the jet pierced the armor, but did not hit either the shells or the crew.

            The cumulative stream lives a fraction of a second, I still remember that, I just wanted to make it easier laughing
    3. Sergey10789
      Sergey10789 30 October 2019 15: 35
      0
      Why can't the shell go off tangentially ?!
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 30 October 2019 16: 18
        +4
        Quote: Sergey10789
        Why can't the shell go off tangentially ?!

        The projectile can, but the cumulative stream formed after the shell touches the shell and its formation, the question?
        1. aloleggry
          aloleggry 31 October 2019 15: 19
          +2
          The cumulative stream does not have free will, turn it to the left or to the right. She will stupidly fly in the direction of the projectile. On a tangent, then on a tangent. He will burn the ditch in the armor, and the rest of his energy will heat the local air.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 31 October 2019 17: 07
            +1
            Quote: aloleggry
            The cumulative stream does not have free will, turn it to the left or to the right. She will stupidly fly in the direction of the projectile. On a tangent, then on a tangent. He will burn the ditch in the armor, and the rest of his energy will heat the local air.

            Falling over Kum.struya will fly to where the projectile flew at the moment of fuse operation.
        2. Doliva63
          Doliva63 31 October 2019 17: 11
          +2
          Quote: neri73-r
          Quote: Sergey10789
          Why can't the shell go off tangentially ?!

          The projectile can, but the cumulative stream formed after the shell touches the shell and its formation, the question?

          When the projectile fuse worked, it will not fly at any tangent, it will simply fly away (what remains) from the explosion. The fate of the projectile does not matter for the cumulative jet; it will move in the direction where the projectile was moving at the moment the fuse detonated.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 30 October 2019 16: 32
        +1
        Quote: Sergey10789
        Why can't the shell go off tangentially ?!

        Because a missile with a charge of charge is not a shell. and when the armor touches the fuse.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 30 October 2019 18: 47
          +8
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          Quote: Sergey10789
          Why can't the shell go off tangentially ?!

          Because a missile with a charge of charge is not a shell. and when the armor touches the fuse.

          What's the difference - a projectile or a rocket? The detonator worked, detonating the explosive, the formation of a funnel. If at the same time it ricochets, then everything goes nowhere. If into an obstacle (armor), then 75% of the metal of the funnel goes into the cumulative needle, which burns and presses. If the thickness of the armor is calculated for a given ammunition, then everything ends with a hole and the ejection of fragments of armor inside the target, or even a "splash" of a cumulative jet, which leads to the ammunition burnout, for example. But if a projectile / missile hits a horizontal armor plate, it will push / burn as much as it can, and that's it. No damage, in general.
          1. Leopold
            Leopold 30 October 2019 22: 23
            0
            Valentine, that's not where our research institutes are directed. I am 32 years old, my snake can not bite. I am also a serpent. But rather a boa constrictor, I'm not poisonous. But what an experience! wink My skin is all the same. Maybe the same for tankers? request
        2. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 31 October 2019 05: 10
          -1
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          Because a missile with a charge of charge is not a shell. and when the armor touches the fuse.

          A missile with a cumulative charge is the same projectile the movement of which is provided by a jet engine, and not the pressure of the powder gases inside the barrel. The principle of operation is exactly the same.
          1. Invoce
            Invoce 31 October 2019 11: 28
            -2
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Because a missile with a charge of charge is not a shell. and when the armor touches the fuse.

            A missile with a cumulative charge is the same projectile the movement of which is provided by a jet engine, and not the pressure of the powder gases inside the barrel. The principle of operation is exactly the same.

            laughing laughing not true. You are talking about a rocket. Cumulative - look on the net. The principle of "penetration" of armor occurs not due to the kinetic energy of the projectile, but due to burning, like an autogenous ...
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 31 October 2019 12: 36
              +1
              Quote: Invoce
              not true. You are talking about a rocket projectile ... The principle of "breaking through" the armor is not due to the kinetic energy of the projectile, but due to burning, like an autogenous ...

              Do not confuse incendiary phosphorus mixtures and shaped charge. I was not talking about the method of "breaking through" the armor, but about the method of delivery to the target. In a cumulative charge, physical properties (pressure of explosion products) change the physical state of a substance (armor), transforming it from a solid state into a liquid one.
              Do not believe my words, did not watch the video above - read (I hope the source will not cause you to distrust):
              Cumulative ammunition is designed to destroy armored vehicles and long-term fortifications. They are ineffective against infantry. It's all about the design features and the mechanism of interaction with the obstacle. The armor-piercing "blank" breaks through the armor due to the kinetic, impact energy. A high-explosive projectile - with all the power of the explosive contained in it. A cumulative ammunition penetrates an obstacle at a local point, acting on it with a narrow concentrated jet of explosion products. If we draw a parallel with melee weapons, such a projectile resembles a panzerbrecher - a medieval narrow faceted dagger, the blow of which, due to its low resistivity, was able to pierce even a plate of iron armor.

              https://ria.ru/20180629/1523604008.html
        3. aloleggry
          aloleggry 31 October 2019 15: 44
          0
          The fuse is the same violet at what angle of the meeting to explode. The fuse struck with something and he explodes. On high-explosive fragmentation tests, it was checked, with the cap on the fuse removed, one rain that didn’t arrive on time at the time was enough to undermine the shell.
    4. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 30 October 2019 16: 07
      +6
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?

      Even more not a specialist, but I will explain. You have a complete confusion of concepts.
      1.can cumulative hit tangent ? As many cases as you want, because here is simple geometry. The angle between the normal to the surface of the armor and the axis of the rocket.
      2. cumulative hit and lose strength, in principle? What power? kinetic energy of the rocket engine? no, part of the energy will be spent on heating the armor, and part with the rocket and will fly off to the KHK.
      3. A cumulative jet that hits on a tangent is simply forced to burn through not 100 mm of armor, but more than 170-200 mm and it may not have enough energy to break through and burn through the entire thickness of the armor. feel
      1. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 16: 23
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Even bigger not a specialist

        Well it is clear.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        You have a complete confusion of concepts.

        I quote the article:
        Although the cumulative charge of the ATGM, as the tankers themselves stated, “partially penetrated the compartment with people,” the crew survived, having received a shell shock.
        However, when reviewing the video, we can conclude that there was still no through penetration of the tower. Ammunition hit more tangentially.

        1. Partially penetrated = lost force during detonation, no through penetration.
        2. BoapriPas hit on a tangent.
        If someone mixed concepts, then not me. Therefore, in fact, my question arose.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        3. The cumulative jet that hits the tangent is simply forced to burn through not 100 mm of armor, but more than 170-200 mm and it may not have enough energy to break through-burn through the entire thickness of the armor

        Here! If the projectile fired when touched, then why 100 and not 170-200mm. Forced to burn, but not burned ... (the jet works, not the kinetic impact of the rocket). The photo, courtesy of Leopold, shows that the jet went "into the meat", but did not reach. On the "tangent" is not very similar, it seems, and the crew has a shell shock (it means there was a blow). Therefore, I ask, without asserting anything, for I am not an expert ...
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 30 October 2019 16: 46
          0
          I repeat.
          1. the shell fired when touched, a cumulative stream was formed in the armor and it went into the armor not normal, as usual, but at a certain angle to the normal, tangentially, not 90 degrees, but 70-80. and all the energy of the jet went into the thickness of the armor, inside the tower it could be sprayed with molten armor, but the breech of the gun could cover the crew.
          2. crew contusion (the blow means it was)There was an undermining of the cumulative charge on the armor, if you touch the armor at the time of impact, you can die without breaking through the armor.
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 16: 51
            0
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Repeat

            Yes, I understand already ...
          2. Archivist Vasya
            Archivist Vasya 31 October 2019 10: 32
            0
            if you touch the armor at the time of impact, you can die without breaking through the armor

            From what?
          3. aloleggry
            aloleggry 31 October 2019 15: 56
            0
            Syrian tankers were just lucky. Apparently they had hatches open. In a tightly closed tank, the cumulative is the northern animal in full growth. From the temperature of the jet, the pressure rises very much. Hatches are open - will throw to hell.
        2. Yuriy_999
          Yuriy_999 31 October 2019 08: 52
          0
          Forced to burn, but not burned ... (the jet works, not the kinetic strike of the rocket)

          The jet does not burn, but more penetrates the armor, influencing high pressure.
      2. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 30 October 2019 17: 21
        0
        The tangential projectile striking tangentially will not explode / be destroyed.
        1. Vladimirsky
          Vladimirsky 30 October 2019 18: 05
          0
          High-explosive - can go into a rebound, especially if the installation of the fuse is not for instant action. And the cumulative projectile is a piezoelectric fuse. There will fall in love with an instant gap from the touch.
          1. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 30 October 2019 18: 21
            0
            So kind of head-head. That is, you have to hit something with your "nose" in order to jump out. And tangentially, it means sideways. But even if the piezoelectric element is triggered by the impact, the jet will still go somewhere by.
            1. Dmitry hippie
              Dmitry hippie 30 October 2019 19: 06
              0
              He could hit the fuse at a fairly sharp angle
            2. Vladimirsky
              Vladimirsky 8 November 2019 14: 25
              0
              If the side of the case - without touching the target with a fuse, then what is this hit? Although the shape of the cumulative projectile is just designed to minimize such contact with the target.
      3. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 31 October 2019 05: 11
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        can cumulative hit tangent? As many cases as you want, because here is simple geometry. The angle between the normal to the surface of the armor and the axis of the rocket.

        good
        Further water ...
    5. Dmitry hippie
      Dmitry hippie 30 October 2019 19: 04
      0
      Why not? Anything can hit tangent
    6. svp67
      svp67 30 October 2019 20: 06
      0
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      I am not a specialist, I do not pretend, but can a cumulative hit on a tangent and lose strength, in principle?

      Alas, it is very likely that struck. Just the impact of a cumulative jet, later took on the sight, although part of the fragments hit the gunner and cut the left side.
      It's a pity there are no filming from inside
      Their "victims" were the Syrian T-64, T-72 tanks of Soviet and Russian production,
      I would give dearly to see the "Syrian" T-64 ...
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 31 October 2019 05: 17
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        Alas, it is very likely that struck. Just the impact of a cumulative jet, later took on the sight, although part of the fragments hit the gunner and cut the left side.

        And maybe it happened like this:
        1. svp67
          svp67 31 October 2019 09: 08
          0
          Quote: ROSS 42
          And maybe it happened like this:

          I would like to, but I think not. The shell hit very "unsuccessfully" for the tank, just above the "cheekbones" with the "anti-cumulative package", and there was homogeneous armor and not very thick.
          Here is the circle marked the place of impact
    7. Maz
      Maz 30 October 2019 20: 52
      0
      Top to bottom above the mask of the gun on the left. Lucky guys
    8. Dzungar
      Dzungar 31 October 2019 08: 50
      +1
      Take a close look at the hole, and its direction ..... WHERE IS THE RELATIVE ...? The cumulative jet was directed perpendicular to this section of the turret armor and slightly from top to bottom. At this point, the frontal armor package of the turret begins to decrease and the penetration was most likely through. The gunner was not touched, but the sights were broken. Or gone below. Another vivid example of the absence of a certain "excess pressure created by the cumulative jet" - the gunner is alive, a little shell-shocked and scratched ...
    9. aloleggry
      aloleggry 31 October 2019 14: 36
      0
      Yes maybe. Confirmation is a dug groove on my tank. RPG, furrow depth 15 mm, length 10 cm, T-62 tank, place of impact - to the left and below the hatch of the mechanic.
  2. Invoce
    Invoce 30 October 2019 14: 16
    +46
    Yesterday and the day before yesterday, the network actively discussed Vietnam's possible refusal to modernize T-62 tanks and supply new ones due to the vulnerability of Russian tanks from the upper hemisphere. The fact that the article was ordered is 100%. A bit annoying is the large, huge number of liberal-radical characters on the site. I will say to myself, if you call a spade a spade, use in vain the Israeli, or rather the Jewish, or rather ... the lobby in Russia, you get in the jBan, but if they verbally shit on the GDP, on Russia, then these characters do not get bans, more Moreover, they actively minus everything that does not coincide with the worldview ... This is the truth ... or maybe I'm wrong? They pulled up the "liberal stays" minus!
    1. abyssal
      abyssal 30 October 2019 14: 52
      -25
      Quote: Invoce
      Yesterday and the day before yesterday, the network actively discussed the possible refusal of Vietnam to modernize the T-62 tanks and supply new ones due to the insecurity of Russian tanks from the upper hemisphere. The fact that the article was custom - 100%.

      The Vietnamese lied and the T-62 from the side of the tower are perfectly protected?
      Quote: Invoce
      I’ll say to myself, if you call a spade a spade, use it in vain Israeli, or rather Jewish, or rather .... the lobby of Russia, you get in jBan

      And do not flood and out of place and out of place to use it. Write on the topic of the article, especially when you cannot name the proverbial lobby.
      Quote: Invoce
      but if verbally shitting on GDP

      This is when, for example, they doubt that the Khibiny "put out" Cook and half of the team quit in fear? Here are the spoilers!
      1. Dzungar
        Dzungar 31 October 2019 08: 53
        +1
        Quote: Invoce
        Yesterday and the day before yesterday, the network actively discussed the possible refusal of Vietnam to modernize the T-62 tanks and supply new ones due to the insecurity of Russian tanks from the upper hemisphere. The fact that the article was custom - 100%.

        The Vietnamese lied and the T-62 from the side of the tower are perfectly protected?
        the Vietnamese did not lie. You lied - the T-62 tower is weak not from its side (as you write), but from the side of the roof. But the fact is that ON THE ROOF WEAKNESS ALL TANKS OF THE WORLD ....
        1. abyssal
          abyssal 31 October 2019 08: 59
          -2
          Quote: Dzungar
          You lied - the T-62 tower is not weak from her side (as you write)

          Did I write that the T-62 tower is weak? In general, I asked a question without saying anything. You should pay more attention to logic and common sense.
          Quote: Dzungar
          But the fact is that ON THE ROOF WEAKNESS ALL TANKS OF THE WORLD ....

          Those. the Vietnamese didn’t lie?
          1. Dzungar
            Dzungar 31 October 2019 09: 03
            +2
            Their little thing of Vietnamese iksperdy is a clear order. In it, they talk about the weakness of the armor of the roof of the T-62 tower ... If they were honest, then they MUST BE ADDED THAT FROM THE TOWER ROOF THE WEAKS ARE ALL TANKS OF THE WORLD, and not just the T-62
            1. abyssal
              abyssal 31 October 2019 09: 22
              -3
              Quote: Dzungar
              Their little thing of Vietnamese iksperda is an obvious order

              Those. when they write about the merits of Russian weapons, then not ordering, and when about the shortcomings - ordering?
              Quote: Dzungar
              If they were honest, then they MANDATORY MUST BE ADDED WHAT WITH TOWER ROOF WEAKNESS ALL TANKS OF THE WORLD, and not just T-62

              They do not have "all the tanks in the world", they have Soviet T-62s, why would they add, expert?
              1. Dzungar
                Dzungar 31 October 2019 09: 30
                +1
                You have a good ability to pervert and turn everything upside down. Well, okay, everyone knows about this ... The Vietnamese, as I know, do not have T-62 tanks, and in their custom article they say NOT ABOUT YOUR tank, but about tanks in Syria - one lie is yours .. The second lie, and yours and these "vtnamtsev" - weak protection of the roof of the tower is a LACK of ALL TANKS, not just Russian ones. And in this little piece of Vietnamese iksperdov it is spoken of as a lack of only Russian tanks, the T-62 in this case ... If the article had not been ordered, then these authors iksperdy would certainly have mentioned this drawback as a disadvantage of ALL TANKS the world
                1. abyssal
                  abyssal 31 October 2019 09: 40
                  -3
                  Quote: Dzungar
                  You have a good ability to pervert and turn everything upside down. Well, okay, everyone knows about this ... The Vietnamese, as I know, do not have T-62 tanks, and in their custom article they say NOT ABOUT YOUR tank, but about tanks in Syria - one lie is yours .. The second lie, and yours and these "vtnamtsev" - weak protection of the tower roof is a LACK of ALL TANKS, not just Russian ones. And in this little piece of Vietnamese iskperdov it is said about the lack of only Russian tanks, T-62 in this case ...

                  As I expected, you know a little.
                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вьетнамская_народная_армия
                  Quote: Dzungar
                  and in their custom article they say, NOT ABOUT YOUR tank, but about tanks in Syria - your one lie

                  That is yes. Vile lie.
                  Quote: Dzungar
                  The second lie, and yours and these "vtnamtsev" - weak protection of the tower roof is a LACK of ALL TANKS, not just Russian ones. And in this little piece of Vietnamese isperds, it is said about the lack of only Russian tanks, the T-62 in this case ...

                  1.T.E. now you yourself write about the weak defense of the tower, and not the top of the tower, which I was reproached recently?
                  2. Once again for those in the tank: the Vietnamese did not set the task to consider the weakness of the defense of the top of the tower of all existing tanks on planet Earth. Is there any objection to the vulnerability of the top of the T-62 tower? I thought so.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Essex62
      Essex62 30 October 2019 19: 20
      -2
      Miraculous times have come. Liberal radicals. If, in the true, historical sense of the concepts, things are not compatible.
      But GDP is not a liberal unless, more than once, a commitment has been expressed to these values. He lays bouquets at the monument to the victims of Stalin's executioners; he reproaches the galoshes of the USSR. That is because the position of our bourgeois patriots-liberoids is their enemies. Enough of hanging noodles on the ears of the people. There is no difference between the western and our burials.
      1. Invoce
        Invoce 31 October 2019 10: 35
        +3
        Well, yes ... liberals are part of a society defending the freedom of this society ...
        Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
        "Demons":
        Our Russian liberal is, first and foremost, a lackey and is just watching how someone can clean their boots.
        "":
        “... according to my many observations, our liberal can never allow anyone to have his own special conviction and not immediately reply to his opponent with a curse or even something worse ...”
        Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
        "Letter to Orlov I.I., February 22, 1899, Yalta":
        - I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-bred, lying, I don’t even believe when she is suffering and complaining, because her oppressors come out of her bowels
        Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky, writer, philosopher
        I have a personal enmity towards such liberals. These are the enemies of all success. With their impudent stupidities, they annoy the government, make it suspicious, ready to see rebellion where there is nothing

        You can quote the Ancestors endlessly, but it was a whiner-liberal a long time ago ... now liberals have become radicals calling on the barricades against something that does not fit into their perception of "freedom" something like this ... militant liberals like bulk, substituting the fragile minds of youth under the Law, and himself, at the same time, earning himself an alibi for the money paid to him by the Customer for organized riots negative
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 31 October 2019 18: 26
          +1
          Bulk is a classic salary agent, but never a liberal. Liberal is; Gozman, Amnuel, Kasparov, Makarevich, Mlechin are active today and are still groaning and crying for the “colors of the Russian intelligentsia,” ruined in Soviet torture chambers, biting our Byzantines along the way. Well, they didn't appreciate it, they didn't bring it closer and didn't care. The guys from the wrestling hall have different criteria: hard painful, so that they don't rock the boat and don't pretend. Fuck money from the stabilization fund in business, this is the treasury of the sovereign, what does the rabble care about it. The more scoops bent, the better. Young people on the right path, bourgeois, is easier to establish. Just beckon with a dream about a sweet life through the loss of conscience and compassion. There is no need to go far for examples, almost all plowmen from the 90s are now in the Aligarchs. Those who did not catch a bullet or TNT from their own people.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Xnumx vis
      Xnumx vis 30 October 2019 21: 31
      +3
      Quote: Invoce
      A bit annoying is the large, huge number of liberal-radical characters on the site. I will say to myself, if you call a spade a spade, use in vain the Israeli, or rather the Jewish, or rather ... the lobby in Russia, you get in the jBan, but if they verbally shit on the GDP, on Russia, then these characters do not get bans, more Moreover, they actively minus everything that does not coincide with the worldview ... This is the truth ... or maybe I'm wrong? They pulled up the "liberal stays" minus!

      Some kind of an invasion of zealous "fighters for justice with the Gebney regime", .. Everything is bad for them. It's time to bring down the current government. One agreed that "they canceled their pension, people had to reduce their consumption of chocolate, 89% save on food .. and in general. .! "Just some kind of ventriloquist !!! And nothing that people have always saved on food, and on the consumption of chocolate, when buying things .. And "in general, the Russians have a shame on one pair of winter shoes" ... And how many pairs of winter shoes a man or a child needs ... Ten ?
    5. aloleggry
      aloleggry 31 October 2019 16: 28
      +1
      Here is exactly the machine on which I served:
      The armor from the top, yes, is not reinforced, in the lobeshnik and under the bottom is reinforced. + 10 tons from the regular one.
  3. Nycomed
    Nycomed 30 October 2019 14: 16
    +7
    This was lucky for the crew! May Allah be grateful! drinks
    1. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 30 October 2019 14: 29
      +3
      Quote: Nycomed
      This was lucky for the crew! May Allah be grateful! drinks

      Yeah. Get out and kiss the armor! It is clear that when you come to your senses ...
    2. Storekeeper
      Storekeeper 30 October 2019 15: 39
      +11
      Not Allah, but V.N. Venediktov, the chief designer and men who cooked metal for armor.
  4. panov_panov
    panov_panov 30 October 2019 14: 32
    +2
    Looking at the tower it doesn’t seem like a tangent hit! It feels like they were beating from somewhere from top to bottom.
    1. Graz
      Graz 30 October 2019 14: 44
      +4
      all the same, or a bird hitting from the top of a hill or an RPG, but the shot was from a height
      1. Corn
        Corn 30 October 2019 15: 07
        0
        In an RPG or LNG, when firing at a long distance, the trajectory is steep enough and a grenade can easily hit the roof (if it hits the target, which is very difficult).
      2. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 31 October 2019 06: 38
        +1
        or RPG but from a height the shot was ....... not. definitely not an RPG, the funnel is big, but here's how it "sews"
        RPG
  5. Alex_You
    Alex_You 30 October 2019 14: 57
    +5
    Syrian T-64 tanks became their "victims"

    Where did the Syrians get the T-64? Probably the T-62.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 30 October 2019 15: 07
      +1
      namely, T-62M with Brezhnev's eyebrows on the tower
      that the video is unclear, there are few frames
  6. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 30 October 2019 14: 59
    0
    First of all, it's all more likely an RPG. Secondly, judging by the hit, the grenade fell at an acute angle and the jet did not pass through, but inside the frontal armor of the tower, and if it pierced it, then at the very end. In short, Assad’s soldiers were VERY lucky.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 October 2019 17: 53
      +9
      Very lucky - this is when like this:
      In two days of fighting in the area of ​​the railway depot, the tank with side No. 611 was hit three times by the Fagot ATGM and six times by RPG-7 grenades.
      The hits occurred in the following parts of the tank.
      ATGM - to the left under the tower (all):
      - two - in the fuel tanks on the fenders under the tower, which during the fighting tankers always kept "dry". The tanks swelled and exploded, then the elements of the mounted explosive reactive armor on the tower worked, there was no armor penetration;
      -one - on board under the tower; it is reflected by the activated element of the mounted dynamic protection mounted on rubber-metal side screens.
      Grenades from RPG-7:
      -one - on top of the commander's hatch of the tower; a cumulative jet pierced the hatch and, without hitting the tank commander, went into the aft wall of the tower;
      -two - to the left in the upper frontal part of the tower; neutralized by triggered elements of mounted dynamic protection;
      -Three - on board the hull, 2 on the left and 1 on the right; all are reflected by dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens.
      As a result, not a single hit led to the loss of combat capability of the tank.
    2. Doliva63
      Doliva63 30 October 2019 19: 02
      +2
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      First of all, it's all more likely an RPG. Secondly, judging by the hit, the grenade fell at an acute angle and the jet did not pass through, but inside the frontal armor of the tower, and if it pierced it, then at the very end. In short, Assad’s soldiers were VERY lucky.

      Have you seen a hole from an RPG shot? I saw only ours - 7, 18, 22, 26, as well as the Thunder gun and LNG-9, and so they’ll have a smaller one. Just even based on their caliber.
      1. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 30 October 2019 19: 04
        0
        I made holes with this your RPG-7.
  7. Cananecat
    Cananecat 30 October 2019 15: 23
    -3
    The commander gets out, eyes in a bunch ...
  8. loki565
    loki565 30 October 2019 15: 24
    +3
    The tower forehead on the T72 is quite strong, if only there is multi-layer armor, the T72 was often exported simply with a homogeneous tower.
    [Center]
    1. IT Professional
      IT Professional 30 October 2019 18: 39
      +2
      I also think that either I didn’t completely break through the tower (because it was almost the thickest place), or I did it at such an angle that the crew didn’t cross, or did it a bit. The gunner was holding his face and his hand was in blood, maybe he just stomped his face into the sight. Yes, the hatches were still open, the blast wave began to flow.
  9. Evil 55
    Evil 55 30 October 2019 15: 33
    +4
    Really lucky guys .. It turns out that even Syrians are born in "Russian armored shirts" ..)))
  10. Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 30 October 2019 17: 18
    0
    Hatches were open?
  11. garri-lin
    garri-lin 30 October 2019 17: 47
    0
    Gentlemen, I do not pretend to be the last resort, but personally, according to my delusions from watching the video, the hole left by the cumulative jet is through. The penetration took place at a large angle and the cumulative jet, in fact, left a "line" on the inside of the roof. Since nothing important was hurt, the tank was intact and the crew escaped with a concussion and a small "barotrauma". No more than luck. Hit the ammunition 5 cm lower and the result could be completely different.
    1. loki565
      loki565 31 October 2019 12: 09
      0
      Hit the ammunition 5 cm lower and the result could be completely different.

      5 cm lower would fall into the anti-cumulative package and there would be nothing
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 October 2019 13: 00
        +1
        Here a lot of what depends. Since there is a factor of luck or failure. Plus, the ammunition is unknown, but it could be a tandem. It remains only to be happy for the survivors. I hope in the future they will benefit their country.
  12. Basarev
    Basarev 30 October 2019 17: 57
    -20
    Have you noticed too? The survival of the T-72 is always an event, because it is a rare, extremely random set of circumstances. Usually he tosses a tower, destroying the entire crew. And for Western tanks this is the norm. However, there are especially sophisticated idiots like the Turks, capable of ruining even Leopard-2.
  13. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 30 October 2019 18: 21
    0
    Judging by a slight wound on the tanker's face, there was a through penetration. But the hatches, for sure, were ajar, through them the excess pressure created by the cumulative jet was gone, so the crew survived.
    1. Tcheluskin
      Tcheluskin 31 October 2019 03: 08
      0
      The cumulative stream that entered the tank through a narrow hole, contrary to myths, does not create significant excess pressure. It occurs outside the tank as a result of the explosion of a cumulative ammunition, and can penetrate inside either when the armor is broken, or just the same with open hatches, which the commentators above have already suggested.
  14. Dmitry hippie
    Dmitry hippie 30 October 2019 19: 07
    0
    Is there a typo at the end of the article "T-64"? Probably T-62? ..
  15. Essex62
    Essex62 30 October 2019 19: 32
    0
    The crew was lucky.
    And in the article there are lines about the clashes with the Turks. So who is our ally? Kurds are one thing, but who allowed the Sultan to wave with the SAR?
  16. Pacifist with AK
    Pacifist with AK 30 October 2019 19: 47
    +3
    The information, of course, is basic, but the principle of the action of the cumulative charge was explained simply and intelligibly ...
  17. Radikal
    Radikal 30 October 2019 20: 38
    0
    Quote: Leopold
    Well, not really like that. I will hold my opinion, but here is a detailed shot from the video, please, for a detailed review.

    Direct hit... . sad
  18. Cats
    Cats 30 October 2019 22: 48
    +1
    If you really started to help, then why not provide the Syrian armored vehicles, including lightly armored ones, with modern DZ kits. In my opinion, it is much cheaper than replenishing the losses of the Syrian army in BTT from their reserves.
    1. Invoce
      Invoce 31 October 2019 11: 22
      0
      Cheaper or not - it doesn’t matter if the budget does not include money for this purpose ...
  19. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich
    Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 31 October 2019 02: 58
    +2
    The crew was just lucky that the shell hit horizontally at the very top of the tower above the heads, plus the equipment took the fragments over. That's all. There is nothing more to talk about.
  20. Parvis rasulov
    Parvis rasulov 31 October 2019 03: 24
    0

    By the way, in the video, you can see the tanker drew his hand in the place where the armor was broken and this indicates that the metal was hot or warm.
    With a confidence of 95 percent, I can say that this hit is not from an RPG-7 shot or a disposable RPG-22-RPG-26 type, the entrance hole is very large ...
    Then even if there was no penetration but the inside of the tank in the place where there was an external defeat, in any case, a fragment of armor fragments is formed
  21. Aptuk
    Aptuk 31 October 2019 10: 54
    0
    These guys were very lucky, the tank saved.
  22. John_f
    John_f 31 October 2019 13: 19
    0
    survived - well, and even pulled the car out of the battle - even better, as far as I know, they decided to immediately throw the car at any hit in the armor.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. kirillovleva
    kirillovleva 31 October 2019 17: 32
    0
    I am glad that they are alive, but judging by the condition of one of the tankers, he has not only shell shock, but also injuries - could the crew continue the battle?
  25. 0x0
    0x0 27 November 2019 18: 21
    -1
    sorry people, I read comments here, could not stand it, and even registered - 99% of the conversation is about anything. From empty to empty. Meaning? Flood ??? So for starters, let's not pull the cat by its quirks, but take the Occam's razor and cut off everything unnecessary to him (not the late Occam, but the living cat). Nehren in vain to torture an animal. Greens are protesting.
    1. Everyone agrees that something has "arrived". And when discussing damage, it doesn't make much difference what it was. A shell, a rocket, a successfully thrown cobblestone - let it be "byaka".
    2. In any situation - the crew are lucky. Could they continue the fight? I will not say for the equipment, but the crew, according to our concepts, was albeit limited, but combat ready. It seems that the gunner got all the lichens, but he got out himself. And he moved, albeit with support.
    3. The fact that Byak was cumulative, I hope no one doubts.
    4. I also hope that everyone agrees that the defeat occurred in a very vulnerable part.
    5. The crew is shell-shocked - no questions. Undermining the battles on the armor, especially with direct contact, it is somehow not good for health. Doubters - get into a cast-iron bathtub, cover yourself with a plump lid, and ask a healthy friend to heartily throw a sledgehammer around the bathtub. I have not tried it myself, but I guess it will be unpleasant. What blew the gunner? Not fundamentally. Fragments from their own armor, or something from the equipment.

    One question remains - what the hell did the crew survive, but the tank survived ???
    Here someone suggested that the flown byak had a defect. Maybe. But it seems to me that the matter is not in the ammunition, but in the angle from which he met with the armor. Especially in light of the fact that the hole is clearly directed from top to bottom.
    The fact is that no matter how quickly the fuse does not fire, it’s a hell it does not happen instantly. It may be very small, but it takes some time. Also, an explosion does not occur instantly. The explosion, in fact, is very fast burning.
    Establish on this video what exactly, and how exactly arrived, hell will turn out. But if we assume that the byaka flew almost horizontally, met the armor, at an extremely small angle, not with its head, but with a side bevel, then it is likely that the wall of the funnel formed from explosives could have been destroyed before it (explosive) detonated. Of course, as a result of the partial destruction of the funnel wall, during detonation, a "not correct" cumulative jet (not a characteristic hole) will form, directed not strictly along the axis of movement, but with a displacement towards the destroyed wall (contact with the "lower" part of the byaki - a jet from top to bottom ) + traces of "burn" on the armor, below the hole. Of course, the damaging effect in this case will be significantly weakened.