Dynamic defense saved the Syrian tank T-72


T-72 at the Syrian theater of war once again demonstrated their resistance to the effects of anti-tank weapons. The dynamic protection located on the armored vehicles is a vital technical improvement, which not only saves the crew from certain death, but also significantly increases the level of protection of the tank. About this writes the Serbian edition of Russia beyond.


According to him, the incident, in all probability, occurred in the province of Latakia. The video shows a shot from an anti-tank missile system [possibly a Metis ATGM] against a government tank [presumably T-72AV] deployed in a clearing. After a few seconds of flight, the projectile hits the armored vehicles. However, the DZ [possibly Contact-1 ”] is triggered, which ensured the integrity of the machine and the team placed in it.

As the publication indicates, the main functions of the dynamic defense, which is attached to the armor of the tank, are reduced to the deflection of the cumulative jet that is generated when a rocket hits a vehicle. DZ prevents the breakthrough of the main armor of the car, saving the crew life. However, in such situations, equipment located outside, for example, optical devices, suffers.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 04: 15 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    To overcome the dynamic protection of the tank, a tandem ammunition was invented.
    1. Vladimir_2U 13 January 2020 04: 29 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Metis-M is already a tandem warhead, and Contact-1 is a very outdated DZ, so the tank and tankers were lucky.
    2. Igor Ivanov_4 13 January 2020 04: 30 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Alas, this struggle is not solvable! The tandem should also focus on a certain distance from the target, well, or the armor, but a simple solution like a grill simply sends this munition ricochet to nowhere!
      1. Kleber 13 January 2020 04: 40 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        The grille does not save from any projectile at all. This is purely for psychological comfort.
    3. maidan.izrailovich 13 January 2020 04: 40 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      To overcome the dynamic protection of the tank, a tandem ammunition was invented.

      Honestly, I do not see the subject of discussion in such articles.
      Firstly, this is far from the first article on this topic. And in the previous ones, everything has already been put on the shelves.
      Secondly, this is the eternal competition of "armor" and "shell". While the "armor" wins. But as you correctly noticed, there are already new "shells".
      1. Aerodrome 13 January 2020 06: 12 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        Dynamic defense saved the Syrian tank T-72
        with all the admiration, they don’t buy the same “Afghanite” from the troops ... they’re clutching (like a war, why not spend money)
      2. orionvitt 13 January 2020 14: 08 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: maidan.izrailovich
        While the "armor" wins

        Oh oh The developers are not sleeping. Here, as they say, for cunning armor, there is always a shell with a screw. the question is price.
      3. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 14: 40 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Quote: maidan.izrailovich
        To overcome the dynamic protection of the tank, a tandem ammunition was invented.

        Honestly, I do not see the subject of discussion in such articles.
        Firstly, this is far from the first article on this topic. And in the previous ones, everything has already been put on the shelves.
        Secondly, this is the eternal competition of "armor" and "shell". While the "armor" wins. But as you correctly noticed, there are already new "shells".

        The armor began to lose already in 2006 - the 2nd Lebanese. Therefore, we developed the current KAZ.
        1. Zeev Zeev 13 January 2020 17: 22 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          In 2006, five tanks were irrevocable and 31 tankers died. For a month and a half of battles and several hundred fired and several dozen hit RPGs and ATGMs. It's too early to talk about losing armor.
          By the way, KAZ Trophy was first introduced a year before the war.
          1. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 17: 24 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            There was no Trophy in the war itself
            5 - these are irretrievably lost tanks, but how many were disabled during the fighting?
            1. Zeev Zeev 13 January 2020 17: 47 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              If memory serves, without spying 5 irrevocable, 48 affected tanks in general, 24 returned to service after the war, the rest - field repairs.
              1. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 17: 50 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                I remember the field repair vaguely - Iftakh, 2006
                And at all pre-war exercises it was said that tanks are not entered into Lebanon at all
                1. Zeev Zeev 13 January 2020 17: 54 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Field repair is when damaged armor blocks are changed and the tank returned to service in a couple of days. But tanks could be and should be brought into Lebanon, only with the cover of infantry and aviation. Here are just NGS we were afraid to use aviation
                  1. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 18: 19 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    Where did you serve then?
                    1. Zeev Zeev 13 January 2020 18: 25 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      I then sat far from Lebanon, 40 km. I know all this from the stories of the participants.
                      1. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 19: 24 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        I don’t know what was fixed right away. Iftah lost, EMNIP, six people - 2 tankers, an armored personnel carrier and three motorized riflemen. I don’t remember the losses in tanks. Part of the technique was stuck, it was pulled out after the armistice through the UN soldiers - scared blacks under fifty dollars)).
                      2. Zeev Zeev 13 January 2020 19: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        As far as I remember, the evacuation of equipment went immediately. If cars remained for some time, then under the gun from dominant positions
                      3. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 19: 44 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        There was control. )))
      4. 5-9
        5-9 14 January 2020 07: 34 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        It’s quite difficult for Kumoy to make a tank irrevocable. Non-refundable for the entire 2nd Chechen - 9 pieces.
        1. Zeev Zeev 14 January 2020 19: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          But for the first Chechen a little more. Moreover, only Kuma, since the Czechs did not use BPS or powerful landmines against tanks.
  • Thrifty 13 January 2020 05: 26 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Everything is as always - the tank stands like a good target in a clean field, no cover, no attempt to camouflage it, train, militants in firing from the tank! fool fool When will they understand that camouflaging and defending a fighting position is not just made up. ... negative
    1. bessmertniy 13 January 2020 09: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In war it is impossible to substitute. And in many shots from Syria it is clear that the Syrian army does not protect its equipment.
  • Livonetc 13 January 2020 06: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    integrity of the machine and the team placed in it

    Probably should have changed, apparently arising from machine translation, the "team" for the crew.
  • Professor 13 January 2020 07: 45 New
    • 8
    • 13
    -5
    However, the DZ [possibly Contact-1 ”] is triggered, which ensured the integrity of the machine and the team placed in it.

    1. This statement has not been confirmed on the video. It is not visible that there is no penetration and that the crew is alive.
    2. DZ should react in this way to tandem ammunition. The leader takes over the DZ and the main charge breaks through the armor.
    1. vorobey 13 January 2020 10: 16 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      However, the DZ [possibly Contact-1 ”] is triggered, which ensured the integrity of the machine and the team placed in it.

      1. This statement has not been confirmed on the video. It is not visible that there is no penetration and that the crew is alive.
      2. DZ should react in this way to tandem ammunition. The leader takes over the DZ and the main charge breaks through the armor.


      Oleg, we replace T72 with carrots and now you are already starting to argue the opposite ... well, maybe enough already .. 72 proved your vitality .. you remember the debate here from the age of 12 on this topic.
      1. Professor 13 January 2020 10: 36 New
        • 7
        • 8
        -1
        Quote: vorobey
        Oleg, we replace T72 with carrots and now you are already starting to argue the opposite ... well, maybe enough already .. 72 proved your vitality .. you remember the debate here from the age of 12 on this topic.

        No, I don’t start. The video doesn’t show whether the tank is broken or not, and it’s not visible what happened to the crew. The fact that the tower did not immediately fly away does not mean that the armor is not broken and the crew is alive.

        T-72 proved its non-survivability. I will not upload videos.
        1. vorobey 13 January 2020 10: 48 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          T-72 proved its non-survivability. I will not upload videos.


          Oleg, I just smile ... remembering the past .. By the way, how does the merkava hold Tou or RPG 7 data? here it is
          1. Vol4ara 13 January 2020 11: 01 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: vorobey
            Quote: Professor
            T-72 proved its non-survivability. I will not upload videos.


            Oleg, I just smile ... remembering the past .. By the way, how does the merkava hold Tou or RPG 7 data? here it is

            Jews do not cling to KAZ
            1. vorobey 13 January 2020 11: 07 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: Vol4ara
              Jews do not cling to KAZ


              do not squeeze ... but you did not answer how he holds RPG 7 or TOU
              1. Vol4ara 13 January 2020 11: 08 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: vorobey
                Quote: Vol4ara
                Jews do not cling to KAZ


                do not squeeze ... but you did not answer how he holds RPG 7 or TOU

                And you didn’t ask me anything. Having kaz, I think very well
              2. 5-9
                5-9 13 January 2020 13: 18 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                You have some questions ... strange .. ask .... what shot to RPG-7, what TOU ???
                And, most importantly, in what place? In any tank, at least half of the projections are affected by any operational RPG 7 or TOU ...
          2. Professor 13 January 2020 11: 42 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            Quote: vorobey
            Quote: Professor
            T-72 proved its non-survivability. I will not upload videos.


            Oleg, I just smile ... remembering the past .. By the way, how does the merkava hold Tou or RPG 7 data? here it is

            There is. Holds normally. Today, and keeps Cornet. Give a video?
            1. 5-9
              5-9 13 January 2020 13: 20 New
              • 6
              • 4
              +2
              You fantasize about the Cornet ... The Cornet from its 1,4 meter pierces any tank (except possibly the T-14) in the most protected place.
              PS: We will not discuss after all that even the Kuma from one production series gives a difference in armor penetration of 50%?
              1. Professor 13 January 2020 14: 31 New
                • 3
                • 7
                -4
                Quote: 5-9
                You fantasize about Cornet ...



                Quote: 5-9
                . A cornet with its 1,4 meter pierces any tank (except possibly the T-14) in the most protected place.

                Not 1.4 m, but 1.2 m, and then beyond the DZ and in monogenic armor.

                Quote: 5-9
                PS: We will not discuss after all that even the Kuma from one production series gives a difference in armor penetration of 50%?

                We are generally talking about the T-72 which is pierced by the ancient TOW.
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 13 January 2020 15: 03 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Actually, 1,2 m at Cornet-E, at Cornet - 1,4. And PSU is always given according to RHA, i.e. rolled homogeneous armor.
                  the ancient TOWs, as well as the ancient bassoons or the ancient RPG-7 shots penetrate all the tanks of the world for ... twenty years ahead ... but not always and not anywhere.
                  In fact, the military use for 2019 is quite clear that the USSR / RF provided protection in tanks of 43-46 tons at least at the level of western tanks of 55-62 tons. Moreover, the protection of the same level from the side and rear projection was possible to provide only at Carrots with a weight of 70 tons, narrowly focused on anti-cumulative protection .... and then after 2006, the real men rushed headlong to put the expensive Trophy on all tanks.
                  1. Professor 13 January 2020 18: 39 New
                    • 2
                    • 6
                    -4
                    Quote: 5-9
                    Actually, 1,2 m at Cornet-E, at Cornet - 1,4. And PSU is always given according to RHA, i.e. rolled homogeneous armor.

                    Well yes. He has an underweight there in the warhead. wassat

                    Quote: 5-9
                    the ancient TOWs, as well as the ancient bassoons or the ancient RPG-7 shots penetrate all the tanks of the world for ... twenty years ahead ... but not always and not anywhere.

                    This is how lucky. Even the T-72 hand-held anti-personnel grenade was destroyed.
                    https://www.military.com/video/ammunition-and-explosives/grenades/grenade-thrown-down-tank-barrel/4357924254001

                    Quote: 5-9
                    In fact, the military use for 2019 is quite clear that the USSR / RF provided protection in tanks of 43-46 tons at least at the level of western tanks of 55-62 tons.

                    Absolutely untrue statements.

                    Quote: 5-9
                    Moreover, the protection of the same level from the side and rear projection was possible to provide only at Carrots with a weight of 70 tons, narrowly focused on anti-cumulative protection .... and then after 2006, the real men rushed headlong to put the expensive Trophy on all tanks.

                    1. What do you call Russians if Jews are real?
                    2. He who has eyes, let him see.

                    3. "all-all" tanks this is also not true.
          3. Krasnodar 13 January 2020 14: 42 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            RPG 7 Carrot holds))
            Moreover, RPG 7 holds even the upgraded M-60 with DZ
      2. Vanches 13 January 2020 11: 04 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        survivability in battle? more than three hundred t72 destroyed in Syria
        1. vorobey 13 January 2020 11: 09 New
          • 8
          • 6
          +2
          Quote: Vanches
          survivability in battle? more than three hundred t72 destroyed in Syria

          This one has been gnawed since 12 why and how .. then it turns out that Abrams and Leo 2 are on the same line with 72 because they successfully burn from the same mestizos and RPGs, but for some reason you are not talking about this.
          1. Vanches 13 January 2020 12: 30 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            Something not very many Abrams were destroyed from these mestizos and RPGs, and Leo 2 is the same turret gunner as teshki
            1. 5-9
              5-9 13 January 2020 13: 25 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              Directly proportional to the number of M1 and Leo2 used ... there is an enchanting video of launching the ancient Bassoon into the frontal projection of M1, falling into the rear of the side of the tower and fireworks from the tower (translating the small safe angles of maneuvering) ... again - the ancient Bassoon and frontal projection.
              There are also torn Leo2 buildings or departed M1 towers. Carrots (special tanks with all-round anti-cumulative protection, defenseless against OBPS newer than 1985) in 2006 were also raked from anti-tank systems and RPGs ... so there is no need for a turret gun ... as soon as western tanks were exposed to anti-tank weapons, so the result is somehow no worse than that of the “turrets” it became ... one Leclerc has not yet disgraced ..
              1. 3danimal 14 January 2020 00: 07 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Better a "firework" than a turret: the crew will change diapers (someone in the infirmary), instead of the "heroic" transformation into mincemeat (from the pressure sufficient to throw up a multi-ton tower).
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 14 January 2020 07: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Why change diapers to a dead crew? The fireworks were from the hatches ... do you think someone survived there?
                  1. 3danimal 14 January 2020 20: 21 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Fireworks from the kick panels of an insulated shell compartment in the tower. We should learn to protect the soldiers.
                    1. 5-9
                      5-9 15 January 2020 09: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      No, there was just a firework from the hatches, with both commander and gunner.
                      Panels - this is good in theory (when there is no PF in the tank in principle) and when the mallet was not lured / closed the heavy armor shutter to close ....
                      1. 3danimal 15 January 2020 17: 46 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        If you violate safety rules - everything is possible.
                        But the statistics of the defeated tanks Abrams in 21c in the number of dead tankers speaks for a similar design.
              2. Vanches 16 January 2020 07: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If the crew violates the operating rules, i.e. closes the curtain with something, it doesn’t mean that the tank is bad,
                Abramov’s crews have a VERY great chance to survive surviving armor penetration and maintaining the tank’s combat readiness when the ammunition ignites

                FM 3-20.12 manual for tankers gunnery Abrams

                1) at the beginning of a tower laying fire, close the hatches and wait 2 minutes, during this time all metal charges will burn out. between two and five minutes after the start of the fire, the risk of getting a panel over the head or with powder gases in the face is minimal, at which time the crew is advised to get out of the tank. after five minutes, detonation of HEAT, HER-MP-T, etc. may begin.
                an hour after the fire, the tank is considered safe, no explosions are expected anymore (11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-7)
                2) after the start of the tower laying fire, if possible, deploy the tower perpendicular to the hull so that the dviglo does not spoil from the fire (11-5).
                3) one hour after the start of the fire, the towers should proceed on their own (on the tank!) To the repair site (11-6)
                4) in the event of a laying fire in the hull, no additional actions are required from the crew; the combat mission should continue. all charges in the laying of the body burn out within 15 seconds, detonation in the laying was recorded more than once. (eleven-
                it is also mentioned in the document that in the heat of battle the crew often did not even notice a fire laying in the hull (11-9)

                also in the tank, each crew member has an oxygen mask in case of smoke in the inner space, or a fire extinguishing system (11-4).

                Can at least one Soviet, Russian tank (except for 640 objects, which were killed in the bud) boast of such survivability?
    2. Romka47 13 January 2020 13: 29 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Good day professor hi according to your first point: the militants were clearly shooting the video, and if the tank burned down, or the BC detonated or something, then don’t go to the grandmother’s video, they wouldn’t cut it, but just if the crew leaves the tank alive (after being hit) then it makes sense to interrupt the video at this very moment. This is not a fact of course, but agree quite logical.
      1. Professor 13 January 2020 14: 33 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: Romka47
        Good day professor hi according to your first point: the militants were clearly shooting the video, and if the tank burned down, or the BC detonated or something, then don’t go to the grandmother’s video, they wouldn’t cut it, but just if the crew leaves the tank alive (after being hit) then it makes sense to interrupt the video at this very moment. This is not a fact of course, but agree quite logical.

        Is logical. However, it may be that the operator made his legs so that the “friends of the tankers” would not tear off these legs for him.
        1. Romka47 13 January 2020 14: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          However, it may be that the operator made his legs so that the “friends of the tankers” would not tear off these legs for him.
          It may even be like that, but usually they shoot a video for a while, until at least ten times they cry, well, you understand that. Although here they could have gotten into more cowardly barmaleys.
    3. Manul 14 January 2020 13: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      This statement has not been confirmed on the video. It is not visible that there is no penetration and that the crew is alive.

      Good day! hi On your video below (11.42) in an episode with 0.29 sec. (shot from the "Vampire" on the "Merkava") is it possible to say that there was no penetration and the crew survived?
  • Vasyan1971 13 January 2020 07: 58 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Alla, I'm at the bar!
  • honest people 13 January 2020 10: 33 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The movie breaks off with no known consequences. In case of non-penetration, this is a very great luck for the crew, a chance of one in 100.
    1. Disant 13 January 2020 11: 25 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      The chances of luck are among the pirates from the “treasure island” - it’s not a pay, not an advance.
      And in this case - the probability of defeat, and it is mathematically calculated. moreover, when shooting directly at the place of installation of remote sensing. And, just in spite of the chance you indicated, this probability of being hit by the first shot, by non-tandem ammunition, is very low.
    2. Vladimir_6 13 January 2020 11: 27 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: honest people
      The movie breaks off with no known consequences. In case of non-penetration, this is a very great luck for the crew, a chance of one in 100.

      Maybe they cut off that part of the video, in which it was seen how the crew leaves the tank?
      The Hussites in Yemen withdraw their attacks to full clarity. And here is really just a fragment.
  • Lord of the Sith 13 January 2020 12: 18 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Quote: Professor

    T-72 proved its non-survivability. I will not upload videos.


    Young man, have you even seen a battle tank near? I don’t even ask about participation in hostilities))
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 14 January 2020 07: 32 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      I don’t understand what these videos should show me .... in Chechnya the T-72B crawled backwards after 11 penetrations from the RPG, 5-7-9 penetrations (not hits !!!) without loss of combat capability were commonplace .... as well as the destruction of tanks after 1-2 hits.
      Kuma (especially small caliber) is quite difficult to destroy / completely deprive the tank of combat readiness, only successful hit of a jet in the BC, or crew members.
      In Lebanon 2006, more than 50 tanks of which 6 were irretrievable were destroyed. For the entire Second Chechnya, there were only 9 units.
  • honest people 14 January 2020 10: 37 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: 5-9
    I don’t understand what these videos should show me .... in Chechnya the T-72B crawled backwards after 11 penetrations from the RPG, 5-7-9 penetrations (not hits !!!) without loss of combat capability were commonplace .... as well as the destruction of tanks after 1-2 hits.
    Kuma (especially small caliber) is quite difficult to destroy / completely deprive the tank of combat readiness, only successful hit of a jet in the BC, or crew members.
    In Lebanon 2006, more than 50 tanks of which 6 were irretrievable were destroyed. For the entire Second Chechnya, there were only 9 units.

    That would be great if it weren’t for such a blatant lie! laughing