An undisguised threat to the "naval" T-72B3M. The consequences of the arrival of the M1A2 SEPv3 in the combat units of the Polish Army

87

As you know, information about the conclusion between the Polish defense department and the Pentagon of a 3,5 billion contract for the supply of 250 modern main combat forces to mechanized brigades of the Polish Army tanks М1А2 SEP v3 (М1А2С) "Abrams" by the domestic expert circles received an extremely superficial analysis, on the basis of which it is almost impossible to come to any objective and final conclusion regarding the spectrum of threats posed by coastal motorized rifle and tank units of the Baltic fleet in the Kaliningrad region from the mechanized divisions of the Polish Land Forces retrofitted with the latest version of the MBT M1A2.

Hundreds of "Abrams" of the penultimate version near the borders of the Kaliningrad region can radically change the balance of power in the Baltic conventional theater of military operations


Meanwhile, in the light of the upcoming implementation of the above transaction, a detailed assessment of the combat stability of the 18th motorized rifle division, as well as the 11th army corps of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy, motorized rifle and tank regiments of which, over the past one and a half to two years, have been actively re-equipped with modernized main battle tanks T-72B3 mod. 2016 and even more advanced T-72B3M vehicles.



Indeed, in this case, we are talking about the appearance near the Kaliningrad zone of restriction and prohibition of access and maneuver A2 / AD and the Suwalki corridor of about eight battalions of MBT "Abrams" in the penultimate modification of the M1A2 SEP v3, obtained during the modernization of the tank information management system / TIUS and SUV (including updating the critical software of optical-electronic sighting systems and the integration of network-centric terminals for secure voice communication and the exchange of information about the tactical situation JTRS), removed from the conservation MBT M1A1.

And, despite the fact that numerous domestic military experts continue to cultivate the tradition of multiple overestimation of the tactical and technical parameters of the T-72B3 / B3M tanks entering the combat units of the coastal forces of the Russian Navy Baltic Fleet, now and then focusing the audience's attention on equipping this line vehicles with sets of DZ "Relikt", the latest 125-mm tank guns of increased ballistics 2A46M-5 with a 1,15-1,2-fold increase in the accuracy of fire, as well as the promising multi-channel sighting system of the gunner "Sosna-U" in conjunction with the advanced digital TIUS open source, these machines were never devoid of a number of critical flaws that exclude the possibility of their total dominance in the hypothetical confrontation with MBT M1A2 SEP v3.

So, the frontal armor plates of the improved T-4B22M MBT still having 5S72 elements of the Contact-3 VDZ complex (only the side armor plates of the T-4B24M turrets are covered with resistance to armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles of kinetic action in comparison with the T-72B mod. 3, increasing this figure from 15 to 20-72 mm, respectively.

Such a parameter does not provide T-72B3M crews with protection even against completely outdated M829A1 BOPSs, which have armor penetration of the order of 655-700 mm of steel equivalent at a distance of 2000 m (at an angle and speed of meeting of a uranium core with an armor barrier, which is 0 degrees to the normal and 1435 m / s, respectively).

What can we say here about the more advanced armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles M829A2 / 3, as well as M829E4, the cores of which are able to overcome about 740/830 and 900-950 mm, respectively, at the same firing distance and angle of encounter with shelled armor barriers.

It was at this very time to mention the unique program of deep modernization of combatant MBT T-72B, during which the specialists of FSUE PO UVZ (now JSC Scientific and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky) received a fully combat-ready prototype MBT T-72B2 / BM "Slingshot" ("Object 184M"), in the gland of which were embodied the most advanced developments of JSC "Research Institute of Steel" in the field of protection of modern armored vehicles from promising anti-tank weapons of kinetic and tandem cumulative effects.

In particular, unlike the T-72B3M frontal armor plates, the frontal projection of this vehicle is covered with wedge-shaped EDZ 4S23 "Relic", which provide full protection of the T-72B2 / BM "Slingshot" tower not only against promising ATGMs with tandem cumulative warheads, but also against BOPS M829A2 at a distance of up to 2000 m, as well as M829A3 at a distance of 2500–3000 m with safe maneuvering angles +/- 15 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the bore.

In this case, the equivalent resistance of the frontal projection of the Slingshot tower from the BOPS reaches 810–820 mm, ensuring effective penetration only with the latest BOPS M829E4.

Unfortunately, the latter can be used from smooth-bore 120-mm M256 tank guns, which will be equipped with M1A2 SEP v3 for retrofitting combat units of the Polish Army.

To our great regret, the T-72B2 / BM "Slingshot" project remained a lonely star of the Uralvagonzavod exposition at the long-forgotten exhibition "Russia Arms EXPO - 2006" (RAE - 2006).

As for the much more simplified (in terms of armor protection) version of "Slingshot" - our today's protagonist T-72B3M, then the whole completeness of the non-iridescent picture here is complemented by the huge 70-100-mm gaps present between the wedge-shaped twin EDZ 4S22 "Contact- 5 "and completely bare miniature (by the standards of the perspective tank building of the third decade of the XXI century) 500-540 mm equivalent of the frontal armor plates of the turret at the angles of safe maneuvering +/- 20-30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the bore.

This armored obstacle can be easily overcome even with an even earlier M829 BOPS at a distance of 2500-3000 m, or a 105-mm M833 BOPS at a distance of less than 1500 m.

And this is not to mention the almost completely bare sector of the mask of the 2A46M-5 cannon.

Against this background, the equivalent durability of the frontal armor plates of the Polish M1A2 SEP v3 towers, which have "packages" of corundum-ceramic and uranium-ceramic fillers AD95 and UO100, is 940-960 mm, practically establishing parity with the durability of the towers of promising domestic MBT T-90M "Proryv- 3 "(about 1050-1100 mm with a firing angle of 0 degrees to the normal).

Do not forget about the Trophy-HV active protection complexes included in the optional package supplied to the Polish army M1A2 SEP v3, by means of which our enemy will be able to repel several strikes at once by tank guided missiles 9M119M1 "Invar-M1" (ZUBK20M) of tank guided missile complexes armament 9K119M "Reflex-M" from a distance of 5000-3000 m, drawing the crews of the weakly protected T-72B3M into close tank combat using armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells.

Consequently, it is not possible to enhance the combat stability of the coastal units of the Baltic Fleet without re-equipping the advanced and more protected MBT T-90M "Proryv-3" and T-14 "Armata", equipped with KAZ "Arena-M" and "Afganit".
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -6
    30 July 2021 11: 12
    I have not read the article.
    But judging by the title - the case when the author does not need to be written at first - and so everyone will understand - Damantsev! laughing
    1. +23
      30 July 2021 11: 21
      Of course not. The first to comment is more important. However, this time Damantsev surpassed himself, and wrote the article normally and to the point. Therefore, he gets a plus sign, and you get a minus sign.
      1. +11
        30 July 2021 12: 24
        I wrote the article normally and to the point

        why no one writes about replacing fiberglass with silicon carbide or boron carbide (?) (?)
        why no one writes about replacing composite inserts in tower niches (?) (?)

        sensation according to your logic that all 30 years the same filler has been in the tower
        110-mm fiberglass VLD and Board change to silicon carbide - equivalent to 440-mm
        + 80-mm armor (side) + track width 600 + DZ 400-mm = 1520-mm
        + armor 629 mm (VLD) + DZ 400 mm = 1469-mm
        110-mm fiberglass VLD and Board change to boron carbide - equivalent to 880-mm
        + 80-mm armor (side) + track width 600 + DZ 400-mm = 1960-mm
        + armor 629 mm (VLD) + DZ 400 mm = 1909-mm
        360-mm silicon carbide turret niche - equivalent to 1440-mm + 240 armor + 400-mm DZ = 2080-mm
        360-mm boron carbide turret niche - equivalent to 2880-mm + 240 armor + 400-mm DZ = 3520-mm
      2. +7
        31 July 2021 14: 03
        As always in my own style. Yes, the forehead of the T-72B3 definitely loses to Abrasha. But this is a well-known fact. It is not clear why our MO on the T-80 put "Relic" on the entire projection, including the forehead, and on the T-72 on the front projection, the obsolete "Contact-5".
        The rest of the article is a jumble of terms, as usual. Moreover, the author, in pursuit of the number of indices and designations, called the T-72B3 more perfect than the T-72B3 model 2016, although this is the same machine.
        Well, the passages about firing over 3000m ATGM are only in ideal conditions from a place and at a stationary target. That a battle tank against a tank, well, very rare.
        Well, I would also like to know where the author got the information that the Polish Abrashes will be equipped with the Trophy air vehicle. I have not found this on the Internet.
        1. +1
          23 August 2021 20: 47
          So this author, as usual, famously makes assumptions and immediately draws conclusions to them, passing reality by ... It's time to get used to it and divide by 10))
    2. -3
      30 July 2021 11: 34
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      I have not read the article.

      Didn't read it either.
      1. 0
        23 August 2021 20: 52
        And rightly so, Damantsev's articles have the most interesting comments, because there are no spherical horses in a vacuum in life, and Eugene is like hello.
        Tank battles are a thing of the past long ago. In reality, helicopters work against tanks, of which NATO actually has more, by the way, and infantry with complexes. As the saying goes - what does a special forces officer need to engage in a fierce hand-to-hand combat with the enemy? Lose a machine gun, a pistol, a sapper shovel and a knife on the battlefield .. and find a second fool of the same kind ..
    3. +4
      30 July 2021 12: 58
      and it would be worth reading to object to something in essence.
  2. -6
    30 July 2021 11: 17
    It's time to deliver 2-3 hundreds of Lancet kamikaze UAVs to Kaliningrad. Who knows, Iskander has a cluster warhead with armor-piercing homing elements? "Tornado" in my opinion has.
    1. 0
      30 July 2021 12: 55
      Quote: URAL72
      It's time to deliver to Kaliningrad ...

      "Buratino" and "Solntsepёk", in this direction, would be just right.
      1. +5
        30 July 2021 13: 00
        Pinocchio is a terrible weapon, but 72 hectares like the Tornado will not cover.
  3. +8
    30 July 2021 11: 23
    Exciting reading. good
    Romance s. drinks
    1. -4
      30 July 2021 11: 35
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      Romance s.

      Already in the morning I was drawn to sleep.
      1. +5
        30 July 2021 13: 01
        if you haven't read, where did you get it?
  4. +4
    30 July 2021 11: 28
    Appointment of "naval" T-72B3M. consists in repelling an amphibious landing. - They can easily destroy landing boats and small ships of the enemy. The presence of guided missiles in the arsenal will make it possible to shoot down enemy helicopters with an assault force.
    With "Abrams" there is someone to cope with.
    1. +9
      30 July 2021 13: 02
      and who is there to cope with? voice ...
      1. +8
        30 July 2021 14: 27
        The area of ​​their concentration will be processed by everyone. Starting from tactical complexes and ending with barrel artillery. It is now impossible to unnoticeably gather at least some serious forces in one direction. Aviation will handle tanks in the same way. The coastal defense troops go about their business.
      2. KCA
        0
        30 July 2021 14: 35
        Is the "Coast" art complex suitable?
        1. +1
          20 August 2021 13: 05
          Why is the "Coast" complex, but what about the tanks? Putin, however, CLEARLY EXPLAINED everything - the first strikes will be delivered to the DECISION-MAKING CENTERS - there is no frontal armor, that is, while the surviving Abrams will be knocked out in Brussels. and they won't even have time to repent ... "And by the way, the passage of the Polish" Abramov "across the border will mean the end of NATO - it will simply crumble in a couple of hours and almost all countries will begin to fall off from it, which they did not swell to turn into a radioactive garbage dump because of the stupid one. ambitious Poland.
          Well, in fact, how to knock out "Abrams" - even the Aboriginal Houthis in slippers and with Chinese Kalash in their hands learned to the cries of "Alla, I'm in the bar!" burn those Abrams. The author somehow forgets that in Russia those "Abrams" will be many times worse than in Asia, all kinds of subtleties with electronic warfare, minefields set by MLRS + there is no clear sky overhead + a lot of interesting things can fly from above, for example, an ordinary volley "Grada" may not pierce the armor, but outside all the optics and antennas it will completely demolish, and inside it tears off a lot of things from the hinges and brackets. I remember the memoirs of a certain Vasily Semyonovich Krysov "Battery Fire" he started the war from Stalingrad to Germany with the KV-1, then there were SU-122 (T-34 with a 122 mm howitzer), SU-85, T-34-85) in which he indicated how they fought the "Tigers" having in at the disposal of only the SU-122 self-propelled guns with 67 mm armor penetration, and so they concentrated the fire of several vehicles at one tank with land mines - the result was always the same, the Tigers jumped out shell-shocked with blood from the ears and all the holes in the head, which was quickly exterminated by the infantry when he in the evening climbed into one of the knocked out tanks, then about I found a blockage inside of equipment torn from the mountings, radio stations and shells torn from the stowage, well, it is not necessary at all to do it out of our hands. , 10 years of service a couple of "Ural" grenades of all kinds, including the latest tandem at firing and exercises, shot and he 1,5% has no doubt that he will get into the pot of "Abrams" every 100-1 times
      3. +10
        30 July 2021 14: 45
        Dmitry.
        Tanks are not meant to fight each other.
        Although Abrams was created ONLY for this.
        Much depends on the level of training of the crew.
        And now to the point.
        Dust and sand. As Iraq has shown, every third engine "flew".
        ATGM "Kornet" and other anti-tank guided missiles with a cumulative warhead.
        Bridges will not support this weight.
        UAV "Orion" with missiles "Vikhr-M"., Attack helicopters and aviation
        Unlike the T-72B tank, which is only vulnerable to attacks from the air from the air, the Abrams is absolutely permeable for them from head to to side.
        And in general, such a whopper as Abrams UNIFORMALLY to cover with armor did not work. The frontal part was well armored: the lower frontal plate and the frontal part of the tower. Everything else has a relatively low level of body armor.
        1. +3
          30 July 2021 18: 19
          Quote: knn54
          Tanks are not meant to fight each other.

          Apparently, therefore, their BC includes "kumy", "loma" and TOUR. smile And they do not just enter, but are constantly improving.
          The concept "tanks do not fight with tanks" died after WWII. Further, the tank began to be considered one of the main anti-tank weapons.
        2. -2
          31 July 2021 14: 08
          Tanks are not meant to fight each other.

          Thank you for making me laugh. I haven't laughed like that in a long time laughing
          Otherwise, they wrote everything correctly.
        3. 0
          20 August 2021 13: 11
          YES, there is no need for any drone UAVs - the MLRS will fire a couple of volleys and those Abrams will stand up. Some will simply burn out amusingly throwing the towers to one side, the harp will fly off to the survivors, rollers and those who want to replace and pull them will not be able to repeat the MLRS volley within half an hour, but already in a reinforced form, some neighboring regiment and no longer "grads", but some kind of "hurricanes" or "tornadoes" - "tornadoes"
      4. -4
        31 July 2021 19: 08
        Remember when Russia, with the help of the fleet, special forces aviation, DShB and marines, blocked the entire Crimean peninsula, which legally belongs to another country. And who rock the boat? USA? NATO? Nobody. Nobody at all. So it is Russia that has entered foreign territory. And who dares to seize from Russia a whole region in the center of densely populated Europe ?! There are no psychos.
    2. +4
      30 July 2021 18: 17
      Quote: knn54
      Appointment of "naval" T-72B3M. consists in repelling an amphibious landing. - They can easily destroy landing boats and small ships of the enemy. The presence of guided missiles in the arsenal will make it possible to shoot down enemy helicopters with an assault force.
      With "Abrams" there is someone to cope with.

      To whom? In Kaliningrad now, except for the Coastal Troops, there is nothing else.
      Don't you know that all the land (and air defense) defense of the Kaliningrad region is entrusted to the Navy, represented by the coastal troops of the DKBF? For this, an army corps and an air defense division were transferred to them.
      Our staff strategists have built a marvelous structure in which the "boots" from the Western Military District command the DKBF, and the DKBF commands the "boots" from 11 AKs transferred to it. smile
      By the way, this is not the only such land-sea formation. The KSF was entrusted with the defense of the entire Arctic (from Rybachye to Wrangel Island) from the sea, land and air, calling it the "Joint Strategic Command" Northern Fleet ".
    3. +1
      2 August 2021 17: 03
      Quote: knn54
      Appointment of "naval" T-72B3M. consists in repelling an amphibious landing. - They can easily destroy landing boats and small ships of the enemy. The presence of guided missiles in the arsenal will make it possible to shoot down enemy helicopters with an assault force.
      With "Abrams" there is someone to cope with.

      What to do, not everyone in the army served laughing
  5. -2
    30 July 2021 11: 31
    Thanks to the author. Interesting article. I wish the author to tell about the Israeli Merkava tanks. I also ask the author to compare the military potentials of China and Russia in the Far East.
    1. -1
      30 July 2021 14: 32
      For what? Even in Soviet times, the Far East did not harbor illusions. All major cities, like Khabarovsk, were considered death row cities even then. I can say even more. For example, there was a tank bat in the center of Khabarovsk. But the ammunition and warehouses were 40 km outside the city) and beyond the bridge over the river which is Sita) and even further 18 km there was a part that was terribly secret. The rocket men.
      1. -2
        30 July 2021 14: 36
        Thank. Did not know.
        1. 0
          30 July 2021 14: 38
          I mean, the scenario was different. Containment. And then striking by completely different means.
      2. 0
        31 July 2021 11: 57
        And in Knyaz-Volkonovsky, there was a lot of study for motorized riflemen, a helicopter regiment in Garovka, an engineering school in the center, a large airfield for transport workers near the village of GORKOGO, part of the special forces of the KGB of the USSR ... And already in the taiga and other areas ... Yes, I forgot about the KAF base, I wonder what happened to it now?
        1. 0
          31 July 2021 12: 07
          Yes, worth it. Where will she go but there are no pillows for a long time of course. Forgot about 49 km. Training tank and artillery regiments)
          1. 0
            31 July 2021 12: 17
            But do you remember all of them ... And what about the Ussuriysk island ... Now, as before, you can freely go there, or as half of the Chinese were given everything, the border zone?
  6. +3
    30 July 2021 11: 31
    And what about the soil and the relief in Kaliningrad? Abrams will go everywhere?
  7. 0
    30 July 2021 11: 36
    Hundreds of "Abrams" of the penultimate version near the borders of the Kaliningrad region can radically change the balance of power in the Baltic conventional theater of military operations
    thundering fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel, the Abrams will go on a furious campaign ..
    It is not possible to enhance the combat stability of the coastal units of the Baltic Fleet without re-equipping the advanced and more protected MBT T-90M Proryv-3 and T-14 Armata, equipped with KAZ Arena-M and Afghanit.
    ... "What are we going to do? Orthodox .." (c) "Where is the president looking?" (C)
    1. -1
      20 August 2021 13: 18
      Бггг .... Again "in Russia they fucked up mustache polymers" (C) TM
      How are you ANALITIKS 99% of whom are stuck in sneakers at the word summons to the military registration and enlistment office are already tired of their whimpers and ANALYSIS, all you need in one field is how to collect a couple of thousand tanks near Dubno in 1941 and force them to chop
  8. +6
    30 July 2021 11: 38

    Consequently, it is not possible to enhance the combat stability of the coastal units of the Baltic Fleet without re-equipping the advanced and more protected MBT T-90M "Proryv-3" and T-14 "Armata", equipped with KAZ "Arena-M" and "Afganit"
    ... And what, someone will dare to check who is better and how?
    Any task must be considered in a complex ... but in a complex it turns out that they will sit there and not stumble, nowhere and in any way.
    The world rests on one well-known postulate ... you cannot fight against a nuclear power ... this is suicide.
    1. 0
      30 July 2021 12: 29
      Quote: rocket757

      Consequently, it is not possible to enhance the combat stability of the coastal units of the Baltic Fleet without re-equipping the advanced and more protected MBT T-90M "Proryv-3" and T-14 "Armata", equipped with KAZ "Arena-M" and "Afganit"
      ... And what, someone will dare to check who is better and how?
      Any task must be considered in a complex ... but in a complex it turns out that they will sit there and not stumble, nowhere and in any way.
      The world rests on one well-known postulate ... you cannot fight against a nuclear power ... this is suicide.

      Well then, you can hand over everything except RVSN for scrap metal! How much money will be! And then Damantsev undertook: the thickness of the armor, some kind of sights ...
      1. +2
        30 July 2021 14: 01
        And the concept COMPLEX does not mean anything to you?
        1. -2
          30 July 2021 15: 41
          I don’t see anything about the complex in your comment: there is a statement “you cannot fight against a nuclear power ....” where is there about the complex?
          1. +4
            30 July 2021 17: 09
            I have already written so many times ... WE HAVE EVERYTHING IS COMPLEX and there is no sense in considering separately as a possible confrontation with the enemy / aggressor !!
            For example, we do not have lonely PANTSIRI on the steppes and villages like crazy from drones or behind them! Our air defense system has a whole COMPLEX of systems and types of weapons, from cannon anti-aircraft guns to air defense aviation, which can be supported by strike systems to destroy the enemy's infrastructure, ANYONE!
            This is COMPREHENSIVE.
            Do you want to compare individual samples of equipment with a similar one, the same for the enemy, at least a hundred portions ... but in conflicts, between serious armies, this DOESN'T HAPPEN.
            1. -4
              30 July 2021 22: 50
              All this is clear. Your comment, to which I replied, had nothing to do with what you are writing about now, this time. And second: if every component of any system is weaker and worse than that of the opposing system, the complex has not much chance
              1. +2
                31 July 2021 02: 02
                Once - who told you that the enemy has a better set of components?
                Two - when performing different types of tasks, the meaning of the various components is not equivalent.
                Three - however, the first second is enough.
          2. 0
            20 August 2021 13: 24
            What is allowed ? And didn't the Commander-in-Chief publicly warn probable opponents that the first targets would be the decision-making centers - in this case, for a start, the lands in Warsaw and Brussels, the positional areas of the air defense missile defense system, Poland's airfields, will be taken on the fly in readiness, then Washington will be taken on the fly in readiness, underground bunkers of the President of the United States, London, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Paris. Everything will be like in 1 - the ships of the US Navy-UK with proudly raised flags will enter the ports and bring to the Poles from which skin and hair get rid of from radiation sickness, toilet paper, diapers and drinking water
    2. -4
      30 July 2021 13: 04
      this is tested in practice (God forbid), and not to comrades with dough and dachas in the camp of a potential enemy ... think for yourself.
  9. +9
    30 July 2021 11: 49
    The beginning of the article disappointed, but by the end the author reached his level of listing various abbreviations and numerical designations.
  10. +9
    30 July 2021 12: 41
    I recognized Damantsev from the very first lines. What more i can say? A big fan of comparing numbers and making "paper" conclusions. I see that he puts a lot of work into his business. Correctly notes the strengthening (in the distant future, there are no tanks yet) of the Polish group against the army group in the KO. It is only from the time of WWII to this day that it is known that the battle "tank against tank" is an extremely rare thing. Even then, the T-34 with the T-4 in direct combat was extremely rare, and these are conceptually similar vehicles. Simply put, tanks do not use head-on against tanks. For this, it is full of other special anti-tank weapons, which cover the tank-hazardous direction. And tanks strike, if possible, bypassing anti-tank areas. This is where we come to the concept of our tanks and Western ones. At this stage, our tanks are used in the same way as during WWII, that is, this is the main strike force of the ground forces. But the same "Abrams", in fact, became a protected tank destroyer, that is, a defensive tank destroyer. A combat weight of over 70 tons does not allow him to move off public roads in the European theater of operations. The same Poles have "Leopards" and proudly demonstrate them at parades, but they go to the exercises in T-72 and the Polish version of it. As the practice of using "Abrams" in other armies, except for the American one, has shown, EVERYONE very quickly abandons their use, except for the Saudis. Few people can afford to operate them. Considering that the Poles have long been known as political and military losers, it is safe to say that their purchase of the Abrams is their step in the same direction.
    1. -2
      30 July 2021 13: 11
      Yuri, you described everything like that, I can't even decide on the grade. conclusions are "paper", while there is no war, then tanks become paper ... until there is direct contact and massive use of tanks and their means of destruction, conclusions will always be erroneous.
      1. +1
        20 August 2021 13: 33
        He wrote everything correctly to you - bridges in Russia have a capacity of 50 tons, each Srachka river will be a reason for the construction of a pontoon crossing, and everything is fun there - first the bridgehead must be captured, then the pontoon park must be imperceptibly adjusted + cover all this from the sky and only then after the infantry those Abrams will crawl forward to the next river Goryachka. So, as the Germans rolled on rollers in 1941, those Abrams obviously will not succeed. And yes, people wrote everything to you correctly - Abrams is essentially a mobile anti-tank bunker and for mobile operations behind enemy lines like our T-72, T-90 are not intended. Well, the scenario with a pontoon bridge can quickly change, the same river Srachka will be forded at night by T-72s and a little hooliganism in the rear - they will destroy warehouses with fuel and lubricants, bridges in the rear, and the same pontoon park will be caught on the march or simply burned a column with fuel trucks on the march
        1. 0
          26 August 2021 12: 39
          I fully agree with you. something like this, I wrote it wrong ... then the paper ones become tanks.
  11. +8
    30 July 2021 13: 47
    I once commented that the war with America will begin with the war of Alaska with Kamchatka, and the war between NATO and Russia will begin with the war between Poland and the Kaliningrad Region. Let's say these 250 Polish tanks capture the area. And then what? Will their rear remain in the form of Polish territory? Where can these widowers return? Only surrender to the compassionate Russian women.
    1. -3
      31 July 2021 08: 36
      So I ask, what difference does it make to Iskander how many tanks Poland has?
      All the same, you will have to bury at once and that's all ... if they only rock the boat.
  12. +4
    30 July 2021 13: 56
    And the Swiss, and the reaper and the juggler with the abbreviations Damantsev laughing
  13. +2
    30 July 2021 15: 22
    I didn’t finish reading the article. 2 paragraphs and as a verdict - I understand who the author is. Drowned in the jungle of numbers and terms.
  14. 0
    30 July 2021 16: 07
    If we compare in terms of security, then Abrams is only a T-90M competitor, even more protected. And the T-72B3 (M) is closer to the M1A1 version, even before the "HA" mod. But the difference is in electronics, everything is very bad here, for us, and in terms of shots, things are not very good either.
    In essence, the T-72B3 (M) was created in order to beat the faces of other T-72, T-64 and others like them.
    1. +2
      30 July 2021 19: 07
      You need to know the concept of BTV in order to operate with characteristics and numbers ...
    2. 0
      21 October 2021 07: 40
      If we compare in terms of security, then the very last abrams, if they are not attacked strictly in the forehead, are perfectly extinguished with ONE RPG-7 shot (yes, they are "extinguished" this is not "completely destroyed", but only "become incapable of further fulfillment of the combat mission But more is not required. The Abrams repair in the field is not stupidly provided. It is exclusively to drag into the techbox: D) ...
  15. +1
    30 July 2021 18: 08
    Oh, well, some kind of nonsense. You are ready, the author, start writing readings for reading in the subway.
    1. 0
      30 July 2021 23: 01
      Quote: ALSur
      Oh, well, some kind of nonsense.

      Well, not entirely nonsense. At least by the number of MBTs on that theater ...
      The author wanted to convey to good members of the forum that against 200 T-72 different models available to the Russian Federation in the KOR (without the possibility of increasing their number during the threatened period), Poland can put up against us at the borders of the Kaliningrad region 250 "Abrams", more than 200 " Leopards-2 "and more T-72s of our own construction (with the potential to increase the grouping by modern American tanks in service with the 2nd and 3rd MBRs. 2x58 = 106 MBTs located in Poland) ...
      1. 0
        20 August 2021 13: 39
        What will prevent the Aerospace Forces and the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia from turning Poland into a radioactive garbage dump about 10 minutes after the first clash. Do you think there are fools at the headquarters of the RF Armed Forces and do not keep under satellite observation and sight of the base of those Polish tanks, aircraft, air defense-missile defense systems? Have you ever seen it as a show - advancing to exercises with at least fifty tanks? The sight is epic, believe me, and that column is easier to see from the satellite than even the US Navy AUG
  16. 0
    30 July 2021 19: 06
    Evgeny has some kind of fad on BOPS. All of him sees Prokhorovka 2.0.
  17. -1
    30 July 2021 22: 44
    to supply mechanized brigades Army Grounds of Poland 250 the most modern main battle tanks М1А2 SEP v3 (М1А2С) "Abrams"
    и
    we are talking about the appearance near the Kaliningrad zone of restriction and prohibition of access and maneuver A2 / AD and the Suwalki corridor of order eight battalions of MBT "Abrams" in the penultimate modification M1A2 SEP v3

    It turns out 250/8 = 31 MBT in each TB? Something few tanks in Polish TB, even in Russian MRBR. / TBr. in TB - 41 MBT.
    If in the army of Poland the MBR. the staff are close to the MBR. For the UK and USA, then in every Polish MBR. one TB each, then it turns out as part of the Polish Army, there should be 8 MBR. (not counting those armed with Leopards 2).
    The "problem" is that there are 6 MBR in total in the army of Poland. and 3 BRKVBr.
    So the author was probably mistaken with the number of TB that will be rearmed on the "Abrams" ...
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 0
    31 July 2021 09: 05
    "T-72B3 arr. 2016 and even more advanced T-72B3M vehicles"

    There are no T-72B3Ms - but this is how the latest modification of the T-72B3 model of 2016 is sometimes called (1130 hp engine, new cannon, DZ Relikt on the sides of the hull, grilles on the sides of the turret and much more from previous modifications) ... What "even more advanced machines" is the author talking about?
    1. -2
      31 July 2021 11: 06
      Quote: Roman Efremov
      There are no T-72B3M

      Maybe you're right.
      Modifications:
      T-72B3 / "object 184M1" (2011) - a serial tank with an upgraded 2A46M5 gun, with a new set of equipment. Production has been conducted by Uralvagonzavod since 2011.
      T-72B3 mod. 2016 (2016) - modification of the T-72B3 with anti-cumulative lattice screens, a complex of modular dynamic protection "Relikt", a 2A46M-5-01 cannon, a V-92S2F engine, an automated gearbox, a digital display, a rear-view television camera, a 2E58 weapon stabilizer and a mechanic's observation device; driver of TVN-5.

      https://dfnc.ru/katalog-vooruzhenij/tanki/t-72b3/#:~:text=Модификации%3A%20Т-72Б3%20%2F%20%22объект%20184М1%22,ПО%20%22Уралвагонзавод%22%20с%202011%20г
  20. +4
    31 July 2021 11: 52
    Damantsev ......... Hold me seven ......
  21. +2
    31 July 2021 18: 40
    By the title it is easy to recognize the theorist-war-strategist Damantsev, even regardless of who the author is. I know in advance, without reading the article, that there will be a bunch of obscenities in English, a bunch of obscure technical nonsense and of course the conclusion is that we will all lose, we will be destroyed in two waves, we urgently need to rearm, everything for the front, everything for victory!
  22. +2
    31 July 2021 19: 52
    Hundreds of "Abrams" of the penultimate version near the borders of the Kaliningrad region can radically change the balance of power in the Baltic conventional theater of military operations

    And where is Armata, Armata!
  23. +1
    31 July 2021 22: 27
    Chief mustache disappeared (c)
    Apparently the author is not aware that tanks do not fight with tanks.
    But if we consider a spherical horse in a vacuum, then yes!
  24. 0
    1 August 2021 04: 47
    I started reading and was amazed at the author's skill.
    One paragraph - one sentence.
    Poor "Word", hike, I almost lost my mind, emphasizing ... :)
  25. 0
    1 August 2021 08: 58
    I would like comments from brotherly BelaRusi. Homeland of partisans and swamps, and their "cohabitation" with Abrams. :)
  26. 0
    1 August 2021 09: 05
    Quote: URAL72
    It's time to deliver 2-3 hundreds of Lancet kamikaze UAVs to Kaliningrad. Who knows, Iskander has a cluster warhead with armor-piercing homing elements? "Tornado" in my opinion has.

    Maybe we should go back to the idea of ​​the Su-25T (Su-39)?
  27. +1
    1 August 2021 14: 19
    Judging by the comments, I understand that many people think that what we have:
    The shot is weaker, the armor is weaker and there is no kaz, then this is good and correct and it should be so, there are no problems in general
  28. 0
    1 August 2021 14: 21
    There is a problem in the security of the T-72 and with our BPS .. I am surprised by the reaction of many readers - where does this look from a high point?
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. 0
    2 August 2021 17: 11
    Quote: Zum
    You need to know the concept of BTV in order to operate with characteristics and numbers ...

    Losers are not aware of this, they live in their own world laughing
  31. 0
    3 August 2021 13: 57
    Well ... Here the question is that Poland is taking them on credit again (as well as 32 recent F16 aircraft). The total cost is several times higher than the annual defense budget (which includes salaries).
    So the question is, will there be any shells at all? During this year, Polish tankmen fired a maximum of 50 shells. $ 16000 one shell for the Abrams. So another question about their threat, is there any ... Even if the United States puts shells for free, the crews have almost zero shooting experience ...
  32. +2
    3 August 2021 19: 17
    From the article it feels like tanks in battle will be measured against pisyunami, and there is no infantry, no aviation, no artillery nearby. Gentlemen-comrades ,,. less in WoT tanks do not fight like that.
    1. 0
      21 October 2021 07: 51
      Yes 16000 dollars one shot. And in order for him to go, he needs to be serviced at least once a week, and not like in Poland - they are stupid in the hangar. So the problem is contrived. And the excessive strengthening of the border zone, as practice shows, is absolutely pointless.
  33. 0
    3 August 2021 21: 49
    Yes, it is difficult to read such articles, it is rather a set of designations, a lot and nothing is clear, even for a specialist. The bottom line is that the Poles want to buy the Abrams. The tank is expensive, with low maneuverability in the conditions of the European theater of operations, extremely difficult logistics in Europe and not needed by Poland by definition. Poland is not an oil producing country to ride the Abrams. The border neighbors are not going to fight with Poland. She just doesn't need anyone. The disputed territories will be taken away from her anyway, the Germans have a wealth of experience. The Russian enclave is too tough for her, the pshek feel it at the level of genetics. Well, the country remains 404. Abrams against Banderlog? Fantastic.
  34. +1
    3 August 2021 22: 10
    There is a suggestion - an asymmetric answer. In the event of a conflict, fill the "Suwalki corridor" with water so that all the Abrams drown in the swamp. In case these swamps dry up.
  35. 0
    4 August 2021 11: 59
    I would say that one cannot consider machines 1: 1, in isolation from the tactics of application and doctrine in general. And the alignment is such that the probability of direct contact between M and T is rather small, although the Poles will be very impatient to use the "winged hussaria" on the ground, because first of all, the UAV component will be involved. And the examples of Idlib and Karabakh speak for themselves. In addition, let's not forget little Lithuania, the most saturated ATGM Spike country in NATO.

    Based on the defense of the enclave, the T will have an advantage in providing covert access to positions and proper camouflage, including the setting of jammers and veils. What is another plus vs. NATO SV - the presence of a larger number of inexpensive and mobile anti-tank complexes, such as any Kornet-D, Chrysanthemum, Shturomov and Terminators, which can be used to reinforce tank companies and battalions. There are opportunities for the early initiation of the KAZ, which somewhat evens the odds.
  36. 0
    5 August 2021 06: 47
    In my humble opinion, the creators of tanks have always had two main paths of development: the speed and maneuver of the tank on the battlefield, and the increase in the mass of the tank by increasing the armor. And as I understand it, the T-72 and T-90 proved to be excellent in Syria, which cannot be said about the Abrams in Iraq or the Saudis in Yemen. The Americans turned the tank into a bunker on the battlefield, with powerful frontal armor and weak sides and stern. And another question is how to protect KAZ from 3-4 simultaneously fired RPG-7 grenades.
  37. 0
    9 August 2021 11: 06
    And so we have it everywhere. Hurray-patriots (when they realized that the new ones, at least T90, are not shining) together yelled that they say they are not worse for sure, or even better - the old, time-tested, run-in T72. The crumpled ones became cheers-patriots, when rotten, rotten abrams appeared near the irreplaceable ones, they quieted down ...

    Yes Yes. The Soviet backlog is ending, rubber overshoes are running out, they wear out into holes. And mold, by definition, cannot create anything, it only parasitizes. The only achievement - a victory in the Second World War - and that was won with rubber galoshes. So that...
  38. +1
    14 August 2021 17: 59
    the author - with all due respect to you / not respect - the purchase of these tanks by the Poles is still a word on the water. Yes, the Americans would be happy to sell this shit (they have long had the concept of moving away from heavy tanks to wheeled vehicles), but the Poles, if you don’t know, have their own Wilk program for the acquisition of promising tanks with the participation of the Polish industry. So - if the Poles find themselves and buy this shit, then the program will have to be cut or even reduced to the root.
    Moreover, there will be no MORE tanks in Poland, the Abrams still want to replace the old T-72 tanks from the USSR, so to say that the striking power of the Polish tank forces will increase significantly - well, that's it))
    And further - for the Polish army, the adoption of the M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams tank will become a very serious technical and logistical challenge, since not only will it lead to the appearance of a third fundamentally new type of tank in service (after the T-72M1 / PT-91 and Leopard 2), but also having a large combat weight (more than 72 tons) and significant technical differences from the two currently operated types (the use of the "imperial" system of measures instead of the metric one in the design of the Abrams tank, the use of a gas turbine engine, and with increased fuel consumption, etc.) ... In fact, as noted by Polish sources, in order to operate the Abrams tanks and provide the units equipped with them, the Polish armed forces will have to build a separate additional logistical support and supply system (up to the construction of increased fuel storage facilities).
    Those decisions from all sides are a failure and even expensive. )
  39. 0
    22 August 2021 20: 35
    sorry, one simple question. What is the monthly production of Abrams in the USA? or how long will it take for the American military-industrial complex to fulfill this order (250 main tanks)?
  40. 0
    26 September 2021 18: 08
    it is not entirely clear what the author is generally talking about.

    I would like to know in what situations the 11th Army Corps of the Baltic Fleet has the opportunity to clash with the tank units of the ground forces of the alleged enemy?

    This army corps has a very specifically outlined range of tasks, which primarily include the destruction of the amphibious assault forces of a potential enemy.

    And I have little idea of ​​a situation in which the Abrams MBT will be used in the amphibious assault, which is known to be dealt with by the US Marine corp.

    Let me remind you that in the organizational structure of the US Marine corp. there is no longer a tank battalion.

    “For a long time, the historic 1st Armored Battalion was the pride of the US Marine Corps. However, the unforgiving time turned out to be merciless to this military unit. Commandant General of the Marine Corps David Berger began to restructure the corps. The closure of the Twentine Palms center in California followed. and the disbandment of the last active Marine armored battalion. "

    More details here: https://topwar.ru/183372-korpus-morskoj-pehoty-ssha-rasformiroval-svoj-poslednij-tankovyj-batalon.html


    And with the tank units and formations of the ground forces of the potential enemy, units and formations of the ground forces will be dealt with. They have everything they need for this. And the forces and means, if it is not enough, the GPs will arrive.

    There is no need to reinvent square wheel bicycles.
  41. 0
    5 October 2021 16: 58
    Colleagues, but there is no feeling that the author deliberately writes articles "on the verge of a foul", carefully reads the comments of experts, rewrites them and sends similar "analytics" to the publications of our worst "partners". Rewrites their comments, so he lives.
  42. 0
    10 October 2021 17: 58
    Sketch supermagnets, theirs will stick together like kazyavki.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"