T-72B vs M1A2 "Abrams"

To date, there are many research articles aimed at comparing the latest domestic tanks with foreign cars. At the same time, the T-90A, as a rule, acts on our side, which is less often not adopted by the T-80UM1 Bars. In 99% of cases, the "long-suffering" Abrams or the German tank Leopard-2 acts as a potential opponent. Moreover, in all these sources, tanks are compared only in relation to each other, although the tasks of the modern main battle tank are much more than the banal destruction of their own kind. And if Abrams is chosen as an opponent, which, although not the best tank in the world, but it is he who is the main potential enemy, then this is basically true. This tank is mass-produced, delivered to NATO troops and has long been fighting in various parts of the globe. But is it right on our part to compare him with the T-90A? Partly true, but only partly. As an indicator of the country's technological power, its prestige from the ability to create modern main battle tanks, which are in no way inferior, and often surpass Western vehicles, this comparison seems to be quite appropriate. But on the other hand, if it happened that the case with the “Abrams” and “Leopards-2” would have to not only ride in parades and participate in international exhibitions, but what is really in the hangars, and what is really in service with the Russian army today. Has the respected reader ever seen at least one T-90A or T-80U in newsreel footage during Chechen campaigns? Or maybe during the five-day war with Georgia in August 2008 of the year? Your humble servant, for example, did not see. Despite optimistic statements by the country's leadership, the proportion of modern T-90 series tanks in the army continues to be negligible. According to some reports, we now have T-90 of all models around 300 units, which of course is extremely small. The T-80UM1 “Bars” tank was not adopted at all and there is no point in comparing it with any foreign tank. In addition to the new T-90 series tanks and a number of T-80Us, the Russian army today uses T-62М, T-72AB, T-72B tanks and its upgraded version of the T-72BM. There are also quite a few T-80BV tanks. Among them, the most massive is the tank T-72B. Here it is almost everywhere. It is actively used in all wars and conflicts, and in general this tank is called “in full view”. It is quite logical to assume that it is on T-72B that it is necessary, if something happens, to fight with the Abrams. In this article we will try to find out how good our good old T-72B is compared to the widespread modification of the American Abrams М1А2 tank.

The comparison will not only be against each other, although this is of course very important, but in general according to the typical combat situations in which a modern tank may find itself. To start the characteristics of both machines:

T-72B	М1А2 "Abrams"
Total information: Year of adoption: 1985-th. Length - 9530mm. Width - 3460mm. Height - 2226mm. Weight - 44,5t. Crew - Xnumx. Maximum speed - 60km / hr. Power reserve - 700km (with additional tanks). Clearance - 470mm. Habitability - seats with backs and stove. Power supply - 18,9.l./t.	Total information: Year of adoption: 1994-th. Length - 9766mm. Width - 3653mm. Height - 2375mm. Weight - 62,1t. Crew - Xnumx. Maximum speed - 66km / hr. Power reserve - 460km. Clearance - 457mm. Habitability - seats with backs and stove. Power supply - 24,2.l./t.
Armament: - 125mm / 51 smooth-bore gun launcher 2A46M + bipolar stabilizer 2E42-1 "Jasmine" + automatic loader I am on 22 shot. Artillery shells: BOPS¹ ZBM-44 - to defeat point armored targets. KS² ZBK-29M - to defeat armored targets. OFS³ ZOF-26 - to defeat manpower and areal "soft" targets. Guided missiles: Ur4 9М119 precision weapon for defeat point ground and air targets at a long distance. Total ammunition 45 artillery shells and guided missiles. - 7,62mm machine gun Fct paired with a gun. - 12,7mm machine gun NSWT in the cliff anti-aircraft installation above the commander's hatch.	Armament: - 120mm / 44 smooth-bore gun M256 + bipolar electro-hydraulic stabilizer. Artillery shells: BOPS М829А2 - to defeat point armored targets. КС M830 - to defeat armored targets. PEC5 М830А1 - to defeat hidden manpower. OS6 M1028 - to defeat manpower. Guided missiles are missing. Total ammunition 42 artillery shell. - 7,62mm machine gun M240 paired with a gun. - 7,62mm machine gun M240 in the installation above the loader hatch. - 12,7mm machine gun M2 in installation over the hatch commander.
Fire control system: usual 1A40-1 - tank digital ballistic computer TBV. - DVO7+ LD8 aim TPD-K1 gunner. Increase 8h. - iK9 aim TPN-3-49 gunner. Increase 5,5h. - combined sight-device DVO+iK1K13-49 gunner. Increase 8h by day and 5,5h at night. - combined instrument DVO+iKTKN-3М commander. Increase 5h by day and 4,2h at night. - 4 periscope instruments in the commander's cupola. - radio station P-173.   This system provides target detection and aimed shooting from the BOPS distance to a distance. 4km by day and 1,2km at night, other types of shells 5km by day and 1,2km at night. Launch missiles on 5km in the afternoon and before 1,2km at night from a place.	Fire control system: Automated with input sensor system. - tank digital ballistic computer TBV. - combined DVO+ LD +Ti10 aim GPS[/B]gunner (the commander has a channel from him). Increase 9,5h by day and 9,8h at night. - DVOaim M920 gunner. Increase 8h. - combined DVO+Tiappliance CITV  the commander. - 8 periscope instruments in the commander's cupola. - tank information and control system TIUS Fbcb2 the commander. - radio station SINCGARSthe commander.   This system provides target detection and sighting.13 shooting from a course of all types of shells at a distance of 5km in the afternoon and before 3km at night.
Security: - hull forehead: combined armor + semi-active armor + Contact-1 NDZ. - the front of the tower: combined armor + semi-active armor + NDZ "Contact-1". - hull board: monolithic armor + rubber-fabric screen + Contact-1 NDZ. - turret: combined armor + NDZ "Contact-1" in front and solid armor in the back. - body feed: monolithic armor. - feed tower: monolithic armor. - upper part: combined armor + semi-active armor + NDZ "Contact-1" from the front to the middle and monolithic armor from the middle to the stern. - anti-nuclear protection GROOVE. - smoke screen, smoke grenade launchers 902B "Cloud".	Security: - hull forehead: combined armor. - The forehead of the tower: combined armor. - hull board: spaced monolithic armor. - Board turret: combined armor in front and solid armor in the back. - body feed: monolithic armor. - feed tower: monolithic armor. - top: monolithic armor along the entire length. - anti-nuclear protection GROOVE. - smoke screen, smoke grenade launchers.
Mobility: - multi-fuel diesel engine V12   B-46-1 power 840l.s - onboard mechanical 7 + 1-speed gearboxes OPF. - individual torsion suspension 6 road wheels on board. 3 supporting the rink. Caterpillar with RMSH.	Mobility: - gas turbine engine AGT-1500 power 1500l.s - automatic, hydromechanical transmission X-1100-3B. - auxiliary power unit APU power 6,8l.s - individual torsion suspension 7 road wheels on board. Caterpillar with RMSH.

  The table shows that although our T-72B and older than the opponent for whole 9 years, its combat and technical characteristics are still at a high enough level and allow in some moments to argue with the American and even surpass it in some places. But first things first:

Firepower.

  In order to hit and destroy the enemy, the tank must first detect it. In a tank crew, this task falls on the commander, who has the necessary instrumentation for this purpose. After detecting the target, the commander gives target designation to the gunner, who is already aiming and shooting. The commander at this time is busy searching for other targets. This principle is known as the hunter-shooter. There is also a mode of simultaneous search for a target by a tank commander and a gunner. The latter uses its sights for this purpose. During the day, both tanks are almost equal, although the advantage of the CITV-stabilized in two planes before the TKN-3M combined device of the T-72B tank is obvious. But still, both tanks can detect each other at any distance. Problems begin at night. The infrared channel of the command device TKN-3М provides the T-72B with the detection of a “tank” target at night at a distance of no more than 500m. The thermal imaging channel of the commander's CITV tank М1А2 will be able to detect our T-72B from a distance 3000м. At the same amount at night, the gunner "Abrams" sees through the combined GPS sight. Infrared active-passive night sight TPL-3-49 and sight-pointing device UR 1K13-49 gunner T-72B see in active mode a maximum of 1200-1300. This is 2,5 times more than the TKN-3М commander's device, which is at least strange (thus, the principle of "hunter-gunner" in the T-72B tank is very doubtful at night). However, this is all the same in 2-3 times less than M1A2 sees at night, which is very, very dangerous for T-72B. The Abrams commander also has a channel from the gunner’s GPS sight, can see through it and, if necessary, can fire a cannon instead of a gunner (for example, if that gun goes down). The commander of the T-72B is deprived of this opportunity. In addition, the Abrams commander sees the entire tactical situation and technical parameters on the FBCB2 TIUS color screen, which allows him to navigate better than the commander T-72B, which has only voice information from the P-173 radio station.

  After the goal is found the task of the gunner accurately hit her. During the day due to the missile part of the T-72B has an advantage, but only at the greatest distances. KUV 9K120 "Svir" has a special high-precision laser guidance system through the 1K13-49 device and allows you to accurately get a guided missile almost into a loophole from a distance to 5000m. Moreover, even maneuvering the target will not save it from the guided missile it is targeting. This allows the T-72B to effectively fire at not only ground targets, but also airborne ones (military helicopters that are very dangerous for a tank, for example). Thus, the KUV 9K120 "Svir" T-72B performs the functions of an air defense tank in one. Abrams does not have such capabilities. At the same time, in the artillery part of the OMS T-72B, even in the daytime it is significantly inferior to the М1А2. Ballistic corrector¹¹ of the TPD-K1 laser sight-rangefinder works out the correction for the type of ammunition and the distance to the target, measured by the laser rangefinder. After that, the digital ballistic computer calculates the correction for the flanking speed of the target and projects it into the eyepiece of the sight. In order for the TPD-K1 to work out the correction for the flank speed of the target, the gunner must manually enter it into the sight. Naturally, no one will do this in an intense battle. The option is useful only in a long-range shooting situation, when the target moves at a uniform speed and does not see the tank. Then the hitting accuracy will be significantly higher. Correction for atmospheric conditions in the T-72B is not being worked out. The aiming range of artillery shells is a rather vague thing, but the effective range of fire at point targets with artillery shells for the T-72B is approximately 2000-2500m. The automated control system "Abrams" is considered one of the best in the world and takes into account all possible data: type of ammunition, range, wind, pressure, charge and air temperature, barrel bore bending, its misalignment with the sight, etc. Effective firing range of about 2500-3000m. At night, the Abrams has full advantage as it sees two to three times farther than the T-72B. Accordingly, he will shoot effectively at night two to three times further. Guided missile weapons T-72B will not help here for obvious reasons. 

  After precise guidance has been reached, the actual firepower of the tank comes into play. Both tanks are equipped with similar in capabilities, but completely different in design guns. The Abrams is equipped with the German 120mm unitary-loading smooth-bore gun, which is manufactured in the US under license and is called the M256. The gun has a relatively short barrel length 44 caliber with quick-release pipe (liner), but at the same time quite thick walls and is designed for a very large internal pressure. The T-72B is equipped with a 125mm 2А46М smooth-bore cannon for separate-sleeve loading. This gun is designed for lower pressure compared to the M256, but it also has a larger caliber, a much longer barrel in the 51 caliber and a larger volume of charging chamber. As a result, the X-NUMXmm gun T-125B is almost a ton lighter than the 72mm gun MXNXX120, but at the same time it is not inferior and even slightly surpasses it in the muzzle energy: 1MJ in 2mm gun 93,16-X125M against 2MJ in XNMXMX True to the 125mm guns T-72B there are drawbacks. Due to its lighter design compared to the 120mm M256, the gun of a domestic tank is more susceptible to bending and vibration when fired, which naturally adversely affects the accuracy. In addition, the 2А46М has almost twice the smaller resource in 450 shots against 700 in the 120mm gun of an American tank. The latter, however, is not a big problem for a lined gun, where replacing the inner liner is a matter of several tens of minutes. The undoubted advantage of the 125mm gun T-72B in the presence of the automatic loader (AZ). This allows the gunner to select and charge the desired type of ammunition with one light touch of the button on the dashboard. AZ allows you to maintain the same rate of fire in 8 shots per minute, regardless of flow time, combat conditions, specific situation, etc. In the old manner, the Abrams cannon is charged manually by a loader, which, although it can charge it for some time at the same speed as the AZ of the T-72B, is otherwise a fault. At first, this greatly increased the size of the tower, which worsened its security and increased vulnerability. Because of the same gunner and the commander had to be placed together in the right side of the tower, having retracted one single hatch for two. When firing, the loader may become banal tired and can no longer load the gun so quickly. Wounding or poisoning the loader will generally leave a cannon without projectiles. In addition, at the moment when the projectile is in the hands of the loader, there is a sharp bump, getting into the tank or even simply turning the turret to the side can provoke the projectile falling out of his hands (such cases are not uncommon). What it can turn into, I think, there is no need to explain. Who knows, because of this, in the Abrams ammunition package there is still no high-explosive fragmentation projectile. T-72B is devoid of all these shortcomings. In addition, after the shot, the shot pan in the T-72B is ejected through the aft turret of the turret, which provides sufficient fresh air inside the tank. In Abrams everything stays inside.  

  If the characteristics of the guns differ slightly, the equipment of both tanks with ammunition and their capabilities differ quite significantly. The main type of ammunition for hitting targets of the type “tank” for both tanks are armored-piercing pierced sabots with a separating pan after the shot. The best of them for the 125mm gun 2А46 tank T-72B is considered to be ZBM-44 "Mango". This projectile has a tungsten core and is fired at an initial speed of 1715m / s, which provides it with a direct shot at the tank type 2120m. The equivalent armor penetration of this projectile is normally rated as 500-550mm homogeneous armor from a distance 2000m and around 600mm when fired at close range. This is enough to defeat the first modifications of the Abrams М1 and М1А1 to any place, but apparently not enough to defeat the М1А2 tank in the most powerfully protected frontal zones. М1А2 this projectile is hit in the board, in the stern and in the weakened frontal projection zones, which in М1А2 make up about 40% of the frontal projection. The 9M119 guided missile is a high-precision weapon used to hit point targets at maximum distances, including airborne ones. A missile pierces roughly 750mm armor regardless of distance. The 9М119 missile of the М1А2 tank is, in principle, possible in any place, but in the forehead it is not guaranteed. It is also very common in the ammunition of the T-72B tank cumulative shells such as ZBK-18M or ZBK-29M. The shells have armor penetration 550mm and 700mm respectively. The latter have a chance to hit the M1А2 including in the weakened zone of the frontal projection. It is worth noting that now there are more powerful domestic XPSUM caliber BOPS, which have better characteristics and can fight with frontal armor of almost any Western tanks. These include the ZBM-44M and the ZBM-48 "Lead". However, for 125mm guns 2А46М tank T-72B such ammunition is not available. It is necessary to replace the gun with more powerful models 125mm smoothbore guns 2А46М4, 2А46М5 or 2А82. The main ammunition for the 120mm guns М256 tank М1А2 is a fairly perfect 120mm BOPS М829А2. The shell has a depleted uranium core and a separating pallet. The 44's M256 caliber gun fires this projectile with an initial speed of 1630m / s. Direct shot range over 2000. Penetration around 700mm from a distance of 2000, which theoretically provides for the defeat of T-72B from any place. There is also a cumulative M830 projectile, but its characteristics roughly correspond to our old ZBK-18M. In the forehead with such a projectile T-72B does not break through anywhere. The defeat of this ammunition T-72B having a powerful anti-cumulative protection, is possible only in the stern and possibly in the board, but in the board is not guaranteed. In the US, there are more powerful projectiles such as M829А3, but their deliveries have just begun and they are intended primarily for more powerful 120mm guns with barrel lengths in 55 calibers. These guns are installed on the M1А2SEP tanks, the number of which, in service with the US Army, is even lower than that of the T-80U and T-90 / T-90А tanks in service with the Russian army. While the T-72B artillery unit is clearly inferior to the M1A2 in terms of "anti-tank" capabilities, in terms of its anti-personnel capabilities, as well as in destructive power, with the defeat of "soft", areal targets (typical, urban multi-storey building, bunker, the center for fire safety, etc.) T-72B has a significant advantage. High-explosive fragmentation projectiles of the type ZOF-26 possess simply gigantic destructive power. If necessary, T-72B can be used as an ACS and firing from closed positions using the side level. In this case, the damage from the fall of one projectile will be comparable to the ACS 2C1 "Carnation". The 9М119 rocket can accurately hit the embrasure or window from a distance of 5km. “Fragile grenades” of type М830А1 and М1028 of М1А2 tank are capable of striking the enemy's living force, the first of which is behind obstacles, but they are incapable of causing any significant damage.

General conclusion: Of course, due to much more modern electronics, perfect control system, powerful BOPS, the M1A2 "Abrams" tank has an advantage over the T-72B in most various situations of tank combat. The superiority of the Abrams is especially strong at night. The T-72B does not give an unambiguous advantage, even the presence of missiles, since it is not always possible to use missiles and not everywhere they are more profitable than classical artillery shells. But the advantage of M1A2 takes place only in classic tank battles like Prokhorovka. It seems that the developers of the vehicle, trying to ensure the superiority of the M1A2 over Soviet tanks, somehow forgot that the tank is not an ATGM and it must be able to fight a wide variety of targets on the battlefield, and not just tanks. М1А2 "Abrams" can only fight well against enemy tanks. The armament of the T-72B is incomparably more versatile and diverse. Need to hit an enemy tank? BOPS, UR and KS to choose from. It all depends on the distance. Need to hit a window from 5 kilometers or shoot down a helicopter? No question - URs are ready to do it with ease. Do you need to "blow up" a house or a bunker where the enemy has settled? Powerful OFS at service. Infantry fighting? The same OFSs and machine guns. For firing at helicopters, you can use an anti-aircraft gun with a 12,7mm NSVT machine gun. M1A2 has nothing of the kind. As artillery fire support, air defense, anti-personnel weapons, it is significantly inferior to the T-72B. Two machine guns on the Abrams turret are installed on conventional machines and are more intended for firing at ground targets. Although it is possible to shoot them at air targets, it is inconvenient and limited. This issue is more related to the active defense (protection) of the tank from enemy air attack. The armament of the T-72B is more profitable in the conditions in which both tanks still have to actually fight.

Security, survivability, crew survival.

  In this area, the national tank school has always traditionally occupied a leading position, although American propaganda made every effort to create the myth about the invulnerability of Abrams-type tanks and, naturally, about the vulnerability of domestic-developed tanks. The propaganda statements that the author of these lines often come to hear, for example, on the Discovery Channel, sometimes reach the point of absurdity. For example, the assessment of the T-55 tank, which was the best in its time, is approximately the following: “they needed to be afraid only because there were a lot of them,” “Soviet hard worker T-55,” etc. And all this only on the grounds that the old Iraqi X-NUMX T-55s could not effectively counter the newest main battle tanks of the anti-Iraq coalition in 50-th year! And this despite the fact that they were on a priori immeasurably weaker side! Against the background of victories over the same old T-1991 and the first T-55M of many years ago, the Abrams is quite seriously considered the “most reliable”, “the most deadly” and so on, always with the prefix “the very-best”. But let's try to figure it out. For the beginnings, we will analyze the threats that are relevant to a modern tank in a modern battle. Kinetic ammunition against armored vehicles currently use, in fact, only the tanks themselves, and already almost extinct towed anti-tank guns. Also, BOPS are used in small-caliber automatic guns of infantry fighting vehicles, attack aircraft and helicopters, but these guns can hit a modern tank only in the most vulnerable places (in the roof, in the stern) and from a minimum distance. But the same tanks, self-propelled guns and anti-tank guns use cumulative projectiles and SD. Also missiles with a cumulative warhead shoot attack helicopters, attack aircraft. Cumulative ammunition today shooting all types of anti-tank missile systems, as well as RPG launchers. The number of the latter currently exceeds many times the number of tanks or attack aircraft with classical artillery guns. Based on this, the conclusion suggests itself that approximately 72% of modern anti-tank weapons have cumulative warhead. To the credit of the creators of T-72B, it should be said that they promptly made a correct assessment of these threats in modern combat and developed adequate means of protection for T-72B. Such means include the Kontakt-1 hinged dynamic protection complex, which greatly improves the protection of the tank against cumulative ammunition. Do not forget the designers and about sabot projectiles. Tank T-72B at one time was considered one of the most powerfully protected tanks in the world. This was achieved through the following technical solutions:

• Six-layer combined armor in the frontal part of the hull and turret of a very large thickness (the Soviet version of the English armor "Chobham"). It is a pack of heterogeneous materials. Including non-metallic.
• A special package of semi-active armor in the frontal part of the hull and turret designed to protect against cumulative ammunition. It is made in the form of plates that are shifted upon impact and break the cumulative jet or knock the BOPS core to the side.
• Rubber cloth side screens on the body that initiate the detonation of cumulative ammunition prior to his meeting with the main armor.
• Special shape of the body. The frontal parts of the hull are located at large angles of inclination, which increases the likelihood of ricochet of shells falling into them and increases the thickness of the armor normalized to normal. In addition, the armor located in a similar way simultaneously provides powerful protection to the front upper hemisphere of the tank making it invulnerable from small-caliber automatic aviation guns. The tower is relatively small and has a special shape. The vulnerable aft part is, as it were, covered by a powerfully protected front part within the course angles of ± 30º.
• Complex hinged dynamic protection "Contact-1" consisting of 227 containers designed to remove the damaging effects of the cumulative jet. They cover the entire forehead of the tank, the entire top half of the tower. The sides are covered with DZ elements to the middle of the MTO, i.e. almost completely.

 

The equivalent level of frontal projection of the tank is estimated to be approximately 550-600mm from kinetic ammunition and about 850mm-900mm from cumulative ammunition. Dimensions of the frontal armor of the tower (physical thickness) within 50-80cm. The weakened zone in the area of ​​the gun mask is approximately 15% of the frontal projection of the tank. The side of the T-72B turret has an equivalent stability of the order of 450mm from kinetic and 650-700mm from cumulative ammunition. The hull board withstands hits from small-caliber automatic guns of infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters, as well as holds most common cumulative ammunition from RPGs. Vulnerable places are the hull and tower feeds, as well as the rear upper hemisphere. Protection of these zones is provided only from bullets of large-caliber machine guns. The entire tank ammunition is located under the polycom of the combat compartment in the AZ and in the shelving tanks. In the case of penetration of tank armor, which is most likely through the aft part of the turret or from an explosion under the bottom of the machine, the ammunition load can be detonated. In this case, the turret of the tank tears off, and the crew instantly dies. As for the crew, the commander and the gunner are in the best position. They each have their own hatches above their heads, through which they can quickly leave a wrecked tank. In the worst position, the driver. In some positions of the gun, he can not leave the car through his hatch, which is also clearly small. As an alternative exit route, an emergency hatch in the bottom of the hull or one of the two hatches in the tower can be used, but the mechanics need a considerable amount of time to leave the tank through them.

 

Let's move on to M1A2. American designers, we must pay tribute to them, put a lot of effort into making this tank as small and lightweight as possible. Indeed, "Abrams" turned out to be much smaller than earlier American tanks such as M48 / 60, T29, T34 and M103. At the same time, its dimensions are still very impressive. This is primarily due to the crew of four (with the loader) and the placement of the main part of the ammo in the aft niche of the tank. The length of the tank hull exceeds that of the T-72B by 1,5 meters, and the area of ​​the main visual mass of the Abrams side projection due to the long turret is 72 times more than that of the T-XNUMXB. It is generally a non-trivial task to securely book such a "bus" and American designers did their best to solve it. Within the maximum possible mass, naturally. In principle, they did not come up with anything new. If the armor of heavy tanks of a similar mass in the first post-war years was more or less uniform in a circle, then in the era of today's super-powerful ammunition this option no longer works. The armor of the Abrams tank is, as it were, tied to three elements of the frontal part: the lower frontal plate and the cheekbones of the frontal part of the turret. Everything else either has a relatively low level of protection, or is completely left without protection. This protection principle is known in navy since the end of the 19th century and is called "all or nothing". According to this scheme, the vital parts of the ship (VHF) were covered with the thickest armor possible. Everything else remained practically unprotected. The thing is that, due to the overall dimensions and the density of the layout, the "ship" principle of booking for a tank is completely unacceptable. The tank has a relatively small size and dense layout, and therefore it has vital parts everywhere. That is, the penetration of armor almost anywhere in the tank is almost guaranteed to lead to its destruction or, at least, failure. As a result, the M1A2 Abrams tank, despite the powerful protection of the frontal projection from horizontally flying ammunition, cannot be called well protected. To reduce the mass of armor, the body of the tank has a powerful multi-layer "Chobham" armor, but only the lower front plate. The upper frontal sheet is located at a very steep angle to the vertical, but very thin. The advantage of this arrangement is that it weighs less. The downside is that the upper front hemisphere is not protected from aircraft ammunition. Unlike the T-72B tank in which only the stern is vulnerable to attacks from the air, the Abrams is absolutely permeable to them from bow to stern. The turret has composite armor for the frontal part and sides up to the aft niche. Weakened zones in the form of a thin VLD, a cannon mask and a huge "lure" in the form of a gap between the turret and the hull reach approximately 40% of the frontal part of the hull. The tank has no dynamic protection. The equivalent level of projectile resistance of the M1A2 frontal part is estimated at 770mm against kinetic ammunition. As for the anti-cumulative resistance, there is a lot of data on this subject that differ significantly from each other. The most likely value is ~ 850-900mm. In terms of protection against BOPS, the frontal armor of the M1A2 is significantly superior to the T-72B, although it is inferior to the latest domestic and some foreign main battle tanks. As already mentioned in the "firepower" section, either domestic BOPSs of the latest generation, which cannot be used in the old 125mm T-72B cannon, or tank and anti-tank guided missiles with a cumulative warhead can hit such armor. Such as KUVT 9K120 "Svir", 9K119 "Reflex", ATGM 9K135 "Kornet", 9K111 "Konkurs", etc.

 

 

 By the way, judging by the man on the tower dressed in a protective suit, it can be assumed that it is not even M1A2, but the more sophisticated M1A2SEP whose armor is reinforced with inserts from uranium plates. The armor of the turret to the stern niche is equivalent to approximately 400mm. Everything else is welded from sheets of armor steel 125mm, 65mm, 60mm, 50mm, 45mm, 32,5mm, 30mm, 25mm, 20mm and 12,5mm thick. The hull board in the front part has an exploded monolithic reservation 65mm screen + 30mm case. In the MTO area, the armor board is somewhat weaker. The upper hemisphere of the tank is freely hit by the armor-piercing 25-30mm projectiles of aircraft cannons for the entire length of the tank. The side of the tank is affected from almost all grenade launchers, including the old RPG-7, but not guaranteed. Practically guaranteed to the stern of the side of the tower and the hull and in the very stern of the tower and hull. In addition, shelling of the Ukrainian Armed Forces gives good results.¹² and the grilles of the engine air ducts from large-caliber machine guns up to the ignition of the power plant and the complete destruction of the tank. The very large length and height of the tank with a massive turret also contributes to this. Thus, in terms of the level of protection against infantry anti-tank weapons of close combat, the strikes of which in urban combat conditions fall precisely on the most vulnerable parts of the tank - the stern, sides, roof, the M1A2 tank is frankly weak. These vulnerabilities and their area in the M1A2 tank are immeasurably larger than that of the T-72B, the only really vulnerable spots of which are the narrow zone in the rear of the relatively small tower, the rear of the hull and the roof of the MTO. The chances of an M1A2 tank to survive in an intense urban battle with an experienced enemy are about the same as that of a 20-ton BMP i.e. practically close to zero. T-72B in this respect, although not an invulnerable ideal (such have not yet been invented), but, nevertheless, head and shoulders above the "Abrams". This is the price of an all-or-nothing booking scheme in an attempt to securely book at least the forehead of a 62,1-ton tank the size of a bus. The huge losses of the Abrams tanks in rather innocuous situations in Iraq forced the American military to look for a way out of this situation and still install dynamic protection on the latest Abrams models like the T-72B.

 However, if everything is quite sour with the armor of the M1А2, then the survival of the crew in the event of a tank defeat is better. Much of the ammunition from 36 shells is located in the aft niche of the turret and is separated from the BO by an armored partition. Above them there are special expelling panels, which, in the event of a detonation of shells, fly out and all the energy of the explosion goes up. Of course, the tank in this case can not be restored, but the crew has a chance to stay alive. To do this, two conditions must be met: at the time of the explosion, the partition must be closed and the explosion itself must be normal. If the shells detonate all at the same time (a kind of volumetric explosion), then no expelling panels would naturally not help the Abrams crew. The shots of unitary charging with a charge in a metal sleeve themselves explode worse than the charges in a combustible sleeve in T-72B. The advantage of this arrangement is that for adopting new and longer projectiles from an American tank, you only need to lengthen the feed niche, which is much simpler than redoing the T-72B automatic loader from a carousel just to a cassette-floor. The remaining 6 shells from the Abrams are in the fighting compartment along with the crew. It is necessary to blaze at least one and the situation will repeat that on the T-72B in case of fire ammunition:

However, even here the Abrams' ammunition protection is better - these shells are located in special armored containers, that is, they have local protection. To detonate them, it is necessary not only to pierce the tank, but to hit them directly. For greater reliability, at the beginning of the battle, American tankers must first of all use exactly those shells that are with them in the tank's BO. Additional ammunition for the T-72B tank, which does not fit in the AZ, is located in the so-called storage tanks. These are fuel tanks with recesses into which projectiles and charges are inserted. That is, the additional ammunition load of the T-72B tank is located in a shirt made of gasoline or diesel fuel! Naturally, there is no need to talk about any "local protection". Of the Abrams crew, the loader is in the best position - there is a lot of space and a hatch overhead. The commander is worse. There is also a hatch above your head, but in an emergency, the panic-stricken gunner, who sits in front and below, can prevent you from getting out. The driver-mechanic has the third place - although there is a separate hatch, it is inconvenient to get out through it - the turret and the cannon interfere with this, and the position of the driver reclining with "friends" in the form of fuel tanks on the sides does not contribute to this. The worst of all is the gunner. He sits deep below and does not have his own hatch over his head. I must get out through the commander's hatch, having previously released the latter, which may simply not be enough for the seconds that remain with the crew in the event of a fire. Nevertheless, it is worth recognizing that if in terms of protection the old T-72B is really even better than the more modern M1A2, then in terms of crew survival in the event of a vehicle being hit, our T-72B has already lagged behind by a whole generation. This is due to the ammunition in the fuel tanks hugging the crew. And it is for this, and not for poor armor, that domestic tanks are now being severely criticized. As for the T-72B itself, its crew, before the start of the battle, must provide for a system for filling the storage tanks with ordinary water. The result will be an approximate analogue of the BC containers with a liquid jacket used in the West German tank "Leopard-2". In case of damage to the rack tank, this water will simply spill out into the AZ, which can play a serious role in extinguishing the fire. And it is better to pour diesel fuel into other tanks for the duration of the battle, even if they are suspended, external. See below for a table comparing tank damage rates:

T-72B you can hit from:	М1А2 "Abrams" you can hit from:
[B]Frontal projection: - common BOPS type ZBM-44, М829А2, etc. except old. - Only ATGMs from the latest generation ATGMs such as 9K119 Reflex, 9K135 Cornet, 9K111 Contest.	Frontal projection: - only BOPS of the latest generation of type ZBM-44М, ZBM-48, М829А2, М829А3, DM-53, etc. - common BOPS only in weak areas. - Only ATGMs from the latest generation ATGMs such as 9K119 Reflex, 9K135 Cornet, 9K111 Contest.
Side view: - almost all types of BOPS. - Modern ATGM from ATGM 9K120 "Svir", 9K119 "Reflex". - Only the most modern RPG of the last generation. - limited 25-30mm automatic guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters.	Side view: - almost all types of BOPS. - Practically all ATGMs from ATGM, except for the very first 60s. - almost all RPGs like RPG-7, LNG-9, RPG-18 "Fly", RPG-22 / 26, etc. except frankly old type "Faustpron-M". - limited 25-30mm automatic guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters. - limited 12,7mm machine guns DShK, NSV and 14,5mm machine guns CPV.
Stern projection: - all types of BOPS. - all types of ATGM from ATGW. - All 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters. - all types of RPGs.	Stern projection: - all types of BOPS. - all types of ATGM from ATGW. - all types of RPGs. - All 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters. - 12,7mm machine guns DShK, NSV and 14,5mm machine guns KPVT.
Upper front hemisphere: - common BOPS type ZBM-44, М829А2, etc. except old. - Only ATGMs from the latest generation ATGMs such as 9K119 Reflex, 9K135 Cornet, 9K111 Contest. - Only the latest generation RPG. - very limited 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters.	Upper front hemisphere: - all types of BOPS. - all types of ATGM from ATGM. - all types of RPGs including old ones. - All 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters. - limited 12,7mm machine guns DShK and 14,5mm KPV.
Upper rear hemisphere: - all types of BOPS. - all types of ATGM from ATGM. - all types of RPGs. - 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters. - limited 12,7mm machine guns DShK, NSV and 14,5mm KPV.	Upper rear hemisphere: - all types of BOPS. - all types of ATGM from ATGM. - all types of RPGs. - 25-30mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes / helicopters. - 12,7mm machine guns DShK, NSV and 14,5mm KPV.

Mobility and maintainability.

  Many in this section will not be able to write, but some points worth considering in detail. The mobility of the tank can be divided into two categories: operational and tactical. Tactical mobility, in turn, is again divided into two categories: urban and field. What is meant by these terms will be clear in the course of reading the text. Operational mobility is the ability to move a tank, including not under its own power over long distances as part of a large-scale movement of troops. The technical elements of the tank, which directly affect its operational mobility, are, first of all, its mass, dimensions and power reserve. There is no need for a long time to explain why T-72B in this discipline utterly surpasses the opponent. Its weight in 44,5 tons and dimensions make it easy to transport T-72B by land, by rail, in amphibious ships by sea and by a large number of military transport aircraft in service with the Russian army. With the tank "Abrams" all the more difficult. There are few types of military transport aircraft capable of raising it (and not all of them are American). Transportation is possible by sea or by rail. As well as on the ground on tank tractors. By tactical mobility is meant the actual driving characteristics of the tank itself. These include the maximum speed, the dynamics of acceleration to 30km / h, throughput, maneuverability, as well as ease and ease of operation. But as it was written above, tactical mobility is divided into two categories: urban, i.e. in industrial conditions (presence of roads, strong bridges, absence of dirt) and field (in complete off-road, in the forest, on the field, in the swamp, etc.). In the “urban” mobility “civilized” М1А2 “Abrams” is ahead of T-72B due to the following technical solutions: Automatic transmission with a hydro-volumetric turning mechanism, which makes it easy to control this tank even for a child. Of all the controls, only the steering wheel, gas and brake. Such a perfect transmission allows the Abrams tank to strictly follow any given curve (bending of the road for example). The powerful gas turbine engine accelerates the tank to 32km / h in 6с, and asphalt tracks with rubber pads provide excellent handling on hard surfaces at any speed, up to the maximum 66km / h. T-72B boast there is nothing special. The OPF is hopelessly outdated a long time ago. They provide several fixed turning radii, which naturally will not necessarily coincide with the bend radius of the road along which the tank is traveling. Even harder on the track. In order to slightly adjust the direction of movement of the tank at high speed (when overtaking for example), the driver must turn on the “neutral” in the corresponding OPF. This requires a great skill from the driver’s mechanic, since the slightest mistake and the tank will go into a skid without any opportunity to “catch” it. The situation is aggravated by the fact that T-72B on ordinary agricultural tracks is extremely prone to drift and demolition on hard surfaces (stone, asphalt, etc.). So, to develop on T-72B a maximum speed in 60km / h on a busy highway can only be a confident and experienced driver. But as soon as it is worth moving off the asphalt to the field, T-72B is transformed, and М1А2 immediately rents. His virtues on the highway in the dirt work against him and become his shortcomings. The agricultural caterpillar T-72B immediately finds, for which the hold and control of the tank is restored. Abrams rubber cushions begin to shamelessly glide over ice, snow and mud. There are no roads in the field, and therefore the lack of a T-72B transmission in the field almost ceases to be felt. Abrams' huge weight immediately "knits" him in a mud swamp. On cross it is worse than T-72B. Hydromechanical transmission is heated and takes precious power from the engine. Dust and sand are bad for the Abrams gas turbine engine. The speed on such a terrain at the "Abrams" greatly decreases, despite the intelligent automatic transmission. The speed of the T-72B in this situation is more dependent on the skill of the driver. Traveling through the village bridge will turn into a real nightmare for the crew of the Abrams. In general, it is a tank for dry rocky terrain. The USSR was armed with a tank of tons of 62. This is the EC-4. It was operated in the Far East with great difficulties (poor cross-country ability, the problem of passing through bridges, installation on a railway platform with an accuracy of 1, etc.) and very quickly the EC-4 turned into non-self-propelled firing points dug into the ground. The world's best tank 50 / 60-s T-10M (51,5t - in size with the "Challenger-2", but the shape is much better) was loved by the tank crew and special problems with the operation apparently did not deliver as stood in service order xnumx years. Mass ~ 50-55 tons, apparently, and there is the line on which the power ends and the problems begin. So what is better in tactical mobility? Abrams is better in the city, T-72B is better on the field. Since the comparative area of ​​fields, forests, swamps and dirt on the globe is many times greater than that of asphalt roads and betonok, we can definitely say that T-72B is better.

  On repair-suitability approximate parity. Yes, the power unit of the tank M1А2 "Abrams" is easily changed in the field in an hour or two, and this is his undoubted advantage. With the replacement of the engine T-72B will have to spend much longer. At the same time, where in the conditions of war to take a finished unit with a new engine? And if it is not found anywhere? Have to repair the old one. Malfunction of the T-72B with screwdrivers, wrenches, tools, operating instructions and non-print mechanic expressions can be fixed on the spot. How this problem will be solved by the crew of an American tank is a difficult question. Maybe they will do it themselves, or maybe they will call BREM and she (if she can come and if she can call her at all) will tow the tank to the factory.

Output.

  Analyzing and comparing the above-described information, it will be convenient to create a summary table of various combat situations and award points on a 5-point system to each tank.

A counter tank battle during the day on an open flat terrain with the greatest possible distance 4-5km.	T-72B - 5 points. M1A2 - 3 points. T-72B is better.
Tank battle on moderately hilly terrain with medium distances 2-3km during the day.	T-72B - 3 points. М1А2 - 5 points. M1A2 better.
Tank battle on moderately hilly terrain with medium distances 1,5-2,5km at night.	T-72B - 1 score. M1A2 - 4 points. M1A2 better.
Tank battle with the conditions of rugged terrain, urban development from a maximum of 300-500 m day and night.	T-72B - 4 points. М1А2 - 4 points. Parity.
Fight in the city in conditions of high saturation of light portable anti-tank weapons.	T-72B - 4 points. M1A2 - 2 points. T-72B is better.
Infantry fire support and destruction of priority targets for infantry on the battlefield: enemy infantry, firing points, pillboxes, bunkers, dugouts, shelters, houses, enemy snipers, etc.	T-72B - 5 points. M1A2 - 3 points. T-72B is better.
The fight against enemy aircraft (defense from them) combat and transport helicopters and light low-speed reconnaissance and unmanned aircraft.	T-72B - 5 points. M1A2 - 2 points. T-72B is better.
Shooting from closed positions when using the tank as an ACS.	T-72B - 5 points. M1A2 - 3 points. T-72B is better.
The operational mobility of the tank.	T-72B - 5 points. M1A2 - 3 points. T-72B is better.
Tactical mobility of the tank.	T-72B - 4 points. M1A2 - 3 points. T-72B is better.
The survival of the crew with the defeat of the tank.	T-72B - 2 points. М1А2 - 5 points. М1А2 - better.
Total:	T-72B - 43 points. М1А2 - 37 balls.

  In addition, any sample of armored military equipment is characterized by the so-called coefficient of military-technical level. In all the comparative articles that the author has had to see, even the newest T-90A tanks for some reason are inferior to the Western ones in terms of the military-technical level. However, it is not at all clear why, by what criteria the points are compared and scored. This information is “modestly” not published there. So we will try to determine this military-technical level independently, and we will do it with reinforced concrete logic: a tank drum with only daytime optics and a gun installed in a rotating turret is taken for 0. Everything. For all the other "ryushechki" is charged on 0,1.

Equipment	T-72B	М1А2 "Abrams"
Semi-active armor	+	-
Dynamic protection DZ	+	-
Composite armor	+	+
Thermal signature reduction technology	-	+
Gun stabilizer	+	+
Sight stabilizer	+	+
Commander Observation Device Stabilizer	-	+
Automatic loader AZ	+	-
Ejector barrel blower	+	+
iК-devices	+	+
Ti-devices	-	+
Automated MSA	-	+
Tank ballistic calculator TBV	+	+
Tank information and control system TIUS	-	+
Laser warning system	-	+
Combat laser system	-	-
ESD protection	+	+
The complex of optical-electronic suppression COEP	-	-
KAZT tank active protection complex	-	-
System of electromagnetic protection from mines SEMZ	+	-
Automatic Transmission Automatic	-	+
Guided missile weapons URO	+	-
Color displays in crew crews	-	+
Auxiliary power plant APU	-	+
Local ammunition protection	-	+
Adjustable hydropneumatic suspension	-	-
Automatic target tracking	-	-
Anti-aircraft closed installation with a remote drive.	-	-
The final military-technical level:	1,2	1,7

The military-technical level coefficient М1А2 on 42% exceeds that of Т-72Б, but it is still far from perfect.

Based on all these calculations, we can summarize the following result:

T-72B “Even today, the car is still up to date.” One feels the enormous potential that once upon a time its founders laid down in this tank. Not for nothing T-72 in 70-80-th year of the last century was considered one of the best tanks in the world. Unlike the Abrams, the quite right desire of designers to make this tank a universal weapon, equally well adapted for fighting high-tech Western tanks, and for infantry fire support in all kinds of situations, using the tank as a universal infantry weapon suitable for to fight with virtually any ground, surface and air targets that will be within 2-5-10 kilometers from it. But time does not stand still and the day is short when the T-72B tank finally loses its advantages. Even today, it is very much inferior to modern machines in penetrating power of armor-piercing projectiles, the parameters of night vision, the perfection of the fire control system, command controllability and safety of the crew’s life in an emergency, although it still has where superiority. Modernization of the tank in the version of the T-72BM, which according to some data "brings the capabilities of the T-72 to the T-90," is in fact rather curtailed and incomplete. The upgraded T-72BM has received an updated SLA and gunner’s instruments. But about the commander (who theoretically should discover the target before gunner) almost forgot. COEP "Blind" on the tank is not installed. KAZT "Arena" on the tank is not installed. TiUs on the upgraded tank T-72BM is not installed. There is a problem with the new "long" BOPS. An automatic transmission with a hydro-volume transmission like on T-80U is not installed on a tank. In fact, this modernization pulled the mainly "anti-tank" capabilities of the T-72B to a more modern "all-weather" level. Nevertheless, T-72B in those conditions in which he really has to fight is still better than "Abrams".

М1А2 "Abrams" - a very controversial unit, if only because it is being used and fighting now in conditions completely different from those under which it was once designed. "Abrams" is a highly specialized offspring of Americans scared by the Soviet tank rink. And its firepower and defense has a pronounced "anti-tank" orientation, and it is in this respect that this tank is certainly good. Without a doubt, this is a modern and high-tech tank, which, although not the best in the world, will nevertheless be a dangerous adversary for any existing MBT today. The strength of МХNUMXА1 "Abrams" is manifested in this. In a tank duel, he will most likely overcome T-2B - he will have to admit. At the same time, in all other respects, the Abrams is either so-so or frankly bad. To fight with tanks of this type it makes no sense to use their own tanks, especially obsolete types. This will lead to unjustified losses. It is much more efficient to use aviation, RPG-equipped grenade launchers and low-profile anti-tank missile systems in a portable and mobile version. Here, against such weapons, the M72А1 “Abrams” tank, despite all its might, is likely to be almost powerless. But its main advantage is the high probability of the crew remaining alive after their Abrams shatters into pieces, and this is like no other, more expensive than any piece of iron. And in general, it’s not the tanks that are fighting, but the people in them.   

Note:

1. 1.  BOPS - armor-piercing feathered sabot projectile. For the first time nominally as the main appeared in the ammunition of the Soviet tank T-62.
2. 2.  KS - cumulative projectile. Created during the 2 World War II.
3. 3.  OFS - high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
4. 4.  UR - guided missile.
5. 5.  POS - subcaliber cumulative fragmentation projectile. Allows you to hit the enemy's manpower behind the obstacles, but has a low destructive power.
6. 6.  OS - fragmentation projectile.
7. 7.  DVO - daytime optical device.
8. 8.  LD - laser rangefinder.
9. 9.  iK - night  infrared device.
10. 10.  Ti - night thermal imaging device.
11. 11.  The ballistic corrector is a built-in mechanism that takes into account only the type and trajectory of the projectile depending on the distance.
12. 12.  APU - auxiliary power unit.
13. 13.  Here it is necessary to understand the difference between the target firing range and the effective firing range. In classical systems, this difference is very significant. The effective firing range is the distance at which a high percentage of hitting the target is ensured (on the order of 70-80%). The target range is the distance at which the tank control system of the tank allows for targeted shooting at all. At the same time, for guided missiles there is practically no difference between the sighting and effective firing range.

Comments

[click80]

Soviet technology is better, but
IMHO It is foolish to compare military equipment on paper. It all depends on the crew, their training, reaction, etc. It would be nice to arrange a few demonstration fights, but rather not indicative, and where is the thread in Texas or Washington.

[Reddragon]

A tank with a tank can only be compared on paper. IMHO, but the tanks are not designed to fight each other. In real combat, in addition to tanks, there are other troops, so there’s enough who to knock out a tank

[Vladimirets]

Quote: RedDragoN

A tank with a tank can only be compared on paper. IMHO, but the tanks are not designed to fight each other. In real combat, in addition to tanks, there are other troops, so there’s enough who to knock out a tank

Let the Americans shout that the Abrams are the best, as practice shows, overestimating their own capabilities and underestimating the enemy often goes sideways. And in the modern war, indeed, there is someone to knock out "Abrams" without the T-72.

[vyatom]

The same ratio was t34 / t !!! in the 41st year. Not to mention the KV-1.

[Prohor]

The tank, of course, is not only intended for the extermination of its own kind, but the monstrous ratio of losses, like the "Tiger" / T-34, is also unacceptable.

[Bad_gr]

Article plus. But there is a point about which I would argue.

Buck rack.
1. If the internal tank is broken, it doesn’t matter whether the tank is shelving or just a tank: fuel will flow out of it with the same consequences for the tank.
2. As long as there is fuel in the rack tank (even if it boils), the charges in it will not overheat.
3. If you fill the storage rack with water, it makes no sense: the fuel burns on the water, and the fire extinguishing mixtures on the drum, since it contains both a substance for combustion and an oxidizing agent for burning this substance.

And the increased fire hazard in the T-72 is not due to the conveyor (located with the most protected place), and not because of the charges in the storage tank,
but because of additional charges randomly spaced around the fighting compartment. By the way, when experience was gained in Chechnya, in combat conditions, they no longer equipped tanks.

[speedy]

The conclusion from the article is quite obvious - if you tighten up the anti-tank function (optics, calculator, ammunition), then the T-72 will quite compete in 10-15 years until Armat is baked ...

[Vladimirets]

Quote: Prokhor

the monstrous loss ratio, like the Tiger / T-34, is also unacceptable.

Above, the Red Dragon wrote:

Quote: RedDragoN

IMHO, but the tanks are not designed to fight each other.

The tigers were just designed to fight with other tanks, and the T-34 was a means of supporting the infantry, but did not sharpen in any way for anti-tank combat.

[Hon]

Tiger heavy tank, T34 medium. Maybe then look at the ratio of losses of T3 and T4 with ICs and HF

[Lord of the Sith]

Well done!!)

[Vladimirets]

Quote: Hon

Tiger heavy tank, T34 medium. Maybe then look at the ratio of losses of T3 and T4 with ICs and HF

I'll see what? Somewhere there are statistics of losses from direct confrontation between tanks? Let’s then take into account the crew’s training, the total number of tanks, the effectiveness of anti-tank weapons against certain types of tanks, even the amount of time spent by tanks in real battles and much more, but what does that prove?

[Vladimirets]

And why is that minus? Did I write somewhere that the T-34 horseradish tank? The T-34 is a wonderful tank that German infantrymen were not just afraid of. But the tasks were different for him and the tiger. And why compare the loss of T3 and T4 with our tanks? What did you want to prove?

[BruderV]

It’s interesting that the people will ever die out of the basis of the German tank fleet from the Tigers and Panthers? In my opinion, you can write a hundred times that the Germans fought the whole war on Panzer-4 mainly on self-propelled guns like Sturmgeshuttse. Here they are workhorses. And the Tigers with the Panthers still had to look. And really, based on their number, you can only compare the ISs, well, to the edge with some kind of NIBUL HF of the latest modifications.

[Zynaps]

Quote: BruderV

It’s interesting that the people will ever die out of the basis of the German tank fleet from the Tigers and Panthers?

and what does it mean - "will die out"? During the first half of the war, the Germans' main tank duty was "three" and "four". from the turning point of 1943 until the end of the war, the stake was placed on the "panther", as on the MBT. despite the fact that the production of one "panther" cost 35 tanks T-70, 16 T-34, or 6 IS. and despite the fact that locksmiths with a special education were involved in the assembly of the "panthers" (the "panther" tower, for example, was cut out by patterns, of which there was a shortage in production), as well as all sorts of clever milling machines that could mill the sides of the assembled tank in the area installations of glasses of torsions and flight reducers. yes, here, to the heap, add additional hemorrhoids, that in German tanks and field guns of the same caliber, the ammunition was not compatible, and also for the production of one tank shell, three (!) highly qualified specialists were required and 8 times more funds by standard hours in comparison with our rather expensive 57-mm anti-tank round.

[Volozhanin]

Of course, I read that Panther was difficult to manufacture, but God, how everything is running

[Su24]

What else MBT, what are you?)) The division of tanks into light / medium / heavy classes lasted throughout the war and later. The main tank of the Wehrmacht was always the T-4, their release never stopped, despite Hitler's point of view on the need for an early transition to the release of the Panthers. The share of the latter in the total volume of tanks and self-propelled guns of the Germans was barely more than 10%. And the Tigers / Royal Tigers were about 3,3%.

[Prohor]

Yes, it's not about that at all! And that the multifunctionality of the T-72 is presented as an advantage over the anti-tank qualities of the Abrams. These are two different things.
The versatility of the 72 is very good, the complete lack of chances to survive in a night battle with the Abrams is very bad.

[nerd.su]

Quote: Prokhor

The versatility of the 72 is very good, the complete lack of chances to survive in a night battle with the Abrams is very bad.

The lack of chances, if there is a desire, can be compensated by modernization of the fire control system, the installation of a new gun, KAZ, etc. And universality will not go anywhere. Instead of upgrading Abrams, it’s easier to make a new tank ...

[Kars]

Quote: bot.su

. And instead of upgrading Abrams, it’s easier to make a new tank

And what should he modernize? Especially after the modernization of 2008? The Yankees are going to use it until 2035-40.
they only had to deliver KAZ and KUV, so this is a matter of minutes, and the Jews will hang down with their Trophy and Lahat.

Quote: bot.su

modernization of the fire control system, the installation of a new gun, KAZ, etc.

Get T-90MS, which as we know the disorder of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
In general, all hope for Armata.

[nerd.su]

Quote: Kars

The Yankees are going to use it until 2035-40.

Yes, let them use it. This gives us hope that they are not going to fight with us on our territory so far. Abrams is too heavy for most (and the most interesting from the point of view of resources :)) territory of Russia.

Quote: Kars

Get T-90MS, which as we know the disorder of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
In general, all hope for Armata.

So the T-90MS, as I understand it, didn’t work exactly like a new tank. And if you make the modernization of existing ones, then it will be completely satisfied.
Armata, if everything works out as promised, another revolution in tank building. It just won’t turn out to be a bluff, because during the pre-election and post-election rush, the prospects of creation began to be widely discussed. It is known that at this time many tales appear. Time will tell...

[Kars]

Quote: bot.su

they are not going to fight with us on our territory. Abrams is too heavy for most (

vain hopes. He does not have a problem with coolness (there is no need to pull out the stuck pictures, I have both abrams and t-72 and merkava with T-89)

Quote: bot.su

So the T-90MS, as I understand it, didn’t work exactly like a new tank

nobody understands them.

Quote: bot.su

modernization of existing

the price will be about the same, scrap is now cheaper than electronics, paradoxically.

Quote: bot.su

It is known that at this time many tales appear. Time will tell...

There is already an order for 16 (Armat), and as I understand it, privatization is awaiting UVZ in the near future, so the order portfolio should be ensured. And I think Armata will be more expensive than the T-90MS in any case

[nerd.su]

Quote: Kars

vain hopes. He does not have a problem with coolness (there is no need to pull out the stuck pictures, I have both abrams and t-72 and merkava with T-89)

All tanks will have patency problems. But if you fight only along the main roads, then, of course, the abrams will have no problems with patency. But we have few good roads, and each blown up bridge will require engineering preparation of the area. And often it will be the construction of a new bridge. The problem is solvable, but the speed of advancement is greatly reduced. Especially if the enemy is actively opposing engineering measures :)

Quote: Kars

nobody understands them

That's for sure! :) But they officially demanded something fundamentally new.

Quote: Kars

the price will be about the same, scrap is now cheaper than electronics, paradoxically.

So this is not paradoxical, it is just logical. But still it seems to me to remake the tower - it will be cheaper than building a new tank.

And about Almaty - time will tell. Orders and stuff is virtual reality compared to a serial tank. The main thing is that Armata does not become like a Mace ...

[anomalocaris]

Well, there are chances to survive, there are even chances to make a barn on the tracks.

[vyatom]

Quote: Vladimirets

And why is that minus? Did I write somewhere that the T-34 horseradish tank? The T-34 is a wonderful tank that German infantrymen were not just afraid of. But the tasks were different for him and the tiger. And why compare the loss of T3 and T4 with our tanks? What did you want to prove?

Do not be dumb. There was nothing to write about tiger / t34.

[mamba]

Quote: Vladimirets

Let’s then take into account the crew’s training, the total number of tanks, the effectiveness of anti-tank weapons against certain types of tanks, even the amount of time spent by tanks in real battles and much more

I agree. But it is still necessary to compare tanks within the same weight category: light with light, medium with medium, heavy with heavy, and only in situations where they struggle with each other. Then it will become clear that the T-34 can be compared with the T3, T4, but not with the heavy "panther" T5, which weighed as much as our ISs and certainly not with the heavyweight "tiger" T6.

[Zynaps]

all Soviet tanks in development were extremely simple - after 3-4
hours of training an unprepared driver performed all necessary for the battle
manipulations, except for switching speeds on a four-speed tank
PPC. anyone who ever saw even firing from a gun could fire
field guns. German tanks were much more complicated. even for
production shots (and it was carried out before the Pz III Ausf LM only
electrozapalom) gunner and loader was clearly
in the prescribed manner to perform 4 operations. they had features with
the launch of the tank and the operation of electrical appliances, etc. German tanks were
good only for a trained and well-coordinated crew. but they are at the end
wars went to the utmost simplification of their combat vehicles, as in
the conditions of 1945 were thrown into the battle already completely green.

and this proves that you can jerk off squatting on some Hauptmann Wittmann or Piper as much as you like, but it’s not the supermen and wunderwaffes who win the attrition wars, but ordinary people and mass production technologies. this is in addition to the operational-staff thought and competent construction of tank units and formations.

[beech]

It’s easier to play the World of Tank on T3, T4 with ISU and KV))))

[Zynaps]

Quote: Prokhor

the monstrous loss ratio, like the Tiger / T-34, is also unacceptable.

comparison of dactyl with aphedron. the tiger was a wildly expensive and difficult tank to make. unlike the technological and simple T-34. the production of the T-34 could not only replenish, but also be strongly in plus over the losses (and this is not to mention the fact that more than half of the destroyed T-34s were repaired by the front-line ORVB, or even the crews themselves). but the "tigers" for these indicators were deep in the rectum. German industry, even at the peak of its capacity, only managed to cover losses, of which a significant number were breakdowns. and in general, in a war, it is absolutely indifferent how an enemy heavy tank is disabled. be it anti-tank fire, mine and engineering barriers, a skillful hit by a PTAB, a Molotov cocktail or a hit from a tank / self-propelled gun. the fact that by the beginning of the operation on the Kursk Bulge, the fight against the "tigers"
transferred to another plane. German tanks were destroyed by mines and PTA - means much cheaper than a tank.

[3danimal]

Compare the ratio of Soviet / Nazi losses.

[Su24]

In the sense of the Tiger / T-34? Were there many duels between these different class tanks?

[Maksimov]

What is so monstrous? If we compare the losses of the IS-3 with the Tigers, then the Tigers have monstrous losses. Is the hint clear? One tank was the workhorse of the war, fought EVERYWHERE in any conditions. Naturally and perishing often. The other was small and was used from ambushes. And it’s enough to believe the scribbles of all Wittmanns, who destroyed 15 T-34s in each battle. With such effectiveness of the German tankers, as they write about themselves, the amount of T34 should be measured somewhere in the half-million, since tanks were destroyed far from not only (and not primarily) by tanks.

[leon master]

Abrams stopped producing in 1995. Now they are only patched and modified.

[3danimal]

As well as the T-72.

[beech]

hmm, and the old man is still in the subject. It’s not so bad and everything turns out to be sad, it’s only sad that you can hardly learn good tankers in a year (((

[Eleven]

And compare the Russian soldier who usually fights for his homeland and the American who only needs money, and then we'll see who wins !!!

[3danimal]

Conscripts are fighting worse than the pros.

[3danimal]

Soviet technology is better, but it will have more losses. Crews that are more “cheap” in terms of training and guarantees for families will help here ...

[rate]

Sound analysis, thanks.

[Hammer]

In principle, I support.
But the value of this article, and even not in the estimates of certain indicators taken for consideration of MBT samples (and it, in fairness, is partly controversial and subjective), but in the fact that the author approached this issue comprehensively. It is considering tanks in the complex of those tasks that he is called upon to solve on the battlefield. And unlike countless similar articles (especially Western ones), where a tank is considered only in the context of anti-tank weapons, which is fundamentally wrong.
That's for this respect to the author.
Our modern MBT is primarily an assault vehicle, a means of supporting infantry on the battlefield, breaking through the enemy’s defensive positions, and a highly mobile firing development unit for developing offensive success. And only then (and not secondarily) - is it an anti-tank weapon. And in this regard, our tank is better, due to its greater versatility. Having given the technical plan, the T-72 is already outdated morally, but for the tasks for which it was created it is still sufficient.
Some technical backwardness is still compensated by tactical methods of its use. "Abrams", be it at least three times "SEP", never will be able to defeat the T-72 if they do not collide head-on with each other.
The article correctly says that it’s not the weapon that wins, but the people who fight it.

[3danimal]

Do you really think that American tankers are ignoramuses in tactics? What are the grounds for such conclusions?

[Middle-brother]

No less important is who will sit behind the levers.

[AER_69]

So it is clear to the child. They compare technology, not technology with people inside. So you can get to the comparison of each tanker and their ability to work in a team.

[3danimal]

As well as how good situational awareness the commander will have, how quickly he will set goals at any time of the day (especially at night), etc.
All this is provided by an independent commanding sight with a thermal imager and TIUS. We also remember the best handling.
And the most important point: the purchase of more than 1000 sets of KAZ from Israel. How many of them are on any Russian tanks? ..
As for the training and coordination of the crews “with them” - take an interest, there is a lot of information (real, not “yellow”).

[saruman]

Good analysis. Rarely, such.

[mamba]

Quote: saruman

Good analysis. Rarely, such.

Yes, I also read with pleasure. These Amer’s ratings, which always end with a protrusion of their abrams, are so sick of it that they are so strong that it looks like an erection. And T-72 is sure to be obrozd and will show pictures with their remains, after an alleged battle with the Abrams. But in fact, they were all destroyed by missiles from helicopters during a night attack. I can imagine what would happen to those abrams after such an attack. But no, here they have iron statistics: the abrams are absolutely invulnerable. Allegedly, none of these tanks was lost, either in duels with the T-72, or from grenade launchers, or from missiles. But for some reason, in other films about the restoration of these tanks at repair plants in the States, we see dozens of cars brought from Iraq, which are completely reassembled, dismantled to the screw. Damage received in battles, of course, does not show.

[Tungsten]

Quote: mamba

But no, here they have iron statistics: the abrams are absolutely invulnerable. Allegedly, none of these tanks was lost, either in duels with the T-72, or from grenade launchers, or from missiles.

Actually, official statistics just says that there were losses. As in 1991 (including from the T-72 fire) and in 2003 ~ 2005.
So, it would be nice for you to adjust your picture of the world.

Quote: mamba

But for some reason, in other films about the restoration of these tanks at repair plants in the States, we see dozens of cars brought from Iraq, which are completely reassembled, dismantled to the screw. Damage received in battles, of course, does not show.

Then how do you determine - where did this or that tank come from at the factory ?!

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

As in 1991 (including from the T-72 fire)

but it’s possible in more detail - when I was last interested in 1991 there were - officially - 6 pieces and everything from mines.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

but can be more detailed

Will an official debriefing scan fit?

The tank was disabled, but subsequently repaired.
You are probably confused with the statement that frontal armor "Abrams" has never been penetrated by the enemy.

[Kars]

I have it for a long time, but where is the year indicated here and how is it hit?
Where I downloaded it, it was about the 2003 district of Baghdad airport.

For example, about this photo your opinion?

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

I have it for a long time, but where is the year indicated here and how is it hit?

In the details of the circumstances of the defeat. Tank S-12 (M1A1NA) found enemy trenches, tried to retreat, but was hit from the flank.

Quote: Kars

Where I downloaded it, it was about the 2003 district of Baghdad airport.

The first page says - "18 June 1991"What kind of Baghdad is there in 2003?

Quote: Kars

For example, about this photo your opinion?

Everything is written there. By the way, a photo from about the same area of ​​the database as the one damaged in the side of the "Abrams" (if it really is Tavalkan).

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

The first page says - "June 18, 1991" what kind of Baghdad of 2003 is there.

Well, I do not have the first page.

Quote: Tungsten

Everything is written there

For me, for example, this is finishing off an abandoned tank. (I'm talking about a Tavalkan)

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

Well, I do not have the first page.

Quote: Kars

For me, for example, this is finishing off an abandoned tank. (I'm talking about a Tavalkan)

Why finish off the abandoned tank in front, in addition through the parapet ?!
Much easier to do as Americans with Cojone eh - BOPS in the stern of the tower ...

[Kars]

Indeed, 1991, well, this is minus Abramsu, and especially the discovery.

Quote: Tungsten

Why finish off the abandoned tank in front, in addition through the parapet ?!

Yes, just to create the appearance that they destroyed in battle.

Quote: Tungsten

Much easier to do as Americans with Cojone Eh - BOPS in the stern of the tower

Well, it's Abrams’s ammunition in the stern of the tower,

[Feanor]

If something happens, the Abrams will get stuck on our roads, but for the rest we’ll finish off the T-72B and the notorious RPG-7

[Hon]

What are we talking about? Of course they’ll get stuck, planes will not take off, and small arms will misfire. here we will throw their caps.

[Slevinst]

An excellent article and still I would like to have such an analysis of our most modern tank and their (foreign), I want to understand who is capable of what. And I do not agree with the author a bit, if there was a mess, yes the first to go to battle are 72, but their ranks will restore a minimum of 90

[patsantre]

If a troubles happen with a strong opponent, the plants quickly repair. And if they don’t, the capacities are unlikely to be enough to recover losses.

[ate 13]

then we have long-term storage warehouses full of all canned equipment, the oldest of the armored vehicles seems to be SAU-100

[Volozhanin]

I'm afraid that they will not have time to fight on this technique, they will not give them time to put it in order

[Hammer]

Slevinst
if something more serious than the border conflict, the strategic nuclear forces will go into action, and there will already be absolutely no matter who has the best tanks and who has more ...
For local conflicts, like 08.08.08, we have enough of those T-72BV, T-80BV with T-90A, which are available. The main thing is that they would be correctly used, and not organized by tank assaults of cities - ala Grozny on New Year's Eve of 94-95.
I repeat - it’s not a weapon that wins, people who fight them defeat ...

PS
The best air defense (like the best ATGM) is the Topol-M ... so sleep well.

[Gren9]

You here do not tell us tales about strategic nuclear forces. Who will need the radioactive territory? Namely, the territory they need. So nuclear weapons are just scarecrows on either side.

[Zhenya]

Slevinst,
And who will restore the guys who will be torn inside these T-72Bs? God?
If desired, a tank can be built very quickly, especially in wartime, but it’s more difficult with tankers, the probability of surviving with periodic detonation frames of the t-72 indicates a very small percentage.

[vorobey]

Quote: Marrying

the probability of surviving with periodic t-72 detonation frames indicates a very small percentage.

Already a lot of debate on this topic was. Eugene to fight is generally harmful to health - take a word.

Any soldier in the end knows what awaits him, and it’s stupid to think that tankers are small children who don’t know what detonation is. And as a rule, detonation does not occur immediately. And you’ll want to live like that, and you’ll cover all the standards for landing, this is a red carpet experience.

[sedoj]

There is a good reference about the survivability of the T-72
http://warfiles.ru/show-20298-udivitelnaya-zhivuchest-t-72.html

[Slevinst]

it was a rhetorical question, apparently, they usually perish in war. remember the Second World War who restored people there, some died, others sat down on new tanks, too, they died, replaced by third ones, this is war

[vorobey]

Quote: Slevinst

happen zavorushka, but the first to go to battle is 72, but their ranks will restore a minimum of 90

On defense 72 solves the problem. on this basis, and 90 in the army there are only 500 pieces, and the bulk is exported on which the technology of reinforcement is rolled.
so 72 is now a defensive version and a second-tier tank. look at the districts now as distributed and where 80, 72 and 90.

[Prohor]

From history: T-34 - a revolution in tank building, then they catch up with us and overtake, T-64/72/80 - a revolution, they again overtake us in 15 years.
Now it is our turn again, if there is a breakthrough with "Armata" - for 10-15 years it will be possible to smoke and modernize.
Interesting, so be it?

[Volozhanin]

And will they give us these 10-15 years?

[Prohor]

Good question!
And one more for those who are confident that nuclear weapons will decide everything - but the Kremlin’s aces will not play a point, when they have to press a button ?!

[Mairos]

In addition, the current demographic situation CATEGORALLY does not allow us to scatter the lives of soldiers, as has been the case until now, including the First Chechen War. In this regard, I believe that the issue of survival of the crew is of paramount importance and the time of order fulfillment "at any cost" should forever become a thing of the past. Once again I repeat - heroism is the result of someone's bungling. It is not quick and spectacular victories that are needed, but effective and life-saving actions on the battlefield.

[Volozhanin]

I would put you 10 pluses, but not right

[Grigory_78]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, a considerable part of the generals are fighting in the old fashioned way - and are not responsible for this. The loss of the Tu-22M in the conflict with Georgia in 2008, the loss of the Su-24M in Syria - and in both cases the death of top-class professionals. In Georgia - "we thought that Georgia did not have such air defense systems", in Syria - "we thought that they would not dare to bring down our plane." To shoot such bookkeepers, honestly. You look, the rest will be discouraged to throw specialists at the embrasures.

[evgenii67]

really worth the analysis !!!! Thanks to the author !!!! HOW it says armor is strong ......

[Suvorov000]

Thank you for the article)

[PLO]

crew survival in the event of a tank defeat is better. A significant part of the ammunition of 36 shells is located in the aft recess of the tower and is separated from the BO by an armored partition.

eh .. how can one not recall the Omsk Object 640 (Black Eagle) and its reincarnation

[Flooding]

Quote: olp

why not remember Omsk Object 640 (Black Eagle) and its reincarnation

This photo is not related to Object 640.
Khlopotov, after all, wrote that this was "the modernization of the T-90 with the installation of a turret-mounted horizontal loader."

[alex popov]

For the first time in a long time, a good, detailed, thoughtful, and most importantly intelligible analysis. to the author plus. Thank.

[vitiaz]

This is for a warrior under the enemy flag!?

[hrenvamsredkoy]

Thank you for the article

[Professor]

At the same time, where in war can I get the finished unit with a new engine?

In the same place as fuel and lubricants and ammunition - logistics, however.

[Suvorov000]

Accumulators for radio stations sometimes you will not wait and here the whole engine

[Professor]

So American logistics is famous for its efficiency.

[Denzel13]

Yeah, the Germans, she (logistics) was also well set. And what is the result?

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Denzel13

Yeah, the Germans, she (logistics) was also well set. And what is the result?

20 million dead citizens of the USSR.

[Marek Rozny]

how many of them are civilians and how many are military?
ps in the end, we hoisted the Red Banner over the Reichstag, and not the Germans swastika over the Kremlin.

[Volozhanin]

Yes, but AT WHAT PRICE, it still comes around

[Volozhanin]

27 million dead

[lelikas]

Was it better to give up immediately and without loss?

[ikrut]

Quote: saturn.mmm

20 million dead citizens of the USSR.

Of these, 11,5 million civilians and 3 million prisoners.
What does military logistics mean?

[ate 13]

effective American logistics is the choice of an adversary who, by his weakness, simply cannot strike a blow at supply communications. But when confronted with a more or less equal adversary who will not play giveaways, the situation may not be so brilliant.

[ikrut]

Quote: professor

logistics however.

Logistics is good in peacetime. Well, or with a total advantage over the enemy. When the rear is safe, foreign aircraft do not bother, saboteurs are not expected. And when at least one car with spare engines is not where the logistics require (that is, under the slope) - it will be sad. Fuel and lubricants can be taken from the enemy or from civilians, ammunition can also be stocked up or a ride on a civil wreck. And you still need to tinker with the engine.
Of course, when the logistics are provided and nothing interferes, life is fun, but here it is like feeding that elephant in the zoo .. "He will eat something, but who will give him?"
The article is good. And it's nice that it's patriotic. and even if not everything is as rosy as we would like and as it is written - but still - we are waiting for Armat, but the Americans are waiting for a "financial break" :)))))

[Belial]

Thanks for the article, objective analysis!

[na76]

The sad thing is that, with modern means of detection and target designation, we are not buzzing, the complexes of the commander and gunner are different in efficiency, this is generally nonsense
Detonation of ammunition in tanks with AZ is also a sore point, by the way, therefore, they say in Chechnya and the conflict with Georgia they actively used T-62s which do not have AZ, although this may be due to the fact that they are in service with Vovanov, hz.

[Hammer]

na76
AZ does not affect the detonation of BC. Well, finally, no matter how.
This is affected by the location of the BC in the tank. Since the tanks of the USSR / RF BC is located in the fighting compartment of the tank (in fact, together with the crew, it sits on it), in the event of a tank defeat (especially by cumulative means) this leads to its detonation (immediately, if the jet hits the BC, or after some time as a result of a fire).
The T-62 BC is also located inside the inhabited compartment. But unlike the BK T-72 (t-64, t-80, t-90a, t-90s) it is unitary, i.e. powder propellant charge located in a metal sleeve. Which to some extent slightly increases its survivability, only in cases of fire in the fighting compartment, giving tankers a few extra seconds to leave the burning car. The machines of the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 line (except for the T-90ms, but it is not in the series yet) have separate case charging using AZ. There is no sleeve as such. And there is only a metal pallet in it, which reaches only about 1/3 of the charge height. Everything else there is a completely combustible substance (stupidly gunpowder). Those. the charge for a 125-mm tank gun is essentially not protected from fire and other factors that could cause it to ignite. That's actually from here and such a high explosiveness of our tanks.
And the T-62 was most likely used according to the principle that it was at hand then it was used. In any case, the T-72BV is much more secure than the 62nd. In the same Chechnya, there were cases when more than a dozen shots from an RPG in one clash hit the 72nd and the tank also left the battlefield under its own power. As far as I remember, the maximum number of hits in one tank in one battle is 17 hits. But there was a t-80BV, but it does not matter. The main machine survived, which means the crew survived.

[Prohor]

What is curious: in the T-62, a sleeve from a 115-mm shot (unitary!) Was thrown out of the tank. I think it would not be so difficult to do this for a 125-mm all-metal sleeve and AZ, significantly increasing the safety of the ammunition in case of defeat.

[BruderV]

Regarding ATGMs on the T-72 is biased. The first while a 5 km rocket flies Abrams has long been exposed to irradiation himself, put the veil and leave for cover. Second, the Americans have ATGM TOW, which are used on the BMD Bradley, Hammvi and much more, and they are part of any tank strike group. And the characteristics of TOW will be even more abrupt.
The absence of a high-explosive shell in Abrahamyan’s ammunition is conditioned by safety requirements. The hit of our tank on board in most cases can result in an explosion of the ammunition inside the automatic loader and the presence of high-explosive shells in this case, the sure death of the tank along with the crew.

[PLO]

The first while a 5 km rocket flies Abrams has long been exposed to irradiation himself, put the veil and leave for cover.

ATGM 9M119M uses the principle of a laser path, i.e. the missile is aimed not at the reflected laser signal, but along a direct laser beam (there is a special photodetector in the tail of the rocket), so direct target illumination is not required

Second Americans Have ATGM TOW

and we have Storms and Chrysanthemums and Cornets, but they all do not go in the same ranks with tanks, but stay behind, not to mention that the TOW range is not more than 4 kilometers

. And the characteristics of TOW will be even more abrupt.

I wonder what?

[vorobey]

Quote: BruderV

the presence of high-explosive shells in this case, the sure death of the tank along with the crew.

Well, yes, and almost a ton of fuel inside will not do any harm. When a cumulative jet hits a fuel tank, have you heard what happens?

wrote above - to fight is generally harmful to health.

[ate 13]

if the tank is full and even with a diesel engine there will be just a hole, on this principle the tank is arranged in the Merkava in the frontal armor front and rear armor plates of the frontal armor. If the tank is incomplete then a fire can start, explode in any case, the jet temperature will not explode. If it gets you don’t have time to get out, the gunpowder burns quickly. But the interesting question is what happens if the jet gets into a high explosive charge?

[Tatarus]

You are a plus, but the flag is annoying.

[vorobey]

Quote: jed13

if the tank is full and even with a diesel it will be just a hole

oh this is sweet if ... if my grandmother had a horseradish she would be a grandfather.

[old rocket man]

vorobey,
I agree with you, feathered but this argument is pointless, I saw how stupidly just iron burns. Everything is decided, at this stage, by a person.
In a street fight in 90% of cases, the winner is not the strongest, but the most frostbitten.

[ikrut]

Quote: BruderV

the presence of high-explosive shells in this case certain death

The very presence of shells almost always provides for someone certain death.
However, such shells in the T-72 will be able to save the life of the infantry, but their absence will not only not guarantee the safety of the crew’s life in the peak case, but also greatly weaken the fire potential of the tank.
"A dagger is good for someone who has it, and bad for someone who does not have it at the right time" (c) (film "White Sun of the Desert")

[ebrd]

BruderV,
.... there is ATGM TOW .... TOW will be even cooler ...... ATGM, TOU ,, - a rocket of the 70s, according to the main performance characteristics it is comparable to 9M111,, Bassoon, about which, coolness, , here it is?

[Samovar]

Frontal projection:
- only BPSs of the latest generation, such as ZBM-44M, ZBM-48, M829A2, M829A3, DM-53, etc.
- common BOPS only in weakened areas.

Yes, any of our BOPS should beat him in the forehead only in weakened zones. In another way, they simply will not take it. Anyway, why the heck to bring Lead with Lekal if T-72 they still can not use it.
Hello everyone, by the way.

[vorobey]

Quote: Samovar

Yes, with any of our BOPS, beat him in the forehead only in weakened zones

Sergei I welcome, but I would try the OFS under the bottom, one hell if you slaughter a piece - it's not the enemy. they will immediately drop it, even if the initial data for a shot at my car is ready and the shell is in the barrel.

[Samovar]

Vorobey good day.
Well, in principle, the way it is. Fixed Tank - Dead Tank. But about the fact that the crew would immediately leave him, I would not be so sure - the amers are not Arabs, they have no such reflexes.

[vorobey]

Quote: Samovar

they have no such reflexes

yes, there is another factor - insurance.

[Tatarus]

Quote: Samovar

they have no such reflexes

No, they will immediately crave each other, to relieve stress.

[Prohor]

And if Abrams star in the forehead of OFS-th - he will not go blind forever?

[Grits]

Better to serve on the Abrams,
and it’s better to fight on the T-72.

[Samovar]

Quote: Gritsa

Better to serve on the Abrams,
and it’s better to fight on the T-72.

Their tradition in tank building is such (that the Abrams, that the Shermans). By the way, I don't remember who said: "Sherman is an excellent tank ... for service in peacetime"

[ikrut]

Quote: Gritsa

Better to serve on the Abrams,
and it’s better to fight on the T-72.

Five points!
And so with good "logistics". Well, there, cola chips, spare engines and other crap.

[Skavron]

I liked the article. +

[I. Brovkin]

In addition to the new tanks of the T-90 series and a certain number of T-80U

Please note that the T-80U is the same age as the T-72B (both adopted in 1985)
and even though the scale of production of the first is significantly less than the second, for six years of "Soviet" production of T-80U tanks, far from "a certain amount" was produced.

According to some reports, now we have T-90 of all models about 300 units

More real seems the figure of 500 cars.

[vorobey]

Quote: I. Brovkin

More real seems the figure of 500 cars

true, about 540 mine.

[Tungsten]

Quote: vorobey

true, about 540 mine.

Not true. In total, 369 T-90 tanks of all modifications are in service.
Source - Khlopotov in "Technology and Armament" with a detailed analysis of all contracts and deliveries by year.

[vorobey]

Quote: Tungsten

In total, 369 T-90 tanks of all modifications are in service

wrong, probably did not take into account the first 120 cars.

[Tungsten]

Quote: vorobey

you are mistaken

Tell that to Khlopotov, meticulously counting all the UVZ contracts.
Do you even know who Khlopotov is?

Quote: vorobey

probably did not take into account the first 120 cars

All machines are taken into account. With reference to years and contracts, as well as where they were sent.

[vorobey]

Quote: Tungsten

With reference to years and contracts, as well as where they were sent.

I agree, but he only has data before 2009 and a couple of three cars, or rather 8 commander’s, he and you lose in the calculations.

Do you even know who Khlopotov is? muzzle on the table I do not need. Khlopotov and I have the right to make a mistake.

[Apollo]

Quote: vorobey

muzzle on the table I do not need.

Dear Sparrow!

For one expression you used, you have a fat plus. The fact is that I collect here on the forum winged expressions. Here Romanov, for example, used Pangisrun in the branch before last.

[vorobey]

Quote: Apollon

I collect here on the forum, winged expressions.

Apollo welcome buddy. I throw another one that sounded in the middle of the year.

Negro problems - the sheriff is not interested.

one more thing.

Lady with a cart - mare olright.

[Apollo]

Quote: vorobey

Apollo welcome buddy. I throw another one that sounded in the middle of the year.

Negro problems - the sheriff is not interested.

one more thing.

Lady with a cart - mare olright.

thanks Sparrow!

[Alexander Romanov]

Quote: vorobey

Negro problems - the sheriff is not interested

Hi Bird, it sounded differently - "Obama's problems are not of interest to Putin

[Tungsten]

Quote: vorobey

about the data he has only until 2009

And there weren’t more of them. In 2010, the contract was completed, and other MOs did not conclude.

Quote: vorobey

or rather 8 commander, he and you lose in the calculations.

Plus or minus decommissioned, the error of such a plan will always be.

[Oden280]

Without taking into account the T - 1224 tanks stored at NZ 80, they are in the troops. In general, there were about 2000 pieces of all modifications for 6400

[DmitryK]

Dear Author! What kind of education do you have? Thanks for the analysis!

[Max]

Thanks for the article, 5 points! As they say, I made out the bones. I would like to see such a detailed comparative analysis of the Mi-28 and the American viper.

[rennim]

Has the respected reader ever seen at least one T-90A or T-80U in newsreel footage during Chechen campaigns?

I report to a respected author. As part of our 166 MSBr, in 1995 T-80U was used.

[Samovar]

Yes, and the T-90 seems to have been there, just not lit up.
Here is a document stored in the museum of armored vehicles UVZ

[Volozhanin]

Yes, I saw a photo in the Soldier of Fortune, 1-1996

[Sheva777]

But all the same, what is the Soviet tank school, 9 years of difference, but it keeps at the level, he would have new fire control systems and could adequately meet the "foe" at night. Thank you for the article!

[Simon]

Yes, to carry out modernization of the t-72 and he would surpass this notorious M1A2.

[jasorgho]

Oncoming tank battle in the afternoon on the open flat terrain with the maximum possible distances of 4-5km. - T72 is better.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////// //
How did the author come to this very conclusion if, according to table 1 above, it was clear that the sights of arrams are better and the gun more accurate?

It is also worth considering that the enemy has a tank information management system FBCB2, thanks to which the commander of each abrams sees the full picture and can quickly coordinate his actions with other tanks without shouting anything into the radio.
How efficiently the coordinated links of the crews can act, I think everyone can imagine. And what will they be able to oppose to our guys who will scream into the radio against each other?
And in the abrams there will be microsecond encrypted impulses, and immediately on the displays of all commanders a mark with exact coordinates will appear. And then immediately, and roundabout maneuvers against a more blind enemy, especially at night - hit, I do not want to))
The author did not take into account the most important thing, that even if the T-72 of the 85th year of development is better than the M1A2 of the 92th year of development, then units and not individual 1-on-1 tanks always fight.

PS
As for my opinion, I think that tanks are very difficult to compare. Because they fit into different concepts. But if you compare without taking into account the other types of troops, then I think that the Abrams presented is better than our tank presented in the analysis - and without options. And there should be no illusions ((
I think the Ministry of Defense of the USSR knew this, too. t-72, t-64b and t-80 were attack tanks. The idea was that order always beats the class, a few well-trained light riders will defeat a heavy rider in most cases. There should be more of them and therefore they should be cheaper, lighter and more mobile than the enemy. And within the framework of that concept of Entering the English Channel on the seventh day, the T-72 was an ideal tank, in comparison with the Abrams of its modern modification. Abrams was created with an eye on the "hordes" of ATS tanks.
And if in the Soviet Union a tank is a means of breaking through, then in NATO, a tank is an anti-tank weapon. WHAT by the way is also reflected in the author's table, for this he is a big plus ++. And against tanks, our tanks had to fight within the framework of the concept - "order always beats class."

P.P.S.
This is the same as comparing BalAZ and KAMAZ. if separately, the Belaz will carry more cargo, and if in general, the KAMAZs throughout the CIS have transported so much that the Belazes have never dreamed of. Invalid comparison.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: jasorgho

Oncoming tank battle in the afternoon on the open flat terrain with the maximum possible distances of 4-5km. - T72 is better.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////// //
How did the author come to this very conclusion if, according to table 1 above, it was clear that the sights of arrams are better and the gun more accurate?

ATGM, which our tank can shoot, but is absent from Abrams, at such distances has superiority over the shell.
So, the author’s conclusion is correct.

[BruderV]

I will not tire of repeating that as part of any US tank attack group there are armored vehicles with TOW anti-tank vehicles. The fact that the Abrams themselves do not shoot ATGMs does not mean that in their army there are no ATGMs in principle.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: BruderV

I will not tire of repeating that as part of any US tank attack group there are armored vehicles with TOW anti-tank vehicles. The fact that the Abrams themselves do not shoot ATGMs does not mean that in their army there are no ATGMs in principle.

Repeat what? The tanks themselves are compared. In the armament of the tank Abrams M1A2 ATGM itself? No. So what are we arguing about?

[BruderV]

So it was like discussing a clash, and not just 2 tanks. Maybe if Abrams has no ATGM, then he needs it? You better take an interest in how long it takes to prepare an ATGM shot at our tank (although you probably have nowhere to be interested in), by the way, it is reloaded manually and will practically not be used in battle conditions. Recently, they even considered the possibility of installing ATGMs on top of a tower like a BMP.

[PLO]

Maybe if Abrams has no ATGM, then he needs it?

flawed logic
the presence of ATGMs in the tank’s ammunition is an indisputable plus, where the Americans need two cars (a tank and ATGM), one tank is enough for us

You better ask how long it takes to prepare an ATGM shot at our tank.

what do you send to ask if you know tell

its reloading by the way is done manually

yah? Invars are specially made in the dimensions of a standard projectile so that there are no problems with placement in AZ

[Max]

That's right, the clash was discussed. But mind you, two tanks, no more.

[ikrut]

Quote: BruderV

The fact that the Abrams themselves do not shoot ATGMs does not mean that in their army there are no ATGMs in principle.

The fact that there are ATGMs is understandable. And not only on armored vehicles. In general, the modern army is saturated with anti-tank weapons. Very different. By the way, the author also mentions this. It was about the capabilities of the TANKS. That is, it meant that the T-72 will be able to hit Abrams with its ATGMs at a great distance, but Abrams will not be able to, if such a situation arises. And the fact that many other ATGMs are good and different - no one has yet questioned.
A tank can be blown up at a PT mine, but they are not included in the complex of specific tank weapons. therefore, you can not mention them yet.
Any systematic approach (and the author of the article has such an approach) provides for certain limitations in the source data.

[BruderV]

Yes, I wanted to express a slightly different thought. Do modern tanks need the KUV in the form in which it is on the T-72? Or is it easier to have other delivery vehicles? Moreover, shooting at 5 km is necessary in very rare cases. The T-72 ammunition round is limited to 4 rounds, preparing for firing, reloading, changing to a conventional ammunition takes a lot of time, in dusty terrain, due to the low starting point after the anti-tank firing, dust clouds rise that make it difficult to aim, anti-tank firing shots significantly reduce barrel resource, which is already not high compared to Western tanks. So the adequacy of the use of tank KUV leaves more questions than answers.

[PLO]

Moreover, shooting at 5 km is necessary in very rare cases.

Well .. then why do we need TOW-2b at 4.5km? to shoot in very rare cases? or 4.5km is this a very common situation unlike 5km?

The T-72 ammunition round is limited to 4 rounds

if you wish, you can at least fill the entire AZ with ATGMs

reloading, changing to regular ammunition takes a lot of time,

where does this information come from?
once again the ZUB14 / 20 shot is located in the AZ and the time it is fed into the barrel is exactly the same as for conventional shells

in dusty terrain, dust clouds rise from a low starting point after an ATGM shot

don't be silly
the dust cloud after the ATGM shot is an order of magnitude smaller due to the lower propellant charge

ATGM shots repeatedly reduce barrel life

what heresy?
how ATGM differs from a conventional projectile in that it dramatically increases barrel wear, while the propellant charge of ATGMs is much less due to missile overload limitations

[jasorgho]

)))

Quote: olp

what is heresy? how is ATGM different from a conventional shell that it dramatically increases barrel wear while the propellant charge of ATGMs is much less due to limitations on rocket overload

ATM can be started from the "water" pipe)) what is the resource of the trunk decreases?
Olp, right

[Tatarus]

Not the site you chose.

[jasorgho]

yes, but how will our tankers detect Abrams at 5 kilometers? if the sights are worse then maybe it’s worth comparing everything in this context? I agree that the projectile loses its initial speed and that nothing will remain at 5 kilometers from the initial impulse. But Abrams can elementarily earlier detect a teshka. That's what I was trying to say.

[Tungsten]

Quote: jasorgho

I agree that the projectile loses its initial speed and that nothing will remain at 5 kilometers from the initial impulse.

At such a distance, the kinetic energy of the M829A2 projectile is sufficient to defeat a T-72B tank with a "Contact-V" type DZ head-on.
Source of information - Scientific Research Institute "Steel" (developer of the remote control).

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

Information source - Research Institute "Steel" (DZ developer)

They’re jokers that would let Relic push into the army, even make a tablet. Look for laziness.

[jasorgho]

thanks for the info.

[Pinochet000]

And if you consider that the M829A3 has been in series since the end of 2003 or 2004 and in the development of the M829E4 ... I think the main thing in the ammunition is still A3 now, the FCS is not even correct to compare, especially the night channel ... you need to upgrade to the BM level at least, modern ATGMs also have thermal imaging channels (spike, javelin) .. IMHO

[PLO]

yes, but how will our tankers detect Abrams at 5 kilometers? if the sights are worse then maybe it’s worth comparing everything in this context?

always amazed at such a strange logic
Okay, let's say our sights are worse, but where does the unequivocal conclusion from this statement suggest that our abstract sight cannot detect a tank at a distance of 5 km? apparently you have some kind of logic

[jasorgho]

By the way, before writing, I googled the detection range of our and NATO sights ... I really didn’t go anything.
But all the same, the essence does not change, even if it can detect, then the abrams can still anyway ... that's the logic.
And then you can imagine for yourself what can be done by someone who earlier detects the enemy, even if he shoots closer, but as noted above, there is enough energy to hit armor in the forehead from a distance of 5 km

[Kars]

Quote: jasorgho

higher energy is enough to hit armor in the forehead from a distance of 5 km

Yes, it’s not enough, the direct range of 2 km, can you imagine the angle of approach to the target at a distance of 5 km?

[jasorgho]

according to the discovery, the challenger shot at 4 km, the abrams has the ability to hit the target horizontally, shoots like a howitzer, though he did not specify about the modification presented. But I can imagine that if it’s not hit in the forehead but in the tower, in which the automatic loader with shells, or the engine compartment, the armor protection is worse from above.

I can’t say anything about the angle, the calculations there are complicated. But the larger the angle, the worse for our tank, because its armor is also beveled and the shell will somehow go perpendicular to the armor.

As for armor penetration:
here is the picture

if in excel to approximate the schedule up to 5000 meters, it turns out that the NATO shell will penetrate the armor at XNUMX degrees. But these are crude calculations. I think that even NATO members do not give such calculations, it is unlikely that they are seriously concerned about this, apparently they simply do not shoot direct fire at such distances. But theoretically, energy can be enough.
It turns out that you are right))
but this is only for listening to direct fire, but for howitzer fire, the tank is vulnerable and at a farther distance ..

[ate 13]

It’s impossible to shoot at such distances with direct fire, because the direct range of the tanks does not exceed 2000 km. Howitzer shooting is obtained, and most importantly it’s unlikely to get into the tank, especially if it’s in motion, the projectile then falls down and not spread along the ground. But here’s a strange scheme booking Abramsya where the main body armor of these lower armor plates raises questions. If you consider that the projectile flies along a parabola, then with increasing distance, the likelihood of getting into the upper frontal slightly armored, and the area the hell of the lower armor plate simply diminishes, so the campaign doesn’t need even the modern subciber and the ammunition can easily penetrate. In this case, the most effective is to fire howitzers with cluster munitions or aviation with the same.

[Pinochet000]

Quote: jed13

It is impossible to shoot at such distances with direct fire because the range of a direct shot from tanks does not exceed 2000 km

A direct shot is when the trajectory of the projectile (bullet) does not exceed the height of the target, but in general, according to my challenger, 55ka was destroyed in Iraq at a range of 5000+, I do not remember exactly, but look for laziness ....

[Tatarus]

Love Discovery, Become Discovery. Yes there is a complete lie, about the western. If you like the way you are being promoted, then relax and enjoy. Weston you darned.

[jasorgho]

I ask without insults)) Discovery may be silent about something but not lie.
Moreover, you can always double-check, thank God, Discovery is not the only source of information)) just go to any search engine (google or pro-orthodox Yandex) and enter: challenger fire distance well, or in Russian.
And to shut down from the information and say that everything is a lie, it’s stupid))

[Grigory_78]

Sorry, I watched the Discovery broadcast about tanks. Either they didn’t use the services of experts when creating the program, or they have experts like that — but in reality their ears fade from the nonsense that they sometimes carry. The T-34 was recognized as the best tank, but why this is so is completely incomprehensible from the program. They’re lying on Discovery infrequently, but when it comes to Russia and the USSR, lies are not uncommon.

[PLO]

So what is next can you imagine what can one who does detect an enemy earlier do so let him shoot closer

I can not
share?)

armor in the forehead from a distance of 5 km

hard to believe

[jasorgho]

Quote: olp

can’t share it?)

elementary ambush, bypass maneuver, flank maneuver

Quote: olp

hard to believe

above there are rough calculations ... And they seem to indirectly confirm your words, but no one bothers to make a howitzer shot, but the blind teshka will look around and look for a chance to hit with her "long arm"

[PLO]

elementary ambush, bypass maneuver, flank maneuver

easy to say - hard to do, but God bless him

half blind blind

so why half-blind?
let's clarify, are we talking about the T-72B of the 85th year and the M1A2 of the 94th year or about the extreme mods of these tanks?

but no one bothers to make a howitzer shot,

BOPSom on a hinged path? I hope you are joking?

[Kars]

Quote: olp

I hope you are joking?

It seems not to be joking)))))))))))

[jasorgho]

Quote: olp

BOPSom on a hinged path? I hope you are joking?

I didn’t write that armor-piercing on the mounted, I wrote that no one bothers to shoot along the mounted trajectory.
Can cumulative. For such purposes, the abrams even has special equipment - horizontal location and horizontal destruction. True, he did not specify whether this modification had it.

Quote: olp

so why half-blind?

itself escaped)) just wanted to say that it sees worse than abrams, incorrect

[PLO]

I didn’t write that armor-piercing on the mounted, I wrote that no one bothers to shoot along the mounted trajectory.

Naturally, you can shoot along the hinged trajectory with any projectile, but you can’t get there , the tank will just leave a couple of hundred meters while the BOPS and the CS reach
In addition, BOPS, unlike the COP, even hypothetically, when hit, will not break anything, it will simply lose its speed

on a hinged trajectory, it makes sense to shoot only OFS, but also absolutely not against tanks

just wanted to say that he sees worse than abrams

Well, maybe amers thermal imagers and optics are really cooler than ours, but you can’t say that they are bad

[jasorgho]

we have a consensus

[PLO]

that's the way tanks look in thermal imaging cameras with a Cape
watch from about the 6th minute

weird video doesn't embed
Here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs

[Tatarus]

I, too, recently, in front of my eyes, there was a consensus. The drunken redneck was rude to a young guy (who accompanied the girl) at the entrance. The redneck guy broke his head, he lay down and was sad. The guy went on to see the girl off. Bydloid wept snot and pissed shit, but not aggressive. Also a consensus.

[Pinochet000]

Quote: olp

he will just lose his speed

The loss of speed is about 56m / s per kilometer of distance for M829A2, A3 (if I'm not mistaken) the initial 1555m \ s 829A3 is all from open sources, it is possible that the speed drop for 829A3 is even lower than the indicated one because the active part is heavier and better saves energy ... IMHO

[Kars]

Quote: Pinochet000

perhaps a drop in speed for 829A3 even lower than indicated because the active part is heavier and better saves energy ... IMHO

It saves energy, not speed. In addition, the speed loss will not be linear. And if you use the hinged path to the target located 5 km, the projectile path will be much more than the desired 5 km. But with the possible elevation of the tank gun to 20 degrees, again on the desired 5 km, the angle of encounter with the armor will be far from 90 degrees,
option 1) the total length of the penetrator 512mm
diameter 27mm
conical length 100mm
penetrator working length 404
impact speed 1679 angle 0
absolute penetration limit 444 error
22 under 60g 519 option
2) if you put the conical part
0 total penetrator length 512mm
diameter 27mm conical length 0mm
penetrator working length 471
impact speed 1679 angle 0
absolute penetration limit 491 error 24 under 60 gr 574
the target is 900 MPa, both options are point-blank shooting. Western estimates give 480/0 and 550-570 / 60 per 2km

With popular mechanics.

[Pinochet000]

Quote: Kars

penetrator total length 512mm

Quote: Kars

absolute penetration limit 491 error 24 under 60 gr 574

М829А1: Р(0)=577 Р(60)=674
М829А2: Р(0)=636 Р(60)=743
М829А3: Р(0)=685 Р(60)=800

Yes, you can play it yourself, the benefit of the web calculator lies directly on the website of Odermatt itself - http://longrods.ch/perfcalc.php
you can read on Courage: http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=594&p=2

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

It saves energy, not speed.

Kinetic energy is a derivative of speed :)

Quote: Kars

In addition, the speed loss will not be linear.

Yes, the farther the projectile flies, the less loss of speed.

Quote: Kars

And if you use the hinged trajectory to the target located 5 km, the projectile path will be much more than the desired 5 km.

Firstly, the 5000-meter trajectory will be flat, rather than mounted. And secondly, they measure not the trajectory length, but the distance from the gun to the target.

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

Kinetic energy is a derivative of speed :)

And the masses -

Quote: Tungsten

Yes, the farther the projectile flies, the less the loss of speed

Okay, what will it be at a distance of 5 km and 10 km for interest.

Quote: Tungsten

Firstly, the 5000-meter trajectory will be flat, not mounted

Quote: Kars

But with a possible elevation of the tank gun to 20 degrees, again at the desired 5 km, the angle of encounter with the armor will be far from 90 degrees,

Is it written incorrectly here?

Quote: Tungsten

And secondly, they measure not the trajectory length, but the distance from the gun to the target.

from this, the path length at different angles does not become the same.

Frets, if we figure it out, let's meet the angle of 5 km - we know the height of the line of fire - the dimensions of T-72 B we know armor

Armor resistance

BPS / KS
Tower
540/900

Chassis
480/900

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

And the masses

The mass of the projectile in flight does not change significantly, so this is a negligible component of the equation.

Quote: Kars

Okay, what will it be at a distance of 5 km and 10 km for interest.

There are no exact values, but you can’t argue against physics. Air resistance increases quadratically to speed. Lower speed - less resistance.

Quote: Kars

But with a possible elevation of the tank gun to 20 degrees, again at the desired 5 km, the angle of encounter with the armor will be far from 90 degrees

No, wrong. At an elevation angle of 20 ° at a distance of 5000 meters from the tank, the projectile will probably be at a height of about a kilometer. There is no point in discussing any angles.

Quote: Kars

from this, the path length at different angles does not become the same.

You will not be able to get different elevation angles when firing at maximum aiming distance without putting the tank upright aft. Therefore, reasoning simply does not make sense.
The countdown is always from the gun (muzzle) to the target. And if it is stipulated that the speed drop at a distance of 2000 meters is 110 m / s, this can be considered a constant. A canopy for 2000 meters does not work.

Quote: Kars

Lada if you understand, let's meet at 5 km

The angle of incidence at a distance of 5000 meters will be approximately 9 ° 25 '
At the same time, note that with an increase in the angle of incidence, the effectiveness of the inclined frontal armor T-72 decreases .

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

There are no exact values, but you can’t argue against physics

Strange and why? Physics is an exact science.

Quote: Tungsten

No, wrong. At an elevation angle of 20 ° at a distance of 5000 meters from the tank, the projectile will probably be at a height of about a kilometer. There is no point in discussing any angles.

Well, for starters, this is not my reason. And am I wrong that the angle will be different from 90?

Quote: jasorgho

And they seem to indirectly confirm your words, but no one bothers to make a howitzer shot

Quote: Tungsten

You will not be able to get different elevation angles when firing at maximum aiming distance without putting the tank upright aft. Therefore, reasoning simply does not make sense

And who's talking about the tank?

Quote: Tungsten

The angle of incidence at a distance of 5000 meters will be approximately 9 ° 25 '

From vertical or horizontal? Is it taking into account all of the above factors?

Quote: Tungsten

the effectiveness of the sloping frontal armor T-72 decreases

It is decreasing, increasing it is interesting, but all the same, at what angle the meeting with the armor will happen, which would be simpler - the corps on which the Contact stands, which must subtract something from the BPS armor penetration.
And maybe there is a photo with a broken T-72 frontal armor from any distance?

[ate 13]

the contact is unlikely to subtract something, because it is opposed to the construction by construction, it’s something built-in like Relic, when you don’t throw a pack of thin plates but make heavy armor plate, this BPS may not survive or the plate will break it or change the position of the tungsten arrow and it will fall apart when it hits the main armor

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

Strange and why? Physics is an exact science.

To accurately calculate the final velocity of the projectile at a distance of 5000 meters, it is necessary to know its ballistic coefficient. Of course, I can approximately calculate it by its appearance, but the error of this method is too great.
In general, at a distance of aimed firing, you can take the drop in projectile velocity by a linear process.

Quote: Kars

And who's talking about the tank?

After all, it discusses a completely specific tank and its very specific weapon, right?

Quote: Kars

From vertical or horizontal? Is it taking into account all of the above factors?

Angle of incidence always measured from horizontal. What factors do not quite understand? I give the final result of the shot, taking into account total .

Quote: Kars

but all the same, at what angle the meeting with the armor will happen, which would be simpler - the corps on which the Contact stands, which must subtract something from the BPS armor penetration.

How ? It will happen as usual. Only instead of a meeting angle of 68 °, it will be 58 °. Those. the equivalent thickness of the armor will decrease slightly.
VDZ "Contact-V" does not provide protection against BOPS М829А3, its contribution to security will be equal to the thickness of the covers of the DZ blocks, ie approx. 20 mm steel.

Quote: Kars

And maybe there is a photo with a broken T-72 frontal armor from any distance?

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

After all, it discusses a completely specific tank and its very specific weapon, right?

In this particular case, a howitzer trajectory was discussed.

Quote: Tungsten

What factors do not quite understand? I give the final result of the shot, taking into account everything.

And the heights of the line of fire? The angle of the elevation of the gun?

Quote: Tungsten

Those. the equivalent thickness of the armor will decrease slightly

As well as armor penetration of a projectile which is maximum at 90 gadadus.

Quote: Tungsten

VDZ "Contact-V" does not provide protection against BOPS М829А3

For what reason?
Pin 5
Declining BOPS
Not less than 20%

Quote: Tungsten

And maybe there is a photo with a broken T-72 frontal armor from any distance?

I guess I put it wrong - It was from Iraq

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

In this particular case, a howitzer trajectory was discussed.

In relation to this tank :) You even mentioned the elevation angle.

Quote: Kars

And the heights of the line of fire? The angle of the elevation of the gun?

Of course. This will be the angle of incidence of the projectile when fired from the Abrams at a maximum sighting range of 5000 meters.

Quote: Kars

As well as armor penetration of a projectile which is maximum at 90 gadadus.

Here you are wrong. Modern BOPS better penetrate just the inclined armor, due to the normalization and effect of the back layer.

Quote: Kars

For what reason?

It is not initialized by a thin BOPS. We need a "Relic", which is what the Research Institute of Steel is talking about.

Quote: Kars

Declining BOPS
Not less than 20%

Soviet BOPS - yes. M8229A2 and A3 are specifically sharpened to overcome this type of remote sensing.

Quote: Kars

I guess I put it wrong - It was from Iraq

I’ll look for somewhere there was a tank, hit just in the area of ​​the viewing device of the driver.

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

This will be the angle of incidence of the projectile when fired from the Abrams at a maximum sighting range of 5000 meters.

What angle?

Quote: Tungsten

Here you are wrong. Modern BOPS better penetrate just the inclined armor, due to the normalization and the effect of the back layer

The normalization effect is known for a very long time, but for some reason the maximum armor penetration is given at an angle of 0

Quote: Tungsten

I’ll look for somewhere there was a tank, hit just in the area of ​​the viewing device of the driver

This chtoli? And the fact that you look is just an indicator that the armor is quite stable, it would be different, there would be a lot of photos.

Quote: Tungsten

It is not initialized with a thin BOPS

Before that, he was fat)))))))) and you know the principle of the needle? The sharper the more energy on the tip (well, figuratively)

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

What angle?

I repeat - the corner fall .

Quote: Kars

The normalization effect is known for a very long time, but for some reason the maximum armor penetration is given at an angle of 0

Maximum - at an angle of 60 ° :)
Example:
3BM-44 "Mango"
armor penetration at an angle of 0 ° - 450 mm
armor penetration at an angle of 60 ° - 230 mm

It is easy to calculate that the thickness of the armor along the course of the projectile is 450 and 460 mm, respectively.

Quote: Kars

And the fact that you look is just an indicator that the armor is quite stable, it would be different, there would be a lot of photos.

This is an indicator that there are generally few photos of the damaged T-72. In 1991, cell phones with digital cameras were absent altogether, as were digital soap dishes.

Quote: Kars

Before that, he was fat)

And you did not know ?! The relative thickness of BOPS has recently decreased by almost half.

[vorobey]

Tungsten,

But is there a photo from the inside?

[Prohor]

False, air resistance is proportional to the speed of the car and the square of the speed for BOPS, there is a very complex relationship ....

[Prohor]

From the square of speed! And saving energy when losing speed is just crazy , the speed drops by half - the kinetic energy is four times!

[postman]

Quote: Tungsten

and, the farther the projectile flies, the less the loss of speed.

??
more precisely, the lower the speed (of the body), the less the loss of speed from the resistance of the medium.
And the farther the projectile flies, it means it LONGER flies, so the longer term acts on it:
-the force of gravity
atmospheric phenomena (precipitation, wind)
- longer the resistance force of the medium
etc.


h / c work get the result

Quote: Tungsten

firstly, the trajectory of 5000 meters will be flat, not mounted

it (trajectory) will be flat on 9400 m, as
elevation angle with the stabilizer off + 13 ° 47 ', declination -6 ° 13'
and we (in the Russian Federation) have adopted the conditional lower limit of the mounted fire, the casting angle of 20 ° is accepted

Quote: Tungsten

And secondly, they measure not the trajectory length, but the distance from the gun to the target.

now they measure this for the firing mode while flying shells to the target fired from one gun (though this does not apply to m1 and t72)

[Grigory_78]

I read somewhere that the range finder at Abrams is not so hot. You cannot believe one measurement, several measurements in a row are contraindicated (no more than two in a row), then you must definitely pause, otherwise you’ll burn. Usually the average of the two is taken. All that is over 4000 meters is no faith. Graduation - up to 3000 meters, the shot is quite accurate. In the range of 3000-4000 meters there is a chance to get. Over 4000 meters - shooting at random, the waste of shells. That is why all the American plates for armor penetration and other parameters are made up to 3000 meters. Did not pay attention to this fact? But in vain. It was about modifying the M1A2. On newer ones, the rangefinder may have been fixed. We basically did not hear about such restrictions and glitches. In the description of the Greek tender, it also slipped between the lines about the strange reaction of the NATO to the results of the T-80U range finder.

[Tatarus]

Neither hrenak ambush, range 5 km.

[BruderV]

Quote: olp

to say that the TOW range is not more than 4 kilometers

Tow-2B modification 4,5 km

Quote: olp

And the characteristics of TOW will be even more abrupt.
I wonder what?

The presence of a tandem warhead, guidance over the radio channel. As for pointing at the laser beam, I think the laser does not shine exactly at the tail of the rocket, but still illuminates the target. The missile does not fly strictly in the center of the beam, but roughly speaking it revolves around it and therefore it is still possible to detect laser irradiation of the target

[Tungsten]

Quote: BruderV

The presence of a tandem warhead, guidance over the radio channel.

Do not tell me why then the rocket is called TOW Ie Tube launched- Optically tracked- Wire guided?

Explore: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/c

ontent / cms04_014844.pdf

[BruderV]

Learn for yourself, and do not pry others with information forty years ago. Since the eighties, the Tou-2 with radio channel guidance was adopted.

[Tungsten]

Quote: BruderV

Learn for yourself, and do not pry others with information forty years ago. Since the eighties, the Tou-2 with radio channel guidance was adopted.

Learn, it’s good for you.
The link TOW-2 rocket specification from the manufacturer’s website Raytheon (dated 2007). There is no "radio channel", wired guidance.

Or can you give a confirmation of your words that refutes the manufacturer ?!

[PLO]

Well, in fairness, it should be noted that there is a TOW-2B Aero RF with radio command introduction

http://pro-tank.ru/blog/908-raytheon-was-awarded-contract-for-supply-of-anti-tan
k-tow

[Tungsten]

Quote: olp

Well, in fairness, it should be noted that there is a TOW-2B Aero RF with radio command introduction

At the moment, escho radio command missiles have not entered service.
But BruderV He claimed that they had allegedly been used since the 80s. Which is not true.

[BruderV]

Yes, I agree. In the 80s they were only tested, but were not adopted. Well, excuse me, the head is not a house of advice. And now they have entered service, as evidenced by your link

[Tungsten]

Quote: BruderV

In the 80s they were only tested, but were not adopted.

The tests took place in 2006-2009.
In the 80s there wasn’t even a trace.

The link says only that a contract has been signed for the supply of a batch of missiles. There is no information on their adoption ...

[BruderV]

There were tests in the 80s against the facts no arguing.

[BruderV]

Need links? I have them.http: //btvt.narod.ru/4/tow2.htm

In mid-1988, the company carried out the first successful test launch of a rocket with a guidance system along the millimeter-wave beam. An inert warhead missile at its maximum range hit the target exactly

[anomalocaris]

We experimented a lot, but nothing good came of it. It turned out expensive and unreliable, plus great difficulties with the simultaneous use of several complexes in a limited sector. Ours found a more or less acceptable solution, the Americans did not ...
Yes, and wire management also has its advantages, but the truth is fatty cons. Ce la vie. Any machine is a compromise between the desired and the possible.

[BruderV]

Quote: Tungsten

There is no "radio channel", wired guidance.

Original. You probably haven't read your link yourself, or don't you know English well "the TOW customer`s transition to wireless is transparent" in your opinion, how is it translated?

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Tungsten

Tube launched - Optically tracked - Wire guided

Have you translated this into Russian?

[Tungsten]

Quote: saturn.mmm

Have you translated this into Russian?

Of course .
"Launched from a tube - followed optically - guided by wires."

[PLO]

Tow-2B modification 4,5 km

still less than 5)

The presence of a tandem warhead

Invar and Cornet also have tandem warheads

As for pointing at the laser beam, I think the laser does not shine exactly at the tail of the rocket, but still illuminates the target.

this is salt
there is no need to keep the laser beam on the target all the time, but only when the rocket approaches the target, when the target has no time to leave

[BruderV]

Quote: olp

there is no need to keep the laser beam on the target all the time, but only when the rocket approaches the target, when the target has no time to leave

In my opinion you are fantasizing now. As far as I know, our tank ATGMs have two flight modes to the target. At close range direct fire, at a farther with approaching above the target, so as not to hurt obstacles. And all this is done automatically with the active illumination of the target. And before that, you first need to measure the distance to the target again with the notorious laser range finder, so that the backlight can not be avoided.

[PLO]

As far as I know, our tank ATGMs have two flight modes to the target. At close range direct fire, on the far approaching above the targetso as not to hurt the obstacles. And all this is done automatically with the active illumination of the target.

if the rocket goes along the laser beam, how can it fly above the target if the laser illuminates the target directly?

And before that, you first need to measure the distance to the target again by the notorious laser range finder,

this is the need for all anti-tank systems

[anomalocaris]

You don’t know ... A direct-fire shot is allowed only when the target suddenly appears, when the gun is ALREADY loaded with a rocket, that is, in an emergency.
Measuring a distance with a range finder is a couple of seconds of exposure.

[anomalocaris]

Not all Tou modifications have a tandem warhead. But our tank ATGMs have them all. Like all ATGMs from the beginning of the 90s.
The beam accompanies the rocket, and it flies significantly above the line of sight. Accordingly, if the enemy has time to notice the radiation, then at the very last moment, before being hit.
So it’s harmful for you to think, because before you make any conclusions, it’s not bad to study the material. The grid has everything, including even operating instructions.

[cucun]

That Abrams still did not fall in the cold ....

[borisst64]

I have not read such a detailed and accurate analysis for a long time. Thanks to the author!

[Tungsten]

Exact? The author is even confused in the name and cannot distinguish one tank model from another. The figures are taken mostly from the ceiling, a lot of information is not true.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tungsten

The figures are taken mostly from the ceiling, a lot of information is not true.

Do you think that you have issued valuable information now?
Links to sources refuting the author’s data, where?

[Tungsten]

Gregory Malyshev , the article contains just a huge number of errors and, apparently, the purpose of its writing was "fitting to a predetermined result", am I right?

You do not even own the terminology of the described subject at all.

Does it make sense to correct errors, or is my assumption about the purpose of writing correct?

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

Does it make sense to correct errors, or is my assumption about the purpose of writing correct?

Not worth it, my advice to you.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

Does it make sense to fix errors

If there are errors, then you should point to them (for this, there is the possibility of comments),
then the commentary article will have exactly objective information.

[Kars]

Quote: Bad_gr

it’s worth pointing to them

Really? I’m okay, but a man of eagles will quickly earn money on epaulettes, and they will beat off his desire to comment.

TTX Summary Table

Shot index
3VBM-7
3VBM-8
3VBM-9
3VBM-11
3VBM-10
3VBM-13
3VBM-17
3VBM-20
3BBM-17M

Projectile index
3BM-16
3BM-17
3BM-22
3BM-26
3BM-29
3BM-32
3BM-42
3BM-46
3BM-42M

Extra charge projectile index
3BM-18
3VBM-18
3BM-3
3BM-27
3BM-30
3BM-38
3BM-44
3BM-48
3BM-44M

Cipher




Barrette
Nadezhda-R
File-2
Guy
Mango
Lead
Mango-M

Initial

speed, m / s
1780
1780
1760
1720
1692 1700 ...
1692 1700 ...
1692 1700 ...
1650
1692 1700 ...

Core length, mm
548
558
558
558
560
480
574
640
610

Weight (without WU), g
3900
3900
3900
4800
4800
4850
4850
5200
5000

Core (alloy based)
Steel
Wolfram


Depleted uranium
Depleted

Uranium
Wolfram


Depleted

Uranium
Wolfram



Scheme of reference
Ring VU from steel, expandable type and plumage
WU clamping type made of aluminum alloy and plumage
Double-bearing WU

Standard penetration at 2000 m, 60 °
110 ... 150
170
200
210
250
220
300
270

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

...

Interesting,
I commented on Tungsten (and a quote from him), and my comment says "Quote: Kars" as the author

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

Interesting,
I commented on Tungsten (and a quote from him), and in my comment as the author it is indicated "Quote: Kars

I selected the text correctly, but clicked on the wrong comment. It's simple. It happens.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

I selected the text correctly, but clicked on the wrong comment.

Clear. Thanks for the information.

[Tungsten]

Alas, it seems that you are right - have already begun to delete comments ...
What will happen when I post a detailed analysis of the errors and distortions of the article ...

[koosss]

write an article better, what's the problem then?)

[Tungsten]

Apparently I had to - too large a comment could not be posted. I contacted the administration, let's see what they say.

[Marek Rozny]

Just wanted to write, too, about writing an article. It’s painfully arrogant at you. And it is clear that you understand what you are talking about. I will look forward to your vision.
Sincerely.

[cth; fyn]

Here from the last chill ran across the back:

The survival of the crew with a tank defeat.
T-72B - 2 points.
M1A2 - 5 points.
М1А2 - better.

Rather, the tankers would be equipped with "Cowboy", EVERYONE!

[1c-inform-city]

Something tells me that the detonation of ammunition in Abrash will lead to the complete disability of the crew and from the point of view of war (excuse me), the result is almost the same. The question is which tanks can be produced faster in war conditions. Regarding TOW, the speed of our missiles is much higher and they will fly to the target faster.

Our warhead is also a tandem.

[dixicon]

but he will remain alive, respectively, can transfer to another tank, and then continue to fight.

[1c-inform-city]

Have you ever been inside a tank when you hit it with a training projectile (wooden blank). I think after the undermining of the bz they will never sit anywhere even if they survive in the darker tanks.

[Prohor]

Quote: 1c-inform-city

You

And you can read more?

[vorobey]

Quote: Prokhor

more?

I also wonder

[Mairos]

However, even a strong concussion and "complete incapacity of the crew" than a torn up pile of metal and a tower that flew 20 meters away, where the crew cannot be assembled properly. Again you are looking only from the point of view of maintaining the crew's combat effectiveness, but what about SURVIVAL in general?

[1c-inform-city]

After such a concussion, they do not live long. And very painful.

[ate 13]

Let's just say that the ammunition is a multi-component concept — it consists of propellant, that is, gunpowder and everything else, explosives in high explosive and comitative ones. Laying in the rear niche of an abram can save only from the ignition of the gunpowder. .Except that there will be a direct hit in the fuse. Here, as an example, we can cite the T-34, which, when the bead stack was damaged, began to detonate both the T-34-85 and the Sherman, in which even in a severe fire as a result of which sleep the ranks began to shoot arbitrarily; detonation did not occur.

[dixicon]

I remember in the 90s on TV I saw something like tests of our tank in which there is no crew, what was it? play on words? test of a new complex?

[Prohor]

Moreover, on TV they showed how the speeds in the tank themselves switch!

[Alarm clock]

finally a normal and understandable non-biased analysis. thanks to the author.

[Tungsten]

Judging by the number of errors and the nature of rounding, there are suspicions that the author is very, very biased towards comparison. Plus, poorly versed in the subject at all.
IMHO.

[Locksmith]

Quote: vorobey

and I would try OFS under the bottom,

Sadyuga, he’ll fall apart for cutting sheets, in the Great Patriotic War, we beat 152 mm OFS tigers — the effect is just wonderful — even if you immediately hand over the cutting of sheets to the welding workshop again

[zambo]

A very efficient and very informative article in a technically accessible language (everything will be clear and interesting to a high school student).

[Dimka off]

Plus to the author for the article! really liked it! and I would like to see such articles more often, not only about armored vehicles but also about all types of weapons. Thank you again for the article!

[Bars90]

The biggest plus of the T-72 is its relative cheapness, unlike the Abrams ... It would be quite useful to equip the 72 with an improved firing system and, of course, pay attention to the survivability of the crew. As it was said, not tanks, but people are fighting ... Good luck to the designers.

[shurup]

A beautiful technique is a good technique.
The T-72 is beautiful, like the T-34, therefore it is a good tank. Abrams and Leopard look like sheds on rinks.
Nighttime flaws are compensated by competent tactics of use. And at night I used to be on the march, and not try to drill abrams in the forehead. And in the morning you can call them from the rear and take warm.
The military-industrial complex can earn on the development of night devices. For such an upgrade, the T-72 is always ready.

[SuperVodka777]

I want to see a comparison with the T-80

[Setrac]

What kind of defermba to the author, I'm sorry for the expression, piping is not an analysis.
Let him talk about maintainability, the complexity of the technique, how much it takes to prepare a Tagkista for abrams and T-72, what is the required minimum level of training for a cadet, and let him tell you about the cost, how many T-72 can be bought for one abrams?
Finally, the weight of the tank, and this is logistics, the cornerstone of modern warfare, a difference of one and a half times means a lead in deployment by one and a half times, how much time does it take based on the capacity of the railway to transfer 300 tanks, say? The difference of one and a half times means that when 300 t-72s go into battle the enemy will have 200 abrams, and 100 on the way.

How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts are needed by weight (for example, to dismantle 30% of tanks to varying degrees of damage). If in a duel situation parity is approximate, then in big battles the law of large numbers will be on the side of the T-72. All other things being equal, the smaller T-72 silhouette - more often the Abrams misses, the greater the T-72 rate of fire - The Abrams will be knocked out faster, and finally, when the Abrams stops, the T-72 will still drive.

[Dangerous]

In your message, it reads between the lines "for all the above points, the T-72 is superior to the Abrams" and it seems that you yourself know the answers to your questions. So can you tell us how many tankers need to be trained, how many T-72s can you buy for 1 Abrams, etc.?

[Logs]

Maybe they just read the article poorly, the author mentioned many aspects. And if they got aggravated in all the technical details, then a diplkin would be written, which nobody understands.

[Black Colonel]

..and taking into account the fatigue of the Negro-loader where?

[Strashila]

The article has the right to be ... but all of this is hypothetically, purely theoretical. Each machine is designed according to the strategy-tactics of fighting a particular state. A machine is simply a set by a mechanism so that it could require a crew, the same is not an unimportant part of the system .Tank is separate from the connection of other branches of the army most often just a target, in this connection the role of father-commanders in this is unimportant ... etc. etc ... you can ad infinitum. In reality, everything and everything burns ... a question of time and money. In those countries where Russia supplies its equipment, the opponents do not have Abrams and Leopards, it’s more prosaic ... if the effect the same ... what to pay more for.

[Dangerous]

I agree. Moreover, I believe that it is preferable to respect a strong opponent with respect than to prove your superiority with foam at the mouth. I really hope that conflicts with the participation of our and Amer’s tanks will occur exclusively in the territories of third countries

[Dictator]

You look at the brainchild of Soviet designers, cats scratch their souls, t72, t80, t90 - tanks whose design is based on huge combat experience, only the Germans can boast of such experience, but history has shown that ours are more capable in this field. New armored vehicles can only be generated by a new big war, and only it can show whose tanks are better, the comparison on paper is written with pitchforks on the water. Of course I could be wrong, but I will not change my point of view, because I believe in the power of "Russian" weapons.

[Setrac]

I have no answers to most questions, but I always had excellent mathematics, let's count (the numbers are taken from an open source, so if something is wrong do not hit hard.
So T-72 Sun Abrams M1 ratio
Weight 41 53.4 1-1.3
Volume 11.8 19.7 1-1.67
Now, according to the square-cube rule (with an increase in linear dimensions, the surface area grows in the square and the weight and volume in the cube), knowing the difference in volume, we consider the difference in surface area:
a linear increase of 1.19, an increase in surface area of ​​1.41.
What follows from this? With such a difference in the reserved volume of 1.67, the difference in weight should be 1.41, we have 1.3, that is, with more weight, the protection of the tank is worse.
Further, with an increase in linear dimensions, Abrams should have a gun of 148 mm (125 * 1.19), but this is not observed.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

What follows from this?

Absolutely nothing . Since tanks have various design solutions.

Quote: Setrac

that is, with more weight, tank protection is worse

It would be if it were just to proportionally increase the T-72.
But the Abrams is not a T-72. Accordingly, this calculation simply does not make sense.

Quote: Setrac

Further, with an increase in linear dimensions, Abrams should have a gun of 148 mm (125 * 1.19), but this is not observed.

Why have a gun of 148 mm, if their 120 mm and so exceeds the Soviet 125 mm by 20%?

[Voodoo]

Good detailed article. Everything is clear and understandable. Our technology drives. And the crew was and remains the main one.

[Setrac]

What are Americans spending the priceless reserved volume on?
1 crew comfort.
2 Unused volume, due to imperfect layout.
3 The lack of a loading mechanism is generally beyond common sense.
How do they fight this?
1 Armor differentiation - a thick forehead with weak sides and aft - is a feature of assault guns and self-propelled guns, but not tanks.
2 Improving the quality of armor (steel).
3 Without using the tanks for their intended purpose - the tanks drive behind and shoot from a long distance, but the same thing is done by some low-cost self-propelled guns.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

1 crew comfort.

What is this expressed in? Can you give figures of the volume attributable to the workplace of a crew member?

Quote: Setrac

2 Unused volume, due to imperfect layout.

Where is this "unused volume" located and where is the imperfection?

Quote: Setrac

3 The lack of a loading mechanism is generally beyond common sense.

The whole world did not keep pace, only the USSR is right?
The fact is that with manual loading, the Abrams wins in terms of rate of fire over Soviet tanks with AZ.

Quote: Setrac

1 Armor differentiation - a thick forehead with weak sides and aft - is a feature of assault guns and self-propelled guns, but not tanks.

The security of the sides and forehead of the T-72B tank differs not just at times, but by an order of magnitude.
Congratulations ! You just revealed a terrible secret - T-72 is not a tank !

Quote: Setrac

2 Improving the quality of armor (steel).

Steel is not the main component of the Abrams armor.

Quote: Setrac

3 Not using tanks for their intended purpose - tanks go behind and shoot from a long distance

Tanks are driving behind ... WHO? What is in the forefront?
And one may ask - on the basis of what did you make this phenomenal conclusion?

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

The whole world did not keep pace, only the USSR is right?
The fact is that with manual loading, the Abrams wins in terms of rate of fire over Soviet tanks with AZ.

But what about the Japanese? French? Swedes? South Koreans?

Quote: Tungsten

Where is this "unused volume" located and where is the imperfection?

[Tungsten]

Quote: Kars

But what about the Japanese? French? Swedes? South Koreans?

Only on the latest MBT samples began to appear automatic loader.
In 1980 (creation of "Abrams") AZ did not have a decisive advantage over manual loading.

According to the table - where exactly is this "unused volume"?

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

In 1980 (creation of "Abrams") AZ did not have a decisive advantage over manual loading

What does this show? If in the 90s the French and Japanese began to put AZ if they lacked the advantage?

Quote: Tungsten

According to the table - where exactly is this "unused volume"?

Quote: Setrac

2 Unused volume, due to imperfect layout.

The person wanted to say, the larger volume of the intake, and we see from the table that this is the case. For example, in the tower for as many as 4 cubic meters - this is just the loader, and the place for his work. With longer unitaries.

[Aleksys2]

Quote: Tungsten

Only on the latest MBT samples began to appear automatic loader.

AMX-13 - French light tank. It was developed in 1946-1949 and, having been repeatedly modernized, was mass-produced in France from 1952 to 1964, and licensed in Argentina in 1968-1985. It was distinguished by an unusual design using the so-called "swinging tower". Such a tower was designed specifically to introduce mechanized (automatic) loading of the gun. On both sides of the tower niche behind the gun breech there are two drum-type magazines of 6 shells each.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Aleksys2

AMX-13 - French light tank.

That's right - it's a light tank.
After him, the French made many other tanks, including medium and MBT. And, oddly enough - all without an automatic loader! Only at "Leclerc" was introduced.

[Kars]

Quote: Tungsten

made many other tanks, including medium and MBT

The French? A lot? The average yes is AMX-30/32, the one-year T-62 (approximately) and the MBT of the French is AMX 56, but we will not take into account the 40th for export and less than ten lost.

Quote: Tungsten

all without automatic loader

so EVERYTHING is said loudly.
For example, a Swiss tank (or rather development)
http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/istoriya-sozdaniya/tank-revolyuciya/
They wanted to put the machine.

[Aleksys2]

Quote: Tungsten

The whole world did not keep pace, only the USSR is right?

A bit of history:
The start of work on the MBT-70 project was associated with the completion in 1960 of the American program for the development of the promising medium tank T95. The development of the new MBT began “from scratch.” In 1962, an agreement was reached between the United States and Germany on the joint development of the main battle tank. This agreement was aimed at creating a common model for the armies of both countries by 1970, and the agreement provided for the cessation of independent development in this area. It was believed that the combination of design, financial and production resources of both countries would provide an opportunity to quickly and relatively cheaply create MBT, embodying all the most advanced developments in this field. In addition, in the long run, this simplified issues of service, training, and supply. One of the significant reasons for this agreement was the appearance in the USSR of a new MBT T-64, which seriously outperformed modern tanks of NATO countries. The development of the MBT-70 was accompanied by numerous technical problems, in particular, there were problems with the refinement of both the American and German versions of the autoloader. M1 "Abrams" was the result of the third program for replacing tanks of the Patton series. The first two T95 and MBT-70 / XM803 failed. The T95 was not superior to the Patton, while the MBT-70, and even its simplified model XM803, were overly expensive and complicated. Also, the concept of a low-ballistic missile cannon-launcher, planned for installation on MBT-70 / XM803 tanks, did not justify itself.
The development of a new tank, which later received the designation XM-1, began immediately after the closure of the XM803 program at the end of 1971. To reduce technological risk, the new tank was decided to be made according to the classical scheme with a crew of 4 people and with a high ballistic gun as the main armament.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Aleksys2

A bit of history

And? Americans have been experimenting with various types of mechanized loading of tank guns almost since World War II.
But the result is known - for one reason or another, they were all rejected.
Moreover, a similar situation not only in the United States.

[nerd.su]

Quote: Tungsten

But the result is known - for one reason or another, they were all rejected.
Moreover, a similar situation not only in the United States.

They don’t know how. We don’t know how to do civilian cars, but they are automatic loaders ...
To each his own!

[lucidlook]

Tanks are driving behind ... WHO? What is in the forefront?

Perhaps the order of the attackers in urban conditions is meant? ..

"In the report on the combat actions of the 2nd Guards Tank Army in the Berlin operation, the actions of the assault group in the city are described as follows:" in front, on both sides of the street, small groups of submachine gunners were advancing with the task of destroying the "faustniki", snipers entrenched in houses, and to suppress firing points. Groups of submachine gunners, following on different sides of the street, supported each other with fire. 50-100 meters behind themmainly staggered followed by tanks, who fired in the same order as the submachine gunners. The task of the tanks was - the destruction of machine-gun nests, guns and houses in which the Nazis stubbornly resisted. Along with the tanks and the tanks, the submachine gunners followed directly, protecting the tanks from the "faustics" and clearing the houses from the enemy. "

/ "The Legend of Doctor Faust", p. 15.
Moscow, "Science", 1978 /

(my selection)

[Setrac]

Quote: Tungsten

But the Abrams is not a T-72. Accordingly, this calculation simply does not make sense.

Why then compare?

Quote: Tungsten

Absolutely nothing . Since tanks have various design solutions.

This is a double standard inherent in the West, if the Russians lose - suckers and sucks, if amers - various constructive solutions. I will say this - bad "other constructive solutions.

Quote: Tungsten

Why have a gun of 148 mm, if their 120 mm and so exceeds the Soviet 125 mm by 20%?

This is to show the capabilities of the tank with great weight.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

Why then compare?

I wanted to ask you this - why give a calculation that does not make sense?

Quote: Setrac

This is to show the capabilities of the tank with great weight.

This is utter nonsense. The mass and dimensions of the guns, and especially the ammunition load, are growing nonlinearly.
Yes, a 140 mm gun was created for the Abrams and ammunition for it was tested. But - it is simply not needed at the moment, excessively powerful.

[AlexMH]

Unfortunately, the Abrams, although the most advertised, but not the best tank in Western countries. If the "Merkava" and "Leclerc" - tanks are very specific in a number of parameters, then the "Leopard" is a very balanced tank, in terms of armor protection it is better than the Abrams, and in other respects it is not worse. Just a beautiful T-72 tank lagged behind them by a generation, it was just those 10..15..20 years that we lost because of what is clear. If the T-72 was superior to the American M-60 in almost all respects, the Abrams and Leopard were created 10 years later, just against the T-72 and T-80. In this situation, modernization, including deep, in the form of the T-90, will not fundamentally change the situation. We need a new tank, and our government, oddly enough, understood this. But whether its creation is possible at the current level of development of the defense industry - I personally doubt very much. If we cannot make a normal automatic transmission for a passenger car, how can we make a fundamentally new transmission for a tank? Or will "they" already have hybrid propulsion systems, and we will finally introduce hydromechanical propulsion with great fanfare after we have been riding on clutches since the T-34? It's the same with electronics and ammunition ... We are now in the same position as tsarist Russia before the First World War - where you can't stick, we don't know how to do - aircraft motors, diesel engines, turbines, dynamos ... and now. Of course, once copying, for example, the V-2 made it possible to quickly raise entire industries, but then there was a centralized economy, and now it is a solid sawmill ...

[Tungsten]

Quote: AlexMH

"Leopard" is a very balanced tank, in terms of armor protection it is better than "Abrams"

You can wonder - what is this statement based on?
Drawings, as well as photographs show the opposite picture.

[cth; fyn]

Well, depending on which Leopard, the first one with cardboard armor was , here is the second already more or less decent car, especially since it is considered the most rapid-fire.

[them]

Tanks are good, only tanks are not fighting, but people, the cat is sitting in them.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: jimm

Tanks are good, only tanks are not fighting, but people, the cat is sitting in them.

Suggest people to compare?

[cth; fyn]

why, let's:
American 2 arms, 2 legs, one head.
Russian 2 arms, 2 legs, one head ...

[Dimka off]

Russian people are famous for their nobleness, justice, kindness and courage. And the Americans ....? cruelty and ruthlessness to the defenseless - this is shown by recent wars.

[Setrac]

Quote: Tungsten

The security of the sides and forehead of the T-72B tank is not just different at times, but by an order of magnitude. Congratulations! You just revealed a terrible secret - the T-72 is not a tank!

This is a clear lie.

Quote: Tungsten

The fact is that with manual loading, the Abrams wins in terms of rate of fire over Soviet tanks with AZ.

You simply do not own the situation, or lie, Leclerc wins in rate of fire, Abrams is close to the T-72, but in ideal conditions, it is slightly superior, there are no ideal conditions in the war, due to the human factor, the abrams will lose in rate of fire.

Quote: Tungsten

The whole world did not keep pace, only the USSR is right?

The whole world did not fight for destruction with the strongest army on the planet, the whole world does not have such experience of land war as the USSR, the reference to "the whole world" is simply stupid, the experience of the USSR in using tanks surpasses "the whole world" (except for Ukraine).

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

This is a clear lie.

Why so?
The protection of the frontal projection of the T-72B tank against kinetic ammunition is estimated at approximately 600 mm. The thickness of the side armor is only 80 mm of homogeneous steel. Yes, not quite an order of magnitude, 7,5 times the difference.
Is that enough to recognize the T-72 as a "non-tank"?

Quote: Setrac

You simply do not own the situation, or lie, Leclerc wins in rate of fire, Abrams is close to the T-72

It is precisely because I own the question that I am writing.
The loading time for one shot of the Abrams tank is 5 ~ 6 seconds:

Rate of fire 10 ~ 12 rounds per minute.
The rate of fire of the T-72B is 8 rounds per minute.

[Setrac]

Read carefully what numbers indicate
Forehead of the hull, mm/deg. From OBPS(KS) = 310(450)
Forehead of the hull (top), mm/deg. 205 / 68° combined
The forehead of the body (bottom), mm / city. 85 / 60 °
Hull board, mm/deg. From OBPS(KS) = 200(400)[6]
Tower forehead, mm/deg. From OBPS(KS) = 410(500)[6]

Forehead of hull 310; forehead of tower 410, side 200; where is the difference by orders of magnitude?
Rate of fire - yes, under ideal conditions, a TIRED loader will surpass AZ. However, the human factor comes into effect:
1 How many of these trained loaders in the US Army? such rate of fire is shown by the best.
2 Such a rate of fire when shooting from a standing tank, and what will happen if Abrams moves over rough terrain, how much will the rate of fire decrease?
3 The charger has an advantage over the automatic loader, the MECHANISM of charging is not inferior to the loader.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

Read carefully what numbers indicate

I took figures from the text of the article under discussion:

The equivalent level of protection of the frontal projection of the tank is estimated at approximately 550-600mm from kinetic ammunition and about 850mm-900mm from cumulative ammunition.

600/80 = 7,5.

As I said - not quite an order of magnitude, but a sharp differentiation of security is evident. So, the T-72B is a "netank"?

Quote: Setrac

1 How many of these trained loaders in the US Army? such rate of fire is shown by the best.

You simply do not own the item. This is the norm that must be passed. each (without exception!) loader before it is generally allowed to the tank.
Virtuosos, through some tricks, cover the norm.

Quote: Setrac

Such a rate of fire when shooting from a standing tank, and what will happen if Abrams moves over rough terrain, how much will the rate of fire decrease?

Depends on the terrain and speed of the tank. But in general, the tank goes quite smoothly.

Quote: Setrac

3 The charger has an advantage over the automatic loader, the MECHANISM of charging is not inferior to the loader.

This is sophistry. It just so happened that the device for loading a gun in one design bureau was called "automatic loader", and in another - "loading mechanism".
By the way, the loading mechanism of the T-80 tank has the unpleasant feature that the loading time can reach 19,5 seconds (3 rounds per minute!), Depending on the location of the shots in the conveyor.

And you also do not take into account the fact that the 7,1-second loading cycle for AZs is indicated in ideal conditions when the required shots are in a row. In real conditions, especially as the shells are used up, the rate of fire will fall, since you will have to turn the conveyor more than one step.

[Eraser]

Trained can recharge in 4 seconds, as in the video, and so about 5 seconds in other videos, without straining.

[lucidlook]

Impressive. Really 5 seconds.

Here you can see how fast the AZ works on the T-72, first when the PSU is fed into the gun, and then, at what speed the carousel spins. Also at around 6:30 the whole process is clearly visible, you can detect:

http://youtu.be/z7BKjo-blA8?t=5m15s

In addition, it should be remembered that AZ is not weightless either. Its mass, perhaps, should be taken into account in the debate "which is better".

[Hon]

On the first shots, a person is really faster than AZ, but later on a person begins to get tired and the pace decreases.

[lucidlook]

The pace of AZ also decreases as ammunition is consumed, especially if different types of shots are consumed (the carousel will need to be twisted more than one step). And by the way, the loaders take not the most frail.

By the way, does anyone know. what is the option in the photo?

[vorobey]

Quote: Tungsten

Rate of fire 10 ~ 12 rounds per minute.
The rate of fire of the T-72B is 8 rounds per minute

It is you who bring the rate of fire in the common people, but practically the rate of fire starting from target detection, loading and entering data, aiming will be approximately the same. 3-4 rounds per minute with intensive combat. This is one and the second for how long the zabid abrams will remain operational to produce such a pace. although I foresee the answer - in zakidny they recruit hereditary stokers.

[Tungsten]

Quote: vorobey

It is you who bring the rate of fire in the common people, but practically the rate of fire starting from target detection, loading and entering data, aiming will be approximately the same. 3-4 rounds per minute with intensive combat.

In a dueling situation, it is just important to make a second shot as quickly as possible if the first does not hit the target.

Quote: vorobey

This is one and the second for how long the zabid abrams will remain operational to produce such a pace.

As you yourself wrote, he doesn’t need to maintain such a pace until the ammunition is exhausted :) The tank does not shoot in battle like a machine gun.

[Prohor]

the experience of the USSR in using tanks surpasses "the whole world" (except for Ukraine).
Unfortunately, the loss ratio of our tanks / tanks of others was always and everywhere not in our favor. And the reference to the fact that in the second half of the 2th century they were always used only by undereducated Arabs / Vietnamese / Papuans is somehow unconvincing ....

[Grigory_78]

Statistics - one of the types of lies in this case. For example, the United States supplied the Iraqi army to Abrams. Where are they? ISIS captured? Then why ISIS does not apply them? They are miracle tanks ... They are also not very visible in the arsenal of Iraq. And among the losses they are not. Evaporated, or what? Reminds Ukrainian "no losses." So where did they go?

[ate 13]

and here’s a photo of Abrams burned down, in which a man in a white Cobineson crawls. Intrest. It is a pity that there are no photographs of other angles. Two holes from the shells are visible. Probably 120 125 mm into the side 100-105 mm in the forehead. Other traces of the explosion are visible on the tower around the hole more characteristic for a komulativa, but the hole is too big. In short, a riddle. The forehead is most likely not broken, stuck somewhere in the package, but the hell knows how to make a hole in the side.

[Kars]

Quote: jed13

In short riddle

It was the Yankees who finished off with his missile.

[Prohor]

Why did they finish him off?

[Tungsten]

Quote: jed13

and here’s a photo of a burnt Abrams, in which a man in a white Cobineson crawls. Intrestna. It is a pity that there are no photos of other angles.

How is it not? Photos of this tank from all sides in different places is just a huge amount. He is kind of a screen star :)
Google for "M1A1 Cojone Eh".

Quote: jed13

Two holes from the shells are visible.

The tower has two holes from heavy aircraft missiles AGM-65 Maverik. It is clearly seen on the example of getting into the frontal part of the tower - characteristic traces of the explosion of a cumulative charge.

[ate 13]

that's just the point, traces of the explosion are visible but the hole is simply gigantic and somehow it does not pull on the commutative one. what kind of warhead is on in Maverick?

[Tungsten]

Quote: jed13

that's just the point, traces of the explosion are visible but the hole is simply gigantic and somehow it does not pull on the commutative one. what kind of warhead is on in Maverick?

Cumulative warhead with a caliber of 300 mm and a mass of 57 kilograms. Therefore, I broke such a hole. And the side sheet of the tower was already bent by the force of the explosion and demolished everything mounted.

[Kubatai]

Thanks for the good article..
And in the comments the war began

[georg737577]

My conclusion is that in World War III it will be terrible for all tankers... Regardless of the tank model.....

[Alex 241]

In the third world war it will be bad for everyone!

[Pinochet000]

Quote: georg737577

in the third world war it will be bad for all tankers...

uh...it'll be shitty for everyone

[radio operator]

A more or less objective comparative analysis of what is actually in service today.
Not bad.

[starlet]

really good tanks... better not to meet

[kopar]

Thanks to the author. I did a good research and expressed my point of view. Unfortunately, many authors, having written an article, begin to express their opinions in a categorical form.
Well-deserved "+" and we look forward to further research on this topic.

[valerei]

Dear author, Grigory Malyshev. Thank you for the good article, however, if you publish anything else, please show the text to the proofreader first. We must respect the Russian language. Yes, it is difficult and for an ordinary person minor mistakes are forgivable, which, practically, will always happen. But, if the article is published for public viewing, then full literacy is required, because illiteracy reduces the credibility of the author.

[Setrac]

Quote: Tungsten

This is sophistry. It just so happened that the device for loading a gun in one design bureau was called "automatic loader", and in another - "loading mechanism".

There is a difference, but you are right, it is not fundamental.
Each scheme has its own advantages and disadvantages, but firstly, the automatic loader can be improved, the loader can hardly be improved, and secondly, the AZ allows you to save a LOT of volume, which, with other parameters, allows you to make the tank smaller, lighter and with better protection. The same Abrams could have been made with an automatic loader, a much smaller, stronger, much better tank, but it would no longer be an Abrams.

The equivalent level of protection is even more sophistry, let's talk about the actual thickness of the armor.

The French AMX-13 did not have an automatic loader or mechanism, it had an automatic cannon with two drum magazines.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

The same Abrams could have been made with an automatic loader, a much smaller, stronger, much better tank, but it would no longer be an Abrams.

At that time it was impossible.

Quote: Setrac

The equivalent level of protection is even more sophistry, let's talk about the actual thickness of the armor.

Again from the article:
Dimensions of the frontal armor of the turret (physical thickness) within 50-80cm.
The physical thickness of the side armor is 80 mm. TOTAL, order of magnitude :)
Still a "netank"?!

Quote: Setrac

The French AMX-13 did not have an automatic loader or mechanism, it had an automatic cannon with two drum magazines.

His gun is ordinary (it was actually taken from the Panther). There was an automatic loader with drums.

[leha1128]

good article, although they don’t criticize the technology, but talk about the technical characteristics.

[Setrac]

Quote: Tungsten

Why have a gun of 148 mm, if their 120 mm and so exceeds the Soviet 125 mm by 20%?

This is an excuse, but the truth is that a larger caliber projectile is too heavy and the loader will not lift it, so without a loading mechanism there is nowhere.
I would like to clarify the rate of fire of the 105 mm and 120 mm guns, the weight of the projectile is 120 mm and 140 mm.

[Tungsten]

Quote: Setrac

This is an excuse

This is the question - WHY?

Quote: Setrac

but the truth is that a larger caliber projectile is too heavy and the loader will not lift it, so without a loading mechanism there is nowhere.

It does take up too much space, so the ammunition load will be reduced to a ridiculous size. And the gun itself of this caliber will be very bulky and heavy.

Yes, having installed a 140 mm cannon, the Americans also installed an automatic loader - this is not a problem for them.

Quote: Setrac

I would like to clarify the rate of fire of the 105 mm and 120 mm guns

I don't have a manual for the M1, but the M1A1 (and subsequent ones) has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute.

Quote: Setrac

weight of the projectile is 120 mm and 140 mm.

A projectile or a whole shot? By the way, it (140 mm) has separate loading.

[Letun]

Author, thank you. And the abstract ratings of “Discovery” from the point of view of entertainment are of course interesting to watch, but there is not a lot of objective information in them (unlike this article).

[oldjib]

The article is really great. A good attempt to objectively compare the two cars. But the devil, as always, is in the details. I confess I didn’t track down who the author was, but from indirect evidence it is clear that the person in the tank did not fight. Not a single competent tank commander will ever go into battle (with the exception of an oncoming battle after a march) if:
The ammo was not unloaded from the rack tanks (usually only shells were left in the conveyor)
the fuel from the external tanks above the caterpillar shelves was not drained (used up) (personally, I “chased” my mechanics so that even on the march they would first consume fuel from the external tanks, anyone who knows the topic remembers the driver’s mechanic’s tank switching valve)
Well, and another nuance: all the electrics (AZ), etc., as well as the optics of the sights, “fall out” after the first decent hit on the tank. After this, the real “war” begins, when the shell needs to be removed from the tray, pushed into the charging chamber by the rammer, and the gunner begins to aim through a small triplex located exactly above his sight, while aiming the gun with the handles of the lift-and-swivel mechanism. :-)
and the hatches were also tied with ropes so that if they were hit by a tandem RPG, the eyes wouldn’t leak from the armor’s pressure. Beautiful! :-) There is no way to get there just to scare the enemy. :-/

[water-sochi]

Agree. Good analysis. And the more critical we are of our technology, the better. It is vital for us to have weapons more advanced than those of a potential enemy. Otherwise, China, for example, will attack us... How to stop it (and by whom)..? They will crush you with numbers. And their army is powerful. This country is more dangerous than America. After all, our Far East is very poorly protected. And the population density is minuscule. The railroad will be cut. And you can’t transfer troops quickly.
So you need to rack your brains all the time. And have first-class weapons.

[Bosk]

It is incorrect to compare the T-72 and Abrams, although on the other hand many are trying to compare the Tiger with the T-34.... so why can’t the Abrams be compared with the tank against which it was created...... ..........

[- = Rusich = -]

Great article, enjoyed reading it! Now we wait for Armata and look at the comparison.

[Tungsten]

Analysis of the article "T-72B vs M1A2 Abrams" - http://topwar.ru/22600-analiz-stati-t-72b-vs-m1a2-abrams.html.

[SmacXnumx]

Very interesting article and the discussion is simply SUPERB!!!!

[s1н7т]

The US tank regiment against the USSR tank regiment is a joke. Because the TP in the USSR was part of the MSD, where, in addition to tanks, anti-tank weapons, it’s hard to count! Abrams won't go far.
In case of a chance meeting, everything will depend on the training of the crews and luck.
Each tank is made according to the BUSV of its time, 72 corresponded to 100%!
NEVER has our equipment in the hands of our soldiers lost to the amers! NEVER did the Yankees risk proving their superiority against us on the battlefield!
Let them stick their Abrams wherever they like!
It is clear that a new car has been needed for a long time, but has someone formulated the requirements for it? “Rescuer” is an incapable performer.
Until the “family” leaves, we will be in…op.

[shosha]

Thanks to the author for a good, informative article. And here is another one that surprised me very much - http://glavcom.blogspot.ru/2012/12/2012.html?m=1

[Anthrax]

The comparison is not bad.
But why is the M1A2 being compared?
It's exotic.
The author claims that the most common tanks need to be compared.
States have only 1% M2A20.
The remaining 80% are M1 and M1A1 with a much worse fire control system from the 70s of the last century.
And 40% of Abrams are generally M1 with rifled!!! a 105mm gun as old as mammoth shit.
Its engineers in the mid-50s designed it for the 1946 Centurion tank.
It’s more fair to compare the T-1 with the M72.
But only the amers themselves during Desert Storm understood that even the export and weaker modifications of the Iraqi T-72 were far from Abrams with a 105mm cannon, and therefore the M1 with such a cannon was placed in the second line.
And what kind of production is M1A?
The United States hasn’t made new tanks for 20 years, only the old MA1s are being upgraded to M1A2s at a very leisurely pace.
In Europe, the last tank was made in 2000.
In Russia, millions of people live in barracks, there are no roads, but new tanks are being built.
Starting next year, a series of 2300 completely new Armata will be launched, which is 18 times more than the number of tanks left for the whole of Germany in 2015!

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Europe's last tank was made in 2000

Purely for the sake of smiling.

C1 Ariete (Italian C1 Ariete) is an Italian main battle tank. Developed in 1984 based on the German Leopard 2 tank, the first prototype was built in 1986. Mass-produced from 1995 to 2002.

And it’s even funnier that if they don’t make tanks in the Russian Federation, you won’t get any more money, and several tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs, as well as billions of dollars from the export potential of Almaty.

[Anthrax]

Wow, Italy completed a gigantic 200-unit series of tanks developed in the 80s of the last century, not in 2000, but in 2002
It's 2013 now.
Russia has the most tanks in the world.
More than all NATO countries combined.
And since the last European tank was produced not in 2000, but in 2002, we need to spend billions not on purchasing equipment for children's hospitals and saving several hundred lives of little people, but in order to rivet even more tanks.
We need to make 2300 new ARMAT!
We will die of hunger, but we will build tanks and arm the army!
ZY About the fact that 200 Ariet tanks are a gigantic series, it’s just sarcasm.
Let's compare only with the T-72, only we have 9 thousand of them, and in total about 30.000 T-72 were produced

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Russia has the most tanks in the world.

Really?

Quote: ANTHRAX

More than all NATO countries combined.

Does Quantity/Quality say anything?

Quote: ANTHRAX

throw away billions not to purchase equipment for children's hospitals and save several hundred lives of little people, but to rivet even more tanks

And you are not outraged that the Stabilization Fund with billions of rubles of the Russian Federation is stored in US bonds, fueling their economy and not being spent on children's hospitals)))))

Quote: ANTHRAX

As for the fact that 200 Ariet tanks are a gigantic series, it’s just sarcasm.

Really? Sarcasm is so sarcasm, I learned it a year later. As for the latter, upgrading the Leopard 2A4 to A6 was more expensive than the new T-72

Quote: ANTHRAX

Let's compare only with the T-72, only we have 9 thousand of them, and in total about 30.000 T-72 were produced

Surely this bunch of Abrams cost 2-3 times more than a bunch of T-72s

[Anthrax]

Can you name a country that has more tanks than Russia?
Surprise!!
Apparently you don’t know anything about the difference in prices in different countries?
In the DPRK, the entire GDP is 40 billion, and the military budget is about 10 billion dollars.
Germany's military budget is about 40 billion, that is, 4 times larger than the military budget of the DPRK.
Only the DPRK army is 6 times larger than the German one.
And the German army is constantly shrinking.
The DPRK has 20 times more tanks than Germany, and new tanks are coming to the DPRK army, but the German army is only cutting and downsizing.
And the DPRK makes missiles and nuclear weapons with a military budget four times smaller.
Only in the DPRK people are dying of hunger.
And healthcare costs in Germany are 10 times more than the military and, accordingly, 10 times more than the entire GDP of the DPRK.
And the stabilization fund and other funds have accumulated about 10 trillion rubles in foreign currency over 3 years.
Compared to Russia's military spending for the next 10 years, it's a pittance and a penny.
Only 2 US federal medical programs Medicare and Medicaid - $789 billion per year - are more than all US military spending.
Comparing without taking into account the difference in prices and GDP is a huge stupidity

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Can you name a country that has more tanks than Russia?

Quote: ANTHRAX

Russia has the most tanks in the world

You quickly fell from the world to the country)))))

Quote: ANTHRAX

And the stabilization fund and other funds have accumulated about 10 trillion rubles in foreign currency over 3 years

Or they could have been invested in the Russian economy, given thousands of jobs, increased welfare and brought hundreds of times more economic benefit than sponsored by the US economy at 1.5% per annum.

Quote: ANTHRAX

Comparing without taking into account the difference in prices and GDP is a huge stupidity

Indeed, compare US tanks with calm borders and complete control of the OCEAN (you can compare the US fleet with the tanks and fleet of the Russian Federation))))))) and Russia, which has the longest borders (land) and China and NATO on the borders.

Find yourself something else for bile instead of tanks.

[nerd.su]

Quote: ANTHRAX

And the German army is constantly shrinking.

Germany is a member of NATO. And our army must be compared with the combined power of the entire NATO bloc, and not separately with Germany.

And now no one in the DPRK is dying of hunger.

[Anthrax]

Vika
The end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s was the time of the collapse of the socialist camp. For the DPRK, this was a time of a sharp reduction in international assistance from abroad: in 1990, the USSR demanded that North Korea pay for imported products at market prices, and at the same time the volume of Chinese assistance decreased. However, the North Korean leadership refused to reform its economic system. This situation led to a severe economic crisis: from 1990 to 1995, the DPRK's GDP declined[10]. In 1992-1993, North Korean authorities launched a campaign urging citizens to eat two rather than three times a day, which was declared unhealthy. In 1994, residents of remote areas were unable to receive food ration cards, sometimes for several days. After catastrophic floods in 1995, famine began in the country.[11]
1995–1999: Hunger

From 1995 to 1999, famine continued in the DPRK. Estimates of the death toll range from 220 thousand to 3,5 million. During the famine, refugees reported cases of cannibalism.

[nerd.su]

Quote: ANTHRAX

From 1995 to 1999, famine continued in the DPRK.

Well, I never said that there was no famine.

Quote: ANTHRAX

From 1990 to 1995, North Korea's GDP declined

You would think our GDP has been growing all these years! It’s just that the North Korean leadership had enough determination and intelligence not to carry out the reforms that our traitors carried out.

And, by the way, what about the number of armies of the NATO bloc? Are you keeping quiet?

[Anthrax]

What are you about ????
What kind of intelligence and determination of the North Korean leadership are you writing about?
What is the decline in GDP???
Thousands of children died there!!
And the last ki rule in the DPRK, who, first of all, spread rot on their own people!
Turn on your head, not ORT news!
What about NATO?
There are fewer tanks in the entire NATO than in Russia.
just like Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world.
Naturally considering tactical.

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

just like Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world

Are you sure? And not in the USA?)))

[Anthrax]

Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world.
It is only on strategic media that the United States has more than Russia.
And if we take the overall tactical view, adding that Russia is ahead of the rest of the planet in terms of nuclear weapons reserves.
We consider the United States to have about 2000 strategic charges and about 500 tactical ones.
300 charges each for China, France, Great Britain, another 900
100 charges for “underground” nuclear workers in India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.
Total -3500 of all nuclear weapons for the rest of the world
Russia has more than 1600 strategic charges.
And from 2000 to 10000 tactical nuclear warheads.
There are even figures of about 15 thousand tactical nuclear charges

The nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad are part of Russia's overall stockpile of low-yield nuclear weapons, estimated at between 4000 and 15000. These include nuclear artillery munitions, nuclear-capable short-range missile warheads, nuclear-capable anti-aircraft missiles and ballistic missile defenses, nuclear torpedoes and sea-launched cruise missiles, and nuclear munitions for tactical carrier aircraft.

Read more: http://www.inosmi.ru/untitled/20010104/140823.html#ixzz2GvycTqB3
Follow us: @inosmi on Twitter | InoSMI on Facebook
In total, Russia has 1600+2000=3600 nuclear warheads.
This is if you take the minimum. If you take the maximum, then more than 10000.
And there is no need to repeat the fairy tale that Russian tactical weapons will not reach the United States.
There are a lot of million-plus cities on the US coast, and 80% of all Americans live on the ocean coasts of the US.
From a multi-purpose submarine along the coast you can fire a cruise missile, or even a torpedo with a nuclear head.
And the cruise missiles of our submarines fly 2500 km.
You can get it to the middle of America.
And all these are not strategic, but tactical nuclear weapons.
Well, in Europe or China, it’s clear - even from an airplane, even from a cruise missile, even from a ship.
Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world.
Z.Y. The United States has not made new nuclear warheads for more than 20 years

[Anthrax]

P..sh, this is a Sino-Japanese front.
By the way, they got into a lot of fights with each other this year.
but China remained silent and swallowed.
Vika article from the CFE Treaty.
Russia withdrew from it because the gigantic stockpiles of weapons did not fit into the CFE Treaty. We read the availability of equipment in the European NATO countries as of January 1.01.2011, XNUMX.

All in all, NATO (22 CFE member countries) - 11 tanks, 624 armored combat vehicles, 22 artillery systems of 788 mm caliber and more, 13 combat aircraft, 264 attack helicopters.

Naturally we don’t believe it.
The numbers are inflated. For example, in Belgium and Holland, tanks have been completely decommissioned.
A significant part of the tanks are in a decommissioned state and have already been sold to Asia or sawn apart, or are waiting in line for melting down.
We add 6000 American tanks, of which 4 are mothballed in settling tanks. In total, about 17 tanks.
Russia's figures for the CFE Treaty are unreliable.
The CFE Treaty covers only the European part of Russia. Anything east of the Urals does not count.
And in general, one cannot trust a country that specifically withdrew from the CFE Treaty in order to hide its weapons.
There are about 20 thousand tanks in Russia. You can find it in the same Wiki article about the Russian ground army.
You can refer to the words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces in 2010.

Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces Alexander Postnikov said that at the moment the number of tanks in service with the Russian army is almost twice the actual need. Today, the number of tanks in the Russian troops is approximately 20 thousand, while it would be quite possible to get by with 10 thousand.

Further, as in jokes about the army, the commander-in-chief said that since we have too many tanks, there is only one solution - to buy another 2010 T-261 tanks during 90.

http://www.webground.su/tema/2010/02/25/suxoputnye_vojska/
In total, Russia has more tanks than all NATO countries combined
Naturally, both in NATO and in Russia, most of the tanks are mothballed
And not just tanks.
There are more of the same artillery systems as written above than the entire NATO
And if you take away the USA, then there are more helicopters and planes than the rest of NATO.
Let's now compare the standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality, quality of roads, population and total and per capita GDP.
Z.Y.On the DPRK.
Are the Americans also to blame for the famine? Well, the damned imperialists don’t want to feed the Juche regime while it is investing in the construction of an atomic bomb

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Naturally we don’t believe it.
The numbers are inflated. For example, in Belgium and Holland, tanks have been completely decommissioned.
A significant part of the tanks are in decommissioned condition and have already been sold to Asia

Even if only one country out of 22 has tanks, then if the figure is 11, it will still not change if it is issued. And tanks sold before the date are also not included in it. US reserve tanks are located on US territory and cannot be included in the final figure.

Quote: ANTHRAX

The CFE Treaty covers only the European part of Russia. Anything east of the Urals does not count

this is true. But Chinese tanks are also not taken into account.

Quote: ANTHRAX

In total, Russia has more tanks than all NATO countries combined

This doesn’t mean anything. NATO has mostly modern tanks

Quote: ANTHRAX

And if you take away the USA, then there are more verts and planes than the rest of NATO

Why remove them?))))))))))

Quote: ANTHRAX

Z.Y.On the DPRK.
The Americans are also to blame for the famine

Naturally they are to blame; under their influence, economic sanctions were imposed on North Korea, so they bear considerable responsibility for the famine.

[nerd.su]

Quote: ANTHRAX

P..sh, this is a Sino-Japanese front.
By the way, they got into a lot of fights with each other this year.
but China remained silent and swallowed.
Vika article from the CFE Treaty.
Russia withdrew from it because the gigantic stockpiles of weapons did not fit into the CFE Treaty. We read the availability of equipment in the European NATO countries as of January 1.01.2011, XNUMX.

Yes, my friend, you are a stupid troll. Have fun yourself :)

[Anthrax]

Interesting dialogue.
They didn’t provide a single figure.
From your side only - “I don’t believe it, prove it, p...sh”
It ended up being called a troll.
Not a single significant post on your part.
And which one of us is the troll?

[Kars]

By Decree of the President of Russia No. 435F of April 16, 2005 and Order of the Minister of Defense of Russia No. 043 of May 27, 2005, the modernized T-72BA, T-80BA, T-80UA, T-80U-E1 and T-90A tanks were put into service.[ 22] During the period 2001-2010, 280 tanks were produced[23]

There are only 280 new tanks, and so much waste))))))) that’s what is needed.

as of 2006[30]:

Type of weapon Quantity
Main battle tanks 22,800+ (~6,500[31][32] in service)


Russia has ONLY 6 tanks, of which only 500 have been new in the last 500-15 years.

[Anthrax]

And in the USA there has not been a single new tank in the last 20 years.
In Europe, no new tanks were made for more than 10 years.
This means you don’t want to count all tanks, but only those that you call active.
Russia has 6500 you count.
And how much NATO has together is quite difficult to count.
After all, there are 22 countries and the number of tanks there is constantly decreasing.
In Germany there are hundreds and a half tanks in service, in Great Britain there are about 200, in France there are 300.
And these are the largest European countries.
In Belgium and Holland, tanks were completely written off, and more recently there were hundreds of tanks there.
Someday I’ll get together and count the number of NATO tanks not in settling tanks, but only in service
But I am sure that there will be less than 6500 tanks.
.

[nerd.su]

Where does Russia get 6500 tanks? The number of ground forces, according to Wiki, is 300 thousand people. Roughly this is 100 brigades. Let's assume that in each of the districts there is a tank brigade, in each tank brigade there are three battalions of 30 tanks, round up to 100 tanks in the brigade. This is 4 x 100 = 400 tanks. The existing brigades have a tank battalion, each with 41 tanks. 96 x 41 = 3936 tanks. Let there be one tank battalion for each fleet in the Marine Corps. Even if the battalion is still in the Caspian Flotilla. This is 5 x 41 = 205 tanks. Total 400+3936+205 =4541 tank. But this is a super-mega-optimistic calculation. After all, the ground forces also include engineering troops, RCBZ troops, etc. I read something pessimistic in the CP: we have 35 motorized rifle brigades and two tank brigades, plus tanks in the Marine Corps. This is approximately 2000 tanks in service. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Why are there 6500 tanks in service and tens of thousands at storage bases? What if all outdated models are being intensively recycled?

[Anthrax]

Germany has 132 tanks and that's normal.
In France, 300 tanks are also the norm.
There are 200 tanks in Great Britain.
And these are the greatest European powers.
Is 3000 tanks not enough for Russia?
And in real life we ​​have about 17-18 thousand at our storage bases.
They dispose of 200-300 tanks per year.
And why the hell are they outdated?
In China, the T-54 is still the basis of tank forces.
And in the USA, more than half of the tanks at storage bases are M1.
With a very poor fire control system from the 70s.
And the most important thing.
The main weapon of the tank is the cannon.
M1 tanks have a 105mm rifled gun from the mid-50s!
The English came up with it and installed it on the Centurions, which were put into service back in 1946!
This is a really decrepit and archaic gun!
And the US has twice as many M1 tanks as the vaunted M1A2.
Is it weak to discuss GDP, population, standard of living, quality of roads and provision of housing, as I already suggested?

[nerd.su]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Germany has 132 tanks and that's normal.

How do you know how many tanks there are in Germany? Are the Germans reporting to you? :) Turkey had 2010 tanks in 4500, Poland had more than 900. In Germany, by the way, in 2010 there were more than 1300 tanks. I wonder where they put almost 1200 tanks in 2 years?
Where is the confidence that NATO countries have no tanks for mothballing? Russia has only two allies - its army and navy. And this is not a metaphor. Therefore, we need to have as many tanks in service as the total number of countries and military-political blocs that have a common border with us. And in storage two more times the same amount.

Quote: ANTHRAX

Is it weak to discuss GDP, population, standard of living, quality of roads and provision of housing, as I already suggested?

I wonder if we remove the volumes of the military-industrial complex from American or English GDP, will there be much left? The quality of roads does not correlate in any way with the number of tanks; tanks only travel around Moscow on May 9. What does the housing supply have to do with it? In the USA or Western Europe, does the state provide housing for anyone?

[Anthrax]

You consider them the same.
Otherwise, you simply ignore tanks that are mothballed in Russia and in Russia you only consider tanks to be “active” tanks.
And in other countries you consider all the tanks to be “active”, both in conservation and in settling tanks, waiting to be sold or melted down.
state for 2010 in Germany
.

According to the plans of the German Ministry of Defense, 150 Leopard 2A6 tanks will be upgraded to the 2A7+ version. Currently, Germany has 225 Leopard 2A6 and 125 2A5 tanks in service.

http://lenta.ru/news/2010/06/28/leopard/
But here are the plans to reduce tanks

Introducing the concept of Bundeswehr reform, Thomas de Maizière justified its necessity by the fact that the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany “have become too immobile over the decades,” and much in the army is being done in the old fashioned way.

The largest cuts will affect the ground forces, which will be reduced by almost half. It is assumed that 54 infantrymen, one artillery battalion, and one airborne regiment of 500 thousand people will remain in the Bundeswehrovek and three tank battalions, each of which will be armed with 44 Leopard-2 heavy tanks".

That is, now or in a couple of years there will be 132 tanks in Germany.
Germany is moving in this direction.
US spending on the purchase of military equipment is about 110 billion per year.
Compare with US GDP - 15 trillion dollars per year.
About 0,7% of GDP is spent on the military-industrial complex in the United States.
The Russian state arms program until 2020 is 20 trillion rubles, plus 3 trillion for the modernization of military-industrial complex enterprises - 3 trillion.
In total, more than 2 trillion rubles a year in the military-industrial complex in Russia.
About 3,8-4% of GDP.
There's no longer any left on the road
And if you compare it with razors, it turns out even funnier.
UK spending on the military-industrial complex compared to UK GDP is even less.
Government spending on health care in the United States is about a trillion a year.
Only 2 federal medical programs, Medicare and Medicaid, cost 789 billion dollars a year to the government, more than all US military spending. And this repeats only government spending on these 2 medical programs.

The largest expenditure item in the American budget is spending on the medical programs Medicare and Medicaid (Medicare/Medicaid) - they amount to just over $789 billion.

Source: http://forexaw.com/NEWs/Macroeconomic_news_and_indicators/Macroeconomics_USA/Fin


ance_USA/Other_financial_indicators_USA/150035_%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90_%D1%80%D0%B0%D


0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0
All expenses of our state are about 15-16 billion.
Everything else is the same as in the USA through insurance company policies and cash.

SOCIAL HOUSING IN EUROPE

Among European countries, the largest part of the housing stock is social housing in the Netherlands (35%), in Sweden the rental sector of the housing stock is 47%, of which social housing accounts for 27%. This is followed by Germany with social housing accounting for 25% of the housing stock, Austria (23%), UK (21%), Denmark (19%) and France (17%).

http://www.rmnt.ru/news/47643.htm
Here it is interesting to read about social housing in the USA
http://xoxol-xoxlovich.livejournal.com/49548.html

[nerd.su]

Quote: ANTHRAX

You consider them the same.

Okay, let's do the same calculations. For simplicity, let’s take all tanks both in storage and in combat formation. Let's take one source, Military Balance 2010, produced by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. I'm taking 2010 because I don't have 11 and 12 yet :)
So, Russia - 23 tanks.
NATO. European countries 12. USA and Canada 486. Since NATO is a single organism, it makes sense to count them together - 5 tanks.
In the Far East, Japan has 880 tanks and China has more than 6550 tanks.

About the cuts. Liberal theorists in Europe and in the West in general decided that tanks were not needed, the outcome of the company would be decided by missile and bomb strikes and precision weapons. But it is one thing to defeat the enemy, and another to hold territory. And so, one after another, NATO countries began sending tanks to Afghanistan and abandoning plans for such a radical tank reduction.

Would you like to talk about the size of the US national debt? In my opinion, this is where all the economic success of the United States lies.

Quote: ANTHRAX

US spending on the purchase of military equipment is about 110 billion per year.
Compare with US GDP - 15 trillion dollars per year.

My friend, what does this have to do with the costs of purchasing military equipment? Not even for me, but for yourself, open a book, read what GDP is, what it consists of. Then you will understand what the share of the military-industrial complex is in the US GDP, and in general you will learn a lot of interesting things about the economy of the most democratic democracy...
Medical expenses in the US are too high to win elections. Well, with such a national debt and its constant increase, there is no need to save :)
All medical care there is paid, and if you don’t have insurance, you will die. So that people don’t die en masse, these programs were introduced. In fact, this is help to freeloaders, and to those who really cannot work - pensioners, disabled people. We also don’t have any problems with medical services; they won’t let us die. Apart from the general level of development of medicine, things are better there. But I’m happy with ours too.
In general, from the figures you provided, it is clear that you are comparing absolute values ​​without understanding anything about their essence.
With housing, I didn’t understand at all what you wanted to say? Do you think that in the USA they give it away for free?
In general, a person here, if he is not an idealist or a complete idiot, can easily save up for an apartment in 3-5 years without a loan. You just need to set such a goal. Of course not at 18 years old. We need to find our place in the world and use the opportunities it gives.

[Cat basilio]

Metalhead (ANTHRAX). Kars. I found strength in myself, and found intelligence in myself.).. And gave birth.) The obvious.
Metalist tanks in the era of ICBMs cost less than 0. In a local conflict on Russian territory, the T-72 is an excellent weapon. Let them come to us with Abrams and Merkavas.)) In the jungles of the Urals. They will end.)) No matter how many there are.)))

[Anthrax]

Kars,
Problems with the Russian language?
Russia has the most tanks of anyone in the world, not more than the whole world.

I have never written anywhere that the stabilization fund is good.
He wrote that inflated military expenditures over 10 years are much more than what has accumulated in the stabilization fund over 10 years.
What NATO are you so afraid of?
In which gay pride parades and annual troop reductions?
Where there are already countries that have completely written off their tanks, and even more countries are on the road to zeroing out their tank fleet.
There are 132 tanks for the whole of tank Germany.
Do you think these are signs of preparations for aggression against Russia?
And your idol doesn’t say anything bad about China.
We are friends with China.
And China has many times fewer tanks than ours.
And two-thirds of China’s tanks are the Soviet T-54 model 1946 and its modifications.
And how could the idea even come to mind that at this time Russia should build more new tanks?

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Problems with the Russian language?
Russia has the most tanks of anyone in the world, not more than the whole world

The world doesn’t have tanks, that’s why you said in your fit that the Russian Federation has the most tanks in the WORLD, that is, more than the total number. And so the attempt to linguistically explain away caused a smile.

Quote: ANTHRAX

He wrote that inflated military expenditures over 10 years are much more than what has accumulated in the stabilization fund over 10 years

But this brought money and jobs, profits from exports, etc. to the Russian economy, unlike the stabilization fund.

Quote: ANTHRAX

There are 132 tanks for the whole of tank Germany.

Can you provide evidence for this?

Quote: ANTHRAX

, and even more countries are on the road to zeroing out their tank fleet.

And how many of these countries have a border with China?

Quote: ANTHRAX

And your idol doesn’t say anything bad about China.
We are friends with China.

We were also friends with Germany in 1941.

Quote: ANTHRAX

And China has many times fewer tanks than ours.
And two thirds of China’s tanks are the Soviet T-54 model 1946 and its modifications

Numbers, numbers to the studio please. With graphs in stock, in use, in storage.

Quote: ANTHRAX

And how could the idea even come to mind that at this time Russia should build more new tanks?

far-sighted people who are worried about Siberia, which is already painted in a different color on Chinese maps.
The Russian Federation is also dismantling tanks; the T-64s are already almost completely destroyed.

Photo from the Urals, although there is such a thing in Ukraine.

[Anthrax]

According to Bild, the ground forces will suffer the worst: their numbers will decrease by 40 thousand people, to 54500 troops. This concerns personnel, but there is practically no information about how equipment will be reduced and disposed of. After the reform, according to the same Bild, three tank battalions of 44 units each may remain in the Bundeswehr. CH-53 military transport helicopters will be transferred to the Air Force. For its part, Tagesschau clarifies that, according to the plans of the Ministry of Defense, out of 330 Leopard 2 heavy tanks (data for 2005), only 150 will remain in the Bundeswehr
http://www.csef.ru/index.php/ru/component/csef/project/-/-/-?id=423

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

For its part, Tagesschau clarifies that, according to the plans of the Ministry of Defense, out of 330 Leopard 2 heavy tanks (data for 2005), only 150 will remain in the Bundeswehr
http://www.csef.ru/index.php/ru/component/csef/project/-/-/-?id=423

Is it in active use? Or together with a reserve?

The main programs for equipping the armed forces, which will run until 2015 and further include procurement:

140 Euro-fighter multirole combat aircraft
40 Airbus A400M transport aircraft
40 Eurocopter Tiger combat helicopters
80 NH90 transport helicopters
30 MH90 naval helicopters
16 SAATEG MALE (Mid Altitude Long Endurance) class unmanned aerial vehicles
5 Eurohawk type unmanned aircraft systems (High Altitude Long Endurance - HALE)
350 Puma
272 GTK Boxer armored personnel carriers
4 F125 frigates
6 corvettes of the multi-purpose ship type 180
2 Joint Support Vessels (JSS)
The newly acquired systems will not replace the currently active ones in the same quantity, for example, in the 520 Marder infantry fighting vehicle there are only 350 before replacement. This is possible because the new, converging systems are significantly more efficient than the old ones, and on the other hand, originally adapted to the needs of the Cold War, the numbers are no longer needed.

Bundeswehr with the following active equipment since 2011: [51]

Army (Bundeswehr)

350 tanks
523 armored personnel carriers
67 anti-aircraft tanks [52]
1558 APCs
218 armored recovery vehicles
40 Bruckenlegepanzer
83 armored vehicle engineer
148 howitzers
55 Rocket Launcher
29 anti-aircraft missile systems
1149 Management / functional and transport means (partly for foreign trade operations)

Peaceful burghers.
By the way, is there a photo of a Leopard 2A6 being cut for scrap metal?

Until 2008, the Bundeswehr reduced the list of active Leopard 2 previously from 2125 units in 1990 to 350 units

Emphasis on the word ACTIVE.

[Cat basilio]

You are a necrophiliac Kars

[Kars]

Cool)))))))))))))))))))

[Cat basilio]

Knock you KARS.)))))

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

Cool)))))))))))))))))))

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: Kars

Cool)))))))))))))))))))

that's cool

[Kars]

It happens to everyone.

[Setrac]

You are wrong, it is in the era of ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons that tanks and other armored vehicles that can fight in conditions of nuclear contamination are of paramount importance.
I would like to point out that a tank is not a weapon, but a platform, the weapon is a 125 or 120 mm gun, and 30 guns are in any case better than 10.

[lucidlook]

“Based on the experience of the Second World War, the main means of fighting tanks was anti-tank artillery. In a war involving the use of nuclear weapons, it will be the decisive means of mass destruction of entire tank units, units and formations.
...
The effectiveness of destroying tank forces with nuclear weapons compared to losses from conventional weapons has increased to enormous proportions. Nuclear strikes can cause colossal losses to both tanks and manpower of tank forces.
...
The fact is that the radius of the damage zones for crews in tanks is 1,5–2 times, for ultra-low power ammunition - 3–4 times higher than the radii of the damage zones for tanks of the same explosion. Consequently, the area affected by crews is approximately 3–4 (9–16) times larger than the area affected by tanks from the same explosion. Taking into account the affected areas, fires and rubble, the losses of tank forces will practically be even greater."

“Fighting tanks” / Biryukov, Melnikov, Moscow: Military Publishing House, 1967. /
http://militera.lib.ru/science/birukov_melnikov/03.html

I apologize for the long quote, but I can’t be more precise.

[Anthrax]

In 1957, China received several samples and a license to produce the Soviet T-54A tank. Its serial production began in 1957 at tank factory No. 617 in the city of Baotou (Inner Mongolia). Soviet specialists took an active part in the construction of this tank plant and the launch of the tank into mass production. Later, production was expanded to two more factories in Inner Mongolia and Shanghai. The production of tanks of the Type 59 series continued until 1987, with the latest vehicles being significantly modernized versions. The first batches of production vehicles were completely identical to the Soviet tank, later the production technology was simplified as much as possible, minor changes were made to suit local specifics, and from 1961 the tank received the official designation “Type 59” (WZ-120). During the production process, the tank was repeatedly modernized and adapted to the specific conditions of Southeast Asia. This is how the models of main battle tanks “Type 69”, “Type 79”, “Type 80” subsequently appeared.
The "59" tank was the most popular in China's fleet of military vehicles. Its production volumes were: early 1970s - 500-700 units, 1979 - 1000, 1980 - 500, 1981. – 600, 1982 –1200, 1983 – 1500-1700 units. In the mid-1990s, the People's Liberation Army of China had about 6000 Type 59 tanks in service.

Since the mid-90s, China has produced about 2000 TYPE-96, TYPE-99, TYPE-98.
That is, two thirds of the tanks are the Soviet T-54 and its modifications
http://world-of-tank.com.ua/tanki-mira/sredniy-tank-tip-59-type-59
http://otvaga.narod.ru/Otvaga/china-tanks/0tank_t59.htm

According to Bild, the ground forces will suffer the worst: their numbers will decrease by 40 thousand people, to 54500 troops. This concerns personnel, but there is practically no information about how equipment will be reduced and disposed of. After the reform, according to the same Bild, three tank battalions of 44 units each may remain in the Bundeswehr. CH-53 military transport helicopters will be transferred to the Air Force. For its part, Tagesschau clarifies that, according to the plans of the Ministry of Defense, out of 330 Leopard 2 heavy tanks (data for 2005), only 150 will remain in the Bundeswehr
http://www.csef.ru/index.php/ru/component/csef/project/-/-/-?id=423

[Kars]

Quote: ANTHRAX

Since the mid-90s, China has produced about 2000 TYPE-96, TYPE-99, TYPE-98.
That is, two thirds of the tanks are the Soviet T-54 and its modifications

600-800 Type 99 different modifications, as of 2011

These are optimistic figures, but your T-90 of various modifications is less than 500

The Chinese political and military leadership pays great attention to improving general purpose forces, in particular tanks. For the military of China, tanks still remain the main striking force of the ground forces. Therefore, the army is currently purchasing two types of tanks from its military industry: the relatively cheap and simple Type 96 and the more advanced and, accordingly, more expensive Type 99.

If the Type 96, in its early modifications, corresponded in its characteristics to the Soviet T-72A tank, then the latest version is closer to the Russian T-90. What the Chinese have in common with Russian and Soviet tanks is the use of a 125mm cannon and a similar automatic loader. The currently produced Type 96G has a fairly developed fire control system and enhanced armor protection.

It is difficult to say how many of these tanks enter service with the Chinese army annually, but apparently we are talking about several hundred units. And now there are probably about 3 thousand of them.

Significantly fewer of the more complex Type 99 tanks, which are considered first-line vehicles by the Chinese military. Although official sources have never published exact data about it, this tank, according to military experts, can be considered one of the best. It uses Russian (gun, automatic loader, guided projectiles) and Western (engine, transmission, aiming and observation devices) technologies. The result is a car that, if not superior to the world level, then comes close to it.

The so-called “Type 99A2” will become even more advanced. It has a significantly improved fire control system and enhanced armor protection. They wrote about the imminent appearance of this tank back in 2007. However, there is no data yet on any presence of it in the troops. Apparently, the designers encountered technical problems that are currently being resolved.

The total number of Type 99 tanks is about 600. This is the data provided by otvaga2004.mybb.ru Navigator about the presence of such tanks in units and formations of the People's Liberation Army:

27th army, 235th mechanized brigade, 2 battalions: 82 tanks
47 army, 139 mechanized brigade, 2 battalions 2: 82 tanks
38th Army, 6th Armored Division, 24th Tank Regiment: 93 tanks
38 Army, 112 Mechanized Division: 155 tanks
39th Army, 3th Armored Division, 9th Tank Regiment: 93 tanks
65 Army, 193 Motorized Division, Tank Regiment: 93 tanks


As we see, the Chinese army continues to increase the number of modern armored vehicles, which cannot but worry neighboring states

[vitiaz]

Briefly speaking ! All show-offs are in electronic guts!
Whoever has cooler electronics is cooler!

[MAGNETO]

The article says that neither the T72 nor the M1a1 have an active protection system, but in the American wiki (I know it’s not an authority, but still) there is a topic that some Abrams have an active protection system AN/VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasure Device which can protect a tank from laser-guided missiles, radio-guided missiles (such as 9K11 Malyutka, 9K111 Fagot, 9M113 Konkurs, 9K114 Shturm) as well as heat-guided missiles and infrared infrared guided missiles (sorry, I don’t know the terms)


PS: And recently they successfully tested the XM111 120mm MRM (Mid-Range Munition) anti-tank projectile with a range of 12 km, for Abrams and Leopard.

[Grigory_78]

They compared not the latest modifications that the cat cried, but more or less massive ones. That’s how we have the T-90A, T-72B3, T-72B3M and even a couple of dozen Armata... There is little point in mentioning the latest modifications of weapons at all - you can recall the same Zumvolt, the “dove of peace”. It’s been tested, tested, and suddenly it starts to break down, and the cost of the projectile exceeds the cost of a missile, which is much longer-range and multifunctional.

[d_t_p]

Here is a real list of the top 10 best tanks in the world (according to the Stockholm Institute for the Study of Global Affairs):
1 Abrams М1А2SEP
2 Leopard 2A6
3 Merkava MK-4
4 Type 90
5 T-90C
6 K1A1
7 Type 99
8 Challenger 2
9 Le Clerc AMX-56
10 Type 10
In my opinion, this list can be challenged
Write what you think about him

[base66]

in a night battle, the Abrams is also better in terms of crew survivability, and this is the most important thing. so Abrams is better. I'm sure the conclusions have been made

[LEYBSHTandArts.]

Goospad how can you compare Soviet technology and technologically advanced technology of the West, our laser dolfinder with a panoramic sight was seen only on the T-80U. And yes, the tank battle between the M1A1 and T-72B of the Iraqi Guard showed the full power of the Abrams and where the superiority of the tanks was behind Iraq ( a purely tank battle and the Abrams came out victorious) and the battles were not with some pathetic Iraqi warriors, but with the guards of Sadam Hussein.

[Maksimov]

In fact, if “what happens” happens, the number of tanks will go not by hundreds and not by a few thousand, but by tens. So the T-72 will have to fight with the M60 of various modifications. More precisely, they will not, basically, fight against each other, they will simply fight from different sides.

[Wanderer039]

The article is old, but I still decided to leave a review for it, because I was a little hooked and, first of all, by the inaccuracies. 1) Where in the Russian Federation have you seen a place where you can shoot at 3000 meters?! Perhaps there are such places, but the Russian Federation is not a desert, there are few such places here, since even fields are intersected by plantings, hills, there are forests, holiday villages and residential villages, not to mention cities... In such a situation, a place where you can shoot further than 500 - 1000 meters still need to be found...2) Comparing the Abrams M1A2 with the T-72 is incorrect, since the M1A2 has been produced since 1992, and the T-72B since 1985...For the purity of the experiment, one should compare the M1A2 with the T -72BM model 1989, and it is no longer Kontakt-1, but Kontakt-5 and in general the car is more interesting... 3) The T-72 can fire a missile through the barrel from any distance, and not just from long range. See the application in Chechnya for example. 4) Abrams now has high-explosive shells, and with such ammunition, the crew’s protection from ammunition detonation, designed for armor-piercing shells, no longer works 5) Placing part of the Abrams’ ammunition in armored boxes does not give anything, since the ammunition most often explodes during a fire in the tank, from heating shells, and not from a direct hit on them. At one time, the Yankees used armored boxes with double walls to store ammunition, the cavity between which was filled with water, which temporarily prevented the shells from exploding in a fire (until the water boiled away) and gave the crew time to leave the burning tank, but the Abrams does not have them, since the Yankees They were abandoned because of their high cost and complexity in production (they were used on parts of Sherman tanks). Armored boxes for shells in Abrams do not have a double wall with water; in the event of a fire, they heat up quickly and the shells detonate. 6) Due to the fact that the spent cartridges on the Abrams remain inside the tank, the Abrams’ fighting compartment is more contaminated with powder gases, which negatively affects the crew and their ability to perform combat missions.