What do the Yankees think about Russian tanks

72
For more than ten years now, the controversy over the quality of Russians continues on the Internet and on the pages of Russian print media tanks, their advantages and disadvantages. A flurry of criticism sometimes literally swallows and hits “over the edge”. Apparently, self-criticism and self-digging, instilled in us by literary classics, are so deeply rooted in the Russian mentality that we can’t live without it. We tend to underestimate our Russian national achievements, sprinkling ashes on our heads. Rare optimists are immediately recorded as cheers or begin to be accused of partiality of their assessments and judgments. At the same time, we are often pointed to the "enlightened West", where supposedly people behave a lot more restrained in terms of criticizing their own military equipment, do not talk languages ​​on the forums, "revealing cards." It turns out that this is not so at all! There, "beyond the hill", too, people are not averse to gossiping, "sucking up" their tanks, comparing them with the tanks of NATO neighbors or even ours. You just need to know English, which is most lacking for most Russians (including your humble servant - I repent). However, if desired, this problem can be circumvented using modern software tools. Moreover, if you take up surfing more closely, you will find ready-made quite tolerable translations of very interesting conversations in English-language forums. I bring one such conversation below. An American (under the nickname Bluewings12), a former Abrams shooter from Fort Knox, talks about the tests of American infantry fighting vehicles on Russian tanks DZ, as well as the shortcomings of manual loading in the Abrams M1 tank, and the features of the OMS. The discussion source dates back to 2007. In 2009, the translation of selected speeches into Russian was published on the Russian Baltic website and was further discussed on the Global Adventure forum. Since then, some critics of the Russian weapons and, in particular, DZ, "Kontakt-V" and "Relikt" poured a lot of mud into the minds of the readers of Runet, arguing that these systems are "bad", "wrong", "do not work", "ineffective", "pest" and other , other, other in the same vein. And now we read the American tankman and ask ourselves why all those ravines and tarasenki are ignoring this open and accessible publication.


One American, a former shooter of Abrams from Fort Knox, talks about the testing of American shells on the DZ of Russian tanks.

On the one hand DZ can reject the projectile at 25 degrees. After that, the penetration of the projectile into the tank becomes impossible.
Another point is the shock wave, it can break the projectile on 4, 5, 6 or more. Because the projectile is simply destroyed before reaching the main armor.

In this regard, tungsten is slightly better than depleted uranium.
Only in 40% of cases our latest models of shells can overcome the latest modifications of the Russian DZ.

In accordance with the standard, it is stated that M829A2 breaks through Contact-5 "


Well, easier said than done. Contact-5 can reflect M829A1 and DM-53. And the difference between A1 and A2 is more on paper than in real life.

In fact, DM-53 is even better than M829A2.

M829A3 is generally a different fish. This is APFSDS.

But he very much wears the gun barrel.

And what are the Russians doing to combat the new threats? - They make DZ new generation better than Contact-5.

Unfortunately, М829А2 can be completely destroyed by DZ contact-5, as well as DM-53, especially uranium shells.

I generally trust the Russian DZ, because saw the test results. All I want to say if the Iraqis had a DZ contact (not 5) on T-72's in the Gulf War, then the battles would be fought at much closer distances and the losses of T-72 would be minimal. If the Iraqis had T-80UM1 with contact-5 (but the same shitty ammunition as 3BM12, 3BM15), then the United States would have won, but with losses. Well, and if they were given 3BM42, then T-80 would have won easily.

In general, М829А1 can punch contact-5 in the 1 case from 5. This is alarming. M829A2 is also not good enough, he is not able to beat contact-5 every time. This is the reason why the US is developing A3. I want to remind once again that contact-5 not only deflects the projectile, but also destroys it, and the deflection can reach 30 degrees. I tell you, DZ is working.

DZ only sometimes able to reflect the projectile


Well, do not know what you mean by sometimes. Ask yourself why we developed the M829А2 and DM-53 when the M829А1 and DM-43 made the bare armor of all Russian tanks. What is the reason?

DZ has minimal impact on the breakthrough of APFSDS


DZ does not have a minimal impact on the effects of APFSDS. Even at the most favorable angle 90 degrees, DZ reduces the possibility of penetration by 30%, which is not “minimal”. Now, if the projectile hits the DZ turret at an extreme angle, then in 80% of cases the projectile will be destroyed and will not even leave scratches on the main armor.

DZ ideally will provide a DM53 / M829A1 projectile mixing on 2-3 degrees.


No, maybe for all 30 degrees. Therefore, even if DZ makes its way, then the projectile bounces off the armor. First, all the shells ricochets. The only question is, at what speed and at what angle. The longer the projectile, the greater the angle of the rebound, and the faster the projectile, the greater the angle. The critical angle is measured from the normal (i.e. 90 degrees from horizontal). A shell with a X / NUMX / 1 ratio D / D (length / diameter) at a speed of 10 km / s has a rebound angle of 1,7 degrees, if it is from steel and 78 degrees, if it is from tungsten or uranium. For the 81 / 1 ratio, the D / A angle rises to 15-82 degrees. And, perhaps, with 83 / 1 D / D, it reaches 30-84 degrees. Tate's formula provides rebound within - + 85 degrees, i.e. in 5% of cases, the 50 / 1 projectile D / D will bounce at the corners 10 -73 degrees. And if the DZ plate exceeds the 83 / 1 Т / Д ratio (plate thickness / projectile diameter), then these angles are reduced by a few more degrees. It should also be noted that only one DZ plate reduces penetration by 4-10, but there are two such plates in contact-20, which is why contact-5 works so well against projectiles.

Thank you for advertising DZ


I do not defend her. We in the West have much better types of armor, because we can make it from high-quality and expensive materials.

commentWhen the Americans did not have a combined armor in sight, the Russians had armor with ultrafarmor (electrocorundum) ... never cheap. And when did it appear that the aluminum filler in Chobham is expensive? NEVER, Western armored structures for materials (not for the total price, there are a lot of factors) are not more expensive than ours ... if you don’t take all kinds of options with sand cores, of course. But even when these rods were walking, the chobham was also not particularly expensive.


But DZ is a cheap solution to make a medium tank well protected. And Russia is the only country with a decent DZ. DZ is not a panacea, but if you can do it, then it works. The latest Russian developments can be a nightmare for the gunner and a tedious task for the loader (which is why Leclerc has an AZ).

Let's imagine that SEP Abrams with M829A2 stands against T-80UMX1 with 3BM42 on 4000 meters. T-80 starts with a reflex, maybe even two, the reflex can fall, and maybe not. If it does, then Abram can get problems with optics (your TIS goes down). This is bad for a start. Abrams at top speed approaches the T-80, which is also not averse to getting close. Now they are at a distance of 3000 meters. They begin to use their BOPS. I bet on the T-80, since loading shells at full speed over rough terrain is not a problem for him - as I said for the loaders of the USA, Germany and England - this is not an easy task. AZ does not get tired. Now everything depends on the gunner, especially from the gunner Abrams. If he falls into the weakened zone of the tower or into the lower part of the body, then the T-80 will die. If it hits the forehead or side of the turret, then the 50 / 50 that will kill. During this time, the T-80 will make a sea of ​​shots. He'll get somewhere. If he gets in the forehead, then Abram lives, if in the lower part of the body or in the weakened zone, then we have one killed Abrams. You can see that one on one is difficult to fight.

I have to say that the result will be the same if you replace the Abrams Leopard, Leclerc or Challenger. Well, maybe Leopard and Leclerc have more chances, because their laser range finder is not limited to 4000 meters. It is easy to say that Russians cannot make good tanks. But it is not. And, thank God, there are people who do not fast here, but think what to do with the reflex and the DZ (from the reflex, we still do not have adequate protection, while the Russians have an arena from our ATGM).

Do not drive about the limitation of the laser rangefinder


Do not be an idiot, if the shooter wants to shoot further 4000, he manually enters the distance. When trying to measure a distance of more than 4000 m, the gunner sees in the sight four dotted lines "----", and not the distance. Believe me, I know. I was one of the best eSim gunners as well as some Abrams and Bradley in Fort Knox.

And in general, you need to be careful, when you measure the distance in 3000 meters, suddenly you can get the 3800 meters system. Therefore, you need to measure 3-4 times for reliability. These restrictions are in all tanks. I know that in Leopard 2А4 (2А5, 2А6) and Leclerc they are a little further, and the best laser rangefinders from Russians, because they need to start reflexes on 5500 m.

Abrams has another problem with a range finder. It is impossible to take measurements repeatedly in a row, otherwise the sight burns down. Need 8 second pause between measurements. If you see a green F behind the GPS range and the red grid disappears, it means you burned a laser range finder.

Just a laser rangefinder allows you to solve all the basic tasks and on 4000 meters


This idea is true only if you do not have good projectiles. Think about it ... Why would the gunner be given a handicap in limiting 4000 m when he can kill a tank on 5000 m.

What do the Yankees think about Russian tanks

About manual loading on the Abrams:

Let's first navigate the tank. Imagine the working conditions of the loader.

1. The weight of the projectile. Not so moved, not so taken, not put - and, at least, a bruise on his hand or pinched finger. And you can break something or tear or stretch the ligaments of the hands. Therefore, the loader is always at any time in a tank in winter mittens or at least in gloves.

2. Small dimensions of the fighting compartment. Around only protruding metal parts. Catch the cap for something - and "we will be removed from the rubble." Therefore, the loader always takes the projectile so that with the palm of his left hand to impose on the bottom of the sleeve, covering the capsule.

3. Wedge shutter. Heavy detail. A powerful spring closes the bolt (moves the wedge from left to right) in half a second. Incorrectly placed his hand when filing, spread his fingers - and the word "pinched" here is no longer appropriate. Fragmentation Amputation. Therefore, the loader, after inserting the projectile into the chamber, will deliver it with one powerful movement, while simultaneously accompanying the bottom of the sleeve with his left hand, folded into a fist. Thumb to yourself. At the same time, the wedge, when closing, gently shifts the hand to the right. If the load was not energetic or the projectile was not accompanied by a hand to the end, then the wedge could break off the stoppers prematurely and bite the sleeve. Then it is necessary to push the shell into the chamber through a special wooden tolkushka and allow the wedge to close. Sometimes, in a hurry, the metal stopper of the cannon travels across the arm. And sometimes this metal stopper gets into the primer ... Then again we sing a song from point two.

4. Roll back guns. Now, at least one and a half tons of weight of rolling parts, the cannons in a split second fly back a distance of up to a meter (for different tanks). Substituting the face, arm or other parts of the body under this movement is not advised to anyone. There are special fencing guards so that the commander or gunner does not stick his limbs and heads, but the loader doesn’t have one. Charger saved himself. Therefore, the loader after loading in anticipation of the shot is in the pose of the crucified Christ. His back pressed to the chase of the tower, arms outstretched and holding the handles and other improvised items.

5. Stabilizer operation. When the stabilizer is on, the tank is divided into two separate parts for you - a fixed tower and an armored corps rotating under you with all its details. Then it scrolls a little to the right and left, then suddenly, as it will carry in one direction - and instead of the motor partition next to you is the front tank rack or control compartment, and you see how the driver pulls the levers. It is strictly not recommended to get into this rotation with any parts of the body - if the stabilizer has coped with 15 tons of rotating mass - then it will be enough to wind your guts around the fighting compartment. Only a round field under you is not included in this rotation - it is suspended under the tower and rotates with it. And the breech of the gun itself goes up and down, regardless of the rotation of the body below you. The feeling is that it got into a huge death mechanism. Trying to get a projectile from a round-trip ammunition and shove it into a breech swinging up and down is a clear suicide.

Therefore, the loader presses the big black button on the firing lock device before locking and thereby stops the stabilizer in both planes - all the rotation and swing stops and also breaks the gun's electric release circuit, preventing the gunner from making a shot before the loader is ready. After the end of the loading, the loader by pressing another lever on the same device turns on the electrical firing circuits and unlocks the stabilizer. The gun is automatically guided to the point at which it was pointed before the stabilizer was locked.

5. Pitching while moving. It adds unforeseen pushes and pitches in different directions and forces all actions to be done, taking into account the readiness for surprises. The same pitching, as well as the driver’s actions to control the tank, are the main drivers of all stabilizer actions.

7. Placement of ammunition. To get an art-shot from the rack-mount tank, from the back of the pack, from the pack in the tower, or from a separate ("personalized") laying on one projectile are two different things. The fastest (and more convenient) is to load projectiles from the storage tank. In this case, after pulling out the projectile, you find yourself in a normal loading position - facing forward, your left hand - holds the art shot at the bottom of the sleeve and covers the capsule, the right hand supports the art shot in the transition area from the sleeve to the projectile. But in other combat packs, the shells are arranged, as if in a staggered pattern - one art-shot with a projectile to the left, another - to the right, the third - again to the left, etc. There, you have to somehow dodge in order to end up in the classical loading pose described above.

Something like that, you want - believe it, you want - no ...
Our news channels

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

72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +20
    January 16 2013
    And now we read the American tankman and ask ourselves why all sorts of "thrashers" and "tarasenki" ignore this open and accessible publication.

    Not for that they are being drunk, that’s ignored.
    1. +5
      January 16 2013
      Y-yes, this is not a game of war. The job of a tanker is both dangerous and difficult. Even, as we can see, on the "Abrams".
      But about the "best" Russian rangefinders, pointing to 5500 m., In my opinion, the American went too far. There has already been a discussion about this.
      1. +1
        January 17 2013
        I rode on the floor when I read about their manual loading in the 21 century, you can go nuts laughing great country damn
    2. +27
      January 16 2013
      Quite right. We are losing in information wars. And all these articles of pseudo-experts pursue two main goals 1) MARKETS. The technique must be sold. And with such anti-advertising it becomes more difficult. Therefore, no one will print or show on Discovery real, truthful reports. We all know what bourgeois masters are if you need to sell shit in a beautiful wrapper and at a high price. 2) instill self-doubt and dissatisfaction with the country in our fellow citizens. (which is also pretty good.)
      1. +8
        January 16 2013
        But in fact, only real collisions of these machines will give an answer to this question hu from hu. And much depends on the crews, training, dexterity and most importantly on the prowess of each fighter. And so it’s measured in pipelines is not a thankful thing. For me, ours is better than Amer’s and I nevermind that there they can sculpt red and humpback on discovery.
      2. DmitriRazumov
        +1
        January 16 2013
        Quote: Mitek
        In information wars, we lose. And all these articles of pseudo-experts pursue two main objectives: 1) MARKETS. After all, technology must be sold. And with such anti-advertising it becomes more difficult.

        It’s even more difficult to sell your equipment when parquet generals from the General Staff at press conferences tell the whole world that their own (Russian) tanks are no good and we are going to take a closer look at the purchase of German cars ...
    3. +1
      January 16 2013
      Disadvantages
      Weak armor reservation in all versions (even the most recent ones), armor reservation has not improved since the M1A1 modification, which was released in 1984. The forehead of the hull is very vulnerable due to the large lower frontal part.
      The hull sides make their way even with the oldest types of infantry PTS.
      Tank air filters are often clogged.
      High fuel consumption reduces the range of the tank.
      Low magnification of the gunner’s main sight.
      Vulnerability
      The forehead of the М1А2SEP turret is vulnerable to ATGM and ATGM types: ATGM Kornet, 9K121 "Whirlwind", HOT-3, as well as to modern BOPS type DM-63.
      The sides and feed of the hull (not equipped with DZ) are vulnerable to all vehicles issued after 1960, the feed of the hull is also vulnerable to the fire of 30 mm guns.
      The lower frontal part of the hull, which occupies 80–85% of the frontal projection of the hull (M1A1 and later), is vulnerable to most BOPs manufactured since 1985 (Project 3BM32 “Vant”), as well as to ATGMs and ATGMs manufactured from 1975-1980 (Project 9M114 Sturm).

      Losses
      Gulf War (1991)

      According to the final report of the US Department of Defense before the US Congress, 18 tanks were lost and damaged during the war. According to A.V. Erokhin and V.L. Lichkov, referring to unspecified western sources, 23 tanks were disabled and damaged, and not a single Abrams was destroyed by enemy tanks.

      Iraq war (2003—2010)
      According to data provided by Major General T. Tucker, as of February 2005, injuries of varying severity received 70% of the tank fleet of 1135 "Abrams"deployed in Iraq. Of these, 80 vehicles were not subject to restoration by the forces of repair and restoration units deployed at the theater of operations, including 17 rated as irreparable. Thus, irretrievable losses amounted to 5% of the total number of damaged tanks.
      According to some reports, a year later, in February 2006, the number of M1 destroyed in Iraq of all modifications increased to 20.

      Afghanistan (2001-present)
      In 2011, a tank company (14 vehicles) of the United States Marine Corps was deployed in Afghanistan. During the year, 19 cases of the use of improvised explosive devices by the enemy were recorded; 2 vehicles were damaged that could not be repaired by the forces of the unit, the tanks were returned to service; the commander of one of the tanks received a shrapnel wound to his arm when he was observing through an open hatch.
  2. +20
    January 16 2013
    One American, a former shooter of Abrams from Fort Knox, talks about the testing of American shells on the DZ of Russian tanks.

    Well done Americans, on our tanks with DZ test their shells. The question immediately arises, where did they get our tanks with DZ, and when will our tankers test their shells on abrams? The question is really rhetorical ....
    1. +6
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Rus_87
      The question immediately arises, where did they get our tanks with DZ

      This is not a problem in the world.
    2. Vanek
      +2
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Rus_87
      when will our tankers test their abrams shells?


      We still have the opportunity ............ perhaps.
    3. Alexander
      +3
      January 16 2013
      Just in the early 90s, the Yeltsin government sold NATO the latest, at that time, t-80 through third countries (although they will now give odds to any Leopard).
    4. Akim
      +6
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Rus_87
      where did they get our tanks with DZ,

      The T-80U was bought from South Korea through Britain, and the T-80 UD under Yushchenko was bought in Ukraine. In 72, the T-2011B was bought from the Yanyk government .. All were equipped with V-Contact. The UD was "Shtora" and "Arena". Yusch also sold DZ "Knife".
      1. +4
        January 16 2013
        Quote: Akim
        Just in the early 90s, the Yeltsin government sold NATO the latest, at that time, t-80 through third countries (although they will now give odds to any Leopard).


        you don’t have to go far — last year’s deal with Ukraine. T80u with various protection options. including the last knife.

        also an article on the site was.

        but this is to Kars.
        1. Akim
          0
          January 16 2013
          Yvorobey,
          Do not believe Gur Khan and Tarasenko - they often write lies, as most likely this article. In the 2011 report, the T-72B is officially listed. In Ukraine, there was no T-80U, only BV and UD, which are in the reserve of the first echelon. "U" is immediately visible. For tanks with gas turbine engines, the last roller is slightly pushed back.
          And what I sold in the options I have already indicated. And who sold it.
          1. +4
            January 16 2013
            News »Events
            Ukrainian tank protection systems want to use in NATO
            September 21, 2012 | Views: 4882 | Print | The other day, the plant them. Malysheva manufactured and shipped four T-80UD tanks to the United States. According to Defense Express, a representative of the Ukrainian tank building industry, the armored vehicles have different equipment and protection systems. In particular, three tanks are equipped with the latest Ukrainian development - a complex of built-in dynamic protection with “Knife” modules, which makes it possible to defend against all types of anti-tank weapons, including the most formidable - armor-piercing projectile. One tank was shipped to the United States “naked” - without dynamic protection.

            for which I bought it for sale.
            http://topwar.ru/19109-ukrainskie-sistemy-zaschity-tankov-hotyat-ispolzovat-v-na
            to.html
            1. Akim
              +1
              January 16 2013
              I decided to read Tank.net. It seems nothing was heard about the fresh export of the T-80UD.
              http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?s=f0b60a88b32a1a57eaa42ed429a81d1d&showto
              pic = 26698 & st = 0
              ... but I could be wrong.
              1. +3
                January 16 2013
                Quote: Akim
                but I could be wrong


                Akim is apparently to blame. rummaged and found that this is material for 2003

                Ukrainian "Knife" will protect the American tanks Abrams?















                Mykola Siruk

                November 28, 2003 - 00:00


                .



                US will test Ukrainian armored technology





                .



                Recently, Kharkov plant them. Malysheva manufactured and shipped four T-80UD tanks to the United States. According to Defense Express, a representative of the Ukrainian tank building industry, the armored vehicles have different equipment and protection systems. In particular, three tanks are equipped with the latest Ukrainian development - a complex of built-in dynamic protection with “Knife” modules, which makes it possible to defend against all types of anti-tank weapons, including the most formidable - armor-piercing projectile. One tank was shipped to the United States “naked” - without dynamic protection.

                http://www.day.kiev.ua/ru/article/panorama-dnya/ukrainskiy-nozh-zashchitit-ameri
                kanskie-tanki-abrams
                1. Akim
                  +1
                  January 16 2013
                  Quote: vorobey
                  and found that this is material for 2003

                  Well, I was mistaken, said that they were sold under Yushche, and they were pushed during the time of Chuchma.
            2. +1
              January 16 2013
              Well, what will you do with the "zhovto-blakitnye", are they like that !?

              Quote: vorobey
              including the most formidable - armor-piercing submunition

              Since when are they the most-most?
              I thought that in cumulative BP penetration (burn-through) is 2 times higher.

              Quote: vorobey
              Ukrainian tank protection systems want to use in NATO

              It is unlikely that they will make something under their own "brand".
              1. Akim
                0
                January 16 2013
                Papakiko,
                It’s cheaper for Americans to buy a license. After all, Italian pistols and Belgian machine guns rivet in their home.
              2. +3
                January 16 2013
                Quote: Papakiko
                Quote: vorobey
                including the most formidable - armor-piercing submunition

                Since when are they the most-most?
                I thought that in cumulative BP penetration (burn-through) is 2 times higher.


                But what am I, nothing. And Pyun buys secrets, And Pyun buys secrets (D. London)

                This is a quote from the article.
                1. Akim
                  +1
                  January 16 2013
                  vorobey,
                  Three hearts?
                  1. +2
                    January 16 2013
                    Quote: Akim
                    Three hearts?


                    Yes, there are winged expressions too.
        2. 0
          January 16 2013
          Quote: vorobey
          but this is to Kars

          They sold and sold what was wrong with that. The Belarus sold England the T-80. Most of the small units, including the KVV and missiles with instructions, were sold even when the troops were withdrawn from Germany.
          Only ours didn’t sell the Arena, but the thrush.

          I think that in addition to money, we also got Americans' reports about the tests that they use for advertising purposes. But not for the general public, but in negotiations. And the fact of the US purchase is already an advertisement.


          And according to the article I was pierced that our special on Abrams from the previous article already lets foam on Alter.history))))))
          1. +1
            January 16 2013
            Quote: Kars
            lets foam


            Epilepsy?
          2. +3
            January 16 2013
            Quote: Kars
            And according to the article, I was saddened that our Abrams specialist from the previous article was already letting foam on Alter.history


            Do you remember arguing about detonation? I said even then you want to live;
            digging today from Syria.

            1. bask
              +1
              January 16 2013
              Quote: vorobey


              Impressive ...! .. But why on the Abrams, and Leclerc not put DZ? They don’t. But they don’t.
              1. +2
                January 16 2013
                bask,

                Basque, and Leclerc fought where? And the tactics of using Abrams. On YouTube is full.
                mocking from shelters out of reach, and infantry walking near at full height takes off. Where are they shooting? what for? but it says that on Iraqi armored vehicles. By the way, the intervals between shots are oh .. big.
                but in the city they are burning.

                although now sometimes they put it.

                but in general I suspect that everything is not so smooth with his running gear.

                And the armor itself is not good for the body.
                1. +2
                  January 16 2013
                  Quote: vorobey
                  although now sometimes they put
                  1. Denzel13
                    +1
                    January 16 2013
                    And so the tram is not small, but with DZ and this shit for a machine gunner, in general, breaks records. It’s interesting if from the RPGs in the city to plant what happens inside this superstructure? laughing
                  2. Akim
                    +2
                    January 16 2013
                    vorobey,
                    Another question torments me. How is the crew now climbing into the tower?
                    1. +2
                      January 16 2013
                      Quote: Akim
                      How is the crew now climbing into the tower?


                      Akim, don’t you ...?

                      T90 pictures from Cuban
                2. bask
                  0
                  January 16 2013
                  [media = http: //krasview.ru/video/89721-Irakskie_partizany_s_RPG-29_protiv_M1A2_Ab
                  rams]
                  Quote: vorobey
                  And the armor itself is not good for the body.

                  Barely digging .. ,, Abrams ,, in urban conditions from RPG-29. Cool. 20 meters from the side.
            2. Denzel13
              +1
              January 16 2013
              Hi Sanya!
              Yeah, playfully the lad flew out of the tank. However, damn the benefit that nefig on a tank ride around the city.
              1. +2
                January 16 2013
                Denzel13,

                Hi Sanya.
                And again a blast at a land mine.
                1. Denzel13
                  +1
                  January 16 2013
                  He had not yet managed to cross the intersection, and his body was already flying in the air.
    5. bask
      0
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Rus_87
      Well done Americans, on our tanks with DZ test their shells
    6. DmitriRazumov
      +1
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Rus_87
      The question immediately arises, where did they get our tanks with DZ, and when will our tankers test their shells on abrams?

      Typically, such tests are carried out at the Research Institute of the Bolshoi Technical University in Kubinka (Moscow region). True, in the free exposition of modern Abrams, something is not visible there. Probably all in business ...
      1. +3
        January 16 2013
        Quote: DmitriRazumov
        NII GABTU in Kubinka (Moscow region).


        did not immediately notice your post. This is also from there.

        They write that from 200m they shot 90, and when she returned on her own, they again sent him to the director and again fucked.
        1. bask
          +1
          January 16 2013
          Quote: vorobey
          .

          As you vidio barely dug From GPG-29 from meters from 20. And not some detonation BK.V M1A2,, Abrams ,, In the city and without DZ.
          1. +3
            January 16 2013
            bask,

            And which one of them
            1. +3
              January 16 2013
              or this one? there are many of them.
              1. bask
                0
                January 16 2013
                Quote: vorobey
                or this one? there are many of them.

                Option with the Syrian T-72. From RPG-29 from the same distance .. There was another. Complete detonation of the BK in seconds ,, your video ,, [media = www.youtube.com /]
              2. bask
                +1
                January 16 2013
                Seconds and detonation of the BK in the T-72. And if from the RPG-29 and from 20 meters?
                1. Denzel13
                  +1
                  January 16 2013
                  However it's hot inside laughing
                2. +2
                  January 16 2013
                  Quote: bask
                  -29 and from 20 meters?


                  where did they get that this is an RPG?

                  slow down for 1,2 seconds and see how the explosion goes. from below.
                3. +2
                  January 16 2013
                  I hope the crew did not have time to feel anything.


                  Therefore, I will always respect tankers. But I myself am rather glad that he did not.

                  hit by a powder charge, burning and explosions of general physical conditions.
                  As we see the column of powder gases pulled out hatches nafig.
                  1. Akim
                    0
                    January 16 2013

                    I can put a lot of such a video. There is one Syrian "patriot" of the French spill who puts them in our thread.
                    1. bask
                      0
                      January 16 2013
                      [quote = Akim]
                      I’m not French, but Russian Patriot A laid out for comparison. Descriptions from RPGs T-72 and M1A2, Abrams, That would be in the next mess in S. Caucasus. We took into account the mistakes of the Syrians. Why did the advisers of Syria not convey the experience of 2 Chechen wars .Tanks as well as in Grozny operate in the city without cover ...
                      1. Akim
                        +1
                        January 16 2013
                        bask,
                        My amendment is addressed to you. Thank God, I can recognize stripes on the flag.
                        I just talk in bourgeois forums (I meant that thread). And this tank was knocked out not with RPGs but with ATGMs. There was a more detailed video. He was removed from YouTube.
                      2. kadette150
                        0
                        January 19 2013
                        Dear Russian patriot, why don’t you learn a better native language?
                    2. +1
                      January 16 2013
                      This video is to the storyteller Tungustep that he analyzed the article about comparing the abrams / T72. He told me that the gunpowder at the T-72 tower was breaking)))
  3. CCA
    CCA
    +7
    January 16 2013
    We have in the west, much better types of armor, because we can make it from high-quality and expensive materials.
    The Western world is used to measuring everything with the amount of money (the more expensive the better), but the fact that it is possible to produce a better product from the same materials, but with a lower cost, is ignored ...
    1. bask
      0
      January 16 2013
      [media = http: //krasview.ru/video/89721-Irakskie_partizany_s_RPG-29_protiv_M1A2_Ab
      rams]
      Quote: vorobey
      And the armor itself is not good for the body

      From RPG-29 to board Meters with 20.
  4. Pinochet000
    +1
    January 16 2013
    It was discussed on the "Courage" website and for a long time .... the accordion is, the SB PRO simulator was dismantled ...
    1. vladsolo56
      +3
      January 16 2013
      Bayan you say, then bring arguments about the loader, his position in the tank and the principle of operation. the points. Prove that everything that is written is nonsense.
      1. s1н7т
        -2
        January 16 2013
        Quote: vladsolo56
        arguments for charging

        No, very similarly described laughing Only the moment about the mechanics with levers on Abrams alerted.
        1. Pinochet000
          0
          January 16 2013
          The loader’s work, Kuwait ... like the M1A2 tank http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RNTDyJmKCnQ
          1. bask
            0
            January 16 2013
            [media = http: //krasview.ru/video/89721-Irakskie_partizany_s_RPG-29_protiv_M1A2_Ab
            rams]
            Quote: Pinochet000
            The loader’s work, Kuwait .. like a tank

            From GPG-29 to the side.
          2. s1н7т
            0
            January 16 2013
            Quote: Pinochet000
            The loader’s work, Kuwait .. like, an M1A2 tank

            Well, yes, Glavpur could order a movie no worse laughing
  5. Ash
    Ash
    +1
    January 16 2013
    I would like to see a similar review from American rocket launchers.
    1. +2
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Ash
      similar review from american rocketers see


      but only in writing and not in practice.
    2. bask
      +2
      January 16 2013
      Ash,
      From RPG-29.
      1. +2
        January 16 2013
        I shoot in the side of the tower. I hit the box with the spare parts exactly, so we see the debris scattering. And the sense from that tandem warhead. First, the box’s wall, then every motlokh, then the equipped side armor, then the gap with the filler, then the BK’s box. And here decent scrap would most likely be past.

        When in the Union they tested a similar way of storing ammunition, tests showed that a minimum of 150 mm is necessary for detonating shells of residual armor piercing.

        So it would be better to shoot at the engine.
        1. +4
          January 16 2013
          Quote: Kars
          So you'd better shoot at the engine


          That's for sure (Comrade Sukhov)
        2. bask
          0
          January 16 2013
          Quote: Kars
          So it would be better to shoot at the engine.

          Looks like an amateur, professional mercenaries are fighting in Syria.
  6. +1
    January 16 2013
    This is a button accordion, alas.
    I was one of eSim's best gunners

    eSim is a game, see here http://esimgames.com/
    1. vladsolo56
      +1
      January 16 2013
      There is a game called IL-2, and indeed there are few simulators, so according to your logic, all that is about real nonsense cars? accordion?
    2. +4
      January 16 2013
      We discussed a similar option here.

      http://topwar.ru/22600-analiz-stati-t-72b-vs-m1a2-abrams.html

      Andrey from Chelyabinsk,



      This is copy paste

      Journal of Battlefield Technology Volume 3 No 1 March 2000
      Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in the Gulf War ... M. Held Distribution of projectile hits on main battle tanks in the Gulf War (full article costs $ 35)
      translation of a part of an article

      Annotation. After the Gulf War, 308 pieces of armored vehicles were inspected for damage by kinetic and cumulative shells. A comparative analysis was carried out with the data of the Second World War, the six-day war of 67 years, Yom Kippur 83 years. It is shown that the war in the Gulf does not correlate with any of them. The coalition also shows the use of kinetic (3 types) and cumulative (2 types) ammunition for Iraqi T-55, T-62 and T-72 tanks.

      After the war, CMS set about clearing the war sector from the US sector. Various samples of equipment were collected. Destroyed equipment was stored at the “CMS Base”, and whole samples at the “exhibition”. At the “exhibition” 110 tanks were assembled, 6 of which had hits without damage to equipment. At the “CMS Base” there were 116 tanks, 45 hulls without towers and 37 towers, which in 40% (7 cases had hits. For some 82 towers and hulls, it is worth considering that the missing parts could be hit.

      78 tank hits were analyzed. Analysis of hits in tanks in the azimuthal plane showed the following. The graph of the dependence of the number of hits in the tank on the azimuthal angle in the range of + - 135 degrees has an almost linear relationship. For cumulative shells in the range of angles + - 90 degrees, the number of hits is approximately constant. For sub-projectile shells, only one hit was recorded in the range of angles + - 45 degrees, the remaining hits fell on angles from 45 to 135 degrees.
      In fig. shows the chart of hit in the tank sub-caliber (KE) and cumulative (SC) shells.

      In the process of analysis, the following damaged cars were found:
      - T-55 - 51 (65%),
      - T-62 - 13 (17%),
      - T-72 - 14 (18%).
      Of them were struck:
      - cumulative shells 70% (51),
      - submunitions of 20% (16),
      - other means 10% (11).
      77% (60) of hits were recorded in the tower. The number of hits in the case is much less (23% or 1

      link to the first page http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume3/3-1-1.htm

      and generally speaking. poke around who Professor Manfred Held is, what kind of work he did back in the 80s and what other publications he has.
      1. +3
        January 16 2013
        "The T-80 starts with a Reflex, maybe even two, the reflex may or may not. If it does, then Abram may get optics problems (your TIS is out of order). This is a bad start."
        If the T-80 plants (gets) 1-2 reflexes, then I very much doubt that the abrashka will get off only with damage to the optics ...
        http://warcyb.org.ru/news/sistema_refleks_m/2010-07-02-68
        1. +7
          January 16 2013
          She will be smeared with the eyes of the gunner wink
    3. Eraser
      +1
      January 16 2013
      Well, he writes like this
      00_Chem, I 've never been a Tanker. The only Tank I 've been in (as a visitor) was the AMX-30. I was a French commando for many years (I 'm 45). I 've also been working for a software company who does Tank simulation for training purposes. Our software is used in the USA, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Denmark to train Tank crews. We have access to hard datas because the Tanker who train on our software must find the mirror copy of his tank, including armor, FCS, ballistics, etc ... Some of this stuff is classified.

      That is, the man is not American, but French, he is not a tanker, the only tank in which he was a visitor - AMX-30. He worked on tank simulations and had access to secret data. Here is the link http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-20159/page4.aspx#startofcomments, but in general they talk nicely there angry . And so the article perfectly illustrates the joke
      "Is it true that Professor Ambartsumyan won 10,000 rubles in the sport lotto?" "True, but ... Not 10,000, but 100 rubles. Not in sports lotto, but in preference. He did not win, but lost. And not Professor Ambartsumyan, but store manager Ambartsumov."
      laughing
      1. +6
        January 16 2013


        I was not the first to post.

  7. Serge
    0
    January 16 2013
    With an almost identical placement of ammunition in the T-72 and Abrams tanks, the automatic loader looks much better, although the T-72 needs to raise the gun to an elevation angle, which also takes time
    1. +3
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Seryoga
      although the T-72 needs to raise the gun to an elevation angle, which also takes time


      This does not play a role since at this moment the axis of the sight continues to stabilize in its plane and the gunner calmly continues to search for the target and aim. after loading, the axis of the barrel channel is again aligned with the axis of the sight.
    2. s1н7т
      +5
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Seryoga
      T-72 is necessary to raise the gun to an elevation angle which also takes time

      Um. And it always seemed to me that the gun rises itself when the AZ is on, and pretty quickly. 7 sec at all if sclerosis does not lie. Only when loading the first shell, the loader has a head start of about 2 seconds, then it is inferior to the AZ in time - this is when firing from a place. And on the go charge - pipets, song! laughing
  8. 0
    January 16 2013
    Thank! An interesting post, I have long been thinking about climbing English sites, since I still seem to remember the language :), but there’s no time to search :( Now, at the prompt, we’ll definitely see what the competitors have :) If you still have any interesting links, please discard them.
  9. Vanek
    +41
    January 16 2013
    Hello to everyone hi
    1. +4
      January 16 2013
      Vanek welcome. smiled.
      1. Vanek
        +2
        January 16 2013
        They say that theirs did not even reach the springboard.

        And they also say that he is from just one question "Can you do that?" fell apart.

        Generally:

        - Yeah, my American chewing gum.
        1. +5
          January 16 2013
          Quote: Vanek
          And they also say that he is from just one question "Can you do that?" fell apart


          I heard there is an animal that, in case of danger, pretends to be dead immediately. Maybe that's why the principle?
          1. Vanek
            +3
            January 16 2013
            Quote: vorobey
            there is an animal that pretends to be dead in case of danger


            Abrams is called laughing
    2. CEO
      CEO
      +1
      January 16 2013
      Ha))))) He died of laughter.
  10. +16
    January 16 2013
    Ahh, that’s why their blacks are always charging, this is because they don’t feel sorry for them)))
    1. 0
      January 16 2013
      maybe just historically it happened =))))
      1. Denzel13
        +3
        January 16 2013
        And I recently learned that torpedoes in American nuclear submarines are also manually charged. Probably also blacks are working. laughing
  11. Kadet_KRAK
    +3
    January 16 2013
    Thanks to the author for the article. Our designers know their BUSINESS. All the same, we must not forget that the T-34ka won the great Russian one in terms of the combination of characteristics, and not German miracles of technology like the tiger, etc.
  12. balamut_x
    +5
    January 16 2013
    Everything is true about manual loading, I could not repeatedly perform the shooting exercise due to the shell loading laughing
    and it’s dangerous this was the case on the director’s head after firing when the tank was turned, when the turret rotates, the loader caught on and dragged him under the gun and tore his chest as a result of the corpse, and the rollback is not a joke either
    1. s1н7т
      0
      January 16 2013
      Quote: balamut_x
      and it’s dangerous

      A friend wore an engagement ring (which is prohibited, by the way). When I was diving into the hatch, I removed the stopper, and the ring caught on the bolt on the chase of the turret. There is nothing more to wear the ring. And then he carefully watched so that no one could get caught in the tank. And the "offhand" must hold on tightly to its handle, and everything will be all right laughing
      1. Akim
        0
        January 16 2013
        s1н7т,
        We have one hooked on a hoop. Removed all the meat with a fingernail. The finger had to be removed.
  13. +7
    January 16 2013
    The article is interesting. At least for me, as a layman.
    I understood that everything depends on the loader for them. The loader's job is a kind of "Russian roulette", after shooting practice, and then you will become a cripple. If this is true, then I am ... in shock.
    Yes, modern tank battle is SOMETHING...

    A 2007 article, a comparison goes with the T-80 ...
    But our Generals, for some reason, didn't even look at the T-90 with the T-90M ... It was always strange to read - India takes "packs" ("fools" like that), but our faces turn up - it's expensive. I do not understand...

    Or, here's an article on heavy armored vehicles. About Israel's re-equipment of our T-60s ... Recently news - we, our Defense Ministry, wants to get rid of them. I understood that they want to cut it into metal. And what, it is impossible on their basis, also try to "bungle" something? I don't understand either. Although "cut" is easier and more monetary (for someone). But maybe it's time to "turn on" the head somehow? ..
    Once again, I’ll make a reservation, I am an inhabitant in this matter hi
    The author is a plus. And for those who are professionals in this topic - more such articles "Their opinion".
    1. Vanek
      +2
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Z.A.M.
      But maybe it's time to "turn on" the head somehow? ..


      Do "they" have it?
      1. s1н7т
        +1
        January 16 2013
        Quote: Vanek
        Do "they" have it?

        Of course, there is, only now "sharpened" for profit - the rest they don't care about .....
      2. +2
        January 16 2013
        Quote: Vanek
        Do "they" have it?

        Well, at something they eat laughing
      3. SASCHAmIXEEW
        0
        January 16 2013
        They have a wallet instead of a head!
    2. +2
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Z.A.M.
      Or, here's an article on heavy armored vehicles. About Israel's re-equipment of our T-60s ... Recently news - we, our Defense Ministry, wants to get rid of them. I understood that they want to cut it into metal. And what, it is impossible on their basis, also try to "bungle" something? I don't understand either. Although "cut" is easier and more monetary (for someone). But maybe it's time to "turn on" the head somehow? ..


      I completely agree, but what can we say, if you take up your mind, then the T-34 can be modernized, the body kit is good, the engine is turbocharged, the weapon is different or is it stupid to hang ATGM, what's wrong? there will be a retro battalion "For the Motherland"!
      cheap and cheerful! Jews our captured T-55s were happy to remake them into their own modification "Tiran"
  14. 0
    January 16 2013
    I want, obtained by intelligence, incredible efforts, a drawing of a secret, high-tech wooden mallet ...
    What does military counterintelligence do at all? Where are the results? !!! wassat
    1. +4
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Pacifist
      high-tech wooden beater ...


      You need a log for self-extraction. or a rammer?
      1. 0
        January 16 2013
        "Then you need to push the shell into the chamber with a special wooden pusher" lol
    2. s1н7т
      +1
      January 16 2013
      Quote: Pacifist
      I want mined by intelligence


      Quote: Pacifist
      What does military counterintelligence do at all


      You would have decided whose results you need - intelligence and counterintelligence, like, are engaged in different laughing
      1. +2
        January 16 2013
        Yes, in general, do not care laughing just amused stuff ...
  15. +2
    January 16 2013
    but it’s true, it’s said that it’s very difficult to load a gun, it’s very problematic, i.e. a battle with a large number of maneuvers will clearly benefit our automatic tanks

    good article
  16. mamba
    +5
    January 16 2013
    Russians had armor with ultrafarfor (electrocorundum)
    Ultrafarfor is a ceramic mass of mullite-corundum composition, and the content of crystalline phases of mullite and corundum can be variable and in many respects depends on technological methods of manufacturing and composition of this type of materials.
    Electrocorundum is a refractory and chemically resistant superhard material based on aluminum oxide.
    Those. these are not the same thing, although it is possible that both options are used.
    You can see that one on one is difficult to fight.
    That is why amers prefer to use aviation against tanks, evading tank combat.
    1. Akim
      +2
      January 16 2013
      mamba,
      Ultrafine and corundum ceased to be used in tanks after series "B". It's like the T-64 (80). I don’t know about the 72nd model.
      1. 11Goor11
        +1
        January 16 2013
        It's like the T-64 (80

        quite right
        Main battle tank T-64B
        Tower with corundum balls. Dimension of frontal protection 400 ... 475 mm. The feed of the tower is 70 mm.

        http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-64.html
  17. +1
    January 16 2013
    Chet, I got it from Khlopotov.
    This article that only the lazy did not procrastinate.
    A manual charge is meant by the T-62/55 and wrote it even comrade Hollywood back in 2007 or 2008 on the dry forum
  18. +1
    January 16 2013
    A tank, whatever it is technically perfect, is just iron and plastic. It is not unimportant is the training of the crew, the skill brought to automatism.
  19. 0
    January 16 2013
    Therefore, the loader presses the big black button on the firing lock device before locking and thereby stops the stabilizer in both planes - all the rotation and swing stops and also breaks the gun's electric release circuit, preventing the gunner from making a shot before the loader is ready. After the end of the loading, the loader by pressing another lever on the same device turns on the electrical firing circuits and unlocks the stabilizer. The gun is automatically guided to the point at which it was pointed before the stabilizer was locked.

    Here it is! twist abrams - and zvizdets, no abrams laughing
  20. +1
    January 16 2013
    whatever you say, AZ is better than a Negro by any means) recently I saw on TV how the loader is flattening in abrams, in real tank battle I think it is absolutely prohibitive, although FIGs they will go into a direct collision
  21. +2
    January 16 2013
    It is not typical for Yusovites to criticize their armored vehicles, YUSA is the navel of the earth and there they have all the best. But only when it comes to combat use, it turns out that they can’t fight with an equal enemy, which is not surprising.
  22. -1
    January 16 2013
    Aha ha))) Eat, hamsters ...
  23. +1
    January 16 2013
    As required by at least someone to prove ...
    The darkness of our Brothers will perish, but we will overcome these mercenaries from the cohort of those suffering US citizenship, and even the former, as always ...
    With difficulty, terrible losses, but gloriously and heroically !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Our Russian descendants will have something to remember (!), And THEIR - no-ee-ee-eh !!!!!
  24. sergskak
    +1
    January 16 2013
    It is time to stop all co-operation on the creation of military equipment with other countries, especially with the former republics that are ready to sell your mother for bucks, and when the next day such debates appear on their websites, and another day the question arises of adopting effective weapons in all sorts of NATO and China.
  25. +1
    January 16 2013
    It all depends on the tactics of application, i.e. from commanders of all ranks. We already saw one correct application in the terrible
  26. +1
    January 16 2013
    Quote: Z.A.M.
    Or, here's an article on heavy armored vehicles. About Israel's re-equipment of our T-60s ... Recently news - we, our Defense Ministry, wants to get rid of them. I understood that they want to cut it into metal. And what, it is impossible on their basis, also try to "bungle" something? I don't understand either. Although "cut" is easier and more monetary (for someone). But maybe it's time to "turn on" the head somehow? ..


    Or maybe at the same time see how the Israelis make their own armored vehicles? To be absolutely adequate to perceive "our MO"? They do not drag along heels of incompatible models of a single tank in terms of spare parts, ammunition and other delights. Moreover, they made a car for themselves, which is called a tank conditionally - it has a troop compartment, and besides, everyone strives to teach it to work as an SPG! :)
    You can try to "bungle", but how to serve all this in the troops? Provided that the components have not been produced for a long time?
  27. +1
    January 16 2013
    washi,
    Quote: Vasya
    We already saw one correct application in the terrible

    it’s a pity for the guys, but there was a sold through war and the concept of an order was put in the subcortex to every military man.
    guys, well, the Yankees will not be able to fight without "comfortable conditions", but where is comfort in the PRESENT WAR ??? and our mechanic Vanka on the T-80, after the battle from the wires and mat will fix the tank and go to distribute trendyules to amers who will be waiting for a technical staff drinking beer and cola !!!

    not the topic, about infantry: http://topwar.ru/1970-specnaz-morskoj-pexoty-ssha.html#comment-id-836385 read the last koment
    1. Denzel13
      +1
      January 16 2013
      Thanks for the link hi
      1. +2
        January 16 2013
        Quote: Denzel13
        Thanks for the link

        neighing too?
  28. +2
    January 16 2013
    Yes, we just pissed when we saw these fat-ass penguins in their "COOLEST" uniforms, exhausted on the march in the mountains, sweating from excess body weight! laughing Well, they were a little worse than in the photo, by the way the Negroes were all just one hefty, only one Negro was thin and the skinny surname was WHITE (by the way, he later died in Afghanistan request )
    soldier)))
  29. 0
    January 16 2013
    a small portion of amers rations
  30. Akim
    0
    January 17 2013
    glients
  31. 0
    January 17 2013
    Thanks for the article, it was very interesting to read, so to speak from another front)

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

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