What do the Yankees think about Russian tanks
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
Information