A little about the first Abrams near Berdychi

114
A little about the first Abrams near Berdychi

Recently, a significant event happened at the front: near the village of Berdychi, northwest of Avdievka, the first American Abrams was shot down. Precisely the first one, since previously heard statements about the destruction of these machines never received any confirmation. Therefore, the fighters of the 15th Brigade of the Central Military District, who successfully hunted the overseas guest, can be officially congratulated on their initiative.

What is symbolic is that a damaged Abrams is not only significant damage to the armored fleet of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is also the first loss tank of this type in the European theater of operations for which it was developed. So his “debut” on the battlefield, a little over a year after the announcement of deliveries and five months after his arrival in Ukraine, turned out to be really bright in every sense.



But, besides all this, what is remarkable about this incident?


Now we can say for sure: the rumors and guesses that the Abrams arrived in Ukraine solely as a decorative object for filming videos and photographs were not confirmed. The Ukrainians did not drag them deep into the rear, fearing accusations from the Americans of causing reputational damage to their armored vehicles. And even more so, they were not sent to Europe due to frequent breakdowns, lack of fuel and other inventions of various science fiction writers.

Although there are reasons for careful handling of tanks.

Just a week ago, the US Department of Defense announced that a comprehensive plan to provide Abrams in Ukraine with spare parts, consumables, ammunition and support equipment in the long term simply does not exist.

Nevertheless, as the case near Berdychi showed, these machines are sometimes still used for their intended purpose. Most likely, it was forced, which is facilitated by the collapsing front in the Avdeevsky direction, which the Ukrainian Armed Forces are trying with all their might to hold, pulling the available forces there. But the fact remains that they are being fought against.


Yes, now there is a lot of talk about the fact that this particular tank arrived in the combat area literally two days before the incident, managed to fire several shots and was hit in the head. However, how many shells the Abrams managed to fire at the positions of our troops during the entire time - three or four or a hundred or two - is still a big question.

At this point it’s time to think about what other discoveries in the use of NATO armored vehicles are promised to us by the fronts that have come into motion. Perhaps we will also see the British Challenger 2s, which were considered outlandish and practically disappeared from the radar, firing at our troops from indirect firing positions.

But there is also a positive point


"Abrams", in fact, shared the fate of many of its predecessors in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, including "Leopards 2" and Soviet-style vehicles. Let us remember that his defeat occurred without any frills - no helicopter missiles or powerful ground-based anti-tank ammunition, the penetration of which we previously measured to be equivalent to the durability of the “American” armor.

The tank just caught the eye of a domestic intelligence agency drone, driving through the streets of the village. Well, then everything follows the standard scheme: transfer of target coordinates to operators from the corresponding unit and a crushing arrival drone-kamikaze. As they say - FPV, perhaps even the popular “Ghoul”.

They were aiming, as they say, for sure. The hit, apparently, was in the rear part of the turret, causing the ammunition rack to completely burn out. We do not undertake to judge whether the tank was destroyed, since the ejector panels still worked. But there is no doubt that the Abrams is disabled.


Disabled by a “buzzer” with an RPG grenade on board, which doesn’t care about armor or any other characteristics, since it is capable of landing in the most vulnerable places. And this once again proves that today even the most modern tanks cannot withstand rapidly evolving threats on the battlefield.

Against this background, Biden’s statements about the supply of Abrams to Ukraine now look very optimistic:

They are needed to counter Russia's evolving tactics and strategy in the near future. They will be needed to improve their (APU) ability to maneuver in open areas. And they are needed for defense and deterrence in the long term.

In fact, it turned out that they could also become a victim of evolving tactics and maneuvers in open areas.

Still, no matter how good the Abrams is - and it really has many advantages - it is a tank created in the conditions of the Cold War. With powerful combined, but at the same time differentiated armor, the main bulk of which is located in the frontal parts of the hull and turret.

In the battles of the nineties and zeros, he could show his strengths and weaknesses against the background of his “classmates.” But in modern realities, despite certain advantages in terms of crew protection, it is about as vulnerable as the T-72 or Leopard 2.

Therefore, like other combat vehicles, it also needs such handicrafts as nets and “visors”, as well as mobile electronic warfare equipment. But the Ukrainian crew did not bother to equip the Abrams with at least a hastily welded “barbecue” - the tank went into battle only with a body kit of dynamic protection on the sides.

The final result is obvious


In general, a lot has already been said about the significance of the loss of the Abrams for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Minus one tank, of which there are only three dozen in Ukraine. Moreover, of course, the tank is far from being the same as the Polish Twards or the modernized T-72EA sent to Kyiv. We wrote about it and its filling here here.

Well protected from classic threats and mobile. With a fully digital fire control system and a gun with multifunctional ammunition. With high-quality thermal imagers, complete insulation of ammunition and other advantages inherent in American tank building.

In general, a very expensive toy, which is doubly expensive to lose with a small supply.

Especially if it was slammed by a drone with a fraction of the cost and a completely stale Soviet-style grenade on board.
  • Edward Perov
  • Telegram channels SolovievLive and voenacher / thedrive.com
Our news channels

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

114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    1 March 2024 05: 18
    there is no doubt that the Abrams is disabled.

    Let's hope that the Ukrainians were unable to evacuate him, and one day he will go to Uralvagonzavod.
    1. +7
      1 March 2024 05: 31
      Especially if it was slammed by a drone with a fraction of the cost
      It’s doubly offensive... Don’t just stand there, you’ll get hit again! smile
    2. -4
      1 March 2024 05: 46
      one day he will go to Uralvagonzavod

      I think there is enough scrap metal there.
    3. +8
      1 March 2024 11: 45
      one day he will go to Uralvagonzavod

      Fuck you. God forbid. To Kubinka, to the research institute and in the cold - to amuse people)
  2. +19
    1 March 2024 05: 19
    Why is abosrams called a tank? This is a tank destroyer in terms of purpose and purpose... just with a turret... all the armor is in the forehead, get out and, using the self-propelled gun, shoot from a long distance and also move backwards. They were designed for the European theater of operations and were designed to hold back the advancing T-80 wedges. Is this a tank? No. According to the layout - perhaps, according to the ideology of application - no
    1. 0
      1 March 2024 12: 55
      all the armor is in the forehead

      What is this?
      This is a tank destroyer in terms of purpose and purpose

      Why does he need the Tank Urban Survival Kit then?
      1. +6
        1 March 2024 13: 07
        Quote: English tarantass
        What is this?

        NLD + VLD + turret front - there is maximum armor + uranoceramic packages (but not dia 404). Its heading angles are minimal. there are only thin sides.
        Quote: English tarantass
        Why does he need the Tank Urban Survival Kit then?

        Why - adaptation after losses in the east. The tank was originally intended to operate in the EUROPEAN theater of operations against armadas of our tanks in the event of a breakthrough in the English Channel or whatever they call it. It was originally developed for ambush tactics. Those. range 3-5 km, identify the target and shoot, due to the superiority of the fire control system. When the Abosrams began to be used in urban conditions, it immediately became clear that even 30mm autocannons could not hold up on the sides. The same bushmaster on the M2 Bradley will calmly take him on board. But for example, it won’t do anything on board our T64/72/90/80... it has 80mm + screens, tracks and rollers. Only in the ass. Well, and accordingly it will blind and immobilize, but in fact it will not be able to do anything to the crew. Well, recently there was proof... the crew was able to disengage from the battle and leave the car.
        1. -3
          1 March 2024 14: 30
          all the armor is in the forehead

          there is maximum booking

          Different things.
          Its heading angles are minimal

          Angles of what? Towers? It's not much worse than ours. The angle also adds durability.
          Corps? Well, let's get behind the body.
          There are up to 70mm, and they are spaced apart, since the board itself is up to 40mm, and 30mm is a composite of screens.
          On the T-90 - 90mm the side itself and the three tiles with Contact are incomparable in area. Well, about 100mm side where the remote control is.
          Terrible difference.
          1. +4
            1 March 2024 15: 24
            Quote: English tarantass
            Angles of what? Towers?

            Do you even know what heading angles are? belay feel I dare to clarify
            1. -2
              1 March 2024 16: 25
              Do you know what heading angles are?

              I know)
              1. +2
                1 March 2024 17: 12
                Well, then why are you asking? (c) Brother hi soldier laughing
    2. 0
      3 March 2024 01: 07
      A tank is a barrel. Why is Abrams not a tank?
      We have to be correct - the Americans build volumetrically, conveniently, and expensively. They know how to do it. But from the point of view of war, a Western-designed tank against an enemy with more than a stick is a dubious force if it is without infantry cover. The sad experience of the Merkav only confirms that the Western tanks weapons are more intimidating and parades, which, among other things, does not reduce their combat qualities, but greatly reduces the effectiveness of their real use
    3. ada
      +2
      3 March 2024 06: 27
      Quote from Enceladus
      Why is abosrams called a tank? This is a tank destroyer in terms of purpose and purpose... just with a turret...

      Original, I have not heard such a definition before, it was rarely called an “anti-tank”, but I will support it - a similar concept. And I would like to add that in addition to fighting tanks, the Abrams and other heavy tanks have always had the task of breaking through our anti-tank defense, this is one of our clients in the ETVD.
      1. +3
        3 March 2024 06: 35
        Quote: ada
        the task has always been to break through our anti-tank defense

        Then why did they even think of nuclear mines? Punch through our anti-tank equipment? lol hi soldier Abrams are precisely deterrent weapons. Only 80 units of all modifications were produced, more than 10 thousand. And when the Abrams was just started, we only had more than 50 thousand T55/62. They would just roll across Europe - that’s what they were afraid of.
        1. ada
          +2
          3 March 2024 06: 45
          Yes, for us, anti-tank crews, they were one of the design models of the tank for carrying out tactical battle calculations in building anti-tank defense, the destruction coefficients there were not much, but they differed from later modifications, and it seems that they were not going to fight in Europe without nuclear weapons, so only BT go ahead, and even now they probably won’t go without processing nuclear weapons.
          I've briefly sketched out the diagram below from memory. soldier
          1. +2
            3 March 2024 06: 50
            Quote: ada
            so only BT go ahead, and even now they probably won’t go without processing nuclear weapons

            Well, that’s actually why the T-55 appeared, and all of them now still have linings and pressurization with sealing of the hull. Because the tank itself essentially becomes a source of radiation due to induced radiation - the tank’s task is to survive for several hours. Yes, alas, this is so - the crew are already suicide bombers. recourse But that was how it was viewed then.
            Quote: ada
            I've briefly sketched out the diagram below from memory.
            1. ada
              +2
              3 March 2024 06: 59
              Quote from Enceladus
              ...Quote: ada
              I've briefly sketched out the diagram below from memory.

              Oh, I wrote this post (or whatever it’s called) at the bottom of the article and discussions - at the end, well, in the form of a rough sketch of a description of the structure of a modern BUT in the East of the NATO Allied Forces with the support of the main BT formations of the US Army contingent in Europe. winked
              1. +2
                3 March 2024 07: 01
                Yes, I read it - an entertaining read good drinks soldier
                1. ada
                  +2
                  3 March 2024 07: 15
                  Es-thank you! drinks
                  Come in if you want hi
                  1. +2
                    3 March 2024 07: 17
                    Well, come along the rifle route too! drinks hi I'll always be glad! winked
  3. +9
    1 March 2024 05: 29
    In Forbes magazine, after the destruction of the Abrams tank, an article appeared that the tank as a weapon was already outdated and that after the end of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, their production would be stopped in all countries. The reason for this is the development of drones, which can relatively easily destroy all modern tanks. And further. There was some not entirely reliable information that two more Abrams were destroyed.
    1. +9
      1 March 2024 05: 47
      The views on their use, the concept of combat use, but not the release will be revised: the tank will be in demand as a means of fire support. And then: who told you that tanks sing their swan song? If the front collapses, everything can be, will be, differently.
      1. +4
        1 March 2024 06: 42
        Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
        who told you that tanks sing their swan song
        Forbes magazine wink
        1. +9
          1 March 2024 11: 26
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Forbes magazine wink


          smile
      2. +1
        1 March 2024 13: 29
        Views on their use will be reconsidered

        It's been a long time coming.
        SVO is not the first conflict where heaps of FPV are flying.
        Quadcopters with attached PG-7s are not new. In principle, an unexpected arrival from an RPG into the roof is also not news for a long time, since 1900 shaggy years. The Americans themselves have known since the 00s that a quadcopter can drop a grenade or a land mine and even a mine from a cluster bomb, just as they know that small-sized UAVs are very good at reconnaissance, and there is no need to tell the Americans about network-centric control.
        NWO is simply the first major conflict where all this is widely applied at the last level, before that there was the last Karabakh, but the forces there were unequal and the scale was not large. But I was pleasantly surprised that visors appeared on tanks in front of the SVO, then few of the public understood what they were, but the main thing is that the Ministry of Defense understood.
        Look at the Israelis, their new heavy equipment all have serious roof protection in their design, and they installed the barbecues instantly. I have a feeling that in the near future we will see barbecues in both TUSK and Korean K2 sets. If they have it, then the Americans are definitely aware of the whole topic. There are no fools there either, and they did a lot even before ours. Everything that we use is definitely already meaningful for them.
        1. 0
          1 March 2024 16: 44
          I have a feeling that in the near future we will see barbecues in both TUSK and Korean K2 sets.
          Just don’t write about Ukrainian wheat on your (Polish) border.
          Everything that we use is definitely already meaningful for them.
          But I was pleasantly surprised that visors appeared on tanks in front of the SVO, then few of the public understood what they were, but the main thing is that the Ministry of Defense understood.
          It is important for the Moscow Region to understand what it is wink
          By the way, the Krab self-propelled gun understands perfectly, especially for beer good drinks
          1. -1
            1 March 2024 16: 50
            especially with beer

            Well, you're drunk, I already understood.
            1. +2
              1 March 2024 16: 51
              Well, you're drunk, I already understood.
              What's your connection?
            2. +3
              1 March 2024 16: 52
              Please be kind enough to communicate in a respectful manner.
            3. 0
              1 March 2024 16: 59
              I also snack on muesli MgB6 according to the foggy calendar. Just stay healthy with us! bully good drinks
              1. 0
                1 March 2024 17: 01
                I also snack on muesli MgB6 according to the foggy calendar bully good drinks

                Have you decided to embarrass yourself to the end?)
                1. -1
                  1 March 2024 17: 03
                  Have you decided to embarrass yourself to the end?)
                  There were other answer options laughing
        2. 0
          1 March 2024 16: 49
          Look at the Israelis, their new heavy equipment all initially have serious roof protection in their design, and they installed the barbecues instantly.
          Why look at the Israelis? Only the Israelis manage to find a hole in the desert with fecal matter and drown in it delicately, as if playfully. And the Palestinians will only change their slippers and hello, don’t go, mom, there are wolves in the wind. That's why even Austin couldn't get a stone out of it (the hole) feel
    2. +7
      1 March 2024 09: 49
      An extremely stupid decision, from a dubious source!
      The tactics of using and the structure of tank units will change, but no one will stop production.
      At a minimum, because the tank is the only military equipment that combines the qualities of security, protection, maneuverability and firepower.
      1. +2
        1 March 2024 10: 55
        Quote: Mustachioed Kok
        tank is the only military equipment that combines the qualities of security, protection, maneuverability and firepower
        Agree. But with all the tank’s qualities you listed, it is also seriously vulnerable to drones. SVO showed this well. And before that, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Of course, tanks will not disappear as a class, but the way they are used in battle will be rethought
        1. 0
          2 March 2024 14: 27
          Strictly speaking - yes!
          I didn’t say that “save the tanks - they are needed”))
          Just what is definitely worth doing is to “reinvent” the tanks. By changing the tactics of application, we will only partially solve the problem. The tanks themselves are still vulnerable to many types of weapons.
          Maybe, for example, they will return to the idea of ​​turretless tanks?
          It’s just that the mechanism of the movable turret and stabilization of the gun takes up a lot of the useful volume and mass of the tank. Although these volumes and mass could be used to increase security.
          1. 0
            April 8 2024 16: 19
            Swedish experience for you to study...
  4. +2
    1 March 2024 05: 40
    But, besides all this, what is remarkable about this incident?

    Because after hundreds of articles and notes, scientific research and memoirs of the event participants will soon follow!
    (in the sense: well, how long can you harp on this topic? It wasn’t the alien spaceship that was shot down, but an old galosh, of which a lot had been stuffed before, in different places)
    1. 0
      1 March 2024 13: 33
      Well, how long can you harp on this topic?

      Agree. It's a miracle for me too. A drone flew into a tank. Was the first Abrams in history burned? Tank level Leopard 2, T-72B3.
      Alcoholics are looking for a reason to drink.
  5. +4
    1 March 2024 06: 44
    We do not undertake to judge whether the tank was destroyed, since the ejector panels still worked. But there is no doubt that the Abrams is disabled.
    Triggering kickout panels is not a panacea. Because they save the crew while maintaining the tightness of the bulkhead/door between the aft niche and the fighting compartment. Could the bare roof of the BO be broken through and not the door, which is not at all resistant to the cumulative jet, when hit diagonally from above, just like the Lancet attacks? Yes Easy. That's all. Of course, the probability of this is far from 100%, but also from zero.
    Well, I also share the author’s bewilderment about Abram’s bare roof. Is it that the Hikhlopantsermans really believed in the holy Abrams?
    1. -1
      1 March 2024 12: 10
      Hikhlopantsermans believed in the holy Abrams

      If they don’t want to learn from us, let them learn from Israel
      The APU just needs to be placed above the roof of the Abrams tank turret - a lattice canopy
      and on the bald roof of the tower at least DZ Kontakt-5 analogue of DZ Blazer
      or your own DZ Knife or American DZ ARAT-1, ARAT-2
    2. 0
      1 March 2024 13: 37
      not a panacea yet

      Well, I haven't seen the full video. Later they filmed it, and the article contains just that shot. Smoke was coming out of the hatches, and while it was burning, it was not clear that anyone inside was trying to turn the turret, although the Americans themselves do this. Yes, it’s not a fact that they simply could have forgotten, but for those who rotated the turret before, this also does not happen every day.
      The only fact is that the tank was apparently abandoned after the defeat. But how much he and the crew suffered is not clear.
  6. +3
    1 March 2024 07: 10
    It's strange that the Abrams is considered a well-protected tank. This is only true if it is equipped with additional armor, making it effectively a "road tank". And even then, against BOPS, and against tandem ammunition the tank is defenseless, not to mention the lack of protection from above.
    “Naked” defenseless tanks arrived in Ukraine, from which the benefits are several times less than from the Leopard-1, due to the smooth-bore gun, which gives significant dispersion when firing with mounted fire, and the absence of a powerful high-explosive projectile.
    It is necessary to capture the tank; its engine and transmission group is of interest
    1. 0
      1 March 2024 21: 40
      Abrams L7 were also installed
      1. 0
        2 March 2024 07: 21
        Abrams L7 were also installed

        This is on the first version. Then we switched to a 120 mm smoothbore.
      2. 0
        2 March 2024 12: 08
        Abrams М1>L7(105 mm)....Abrams M1A1>L44 (120 mm)
    2. ada
      0
      3 March 2024 08: 00
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      ... due to the smoothbore cannon, which gives significant dispersion when firing with mounted fire, and the absence of a powerful high-explosive projectile. ...

      Hello Victor.
      On all tanks, for us in the PTA, the gun was considered a dangerous factor, since at our effective anti-tank fire ranges of 1,8 km and maximum ATGM launch ranges of 5 km during the day and shorter at night (with poor visibility) a tank gun with a fire control system with ballistic computer and night sight had an advantage in rate of fire and stability under armor, and were considered very accurate.
      Now, in the theater of operations, it is clear that camouflage and engineering equipment of positions, constant monitoring of the situation play a huge role.
  7. -2
    1 March 2024 07: 22
    The manufacturer's shares fell by 30% after this video, this is a very serious loss for investors. Various contracts with other countries that ordered and have these machines immediately came into question. So this is a serious matter.
    1. +9
      1 March 2024 08: 48
      Well, it’s not the first time that the Abrams has been destroyed to say that this will affect its sales.
    2. +10
      1 March 2024 08: 50
      The manufacturer's shares fell by 30% after this video, this is a very serious loss for investors. Various contracts with other countries that ordered and have these machines immediately came into question. So this is a serious matter.

      Well, it’s still not worth lying rabidly, even at such a joyful moment. Firstly, the tank has not been produced since 2000. Secondly, there are no “other countries that ordered these cars.” There is one Romania that has expressed a desire to buy 54 tanks from those available at storage bases. It didn't come to contracts. And thirdly, the stock quote of General Dynamics Land Systems, which produced M1 Abrams tanks over the last month in the photo. Those interested can take a look here - https://www.google.com/finance/quote/0IUC:LON?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCuLGYqdKEAxWjwAIHHeb5AlcQ3ecFegQIGRAf&window=1M
      1. -4
        1 March 2024 10: 19
        Just because you do it often doesn’t mean others do it too! Watch foreign news more often, it broadens your horizons a little about what is actually rotting there in the West. Our Ministry of Truth heavily filters everything for us.
        1. 0
          1 March 2024 15: 14
          Our Ministry of Truth heavily filters everything for us.

          More precisely: sometimes he will keep silent, sometimes he won’t lie, but he won’t tell the truth either.
        2. +2
          1 March 2024 20: 02
          Watch foreign news more often

          Where do you think the General Dynamics share price comes from - from the "Journals of the Holy Synod"? You blurted out something stupid and are still trying to puff out your cheeks.
          1. -3
            1 March 2024 20: 12
            I play with stocks, I know what I’m saying, but being clever with articles, well, that shows the level negative
            1. +2
              1 March 2024 20: 18
              I play with stocks

              It can be seen. Player...pocket billiards.
    3. +2
      1 March 2024 13: 40
      Shares of the manufacturer plummeted 30%

      As I understand it, the tanks in use around the world are already being sent for melting down?
    4. The comment was deleted.
  8. +2
    1 March 2024 07: 29
    Judging by the smoke coming from the hatches of the tower, something was still burning there despite the activation of the knockout panels, since the hatches are open, then most likely the crew abandoned the car since there was already a lot of fur-bearing animals in it, and since it was burning inside, There’s probably nothing left to repair.
    1. +3
      1 March 2024 12: 47
      Yes, only the cart is intact, what will happen to it. And the tower, yes, is being melted down. But I don't think that makes sense. The main price of an abosrams is precisely its suo.
    2. 0
      1 March 2024 13: 46
      smoke is coming from the tower hatches

      It comes from the ammunition storage there too. They could open the curtain after it burned out. There they later gave me away from the RPG.
  9. +1
    1 March 2024 08: 16
    arrival of a kamikaze drone. As they say - FPV, perhaps even the popular “Ghoul”.
    So, the Internet claims that the first Abrams was shot down by the Ulyanovsk FPV drone “Piranha”! Or are we talking about another “iron hood”? what
  10. +6
    1 March 2024 08: 24
    If the equipment uses an internal combustion engine, then when it is shot down or destroyed - it is a matter of time and how to get to this engine. An internal combustion engine always has two vulnerable points - the air intake point and the exhaust gas outlet point. It is impossible to strongly strengthen or armor these places, otherwise the engine will overheat and fail.
    1. KCA
      +5
      1 March 2024 09: 37
      The Abrasha gas turbine engine has a wider inlet and a thicker exhaust, you can drop a bag of sand from the drone so that the filters choke
  11. 0
    1 March 2024 08: 32
    At this point it’s time to think about what other discoveries in the use of NATO armored vehicles are promised to us by the fronts that have come into motion.


    your phrase says something else: almost! complete lack of data due to the line of combat contact...
    those. intelligence - no!
    yesterday there was an article about the start of production of the A-50U, precisely because of the lack of data due to LBS
    1. +3
      1 March 2024 09: 59
      Why should intelligence be publicly disclosed?
      1. +2
        1 March 2024 10: 41
        And intelligence data should be disclosed not only because of the ribbon, but also in general by all available RF Ministry of Defense for the simple reason that military “experts” want to know it!
        1. +2
          1 March 2024 11: 31
          Moreover, the experts want to know everything and at the same time demand not to disclose data on the aircraft to the enemy. smile
          1. -1
            1 March 2024 12: 35
            Alex, hi Now the loader Abrams has an occupational disease - fear of open “doors”. With closed ones, she has a chance to survive. fellow
  12. +3
    1 March 2024 08: 43
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    It is necessary to capture the tank; its engine and transmission group is of interest


    yes, this is very interesting for our designers
  13. -2
    1 March 2024 08: 46
    Well, we finally knocked out the Abrams tank. This will probably allow us to quickly reach the Polish border, but there is such an expanse of different tanks there. Just have time to destroy. The question is when this will happen. There was information about UAVs in the Dzerzhinsk area. And how did he get there? There are so many chemical plants in that city, and if there’s a boom it won’t seem like much. This is not the main thing, the main message of Putin. This is a speech for two hours. Bidon wasn't even close here. The fifth economy in the world, the first in Europe. Loans to the regions were written off. Apparently it was heavily squandered. I’ll run to look at my loans, maybe they’ll write me off too
  14. +5
    1 March 2024 08: 58
    We do not undertake to judge whether the tank was destroyed, since the ejector panels still worked.
    The combustion temperature of propellant charges of 120-mm projectiles is over 2000 degrees Celsius, which exceeds the melting point of steel, and since all unused ammunition burned for quite a long time, then with great confidence. we can say that the tank is unlikely to be restored, although outwardly it seems almost intact
    1. +1
      3 March 2024 05: 36
      The combustion temperature of propellant charges of 120-mm projectiles is over 2000 degrees Celsius, which exceeds the melting point of steel

      If you are reading the fool “Vartechnik” from Zen, who regularly copies my materials, and in the most crooked sense, then stop.

      The burning temperature of the gunpowder doesn't tell you anything. The amount of heat generated by gunpowder strongly depends on its composition (in the Abrams ammo, the charges for cumulative and sub-caliber projectiles are completely different in composition and mass) and the number of remaining charges in the ammo. In addition, the heating of the surrounding elements strongly depends on the limited volume - in the event of the panels being activated, the cooling of the powder gases occurs extremely quickly due to mixing with the surrounding air, as well as on the combustion time.

      The article “Ways for the development of comprehensive protection of tanks” (Bulletin of Armored Vehicles No. 9 of 1989) describes an experiment when 30 charges with shells in the stack were set on fire in a tank compartment isolated from the fighting compartment with expelling panels - the charges burned out in 30 seconds, even the paint the shells were not charred.

      The Americans, in their manual FM 3 20 Tank Gunnery Abrams, give “about a minute” for the burnout time, while the crew is not recommended to leave the vehicle within an hour from the start of burning, unless it is so damaged that it is impossible to drive it anywhere, and the crew is not injured from other hits.

      Who cares about this temperature? It doesn't melt the tower and so on. Moreover, in the case of regular testing of the panels and the impossibility of taking the tank for repairs due to intense hostilities, it is proposed to install boards and tarpaulins in place of the knockout panels and continue the operation of the tank.
      1. +3
        3 March 2024 08: 57
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        If you are reading the fool "Vartekhnika"

        Let's do without insults
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        In addition, the heating of the surrounding elements strongly depends on the limited volume - in the event of the panels being activated, the cooling of the powder gases occurs extremely quickly due to mixing with the surrounding air, as well as on the combustion time.

        Have you seen the video of this Abrams burning? It burned very brightly for more than 30 seconds, precisely because of the surrounding air. Experience from combat in Iraq suggests that it requires less burning time to destroy it
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        The Americans, in their manual FM 3 20 Tank Gunnery Abrams, give “about a minute” for the burnout time, while the crew is not recommended to leave the vehicle within an hour from the start of burning, unless it is so damaged that it is impossible to drive it anywhere, and the crew is not injured from other hits.

        Has at least one crew followed this recommendation? No. Since in the design of this combat vehicle there is a very weak link, namely the seal of the sliding valve. Which needs to be checked with special instruments at every service. And judging by the fact that the flames also came from the MTO, the fuel tank located there, which was made of plastic in this model, was also damaged. The tank apparently managed to melt and lose its seal.
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        The article “Ways for the development of comprehensive protection of tanks” (Bulletin of Armored Vehicles No. 9 of 1989) describes an experiment when 30 charges with shells in the stack were set on fire in a tank compartment isolated from the fighting compartment with expelling panels - the charges burned out in 30 seconds, even the paint the shells were not charred.

        In my tank, three charges in the MZ conveyor flared up, thank God they managed to jump out. So you know, the shells didn’t even smoke, but the trays melted. Our gunpowder is different from the propellant used by NATO. They are more energetic, this is the only way they achieve higher pressure in the barrel to achieve higher projectile velocities
        1. +1
          3 March 2024 23: 08
          Have you seen the video of this Abrams burning? It burned very brightly for more than 30 seconds, precisely because of the surrounding air.

          I saw that the burning rate of propellant compositions, and with it the release of energy, strongly depends on pressure. In a closed system, such as a gun, this process occurs in a fraction of a second.

          When open, the process slows down greatly. Especially when we are talking about an open BC niche and combustible cartridges, which together does not make it possible to ensure a process close to adiabatic combustion with stable pressure. Figures for the JA2 mixture for Abrams sub-caliber 120-mm projectiles range from 900 to more than 2600 degrees Celsius at pressures from 1 MPa to more than 170 MPa.

          Source: Burning Phenomena of the Gun Propellant JA2
          Norbert Eisenreich, Wilhelm Eckl, Thomas Fischer, Volker Weiser, Stefan Kelzenberg, Gesa Langer, Andrea Baier.

          You can, of course, do calculations and calculate the amount of heat generated by a particular mass of propellant charges in the ammunition rack and take into account the burning time. But their value is the same as proving that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Combustible cartridges with low tightness and other issues simply will not provide the temperature that is enough even to completely melt the ammunition racks into mush.

          Experience from combat in Iraq suggests that it requires less burning time to destroy it


          Has at least one crew followed this recommendation? No.


          Both of these statements require at least some documentary evidence. Bring them. How about the fact that professional American crews do not follow instructions. So it is about the fact that a fire in the turret due to the temperature destroys the entire tank. Here the only thing that can be noticed is the need to turn the tower to the side during a fire for 3 or 9 hours (or so) so that hot gases, along with a suspension of combustion products, do not enter the running engine and disrupt its operation.

          The official instructions for the tank are not written by fools or dreamers. If it is said that in the event of a fire in a tank, it is recommended to stay in the tank for about an hour, then you will not get fried there. This is indicated so that, first of all, the crew does not receive injuries from the detonation of explosive-containing shells when leaving the tank, and they can “bang” for some time after the cessation of active burning of the stowage.

          Of course, all this without pulling an owl onto the globe, since often critical damage to the tank and injuries to the crew themselves will force you to abandon the vehicle without any ammunition.

          “Because in the design of this combat vehicle there is a very weak link, namely the sliding valve seal. Which needs to be checked with special instruments during every service.”

          This is not a weak link, but a component that requires periodic inspection, like other components of the tank. This test does not take much time and requires an ultrasonic generator and an ultrasonic sensor. The first is placed inside the niche with the ammo, then the armored curtain is closed and the second measures the noise, more accurately noting its presence or absence in a particular area.

          In my tank, three charges in the MZ conveyor flared up, thank God they managed to jump out. So you know, the shells didn’t even smoke, but the trays melted.

          It's possible. Just where is the thickness of the metal of the trays, and where is the thickness of the tower and its elements.

          And judging by the fact that the flames also came from the MTO, the fuel tank located there, which was made of plastic in this model, was also damaged. The tank apparently managed to melt and lose its seal.

          If the flame definitely came from the MTO and the tank was definitely on fire, then we can most likely conclude that a hole in this very MTO was to blame. No one, except the participants in the incident themselves, knows how many hits the car took and in what places they were localized. Maybe one drone pierced the engine compartment through the tower, maybe the second one flew in and hit it.
          1. +1
            4 March 2024 06: 21
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            When open, the process slows down greatly.

            No one disputes this physical and chemical process.
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            The official instructions for the tank are not written by fools or dreamers.

            In this situation, people are far from the practice of life.
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            If it is said that in the event of a fire in a tank, it is recommended to stay in the tank for about an hour, then you will not get fried there.

            Can you imagine what they would have done to this crew during this time in an immobilized tank in the zone of confident use of almost all fire weapons?
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            that a hole in this very MTO is to blame for this

            Okay, but smoke is also coming out of the open hatches of the fighting compartment, what is there already burning inside the tank?
            I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, but if not, then watch it. The man calls himself not an expert, but I beg you, his knowledge, patience and ability to obtain information from open sources can be envied, such technical details...

            1. 0
              8 March 2024 06: 55
              No one disputes this physical and chemical process.

              So you challenged him. It is impossible to provide more than 2000 degrees, as you said, in combustible cartridges in an open niche. This is the same as comparing the temperature of the flame of acetylene and oxygen in a gas cutter with that when burning cylinders with these substances broken into a sieve.

              Can you imagine what they would have done to this crew during this time in an immobilized tank in the zone of confident use of almost all fire weapons?

              This is not about sitting under fire. And that the crew has the opportunity to hide from him after the ammunition fire without leaving the vehicle. Unless, of course, there is a critical situation with injuries and the tank being disabled so that it cannot go anywhere.

              Okay, but smoke is also coming out of the open hatches of the fighting compartment, what is there already burning inside the tank?

              Anything. Starting from the smoke from the bk and ending with the smoke from the tanks. There's really no way to understand this.
              1. 0
                15 March 2024 18: 52
                Quote: Eduard Perov
                Anything.

                Documents from the Armed Forces of Ukraine have appeared online. This tank has been written off due to DESTRUCTION.
                The crew received various combat injuries. The commander died, but a little later, while trying to evacuate the tank
  15. -4
    1 March 2024 09: 12
    At least, unlike the Kremlin, Washington was not afraid of the inevitable image losses. Moreover, I do not exclude the possibility that sending the M1 to the LBS was a conscious decision of the Pentagon and was intended specifically to test its survivability in the current conditions of the conflict. While the T-14, even after more than two years of hostilities, still remains a spherical horse in a vacuum, all the advantages of which in fact are only on paper and in the manufacturer’s brochures. But one can only guess about the shortcomings in real combat conditions.
  16. -5
    1 March 2024 09: 17
    It’s good that there is no Armata at the front with its cardboard turret armor and ammunition rack in the hull. An epic video could be released in which a parade tank throws not only a turret, but also an armored capsule into the stratosphere...

    Abrams is more interesting from the point of view of ejection panels and crew rescue. Unfortunately there is no video for some reason.
    Perhaps an analysis of the destruction of tanks in the Northern Military District will force us to reconsider the Armata design in favor of a long turret with an AZ, covering the engine and making it possible to install a long barbecue. Otherwise, on the T80 they already have 2 grills - one to the turret, the second to the rear of the hull, otherwise the drone breaks through the engine filter behind the turret and flies straight into the ammunition rack. Armata has a similar scheme. True, with two barbecues, the turret loses the ability to rotate, but what to do if this is the design of a super fast and super maneuverable gas turbine engine tank?

    But the T90m still gives a chance - in this chest at the back of the tower, instead
    shells, you can pour stones and get at least some protection for the tower from behind. Thanks to the brilliant designers who apparently thought of filling the tank’s turret with stones even at the factory. And besides, the long T90 turret gives you the chance to cook with only 1 long grill, and not 2, moreover, to cook to the turret, not the hull, and therefore the T90M turret can be rotated, unlike the T80BVM
    1. +1
      1 March 2024 10: 34
      It’s good that there is no Armata at the front with its cardboard turret armor and ammunition rack in the hull. An epic video could be released in which a parade tank throws not only a turret, but also an armored capsule into the stratosphere

      Khokhlnats change the record. Your crazy stories about flying towers are no longer impressive.
      Punch through the visor > DZ > a few centimeters of steel and another 1.7 m to the carousel. Anything is more complicated than the 5 mm roof of your vaunted Abrams
      1. 0
        1 March 2024 14: 10
        flying towers are no longer impressive

        Don't you care anymore?
    2. -1
      1 March 2024 10: 41
      in favor of a long tower with an AZ, which covers the engine and makes it possible to install a long barbecue.

      Why doesn’t religion allow a short tower or a long barbecue?
      The T80 has a different problem with barbecues: aerodynamics are disrupted and the turbine begins to choke on dust. But in winter and in our latitudes this is not particularly noticeable.
    3. -1
      1 March 2024 10: 45
      breaks through the engine filter behind the turret and flies straight into the ammunition rack

      How? Do you even realize how small the chance of hitting a tank at exactly the right point at the right angle is?
  17. +1
    1 March 2024 10: 17
    complete isolation of ammunition

    Oh! And someone is lying there. On the right rear, in the fighting compartment? Well, it looks a lot like part of the ammunition!
    1. +4
      1 March 2024 12: 03
      Quote: Grossvater
      Oh! And someone is lying there. On the right rear, in the fighting compartment? Well, it looks a lot like part of the ammunition!

      In your diagram you have the very first "Abram" - with a 105 mm cannon (see No. 1).

      On the M1A1 and beyond, the BC in the BO was reduced to 6 shots and a special protected compartment was allocated for it (between the turret and the MTO) with explosion-proof doors and a knockout panel. But M1A1 “users” write that in real life these doors are very difficult to open or close, because they always rust.
      1. 0
        3 March 2024 18: 19
        But M1A1 “users” write that in real life these doors are very difficult to open or close, because they always rust.
        That rare case when rust is useful good But the carousel under the tower is no less entertaining, but more fun good drinks laughing
  18. -5
    1 March 2024 10: 48
    Quote from David1993
    breaks through the engine filter behind the turret and flies straight into the ammunition rack

    How? Do you even realize how small the chance of hitting a tank at exactly the right point at the right angle is?


    It’s very simple - just fly into the backside - into the engine or the tower.

    Go to YouTube and watch how the T80bvm and T90m towers fly. Or does religion not allow it?
  19. -3
    1 March 2024 10: 51
    Quote from David1993
    It’s good that there is no Armata at the front with its cardboard turret armor and ammunition rack in the hull. An epic video could be released in which a parade tank throws not only a turret, but also an armored capsule into the stratosphere

    Khokhlnats change the record. Your crazy stories about flying towers are no longer impressive.
    Punch through the visor > DZ > a few centimeters of steel and another 1.7 m to the carousel. Anything is more complicated than the 5 mm roof of your vaunted Abrams


    David, you better go to your Israel, there is the divine Merkava
  20. -4
    1 March 2024 13: 22
    Quote from David1993
    in favor of a long tower with an AZ, which covers the engine and makes it possible to install a long barbecue.

    Why doesn’t religion allow a short tower or a long barbecue?
    The T80 has a different problem with barbecues: aerodynamics are disrupted and the turbine begins to choke on dust. But in winter and in our latitudes this is not particularly noticeable.


    Call the factory and ask why it so happened that the T80 ended up in the war like a girl at an orgy - the end awaits everywhere.
  21. 0
    1 March 2024 13: 25
    Quote: Alexey RA
    reduced to 6 shots

    What if six shots go off inside the tank, is that okay? Is it possible for half a pine cone? And where can you attach kickout panels? His tower covers the entire roof.
  22. -1
    1 March 2024 13: 38
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Alexey RA
    reduced to 6 shots

    What if six shots go off inside the tank, is that okay? Is it possible for half a pine cone? And where can you attach kickout panels? His tower covers the entire roof.


    These 6 shots don’t need to be loaded, but you can’t throw the carousel out of the tank.
  23. 0
    1 March 2024 13: 58
    Quote from David1993
    It’s good that there is no Armata at the front with its cardboard turret armor and ammunition rack in the hull. An epic video could be released in which a parade tank throws not only a turret, but also an armored capsule into the stratosphere

    Khokhlnats change the record. Your crazy stories about flying towers are no longer impressive.
    Punch through the visor > DZ > a few centimeters of steel and another 1.7 m to the carousel. Anything is more complicated than the 5 mm roof of your vaunted Abrams


    You can, of course, swear and say how great the T80 is, but how will that help? The backside will remain open as it was - this is the design from the 1970s. In Armata there is the same carousel, but even larger, and the tower is even smaller and has less armor. I don’t think that an armored capsule will help with such outcomes.
    But in fact, if Armata took part in battles, its barbecues would be the most monstrous and the tower also could not turn back.
  24. 0
    1 March 2024 14: 30
    In general, a very expensive toy, which is doubly expensive to lose with a small supply.

    Another good thing about it is that it better preserves the lives of the crew.
  25. 0
    1 March 2024 15: 33
    Quote: Comrade
    there is no doubt that the Abrams is disabled.

    Let's hope that the Ukrainians were unable to evacuate him, and one day he will go to Uralvagonzavod.

    Why the hell do they need it in the Urals? Contagion and infection
  26. +1
    1 March 2024 16: 33
    Quote: Totor5
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Alexey RA
    reduced to 6 shots

    What if six shots go off inside the tank, is that okay? Is it possible for half a pine cone? And where can you attach kickout panels? His tower covers the entire roof.


    These 6 shots don’t need to be loaded, but you can’t throw the carousel out of the tank.

    Oh! Well, let’s read something first. After all, there are countless books on the topic and there are just a bunch of articles.
    The carousel at the teshki is located below the skating rinks, it is impossible to get there. Even from above the cumulative jet will not penetrate. Initiator of ignition of charges. Not the detonation of shells, but the deflagation of gunpowder (the name comes from the Middle Ages, from the mythical phlogiston, not from defloration wink) served those same ill-fated 20 shots that did not fit in the carousel.
    They were taken out from 90M into a separate box, since they couldn’t be put into the conveyor without the tank stopping and the crew leaving.
    So, the T-90M usually doesn’t demolish its turret.
    It’s really not entirely clear to me what fundamentally prevented the organization of a second automatic loader in the turret niche. But there were probably reasons for that.
    1. 0
      3 March 2024 00: 56
      Money. And the dimensions of the tower.
      And in general, generals don’t need it. They don’t even need an excavator, they replace it with a company of soldiers
  27. +1
    1 March 2024 16: 39
    Here's a drone striker from the 80s:
  28. 0
    1 March 2024 18: 32
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Totor5
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Alexey RA
    reduced to 6 shots

    What if six shots go off inside the tank, is that okay? Is it possible for half a pine cone? And where can you attach kickout panels? His tower covers the entire roof.


    These 6 shots don’t need to be loaded, but you can’t throw the carousel out of the tank.

    Oh! Well, let’s read something first. After all, there are countless books on the topic and there are just a bunch of articles.
    The carousel at the teshki is located below the skating rinks, it is impossible to get there. Even from above the cumulative jet will not penetrate. Initiator of ignition of charges. Not the detonation of shells, but the deflagation of gunpowder (the name comes from the Middle Ages, from the mythical phlogiston, not from defloration wink) served those same ill-fated 20 shots that did not fit in the carousel.
    They were taken out from 90M into a separate box, since they couldn’t be put into the conveyor without the tank stopping and the crew leaving.
    So, the T-90M usually doesn’t demolish its turret.
    It’s really not entirely clear to me what fundamentally prevented the organization of a second automatic loader in the turret niche. But there were probably reasons for that.


    Why the hell should we make a tank with two vulnerabilities at once - a carousel and a conveyor? This is specific insanity.
    It’s certainly funny about how impossible it is to get into the carousel. The guys were having fun inside at that moment.
    1. 0
      1 March 2024 20: 50
      Quote: Totor5
      The guys were having fun inside at that moment.



      This is the detonation of HE shells. The guys inside didn't notice anything. Just like the guys inside Abrams will not notice anything in such a case, but the outcome will be similar. The turret placement of the ammunition on the Abrams is designed to protect against deflagration of charges if the door is closed and the PTS is not pierced. It will not save you from the detonation of shells.
  29. +1
    1 March 2024 19: 14
    I apologize, I’m posting it in the second topic, but I really liked the picture. By the way, there was information that one abrashka had been captured.
  30. 0
    1 March 2024 20: 25
    The article is more like an epitaph on a grave.
  31. +1
    1 March 2024 20: 33
    Abrams without a turret. The comment is too short:
  32. +2
    1 March 2024 20: 34
    The author is delusional! These Abrams were delivered to Ukraine without secret armor, dynamic protection and a modern fire control system! They are almost at the T-72 level! They didn’t even install anti-drone grilles!
  33. 0
    1 March 2024 20: 35
    Abrams are burnt. The text of your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not contain useful information:
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. 0
    1 March 2024 23: 57
    Here are the crazy ones. In the previous one, the wrong thing was inserted:
  36. 0
    2 March 2024 02: 36
    Quote: Comet
    Abrams without a turret. The comment is too short:


    The conversation was about the fact that it was “impossible to get into the carousel near the skating rinks.” But as I showed, it’s quite possible, both with an anti-tank gun and a drone, both in the side and from behind from above. And this hit very often leads to the complete destruction of the tanks of the Soviet school and the destruction of the crews. And there is a lot of video evidence of this. In Armata everything is similar and even worse.

    Regarding Abrams. You don’t know whether the door in Abrams was open or not, what are these photos for?
    It seems like I wrote right away, in my first message, that it’s strange that there is no video of the destruction of Abrams, because it’s interesting from the point of view of triggering the ejector panels and rescuing the crew. Why is there no full video of the arrival? In fact, there is only a photo up close, or rather a scan - that’s the main question!
    1. 0
      2 March 2024 16: 47
      Quote: Totor5
      The conversation was about the fact that it was “impossible to get into the carousel near the skating rinks.” But as I showed, it’s quite possible, both with an anti-tank gun and a drone, both in the side and from behind from above. And this hit very often leads to the complete destruction of the tanks of the Soviet school and the destruction of the crews. And there is a lot of video evidence of this.

      So it doesn't matter. When the ammunition detonates, the tank and crew (except for the Armata) are finished. It doesn't matter where the bookmaker is located.
      Quote: Totor5
      In Armata everything is similar and even worse.

      In Armata, the crew is in a capsule, which is designed to protect the crew during detonation of the ammunition. How could it be worse?
      Quote: Totor5
      Regarding Abrams. You don’t know whether the door in Abrams was open or not, what are these photos for?

      1. To the fact that these Abrams completely burned out or lost their turret. How is this different from the T-72 or T-80?
      2. There is no need for a closed door; a hole in the armored partition from the effects of the PTS is enough. And 3rd degree burns of the respiratory tract means you’re still “running” for a day, then you’re lying down for a day, and by the end of the third day you’re dead.
      1. +1
        3 March 2024 00: 52
        Comet, forget it. Totor5 apparently firmly believes that any hit will immediately cause the tanks to explode, while the NATO ones can be pierced right through and nothing will happen to them, the main thing is to seal the hole so that it doesn’t blow.

        He is a victim of the Unified State Exam and false propaganda
  37. kig
    0
    2 March 2024 03: 54
    Personally, I found these videos strange. Judge for yourself: usually we were shown either a video from a scout, in which the hit of the Lancet or something else flying was clearly visible, or even a “first-person” video, where everything was also clear and precise. Regarding this tank, it seems that there are only a few videos on the Internet showing how it moves along the roads and shoots somewhere, and then an absolutely illegible movie in which two torches of fire are visible somewhere in the distance. Moreover, everything is foggy and there is absolutely no sharpness, and everything around is filled with watermarks, so even the terrain is not visible. Now the question is: if it was a reconnaissance UAV that aimed an attack UAV at the tank and observed the result, then why not show the whole process? After all, this is very important from all points of view.

    It is interesting that Oryx, which is usually very cautious regarding Ukrainian losses, has already listed this particular tank as destroyed, and the link to the confirmation shows exactly the photo in the title.

  38. 0
    2 March 2024 16: 19
    How interesting they use them - piece by piece or what? To last longer? Tank for a day, another tomorrow? laughing
  39. ada
    +2
    3 March 2024 05: 47
    What is there to comment on? But there is something! The fact that the Abrams was hit in combat conditions is not very important, no matter what degree of modernization and equipment it is equipped with additional components, since I am more than sure that just as modern tanks had a coefficient of destruction by modern PTS in the region of 0,5, it will remains during the battle, subject to other battle conditions, either up to 50% of the tanks participating in the attack will be hit at the effective fire range of the PTS, or the consumption of PTS (ammunition) will be increased to 2 per target or everything in proportions.
    But what’s important here is something else. As is known, during the military reform of 2008-2009 to introduce a new look to the RF Armed Forces, the RF anti-tank artillery military and military forces were excluded from the armed forces scheme, followed by their reduction and further liquidation, which formed the anti-tank reserves of armies and fronts in combined arms operations at various levels. Only anti-tank units remained in the combined arms formations. The fight against tanks and other armored vehicles of the enemy was subsequently entrusted to them and aviation, primarily army and assault, as well as to cannon and rocket artillery as part of artillery groups and the artillery reserve of combined arms military units, airborne and naval artillery. I believe that it was from this composition that operational formations or separate tactical units - groups in the form of reconnaissance fire contours and forces - should have been created. So, if I understood correctly, that by the beginning of the Ukrainian offensive (which is not an offensive, but by all indications - some kind of experiment, trial operation of the armed forces or something like that) in 2023, such tactical formations were created in the troops in the Northern Military District zone to fight with enemy tanks that broke through into the depths of our defense, additional training was conducted with them in combating tanks, and I believe that methods of fighting in the form of such specialized formations were worked out. However, the nature of their actions in the current situation, since the beginning of the offensive operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, most likely has undergone significant changes and began to represent not a fight against the enemy who had broken through, but the destruction of his forces on the lines of still advancing as part of columns of attacking units in the defense zone. I don’t know what was realized in such tactical formations, but today on TV, I heard a fairly competent speech by our serviceman who participated in the destruction of the Abrams, where he said that they acted during this battle as part of a reconnaissance unit. -a strike group with a reconnaissance UAV and a PTS UAV, that is, consider it a mini-ROCK.
    My opinion is unequivocal that a breakthrough of the enemy’s tank fist can only be stopped by anti-tank defense based on specialized units and powerful ground-based mobile anti-tank vehicles in an integrated anti-tank system, but this is beyond the power of combined arms, where the rate of advance can be tens of kilometers per hour in the breakthrough area for hundreds of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with missile and gun armament, and in a good situation - a country (small European) per day. And this, not an exaggeration, is a reality, when the operation zone will be cut up by artillery and OTRK or aviation to the entire depth with ammunition from YaBZ and in the zone itself all lines will be covered with it in critical areas right up to the GG. Here we must understand that we are not talking about dozens of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, but about thousands. Take Belarus, so there in the NATO Allied Defense Forces the support zone for the rear zone begins from the T-O line of the coast of the USA and Canada and to the GG of Poland and the Tribalts and is wide from the North. M to S-ZM in the body of which, echeloned by the stages of the operation, are the main strategic reserves in the form of BTdiv and BTbr with raised stocks of ammunition, fuel and lubricants and other MS at the borders of advance to the RS of Eastern Europe and located for loading in ports, on ramps /d stations, in echelons and on trailers - car transporters, in the holds of ships - further than the Western European buffer is already in motion, and directly on the GG RB BT formations in tactical breakout groups of the first echelon in the initial areas of three tactical directions in battle formations and all this only in order to create a dense mobile tank wedge from a breakthrough group of more than 5 thousand tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, losing most of it under our nuclear strikes, but ensuring its access to our GG and the complete occupation of the Republic of Belarus in the shortest possible time. Previously, such an operation was planned for 3 - 5 days, now, with a comprehensive (nuclear weapons, military and military weapons) defeat of the most important and important targets and guaranteed destruction of the main defensive lines, both in breakthrough areas and for their reserve (duplication), with actions in coastal areas and gaining air superiority in the offensive zone and hitting the most important targets on distant frontiers in countering our means deep in the territory of the Russian Federation - well, up to 30 days. Here, of course, nothing is guaranteed, but the estimated losses in thousands of basic weapons and military equipment units alone do not stop them from such risky plans, as can be seen from the development of these elements during military and staff (operational) exercises and training, and practical training of the NATO Allied Forces. It is especially important to take into account that in conditions of active use of nuclear weapons, such breakthroughs of the armed forces with the achievement of an ultimate position in relation to the enemy’s potential can only be ensured by armored forces.
  40. 0
    3 March 2024 16: 54
    Quote: Comet
    Quote: Totor5
    The conversation was about the fact that it was “impossible to get into the carousel near the skating rinks.” But as I showed, it’s quite possible, both with an anti-tank gun and a drone, both in the side and from behind from above. And this hit very often leads to the complete destruction of the tanks of the Soviet school and the destruction of the crews. And there is a lot of video evidence of this.

    So it doesn't matter. When the ammunition detonates, the tank and crew (except for the Armata) are finished. It doesn't matter where the bookmaker is located.
    Quote: Totor5
    In Armata everything is similar and even worse.

    In Armata, the crew is in a capsule, which is designed to protect the crew during detonation of the ammunition. How could it be worse?
    Quote: Totor5
    Regarding Abrams. You don’t know whether the door in Abrams was open or not, what are these photos for?

    1. To the fact that these Abrams completely burned out or lost their turret. How is this different from the T-72 or T-80?
    2. There is no need for a closed door; a hole in the armored partition from the effects of the PTS is enough. And 3rd degree burns of the respiratory tract means you’re still “running” for a day, then you’re lying down for a day, and by the end of the third day you’re dead.


    Do you really believe that the wall behind the chair will save the BC from an explosion? As I already wrote, the only chance of salvation in an armored capsule is if the ammunition is behind the turret and the capsule is in front.

    Whether I believe or not... all this is not a matter of faith. There are a lot of videos of our tanks being blown to pieces and a lot of videos of people running out of the same damaged Leorard or Bradley.

    And I will repeat again .. “for those in the tank” - There was a chance to show what happens to the Abrams when the ammunition rack is hit, but there is no video, and this is strange.

    There is no point in continuing the discussion, why go in circles - for you, a Russian tank is better in everything, because it is Russian, and the Armata is the best tank because it is a New Russian tank. Well, okay. In Soviet times this was called fraud.
  41. +1
    5 March 2024 07: 39
    Abrams is not a flying saucer, 60 tons of iron nothing more! lol
  42. 0
    10 March 2024 04: 04
    Well, what are the leclercs left!
  43. 0
    12 March 2024 15: 27
    And who took away the right to be burned from the "Abrams"? There is no such armored vehicle yet that is not capable of becoming a pile of charred metal...

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"