Military Review

"Abrams" for the city: a set of TUSK

68
During almost all local conflicts of recent years tanks and other armored vehicles had to act in unusual conditions for themselves - in the city. Armored vehicles adapted to defend against attacks from the front hemisphere were in a very difficult position. The widespread use of infantry anti-tank weapons, combined with the ability to ambush any home, made tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles fairly easy targets. The world's leading manufacturers of armored vehicles were forced to create a set of measures that could increase the likelihood of a tank surviving during hostilities in the city.




In the United States, such work began after the start of the war in Afghanistan, but prototypes of ready-made systems appeared only after the invasion of Iraq. A set of additional equipment for tanks M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams called TUSK: Tank Urban Survival Kit - "Tank Kit for survival in the city." The first contract for the supply of TUSK kits was signed only at the end of the summer of 2006, i.e. after all the major fights involving American tankers. General Dynamics Land Systems was selected as a contractor. The contract meant the supply of 505 kits with a total value of 45 million dollars.

Since the reservation of all modern tanks was not originally intended to protect the vehicle from anti-tank weapons from all angles, the TUSK kit includes tools that increase the level of defense of the sides and the stern. Thus, the sides of the hull and turrets of the Abrams tanks are covered almost completely along the hinged panels with the ARAT-2 dynamic protection units installed on them. The most vulnerable part of the tank - its feed - is covered with an anti-cumulative grille. The choice of this particular means of protection was due to the peculiarities of its location. On a relatively thin forage sheet, it is impossible to install dynamic protection equipped with an explosive that can damage some units of the power plant.

Also taken some measures to improve the mine protection of the tank. To do this, additional panels of combined armor are installed under its bottom. A characteristic feature of all protection enhancements that are part of the TUSK kit is the possibility of installing them in a military workshop or even by the crew. Thus, it is possible to quickly equip tanks with additional protection systems and immediately send into battle.

It is worth noting that the speed and ease of installation of the elements of the TUSK kit concern not only dynamic, combined, or reshot protection. The same is observed in the case of a weapon upgrade kit. After installing TUSK, the M1A1 or M1A2 tank saves its native weaponbut its combat potential increases significantly. So, for example, the 7,62 millimeter machine gun M240, located in front of the loader's hatch, received several useful "additions". Now loader when firing machine guns protects the new metal shield with an observant device of bulletproof glass. As a result, the tankman is less likely to get injured. If necessary, the loader does not even need to lean out of his hatch. The TUSK kit includes hardware that allows you to control the machine gun M240 directly from the reserved space. It is noteworthy that the new machine gun turret has a two-channel sight with a thermal imaging channel.

"Abrams" for the city: a set of TUSK


Instead of a standard turret with a large-caliber machine gun M2HB above the commander’s hatch, the TUSK kit includes a full-fledged combat module with remote control, on which a similar type of weapon is mounted. The Kongsberg / Thales M151 Protector system has been used on M1126 Striker armored personnel carriers for quite some time and received mostly positive reviews. If necessary, the combat module can be equipped with a thermal sight, which significantly increases the firing capabilities of the tank. In addition, the M151 design allows you to mount not only a large-caliber machine gun, but also other types of weapons, such as an automatic grenade launcher.

Separately, it is worthwhile to dwell on the reasons why the Abrams' machine guns underwent such serious changes. The first of these reasons concerns the protection of the crew. By controlling all the weapons from inside the combat compartment, tankers do not risk getting wounded or being killed by the enemy’s small arms. The second is the importance of machine guns in urban environments. Since the main danger in urban battles are infantrymen with grenade launchers hiding in houses, rifle and large-caliber machine guns are the most effective means of fighting them. The power of tank guns, with rare exceptions, is redundant for the destruction of enemy grenade launchers, so the machine gun becomes the most convenient weapon.

In urban battles, interaction with the infantry accompanying the tank acquires special significance. In the middle of the last century, on some models of tanks, telephone systems were installed to communicate with the foot units. Despite the development of radio communications, such things still remain comfortable and relevant. Thus, during the war in Iraq, a certain number of US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks, in addition to radio stations, were equipped with simple wired telephones for communication with infantry. Included TUSK such equipment is present initially.

Abrams TUSK with DZ ARAT-2 complex (photo http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com)


DZ ARAT-2 is installed on mounts on DZ ARAT creating a tandem barrier DZ (photo http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com)


Installing DZ on the case (photo http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com)


DZ ARAT-2 on the tower


Deliveries under the 2006 contract of the year ended in the spring of 2009. According to reports, almost all delivered TUSK kits were immediately mounted on the tanks available in the troops. It is easy to calculate that the number of tanks upgraded for fighting in the city is only a few percent of the total number of Abrams' troops available. Therefore, in the next few years we should expect additional purchases of kits for action in the city.

During the manufacturing of the first batch of 505 kits, the US Department of Defense separately ordered the development of a new dynamic protection and a number of other systems. All new elements of the TUSK set have already been tested in the army and received approval. As a result, sets from different batches differ slightly from each other in their particular composition. In the future, this process will continue and the TUSK system will be replenished with new components that have advantages over the old ones.

The first converted tanks were tested in real conditions only in the 2007 year, when events in Afghanistan and Iraq were completely transferred to the stage of partisan war. Nevertheless, even in such conditions, it was possible to test the new kits in practice. Before the other components of the TUSK kit, dynamic and anti-mine protection was incurred. Losses and damage to equipment significantly reduced. As for the upgrade of weapons and equipment associated with it, these measures have significantly reduced losses among personnel. The positive experience of using tanks with TUSK kits allows us to speculate about the further development and new purchases of such systems.




On the materials of the sites:
http://defense-update.com/
http://army-guide.com/
http://army-technology.com/
http://dau.mil/
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. redwolf_13
    redwolf_13 6 May 2013 06: 28 New
    -6
    Another extraction of money from the budget. Tank in the city alone has nothing to do. Only infantry cover. The training of the crew and infantry personnel is the basis of the survival and victory of a tank in the city.
    Although amers fellows on creating a bunch of body kits for the tank and carry this stuff with you. Body kit for the city, for the field, for the highlands. Outfits like a fashionista :)
    1. bask
      bask 6 May 2013 07: 40 New
      +9
      I want to thank Cyril for the always brilliant article.
      Quote: redwolf_13
      There is nothing to do in the city alone. Only infantry cover.

      Not only the infantry cover (((infantry will be shot by snipers)) And the close interaction,
      such, infantry, heavy engineering and combat engineer + BTR-T.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Oy in Syria showed that such canopies in the city fly off in contact with buildings, especially if the streets

      For this, there is heavy engineering and sapper armored vehicles to clear the way for tanks and infantry.
      IMR-2MA. The machine is designed to ensure the advancement of troops, equipment of column tracks and other engineering work.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 6 May 2013 07: 46 New
        +8
        What do you think if the street is not wide enough to maneuver, then it probably needs to be expanded, for example, to demolish a quarter, remove construction waste, make a flat platform for the tank to pass through? and who said that someone will allow this technique to work in the affected area of ​​an RPG?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2013 09: 46 New
          +4
          For a tank or infantry, "construction waste" is not a threat. For wheeled vehicles, yes.
          During the assault on fortified firing positions in the city of Nasiria (Iraq, 2006), Italian forces used four Centaurs in conjunction with the Leopard tank. When driving along the narrow city streets, the "centaurs" could not overcome the impromptu barricades and other artificial obstacles. After a six-hour shootout, the Italian armored column retreated.
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 6 May 2013 10: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: vladsolo56
          then it probably needs to be expanded

          To expand the street, or quarter, I would recommend using, not tanks, but artillery, MLRS Smerch, and aviation. As they say there is no body, no business. laughing
        3. bask
          bask 6 May 2013 18: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Vartal, remove construction debris, make a flat area for the passage of the tank? and who said that this is a technician

          I wrote a job for sappers and heavy engineering.
          Of the vodka operation ,, Cast Lead ,,, As the advancing and operating in the urban development of the IDF. No comments.
          "" "" During the offensive in Gaza, Israeli troops supported by helicopters use the “fire wall” tactics in front of the advancing units to prevent the militants from coming into direct contact with the soldiers. Strongest artillery fire is being fired at terrorist positions, concentrated missile attacks are delivered by the Air Force. A new tactic has been used in the city - militants have mined all city communications, hoping that the IDF will advance along existing streets. However, the IDF engineering troops cut new roads right through the residential neighborhoods. Tank and infantry columns of the IDF freely follow them. Thus, the militants lose their important advantage. Infantry units go into battle in groups consisting of D-9 armored bulldozers, tanks and heavy armored personnel carriers. Ahead is a pair of D-9 armored bulldozers - these are huge cars the height of a two-story house, the multi-ton shield is 2 meters high.The bulldozers go one after another - so that their shields overlap the path they have trodden for the next military equipment. Bulldozers with shields completely destroy the streets, and shields serve as trawls. This sapper cleansing of the territory from multiple land mines and stretch marks, at the same time completely destroyed the house where the enemy firing points were discovered. The firing points are suppressed by the fire of tank guns, then the bulldozer "" "is demolished at home [media = http: //www.duel.ru/200938/? 18_4_2]
          [media = http: //i46.tinypic.com/2rq23ki.jpg]


          b = 1 [/ img] [/ center]
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 May 2013 19: 12 New
            +1
            Fritz was already worried during the war
            1. postman
              postman 6 May 2013 19: 22 New
              0
              Kars buddy we have a dispute arose with some comrades:

              If Tuy played WoT, what would you choose?
              1.I say type 59
              2. Oleg says
              Kars claims mobility is nothing. He will probably choose one of the IP family, or maybe even the Tiger
              ================ you as a recognized collector and godfather for tanks we ask ===
              request
              1. Kars
                Kars 6 May 2013 19: 32 New
                0
                Announce the entire page.
                1. postman
                  postman 6 May 2013 20: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Announce the entire page.

                  bitte schoen
                  http://worldoftanks.ru/encyclopedia/vehicles/
                  otherwise you didn’t look?
                  Threat. I’ll say that I can’t refuse the toilet (master, won, shooter, armor-piercer and something else, and it’s not sour). hoot and ugly he
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 6 May 2013 20: 43 New
                    0
                    T-62 and Is-7
                    The IS-7 is my totem))) right now about his fate in the Technique and armament of the article are.
                    1. postman
                      postman 6 May 2013 22: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      IS-7 is my totem))

                      I would use it ....
                      And about type 59, everyone at WoT moans, why they removed it from sale.
                      By JP and its guns, I answered you
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 May 2013 09: 40 New
        +8
        With the destruction of bridges across the Argun River, the need arose for
        non-standard application of mine clearance UR-77. Fulfillment
        the enemy’s stronghold on the river bank interfered with tasks. As
        To suppress the experiment, two charges were launched
        mine clearance weighing about 800 kg of explosives each. In the explosion of these charges
        enemy personnel, weapons and equipment were destroyed
        on an area of ​​about 3 hectares. The launch of two more charges was disabled
        metal bridge. Thus, in a difficult situation, non-standard
        the use of mine clearance was not only accomplished
        cha on the destruction of the bridge, but also defeated the enemy engineer
        means without loss of personnel and equipment. Similar
        UR-77 was also used when taking the building of the Council of Ministers,
        Hotel "Caucasus" and other facilities in the city of Grozny.

        Mine clearance UR-77 "Meteorite"
        http://cris9.narod.ru/isv_ur77.htm
      3. Kars
        Kars 6 May 2013 10: 22 New
        +1
        Additionally, there is
        http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/219535.html
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2013 10: 55 New
          +1
          Is this a "command booth"? Protection is not so hot. And with all of these shields, it seems, limit the field of view of the commander's sight.
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 May 2013 11: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            ? Protection is not so hot

            Do you want to compare with the readout near the NSVT on the T-72 and T-80BV?
            Quote: Spade
            limit the field of view of the commander's sight.

            and there’s an integrated picture, there’s still a panorama, and it’s not really closing the triplexes around the perimeter of the rotating commander’s turret.

            I’m more amused by browning of 50 caliber, above the gun. We did it like with the Jews.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 09 New
              +3
              Quote: Kars
              Do you want to compare with the readout near the NSVT on the T-72 and T-80BV?

              If you do, then you need to do it right, right?
              And here. seems to have gone half measures

              Quote: Kars
              I’m more amused by browning of 50 caliber, above the gun. We did it like with the Jews.

              I like the mortars in the tower more among the Jews, the most for local conflicts.
              1. Kars
                Kars 6 May 2013 12: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                If you do, then you need to do it right, right?
                And here. seems to have gone half measures

                By the way, they did it normally, if they weren’t comfortable, they would have taken protection from the Iraqi T-72
                Quote: Spade
                I like the mortars in the tower more among the Jews, the most for local conflicts.

                Well, there’s no minamet
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 May 2013 12: 14 New
                  0
                  _______________________
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 31 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Kars
                  By the way, they did it normally, if they weren’t comfortable, they would have taken protection from the Iraqi T-72

                  Compare with the German PSO "Peacekeeper" In my opinion their kit is much more thought out.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 6 May 2013 12: 36 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    Compare with the German PSO "Peacekeeper" In my opinion their kit is much more thought out.

                    By the fact that they installed a remote turret? It is probably even more expensive than the whole Tusk, but it will not live much longer. I also imagine repairing in the field.

                    Even the Yankees have a lot of money.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 41 New
                      +2
                      Well, losing a tank is also worth the money. Like the loss of an infantryman. Americans on separate machine gunners "Javelins" without hesitation beat. And there, each rocket is priced like this combat module.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 6 May 2013 13: 17 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Well, losing a tank is also worth the money.

                        Really?
                        Quote: Spade
                        Americans on separate machine gunners "Javelins" without hesitation beat. And there, each rocket is priced like this combat module.

                        You bent it of course, the module costs about half a million, plus installation work. But there are already javelins, and they also have an expiration date. This is not to mention that their use is simply not received by the accounting department.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 12 New
                        0
                        That yes, bent. A module costs like two missiles. Stabilized Raven R-400 delivered at a price of $ 125 tons
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 6 May 2013 19: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Raven R-400 delivered at a price of 125 tons.

                        Well, a reservation, more powerful servos - it can’t cost less than half a million. Yes, optics and optics are probably different.
                        And what’s in the photo - you can say the money thrown away.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 42 New
                        0
                        Well, more than half a million, like 8 missiles. And 8 missiles is 2/3 of the ammunition of one motorized infantry platoon
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 6 May 2013 20: 01 New
                        +2
                        We will measure in the Javelins, as in parrots. And even the Americans, the Javelins, will be able to arm all their motorized infantry platoons in case of mobilization before the kit ..

                        DU The module is nothing wrong, but as you can see the United States decided not to install them, there aren’t any mine on the Merkavas either, maybe for now. And the fact that the Yankees in principle cannot have any problems with their (modules) production - they are both Germans and the British will sell for a sweet soul, if required.
                      6. bask
                        bask 6 May 2013 20: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        decided not to put them, on the Merkava they also

                        BDM, on the BTR-T ,, Namer ,, stand.

                      7. Kars
                        Kars 6 May 2013 21: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: bask
                        BDM, on the BTR-T ,, Namer ,, stand.

                        Or maybe not at all. It is interesting that in the pictures there are different degrees of booking a turret.
                      8. bask
                        bask 6 May 2013 23: 49 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        and not at all. It is interesting that in the pictures there are different degrees of booking a tour

                        So, I wanted to highlight this.
                        On BTR-T ,, Namer ,, is installed the Mini-Samson PMD manufactured by RAFAEL. It uses a multi-sensor target capture system. Armament: Browning machine gun, 12,7 mm caliber and M246 machine gun, 7,62 mm caliber, or 40 mm M19 automatic grenade launcher.
                        The IDF decided to develop a multi-purpose fire support vehicle on the basis of the "Namer" BTR. Armed with a heavy Samson PM with a 30 mm cannon and Spike anti-tank guided missiles.
                        The Rafael Samson Mk 2 remote-controlled armored turret on the BTR M113. ((Test)) The Samson Mk 2 BDM is characterized by the presence of full armor protection of the installation. The standard version of armament for the Samson Mk 2 turret consists of a 30-mm ATK ,, Bushmaster ,, automatic cannon, coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun and mounted under the armor on the right side of the module of the retractable dual-charge anti-tank launcher Rafael Spike. mm automatic grenade launcher.

                      9. Kars
                        Kars 7 May 2013 10: 01 New
                        0
                        They won’t put a gun / grenade launcher - this is already unique.
  • avt
    avt 6 May 2013 13: 35 New
    +4
    Quote: Spade
    This is a "command booth"

    But it is interesting, no matter how much they brag about the remote control of weapons, no matter how they advertise technological progress, but for themselves they made a box with windows for a machine gunner. laughing
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 27 New
      +1
      And this is their tradition. Like our seat on the armor. Stick out in hatches with swivel machine guns. Both the commander and the infectious
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 6 May 2013 11: 42 New
    0
    By the way, you don’t know how they communicate with the infantry? Is infantry included in intercom? And most importantly, how.
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 May 2013 11: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Is infantry included in intercom? And most importantly, how

      The era of digital technology, vryatli use the phone as before.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 12 New
        +1
        This is how to say it. Did the Germans seem to stick a phone on their tank? And it seems that it’s not somewhere out there, but in the stern, in a place where the infantry is better not to be. Or maybe not the Germans ... Who had the "city tank" with boxes for extra. ammunition infantry aft?
        1. Kars
          Kars 6 May 2013 12: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          Did the Germans seem to stick a phone on their tank?

          It was on a variety of tanks including Tsinturion, M60, etc. That was even on WWII tanks.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 32 New
            +1
            I'm talking about new ones. By the way, we have not a telephone, but a “talking hat” with a long cord.
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 6 May 2013 14: 15 New
        0
        The era of digital technology, vryatli use the phone as before.

        her phone is standing somewhere I even saw a picture on the network
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco 6 May 2013 10: 42 New
    -1
    Quote: redwolf_13
    Another extraction of money from the budget. Tank in the city alone has nothing to do.

    The tank is not a priori designed for combat in the city, and in this case it is not worth the trouble to measure the members who say he has more. All recent conflicts show that tanks do not burn badly in the city, and even better blaze without support. For every action, there will always be opposition. Remember at least the story of the Second World War.
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 May 2013 10: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: Sirocco
      The tank is not a priori designed for combat in the city

      A rather widespread misconception.
      Quote: Sirocco
      that tanks do not burn badly in the city

      infantry perishes in general by tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands on the streets of cities - but they do not stop sending them there.

      The main thing is the training and interaction of the combat arms.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 6 May 2013 11: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        The main thing is the training and interaction of the combat arms.

        So in this I have no doubt what I wrote above, SUPPORT.
        Quote: Kars
        The main thing is the training and interaction of the combat arms.

        5 +++
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2013 10: 50 New
      +8
      The plane is not a priori designed for combat in the sky. All recent conflicts show that they are being shot down there.

      But the tank is a priori designed for combat wherever the surface can withstand its weight. Remember at least the story of the Second World War.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 6 May 2013 11: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        The plane is not a priori designed for combat in the sky

        You don’t have to jerk, read and understand more carefully. Have you encountered RPGs? shot? The first number breaks the defense, the second breaks through the armor. Chechnya in the mid-90s is a good example. Without support, without cleaning the terrain, tanks in the city. burn like matches. “A tank is an armored fighting vehicle designed to suppress enemy machine-gun firing points and cover the advancing infantry with a movable armor shield from machine-gun and mortar fire.”
        Quote: Kars
        The main thing is the training and interaction of the combat arms.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2013 11: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: Sirocco
          You don’t have to jerk, read and understand more carefully.

          Tell you how to use aviation? True, I am poorly versed in this, but show me which side to approach the plane, and I will give you 1000 tips that you really need.

          Tired of these high-profile statements "a tank doesn’t have a place in a city, they’ll beat it up there"
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 6 May 2013 11: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Tell you how to use aviation?

            If possible in more detail. I hope not blah blah blah.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 May 2013 11: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Sirocco
              If possible in more detail. I hope not blah blah blah.

              Yes, no questions asked. Only I need background information. How do they get into the cabin, right or left?
              1. Sirocco
                Sirocco 6 May 2013 11: 52 New
                0
                And who told you that they are getting into the cab? Riding like a horse. If you do not know, then the tankers are fighting outside the car, with a saber to the head.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 25 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Sirocco
                  And who told you that they are getting into the cab?

                  Are you flying a plane? It determines a lot. So, remember, the first thing you need to do to conduct combat operations of aviation is to raise planes into the air. You can roll them on the ground to the nearest target, but for a long time.

                  Quote: Sirocco
                  If you do not know, then the tankers are fighting outside the car, with a saber to the head.

                  Outside, cars also drive. It turns out differently.

                  You just remember, the tanks were used during the battle in the city, are applied, and will be applied. Methods are perfectly worked out, including in the Second World War. Just some of these principles are forgotten. Yes, and in the course of combat training, infantry is not trained to interact with tanks, each time they come to this with a “poke” method, which leads to losses.
                  1. Sirocco
                    Sirocco 6 May 2013 12: 37 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    The main thing is the training and interaction of the combat arms.
                    Cause and investigation.
                    Quote: Spade
                    You just remember, the tanks were used during the battle in the city, are applied, and will be applied. Methods are perfectly worked out, including in the Second World War.

                    Quote: Spade
                    So, remember, first,

                    The first thing to do before launching the aircraft is to turn on the ignition, the second is if the plane does not start from the starter, then in this case they will resort to the help of aircraft technicians who try to start the plane from the pusher.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 49 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Sirocco
                      The first thing to do before launching the aircraft is to turn on the ignition

                      So simple? A tank is harder to launch.

                      Maybe I was too harsh, but God sees, I'm tired. As soon as an article appears in which there are two words “tank” and “city”, do not go to the fortuneteller, there will definitely be posts under it that tanks cannot be used in the city and about the “New Year’s assault”, which was not there. How much can ... Well, it would be tankers or infantry wrote ...
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 6 May 2013 12: 16 New
      +2
      The tank is quite intended for fighting in the city. He still has no replacement
      1. beard999
        beard999 6 May 2013 15: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        The tank is quite intended for fighting in the city

        Just like that - “intended”? In my opinion, a very controversial statement. In urban battles, where there is no clear front line, MBT is much more vulnerable than, for example, in frontal combat, in open areas. In my opinion, the use of tanks in the city is certainly possible, but very limited. It is more advisable to use MBT in defense, working due to shelter. But in offensive urban battles, if the enemy even has wearable PTS, the use of tanks can lead to large losses.
        Quote: Pimply
        He still has no replacement

        Oh really? In modern conflicts, MBT, in urban battles, is mainly used to suppress enemy firing points of 120/125 mm OFS. So? But isn’t there similar in effectiveness to portable infantry weapons? If we talk about Russian aircraft, for example, “Bumblebee”, with 2,1 kg of TBS, has a high explosive effect equivalent to 122 mm OFS, “Prize” with 3,0 kg of TBS, this indicator is not inferior to 152 mm OFS. In addition to them there are MRO-A, RMG, RShG-1/2, SPO-S, shots to RPG-7V - TBG-7V, TBG-7VL, OG-7V, PG-7VYA, there are shots from TBS to Vampire and "Barkazu" ... Or, for example, MGK Bur from KBP http://www.kbptula.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=65
        3 & lang = ru. In the end, there is a 9M131FM rocket with a thermobaric warhead for the Metis. The infantry has enough portable equipment. I believe that BMO-T with 30 Prizes inside, in offensive city battles, will be more suitable than MBT.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2013 15: 08 New
          +2
          And what is the thickness of the armor of the "Bumblebee"?
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 May 2013 18: 56 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            And what is the thickness of the armor of the "Bumblebee"?

            No, there was a video from Syria getting into the tower, the tank drove on as it had never happened.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 29 New
              +1
              I’m talking about a soldier-chemist who will have to use this “bumblebee” on a fortified firing point in some basement.
              1. Kars
                Kars 6 May 2013 19: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                I'm about a chemical soldier

                but who will count them, if the tank is burned in the city, it’s not adapted for military operations in the city.
                A couple of another hundreds of soldiers - well, it happens.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 45 New
                  0
                  More as they will be. Especially the Americans. A trained soldier is expensive.
                  In the United States, it was not from special humanism that a system for saving downed pilots appeared - a clean economy.
          2. beard999
            beard999 6 May 2013 22: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            And what is the thickness of the armor of the "Bumblebee"?

            I certainly understand your irony. But the "armor" of the infantryman is the possibility of firing from cover, a quick change of OP. On the offensive, assault groups do not have to travel in open space. They move from cover to cover. But the tank is always in sight, moving along houses, along the streets. MBT immediately becomes a priority objective when an enemy appears in the fire zone. Nobody has yet been able to reliably cover the roof and rear of the MBT, even from shots created 25 years ago - PG-7VR, PG-27V, PG-29V. And it can fly in from anywhere (the famous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vljapydLfGQ&feature=player_embedded&bpctr=1367864
            166). Yes, and two storming of Grozny in the first and second Chechen campaigns, this is confirmed.
            Well, in the end, if you really need "armor" for an infantryman, then for BMO-T, it is no worse than for MBT, incl. onboard.
            http://telegrafist.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20712891.jpg
            http://s.66.ru/new66/collection/61/09/c5/a8/6109c5a8.jpg
            In general, the main message, of my previous message, was, firstly, that there was no reason to talk about MBTs as “destined” for battle in the city, and secondly, the infantry had armaments as powerful as the tank OFS.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 May 2013 22: 17 New
              +2
              You know, the weapons listed by you do not really shoot from cover. They have such a drawback.

              The BMO-T is worse than the tank in that it does not have a 125 mm gun. In which even a blank shot is dangerous for the defenders. In Komsomolsky this method was used several times in the basement. With a guaranteed result.
              BMO-T as a replacement, no. As an addition, good. But it would be better if a full-fledged heavy armored personnel carrier with a ramp in the stern. In addition to MBT.
              1. beard999
                beard999 7 May 2013 16: 40 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                the weapons you listed do not really shoot from shelters

                From the window of an ordinary apartment, you certainly will not shoot from RPG-7V. But from the balconies, when the stream of exhaust gases leaves along the walls of the house, from the roofs, from the basements, the Russian BTT, the Chechens fired from RPG-7V. In the end, in the city, the "shelter" is not only residential buildings with apartments. Even stupidly when shooting from around the corner, the infantryman would only set up a grenade launcher and head, and MBT would have to be substituted almost completely for the shot. And then, if we talk about the TCP, but, for example, means to suppress enemy firing points, such as "Beard", "Prize", "Drill" can fire from limited rooms. The same “Bur” from a room of 30 cubic meters. (this is the size of a small room with an area of ​​12 square meters.). In general, in such discussions, as a rule, it is implied that the enemy is insurgents, with fairly primitive TCP. And if the enemy is a regular army, albeit without heavy weapons, but with modern anti-tank systems and grenade launchers having a "soft start", anti-tank mines, including anti-sideboard etc. etc.? What "purpose" MBT in the city can be discussed, I personally do not understand.
                Quote: Spade
                BMO-T is worse than a tank in that it does not have a 125 mm gun

                You talked about “armor”, and not about fire capabilities. The task of the BMO-T is to deliver the flamethrowers to shelter, and then they will work with wearable weapons that are as powerful as the tank OFS. Who is easier to notice in urban conditions - MBT or infantryman? How effectively can you find a hidden enemy from under MBT armor, especially when the main tactics of his ambush actions? Can a 125-mm gun work on the upper floors (for example, starting from the 3rd, when the same T-90A has a vertical guidance angle of 13,5 degrees)? For the infantry, this is not a problem.
                Quote: Spade
                BMO-T as a replacement, no

                It's not about replacing. And about the feasibility of using MBT. An art corrector or an aircraft gunner with the same antediluvian “Malachite” in urban offensive battles can be much more useful than a tank, upon which, upon detection, they will immediately begin to hammer everything, and everything that is at hand from the enemy. Naturally, a hit is not necessarily equivalent to defeat, but there are more vulnerabilities in a tank in a city than in other TVDs. Even the primitive RKG-3EM (armor penetration 220 mm, at an angle of 30 degrees) 60 years ago, thrown on the roof of the MBT from the upper floors, can lead to the destruction of the most modern machine.
                Yes, and heavy armored personnel carriers (BMPs), in the city it is advisable to work as well as BMO-T - infantry delivery to the attack line, fire support from the shelter (unless of course it has adequate firearms). And if you move along the streets, directly behind the infantry, then the probability of their defeat will be as high as that of the tanks.
  • Explore
    Explore 6 May 2013 13: 11 New
    +3
    Quote: redwolf_13
    Another extraction of money from the budget. Tank in the city alone has nothing to do. Only infantry cover. The training of the crew and infantry personnel is the basis of the survival and victory of a tank in the city.
    Although amers fellows on creating a bunch of body kits for the tank and carry this stuff with you. Body kit for the city, for the field, for the highlands. Outfits like a fashionista :)


    Those. in your DZ and all-angle protection against RPGs the tank does not need?
    Whether you want it or not, but the tanks were and will be involved for military operations in the city, since the infantry simply does not have other equally protected fire support equipment, and without them it usually suffers unjustified losses.
    Thank God that we would be kind to take care of this problem and Armata on TK should have all-aspect protection from RPGs (at least for the crew) ...
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 6 May 2013 06: 28 New
    +2
    Managing the turret machine gun from inside the car is a good thing.
    In one of the interviews, the Syrian tankman expressed a wish about this.
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 6 May 2013 06: 46 New
    0
    The battles in Syria showed that such canopies in the city fly off in contact with buildings, especially if the streets of the city are narrow. I do not think that tanks will have to fight only on 4-lane highways.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 6 May 2013 09: 18 New
      +3
      The battles in Syria showed that on domestic tanks, the mounting of the side screens is flimsy, nothing more.
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 6 May 2013 07: 41 New
    -1
    May Abrash not save all these stray from RPGs on board! They will not save !!! Unless they add a little determination to the tankers to the first major losses.
    1. Mairos
      Mairos 6 May 2013 11: 59 New
      0
      From RPG just save
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 May 2013 12: 26 New
        +1
        Is not a fact. Tandem now, like dirt.
        1. Explore
          Explore 6 May 2013 13: 19 New
          +1
          If our Contact-1 to the First Chechen was often saved, then these more modern ones should also be saved.
          Of course, everything depends on the Perfection of the grenade launcher, but do not forget that the most popular among the militants is the RPG-7 with the PG-7V grenade. Any ultramodern stray type RPG-29 still need to find.
  • Watchman
    Watchman 6 May 2013 07: 47 New
    +3
    The Pentagon must show that caring for the lives of soldiers is above all.
  • PDM80
    PDM80 6 May 2013 07: 49 New
    +2
    What is already being done on our DZ tanks and a remotely controlled machine gun only began to be made by the Amerikos lol Doperlo finally when they really fought!
  • mojohed
    mojohed 6 May 2013 08: 27 New
    +2
    No bottom combined body kits can save from powerful explosive devices. And the tank can be covered with several RPGs, ruined the protection, and only then from which to finish it off. at the very least, tank lanes are the most vulnerable spot, and if you break it, you can wait until the tankmen from the hatches show up or help comes up and cover it all with one more salvo. In any case, the scenarios for the defeat of armored vehicles are sea. All the same, the main thing here is to decide for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - and whether we need an BMPT or a hung T-72 for the city is what we need.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 6 May 2013 08: 56 New
    +1
    her amers fellows correctly considered everything.
    They know that they will fight mainly with the Holozad Papuans who have a maximum of RPGs with the most primitive grenade and do not take a steam bath. We created a simple and cheap kit and everything is fine.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 6 May 2013 09: 25 New
      0
      Yes, somehow they belatedly reacted. Such improvements should generally have been foreseen before the start of the operation in Iraq. After all, there was already a world experience of tank war in the city, and Israel has a wealth of experience in this, there was someone to ask ...
  • bazilio
    bazilio 6 May 2013 09: 24 New
    +2
    An interesting form of body kit DZ. Why semicircular and at an angle. Top pockets are obtained.
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 6 May 2013 09: 31 New
    +1
    Well, progress is always good. Someone wrote that a few rockets from the RPG supposedly, that's all. So that's just a few. Moreover, this body kit will probably prolong the first RPG-7 grenade before falling off, and then only the second one needs to be woken up in the same place. Although I looked, it was somehow a little overweight, our tanks are better covered with tiles.
  • Containers
    Containers 6 May 2013 09: 51 New
    +2
    Not very clear somehow. In one place, "the losses were insignificant," in another "after modernization, the losses decreased significantly." They would have already decided there ...
  • Madcover
    Madcover 6 May 2013 10: 17 New
    +1
    The brewing of various trash to protect tanks from cumulative ammunition and in the city was practiced in the years of the Second World War. http://waralbum.ru/2102/ (A. Drabkin "I fought on the T-34"), so the Americans did not invent anything fundamentally new. Another thing is that a tank for fighting in the city is poorly adapted, and it is completely useless without the cover of infantry. In principle, Comrade Bender knew “400 comparatively honest ways of weaning money,” so another 45 million Murlikan presidents on tin cans are quite normal. soldier
  • rudolff
    rudolff 6 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +6
    I talked with the tank crews after the second Chechen one, they spoke well about the bulldozer dumps installed on the tanks. And the protection is additional and through the rubble to break handy. The review can only be reduced. And DZ does not always protect, sometimes it kills. Especially in urban conditions, when the infantry presses under the protection of tank armor. It explodes not only the tile into which the grenade fell, but most often everything in the neighborhood. Who will be nearby, there is no chance.
  • Wolland
    Wolland 6 May 2013 10: 49 New
    +1
    I’ll look at this d3 after shooting the T-90, but at least the T-72, how to fly apart, but on the other hand, the very norm is for the war with the Papuans.
  • rennim
    rennim 6 May 2013 11: 44 New
    +1
    You can only respect the American designers and military who gave such an assignment to develop protection. I think that the experience of fighting in Syria was taken into account here. Undoubtedly, such protection is needed. I would also like to get something from our specialists that could protect tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in the city. in a tank city, the more useful it will be to shooters in suppressing firing points.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 6 May 2013 11: 56 New
    0
    With the wealth of the United States, they probably could have created a tank for the city. After the New Year's assault on Grozny, the need for such equipment was discussed.
  • Prohor
    Prohor 6 May 2013 11: 58 New
    0
    But there is no answer to the main question: will the board and stern withstand even the PG-7VL grenade now?
    1. Dimka off
      Dimka off 6 May 2013 12: 57 New
      0
      I don’t know how PG-7VL but PG-7VR is definitely not)
  • RDS-1
    RDS-1 6 May 2013 18: 00 New
    +2
    I understand correctly that these geniuses did not bother to book a diesel APU in the rear of the tower? There, they say, it’s enough to put a queue from the DShK so that Abrash will burn to the ground (more here: http://bulochnikov.livejournal.com/541692.html)
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 May 2013 18: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: RDS-1
      not bothered with booking a diesel APU at the rear of the tower?

      By the way, in your photo her - diesel APU - was not in principle.
      Quote: RDS-1
      , just enter the queue from the DShK so that Abrash will burn to the ground (more here: http://bulochnikov.livejournal.com/541692.html)

      Tales of the Viennese forest, one accident on 2000 tanks in 1991 and is remembered to this day.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 36 New
        0
        And where about DShK? It seems this friendly fire "Bradley" was. Moreover, armor-piercing shells.

        Well, about very successful shots, there is evidence of breaking through the frontal “Challenger” from RPG-29.
        1. Kars
          Kars 6 May 2013 19: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Spade
          And where about DShK

          There is such a moment, even confirmed exactly 12.7 mm
          As for the Challenger - the lower frontal sheet, in the gap after additional mounted armor.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 May 2013 19: 47 New
            0
            They seem to have put dynamic blocks there now.
            1. Kars
              Kars 6 May 2013 19: 57 New
              0
              Who knows for sure what the filling was there before, what is now. But to the bottom, the extra armor is narrowed by a wedge, and there is a small gap, and only a few toes tore off the water, ,,,
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 May 2013 20: 28 New
                0
                I looked, before there DZ blocks were installed optionally, now regularly
  • Ro-man
    Ro-man 6 May 2013 19: 16 New
    +1
    Tooting. And then they love to savor that case.
    My friend in the 80s of the 20th century served near Novosibirsk on the T-34 (!). He says there is one place between the rollers that the driver is killed from the machine, if you know where to shoot. I don’t know, is it true or not?
  • AK44
    AK44 6 May 2013 19: 20 New
    +1
    Each Abrams has its own RPG-7 bully
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 6 May 2013 19: 46 New
    +2
    "The widespread use of infantry anti-tank weapons, combined with the ability to ambush any home, made tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles fairly easy targets."
    As if the same could not be said about the storming of the city during WWII!
    But archival materials, unlike common rumors, say that, for example, during the storming of Berlin, our tanks suffered major losses from artillery fire, and not from Faustpatrons.
    The reason for the low effectiveness of the Faustians in these battles is the simplest - in the spring of 1945, our army was able to fight and apply the right tactics.
    What the hell ambush!
    Thirty-four and ISy 3 Guards. TA shot 4-5 rounds of ammunition directly in the city during several days of fighting. Beat on "everything that moves." The infantry occupied the buildings and did not give the opportunity to "ambush in any house"
    Strengthening the defense, of course, is necessary, but this is not the main thing for the survival of the tank in urban combat.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 6 May 2013 21: 12 New
    +3
    Vulnerabilities in any equipment will be found. A few years ago there was a case in Belarus, the T-72 tree fell over, tried to pass the stern back, a fragment of the trunk squeezed the bottom hatch in the bottom and crushed the driver. He died.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 6 May 2013 23: 34 New
    0
    these canopies are good but heavy. Abrams is getting even harder, which means patency is worse. this machine gun to shit. Yes, the crew will not come to the surface, it’s true, but the shooter’s search efficiency is worse. On the monitor screen, the side vision does not work. it is better to put ammunition of the MON-50 type from the sides and, if necessary, shoot balls around the perimeter. because the grenade launcher will hit the tank either from the basement or from above. and will be beaten from 3 to 4 sides. the top machine gun will not help.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 7 May 2013 13: 55 New
      0
      On the perimeter - more will kill their own! Here is some cheap MetalStorm - yes ...
  • Strv
    Strv 28 May 2013 16: 24 New
    0
    All these high-tech turrets managed look interesting, but is there any data on their behavior in battle?