Military Review

Pierce armor first shot

78
Pierce armor first shot



Thanks to the development of long-range high-performance weapons there has been a transition from "contact" forms of hostilities to "contactless". But to put an end to contact wars is unlikely. Consider a situation that corresponds to the aggressive policy of NATO. In the case of the offensive "Abrams" and "Leopard" will be used reconnaissance-strike anti-tank complexes.

Given the improvement of active, dynamic and group protection of foreign tanks only 20-30% of them will burst intact. On this, the non-contact defeat of the Abrams will end and the contact form of hostilities will come. For all armor-piercing sub-caliber shells (BPS), the maximum firing range of 2 km is determined by tactical and technical specifications (TTZ), and for ATGM this value will theoretically be 5 km.

The anti-tank guns will be used to fight against the broken tanks: self-propelled 2С25 (on BMD-3 chassis), 125-mm towed with the equipment of the Sprut-B gun, 100-mm MT-12Р. But the MT-12P ammunition includes old low-performance ammunition that is effective only when firing at armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and other lightly armored vehicles. Consider the combat capabilities of ammunition 2S25 guns and "Octopus-B", which includes the old ammunition BPS 3BM42 "Mango" 3BM32 "Vant" 3BM48 "Lead" and rocket 9M119M "Invar", created in Soviet times and designed to destroy tanks M1, M1A1.

Broken Abrams modifications M1A2 SEP have enhanced protection of frontal zones. The above-listed Russian anti-tank artillery systems are defenseless in this case. For this reason, the main requirement for our artillery systems in contact interaction is the defeat of the Abrams' first shot. Let's try to evaluate the results of this duel.

BPS "LEAD", "VAST" and "MANGO" - AMMUNITION FROM THE PAST CENTURY

BPS "Vant", "Mango", "Lead" (table 1), created by the Scientific-Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (NIMI). BPS "Vant" and "Mango" (photo 1) were a belated response to the introduction in the protection of the frontal part of the hull and the tower of foreign tanks of multi-layer combined obstacles. When creating the Svinets BPS, the possibility of using the built-in DZ, designed to combat BPS, on the M1А2 tanks was taken into account.

The most attention deserves BPS "Svinets", presented in reference books as ammunition for firing at modern modernized and promising tanks, equipped with complex compositional armor, enhanced by dynamic protection.

When firing at obstacles equipped with built-in DZ (BDZ-2) blocks, the Svinets BPS overcame it without initiating an explosive explosion. This was achieved by the fact that at the initial speed of 1600 m / s, the projectile at a distance of 2 km had a meeting speed of 1470 m / s. The pointed tip of the projectile at such a speed created from the upper 15-mm armored plates of the built-in remote sensing unit an echeloned stream of small fragments. The head fragments of this stream caused a shock in the explosives, as a result of which zones free of explosives were created. Therefore, an explosion of explosives did not occur for two reasons. The first is that part of the leading debris due to the velocity of the 1470 projectile, m / s, was unable to initiate the explosive. The second - part of the fragments fell into the zones free from explosives, formed as a result of a hydraulic shock.

Overcoming the “Lead” projectile with a built-in remote sensing without an explosion of explosives was achieved by knowing all the parameters, including the sensitivity of domestic explosives in the integrated remote sensing, adopted as an imitator of foreign remote sensing. But on foreign tanks already used tandem DZ, consisting of two layers of explosives. At the same time, the second layer of explosives may have a higher sensitivity than at which the Lead BPS was tested. For this reason, foreign tandem DZ may be "Lead" is too tough.

In BPS "Svinets", a coil-type master device and sub-caliber stabilizer are used. However, these design innovations did not reduce the drop in velocity of the projectile at a distance of 2000 m compared with foreign models and did not improve the accuracy of the battle.

FALSIFICATION OF GI BPS "LEAD"

Recall that the preliminary tests (PI) are carried out by the contractor with the aim of preliminary assessment of the combat, technical and operational characteristics of the sample to determine its readiness for a GI. In turn, the CI is conducted by the customer in order to verify the compliance of the combat, technical, and operational characteristics of the sample with the requirements of the TTZ in conditions as close as possible to actual military operation, as well as issuing recommendations for adopting the model for service.

The PI and GI programs contain a large amount of testing, including: determining the mass of the propellant charge with checking its ballistic characteristics; checking the strength and operation of BPS firing from a new and worn-out barrel; determination of accuracy of shells firing on the shield at a range of 2000 m; determining the angles of departure of shells; checking armor penetration projectiles firing at a distance of 2000 m and in the above conditions, etc.

Recall that the above conditions mean the placement of guns and armor plates when the distance between them is 100 m, and the powder propellant charge is chosen so as to ensure the speed of the BPS with armor plate equal to the speed of the projectile at a distance of 2 km. But of greatest interest are the tests related to its effectiveness. Such tests include: checking armor penetration of BPS by firing at homogeneous armor plates, at combined multi-layer obstacles, equipped and not equipped with integrated remote sensing.

GI BPS "Svinets" were held at the site of the 33157 military unit and ended in the year 1990. When conducting a GI, shooting a “Lead” projectile on all obstacles was carried out only in the above conditions from the 100 m range. At the same time, the main GI principle was violated - checking the combat characteristics of the sample under conditions as close as possible to real military operation. One of the gross violations was that the lead-free armor penetration specified by the TTZ (300 mm / 60 degrees) at a distance of 2 km was not confirmed.

From the acts of the PI, the results of testing the armor penetration capability of the BPS “Svinets” on the plate of thickness 300 mm / 60 degrees were recalculated. at a distance of 2 km. In this case, only 36 penetration was obtained from 4 shots due to nutation (axial oscillation) of the projectile, which causes the “wrong” angle of approach to the armor plate. At the same time, the bends of the hull and the dismantling of the Lead shell were observed. There have also been cases of breaking off the feathers of the stabilizer.

When conducting a GI, there were no tests on multi-layer obstacles (P30, P60) both equipped and not equipped with built-in remote sensing. These tests were carried out at the PI stage with an extremely small amount of statistical data. However, more attention was paid to shooting with homogeneous armor plates of various thickness. Transfer of negative results of firing from PI (4 penetration from 36 of hits into an armored plate) is a rough manipulation of the GI results.

In the GI materials there is no estimate of the probability of hitting a foreign tank using the “Source Data System on the Vulnerability Characteristics of Typical Elementary Ground-based Armored Targets and the Influence of Anti-Tank Ammunition” (SID-83-PTB). In the process of carrying out GI, the values ​​of the probability of getting the BPS Lead into the tank, the likelihood of overcoming the built-in DZ, the probability of penetration of the frontal protection zones of the Abrams, the probability of damage to the units inside the tanks should be determined.


Photo 1. 125-mm anti-tank shot 3BBM17 with 3BM42 "Mango" armor-piercing projectile: 1 - propelling powder charge; 2 - additional powder charge with BPS 3BM42 placed in it; 3 - BPS 3BM42; 4 - a device for maintaining a projectile in the barrel. Photo from the author's archive


Multiplying the values ​​of these probabilities allows you to get the probability of defeating a typical foreign tank. However, the State Commission assessed the effectiveness of "Lead" in relation to the defeat of tanks М1, М1А1 conducted using the "range of destruction of multilayer barriers" (ПХNUMX, П60), which do not meet both the characteristics of armor resistance and the structure of the materials used in foreign samples. In this case, the shooting was carried out on simulators installed at a distance of 30 m, but with a mass of propellant charge, which ensures the speed of the BPS meeting, which was the limit of through penetration. After that, the calculation determined which range corresponds to the obtained value of the rate of through penetration.

Using the results of the PI tests allowed the State Commission to conclude that the M1 tank and its modifications are reliably hit by a Lead missile at a range of 3700 m (TTZ requirements are 2000 m). So it was "proved" the over-fulfillment of the requirements of the technical specifications. Such a conclusion should have been reinforced by hitting the “Lead” projectile into a plywood shield that has the contours of an M1 tank at a distance of 3700 m. True, the consequences of a missile ballistic flaw are somehow silent.

On the whole, the Svyintsi GI BPS does not deserve a positive assessment due to the lack of firing at a range of 2 km at the 300x2550x2700 mm plate equipped with BDZ-2; due to the uncertainty of the probability of defeat of the Abrams, as well as due to the flaws in the ballistic and strength characteristics of the projectile. It should be noted that the identified deficiencies according to the results of the State Enterprise BPS "Svinets" took place in the State Institute BPS "Vant" and "Mango". Essentially, the ammunition of anti-tank guns turned out to be ammunition adopted by falsified GI.

CAUSES OF DEFICIENCY OF INVAR 9М119М

ATGM “Invar” badly overcomes the hinged dynamic protection (DZ) of foreign tanks, which has long been known (HBO number 31, 1999 g .; No. 35, 2006 g., No. 4, 2011 g., No. 45, 2011 g., No. 10 2012 g.). In this case, the probability of overcoming a mounted DZ with the Invar missile is 0,5. And, finally, the leading charge (LZ) of the tandem warhead of this missile has insufficient initiating ability when firing at a range of 4 – 5 km at obstacles equipped with a mounted DZ.

ATGM 9М119М “Invar” was put into service in 1986 year according to the results of the GI, which allowed a sample with a short life cycle and gross flaws to be dragged to the Soviet GRAU. In the TTZ for the Invar missile, the requirements for a tandem warhead were defined, which must penetrate armored obstacles equipped with mounted DZ (BDZ-1) units when fired at a range of 5 km. During stationary tests, the tandem warhead was placed in contact with BDZ-1 at point “A” so that the most favorable, but not corresponding to reality, conditions were created for overcoming it (RI 1).

Point "A" is determined by the method of conducting stationary tests and is attractive because it has favorable conditions for overcoming the DZ tandem warhead. The lead charge (5), located inside the head compartment of the rocket, during an explosion completely destroys it and part of the instrument compartment following it. In this position, fragments of an electric torch (1,2) and a BDZ-1 container (I) scattering from an explosion do not affect the main warhead charge (8) and the channel for passing a cumulative jet (7), which ensures the normal functioning of the main cumulative charge on the “bare” armor .

In accordance with the program of state tests (GI), 10 rocket launches of 9М119М were conducted at a range of 5 km using an armor plate 350 mm / 60 degrees thick, but not equipped with BDZ-1. It should be noted that for a reliable hit when launching 9М119М missiles at a range of 4 – 5 km, an armored plate of the size 350x2550x2700 mm was used. The result was positive. The absence of BDZ-1 in these experiments did not give an answer to the question: what will happen if there is a dynamic protection on the M1 and M1A1 tanks?

To check the armor penetration of the Invar tandem warhead of the Invar missile, the GI program provided for launching an armored obstacle with a thickness of 350 mm / 60 degrees. with BDZ-1 in the above conditions, under which the armor plate was used with dimensions 350x1500x1200 mm, and the firing range was 100 m and the rocket in all experiments fell into the region of point “A”, in which a positive result was always achieved. The GI program of the 9М119М rocket was compiled by the customer without taking into account missile dispersion when firing at a range of 4 – 5 km, at which the points of impact are distributed over the entire surface of the BDZ-1, which negatively affects the operation of the tandem warhead.

When launching missiles at a range of 100, there was practically no dispersion, and the tests ended with a positive result. In other words, the replacement of the firing range from 4 – 5 km to 100 m was a gross mistake, which did not reveal the unsatisfactory functioning of the tandem warhead 9М119М. By combining the results of rocket launches at a distance of 5 km and 100 m, the State Commission made an unreasonable conclusion on its adoption.

Experimental studies conducted by employees of the 21374 military unit, the initiating ability of the leading charges with 110 – 150 mm armor penetration, in the “AB”, “VS”, “СD” dynamic protection zones allowed to establish the following. In the zone “AB”, the cumulative jet LZ (5) passes through two EHL (1,2). In this case, OZ is removed from the explosive effect of the DZ and the decrease in armor penetration is minimal. In the “BC” zone, the LZ cumulative jet excites detonation in the upper EDS (1), which is transmitted by the EDS (2). In this position, the RS acts on the main charge (8) through the main engine (6) located in front, which reduces the armor penetration of the OZ.

And, finally, the “CD” zone proved to be insurmountable for the LZ 9М119М rocket. At the same time, the main reason for the lack of solution of the DZ is laid in the design of the TBC. It is known that in rockets due to the mass-dimensional limitations of the LZ has armor penetration 110 – 150 mm. But not all areas of the cumulative LZ jet are capable of causing explosive detonation in the EHD. Only the leading part of this jet with a length of the order of 30 mm causes detonation. After the interaction of the cumulative jet with the top and side of the container (I) and EDS (1), as well as with the side of the next container (II), its leading part is completely spent on overcoming all the listed obstacles. The remaining less high-speed part of the cumulative LZ jet is no longer capable of initiating explosive detonation in EDS (3,4). Under these conditions, the cumulative jet OZ, having provided detonation in EHL (3,4), loses up to 70% armor penetration.

The flaws of the Invar missile are a consequence of the unsatisfactory performance of 3NII MO and Grau on the military-technical substantiation of tactical and technical requirements (TTT) for this model and the TTZ for its development. The weakest point in the documents used is the proposed imitators of the DZ and the Abrams armor protection with underestimated combat characteristics, as well as unrealistic conditions for the combat use of the missile.

INFORMATION TO THOUGHT

General Designer, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Arkady Shipunov published a simulation simulation of the destruction of tanks MXNXX1999 and MX1X1 in 1 in the well-known metropolitan journal. Recall that the tank M2A1 was present in the TTZ as a typical target. Shipunov’s appeal to the M1А1 tank, which has enhanced frontal area booking, was intended to warn about the short life cycle of the Invar missile for the further development of more effective ATGMs.

The data table. 2 indicate that for the reliable defeat of the tank M1A2 requires 5 "Invars", and not 3, as for the M1A1. The number of missiles for reliable destruction of the M1А2 SEP will significantly increase due to the installation of highly effective modern active protection on it. Thus, the presented simulation results for the destruction of tanks М1А1 and М1А2, conducted under the guidance of Arkady Shipunov, convincingly demonstrate the impossibility of defeating the Abrams by one rocket.

A similar situation is observed for BPS "Mango", "Vant", "Lead". So, for BPS "Svinets", which has the greatest armor penetration in comparison with the mentioned shells, the amount of ammunition for reliable destruction of "Abrams" comes to 12 (table 3), which is explained by the high security of the frontal zones of the M1А2 tank.

Data on the number of shells for reliable destruction of tanks indicate that the duel between the Sprut-B and Abrams artillery systems will not end in favor of the anti-tank gun.

Presented ammunition was created without taking into account the increased protection during the modernization of the American tank M1, adopted as a typical target. Tank М1 "Abrams" was adopted in 1980 year. In 1985, a modernized M1A1 appeared, in which depleted uranium was used as part of the protection of the front parts of the hull and the tower. In 1994, the upgraded М1А2 was created, in the construction of which the next reinforcement of frontal protection zones was carried out and the built-in DZ was provided. With 1996, the modernization of tanks M1 - M1A1 to the level MXNXX1 SEP is carried out. Program SEP (System Enfacement Program) provided for the improvement of communication systems, management, navigation, and armor protection.

At the same time, it is difficult to give a positive assessment to the Main Investigation Authority, which in the TTZ for the creation of Mungo, Vant, Lead and Invar ammunition asked the M1 (ПХNUMX, ПХNUMX) tank defense simulators, while МХNUMXАХNUMX protection was significantly strengthened. Thus, the steel equivalent of an armor plate under test conditions for obstacles P60, P30 was 1 mm, which were reliably penetrated by BPS "Lead".

It is known that ACS is being created for the Airborne Forces, which will be manufactured by the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant. The 125-mm tank artillery system 2А46М-5, which is capable of using Leads to pierce the armor of American Abrams and Israeli Merkava tanks, will be installed on the new SAU. The customer and the chief designer of the ACS should examine the results of PI and GI 125-mm tank shot 3VBM20 with BPS 3BM48 "Lead", as well as to consider measures to improve the survivability of the tank M1A2 SEP by installing active protection system combining detection means, tracking of targets, setting passive and active interference (laser and infrared guidance systems of anti-tank complexes), as well as means of destruction. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the new modernization program of the Abrams ESR1, which provides for an improvement in the characteristics of tanks that had previously been upgraded under the МХNUMXА1 SEP program.

It is high time for high-ranking officials to figure out the effectiveness of such weapons and not to deceive the Supreme Commander.



Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-03-28/1_artillery.html
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 29 March 2014 09: 05
    +19
    Yes, the problem exists and exists, and specialists know about it and do not have "blue illusions" ... But even old and not very effective means to fight Western tanks can ...
    Non-penetrable frontal armor is sad, so it is necessary to choose such a place for battle with them and, if possible, equip it in engineering terms so as to force them to maneuver, exposing their thin and completely penetrable sides to the blow ... Make them move more over rough terrain , trying to lead to swampy areas, using their increased security, against them - since excess armor means excess weight ... That's what now, while our military-industrial complex creates new shells, we can answer them to the tanks, if we have to converge "head to head" ...
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 29 March 2014 09: 30
      +17
      Quote: svp67
      Unbreakable frontal armor is sad, so you need to choose such a place of battle with them and, if possible, equip it in an engineering sense so as to force them to maneuver, exposing their thin and quite penetrable sides ...

      hi
      That's right, tactics are steering! yes - "... Maybe it has quieted down before the deadline. Is the gun crewed? Turn the car sideways -. It will bake with armor-piercing."
      For reliable destruction of heavily protected BTT objects, technical (for example, D-25 on Is, PT-gun BS-3, etc.) and tactical counteraction (PT areas, mobile units for cost centers, fire ambushes, etc.) have always been developed
      The task was and must be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 March 2014 09: 38
        +11
        Quote: Alekseev
        The task was and must be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

        hi
        Only this way and not otherwise ... as there in the songs "where they will not be allowed directly, we will go sideways"
        We must not "cry", but think about how to defeat the enemy - fire ambushes, "impudent mining", maneuver - fire ... "Only the one who fights wins ..."
        Don't touch us, otherwise I'm more and more inclined to think that the West has decided to play out the Crimean War scenario in a modern way ... But God forbid that ... We - "Let's make European and American ladies cry ..."
        1. jjj
          jjj 29 March 2014 14: 17
          +1
          Why again is this button accordion, discussed at all thematic forums, again to issue a new
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 29 March 2014 16: 08
          +11
          Quote: svp67
          it’s necessary to choose such a place of battle with them and, if possible, equip it in engineering terms so as to force them to maneuver,

          Quote: Alekseev
          tactics steers!

          yes
          The devil is not so terrible as his ... trained crew.

          Sergey, Lesh - great guys.
          hi

          The article is interesting, but ... a little one-sided.
          But thanks anyway to the Author for the material.

          ---------------
          ps By the way, do not forget the 2C5 "Hyacinth-S" as an anti-tank agent.
          Against his blanks on direct fire, NOT ONE TANK can not resist a frontal attack.
          I myself am afraid of her ... and more than "abrashka".
          lol

          For us, men, for fuel oil.
          drinks
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 29 March 2014 21: 51
            +3
            Quote: Aleks tv
            2C5 "Hyacinth-S"

            You can use Mstu, there is a fool of 152 mm. Guided by an active projectile, 40-50 km, and along a high path from the top to the roof
            and in the future develop birdies that hit the roof
    2. user1212
      user1212 29 March 2014 20: 24
      +9
      The probability of a collision between our and American tanks is vanishingly small. So far it will really be difficult to answer them. And even that is not a fact. The effectiveness of the projectile (armor penetration) is a very conditional thing. Without shelling the target tank 100% say effective or not will not work in view of the different composition of the armor of modern tanks. The whole assessment goes in mm KGS (rolled homogeneous steel). The real armor is multi-layered, consists of different materials and is not uniform in thickness.

      And in the article the level of delirium goes off scale.

      At the same time, it is difficult to give a positive assessment to the GRAU, which in the TTZ for the creation of ammunition "Mango", "Vant", "Lead", "Invar" was asked by the M1 (P60, P30) tank protection simulators while the M1A2 protection was significantly strengthened.

      Tank M1A2-1994 year
      BOPS Vant - 1984
      BOPS Mango - 1986
      BOPS Lead - 1989
      Invar is generally ATGM around the same years

      The author takes the tank and shells from different eras and wonders why the officer on duty at GRAU did not guess the thickness and composition of the armor of non-existing American tanks? When these shells were created, it was not even M1A2, not to mention the modification of SEP (1999).

      The article does not specify 3BM44M. True shell is also not fresh (1991)

      New BOPS are going to do longer. They do not fit into the existing AZ of T72 and T90 tanks. They were developed (or are still being developed) already for Almaty.
      1. user1212
        user1212 29 March 2014 20: 43
        +11
        And the author then turns out to be widely known

        Rastopshin Mikhail Mikhailovich

        a brief description of

        Who is: Ph.D., a former employee of the Steel Research Institute (dismissed in 1985). Constantly published in the Military Industrial Courier, Independent Military Review (IEE), and Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

        What is falling on

        Criticizes the current state of the Russian armored vehicles, based on data from 20 years ago. At the same time, he is trying to compare them with nonexistent / promising developments of the USA and other Western countries.
        Very often it is corny lying, distorting the facts. He writes all articles as carbon copy, using the same one hundred times refuted arguments.

        Follow the link to find analyzes of the articles of this "Ikspert"

        http://onolitegi.ru/2010-02-02-17-33-09/58-rastopshin-m-m.html#.Uzb3Jfl_ssQ
    3. mish-nukem
      mish-nukem April 1 2014 18: 29
      0
      On the site "I remember" (http://www.iremember.ru/) one of the anti-tankists said that "in the films we are shown as idiots - all the time shooting in the forehead." In fact, the job of the battery commander is precisely in the ability to choose a position so that the crews can work on the sides of the tanks. The same POZ (mobile obstacle detachment) should not so much damage the attackers with its mines, as force them to slow down and begin to maneuver, substituting the sides.
    4. zarya
      zarya April 19 2014 04: 32
      0
      Please note that I am not a specialist and do not own information on this topic. Is it possible to hit tanks at great distances with guided artillery shells? What about air bombs? I also saw in Shipunov’s statement Shipunov’s statements that shells were pierced at their enterprise, piercing almost a meter of homogeneous armor.
      1. talentedvillain
        talentedvillain April 26 2014 11: 09
        +2
        I support - a typical Rastopsha article. Only emotions. Some numbers from the ceiling. To be honest, one could recall that modern requirements for detecting enemy armored vehicles on the battlefield (for the Armata) are laid down almost 20 km, and, accordingly, there are also considerations for hitting targets at such distances. "For all armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (BPS), the maximum firing range is 2 km ..." - isn't it nonsense? Maximum range (by definition) - a shot at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizon on a full long-range charge. How long will the BTS fly under such conditions? That's right - dofiga and more. In general, as I said, this is a typical Rastopsha article.
  2. saramb
    saramb 29 March 2014 09: 07
    0
    {Some kind of crap is written, In Iraq, the Abrams were struck from the RPG-7 with old shots taken out of service in the 70s. I don’t think modern ammunition is worse.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 29 March 2014 09: 47
      +16
      Quote: saramb
      Some kind of crap is written, In Iraq, the Abrams were struck from RPG-7 with old shots

      You here do not confuse horseradish and a finger. yes
      RPGs for the destruction of armored vehicles from short distances to vulnerable places, while BOPS and ATGMs must hit MBTs at ranges of 2-3 and 5 thousand meters, respectively.
      Another thing is that if all the PTS would penetrate the frontal armor with a 100% result, then why such armor?
      This competition (armor-shell) has been going on for a long time and in various ways. (see above)
      1. oldstaryi
        oldstaryi 29 March 2014 21: 34
        +1
        And to finalize the ATGM so that it would make a slide in front of the target and hit weakly from above?
        1. Nikita4289
          Nikita4289 April 6 2014 21: 19
          0
          To do this, you need to develop a new ATGM with a different guidance system (for example, a semi-active laser, as on the AGM-114A, when the missile homing head is located in front). "Invar" uses the so-called. the laser path, i.e. the laser receiver is located at the rear of the rocket.
    2. Absurdidat
      Absurdidat 29 March 2014 09: 47
      +7
      So from distances of 200-300 meters, and these ammunition will strike. And in Iraq there were more cases of non-penetration than defeat. It depends on where you got it. And on the topic, I didn’t even think that such a mess is possible on the GI!
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Slon1978
      Slon1978 29 March 2014 10: 00
      +19
      If you throw an F-1 grenade into the Abrams hatch, it will catch fire, burn out completely and will eventually be destroyed. Does this give grounds to assert that the Abrams can be destroyed with an F1 grenade and arm motorized riflemen with it as an anti-tank weapon? Crap was written by you. There were defeats of the Abrams from RPG-7, this is true, but have you ever wondered how many valiant Iraqis were "spent" on average for one successful defeat of Abrams from RPG-7 (get close to a close distance, go to the desired shooting angle to tank, choose a suitable place for firing from the RPG-7 so that the shooter himself is not hit with a jet stream, shoot and hit exactly a vulnerable place and not nearby, successfully get away from the return fire). How many Iraqis, on average, do you think were "spent" on 1 successful attempt and were able to go through all these stages, and how many "losers" were killed at each stage? Would you like to play such statistics yourself? I personally would prefer that the tank crew of our Teshek could reliably hit the Abrams in any projection from the first shot, at least from 1500 m.
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 29 March 2014 10: 39
        +1
        against the enemy all means are good. And it all depends on the tactics ..... Of course, it is better to have a modern, new, intelligent ammunition in service, than the old f-1 grenade .... now it all depends on the means of detecting the enemy, and then on his defeat
      2. Ivan Petrovich
        Ivan Petrovich 29 March 2014 10: 58
        +1
        "How many Iraqis have been lost?" this is modestly silent :) all the more the destruction of the Abrams took place in a city, but in my opinion, not a single case in an open field.
        Well, at the moment I propose to knock so that they (all the same they are stupid) open their hatches and throw them a little hotel in the form of F-1
        1. JonnyT
          JonnyT 29 March 2014 11: 19
          +6
          The USA bombed their tubes ....... Saddam had a lot of tanks .... but almost all of them were destroyed first by aviation, and then the remnants of Saddam's tanks finished off abrams, and moreover very successfully thanks to good ammunition and early detection means, and systems for interacting with other compounds, high-precision weapons ..
          1. ruslan207
            ruslan207 29 March 2014 13: 26
            +4
            JonnyT-Here it is necessary to take into account all kinds of thermal imagers, the sights of which Iraqi tanks were outdated and they didn’t fight head-to-head all made helicopters to reduce losses
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. typhoon7
          typhoon7 29 March 2014 15: 26
          +8
          Look at the photo there are many Abrams burned in the desert. Shapkozakidatelstvo bad, but too much should not be. I remember the words of Arkady Shipunov that if Abrams is made of solid armor, then the "Cornet" will pierce it to the middle, and in the forehead, and if you ask me who I trust more, then I answer that I trust Arkady Shipunov more, the Kingdom of Heaven than the author. I saw videos on YouTube, and there they punched an absolutely impenetrable Carrot, and in the forehead. It's just lobbying that works.
      3. fore
        fore 29 March 2014 12: 26
        +5
        And you can also climb onto the tower and beat with a sledgehammer until the crew from the ringing in their ears begins to leave the car. They also forgot the bottles with the Molotov cocktail.
      4. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 30 March 2014 12: 28
        +3
        Quote: Slon1978
        how many gallant Iraqis were "spent" on average for one successful defeat of Abrams from the RPG-7 (

        there was an article how they tried to attack an infantry fighting vehicle with a thermal imager at night. 400 corpses
      5. crambol
        crambol 30 March 2014 20: 19
        0
        50 eyes to you in a piggy bank.
      6. talentedvillain
        talentedvillain April 26 2014 11: 19
        0
        F-1 fragmentation grenade. Cast iron koprpus with 56 grams of TNT. Nothing will burn for sure.
    5. avdkrd
      avdkrd 29 March 2014 11: 01
      +4
      Quote: saramb
      {Some kind of crap is written, In Iraq, the Abrams were hit from RPG-7 with old shots taken out of service in the 70s. I don’t think modern ammunition is worse

      were amazed, but in vulnerable spots. Abrams has a cardboard side - there were cases of damage with a 30mm BMP2 cannon. Abrams is not a miracle tank at all, but the frontal armor is very powerful and has few weakened zones. It is clear that he is not invulnerable, practice shows that HE is quite effective against modern tanks. In 2008, our tankers successfully used the OFS against the modernized 72 cargo tanks. During the Second World War, our T 34s were used with success throughout the war and after, despite the fact that German tanks had more powerful and more accurate guns and thicker armor. The tank is a versatile tool and, in addition to its anti-tank function, it is primarily a means of supporting infantry. Of course, it's sad that the ammunition common in the troops does not correspond to the declared characteristics, but there was an article from our overseas "partner" where a similar problem was voiced about their super shell. Tests were carried out on the T80 and showed a very low probability of penetration by amerovskim BOPS armor of the eighties, even without reactive armor.
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 29 March 2014 11: 23
        +1
        Abrams has nothing to do in conditions of dynamically changing battle, at short distances. It will be quickly destroyed by a cheap tool. Germans taught Americans how to do it, although we all remember how Stalingrad opposed it ...
        1. ruslan207
          ruslan207 29 March 2014 13: 30
          +5
          As you understand, have you met them yet?
          This is one of the strongest tanks in the world. Each tank has its own drawbacks. Well, to count on its easy destruction, it’s for nothing
          1. JonnyT
            JonnyT 29 March 2014 14: 19
            +1
            Quote: ruslan207
            well, so in order to count on its easy destruction it is in vain

            I do not expect ...... but in a battlefield where it is difficult to detect a likely enemy, at short distances, the abrams showed himself on the bad side. Plus, do not forget about the crew. In order to prepare for abrans, you need more time than for example on the T-72 ... the crew is out of order and the tank is idle. By the way, here is a plate for armor penetration ... but there is no important criterion here - this is the distance of effective fire. And Abrams has it more than Tshka. This is what American generals rely on
        2. The comment was deleted.
    6. Mikhado
      Mikhado 29 March 2014 11: 08
      +11
      This Rastopshin is a well-known troll who has been yelling about "damaged polymers" for 15 years. He himself was fired from the industry long ago and earns himself a cheap reputation as a truth-teller, although he has information from the times of perestroika. How things really are in this top-secret sphere, he no longer knows. For me, his name is synonymous with the anti-Russian speculator with facts.
    7. rezident
      rezident 29 March 2014 15: 47
      -8
      Amazed yourself or from a woman Mani on the bench overheard?
  3. Gray 43
    Gray 43 29 March 2014 09: 14
    -5
    Yeah, God forbid to meet the Abrams with a similar weapon, the charm will be bloody.
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 12: 02
      +2
      Quote: Gray 43
      Yeah, God forbid to meet the Abrams with a similar weapon, the charm will be bloody.
      Unfortunately, there is no war without blood, and it depends on us who will be more "disappointed" from this meeting ... Knowing our weapons, I am sure that many western tankers will be greatly surprised that their hopes for an easy victory will be too much optimistic, but by and large - false ...
  4. Intensive
    Intensive 29 March 2014 09: 20
    +2
    For 20 years we have been living the backlog of the Soviet era in all directions.
    Where is the personal participation and interest of state people? All design bureaus are left to their own devices. Survive yourself. And which sheep are in control. They can only cheek up and imitate work - Pests.
  5. ramsi
    ramsi 29 March 2014 09: 32
    +1
    I didn’t understand, so this is what: if, in addition to two EDZs, add a third (parallel to the second) and in the same dimensions, then this missile DZ will not penetrate at any point?
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 09: 42
      +1
      Quote: ramsi
      I didn’t understand, so this is what: if, in addition to two EDZs, add a third (parallel to the second) and in the same dimensions, then this missile DZ will not penetrate at any point?

      Ordinary, standard "DZ", and even the first generation. Number 3 is a steel plate, between two explosive charges, it is its movement that destroys the cumulative pestle ...
  6. Leader
    Leader 29 March 2014 10: 00
    -8
    At least one sensible article with facts, figures, examples ...
    And then already tired of hearing about "unparalleled" and "unique", and at the same time seeing a completely opposite picture.
    Unfortunately, most of the "products" of the military-industrial complex - originally from the USSR, tuned to the last.
    There are no Russian developments, designers have been "lost", highly professional workers have been "destroyed" as a class.
    And about the theft of the budget by the military industrial complex, the deceit of the Ministry of Defense and bribes, the generals have nothing to say.
    One hope, as usual, "we will crush the quantity" ...
    1. Ivan Petrovich
      Ivan Petrovich 29 March 2014 11: 01
      -7
      we have a lot of hats with earflaps in our warehouses, but!
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 March 2014 11: 45
        +12
        Quote: Ivan Petrovich
        we have a lot of hats with earflaps in our warehouses, but!

        How envious were these ...
        1. Russkiy53
          Russkiy53 29 March 2014 21: 25
          -5
          Yeah, they envied so much that they lost 9 million, killing us-20 million .... envy is a terrible force!
          1. oldstaryi
            oldstaryi 29 March 2014 21: 40
            +6
            not 20, but 27. Of these, 17 million are civilians. The Fritzians have no civilian data, but I think that dofiga is also killed.
          2. max702
            max702 April 30 2014 16: 15
            0
            Oh and ub.lyudoshny your comment .. is that what happens, the Soviet Army had to engage in the genocide of the German population to please you with numbers? This is what makes us different from the whole world, that we don’t shed extra blood, we know the price of it and for this we will not be seen by the "whole civilized world" negative
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 29 March 2014 16: 55
      +5
      Quote: Leader
      There are no Russian developments,

      Everything is.
      ("and villas, and brave and ... a scythe at the barn")
      yes
      -A246M-5 gun with upgraded AZ and ZVBM22 with ZBM59 BPS-Lead-1 and ZVBM2 with ZBMb0 BPS-Lead-2 is in metal.
      -2A82 gun and ammunition are in the final stages of testing.

      We wait. But ... "Zhdanka" is already tired of the linear parts. In this you are right.
  7. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 29 March 2014 10: 44
    +13
    After reading this, a logical question arises, where did the firewood come from? wink
    It is also puzzling that shells made of depleted uranium (see Table 1, for reference: uranium as a metal has a very high hardness) cannot penetrate the armor of the Abrashka, despite the fact that the Yankees themselves made such the same shells (see table 1, year of manufacture). And our 72s and 80s and 90s had almost the same protection at that time.
    That is, it turns out the Yankees stupidly licked from our ineffective shells and started to make them themselves?
    Nonsense is obtained.
    Also a question for the author. Did he personally attend the tests?
    He personally saw how and who filled out the protocols and saw how their data was rigged?
    Why then did he not immediately tell where he should be? So cover, was an accomplice?
    Maybe he has the original test reports?
    And in general, on the basis of what did he draw such conclusions?
    Considering the years of development of these power supplies, testing and adopting these power supplies into service, I can say for sure that for such "jokes" then they would have sent the forest for at least 15 years, or even just slapped for a sweet soul.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 29 March 2014 12: 10
      +4
      It is also doubtful that in the territory of the RSFSR or the USSR there was not a single tank or artillery range where it was possible to test new shells at different ranges of fire and to penetrate targets with different levels of protection.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 29 March 2014 12: 31
        +1
        In addition, we have a detailed analysis of the M1A2SEP "Abrams" modification at VO.
        Here is the link;
        http://topwar.ru/23416-analiz-bronirovaniya-tanka-m1a2-sep-abrams.html



        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 29 March 2014 12: 34
          +4
          I also propose to watch the video about "Abrashek":



          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 29 March 2014 14: 58
            0
            In general, I would like to add that for example, our modern tank is protected by more than one ballistic defense.
            This is a whole range of protection systems, such as:
            1.main ballistic protection (monolithic or combined armor of the hull and turret)
            2. Anti-cumulative protection (part of ballistic protection of external or built-in type)
            3. Complexes of active protection (KAZ) (various principle of action)
            4. Fire fighting equipment (PPO) and a system of protection against weapons of mass destruction.

            Only their joint use in modern conditions allows the tank crew to carry out their combat missions and saves his life.
            That's about the KAZ in “Abrashka” obvious problems, the Yankees simply do not.
            And we have, moreover, tested and ready for serial production.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 29 March 2014 19: 56
              -1
              Speaking of VET. This is no longer a relevant topic.
              VET has long been obsolete.
              Too heavy, maneuverable and vulnerable thing (and besides not cheap).
              ATGMs, RPGs, mines, IEDs are what really can be used against tanks. By the way, even Molotov cocktails are even more dangerous than VET (especially in our items).
              This has been shown by many armed conflicts in the world in recent times.
              As for artillery, the calculations of self-propelled guns and towed howitzers can disable the tank both at distant approaches and at close range direct fire.
            2. Russkiy53
              Russkiy53 29 March 2014 21: 29
              0
              This is how many tanks we have active defense ???
              1. oldstaryi
                oldstaryi 29 March 2014 21: 44
                +3
                All. Only there are woodpecker commanders who do not set her up and send her to fight, as in Chechnya.
                1. Russkiy53
                  Russkiy53 30 March 2014 11: 52
                  +2
                  Aha-ha :))) !!! I'll go tomorrow, I'll go to RAVy, we can have a whole warehouse with "Arenas", but we just don't know :))) !!!
              2. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 30 March 2014 15: 57
                -1
                Quote: Russkiy53
                This is how many tanks we have active defense ???

                About the availability of parts not in the know.
                But the fact that we have tested and ready for serial production samples like:
                Thrush, Arena, Arena-E.
                Complex OEP Curtain. I can say for sure about this.
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 30 March 2014 16: 09
                  0
                  And no one here will tell you about the presence of KAZ in units, even if it knows about it.
                  Questions why they were not put in the 1st and 2nd Chechen, and also they were not on our BM during the events of the 8th year, questions should be asked to the leadership of the State Academic Technical University, and the commander of the SV and TV.
    2. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 29 March 2014 21: 28
      +1
      And at the abrashka, the outer sheet of the frontal armor is not from the same lunch ???
    3. max702
      max702 April 30 2014 16: 30
      0
      Regarding the hardness of uranium, you bent soft, it is very, the projectile has a very high density, and therefore weight, and hence the kinetic energy, I worked for 9 years at the enterprise of ChMP JSC, Glazov, where these projectiles were produced (production 200), besides this metal burns very well with a high combustion temperature and emitting radioactivity, that is, while the cold almost does not fonite, and once you warm up the dose is guaranteed, around the end of the 80s production is almost curtailed, now two workshops are working on the strength, to the question, why? it was said that they had found a more effective remedy .. Although the warehouses are packed to capacity.
  8. dFG
    dFG 29 March 2014 11: 18
    0
    there is information for consideration, money and time too ... and therefore the road will be taken over by the ... article plus only for the fact that the author does not hold back the problems
  9. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 29 March 2014 11: 56
    +3
    The Abrams were created by the Americans with the help of the Germans, not as the main fighting vehicles, but for actions from behind cover in order to inflict maximum damage to our tank armies during the breakthrough to the La Manche. Never and no where was Abrams used to break through fortifications, even in Iraq he walked in the second rows of the attacking and was used to suppress firing points. Do not think about Abrams, you need to think about Leopards.
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 12: 06
      +4
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Do not think about Abrams, you need to think about Leopards.

      I believe that we need to think more about the T90MS and the "Armata", it is time to saturate the troops with MODERN military equipment. Moreover, these tanks already have ammunition with VERY high armor-piercing properties ...
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 1 May 2014 21: 55
        0
        Quote: svp67

        I believe that we need to think more about the T90MS and the "Armata", it is time to saturate the troops with MODERN military equipment. Moreover, these tanks already have ammunition with VERY high armor-piercing properties ...

        But shells with a core extension of 900 mm can not fit into any automatic loading device except the T90MS, and in the future, core extension will increase to 1100-1200 mm.
        But the NATO unitarians can easily increase the length of the core by deepening it into the sleeve. So is it time to abandon the separate loading scheme?
    2. oldstaryi
      oldstaryi 29 March 2014 21: 47
      0
      You are not right. In the first Iraq war, Americans plunged deep into Iraq, but when they reached 73 parallels they collided with Hussein’s tanks. There was a counter battle. Loss of amers 2 to 1. And the offensive stalled.
  10. report4
    report4 29 March 2014 12: 55
    +3
    The author cheats "a little".
    "His facts about armor penetration" were initially rigged. In fact, the probability of penetration into the thickest part of the frontal armor(and the real defense on it is only there) for a projectile moving parallel to the horizon. Those. the most unsuccessful hit in the most protected part of the tank.
    1. kafa
      kafa 29 March 2014 13: 19
      0
      because the calculations will not ask the enemy to turn stern to an anti-tank gun winked therefore the author is right
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 March 2014 13: 26
        +3
        Quote: kafa
        because the calculations will not ask the enemy to turn stern to an anti-tank gun, therefore the author is right
        To ask ... No, we WILL MAKE him turn to us in vulnerable places. And there are many ways to do this.
      2. report4
        report4 29 March 2014 17: 48
        +3
        Quote: kafa
        because the calculations will not ask the enemy to turn stern to an anti-tank gun winked therefore the author is right

        The area of ​​the frontal projection of Abrams is very small relative to the entire projection. Do you think war is when tanks go to each other's foreheads? Tanks with tanks have not fought for a long time, and even remember in the foreseeable past when tanks destroyed an arc-friend is not very good.
        Oh, if the "author is right", hang a 90 * 500 * 500 bar on the T500 at an angle and calculate which Abrams shell will pierce it)) It turns out that this tank is invulnerable !!! Glory to my design thought)
        In short, you are not happy for the materiel.)
        1. kafa
          kafa 30 March 2014 21: 39
          +1
          smile oh you are so smart. I especially liked it "to hang the ingot 90 * 500 * 500 on the T500 at an angle". Now remember how the German tiger sewed tanks with an 88mm cannon in the forehead and from what distances
  11. kafa
    kafa 29 March 2014 13: 03
    0
    it’s necessary to move the buns and work on the theme of ammunition affecting the upper projection of the tank. and not only the top of the tower but also the MTO repeat
  12. oreh72
    oreh72 29 March 2014 13: 33
    +3
    Quote: Intensive
    And which sheep are in control. They can only cheek up and imitate work - Pests.

    Not pests, but effective managers are the product of an "effective" personnel policy.
  13. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 29 March 2014 13: 38
    +2
    Make a "slide" and into the roof? It seems that this trick has long been mastered by anti -arable missiles?
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 13: 50
      +4
      Quote: Asan Ata
      Make a "slide" and into the roof? It seems that this trick has long been mastered by anti -arable missiles?
      And our anti-tank mines ... as well as tank guided shells and MLRS ammunition ... The list is long. Now we need to finish another "Soviet theme" - the use of warheads with a shock core
  14. rezident
    rezident 29 March 2014 16: 00
    -5
    The main plus of Western armored vehicles from the Soviet knock-out panels. Most Soviet armored vehicles, along with crews, were irretrievably destroyed from the ignition of powder half charges. In the abrams, this is unlikely.
    1. typhoon7
      typhoon7 29 March 2014 16: 40
      +9
      The weakest panel in the tank is the man. Before this panel is knocked out, you will be smeared on the wall. Rather, it was done to ensure that after the defeat the tank was repairable, it costs a lot of money.
      1. rezident
        rezident 30 March 2014 14: 56
        -1
        With a stream and splinters it will not touch, we go further. In any case, it is not possible to disable the entire crew with one hit. And then puffs and from you some bones burn.
  15. mvv
    mvv 29 March 2014 16: 30
    +4
    Tanks with tanks in our conditions will not fight. Miserable probability. There are helicopters, artillery, ATGMs of all kinds of modifications - what kind of tank battles are in the style of the Kursk Bulge? ETOGES is nonsense.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Ppsh
    Ppsh 29 March 2014 17: 09
    +6
    The article carries mothballs. I read similar opuses in HBO 10-15 years ago. the author decided to make some money on junk ...
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 March 2014 17: 21
      0
      Quote: PPSh
      The article carries mothballs. I read similar opuses in HBO 10-15 years ago. the author decided to make some money on junk ...

      No, this is a reminder that so far nothing has changed.
  18. Logos
    Logos 29 March 2014 17: 49
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Yes, the problem exists and exists, and specialists know about it and do not have "blue illusions" ... But even old and not very effective means to fight Western tanks can ...
    Unbreakable frontal armor is sad, so you need to choose such a place of battle with them and, if possible, equip it in an engineering sense so as to force them to maneuver, exposing their thin and quite penetrable sides ... to make them move more over rough terrain , trying to withdraw to the wetlands, using their increased security, against them - since excess armor - excess weight ...

    All this is possible only on the condition that we seize the initiative and impose our conditions of battle on the enemy. And if not? Well then, head-on
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 18: 42
      +1
      Quote: Logos
      All this is possible only on the condition that we seize the initiative and impose our conditions of battle on the enemy. And if not? Well then, head-on

      There are two truths in any battle, and it depends on people whose strength is stronger ...
  19. svp67
    svp67 29 March 2014 18: 41
    +4
    Pierce armor first shot
    it turns out not at all and not always ...
    1. Jager
      Jager 29 March 2014 22: 42
      0
      It is far from a fact that the car remained after being hit combat-ready. Even less likely that the crew remained intact.
      1. svp67
        svp67 30 March 2014 00: 41
        +2
        Quote: Jager
        It is far from a fact that the car remained after being hit combat-ready. Even less likely that the crew remained intact.

        the hit occurred in the VLD (upper frontal part), next to the sighting device of the driver’s mechanic, and if the tank continues to not only move, but also to maneuver, then:
        - the machine is combat ready
        -the crew is intact, since in this case only the mech-water would suffer, but it continues to control the machine
      2. user1212
        user1212 30 March 2014 06: 34
        0
        Quote: Jager
        It is far from a fact that the car remained after being hit combat-ready. Even less likely that the crew remained intact.


        What is the basis for such conclusions?
        1. Jager
          Jager 30 March 2014 14: 07
          0
          Based on the fact that the record does not show exactly where the projectile / missile hit and what damage it caused. The fact that the tank is moving only means that the driver is alive and the engine is not damaged. How the hit affected other systems and the commander with the gunner we do not know.
          1. user1212
            user1212 31 March 2014 03: 40
            0
            Above, svp67 answered you in detail.
        2. STALGRAD76
          STALGRAD76 April 8 2014 14: 42
          0
          Somewhere in YouTube there is a full version of this video, where the tanks normally use after the hit and which was towed in a mine.
  20. Alex Nick
    Alex Nick 29 March 2014 18: 50
    0
    Maybe someday they will come up with shells with indelible paint and on observation devices. Blind tank scrap.
    1. svp67
      svp67 29 March 2014 21: 25
      +4
      Quote: Alex Nick
      Maybe someday they will come up with shells with indelible paint and on observation devices. Blind tank scrap.
      And what is this, of course, THOUGHT, and if you also give this liquid a peculiar color and smell, then the tankers will do "hara-kiri" out of shame, right in the tanks ... while they will "flow around"
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 29 March 2014 21: 40
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        then tankers will do "hara-kiri" out of shame, right in the tanks ...

        laughing
        by all means.
        laughing
        good
        1. xsapranx
          xsapranx 31 March 2014 17: 39
          0
          Aleks tv - I see you, and Akim and Kars were banned along the way as well as my Ak without warning and explanation ... (strange policy)
    2. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 29 March 2014 21: 41
      +1
      Have come up with :)))! Called the turn of the OFZ from "Shilka" :)))! The tank turns into a tractor :)))!
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 March 2014 22: 21
        +2
        Quote: Russkiy53
        Have come up with :)))! Called the turn of the OFZ from "Shilka" :)))! The tank turns into a tractor :)))!

        Yes, seriously, but before the first round from the tank to the "Shilka" is called "full kaput"
        1. Russkiy53
          Russkiy53 30 March 2014 11: 50
          0
          Well, if they, then, will be able to point along the trunk, then yes :))) kaput :)))
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 30 March 2014 14: 07
            +1
            Quote: Russkiy53
            Well, if they can then point along the trunk, yes :))

            Yankees will not do bullshit. It's not American
  21. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 29 March 2014 19: 13
    +3
    I would like to wish the authors of such articles to cite more sources.
    For example, what is this miracle of DZ built in at Zarub. tanks and where about her
    you can see Old, specific, and not general, that someone is somewhere, etc.

    In order :
    But on foreign tanks already used tandem DZ, consisting of two layers of explosives. Moreover, the second explosive layer may have a sensitivity higher than that at which the BPS “Lead” was tested. For this reason, a foreign tandem DZ may turn out to be too tough for Lead.

    Maybe, most likely, I already spoke about this a little higher.

    At the same time, the main principle of the GI was violated - checking the combat characteristics of the sample in conditions as close as possible to real military operation. One of the gross violations - the Lead’s armor penetration was not confirmed, specified by TTZ (300 mm / 60 degrees) at a distance of 2 km.

    Source ?

    In BPS "Svinets", a coil-type master device and sub-caliber stabilizer are used. However, these design innovations did not reduce the drop in velocity of the projectile at a distance of 2000 m compared with foreign models and did not improve the accuracy of the battle.

    BPS "Lead" is lighter than its Western counterparts, hence the drop in speed and at the time of the creation of the LMS and the 125 mm gun limited the range and accuracy of the shells,
    however, the T-90 holds a record for speed and accuracy of hits among tanks,
    crew training is of great importance.


    At the same time, out of 36 shots, only 4 penetrations were obtained due to nutation (axial vibration) of the projectile, which causes an “incorrect” approach angle to the armor plate. At the same time, bending of the hull and dismantling of the Lead shell were observed.

    Nutations (axial vibrations) are a well-known fact for ALL arrow-shaped ammunition; foreign BPS at such a distance suffer exactly the same.
  22. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 29 March 2014 19: 27
    +3
    In one of the demonstrations in front of foreign delegations, the T-90 gunner hit seven targets in 54 seconds located at a range of one and a half to two and a half kilometers. Moreover, he fired on the move - at a speed of 35 km / h. The previous achievement belonged to the German tank Leopard-2. In similar conditions, he was able to hit one less target. At "Abrams" this figure is even lower. "

    Source http://army-news.ru/2011/07/tank-t-90-dast-sto-ochkov-vperyod-abramsu/
    As for the table at the end of the article, "MANGO" has an armor piercing. 210 mm, understated
    smile
    1. Jager
      Jager 29 March 2014 22: 45
      +1
      Maybe I'm a complete zero, but after watching "Tank Biathlon" I got the impression that either our guns were so "crooked" or the gunners were drunk to death ...
      1. Sledgehammer
        Sledgehammer 29 March 2014 23: 13
        +2
        I would say poorly trained and little trained. Rockets like the first time
        shot, most likely only on simulators they drove. And you need more practice,
        our warehouses are bursting with ammunition but they are better disposed of than letting them shoot in parts.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 29 March 2014 23: 45
        +2
        Quote: Jager
        but after watching "Tank Biathlon" I got the impression

        ... Nomogram ...
        There are two of them on the T-72B for reconciling the sight.

        That's the whole secret. More "secrets" on the T-72B ... NO.
        wink
        Along the way, they (on the "biathlon"), kipish "went off scale" before ... "normal" preparation for shooting.
        It happens ... the show is ...
  23. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 29 March 2014 19: 38
    +2
    And, finally, the “CD” zone turned out to be insurmountable for the 9M119M rocket. ....... loses up to 70% of armor penetration.


    It is doubtful that at point D the DZ will resist the godfather so well. jet charge. Not the most profitable
    conditions and angle of entry of the missile, in any case with this DZ design, most likely the DZ effect will not
    more than getting to other points.
  24. timhelmet
    timhelmet 29 March 2014 19: 49
    +4
    "Taking into account the improvement of active, dynamic and group protection of foreign tanks, only 20-30% of them will break through intact."

    1. Where will they break through?
    2. Do not break through, because not attacked!
    3. Even without taking into account all the defenses, they will not break through!
    4. From what ceiling is the calculation?
    5. What is the underestimation of the capabilities of the defending side?
  25. Jager
    Jager 29 March 2014 23: 09
    +2
    Tanks do not fight tanks - a long-known fact. They seldom collide with each other, even less often with their peers.
    The experience of the Great Patriotic War proved that the main enemy of the tank is not a tank, but field and anti-tank artillery. Nowadays, this is not only artillery, but a tuyeva heap of anti-tank weapons - from attack aircraft and attack helicopters to drunk Vasya or stoned Hussein with a rusty RPG-7.
    All these measurements of the genitals in the form of a comparison of the maximum armor penetration of BPS or CS are nothing more than Freudianism. The main weapon against the tank today and tomorrow is the ATGM. That is what they need to do first.
    Today, the tank plays the role of an assault gun, dashing tank breakthroughs we can only see in the Middle East desert, but in modern conditions it is an exceptional exotic.
    A tank can withstand the blow of several ATGMs, but a well-thrown bottle of gasoline can also burn the Leopard. So in the assessment of security, not everything is clear.
    1. Logos
      Logos 30 March 2014 00: 32
      +2
      An ATGM missile is easier to intercept than a bops. Well, the chances of getting close to Leo and accurately burning him with a Molotov cocktail are much lower than the chance of knocking him out of an ATGM, let’s say
    2. svp67
      svp67 30 March 2014 00: 44
      +4
      Quote: Jager
      A tank can withstand the blow of several ATGMs, but a well-thrown bottle of gasoline can burn the Leopard

      Honestly, I can't even imagine now a situation in which a bottle with a "Molotov cocktail" is capable of destroying a tank only if it flies into an open hatch ...
      1. Jager
        Jager 30 March 2014 14: 14
        0
        Do I need to remind you of the "jamb" on the "Abrams" with an additional power plant, which was stitched from a large-caliber machine gun and caught fire? Thus, taking the tank out of the battle. Each car has its own "pain points", knowing that there is enough minimal means to destroy it or cause damage.
        This is just an example.
  26. w2000
    w2000 30 March 2014 00: 39
    0
    I certainly understand that the means of destruction should be developed with the expectation of superiority over the most recent and well-protected BT models of a potential enemy, such as the M1M2 SEP. But still, there are no Abrams in the European theater of operations, there are Leopards and modernized T-72 guns.
  27. Brigadier
    Brigadier 30 March 2014 01: 51
    0
    Quote: foreo
    And you can also climb onto the tower and beat with a sledgehammer until the crew from the ringing in their ears begins to leave the car. They also forgot the bottles with the Molotov cocktail.

    Yes. One Molotov cocktail is guaranteed to destroy any Abrams or Leopard! The main thing is to live before the tank comes within the throw distance! wink
    1. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 30 March 2014 12: 01
      +4
      Well, why would a bottle with kerosene do the tank :)))) ??? A-paint will ruin :))) !!!
      1. leonidoss87
        leonidoss87 31 March 2014 07: 24
        0
        Of course, it will spoil the paint, but there are communication, guidance, and review means that can be burned, and without them a modern tank is a pile of scrap metal. This is all my guess, of course. In any case, in order to set fire to a tank with a Molotov cocktail, you need to really try.
  28. Bongo
    Bongo 30 March 2014 05: 20
    +2
    Having not read to the end, I already knew who the author of this "opus" was. Rastopshin has been writing the same thing for the last 15 years in various publications practically word for word.
  29. VAZ-2102
    VAZ-2102 30 March 2014 08: 54
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Yes, the problem exists and exists, and specialists know about it and do not have "blue illusions" ... But even old and not very effective means to fight Western tanks can ...
    Non-penetrable frontal armor is sad, so it is necessary to choose such a place for battle with them and, if possible, equip it in engineering terms so as to force them to maneuver, exposing their thin and completely penetrable sides to the blow ... Make them move more over rough terrain , trying to lead to swampy areas, using their increased security, against them - since excess armor means excess weight ... That's what now, while our military-industrial complex creates new shells, we can answer them to the tanks, if we have to converge "head to head" ...
    Reply Quote Soo

    You think that Americans fools themselves will expose themselves to a shot.
    But in general, the practice of Iraq showed the ATGM Storm normally affects the frontal projections of Abrams.
    Only the Challenger did not revel from the forehead.
  30. Sibiryak13
    Sibiryak13 30 March 2014 09: 26
    +1
    The data provided in the article is very outdated. As far as I know, tank troops have ammunition for breaking through any armor.
  31. NKVD
    NKVD 30 March 2014 14: 30
    0
    The article is not objective and morally obsolete. What do you think the artillerymen are completely fucking up to shoot tanks in the forehead? And the Abrams burned well from RPGs Vampire and older grenade launchers
  32. Signaller
    Signaller 30 March 2014 14: 44
    +1
    Cognitive to become, and even very interesting. But the question arises. Simple as a cork. When and where will these armada of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled guns meet .. And most importantly in large quantities. A meeting of one infantryman or a detachment with self-propelled guns is more likely. BMP or tank. and everything else ???? So, the thoughts of the commander of the moving division in his head. No more. The experience of Grozny showed-Tank is a good cart for transporting weapons. What by the way and Grabin once said. for which our tankers did not like him. There will be no oncoming fights. In the Second World War there were such units. The tank does not fight against the tank.
  33. tchoni
    tchoni 30 March 2014 19: 01
    +3
    the impression is that the author himself tested the BPS data and publishes in the press the secret information (I don’t think that they are listed under a different heading) Either he is an American shpien and doesn’t mask himself - in any case, shoot .
  34. Crang
    Crang 31 March 2014 11: 20
    0
    Do not believe anyone this uncle. Mikhail Rastopshin is a very bad uncle. He was kicked out of the tank sphere a long time ago. The comrade can’t put up with this anyway and since then has been actively pouring shit on our tanks. DO NOT BELIEVE him. People are quite famous. He has already been told how many times that he is wrong, but he doesn’t care. This is the enemy of Russia.
  35. SS68SS
    SS68SS 31 March 2014 15: 10
    0
    It is high time for high-ranking officials to figure out the effectiveness of such weapons and not to deceive the Supreme Commander.



    To figure out who is cheating whom is never superfluous ....
  36. landromat
    landromat April 1 2014 03: 26
    +1
    And who doubts? How much time has passed since the adoption of the T-72. The tank of words is not brilliant, the dense layout made it possible to make at that time a medium tank that was not penetrated in the forehead. But now there is no way to increase the thickness of the turret's forehead. The same with shells, the length of the bops does not grow into the carousel. You can't just use one platform for the fifth decade. Indeed, in fact, the T-90 is, in terms of internal dimensions, the same T-72, only heavily overweight with new electronics. It is not for nothing that so much attention is now riveted to the newest promising "armature".
  37. Nikita4289
    Nikita4289 April 6 2014 21: 22
    0
    During the Second World War, about 70% of destroyed tanks were hit in the side projections.
  38. Logos
    Logos April 7 2014 14: 13
    +1
    Quote: mvv
    Tanks with tanks in our conditions will not fight. Miserable probability. There are helicopters, artillery, ATGMs of all kinds of modifications - what kind of tank battles are in the style of the Kursk Bulge? ETOGES is nonsense.

    In the Iraq war of 1991, this good was also in bulk, which did not prevent the tanks from directly meeting on the battlefield.
  39. Morgan
    Morgan April 15 2014 00: 57
    0
    An article based on a similar article in the Technique-Youth about 10 years ago. Something fresher, plizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! tongue