"Abrams" without "dill" and embellishment

132
"Abrams" without "dill" and embellishment


About it tank To date, a lot has been written. Articles are very different: from the eulogies of laudatory to the humiliatingly critical. This is understandable, any article will perforce have a certain share of subjectivity, depending on the author’s point of view. It is no secret that the same facts can be presented in different ways.
We invite you to meet again with history the creation of one of the famous main tanks of our time - Abrams ("Abrams"), get acquainted with the history of its creation and with modifications of the combat vehicle, which are in service with the armies of some states.

If we consider the point of view of the American researchers and chroniclers of the history of the creation of the main tank (OT) "Abrams", then some of them represent the history of this machine as a further development of the medium tank М48 "Patton II". This is how the history of the creation of the new American OT is interpreted in the work of the American explorer R.R.Hannicutt (RR Hunnicutt) “The History of the American main tank”.
Research and development work on the design of the new American tank began in 1951. In fact, the birth of the famous Abrams resulted in the consistent implementation of three main programs for the development of the tank of the future.


The second prototype of the T95 tank with the 90-mm gun in the Fort-Knox



Tests of the Delta 120-mm gun mounted on the first prototype of the T95-8 tank with the registration number 967052



The chassis of the T95EX1 tank, on which the turret model is mounted, of a tank that will become a new prototype - MVT70



The second prototype tank MVTNUMX with registration number 70А09 002



Prototype tank model HM803 with 152-mm gun-launcher



Chrysler XM1 prototype with JEOOO registration number for competitive tests



Prototype sample tank HM1 company "General Motors"



The first prototype of the Chrysler XM1 tank at the Detroit plant in February 1978. Second left: Dr. Philip Lett



The first serial tank M1 "Abrams", built at a factory in Detroit. 31 March 1982


The first of them was a program to work out the T95 tank, which was based on earlier work on the creation of an experienced T42 tank. The purpose of this R & D was to create a prototype machine with a relatively small mass, armed with a medium-caliber gun. Parallel to the testing of the T95, one more program was initially developed - the T-96, which envisages the development of a tank with heavy cannon armament. Later, both projects were combined on the basis of the chassis of the T95 tank. As part of this R & D, 13 projects of machines were worked out in total, starting with T95 and ending with T95EX12, as well as also T96. However, the development of the T95EZ project was completed, all other versions were built partially or existed only in the form of layouts. When developing the T95 program, many innovations and concepts were worked out, such as the use of a rigidly fixed bore gun and new fire control systems. Many of the concepts developed at that time require further elaboration at the present time. These difficulties encountered in combination with the changed views of the military on the concept of a tank of the future led to the closure of the T-95 program. Instead, she urgently initiated a program to improve the medium tank M48 Patton. Such a rush was caused by the appearance in the USSR of the T-45A and T-54B medium tanks armed with a stabilized 100-mm cannon and superior in all characteristics to the American MXXUMX “Patton” tanks. As a result of work on the improvement of the M48 in the USA, the M48 tank with the 1960-mm rifled gun is being used in the 60.

After the closure of the T95 program, the development of some new systems and components continued anyway. Everyone understood that sooner or later a new program for the development of a promising main tank, new basic concepts of a battle tank, would be launched in the United States. In this, in the USA and some NATO countries, the emphasis in developing the main weapons The tank has changed a bit. The attention of the military was more attracted not by tank guns firing high-speed armor-piercing shells of kinetic action, but by cannon-launchers capable of firing guided missiles with a cumulative warhead. As a technical innovation that could be used to create new tanks, a laser rangefinder and other new components for the fire control system appeared.

August 1 An agreement was signed between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany on the joint development of a new main tank for production and use in both countries. The project was named MVT1963 - “Main Battle 70-x” (Main Battle Tank 70).

In MVT70, designers have implemented quite a few technical innovations, such as a hydropneumatic suspension, an automated fire control system, automatic loading of a gun, a combined reservation. It should be noted that similar booking and automatic loading in the USSR by this time had already been implemented on mass-produced T-64 and T-64A tanks. So the American designers, even without even knowing it, played the role of "catching up" in world tank building. The introduction of advanced technical innovations in MVT70 pulled along the rise in the cost of the combat vehicle. The US Congress revised a number of advanced technology development programs towards reducing the final cost of samples. Here e got and the program MOB70. Prospective tank considered too expensive and difficult. In addition, there were a lot of disagreements among American and German designers regarding the need and design of a number of systems and components of a promising tank. This led to the termination of joint work on the car and each of the countries went further on its own way.

In the United States, with the aim of reducing costs and increasing reliability, the design of a promising tank was simplified, but the 803-mm gun launcher was retained as the main weapon in the new project, designated the main tank HM152. However, in the west, by the beginning of the 70s of the last century, the priorities regarding the tank’s main weapon began to change again. Again, preference was given to cannons capable of introducing fire with high-speed armor-piercing shells of kinetic action. In addition, the developed new tank HM803 turned out not much cheaper than its predecessor MVT70. In December 1971, the US Congress terminated the work on the HX803 project. At the same time, the need to develop a new tank for the army was recognized. Under this was allocated and the necessary funding. We must not forget that the Soviet T-64A medium tanks, armed with an 125-mm smooth-bore tank gun, capable of firing armor-piercing projectile shells with an initial speed of 1800 m / s, had already arrived in the USSR. On the approach were new cars: T-72 "Ural" and T-80.

"Good" and finances from the US Congress to develop a new American tank became the third attempt to create a new American tank, which was successful.

In the US Army, a working group was organized to develop a new tank TTZ. The development of the TTZ for the 80-s tank, designated XM1, began in January 1972. The prepared by the Ministry of Defense of the TTZ proposed the use of MVT70 and XM803 operating time. However, there were many ambiguities and there was even a moment when the option of abandoning the XM1 program was considered in favor of further improving the M60. The final requirements for the new tank and the timing of the program were formulated in January of 1973. Most of all, when developing the TTZ, the financial side of the issue was taken into account, which limited the cost of one production vehicle to just over 500 thousand USD when ordering 3300 tanks. For the first time in the USA, it was decided to develop a new tank on a competitive basis by General Motors and Chrysler Corporation companies.

The XM1 mining program included three stages: 1974-76. - evaluation of the concept and selection of a prototype based on the results of comparative tests of prototypes of the companies General Motors and Chrysler; 1977-80 - revision of the prototype, preparation of mass production, manufacture of the installation batch, adoption for service; 1981-90 - mass production and modernization. The transfer of the TTZ and the signing of contracts with the companies General Motors and Chrysler Corporation for the development and creation of prototypes of the tank The Pentagon carried out in June 1973.

True, in October, some provisions of the TTZ had to be corrected after a thorough analysis of the experience of the Arab-Israeli war of the Doomsday. This experience demanded an increase in the effective range of fire on armored targets, an increase in the basic weapon’s ammunition, increased machine protection, reduced time to prepare the machine for combat use, and increased reliability of systems and units and their maintainability.

One of the most controversial issues in the development of the new American main tank was the question of choosing the main weapon. At that time, the USSR tanks already had 125-mm smooth-bore guns; the new Leopard 2 tank created in Germany was planned to be equipped with the 120-mm gun created in Germany. Why did the M1 "Abrams" in the USA go to the troops with the M105 68-mm cannon (the licensed version of the British L7 cannon, developed in the second half of 50-s)? The answer to this question was given to the author personally by the chief designer of Abrams, Dr. Philippe Leah, during one of the meetings in Nizhny Tagil. He just proposed to install the smoothbore “Rheinmetall” L120, developed in the FRG for the new “Leopard” on the new 44 tank. And the American military insisted on the 105-mm M68 cannon, arguing their choice is very simple: “There is a large amount of ammunition for the M68 cannon in warehouses, they have to be put somewhere. Then back to the talk about the gun caliber 120 mm. "


Tank XM1 in the exposition of the military museum in Aberdeen


To participate in the comparative tests of prototypes of tanks HM1, competing companies presented the 1976 in February. Both tanks had a classic layout: a control compartment in the forward part of the vehicle hull, a combat compartment in the middle part of the hull and an engine-transmission unit in the stern. Tower with a circular rotation gun.

As a power plant, General Motors used the Teledyne Continental AV-1360-2 V-diesel diesel with turbocharging, which develops the power of the 1500 hp. This engine is an improved version of the diesel engine used on the prototypes MBT70 and XM803.

A three-shaft “AVCO Lycoming” AGT-1500 gas turbine engine was installed on the machine presented by Chrysler? Also power in 1500 hp

The running gear of competitors' tanks also had differences. On the tank of General Motors, the chassis consisted of six road wheels on board, three of which on a hydropneumatic suspension, and three on a torsion bar. By car from Chrysler, the chassis had seven road wheels on board with an individual torsion bar suspension.

By mass, both prototypes fit into the TTZ and did not exceed 53 tons.

Tests of prototypes of competing companies were carried out at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (piece Maryland), and then in Fort Knox and Fort Hood. The winner of the competition was determined 12 in November 1976. They became the prototype of the company Chrysler, which was chosen by the leadership of the US Army for further development as the future main tank of the US Army.


Tank МХNUMX "Abrams" during the operation "Desert Storm" in February 1. To enhance the protection, tank crews hung sandbags on armor


At the same time, attempts to cooperate with German designers to create a single main tank were resumed to a certain extent. 11 December 1976 was signed a memorandum of understanding in the field of tank construction between the United States and Germany. The document provided for the comparative tests of tanks "Leopard 2" and HM1 in the United States and the adoption of the machine, which will win in these tests. The winner was to be determined by a joint commission consisting of specialists from the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, the Germans were skeptical about the gas turbine engine of the American machine, and the American military on the Leopard did not like the weapon system with the 120-mm smooth-bore gun. In the end, economic problems became a stumbling block in the choice of a single combat vehicle. As it often happens, American and German manufacturing companies did not agree on the size of the profits received during the implementation of the project. As a result, the US military and the Bundeswehr received different machines. Attempts to unify the tanks for individual systems and units, such as the main weapon, power plant, running gear, did not lead to success. The military commission of the US Congress insisted that the work on the maximum unification of components and systems would lead to a delay in the implementation of the program, its appreciation and reduction in the characteristics of the ХМ1 tank. In 1978, after the Americans abandoned the tests of the HM1 tank with a German diesel engine, the memorandum of understanding has sunk into oblivion.

To continue the tests, Chrysler built the 11 stages of prototypes of the XM1 tank, which took part in the second stage of technical and military tests that took place from March 1978 to September 1979 and from May 1978 to February 1979, respectively .

Even before the completion of the second stage at the end of 1978, Chrysler received a go-ahead from the Pentagon to build an installation batch of 110 tanks intended to participate in the testing of the third stage and to train the personnel of tank units.


American tank "Abrams" М1А2


During the tests, as one would expect, when a fundamentally new machine is being tested, a number of shortcomings in the design of the machine and the operation of its systems and assemblies were revealed. Serious complaints were caused by the unreliable operation of the gas turbine power plant (GTSU). The GTSU worked so unreliably that the time between failures of a CCD was on average no more than 210 km. In this regard, it was even proposed to replace the CCD with a German diesel engine from Leopard 2 or the British diesel engine Rolls Royce CV12. Engineers in a hurry had to carry out a whole range of work on the improvement of experimental machines, which gave a positive effect. On tests, which were carried out in the second half of 1979, the upgraded prototypes reached an average time to failure of the CCD already about 480 km. A number of representatives of the State Testing Committee HM1 insisted on postponing the adoption of the tank and began its mass production, inviting Chrysler engineers to begin a full-scale development of the diesel version of the HM1 tank.

Nevertheless, the majority of experts spoke in favor of using the GTSU on the tank as a more progressive technical solution. The last third test phase of the XM1 tank was completed in 1980 and the tank was put into service under the designation M1 “Abrams” in honor of General Creighton Abrams, the former chief of staff of the US Army, commanding American troops in Vietnam at the final stage of war.

The Pentagon placed an order for Chrysler to build the first batch of 352 production tanks, (cars). The first production Abrams М1 tanks were manufactured in 1980 at the state tank factory in Lima, Ohio, but mass full-scale production of these vehicles began only in September 1981. In 1982, the Abrams serial production started at one state-owned tank factory - the Detroit arsenal in Warren, Michigan. The total production rate for the two plants was 70 tanks per month. In total, the 2374 of the Abrams tank model M1 was built, the production of which was completely stopped in January 1985. By this time, the USSR Ground Forces were armed, including in the groups of forces deployed in the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, as well as Western military districts, there were already thousands of units of type T-64B, T-80B and T-72A tanks, which by their characteristics were significantly superior to the newest American tank. And at the Soviet research test sites were nearing completion of testing more new models of armored weapons.

Description of the design of the tank M1 "Abrams"


Something like this, the Abrams mechanic drives the car while driving in combat


The main tank M1 "Abrams" is made on the classic layout. The hull of the tank is a welded structure with a large angle of inclination of the upper frontal armor detail (VLB). In the forward part of the body there is a control section located along the longitudinal axis of the machine. At the workplace of the driver installed height-adjustable seat with upholstered, headrest and lumbar support. In order to reduce the silhouette of the tank, in a combat position, the driver is in a reclining position with legs raised relative to the seat. To control the movement of the tank, the T-shaped steering column of a motorcycle type and the brake pedal are installed in the control compartment. All the necessary controls - the switch gear for forward and reverse, fuel control knob - placed on the steering column. Landing and disembarking of the driver to his workplace is carried out only through the hatch, equipped in the VLB, closed with an armor cover shifted to the right. The emergency hatch in the bottom of the case is missing. Three periscopic surveillance devices are installed in the lid of the driver's hatch.

The fighting compartment of the tank includes a middle part of the hull and a tower of circular rotation. The combat compartment houses a tank armament complex, communications equipment, commander, gunner and loader jobs, as well as other equipment.


Comparison of the overall dimensions of the onboard projections of the American M1A1 and the Soviet T-72A


When creating the МХNUMX «Abrams», a significant increase in its security was given in comparison with the tanks of previous generations. This problem was solved by reducing the silhouette of the tank and reducing its visibility, increasing armor protection, using a new type of reservation. The hull and turret of the tank are all-welded. On the forward part of the hull there are units for hanging roller or knife mine trawls, as well as dozer equipment.

The tower consists of outer and inner layers of armor steel, connected by transverse stiffening ribs, between which are laid packs of filler from steel and ceramic materials. The chassis is covered with side screens consisting of separate sections of seven pieces on board. Sections have spaced booking, between which there is a filler. The screens are attached to the body on the brackets with the help of hinges; between them, the sections are connected by a hinge-and-loop connection. The most massive front sections are rigidly fixed to the body, bolted. The thickness of each section is about 70 mm, and the total weight of the screens is 1,5 t.

In order to increase mine resistance, booking of the front part of the hull bottom to 30-32 mm is enhanced, while the thickness of the bottom hull sheet in the rear part is only 12,5 mm. The differentiation of the thickness of the armor plates is applied throughout the tank, which varies from 25 mm in the MTO area to 125 mm in the frontal part of the tower. However, it should be noted a small thickness of armor side hull sheets, which does not exceed 35 mm. In general, approximately 56% of the total mass of the tank accounts for armor protection.


View of the Abrams M1A1 tank ammunition from the side of the loading area. It is necessary to have a good practice in order for the loader to accurately extract the necessary type of shot.



Loading ammunition in the tank


The armament complex FROM М1 "Abrams" includes the main, auxiliary and auxiliary weapons; automated fire control system (MSA), ammunition, weapon stabilizer, duplicated manual guidance drives, surveillance devices.

The main weapon of the tank - stabilized in two planes 105-mm threaded gun M68А1. As an additional weapon, an 7,62-mm M240 machine gun (a licensed version of the Belgian FN MAG machine gun) mounted on a commander's turret, an anti-aircraft 12,7-mm “Browning” machine gun M2NV and another 7,62-mm machine gun M240, is used, used by the gun. loader. The vertical angles of aiming of the gun are from -10 ° to + 20 °, anti-aircraft machine gun - from -10 ° to + 65 °. Tower machine guns do not have remote control, shooting from them is conducted by the tank commander and loader with open hatches.

As an auxiliary weapon, there are 12 units 66-mm grenade launchers for firing smoke grenades (6 units on the left and right sides of the turret) with a firing range of 30 m; 5,56 mm M16A1 rifle and M67 hand grenades.

The tank's ammunition includes 55 unitary 105-mm shots for tank guns, including МХнUMX shots with armor-piercing sabot-pierced projectiles (BOS) with a detachable tray with a tungsten alloy core, МХNUMX and МХNUMX cores with cores, I also apply I-100X shells, M735 cores, M774 with MOPNEXX and M883 with projectile shells (BOS) with a detachable tray with tungsten alloy cores, M494 and M456 with projectile shells. ready arrow-shaped striking elements, M416 with a cumulative fragmentation projectile and M737 with a smoke projectile. Training shots МХNUMXВ with a projectile in inert equipment can also be used. The main part of the ammunition - 44 unitary shots are placed in an isolated compartment in the aft niche of the tower. The compartment is isolated from the tank’s habitable compartment by opening armored covers and is equipped on top with ejection panels that direct the blast wave during detonation of shots in the ammunition compartment.

The remaining 11 shots are placed in armored containers in the hull of the tank and on the polik of the turret in front of the loader.

Ammunition for machine guns consists of 11400 cartridges for 7,62-mm machine guns (1400 cartridges for machine gun loader and 10000 cartridges for coaxial machine guns) and 900 cartridges for caliber 12,7-mm for anti-aircraft machine gun. The ammunition for the automatic rifle is 210 ammunition, in addition there are 24 smoke grenades and 8 hand grenades.


The firepower of the tank M1А1 "Abrams" has increased significantly compared with the M1


The armament complex of the M1 “Abrams” tank has an automated SLA developed by Hughes Aircraft. When developing the XM1, the Chrysler designers abandoned the OMS with the combined gunner’s sight and the commander’s panoramic sight with independent stabilization of the sight lines used in the XM803 experimental tank. It was considered too expensive and difficult.

As part of the MSN of the Abrams M1 tank, the periscopic monocular GPS gunner (Gunner's periscope sight) is used with independent stabilization of the line of sight in the vertical plane (such stabilization of the line of sight in the USSR was already used on the latest T-62 and T-55 tanks). As part of the GPS sight, an optical channel with a 3- and 10-fold increase, a thermal night-vision channel and a laser rangefinder are integrated. The sight is mounted on the roof of the turret under the armored roof and in the non-working position it is closed with a steel flap opened from the turret. The thermal imaging channel provides the vision distance at night to 2000 m, the laser rangefinder allows you to measure the distance to the target, both from a standstill and in motion at distances from 200 to 8000 m. The sight has an ocular retraction for the commander, providing the commander with the opportunity to conduct aim fire from the main weapon.

In the MSN of the M1 tank, a digital ballistic computer is used which automatically introduces corrections to the aiming angles and side corrections taking into account the measured distance to the target, the lateral component of the wind speed, target speed, roll of the axles of the cannon, projectile type, barrel wear, atmospheric pressure, charge temperature and corrections for alignment errors. Data on the type of projectile, barrel wear, atmospheric pressure, charge temperature and sight alignment errors are entered into the computer manually, the rest - automatically.

A gun with a machine gun paired with it is stabilized in two planes. Drives pointing guns and turning the tower electro-hydraulic. They provide the maximum speed of rotation of the tower 40 degrees / s and pointing guns - 25 degrees / s.

As a backup sight gunner on the M1 "Abrams" monocular unstabilized rifle scope M920 with 8-fold increase is used. To conduct aimed shooting from an anti-aircraft machine gun, the tank commander has an optical sight М919 with 3-fold increase. The sight is mounted on the hatch cover of the rotating commander's turret and is associated with an anti-aircraft large-caliber machine gun parallelogram mechanism.

To monitor the terrain from the commander's place, six prism surveillance devices are installed in the commander's turret; the loader has a prism surveillance device mounted on a rotating support for this purpose.

The places of the commander and the gunner are located in the turret to the right of the cannon one after another: the gunner is in front of the vehicle, followed by the commander. Workplace loader is located in the tower to the left of the gun.


The power unit of the tank "Abrams" with a gas turbine engine GTA-1500


The engine compartment of the МNNUMX Abrams tank is located in the rear part of the hull, occupying more than a third of its length and the volume of the 1 м6,8. Since the height of the machine body to accommodate all the units of the GTSU was not enough, the upper part of the body in the MTO area is significantly raised. MTO is separated from the fighting compartment with an airtight fire partition. It is installed longitudinally with the gas turbine engine "AVCO Lycoming" AGT-3, made in a single unit with an automatic hydro-mechanical transmission "Allison" X-1500-1100. GTE AGT-3 is a three-shaft engine with a two-stage compressor, an individual combustion chamber, a two-stage free power turbine with an adjustable nozzle apparatus of the first stage and a stationary ring plate heat exchanger. The air enters the turbine through a two-stage air cleaner. To regulate engine power in the AGT-1500 GTE, a hydromechanical fuel supply regulator with an electronic control system is used. The engine is started by an electric starter, which, through the drive of the unit box, spins the rotor of the turbocharger of the second stage. The maximum gas temperature in the turbine is 1500 ° C, the rotational speed of the output shaft is 1193 rpm. Dry weight: 3000 kg. The engine can reach a maximum torque of 1137 Nm at a frequency of rotation of the output shaft 5310 r / min.

The CCD with the transmission provide the M1 tank with acceleration from standstill to a speed of 30 km / h in 6 s.

Automatic transmission "Allison" X-1100-3 two-flow hydromechanical. It provides four gears for forward driving and two reverse gears. The transmission includes a torque converter, a four-speed automatic transmission, service and stopping brakes and an infinitely variable steering mechanism with dual differential and hydrostatic transmission, planetary final drives. The mass of the transmission is 1960 kg.

The chassis of the tank consists of seven gable rubberized rollers on board, four supporting rollers on board, two guide wheels unified with the supporting rollers, two driving wheels and two tracks consisting of 78 tracks (per track) of ТХNUMX type with rubber-metal parallel hinges. Track width - 156 mm. The wheels of the road wheels are made of aluminum alloy, the hubs are steel; diameter of the road wheels - 635 mm. Individual torsion bar suspension, on the first, second and seventh suspension nodes, blade hydraulic shock absorbers are installed. Full speed roller - 635 mm.


American tank "Abrams" М1А2 SEP in Afghanistan


To overcome water obstacles, there is equipment for underwater driving, which provides for overcoming fords to a depth of up to 2,36 m. The equipment includes two breathing pipes and an exhaust pipe.

Fuel is placed in six tanks with a total capacity of 1907 l. This fuel supply provides the tank with a power reserve of 440 km. Two front and two feed tanks made of polyethylene, in the front of the fences, between the main board and the outer screen, there are two metal tanks.

Tank МХNUMX "Abrams" is equipped with a system of protection against weapons of mass destruction with a manual switch, which ensures the supply of purified air to the individual respiratory masks of crew members. Air purification is carried out by a filtering unit.

Special equipment includes radiation and chemical reconnaissance devices.

Also, the tank is equipped with an automatic high-speed fire-fighting system, consisting of two subsystems installed in the MTO and in the combat compartment. The system includes optical and thermal sensors for fire detection, a control unit and cylinders with a fire extinguishing agent Halon-1301. The system response time to fire does not exceed 150 ms.

When creating the МХNUMX “Abrams” tank, the designers paid a lot of attention to improving the operational properties of the tank in comparison with the previous American models of armored weapons. For this, access to the main components and assemblies was facilitated, and the fuel, electrical and hydraulic systems were quickly disconnected.

Development and new modifications


"Abrams" M1IP

The M1IP (Improved Production - Improved) modification is a transitional version from the base model to the M1А1 modification, on which the 120-mm smooth-bore gun М256, the licensed version of the German Rheinmetall L44 gun, was planned. On the M1IP tank, all the major improvements proposed for introduction on the M1А1 except the gun itself, which remained the same - 105-mm М68, are made. The mass of the improved tank has increased by 900 kg compared with the mass of the serial M1. Between October 1984 and May 1986, 894 of such a tank was built.

"Abrams" M1A1

In the period 1982 – 1984. work was carried out to improve the tank M1. The main difference between the M1А1 and the Abrams М1 was the installation of the 120-mm smoothbore gun on it. The German gun “Rheinmetall” L44 in the United States was slightly reworked, changing the design of the cradle and breech. Ammunition to the gun was reduced to 40 shots due to the larger size of the ammunition, 34 of which are placed in the ammunition in the aft niche of the tower, and 6 shots in the corps in the fighting compartment. Unitary shots with a partially burning sleeve and a steel pan. The 120-mm cannon ammunition consisted of M827 shots with armor-piercing sub-caliber feathered projectiles with a detachable tray with a tungsten alloy core and M829 shots with BPS with a core of depleted uranium. It is also possible to use regular German ammunition used in the ammunition of the Leopard 2 tank.

In connection with the change in the ballistics of the main weapon, necessary changes were made to the ballistic computer of the SLA; An ammunition consumption meter is introduced, working from a sensor that takes into account gun recoil. According to estimates, the range of real fire when firing on the move for 120-mm cannon armor-piercing ammunition is 1,9 – 2 km and 1,7 – 1,8 km for cumulative ammunition; when firing from a place, the range increases respectively to 2,6 – 2,8 and 2 – 2,2 km.

In addition to increasing firepower in the tank M1А1 "Abrams" was increased and security. The given thickness of the armor on the new tank was 600 - 680 mm of homogeneous rolled armor (GKB) in the frontal projection of the tower when shelling an armor-piercing projectile shells, and 1080-1320 mm GKB - when firing cumulative shells. For the frontal projection of the body, these numbers are 580 - 630 and 800 - 900 mm, respectively.

Tank М1А1 is equipped with a new collective protection system with a filtering unit (FEF) with automatic activation. The HLF creates overpressure in the tank and ensures the supply of purified air to the individual masks of the crew members. The collective protection system works only when the GTE is running and all the hatches of the tank are closed. The pressurization system of the internal volume of the tank is activated not only during radiological or chemical contamination, but also when firing from a cannon and a machine gun paired with it to remove powder gases from the fighting compartment.

The installation of additional armor, a heavier gun and a new HLF led to an increase in tank mass on the 2,6 T. This required an increase in the transmission and undercarriage, as well as installing more powerful gun pointing drives and turning the turret.

Externally, the M1А1 differs from the M1 in the 120-mm cannon with a thermo-insulating jacket, a device for aligning a sight and an ejector, as well as the presence of a basket on the back side of the tower and two (instead of three) expelling panels in the tower roof above the ammunition; Containers with spare grenades (six grenades for each grenade launcher) are mounted under the grenade launchers on the outer walls of the turret.

In 1982 – 1984 14 experienced M1A1 was manufactured and tested. The serial production of tanks МХNUMXА1 "Abrams" was launched in August 1. The Pentagon ordered 1985 machines. For a while, the M4199А1 tanks were produced in parallel with the M1IP, which outwardly differs from the M1A1 only with a different gun and three, and not two, expelling panels on the roof of the tower. The production of the M1A1 "Abrams" was discontinued in 1, 1993 machines were manufactured in total.

М1А1 became the first "Abrams" put into service abroad. In November, 1988 between the United States and Egypt signed an agreement on joint production in Egypt for ten years of 555 МХNUMXА1 tanks for the Egyptian armed forces. Subsequently, the number of cars ordered by Egypt was reduced to 1 units. Production of tanks began in 524 at a factory in the city of Abu-Zabal near the capital. Some units and assemblies were supplied from the USA (up to 1992%). The first 60 tanks for Egypt were manufactured in the USA. The end of production was planned for the middle of 25.

"Abrams" М1А2

The active phase of the creation of a variant of the M1А2 tank began in the early 90-s. last century. The rapid development of electronics and computer technologies made it possible for designers to implement those projects that could not be implemented when creating the prototype XM803. In many respects, the impetus to the emergence of the Abrams version of the МХNUMXА1 was the German concept of the OMS, implemented on “Leopard 2”. The new SLA is the main difference between the new Abrams and its predecessors. As part of this MSA, built on the basis of the MIL STD2B data bus, there is a combined gunner's sight with an independent, stabilized in two planes line of sight, a panoramic thermal viewing device of the commander, also having a line of sight stabilized in two planes.

The laser rangefinder has been replaced by a more advanced carbon dioxide-powered one and has the same working wavelength as the thermal imaging devices. Thanks to the introduction of the MIL STD1553B data bus equipment into the onboard equipment, many elements of the SLA are integrated into a single information system, which serves to ensure the organization of interaction and control in battle, identifying targets. Innovations implemented on М1А2, increased its combat effectiveness in comparison with М1А1 in the attack in 1,5 times, and in defense - in 2 times.

The rest of the onboard equipment has undergone a serious improvement. A GPS navigation system based on satellite navigation system receivers has been introduced, new generation communication facilities have been installed.

The first М1А2 was reequipped from М1А1 in September 1990, then 9 machines were reequipped, which passed a set of test tests. In November, 1992 began mass production of the M1A2. By May 1993 was built 67 machines. In total, it was planned for the US Army to build 3000 tanks МХNUMXА1 "Abrams", however, due to the changing political situation in the world, namely the cessation of the existence of the USSR, these plans were redone. In the version М2А1 М2А1 tanks are being converted to overhaul. While it is planned to upgrade to the level of М1А1 2 tanks М998А1.

"Abrams" M1A2SEP


American tanks "Abrams" M1A2 SEP on the streets of Iraqi cities


The Abrams M1A2 SEP (Systems Enhancement Package) modernization program was initially launched in 1999 as the “digital” version М1А2 as part of the CEEP (Continuous Electronics Enhancement Program) program. In the course of work on the improvement of the machine, it was planned to equip the tank with a new fully digital fire control system, including the 2 generation thermal gunner and 2nd Gen FLIR (2nd Generation Forward Looking Infra-Red sighting system) commander, which have significantly improved detection capabilities goals day and night. The most up-to-date information technologies are also used, including the installation of color monitors, the use of network communications, increased machine memory and processor performance to increase the efficiency of information processing and target destruction.

In addition, the improvement included equipping the tank with advanced third generation armor protection without using depleted uranium filler, an auxiliary power unit to ensure the functioning of electronic systems without starting GTSU, as well as a thermal control system for crew air conditioning and electronic equipment.

Deliveries of the first Abrams M1A2, brought to the SEP level, were launched in August 1999. In total, the program provides for updating 1150 of previously released М1А2 Abrams tanks. In addition, up to the “digital” standard, tanks М1А2, delivered to Saudi Arabia, are being upgraded. The contract for the modernization of the first 60 machines was concluded in 2006, and in November 2007 was launched.

In November 2007, General Dynamics was awarded a contract to upgrade 240 tanks from M12 SEP V1 to M1X2 SEP V2 (V2-second version of SEP). The SEP V2 level involves the installation of improved color displays to display tactical situations, the installation of gunner’s and commander’s sights with optical and infrared channels, the refinement of the GTSU and the installation of new communications equipment compatible with information and combat networks of infantry units and formations. The upgrade also includes the introduction of other technologies developed as part of the development of the program “Combat Systems of the Future” or FCS (Future Combat Systems). A long-term contract for upgrading 435 tanks М1А1 to М1А2 SEP V2 company General Dynamics received in February 2008 of the year. It is planned to bring all previously launched МХNUMXА2 “Abrams” tanks up to the “digital” SEP V1 standard.

"Abrams" M1A2 TUSK


American tank "Abrams" M1А2, equipped with a set of TUSK


This modification provides for the installation of a special set of equipment for urban action TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit - urban tank survival kit) on a combat vehicle. The TUSK kit includes the ARAT complex of dynamic protection, ostensibly providing increased protection for lateral projections from cumulative weapons; thermal sight for turret machine gun loader M240; armored covers to protect the commander and loader during observation and work in open hatches; spaced reservation bottoms; headset to communicate with the support infantry; additional 12,7-mm machine gun "Browning" M2HB on the installation of CSAMM, mounted on the mask gun; a remote-controlled CROWS with a Browning 12,7-mm machine gun M2НВ manufactured by the Norwegian company Kongsberg (on Abrams M1A2 tanks) or a thermal sight for the commander's TOR on the M1-X1 version.

The TUSK kit can be mounted on a tank in the field, which provides for the finalization of combat vehicles without the need to send them to repair facilities.

29 August 2006, General Dynamics Land Systems received an order from the US Army Command for equipping TUSK 505 Abrams tanks participating in an operation in Iraq. The total contract value was 45 million US dollars. (For comparison, see: "Set of means of protection for survival in the city for the T-72 tank")

Almost all modifications of Abrams tanks took part in the battles. However, the story of the combat past and present of the American main tank “Abrams”, an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses is already a topic for a separate article.
Our news channels

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

132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +24
    7 October 2014 08: 53
    We are waiting for a separate article about the analysis of strengths and weaknesses!
    1. +56
      7 October 2014 12: 50
      Armor

      Namely - uranium sections. You may ask, how can this thing be both an advantage and a disadvantage? And here's the thing. Until uranium is touched, it is peaceful, because it is depleted, but it is worth starting to hit shells with such armor as it strives to go into a finely dispersed atomized state and, if it falls into the lungs, can lead to severe poisoning. Yes, this wonderful metal, in addition to the well-known health effects, is also chemically toxic. In addition, uranium dust burns remarkably, and in air it is prone to self-ignition (the so-called pyrophoricity). This disappointing circumstance was clarified during the first “Desert Storm”, moreover, as a result of unfortunate incidents of “shooting at home,” when shells with cores from this uranium suddenly pierced armor with the same uranium. If you start to knock on uranium already with plutonium, or rather with neutrons emitted during the explosion, then it turns out even worse. Having received a neutron from the head, the uranium-238 atom becomes slightly fierce and begins to turn into a thuja heap of other atoms, most of which are radioactive.
      Power point

      And again the seeming example of VP. In fact, with all the previously mentioned advantages, a gas turbo engine produces such chips as:
      Evaporation of air filters in two counts from the smallest dust-dirt coming into them from the outside. In addition, the size of the air filters is two times larger than the engine itself. If the Yankees had a choice, they would not have fought twice in a row in desert Iraq on tanks with a gas turbine engine.
      The huge temperature of the exhaust, which can not but rejoice the enemy thermal imagers, satellites that shoot in the infrared range, and even just flying past the thermal-guided rackets. Having decided to hide behind the armor, the infantry will also appreciate the refreshing breeze from the exhaust pipe.
      Caught in a hot desert - take a big piece from the power of dvigla. Fighting in the highlands - the same thing. Diesels have a frank climate, except that they get worse in frost.
      Price. Not only is it 2-4 times more expensive than an equivalent diesel engine, it’s also more expensive to operate (eats more fuel, more expensive spare parts, etc.).
      Gluttony (as a separate item). 11 (?) Liters / km is not a joke to you. For tank w: Blitzkrieg / Blitzkriegs (yes, yes, this is such a strategy) the fuel reserve is an archive characteristic that tells how long the tank can go until it has to stop and wait until the fuel train is pulled over which the enemy can and must attack. For comparison, a Leopard-2 [2] engine of the same mass and power (diesel) has a consumption of 3 to 5 liters / km ....]
      Caterpillars

      There is a serious problem with the tracks on the Abrams. He has 2 types of them, and both have disadvantages. One has a travel resource of only 1000 km (the T-72 can skate twice as much even in ancient non-rubber goslings). The other resource, although 2 km, is so heavy that 3000 people (even if they are all nigras) will not be able to repair it in the field - they will not tighten it. The goose broke - go to the repairmen with their TrackJack.
      Manual loading aka Niger Joe


      In the 40st century, shells in a cannon, as if in the early 64s, are stuffed by Niger Joe, while even the old harsh T-40A has for more than 72 years been equipped with a steampunk device called the loading mechanism (MZ). On the tanks of the T-90-T-XNUMX series, there is a slightly more different automatic loader (AZ). To justify this embarrassing situation, the defenders of the abram refer to the inertness of savkovo thinking, which does not allow to evaluate the genius of such a design decision, but the bitter truth is that people are no longer needed: the whole world, including uncivilized totalitarian countries like France, Japan and South Korea , slowly but steadily switches to automatic machines.

      http://lurkmore.to/Abrams
      1. +28
        7 October 2014 15: 09
        Modern American tank M1 Abrams:
        Great tank. The main thing is high-tech: instead of an automatic loader, it has a black jock, throwing shots into the breech. Historically, missile firing is not provided for in it. And what the hell is it? And this beast looks impressive (by the way, that is what they call him in the army - "beast"). Especially a tower the size of a garden house. The engine is excellent - the temperature of the exhaust gases is such that the infrared seeker can see it even from space. And on the same stream you can fry hot dog sausages. The radiator grilles are also cool - after several hours of march, the crew knocks out the dust with sledgehammers so that the engine does not stall. And if it is volcanic ash and it is even slightly moistened with water, then you get good cement. Also, the issue of insufficient power of the main engine for twisting a garden house with a gun was correctly resolved. Gloomy American geniuses simply hooked an additional diesel engine behind the tower. From a large-caliber machine gun, by the way, it makes its way at once, and then the lawn around the house begins to blaze. Great tank, in short. Probably because almost no one is going to buy them, except for the US Army.
        1. icy
          0
          7 October 2014 17: 31
          Australia is armed.
          1. +2
            12 May 2015 00: 49
            Leopards ...
        2. +4
          7 October 2014 18: 04
          Quote: PSih2097
          Great tank, in short. Probably because almost no one is going to buy them, except for the US Army.

          Well, you can scramble, of course, just don’t have to hold the enemy for a fool. Only one OMS covers all the shortcomings of the pepelats. By the way, try to break it with our shells
          By the way, a blitzkrieg is already irrelevant. During refueling and a smoke break, completely different types of troops work
          1. +7
            7 October 2014 19: 01
            hi
            Quote PSih2097
            Probably because almost no one is going to buy them, except for the US Army.

            I think, colleagues, that after the well-known events, these pieces of iron will gladly begin to purchase valiant ukrovsk. And, if there is not enough money, they will beg the chefs for free, outdated samples ...
          2. Verden
            0
            7 October 2014 23: 24
            I heard that our modern shells with a large elongation co-factor are already breaking through
          3. 0
            8 October 2014 11: 53
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Quote: PSih2097
            Great tank, in short. Probably because almost no one is going to buy them, except for the US Army.

            Well, you can scramble, of course, just don’t have to hold the enemy for a fool. Only one OMS covers all the shortcomings of the pepelats. By the way, try to break it with our shells
            By the way, a blitzkrieg is already irrelevant. During refueling and a smoke break, completely different types of troops work

            Well, in general, the same T-90 ammunition includes "Invar-M" with a range of up to 5000 m and a tandem warhead of 4.5 kg, so here my grandmother said who else was who. Guessing is pointless without real clashes.
        3. 0
          19 May 2022 13: 56
          more precisely, in order not to waste the resource of the gas turbine engine, there is an electric generator in the basket on the tower, from which the entire control system, all electronics receives current. without a working generator, only the gas turbine engine works, it is no longer possible to change gears ....
      2. Alexander
        +5
        7 October 2014 23: 06
        Here it is over to note that the automatic loading system of domestic tanks seriously imposed a limit on the length of the ammunition. Unitary ammunition of Abrams does not have such restrictions, which greatly expands the range of the ammunition of the tank and makes it possible to increase the power of the shot stupidly due to the size of the ammunition. Separate-shell shots of our tanks cannot be longer due to the size of the AZ.
  2. +19
    7 October 2014 08: 55
    Well, what a HUGE thanks to the author for the interesting article. It is always useful to know what and how "probable non-friends ..."
    1. +4
      7 October 2014 09: 28
      By the way, this is my first tank, although it is likely that the choice was greatly influenced by the picture)))
      1. +11
        7 October 2014 11: 58
        You will soon ride around the country ...
        1. +1
          7 October 2014 12: 05
          Quote: Tankist_1980
          You will soon ride around the country ...

          It may well be. T-72B3 is already skating, maybe one of the paintball players and Abrams will win.
          And so there were Leclerci.
          1. +9
            7 October 2014 12: 53
            Quote: Kars
            t-72B3 already ride

            Do you mean this?


            1. +1
              7 October 2014 13: 03
              Quote: opus
              Do you mean this?

              and this one as well. of individual cars in the photo field there were 5-6 pieces
              1. +4
                7 October 2014 17: 39
                Quote: Kars
                of individual cars in the photo field there were 5-6 pieces

                maybe you, or someone will clarify, I still do not understand Whose tank is it?
                (no matter how revised)
                I do not really believe in Russian tanks in (in) Ukraine (illegal means).
                Well, also "not very" as Tactical (Russian) nuclear weapons at the airport of Lugansk (according to Gelletey)
                1. Why transfer the T-72B3 when you can convey "something not very Russian"?
                which until fig from the USSR left
                2. Why transfer with documents and serial numbers (even travel certificates)?
                3. If you listen to / watch UkroSMI: the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Banderlog have already ground 50% of the RF Armed Forces, all cemeteries are littered with "fresh" graves, refrigerators are coming in trains ....
                And?
                And peace and quiet, neither mother, nor wife, nor children, nor the "committee of soldiers' mothers" - DOES NOT SCREAM about this outrageous act.
                ======================================
                Here you look from Ukraine. Do you have facts about RUSSIAN T-72Б3?
                / But only. in earnest, what Pssaki does not vilify /

                I would be grateful
                1. +6
                  7 October 2014 17: 55
                  Quote: opus
                  Here you look from Ukraine. Do you have facts about RUSSIAN T-72Б3?
                  / But only. in earnest, what Pssaki does not vilify /
                  I would be grateful

                  Anton, why do you ... this?
                  Ches.slovo - do not torture Andrew.
                  wink

                  1. +4
                    7 October 2014 18: 30
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    Anton, why do you ... this?

                    Alexei, well, I hope maybe he (Kars) knows the truth, has facts.
                    It seems that he is a Ukrainian, and not completely inadequate Ukrainian (which is grazed on the censor)
                    I'm tired of nonsense.
                    At the very relatives in (in) Ukraine ... well, adults, even from the USSR, and they are zombified
                    =============
                    there is a "report" memorial (all infa on the basis of "one grandma (YTube) said"
                    in the report, in general, Russian troops and equipment, stood at the Lugansk HZ, and they were promptly covered by the MLRS of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the result: more than 100 200x and "a lot of small" equipment "

                    The publication "GORDON" decided to facilitate the work of the Russian authorities and collected evidence of the presence of military personnel from the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine


                    "As it was found out, military operations in the Donbass are attended by at least ten Russian regions, and" cargo 200 "arrived in the settlements of Pskov, Kostroma, Vladimir, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Orenburg, Astrakhan, Ulyanovsk, Irkutsk, Voronezh regions, as well as to Dagestan, Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Mari El, the Komi Republic and to two regions - Perm and Transbaikal. "
                    =============================
                    We are certainly not Israel .... but I doubt very much what can be hidden (today)
                    such is the number of dead soldiers and a bunch of equipment (as well as its delivery to non-fall)
                    1. +1
                      7 October 2014 19: 52
                      Quote: opus
                      Alexei, well, I hope maybe he (Kars) knows the truth, the facts have

                      having eyes and a photo video will understand everything himself.
                      1. +1
                        7 October 2014 20: 56
                        Quote: Kars
                        having eyes

                        I have eyes; I saw a photo, a video ...... I DO NOT BELIEVE.
                        Fakie it.
                        1. I don't get attached to the terrain
                        2. I do not attach to the date.
                        3. Everything doesn’t really look like it

                        It seems to be forgotten to paint over two white stripes?
                        Strongly touched by the card "Sberbank of Russia"
                        http://www.sberbank.ua/
                        with the same logo will be on
                        http://www.sberbank.kz/ru/

                        / If I am not mistaken in the Ukrainian army there are about 600 T-72 tanks left?
                        -------------
                        and pieces of paper ...
                        I do not know much about them (current ones), but for some reason vague doubts torment me that the SBUshniki, if necessary, will draw the Chinese.
                      2. +1
                        8 October 2014 08: 32
                        Quote: opus
                        I have eyes; I saw a photo, a video ...... I DO NOT BELIEVE.

                        How persistent you are, they kind of tried to warn you that you would not like the truth.
                2. 0
                  8 October 2014 20: 05
                  This is an incomprehensible modification very similar to the T-72BA, where did the ukrovs get - the question - - now there are 600 vehicles in storage, there were 1300 - they were actively trading in them, most likely a regular "beech" modernized to the BA standard - now captured by the militia.
                  1. +1
                    8 October 2014 20: 21
                    Quote: zeleznijdorojnik
                    This incomprehensible modification is very similar to the T-72BA

                    strange and why for parashenko is not BA
                    and I don’t mind if you bring a photo of the Ukrainian BA before the war period or in a column of everything going to the Donbass.
      2. +5
        7 October 2014 17: 46
        Quote: svp67
        It is always useful to know what and how "probable non-friends ..."

        Ага.
        hi

        And Abrashka is a solid tank and a good opponent.
        In general - a worthy target.

        To the author - many thanks for putting together material on the creation of this tank.
        Although everything is known, I read it with interest.
        good
    2. +6
      7 October 2014 17: 12
      Quote: svp67
      HUGE thanks to the author for an interesting article

      My regards! hi
      I didn't read the article, so "everything was stolen before us", Gen. Abrams was described many times in the press and without going into details, I think that this tank has high-tech sights, communications, etc.
      But ... thanks to the author for a simple comparison of the dimensions of Abrams with the T-72. Although I saw this before, but it turned out weighty, rude, visibly.
      The specialist can already not disassemble the letters to understand what is there for reserved volume. And a lot follows from this: the level of protection, and the mass, and the power reserve, visibility, etc., etc.
      Immediately, for example, it is absolutely clear that such an MBT weighs, most likely, for 60 tons, that kerosene eats like a bull slop (here, however, apart from the dimensions, its own gas-turbine engine plays a role), that if it has a lot of thick armor in front of it, then in all the others places must be indecently empty.
      Just a picture ...
      1. +1
        7 October 2014 18: 17
        About the size you are in vain. By dimensions, our tanks, of course, won. But there is practically no space left for placing modern equipment in them.
        It is unlikely that I will reveal a great military secret, but our "armata" is no less than an "abrams" in size. or even slightly more. But they crammed into it a lot more than in the last "Abrams". Wait for the Victory Parade ...
        1. +2
          7 October 2014 20: 56
          Quote: uwzek
          About the sizes you are in vain

          Essentially, why in vain?
          I seem to, albeit briefly, quite intelligibly wrote what size is behind it.
          Quote: uwzek
          But there is practically no space left for placing modern equipment in them.

          It is a what kind of modern equipment didn’t fit into our tanks?
          Even the oversized KURV "Cobra" (GTN) fit into the T-64B.
          The only thing that I agree about the dimensions is that a fat tanker is not applicable in our tanks.
          I don’t know what they have crammed into the Armata and I cannot reveal the military secrets, in the Abrams everything seems to be the same as in any modern tank. Yes
      2. +1
        11 October 2014 15: 47
        Quote: Alekseev
        My regards!
        Mine no less hi
        Quote: Alekseev
        that if his armor is thick in front, then in all other places it is necessarily indecently empty.

        So in front, then he is far from all right. VLD - 80 mm, as it is not even funny, especially in urban conditions. It is enough for us to produce a n-th number of shells that can hit the BTT in the upper projection, not even very powerful, and that’s all ...
  3. +17
    7 October 2014 08: 56
    "Comparison of the overall dimensions of the side projections of the American M1A1 and the Soviet T-72A"

    Clearly. In general, the title of the article somehow does not fit with the content. I thought of finding an objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Abrams in the article, and it contains more of the history of the creation of the tank.
    1. +7
      7 October 2014 09: 08
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I thought of finding an objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Abrams in the article, and it contains more of the history of the creation of the tank.

      You were not the only one who hoped for it ... but on the whole I liked the publication, of course "+". Although, unfortunately, there were some annoying "blunders", for example: Such a rush was caused by the appearance in the USSR of medium tanks T-45A... obviously meant T-55A
      1. +2
        7 October 2014 10: 17
        We will wait for the second series. This is still a journal article. and the year before last. So everything - the second series has long been composed.
      2. 0
        7 October 2014 17: 58
        t-54 rather
      3. 0
        7 October 2014 18: 22
        Just a T-54 ... The usual typo, and the T-55 is mentioned in the article (essentially the same tanks).
    2. +25
      7 October 2014 09: 15
      Americans love comfort, what can I do about it. Here for example is a famous photo. BMD and Bradley are nearby)
      1. +12
        7 October 2014 09: 27
        Well, BMD is still not entirely correct to compare with Bradley, cars of different classes.

        And just a cool photo.
        1. +1
          7 October 2014 11: 55
          Quote: Kars
          And just a cool photo.

          Quote: blizart
          I have been looking for this photo for a long time, thanks. And then tired of describing it in words

          Where does this photo come from, if not a secret? And what does "boat" mean?
          1. +4
            7 October 2014 12: 13
            Quote: Doznanied
            Where is this photo, if not secret?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposing_force

            and the boat might like to write vodka)))
            1. 0
              7 October 2014 12: 22
              Thanks for the information.
        2. Ruskiye
          0
          10 October 2014 23: 49
          Wash-J10RKa - skary written.
      2. +1
        7 October 2014 09: 55
        I have been looking for this photo for a long time, thanks. And then tired of describing it in words
        1. +5
          7 October 2014 11: 15
          GSh, M60 with "Abrams ...."
          1. icy
            +1
            7 October 2014 17: 42
            With such tracks only in a golf club to go for balls ...
        2. +2
          7 October 2014 11: 47
          Quote: blizart
          I have been looking for this photo for a long time, thanks

          you are welcome.
          Quote: blizart
          And then tired of describing it in words

          I wonder how you described it.
          and there are some more photos
      3. +5
        7 October 2014 11: 01
        and, here is the Leclerc tower, instead of blocks with DZ, canisters ...
        1. +2
          7 October 2014 12: 57
          Quote: cosmos111
          and, here is the Leclerc tower, instead of blocks with DZ, canisters ...

          Maybe it's a "glove compartment"?
          1. +6
            7 October 2014 13: 40
            The "Leclerc" even has a folding stretcher for the fir in the glove compartments. a kind of mobile supply point
            1. icy
              +3
              7 October 2014 17: 52
              Dear sirs, in our, sorry in "your", the tank contains:
              - field hospital for 6 beds,
              - resuscitation in 2 beds,
              - A recovery room, unfortunately, is not available.
              As well as a minibar with strong alcoholic drinks.
              Your automatic attendant.
              I hope that your stay here will be longer than that of the previous crew.
              1. +3
                7 October 2014 19: 53
                This is not for the crew, but for the infantry covering the tank. Armored boxes with BC and stretchers. I find this a very successful solution for battles in settlements, for which this version of Leclerc AZUR (Action en Zone Urbaine) is intended.
        2. icy
          +1
          7 October 2014 17: 43
          Canisters with whiskey? ..
        3. 0
          7 October 2014 21: 13
          Quote: cosmos111
          instead of blocks with DZ, canisters ..

          Instead of a nigga-pitching - beauty-mademoiselle))
      4. amigo1969
        +6
        7 October 2014 11: 08
        Hmmm ... Bradley's dimensions are "gunner's dream"))
    3. icy
      +1
      7 October 2014 17: 40
      The article has everything, you need to think, however ...
  4. +12
    7 October 2014 09: 01
    You can simply (thesis) write where and from which weapons to shoot at him.
    1. +1
      7 October 2014 10: 01
      Quote: k1995
      You can simply (thesis) write where and from which weapons to shoot at him.

      This is another topic.
    2. 0
      8 October 2014 16: 41
      Quote: k1995
      You can simply (thesis) write where and from which weapons to shoot at him.

      ... from the "antediluvian" DShK via an additional engine of the ultra-modern "Abrams" armor-piercing incendiary bullets that reliably penetrate two-centimeter armor. DDM fails and lights up. Smoke enters the compartment where the "Negro-loader" is located ...
      http://kprf.msk.ru/?p=5872 Как подбить «абрамс» из крупнокалиберного пулемёта
  5. Crang
    +5
    7 October 2014 09: 07
    In the figure where the silhouettes of the T-72A and the Abrams are compared, the silhouette of our tank is significantly reduced. In fact, it is somewhat larger.
    1. +1
      7 October 2014 09: 18
      it seems the first time agreed
      1. 0
        7 October 2014 18: 27
        I also agree. Drove no reason to lie in such a tall building. Otherwise, how do they control our tanks. The height dimensions are clearly distorted.
    2. +14
      7 October 2014 09: 21
      ______________________
    3. +8
      7 October 2014 09: 22
      ______________________
      1. +13
        7 October 2014 09: 29
        ___________________
        1. 0
          7 October 2014 17: 04
          good afternoon! what are our children’s chances:
          - fill up the American;
          - to survive;
          I heard that in the Middle East at one time the expense was far from in our favor. But I could be wrong. Not a specialist.
          Probably it all depends on tactics, but I would like to hear the opinions of people much more experienced. thank hi
          1. +1
            7 October 2014 17: 48
            And didn’t you think WHO was at war on our kid? And how old is the baby and what kind of service? And do not forget the dominance in the sky
          2. +3
            7 October 2014 19: 04
            Looking at what distance you will find the enemy and with what projection.
            Any tank beats in the tail and mane, from any country of manufacture (and from any range available for your ammunition). Aim only more precisely ...
            From the side projections you can hit the engine or in the area of ​​the tower overhead.
            From the nose - only in shoulder straps (i.e. the junction of the tower and the hull). You will be the first to fire (and you will also get!) .- victory in battle is guaranteed to you.
            The odds are roughly fifty-fifty. To confidently defeat the Abrams, we lack a guided tank missile attacking from the upper hemisphere. BOPSs of new types do not fit into old AZ. Although, it is possible to manually send modern BOPS into the breech of a cannon, and a couple of shells can be carried in a non-mechanized packing (testers told me about this). Modern BOPS "Abrams" can be sewn anywhere (if not smeared).
            Our tanks are also not immortal ...
            1. 0
              7 October 2014 21: 26
              Quote: uwzek
              From the side projections you can hit the engine or in the area of ​​the tower overhead.
              From the nose - only in shoulder straps (i.e. the junction of the tower and the hull). You will be the first to fire (and you will also get!) .- victory in battle is guaranteed to you.

              Yes, yes, you take him to the engine and he takes you to the tower
              Gone are the days when the enemy was visually detected
              There was an article about our shells here. They didn’t fire at real targets.
      2. +7
        7 October 2014 11: 05
        hybrid, in Indian ... GSh T-72, Arjun tower ...
    4. +15
      7 October 2014 09: 24
      _____________________
    5. +4
      7 October 2014 13: 05
      Quote: Krang
      the silhouette of our tank is significantly reduced.

      No, it's just Abrams lift.
  6. +1
    7 October 2014 09: 26
    However, it should be noted the insignificant thickness of the armor of the side sheets of the hull, which does not exceed 35 mm. In general, armored protection accounts for approximately 56% of the total mass of the tank.

    A brick on a crystal stand ... I won’t be surprised if ordinary PTRs from the Great Patriotic War will be punched on board.
    1. +2
      7 October 2014 19: 26
      It is not very easy to hit the side of the tank. In addition to the actual thickness of the armor, add rollers, tracks, external hinged active protection screens. For example, those tanks that I had to repair after the first Chechen company (those were the early T-90s and the T-72Ms with "contact-5") through armor hull damage had in the areas where the AZ screens ended. Those. the enemy purposefully fired at the rubber screens (most likely from hand grenade launchers). The through hole at the exit had a diameter of about a centimeter, most likely further the blow was stopped by the inner lining. There were cars with several similar damage, extremely many blind.
  7. -2
    7 October 2014 09: 44
    lateral 35 mm !!! ???? it's like that .. m. error???
    1. +4
      7 October 2014 10: 09
      Quote: Kazanok
      lateral 35 mm !!! ???? it's like that .. m. error???

      The side sheets in the area of ​​the power compartment have a thickness of 25 to 32 mm. Front side sheets in the area of ​​the control compartment and the fighting compartment 60 mm. The total weight of the armor of the XM1 tank is 30 tons, or 52% of the vehicle’s weight.
      Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/110 © "Modern Army" portal
  8. Crang
    +8
    7 October 2014 09: 55
    Quote: Kazanok
    lateral 35 mm !!! ???? it's like that .. m. error???

    Yes, he is lying. The board itself is 35mm thick. But before the MTO, a 25,4mm pad adjoins it (on some tanks, the entire length of the hull). Well, plus - at a distance of the width of the track the composite side screen is 65 mm thick. Total: 25 + 35 + 65 = 125mm spaced combined obstacle armor. This is definitely better than in the first modifications of the T-72. The T-72B can be compared: 80mm + 10mmRE + 4S20 = ~ 100mm from armor-piercing and about 200-250mm from cumulative ammunition.
    1. +1
      7 October 2014 16: 46
      Do you estimate the effectiveness of "Contact 1" DZ against BOPS at 10 mm? Not enough?
  9. Solaris
    0
    7 October 2014 10: 04
    the enemy needs to know in person.
    as uv wrote. Kind cat: "We are waiting for a separate article about the analysis of strengths and weaknesses!"
  10. +4
    7 October 2014 10: 31
    Stunned! ..
    Seriously - an excellent overview study, without unnecessary technical tricks, but giving a clear overall picture.
    HUGE RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR! good
  11. +4
    7 October 2014 11: 14
    Quote: Krang

    Yes, he is lying. The board itself is 35mm thick. But before the MTO, an 25,4mm pad (on some tanks for the entire length of the hull) adjoins it. Well, plus - at a distance of the width of the track, a composite side screen with a thickness of 65mm

    The screen is not homogeneous. Those. it does not give 65mm armor thickness. Therefore, it is just a screen.
    But in general, A1A1 was, like the battleships of Iowa, an ordinary average. Well, always inferior to Leopard.
    I will not compare the new modifications with Russian tanks. This is controversial and incorrect. But, before the collapse of the USSR, our tanks were still better. I hope Armata will continue the course of the world's best tanks, which was set by the "thirty-four".
    And by the way, notice how great the influence of the T-95 is in the T-54. On the walk, it's generally noticeable. Then the T-72s "light up" and we see seven rollers of similar sizes on the torsion bars on the Abrams.
    Think random? Not. Influence.
    1. Crang
      +3
      7 October 2014 12: 07
      Quote: qwert
      The screen is not homogeneous. Those. it does not give 65mm armor thickness. Therefore, it is just a screen.

      It will give a larger equivalent from HEAT ammunition. And this is not just a cocking screen, but a normal three-layer "pie": steel-filler-steel. In the T-72B too - only a homogeneous 80mm side and that's it. A 10mm screen is rubber-fabric. Plus a remote sensing element that hardly works against kinetic ammunition.
  12. +14
    7 October 2014 11: 29
    We are waiting for the truth about how the Americans "did not lose a single Abrams in battle":


    For what "non-combat" reason are these Abrams written off? wink

    Afghans or Iraqis are studying the wounded miracle of American tank building:

    Afghans or Iraqis mourn for dead mountain democrats crying

    If you want more such photos - type in Yandex "padded abrams"
    1. +2
      7 October 2014 11: 50
      Quote: 0255
      We are waiting for the truth about how the Americans "did not lose a single Abrams in battle":

      in general, this was relevant for the 1991 war in 2003 such statements were not.
      1. Crang
        +1
        7 October 2014 12: 10
        Quote: Kars
        in general, this was relevant for the 1991 war in 2003 such statements were not.

        But there were statements like "For all the time not a single person from the Abrams crews died." This despite the fact that back in 1991 I saw how a burnt firebrand was pulled out of the Abrams turret hatch.
        1. +1
          7 October 2014 13: 09
          Quote: Krang
          even though in 1991 I saw how a burnt firebrand was pulled out of the Abrams turret hatch.

          but I personally haven’t seen it. And the photo too.
      2. 0
        7 October 2014 12: 12
        Americans claim not
        lost not a single Abrams in tank-versus-tank battles.
        And that seems to be true.
        And in the 2003 war in Iraq, the military losses of Abrams are estimated
        25-28 units: from ATGMs, land mines, RPGs.
        1. +3
          7 October 2014 12: 52
          In the materials about the war in the Gulf, no, no, and you come across a proud statement: they say, the Yankees smashed the Iraqi tank units to smithereens. Yes it's true. But the truth is not all. Soviet T-72s were delivered to Iraq in an export version and fired with 3BM9 and 3BM12 armor-piercing shells, which were withdrawn from our armament in the 1970s. At distances farther than 1500 m they could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Abrams and the British Challengers that joined them, and the Anglo-Saxons, who were not looking for adventures, could not get any closer. Taking advantage of the superiority in surveillance tools (primarily in thermal imagers) and electronic warfare, which clogged the Iraqi ranges, but provided their parts with stable communications, they gave targeting to the Bradley infantry fighting vehicles that were moving slightly behind, which shot Iraqi armored vehicles with long-range anti-tank TOW missiles.
          1. -2
            7 October 2014 13: 52
            Not only with TOU.
            The Abrams were given plenty to shoot with OBPS.
            Aviation did not intervene to avoid fire
            in their own way.
            According to the recollections of American tankers not
            there were no difficulties - as on simulators:
            shot - an explosion of an enemy tank.
            Iraq’s tanks were a bit outdated and exported
            options, of course.
            1. +10
              7 October 2014 14: 38
              Quote: voyaka uh
              According to the recollections of American tankers not
              there were no difficulties - as on simulators:
              shot - an explosion of an enemy tank.
              Iraq’s tanks were a bit outdated and exported
              options, of course.

              I do not trust the memories of the Americans about how they easily destroyed enemies. And do not forget that the United States loves to overestimate the losses of opponents and to underestimate their losses.
              Their statistics reminds me of a crazy "episode" from the Second World War, when 6 tigers destroyed 300 T-34s, the next day 400 T-34s without losses, and only the day after tomorrow attack of 1000 T-34s was able to destroy these 6 Tigers
        2. +3
          7 October 2014 12: 54
          ... If there were losses from "ATGM, land mines, RPGs.", Then what will this device do against a tank with a normal crew (not Arab) ????
          1. +2
            7 October 2014 13: 16
            If you recall the Second World War:
            Throughout the war there were only two tank battles - in 1941 near Dubno and in 1943 near Prokhorovka. Typically, the tanks were opposed by artillery and aircraft. Aircraft fought with planes all the time, but tanks with tanks are much less common
            After the Second World War, there were no big head-to-head tank battles either. Is that the "Battle of 73 Easting" (Battle of 73 Easting) in 91. So a tank duel is the exception rather than the rule. Tanks with tanks still don't fight
            1. +4
              7 October 2014 13: 47
              There were very large ones, with hundreds of tanks on both sides:
              In 1967, at the Sinai - the oncoming battles of the tank-against-tank Egypt-Israel,
              In 1973, in the Golan Heights - counter-tank battles against Syria-Israel
              (the battles in the Golan are interesting because neither aviation nor artillery participated in them,
              nor infantry - only tanks from two sides.)
              1. +3
                7 October 2014 14: 22
                These conflicts are fleeting, and the actions of the anti-Israel coalition command often bordered on cretinism. In my opinion, not an indicator. Although tank battles there really were
          2. +4
            7 October 2014 13: 56
            The same thing is to shoot accurately using the excellent SLA,
            uranium OBPS, what else?
            Abrams turned out to be a kind of analogue of the Nazi Panther t-5:
            powerful forehead, long-range gun, good shells and SLA.
            And ... weak sides, vulnerable to cumulative missiles and grenades.
            1. +2
              7 October 2014 15: 04
              Quote: voyaka uh
              powerful forehead

              Is not a fact. You need to know the parameters of modern shells, but in Russia, for example, they are classified. The freshest known BOPS dates back to about 98. BOPS parameters for Merkava 4 I do not know
              Quote: voyaka uh
              long-range gun

              Without missiles (Reflex, Lahat) you cannot call it long-range. A missile gun Abrams is not adapted
              Quote: voyaka uh
              good shells and SLAs.
              And ... weak sides, vulnerable to cumulative missiles and grenades.

              No complaints wink
          3. +3
            7 October 2014 14: 50
            Recall the Pirates of the Caribbean and find the answer to the question - Negotiations !;)
          4. +1
            7 October 2014 21: 39
            Quote: aleks 62
            then what will this device do against a tank with a normal crew (not Arabic) ????

            Remember biathlon. Not the worst crews anointed godlessly
        3. +2
          7 October 2014 13: 07
          Krang (4) SU Today, 12:10 ↑
          But there were statements like "For all the time not a single person from the Abrams crews died." This despite the fact that back in 1991 I saw how a burnt firebrand was pulled out of the Abrams turret hatch.

          voyaka uh IL Today, 12:12 ↑
          Americans claim not
          lost not a single Abrams in tank-versus-tank battles.

          The Americans always declare that their equipment is the best in the world, and if it is lost in battle, then it is exclusively non-combat losses. There is unofficial information that during the "Desert Storm" Abrams were knocked out from T-72s.
          American data is the same nonsense as the memoirs of German tankers about how they easily destroyed 100-200 pieces of Soviet T-34s per minute.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And in the 2003 war in Iraq, the military losses of Abrams are estimated
          25-28 units: from ATGMs, land mines, RPGs.

          And what are the losses of the Abrams after 2003? After the "democratization" of Iraq, the number of those wishing to shoot at American vehicles from RPGs has increased dramatically. Numerous photos indicate that the real losses of the Abrams are higher than the official ones.
          How many Abrams were lost in Afghanistan? Also not a single one?
          1. +1
            7 October 2014 13: 42
            28 combat losses - for the entire 2 Iraqi war, not
            only for 2003.
            90% of the photos are about 5 tanks sfotkannyh
            from different angles. The most destroyed of them - on landmines or destroyed by stormtroopers after a hit (destruction if it is impossible to evacuate).
            1. +6
              7 October 2014 13: 51
              Quote: voyaka uh
              28 combat losses - for the entire 2 Iraqi war, not
              for 2003 year only

              So the Iraq war has not ended yet))) And from 2003 to 2008 I personally rate it in 130 machines. And I’m sorry for some of the methods for recovering lost abrams that are quite comparable with the production of a new one. With the Yankees, the fad from Pearl Harbor when the disused battleships lifted, and counted them not destroyed but damaged.
              1. +1
                7 October 2014 15: 42
                Quote: Kars
                With the Tim, the Yankees fad even with Pearl Harbor when the disheveled battleships lifted, and counted them not destroyed but damaged.

                Remember the damaged planes in the Luftwaffe at 60, 70, 80%, which went as undestroyed.
            2. +2
              7 October 2014 13: 59
              Quote: voyaka uh
              28 combat losses - for the entire 2 Iraqi war, not
              only for 2003.
              90% of the photos are about 5 tanks sfotkannyh
              from different angles.

              And how many tanks did the US lose in Iraq for "non-combat" reasons?
              Their F-86 Sabers shot down in Korea are listed as having suffered an accident during landing; the F-117 shot down by Zoltan Dani in Yugoslavia in 1999 they wanted to blame on engine failure. The Americans also declared the F / A-1991 shot down from the Iraqi MiG-18 in 25 as a non-combat loss, it was recognized as a combat loss only in 1995, when its wreckage and fragments of a Soviet-made air-to-air missile were found. It must be assumed that the United States in the same way hides the loss of tanks in its wars "for freedom"
              1. padonok.71
                +1
                7 October 2014 16: 04
                This is not only about Saxon pride, but also in insurance, military / non-military - different amounts of pensions.
        4. 0
          7 October 2014 21: 36
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Americans claim not
          lost a single Abrams in tank-vs-tank battles
          And that seems to be true.

          It’s quite possible, because except in Iraq they didn’t fight. And to let the tank into a direct shot it is necessary to try hard
        5. 0
          13 October 2014 00: 32
          Quote: voyaka uh
          lost not a single Abrams in tank-versus-tank battles

          there was a photo with Abrams destroyed, destroyed by his t-62 sub-caliber on board between the rinks.
        6. 0
          16 October 2014 17: 51
          There is a photograph of Abrams with the BOPS demolished balancers of the rollers of one side of the T-72.
    2. +1
      7 October 2014 14: 47
      Thanks. Without this addition, the article is not quite finished. And now the complete set.
    3. Denis fj
      +1
      7 October 2014 23: 08
      And this is not Russia with its "non-passable" directions.
  13. 0
    7 October 2014 11: 31
    I would like to see an objective analysis of the resistance of armor and piercing the forehead with a gun to each other
    as well as the probabilistic layout of firing accuracy in not ideal European terrain
    1. +5
      7 October 2014 11: 52
      Quote: yehat
      piercing forehead
      1. -15
        7 October 2014 12: 04
        This is your forehead ???
        1. +6
          7 October 2014 12: 15
          Quote: Tankist_1980
          This is your forehead ??

          Stern?
        2. +2
          7 October 2014 12: 27
          And what do you think? The most protected section of the tower. Abrams is nowhere thicker than armor
          1. +1
            7 October 2014 16: 21
            more important is the angle of inclination
        3. +2
          7 October 2014 12: 41
          The gun mask is visible on the right. Yes, this is the frontal part.
        4. +2
          7 October 2014 16: 51
          clearly seen that the penetration at right angles. if the tower stood straight (and the Americans in Iraq shot like a dash), it’s not a fact that it would have struck ... and it’s not clear whether the photo is through-through ...
          1. +2
            7 October 2014 19: 57
            Quote: Tankist_1980
            and it’s not clear whether it’s through in the photo ..

            not pass-through. and if you have more photos of Abrams’ forehead, and this is with damage from any ammunition, share it with the public. and so I have a through-penetration of the T-72 forehead, though it’s from the anti-aircraft dragon.
            1. +1
              8 October 2014 16: 09
              Cojone Eh. Probably the leader in the number of photos. AGM-65 pierced forehead and side of tower
        5. +1
          7 October 2014 18: 07
          the forehead of the tower, the trunk is visible to the right, but not the fact that the penetration is through
  14. +8
    7 October 2014 11: 48
    The main thing to know where to shoot!
    1. MBA78
      +1
      7 October 2014 13: 30
      bottles of incendiary phosphorus or nano-acid mixture
  15. evilrussian
    +1
    7 October 2014 12: 02
    Good article. Abrams is a powerful enemy. It is necessary to study all qualities, both positive and negative.
    Our tanks are not perfect either.
  16. +1
    7 October 2014 12: 05
    Did the third photo of T44 remind me of one?
    1. +3
      7 October 2014 13: 10
      Very similar:
      T-44


      Tank c 3rd photo

  17. +4
    7 October 2014 13: 57
    Quote: voyaka uh
    28 combat losses - for the entire 2 Iraqi war, not
    only for 2003.
    90% of the photos are about 5 tanks sfotkannyh
    from different angles. The most destroyed of them - on landmines or destroyed by stormtroopers after a hit (destruction if it is impossible to evacuate).


    One of the cemeteries of American technology in Iraq.
    How do you compose? About 5 tanks from different angles? laughing :

    1. +3
      7 October 2014 13: 59
      here it seems they are 11 pieces I used to count. but most of the Yankees will repair.
      1. +1
        8 October 2014 12: 18
        Quote: Kars
        here it seems they are 11 pieces I used to count. but most of the Yankees will repair.

        Where is 11 from? I only counted 8 (of which one is in doubt). Only 2 of them are irretrievably lost (and that is not a fact).
  18. +1
    7 October 2014 14: 09
    Compared to domestic tanks, namely the T-72, the abrams looks something like this.

    Armor: t-72 << m1a2

    Crew protection: t-72 << m1a2

    Firepower: t-72> m1a2 (excluding uranium-core shells)

    Hard course: t-72 = m1a2

    Travel on soft ground: t-72> m1a2 (possibly >>)

    Travel distance / Fuel consumption: t-72 >> m1a2

    Cost: t-72 >> m1a2

    ease of operation t-72 >> m1a2

    The main drawback of domestic tank building is the fatal undermining of the BK. And so in fact dofiga sheets of armor, we can also weld, but this is not included in our doctrine.
    1. +1
      8 October 2014 17: 36
      Quote: Tjeck
      Firepower: t-72> m1a2 (excluding uranium-core shells)

      For fun - by what parameters?
      1. 0
        8 October 2014 19: 45
        the presence of guided weapons, high-explosive impact and stable rate of fire due to the automatic loader.
    2. Князь
      0
      13 October 2014 15: 59
      Our armor is dynamically based, and the tungsten core is not inferior to the uranium one.
      And as one old tanker said: "Give me a T-72 and my crew and I Abrams you ** in all the holes"
  19. +1
    7 October 2014 14: 09
    The author reprinted the article from the site of Courage.
  20. +2
    7 October 2014 14: 18
    Quote: Kars
    here it seems they are 11 pieces I used to count. but most of the Yankees will repair.


    Are you seriously writing this or are you kidding me? Do you think the Americans will bring these ruins for repair in the USA?
    For them, the only fate, the local garbage.
    1. +4
      7 October 2014 14: 26
      Quote: quilted jacket
      Are you seriously writing this or are you kidding me? Do you think the Americans will bring these ruins for repair in the USA?

      Of course they’ll be lucky. Didn’t you know how Americans restore abrams?
      Quote: quilted jacket
      For them, the only fate, the local garbage.

      I’m pretty sure that even the decommissioned Yankees will be taken back to their homeland. They will drop the Hammers M113 and so on.
  21. 0
    7 October 2014 14: 39
    Quote: 0255
    this is the same nonsense as the memoirs of German tankers about how they easily destroyed 100-200 pieces of Soviet T-34s per minute.

    not really nonsense
    During the war, there were quite a few officer officers who adored crowd attacks without training for well-fortified positions. on the same Prokhorovka, they wanted to put General Rotmistrov under trial for monstrous tactical decisions. All this greatly increased the losses, but in no way spoke of the real strength of the Red Army.
    1. 0
      8 October 2014 12: 24
      Quote: yehat
      not really nonsense
      During the war, there were quite a few officer officers who adored crowd attacks without training for well-fortified positions. on the same Prokhorovka, they wanted to put General Rotmistrov under trial for monstrous tactical decisions. All this greatly increased the losses, but in no way spoke of the real strength of the Red Army.

      By and large, I disagree, although there were enough commanders and reptiles, but each crew individually still wants to live, I exclude the situation with the wrecking of 100-200 T34 (at that time exceeding all German tanks except the tiger). But what is a real fact is the huge losses (even with the numerical superiority of tanks on our part) from enemy aircraft, which for the first years reigned supreme. Judging by the book by David Porter (maybe he’s not an authority, I don’t know much), German aviation and artillery (due to excellent aviation intelligence) inflicted major losses.
  22. +3
    7 October 2014 14: 42
    didn’t you know how Americans restore Abrams?


    He even watched the film, but restored it and partially modernized it, tanks there, including those who visited Iraq, after no combat damage. After undermining, a shell hit, etc. there is practically no reason to restore, the rigidity of the structure is violated, internal equipment and mechanisms burn out (damaged). The repair of such heavily damaged tanks makes sense only in war conditions with an acute shortage of BT.
    So their fate, the local garbage.
    1. +1
      7 October 2014 14: 49
      Quote: quilted jacket
      Am tanks, including those who visited Iraq, after non-combat damage.

      you even watched a movie badly.
      Quote: quilted jacket
      Repair of such heavily damaged tanks makes sense only in war conditions with an acute shortage of BT.

      Americans don’t care.
      1. +2
        7 October 2014 15: 05
        I will not argue with you about this, stay with your opinion, about the all-powerful USA and the invincible "Abrams" smile .
        1. +4
          7 October 2014 15: 08
          Quote: quilted jacket
          I will not argue with you about this, stay with your opinion about the all-powerful USA and the invincible "Abrams"

          Of course you can’t argue how obscene is wrong. At the same time, I never said that the abrams is invincible. But the methods of its restoration could have been seen. And thanks to this, it’s very difficult to distinguish a wrecked-destroyed tank.
          1. +1
            7 October 2014 15: 33
            Of course you can’t argue how wrongly wrong

            Of course, of course, just don’t worry much, it’s harmful.
            1. +5
              7 October 2014 19: 58
              Quote: quilted jacket
              Of course, of course, just don’t worry much, it’s harmful.

              why am I worried about the majority of visitors to this site and articles about armored vehicles that know my attitude to abrams very well. And by the way, abrash is still better than the vaunted leopard 2
              1. +1
                8 October 2014 00: 38
                Quote: Kars
                why am I worried about the majority of visitors to this site and articles about armored vehicles that know my attitude to abrams very well. And by the way, abrash is still better than the vaunted leopard 2

                It's just that the Abrams is a war-tested tank, and the Leopard is certainly cool but "unfired" !!!
        2. Князь
          0
          13 October 2014 16: 40
          Gak said one person "there are only two opinions: mine and mine again" smile
    2. +1
      7 October 2014 23: 21
      Quote: quilted jacket
      Repair of such heavily damaged tanks makes sense only in war conditions with an acute shortage of BT.

      1.Since 1995 tank not produced... The only tank plant in the United States, the Detroit Arsenal plant in Detroit closed and demolished.
      (According to Wikia, the truth is not clear how they were going to deliver 2013 pieces to Egypt in 1200)
      2. "Lima Tank Plant" (Lima, Ohio, owned by "General Dynamics") - ONLY modernizing.


      IMHO: nobody does boxes for a long time, therefore they drag scrap for repair

      look here:


      http://dokonline.com/dokumentalnie-filmi/14697-megazavody-tank-abrams-m1-nationa

      l-geographic-megafactories-tank-abrams-m1-2006-.html
  23. +3
    7 October 2014 14: 58
    Still knocked out "Abrams" in Iraq. For those who declare about 5 pieces:
    1. +2
      7 October 2014 15: 02
      There are crashed and stuck and requiring minimal repair, and from the fire at Camp Doha 1990
      1. +1
        7 October 2014 15: 12
        But how do they differ from the padded ones?
        the first tiger-1 was captured at all when the driver drove into the ditch, frightened by gun shots
  24. +3
    7 October 2014 15: 13
    It’s not entirely clear why it’s so calm, the crew is evacuated without fear of enemy fire? Was it struck from far from the ATGM?
  25. +2
    7 October 2014 15: 16
    Quote: Kars
    By the way, this is my first tank, although it is likely that the choice was greatly influenced by the picture)))

    such a good, beautiful, big TARGET ...
  26. +1
    7 October 2014 15: 40
    More about the "Abrams" in Iraq, some photos are repeated with the previous ones, but there are also new shots:
  27. +2
    7 October 2014 16: 22
    Quote: MBA78
    bottles of incendiary phosphorus or nano-acid mixture


    Bottles with incendiary-phosphorus or nano-acid mixture, you say? smile(first part of the video):
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. +1
    7 October 2014 18: 09
    Quote: icas
    Canisters with whiskey? ..



    They are French - they have wine wink
  30. +1
    7 October 2014 19: 12
    That the Abrams, that the Merkavs did not encounter modern means of struggle. There are articles in the net where sand devils burned a column of armored vehicles. One mi24 gutted the armor. Used anti-tank missiles and nurses. And then he finished off with a course bullet.
  31. +1
    7 October 2014 19: 31
    The article is very interesting, it is always useful to know about the probable opponent, but I would like to wish the person who posted the article the next time, before posting the article, please check the spelling with Ozhegov’s dictionary. No offense, on the third or fourth spelling remark, the site refused to accept corrections. Reading is just hard, for those who can read in the correct Russian language. hi
  32. +1
    7 October 2014 19: 39
    learn enemy equipment ...
  33. +1
    7 October 2014 20: 06
    we have a lot to learn: an additional engine is a useful thing. He became in a position-started and the radio works and electricity, at least charge a mobile phone, but keep ice cream in the refrigerator. fuel eats little, minimum noise, minimum thermal radiation. the main engine resource is not spent. Yes, and there is a modern generator of 15-20 thousand ... In any large and not so city you can find and replace)))
  34. +2
    7 October 2014 20: 19
    Having examined the picture with the dimensions of the side projections of the Abrams and T-72, I will allow myself to note - "Valiko, I will tell you one clever thing, just do not be offended" (c) c / f "Mimino" - The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls And this is confirmed by life experience and practice. laughing
  35. 0
    7 October 2014 21: 02
    Far from tank building, but it's nice to read the material structured and on the case of military "hardware"
  36. 0
    7 October 2014 21: 12
    It would be nice if Shoigu brought together our tanks with "Abrams" at the tank biathlon. If only you could see what the "Abrams" are. But I think that the Americans will go to these competitions z.a.b.z.d.y.t! And purely theoretically, its weight is not conducive to the passage of bridges and swamps. And it's easier to get into it, because the power-to-weight ratio of the "Abram" is probably less than that of our tank, which means that the maneuverability will be worse. Plus, the height is even greater (the higher the target, the greater the range of a direct shot at it!), Plus the transverse projection area is larger. And in the history of the battles of "Abramov" there were no clashes with a real well-trained, competent, stubborn and evil enemy. I am not talking about our generals Frost and Dirt.
  37. Everest2014
    0
    7 October 2014 22: 32
    The Kokland had heaps of modifications of the T-72, the fact that the dill removed one of their tanks does not mean that it is Russian. List of modifications of the t-72 "nevmerlay" tank:
    T-72AG (T-72-AG; Ukraine) - The option of upgrading the tank, offered for export. The main components and assemblies of the T-80UD and T-84 tanks were used. The tank is equipped with a 6TD engine (6TD-1 with a capacity of 1000 liters. From. Or 6TD-2 with a capacity of 1200 liters. From.), A new FCS, a new built-in dynamic protection, modified MTO. Installation of the KBM-1M gun is possible. The mass of the tank increased to 46 tons, and the speed to 65 km / h.
    T-72AMG (T-72-AMG; Ukraine) - An upgrade option similar to the T-72AG, but without replacing the power plant.
    T-72UMG (T-72-UMG; Ukraine) - An upgrade option similar to the T-72AMG, but with a different installation of the DZ kit on the tower.
    T-72-120 (Ukraine) - The option of upgrading the tank, offered for export to NATO countries. The tank is equipped with a 120 mm KBM-2 smoothbore tank gun (140 mm caliber guns are possible). A niche is installed in the rear of the tower, in which there is an automatic loader with 22 unitary shots, the rest of the ammunition (20 shells) is located in the aft of the fighting compartment. The shots used comply with NATO standards. The 12,7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun received remote control, similar to that on the T-80UD tank. The fire control system, auxiliary weapons, powerplant and protection of the T-72-120 are completely similar to the T-72AG.
    T-72MP (T-72-MR; Ukraine) - Ukrainian-Czech-French version of the modernization of the tank, offered for export. Further improvement of the T-72AG, but within the framework of NATO cooperation. A combined day-night laser sighting system with stabilization in two planes SAVAN 15MP of the French company SAGEM and a panoramic sight of the French company SFIM (similar to those installed on the Leclerc tank) is installed on the tank. At the request of the customer, it is planned to install a Shtora-2 type anti-tank system, modern radio and navigation equipment, a computer-based combat control system with a tactical display and other electronic equipment of leading Western companies. Installation of the KBM-1M gun is possible.
    T-72E (Ukraine) - A tank modernization option, created at the Kharkov Armored Repair Plant in cooperation with the HKBD, offered for export. Installed engine 5TDFE 900 hp (5TDFMA-1 with a capacity of 1050 hp for the T-72E1 variant), while maintaining the old cooling system and without significant modification of the case, an autonomous electric unit EA-10 with a capacity of 10 kW, air conditioning, transmission with increased efficiency, built-in DZ "Knife" on tower and hinged on the body.
    T-72UA1 (Ukraine) - The option of upgrading the tank of the Kiev mechanical-repair plant, offered for export. A 5TDFMA-1 engine with a capacity of 1050 hp was installed, while maintaining the old cooling system and without significant modifications to the hull, a transmission with increased efficiency, a 12,7 mm DShKM anti-aircraft machine gun, an integrated Knife DZ on the tower and a mounted on the hull. Installation of auxiliary power plant EA-10-2 with a capacity of 10 kW is possible.
    T-72UA4 (T-72UA4; Ukraine) - A tank upgrade option similar to the T-72UA1 offered for Kazakhstan. The machine has an improved sighting and observation complex of the commander with a closed-type anti-aircraft machine-gun mount, and a Warta complex of optoelectronic countermeasures.
  38. 0
    7 October 2014 23: 16
    A question for the practitioners: in the Abrams, the guide (tension) rollers do not protrude (almost) forward beyond the size in his case of the lower frontal part. Our tanks protrude beyond the VLD. Does this lead to a greater chance of injury when overcoming obstacles? And one more thing: all these rollers are covered with rather frivolous (mud flaps - what else to call them)? I remember the T-34 - but they also had quite solid structures were stripped, the last ones were tough, I think, on the T-62. Why did you switch to rubber (for T-72)? Don't you need front track protection? I remember that they wrote about the Second World War that the German 20-mm guns were demolishing the rollers.
  39. 0
    7 October 2014 23: 46
    A very interesting first photo from the article - it turns out that if the Abrams tower is rotated 30-45 degrees, then the driver is not so easy to get out of the tank ... The tower will clearly interfere ...
  40. 0
    8 October 2014 08: 19
    It seems that the reconnaissance of the militia near Debaltseve recorded abrams in a large pile of other equipment. I wonder if they are needed for study by Russian engineers and designers, or is everything already known?
    1. 0
      8 October 2014 17: 31
      Quote: Pathfinder
      I wonder if they are needed for study by Russian engineers and designers, or is everything already known?

      They told me that back in Soviet times at the plant named after Malysheva stood Leopard and Abrams ... So I think that apart from the latest bells and whistles, everything has long been known !!!
  41. wanderer_032
    0
    8 October 2014 09: 53
    Grozen Abrashkin, in the latest modification, whatever you say.
    Of course, we are lagging behind in terms of LMS instruments, but I hope that with the appearance of MBT on the Armata platform, we will cancel this lag.
    It’s a pity that the T-72B3 didn’t want to do this, but it happens.
    Although the T-72B3M may partially resolve this.
    By the way, the US mechanized brigade "Iron Horses" was transferred to the Baltic states.
  42. 0
    8 October 2014 10: 33
    Quote: amigo1969
    Hmmm ... Bradley's dimensions are "gunner's dream"))

    Yes, personally, I would take such a house to myself in gardening. I have everything I need for life, but I would like to clarify, but is the toilet warm?
    1. wanderer_032
      +1
      8 October 2014 10: 54
      Quote: romashki74
      All that is needed for life is, but I would like to clarify, but is the toilet warm?


      Bio, inside the BMP.
      Only a little house will come out a little expensive. laughing

      By the way, yesterday on TV on Zvezda, all ears were buzzing that a mechanized brigade "Iron Horse", 800 people l / s was transferred to the Baltic states (just did not remember to Lithuania or Latvia), how much equipment was transferred was not specified, but the Abrams tanks were mentioned and BMP "Bradley".
      So the "houses" are already coming to us, maybe on the occasion you will be able to find a suitable one. laughing
  43. Don't fuck
    -1
    8 October 2014 17: 24
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: quilted jacket
    Of course, of course, just don’t worry much, it’s harmful.

    why am I worried about the majority of visitors to this site and articles about armored vehicles that know my attitude to abrams very well. And by the way, abrash is still better than the vaunted leopard 2


    And what about the t-90? I don’t know just, but I would like to.
    1. +3
      8 October 2014 17: 38
      Quote: Don't Buck
      And what about the t-90? I don’t know just, but I would like

      negative, but I'm biased because I believe that the modernization of Omsk and Leningrad T-80 had more prospects
      1. 0
        11 October 2014 16: 07
        Quote: Kars
        but I'm biased because I believe that the modernization of Omsk and Leningrad T-80s had more prospects
        Well, it’s very possible that your dreams will come true soon ... very soon.
  44. Arix88
    -1
    10 October 2014 14: 53
    M1 was weak, but M1A1 has more power!
    The only Soviet tank capable of competing with it was the T-80U / D.
    And then at night, I would vseravno merge (only 50-60 T-80U had thermal imagers).
    1. Князь
      0
      12 October 2014 15: 12
      The T-90 has a gun that at least 1000 meters pierces the frontal armor of any NATO tank
    2. Князь
      0
      13 October 2014 15: 50
      read about abrams http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm
    3. Verden
      +1
      14 October 2014 17: 38
      Nonsense. Abrams, of course, is not bad, but the 125mm caliber should not be underestimated.
  45. Florist
    -3
    11 October 2014 13: 15
    Quote: UNCLE
    That the Abrams, that the Merkavs did not encounter modern means of struggle. There are articles in the net where sand devils burned a column of armored vehicles. One mi24 gutted the armor. Used anti-tank missiles and nurses. And then he finished off with a course bullet.

    This article is just an invention of the author)
    1. Князь
      0
      13 October 2014 16: 40
      well let's say not quite fiction lol
  46. waggish
    0
    11 October 2014 16: 48
    Tank to fight !!!!!!!!!
  47. 0
    31 October 2014 18: 30
    let’s say, the article contains the author’s speculations, not supported by specific facts.
  48. Beiderlei
    0
    1 December 2014 15: 32
    Tank dodger!
  49. Igor_vonShluker
    0
    4 May 2015 17: 58
    They would have known a little more about tank themes there, would have understood that all these speculations are nonsense. Uranium armor may not be the best solution, but the protection is definitely reliable. GTE may not be the best solution, but not the worst one either. Plus about missiles, as has been said more than once, your diesels shine no less, and if a rocket needs to find a tank, it will give a shit about your turbine or diesel, it will find you. Thirdly, all these stupid Russian nationalist jokes about nigra joe, etc. This is all done so that the tank was much safer. The ammunition staked, there are no merry-go-rounds. This, as practice has already shown, has greatly affected the survivability of the crew and this is argued by Vani, who never sat in the tank, and if they were, they were brainwashed in the army. And there is still a category of those who came under fire, but the tank was not pierced, for everyone with a Russian tank was pierced, already in heaven. Usually the tower flies up and there they’re already lying, whether anyone lands alive. Here is such a brief excursion criticism of nationalist statements.
    1. 0
      12 May 2015 01: 05
      This is all (like uranium armor, on Leopards it is not) made from a lack of intelligence - an automatic loader can be made so that it can also carry shells from the stern niche.
      In the T-72, the main cases of ignition of BC from falling into shells that are stacked at the edges of the tower and not in the AZ, so smart people do not take them with them, or spend them first.
  50. A.
    0
    13 January 2019 12: 10
    Good abrams-burned abrams
  51. 0
    12 December 2019 05: 23
    wonderful car! Head and shoulders above the entire Soviet tank industry.

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

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