Tank "Abrams": the legend and reality

Vulnerability analysis tank M1A1 / A2 during use in Iraq in 2003

The Second Iraq War revealed the weaknesses of the American tanks МХNUMXА1 “Abrams” and finally dispelled the myth of its invulnerability, carefully planted during the last decade.

Frontal armor of the tower and corps "Abrams" still provide good protection against anti-tank weapons in service with the Iraqi army. However, side and stern projections remain vulnerable even to grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.

There were also reported cases of the failure of tanks by fire from the stern of both the 25-mm guns of "their" BMD Bradley and 30-mm BMP-2 guns. It is not a secret that the American designers were forced to sacrifice the hull board armor, which protects against 30-mm guns armor-piercing shells only at the course angle + - 30 degrees, where 70 mm side panels are installed, not fitting into the weight limits. The remaining sections of the bead are from mild steel 5 mm, followed by body shell 30 mm. Such a barrier is affected by 30 mm cannons BMP-2 cannons with 2000 m (when using armor-piercing sabot projectiles), when using conventional armor-piercing shells this distance is somewhat lower.

According to foreign experts, PG-7В rocket grenades with probability 55% strike Abrams in the side of the tower and the side of the hull above the rinks. C probability 70% - in the roof of the tower.

It also turned out that the “Abrams” in the field conditions “burn” more fuel than they are supposed to use at a normal rate. There were difficulties with the delivery of spare parts for the failed machines, as a result of which many damaged tanks could not be repaired and they were disassembled into spare parts to repair their more successful counterparts.

According to official sources, the following conclusions can be made about the vulnerability of the Abrams tank based on the actions of the US 3 Mechanized Division:
Missile "Cornet" in Iraq
- Top, sides, and rear armor are susceptible to damage.
- Registered cases where 30 mm armor-piercing shells pierced the tank from the rear.
-The left and right side of the side screens, breaks through the RPG.
-Cosmetic damage with the defeat of anti-personnel shots to the RPG.
-Not noted cases of tank damage by anti-tank mines (as opposed to 1991 of the year).
-The hatching panels on the tower were working normally, the registered cases of hitting the combat unit did not result in the death of the crew.
-The engine has demonstrated low reliability and extremely high fire risk.
- For a complete defeat of a tank, an 1 thermite grenade is enough (inwards), a Mayverik 2 missile, or a BPS shot (in the area of ​​the battle pack)
-To deactivate a tank, one RPG shot on the sides of the hull is enough.

The anti-cumulative screens penetrated even the PG-7В grenades (this is one of the oldest types of RPG-7 grenades), and its cumulative jet were enough for screen punch and side armor. There were cases of irretrievable losses due to ignition of auxiliary power units (APU) and / or ignition of tanks with fuel and lubricant reserves, which fell into the engine compartment and thereby ignited the engine. So one Abrams burned (“because of the secondary effect”), which was fired at from an DShK 7-mm machine gun. The bullet hit the left rear of the tower, where the APU is located, pierced the box, disabled the installation, and burning fuel and oil rushed down from it into the logging procurement system. There was a fire of the power plant, which is completely burned out, the tank is not subject to recovery. By the way, about the APU tank "Abrams". Based on the materials of the US Armored Army Directorate (TACOM) and the US Ground Forces Experience Study Center (CALL) of the 12,7 Mechanized Division for 3, the day of the operation with enemy fire, or as a result of friendly fire, the entire 21 Abrams tank and the BMN M23 / MXNNXX tank were hit by the MXN tank and the M1 / M1 tank and the BMN tank "Bradley." Fifteen of them (including nine Abrams and six Bradley) were hit from the RPG-2. One tank of this division as a result of firing from small weapons and, as a result, the uncertain actions of the driver, fell from a bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died.

After the official end of Operation Freedom for Iraq, the losses of coalition armored vehicles not only did not diminish, but on the contrary increased. The main enemy for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are now anti-tank grenade launchers and land mines, which are installed by Iraqi partisans, on patrol routes of American troops.

For example, 27. 10. 2003 in 40 km from Baghdad, northeast of the city of Ballad, the latest modification of the Abrams tank М1А2 SEP (System Enhanced Package) from the US 4 th division was undermined. The tank was blown up on a self-made bomb, which consisted of several artillery shells. As a result of the explosion, the tank tower flew off to 30 meters.

Also, the tank’s fuel tanks, located in the front of the tank on both sides of the driver, did not confirm their reliability. In both cases, contact with them resulted in the destruction of the tank. In addition to problems resulting from enemy fire, the tank M1A1 also showed low operational reliability and a very high fire hazard.

The presence of a large number of complex and failure-prone systems and subsystems has led to the fact that many machines simply were not able to perform their tasks. According to American experts, such systems include a fire control system, a radio station and other electronic systems, which should be regularly checked and checked after exposure to vibration and strong shocks during a battle.

Firepower

The firepower of the tank was more than enough to defeat outdated Soviet and Chinese tanks. BPS M829 pierced the frontal armor of Iraqi tanks at all distances of fire.
The cumulative M830A1 was used to bombard bunkers and armored vehicles.
The most effective weapon of the Abrams tank in a city battle was an 12,7-mm machine gun mounted on a turret. Usually, Iraqi resistance groups, disguised, allowed tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to a distance of less than 100 m, and then opened salvo fire from large-caliber machine guns and RPGs. In such situations, the 12,7-mm (50 caliber) machine gun mounted on the turret was most effective, hitting the enemy in any light-weight shelters. When the 120-mm tank gun was fired, it was mainly HEAT or MPAT-projectiles that were used. After reports were received regarding the effectiveness of the use of machine guns in close combat in urban environments, a second and sometimes a third machine gun of 7,62-mm caliber began to be installed on the towers.

Back in 2003, there was a case of defeat of the Abrams with something not quite clear. The bugs on bigler.ru came to the conclusion that it was a special bullet released from an MFR, possibly uranium and / or active-reactive. Well, I had to get to the right place ...

In preparing the data used by the federation of American scientists (www.fas.org) and other open sources.

Comments

[Maddog]

1. The frontal armor of the tower and hull of the Abrams still provides good protection against anti-tank weapons in service with the Iraqi army. However, the side and aft projections remain vulnerable even to grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.
- piggy delirium. RPG Tandem Shots [/B][/ i] GUARANTEED [b][I]they hit ALL main battle tanks at the design range, regardless of the point of impact - on the forehead, turret, side and stern. On the example of the British Challenger, it was shown that when the PG-7VR hits the central part of the projection of the tank, the ammunition stowage detonates, and the tank's hull bursts at the welds. There are no invulnerable tanks and will never be. It is much easier to increase the penetration of the shot than to create one capable of resisting this shot the armor.
2. MBT "Abrams" is by no means the most protected of the tanks developed in the West. These include, first of all, "Leopard2A4-6" and the French "Leclerc." The combined armor "Chobham" installed on British MBTs is in no way inferior to the American one with a uranium layer, and when exposed to cumulative shots it surpasses it.
There is no active armor on the "Abrams", just as there is no means of destroying incoming warheads of shots, which means that in any serious war this tank will not live long.
3. Quote from the article -The firepower of the tank was more than enough to destroy obsolete Soviet and Chinese tanks. BPS M829 pierced the frontal armor of Iraqi tanks at all ranges of fire[i] [/ i] - it's interesting, at what distances? How much exactly? If up to 4 km, then there is nothing to brag about. The 120mm German cannon installed on the Abrams is the same as on the Leopard and should hit the MBT at this distance. But in terms of efficiency, it is hopelessly inferior to even the old Soviet 125-mm smoothbore gun.
4. As for the Chinese MBT, it’s just funny to read. China is now producing probably the most high-tech, most secure and completely new concept main battle tank.
In general, the article struck a wild, at the level of the yellow press, unprofessionalism - if you do not understand the issue, it is better not to write.

[Escander]

--- "One tank of this division, as a result of shelling from small arms and, as a result, uncertain actions of the driver, fell from the bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died."

Cho are so timid? Well, they shoot at your tank from a berdank and immediately fall from the bridge?
And I already spoke about the APU. Pendos, it’s like they wanted to remove it under armor. Or didn’t you find a place?
Active armor is not used in order not to hit your infantry type.
And they covered the shortcomings of their Abram with the millions of destroyed T-72s, this is their traditional PR, such as "our bad, then yours is even worse."

Maddog

--- "4. About Chinese MBT is just ridiculous to read. ”
The author refers to Iraqi tanks of Chinese assembly, made on the basis of obsolete models from the USSR, and not the latest Chinese MBT.


--- "One tank of this division, as a result of shelling from small arms and, as a result, uncertain actions of the driver, fell from the bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died."

Cho are so timid? Well, they shoot at your tank from a berdank and immediately fall from the bridge?
And I already spoke about the APU. Pendos, it’s like they wanted to remove it under armor. Or didn’t you find a place?
Active armor is not used in order not to hit your infantry type.
And they covered the shortcomings of their Abram with the millions of destroyed T-72s, this is their traditional PR, such as "our bad, then yours is even worse."

Maddog

--- "4. About Chinese MBT is just ridiculous to read. ”
The author refers to Iraqi tanks of Chinese assembly, made on the basis of obsolete models from the USSR, and not the latest Chinese MBT.


--- "One tank of this division, as a result of shelling from small arms and, as a result, uncertain actions of the driver, fell from the bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died."

Cho are so timid? Well, they shoot at your tank from a berdank and immediately fall from the bridge?
And I already spoke about the APU. Pendos, it’s like they wanted to remove it under armor. Or didn’t you find a place?
Active armor is not used in order not to hit your infantry type.
And they covered the shortcomings of their Abram with the millions of destroyed T-72s, this is their traditional PR, such as "our bad, then yours is even worse."

Maddog

--- "4. About Chinese MBT is just ridiculous to read. ”
The author refers to Iraqi tanks of Chinese assembly, made on the basis of obsolete models from the USSR, and not the latest Chinese MBT.


And what about our site after the holidays? Someone took too much?

[Smirnov Vadim]

update adding comments

[Michael]

To the above:
1. The Negro Joe, who drags shells and pushes them into the tang, should also be attributed to the advantages of the above mentioned tank. the gun.
2. The exhaust gases from the engine in the infrared range are visible from space.
3. The driver driver - a suicide bomber - the tower must be turned back to open the upper hatch, the lower one is not provided.
4. Kick panels - a separate topic.

[fantast]

Quote: Michael

The driver-suicide-the tower must be turned back to open the upper hatch, the bottom is not provided.

yes, it is very original technical solution

[SkiF_RnD]

As for the driver, this is a myth.
http://youtu.be/5FzaSmh1Fgo

[Jury]

"Tandem RPG shots [/ b] [/ i] GUARANTEED [b] [i] hit ALL main battle tanks at the design range, regardless of the place of impact - in the forehead, tower, side and stern." ------- dear, but how do you give in numbers the armor resistance of the Abrams' forehead (well, ballistic holes - that's understandable) and the index of that RPG shot that will break through the Abrams in the forehead!
“Using the example of the English Challenger, it was shown that when the PG-7VR hits the central part of the projection of the tank, the ammunition rack detonates, and the tank hull bursts at the welded seams. There are no invulnerable tanks and never will be. "----- the challenger generally showed itself not from the best side, take into account the penetration of its NLD with RPGs - yes, are you equalizing all western tanks?
"There is no active armor on the Abrams" ---- already there, google to help)
"It's interesting, at what distances? How much specifically? If up to 4 km, then there is nothing to brag about. The 120-mm German cannon installed on the Abrams is the same as on the Leopard and should hit MBT at such a distance. its efficiency is hopelessly inferior to even the old Soviet 125mm smoothbore cannon. " ------- gun indices in the studio, right now we will compare the survivability, ballistics and other indicators of the M-256 with you, and as you said to the old smooth-bore gun - someone will remain n .....)

"The advantages of the above mentioned tank should also include the negro Joe, who carries shells and pushes them into the tank." ------ not only the loader is provided in the abrams - these are all stupid, you alone are smart, do you even know why the idea of ​​AZ was born? Do you really think they just wanted to increase the rate of fire?
"Exhaust gases from the engine in the infrared range are visible from space." ----- did you personally see it ?, and the T-80 in IR means that it doesn’t emit fucking at all, right?
"The driver is a suicide bomber - the tower must be turned back, to open the upper hatch, the lower one is not provided." ------- oooommmg, how do they drive with their heads out when the gun is in azimuth position?
"Knockout panels are a separate topic." ---- yes, yes, especially considering that they tried to implement them even on the same failed T-95?, if everything was so good in tank building, it would be worth resorting to decompression of the layout ?, to the same knockout panels on that didn’t think about the failed T-95?

In general, read the reports of the GABTU guys!

why no one else in the world has taken the path of tight layout (except for Chinese copy pasteur of course)? AND?

[Jury]

carousel packing of the ammo, and even throughout the battlefield - it did not justify itself at all ... you can see the schematic ideas and sketches of "tanks of the future" - all unambiguously for placing the crews separately from the ammo and the fuel in the reserved space .. the whole ammo at once detonates very rarely, but in other cases, if anything, there will be a better chance of surviving and even preserving at least partial combat capability of the vehicle - not like sitting on a powder keg of fuel and semi-combustible shots (certainly not unitary, which are much less explosive), and even in a tight space - in short, just give fire.
and as for the layout solutions, nothing much has changed in the T-90, unlike the T-72.

about all of you so hotly obscured knockout panels --- the armored partition can withstand the detonation of 2-3 ammunition from the stack (at once the BC detonated a few times, it just led to some kind of semi-incredible combination of circumstances), the knockout panels worked and paid off --- that is of course not a panacea, but it’s better than sitting surrounded by semi-combustible sleeves - a real powder keg, and why was the T-72 nicknamed the flying tower ??

there are no invulnerable tanks, but the Soviet school of tank building was obviously vicious and erroneous ... there were attempts to move away from it, even with the union and in the Russian Federation subsequently ... the same vol. 187 (failed, which is much more successful than this parody of vol. 188 - actually the same T-72), there’s no money or money as always, to put something like that on the stream ..... and the uncle from the telly as always shouts that the T90 has no taxes in the world and will break everyone ..... too lazy to go GABTU reports to see.

[Escander]

Yuri? Who’s so sweet about your head!
Do you regularly visit tea with your aunt in Pindostan?
I, brother, didn’t read the reports of the State Academic Technical University, sorry. We fought, that's all. On the T-72.
I can say that you, Yuri, saw the tank in the picture on the Internet, and at the parade (maybe). And therefore, Yuri, good advice to you - do not poke around where the horse did not pop.
Friendly advice.

[Big skeptic]

Guys, at all times, our tanks took only their quantity. Unfortunately, our army does not have this advantage now. Knowing this, the political and military leadership of the Russian Federation maintains inflated neutrality, and for the past twenty years has preferred to fight only on its territory (in Chechnya), and sometimes it dares to fuck Georgia. This probably says something. God forbid we compare clearly in a real battle whose tanks burn better.

[Jrvin]

Well, if you recall the 2nd world, what was the use of super tricked panthers and tigers against real wooden t-34s? they are even compared very often as a tractor and a Mercedes ... ours were taken by price, practicality and strength. You look at the price how much does the same t-90 and abrams cost ... our time will be 2 times cheaper, well this does not say that it is 2 times worse? that is, you get paid less and you get a tank, even better than new models of foreign equipment, but 100% no worse ... and in some respects better, for example, the patency of our tanks ... that’s why it’s a tank to drive everywhere and not on asphalt like an abrams ... do you imagine it in a wetland? it's all forks ...

[Old Man57]

Quote: Jrvin

Well, if you recall the 2nd world ...

Listen, PIN. OS MASKED, stop lying ... especially since you're lying stupidly and ineptly ... and for what you get paid in your .indo. And money.!?

[Jrvin]

And who is lying? And I’m a root ZABAIKALETS and not some kind of nya, I live here in conditions close to military ... so you don’t have to teach me Old Man57 to teach life.

[SkiF_RnD]

Until mid-34, the Germans pierced T-42s only with 88mm flasks. Wooden? Your head is wooden, not a thirty-four.
The "Abrams" passability is pretty good, that's really smart about making up fables! Above in the comments, link to the video in my post. There, see how Abrams walks on the asphalt. The T-90 has advantages, and serious ones. New vydumyvat-patriots denigrate, they say, they invent all sorts of things for themselves.

[Jury]

"Yuri? Who gave you a shit in your head like that?"
Do you regularly visit tea with your aunt in Pindostan?
I, bro, "GABTU reports" have not read, I'm sorry too. "------- I hear people, and how do you know that someone shit in my head if you don’t undertake to dispute anything with facts ?!, you have an uncle from a TV from You told about "carbon monoxide" about tanks and do you think this is the truth of the last resort?, but the fact that you have not read the reports of the GABTU - I already understood that you probably do not get enough gray matter, it is much easier for you to drag yourself away from all kinds of cheap beer " military affairs "and" carbon monoxide forces "... but they just shit in your head .... don't get angry - I call a spade a spade, and I communicate with cattle how it deserved?, I already communicate with you - like you started Iskander with me !!!
"We fought, that's all. On the T-72." --- and what's next?, you always write just to write something?
"I can say that you, Yuri, saw the tank in the picture on the Internet, and at the parade (maybe). And therefore, Yuri, good advice to you - do not poke your nose where the horse did not stick." ------ the brains have such an excellent property - analytical, if you do not have this - do not level everyone by yourself, but the same reports to the GABTU, the KVTU indicator - is not a secret matter for a long time, but I’m looking at this and I haven’t heard, but you’re trying to teach someone ... so shove your own advice, man ... but deeper, I live with my own head.
I wrote something above, so I never heard any clear counterarguments from you - one shkolota’s diarrhea!, well, I’m saying it as it is!

[CARTRIDGE]

theoretically, such a tank would even be t-34

[Trevis]

Far Abrams!

[frame5]

urapatriotic delirium.
Abrams doesn’t penetrate practically any grenade launchers, its suo complex is the best in the world, the gun is very powerful and the shells for it are updated much more often than ours.
The individual pearls of this article, such as a thermal grenade in the hatch, deserve a bonus. Yeah, and you can still pour a bucket of sand into the stealth engine.

[Joker]

The weakened zone is about 40% of the projection.

There were cases of fire when they got from a small arms into the generator on the tower, fuel flowed out, flowed into the engine, the tank burned down.

The best details in Abrams are the English SLA and the German gun.

According to the LMS - depending on which modification to take, the latter are good.

[PSih2097]

Abrams (M1 Abrams) is an American iron can war chariot for preparing non-Indo-ethnic people for the program of introducing democracy, developed by the central ZOGA for the colonies of the Washington Regional Committee. It is in service with the United States, Australia, Egypt, Kuwait and other uncivilized backyards of humanity. Tsymes is that tanks outside the United States of America were bought with American loans allocated for the purchase of military equipment. Tricky plan!

http://alternathistory.org.ua/zheleznaya-amerikanskaya-boevaya-kolesnitsa-m1-abr
ams

[Maddog]

As for modern shots for RPGs - not at all funny.
http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/arty/griogne/data/ic_nomenrussiaarty
griogne / 19 / - development of FSUE "GNPP Basalt"
And also Panzerfaust 3 (Pzf 3) http://world.guns.ru/grenade/de/panzerfaust-3-r.html is no worse.
It is much cheaper to create a more powerful shot than to increase defense.
On Merkava 3 have already been tested in combat conditions KAZ - on RPG shots - does this mean something? Well done Jews - took and implemented - and we only have chatter ...

[makrus]

Yuri, it is clear that you do not respect our technology, but the military receive what they order on the basis of a doctrine.

Quote: Yuri

there are no invulnerable tanks, but the Soviet school of tank building is obviously vicious and erroneous

THIS YOU ARE BORROWED

[svvaulsh]

What is it that turns out? Molotov cocktail will disable the tank, once in the MTO?

[cVM]

there are tanks which yes, m-48 and even t-72 which didn’t go through modernization

[Motherland]

M1 Abrams is already being upgraded as they can, it has already outlived itself, I think it's time for the Americans to realize that this is a coffin on the tracks.

Quote: svvaulsh

What is it that turns out? Molotov cocktail will disable the tank, once in the MTO?

It can also be disabled from the machine gun. The whole world is far from our experience of wars

[Odessa]

I have formed a strong opinion about some of the commentators, as people who have simply forgotten why and when Abrams was created, as well as his background of appearance, well, "spun off" from the once joint western project Leopard 2, Challenger, Ariete, etc. .. It was created, first of all, to restore balance and "pull up" to parity with the USSR in tanks (before the 70s and 80s, the Western countries had a lag in MBT from the Union). Its main task was also to become a powerful anti-tank weapon before the owls. tank hordes, but not database maintenance in urban environments. And as an enemy, he is still very dangerous for any MBT, and invulnerable tanks have not yet been invented.

[SkiF_RnD]

Abrams was created not as an analogue of the T-72, but as an anti-tank weapon, in fact. A story similar to the confrontation between armored vehicles during the Second World War (although the analogy is incomplete). T-72 is a breakthrough tank. Abrams is a tank destroyer. Therefore, the priorities are different. For ours, this is firepower, and protection (all around, not just the forehead), and reliability, strategic mobility. So that there is enough to the English Channel. And the Abrams is a powerful anti-tank gun with good accuracy, protected in frontal projection. That is why the T-72 received DZ on the turret, on the forehead, and on the sides, as soon as it became possible, and Abrams was "gash" ERA only as part of the modernization of TUSK, in order to adapt to the performance of atypical tasks for him. That is why it doesn’t explode when a BK catches fire - it doesn’t have HEATs in ammunition, only HEATs and BPSs. Knock-out panels save from explosive ignition of charges, and not from the simultaneous detonation of high-explosive shells. That is why such requirements for the weight of our tanks. There were attempts to make a normal tank, but did you make a "cheap" version? This is nonsense, the 50 tonne limit was due to the weight limit for bridges in Central Europe. You can enumerate for a long time, but apparently, there will be no fewer fools.

[kosmos84]

PG-15 FROM 2А28 (thunder) will it freeze or not?

[ruaben]

interesting skirmish with Yuri read . It seems to me that Yuri lives in Israel. he really boiled him this t72 I do not understand nichrome, but if 1 abrams or merkava fells 10 t72 nafig Pindos drain make tanks. ?? nafig bring down tanks with expensive missiles with Apache and A10. if he just came with his forehead, he shoveled 40 t72 pieces

[Demaskinas]

Yuri is an interesting person who does not respect any nation other than the Russian one. His knowledge is extremely small. Its "dense layout" and other annealing is especially amusing.

[Anthrax]

Quote: ruaben

interesting skirmish with Yuri to read wink. It seems to me that Yuri lives in Israel. this T72 wink has really boiled for him, I don’t understand Nichrome, but if 1 Abrams or Merkava brings down 10 T72 nafig Pindos drain tanks. ?? nafig bring down tanks with expensive missiles with Apache and A10. if you just came head-on and shoveled 40 t72 pieces wink

They, pendosy, tanks no longer do.
They upgraded about a thousand Abrams to M1A2, and stopped upgrading.
And the newest tank in 1993 pendostana production.
Since 1993, we built 400-500 new tanks and we have 3 times more tanks.
It’s just that our country is rich, and the USA is poor.
We will starve to death, but rearm the army!

[oleg-sochi68]

Excuse me, but Abrams is just a PR hardware that is not worth the money.

[vylvyn]

Photos are cool. I would look and see.

[cezar)]

"there are no invulnerable tanks, but the Soviet school of tank building is deliberately vicious and erroneous" ----- yes? 187? and it is drawn today in the Russian Federation soaring head how to build a tank with a tower niche dancing with a tambourine around the AZ? And why, apart from the USSR and Chinese copy-paste, the rest of the world hammered a huge bolt on the idea of ​​a dense layout? why today GABTU openly admits all the porosity of a dense layout (but who listens to specialists)? and open fuel tanks and half-burned shots right in the battlefield without any isolation - is there a buzz too? And why in the Russian Federation today is there such a haemorrhage with the question of a simple lengthening of the BOPS core (as one of the simplest ways to increase armor penetration)? ---- Will there be intelligible answers?

Yes, the designers have nothing special to blame, just the doctrine of the use of tanks in the USSR was sweeping and grandiose and actually dictated the layout and design features, for which today we are paying - in the person of ob. 187 seem to have recovered a little from this disease (there are smart people both in design bureaus and in industry, only such a "recovery" by and large is not needed by anyone), but the object he remained in the series went to the "lovely" ob. 188 - now proudly called T-90

"Yuri is an interesting person who does not respect any nation other than Russian. His knowledge is extremely small. Especially amusing is his" dense layout "and other annealing" ---- well, why should Yuri, to your extremely considerable knowledge, Yuri, for example, sometimes reads what they write experts from the GABTU, KVTU are looking, but the respected Demaskinas brightly showed his "knowledge" to his olo neither to the village nor to the city. This is called "at least somehow in ....... it is necessary", only in this case - it would be better to keep quiet, they will take it for a smart one. Such chelas amuse)

[Demaskinas]

Wah, darago, patrallit blue rishil?

Perhaps you decided to demonstrate your unrealistically deep knowledge in the field of tanks and post this message here.

Yuri is inadequate, weaving complete nonsense, I talked to him a lot. To begin with, both you and he should at least find out if this mythical "packing density" exists. You know, trolls like you and Yuri amuse me very much, they look like ordinary clowns who are paid extra for trolling.
I also read and study the GABTU summaries and everything else.

Ololo Do not ascribe to me what I did not say, ololo - only with you.

You are probably trying to look smart, no?

[cezar)]

butthurt? :)

restraining shirt and a few cubes of promidolchik - and the world is again beautiful for you :)

touches youngsters who, from the height of the keyboard, divide the world into "adequate" and "inadequate" hehe :)

"I also read and study the GABTU reports and stuff." ---- especially touches the prefix "... and so on ..." - so go ahead "study" trololoshenka :)

I don’t need to look smart - I’m just like that, but you can’t do it, try - but one continuous bootthurt, steam from your ears and saliva from your mouth :)


"" "does this mythical" density of the layout exist "" "" ---- the troll got burnt :) the dense layout is not mythical, these are quite clear and real constructive and technical solutions, but apparently you have read a book and a half in all in your life - " prikvar "and half of the" 15 year old captain "- and that's because my mother made .. march learn the basics of the basics, and don't make my pants laugh anymore, it's better to re-read sometimes your emotional boothirt before pressing the" add "button :)

[milotchka]

it’s not even the tanks, but who and how uses them (applies)
see the German tanks of 1941 and ours ...
ashamed (not for the Germans)
give the bugs abrams and they would be in the same place as the t-34 and kv ...

I remember ...
My co-worker (Alexei Tikhonovich Fedosov), a former tanker (44-45), really fought in East Prussia
Sherman loved the most (like that !!!) he survived only because he was transferred to the guard of honor after being wounded due to growth

another acquaintance and not only he spoke (T-34 crew) if the first shell flew past (audible !!!) - all from the tank. the Germans didn’t miss the second
that's how they survived

and you are armor electronics !!!

[Daemonir]

Yeah, no matter what the super-duper tanks are, but the crew training must correspond ...

[Noldor77777]

cezar),
Dear Caesar, you are compromising yourself. You are clearly not smart, at least by the fact that you throw words and terms the meaning of which you do not know. Moreover, you write with errors. "promIdolchika" - correctly promEdol. "a restraining shirt and a few cubes of promidolchik - and the world is beautiful for you again :)" - a restraining shirt has not been used on the territory of Russia for several decades, instead of it they use "knitting", these are soft means of fixation in the form of a soft but very durable tape which it is used as a regular rope, but it does not injure the skin. Moreover, Promedol cannot be used to pacify aggressive psychiatric patients, because it does not belong to antipsychotics like chlorpromazine (chlorpromazine), but it belongs to the group of narcotic analgesics. You clearly demonstrate the style of narration: "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is" The stupidity and incompetence of your posts, as well as the depth and breadth of your knowledge, is simply amazing.

[cezar)]

Dear Caesar, you are compromising yourself. You obviously are not smart, at least because you throw words and terms whose meaning you do not know.

well, your criticism of my level of intelligence doesn’t bother me much, just like mine - yours :) about the terms - correct me with conclusive refutations, if it turns out that I'm wrong - I admit or will discuss, if everything turns out to be not entirely clear)

Moreover, you write with errors. "promIdolchika" - correctly promEdol.

I admit I was mistaken, you can draw me "2" in Wirth. a diary :)

a pacifier in Russia has not been used for several decades ...

it was sarcasm, exaggeration in order to reduce the ardor of one forum member, but if you take everything so literally, then ... and if this is an attempt to summarize - original :)

You clearly demonstrate the style of narration: "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is" The stupidity and incompetence of your posts, as well as the depth and breadth of your knowledge, is simply amazing.

and you demonstrate showing off and inability to confirm and substantiate your words with facts, as well as a desire to "intellectually bite", but at the same time not having any arguments about the subject of discussion, of which you are so zealously trying to accuse me of not understanding :) let's talk more substantively, your flood I'm not interested.


nothing that I'm on "you"? - in fact, I don’t want to offend anyone, but if I hurt anyone, I’ll immediately change the appeal to "you" addressed to the "hurt" one.

[kov]

Abrams in the Mud) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfqLCw5AO8I

[dimasik366]

interesting comments, I read it all at once. what to argue, in my opinion the most accurate assessment is the enemy’s assessment, somewhere recently I either read or heard the words of a German tankman, he said that it’s better to serve on leopards, but on -90 is better to fight. In my opinion this comparison is quite suitable for abram.
psa due to the fact that the abrams were knocked out by 72 packs, it is not even aesthetically pleasing to compare, probably everyone knows what differences were by 72 which were exported. And it is not yet known what would be the loss of the abrams if they were set in the same conditions that 80 and 72 in Chechnya

the theory is certainly good, there are all sorts of rubbish at the training grounds, shooting, reports, but history shows that the theory and practice often diverge

[cezar)]

, somewhere recently I either read or heard the words of a German tankman, he said that it’s better to serve on leopards, and it’s better to fight on the t-90

and one grandmother whispered to me that gold was found on the moon, only about this - to anyone! secondly: not an adversary, but a maximum - a probable adversary, al Bundes in a state of war with someone? and this phrase is either from "coke force" or from "military affairs" - and there you can still hear not such inventions :)

and it is not yet known what would be the loss of the Abrams if they were set in the same conditions that 80 and 72 in Chechnya

it is the irrecoverable losses that would most likely be noticeably less, the survival rate of the crews - probably much higher, since in the case of the variant and peculiarities of stowing ammo in tanks of the Soviet school, the role of knockout panels is played by the internal space of the tank. And why would on all mock-ups on tracks that threaten to put into service with the army of the Russian Federation "just about" they are introducing the experience of the Western school, and the BC is brought to the special. niche? yes, and non-unitary shots - and even bida

but history shows that theory and practice often diverge

here it’s more important not the history for analysis, but the practice of maintaining the database. At the moment, for an armored fleet of the CIS countries - a good thermal imager and that luxury, and it is regrettable.

[cezar)]

RPG Tandem Shots GUARANTEED all the main battle tanks are hit at the estimated range of fire, regardless of where they hit it - in the forehead, tower, side and stern.

Seriously ? even far from all ATGMs are able to effectively deal with modern MBTs by hitting the latter in the frontal projection, and here RPG is a march to learn to play.

Using the example of the English Challenger, it was shown that when the PG-7VR hits the central part of the projection of the tank, the ammunition rack detonates, and the body of the tank bursts at the welded seams.

This is called something I heard somewhere, but I wanted to hang out. In that case, she was struck by the RPG of NLD Chelly, as a result of which her shaving scissors were injured. But the likelihood of damage to the NLD (structurally weakened part of any MBT) is very low, as DB statistics show. Yes, and Chelly - a separate conversation.

There are no invulnerable tanks and never will be.

agree

If up to 4 km, then there is nothing special to brag about.

well wow nothing to brag about! even with good SLA - do you even imagine on the graph how much the influence of various forces and factors on the probability of hitting a target like MBT at such a distance increases? MSA Chelly generally does not count beyond 4000 m. To find such a place where it would be possible to shoot at such a distance - it is necessary to try.

But in terms of effectiveness, it is hopelessly inferior even to the old Soviet 125-mm smoothbore gun.

and what do you see by efficiency? can you give numbers, ballistic comparisons, mm? brand guns would also be nice to clarify.

As for the Chinese MBT, it’s just funny to read. China is now producing probably the most high-tech, most secure and completely new concept main battle tank.

Did the "eastern dragons" say that to you?)

[saramb]

YES in Iraq on Abrams against the T-72 and T-64 they didn’t fight all the Iraqi equipment and destroyed it in the air, but in the majority the Iraqis themselves undermined it. And so they piss against the tanks.