Military Review

On the loss of tanks Abrams

101
One of the main characters of the latest armed conflicts in the Middle East was the main battle tank M1 Abrams of American production. These machines participated and continue to participate in various wars and are operated by several countries, due to which they regularly appear in press reports and become a kind of symbol of conflict. However, the “role” of a symbol is not necessarily associated only with victories. Often there were reports of death tanks "Abrams" under certain circumstances. The theme of the destruction of such armored vehicles is of particular interest and is worthy of careful consideration.


Main tanks of the M1 Abrams family have been manufactured and operated since the end of the seventies. Over the next several decades, a number of new modifications of the armored vehicle were created, differing from each other in the composition of weapons, electronic equipment, protection, etc. The creation of new systems for these tanks is still ongoing. For three and a half decades of service, the Abrams tanks of the American army and the armed forces of other states managed to take part in several armed conflicts. The debut of this technology took place during the Gulf War in the early nineties. In the two thousandth American tanks returned to Iraq to participate in the new war. In addition, they managed to work in Afghanistan. Currently, M1A1 army of Saudi Arabia are used in battles on the territory of Yemen.


Tanks M1A1 Abrams in Iraq, 1991 year. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


Like any other military equipment, the Abrams family of tanks were not insured against loss. At the beginning of 1991, the tanks were attracted to participate in Operation Desert Storm, and in mid-February suffered the first losses. The second conflict in Iraq, which began in 2003, also ended with the loss of a significant number of tanks. Available information allows us to study the situation with the loss of the M1 family of tanks and to draw certain conclusions.

"Desert Storm"

Initially, information about the losses of American armored vehicles in the war with Iraq was not published. Only some time after the end of conflicts, information about the results of the fighting in terms of damage and loss of armored vehicles became public knowledge. According to these data, 21 tank M1A1 Abrams were damaged or lost during the battles, and several tank crews were wounded. In addition, one member of the crew of the armored vehicle died in battle.

The first incident involving Abrams was the blasting of a B-31 tank from the TF 1-5 subunit, which occurred on February 19 of the year 1991, on a mine. The explosion damaged the chassis and power plant. February 24 on mine exploded another tank, but light damage allowed to quickly return it to service. In the course of these two cases, the crews were not injured and continued service.

On the loss of tanks Abrams
TF 23-1 Tank B-37, attacked by AH-64 helicopter, February 1991. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


On the night of February 26, the TF 1-37 1 Armored Division, attacking the Tavacalna division, mistakenly became the target of AH-64 Apache helicopters, which caused serious damage to equipment and injuries to crews. The B-23, C-12, C-66 and D-24 vehicles became the target of Hellfire missiles and were damaged. In addition, one tanker from the B-23 crew, two from D-24 and three from C-66 were injured. According to some reports, the C-12 was also subjected to shelling by armor-piercing shells on its part, and the B-23 became the target of Iraqi tank crews, as a result of which it caught fire. Subsequently, the B-23 tank was decommissioned due to the impossibility of recovery, and the remaining three cars went for repairs.

Also, during the battles with the Tavakalna division, three tanks of the TF 4-8 3 armored division were damaged. During the enemy shelling, some external aggregates of the B-24 and C-12 tanks were damaged. In the case of the latter, one tankman was wounded. In addition, the C-24 was the victim of "friendly fire", which resulted in damage to external units and equipment.

On the same day, five tanks of the TF 1-41 2 Armored Division, which participated in the battles on the Norfolk Line, were damaged. At the same time, the B-22 machine came under fire from armored-piercing shells based on depleted uranium, but did not receive any internal damage, although one tanker was wounded. A-31 and A-33 received various shell damage from TOW missiles or armor-piercing shells. Three A-33 tank crews were injured. The A-14 tank was hit by a “uranium” projectile and caught fire, causing three crew members to suffer. Also 26 February was the only death of the tanker. The B-66 was hit by a grenade launcher, after which it received three hits of armor-piercing shells. As a result, the ammunition detonated. Three tankers were saved, but received various injuries.


Consequences of friendly fire on the night of March 21 2003. Collage Artofwar.ru


February 27 The 197 I brigade of the 24 Infantry Division lost three tanks that had participated in the attack on the airfield Talil. One of them was immobilized by enemy fire, the other two were stuck in the mud. The armored vehicles abandoned by the crews were shot by the Allies and did not become enemy trophies. On the same day, the commander tank HQ-66 of the TF 4-64 division of the same division in the area of ​​Basra was attacked by an 100-mm anti-tank gun. No one was hurt, but minor repairs and replacement of the gunner's sight were needed. The very next day, the tank returned to service. March X-NUMX A-2 tank of the TF 22-4 was fired on the Iraqi T-64 and caught fire with the subsequent detonation of ammunition. One tanker was injured.

During the fighting in Iraq, two dozen American tanks received various damage, and several were destroyed. A characteristic feature of those events is a large number of minor damages that were repaired in a matter of hours or days. In addition, there is no information about the destruction of "Abrams" by Iraqi tanks during the fighting, which may be associated with the use of obsolete tank ammunition.

The relatively small losses of US Army tanks may have several explanations. First of all, this is the short duration of the battles: an active ground operation with the use of tanks lasted only a few weeks. In addition, the weakening of the Iraqi army due to massive aviation blows. Also an important factor was the superiority of the American armed forces in the field of intelligence, command and communications. Finally, we should not forget the uniquely large number of erroneous strikes against friendly or allied forces, which also affected M1A1 tanks and significantly reduced the proportion of losses or damage from enemy fire.

"Iraqi Freedom"

In March, 2003, an international coalition led by the United States again invaded Iraq, this time to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The military operation, during which the coalition fought with the Iraqi army, ended in the late spring of the same year, but subsequently NATO forces had to fight for several years against partisan and terrorist movements, as well as to try to establish a peaceful life.


Tank, hit by 3 on April 2003 after the evacuation. Photo Forum.guns.ru


In Operation Iraqi Freedom and subsequent events, Abrams tanks played a major role. They actively participated in various clashes with the enemy and were one of the main shock forces of the coalition. Naturally, not without damage and losses. At the same time, however, official data on this subject has not yet been published. Only in February 2005 of the year, the head of the Pentagon’s Armored Directorate General Terry Tucker said that 80 tanks had been returned to the United States by that time for repairs. 63 machines are subject to repair, and the rest, probably, will not return to the system. Other details were not disclosed. For this reason, specialists and the interested public had to independently search for data and process scattered information.

The first damage to the tank M1A1 Abrams in the course of the new war occurred at the very beginning of it - on the night of March 21 2003. A platoon of 1 tanks of the battalion of the 1 division of the ILC carried out the protection of Kuwaiti troops on the border with Iraq. In addition, AH-1W attack helicopters patrolled the area. The pilot of one of the helicopters lost orientation and took one of the Abrams for the approaching Iraqi tank. A Hellfire rocket with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead was launched. The rocket damaged the onboard screen and the chassis of the armored vehicle. The board was not pierced, but one of the tankers was injured. According to some information, the damaged tank was not repaired later, but was used as a source of spare parts.

March 25, an American column of armored vehicles from the 7 Cavalry Regiment of the 3 Infantry Division in the area of ​​An-Najaf marched through a sandstorm and was ambushed. Two anti-tank grenades hit the turret of the B-24, but the vehicle did not receive any significant damage. Shortly thereafter, the tank was accidentally subjected to fire by the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, as a result of which the hull and tower feeds were pierced. In the laying of ammunition started a fire, because of what the crew had to leave the car. Tank B-23 followed and was also shot down (exact circumstances unknown). Eight tankers successfully evacuated and BMPs were selected. Burnt tanks remained on the battlefield and were used by Iraq for propaganda purposes. Soon the Americans evacuated them.


Let's Roll tank, ambushed by 4 on April 2003. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


March 25 tank with the call of Hermes from the company of the C 1-th tank battalion of the 1-th division of the ILC at the crossing of the river. Euphrates fell from the bridge and lay on the bottom of the tower down. For the first time in the years of operation of the M1A1 tanks, the entire crew was killed. A few days later the armored car was pulled out.

3 April The 2 Brigade of the 3 Infantry Division lost the tank with the B-52 number. During the attack on the Saints object, this vehicle moved ahead and fought against the enemy’s infantry. The crew spent the entire ammunition coaxial machine gun, which is why the commander had to fire from anti-aircraft. Continuing the battle, the commander was twice wounded in the arm. Soon, the enemy’s fire damaged the stern of the tower, where the auxiliary installation was located. The latter caught fire, but the crew continued to move and did not leave the battlefield. The fire of the Armed Forces of Ukraine led to the spill of fuel and the ignition of the main engine. Only after that the crew left the car, which was later sent for repairs. In addition to the commander, no one was hurt.

The next day, two tanks of the 2 th battalion of the 1 division of the ILC were hit. The battalion was moving on the highway number XXUMX in the direction of Baghdad, but due to an error of command, it turned off at the wrong turn and was ambushed. The tank of the company commander C with the call sign Let's Roll was immobilized during the battle, after which an enemy anti-tank grenade was damaged by an external fuel tank. Fuel spilled, ignited and got into the engine. Similar damage was received by another battalion tank.


Tank Cojone Eh, damaged and inflamed 5 April 2003. Photo by Forum.guns.ru


On April 5, the Cojone Eh tank from the 64 9th Tank Regiment of the 3 Infantry Division was lost. Participating in battles in the suburbs of Baghdad, the tank received damage from enemy artillery. After the projectile hit, the fuel from the onboard tank caught fire, soon the fire spread to the engine. The crew and other tankers attempted to put out the fire, but could not do it for 20 minutes. The battalion commander ordered to take everything from the tank and throw it, continuing the offensive. After removing all the necessary things, a couple of grenades were thrown into the fighting compartment, and the stern of the tower was fired from another tank. The ammunition burned out and knocked out the roof panels. Shortly thereafter, the wrecked tank tried to use Iraqi propaganda, to counter which it was fired at by missiles. In the future, the car dragged to the side. The subsequent fate of Cojone Eh is unknown. This tank was the last "Abrams", lost during battles with Iraqi troops.

Guerrilla war in Iraq

1 May 2003, the American leadership announced the end of hostilities in Iraq. The army coped with the tasks, destroyed the enemy's armed forces and now moves to patrolling the occupied territories and other works. However, the end of the fighting did not allow to completely get rid of losses. The war actually turned into a partisan form, because of which the NATO coalition continued to suffer losses in manpower and equipment. Guerrilla and terrorist groups began to regularly attempt to attack columns, bases, etc., belonging to coalition forces, including the United States. During these actions, among other things, Abrams tanks of all combat modifications suffered.

28 August 2003, a company of the B 2 Battalion, 70 Tank Regiment, 1 Tank Division, conducted patrols in Baghdad. One of the tanks was fired from hand grenade launchers. The grenade hit the starboard, broke through the screen and damaged the turret chase. One tanker was slightly injured.


The remains of the tank M1A2 SEP, blown up on the SVU 28 October 2003. Photo Forum.guns.ru


On October 28, the tank M1A2 SEP of the 67-th tank regiment of the 4-th Infantry Division in the area of ​​Baakuba was blown up on an improvised explosive device. The driver and commander died, the gunner was seriously wounded, but survived. Charging in the car was missing. According to the gunner, the VCA consisted of two 155-mm shells and 160 kg of explosives. A powerful explosion severely damaged the body and chassis, as well as the tower. The tank was not restored.

The events in Fallujah led to new battles and new casualties. 7 on April 2004 of the Abrams Company of the C 1 Tank Battalion of the 1 Division of the ILC led the offensive and advanced to its infantry. Taking advantage of this, the enemy's grenade launcher fired a shot and inflicted minor damage to the turret. The tank commander decided to respond to the enemy with anti-aircraft machine gun fire. At the same time there was a second shot from a grenade launcher. The grenade hit the manhole cover, which is why the commander was seriously wounded, and the gunner and loader received minor injuries. Despite damage to the hatch, the tank soon returned to service.

On April 10 in Baghdad and on August 16 in Sadr City, two tanks were hit with grenade launchers. No one died, but the crews were injured. November 22 in Baghdad on IEDs blew a transporter-tank carrier with the Abrams on a semi-trailer. Both cars were burned, two servicemen were injured.


Torn tower of a blown up tank. Photo Forum.guns.ru


The 30 of August, 16 of September, 11 of November and 25 of December in various parts of Iraq on improvised explosive devices blew up five American tanks. For example, in August and September, the armored vehicles were completely destroyed, and on September 16 two tankers were killed and two were injured (a tower flew from the tank when it blew up). Also in September, another tank was damaged, which went to the aid of the wounded and also hit the IED. In this case, one person was killed, one was wounded, and the tank was subsequently restored. In the November incident, one tanker was killed, two were injured. The tank was not recoverable. The same results were at the December bombing.

According to reports, in 2006, there were several more attacks, during which the tanks fell on explosive devices. They occurred on March 10 (the tank caught fire, the crew was not injured), April 9 (crew alive, tank lost), July 15 (injured 3, the tank could not be restored) died), August 18 (tank burned during evacuation), August 3 (tank burned), September 15 (tank burned, 18 military personnel suffered), December 5 (tank lost, 8 wounded) and December 1 (allegedly lost lost).

Also in 2006, there was one case of the defeat of the tank M1A2 SEP Abrams from a grenade launcher (October 9), as a result of which the car burned down, but the crew escaped. 11 May was the second case of the death of the tank, along with the entire crew. During the crossing of the river near the city of Karma, the tank of the 2 tank battalion of the 2 division of the ILC fell into the water.


Tank M1A2, padded on the road to Baghdad airport, 10 in April 2004. Photo by Forum.guns.ru


During the first half of 2007, six bombings of the Abrams tanks on improvised explosive devices occurred, most of which led to the loss of equipment. In addition, several tankers were injured. 17 February of the same year in Fallujah a convoy of vehicles was ambushed, as a result of which the tank M1A1 caught fire and four crew members were injured.

The latest cases of the loss of US tanks in Iraq refer to 2008. January 30 and April 8 on IED blew two tanks. Several people were injured, equipment burned out and could not be recovered.

It is easy to see that in the course of direct hostilities in the spring of 2003, American troops lost a minimum number of tanks. During the fighting, Iraqi troops could not cause significant damage to the enemy, which predetermined the outcome of the war. It can be assumed that the reasons for this were the same as in the case of the 1991 battles of the year. Affected by superiority in technology, intelligence, communications, control, etc. As a result, during the battles, including the battle for Fallujah, less than a dozen tanks were put out of action, some of which were soon repaired and returned to service.


The remains of a tank that exploded on SVU 16 September 2005. Photo by Forum.guns.ru


Where the American armored units suffered heavy losses after the completion of the main battles, when the enemy turned to guerrilla tactics. As a result of the use of IEDs and ambushes, Iraqi armed forces managed to inflict heavy losses on the enemy. In addition, it should be noted that the use of explosive devices significantly reduced the likelihood of the return of tanks to service after repair.

Conflicts of the past years

The Middle East is still restless, and the Abrams are not without work. After the victory over S. Hussein, the United States began to form a new Iraqi army, which received a large number of American-made military equipment, including Abrams family tanks. In 2014, this technique again took part in the battles, but could no longer boast of effectiveness.

After the emergence of the terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (banned in Russia), Iraqi forces tried to resist it, but failed to hold offensive. As a result, the terrorists got a large number of vehicles, including American-made tanks. Some tanks were indicatively undermined or fired using various types of anti-tank systems, after which videotapes of such “operations” were used by terrorists for propaganda purposes. For obvious reasons, such incidents cannot be viewed in the context of combat effectiveness and combat losses. Nevertheless, the published frames are of particular interest from the point of view of studying the processes occurring during the defeat of armored vehicles with one or other anti-tank weapons.


The result of the explosion at the SVU, 10 March 2006. Photo Forum.guns.ru


Currently, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia is fighting in Yemen. Armed with the Arabian army are tanks M1A1 Abrams, which are actively involved in hostilities. Unfortunately, detailed information on the use of this technique and losses, as well as the circumstances of the losses, is not yet available. From time to time the parties to the conflict publish various videos taken during the fighting. For example, 24 in August last year was published a video with the destruction of two Abrams tanks with the help of anti-tank systems. According to some data, while using the system "Fagot" Soviet production. As seen on these records, similar weaponWhen properly used, it can effectively and effectively destroy armored vehicles.

Results

For three and a half decades, several thousand Abrams tanks were built in several modifications. In addition, since the early nineties in the battles have been lost dozens of similar armored vehicles. Quite expectedly, despite all the accolades, the Abrams tanks did not become fundamentally invincible and invulnerable. Like other military equipment, they can also get damaged and die. Therefore, its relevance still retains the question of the causes of the death of technology.

Considering the two wars in Iraq, it can be noted that the greatest successes and the smallest losses of tanks belonged to the period of full-fledged open hostilities. Fighting with the ground forces of the enemy "in the open field", American tanks show good results and cope with the tasks. Due to the support of aviation, intelligence, etc. Tank results are getting even better. That was the case in February 1991 of the year and in the spring of 2003.


The composition of the complex TUSK. Figure Wikimedia Commons


However, in the summer of 2003, the situation changed markedly. Tanks had to learn non-standard "professions": they accompanied the convoys, conducted patrols and solved other tasks that were not characteristic of them. In response, the enemy began to organize ambushes and use improvised explosive devices. As a result, the loss of manpower and equipment in “peacetime” quickly caught up with the fighting, and then exceeded them.

In the context of tanks, all these events are evidence of a well-known truth: without special equipment, a tank cannot work effectively in conditions of cities or other populated areas. In urban areas, armored vehicles are becoming an easy target for grenade throwers. In addition, tanks have extremely limited resistance to explosive devices, especially powerful, which further increases the risks in the conditions of modern local conflicts.

To be fair, it should be noted that, based on the results of the fighting, American tank builders took measures and developed a set of additional equipment TUSK, with the help of which it is proposed to increase the survivability of M1A1 / A2 Abrams tanks in urban environments. Such equipment has already been purchased, but has not yet been tested in real conflicts. It is possible that such equipment will reduce the risks for the equipment and its crews, but it will not help to return the lost cars and dead people. Therefore, all interested parties should study and take into account American experience, as well as use it in their new developments and strategies.


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defense-update.com/
http://armyrecognition.com/
http://defenseindustrydaily.com/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://artofwar.ru/

A detailed description of tank losses in Iraq in 2003-2008:
http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0300.shtml
Author:
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tasha
    tasha 14 January 2016 06: 48 New
    +9
    Cyril, thanks for the article.
    The story of A. Lomachinsky "Business trip" describes the episode of the defeat of the Abrams tank in the spring of 2003. unknown ammunition. Judging by the name of the unit (2nd Battalion 70 Regiment 1st I Cavalry), then it is possible that this is one of the tanks

    The next day, two tanks of the 2 th battalion of the 1 division of the ILC were hit. The battalion was moving on the highway number XXUMX in the direction of Baghdad, but due to an error of command, it turned off at the wrong turn and was ambushed. The tank of the company commander C with the call sign Let's Roll was immobilized during the battle, after which an enemy anti-tank grenade was damaged by an external fuel tank. Fuel spilled, ignited and got into the engine. Similar damage was received by another battalion tank.


    Do you think this is fiction? Here, by the way, you have a topic for research.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 January 2016 12: 57 New
      +9
      Camp Fire Doha casualties not mentioned
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 January 2016 12: 58 New
        +6
        ________________________
        1. Lord of Wrath
          Lord of Wrath 14 January 2016 19: 00 New
          +4
          The next passage is somewhat incomprehensible
          On March 2, the A-22 tank from TF 4-64 was fired upon by the Iraqi T-72 and caught fire with the subsequent detonation of the ammunition. One tanker was injured.

          and further
          There is no information about the destruction of the Abrams by Iraqi tanks during the fighting

          So it was fired on and caught fire, or is there still "no information"?
      2. Ramzaj99
        Ramzaj99 14 January 2016 18: 08 New
        13
        Quote: Kars
        Camp Fire Doha casualties not mentioned

        Amerikosov generally quite peculiar calculation of losses.
        If during a battle, let’s say a tank burns out, but it didn’t happen directly on the battlefield, this tank does not count for losses. Even if the tank burned down directly on the battlefield, it will be recognized that it burned out due to a crew error or for those. malfunction, it does not go to loss. Even if the tank was knocked out, but it belonged to the so-called PMCs, then it also does not go to the loss of the American army. A commission is collected for each destroyed unit, and if a pre-existing malfunction is found in a damaged tank, it will not be lost. In general, as a result of all Iraqi companies, the Americans, according to some (American) data, lost about 1500 tanks (most of them were lost on mines and as a result of technical malfunctions), literally dozens were added to combat losses))), and this is primarily due to payment of compensation and insurance.
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 January 2016 18: 16 New
          +6
          Quote: Ramzaj99
          according to some (American) data, Americans lost about 1500 tanks

          maybe they got damaged? otherwise you wrote off almost a third of the entire US tank fleet. And from 80 to 120 from 1991 to 2008 there may well be irrevocable ones.
          1. Kvazar
            Kvazar 14 January 2016 20: 19 New
            +6
            I will supplement it. The Yankees have another interesting trick (APU adopted). The tank is knocked out and then sent for repair (the equipment is not considered destroyed). Put in the sump at the factory. And after a couple of years they are written off as not fit for repair. Although it was right away. We must look at the write-offs of tech ki already .... after the war.

            Although we give tribute to the strong tank. The network has a home video attack on the chassis there every ten dozen seconds an old RPG shot flies in the column ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 January 2016 20: 32 New
              +5
              Quote: Kvazar
              . The Yankees have another interesting trick (APU adopted). The tank is knocked out and then sent for repair (the equipment is not considered destroyed). St

              Well, what are you. Everything is completely wrong and you didn’t remember the APU at all. There is no accounting as such.
              But the Americans have another trick: they can even repair very badly damaged tanks at a cost commensurate with the price of a new one, and against this background, do not bring the damaged tank into irreparable loss.
          2. Ramzaj99
            Ramzaj99 15 January 2016 20: 11 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            maybe they got damaged? otherwise you wrote off almost a third of the entire US tank fleet. And from 80 to 120 from 1991 to 2008 there may well be irrevocable ones.

            In the article that I read, the figure is 1500 tanks, but it is specified that the vast majority of them, damage to mines and those. malfunction. Consequently, the loss is not irretrievable.
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 14 January 2016 21: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: Ramzaj99
          Quote: Kars
          Camp Fire Doha casualties not mentioned

          Amerikosov generally quite peculiar calculation of losses.
          If during a battle, let’s say a tank burns out, but it didn’t happen directly on the battlefield, this tank does not count for losses. Even if the tank burned down directly on the battlefield, it will be recognized that it burned out due to a crew error or for those. malfunction, it does not go to loss. Even if the tank was knocked out, but it belonged to the so-called PMCs, then it also does not go to the loss of the American army. A commission is collected for each destroyed unit, and if a pre-existing malfunction is found in a damaged tank, it will not be lost. In general, as a result of all Iraqi companies, the Americans, according to some (American) data, lost about 1500 tanks (most of them were lost on mines and as a result of technical malfunctions), literally dozens were added to combat losses))), and this is primarily due to payment of compensation and insurance.

          Even more interesting is their military casualties.
          One episode shows the nature of the count very well.
          In Iraq, the unit moving in the convoy was ambushed and the first car was hit. As it should be, they defended along the parapet of the road and then one of the drivers decided to break through bypassing the damaged car along the side of the road.
          As a result, 5 people died under the wheels of the car and were recorded in an accident with serious injuries.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. remy
        remy 14 January 2016 21: 14 New
        +5
        The only tank plant in the US, the Detroit Arsenal plant in Detroit is closed and demolished. At the moment, there is no one in the US to produce tanks!
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 January 2016 21: 28 New
          +2
          Comrade ___ should read about the factories of the General Dynamics company in the US states of Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where the M1A1 / A2 tank is produced.


          And the plant in general in Ohio is located))
          Lima in Ohio is the only US tank plant to operate in the Lima Tank Plant
  2. Atk
    Atk 14 January 2016 06: 59 New
    10
    For example, on August 24 last year, a video was published with the destruction of two Abrams tanks using anti-tank systems. According to some reports, the Soviet-made bassoon systems were used. As can be seen on these records, such weapons, when used correctly, can effectively and efficiently destroy armored vehicles.

    Abrams tanks are exported only with EAP - Export Armor Package (without uranium ceramics). Newly manufactured tanks for export and tanks from US Army supplies exported are always equipped with EAP armor. If tanks from stocks of the US Army are used, then they go through the downgrade process - that is, the replacement of American armor with EAP.



    Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
    Baltic State Technical University Voenmech

    B.F. SHCHERBAKOV, B.V. RUMYANTSEV

    ANTI-TANK
    MISSILE COMPLEXES

    Tutorial

    On the example of systematic research conducted at the Physicotechnical Institute named after A.F. Ioffe RAS in the 1950s, we consider the influence of the properties of the barrier material on the introduction of a cumulative jet. In the table. 17 and in fig. 4.22 shows the penetration of various materials by a cumulative jet formed during the explosion of a standard charge. It's clear that penetration depth depends primarily on the density of the barrier material and to a much lesser extent on its strength.



    Due to its high density, soft Lead provides greater anti-cumulative resistance than St3 steel.

    Obviously, much harder uranium ceramics, while having a high density, should be much more effective than steel armor.

    Unlike DZ, composite armor cannot be neutralized with a precharge.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Forest
        Forest 14 January 2016 11: 16 New
        0
        Friendly fire.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 January 2016 11: 12 New
      -5
      On the armor, you can hang plates of armor made of steel, at a distance from the main armor - this will be cheaper than inserting depleted uranium into the body.
      1. avdkrd
        avdkrd 15 January 2016 01: 49 New
        +6
        Quote: Vadim237
        On the armor, you can hang plates of armor made of steel, at a distance from the main armor - this will be cheaper than inserting depleted uranium into the body.

        For amers, just the high price of depleted uranium is more attractive than steel or other compositions in armor. It was not in vain that the USSR did not use depleted uranium as armor, although it naturally conducted comparative tests of armor with uranium filler and more traditional options. Uranium armor is a super project of trade management and to seek the merits of such a solution is not entirely adequate. Uranium, including depleted is a very toxic metal, in addition, with a rather serious radioactivity. During the operation of tanks in peacetime, it is still possible to protect the crews and the environmental situation around them from decay and oxidation products, but in combat conditions it is a rare bug. When meeting with ASE, the same thing happens as when shooting ASE with a core of depleted uranium on ordinary armor, only on a larger scale. Uranium reacts with armor (and vice versa a tungsten core with uranium armor) with a large heat release (burning) and a huge release of toxic and radioactive dust and fragments. By the way, because of this feature, the uranium core is more effective than tungsten, although the latter has a higher density. Due to the nature of the interaction, uranium has a self-sharpening effect. So a tank with depleted uranium armor inserts is essentially not repairable even without breaking through the armor even with a slight deformation, as it turns into a radioactive and poisonous trash. Replace the insert is unrealistic, in addition, this trash must be disposed of, and this is another bugaboo. I am touched by American soldiers poking around in a torn tower in pictures without special protection. This is not because it is safe - it is because unless the officer knows about the danger, and then not everyone.
        An armor using depleted uranium is a tremendous cut in the US military budget (with a view to disposal), since a gain of 8-10% in armor protection (by analogy with the armor penetration of shells) does not pay off in view of the low technological effectiveness and maintainability, as well as the dubious joy of the associated with the disposal and operation of radioactive monsters.
        in the picture on the left is a uranium core with tungsten right
        1. VIK_1961
          VIK_1961 16 January 2016 00: 34 New
          0
          Everything is controversial except: depleted uranium is radioactive, but its toxic effect and its property to accumulate in internal organs (poorly excreted from the body), and then the "cumulative effect", is more terrible. Also, in the process of triggering uranium against steel armor (or a steel or tungsten core against "uranium" armor), at the molecular level, the effect of uranium penetration into the metal structure occurs. We get a toxic-radioactive "spot" very significant in size and unpredictability of distribution over the details of the damaged armored vehicle. Its (armored object) may not be penetrated, and pollution, if you please, get "toxic radioactive trash". By the way, do not be moved by the "American soldier, picking at the severed tower." To get a real dose or toxic poisoning with 100% "instantly in the sea", he will need to gobble up (naturally inside) a few grams of BPS made of uranium or armor made of "the same material", or breathe aerosol for a couple of years after uranium is triggered by metal or vice versa.
    4. avdkrd
      avdkrd 16 January 2016 21: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Atk
      Due to its high density, soft lead provides greater anti-cumulative resistance than St3 steel.

      not so simple, tungsten has a higher density than uranium - there are nuances
  3. Magic archer
    Magic archer 14 January 2016 07: 07 New
    +6
    It would be interesting to read a similar article about other warring MBTs. In Iraq, the Challengers fought at one time, Merkava shoots at all
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 16 January 2016 09: 38 New
      +1
      double! Current according to statistics from the t-72 in Grozny will be really embarrassing, especially in the number of dead tankers.
  4. gla172
    gla172 14 January 2016 07: 36 New
    10
    No comments...
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 14 January 2016 07: 37 New
    16
    Cyril, thanks.
    As a result, there is a feeling that the main enemies of the Abrams are the American troops themselves (judging by the number of vehicles affected by the "friendly fire") and guerrilla IEDs, and they did not encounter sufficiently modern anti-tank weapons in real combat.
    And here's another: gunner’s claim that
    IED consisted of two 155-mm shells and 160 kg of explosives. A powerful explosion severely damaged the hull and chassis, as well as the tower
    raise some doubts in his right mind after the explosion: how could he know the composition of the IEDs and does he even imagine the power of such an explosion? Surely the explosion was at a sufficient distance from the car (at least 50 m.), Otherwise the tank with the whole crew would be searched for a long time and hard, folding it into the pots.
    But it is, nitpicking to eyewitnesses.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 January 2016 14: 10 New
      +7
      ________________________
  6. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 14 January 2016 07: 42 New
    +1
    An excellent article, and the tanks are ordinary, they burn no worse than any others, although purely American ones are better to be beaten with a large caliber.
    1. Samy
      Samy 14 January 2016 13: 19 New
      11
      Surprisingly high crew survival with such losses.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 22 January 2016 10: 47 New
        0
        There may be specifics of accounting for combat losses. If people died in the hospital, then, it seems, and not a military loss ... request
  7. Hammer
    Hammer 14 January 2016 08: 04 New
    12
    Here is this article as an article! In the spirit of early VO, already wept
  8. sergant89
    sergant89 14 January 2016 08: 13 New
    13
    That seems to be from our "Fagot" whipped (who knows what for the Ptrk tell me), and burn very well.
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 14 January 2016 09: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: sergant89
      (who knows why Ptrk tell me

      Bassoon. In the video at 2:05.
    2. remy
      remy 14 January 2016 13: 34 New
      +3
      board of our T-72 and T-90
      along the recess for the rear drive wheel, the thickness of the bead 40 + 40 mm = 80 mm is clearly visible
      with a cavity under 110 mm ceramic package, equivalent to 440 mm of armor
      - the total equivalent of armor at an angle of 90 degrees. is 520 mm. (The bassoon is resting on the sidelines)
      - at an angle of 30 degrees is at least 700 mm
      + Dynamic protection (DZ) "Relic" equivalent durability = 800 mm
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 January 2016 18: 57 New
        0
        There is no relic in service, there is only Contact 5, and all modern ATGMs will pierce it.
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 14 January 2016 21: 04 New
        +4
        Quote: remy
        board of our T-72 and T-90 ....

        In the picture, the T-80 body (telescopic shock absorbers). The board is similar to those listed (t72-t90)
  9. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 14 January 2016 08: 40 New
    +7
    "..tank accidentally came under fire from an M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, as a result of which the stern of the hull and turret was pierced. A fire started in the ammunition stowage, which forced the crew to abandon the vehicle."
    25 mm shells knocked out Abrams. In front, it is very well protected, but the sides and stern, especially the auxiliary power unit behind, are very vulnerable places.
    Also, the evolution of tanks followed the path of the possibility of fighting with their own kind. That is, even stronger armor, an even more powerful weapon, etc. As a result of this, he can fully realize his capabilities only in open space. Given Abrams' electronic stuffing and the high degree of interaction between the armed forces in the US Army, he is a formidable opponent in the classic tank confrontation.
    Although it seems to me German Leopard 2, especially the latest versions are better.
    1. spec.78
      spec.78 14 January 2016 15: 40 New
      +1
      Do not forget that Abrashka has an APU in the rear of the turret, protected by armor of no more than 10 mm (as far as I remember), and such armor can be penetrated even from the DShK or the Utes. The APU is diesel, here's a fire, plus the knockout panels in the ammunition rack are also thinner than the main protection, plus the engine compartment and external tanks. There is nothing surprising in this.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 15 January 2016 20: 09 New
        0
        Quote: spec.78
        Do not forget that Abrashka has an APU in the back of the tower, ...

        Not certainly in that way. There were options for Abrams with the APU on the hull, on the tower, then they tried to put it on the fenders. Now instead of the APU they put additional batteries, which is not a full replacement for the APU


  10. spech
    spech 14 January 2016 08: 43 New
    +8
    On March 2, the A-22 tank from TF 4-64 was fired upon by the Iraqi T-72 and caught fire with the subsequent detonation of the ammunition. One tanker was injured.

    and the paragraph below
    In addition, there is no information about the destruction of the Abrams by Iraqi tanks during the fighting, which may be due to the use of obsolete tank ammunition.

    belay
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 14 January 2016 14: 12 New
      +3
      Perhaps it was meant that the T-72 belonged to Iraqi forces loyal to the United States? ..
  11. spech
    spech 14 January 2016 08: 54 New
    +3
    The driver and commander were killed, the gunner was seriously injured, but survived. Charger in the car was absent. According to the testimony of the gunner, IED consisted of two 155-mm shells and 160 kg of explosives.

    This is a gunner, the terminator weeps with envy.
  12. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 14 January 2016 09: 34 New
    15
    No matter how patriots screamed, the loss of salvage is extremely low, even if a b / c ignites, the crew manages to leave the tank, in general there is something to think about.
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 14 January 2016 09: 41 New
      +7
      It's not about patriots, but about the way the bookmaker is placed. It is clear that when the shots are placed outside the main volume of the turret and the hull, the danger of the death of the crew when the ammunition fires is on fire is much less than when the crew and the ammunition are in one place. Actually, "Armata" was conceived for the sake of this - the risk of the death of the crew along with the tank is minimized.
    2. Forest
      Forest 14 January 2016 11: 24 New
      +6
      If you look at the statistics of the defeat of the T-64 / 72 / 80 series, in most cases the crew leaves the burning car. Towers in most cases tear off after a relatively long fire. In Chechnya, in an attack on one of the columns, militants set fire to the T-72. The crew managed to throw a smoldering charge (the benefit was then easy access) and drive the tank into the river, where they put it out. After they returned to the battlefield and crushed the enemy firing points.
      1. vandarus
        vandarus 14 January 2016 20: 39 New
        +1
        I'm afraid this is a bike. Anyone who at least once loaded the BC into the AZ conveyor will confirm this to you. Detect a charge, pull it out, half-shell crew .....
        1. Forest
          Forest 14 January 2016 22: 19 New
          +4
          About 10 minutes it took to remove the damaged charge. If you paint in detail, then the RPG grenade hit the side and damaged something in the MTO, which caused a fire. The charge began to smolder due to the fact that the cigarette butt got inside the tank. Mekhvod led the tank to the nearest river as soon as he learned about the fire. The tank was driven stern into the water and the driver entered the tank to water the MTO. At this time, the gunner and commander pulled out a smoldering charge, fortunately the tank was sent to escort the convoy straight from the battlefield and the BC was partially shot. After the charge was thrown out, they finally put out the car and drove back to the battlefield, where several machine guns and a grenade launcher were destroyed. We drove a little more and the motor jammed. But the tank as a whole is alive, restored for 2 days and returned to service.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. vandarus
          vandarus 15 January 2016 13: 03 New
          +1
          What doesn’t happen in war. If so, the crew is worthy of state. awards. When you literally sit on shells in the tower (whoever was in the tank saw how they are located under the raised floor of thin sheet metal), you need to have steel ... to start pulling out the smoldering charge, and not to jump out yourself. Moreover, you have already seen what happens to those who did not have time.
    3. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 14 January 2016 16: 07 New
      +6
      Losses were low in the first place, in view of the overwhelming superiority of the Western coalition over the Iraqi army and the low spirit of Iraqi soldiers in most parts. They were bombarded at first with trivialities, and then they were treated with infantry with tanks, which caused air and artillery strikes throughout the entire suspect.
    4. -Dmitry-
      -Dmitry- 28 September 2020 04: 27 New
      0
      Well, I still think that the b / c did not detonate in most cases due to the fact that the OFSs and KSs were not particularly present in the Abrams BC during both Iraqi campaigns. It's one thing when the propellant charge in the projectile burns out, it's another when the warhead of an OFS or KS detonates. There, no armored curtains and knockout panels will help.
  13. Mad dok
    Mad dok 14 January 2016 09: 47 New
    +1
    Great idea of ​​an American engineer to place the APU at the stern of the tower ....
  14. aviator1913
    aviator1913 14 January 2016 09: 50 New
    +6
    No matter how patriots screamed, the loss of salvage is extremely low, even if a b / c ignites, the crew manages to leave the tank, in general there is something to think about.


    Here, yes, even with a tank defeat, deaths of crew members are rare, almost always the crew manages to leave the car, burning and damaged without much loss.

    In this regard, the T-72 is still significantly inferior to its American counterpart, I hope that Armata will correct this fact.

    There is nothing more important than human life, and even if at least a dozen metal monsters are burned, they can always be repaired or replaced, and the surviving and healthy crew should be a priority.
    1. Oden280
      Oden280 14 January 2016 10: 11 New
      17
      Until recently, there were no high-explosive shells in the Abrams ammunition which are the main causes of the destruction of the tank. In our tanks, landmines comprise the bulk of the ammunition from here and all sorts of videos on the separation of the tower. Put Abrams in the niche as many landmines and his tower will fly.
      1. aviator1913
        aviator1913 14 January 2016 10: 53 New
        -1
        The additional ammunition of the T-72Б tank that does not fit in the AZ is located in the so-called. shelving tanks. These are fuel tanks with recesses into which shells and charges are inserted. That is, the additional ammunition of the T-72B tank is located in a shirt made of gasoline or diesel fuel!


        The very shots of unitary loading with a charge in the Abrams metal sleeve explode worse than the charges in the combustible sleeve of the T-72B.
      2. Forest
        Forest 14 January 2016 11: 19 New
        +6
        The reason is in combustible sleeves that flash from any damage by a cumulative jet / BOPS.
  15. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 January 2016 09: 56 New
    28
    Amrams gained extensive combat experience.
    In the conclusion:
    It is great for the role for which and
    Designed - Tank-vs.-Tank Counter-Fights.
    Powerful libo armor, good OMS, strong OBPS, jerk speed.

    Poor for the role of an infantry support tank.
    And not at all suitable for urban battles and anti-partisan
    operations.
    Fragile lateral armor and unprotected top and back.
    1. tasha
      tasha 14 January 2016 10: 10 New
      +4
      I support. Most of the tanks were created for epic battles at the European theater.
      There are, of course, other examples ... wink
    2. TOR2
      TOR2 14 January 2016 12: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Amrams gained extensive combat experience

      I can not agree with you. What samples did this tank encounter? In the best case, with the production technique of the early 70s, which then stood for 20 years in the cowsheds.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 14 January 2016 14: 27 New
        11
        Here, read, if not laziness - there are too detailed.
        http://www.voland983.narod.ru/raznstat/tawakalna.htm
        About the battles of the tank divisions of Iraq with the American tankers.
        Despite the tales, the guards did not bribe, they did not give up
        and did not retreat. They fought, maybe too bluntly,
        but bravely.
        It’s just that the Americans had great quality
        advantage, better intelligence and tactics.
        1. TOR2
          TOR2 14 January 2016 15: 20 New
          +2
          I foresaw that you will give just these events as an example. Of course, I went by reference and read all the material.
          Around 18.00:26 on February 55, the Iraqi infantry with the support of T-72, T-2 and MTLB launched a series of attacks on the positions of the XNUMXnd squadron

          I can imagine how the nerves of the guys in the "Abrams" were tense. The MTLB attacker is a terrible force.
          Thousands of foot soldiers prepared company strongholds and positions for the calculation of the RPG and ATGM “Baby”.

          ATGM "Malyutka" is serious - "Abrams" in the forehead from 5 km amazes for nefig to do. smile
          1. avdkrd
            avdkrd 15 January 2016 02: 21 New
            +3
            Quote: TOR2
            ATGM "Malyutka" is serious - "Abrams" in the forehead from 5 km amazes for nefig do

            despite the irony, Baby has a pretty high chance of punching Abrams in the forehead. At Baby 2, armor penetration is 800mm (homogeneous armor), at Baby 2M 720mm, but already behind active armor.
            1) WLD and the lower part of the NLD hull:
            They have a thickness of 50mm around the driver’s mechanic and 80mm (50mm + 30mm fuel tank protection) on both sides of the driver’s seat. Have an inclination in 83 degrees from vertical. At first glance, a very weak protection, but in terms of equivalent thickness are 360mm and 570, respectively. Nevertheless, even the translated data is extremely low for the level of protection of a modern combat vehicle.

            2) The lower front armor plate of the tower is very vulnerable


            3) cardboard gun mask

            4) If within 30 degrees the same is not ice ...
            1. TOR2
              TOR2 15 January 2016 12: 51 New
              +1
              I agree that if you operate from short distances from an ambush by a "baby" you can comb the "abrash" against the grain.
        2. aviator1913
          aviator1913 14 January 2016 15: 22 New
          +1
          Thanks for the interesting article.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. vandarus
      vandarus 14 January 2016 15: 51 New
      0
      As a breakthrough tank, Abrams is good, but there were no oncoming tank battles with tanks of comparable quality. Not to consider the obsolete T-72Ms with export BPSs as a comparable adversary. The Iraqi tanks were knocked out by attack aircraft, in those videos where Abrams hits the T-72, the 72nds for some reason stand with their hatches open.
      PS To tell the truth, many of our specialists express doubt and dissatisfaction with the qualities of the Krasnopol military unit; its warhead is considered insufficient to penetrate the frontal armor of Abrams.
  16. qwert
    qwert 14 January 2016 10: 09 New
    0
    Quote: aviator1913
    Here, yes, even with a tank defeat, deaths of crew members are rare, almost always the crew manages to leave the car, burning and damaged without much loss.
    In this regard, the T-72 is still significantly inferior to its American counterpart,

    Evidence in the studio ...
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 14 January 2016 15: 25 New
      +2
      in fact, everything is written in detail in the article, in the vast majority of cases the crew remained alive
  17. tasha
    tasha 14 January 2016 10: 18 New
    0
    In order not to create unnecessary comments, I suggest recalling a good article and its discussion

    T-72B vs M1A2 "Abrams"

    http://topwar.ru/22546-t-72b-vs-m1a2-abrams.html
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. aviator1913
    aviator1913 14 January 2016 10: 20 New
    10
    qwert (1) RU Today, 10: 09 New
    Quote: aviator1913
    Here, yes, even with a tank defeat, deaths of crew members are rare, almost always the crew manages to leave the car, burning and damaged without much loss.
    In this regard, the T-72 is still significantly inferior to its American counterpart,
    Evidence in the studio ...


    - 31.12.1994 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72A, hit from RPG in spar. Machine gun, jammed gun, wounded tank commander.
    -31.12.1994 276 SMEs Sadovy T-72B1 # 414 RPG, MT-12 Rapier cannon, the entire crew was killed.
    -28.12.1994 113 Guards OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV No.517 shell from the T-72, 80ka captured by the Czechs, like the whole, no one was killed
    -28.12.1994 113 Guards OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV №510 RPG 3 hits, armor is not broken, no losses
    -28.12.1994 113 Guards OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV No.536 ATGM killed the tank commander, injured the driver and gunner.
    -31.12.1994 113 Guards. OTB Grozny, opposite the cinema "Russia" T-80BV # 515 or 516 RPG damaged by RSA, destroyed from another tank during the retreat on 01.01.95/XNUMX/XNUMX, no losses in the crew.
    -01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, train station T-72А No. 534 RPG hit the VLD (?) Tank was broken, fire, the tank burned out, there were no losses in the crew.
    -31.12.1994 81 Guards MP Grozny, district pres. Palace T-80BV RPG 8 grenades, one hit the hatch, the tank commander died.
    -01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72А№533 RPG 5 grenades in the MTO, there are no losses in the crew.
    -01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72А№537 RPG 6-7 grenades, the tank exploded, the entire crew died.
    -01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72А№531 RPG 5 grenades RPG + 1 BPS, gunner died.
    -01.01.1995 81 Guards MP Grozny, st. Mayakovsky T-80 RPG in shoulder straps, mechanical water. Shot when he left the tank, the rest could not leave the tank under fire before the explosion.
    -02.01.1995 74 Guards OMB Terrible T-72B mod. 89 of the year with the K-5 airborne landing gear, the tank was destroyed, the crew died.
    -05.01.1995 133 Guards OTB Grozny T-80BV №541 RPG, in the rear of the tower, the fur is damaged. turning, transmission may be damaged, gunner wounded.
    -08.01.1995 141 OTB T-72А, mechanical drive comm. - died in a burning tank. the gun blocked mech.vod-la, the commander was seriously injured
    -10.01.1995 276 MP Grozny, area pl. Lenin T-72B1 No.430 RPGs on board, the bulwark was disrupted, the ammunition detonated
    -12.01.1995 74 Guards OMB Terrible T-72B mod. 89 of the year with the K-5 RPG, several hits, the tank burned out, there were no losses in the crew
    -13.01.1995 276 MP Grozny, at the Gozneft building in the square on the lane. Mira St. and Revolution Avenue T-72Б1 RPG, exploded as a result of a fire, mechanic water. (died) was in the tank covering the evacuation of the remaining crew members.
    -13.01.1995 128 Guards. MP Grozny, near the military camps No. 86 and No. 2 T-80BV, the call sign "blow" RPG grenades ricocheted off the tower (??), there were no losses in the crew.
    -17.01.1995 133 Guards OTB Grozny, bridge h-s p. Sunja on Victory Ave. T-80BV RPG 3 grenades, the scope was out of order, there were no losses in the crew.
    -19.01.1995 133 Guards OTB Grozny, bridge h-s p. Sunja along Victory Ave. T-80BV RPG in pursuit of the tower, the P-173 transmitter is damaged, the tank commander is wounded.
    -18.01.1995 TB attached to 503MP Grozny, at the presidential palace T-72А art. shell, the whole crew died.
    -27.01.1995 133 Guards OTB Grozny, near the tram park and the T-80 garment factory No. 512 LNG-9 on the side between 1 and 2 skating rinks with tank-rack, 2-in the middle of the hull in the combat station area, the tank caught fire, then exploded, the mechanic drive died.
    -27.01.1995 276MP Grozny, ul. Noy Buachidze T-72Б1 №442 RPG 1 grenade on board, the tank caught fire and was later evacuated, there were no losses in the crew.

    And this is for a month.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 14 January 2016 12: 47 New
      +4
      In one Fаillludzhe - 64 tanks, otherwise the article contains the same "inaccuracies".
      Although the T-72s were bought in 2003 or with great losses for helicopters were knocked out by the Apaches, after which the Abrams were hollowed out from afar by the surviving T-55s and the like. Because of such stars for helicopters and tanks, they then burned out a quarter of this city, along with the inhabitants of white phosphorus.

      In 1991, they did not succeed, although there were attempts after which they rallied under N-Nasir and now they lie the other way around. Fortunately for them, there is no one among the Iraqis to correct them, and even before 2003, few people listened to them. When did the Americans tell the truth about their gains and losses? Almost no one takes these tanks, they go to Egypt as help.

      The side and back are poked around 30 and 20 mm, amazed by anti-roof ammunition, what are you talking about? Not exported ammunition, even in the forehead of the tower, not in the mask of the gun, or taken under it too. Almost no one takes these tanks, they go to Egypt as help.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 14 January 2016 13: 20 New
      +3
      From the above we can make an interesting conclusion. The most successful tank was the T-80. And the Russian aircraft made a big mistake by betting on the T-72, and not on the T-80.
      1. vandarus
        vandarus 14 January 2016 15: 43 New
        +2
        T-80 should be considered the most successful for operation at low temperatures due to the presence of gas turbine engines. The rest, and this: the vertical location of the ammunition in the conveyor AZ (which led to a greater likelihood of getting into the ammunition when breaking the side under the turret), high fuel consumption and the difficulty of tinning GTE (categorically does not tolerate dust) makes it less preferred compared to multi-fuel diesel modifications T 72.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 15 January 2016 10: 24 New
          0
          Quote: vandarus
          T-80 should be considered the most successful for operation at low temperatures due to the presence of gas turbine engines. The rest, and this: the vertical location of the ammunition in the conveyor AZ (which led to a greater likelihood of getting into the ammunition when breaking the side under the turret), high fuel consumption and the difficulty of tinning GTE (categorically does not tolerate dust) makes it less preferred compared to multi-fuel diesel modifications T 72.


          As for the ammunition, your findings are clearly confirmed by the above statistics laughing Fear of dust is to Abrash. A reliable inertial air purification system stood on the T-80. The tank was distinguished by excellent dynamics and a very low noise level. Due to the characteristics of the gas turbine engine, the transmission is simpler and more reliable. In addition, the latest GTD-1250 modification was able to significantly reduce operating fuel consumption. True expensive GTD. But I wanted to remind you that the diesel version of the T-80D was produced.
          1. vandarus
            vandarus 15 January 2016 15: 26 New
            0
            Is this torque converter simpler and more reliable ?! laughing
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 15 January 2016 20: 23 New
              0
              Quote: vandarus
              Is this torque converter simpler and more reliable ?! laughing

              Torque converter on the T-80? this is where it is located there and why?
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. vandarus
        vandarus 14 January 2016 15: 43 New
        0
        T-80 should be considered the most successful for operation at low temperatures due to the presence of gas turbine engines. The rest, and this: the vertical location of the ammunition in the conveyor AZ (which led to a greater likelihood of getting into the ammunition when breaking the side under the turret), high fuel consumption and the difficulty of tinning GTE (categorically does not tolerate dust) makes it less preferred compared to multi-fuel diesel modifications T 72.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 15 January 2016 00: 38 New
          0
          Quote: vandarus
          ... high fuel consumption and the difficulty of servicing a gas turbine ...
          The tank not only drives but also stands in position, and in this case the T-80 uses the APU. T72-T90 in this case drives the main engine, consuming its motor resource and burning quite a lot of fuel.
          By the way, the question is about the APU: its fuel consumption compared to the T-72-90 engine?

          Quote: vandarus
          categorically does not tolerate dust

          Where does this information come from?
          1. ILDM1986
            ILDM1986 15 January 2016 02: 37 New
            0
            the lack of APU in the t-90/72 is not so much the advantage of the t-80, but the disadvantage of the t-90/72. It is easy to put the APU on the tank (which was done on the latest t-90ms), but reducing the fuel consumption of the GTD-1000tf in the t-80 is much more difficult.
            the dust sensitivity of the t-80 tank itself is less than that of the t-90, but this is achieved not by the fact that the gas turbine engine is such a nonsense, but by the fact that the air filters freed up in the MTO are used, and the t-80 also has a special pipe for air intake from above for particularly dusty conditions - and all because the cost of a gas turbine engine is an order of magnitude higher than the cost of a diesel engine and requires tough f * c during repair, so we decided to reduce the risk of breakdown.
            in general, the T80 requires a more trained ekpage, more demanding on maintenance and operation. so the advantages of the t-80 over the t-90 and t-72 are completely covered by its shortcomings.
          2. vandarus
            vandarus 15 January 2016 15: 28 New
            0
            Categorically does not tolerate dust in the ENGINE, and not on the .... roof of the ITO, as some thought.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 15 January 2016 20: 36 New
              0
              Quote: vandarus
              Categorically does not tolerate dust in the ENGINE, and not on the .... roof of the ITO, as some thought.

              So do we compare tanks? The point is to say that if dust is poured into the turbine, then she will not like it, if they did everything possible on the T-80 so that this dust would almost not get into the turbine, but what got into it can be shaken off by vibration cleaning? Dust is not a problem for the T-80, which is also evidenced by the practice (operation of the T-80 in the Asian republics).
          3. The comment was deleted.
      3. mvg
        mvg 14 January 2016 23: 46 New
        0
        Only it cost money, like 2 T-72
    3. gray
      gray 14 January 2016 14: 41 New
      +2
      Among the main reasons for the failure of the assault can be noted the lack of a clear plan of action for the troops, the incoherence of the actions of the attacking groups (confusion in the command of the troops), poor provision of material resources and poor training of personnel. On the maps were marked outdated, Soviet, street names, many of which were renamed Dudayev's regime. Radio communications in the units storming Grozny were almost paralyzed due to the confusion reigning on the air. There was practically no interaction between the units, due to the inexperience of most of the mechanics-drivers of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. In total, the troops in Chechnya received about 600 units of military equipment and weapons defective. General Lev Rokhlin: “The percentage of faulty equipment arriving in Chechnya was officially 20. But, for example, 36 percent of faulty armored personnel carriers arrived from the Volga Military District. And out of 18 units of 122-mm howitzers that arrived from the same district, 12 were faulty 18 self-propelled guns were sent from the arsenal of the Ural District. Of these, only 4 could be used. 39 percent of the armored personnel carriers that arrived from the Urals were also out of order. "
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. vandarus
        vandarus 14 January 2016 15: 16 New
        +3
        The loss of tanks during the storming of Grozny is a separate topic. There are a lot of reasons: zero training of crews, erroneous tactics of use and, in the end, criminality (remember how they stole explosives from the remote control in the places of storage of equipment), but we will not remember the fact that some of the "crews" consisted of a mechanic and a KBM.
    4. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 14 January 2016 21: 14 New
      0
      The dashing 90s .. Everything was bad then we had .. The tanks were without dynamic protection, the training of the crews left much to be desired, add to this treachery .. most of the listed losses were within the city or in the built-up area. The "Czechs" simply threw anti-tank grenades on the roofs of the tanks from the floors, so the tanks went without infantry escort.
  21. 0255
    0255 14 January 2016 12: 10 New
    -17
    ......................................................................
    1. aviator1913
      aviator1913 14 January 2016 12: 26 New
      10
      Are you gaining "likes" with such demotivators?

      Or are you just a fan of "classmates" and want to turn a serious forum into a confrontation between Internet pictures and funny Internet memes?
      1. 0255
        0255 14 January 2016 12: 45 New
        -12
        Quote: aviator1913
        Are you gaining "likes" with such demotivators?

        I do not care about the pros and cons. I rarely post such demotivators. Do not like it - put me minuses on health, your right.
        Quote: aviator1913
        Or are you just a fan of "classmates" and want to turn a serious forum into a confrontation between Internet pictures and funny Internet memes?

        I'm not in Odnoklassniki.
    2. Kars
      Kars 14 January 2016 12: 59 New
      +1
      By the way, Abrams is my first tank model)))))))
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 January 2016 13: 23 New
        +2
        _______________________________
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 January 2016 19: 13 New
          -1
          Well, this modification of Abrams will withstand shots from RPG 7.
  22. Dam
    Dam 14 January 2016 12: 32 New
    0
    Abrashas are burning, just like any other tanks.
  23. vandarus
    vandarus 14 January 2016 13: 00 New
    +3
    Thank you for the article. It should be added that the main losses of Abrams of all modifications during the Iraqi conflicts occurred not as a result of the enemy's influence, but because of those. reasons. The main one is the failure of the gas turbine engine due to high dust content, the filters could not cope and the tanks got up during the march.
    Among the advantages of "Abrams" can be noted: good cannon (long resource), excellent control system, high maintainability (replacement of the engine and transmission 4 hours, roll out along the rails with a monoblock), high crew survival)
    Of the minuses: A lot of weight, poor booking of the APU and the stern in general.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 January 2016 14: 43 New
      +1
      "poor armoring of the APU and the stern in general." ////

      And the sides, too. RPG7 pierced the side of the hull.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. vandarus
        vandarus 14 January 2016 15: 34 New
        +3
        Yes, RPG-7 with a 7V shot takes Abrams M1A1 aboard, but the crew survives, and in most cases the car remains to be found.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 January 2016 19: 15 New
          -7
          What can not be said about T 72 and the rest.
          1. ILDM1986
            ILDM1986 14 January 2016 20: 13 New
            +4
            Quote: aviator1913

            - 31.12.1994/131/72 XNUMX OMB Grozny, railway station T-XNUMXA, hit from RPG in spar. Machine gun jammed the gun tank commander wounded.
            -31.12.1994 276 SMEs Sadovy T-72B1 # 414 RPG, MT-12 Rapier cannon, the whole crew died.
            -28.12.1994 113 guards. OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV No. 517 a shell from a T-72 captured by Czechs, 80ka like the whole, no one died
            -28.12.1994 113 guards. OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV No. 510 RPG 3 hits, armor not broken, no losses
            -28.12.1994 113 guards. OTB Tolstoy Yurt T-80BV No. 536 ATGM tank commander killed, gun driver and gunner wounded.
            -31.12.1994 113 Guards. OTB Grozny, opposite the cinema "Russia" T-80BV # 515 or 516 RPG damaged by RSA, destroyed from another tank during the retreat on 01.01.95, no crew losses.
            01.01.1995 131 OMZ Grozny, railway station T-72A No. 534 RPG hit the VLD (?), Tank is broken, fire, tank burned out, no crew losses.
            -31.12.1994 81 guards. MP Grozny, district pres. Palace T-80BV RPG 8 grenades, one hit the hatch, tank commander died.
            01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72A№533 RPG 5 grenades in the MTO, no crew losses.
            01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny, railway station T-72A№537 RPG 6-7 grenades, the tank exploded, the whole crew died.
            01.01.1995 131 OMB Grozny railway station T-72A№531 RPG 5 RPG grenades + 1 BPS, gunner died.
            01.01.1995 81 guards MP Grozny, st. Mayakovsky T-80 RPG in shoulder straps, mechanical water. shot when he left the tank, the rest could not leave the tank under fire before the explosion (i.e. the crew died).
            02.01.1995 74 guards OMB Terrible T-72B mod. 89 years with the K-5, the tank is destroyed, the crew died.
            05.01.1995/133/80 541 guards. OTB Grozny T-XNUMXBV No. XNUMX RPG, in the stern of the tower, the fur is damaged. turning, transmission may be damaged, gunner wounded.
            -08.01.1995 141 OTB T-72A, mechvod com.vz. - died in a burning tank. the gun blocked mech.vod-la, the commander was seriously injured
            -10.01.1995 276 MP Grozny, area pl. Lenin T-72B1 No. 430 RPG on board, the bulwark was disrupted, the ammunition detonated (crew died)
            -12.01.1995 74 guards. OMB Terrible T-72B mod. 89 years with the K-5 RPG airborne defense, several hits, the tank burned down, no crew losses
            -13.01.1995 276 MP Grozny, at the Gozneft building in the square on the per. Mira St. and Revolution Avenue T-72B1 RPG, exploded as a result of a fire, mech.vod. (perished) was in the tank covering the evacuation of the remaining crew members.
            -13.01.1995 128 Guards. MP Grozny, near the military camps No. 86 and No. 2 T-80BV, the call sign "blow" RPG grenades ricocheted from the tower (??), there are no losses in the crew.
            -17.01.1995 133 guards. OTB Grozny, bridge h-s p. Sunja on Victory Ave. T-80BV RPG 3 grenades, the scope failed, no crew losses.
            -19.01.1995 133 guards. OTB Grozny, bridge h-s p. Sunja along Victory Ave. T-80BV RPG in shoulder strap, damaged R-173 transmitter, tank commander wounded.
            -18.01.1995 TB attached 503MP Grozny, at the presidential palace T-72A art. shell the whole crew died.
            -27.01.1995 133 guards. OTB Grozny, near the tram park and the T-80BV garment factory No. 512 SPG-9 in the avenue between 1 and 2 skating rinks with a tank rack, the second in the middle of the hull in the ammunition area, the tank caught fire, then exploded, the driver died.
            -27.01.1995 276MP Grozny, ul. Noy Buachidze T-72B1 No. 442 RPG 1 grenade on board, the tank caught fire and was later evacuated, no crew losses.
            And this is for a month.

            given how the crews were equipped and trained, how everything was planned and implemented, the losses are really low
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 14 January 2016 23: 43 New
              -1
              The list is not complete, here is more detailed as it was http://btvt.narod.ru/2/tanks_in_grozny.htm
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 14 January 2016 23: 48 New
            -2
            Before the new ATGMs, all T 72, T 80, and T 90 tanks are powerless - one hit and one end.
            1. Forest
              Forest 15 January 2016 01: 07 New
              +1
              On board, NO ONE modern tank can not withstand ATGM, especially in the roof. 72B has at least a partially DZ roof, while the rest have a simple armor from 20 to 80 mm.
  24. gla172
    gla172 14 January 2016 15: 44 New
    +1
    https://youtu.be/hZ0hZL_sB0A
  25. gla172
    gla172 14 January 2016 19: 37 New
    +1
    _______________________-----))))))
    1. TARSUS
      TARSUS 15 January 2016 00: 15 New
      +5
      Too thick))
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. red_october
        red_october 15 January 2016 10: 19 New
        0
        That will still be ....
  26. TOR2
    TOR2 14 January 2016 21: 10 New
    +2
    In 2003, mattress makers introduced sanctions against the Tula Machine Building Design Bureau. I wonder why this is such a nervous reaction. As Shipunov said about the Kornet complex, "if he were present in Iraq, the mattress mats would not go farther than the border."
    https://youtu.be/EzHiEa0C92c?list=PLDF0Ypr8BFTkAAKohCh52rsLt-gx1T2nz&t=88
  27. gla172
    gla172 14 January 2016 21: 36 New
    +1
    "" "" "" "" The company of tanks "Panther" guard Lieutenant Sotnikov east of Prague (a suburb of Warsaw), Poland, August 1944 (RGAKFD). "" "" "" "" "" ""
    ; "" "
    This is a topic about the use of trophies ......
  28. partizan86
    partizan86 15 January 2016 01: 47 New
    0
    As a supplement
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VXbW6QFoNg
  29. gaura
    gaura 15 January 2016 13: 49 New
    0
    Notice how rarely their crew perish. Usually in battle they are saved without any consequences at all.
  30. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 16 January 2016 09: 09 New
    0
    A good article, without primitive cliches and urapatriotism, but also without liberal lies, is balanced and accurate. The tank is really good for the crew, tankers in the abrash rarely die, although this may be a matter of tactics, but the statistics are very good.
  31. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 16 January 2016 14: 35 New
    0
    "Skillfully and you can beat such a fool!" And about the New Year's assault on Grozny and do not need to remember! It's a pity no one answered for that! During the service from our military unit, part of the personnel was sent to form in Kameka, and then to Chechnya. The equipment was pulled out from a long repair and, after a quick check, was put on echelons. So the radio stations were in good order, God forbid, if on every tenth car, and most of the instruments and spare parts were faulty, incomplete and stupidly stolen.
  32. Qyomur
    Qyomur 18 January 2016 02: 11 New
    0
    I am not an expert, but the tank building school and the principles of design and construction in the West and in our USSR were different. The experience of the Second World War showed that expensive tanks are qualitatively superior to a potential enemy in an equal match, can not compete with the mass and simplicity of design. In my opinion, this is precisely why, according to some indicators, domestic tanks were inferior to their Western counterparts, because we will not forget that there were several Soviet tanks for each NATO unit, and that is why Europe was so afraid of armored armada ready at any moment to reach the English Channel. That mass and maintainability were very important factors in the design of tanks.
    Do not judge strictly, this is my subjective opinion))
  33. All terrain vehicle
    All terrain vehicle 19 January 2016 04: 19 New
    +1
    I was always wondering why all the burnt abrams are on their belly? The feeling is that they have slots on which the plastic torsions rest. In a fire, they melt and the tank sags.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 19 January 2016 19: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Rider
      I was always wondering why all the burnt abrams are on their belly? The feeling is that they have slots on which the plastic torsions rest. In a fire, they melt and the tank sags.

      If I remember correctly, in the internal tanks of Abrams 2,5 tons of kerosene. While all this burns out, the metal of the torsion loses its properties and they simply twist under the weight of the tank.
      I think so.