Main battle tank M1 "Abrams" (USA). M1 Abrams main battle tank (M1A2)

M1 Abrams is the US main battle tank. Serially produced since 1980. It is in service with the US Army and Marine Corps, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Australia. He is a veteran of many military conflicts: from Operation Desert Storm and peacekeeping operation UN in Somalia, before the 2003 Iraq campaign and Afghanistan. Analysis combat use tank in these conflicts caused a flurry of criticism of its combat effectiveness (especially armor), gave rise to many myths and revealed the lion's share of classified facts. Is this tank really that bad, and is its criticism fair? Let's figure it out.

The Abrams has powerful passive combined frontal armor that provides comprehensive protection against both kinetic and cumulative threats. The thickness of the frontal projection of the turret of the first M1 (1980) is 663mm (62mm outer steel plate + 500mm combined armor + 101mm rear steel plate), the hull protection is presented in the form of a 563mm dimension (similar in thickness to the rear and outer plates and 400mm composite dimensions). On subsequent modifications, starting with IPM1 (1984) and ending with M1A2SEPv2 (2008), the thickness of the frontal armor of the turret is (62 - 700 - 101) 863 mm, and the thickness of the hull is (62-500-101) 663 mm.

The effectiveness of armor fillers is different for each modification of the vehicle: m1a1 (since 1985) has a corundum ceramic filler AD92. M1A1HA (since 1988) corundum ceramics AD92 and uranoceramics UO87, (1990) M1A1HA+\D\M1A2 corundum ceramics AD95, and 2nd generation uranoceramics uo100. (since 2000) M1A2SEP\SEPv2\M1A1SA\FEP have AD95 and 3rd generation UO100 uranium ceramics with graphite coating and titanium as the lining of interchangeable armor packages instead of aluminum. Also, in addition to the main armor fillers, Kevlar, fiberglass, titanium, rubber and other materials are used to a small extent.

Indicators of resistance of fillers against various threats:
AD90 - 0.84 - 0.95 from OBPS and 1.37 from KS
AD99 - 1.13 - 1.08 from OBPS and 1.42 from KS
UO87 - 1.93 - 1.75 from OBPS and 2.9 from KS
UO100 - 2.67 - 2.4 from OBPS and 4 from KS

Resistance of frontal armor for various modifications:

M1 (1980)
TURRET: 420mm from BOPS / 800mm from KS
CASE: 380mm from BOPS / 700mm from KS

IPM1/M1A1 (1984)
TURRET: 450mm from BOPS / 900mm from KS
CASE: 470mm from BOPS / 800mm from KS

M1A1HA (1988)
TOWER: 680mm from BOPS / 1100-1320mm from KS
CASE: 630mm from BOPS / 900mm from KS

M1A1HA+/D/AIM/M1A2 (1990)
TOWER: 880-900mm from BOPS / 1310-1620mm from KS
CASE: 650mm? from BOPS / 970mm from KS

M1A2SEP/SEPv2/M1A1AIMv2/FEP (2000)
TOWER: 940-960mm from BOPS / 1310-1620mm from KS
CASE: n/a / n/a

These figures are typical for areas of the frontal projection equipped with combined armor; in addition to them, a significant part also consists of areas with simple monolithic armor and weakened areas vulnerable to enemy fire. Let's look at them too: very often it is these zones that become the object of criticism and are considered vulnerable to fire from modern PTS, let's look at each zone separately:

1) VLD and lower part of the NLD housing:
They have a thickness of 50mm in the driver’s mechanic’s area and 80mm (50mm + 30mm fuel tank protection) on both sides of the driver’s mechanic’s position. They have an inclination of 83 degrees from the vertical. At first glance, this is very weak protection, but in terms of equivalent thickness they are 360mm and 570, respectively. But nevertheless, even the translated data is extremely low for the level of protection of a modern combat vehicle.

Now let's turn to the properties of anti-tank ammunition. Let's start with armor-piercing ones: even modern OBPS have the ability to ricochet and deviate from the trajectory when overcoming inclined obstacles.

Projectiles with an OBPS boom extension of 10:1 at a speed of 1.7 km/s ricochet at angles of 78 degrees, 15:1 - 82-83 degrees, 30:1 - 84-85 degrees. (+- 1-2g depending on the OBPS material). Thus, only the most modern OBPS will be able to avoid a ricochet, but will encounter the next obstacle with a deviation from the trajectory. Even a slight deviation of 3-4 degrees. from the direction will lead to the fact that the OBPS arrow will have to overcome twice the distance in the thickness of the armor. Thus, even a 50mm barrier can be extremely difficult to hit. Cumulative projectiles and ATGM warheads also face great difficulties when colliding with an obstacle at an extremely high angle: the damaging factors of the cumulative jet strongly depend on the angle at which the ammunition meets the target (at meeting angles that differ by more than 30 degrees from the normal, the jet can be reflected from the obstacle , dispersion and deflection). When contacting armor at such an extreme angle of 83 degrees, about half of the material of the cumulative jet will dissipate into the air from the obstacle, the remaining part will enter the armor, deviating several degrees from the direction, as a result of which penetration can drop by 3 - 4 times. At this angle, it is also obvious that the first thing to come into contact with the armor will not be the head part and the contact fuse, but the side of the ATGM or KS; this will cause deformation of the cumulative funnel, its detonation at an unplanned point and, as a result, the impossibility of forming a cumulative jet. (Only for warheads with contact detonation and its location in the front part).

2) The upper frontal sheet of the turret, covering the roof up to the commander’s and loader’s hatches:
has a thickness of 70mm, located at an angle of 84-85 degrees (properties are similar to (1)).

3) gun mantlet:

It is also considered a vulnerable area of ​​the Abrams. Russian analysts estimate its durability from 250mm to 300 against OBPS and KS. The smallest thickness to the gun is about 550mm, the greatest - about 70mm. Consists of 2 parts shown in the photo. The outer one has replaceable packages with corundum and uranium ceramics, the rear one is hypothetically represented exclusively by monolithic steel armor, it is not denied that it also has packages with replaceable armor. Behind the gun mantlet, the armor is presented in the form of about 300mm of solid steel with a mechanism for attaching, rotating and stabilizing the gun in the vertical plane. The hypothetical resistance of this area of ​​the frontal projection is estimated at 850-900mm from OBPS and 1100-1200mm from KS (provided that the rear part of the gun mantlet consists of monolithic rolled steel of medium hardness).

WEAK AREAS!:
Occupies 8.9% of the frontal projection.
1) A cutout in the gun mask for the driver’s mechanic’s head (thickness about 300mm).
2) The cutout between the hull and the turret: represented by the lower frontal part of the turret, extending to the shoulder strap (the thickness gradually decreases from 850mm to 300mm.

RESERVATION OF SIDE PROJECTION

FRAME:
In the driver's mechanic's area, up to the BO, there is a 70mm onboard anti-cumulative shield + 25mm of the main armor with a welded 30mm sheet going to a little further than the middle of the BO + 30mm of the fuel tank armor.
In the area of ​​the side, up to 1/3 of its part is similar (anti-cumulative shields fall in thickness to 6.5mm - 30mm additional sheet) in the MTO area there is 25mm of the main armor and a 6.5mm anti-cumulative shield.
As practice shows, up to and including the weakened zone near the MTO, the armor effectively resists the fire of 30mm cannons and old modifications of the RPG7; in the weakened rear part, the armor is vulnerable to fire from 14.5mm machine guns and the very first RPGs.

Ru/uploads/posts/2013-01/1359032111_iykkq2_p6cc.jpg

It has a thickness from 450mm to 500mm in different areas. The physical thickness on the starboard side is 450 mm, on the left side 450 in the area of ​​the ammunition stowage, towards the frontal armor it increases to (500? mm).

COMPOSITION: 30mm outer plate of rolled armor steel of medium hardness, 20mm air gap, 3x19mm plates of uranoceramic filler between 2 rubber gaskets in titanium matrices, also a 19mm gap between the plates. Next comes 180mm air and a 120mm rear steel plate. The durability of the latest modifications of the Abrams is 240-250mm from OBPS. At an angle of 60 degrees, it can withstand a hit from a Russian OBPS 3bm32 from 2000m and a hit from a 3bm42 from 1000m. From cumulative, taking into account the effects of 3 uranium plates on the jet, as well as a spaced design with air gaps + correction for the angle of inclination, durability is about 400mm. (takes only RPG7VL (500mm) and tandem (650mm) as well as RPG29 "vampire" (650mm), RPG22 (440mm) and RPG32 (650mm).. for the rest of the range of ammunition RPG7, RPG18, RPG22 such an obstacle is too tough. At the side the tower in the BC area has a different filler. Instead of an external 30mm steel plate, there is an aluminum plate several millimeters thick, and in the air gap between the package and the back plate there is another package of plates at a large angle. The overall durability is about 300mm from OBPS and 500mm from KS. taking into account the spare parts boxes, we add another 5 millimeters from armor-piercing and 50-100 millimeters from ks. In this place, the protection is even more powerful. Also, to protect the side projections, it is possible to install ARAT (for the hull) and ARAT2 (for the hull and turret) dynamic protection complexes, which increases the anti-cumulative protection of the Abrams side projections.

ROOF AND BOTTOM RESERVATION

The hull roof armor up to the ammunition is 50mm and 80mm, the turret roof protection up to the hatches is 70mm and 35mm up to the ammunition rack, the thickness of the ejection panels and the armor covering the MTO is even smaller. Such protection is questionable against cluster ammunition with cumulative subelements. Bottom armor - 80mm 50 and 20, depending on the area, it is possible to install a V-shaped 12.7mm sheet for additional mine protection.

ADDITIONAL PROTECTION
1) Frontal fuel tanks, built into the protection system, have a wall thickness of 30mm, increasing the resistance of the frontal and side projection. In addition, the fuel itself has the property of extinguishing the characteristics of a cumulative jet by up to 40-45% compared to a steel barrier, and armor-piercing by 10-15%. The fuel tanks inside are designed in the form of a honeycomb. With a frontal penetration, fire is impossible due to insufficient oxygen supply. Only penetration into the side projection can lead to a fire.
2) Protective walls separating ammunition, fuel and supplies from the crew increase their chances of survival.
3) Large armor volume over 19 m, minimizes the effectiveness of the armor impact of ammunition that has penetrated the armor. Booking design minimizes lethal effect fragmentation field of cumulative and kinetic ammunition after penetration.
4) Personal protective equipment for the crew: wearing body armor with ceramic plates and Kevlar helmets is mandatory.
5) Fire extinguishing system.

Tank Abrams M1A1 photo , in the USA, after the joint development of the MVT70 prototype with Germany ceased in 1970, a program was launched to create its own promising tank, which would replace the already outdated one. In June 1973, contracts were signed with Chrysler and General Motors for the development and construction of prototypes this equipment with diesel and gas turbine engines (GTE). Interestingly, the machine should be relatively cheap and accessible for mass production. Which is what was done. With similar characteristics, for example, to the German one, the American M1 is cheaper.

The revolutionary decision to use a Lycoming Textron gas turbine engine with a power of 1120 kW, or 1500 hp, provided the 57-ton colossus with a highway speed of up to 67 km/h and exceptionally high throttle response. The engine has shown sufficient reliability in various climatic conditions, while on the move it is much quieter than a diesel. For reference, the Soviet T80 tank had a gas turbine engine installed a little earlier than the Americans.
On November 12, 1976, the winning of a Chrysler car with a gas turbine engine was announced. Comprehensive testing of 11 prototypes has begun. They ended in February 1979. Exactly a year later, their serial production began at the state enterprise Lima Tank Plant.
At the same time, the prototype received the designation M1 Abrams (General Abrams), in honor of General Creighton Abrams, commander of the group of American forces in Vietnam.

In February 1981 Abrams M1A1 tank photo , adopted.

M1A1 ABRAMS cross-section with detailed location of crew members and components

Tank Abrams M1 photo , developed by Chrysler Defense Corporation and produced by General Dynamics, combined modern level firepower, mobility and survivability. It underwent several upgrades and was able to demonstrate its combat capabilities during the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, and operations in Afghanistan.

• During the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams failed due to combat damage. Nine of them were lost forever, another nine were subject to restoration, having been damaged, mainly by mine explosions. The only completely killed Abrams tank crew was the M1A1 crew.

Its decisive combat superiority over Soviet-made tanks was demonstrated in battles with the Iraqi army during the 1991 Gulf War, and later during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Over the course of 30 years of operation, the Abrams was regularly upgraded in order to improve its combat and operational qualities. In March 1982, the Land System Division of General Dynamics joined the production of tanks, which began its further modernization ... within the framework of the so-called Block I program. The impetus for its implementation was the Lebanon War of 1982. The result of the first stage of the program was the IP M1 (IP - Improved Product), which appeared in 1984 and received enhanced armor for the frontal part of the hull and turret, an improved suspension, a modified transmission, new tracks and an additional basket for property in the rear of the turret. .

• In August 1984, the M1A1, armed with a 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun, manufactured under a German license, was put into service. The American version of the gun requires fewer spare parts than the German original.

The cannon's ammunition was reduced to 40 rounds, and the coaxial machine gun's ammunition was reduced to 2,800 rounds. Two knockout panels of the same size were installed on the roof of the tower instead of an additional basket.

US Army M1A1 Abrams MBT (Main Battle Tank), Task Force, 1st Battalion, 35th Armor Regiment, 2nd Tactical Group, 1st Armored Division, pose for a photo under the "Hands of Victory." Baghdad, Iraq during the operation to "liberate or capture" Iraq.

Excerpt briefly.

The M1A1 must engage and defeat the enemy on a “single” or “integrated battlefield”, in any climate, at any time of day, against any enemy. Due to its mobility, fire and striking power. The qualities of the Abrams tank are well suited to the tasks of offensive and defensive operations against enemy troops, highly saturated with armored vehicles, in the harsh conditions of the modern battlefield when exposed to a variety of weapons.

M1A1 tank Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (13 MEU) of Central Command December 2003

TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS Tanka Abrams M1A1 photo ,

• Country: USA
• Crew: 4 people
• Developer: Chrysler Defense Development time: 1972-1980
• Production period: 1980 to present
• Period of application: from 1980 to the present
• Manufacturer: Lima Army Tank Plant (1980 to present), Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (1982-1996)
• Number of built: more than 9000
• Combat weight: 57 t
• Dimensions: Body length: 7.92 m. Length with gun forward: 9.83 m. Width: 3.66 m. Height: 2.89 m.
• Travel speed: 67 km/h.
• Highway range: 500 km.
• Cruising range over rough terrain: 300 km.
• Specific ground pressure: 0.96 kg/cm2.
• Fording depth: 1.22 m, with preparation - 2.3 m
• Climbability: 31°. Width of the ditch to be overcome: 2.75 m. Height of the wall to be overcome: 1.27 m
• Suspension type: individual torsion bar, advanced
• Engine: gas turbine Avco-Lycoming AGT 1500 Power: 1120 kW (1500 hp) at 3000 rpm
• Fuel tank capacity: 1907 l
• Specific power: 26.3 hp/t
• Main armament: 120 mm M256 L/44 smoothbore gun, 40 rounds of ammunition.
• Secondary weapons: 2 x 7.62 mm M240 machine guns, 11,000 rounds of ammunition; 1 x 12.7 mm M2НВ Browning anti-aircraft machine gun, 900 rounds of ammunition.
• Armor type: homogeneous rolled, multi-layer composite in the frontal part of the hull and on the turret, welded structure.

Shot of the main tank "Abrams" M1A1 photo

CREW ACCOMMODATION
The crew consists of four people. The driver is located in the front part of the hull in the middle, reclining in a combat style. The turret to the right of the gun houses the gunner and commander, and the loader to the left.
MAIN WEAPONS
The main armament of the modification of the Abrams M1A1 tank was the American version of the German 120-mm smoothbore gun Rheinmetall L44, which received the designation M256 in the USA.
AUXILIARY WEAPONS
On the roof of the turret above the commander's hatch there is a turret mount for a 12.7 mm M2NV machine gun. In the turret, a 7.62-mm M240 machine gun is paired with the cannon; the second M240 machine gun is installed above the loader's hatch.
M1A1 Abrams ARMOR PROTECTION
The M1A1's combined armor is largely similar to the British Chobham armor, using steel armor, depleted uranium, ceramic elements and synthetic fabrics. The equivalent (homogeneous armor) thickness on tank armor ranges from 560 mm for the front hull plates to 900 mm for the turret.

M1A1 main battle tank prepares to march to the Al-Hamra training ground in the United Arab Emirates

AMMUNITION RACK
The ammunition is stored in armored compartments in the developed aft niche of the turret and is separated from the crew by an armored partition; in the upper part of the niche there are ejector panels - through the holes they open, explosion products are directed outward in the event of detonation.
POWER POINT
The Lycoming Textron AGT 1500 gas turbine engine produces 1,120 kW (1,500 hp) and delivers highway speeds of up to 67 km/h. The engine is more reliable and quieter than a diesel engine of equal power, but high fuel consumption creates big problems for support services.

Marines of the 1st Tank Battalion on an M1A1 tank

Tank Abrams M1A1 photo, modification M1A1, serial production of which began in August 1985, received a 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun.
Instrumentation allows the M1A1 crew to detect a target at a great distance, exceeding the effective range of the enemy’s weapon, identify it, determine the distance and fire an aimed shot before the opponent can use his weapon. The digital ballistic computer receives data from the laser rangefinder and determines the sight settings, taking into account the angular position of the target and the bend of the gun barrel - a mirror is installed on the muzzle of the barrel specifically for this determination. External sensors on the tower provide information about atmospheric conditions.
Multilayer combined armor for M1 tanks since 1988 has included steel armor with depleted uranium additives, providing significantly greater density than other steel alloys, layers of synthetic fabric, ceramic elements, and rubber inserts. During the Gulf War, there were cases of Abrams armor being penetrated by shells from Soviet-made T-72 tanks. The ammunition compartment and the turret roof include knockout strips, thanks to which, in the event of penetration of the hull or turret armor and detonation of ammunition, the explosion products will be directed outward - this increases the crew's chances of survival.

CREW ACCOMMODATION
The driver, located in the front part of the body along the axis of the vehicle, uses three periscope devices for observation, one of which can be replaced with a night vision device. To reduce the height of the tank, the driver sits reclining in a combat style. The commander is located in the turret to the right of the gun and can conduct all-round observation through six periscopes. The gunner, also seated to the right of the gun, uses a GPS-LOS surveillance system and a Hughes laser rangefinder. The loader is located to the left of the gun.

Australian and US Marine Corps soldiers at Exercise Golden Eagle in California

Coaxial sight: In the event of combat damage or failure of automated equipment, a telescopic type optical sight can be used.
Commander's Station: The commander also uses several sights, including sights on the 12.7 mm machine gun turret, and a sight that duplicates the gunner's main sight.
The fighting compartment floor acts as a suspended turret floor, rotating synchronously with its rotation and providing crew members with a constant position relative to the weapons and ammunition.

On an M1A1 Abrams tank, a Marine on a smoke break, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Tank Battalion during exercises in the desert

M1 Abrams and Iraqi T-72 tank, stern to each other, Besmaya Gunnery Ridge Baghdad, Iraq, October 2008

Abrams M1A1 tank on the belly, photo during the Iraqi campaign

With the hatch closed, the driver takes a reclining position and controls the tank using a T-shaped steering wheel.
The M1 tank is armed with a 105-mm M68A1 rifled gun, stabilized in two planes and equipped with an ejector. The gun's ammunition load includes 55 rounds. A 7.62-mm machine gun is paired with the cannon, a second one is installed in front of the loader's hatch, and a 12.7-mm machine gun is mounted on the commander's turret. Ammunition - 11,400 rounds of 7.62 mm caliber and 1,000 rounds of 12.7 mm caliber. On the sides of the turret there are two six-barreled smoke grenade launchers.
The tank is equipped with a fairly advanced fire control system. An Avco-Licoming AGT-1500 gas turbine engine with a power of 1,500 hp is installed in a single unit with the transmission. Maximum temperature gases in the turbine reaches 1193°.

• The tank accelerates to 30 km/h in 6 seconds.
• Maximum speed - 66.7 km/h.

The chassis consists of seven rubber-coated rollers on board, two rubber-coated support rollers, a rear drive wheel with removable ring gears and a guide wheel. Individual torsion bar suspension. The caterpillar is rubberized with rubber-metal hinges and removable asphalt running pads.

gunner and driver preparing for battle of the new modification M1A2, the main difference is the presence of remote control of an anti-aircraft machine gun

Tank Abrams M1A1 photo, has modifications:

• HM1: Experienced. In 1979, nine prototypes were built.
• M1: First production model. Produced in 1979-1985.
• MPR: IP - “improved production model”. It was produced in 1984 before the adoption of the M1A1. Includes some improvements and design changes.
• M1A1: Produced 1986-1992.
• M1A1NS: NS - “regular weighted”. Composite armor containing depleted uranium, a system of protection against weapons of mass destruction with sealing of the hull and the creation of excess pressure, a large basket for stowing spare parts on the turret, a 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun.
• M1A1-D: D - “digital”. M1A1 NS with digital electronic equipment.
• M1A1-AIM: AIM is a “comprehensive modernization of the Abrams tank.” Modernization program for all previously released ones by one deadline. Provides for: installation of a forward-looking infrared system (FLIR) and long-range target detection sensors, telephone equipment for communication with an infantry unit, new communications equipment, a terminal for “21st century battle control equipment at the brigade level and below” (FBCB2) and “friendly force” identification equipment. based on the “friend or foe” principle (Blue Force Tracking), a thermal imaging sight for 1 2.7 mm machine gun.
• M1A1 KVT: KVT is the “red version of the tank.” An M1A1 modified to simulate Soviet tanks at the Fort Irwin National Training Center. Equipped with a set of laser sensors and hit simulators (MILES) and a “Hoffman device” (a simulator of firing from a tank gun).
  M1A1M: Export version for supply to the Iraqi army.
• M1A2 (1992),
• M1A2 SEP (1999),
• M1A1D (2000),
• M1 TUSK (2006),
• M1A2 SEP V2 (2008).

distinctive features of the new series tanks

• Serial production of A1M1 series tanks was carried out in the USA until 1995.
• In total, over 9,000 pieces were produced. Currently, the modernization of previously produced vehicles continues.
• As of 2010, the tanks were in service with Australia, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Today, there are many research articles aimed at comparing the latest domestic tanks with foreign vehicles. At the same time, on our side, as a rule, the T-90A is in favor, less often the T-80UM1 “Bars”, which was never adopted for service. In 99% of cases, the potential opponent is the “long-suffering” Abrams or the German Leopard-2 tank. Moreover, in all these sources tanks are compared only in relation to each other, although the tasks of the modern main battle tank much more than the banal destruction of their own kind. And if the Abrams is chosen as an opponent, which, although not the best tank in the world, is the main potential enemy, then this is in principle true. This tank is mass produced, supplied to NATO troops and has been fighting in various parts of the world for a long time. But is it right for us to compare the T-90A to it? Partly true, but only partly. As an indicator of the country's technological power, its prestige from the ability to create modern main battle tanks, which are in no way inferior to, and often superior to, Western vehicles, such a comparison seems quite appropriate. But on the other hand, if it happens that the problem with the “Abrams” and “Leopards-2” will have to be dealt with not by the one who only rides in parades and participates in international exhibitions, but by the one who what is really in the hangars, and what is really in service with the Russian army today. Has the dear reader seen at least one T-90A or T-80U in newsreels during Chechen campaigns? Or maybe during the five-day war with Georgia in August 2008? Your humble servant, for example, didn’t see it. Despite the optimistic statements of the country's leadership, the share of modern T-90 series tanks in the army continues to remain insignificant. According to some reports, we now have about 300 T-90s of all models, which is of course extremely small. The T-80UM1 "Bars" tank has not been accepted into service at all and cannot be compared with any foreign tank there's no point. In addition to the new T-90 series tanks and a number of T-80U, Russian army Today it uses tanks T-62M, T-72AV, T-72B and its modernized version T-72BM. There are also quite a few T-80BV tanks. Among them, the most popular is the T-72B tank. Here it is almost everywhere. It is actively used in all wars and conflicts, and in general this tank is what is called “in plain sight.” It is quite logical to assume that the T-72B will be the one that will have to fight with the Abrams if something happens. In this article we will try to find out how good our good old T-72B is compared to the widespread modification of the American Abrams M1A2 tank.

The comparison will be not only against each other, although this is of course very important, but in general based on typical combat situations in which a modern tank may find itself. To begin with, the characteristics of both cars:

T-72B	M1A2 "Abrams"
Common data: Year of adoption: 1985. Length - 9530mm. Width - 3460mm. Height - 2226mm. Weight - 44.5t. Crew – 3 people. Maximum speed – 60km/h. Power reserve - 700km(with additional tanks). Clearance – 470mm. Power ratio – 18.9hp/t.	Common data: Year of adoption: 1994. Length - 9766mm. Width - 3653mm. Height - 2375mm. Weight - 62.1t. Crew – 4 people. Maximum speed – 66km/h. Power reserve - 460km. Clearance – 457mm. Habitability – seats with backs and a stove. Power ratio – 24.2hp/t.
Weapons: - 125mm/51k smoothbore gun launcher 2A46M+ two-plane stabilizer 2E42-1"Jasmine" + automatic loader AZ on 22 shot. Artillery shells: BOPS¹ ZBM-44 KS² ZBK-29M– for hitting armored targets. OFS³ ZOF-26– to defeat manpower and area “soft” targets. Guided missiles: UR 4 9M119 highly accurate for hitting pinpoint ground and air targets at long distances. Total ammunition 45 artillery shells and guided missiles. - 7.62mm machine gun PCT paired with a cannon. - 12.7mm machine gun NSVT in the Utes anti-aircraft installation above the commander's hatch.	Weapons: - 120mm/44k smoothbore gun M256+ two-plane electro-hydraulic stabilizer. Artillery shells: BOPS М829А2– for hitting point armored targets. KS M830– for hitting armored targets. PKOS 5 М830А1– to defeat hidden manpower. OS 6 M1028- to defeat manpower. There are no guided missiles. Total ammunition 42 artillery shell. - 7.62mm machine gun M240 paired with a cannon. - 7.62mm machine gun M240 installed above the loader's hatch. - 12.7mm machine gun M2 installed above the commander's hatch.
Fire control system: Regular 1A40-1 TBV. DVO 7 +LD 8 sight TPD-K1 gunner Increase 8x. IK 9 aim TPN-3-49 gunner Increase 5.5x. Combined sight-device DVO+iK 1K13-49gunner Increase 8x during the day and 5.5x at night. Combination device DVO+iK TKN-3Mcommander Increase 5x during the day and 4.2x at night. - 4 Radio station R-173. This system provides target detection and aimed shooting from a moving BOPS at a distance 4km during the day and 1.2km at night, other types of projectiles 5km during the day and 1.2km at night. Launch of guided missiles at 5km day and before 1.2km at night from the place.	Fire control system: Automated with a system of input information sensors. Tank digital ballistic computer TBV. Combined DVO +LD+ Ti 10 sight GPSgunner (the commander has a channel from him). Increase 9.5x during the day and 9.8x at night. DVO aim M920 gunner Increase 8x. Combined DVO + Ti device CITV commander - 8 periscope devices in the commander's cupola. Tank information and control system TIUSFBCB2 commander Radio station SINCGARS commander This system provides target detection and targeted shooting on the move with all types of projectiles at a distance of up to 5km day and before 3km at night.
Security: Hull forehead: combined armor + semi-active armor + Kontakt-1 NDZ. Turret front: combined armor + semi-active armor + Kontakt-1 NDZ. Hull side: monolithic armor + rubber-fabric screen + Kontakt-1 NDZ. Turret side: combined armor + Kontakt-1 NDZ at the front and monolithic armor at the rear. Upper part: combined armor + semi-active armor + Kontakt-1 NDZ from front to middle and monolithic armor from middle to stern. Anti-nuclear protection GROOVE. Smoke screen, smoke grenade launchers 902B"Cloud".	Security: Body forehead: combined armor. Turret forehead: combined armor. Hull side: spaced monolithic armor. Turret side: combined armor at the front and monolithic armor at the rear. Hull rear: monolithic armor. Turret rear: monolithic armor. Upper part: monolithic armor along the entire length. Anti-nuclear protection GROOVE. Smoke screen, smoke grenade launchers.
Mobility: Multi-fuel diesel engine V 12 B-46-1 power 840hp Onboard mechanical 7+1 -speed gearboxes BKP. 6 track rollers on board. 3 supporting the skating rink. Caterpillar with RMS.	Mobility: Gas turbine engineAGT-1500 power 1500hp Automatic, hydromechanical transmission X-1100-3V. Auxiliary power unit Armed Forces of Ukraine power 6.8hp Custom torsion bar suspension 7 track rollers on board. Caterpillar with RMS.

The table shows that although our T-72B and older than the opponent by as much as 9 years, his combat and technical characteristics are still quite high level and in some moments they allow you to compete with the American and even surpass him in some places. But first things first:

Firepower.

In order to hit and destroy the enemy, the tank must first detect him. In a tank crew, this task falls on the commander, who has the necessary instrumentation for this purpose. After detecting the target, the commander gives target designation to the gunner, who then carries out the aiming and shooting. The commander is busy searching for other targets at this time. This principle is known as "hunter-shooter". There is also a mode for simultaneous target search by the tank commander and gunner. The latter uses his sights for this purpose. During the day, both tanks are practically equal, although the advantage of the CITV device stabilized in two planes over the combined TKN-3M device of the T-72B tank is obvious. But both tanks will still be able to detect each other at any distance. Problems start at night. The infrared channel of the TKN-3M commander’s device provides the T-72B with detection of a “tank” type target at night at a distance of no more than 500m. The thermal imaging channel of the commander's CITV device of the M1A2 tank will be able to detect our T-72B from a distance of 3000m. The Abrams gunner sees the same amount at night through the combined GPS sight. The TPN-3-49 infrared active-passive night sight and the UR 1K13-49 sight-guidance device for the T-72B gunner are visible in active mode at a maximum of 1200-1300m. This is 2.5 times further than the TKN-3M commander’s device, which is at least strange (thus, the “hunter-gunner” principle in the T-72B tank is very doubtful at night). However, this is still 2-3 times less than what the M1A2 sees at night, which is very, very dangerous for the T-72B. The Abrams commander also has a channel from the gunner's GPS sight, can see through it and, if necessary, can fire from the cannon instead of the gunner (for example, if he fails). The T-72B commander is deprived of this opportunity. In addition, the Abrams commander sees the entire tactical situation and technical parameters on the TIUS FBCB2 color screen, which allows him to navigate the environment much better compared to the T-72B commander, who only has voice information from the R-173 radio station.

Once the target is detected, the gunner’s task is to accurately hit it. During the day, due to the missile part, the T-72B has an advantage, but only at the longest distances. The KUV 9K120 “Svir” has a special high-precision laser guidance system through the 1K13-49 device and allows the guided missile to accurately hit almost the loophole from a distance of up to 5000m. Moreover, even maneuvering the target will not save it from a guided missile aimed at it. This allows the T-72B to effectively fire not only at ground targets, but also at air targets (for example, combat helicopters, which are very dangerous for a tank). Thus, the KUV 9K120 “Svir” T-72B also performs the tank’s air defense functions. Abrams does not have such capabilities. At the same time, in terms of artillery, the T-72B fire control system is significantly inferior to the M1A2 even in the daytime. Ballistic correction 11 of the TPD-K1 laser sight-rangefinder works out a correction for the type of ammunition and the distance to the target measured by the laser rangefinder. After this, the digital ballistic computer calculates the correction for the target's flank velocity and projects it in the sight's eyepiece. In order for the TPD-K1 to also work out the correction for the flank speed of the target, the gunner must manually enter it into the sight. Naturally, no one will do this in an intense battle. The option is only useful in long-distance shooting situations, when the target is moving at a uniform speed and cannot see the tank. Then the hit accuracy will be significantly higher. Corrections for atmospheric conditions are not processed in the T-72B. The effective firing range of an artillery shell is a rather vague thing, but the effective firing range of artillery shells at point targets for the T-72B is approximately 2000-2500m. The Abrams automated control system is considered one of the best in the world and takes into account all possible data: type of ammunition, range, wind, pressure, charge and air temperature, barrel bending, its misalignment with the sight, etc. The effective firing range is about 2500-3000m. At night, the Abrams has a complete advantage since it sees two to three times further than the T-72B. Accordingly, it will shoot effectively at night two to three times further. Managed rocket weapons The T-72B will not help here for obvious reasons.

Once precise guidance is achieved, the actual firepower of the tank comes into play. Both tanks are equipped with guns that are similar in capabilities, but completely different in design. The Abrams is equipped with a German 120mm unitary-loading smoothbore cannon, which is produced in the USA under license and is called the M256. The gun has a relatively short 44-caliber barrel with a quick-detachable tube (liner), but it has rather thick walls and is designed for very high internal pressure. The T-72B is equipped with a 125mm 2A46M smoothbore cannon with separate case loading. This gun is designed for lower pressure compared to the M256, but at the same time has a larger caliber, a much longer 51-caliber barrel and a larger charging chamber volume. As a result, the 125mm T-72B cannon is almost a ton lighter than the 120mm M1A2 cannon, but it is not inferior and even slightly superior to it in terms of muzzle energy: 93.16 MJ for the 125 mm 2A26M cannon versus 92.18 MJ for the 120 mm M256. True, the 125mm T-72B gun also has its drawbacks. Due to its lighter design compared to the 120mm M256, the gun of the domestic tank is more susceptible to bending and vibration when fired, which naturally adversely affects accuracy. In addition, the 2A46M has almost half the lifespan of 450 rounds versus 700 for the 120mm gun of an American tank. The latter, however, is not a big problem for a lined gun, where replacing the internal liner is a matter of several tens of minutes. The undoubted advantage of the 125mm T-72B cannon is the presence of an automatic loader (AZ). This allows the gunner to select and load the desired type of ammunition with one easy press of a button on the dashboard. AZ allows you to maintain the same rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute, regardless of the duration, battle conditions, specific situation, etc. The Abrams gun, in the old fashioned way, is loaded manually by a loader, who, although he can charge it for some time at the same speed as the AZ of the T-72B, is otherwise a complete drawback. At first, this greatly increased the size of the tower, which worsened its security and increased its vulnerability. Because of this, the gunner and commander had to be positioned together on the right side of the turret, with one single hatch shared between them. When firing, the loader may simply get tired and will no longer be able to load the gun so quickly. Injuring or poisoning the loader will leave the gun without any shells at all. In addition, at the moment when the shell is in the hands of the loader, a sharp bump, hitting the tank, or even just a sharp turn of the turret to the side can provoke the shell to fall out of his hands (such cases are by no means rare). I think there is no need to explain how this could turn out. Who knows, maybe this is why the Abrams still doesn’t have a high-explosive fragmentation projectile in its ammunition load. The T-72B is devoid of all these shortcomings. In addition, after the shot, the spent pallet in the T-72B is thrown out through the rear hatch of the turret, which provides sufficient Fresh air inside the tank. At Abrams, everything stays inside. Both guns have an ejection device for suction of powder gases after a shot and a heat-protective casing.

If the characteristics of the guns differ slightly, then the equipment of both tanks with ammunition and their capabilities differ quite significantly. The main type of ammunition for hitting “tank” type targets for both tanks are armor-piercing finned sabot projectiles with a tray that separates after firing. The best of them for the 125mm 2A46M cannon of the T-72B tank is considered to be the ZBM-44 “Mango”. This projectile has a tungsten core and is fired with an initial speed of 1715 m/s, which provides it with a direct shot range at a “tank” type target of 2120 m. The equivalent armor penetration of this projectile is normally estimated as 500-550mm of homogeneous armor from a distance of 2000m and about 600mm when fired at point-blank range. This is enough to destroy the first modifications of the Abrams M1 and M1A1 anywhere, but apparently not enough to hit the most powerfully protected frontal zones of the M1A2 tank. The M1A2 is hit by this projectile on the side, in the stern, and in the weakened zones of the frontal projection, which in the M1A2 constitute about 40% of the frontal projection. The 9M119 guided missile is precision weapons, used to hit point targets at maximum distances, including air ones. The missile penetrates approximately 750mm of armor regardless of distance. Hitting an M1A2 tank with a 9M119 missile is, in principle, possible anywhere, but hitting it head-on is no longer guaranteed. HEAT shells of the ZBK-18M or ZBK-29M type are also very common in the ammunition load of the T-72B tank. The shells have armor penetration of 550mm and 700mm, respectively. The latter has a chance to hit the M1A2, including in the weakened zone of the frontal projection. It is worth noting that now there are more powerful domestic BOPS of 125mm caliber that have better characteristics and can fight the frontal armor of almost any Western tanks. These include ZBM-44M and ZBM-48 “Lead”. However, such ammunition is not available for the 125mm 2A46M cannon of the T-72B tank. It is necessary to replace the gun with more powerful models of 125mm smoothbore guns 2A46M4, 2A46M5 or 2A82. The main ammunition for the 120mm M256 cannon of the M1A2 tank is the fairly advanced 120mm BOPS M829A2. The projectile has a depleted uranium core and a detachable sabot. The 44-caliber M256 cannon fires this projectile with an initial speed of 1630 m/s. The direct shot range is more than 2000m. Armor penetration is about 700mm from a distance of 2000m, which theoretically ensures the destruction of the T-72B from any location. There is also the M830 cumulative projectile, but its characteristics roughly correspond to our old ZBK-18M. Such a projectile cannot penetrate the forehead of the T-72B anywhere. The T-72B, which has powerful anti-cumulative protection, can be hit by this ammunition only at the stern and possibly at the side, but not guaranteed to hit the side. There are also more powerful M829A3 projectiles in the USA, but their deliveries have just begun and they are intended primarily for more powerful 120mm guns with a barrel length of 55 calibers. These guns are installed on M1A2SEP tanks, the number of which in service with the US Army is even smaller than the number of T-80U and T-90/T-90A tanks in service with the Russian Army. If in terms of “anti-tank” capabilities the artillery unit of the T-72B is clearly inferior to the M1A2, then in terms of anti-personnel capabilities, as well as destructive force when hitting “soft” area targets (typical, urban multi-storey building, bunker, bunker, etc.) the T-72B has a significant advantage. High-explosive fragmentation shells of the ZOF-26 type have simply gigantic destructive power. If necessary, the T-72B can be used as a self-propelled gun and fire from closed positions using the side level. In this case, the destruction from the fall of one shell will be comparable to the 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled gun. The 9M119 missile can accurately hit an embrasure or window from a distance of 5 km. " Frag grenades"type M830A1 and M1028 tank M1A2 are capable of hitting enemy personnel, and the first of them is behind barriers, but they are unable to cause any significant destruction. To do this, M1A2 crews have to use the same armor-piercing M829A2.

General conclusion: Of course, due to much more modern electronics, a sophisticated fire control system, and powerful BOPS, the M1A2 Abrams tank has an advantage over the T-72B in most all kinds of tank battle situations. The Abrams' superiority is especially strong at night. The T-72B does not provide a clear advantage even if it has a guided missile, since missiles cannot always be used and they are not always more profitable than classic artillery shells. But the advantage of M1A2 occurs only in classic tank battles like Prokhorovka. It seems that the developers of the vehicle, trying to ensure the superiority of the M1A2 over Soviet tanks, somehow forgot that the tank is not an anti-tank system and it should be able to fight a wide variety of targets on the battlefield, and not just tanks. The M1A2 Abrams can only fight well against enemy tanks. The T-72B's armament is incomparably more versatile and diverse. Need to hit an enemy tank? BOPS, UR and KS to choose from. It all depends on the distance. Do you need to hit a window from 5 kilometers away or shoot down a helicopter? No question - URs are ready to do this with ease. Do you need to “blow up” a house or a bunker where the enemy is holed up? Powerful OFSs at your service. Fighting infantry? The same OFS and machine guns. To shoot at helicopters, you can use an anti-aircraft gun with a 12.7mm NSVT machine gun. The M1A2 has nothing like that. As a fire support artillery, air defense, and anti-personnel weapon, it is significantly inferior to the T-72B. The two machine guns on the Abrams turret are mounted on conventional machines and are more intended for firing at ground targets. Although it is possible to shoot from them at air targets, it is inconvenient and limited. This question relates to a greater extent to the active defense (protection) of the tank from enemy air attack weapons. The armament of the T-72B is more advantageous in those conditions in which both tanks still have to actually fight.

Security, survivability, crew survivability.

In this area, the domestic tank school has always traditionally occupied a leading position, although American propaganda made every effort to create a myth about the invulnerability of Abrams-type tanks and, naturally, the vulnerability of tanks domestically developed. Propaganda statements that the author of these lines often hear, for example, on the Discovery channel, sometimes reach the point of absurdity. For example, the assessment of the best T-55 tank of its time is something like this: “they had to be feared only because there were many of them,” “the Soviet hard worker T-55,” etc. And all this is only on the basis that the old Iraqi T-55s from the 50s could not effectively resist the newest main battle tanks of the anti-Iraqi coalition in 1991! And this despite the fact that they were a priori immeasurably more weak side! Against the backdrop of victories over the same old T-55s and the first T-72Ms many years ago, the Abrams is quite seriously considered “the most reliable”, “the deadliest” and so on, always with the prefix “the very best”. But let's try to figure it out. First, let's analyze the threats that are relevant for a modern tank in modern combat. Kinetic ammunition against armored vehicles is currently used, in fact, only by the tanks themselves, and the almost extinct towed anti-tank guns. BOPS are also used in small-caliber automatic guns of infantry fighting vehicles, attack aircraft and helicopters, but these guns can hit a modern tank only in the most vulnerable places (roof, rear) and from a minimum distance. But the same tanks, self-propelled guns and anti-tank guns use cumulative shells and guided missiles. Attack helicopters and attack aircraft also fire missiles with a cumulative warhead. Today, all types of anti-tank missile systems, as well as RPG grenade launchers, fire cumulative ammunition. The number of the latter is currently many times greater than the number of tanks or attack aircraft with classic artillery pieces. Based on this, the conclusion naturally suggests itself that approximately 90% of modern anti-tank weapons have cumulative combat unit . To the credit of the creators of the T-72B, it should be said that they produced it in a timely manner correct assessment these threats in modern combat and developed adequate means of protection against them for the T-72B. Such means include the Kontakt-1 mounted dynamic protection complex, which greatly improves the tank’s protection from cumulative ammunition. The designers did not forget about sub-caliber shells. The T-72B tank was at one time considered one of the most powerfully protected tanks in the world. This was achieved through the following technical solutions:

• Six-layer combined armor in the frontal part of the hull and turret of very large thickness ( Soviet version English armor "Chobham"). It consists of packages made of dissimilar materials. Including non-metallic ones.
• A special package of semi-active armor in the frontal part of the hull and turret is designed to protect against cumulative ammunition. It is made in the form of plates that shift upon impact and break the cumulative jet or knock the BOPS core to one side.
• Rubber-fabric side screens on the hull that initiate the detonation of cumulative ammunition before it meets the main armor.
• Special body shape. The frontal parts of the hull are located at large angles of inclination, which increases the likelihood of ricochet of projectiles hitting them and increases the normalized thickness of the armor. In addition, the armor located in this way simultaneously provides powerful protection for the front upper hemisphere of the tank, making it invulnerable to small-caliber automatic aircraft guns. The tower has a relatively small size and a special shape. The vulnerable rear part is covered, as it were, by a powerfully protected front part within heading angles of ±30º.
• Complex of mounted dynamic protection "Contact-1" consisting of 227 containers intended for removal damaging effects cumulative jet. They cover the entire front of the tank, the entire upper part up to half of the turret. The sides are covered with remote protection elements up to the middle of the MTO, i.e. almost completely.

The equivalent level of protection for the frontal projection of the tank is estimated at approximately 550-600mm from kinetic ammunition and about 850mm-900mm from cumulative ammunition. The dimensions of the turret's frontal armor (physical thickness) range from 50-80cm. The weakened zone in the area of ​​the gun mantlet is approximately 15% of the frontal projection of the tank. The side of the T-72B turret has an equivalent resistance of about 450mm from kinetic and 650-700mm from cumulative ammunition. The side of the hull can withstand hits from small-caliber automatic guns of infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters, and also holds most common cumulative ammunition from RPGs. Vulnerable areas are the rear of the hull and turret, as well as the rear upper hemisphere. These areas are protected only from heavy machine gun bullets. The entire tank's ammunition is located under the fighting compartment floor in the AZ and in storage tanks. In the event of a penetration of the tank's armor, which is most likely through the rear of the turret or from an explosion under the bottom of the vehicle, detonation of the ammunition is possible. In this case, the tank's turret is torn off, and the crew instantly dies. As for the crew, the commander and gunner are in a better position. They each have their own hatches above their heads, through which they can quickly leave the damaged tank. The driver is in the worst position. In some positions of the gun, he cannot leave the car through his hatch, which is also clearly too small. An emergency hatch in the bottom of the hull or one of the two hatches in the turret can be used as alternative exit routes, but leaving the tank through them requires a considerable amount of time for the mechanic.

Let's move on to M1A2. American designers, we must give them credit, put a lot of effort into making this tank as small and light as possible. Indeed, the Abrams turned out to be much smaller than earlier American tanks such as M48/60, T29, T34 and M103. At the same time, its dimensions still remain very impressive. This is primarily due to the crew of four people (including the loader) and the placement of the main part of the ammunition compartment in the rear niche of the tank. The length of the tank's hull exceeds that of the T-72B by 1.5 meters, and the area of ​​the main visual mass of the Abrams' side projection due to the long turret is one and a half times greater than that of the T-72B. Reliably booking such a “bus” is generally a non-trivial task, and American designers solved it as best they could. Within the maximum possible mass, naturally. In principle, they did not come up with anything new. If the armor of heavy tanks of similar mass in the first post-war years was more or less uniform in a circle, then in the era of today's heavy-duty ammunition this option no longer works. The armor of the Abrams tank is, as it were, pulled together to three elements of the frontal part: the lower frontal plate and the cheekbones of the frontal part of the turret. Everything else either has a relatively low level of protection, or is left with virtually no protection at all. This principle of protection has been known in the navy since the end of the 19th century and is called “all or nothing.” According to this scheme, the vital parts of the ship (VVCh) were covered with the thickest possible armor. Everything else remained practically unprotected. The whole point is that due to overall dimensions and the density of the layout, the “ship” principle of armor is completely unacceptable for a tank. The tank has a relatively small size and a dense layout, and therefore vital parts are everywhere. That is, penetrating the armor almost anywhere in the tank is almost guaranteed to lead to its destruction or, at least, failure. As a result, the M1A2 Abrams tank, despite the powerful protection of the frontal projection from horizontally flying ammunition, cannot be called well protected. To reduce the weight of the armor, the tank hull has powerful multi-layer Chobham armor, but only on the lower frontal plate. The upper frontal sheet is located at a very large angle to the vertical, but at the same time very thin. The advantage of this arrangement is less weight. The downside is that the upper front hemisphere is not protected from aviation ammunition. Unlike the T-72B tank, in which only the stern is vulnerable to air attacks, the Abrams is absolutely penetrable to them from bow to stern. The turret has composite armor on the front and sides to the aft niche. Weakened zones in the form of a thin VLD, a gun mantlet and a huge “zaman” in the form of a gap between the turret and the hull reach approximately 40% of the frontal part of the hull. The tank does not have dynamic protection. The equivalent level of projectile resistance of the frontal part of the M1A2 is estimated at 770mm against kinetic ammunition. As for anti-cumulative resistance, there is a lot of data on this matter that differs significantly from each other. The most likely value is ~850-900mm. In terms of protection against BOPS frontal armor The M1A2 is significantly superior to the T-72B, although it is inferior to the latest domestic and some foreign main battle tanks. As already mentioned in the “firepower” section, such armor can be hit either by the latest generation of domestic BOPS, which cannot be used in the old 125mm T-72B gun, or by tank and anti-tank guided missiles with a cumulative warhead. Such as KUVT 9K120 “Svir”, 9K119 “Reflex”, ATGM 9K135 “Kornet”, 9K111 “Konkurs”, etc.

By the way, judging by the man on the tower dressed in a protective suit, it can be assumed that this is not even an M1A2, but a more advanced M1A2SEP whose armor is reinforced with inserts of uranium plates. The armor of the turret side to the aft niche is equivalent to approximately 400mm. Everything else is welded from armor steel sheets with thicknesses of 125mm, 65mm, 60mm, 50mm, 45mm, 32.5mm, 30mm, 25mm, 20mm and 12.5mm. The side of the hull in the front part has spaced monolithic armor 65mm screen + 30mm hull. In the MTO area, the side armor is somewhat weaker. The upper hemisphere of the tank is freely hit by armor-piercing 25-30mm shells from aircraft guns along the entire length of the tank. The side of the tank is hit by almost all grenade launchers, including the old RPG-7, but not guaranteed. Almost guaranteed to be in the aft part of the side of the turret and hull and in the stern of the turret and hull itself. In addition, shelling the APU 12 and engine air duct grilles with heavy machine guns until they catch fire gives good results. power plant and the complete destruction of the tank. This is also facilitated by the very large length and height of the tank with a massive turret. Thus, in terms of the level of protection from infantry anti-tank melee weapons, the strikes of which in urban battle conditions fall precisely on the most vulnerable parts of the tank - the rear, sides, roof, the M1A2 tank is frankly weak. These vulnerable spots and their area in the M1A2 tank are immeasurably larger than in the T-72B, the only truly vulnerable spots of which are the narrow zone in the rear of the relatively small turret, the rear of the hull and the roof of the MTO. The chances of the M1A2 tank to survive in intense urban combat with an experienced enemy are approximately the same as those of a 20-ton infantry fighting vehicle, i.e. almost close to zero. The T-72B in this regard, although not an invulnerable ideal (such things have not yet been invented), is, nevertheless, head and shoulders above the Abrams. This is the price of an all-or-nothing armor scheme in an attempt to reliably armor at least the front of a 62.1-ton tank the size of a bus. The huge losses of Abrams tanks in fairly harmless situations in Iraq forced the US military to look for a way out of the current situation and finally install the latest models"Abrams" dynamic protection following the example of the T-72B.

However, if everything is quite sour with the armor of the M1A2, then things are better with the survivability of the crew in the event of a tank defeat. A significant part of the ammunition load of 36 shells is located in the rear niche of the turret and is separated from the ammunition by an armored partition. Above them there are special expulsion panels, which, in the event of detonation of shells, fly out and all the energy of the explosion goes up. Of course, in this case the tank cannot be restored, but the crew has a chance to survive. To do this, two conditions must be met: at the moment of the explosion, the partition must be closed and the explosion itself must be normal. If the shells detonate all at the same time (some kind of volumetric explosion), then no expelling panels will naturally help the Abrams crew. The unitary loading shots themselves with a charge in a metal casing explode worse than charges in a combustible casing in the T-72B. Another advantage of this arrangement is that in order to adopt new and longer shells for an American tank, it is only necessary to lengthen the rear niche, which is much simpler than converting the T-72B automatic loader from a carousel to a cassette-floor one. The remaining 6 shells of the Abrams are in the fighting compartment along with the crew. It’s worth just one fire and the situation will repeat that on the T-72B when the ammunition ignites:

However, even here the Abrams’ ammunition protection is better - these shells are located in special armored containers, that is, they have local protection. To detonate them, it is necessary not only to penetrate the tank, but to hit them directly. For greater reliability, when starting a battle, American tank crews must first use those shells that are located with them in the tank’s ammunition. Additional ammunition for the T-72B tank, which does not fit in the AZ, is located in the so-called. tank racks. 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 jacket made of gasoline or diesel fuel! Naturally, there is no need to talk about any “local protection” of it. Of the Abrams crew, the loader is in the best position - there is plenty of space and a hatch above his head. It's worse for the commander. There is also a hatch overhead, but in an emergency, a panic-stricken gunner, who sits in front and below, can prevent you from getting out. The third place is for the driver - although there is a separate hatch, it is inconvenient to get out through it - the turret and gun are in the way, and the position of the driver reclining with “friends” in the form of fuel tanks on the sides does not help this. Worst of all is the gunner. It sits deep below and does not have its own hatch above its head. He must climb out through the commander's hatch, having previously released the latter, which may simply not be enough for the seconds that the crew has left in the event of a fire. However, it is worth recognizing that if in terms of protection the old T-72B is actually even better than the more modern M1A2, then in terms of crew survivability in the event of a vehicle being hit, our T-72B is already a whole generation behind. The reason for this is the ammunition placed in the fuel tanks in an embrace with the crew. And precisely for this, and not for poor armor, domestic tanks today are subject to serious criticism. As for the T-72B itself, its crew needs to provide a system for filling the storage tanks with ordinary water before the start of the battle. You will get an approximate analogue of the BC containers with a liquid jacket used in West German tank"Leopard-2". If the rack tank is damaged, this water will simply pour out into the AZ, which can play a serious role in extinguishing the fire. It’s better to pour diesel fuel into other tanks during the battle, even suspended, external ones. For a table comparing the lethality of tanks, see below:

T-72Bcan be hit from:	M1A2 "Abrams"can be hit from:
[b] Frontal projection:	Frontal projection: Only BOPS of the latest generation such as ZBM-44M, ZBM-48, M829A2, M829A3, DM -53, etc. Distributed BOPS only in weakened areas. Only ATGMs from the latest generation ATGMs such as 9K119 “Reflex”, 9K135 “Kornet”, 9K111 “Konkurs”.
Side projection: Modern ATGMs from ATGM 9K120 “Svir”, 9K119 “Reflex”. Only the most modern RPGs of the latest generation.	Side projection: Almost all types of BOPS. Almost all ATGMs are from ATGMs, except for the very first 60s. Almost all RPGs such as RPG-7, SPG-9, RPG-18 “Fly”, RPG-22/26, etc. except for the frankly old “Faustpatron-M” type. Limited to 25-30mm automatic cannons on infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes/helicopters. Limited to 12.7mm DShK and NSV machine guns and 14.5mm KPV machine guns.
Stern projection: All types of BOPS. All types of ATGMs from ATGMs. All types of RPGs.	Stern projection: All types of BOPS. All types of ATGMs from ATGMs. All types of RPGs. All 25-30mm guns of infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters. 12.7mm DShK, NSV machine guns and 14.5mm KPVT machine guns.
Upper front hemisphere: Common BOPS type ZBM-44, M829A2, etc. except the old ones. Only ATGMs from the latest generation ATGMs such as 9K119 “Reflex”, 9K135 “Kornet”, 9K111 “Konkurs”. Only RPGs of the latest generation. Very limited 25-30mm guns on infantry fighting vehicles and airplanes/helicopters.	Upper front hemisphere: All types of BOPS. All types of ATGMs from ATGMs. All types of RPGs including old ones. All 25-30mm guns of infantry fighting vehicles and aircraft/helicopters. Limited to 12.7mm DShK and 14.5mm KPV machine guns.
Upper rear hemisphere: All types of BOPS. All types of ATGMs from ATGMs. All types of RPGs. Limited to 12.7mm DShK, NSV and 14.5mm KPV machine guns.	Upper rear hemisphere: All types of BOPS. All types of ATGMs from ATGMs. All types of RPGs. 25-30mm guns of infantry fighting vehicles and aircraft/helicopters. 12.7mm DShK, NSV and 14.5mm KPV machine guns.

Mobility and maintainability.

It will not be possible to write much in this section, but some points are worth considering in detail. Tank mobility can be divided into two categories: operational and tactical. Tactical mobility, in turn, is again divided into two categories: urban and field. What is meant by these terms will become clear as you read the text. Operational mobility is the ability to move a tank, including under its own power, over long distances as part of a large-scale movement of troops. The technical elements of a tank that directly affect its operational mobility are, first of all, its weight, dimensions and range. There is no need to explain at length why the T-72B is completely superior to its opponent in this discipline. Its weight of 44.5 tons and dimensions make it easy to transport the T-72B by land, by rail, in landing ships by sea and on a large number of military transport aircraft in service with the Russian army. With the Abrams tank everything is more complicated. There are not many types of military transport aircraft capable of lifting it (and not all of them are American). Transportation is possible by sea or rail. And also on the ground on tank tractors. Tactical mobility refers to the actual driving performance of the tank itself. These include maximum speed, acceleration dynamics up to 30 km/h, cross-country ability, maneuverability, as well as ease and convenience of operation. But as already written above, tactical mobility is divided into two categories: urban, i.e. in industrial conditions (presence of roads, strong bridges, absence of dirt) and field (in complete off-road conditions, in the forest, in a field, in a swamp, etc.). In “urban” mobility, the “civilized” M1A2 “Abrams” is ahead of the T-72B due to the following technical solutions: automatic transmission with a hydraulic volumetric turning mechanism, which makes it easy for even a child to operate this tank. Of all the controls there are only the steering wheel, gas and brake. Such a perfect transmission allows the Abrams tank to clearly follow any given curve (a bend in the road, for example). A powerful gas turbine engine accelerates the tank to 32 km/h in 6 seconds, and asphalt tracks with rubber cushions provide excellent handling on hard surfaces at any speed, up to a maximum of 66 km/h. The T-72B has nothing special to boast about here. The BCPs are hopelessly outdated a long time ago. They provide several fixed turning radii, which naturally will not necessarily coincide with the bending radius of the road along which the tank is driving. It's even more difficult on the track. In order to slightly adjust the direction of movement of the tank at high speed (when overtaking, for example), the driver must turn on “neutral” in the appropriate gearbox. This requires great skill from the driver’s mechanic, since the slightest mistake and the tank will go into a skid without any possibility of “catching” it. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the T-72B on conventional agricultural tracks is extremely prone to skidding and drifting on hard surfaces (stone, asphalt, etc.). So what to develop on the T-72B maximum speed Only a confident, experienced driver can drive 60 km/h on a busy highway. But as soon as you drive off the asphalt into a field, the T-72B transforms, and the M1A2 immediately gives up. His strengths on the highway in the mud work against him and become his own weaknesses. The T-72B agricultural caterpillar immediately finds something to grab onto and the tank’s controllability is restored. The rubber cushions of the Abrams begin to slide shamelessly on ice, snow and mud. There are no roads in the field, and therefore the lack of the T-72B transmission in the field practically ceases to be felt. The huge weight of the Abrams immediately “knits” it in the mud swamp. In terms of maneuverability, it is worse than the T-72B. The hydromechanical transmission heats up and takes away precious power from the engine. Dust and sand have a bad effect on the Abrams gas turbine engine. The speed of the Abrams on such terrain drops significantly, despite the intelligent automatic transmission. The speed of the T-72B in such a situation depends more on the skill of the driver. Driving across the village bridge will turn into a real nightmare for the Abrams crew. Overall, this is a tank for dry, rocky terrain. The USSR had a tank weighing 62 tons. This is the IS-4. It was operated in the Far East with great difficulties (poor cross-country ability, the problem of driving across bridges, installation on a railway platform with an accuracy of 1 cm, etc.) and very quickly the IS-4 turned into non-self-propelled firing points dug into the ground. At the same time, the best tank in the world of the 50s/60s, the T-10M (51.5 tons - the size of the Challenger 2, but the shape is much better) was loved by tankers and apparently did not cause any special problems with operation since it stood idle in service for about 40 years. Weight ~50-55 tons, apparently, is the line where power ends and problems begin. So which is better in terms of tactical mobility? Abrams are better in the city, T-72B is better on the field. Since the comparative area of ​​fields, forests, swamps and mud on globe is many times superior to that of asphalt roads and concrete, then we can definitely say that the T-72B is better. However, its transmission is hopelessly outdated today and is definitely inferior to that of the M1A2.

In terms of maintainability, approximate parity. Yes, the power unit of the M1A2 Abrams tank can be easily changed in the field in an hour or two, and this is its undoubted advantage. Replacing the T-72B engine will take much longer. At the same time, where can you get a ready-made unit with a new engine in war conditions? What if he is nowhere to be found? We'll have to repair the old one. A malfunction of the T-72B tank can be eliminated on the spot using screwdrivers, wrenches, tools, operating instructions and unprintable expressions from a mechanic. How the crew of an American tank will solve this problem is a complex question. Maybe they’ll do it themselves, or maybe they’ll call an ARV and she (if she can come and if they can call her at all) will tow the tank to the plant.

Conclusion.

By analyzing and comparing the information described above, it will be convenient to create a summary table of various combat situations and assign points to each tank using a 5-point system.

Counter tank battle during the day on open flat terrain with the maximum possible distances being 4-5 km.	T-72B – 5 points. M1A2 – 3 points. T-72B is better.
Tank battle on moderately hilly terrain with average distances of 2-3 km during the day.	T-72B – 3 points. M1A2 – 5 points. M1A2 is better.
Tank battle on moderately hilly terrain from average distances of 1.5-2.5 km at night.	T-72B – 1 point. M1A2 – 4 points. M1A2 is better.
Tank battle in rugged terrain, urban areas from a maximum distance of 300-500m day and night.	T-72B – 4 points. M1A2 – 4 points. Parity.
Fight in the city in conditions of high saturation of light portable anti-tank weapons.	T-72B – 4 points. M1A2 – 2 points. T-72B is better.
Supporting infantry with fire and hitting priority targets specifically for infantry on the battlefield: enemy infantry, firing points, pillboxes, bunkers, dugouts, shelters, houses, enemy snipers, etc.	T-72B – 5 points. M1A2 – 3 points. T-72B is better.
Fight against enemy aircraft(defense against them) by combat and transport helicopters and light, low-speed reconnaissance and unmanned aircraft.	T-72B – 5 points. M1A2 – 2 points. T-72B is better.
Shooting from closed positions when using a tank as an SPG.	T-72B – 5 points. M1A2 – 3 points. T-72B is better.
Operational mobility of the tank.	T-72B – 5 points. M1A2 – 3 points. T-72B is better.
Tactical mobility of the tank.	T-72B – 4 points. M1A2 – 3 points. T-72B is better.
Crew survivability when a tank is hit.	T-72B – 2 points. M1A2 – 5 points. M1A2 is better.
Total:	T-72B – 43 points. M1A2 – 37 points.

In addition, any type of armored vehicle military equipment characterized by the so-called military-technical level coefficient. In all the comparative articles that the author has seen, even the newest T-90A tanks are for some reason much inferior to Western ones in terms of military-technical level. However, it is not at all clear why, exactly what criteria are used to compare and assign points. This information is “modestly” not published there. So let’s try to determine this coefficient of the military-technical level ourselves, and we’ll do it with reinforced concrete logic: a tank-drum with only daytime optics and a cannon installed in a rotating turret is taken as 0. All. For all other “trinkets”, 0.1 is awarded.

Equipment	T-72B	M1A2 "Abrams"
Semi-active armor	+	-
Dynamic protection of remote sensing	+	-
Composite armor	+	+
Thermal Signature Reduction Technology	-	+
Gun stabilizer	+	+
Sight stabilizer	+	+
Commander's observation device stabilizer	-	+
Automatic loader AZ	+	-
Ejection device for barrel purging	+	+
i K - devices	+	+
Ti-devices	-	+
Automated control system	-	+
Tank ballistic computer TBV	+	+
Tank information and control system TIUS	-	+
Laser Warning System	-	+
Combat laser system	-	-
Anti-nuclear protection PAZ	+	+
Complex of optical-electronic suppression COEP	-	-
KAZT tank active protection complex	-	-
Electromagnetic mine protection system SEMZ	+	-
Automatic transmission	-	+
URO guided missile weapons	+	-
Color displays at crew workstations	-	+
Auxiliary power unit APU	-	+
Local ammunition protection	-	+
Adjustable hydropneumatic suspension	-	-
Automatic target tracking	-	-
Anti-aircraft closed installation with remote drive.	-	-
Final coefficient of military-technical level:	1,2	1,7

The coefficient of military-technical level of the M1A2 is 42% higher than that of the T-72B, but it is still far from perfect.

Based on all these calculations, the following conclusion can be drawn:

T-72B– Even today it is still a relevant car. One can feel the enormous potential that its creators put into this tank long ago. It is not for nothing that the T-72 in the 70-80s of the last century was considered one of the best tanks in the world. Unlike the Abrams, the designers clearly expressed, in principle, a completely correct desire to make this tank a universal weapon, equally well suited both for combat with high-tech Western tanks and for fire support of infantry in all sorts of situations, using the tank as a universal infantry fire weapon suitable to combat almost any ground, surface and air targets that are within 2-5-10 kilometers of it. But time does not stand still and the day is not long when the T-72B tank will finally lose its advantages. Already today, it is very much inferior to modern vehicles in terms of the penetrating power of armor-piercing shells, night vision parameters, the perfection of the fire control system, command control and safety of crew life in an emergency, although in some places it still has superiority. The modernization of the tank into the T-72BM variant, which, according to some sources, “brings the capabilities of the T-72 closer to the T-90” is actually quite stripped-down and inferior. The modernized T-72BM received an updated control system and gunner's instruments. But about the commander (who theoretically should detect the target earlier gunner) were almost forgotten. KOEP "Shtora" is not installed on the tank. KAZT "Arena" is not installed on the tank. TIUS on modernized tank T-72BM is not installed. There is a problem with the new “long” BOPS. An automatic transmission with hydro-volume transmission as on the T-80U is not installed on the tank. In essence, this modernization brought the T-72B's largely anti-tank capabilities up to a more modern "all-weather" level. However, the T-72B, in the conditions in which it actually has to fight, is still better than the Abrams.

M1A2 "Abrams"- a very controversial unit, if only because it is now used and fighting in conditions completely different from those for which it was once designed. "Abrams" is a highly specialized brainchild of Americans frightened by the Soviet tank roller. And its firepower and protection have a pronounced “anti-tank” focus, and it is in this regard that this tank is certainly good. Without a doubt, this is a modern and high-tech tank, which, although not the best in the world, will nevertheless be a dangerous opponent for any MBT existing today. The strength of the M1A2 Abrams lies precisely in this. In a tank duel, he will most likely defeat the T-72B - I have to admit. At the same time, in all other respects, the Abrams is either so-so or downright bad. There is no point in using your own tanks to fight tanks of this type, especially obsolete types. This will lead to unjustified losses. It is much more effective to use aviation, grenade launchers with RPGs and stealth anti-tank missile systems in portable and mobile versions. Against such weapons, the M1A2 Abrams tank, despite all its power, will most likely be almost powerless. But its main advantage is the high probability of the crew surviving after their Abrams breaks into pieces, and this, whatever one may say, is more expensive than any piece of iron. And in general, it’s not the tanks that fight, but the people in them.

Note:

1. 1. BOPS - armor-piercing finned sub-caliber projectile. For the first time, it appeared regularly as the main one in the ammunition load of the Soviet T-62 tank.
2. 2. KS - cumulative projectile. Created during the 2nd World War.
3. 3. OFS – high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
4. 4. UR - guided missile.
5. 5. PKOS – sub-caliber cumulative fragmentation projectile. Allows you to hit enemy personnel behind obstacles, but has low destructive power.
6. 6. OS - fragmentation projectile.
7. 7. DVOdaytime optical device.
8. 8. LD – laser rangefinder.
9. 9. iK –night infrared device.
10. 10. Ti– night thermal imaging device.
11. 11. Ballistic correction is a mechanism built into the sight that takes into account only the type and trajectory of the projectile depending on the distance.
12. 12. APU – auxiliary power unit.
13. 13. Here it is necessary to understand the difference between the effective firing range and the effective firing range. For classical artillery systems this difference is quite significant. The effective firing range is the distance at which a high percentage of hitting the target is ensured (about 70-80%). The target range is the distance at which the tank’s fire control system allows precise shooting in principle. At the same time, for guided missiles there is practically no difference between the aimed and effective firing range.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter

The M1 Abrams tank is equipped with a system of protection against weapons of mass destruction, which, if necessary, provides the supply of purified air from the filter ventilation unit to the crew masks, and also creates excess pressure in the fighting compartment to prevent the entry of radioactive dust or toxic substances into it. There are radiation and chemical reconnaissance instruments. The air temperature inside the tank can be increased using a heater. For external communication, the AM/URS-12 radio is used, and for internal communication, a tank intercom is used. For all-round visibility, six viewing periscopes are installed around the perimeter of the commander’s cupola. An electronic (digital) ballistic computer, made on solid-state elements, calculates angular corrections for shooting with fairly high accuracy. From the laser rangefinder, the range to the target, crosswind speed, ambient temperature and the angle of inclination of the gun trunnion axis are automatically entered into it.

In addition, data on the type of projectile is manually entered, barometric pressure, charge temperature, barrel bore wear, as well as corrections for the mismatch between the direction of the barrel bore axis and the aiming line. After detecting and identifying the target, the gunner, holding the crosshair of the sight on it, presses the laser rangefinder button. The range value is displayed in the gunner's and commander's sights. The gunner then selects the type of ammunition by setting the four-position switch to the appropriate position. Meanwhile, the loader loads the gun. A light signal in the gunner's sight notifies that the gun is ready to open fire. Angular corrections from the ballistic computer are entered automatically. The disadvantages include the presence of only one eyepiece in the gunner's sight, which tires the eyes, especially while the tank is moving, as well as the lack of a tank commander's sight, independent of the gunner's sight.

M1 "Abrams" battle tank on the march.

The engine and transmission compartment is located at the rear of the vehicle. The AOT-1500 gas turbine engine is made in one unit with an automatic hydromechanical transmission X-1100-ZV. If necessary, the entire unit can be replaced in less than 1 hour. The choice of a gas turbine engine is explained by a number of its advantages compared to a diesel engine of the same power. First of all, this is the possibility of obtaining more power with a smaller volume of gas turbine engine. In addition, the latter has approximately half the weight, a relatively simple design and 2-3 times longer service life. In addition, it better meets multi-fuel requirements.

At the same time, there are such disadvantages as increased fuel consumption and difficulty in air purification. AOT-1500 is a three-shaft engine with a two-flow axial-centrifugal compressor, an individual tangential combustion chamber, a two-stage power turbine with an adjustable first-stage nozzle apparatus and a stationary ring plate heat exchanger. The maximum gas temperature in the turbine is 1193°C. Output shaft rotation speed - 3000 rpm. The engine has good throttle response, which allows the M1 Abrams tank to accelerate to a speed of 30 km/h in 6 seconds. The X-1100-ZV automatic hydromechanical transmission provides four forward gears and two reverse gears.

It consists of an automatic locking torque converter, a planetary gearbox and a continuously variable hydrostatic steering mechanism. The chassis of the tank includes seven road wheels per side and two pairs of support rollers, a torsion bar suspension, and tracks with rubber-metal linings. On the basis of the M1 Abrams tank, special-purpose vehicles were created: a heavy tank bridge-laying vehicle, a roller mine sweeper and an armored repair and recovery vehicle, the NAV bridge-laying vehicle.

Turret of the M1 Abrams main tank.

The promising American main battle tank "Block III" is being developed on the basis of the Abrams tank. It has a small turret, an automatic loader and a crew of three, located shoulder to shoulder in the tank's hull.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the main combat tank М1А1/М1А2 "Abrams"

Combat weight, T	57,15/62,5
Crew, people	4
Dimensions, mm:
length with gun forward	9828
width	3650
height	2438
clearance	432/482
Armor, mm	combined with the use of depleted uranium
Weapons:
M1	105 mm M68E1 rifled gun; two 7.62 mm machine guns; 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
М1А1/М1А2	120 mm Rh-120 smoothbore gun, two 7.62 mm M240 machine guns and a 12.7 mm Browning 2NV machine gun
Ammunition:
M1	55 rounds, 1000 rounds 12.7mm, 11400 rounds 7.62mm
М1А1/М1А2	40 rounds, 1000 rounds of 12.7 mm caliber, 12400 rounds of 7.62 mm caliber
Engine	"Lycoming Textron" AGT-1500, gas turbine, power 1500 hp. at 3000 rpm
Specific ground pressure, kg/cm	0,97/1,07
Highway speed km/h	67
Highway range km	465/450
Obstacles to be overcome:
wall height, m	1,0
ditch width, m	2,70
ford depth, m	1,2

Sources:

• N. Fomich. " American tank M1 "Abrams" and its modifications", "Foreign Military Review";
• M. Baryatinsky. "Whose tanks are better: T-80 vs. Abrams";
• G.L. Kholyavsky "Complete encyclopedia of tanks of the world 1915 - 2000";
• M1 Abrams;
• Spasibukhov Yu. "M1 Abrams. Main battle tank of the USA";
• Tankograd Publishing 2008 "M1A1/M1A2 SEP Abrams Tusk";
• Wydawnictwo Bellona "M1 Abrams Czolg Amerykanski 1982-1992";
• Steven J. Zaloga "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991";
• Michael Green "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank: The Combat and Development History of the General Dynamics M1 and M1A1 Tanks."