Tank t 72b technical description. Domestic weapons and military equipment. Main goals and objectives

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 a modern main battle tank has much more tasks than the banal destruction of its 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 technological power of the country, its prestige from the ability to create modern basic battle tanks, which are in no way inferior and often superior to Western cars, such a comparison seems quite appropriate. But on the other hand, if something happens with the “Abrams” and “Leopards-2”, it will not be the one who only rides in parades and participates in international exhibitions who will have to deal with, but 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 the 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 there is no point in comparing it with any foreign tank. In addition to the new T-90 series tanks and some T-80U, the Russian army today uses the T-62M, T-72AV, T-72B tanks 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 American tank"Abrams" M1A2.

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 modern tank may be. To begin with, the characteristics of both cars:

The table shows that although our T-72B and is 9 years older than his opponent, his combat and technical characteristics are still at a fairly high level and allow him to compete with the American in some moments 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 specifications on the color screen of the TIUS FBCB2, which allows him to navigate his surroundings 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, for the artillery part of the T-72B control system, even in daytime significantly inferior to M1A2. 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. Sighting range firing an artillery shell is a rather vague thing, but the effective range of firing at point targets with artillery shells 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. The T-72B guided missile weapon 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 sufficiently 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 initial speed 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 a high-precision weapon used to destroy point targets at maximum distances, including airborne 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 best characteristics and can fight the frontal armor of almost any Western tank. 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 power when hitting “soft”, area targets (a typical, urban multi-story 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. “Fragmentation grenades” of the M830A1 and M1028 types of the M1A2 tank are capable of hitting enemy personnel, the first of which 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 the M1A2 only occurs 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 has made every effort to create a myth about the invulnerability of Abrams-type tanks and, naturally, the vulnerability of domestically developed tanks. 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 on the immeasurably weaker 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 weapons fire cumulative ammunition. missile systems, as well as RPG grenade launchers. The number of the latter currently greatly exceeds the number of tanks or attack aircraft with classic artillery guns. Based on this, the conclusion naturally suggests itself that approximately 90% of modern anti-tank weapons have cumulative warhead. To the credit of the creators of the T-72B, it should be said that they promptly made a correct assessment of 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 is very thick (Soviet version of the English Chobham armor). 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, armor located in this way simultaneously provides powerful protection for the front upper hemisphere of the tank, making it invulnerable to small-caliber automatic weapons. 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.
• The Kontakt-1 mounted dynamic protection complex consisting of 227 containers designed to remove the damaging effects of a 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 thing is that, due to the overall dimensions and 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 a powerful multi-layer armor"Chobham", but only 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 aircraft 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 domestic BOPS latest generation, which cannot be used in the old 125mm T-72B gun, or 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 hull side 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 large-caliber machine guns until the power plant catches fire and the tank is completely destroyed gives good results. 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 close-combat infantry anti-tank weapons, the strikes of which in urban battle conditions fall precisely on the most vulnerable parts of the tank - the stern, 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 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 a lot 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 it is for this, and not for poor armor, that domestic tanks are seriously criticized today. 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. The result will be an approximate analogue of the BC containers with a liquid jacket used in the West German Leopard-2 tank. 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:

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, only a confident, experienced driver can reach a maximum speed of 60 km/h on a busy highway on the T-72B. 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 track 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 the globe is many times greater than that of asphalt roads and concrete roads, 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.

In addition, any type of armored military equipment is 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.

T-72 "Ural" is the most popular second-generation Soviet main battle tank. Adopted into service in the Soviet Army on August 7, 1973.
Below is given short review features of Russian modifications of the T-72 tank, produced by UralVagonZavod, prepared on the pikabu.ru forum by blogger zhuravkofff, for which many thanks to him.
Abbreviations used: NKDZ (Attachment Dynamic Protection Kit), VDZ (Built-in Dynamic Protection), VLD (Upper Frontal Detail), NLD (Lower Frontal Detail), TPN (Night Tank Sight), OPTV (Dual Tank Driving Equipment).

T-72A

T-72B (model 1984), T-72B
accepted into service in 1984

(T-72B model 1989)

T-72BM (photo by V. Kuzmin, )

serial RMS()

In addition to the above:

T-72B3 is a major overhaul with a budget modernization of previously produced vehicles.
In Alabino, at the training ground of the Taman Division, the latest modification of the “seventy-two” was demonstrated - the T-72B3 tank, externally distinguished by the latest multi-channel gunner’s sight “Sosna-U” and the absence of the L-4A “Luna” IR spotlight next to the gun mantlet. Compared to the T-72B3 of the first series, the turret in place of the L-4A “Luna” IR projector is covered with “Kontakt-5” VDZ blocks.
The tank received a new 125-mm 2A46M-5 cannon, a new VHF radio station R-168-25U-2 "Akveduk", new fire-fighting equipment (FPO) and a new multi-channel gunner's sight (PNM) "Sosna-U". The sight has 4 channels: optical, thermal imaging, laser rangefinder channel and anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) control channel. The Sosna-U PNM is installed instead of the standard 1K-13-49 sight-guidance device. The old 1A40-1 gunner's sight was left in its original place as a spare.


Installation location of the Sosna-U PNM in the T-72B3 tank
()

The commander received the TKN-3MK device with the “Double” system, which ensures that the commander can fire. The T-72B3 tank is equipped with the built-in Kontakt-5 ERA, rather than the new Relikt ERA, which protects the tank from modern tandem ammunition; the tank did not receive a closed anti-aircraft machine gun installation (ZPU) - an open ZPU with manual control remained. Instead of the 1000-horsepower V-92S2 engine, which is installed on the T-90A (Object 188A) and on the modernized T-72BA (Object 184A), the T-72B3 was left with the overhauled V-84-1 with a power of 840 hp. Therefore, mobility characteristics did not increase. The tank is not equipped with GLONASS/GPS receivers.

T-72B3 at the training ground in Alabino, August 2013 (

This post is not entirely about MH17, but it well illustrates the issue of the availability and sources of modern weapons among the DPR/LPR rebels, as well as the theme of “insufficient rigorous evidence” and total lies of Russian officials and the media.

As you can guess from the title, we will talk about a tank, and more specifically, about the tank shown on Monday evening in the Vestei-24 ​​report. We will talk about this video in the story that starts at 6:29. for those who are lazy to look for the desired fragment on the sluggish Vesti website.

So, according to Vestey-24, we have a T-72M with foreign equipment. However, an extremely similar tank had previously appeared in the Ukrainian media as a Russian T-72B3 tank captured by Ukrainian troops near Ilovaisk

The fact that this is generally the same car is indicated in particular by the hole above the left track

According to the Ukrainian side, this tank was captured from the Russian military near Ilovaisk, put into service by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (two white stripes were applied to the hull for identification), but was knocked out and lost during a breakout from the encirclement. It is also stated that there are no such tanks in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and never have been.

Is it so? Let's get a look. The T-72 tank ("tank of the 1972 model") was adopted by the Soviet Army in 1973. This was over 40 years ago and at the peak of the Union's power, so the tank has since been modernized several times, produced and used in huge quantities in several countries and supplied in different configurations to different customers. It is not possible to give an exhaustive description of the resulting diversity within the framework of a short post, so I will simply briefly go through the main stages of the T-72 development

This is the first, “basic” model of the T-72 with which it all began (1973). Initially, this vehicle was conceived simply as a cheaper version of the T-64 tank, better optimized for mass production, but in the end, the designers who optimized the vehicle went far from the design of the 64. The reception of this creativity was, however, quite ambiguous, since the differences with the T-64 went so far that under new car the production line from the T-64 had to be significantly altered to the point of decommissioning some of the newly installed equipment, and the deployment of the T-72x and its treatment for “childhood diseases” took quite a long time. But the Union at that moment did not count money and the result was an excellent for its time and at the same time inexpensive tank, which began to enter service with the troops in 1975.

In 1979, this tank was modernized by installing a more advanced gun, modern sighting devices (laser rangefinder instead of optical), anti-cumulative screens, a smoke screen system and, most importantly, effective night combat systems. This is how the T-72A was born, and for the first time an IR illumination spotlight and cylinders of smoke grenades appeared on the tank’s turret.

With some modifications, the T-72A was widely exported by the Union under the designations T-72M and T-72M1. In the photo below, for example, Iraqi tanks:

As you can easily see, this variation has little in common with the “Ukrainian” tank in the video - the captured tank was definitely not a T-72M. However, we return to the Union and move further along the time axis. By 1985, the T-72 began to be noticeably inferior to Western tanks and turned out to be very vulnerable to new anti-tank missile systems. At the same time, it had already been accumulated in the Union in huge quantities and remained very convenient for production. But a new technology came to the rescue of the aging car - the so-called. dynamic protection. DZ was strengthened many times armor protection tank, especially from cumulative ammunition used in ATGMs, and made it possible to easily and cheaply modernize the T-72 simply by attaching standard “bricks” of additional protection to the armor. Thus, from the previously released T-72A, through relatively minor manipulations, the T-72AV began to appear. In addition to the DZ, new engines and new sighting equipment were also installed on the new T-72s produced, including a guidance system for the new anti-tank missile launched from the T-72 cannon. The remote sensing system was supposed to cover the tank with reliable armor, and the guided missile was supposed to allow it to destroy enemy tanks and anti-tank artillery from a distance beyond their reach. This variant was called T-72B ("simply" B). Since the laser missile guidance system cost a lot of money for the “cheap” T-72, a stripped-down version of the T-72B1 also saw the light of day. The export version was called T-72S. Externally, modifications of this stage are easily identified by the characteristic bricks of the first generation dynamic protection

Before the collapse of the Union, most T-72x managed to be modernized to this level. Further development required
* Installation of automated fire control systems that would automatically make adjustments when firing for various minor factors (in old tanks this was done manually once before the battle)
* Dynamic protection installations of the second and later generations (the first one protected well from anti-tank systems, but not from sub-caliber shells)
* Installation of modern navigation equipment and communications (which, alas, remained a problem for our tanks even in 2008 in Georgia)
* Installation of systems to counter laser guidance systems for rapidly spreading high-altitude weapons
* Installation of active protection systems against new ATGMs with tandem warheads and warheads hitting the tank from above
* Installation of more advanced thermal imaging systems for night vision, which made it possible to do without IR spotlights

The first two points were implemented before the collapse of the Union in a prototype, which in different sources is called T-72BM, T-72BU or simply “T-72B model 1989”, but by that time the country had no time for tanks and this version was not produced in series went.

Later, in a slightly modified form, this version in Russia will receive the name T-90 “for advertising purposes,” but production will start only in 1992 and it will proceed at a very low pace - until 1998, only 120 of these machines will be produced. Externally, this variant (also exported under the name T-90S) looks like this:

And after the modernization of 2004 (T-90A) - like this:

Western countries, which “inherited” many T-72x and India, which turned out to be one of the largest customers, gave birth to several of their own variants of the 72:

India (T-72M1):

Poland (PT-91)

Poland (PT-91A)

Czech Republic (T-72CZ)

Slovakia (T-72M1A)

Slovakia (T-72M2)

For better understanding further history It should be remembered that in the Union there were quite a few large tank factories, each of which specialized in the production of some “own” tank model. The budget of the Soviet army allowed the simultaneous production of an amazing number of different models of tanks, and in fact, almost every plant as a result specialized in the production and modernization of “its” line of tanks, which were largely incompatible with the tank models produced by other plants. The Kharkov KhZTM "specialized" in the T-64 and partly the T-80, the Nizhny Tagil UVZ - in the T-72, the Omsk OZTM and the Kirov plant in Leningrad - in the T-80. At the same time, the T-80, compared to the T-64 and T-72, was, although perfect, an expensive and capricious machine (twice as expensive as the T-64). Therefore, when the Union collapsed, T-80 production was largely curtailed, Russia lost access to production and spare parts for the T-64, and Ukraine lost access to production and spare parts for the T-72. Therefore, in the presence of excessively huge tank arsenals, Russia hastened to mothball its T-64s, and Ukraine - its T-72s; Although they were formally available in warehouses, neither the T-64 in the Russian troops, nor the T-72 in the Ukrainian troops were practically used. As a result, the majority of Ukrainian T-72s were not modernized or maintained in any way, and today they look something like this:

However, the T-72e, recognized as unprofitable for its own troops, tried to modernize and sell to foreign customers. It looked something like this (T-72UMG):

And it didn’t become particularly widespread (mainly only in Ethiopia?). Modern Ukrainian tanks also have a similar appearance - the T-64BM Bulat is shown below.

(added at the request in the comments) Russia also offered its export versions of the modernized T-72 under the name T-72M1M. These tanks have been wandering around since 2002 to a variety of international exhibitions, gradually changing their equipment to cheaper and more modern ones, but they still haven’t found their buyer. There were negotiations about their deliveries to Algeria and Venezuela, but I did not see any evidence that these deliveries were actually carried out (Algeria, for example, ultimately preferred the T-90S, and Venezuela seemed to have received a couple of dozen of some of the B-modifications of the T -72); Mass production of this option, accordingly, did not begin:

The tank depicted in the original photo, captured in Ukraine, however, as you can see, does not resemble any of the dozen options presented above. But it is strikingly similar to the T-72B tank upgrade option approved by the Russian Ministry of Defense for a large-scale program to update Russia's numerous T-72x stockpiles. The option our military chose was relatively budget-friendly, but modern - as part of this modernization, the tanks are equipped with a modern fire control system with a bunch of sensors that ensure high firing accuracy, modern (French) sensitive thermal imagers, second-generation Kontakt-5 dynamic protection, and a relatively modern radio station and a satellite navigation system.

This miracle is called - yes, you guessed it, T-72B3. There is also an earlier modernization version (B2) and a T-72BA version upgraded from the T-72A. They look something like this:

However, the Ukrainian photo confidently identifies the newest and purely Russian T-72B3, which entered service with the troops only in 2012.

Russian TV played a cruel joke on the conspirators, not only confirming that the photograph was taken in the battle zone in Ukraine, but also adding to this a control system characteristic of the T-72B3, combining an old optical sight and a new French thermal imager from Thales. I provide below a photo of the T-72B3 from the exhibition, and in the original video this system is easily identified

Wind sensor T-72B3

Sosna-U sight outside (characteristic “box” on the right side of the tank’s turret)

Thus, I believe, it can be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt that in Ukraine, first the Ukrainian army, and then the rebels from somewhere captured the newest Russian tank (or rather, the T-72B, manufactured in 1989, modernized no earlier than 2012). And this tank was far from alone there:

And you can, of course, continue to say that it has not been proven that Russia does not supply the rebels with ammunition and heavy weapons.
What has not been proven is that Russian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine, at least in some key positions, after which unpublicized funerals are held in Russia
That mass shelling of Ukraine from the border territory by unknown artillery has not been proven

But it seems to me that it’s time for decent and smart people draw certain conclusions from proven facts and the volume of blatant lies of Russian officials.

The domestic T-72B3 tank is an improved modification of the seventy-second model, which has successfully proven itself in Afghanistan. New for service fighting machine was adopted in two thousand and twelve. The main difference from its predecessor is increased mobility, a more powerful power plant, enhanced firepower and modernization of the charging system, allowing the use of the most modern ammunition. The powerful combat unit is also equipped with modern radio transmitters that provide high-quality broadcast of classified and direct communications.

Purpose and protection system

T-72B3 is designed to perform various combat operations. Among them:

• elimination of enemy armored vehicles;
• destruction of enemy personnel;
• destruction of various types of fortifications and firing points;
• escort and support of ground forces during the offensive and defense.

Delivered combat mission The machine can perform at any time of the day, regardless of weather conditions.

The type of armor of the modification in question provides reliable protection for the crew. The hull and turret are made of complex rolled steel, able to withstand most armor-piercing and sub-caliber projectiles, as well as all types of armor-piercing bullets.

The tank is protected from cumulative damage by a special Kontakt-5 complex. The turret has eight Tucha grenade launchers, and can also be mounted with the Shtora system, which protects against laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Chassis and engine T-72B3

The model in question had its track tracks replaced. Compared to its predecessor, the new tank received running gear with a parallel hinge, which serves to improve performance and increase the service life. The transmission unit remained identical to the T-72 model.

The updated version is equipped with a more powerful multi-fuel power unit. Its power reaches 1130 horsepower. The motor allows the car to reach speeds of up to sixty kilometers per hour over rough terrain, and 70 km/h on the highway. Fully filling the fuel tanks is enough to cover a distance of half a thousand kilometers. The tank is quite capable of water obstacles up to 2.8 meters.

Combat module design

The T-72B3 is equipped with a modernized 2A45 M5 cannon, which is an improved modification of the D-81M barrel. The gun has increased structural rigidity and better accuracy.

Trunnion-type clips now have a wedge-shaped mount. The support for the sliding devices is located in the rear of the cradle with an enlarged neck by one hundred and sixty millimeters. This element has also become an order of magnitude stiffer, and its guides are made in the shape of a prism. This solution made it possible to reduce the dispersion factor when firing by fifteen percent. The dispersion of shells when firing on the move has decreased by half. As a result, the T-72B3 tank became much more accurate and faster at hitting targets.

The combat vehicle is equipped with a reflector lock that allows you to calculate the barrel bending angle. Information is transmitted to the gunner's panel in digital format. This further increases accuracy by eliminating the effects of all kinds of interference that periodically arise during combat operation of the tank. All information is fed into the ballistics numerator, which significantly simplifies the gunner’s work, allowing the gun to be aimed at the intended target faster.

T-72B3: weapons

The main weapon of the tank in question is the 2A-46M5 cannon launcher, with a caliber of one hundred and twenty-five millimeters, the ammunition capacity of which can accommodate four dozen shells. The gun combines with modern armor-piercing, cumulative and sub-caliber, fragmentation and high explosive shells. The maximum destruction distance reaches four kilometers.

In addition, the T-72B3 combat vehicle is equipped with the following types of weapons:

• anti-tank guided missiles type ZVBM-22/23;
• a PKTM machine gun firing 7.62 mm bullets;
• anti-aircraft machine gun for combating aircraft (brand - NSV, caliber - 12.7 mm).

The total supply of machine gun cartridges is 2,750 pieces.

The main battle tank can fire several types of specially designed, extended-length projectiles, such as the “Lead” type, with both variations available. This increases not only the maximum distance to hit the target, but also the degree of armor penetration, regardless of the distance. The accuracy of loading the new ammunition is ensured by a modified and improved automatic device.

Technical plan parameters

The T-72B3 combat vehicle, the characteristics of which are superior to its predecessor in many aspects, has the following main indicators:

• crew composition - three people (commander, mechanic and gunner);
• mass in combat condition- forty-six tons;
• main gun (caliber/brand) - 125 mm/2A45-6M5;
• the power of the power plant is 840 horsepower;
• hull length (with and without gun) - 9.53/6.86 m;
• power reserve - at least five hundred kilometers;
• machine height - 2.22 m;
• ground clearance - 49 centimeters.

It is also worth noting that the T-72B3 unit, whose maximum speed is up to seventy kilometers per hour, is equipped the latest systems aiming, radio communications and fire fighting.

Communication system

In this area, the main battle tank branded 72B3 is in many ways superior to its predecessor and many world analogues. The package includes a radio station on ultrashort waves, the Aqueduct system, as well as independent channels for transporting information.

Thanks to this configuration, the tank can perform sessions in three modes, namely:

• hidden;
• open;
• secret.

A standard combat vehicle is equipped with a pair of independent transmitters.

Separately, it is worth noting the possibilities of encrypted communication. The system was developed in Ryazan, includes a remote control panel for data collection, although it is not always pleased with its stability.

Tangent elements with individual volume control have not proven themselves to be the best the best side. This is due to their fragility and unreliability. Tankers testing the vehicles complain that the old elements withstood significant mechanical loads, and new samples can fail even after falling from a short distance.

Optics and sight

To the question: “T-72B3 combat tank - what kind of beast is this?” - you can answer in different ways. He also has weak spots. For example, the developers equipped the car with an antediluvian combined periscope sight, which has not changed since 1991. Its characteristics leave much to be desired.

This is evidenced by the fact that even during the first field tests, eye injuries were recorded among crew members. This is due to the fact that if you do not remove your head from the sight in time when firing, then the gunner will suffer a short-term concussion, since the system has a high recoil. The advantages of TKN-ZMK include the ability to change lanes automatically, depending on the position of the tower. At the same time, the “commander” indicator lights up, which indicates that aiming comes under the control of the senior-ranking crew member.

Here again a dilemma arises. If at night the gunner observes a target at a distance of up to three and a half kilometers, then the commander will be able to coordinate actions only at five hundred meters. In terms of guidance and visibility, especially at night, the modernized T-72B3 is not the best example to follow.

Additional equipment

TTX T-72b3 includes additional systems, namely:

1. Modernized device for extinguishing fires "Rime". It allows you to automatically detect and extinguish fire areas in the combat and engine parts of the vehicle. The system has a double action, includes four reservoirs with refrigerant, and detects fires using optical and thermal indicators.
2. Possibility of arming with improved shells, as well as an anti-aircraft gun, which is deprived remote control.
3. The driver's window is covered with an armored curtain, which can only be opened from the outside. This is a big disadvantage in battle.

About the disadvantages

The sight and aiming system immediately invite criticism. In addition to the fact that the unit used is long outdated, it also received an addition in the form of a French thermal imager. In the current political light, such a decision is, to put it mildly, strange. To this we must add that by improving the guidance system, the developers tried to save as much as possible. This is evidenced by the following:

1. Installation of a sight that was well proven in the nineties, but outdated at that time.
2. Installation of the “Pine” and “Whirlwind” systems (not particularly relevant).
3. Manual drive of an anti-aircraft machine gun.
4. Unfinished video viewing device.

As a result, the aiming line of the barrel bore has shifted greatly in relation to the sight itself, which in real combat conditions significantly complicates aiming the gun at the target.

The tankers themselves say that it has become more difficult for the gunner to use the sight. To bring Sosna to its normal position, you have to bend to the left, excessively straining the spinal region. The video device is placed extremely poorly. When boarding the crew, it is often kicked. The external optical assembly is not only closed with a lid, but also secured with four bolts. In field conditions, this is a real threat to the entire crew of the T-72B3 tank.

Positive points

For the sake of objectivity, it is worth noting the advantages of the combat vehicle in question:

1. The TPD-K1 sight remained in the general configuration, which was equipped with protection against laser attacks. This allows you to use its analogue if one guidance unit is damaged.
2. Extremely necessary instruments (temperature sensors, wind direction, air flow speed) were installed behind the gunner's position.
3. Possibility of installing additional weapons, including the most modern shells.
4. More powerful power unit.

The T-72 main battle tank is inferior to its modernized “brother” in many respects, however, the updated copy did not show itself in the best light.

Practical tests

The domestic modern tank T-72B3 took an active part in the recent tank biathlon competition in Alabino. The attention of specialists was focused on the operational and combat capabilities of the vehicle. It is worth noting that during these tests this modification was presented to the general public for the first time.

Sadly, the new product did not cause much excitement among eyewitnesses. Firstly, it is difficult to distinguish between the modernized model and its predecessor by appearance. Secondly, many were interested in the T-90A prototype, which is supposed to be the next model in service with the Russian army.

In practice, the combat vehicle in question showed good results. However, it cannot be said that it one hundred percent met the expectations of specialists. This is largely due to design elements in terms of aiming and aiming. As for traction qualities and maneuvers, there are practically no questions here.

The domestically produced T-72B3 tank, the characteristics of which are indicated above, was created as a budget but modernized version of the T-72B. It's no surprise that they have a lot in common. The cost of improving the predecessor was about fifty-two million rubles per unit. Approximately half of them go towards a major overhaul of the machine, and the second part goes towards the purchase and installation of new equipment.

During the overhaul and modernization, the production T-72B tank receives a number of new devices. The main ones include:

1. Multi-level sight with optical and thermal imaging guidance "Sosna-U".
2. Possibility of using a laser range finder and control system for armor-piercing missiles.
3. Multifunctionality of gunner operations.
4. Improved power unit.

Unfortunately, when implementing the T-72B3 project, tank builders used an ambiguous technical solution. The outer parts of the Sosna-U sight are located inside a lightly armored casing that protects them from bullets and shrapnel. IN stowed position The front window of the casing is closed with a lid and fixed with bolts, which provides for the mechanic to exit the cab before the battle and unscrew the fastening manually. It is worth noting that there are several variations that allow you to drop the lid without leaving the working compartment. They are actively used both throughout the world and in Russia. Why the developers chose an impractical option is anyone's guess.

Comparative characteristics

Let's draw an analogy between the base tank and the T-72B3 combat vehicle. The crew also consists of three people, driving performance remains at the same level, and there is built-in dynamic protection of the Kontakt-5 format.

The running elements have undergone changes (the tracks are equipped with a hinged parallel element). The range and accuracy of the shot, although not dramatically, has increased. Overcoming water obstacles increased to 2.8 meters, subject to use special devices. However general level The protection of the T-72B3 tank has become a little better. Unlike its predecessor, which used a searchlight and an active-passive sight, in the model under consideration, the place of the light element was taken by a night vision device with a thermal imager. The part of the frontal housing where the searchlight was located is covered with an additional armored module, which increases frontal protection.

The weapon system of the T-72B3 combat vehicle has partially changed. A new loading machine has appeared that can be combined with new types of projectiles. The outline of the main gun remained the same, as did the anti-aircraft machine gun. There is also a turret with a large-caliber NSV gun. It was also affected by savings, since the machine gun is not remote controlled, which further reduces the safety of crew members.

What did modernization give?

The conversion of serial T-72B tanks into a modernized version of the T-72B3 made it possible to enhance the combat potential of the vehicle. However, such a decision causes a lot of controversy and speculation. On the one hand, major repairs and partial improvements make it possible to strengthen the army at minimal cost. Another point of view is that it is ineffective and impractical to combine counterintuitive things, including a bolt-on optic cover and an open machine gun platform.

As a result, shortcomings can negate all objective advantages. It seems that the developers were simply trying to meet a certain budget, which is why they left so many “black holes”. In the meantime, we can only wait and believe that the designers will take into account all the mistakes and will be able to level them out in subsequent projects.

In conclusion

The question of how many T-72B3 tanks Russia has is difficult to answer, since military secrets are rarely fully revealed. It can be assumed that there are not very many such machines. This is due to the original purpose of the machine as an experimental innovation. Judging by the specifics of production and taking into account the opinion of experts, the modification in question serves rather as a transitional model between outdated models and future developments. This is necessary in order to strengthen the armored power of the armed forces, without wasting financial resources.

I would like to believe that the release of a new modification is not far off. If it is equipped with all the innovative developments, of which there are many in Russia, and also absorbs all the best from its predecessors, it will certainly become one of the most combat-ready in the world. Unfortunately, the financial side, as often happens, plays a predominant role. Despite this, domestic military equipment is becoming more advanced every year. Russian tanks are not much inferior, and in many ways superior to their foreign counterparts. Still, it is not for nothing that domestic weapons are one of the most formidable in the world.