Today it is increasingly possible to hear discussions onabout the military power of the two superpowers: Russia and the United States. Often it comes to heavy equipment, such as tanks and self-propelled guns. For example, the vaunted "Abrams" many consider the best in the world. But they do not take into account the same German "Leopard 2A7", as well as the Russian T-90. Let's make a small comparison of the tanks of Russia and the United States and find out who succeeded in this plan, and who needs to reconsider their weapons.
We can safely say that the tanks T-90 andM1A1, also known as Abrams, are typical representatives of Russian and Western tank building. In this design, as well as technological ideas are markedly different. For example, “Abrams” and “Panther 2A7” are meaningless to compare, as they practically do not differ. The situation with the T-90 is quite different.
The T-72 can be called the predecessor of the T-90,the latter is a deep modification of the first. The main armament is a 125-mm smooth-bore gun. After improvement, security increased by 300%. Then there was a powerful passive and semi-active armor, as well as dynamic protection. All this was placed on the tank without a significant increase in the weight of the latter.
You can say that the layout of the T-90quite dense. On the one hand, this is good, on the other - not, which we will talk about a little later. After they began to produce welded towers, the possibility of enhancing armor increased. As for the power plant, it is a diesel engine V92S2.
If we talk about the layout, then its largedensity allows you to make a car with a low silhouette and good armor. At the same time the area of longitudinal and cross section is small. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that the non-automated part of the ammunition is located in the unprotected area of the tank. This makes the ammunition particularly vulnerable to enemy shelling.
One can not say a few words about the American"Abrams." This machine has been involved in many combat conflicts across the globe and has worked well. Thick armor, good dynamics, impressive firepower and modern means of guidance and communication. It is for this that the American soldiers fell in love with the M1A1.
On the Abrams, regardless of modification,the advanced German gun Rh-120 (M256) is installed. The US combat vehicle is famous for its magnificent armor, which consists of composite plates. But is it really good and does it exceed the protection of the T-90, we will understand a little later.
As for the layout, this parameter"Abrams" is not much different from its Western counterparts. For example, the booked volume is almost 20 cubic meters. In the T-90, this figure is less than half. A key feature of the M1A1, as well as the advantage is the placement of the ammunition. Shells are placed in the tower and the housing in isolation. In addition, there are kickout plates. The disadvantage of this decision is that all the ammunition is in the tower, and it is most vulnerable to shelling.
If you compare the tanks of Russia and the United States bypower plant, the engine power is almost the same. However, the American car is equipped with a gas turbine engine, which has a higher fuel consumption than the Russian diesel.
M1A1 and M1A2 equipped with a 120-mm smooth-borecannon. The initial velocity of the projectile is 1625 m / s, and the rate of fire - about 8 rounds per minute. At the same time, the rate of fire when moving, especially over rough terrain, is significantly reduced. Ammunition consists of armor-piercing sabots. Usually it is several types of ammunition, for example, M829A1, M829A2, M829A3. The last few years, the M1A1 and M1A2 have been supplying M829A3 projectiles of the new model, which are the most dangerous for the Russian T-90. In general, this is a promising US tank with fairly powerful weapons. But let's see what the Russian designers and engineers prepared in response.
The T-90 is armed with a 125-mm smooth-bore gun.The initial velocity of the projectile is 1750 meters per second, which is somewhat higher than that of the Abrams. Ammunition for the most part consists of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells of the sample of the 80s. For this reason, we can say that in terms of armor penetration, Russian projectiles are somewhat lagging behind, because they must be replaced with new ones. However, it is quite difficult to exchange ammunition for new ones because there are limitations on the automatic loader along the length of the installed projectiles. The rate of guns - 8 shots per minute. In motion - about 6 shots. Another feature of the T-90 is that it has in its armament KUV "Reflex-M". This allows you to effectively conduct aimed fire at a distance of 3 km, which is 2 times more than the radius of destruction of other modern tanks. "Reflex-M" allows you to win the battle of the T-90 before entering the zone of effective firing.
На Т-90 устанавливают СУО с дневным, а также night sighting complex. Day sight has independent stabilization on two planes. That allows the gunner to work more efficiently. Night sighting complex has a dependent stabilization on two planes. The disadvantage of such a fire control system is that it makes it difficult to track and fire at night on moving targets. Modification of the T-90S is equipped with an improved thermal sight "Essa", which allows you to more effectively track down and fire at the target in the dark.
If we compare the modern tanks of the USA and Russia("Abrams" and T-90), the latter are distinguished by the fact that they have adders and angle sensors. This equipment is associated with the vertical and horizontal axis of the platform and mirror reflector. This solution allows you to combine the work of two independent sights in the sighting complex. The bottom line is the full use of the technical capabilities of each of them. Mount two corrector. The first is intended to eliminate errors in the synchronism of tracking the sighting system, which are caused by inaccurate installation. The second eliminates the accuracy of the installation mechanisms of transmission. Another key difference from the Abrams is that the T-90 commander has the ability to fire at ground and air targets from a stabilized machine-gun installation.
The newest US tank M1A1 has one significantthe disadvantage is the limited ability of the commander to find the target. This is especially noticeable while driving. But the flaw was discovered and eliminated in a subsequent modification of M1A2. There is already installed a panoramic thermal sight. In this case, the commander can more effectively track and identify moving targets.
СУО же на танке «Абрамс» более современная, чем on the t-90. The gunner works with the main sight, which has a thermal imager and a range finder. The multiplicity of the day channel x3 and x10, with vertical stabilization. There is also an auxiliary eightfold sight without stabilization. In general, the fire control system for the M1A2 modification is more modern. It provides for the presence of thermal imaging cameras for the commander and the gunner. The crew is completely dependent on the automatic fire control system. The electronic control unit (ECU) allows you to stabilize an independent sight, drive tools. In general, we can say that if we compare tanks of Russia and NATO, the latter succeeded in terms of the OMS. But the T-90 wins significantly over long distances.
Agree, the effectiveness of armor playsa huge role for the survival of the tank on the battlefield. That is why security must be considered a separate item. The newest US tank M1A2 has fairly thick sheets of armor, but at the same time their effectiveness is significantly lower than that of the T-90. For example, the tower is equipped with steel armor plates with stiffening ribs, between which are placed packages of armor made of metal and composite. In general, the effectiveness of such protection is sufficient, but the resistance when injected is significantly reduced. The sides of the M1A2 are also more vulnerable than the T-90. Experts say that the tower of an American tank, though armored, but it easily makes its way through armor-piercing shells.
The T-90 boasts semi-active armor turrets.It is a three-layer system. In addition, a rational angle of inclination of the armor of the frontal part of the tower allows for more efficient use of it. Also, Russian military tanks, in particular the T-90, have dynamic protection of the “Contact-5” type. It protects against the effects of cumulative and armor-piercing projectiles. Due to the creation of a powerful lateral impulse, the core is destabilized, which leads to its destruction even before coming into contact with the tank's main armor.
The safer crew will feelthe tank, the better it will perform its functional duties. That is why they are always trying to improve the frontal armor. Since the Abrams and T-90s were developed during the Cold War, the most attention was paid to the frontal part of the combat vehicle, which is important when fighting in open areas head-on. But at present there is a high probability of tank combat in the conditions of the city. Consequently, it does not make sense to hit frontal armor with a thickness of up to 800 mm, since it is much easier to punch the board or the stern. Usually there is no more than 100 mm armor thickness.
That is why the heavy tanks of Russia, as well asThe US has weak spots. Nevertheless, among the advantages of the T-90 it is worth noting the possibility of hitting the target guided by rockets at a distance of up to 5 km, good maneuverability, high rate of fire, reliable armor. As for the "Abrams", then he is not devoid of strengths. Americans value their crew, so they always isolate it from the ammunition. In addition, M1A1 and M1A2 have high power density and good maneuverability, as well as an excellent fire control system. But the comparison of Russian and US tanks is not over. Now we look at some more modern cars. These tanks are in development, but it is already known that they will soon be launched from the conveyor.
Heavy fighting vehicle "Armata" is designed to replaceT-72, T-80, and also partially T-90. Experts note that the military-technical level of "Almaty" will be higher by 20-30% than all existing analogues in the world. Key features, or rather, the differences of this tank from the T-90 are that the crew, fuel tank and ammunition will be placed in separate rooms. This will increase the survivability on the battlefield even when armor is broken through. The unit will be equipped with an engine for 1200 horsepower, which will ensure sufficient maneuverability with a tank weight of 50 tons.
You can say that the main weapon of Russia- tanks, as well as self-propelled guns. This is due to the fact that there are 20-35% more of them than the Americans. However, the survivability of technology in general is lower. That is why the developers paid special attention to the protection of "Almaty". This is a multi-layered “pie” consisting of metal, ceramic and composite packages. The use of a new steel grade made it possible to increase the armor characteristics by 15% and, at the same time, to reduce the weight of the vehicle by the same amount. The Armata will be equipped with a 125-mm cannon, similar to the German L-55 weapon, but 20% superior in technical characteristics. To such a gun developed special ammunition with increased penetration.
So we reviewed the new tanks of Russia. Armata and T-90 are the best of them. Well, now - about the most promising American development.
Currently, Americans do not release newtanks. For the most part, they are engaged in the modernization of M1A1 and M1A2. Of course, developments are underway in some areas, but it is unlikely that in the next few years the world will see new US tanks, although the information is secret and it is impossible to say anything confidently on this topic. Maybe new cars will appear by the end of 2015, few people know about this.
Но уже известно, что разработки будут вестись в improving the maneuverability and mobility of combat vehicles, therefore, modern US tanks will have thinner armor, powerful undercarriage and powerplant. Rather, it is a question of intelligence, and not of tanks intended for a head-on collision. In particular, development is underway to create machines for a crew of 2 or 3 people with an uninhabited tower. For example, a combat vehicle with a crew of 2 people will have an engine of 1500 horsepower, low silhouette. The weight, compared with M1A1, will be less by 20-30%, which will increase the power density.
It is difficult to say whether such tanks will beUS weapons, but their development is underway, but information about the technical characteristics and capabilities of machines in battle has not been disclosed. In general, the Americans have M1A2 and its modifications. These tanks meet modern requirements and have a fairly high efficiency, including survival, on the battlefield. For this reason, they are not going to change them yet. The most modern and sophisticated - US military tanks TUSK. This is a modification of M1A2, which consists in the presence of a remotely controlled machine gun and an improved mine protection of the bottom of the machine.
So we made a small comparison with you.Russian and US tanks. As you can see, both countries have high military potential. Company battles (10x10) were modeled between the T-90 and Abrams, which showed that the T-90 is more effective in the conditions of the steppe area. At the same time, the hilly terrain offers some advantage, albeit a small one, to American technology. This is due to the fact that in such conditions it is difficult to fire at long distances, and especially guided missiles.
The main problem of the T-90 is that allimprovements and developments are in the form of patents, as well as samples. No significant measures to improve the protective, dynamic, as well as fire performance is not carried out. In addition, there is an acute issue of insufficient training of the crew of the tank, which in the face of intense collision must quickly and clearly respond. This requires some experience. Both the Abrams and the T-90 are among the best of their kind. Considering the tank "Armada" as a real candidate, as well as American development, does not make sense. This is due to the fact that the tank is evaluated during tests at the test site, and not in the hangar. It may seem that it is ideal, and in the course of the practical part significant shortcomings will be revealed. That, in principle, is all that can be briefly told about tanks in service with the United States and Russia. They have almost identical performance with only minor differences.
