How effective «Cornet» with the defeat of the M1A1 tanks and M1A2? What is the survival of these armored vehicles in the shelling?
The main characteristics of the family battle tanks «Abrams» — Firepower, protection and mobility. In the near future it is added maneuverability command.
Tank «Abrams» Build a traditional scheme: the main armament is located in a rotating turret, the separation of management — in the bow, power pack — in the aft hull. Rather weak booking roof, bottom and sides of the tank — one of the main shortcomings of traditional assembly that the criteria of adopting anti-tank weapons, armored attack from above and below, virtually exhausted the ability to constructive improvements.
The largest armor protection tanks «Abrams» have a front side. As modernization M1A2 tank’s armor protection characteristics (Table 1) increased 1.4-fold compared with the M1 tank, which was achieved by additional modules from depleted uranium. Note that the resistance of the frontal protection protivokumulyativnymi M1A1 tank of 700 mm, so that if the cumulative armor piercing ammo has 700 mm, the data protection ammunition were not penetrated.
Appropriate to ask the question: what scared the Yankees «Cornet»? The answer is an armor-piercing capabilities rassredotachivanie warhead missiles «Cornet» in collaboration with the frontal protection M1A1 tank. After breaking armor unspent portion of the cumulative jet (1000 mm — 700 mm) can penetrate more armor plate width of 300 mm, which provides high zabronevoe action. In other words, if previously there had been a few cases of destruction, «Abrams» RPG-7 from the sides and stern at distances not exceeding 200 m, the presence of «Kornet» Baghdad would hit the tanks with at least some parties using this complex range.
M1A1 tank board (thickness 50 mm) and placed before him the screen even with ERA (FOE) will save the crew and not the indoor units from ATGM, RPG and BTS. Once the machine has a rather weak armor protection roof (thickness — 80-40 mm) and bottom (60-20 mm), which does not help against, for example, homing cassette element «Motiv-3M» (Used in aviation ordnance and MLRS), also on cassette antitank mine PTM-3.
Comparative analysis of body armor M1A1 tank (M1A2) and armor-piercing anti-tank weapons act (TCP) allows subsequent note:
— traditional tank layout scheme characteristics identified the highest armor only frontal parts turret and hull;
— reservation rather weak sides, roof and bottom does not provide its survival against modern anti-tank weapons in combat criteria;
— the whole body armor tank does not meet the conditions for future military conflicts with the use of a promising high-precision anti-tank weapons.
LAW This refers to the second generation. The main advantage of the rocket — the highest armor-piercing warhead effect. Initially designed as a set of self-propelled, but later became offered as a laptop to enhance infantry units.
Using computer simulation determined the probability of damage M1A1 tanks and M1A2 aspect to «loss of mobility or firepower.» Under the assumed loss of mobility disabling motor, caterpillars and other sites, as the driver. Loss of firepower is achieved by disabling weapon delivery systems, as gunner. The possibility of defeat M1A1 tank, not curb DZ when attacking frontal zone is 0.8, which is obtained from the highest armor penetration and adequate zabronevogo acts warhead missiles. In Iraq, M1A1 tanks were without DZ because South American generals knew that Baghdad has no TCP have armor, significantly superior resistance frontal protection tanks. They do not even have to equip their tanks DZ, because it would require significant monetary costs, in addition to increased dynamic loads on the undercarriage (total additional weight — 1,5) already overloaded machine.
Top Properties BASIC LAW «Kornet»
funny day — 100-5500
Night — 100-3500
— by laser beam
— tandem cumulative
The time delay between the undermining
preparatory and main charge, ms — 300
Penetration, mm — 1000
Missile caliber, mm — 152
launcher — 19
container with a missile — 27
What is the survival of the M1A1 tank with rocket shelling on the forehead «Kornet-E»? To this end, the existing rules we carry out the following operation: subtract 1 from the possibility of defeat M1A1 tank of 0.8 and 0.2 we obtain that suggests quite the highest threat of being infected on the battlefield this rocket.
So Makar, the simulation results have allowed to confirm the effectiveness of «Cornet» M1A1 tank during shelling in the criteria of the past conflict. Understandable anxiety because the U.S. State Department, which uses any tricks in their own often errant game. If Baghdad was even a few hundred «Kornet» would organize tank cemetery for «Abrams».
Information for consideration
We should not delude ourselves represented traits efficiency ATGM «Kornet-E.» Note that this complex is being followed by TTT 20 years ago, in which the characteristics of simulators and DZ multilayer booking zabugornyh tanks did not reflect reality («MIC» № 8, 2003). As a result of which Russian ATGM with tandem warhead overcome foreign DZ with probability less than 0.5. Show abroad tandem CLE is almost invincible barrier to Russian ATGM with tandem warhead.
When accepting the adopted municipal LAW tests were conducted in the criteria do not adequately combat.
The introduction of the laser beam guidance system asks lack bushes, mounds, smokescreens to the line of motion of the rocket. This event, for example, in the Western European theater opened no way for the firing of a rocket «Cornet» to the highest range, because terrain provides visibility of lesions less than 2 km.
Forthcoming increase survivability of American tanks will be implemented by the installation of an active protection system comprising detection means (special sensors for nicks launch anti-tank weapons), maintenance, destruction, posing as passive (smoke grenades) and active (laser jammers and infrared guidance systems ATRA) interference .
One of the main features are adopted by modification «Abrams» — Tank M1A2 SEP — is the availability of on-board information and control system (CICS), which interfaces with automatic tactical control of the Land Forces. CICS produces tactical situation display on the monitor screen of the tank commander, also transmits data on the location of enemy and own troops. CICS installation on the tank M1A2 dramatically increases its survivability in combat criteria.
The above measures to increase the protection of armored vehicles zabugornyh require Russian designers improving the technology of shooting tanks.
Creator Mike Rastopshin Ph.D