As compared to our guns with foreign!

Recently, all of the domestic media spared another strong statement from the mouth of the Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Army General Nikolai Makarov: according to him, most of the country’s military equipment hopelessly behind on foreign products. It happened at the meeting of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, in the presence of a large number of invited experts.


Actually, discussed military reform. About weapons and military equipment mentioned in passing, in the context of the presentation, one of the slides and which contained the infamous "comparison". Illustrated just this slide were the "facts" of backwardness of Russian arms.

But what was this slide? Yes, here it is:


No, dear reader, this is not a fake, trying to put the Chief of General Staff, fool! This slide (№ 17) the presentation of real-Army Gen. Makarov, made in «PowerPoint` e ‘. The original presentation can be found on the official website of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation and download (only 8.7 MB):…rezentaciya_mioboroni.ppt

Besides the obvious blunders — photos of Chinese Type 80 tanks instead of T-90 and Merkava Mk3 instead Mk4 — I consider it necessary to consider all the critical set of tactical and technical characteristics of the presented species of BT, to show the obvious absurdity of the statements of high military rank, or refute a number of "facts." I shall touch only the technology of the Ground Forces.

The first comparison: Merkava Mk4 and T-90.



"Having bronekapsuly." A comparison of this parameter a priori absurd: bronekapsuly, of course, on the T-90 is not — do not have it on Merkava 4! And no other Merkava or any other foreign, and, unfortunately, domestic production tanks. Because "bronekapsuly" in relation to the tank — an isolated bay habitat crew, structurally separated from the crew compartment (tower) of the machine, its ammunition (BC) and fuel. Called "bronekapsuly" habitable compartment "Merkava 4", where considerable space devoted to charging, manually feed the 120-mm shells of combat pack, correctly, and automatic loader (AZ) (including all 10 rounds), with including detonation protection, all is located in the crew compartment, as well as non-mechanized combat pack of 38 shells. Individual protection, capping shells, does not negate the fact that the ammunition is not taken out of the habitable volume.

Actually, the criticism of Russia’s MBT reduces the sample to criticism modifications of 1993 (T-90) and the T-90A, in which BC in AZ and some non-mechanized combat pack in the tanks, racks were partially protected, and 10 projectiles and charges in 7 BO has opened .
But it is necessary to take into account the fact that the T-90A recent benchmarking test, during which he was mercilessly shot all sorts of ammunition and undermined by anti-tank mine, passed with flying colors, and even granted the request to protect future tanks. In addition, tests have found that the level of compliance of the tested T-90 tanks to the needs of prospective rate was 60% — and it’s a tank, commercially available since 2002 (information from an expert V. Murakhovski, voiced at the forum VIF2NE).

In the latest modification of Russian tanks — T-90ms — protection is even better. All protected by a special ammunition ballistic fabric such as "Kevlar" and armor: 22 shots in AZ, 8 shots in a secure rack on the wall of the MTO, the remaining 10 shots all taken out of the habitable volume in a niche of the tower.



And in what is still a tank installed notorious "bronekapsuly," you ask? The tank Object 195 (T-95) — the same one that was rejected by the Defense Ministry. The crew that is completely isolated from the BO (with CD) and ITO (with fuel), is located in a titanium "bronekapsuly" in the front of the chassis, under the protection of a powerful frontal armor. Made in metal, bronekapsuly there are about 10 years old, as does the tank. And on the "Armata" she has yet to appear. By the way, here it is indicated in the patent (taken from the site at No. 6 as a "highly secure, fire and explosion safety control module":


Target detection range. The data presented — in 4500 meters at the Merkava 4, and 3300 meters from the T-90 — need explanation. At present in the network ( TTC T-90M has a point "range target identification of the" tank "at night, m — 4300", it is a characteristic panoramic sight (commander), equipped, including thermal imager. Note: does not "detect" and "recognition." Because sight "Essa" provides target acquisition of the "tank" at a distance of more than 5 miles at night is on the T-90A, the rate of 3,300 meters corresponds to the range target identification of the "tank" for the Gunner’s "Essays" on the T-90A. It is therefore quite possible that the 4500 meters — range target identification of the "tank" MSA "Merkava". As you can see, the superiority of the T-90M (MS) is almost offset by the new MSA "Kalina" (if 4500 m — it is really the detection range, then no superiority of the Israeli MBT before the Russian not at all).

Range of defeats the purpose. The figure of 6,000 meters, exceeding the detection range of MSA "Merkava 4", most likely tied to the firing range tank guided missile (TUR) LAHAT. As you know, the missile can be launched from helicopters, and in this case, has a range of 13 km, and is fired from a tank — 8 km. It is forgotten that this maximum range is achieved by using only the target designation from an external source — a scout another tank or a special UAV. When shooting using only laser illumination own MSA "Merkava-4" can run "Lahat" at a distance of not more than 6 km (these data are given in the directory «Jane` s »).



The T-90 Sighting range, m (maximum):
armor-piercing di
scarding sabot projectile — 4000;
armor-piercing shaped-charge projectile — 4000;
with night sight TPN-4-49 — 1500;
when firing indirect fire by the side level high-explosive/fragmentation -10000.
At T-90 in BC also has TOUR "Invar" and "Invar-M", and range of which — up to 5000 meters.

It is true that the Israeli tank crew learning to shoot at very long range anti-armor missiles, but in this case we are talking about the defeat only fixed targets. And the distance record defeat of a tractor owned by an English Arabic tank gun and the skill of the gunner, not technical superiority (and accurately — not "Merkava 4"). In addition, there is a decrease in armor-piercing projectile with increasing distance shooting (not without reason, the standard specifies armor at a distance of 2 km). In reality, the battle between these MBT using OBPS effective range of both is about the same.

As a result, the superiority of "Merkava 4" is provided by a better-managed complex missile with TOUR "Lahat", allowing an external target designation. But it is not great as far as it appears from the General Makarov slide.
For more "early" Bitch T-90 just does not make demands like Israel. But there is reason to believe there is a similar "Lahat" Tour in "Object-195", which had a fairly advanced and MSA, which were implemented new principles of combat (with ESU TIUS TK with the possibility of an external target designation).


Merkava Mk4

Mine protection. Undoubtedly, the very design "Merkava 4" is more resistant to undermine First, he expressed a V-shaped bottom, and secondly, the very design of the tank is optimized for "counterinsurgency" operations. At T-90 anti-mine protection is worse, not only because of the flat bottom, but also because of the characteristic features of the third generation of Soviet tanks with AZ in the BO (in the case T-72/90 — right on the bottom in the form of a "carousel"). Of course, the tank, and "Carousel" to withstand a power explosion when traveling to push anti-tank mine, and take into account the deflection of the bottom, but … Paradoxically tanks T-55 and T-62 of the second post-war generation had mine protection higher, largely due to a lack of "Carousel" and "baskets" of AZ / MZ in the BO and also because with the Afghan experience them installed mine protection kits bill. This is one of the reasons for such a "longevity" of the old tanks, including participation in combat operations in the North Caucasus, in Georgia, the "old men" were more adapted to counterinsurgency deystviyampo compared to the more modern T-72 and T-80. There is some evidence that similar "Afghan" mine protection kits were designed for the Institute of Steel and tanks T-72/80/90, but the development and implementation of their attempts were the years of chronic underfunding of military-industrial complex and, therefore, were not implemented. In addition to the Defense Ministry was considered sufficient protection provided by mine sweepers and electromagnetic protection system (SEMP — premature disruption of electronic detonators mines and IEDs).

The second comparison: "Twister" and HIMARS.



Perhaps the most absurd on the slide. Because the distance of 150 kilometers in a HIMARS rocket ATACMS, operational-tactical missiles fired from launchers MLRS / HIMARS. Why then are compared MLRS and OTP, you ask? Well, this is such a slide …. add that the usual NURS M26/M26A1 are firing range 32/45 miles. NURS with GPS-guided (GMLRS) M30 have a range of up to 70 kilometers. The longest range is modified ATACMS Block 1A Unitary — up to 270 kilometers. On our side, compares the old (1987) MLRS "Smerch" with missiles with a range of up to 70 kilometers.


BM-30 "Smerch"

BUT! And if you compare without juggling? So, upgraded rockets "Smerch" have an increased firing range — up to 90 kilometers. And it’s all with the same fully autonomous inertial navigation system (INS). The task of increasing the range while maintaining high accuracy (using a satellite navigation) is not intended as, first, there was the infamous navigation system (GLONASS fully earned only recently), and secondly, it would greatly increase the cost of missiles.


"Hurricane-1M". As you can see, the Rockets are stacked in quick TPK

Why not compare with the latest HIMARS MLRS "Tornado/Uragan-1M" which likely using guidance from a GLONASS? Why not compare GMLRS, which delivers up to 70 kilometers warhead weighing 90 kg, with 9M528 with a range of 90 kilometers and a warhead weighing 250 pounds? Why not compare the damaged area full salvo: MLRS (HIMARS in half) to 12 hectares, with Whirlwind — 40 ha … Why not compare OTP ATACMS, reaches out to 270 km from the OTP "Iskander", the range of which (500km) limits only INF treaty? I’m not saying that ATACMS charged a maximum of one-piece high-explosive warhead, the main download — light anti-vehicle "bombs» M-74, while the "Iskander" — a possible carrier ‘special’ head.



The disadvantage of our MRL is that they can not use the OTP, you ask. That’s right — why General Makarov and other representatives of the Ministry of Defense did not require such an option when creating / refining "Tornado/Smerch-1M?" By the way, the new MRL also have batch posting rockets and quickly recharged. Require a quick recharge of Soviet-made machine, which is more than 20 years, is incorrect.

Third comparison: PzH-2000, and MSTA-S.



Again, is juggling. The specified maximum range of 24 kilometers for Msta-C corresponds to the firing range of a conventional high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a range charge.
For PzH-2000 also contains the maximum range "record" shell V-LAP, which is really shooting in the South African range of 56 kilometers. Serial same missiles have a shorter range: 30 to 40 km, an increase in range achieved with bottom gas generator (the so-called base bleed). The reality is somewhat less rosy at all — Dutch PzH-2000 in Afghanistan marked the low accuracy of the shells with the gasifier (Rh-40), who shot at a distance of more than 30km. Exceeding the accuracy was more than 1 kilometer. The accuracy of the conventional firing a projectile Rh-30 at a distance of up to 22 km was reported as good. By the way, the Germans do not buy the Rh-40, prefer conventional Rh-30 (Netherlands plans renewed firing trials to improve PzH2000 accuracy).

The rest are in the same spirit. By the way, according to the slide, there is no precise and corrected with laser-guided missiles "Krasnopol."



The problem is that comparing the old Soviet (1989) and the new German self-propelled guns, and taken MSTA-S with the usual barrel length of 47 calibres, with the chamber under the old shells, with no new systems is made. But has the new upgraded 2S19M1 ASUNO, minimizing deployment time — self-propelled guns in the division after the march ready to fire volley after 3 minutes, and after getting ready coordinates — within 30 seconds. And with the new, long-barreled 52-gauge radically modernized "MSTA-M" shoots a projectile at an advanced 41 kilometers.
However, there is a nuance: the Defense Ministry will buy the upgraded ACS least since 2012, but improved missiles — only since 2015, and according to other sources — in 2017. And with no new ammunition firing range, even from a long barrel will not exceed 32 kilometers, gain distance not more than 10%. Defense explained by the fact that the old warehouses littered with shells. It is not surprising — after all, "MSTA-S" has a standard 152 mm caliber, unified back with 152-mm self-propelled guns 2S3 "Acacia" — and further along the line of the Soviet 152-mm artillery pieces … until naval guns "of Kane," standing on the cruiser "Aurora "! In this "advantage" — you can shoot even before the revolution shells. That’s the disadvantage — chamber has a smaller volume than the NATO counterparts 155-mm caliber. Perhaps the cost to move to an entirely new shell is in ACS ‘Hyacinth’, which did not have backwards compatibility with the other 152-mm self-propelled guns?



According to rumors, SAU "Coalition-SV" also uses a new, non-uniform shells with significantly increased range and precision shooting (including with guidance from GLONASS). That is the "Coalition-SV", which was like when he was locked in the notorious Popovkin’s deputy defense minister. As it turned out, not quite.


What is the result? Yes, some of the items we can agree. Only to some. Ostentatious and overwhelming advantage of foreign models is clearly overrated. Our weapons drenched with mud. In fact, the word casually thrown reached the goal. Our military-industrial complex, in Russia as an international arms exporter serious blow (again).

Definitely — the compiler of the slide was extremely dubious knowledge of performance characteristics of the submitted samples. Or KNOWINGLY cheated facts. And our Makarov without batting an eye it all sounded calm. But he could not know about the wild mistakes in the slide.


Like this post? Please share to your friends: