Comparative assessments of tanks from different countries are always of interest. Which tank is better? According to Western ratings of the latest generation tanks, the first places are occupied by the American Abrams, the German Leopard-2 and the French Leclerc, and the Soviet / Russian tanks are somewhere at the end of the rating. Is it really so?
The objectivity of assessing ratings depends on the goal that is set, who makes the assessment and whether it is carried out correctly. The obvious interest of Western experts in assessing the ratings of tanks speaks of the dubious objectivity of such an assessment.
Let's try to objectively compare the tanks of the latest generation of Western countries with Soviet / Russian tanks. Today the most advanced Western tanks are the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Leclerc. Of the Soviet / Russian tanks of this generation, the T-64, T-72, T-80, which do not fundamentally differ from each other, can be distinguished as the most advanced T-80UD, some components and systems of which have not yet been introduced on the T- 72 and T-90. The comparison can be based on two tanks, "Abrams" and T-80U, as typical representatives of the two schools of tank building.
Comparison of tanks is usually made according to three main criteria - firepower, security and mobility, which together determine the effectiveness of the tank.
Firepower
The firepower of a tank is characterized by three parameters - the time of preparation and production of the first shot, the actual firing range and the armor penetration of the ammunition. It is these parameters that are set in the TTT for the development of the tank.
The time for preparing and firing the first shot is determined from the moment the gunner detects the target until the shot is fired. Depends on the characteristics of the gunner's sight, the perfection of the control system and the speed of loading the gun.
On the M1A1 Abrams, the gunner's sight was with stabilization of the field of view only vertically, which significantly complicated aiming and opening fire, especially on the move. In this case, the aiming process was significantly complicated in the introduction of lateral lead on a moving target and required a good training of the gunner. The T-72 tank suffered from the same.
In systems with a two-plane stabilization system, a laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer, this process was greatly simplified. The gunner only had to keep the aiming mark on the target, all other operations were performed by automatic equipment. On tanks Leopard-2, "Leclerc" and T-80U, such a system was implemented. On subsequent modifications of the M1A2 Abrams, a gunner's sight and an MSA, similar to the Leopard-2, were installed.
On the "Abrams" and "Leopards-2" the crew of 4 people, the loading of the gun is done manually by the loader, which increases the loading time, especially when moving. All Soviet tanks and the Leclerc have a crew of three; the cannon is loaded with an automatic loader in all operating conditions of the tank. In this regard, the preparation time for the first shot when firing from a standstill on the Abrams and Leopard-2 is 9-10 s, and when firing on the move - 15 s, and on the T80U and Leclerc - 7-8 s at shooting from a place and on the move.
That is, in terms of the preparation time for the first shot, the T-80U and Leclerc tanks outperform the Abrams and Leopard-2.
Actual firing range (DDS) - the range within which is provided with a probability of 0.9, at least one hit out of three shots, which corresponds to the probability of hitting one shot 0.55. it lies within 2300 m - 2700 m when firing during the day and depends on the perfection of the control system and the characteristics of the gun.
On the latest modifications of all tanks, the gunner's sighting systems for the sight, laser rangefinder, gun stabilizer, ballistic computer are approximately equal. Cannon on western tanks with higher ballistic characteristics. In general, the DDS on Western and Soviet tanks cannot fundamentally differ, on Western tanks it can be slightly higher due to the perfection of the gun.
When firing at night, in difficult meteorological conditions and with dust and smoke interference, the DDS of western tanks will be higher due to the use of more advanced thermal imaging sights.
On Soviet tanks, the use of a 125 mm cannon made it possible to develop a new type of tank armament in the mid-70s - guided missiles fired through the barrel of a standard cannon. The firepower of Soviet tanks has increased significantly. Now they could hit targets with a probability of 0.9 at ranges first 4000 m, and then 5000 m. Such missile armament on western tanks never appeared.
The effectiveness of fire essentially depends on the commander's observation devices, which provide search for targets and target designation. On the Abrams and all Soviet tanks up to the T-80U, the commander had a simple optical observation device that did not allow for effective target search. On the "Leopard-2" and "Leclerc", a panoramic observation device with two-plane stabilization of the field of view and a thermal imaging channel was immediately used. There was also a television channel in the panorama at Leclerc. The panoramic observation device was later installed on the M1A2 modification of the Abrams.
On Russian tanks, such a device is just beginning to be installed, attempts to create a panorama were made back in the second half of the 70s, but for opportunistic reasons of the instrument-making industry, it was not created. On the T-80U tank in the mid-80s, the commander's observation device "Agat-S" appeared with vertical stabilization only, installed in the commander's cupola, which made it possible to conduct effective fire from an anti-aircraft gun and duplicate the gunner's fire from a cannon.
The armor penetration of tank shells is primarily determined by their perfection, for a cumulative projectile, the caliber of the gun affects, and for an armor-piercing sub-caliber, the initial velocity of the projectile's departure from the cannon. On Western tanks, a 120 mm cannon, on Soviet 125 mm. That is, on Soviet tanks for a cumulative projectile, there are more opportunities to improve it. Western and Soviet / Russian tanks have approximately the same projectile departure speed, on the order of 1750-1800 m / s, and the armor penetration of the BPS is determined by the perfection of its core. On the Abrams tank, the armor penetration of the BPS at a distance of 2000 m is 700mm. and on the T-80U tank - 650 mm. The armor penetration of a cumulative projectile on the Abrams is 600 mm, and on the T-80U tank the penetration of a guided missile is up to 850 mm. According to this criterion, Western and Soviet tanks do not fundamentally differ; the T-80U has some advantage when using a guided missile.
All tanks used a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun as additional armament. On the Abrams and T-72 tanks, for firing, the operator must be outside the tank, and he is easily hit with small arms. On the M1A2 Abrams modification, only armored shields were introduced to protect the shooter from small arms. On tanks "Leopard-2", "Leclerc" and T-64B (T-80UD), fire can be fired remotely from the tower.
According to the firepower of Soviet / Russian tanks, one can conclude that they are fundamentally not inferior to each other. According to some parameters (time to prepare the first shot, the presence of an automatic loader, a higher caliber gun, rocket armament), Soviet / Russian tanks are in the lead. In such parameters as all-day and all-weather observation and aiming devices, the commander's panoramic device, Western tanks are in the lead.
Mobility
According to this criterion, the determining parameters are the power of the power plant, the weight of the tank and the specific pressure on the ground. In terms of the power plant, Soviet / Russian tanks were always inferior to Western ones. The Abrams was immediately equipped with a 1500 hp gas turbine engine, while the Leopard-2 and Leclerc had a diesel of the same power, Soviet tanks were fitted with 700 hp diesel engines, then 840 hp. … In the mid-70s, a 6TDF diesel engine with a capacity of 1000 hp was installed on the T-64B tank. and a gas turbine engine of the same power for the T-80B tank. Diesel 1000 hp on the T-72 tank appeared only in the 2000s, and a gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1250 hp. for the T-80U tank - in the 90s, and it did not come to mass production of tanks with such an engine. That is, in terms of the power plant, we have always been significantly inferior to Western tanks, and the gap has not yet been eliminated.
I had to observe at the "Tank Biathlon 2018" how the T-72B3 tanks, passing in front of the stands, worked at the limit of their capabilities, the engine power was 840 hp. clearly not enough. Diesel with a capacity of 1130 hp appeared, but has not yet become widespread on tanks.
On Soviet / Russian tanks, this disadvantage was compensated for by the weight of the tank, and it was significantly lower than Western tanks. "Abrams" started with 55 tons, and in the latest modifications reached 63 tons, the "Leopard-2" also weighs 63 tons. Only "Leclerc", due to the use of an automatic loader and reducing the crew to three people, has a weight of 55 tons. Soviet tanks started from 39 tons and rose to 46 tons. The specific power on the "Abrams" and "Leopard-2" - 24 hp / t, at the "Leclerc" - 27 hp / t, and on the Russian - 22 hp./T. But with this weight, "Abrams" and "Leopard-2" have significantly higher ground pressure, which leads to lower indicators of mobility.
The large weight of Western tanks led to another problem: in Europe there is no road infrastructure and bridges capable of ensuring the movement of such tanks on them, and this turned out to be one of the serious factors in the possibility of their use in the European theater of operations.
Security
The security and armor of a tank is determined by the accepted concept of its layout and the established school of tank building. The Soviet school proceeded from the need for a denser layout of the units and systems of the tank, a smaller number of crew members, and smaller dimensions and height of the tank. At the same time, the ammunition was placed in the same compartment with the crew, which reduced the size and weight of the tank, but reduced the survivability of the tank when the ammunition detonated. The Western school focused on providing more acceptable conditions for the crew of the tank, the possibility of retaining the tank during detonation of ammunition.
Therefore, Soviet and Western tanks are seriously different in layout. The dimensions of the western tanks are significantly larger than the Soviet ones, and they are 200-300 mm higher, and the dimensions of the turret are almost 2 times larger due to the niche in the rear of the turret for ammunition, and it is also poorly protected from the sides and roof of the turret. Accordingly, the frontal and lateral projections of western tanks are much larger in area and the likelihood of their destruction is higher. So, the frontal projection of the tanks "Abrams" and "Leopard-2" is 6 square meters. m, and the T80U tank - 5 sq. m.
To protect the crew in the event of detonation of ammunition on western tanks, it is placed in a separate turret recessed from the crew with expelling plates, which should work to relieve pressure when the ammunition detonates, saving the crew and the tank. In practice, when using these tanks in battles in Iraq and Syria, in case of defeat and detonation of ammunition, the ejection plates did not save the tank and the crew.
Western and Soviet / Russian tanks use combined passive and explosive reactive armor."Abrams" has a very powerful frontal protection and weak on the sides and stern of the tank. It has rather weak protection for the roof of the hull and turret, as well as the bottom of the hull. The armor resistance of the frontal part of the tower from the COP is up to 1300 mm, while there are up to 9% of weakened zones. The armor resistance of the sides from the COP is 400-500 mm.
Armor resistance from the KS tank T-80U tower 1100 mm. That is, in terms of the level of protection of the frontal part of the turret, the T-80U is somewhat inferior to the Abrams. It should be noted that the T-80U tank uses the Shtora optoelectronic suppression system, while the Abrams is just being developed such a system.
Possibility of interaction within the subdivision
This additional criterion for the effectiveness of tanks was introduced not so long ago and characterizes the ability of a tank to perform the assigned task as part of a unit when interacting with tank fire support aviation, artillery and motorized rifle units, the so-called network-centric battle control. For these purposes, the tanks "Leclerc" and "Abrams" have already implemented the first generation systems based on TIUS, providing interaction and automated transmission of information and control commands. The development of such a system was first started for Soviet tanks in the early 80s, but with the collapse of the Union, work was curtailed. Most advanced in creating a network-centric system on the Leclerc tank. This is not the case on Russian tanks of the current generation; elements of the network-centric system are planned to be introduced on the Armata tank.
A comparative analysis of the characteristics of Western and Soviet / Russian tanks shows that in terms of the main criteria, they are fundamentally not inferior to each other. For some, Western tanks win, for others - Soviet / Russian. So, in terms of low silhouette, weight, the presence of an automatic loader and guided weapons, Soviet / Russian tanks win, and in terms of power plant power, all-day and all-weather sights and observation devices, Western tanks.
It is hardly reasonable to assert about the clear advantage of those or other tanks in terms of a set of criteria. These are tanks of the same generation, according to some criteria they are superior, according to others they are inferior to each other, for a qualitative leap in the main criteria of a tank's efficiency, a tank of a new generation is needed.
