Alarm calls continue to come from countries of the former Warsaw Pact. As you know, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just a huge range of unique weapons fell into the hands of the armed forces of states, which over the next two decades became for the modern Russian Federation not just neutral powers, but natural enemy footholds that "put down roots" in the operational and strategic structure of the most powerful geopolitical enemy - the North Atlantic Alliance. Fortunately, strategic types of weapons, in particular the Tu-95 and Tu-160 missile-carrying bombers that were transferred to the Ukrainian Air Force, were returned to the Russian Air Force to pay off the debt for gas; the other part, including the Tu-22M3 medium-range vehicles, was eliminated. Thanks to this, the current inadequate leadership of the "Square" does not have such a formidable weapon capable of carrying more than 200 Kh-55 missile launchers on board.
Nevertheless, both in the armament of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and in the armies of the countries of Eastern Europe, there are more than 1,500-2,000 main battle tanks T-72 in several modifications at once. These vehicles are regularly subjected to a comprehensive modernization of body armor, as well as avionics, including a fire control system. Kharkov Design Bureau for Mechanical Engineering named after A. A. Morozov, in the mid-90s, developed and promoted on the market a deeply improved version of the T-72A / B tanks with the T-72AG index. The frontal projection of the turret of these tanks is reliably blocked by the built-in explosive reactive armor of the Ukrainian design "Knife", which equally effectively (by 1, 85-1, 9 times) reduces the effectiveness of both cumulative and armor-piercing feathered projectiles of the kinetic type; the efficiency of tandem compressor stations is reduced by 1.5 times. Consequently, the T-72B, brought to the "AG" modification, receives the equivalent durability of the turret from armor-piercing shells within the range of 950-1100 mm at a zero course angle of fire from the enemy's side. Moreover, the elements of the "Knife", developed by BTSKT "Mikrotek", with the index KhSChKV-19/34 are less bulky (1, 6-2, 4 times lighter than EDZ 4S23 "Contact-5" and approximately equal to the mass of EDZ 4S24 "Relic") and at angles of safe maneuvering in the range from 0º to ± 20º, they cover more than 60-50% of the visible frontal and side projections of the attacked tank (there are no large "gaps" between the elements of the remote sensing, which are vulnerable to both the CS and the BOPS).
Such T-72AGs could have entered service with Ukrainian military formations near the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics only in single copies for "running-in" in combat conditions. Nevertheless, DZ "Knife", unfortunately, managed to save the lives of not a dozen Ukrainian militants from "Azov" and the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as part of the protection of T-64BM2 "Bulat" tanks widespread in the "square". In particular, after the most active round of the autumn-winter escalation in the theater of operations of Novorossia in 2014-2015, an interesting publication appeared on the Internet page of the Ukrainian magazine Defense, which demonstrated the T-64BM2 Nazi regiment Azov, which preserved its combat effectiveness after the shelling of the army with anti-tank weapons. DPR. It was the highly effective DZ "Knife" that saved the life of militants-tankers. Dill also has more protected MBT T-84A "Oplot", the armor protection of the welded towers of which reaches 1150 mm equivalent from the BOPS and 1350 mm from the COP. Only such anti-tank weapons as "Kornet-E", "Chrysanthemum" and anti-tank mines are effective here. If the Kharkov "armored forge" working for the fascist Ukrainian regime is more specialized in modernizing the T-64BV and T-80B / UD families, the Poles and Czechs are improving their skills in updating the combat capabilities of the T-72M1 MBT. And as can be seen from the latest products, they have achieved solid success in this field.
So, the Polish company ZM "Bumar-Labedy" by 1995 developed a deeply modernized version of the T-72M1 - PT91 "Twardy". Serial production of vehicles and adoption by the Polish Army continued until 2002, resulting in a total of 233 MBTs. Another 48 tanks of the PT-91M / Z "Pendekar" version were purchased by the Malaysian Ministry of Defense. "Solid" are distinguished by an increased mass of up to 47, 3 tons, a new fire control system of French origin "Savan-15T" from the well-known company "Sagem", a massive developed dynamic protection of the "ERAWA-1/2" family, as well as a new power plant, represented by the 850-horsepower S-12U diesel engine.
The original version of the T-72M1 initially has a very mediocre equivalent resistance of the frontal projection of the tower both against the kinetic action of the BOPS (about 380 mm) and against cumulative projectiles (within 490 mm), which is explained by the low resistance of the "packages" of special armor made of pressed sand rods, located in the niches of the frontal armor plates of the turret, which is why even the installation of ERAWA-2 reactive armor elements did not provide the tank with a radical increase in security. In particular, after the installation of the elements of this dynamic protection on the forehead of the turret, the resistance against armor-piercing subcaliber projectiles increased to about 530 - 540 mm, from cumulative projectiles - up to 800 mm (it is known that "ERAWA-2" increases the resistance against BPS by 1, 4 times, from COP - 1, 6 - 1, 75 times). It is possible to break through such an obstacle even with the help of not the newest BOPS ZBM-32 "Vant" from a distance of 2000 m, or with a more advanced "Pattern" from 2, 5 - 3 km. The frontal armor of the Polish PT-91 will not stand up to the powerful tandem cumulative warheads of the 9M133-1 Kornet-E anti-tank missiles. Here you can ask a fair question: why would a tandem "ERAWA-2" not cope with a tandem ATGM? The answer to this question is very easy to get if you carefully consider the design and attachment angles on the front plate of the Erava-2 EDZ tower, developed by the Zelenkovsky Institute of Technology and Weapons (WITU).
Firstly, the thickness of the ERAWA-2 dynamic protection elements is very small and reaches only 45 mm, as a result of which both layers of explosive can be instantly initiated after the start of the impact of a powerful leading shaped charge ATGM. Secondly, the DZ modules on the frontal projection of the tower are fixed on welded canopies at an angle of inclination to the normal (from the axis of the barrel bore) of only about 15-20 degrees, which further reduces the size of the Erava-2 EDZ affecting the cumulative jet and steel plates ". The situation is even worse with single-layer DZ modules "ERAWA-1", the size of which is only 30 mm. Nevertheless, it is worth noting a positive feature of the dynamic protection of the Polish design: the "cubes" "ERAWA-2" are located on the frontal projection in a very tight order, and perfectly cover the weakened area of the gun mask. And therefore, if the enemy possesses outdated anti-tank weapons with monoblock cumulative equipment (PG-7VL "Luch", PG-9V / VS, 9K115 "Metis", 9M14M "Baby"), then the defeat of the PT-91 tank in any area of the frontal projection is practically excluded.
The upper frontal part of the hull of the Polish tank has a combined physical dimension of the order of 620 mm. It is represented by: high-strength steel sheet 16 mm thick, steel sheet 60 mm thick, 105 mm fiberglass plate and back steel sheet 50 mm thick. This entire dimension, which is standard for Soviet / Russian-made tanks, is inclined at an angle of 68 degrees to the normal, which creates an equivalent durability within 410 mm without reactive armor. This angle of inclination of the VLD gives the mounted EDZ "ERAWA-1" a practically significant increase in efficiency from the KS, due to which the equivalent resistance from simple monoblock shaped-charge projectiles can reach more than 1100 mm. This is true for many types of remote sensing devices at VLD. At the same time, the resistance against BOPS continues to remain at the level of 580 mm, as well as the extremely low protection against tandem CS.
The mobility of the Polish PT-91 a priori cannot be high, because with a mass of 47, 5 tons and a power of 850 hp. the specific power is exactly 18 hp / t, which cannot be considered a serious indicator in the 21st century. The massive re-equipment of the power plant for a new 1000-horsepower PZL-Wola S-1000 diesel engine never began. At the same time, the fire performance of the PT-91 is at a very decent level. The Savan-15T control system is very similar to the Savan-20 control system installed on the Leclercs. An even more interesting point can be considered the possibility of integrating into the network-centric REO of Polish tanks digital terminals of the latest TIUS ICONE TIS, designed to conduct group combat operations with the French AMX-56 "Leclerc".
The next, even more interesting version of the modernization of the T-72M1 can be called the Czech T-72 "Scarab" ("Scarab") from the company "Excalibur Army". The combat weight of the tank is 45 tons, which with the power of the B-84 engine is 840 hp. creates a power-to-weight ratio of 18.7 hp / t (superiority over PT-91 is achieved). From the additional information of the advertising sheet presented along with the tank at the International Fair of Defense and Security Technology-2017 (IDET-2017) in Czech Brno on June 1, 2017, you can see the far from unique maximum speed of 60 km / h on the highway and 45 km on the dirt surface. In other words, the driving performance of the car remains at a rather mediocre level, inferior to the T-90S or T-80U. But in terms of body armor, we see a diametrically opposite picture. The vehicle received a unique modular armor architecture and a fundamentally new type of reactive armor on the upper frontal part of the hull.
At the very first inspection of the Czech concept MBT T-72 "Scarab", the most attention is drawn to the tower with the original overhead armor modules with an unknown type of special filler (these can be both ceramic plates or packages of spaced armor, and containers with "reflective sheets" used in the structure of the frontal armor plates T-72B and T-90S). Despite this, the developer declares that the "Scarab" modular attachment armor is of the passive type. It is also noteworthy that the modules have a pronounced wedge-shaped shape with a straight leading edge. The inclination of the upper and lower segments of the "wedge" to the normal is about 60 degrees, which significantly increases the equivalent resistance from the BPS and KS by increasing the size of the opposing layer of special armor and increasing the chance of ricochet.
Moreover, passive armored modules, unlike elements of dynamic protection, belong to full-fledged "long-playing" barriers and do not expose the main weakly protected armor plates of the tower after being hit by kinetic and cumulative projectiles. If you are guided by the photographs of an amateur, which show the elements of the Scarab's frontal overhead armor protection, you can estimate their average physical size, which can be added to the native armor plate of the T-72M1 turret with an equivalent resistance to BOPS - 380 mm. And that's another 300-350 mm! As a result, we determine that the equivalent of the T-72 "Scarab" turret from armor-piercing shells can be from 640 to 680 mm (depending on the filler) and from cumulative shells - up to 900 - 950 mm. In addition to everything, the passive armor modules perfectly cover the weakened embrasure of the 125 mm 2A46 cannon. This armor protection reliably protects the zygomatic sections of the turret armor, behind which are the commander's and gunner's seats. Thin side armor plates at the stern projection are covered with passive armor modules in safe maneuvering angles of ± 35-40º (no worse than that of the T-90S). Above the breech of the tank gun (above the upper armor plate of the turret), you can also see a large element of modular protection.
The upper frontal part of the hull is covered with a seemingly conventional hinged ERA with 4C20 Contact-1 elements. But it's not that simple. Here is a rare explosive reactive armor with a spatial anti-accumulative layer "DYNA-72". This anticumulative layer can be represented by two-layer tubes of square or circular cross-sections, which, with the correct ratio of the thickness of the shell-plate (copper, steel or aluminum) to the thickness of the explosive layer, can achieve an 80-83% reduction in the effectiveness of the cumulative effect on the covered armor plate. Consequently, the resistance of the VLD of the T-72 "Scarab" tank hull from the COP is approximately 800 mm. The effectiveness of the BPS in the DZ with a spatial anticumulative layer is unlikely to exceed 15 - 20%.
In general, we have a very good Czech concept for the modernization of the Soviet T-72M1, which in terms of security is ahead of many well-known modifications of the T-64B and T-72A / B / M1; thanks to the massive "zygomatic" modules of passive armor, the T-72 "Scarab" also leaves the Polish PT-91 "Twardy" far behind.
HOW DOES ONE OF THE MAIN ARMORED "ASSETS" OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY - T-72B3 - LOOK IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SCARAB AND THE "SOLID"?
The situation here is not very rosy. Yes, due to the presence of special armor with "reflective sheets" (instead of sand rods on the T-72M1) and the built-in DZ "Contact-5", the equivalent resistance of the frontal projection of the turret against armor-piercing shells in the T-72B3 reaches 620-900 mm, from cumulative shells - 790 -1100 mm depending on the angle of fire (0 or 30 degrees to the normal). With the upper frontal part, the situation is similar: 680-720 mm from the BPS and 800-1090 mm from the COP. It seems to be at the level of the promising Czech T-72 "Scarab", and better in terms of anti-cumulative qualities. And the Polish PT-91 is generally "below the plinth"! But this is only the upper part of the iceberg for true "hurray-patriotism", while the comparison of technology must be objective. If you look closely at how the elements of DZ 4S22 "Contact-5" overlap the frontal projection of the T-72B3 turret, then it becomes really alarming for the safety of the commander and gunner: there are half-meter open sections of frontal armor plates in the area of the gun mask (the left "gap" is present due to the need to preserve view of the gunner's sighting complex 1A40-1, right - so as not to obscure the PKT firing zone).
As a result, we have a huge unprotected "bare window" with a durability of about 400-450 mm, which can be pierced from an RPG-7 or any other anti-tank weapon using cumulative monoblock "equipment". From a distance of 1.5 km, the T-72B3 can be hit even by old BOPS such as "Hairpin" and "Nadezhda-R" (provided it hits the above-described "window"). Do not forget about the huge gaps between the EDZ 4S22, as well as the extremely open area of the hull-turret interface, where, during an intense battle, both OFS and cores of the same M829A1 / 2 BOPS with armor penetration of 700 and 740 mm, respectively, can enter; there is no need to describe the result. In such a situation, it is time to think about re-equipping the T-72B3 with the Relikt DZ sets, and indeed to recall the Slingshot project. Talk about this has been going on since the 16th year, and the situation has not gotten off the ground.
