In russia they showed the preparation of the so-called special squads of "Leopard hunters" and talked about their tactics.
In particular, special attention was paid to the training of sniper pairs and machine gunners, who are supposed to "blind" the tank. Namely, with rifle and machine gun fire, to destroy the sighting devices of the vehicle, so that then the grenade launchers conducted the attack.
Read more: Belarus Wants to Produce the Mig-25 Attack Aircraft: They Say russia Has Handed Over the Documentation
To support this idea, russian propagandists told stories of the Second World War how they would fight tanks with small arms.
Talking about the grenade launchers training, they performed simultaneous firing of two RPG-7 units. According to the plan, the first shot knocks down the cumulative ammunition, and the second should hit the weakened zone.
However, it is a separate question of how it will work in the conditions of a combined battle, when the tank will move and conduct fire. Moreover, supported by IFV’s and infantry. Even on the shooting range it is difficult to achieve such accuracy.
The russians are planning to use anti-tank missiles, demonstrating the combat work of the Konkurs ATGM. At the same time, this anti-tank missile system of the 70s is being demonstrated at several shooting ranges at once, instead of the more modern Kornet.
In addition to such infantry weapons, the training of t the T-72B3 was demonstrated as well, providing the comparison of the latter with the Abrams and Leopard 2:
"A combat-ready Abrams weighs 63 tons, compared to 47 tons of the T-72, which means that the American tank has more armor, but due to the weight it can get stuck. The russian tank is faster and more maneuverable, which means that it will be easier to avoid a hit. And the Abrams is armed with a 120-mm gun, while the russian tank is armed with a 125-mm gun," the story says.
However, russian propagandists didn’t mention the dynamics as well as the indicators of the specific pressure on the ground, and of course they forgot that the Soviet vehicles can go in reverse at a speed of maximum 5 km/h, while the Western counterparts can reach up to 30-36 km/h.
Comparing the Abrams and the T-72B3, the ratio will be the following. The power ratio is 24.4 and 23.2 hp/t (for Abrams M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEP v2) against 17.8 and 24 hp/t (for T-72B3 with B-84-1 engine and B-92S2F accordingly). The pressure on the soil for Abrams is defined as 1.01-1.07 kg/cm2, for T-72B3 - 0.9 kg/cm2.
And the mention of the 125-mm gun of the Soviet vehicles, which is more powerful because it is 5 mm larger than the NATO standard, has absolutely nothing to do with reality. At least because the mass and size of unitary Western sub-caliber armor-piercing projectiles is many times greater than that of Soviet ones.
In particular, the most common shells for the Abrams M829A3 with depleted uranium penetrate 800 mm of armor, the most common russian 3VBM-17 Mango is 500 mm. Also, russia’s military leadership doesn’t mention target detection ranges, a technological gap of tens of years between fire control systems, distances and fire accuracy between tanks.
Of course, there was also a comparison of tanks size. That is, 2.44 meters of the Abrams and 2.22 meters of the T-72B3, or in other words, a difference of 22 centimeters.
In any case, there are several conclusions can be done from this report. Firstly, in russia they are really afraid of Western vehicles and try to appease the audience with such materials. Secondly, the enemy is really preparing and allocating resources for the meeting with Western tanks.