What stuck to the T-72?

119


Amazing and strange sometimes you meet the attitude to this or that news. Just recently, the news passed that T-72 and T-90 will be equipped with electronic systems designed for “Armata”. What's wrong with her?



But no, there is so much negativity that one inevitably marvels at the “foresight” and “understanding” of some readers. “Where is Armata?”, “It would be better for Armata to be put on stream” and stuff like that.

Let's calmly argue.

What are the "cons" of "Almaty" today? And they are, just none of those commenting in that style really thought about them.

The T-14 is a fundamentally new tank. From here and the negative moments climb.

1. There is no training base.

Absent as such. In fact, everyone who can really manage this a tank, you can safely count. Dozens of people. From UVZ testers to the lucky ones who saddled this car. What this led to, everyone saw at the Parade.

Collect a hundred tanks and throw them into the army - this is half an orange. Tanks need more trained and trained teachers, training machines, simulators. It is unlikely that all our idiots are sitting in our army who will put the combatants from the computer into combat vehicles. Kontraktniki - yes, but they, too, someone will need to retrain. And on something.

2. Repair and technical base.

She, too, yet. Here the cadres decide, oddly enough, but the cadres must also be trained and prepared somewhere. At least on the same UVZ. But it also takes time. And money. And people. And considering how much electronics they stuffed into Armata, then motor mechanics and mechanics are definitely not enough.

Again, we look up and we understand that the car is new, and the “sores of youth” will definitely take place. And what, with each problem tank to UVZ carry? Or from there experts call? Crap, however.

The easiest and smartest option, as it seems to me, is to create training centers for retraining of personnel. And while our industry is mastering the production of T-14, the centers will train specialists in tank maintenance and use.

Excuse me, are we in a hurry somewhere?

And we are in a hurry just the way that it is simply necessary, breaking the nails on our hands, to scratch the troops of T-14? With the indicated problems. It seems not. There will be no war tomorrow.

And even if it is foreseen, in any case, we have something to meet. Just the above-mentioned T-72 of all modifications, which we have about 9 thousands. And for which, I note, there are no problems with the crews, repairmen, spare parts and other components that are usually needed the next day in a “if anything” situation.



What is wrong with the fact that T-72 and T-90 are being upgraded again, and not just like that, but unified with “Armata”?

It's nothing.

What is wrong with the fact that this machine, which has proved itself in direct hands, still serves? If the resource allows and all the rest.

It's nothing.



I will draw the attention of skeptics and those dissatisfied with the situation overseas. The main opponent of the T-72, "Abrams", too, as it were, not a novice. Moreover, almost the same age. And nevertheless, continues to serve, systematically and regularly modernizing.

And nothing suits everyone. Well, maybe not all, but some people, except the United States, still enjoy it. Although the list of users is not as impressive as that of T-72. "Abrams" today is considered to be quite a modern tank, almost the best in the world.

The fact that T-72 is at least as good as has been discussed so many times that there is no point in returning to comparisons. He is not worse. And in many ways - better.

So, use your hands and feet to ensure that the T-72 is replaced with the T-14 as soon as possible ... somewhat wasteful. Given the fact that we have so many.

Calmly continue to thresh the same shock. It is possible to equip not very old tanks with new electronics - that is good. The output is obtained not only the next modernization of the T-72, but also a certain number of people who, in a situation “in which case” will not ask the commander “and where to click here”.









And do not call T-72 obsolete. Abrams, and more importantly, Leopard is not much younger. And both potential adversaries are descended from all the same 70s of the last century. Improving, modernizing, improving. And the fact that the first “Leo”, which is a good ten years older than T-72, served the Bundeswehr until 2010, says a lot. Including that the tank is a military vehicle of long use. And scattering this potential is not worth it, even if in favor of a more advanced model.

And by the way. Again about the situation "in which case." The practice of recent years has shown that in such situations, our people can still rise and go.

Question: where, if anything, put those who know T-72 / T-90 perfectly, and have seen “Armatu” at best, on the TV screen? Meanwhile, every year in our tank forces not tens and hundreds of crews are trained. And tomorrow happened. It is necessary. And what will we do? Where to run: for the crews or to extract from zagashnikov ancient, not modernized tanks?

Ukrainian script, if that. Or Donbass. So it was on both sides of the front. Crews and there, and there were recruited from those who once knew how, the people remembered what and where, and went into battle.

Not the best scenario, I agree. But - effective.

So let "Almaty" are issued. Not thousands, no. At least hundreds. Let mechanics and gunners, technicians, electronics specialists learn. And T-72 let them be further upgraded.

It is difficult to say that it is better in the case of something, 500 "Armat" or 5 000 T-72B3 with some other letter or number. 500 "Armat" still need to release and train for them the crews and support staff. And 5 000 T-72 (and in the long run and more) - they already exist. And there is someone to sit in these tanks.



So calmly, dear. Not everything is as bad as it seems. "Armata" is tomorrow's day. T-72 and T-90 is today. Tomorrow will come anyway. But let it come orderly and measured. Like a T-72 caterpillar on a trench.
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    12 October 2016 15: 34
    I’m wondering why such a large distance between the blocks of the dynamic healed and guns (1 and 2 photos in the article, the first new, the second old). Can anyone enlighten?
    1. +2
      12 October 2016 16: 16
      It looks like the DZ from the welded one was put on the cast tower. I find no other explanation
    2. +7
      12 October 2016 17: 05
      The moon was removed as unnecessary and the hole was not closed
    3. +14
      12 October 2016 17: 47
      Quote: bionik
      I’m wondering why such a large distance between the blocks of the dynamic healed and guns (1 and 2 photos in the article, the first new, the second old). Can anyone enlighten?

      If you look from the front, then in the left gap between the barrel and the DZ is the embrasure of the coaxial machine gun.
      And the right gap is a rudiment from the "Luna" IR-searchlight + the head of the mechanic drive is placed in it on the march. smile
      1. 0
        17 August 2017 13: 10
        And maybe enlighten me: what kind of FOUR BOLTS is there on the heads of the "PINE" sight)))
        And yet, but the French equipment was removed from the same "PINE" or not?
    4. +6
      12 October 2016 17: 55
      This is such an economy, the modernization of the T-72B3, there was not enough money for the DZ, because of this gap, they mainly criticize the T-72B3
    5. +2
      18 October 2016 16: 57
      You can disagree with the author and agree, here's how to look. The T-72 project was created for mass production that was not very technologically advanced (that is, for the WWII patterns to crush with mass), and this is understandable, we were far behind in technology in the West, especially in electronics and precision machine-tool building. Today, we have developed high technologies, but there is no resource, both economic and unhappily human (there are no skilled workers, but office plankton with buckets). I agree that the T-72 can be upgraded and it is necessary, but not as it is done yesterday and today, we dig money into the ground, and the tank itself is capable of the maximum, so it can withstand the same squalor from the Ukrtankoprom. The T-90 is too expensive, and that is not an option, but the modernization of the T-72 does not even reach the level of T-90A (SM). So what's the point of upgrading this tank? The author did not answer, but only raised questions. If modernization is carried out, it is necessary that the tank could withstand the best Western models, and be a shame on this modernization itself. Or do we again want as WWII, 1 to 5, do not mind the Russian salad?
      1. +5
        18 October 2016 19: 05
        Quote: juborg
        . The T-72 project was created for mass not very technological production (that is, according to the patterns of the Second World War, crush mass),

        As there: I am "CRYING?
        It was necessary to say so ...
        Sorry, but did you touch at least some tank production, so to speak?
        More
        Quote: juborg
        modernization of the T-72 does not even reach the level of T-90A (SM).

        Why do you comment on the material without knowing the subject?
        1. 0
          21 November 2016 01: 24
          Everything is simple T-72 is not bad for supporting infantry and for fighting various infantry fighting vehicles (including modern ones). Against Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard, he does not pull because he is physically incapable of punching them in the forehead ...
          Tank ATGM penetrates 750 mm, frontal armor of modern tanks 1000-1300 mm.
          A caliber projectile pierces 500-600 mm (2 km), and the armor of NATO tanks is at least 750 mm
          NATO's same caliber shells penetrate 650-850 mm
          Any modernization of the T-72 without replacing the gun does not make sense, and it can cope with the BMP without modifications.
          1. +1
            21 November 2016 01: 32
            Quote: seos
            Any modernization of the T-72 without replacing the gun does not make sense ...

            - ummm ... and what do you propose to change? A gun, in the sense of?
            1. 0
              28 November 2016 11: 05
              Change to 2a82 with a redesign of the automatic loader .... or introduce a new, modern ammunition.
              There were projects to replace the tower completely but did not go into the series .... the truth was that they made a tower for the T-90AM.

              All modern world examples of modernization of Soviet tanks went the way of replacing the tower and the fighting compartment (China, Ukrainians) ... In principle, you can leave the standard dimensions of the tower, making it uninhabited, or a more standard version with a feed niche.
              1. +1
                29 March 2017 15: 57
                What an absurdity. Just the gun and T-72 loader changed. 2A46M5 and more powerful and more accurate. AZ can use shells of greater elongation, such as Lead-2. So that he can beat Abrams in the forehead. Another thing is that neither protection nor mobility improved, the commander never had a panoramic thermal imaging sight ((
  2. +9
    12 October 2016 15: 36
    I completely agree with the author.
    1. AUL
      +8
      12 October 2016 17: 33
      But I have some objections.
      I don’t think it’s difficult to prepare diesel operators and mechanics for servicing the Armata. Look, the specialists were trained to the turbine on the T80, and this is much more difficult than diesel operators. The most difficult thing will be with electronic filling, MSA. There, yes, great difficulties are foreseen. And at the same time, the author easily "transfers" these most complex elements, which determine the modification of the product, into the T72 and believes that "if something happens" it will be possible to put conscripts who served at least 10 years ago in such a tank. It will not work, it will take a long-term retraining, comparable in complexity to learning "from scratch" (retraining is almost always more difficult than learning again). All this applies to repairmen. And for the new modifications of the T72, new simulators will also be needed, as well as for the Armata.
      I am completely in favor of modifying the 72 components of the Armata. The machine is well-developed by production, mastered by the troops. Its development potential is still far from being developed. I just want to note that mastering such modifications is far from being as simple as the author believes, and not much easier than implementing the Armata itself.
      1. +8
        12 October 2016 19: 13
        I’ll say now it may be an unexpected thing, but in my opinion we DO NOT need so many tanks ...
        Why? We have 2 options for warfare: 1) nuclear, 2) conventional weapons
        The first option, well, everything is clear. Nuclear winter, etc.
        The second option is due to the fact that the size and armament of the army is extremely insufficient (the USSR army was five times larger in peacetime), we will be forced to use nuclear weapons according to our military doctrine.
        And this is where the question arises - if the USSR was not enough to completely cover the territory "in 1990 55,000 tanks, including 4,000 T-80, 10,000 T-72, 9,700 T-64, 11,300 T-62, 19,000 T-54/55, and 1,000 PT-76 "- will let 2000 save us (yes at least five thousand !!) “Armat?” Will this amount be enough to cover the territory and destroy the enemy on our land?
        The other side of the coin — let’s say some aliens (the West) attacked the Russian Federation with conventional weapons and even defeated the frontier and we didn’t use nuclear weapons on them. Then what? They are standing near Smolensk with rumbling engines, but no, they don’t bring fuel, logistics shitty in Russia, as it was one and a half roads to the west in 1941, so basically it remained .. Yes, God bless him with fuel! What’s the purpose? Make yourself global hemorrhoids? Refugees, bombings, partisans, paratroopers, etc.
        osto people, blocked or blown up gas / oil pipelines, the collapse of the financial system in the EU (we will dump them cash / non-cash immediately through third countries) .. What is the economic feasibility for the West, profit? What are we Libya and they are great understand
        The third side of the coin is China. Here, taking into account their number, even Soviet 55 tanks would hardly have saved us - there is even no talk of 000, even if the "Armat". China can afford to arm a million people with primitive RPG-2000 - then the law of large numbers will work , crushed stupidly with meat and even with relatively small (for China) losses.
        Fourth, terrorists of all stripes. Yes, tanks will be needed here, perhaps two or three thousand tanks will be enough.
        due to the fact that NATO is not going to obviously walk at us in tank ranks, meaning in the formulas that "It is enough to look at the reports of the Research Institute of Steel. which have been researched for a long time. that amerovskie subcaliber shells M829 mod.6 and newer from 2000 meters at an angle of 60 degrees is they pierce the T-72 armor from any angle and no new explosive reactive armor helps against them .. "just not. The whole world understands perfectly well that screaming about the aggression of the Russian Federation is one thing, but tanks coming to us is quite another and will fly for it in full across the capitals of Europe (well, we cannot afford (economically, alas) to travel to Europe again Berlin / Paris, it's a pity.).

        And it’s not at all a fact that the USA will stand up for NATO ..........
        1. +6
          12 October 2016 19: 42
          Quote: your1970
          And here the question arises - if the USSR was not enough to completely cover the territory "in 1990, 55,000 tanks

          Craftiness.
          Firstly, the territory was, to put it mildly, larger. One and a half times, given the countries of the ATS
          Secondly, most of these tanks were not intended at all to cover the territory. Rather the opposite. As the saying goes, "from Brest to Brest"

          And this figure ... is also not particularly adequate. In real life, if you bring, for example, to the T-80, then it will be much lower.
          1. +2
            12 October 2016 20: 21
            As for the numbers, they vary, but there were really a lot of tanks released:
            "We learned that the Warsaw Pact had 30 more tanks than NATO. And according to the USSR Ministry of Defense, as of January 1, 1990, there were 63 tanks, 900 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in service."
            "For the period from 1.09.1945/1965/XNUMX to the end of XNUMX, the following was issued in the USSR:
            2808 - PT-76, 5742 - T-34/85, 1253 - T-44, 18038 - T-54, 10547 - T-55, 4500 - T-62, 254 - "object 432" (T-64), 1430 - IS-3, 244 - IS-4, 1439 - T-10. Total: 46 tanks (excluding tanks produced for export and for other law enforcement agencies - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB). The data are not complete ... "
        2. +8
          12 October 2016 19: 43
          Coy1970. A tank is the most secure vehicle when using nuclear weapons. A tank is a ground attack machine. And as history has shown, there are NOT MUCH TANKS. In the 50s, it was tanks that held back the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR. Their number played a key role when we didn’t have enough in our ranks - the General Staff plans were to roll all of Western Europe in a couple of weeks with armored armada.
          2 T-300 tanks, as the most protected representatives of the BTT, will be the strike nucleus, tanks of the enemy's defense breakthrough. And one cannot hope that the United States will not stand up for Europe, which is obviously under the military. the conflict will become an arena of hostilities. And the T-14 (90) is very suitable for the second echelon, cleansing the area or just an art. barrel in defense (bury in the ground so that only the tower sticks out and the rotating tower only + with this use of the tank). hi
          1. +4
            12 October 2016 19: 53
            There are many tanks.

            But for the rest ... As for me, two tank battalions for three motorized rifle battalions will be enough.
            But how much infantry is needed ... How much the economy will survive.
            1. +1
              12 October 2016 20: 18
              2 tank battalions and 3 infantry-mech brigade, 3 tank and 2 infantry-tank brigade.
              It all depends on the upcoming task.
              For the so-called field operations, 3 + 2, for the battle in the city 2 + 3, plus parts of the gain.
              There may well be a different configuration-3 +1, for example, where you need more infantry.
              And now BTGr has been adopted, here is the same scope of imagination as what and how to use in certain conditions.
              In the city of BTGr on the basis of SMB, reinforced with tanks, a breakthrough, to intercept communications, capture an important object-BTGr on TB, with reinforcement by infantry.
              In general, something like that is dancing out ...
          2. +1
            12 October 2016 20: 05
            A tank is the most secure vehicle when using nuclear weapons. A tank is a ground attack machine.-there is only one nuance, now nuclear weapons are head over heels .. And a tank regiment / division / army of NATO that has gone deep into our territory may suddenly stop receiving orders / fuel / shells / replenishment. Yes, they will be alive, there will be no Europe. And the opposite situation - we won’t go with tank columns to Europe - it’s because of nuclear weapons that we won’t go
        3. +1
          12 October 2016 19: 44
          Quote: your1970
          The third side of the coin is China. T

          Here with them, and so we may soon come to terms, though in their territory.
          The level of nationalism among the Han is growing, almost every second descendant of the emperor is a non-god. The CCP does not cope with this. Even a tourist can understand it when visiting Hainan, Guangdong, the southern eastern provinces of China. Hatred of the Han, among other peoples living in China, is growing.
          1. 0
            12 October 2016 20: 12
            so we, perhaps in the near future, will hesitate, though in their territory.- no offense, but there was such an old anecdote "..... - a billion !! And where are we going to bury so much ???" - already now it will be physically impossible to stop even an army - just a crowd, even an unarmed one, in number in 20-30-50 million (and China can move more). Even the use of nuclear weapons does not guarantee the destruction of such masses, for example, scattered over a couple of thousand km of the border. The population of the Republic of Kazakhstan with its vast territory is very insignificant, there is no nuclear weapons, the army is small. Why do you want to enter their territory?
            1. 0
              12 October 2016 20: 22
              Quote: your1970
              offense but there was such an old joke ".....- a billion !! And where are we going to bury so much ???"

              About Chapaev? smile
              Quote: your1970
              it’s already physically impossible to stop even the army - just a crowd, even unarmed, of 20-30-50 million
              In Soviet times, the Chinese were very afraid of the tank division, so to speak, housed in Mongolia. A relative was a battalion commander. As he said in a couple of days in Beijing.
              Quote: your1970
              Even the use of nuclear weapons does not guarantee the destruction of such masses dispersed, for example, over a couple of thousand kilometers of the border. The population of Kazakhstan with its vast territory is very small, no nuclear weapons, the army is small. Why do you want to go to their territory?

              What nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons, any multinational empires are collapsing. The Americans quickly realized, having built a financial empire. Financial problems, even mono-ethnic families are crumbling.
          2. 0
            12 October 2016 20: 19
            Quote: marshes
            Hatred of the Han people, among other peoples living in China, is growing.

            Set fire to China-Xinjiang? Americans have already injected poison there?
            1. 0
              12 October 2016 20: 26
              Quote: The Bloodthirster
              Set fire to China-Xinjiang? Americans have already injected poison there?

              No, the southeastern provinces of China, and not the Americans, but their Han Nationalism. They also displaced the Qing dynasty, manzuzhur, household outgrowing.
        4. +1
          12 October 2016 20: 57
          From the point of view of the situation, who in the current conditions needs to arrange a conventional war with Russia almost agrees ... except for the strange silence about the USA.
          Without the maneuvers of Uncle Sam, Europe will be friends with us, let's face it ... they are just tired of the wars. And if it were not for the cowboys with the restless English trappers, the continent would be sleeping peacefully ... for Germany was exhausted, and the rest did not particularly strive. Well, yes, psheki demand our blood, but without outside support they are just "white noise" of world politics.
          So, reasoning about the number of Armats only against directions is flawed because we still have T-72, T-90 and T-80, which the author kept silent about. And Almaty, as rightly said, at this historical moment is a new model of technology, with many unknowns. It is necessary to release them, but our Defense Ministry for some time correctly decided to purchase an installation batch, and not immediately conclude a contract for many thousands tankoff. Here the logic is simple, it’s easier to conclude a new contract, taking into account changes in the fact of the tank’s operation, than to adjust an already concluded one.
          Well, now about the painful. It’s unlikely to kick us in the style of World War II except who are the quick terrorists. And all the rest of China, the USA, Britons, France, having desired the size with us, measure the vigorous warhead as an argument.
          All citizens of the age of "war of motors" within the framework of the global conflict is over, the age of nuclearization has come. wassat But tanks are needed ... local conflicts will not disappear, there is even a tendency to intensify them, and the tank business is not badlol .
        5. +1
          15 October 2016 20: 38
          I’ll say now it may be an unexpected thing, but in my opinion we DO NOT need so many tanks ...


          Well, maybe it’s not necessary, but when they knocked out in 41. . let's just say so a lot of armored vehicles and only the restoration of the evacuated factories saved the situation in 42 years. In the current situation, we do not have that mobilization potential, so only BT storage bases will save the situation.
        6. 0
          21 November 2016 01: 32
          The number of tanks has decreased in NATO and now all the emphasis is on new modern infantry fighting vehicles armed with 40mm automatic guns penetrating 150mm / 1000m. Our infantry fighting vehicles are armed with 30mm cannons piercing at this distance no more than 30mm, that is, they are not able to penetrate modern NATO infantry fighting vehicles. But for every NATO BMP we have a tank (16000 tanks), this is what parity is supported for.
      2. +2
        13 October 2016 21: 58
        Quote from AUL
        There, specialists were trained for the turbine on the T80, and this is much more complicated than diesel engineers.

        When I was undergoing an emergency in the GSVG, we were armed with T80s, so no one was allowed close to the engines - neither conscripts, nor crickets, nor ensigns. In case of problems with the engine, representatives of the plant arrived from the Union. What is typical - each division had its own tank repair unit (usually a battalion), in fact a repair plant, and each regiment had a RMO staff. Neither of the T80s even had the right to remove the engine cover - it was sealed. In general, the approach justified itself, for the whole regiment there was only one tank with a "jamb", the unit commander (the second cascade on the turbine flew, the torch from the exhaust grille was like a rocket), another burned out, but it was a "range" there is no "owner" and for several years "in the tail and mane" they drove to the RTU and firing just about anyone (the whole division). Maybe it was only in the Western Group of Forces? Our separate tank regiment, according to the combat schedule, had a lifespan of 40 minutes after reaching the combat line, in fact, the regiment performed one function - to let the artillery regiment of the Genocides from special warheads shoot out.
        1. 0
          14 October 2016 07: 18
          Quote: avdkrd
          it was sealed.

          As far as I remember there is a lot that was sealed, in fact, everything.
          Quote: avdkrd
          The whole approach paid off,

          It was on the whole that, all the same, they tried to sort out, not sorted and repaired, not repairable.
          (The knots were not only sealed, they still had markings, sometimes detail, up to the date of manufacture! I generally am silent about the passports for each knot.)
  3. +2
    12 October 2016 15: 38
    Reasonable thoughts, there are only two nuances: underestimate the age of seventy-second and forget that the possibilities for its modernization are far from unlimited.
    1. +3
      12 October 2016 16: 09
      Quote: MooH
      Reasonable thoughts, there are only two nuances: underestimate the age of seventy-second and forget that the possibilities for its modernization are far from unlimited.

      So no one is going to upgrade it to infinity. A little while, until they switch to Armata.
    2. +4
      12 October 2016 18: 11
      Mooh
      Reasonable thoughts

      Quite. Only the author didn’t mention that crew training centers are ALREADY being built. At the same time, don’t forget about the T-15, T-16, Boomerangs and so on ... we are updating the entire armor line, while still making a couple of new classes of armored vehicles such as Terminator. And there also need to be attributed robotic systems like Uranus-9. Why? Yes, because in the very near future the same T-72/90 may well become uninhabited robots too. And for such machines, crews are also needed, even virtual ones.
      underestimate the age of seventy-two and forget that the possibilities for its modernization are far from unlimited.

      To replace the 72s there is a T-90SM. And this is in many ways very related machines. And I will not be surprised at all if in the near future they will gradually remodel the T-72 into the T-90SM in small batches, again slowly, with feeling and arrangement. And the 90th will have more modernization resources than the 72nd, taking into account the robotization of these tanks.
      1. +1
        13 October 2016 05: 07
        And why in Abrams there is a quality African American charging, but not in the T72?
        In Russia, there is a shortage of African-Americans. There are Yakuts, but they don’t charge much, they are small. And afrokachek is good. And the rap reads, drags heaviness ...
      2. 0
        13 October 2016 16: 48
        There will be no modernization of the T-72 in the t-90SM. T-90SM will remain an exhibition model. Modernization is very expensive, and production from scratch is not necessary, for there is a T-14. Forget about the long-suffering T-90SM.
        1. +3
          13 October 2016 20: 31
          minirulet
          There will be no modernization of the T-72 in the t-90SM. T-90SM will remain an exhibition model. Modernization is very expensive, and production from scratch is not necessary, for there is a T-14. Forget about the long-suffering T-90SM.

          Yah! And remind me how many Armats are promised to be delivered to the troops by 2025? If I'm not mistaken, 2300 units ... Remind you how many NATO tanks in total? T-90A are coming to the army, I see no reason why the army did not receive the T-90 "Breakthrough" ... tell me how much? So it is not more expensive than producing an Armata, but cheaper.
  4. +9
    12 October 2016 15: 42
    I fully support, money must be saved, modernization is cheaper.
    And who demands Armata to let out either the enemy or the fool .., in the current circumstances it is necessary to look for old cars and check how they are preserved. I tell you as a former tanker
    1. 0
      21 November 2016 01: 35
      I read that upgrading the T-72 to the T-72B3 level is not much cheaper than buying a new tank, because from the T-72 all the inside is shaken out and everything new is put in (engine, sights, radio stations, etc.)
  5. +9
    12 October 2016 15: 49
    You can not even compare the T-72 and the Leopard or Abrams, and the same our T-55 and the American M60. The cars are not new at all, but they are being modernized and still used. Yes, this is a weapon for poor countries, but this iron was riveted beyond measure, why throw away that which still drives and shoots? And the T-72 is quite suitable for modernization. As the troops are saturated with new machines, it will be possible to think about withdrawing the old men to the reserve or selling them, but by no means now. In any case, upgrading is cheaper than one new tank. When comparing the production price of "Armata" and modernization of the T-72, the cost difference will be calculated dozens of times.
  6. +9
    12 October 2016 15: 52
    The article is a big plus !!! good
  7. +3
    12 October 2016 16: 17
    Clever article, I put a plus. It is always useful to improve the available equipment, especially the T-72 and T-90.
  8. +2
    12 October 2016 16: 22
    plus (bold) to the author ... can Russia afford to release a tangible stake in these Armats? (not Finland in size) ... and the training and technical base are all right
    1. 0
      26 January 2017 00: 46
      It is vitally important for Russia to de-Ukrainianize Little Russia, for this, Almaty is needed. The demonstration of the highest class of the army will break any attempts at resistance, just as in the Crimea. Therefore, it is Almaty that must remove the fascist regime.
  9. 0
    12 October 2016 16: 31
    So no, there is so much negativity that one is involuntarily surprised by the "insight" and "understanding" of some readers.
    It should be very clear to the author why such reviews were made. Everyone wants something newer and more perfect, that’s how such comments are taken from. Moreover, everyone is well aware of the new development and is waiting for it in the troops. So, no offense. wink
  10. +1
    12 October 2016 16: 39
    Everything is true, everything is logical. It is strange that someone may not understand this. It is a standard procedure for putting into service a NEW model of military equipment.
  11. +2
    12 October 2016 16: 42
    I agree with the author. hi t34
  12. +6
    12 October 2016 16: 56
    And let's take the case. What kind of systems from "Armata" are going to be installed on the T-72? Do the volumes allow you to cram all the wealth that is on "Armata"? If the volume of the turret on the T-72 does not allow for the normal placement of the sight, then where will the radar and other things go into the semitrailer behind? We had modifications that had to be put on stream yesterday, for example, the T-90MS. Well, how, are there many MCs in our troops? We could not master the "Slingshot", staying on the half-light prince T-72B3. And here on you, electronic systems on the T-72. But to stuff electronics, it's not a cast tower. At the expense of the age of one year. Oh, the author is disingenuous. Yesterday was T-90ms, because today is "Armata". Do we have much of that "yesterday" in our troops? Our realities are T-72B and T-80BV, which, whatever one may say, the mid-80s. Several hundred T-90s do not make the weather, against the background of 9 thousand, about which the author writes. And a little more about historical experience. In 41m there were thousands of different BTs, t-26, t-28 and so on, which seemed to be not much inferior to the Wehrmacht tanks, were loved by tankers and understandable to technicians. However, the T-34 and KV-1 became the backbone of the defense near Moscow and Leningrad, which were unreliable, obscure, but nevertheless, it was they who were the very qualitative superiority.
    1. +1
      12 October 2016 17: 02
      But what, NATO has entirely armata level tanks?
      Or is industry now capable of baking ARMATES like cakes?
      In the article for whom the magic phrase-YES is written, iron can be done-WHO WILL BE OPERATED?
      What is difficult in that part of the systems tested in Armata will be used on t72,90,80?
      I see absolutely no difficulties.
      Is that what you think?
      http://warfiles.ru/show-131773-bespilotnye-tanki-
      t-90-poluchat-sistemu-tehnicheskogo-zreniya.html
      and it
      http://warfiles.ru/show-131520-tanki-t-72-i-t-90-
      poluchat-elektronnyy-mozg-ot-armaty.html
    2. +1
      12 October 2016 17: 09
      Quote: tomket
      And let's take the case. What kind of systems from "Armata" are going to be installed on the T-72?

      In general, it wouldn’t be bad if a new welded turret were invented on the T-72, with an automatic loader like that of Leclerc. It is possible according to a modular scheme, for example, a fully equipped cassette with a mechanism.
      It’s clear that now all the forces are devoted to Armata, the MBT fighter. And there are many countries that operate the T-72, and the purchase of Armata does not shine in the next decade. And they have to upgrade their T-72 from others, and this is how much money UVZ can lose .
      1. +1
        12 October 2016 20: 24
        with automatic loader like Leclerc.

        in the Ukrainian scimitar there is a niche of the tower with lekler's feed, banderlog released it into battle. as a result, the DNI fighters caught it for the niche of the tower, you know why? with PTRD 14.5mm
        1. 0
          12 October 2016 20: 30
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          in the Ukrainian scimitar there is a niche of the tower with lekler's feed, banderlog released it into battle. as a result, the DNI fighters caught it for the niche of the tower, you know why? with PTRD 14.5mm

          And what is it over? The tank burned out?
          1. +1
            12 October 2016 21: 26
            into the trash, and there was nothing to take for spare parts, by the way, there should be two of them, but on the way one broke, maybe it was broken deliberately, well, God knows, all the same, like that, with what the combat guard does not have any damage didn’t get it, they gave such a streak, so hide the kids your niches, this is good advice to all natev “niches”
        2. +1
          12 October 2016 23: 17
          What I heard about Leclerc is that before the battle his fire control system needs high-quality and long tuning, the tank has not the worst armor of the tower roof, and its main trump card is a long-barreled gun, with a high initial velocity of the projectile, which means with good direct fire, with good armor penetration. The Leclerc cannon is longer than the Leopard and Abrams guns.
      2. 0
        21 November 2016 01: 38
        It was invented .... there are even pictures on the internet ... "Burlak" was called like .... but the project was scored ... expensive, and it turned out to be difficult ...
    3. +4
      12 October 2016 20: 55
      for those who welded the hatches in the tank, we are talking about installing the ASC, that is, the system of automatic tracking of TARGETS - not one but several targets, that is, more than one, that is, looking through the sighting device, objects will be automatically indicated to you and "chewed" according to the parameters, it does not take up much space, and the second Armat Ballistic Calculator, which is equal in volume to the first aid kit in your car, if you have a car. USYO, and the enta garbage (ACS and VB) will be needed in the future to replace it if something (any iron breaks down sometime, or is unusually crooked, the stock does not tingle), both for the T-72 and for the T-90 and for the Armata ... why such a panic ???? I don't understand, Armata will definitely be, don't hold
  13. +1
    12 October 2016 16: 59
    on the whole I agree, but I would like to argue: we have draftees, 18-year-old boys, are they really stupid? or training will not be enough for them? why then do you need training? okay, well, only candidates of technical sciences and contract soldiers should sit in the T-14 (by the way, did they also go to the T-14 urgently?), but after replacing all the several thousand T-72s with Armatovskaya, stupor and collapse again? Interestingly, in aviation such questions and problems do not arise? or a priori pilots were born with the knowledge of the T-50? or the time will come and the question will arise: you will not stockpile the entire army of test pilots and is it more expedient to upgrade the MiG-21? and by the way, how many T-90s do we have in the army? more than the T-80?)
    1. 0
      12 October 2016 19: 18
      Quote: AlexSam
      or training will not be enough for them?

      Actually, the article says that you can’t even do a tutorial, because there’s almost no one to teach. Replacement is needed, but not in a fire order, but gradually. Actually, no one has raised this issue yet, everyone was talking only about production, and they did not think about training the crews.
    2. 0
      12 October 2016 19: 55
      =(
      Quote: AlexSam
      on the whole I agree, but I would like to argue: we have draftees, 18-year-old boys, are they really stupid? or training will not be enough for them? why then do you need training?


      no matter how stupid it may sound, but what at work, what I see in life, 18-year-olds, in my opinion, only "are ready to drive cockroaches on the phone", we are smart enough to study ...
    3. 0
      12 October 2016 22: 46
      Quote: AlexSam
      and by the way, how many T-90s do we have in the army? more than the T-80?)

      to reduce the amount ...
      T-72, T-80 and only then T-90 ...
    4. 0
      12 October 2016 23: 25
      The T-90 is smaller than the T-80. In addition, the T-90 of different series are very different in their capabilities. In fact, the T-90 of 1992 and the T-90 of 2008 are different tanks.
  14. 0
    12 October 2016 17: 24
    Not a tanker, but ... It's clear to me that to "stick" all 72 DZ blocks so that not a single "bald patch" is left is probably several times cheaper than producing tanks from scratch. I do not know if it is possible to do this at the locations, by the forces of technicians, having issued the required number of KAZ units. But this is a must.
  15. +1
    12 October 2016 17: 36
    and no one else is going to abandon these tanks, especially since they have proven themselves well ...
  16. +4
    12 October 2016 17: 37
    As a former repairman, I support your point of view. The article is definitely a plus. Sincerely, Vasily Krylov.
  17. 0
    12 October 2016 17: 44
    "What's wrong with the fact that the T-72 and T-90 are being modernized again, and not just like that, but unified with the Armata? Nothing."
    The author is all adequate people and so understand it. And most importantly, people understand on whom this decision depends. What is this article for? Tell the obvious fact, then you got the bravo
    1. 0
      14 October 2016 12: 16
      Quote: Adequate
      "What's wrong with the fact that the T-72 and T-90 are being modernized again, and not just like that, but unified with the Armata? Nothing."
      The author is all adequate people and so understand it. And most importantly, people understand on whom this decision depends. What is this article for? Tell the obvious fact, then you got the bravo


      The author wrote it for me. For which he respect and respect! hi
  18. 0
    12 October 2016 17: 52
    Indeed, for T14nado, it is necessary to create training, and this can not be done in one day. In this case, than spending money on upgrading the T72b3 (last night), it is better to pay attention to the T90-tank today and even tomorrow's tank morning.
    1. 0
      12 October 2016 22: 56
      Quote: Monarchist
      better pay attention to the T90-tank today and even tomorrow's tank morning.

      no, then T-80AT
      The tank received a 2A46M-4 gun, built-in dynamic defense of the Cactus, a new turret with an automatic loader placed in the aft niche, a new control system, Aynet system, satellite navigation system and GTD-1250G engine.
  19. 0
    12 October 2016 18: 29
    And also on the "troll" There is interest in "city tanks" for which the weapon is a 2A80 mortar, from Vienna. True, an armored welded tower, with knockout panels should be like for a tank, not installed on the T-72 chassis. With Lopatov and AVT then discussed.
    Last trolling was a success smile In the Tape, they wrote about the beginning of the production of motorcycle races in the Russian Federation, they say it’s expensive to use a platform from Kurganets 25, Here on the site I suggested for our aircraft to buy a platform from 15-35t in Russia. with the possibility of growth in weight and armor and firepower, to create a medium-heavy BMP transporter.
  20. 0
    12 October 2016 18: 35
    To bring all the T-90 RFs to the T-90MS level is necessary, but the T-72 ... Send the T-72BM3 to Syria and you will understand that the best years of this tank are already behind ...
    1. 0
      12 October 2016 19: 20
      Better fit. EXCEPT ADVERTISING nothing more ...
      1. +1
        12 October 2016 19: 58
        `` Armata '' must first be brought to mind, and it is stupid to trust the newest tank to the Arabs. The warriors from the southerners are not important, they only bend their fingers, but with knives, five of them, one unarmed, heroes.
  21. +2
    12 October 2016 19: 45
    asked his friend the colonel of the tankman, why did they seize the T-80 and send it for conservation and entered the t-72b3 into the troops? like the t-72 how old? and he says. T-80 is a breakthrough tank. he went on the attack passed the first lines of defense and the fuel ran out. and the t-72 is a machine that goes forward calmly exactly without disruption. so now what more troops need in the eyes of the command then deliver
    1. 0
      12 October 2016 19: 57
      Quote: NOC-VVS
      asked his friend the colonel of the tankman, why did they seize the T-80 and send it for conservation and entered the t-72b3 into the troops? like the t-72 how old? and he says. T-80 is a breakthrough tank.

      Maybe because of the turbo engine, what is produced in Ukraine?
    2. 0
      14 October 2016 12: 58
      GTE is good, but modern diesel engines are not much inferior to it. I consider the right decision to install on the T-14 X-shaped diesel engine with a capacity of 1500-1800 hp
  22. +1
    12 October 2016 20: 31
    Quote: The Bloodthirster
    2 tank battalions and 3 infantry-mech brigade, 3 tank and 2 infantry-tank brigade.
    It all depends on the upcoming task.

    I am purely on the total number of tanks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. How they will be compiled is the tenth matter.
    In theory, the more closed the area, the fewer tanks and more infantry. Somewhere in the steppe, as flat as a table, tanks can do with minimal support. And in the city, in areas with multi-story buildings and a tank platoon for an infantry battalion, it may be redundant.
    1. 0
      12 October 2016 20: 45
      Quote: Spade
      And in the city, in areas with multi-story buildings and a tank platoon for an infantry battalion, it may be redundant.

      Yes, it may well be so.
      another question is what will be the saturation of infantry with weapons of fire, with a comparable tank caliber.
      Available 82 mm mortars, a weak weapon for the city. Flame guns Bumblebee .. it's not a panacea.
      1. +2
        12 October 2016 21: 02
        Yes, there are generally sea problems. I mean, in the city. And for some reason no one solves them. "We will recreate four engineering and assault battalions and defeat them all."

        Here, for example, the T-72. The robotic complex based on it has long been developed. Why is it not produced specifically for fighting in settlements? Are tankers cheaper? I would not say that a trained crew, on the contrary, is more expensive.

        By the way, "bumblebees" in the city are not very good. They cannot be used from the premises. Without consequences for the shooter.
        1. 0
          12 October 2016 21: 16
          Quote: Spade
          By the way, "bumblebees" in the city are not very good. They cannot be used from the premises. Without consequences for the shooter.

          Well ... you can’t do it, you can’t do it, but you need to use it ... my deceased colleague, Andrei Vavilin, rest in peace for him, died in Grozny, used Bumblebee from an enclosed space ... the situation required, yes, he brought them out of the window .. right into a pile of slag, but rolled into the basement, alive with an assistant that time remained.
          And so ... infantry for fighting in the city from heavy machine guns, to the AGS, 120 mm mortars, to guns, preferably self-propelled, precisely ground like assault, are needed in the region.
          1. +3
            12 October 2016 21: 34
            For the "urban" "Bumblebee" could well have used a counter-mass. Or saline, like the Scandinavians, or plastic scales, like the Germans. There are no special problems, but a lot of preferences.

            And the infantry needs a lot of things for battles in the city ... Starting with light folding ladders, shields and hydraulic shears, and ending with the modernized 240-mm "Tulip"
  23. +1
    12 October 2016 21: 08
    Quote: CERHJ
    Do you yourself believe in this nonsense about the high cost? Well, if the first Cobra complex has been in service since 1976, it's 40 YEARS ALREADY !!! and there is NO SUCCESSFUL application !!!

    Once again if their AT ALL if they weren’t used, then where could successful applications come from?
  24. +2
    12 October 2016 21: 57
    This article leads to interesting contradictions ...
    1- "Armata" is still "raw", it needs to be debugged, completed and blah ... blah ... blah ...
    Then why put equipment with a "raw" machine on proven "oldies"?
    2 - already mentioned - the T-72 is not such an old tank. All his opponents are peers.
    Then why fence the garden with "Armata"? !!!
    1. 0
      14 October 2016 20: 45
      already mentioned - the T-72 is not such an old tank. All his opponents are peers.

      1. haha, and list who of the same age can hit the target for 5 km, and even more so put helicopters on the ground?
      2. Armata is needed as a control tank, a high degree of protection contributes to this, and it will be good for sudden breakthroughs to conquer bridgeheads, and bridgeheads are our strong point, as the German generalist used to say, “in no case do not allow the Russians to gain a foothold on an advantageous line, if a platoon is entrenched, then in an hour there will be a company, by evening a battalion, and the next day a shock group "
      1. 0
        14 October 2016 21: 20
        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
        which of the same age can hit targets on the move for 5 km, and even more so lower helicopters to the ground?

        This is not given to 72nd. By the way, he does not need this.
        1. 0
          18 October 2016 21: 06
          I don’t know, NGOs on the T-72 tank biathlon find themselves playing with KUV, and I find it badly playing, can you even miss?
          1. 0
            18 October 2016 21: 22
            Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
            can you even miss?

            Most likely, I forgot about Svir.
            And so, these modernizations ... The Abrams were given up to the impossible T-55s, it’s true during the exercises, but ...
    2. +1
      14 October 2016 21: 16
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      T-72 is not such an old tank. All his opponents are peers.

      You rave, though, forgive the Almighty, look at Vicki.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. +3
    12 October 2016 23: 59
    Quote: marshes
    Quote: your1970
    The third side of the coin is China. T

    Here with them, and so we may soon come to terms, though in their territory.
    The level of nationalism among the Han is growing, almost every second descendant of the emperor is a non-god. The CCP does not cope with this. Even a tourist can understand it when visiting Hainan, Guangdong, the southern eastern provinces of China. Hatred of the Han, among other peoples living in China, is growing.

    "Wah! Boyus, Boyus" (C)
    Respected marshes, and for what reason should we clash with China?
    The two most common horror stories: "They need territories" and "They need minerals", please do not offer for the following reasons.
    1 - If you look at a map showing the population density in China, you will see that the north of China is far less densely populated than its southeast. Do you know why? But because the Chinese do not want to live there, despite the fact that the government strongly encourages immigrants. Note that the Chinese do not want to live in the north of China itself, not to mention the even more northern Siberian taiga.
    2 - I will not reveal a big secret if I say that the territory of China is one of the richest in the world in terms of minerals. By a very large number of these same fossils, China has the largest reserves in the world. In addition, China is actively expanding into Southeast Asia and Africa. From the latter, he actively squeezes out not only ours, but also Americans.

    Now about nationalism and the fact that the CCP cannot deal with it. I assure you, if necessary, a strong government (and now there is undoubtedly a strong government in China) will easily cope with any anti-government actions. Wangyu: it will be like Tien-an-Men. They will give the infantry and tankmen a "lecture on love for the Han people", and then they will clean the clearing as it was done in 1989.
    If it comes to that, then in the States, with the hatred that "African Americans" feel towards whites, it should have begun long ago ... However, the authorities are clearly keeping the situation under control.

    Now conclusions from the foregoing.
    With economic expansion into Africa and Southeast Asia, the first adversary of China is the United States with its powerful fleet. This is the first.
    The Chinese benefit from the overland route to Europe through the territory of Russia ("New Silk Road"), and it is much cheaper and more profitable for China to negotiate with Russia than to conquer the territory of the Russian Federation with the risk of receiving a "retaliatory thermonuclear strike" (C).
    Thirdly, Russia is now pacifying the "barmaley" in Syria and its environs. Why would China spend its efforts and resources on this when Russia is doing it? And China is full of its Muslims and for them this is not an idle question.

    China can get almost everything it needs in a peaceful way. Why would he fight with Russia? Moreover, the Chinese are not fools. They have a whole institute studying the causes of the collapse of the USSR. And I assure you, the Chinese will draw the right conclusions from this fact. So far, there was no reason to doubt their sanity.
  27. 0
    13 October 2016 00: 14
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    This article leads to interesting contradictions ...
    1- "Armata" is still "raw", it needs to be debugged, completed and blah ... blah ... blah ...
    Then why put equipment with a "raw" machine on proven "oldies"?
    2 - already mentioned - the T-72 is not such an old tank. All his opponents are peers.
    Then why fence the garden with "Armata"? !!!

    And there are no contradictions, dear The leader of the Redskins... The fact that "Armata" is new does not mean at all that everything in it as a filling is also 100% new. This is the first thing.
    Secondly, who prevents the already tested and tested electronic components from being put on other types of tanks? Yes, even if these blocks are still "damp", then their mass operation will help to identify and eliminate all childhood diseases.
    And about the fact that "all opponents are the same age" the author is slightly disingenuous. The Abrams will be 10 years younger than the T-72. And it is not too correct to mention the first "Leo" and tactfully forget about the second.
  28. +1
    13 October 2016 06: 23
    Any technique is incapacitated, and as they say it needs to be replaced with something. The tank reserve at the moment just consists of T-72 early modifications. The T-34 is famous primarily not for the TTX, but for being repairable and mass produced. At the moment, you can also say about the T-72. And if you consider that the installation of new elements in the tank will lead to an increase in its characteristics, then again this is only a plus.
    1. +2
      13 October 2016 21: 25
      jonht
      T-34 is famous first of all not TTX, and the fact that it was repairable and mass-produced.

      Excuse me, did you understand that you wrote something? The T-3 and T-4 guns didn’t even take 34-ku ...

      Look at your leisure about the tanks of the Wehrmacht of the beginning of the war and our 34s and KV, and do not write such a thing anymore. T-34 repair suitability and mass character is one of the many advantages of our tanks (and not just 34) over German vehicles, dear.
  29. 0
    13 October 2016 09: 11
    I’ll say it is terribly scandalous, but in fact, why did you need a tank (a tank, not a platform) of the T-14 Armata in general? Policy...
    1. 0
      18 October 2016 21: 13
      what do you mean why??????? NEEDED, and that’s all, a dream like that, so it loomed. Why not
  30. +1
    13 October 2016 11: 19
    Thanks to the author. In the discussion we again switched to quantities. A lot, a little. "I don't know what it is early, I know what it is late" So here, let it be in reserve. Remember how in the White Sun Desert- "The dagger is good for the one who has it. And bad for the one who does not have it. At the right time. Abdula." There is nothing to add, you can't say better!
  31. 0
    13 October 2016 14: 35
    Reasonable, balanced article. The same reaction to the criticism of the T-72 was, but like Roman, I can’t explain =))
  32. 0
    13 October 2016 16: 07
    Responsible and reasonable article. I fully support the author.
  33. +2
    15 October 2016 01: 15
    The article is good, numerous comments surprise where the problems of training crews for new tanks are exaggerated. I myself am a tanker in the past. In a civilian specialty, an electronic engineer. I can clearly say, yes devices (all) are getting complicated. And their use is simplified.
    People who recently used disc phones easily switched to mobile phones, smartphones, and the like. Are the devices more complicated? Yes. Does anyone know what they have inside? No. However, everything works and everyone uses it. There are not many ways to transmit engine power to tracks. And somehow specialists in the repair of Almaty (in terms of mechanics) will be trained. And electronics ... Someone saw how electronics are being repaired now? Disconnect the connectors and the faulty unit in the trash. Nobody solders anything and does not change the lamp. So crying for the lack of specialists is in vain. Everything is solvable. And what, someone believes that shifting gears manually on a box without synchronizers and pulling the levers with an effort of thirty kg is easier than turning the steering wheel and using the gearbox automatically? So the mechanics will also be trained. And the range finder is easier to use than counting the risks in the sight and counting the thousandths in the mind, and also remember how many pluses are drawn on the projectile and what kind of correction for air temperature (also in the mind). So the gunners and operators will also be taught. And repair, yes, we need specialists. But already in 55 ke the crew accounted for few. All complex work was done by repairmen. The transition to new equipment is not so terrible, you just need to train specialists in advance, and this has happened more than once in our army.
  34. 0
    10 November 2016 08: 28
    NUUU! reasonably. so would be in everything.
  35. 0
    13 January 2017 15: 32
    AUTHOR!
    Thank you very much for foty BO - how he plunged into his youth !!!
    1. 0
      17 August 2017 12: 43
      What then was so much rye in BO? We would have been removed from office for this
  36. 0
    26 May 2017 13: 10
    And do not call the T-72 obsolete. Abrams, and more importantly, Leopard is not much younger.

    with the exception of one, but perhaps the most important: the T-72 already then began to concede to the “Abrams” and “Leopards”. Various modifications of the T-72 is essentially the desire to achieve parity. There is no question of superiority.
    T-14 is the only model that can be said - yes, we surpass their tanks.
    Nobody says to throw out old cars. And on the "Lada" is the buyer.
    When there is no money ... then you hang on there .. and the T-72 seems to be even nothing ... And, if so, then you can ride a 34-ke. Do not get used to it!
    However, in my Army I would like to see the Russian Mercedes - T-14, and not the various additives to the old and well-deserved, but so direct native Lada - 72nd.
    Avaricious even with .avnom will not part. After all, it is so dear ...
    Not from a good life, all this ... and the article, too.
    I dream that it is time to demand that the oligarchs equip at least one regiment with the latest technology. But it hurts them, the nouveau riche has a hard life ... you’ll be shed tears!
    1. 0
      17 August 2017 12: 44
      About the "Dimon" I agree! Only these are dreams. It would help them to cough up either the NKV or Oprichnina, but alas!
      But T-72 and especially T-90 should not be discounted, oh how not
  37. 0
    29 June 2017 06: 38
    I don’t see the need to defend the whole country with tanks. Enough to be enough for the defense of Moscow, since more than a tenth of the country's population lives there. The rest of the population is too dispersed in area.
  38. +1
    17 August 2017 12: 42
    Finally, a sober author!
    Stupid commentators, they would put their dogs in the upgraded T-72B3 Serdyukov and “trick” them for an unstable connection (Remember as a major at the shooting range)))), and beat your eyes in TKN-3, so that you wouldn’t take your stupid eyes away firing time by a regular ... Then their piggy squeal will flow in a different direction))) And Serdyukov-stools will not seem like a hero to them already.
  39. 0
    17 August 2017 13: 01
    [quote = Glad] [quote = Leader of the redskins] Yes, even if these blocks are still "damp", then their mass exploitation will help to identify and eliminate all childhood diseases. [/ quote]
    You see far from the practice of service, especially in the version which you offer. Who will pay then for failing "damp" and "all childhood diseases"?
    I bet you didn't understand the question?
    You see, stuck in the USSR.
    And now the Russian army and there are other rules and laws. democracy you see!
    In the SA, military incidents also happened, but more often it was an exception. And the commission worked.
    Now a little wrong with new technology and equipment. Heard that it comes to the point of absurdity, they don’t use equipment, but why not break it. It’s better to get a banana and solve an amicable question, for example, in a bathhouse than to get into millions.
  40. 0
    17 August 2017 13: 03
    Quote: Glad
    Secondly, who prevents the already tested and tested electronic components from being put on other types of tanks? Yes, even if these blocks are still "damp", then their mass operation will help to identify and eliminate all childhood diseases.


    You see far from the practice of service, especially in the version which you offer. Who will pay then for failing "damp" and "all childhood diseases"?
    I bet you didn't understand the question?
    You see, stuck in the USSR.
    And now the Russian army and there are other rules and laws. democracy you see!
    In the SA, military incidents also happened, but more often it was an exception. And the commission worked.
    Now a little wrong with new technology and equipment. Heard that it comes to the point of absurdity, they don’t use equipment, but why not break it. It’s better to get a banana and solve an amicable question, for example, in a bathhouse than to get into millions