Military Review

By 2020, modern tanks will make up 70% park

163
According to RIA NewsColonel General Oleg Salyukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, said that by 2020, modern Tanks make up 70% of the park:

In constant-readiness military units more than 50% of modern tanks T-72B3, T-80U и T-90A. Carried out annual purchases of these machines, by fire and maneuverability, not inferior to the best foreign models, by the 2020 year will provide the share of modern tanks up to 70%.




Last year, ground forces received more than 2 of thousands of main modern weapons and military equipment, in particular T-72B3 tanks, BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, BTR-82 armored personnel carriers.

In service of the Army consists of BMP-3 and upgraded BMP-2. Work is underway to increase the volume of purchases of these machines, which is already yielding results. By 2020, the share of modern BMPs will be 70%.

- explained O. Salyukov.
163 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. the most important
    the most important 25 February 2017 08: 50
    +30
    Great news! The only bad thing is that the mechanism for achieving this value has not been disclosed. You must admit that 70% of one hundred pieces of equipment is one thing, but 70% of 15 is completely different ... No matter how you went the first way and didn’t just start scrapping those tanks that didn’t have time to upgrade ... And experience Syria shows that all sorts of tanks are needed, all sorts of tanks are important!
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 25 February 2017 09: 11
      +13
      Until the potential of modernization has been exhausted, it is necessary to modernize, and not to write off and cut as with the marked and EBN! Since “Armata” cannot replace all previous tanks in one year, upgrading existing ones is good! good
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 13: 22
        +5
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Until the potential of modernization has been exhausted, it is necessary to modernize, and not to write off and cut as with the marked and EBN! Since “Armata” cannot replace all previous tanks in one year, upgrading existing ones is good! good


        More than 50% of modern T-72B3, T-80U and T-90A tanks are in constant-readiness military units. The annual purchases of these vehicles, in terms of fire damage and maneuverability, not inferior to the best foreign models, by 2020 will ensure the share of modern tanks up to 70%.


        In military units of constant readiness - this is apparently the key phrase of the article, respectively, you just need to know how many tank booties of the RF NE will be included in the permanent readiness units in 2020 and that’s all ... (+/- 31 tanks), maybe even someone from the armored command and the UVZ hero’s command -work of the Russian Federation will give ....
    2. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 25 February 2017 09: 20
      +15
      Quote: the most important
      No matter how they went the first way and didn’t just start scrapping those tanks that didn’t have time to upgrade ... And the experience of Syria shows that all kinds of tanks are needed, all kinds of tanks are important!

      Where does the figure in 15 000 come from? Well, if we assume to believe the same wiki (for laziness), although few can give an exact figure.)
      "In 2016, the Russian Armed Forces were armed with 2700 tanks, 10200 tanks are in storage"
      2700 is more likely to include the above-mentioned “modern” models.
      "In 2005, the army in the Russian Federation was armed with 23 thousands of tanks"
      For 10 years, about 10 thousand tanks were written off on the same wiki. (average of 1 thousand per year)

      Prior to 2020, thousands of tanks will be written off under the guise of 3. (we do not need tank armada as in the USSR, we are moving to modern standards). If not more, to fulfill the plan.

      So it turns out that there would be 70% of the equipment you don’t need to upgrade everything) take the figure 13 000)
      For 3 years can be written off about 3 thousand tanks.
      Remains 10 000. Of these, modern models should have about 7 000 tanks = 2700 already exist (it is unlikely that they will keep junk in constant combat readiness) As a result, it remains to upgrade 4 300 tanks. Well, I think in the best scenario.) Although it seems to me that they will not have time. Given the fact that if I am not mistaken in Omsk, the plant is poorer.
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 25 February 2017 10: 40
        +6
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Remains 10 000. Of these, modern models should have about 7 000 tanks = 2700 already exist (it is unlikely that they will keep junk in constant combat readiness) As a result, it remains to upgrade 4 300 tanks. Well, I think in the best scenario.) Although it seems to me that they will not have time. Given the fact that if I am not mistaken in Omsk, the plant is poorer.

        And I think that 7000 tanks cannot be modernized in any way, half is still decided and it is doubtful.
      2. venik
        venik 25 February 2017 12: 25
        +5
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Although it seems to me that they will not have time. Given the fact that if I am not mistaken in Omsk, the plant is poorer.

        =====
        You are mistaken! Do not poheri !!! Last April there was some kind of lawsuit with some kind of metal trader (either from Chelyabinsk, or from the region), they even filed a lawsuit to declare OZTM bankrupt ... But everything seemed to be settled. At least there was infa that at the very end of 2016, the board of directors of OZTM adopted the enterprise development strategy. And the fact that they decided to expand the range of non-military products is the usual practice of defense plants! Why not, if the power allows ???
        By the way, they are the MAIN contractor for the modernization of the T-80 !!!
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 26 February 2017 20: 28
          +1
          Quote: venik
          You are mistaken! Do not poheri !!!

          I would like to know what military products they released in the last year?
      3. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 12: 39
        +8
        this trend is not only in the tank, but also in other weapons (an example is the re-equipment of the Su-24 on the Su-34), at first there were 240 Su-24s and they said that everything would be replaced with the Su-34, then about 24 Su-140 remained, and in the troops there are about a hundred Su-34s (everything is in ZVO), so consider how many Su-34s will do (probably 140), about the fate of the SU-24R reconnaissance they’ll probably write down the silence without replacement, they went separately to the “wiki” before the Su-24R the line in the table is the armament of the Russian Air Force, now they are indicated on the same line as the front-line fighters. That is, it turns out the replacement of 240IB + 120P Su-24 is replaced by 140 Su-34, calculate the percentage of replacement and assign it to the tanks.

        On tanks:
        Now the Russian Federation has:
        T-90 and T-90A - 350 in linear parts (200 in storage)
        T-80 BV and U - 450 (3000) apparently they did not begin to withdraw from service, so that due to them "increase" the percentage of the "new" tank fleet
        T-72 B3 (the most modern of all series of this type of tank) - 1000 (0)
        T-72 B and BA - 1300 (7000), which part of these tanks will be brought to T-72 B3 (and is it economically feasible?) No one knows.
        Of all the above tanks, the competition with the tank units of the "aggressive" NATO unit armed with M1A2, Challengers -2, Leclerks, Leopards-2 from our side can be T-90 and deeply modernized T-80, i.e. if NATO has a large number of assault, bomber and army aircraft in Europe, we will lose all the border tank battles (if we are allowed to impose them on the imperialists), and then we will have to launch tactical attacks on nuclear weapons on our own territory.
        Thus, the Russian Federation has one way out: to rearm not only its tank (engineering) units, but also the countries located between NATO and the Russian Federation (RB, LDNR - in the future I think the whole right-bank Ukraine).
        What we will cover our Primorsky Territory, Siberia and the Ural industrial region from the PLA is better not to think about it, it won’t save us from the T-72 Chinese tanks (of all modifications) ...


        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Quote: the most important
        No matter how they went the first way and didn’t just start scrapping those tanks that didn’t have time to upgrade ... And the experience of Syria shows that all kinds of tanks are needed, all kinds of tanks are important!

        Where does the figure in 15 000 come from? Well, if we assume to believe the same wiki (for laziness), although few can give an exact figure.)
        "In 2016, the Russian Armed Forces were armed with 2700 tanks, 10200 tanks are in storage"
        2700 is more likely to include the above-mentioned “modern” models.
        "In 2005, the army in the Russian Federation was armed with 23 thousands of tanks"
        For 10 years, about 10 thousand tanks were written off on the same wiki. (average of 1 thousand per year)
        Prior to 2020, thousands of tanks will be written off under the guise of 3. (we do not need tank armada as in the USSR, we are moving to modern standards). If not more, to fulfill the plan.
        So it turns out that there would be 70% of the equipment you don’t need to upgrade everything) take the figure 13 000)
        For 3 years can be written off about 3 thousand tanks.
        Remains 10 000. Of these, modern models should have about 7 000 tanks = 2700 already exist (it is unlikely that they will keep junk in constant combat readiness) As a result, it remains to upgrade 4 300 tanks. Well, I think in the best scenario.) Although it seems to me that they will not have time. Given the fact that if I am not mistaken in Omsk, the plant is poorer.

        1. Ktor
          Ktor 25 February 2017 17: 02
          +4
          about the fate of the SU-24R scouts - they serve
          will be replaced in a timely manner (not a single WEM will be disbanded)))))))))))
          1. commbatant
            commbatant 25 February 2017 17: 16
            0
            it is clear that they serve, if there is no replacement
            it's good, there are so few of them, do not know the Su-24R in the ATS fly?
        2. Alexey-74
          Alexey-74 27 February 2017 15: 33
          0
          I didn’t give a damn myself .... we’ll lose all the border tank battles. It’s not a tankman immediately visible. and everything else - tactical attacks on their own territory - what kind of nonsense? In general, this opus is generally utter absurdity. Maybe you should be respected in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation at the General Staff?
      4. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 25 February 2017 15: 39
        +1
        The unobtrusive conclusion suggests itself that the power structures of Russia deliberately and intentionally deprive our armed forces of the means of warfare, which include military equipment both in line units and formations, and one that is a mobilization resource. No one hides the methods - the disposal of "obsolete equipment" and the shortage of new, due to the employment of production capacities in favor of export deliveries. Moscow Region and staff shortages at defense enterprises. For the show (parades, all kinds of games, tank biathlon), large deliveries are not needed. There are a lot of reasons, but the main thing is there is no desire to strengthen our armed forces.
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 15: 54
          0
          it is unclear why they ditched the Omsk plant, would have made T-90 and other tracked vehicles there (exclusively for export), releasing a UVZ tank conveyor for the needs of the Russian Federation, in the UK, for some reason the Vickers Designer can make separate tanks for export (the Vickers tank) done exclusively for export, Challenger-2 is no longer supplied anywhere, with the exception of Oman), but we are not?
          1. RuSFr
            RuSFr 25 February 2017 17: 23
            +1
            Clearly Bolivar will not draw two
      5. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 February 2017 15: 34
        0
        Do not worry - Syria will "digest" all our old tanks
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 25 February 2017 11: 05
      0
      What news is this? Are we going to fight on our territory or again on Berlin? belay
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 12: 42
        +2
        we will fight in the "buffer" zone, the territory - Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic countries ...
    4. xetai9977
      xetai9977 25 February 2017 11: 18
      +4
      The mechanism for achieving such numbers is simple. This is practiced in all armies, not just yours. Technique does not increase in number, but quite the opposite. An old technique is written off, say in the amount of 100 units. Adopted 50 new ones. So the "update" figure is ready.
      1. Liberoid-
        Liberoid- 25 February 2017 13: 10
        0
        Quote: xetai9977
        The mechanism for achieving such numbers is simple. This is practiced in all armies, not just yours. Technique does not increase in number, but quite the opposite. An old technique is written off, say in the amount of 100 units. Adopted 50 new ones. So the "update" figure is ready.

        And what are your tanks doing (100 pieces purchased from Russia)? Novye, after all ...? We bought weapons for 4 billion .. And Israel has even more .. And xetai9977, where do you have them ... and how do they serve .. wink
        Karabakh, and the Armenian remained ..? And we waited when you rush for release ..)))) In vain we sold you, it would be better if we left ourselves ... laughing bully
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 25 February 2017 14: 59
          +5
          The liberoid, or some other -0oid, doesn’t matter, but what does Karabakh have to do with the meaning of my comment?
          1. Liberoid-
            Liberoid- 25 February 2017 15: 19
            0
            Quote: xetai9977
            The liberoid, or some other -0oid, doesn’t matter, but what does Karabakh have to do with the meaning of my

            It is alas ... You’re getting smart here in Azerbaijan (the forum members of the Armenians were dispersed on the site ..) And are you trying to teach us the mind to teach Russia the mind ..? And I just sometimes hint to you who you are and that’s all ..)) soldier I think I clearly explained? I can repeat, in a different format ...
    5. alexmach
      alexmach 25 February 2017 12: 00
      +3
      Well, somehow it will be so.
      In military units of constant readiness

      So this is definitely not about 15000.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 25 February 2017 14: 08
        +1
        Quote: alexmach
        Well, somehow it will be so.
        In military units of constant readiness

        So this is definitely not about 15000.

        the Baltic states should have a drum that 15 tanks, that 000 ...
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 25 February 2017 17: 43
          +1
          How to excite you is easy. Did the disease respond to one flag?
          1. commbatant
            commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 15
            0
            Are you here on the "procedural" issue?
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 26 February 2017 00: 37
              +3
              No, what are you, I am here solely for your inadequate sidekick to tell me above what in his opinion should and what should not be do not care for the Baltic states. Like, it has something to do with the article, my comment, or someone is interested.
              Next is the text according to Lavrov.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 February 2017 08: 51
    +3
    Can not but rejoice good The weapon must be of high quality, and it must be ENOUGH.
    And factories should be "in good shape". Export, again wassat in general, the production of modern weapons “spurred” in the country both production and technology, even metallurgy and the production of composites ...
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 18
      0
      for sure, if sanctions were imposed on the United States by all the major developed countries, they probably have modernized their M60 so far
  3. Hey
    Hey 25 February 2017 08: 52
    +9
    In my opinion, the general is somewhat disingenuous.
    If he said that in 2020 in tank units there would be 70% of their total number of Armata tanks, then I would agree with him.
    I'm not saying that tanks are bad. But these are not new tanks. Modernized, deeply modernized but not new. Even if only from the conveyor.
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah 25 February 2017 09: 00
      +13
      If he said that in 2020 in tank units there would be 70% of their total number of Armata tanks, then I would agree with him.


      There is something wrong with Armata. I think that after the 20 year we will see a completely different Armata.
      1. mig29mks
        mig29mks 25 February 2017 09: 07
        +14
        I think, would not see to 20 well, a very modernized T 72)))))
      2. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution 25 February 2017 09: 27
        +2
        Quote: Asadullah
        There is something wrong with Armata. I think that after the 20 year we will see a completely different Armata.

        It is possible not only armature, but also other families of this platform.
      3. midivan
        midivan 25 February 2017 09: 32
        +2
        Quote: Asadullah
        There is something wrong with Armata. I think that after the 20 year we will see a completely different Armata.

        wassat At the rehearsal of the parade stalled? And you can in more detail, otherwise the intrigue turns out smile .
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 25 February 2017 10: 42
          +6
          What do you all remember the parade then? Just from the first batch that was transferred last year to the troops for operational tests, a mass of minor flaws came to light. The machine is new and rather complicated. This is not factory tests for you, where techies and the entire range of equipment are at hand.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. midivan
            midivan 25 February 2017 11: 17
            +1
            Quote: Nehist
            What do you all remember the parade then?

            Here, in order not to mislead people, there are emoticons, and when they use it it means something, see emoticons, wink drinks
      4. DenZ
        DenZ 25 February 2017 11: 01
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        There is something wrong with Armata. I think that after the 20 year we will see a completely different Armata.

        What's wrong with her? Passes a test. Well, after 20 years, it’s clear that in 2,5 years it’s still possible to upgrade (this is most likely to be done according to the test results).
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 25 February 2017 12: 11
          +1
          The main thing is that the very concept of an uninhabited tower would not turn out to be erroneous, or not implemented effectively, given the existing production culture.
        2. tchoni
          tchoni 25 February 2017 13: 20
          0
          Quote: DenZ
          Quote: Asadullah
          There is something wrong with Armata. I think that after the 20 year we will see a completely different Armata.

          What's wrong with her? Passes a test. Well, after 20 years, it’s clear that in 2,5 years it’s still possible to upgrade (this is most likely to be done according to the test results).

          A lot of things are wrong with her. Starting from problems with the review and ending with the modest fact that instead of a unified platform, a highly specialized tank destroyer was output.
          1. Olegovi4
            Olegovi4 25 February 2017 17: 20
            0
            Quote: tchoni
            received a highly specialized tank destroyer.

            Apparently this is such a modern global trend. at least the same abrash.
        3. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 21
          0
          it’s a sin to laugh by the age of 18-20 in the EU, Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, American missiles Mk Block IVB will be placed, then the curtain ...
      5. venik
        venik 25 February 2017 12: 37
        +2
        Quote: Asadullah
        There is something wrong with Armata.

        ====
        And what exactly is NOT SO ??? The fact that they are in no hurry to adopt it ?? So everything is clear here! The machine is being tested and tested in the army ...
        The excitement is simply caused by the fact that it was shown at the Victory Parade in 2015 ... Previously, after all, ONLY SERIAL equipment ALREADY put into service was put on parades! And the year before last, they released the PRESTERIOR samples (collected MANUAL for testing). A purely propaganda move, and by the way, in my opinion is quite reasonable and reasonable !!!
        And the audience froze in blissful expectation - just about, now "now and all at once" ....
      6. venik
        venik 25 February 2017 18: 36
        +2
        Quote: Asadullah
        There is something wrong with Armata.

        =====
        I don’t understand, why is everything so attached to this “Armata” ??? Well yes - the NEWEST tank! Yes! Well surpasses competitors in "COMPLEX" (!!!) indicators ... BUT! Not enough to be INVALIDABLE !!! There are no IMPACT invisible tanks, no, there have never been and WILL NOT BE! NO ONE !!!
        Superiority, even in terms of a “set of parameters” (oh, what an extensible concept!) - can only guarantee great losses to the enemy, UNDER EQUAL EQUAL CONDITIONS !!!
        Want some examples? Yes please:
        1) In Iraq, “abramiki” Saddam's tank units armed with “Urals” were defeated on the head! Smashed? Smashed !! Now the same "Saddam" tankers have transferred to the "Abramchiks" - and they are ON HARVEST again !!! Now Igilovsky barmalei .....
        2) The Georgian-Ossetian-Russian conflict (08.08.08). The rodents had the same "Urals", but thoroughly modified by the Israelis. There you will have a new modern SLA, and pan-ammo all-day sights and laser rangefinders and passive infrared devices ... In short, according to the statements of the Bear Galstukogryz (and some experts), their combat effectiveness doubled compared to the standard T-72B !!! And WHERE are these tanks now ??? At landfills in the Russian Federation (those that survived!)!
        So maybe it's not in tanks but in TANKISTS ??? Yes, you put the same pin ... sa at least in the "Abramchik", at least in the "Armata"! As soon as it comes to a clear understanding that “they will beat him now (maybe with their feet!),” He will urgently remember that he has a bunch of IMMEDIATE cases in Minnesota or Wyoming !!!!
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 25 February 2017 12: 09
      +3
      In my opinion, the general is somewhat disingenuous.

      He’s not cunning. Everyone has already understood from the structure of orders for armored vehicles that about 70% of Almaty there was no talk.

      And there can be no doubt that the existing park needs to be modernized. The Americans have already planned the 4th modernization of their Abrams. And in Syria, another T-55 is fighting with birdhouses.
  4. Altona
    Altona 25 February 2017 09: 10
    +5
    We would have 70 percent “Armat”, and not “tanks that are not inferior to modern Western models.”
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 25 February 2017 09: 18
      +8
      Quote: Altona
      We would have 70 percent “Armat”, and not “tanks that are not inferior to modern Western models.”

      Eugene hi So far, you can only dream about it. Now is not the 41st year, “Almaty” will not produce such volumes as the legendary T-34 ...
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 25 February 2017 10: 06
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      We would have 70 percent “Armat”, and not “tanks that are not inferior to modern Western models.”

      Until 2020? However, your swing is heroic. Industry, how many per year can supply them?
      1. Banishing liberoids
        Banishing liberoids 25 February 2017 10: 39
        +4
        Aaron hi the problem is the secrecy of certain T14 components and assemblies, and, the most unpleasant thing to say in a certain district, different subdivisions are armed with say 120 such tanks, and to avoid information leakage there will be only one repair and service center for T14, and if the tank breaks down - we load on the trawl and pull it can be for 5, or maybe for 300 kilometers. Already, there is an acute shortage of specialists on this platform, there are almost none except factory ones, for repairmen were trained as well as a repair base for T72-T90 tanks. The new platform gave the army a million new problems.
      2. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 23
        0
        we transfer all state-owned MTS to evil of NATO
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 February 2017 11: 09
      +6
      Yes, what the hell, the difference is what the tanks will be ...
      The experience of the Syrian war and the fight against ISIS of the Iraqi army clearly showed that the main unit of any tank is its crew. And practically everything depends on the quality of its “production”. With untrained crews, even “Almaty” will not help.

      And it is precisely this Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov who must be puzzled. And do not count interest ...
      1. Banishing liberoids
        Banishing liberoids 25 February 2017 11: 25
        +4
        Lopatov hi - they say good tank, but with its say service in the field, or even in places of deployment, huge problems — the secrecy of the machine and the lack of specialists are obvious.
    4. commbatant
      commbatant 25 February 2017 12: 47
      0
      Quote: Altona
      We would have 70 percent “Armat”, and not “tanks that are not inferior to modern Western models.”


      The general director of Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko spoke about the prospects of T-14 in the Russian army. The state armament program, he said, involves the supply to the armed forces until 2020 2300 such MBT. Sienko himself calls the voiced volumes quite real, but indicates that the delivery time can be postponed. “The period will shift to 2025,” the specialist noted.
      https://naked-science.ru/article/tech/vyyasnilos-
      skolko-armat-poluch


      2300 MBT is 74 TB
  5. Alexander S.
    Alexander S. 25 February 2017 09: 12
    +2
    t-72 ... t-80 ..?) My brother .. a tank driver .. would not agree .. with this figure)
  6. Mole
    Mole 25 February 2017 09: 12
    +6
    Again, the B3 is a “modern” tank, how long can I break spears?
    1. Thrall
      Thrall 25 February 2017 09: 20
      +15
      Quote: Moth
      Again, the B3 is a “modern” tank, how long can I break spears?

      I don’t know how “BZ”, and I really like BT-7 so far smile
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 25 February 2017 09: 59
        +5
        I don’t know how “BZ”, and I really like BT-7 so far
        in 40, it’s exactly BT7 and other light and fast. led to deafening losses. experienced tankers died. and managing recruits recruited recruits. here it is nonsense in its purest form. the lungs showed themselves well in the fight against the Japanese. it was difficult for the Japanese to make and transport heavier tanks. that's all . but Finnish has already shown that this technique is not needed. the story is repeated twice: the first time in the form of tragedy, the second in the form of farce. hi
        1. 11 black
          11 black 25 February 2017 10: 19
          +8
          Quote: megavolt823
          in 40, it’s exactly BT7 and other light and fast. led to deafening losses. experienced tankers died. and managing recruits recruited recruits. here it is nonsense in its purest form. the lungs showed themselves well in the fight against the Japanese. it was difficult for the Japanese to make and transport heavier tanks. that's all . but Finnish has already shown that this technique is not needed. the story is repeated twice: the first time in the form of tragedy, the second in the form of farce.

          In general, you are right - of course, it was the production of tanks with bulletproof armor that caused the tank disaster of the 41 of the year (the Germans already had T-3 and T-4 by that time), but do not forget that half of the German tanks were also T- 1 and T-2 with the same bulletproof armor, and it was BTs that, due to their high speed, could at least somehow fight with them. Still, the BT series had speed - while the T-26, T-28 produced by the thousands had neither armor, nor speed, nor guns (45mm if I am not mistaken), they could not fight German armored vehicles and the only right solution would be bury them in caponiers, but it’s easy for us to judge by the facts ...
          And BT-7, "Where ingenuity and dexterity are there and the stick is a rifle," for example:


          Quote: help
          Grigory Nikolayevich Naydin - sergeant, tank commander BT-7, Hero of the Soviet Union. On 25 on June 1941, in the town of Rudiskiai (Lithuania), he defeated a column of enemy armored vehicles, destroying a total of 15 tanks and 10 guns of the advanced detachment of the 19-th tank division of the Wehrmacht, thereby delaying the German offensive for two days, which made it possible to carefully organize the defense of Vilna.


          Many have heard of the legendary battle of Kolobanov, and this is indeed a glorious feat, however, Kolobanov had a “steel hero” KV withstand more than a hundred hits, and Naydin BT-7, which would have been enough ...
          1. megavolt823
            megavolt823 25 February 2017 11: 06
            +6
            Kolobanova was a “steel hero” KV withstood more than a hundred hits, and Naydin BT-7, which would have been enough for one ...
            here I am about it. always trying to explain it, but are stubborn. the Germans were burned once, and changed their approach and technique. and we were hard in places. and now . I write to a man: 40 years old car. what ...... to expect from her. the person answers you don’t understand what in the armor. I try to explain not only moral but physical death. not only metals, but also rubber, plastics. You can upgrade the 10 summer fleet of vehicles. but when I write what you don’t want to repair and upgrade the 21-03 or 06 vases. What do you want a foreign car? or largus with news at the worst. I would lie in the garage under the six sevens, and would try to attach attributes to a modern car. I changed the wiring. body cooked. some who are swaggering, they say yes, and now I am on t72 and t80 even where. but happen NOT A STEP BACK. everyone would like to fit, or t90 at least in which everything works. what nonsense to bear? hi
            1. Thrall
              Thrall 25 February 2017 14: 09
              +4
              See what the T-34 is doing in a South Korean movie laughing
              1. commbatant
                commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 52
                0
                cool, discard the link
        2. burigaz2010
          burigaz2010 25 February 2017 11: 48
          +4
          Dear you are wrong! The main reason for the loss of armored vehicles of the USSR is logistics! Alas, absolutely serviceable tanks were thrown due to lack of fuels and lubricants of shells and spare parts! Well, the fact that our tanks were without walkie-talkies! That is, each tank fought on its own! The same is true in aviation !!!!
          1. megavolt823
            megavolt823 25 February 2017 12: 17
            +2
            that is, veterans are lying calling some samples of lightly armored vehicles Bratsk Grave? is the fault of the walkie-talkie? if there was a walkie-talkie they said to him: that there is no need to go there, you will get lost. fellow many HF due to improper operation failed. Yes it is . in places there were no improvements at the HF. some were abandoned due to lack of fuel. This is true . but the loss of crews was not related to this. which vehicles crews suffered losses? This is the right question. hi
            1. burigaz2010
              burigaz2010 25 February 2017 13: 12
              +1
              Dear, at least read the statistics! 70 percent of the equipment was lost due to lack of logistics !!!!
            2. burigaz2010
              burigaz2010 25 February 2017 13: 19
              +1
              And as for walkie-talkies, you’re alone, and the enemy can communicate with each other! Not scary yet? In our tanks, the commander did not have time to either point the gun, or to monitor the general situation! As a result, the tank saw the situation only in front!
              Quote: megavolt823
              that is, veterans are lying calling some samples of lightly armored vehicles Bratsk Grave? is the fault of the walkie-talkie? if there was a walkie-talkie they said to him: that there is no need to go there, you will get lost. fellow many HF due to improper operation failed. Yes it is . in places there were no improvements at the HF. some were abandoned due to lack of fuel. This is true . but the loss of crews was not related to this. which vehicles crews suffered losses? This is the right question. hi

              Quote: megavolt823
              I don’t know how “BZ”, and I really like BT-7 so far
              in 40, it’s exactly BT7 and other light and fast. led to deafening losses. experienced tankers died. and managing recruits recruited recruits. here it is nonsense in its purest form. the lungs showed themselves well in the fight against the Japanese. it was difficult for the Japanese to make and transport heavier tanks. that's all . but Finnish has already shown that this technique is not needed. the story is repeated twice: the first time in the form of tragedy, the second in the form of farce. hi
              1. megavolt823
                megavolt823 25 February 2017 16: 27
                +2
                radios in the tank were with us. Germans started to install earlier. but this did not determine the outcome of the battle. the number of HFs and ISs that have fought more than one battle. these machines determined the offensive. they determined victory. if a veteran who fought on IS met another who fought on BT and PT and other easily armored vehicles and survived. there was the truth of life. you would listen to them and there was no need to explain anything else. there were cases when the Germans in the first TIGERS stumbled upon the IS 2. rumors among the Germans were already panthers to shreds. not just punched, but torn holes. places for departure. Germans threw tanks with fuel, shells and walkie-talkies. there were such embarrassments. royal tried not to engage in battle with them. t34 who did not show himself badly in the early years of the war, as an average. by the end of the war it was used as a light infantry. and didn’t determine anything in duel battles. massive. Yes . by the middle of the war, the Germans did not use light tanks.
                1. megavolt823
                  megavolt823 25 February 2017 16: 40
                  +2
                  Battle of Dubno-Lutsk-Brody (23-30 June 1941)

                  Due to a number of strategic miscalculations in the early days of World War II, Soviet troops suffered heavy losses both in personnel and equipment. Perhaps the key failure of this period can be called the largest tank battle of the 1941 of the year, the battle that took place in the triangle of the cities of Dubno - Lutsk - Brody in western Ukraine.

                  The Soviet command decided not to create a solid line of defense against the advancing German troops, but to launch a counterattack using the available mechanized corps and aviation support. Already on the first day of the battle, on June 24, things went wrong: the flank attack on the German column choked under the fire of anti-tank guns. The following days also did not bring success: on the 25 number, our troops nevertheless broke through the enemy’s flank, but were forced to retreat due to lack of artillery support. The attack of the 27 number was also unsuccessful.

                  The isolated attacks of the Soviet mechanized corps did not give a result - the German command repelled a counterattack and continued the attack on Kiev. Soviet troops lost almost 1500 tanks, which amounted to a quarter of all Soviet armored vehicles.
          2. venik
            venik 25 February 2017 13: 56
            +1
            Quote: burigaz2010
            Dear you are wrong! The main reason for the loss of armored vehicles of the USSR is logistics! Alas, absolutely serviceable tanks were thrown due to lack of fuels and lubricants of shells and spare parts! Well, the fact that our tanks were without radios!

            ======
            Dear you are wrong! (Now it is you !!). Here TOGETHER TOGETHER - and too weak armor and logistics and the lack of communication systems and the insufficient level of training of crews and command personnel (they were not always taught exactly what was needed) and the loss of command and control and much more !!! And the gigantic losses of the first period - this is precisely the result of a "superposition" of all these problems !!!
            1. megavolt823
              megavolt823 25 February 2017 17: 23
              0
              what would we do without you? fellow all of you ......... I'm the only Dartanyan. somehow it turns out. everyone has emotions. I'm talking about the loss of crews. but not about the loss of technology. what kind of logistics.
          3. 11 black
            11 black 26 February 2017 09: 36
            +1
            Quote: burigaz2010
            Dear you are wrong! The main reason for the loss of armored vehicles of the USSR is logistics! Alas, absolutely serviceable tanks were thrown due to lack of fuels and lubricants of shells and spare parts! Well, the fact that our tanks were without walkie-talkies! That is, each tank fought on its own! The same is true in aviation !!!!

            There is logic in your words, but in this case develop your thought - here you have the T-26 which has already been released by 11000 - the gun doesn’t penetrate German armor, only armor from bullets and fragments (even the 37-mm will penetrate into any projection, like any German tank), no speed - everything can be attributed to logistics, but this does not negate the fact that this tank theoretically could not and actually could not fight against German armored vehicles (pieces, t-3 and t-4) - so they threw them, perhaps not only because of the lack of fuel and lubricants ... although this also happened.

            Here is an example - the battle of Dubno at the beginning of the war, when it was the T-26, T-28 and BT that launched a counterattack (on tanks with bulletproof armor in a counterattack ...) - hundreds of vehicles were lost on the battlefield (some say more thousands of tanks) - to believe it or not, the big question is whether the liberals lie a lot and impudently (only pedivikia lies more than them), but the 11000 T-26 (like the T-28 and the BT series) could not fight the German T3 and T4 on equal terms - this is a fact (BT had at least speed, there was a maneuver - but there was no gun or armor).

            In aviation, I would add a mediocre relocation to the border - reserve secret airfields have not yet been done, and the planes are already on the main ones - known to the Germans ...
            1. megavolt823
              megavolt823 26 February 2017 12: 03
              0
              this is exactly what I was trying to explain. 1500 tanks for the first battles. and these were personnel. with experience and understanding in technology. and then t34 and HF. IP. but the level of training at times was worse. and this also caused a loss. so I’m saying, does it make sense to repeat the story? hi
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 February 2017 13: 30
      0
      Tank T 72B3 is an expensive junk upgrade.
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 25 February 2017 13: 35
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        Tank T 72B3 is an expensive junk upgrade.

        Hooray! in our regiment of sanity replenishment. hi
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 25 February 2017 13: 44
          +2
          The first combat use of the T 72B3, unfortunately, was unsuccessful
          1. svp67
            svp67 25 February 2017 17: 16
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            The first combat use of the T 72B3, unfortunately, was unsuccessful

            You don’t even understand how MUCH successful was the first combat use of tanks that looked very similar to the T72B3 ... How many “boilers” turned out with their help ... And the fact that they suffered losses was the fault ... of those who came up with such a reservation scheme and who agreed to buy it ...
            I will say more that all the tanks in this conflict suffered losses, including the more protected T-64E Bulat, as well as use both warring parties of the T-84 Oplot or tanks that look very similar to the T-90A, then and there would be losses among them. So the conflict in the Donbass is different from the contemporary conflict in Syria by the presence of weapons from the conflicting parties. In Syria, the opposing side very rarely uses heavy artillery and MLRS installations.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 February 2017 11: 10
              0
              Yes, more than similar to B3
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 February 2017 15: 25
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                Yes, more than similar to B3

                Or maybe on the Serbian M-84 ... Who knows what is growing there in the steppes of the Donetsk Region ...

        2. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 25 February 2017 15: 02
          +2
          [quote = megavolt823] hooray! in our regiment of sanity replenishment.
          Now let's take a closer look at how soundly your regiment is. And for this, answer the following questions:
          1. How to change tanks that have exhausted their resources. Do not offer new ones due to the inability of manufacturers to make up for the decline.
          2. How much does modernization cost and how much is it "more expensive" to produce what you want to replace the modernized.
          3. How is the sample modernized and who is able to carry out this modernization.
          4. According to what combat characteristics, the B3 is critically inferior to the tank that you want to see in the troops.
          And the result is. There is no sense in purchasing T90 now. Armata has not yet passed the army. There are no alternatives to modernization (at the price and rate of replenishment, they have decreased)
      2. svp67
        svp67 25 February 2017 17: 13
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        Tank T 72B3 is an expensive junk upgrade.

        No. T72B3 is an unnecessary and expensive upgrade of the T-72. Why they didn’t accept the T-72B2 Slingshot is not clear.

        This tank is not much more expensive, but it was still better.
        In general, this epic with the modernization of the T-72, urgently needs to be transferred to the "new rails", upgrading them to the T-90MS, it is quite possible to connect the Omsk plant, and not just Tagil, to this process. Also, to modernize the required number of T-80s, in order to achieve uniformity in the troops in the battle tanks.
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 25
          0
          something similar to Oplot
          1. svp67
            svp67 26 February 2017 15: 30
            +1
            Quote: commbatant
            something similar to Oplot

            The "half-brethren" brothers are all ... how not to be like that, but just which of the "Strongholds" then, if the T-84, yes

            but if BM Oplot is gone
            1. commbatant
              commbatant 26 February 2017 16: 49
              0
              By the way, Comrade General of the Army, your epaulettes are wrong
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 February 2017 17: 04
                +1
                Quote: commbatant
                By the way, Comrade General of the Army, your epaulettes are wrong

                Well, I understand that the site administration likes the insignia of the Red Army of the 1943 model more
                1. commbatant
                  commbatant 26 February 2017 17: 07
                  0
                  "fly" for the administration of the site
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 26 February 2017 17: 13
                    0
                    Quote: commbatant
                    "fly" for the administration of the site

                    Not at all. Winner Army insignia, it is very honorable. Moreover, in the army of the Russian Federation for some period army generals wore similar epaulets
                    1. commbatant
                      commbatant 26 February 2017 17: 28
                      0
                      I went on a demobilization in 1996 in pagons with the inscription "SA", new ones just started to appear then ....
  7. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 25 February 2017 09: 19
    +4
    Quote: the most important
    Great news! The only bad thing is that the mechanism for achieving this value has not been disclosed. You must admit that 70% of one hundred pieces of equipment is one thing, but 70% of 15 is completely different ... No matter how you went the first way and didn’t just start scrapping those tanks that didn’t have time to upgrade ... And experience Syria shows that all sorts of tanks are needed, all sorts of tanks are important!

    But who will open it for you? Does this mean 70% of the fleet of military formations operating for this period? Experience in Syria is not obligatory. The experience of the diligent owners should work. We did everything that was possible, and no one is responsible, and in addition our tanks , and not only, they will iron us in the Donbass. Well, at least there was a good mind enough to take everything out of Europe! So it works in Syria. And maybe in Novorossia, who knows ?????
  8. Altona
    Altona 25 February 2017 09: 22
    +2
    Quote: bouncyhunter
    "Armata" will not produce such volumes as the legendary T-34 ...

    --------------------------------
    Well, I just voiced Mriyu, but in general, at least the T-90 in the latest modification ...
  9. Bronevick
    Bronevick 25 February 2017 09: 48
    +3
    Armature will still be an exclusive 25 years, for a long time we still ride on the t-72.
  10. Liberoid-
    Liberoid- 25 February 2017 09: 53
    +7
    As they begin to boast, then certain problems will arise ... Silently you need to work and that's it!
    1. Banishing liberoids
      Banishing liberoids 25 February 2017 10: 43
      +1
      R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№ hi a werewolf in a broken helmet lol how many nicks do you have here? belay Get yourself back, your old Meehan, just write, say Mi-khan 1 for example lol Greetings in the new, old hypostasis drinks
      1. Liberoid-
        Liberoid- 25 February 2017 10: 51
        +4
        Quote: Expelling Liberoids
        R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№ hi a werewolf in a broken helmet lol how many nicks do you have here? belay Get yourself back, your old Meehan, just write, say Mi-khan 1 for example lol Greetings in the new, old hypostasis drinks

        It’s impossible, they shoot accurately ... I salted someone strongly here! I don’t live for a long time, so I have to ... It’s insulting on the Russian site and it seems like the main enemy is encrypted .. hi Yes, I'm used to it already ...
        1. Banishing liberoids
          Banishing liberoids 25 February 2017 11: 30
          +4
          Vitaliy -you for the site as a talisman lol , so you’re not completely “eaten up”, but “bitten” very much am Hold on, and Topwar will arrive with you! !! drinks
          1. Liberoid-
            Liberoid- 25 February 2017 11: 47
            +1
            Quote: Expelling Liberoids
            Vitaliy -you for the site as a talisman lol , so you’re not completely “eaten up”, but “bitten” very much am Hold on, and Topwar will arrive with you! !! drinks

            MIKHAN and its derivatives ..on site generally under a ban.. laughing (you can check) ..
            Well, yes, of course, they’ll talk very conveniently, they will be hungry, and then they will shoot .. crying
  11. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 10: 24
    +6
    Upgrades of the T-72/80/90 can still be considered relatively modern machines, especially the T-90M and T-72B3M. But how did you manage to classify cardboard BMP-2 as modern? Modernizing such machines is a waste of money, although it is closer to sabotage. Its side armor does not even hold a 12,7 mm bullet, and its forehead is easily pierced by 25 mm shells from the Bushmaster cannon from a long distance. Under the conditions of a nuclear war, its shortcomings were not so critical, but in a high-intensity conventional conflict it would certainly become the mass grave of the infantry.
    1. svp67
      svp67 25 February 2017 10: 33
      +1
      Quote: mr.redpartizan
      But how did you manage to classify cardboard BMP-2 as modern
      And can you name a "non-cardboard" combat FLOATING vehicle?
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 10: 43
        +1
        There are no such. Even Kurganets-25 has rather thin armor, although it is much thicker than BMP-2 armor. But are floating infantry fighting vehicles needed at all?
        1. svp67
          svp67 25 February 2017 10: 47
          +1
          Quote: mr.redpartizan
          But are floating infantry fighting vehicles needed at all?

          And how are you going to maintain high operational maneuverability of the troops. This Israel can afford to have non-naval military equipment, and when it was required to encircle the 3rd Egyptian Army in the Sinai, they remembered that the reserve was full of Soviet captured equipment. And we have how many rivers, rivulets, canals and other water barriers
          1. mr.redpartizan
            mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 10: 56
            +1
            But does it make sense to send BMPs to the other shore without the support of tanks? The BMP-2 was needed for a quick throw to the English Channel under the conditions of the use of WMD, its goal is one - to protect the infantry from radioactive and chemical contamination. The machine should be small, massive, and most importantly - cheap. Although, if we are preparing to "join the EU" again, then even the old equipment with a protection system against WMD will not be superfluous.
            1. svp67
              svp67 25 February 2017 11: 38
              +2
              Quote: mr.redpartizan
              But does it make sense to send BMPs to the other shore without the support of tanks?

              Of course. During the battle, many options may arise in which you have to quickly overcome water barriers to get ahead of the enemy. If we refuse such a technique, then immediately sharply limit ourselves to maneuver. It’s just enough for the enemy to keep bridges, which at the right moment can simply be destroyed ... Well, the infantry will not be left without support at all, now they get the FLEETING PTSAU "Octopus", which is actually a light tank. She and mobile ATGMs, like "Chrysanthemums" and will help, before the approach of thick-armored vehicles ...
              1. mr.redpartizan
                mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 12: 17
                +2
                Tank destroyer "Octopus" only at the airborne. This machine is designed to increase the firepower of the landing, its weapons correspond to the T-90, but the armor is at the level of the BTR-80. A close shell / mine burst or a burst of 30 mm shells from the enemy Octopus BMP will not survive. It should be borne in mind that the machine can be parachuted in an airborne manner, which is important.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 25 February 2017 12: 22
                  0
                  Quote: mr.redpartizan
                  Tank destroyer "Octopus" only at the airborne

                  Not only for the Airborne Forces, but also for the Marine Corps, on the BMP-3 BSH ...
                  1. mr.redpartizan
                    mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 13: 55
                    +1
                    The number of marines and amphibious assault is quite small, and the main strike force of the NE are tanks and artillery. Tanks have not learned how to swim yet, and without their fire support the rest of the equipment will be destroyed very quickly. Crossing the river under enemy fire is suicide, and the most convenient sections of the shore for landing are most likely to be mined by the retreating enemy, therefore, without the help of the engineering troops, nothing. The tank can overcome the majority of small rivers along the bottom, using the anti-aircraft tank.
            2. venik
              venik 25 February 2017 15: 15
              +1
              Quote: mr.redpartizan
              But does it make sense to send BMPs to the other shore without the support of tanks?

              =====
              And how are you going to transport tanks to the “other shore” ??? AND?? First, after all, you need to capture some kind of bridgehead, and only then you can build a pontoon bridge for heavy equipment .... Then floating amphibious infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers will do! Any support, but still support - will cross "immediately" and "without soaking feet" !!!
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 February 2017 15: 33
                0
                Quote: venik
                And how are you going to transport tanks to the “other shore” ??? AND??

                Using engineering equipment or bottom ...
                Quote: venik
                First you have to seize some bridgehead

                For this, military equipment that can swim
                1. venik
                  venik 26 February 2017 16: 27
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  For this, military equipment that can swim

                  ====
                  So, what am I ABOUT ??? !!!
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 26 February 2017 16: 32
                    0
                    Quote: venik
                    So, what am I ABOUT ??? !!!

                    About the same ... drinks
  12. svp67
    svp67 25 February 2017 10: 31
    +4
    More than 50% of modern T-72B3, T-80U and T-90A tanks are in constant-readiness military units.
    And each of these tanks is CONDITIONALLY modern. Everyone has something that prevents them from being recognized as equal to the T-90MS
    1. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 10: 48
      +2
      The T-90MS is an export version of the T-90AM, although it is also a distant descendant of the T-72. Only the T-14 can be considered a new word in tank building. Tanks of previous generations are still quite capable of fighting the Western Leopards, Abrams and Leclerks.
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 February 2017 10: 57
        +4
        Quote: mr.redpartizan
        Tanks of previous generations are still quite capable of fighting the Western Leopards, Abrams and Leclerks.

        If we encounter in battle, then where are we going to go, we will fight. Only on these machines it will be difficult, yet they, like the "small" flaws, are critical in battle.
        1. mr.redpartizan
          mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 11: 31
          +2
          The upgraded tanks have new guns, communication and navigation systems, as well as modern SLAs. Guns 2A46M-4/5 have a new AZ, which allows the use of long BPS.
          The armor of the T-90A and T-72B3M is in no way inferior to the armor of the best western vehicles, and often even slightly exceeds it. The small armored volume of our tanks negatively affects crew comfort, but we are the first in terms of the ratio of armor mass to internal volume. The main drawback of the T-64/72/80 layout is the high probability of detonation of the turret with the tower detached when the armor is pierced, but the resistance of the armor with the new DZ is very high, as Syria showed.
          1. svp67
            svp67 25 February 2017 11: 42
            +4
            Quote: mr.redpartizan
            The armor of the T-90A and T-72B3M is in no way inferior to the armor of the best western vehicles, and often even slightly exceeds it.

            Are we talking seriously or are you reading an “agitation” to me ... Just ONE look at the T-72B3 is enough to understand that “In reality, everything is different from what it really is.”

            And also these tanks left a weakened zone in the area of ​​the mech-water viewing device, which is the case with the T-72B3

            that the T-90A, breakdown of high molecular weight does not count, it protects from another
            1. mr.redpartizan
              mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 12: 35
              0
              These tanks are equipped with a built-in DZ "Contact-5 / Relic", protected from bullets and fragments by a steel plate.
              All tanks have a weakened area on the tower, ours are no exception. T-72B3M with DZ "Relic" can be considered modern. The Relic DM module is larger than the Contact-1/5 module, which makes it possible to more effectively withstand modern shells and ATGMs with a tandem warhead. American M829A3 shells are designed to break through Contact-5, but Relic is too tough for them yet. Now we have an even more advanced DZ - "Malachite".
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 February 2017 15: 36
                0
                Quote: mr.redpartizan
                All tanks have a weakened area on the tower, ours are no exception. T-72B3M with DZ "Relict" can be considered modern

                In this form, NO. Do you really DO NOT SEE the areas completely NOT COVERED by additional reservation in the frontal projections? What are you talking about?
            2. commbatant
              commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 55
              0
              get off for the turkistan
      2. venik
        venik 25 February 2017 15: 18
        0
        Quote: mr.redpartizan
        Tanks of previous generations are still quite capable of fighting the Western Leopards, Abrams and Leclerks.

        =====
        By the way! Please note: NATO (and not only them) their "abrams", "lepiki" and "clerks" - are not in a hurry to write off "for scrap" .... They are modernizing slowly .....
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 57
          0
          384 Challenger-2 tanks remained in the British army, Holland and Belgium abandoned armored units and this did not happen yesterday ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 26 February 2017 16: 37
            0
            Quote: commbatant
            Holland and Belgium abandoned the armored units and this did not happen yesterday ...

            Yes, yes ... and this happened due to lower defense spending. Back in 2011. I don’t know, in the current conditions, when the United States requires the rest of the NATO countries to increase military spending, what will happen next ...
    2. commbatant
      commbatant 26 February 2017 16: 56
      0
      in the countries of the "aggressive" NATO bloc, the same conditionally Modern tanks ..
  13. Vadim237
    Vadim237 25 February 2017 10: 43
    +2
    Apparently, purchases of T 14 and machines based on it are postponed for 2020.
  14. family tree
    family tree 25 February 2017 10: 46
    +1
    Yes, even more.
    DOSAAFU crews still have to start cooking in civilian life, and with this they are fully interchangeable, so that then the tracked driver’s crusts are not superfluous.
    It is possible to transfer materiel from the reserve, however, money will still be necessary what
    Well, at least those who breathe unevenly to tanks, and a bit ready, but not to those wretched, will go
  15. Zomanus
    Zomanus 25 February 2017 11: 08
    0
    The main thing is not to stop the modernization process.
    What would be the tank of the first stage of modernization, the second, third ...
    For example, target designation for a tank using a drone looks very nice.
    Even if the drone is tied with a wire to the tank ...
    Well, the shells also have something to work on.
  16. Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 25 February 2017 11: 17
    0
    Well, yes, modern ... For someone in the world and the T-34-85 quite modern ...
  17. Junior Private
    Junior Private 25 February 2017 11: 33
    +3
    Quote: Bronevick
    Armature will still be an exclusive 25 years, for a long time we still ride on the t-72.

    T-72 will still show itself. Stuff him in full, that in addition to the unkillable "cart", nothing of the old will remain, even though it is already called in a new way, such as the T-93.
    A massive move to the T-14, T-15, it is definitely more than 10 years, and then, I do not exclude that the Armata platform itself will be refined more than once.
    1. Liberoid-
      Liberoid- 25 February 2017 12: 32
      +4
      Quote: Junior Private
      T-72 will still show itself. Stuff him in full

      The main thing is to get more ... And there we will tear and no one will stop us! Tank fist, this is the insurance of Russia (since the days of the USSR it was like that ..) soldier
      Give an order ..
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 12: 56
        0
        Since the 49th year, we have weapons that are much more powerful than tank fists. Now there is no need to rivet tens of thousands of MBT of various types, it is much easier to produce a new nuclear weapons.
        1. Liberoid-
          Liberoid- 25 February 2017 13: 19
          +1
          Quote: mr.redpartizan
          Since the 49th year, we have weapons that are much more powerful than tank fists. Now there is no need to rivet tens of thousands of MBT of various types, it is much easier to produce a new nuclear weapons.

          You are wrong, a tank fist is a thing! If they fuck us, these guys will simply iron Europe ... Even if ten tanks remain on the beach of the Atlantic, they will turn around and fan out into the last battle! There is all protection and they will find fuel ...
          1. mr.redpartizan
            mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 13: 39
            0
            Tanks will not be able to reach the English Channel without the use of nuclear weapons on our part, because modern anti-tank infantry weapons will not leave them a chance. During WWII there were no ATGMs and powerful grenade launchers, but now they are like dirt.
            Several hundred ballistic and cruise missiles can simply carry the enemy to the Atlantic in twenty minutes, and the tanks simply walk on scorched earth. The remnants of the enemy’s troops will no longer be able to significantly resist our technology.
            1. commbatant
              commbatant 25 February 2017 13: 56
              0
              contradict yourself, why send the newly created 1st Guards TA to Paris, if there are only ruins, in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons, our tanks are better off staying there forever, there will be nothing to "fonit" without them ...
              1. mr.redpartizan
                mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 14: 03
                +1
                The tank is resistant to a nuclear explosion, but very quickly destroyed in the city by enemy infantry. City battles always lead to huge losses of armored vehicles, so storming an enemy city with tanks is a bad idea.
                1. commbatant
                  commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 13
                  0
                  why do we need radioactive Europe at all? what goal of the war will we reach upon reaching the English Channel with a lunar landscape behind you, radioactive CNC machines in Russia are not lucky
                  1. Olegovi4
                    Olegovi4 25 February 2017 17: 36
                    +3
                    Quote: commbatant
                    why do we need radioactive Europe at all?

                    so we don’t need it. and was never needed. how many opportunities have there been in our history to make it yours? but not needed in FIG. we only go on a visit after the Jews themselves are not invited to us. and if there is a glass desert there, so God be with him. then there will be no one to go with us with a sword from there.
                2. commbatant
                  commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 59
                  0
                  tell it to the israelis
            2. Liberoid-
              Liberoid- 25 February 2017 14: 09
              +2
              Quote: mr.redpartizan
              Tanks will not be able to reach the English Channel without the use of nuclear weapons on our part, because modern anti-tank infantry weapons will not leave them a chance. During WWII there were no ATGMs and powerful grenade launchers, but now they are like dirt.

              Nuclear weapons, this is a last resort ....
              But you know the tank fist and Russian tanks from all weapons more seriously ...! Here they will trample on the gene level .. and no one will stop them ..! In their eyes it will be ..
              1. commbatant
                commbatant 25 February 2017 15: 57
                +1
                look at the range of our tanks, this distance will be extreme, because columns of fuel trucks will be burned A-10
                1. Olegovi4
                  Olegovi4 25 February 2017 17: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: commbatant
                  A-10 will be burned

                  how many are there? and how many are there in europe? and no one has yet canceled the trophies.
          2. commbatant
            commbatant 25 February 2017 14: 00
            +1
            If they fuck us


            and we, in response, will be able-bodied male population, it will be necessary here and not on the Atlantic coast (of course, you can send a couple of tank boots equipped with military pensioners to release the Kaliningrad defensive district, but I don’t think so)
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 February 2017 13: 26
        +2
        In modern warfare, this whole tank fist will be turned into burnt scrap metal - a third-generation ATGM ground and air based.
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 13: 54
          +1
          Do you see my young friend, tanks are more stable in defense, including using nuclear weapons
      3. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 14: 04
        0
        not the full version of the video, VKontakte is longer, the ending is beautiful, you do not have it here
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 25 February 2017 12: 34
    +1
    It is necessary to remove all samples from storage and bring them to normal condition. Modification of the T-72, if not mistaken, cost 52 million rubles. One Ukraine owes us so much that it’s enough to modernize the entire park! They even wrote about the T-14 that its price was 250 million rubles. Or - an option that lies about prices!
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 25 February 2017 13: 53
      +1
      You would still ask for debt from the DPRK and Cuba ...
    2. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 25 February 2017 14: 08
      +2
      The first modifications of the T-72/80 have exhausted their resources, the replacement of most of the components and assemblies is required, which is comparable to the release of the tank from scratch. Only mid-late 80s production cars are worth upgrading.
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 25 February 2017 15: 58
        0
        true, it remains to find out what% of such tanks ...
  19. commbatant
    commbatant 25 February 2017 13: 52
    +2
    Quote: megavolt823
    I don’t know how “BZ”, and I really like BT-7 so far
    in 40, it’s exactly BT7 and other light and fast. led to deafening losses. experienced tankers died. and managing recruits recruited recruits. here it is nonsense in its purest form. the lungs showed themselves well in the fight against the Japanese. it was difficult for the Japanese to make and transport heavier tanks. that's all . but Finnish has already shown that this technique is not needed. the story is repeated twice: the first time in the form of tragedy, the second in the form of farce. hi



    Well then, you should be against the BMD, with its narrow tracks you can fight only in Western Europe, and on the rugged and mountainous terrain in Chechnya and Afghanistan the caterpillars fly off (in Afghanistan all parts of the airborne forces quickly moved to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles) ...
    BT had its own concept of use and just in Western Europe, the first heavy tanks appeared at Vekrmacht in the 42nd, before that they were ONLY in the USSR
    The Soviet command was never going to use BT as the main striking force ....
    Regarding the recruits, the general military duty in the USSR appeared only in the 39th ....
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 February 2017 14: 15
      0
      This is why BMD caterpillars fly over rough and mountainous terrain.
  20. Berkut24
    Berkut24 25 February 2017 14: 34
    0
    If you carefully read what the Commander of the ground forces says, translating from bureaucratic into spoken Russian, it turns out that T-14 deliveries to the army are not expected. And all the new that will come into service, in fact, will be a familiar old one, which is painfully shamanized?
    1. Intensive
      Intensive 25 February 2017 14: 41
      0
      Quote: Berkut24
      supplies of T-14 to the army is not expected. And everything new that will come into service will in fact be a familiar old painted

      And this is good. On T14 you need to go in small batches. According to the test results, to produce fine-tuning of the product, and for one to train personnel and technical base in the troops.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 25 February 2017 14: 57
        0
        So we are talking about the year 2020! This year, military trials were about to be completed. Sense to invest in upgrading the old, if you were going to change to a new one? It turns out that the T-14 was ahead of the time and now the Moscow Region will wait for about 30 years.
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 03
          0
          The T-14 never prepared for the fact that it will replace all other tanks in service, it will go in addition to them, the uncle said on the “zombie box” that they would be equipped with the 1st Guards. TA.
          It’s not for you to re-equip 1500 “Chifton” for 800 “Challenger” SV, the economy will collapse ...
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 25 February 2017 17: 03
            0
            The T-14 costs about $ 5. Modernization of the T-000 to a modern level of up to $ 000. One of our fighter-bomber aircraft is about $ 72. PAK-FA T-2 is about $ 000. And from what of all the above should the economy collapse?
            Despite the fact that previously it was planned to reduce the tank fleet to modern 2500 units, which now consists of 5000 different T-72 clones.
            1. commbatant
              commbatant 25 February 2017 17: 36
              0
              I agree about the T-72 clones, so we need to decide how many tanks we need and which ones:
              T-90 should remain for any (the most advanced clones)
              T-14, T-90 and T-80 (late modifications) to the European part of the country and Southeast Military District
              the rest of the T-72 to secondary directions
              1. Berkut24
                Berkut24 25 February 2017 19: 47
                0
                Damn, the whole idea of ​​the concept of light and heavy platforms was to unify the fleet of existing equipment, reduce the number of personnel and introduce new, more advanced tactics.
                1. commbatant
                  commbatant 25 February 2017 20: 32
                  0
                  senior comrades in the “zombie box” say that defense spending should be commensurate with economic opportunities, you don’t read the periodicals and you don’t feel the whole current political moment, what year have you been in the party?
                  1. Berkut24
                    Berkut24 25 February 2017 22: 02
                    0
                    I have been in the party since 1987, and not everyone was accepted into the party then. The truth came out of it in January 1991. Then I talked the day with the Specialists. Not convinced. And in August they themselves left this party. But this is lyrics.
                    About the economy. In the cost of a unit of equipment, from 30 to 70% are research, the technical task, the development of new materials, the construction of new production lines for the manufacture of these materials and testing. What is the point of investing in development if the model itself, being in demand by the troops, does not go into series, but instead continues to drive yesterday, which stands as a new model in the series?
                    MO has already ordered 100 pieces of T-14 for military tests. And they are already doing it. How then to serve this small batch? And what will happen now - a super tank, an advanced word, an ideal battlefield machine, the tests were successful and ... thank you all, project to the far shelf, we will improve the 1968 chariot. Serdyukov appears in my mind, who now continues to circle around the Ministry of Defense with a dark shadow, occupying one or the other key positions in defense sector corporations.
                    By the way, the MO refused to purchase new T-90s. And there are 800 of them.
  21. levfuks
    levfuks 25 February 2017 14: 45
    +1
    Quote: MUD
    In my opinion, the general is somewhat disingenuous.
    If he said that in 2020 in tank units there would be 70% of their total number of Armata tanks, then I would agree with him.

    They are cunning. And not only generals.
    It is clear that it is necessary to modernize and optimize - the budget is not rubber. But still I want a truly advanced modern technology. And Armata in any significant quantities does not appear to appear soon.
    And cut - it's like two fingers. It’s either Svirblyukov, or Govnyukov (I forgot) I didn’t pamper at all. And nothing like that.
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 25 February 2017 16: 05
      +1
      he reduced frank scrap metal, or did you want to upgrade the T-54/55, -62, -64?
      I would still get rid of (sold for scrap or sent to the CAP) from the first modifications of the t-72 ..
      1. levfuks
        levfuks 25 February 2017 16: 34
        0
        I mentioned that enth leader in the context of the reduction and reform of the Armed Forces as a whole.
        And the trash, of course, to sell or to the point ...
        1. commbatant
          commbatant 25 February 2017 17: 05
          0
          from open sources like the United States and the M60, but the British “Chifton” didn’t even have any storage (rivals T-72), but as it’s not known, they would have had to drink too much mass or put into scrap metal, I think we’ve approached to the point of disposal (it looks like famously in the former USSR, rusty tanks are being restored), even if the T-72s are already in a snowdrift, better than if they don’t exist ...
  22. Ktor
    Ktor 25 February 2017 17: 10
    +6
    Good news. The fact that there are a lot of T-72B3 tanks is normal. Many formations are formed where tanks are required. If the most elite divisions (Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya) are kept by double-regiment staff, then the new divisions are still worse. But the technique when deploying the third regiments should be.
    Armata. There were problems in it (one similar to the one suffered by the KV-1). The issue is probably resolved. After the first batch under the contract, they will go into a series, of course not for 100% equipment of the connections. Everything will be fine)))))
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 25 February 2017 17: 57
      0
      Good news. The fact that there are a lot of T-72B3 tanks is normal. Many formations are formed where tanks are required. If the most elite divisions (Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya) are kept by double-regiment staff, then the new divisions are still worse. But the technique when deploying the third regiments should be.


      I think your normal tanks in the European part of the Russian Federation have nothing to do, well, maybe in the Kaliningrad special defensive r-will not be useful (in case of war they will burn anyway), according to the idea of ​​T-14 and should replace the early modifications of T-72 and -80
  23. commbatant
    commbatant 25 February 2017 17: 27
    +2
    But the affairs of the PLA comrades are even worse than ours, 90% of the tank fleet is the same that we have already disposed of, and the rest is the same “modern” as ours
    http://allpravda.info/bronirovannyy-kitay-tankovy
    e-armady-podnebesnoy-16144.html
    7600 tanks. Including obsolete Type-59 (in the amount of 2200 pieces), Type-59II (550), Type-59D (650), Type 79 (300), Type-88 (500); and modern Type-96 (1000), Type-96A (1000), Type-98A (40) [source not specified 80 days], Type-99 (500), Type-99A (100).
    Light tanks: 350 Type-05 (vn-16), 350 Type-62, 50 Type-63A.
    Wheel tanks: 200 ZTL-09 (Type-09), armed with a 105 mm gun.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%
    D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%
    D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D
    0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_%
    D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F#.D0.A1.D1.83.D1.85.
    D0.BE.D0.BF.D1.83.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.B2.
    D0.BE.D0.B9.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B0
    - for lovers of Chinese scientists
  24. Evil 55
    Evil 55 26 February 2017 09: 11
    0
    Freshly legend, but 27 years of Russian statehood taught us completely different numbers ..
  25. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 26 February 2017 09: 40
    0
    Here is an interesting article, though from Kaklyak resources ... "Debunking the myth of the rearmament of the RF Armed Forces":
    https://inforesist.org/razvenchanie-mifa-o-perevo
    oruzhenii-vs-rf /
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 26 February 2017 12: 59
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Here is an interesting article albeit from Kaklyak resources ..."Debunking the myth of the rearmament of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation":
      https://inforesist.org/razvenchanie-mifa-o-perevo
      oruzhenii-vs-rf /


      And what difference does it make of which resources, the Ukrainians graduated from the same military schools as the Muscovites and Bulbashs, respectively, and the same comments on the idea should be the same (except for those written with particular causticity)
      From the context of the article you specified (the link you removed is incorrect):
      Tanks
      We will not remember about the failed project of Almaty. What remains? All the same T-72 and its modifications. 2300 new tanks - this is what they were going to arm the ground forces in 10 years. This is what is called to become the steel fist of any offensive operation. As in the case of PAK FA, instead of the failed novelty of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it was again necessary to purchase an outdated car. Well, since the pace of production and modernization of tanks already in service is poor, it was decided to return other models from conservation. In any case, the basis of the tank fleet by 2020 will be the same T-72s (and its clones), leading their history from the 1967 project and armed with the same cannon from the project of the late 60s. By the way, the latest T-90s are armed with the same weapon.


      https://inforesist.org/razvenchanie-mifa-o-perevo
      oruzhenii-vs-rf /

      There, as well as in VO, a forum participant with foam at the mouth is proved that the Russian Federation will not be able to replace its entire tank fleet T-14 (where is the information that there should be 2300 tanks in the troops?) And that the Russian Federation is doomed to build T-72 clones .

      The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will not be able to solve the defense issues of the territory of their country and their allies 2300 T-14 (this is not realistic), respectively, logically arguing in service with the SV, Airborne Forces, MP, Rosguard will be simultaneously T-14 and so-called clones of T-72.

      TD / TBR will be of two types - armed a) T-14 and equipment created on its basis and b) armed with T-72 clones and equipment created on its basis (why then, equipment based on T-90 is created: TOS, self-propelled guns, bridge layers etc.), in any case, this is logical.

      I don’t understand why the Ukrainians are “crushing the pog", because of the entire tank fleet that they have, the T-72 is the most combat-ready (T-80 with its gas turbine engine is very expensive to maintain, so it was exported, the T-64 is a capricious car “You can’t put anyone behind her, that's why they are on the storage bases in Ukraine, it is precisely because of this that this tank was never exported, even after the appearance of the T-72 and T-80).
      The creation of different types of tank formations and units is not our invention, for example, the Germans did in WWII, first equipping individual tank boots with new tanks (for example, the Royal Tiger heavy tanks), and then divisions (Tiger or Panther tanks) more often these were units of the SS.