How Russian tanks T-90 "Abrams" М1А1 / А2 won

217
Somehow, completely unnoticed by the average person, there was information about the "victory" in Iraq of Russian tanks T-90S over American M1A1 / A2 Abrams. No, hostilities between the US and Russia, the glory of diplomacy, have not begun. And the very name of the Russian car implies that this is an export option after all. So, it does not belong to the Russian army. Yes, the Russians “fought”, but not the tankers, but the tank builders of the Uralvagonzavod and specialists from Rosoboronexport.

How Russian T-90S Abrams M1A1 / A2 tanks won




Vladimir Kozhin, an assistant to the president of the Russian Federation for military-technical cooperation, in an interview with Izvestia reported on the conclusion of a contract between Russia and Iraq for the supply of tanks to the Iraqi army. It is clear that the concept of state secrets has not been canceled, but it was previously reported that Uralvagonzavod would supply the 73 tank to Iraq this year. Tanks of two modifications - T-90C and T-90SK (commander version). Kozhin responded evasively. "A decent contract for a large lot, I cannot name the specific amount, the number of [tanks] is large."

Further, Izvestia cites the words of the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov: "In this case, we can talk about the delivery of several hundred cars, and the contract amount may exceed $ 1 billion. This order is a great help for Uralvagonzavod." The contract is a serious foreign policy success of Russia. After all, the Americans fought in Iraq, and the choice of the Iraqi military eventually fell on the Russian tank. "

So, the country whose armed forces are waging a real war, chose not the raging American tank, but the Russian T-90. Why? Is this a victory for our technology? Foreign game? The economic aspect? Good job specialists Rosoboronexport? Why did the "great" Abrams not attract the attention of Iraqis? "Top of tank building" lost the old Soviet T-72, modified in "backward Russia"?

Indeed, if you look history the appearance of the T-90, it is clear that this tank is a direct continuation of the traditions of the Soviet tank construction. It is the Soviet! So, it can fight and be intensively exploited in the most severe conditions. The T-90 was created in the 90s of the last century and is indeed a deeply modernized version of one of the best tanks of the last century, the T-72.

Americans, and indeed Western military experts, often doubt the "modernity" of a Russian tank. Some speak directly about the "decline of the Soviet school of tank design." In one edition, I once read that Russians, except for T-34, did not create anything interesting.

I will not compare all the characteristics of "tops of tank building" and "outdated Russian." This is quite a tedious task and is interesting, for the most part, for specialists. But even comparing is difficult to do.

What is so attractive about the Russian tank Iraqis? I'll start with weapons. With an updated version of the 125-mm smooth-bore gun 2A46М4. High accuracy gun, with built-in alignment system and quick-release barrel. It is stabilized in two planes and charges automatically. That in terms of battle is a huge plus. The machine gives the rate of fire in 7-8 shots per minute! And this is for most foreign tanks a dream. I think ammunition should be mentioned.

Ammunition includes artillery shots of increased power: sub-caliber, high-explosive fragmentation, cumulative. The capabilities of the tank gun to combat ground and low-flying air targets are enhanced by using a guided weapons complex: a laser-guided cumulative rocket is fed into the barrel by the automatic loader and fired from the barrel of the gun.

Many readers have seen footage posted by fighters in Syria of successful hits on various tanks in Syria and Iraq. I am sure that they did not ignore the shots of the use of American anti-tank missiles according to T-90. Those, when after the traditional "Allahakbar" went "oooh, Shaitan Arba" ... There was a hit. The crew experienced several unpleasant moments. And then? Tank under its own power left the position. Why?

The fact is that in modern T-90, if we compare them with the first versions of T-72, the reservation has increased by 3 (!) Times. Armor has become special, "semi-active." And if you look closely, then the "active". Due to the built-in armor dynamic protection. So far, as experts say, it is in the T-90 (of the tanks that are in service) that the proportions of weight restrictions and the level of reservation are perfectly observed. This is really important for a breakthrough tank! Mobility...

But we can not say that the tank is fully protected. Alas, but in the Soviet cars and their descendants, the problem of booking the driver’s viewing device and weapons installation sites was not solved. There is no active armor. But there are other remedies. "Blind-1" and others.

Abrams should be mentioned here. And how is he? After all, this "miracle of tank building" is clearly not one of the breakthrough tanks. It was created exactly as anti-tank weapons. The English Channel to protect from the "Soviet tank armadas." Therefore, the booking is serious. And weight ... not for tank attacks.

Many probably noticed the similarity of these machines with those that our great-grandfathers burned in the fields of the Great Patriotic. Yes, Abrams did in many ways absorb the German school of tank building, the German approach. But back to booking. Abrams are booked on the "English" scheme. Thick armor plates outside and inside. And between them are metallic and non-metallic materials. They destroy the cumulative jet. "Forehead" is armored thoroughly. However, there is a small nuance that makes such a reservation “passable” for a competent artilleryman. Even with small caliber guns. Inadmissibly large gaps between the armor of the tower and the hull. good hit and ...

It seems to me that during this war, Iraq saw the advantages and disadvantages of the machines. I can not say that Russian tanks are "head on" above American ones. Likewise, and vice versa, American is better than Russian. They are comparable. But in a particular battle, they can have or lose their advantages.

But here in the first place came other factors. And economic and political. Russian tank is cheaper. Not by much, but still. And with large volumes of purchases the amount becomes impressive. And this, you see, is a rather serious incentive for choosing a product.

Further, the Americans are already launching another sanctions campaign for Iraq. And this threatens to disrupt the supply of not only the tanks themselves, but also spare parts. Abrams can turn into trash simply because of breakdowns and inability to maintain.

And finally, the nature of the hostilities that Iraq is leading today shows the need to have breakthrough tanks. Tanks capable of rapid movement. Tanks that would combine firepower and maneuver. Tanks capable of independently performing combat missions without a huge "army" of support units.

The contract, even in already known figures, is impressive. Uralvagonzavod will be fully loaded and will be able to modernize production capacity at the expense of its profits. However, according to some media, we are talking about hundreds of cars! And the cost of the contract is estimated by experts in the 1 $ billion region.

No matter how Western "friends" would bury our defense industry, no matter how "liberals and democrats about raw materials economy and the need to direct funds to the development of the social sphere" roared "on TV screens, there is a breakthrough in the production of competitive products. Including in the field of military production. But MAKS was not over yet ... We will learn a lot about new orders there too.

It seems to me that the world is gradually, not as fast as we would like, beginning to understand the difference between "is" and "will", between "opposed" and "able to confront", between reality and virtuality ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

217 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +51
    20 July 2017 15: 07
    Not by Iran, but by Iraq. Secondly, the T-90 is half the price. Thirdly, a really very good tank. Why not buy a few dozen to Iraq?
    1. +19
      20 July 2017 15: 31
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      Why not buy a few dozen to Iraq?

      Yes, let them buy. And we are happy, because the capacities of UVZ in N. Tagil are already clearly not enough to fulfill internal and external applications, meaning that the real, and not the nominal, revival of other tank production will begin, of course, first of all in Omsk ...
      1. +4
        22 July 2017 14: 56
        Quote: svp67
        first of all in Omsk ...
        Reply Quote

        'It depends on what product range!
        A tank conveyor, this is not the 130th final assembly workshop.
        these are 750 (towers) 760 (cases) real conveyors,
        With all due respect to Omsk, they did not even stand next to UVZ.
        BY LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY, somewhere near the abrams.
        At the UVZ in Soviet times, this was laid down (up to 1000 cars per year).
        And just where is the handsome UVZ AND WHERE OMSK WITH LOOSE ROOFS!
    2. +28
      20 July 2017 16: 44
      Indeed, the author constantly confuses Iran with Iraq. The article is sensible for her plus.
      Those who sit at the helm of helicopters and tanks during the hostilities understand the difference between Russian and American equipment in terms of reliability and reliability ... Yes, and the price matters .. Repairability in the end. Therefore, the choice fell first on the Mi-35 and Mi 28, and now the T-90 of the latest modifications. Do not forget that the Iraqis are also well acquainted with Soviet technology - under Saddam it made up the vast majority of their tank fleet. T-90 is a smart choice. I think the supply will continue in the future.
      1. +10
        20 July 2017 17: 37
        Quote: seti
        Iraqis are well acquainted with Soviet technology

        Here are just the fighters from them in most cases, were useless.
        1. AUL
          +15
          20 July 2017 17: 57
          One is alarming. And how will Iraq pay with us for tanks? As usual - then, then ...? And then the debt is "restructured". Or in the morning money - in the evening tanks?
          1. +9
            20 July 2017 19: 07
            Iraq just has money — one of the most powerful oil-producing countries!
            1. +6
              20 July 2017 21: 05
              And there are not the invaders, for an hour, they pump this oil and put profit in their mattress pocket? It was not said that Iraq was making an independent decision on the purchase of equipment. When it finally became clear that it was not about Iran, it was absurd on their part to buy Abrash from the enemy, who would have to give up today or tomorrow.
              A machine gun and the ability to launch ATGMs from the barrel along LL, plus excellent mobility, an all-overwhelming advantage. Abrashi-coffins, which have never really been plucked in a serious tank battle and without complete dominance in the air. Until a niger, a shell will drag our three into it zadad.A modern 125mm chob-ham even sews on the forehead. They have no chance against the Russian steel avalanche.
              1. +10
                20 July 2017 22: 31
                How many fights did the T-90 have and what are the results? Unlike the T-90, Abrams fought against tanks
                1. +15
                  21 July 2017 06: 57
                  Not tanks fight against tanks, but tank divisions against tank divisions. And here the question of supremacy in the air, suppression of air defense and communications centers, command posts of the country with cruise missiles, space and air reconnaissance, etc. comes first.
                2. +11
                  21 July 2017 08: 48
                  And what are the results of the "abrams"? There is no need to fight a great skill against the chieftains and T-55 from Iraqi fortified areas.
                  1. +3
                    21 July 2017 19: 26
                    And against the Iraqi T-72 is also not necessary?
                    1. 0
                      26 July 2017 00: 45
                      Tanks do not fight tanks, and T-90 perfectly fulfills its task in Syria
                      1. 0
                        13 March 2018 21: 55
                        C-T-72 helicopters fought there, or divisions were bought through generals.
                        Abrams received from them in the first war.
          2. +1
            21 July 2017 21: 30
            Amerikosy print money sent to Iraq Iraq and pay off Russia.
          3. 0
            3 January 2018 11: 31
            and forgive ....
        2. +1
          20 July 2017 18: 02
          Quote: Orionvit
          Here are just the fighters from them in most cases, were useless.

          They were defeated by higher technology!
          1. +17
            20 July 2017 18: 05
            They were defeated, by and large, in dollars, but can this be called a victory? It's no secret that the states of the war do not win, they buy them. On the other hand, to achieve their goals, it is not necessary to win wars, and the states, you must agree, are able to achieve their goals. Do not wash, so skate.
            1. +7
              20 July 2017 21: 12
              If the traitor had not sat on the Russian throne, the Mattresses would not have slipped into Iraq. And Hussein would not have climbed into Kuwait without the approval of the real Russian Emperor (Secretary General). Alas. This all began. Now we disentangle.
              1. +4
                21 July 2017 05: 24
                Quote: Essex62
                If a traitor had not sat on the Russian throne, Mattresses in Iraq would not have even slipped.

                More careful. Yes, in Iraq we did not jerk ... In exchange for Hodor)). And, as life has shown, if not for these actions, then we would now be partisan to the utmost under the supervision of NATO on our territory.
                1. +9
                  21 July 2017 09: 58
                  Be quiet here. If yes, then mushrooms would grow in his mouth.
                  By the fact of our presence in the SAR now, you still don’t lay out the groats at the cliffs in the forest, do you not sharpen the forks?
                  To the full growth of partisans from NATO on our territory ............ there’s a direct new horizon of consciousness from all props.
        3. +3
          21 July 2017 16: 40
          And to us what is from this. The higher they have the expense of crews / tanks and other military equipment (as it is not cynical), the more orders we have to repair and purchase our equipment in the future .. Purchasing is one thing and there is such an expensive pleasure as support and maintenance.
        4. 0
          25 July 2017 09: 31
          this is their problem
        5. 0
          25 July 2017 09: 33
          this is their problem
      2. +1
        20 July 2017 19: 35
        Quote: seti
        Indeed, the author constantly confuses Iran with Iraq.

        I think Iran would love to buy them, but the export of offensive weapons is prohibited there until 2020-21.
        1. +4
          20 July 2017 20: 57
          Well, for the Russians - the budget-upgraded T-72B3.
          1. +1
            21 July 2017 13: 11
            Well, right. If you buy Armata in this way, and the 72nd modernized, not much inferior to the 90th.
      3. +1
        21 July 2017 06: 41
        In addition, the Iraqi army is one of the few who had the pleasure of directly comparing the Abrams with Soviet tanks in kind, since it has both of them in service. If on a successful hit they burn the same way, then why pay more?
        1. +2
          21 July 2017 12: 33
          I still grieve you they burn differently. When a tower is broken, Abrams "loses his head" (- the crew in full force) t-90 maximum 1 crew member. the abrasha’s ammunition compartment is located in the tower.
          and the t-90 in the hull is lower than the shoulder strap of the tower (it’s difficult to get there, except from the top)
          1. +2
            21 July 2017 19: 29
            Even a small fire inside the T-72 and T-90 tank leads to disastrous consequences. The crew is not protected from fire by anything and how on the T-72 it sits on a powder keg
            1. +5
              21 July 2017 21: 24
              And in Abrams, each crew member, apparently, is sitting in a fire capsule? Or do you think unitary shots don't detonate?
              1. +2
                22 July 2017 00: 29
                In this case, there are pit panels. It has been said more than once.
                1. +1
                  26 July 2017 00: 48
                  Which do not work - seen more than once
            2. +4
              22 July 2017 10: 43
              Mr. Ararat, I regret to conclude: - you do not know ANYTHING about the Soviet T-72 - GO!
              automatic fire extinguishing system is installed on ALL tanks since WWII.
              set fire to the tank from the inside is great to try, for example pour 20-30 liters of gasoline.

              and by the way, knock-out panels save from a fire, but not from an explosion.
      4. +1
        21 July 2017 16: 37
        Quote: seti
        The article is sensible for her plus.

        Just too verbose.
        The reasons why Iraq chose the T-90 instead of Abrams or other MBTs can be formulated on one page and, most importantly, without confusing Iraq with Iran. laughing
        So what are the reasons?
        1. The performance characteristics of the complex are significantly higher than Abrams in terms of fire, security, and operational capabilities (which they simply call undemanding). And all this is confirmed by the experience of combat use.
        2. Price.
        3. In Iraq, they do not like amers, although, due to circumstances, they are forced to cooperate with them.
      5. +1
        15 March 2018 21: 32
        Quote: seti
        The article is sensible for her plus.

        So, the country, the armed forces of which are waging a real war, did not choose a self-propelled American tank, but the Russian T-90. Why? Is this a victory for our technology?
        The reason is the conservation of production.
    3. +4
      20 July 2017 22: 27
      And how to spell Iran or Iraq? request
      1. +2
        21 July 2017 01: 11
        Honestly, I still didn’t understand who it was, who they sold the tanks to !? Aron writes for Iraq, and the author for Iranian sanctions.
        I would not be surprised if this is purchased by Iran - Abrams will not be sold to him anyway. And if Iraq, then I’m surprised. Because Abrams shoved them already. hi
    4. +1
      23 July 2017 08: 42
      There may also be a lack of capacity for the production of the Abrams ... Although they can be delivered from Egypt.
  2. +15
    20 July 2017 15: 43
    Well, here, and the money spent on Syria pays off. There is no arguing against such advertising. There, in my opinion, they want to build a 90-tank plant in Egypt. With Iraq, if I do not confuse, a contract was concluded. With India, they are planning to conclude a contract for the modernization of 1000 tons 90 (if the journalist does not lie, the figure is very round and large.) And these are only tanks. And drying from 30 to 35? etc. etc.
    1. +23
      20 July 2017 16: 06
      Well, it’s not in vain that the amersots around the world create zones of instability and then joyfully rubbing the sweaty, bloody little arms, consider the profit from military contracts ?! The United States also rose in two world wars precisely in arms trading. So all the cries of our liberals on the side, the more military contracts, the more weapons in the end our army will receive. And the dependence of countries buying our equipment on us will only increase.
      1. +1
        20 July 2017 19: 49
        Diana.

        1 billion dollars. Are these amounts to spend much more money to create destabilization?

        The goals there are different. These goals are not for income from the defense industry.
        1. +3
          21 July 2017 12: 37
          who is talking about 1 (one) billion? this is a contract for the supply of t-90. and the Yankees in these wars IN ALL THESE WARS! already raked more than 2 trillion!
      2. +1
        20 July 2017 22: 38
        And that Russia exclusively makes money selling weapons on the world?
        1. +4
          21 July 2017 13: 14
          And what kind of war did Russia unleash?
          1. +1
            21 July 2017 19: 31
            Fully funded the Arabs against Israel, supported the DPRK, attacked Afghanistan
            1. +3
              22 July 2017 02: 28
              Actually, there Israel itself climbed on the Arabs, and as far as I remember absolutely in all such conflicts. Yes, they supported the DPRK, but after all you officially fought there, and by the way the Americans unleashed this war, and the war unleashed in Afghanistan not without your participation . So it turns out in the entire history of the Russian state that the war in Afghanistan is the only conflict for which the Russians can be partially responsible.
              1. +2
                22 July 2017 10: 50
                can not! The USSR did not fight with Afghanistan! zadolbal already drive this lie! am
                According to the mutual assistance agreement, back in 1929, the USSR supported a legitimate government and, AT THE REQUEST of that government, sent troops to ensure the security of key facilities in the country. Well, few gangs of American mercenaries crushed.
                1. 0
                  22 July 2017 11: 13
                  And I did not write that the USSR fought with Afghanistan, I wrote in Afghanistan, it has a completely different meaning.
                  1. +1
                    22 July 2017 12: 43
                    and what responsibility does the USSR bear for your rebellion in Afghanistan ???
                    what is our fault? that they didn’t shoot and catch CIA agents?
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2017 06: 34
                      For no rebellion, for the killing of hundreds of thousands, the destruction of all infrastructure and the transformation of the gts state of Afghanistan into a failed state.
                      1. +4
                        24 July 2017 15: 42
                        And schools of roads and a hospital, probably you built them with genetically modified ones. Good to carry nonsense.
                    2. +4
                      24 July 2017 15: 45
                      The same responsibility as the Americans for the coup in Ukraine. And about the CIA agents you are the point, if you could immediately utilize them all and look in Afghanistan, and indeed in the entire Middle East, it would be quiet now.
                2. 0
                  24 July 2017 06: 32
                  Did you get 22 million square kilometers in a purely peaceful way? Fifteen republics rushed into your arms, the Persians, Turks and Poles just for their beautiful smile and generous soul gave their land.
                  1. +5
                    24 July 2017 10: 28
                    The Turks still have little left, it’s easy to climb foreign lands then it won’t kill its own.
                    Poles owe Russia their very existence as a people and a country.
                    and Persia, with what hangover came here?
                    and indigenous peoples still live on the territory of Russia - the Tatras, Bashkirs, Udmurts, and so on.
                    Can you tell me where 20 million Indians in the United States got to?
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2017 21: 15
                      What side did Russia find itself in Transcaucasia and Anatolia, also from the invitation of a legitimate government?
                      1. +5
                        25 July 2017 15: 02
                        Historically, browser, historically. So, with what a fright did the Europeans cling to the American continents, kill there many miles of local Aborigines? Why didn’t you sit at home? Fumble Russia stop, this is for you, amigo, not Indians Honduras.
                    2. 0
                      3 January 2018 17: 13
                      Tatra-prkolno))) but Ararat is not right, and in my opinion you enter into polemics in vain. Is there a cat? she will understand faster
                  2. 0
                    24 July 2017 15: 31
                    What is enviable? Do not envy! No one just got it.
                3. +1
                  24 July 2017 06: 37
                  The US supported the legitimate state of South Vietnam and Korea
                  1. +1
                    25 July 2017 15: 05
                    Where is your house, amigo? Where is Vietnam? You couldn’t even write your own anthem in Amerzia, we have styzed music. So don't be Honduras, amigo.
            2. +3
              22 July 2017 10: 53
              and your star-striped friends over the past 50 years have unleashed 196 wars and conflicts, Russia against the background of just pacifists
              1. +3
                22 July 2017 11: 15
                I would not say a pacifist, but a peacemaker, because without Russia most of these conflicts would continue to this day.
        2. +4
          21 July 2017 13: 36
          Yes. Anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) S-300 and EW - this is exactly the guarantor of the world, US aviation no longer flies there, and axes fall.
        3. +1
          21 July 2017 16: 26
          We still have to chase and chase after you (so it’s not for you to blame us for selling weapons!
    2. +4
      20 July 2017 16: 19
      Where do they pay off? 70 tanks is a drop in the bucket compared to costs and with the free supply of weapons to Syria as well.
      1. +17
        20 July 2017 16: 56
        Well, if you mention without juggling that the decommissioned T62 is delivered. which occupy a place in warehouses and which must be disposed of, since ours cannot be assembled to exploit, and these unused tanks accumulated like non-reared dogs.
        1. +2
          20 July 2017 16: 57
          And the T-90, T-72B3 and so on out of nowhere appears in your opinion?
          1. +14
            20 July 2017 17: 35
            Quote: Walanin
            And the T-90, T-72B3 and so on out of nowhere appears in your opinion?

            And this is a field test ... It is necessary to fight on a foreign territory .. We adopt the world experience, so to speak ..
            1. +2
              20 July 2017 17: 36
              Tests are conducted by testers. This is not a test. This is specifically a weapon handed over to Assad. It is not used by the Russian military.
              1. +16
                20 July 2017 18: 10
                Quote: Walanin
                Tests are conducted by testers. This is not a test.

                These are the most tests. They are called military. Spend their army team. Because it is in Syria, then, accordingly, mainly by the forces of the Syrians. Amounts of T-90 and T-72B-3 are very limited.
              2. +2
                21 July 2017 12: 50
                as Ilyushin S.V. said "the best training ground is the front!"
                at the sites of the American bombers are the most-super duper and in reality?
          2. +6
            20 July 2017 17: 38
            And they appear in the quantities that are necessary for testing and running in samples of military equipment in real combat conditions, which will then pay off with the toric. In general, what a habit to count everything for money, sovereignty and independence can only be measured by monetarists, who, unfortunately, still have a lot to manage our economy.
            1. +1
              20 July 2017 22: 38
              With thorium in general, everything will pay off. And did Russia bring so much sovereignty from Syria?
              1. +1
                21 July 2017 01: 26
                Quote: Walanin
                And did Russia bring so much sovereignty from Syria?

                If you ask smart questions, then count. But don’t dump it on money. And then you will move to the line of our "smart, professional" government. Some lawyers, historians, economists, sociologists and other guardians of Russia ... The richest country in the world with resources, but we live at the level of ... managers in power. They all know and babble from the screens - no money, but you hold on. It’s true that they don’t speak for anything. Probably Vinokuru in the bath, so as not to fall ...
                1. 0
                  21 July 2017 04: 28
                  What, everything is so bad? crying
          3. 0
            20 July 2017 17: 39
            In what quantities? If for testing in combat conditions, then they arise.
          4. +1
            21 July 2017 21: 30
            Why out of nowhere? From the reserves of the Moscow Region. Who will refuse to conduct military tests in real combat conditions? All the same, they would have to be carried out and the costs would be no less. And so - "pleasant" with useful
          5. 0
            23 July 2017 08: 43
            In what quantities? T-90 - 12pcs ...?
      2. +20
        20 July 2017 18: 00
        Quote: Walanin
        Where do they pay off?

        Correctly! Nothing pays off anywhere! There is no economy! We will all die soon !! A - a - A - a - A - a - A !!!! Now, if Belykh amnesty with Navalny, entrusted with Kirovles to make tanks, then there will certainly be a payback and prosperity will come! And in McCain’s head, everything will work out to the joy of the whole world you have tiled! Trump will surpass Macron and will marry our non-pacifying human rights defender, who was awarded presidential attention.
        1. 0
          21 July 2017 12: 40
          Shoby Trump exchanged his miss (something there) for this dried roach ?!
          this is not science fiction! wassat
          1. 0
            21 July 2017 13: 21
            Quote: marder7
            Shoby Trump changed his miss

            Will be for you 75, views may change. Her miss could already get the requirements of a relatively young (and unsatisfied?) Woman. And here is such an intellect - yesterday they brought out of the box that it fascinates the intellect of men for one, two or three. And her age allows us to hope for less exactingness. For 2,25 hours of conversation with Putin, he could complain about a difficult life. Everyone wants something. And here Malanya went across the protocol. Well, he said about her. And GDP also offered a way out. Like, quit work with Malanya this completely. Move to us, you will be the main human rights activist, as soon as you are widowed ...
        2. 0
          24 July 2017 15: 33
          Alekseevich: pass on to Mr. Trump, - "He is not my type." :)
      3. +4
        20 July 2017 18: 58
        Quote: Walanin
        70 tanks is a drop in the bucket compared to costs and with the free supply of weapons to Syria as well.

        Syria transferred us more than half a million dollars in advance for the planned deliveries of the MiG-29 and S-300. Then they were replayed for the purchase of weapons and ammunition to combat the barmaley. So no matter what, the Syrians will pay for deliveries.
  3. +6
    20 July 2017 16: 06
    Iran, Iraq, what's the difference !? :) They are nearby! :)
    1. +1
      20 July 2017 16: 16
      Well, yes) And Abrams is not suitable for tank attacks, but in Iraq he did not advance, but only defended ...))
      1. +1
        20 July 2017 16: 25
        In fact, the author has built a whole theory about the sanctions to Iran. And Iraq appears! Yes, an attentive author ... And he modestly kept silent about the main drawback of the T-90 - the ammunition load in the inhabited volume.
        1. +1
          20 July 2017 17: 04
          Quote: iConst
          And Iraq appears!

          the funny thing is that Iraq buys weapons with American money. And the Americans will not spend money and buy vassals expensive weapons.
          1. +3
            20 July 2017 17: 47
            Quote: Walanin
            Iraq buys weapons with American money. And the Americans will not spend money and buy vassals expensive weapons

            Keywords, this is "American money." States do not spend money, they print it. The problem they now have is that the whole world no longer has the necessary resources to provide their money.
            1. 0
              21 July 2017 21: 35
              There are resources. In Russia. But, well, these foolish Russians do not want to provide such a green, crunchy paper dollar. Horror!
              1. 0
                22 July 2017 02: 40
                Quote: Vlad.by
                But, well, these foolish Russians do not want to provide such a green, crunchy paper dollar

                They do not want to, but they provide, or rather, it is for the Russians that corrupt politicians and financiers do. As well as in the whole world.
          2. +2
            20 July 2017 18: 17
            Quote: Walanin
            the funny thing is that Iraq buys weapons with American money.

            Indeed, the ridiculous assumption that the Americans will pay for the purchase of weapons to Iraq. It’s normal to buy oil from Iraq at a price of $ 10 per barrel, this is what the Americans did. Well, it’s kind of a payment for the labors for the fact that the United States destroyed a prosperous country.
        2. +5
          20 July 2017 17: 05
          That Abrashka does not help much, that his bk is not in habitable volume)
          1. 0
            21 July 2017 19: 34
            No tank and crew yes
            1. 0
              21 July 2017 21: 37
              Have you seen much of the surviving crews of the Abrams when you met with Cornet or the Vampire?
              Here is the same!
              1. +1
                22 July 2017 00: 31
                And you saw a lot of corpses. All tanks lined by the Husites are empty. There are no videos showing the charred bodies of soldiers. If there is, then I will apologize to you
                1. 0
                  23 July 2017 08: 44
                  Maybe they were tanks - robots?
        3. +9
          20 July 2017 17: 12
          So the Ishilovites in Syria had these uninhabited volumes at the Turkish Abrams and, in my opinion, the leopards so opened that from the explosions of ammunition only towers flew through the air. And so ended the 10-year-old myth about the main flaw of the T 90 and the competitive advantages of Western tanks. It turns out explosive safety depended on the type of boisi. And the uninhabited compartment turned out to be much more vulnerable. than the inhabited compartment T 90, And what you think up, all T 90 rushed to buy. Recently, an article on this subject (in my opinion, at VO) was published.
          1. +1
            20 July 2017 17: 19
            Quote: Blondy
            uninhabited volumes in Turkish abrams

            Turkish Abrams?
            1. 0
              3 January 2018 17: 56
              Well, you understand what it is about. why cling to words, there is nothing to challenge, to argue?
          2. +4
            20 July 2017 17: 37
            Quote: Blondy
            So the Ishilovites in Syria, these uninhabited volumes at the Turkish Abrams and, in my opinion, the leopards so opened that from the explosions of ammunition only towers flew through the air

            The blonde is forgivable, but the M1A2 and levka modules are inhabited.
            1. +1
              21 July 2017 02: 58
              Of course it’s excusable, since it was the volumes in which the shells were stored, and for the Abrams they are in an uninhabited (hard to call compartment) insulated volume behind the tank turret.
          3. +1
            21 July 2017 17: 01
            And they say the Americans can send a conventional projectile at 3 km, accuracy is guaranteed, and our conventional shells shoot only 2 km.
            1. +2
              21 July 2017 18: 03
              And they say that chickens are milked in Moscow, but how many times I have been, I have never seen. During the “Desert Storm” abrashki often fired at Iraq’s tanks from 3 kilometers and sometimes really fell. They were just afraid to come closer, but how the T-72 would turn out - and goodbye to the land, good luck tower.
            2. +1
              21 July 2017 21: 41
              And they say that chickens are brought ...
              Why shoot at three kilometers with a projectile that would be useless at such a distance if you can shoot Reflex at 5 km or more? The main thing to detect the enemy at this distance.
        4. +4
          20 July 2017 17: 35
          Quote: iConst
          In fact, the author has built a whole theory about the sanctions to Iran. And Iraq appears! Yes, an attentive author ... And he modestly kept silent about the main drawback of the T-90 - the ammunition load in the inhabited volume.

          And at A1m2. Not at all negro charging for the occupant is not considered? When writing nonsense, consider yourself to be a fool, not others. I understand a lot of stupid "readers", look for them elsewhere. The machine gives the greatest protection even in a habitable combat module.
          1. 0
            21 July 2017 07: 08
            Quote: Armata
            And at A1m2. Not at all negro charging for the occupant is not considered? When writing nonsense, consider yourself to be a fool, not others. I understand a lot of stupid "readers", look for them elsewhere. The machine gives the greatest protection even in a habitable combat module.

            Do not smack nonsense - it hurts. Dumb here only you. You, as a shkolota, do not know anything but climb everywhere. Do not distinguish between the ammunition shell (the abrashka has an uninhabited armored compartment, ours seems to know everything) and the method of delivering shells, i.e. Moving from an ammunition shell to a gun barrel (they have a loader, we have a AZ) it must be a very alternative gifted person and also a girl who correctly wrote to insult him ...
            1. +1
              21 July 2017 14: 46
              Quote: JD1979
              Do not smack nonsense - it hurts. Dumb here only you. You, as a shkolota, do not know anything but climb everywhere. Do not distinguish between the ammunition shell (the abrashka has an uninhabited armored compartment, ours seems to know everything) and the method of delivering shells, i.e.

              Does the T90 have a habitable compartment? laughing
              Quote: JD1979
              (the abrashka has an uninhabited armored compartment, ours seems to be well known to everyone) and the method of delivering shells, i.e. Moving from the ammunition shell to the gun barrel (they have a loader, we have a AZ)

              Yeah, Negro from Abrashka we don’t take as an inhabitant negative
              Quote: JD1979
              it must be a very alternative gifted person also to the girl who correctly wrote to insult him ...

              Well, if I am distant, then you live in general on the other side of the galaxy. I did not want to offend the girl, but this site was originally conceived for people working in the defense industry. It was now funny to look at him. I feel sorry for Vadim Smirnov to turn candy into feces is difficult, but the inhabitants of the site have achieved this.
          2. +1
            21 July 2017 19: 37
            And how does the machine protect the crew?
            1. +1
              21 July 2017 20: 26
              Quote: Ararat
              And how does the machine protect the crew?

              Armata is a platform, a promising platform. Do not torture the brain defective, this is not a tank
              1. 0
                21 July 2017 21: 03
                Did I say something about Armata?

                The machine gives the greatest protection even in a habitable combat module.
                My question is about this stuffing.
        5. +2
          20 July 2017 17: 38
          Quote: iConst
          .. And modestly kept silent about the main drawback of the T-90 - the ammunition in the habitable volume.

          As practice has shown, after replacing the abrams of uranium scrap with OFS in the ammunition kit, they only began to burn out on the road, and I don’t care that the BC is not in the fighting compartment .. So this is a contrived problem and is present in all tanks except for the T-14 ...
          1. +2
            20 July 2017 22: 41
            The tank will burn out for sure, but the crew?
            1. 0
              21 July 2017 12: 45
              And the crew, too, especially when the turret detaches the turret by a bk. The barmalei posted videos of these with the Abrams.
              1. 0
                21 July 2017 15: 51
                I saw burning abrams, but there was no tower separation
                1. 0
                  21 July 2017 16: 35

                  Well, for example. In general, there are a lot of pictures of "headless" abrashek in Iraq.
                  1. +2
                    21 July 2017 19: 42
                    Next time, try harder !!! In this video there is no moment when the Ishilovites pour 2 cans of fuel into the BO and undermine it from the inside
                    1. 0
                      21 July 2017 20: 37
                      dear, have you ever seen how the cord is burning? the same cord from which artillery powder is made? very bright! and if trotyl or okfol is added to this bonfire, such a picture turns out.
                      1. +1
                        21 July 2017 21: 09
                        [media = https: //m.youtube.com/watch? v = y5xKCzdhAC8]

                        This is how the cord burns. The video cited by Bumper filmed the preparation of this tank for undermining. 2 gas cans were poured into it and blasted to hell.
            2. 0
              21 July 2017 12: 54
              and the crew in Valhalla. to places of eternal hunting.
            3. 0
              21 July 2017 13: 22
              And what can a tank burn out separately from the crew?
              1. +2
                21 July 2017 15: 50
                Yes! Abrams pit panels will protect the crew from an explosion of ammunition and fire. After ignition, the crew closes all exits and sits waiting for help if there was no chance to get out on time. In Iraq, there were more than a dozen such cases where the tank burned to the ground but the crew remained intact
                1. 0
                  21 July 2017 16: 34
                  When a crew detonates a bk for a maximum of two to three seconds of life, and then everything. Maybe I managed to escape after a fire in the engine compartment, I still believe it, but if the shell hit the bk, then I think everyone has a lid.
                2. +1
                  21 July 2017 16: 37
                  Yes, everything was smooth on paper. And how they began to load in the BFC OFS, so the knockout panels stopped helping :(
                  1. +1
                    21 July 2017 19: 25
                    Exhaust panels help in most cases. A shell hit in the BC does not mean a tank explosion in the trash. BC and designed for fire and not explosion. If you notice in the video from Iraq, Yemen, when an ATGM gets into the BC, a fire will occur and not an explosion. The temperature inside the tank rises very high, but the crew survives due to the absence of smoke and fire.
                    1. 0
                      22 July 2017 02: 36
                      Yes, yes, I once read a book about armored vehicles, edited by a Western office, and just went nuts from two photos. On one Abrash after getting a rocket from Cornet, and on the other T-55 after falling into it avia beans. So, the fact that it was Abrashka could be understood only by the remnants of the tracks, and our T-55, of course, also could not be repaired, but it’s at least visible what kind of tank it was. So now I’m thinking, maybe, judging from your statements, everyone survived in Abrams?
                    2. 0
                      22 July 2017 02: 47
                      here are some photos for you, maybe there were survivors?
                      1. 0
                        24 July 2017 06: 54
                        The fire comes from a respected nutra and all hatches are open. The crew could survive and could die could not find it. But he found that the tank was hit from a makeshift device with an impact core. Ignition occurred immediately and the tank was completely destroyed
                3. +3
                  21 July 2017 19: 30
                  Quote: Ararat
                  Yes! Abrams pit panels will protect the crew from an explosion of ammunition and fire. After ignition, the crew closes all exits and sits waiting for help if there was no chance to get out on time. In Iraq, there were more than a dozen such cases where the tank burned to the ground but the crew remained intact

                  Ararat, who are you driving around here? The crew, at best, was swept with a broom in a dustpan.
                  1. +2
                    21 July 2017 21: 11
                    Have you seen it yourself or your friend’s brother told you from a kindergarten whose acquaintance has heard from his uncle who swore by his mother?
                4. +2
                  21 July 2017 21: 49
                  And can a real, confirmed link to at least ADYN case of survival ??? !!!
                  Well, at least one crew member closed in a burning tank and burnt to the ground, waiting for outside help. Not blah, blah, blah, but purely specific?
            4. 0
              21 July 2017 19: 27
              Quote: Ararat
              The tank will burn out for sure, but the crew?

              In 0,01 seconds, the shell-shocked and wounded crew can leave the burning car?
              1. 0
                21 July 2017 21: 11
                The crew must sit and wait for help. Opening spoons after fire is prohibited
        6. +1
          20 July 2017 19: 22
          And one more thing, our tanks are good, but you can fight in them, but it serves as if you can even dance in Abrash, but you can sit ours like a sprat and God forbid you put aside the kickback and by the way why are you all so attached to the rate of fire 8 -minute per minute, and what a 40 BC so for 5 minutes of battle and that someone in a battle hits like a machine gun from a 125 mm barrel, in general, except for the lack of a Negro-charge in the crew, only the cost is of pluses, but it’s enough to be proud of saving on matches and what we have on the rupe is all the same, yes, but the tank lives in battle for 5 minutes, but the crew serves urgent 2 years and amenities like in the T-34, neither the toilet nor the air conditioning or the microwave stone age. I am abyna for us
          1. +3
            21 July 2017 01: 33
            Quote: WapentakeLokki
            neither toilet nor kondishki nor microwave stone age. you like me abydna for us

            Well, he spoke. Give the toilet in the tank. For 5 minutes of battle you will not have time to smell the child’s surprise. A microwave, before the fight is not supposed to eat, but in battle there is no time. Yes, and 100 g of frontline no. Do you know why at the front before the fight they didn’t fill their stomach, but drink 100 g? Here it is...
            1. 0
              21 July 2017 13: 25
              I fully support it. And in order to know about such subtleties you need to go to war, then very many statements by themselves disappear.
          2. 0
            21 July 2017 16: 35
            You can fight in our tanks and you need to, but if the Lord doesn’t bring you, the pen will "damage" the barrel, then you yourself are to blame, because before you get into the tank you have to study, rather than sleep in field exercises and shooting at classrooms. Normal trained tankers do not suffer from x ... during the battle, they themselves are protected from scratches, when it is possible to get large)
          3. +1
            21 July 2017 21: 56
            Rate of fire at 7 rounds per min. will make it possible to re-shoot at the undestroyed target after 8-10 seconds, and not after half a minute. Sometimes a couple of seconds in a dueling situation have a price in life.
            And to shoot from a tank gun like a machine gun is the lot of visionaries with Finnish nicknames.
        7. +1
          21 July 2017 06: 46
          All tanks, except for "Almaty", have ammunition (or at least part of the ammunition) in the habitable volume.
      2. +2
        20 July 2017 17: 43
        Quote: Velizariy
        Well, yes) And Abrams is not suitable for tank attacks, and in Iraq he did not advance, but only defended.

        It is not that he was advancing in Iraq or not. The fact is that there they did not meet a well-organized resistance and a worthy adversary. As practice (even the Soviet one) shows, if an Arab is put on the coolest military equipment, the result will be zero.
      3. +3
        20 July 2017 21: 22
        In Iraq, Abrash was fired on targets illuminated from the sky from a very long range. And it’s not the fact that all the sand got somewhere, up to now, is strewn with uranium cores. All the work was done by Warthogs. Well, Saadam’s fighters themselves fled somewhere, throwing battle worthy technics. Here's a training for such mattresses and arranged. And they shot how famously they burn Soviet armor.
    2. 0
      20 July 2017 16: 19
      Electorate jump and so it goes. Who cares
    3. 0
      20 July 2017 17: 05
      So big)) Americans suddenly sell their Abrams to Iran, which spread rot in the tail and mane ?! Nonsense!
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +3
    20 July 2017 16: 25
    surprised when in the end I saw who wrote ...
    so many mistakes .. strange.
  6. +5
    20 July 2017 16: 47
    Oh, come on "superiority." All "superiority" lies in the ability to take out a loan in Russia, which, then, may not be repaid ....
    1. +6
      20 July 2017 17: 43
      You remind a character from Grandfather Krylov’s fable - “oh well, this is his grape, it’s completely green.”
    2. +2
      20 July 2017 17: 46
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Oh, come on "superiority."

      And what are you surprised at: ak against m-ki and not who did not put Kalashnikov in quotation marks soldier
    3. +1
      20 July 2017 18: 26
      Pay with oil. Do not worry. Iran is solvent!) And its armaments are so outdated that we can get very rich at its expense. Not only tanks but also airplanes and much more!
      Orders for our defense industry. For its development. Meanwhile, also maintaining the balance of power in the region. Strengthening the position of our weapons in the world!
      1. +2
        20 July 2017 22: 05
        Venezuela will also pay oil? Do not see something.
        Quote: Volganin
        Iran

        Not Iran, but Iraq.
        1. 0
          21 July 2017 06: 20
          Iraq even yeah .. the author confused here for sure. But to Iran, God himself ordered us to buy weapons. And this is about to begin already. And DPL and MRK and tanks and planes.
    4. 0
      21 July 2017 19: 36
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Oh, come on "superiority." All "superiority" lies in the ability to take out a loan in Russia, which, then, may not be repaid ....

      It’s for sure, the USA has “shod” the whole world and is now ready to take off its cowards from the last beggars and put its body on organs. In this I agree with you.
  7. +2
    20 July 2017 17: 30
    Great article! In the near future, the basis of our tank attack forces should be both the T-90 and Armata, which they will probably build at a not very fast pace due to the crisis trends that have not yet been overcome in the economy. But at the same time, all T-72 and other tanks that are in storage and in operation must be modernized in every way. And it’s very hard to prepare for the instant deployment of not one, not two, but several tank armies in a critical situation.
    1. raf
      0
      20 July 2017 18: 54
      Great article!
      Yes, especially when you consider that the author confuses countries several times! laughing
  8. +1
    20 July 2017 18: 09
    well, probably the “contract of the century”, but the T-90 doesn’t need any additional advertising anymore, but with the proper training of crews, repair crews, MTO parts, including field ones, things will probably be more complicated ...
  9. 0
    20 July 2017 18: 13
    I don’t understand anything ... Iran, Iraq ... so who in the end is it? Well, judging because the sanctions (already thrills from this word and already 3 heart attacks from it) then Iran, ok, everything is fine. Then the choice towards T-90 is obvious, price / quality is better not to be found. Well, an indisputable plus is again that word from which I faint, under the conditions of this * word * about spare parts you can forget, and there is experience in using Soviet / Russian equipment, and therefore it will be easier to master. We are waiting for the rest from the region, but it will be
  10. 0
    20 July 2017 18: 23
    Everything is pretty simple here:
    1. It is many times cheaper and for the money it is very good!
    2. Russia is not going to conflict with Iran in the future. (stable service, upgrade possibility and parts for tanks). I think Iran is analyzing this and, despite previous disagreements, is making the right conclusion.
  11. +1
    20 July 2017 18: 44
    It’s ridiculous and stupid when the United States does not see Russia's achievements at high technology, in space, in aircraft manufacturing, in rocket science, in tank engineering, in the nuclear industry ...
    1. +2
      20 July 2017 21: 25
      Quote: Natalia777
      It is ridiculous and stupid when the United States does not see Russian achievements in high technology at close range ...
      This is not stupidity, but according to a number of principles it is Goebbels technology. It would be funny if it did not bring the expected results.
    2. +1
      21 July 2017 15: 54
      You apparently recently visited this site. Here spread rot everything that the USA and their technologies have produced. All drank dough and wunderfal
      1. 0
        21 July 2017 19: 51
        Quote: Ararat
        You apparently recently visited this site. Here spread rot everything that the USA and their technologies have produced. All drank dough and wunderfal

        Come on. US tankers themselves admitted that in the open field Abrams against the T90 has very little chance, the whole thing is in the 9K119M Reflex-M complex, which affects any MOBILE armored object moving at speeds of 30 km / h at ranges of up to 5 km with a probability of 0,8 A Abrams starts having problems with measuring range after 3 km and there is a very high probability of “burning down the rangefinder" and that’s all ... the target. Swam (studied) know;)
        1. 0
          21 July 2017 21: 16
          Did the tankers themselves admit this? Can their recognition be in the studio? Abrams had problems with measuring range 26 years ago in Iraq, but at the moment there are no restrictions. Speak in the open field? And how many clean fields with 5km will you find?
  12. 0
    20 July 2017 18: 57
    Was it finally air-conditioned?
    1. 0
      21 July 2017 06: 49
      And a very long time.
      1. 0
        21 July 2017 12: 59
        it's just that he is not designed for the Syrian heat.
        1. 0
          21 July 2017 22: 04
          It’s just that the Syrians were offered tanks cheaper and faster out of stock. And they didn’t set kondeas as unnecessary at -20.
          Although, the technology for installing kondey on the T90 has long been worked out. Indians do not complain.
  13. 0
    20 July 2017 19: 30
    Brothers Slavichea -uniformlymosayayaya ...... right. Tanks are good. Crush barmaley need-crush their little brothers Slavic need. Crush tanks. and from above from the sky, it is necessary to do the Barmalean stinkers paid for by the green-Kashchei bucks. like this. Hondurasmans' surrogates. under surrogates, another should be Honduras too. well, you understand I hope. I want to degenerate.
  14. +4
    20 July 2017 19: 57
    the author delete the article! As in the joke about the blonde, roofing felts in Iraq cannot be determined whether they sold in Iran. With this approach to business, only the yards to sweep. Read disgusting and the credibility of the site falls to Ukrainian (this is below the plinth, if that)
    .
    1. 0
      21 July 2017 09: 03
      Quote: ptsuka
      site authority

      Yes, okay)))))))))
  15. +2
    20 July 2017 21: 19
    In one paragraph - Iran, in the next - Iraq, then again Iran, it seems to the author it is one and the same country, skipped geography at school
  16. 0
    20 July 2017 21: 55
    Quote: Walanin
    Tests are conducted by testers. This is not a test. This is specifically a weapon handed over to Assad. It is not used by the Russian military.

    the best test for military equipment is war
  17. +1
    20 July 2017 23: 11
    the choice of the Iraqi military eventually fell on a Russian tank

    contract between Russia and Iran for the supply of tanks to the Iranian army

    maybe Ireland bought our tanks? But most likely it is Igiped. Do not go to a fortuneteller ...
    1. 0
      3 January 2018 19: 17
      okay, I haven’t written it like this: "a contract between Russia and Iran for the supply of tanks to the Iraqi army)))
  18. +1
    21 July 2017 00: 16
    Something in the text, like Bush Jr. is confusing Iraq with Iran.))
  19. 0
    21 July 2017 04: 53
    What about the T-90 contracts? India is modernizing, but are they buying Iraq, Egypt and Kuwait?
  20. 0
    21 July 2017 06: 18
    No matter how it later turned out to be with Hizbala or Assad with a ishil. Need to watch.
    1. +1
      21 July 2017 06: 51
      Isil “Abrams” got decent. You should have watched this.
      1. 0
        21 July 2017 06: 59
        This is very bad!
        1. 0
          21 July 2017 13: 02
          somewhat in the form of scrap metal. burnt. and without towers.
  21. +2
    21 July 2017 08: 02
    Let them buy, I agree to 100% for tanks, if only they could raise their economy to world level and pull their PEOPLE out of poverty (22 million citizens live below the poverty line according to official statistics, and not according to official ones 35), otherwise the government altogether lost my scent.
  22. +1
    21 July 2017 09: 22
    It is stabilized in two planes and is charged automatically. That in battle conditions is a huge plus. The machine gives a rate of fire of 7-8 rounds per minute! And this is a dream for most foreign tanks.

    Wow! And who knows what the T-90 has an average rate of fire with 40 shots?
    1. 0
      21 July 2017 13: 04
      depending on how you shoot. aiming -6-7 per minute .a would be where 9 per minute can give out. 8 seconds cooldown
  23. 0
    21 July 2017 11: 25
    the main (and most important) PRICE .. well and (apparently) the relative simplicity of the repair that and generally management
  24. 0
    21 July 2017 11: 33
    Quote: Ararat
    How many fights did the T-90 have and what are the results? Unlike the T-90, Abrams fought against tanks

    Especially in Iraq. The losses from the battle with the T-72 were such. that the mattresses got up and declared some parallel there border. The second time they stupidly bought Iraqi generals ...
    1. 0
      21 July 2017 19: 45
      What losses were from the T-72?
    2. 0
      21 July 2017 20: 18
      Quote: Dzafdet
      Quote: Ararat
      How many fights did the T-90 have and what are the results? Unlike the T-90, Abrams fought against tanks

      Especially in Iraq. The losses from the battle with the T-72 were such. that the mattresses got up and declared some parallel there border. The second time they stupidly bought Iraqi generals ...

      The losses of the Abrams in that war are still classified by the Americans.
      1. +1
        21 July 2017 21: 17
        Then how do you know and how can you say that the losses were and were large?
  25. +1
    21 July 2017 12: 03
    Quote: Orionvit
    Here are just the fighters from them in most cases, were useless.

    --------------------------------
    Not in most cases. Basra fought fiercely and courageously, and the Tavakalna tank division fought fiercely. Saddam's generals surrendered Iraq, not an Iraqi soldier. Therefore, cleansing the military elite before the great war is extremely useful.
  26. 0
    21 July 2017 12: 05
    Quote: Natalia777
    It’s ridiculous and stupid when the United States does not see Russia's achievements at high technology, in space, in aircraft manufacturing, in rocket science, in tank engineering, in the nuclear industry ...

    ---------------------------
    But they are PR to heaven. This is politics.
  27. 0
    21 July 2017 12: 13
    Quote: Ararat
    How many fights did the T-90 have and what are the results? Unlike the T-90, Abrams fought against tanks

    ---------------------------------
    So Abrams is essentially an anti-tank self-propelled guns, and the article also writes about this. About fought. Well, how did you fight? You ask the command for air support. A-10 and Tornado attack aircraft break enemy tanks into a cake, thinning out his battle formations as much as possible. And before that, enemy missiles are covered with ship missiles. And the beating of babies begins. When a pair of Iraqi tanks against 10 American tanks remain on the battlefield, the Abrams proudly enter the battle, finishing off the already crippled tanks and all that’s left there.
    1. +1
      21 July 2017 21: 18
      Mean fought skill and not stupid quantity.
      1. 0
        22 July 2017 10: 35
        stupidly just now the carriers of the star-striped flag are fighting.
        1. 0
          23 July 2017 01: 33
          No, you must be alone for the sake of cheap authority! Quantity plus quality = victory.
          1. 0
            23 July 2017 07: 32
            Oh yeah ! in seven one beating! this is your everything !!
            1. 0
              24 July 2017 06: 12
              lol just lol. Alone against everyone again?
  28. +1
    21 July 2017 12: 35
    And in due time Serdyukov suggested buying French, and making his own at 300 thousand rubles apiece. All the same, he did a good deed - on his tip the West and the Americans dismissed their ears about the decline of the military in the Russian Federation.
  29. +1
    21 July 2017 12: 57
    Maybe I have a "persecution mania," but for some reason it seems that after the contract is implemented, some of the T90 will be in the USA and at one of the American bases in Germany, well, maybe a couple of pieces will be dismantled, rolled around and fired on the spot.
    1. 0
      22 July 2017 10: 33
      you definitely diagnosed yourself good you are a born psychotherapist!
  30. 0
    21 July 2017 14: 21
    So if Abrams absorbed the German school, then why booked according to the English scheme?
    The author contradicts himself.
    A T-90 is a good machine, I do not argue
    1. 0
      23 July 2017 01: 34
      The German tank building school does not mean that the armor should also be German
      1. 0
        23 July 2017 07: 27
        Of course not, she .... Soviet! Chebham is a copy of the armor of object 430 in 1965 which became the T-64 tank developed in the USSR in 1963. The British copied it in 1975 and called it "Chebham" and assure everyone that they are inventors, not East barbarians at all.
        1. 0
          24 July 2017 06: 23
          Chobham was created in the 60s on a par with Soviet developments. The fact that they are the same in some respects does not mean that they were stolen from you. The development of layered armor made of ceramics, glass and silicon oxide took place in all countries with a tank industry. And secondly, he was not just called a chebham; it was developed at a factory named chebham. And in the third, the development of layered armor began in 1918 in Britain. So do not pull the blanket over yourself and appropriate everything that is in this world
          1. +1
            24 July 2017 10: 35
            where are we to gentlemen! we are orphaned and wretched, ignorant and .... and what else is there? and! Yes! barbarians! for sure! we lie and steal, and the gentlemen take their word for it! once said that he didn’t take it, he wouldn’t give it back.
            1. 0
              24 July 2017 21: 19
              Call me Russophobe, liberoid, FSA officer, traitor, do not forget to remind me of 20 million Indians, the second front, the Fed, Vietnam, and for beauty, remind me of my Armenian nationality. Because you cannot argue and communicate normally in a human way. Urya patriotism is no longer recognizable to you.
  31. 0
    21 July 2017 17: 55
    Liberals are preoccupied with old people and children. And this is after the 90s. which they consider to be “saints,” when people were dying of hunger and they drank and ate in the most fashionable foreign hotels and restaurants. But the instructions of the Washington regional committee must be followed. Party discipline understand, sir. The main thing is to disrupt the rearmament of the Russian army at any cost.
  32. 0
    22 July 2017 04: 14
    Will workers give at least 10 rubles for this contract?
  33. 0
    22 July 2017 14: 05
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Not by Iran, but by Iraq. Secondly, the T-90 is half the price. Thirdly, a really very good tank. Why not buy a few dozen to Iraq?

    Baba Yaga v.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. 0
    23 July 2017 13: 56
    This is all wonderful if not for one but!
    The dollars that the Russian Federation will receive will be sent to finance the US Treasury.
    Only a tiny stream will go to Uralmashzavod and even more so to the workers of this and its neighboring enterprises.
    So there is little joy. Although there is.
    1. +2
      24 July 2017 20: 18
      The dollars that the Russian Federation will receive will be sent to finance the US Treasury.

      Dollars will go to the conveyor for the T-14
  36. 0
    23 July 2017 20: 48
    only 2 points are interesting
    - where does the Iraqi treasury come from (does it give a loan to Russia again?)
    - How dare the Pope refuse? Is it possible in the modern world, especially in Iraq, someone can conduct an independent policy?
    Maybe everything is simple - the Yankees cannot already drive hundreds of tanks on the assembly line, but what is more expensive to push into yourself - than to fight then yourself?
  37. 0
    24 July 2017 13: 38
    After all, the Americans fought in Iraq, and the choice of the Iraqi military ultimately fell on the Russian tank. "

    But shaw, isn’t Iraq the "puppet" of the USA that captured it and pumps all the juice (oil) out of it? :))

    Lies are piled up until by chance, joyful “fanfares” do not refute what was piled up earlier :)
    The propagandists are bad - they themselves refute their logic. They broke the brain of the urine to the protriots (if they had one) ...
  38. 0
    24 July 2017 15: 46
    Quote: Essex62
    If the traitor had not sat on the Russian throne, the Mattresses would not have slipped into Iraq. And Hussein would not have climbed into Kuwait without the approval of the real Russian Emperor (Secretary General). Alas. This all began. Now we disentangle.

    ... there are traitors - Russophobes above the roof, all the more so since the Jewish lobby * was registered * at the Court from the time of Ulyanov-Lenin-Blanca .... in a quantitative sense exceeding all democratic norms ...
  39. +1
    24 July 2017 19: 55
    There were few of them T-72s who could not do anything under Saddam, so no, they are stepping on the same rake again
  40. 0
    24 July 2017 21: 13
    When I got to Afghanistan, I did not notice this. Probably poorly built or not completed. They built schools, killed a couple of hundred thousand, but they built schools, mined all that is possible, but they had electricity. medvedron,
  41. 0
    25 July 2017 15: 18
    Ararat,
    Well, do not Honduras,
    Quote: Ararat
    [media = https: //m.youtube.com/watch? v = y5xKCzdhAC8]
    This is how the cord burns. The video cited by Bumper filmed the preparation of this tank for undermining. 2 gas cans were poured into it and blasted to hell.


    This is a video with rashatudey, and there are no frames with cans, but there are
    frames with an arrival in the ass abrams rockets. You for sp / n here post fake posts? Or are you trashing for conscience? Do not Honduras so much, you will rub the corns and the hair will grow on the palms, lying is not good. bully
  42. The comment was deleted.
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. The comment was deleted.
  45. 0
    27 January 2018 02: 31
    The military-industrial complex is the same everywhere! Need a consumer of products!
    War or preparation for it, a breeding ground for the military-industrial complex
  46. 0
    16 March 2018 18: 29
    And why are tanks in Iraq? Technique in the hands of a barbarian - a piece of scrap metal! The events of 1991 of the year (1 Iraq war) and then after 10 of years clearly showed that the generals in Iraq are corrupt (this is clearly seen in the 2001 war), "doldrums" are dumb and inept, prefer to stick their asses up on mats rather than fight so that they have the T-90, the T-34, the first Aglitz MK-4 of the 1916 model in general .... It’s like ruining it, and jumping out and running in panic, overtaking your screech on the 600 .. We are only useful in providing money, if we do not repeat the mistakes of the USSR, they have given us a loan, and after 10 years the debt has been written off ...
  47. 0
    April 30 2018 18: 00
    ..., one thing is clear, the Yankees are losing, and even rapidly, the arms markets ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"