Military Review

A myth that myth-makers themselves do not believe in

75
The main European allies of the United States for NATO completely ignore the "Russian tank threat "


A myth that myth-makers themselves do not believe in


The other day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in an interview with one of the authoritative Western editions of Foreign Policy, admitted in the most unequivocal terms that Russia does not militarily threaten any of the North Atlantic Alliance's 29. Moreover, he made it clear that such a “threat” is purely hypothetical.

F.P. : How will NATO respond if Russia does in the Baltic countries what it has done in Ukraine? "Little green people." Will NATO initiate an 5 article in this situation?

JS: First, we do not see any threat against any NATO ally, and therefore I always carefully reflect on hypothetical situations. But I can say that everything that happened in the Crimea and in Ukraine, of course, would provoke a response from the entire alliance, because NATO there protects and protects all allies from any threat.


Thus, the official position of the NATO leadership was formulated quite clearly - the alliance does not see any military threat from Russia. And speculation on this topic is not willing to engage.

But then the next question arises. Perhaps, Mr. Stoltenberg simply put it miserably, gave his personal opinion as an official, or did he have any special reasons in this particular case not to pedal this topic? But in general, and in general, the Russian military threat in the West is felt, recognized and feared?

The whole text below will be devoted to the reasoned proof that Stoltenberg is not some white crow, but a completely typical representative of the modern Western “establishment”, which completely, completely, shares his point of view on Russia and on its absence military threat to the West.

In order to be convinced of this, it will be enough to consider the situation in the West today with one of the most important components of modern military power - armored troops, with facts and figures in hand. Which play a key role in all modern military conflicts, including those that rage literally before our eyes - in Syria and, most recently, in Iraq.

It was there that the tanks once again proved that the rumors about the loss of their former combat significance turned out to be greatly exaggerated. It was the side that relied on the penetrating power of the tanks that won victories in any land battle.
It would seem, in view of this fact, the European countries of NATO, allegedly threatened by Russia, and which the United States helps very little (what is one American tank brigade for the whole of Europe?), Should have taken extraordinary measures to dramatically strengthen their armored potential. . Moreover, they themselves are constantly saying about thousands of Russian tanks and about Putin’s colossal efforts to arm the Russian army with the latest models of armored vehicles. Including such a super modern tank as the T-14 "Armata", which has no analogues in the world.

However, there is no particular excitement in connection with the “Russian tank threat” in Western Europe, which is closest to Russia and, therefore, most vulnerable, oddly enough, is not observed. From the word at all. In order to make sure of this, it is enough to at least in general terms understand what is happening in this area. Moreover, practically nothing happens.

Suffice it to say that, at the present time, in none of the leading European member countries of NATO are main battle tanks manufactured at all. And in the arsenal of these three major powers - Britain, Germany and France there are an average of three hundred main battle tanks manufactured by 80-x - 90-s of the last century. That is, approximately - three tank divisions. For comparison, Hitler had more than thirty such divisions in 1941. And Stalin even more.

But maybe the above-mentioned countries, which at one time were too relaxed due to the loss of the “beloved enemy” in the person of the Soviet Union, now, after the Ukrainian events, finally recollected themselves? And began to accelerate the recovery of its tank fleet? Nothing like!

Over the four years of the Ukrainian crisis, which, according to Western mass propaganda, is "indisputable proof of Russia's aggressive intentions" in relation to the whole world, in the matter of recreating armored potential in key countries of Euro-NATO, what is called, the horse has not rolled.

Judge for yourself. Take the same UK. The last Challenger 2 tank was manufactured here in the 2004 year, after which the plant in Newcastle upon Tyne was closed and its personnel fired. Meanwhile, in the British ground forces from the 420, the 2 Challengers launched by industry remained in service around 220 machines.

Prospects? Yes, almost none. Every year, there are heated discussions on the subject of upgrading the remaining Challengers, according to this beautiful picture.



It seems to have agreed that by 2019 the project of this modernization will be approved. However, it is already clear that even the long-outdated cannon will not be replaced. And the whole thing will be reduced mainly to the installation of a new electronic filling, despite the fact that the tank itself will remain old.

But this is not enough! Today in Britain, the process of reorganization of the ground forces is in full swing, during which up to half of the remaining tank regiments will be transformed and reduced to mechanized strike brigades, in which tanks will be replaced with light AYAX vehicles or even armored vehicles. Just imagine what will happen if such a British "light armored cavalry brigade" will ever attack a full-fledged tank division of the "aggressive Russians" somewhere in the Baltic States. The British, as far as I know, simply adore the hunt for partridges. But I’m not sure if they will like it if they themselves turn out in the role of partridges in their armored car tins?

Military experts about this mysterious British reform write the following:

“Given the increased importance of tanks, as demonstrated by the wars in Iraq and Syria, as well as the battles in the east of Ukraine, the above decision may seem counterintuitive to the reduction of strike power” https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1685751.html


British lightly armored "pepelats" of the previous model BRDM "Scimitar" burns down in Iraqi Basra. 2003 year

What else do we have there? Oh yeah - Germany. Another, allegedly frightened Putin to hiccup power. The Germans, on this occasion, scraped up some money to extract a hundred old 2 Leopards from the septic tanks of the first series. And they are going to upgrade them to the level of the newest "Leopard 2А7". Which in nature, apart from single experimental machines, does not exist at all. For the old veterans will be his iron. As a result, the tank fleet of the Heinz Guderian heirs somewhere by 2025 will increase to as many as three hundred combat units!

What are these “2 Leopards” as combat units, quite clearly demonstrates the experience of their combat use in Syria.


All that remains of the 2 A4 Leopard under Syrian Africa

Here is what the BMPD edition writes about this:

"Once again, it was clearly demonstrated that the previously so highly rated Leopard 2 tanks have a fatal design defect in placing the main part of the ammunition kit in the front left side of the hull, with weak side protection, which makes Leopard 2 a" bomb on the tracks "... Tank destruction For the first time, Leopard 2A4 as a result of an explosion in the front of the corps was marked on tanks lost by the Turkish army during the fighting against the Islamic State forces near the Syrian city of El-Bab in December 2016 of the year ”



Thus, the basis of the armored power of modern Germany is the “bomb on tracks”, which completely failed its main exam on the battlefield, even in the relatively primitive Syrian war.

And finally, the good old France. So kind that she even decided to develop a new main battle tank together with her eternal historical rival - Germany. But this is still progress, because the current French tank Leclerc was generally created with the money of the United Arab Emirates! And therefore, it probably came out so monstrously expensive that no one bought it other than the same oil sheikhs. The French army itself had enough money for only 350 pieces, while the minimum need for troops is estimated at 800-1000 vehicles. Since 2010, the release of these jewelry on tracks has been completely discontinued.


During the exercise, the French tank "Leclerc" drove a little wrong there.

As for the German-French “tank of the future”, the time of its appearance in the light of God is designated as “foreseeable perspective.” As far as it is observable, it can be judged by the fact that, according to the plans of the current modernization of cash "Leclerc", they are destined to serve as much as 2040 year!

Such, in general, is the picture of the “feverish military preparations” of the main NATO states of Europe against the background of the allegedly raging “Russian aggression” for four years. In the standing forest swamp, perhaps, you can sometimes notice even more signs of active life than in this pretend that is preparing to repel the attack of the Russians in Europe.

It turns out that they themselves do not believe in those terrible propaganda tales, which they also compose. Because if they believed, they probably would not have treated their own safety so carelessly. Why then do they fan this myth - you ask? The answer to this question is a topic for another conversation. But as we have just seen, this answer has nothing to do with the mythical “Russian aggression”.
Author:
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Ivanov
    Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 15: 10
    +18
    Judge for yourself. Take the same UK. The last Challenger 2 tank was manufactured here in the 2004 year, after which the plant in Newcastle upon Tyne was closed and its personnel fired. Meanwhile, in the British ground forces from the 420, the 2 Challengers launched by industry remained in service around 220 machines.

    But why the British tanks? England is an island nation and the fleet is more important to it than the armored component. At the same time, with the development of precision weapons, the stakes in the West are on completely different systems. Moreover, in the event of a military NATO conflict with Russia, not tanks will speak, but completely different weapons.
    1. K.A.S.
      K.A.S. 28 February 2018 16: 21
      +9
      But how, for example, will NATO capture and control territory without tanks?
      Imagine that a NATO country rebelled, this country has both airplanes and other weapons like the others. but there are still tanks that others do not have.
      And high-precision weapons are an addition and not a panacea, because tanks in their development also do not stand still!
      And again, with the development of high-precision weapons of hyper sonic missiles, the fleet also no longer plays the role that it played when there was no aviation and nuclear weapons
      1. Andrey Ivanov
        Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 16: 29
        +11
        Quote: K.A.S.
        But how, for example, will NATO capture and control territory without tanks?

        Does the example of Yugoslavia tell you nothing?
        Quote: K.A.S.
        And again, with the development of high-precision weapons of hyper sonic missiles, the fleet also no longer plays the role that it played when there was no aviation and nuclear weapons

        Che seriously? And then answer me the question, where is the likelihood of getting into the head higher than that of a person with a gun over 1000 meters or whoever put the gun to the temple of the adversary? At the same time, you apparently forgot that two-thirds of the planet’s surface is water. And it will be on the water theater that will be one of the components of the war beyond the powers, if any.
        And by the way, one of the most reliable and effective in the nuclear triad is precisely the marine component.
        1. Tald
          Tald 28 February 2018 16: 47
          +4
          However, there wasn’t much hype in connection with the “Russian tank threat” in Western Europe, which is closest to Russia and, therefore, the most vulnerable, oddly enough, is not observed.

          In order to neutralize the Russian tank threat in the 90s, SPBEs capable of destroying thousands of tanks without any analogous world were adopted.

          KARLSKUGA, Sweden. Swedish Ministry of Defense concludes BAE Systems contract for the supply of additional shells Bofors 155mm BONUS to the Swedish army. Under this contract, the Swedish army will strengthen its ability to destroy tanks that are not analogous to the world with the latest version of BONUS, which is produced by BAE Systems in collaboration with Nexter.

          Production will take place at the BAE Systems factory in Karlskog (Sweden) with a significant supply of components from Nexter (France). In addition to Sweden, the BONUS shell is in service with the armies of other countries, including Finland, France and Norway..

          https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/swedish-arm
          y-selects-bofors-155mm-bonus-munition



          There is also a German SMArt-155, which is in service with the armies of Germany, Switzerland, Greece and Australia. Plus CBU-97.

          And for cutting tanks equipped with active defense systems, back in the early 2000s, Americans created hypersonic kinetic missiles.

          So the Russian tank threat exists only in the imagination of Urya-patriots.
          1. Andrey Ivanov
            Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 16: 54
            +20
            Quote: Tald
            In order to neutralize the Russian tank threat in the 90s, SPBEs capable of destroying thousands of tanks without any analogous world were adopted.

            You watch these cartoons at night and no longer make people laugh. Carriers of these cluster bz will not tell us how to pass our layered air defense? At the same time, little shines for Europeans in the event of war, because nobody will play with them in such wedges and breakthroughs, and stupidly Iskander-K will iron the European land with a small nuclear warhead and the entire short-lived, as well as strategic aviation with the X-55, X-102 and in the future X-50 ... at the same time, on the approach mobile complexes RUBEZH (Vanguard) just like European warriors.
            And you continue to watch your cartoons.
            1. karabas-barabas
              karabas-barabas 28 February 2018 21: 51
              +3
              Quote: Andrey Ivanov
              Carriers of these cluster bz will not tell us how to pass our layered air defense?

              What will Russian tank formations be protected from 155mm shells? What are you talking about? Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany have such air defense systems, such as the German Mantis, but these are objective air defense systems. The Germans are working on small-radius air defense on wheels with a HEL laser system capable of calculating mines from 82mm and destroying them at distances up to 3km. This machine has already been created, tested and shown to the public. But in the Russian Federation nothing similar has yet been created.

              Quote: Andrey Ivanov
              At the same time, little shines for Europeans in the event of war, since nobody will play with them in such wedges and breakthroughs, and stupidly Iskander-K will iron the European land with a small nuclear warhead and the entire short-lived, as well as strategic aviation with the X-55, X-102 and the future X-50 ...


              Quote: Andrey Ivanov
              . Moreover, on the approach mobile complexes RUBEZH (Vanguard)

              What you call cartoons has long been in service, additionally with a host of other modern weapons that are generally absent in the Russian Federation. Yes, and apparently you are not quite able to adequately assess how and with what the NATO countries' databases will start, because for you really adopted weapons, or at the moment in the test phase of combat use, NATO high-precision weapons are cartoons, and cartoons and Rogozin’s stories about the intentions to create of this, yes, apparently reality. But perhaps it’s better for us to argue about such scenarios, but God forbid it comes to such scenarios .. But even the clashes between the Russian and NATO military came, for example, shot down by Su-24 Turks, or the destruction of Wagnerites by the Americans. For me, the senseless deaths of Russian citizens, for which not a single responsible person has been punished.
              1. cariperpaint
                cariperpaint 1 March 2018 02: 38
                +6
                Lord ... why are you carrying ... what mines ... what lasers ... what does the tank have to do with it ... the man said about the carriers. when such systems enter attack mode, will someone look at them? do you represent a war as a line on the map on each side of which the tanks drew? do you really think that these rattles are any different from those that we have? homing cluster munition? are you kidding like that?))) all the weapons in the world somehow develop in parallel. 155 mm speak? and a tornado with its 300 racquets with 5 such at 70 km will throw and what's next? all this will not stop the tank attack of even one division. in order to at least need a very well-fortified strip in which all these systems new and old ordinary ditches will complement each other.
              2. cariperpaint
                cariperpaint 1 March 2018 02: 40
                +3
                what kind of people should be punished because somewhere in the desert some guys went about their business and got into a mess? or because the Turks tore off the roof? let's then punish everyone for the snowfall in Moscow and the fact that it began.
          2. saigon
            saigon 28 February 2018 17: 11
            +15
            Gentlemen, I kindly forget about artillery breaking the way for tanks, plowing everything into manure.
            And the war in Donbass specifically confirms -Artillery is the god of war
            1. Pivasik
              Pivasik 28 February 2018 20: 39
              +5
              And the point will still put an ordinary infantryman with the support of tanks
          3. sib.ataman
            sib.ataman 2 March 2018 07: 10
            +3
            Ever since the Amerz anti-tank missile Shileila, fired from a tank gun of the M-60 tank, which appeared in the distant 60s of the 2th century, some prominent experts believed that the tank era had come to an end! However, after that he managed to flog out the window of his office with a cry "Russian tanks are coming!" US Defense Ministry P. McNamara, wars have passed and are ongoing in Vietnam, Iraq-Iran, Afghanistan 2-wait, Chechnya 2-wait, Iraq XNUMX-wait, Syria, Africa doesn’t die out for decades, and everywhere the tanks played the role of the main striking force, note , not grenade launchers, ATGMists, sappers with minefields and, especially, infantry! The score for various ATGMs, RPGs, self-propelled guns, guided missiles went to the tens, and the tanks, as Syria once again showed, remain invariably the main striking force!
          4. Valery Saitov
            Valery Saitov 5 March 2018 09: 27
            0
            .... Americans created hypersonic kinetic missiles)))
            And why will they be launched? And what are the “Shells” and “Caliber” for? And what are the air defenses of all stripes for which they have created and are creating? And do not clap your hands ahead of time because everything is decided by the infantry. An example of Syria and Afghanistan. They bombed for many years, but to no avail. Neither the tomahawks help mom bombs. But tanks and infantry fighting vehicles + artillery are power.
        2. K.A.S.
          K.A.S. 28 February 2018 16: 57
          +9
          so what should an example of yugoslavia tell me? how a small country fought with an adversary having complete superiority in both technology and technology. not expecting help from other countries?
          Or are you after the military control of the country? Well, for this there is an Afghan where coalition tanks are used.
          But the actions of tankers in the Chechen campaigns do not tell you anything? Or American tankers in Iraq?
          What will NATO do if the enemy is equal in strength and technology, and not like Yugoslavia!
          To the question "Che" there is an answer related to the shoulder. but I won’t answer you, we’ll consider you a novice, it’s excusable to you!
          I will not comment on the gun and you can come up with a similar head it is pointless! For example: I remind you that a gun doesn’t shoot at 1000 meters. I am in order to get into your head from a cannon shit. even if I get near, too little will not seem!
          And this is to remind that the fleet is performing tasks. for example, the fleet of England to cover the Lamansh so that the Russian Vanka would not cross it and spoil the bowls.
          Thank you for the reminder that the planet is water. but I want to remind you that the amount of water is different everywhere. simplistically, the United States has a lot of water and cities on the coast, but the Russian Federation has more land and cities located in the interior of the mainland. Why should the US fight with Russia at sea if Russia is located on land? and why should Russia fight the United States at sea if the United States surpasses it in strength of the Navy? In general, we are talking about precision weapons. which cast doubt on the leadership of the fleets. indirect evidence is attempts to develop invisible ships. everything else is not relevant to the subject of our dispute
          It is for the enemy’s fleets that all kinds of nishtyaks like zircon or the Chinese ballistic missile DF-21D (China) are being developed.
          The component of the maritime triad in a protracted war does not participate after its application, there will be nothing to protect and nothing to do!
          1. Andrey Ivanov
            Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 17: 12
            +5
            Quote: K.A.S.
            so what should an example of yugoslavia tell me? how a small country fought with an adversary having complete superiority in both technology and technology. not expecting help from other countries?

            And we have superiority in the maritime component, in aviation, in the amount of the same Kyrgyz Republic, superiority in technology ... I remind you that we are being sanctioned, from which we are import substituting, and not vice versa. And terms like a global disarming strike, the Anaconda ring doesn’t tell you anything?
            Quote: K.A.S.
            But the actions of tankers in the Chechen campaigns do not tell you anything? Or American tankers in Iraq?

            Nobody will play with us in tanks. And we will not, if a strong adversary. What did Iraq show? Gouged rockets with radars, communication systems, etc., and after being in a dash, those who were not burned by aviation were finished off by the Abrams. And the Iraqi army at that time was the largest, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, the fourth in the world.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            but the Russian Federation has more land territory and cities located inland.

            And our territory is washed by three oceans ... and let's not notice this?
            Quote: K.A.S.
            Why should the US fight with Russia at sea if Russia is located on land?

            If there is a US-Russia military conflict, then it is the US fleet that will play one of the most important roles in this conflict, since it is the carrier of most of the ICBMs and the Kyrgyz Republic.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            Why should Russia fight the United States at sea if the United States surpasses it in strength of the Navy?

            Because to hide in the depths of the mainland will not work. I repeat, Russia needs a balanced fleet. I’m not talking about catching up with and overtaking the USA and NATO in the number of strike ships, I’m talking about the balance of our fleet.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            It is for the enemy’s fleets that all kinds of nishtyaks like zircon or the Chinese ballistic missile DF-21D (China) are being developed.

            Well, yes ... and the mattresses are sitting and they don’t do anything and wait while we and the Chinese are cutting these nishtyaks.
            Quote: K.A.S.
            The component of the maritime triad in a protracted war does not participate after its application, there will be nothing to protect and nothing to do!

            The marine component of the nuclear triad is almost a 100% guarantee that the answer to the nuclear strike will be, since our submarines will be able to launch Sinev and Bulava from the wall without leaving the open ocean.
            And returning to the topic of the article ... I repeat, the Britons and mattresses are heavy armored vehicles for nothing. Enough and Strakerov, with their sea and air superiority.
        3. Setrac
          Setrac 1 March 2018 10: 23
          +5
          Quote: Andrey Ivanov
          Does the example of Yugoslavia tell you nothing?

          Despite the involvement of huge military forces, Yugoslavia was not defeated by military means, it was forced to yield by political means.
      2. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 28 February 2018 21: 17
        +1
        Quote: K.A.S.
        but like NATO will capture and control territory without tanks

        Why without tanks, with tanks, it’s hardly likely the ancient Leo2A4, as the Turks do. Starting with Leo2A5M +, this is a completely different level of protection, OMS and situational awareness. There is successful experience in using both Leo2 in Afghanistan and Abramsov in Iraq, if everyone does their job as they should, then losses are minimized. The little article is another pre-election chatter, in reality, the Russian army does not have tanks capable of withstanding NATO tank formations, if we mean dueling. What is generally incomprehensible with this Armata, it is not in service, but what it is is breaking through NATO crowbars for departure. On the contrary, Russian BOPSs cannot cope with the front-line armor of NATO tanks. Moreover, if suddenly it comes to such fights, then NATO tanks will be at full stuffing, including KAZ. The Russian military-industrial complex has not yet supplied the army with modern tanks, there are strong doubts that such tanks exist at all, so why on earth will NATO worry about this ?? Moreover, the scientific and industrial potential is an order of magnitude higher than the Russian one, and if they had thought that their tanks were weaker or outdated and reached the peak of their modernization potential, intensive work on the development of new vehicles would now be carried out.
        1. zyzx
          zyzx 1 March 2018 05: 48
          +4
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          Why without tanks, with tanks, it’s hardly likely the ancient Leo2A4, as the Turks do. Starting with Leo2A5M +

          And how quickly will your 300-500 tanks finish during the offensive? Well, for 3 days.
        2. raw174
          raw174 1 March 2018 14: 18
          +4
          I personally do not believe in tank battles of the Kursk type, in the 21st century ... but here's yours:
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          What is generally incomprehensible with this Armata, it is not in service, but what it is is breaking through NATO crowbars for departure.

          It is interesting in part: "... that is, it breaks through NATO crowbars for departure." What kind of scrap do you mean and where do you get information from? Is there a video or something that you can support what was said?
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          Russian BOPS will not cope with the front-line armor of NATO tanks.

          And this is also interesting. Somewhere I saw a video of a burning Abrams, who seemed to have been knocked down by the means of production of the Russian Federation ... Or Abrams as a manuscript? in the sense of not burning)))
      3. iouris
        iouris 1 March 2018 11: 56
        0
        Quote: K.A.S.
        But how, for example, will NATO capture and control territory without tanks?

        Only by supporting the political regime, which will provide economic benefits to the "golden billion" or its selected part. Our T-64 and T-80 tanks already "control the territory"
    2. gippernano
      gippernano 28 February 2018 16: 32
      +1
      Come on. Atomic bombs will begin to shoot? or what weapon? Relsotron? Zumwalt? F-35?
      1. Andrey Ivanov
        Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 16: 41
        +2
        Quote: gippernano
        Come on. Atomic bombs will begin to shoot? or what weapon? Relsotron? Zumwalt? F-35?

        To remind you how many axes were spent on Yugoslavia. However, there were phosphorus bombs and carpet bombing and everything you want. Now look at the number of aircraft carriers in total in shaves and mattresses and count the total number of aircraft on them. And in addition, compare the fleets of NATO and ours, and especially pay attention to that most of the strike ships of the same USA are very well geared to work along the coast.
        By the way, in the United States, the issue of using an arsenal with small nuclear explosives is seriously discussed. This is so by the way.
        1. zyzx
          zyzx 1 March 2018 05: 52
          +2
          Quote: Andrey Ivanov
          To remind you how many axes were spent on Yugoslavia. However, there were phosphorus bombs and carpet bombing and everything you want. Now look at the number of aircraft carriers in total in shaves and mattresses and count the total number of aircraft on them. And in addition, compare the fleets of NATO and ours, and especially pay attention to that most of the strike ships of the same USA are very well geared to work along the coast.

          Well, let's fly, for example, to Novosibirsk, from your aircraft carrier. And calculate the total number of missile defense missiles and the cost of the 1st missile and the 1st pepelats.
          Well, France has generals, it’s just that there has always been a song, the main thing is to take Italy as an ally, as if everything will be prayed.
    3. zyzx
      zyzx 1 March 2018 05: 45
      +1
      Quote: Andrey Ivanov
      But why the tanks?

      And France from nemchury again download?
      1. zyzx
        zyzx 1 March 2018 05: 59
        0
        Sorry to save, the editor is not working.
    4. Setrac
      Setrac 1 March 2018 10: 19
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Ivanov
      In addition, in the event of a military NATO conflict with Russia, not the tanks will speak, but a completely different weapon.

      Tanks can operate in conditions of use of nuclear weapons.
  2. 210ox
    210ox 28 February 2018 15: 19
    +2
    In the spring of 1941, Hitler also talked about peace and other things. However, the Otto (Barbarossa) plan was already ready. And the Junkers "got lost" supposedly with peace wishes ..
    1. gippernano
      gippernano 28 February 2018 16: 38
      +2
      This Barbarossa, in the life of a loser, was mythologized, turned into a great hero, and believed in this tale themselves. Here is the result. They’ll come up with a life for them themselves who will believe in it, and then wonder how we are so powerful, with such a GDP, all the time some peasants pull on their drums
      1. Vladivostok1969
        Vladivostok1969 1 March 2018 02: 06
        +4
        Only here what it cost us to "pull" is not worth forgetting.
  3. mkop
    mkop 28 February 2018 15: 21
    +4
    Jens Stoltenberg is generally a client of a psychiatric clinic. “Today” he says that Russia does not threaten anyone, “yesterday” he said that it threatens ... Such behavior is a dissociative identity disorder, a split personality, if simple. And I have such a suspicion that the Western establishment has found some new form of such a disease, because it is contagious among them.
    1. gippernano
      gippernano 28 February 2018 16: 40
      +2
      yes they cheto cheto, and no longer know where they dreamed, and where they just dreamed, and what in fact they had not been aware of for a long time.
      1. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 28 February 2018 22: 23
        +1
        It is not clear what the contradiction is? NATO, or the West, never said that Putin intended to attack one of their countries, since the Russian Federation does not have for this a non-qualitative, non-quantitative superiority of military force. Up until 2014, Western European countries even cut their military budgets. But after the annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbass, the Baltic countries grew fear that this could also affect them, since they have tiny armies and far from the same level as those of the same Scandinavian countries, with their fleet, air force, etc. Never there were no fears about Putin’s attack on Europe, it’s never even been a topic, but such anxiety has appeared about the Baltic countries. That's all.
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 3 March 2018 23: 52
          +1
          And why should the Russians attack Geyropa. It is already, in fact, under the green banner. 5-10 years old and all.
          By the way, in the photo with the burning tanker, still not Skimiter, but Warrier
        2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Altona
    Altona 28 February 2018 15: 27
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Ivanov
    In addition, in the event of a military NATO conflict with Russia, not the tanks will speak, but a completely different weapon.

    --------------------------
    Well, they’ll bomb us for example. And what will the invaders come to?
    1. Vasya_Piterskiy
      Vasya_Piterskiy 28 February 2018 15: 56
      +4
      And what will the invaders come to?

      On pink bikes. hi
    2. Andrey Ivanov
      Andrey Ivanov 28 February 2018 15: 57
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      Well, they’ll bomb us for example. And what will the invaders come to?

      If you look at the wars that we waged, the adversary often came to our land with the thought not to enslave the people, but to destroy him. Perhaps the exception is Napoleon ...
      1. gippernano
        gippernano 28 February 2018 16: 46
        +2
        What kind of nonsense. Until nuclear weapons are used, we’ll wake them up as usual to crush them and use them, they will fly to everyone, without exception, and overseas friends according to the program maximum.
  5. Loess
    Loess 28 February 2018 15: 59
    +2
    Is there no Russian threat? But what about the Baltic states now? But how then to justify the constant exercises on our borders and NATO contingents in the same Baltic? Nah ... got excited Stoltenberg ...
    1. vadson
      vadson 28 February 2018 19: 32
      +1
      to the Balts from the Russians there is only one threat - raising their standard of living at our expense. only the evil ones are more dumb
  6. Yrec
    Yrec 28 February 2018 16: 08
    +2
    Tanks are the weapons of a long, heavy war. With a partial or full mobilization and transition of the economy to military tracks. In European countries, there is simply no mobility reserve and the economy, at the expense of consumption, cannot be rebuilt for war. Their strategy is a global strike and occupation of the territory on wheeled armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, a blitzkrieg, in short. Everything as usual.
    1. marline
      marline 28 February 2018 16: 52
      0
      Quote: Yrec
      Tanks are the weapons of a long, heavy war.

      It’s like ... tanks are blitzkrieg weapons.
      1. Yrec
        Yrec 1 March 2018 10: 03
        +2
        Our tanks are blitzkrieg weapons, western tanks are defensive tank destroyers.
        1. marline
          marline 1 March 2018 10: 23
          +3
          The layered defense, the more so saturated with anti-tank weapons, cannot be broken through on armored personnel carriers. So tanks are still needed exactly as a blitzkrieg weapon. And Western armored cars are still tanks, just with a bias in the PT, it so happened that they were historically designed at the time when the throw to the English Channel was quite a work plan.
          As for global punches, there is a good phrase from a good Soviet film:
          ... You can expect anything from the Reds, however, from the Americans too .... I’ve been fighting with them for a year now. These boobs will be destroyed by their own equipment, they think that the war can be won only by bombing. They will build up their technical power and choke on it. She will decompose them like rust. They will decide that they can do anything.

          In general, this is what happens.
      2. birs
        birs 1 March 2018 12: 28
        +1
        Against a technological rival, the blitzkrieg’s weapon is missiles, against the Papuans and tanks they will still pass for the blitzkrieg, although they are more likely weapons of the occupying forces, the long arm of the infantry
    2. saigon
      saigon 28 February 2018 17: 13
      +1
      But read in which year of the war Adolf Aloizovich Hitler transferred the German economy to war footing, you will be very surprised.
  7. andrewkor
    andrewkor 28 February 2018 16: 09
    +1
    But what if the Britons scrape around the world, well, say in Jordan or South Africa, and in Israel there are British military-industrial products?
  8. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 28 February 2018 16: 16
    +7
    As I already wrote, the Americans did not win, they bought a victory. A purchased victory should be paid constantly! Did the US want to militarize Europe? Be kind enough to pay such. That will throw the United States into European rearmament a trillion or two, then there will be a result.
    But you should not relax. Most likely, the West simply hopes to destroy us without massive military actions, for which there are considerable prerequisites. Our army is small, the civilian population is not trained even to the very basics, the quality and motivation of mobresurs are at a minimum that has not been seen in thousands of years. Simply put, the people are not able and willing to fight with anyone.
    And by the way, how many of those “full-fledged tank divisions” do we have to drive these Skimitars with a pissed rag? But light and high-speed armored vehicles, capable of massively destroying the unarmed civilian population, have more and more of our “partners”. What is it for?
    1. marline
      marline 28 February 2018 16: 55
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      But light and high-speed armored vehicles, capable of massively destroying the unarmed civilian population, have more and more of our “partners”. What is it for?

      Thick steel and lazy. Walking on foot is no longer comfortable, and pedicures can be ruined, so they are transplanted to carts.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 28 February 2018 17: 52
        +3
        They are not going to fight. They are getting ready to kill. With impunity. Feel the difference?
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 28 February 2018 20: 23
          +6
          Michael 3. the fact is that we at the genetic level know how to fight. You look at them! That's for sure who is not able to repeat the feat of Alexander Matrosov or Gastello today!
        2. marline
          marline 1 March 2018 08: 28
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail3
          They are not going to fight. They are getting ready to kill. With impunity. Feel the difference?

          I feel it. You with your recognition are 80 years late.
          At present, Europeans are not able to "come in large numbers" from Libya and Syria to put in place, where can we even talk about the destruction ...
        3. raw174
          raw174 1 March 2018 14: 38
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail3
          They are not going to fight. They are getting ready to kill.

          Yes, they are not preparing for anything. They make armored cars so as not to run around the training ground on foot. There will be no well-fed man to fight ... How much did France last in WWII? It’s easier for them to capitulate than to fight, the flag has been changed and the whole business ...
  9. aloleggry
    aloleggry 28 February 2018 16: 38
    +3
    Quote: Andrey Ivanov
    Judge for yourself. Take the same UK. The last Challenger 2 tank was manufactured here in the 2004 year, after which the plant in Newcastle upon Tyne was closed and its personnel fired. Meanwhile, in the British ground forces from the 420, the 2 Challengers launched by industry remained in service around 220 machines.

    But why the British tanks? England is an island nation and the fleet is more important to it than the armored component. At the same time, with the development of precision weapons, the stakes in the West are on completely different systems. Moreover, in the event of a military NATO conflict with Russia, not tanks will speak, but completely different weapons.

    If you just gouge the territory, then yes, there will be enough other weapons. But if you take this territory for yourself, then alas, it will appear on it personally. On the tank. Partisans, you zayet.
    1. vadson
      vadson 28 February 2018 19: 36
      +2
      now give a competent partisan an RPG of 7 or God forbid a vampire seems to any adversary
  10. Wolka
    Wolka 28 February 2018 19: 22
    +1
    and Russophobia is a terrible force, with such a filing, the adversary will kill himself ...
  11. akims
    akims 28 February 2018 22: 04
    +2
    Against this background, you begin to understand what the Poles got into a mess about. They have 985 tanks. Half a hundred less than the Germans.
  12. master2
    master2 28 February 2018 23: 31
    +3
    The logic is simple, the tank today does not have the meaning that it had in the Second World War. Alliance countries have the latest generation of anti-tank weapons capable of destroying any existing tank today, as they say “without noise and dust” - why spend money on this scrap? All the hype with the Armata "which everyone is afraid of," tank biathlon, etc. - this is all window dressing and antlers for internal use (one must be proud of something), for patriots ala - how cool we are.
    The helicopter link turns the tank battalion into a pile of scrap metal, even worse for tanks are light-fast armored vehicles equipped with anti-tank guns and grenade launchers with the same Javelins against which the tank is powerless. And the stories of the Zvezda channel which we have cool, invulnerable, the best tanks in the world are nothing more than advertising and have nothing to do with life.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 1 March 2018 04: 45
      +4
      Tanks in modern warfare do not fight on their own. And they should not. And they have never fought. If this is really a war, and not a police action or an act of intimidation.
    2. Vadim Kurbatov
      Vadim Kurbatov 1 March 2018 07: 18
      +3
      Are you talking about javelins and tou? so syria showed that the birds were not a panacea against the tank either, but the turntables knocked near-range air defense
    3. raw174
      raw174 1 March 2018 14: 43
      +3
      Quote: master2
      A helicopter link turns a tank battalion into a pile of scrap metal

      And air defense turns the link of helicopters into a pile of scrap metal, and artillery turns this pile of air defense, etc. There is no absolute weapon, except perhaps ICBMs ...
    4. Pavel Bryansk
      Pavel Bryansk 6 March 2018 13: 21
      0
      show at least one T-90 lined in battle in recent times ?? and let's compare with the number of burned abrams and leopards.
  13. dokusib
    dokusib 1 March 2018 02: 32
    +1
    And what Leopard really so kosyachny? It seems to be considered almost the best tank in the world. What is the thickness of the armor that covers the ammunition, what makes its way?
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 1 March 2018 04: 35
      +2
      It was a good tank for its time. Like Abrash. Opposite the first generation T-72 and its guns. But, but. Now it makes its way to the side with a bang, it does not matter where it has ammunition, but against the ATGM and RPG they are just targets as they have neither active armor nor means of interception.
  14. shinobi
    shinobi 1 March 2018 04: 26
    +4
    Tanks are good. Under one single condition. Opponents will be empty in the sky. From the word at all. Here, yes, those who have bigger and more perfect tanks are cooler. The West, after the first war with Iraq, completely focused on aviation. From their point vision after gaining dominance in the sky and striking the ground from the enemy army should remain little. Correspondingly, the troops are equipped according to the principle of cleaning groups where the role of tanks is third-rate. Based on their concept, the available tanks are abundant. And it does not matter what they are if the probable enemy after their first strike has few or no at all. From here all these dances with sabers on the topic of lightning disarming strike, global missile defense, etc., etc. follow. How will they overcome our layered air defense for me a riddle, and I I refer to the category of unscientific fiction.
    1. Pavel Bryansk
      Pavel Bryansk 6 March 2018 13: 34
      0
      I agree with you. here on this our bet on all means i.e. air, earth, water.
      after applying rocket bombs. strike from the air and from the sea sheltering in dugouts and bunkers must be cleaned with the help of tanks under the cover of air defense
  15. 108- guards pdp
    108- guards pdp 1 March 2018 10: 45
    +1
    “Just imagine what would happen if such a British“ brigade of light armored cavalry ”ever comes up against a full-fledged tank division of“ aggressive Russians ”somewhere in the Baltic states”
    The author needs to be careful with such examples, otherwise someone’s "pan" will be frustrated with fear and in reality they will scream that they already saw our tanks in the Baltic states today. am
  16. vital1505
    vital1505 1 March 2018 12: 15
    0
    Look at the brimstone rocket, a convoy of moving vehicles in one run
  17. Serzh
    Serzh 1 March 2018 16: 33
    +1
    Quote: karabas-barabas
    scientific and industrial potential is much higher than Russian

    Well, about the scientific, I will not say anything, but about the industrial potential .... Someone ran into this potential at 41 ...
    The industrial potential of Russia with its resources and territory is practically inexhaustible, at least it cannot be compared to the western one. From the word at all.
    In a martial law, many things will simply be slaughtered and in abandoned factories within a very short time, production will be revived by small forces.
  18. Serzh
    Serzh 1 March 2018 16: 47
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Ivanov
    And now look at the number of aircraft carriers in total in shaving and mattresses and calculate the total number of aircraft on them.

    You still look like one-sided. Russia is a country that will defend itself. They will not allow us to attack us - that's for sure. So, all these aircraft carriers will need to go ashore at least the distance of departure of carrier-based aircraft. And this distance is already within the reach of our coast guards. This is the time. The second one. You forgot that we also have aviation, and it’s very good. And planes have rockets. As soon as these aircraft carriers are within the range of striking, with real databases - preventive strikes will be delivered. For aircraft carriers. And the third - our submarine fleet so far has a large number of submarines, which in this situation will not be on the docks. Plus, our warships - and even boats that can carry KR. And multiply this by the ability of the Russians to fight. In total - aircraft carriers will cause trouble, but they are not a huge problem. So far, our coast guard is quite combat-ready.
    1. Pavel Bryansk
      Pavel Bryansk 6 March 2018 13: 38
      0
      that's right. aircraft carriers this is for the "Papuans"
  19. d ^ Amir
    d ^ Amir 2 March 2018 14: 53
    +1
    so what??? it just says that the white gentlemen are not going to go in the first echelon !!! in front of you will drive all sorts of psheks, probalts and new friends - skakuazov !!!
  20. TimurEkgardt
    TimurEkgardt 2 March 2018 16: 30
    +1
    I wonder if the T-14 will experience fire in Syria?
  21. sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 3 March 2018 23: 55
    +1
    according to this beautiful picture
    Beautiful picture. And for some reason I remembered Uriah Heep, Salisbury.
  22. anvar1
    anvar1 4 March 2018 12: 59
    +1
    The 2008 conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia showed how a tank, even without ammunition, was able to disperse a crowd of Georgian warriors.
  23. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 4 March 2018 13: 20
    +2
    "But I can say that everything that happened in Crimea and Ukraine, of course, would provoke a response from the alliance, because NATO is protecting and protecting all allies from any threat there. "
    But rather, it does not protect against threats, but rather provokes threats to these allies.
  24. TuM0305
    TuM0305 5 March 2018 10: 44
    0
    I think that NATO is not very afraid of t72b3! So Armata will begin to enter the troops in 2030, then they will get scared!
  25. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 9 March 2018 23: 24
    0
    Nevertheless, we must persistently continue to improve all available tanks and prepare the infrastructure for the deployment of tank armies, instant deployment. Tanks will still have their say, and especially in Europe! And then, the tank army is advancing in cooperation with other types of troops, and if the tank fist is well covered by aviation and air defense systems, he will sweep everything in his path. If there will be a conventional war, then it will be in the vastness of Ukraine and Poland. But tanks should be ready to use tactical nuclear weapons.