Military Review

T-90C in Iraq: a double feeling from the deal

96



Long ago, back in 2016, information about a contract between Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation JSC and the Government of Iraq passed in journalistic circles.

It is clear that Baghdad was interested and agreed clearly not on railway cars.

Uralvagonzavod produces much more interesting products for Iraq - Tanks. However, it is no secret to anyone that today the Iraqi government is completely dependent on overseas owners and cannot conduct an independent policy.

It was all the more surprising to see in the annual report of Uralvagonzavod for 2016 a year the beginning of work on the implementation of the contract with the customer "368" as priority tasks. Under this code is Iraq. And the contract dealt with the delivery of the first batch of Russian T-90C / CK tanks in the amount of 73 units.

There were many disputes then. How can it be? Iraq armed with American "Abrams" to the eyeballs. He pays huge money for the maintenance of his tank park to American corporations. The United States will not allow its own defense industry to be forced out of the Iraqi market. Agree, there is a reason for such reasoning. Even the resonance ...

Doubts dissipated in November 2017, after a TASS report. According to this report, at a press conference of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, it was announced that Russia had begun to implement the contract. T-90C are delivered according to the schedule.

T-90C in Iraq: a double feeling from the deal


The arrival of tanks was also announced by the Russian ambassador to Iraq, Maxim Maximov, in his statement of February 8 from 2018. True, Maximov did not mention the specific date. But in the network a little earlier, in early February, there was a video of loading T-90С onto a ship in the port of Ust-Luga. And they were painted in sand colors.

And here's a continuation stories. More precisely, the beginning of the end of this story. 9 April photos of Russian T-90С appeared in the network in Iraq. Huge, even spacious hangar. Smooth rows of brand new tanks and Iraqi soldiers and officers on their background.



To judge the number of tanks is difficult. But some "frills" you can see. The most noticeable is the side screens. Those that have been successfully tested in Syria on T-72B3. But the second is even more interesting. The tanks installed additional power units.



Such an energy unit, as shown by the American experience of the Abrams, allows the use of equipment and weapons of the tank with the engine off. That in the conditions of heat and sand is useful for engine resource. Moreover, the tank can continue firing even if a rocket hits the engine.

The Arab press today writes quite a lot about new Iraqi tanks. They call huge numbers both in the number of cars and in their value. In this polyphony should be reduced rather than increased. So, according to the Middle East Monitor, in April Iraq will receive the X-NUMX of the T-73C. Actually, as indicated in the contract.

What is it? The victory of Russian weapons over the US? Successful work of our sellers weapons? Reorienting Iraq? Or simply the ability to count their own money and the choice of the best from the category that you can buy for this money?

In the midst of the patriots, voices are louder and louder about the crisis of the American tank. Indeed, the Internet is full of clips in which the militants shot the destruction of "Abrams" in various ways. From the use of the American PT complexes to the destruction using jihadmobiles.

Moreover, there are many photos of the old Iraqi "Abrams" in the network, covering themselves with dust on the basis of the 9 armored division in Taji. Only these tanks have long been outdated. Moreover, they were obsolete at the time of sale. Even then, the M1А1 did not meet modern requirements. And the Americans did not intend to sell advanced М1А2.

However, at that time, these tanks really played a role in the war. Recall, Iraq spent 2,16 a billion dollars on an 152 tank. But why was this done? Yes, simply because it was necessary to fight something with the "IG" (prohibited in Russia). It was a powerful military force.

According to a recent publication of the Iraqi newspaper Al Ghad Press, 60 Abrams tanks of the Iraqi army, which now need to be rebuilt, were put out of action during the fighting against the forces of IG * in Mosul (it is unclear whether this number is irretrievably lost tanks) .

The repair of Abrams tanks of the Iraqi army was carried out by General Dynamics Corporation on a technical base in Al Matan at Baghdad airport, where, apparently, the remaining tanks of this type are also located.

Probably, the cost of repairing and upgrading the not-so-new American tank exceeded all reasonable limits and in Iraq seriously thought about another combat vehicle. Cheaper and (preferably) new.

So what is the advantage today of our T-90С over American М1А2? There are many such comparisons in the press today. Compare everything. Therefore, we can do without technical details, millimeters and kilometers. As well as without the "final proof of the superiority" of any of the tanks.

Armor? The American armor is more powerful, with a grid of depleted uranium. A complex of active protection is in both tanks. Dynamic armor? Again, there is. Practically, if again not to go deep into the performance characteristics, the tanks use similar protection systems.

Reinforced armor makes the Abrams somewhat awkward. For the vitality it was necessary to "pay obesity." Run fast "fat man" can not. 63 more than a ton of weight. Do not compare with 46,5 tons of T-90C.

There is, however, one detail that still makes the Abrams preferable. The tank has been fighting for quite some time. This means that a lot of shortcomings have been identified and fixed. Our T-90 is only at the beginning.

But our tank has an advantage that makes it better in the eyes of a potential buyer. Price! "Abrams" bites. More 8 million apiece. Ours are much cheaper.

So why did Iraq buy our tanks today? Alas, the answer is simple. You need a lot of good tanks, and you don’t have enough money to buy them. But other thoughts are spinning in my head. Are the Iraqi authorities so dependent on Washington? Or, being fascinated by Syria, the United States decided to "loosen the leash" around Baghdad's neck?

In any case, the supply of our tanks to countries that were previously fully armed with NATO or the US is a good sign. For our MIC.
If we take for the postulate that export tanks are much worse than those that go into our army ...

Otherwise, this is just a good base for testing our tanks by experts of “potential”, thoughtful study and development of new methods of combat.
Author:
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint April 12 2018 05: 48
    +18
    But is it possible about active protection of abrams in more detail? Well, about the dynamic, too, at the same time)))
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 April 12 2018 06: 51
      +5
      Armor? The American has more powerful armor with a depleted uranium net.


      it would be necessary to get away from the Amer’s stamps, depleted uranium does not happen, as uranium 238 is called by misunderstanding, now a lot of uranium 238 has accumulated, and armor and pins for shells are made of it.

      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 12 2018 10: 22
        +13
        Uranium is enriched and unenriched. His name is depleted.
        It is not radioactive, but its dust is harmful - carcinogenic.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 11
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Uranium is enriched and unenriched. His name is depleted.
          It is not radioactive, but its dust is harmful - carcinogenic.


          it’s Israel that is depleted there, but it doesn’t happen here.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 20
            +5
            In English: depleted uranium
            depleted - in this case: with a reduced amount of isotope 235 than in natural uranium
            with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 21
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              In English: depleted uranium
              depleted - in this case: with a reduced amount of isotope 235 than in natural uranium
              with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium


              you write here in Russian, not Russian, do not.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 24
                +26
                I always translate for those who do not understand hi

                In Russian, actually with two "s", if you do not mean
                ancient spelling.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  I always translate for those who do not understand hi

                  In Russian, actually with two "s", if you do not mean
                  ancient spelling.


                  Russian - it is written with one _С_, so it is correct and according to the rules of the Russian language. By the way, with one _С_ they wrote back in the 19th century. For example, the writer Shishkov A.S.
                  Alexander Semenovich Shishkov (1754-1841) - one of the outstanding statesmen of Russia, vice admiral and writer, minister of public education and head of the censorship department.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 36
                    +14
                    AND! So you would say that you write in the old Russian.
                    But did you turn to “you” in the 19th century or only from the 21st century?
                    1. Bar1
                      Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      AND! So you would say that you write in the old Russian.
                      But did you turn to “you” in the 19th century or only from the 21st century?


                      it's all here wink
        2. Engineer
          Engineer April 12 2018 11: 12
          +12
          238 is radioactive, uranium generally does not have stable isotopes, it’s another matter that in export versions of the tank there is simply no depleted uranium, i.e. uranoceramics in armor from the word completely, so corundum ceramics
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 16
            +5
            Exactly. In Iraq, no. When tanks were handed over to Iraqis
            the uranium plates were removed and replaced with simple inserts.
          2. Bar1
            Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 23
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            238 is radioactive


            238 has very little phonite, so much so that it can be transported through airport sensors.
        3. megavolt823
          megavolt823 April 12 2018 11: 29
          +3
          uranium is uranium. and the effects of nuclides and other things are not fully known. There is infa about various cases of diseases of retired and contract graduates. but free media in a free country of Afro-Saxons does not give much to spray fantasy. this is not for you. once you become a pedonarkoterrorist. but there really is a problem. Yes, and the price of the issue of the dumb golden phallus rolls over. but for a local hassle it solves a lot of problems. there are + and -. hi
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 43
            +7
            "there is infa about various cases of diseases of retired and contract graduates" ///

            They got sick from cancer from uranium dust from numerous small-caliber armor-piercing shells fired by A-10 attack aircraft and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
            1. Graz
              Graz April 13 2018 13: 32
              +1
              in Serbia, after American post-shootings, a lot of people died, from the effects of uranium shells after many years, including
          2. Bar1
            Bar1 April 12 2018 11: 46
            +1
            Quote: megavolt823
            uranium is uranium. and the effects of nuclides and other things are not fully known. There is infa about various cases of diseases of retired and contract graduates. but free media in a free country of Afro-Saxons does not give much to spray fantasy. this is not for you. once you become a pedonarkoterrorist. but there really is a problem. Yes, and the price of the issue of the dumb golden phallus rolls over. but for a local hassle it solves a lot of problems. there are + and -. hi


            the problem of the contact of the human body with uranium is the problem of heavy metals that accumulate in the body and spoil the metabolism, such as lead, do not fonit, but it’s better not to take it in their hands once again. Typographic workers used to bend from lead.
            1. ALEXXX1983
              ALEXXX1983 April 14 2018 23: 19
              0
              Quote: Bar1
              Printing workers used to bend from lead.

              And even earlier everything was bent from lead, as dishes and cosmetics were made from it. Yes, and as a "medicine" used.
              1. Captain Pushkin
                Captain Pushkin April 16 2018 12: 27
                0
                Quote: ALEXXX1983
                Quote: Bar1
                Printing workers used to bend from lead.

                And even earlier everything was bent from lead, as dishes and cosmetics were made from it. Yes, and as a "medicine" used.

                And even earlier, the inhabitants of ancient Rome were bent from lead - there the water pipes were made of lead. Citizens rarely lived to be over 40 years old.
                1. 73petia
                  73petia April 17 2018 20: 20
                  0
                  And even earlier, the inhabitants of ancient Rome were bent from lead - there the water pipes were from lead

                  And there in ancient Rome, sour wine was “corrected” with lead acetate. It tastes sweet.
        4. NG inform
          NG inform April 12 2018 12: 06
          +1
          Naturally, it is radioactive, but not as much as uranium ore. You can insert radiation protection. The reason why it is not used on Russian tanks is that it is pyrophoric, in case of breaking through the armor it aggravates the situation.
          1. Bar1
            Bar1 April 12 2018 12: 32
            0
            Quote: NG inform
            Naturally, it is radioactive, but not as much as uranium ore. You can insert radiation protection. The reason why it is not used on Russian tanks is that it is pyrophoric, in case of breaking through the armor it aggravates the situation.


            it is not clear that Russian shells are going to shoot at Russian tanks?
        5. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 12 2018 14: 43
          +2
          you’ll laugh, the carcinogenicity of U238 and MPC are the same. like ... aluminum.)))
          And an order of magnitude lower than nickel and copper))
          1. Rader
            Rader April 12 2018 18: 49
            +1
            Quote: Kyzmich
            you’ll laugh, the carcinogenicity of U238 and MPC are the same. like ... aluminum.)))
            And an order of magnitude lower than nickel and copper))

            But aluminum does not turn into a fine powder when hammering it with a sledgehammer, well, it is not a source of alpha radiation. hi
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 13 2018 00: 24
              0
              What do you mean?
              And do you often hammer on uranium?
              Do you not like aluminum?
              Take asbestos.
              In general, I advise you to look at the MPC of various metals.
              You will be surprised.
              Uranus 238 is almost in last place there
          2. Graz
            Graz April 13 2018 13: 33
            +1
            it’s you in Serbia, tell me, the people there are measures like flies where the tanks fired uranium shells and where the gatling attack aircraft
      2. Hanokem
        Hanokem April 13 2018 08: 53
        -1
        I reached the sentence "Agree, there is a reason for such reasoning. Even a resonance ...". I immediately realized that this was an article by a certain Skomorokhov and did not continue to waste his time.
      3. Archon
        Archon April 13 2018 17: 30
        +1
        Depleted Uranium - Uranium consisting mainly of the uranium-238 isotope (U-238). Natural uranium consists of approximately 99,27% U-238, 0,72% U-235 and 0,0055% U-234. Since U-235 is used in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, natural uranium in the production of nuclear fuel is enriched in X-NUMX uranium by mass separation of isotopes. A byproduct of enrichment is called depleted uranium; most of the radioactive isotopes (U-235 and U-235) are extracted at the enrichment stage, and depleted uranium is even less radioactive than uranium ore (half-life of U-234 - 238 billion years). The dose of external radiation from depleted uranium is about 4,5 percent of what gives natural uranium of the same mass. In the past, depleted uranium received the names Q-metal, “depletalloy” and D-60, but these names are no longer used.
        Depleted uranium is popular because of its high density (19,1 g / cm³, for comparison, 7,8 g / cm³ for iron), as well as the large neutron capture cross section. It is used as counterweights in airplanes and missiles, radiation protection in medical radiation therapy and in industrial radiography equipment, as well as containers used to transport radioactive materials. The military industry uses it for the production of armor plates and armor-piercing projectiles.
    2. Kars
      Kars April 12 2018 13: 50
      +3
      If the money paid, then the contract was a success. There are no more secrets in t90
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. ALEXXX1983
      ALEXXX1983 April 14 2018 23: 30
      0
      Quote: cariperpaint
      But is it possible about active protection of abrams in more detail? Well, about the dynamic, too, at the same time)))

      This question is also of interest. wink
      Of course, there are SEPs and single samples with the Israeli KAZ Trophy, but they are certainly not offered for internal use only.
    5. certero
      certero April 17 2018 07: 38
      0
      I would also love to read about dynamic defense on Abrams
  2. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint April 12 2018 05: 54
    +13
    at the same time, the author probably needs to pay a little attention to the fact that US tanks did not export uranium armor. EAR packet was coming. even if the tanks were removed from storage, the armor was replaced. what kind of analytics is this?
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd April 12 2018 09: 49
      +16
      Quote: cariperpaint
      what kind of analytics is this?

      Here is such an analyst, from the word anal. Too many of these recently. As the truth of last resort cuts: “The American has more powerful armor with a depleted uranium net. But both tanks have active defense systems. Dynamic armor? Again, this is present. In practice, if you don’t go deep into the technical characteristics, the tanks use the same security systems. " To be honest, I'm at a loss - not a single correspondence with the truth, just a complete lack of understanding of the subject. What does the author smoke at all, talking about the "grid" from depleted uranium ???? What does the grid look like? String bag? Mosquito net? I just want to understand the logic.
      Victims of the exam cannot write articles on serious topics.
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy April 12 2018 13: 39
      0
      Quote: cariperpaint
      At the same time, the author probably needs to pay a little attention to the fact that the USA did not supply US tanks for the export of uranium armor.


      And kakbe leash the US on Iraq did not forbid them to buy Mi-28. One of the two countries along with Algeria who bought them.
  3. dog breeder
    dog breeder April 12 2018 06: 24
    +6
    Today is the day of all-pro-obsessive analysts?
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint April 12 2018 06: 28
      +5
      this is not analytics but a circus.
  4. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint April 12 2018 06: 26
    +7
    and what we have in the end. pot-bellied monster with ordinary armor. the Iraqi army has no active defense on it. They don’t have their own KAZ yet. they buy Israeli and then for themselves. I didn’t see any dynamic protection as much as I looked at the photo from Iraq. although here I could be wrong. with a wild price for repairs and especially upgrades. or brand new tanks with all the goodies. what a difficult choice then ... I point blank do not understand the dualism of that deal. that's all)
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2018 10: 20
      +4
      Iraqi Abrams has no DZ. The Americans began to put on their sides.
      1. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint April 12 2018 10: 56
        +1
        I think so too . I just saw their abrashek only in the photo and video, and DZ did not notice it point blank. but since it’s all the same mounted and I saw clearly not all the cars decided that in theory it is possible.
  5. Monar
    Monar April 12 2018 06: 37
    +2
    But aren't there many 73 tanks "for testing our tanks by experts of" potential ""?
  6. Talash
    Talash April 12 2018 06: 54
    +2
    Americans, a very thoughtful people, I think to feel them the hunt of our 90th!
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint April 12 2018 07: 18
      +2
      they have nothing to feel there. this is an export model there is nothing particularly important.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 08: 09
    +17
    M-d-ah! In practice, not a single article by Skomorokhov can do without “pearls” ... like this time .... like: “depleted uranium net”, “active defense complexes”, “dynamic armor” at ...... Iraqis!
    If we assume that export tanks are much worse than those that go into our army
    Hee hee! Roman forgot that the mind can not understand Russia! Air conditioners, additional electrical units, super-duper thermal sights first appear on export tanks. And only then on domestic Russian ..... sometimes ....... maybe. wink
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 April 12 2018 15: 18
      +4
      Vladimir, welcome hi If it were my will - I would have awarded you with the medal "For Courage" and would give ... sets of DZ and KAZ for this
      In practice, not a single article by Skomorokhov is complete without “pearls”
      Well, for every fireman. wink
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 16: 10
        +2
        Quote: Svarog51
        Well, for every fireman

        That is ... "posthumously"? wink
        Hello, Sergey! I'm glad to hear you" ! hi
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 April 12 2018 19: 27
          +2
          That is ... "posthumously"?

          That's why I am writing so that it does not happen. Specialists are needed at the forefront in full health. wink drinks
    2. RUSS
      RUSS April 12 2018 15: 50
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Air conditioners, additional electrical units, super-duper thermal sights first appear on export tanks. And only then on domestic Russian ..... sometimes ....... maybe.

      The Ministry of Defense has already signed a contract with Uralvagonzavod for the modernization of a batch of T-80 tanks, which, according to the company’s representative, will be brought up to the level of the T-72B3 tank in terms of its characteristics. The T-80 tank with a gas turbine installation was produced from 1976 until the mid-1990s. It was with these tanks that from the beginning of the 1980s they began to saturate the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Northern Group of Forces deployed in Poland, which is why the T-80 was often called the "English Channel": the avalanches of these tanks were supposed to rush to the English Channel. The baptism of fire of the T-80 took place during the assault on Grozny in December 1994 and January 1995. According to The Military Balance, in 2017, there were about three thousand units of various modifications of the T-80 at Russian bases for storing armored weapons and equipment. Moreover, the Russian Ministry of Defense wished to buy from South Korea the most valuable components of the T-80U main battle tanks withdrawn from combat (at the time, more than 30 T-80U, 70 BMP-3 and 70 BTR- tanks were delivered to the South Korean army as a result of the Russian debt 80 - now they are being withdrawn from service). According to plans, the modernized T-80s should receive a new Sosna-U fire control system with a thermal imager, a new range finder and automatic target tracking and more modern dynamic protection. Of course, as the military expert, the captain of the 1st rank of the reserve Sergey Ishchenko, wrote, "this will greatly increase their combat capabilities. Only all the same, it will be far to the “Almaty” and the deeply modernized “eighties”. In addition, the age of these machines ranges from 25 to 31 years. In any case, the replacement is not equal. " But the same can be said for the upgraded versions of the T-72. To some extent, this also applies to the T-90: at least the military themselves say that “Armata” is better. And in 2011, the then Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, spoke sharply of the quality of the T-90, calling it just the “17th modification of the Soviet T-72 tank,” manufactured since 1973. No less derogatory at the same time spoke about the T-90 in all its modifications and the then chief of weapons - Deputy Minister of Defense, and then the First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Army General Vladimir Popovkin. It is not without reason that they argue that it was Popovkin’s tough stance that forced Uralvagonzavod to modernize the T-90: it was “drank” to the level that the military at least arranged for the time that they thought would be necessary before the start of the “normal” series tank, that is, the future "Almaty". But so far things are known with “Armata”, everything is spinning in a circle: modification - modernization - modification - modernization ... As Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, continues the "systematic re-equipment of troops with modern tanks", and now in military permanent readiness units "more than 50% of modern T-72B3, T-80U and T-90A tanks". If these models are seriously called modern, what then are the remaining 50 percent ?! And it turns out that the Russian army is armed with a zoo of different types of tanks of various modifications, which inevitably creates difficulties in their daily maintenance, repair, supply and use. By the way, in May 2017, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that "we are gradually abandoning modernization of old weapons," although, they say, modernization is the same "normal phenomenon" as the creation of new models, "but these modernizations should not be endless. Say three or four upgrades, no more.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 16: 33
        +3
        Quote: RUSS
        In any case, the replacement is not equivalent. "But the same can be said for the upgraded versions of the T-72. To some extent, this applies to the T-90:


        Quote: RUSS
        calling it just the "17-th modification of the Soviet T-72 tank", produced since 1973 year.

        I agree with this opinion ... First, in any "Wikipedia", it is recognized "that the T-90 is a" deep modernization (!) Of the T-72 "! Secondly: what is" revolutionary "in the T-90 by compared to the T-72? request One "evolution" of the T-72! For comparison, it is recommended to take the main “opponent” T-90 “Abrams” and trace the history from M1 to M1А2 SEP ... “Admire” the changes (modifications) of the T-72 / 90 and “Abrams” ... however, “Abrams” as was the "Abrams" M1 ... so it remained to them ...
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 April 12 2018 19: 30
          +2
          however, “Abrams” as it was “Abrams” M1 ... and so it remained ...

          Nikolaitch, Respect! So “Abrash” has not yet dropped a single T-90. good good good
  8. Xroft
    Xroft April 12 2018 09: 10
    +1
    We sold them and the Mi-28 ... so it’s a logical continuation of cooperation. In any intense conflict, our weapons are more reliable and serviceable. Well and of course cheaper, price / quality ratio.
    We really lack quality new ammunition .... and missiles and shells.
  9. tank64rus
    tank64rus April 12 2018 09: 41
    +1
    All over the world, first to myself, and then for export. We can see the opposite. Damned 90s, we can’t reverse this legacy in any way.
  10. ares1988
    ares1988 April 12 2018 09: 42
    +3
    There was a scandal with GD due to the fact that the Iraqi army handed over 2 Abrams to some pro-Iranian rebels (think Iran). In response, GD stopped servicing and repairing Abrams, and in conditions of intensive database maintenance, this should be done often. Probably one of the reasons for the purchase of the T-90 was, inter alia, the desire not to depend in armament only on the United States.
  11. Livonetc
    Livonetc April 12 2018 09: 55
    0
    The right deal.
    And building relationships with Iraq.
    And Iraq is already beginning to defend its national interests.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 12 2018 10: 18
    +5
    "Run fast" fat man "can not ////

    Maybe, and how! Faster than the T-90. But at sprint distances.
    T-80 and Abrams are two tanks that can make crazy jerks from a place.
    Thanks to the gas turbine. Moreover, the jerks are silent.
    But Abrams really can’t do long marches, like the T-90.
    And he overcomes obstacles worse.
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint April 12 2018 11: 07
      0
      silent)))) not. Well, if everything is buried in headsets, then of course)
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 12 2018 11: 13
        +3
        Let's just say a few times quieter compared to diesel.
        The noise from the tank is of great importance in the war: T-34-76
        was heard a few kilometers around (due to the powerful engine, but
        with a bad gearbox), but for example
        German T-3 or English Walentine - for several hundred meters.
        1. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint April 12 2018 11: 21
          +1
          here I agree) although this is not relevant as it was at that time) the detection systems are completely different. just when I see a silent picture always before my eyes, the soldiers see in the trench and then a tank appears from around the corner))))))) low-noise in the frontal projection still no matter where)
        2. Bad thing
          Bad thing April 13 2018 18: 49
          +1
          The main reason for the noise of the T-34 caterpillar with OMSH clang of tracks was heard earlier than the sound of the engine.
  13. Berkut24
    Berkut24 April 12 2018 12: 02
    0
    In any case, the supply of our tanks to countries that were previously fully armed with NATO or American is a good sign.

    Previously, Iraq was mainly sitting on Russian technology. American iron appeared there only after the defeat of Saddam.
  14. Igar
    Igar April 12 2018 12: 12
    +4
    The mediocre "analyst." Novice blogger level
  15. Loginoff
    Loginoff April 12 2018 12: 30
    +3
    Quote: cariperpaint
    silent)))) not. Well, if everything is buried in headsets, then of course)

    A very important parameter. From the same Donbass review. When a diesel tank changes position at night, it is perfectly audible at a great distance even in the absence of visual contact. A gas turbine tank can change position covertly. Hearing an increase in the speed of the diesel engine, you can make ready for firing, and a gas turbine tank will suddenly slip through a dangerous section, for example. T.ch. tubina - weigh good, but expensive.
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd April 12 2018 14: 35
      +12
      Quote: Loginoff
      A gas turbine tank can change position covertly.

      Have you encountered gas turbine tanks to make such statements? I served on the T80 and I can say that the noise from a tank with a gas turbine engine is comparable to the noise from a jet aircraft. In a clean field from a certain angle (front), the noise will be lower, but only if there is no building behind the tank or anything reflecting the sound, and the sound will not be absent, but only weakened. So there is no need to talk nonsense about the reviews from the Donbass - what was the diesel tank compared to in the Donbass? Where does the experience of the “suddenly skipping” gas turbine come from? GTE has very different advantages compared to a diesel engine and "low noise" does not apply to them.
  16. Vasily Rogalev
    Vasily Rogalev April 12 2018 12: 57
    +3
    That noiseless is for sure, was present at the T-80 tests in 1977 in Karakum, There is no noise from the engine, only a whistle, but if you stand in front, just a clang of tracks,
  17. alexnmv5
    alexnmv5 April 12 2018 14: 26
    +1
    Abrams is not for a big war of attrition. It is not just expensive, it is, for not too large and rich countries, generally heavy. The consumption and quality of the necessary fuel in a good war with an equal in capability enemy, which can easily create problems with the delivery of this very fuel, will not make it possible to use all the best qualities of this tank. What we see in the conflicts of recent years. Add the repair base of this tank, the prices for spare parts are sky-high. And it breaks down, due to the large weight, operating conditions, is not rare. This car is good only in certain conditions. And the main ones are the presence of considerable money and a technological advantage over the enemy. In general, a purely American development. The Iraqis understood all this and resolutely decided to change something.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2018 15: 16
      +4
      Abrams was created as an anti-tank self-propelled gun (fighter
      tanks) against the armada of Soviet tanks in the 70s. He is imprisoned
      on a frontal shoot-out, tank-vs-tank battle.
      And in this role he performed remarkably, especially in 2003 in Iraq.
      As an infantry support tank, it is bad for fighting in the city and against
      infantry with RPGs are not good. The sides of its hull are very weak.
      1. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint April 12 2018 19: 18
        +2
        that’s his weakness) frontal attacks in battles even before 70 became the last measure. the main task is to impose your battle. the maneuver is already no matter how. I damn it would never occur to go into the foreheads. I somehow watched a video of some sort of how Iraqis exchanged fire with them. it was a complete epic. their commanders had to be planted immediately after the battle if they survive.
  18. alexnmv5
    alexnmv5 April 12 2018 14: 30
    0
    Abrams is a kind of White elephant, large, beautiful, formidable, but extremely expensive.
  19. Earnest
    Earnest April 12 2018 14: 35
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Let's just say a few times quieter compared to diesel.
    The noise from the tank is of great importance in the war: T-34-76
    was heard a few kilometers around (due to the powerful engine, but
    with a bad gearbox), but for example
    German T-3 or English Walentine - for several hundred meters.

    The clang of tracks was very strong, since there were no rollers or trucks on the t-34 rubberized. And some, to reduce the cost of the release of wartime, went without intracatical depreciation. There was a rumble ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2018 15: 11
      +3
      Not because. T-34-76 (until the end of 1943)
      there was an incredibly primitive tractor box
      gears. The gears did not shift on the go, for
      switching needed the efforts of two people -
      mechanics and radio operator arrow. And the tank often stalled when
      switchings. For this reason, during the battle was prescribed
      Drive continuously in 2nd (second) gear and do not touch the box.
      And the engine was powerful. So he let out an incredible roar.
      The box was so bad that American engineers checked the tank (according
      exchange of experience) at their training ground, they wrote in the conclusion about the tank (they liked a lot, by the way) "box - sabotage against the army, there is no other explanation"
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 April 12 2018 15: 34
        +5
        Alexey hi You are somewhat mistaken about the KP on the T-34, it does not affect the sound. The roar was due to the silencers (practically their absence) and suspension, as a colleague said a little higher. Have you ever had to lose a jerk on a car?
      2. ISSIDOR
        ISSIDOR April 12 2018 20: 05
        +3
        The grandfather in the WWII on 34 ke fought as a driver, when switching gears, a sledgehammer with a short handle was used, and no help was required.
      3. andrey-ivanov
        andrey-ivanov April 14 2018 14: 46
        +3
        The reason for the increased noise of the T-34 was the absence of silencers on the exhaust pipes and the “bare” ones, the so-called "Stalingrad" rollers, without a load. The entire line of T-34, KV, IS tanks and vehicles based on them did not have silencers. Unlike earlier BTs and Allied vehicles and Germany.
  20. g1v2
    g1v2 April 12 2018 15: 21
    +6
    Abrams received bad publicity during the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Of the 152 Iraqi abrams, a third (about 50) are destroyed by ishiloid. Video and photo of burning abrams full. At the same time, our T90s, on the contrary, received powerful positive advertising, including through the help of al-Qaeda osloubov. When two of our T90s abandoned by the Syrians fell into the hands of Nusra, and they began to bend both competitors from other groups and various government formations, this made an impression. Ours and Syrians have been catching them for more than a year, until they are trapped. And then - one survived and returned to the army team. That is, even if oslolyuby can master it and bend on it, then for everyone in the east it became clear that this is a prodigy. Plus the smallest losses from competing tanks and excellent survivability. Even the Turks lost more leopards. Tch t90 received a very good advertisement on BV. One must use, however. request
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2018 16: 25
      +4
      "Video and photo of burning abrams full" ////

      These pictures - even before ISIS. The times of the Falluja uprising,
      when the Americans first encountered the guerrilla war in Iraq
      and suffered losses in tanks.
      During the war with ISIS since 2014, the Iraqi army gradually assimilated
      with the Abrams, learned that the sides can not be substituted.
      Therefore, during the assault on Mosul and other cities, their losses were few.
      But Abrams is less convenient for supporting infantry - the main task of tanks
      in the Iraqi army. T-90 copes with this task better. And service
      T-90 is simpler and cheaper. Therefore, for the Iraqi army, the transition to the T-90
      logical.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 April 12 2018 18: 50
        +1
        During the assault of Mosul by igloids or Iraqis? If igiloidami, so there the army team stood on sneakers. If already army men, then there the mattresses were bombed by bombing blocks for dust. Plus a significant part of the militants released. But even the igiloids uploaded a bunch of videos of wrecked abrams during the battles for Mosul. At that time, they did not cheat in their video reports.
        Well, as for the support of the infantry, I agree. Abrams, nevertheless, was created as a fighter of armored vehicles. This type of war is not for him. Well, there are no disputes about the convenience and cheapness of service. Soviet-Russian technology in this seriously wins against the western. Plus great ease of learning. request
      2. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint April 12 2018 19: 11
        0
        it’s better to finish the argument) there is an article on losses somewhere in the VO with pictures and let's say half of all losses seemed to be milder to put it ... idiotic in general)))
  21. Usher
    Usher April 12 2018 15: 28
    +2
    The author really does not fumble in the subject? What is the active defense of both tanks? Eprst think of on-board screens, I don’t understand this, it’s obvious why our manufacturers can’t snap such a simple thing right away?
    1. alexnmv5
      alexnmv5 April 12 2018 23: 17
      0
      Well, you know, right now, writers got a dime a dozen. Among them, there are few specialists, that's the problem.
  22. VictorZhivilov
    VictorZhivilov April 12 2018 16: 11
    +2
    But some "bells and whistles" can be seen. The most noticeable is the on-board screens. Those that have been successfully tested in Syria on the T-72B3. But the second one is even more interesting. The tanks are equipped with additional power units.


    It’s interesting, but you can optionally equip these tanks to the T-90MS level. And then somehow it doesn’t turn out seriously. smile
  23. Yrec
    Yrec April 12 2018 17: 40
    +8
    How these comparisons were stolen! DO NOT compare T-90 with abrash! We have different concepts of using tanks with the West! The tank operates as part of certain units and formations, and not alone. These parts and compounds should be compared to solve the tasks as far as possible. And the tank needs to be produced, transported, refuel / service, repaired (urgent, current, medium, major repairs), to prepare the crew. Want to compare? Compare the WHOLE spectrum of tank life cycle factors. And not just TTX. This is not WoT.
  24. hetzer250789
    hetzer250789 April 12 2018 17: 44
    +4
    Well, the abrams with kaz and dz in nature exist only in the army of the ksa. The americans ride their m1 without them, apparently they understand that an extra couple of tons of mass will quickly destroy the already overloaded suspension. 62 tons in stock + kaz and dz of total order 65-66 tons .... will get stuck in the first ditch, and not every bridge will withstand such a burden. KAZ is also a very specific thing - in the city there is only zero from it, just put your own infantry. Well, why did you choose the T-90S (which, by the way, has no kaz or curtains), the answer is obvious: how many abrams were lost by the Saudis and Iraqis in Iraq and Yemen? About 100 and this is only according to official figures. What destroyed them? Ancient as a homo mammoth bassoons and Milan. For our T-90s, despite all the handshakes of the Syrian warriors, only 2 were lost during the 3 years of the war. All the cars were seized! Only one of them was destroyed, and the Syrians themselves. Well, a video with a hit in our T-90 tandem Tow 2A, the consequences of which the tank did not even notice should remove the last doubts
  25. lekalpan
    lekalpan April 12 2018 19: 48
    +1
    What would Russia not do all the tax-free and unique!
  26. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim April 13 2018 01: 20
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    but its dust is harmful - carcinogenic.

    This is well shown by the cancer statistics in Yugoslavia.
    About half of the raids using depleted uranium ammunition occurred in the last ten days of the bombing, i.e. after the conclusion of an agreement on the end of aggression.
    "Hotly loved" NATO made a real genocide to the Serbian people.
    So, from 2001 to 2010, the incidence of carcinoma increased by 20%, and mortality from cancer (primarily leukemia and lymphoma, which in peacetime does not exceed 5% of all malignant neoplasms) - by 25% . The number of cancers is steadily increasing.
    But what about the world community?
    In November 2000, a UN report was published on the basis of research. It is huge, 200 pages. General conclusion: excess of permissible international standards characterizing toxic and radioactive contamination, scientists not found.
    Report: https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/duserbi
    amont.pdf
  27. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov April 13 2018 13: 44
    0
    ... thoughtful study and development of new methods of struggle.)))
    Yes, and to cut the budget because it would be enough to study tanks 10-12.
  28. tat_shurik
    tat_shurik April 13 2018 14: 27
    0
    Radioactive ALL isotopes of ALL elements of the periodic table named after Mendeleev with a serial number greater than Bismuth. just radioactive to varying degrees. as for 235 and 238 isotopes, the former is about five times more radioactive than the latter.
    On the other hand, riding a tank with uranium plates is not an ice. Yes, and I do not quite understand the meaning of such a twist - there are other more durable and refractory materials.
    Why is the uranium core in the shell - it is clear - the large specific gravity and decent strength make it possible to further maintain the armor penetration of the shell than, say, with tungsten-based cores. Plus, there is a deficiency of tungsten, and there is enough uranium-238 after enrichment of fuel for nuclear power plants and it needs to be put somewhere.
    Although living in the area where tank battles using such shells took place is not good for health, especially since uranium crumbles and burns, which allows it to penetrate later on when breathing, which is not even healthier.

    And yet - why do uranium inserts in armor? Can someone explain?
  29. chingachguc
    chingachguc April 13 2018 18: 09
    0
    interestingly, Iraq is dependent on the United States, and Iran is jaunting there in its pocket ... forms military units, carries goods and so on ... that's the whole thing that the Iraqi Shiite government puts on the United States, and the United States puts up with it , since they ate Iraq on the tonsils.
  30. Hog
    Hog April 13 2018 19: 12
    0
    The conclusions about the armor are just epic (did you put many TUSK sets for Iraqi abrams?).
  31. Mihail28
    Mihail28 April 13 2018 23: 02
    +1
    There is, however, one detail that still makes the Abrams preferable. The tank has been fighting for quite some time. This means that a lot of shortcomings have been identified and fixed. Our T-90 is only at the beginning.

    The name T-90 is rather the political name for the modification of the T-72 tank than the technical name of the new model tank. That is, the T-90 is the next modification of the T-72 tank, which eliminated certain shortcomings of previous modifications of the T-72 tank.
  32. cormorant
    cormorant April 14 2018 13: 05
    -1
    So where is the dual sensation? What is the problem then?
  33. 1970mk
    1970mk April 14 2018 23: 22
    +2
    “Ours is much cheaper.” ..... for whom .... let's put forward a deal ... on which our tanks are sold (put) for 3 million dollars. My question is - what is the cost of the “product”? What is the real profit? The fact is that I can’t understand one thing - you can sell tanks at least “free of charge” ... what does it cost the state? The financial activity of the same Uralvagonzavod is "well, a very funny thing" ... our entire defense industry works masterfully. If you closely monitor the news, the defense industry, including this company, tens of hundreds of billions of rubles are simply written off. The company takes a loan for many billions of rubles .... successfully assimilates it and can’t give it away! And the state is writing off the loan! Riddle ..... someone just gets a lot of money. And the real cost is not known to anyone.
  34. nivander
    nivander April 22 2018 12: 47
    0
    who drove the T-72 and mastered the T-90
  35. Normal ok
    Normal ok April 23 2018 16: 27
    0
    T-90C in Iraq: a double feeling from the deal

    It seems that the United States, due to Iraq, took Russian tanks for test firing.
  36. Conserp
    Conserp April 23 2018 19: 22
    +2
    The American has more powerful armor with a depleted uranium net.

    American propaganda ravings. Moreover, only half of the frontal projection is more or less adequately protected in Abrams.

    Dynamic armor? Again, present.
    At "Abrams" - outdated, lightweight, only on the sides and during installation dramatically reduces the resource of the chassis (and so overloaded). On Iraqi "Abrams" it is not at all.

    Reinforced armor makes the Abrams somewhat awkward. For survivability had to "pay obesity"
    Illiterate crap.

    Thick and heavy “Abrams” is not made at all reinforced armor (no it is not reinforced - normal), but the second-generation layout, which became obsolete in 1963, and a number of constructive miscalculations when creating units.

    The fat man cannot run fast.
    Crap again. The mass does not affect speed at all, but mobility, cross-country ability and resource.

    There is, however, one detail that still makes the Abrams preferable. The tank has been fighting for quite some time. This means that a lot of shortcomings have been identified and fixed. Our T-90 is only at the beginning.

    Just enchanting nonsense. How many years has the T-72 been in operation and how many have been fighting?

    Authors - back to kindergarten.
  37. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis April 25 2018 19: 01
    0
    Both tanks have active defense systems. Dynamic armor? Again, is present

    And here I would like to know more?
  38. Tomato
    Tomato April 28 2018 15: 01
    +1
    In this issue, the main thing is different. Real money was paid for these tanks, or, as always for Arab friends, “on credit”, followed by debiting.
    If the tanks are bought, I congratulate you with all my heart. If like Venezuela, then give out gifts, a lot of mind is not necessary.
  39. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 10 June 2018 15: 46
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    It is not radioactive, but its dust is harmful - carcinogenic.

    Which fully manifested itself some time after the use of such (with depleted uranium) in Yugoslavia (genocide of the Serbian people).