How a tank will drown me. Confession of the destroyer


Greetings to all who read these lines! Allow me to introduce myself: the destroyer destroyer of the naval self-defense forces of Japan "Akizuki".


The heir, so to speak, of the "Akizuki" who valiantly fought in World War II. Well, not that valiantly, it was just unlucky for torpedoes. But only the third was sentenced, and this, you know, not every cruiser could stand it.

As expected, we monitor everything that happens in your / our territories. We cannot but follow, because this is a sore point for almost 80 years.

Interesting recently reached us news about Sakhalin. Very interesting, and so much so that I can’t pass by. The depth of the issue does not allow.

Island trapped in ships: tanks can now sink an enemy fleet.

Sensei pen, are you serious? No really?

The article is autumn gold and pink smoke at the foot of Fuji in one bottle. I would like to quote, at the same time imbued with my own powerlessness and realizing that the power of a neighbor is what should permanently push us away from the Kuril Islands.

But - only quotes on your part and discussion with mine.

Reactive Tanks protect the coast of Sakhalin and break up the enemy’s landing if necessary. "The fire capabilities of the upgraded T-80BVM have grown so much that they can not only destroy armored vehicles, but also sink enemy ships."


Ships ... Tanks can sink ships ... It sounds. I even want to compose a kind of hockey, but ... But let's just think about it. Ship - that sounds proud. This is not some kind of ship for you, the ship is a fighting organism. Yes, almost like a tank, only the dirt does not like and the crew is more.

Here I take myself. Hypothetically (then I will explain how it is) I’m going to cover the landing. To Sakhalin. Yes, we went over sake and went. By a formidable force, in accordance with the Bushido Code and all that.


As far as we all know, and we know, we will get up five kilometers from the coast. Why? Yes, because the guns of your tanks shoot at 3,7 km. So you can stand in 4,5 km and be calm in the sense that not a single shell will reach.

And I also have a gun. Not 125 mm, but 127 mm. 5 "/ 54 Mark 45, which can send a projectile at 35 km. Well, aiming at 15 kilometers. And there will be a little more ammunition. 680 shells against 42 from the tank. And it’s firing a little faster.

Of course, if a regiment is set against me, then by ammunition we will be equal. The rest will be sad, because I still have a fire control system, albeit not like the Atago, which was installed with the Arly Burke ... But not bad, especially since our specialists in electronics (I hope that, that we have them, you won’t doubt) dopped it a little to a high level.

So we, perhaps, will not go to such a war. Yes, an 125 mm caliber projectile is an 125 mm caliber projectile. And when hit can do things. But for this he still has to get. I don’t know, maybe you already have guidance systems set up on tanks, in the pattern and likeness, you never know, maybe our intelligence did not work?

But the funny thing is that neither I nor the same Atago, except for the cannon, have anything to support the landing. Well, the participation of our ships in such actions is not planned. Therefore, we have anti-aircraft missiles, there are anti-submarine missiles, some ships even have anti-ship, but we didn’t deliver them with what to work on onshore facilities.

Theoretically, of course, you can equip the Atago and Asigaru with the Tomahawks, but this is more likely theoretically. Since it is theoretically possible to install the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk. No one has tried.


In general, ending the topic weapons, I’ll just remind you that we have such gizmos as destroyers, aircraft carriers. Yes, Izumo with comrades. Each of which can take on deck 14 "Sea hawks."

A helicopter is the most effective weapon against a tank. And replacing anti-ship missiles with anti-tank missiles at Sea Hawke is not as difficult as it seems. Of course, if the coastline is saturated with air defense, then of course yes. The task becomes very difficult.

But we are considering a hypothetical fairy landing on the islands.

“The main task of motorized rifles on the island is to repel sea landing in the event of a military conflict. The most effective tactic for such actions is the destruction of the enemy at distant approaches. And the T-80BVM is just right for this, said military historian Dmitry Boltenkov. "


It’s good that it’s not a “military expert”. We still respect the Russian army. But here I want to note that, apparently, we have a different understanding of the term “distant approaches”.

Here we would be “from distant approaches”, that is, kilometers from 10, using the capabilities of Spy in particular and Aegis in general, we would just try to deal with tanks, since they are the most significant weapon on the island, and with the fact that they will be covered.

“For the Far Eastern units, combat vehicles are undergoing a major upgrade to the level of T-80BVM.
In addition, the machine can now fire missiles. It was specially installed on it a complex of guided weapons "Reflex", which allows you to hit sea targets at long distances. The system uses a laser beam to target supersonic missiles launched from the barrel of a gun.
The range of their flight is about 5 km, which is 2 km longer than conventional tank shells. "


This, of course, is scary. The expert scared. It’s a pity, I forgot to mention that the Reflex ATGM has a mass of combat charge of about 4,5 kg. Danger for the helicopter, dangerous for the tank. To the warship ... So, tickle the nerves.

Of course, now many can say that all this horror is intended for those means on which the landing will be landed.

I agree that we have 6 air cushion landing boats, 2 just landing boats, three Osumi-type dock ships. For a normal landing operation with counteraction by a more or less decently organized defense line, this is nothing.

So, we have to tear ourselves. That is, destroyers. Hypothetically, 33 of our destroyers will not be able to do this. Virtually nothing. There are no missiles that can effectively work on coastal targets.

No, if the American partners throw the “Toporov” - not a question, but ... Laughter and tears come out.

Of course, given the fact that the Japanese fleet in the future will be cooler than the Russian one, any buildup of forces in the region will be useful. Especially if you build up wisely. Not as written in the article.

I was frightened by the Ball from the slipway. White comes out this dance, that is - one-time. And the tanks ...



No, a tank is a useful thing to fight against a landing. Especially if it is really fast and modern.

It's not that doubt, but ...

“Instead of the usual diesels, gas turbine engines (GTEs), which sound like helicopter engines, were installed on military vehicles.”


Habitual? Most of the tanks just skated their service on gasoline engines. What is more familiar is hard to say. Yes, in 1976, the GTD was something so supernatural. Today, it can be seen as a kind of eccentricity, because diesel is both simpler and more familiar.

Moreover, Ukrainians in the 1987 year nevertheless slapped a diesel into the T-80. And nothing, everything worked decently like that.

“The gas turbine engine provides the T-80BVM with unique speed and maneuverability. Thanks to their high mobility, tanks can patrol the entire coastline. This will allow you to quickly transfer firearms to dangerous areas. "


And with a diesel tank stands still? If you look at the performance characteristics, the difference between the gas turbine engine and the diesel in 10 km / h. If such an advantage is “unique” - not a question.

But all this is doubtful. Tank - he is good when his head does not hurt. For the air first.

So, you know, neighbors, we, perhaps, will not come to war. Not that a tank is a stumbling block for a destroyer, no. Just these tanks will be difficult to pick out. Not impossible, but difficult.

And if without too much fuss, then I think that the answer to such an original move lies in these words:

“At the time of adoption, the T-80 was the best in the world,” said the expert. “Today, its upgraded version fully meets all modern requirements.”


As stated at the time when the T-80 was adopted, "more good experts!". To be the best in the world in 1976 is, of course, good, but today it’s 2019 in the yard, that is, it was “just something” 40 years ago.

It’s clear that the electronics have added, but ...

But I think that the main thing here is another phrase.

"At the storage bases of the Ministry of Defense there are about 3 thousand who have not passed the modernization of the T-80."


Here is the answer to all the questions.

Indeed, why bother with modern weapons, when there are so many tanks in storage ... Now we’ll upgrade to the level of T-80ABVGD, and everything will be fine.

What lately touches in our bigwigs from the army, is the principle of approach itself.


For comparison.

That shunned the Americans to change the caliber of small arms. They announced this. Everyone who wished to earn such money came together, chose the best.

Here, by the way, knowing that “Heckler-Koch” flew with his NK416 like plywood over Paris, and realizing that it was 416 I, I just don’t understand what they got in the end. This is generally some kind of space was supposed to be.

And we have?

And we say that “here’s an excellent T-80 tank, with which you can kick any landing party.” Why are there any rockets, radars, all that is needed is the T-80! The best tank of the 1976 of the year!

It looks strange, to be honest.

Yes, a tank on the defending side of the islands is a topic. With tanks it is always easier to defend than without them.

But the phrase sounded about distant approaches - it somehow somehow does not fit well with tanks. According to marine concepts, the tank in front of it spits out of the cannon, and missiles from the gun barrel will also scare a few at sea. And not all vessels will be afraid of the “insane” rate of fire of a tank gun.

For some, the speed and accuracy of a tank gun is simply not scary, since speed decides a lot at sea.

If someone is concerned about the defense of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, this should be done as if not relying on tanks. Tanks - this is the last argument, the landing code is already splashing towards the shore. But to send this landing to the bottom, while it is somewhere on the way — this is more or less a task.

But not for tanks.

In general, you can say a lot of clever words about how to organize the defense of the islands, but ... It must be done in a complex!

And early detection tools, and artillery (especially long-range), and missile systems, and aviation. And of course, if all of the above are suddenly screwed up, then the brave infantry, coupled with tanks and support artillery.

In general, we must start by understanding the following figures: in which case the 38 destroyers of the “self-defense forces” and 4 of these strange hybrid destroyer-helicopter carriers are serious. And our Pacific Fleet, to put it mildly, is too tough for the teeth.

Yes, with the landing ships, the Japanese are about the same as ours. That is shitty. But you know, if it suddenly lights up, they will sail to the Kuril Islands on bamboo rafts.

Then, of course, the T-80 will come in handy, I guess.

On the whole, I would like to wish my colleagues before loudly beginning to be enthusiastic about the next “wise” decision of the military department: it’s probably worth watching and thinking how real it is wise.

So it’s clear that to re-preserve the tanks, maintain, upgrade, redeploy ... Everyone will get a penny. But whether it will become a ruble in wartime, that is the question.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1 18 November 2019 05: 39 New
    • 13
    • 6
    +7
    A tank against a destroyer is certainly not out of a great mind, but it’s already a peculiar tradition (I remember (from books) during the Caribbean crisis it was suggested that destroyers should be thrown with grenades). But to think of transferring the English Channel to the fleet (also to the islands!) - This is the apogee of stupidity.
    1. Monster_Fat 18 November 2019 05: 50 New
      • 11
      • 6
      +5
      I saw a modern Chinese photo, where several self-propelled guns fired from a barge.
      1. bessmertniy 18 November 2019 10: 00 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        And what if there is nothing to meet the Mikado destroyer except tanks !? request We have such a tradition: what is at hand, so beat! repeat What gave birth, so killed! recourse
        1. Amin_vivec 18 November 2019 12: 24 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Then the MLRS would have been better remembered ... They have a better range ... Special ammunition there is different ...
          After all, we have normal coastal complexes ...
        2. novobranets 18 November 2019 20: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: bessmertniy
          And what if there is nothing to meet the Mikado destroyer except tanks !?

          By the way, the tanks on the Kuril Islands were installed not as anti-ship, but as anti-airborne defense, and they stand at the most convenient, and therefore most likely for landing places. For example, these tanks guarded the bay near the village of Krabozavodskoye.

      2. novobranets 18 November 2019 12: 27 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        In Pikul’s book “Requiem for the PQ-17 Caravan”, a case is described when sailors fired from tanks that were transported to the USSR under Lend-Lease because of despair. They dragged shells from the hold, unfolded the towers and let's grumble. They didn’t hit, but they terrified the Germans.
        1. Astra wild 18 November 2019 17: 30 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I was told that there really was such a case. One or two vehicles, left alone and, to defend themselves against the Germans, fired from tanks
          True or not, but this case seemed to describe our site. At least I have not seen such a publication.
    2. Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 35 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      They were there before, until the head of the GABTU Shevchenko replaced them with a T-72, to unify the tank fleet. After a few years, he himself changed his mind, since when used in the Far North and the Far East, they are simpler and more reliable.
      1. rumpeljschtizhen 18 November 2019 13: 54 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        This is such an artistic fiction .... Pikul excusably, he did not remove the tank from conservation ... And when transported by sea ... There the barrel is completely full of salidol type .. Drapkin described in detail how Lendliz tanks were prepared ..
        1. Alexey RA 18 November 2019 15: 03 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: rumpeljschtizhen
          This is such an artistic fiction ....

          This is from David Irving:
          The neighbor of the hit “William Hooper” - the Panamanian ship “Trubede” did the same with a torpedo coming on it: when a torpedo waving from side to side rushed at the ship, not only 8-mm Lewis shot from it, but also from 37-mm cannons on the deck of tanks that were delivered to the Soviet Union; after about 75 shots, the torpedo stopped, stood "on the butt" and sank, plunging into the water, first the tail part, and then the whole body.

          Judging by the photo "Troubadour", the team actually managed to re-open the 37-mm guns of medium tanks M3.
      2. mark1 18 November 2019 14: 02 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        You are probably a very old tanker. Forget something, confuse something.
        Quote: Old Tanker
        They were there before
  2. 210ox 18 November 2019 06: 03 New
    • 11
    • 7
    +4
    Well, Roman. What we have, we have. We always had enough tanks and hats, but modern weapons, and in the right quantity, weren’t very good. But the whole world is ready for dust and immediately to paradise. Everyone, according to the president. But in fact, suddenly you have to defend the same islands and not only them?
    1. The leader of the Redskins 18 November 2019 07: 51 New
      • 27
      • 1
      +26
      I’m the fur of the t72 / 64 waters, but I heard that the tank has the ability to fire from a closed position for almost 10 km. So the destroyer needs that ... Kilometers on 11 from the coast to put ....
    2. 1976AG 18 November 2019 07: 53 New
      • 20
      • 6
      +14
      I am sure that here we are discussing not the MO position on the T-80BVM, but only the sick imagination of the author of these absurd statements.
      1. Uncle lee 18 November 2019 08: 32 New
        • 17
        • 0
        +17
        sort of hokku

        "Destroyers gathered to take the islands!
        T-80s came out to meet them.
        Hit in one gulp - the destroyers were drowned "...
        Kozma Prutkov-San. Japanese strategist.
        1. novel66 19 November 2019 08: 44 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          why did the destroyer sail to shore
          tank guns stick out of the bushes
          Are you looking for your own death?
      2. 210ox 18 November 2019 08: 50 New
        • 15
        • 6
        +9
        This is not a sick fantasy, but a bitter irony. That we, in general, can do little to oppose to the Japanese, and even more so to the Amerzians in the Pacific Ocean. Need a powerful fleet.
        1. 1976AG 18 November 2019 08: 57 New
          • 11
          • 2
          +9
          Quote: 210ox
          This is not a sick fantasy, but a bitter irony. That we, in general, can do little to oppose to the Japanese, and even more so to the Amerzians in the Pacific Ocean. Need a powerful fleet.

          This is just a sick fantasy, since DBK put no problem. Well, if they put Bal on the Caspian, then they could on Sakhalin. And to draw tanks to fight ships is the know-how of the author.
          1. Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 37 New
            • 10
            • 0
            +10
            And the "Balls" and "Bastions" are there on the Kuril Islands too
            1. Vol4ara 18 November 2019 10: 58 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Old Tanker
              And the "Balls" and "Bastions" are there on the Kuril Islands too

              Then c400 with shells must be dragged, without them balls are targets
              1. Old tanker 18 November 2019 11: 03 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Do not worry about air defense in Sazalin and the Kuril Islands, too.
                By the way, not only S-400 and “Armor” are available from air defense systems
            2. 1976AG 18 November 2019 10: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Old Tanker
              And the "Balls" and "Bastions" are there on the Kuril Islands too

              I know. Meant in addition to those available.
            3. vladcub 18 November 2019 20: 06 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              That's just Akizumu forgot to report
            4. From Siberia we 20 November 2019 16: 38 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Where? the Kuril Islands are empty like a drum
          2. 210ox 18 November 2019 10: 56 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Will we resolve all issues with the Ball and the Bastion? What about intercepting an enemy leaving the base in the open ocean? After all, the issue of protecting the coast does not rest only on the coastal parts. This is a matter of fighting with the landing. And their ships can carry out an attack without entering the DBK coverage area. I also say for those who are dull, this is the author’s bitter irony about the lack of a powerful ocean of our fleet.
            1. 1976AG 18 November 2019 11: 02 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: 210ox
              Will we resolve all issues with the Ball and the Bastion? What about intercepting an enemy leaving the base in the open ocean? After all, the issue of protecting the coast does not rest only on the coastal parts. This is a matter of fighting with the landing. And their ships can carry out an attack without entering the DBK coverage area. I also say for those who are dull, this is the author’s bitter irony about the lack of a powerful ocean of our fleet.

              Here the issue of coastal defense was raised (I explained this to the intelligible)
        2. Astra wild 18 November 2019 17: 45 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          A colleague of 210 OKV (this seems to be the supreme command of the Wehrmacht), in my opinion, such confusion does not suit the Soviet officer, but they told me that all the moderators are former officers.
        3. max702 19 November 2019 23: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: 210ox
          That we, in general, can do little to oppose to the Japanese, and even more so to the Amerzians in the Pacific Ocean. Need a powerful fleet.

          Strategic Rocket Forces .. When real conflict not far-fetched they will begin and end ..
      3. Vlad.by 19 November 2019 09: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The first thing that came to mind was what was it?
    3. Gray brother 18 November 2019 14: 24 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: 210ox
      we always had enough hats

      An illiterate one deer got an article, and the second one got a fire and he also got an article on VO.
      Both hit their fingers on the claviaputra - I think it's a draw.
  3. svp67 18 November 2019 06: 31 New
    • 40
    • 3
    +37
    Roman, here you are wrong:
    Why? Yes, because the guns of your tanks shoot at 3,7 km. So you can stand in 4,5 km and be calm in the sense that not a single shell will reach.

    Well, actually there is also an OFS, which a tank can launch at 16 km. And if the destroyer is suitable, even at 6 km to the coast, and the defense is not suppressed, then for a tank company in defense, even with a loss of a third, and this will remain 7 tanks, it’s better not to come up with a target. At a rate of fire of 8-10 rounds per minute, the “MZ” has a “Series” mode, this is 56-70 125-mm shells per minute. Do you think this will be “useful” for the general condition of the destroyer?
    I assure you its electronics will begin to malfunction when hit by the first series of shells. And the fact that the LMS T-80 allows you to do it EASILY I know from personal experience. Even the old PDPS optical sight mounted on the T-80B will allow you to CHOOSE the place where the gunner wants to drive the OFS and admire the results of getting into it.
    And with a diesel tank stands still?
    Of course not. But there is such an engine parameter as "throttle response", that is, how fast it allows you to gain speed. The GTE has this characteristic ABOVE, due to the design features of the engine itself and the tank's transmission. Well, the gas turbine engine again has a more "elastic" ability to transfer its power to the BKP. Which he has 4 re forward gears, unlike 7 mi on the diesel version.
    And that is important. Since while the ships will be handling the coast with artillery, with the task of preparing it for a “calm and peaceful” landing, the tanks will be removed in a shelter, usually on the return slopes of hills, and there are plenty of them on the coast of the Far East. But as soon as the first wave of landing approaches to the shore, and the fire is moved deeper, the tank will advance to firing positions and the faster they do it, the better it is for their “health” and the health of their crews. And with access to the OP, direct-fire tanks will begin to destroy means of landing on the water when approaching and near the shore. Moreover, when working out the reflection of the landing, they prepare the way to the flank of the landing, including water along the coast. And there is nothing worse for a marine at the time of being in the surf, where he can’t even dig in, get close combat with tanks.
    1. mark1 18 November 2019 06: 56 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      Do you think that the battle of a tank company actively maneuvering along the beach against the destroyer is too far-fetched? An Acacia battery would solve this problem much more efficiently. The novel, it seems to me, is more indignant at the unlucky “arms historian”. Well, I repeat - the English Channel tanks in the fleet as a whole and the islands, especially stupidity.
      1. svp67 18 November 2019 07: 03 New
        • 23
        • 0
        +23
        Quote: mark1
        Do you think that the battle of a tank company actively maneuvering along the beach against the destroyer is too far-fetched?

        Well, the author tried to portray this. I answered from personal experience how I was taught and I taught my fighters to act in such conditions, just on the Pacific coast of Russia.
        Quote: mark1
        An Acacia battery would solve this problem much more efficiently.

        I will say more that in this case, the BM-21 Grad battery will be much more useful and effective, and we also had a separate missile division with Tochki-U in our division, since these would have spoiled the health and mood of the landing forces much greater distance from the coast.
        Yes, and in the tank regiment there were two artillery divisions, one barrel, on the "2С1" "Carnation", and the second - jet, just on the BM-21 "Grad"
        1. mark1 18 November 2019 07: 28 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          I will ask you a question, as a specialist. How long will tank (unprepared) gas turbine engines last in the "marine climate"?
          1. svp67 18 November 2019 07: 35 New
            • 17
            • 0
            +17
            Quote: mark1
            I will ask you a question, as a specialist. How long will tank (unprepared) gas turbine engines last in the "marine climate"?

            And what special will happen to him there? Normally they reached the average and major repairs, they were counting on something. True "but" is. Any technique when on board ships in the landing forces must undergo certain pre-training and stay there, and especially in sea water, it immediately shifts the time for technical maintenance and increases the number of activities carried out in it.
            1. mark1 18 November 2019 07: 43 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: svp67
              And what special will happen to him there?

              So then the corrosion of the compressor blades. And a question for the maintenance of a gas turbine engine in an island?
              We have from 2 to 3 thousand T-64 in storage, there are likely to be 300 pieces with a normal resource - they would be "buried" then.
              1. svp67 18 November 2019 08: 00 New
                • 14
                • 1
                +13
                Quote: mark1
                So then the corrosion of the compressor blades. And a question for the maintenance of a gas turbine engine in an island?

                From experience, corrosion affects what does not work. And she really has to wage a very strong fight. But if the unit is constantly working, doing it is much easier.
                Quote: mark1
                We have from 2 to 3 thousand T-64 in storage, there are likely to be 300 pieces with a normal resource - they would be "buried" then.

                No, this tank was built back in the USSR, for mass development, and now with the loss of the Kharkov tank, especially the engine plant, it is better to get rid of them. Moreover, most of them are long-obsolete modifications.
                1. mark1 18 November 2019 08: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 6
                  -5
                  Quote: svp67
                  But if the unit is constantly working,

                  On the island, this is unlikely.
                  Quote: svp67
                  No, this tank was built during the USSR

                  Not so much. Even in Africa they exploit. And then the spare parts ...
                  1. EvilLion 18 November 2019 08: 36 New
                    • 5
                    • 2
                    +3
                    Who exploits them in Africa?
                    1. mark1 18 November 2019 13: 21 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Democratic Republic of the Congo. Before you bark, take an interest in more detail.
                      1. EvilLion 18 November 2019 13: 23 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Confused with the T-80. However, a handful of tanks bought for some reason by blacks, who do not know what Ukraine is, is, of course, an indicator.
                      2. mark1 18 November 2019 13: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        But the exploit is not written off due to illiteracy.
                      3. svp67 18 November 2019 17: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: mark1
                        But the exploit is not written off due to illiteracy.

                        And this is still unknown. It is possible that while everything is "debited" under warranty. We didn’t read the contract itself, what is written there on the warranty service account
                    2. svp67 18 November 2019 17: 42 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Confused with the T-80.

                      You know, and the T-80 is there, in Yemen. As Belarus sold the party there, under a hundred T-80BV

                      They participated in the battles ...


                      And some of them were destroyed by Saudi aviation


                  2. svp67 18 November 2019 17: 28 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: mark1
                    Democratic Republic of the Congo.

                    Well, such a "dark story" passed when instead of the contracted 50 units of T-64, 2013 was delivered in 10, and the rest came to 2016, but already in the modification of T-64Б1М.
                    You know, that’s all that is known. And what is going on with these tanks, how they are doing there, no one is telling. Yes, and most likely they were delivered already with new, modernized 5TDFM engines, which will still be much more reliable than the old 5TDFs that are on the tanks that we have in storage
              2. Alexey RA 18 November 2019 16: 56 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: mark1
                Not so much.

                I immediately recall the Murakhovsky saga about the launch of the T-64 in the summer, in conditions of coolness and high humidity.
                While the mechanical drivers run to the pits, the senior company mechanical driver, based on the recognized air temperature and his experience, determines how each tank will be launched. Hereinafter, we will talk about the most difficult version - the T-64 tank, which "lives" in boxing on foreign German soil.
                Because there is nothing to write about the T-80: if there is a charged battery or an external source, there will be a launch. No current - no start. On T-72 tanks, starting the engine in winter is simple, like igniting a Russian stove: you have to wait, but it will work for sure. On the T-64 tank, everything is a little special, everything is a little diagonally, which we will discuss a bit later.

                The trouble is if the alarm is played on a wet and cold night during the summer period of operation. It is required to start the engines immediately, without preliminary heating by the built-in heater, because the norm does not provide for this. Naturally, the senior driver in these conditions always gives the command to turn on electric torch heating and always use oil injection, as it is written in the TOIE.
                The drafters of the TO-TEE TO-64 apparently thought that having read their work, the mechanical driver would limit himself to these recommendations. But the company’s senior mechanic is grated kalach (and they don’t put others in this position). He knows that if at least one tank does not start up independently, then the ZKV company will be dripping on his brains for a very long time, remembering a mistake in place and out of place. If then this tank is not started by external means, then the senior mechanic’s driver will definitely have a vacation, and he will go on a demobilization with the last plane.
                From these considerations, the senior driver makes a simple and unambiguous conclusion: PERE is better than NEDO. And he shows all the drivers three fingers with a fan. This means: flare heating, double oil injection, air intake.
                The driver mechanics, with an unbroken hand, press the starter button, press twice on the oil injection switch, and then on the air release lever. Compressed air rushes under tremendous pressure into the cylinders, where it meets sprayed oil. Any student will say that such a hellish mixture inevitably gives an explosion. Correctly! If you stand next to the tank at this moment, you get the impression that a big mine exploded inside the car: a loud pop is heard, the body shudders, a long tongue of flame breaks out of the ejector. If something (or someone) is behind the ejector, then this object (or person) is littered with a continuous layer of oil, densely seasoned with soot.
                Needless to say, the method of starting a barbaric and healthy engine is not conducive. However, the task has been completed, all tanks are roaring with engines, mechvody - on horseback. Once this barbarism hiccups to someone else. But the current mechvody for a long time will be in the civilian with a smile to leaf through the demobilization album. Unfortunately, neither the T-64 designers, nor the TOIE drafters even thought about such realities of the Soviet Army.


                As I understand it, there are no problems with humidity at the points of permanent deployment of 18 pools.
                Quote: mark1
                Even in Africa they exploit.

                To draw far-reaching conclusions on the basis of a single delivery abroad in 50 years, I am afraid, is somewhat premature.
                1. svp67 18 November 2019 17: 48 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  You have a photo of a fire in the T-64 heater, just like it burns on the T-72. There is a reason in the fur water, which did not close the fuel supply valve to the heater nozzle and the fuel starts to leak and accumulate both in the heater boiler and in its exhaust pipe. At the moment of starting the heater, this fuel flares up and begins to spread. To prevent this, we practiced and demanded that the crews of the tank, so that when the heater was started, the blowing was initially turned on for half a minute, in this case the fuel was blown through the exhaust pipe.
                  1. mark1 18 November 2019 18: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Those. You, Sergey, and you, Alexei, think that the remarkable dynamic characteristics of the T-80 (with a very inexpensive engine, both in production and in service) are what you need on the islands, and the T-64 in view of its difficult launch , despite the presence of a huge number of spare parts and operating features (mainly positional) are not suitable. Maybe the T-72? Or also not that? soldier
                  2. svp67 18 November 2019 18: 22 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Quote: mark1
                    Maybe T-72? Or also not that?

                    Honestly - the same ... I don’t hide that the “fan” of the T-80, especially its modifications “U”. I thought and I think that it was our best tank and it is a pity that it was "shot down on takeoff."
                    That T-64, that T-72 are still slow cars. They do not go to any comparison with the T-80 in dynamics. And in such a battle, the dynamics of the tank means a lot. He quickly jumped out onto the fire, fired several volleys, and just as quickly left, including from the shelling.
                  3. mark1 18 November 2019 19: 11 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    And in such a battle, the dynamics of the tank means a lot.

                    Excuse me, but in which one? Do you really think that a destroyer with 10-15 km will lead art. duel with a tank rushing along the shore?
                  4. svp67 18 November 2019 19: 40 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Quote: mark1
                    Excuse me, but in which one?

                    In a battle over the coast. The fact is that the defenders cannot manage to keep a lot of forces there, we already have few of them. And where exactly the landing will be, it becomes known, almost at the last moment. So you need to be able to quickly transfer tank units to the desired section of the coast.
                    Quote: mark1
                    Do you really think that the destroyer with the 10-15 kM will drive art. duel with a tank rushing along the shore?

                    Well, of course, this is unlikely, unless the enemy "bursts out", and for tanks, and so enough goals, as well as the need to quickly get out of the attacks of naval artillery
                  5. mark1 18 November 2019 20: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: svp67
                    So you need to be able to quickly transfer tank units to the desired section of the coast.

                    How fast is it? What is the average cross-country (very rugged) speed? What is the gain?
                  6. svp67 18 November 2019 20: 28 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Quote: mark1
                    How fast is it?

                    It will still depend on the distance, but nonetheless, the score will go on for minutes. landing, it is much easier to destroy afloat and in the first minutes of landing on shore than when it begins to expand the captured bridgehead, dig in and strengthen.
                    Quote: mark1
                    What is the average cross-country (very rugged) speed?

                    Usually, in the range from 10 to 40 km / h, this is off-road and to 60 along the highway, at T-80 you can easily calculate everything from the upper values
          2. Alexey RA 18 November 2019 19: 39 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: mark1
            T-64 in view of its difficult launch, despite the presence of a huge number of spare parts and operating features (mainly positional) are not suitable

            On the T-64, do not forget the main thing: at the moment it is a foreign tank. wink
          3. mark1 18 November 2019 19: 50 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            On the T-64, do not forget the main thing:

            And the main thing is that we have them before ... the muzzle. And the spare parts are the same, at least half of which were produced in Russia.
          4. svp67 18 November 2019 20: 32 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: mark1
            And the main thing is that we have a lot of them
            No, not much is left. They were the first to go and go to the screening.
            Quote: mark1
            And the spare parts are the same, at least half of which were produced in Russia.

            Spare parts and then not all, maybe yes, but the engines we did not. And this is the main point on which we can immediately say that we do not need this tank
  4. ccsr 18 November 2019 20: 39 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Unfortunately, neither the T-64 designers, nor the TOIE drafters even thought about such realities of the Soviet Army.

    I don’t know how it was with the T-64, but I note that the GSVG constantly had representatives of tank manufacturers, not to mention the repair crews who lived in the group for months and knew very well what happened to each tank in the event of a complaint or unscheduled repair. There were also constantly seconded from the GABTU - usually senior officers, who also bruised all the tankers of the group, if something happened to them due to their fault.
    Therefore, tanks were thought not only by the group leadership, but also by those who controlled the technical operation of armored vehicles in the Moscow Region. And the tank repair plants of the group also had a picture of what was happening with the armored vehicles, which is why I doubt very much that they needed to hide something, if the reason could always be clarified.
  • Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No less than diesel.
    1. mark1 18 November 2019 13: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Less, because air consumption is greater.
  • Arthur 85 18 November 2019 07: 33 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    By the way, I saw in YouTube a type of "artillery for the poor" - a tank on the back of the shaft, in a closed position, increases the elevation angle due to the fact that it stands at an angle ... But seriously: in childhood, I was interested in what the fleet was going to do fight "against the coast", after decommissioning monitors, art. cruisers, LCs, etc.? With this 76-127 mm cannon alone? Or missiles, costing as a collective farm each, or helicopters, which have a bunch of other tasks than attacking tanks on the shore, protected by "shilki", "shells" and God knows what else. Or carrier-based aviation, which, in fact, we do not have, and if it does, will it be slightly cheaper than missiles? Or immediately nuclear weapons, so as not to be trifled? ... No, really.
    1. Alex_59 18 November 2019 08: 26 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: Arthur 85
      By the way, I saw in YouTube a type of "artillery for the poor" - a tank on the back of the shaft, in a closed position, increases the elevation angle due to the fact that it itself is at an angle ...

      Rather, it is a form of artillery for the rich, but poor in mind. Shooting an expensive tank barrel, designed for jewelery firing with sub-caliber shells at sowing fields with field jigs - this is clearly not for the poor.
      1. Avior 18 November 2019 09: 30 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Okay, but shoot at a moving ship?
      2. Arthur 85 18 November 2019 10: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        About the "artillery for the poor" - I was joking. It is clear that by the end it will be much more expensive than normal barrel artillery. But if there is nothing, then the RPG for artillery will pass.
      3. Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 49 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Depreciation of the trunk channel BPSom 1:10 to OFZ. Something like this.
      4. Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 14: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The main purpose of the tank is the fight against "soft" targets of HE shells.
    2. YOUR 18 November 2019 08: 38 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Here is such a war now. From an airplane worth $ 100 million, a rocket worth $ 1 million, a tent cost $ 10.
      Against the coast, the fleet will fight by aircraft. Take a look back at World War II, the landing operations of the Americans. First, the islands are hollowed by aircraft, the ships are approaching hollowed by artillery, and troops are planted undercover. There are no artillery of such calibers now, that is, missiles that are guided and not guided, there are cluster munitions, and there is aviation. Apparently this is the reason for the Americans all landing ships are armed with an aviation group.
    3. max702 20 November 2019 00: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Arthur 85
      No really.

      And the meaning of the bare shore and even fortified climb? What for? Wouldn’t it be easier to capture any port and arrange everything and everything to land there .. Massive landings remained in past wars, at first with the development of targeting reconnaissance equipment and especially MLRS that the MP that the Airborne Forces turned into a well-trained mobile infantry and no more .. Then, to repel the attack on the MP beach it was necessary to drag artillery to transfer infantry units, and now the MLRS will cover the landing area with a mass of various means from 40-200 km and the ship’s artillery as well as the aircraft will not be able to do anything with this, and even if the attackers can absolutely clear the enemy’s equipment in a semicircle landings with a radius of 40-200km, then there can be no talk of any anti-airborne defense .. But in this case too, it is much more profitable to capture the port and very quickly unload really powerful forces, rather than an ersatz in the form of MP ..
  • Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 43 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The throttle response is just lower than that of a diesel engine. From zero to maximum speed, the turbine spins in as much as 7 seconds. But if you accelerate the turbine in advance and only then remove it from the brake, then it will turn out to be much faster to drive off the diesel engine. This feature must be taken into account.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Amateur 18 November 2019 07: 22 New
    • 14
    • 3
    +11
    An article from the category of "Who is stronger - an elephant or a whale." If in the current conditions someone decides to land on an island, then first the aircraft plows the island so that not only tanks, but no birds remain on it. In the meantime, the aircraft will “plow” the island, the host country of this island (unless it is the Galapagos Islands) can answer the destroyer owners in such a way that there’s nowhere for it to bother.
    Fantastic situations a la Ilya Muromets against their fighter can not be seriously considered.
  • knn54 18 November 2019 07: 26 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    "\ Island in the ship" ...
  • YOUR 18 November 2019 07: 26 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    The article discusses the hypothetical battle of the destroyer and the tank. I don’t know if this will be possible in life.
    In such a battle I would put on a tank. I will explain. The tank is small, well-armored, easy to maneuver. Any shell will cause significant damage to the destroyer. If only because the armor of such ships as sailors say "three buckets." Those. three buckets inserted into each other. A couple of three high-explosive high-explosive hitting a superstructure will destroy the fire control antennas and the whole ship afloat, but not the combatants. And I wonder what kind of shells are there on the destroyer for his gun, are there armor-piercing shells or are all high-explosive fragmentation?
    1. 1976AG 18 November 2019 08: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Purely hypothetically, anything can be imagined, but the defense is built according to practical criteria.
  • Astra wild 18 November 2019 07: 45 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Roman, even I understand the seriousness of the topic, but why yarnichat?
  • Newven 18 November 2019 08: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    One journalist discusses the article of the other two ... Only, in the source of the intention of the Defense Ministry to strengthen the defense of the island is welcome
    According to experts, the T-80BVM will seriously strengthen the defense of Russia's largest island. Due to its high driving performance, the T-80s are able to make long marches and control almost the entire coastline. The upgraded tanks have powerful weapons that can effectively deal with naval targets and the enemy that has already come ashore.
    and here, the author wants to convince everyone that all this is unnecessary, costly and unprofessional
    But you know, if it suddenly lights up, they will sail to the Kuril Islands on bamboo rafts. Then, of course, the T-80 will come in handy, I guess.
    On the whole, I would like to wish my colleagues before loudly beginning to admire the next “wise” decision of the military department: it’s probably worth watching and thinking how real it is wise. So it’s clear that to re-preserve the tanks, maintain, upgrade, transfer ... Everyone will get a penny. But whether it will become a ruble in wartime, that is the question.

    After this conclusion, three "Hurray" is supposed!
  • andrewkor 18 November 2019 08: 32 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And if a missile hits a destroyer from a tank, what will happen?
    The ship will depart at a distance of 6-7 km. Besides the Sakhalin tanks and there is nothing more to defend, it’s sad!
    And if you lurk and meet with fire already landing, a classic of the Pacific War.
    Something The author was completely scared for Sakhalin.
    Personally, I would have shielded the TNW on the landing, cheaply and angrily!
  • EvilLion 18 November 2019 08: 35 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    "Hello, I’m Su-35, son of Su-27, and I flew to drown the Akizuki, which they say offends our caterpillar and tank-like ones. I don’t understand how if any howitzer covers kilometers beyond 20. Especially, if it’s already blazing, like the Stark, having received a rocket from me. "
  • Avior 18 November 2019 09: 17 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Somehow, the article here was about not anti-aircraft, but universal Navy missiles for the ship’s self-defense, it seems, on the basis of Helfpier, if I am not mistaken, launched from the Si Ram complex, including against boats and other small ships.
    Can they be used against tanks?
    And the second question, why did they get that artillery fire control systems like Gun Fire Control System Mk 160 or similar are not able to define such a target as a tank on the shore, especially in a deserted coast and without development?
    In fact, they were created specifically to support the landing.
    It is unlikely that the tank will have a lot of chances against the destroyer.
    As for the tank’s ability to shoot from closed positions, it’s possible to get into a moving ship only by a miracle.
    1. Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 14: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Does this system have a low contrast low profile coastal target detection mode?
      1. Avior 18 November 2019 17: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why low contrast?
        He will not be in urban areas, where there is a lot of iron.
        1. Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 17: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, there are boulders, natural bumps and masks, all sorts of dunes, old rusty Japanese tanks)), radar masking of the tank itself. In short, I doubt the effectiveness of detecting a tank in coastal defense by means of a destroyer.
          1. Avior 18 November 2019 18: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In addition to the radar, the destroyer in the fire control system has an electronic optical system with a built-in range finder, which provides a three-dimensional target assessment, for example, MK20.
            During discussions, usually little is written about this against the background of all Ajis.
            Provides surveillance, target identification and direct fire control.
            . The Mk20 EOSS is an integral part of both the Mk34 and Mk48 Gun Weapon Systems (GWSs) and provides highly accurate, three-dimensional, time-tagged target position data in support of GWS operations, as well as day and night imagery to support visual detection and identification, navigation, surveillance and situational awareness. These gun systems are installed aboard US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers,


            The effective range of the destroyer guns is 24 km.
            I think the tank has few chances, but here it is a matter of chance.
            hi
            1. Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 18: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Cool, though there is not a word about working on coastal targets, and laser rangefinders and even thermal imagers are also installed on tanks. By the way, what armor penetration of HE shells of 127 mm Amer naval cannon and KVO at a distance of 24 km is not in the know? Not to mention the fact that the gun will reach such a range, but will it make out something less than an aircraft carrier, at least something that is the Mk20 at the same range?
              1. Avior 18 November 2019 18: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There is nothing specifically written about tanks.
                And even their type is not specified.
                Then swarm yourself if this fictional unrealistic situation is interesting to you.
                1. Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 19: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  But I’m cool, I imagine the SLA of domestic tanks and their fire capabilities, the artillery of the EM and the KR URO of a potential enemy, too. You fight for ovs and podsnikov, I vice versa. By the way, how do you like the possibility of hitting anti-aircraft missiles at coastal targets? On the sea, the Americans may well.
                  1. Avior 18 November 2019 19: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You were mistaken, I do not fight for them
                    Any destroyer will have an advantage over any tank in this contrived situation.
                    Different weapon classes
                    1. Vladimir_2U 19 November 2019 04: 23 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      The destroyer has a 1 rifled cannon of 127 mm, at a distance of the actual fire the destroyer is in the palm of your hand, the tank is covered by terrain and the PF 127 can only damage it if it gets in again, and why is it the tank alone? Platoon, I recall 3 tanks. Without URO, the destroyer will merge even one tank, it won’t drown, no, but it will be beaten and with disgrace will depart. We are considering a far-fetched situation, of course.
                      1. Avior 19 November 2019 08: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The destroyer will not come 4 km to the coast, its fire control system, radar, optics and guns allow you to shoot from afar.
                      2. Vladimir_2U 19 November 2019 09: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        We consider a far-fetched situation, naturally

                        The firing control radar will not work along the coast, as if it were a naval target, tank optics are no worse than the one you gave as an example, and even better due to the thermal imager, a 125 mm HE shell can throw a projectile at least 10 km away, for a target the size of the ship is difficult to miss, and it is just difficult to get into the tank from such a distance. By the way, the direct support of the landing does not exclude direct fire. So the situation is not entirely far-fetched.
                      3. Avior 19 November 2019 09: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        For a ship of 10-16 km this is direct fire, its observation devices are much higher than that of the tank, 3.66 times the root of the height of the optical observation devices - get the horizon of optical visibility from the destroyer.
                        And the quality and capabilities of the surveillance systems of sailors is much higher than that of a tank, there are completely different battle distances.
                        While the tank will be hiding, the landing will land from the ATGM and the problem disappears.
                        And for 10 km the tank cannot shoot at a moving target.
                        And as soon as appears, they will fire him. Or deprives of movement, or some sort of concrete slaughter will receive.
                        There is no point in discussing the fictitious situation of the tank against the destroyer in the sphere vacuum.
                        In reality, helicopters from the same destroyer with Helfers will fly there and the tanks will not have a chance.
                        And the destroyer without problems very quickly suppresses any air defense of direct cover within not only optical and radio visibility, it has enough for this equipment and weapons on board.
                        And if you are interested in considering unrealistic situations, then take it right away, “but the destroyer is standing at the wall, the team is on the shore, and then a tank appears”,
                        I am not interested in such a discussion
                        hi
                      4. Vladimir_2U 19 November 2019 09: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        You basically do not understand the capabilities of artillery systems, both naval and tank, the discussion is meaningless.
                      5. Avior 19 November 2019 09: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Here I agree with you, a discussion with you is generally meaningless drinks
  • Alex 1970 18 November 2019 09: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    What can I say, strength and health in cow's milk. Evo as a historian flatters with him.
  • Mestny 18 November 2019 09: 28 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Strange, someone said "military historian Dmitry Boltenkov."
    Nevertheless, the author of the article violently blames us all and the army as a whole. Along the way, of course, watering from a hose is known by what. At first I thought - from Japan he writes, a victim of Putin's repressions and a prisoner of conscience.
    No, our former.
    Just a fighter for the idea. Such as you know, they water their own.
  • Avior 18 November 2019 09: 28 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    In addition, the main enemy of the tank is a helicopter. Rather than a ship.
    The role of the destroyer will be more likely in the suppression of military air defense, covering the tanks from helicopters.
    The modern destroyer for this is well adapted - the RTR station, which determines the position of the working mobile air defense system, the bius and quick-firing guns of 127 mm, allowing you to quickly hit even a mobile target when it is detected, especially since booking air defense systems can not be compared to a tank and antennas and surveillance devices are difficult to protect by definition.
    And helicopters will work against tanks.
  • rocket757 18 November 2019 09: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Tanks against the landing, it seems effective, if the aircraft will work against the support ships.
    And against their toothy islands, there are also.
    Although, let it be empty fantasies ... everyone will be better off.
  • Operator 18 November 2019 09: 52 New
    • 15
    • 2
    +13
    The next article in the series will be entitled "How a Destroyer Will Confess Me - Tank Confession" laughing
  • Old tanker 18 November 2019 10: 31 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Strange of course. The author laughs at the best tank of 1976 and prefers the diesel tank of 1973.
    In operation, especially in winter conditions, a gas turbine engine is just the same easier. Already over the boast of Ukrainian two-stroke diesel engines at all neighing!
    Did the author even exploit them or identify them from the sofa?
    I happened to operate all three types of engines for my service. And I put the GTE in my experience in the first place. The only drawback is that it is very expensive to manufacture.
  • Indifferent 18 November 2019 10: 43 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Only an amateur from kindergarten could write such an article. This is the same as comparing, but will a tiger bite off a sperm whale's head in a duel? Same. The tanks have their own tasks, the destroyers have their own. They do not intersect.
    The Donetsk people had a case when a group of fighters with a machine gun moved along the shore of Lake Azov, and from the sea they were seen from an APU boat. Fired on the group. without thinking twice, they installed a machine gun and hit the boat. The group is nothing. It’s hard to get off the boat floundering on the water. A machine gunner from land was experienced. In short, they drowned the boat along with the personnel who had so unsuccessfully decided on the battle.
    By the way, in the Norman operation, during the landing, the Germans had the opportunity to drop the entire landing force into the sea with a large tank group. That is why they did not do this - another question. Either because of thoughtlessness, or because of betrayal. It was not just that General Rommel was offered to shoot himself.
  • Free wind 18 November 2019 11: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Wittmann had a torpedo boat and a submarine shot down from the shore. True or not, I don’t know, but I read about it. request
    1. vladcub 18 November 2019 19: 39 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      In fact, Whitman was able to fantasize: remember how he and the "tigers" almost half a thousand "ISs" pounded
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Self 18 November 2019 11: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And why, in general, somehow try to bombard the landing there? Some tanks on the ships? Well, the troops landed, it is so important not to let the Japanese land chtoli. It’s not enough to land, but what's next? And then, of course, the declaration of war, and the turn of the entire combat vehicle against the Japanese invaders. Including bomber aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. From their islands, even small gravel will not remain. Why do these attempts in general, as the tank will shell the ship? Yes it will not be, and he does not need it.
  • Berkut24 18 November 2019 11: 37 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I didn’t understand what it was about. The coast is defended by coastal anti-ship missile systems (the same Bastion), coastal aritillery (A-222 "Coast") with a range of up to 23 km, aviation and navy.
    Why in the article the tank was pulled out, I don’t understand how maneuvering short-range artillery. In the case of real tension, multiple launch rocket systems and air defense systems will be deployed on the islands, with the ability to work out the coastline for surface targets, which, incidentally, is not very well adapted for landing on the islands with mines.
    And in connection with a nuclear power it is easiest to capture one island, while losing all of Japan.
    1. vladcub 18 November 2019 19: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But rusty tanks look spectacular
  • Pacifist 18 November 2019 12: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So you can get up at 4,5 km and ...

    Get the full from several tanks that hit the OFS with half-direct fire at a range of up to 9.4 km. A 125 mm OFS is still that gift, especially considering that the ship is a rather big target, and given the distance of the UAV artillery corrections you don’t even have to go into the combat zone. Holes then darn horseradish.
    By the way, recently there was news about the tank drills on indirect fire to replace artillery support ... why would it ...
  • Alexga 18 November 2019 12: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author of the article is most likely joking. It seems strange to me that the manning of this division with T-80 tanks. Most likely, the question is about putting tanks into operation from the reserve, because keeping them in storage is quite expensive. As for the use of fire of 125 mm guns against ships, there is no efficiency. It will not reach direct fire, and they have not fired from closed firing positions for a long time. In any case, when I came to lieutenant in a tank regiment on the t-72 in 1980, there were no more shooters. Although the side levels of the machine are still equipped. But for this I did not meet the shooting courses. Most likely, the IS-3 tanks were dismantled from the fortified areas, although their guns are more efficient, but there is nothing to replace them with. Yes, there are a lot of questions for GTE engines. Expensive and ineffective. Yes, there are no questions to pass the final checks on the t-80, cool and fast. But the fire battle will not take place at the tank tracks and directors. This is a march to accomplish, and tank and logistical support to execute. Yes, and the theater is not easy. Something like that.
  • ccsr 18 November 2019 13: 07 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Author:
    Roman Skomorokhov
    But whether it will become a ruble in wartime, that is the question.


    It is strange that the author of the article spent all his eloquence on another fake, because no one in the country's top military leadership plans to defend Sakhalin in a serious war with tanks. It is easier to destroy all of Japan than to keep it unknown why the tanks where they are unlikely to determine the outcome of the war.
    I think that this is a contrived topic, and most likely it arose on the basis of a thrill of people who are far from understanding how we will fight in the future, if it comes to that.
  • evgen1221 18 November 2019 13: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Someone publish such poor articles or simple graphomania? Or how to understand this? And my editorial staff erased my comment under this article - I'm not proud! I'll write more.
  • Undecim 18 November 2019 14: 07 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    As far as we all know, and we know, we will get up five kilometers from the coast. Why? Yes, because the guns of your tanks shoot at 3,7 km. So you can stand in 4,5 km and be calm in the sense that not a single shell will reach.
    Your informants are unimportant. Using the lateral level from a closed position with a high-explosive shell, the 2A46 cannon fires up to 10 km.
    1. vladcub 18 November 2019 19: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Viktor Nikolaevich, you yourself heard that they went through sake and carried nonsense.
      Seriously: did anyone try sake, how "pickled" is it? I tried Bavarian apple schnapps. Delicious infection.
      1. Undecim 18 November 2019 19: 42 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        What is meant by "picky"? If you mean the ethanol content, then undiluted sake is 18-20%, but most often it is reduced to 15%.
        1. vladcub 18 November 2019 20: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          15% is weak compared to our 40% or 35% "Khortitsa". A couple of years ago, we sold a lot of these in the local Magnet. I liked it: delicious. True, I practically do not drink vodka (health is not that) and I especially can not compare
          1. Undecim 18 November 2019 21: 40 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Sake is not vodka or a product of distillation; it is similar in process to beer. And the distillation product in Japan is called shochu.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vladimir_2U 18 November 2019 14: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "Most of the tanks just skated their service on gasoline engines" - after these words with the author of the article, everything is clear.
    1. vladcub 18 November 2019 19: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Similar excusable Astra or overdone sake.
  • Konstantin Stepanovich 18 November 2019 14: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, yes, and "Shilka" against kamikaze there too!
  • vladcub 18 November 2019 18: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Akizuki, you see seriously sorted out sake and without a snack? Head to head with Russia? If you decide to repeat June 22, then of course, some difficulties are possible.
    If without a banter, then Roman esteemed some kind of a dozen clever “expert” and wrote accordingly, and we were overwhelmed: all the same, the Japanese fleet went to storm Sakhalin, and there were five rusty tanks there.
    Comrades, calm down: the North began to be strengthened and seriously, there were a lot of materials about this on the site. It is strange that Roman forgot about it.
  • 123456789 18 November 2019 22: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tanks will be able to sink ships

    A similar case was in the Second World War:
    The cruiser Kirov and Nazi tanks on the embankment of Tallinn.
    1. Vladimir_2U 19 November 2019 04: 38 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Not for discussion, but for reference: Kirova Group of Companies 180 mm, the shell is a pig with a weight of almost 100 kg, a shell of 127 mm weighing about 30 kg, a maximum of 50, but this is ultra-long range, and there was no further experiment. German tanks of 41 years and modern (relatively) are simply incomparable, Kirov has 9 guns GK, the “Burke” -like 1 gun. Not that example a few.
  • Sasha_rulevoy 18 November 2019 22: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Tomahawks" to fight buried at the tower level and camouflaged tanks are not suitable. The Tomahawks generally have only two types of warheads - cartridge and penetrating concrete. Neither the first nor the second will do anything to the tank. The cluster munition will not penetrate the thick tank armor, and the penetrating one will go deep into the ground a meter from the tank and there it will thump without any consequences. "Caliber" is undermined at altitude, is also not intended to destroy tanks. Yes, and to find a well-sheltered tank from a satellite or a high-altitude aircraft there is very little chance.

    It is interesting to consider a symmetric situation. For example, in 2008, the Georgians guessed in the Batumi region that three T-72 tanks should be buried in the ground (in reality, the Georgians did not guess). The Marines were ordered to seize the base of Batumi before the retreating army could manage to gain a foothold in it (in reality, the Georgians retreated to Gori, but suppose hypothetically). Over-the-air landing will not work due to the lack of helicopters. From "Moscow" you can drop a sabotage group from the Ka-27th in eight people, so that they scout the coast. But if the enemy organized surveillance of the coast, then these eight saboteurs will be quickly caught by border guards with dogs.

    Thus, imagine 3-4 BDKs approaching the shore, covered by three masked tanks. 57 mm cannon for the tank like a pea. The minimum range of the Grada-M is two kilometers, and the BDK tanks will be allowed per kilometer. In addition, tankers will have the opportunity to hit on the bow in order to destroy the Grad PU, and in the bridge. Before the ships give the first salvo, everyone will be badly damaged. Suppose, with the BDK, they called Moscow to help. “Moscow” is ten kilometers away, but the situation is hardly visible from it. But while she shoots, the shore will be all already in the dust and in the smokescreens. But the tanks laid the curtain, drove away, then returned to the shore to reserve positions, waited for the Moscow to fire at an empty place, and again fired at the landing ships. If they don’t even drown, the losses in the landing will be huge.
  • Sapsan136 18 November 2019 22: 47 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    A reflex with a rocket missile is terrible not because of a 4,5 kg warhead, but because it can fall into ammunition or fuel, easily breaking through anti-fragmentation protection (the Yankees have Kevlar, which the Japanese can guess) ... In addition, there are various self-propelled guns, from the Bereg complex, to the quite land Acacia, Carnation and Msta-S, and then there is already a range of up to 31,5 km and a rate of fire .... But this is all the lyrics, and the point is that to Japan from Vladivostok it’s not so far, and the range of X-101 missiles reaches 5500 km ... including with a nuclear warhead ... And this is only one answer ... Someone writes that the Russian Federation does not dare to use nuclear weapons, they say dachas at many, accounts and children abroad ... They dare and apply, because now Putin lose the war of Japan and he is a political corpse, as before him Nikolai-2 ... They will use it, if only to stay in power in the Russian Federation .. .
  • aws4 18 November 2019 22: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    everything is fine, everything is fine, the article is sound, but it embarrassed me .. how could I write such nonsense - (Especially since the Ukrainians in 1987 put a diesel into the T-80)
  • Kostadinov 19 November 2019 11: 35 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Avior
    The effective range of the destroyer guns is 24 km.
    I think the tank has few chances, but here it is a matter of chance.

    A tank on land, in a trench, is a very small, very poorly visible and very durable target (a direct hit of a 127 mm projectile is necessary). The destroyer for the tank, a huge, clearly visible and unarmored target. Shards of close disruptions in the water of 125 mm shells will also cause damage to the destroyer.
    The effective range of a 125 mm tank gun is easy to raise for several kilometers (up to about 20 km or more) if the tank itself is at a slight angle.
    1. Undecim 19 November 2019 14: 25 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Kostadinov, the task is not just to shoot at the maximum distance, the task is also to hit the target, maneuvering at a speed of 60 km / h and being out of sight. Sometimes it’s worthwhile to think before writing any nonsense.
  • bk316 19 November 2019 14: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Ah Roman Roman, the Japanese were lucky that you are not the captain of Akizuki
    You would have anchored 4 and a half kilometers from the coast and in 10 minutes the destroyer would have repeated the fate of your ancestor.
    Before you write an article, you still need to understand the essence of the issue. 3,7 km is BOPS flying, and Reflex-M is 5 km and this is a limitation of the aiming system. So your ship would have received several dozens of tandem cumulative aboard and burned like a match.
    BUT THIS IF IF SURFACE, and if carefully TTX read THEN AND 7 KM trouble. Noticed a footnote about the OFS: 9,5 km? This is because the T-80 can fire from closed positions (this means not direct fire like tanks but howitzers laughing hi from the gunner, by the way a happy holiday). True, the SLA does not work at the same time and it is necessary to adjust the fire according to the howitzer, BUT when the target is in direct view on the water, where all the bursts are visible, AND THE PURPOSE IS 100 meters across the horizon, I think the shot from the third hit. Well, then hello from the battalion - again under a hundred shells per minute and again to the bottom.
  • mmaxx 19 November 2019 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But in general, now not a single destroyer against the tank means anything ((((. And from the range of its fire, which is more than that of the tank, it simply won’t get into the tank. But the tank ....
  • nnz226 19 November 2019 19: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In my opinion, the tank range mentioned at the beginning of the article, equal to 3,6 km, is the range of a direct shot. It is clear that the tank is not a self-propelled guns like "Msta-S" or "Coalition" to shoot mounted fire, but - maybe ... if the guidance devices allow you to perform such a task.
  • Kostadinov 20 November 2019 16: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Undecim
    Kostadinov, the task is not just to shoot at the maximum distance, the task is also to hit the target, maneuvering at a speed of 60 km / h and being out of sight. Sometimes it’s worthwhile to think before writing any nonsense.

    1. 16 kilometers is in no way “out of sight” for a coastal observation post. Moreover, the target is a ship 100 meters long. Only the tank firing must be controlled from the OMS for the coastal gun. In all cases, it will be much harder for a destroyer to get into a tank than a tank in a destroyer. There is an opite war in Korea where 76-107 mm guns very quickly drove away destroyers from the coast. After the first close contact, they stopped shooting and were in a hurry to leave the coast as quickly as possible.
    2. For modern coastal artillery fire control systems, target movement from 60 km / h is not such an insoluble task. Moreover, with 4-5 points of excitement and such a speed, the destroyer himself is unlikely to be able to conduct targeted fire.
    3. The destroyer and the close hit of HE shells are also dangerous.
  • From Siberia we 20 November 2019 17: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There are many tankers, no sailors laughing Ships will provide for the blockade of the island, AUG will purify the air, UDC choose a place and time for landing. It is impossible to cover ALL the coast. The operational group will constantly maneuver being almost at the limit of the range of coastal radars, (if they still remain), constantly interfering. The transfer of forces on land is much more complicated than the sea. So tankers will only sleep in stormy weather when landing is not possible. Something like this. and no duels ship - tank.
    PS By the way, the ship conducting reconnaissance near the coast of the enemy is anti-artillery zigzag laughing and there is a missile defense laughing And yes, 4 km is 20 cables. And according to the MPPSS, all that is closer than 30kb is a danger.
  • timokhin-aa 20 November 2019 23: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All the same, Izvestia is a diagnosis. )))
  • Kostadinov 21 November 2019 19: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Ships will provide for the blockade of the island, AUG will purify the air, UDC choose a place and time for landing. It is impossible to cover ALL the coast.

    1. If the AUG does everything, why will the destroyer suppress the defense?
    2. The whole coast and all the time you never need to bed. Vybor location and time of the vysadka is always small.
    The task force will constantly maneuver being almost at the limit of the range of coastal radars, (if they still remain) constantly interfering.

    Let maneuver as much as desired outside the radar range. Even better if the interference is put continuously.
    By the way, from the shore it is also possible to interfere and launch different missiles and drones to the AOG.
    So tankers will only sleep in stormy weather when landing is not possible

    When the ships enter the radar range they still need several hours to reach the coast. So tankers can sleep peacefully, but it will be more difficult for sailors to sleep in stormy weather and in good weather.
    By the way, the ship conducting reconnaissance near the coast of the enemy is anti-artillery zigzag and there is also anti-missile

    Of course, conducting reconnaissance, the ship will go in a zigzag, and if the ship wants to use its artillery, it is better not to go in any zigzag.
    1. Armenian hegemon 16 December 2019 02: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The author of the article issued such a pearl. That I have a conclusion about his mental health laughing. It is enough to install the Ball missile system, or Iskander, on the island. What is it, the Tornado G or C division, to be transferred from a helicopter or ship. The desire to attack the basin will disappear immediately. We found a problem called))) I would also understand when the NATO AUG is a serious problem. But nevertheless, a resolvable, yes, modern war will be measured not in a billion, or even in trillions of dollars. And in quintillion, and God forbid sextillion.