Survive when hit TOW: Video of the defeat of the T-62 tank

Survive when hit TOW: Video of the defeat of the T-62 tank

The militants posted material on the Network that shows the hit of an anti-tank missile in the T-62. However, they hastened to conclusions about critical damage.


The National Liberation Front, part of the pro-Turkish Syrian National Army, has posted a video showing the defeat tank forces controlled by Damascus.

As can be seen from the video presented on December 24, militants who were seated in a shelter struck a medium tank T-62 of the Syrian troops, which was at the forefront of orders moving along agricultural land in open areas. An American-made TOW anti-tank missile system acted as a means of destruction.

According to the militants in the explanation to their video, “after the tank was damaged and its crew was killed, the Assad gang’s tanks exodus”. However, the personnel clearly see that the team survived: the wounded soldier was escorted to the rear and put, presumably, in an ambulance (possibly based on the BTR-50). At the same time, infantry and armored vehicles from the rear ranks begin an organized retreat.

Militants claim that this fighting clash occurred when Syrian troops tried to advance along the Al-Gadf axis in the countryside of eastern Idlib.



Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Whisper 25 December 2019 23: 51 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    Luck has not been canceled, and in the war, too.
    1. Bshkaus 26 December 2019 10: 05 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      and in war too.

      One of the hell miraculously crawls out, the other accidentally falls under the tank tracks when leaving the garage.
      There is only one conclusion: I went to war, do what you must, constantly read the "Jesus Prayer" and watch what is happening around.
  2. businessv 25 December 2019 23: 52 New
    • 15
    • 1
    +14
    Interestingly, and before promotion, intelligence does not need to be done ?! So many are already fighting, but their actions somehow look strange! The age of drones after all! But, see, nothing. If only everyone remained alive!recourse
    1. opus 26 December 2019 00: 04 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Quote: businessv
      Interestingly, and before promotion, intelligence does not need to be done ?!

      but I’m wondering where the bearded drones come from?

      As you can see from the video presented on December 24, sunken in sheltersand militants hit the middle

      And not bad. Fly themselves calmly when
      when the Syrian forces tried to advance along the Al-Gadf axis in the countryside of eastern Idlib.

      frames are no different from MO frames
      1. Nyrobsky 26 December 2019 00: 22 New
        • 21
        • 0
        +21
        Quote: opus
        but I’m wondering where the bearded drones come from?
        From there, where TOW came from, and the Turks could help.
        1. opus 26 December 2019 00: 40 New
          • 14
          • 1
          +13
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          From the same place as TOW, and the Turks

          I understand it.
          But
          when the Syrian forces tried to advance along the Al-Gadf axis in the countryside of eastern Idlib.

          There is a full-fledged military operation, the Army.
          And drones fly like flies over manure
          1. Shurik70 26 December 2019 07: 40 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: opus

            but I’m wondering where the bearded drones come from?

            Everyone has drones there.
            Pay attention to how people stand near the tank into which the militants hit. All of them from the side of the militants are covered by buildings or vegetation. The armored personnel carrier, which arrived later, also moved like this. There was only a tank in the zone of visibility of the militants.
            The Syrians knew where they could fly from. And that the tank was advanced - perhaps it was shooting, or was about to shoot.
            1. opus 26 December 2019 12: 05 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              Quote: Shurik70
              Everyone has drones there.

              The Syrians are conducting a military operation. They have both the means and resources to provide air cover and fire suppression.
              Why so stupid? / I meant it /
              1. Shurik70 26 December 2019 21: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: opus

                Why so stupid? / I meant it /

                They have not one hundred thousand troops.
                And the front, firstly large, and secondly, his hell knows where he might be.
                So the only right tactic when covering a large territory with small forces is to be strong in the most important areas. In other places - only cover. To repel small forces or hold out for some time against large forces.
                Here, firstly, it may not be a military operation, but a screen, of a couple of dozen fighters reinforced by a tank with an armored personnel carrier.
                And secondly, in a minute a shell could fly to where the rocket flew from. It’s just not on the video
        2. Stalllker 26 December 2019 07: 20 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          What prevents buy on Aliexpress ??? laughing
          1. opus 26 December 2019 12: 04 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Stalllker
            What prevents buy on Aliexpress ???

            buy and try
            1. Stalllker 26 December 2019 14: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In the Russian Federation is prohibited! but it's not about me
              1. opus 26 December 2019 14: 26 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Quote: Stalllker
                In the Russian Federation is prohibited! but it's not about me

                1.can
                FCS:
                Quadrocopters when imported into the Russian Federation can fall within the scope of clause 2.1.1 of section 5 of the List of dual-use goods and technologies that can be used in the creation of armaments and military equipment and with respect to which export control is approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated December 17, 2011 No. 1661 (hereinafter - List).



                2. Well, I mean that "bought on Ali" is more a myth than a truth.
                1. Stalllker 27 December 2019 13: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And what prevents “barmals” from buying on Aliexpress?
        3. D16
          D16 26 December 2019 07: 50 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          From the same place as TOW

          Judging by the tracer, this is not TOU at all lol .
      2. boss 26 December 2019 01: 45 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        on my knees, as usual ...
        sticks, tape and electrical tape)
        Well, a couple of Chinese boards
        there is no elementary rep, intelligence is lame, aviation is not enough.
        1. opus 26 December 2019 12: 06 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: patron
          on my knees, as usual ...

          very good quality, that flight, that image, for the "knees". I think this is a serial high-tech device
      3. YOUR 26 December 2019 10: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Hmm. Shooting in there.
    2. svp67 26 December 2019 04: 10 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: businessv
      Interestingly, and before promotion, intelligence does not need to be done ?!

      Judging by the beginning of the video, they have been standing there for some time. More interestingly different, it seems that the "barmalei" are more technically equipped than government troops.
      Quote: businessv
      The age of drones after all!

      But even this does not exclude the same use of smoke for cover, and these are rolled back without their use, and if the bulk of the tanks departed for landing, then at least one was traveling through open space ... and the same, he didn’t throw a saber not TDA not included
    3. Siberian 66 26 December 2019 07: 29 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Yes there is no movement. They crawled out of the shelters and started shooting. What did not let the people hang out before the start of the promotion? Well, intelligence has gone and let it go, stand yourself behind the walls. Crawled out - so push on the gas, go through non-stop open places ... They’ve been fighting for the ninth year. Our truth is told. Hard to teach, they do not want to learn and fight.
    4. YOUR 26 December 2019 10: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This was an advanced reconnaissance detachment.
      1. otstoy 26 December 2019 11: 48 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Intelligence is carried out by arrows and snipers. Maximum with BMP support, but it is also superfluous. If intelligence is crumbled, then shooters. They can be recruited new, but the tank is a pity.
        1. YOUR 26 December 2019 13: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In tank units corresponding intelligence.
    5. maidan.izrailovich 26 December 2019 12: 53 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Interestingly, and before promotion, intelligence does not need to be done ?!

      Syrians are probably doing intelligence. Only you do not take into account that there is not a classical war, with a continuous front, with a line of trenches. Barmavlei constantly in motion. And you will never know exactly at the time of the attack where exactly the calculations of anti-tank weapons are currently located. Reconnaissance in such conditions as a rule produces generalized data. The number of barmaley and their weapons.
  3. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 00: 03 New
    • 29
    • 3
    +26
    "At the same time, infantry and armored vehicles from the rear ranks begin an organized retreat." ////
    ----
    And what is wrong? The militants knocked out one tank from the ATGM, the second began to crawl back.
    The infantry also retreated. Normal battle episode. Forces on both sides involved
    small, no reserves. Nobody wants to die.
    1. maden.usmanow 26 December 2019 00: 13 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Just wondering. Merkava holds such ATTOR TOW?
      1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 00: 42 New
        • 24
        • 2
        +22
        Hope more on KAZ Trophy than on passive armor.
        Cornets (the approximate equivalent of TOW, both are 150 mm in diameter) pierced
        side mounted metal ceramics Merkava-4
        in Lebanon, in about 1/3 of the hits. But without even breaking through
        smashed the panel to shreds.
        1. maden.usmanow 26 December 2019 00: 57 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Thanks for the answer
      2. opus 26 December 2019 00: 50 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: maden.usmanow
        Just wondering. Merkava holds such ATTOR TOW?

        and TOWs are equipped with the opponents of Israel, those who bullets around the Merkavas?
        1. Professor 26 December 2019 10: 36 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: opus
          Quote: maden.usmanow
          Just wondering. Merkava holds such ATTOR TOW?

          and TOWs are equipped with the opponents of Israel, those who bullets around the Merkavas?

          Of course. Hezbalons for example.
          1. opus 26 December 2019 12: 03 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            Of course. Hezbalons for example

            1. It's still Toofan, not TOW. There is a difference
            2. This is the "Battle of Wadi al-Suluki in southern Lebanon. Summer 2006"?
            and the Tufans didn’t show themselves there, but the CORNETS showed
            The battle was a microcosm which contained all IDF mistakes during the 2006 war in one battle.
            -The central command didn't inform Nahal forces that the armored convoy started to move.
            -Nahal forces didn't know that their main task is to secure the movement of armored forces.
            -The command to cross was given through a satellite phone and most of the troops used Radio Controls.
            -The tanks convoy made critical mistake when moved in a different direction than the IDF expected, Additionally The passage is small and doesn't allow the armored force to manoeuvre in case of attack.
            -Crossing task could be canceled; at that point the UN Council conducted intensive efforts to end the fighting. Basically there was no need to move troops toward the Litani River.
            Intelligence service failed to inform the military command about Hezbollah procession of the ATGM 9M133 “Kornet”.
            -Equally important, infantry suffered from lack of updated maps, low supplies and old equipment.

            3. An exception to the rule is the confirmation of these rules.
            Your opponents do not have TOW
            1. Professor 26 December 2019 12: 28 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: opus
              1. It's still Toofan, not TOW. There is a difference





              Quote: opus
              2. This is the "Battle of Wadi al-Suluki in southern Lebanon. Summer 2006"?

              Binj Bail in southern Lebanon. Summer 2006.

              Quote: opus
              3. An exception to the rule is the confirmation of these rules.
              Your opponents do not have TOW

              Is.
              1. opus 26 December 2019 12: 54 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                1. The Israelites boldly (good ) demonstrated the boxes taken from the militants with the American TOW ATGMs launched in 2001.
                For me, it is somehow very similar to NASA’s “bold” demonstration of the Apollo photos of the Moon standing on the moon, which NASA “boldly” demonstrates on NASA’s websites shot by NASA and digitally processed at NASA centers.
                3.
                Quote: Professor
                Is.

                and they shoot at MERCAVA?
                I do not believe my eyes
                they fired US made Tow (non allah missile) n it hit by non-allah tank lol.they should say tow akbar.
                1. Professor 26 December 2019 13: 40 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  Quote: opus
                  1. The Israelis boldly () demonstrated the boxes taken from the militants with the American TOW ATGMs launched in 2001.
                  For me, it is somehow very similar to NASA’s “bold” demonstration of the Apollo photos of the Moon standing on the moon, which NASA “boldly” demonstrates on NASA’s websites shot by NASA and digitally processed at NASA centers.

                  And who do you think was supposed to produce the original American TOU if not America? Nevertheless, you yourself made sure that Hezbalons had TOU. Photos officially posted by AOI.

                  Quote: opus
                  and they shoot at MERCAVA?
                  I do not believe my eyes

                  They haven’t fired yet, but your statement “No in your opponents TOW” is not true. Our opponents are full of TOU.
                  1. opus 26 December 2019 14: 02 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    You yourself made sure that Hezbalons had TOU.

                    no not like this.
                    I was not convinced. It is Israel who is trying to convince everyone that hezbalonov have TOU.
                    There are two fundamental big differences.
                    Quote: Professor
                    Photos officially posted by AOI.

                    NASA laid out a lot of things. And the US Defense Ministry also convinced everyone that Saddam had chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear weapons.
                    On a clear eye and quite authoritatively. However..
                    Quote: Professor
                    "Your opponents do not have TOW" is not true. Our opponents are full of TOU.

                    not convinced
                    1. Professor 26 December 2019 14: 19 New
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      +2
                      Quote: opus
                      no not like this.
                      I was not convinced. It is Israel who is trying to convince everyone that hezbalonov have TOU.
                      There are two fundamental big differences.

                      Your right not to believe and claim that Tzahal brought TOU to the Belle Bel in order to photograph them and pass them off as Hezbalon. But why? About 600 of these ancient complexes were produced and they spread around the world like cockroaches. There was no sensation in the detected TOUs. Just an episode of war.
                      By the way, there were no disputes on the TOU. Is it the case of the Cornet. But their "Tsahal brought for photographs." wink

                      Quote: opus
                      NASA laid out a lot of things. And the US Defense Ministry also convinced everyone that Saddam had chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear weapons.
                      On a clear eye and quite authoritatively. However..

                      1. We are not talking for NASA here and not for Peskov and Zakharova, but for Tsakhal.
                      2. Saddam's chemical and bacteriological weapons did. He even used chemical weapons and more than once. Zionists did not allow him to create nuclear weapons. However, this is an offtopic.

                      Quote: opus
                      not convinced

                      The video that I posted see also Tsahal shot. wassat
                      1. opus 27 December 2019 00: 29 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Quote: Professor
                        Your right not to believe and affirm

                        mine, this is guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. yet, until Krivoruchko, who the judge (tfublya) did not say otherwise
                        Quote: Professor
                        that Tsahal brought the TOU to the Belle Belleys in order to photograph them and pass them off as Hezbalon.

                        You can not import can be removed in your basement, mossads, what thread
                        Quote: Professor
                        About 600 of these ancient complexes were produced and they spread around the world like cockroaches.

                        FIM-92 Stinger produced more than 70000 pieces, but didn’t creep anywhere.
                        the states have great control over where their weapons went.
                        let alone stinger, la allaavbar much more promising for "spoiling Israel" than TOU, taking into account your accuracy and reach of airports.
                        But?
                        Quote: Professor
                        Is it the case of the Cornet. But their "Tsahal brought for photographs."

                        Yes, our merge, I have no doubt.
                        It’s not worth thinking that I’m enriching the Supreme’s team, NABOROT is nauseating,
                        Quote: Professor
                        1. We are not for NASA

                        use case (praecedens "previous") - case (fact) or an event that has occurred in the past and that serves an example(evidence) or the basis for subsequent Action (charges) in the present.
                        Quote: Professor
                        Saddam had chemical and bacteriological weapons. He even used chemical weapons and more than once. Zionists did not allow him to create nuclear weapons.

                        I don’t know what he “had” there and what he “applied” -please to the studio facts, conclusions of coalition experts, after the occupation of Iraq, confirming this diarrhea, which served as the basis for the destruction of the country, its occupation and millions of victims
                        Quote: Professor
                        The video that I posted see also Tsahal shot.

                        for some reason I don’t see it.
                        Paradox, if possible in PM- LOOK
                      2. Professor 27 December 2019 08: 54 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        1. Why would the tzahal fake some TOU?
                        Where and when did Tsakhal cry that "we were fired at by American TOUs"?
                        Where and when was Tsahal caught in a falsification?
                        2. NASA does not interest me in this case, and it was stupid whether the Americans were on the moon or not, I’m not going to discuss it.
                        3. Saddam used chemical weapons more than 30 times; this is not an undeniable medical fact. Troll others.
                        4.
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3bwyBV9guI
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxt7eXswnM
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJn2kutvvE
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpddyDQmUsQ
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So-e55y1tmA
              2. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 22: 36 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                "For me, this is somehow very similar to the" bold "demonstration by NASA of the Apollo photos of the Moon standing on the moon, which NASA" boldly "demonstrates on NASA sites shot by NASA and digitally processed at NASA centers" ////
                -----
                You can say “NASA” 50 more times, but that doesn't mean anything
                the authenticity of these Apollo photos.
                There are hundreds of photographs of Yuri Gagarin, boldly made by Soviet devices.
                And not one made by NASA! This does not mean falsification
                Yuri Gagarin's flight.
                Whose astronaut and technology, those and cameras. smile
                You have the usual problems with formal logic.
                1. opus 27 December 2019 00: 16 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  You can say “NASA” 50 more times, but that doesn't mean anything
                  the authenticity of these Apollo photos

                  their mulion, and not the bleating of "dummies", but quite worthy people, with very interesting calculations (50% of which I do not understand, maybe the topic is not mine)
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  falsification of the flight of Yuri Gagarin.

                  1. Who disputes the flight and the championship of Gagarin? show me this mutant (mental hospital patients, please do not offer)
                  The first who visited space and returned from there was Gagarin, by the way, he is Russian. Flight duration 108 minutes, Yuri made 1 revolution around the Earth at an altitude of 180-320 km. The rocket and the spaceship were called - "East". April 12, 1961

                  2. Alan Shepard was “second” at space, his flight amounted to 15 minutes 28 seconds. Unlike Gagarin, he did not make a circle around the Earth, but felt zero gravity. This was enough to turn the story of space exploration.
                  Nobody fell into such disgrace: neither Europe, nor China, nor India, and hardly anyone wants to get into such a mess

                  “From the propaganda point of view,” wrote the correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune newspaper in those days, “the first man in space is probably more than a hundred divisions or a dozen intercontinental ballistic missiles.”

                  On September 1, 1958, President Eisenhower, by decree, assigned the responsibility for the implementation of the space program to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and assigned the highest category of urgency to this program: D-X. It took NASA specialists a whole month to prepare the final version of the Man in Space project. And only from mid-December, the manned satellite launch preparation program became officially called the "Mercury".

                  Only on May 5, 1961, the Redstone rocket lifted the space capsule Freedom-186,2 (Freedom-7, Mercury-7), which contained naval pilot Alan Shepard, to a height of 3 kilometers. The first American space flight, as planned, was suborbital.

                  About 45 million Americans watched this flight thanks to radio and television broadcasts. Having risen to a height of 180 kilometers, Shepard began to gradually lower the apparatus in order to direct it to a given landing area. The flight, which lasted only 15 minutes and 22 seconds, ended safely. The main thing that Shepard did was prove that a person in zero gravity can manually control a spaceship.

                  In an official statement by the US government regarding the launch of Mercury-3, in particular, it said that "the unconditional success of Shepard’s suborbital flight brought great joy and satisfaction to astronauts".

                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  You have the usual problems with formal logic.

                  weird ...
                  no one, acre you complained
                  1. voyaka uh 27 December 2019 01: 54 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    The stupidest conspiracies about Gagarin’s flight are no less
                    than about the Apollo. And the arguments are about the same:
                    "Yeah, NASA shot everything on Earth!" , "yeah, TASS shot everything on Earth!"
                    "I do not believe in NASA pictures - American propaganda!",
                    "I do not believe in TASS pictures - Soviet propaganda!".
                    And also "serious people", "interesting calculations" ... negative
                    1. opus 27 December 2019 02: 22 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      The stupidest conspiracies about Gagarin’s flight are no less

                      this damn how his "Prize to the studio"provide "no less"
                      The stupidest?

                      I would not call it stupid, quite original and convincing. And I doubt that you can understand what is written here

                      However, I am ready from voyaka uh (Alexey) to read / listen to the “smartest” arguments.
                      only the threshing floor is not necessary
                    2. voyaka uh 27 December 2019 03: 13 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      I trust the achievements of Soviet cosmonautics 100%. good
                      And American - in the same way. good
                      Both Lunokhod and Apollo are considered equally great
                      scientific and technological achievements of the middle of the last century.
                      I wish you to say goodbye to children's conspiracy theology. drinks
                    3. Professor 27 December 2019 08: 57 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      I trust the achievements of Soviet cosmonautics 100%.

                      And I do not trust. The scoop lied always and everywhere. Why on earth did he start telling the truth?
                    4. opus 27 December 2019 13: 11 New
                      • 4
                      • 1
                      +3
                      Quote: Professor
                      The scoop lied always and everywhere. Why on earth did he start telling the truth?

                      1. Oleg I do not like the word "Scoop" - gives a trash.
                      2. I lied, but not always and not everywhere, I think the% of lies was even less than that of the Americans.
                      3. In the "space" lied exactly less Americans
                    5. Professor 27 December 2019 13: 22 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: opus
                      Quote: Professor
                      The scoop lied always and everywhere. Why on earth did he start telling the truth?

                      1. Oleg I do not like the word "Scoop" - gives a trash.
                      2. I lied, but not always and not everywhere, I think the% of lies was even less than that of the Americans.
                      3. In the "space" lied exactly less Americans

                      1. And I do not like the scoop itself.
                      2. From personal experience, I think that there were less lies in the USA. Scoop lied everywhere and always. Why did they suddenly decide not to lie in space?
                      3. Is there evidence of Gagarin’s flight?
                2. opus 27 December 2019 13: 10 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  I wish you to say goodbye to children's conspiracy theology.

                  children's conspiracy thesis and my age are not compatible
  • boss 26 December 2019 01: 46 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    no one holds that, no one holds the corsair
    1. D16
      D16 26 December 2019 07: 54 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      no one holds that, no one holds the corsair

      TOU got into the T-90 tower in Syria. All remained alive, the tank left on its own. The cadets rode with open hatches, so they were shell-shocked by the explosion. Otherwise, they would get off with a slight fright.
      1. boss 26 December 2019 10: 10 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        and how many tanks of Soviet and Russian production were destroyed, huh?
        anti-tank systems are created and modernized in order to guarantee the defeat of armored vehicles.
        everything else is 'cheers patriotism' in its purest form.
        exceptions in the form of not destroyed but damaged tanks - exceptions confirming the rule.
        if the hatches were closed, then when a cumulative stream got inside the compartment, it happened that tankers simply flew out through the hatches
        1. D16
          D16 26 December 2019 21: 00 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          how many Soviet and Russian tanks were destroyed, huh?

          A lot of. But I can’t remember the T-90x from the ATGM. There was even Tou getting into the "Ilyich’s eyebrow" of the 62nd. And there were no consequences for the crew and the car.
          exceptions in the form of not destroyed but damaged tanks - exceptions confirming the rule.

          The penetration of armor and, moreover, the destruction of equipment is probabilistic in nature and depends on many factors. There are no indestructible tanks. But the probability of getting into protected areas varies by machine. Correspondingly, the percentage of those who were beaten, destroyed and managed with a slight fright laughing different.
          if the hatches were closed, then when a cumulative stream got inside the compartment, it happened that tankers simply flew out through the hatches

          Tankers flew at the detonation of BC. The cumulative stream is a thin, relatively cold metal stream. In armor, it pierces a hole of a tiny diameter, through which a tiny amount of explosion products gets inside. There were cases when the CS punched cardboard cartridges without causing a fire of powder charges.
          1. boss 27 December 2019 10: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            relatively cold metal stream, it’s strong!
            and the fact that breaking through and destroying a tank are two different things, and a no brainer.
            therefore, he wrote that both w and our analogues penetrate tanks.
            and what damage, and at what angle, maybe in active defense, this is already particular, if we are talking about the capabilities of anti-tank systems
            1. D16
              D16 27 December 2019 14: 52 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              relatively cold metal stream, it’s strong!

              Yes. I subscribe to every word laughing . Temperature is from 200 to 600 degrees C. The melting point of copper is still very far away. Metal, because the funnel is usually made of copper. Jet, because its physics is fully consistent with the laws of hydrodynamics. Refute if you can. lol
              and what kind of damage, but at what angle, maybe in active defense, it’s already particular

              It is from these particulars that stubborn statistics are formed, saying that the effectiveness of the same ATGMs for different tanks is completely different. And so yes. any tank even makes a hole in the roof or stern. laughing
              1. boss 28 December 2019 15: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                a low-temperature jet of molten copper, with a temperature of about 500 degrees in a confined space, this is not at all what incapacitates the car and burns the crew ...
                it's hard to refute.
                and as far as the stern and the tower are concerned, you are absolutely right, that is exactly what I started from, indicating only that it’s not a particular accident, but to a greater extent the qualification of the crew and the crew is the decisive factor.
                Hussites burn leopards, Igilians burned Abrams, and how many of our and Soviet equipment have been burned over the past 10 years by Syrians, Arabs, Husits, Iraqis, Libyans, Africans, etc., and for 20, and for 30?
                Has anyone thought?
                until recently, and t34 in the ranks regularly carried service
                1. D16
                  D16 28 December 2019 16: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  jet of molten copper, about 500

                  Remind you of the melting point of copper? It is not molten, but plastic.
                  in your opinion, it’s not at all what incapacitates the car and burns the crew ...

                  Disables people and equipment in case of contact. But only those who fall into. Nothing threatens others. With the exception of possible ignition or detonation of BC. But this is where it gets. There are three hundred grams of this copper.
                  everyone breaks into the stern and the tower, then here you are absolutely right

                  I actually wrote about the stern and the roof. 90mu in Syria flew into the tower. Everyone is safe and sound. Would be smarter, get off with a slight fright.
                  it was from this that I started, indicating only that it was not a particular accident and, to a greater extent, the qualification of the crew and the crew was the decisive factor.

                  Actually, you started with
                  no one holds that, no one holds the corsair

                  and continued hysterical
                  and how many tanks of Soviet and Russian production were destroyed, huh?

                  To which I noticed that Russian-made tanks (in particular the T-90) TOU were not destroyed, although there were cases of hit. And this pearl deserves to be cast in bronze:
                  if the hatches were closed, then when a cumulative stream got inside the compartment, it happened that tankers simply flew out through the hatches
                  wassat
  • 5-9
    5-9 26 December 2019 07: 29 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    As usual - depending on where. In underelicated frontal zones (VLD, NLD, the cheekbones of the tower) - it is obliged, otherwise why is it needed, because booking it is primarily cumulative at the expense of resistance to OBPS, which is very low. In a weakened front or all the rest, not a single tank holds. More hope for Trophy
  • Professor 26 December 2019 10: 34 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    Just wondering. Merkava holds such ATTOR TOW?

    1. Watching where it gets. Usually holds. TOU ancient as mammoth eggs.
    2. Against TOU and others like it, a "birdhouse" is established.
    3. KAZ copes well with TOU.
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 13: 13 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Something of birdhouses on the Syrian tanks is not massively observed, there the troops do not even support helicopters.
      1. Professor 26 December 2019 13: 41 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Something of birdhouses on the Syrian tanks is not massively observed, there the troops do not even support helicopters.

        Arabs however. request
        1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 13: 43 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          By the way, the same thing is not with all Merkavas.
          1. Professor 26 December 2019 14: 11 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            By the way, the same thing is not with all Merkavas.

            No, not at all. We are not a rich country. On clothes we stretch the legs.
  • MoJloT 26 December 2019 09: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    no reserves. Nobody wants to die.
    Only for 24.12.2019/2/20 the Syrian army, tanks, a gantrack and up to XNUMX killed.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Paranoid50 26 December 2019 00: 20 New
      • 27
      • 9
      +18
      Quote: DMB-2020
      real circus!

      Circus, a young man - this is your comment, a mixture of teenage maximalism and alternative adequacy. Of course, we will make a discount, as requested. But not more than 50%. yes
      And yes, DMB-2020 - ukrovermaht or tahrir ash sham? Apparently, somewhere in between.
      Is that the same "Syrian peasant"? laughing
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. bober777 26 December 2019 01: 53 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Alyosha, is that you?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. bober777 26 December 2019 01: 56 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              no and did not try laughing
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. bober777 26 December 2019 01: 58 New
                  • 8
                  • 2
                  +6
                  fi how rude you are laughing
                  Hard childhood?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. bober777 26 December 2019 02: 00 New
                      • 7
                      • 1
                      +6
                      why not write you more?
                    2. Alevil 26 December 2019 13: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Piggy, have you washed the toilet in a Polish gentleman yet? You look, and you see, a Polish pan will crack you with a stick on the ridge so that he does the work and not speaks.
            2. Nastia makarova 26 December 2019 08: 57 New
              • 9
              • 2
              +7
              this is a Kiev troll
  • health 26 December 2019 00: 22 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    explain to the underwater tanker. it’s normal when, after a rocket hits, in addition to a cloud of dust, which is soon carried away, you can’t see the tank’s ignitions, no detonations, nothing at all. the tank is standing and that’s it ...
    1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 00: 47 New
      • 10
      • 4
      +6
      This is normal. The T-62 has no merry-go-round charging machine.
      The laying of shells is rational. Therefore, after breaking through this tank
      less likely to light up and explode from detonation of charges.
      Part of the crew died, someone was taken out and saved.
      1. K-612-O 26 December 2019 06: 35 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        There, a crew of 3 people, judging by the hit, got a mechanical water-wound or shell shock. And after that, of course, the tank stands still. In addition, the CAA T-62M with enhanced frontal armor. But the gunner and commander themselves should have remained alive, again, only got a shell shock.
        1. Siberian 66 26 December 2019 07: 26 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          The crew there are 4 people. Fur of the waters, commander, gunner and loader.
        2. Doliva63 26 December 2019 07: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: K-612-O
          There, a crew of 3 people, judging by the hit, got a mechanical water-wound or shell shock. And after that, of course, the tank stands still. In addition, the CAA T-62M with enhanced frontal armor. But the gunner and commander themselves should have remained alive, again, only got a shell shock.

          Crew 3 people? And who then charges the gun with them? On the T-62, this is only possible from the place of the loader, however.
          1. K-612-O 26 December 2019 08: 04 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Sorry, forgot about the lack of a machine request
            1. Doliva63 26 December 2019 08: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: K-612-O
              Sorry, forgot about the lack of a machine request

              drinks
      2. D16
        D16 26 December 2019 21: 14 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The T-62 has no merry-go-round charging machine.
        The laying of shells is rational. Therefore, after breaking through this tank
        less likely to light up and explode from detonation of charges.

        The percentage of hits in the lower frontal sheet of a moving tank is in the nature of statistical error. The creators of the T-72 made this tank for war, and not the fight against partisans. And they had a lot of statistics. More often fall into something that did not fit in the Ministry of Health.
    2. opus 26 December 2019 01: 02 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Hello
      no detonation, nothing at all. the tank is standing and that’s it ...

      1. Basically there is BGM-71E TOW-2A: the main charge weighing 5,9 kg and a telescopic tip with an OT (he is not interested in us now)
      OZ charge forms a cumulative stream
      2.
      Unlike other anti-tank weapons, the cumulative warhead affects the body by a combination of factors. When a cumulative jet enters an object of an armored vehicle, the impact occurs with fragments, fragments, flash, high temperature, high blood pressure.
      High pressure is often enough to open the hatches, and if they have someone to throw the crew out

      The fragmentation flow resulting from penetration excess pressure inside the machine 100 ... 150 atm. and a noise level of about 150 ... 200 dB can disable both the crew and the internal equipment.

      / The evolution of the dynamic protection of light armored vehicles. General Director of Research Institute of Steel, Doctor of Technical Sciences V. Grigoryan, N. Dorokhov. Review of the Army and Navy №1 / 2010.
      Ripple and Phillips (15) quote closed source US Army Medical Research and Developmental Command (USA MRDC) studies indicating a probable incidence of between 1 and 20 percent PBI in survivors from a large warhead penetrating an armored vehicle (in addition to their other injuries).
      Translation:
      Damage to crews by excessive pressure is quite common. Sources indicate that from 1 to 20% of survivors after breaking through armored vehicles can be injured for this reason.
      The CS is rather thin and may not fall into something that could catch fire / explode, and the crew will disable: fully or partially. People they are not a piece of iron
      1. health 26 December 2019 01: 33 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        I heard from people "knowing the topic" that in addition to the physical destruction of everything encountered along the way, the jet burns oxygen out of a small enclosed space. i.e., it turns out that the crew is completely out of order?
        1. Monar 26 December 2019 05: 03 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          The cumulative jet of oxygen does not “burn out”. Its action is certainly not sprayed with deodorant. There is a lot of "smoke dust". And you can suffocate. But combustion products, and not due to lack of oxygen.
          1. 16329 26 December 2019 17: 19 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I worked with a representative of our company in Israel, he had his whole face in dark spots, I asked the tankman he or the gunner, he said the tanker, in 1973 a little child got into his Centurion at the Sinai, three people were saved from the crew and everyone was injured, one cumulative jet interrupted in half
    3. 5-9
      5-9 26 December 2019 08: 11 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      And because it is very difficult to burn / blow up a tank with a cumulative PSU, in Chechnya T-72s received 5-7-9 penetrations and crawled out of the battlefield on their own with an injured crew. And for one successful tank broads in the video on YouTube from slippers, there are more likely several unsuccessful launches and / or tank destroyers destroyed by the tank ...
      That is why only ignorant people bury tanks.
      1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 10: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It depends on what cumulative ammunition. In Chechnya, the T-72 was fired from RPG-7 grenade launchers.
        And the tanks crawled out after 5-9 hits, but not penetrations.
        The RPG-7 cum jet is much weaker than the ATGM with a missile with a diameter of 150 mm and above.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 26 December 2019 13: 43 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          It is penetrations, not hits. Record - 11 penetrations, T-72B crawled out of an ambush in reverse. And they shot everyone, they were full of ATGMs.
          It is clear that the higher the caliber, the higher the armor impact ... although what thickness of the armor will have to be pierced.
          1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 13: 49 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Usually, one penetration of the tower into a finger thick and the crew killed and wounded.
            Splashes of liquid metal strike everyone inside, even if there are no fires or detonations.
            Therefore, about the numerous penetrations by the Kuma of the surviving tank - it is hard to believe. recourse
            1. 5-9
              5-9 26 December 2019 14: 08 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              These are numerous cases (with repeated breaking).
              In Lebanon in 2006, not every breakthrough of Merkava led to fatal or serious consequences, depending on how the jet inside passes.
              The after-effects of OBPS are much higher.
  • Shock. 26 December 2019 00: 24 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    How many did not peer, but did not see the crew evacuating from the car. So there is a possibility that this is the evacuation of a wounded soldier from a neighboring building. Maybe I looked bad?
    1. otstoy 26 December 2019 11: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There, the building is at least 5-6 meters away, and a cumulative projectile exploded. No one in the building could suffer any harm.
      1. Shock. 26 December 2019 18: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A fighter in the building could have suffered from sniper fire from a different direction, for example?
  • olhon 26 December 2019 01: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Already from two angles shooting. The barmaleis prepared.
  • Nikolay Dyaglev 26 December 2019 02: 06 New
    • 3
    • 16
    -13
    Yeah, wolves, for abandoned equipment - execution, but don’t quit bullshit- GDP will still come
    1. Nikolay Dyaglev 26 December 2019 02: 06 New
      • 0
      • 14
      -14
      Warriors * dolbsny
    2. Nastia makarova 26 December 2019 08: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      will send of course is this a problem?
  • alexey alexeyev_2 26 December 2019 02: 14 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    But they didn’t beat him. Where black smoke from a burning tank ..
  • aiden 26 December 2019 03: 16 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Judging by the total hit was in the lower armor plate. The T-72 would catch fire from such a hit and recline the tower at best. In the worst, it scattered into atoms.
    1. K-612-O 26 December 2019 06: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And I wonder why? The BC under the tower, behind, the rear TB, the transmission and engine at the rear, in front only control drives and a mechanical drive, there is nothing to burn there. In 62 as well. Have you played in HERE?
      1. D16
        D16 26 December 2019 07: 39 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        In the T-72 BC under the tower at the bottom of the hull. This is the safest place from anti-tank shells and anti-tank missiles. In motion, it is covered by a screen of terrain. But it’s better not to run into land mines.
      2. Doliva63 26 December 2019 07: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: K-612-O
        And I wonder why? The BC under the tower, behind, the rear TB, the transmission and engine at the rear, in front only control drives and a mechanical drive, there is nothing to burn there. In 62 as well. Have you played in HERE?

        Ahead-right of the T-62 is a fuel tank rack, which houses about a dozen shells. So with a successful hit there is something to burn and explode.
        1. K-612-O 26 December 2019 08: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I saw it in 55, in 62 I didn’t see it, maybe of course different modifications, but in M-ke there isn’t for sure.
          1. Doliva63 26 December 2019 08: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: K-612-O
            I saw it in 55, in 62 I didn’t see it, maybe of course different modifications, but in M-ke there isn’t for sure.

            Where in M ​​you can cram 16 shells from 2 racks, interesting? After all, BC is almost the same. what From memory, M from 62 differed in weight (additional reservation), sight (TShS instead of TSh2B41), walkie-talkie (173 instead of 123) and the ability to use missiles. And that’s it. Or am I missing something?
            1. Crimean partisan 1974 26 December 2019 09: 46 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              And that’s it. Or did I miss something? .... I missed, Ilyich’s famous eyebrows, many people saved their lives, especially in Afghanistan
        2. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 10: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "Ahead, on the right of the T-62 is the fuel tank rack" ////
          -----
          But experienced crews do not hold shells there.
      3. Crimean partisan 1974 26 December 2019 08: 00 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        there’s nothing to burn there. In 62-ke ....... the storage tank to the right of the driver’s drive, traditionally starting with the T-44 when the Soviet tanks of the directional radio-gunners "left" the holy place does not exist empty, even if the storage tank was empty then Garev pairs remain. and tear better than if it were full
        1. Doliva63 26 December 2019 08: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          there’s nothing to burn there. In 62-ke ....... the storage tank to the right of the driver’s drive, traditionally starting with the T-44 when the Soviet tanks of the directional radio-gunners "left" the holy place does not exist empty, even if the storage tank was empty then Garev pairs remain. and tear better than if it were full

          For rent, there are even 2 tank-racks - upper and lower, sort of. Although, perhaps, I am getting excited, because I have been using this “device” for a very long time drinks
          1. Crimean partisan 1974 26 December 2019 09: 41 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            For rent, there are even 2 tank-racks - upper and lower ..... yes one, to the right of the driver’s drive, there’s nothing to share, the shot is unitary, but on the T-72 yes. there are separate tanks - racks
            1. Doliva63 26 December 2019 10: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              For rent, there are even 2 tank-racks - upper and lower ..... yes one, to the right of the driver’s drive, there’s nothing to share, the shot is unitary, but on the T-72 yes. there are separate tanks - racks

              62 on the right-front side of the housing have 2 filling necks, i.e., there are 2 tanks, and in both there is a combat station. 72 have only 4 internal tanks, 2 of which are racks, here you are right, but: 1 - the front, 2 - the middle. Thus, in front of 62, there are 2 shelving tanks, in 72 - only 1 (the main ammunition is located in the AZ). Were you definitely a tanker? For 4 years at the school we “passed” from PT-76 to T-80. They shot, however, only with 62, 72 and 80.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 26 December 2019 11: 23 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Were you definitely a tanker? ...... I wasn’t, but my colleagues were, though everything was on the T-64, but my first-born is now a mechanic’s driver on the T-72B3 (recently received), it showed where it was. so I have an idea, but I’m lying in a chemical BRDM for a couple of weeks in 2008 on the island of Tuzla (this is what our Crystal Bridge runs through now), then a lot of chemicals from the drowned ships poured into the strait, telling what I saw from a cotton helmet, otherwise, a head full P would be
    2. D16
      D16 26 December 2019 07: 45 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The T-72 would catch fire from such a hit and recline the tower at best. In the worst, it scattered into atoms.

      Is not a fact. Judging by the position of the tank in the MZ T-72 most likely would not have arrived. But the driver was most likely left without legs.
  • Livonetc 26 December 2019 07: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: DMB-2020
    Well what can we say about the comments of the Syrian peasants regarding the defeat of Assad’s tanks! Just make a discount on their emotionality, because, in the end, they hit an enemy tank, hence the joy. And on account of inaccuracies in the comments - oh, come on, you count how many times the Russian Defense Ministry announced the defeat of the rebels in Syria and how many times Fairytale stated about the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria! This is a real circus!

    Young man.
    Judging by the nickname, do you expect demobilization in 2020?
    Or does it mean something else?
  • Fraracol_2 26 December 2019 07: 35 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Somewhere down hit. And exactly TOW, where is it visible? It's a pity to look at all this, the fields are disfiguring, someone planted it all, tried
  • awdrgy 26 December 2019 09: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    At one time, the situation at the military training camp was such a situation. Tank drills were conducted on crossing a river on a pontoon bridge. As usual, they drove in for 10-15 minutes, and then one of the "observers with experience" said: - Guys, you’d have already been so 100 times the Germans shot "Guys" asked to show how it should be Well, the "grandfather" climbed off I drove off somewhere for 600-700 meters and imagine - 34ka is carried under 40km - dust is not visible then there is a sharp stop before the pontoon (but not until the end) and it just jumped onto the pontoon And then a living target is somehow When there is a powerful attack if TB rushes and then the bird operator will most likely forget where his fly is unfastened, press the descent maximum with closed eyes and lower it deeper into a hole so that the pants can be shaken out (In general, there are doubts about the effectiveness of TOW when the tank goes fast and does not stand or creeps )
  • Bshkaus 26 December 2019 10: 27 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I admire the skill of journalists, how beautifully and floridly they can turn out and present information in their favor:
    However, the personnel clearly see that the team survived: the wounded soldier was taken away to the rear and put, presumably, in an ambulance (possibly based on the BTR-50)

    But no one was embarrassed that the trajectory along which the soldier was dragged was not from the tank in the rear direction, but along the road, from concrete buildings? It seems to me that a fighter survived, who covered the tank while sitting in the building, and besides, a video is strangely interrupted in which we could see the crew jumping out of the tank.

    At the same time, infantry and armored vehicles from the rear ranks begin an organized retreat

    Firstly, not from the rear, but namely from the first, because the video shows that several tanks occupied a parallel line of attack and the remaining tanks are hiding personnel. Again the question, why did the damaged tank have no cover? It is logical that it took refuge in those very buildings, which indirectly confirms the version that it was not a crew member that was carried away.
    Secondly, in any military operation the main thing result
    What is the result? The result is the destruction of concentrated enemy forces, the taking of strategic heights or, conversely, the disruption of the enemy’s attack.
    If Assad’s forces “organizedly retreated” during the attack, it means that unhappy people got the result, if the Assadites on the contrary held the defense and retreated even further, then again, the nonhumans got the result.
    As you don’t call and do not dodge, but in fact the bearded men piled on the tank, after which the government forces were forced to retreat, and whether it was an organized retreat or flight, the crew survived or not - already, as they say, from the evil one.
    The main thing that can be learned from the news is that "the tanks lack protection and this problem must be solved in the 8th year of battles."
  • Doliva63 26 December 2019 10: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
    And that’s it. Or did I miss something? .... I missed, Ilyich’s famous eyebrows, many people saved their lives, especially in Afghanistan

    "Eyebrows" I attributed to additional bookings.
  • Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 11: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    When will they use at least such a prismatic-cumulative grid to protect tanks ?!

    It is lightweight and cheap and protects well; the United States covers all its equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And in Syria and even in Russia, naked armor is sometimes a cover for DZ.
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 13: 21 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      From tandem cumulative ATGMs, this grid is useless.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 16: 32 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The grid destroys any cumulative ammunition, deforming or destroying the funnel of charges even though at least ordinary tandem charges.

        The grid is much better than the grids, in fact it is the same as shooting with buckshot towards the cumulative ammunition, only in the case of the grid the ammunition itself flies into a tuple at the grid nodes.

        There is no 100% guarantee, but with it there are more chances to survive.
        1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 21: 25 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The first projectile fires destroys the elements of the grid the second projectile fires 50 centimeters from the armor and part of the breakdown potential of the cumulative jet is retained by the TOW 2A it will be 475 mm - the tank, BMP armored personnel carriers will be guaranteed to be broken. Therefore, all these lattice screens against anti-tank systems are complete crap.
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 27 December 2019 01: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Not a grid, but a grid. The experience of its use by the USA in Iraq has shown its effectiveness.
            1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 01: 38 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Against RPG 7 with old shots and LNG 9 - it is effective, but against anti-tank missiles.
  • otstoy 26 December 2019 11: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    T-62 and T-55 are the best tanks for modern regional conflicts. Simple, cheap and reliable.
    I’ll say from the video that the infantry’s actions are obscene Instead of 1-2 km extension. ahead of the tanks, they pound around the rear of the tank.
    1. Doliva63 26 December 2019 20: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: otstoy
      T-62 and T-55 are the best tanks for modern regional conflicts. Simple, cheap and reliable.
      I’ll say from the video that the infantry’s actions are obscene Instead of 1-2 km extension. ahead of the tanks, they pound around the rear of the tank.

      If the Asadites did everything in their minds, the war would have ended long ago.
  • Kaw
    Kaw 26 December 2019 17: 29 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    This only once again confirms the depravity of the design of Soviet second-generation tanks. If it were T-72/90/80, there would be nothing left but burnt corpses and iron ashmetas.
    1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 20: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Well, yes, considering that the rocket almost hit the left skating rink, and if it hit the center of the frontal tank, this tank would turn into a fried partridge with at least two crew members. The T 90 was already shot in the forehead and more than once and not a single penetration was made.
  • Doliva63 26 December 2019 20: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
    Were you definitely a tanker? ...... I wasn’t, but my colleagues were, though everything was on the T-64, but my first-born is now a mechanic’s driver on the T-72B3 (recently received), it showed where it was. so I have an idea, but I’m lying in a chemical BRDM for a couple of weeks in 2008 on the island of Tuzla (this is what our Crystal Bridge runs through now), then a lot of chemicals from the drowned ships poured into the strait, telling what I saw from a cotton helmet, otherwise, a head full P would be

    And you’re shouting like a real tanker! laughing
    That’s why you wouldn’t add the emblems of the military branch here, so that you can immediately see whether it is necessary to start a discussion with someone who is not on the topic at all and does not want to be there. The site is starting to become boring, to say the least. And so it would be seen - a person from a professional point of view speaks or purely fuss. I would know if I hadn’t started an “exchange of opinions”. hi