"A tank is a bird, it needs room." Reflections on the tank issue in the modern Russian army


The material that I will present today to the readers' court came to light through communication with a fan. No, this is not an ardent football fan boy, and not even a gray-haired rocker from the 90s. This is a completely adequate military pensioner, with a gray-haired head and a full set of diseases associated with age and past years of service.


A tanker who, having retired, took up ... models. It models tanks. His summer residence today is a museum of tanks of many countries and of different times. I counted 20 Tigers alone. It would be better if I did not ask the question about the number of similar cars in the collection.

Just because I got on such an excursion about these tanks, with such details that in the end, after three hours, I realized that my knowledge about tanks in general and the Tigers in particular was close to zero. “Well, how can you not notice this mount? Only such cars were produced ... in total! ”Or“ Well, have you ever seen a tank ever? ” At least on TV? Look here. This is a brilliant decision ... "

I think you understand what a fan of tanks is. It is also a pleasure to communicate with such people. Deep knowledge of the issue, love for the object, the ability to objectively talk about the advantages and disadvantages of machines. For example, what is the expression: “A tank is a bird!” Eagle! He needs room. Will. Height. Then you will see a real eagle, and not a living stuffed animal in a cage ... "

Sometimes you come across questions that seem to be understandable, and the answer to which is obvious. But you meet a person and you understand that much is not so simple as it seems at first glance.

We talked about a problem ... which is not. Exactly. Probably, many Siberians and Far Easterners asked themselves one question, especially after the next parade, tank biathlon or a speech by the Minister of Defense, where tanks were mentioned.

So, we are thinking about the tank issue in the Russian army.

Why in the European part of Russia the tanks are new, modernized and in accordance with all international standards, and obviously obsolete, not modernized vehicles are being brought to us. Which T-90 in Siberia? You are unlikely to find the latest modification of the T-72 here.

That's what I talked about with a retired lieutenant colonel, a former deputy commander of a tank regiment. Most of the conclusions in this article belong to him, for which I sincerely thank him. I don’t give a surname at the request of a co-author.

I’ll make a reservation right away that we didn’t touch on tank divisions and units as part of motorized rifle brigades and divisions. The conversation was about individual tank units and formations. About the very armored fist that is able to break through the strategic defense of the enemy. To solve a strategic problem.

So, the tactics of using tanks from the Second World War are ineffective today. Too many PTSs are hidden today in enemy trenches. Everyone can burn tanks. Accordingly, tankers can no longer act on the principle of "supporting infantry with fire and caterpillars."

However, the basics of tank combat have not been canceled. Even a child knows that a tank in the mountains, in the taiga or in a city turns into a target. This is the same cage that prevents the eagle from flying. But nobody forgot what else was taught to the great-grandfathers of today's tank crews (maneuver, speed, accurate fire on the enemy, and destruction of the TCP in the first place).

This means that in order to conduct a tank battle, it is necessary to choose the area on which all these advantages of tanks can be used. Alas, the Siberian taiga and swamps, the Far Eastern hills, even the Ural Mountains are not very suitable for tanks.

We are used to the fact that the USSR, and now Russia, has a huge number of such machines. Alas, a tank is expensive. And not only in production, but also in operation. Therefore, scattering tanks is undesirable. Even criminal.

Naturally, I don’t know the latest data on the number of cars. But I will bring open data from recent times. So, a few years ago, the Russian army was armed with (approximately) 20 thousand vehicles, including those in reserve. The figure, I repeat, is not for today. Naturally, some obsolete cars are replaced with new ones.

Of these: T-90 - 400 units, T-72 - 7144 units, T-80 - 4744 units, T-64 - 4000 units, T-62 - 690 units, T-55 - 1200 units. There are about 150 obsolete PT-76s. As you can see, the real fleet is small enough for a country like ours. And the price of each car in battle is quite high.

Now back to where the new cars should be. To the question from the Siberians. The answer is obvious to most readers. And you don’t need to look for evidence of the correctness of your position somewhere in the depths of secret bunkers. It’s enough to take open sources.

Any military unit, especially one whose transfer requires significant resources and time, is located in places where it is easy to quickly start hostilities, quickly advance to the front line independently, without using transport.

Let's see the locations of individual tank units and formations. Given the fact that we are nevertheless interested in questions of the country's defense, we will not take into account the units located at military bases abroad. Well, and, as I said above, we will not take into account the units and parts of the MSD and SMEs.

So, 1 OgvTBr in Boguchar (Voronezh region), 6 OgvTBr in Mulino (Nizhny Novgorod region), 5 OgvTBr in Ulan-Ude (Buryatia), 1 Guards. separate tank regiment in Kalininets (Moscow region), 6th Guards. FROM regiment in Chebarkul (Chelyabinsk region), 11 FROM regiment in Gusev (Kaliningrad region), 12 and 13 guards. From a shelf in Naro-Fominsk (Moscow Region), 59th Guards. FROM the regiment in Yelnya (Smolensk region), 68th Guards TP, 163th Guards. TP in Persianovsky (Rostov Region), 237 TP in Valuyki (Belgorod Region).

I did not list all the individual tank regiments and brigades that are located on the territory of the Russian Federation. The task was different. The task is to answer a simple question: where are we waiting for the arrival of the next “life teachers” who will need to be driven by our tanks?

Perhaps the conclusions made by us from simple information known to the majority are controversial. I have long been familiar with the heroism of our couch generals. "If necessary, we are able to conduct air combat even on BMP." "A Russian soldier can that which no one can." And so on.

Even the fact that "the enemy can suddenly attack with a tank wedge somewhere near Norilsk, and we ..." I foresee. Therefore, I focus on the controversial conclusions. Modern warfare will not be a “war of motors." It will be a technology war. Like in a song from an old children's film: “Robots inject, not a man ...”

However, in the era of local conflicts, we cannot guarantee the exclusion, for example, of a breakthrough of a large group of terrorists into our territory. And then, as it has been many times lately, not robots, but soldiers will go to fight. And the soldiers will die. And not robots in tanks will burn, but people.

We cannot militarize the country for many reasons. Starting with a weak economy and ending with a lack of population. Work "in the warehouse" (in the arsenals) in order to quickly deploy regiments and divisions, too. It remains to use the resources that are. To fight not by number, but by skill and the best weapons.

And tanks and tankers should be where they can become eagles!
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 10: 30 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    quite a common thing. new equipment is equipped primarily with those formations that are in the direction of the most probable strike. this is not a discovery.
    1. Cowbra 29 January 2020 10: 49 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      The author is not talking about this ...
      The total land area of ​​the forest fund of the Far East and Transbaikalia is 558,5 million hectares or 92% of the total area.

      And why the hell is the tank here?
      1. Lipchanin 29 January 2020 11: 05 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Cowbra
        And why the hell is the tank here?

        If it arrives
      2. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 11: 31 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Well, except for hills and forests there are quite a few directions)))
        1. Cowbra 29 January 2020 11: 39 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Yes, I just think that it is not in vain that China and everyone who is nearby - in general, amphibious tanks are built there. And in general, 8% of the directions ... A bit. Yes, and at a pistol distance. it seems to me. there will be one dog - whether the BMD or the T-90 will taxi. From 300 meters both RPGs will be enough, probably) Yes, and on each other the question is - who will shoot faster and better
          1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 11: 43 New
            • 4
            • 5
            -1
            there are other tasks before the troops) in the Far East, no one was ever seriously planning to hold the defense. this physically cannot be done.
      3. LeonidL 30 January 2020 01: 39 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        In ZabVO there is Manzhurka - these are sopui and steppes, salt marshes and spots of taiga. Previously, there were full-fledged URs covering the hulls. For example, Borze’s corps with the MS divisions in Dauria, Borzy, Bezrechnaya, Mirnaya with the DSB in Mogoch, each with a full-fledged tank regiment, and then special forces added to Mirnaya and much, much more. Now - complete devastation and ruins, but this is a tank-dangerous direction straight to Chita, to Trnasib.
      4. kupitman 30 January 2020 16: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        There is always work in the mountains for a tank:
    2. Alekseev 29 January 2020 11: 05 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      The tactics of using tank formations, of course, will change. And not because of the large number of TCP. There were many of them during the Second World War and the effectiveness of anti-tank guns, faustpatrons and mines was very high.
      Just because of the presence of nuclear weapons, the use of land armies on a previous scale is now not possible against Russia, for example. And against small countries it is not advisable. However, without tanks, mobile and highly protected firing points, it is not possible to conduct military operations in local conflicts. Donbass and other examples.
      And tank and motorized infantry formations are very similar now. Do not compare with rifle divisions and tank corps of the war.
      Those. the trend is this: firepower and accuracy of hitting various targets from tank weapons is growing, the price of vehicles is also increasing, combat distances are increasing, and material expenditures are also being used. The power of the PTS also does not stand still, it requires not only strengthening the means of defense of the tank, but also skillful tactics, quick maneuvers, and avoiding crowding on the battlefield.
      This means that the future lies with relatively small tank formations that are well provided with all types of combat, rear, and technical support, operating in close cooperation with aviation, artillery, and, of course, infantry. As, by the way, and always. wink
    3. smart ass 29 January 2020 11: 53 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, the author revealed all the secrets, how many pieces and where are they (((schA Pentagon dismissed as unnecessary
      1. domokl 29 January 2020 14: 34 New
        • 9
        • 1
        +8
        Quote: Clever man
        the author revealed all the secrets, how many pieces and where are (((

        bully Huh ... Read the source books ... The numbers are declassified and are freely available to everyone. who knows where to look
        1. Martin 29 January 2020 18: 54 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          The numbers are declassified and are freely available to everyone. who knows where to look
          So, the fact of the matter is that in order to put the spy to a complete analytical picture, you need to spend time searching for all the sources. And the author did all the rough work for the spy and put it on a plate. wassat
          Only one can justify the author: if the information posted is high-quality disa. laughing
          1. LeonidL 30 January 2020 01: 46 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The author is not to blame, now everything can be seen live using the Internet and subtracted in the open press, primarily electronic. It is no secret for a long time that it is here that all the intelligence services of the world graze. About 80 percent of the information comes from open sources. The question in the article was raised about the place to be - Russia's soft-wrestler is poorly and poorly covered. And the fact that the PRC has never been a "friend and brother," but only for a while tried on agility, having received everything desired from the Yeltsinoid-Gorbachev sages, I personally have no doubts. Alas, those who think and hope about "back to back" with the Chinese "brothers" are very naive. The Chinese brothers have always seen and see everything, see and will only see and seek benefits for the Celestial Empire, and they will throw all the rest, throw and throw. Examples? USSR, Vietnam, USA.
  2. Paul Siebert 29 January 2020 10: 55 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Events in the Donbass have shown that tank attacks are not a thing of the past. They are an integral component of modern strategy.
    The Syrian army with the help of our tanks completes the defeat of the jihadists in Idlib.
    Tanks will not soon say their last word. Behind them is the future.
    And it’s great that today the whole world is oriented towards Russian tank building.
    1. Lipchanin 29 January 2020 11: 11 New
      • 1
      • 10
      -9
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      Behind them is the future.

      Which one? One "vigorous" warhead will turn into all this in a pile of scrap metal
      To show you what happened with the tanks in Grozny?
      I don’t know the statistics how much has returned from there at all
      1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 11: 38 New
        • 11
        • 3
        +8
        will not turn))) you will not close the entire width and depth of the front with nuclear explosions without harming yourself and a tactical strike will solve little. they’ll close, they will wash themselves and go on. and in Grozny this is an example of a complete lack of understanding of how to fight tank units in the city.
        1. your1970 29 January 2020 12: 01 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Quote: carstorm 11
          you cannot cover the entire width and depth of the front with nuclear explosions without harming yourself, and a tactical strike will solve little. they’ll close, they will wash themselves and go on.

          And if not for tanks? And in warehouses / cracking?
          Then they wash themselves, only now they have enough fuel after that for 100-200 km
          1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 12: 27 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Well, I answered a pile of scrap metal) with regard to the destruction of warehouses, so it concerns any army and they decide everything in their own way)
            1. your1970 29 January 2020 14: 38 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Quote: carstorm 11
              Well, I answered a pile of scrap metal)

              Without fuel, it will be just a still pile of scrap metal ....
          2. Doliva63 29 January 2020 21: 16 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: your1970
            Quote: carstorm 11
            you cannot cover the entire width and depth of the front with nuclear explosions without harming yourself, and a tactical strike will solve little. they’ll close, they will wash themselves and go on.

            And if not for tanks? And in warehouses / cracking?
            Then they wash themselves, only now they have enough fuel after that for 100-200 km

            Cruising range - 500 km., Which 100-200? And then, did you hear a thread about fillers? So the tanks will go as long as necessary. If the authorities do not let us down, of course laughing
            1. your1970 30 January 2020 12: 12 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Doliva63
              Cruising range - 500 km., Which 100-200? And then, did you hear a thread about fillers? So the tanks will go as long as necessary. If the authorities do not let us down, of course

              And the bulkheads will feed on the holy spirit? And the infantry on their own two? And what should the infantry / tankers eat? What about ammunition?
              And the wounded on what to evacuate to the rear?
              Everything rests in fuels and lubricants ....
              This in WWII horses saved a lot of the army, now it won’t work ...
              Even then, a blow to the fuel and lubricants depots greatly damaged the Red Army
      2. raif 29 January 2020 14: 07 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        this is the failure of the planning of our generals. but the “tank rushi" performed by the Americans in Iraq in general and in Baghdad in particular quite a success. the most warring army of the IDF does not abandon tanks, although it is very technologically advanced. and yes - I do not like Jews, Thai and NATO. and then write in the ranks of the liberals
        1. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 14: 46 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          more than 70 percent of the tanks there destroyed aircraft and anti-tank systems. total dominance in the air at first was
    2. carstorm 11 29 January 2020 11: 35 New
      • 5
      • 8
      -3
      yes shaz. Donbass just shows that tanks are now solving something only in local conflicts. there is no mass use of tanks in Syria or the Donbass. I do not belittle its need. I just note that the tactics of application have changed dramatically. Now this tool is very selective and only in skillful hands does it work.
    3. smart ass 29 January 2020 14: 36 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      I don’t know .. don’t know ... if you compare the leopard 2 last abrams and t90 it’s not clear who is equal to what
    4. domokl 29 January 2020 14: 38 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      tank attacks are not a thing of the past

      No one is going to bury the tanks. Events in the Donbass just proved something else. In regional conflicts, where we are not even talking about the use of serious modern weapons, as well as in the destruction of gangs on their territory. the role of tanks is about the same as it was in the Second World War.
      1. Lexus 29 January 2020 23: 10 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Alexander hi
        Thank you for the article!
        But let me disagree.
        No one is going to bury the tanks.

        The machines stored in storage are completely unsuitable for modern databases. And those in the ranks are poor budget upgrades. Yes, the T-72B3 and T-80BVM are wretched. The armor is not fundamentally improved, the 80s are completely without thermal imagers, the ammunition does not provide for the defeat of modern tanks of a potential enemy, KAZ in dreams. Crews risk being in the role of "cannon fodder", and tanks become scrap metal.
        In regional conflicts

        Barmaley will give TOU, Darts and Chinese ATGMs - and everything will change not in favor of Russian tanks.

        The norm would be the presence in the combat units of 2-3 thousand T-90M "Breakthrough-3" and T-14 "Armata". But the former are unlikely to “modernize” all 500 T-90s (+ newly assembled) over the next 10 years, while the latter are not yet able to bring them to condition.
        + 2-5 thousand in storage, all with enhanced protection, modernized for the use of modern PSUs, equipped with a panoramic sight and thermal imagers for the commander and gunner (and not one at all).
        Then it will be possible to talk not about the funeral, but about the viability of Russian tanks.
        But that's another story.
        1. Golovan Jack 29 January 2020 23: 24 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Quote: lexus
          equipped with a panoramic sight and thermal imagers for the commander and gunner (not one at all)

          With this phrase, buddy, you have clearly shown that you understand tanks a little worse than, for example, oranges.

          Good advice to you - try not to write about what, well, absolutely no foot. And then it can be funny wink

          Quote: lexus
          Then it will be possible to talk not about the funeral, but about the viability of Russian tanks

          Yes, to you, to a campaign, all the same, that to find fault. The process itself captivates you.

          Quote: lexus
          this is a completely different story

          Oh well ... all the same. Shovel, fan ... everything, as before.
          1. Lexus 29 January 2020 23: 32 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            What's wrong? Panorama, of course, only the commander needs. But one thermal imager for two, is it enough? Or with the Russian language is at odds? I recommend keeping tips and not shaming. In general, I leave alone with a shovel and "substance". Bon Appetit! stop
            1. Golovan Jack 29 January 2020 23: 34 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              Quote: lexus
              What's wrong?

              Yes all. Beginning with

              Quote: lexus
              Armor is not fundamentally improved

              Now tell me how you thought of “perfecting" the armor in this way ... a tan-cyst laughing

              Quote: lexus
              ammunition does not ensure the defeat of modern tanks of a potential enemy

              good laughing good
    5. LeonidL 30 January 2020 01: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      These are great examples, but only examples of low-cost local wars. The article, as I understand it, raises strategic issues.
    6. The comment was deleted.
  3. ABM
    ABM 29 January 2020 10: 56 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    what nonsense ...
    1. Mazuta 30 January 2020 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      even provocations, like Comrade Shpakovsky’s failed ...
  4. svp67 29 January 2020 10: 57 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Accordingly, tankers can no longer act on the principle of "supporting infantry with fire and caterpillars."
    Sorry, but I DO NOT AGREE to my colleague, why then do you need a tank at all? No, he is wrong.

    However, the basics of tank combat have not been canceled. Even a child knows that a tank in the mountains, in the taiga or in a city turns into a target.
    A tank is ANYWHERE a target and it is still not clear where more, in a city (in the mountains, in the taiga) or in an open area. He alone does not fight, he needs full support. Tank, just a TOOL in a common orchestra. And it “sounds” only together with other “instruments”

    This is the same cage that prevents the eagle from flying.
    Well, this is if the "tanks are not guards", they can fly, so "low, low ..."
    But seriously, Syria perfectly shows the falsity of this statement. When everything is worked out, the crews are trained and there is normal combat support, it is the action of tanks that guarantees victory

    But nobody forgot what else was taught to the great-grandfathers of today's tank crews (maneuver, speed, accurate fire on the enemy, and destruction of the TCP in the first place).
    And that these skills are not needed in the mountains, taiga and mountains?
    1. smart ass 29 January 2020 14: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The tank looks good at the checkpoint; fear inspires
    2. your1970 29 January 2020 14: 44 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: svp67
      seriously, Syria perfectly shows the falsity of this statement. When everything is worked out, the crews are trained and there is normal combat support, it is the action of tanks that guarantees victory

      Yeah ..... the steppe is as flat as a table, a shahidmobile rides - and it’s extremely slow, the checkpoint is naughty from everything, after which a suicide bomber who arrives blows up the tank with his cuttlefish ...
      Full of videos on the network ....
      The main thing is that they all act "worked out. Harmoniously, with combat support" ..... lol
      1. Jager 30 January 2020 17: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Then, on duty at the checkpoint, instead of the tank, give even the Death Star, the result will be similar. What does the tank have to do with it?
        1. your1970 30 January 2020 18: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Jager
          What does the tank have to do with it?
          tank?
          Quote: svp67
          When everything is worked out, the crews are trained and there is normal combat support, namely action of tanks guarantee of victory

          if it’s not a checkpoint, but a bunch of men with machine guns, the tank will not play any role
  5. Essex62 29 January 2020 11: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Article guide to action by the Chinese comrades? What is a terrorist breakthrough in Siberia or the Urals? Who are where? I did not understand what the author wanted to say. And so he started well, about a bench-mounted dear to my heart, which is distinguished by the fastener of the trench and the number of bolts on the rollers and an overhead plate ...
  6. Andrey VOV 29 January 2020 11: 46 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Lipchanin
    Quote: Paul Siebert
    Behind them is the future.

    Which one? One "vigorous" warhead will turn into all this in a pile of scrap metal
    To show you what happened with the tanks in Grozny?
    I don’t know the statistics how much has returned from there at all

    Grozny is not an indicator, it’s already clear to everyone that tanks in Grozny were initially used completely incorrectly, having forgotten all the experience gained .. but remember what condition the army was in then!
  7. ccsr 29 January 2020 13: 03 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Author:
    Alexander Staver
    Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Chubais will leave the Russian political and economic elite in the near future.

    I would not want to offend a respected officer, most likely a former deputy. in arming a tank regiment, but in our history something similar happened with cavalry on the eve of World War II. Just as the tank units were buried by the cavalry, modern artillery units using self-propelled guns and multiple launch rocket systems will bury the tanks or at least drastically reduce their number. And army helicopters will help them in this, which in my opinion will eventually be included in the combined-arms divisions. Well, even theoretically, the kinetic energy of a sub-caliber projectile with a limited range of use can not beat a "smart" projectile (rocket), fired from a distance of tens of kilometers and capable of attacking a target from any direction and at the same time developing almost cosmic speed at the moment of contact with the armor. This is physics, and you can’t argue with it, which means that the role of tanks in modern armies will fall. I don’t even mention about other difficulties associated with cost, operation, etc. - this is too expensive a type of weapon in relation to its effectiveness in modern combat.
    1. Jager 30 January 2020 18: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The tank began to be buried as a type of weaponry almost from its very appearance. Arms are growing - protection is also growing. There is a KAZ for a smart shell. And if they are not today, they may appear tomorrow.
      There is a guide to tanks of the late 90s. So for 20 years, this conservative type of weapons has changed markedly.
      1. ccsr 30 January 2020 19: 23 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Jager
        The tank began to be buried as a type of weaponry almost from its very appearance.

        This is not entirely true, because in the theory of motorized conduits the decisive role was given to tanks. Here is the discussion that went on in 1933:
        The author’s conclusion that “tanks turned into a powerful long-range weapon of maneuverable warfare from melee weapons for gnawing at the positional front of the World War” (p. 71) is not proven. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to clarify the concepts.
        1. Firing only direct fire or acting with its hull (“caterpillars”), the tank is still virtually a “melee weapon”, regardless of whether it is used in positional or maneuver warfare.
        2. The tank not only “turned” into a weapon of maneuverable war, but became an independent, to a certain extent universal weapon and positional and maneuverable war and can be widely used in maneuver warfare.

        Quote: Jager
        So for 20 years, this conservative type of weapons has changed markedly.

        Unfortunately, there is no such armor that would bring the tank’s weight to 12-15 tons, which means that the problem of weight and caliber will remain decisive, because of which the tank will lose the self-propelled guns or other armored vehicles capable of firing from long distances outside the battlefield.
        1. Jager 31 January 2020 07: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          My armored vehicle library is huge. Although I am not a professional historian, I have been fond of BTT history for 20 years, as I know the question not bad. At least to surprise me with something new in this matter is difficult.
          It is a pity that the tank does not know how to fly and does not carry anti-ship missiles.
          There is no particular difficulty in developing and implementing a guided missile to destroy at least 20 km. But why is this a tank? He has other tasks.
          Sincerely.
          1. ccsr 31 January 2020 11: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Jager
            There is no particular difficulty in developing and implementing a guided missile to destroy at least 20 km.

            Moreover, the cost of such a missile capable of destroying a tank will be penny in comparison with the cost of the tank destroyed by it. And even MT-LB can transport such missiles - by the way, on their base in the USSR, ATGMs were placed to destroy tanks, and they used them from those distances at which the tanks couldn’t hit them.
            Quote: Jager
            But why is this a tank? He has other tasks.

            Tell us in more detail what tasks the tank has in the modern Russian army, taking into account its tasks and the available weapons and equipment. How do you imagine all this - I would really like to know ....
  8. Ros 56 29 January 2020 13: 57 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    All our tanks MUST provide European operational space. And it will be so, here our enemies will “rejoice”. soldier good lol laughing
  9. serezhasoldatow 29 January 2020 14: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "And the battlefield rests on tanks ..."
  10. asp373 29 January 2020 14: 42 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    You have a good friend. An interesting article turned out. You should visit him more often.
  11. Odysseus 29 January 2020 15: 33 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Ah, if things were as good as the respected author writes!
    Alas, we now have not 20 thousand tanks, but almost an order of magnitude less. That is - about 2300 in linear parts. T-55, T-62, T-64 decommissioned. Plus about 3000 reconstructed tanks in BHVT. But there is a different technical readiness and the question of the availability of crews for them. Plus, tanks were and are being actively sent tanks to help the Allies and for sale.
    When it was decided to cover the borders with Ukraine (that’s how defense was in this direction, and not at all to solve this problem once and for all), almost all tank units had to be pulled to the southwestern, western border. And to cover holes and for his army to restore equipment from storage bases.
    As for the Far East, in the USSR there was a large percentage of obsolete equipment (although then the Chinese army was weak), though there were a lot of tanks. Now, there are just a few physically left, plus no one is going to wage war with the PRC. Well, even if you imagine it, then the only protection for us will be nuclear weapons. The maximum army will be able to retreat along the lines using the terrain.
    As for the tank-open directions, the biggest problems we have on the border with Kazakhstan. We just need nosebleed stability in Central Asia. Well, Belarus must, of course, be maintained as an ally, so as not to cover this direction 400 km from Moscow as well.
  12. Alexander Samoilov 30 January 2020 08: 11 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Captain obvious. Naturally, tanks should be massively used on tank-accessible terrain. And at the expense of a fist capable of crushing strategic defenses, I wonder whose? We can’t compete with NATO. They have many more tanks. China is a nuclear power, and their ground forces, despite the technical backwardness, will crush us in numbers. In addition to Ukraine and, judging by recent events, in the future of our current CSTO allies, there are nowhere else to use separate formations and even units.
    1. Jager 30 January 2020 18: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      On the European theater of operations, NATO does not have an overwhelming superiority in the number of tanks.
      Calm down already with Ukraine, 6 years have passed. We would like to resolve the issue, we would decide immediately. And most of the CSTO allies are sitting on our feeding trough in one form or another.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexander Samoilov 2 February 2020 22: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If twice this is not an overwhelming superiority, then what? And at the expense of the feeder, so Armenia has already been lost. Kazakhstan switched to the Latin alphabet for a reason. In Belarus, the Old Man is increasingly hysterical. Only Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain - tse peremoga)))
  13. Jager 30 January 2020 18: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Native bench modeling ... I threw this thing because of problems with the back and sedentary work. Eh, the hands themselves reached for the box with the T-28. The mezzanine and cabinet are clogged with new boxes with sprues. Collect them all - Prokhorovka’s diorama would be enough ...
    1. ycuce234-san 31 January 2020 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Native bench modeling ... I threw this thing


      There are on sale inexpensive compact workbenches or work bench-vice for work while standing.
      1. Essex62 2 February 2020 21: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For plastic models, the vice is death. lol Collecting standing is not possible if you are not a dwarf laughing
        Here are wooden ships as you like. You messed up comrade hi
        1. ycuce234-san 3 February 2020 19: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Collecting standing is not possible if you are not a dwarf

          They are also adjustable in height. Plastic did not collect. But if a vise is not needed then probably the most inexpensive domestic ordinary wooden table for standing work or a table (student’s desk) with a table stand is suitable - for some people there is a rise up to +0,5 m and uncles of 2,0 m can be returned again in golden preschool childhood, when the table is almost on the chin. Especially if for coloring you get and put on the table the old writing instruments, the inkwell there ...
      2. Jager 4 February 2020 00: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then immediately buy a metalworking machine and sharpen tanks on a scale of 1:35))
        I'm not so old for Soviet desks. The Union did not find it, but did not manage to become a victim of the exam.
        1. ycuce234-san 4 February 2020 19: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I'm not so old for Soviet desks.

          Well, if you really need to save a lot, you can successfully buy and use the old desk at the flea market and use it as a desktop and decoration element. At the oldest desk, the home desk was preserved, "sedentary." But in general, now there are much more such standing tables and desks than before. It is more likely that for modeling, upright furniture will be quite convenient and useful.
  14. 2 Level Advisor 30 January 2020 18: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Paul Siebert
    Events in the Donbass have shown that tank attacks are not a thing of the past. They are an integral component of modern strategy.
    The Syrian army with the help of our tanks completes the defeat of the jihadists in Idlib.
    Tanks will not soon say their last word. Behind them is the future.
    And it’s great that today the whole world is oriented towards Russian tank building.

    events in the Donbass showed that tanks are also relevant in the absence of enemy aircraft in the sky .. and Syria, by the way too .. tanks of course are a force and now is .. when the air is clean ..