Disputes about the "best tank in the world"


You can’t even imagine, as I understand it, the employees of organizations that are responsible for issuing patents for various inventions. I am especially sorry for those who work in the perpetual motion department. Can you imagine how many times they have to explain the elementary laws of physics to militant "geniuses"? How many far from flattering words do they listen in response?


Why am I doing this? Probably complaining about the bitter fate of a person from the patent office. How many times in personal conversations have I had to explain to the experts in military equipment and weapons the elementary laws of physics. How many times had to listen to a seemingly simple, but actually rather stupid question. Next, you can insert any kind weaponsarmored vehicles aviation technology and so on, the best object in the world. Who is the winner of the arms race in certain positions?

Honestly, questions and disputes are tired. Therefore, I decided today on the example of experts tanks answer all those who are interested in whose tank is better. But for a start - a little stories.

Has anyone seen the best sword in the world? What about onions? Maybe someone knows the best breed of war horses? What is it: what does the best battle club look like?

First, I will answer the most burning question of patriots from all countries that produce these military vehicles. Immediately for everyone. And on behalf of everyone. The best tanks are ours! Accordingly, for Americans - American, for Germans - German, for Jews - Israeli, for Chinese - Chinese, for Russian - Russian. This is an axiom!

I understand that any comparison of models of equipment and weapons is subjective. In particular, when evaluating tanks, the basic properties of these combat vehicles must be taken into account. Combat power, mobility, crew protection, mobility and others.

However, in my opinion, the most important indicators, the most important properties of tanks directly depend on the state’s military doctrine adopted at the time of the creation of the machine. The machine is created to solve specific problems on the basis of military doctrine.

Have you ever thought about a simple but obvious question: why are Russian tanks less weight than western ones? Why does the T-90 standing next to Abrams, Leopard or Merkava look like a kid? It would seem simpler: add armor, increase the volume of the tank and put a more powerful engine?

Since the time of the USSR, more precisely, since the Great Patriotic War, tanks have been and remain the main striking force of the ground forces. It is the tankers who are in the forefront of the advancing. They are an armored fist that breaks through the enemy defenses. To solve this problem, even the most modern tanks of Russia have been created.

The West is well aware of the power of our tanks. Therefore, they originally designed tanks for defense. Well-armored, heavy vehicles, often incapable of stepping off roads and long distances. The Israeli Chariots are especially indicative in this regard.

Even Israeli experts often forget their own original doctrine, on which the construction of the first Merkava was based. What did General Israel Tal say in the late 60s? It was his team that created the first Israeli tank.

Why did Merkava appear? Just because the enemy got T-62! General Tal then put forward the doctrine of using an Israeli tank. It is necessary to create a tank that would effectively fight the Soviet cars. Understanding that losses in battles are inevitable, and the human resources of Israel are quite limited, the designers were tasked with maximizing the safety of the crew. “A tank is the home of a crew in wartime.”

Remember one of the tank design rules that all tank designers in the world use? To protect the crew, you can use no more than 50% of the mass of the object! How much is used in Merkava? Again thanks to the decision of General Tal.

By the way, probably in the concept of using military vehicles lies the answer to the question that arises among the inhabitants of the whole world after the next tank biathlon. Why are Western countries afraid to participate in a tank biathlon, and the competitions they hold are more like games of primary school children?

Of course, the stage of shooting a tank crew with personal weapons at targets looks better than forcing a water barrier or destroying enemy tanks and helicopters. Agree, it is difficult to imagine an American, German or Israeli tank that forces a water barrier or “fights” somewhere in a swampy area.

I saw quite a few options for rating tanks. It is clear that, given the influence of the United States on other countries, it is the Americans who are considered the most authoritative experts in evaluating these military vehicles. American opinion is often cited. By the way, even when searching for options for purchasing military vehicles by other countries, ratings are taken into account.

I don’t want to criticize the Americans, but in all the ratings, the first place is consistently held by the American Abrams. Then comes his brother in arms - Leopard. These two cars are unrivaled. Two more tanks stably occupy the third and fourth places. This is the Englishman "Challenger" and the Japanese "Type 50".

It is surprising that the Russian T-90, the Israeli Merkava and the Chinese Type-99, changing each other, periodically occupy only the fifth line of ratings. Why is it amazing? Yes, simply because most of the indicators are precisely these machines that are better, more technological, more reliable.

And not because Israeli, Russian or Chinese designers are smarter. Just combat vehicles are “younger”, which means they use much more innovations in their design.

If you still answer the question “who is stronger?” Seriously, then I think that there is no stronger than the simple infantry Vasya, who is supported by the rest. Weapons today have reached such a level when no less powerful defenses exist against powerful offensive weapons. When it is difficult to imagine a tank battle head-on, as it often happened in World War II. It’s hard to imagine a ram in the air.

But the same Vasya from the motorized rifle platoon as he was the main in the army, and remained. There is no victory until Vasya crosses the enemy trench, occupies the enemy stronghold, sets up a banner over the defeated enemy city.

And the ratings ... For that, there are experts, so as not to believe them. See special materials for any military facility. You will never see the rating as a whole. Specific data in specific areas is always compared.

So there is no better tank in the world. There are only the best tanks of the war ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aaron Zawi 10 February 2020 07: 37 New
    • 35
    • 5
    +30
    Very sensible reasoning. drinks Especially about the role of the infantry. good
    1. svp67 10 February 2020 10: 33 New
      • 10
      • 9
      +1
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Very sensible reasoning.

      It is strange to hear this from a representative of one of the most warring nations.
      The author goes a little too far with "kvas patriotism". Forgive him for these statements

      Why are Western countries afraid to participate in the tank biathlon, and the competitions that they hold are more like the games of primary school children?

      What do you see in the competition of tank divisions of the NATO countries as a "game of school-age children"? What a stupid comparison? And nothing that we have in such "games" "play." It will be interesting to type "Combat firing platoons" or "Company tactical exercises"
      Of course, the stage of shooting a tank crew with personal weapons at targets looks better than forcing a water barrier or destroying enemy tanks and helicopters. Agree, it is difficult to imagine an American, German or Israeli tank that forces a water barrier or “fights” somewhere in a swampy area.
      Well, this is from the same opera ...
      And why imagine now and you can see


      1. Aaron Zawi 10 February 2020 10: 47 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        Very sensible reasoning.

        It is strange to hear this from a representative of one of the most warring nations.
        The author goes a little too far with "kvas patriotism". Forgive him for these statements

        Why are Western countries afraid to participate in the tank biathlon, and the competitions that they hold are more like the games of primary school children?

        What do you see in the competition of tank units of the NATO countries as a "game of school children
        "What a stupid comparison? And nothing that we have in such" games "" play. "It will be interesting to type" Combat firing platoons "or" Company tactical exercises
        Of course, the stage of shooting a tank crew with personal weapons at targets looks better than forcing a water barrier or destroying enemy tanks and helicopters. Agree, it is difficult to imagine an American, German or Israeli tank that forces a water barrier or “fights” somewhere in a swampy area.
        Well, this is from the same opera ...
        And why imagine now and you can see



        Well, here I was pleased with thoughts of infantry.
        1. svp67 10 February 2020 10: 54 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Well, here I was pleased with thoughts of infantry.

          Well, to each his own ... hi
        2. TANKISTONE 11 February 2020 15: 31 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And did they participate in the Russian tank biathlon or not?
          1. ProkletyiPirat 12 February 2020 02: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: TANKISTONE
            And did they participate in the Russian tank biathlon or not?

            even if they participated it would not change anything.
            "Which tank is the best in the world?" this is initially a wrong question and therefore any answer will not be correct. Any tank, even the oldest T-34, will be abrams if
            1) he is
            2) the crew has a brain, knows how to use it and uses it

            In general, if you take a closer look at all the wars and victories / defeats in them, you can see that the winner is not the one who is better / stronger / faster / smarter, but the one who is "wiser", that is, the one who better compensates for their shortcomings.
        3. kytx 13 February 2020 00: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Saudi Leo2 showed themselves poorly in Yemen
          unlike leclerc.
      2. Cresta999 10 February 2020 14: 42 New
        • 13
        • 1
        +12
        What do you see in the competition of tank divisions of the NATO countries as a "game of school-age children"? What a stupid comparison? And nothing that we have in such "games" "play." It will be interesting to type "Combat firing platoons" or "Company tactical exercises"
        Of course, the stage of shooting a tank crew with personal weapons at targets looks better than forcing a water barrier or destroying enemy tanks and helicopters. Agree, it is difficult to imagine an American, German or Israeli tank that forces a water barrier or “fights” somewhere in a swampy area.
        Well, this is from the same opera ...
        And why imagine now and you can see


        In none of the videos presented there is even a hint of a marshland, or forcing a water barrier. Everything is exactly as the author wrote in the article.
        1. svp67 10 February 2020 15: 03 New
          • 3
          • 7
          -4
          Quote: Cresta999
          In none of the videos presented there is even a hint of a marshland, or forcing a water barrier. Everything is exactly as the author wrote in the article.

          What are you saying? That is, what is the gauge bridge and how the bridge-laying machine puts it, you don’t know and don’t see it, you didn’t see how the unit on the Leopards covered the work of the engineering equipment to guide the crossing, how it crossed then ... What are you talking about then, if you don’t want to see anything. Yes, and at the expense of the marshland, you got excited, than with what Norway and Poland are very rich in this, it’s enough to see how much dirt flies from under the tanks to understand that everything is okay with high humidity ....
          1. Cresta999 10 February 2020 15: 08 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            Well, if dirt is a swamp for you, and laying a temporary bridge with an engineering machine in a clean field is forcing a water barrier, then I UNIVERSALLY can conclude that you did not serve in the Soviet army. And in Russian, most likely.
            1. svp67 10 February 2020 15: 11 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              Quote: Cresta999
              Well, if dirt is a swamp for you, and laying a temporary bridge with an engineering machine in a clean field is forcing a water barrier, then I UNIVERSALLY can conclude that you did not serve in the Soviet army. And in Russian, most likely.

              My dear, I do not hide, I served in the tank forces for 27 years, lieutenant colonel of the reserve and I can judge this with full responsibility, but what is your military experience? By the way, how does forcing differ from overcoming a water barrier, you know?
              1. Cresta999 10 February 2020 15: 15 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                I don’t know what “dear mine” is, but if you meant “dear”, then here you see what is not really there. I will not go over to personalities. Into the account of the lieutenant colonel - already wrote above.
            2. svp67 10 February 2020 15: 15 New
              • 2
              • 5
              -3
              Quote: Cresta999
              I don’t know what my dear is.

              Yes, you also do not read Russian literature. “My dear” is a form of appeal to a person, previously very popular.
              Quote: Cresta999
              I will not go over to personalities.
              Already fail, you have already done it.
              Quote: Cresta999
              Into the account of the lieutenant colonel - already wrote above.
              Precisely to those. So answer. Where and how much did you serve, that you so famously evaluate the teachings of tank units? Have you ever had to overcome an obstacle on a tank on a gauge bridge and not on a tank race track, but on a combat one? Or is your whole experience a game in the World of Tanks?
          2. raif 10 February 2020 23: 18 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Is Norway rich in swamps? citizen, you, apparently, passed the exam? laughing
            1. svp67 11 February 2020 04: 25 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: raif
              Is Norway rich in swamps? citizen, you, apparently, passed the exam?

              He’s a man, and he passed his school exams back in the USSR, where they never heard rumors about the Unified State Exam, but you obviously have problems. Before writing, they would read about Norway ... they would look at the photos that they upload ... Well, a man just went beyond the borders of the Oslo capital of Norway and sent such wonderful photos of swamps ...



              This is here
              https://bahna.land/ru/bolota/norvegiya
              1. raif 13 February 2020 00: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                poorly studied in their parish. if there is 1% swamp in the country, this does not mean at all that they prevail. in the majority there are still mountainous regions (for - fjords, have you heard of this?), in the north there is a little tundra. and swamps - so come at least to the Leningrad region
                1. svp67 13 February 2020 07: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: raif
                  poorly studied in their parish.

                  You know, I never studied at the Central School of Arts, so here you are a finger to the sky ...
                  Quote: raif
                  mountainous areas (for - the fjords, have you heard of this?),

                  Not only I heard, but also saw, and just again you did not guess, the fiord is just not a hill.
                  For you: "The fjord, also the fjord (Norwegian fjord) - narrow, winding and deeply crashing into the land sea ​​bay with rocky shores. "
                  Next, read:
                  But the largest lakes formed in Ostlan, where the largest rivers flow and the plain topography prevails: here are the largest bodies of water in southern Norway (Mjösa, Femunn, Nursion, Ransfjord, etc.). In the formation of lakes of flat areas adjacent to the Oslo Fjord, glacial did not participate, and their formation is associated only with stadial moraine accumulation. Southern Norway is not characterized by an abundance of swamps due to good drainage of most of its territory, wetlands are scattered quite discreetly. However, wetlands are found in almost all its parts and differ in their genesis.
                  The most significant areas of the swamp occupy Ostlan and Trennegal. Developed as a rule lowland swamps.

                  That is, thanks to man, the swamps are drained, but they are enough
                  And what are the swamps in the highlands, seen enough in the Primorsky Territory ... on the hills
                  1. raif 13 February 2020 20: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yes, yes - the main thing is viewed. I suggest from your own quote - "with rocky shores."
                    the swamps on the hills are unlikely to compare with the really large swamps - those that are painted even on maps of all of Russia, for example. in a Soviet school did they see areas of swamps in geography textbooks?
    2. NEXUS 10 February 2020 13: 36 New
      • 6
      • 7
      -1
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Very sensible reasoning. drinks Especially about the role of the infantry. good

      The role of the infantry in countering the enemy’s armored vehicles was partially proved in the street battles in Berlin in the year 45 when many of our tanks were burned with Faust cartridges. This fact warps the Russian people, but it had a place to be ... excuse me.
      As for comparisons ... so why argue if the determining factor in the effectiveness of the tank is the crew. If the crew is prepared, and does not hesitate to take sound initiative in battle, then such a crew will also burn Abrams and Leopards on the T-62, which is also true in the opposite direction.
      1. Cresta999 10 February 2020 15: 06 New
        • 15
        • 3
        +12
        All mixed up.
        1. Russian people (as well as English and German) are naturally annoyed by the fact of burning their tanks (more precisely, crews) in any battles.
        2. It was in Berlin that the losses from the Faust of cartridges were minimal, since, unlike the first assault on Grozny, the command took into account all the experience gained and accumulated. Thanks to this, assault groups were created, which included a tank, machine gunners, a sniper and a machine gunner. The quantity and proportions were different, but the essence was the same.
        1. svp67 10 February 2020 15: 42 New
          • 7
          • 6
          +1
          Quote: Cresta999
          It was in Berlin that losses from Faust cartridges were minimal

          Yes, you, dear man, not only do not read Russian classical literature, but also military memoirs. If you think that out of 209 tanks and self-propelled guns that were irretrievably lost by the 2nd Panzer Army during the storming of Berlin, 65 were only destroyed by them, and how many were destroyed, is that SMALL? And in the 3rd Tankova out of 174 cars, Fausts destroyed 105 and is it SMALL? What about logic and arithmetic?
          So where did you serve?
          1. kytx 13 February 2020 00: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I read in my memoirs. There, the infantryman describes that during the storm of Berlin they changed 6 self-propelled guns in 1 day, all from the Fausts.
            1. svp67 13 February 2020 07: 30 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: kytx
              There, the infantryman describes that during the storm of Berlin they changed 6 self-propelled guns in 1 day, all from the Fausts.

              He was HEALTHY lucky that they apparently walked nearby and accompanied the self-propelled gun, and did not sit on it, as in such cases, the landing party is usually dead., But this is the 45th thing, and they have already learned to fight
        2. NEXUS 10 February 2020 15: 43 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Cresta999
          It was in Berlin that losses from Faust cartridges were minimal

          I didn’t say that they were colossal ... I said that-
          Quote: NEXUS
          Faust cartridges burned many of our tanks.

          Which does not refute the fact that more tanks were destroyed by artillery. But ... because of the cheap, in comparison with the cannon, faustpatron, we can say that it was a very unpleasant surprise for us. Although in fairness, our units were armed with trophy faustpatrons and quite a lot.
          1. svp67 10 February 2020 15: 53 New
            • 4
            • 4
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            I didn’t say that they were colossal ... I said that-

            It was the losses, the irretrievable losses of armored vehicles from the fire of the Faustpatrons, that were significant, in the 3rd tank almost 70-80%. It's a lot. And it is not clear how many tanks and self-propelled guns that were already wrecked and put into operation were. So, the guys from the Hitler Youth and the grandfathers from the Volkssturm fought hard.
          2. Cresta999 10 February 2020 16: 12 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            You do not quite understand my message. I do not agree with you in evaluating the effectiveness of using Faust cartridges during the storming of Berlin. In my opinion, it was greatly reduced by the tactics of the assault groups.
  2. Same lech 10 February 2020 07: 37 New
    • 19
    • 3
    +16
    So there is no better tank in the world. There are only the best tanks of the war ...

    I agree with Alexander ... the best German tanks were a great disgrace to the Turks whose Allahakbarites knocked out 10 Leopards by the Cornets.
    1. Flamberg 10 February 2020 07: 44 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      In fairness, the Turks have a leopard 2A4 of the late eighties.
      1. Same lech 10 February 2020 07: 50 New
        • 20
        • 0
        +20
        Well, the Allahakbar’s ATGMs have no fresh term ... the ancient Bassoons and the Baby ... well, the more modern Cornets.
    2. tihonmarine 10 February 2020 08: 56 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      So there is no better tank in the world. There are only the best tanks of war
      I am not a tanker, and I don’t know which tank is better, but what a bad tank I know. This is the tank that knocked out. ...
      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 14 New
        • 13
        • 4
        +9
        There is not a single unsaved tank in the world - of those that fought)).
      2. Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 09: 34 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        ihonmarine (Vlad)
        I am not a tanker, and I don’t know which tank is better, but what a bad tank I know. This is the tank that knocked out. ...
        Not a damn well, a criterion ... Do you even know that in modern combat the life of ANY tank is measured in minutes? So are all tanks bad? Maybe all the same it is necessary to proceed from who and how commands? If the commander did not use the cover, such as infantry, helicopters, artillery, etc., then no matter what good tanks are, they will lose the battle to a more experienced enemy who can competently use his resources.
        So there are no really bad tanks, there are bad commanders, and a lot depends on the crew. Let's just say that an elementary choice of position will affect both the survivability of the tank and the outcome of the battle.
        1. tihonmarine 10 February 2020 09: 39 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          So there are no really bad tanks, there are bad commanders, and a lot depends on the crew.

          So they found the real grain, I think so too. Not the main thing, but the person who controls it.
        2. tihonmarine 10 February 2020 10: 27 New
          • 11
          • 3
          +8
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          So are all tanks bad? Maybe all the same it is necessary to proceed from who and how commands?

          Here in these unknown photos (archive of one German), an unnamed crew destroyed an enemy convoy, but also died. Glory to the Nameless Heroes!


        3. NEXUS 10 February 2020 13: 40 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          Do you even know that in modern combat the life of ANY tank is measured in minutes?

          In the Second World War, the life of a tank on the battlefield was measured in 10-15 minutes, which did not prevent Kolobanov from destroying 22 German tanks, while having survived 150 hits. The life of a tank in battle depends on the skill and courage of the crew, and the dry numbers of statistics cannot reflect this fact.
        4. tihonmarine 11 February 2020 20: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          Not a damn well, a criterion ... Do you even know that in modern combat the life of ANY tank is measured in minutes? So are all tanks bad?

          I know one thing that in Germany there were 4 tank armies in the GSVG, and much more, but this whole group had to withstand the blow for three hours.
      3. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 20: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: tihonmarine
        but what a bad tank I know. This is the tank that knocked out. ...

        do not know. Neither one nor the other. All tanks are burning, there is no tank that could not be burned. And here not only the characteristics of the machine are important, but many factors play a role: the suddenness factor, crew training, enemy training, and simply banal luck. There were cases when a competent crew on the T-70 from an ambush burned Panther. Based on your logic, is the lightweight T-70 better than the Panther? And yet - a tank of any brand participating in the database, at least once, was burning. So all the tanks in the world are BAD?
  3. Basarev 10 February 2020 07: 43 New
    • 28
    • 33
    -5
    This is all boltology and propaganda, designed to hide the ugly reality: we are specifically behind the shells, there is a lag in mobility (4 km / h in reverse - it's just ridiculous), a wacky lag in electronics ... It’s time to admit: Russian tanks left the numbers are the best. And we would not ridicule the bias of American ratings, but restore education and science in order to still try to catch up with the West in these important areas.
    1. Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 09: 42 New
      • 17
      • 15
      +2
      Basarev (Arseny)
      This is all boltology and propaganda, designed to hide the ugly reality: we are specifically behind the shells
      Ohhh, all propalipolymers ... laughing What is wrong with the shells?
      there is a lag in mobility (4 km / h reverse - it's just ridiculous)
      And the truth is ridiculous, is it necessary to tighten a couple more rear speeds so that at least 40 km / h are driven back? Why does the tank need high reverse speed? Faster draping off the battlefield?
      electronics lag ...
      What is expressed? In your cries? Can you give specifics?
      It’s time to already admit: Russian tanks have dropped out of the best.
      Yeah, and that is why in the West they are urgently starting to develop an analogue to Armata ... request Which, even plainly, is not even in the troops.
      And we would not ridicule the bias of American ratings, but restore education and science in order to still try to catch up with the West in these important areas.
      Are you 200% sure that we are already behind in all respects?
      1. Cresta999 10 February 2020 15: 38 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Ohhh, all propalipolymers ... laughing. What is wrong with the shells?

        - In open sources there is information that our shells, all other things being equal, penetrate less armor than American ones.
        And the truth is ridiculous, is it necessary to tighten a couple more rear speeds so that at least 40 km / h are driven back? Why does the tank need high reverse speed? Faster draping off the battlefield?

        - If you read Katukov’s memoirs, you would know why. In short - a spare position.
        What is expressed? In your cries? Can you give specifics?

        - I give specifics: the difference is one and a half times in the range of detection of a target of the type "tank" when using our domestic and French thermal imager.
        Yeah, and that is why in the West they are urgently starting to develop an analogue to "Armata" ... request Which, plainly, is not even in the troops.

        - They never finished. They are not in a hurry precisely for the reason that Almaty is "really not even in the troops"
        1. svp67 10 February 2020 16: 06 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          Quote: Cresta999
          - In open sources there is information that our shells, all other things being equal, penetrate less armor than American ones.

          A lot of things are written on the fences, but the point is, anyway, there lies something else behind them. It's silly to talk about something without giving specific examples .... This is "verbiage"
          Quote: Cresta999
          - If you read Katukov’s memoirs, you would know why. In short - a spare position.

          Lord, you don’t know how the forcing differs from overcoming, but you speak of a “reserve position” and what is so magical about it? And about the "additional firing position" there was nothing written? The ability of the tank to quickly move backward is not limited to the "reserve position" ....
          Quote: Cresta999
          - I give specifics: the difference is one and a half times in the range of detection of a target of the type "tank" when using our domestic and French thermal imager.

          Lord, why are you again "inflating a spherical vacuum"? If you’re talking about something, then give the brand of the sight and on which armored object it is installed, so that it would really be possible to compare, and this is “Baltology”
          1. tihonmarine 11 February 2020 20: 40 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: svp67
            A lot of things are written on the fences

            The fence is beautifully written, but in reality a bitch.
    2. Lipchanin 10 February 2020 10: 08 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Basarev
      (4 km / h reversing is just ridiculous)

      Sorry, I’m not a tanker anywhere and therefore I don’t understand why the tank needs a higher back speed?
      This is not a joke or a joke on trolling. I'm really curious.
      If not difficult, please explain hi
      1. Avior 10 February 2020 10: 55 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        Then, to make it necessary to quickly leave the shelter position without turning the stern towards the enemy
      2. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 19: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Lipchanin
        Why should the tank have a higher reverse speed?

        to change position or exit the battle. Sometimes there is no time to turn around, you need to leave the firing zone as quickly as possible (as an option - hide behind natural or artificial obstacles - for example, call in a house so as not to be a target for calculating ATGMs). In addition, do not forget that the most powerful tank armor is frontal. Not comme il faut stern with thin armor substitute
        1. Lipchanin 11 February 2020 19: 41 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I get it. Thank you hi
    3. figwam 10 February 2020 10: 41 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Basarev
      mobility lag (4 km / h reverse - it's just ridiculous)

      The T-80 has a reverse speed of 12 km / h, the Armata has 8 forward gears and 8 reverse gears.
      1. Sailor 10 February 2020 13: 30 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        We only reached this point in Armata, and our neighbors in Ukraine, Oloty and T-84, have long been able to drive 35 km / h in reverse, and we didn’t do it well on the Breakthrough even though we installed the ZPU. PS Well, what patriots, I'm waiting for the cons.
        1. figwam 10 February 2020 15: 22 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Sailor
          Ukraine Olot and T-84 have long been able to reverse 35 km / h

          35 km / h only one modification of the T-84 BM Oplot drives, made from the old T-80 UD and not long ago, and in 2009 they assembled the first tank, now there are five.
          1. Sailor 10 February 2020 20: 38 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Yes, almost yesterday, TEN YEARS ago. The amount is small, so they have less money, they do not have oil and gas, and there are also enough effective managers. I can’t understand one thing, we don’t have a Red Army design school or, as always, soldiers’s lives are not worth the price. In terms of protection, the T-72 B3M lags behind Bulat in 2017. Contact 5 is outdated, and there are also gaps in the installation, But I don’t even remember about ZPU.
            1. figwam 10 February 2020 23: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Sailor
              Yes, almost yesterday, TEN YEARS

              Armata has been driving for five years.
              Quote: Sailor
              The quantity is small, so they have less money, they don’t have oil and gas

              They can’t do tanks, only to modernize the remnants of the Soviet heritage, which is already limited in number.
              Quote: Sailor
              In terms of protection, the T-72 B3M lags behind Bulat arr. 2017.

              Damask steel is the best tank of the outskirts, compare it with the best tank of Russia.
              1. Sailor 12 February 2020 19: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Where does Armata ride for five years, is it being tested in the factory? So it doesn’t even have an engine. And they can do the tanks and upgrade, it’s good for them, the only thing we normally modernized was the T-90 in the Breakthrough, and more or less the T-80BVM, and the T-72 even the B3M still uses Contact . And the best tank of the "outskirts" Oplot and you need to compare it with the T-90M, they are equivalent in combat characteristics except that our gun is better, only they have it already sold, although not particularly successfully for 5 years, and our only completed the test. And for me it is not clear that they are developing good options for upgrading tanks, but they are ordering "imperfections."
    4. domokl 11 February 2020 04: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      It’s time to already admit: Russian tanks have dropped out of the best.

      Zdemsi ... bully And if I throw you one digit for thought? 56% of all tanks bought are Russian ... Simply put, they buy more Russian cars than all the rest combined ...
      Do you live in market relations? So what kind of digital is it? soldier
  4. DMB 75 10 February 2020 07: 49 New
    • 27
    • 2
    +25
    The best tank of all time
    1. tihonmarine 10 February 2020 08: 58 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: DMB 75
      The best tank of all time

      Call it easier. T-34 is a VICTORY tank!
  5. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 07: 49 New
    • 21
    • 13
    +8
    Merkava vs. T-62? )))
    As far back as 62, both the M-1973 and the Centurions managed quite well with the T-48. The doctrine of the Israeli army is offensive - there is no depth for defense. The inability to use Merkava off-road is something new for me hi
    1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 09: 12 New
      • 8
      • 8
      0
      And Merkava is a strictly defensive tank. Enhanced defense plus a 105 gun with 40 shots, heavy as a bastard - will not pass through bridges, cross a river, pull on a piece of iron or a tractor. He will come, yes.
      Even the profile itself - a low chassis, a high tower - crawled up, stood up - and look around
      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 19 New
        • 10
        • 7
        +3
        The closest "river" to the southwest is the Suez Canal. To the east - Jordan - force) Not across the bridge - no laughing To the northeast is the nearest river - the Euphrates. To the north - the nearest Litani - was driving past Litani, back in 1982. What is he defensive? )))
        1. lucul 10 February 2020 09: 33 New
          • 18
          • 4
          +14
          To the northeast is the nearest river - the Euphrates. To the north - the nearest Litani - was driving past Litani, back in 1982. What is he defensive? )))

          FAQ ?????
          Give it to us, in Polesie, and in spring thaw. I’ll see how he from Gomel to Brest, passes through the Pripyat swamps .......
          1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 35 New
            • 8
            • 8
            0
            T-62 will pass through the swamps?
            1. lucul 10 February 2020 09: 36 New
              • 16
              • 4
              +12
              T-62 will pass through the swamps?

              He will drive where Merkava gets bogged down.
              1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 37 New
                • 10
                • 9
                +1
                So Merkava will pass laughing Early modifications
                1. lucul 10 February 2020 09: 39 New
                  • 12
                  • 4
                  +8
                  So Merkava will pass the Early Modifications

                  Velcome to tank biathlon - there Merkava himself will show himself in all its glory ....
                  1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 45 New
                    • 13
                    • 11
                    +2
                    laughing
                    Who has the time for these show meow? They are good in popularizing the army among young people, but in Israel there has never been such a problem. They are tormented enough by the first one and a half years of service - the remaining 14 months - they torment less)).
                    1. lucul 10 February 2020 10: 39 New
                      • 7
                      • 7
                      0
                      Who has the time for these show meow?

                      Aha-ahah - so in addition to direct combat - this is the best comparison of tanks.
                      But you probably have your own reality ....
                      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 52 New
                        • 8
                        • 6
                        +2
                        Yes - direct battles, for example))
                      2. lucul 10 February 2020 10: 55 New
                        • 7
                        • 5
                        +2
                        Yes - direct battles, for example))

                        It is written - in addition to direct combat.
                        Read carefully ...
                        Do you think Merkava has a chance against even the T-72? )))
                      3. Cowbra 10 February 2020 11: 02 New
                        • 3
                        • 3
                        0
                        Well, there’s a chance))) They also have an armored personnel carrier))) And the Iraqis on the bridge I remember 2 Abrams eliminated, and with Kalash)))
                      4. lucul 10 February 2020 11: 08 New
                        • 2
                        • 5
                        -3
                        Well, there are chances)))

                        Yes, I'm talking about our missiles launched through the barrel. At Merkava, the VLD has a very, very good slope - it is almost impossible to break through it from the usual angle. But the rocket launched through the barrel - even on old tanks, it was controlled in flight by wire ..... On approaching the tank, raise the rocket so that it flew into the tank from above, ideally perpendicular to the inclined armor and that’s all, the tank was knocked out ....
                      5. Octopus 10 February 2020 11: 31 New
                        • 6
                        • 4
                        +2
                        To make a javelin out of a cobra with your own hands? What a great idea.
                      6. kytx 13 February 2020 01: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In fact, a skilled craftsman can make a javelin from Baby
                2. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 11: 15 New
                  • 7
                  • 3
                  +4
                  I am sure that even against the T-90))
                  Depends on the crew, the conditions of the battle, the situation, etc.
  6. Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 09: 45 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    Krasnodar
    T-62 will pass through the swamps?
    Do not drift, will pass!
  • sidoroff 10 February 2020 09: 46 New
    • 5
    • 9
    -4
    is it you from whom gathered to defend there from Gomel to Brest? from world oil prices in Mozyr?
  • Cowbra 10 February 2020 11: 04 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    Let him crawl first Jordan. Once again, how to attack with a tank that crawls. Only where the dry, hard and bridges are dumb
    1. Krasnodar 11 February 2020 04: 55 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Easily))
    2. borberd 11 February 2020 09: 10 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Why such statements? There are many photos and videos where the Merkavs ride in the mud.
  • Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 09: 47 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    Krasnodar
    With the T-62 back in 1973, both the M-48 and the Centurions quite normally managed themselves.
    This is because in T-62 it was not the Russians who were sitting, but the Arabs, who are like warriors so-so. Just the Jews, have not yet encountered a real enemy.
    1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 59 New
      • 10
      • 8
      +2
      laughing
      It happened
      1. Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 10: 21 New
        • 5
        • 7
        -2
        Krasnodar
        It happened
        Who is this with?
        Name sister ...? His name...?
        1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 23 New
          • 8
          • 5
          +3
          Googel Operation Caucasus, Grouping of Soviet Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic, etc. )))
          1. lucul 10 February 2020 10: 43 New
            • 7
            • 8
            -1
            Googel Operation Caucasus, Grouping of Soviet Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic, etc. )))

            What is Yandex - in those days, the Jews, in the Soviet army, poured insolently all secret information, including about the grouping of our troops in Syria and plans / movement and so on. While vertical will be saturated with them, there will never be any sense .....
            1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 48 New
              • 12
              • 5
              +7
              lol Do you believe that yourself?
              1. lucul 10 February 2020 10: 49 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Do you believe that yourself?

                Pffff ..... found the enemy ......
                1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 11: 56 New
                  • 7
                  • 5
                  +2
                  Does that mean believe? laughing
                  1. lucul 10 February 2020 11: 59 New
                    • 6
                    • 4
                    +2
                    Does that mean believe?

                    "The main task of the devil is to assure that he is not there" .....
                    Therefore - of course I believe))))
                    1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 13: 01 New
                      • 7
                      • 4
                      +3
                      And I believe that this was done under the guise of Martians fellow And not because the generation of front-line soldiers dropped out, but the new ones were just window dressers
          2. Varyag_0711 10 February 2020 10: 50 New
            • 12
            • 9
            +3
            Krasnodar
            Googel Operation Caucasus, Grouping of Soviet Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic, etc. )))
            For some reason I was sure that this is exactly what you will answer. Just past the target. The grouping of Soviet troops totaled from 150 to 8000 people at the peak. And this is less than a division. In addition, they were military experts and mainly air defense and air forces. They did not sit in tanks. So if you decided to set yourself in a jerk that you fought fully with the USSR, then by the target.
            If the leadership of the USSR would decide on a full-fledged conflict with Israel, then the state of Israel would not exist now. BUT, with such a development of events, now not only Israel, but most likely the rest of the World, too, would not exist.
            So, you haven’t fought fully with anyone, don’t flatter yourself ... come closer ... Now you are fighting in Syria like jackals, attacking a obviously weaker opponent from around the corner.
            Is the gut thin? And then, in case of conflict, run to Uncle Sam to hide behind your back, which is what you actually do for all the years of your existence.
            1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 13: 31 New
              • 6
              • 3
              +3
              1) Egypt - 20 at the peak
              2) Only the USA could fully fight the USSR
              3) Only air defense (Vietnamese) had combat experience and artillery showed itself well there. Tankers - I don’t think that something would be different from the Arabs, like the pilots.
              4) In the 70s, yes. Would cease to exist, together with some sort of Syria and Egypt. In the 80s - already together with Syria, Lebanon, the Georgian and Armenian SSR - for example.
              5) The world would exist - it would simply be a precedent for the use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts - in the 70s the States also detonated a bomb over Hanoi
              6) Israel, at the best times for Syria, fought so that in a week it knocked out most of its army, and with the exception of the 82nd year, Syria always fought in tandem (at least) with someone)) And even then, in 82- m, too, was not alone and always under the auspices of the USSR
              7) With Iran directly, without common borders - how is it? laughing
              8) No, let’s run like the Syrians and Egyptians to the USSR - beat the s — save Russia laughing
              9) Of the equivalent of IDF training in the USSR were specialists and servicemen of the Western SA Group
              The Soviet air defenses were superior to the Israeli, and the gunners, I think, too. Pilots - were worse prepared, tankers - I do not know. One former SA officer told how tankers were trained under the Union - 30 rounds were fired from a machine gun! 30. Not 3000! Maybe everything was better in the Western group of forces, most likely ..
      2. Sailor 10 February 2020 20: 47 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        I agree, the pilots did not show their best side, but the air defense was calculated for them.
        1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 20: 53 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          So the air defense had Vietnamese experience and best practices. Pilots - no. Therefore, it happened.
  • avdkrd 10 February 2020 11: 28 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    T62 also did a good job with both the M48 and the centurions, in my opinion, even better. In fact, even the difference in generation does not give a guaranteed advantage in any particular battle. Even a hypothetical battle tank to tank, without interspecific support, will depend on commanders and crews to a greater extent than on technology. Add intelligence and communications here, and for example, IS3 company picks out the Abramsov company from the flank ambush, provided that the Abrams love the ambush, and the actions of the Isov are coordinated (goals and competent gunners are correctly distributed).
    1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 13: 36 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      I wrote specifically about the BV theater in the 73rd. The Israelis have always said Arabs complaining about the quality of Soviet weapons - let's change - the result will be SAME))
  • Jager 10 February 2020 12: 36 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Centurions with the T-62? Thanks, neighing. I can still imagine Centurion against the T-54. But the T-62 tank is a different generation
    1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 13: 38 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      In the Sinai, the Super-Shermans masked carried the T-62s, from prepared positions))
      Egyptian Su-100s hit the M-48 in the barrel ... and where does the generation? laughing What fairy tale do you live in?
      1. Jager 15 February 2020 18: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In the stern from the ambush and the "Abrams" from the guns of the XIX century can be smashed.
    2. Octopus 11 February 2020 06: 09 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: Jager
      But the T-62 tank is a different generation

      T-62 - a desperate attempt to reduce the gap from a potential enemy in tanks. It was undertaken at the request of the military just with the appearance in the West of the L7 at Cent, when the backlog became simply indecent.
      Quote: Jager
      Thank you, neighing.

      Soviet tank building of the mid 40s - mid 70s - this is the removal of the tonsils through w continuous torment on the topic "How to make a tank like the enemy’s, but 1,5 times easier and at a lower technological level." The USSR was able to achieve relative superiority in the tank component in quality only in a short period of time - from the mid-70s to the mid-80s - due to the failure of the MBT-70 in the West and the relative success of MBT programs in the USSR. Relative - because Kharkov has traditionally been engaged in wrecking, making a machine that has no analogues in the world, which can neither be produced nor used by the available f / s, nor properly modernized.

      Rig on.
      1. Jager 15 February 2020 18: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What TK was given, then Kharkov did.
    3. borberd 11 February 2020 09: 25 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Jager
      Centurions with the T-62? Thanks, neighing. I can still imagine Centurion against the T-54. But the T-62 tank is a different generation

      Your rzhach is not entirely clear. During the Doomsday War of 1973, in the Golan, 170 Israeli tanks, including the Centurions, were stopped and 3 days were held back by 1200 Syrian tanks consisting of T-55 and T-62. Most of which were simply killed.
  • domokl 11 February 2020 04: 43 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Krasnodar
    The doctrine of the Israeli army is offensive - there is no depth for defense.

    Is your internet turned off? Isn’t it easier to read the source. Moreover, I indicated the name and surname of a very respected general in Israel ...
    1. Krasnodar 11 February 2020 05: 15 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      While not disconnected - I read in the original language:
      ייצור המרכבה החל מ -1979
      Merkava production began in 1979
      That is, 6 years after the battles between the T-62 and the IDF tanks, where the first suffered greater losses.
      הוגה פרויקט טנק המרכבה הוא ישראל טל, מאלופי צה"ל שתרם רבות לחיל השריון וממבססי דוקטרינת השריון כאגרוף מ
      The initiator of the project was Israel Tal, an Israeli general who gave a lot to the IDF tank troops, one of the founders of the crushing fist tank doctrine. That is, he was clearly dancing not from defense.
      History:

      בשנות ה -60 של המאה ה -20 שיתף צה"ל פעולה עם הצבא הבריטי בפיתוח הטנק צ'יפטיין (Chieftain). בתמורה לשיתוף הפעולה, היו אמורים הבריטים לאפשר את מכירת הטנק לישראל עם ייצורו, אולם מאוחר יותר החליטו לבטל את העסקה כתוצאה מלחץ כבד שהפעילו עליהם מדינות ערב. בישראל הוחלט להימנע מהישנות מקרה שכזה בעתיד, ואז הועלה רעיון פיתוחו שלליי
      In the 60s of the 20th century, Israel participated with the British in the development of the Chiften tank, which her Majesty's subjects were to subsequently sell to Israel.
      However, later the British refused to make a deal because of the heavy pressure exerted on them by the Arab countries. The Israelis decided not to get into such a situation in the future, so it was decided to create their own tank.
      hi
      You will need a detailed info on Israel - please contact. Source - Wikipedia in Hebrew.
  • Aaron Zawi 10 February 2020 08: 06 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    Quote: Krasnodar
    Merkava vs. T-62? )))
    As far back as 62, both the M-1973 and the Centurions managed quite well with the T-48. The doctrine of the Israeli army is offensive - there is no depth for defense. The inability to use Merkava off-road is something new for me hi

    For me as well.
    1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 08: 53 New
      • 14
      • 6
      +8
      Show the patency of a 70-ton fool near the half-lighter T-62? And this chukhna. irrelevant - review alone and do not sculpt offtop
      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 11 New
        • 9
        • 5
        +4
        Merkava will not take bridges through the European rivulets - it will fail along with them laughing And cross in mud and wet clay is the same)).
      2. Aaron Zawi 10 February 2020 09: 11 New
        • 5
        • 9
        -4
        Quote: Cowbra
        Show the patency of a 70-ton fool near the half-lighter T-62? And this chukhna. irrelevant - review alone and do not sculpt offtop

        What does the weight have to do with it? what The pressure on the surface of the Mk-1/2 and T-62 is almost the same.
        1. lucul 10 February 2020 09: 38 New
          • 7
          • 4
          +3
          What does the weight have to do with it? what The pressure on the surface of the MK-1/2 and T-62 is almost the same.

          Indeed - it means that Merkava may well show himself at the tank biathlon, isn’t he? )))
          1. sidoroff 10 February 2020 11: 49 New
            • 3
            • 9
            -6
            what is the point in this biathlon - winding circles and shooting from a place at predetermined targets? here really "games of children of primary school age". in the European Strong Europe Tank Challenge and the tasks are much closer to real ones.
            1. svp67 10 February 2020 17: 10 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: sidoroff
              what is the point in this biathlon - winding circles and shooting from a place at predetermined targets?

              Show. Which shows the combat and operational properties of tanks that we are ready to sell in large quantities. The T-80 was sort of going there, only in demonstration performances, and there were no new T-90s at all, except for India’s attempt to show the T-90A assembled from them there, but it would be better if they didn’t.
    2. Cresta999 10 February 2020 16: 36 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      You have different concepts of the phrase "off-road." As in the case of one "lieutenant colonel tanker" in the comments above, you consider dirt roads, or hard surfaces off-road conditions. This is not true. “Off the road” - this is spring in the black earth field for example.
      1. svp67 10 February 2020 17: 08 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Cresta999
        As with one “lieutenant colonel tanker” above in the comments

        You, dear man, are again trying to be rude, so I am with you for "I won’t tear myself from the living." You are so embarrassed to name your military rank and type of army that you would be better SILENT.
        Quote: Cresta999
        “Off the road” - this is spring in the black earth field for example.

        And tell everyone how much our dirt roads to the muddy river are better than this field?


        P / S At the expense of how forcing is different from overcoming sorted out? And in the question, which tank can be assigned positions?
        1. Cresta999 12 February 2020 14: 40 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          You with every video completely confirm all my words. And with every statement the title of “lieutenant colonel of a tanker”. Is it your entertainment? Or maybe it should seem to whom?
          1. svp67 12 February 2020 19: 18 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: Cresta999
            With each of your videos you fully confirm all my words.

            And you can find out how the video suddenly confirmed your words. We must understand the depth of "your fall."
            You hide the military rank where you serve too .... But you know the “R-105” radio station, with which I only “talked” at the NVP lessons and in the first year of school, then I studied newer radio stations ... You’re strange slippery.
            And for rudeness, you personal "hello" from me - a warning. So, think carefully, next time before being rude.
  • Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 08: 10 New
    • 13
    • 12
    +1
    I have a replica here ©
    The development of the Merkava tank began after Great Britain refused to sell the Cheften tanks to Israel; this has nothing to do with the delivery of the T-62 to the Arab army. And as correctly noted above, the Centurions and the Pattons coped well with the T-62. Even the old M-51 "Super Sherman" could cause a lot of problems, as shown by the fighting in 1973 in the Golan. It's all about the correct application of technology. And the emphasis on protection and the relatively large volume of the fighting compartment was made on the experience of using Centurion tanks and captured T-54/55. The British tanks had very good armor and showed greater resistance to damage in battles compared to other vehicles. Soviet tanks showed how negatively affects the ability of the crew to fight the small size of the fighting compartment.
    1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 08: 33 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      The emphasis on protection and the relatively large volume of the fighting compartment was made on the experience of using Centurion tanks and captured T-54/55. The British tanks had very good armor and they showed greater resistance to damage in battles compared to other vehicles. Soviet tanks showed how negatively affects the ability of the crew to fight the small size of the fighting compartment.
      It’s nonsense, the fighting units of the T-55 and Centurion are quite comparable, like armor, it’s another matter that the Centurions’s mobility was sacrificed to the defense, and Merkava was created with the same priorities, higher protection, and mobility as it turns out.
      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 08: 54 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        Centurion - a fairly spacious machine, with excellent armor. Speed ​​- yes, low. Executive Bentley among the tanks of the time, T-55 - C-rack Merin. )))
        1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 10: 25 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          The armor was no stronger than the T-54/55.
          1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 36 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            The Vietnamese complained - the British, who fought there at the centurions, it was difficult to set fire to the RPG.
            1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 11: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Well, right, loose layout, BC underloaded, terrain screen and most likely competent tactics.
              Quote: Krasnodar
              the British who fought there at the centurions
              Only not the British, but N. Zealanders and Australians.
      2. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 09: 14 New
        • 3
        • 6
        -3
        The T-55 is much smaller. There was an opportunity to compare.
        1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 10: 24 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          And with a 105 mm gun and loaded ammunition?
          1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 12: 21 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            And there and there without. But the racks were in place
      3. Octopus 10 February 2020 11: 43 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Some kind of nonsense, the fighting compartments of the T-55 and Centurion are quite comparable, like armor

        1. Find the track width of the tower.
        2. Cent with a gun and shells of the early 50s not comparable to the T-54 with shells of the early 50s.
        1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 11: 58 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          1800 at T-54 of the first mod. at the light, 2286 mm just shoulder straps for 3 mod. Centurion, of course there is a difference, 20 centimeters is estimated, but it is precisely that the diameters are comparable.
          Quote: Octopus
          A cent with a gun and shells of the early 50s is not comparable with the T-54 with shells of the early 50s
          That's right, the T-54 is noticeably stronger!
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Soviet tanks showed how negatively affects the ability of the crew to fight the small size of the fighting compartment
          But specifically, this statement is absurd. Jews compared the effectiveness of the Centurions and the AMX-13, but not the Centurions and the T-54/55.
          1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 12: 25 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            AMX-13 was put into reserve after the Sinai War, stopped their purchase and continued to buy Centurions. And when creating the Merkava, ergonomics and crew working conditions were compared.
            1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 12: 42 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              However, with all this, they adopted the captured T-55s and 62s, not even rearming them all, so the point is not ergonomics, and certainly not the volume of the fighting compartment.
              1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 13: 56 New
                • 4
                • 3
                +1
                Soviet equipment was adopted because it was necessary to somehow compensate for the total quantitative superiority of the Arabs, and this equipment went practically for free. In Israel, they generally used all trophies that were suitable for at least something, be it UAZ “Loaf”, Jordanian M48, or the Egyptian software Port-Said. And while there were enough trophy shells, only radio stations and machine guns were changed on captured tanks. Then, when the ammunition ran out, they began to engage in deeper modernization.
          2. Octopus 10 February 2020 13: 04 New
            • 4
            • 5
            -1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            That's right, the T-54 is noticeably stronger

            )))
            Sorry to upset you, but no. T-54 with a caliber BB against tanks of the 50s does not pull. And, excuse me, Golda, a subcaliber with a detachable tray, appeared very late. The bourgeoisie she was already in the 44th. Therefore, the Middle East comrades testify that a super-Sherman against even the T-62 can fight, if skillfully.
            1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 15: 20 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              A cent with a gun and shells of the early 50s is not comparable with the T-54 with shells of the early 50s.
              Do not recall when and why the British developed a 105 mm cannon? And what medium tanks and with what guns and armor were in service at the beginning of the 50s? M-47, M-48 and Centurion, 150 160 mm and 84- 90 mm gun, until the end of the 50s.
              Quote: Octopus
              super-sherman against even T-62 can fight
              Isn’t the 105 mm gun installed on it in 1962, what does it have to do with medium tanks of the beginning of 50?
              Quote: Octopus
              a subcaliber with a detachable tray, - appeared very late. The bourgeoisie she was already in the 44th

              Well give an example of APFSDS at least for 1955. lol
              1. Octopus 10 February 2020 20: 19 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                APFSDS example

                Why do you need FS, feathered? Crowbars (in those years they were, rather, cucumbers) for rifled guns - rotating. In the case of WWII, it was a 90mm T30E16 HVAP and English APDS in different calibres, including 17 lbs.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                What does it have to do with medium tanks of the beginning of 50?

                Sherman - he is Sherman. There is no armor, the shoulder strap is narrow. The gun is not L7, much weaker.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Do not remind when and why the British developed a 105 mm gun

                Complexed due to size, they say. Although, on the other hand, the ISs did not cause any concern to them. But do not go for so many years on the pre-war structure.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                M-47, M-48 and Centurion, 150 160 mm and 84- 90 mm gun, until the end of the 50s.

                Yes Yes. Just do not remember that with these guns, armor penetration was already under 300 mm, and the D-10T with its B-412D, in the best case, in frontal projection is already of little use. Crowbars and non-rotating kumas appeared in her in the late 60s - mid 70s.
                1. Vladimir_2U 11 February 2020 06: 36 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Why do you need FS, feathered
                  Yes, feathered is a bust, although there were feathered under the rifled, here the English fellows.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Sherman - he is Sherman. There is no armor, the shoulder strap is narrow. The gun is not L7, much weaker.
                  Why (shortened modification of the 105-mm French tank gun CN-105-F1) be
                  much
                  weaker, because the source was a bit more powerful than the L7? The initial speed of course decreased, but it was precisely that this gun was somewhat superior in armor-piercing ability to 100 mm and was comparable to a 115 mm gun, so still, what was the 62-year old tank to be pulled to by the beginning of the 50's?
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Yes Yes. Just don’t need to remember that with these guns, armor penetration was already under 300 mm then, and the D-10T with its B-412D, at best, in frontal projection is already of little use
                  But let me remind you that towers forehead M-48 and Centurion in the early 50's did not exceed 160 mm
                  In 1953, a 53-UBR-412D shot with an armor-piercing tracer shell of improved armor penetration 53-BR-412D and ...... Armor penetration normal to armor - 200 mm (500 m), 185 mm (1000 mm) was introduced into the ammunition kit 170 m), 1500 mm (155 m), 2000 mm (125 m), 3000 mm (30 m), at an angle of 150 degrees from the normal - 500 mm (140 m), 1000 mm (130 m), 1500 mm (120 m), 2000 mm (100 m), 3000 mm (XNUMX m)
                  You hope you do not deny the ability, if necessary, of the USSR to create sub-caliber shells of any type in a short time? There was simply no need, in the early 50s, namely it was a question of them.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Complexed due to size, they say.
                  Maybe, but there is other information, for example, on the delivery of the T-54 captured by the Hungarian rebels to the British Embassy and subsequent measurements of the tank (as far as this is true, another question).
                  1. Octopus 11 February 2020 07: 07 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    T-54 to the British Embassy and subsequent tank measurements

                    And I'm talking about this story and speak in the context of sizes. The British for 10 years did not know that the Russians were trying to put a cannon from the Su-100 on the tank, yes.
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    You hope you do not deny the ability, if necessary, of the USSR to create sub-caliber shells of any type in a short time?

                    I just refuse if you haven’t noticed. The USSR cannot keep up with the bourgeois in ammunition shells of any type so far, 30 years since he died. It cannot to such an extent that I had to push a rocket into the barrel, as on the M551.
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    But I recall that the forehead of the M-48 and Centurion towers in the early 50's did not exceed 160 mm and

                    First, the forehead of the M-48 is larger. Secondly, only a short-range tower’s front pierced in front is the situation of the IS-2 against the T-4.
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    weaker, because the source was a bit more powerful than the L7?

                    Because weaker. Should I search for you the characteristics of this weapon?
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    so as before, why should the tank of modification 62 be pulled to the beginning of the 50's?

                    Moreover, he and the AMX are the weakest cars on the theater.
                    1. Vladimir_2U 11 February 2020 08: 30 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      The British for 10 years did not know that the Russians are trying to put a cannon from the Su-100 on the tank, yes
                      Do you seriously think that the guns are reinforced to shoot other guns? The British, of course, are a peculiar nation, but not so much, and they created a 105mm-ku to confidently break through the armor of Soviet tanks of that time.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      I just refuse if you haven’t noticed. The USSR cannot keep up with the bourgeoisie in any type of subcaliber shells so far, 30 years old
                      Oh well, it somehow happened that the USSR was confidently ahead of the whole world in creating BOPS for a smooth trunk, did you know?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      It cannot to such an extent that I had to push a rocket into the barrel, as on the M551
                      Sorry, but this is stupid, to consider that creating a BOPS is more difficult than a TOUR, without even considering the purpose and distance of use. Or maybe godmother. are there shells for beauty in the ammunition of western tanks?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      First, the forehead of the M-48 is larger
                      Give a reference to the forehead of the M-48 for the beginning of the 50s?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Secondly, only a short-range tower’s front pierced in front is the situation of the IS-2 against the T-4
                      What is this for? Could it be that the M-48 and the centurion’s hulls were taller and not stronger than the T-54 / 55’s, but their mobility, which means their ability to take an advantageous position, is noticeably lower?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      weaker, because the source was a bit more powerful than the L7?
                      Because weaker. Should I search for you the characteristics of this weapon?
                      Why not, strictly for argumentation.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Moreover, he and the AMX are the weakest cars on the theater.
                      However, the gun at Supersherman was no weaker than 100 mm D-10t, and how it was completely suitable for the AT, besides the ergonomics and volumes of the fighting compartment, about which the debate actually began, didn’t they climb the Supersherman? I doubt very much, however, these tanks were quite used by the Jews.
                      1. Octopus 12 February 2020 11: 09 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The Super Sherman is no weaker than 100 mm D-10t, and as a PT he was quite fit,

                        Yes, for ambush tactics.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Why not

                        The weight of the sub-caliber is twice as high at the same speed.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        This is what?

                        This is because the T-54 does not penetrate the front hemisphere of the M48 from any distance. And vice versa - with anyone, not counting ricochets. Adjusted for fart, of course.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        a reference to the forehead of the M-48 for the beginning of the 50s?

                        Patton's reservation in the 50s has not changed, NYA. 220 reduced thickness hull, up to 240 tower.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        but this is stupid, to consider that creating BOPS is more difficult than TOUR

                        This is a fact. However, in the USSR scrap, godfather and rocket appeared almost simultaneously.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        godfather. are there shells for beauty in the ammunition of western tanks?

                        Instead of scrap for light BT and the replacement of OFS for ATGM calculations.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        ahead of the whole world in creating BOPS for a smooth trunk, is it in the know?

                        Because only the USSR could not make a sufficiently powerful rifled gun, all of a sudden.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        so, and 105mm-ku created to confidently break through the armor of Soviet tanks of that time

                        The IS-3 has not changed since the 45th year, only the T-64 had serious changes in armor.
                      2. Vladimir_2U 12 February 2020 17: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Should I search for you the characteristics of this weapon?
                        Why not, strictly for argumentation.

                        Quote: Octopus
                        The weight of the sub-caliber is twice as high at the same speed.

                        Is that what you looked for? You can’t say anything powerfully! And how convincing! No links, not even a piece of text. Lala.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        This is because the T-54 does not penetrate the front hemisphere of the M48 from any distance. And vice versa - with anyone, not counting ricochets. Adjusted for fart, of course.
                        What, even a 102 mm forehead of the hull? Or the bottom part of the case, how much is there. Neither an example, nor a link only Lala.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        a reference to the forehead of the M-48 for the beginning of the 50s?
                        Patton's reservation in the 50s has not changed, NYA. 220 reduced thickness hull, up to 240 tower.
                        There will be no links, it’s clear, I personally somehow found the thickness of the tower’s forehead at 150 mm with something, and you’re laid back at ease with 240, okay with the case, this demagogy still works somehow, but they consider the tower according to the thickest part in the horizontal. Where is the reference? Lala from the finger is not a link!
                        Quote: Octopus
                        but this is stupid, to consider that creating BOPS is more difficult than TOUR
                        This is a fact. However, in the USSR scrap, godfather and rocket appeared almost simultaneously.

                        You are already writing utter nonsense, not only is it easier to create BOPS according to your TOUR, but also a godfather. shells "almost" at the same time with BOPS and TOUR you appeared! But nothing, that 76,2 mm CS not later than 44 were already in service? And 85 mm CS for anti-aircraft guns were created no later than 53 g.
                        Shot 3UBK5 (3UBK5M) with a cumulative non-rotating projectile 3BK7 (3BK7M)
                        . Such shells were not considered necessary for the T-54/55 for the beginning of the 50's, that's the whole tale. As soon as it was deemed necessary, it was developed and accepted. The first TUR in 75 was accepted, wow you have almost "at the same time", more than 30 years difference!
                        In general, everyone who understands the matter a little bit as a matter of complaint to the domestic BOPS is not their backwardness, but a limited length due to AZ / MZ!
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Instead of scrap for light BT and replacing OFS for ATGM calculations
                        What a news! Tank cum.s. always designed for long-range work on armored vehicles, because its armor penetration does not depend on range! But persistence is worse.
                        replacement of OFS for ATGM calculations
                        To go nuts, but what exactly did the OFS not please? Now it’s clear, if we accept full-fledged OFS, then all the armored curtains on Abrams, etc. finally turn into a fiction, but in the 50s why then, what kind of stupidity?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Because only the USSR could not make a sufficiently powerful rifled gun, all of a sudden.
                        Well, it is clear, as soon as it turned out, suddenly that the BOPS was first adopted by the USSR, it suddenly became clear to you: this is because in the USSR the rifled guns could not make, as they say, this is a turn! Suddenly, D-54TS 100 mm, M-62T2S 122 mm, M-65 130 mm. Only all this became unnecessary, with the advent of the U-5TS.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        105mm-ku created to confidently break through the armor of Soviet tanks of that time
                        The IS-3 has not changed since the 45th year, only the T-64 had serious changes in armor
                        Well, when did the 105mm-wka appear, and when did the T-64, and when did the reservation data for the T-54/55 get to the Angles? Here 54/55 and 105 mm somehow fit together in this regard, but the T-64 is not particularly. Moreover, since 45 the Angles have not fussed, but here it is on you.
  • BAI
    BAI 10 February 2020 09: 03 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    captured T-54/55. The British tanks had very good armor and they showed greater resistance to damage in battles compared to other vehicles. Soviet tanks showed how negatively affects the ability of the crew to fight the small size of the fighting compartment.

    The T-55 shell rack is simultaneously a fuel tank. Therefore, fire and detonation of ammunition when breaking through the hull are provided. And that was their main minus.
    1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 09: 18 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      I am not familiar with this, I believe your opinion.
    2. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 10: 22 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Therefore, fire and detonation of ammunition when breaking through the shell are provided
      At Centurion, a part of the BC was also in the case, so fire and detonation were also possible.
      Quote: BAI
      The T-55 shell rack is simultaneously a fuel tank.
      True, but as I wrote above
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Centurion mobility sacrificed to defense
      The power reserve was not that ridiculous, but definitely not serious.
      1. Octopus 10 February 2020 10: 55 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        fire and detonation were also possible.

        It is possible that they will be excluded. But the Kharkov tradition of making tanks in the fighting compartment is a very special case.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        The power reserve was not that ridiculous, but definitely not serious

        In Israel, everything is nearby)))
      2. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 12: 30 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        The Centurion has tanks behind the fire barrier, and the "ridiculous power reserve" was enough to cross the Sinai. Because tank troops are not only tanks, but also related logistics.
        1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 12: 37 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Centurion has tanks behind the firewall
          True, but this is a minus to mobility (power reserve), as described above.
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          but also related logistics
          Logistics may not work, for example, without air superiority, or there may be no way out of the battle. And then that’s it.
          1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 14: 30 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            I am wildly sorry, but what is the use of the power reserve if the crew crashes from one penetration? And all this for the extra 30-50 km? It’s better to buy a couple more dumplings, to bring fuel, than to dig the graves later because the “machine is caught in fire” after a successful shot. And without logistics, not a single unit can fight normally, and not a single army functions.
            1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 14: 43 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Where did you get information about the death of the tank from one penetration? But what then were the T-55 and T-62 adopted? After all, they do not hold a blow at all, so either the Jews of their tankers did not spare the T-55-62 at all, or the low survivability of these tanks was a fairy tale.
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              And without logistics, not a single part can fight normally
              And what is the use of a tank without fuel, surrounded, for example?
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              It’s better to buy a couple more dumplings
              And these shots were shot from the air, the Arabs blew up with famous screams.
              1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 14: 51 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Either the Tiran tanks were initially used because of a lack of choice, and then in the reservist units.
                If the tank was surrounded, an extra 50 km of travel would not help him much.
                1. Vladimir_2U 10 February 2020 15: 24 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: Zeev Zeev
                  If the tank was surrounded, an extra 50 km of travel would not help him much.
                  It’s so good that we can’t check it out for ourselves! hi
  • Jager 10 February 2020 12: 42 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    There and Pz. IV Ausf. H / J were so what? IS-2 on board and Leopard-2 will make. Some kind of children's discussion.
  • Lamata 10 February 2020 08: 21 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    All these measures by members of pride and PR)))) Only the war will show h that is what.
    1. papandopala 10 February 2020 08: 47 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Lamata
      All these measures by members of pride and PR)))) Only the war will show h that is what.

      Well, Merkava and our TESHKI are constantly fighting
      1. Lamata 10 February 2020 09: 04 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        And we need a world war of tank war laughing to identify the best tank)))
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Free wind 10 February 2020 08: 47 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Tank biathlon is not an indicator of the combat characteristics of tanks. Each tank goes in its lane, with other tanks and does not compete. For example, in Schumacher's Formula 1 races, the best lap in the race was a few seconds worse than the qualifying lap. And according to the ratings, there are different opinions, but the Chinese cannot be in the rating, his characteristics are kept secret, you can only judge by their appearance, well, he has German MTO. Challenger seems not to be released. But Koreans boast of their panther, and the Turks altai. Abramsy, T-90, Merkava, Challengers, Leopards fought, fortunately, they never converged, which one is better in battle? It’s best not to know this.
  • BAI
    BAI 10 February 2020 08: 53 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    The best tanks are ours! Accordingly, for Americans - American, for Germans - German, for Jews - Israeli, for Chinese - Chinese, for Russian - Russian. This is an axiom!

    So it’s been known for a long time: "What color is the car better? The one that is in your car." We can say that it concerns all readers of VO.
    Why did the Merkava appear? Just because the enemy got T-62!

    Merkava appeared when Tal saw the detonation of ammunition in Soviet cars. Soviet tanks, participants in the Middle East conflicts (it seems it was the T-55), the detonation coefficient was higher than that of the T-34. The loss of personnel for Israel is completely unacceptable.
    By the way, considering a tank without crew qualification is completely useless. On the border in 1941, the mechanized corps lost hundreds of T-34s. Near Moscow, Raftopullo successfully fought on the BT-7. An untrained crew discredits any technique.
  • Hunter 2 10 February 2020 08: 57 New
    • 5
    • 7
    -2
    In fact, the best bow in the world is known, the crown of its evolution is Block Bow!
    Like the breeds of Horses - take a look at their price tag. Yes, and according to the Swords - there seems to be no disagreement ... The Japanese repeat
    A very strange article, just a cry from the heart .... laughing laughing negative
    Where ... Gauges, Ammunition, Defense ??? request
    1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 04 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Good morning!
      I expected a detailed analysis of the mass release, damage from ATGMs, RPGs, artillery ammunition, crew performance, analysis of modern wars, etc. )).
      About my own ammunition, guns, armor, etc. - already silent
    2. Lamata 10 February 2020 09: 06 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Do japas have the best sword? The first time I hear this opinion.
      1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 12 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        Katana is a work of art, several layers of steel, etc. )) Bugatti among swords yes
        1. Lamata 10 February 2020 10: 31 New
          • 4
          • 5
          -1
          beauty and technology does not mean that the sword is the best.
          1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 37 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            It is very sharp, light and strong.
            1. Lamata 10 February 2020 10: 41 New
              • 4
              • 4
              0
              And nowhere has it become widespread except Japan.
              1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 10: 50 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                She is an island))
                During their first full-scale contract with the Europeans, the priority of the Europeans was swords, sabers, etc.
                1. Lamata 10 February 2020 14: 28 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Europeans could easily, if the katana is so good, copy it, there were both Portuguese and Dutch. Second, the contacts with China and the Koreans at Japas were normal, so they didn’t copy there either, and already the Chinese would definitely have taken it. Purely subjective.
        2. Foxnova 10 February 2020 14: 39 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Katana is not a sword, but a saber. We’ll start with this and finish it.
    3. Foxnova 10 February 2020 09: 06 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      What are yapi swords like? what
      1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 09: 11 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: FoxNova
        What are yapi swords like? what

        Quote: Lamata
        Do japas have the best sword? The first time I hear this opinion.

        Two-handed multilayer, a combination of steel with different characteristics!
        1. Free wind 10 February 2020 09: 55 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Where did the steel come from? In relation to iron, Japan is poor. More or less got hold of when they began to trade with Korea, to fight.
        2. polar fox 10 February 2020 15: 43 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Hunter 2
          Two-handed multilayer, a combination of steel with different characteristics!

          Zlatoust plant riveted Cossack checkers in thousands. And quality and convenience. And by the durability of the metal, yapes are smoking aside!
      2. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 13 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Katanas. Super swells.
        1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 09: 17 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Krasnodar
          Katanas. Super swells.

          And super prices! As a collector of knives - I confirm! yes
          1. Krasnodar 10 February 2020 09: 21 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            There are no limits to prices, as far as I HEAR
    4. rudolff 10 February 2020 09: 27 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      The price tag on the horse will not say anything for sure. If it were not for the small, unprepossessing Mongolian horse, there would have been no Genghis Khan. What other horse will withstand minus 40 with the wind, will it find its own food or compare with the Mongolian in endurance?
      Katana? Everything is relative. I think the Roman legionnaires or what kind of “heavy” knights would simply not pay attention to the katana even if there was a choice.
      1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 09: 36 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        However, the same Mongols - well chopped up by "relative" katanas!
        On horses - You can argue ad infinitum ... however, the fact is that the Anglitsky and Alkhaltekintsy are Top in the World Price List.
        Orlovtsy - among the Rysisty, for the power of Pride.
        1. Free wind 10 February 2020 11: 02 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          The best breeds for racing and very expensive, Oryol trotters, Mustangs, English horses, well, the most Arabian horses, and the Arabs are not the fastest, but they are used to create the breeds.
          1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 11: 08 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Free Wind
            The best breeds for racing and very expensive, Oryol trotters, Mustangs, English horses, well, the most Arabian horses, and the Arabs are not the fastest, but they are used to create the breeds.

            Trotters are for racing, they will not jump! Mustang - what kind of breed is it? belay
            1. Free wind 10 February 2020 11: 27 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Mustang is an officially registered breed. At first they were brought from Spain and released into the wild, then they began to notice that absolutely unique horses came across among the mustangs, they began to be caught and bred, the name was left a mustang. Moreover, mustangs are used in breeding new breeds, for example KIGER-MUSTANG.
              1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 11: 38 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                I honestly did not know! Plus you ...
        2. victor50 10 February 2020 12: 41 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Hunter 2
          Alkhaltekintsy - Top in the World Price Tag.
          Orlovtsy - among the Rysisty, for the power of Pride.

          Interestingly, it was they who were valued as tractors for guns during the Second World War? wink Auto and writes that it is possible to compare only individual characteristics, and not in general.
          1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 12: 53 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Victor, show me where I compared - incomparable? Here at us everything mixed up ... like Lermontov’s. In the topic of tanks. I - For Good dialogue and debate over Blades and Horses!
            Minusory - I do not care about waste, Spit! wink
            1. victor50 10 February 2020 13: 29 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Hunter 2
              Victor, show me where I compared - incomparable? Here at us everything mixed up ... like Lermontov’s. In the topic of tanks. I - For Good dialogue and debate over Blades and Horses!

              Alexei, I did not claim that you are comparing the incomparable. Just on your comparison, fair, obviously, I showed that (what the author wrote about, what is the meaning of his article) it will not be possible to compare the whole. It is enough to change the evaluation criteria, select other important characteristics for comparison, and the best turns into non-worthy.
          2. Dur_mod 12 February 2020 07: 51 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I read one in German’s memoirs, European horses heavyweights in the USSR quickly got out during the year of the war, eating only grain, difficult weather and logistics in winter did their job for them, when they switched to local horses, he could not get enough of it, it turns out they eat everything and pull strap).
    5. Free wind 10 February 2020 09: 52 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Am I a good Japanese sword? Once hit and thrown, or breaks or bends, is not adapted for cutting with opponents at all.
      1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 09: 58 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: Free Wind
        Am I a good Japanese sword? Once hit and thrown, or breaks or bends, is not adapted for cutting with opponents at all.

        Do you have experience using it? belay
        I - held a katana in the hands of the 15th century, I can tell by sharpening - I did not see an equal weapon.
        1. Winnie76 10 February 2020 11: 54 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Hunter 2
          I - held a katana in the hands of the 15th century, I can tell by sharpening - I did not see an equal weapon.

          I suspect after several minutes of full felling of the enemy in good armor, nothing will remain from sharpening. And there will be an easy dull piece of iron. What the author was trying to convey. There is no universal weapon.
          1. Hunter 2 10 February 2020 12: 39 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Show me the sword - which will not happen to this! I have 27 Blades in the collection ... I know a little about this topic.
            True, there are no swords ... Broadsword, Sabers, Checkers and Swords. Two more Cleaver, French and Our Native!
            You are a plus! For the logic.
            1. Winnie76 10 February 2020 14: 12 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Hunter 2
              Show me the sword - which will not happen to this!

              I'll show you. The dumber the sharpening angle, the more durable the cutting edge. From the point of view of durability, the ideal weapon is a crowbar or a sledgehammer with an iron handle.
              Quote: Hunter 2
              I have 27 Blades in the collection ... I know a little about this topic.
              True, there are no swords ... Broadsword, Sabers, Checkers and Swords. Two more cleaver

              Do not worry. I don’t have swords either. But there are five or two side cutters, pliers, pipe wrenches, multimeters. Also in the collection is a cutting machine, a puncher, a shurik, an end saw, an electric jigsaw, a parquet and much more.
    6. cat striped 10 February 2020 14: 19 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      You, a hunter, have a very strange idea of ​​some types of weapons, amateurish.
      About katana you have already thrown below, quite rightly. I add that in terms of chopping properties it definitely loses to a checker, in terms of manufacturability - to a European sword.
      But I’ll say about the bow. (as a man who has been shooting from a blocker for many years - Yes, he is accurate, technologically advanced, beautiful - but this is a weapon of one shot, preparation for the shot is too long, it will not work to repulse the enemy infantry, it’s impossible to do it in the forest and swamp. - I’ll say simply - you don’t know - don’t grind your tongue. Inadvertently bite.
  • Whalebone 10 February 2020 08: 58 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Absolutely true and logical, the author interpreted. So it is and was and will be. The best one who won today. And the "scribe-takers" are for schoolchildren who are not strong in their minds (of any age).
  • Octopus 10 February 2020 09: 02 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -3
    Some stories on the block.
    The best tanks are ours.

    True, if we assume that "our tanks are optimally consistent with the production capabilities of the country and the doctrine of the army." It is not true if "ours because ours." I don’t think that there will be people who claim that some un-upgraded T-72 (and T-55, EMNIP) was the best tank of 2008. Or T-64 in 2014.
    Why does the T-90 standing next to Abrams, Leopard or Merkava look like a kid?

    Because the USSR of the late 60s was not able to make 100500 tanks in 50t weight.
    put a stronger engine?

    And there is no engine either.
    Well armored vehicles, often incapable of stepping off roads and long distances

    This same tank, weighing 50 tons, unable to advance off the road, was called the Panther. After it, M50 and Centurion left for 26 tons. The USSR did not have such an option, to switch completely to the T-10, it was forced to stay at 35 tons for the main one in terms of the number of vehicles. Squeezing, I must admit, relatively good characteristics.
    Why did the Merkava appear? Just because the enemy got T-62!

    As correctly noted above, Merkava appeared because the Europeans are still an ally. And not only Europeans.
    I don’t want to criticize the Americans, but in all the ratings, the first place is consistently occupied by the American Abrams.

    Tank ratings are made for children. Adults hold tenders, and, as far as I can tell, they win used b / c Leo from storage. At the same time, Jews, for example, in the early 90s were interested in abrashi to accept a gift, and drove it at home. Not accepted, not impressed.
    here is the same Vasya from a motorized rifle platoon as he was the main in the army, and remained

    While the enemy - APU.
    1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 09: 22 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      EMNIP, Israel did not adopt the Abrams because of the absolutely frantic consumption of high-quality fuel. Given the intensity of the use of tanks in our country, these were absolutely unrealistic numbers.
      1. Octopus 10 February 2020 09: 36 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        absolutely crazy consumption of high-quality fuel

        I heard a friend story. What the main problem was the torsion bars. Christie's pendant on Merkava is not just. Torsion shows itself well in the plain, but poorly in the mountains. Therefore, as a rule, cents went to the Golan, and to the south - Pattons and trophy ones.
        1. Zeev Zeev 10 February 2020 12: 18 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Not, and “Magahs” and “Tyrants” were quite used both in the Golan and in Lebanon. And they are with torsion bars
    2. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 13: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Octopus
      Because the USSR of the late 60s was not able to make 100500 tanks in 50t weight.

      Plus the scary words "railway gauge" and "50-ton platform."
      Quote: Octopus
      And there is no engine either.

      5TDF and 6TDF. Let the mechanical watercraft and technical services rejoice. laughing
      Quote: Octopus
      Tank ratings are made for children. Adults hold tenders, and, as far as I can tell, used Leo wins tenders from storage.

      And we all know why.
      The new T-90 costs 118 million rubles. It’s easier for us to buy three Leopards for the same money.
      © Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces Colonel General Alexander Postnikov
      The advance detachment of American imperialism in Europe during the years of ХV he made so many “Leo” that a quarter of a century after that he sold them for mere pennies. But now I have to fight, gathering for myself "Europe Leo-2" for modernization. For a new direction has come - to increase the Panzerwaffe battle park - but in the warehouses it’s empty.
  • Doctor 10 February 2020 09: 06 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Production of armored vehicles in the USSR: tanks and self-propelled guns - 105251; BA - 8505.
    Production of armored vehicles in Germany: tanks and self-propelled guns - 46857; BTR and BA - 26651.

    Total loss of Soviet armored vehicles from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945: 83500.
    Total loss of German armored vehicles from 22 June 1941 to 9 in May 1945: 28735.
    1. victor50 10 February 2020 12: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      Total loss of Soviet armored vehicles from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945: 83500.
      Total loss of German armored vehicles from 22 June 1941 to 9 in May 1945: 28735.

      Cool numbers! Wow! After our victory, the Germans left 1,5 times more tanks and armored vehicles (more than 30 tons and more than 44 tons) ?! request Well, we still got land lends, and for them they made French, Czechs.
  • Avarron 10 February 2020 09: 08 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    It seems that Putin wrote. A lot of words have been said, but nothing has been said in fact.
  • Jarserge 10 February 2020 09: 20 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I agree 100%. After all, it would seem that World War II died out, decide on the best tank, plane. But this is impossible. The best is at the theater of operations, the country ... and no one will agree with the opinion of opponents. Patriotism and ignorance will prevent
  • Maks1995 10 February 2020 09: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A blank article. A little philosophy and no comparisons. Even the picture is incomprehensible.
  • Strashila 10 February 2020 09: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Yes, simply because, in most respects, these machines are better, more technologically advanced, more reliable." And not because they are younger, the T-55, and the T-72, can’t be called a boys. And so they fight and do it all the time. With constant operation, "jambs" come out, which the designer and production workers eliminate.
    And the vaunted Western ones, only in battle, so they didn’t burn them to a rembaza. Examples, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.
  • Pavel57 10 February 2020 10: 01 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Maybe there is an expert who can evaluate Western tanks by the criterion of passing biathlon in Alabino, albeit approximately?
    1. Karen 10 February 2020 10: 17 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      I’ll make an approximation here ... Somehow, our tank ace put one American military journalist in his T-72, and showed him the capabilities of a combat vehicle ... After the lesson, the journalist exclaimed: "Abraham - zero!"
      1. Octopus 10 February 2020 10: 23 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Karen
        Somehow, our tank ace put one American military journalist in his T-72,

        Hm. Excuse me, and in whose place could he seat him? The commander?
        1. Karen 10 February 2020 10: 24 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Probably...
          1. Octopus 10 February 2020 10: 30 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            That is, this ace - a gunner? Or a mechanical drive? Some kind of dumb story, no?
            1. Karen 10 February 2020 10: 33 New
              • 1
              • 5
              -4
              Mekhvod, of course ... He, when he told me this ... regretted that in Solnechnogorsk he was not given the opportunity to show all this to yours ...
  • Ros 56 10 February 2020 10: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The very formulation of the question of the best tank in my opinion is completely incorrect. This simply does not happen, as well as other equipment. Everything has its own advantages and disadvantages, and taking into account the third force, let’s say the infantry or, even worse, the stupid operator, everything gets upside down. The designer never knows what the exploiters, or vice versa, technologically advanced people can throw in relation to his brainchild or grief. fellow negative what
    1. Pavel57 10 February 2020 10: 50 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The question of the best tank is correct with reservations - the best in such and such conditions and by such and such criteria.
  • Jurkovs 10 February 2020 10: 49 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Why are Russian tanks less weight than western ones?

    Because railway transport is still the only way to deliver our tanks to the front line.
    In other countries, these are car trailers for delivering cars from the nearest port to the theater of operations. Hence one of the various approaches to the design of military equipment. The second difference is what the tank is for. With the Americans, Abrams is slowly turning from a self-propelled gun into a well-defended and mobile station for command and control of troops at the forefront and interaction with aviation. Germany is trying to do something balanced between old approaches and the latest trends. We are still focusing on the oncoming tank battle. I’m afraid that soon we’ll have no one to fight with. The concept of the tank is changing right before our eyes and as if not to miss it. Otherwise, the author will be right and the war will put everything in its place.
    1. Ros 56 10 February 2020 10: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      This is you focusing on the oncoming battle. And the Moscow Region has long understood that the time of mass attacks of infantry chains and avalanches of tanks is long over. The emphasis is on network-centric warfare, where all forces are involved. This is in the case of a large-scale conflict, and something such has not been observed for a long time.
    2. Alexey RA 10 February 2020 13: 10 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Jurkovs
      In other countries, these are car trailers for delivering cars from the nearest port to the theater of operations.

      Not certainly in that way.
      The same "Abram", as it turned out, fits even on our platform:

      And here is his regular means of transportation over long distances "at home":
  • Aaron Zawi 10 February 2020 11: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Well, here I was pleased with thoughts of infantry.

    Well, to each his own ... hi

    This is yes. hi
  • Robert 10 February 2020 12: 46 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The article is about nothing. It only encouraged commentators to do their favorite thing: to measure who has more ...
    How long does a tank live in battle?
    Here they evaluate in seconds: http: //magspace.ru/blog/gun/324977.html
  • stepka_razin 10 February 2020 13: 26 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is surprising that the Russian T-90, the Israeli Merkava and the Chinese Type-99, changing each other, periodically occupy only the fifth line of ratings. Why is it amazing? Yes, simply because most of the indicators are precisely these machines that are better, more technological, more reliable.

    And not because Israeli, Russian or Chinese designers are smarter. Just combat vehicles are “younger”, which means they use much more innovations in their design.

    Well, a respected expert, have you gone - is there a sight on the Russian T-90? No, no. Maybe there is a thermal imager of the latest model? So no. Maybe a decent SLA? Again no ...
    Take the T-90 and most Western tanks, and in terms of electronics, the innovation is more recent ... So, to be surprised that the T-90 is clearly not the first line is absolutely not worth it
    Now only the t-90m, which is only entering the troops, was able to catch western tanks in terms of the level of electronics, and even those not of the latest modifications
  • ZaharoFF 10 February 2020 13: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This argument is eternal.
  • Romka47 10 February 2020 14: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    About the fact that they don’t climb into the tank biathlon: As I understand it (I think the hedgehog too) the reason (without politics) is that Western tanks will lose in view of speed, speed is the main criterion in biathlon (let's say we shoot the same way, even if they are a little better) our speed and ease will be pulled, and their trump card (armor) will not help here from the word at all, this criterion is not measurable in biathlon. And so I liked the article, definitely the author +
  • NF68 10 February 2020 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t want to criticize the Americans, but in all the ratings, the first place is consistently occupied by the American Abrams


    In fact, most often in the first place is the Leopard. And not AmericanEkanets with his gluttonous and costly gas turbine engine.
  • tank64rus 10 February 2020 14: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The best tanks have the winners. In general, each sandpiper praises its swamp.
  • Mihail2019 10 February 2020 16: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, here I agree with the author for sure: practice is the criterion of truth!
    Well, about the fact that each fighting vehicle such as a main battle tank is created as part of the concept of the combat use of its troops - in my opinion, this is obvious! And just “Merkava” is the most vivid example of this!
  • Per se. 11 February 2020 06: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So there is no better tank in the world. There are only the best tanks of the war ...
    More precisely, there are best tankers, more correct. Still, there is a geographical environment in which the tank is used, it has climate and weather, there are distances at which the tanks will have to operate. Therefore, what is good for a small, shallow Israel may not be acceptable in the vast swampy Russia.

    I would also like to speak on the phrase "Why are Western countries afraid to participate in tank biathlon"... Tank biathlon, this is a military show, a PR that has no specific relation to true combat training. The results of the brainchild of Kuzhugetovich can only be estimated using the same type of tanks (or their clones). By the way, in a real biathlon, it’s also clear everything is agreed on for the same skis and rifles, otherwise, there will be no objectivity in the competition. How to compete in tanks with different weights, cross-country ability, accelerating and overall performance in the Tank Biathlon? Therefore, well, don’t remember about these “red" races, "yellow", "green" (anywhere, more fun together), this is not an objective indicator.
  • GUKTU76 11 February 2020 15: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is a very simple tank formula, owned by V.G. Grabin: "A tank is a cart for a gun." Or, in relation to the article, the perfection of a tank is determined by the perfection of its weapons. And then armor protection, mobility, reverse speed ...
    A tank in ambush is better than a tank on the march or on the offensive.
    And then you have to solve many more problems. Volumes and cost of production in war conditions, repair base ... There is no number for them. Each tank was created for its own tasks. And each of them is the best in solving their problems. But everyone is a compromise.
  • svarga911 11 February 2020 20: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Discussing the role of infantry in an article on tanks is, of course, very clever.
    Criteria for objective evaluations of combat vehicles are known and it’s not too bad to talk about national advertising features.
    Subjectively, I think that in terms of the combination of combat qualities, our tanks are beyond competition.
  • Cheerock 12 February 2020 20: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Cresta999
    Well, if dirt is a swamp for you, and laying a temporary bridge with an engineering machine in a clean field is forcing a water barrier, then I UNIVERSALLY can conclude that you did not serve in the Soviet army. And in Russian, most likely.

    Tanks do not drive through swamps. But perfectly drown in them according to the laws of physics. )))
  • Super 13 February 2020 10: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Armata is the best.