All tank ratings lie - part I

138
Application of benchmarking techniques for evaluating armored vehicles.

In the domestic and foreign press, articles periodically appear with judgments about which tank is the best in the world. The newspaper "Military-Industrial Courier" publishes a presentation on this topic, sounded at the 15-th All-Russian scientific-practical conference "Actual problems of protection and security."

Crafty numbers

According to the American Military Ordnance magazine, ranking the best Tanks according to the totality of their combat properties - mobility, firepower, armor protection, places in the top ten best tanks for 1998 were distributed as indicated in the table below the rating of world tank fleets.

It does not explain how this rating was compiled, what methodologies for assessing the basic properties and tanks as a whole were used. Most likely, the assessment was carried out by a group of experts on the values ​​of the main TTX tanks without any methods, without taking into account the integrated indicators of the main combat properties and the complex indicator for the tank as a whole and, possibly, without taking into account the "price-quality" indicator. Maybe the "study" was ordered by some developer company.

1 table. Ratings of world tank parks
All tank ratings lie - part I


In the past ten years, the world's tank fleet has been replenished with new machines: “Leopard-2А6” with an L-55 gun (Germany), М1А2 SEP (USA), “Merkava” Mk. 4 (Israel), К1А1 and К2 (South Korea), “Type 96” and “Type 99” (China), modernized by T-90А (M) (Russia).

In 2010, the same magazine published the next rating. The following is noteworthy:

- the first position in the rating is the stable position of the Leopard-2А5 and Leopard-2А6 tanks;
- decrease in the ranking from the second to the third place of the МХNUMXА1 SEP tank;
- a change in the ratings of the positions of the Leclerc and Challenger 2 tanks;
- unjustifiably low positions of Russian T-90 (C) and T-90A (C) tanks and higher positions of the Chinese 96 Type and 99 Type tanks, which are practically copies of the T-72B and T-90C tanks.


In our opinion, such an assessment is controversial, since it is unclear how, in assessing tanks in general, the three main combat properties under consideration are combined, especially taking into account the “price-quality” indicator and, as a result, taking into account the actual situation on the global tank export market. For example, let me give you the rating of the five best tanks with regard to sales on the world market, presented in one of the Russian media in June 2010: 1-th place - T-90, 2-e - "Leopard-2", 3-e - "Leclerc ", 4-e -" Challenger-2 ", 5-e - M1A2.

To analyze the presented ranking lists, it is necessary to identify the main trends in the development of tanks and the requirements for them in modern conditions (especially in local conflicts), to analyze the existing methods of comparative evaluation.

Considering the main trends in the development of tanks over the past 20 – 30 years, it is necessary to clarify the content of the frequently used concept - “modern tank”. At present, such a tank is considered an armored vehicle with powerful artillery or combined missile-artillery weapons; highly automated fire control system, providing all-day and all-weather use and duplicate fire control from the gunner’s and commander’s place; integrated protection (armor, dynamic, optical-electronic, anti-mine, electromagnetic, from atomic weapons); software and hardware complex that provides automation of tank control as part of a unit; as well as having built-in diagnostics and high maintainability.

A modern tank is the result of joint activities of many industries. Late modifications of the Abrams type (USA), Leopard (Germany), Leclerc (France), T-90A (Russia) and others are considered to be the best recent models. Consider some of them.

Main rivals


M1A2 (USA) - A modernized version of the tank M1А1. Produced in 1996 – 2001. Currently, after overhaul and modernization, the M1А1 is supplied to the US Army and for export as the new M1А2 tank. As a result, the car is produced from the enterprise in the so-called “zero hours, zero miles” state, that is, a tank after an overhaul and modernization is equal to the number of hours worked and mileage to a new car. Estimated cost, depending on the degree of modernization and customer requirements - 5,1 – 5,6 million dollars.


M1A2 SEP (USA) produced in 1998 – 2001. At present, after overhaul and modernization, the M1А2 is supplied to the troops as a new tank, the M1А2 SEP (Systems Enhancement Package). Estimated cost after the upgrade - 7,5 million dollars.


"Leopard-2А6" (Germany) It is produced from 2005 in small batches depending on the contracts concluded. The troops have already received 225 machines. The 2А6 model is similar to the 2А5 model and differs in the 120-mm L55 smooth-bore cannon with an increased barrel length compared to the L44 cannon and an upgraded fire control system (LMS). These main tanks are planned to operate at least until the 2030 year. Estimated cost - 6,5 million dollars.


Leclerc-2 (France) It was produced in 2001 – 2005 in small batches and will remain in service for another 30 years. It is planned to increase the life cycle of these machines to 40 years due to modernization, which will introduce a number of improvements, including high-level armor protection of the tower, active protection, stealth coatings. The estimated cost of the tank - 8,5 million dollars.

Domestic sample and Chinese analogue T-72

The T-90A, equipped with an Essa thermal imager, should be attributed to modern type tanks.


Tank T-XNUMHA (Russia) Available from 2007 year. A program for upgrading this tank in the course of serial production has been developed and is being implemented, providing for equipping the machine with a software and hardware complex (PTC), which provides for increasing the command controllability of the tank within the unit, as well as automatic target tracking. Constantly held activities to improve mobility and security.

The estimated cost of the tank - 2,5 million dollars. In terms of price-quality ratio, the T-90A tanks are two to three times better than the considered foreign models. Nevertheless, the latter have some advantages over our tanks due to the use of increased power in the ammunition set of armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (BPS) compared with domestic BPS; increased protection of the crew and ammunition when the tank is broken due to large overall mass characteristics; increased power plants; more modern fuel equipment, turbochargers with high parameters of boost; equipping tanks with information and control systems; more advanced tank technical support system and, as a result, enhanced characteristics of the operational capabilities of tanks.

In the United States and NATO countries, the tank support system differs in its quantitative composition and quality of service from our similar system. In the tank battalion of the US Army, for two tanks with a crew of four people each, there are three cool specialist equipment. They are contractors. In the tank battalion of the Russian Army (RA), there are four tanks with a crew of three in each, according to the staff schedule, one technical service soldier. According to the latest data, the structures of RA tank-support equipment are manned with less than 30 percent. Thus, the existing tank technical support system in the troops of the NATO countries guarantees higher rates of operational capabilities of their tanks compared to ours. Now the Russian Defense Ministry has decided to organize the service centers of manufacturers for the maintenance and repair of weapons models. Therefore, in the near future tank support should significantly improve.

In turn, modern domestic tanks have certain advantages over foreign ones in terms of the following parameters: smaller dimensions and, consequently, a lower probability of being hit by their anti-tank weapons (PTS) of the enemy; the best indicators of specific (overall) power, specific fuel consumption, power reserve and a number of other characteristics; smaller crew size - three people; high rate of fire, regardless of the state and loading of crew members due to the automation of loading (the automatic loader was installed for the first time abroad on a Japanese tank "Type 90"); along with armor-piercing sub-caliber and cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation projectiles (OFS), the tank ammunition also includes guided projectiles (ATGM, ATGM) for firing up to five kilometers at armored and highly protected targets, self-propelled ATGM, ACS and low-flying helicopters.


In the last years of the last century, China began to lay claim to leadership in world tank design. On the 1 October military parade of 1999, on the occasion of the 50 anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the new Chinese tanks, Type 96, Type 98 and Type 99, were demonstrated. According to the general designer of the tank "Type 99" Zhu Yushena, this machine on the three most important indicators of combat potential - mobility, firepower and security - ranks first in the world. In 2000, the first batch of 40 Type 99 tanks was launched. This is the modernization (development) of the Russian T-72 tank. The main armament - 125-millimeter smoothbore gun - the Chinese version of the Russian 2А46. The automatic loader on the 22 shot, the total ammunition - 41 shot with BPS, KS, OFS and ATGM 9М119 "Reflex" of Russian production. According to Zhu Yushen, Western technologies are worse than Russian for tank guns, tests showed that the Chinese 125-mm gun is more powerful than the 120-mm guns and by the BPS armor penetration rate exceeds the gun of the M1А2 tank on 15-20 percent gun, a performance kit, and a performance kit. -sem, and the gun of the Japanese tank "Type 2" - almost 6 times. Thus, according to the Chinese general designer, there is no doubt that the tank "Type 90" - one of the three best tanks in the world.

Main criteria

Consider the possible methods of comparative evaluation of tanks. The simplest may be the method of direct comparison of the main performance characteristics - overall mass characteristics, power, speed on different routes, reservation level or level of resistance from different PTS. All pure tank characteristics are given. This is a very simple and seemingly clear way of comparing tanks for the main performance characteristics. It would be possible to accept it as the main one if everyone agreed with the nomenclature of the characteristics under consideration, which would ensure the objectivity and adequacy of the assessment of a particular tank.

With this method, the priority of a certain group of performance characteristics will also affect the selection of the best sample. Therefore, a simple comparison of machines according to the tables of the main TTX cannot give a definite answer to the question: which sample is better? Especially in the case when in one of two compared samples one selected TTH is higher and the others are lower.

In the theory of operations research and other scientific disciplines, the criteria for comparative evaluation of weapons and military equipment are indicators of combat effectiveness, tactical-technical-economic (TTE) effectiveness, military-technical level (VTU) and a number of other complex indicators. In addition, to assess the combat potential of a tank fleet as a whole, such comprehensive indicators of the combat vehicle are needed that would give an opportunity to assess the military technical potential of the tank fleet as a whole.

Under the combat effectiveness of the tank is understood the ability of the machine as part of units, units and formations to perform the corresponding combat missions. Evaluation of tanks with the help of combat simulation (MDB) is an approximate assessment of the properties of the machine in the case when we cannot physically do a real battle. The methods of the MDB were the basis for the creation of another group of methods for evaluating the effectiveness - methods for directly evaluating the indicators of the main combat properties and VTU tanks. Indicators of the main combat properties are given in the second table.

2 table. Complex and private indicators of the main combat properties of the tank, taken into account in the sectoral methodology for assessing the WTU


Numerous calculations using the integrated methodic of the TTE to assess the effectiveness showed that the complex indicator of the tank's effectiveness can be expressed in terms of its basic combat properties. VTU of the tank reflects the complex indicator of the military-technical effectiveness of the tank when it is used in combination of combat conditions (offensive, head-on, reflection of attack, defense). The VTU indicator represents a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of a tank relative to a certain reference tank. The calculation of the integrated indicator VTU is carried out on indicators of firepower, security, mobility and operational capabilities.

Under firepower refers to the ability of a tank to detect and hit targets of certain types.

Under security refers to the ability of the tank to maintain combat capability when solving combat missions when exposed to damaging factors on the crew and equipment.

Under mobility refers to the ability of the tank to overcome a given distance for a certain time without additional means of maintaining movement.

Under operational capabilities refers to the ability of the tank to perform specified functions while maintaining in time the values ​​of the established operational performance within the specified limits, corresponding to the specified modes and conditions of use, as well as its adaptability to the elimination of combat damage and bringing into combat readiness.

The volume of input and output information for the calculation of complex indicators of the main combat properties and the tankers of the tank as a whole is more than 5000 indicators. This gives the assessment of objectivity. Considering the large amount of input information, especially in terms of the variable of its part related to private performance indicators, and its insufficient reliability with respect to foreign samples, it must be admitted that the error in the estimate may be about ten percent. When the indices of the main combat properties and VTU differ within the limits of this value, it should be considered that the compared tanks are approximately equivalent. However, the results of an assessment of the WTU indicator of individual tanks are often criticized by some opponents in connection with the publication in foreign media of ratings similar to those presented in the first table.

The ending follows.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Brother Sarych
    +25
    27 July 2012 09: 13
    Something reminiscent of a comparison of a horse, a donkey and a mule - like relatives, all have four legs, two ears and a tail, but still the purpose and features of operation are different ...
    1. +27
      27 July 2012 09: 38
      The main purpose of these ratings is to please those who paid them. Advertising.
      The best tank is determined by the market, and here the T-90 is ahead and only different political troubles leave competitors any chances
      1. +13
        27 July 2012 11: 14
        Quote: Dmitriy69

        The main purpose of these ratings is to please those who paid them. Advertising.
        The best tank is determined by the market, and here the T-90 is ahead and only different political troubles leave competitors any chances


        You very accurately noticed that the one who pays the one and the girl dances.
        The quality of the tank is determined by the demand for it.
        1. +1
          27 July 2012 19: 15
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          The quality of the tank is determined by the demand for it.

          Demand is most likely determined by the factor price-quality-combat capabilities. Let's remember the Great Patriotic War ... Many experts believe that in terms of performance characteristics and combat capabilities, with the exception of weight and dimensions, the German Tiger was superior to our T-34, but even if this is partly true, then the price of the T-34, and therefore the capabilities to provide them with the necessary number of troops, predetermined the assignment of the title "The best tank of the Second World War", our 34-ke.
          1. +8
            28 July 2012 12: 26
            Well, many "experts" are a little cunning. The T-34 is a medium tank and the Tiger is a heavy one. This is not the same as comparing round and purple, but somewhere nearby ... it is more appropriate to compare the T-34-76 / 85 and the panzer - III / IV / V. "Tiger" - with KV / IS. Although many believe that in the latter case this is not entirely correct in view of the difference in the concept of combat use and the resulting differences in design.
            1. 0
              31 July 2012 13: 26
              Rather, the Panther should be compared with the KV / IS, and the "tiger" family had no domestic analogue at all.
              1. +2
                1 August 2012 21: 49
                Perhaps so, but it seems that the Panther is even more "anti-tank" than the Tiger. Is-2 was created for several other tasks.
        2. moral
          0
          29 July 2012 11: 41
          Sakhalin - the quality of the tank is determined by the war, for which it is intended! And the arms market is a purely political thing.
      2. Sablezub
        +7
        27 July 2012 13: 06
        I agree with your opinion, Dmitriy69 ... but I would add one more thing ... any comparisons of experts are subjective and are pure theory ... the main comparison takes place (and it is the most accurate and objective) on the battlefield ... an example is the results of Kursk arc and Victory in general in the Second World War ... even though the T-34 was a simple tank, at first with a weak cannon, but this tank, against perfectly assembled "panthers" and "tigers", was recognized as the best tank of the Second World War ...
        1. 755962
          +5
          27 July 2012 22: 36
          In hands and a shovel-weapon are skilled. Not a word is said about the preparation of the crews, although they would have banged a fight on virtual simulators. There would be such a contest! Make a gathering somewhere among the crews of different countries and clash on simulators. And then every sandpiper has its own swamp ... .. The crew is another component of the machine .... Alive and soulful.
          1. moral
            0
            29 July 2012 11: 43
            755962 - you are right, crew skills are important. One-year conscript does not compare with 3 years of service (Israel - by conscription, USA - minimum contract)
      3. +3
        28 July 2012 21: 23
        In general, I admit the expediency of comparing tanks only out of general theoretical interest - to the practical side, often, this has no relationship. I will explain. Tanks alone do not fight. There are many more things that ride, crawl and even fly on the battlefield. All this should competently interact within the framework of a specific concept of combat use.
        Which is better, the T-80 or the Abrams? And looking for what. The T-80 is an offensive tank - good speed, relatively light weight (it is more mobile and travels well over bridges, which is a big plus for the European theater of operations). "Abrams" (as, by the way, "Leopard") were created for slightly different tasks - to slow down the Soviet tank avalanche moving towards the English Channel. Accordingly, their mass could be more - they did not really need to "get out" with dynamic protection at that time, and the more advanced MSA somewhat compensated for the quantitative deficiency (against the background of the then tank capabilities of the USSR). The same T-72: a primitive MSA, not so impressive dynamic characteristics. On the other hand, it was quite cheap, and accordingly, it was massive and more suitable for development by conscripts (for example, there were only contract soldiers on the Abrams, in view of the US refusal from conscript service).
        The USA, of course, positions the M1A2 as the best in the world. but the FCS (a promising car) was required in all the "traditions" of "Abrams". The main thing that they wanted to see in a promising tank was a decrease in mass (up to 30-40 tons) and, it seems, not so differentiated armor. Why? Because they are fighting all over the world and carrying heavy "Abrams" is problematic. In addition, its frontal projection is most powerfully armored, the sides are at a loss (like almost all tanks of the Cold War). This was justified because tanks would converge "head-on-head", but in the conditions of partisan wars, no one will climb you in the forehead - from around the corner - and into the side.
        1. moral
          +1
          29 July 2012 11: 45
          How strange it is, in the fight between the T-90 and Abrams, APACH will win against Hellfires or Bramstorms
  2. PARROT
    -15
    27 July 2012 09: 39
    The Germans are doing better, unfortunately. What can we say about informativeness, when such a difference in the development of electronics in the USA, Germany, France, Japan and Russia?
    1. Sablezub
      +5
      27 July 2012 13: 33
      in the Second World War the Germans also had better tanks on paper, so what? They washed in spite of their technical base and developments ...
      1. +1
        28 July 2012 15: 22
        Yes, washed. But do not forget at what cost. If Soviet tanks were even more advanced than German tanks and artillery, there would be fewer casualties on our part, and this also needs to be considered. Imagine the mood and psychological state of the tankers who sit in the HF and BT-5. The first will feel much more confident than the BT tanker.
        1. Sablezub
          +1
          28 July 2012 16: 02
          I agree, but in the end the t-34 and kv turned out to be the best ... but no one forgets the price ... my grandfather guard lieutenant colonel from Moscow to Keneksberg on foot.
          1. ESCANDER
            +5
            28 July 2012 22: 43
            Tanks are one thing, but you must be able to fight.
            Victims are not from tanks, but from a moronic leadership in the initial stages of the Second World War.
            But the BT was more powerful than the German ones (it wasn’t on the Tigers that it rolled into us).
            1. Sablezub
              0
              28 July 2012 23: 36
              but I didn’t say that the Germans rolled in “tigers” in 41 ... I know the history of the Second World War quite well, turn it ... the conversation is about useless comparisons on paper, but I was talking about the real results of hostilities ... you can sit at home until blue in the face to scribble ratings, who is better, who is worse, but any analysis is just a theory and nothing more ...
  3. Barrel
    -12
    27 July 2012 10: 21
    As you can see from picchi, Oplot is better for most of the characters, but because of the "impartiality" of the Russian author, it does not get into the rating.
    1. -1
      27 July 2012 12: 45
      It’s too early to embed ours in such ratings. Let the Thai contract be won back.

      And my rating
      Challenger 2
      "Merkava" Mk. 4
      Leopard 2 A6
      Leclerc
      T-84
      T-90A
      "Type 99"
      М1А2
      Type 90
      MW 2000 Al Khalid
      1. +6
        27 July 2012 13: 14
        Challenger 2
        ???? why chell-2 in the first place?
        IMHO Leo definitely has to go first
        And carrots, how did you get it right here with its narrow focus?
        According to our tanks, I believe that the T-90A / Oplot at the same level as the T-90MS do not take it, it is not serial and the stronghold is the same.
        1. -2
          27 July 2012 13: 26
          And what is special about Leo except L55?
          And Markov’s built-in DZ modular armor and SLA and guided missile
          Quote: leon-iv
          T-90A / Oplot

          Imetsa referring to the T-84? and not a serial Oplot M?

          And the Challenger is the most balanced.
          1. black_eagle
            +5
            27 July 2012 14: 59
            Well, at the expense of the balanced "Challenger", I would argue, but Leo is still German, Mercedes, I think no one will argue that the Germans are people with hands and heads, garbage is not blind, Stronghold is still "raw" for the rating, we need a series, and in the T-90, you can "cram" much more filling
            1. -2
              27 July 2012 15: 20
              Quote: black_eagle
              the balance of the "Challenger" I would argue

              So for sports.

              Quote: black_eagle
              still German, Mercedes

              I like the argument --- German and that’s it.
              Quote: black_eagle
              bullshit does not blind

              Well, they blinded Tiger 2 and Leopard 1
              1. 0
                27 July 2012 16: 07
                Quote: Kars
                Quote: black_eagle
                - the balance of the "Challenger" I would argue
                Kars
                - So in sports.

                The main weapon of the tank is a cannon. The "Challenger" has a cannon with caps loading. How, in your opinion, how much does it correspond to a modern tank.
                1. +2
                  27 July 2012 19: 48
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  The "Challenger" has a cannon with caps loading

                  And? What is fundamentally different from a separate case? And the storage of powder charges in armored boxes separately from shells, below the turret and equipped with fire-extinguishing liquid, increases safety. There is no need to extract the sleeve or pallet, which reduces gas contamination, also allows you to have more ammunition.
                  Technical rate of fire of about 8 rounds per minute minimum (Such as the predecessor - Chiften, an interchangeable gun)
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  How, in your opinion, how much does this correspond to a modern tank.

                  It is normal, I don’t see any fundamental complaints.
                  1. 0
                    27 July 2012 20: 52
                    Quote: Kars
                    Technical rate of fire of about 8 rounds per minute minimum

                    Here I doubt it. You have to drop the projectile manually (push it to its regular place inside the chamber?), Drop the cap, install a one-time seal between the wedge and the barrel, install the ignition tube (clip?). And only after that a shot.
                    And, recall, 8 shots per minute? Something is not believed.

                    Where am I mistaken?
                    1. 0
                      27 July 2012 21: 05
                      "Challenger"
                    2. +1
                      27 July 2012 21: 05
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      You have to drop the projectile manually (push it to its regular place inside the chamber?), Drop the cap, install a one-time seal between the wedge and the barrel, install the ignition tube (clip?).

                      hydromechanical rammer,
                      gasket? are you sure?
                      Ignition tube feeds automatically.

                      The scheme was tested at Chiften, participated in the hostilities or do you doubt that 18 years of production, and 2000 produced ones, could not understand the viciousness of the scheme?
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      Here I doubt it

                      Bronekolektsiya 1 2006 M.Nikolsky M Boryatinsky
                      1. 0
                        31 July 2012 13: 34
                        The "Englishman" is still heavy for all its positive qualities, it is no coincidence that all the tanks of the USSR / RF / Ukraine are trying to create a "Stalinist" weight.
                2. Yemelya
                  0
                  27 July 2012 20: 16
                  The British seemed to be going to change the guns on the "Challengers 2" to smooth-bore German L55s in accordance with the modern tank fashion ("Challenger Mk 2E"), but it's a pity, as far as I know, HE shells with equal calibers from rifled ones are more powerful (which would be useful in Iraq Afghanistan and other Syria), they are more accurate and have a much larger barrel resource. At the moment, the last of the rifled magikan is the Indian "Arjun"
              2. black_eagle
                +2
                27 July 2012 16: 37
                Well, for example, the famous Challenger armor, for example, take the case in 2007 when a tank was struck from the RPG in the frontal armor! good armor !!!)))))
                1. +1
                  27 July 2012 19: 51
                  In 2007, a frontal armor of the “Challenger” hull was pierced by a shot from a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher, three toes were torn off by a mechanic driver, and two other tank crew members were injured [3] [4].
                  A case was recorded when during the battle one of the Challengers received 15 hits from anti-tank grenade launchers without breaking through the armor


                  And? If you noticed the toes, it was not the VLD that was affected, but the lower plate, statistically the chances of losing it are minimal.
                  I apologize for the challenger, but this scheme is also suitable
                  1. Prohor
                    +3
                    27 July 2012 20: 50
                    And how is the propellant charge of the D-80 so different from the shotgun? The presence of a metal pallet? In general, I consider the idea to switch to cartridge loading to be correct, I don’t only know how ignition of the charge is carried out.
                    About RPG - the tank was not pierced by a grenade launcher, they can only pierce a tanker's skull, but with a grenade! Who knows which one?
                    1. +1
                      27 July 2012 21: 35
                      Quote: Prokhor
                      how ignition of a charge is carried out.

                      The squib on Chiften, and on the Challenger there should be a laser ignition --- but I can’t confirm it. In the movie dock, in my opinion, it was mentioned. Dock. Clear case of Discovery.
                      1. Prohor
                        +2
                        27 July 2012 22: 25
                        But laser ignition is the "weak link". Shock-mechanical must certainly be.
                  2. black_eagle
                    +4
                    27 July 2012 23: 16
                    Agree in all battles, the Challengers acted as part of units that reduce direct contact with the enemy to a minimum, that is, all the enemy's anti-tank weapons were destroyed by aviation, the infantry cleared the areas before the passage of tanks, etc., the question is who counted 15 hits? At the same time (take Iraq, for example), Soviet-made tanks, mainly T-55 and T-62, operated in the conditions of a destroyed air defense umbrella with the enemy's complete air superiority, and here, like in a shooting range, anti-aircraft machine guns on tanks with "Thunderbolt" or " Apache "will not cope, let alone talk about" Hornets ", he generally flashed like a meteor and remember what they called. The conclusion is interesting, we know nothing about the capabilities of American-British tanks, but they have excellent command and control, there is a lot to learn
                    1. +4
                      27 July 2012 23: 28
                      Quote: black_eagle
                      Agree in all battles Challengers acted as part of units that minimize direct contact with the enemy

                      And why do you blame it? Maybe it was necessary to repeat the Terrible 1994?
                      Quote: black_eagle
                      we don’t know anything about the capabilities of American-English tanks

                      And even less about the T-90A
                      Quote: black_eagle
                      mainly T-55 and T-62 operated under the conditions of the destroyed air defense umbrella with the complete superiority of the enemy in the air

                      And they didn’t achieve anything special --- even though it was predetermined.

                      Therefore, I evaluate the modern tanks according to the claimed characteristics. If you still start to drive the coefficients of material supply, training crew.

                      For example, the criterion from the article
                      KQ Firepower The ability of a tank to detect and hit targets of certain types.
                      Particular properties of firepower are information content, firepower and firepower, taking into account the number and types of ammunition in the ammunition

                      Nobody shares this information about a modern tank, and it is not publicly available, except perhaps the ammunition load, and even the data can be deliberately distorted. And the manufacturers and press releases declare the maximum.
                      1. black_eagle
                        +4
                        27 July 2012 23: 58
                        Quote: Kars
                        Therefore, I evaluate modern tanks according to the claimed characteristics

                        It’s hard to disagree, the conclusion is that we don’t know anything at all, all ratings are subjective, everyone can add their own personal rating for each car according to the declared charcams, and it will not look like any other’s rating, but there is one plus point in the dispute true)))) drinks
                      2. +1
                        29 July 2012 00: 04
                        Quote: black_eagle
                        truth is born in a dispute))))


                        It is a pity that only questions about the armor and the Challenger gun were resolved.
                        Did my answers help?

                        And by the way, the gun and the SLA of Challenger 2 allow you to fight armored vehicles with the help of high-explosive armor-piercing shells (with a crushable warhead) at distances of 8 km.
                        And what I don't like is an anti-aircraft rifle machine gun.
                      3. +1
                        30 July 2012 23: 24
                        Kars, what can you say about the fact that the world's first tank (according to the highest rating) was produced in just a few hundred pieces. Maybe he is one ?. About the cost, manufacturability, and justification. Interesting serious menin.
                      4. +2
                        30 July 2012 23: 48
                        Quote: loft79
                        due to the fact that the world's first tank (according to the highest rating) was produced in just a few hundred pieces

                        To start, the Tigers 1 also released not much.
                        Secondly, the country of manufacture - the island - never differed in the number of tanks, and when the USSR was no longer in the Chel-2 series, after the 90s few produced tanks - there were about 600 Leclerks in France, although there was a plan about 1800 cars, Abrams do not produce.
                        Quote: loft79
                        Maybe he is one?

                        If we take the quantity, then the T-54/55 is beyond competition.
                        Quote: loft79
                        About cost, manufacturability, and justification

                        And how to calculate it? Especially justification?
                      5. 0
                        30 July 2012 23: 55
                        Agree to develop and produce a tank in a small series is not very logical.
                        The same Leo will be preferable. IMHO

                        Therefore, I said about

                        Quote: loft79
                        Interesting serious


                        In your opinion, which is preferable to Larger mass (not to the detriment of quality), or Challenger.
                      6. +1
                        31 July 2012 00: 22
                        Quote: loft79
                        which is preferable

                        I don’t understand why you decided that if necessary Challenger 2 couldn’t be mass-produced?
                        Quote: loft79
                        The same Leo will be preferable. IMHO

                        Why? Because he was released more? So Abramsov released even more than the Leopards.

                        I look at a single tank ---- 1 pc and compare them with each other. The manager 2 went into the assembly in 1994 - and of course it turned out to be a small series. You can compare it by quantity with any ---- certainly new tank from a similar date --- how many new abrams have been released since 1994? new leopards? T-90?
                      7. 0
                        31 July 2012 00: 33
                        About mass. I’m not sure that small Britain would pull mass-production of Challengers. If I’m not lying, then at the NATO tank games, Leo were ahead. this does not mean that I am a fan of this tank. I mean that a small series is a big minus for the tank. Development cost, price. exploitation
                      8. 0
                        31 July 2012 00: 39
                        Quote: loft79
                        Uk pulled-would mass production Challengers

                        Chiftenov ana released 2000 thousand.
                        And France released 320-340 Leclerc for her beloved
                        After 1994, leopards did not release new ones at all.
                        Quote: loft79
                        I mean that a small series is a big minus for the tank. Development cost, price. exploitation

                        This obsalyutno does not affect the combat characteristics.
                      9. 0
                        31 July 2012 00: 52
                        About
                        Quote: Kars
                        It does not affect combat performance

                        I agree.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Chiftenov ana released 2000 thousand


                        As far as I know, a challenger tank is much more expensive to develop and produce.

                        About abrams and leopard, so they modernize. Under modern reality (no cold war)
                      10. +1
                        31 July 2012 01: 01
                        Quote: loft79
                        As far as I know, a Challenger tank is much more expensive to develop and produce.

                        Here it is not the price that plays the role, but how much the plant can produce tanks maximum a year.
                        So let's tear ourselves away from production --- personally, I believe that if REQUIRED --- they can be produced in quantities not less than a leopard - which is also not cheap.

                        Do you have any other questions?
                      11. 0
                        31 July 2012 01: 13
                        If not difficult, compare.

                        By the way, if necessary, they could not produce in WWII in sufficient quantity and quality. Data about the USSR is not accepted due to a different situation.
                      12. 0
                        31 July 2012 01: 18
                        Quote: loft79
                        If not difficult, compare.

                        What with what? And aren't there any comparison tables?

                        for example such
                        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D0%A1%D1%80%D
                        0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%A2%D0%A2%D0
                        %A5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BE%D1
                        %81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2
                      13. 0
                        31 July 2012 01: 24
                        Comparison tables have been read. Interested in your opinion. Preferably with analysis. I'm talking about parameters
                      14. +1
                        31 July 2012 01: 30
                        Well, it's too long, controversial and based on open information.
                        And it will be very similar to work - and I personally have fun.
                        And my result is in the first comment.
                      15. +1
                        31 July 2012 01: 44
                        They pay for work)
                        thanks for the info
                    2. moral
                      0
                      29 July 2012 12: 11
                      black_eagle - and this is already a question of tactics. NATO military leaders do not want to allow tank to tank battles. Tanks are already "finishing off" the remaining armor after the work of the same Apaches
                2. moral
                  0
                  29 July 2012 12: 09
                  black_eagle - depending on which shot to the RPG, exactly where it hit, and most importantly, reliable information on this hit
            2. ytqnhfk
              +1
              28 July 2012 11: 10
              Disputes have begun with comparisons such as Merc and Lada. Military equipment is not compared so much. Moreover, the tanks don’t dispute. The Germans probably didn’t make their own, but they still compare it with our T-90 first and foremost and say that ours will be long-range. the first measure on the battlefield, well, and everything else!
              1. moral
                0
                29 July 2012 12: 14
                ytqnhfk - you must always be very critical of what a potential adversary is saying. All the same, no one has yet canceled the misinformation. And the underestimation of the characteristics of their samples for the sake of the enemy is far from always being true information.
            3. moral
              0
              29 July 2012 12: 06
              black_eagle is still a Leopard in the world of tanks, not at all a Mercedes in the world of cars. Old and rusty T-55 unexpectedly drifting behind, for example, in the cities of the Middle East, can punish anyone.
        2. 0
          27 July 2012 15: 29
          And carrots, how did you get it right here with its narrow focus?

          A hundred times already spears on this subject were broken. What is still a narrow focus?
        3. 0
          27 July 2012 18: 24
          Many tales tell about the narrow focus of the Merkava. However, I would like to note that this is, firstly, one of the most howling tanks, and secondly, the first tank with SERIAL KAZ. But thirdly, its confinement only under the local theater is greatly exaggerated. Very much.
          1. moral
            0
            29 July 2012 12: 16
            Bumpy - I agree. You can add the orientation of the Merkava to defeat just the Soviet armor from its Arab neighbors - "friends"
      2. black_eagle
        -6
        27 July 2012 15: 00
        Our Oplot-M has the latest modern SLA and is boldly in first place in the rating, the rest is more or less in order, although essno is not the limit of perfection
      3. lotus04
        +2
        27 July 2012 17: 57
        Quote: Kars
        And my rating


        How many people have so many opinions.
      4. 0
        27 July 2012 18: 21
        Well, M1A2 somehow completely slipped away.
        1. +5
          27 July 2012 19: 54
          Try modnim, Maybe he has an SLA or a gun more powerful than that of Leclerc? Can fuel consumption? What is special about it except for a briquette with depleted uranium?
    2. M. Peter
      +5
      27 July 2012 13: 39
      Quote: Barrel
      but because of the "impartiality" of the Russian author, he does not get into the rating.

      Yeah, that is, he is not biased towards the Chinese, but is he biased towards the Ukrainian?
      The reason is simpler, compare those tanks that are in demand.
      For example, I would also like, for example, that the T-80U would take part in the comparison. And what do I need to write about bias now and supposedly the author is breathing unevenly towards UVZ?
      1. +1
        27 July 2012 13: 44
        Quote: M.Pyotr
        those tanks that are in demand

        Really? When was the last time Challenger 2 was sold? Or Leclerc in the last 10 years?

        I’m not talking about Rockit and the Black Panther with a merkava. Where is the T-72 the most papular tank along the way or Al-Khalid?
        1. +3
          30 July 2012 01: 40
          By the way, the model of Almaty flashed along the way.
          1. 0
            4 August 2012 12: 48
            here it’s better to see
            [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Icm2C4HJV68/UBlQ4L0pXyI/AAAAAAAADvg/gOyT1QKyVRs/s
            640/%D0%91%D0%90%D0%9C.jpg[/img]
          2. 0
            4 August 2012 12: 49
            Here you can see better
      2. Barrel
        -12
        27 July 2012 16: 02
        Yeah, that is, he is not biased towards the Chinese, but is he biased towards the Ukrainian?

        No, it’s just that the Oplot should be in the T-90 position, but then the T-90 wouldn’t fit into the top 10, but this is a Russian site, so ..
    3. +4
      27 July 2012 14: 07
      Barrel,
      And what is better ?? What are these characteristics?
    4. beech
      +3
      27 July 2012 18: 42
      with its weight over 50 tons ?? hd do not tell, besides the mistake of comparing the t-90 and the stronghold, since both are from the same school of tank building !!
  4. +17
    27 July 2012 10: 23
    In our OJSC, where I work, also a rating system.
    I’m doing it myself .. rating.
    And, such is r .... I tell you.
    At best, juggling.
    At worst, pure water ... a suzak.

    Best, worst - only combat experience will show.
    A rating - shows - who benefits.
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 17
      I wanted to see your rating
  5. DNA
    DNA
    +3
    27 July 2012 10: 33
    The first place of the T-90 tank in sales speaks for itself; it is the best !!!
    1. Barrel
      -4
      27 July 2012 16: 05
      It is cheap, more or less in line with modern standards, and the USSR has made a good name for itself in the tank industry, which Russia now uses as a legal successor. But this does not mean that he is the best. If every third of us rides on Lanos, does this mean that he is the best?
    2. 0
      27 July 2012 18: 25
      Not. It just speaks of a certain market situation, prices and large order.
      1. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 18
        Qualities of T-90 will show only battles
  6. Prohor
    +12
    27 July 2012 10: 59
    To the two eternal questions "Who is to blame?" and "What to do?" added a third - "Which tank is better?"
    Until all the 5-10 best tanks go to the training ground together, there will be no answer !!!
    There is no other method of assessment, there is only endless verbiage, which is already tired of reading ...
    1. +7
      27 July 2012 11: 49
      and who let them go together ....... in Abu Dhabi everyone was in the sand except ours fellow
    2. von_Richten
      +5
      27 July 2012 15: 21
      10 T-90s won (with losses of 3 tanks) 10 Leopards, which clearly hints.
      1. +1
        27 July 2012 15: 26
        About post a photo of the burnt wreckage of the cars of the fourth Reich.

        Or is it in some kind of game?
        1. von_Richten
          +2
          27 July 2012 17: 29
          I wrote "defeated", not destroyed wink . I read somewhere about something similar to teachings. The Germans needed less distance to fire.
      2. Barrel
        -2
        27 July 2012 16: 06
        Hints at an inexperienced crew
        1. von_Richten
          +2
          27 July 2012 17: 30
          Inexperienced do not roll out exemplary exercises. + I already wrote above about the distance.
          1. 0
            27 July 2012 19: 55
            There were no such exercises, I wouldn’t miss such a thing. On one field are Leopards and T-90s. If you meet them at exhibitions, then.
            1. von_Richten
              0
              28 July 2012 18: 35
              I confuse "pedals". feel
          2. Barrel
            0
            28 July 2012 01: 13
            But who would allow tankers of other countries to learn to destroy their tanks?
            1. von_Richten
              0
              28 July 2012 18: 36
              Do you destroy the conditional opponent’s technique in exercises?
  7. +3
    27 July 2012 11: 12
    The tank is a piece of iron. The main thing is the crew. Experience, skill, mutual understanding. Or am I wrong? How many experienced crews are there in Russia?
    1. Pixel
      0
      27 July 2012 14: 45
      which tank is better to argue ad infinitum. As a result, it all depends on the crew, and I think we have experienced crews, and the furniture designer will not always be the Minister of Defense.
      1. Insurgent
        +1
        27 July 2012 15: 11
        This experienced crew may die due to the imperfection of the tank, everything must be balanced by a good tank and an experienced crew
        1. Prohor
          +3
          27 July 2012 15: 36
          The tank has always been a combination of iron and crew.
          Looking at the half-black football teams of the Old World (and ours!) It is not possible to compare the crews.
          And "pieces of iron" - you can.
          The Germans and amers seem to have even organized tank Olympiads ("Leo" almost always won), I think, on the real World of Tanks games, you can cut down good "money" wink , it is strange that he is still not there ....
    2. +4
      27 July 2012 18: 26
      Wrong. The main thing is the combination. The work of the crew and the characteristics of the tank.
      1. 0
        27 July 2012 21: 16
        The Germans reached Moscow on Zh-Lom ... and they fled to Berlin on the Tigers and Panthers, we conclude ... at the beginning of the war the crews consisted of military personnel, and in the second half mobilization was already connected, and I think that in Russia fast courses ... that in Germany they have recently received the necessary qualities.
        1. moral
          0
          29 July 2012 12: 21
          But really, how many experienced tank crews are there in the Russian army?
  8. 0
    27 July 2012 11: 14
    I think, even 5 years and in the top will be Chinese tanks
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 21
      Like Chinese cars?
  9. +12
    27 July 2012 11: 16
    The best tank is the one who remained in service after meeting with the enemy and continues to carry out the task, but the enemy can no longer do this.
    All these ratings of "independent" companies are simple manipulation of numbers in order to present their product in a favorable light. After all, if you think about it - what is the rating for, why is it necessary to determine the first? To sell! And when money is involved, and very large money, can there be an objective analysis, an impartial opinion? The question, as they say, is rhetorical.
    That's the whole deal.
  10. sania1304
    +6
    27 July 2012 11: 35
    We are waiting for the armature, and then we'll see ...
  11. Alx1miK
    +6
    27 July 2012 11: 35
    "Tank T-90A (Russia)" The author was mistaken in such an important word. In fact, ours and German tanks are the best in the world. The rest is slag and metal. At least because they are run by the Russians and the Germans :) And the real "best" can only be tested in combat. It was not without reason that during the Spanish Civil War we helped the republic so much, checked the weapons, which by the way proved to be useful.
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 23
      Of course, they checked their weapons in 1936, but in 1941 they did not use their checks at the proper level.
  12. Nubia2
    -15
    27 July 2012 11: 43
    Quote: Dmitriy69
    T-90 in front

    Quote: Sakhalininets
    The quality of the tank is determined by the demand for it.

    The quality of the tank is not determined by demand.
    Price is related to demand. And no more.
    Whoever can afford a good tank, for a good price he’s eating a leopard, and who isn’t - he’ll modernize what happened (like Turkey). The T-90 is somewhere in the middle between buying a full tank and upgrading the existing fleet.
    But from this he does not become the best.
    1. +1
      27 July 2012 16: 00
      Quote: Nubia2
      The T-90 is somewhere in the middle between buying a full tank and upgrading the existing fleet.

      What do you mean by "full-fledged tank"?
      1. ESCANDER
        +2
        28 July 2012 23: 07
        But it doesn’t mean anything. The analytic crowed ...
        1. moral
          0
          29 July 2012 12: 25
          The T-90 with all the latest bells and whistles is possible and can compete with the latest NATO counterparts, but besides the exhibitions they are still not visible. Happiness is constantly delayed for the future
  13. Splin
    +8
    27 July 2012 11: 47
    Why are you all soaring. In tenders, the military scrupulously looks at which tank is better. The truth is not the decision of the military but of the politicians that wins in them. This "black" rating. just for them, and they will not read your technical explanations.
    1. 755962
      0
      27 July 2012 22: 49
      What is true is true. It is enough to see what the customer has chosen and draw conclusions. BUT .... wink the thickness of this customer’s wallet decides everything .... And in some cases, kickbacks are not of the last force .. But not everything is clear ...
  14. +3
    27 July 2012 12: 27
    If you evaluate 2MV tanks by these criteria and then look at the results of real battles. Here we will understand where to put these ratings
  15. +6
    27 July 2012 12: 50
    T-90 is a very good tank, in the full modification it is almost invulnerable, very good rate of fire and fire mosh + mobility the only real opponent of the T-90 is Leopard ....... about the abrams I generally keep quiet, shit is parquet-radioactive ....
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 26
      Invulnerable against what?
  16. loc.bejenari
    +8
    27 July 2012 13: 09
    always struck in the Ukrainian and Russian army one thing
    driving a car for 20000 greens require a driver with a driving experience of at least 5 years
    eighteen-year-old soldiers are in the crew of a tank standing 2.5 million
    complete idiocy
    isn’t it cheaper to pay a normal salary to a professional who will manage a tank than to save on snot as a result, the tank is controlled by conscripts for a lot of money who will ruin it faster
    1. Splin
      +5
      27 July 2012 13: 27
      Quote: loc.bejenari
      driving a car for 20000 greens require a driver with a driving experience of at least 5 years
      eighteen-year-old soldiers are in the crew of a tank standing 2.5 million

      Rimbaud I "First Blood" is exactly the same reasoning.
      Well, if tomorrow is a war, we will also plant professionals, But what about the second echelon?
      1. +4
        27 July 2012 13: 35
        Quote: Splin
        Well, if tomorrow is a war, we will also plant professionals, But what about the second echelon?

        Is there enough tanks for the second tier?
        And in the war with KEM can it be ponadabits? The USA was not needed in Iraq, and in the conflict, even with limited use of nuclear weapons, the first targets will be tank plants and the metallurgical industry.
        1. Splin
          0
          27 July 2012 13: 47
          Quote: Kars
          And in the war with KEM, can he ponadabitsa? USA

          "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines." And if the fur has a toothache or diarrhea or is injured. And the tanks of the second echelon will be enough. Over there in Libya they were repairing equipment not knocked out on the battlefield, but from the storerooms. And NATO planes bombed everything, and luckily they missed.
          War is different.
          1. +4
            27 July 2012 13: 55
            Quote: Splin
            And if the fur has a toothache or diarrhea or it is wounded

            It’s strange that you should be a military man — do you really think that if there are 100 tanks with a crew of 3 people each, then there will be exactly 300 professional tankers?
            Quote: Splin
            not wrecked on the battlefield, but from the storerooms

            Well, so in a wrecked tank the crew does not always die.
            Quote: Splin
            And NATO planes bombed everything, and fortunately missed them

            NATO had allies on the earth, and sorry for that, our colonel tanker at the NWP told me that the Soviet tank was specially made for conscripted tankers, and he compared them to chimpanzees.

            Quote: Splin
            War is different

            So predict a possible conflict for Ukraine with Romania, for example, you will need a second tier, who is better at showing --- conscript (I talked to many, the impression is dull) or a professional? And you will count on the Third World War.
            1. Splin
              +3
              27 July 2012 14: 36
              Quote: Kars
              So predict a possible conflict for Ukraine with Romania

              With the forecast it is on the site "Alternative History". Romania itself will not enter the territory of Ukraine, they know it very well. Only minor border conflicts are possible. There will be no full-scale war. For money, it is easier for Europe to create an internal conflict in our country, and while in Ukraine, at least one operating reactor, no one will allow a civil slaughter in our country. They are afraid for their skins.
              1. +2
                27 July 2012 15: 24
                Well, the paths of the Romanians are not confessed, and on this site Romania is constantly scaring Ukraine.
                Quote: Splin
                There will be no full-scale war

                So we won’t get to the second echelon, and 300-400 Bulatov with crews of pros for 5-7 years in the tank will be more effective than conscripts.
                Quote: Splin
                at least one working reactor

                Yes, and not working is not a gift.
        2. 0
          27 July 2012 14: 01
          Is there enough tanks for the second tier?

          well, like machines in long-term storage have not yet begun to cut ...
          1. +4
            27 July 2012 14: 04
            Quote: PSih2097
            well, like machines in long-term storage have not yet begun to cut

            Sure?
            And their long-term storage also does not impress me, for a day they will not abandon the battle.
            1. iSpoiler
              -1
              27 July 2012 20: 21
              For a day, no one will attack ..))
              As a rule, they are preparing for war .... it is predictable ... (except for the Second World War, and that was already the 2nd World War, you were all tasteful)
              No one will come in a day from nefig will not attack,
              It will be necessary to re-open, debug, transport and fight ..
        3. Old skeptic
          +2
          27 July 2012 14: 12
          And how many tanks of t-80, t-72, t-64 are on preservation? I won’t lie, but I read somewhere that it’s about 12000. I think that's enough for the second tier.
          1. Insurgent
            +3
            27 July 2012 15: 14
            You know when the dunk has been mothballed for 20 years, it’s all time to change the seals in it, since the rubber is cracking and so on
          2. +1
            28 July 2012 17: 19
            As of 2010, the Russian Armed Forces have 22,800 main tanks, of which ~ 6,500 are in service. information is open hammer in the search.
      2. loc.bejenari
        -2
        27 July 2012 15: 47
        the second echelon is probably about the time when 40-year-old guerrillas called up from the reserve with hanging belts and wusamas rushing over West Germany’s scorched nuclear strike trying to reach the English Channel laughing
        it's to tom clancy's a red storm
        really -100 trained professional crews will always be better than 1000 former peasants planted in a tank and fired 5 shots in exercises
        41 years and the Arab-Israeli wars showed it
        1. Splin
          +4
          27 July 2012 16: 37
          Quote: loc.bejenari
          from stock 40 summer guerrillas with hanging belts

          I do not think that there is a desire to measure cubes with me. Vusov dumb
          but body hair is much more than when I was 20 !.
          1. Prohor
            +4
            27 July 2012 20: 56
            Bravo! good It's too early for us to write off 40-year-olds!
            And as for the hair - the lions are also the older, the hairier!
            1. Splin
              +1
              27 July 2012 22: 20
              Quote: Prokhor
              It's too early for us to write off 40-year-olds!


              I did not reach malek for parameter 40 for a year. I have to deal with it. If I stop swimming, I can’t run and drive, and I stop dragging pigs, I can’t just walk. My wife also wanted me to gain extra weight, but she understands that this is impossible. But on the public beach alone forbids walking. And my younger (for 5 years) brother is already with an abdomen, despite the fact that Major VS. So the partisans are still wow.
        2. Insurgent
          0
          27 July 2012 20: 57
          Well, the Soviet Union didn’t have a choice just at the beginning of the war, these learned crews died because of the inability of whom to make the right decision, so they prepared the former peasants for accelerated preparation, then these peasants gained experience
  17. The Armed Forces
    0
    27 July 2012 13: 46
    If someone writes ratings, it is beneficial for someone. News - T-80 is written off in the Russian Federation.
    1. +2
      27 July 2012 14: 03
      News - T-80 is written off in the Russian Federation.

      If you believe the news, then we are among the top five economies in the world, in fact, somewhere in the middle of the list.
  18. 0
    27 July 2012 14: 01
    Compare, do not compare ... For one abrams, leopard, chelend ... we can take 2 of our 90s. According to the performance characteristics, they are not much different ... And who is the best?
    1. 0
      27 July 2012 18: 18
      Well, in fact there are many significant differences 8)
  19. borisst64
    +1
    27 July 2012 14: 10
    "the latter have some advantages over our tanks due to the use of armor-piercing subcaliber projectiles in the ammunition load"

    Already all the spears have broken, but all about the same. The fight against armored vehicles for the tank is secondary, its task is to destroy strong points and nodes, and tanks is the target for tankers and other anti-tankers.
  20. Albaros
    0
    27 July 2012 15: 24
    I would put both vehicles in the first place at once: our T-90 and Leopard - both tanks are a masterpiece of modern armored vehicles.
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 30
      And what is masterpiece in these samples? Still, I would like to see the T-90 in real work
  21. Harleone
    +2
    27 July 2012 16: 34
    If the T-90 is sold better than others, this does not mean that it is better, politics also plays a role in trade. For example, Syria buys a T-90 and knows that there will be no problems with the supply of components, and if she bought the German Leopards, the Americans would have found a way to put pressure on the Germans. Egypt did not hold a competition for the main battle tank at all - the United States simply gave them money for its Abrams. IMHO
  22. axmed05
    -1
    27 July 2012 16: 35
    The best modern tank is one that can destroy its main enemy. If any tank can shoot down a helicopter or low-flying aircraft, then it is the best.
    1. +1
      27 July 2012 18: 36
      Well, as if on Merkava 4 such an opportunity is declared, with the help of LAHAT.

      On 6.30 in Russian about it
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZlhR7K4ts
      1. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 32
        They made us laugh ... I'm afraid the tank needs to hide very quickly from the helicopter and even more so the plane, if of course it has time
  23. -1
    27 July 2012 17: 27
    These theoretical calculations of the egg aren’t worth it. Only a real tank battle could determine which one is better. But not as sure as in Iraq, when the Amers had overwhelming superiority in helicopters with helicopters. When in the Arab-Israeli wars our tanks always showed their superiority over all enemy tanks, and forced them to improve their own that would be at least equal.
    1. +1
      27 July 2012 17: 40
      Once in the Arab-Israeli wars, our tanks always demonstrated their superiority over all enemy tanks

      Is it possible in more detail about this very superiority?
    2. +1
      27 July 2012 18: 38
      Are you laughing? Many shortcomings were revealed, for example, the problem of prolonged combat operations in the tanks of the Soviet school.
    3. +5
      27 July 2012 19: 59
      By the way, the T-55 and T-62 showed themselves well in the Arab-Israeli, and this is with the air superiority of Israel and the poor training of the Arabs. Yes and then in the form of trophies on the side of Israel.
      1. 0
        28 July 2012 09: 21
        In the IRR, Israel did not always have air superiority. It was precisely large-scale tank battles of the Prokhorovka type. And learning from the Arabs was not so bad. As for the captured tanks, they took little part in the battles. In the early 80s they were removed from service.
        1. 0
          28 July 2012 13: 18
          Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
          Israel did not always have air superiority

          Really? And what were the loss ratios then?
          Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
          And learning from the Arabs wasn’t so bad

          Is it not in favor of Israel's correlation and comes up with something to come up with?
          Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
          they took little part in the battles
          And what kind of war did Israel wage then? And how little is that?
          Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
          In the early 80s they were removed from service

          Here I watch Tiran 6
          War of Attrition (1967-1970)
          Doomsday War (1973)
          Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982)
          fighting in southern Lebanon (1982 - May 2000)
          And as always I do not see the date with weapons? Share the link?

          And I will give such a quote - the fact that you will give other figures I have no doubt ----- but I'm sorry there is no special faith in calculating the losses from Israel.
          A total of about 32 thousand tanks took part in five Arab-Israeli wars on both sides, 4200 of them were knocked out or completely disabled. So, in the war of 1967 (according to Western data), Arabs lost 1100 tanks, Israel - 900 (loss ratio 1: 1,2); in the 1973 war - Arabs lost 2400 vehicles, Israel - 2500 (approximately 1: 1), in the 1982 war, 250 to 450 (1: 1,8 ratio). * Amid the total loss of the struggle for air supremacy (especially in the war 1967) these figures are impressive. It should also be borne in mind that a significant part of the Arab tanks was destroyed by aviation, so the ratio of net losses of tanks to tanks will clearly be in favor of the Arabs, which completely debunk the myth of the technical superiority of Western combat vehicles. The worse trained tankers of Syria, Egypt, Iraq on the T-54, T-62 and T-72 were able to win the confrontation with the “Centurions”, “Super Sherman”, M60 and “Merkava”.
          1. 0
            28 July 2012 14: 12
            Here is the tyrant link:

            http://waronline.org/IDF/Articles/armament/army/afv/idf-afv-review/tanks/#chapte
            r-4

            Tiran-6 could not participate in the War of Depletion and in the VVD in any way, since Israel captured the first T-62 during the VVD.


            Regarding the calculation of our losses, the Latrun Museum of Tank Forces has a memorial plaque with the names of all the tankers who died in all wars since the founding of Israel. Where can thousands of unknown soldiers come from? Where do the relatives of the dead look?
            1. +1
              28 July 2012 14: 34
              Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
              http://waronline.org/IDF/Articles/armament/army/afv/idf-afv-review/tanks/#chapte



              r-4

              Yes, I read, so apart from the War of Exhaustion you do not deny anything?
              Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
              The Latrun Museum of Tank Forces has a memorial plaque with the names of all tankers who died in all wars since the founding of Israel.

              To begin with, the crew does not have to die, and believe your signs.

              Julrnal Janes for 1986 cited Israel’s losses in tanks as 2600, you brought 400. And that’s all. The experience of fascist Germany applied the experience to count only those tanks that could not be restored in factories.
              1. 0
                28 July 2012 18: 31
                Sorry, but it’s very hard for me to understand you. I noticed the desire to hurt, but I can’t catch the thought.
                The crew is not obliged to perish, but as luck would have it perish if the armor is broken. 400 and 2600 tanks in which war?
                Let us at least take a look at Wikipedia, look about the War on Depletion and the IRR, the general course of hostilities, forces and loss of sides. Then with pleasure I will listen to your arguments.
                1. +2
                  28 July 2012 18: 51
                  Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                  The crew is not obliged to die, but as luck would have it, if the armor is broken

                  Your same source
                  http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/2nd-lebanon-war/acv-losses/#chapte

                  r-3
                  • In total, about 60 BTT units received combat damage, including 48-52 tanks
                  30-32 dead instead of 240
                  Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                  400 and 2600 tanks in which war?

                  1973
                  Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                  Let us at least take a look at Wikipedia, look about the War on Depletion and the IRR, the general course of hostilities, forces and loss of sides. Then with pleasure I will listen to your arguments.

                  About what?
                  О
                  Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                  As for the captured tanks, they took little part in the battles. In the early 80s they were removed from service.

                  ?
                  Your source
                  The last message related to "Tyrant" appeared at the end of 2005 ("Hadashot Bamahane", 30.12.2005). The article says that the IDF is changing the Tiran tanks in the Southern Military District to MAGAH, and the old Tiran will be converted into heavy armored personnel carriers.
                  Estimates of the number of these tanks in the IDF by the IISS manual varies greatly in different years - 250-488 for the T-54/55, 70-150 for the T-62. Since 1999, it is estimated at 200 T-54/55 (in storage) and 100 T-62. As for the JCSS, for the modernized T-55s he gave the number 250 in 1983-1986, then they began to be decommissioned, which ended in 1993. The number of T-62s was estimated at 150 in 1983-1991, 140 1992- 94 years, 70 in 1994-95, 50 from 1996 to the present.




                  So at least look at your own.
                  1. -1
                    28 July 2012 23: 01
                    In total, about 60 BTT units received combat damage, including 48-52 tanks
                    30-32 dead instead of 240


                    That is 1 dead crew member for every two damaged tanks. If as many as 2500 tanks were lost in the VVD, where were thousands of unaccounted corpses buried?

                    About what?

                    At least you will discover that the IDF had about 2000 tanks at the beginning of the VVD. Well, about the imaginary superiority in the air.
                    Your source

                    I admit my mistake. Although judging by the article, most went to re-export much earlier.
                    In 2006, even the Magi moved to the reserve.
                    1. +2
                      28 July 2012 23: 51
                      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                      If as many as 2500 tanks were lost in the VVD, where were thousands of unaccounted corpses buried?

                      And what is nowhere?
                      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                      that the IDF had about 2000 tanks at the beginning of the VVD.

                      Really? And the M60 delivered by aircraft were considered? And the AOI had the repairmen?
                      It should be noted that the losses of Israel in the war are indicated in 2400 tanks, while the total number of tanks in the defense army before the war was about 1700 vehicles. The American Defense National magazine determined in hot pursuit in the issue of May-June 1974 Israeli losses in tanks of 420 units. In the book “Modern Tanks” by B.S.Safonov and V.I. Murakhovsky, it is written that “losses amounted to at least half of the available tanks,” that is, about 850 vehicles. Such a significant discrepancy in the Israeli losses can be explained by that. that the battlefield remained with the Israeli troops, and their repair units were able to restore the damaged vehicles, both their own and the Arab ones, since there was already experience in using the T-55 and PT-76 tanks in the Israeli army. According to the recollections of Soviet military advisers in Syria, often the Arab tanks were repaired, as they say, “on the knee”, and immediately entered the battle on the side of Israel. Thus, the difference in the numbers of Israeli casualties cited in various sources can be explained by different calculation methods - all damaged tanks or only irretrievable losses, only Israeli armored vehicles themselves, or taking into account trophies

                      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                      I admit my mistake

                      I’m glad that it was a pity that we had to resort to hyperbolization.
                      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                      In 2006, even the Magi moved to the reserve.

                      And what kind of war were after 1982? Cast lead? Where the enemy had no tanks?
                      1. -1
                        29 July 2012 12: 10
                        And what is nowhere?


                        This is a joke, hope?

                        According to the recollections of Soviet military advisers in Syria, often Arab tanks were repaired, as they say, “on the knee”, and immediately entered the battle on the side of Israel.


                        Oh, these nameless Soviet military sovietnegy! They know everything, everywhere they were. And about the battle of Abramsov with T-72 in 82 in Lebanon, and about hundreds of Merkav destroyed by the same T-72. The only problem is that enti sovietnegi exist mainly in the inflamed imagination of comrade Nikolsky.
                        In fact, Comrade Nikolsky is pouring water on the enemy's mill here. Well this is what a fantastic security the "Magakhs" and "Shots" should have had so that their crews, safe and sound, could transfer from their wrecked tanks to teshki.
                      2. 0
                        29 July 2012 12: 20
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        This is a joke, hope?

                        Naturally, no. Little can be done. From burying in the desert to changing the specialization from a tanker to a driver or infantryman.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Oh, these nameless Soviet military councils

                        And is Jaines also a Soviet Soviet?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        at "Magakhs" and "Shots",

                        Well, from each hit, the entire crew is not obliged to die, you kind of bloodthirsty. In the second world war, with the T-34 and T-4 horseless tankers were more than enough in a couple of hours, and the commanders were transplanted 3-4 times, the case was described day the commander of the tank regiment changed 6 tanks.
                        But your claimed 400 do not climb into any gates, and by impudence coincide, I already spoke with the methods of the Germans.
                      3. 0
                        29 July 2012 13: 32
                        Naturally, no. Little can be done. From burying in the desert to changing the specialization from a tanker to a driver or infantryman.


                        Yeah, and relatives were also shot to hide everything. I propose to provide materials to our left-wing media, it will be a sensation!

                        And is Jaines also a Soviet Soviet?

                        What does Jaynes say?

                        Well, from each hit, the entire crew is not obliged to die, you kind of bloodthirsty. In the second world war, with the T-34 and T-4 horseless tankers were more than enough in a couple of hours, and the commanders were transplanted 3-4 times, the case was described day the commander of the tank regiment changed 6 tanks.

                        Probably all the same, Soviet horseless tankers were transferred to Soviet tanks, in which there were dead crew members, and not to the "repaired on the knee" T-3 and T-4. Well, nonsense! By the way, the Israelis mostly killed tank commanders, because, according to Israeli tactics, they fought with an open hatch.

                        But your claimed 400 do not climb into any gates, and by impudence coincide, I already spoke with the methods of the Germans.

                        810 tanks and armored vehicles according to Israeli sources.
                        http://jig.ru/history/053.html
                      4. +1
                        29 July 2012 13: 55
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Yeah, and relatives were also shot to hide everything.

                        You know better what had to be done.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        What does Jaynes say?


                        The data given here is taken from the reputable magazine “International Defense Review” JVs 7 for 1986. It should be noted that the losses of Israel in the war are indicated in 2400 tanks,
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        which were the perished crew members, and not the "repaired on the knee" T-3 and T-4. Well, nonsense!

                        And you take an interest ---- and I’ll say so they were transplanted to repaired ones, to those that had passed to replenishment, to trophy ones if there was an opportunity to change too. A case was described in 1944 when tanks changed hands several times.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        not on "knee-refurbished"

                        So you deny the possibility of AOI repair parts to carry out field repairs of Soviet equipment wrecked or abandoned by the Arabs? Do you also deny that Israeli tankers could cope with the control of the T-55 / T-62?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        http://jig.ru/history/053.html

                        810 tanks and armored vehicles (however, mostly damaged military equipment appeared on its territory, which allowed most of it to be repaired and put into operation), 2569 people were killed, 7500 wounded and 530 captured

                        Strangely, following your theory, 3240 tankers were supposed to die, and you have a total of 2569 not docking.
                        And so, if you roughly take from 810-600 tanks, then by the ratio the destroyed ones were destroyed (they didn’t include the trophies 100%, but they were definitely) 4 to 1 3 to 1 get the desired 1800-2400
                      5. +1
                        29 July 2012 14: 25
                        What kind of wise guy set such a minus? But is it scary to say in words?
                      6. -1
                        29 July 2012 14: 53
                        Strangely, following your theory, 3240 tankers were supposed to die, and you have a total of 2569 not docking.
                        And so, if you roughly take from 810-600 tanks, then by the ratio the destroyed ones were destroyed (they didn’t include the trophies 100%, but they were definitely) 4 to 1 3 to 1 get the desired 1800-2400


                        According to my theory (it’s also the statistics of the second Lebanon war) - one dead tanker for two wrecked tanks. That is, 405 tankers for 810 tanks or 1250 tankers for 2500 tanks.
                      7. +2
                        29 July 2012 15: 04
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        According to my theory

                        YOUR? Isn't that your theory?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        The crew is not obliged to die, but as luck would have it, if the armor is broken

                        This is yours, and I gave the statistics of the second Lebanese, and not as a standard, but as an example. But it’s necessary to consider a war with an anti-terror operation when there is complete mercenaries in the battle and the enemy has no tanks or artillery.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        That is, 405 tankers for 810 tanks or 1250 tankers for 2500 tanks.

                        By the way, I wasn’t in Latrun --- how much do you say there are dead tankers? And in general, how are they counted there, how do tank crews differ from line and reserve?

                        And I also waited more for answers to these questions:
                        Quote: Kars
                        So you deny the possibility of AOI repair parts to carry out field repairs of Soviet equipment wrecked or abandoned by the Arabs? Do you also deny that Israeli tankers could cope with the control of the T-55 / T-62?
                      8. -1
                        29 July 2012 16: 55
                        "The crew is dying" - did not mean the entire crew. In addition to the second Lebanese, I have no other data. By the way, according to these data, there is one dead person for every armor penetration, even in a super protected gauze.
                        By the way, I wasn’t in Latrun --- how much do you say there are dead tankers? And in general, how are they counted there, how do tank crews differ from line and reserve?


                        I don’t know how many names in Latrun at the memorial. They do not differ in any way - neither by rank nor by reserve / regular.

                        And I also waited more for answers to these questions:
                        Quote: Kars
                        So you deny the possibility of AOI repair parts to carry out field repairs of Soviet equipment wrecked or abandoned by the Arabs? Do you also deny that Israeli tankers could cope with the control of the T-55 / T-62?


                        And why do field repairs of Soviet equipment, if you can successfully repair your own? What was done:

                        http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/tankMvsT.htm

                        Technical support departments (KHATAP - "Julia Technit Plugatit") in companies, a technical support platoon (KHATAG - "Julia Technit Gdudit") in battalions and, finally, forward repair companies (PALKAD - "Plugat Sadna Kidmit"), worked extremely selflessly and were literally on the battlefield together with their units. (During the war, 820 IDF tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost irretrievably; according to another source, 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 407 were lost - 365 on the southern front and 42 on the northern, and among the lost 243 tanks remained in enemy-controlled territory; and of the 820 evacuees, only 164 were recognized as non-repairable. - O.G.)

                        The return to service of wrecked vehicles significantly reduced overall losses. There are cases when during the war the same machine was repaired and returned to battle several times. At this time, the crews of vehicles were waiting for the completion of the repair work nearby.
                      9. +2
                        29 July 2012 17: 23
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        "The crew is dying" - did not mean the entire crew

                        It’s strange, but the tanker's floor also doesn’t read.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        I don’t know how many names in Latrun at the memorial. They do not differ in any way - neither by rank nor by reserve / regular.

                        Then what do you use it in the discussion?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        in the Latrun Museum of Tank Forces there is a memorial plaque with the names of all tankers who died in all wars since the founding of Israel

                        How many do not know how different you do not know, then WHY?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And why do field repairs of Soviet equipment, if you can very successfully repair your

                        Is it possible that someone could have been hindered by an extra tank? So this is not an argument --- there are trophy equipment in the troops --- there are, so there is a place to use trophies as well.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        During the war, 820 IDF tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost forever; 1,063 tanks were damaged by another source,

                        You yourself can’t count, even though you say that all people are counted to one.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        There are cases when during the war the same machine was repaired and returned to battle several times

                        So, you can count 2400 wrecked tanks. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Especially
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Let’s even take a look at Wikipedia, look about the War on Depletion and the IRR, the general course of hostilities, forces and loss of sides

                        And now, is it really interesting to ourselves?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        By the way, according to these data, there is one dead for every penetration of the armor, even in a super protected merkava.
                        This only proves that tankers are killed in the merkava.
                        And also that you do not carefully read the sources
                        • In 24 cases (47% of the number of hits), the cumulative stream penetrated the armor of the tanks, apparently in 3 cases out of these 24 in the tanks the ammunition detonated.

                        So your ratio is not correct.
                        And here is another ratio
                        • 45 tanks were hit by ATGMs and RPG grenades.
                        5 tanks lost forever

                        Roughly speaking, 1 to 9 now take your number
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        407 lost
                        and calculate we get roughly
                        3600 tanks, let’s remove a bit of the fact that the Merkava is more perfect than the Tsinturions and losses in 2400-2600 are quite real.
                      10. -1
                        29 July 2012 19: 00
                        So you can count 2400 wrecked tanks.


                        Wait, what are we comparing to? There are irretrievably lost, there are damaged for more than 24 hours and put back into operation, there are more minor damage, there are technical malfunctions. For example, Israel has 400/1000 (or 400/2400). What are the numbers of Arabs in each category in general?
                      11. +1
                        29 July 2012 19: 09
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        For example, Israel has 400/1000 (or 400/2400).

                        Quote: Kars
                        So, in the war of 1967 (according to Western data), Arabs lost 1100 tanks, Israel - 900 (loss ratio 1: 1,2); in the war of 1973 - Arabs lost 2400 vehicles, Israel - 2500 (approximately 1: 1), in the 1982 war, 250 to 450 (ratio 1: 1,8). *



                        And by the way from earlier ---- since the Israeli school bus is an ordinary one, or able to withstand shelling from AK?
                      12. -1
                        29 July 2012 19: 21
                        Arabs lost 2400 cars, Israel - 2500


                        Irrevocably or including refurbished?
                        Here by the way about Nikolsky:
                        Slavic legends about the Jewish wars
                        http://www.waronline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=208057&sid=505cf06dcf0c74b95616f3
                        f7ad85ae8f

                        And by the way from earlier ---- since the Israeli school bus is an ordinary one, or able to withstand shelling from AK?


                        Ordinary:
                        http://newsru.co.il/mideast/08apr2011/bus_101.html
                      13. +1
                        30 July 2012 00: 53
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Irrevocably or including refurbished?

                        Here is an example ----- an Israeli tank regiment went on the attack --- lost 25 tanks, the Arabs withdrew 10 tanks and how many were lost. Today, a week and a year after the war.

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Arabs lost 2400 cars, Israel - 2500


                        Padded.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Here by the way about Nikolsky

                        And what about Nikolsky?
                        Quote: Kars
                        International Defense Review JVs 7 1986

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Ordinary:

                        Strange
                      14. -1
                        30 July 2012 10: 09
                        Padded.



                        Israel has 2500 wrecked tanks and 2500 dead and 7500 wounded.
                        Arabs have 2400 wrecked tanks and 18,500 dead and 51,000 wounded.
                        How can this be?

                        And what about Nikolsky?
                        Quote: Kars
                        International Defense Review JVs 7 1986

                        Can you give the original or at least an English-language link?
                        Or at least another source, besides the same Nikolsky.

                        By the way, the same Jaynes could get this information only from Israeli sources. What images then these figures remained unknown in Israel is completely incomprehensible.
                      15. +1
                        30 July 2012 15: 21
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Israel has 2500 wrecked tanks and 2500 dead and 7500 wounded.
                        Arabs have 2400 wrecked tanks and 18,500 dead and 51,000 wounded.
                        How can this be?


                        ????????????? Why did you get the idea that these are all tankers? Can’t you tell how you reached this conclusion?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Can you give the original or at least an English-language link?

                        And why should I? You do not suit you and deny that the number of shots could have been and I experimentally made you admit that I personally have enough of this.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        By the way, the same Jaynes could get this information only from Israeli sources. What images then these figures remained unknown in Israel is completely incomprehensible

                        Well, considering that you yourself can’t say the number of losses, this does not surprise me.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        During the war, 820 IDF tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost forever; differently 1,063 tanks were damaged, 407 of them were lost - 365 on the southern front


                        And yet, why didn’t you answer a fairly simple question?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Here is an example ----- an Israeli tank regiment went on the attack --- lost 25 tanks, the Arabs withdrew 10 tanks and how many losses they have. Today, a week and a year after the war
                      16. 0
                        1 August 2012 22: 56
                        ????????????? Why did you get the idea that these are all tankers? Can’t you tell how you reached this conclusion?

                        I did not claim that these are all tankers. It just turns out that if we take into account one deceased crew member for every two wrecked tanks, then Israel has half the dead - tankers, and the Arabs only a tenth. It is illogical.
                        And why should I? You do not suit you and deny that the number of shots could have been and I experimentally made you admit that I personally have enough of this.


                        In fact, the burden of proof lies with the applicant. I have more faith in the sources listed in the Russian and English wikis than in Nikolsky. Once again, since information on the total number of tanks wrecked can only come from Israeli sources, it is completely unrealistic that it should not be made public in Israel itself.

                        Well, considering that you yourself can’t say the number of losses, this does not surprise me.

                        And what surprises you so much, is it really not clear that in the first case only tanks were considered, which took more than 24 hours to recover?

                        And yet, why didn’t you answer a fairly simple question?
                        Here is an example ----- an Israeli tank regiment went on the attack --- lost 25 tanks, the Arabs withdrew 10 tanks and how many losses they have. Today, a week and a year after the war


                        It depends on what it means "lost". It's one thing a tank burned to the ground, another - a caterpillar flew off. How were such things taken into account in the Second World War, for example?
                      17. 0
                        1 August 2012 23: 17
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        It just turns out if you take into account the calculation of one dead crew member for every two wrecked tanks,

                        Well, in general, the distribution of casualties by category usually depends on the course of hostilities, and is not permanent. Israel won the war --- because its losses are less. As an example, your tankers from damaged tanks had more chances for salvation because of the more favorable situation.

                        Therefore, the losses you cited do not play any role ---- unless you bring them by type of service --- but as we found out you cannot do this.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        I believe more

                        Faith is holy. But then I congratulate Israel on the terrible tanks
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        820 AOI tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost forever; according to another source, 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 407 were lost - 365 on the southern front

                        820 ----- 400 every second irretrievable loss ---- are you not alarmed by such a coefficient? Even the T-34 was better, and I personally always respected the A41.da and M48 (even though the Israeli alteration ruined it?)
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        It depends on what it means "lost". It's one thing a tank burned to the ground, another - a caterpillar flew off. How were such things taken into account in the Second World War, for example?

                        Okay, I’ll answer for you --- in the daily report there will be 18-20 tanks of losses (of course I will describe Israel, the Arabs lost all 10, but 25 enemy tanks were destroyed (or 35 who do not ascribe) in 10 weeks, and when in a year there will be results will be 3 tanks which all the same had to be sent for remelting.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And what surprises you so much, is it really not clear that in the first case only tanks were considered, which took more than 24 hours to recover?


                        It is completely not clear --- there are TWO sources and they do not coincide, and the accounting parameters, as I think, do not result in the source.
                      18. 0
                        2 August 2012 11: 17
                        As an example, --- your tankers from damaged tanks had more chances for salvation due to a more favorable situation.

                        At first the Arabs attacked, therefore the situation was more favorable for their tankmen. The battlefield remained behind them, which means that the Arabs could enter damaged tanks in the same way.


                        Therefore, the losses you cited do not play any role ---- unless you bring them by type of service --- but as we found out you cannot do this.


                        Next time when I will be in Latrun, I will surely count. However, there must be some pattern. In what conventional war did it happen that as much as half of all losses fell on tankers?

                        820 ----- 400 every second irretrievable loss ---- are you not alarmed by such a coefficient? Even the T-34 was better, and I personally always respected the A41.da and M48 (even though the Israeli alteration ruined it?)



                        820 is not all damaged, but damaged for a period of more than 24 hours. What could depend not only on the degree of damage, but also on the capabilities of repair crews and the availability of spare parts. Again, you need to dig what the alignment of the Arabs in these categories. Are, for example, those tanks that went to Israel as trophies?

                        Okay, I’ll answer for you --- in the daily report there will be 18-20 tanks of losses (of course I will describe Israel, the Arabs lost all 10, but 25 enemy tanks were destroyed (or 35 who do not ascribe) in 10 weeks, and when in a year there will be results will be 3 tanks which all the same had to be sent for remelting.



                        Then where did the 820 come from? Only 400 irrevocable would remain.

                        It is completely not clear --- there are TWO sources and they do not coincide, and the accounting parameters, as I think, do not result in the source.


                        And you do not know how such things are taken into account? The same Krivosheev did not receive all the data on a plate with a blue border, but sat and studied documents in the archives. So here, people sat sorting through documents and counting. When counting the dead, there may be some discrepancies (who took into account those who died from wounds, those who died in captivity, and disappeared). So from tanks - according to the degree of damage, combat damage or breakdown, etc. But at times the numbers can not diverge.

                        Most importantly, you still cannot answer - to whom and why do you need to hide the real numbers of the wrecked tanks? This is a piece of iron, pah on them, the main thing is that less people died.

                        To get our conversation off the ground, let's return to the original topic - about the alleged superiority of Soviet technology over Western technology. Firstly, there is the article "Tanks M against tanks T", the link to which I gave above, and where everything is laid out on the shelves. Secondly, it is necessary to compare the losses in tanks not for the entire war, but in major battles, where tanks fought against tanks. For example "Valley of Tears".
                      19. 0
                        2 August 2012 13: 10
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        it means that the Arabs could enter damaged tanks in the same way.

                        But what am I arguing with this? Only I have too little data on the rem brigades of the Arabs. Do not share?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        In what conventional war did it happen that as much as half of all losses fell on tankers?

                        For starters, you can’t prove how many losses among tankers.
                        Secondly - in 1973 the tanks were on the cutting edge.
                        Thirdly, there is no regularity as such, and it is impossible to directly equate, for example, with the Great Patriotic War in terms of losses --- since many parameters have changed --- for example, medicine --- and many of the wounded did not go into the category of killed.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        820 is not all damaged, but damaged for a period of more than 24 hours

                        So it's even worse.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Again, you need to dig what the alignment of the Arabs in these categories. Are, for example, those tanks that went to Israel as trophies?

                        Naturally, how could they give the Jews Jews if the Arabs did not lose them?
                        And since the battlefield remained with Israel, it is easier with their losses --- they couldn’t return the burned tanks from the factory a year later.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Then where did the 820 come from? Only 400 irrevocable would remain.

                        Well, they can’t lie so brazenly ----- and 400 is left.

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And you do not know how such things are taken into account? The same Krivosheev did not receive all the data on a plate with a blue border, but sat and studied documents in the archives.

                        Well, you also compared the Great Patriotic War lasting more than one year on the fronts with a length of thousands of kilometers and your sandbox which the Belgorod-Kharkov operation blocks.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        to whom and why do you need to hide the real numbers of wrecked tanks?

                        This is necessary for everyone and always, starting from political ending with propaganda goals.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        "Tanks M against tanks T", the link to which I gave above, and where everything is laid out on the shelves

                        Bullshit if it is honest.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Secondly, you need to compare tank losses not for the whole war

                        And with what joy is this? Let's compare what kind of a battle the Arabs won and we will draw conclusions on it. Are you satisfied?
                      20. 0
                        2 August 2012 14: 34
                        But what am I arguing with this? Only I have too little data on the rem brigades of the Arabs. Do not share?

                        I will not share. Too lazy to dig the Internet on this topic, to be honest, since it is unlikely to find something reliable. What do soviet snegnegs say? But without these data, we compare sour with soft.
                        For starters, you can’t prove how many losses among tankers.
                        Secondly - in 1973 the tanks were on the cutting edge.
                        Thirdly, there is no regularity as such, and it is impossible to directly equate, for example, with the Great Patriotic War in terms of losses --- since many parameters have changed --- for example, medicine --- and many of the wounded did not go into the category of killed.


                        So the tanks were on the cutting edge on both sides. For the wounded, there is also a big difference between Israel and the Arabs.

                        And since the battlefield remained with Israel, it is easier with their losses --- they couldn’t return the burned tanks from the factory a year later.


                        Until now, in the Golan, "Shots" are rusting, even not very burned. For some reason, no one took them to the plant.

                        Well, you also compared the Great Patriotic War lasting more than one year on the fronts with a length of thousands of kilometers and your sandbox which the Belgorod-Kharkov operation blocks.

                        And on the Chechen wars there is unequivocal data, but on the five-day war? As far as I know, the figures are different for everyone.

                        Well, they can’t lie so brazenly ----- and 400 is left.


                        "They" who is this? Who are these mysterious personalities?

                        This is necessary for everyone and always, starting from political ending with propaganda goals.


                        In Israel, as it were, a sickly political crisis was based on the results of the VVD, first the top officers were fired, then the government of Golda Meir left. How so that no facts about tank losses exceeding the entire IDF tank fleet surfaced in this wave of revelations? It’s impossible for no one to talk. On the other hand, the topic of the quick return to service of wrecked armored vehicles, on the contrary, is often found in literature, that is, no one dismisses this phenomenon.

                        Bullshit if it is honest.


                        And more specifically?


                        And with what joy is this? Let's compare what kind of a battle the Arabs won and we will draw conclusions on it. Are you satisfied?

                        Because initially we were going to compare how the Soviet tanks showed themselves in battle with the Western, and not the overall combat effectiveness of the IDF and the Arab armies.
                      21. 0
                        2 August 2012 19: 46
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Until now, in the Golan, "Shots" are rusting, even not very burned. For some reason, no one took them to the plant

                        And how do they get on Israel’s BTT lists?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        So the tanks were on the cutting edge on both sides. For the wounded, there is also a big difference between Israel and the Arabs

                        What should I teach you about the basic concepts of war? such as phases? Take an interest in the development phase of success. Maybe something will say.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And on the Chechen wars there is unequivocal data, but on the five-day war? As far as I know, the figures are different for everyone.

                        Well, again, you compared some kind of ..russian ... and you are super Jews - who promises to count their losses up to one, and even can't imagine that somewhere there are a couple of thousand unaccounted corpses of tankmen.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        How so that no facts about tank losses exceeding the entire IDF tank fleet surfaced in this wave of revelations? It’s impossible for no one to talk. On the other hand, the topic of the quick return to service of wrecked armored vehicles, on the contrary, is often found in literature, that is, no one dismisses this phenomenon.

                        And this surfacing was beneficial to anyone? For example, the American allies have a true opinion about the M48 M60? And how does the topic of slow return come in?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And more specifically?

                        Take your trouble to write this article here, and I will definitely check it out. Think that you are the first so smart and pointed me to it.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Because initially we were going to compare how Soviet tanks showed themselves in battle with Western ones, and not the overall combat effectiveness of the IDF and Arab armies

                        What joy is it again?
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, the T-55 and T-62 showed themselves well in the Arab-Israeli, and this is with the air superiority of Israel and the poor training of the Arabs. Yes and then in the form of trophies on the side of Israel.

                        And then I had to teach you elementary things - starting from the presence and decommissioning of captured equipment in the AOI and the fact that tankers have no rule to die completely from every drink and break.
                        The 252nd ugdat took up positions on the southern flank with the task of stopping the advance of the 3rd army. The fierce tank battle on the northern flank, in the Kantara region, lasted all day on October 8; by the evening in the 162nd guess only 120 tanks had survived, the 600th tank brigade, which was part of this guess, lost 60% of the tanks it had in the morning. In one of the attacks on the Egyptian defense, the brigade lost 18 tanks in 24 minutes


                        AND??
                      22. 0
                        3 August 2012 18: 34
                        And how do they get on Israel’s BTT lists?

                        Well, definitely not as "restored at the factory and put into operation."

                        Well, again, you compared some kind of ..russian ... and you are super Jews - who promises to count their losses up to one, and even can't imagine that somewhere there are a couple of thousand unaccounted corpses of tankmen.

                        Are you Russophobe?
                        What should I teach you about the basic concepts of war? such as phases? Take an interest in the development phase of success. Maybe something will say.

                        You should not teach me at all. Do you want to say something on the subject - say no, so do not bend your fingers.
                        And this surfacing was beneficial to anyone? For example, the American allies have a true opinion about the M48 M60? And how does the topic of slow return come in?


                        In the same article there is infa about the fire hazard of American tanks due to the hydraulics of turning the turret. No one hid, as we see. Then, you are claiming with a blue eye that such high losses of AOI in tanks, including due to commissioned Soviet-made captured tanks. So where exactly are the Americans?
                        What joy is it again?

                        And how will it help us to compare tanks destroyed by the Air Force or ATGM calculations?

                        And then I had to teach you elementary things - starting from the presence and decommissioning of captured equipment in the AOI and the fact that tankers have no rule to die completely from every drink and break.

                        You did not teach me anything - there is no reliable information about captured equipment, but I knew without you the ratio of tanker losses to damaged tanks.

                        The 252nd ugdat took up positions on the southern flank with the task of stopping the advance of the 3rd army. The fierce tank battle on the northern flank, in the Kantara region, lasted all day on October 8; by the evening in the 162nd guess only 120 tanks had survived, the 600th tank brigade, which was part of this guess, lost 60% of the tanks it had in the morning. In one of the attacks on the Egyptian defense, the brigade lost 18 tanks in 24 minutes

                        AND??


                        Nikolsky again? There is no such word "ugdat" in Hebrew.
                      23. 0
                        4 August 2012 11: 55
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Well, definitely not as "restored at the factory and put into operation."

                        And how? How decommissioned in 1980?
                        Decommissioned due to wear and tear?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Are you Russophobe?

                        No, I'm a racist.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        You should not teach me at all.

                        That is precisely it should not, so be thankful that I do not require money.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Want to say something on the topic - say

                        So all the same, you are not familiar with the basic concepts of an analytic strategy --- sorry, you can read L. Garth. Galaktionov. In the doctrine of operations and phase diagrams of 1973, even as an example is given. (In the appendix to Manstein I lost the victory of VIB 2002
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        In the same article there is infa about the fire hazard of American tanks due to the hydraulics of turning the turret. No one hid, as we see

                        Really? Actually, we see one of the reasons for the irretrievable or very long losses. Once again I repeat ---- you write that there were no losses at all, no one would have believed you,
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        So where exactly are the Americans?

                        Can you say that mentioning the high losses of American-made tanks would be beneficial to them?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Then, you are claiming with a blue eye that such high losses of AOI in tanks, including due to commissioned Soviet-made captured tanks

                        And I’ll continue to say. And I’ll even say that I know that the T-55 can be knocked out.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And how will it help us to compare tanks destroyed by the Air Force or ATGM calculations?

                        And you can accurately divide them? Categories of losses?
                        And naturally, this must be taken into account.
                        Quote: Kars
                        It should also be borne in mind that a significant part of the Arab tanks was destroyed by aviation, so the ratio of net losses of tanks to tanks will be clearly in favor of the Arabs, which completely debunk the myth of the technical superiority of Western combat vehicles

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        there is no reliable information about captured equipment

                        Come on, you wrote it off a couple of decades earlier, and refused to participate in hostilities on the side of Israel.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        but about the ratio of tanker losses to wrecked tanks, I knew without you

                        They did not know, and even by the cast lead they could not count them correctly.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        There is no such word "ugdat" in Hebrew.

                        You know better, and it means that apart from this, there are no pritenzies, just as your tank battle is not there either?
                      24. 0
                        5 August 2012 09: 56
                        Here is Nikolsky's whole paragraph, because of which we argue:

                        A total of about 32 thousand tanks took part in five Arab-Israeli wars on both sides, 4200 of them were knocked out or completely disabled. So, in the war of 1967 (according to Western sources) Arabs lost 1100 tanks, Israel - 900 (loss ratio 1: 1,2); in the 1973 war - Arabs lost 2400 cars, Israel - 2500 (approximately 1: 1), in the 1982 war 250 к 450 (ratio 1: 1,8). * Against the background of the total loss of the struggle for air supremacy (especially in the 1967 war), these figures are impressive. It should also be borne in mind that a significant part of the Arab tanks was destroyed by aviation, so the ratio of net losses of tanks to tanks will clearly be in favor of the Arabs, which completely debunk the myth of the technical superiority of Western combat vehicles. The worse trained tankers of Syria, Egypt, Iraq on the T-54, T-62 and T-72 were able to win the confrontation with the “Centurions”, “Super Sherman”, M60 and “Merkava”.

                        Now add up the numbers: 1100 + 900 + 2400 + 2500 + 250 + 450 = 7600. 7600 does not equal 4200. That is, the author himself does not understand what he writes. I have no other explanation.
                        By the way, regarding the large number of Arab tanks allegedly destroyed by our aircraft, we read in the same article:
                        It is significant that all the first days the “invincible” Israeli aviation was not able to have any significant impact on the course of the battle: the Arab air defense worked flawlessly.

                        About the following days, again, there is no mention of any significant successes of Israeli aviation in the fight against Arab tanks.
                        Again, the author contradicts himself.
                        But this I did not understand at all. Can you explain the author’s methodology to me:
                        You can qualitatively assess the losses of the parties by comparing the above data (albeit incomplete and controversial, but still better than none) about losses with data on the number of tanks of the armies of the Middle East countries published by the American Institute for Public Political Research, see table. Data on the number of tanks are given as of June 30, 1968 and June 30, 1973 It is worth noting that the information on the number of armored units in various sources is very different.
                      25. 0
                        5 August 2012 11: 16
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        eight).*

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        (according to western data)

                        we read footnotes and pay attention to the phrase zapadnwe sources --- Nikolsky still forgives you. And 4200 is his figure, and the result of your matrimatic work is from the west.
                        * The issue of losses is the most painful and most controversial. The data given here is taken from the reputable journal “International Dchfens Review” JVs 7 for 1986. It should be noted that the losses of Israel in the war are indicated in 2400 tanks, while the total number of tanks in the defense army before the war was about 1700 vehicles. The American Defense National magazine determined in hot pursuit in the issue of May-June 1974 Israeli losses in tanks of 420 units. In the book “Modern Tanks” by B.S.Safonov and V.I. Murakhovsky, it is written that “losses amounted to at least half of the available tanks,” that is, about 850 vehicles. Such a significant discrepancy in the Israeli losses can be explained by that. that the battlefield remained with the Israeli troops, and their repair units were able to restore the damaged vehicles, both their own and the Arab ones, since there was already experience in using the T-55 and PT-76 tanks in the Israeli army. According to the recollections of Soviet military advisers in Syria, often the Arab tanks were repaired, as they say, “on the knee”, and immediately entered the battle on the side of Israel. Thus, the difference in the numbers of Israeli casualties cited in various sources can be explained by different calculation methods - all damaged tanks or only irretrievable losses, only Israeli armored vehicles themselves, or taking into account trophies.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        But this I did not understand at all. Can you explain the author’s methodology to me:

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        It is worth noting that the information on the number of armored units in various sources is very different

                        But what is incomprehensible? They lie all. And this is not the author, but a footnote.


                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Israeli aviation in the fight against Arab tanks.

                        You will find this in the stories of Israeli aviators.
                      26. 0
                        5 August 2012 11: 19
                        An interesting photo - what do you think (Israel) did with this tank?
                      27. 0
                        6 August 2012 11: 06
                        In the sense of what they hurt or what they did to him afterwards?
                      28. 0
                        6 August 2012 15: 08
                        Is he damaged?
                      29. 0
                        7 August 2012 11: 39
                        Somehow, his right wing (if this part is called so) is unnaturally raised. Or it seems to me.
                      30. 0
                        7 August 2012 11: 09
                        Kars,
                        Andrei most likely here is his
                      31. 0
                        6 August 2012 10: 32
                        we read footnotes and pay attention to the phrase zapadnwe sources --- Nikolsky still forgives you. And 4200 is his figure, and the result of your matrimatic work is from the west.

                        Where is it said that 4200 is Nikolsky's number? Where can Nikolsky have his own numbers? And what kind of "Western data" if the author himself claims in the paragraph above that there are discrepancies even in Western sources. IMHO, the author stupidly pulled pieces from different articles (hence, by the way, this moronic "guess"), but the fact that he eventually contradicts himself does not bother him.
                        People hawala.

                        But what is incomprehensible? They lie all. And this is not the author, but a footnote.


                        What is this table and what is it for? How is it valuable for the "correct" calculation of losses?
                        You will find this in the stories of Israeli aviators.

                        Is rudeness and cynicism more convincing to your arguments?
                      32. 0
                        6 August 2012 15: 14
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Where is it said that 4200 is Nikolsky’s number?

                        And what?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        And what kind of "Western data"

                        Quote: Kars
                        The data given here is taken from the reputable journal “International Dchfens Review” JVs 7 for 1986.

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        if the author in the paragraph above himself claims that even in Western sources there are discrepancies

                        So you did not provide accurate.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        What is this table and what is it for? How is it valuable for the "correct" calculation of losses?

                        This is a table of the availability of equipment. Useful source data.
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        IMHO the author stupidly pulled pieces from different articles

                        Do you have a better post?
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        that, in the end, he contradicts himself to

                        In the passages you quoted, he contradicts himself just as you do yourself

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        (During the war, 820 AOI tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost irretrievably; according to another source, 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 407 were lost

                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        Is rudeness and cynicism more convincing to your arguments?

                        Naturally, or will you begin to argue that the IDF aviation did not contribute to the fight against Arabs' armored vehicles?
                      33. 0
                        7 August 2012 11: 02
                        And what?

                        So I would like to understand whose. I doubt that the autor personally worked with archival documents of the IDF.
                        In the passages you quoted, he contradicts himself just as you do yourself

                        Quote: Tourist Breakfast
                        (During the war, 820 AOI tanks were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more, including about 400 lost irretrievably; according to another source, 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 407 were lost

                        I see no contradictions - only 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 820 were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more. "About 400" and 407 are generally the same thing.

                        Naturally, or will you begin to argue that the IDF aviation did not contribute to the fight against Arabs' armored vehicles?


                        This is exactly what I affirm about the VVD. The reason is the dense cover of the air defense forces. Arabs learned a lesson from the 67th year. By the way infa in an article about Egyptian tanks supposedly destroyed by helicopters using TOU there is nonsense. Israel first received TOU at the end of the war and managed to use them only in the NE. Even the Americans themselves began to use the first prototypes on their helicopters only in the 72nd.

                        Do you have a better post?

                        At least this one:
                        http://jig.ru/history/053.html
                      34. 0
                        9 August 2012 15: 24
                        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                        So I would like to understand whose. I doubt that autor personally worked with archival documents of AOI

                        You can doubt as much as you want, but the question is to the author and not to me. I am quite happy with the version of Janes magazine ---- which is very likely based on daily reports of losses that Israel sent to its owners in the Pentagon, trying to beg for additional equipment --- that and was achieved.
                      35. 0
                        9 August 2012 15: 27
                        Quote: Tourist Breakfast
                        I see no contradictions - only 1,063 tanks were damaged, of which 820 were damaged for a period of 24 hours or more. "About 400" and 407 are generally the same thing.

                        But I see 1000 and 800, but the fact that 400 is the same is understandable. The figure was taken after the restoration and redistribution of tanks.
                        Quote: Tourist Breakfast
                        This is exactly what I affirm about the VVD. The reason is the dense cover of troops

                        This was the initial stage when Egypt attacked
                        Quote: Tourist Breakfast
                        http://jig.ru/history/053.html
                      36. 0
                        9 August 2012 15: 28
                        The air forces of the Arab states equipped with modern technology (mainly Soviet-made) were worthy opponents of the Israeli air force.

                        On both the Egyptian and Syrian fronts, the air forces of the Arab countries aimed at gaining air superiority and supporting their units. Israeli pilots, faced with a powerful anti-aircraft cover of the Egyptian and Syrian forces, Initially, the main efforts were made to destroy air defense systems and air defense systems, behind control panels which were often Soviet officers. In terms of flying skills, the pilots of the warring parties were approximately equal, but during the war the Israelis successfully used new tactics. So, for the destruction of aircraft outside the shelters, the Israelis simulated an attack, forcing the Arab fighters to take off and barrage in the air, and when they ran out of fuel and went on landing, a new group of Israeli aircraft suddenly appeared at low altitude, destroying the landing cars. Arab pilots, participating in battles, preferred to open fire from close and extremely close distances, guaranteeing the defeat of the enemy.

                        The Israelis actively used anti-tank helicopters, which launched guided missiles from ambushes, using the "jump" method.



                        Israel lost 114 planes and helicopters, 810 tanks and armored vehicles (however, mostly damaged military equipment appeared on its territory, which allowed most of it to be repaired and put into operation

                        Excellent calculation ---- they also included armored personnel carriers in the tanks, much better, and they are not at all different from the data you quoted above.
                        Quote: Tourist Breakfast
                        Somehow he has the right wing

                        Mudguard
                      37. 0
                        9 August 2012 16: 47
                        The Israelis actively used anti-tank helicopters, which launched guided missiles from ambushes, using the "jump" method.

                        By the way, there is no data on the use of our anti-tank helicopters, except for the excuses of the Egyptian NGSH for the failure of the October 14 offensive. Israel in '73 had attack helicopters like the Cobra or Defender.
                        But what is known for certain is that both parties actively used portable ATGMs.
                        Excellent calculation ---- they also included armored personnel carriers in the tanks, much better, and they are not at all different from the data you quoted above.

                        About the Arabs, too, "1775 tanks and armored vehicles." Possibly inaccurate translation of the source. Let's leave the authors on the conscience.
                        Mudguard

                        Yeah, he is. Why did it so rediscover him?
                      38. 0
                        9 August 2012 16: 36
                        But I see 1000 and 800, but the fact that 400 is the same is understandable. The figure was taken after the restoration and redistribution of tanks.

                        200 tanks were repaired faster than in 24 hours. What's wrong?
                        This was the initial stage when Egypt attacked

                        And what happened at other stages, do you have data?
                      39. 0
                        9 August 2012 16: 32
                        Yeah, it remains only to find these same reports, or at least that Jane's journal.
                      40. 0
                        9 August 2012 17: 05
                        You can doubt as much as you want, but the question is to the author and not to me. I am quite happy with the version of Jane's magazine ---

                        4200 does not match the Janes magazine numbers.

                        .
                        .. which Israel sent to its owners in the Pentagon, trying to beg for additional equipment --- which was achieved.

                        Following your logic, such numbers may well be exaggerated on purpose, in order to mean "beg" for sure.
                        By the way, do you know how many tanks the United States delivered over the air bridge? I met the number 200, but until December 1973.
    4. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 33
      Pashhenko Nikolay - for sure, it would be nice to see the T-90 in the battles in Syria and discuss the results
  24. Ratibor12
    +8
    27 July 2012 18: 05
    Well, what can I say?

    Leopard-2 - appeared after the German designers dreamed of the spirit of Erwin Aders (the designer of the Royal Tiger) and cried out "How long will you bastards rivet parodies of the T-34! Shirsha must think! And make armor thicker !!!" After that, the first Leo-2 was built. Yes-ah ... The lessons of the Second World War did not go for the future. As a German, do not beat up - he will tailor a heavy tank anyway.

    М1А1 - was made out of envy of the Germans. "We want the same tarantay for ourselves! And more! More!" It looked almost the same, but worse (like the Chinese with Russian copies). The main method of application: to come to the desert, plowed with funnels from bombs, menacingly move the barrel around and ... stall.

    Challenger 2 - listed out of courtesy, only because the British once used tanks first. The Angles themselves understand that tank troops for them will never be of paramount importance. Therefore, they are not particularly complex about their iron.

    Leclerc - they built it "so that it could be boiled" ... It is not awkward to ride on the old (AMX-30), everyone has new steel coffins for a long time. They squinted their eyes: aha, here is "Leopard-2", and here is M1A1! M ... la! Even the Robinsons have a land dreadnought on their island! We need this too. So they glued their glamorous freak. Get more powder and perfume!

    The Merkava is a good tank! One problem - it works only in Israel and only against the Palestinians. In short, as a national currency, it is in circulation only throughout Israel. However, when trying to export to other countries, it is quickly "devalued" by modern anti-tank weapons. In general, almost a good, uh-uh, almost a tank.

    T-72 / T-90 - tank. Just a tank. Present.

    All that does not apply to the above are all-terrain vehicles with guns.
    1. Nubia2
      -9
      27 July 2012 18: 13
      What nonsense are you talking about, but that’s understandable.
      In view of the general "identity" of the views of the population of this site, it will not work out differently)).
    2. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 36
      Patriotic of course, but far from reality
  25. -1
    27 July 2012 18: 18
    Victor, Victor. And one of the most howling tanks - and the first tank with serial KAZ Merkava 4 somehow completely passed by, right? 8) And in the American rating, his rise in positions is hardly noticeable, that there are some five positions wink
    1. GHG
      GHG
      +2
      27 July 2012 18: 36
      As a matter of fact, who is the merkava fighting with? On the territory of Lebanon? In this case, we can say that the most warring tank is the t-72, t-80.1-I, 2-nd Chechen company did not last ONE YEAR, unlike the short-term attacks of the Jews on foreign lands.
      1. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 37
        Merkava fights with Soviet armor, which the Arabs have at sea. The specifics of this theater of operations are fleeting, but very fierce battles
  26. Nubia2
    -4
    27 July 2012 18: 19
    Quote: sania1304
    We are waiting for the armature, and then we'll see ...

    You have to wait a long time.
    And then you will look at the exhibition model to be glad that it, of course, is the best in the world .. and do not care that it rides only at exhibitions.
    1. +1
      27 July 2012 19: 57
      Nubia2 Living in Russia (judging by the flag) why do you hate Russia so much? And what holds you here in this case?
      1. Prohor
        +3
        27 July 2012 21: 02
        No hate here! There is a bitter truth about the lack of modern technology in the troops .... recourse
    2. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 39
      And here it’s absolutely true, it’s time to finish feeding your own taxpayers with exhibitions. You give new tanks to the masses
  27. df34edgf
    -1
    27 July 2012 18: 30
    The authorities of our country have done a lot, but this is already too much.
    I generally accidentally found him http://linkshrink.com/6jj
    Here is information about each of us, for example: relatives, friends, correspondence from social networks.
    And most importantly, it is accessible to everyone, I was really scared at first - you never know what moron there will climb
    Well, the truth is that you can remove yourself from the site.
  28. iSpoiler
    +6
    27 July 2012 20: 48
    WHAT T-90 ..... WHAT "ABRAMS" WHAT ARE WE ABOUT ... ???



    GIANT TANKS FILL THE WORLD



    TANKS GIVE EVEN CITIES



    STEAMS FUCK ALSO


    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 40
      Thanks for the drawings - an unbearably cruel cart
  29. 0
    27 July 2012 21: 19
    And with the Black Eagle, the guys got excited, ktozh thought of getting into the top tank which which wasn’t like this, By the way, the best tank itself ..... everyone heard about it but no one saw it.
    1. +1
      27 July 2012 21: 39
      Quote: Bosk
      By the way, a classy tank itself ..... everyone heard about it but no one saw it.
    2. Prohor
      +1
      27 July 2012 22: 27
      Absolute invisibility, B-2 is resting! laughing
      1. +1
        28 July 2012 02: 21
        I also saw this photo, but the fact is that this is a promising development that was immediately put to the fence ..... and the name of the journalist came up with and took off ...
        1. moral
          0
          29 July 2012 12: 41
          By the way, what’s wrong with him, why did the project disappear?
  30. +1
    27 July 2012 21: 35
    Somewhere I read or heard ... somewhere the Arabs held training ground exercises, our BMP-3s fly up to the standing Lecler, well ... well ... where to go, whom to shoot, and what kind we’re standing, we’re waiting for someone ........ and the French, in return ... like him, before the fight, we need to conduct a complete inspection and complete reinstallation of the electronics, well, after an hour or two they all hacked and rushed into battle ... ........................... This is what I am .... our T-90 will go to battle directly from the platform, but Westerners seem to me this pause between delivery and the battle will be more.
    1. Nubia2
      -2
      27 July 2012 21: 52
      Quote: Bosk
      Somewhere I read, or heard .... somewhere in the Arabs passed

      Awesome sources of information ... 100500% certainty.
      it’s they who didn’t check the electronics, what are you ... they ate croissants ..
      .......................
      but in general - according to your "logic" the Russian elephant is naturally the strongest elephant in the world
      1. 0
        27 July 2012 22: 11
        Not by my logic, before going to the cottage, I must definitely take it on my chest ........ because I’ll shove it more from a hangover. And for information ... if I read, with our total yellowness of the press, it’s 50 to 50, but if I heard then 100 to 100+.
  31. 0
    27 July 2012 21: 47
    It’s interesting, but for what have I just taken off more than a hundred points?
    Today in the "military review" I wrote only here, on the tank topic.
    1. 0
      28 July 2012 17: 33
      Minusanul some sort of marshal or general, and that's removed. Keep + from me to sweeten the pill
      1. 0
        28 July 2012 21: 29
        Quote: skiff-1980
        Minusanul some sort of marshal or general, and that's removed.

        Thanks, thanks for the info.
  32. Passing
    0
    27 July 2012 21: 51
    The main armament is a 125 mm smoothbore gun - the Chinese version of the Russian 2A46. Automatic loading system for 22 rounds, total ammunition - 41 rounds with BPS, KS, OFS and ATGM 9M119 "Reflex" of Russian production. According to Zhu Yusheng, western technology is worse than Russian in tank weapons, tests showed that the Chinese 125 mm cannon is more powerful than 120 mm cannons and the BPS is 1–2 percent superior to the M15A20’s cannon, and the Leopard 2A6’s cannon is five to five -seven, and the cannon of the Japanese tank "Type 90" - almost 1,5 times

    Alas, our 2A46 cannon is a very distant progenitor of the Chinese one, and is significantly inferior to the western ones. This is a fact that we shyly (and criminally) keep silent about. And here the matter is not even in "long ammunition", but in the available energy. The muzzle energy of our cannon is 7-8 megajoules, and that of the western ones is 11-13MJ. Therefore, no new ammunition will change the situation. There was hope for the 2A82 cannon, which had to be bleeding from the nose, but put on the T-90MS, along with the new AZ, but alas, they put a slightly modernized 2A46-5, in general, the rating is fair, because the T-90 is at the end of the list in terms of armor penetration. and this is one of the key parameters for the tank.
    I hope Armata will push us to the top of the rating.
    1. Samovar
      +2
      27 July 2012 22: 46
      Quote: Passing by
      The muzzle energy of our gun is 7-8 megajoules, and the western 11-13MJ.

      And where did you get such data, can I ask you a question?
      Just found:
      The maximum muzzle energy is also the same: 93,16 MJ for 2A46M and 92,18 MJ for RhL44, respectively, and a comparable initial velocity of armor-piercing-projectile shells (BPS) is provided: 1715 m / s and 1600 m / s.
      .
      This is a comparison of the T-80U and Leo 2 guns. And where is the significant superiority of the western tank?
      1. Passing
        +2
        28 July 2012 04: 32
        You know, up to a certain year, the West and I had approximate parity, i.e. they increase, we increase, or even rather vice versa, they were catching up with us, as was the case with the T-72 and the first Abras, with its replacement by the original wretched 105mm gun with a German 120mm. But somewhere around 1985, the backlog went. Rather, we have an increase in armor penetration, and they have a non-stop build.
        93 MJ is some kind of left data, there are no such tank guns, it is more like the main caliber of a battleship.
        Here are the plausible data:
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        http://btvt.narod.ru/4/frg_120mm_bps.htm
        Comparison of the energies of shells of different types of 120-mm ammunition:
        Shells DM-13 - DM-33 - about 9,8 MJ
        Shell DM-43 - about 10,9 MJ
        Shell DM-53 - about 11,6 MJ barrel L 44
        Shell DM-53 - about 12,7 MJ barrel L 55
        Check this data manually:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun
        the DM53. Weighing in at 8.35 kilograms with a 38: 1 length to diameter ratio and with a muzzle velocity of 1,750 meters per second

        1750*1750*8,35/2=12785937,5 Дж
        As you can see, the data on the German shells are correct.
        -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

        Now let's try to find the muzzle energy for the 2A46 gun. We are looking, looking, but there is no such data on the Internet! What is it for?
        Okay, we ourselves with the mustache will count it by hand. Let's look for data for the best shell available from the troops.
        http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo_r.html
        GRAU index of the projectile: 3BM-44
        Code Name: Mango
        Year of adoption: 1986
        Initial speed, m / s: 1700
        weight (without VU), g: 4850

        1700*1700*4,850/2=7008250 Дж
        Those. 7 MJ. Frankly, not a lot. But you say, what about Lead, but what about the Pattern? Firstly, they are not in the troops, and most likely will not be, secondly, their energy, judging by open sources, is no different, although they provide a certain increase in armor penetration, but there is simply nowhere to grow further. But the reason is simple - the 2A46 gun simply does not allow more energy, there is a more powerful 2A82 gun, but still they don’t. IMHO the problem is that for high energies you need to take a new projectile, in the sense of an enlarged chamber, and it will not be compatible with old cannons. In addition, you need to provide a longer rollback, but there is no place in the tower, because there is AZ, t. e. you need to fundamentally recycle it, recycle the tower, but no one wants to do it. What for? So tanks are bought, grandmothers are dripping, why should you arrange hemorrhoids? It is much easier to classify the data on this dramatic lag, and sleep soundly, and the public feed fables about the magnificent firepower that has no world analogues. fool
        1. Samovar
          0
          28 July 2012 12: 06
          Counted already. Well, a gloomy situation turns out. what
          1. +1
            29 July 2012 23: 24
            Comparison of tank guns
  33. 12061973
    0
    27 July 2012 23: 24
    considered the best tank Japanese "Mitsubishi" made under license "leopard"
    1. 0
      27 July 2012 23: 30
      Quote: 12061973
      considered the best tank Japanese "Mitsubishi" made under license "leopard"

      The opinion of Japanese experts?
      1. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 46
        A Japanese tank is "so that taxpayers do not fall into the mud in front of their military engineering"
  34. Ratibor12
    +3
    28 July 2012 13: 03
    Quote: Passing by
    in general, the rating is fair, because the T-90 is at the end of the list for armor penetration, and this is one of the key parameters for the tank
    .

    Quote: Passing by
    It is much easier to classify the data on this dramatic lag, and sleep soundly, and the public feed fables about the magnificent firepower that has no world analogues.


    I don’t know what about the backlog! Is the tank 125 mm OFS powerful? Powerful! Significantly superior to Western CBS. This is the main thing. And the fact that BPS is not as steep as we would like, well, it’s bearable. It is quite enough to finish off surviving after firing ATGM, MLRS, air raids and helicopters. This is me to the fact that armor penetration is not so key parameter for a tank gun. It is possible and necessary to work on side armor. For example, from an ambush. If the enemy attacks head-on - shoot at the side of the tank going to the side, while your neighbor hits the enemy in front of you. A tanker can go through the whole war and not see a single enemy tank! Well, maybe already gouged.

    "According to the experience of the war in the Middle East in 1973, tank losses were distributed: from ATGM fire - more than half, from tank fire - up to 22 percent, from air strikes, the use of anti-tank mines and other means - about 28 percent"

    "... the battle of a tank with enemy tanks should be carried out as an exception, when in a combat situation there are no other means to neutralize enemy armored vehicles. The tank should in no case turn into a tank destroyer and during the entire battle should only deal with the detection and destruction of enemy There are special anti-tank units for this.
    However, often with the permission to say "experts", many people try to consider a modern tank on the modern battlefield as in itself. And they begin to oppose it with precision weapons, combat helicopters, MLRS with self-aiming combat elements, or something else. They do not oppose the tank in battle except for aircraft carriers and nuclear missile submarines.
    It should be clearly understood that a tank on the battlefield is an element of the weapon system, including precision weapons. The tank is a part of one of the elements of the battle formation, no matter what kind of battle is being fought - whether it is a front-line offensive operation, or it is an operation to destroy a terrorist-sniper who is sitting on the roof of a house. "
    1. Passing
      -2
      28 July 2012 13: 59
      About "tanks with tanks do not fight", this is an extremely dubious idea, IMHO - nonsense of theorists. Recent wars prove the opposite. An example is Iraq. The fact that most of the tanks were hit by aircraft does not mean anything, and if the enemy's air defense is strong, why not attack now? A tank is a purely offensive weapon, and a meeting with enemy tanks is simply inevitable. Or do you think that enemy tanks will scatter and hide, shouting on the air - ayayay, save-help, uncle grenade launcher, protect from the bad on enemy tanks! laughing
      I want to add about ATGMs and helicopters - with the introduction of KAZ and guided missiles, tanks will cease to be an easily accessible target. The round of evolution will close and everything again, as in the year 43, will decide the butting of tanks head-on.
      1. Stealth
        +1
        28 July 2012 20: 00
        Quote: Passing by
        I want to add about ATGMs and helicopters - with the introduction of KAZ and guided missiles, tanks will cease to be an easily accessible target. The round of evolution will close and everything again, as in the year 43, will decide the butting of tanks head-on.

        1. Well, the problem of KAZ is largely solved with the help of multiple launch rocket launchers ATGM with an interval of about a second. In addition, do not forget that the work of KAZ is based on radar, which can be suppressed by interference.
        2. Guided missiles will not be able to solve the problem of helicopters in the name of too long reaction time. In addition, helicopters have advantages due to volley shooting from a jump.
        Quote: Passing by
        will decide the butting of tanks head-on.

        It’s all really lying ... Now everything is decided by the integrated use of diverse forces and means.
        IMHO, any attempt to create a wunderwaffe is doomed to failure (this is a stone in the Germans' garden with their next monster "Leopard-2A7"), the most important thing is how this tank fits into the general structure of the ground forces, i.e. how well he is able to solve his problems. And I must say that the T-72 / T-90 tanks are simply excellent in this regard (despite some inherent design flaws, most of which are very controversial, since they are a consequence of gaining an advantage in something else).
        1. Passing
          +1
          28 July 2012 22: 48
          Quote: Stealth
          1. Well, the problem of KAZ is largely solved with the help of multiple launch rocket launchers ATGM with an interval of about a second. In addition, do not forget that the work of KAZ is based on radar, which can be suppressed by interference.

          The multiple launch can be answered by collective defense, i.e. KAZ covers not only its tank, but also neighboring ones.
          In addition, the next generation tanks will have a circular view in the optical range, so we’ll connect these cameras to the KAZ control. Already two channels, tortured to crush them at the same time.
          Quote: Stealth
          Guided missiles will not be able to solve the problem of helicopters in the name of too long reaction time. In addition, helicopters have advantages due to volley shooting from a jump.

          They won’t be able to do it alone, but together with KAZ it’s easy - KAZ will protect, and after that the shell will punish the bully. Shooting from a jump is certainly a significant advantage, but it is far from always possible to effectively implement it. For example, if a helicopter makes a volley and hides behind a single shed or hill, and the volley does not reach the target, then where will the poor helicopter go? It can’t hang for a long time, but to fly out from behind cover for the purpose of retreat means to stand under tank missiles.
          In general, helicopters will become very, very careful, and can only act effectively in very rare cases when the favorable terrain coincides, the enemy is on the right side, and so on.
          Quote: Stealth
          Now everything is decided by the integrated use of diverse forces and weapons ... the most important thing is how this tank fits into the general structure of the ground forces, i.e. how well he is able to solve his tasks.

          That's it, this whole complex is ground for the fact that in the end it’s the tank, going to the tip of the attack, breaking the enemy’s defenses. those. all these foot soldiers, self-propelled guns, helicopters and attack aircraft are working to add to his chances. The tank, based on its unique role, simply does not have excessive security and firepower, the more the better. Better yet! IMHO.
      2. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 48
        Passing - the roof remains vulnerable and remains
  35. 0
    28 July 2012 14: 29
    Commander of the 5th Guards Omsbr Colonel A. Petukh [82]:
    If we talk about indicators such as combat effectiveness, survivability of the combat vehicle, survivability of the crew - well, of course, it does not meet today's requirements ... We, unfortunately, even in the brigade, the T-90 tank, our one of the most modern tanks, all the principle is the same as on the T-34 - we are sitting on a powder keg, sitting on ammunition ... Well, probably, it does not meet the modern qualification requirements in full. A different technique is needed
    .
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-90

    Judging by the turnover "more different", this is not a fake :))
    1. moral
      0
      29 July 2012 12: 50
      So what does this commander want to have at his disposal?
      1. 0
        29 July 2012 13: 36
        I understand that such a tank, in which the crew will be separated from fuel and ammunition.
  36. Warik
    0
    28 July 2012 15: 17
    information war and propaganda. all.
  37. mechanic11
    -1
    28 July 2012 15: 34
    Who will repair and configure the same? Why there are no reviews about technical maintenance. and then? According to rumors, during the Ossetian-Georgian war, the Russians died dead on the road. A quote is two amer. crews are 3 Grzhdash technicians, Russians have four crews and 1 soldier. Yes, you saw these technicians that the soldiers were ensigns -Not experts-And if specialists then plug in the tools, I can see the tools in the tank battalion, he’ll bring in the tools, and set up the wrenches and hydraulics. The specialist must be trained 3-5 years-and not a soldier, they’ll break more. A deushka came to us (the old tankman participated in Damascus and is now inspecting some objects in the west), he said that the engine and the Abrams were thrown in half an hour or three connectors and that’s all. All wiring in three connectors.
    1. +2
      28 July 2012 18: 40
      Yes, the technique is becoming more complicated and the soldier is getting dumber, unfortunately. And it is necessary to train specialists for the maintenance of weapons in separate educational institutions for more than one year. Well, at the expense of three connectors .... But our equipment can still be repaired "on the knee". But only change them in blocks.
      1. moral
        0
        29 July 2012 12: 51
        the answer is simple - all tankers on a contract
  38. mechanic11
    0
    28 July 2012 19: 33
    The Jeep Grand Cherokee in repair is dumber and simpler than Lada and Muscovites. They are dismantled even faster. It touches models up to 2000. As soon as the Germans sang, it was difficult to repair. I’m sure military equipment is easy to repair (there is no need to save money for repairs from the client)
  39. 0
    28 July 2012 20: 39
    The main indicator of the number of sales. The credibility here is not in dispute. The technique is not complicated is a big plus. But the crew should be well trained at a minimum.
  40. Zmitcer
    0
    28 July 2012 21: 56
    yes .. this topic is not uplifting. Well, how can you convince yourself that your favorite cognac is better? or is your girl better? winked need to give another try! (I’m talking about cognac, and it’s not a fact that I like: habit, patriotism and simply denying the obvious ...) you can give a lot of arguments, but I proceed from the position on which tank I would go into battle and that would not be really ss .. that's right, and as many chances as possible to survive .... I would choose Leopard. Yes, he is German, but he is the best. ..and probably would have turned out to be an excellent tank from object 187 ..
  41. -1
    1 August 2012 20: 04
    All tank ratings lie - part II
    Application of benchmarking techniques for evaluating armored vehicles.
    http://vpk-news.ru/articles/9099

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"