MBT and their creators

39
For several decades, Soviet tank building was held at four major enterprises. They were the leading organizations in the entire construction industry of armored vehicles. To equip tanks new types of armor, new weapons and new electronic equipment were created. These enterprises were the Kharkov Transport Engineering Plant and the Engineering Design Bureau, the Leningrad Kirov Plant and the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod. It was these enterprises that provided the entire Soviet Union and the countries formed on its wreckage with heavy armored vehicles. Consider the last decades of the life of these plants, which are associated with the greatest success in the field of tank building.

Kharkov factory and design bureau

From 1 in January, 1966 was a tank design bureau (department 60) and an experienced tank production workshop (shop 190) by order of the Minister of Defense Industry No. 62 from 06.05.65. were merged into an independent enterprise "Kharkov Engineering Design Bureau" (KKBM). A.A. was appointed head and chief designer of the KMDB. Morozov.

Kharkov organizations involved in the development and assembly of tanks, played a very important role in the fate of Russian armored vehicles. The fact is that all the existing Russian / Soviet tanks in one way or another go back to the Kharkov T-64A. Moreover, a few years after its adoption, this vehicle was first enrolled in a new class of armored vehicles - the main battle tanks (MBT). Subsequently, the main tanks ousted other classes from the Soviet army.

Prerequisites for the creation of T-64A and, as a result, the first domestic MBT appeared in the early fifties. At this time, it became clear that existing and promising domestic tanks with current development trends can lose to promising foreign ones in a number of parameters. In particular, the division into medium and heavy tanks and the resulting specificity of classes did not provide the proper balance of firepower, protection and mobility. In the course of solving the existing problem, several experimental "Objects" were created, on which various technical solutions were worked out. Of all these samples, only the “432 Object”, adopted under the designation T-64А, went to the series. It is noteworthy that the T-64A was not adopted immediately. Before the order of acceptance for service, several months were spent on military pilot operation and elimination of structural defects.

MBT T-64


The next project in Kharkiv was "Object 434". It was created on the basis of the previous "432", but taking into account the identified shortcomings and the most modern views on the conduct of war. As a result, a new tank was developed, combining the 5TDA diesel engine of the original design, the multilayer combined armor, the smooth-bore gun and a number of other innovations. Initially, the new tank was equipped with X-NUMX-mm smooth-bore gun D-115 (68-2). In subsequent versions, he received a more serious 21 2 caliber 26 millimeters. Already in the first versions, the new tank bypassed all available domestic machines for mobility and was not inferior to them in firepower. In the first half of the 125-x was created the very version of the tank, which was armed with 60-mm cannon. It is noteworthy that for the first time in the domestic practice a smooth-bore gun with an automatic loader was installed on the “125 Object”. Among other things, it reduced the crew to three people.

MBT and their creators
MBT T-64A. The picture was taken from the cover of the magazine "Military knowledge" No. 9 for 1994 (http://russianarms.mybb.ru)


Later, on the basis of T-64A, Kharkov tank builders created a number of modifications, including deep ones. Of the entire range of options, T-64B is worth noting, having received a number of new equipment to ensure the safety of the crew and improve the accuracy of fire; T-64BM with a new engine in the 1000 hp, as well as T-64BV, which received compatibility with dynamic protection systems. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kharkov factory and design bureau did not cease their activities. In the mid-nineties, a deep modernization of the T-XNUMHUD tank produced in Kharkov was carried out. The modification from the base tank was different with a new engine of greater power, a new gun and updated onboard equipment. The tank received the designation T-80. A little later, the T-84 was upgraded to the state of the T-84U Oplot. When this tank was adopted by the Ukrainian army, only the verbal part of the original name remained. The main difference between the "stronghold" from the original T-84 - sighting system, assembled from foreign-made equipment. In the 84 year, "Oplot" adopted. The troops delivered a little more than a dozen cars of this type. Simultaneously with the “Stronghold”, the Yatagan MBT T-2009-84 was created. To participate in the Turkish competition for the supply of new armored vehicles, the designers of the Kharkov engineering design bureau for them. A.A. Morozov replaced the 120-mm gun with a millimeter 125 caliber gun (NATO standard), and also completely reworked the automatic loader. In accordance with the requirements of Turkey, its installation was moved to the back of the tower. Additional armament, electronics and other components of Yatagan, due to the export nature of the project, were purchased abroad. T-120-84 could not win the Turkish tender - the winner was the German Leopard 120. Currently, "Yatagan" exists only in one copy.

T-84U "Oplot". Preparing for the parade in Kiev, 1999 g. (Http://armor.kiev.ua)


The main battle tank "Yatagan" in Turkey (http://armor.kiev.ua)


Kirov Plant

The design office of the Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) Kirov factory, starting from the end of the 20-s, was engaged in the creation of tanks. The most famous offspring of Leningrad engineers - tanks of the KV family. Unfortunately, these heavy armored vehicles in their time could not have the expected effect on the course of the war. As it turned out, the technical breakthrough of the Kirov factory was ahead.

It was Leningrad engineers and workers who created the world's first serial tank equipped with a gas turbine engine (GTE) - T-80. The idea to equip the armored vehicle with a new type of engine appeared in the early fifties. In the middle of the decade, two experimental gas turbine engines PD-1 with the power 1000 hp were assembled at the LKZ. High power engines promised them good prospects in the field of heavy tanks. Soon, however, views on future wars changed, and the creation of heavy tanks was discontinued. It is worth noting that the PD-1 engines were exclusively experimental: they had such a number of “childhood diseases” that in the coming years they had to deal exclusively with tests and refinements, but not with the development of mass production. At the same time, the country's leadership understood the promising direction and demanded the forcing of work. So, according to the Minister of Medium Machine Building V.A. Malysheva, already twenty years later (in the middle of 70-x) gas turbine power plants were to be distributed in ground equipment. Regarding the timing, as it turned out, he was not mistaken that you could not say about the assumptions about the scope of the application.

Main battle tank T-80 (Object 219sp1)


In the first half of the sixties, all tank design bureaus of the Soviet Union, among other things, were engaged in the development of promising tanks with gas turbine engines. Kharkiv engineers, under the leadership of A.A. Morozova - T-64T, and then Nizhny Tagil, headed by L.N. Kartseva - "Object 167T." Both cars were equipped with engines of the GTD-3T family, originally created for helicopters. However, this “borrowing” extremely unfortunate impact on the work of the tank power plant. The main reason for this is dust. The GTD of the helicopter sucks in dust only at some stages of the flight, and even then, in a sufficiently small amount. The tank, in turn, drives on the ground and almost all the time raises dust around it. Naturally, the gas turbine engine with high air consumption all the time "gorge" dust, which often led to malfunctions and breakdowns.

In 1968, the Kirov plant was required to modernize the Kharkov T-64. The resolution of the Council of Ministers concerned the installation on a tank of a gas turbine power plant. It is noteworthy that this time together with the OKB. Klimov developed a special tank engine. Under the leadership of S.P. Izotov has carried out work on the radical modernization of the existing gas turbine system. The finished engine GTD-1000T with a capacity of one thousand horsepower was installed on the experienced "Object 219пХNUMX". When testing this prototype, some problems were identified in the design of the engine. At the same time, it became clear that the existing undercarriage of the T-1 tank in its current form cannot be used in conjunction with such a powerful engine. I had to recycle almost all elements of the chassis: rollers, tracks tracks, suspension, etc. In addition, the tower has undergone some changes. As for weapons and auxiliary equipment, it remains the same.

For nearly seven years, prototypes with the designation “Object 219sp2” traveled around the landfills, overcame various obstacles and traveled to snowy and sandy areas. In 1976, the tests of the new tank were completed, and on July 6 it was put into service under the name T-80. The first serious modernization of the tank took place in the 1978 year, when the T-80 was able to fire guided missiles and the letter “B” in the designation. The new T-80B was carrying the Cobra 9KXNNXX-112 guided weapons complex. The rocket 1М9 is launched through the barrel of the gun-launcher 112А2-46. Subsequent modifications of the tank were equipped with dynamic protection systems, anti-aircraft machine gun installations with remote control, etc.

T-80UD "Birch"


The most significant design change was made in the first half of the 80's. In 1987, the Birch T-80UD tank was launched in the series. From the original "Eighties" he was different engine. For a number of reasons, mainly of an economic nature, instead of the CCD, it was proposed to install a diesel of the same power. The implication was that the presence of tanks in the troops with the same armament complex and different powerplant would simplify logistics and equipment maintenance in the event of war. All further refinements of the T-80 tank were carried out in two directions: on the basis of gas turbine modifications and on the basis of Birch. In total, more than thirty modifications of the T-80 tank were created, about half of which belong to the Kharkov KBM.

For several reasons, the Leningrad Kirov Plant assembled only a few batches of T-80 tanks. Further, the production was transferred to the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant and to Kharkov. With regard to the creation of new machines, the design office of the Kirov Plant, according to available data, in the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union continued to work towards improving the T-80, but then turned them off. Most likely, the latest development was the "Object 292" - T-80, armed with an 152-mm gun. Currently, the active development of the T-80 theme is carried out by Kharkov designers.

Experienced tank "object 292"


Uralvagonzavod

At about the same time as the Kirovsky Zavods, the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod joined the “race” for the creation of main tanks. One of the main reasons for this was the identified deficiencies of the T-64 tank. It took time to fix the problems, and the new tank needed to be delivered as soon as possible and in large quantities. Opportunities of the industry allowed to start production at any of the plants of the industry However, Kharkov plant them. Malysheva could not provide all enterprises with the right amount of 5TD diesel engines. An alternative to the Kharkov engine could be the Chelyabinsk B-45 / 46. As a result, Kharkiv created a tank "Object-438", then renamed the "Object-439" - T-64 with a diesel engine B-45. It was assumed that it will be produced in Nizhny Tagil.

Object 172М-2М “Buffalo” (http://btvt.narod.ru)


But the management of Uralvagonzavod insisted that they should not impose someone else’s development, but let them make their own. However, the Uralvagonzavod design bureau did not abandon the documentation provided on the “439 Object” and applied in its project a number of developments on the T-64А topic, concerning the armored hull and the turret. Not changed and the composition of weapons. In this case, the automatic loader was designed anew. It is worth noting that due to its design it was necessary to alter the shape of the tower. Another feature of borrowing developments was the non-interchangeability of some units. First of all, it concerns onboard transmissions. Nizhny Tagil engineers slightly changed the design of these units, which, however, excluded the possibility of producing identical boxes for both tanks.

In 1973, the resulting “172M object” was adopted by the Soviet Army under the designation T-72. As a result of this decision, the troops turned out to be two types of main tanks, generally similar in characteristics but significantly different in terms of production. And the required modernization of the T-64A with the replacement of the engine did not work out - the T-72 was a kind of mixture of the know-how of the Kharkov and Nizhny Tagil design bureaus. However, the T-72 went to the troops.

We often hear that T-72 was inferior in its characteristics to Kharkov T-64А. However, its combination of capabilities and cost allowed relatively quickly to equip a sufficient number of tank units and organize export deliveries. In addition, T-72 was produced abroad under license: in India, Iraq, Poland and Czechoslovakia. On the basis of the original T-72, two dozen modifications were made, several of which reached mass production. Finally, in foreign countries, primarily in the former Soviet republics, twenty more T-72 variants were created, differing from each other in equipment and armaments.

Russian T-72B (M) in Chechnya, on the tank are mounted lattice screens to protect against anti-tank weapons melee (RPG). (http://btvt.narod.ru)


Indian T-72М1 (http://btvt.narod.ru)


The latest modification of the T-72 was T-72BU, later renamed T-90. Initially, an armored vehicle labeled “188 Object” was intended to be a compromise between the T-72 and the newest equipment. For this purpose, a new weapon control system was installed on the T-72BU / T-90, as well as a set of protective equipment. It is worth noting that the T-90 was the first domestic tank, initially received the opportunity to use not only dynamic but also active protection. The "Blind-1" system provides protection against guided anti-tank weapons with a different method of targeting. To do this, the system includes infrared illuminators and smoke grenade launchers. With a major upgrade of equipment and the installation of new systems, the undercarriage remained almost completely the same.

In 1992, the T-90 was adopted by the Russian army. In the next few years, due to the difficult economic situation, only 120 units were built. Production of the T-90 for its own needs was resumed only in 2004, when the updated version of the tank under the designation T-90А went into the series. This modification has a new tower with a higher level of protection, a number of new equipment, as well as a 1000-strong diesel B-92C-2. Appearing in not the best time for the country, T-90 became the basis for only a dozen modifications, a considerable part of which remained on the drawings. At the end of the 90-x appeared export version of the T-90C, which immediately interested the Indian military and was purchased by them in large quantities. It is often claimed that this particular contract did not allow Uralvagonzavod to remain without work and leave the tank industry.

T-90 tank (probably 2004 model) 19 motorized rifle brigade without side screens, Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, 7 September 2010 g. (Photo - Denis Mokrushin, http://twower.livejournal.com).


The latest T-90 modification at the moment is T-90C (in some sources, it was assigned the unofficial designations T-90CM and T-90MS). It is equipped with an updated gun 2А46М-5, in comparison with previous guns with greater accuracy and greater resource. Also at the disposal of the crew are now available viewing and sighting devices with the functions of thermal imagers, which allows the tank to act at any time of day and in almost any weather conditions. Of particular interest is the video surveillance system installed on the roof of the tower. The systems of dynamic and active protection have also undergone significant changes. It is alleged that the T-90C (T-90CM, T-90MS) can become the combat vehicle that will serve in the Russian army until the latter receives the proper number of completely new tanks (Armata). At the same time, the high performance of the new tank is “compensated” at a considerable price. Yes, and the expediency of the procurement of this machine is sometimes questioned. Anyway, T-90C (T-90CM, T-90MS) may well find buyers abroad. Thanks to this, the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod will be able to maintain its potential in the field of tank building and master new technologists.

Upgraded T-90С tank at the REA-2011 weapons exhibition in Nizhny Tagil (http://otvaga2004.narod.ru)


instead of an epilogue

The events of twenty years ago, which occurred in the life of a superpower called the Soviet Union, extremely adversely affected all spheres of the economy and industry. Because of this, Russia first lost the Kharkov factory and KBM, and then the Kirov factory left tank construction. As a result, only one factory remained in the whole country, which is engaged in the production of tanks, and not other armored vehicles. Perhaps the state should pay special attention to the preservation and development of the remaining Uralvagonzavod. The loss of this enterprise will have very bad consequences for the whole country - the army will remain without new equipment, and the country will not receive profits from export supplies. And for the plant itself, as well as for its employees, defense contracts are very, very profitable.

Of course, in our country there are other companies that collect armored vehicles for the army. However, the transfer of production to another site always takes a lot of time and effort. It is hardly worth going to these costs. Well, if you want so much to get a new tank production, then let it be better to be the second in the country, and not the only one.


On the materials of the sites:
http://morozov.com.ua/
http://kzgroup.ru/
http://uvz.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://t-80b.ru/
http://tank-t-90.ru/
http://oborona.ru/
http://odnako.org/
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sablezub
    +2
    1 August 2012 08: 48
    After reading the article, I caught myself thinking: T-90A is a modernized 72-ka (the modernization is very deep) ... why isn’t a new tank being made that meets all the realities of modern combat, but the t-72 is being modernized? What is the limit of modernization of these tanks? I I understand that from the point of view of saving resources this is a good solution, but you cannot upgrade something infinitely, there is a certain limit ...
    1. +1
      1 August 2012 09: 14
      Sablezub
      why not. Why reinvent the wheel when there is an excellent basic foundation?
      1. -7
        1 August 2012 19: 21
        Quote: Middle Brother
        why not.

        There is an expression:
        Bulldog fight under the carpet

        The new and promising T-80 lost this battle, so now
        17 modification of the T-72
        and is the most modern tank in Russia!
        Unlike Ukraine.
        bully
        Yes article minusanul, copyright clear water. actually from the knowledge of the author is zero.
        laughing
        1. -1
          2 August 2012 18: 20
          Minusanuli ?!
          Yes, for God's sake! True, she always pricks her eyes!

          What a beautiful euphemism in an article
          For a number of reasons, the Leningrad Kirov Plant collected only a few batches of T-80 tanks. Further, the production was transferred to the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant and to Kharkov.

          For your information, the general director of the PO "Plant of Transport Engineering named after the October Revolution" for mastering the serial production of the T-80 received the Star of the Hero of Socialist Labor, and many others were also noted.
          For the overall development of the gentlemen minus remark
          The structure of GPO "ZTM" included Transport Engineering Plant and the Transport Engineering Design Bureau (KBTM).

          And is this software suddenly safely omitted from the list?
          By the way, recently it sounded: Is Armata not a forgotten Black Eagle?
          bully
    2. Barrel
      -3
      1 August 2012 09: 24
      You can’t imagine anything new. It’s like a refrigerator. Invented at the beginning of the 19th century and to this day they simply modernize it. Well, what can you come up with in a new refrigerator? So it is with our tanks. They came up with the T-64 and began to produce various modifications.
      1. moldavan
        +4
        1 August 2012 10: 06
        tanks do not come up, they are being developed, malech made laugh in the morning
      2. iSpoiler
        0
        1 August 2012 10: 21
        I won’t be surprised if the t-90 is a very strong and deeply modernized t-34 ....
        Well, well, even a very successful tank ..))
        1. 0
          1 August 2012 11: 26
          oh well this is probably the 100th modernization of the Ft-17 so shaking hands and not
        2. 0
          3 August 2012 10: 53
          The fighter-parameters and tasks are different-wrong. Not to mention the possibilities. Read the article again.
      3. 0
        3 August 2012 10: 51
        In general, I agree. By education, a tanker / legendary CTVCU /, By service - Airborne Forces. It’s no longer possible to come up with a new one, we have to refine and improve the existing one. Our designers laid such a base, think, apply new technologies and act.
    3. 0
      1 August 2012 09: 54
      And what do you think of these realities?
    4. 0
      1 August 2012 13: 44
      Sablezub,
      in general, everyone does it — what’s special here ??
      1. Sablezub
        -2
        1 August 2012 16: 56
        I was talking about the limit of modernization, and not about who and how is doing ... according to your logic, what for it was to invent the T-50, if you can take the Su-27 and modernize it before turning blue (after all, nothing new has been invented, so they talk here ) ... or maybe, well, these "boreas", take a boat from the Second World War and engage in modernization with rapture for a long time ... I tried to say that a "new generation" tank was needed, and this senseless chatter of the "t-90" is very the heavily modernized t-34 ... "keep with you ... the new war strategy, the same helicopters (which are also being improved, and which were not in the Second World War), missiles, anti-tank systems, etc., etc., dictates new rules for creating and functionality of tanks for such a war ... THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ...
    5. Diesel
      0
      1 August 2012 21: 36
      Leopard 1A1 1A2 1A3 1A4 1A5 grew into Leopard 2 ........
      M1 M1A1 M1A2......

      Che is this bad ?? it is a universal world practice.
      1. +1
        1 August 2012 21: 51
        Quote: Diesel
        1A5 grew into Leopard 2


        Nifiga like that
        Quote: Diesel
        M1 M1A1

        it yes

        Quote: Diesel
        M1A1 M1A2 ......

        The differences are already more cosmetic
        1. Diesel
          +1
          2 August 2012 21: 55
          Quote: Kars
          Nifiga like that


          Externally, the hulls are very similar, the tower is different, the same situation as the t72 and t90 request
          1. 0
            2 August 2012 22: 24
            Quote: Diesel
            Externally, the cases are very similar,

            So constipation looks like a gelding.
            Quote: Diesel
            same situation as t72 and t90

            not like that
            1. Diesel
              0
              4 August 2012 19: 15
              Quote: Kars
              not like that


              Which one is stubborn, do the bodies of the t90 and t72 look the same ?? the towers are different, what’s wrong? you try to understand and think about what they write .... We did not call t90 t72bu, they did not call leo2 leo 1a6, simple logic wink
              1. 0
                4 August 2012 19: 34
                Quote: Diesel
                You are so stubborn

                If yes, then Leopard 2 does not even have rollers like Leopard 1. The structure of the body armor is not the same, even externally. The structure of the body.
                Quote: Diesel
                We did not call t90 t72bu

                And they should.
                Quote: Diesel
                simple logic

                I hope the photo will be more logical than your simple logic.
                1. 0
                  5 August 2012 18: 12
                  Quote: Diesel
                  We did not call t90 t72bu

                  и
                  Quote: Kars
                  And they should.

                  Do you understand the story here, even more interesting.
                  T-90 deep (?) Modernized T-72 (tower), this time.
                  T-72 deep (?) Modernized T-64 (body), these are two.
                  And one, two, we get that the T-90 is a twice deeply modernized T-64.
                  Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with that! Economically more than justified!
                  But just don’t have to beat all the bells and shout: the T-90 is the last word of the Russian tank building !!
                  drinks
                  1. 0
                    5 August 2012 18: 54
                    Quote: Cynic
                    : T-90 is the last word of Russian tank building !!

                    It’s extreme, but for me as a tank lover it sounds too sad.
                    Quote: Cynic
                    Do you understand the story here, even more interesting.

                    Is that by the way to me?
                    1. 0
                      5 August 2012 19: 15
                      Quote: Kars
                      Is that by the way to me?

                      Yes .
                      Quote: Kars
                      You see ...

                      Sorry for involuntarily poking.
                      To read : You see ...
                      request
                      1. 0
                        5 August 2012 19: 25
                        Quote: Cynic
                        Sorry for involuntarily poking.

                        On the Internet, I do not pay attention to this.

                        and if
                        Quote: Cynic
                        Yes .

                        Then the question is solved more which has more technological similarities.
                        T-72 and T-90 or
                        Leopard 1 and Leopard 2

                        Quote: Kars
                        1A5 grew into Leopard 2

                        Nifiga like that

                        Quote: Diesel
                        Externally, the hulls are very similar, the tower is different, the same situation as the t72 and t90
                      2. 0
                        5 August 2012 19: 57
                        Quote: Kars
                        Then the question is solved more ...

                        As far as I remember / I know there are no clear criteria.
                        Each proceeds from its own ideas.
                        Here, for example, refer to the famous thirty-four, then on the basis of new-fangled trends, it should be renamed at least twice, or even three, but ...
                        Here, in my opinion, the T-34 (85) has more rights to designate the T-44, however ...
                        Here, the T-90 is rather named based on the year, as it were, the announcement of the model of the car. And how much it differs from the original does not matter!
                        As they say: Clean business, nothing personal.
                        Yes
                        which has more technological similarities.

                        We will not touch the technology.
                        And so naturally our cars, the economy must be economical!
                        good
                      3. 0
                        5 August 2012 20: 11
                        Quote: Cynic
                        Here, in my opinion, the T-34 (85) has more rights to designate the T-44, however


                        Okay, let’s go on the other side
                        Out of t-34 you can make t-34 -85
                        From T-72 you can make T-90
                        Leopard 1 CANNOT be made Leopard 2 (no, of course you can melt Leo 1 and make Leo 2 out of this metal - but there’s not enough mass)
                        Quote: Cynic
                        And how much it differs from the original does not matter!

                        And he slipped so sideways here.
                      4. 0
                        5 August 2012 21: 26
                        Quote: Kars
                        From T-72 you can make T-90
                        From Leopard 1 DO NOT make Leopard 2

                        And who is arguing?
                        drinks
    6. kozache
      0
      2 August 2012 20: 16
      A new one is also being made. This is the one that "Armata". Rather, it is a platform for various heavy armored vehicles. Including the tank. As far as I understood from the story of an engineer from UralVagonZavod, the T-90 is not supplied to the RF Armed Forces, the tanks are being modernized from the troops. Thus, they increase the professionalism of employees, saving money (90 is not a cheap product, and if they change it, why supply it to the Armed Forces.)
  2. +2
    1 August 2012 08: 59
    Why is this not being done? And the "Armata"?
    1. Splin
      -3
      1 August 2012 10: 36
      And what for is she needed. T-90 still hoo !. True, you need to "reflash" a little
  3. Barrel
    0
    1 August 2012 09: 20
    The T-64 was the first of its kind, something completely new, and the T-80 was a continuation of the series of "main" tanks
  4. 0
    1 August 2012 09: 26
    And the first T-64s were medium tanks, MBT went with the T-64A.
    1. 0
      3 August 2012 10: 54
      The source?
  5. Splin
    +1
    1 August 2012 10: 40
    T-72-120 and BM Yatagan have not additional ammunition carried back as in T-90MS, but aft AZ. You cannot put unitary NATO shells into our tower.
    1. +2
      1 August 2012 13: 17
      I also liked this moment.
      T-84-120 could not win the Turkish tender - German Leopard 2 became the winner

      So you want to say - Really?
      Nothing that the Turkish tender was curtailed in connection with a reduction in funding?

      And so an article for general acquaintance - I will wait for the bomb from Gurkhan - a comparative analysis part 2 wassat
      1. Splin
        0
        1 August 2012 13: 44
        The Indians on the forum also threw this bomb. The reaction is zero!
        1. 0
          1 August 2012 14: 36
          And they could at least out of patriotism --- after all, the largest opera of the 90s
          1. Splin
            0
            1 August 2012 14: 53
            Of patriotism, they advance Arjun in advance of the T-90. The T-90s are placed slightly higher than Al-Haid, although the packs are despised.
            1. 0
              1 August 2012 15: 05
              Well, for me, arjun 1 is not an entirely successful copy of leo2a4 and how much patriotism is not lei, he will not get better.

              And how do they evaluate our T-84 armed with Pakistan?
              1. Splin
                0
                1 August 2012 16: 21
                Rather, the T-80UD. They envy us, but they don’t take offense at us. True, one proposes to break off diplomatic relations due to the fact that we supply tank engines to Pakistan and China.
      2. 0
        3 August 2012 11: 02
        I didn’t come across Leo-2, but the guys who were in Iraq, Syria and still nearby clearly say: ours are an order of magnitude higher and more survivable. One minus-night sight is weak, but I already know that.
  6. +5
    1 August 2012 10: 45
    our tanks are not for parades, but for real battle and marsh - desert off-road .............. in Saudi Arabia when other tanks were stalled in the dust (merkava, leopards and abrams), ours performed task ..... maybe a little worse electronics, less comfort ... but the tank is not a limousine and is created for other purposes - to destroy other people's doubts about Russian weapons soldier
    1. +2
      1 August 2012 11: 58
      How did the Merkava end up in Saudi Arabia? Understand what you are writing about.
  7. +1
    1 August 2012 11: 00
    Good article. The only pity is the few names of those who forged an armored fist. Now few people remember MI Koshkin, Minister Malyshev and many others. Few remember the Minister Ustinov who gave way to "64-ke", "72-ke" and "80-ke".
    It is a pity that history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
    1. 0
      1 August 2012 13: 10
      Now few people remember M. I. Koshkin

      Yes, I won’t believe it.
  8. +1
    1 August 2012 11: 37
    The article is called "MBT and their creators", but there is a brief overview about the "pieces of iron", but the names of their creators for some reason are not. It looks especially strange against the background of the name of Izotov - General Designer of NPO named after Klimov, where the GTD-1000T engine was created. Why then not remember that object 219 began to be made under Kotin, and its first Chief Designer was Ermolaev, who also participated in the creation of the T-28!
  9. grizzlir
    +1
    1 August 2012 12: 26
    How many years have passed since the adoption of the new tank model so 50 years ago? A little more or a little less than 10. And although many would argue that many of the subsequent models were deep modernization of the previous ones, I will say that the T-90 is different from the T-64 like a TV with a plasma screen from a lamp one. And now think about how many years they have been trying to give birth to a new tank model that should replace the ones now in service. There are several reasons for this. There are very few designers left in the design bureau who are engaged in new developments of military vehicles, plants are not ready to release a new one due to the lack of modern production equipment, very few highly skilled workers who are engaged in the assembly of military equipment remained at the same factories. And most importantly, have any of you heard or read about those performance characteristics that the Ministry of Defense presents to the next generation tank. They were, about 20 years ago, but the military constantly changed them and the designers had to make changes to ready-made projects. the hour of the military ministry itself was completely confused in its demands.
    1. 0
      1 August 2012 14: 35
      You better ask Comrade Paravoza about the fittings and technical re-equipment of UVZ))))
      1. +1
        1 August 2012 14: 42
        I can’t say anything about Armata. But they order related things at our research institute, and they pay for it very well. So as long as they have the money they will move.
        1. +4
          1 August 2012 22: 15
          Another photo of Armata model
          1. +1
            1 August 2012 23: 21
            Quote: Kars
            Another photo of Armata model

            So outwardly nothing, but they called "Combat artillery vehicle on a unified base chassis" Armata "and in short, as in the song, BAM
  10. Prohor
    +1
    1 August 2012 21: 15
    Endless "stirring" with an endless stream of dough - we observe the endless moronic repair of Russian roads.
    Hopefully, UVZ will not go on this vicious path and really make a good tank.
  11. werr17
    0
    2 August 2012 09: 53
    let me explain a little: T-64 is a medium tank, but T-64A is the main battle recourse
    1. Splin
      0
      2 August 2012 11: 02
      On the T-64 there was a 115-mm gun like the T-62, and on the T-64A it was already 125 mm, more than the heavy T-10. Those. he did not fit into any category.
      1. 0
        3 August 2012 12: 03
        So he is therefore called the BASIC.
  12. hv78yuhf
    0
    2 August 2012 11: 44
    An amazing country - amazing people, it was necessary to steal the database from specials. of services
    and put it on the Internet, I'm just amazed. And now everyone can find out information about each of us.
    When I saw it, I got scared at http://poisksng.tk
    because my phone numbers, addresses, personal correspondence in social networks are available to everyone. networks.
    You never know what idiots there are. But I already figured out and deleted my page, which I advise you to and quickly !!!
  13. iwanniegrozny
    +2
    2 August 2012 17: 42
    The author forgot to mention Omsktransmash, where the T-80U was manufactured
    1. +2
      2 August 2012 18: 29
      Quote: iwanniegrozny
      The author forgot

      To be precise, he forgot
      Quote: Cynic
      GPO "ZTM" included the Transport Engineering Plant and the Transport Engineering Design Bureau (KBTM)

      KBTM , Homeland Pinocchio !!!
      drinks
  14. kozache
    +2
    2 August 2012 20: 25
    I would like to thank everyone for the calm discussion of the topic, where Russia and Ukraine were present. And that was on one Ukrainian site on armament - I didn’t even read so many squeals and squabbles on rambler.

    Thank you all very much. Good site, great visitor, normal healthy discussion.
  15. kov
    kov
    0
    8 October 2012 14: 00
    Video review T-64