Military Review

"Russian tank duo is rooted in the past": the West appreciated a pair of T-72B3 and T-14

75

Design tanksdeveloped in the West and in Russia, traditionally has a different philosophy. The differences between cars can be traced back to the Second World War, persist in the present and will remain, at least in the near future.


This opinion is expressed on the pages of the publication Defensionem:

Initially, the philosophy of Russian armored vehicles aimed at two separate and complementary types of tanks.

If one of them is universal and numerous, then the other is less common, but specially designed for conducting tank battles or participating in decisive operations.

Historically, this can be traced back to previous projects such as the T-55 and T-64 [apparently meant the T-62], followed by the T-72 and T-80

- writes Defensionem, believing that "the Russian tank duo is rooted in the past."

The goal of this philosophy, it is argued, is simple. One type of tank is the workhorse of the army as it is cheap to manufacture and maintain and easy to train. A more specialized tank acts as a decisive armored force capable of effectively dealing with the enemy.

Western countries usually prefer to use one MBT. This made it possible to create a single type of tank, which simplified logistics and supply.

- notes the publication.

At the same time, the Russian doctrine continues to rely on Soviet concepts and builds its own fleet of equipment, proceeding from the principle of a "tank duo".

The T-72B3-2016 will serve the Russian army as a general purpose MBT for several more decades, complemented by a new tank designed to deal with the most serious threat posed by a potential adversary, the T-14 Armata.

- evaluates the publication of a promising pair of MBT.
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 6 January 2021 05: 33
    +16
    Well, they don't like Armata!
    Under this is brought - and the chieftain has no gold reserve, and the one that is plundered / plundered, and the "stone flower" does not come out, and in general the concept is not correct, and the tanks are not tenants now. in general, all of them are flipped like in a dash of UAVs ...
    The bottom line was that the money had to be given to the PonErs and pensioners!
    In general, they feel sorry for the Rossiyushka ... Just to tears!
    (Howled in a voice ...)
    Whereaaaa zheeeee youyayaya Puuutin damned drags! ??
    Or maybe they just have enuresis from envy and fear?
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 10 January 2021 19: 32
      -2
      How can you like something or not? Whether it's an armata or a su-57?
  2. Usher
    Usher 6 January 2021 05: 47
    +19
    [apparently meant T-62]
    the level of "experts" is immediately visible. The level of a journalist who does not even understand the subject, but writes something else.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 6 January 2021 06: 19
      +12
      Quote: Usher
      [apparently meant T-62]
      the level of "experts" is immediately visible. The level of a journalist who does not even understand the subject, but writes something else.

      Well, in all honesty, the T-72 was conceived as a massive and cheap addition to the T-64. The T-64 and T-80 were painfully expensive ...
      Sixty-four is a masterpiece of tank building for its time.
      1. Usher
        Usher 6 January 2021 06: 33
        -1
        Quote: Victor_B
        Quote: Usher
        [apparently meant T-62]
        the level of "experts" is immediately visible. The level of a journalist who does not even understand the subject, but writes something else.

        Well, in all honesty, the T-72 was conceived as a massive and cheap addition to the T-64. The T-64 and T-80 were painfully expensive ...
        Sixty-four is a masterpiece of tank building for its time.

        I do not mean it. I mean that the "expert" of the military publication does not even know the indexes of the equipment he is writing about.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 6 January 2021 06: 56
        +3
        However, the class of these tanks is the same - MBT. The saturation and class of equipment are different, but the main parameters (firepower, protection, mobility) are approximately the same.
        1. Eugene-Eugene
          6 January 2021 07: 03
          +4
          The T-62 is the last Soviet medium tank.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 6 January 2021 07: 31
            +1
            Quote: Eugene-Eugene
            The T-62 is the last Soviet medium tank.

            In the article, he is mentioned with the introductory word "apparently" and is not further mentioned.
          2. Hermit21
            Hermit21 6 January 2021 11: 07
            -3
            Officially, all modern Russian tanks are medium, including the T-14. And they were like that in the USSR. The term MBT is just a tracing paper from the bourgeois, which has no legal force
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 6 January 2021 11: 15
              +4
              Quote: Hermit21
              Officially, all modern Russian tanks are medium, including the T-14. And they were like that in the USSR. The term MBT is just a tracing paper from the bourgeois, which has no legal force

              This is news, do you have scans from anything where all these tanks are called average?
              1. wasba
                wasba 7 January 2021 16: 12
                +2
                My military ID says: "Driver mechanic of medium tanks T-55, T-62".
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 7 January 2021 17: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: wasba
                  My military ID says: "Driver mechanic of medium tanks T-55, T-62".
                  We are talking about modern Russian tanks:
                  Quote: Hermit21
                  Officially, all modern Russian tanks are medium, including the T-14.
                  The tanks indicated in your warrior are not in service with the RF Armed Forces. And they are average, I absolutely agree with you.
          3. Petro_tut
            Petro_tut 6 January 2021 15: 18
            +2
            T-62 - the last Soviet medium tank

            In relation to what parameters are tanks called average? By speed?
            By power density? By booking? By weight?
            Compared to 72 - 62, 72 gained weight due to frontal armor, engine, loading conveyor, turret, cannon, hull length
            And a number of other design changes, while receiving an increased speed, the thickness of the sides has not changed, the width of the hull is the same.
            If you compare with q1, then yes, 72 is heavy, and if with a tiger, then no, if with a panther, then it is just average ... request
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 7 January 2021 17: 43
              +1
              Quote: Petro_tut
              By power density? By booking? By weight?

              You have forgotten the most important parameter - weapons. The 100-115 mm gun is a medium tank gun (according to the Soviet classification).
      3. Metallurg_2
        Metallurg_2 6 January 2021 18: 20
        +2
        One can strongly argue about the "masterpiece" of the T-64. At the beginning of 2015, I read this analysis based on the results of battles in the southeast of used Ukraine in the project "Summaries from the Novorossiya militia."

        https://vk.com/wall-57424472_49365
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 7 January 2021 09: 08
          +3
          Quote: Metallurg_2
          One can strongly argue about the "masterpiece" of the T-64.

          For 1964 - it was a masterpiece!
      4. boris epstein
        boris epstein 6 January 2021 18: 33
        +7
        "Sixty-four is a masterpiece of tank building for its time."
        Yes, it had a lot of revolutionary ideas - multi-layer armor, a horizontally opposed engine, an automatic loader, but this masterpiece had a rather weak chassis, and the engine was underwhelmed, and the automatic loader was slightly wrong - after each shot, it was necessary to bring the gun to zero angle for loading. The automatic loader T-72, T-80, T-90 works at any elevation or decrease in the barrel, the chassis and engines are by far more reliable than those of the T-64.
        The T-72 was conceived as a completely finished T-64, because at first ALL the tank factories of the USSR were obliged to produce the T-64, but in Nizhny Tagil they drove it to the training ground and found a lot of shortcomings. This is how the T-72 appeared. Well-developed V-shaped diesel engine, reinforced chassis, large-diameter rollers, completely different automatic loader, active protection systems.
      5. Uncle Vanya Susanin
        Uncle Vanya Susanin 6 January 2021 18: 50
        +2
        And I read that 72 is an attempt to correct the shortcomings of 64, of which the "revolutionary" tank had quite a few hi
      6. orcinus
        orcinus 6 January 2021 19: 18
        0
        Just tell us why the choice was made in favor of 72?
    2. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 6 January 2021 06: 49
      -13%
      the level of "experts" is immediately visible
      The Turks wanted to sneeze at these experts ... Any super-duper tanks should be hit from the top projection ... where they are most defenseless.
      1. loki565
        loki565 6 January 2021 08: 26
        +13
        This is if the enemy does not have aviation
      2. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 6 January 2021 08: 45
        +36
        It's so funny how all the "experts" rushed to praise the Turks excitedly, as if they had invented some kind of wunderwaflu.
        Firstly, they did not invent it, since they began to "beat tanks in the upper projection" 70-80 years ago using dive bombers and attack aircraft;
        secondly, no wunderwafele exists, which was proved at the same time, 70-80 years ago, but there is a correct choice of tactics, strategy and complexity of the forces and means used, as well as the skillful use of materiel;
        thirdly, not even talking about modern air defense, in itself, a modern "super-duper" tank, it may well have a means of dealing with UAVs and their means of destruction (active protection, electronic warfare, even light air defense / missile defense).

        And most importantly: the Turks did not sneeze at anyone there in fact. The tiny, poorly armed militia of Artsakh held out against a 40-fold superior, much better equipped army for a month and a half. And the Azerbaijanis, on their frail air defense, lost several dozen of their UAVs, some of which, by the way, cost more than the tanks they are fighting there. And ours in Khmeimim successfully cope with all raids on the base, all kinds of kamikaze drones and do not make a sensation out of it.
        1. Lech from Android.
          Lech from Android. 6 January 2021 09: 22
          -15%
          It's so funny how all the "experts" rushed to praise the Turks excitedly,
          It's funny when other experts rushed to throw their hats over the Turks.
          the poorly armed militia of Artsakh held out against a 40-fold superior, much better equipped army for a month and a half.

          It is completely the fault of the Artsakh command, which did not prepare for a new war.
          And ours in Khmeimim successfully cope with all raids on the base, all kinds of kamikaze drones and do not make a sensation out of it.

          Our illustrative example saw what the underestimation of the enemy's capabilities leads to ... Thank God, they made conclusions.
          The enemy uses any weaknesses of the enemy for his own benefit ... he also used the holes in the defense of Artsakh skillfully and effectively ... the Armenians lost this war on all counts, this is a fact.
          1. Sevastiec
            Sevastiec 6 January 2021 13: 43
            +8
            It's funny when other experts rushed to throw their hats over the Turks.

            God forbid, I'm just remembering history))

            It is completely the fault of the Artsakh command, which did not prepare for a new war.

            Do you, excuse me, take into account the resources of the countries? Mobilization resource? Modern war requires money - a lot of money - and they have no chance, no matter how they prepare.

            Our illustrative example saw what the underestimation of the enemy's capabilities leads to

            This is your "butter-buttered" one.

            The enemy uses any weaknesses of the enemy to his advantage.

            You are just Captain Obvious! laughing
            1. Petro_tut
              Petro_tut 6 January 2021 14: 47
              -2
              Modern war requires money - a lot of money - and they have no chance, no matter how they prepare

              In mass production, the price of the "item" drops dramatically. Did the Armenians buy lines for the production of barrage ammunition? Did the events in Syria and Libya, and earlier in Karabakh itself, be critically analyzed by their General Staff? No, they brush it off and buy outdated air defense systems
              1. Sevastiec
                Sevastiec 7 January 2021 06: 59
                -1
                I seem to have got to the children's forum, sorry. Here is a complete collection of couch strategists in hindsight.
                1. businessv
                  businessv 7 January 2021 12: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Sevastiec
                  I seem to have got to the children's forum, sorry.
                  Insulting everyone indiscriminately, conducting polemics with one, is just a sign of childish maximalism! Apologies in such cases are not accepted - for a start, you will have to grow up and learn to evaluate the fidelity of your posts by the reaction of members of the forum in the form of their pros and cons. Then it will not hurt, before writing, to try to anticipate the reaction of members of the forum to the insults of the entire Forum. I think you already understood everything.hi
                  1. Sevastiec
                    Sevastiec 10 January 2021 04: 35
                    -1
                    Are you his regular ass cleaner? Or did I hurt your tender feelings, because you, due to immature age, like this subject, do not understand some things? For example, the way to conduct a dialogue and how not to; and most importantly: how to discuss the actions of practitioners so as not to elicit a reaction, which always happens in adults, to the child's statements, such as "I will defeat everyone with one left, and you are DB". And also, you should understand that this is not about
                    fidelity to my posts
                    and that's the point. So grow up and learn, young man.
                    1. businessv
                      businessv 10 January 2021 10: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Sevastiec
                      and that's the point. So grow up and learn, young man.
                      I'm just one of the members of the forum who doesn't like boors like you with your speech patterns,
                      type
                      kids forum ass wiper
                      especially when they concern all members of the forum. Thank you for the young man, you are a boor, but funny! laughing
                      1. Sevastiec
                        Sevastiec 15 January 2021 05: 48
                        0
                        Do you love stupidity and hurray-patriotism? The desire to write a comment at all costs, despite the complete lack of understanding of the issue? .. And also to argue later, showing donkey stubbornness.
                      2. businessv
                        businessv 15 January 2021 13: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Sevastiec
                        And also to argue later, showing donkey stubbornness.

                        laughing Funny boor! I do not argue, all my posts are dedicated exclusively to you and you successfully confirm my statements, funny, inattentive boor! lol
                      3. Sevastiec
                        Sevastiec 15 January 2021 16: 24
                        0
                        You seem to be just dumb. I wasn't talking about you. At least before ... ha ha. Maybe you have problems with the Russian language? Or am I too difficult to explain? And the meaning of the word "boor", you would not hurt to find out. In short, you tired me with your whining. Disappear.
        2. Petro_tut
          Petro_tut 6 January 2021 15: 31
          0
          God forbid, I'm just remembering history))

          Review the last three days of the war in Karabakh, a lot of interesting things happened there
      3. Petro_tut
        Petro_tut 6 January 2021 15: 27
        +1
        Thank God we made conclusions

        are you sure about that?
    3. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 8 January 2021 20: 13
      0
      Stop. Aviation began to use tanks in the hundreds at a time at the very beginning of the Second World War.
  3. Hermit21
    Hermit21 6 January 2021 11: 05
    +1
    If the warhead is cumulative, it's not a fact. And if the HE and the hatches are closed and tightened - generally fuck
  4. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 8 January 2021 20: 16
    0
    the number of UAB UAB tomahawks and aircraft (Turkish f4) and even ballistic missiles (Israeli Laura) shot down by the shell of the KR has long exceeded half a thousand ... this is official data. and then there is anka + baitrak (a couple) about as ka50 or su34. or as a pair of shells with a range of 20 km and 8 targets in a salvo of 20 per minute (working on the move) this is about those in Russia with a set of radars + the help of the system + their own missiles and not those that fly closer.
  • beeper
    beeper 6 January 2021 12: 06
    -1
    Quote: Usher
    [apparently meant T-62]
    the level of "experts" is immediately visible. The level of a journalist who does not even understand the subject, but writes something else.

    hi Do not blame me, but I clearly see that you, Usher, are not at all "in the subject", alas! request
    Therefore, at all NOT about that "expert journalist" so pejoratively written! wink
    From the context of the translated Article to everyone who is "in the subject", it is clear and understandable that We are talking specifically about our "workhorses" of the family of tanks of the "first post-war generation" -medium T-54 (
    T-55, T-62) and "a more specialized" tank "of the second post-war generation" - this meant the T-64 MBT!
    yes
    1. Usher
      Usher 6 January 2021 18: 35
      -5
      Quote: pishchak
      https://vk.com/wall-57424472_49365

      I chhat on the context of the article in Topvar, everyone knows this for a long time, I mean two types of MBT. I'm talking about what they refer to and where the quotes come from. I am amazed at what the journalists write, it's so obvious.
  • faiver
    faiver 6 January 2021 06: 08
    +4
    It is correctly written about the principle of the duet, which is simpler for mobilized, more serious equipment for professional personnel ...
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts 6 January 2021 12: 18
      +2
      In the second half of the Second World War, tank units were divided into equipped with T-34 85 and IS-1, KV and IS-2. As far as I remember, their tasks were different.
      1. faiver
        faiver 6 January 2021 12: 23
        +2
        light tanks where did they go?
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 7 January 2021 09: 26
          -1
          They remained in the Far East or were killed in 41-42, and there were few new Gorky men, mostly a "naked ferdinant"
          1. faiver
            faiver 7 January 2021 09: 30
            +1
            and there were few new Gorky
            - almost 3,5 thousand T-70 in 1943
            1. Siberian54
              Siberian54 8 January 2021 08: 45
              0
              They died before they had time to accumulate in large quantities
        2. businessv
          businessv 7 January 2021 12: 06
          0
          Quote: faiver
          light tanks where did they go?

          Where they belong. Today, only the PT 76 remains, and even then only because of its uniqueness - a tank, but it floats! soldier
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 6 January 2021 06: 53
    +8
    Western countries usually prefer to use one MBT. This made it possible to create a single type of tank, which simplified logistics and supply.
    PC, experts in tank building. Without even remembering France, the three most important NATO members have THREE types of MBT.
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 6 January 2021 11: 04
      +11
      And if you count how many types and modifications the entire NATO has as a whole, any logistician will climb into the loop
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 6 January 2021 08: 27
    -4
    Pf ... nonsense. The author would have been reminded that the MBT appeared just in the USSR. What is interesting about the addition of T-72 and T-80 (and T-64), if they were created in parallel and all their difference, in fact, is in the engine?
    About WOWII is true, but the addition was for the weight of the cars. By the way, it seems to me that the first step towards MBT was the T-34-85.
    And the Americans also adhered to this concept and adhere, but only more in aviation. A bunch of heavy and light fighters in the 4th generation, expensive for air defense systems / "cheap" and massive ones in the 5th.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 6 January 2021 10: 10
    +5
    Aha will simplify logistics. Weight and fuel consumption will especially simplify logistics. And how terribly expensive in production tanks will simplify logistics, in the event of a real war like the Second World War, with a strong enemy. The experience of the Tiger and Panther teaches the Americans nothing.
    1. Petro_tut
      Petro_tut 6 January 2021 14: 58
      -4
      The experience of the Tiger and Panther teaches the Americans nothing.

      It even teaches a lot, they took the path of minimizing crew losses
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 6 January 2021 16: 07
        +3
        The crew will be rescued (maybe). But somewhere there will be no tanks at all, because they will be made less. And this will result in the loss of infantry, for example. And also logistics, the first water barrier, if there is no railway bridge, will stop them.
        1. Petro_tut
          Petro_tut 6 January 2021 16: 20
          -1
          And also logistics, the first water barrier, if there is no railway bridge, will stop them.

          https://youtu.be/x_mBlh2LpCs
          Watch from 34 seconds, it will sober you up a bit
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 6 January 2021 18: 19
            +2
            How can this sober up? The ability to overcome ravines and ditches?
            1. Petro_tut
              Petro_tut 6 January 2021 18: 54
              0
              Water barriers, where, as mentioned above, there are no railway bridges hi
              1. sleeve
                sleeve 7 January 2021 03: 19
                +1
                This is not a pontoon park. This is an assault bridge. If only you would throw off the link to the massive overcoming of the river along the bottom. Or like ours have some kind of massive crossings.
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 6 January 2021 21: 28
        +2
        I wonder how they reduced the losses? The experience of the Second World War suggests that a dozen expensive tanks will never be able to do anything with a hundred cheaper and simpler ones. The United States has NEVER faced a strong adversary in a battle where Abrams will not act as a cannon firing from a distance inaccessible to enemy anti-tank weapons. Use T90, Cornets against Abrams and see how they save the crews.
        US tactics: tanks go, encounter resistance, retreat, and then fire suppression of the enemy goes on. It helps against Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc. Georgia had the same tactics and what did it lead to? Losing time, pulling up enemy forces and hitting the head.
        The Americans compared two tactics: NATO and Russia (hitting by tanks and infantry, breaking through and then quickly encircling the enemy). Conclusion: Russian tactics lead to high losses at the beginning, but quick victory and fewer losses in general, after the battle is over.
        Abrams has the same drawback as the Panther (weak sides), Tiger (heavy weight), huge fuel consumption, difficult repairs.
        1. kytx
          kytx 7 January 2021 04: 49
          -1
          Abrams was created as a TCP
          he didn't even have a high-explosive shell at first
          therefore the sides are weak, but the frontal is powerful
          about repairs, they just take out the engine and put a new one
          40 minutes emnip
          and everything is being repaired there
          and the units will be repaired at the factory or disposed of
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 7 January 2021 15: 34
            0
            I would see how the engine would be changed in a war, and most importantly, how Abrams would perform the role of a tank without an on-board war. Abrams is a tank for war with a very weak enemy.
            1. kytx
              kytx 7 January 2021 21: 43
              0
              Engine changes in the field
              Abrams just for the war with a strong enemy - the USSR
              but then everything changed
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 7 January 2021 22: 00
                0
                Yeah, pull it out with your hands. How much does the engine weigh? The Abrams was made as an anti-tank for the alleged war in Europe, but times have changed and Abrams, to put it mildly, is not suitable for modern conditions, which is why the Americans are making a light tank.
                1. kytx
                  kytx 8 January 2021 07: 25
                  0
                  here zhezh
                  we talk about the same thing but at the same time manage to argue
                  :)
                  hand face
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 6 January 2021 11: 02
    +3
    T-72B were simpler in terms of MSA than T-64B / BV, T-80B / BV / U for one banal reason: the industry could not meet the needs of all three lines
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 6 January 2021 19: 00
      0
      For all tanks, NIStali was engaged in protection, the electronic filling (again, for all tanks) was done by the Chelyabinsk Design Bureau "Rotor", and it was decided to whom to put at the top. UVZ had a weak lobby, therefore it was received on a leftover basis.
  • orcinus
    orcinus 6 January 2021 19: 22
    0
    If there is a person here who graduated from Omsk or Kazan tank and served at least to the battalion commander, let him explain what the fundamental difference is, the tasks and goals of each of the 64/72/80, and how the BC is located in the 64 from the point security view
    1. kytx
      kytx 7 January 2021 04: 56
      0
      I'm not a battalion commander :)
      but read this story from one of the developers
      made the t64 tank was a breakthrough but very expensive very complex and only Kharkov could produce it
      then decided
      to make a "wartime" tank cheap and simple - we gave the project to Tagil (t72)
      and make a tank according to the new fashion with a gas turbine engine and high mobility and gave the project to Leningrad (t80)

      Unfortunately, I don't remember the author's surname
  • Konnick
    Konnick 6 January 2021 20: 03
    0
    Quote: faiver
    light tanks where did they go?

    Good question. When there were recent exercises "Kavkaz" saw how two PT-76s were transported towards the Kerch bridge, maybe they think something.
    1. sleeve
      sleeve 7 January 2021 04: 52
      0
      What is there to think about? Octopus SD.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 6 January 2021 20: 09
    0
    Quote: Petro_tut
    The experience of the Tiger and Panther teaches the Americans nothing.

    It even teaches a lot, they took the path of minimizing crew losses

    The movie with Brad Peet showed it. There were Shermans in one division with long and short cannons. In fact, the Americans quickly abandoned their joint use, since the panzers first of all knocked out long-barreled ones, and then easily dealt with others, less dangerous for their Tigers and Panthers. So the joint use of Armata and T-72 is questionable. Or will the Armata act on the principle of "all fire on themselves"?
  • rotfuks
    rotfuks 7 January 2021 01: 18
    0
    If we're talking about tanks, then I won't even put in five kopecks. Now sofa experts from World of Tanks and any other tankers will be massively involved in the discussion. No logic takes couch tankers. They think in levels of the game. The Karabakh events showed what this leads to. When everything is all too often computer tankers, and there are no fools to shoot at a drone from a machine gun.
  • SARANCHA1976
    SARANCHA1976 7 January 2021 02: 43
    -1
    I haven't heard a more stupid nonsense for a long time
  • Ham
    Ham 7 January 2021 13: 23
    +1
    just now they wrote: "Russian somersaults are not needed in aviation" - they say the concept is outdated ...
    now we got to the tanks ...
    in general, everything that is Russian by default is bad ... rusty ... ancient ...
    and even the Russian vaccine is ugly ... not tested ... etc. etc.
    the crisis of the West is already visible to the most stubborn of its lovers and the stronger and stupider the attacks on Russia
    well iksperdy corresponding
  • Selevc
    Selevc 8 January 2021 00: 28
    +1
    The logic of the designers of the Armata is rather incomprehensible, who in the design focus on protecting the crew of the tank ... Since in case of any more or less serious hit in the tank - what does the crew do ??? Tries to leave him !!! Or will tankers sit in Armata and wait until they are finished ???
  • Sasha from Uralmash
    Sasha from Uralmash 9 January 2021 08: 41
    0
    The roots are in the past, the peak is in the future, and the branches are to the sides! And nothing else! Analytics is flawless.
  • Maximilian37
    Maximilian37 10 January 2021 23: 22
    0
    them ... did not understand, but very interesting