American Edition: Many Russian Army tanks are older than their crew members

The American press has compared the number and diversity of countries in the world tanksin service with the armies. We are talking about a publication in the 19FortyFive edition, which specializes primarily on military topics.

American authors write that Russia has the largest number of tanks today. In the presence of the RF Armed Forces, as the mentioned edition states, “about 13 thousand tanks of various versions”.

From the material:

Most experts agree that Russia is the real tank king in the world. However, at the same time, many of the tanks of the Russian army are older than the members of their crews.

19FortyFive states that out of the total number of tanks in the Russian Armed Forces, "not all combat vehicles are ready for real battles."

From an article by American authors:

Only a few thousand of them are ready for real combat. The rest will take a long time to deploy.

On what basis this resource makes such a conclusion, its authors do not specify.

The publication points to two other countries that are in the top three in terms of the number of tanks available. These are the DPRK and the USA. Moreover, according to 19FortyFive, the DPRK has even more tanks - about fifty. In this regard, the United States, with 6,1 tanks, as indicated by the publication, is only in third place in the world in terms of the number of these combat vehicles, more than twofold behind Russia.

It is noted that Russia today most actively uses modifications of the T-72 and T-90 tanks in the course of the exercises, continuing, as they say, "to bring to mind" the T-14 "Armata" tank.

Comments

[Murmur 55]

And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what? Don't want to write about it?

[nnm]

Their Commander-in-Chief is Biden, and he is twice as old as all the weapons and crews.

[unhappy]

Commander Biden
Inadequate senile grandfather with a nuclear suitcase (I hope he was given a dummy).

[nnm]

So the previous one was also the original - as a joke he ordered to install a noticeable red button on his desktop - he so ordered to bring himself another portion of Cola. I can imagine the reaction of unsuspecting visitors to the oval office when their president, in the midst of some dispute, angrily flicked on this red button.

[unhappy]

In the "Ural dumplings" there is a number with the procedure for transferring power, the button is valid.

[TermNachTer]

For him, even a dummy will be heavy, therefore he walks empty-handed)))

[nikolaj1703]

The last check showed that not all Minutemans fly.

[smart ass]

He keeps seedlings in this small suitcase

[Normal]

Quote: Murmur 55

US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what?

Tu - 95. First flight on November 12, 1952.
Well .... Nothing.

[Ros 56]

And how does the B-52 feel there, does it fall apart from old age?

[Normal]

I think it does not fall apart, however, like the Tu-95

[alekc75]

where did you see the T-95 ????

[novel66]

Tu-95k22, in which I was a gunman, was older than me .... so what? flew great

[Normal]

Quote: novel xnumx

.So what?

It's nothing.
Just like nothing and what

Many Russian army tanks are older than their crew members.

Like nothing and what

US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them,

Or do you think that the American age of the Tu-95 flies worse?

[novel66]

yes no .. the topic is clearly sucked

[Kuroneko]

And nothing that the Abrams were only producing until 1996? After that, they only modernized the existing ones (technological chains have long died out, the States are now unable to make new Abrams). Or on the abrashs of the Amers, without exception, crews born in 95 and older?

[Alexander 3]

Why, everyone rushed to pay attention to age, the main content, equipment. I think many would change their new cars for the converted GAZ 21, on which other engines and instrumentation are installed. We have almost all aircraft re-equipped, equipped with new equipment. The main plane is flying, a tank rides.

[smart ass]

That 95 does not have a mission to break through the enemy's air defense, it is enough to come closer and the missiles themselves will finish

[210ox]

How many carcasses are left for THAT year? And in what year were the vehicles in operation delivered to the troops?

[Normal]

I think that it is comparable to beshki that are from the SAME year.
I think that the operated (in reserve) beshki are also somewhat younger than those released in the fifties.

[Reserve buildbat]

You are wrong. Tu-95s, which are now in service, were produced in 1980-1991. This is the Tu-95MS, based on the Tu-142.

[abrakadabre]

The ceremonial halberds of the Vatican Guard - the Swiss, are older than the distant great-great-great-grandfathers of these same, now serving Swiss. And nothing...
Despite the fact that they are officially in service and are not props.

[akarfoxhound]

Quote: Normal

Quote: Murmur 55

US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what?

Tu - 95. First flight on November 12, 1952.
Well .... Nothing.

The extreme, most advanced modification of the B-52H was produced in 1961-1962, this was the end of the B-52.
An extreme modification of the Tu-95MS currently in service - produced in 1981-1992.
So ... Nothing? Or is it "oh"?

[Normal]

Oh!

We compare the performance characteristics of the latest modification of the Tu-95 and the performance characteristics of the last modernization B-52

Oh-oh?

We compare the degree of radar signature.

Oooh ...

And finally, we compare the experience of combat use.

"Your mother-a-n ...."

PS
The last line has nothing to do with you and your mom.

[akarfoxhound]

Well? What does your emotional enthusiasm like "o-her", "o-ya" (and other sounds of German cinema) for performance characteristics and combat experience have to do with strength of materials and, in particular, the fatigue of a 60-year-old material? Compare the size of housing of ours and amerskih crews of strategists with the argument "for the years of materiel"
As in an old Soviet joke, when the arguments on the topic ended and they remembered for the blacks, who are not liked in America.

[Normal]

Clear.
Compare nothing. Demonstrating our acquaintance with German cinema and moving on to banter
It happens.
But this is already without me.

[akarfoxhound]

Well, banter in the comparative "arguments" of age, I did not start. Have a nice day!

[sifgame]

Yes, there is almost no combat use, Russia does not unleash wars here and there, ironing out with strategic bombers who it does not want.

[Normal]

Quote: sifgame

Yes, there is almost no combat use

Hence.
Modernization and modification of the Tu-95 is an understanding of the operating experience without combat use. Those. the embodiment of theoretical calculations and assumptions about how this aircraft will be used in combat conditions.
It was not possible to check the effectiveness of the aircraft and its subsequent upgrades in combat practice.
Output.
Do it yourself.
The policy of using military force allows us to test the effectiveness of weapons in practice.

[Reserve buildbat]

Can you tell me when was the last modernization of the b-52 and what was modernized there? I somehow missed this moment. Maybe there, by means of submolecular compression, they increased the resource of half-dead engines and the fuselage sprawling from old age?

[Normal]

Quote: stock buildbat

Can you tell me when was the last modernization of the b-52 and what was modernized there?

Please:

https://topwar.ru/21228-ocherednaya-modernizaciya-znamenitogo-bombardirovschika-b-52.html

https://topwar.ru/25524-boeing-b-52-stratofortress-polveka-na-sluzhbe.html

https://topwar.ru/25533-boeing-b-52-stratofortress-polveka-na-sluzhbe-chast-2.html

https://topwar.ru/25534-boeing-b-52-stratofortress-polveka-na-sluzhbe-chast-3.html
https://soldat.pro/2018/07/09/bombardirovshhik-b-52/

https://naukatehnika.com/novye-dvigateli-dlya-bombardirovshikov-b52.html

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b52g.html

https://topwar.ru/171509-stoletnij-bomber-kak-shtaty-budut-modernizirovat-legendarnyj-b-52.html

https://topwar.ru/172263-bombardirovschik-b-52-polet-dlinoj-v-sto-let.html

Enlighten yourself.

[Sergej1972]

The current Tu-95MS were all built in the 80-90s. Tu-95 built in the 50-60s. we are no longer in service. And the last B-52 was actually built in the early 60s.

[vvp2412]

Yes. I'm only flying now copies of the 70-80s release!
And the B-52 fly 15-20 years older.
Ours put new engines, the Americans cannibalize old planes! Because engines do not produce.
There is still a difference!

[TermNachTer]

And you look when the oldest of those that fly came out. Not when the prototype took off.

[Normal]

Quote: TermNachTER

And you look when the oldest of those that fly came out.

And yet it flies, doesn't it?
But does his contemporary Tu-95 fly?
The B-52 is supposedly old, since the latter was produced in 1962, and the Tu-95 is supposedly a modern aircraft, since it was produced before 1992

Does it surpass in its performance characteristics and combat value the Tu-95 of the latest modification and release of 1992, the B-52 of the latest modernization and release of 1962?
The fatigue of the metal of the fuselage and the outdated B-52 engines can be disregarded, since the quality of the metal, the culture of production, technological and design solutions in the USA and the USSR-Russia are clearly not in our favor, and the Tu-95 turboprop engines are generally an anachronism.

[TermNachTer]

To say that in the 50s and 60s, the USA was far ahead of the USSR in terms of the culture of design and production, this is not entirely true. And the Germans helped and studied the mattress structures. So, there was no such gap as in the 30s. But just the fatigue of the metal, no industrial culture can not cancel, because if the plane is 40 meters long, then the force of gravity acts on it in any case, and also the wind - oscillations up - down are also present, or is there no wind in America? B - 52 are in the desert in the public domain. And the heat acts on them, and the cold, if you are not aware, there is a "-" in the desert))))

[Normal]

We were ahead of us enough to launch the turbojet at the same time we launched the turboprop.
Copying means lagging.
Metal fatigue is affected by the quality of the metal.
The production culture affects the quality of the product.
Quality for a lifetime.
The weather conditions in the US desert and central Russia are incomparable and again not in our favor.

[TermNachTer]

And Tu - 16 - is it turbo - piston or horse-drawn?))) So it was even earlier than Tu - 95.

[Normal]

Troll, please?
All the best.

[TermNachTer]

No, I'm asking a perfectly logical question. If a turbojet engine is better than a turboprop, why did they switch to a turboprop? And why does the B - 52, which, as you say, are structurally better - as many as 8 engines?

[lazy]

turboprop engines are generally an anachronism. Tell it to the manufacturers of Hercules or A400

[bayard]

Quote: Normal

Tu - 95. First flight on November 12, 1952.

Those Tu-95s that are in service today were built in the late 70s - early 80s. And Tu-142 too. So they are a little older than the Tu-160.

[Normal]

Quote: bayard

built in the late 70s - early 80s

See TermNahter's answer above

[Servisinzhener]

Formally, yes. BUT! Now only Tu-95MS fly, which began to be produced only in 1981. Unlike the B-52 you quoted, the newest of which was released in 1962. And this is without taking into account the forced downtime of the Tu-95MS in the "dashing 90s".

[Nikkon]

Quote: Normal

Quote: Murmur 55

US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what?

Tu - 95. First flight on November 12, 1952.
Well .... Nothing.

In service since 1957.
Only now TU - 95 MS are flying, and their production began in 1981. Also not new, but still ...

[lazy]

that 95 is long gone, that 95ms fly, which have developed not even from tu95 but from tu142, and the oldest tu95ms is younger than the youngest B52

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Murmur 55

And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what? Don't want to write about it?

And how many of America's vaunted Abrams have been released in this century?

[Finches]

19FortyFive, most of its data was highlighted from World of Tanks ...

[Pravodel]

The Chinese have a saying: it doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice.
Even if our T-34, which will soon turn 100 years old, destroys the vaunted Abrams, then let it destroy. Look, in Africa, some are fighting with guns from the time of the Boer War. The main thing is that they kill their opponents, and how it turns out, they don't care deeply ..

[NDR-791]

Quote: The Truth

in Africa, some are fighting with guns from the Boer War.

That's for sure, and even helicopters are shot down from the BUR during the First World War in Afghanistan.

[Baloo]

Quote: Murmur 55

And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what? Don't want to write about it?

and our tanks are fast, as are bombers and fighters.

[Castro Ruiz]

And their armor is strong. :)

[Real Pilot]

American Edition: Many Russian Army tanks are older than their crew members

Let's take a look at their vaunted Abrams! They were produced at the Detroit tank arsenal from 1980 to 1996, then the plant was closed, and according to other sources, it was mothballed.

We consider: 2021-1996 = 25. Such is the simple math. That is, in order for ALL US tankers to be older than their tanks, it is necessary not to sign a contract with them until the age of 26
Which is clearly not happening.

But the T-90M, T-14 "Armata" (in trial operation so far, one-piece) are still being produced. The production of the T-90 in Russia, in principle, did not stop.
The T-72 is being modernized to the T-72B3 (of course, although these are not new tanks, like the modernized "Abrams").

We conclude: if the title were about the American army, then instead of the word some would have to write all!
And it would read like this:

American edition: all Tanks American armies are older than their crew members

[Fitter65]

Quote: Murmur 55

And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what? Don't want to write about it?

As by the way, and the Tu-95.

[svp67]

Quote: Murmur 55

And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what? Don't want to write about it?

Come on, bombers, tanks, American tanks, many of them older than those who now operate them ...

[vkl.47]

And sleepy Joe is the same age as Lenin, so what?

[Yaro Polk]

and, the Abrams are younger or what?

[Normal]

Abrams in operation since 1981
T-72 in service since 1974
T-80 in service since 1976

T-14 Armata in operation since 2014 (tests)

[Yaro Polk]

and what, they are from age (tanks), become less lethal, or rotten, stupid Amerza again wrote some kind of shnyaga.
In general, they have already been modernized by 80 percent.
This is a stupid edition to listen to, Duc for every generation every 10 years there should be new models of tanks.

[Normal]

The Abrams are younger and were developed, I think, taking into account the intelligence of the performance characteristics of our tanks - this is the answer to your question in the first post.
Neither our tanks nor the tanks of a potential enemy become less lethal from age (as well as more lethal), there is no point of dispute.
It is not wise to consider a potential adversary as blunt.
It is naive to hope that the enemy does not modernize his equipment.

[Nikkon]

Quote: Normal

It is not wise to consider a potential adversary as blunt.
It is naive to hope that the enemy does not modernize his equipment.

It is true, but their journalists who wrote the article are clearly not intellectuals, otherwise they would have added that:

Quote: Normal

It is not wise to consider a potential adversary as blunt.
It is naive to hope that the enemy does not modernize his equipment.

[Normal]

You didn’t understand, or, most likely, you pretended not to understand.
The comment you mirrored refers not to the article, but to the commentary of Yaro Polk.
Of course we are modernizing. But our potential opponents are also modernizing at the same time, most likely, they do not consider us stupid.
Most of my opponents apply double standards to modernization and its results.
This can be seen in relation to the modernization of strategic bombers.
The modernized B-52 is old, and the Tu-95 modifications are a modern aircraft.
And again, modifications of the T-72, T-80 - modern tanks.
And M-1 Abrams is not good, since production has been discontinued.
I think we underestimate the enemy and overestimate ourselves.
this is dangerous

[Yaro Polk]

but what did you not write about the T90?
.......... and its updates.
The Amerzians just comfort themselves in this way ... that's understandable.

[svp67]

Quote: Normal

T-80 in service since 1976

Quote: Normal

T-72 in service since 1974

Not that, not this is not in service with the Russian Federation, but there are T-72AM and B, which began to be produced later, much later, and the T-80BV and T-80U, which were also produced in the mid-80s.

[Normal]

Quote: svp67

Not that, not this is not in service with the Russian Federation, but there are T-72AM and B ...

I know.
These are all modifications.
I am not a tanker, I am a driver, so I will give an example from my practice:
VAZ-2101 release 1970 - Zhiguli.
VAZ - 2107 release 2012 is all the same Zhiguli.
Despite the many alleged improvements.

[svp67]

Quote: Normal

I know.

No, clearly not in the know, even in Zhiguli, there are a lot of changes, and if we talk about tanks, then this is a change in armor protection, in engine power, in fire control systems and further, and further, and further ... " more carefully ... "

[Normal]

Nevertheless, the T-72 is the T-72 despite A, B, C, D, D, E, E, F, Z, etc.
And the T-80 is the T-80. Not T-90 and Not Armata, but still T-80 You see .... THEY ARE THAT CALLED. So here, I hope, you won't argue?
And you don't need professional snobbery.
Changes in our tanks are not a secret for a long time (there is not enough information). They are known to me and are quite understandable. Not a binomial of Newton.
So I'm in the know.

[svp67]

Quote: Normal

Nevertheless, the T-72 is the T-72 despite A, B, C, D, D, E, E, F, Z, etc.

It's good that our enemies would think so too ... but no, they are well versed in all these "A, B, C, D, D ..."

Quote: Normal

And the T-80 is the T-80. Not T-90 and Not Armata, but still T-80 You see .... THEY ARE THAT CALLED. So here, I hope, you won't argue?

By the way, the T-90 originally had the T-72BU brand and only by a PERSONAL decision of Mr. Yeltsin it turned into a T-90. And don't forget about that too.

[Normal]

Quote: svp67

they are well versed in all these "A, B, C, D, D ..."

And therefore, it is rightly believed that all this is just a modification and modernization of the good old T-72.

Quote: svp67

By the way, the T-90 originally had the T-72BU brand and only by a PERSONAL decision of Mr. Yeltsin it turned into a T-90. And don't forget about that too.

So I haven't forgotten.

So we can say that the T-90 is a deep modernization of the T-72B, but so deep that it has the right to its own name. ....................
In the design of the T-90, the chassis of the T-72 tank was used ..............

https://topwar.ru/144700-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-tank-t-90-snaruzhi-i-vnutri.html

Since the T-90 is a further development of the T-72B

http://tank.uw.ru/ms/tankomaster/t90/

T-90 is a deep modernization of the T-72B

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Т-90

[svp67]

Quote: Normal

So we can say that the T-90 is a deep modernization of the T-72B, but so deep that it has the right to its own name. ....................
In the design of the T-90, the chassis of the T-72 tank was used ..............

The original T-90 was not much different from the T-72B ... So, here you are wrong.
Here, with the T-90A version, clearer differences have gone.
Can you spot the tanks?

[Lord_Bran]

You might think that in the United States, the average age of a tank is much less. Considering that the last plant for their production has long since started making new tanks, it’s quite ridiculous.

[syndicalist]

The stone ax factories closed even earlier.

[abrakadabre]

The stone ax factories closed even earlier.

At the same time, a stone ax correctly fitted to the handle will break skulls no worse than a new one.

[Andrey Sushkov]

Especially if this skull is inaccurately sticking out of the tank hatch of the latest and newest "Leopard" ...

[abrakadabre]

Especially if this skull is inaccurately sticking out of the tank hatch of the latest and newest "Leopard" ...

If it comes to stone axes, the same "baboon" with the same stone ax will emerge from the Leopard's hatch. Well, or at best, with rusty reinforcement sharpened against a stone. And the tank itself will be perceived by both as a subject of a landscape, and not a man-made device.

[Machete]

Pot calls the kettle black...

[Egoza]

Quote: Machete

Pot calls the kettle black...

Yes, they are envious, just envious. And about the fact that "Only a few thousand of them are ready for real military operations. It will take a lot of time to deploy the rest" .... Citizens, Mr. Do you want to try in kind who is ready and who is not? Then sit back and don't tweet

[kartalovkolya]

What matters is not which tank, but who is in this tank! Our oldest tanks with an automatic charging, and they have a "special" ebony for this ...

[Poetry]

Spetsnegr, muscular 1 pc.
We have, starting with T 64 .. Plus the Abrams eat so much that we never dreamed of. A good mine with a bad game, in short. Fake smile.

[Baron pardus]

Your tanks, at the same time, and with BC in BO. at least the crew will not suffer, CHIK and in heaven .. Well, or in the gosyah of a peasant in a red suit (this is NOT Santa Claus) ... Your tanks' UVN is poor. LMS, about the same as we had 15 years ago. Reservation ... well, obviously less than on the Abrams and Leopard of the last 2 modifications (Not to be confused with the Turkish Leopard 4) The power of the gun ... Also obviously less, thanks to AZ. Especially when compared with the new German L55. New long shells do not fit into old AZ. And whether the mass production of such shells has been established is unclear. Reverse - 5 km / h. That is, the transmission is not so hot. Roughly like a peasant with an RPG .. By the way, all I'm saying is about the main number of tanks. I know that there are new modifications, where the new BB fits into the AZ, but there are not many of them .. If you have modern control systems and night vision devices, then not on all tanks. But on the other hand, your tanks do not need special bridges and they do not weigh 60t +.

Who's in the tank? We have professionals who train for 4 years. You have a conscript who serves for 1 year, who did not even want to join the army, no brains / connections were found, and the only thing your conscript thinks about is, as it were, the service ended as soon as possible. We have a professional who knew EXACTLY that he wanted to be in the Army, moreover, many sign the second and third contracts. And you... . You WILL NOT MAKE a good gunner out of him in one year. In our country, it is believed that in a year a soldier is only BEGINNING to understand something. Personally, I say that I started to present myself as a field medic, somewhere after a year of service (after training).

[Ros 56]

Oh my God, well, whose cow would moan.
Just an hour ago on the Zvezda channel, they gave it out, the striped ones are returning to the 4th generation aircraft, and these F-22 and F-35 will be pushed aside, because the plane at a price of about 400 Baku lemons somehow does not cause enthusiasm. And in order for it to spend one hour in the air, it takes 14 hours to cook it.
So they would stick their tongues in the ass and keep quiet the striped talkers.

[voyaka uh]

The star messed up, as usual.
The basis of the Air Force will be the F-35. There will be more than 2000 of them.
Add 144 new F-15s. Instead of the F-15 of the very first
issues that are written off.
By 2030, the F-22 will be written off, when the production of a replacement, the NGAD fighter, begins.
Then the F-15 will be written off, except for the new ones.

[Ros 56]

What about the price and preparation for the flight to be? We have learned to operate with the number of striped ones, we have no doubt about it, but somehow doubts prevail about the effectiveness, and taking into account the results of the last air battles in Korea and Vietnam, the striped ones generally go negatively.

[Thrifty]

Let's start discussing the inscriptions on the fences? Here is the publication, which will become known only because it was mentioned on Topvar, it was said not to be closed, and we will rush to comment on every nonsense of every Russophobe. ..

[Prisoner]

"It will take a long time to deploy the rest." (C) It will take a long time for the Americans. Our man, if his roasted rooster bites in one place, will manage so quickly that later he will be surprised - "how am I doing it." Verified.

[abrakadabre]

"It will take a long time to deploy the rest." (C) It will take a long time for the Americans. Our man, if his roasted cock bites in one place

The tanks removed from the memorial pedestals and put into operation in the Donbass perfectly illustrate your words.

[rotmistr60]

On what basis this resource makes such a conclusion, its authors do not specify.

And they do not need grounds, the main thing is to remind once again that they have ... yes. At the same time, the professional military states directly that the United States and its allies are not ready to fight with Russia either technically or morally.

[vvp2412]

American Edition: Many Russian Army tanks are older than their crew members

American abams are so new! :) Already horror! :)

[Just a Traveler]

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Maximillian von Adelheid]

Yeah ... "Armatat will be about a bottlenion. Not earlier than 2025." (c) J. Oposlya Pirada 2015.

[Ros 56]

And right now you insist on getting luli.

[Evil troll]

Many tanks are older than the crews. And many are younger. And all of them are extremely dangerous. Such is the squiggle.

[isv000]

Many old people fought in the same war, and where is that war? And in Israel, from the Soviet Cornet to young Merkavas, it just breaks a tower ...

[Maikcg]

Hmm, the production of Abram was stopped in 1996 and the Detroit tank arsenal was sawed, that is, the newest is 25 years old, what is the age of American tankers.

[AC130 Gunship]

For some reason, the author forgot Omsk tanks, although they were praised at a recent parade

[Reserve buildbat]

That is, the average age of mattress tankers is 40+ years? I understand correctly? After all, supposedly their tanks are younger than the crews? I'm not talking about airplanes at all. Even about the f-15, f-16 fighters, not to mention the b-52, b-1b bombers, and even more so, the u-2 reconnaissance aircraft

[Hiller]

"The old horse does not spoil the furrow.!" And plows normally! Thirty-fours are still fighting in Yemen. And do not sweat. Don't be fooled by mattress "strategists"

[anclevalico]

What does age have to do with it? The main thing is efficiency.

[mojohed2012]

And the Abrams are young people. Are they all brand new? They not only modernize them, but they also stopped producing them, and the conveyor and factories were cut down. Whoever is pushing because of a puddle, but their tanks are also older than many of their warriors. It's not age that matters, but how strong the ass of the Abrams crew is in attack and defense against the tanks of a comparable enemy. I do not see their particular desire for heroism at the cost of life and health. Well, the special forces are somehow motivated and fought well in Iraq, but in general, they are ready to attack the ground with burnt artillery and missiles, otherwise NO!

[Andrey Sushkov]

Well, in general, this is the correct tactic, because the task of the army is not to die for its country, but to make the enemy die for its own. Another man-cake said that "luck is on the side of the big battalions," and some added that "with 200 guns per kilometer of the front, the enemy is not reported" ...

[zenion]

Gunpowder is over a thousand years old and still in use. Knives are tens of thousands of years old, and knives are still in use. It's not about age, but the fact that it stands and amazes.

[tank64rus]

And Abrams is always young in the United States of the same age as the same 72 twos.

[lazy]

and what is the average age of American tanks?

[zenion]

Many tanks learned how to beat them in German. And they don't care who to beat, the main thing is that they turn over and blaze.

[adler87]

Like 41. Then, too, there were heaps of tanks.

[Andrey Sushkov]

The Americans have no idea how much older ... It is possible that some of the tanks were served by the fathers of the current crew members. But, on the other hand, if the technique is simpler and less sophisticated, the more reliable it is in the hands of inexperienced reservists who are not accustomed to modern technology, who served in the army 15-20 years ago. In case of mobilization, there will be nothing to retrain and there will be no time. And so, you look "hands will remember" and it will turn out to give the foe a more or less decent answer.