Military Review

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

125

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.
125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Murmur 55
    Murmur 55 17 May 2021 06: 43
    +68
    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?
    1. nnm
      nnm 17 May 2021 06: 49
      +53
      Their Commander-in-Chief is Biden, and he is twice as old as all the weapons and crews.
      1. unhappy
        unhappy 17 May 2021 06: 57
        +14
        Commander Biden wassat
        Inadequate senile grandfather with a nuclear suitcase (I hope he was given a dummy).
        1. nnm
          nnm 17 May 2021 07: 08
          +18
          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.
          1. unhappy
            unhappy 17 May 2021 07: 11
            +9
            In the "Ural dumplings" there is a number with the procedure for transferring power, the button is valid.
        2. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 17 May 2021 09: 52
          +2
          For him, even a dummy will be heavy, therefore he walks empty-handed)))
        3. nikolaj1703
          nikolaj1703 17 May 2021 12: 26
          +4
          The last check showed that not all Minutemans fly.
        4. smart ass
          smart ass 19 May 2021 11: 02
          0
          He keeps seedlings in this small suitcase
    2. Normal
      Normal 17 May 2021 06: 50
      -33%
      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.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 17 May 2021 07: 08
        +8
        And how does the B-52 feel there, does it fall apart from old age?
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 07: 30
          -12%
          I think it does not fall apart, however, like the Tu-95
          1. alekc75
            alekc75 17 May 2021 07: 43
            +7
            where did you see the T-95 ????
      2. novel66
        novel66 17 May 2021 07: 09
        +21
        Tu-95k22, in which I was a gunman, was older than me .... so what? flew great
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 07: 37
          -14%
          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?
          1. novel66
            novel66 17 May 2021 07: 52
            +10
            yes no .. the topic is clearly sucked
          2. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 17 May 2021 15: 11
            +3
            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?
        2. Alexander 3
          Alexander 3 17 May 2021 08: 30
          +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.
        3. smart ass
          smart ass 19 May 2021 11: 04
          0
          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
      3. 210ox
        210ox 17 May 2021 07: 30
        +3
        How many carcasses are left for THAT year? And in what year were the vehicles in operation delivered to the troops?
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 07: 43
          -11%
          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.
          1. Reserve buildbat
            Reserve buildbat 17 May 2021 18: 37
            +1
            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.
      4. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 May 2021 07: 45
        +9
        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.
      5. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound 17 May 2021 07: 58
        +22
        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"? wink
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 09: 09
          -21%
          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.
          1. akarfoxhound
            akarfoxhound 17 May 2021 11: 48
            +5
            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" lol
            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.
            1. Normal
              Normal 17 May 2021 12: 29
              -14%
              Clear.
              Compare nothing. Demonstrating our acquaintance with German cinema and moving on to banter
              It happens.
              But this is already without me.
              1. akarfoxhound
                akarfoxhound 17 May 2021 15: 15
                +3
                Well, banter in the comparative "arguments" of age, I did not start. Have a nice day!
          2. sifgame
            sifgame 17 May 2021 17: 44
            +1
            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.
            1. Normal
              Normal 17 May 2021 20: 18
              -7
              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.
          3. Reserve buildbat
            Reserve buildbat 17 May 2021 18: 41
            +2
            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?
            1. Normal
              Normal 17 May 2021 21: 00
              -8
              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.
      6. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 17 May 2021 09: 16
        +13
        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.
      7. vvp2412
        vvp2412 17 May 2021 09: 53
        +10
        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!
      8. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 17 May 2021 09: 55
        +5
        And you look when the oldest of those that fly came out. Not when the prototype took off.
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 21: 25
          -7
          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.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 17 May 2021 21: 34
            +5
            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))))
            1. Normal
              Normal 17 May 2021 22: 18
              -8
              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.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 17 May 2021 22: 24
                0
                And Tu - 16 - is it turbo - piston or horse-drawn?))) So it was even earlier than Tu - 95.
                1. Normal
                  Normal 17 May 2021 22: 40
                  -3
                  Troll, please?
                  All the best.
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 18 May 2021 00: 05
                    +4
                    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?
          2. lazy
            lazy 18 May 2021 14: 52
            +1
            turboprop engines are generally an anachronism. Tell it to the manufacturers of Hercules or A400
      9. The comment was deleted.
      10. bayard
        bayard 17 May 2021 11: 05
        +1
        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.
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 21: 28
          -4
          Quote: bayard
          built in the late 70s - early 80s

          See TermNahter's answer above
      11. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 17 May 2021 14: 28
        +4
        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".
      12. Nikkon
        Nikkon 17 May 2021 21: 56
        +2
        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 ...
      13. lazy
        lazy 18 May 2021 14: 49
        +1
        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
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 17 May 2021 06: 54
      +19
      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?
    4. Finches
      Finches 17 May 2021 06: 55
      +4
      19FortyFive, most of its data was highlighted from World of Tanks ... laughing
    5. Pravodel
      Pravodel 17 May 2021 07: 14
      +11
      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 ..
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 17 May 2021 07: 32
        +5
        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.
    6. Baloo
      Baloo 17 May 2021 07: 39
      +2
      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.
      1. CastroRuiz
        CastroRuiz 17 May 2021 11: 06
        +1
        And their armor is strong. :)
    7. Intruder
      Intruder 17 May 2021 09: 55
      +2
      And many US strategic bombers are older than the fathers of the pilots who fly them, so what?
      the ISS has some segments, soon some members of their missions will be older, so to the heap ... wink provided, of course, if after 2024 she is not "drowned", like "Mir" !?
    8. RealPilot
      RealPilot 17 May 2021 11: 58
      +3
      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 lol
      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! laughing
      And it would read like this:
      American edition: all Tanks American armies are older than their crew members
      tongue
    9. Fitter65
      Fitter65 17 May 2021 12: 55
      -4
      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.
    10. svp67
      svp67 17 May 2021 14: 46
      +3
      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 ... wink
    11. vkl.47
      vkl.47 18 May 2021 11: 51
      0
      And sleepy Joe is the same age as Lenin, so what?
  2. Yaro Polk
    Yaro Polk 17 May 2021 06: 45
    +8
    and, the Abrams are younger or what?
    1. Normal
      Normal 17 May 2021 07: 26
      -11%
      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)
      1. Yaro Polk
        Yaro Polk 17 May 2021 07: 37
        +6
        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.
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 08: 00
          -6
          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.
          1. Nikkon
            Nikkon 17 May 2021 22: 04
            +1
            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.
            1. Normal
              Normal 17 May 2021 22: 32
              -6
              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
      2. Yaro Polk
        Yaro Polk 17 May 2021 07: 41
        +8
        but what did you not write about the T90?
        .......... and its updates.
        The Amerzians just comfort themselves in this way ... that's understandable.
      3. Intruder
        Intruder 17 May 2021 09: 58
        -1
        Abrams in operation since 1981
        T-72 in service since 1974
        T-80 in service since 1976
        only, some already have modern KAZ complexes, but alas, the mass does not even smell! but ATGMs and loitering, constantly update and GN with warheads, their types in step with the times ... wink
        1. Reserve buildbat
          Reserve buildbat 17 May 2021 18: 45
          +2
          And some of them still do not have DZ complexes, they buy from the Jews. At the same time, the T-72, even without DZ, is stronger than an abrashka.
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 17 May 2021 19: 51
            -2
            They buy KAZ not from Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn (although they are such, they will sell everything), but from the state of ISRAEL. Absolutely two different things. Tanks and Airplanes they are not JEWISH, they are ISRAELI. A Jew is a religion, and for the followers of Rosenberg, nationality, Israel is a state and citizenship.
            1. Reserve buildbat
              Reserve buildbat 17 May 2021 19: 54
              0
              Really? But then what about the fact that religious (the most vicious Nazis) are Jews, Jews are nationality, and Israelis are citizenship?
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 17 May 2021 20: 42
                -4
                Oh, you should start those disputes that you cannot win. Okay. Let's.
                a) About the "God's chosenness" of the People of Israel, your Bible writes, and the Old Testament (nee known as TORAH, not to be confused with the Japanese word Tiger), and the New Testament. Quote "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (The rest walk through the forest) ... "But even a DOG gets CINTS from the OWNER's table" (Jews - the owners receive grace, and the crumbs are not belonging to the house of Israel's dogs) .. Gospel from Matthew ... So any Christian immediately recognizes God's chosenness of the "House of Israel" and prays for "Blessing for the House of Zion", let us note, not for the "Land of Moscow" or "Land of Berlin" but for the "House of Zion". So the terry Nazism of the Jews (however, this is already a complex, they were all kicked and kicked so many times that they developed a complex, or rather a bunch of complexes, one of them is that we are the coolest, the time will come, and we will come across ... drunk and related :-)

                b) Jewish nationality - the so-called. 5th count, was only in rather racist countries. The Russian Empire, Poland, and Nazi Germany (great company, each other), in more civilized countries, Jewry was considered by religion. You go to the synagogue - a Jew, if you don't go - it means you are not Jews. Assimilation of Jews in such countries was extremely simple. It was enough to change religion and the attitude towards you changed. In Prussia, since the time of Frederick, assimilation was so simple that Jews went there specifically to avoid anti-Semitism. Someone Erich von Manstein in childhood bore the surname ... Levitsky ... So, just a moment ... Some Heydrich had a grandmother ... Sarah ... Moreover, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (well, not at all an advanced country), it was enough to convert to Christianity for any anti-Semitism to stop. Hasek clearly shows anti-Semitism in relation to religious Jews, and then there is a complete lack of it in relation to Otto Katz (who did not even change his last name). And the noses and shapes of skulls were measured only by the Nazis in Germany and the government in the Russian Empire. For which they received the 5th column, which willingly cooperated with anyone, if only against the tsarist government. However, in the post-Stalinist USSR, anti-Semitism returned ... for which they again received the 5th column. They jumped on the same rake ... It happens ... However, the Banderlog is now jumping on the same rake ...


                c) You can be a citizen of Israel and be ... Russian. You can be a citizen of Israel and worship Odin (I know this, by the way). Israeli citizenship does not make you a JEW. No more than you can be WHITE and a Citizen of China. My second cousin, originally from Novosibirsk, married to a Chinese guy, left for China, became a citizen of China, but did not become a Chinese woman :-).

                As for the "Nazism" of the Jews. Well Duc the Muslims are the same. Yes, each branch of Christianity considers itself "chosen by God" and the rest as "schismatic heretics." Well, all Christian Bibles unanimously scream about the "God's chosenness" of the Jews. And they pray "About the House of Zion" ... In fact, the Wehrmacht, which multiplied the Jews by zero, said "Gott Mit Uns", and God (for a moment Izya from Nazareth) was a little (100%) Jewish (and ethnic and religious), this is generally laughter through tears ...

                By the way, the Jews do not have a single PHENOTYPE. (and it is the phenotype that determines the nationality). My dad, for a second, is 100% Jewish, not only is not hunchbacked, but also blue-eyed and red-haired, he was mistaken for Irish more than once or twice. Jews from northern Europe are more phenotypically similar to the Anglo-Saxons and Germans. Jews from the south from Spain and Italy are exactly like the Spaniards, even lean. For example Miguel Cervantes. Who became Marran and Spaniard, from this did not cease to be a "type of ethnic" Jew. Unlike Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and other NATIONALITIES who have a PHENOTYPE. The Jews simply DO NOT have one. And nationality is exactly the phenotype + culture / traditions. Culture / Traditions have survived only among religious Jews. My dad haws pork for a sweet soul, and works whenever he wants, and was in the synagogue ... well, about 1 time in his life, he does not speak Yiddish, and does not strive ... That's about it. There is no single phenotype. Culture and customs have survived only in RELIGION.

                So if the tank is not cut off, does not observe koshrut, and Freilahs does not dance, then the tank is ISRAELI and not Jewish. :-)
                1. Normal
                  Normal 18 May 2021 07: 07
                  -1
                  Quote: Baron Pardus
                  Oh, you would not start

                  Yes. A Jew is not a nationality (although nationality too, despite such a voluminous trick on this matter).
                  The Jew is a way of thinking (and you have proven this magnificently).
                  When it is profitable, then it is right. No principles other than: "Is it profitable for me? So I'm right!"
                  Truly Jewish resourcefulness.
                  1. Baron pardus
                    Baron pardus 18 May 2021 07: 24
                    -1
                    You are a strange person. You have historical and theological facts and you are all on the "Jewish way of thinking." Forgive me, but during the war of the Russian army, boots with cardboard soles were sold by truly Russian and Orthodox merchants ... So who among us are hucksters working on the principle "I do it profitably"? by the way, neither the English, nor the Swedish, nor the German, nor the Genoese merchants would have thought of such an idea (to sell their own army a marriage). You have been poked into facts, have the courage to either admit defeat, or have the knowledge to present counter-arguments, or else a sandbox, kindergarten pants with straps ...
                    1. Normal
                      Normal 18 May 2021 07: 47
                      -2
                      Well, to whom and "sandbox, kindergarten pants with straps" is a historical and theological fact, and to whom it is precisely the Jewish way of thinking.
                      "During the war of the Russian army, boots with cardboard soles were sold by truly Russian and Orthodox merchants ..."
                      Consequently, they were Orthodox by confession, Russian by nationality, and by way of thinking they were Jews (just fits into your concept outlined above)
                      Of course you're right.
                      Of course you won the argument and I lost. How could it be otherwise. After all, what (and then) what you consider beneficial for yourself is a fact, and then (and then) what is not profitable is not.
                      Take it easy. You won't impose it anyway. The fact is that the Jewish way of thinking has long been no secret to anyone and is inherent to one degree or another in almost everyone.
                      Only I try, to the best of my ability, to get rid of it, because this way of thinking is immoral. And you, most likely, not.
                      I bow for this, because I see no point in further communication.
                      All the best.
      4. svp67
        svp67 17 May 2021 14: 48
        +2
        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.
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 May 2021 21: 41
          -4
          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.
          1. svp67
            svp67 19 May 2021 15: 20
            0
            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 ... "
            1. Normal
              Normal 19 May 2021 20: 13
              0
              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.
              1. svp67
                svp67 20 May 2021 11: 13
                0
                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.
                1. Normal
                  Normal 20 May 2021 22: 50
                  0
                  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
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 21 May 2021 06: 23
                    0
                    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?

  3. Lord_Bran
    Lord_Bran 17 May 2021 06: 47
    +3
    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.
    1. syndicalist
      syndicalist 17 May 2021 07: 09
      +2
      The stone ax factories closed even earlier.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 May 2021 07: 47
        +2
        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.
      2. Intruder
        Intruder 17 May 2021 10: 00
        0
        The stone ax factories closed even earlier.
        only, stone technologies have existed for many millennia with this Mankind, which cannot be said about bronze and iron, well, this is so .., by the way!
  4. Machete
    Machete 17 May 2021 06: 48
    +2
    Pot calls the kettle black...
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 17 May 2021 07: 07
      +3
      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
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 17 May 2021 10: 03
        0
        Do you want to try in kind who is ready and who is not? Then sit back and don't tweet
        well, okay, we haven't tried it, we are all better both on this continent and on the neighboring one .. a new world can be reached, with these fanatical "amateurs", of foreign and domestic politics !? good
  5. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 17 May 2021 06: 57
    +2
    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 ...
    1. Poetry
      Poetry 17 May 2021 08: 09
      +1
      Spetsnegr, muscular 1 pc. good
      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.
    2. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 17 May 2021 20: 01
      -4
      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).
  6. Ros 56
    Ros 56 17 May 2021 07: 06
    +1
    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.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 May 2021 18: 33
      -2
      The star messed up, as usual. smile
      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.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 17 May 2021 19: 08
        -1
        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.
  7. Thrifty
    Thrifty 17 May 2021 07: 17
    +3
    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. ..
  8. Prisoner
    Prisoner 17 May 2021 07: 35
    0
    "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.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 May 2021 07: 51
      +4
      "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.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 17 May 2021 10: 09
        -1
        The tanks removed from the memorial pedestals and put into operation in Donbass are wonderful
        just how many of them were removed !? These are jokes, from the area of ​​poverty ... as well as old Soviet stocks, with Metis and Contests, those tankers, relics from the Second World War, with modern ATGMs or shock versions of all kinds of drones (even the first decade of the 21st century ... ), then no one would have "sniffed" that there was filmed and restored in "garage conditions" .., it's like on biplanes of the First World War, to fight against 1-2 generations of jet and front-line aviation, laughter and nothing more !!! hi
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 17 May 2021 19: 11
          0
          The fact itself is important, not the quantity. If necessary, they managed to stand up for themselves, and they prepared boilers especially for idiots.
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 17 May 2021 22: 21
            -2
            It is important to correctly apply what is. For example, a rather old super toucano and now can do things, under favorable conditions. And the Bandera fighters in a tin can absolutely anyway flew in an ATGM from the newest KA-52 or hung an ATGM under the YAK-18.
            1. Ros 56
              Ros 56 18 May 2021 06: 24
              -1
              Did they tell you this themselves?
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 18 May 2021 07: 25
                -2
                Why do you need it yourself? ATGMs can be hung under anything. At least under Tucano, at least under Yak18. And the Banderotank will be all the same from where the ATGM will fly into it. From the newest attack aircraft, or from some kind of clunker. Under certain conditions, the same TUKANO can do things. This was discussed on the same forum.
                1. Ros 56
                  Ros 56 18 May 2021 07: 30
                  0
                  And nothing that these toys of the Yak-18 type (which by the way still need to be found) can be turned into a sieve from any machine gun.
                  1. Baron pardus
                    Baron pardus 19 May 2021 03: 39
                    0
                    And this is nothing that the range of action of the ATGM is 2-3 times greater than the firing range of even a 14.5mm machine gun. And this is nothing that Something like TUKANO or Yak-18 (if equipped correctly) will detect the Tank long before the tank will find it? And this is nothing that an ATGM, even an old MILAN or HOT, can shoot from 4 kilometers, and at such a distance no machine gun will even hit a Yak-18 or Tucano rattler ... shine much less than a tank? And this is nothing that I wrote "Under favorable circumstances"? First, learn to read carefully, then learn the materiel, and only then start arguing.
                    1. Ros 56
                      Ros 56 19 May 2021 06: 21
                      -1
                      Before you write nonsense, find out the performance characteristics of the same Yak and tell us how many hours of flight you have on it.
                    2. Andrey Sushkov
                      Andrey Sushkov 1 June 2021 19: 24
                      0
                      But the pilot of this YAK must first be caught, then sake must be drunk, the hachimaku must be tied, then, when you look in it, the "samurai spirit" will wake up, only, as it seems to me, a lot of sake will be needed to awaken the "spirit" and the pilot will be incapable of combat.
                      And how many of these Yak-18s do we have left? War is not for you in Wartander with the same noobs on computers to cut, here success not only and not so much from technology, but depends on the Rear.
                      1. Baron pardus
                        Baron pardus 1 June 2021 20: 02
                        0
                        I gave the Yak-18 as an example, so that they would not tell me that they say "This is Russia and the Super Tucano were not delivered." Let me explain. If you have an ATGM with a range of 10-12 km, and the enemy has MZA and MANPADS with a range of 6 km, then the enemy has problems. Even something like Super Tucano will be able to hit several targets without even entering the zone of destruction of the enemy MZA 2-3 km and MANPADS 6-7 km.
  9. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 17 May 2021 09: 14
    +2
    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.
  10. vvp2412
    vvp2412 17 May 2021 09: 50
    +1
    American Edition: Many Russian Army tanks are older than their crew members

    American abams are so new! :) Already horror! :)
  11. Just a Traveler
    Just a Traveler 17 May 2021 10: 28
    0
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
  12. Maximillian von Adelheid
    Maximillian von Adelheid 17 May 2021 10: 31
    -5
    Yeah ... "Armatat will be about a bottlenion. Not earlier than 2025." (c) J. Oposlya Pirada 2015. lol
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 17 May 2021 19: 12
      0
      And right now you insist on getting luli. wassat
  13. Evil troll
    Evil troll 17 May 2021 11: 17
    +1
    Many tanks are older than the crews. And many are younger. And all of them are extremely dangerous. Such is the squiggle.
  14. isv000
    isv000 17 May 2021 11: 57
    +1
    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 ...
  15. Maikcg
    Maikcg 17 May 2021 13: 17
    +1
    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.
  16. AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 17 May 2021 14: 34
    -3
    For some reason, the author forgot Omsk tanks, although they were praised at a recent parade
  17. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 17 May 2021 18: 34
    0
    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
  18. Hiller
    Hiller 17 May 2021 23: 44
    +1
    "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"
  19. anclevalico
    anclevalico 18 May 2021 07: 56
    0
    What does age have to do with it? The main thing is efficiency.
  20. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 18 May 2021 09: 41
    0
    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!
    1. Andrey Sushkov
      Andrey Sushkov 1 June 2021 19: 20
      0
      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" ...
  21. zenion
    zenion 18 May 2021 11: 52
    0
    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.
  22. tank64rus
    tank64rus 18 May 2021 12: 27
    +1
    And Abrams is always young in the United States of the same age as the same 72 twos.
  23. lazy
    lazy 18 May 2021 14: 46
    0
    and what is the average age of American tanks?
  24. zenion
    zenion 18 May 2021 17: 33
    0
    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.
  25. adler87
    adler87 19 May 2021 10: 33
    0
    Like 41. Then, too, there were heaps of tanks.
  26. Andrey Sushkov
    Andrey Sushkov 1 June 2021 19: 17
    0
    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.