Military Review

The radical modernization of the Challenger Mk.2 MBT prepares far from bright prospects for the T-72B3M

132

As you know, announced a week earlier in Whitehall, the conclusion of a contract with the joint German-British company Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land for the deep modernization of 148 main combat tanks The Challenger Mk.2 before the Mk.3 modification was greeted with a flurry of ironic comments from the Military Review audience.


Most of it remained firm in the opinion that even the re-equipment with more advanced German smooth-bore 120-mm guns Rh-120 L55A1, as well as retrofitting with active protection complexes (Israeli Trophy or Iron Fist / "Hetz Durban"), additional modular armor protection frontal projection hulls, promising multispectral optical-electronic sighting systems (including a new panoramic sight) and anti-jamming network-centric terminals for the exchange of tactical information will not provide improved British vehicles with the spectrum of operational and tactical advantages that would pose a significant threat to tank and motorized rifle units of the Ground Forces and the Baltic fleet The Russian Navy at the European conventional theater of operations.

Potential not to be underestimated. Analysis of the fire capabilities and armor protection of the modernized British MBT Challenger Mk.3


Indeed, only 148 modernized MBT Challenger Mk.3 (only 50-80 of which can be transferred to the Baltic operational direction in the event of a large-scale escalation in the European theater of operations), which have retained the well-known "genetic disease" in the form of a huge silhouette (and therefore - and impressive optical signature), are not capable of providing the mechanized units of the NATO Allied Army with dominance in the confrontation with the units of the 1st Guards Tank, 6th Combined Arms, 20th Guards Combined Arms Armies of the Western Military District, as well as tank brigades from the Central and Southern military districts.

Meanwhile, in a dueling situation (with the temporary absence or scarcity of proper artillery and aviation support from the MFA, Army Aviation and Aerospace Forces, as well as support from self-propelled ATGMs "Chrysanthemum-S", "Kornet-D1", due to various operational and tactical circumstances), even a single armored brigade of 54 MBT Challenger Mk.3 (1- I, 12th, or 20th), fully redeployed in the vicinity of the Suwalki corridor, will pose a serious threat, as for the 102nd separate tank battalion of the 79th MRB of the Coastal Forces of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy (stationed in Gusev , Kaliningrad region and has 90 MBT T-72B ar. 1984 and T-72B3 ar. 2016 with sets of DZ "Contact-1/5"), and for tank brigades of the Russian Army, hastily transferred to the Kaliningrad zone A2 / AD from 6th and 20th combined arms armies and equipped with more advanced MBT T-72B3M.

In particular, having more advanced (in comparison with the standard 120-mm rifled guns L30) 120-mm high-ballistic guns Rh-120 L55A1 from the German Rheinmetall with a large maximum allowable (crushed) pressure of powder gases in the bore of about 700 MPa and increased to 1750 m / s (in comparison with 1535 m / s for the British L30A1) initial speed of armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles DM53A1 / 63, promising "Challengers 3" are capable of penetrating armor plates with an equivalent resistance from BOPS kinetic action of about 810-850 mm at distances of 2000 1500 m, while the equivalent durability of the frontal armor plates of the turrets and VLDs of the T-72B3M hulls with 4S22 elements of the Kontakt-5 reactive armor barely reaches 650 and 600 mm, respectively.

Consequently, in a hypothetical tank duel with the Challenger Mk.3, the probability of hitting the T-72B3M in the frontal projection from a distance of up to 3500 m even with the first hit and at safe maneuvering angles of +/- 25 degrees (not to mention shorter distances) remains.

At the same time, the equivalent resistance against BOPS of the frontal armor plates of the welded towers of Challengers 3, which is about 900-950 mm (with 800-850 mm physical dimensions with niches of the Chobham ceramic special armor), provides more than effective protection of crews from practically any domestic BOPSs (including ZBM-44 "Lekalo" and ZBM-60 "Svinets-2" with armor penetration 670 and 780 mm, respectively) used for firing from improved domestic 125-mm tank guns 2A46M5 / -01 installed on MBT T -72B3 / M and T-90M "Breakthrough-3".

As an exception, only promising 125-mm armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles "Vacuum-1" with tungsten cores and "Vacuum-2" with depleted uranium cores, having armor penetration of 900-950 mm and 1000-1050 mm, respectively, are used by promising tank guns of increased ballistics 2A82M1, which are equipped with promising MBT T-14 "Armata".

The start of deliveries of these machines, as well as promising 125-mm BOPSs of the "Vacuum" family, to combat units of the Armored Forces of the Russian Army, in the most favorable scenario, is planned only at the end of 2022 - beginning of 2023.

And, apparently, in very limited quantities.
Author:
132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 May 2021 05: 17
    +10
    The author misses any of the mobility of the Challengers, and of course the timing too. There is also the T-90M Breakthrough, which is an adequate opponent to the updated Challenger.
    1. Civil
      Civil 19 May 2021 07: 08
      +3
      Competition of a shield and a sword, it will mean that we have a new modification.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 19 May 2021 16: 48
        +7
        Competition of a shield and a sword, it will mean that we have a new modification.

        Comrade Damantsev has painted everything, besides, how much will this miracle tank weigh after all this advanced modernization?
        In the internet they write about 65 tons of weight and 56 km of maximum speed.
        Interestingly, all bridges in Europe have already been repaired? bully
        Armata indicate a maximum weight of 48-53 tons and a speed of 70-80 km / h, depending on the engine boost. hi
        1. anclevalico
          anclevalico 20 May 2021 07: 52
          -1
          And what, the Armats appeared in such quantities when you can seriously talk about them?
          1. nemez
            nemez 20 May 2021 08: 10
            0
            Considering the capabilities of the Armata, reconnaissance by a regular UAV, radar, low aperture, the challenger has no chance.
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 21 May 2021 14: 13
              +1
              The low aperture is compensated for by the highly susceptible UAV. If he is there at all.
              Didn't you pay attention to the network-centric terminals in Challenger?
          2. Alex777
            Alex777 20 May 2021 13: 20
            +14
            And what, the Armats appeared in such quantities when you can seriously talk about them?

            And what, Challenger Mk.3 have already appeared in the quantity when you can seriously talk about them?
    2. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 19 May 2021 07: 16
      +10
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      There is also the T-90M Breakthrough, which is an adequate opponent to the updated Challenger.

      As part of the 6th OA and BS KBF there is no specified tank, there is a ragtag from T-72 of different decades of construction ...
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 May 2021 10: 25
        +5
        Quote: Lara Croft
        As part of the 6th OA and BS KBF there is no specified tank, there is a ragtag from T-72 of different decades of construction ...
        Well, the angles do not itch yet
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        well, and the timing too.
      2. Intruder
        Intruder 19 May 2021 17: 34
        -1
        there is a ragtag from T-72 of different decades of construction ...
        that is, everything will be so bad in military logistics if there is a mega-conflict in the northwest !? belay
        1. Lara Croft
          Lara Croft 19 May 2021 19: 29
          +1
          Quote: Intruder
          there is a ragtag from T-72 of different decades of construction ...
          that is, everything will be so bad in military logistics if there is a mega-conflict in the northwest !? belay

          Yes, yes. 4 BDK in the Baltic ... so the KOR will fight with what it has on its territory ...
          1. KCA
            KCA 20 May 2021 13: 31
            +5
            If a real military conflict begins, the Ministry of Defense and the Navy will hardly care about the number of large landing ships, the Kaliningrad region is not an island, we will go through the Suwalki corridor, beloved by the Poles.
    3. ultra
      ultra 19 May 2021 08: 03
      -5
      So there the weapon is the same, in fact, as in t72b3, the security is better and that's it.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 May 2021 10: 26
        +3
        Quote: ultra
        security is better and that's it.

        What a right little thing.
        1. ultra
          ultra 19 May 2021 11: 13
          -8
          The main purpose of the tank is to fight against enemy tanks, our tanks have problems with this.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 19 May 2021 11: 28
            +4
            Quote: ultra
            The main purpose of the tank is to fight against enemy tanks, our tanks have problems with this.
            What, right for everyone and right against everyone? Let me not believe this silly two-part tale.
            1) The main purpose of the tank is to fight enemy tanks;
            2) Our tanks have a problem with this.
            1. ultra
              ultra 19 May 2021 11: 53
              -10%
              I don't care what you believe or not, there are facts. Look at the penetration of modern German or American bops and compare with what our tanks have.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 19 May 2021 12: 34
                +6
                Quote: ultra
                I don't care what you believe or not, there are facts. Look at the penetration of modern German or American bops and compare with what our tanks have.
                In addition to BOPS, there is a CS and something that Chell does not have: missiles. Apart from the low silhouette, armor (I'm talking about the T-90), mobility and maneuverability. And apart from the fact that all this, and even the T-14 we have, but the Challengers are not yet.
          2. Vsevolod
            Vsevolod 19 May 2021 12: 59
            +11
            Yes, not a fig, a duel with tanks is the tenth thing.
          3. Intruder
            Intruder 19 May 2021 17: 37
            +2
            The main purpose of the tank is to fight against enemy tanks
            in the last century it was, but not even everywhere ... now it is no longer obvious and more limited, only if, in the mode: fur-bearing northern animal, when there is nothing left to do, how to roll out the armor against the armor on a direct shot ... winked
          4. anclevalico
            anclevalico 20 May 2021 07: 54
            +2
            Guderian would now nervously smoke on the sidelines, with his tank wedges of breakthrough.
    4. lucul
      lucul 19 May 2021 09: 47
      +3
      The author misses any of the mobility of the Challengers,

      Probably the British took the criticism too sensitively, since Damantsev decided to write an article. )))
      Well, no one says that Challenger 3 is a complete nonsense, not a tank. The tank is not bad, although it is not worth its money.
      Well, so, comparing the newest Challenger 3 with the 40-year-old T-72B is not quite a comparison, the Challenger is certainly better. But when compared with the latest Russian tanks, the picture for Challenger is not so rosy. The T-90 with the 2A82 cannon is a worthy opponent for him.
    5. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 May 2021 11: 51
      +3
      If we take the gun, then the closest analogue of 2A82, which is on the Armata and which should have been installed on the T90M ... and have not yet shown similar BOPS long 900mm.
    6. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 19 May 2021 14: 02
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author is missing out on any of the Challengers' mobility

      and he should stand with his nose and not run in circles, substituting the board
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 20 May 2021 03: 12
        +4
        Quote: Pilat2009
        and he should stand with his nose and not run in circles, substituting the board
        Then this is not a tank, but a legitimate target for artillery and newfangled UAVs, because Damantsev described an oncoming battle, and in it a stationary tank is nonsense.
    7. Reiter
      Reiter 19 May 2021 20: 39
      -5
      The T-90M is not yet equipped with KAZ serially, the Challenger will be equipped with KAZ.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 20 May 2021 03: 13
        +6
        Quote: Reiter
        The T-90M is not yet equipped with KAZ serially, the Challenger will be equipped with KAZ.
        The words YET and WILL BE here are equivalent.
        1. Reiter
          Reiter 20 May 2021 10: 07
          -2
          The Merkav and Abrams are already serially installed, so the probability of not installing KAZs on the Challengers is not high, the technology has been worked out, the decision has been made. What exactly can prevent its implementation in the near future? Israeli KAZs will also bet on Leopards. There is also a solution. But with the T-90, I have not heard of such plans. And it turns out that the T-90 is still a less protected vehicle.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 20 May 2021 23: 22
            +1
            And what is the problem with KAZ?
            After all, we were the pioneers in this area.
            and if there may be delays with the Afghanit, the Drozdov and Aren were stamped enough to be removed from storage in the shortest possible time and adapted for installation on the T-90.
            1. Reiter
              Reiter 21 May 2021 02: 55
              +2
              Where does this information about the stamped Arenas come from? This complex is expensive to simply stamp it into a warehouse. Shown only as prototypes. The blackbirds were already outdated, and they were not very perfect. The fact that we were the first is good, but time passes and if it is not enough to quickly develop the first groundwork, it is possible to lag behind. We were the first in space and drones, and now we are catching up, this is not a disaster, but we have to work hard to catch up. So it is with KAZs. They are not in combat units and it is not clear when they will appear, and the Americans have more than one hundred with Iron Fist, that's the problem with that.
    8. alexniko77
      alexniko77 20 May 2021 10: 19
      +2
      and also, the author laments about the supply of "vacuums" to the troops in 23, thinking that the challengers who are near the devil on Easter cakes are being modernized by magic (the effect of modernization is not confirmed by anything) and by the same beck they will be, from the day for a day, in the baltics or poland (about NATO logistics in eastern europe, in general, a separate song)
    9. Antipatr
      Antipatr 22 May 2021 08: 12
      0
      To drive 70-80 km across the crossroads? Experience has shown the inconsistency of fast tanks in battle against slower, but better protected (BT-7, AMX-30, T-72).
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 23 May 2021 14: 37
        +1
        Quote: Antipatr
        To drive 70-80 km across the crossroads? Experience has shown the inconsistency of fast tanks in battle against slower, but better protected (BT-7, AMX-30, T-72).
        Three times nonsense, the BT-7 is generally a light tank, its use in an open battle against tanks is a mistake, which the Soviet command recognized, the AMX-30 is a medium tank, with a uniform design and was not in battle, unlike the AMX-13, T- 72 was simply shot by the Americans Abrams and Bradley in the sides and stern without even observing the enemy.

        Quote: Antipatr
        To drive 70-80 km across the crossroads?
        A tank that drives 70-80 on the highways will give 40-50, and a tank that on the highway gives less than 60 km, will give TNB 25-30 km, if it still does not sit with its belly in European soil, in an oncoming battle in Europe, which implies author.
    10. Arkady Gaidar
      Arkady Gaidar 23 May 2021 15: 53
      +1
      First, it is worth remembering that the author is considering an extreme scenario, when the offensive is carried out by the armored forces of Great Britain alone. But in reality, most likely there will be interaction of all NATO troops. Russian aviation and artillery are likely to be quickly suppressed, due to the number of groups. That is, if we assume the equality of training of servicemen and the approximate equality of equipment, the western grouping of NATO forces is likely to be significantly larger than the Russian troops in this region. And given that the opponents have more modern weapons, there is a justified concern.
      Secondly, is it really the overwhelming majority of tanks in this direction in the Russian troops, this is the T-90M? After all, we remember that we don’t play cards without trump cards, and without technical superiority we don’t start a war and don’t go over to attacking actions. Because of this, we have to turn to the third point, as a comparison of the modern technical equipment of the troops and the possibility of their rapid build-up and restructuring of the entire industry of the country for the production of military products. That is, we are talking about a global war, into which the participating countries enter with all their resources. After all, it is stupid to think that they will fight with Russia there simply for Kaliningrad and Karelia.
      And then thirdly, is the Russian Federation capable of pulling out a long, large-scale war today, while constantly replenishing the decline of modern weapons with exactly the same new models?
      And answering the last question, I have to remember this recent article on VO:
      https://topwar.ru/183065-skrytnosti-bolshe-net-podlodki-privychnogo-nam-vida-obrecheny.html
      From which it follows that the Northern Fleet, including the submarine, the Russian Federation will quickly lose. At best, only a few ships and submarines will remain in service. That is, there will be no support from the sea, and air superiority, as mentioned here above, will most likely be behind the combined forces of NATO. And now is it worth thinking about the ground forces of Russia in this region and about the possibility of their rapid replenishment "from the mainland"? And it is in such conditions to compare the new Challenger-2 and the opposing Russian-Belarusian means constantly suppressed from the sea, air and land.
      Fourthly, is the T-90M gun somehow strikingly different from the gun installed on the T-72? Let's apply new shells? Well, how many of them are there in the troops now? And how long will this ammunition last against a modern NATO armored fleet?
      And fifthly, about the same mobilized industry. How quickly will the RF Armed Forces be able to replenish the loss of funds with equivalent Western modern models? And in order to answer this last question, I will turn to one more article, already of economic and political content:
      https://zen.yandex.ru/media/russtrat/chtoby-vyjit-rossii-nujen-gosplan-607a95947e45e42df4e4c692
      From all these points mentioned here, I think it should be concluded that the author has correctly placed the accents and is sounding the alarm on the fact of a possible preponderance of modern armored vehicles in the Baltic and North-Western regions of Russia.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 23 May 2021 16: 09
        +1
        Quote: Arkady Gaidar
        From all these points mentioned here, I think it should be concluded that the author has correctly placed the accents and is sounding the alarm on the fact of a possible preponderance of modern armored vehicles in the Baltic and North-Western regions of Russia.

        The author described a specific case with specific machines, and in a pure, dueling form, and not all of this.
        1. Arkady Gaidar
          Arkady Gaidar 23 May 2021 16: 16
          0
          Vladimir_2U, after all, I also led in the end to a pure duel duel between specific machines. Before that, remembering the tactics of the "Western troops", when they first iron everything well, and then attack with modern tanks. And in such conditions, the armored vehicles of Russia, at this line, will surely be able to withstand the battle with the updated Challengers and motorized infantry equipped with modern means of destruction of tanks?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 23 May 2021 16: 33
            +1
            Quote: Arkady Gaidar
            Russian aviation and artillery are likely to be quickly suppressed, due to the number of groups.
            Nonsense, OTRK, KR, SAM and other K should not be written off, not to mention superiority in long-range MLRS and barrel artillery.

            Quote: Arkady Gaidar
            And in such conditions, the armored vehicles of Russia, at this line, will surely be able to withstand the battle with the updated Challengers and motorized infantry equipped with modern means of destruction of tanks?
            This will not happen, see the paragraph above


            Quote: Arkady Gaidar
            That is, we are talking about a global war, into which the participating countries enter with all their resources. After all, it is stupid to think that they will fight with Russia there simply for Kaliningrad and Karelia.
            And then thirdly, is the Russian Federation capable of pulling out a long, large-scale war today, while constantly replenishing the decline of modern weapons with exactly the same new models?
            Global War? This means that there will be global solutions, let me remind you about OTR and KR, for them we have a special warhead.

            And once again, 150-something Challengers will gain an advantage only against 150 T-72 in an open field one on one, which will not happen, just as these Challengers do not.
            1. Arkady Gaidar
              Arkady Gaidar 23 May 2021 16: 50
              0
              Vladimir_2U, if you are hushed up, then I gave reasons, listing them point by point. But, if you think that in this case you can simply write the word "nonsense" and the problem is settled, then it makes no sense to continue the dialogue.
              But I will assume that you did not take into account the condition that all of this, as you put it K, NATO countries are constantly learning to resist, while improving their organization, tactics and technology. Reliable means of overcoming enemy air and missile defense has been known since at least the 70s of the last century, and now add another 50 years of constant improvement. And in other individual episodes, the situation is the same.
              And besides, did I write somewhere that it would be an easy walk for NATO countries ?! If you find such lines from me, be sure to let me know. To make it clear, I wrote in subscript who won is right! And the loser, or the lagging behind in the development and renewal of their weapons, is accordingly wrong and will be beaten for the cause!
              And you sure read this article carefully? Didn't it strike you that the most massive tank ammunition for the Russian T-72, T-80 and T-90 is gradually losing its ability to hit the most modern NATO tanks? Or did you not notice my question above, how many, in this case, are there in the Russian Armed Forces in this direction, updated tank guns and shells for them, capable of hitting the new Challengers, Abrams and Leopards?
              But since the arguments are only "nonsense", without evidence and arguments, then let's end our dialogue.
              All the best! hi
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 23 May 2021 17: 27
                +1
                Quote: Arkady Gaidar
                But since the arguments are only "nonsense", without evidence and arguments, then let's end our dialogue.

                Just a collection of empty phrases from you is not a dialogue.
                Quote: Arkady Gaidar
                Didn't it strike you that the most massive tank ammunition for the Russian T-72, T-80 and T-90 is gradually losing its ability to hit the most modern NATO tanks?
                Did it "not strike you" that the most massive ammunition is gradually REPLACED, that old tanks are gradually REPLACED, that the tactics and weapons of the entire Russian Army are improving and changing?

                Quote: Arkady Gaidar
                But since the arguments are only "nonsense", without evidence and arguments, then let's end our dialogue.
                Sayonara!
                1. Arkady Gaidar
                  Arkady Gaidar 23 May 2021 19: 01
                  0
                  Vladimir_2U, in order to make it clear and so that our dialogue ceases to be an empty pretense, it is worth saying that here I proposed a kind of command-staff game, with a specific task, namely the defense of the Kaliningrad region and Karelia. You probably know that such KSHs resemble chess, where generals and colonels make "moves", and representatives of the opponents, using the same map, make retaliatory actions, after which some areas or some units are considered lost.
                  And now you again declare that the most massive ammunition is gradually being replaced. But this is understandable and I suppose it is obvious even to some donkey. And now, since apparently we have different meters for such events, I will give specific examples. It's a pity only to write a lot and so far I do not see any reciprocal arguments, at least equivalent.
                  So, let's remember the civil war in Syria today. The Russian air defense and missile defense systems you mentioned did not demonstrate one hundred percent reliability there. about 30% of missiles, bombs and shells reached targets covered by the Russian air defense / missile defense umbrella. At the same time, keep in mind that the Western "allies" in the fight against the barmaley were aiming not at Russian targets, but at Syrian targets. Naturally, these are provocations, when Russian means are forced to react, and NATO fighters are learning to defeat Russian modern means. But the fact is that at least 30% of the Russian nuclear-missile deterrent, air defense and missile defense infrastructure can be destroyed by the first surprise strike, which will most likely be followed by a second third, and so on. And here you are telling, they say, nonsense.
                  Now we recall the recent Armenian-Azerbaijani war. And again, Russian air defenses are far from being up to par. Turkish drones demolished the entire defense of Artsakh. And then we recall that today Shoigu said that combat robots were adopted in Russia. but I forgot to mention that in the US Army, combat robots have been in service for at least 10 years. And first of all, they have put into service packs of combat drones (UAVs). Which, unlike the Turkish Bayraktars, attack in a flock, exchange information among themselves which objects which of them are attacking and track the results of the attacks. So the Turkish drones, which the Russian air defense systems in Artsakh could not cope with, look like a small group of kindergarten, and the American ones are already advanced schoolchildren.
                  Further, let us recall the war in Iraq "Desert Storm 2". Then the American generals said that during the entire war with the Iraqi Armed Forces, 80 American tanks were knocked out. Of these, only 2 (!) Were fired by Iraqi tanks, 12-13 by Iraqi artillery, and the rest were lost on anti-tank mines, knocked out by ATGMs and hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. At the same time, the American tankers themselves said that at least 10 times they entered into a mutual duel with Iraqi tanks and knocked out 10 enemy tanks in these duels. And they also said that in most clashes, Iraqi tanks (the very Soviet ones, as well as Russian ones, models up to 72) did not penetrate American ones in the forehead. The Russian military-industrial complex then stated that the Iraqi Armed Forces had outdated types of anti-tank shells, and there were almost no new ones. But so far, the result of tank battles is visible, where the NATO military is winning 5 to 1. And further, the same Western coalition continues that in most cases, it did not come to tank duels, since advanced surveillance equipment allowed American tank crews to detect Iraqi tanks behind long before the response is detected and it is banal to shoot them from afar, or direct aviation at them. In addition, keep in mind that the Iraqi air defense was one of the best among the countries of the Middle East, but it lasted exactly 2 weeks, against the advanced forces of the Western coalition, smaller in size, but much more advanced in equipment.
                  And now let's remember the Balkan war - the bombing of Yugoslavia. Let me remind you that the Yugoslav air defenses were among the best in Eastern Europe. And now you will remind me how many planes of the Western coalition were shot down there, by the very same air defenses of Yugoslavia?
                  Well, let's summarize now. Russian military equipment appears throughout these episodes. And everywhere there were breakthroughs through the space protected by it and the destruction of the technology itself, including modern, advanced models. And that's why I supported the author's anxiety and proposed to specifically consider how many and what the opposing sides have.
                  And you write to me here how it is being replaced and improved. That is, write about nothing. Pouring from empty to empty, without any specifics.
                  Something like that.
                  Once again, all the best! hi
                  1. ANB
                    ANB 23 May 2021 23: 09
                    0
                    ... attack in a flock, exchange information among themselves which objects which of them is attacking and track the results of attacks.

                    Description of the work of KR Granite?
                    1. Arkady Gaidar
                      Arkady Gaidar 23 May 2021 23: 20
                      0
                      Yes, the Russian anti-ship complex is capable of this. But I actually indicated there that I mean UAVs. And ground robots have long been tested in the American army. I heard about the Israeli and their successful use of ground robots, even 7 years ago. And the Americans passed these tests back in the early 2000s. I didn’t ask a question about European countries. So let's enumerate further, name the whole complex of modern weapons and their number in the troops. So that you can sum up tolerable statistics. Or is it weak to designate all this, since only one type of weapon was mentioned?
                      1. ANB
                        ANB 23 May 2021 23: 56
                        0
                        ... Yes, the Russian anti-ship complex is capable of this. But I actually indicated there that I mean UAVs

                        Well, it's still Soviet. How does it differ from a UAV?
                        Actually, even during the INF Treaty, our diplomats presented to the United States that their UAVs were CDs that fell under the treaty (according to the definition of the CD in the treaty).
                        I have no access to other means now. And if he had, he would not publish, since the number of units in service has always been classified information. As if not even so secret.
                  2. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 24 May 2021 03: 12
                    +2
                    Quote: Arkady Gaidar
                    Now we remember the recent Armenian-Azerbaijani war. And again Russian air defense far from up to par.
                    This is enough to understand and forget everything about your "knowledge".
    11. yehat2
      yehat2 25 May 2021 14: 15
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author is missing out on any of the Challengers' mobility

      in 1941 the Germans also lost sight of the mobility of the BT-5 and BT-7
      and in Israel, already in the Yom Kippur War, they also lost sight of the mobility of Israeli tanks.
      They were so overlooked that they had to be replaced with older Centurions.
      Maybe it's enough to repeat about mobility? A lot of things are required from the MBT, and there are many questions about the relevance of the T-72 upgrades.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 25 May 2021 15: 08
        0
        Quote: yehat2
        in 1941 the Germans also lost sight of the mobility of the BT-5 and BT-7
        But the mobility of the T-34 unpleasantly surprised them, I remind you, I also remind you of the reasons for adopting the KV-1S, the lack of mobility is the reason.
        Quote: yehat2
        Israel, already in the Yom Kippur War, also lost sight of the mobility of Israeli tanks.
        They were so overlooked that they had to be replaced with older Centurions.
        And that you both times are not medium, and even more so the main tanks remember? Both times light tanks BT and AMX-13. Let me remind you that the Tigers were thrown in the mud, and the Royal Tigers were frankly salted in 1944, despite all their armor and weapons.
        Quote: yehat2
        Maybe it's enough to repeat about mobility?
        Maybe it's enough to rub in about light tanks?


        Quote: yehat2
        A lot of things are required from the MBT, and there are many questions about the relevance of the T-72 upgrades.
        There is a T-90mz and Armata is on its way. You have no questions about upgrading as many as 150 barely crawling tanks, of course.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 25 May 2021 15: 24
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Maybe it's enough to rub in about light tanks?

          I didn’t lie. Don't make it up.
          And what about the T-72 compared to the 70-ton tank, is it heavy?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 25 May 2021 17: 09
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            And what about the T-72 compared to the 70-ton tank, is it heavy?

            Measuring the degree of security by weight, ignoring the dimensions, is not a sign of competence.
        2. yehat2
          yehat2 25 May 2021 15: 26
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          There is a T-90mz and Armata is on its way

          Can you remind me how many years Armata is on its way?
          And how many NEW tanks have been made and delivered to the troops in the Russian Federation over the past 20 years?
          And what does the T-90 have to do with it, if we have the basis - the T-72 B3, you can make sure in the documents - what the Ministry of Defense spends money on.
          By the way, given the price of modernization, there are even more questions as to why new machines are not being supplied.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 25 May 2021 17: 20
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            Can you remind me how many years Armata is on its way?
            Let me remind you that the first show 6 years ago, the beginning of military trials 2 years ago.

            Quote: yehat2
            And how many NEW tanks have been made and delivered to the troops in the Russian Federation over the past 20 years?
            How many NEW tanks have entered the British Army?

            Quote: yehat2
            And what does the T-90 have to do with it, if we have the basis - the T-72 B3, you can make sure in the documents - what the Ministry of Defense spends money on.
            How is this, do not mow for a fool, the T-72 is MODERNIZED, not released, the T-90 IS PRODUCED NEW, but what about the release of NEW tanks in NATO, do you remind me?
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 26 May 2021 04: 49
              0
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              but what about the release of NEW tanks in NATO, do not remind?

              you're confused again. There is a difference in upgrading the Abrams, which has a lot of free space and reserves for upgrading, and the T-72, which is tightly packed, where any gain is a compromise.
              in addition, we still have some strange problems with the release of normal panoramic sights, guidance systems and a quality night visor.
              Finally, during the collapse of the USSR, the USA and the countries of Western Europe have completely made up for the production of the number of tanks and now they do not need to catch up, it is enough to modernize, just like us, but they have more reserves for this. And following this path, the Ministry of Defense weakens the potential of the armored forces.
              Finally, given the dire condition of our suppliers, in comparison with Western ones, there is also a difference in the quality of modernization.
              How many of our tanks are even close to the latest modernization of the Abrams with trophy and other bells and whistles?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 May 2021 05: 04
                0
                Quote: yehat2
                you're confused again.

                I am not confused, unlike you, because for you, the modernization of the Abrams is an easy casual event, but a mod. The T-72 is a compromise.
                Quote: yehat2
                There is a difference in upgrading the Abrams, which has a lot of free space and reserves for upgrading, and the T-72, which is tightly packed, where any gain is a compromise.

                Let me remind you, or maybe I'll open your eyes at all, that Aba and Chella and Leo have a CHARGER at the same time, and all the "volumes" are eaten up by his workplace. So all modernization, even electronics, is an additional WEIGHT, which is already redundant in NATO tanks. And WEIGHT is not only speed, but also cross-country ability, including over bridges, but at the same time it is far from always being protected.

                Quote: yehat2
                Finally, during the collapse of the USSR, the USA and the countries of Western Europe have completely made up for the production of the number of tanks and now they do not need to catch up
                Digits provide "production quantity".

                Quote: yehat2
                some strange problems with the release of normal panoramic sights, guidance system and high-quality night visor.
                Provide facts of strangeness.

                Quote: yehat2
                And following this path, the Ministry of Defense weakens the potential of the armored forces.
                Well, yes, leaving thousands of sufficiently powerful tanks blind is an increase in potential! And you still write something about my confusion. lol
                And once again, modernizing old tanks, the Armed Forces receives new ones, not in hundreds, but receives, in contrast to NATO countries.
  2. riwas
    riwas 19 May 2021 05: 19
    +28
    Tank duels again? No, NATO doesn't work that way. First, air defense and enemy aircraft are destroyed by strikes from the KR, then by aircraft, including attack UAVs and helicopters. And only then, when the lion's share of the ground forces is destroyed, tanks will appear in the theater of operations. This was the case in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren11/asimm_otvet1.htm
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 19 May 2021 06: 55
      +21
      Damantsev has all his thinking at the level of Word of Tanks! Around there are exclusively continuous duels! And on tanks, and on MLRS, and indeed everywhere, both in the air and on the water, and even in electronic warfare! Here is such a couch dueling analyst, an expert on absolutely all types of weapons and military and special equipment.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 19 May 2021 17: 02
        +7
        here we are ... we have the whole army at the exercises to work within the framework of the reconnaissance and strike contour as part of the BTG ... and Damantsev has a one-on-one duel ..
      2. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 19 May 2021 19: 55
        +2
        Quote: Old Tankman
        Here is such a couch dueling analyst, an expert on absolutely all types of weapons and military and special equipment.

        Our answer is ihnim Majumdaram And from the sea, Admiral Kaptsov threatens an arrogant neighbor. In general, know ours! laughing
    2. Devyatomayets
      Devyatomayets 19 May 2021 09: 15
      +1
      Quote: riwas
      Tank duels again? No, NATO doesn't work that way. First, air defense and enemy aircraft are destroyed by strikes from the KR, then by aircraft, including attack UAVs and helicopters. And only then, when the lion's share of the ground forces is destroyed, tanks will appear in the theater of operations. This was the case in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
      http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren11/asimm_otvet1.htm


      That's right - tanks have not fought against tanks since the days of the war in Korea. There were some isolated cases in the Arab-Israeli wars and that's all.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 19 May 2021 14: 08
        +1
        Quote: Devyatomayets
        in the Arab-Israeli wars and all

        Even in Iraq there were tank battles
        1. Konnick
          Konnick 19 May 2021 17: 42
          +1
          Even in Iraq there were tank battles

          By chance, in a dust storm, when reconnaissance did not work.
      2. Reiter
        Reiter 19 May 2021 20: 35
        +1
        But in Donbass, there were such cases, by the way.
  3. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 19 May 2021 06: 22
    +10
    Meanwhile, in a duel situation (with the temporary absence or scarcity of proper artillery and aviation support from the MFA, army aviation and the Aerospace Forces, as well as support from the self-propelled ATGM "Chrysanthemum-S", "Kornet-D1", due to various operational and tactical circumstances )
    May the author forgive me without going into technical details, but the picture is downright depressing!

    Firstly, somewhere, in the "head" this statement "crept further" and ended the quote, - as well as loss of command and control, lack of shells, fuel, crews and other circumstances.
    Secondly. Where did the dates for the start of hostilities come from in the period 2021-2022?
    The start of deliveries of these machines, as well as promising 125-mm BOPSs of the "Vacuum" family, to combat units of the Armored Forces of the Russian Army, in the most favorable scenario, is planned only at the end of 2022 - beginning of 2023.
    And yes, are they just making plans or have they already completed the modernization, redeployed and are ready to strike?
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 19 May 2021 07: 00
      +7
      Yes, the author does not care about the meaning and essence of what he wrote. He has a principle to take and compare the performance characteristics of two monotonous weapons of adversaries and ours. Make a couch conclusion which of them is "cooler" and get a fee for it. Simple and angry.
      That's all.
    2. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 19 May 2021 07: 21
      -2
      Quote: Vladimir61
      May the author forgive me without going into technical details, but the picture is downright depressing!

      It is, however, you can compare the performance characteristics of the main NATO tanks and our T-72M3 ...
      And yes, are they just making plans or have they already completed the modernization, redeployed and are ready to strike?

      The British have nothing to do there (they will not trample east of the FRG), there and without them the latest "Leopards" and "Abrams" are enough ...
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 19 May 2021 09: 51
        -5
        And why compare them? For what purpose? If you want, let's do it differently. 1200 72 b3 in an open field against 150 challengers. Who will win?)))
        1. sergej987
          sergej987 19 May 2021 13: 20
          +2
          Domance
          Quote: carstorm 11
          And why compare them? For what purpose? If you want, let's do it differently. 1200 72 b3 in an open field against 150 challengers. Who will win?)))

          Domantsev wrote. T72 will lose. From a distance of 3500 meters, 150 t72 were destroyed, even if 15 seconds for aiming and reloading, another 150. T72 over drive up to 2000 meters since we have not very much shells. It turns out 2 minutes 1200 t72. How long can a tank travel in a field in 2 minutes? At a speed of 30 km per hour, just about 2 minutes. All clear. They have sights and shells and armor, but we have a hodgepodge of old tanks and rubber shells. Iron will be made only by 2024, and even then only 5 pieces for the exhibition.
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 19 May 2021 13: 36
            +2
            Or the turntables will rise and they will be killed from a distance of 10 km) or MLRS for 20) but since the comparisons from the series are tanks not moving head-on and bullet at the maximum distance))) kindergarten)))
            1. Lara Croft
              Lara Croft 19 May 2021 19: 36
              +2
              Quote: carstorm 11
              Or the turntables will rise and they will be killed from a distance of 10 km)

              The problem is that NATu has more AA helicopters, tactical aircraft and attack drones ...
              about as comparisons from the series are tanks without moving head-on and bullet at the maximum distance

              the author apparently meant a counter tank battle (they have experience in Iraq) or tank ambushes ...
            2. Reiter
              Reiter 19 May 2021 20: 43
              -1
              Well, this is a hypothetically possible situation, but in real life everything can happen, even melee. If you do not take into account the possibility of a tank versus tank situation, then why do we need all sorts of races from penetration, then it is enough that the tank has an OFS or some kind of armor-piercing 500 mm, this with a margin is enough for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles and houses to make holes.
        2. Lara Croft
          Lara Croft 19 May 2021 19: 42
          +3
          Quote: carstorm 11
          1200 72 b3 in an open field against 150 challengers. Who will win?)))

          .... in the entire Western Military District, you won't get so many T-72B3s, and the British will fight in the third echelon ... modern Abrams and Leopards will be against us .... and in the main directions there will be more of them than our T -72B3 ... (which are inferior) to the above-mentioned Empireist tanks ....
          ... there was an article on VO about the modernization of the T-72B to the level of the T-72B3, and you are here telling me tales about the tank field ...
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 19 May 2021 20: 33
            -3
            In our theater of operations?))) Then start to take into account facts such as, for example, that let's say in Iraq more than 70 percent of the destroyed tanks were not hit by enemy tanks) well, for starters) and was not going to collect them from the ZVO) I just offered to compare the possibilities of all the challenges against all 72 b3))) just for me, comparing the performance characteristics of individual machines in isolation from the rest of the forces and means has always been and will be amateurishness)
            1. Lara Croft
              Lara Croft 19 May 2021 20: 45
              -1
              Quote: carstorm 11
              just for me, comparing the performance characteristics of individual machines apart from the rest of the forces and means has always been and will be amateurishness)

              The author tried to write a colorful article, but then everyone piled on him ... although everyone understands that the T-72B3 and the early T-90 are tanks of the "mobilization" CA, which required technological simplicity for production and ease of maintenance ... In the Union, we had even more types of tanks - T-55, T-62 (they managed to fight in the war on 08.08.08/64/XNUMX), T-XNUMX ...
    3. ultra
      ultra 19 May 2021 08: 06
      -4
      The Americans are completely modernizing themselves, and our units are still receiving new BMP 3, which do not correspond to modern realities from the word at all.
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 19 May 2021 22: 22
        0
        It's not about realities, but about changing concepts. If the Germans make a couple of hundred cats weighing like MBT, at a price like MBT, then we stupidly cannot replace thousands of BMPs with similar machines. And nobody can. The navel will be untied.
    4. Barberry25
      Barberry25 19 May 2021 17: 03
      0
      laughing But do our tankers know that they are fighting on their own?
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 19 May 2021 06: 32
    +4
    was greeted with a flurry of ironic comments from the readership of Voenniy Obozreniye
    The author probably did not read the comments well, or saw what he wanted to see. There were various comments on this topic. I will say more. Too ironic mercilessly minus supporters of the slogan - "But there is not what we have." The nature of the article raises the question - "Katz proposes to surrender"? (film "Good weather on Deribasovskaya ...")
    1. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 19 May 2021 07: 25
      +2
      Quote: rotmistr60
      There were various comments on this topic.

      Yes, I won't read any comments here about the development of the Armed Forces of the NATO countries, most of them are ridiculous, for some reason most of all go to the British, even though an article about the Lands, even about the Navy / Air Force ...
      It is necessary to treat the enemy pragmatically ...
      Due to the shapkozakidatelstva local patriots coming out, it is almost impossible to see on VO, articles on the development of the Armed Forces of foreign states in general ...
  5. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 19 May 2021 06: 52
    -6
    Damantsev for the second day in a row?
    For unprepared readers, this may be too much - their brains will break))) laughing
    1. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 19 May 2021 07: 46
      0
      Exactly! I couldn't believe my eyes !!! Apparently, Damantsev has a financial crisis, if he began to issue pearls every day ...
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 19 May 2021 20: 02
        0
        Everyone is in crisis now. Capitalism, competition, lower costs in the end. And now Damantsev is forced to write two fabulous articles instead of one. Otherwise, you will have to go out into the cold, and outside the gates there is a line of stavers and Samsonovs in his place.
  6. kytx
    kytx 19 May 2021 07: 34
    +1
    Damantsev fell ill
    I do not see it in article A2 / AD
    :)
    1. Alex 1970
      Alex 1970 19 May 2021 07: 59
      +6
      It was wink , "Kaliningrad zone A2 / AD"
  7. Freedim
    Freedim 19 May 2021 07: 55
    +3
    Ah .. well, then, we welcome to the Karelian swamps .. I'd like to see how it drives on something other than a road covered with rubble.
  8. TerraSandera
    TerraSandera 19 May 2021 08: 32
    +2
    The British have not fought on their islands for a very long time. And to transfer tanks for the war against the Russian Federation? Nonsense. Damantsev kept getting shallow
  9. Speedy
    Speedy 19 May 2021 08: 37
    0
    If, as the author writes, no one can support it, then we will apparently no longer have tanks either. This already means kirdyk.
  10. Evil troll
    Evil troll 19 May 2021 09: 34
    -2
    Therefore, 150 (this is all, but 50 is enough for us) tanks (which have not yet been built) will pierce the old T-72s (equipped with contact-5, and not a relic) in the forehead. This is a 1 on 1 tank duel in the age of drones and other tank locomotives (as it always happens). And we will not pierce them, because we have no shells (for now, but then we will do it. But not enough!).
  11. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 19 May 2021 09: 42
    +1
    the author somehow forgets that a fight in an ideal steppe, level as a table, is very rare. As a rule, either rough terrain or a settlement, where record performance in terms of range and speed of the projectile's flight, does not matter much. The battles in Donbass showed that the theoretical advantage of ukroSS tanks - thermal imagers and anti-tank guided missiles - did not have much effect on the results of the battles. Although the militia has old T-64s, it is even slightly worse than T-72.
    1. akarfoxhound
      akarfoxhound 19 May 2021 10: 38
      -1
      The author has never turned a single handle on any military (air, sea, armored, etc.) apparatus in his life, never pressed a pedal, never pressed a trigger. He's just a "big expert" in everything
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 19 May 2021 11: 05
        +1
        So yes))) to be an expert in everything, a little - a little and nothing really - it's fashionable now)))
  12. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 19 May 2021 09: 51
    -1
    From the cycle: "The boss is gone, the gypsy is coming out, the client is leaving ..."! And to come to the "tank biathlon" is weak, then it doesn't matter what "bells and whistles" in the tank, but it is important who is in it ...
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 19 May 2021 17: 48
      -1
      it doesn't matter what "bells and whistles" are in the tank, but it is important who is in it ...
      There is also such, for example:
  13. Sergey Obraztsov
    Sergey Obraztsov 19 May 2021 10: 25
    +2
    And again, someone is dreaming of the Battle of Kursk ... The victory of the hypothetical conflict will be forged not by NATO armadas, but by gaining air superiority. There will be heaven on us and no one will send the crowd of T72 to knock out these challengers. Rather, several dozen K-52s. And a bunch of field artillery will strike from the ground (as an example) and so on and so forth and so forth. In a war, all weapon systems work, and not its individual representatives. And do not forget that it is not necessary to penetrate the enemy's tank in order to disable it.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 19 May 2021 23: 04
      -2
      Quote: Sergey Obraztsov
      The victory of a hypothetical conflict will not be forged by NATO armadas, but by gaining air superiority
      In the event of a nuclear war, the plane does not fly much: the airfields are destroyed, there is nothing special to carry out inter-flight maintenance, and the plane that has stalled in the air, unlike the tank that has stalled on the way, is unlikely to be repaired. It is tanks that will fight under the "mushrooms" and "tank against tank" battles are very possible, since any ATGMs not covered with solid armor will burn out.
      1. Sergey Obraztsov
        Sergey Obraztsov 20 May 2021 10: 01
        +2
        Well, if you paint such an apoleptic picture, then I think the fact that the T72B3 of this modification of the challenger is stronger or weaker will be the least problem for the military. Especially considering that in quantitative ratio per Briton there will be no less than 10 T72B3 by that time. In general, the B3 is not a mobilization tank for fighting other breakthrough tanks. There are much more expensive modifications for this. So they are called - T90M.
  14. akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 19 May 2021 10: 35
    0
    The first 3 lines - it looks like the author of "expert" Zhenek ?! You twist it down - that's right! The time spent on reading the digital nonsense of a person far from exploiting technology is simply a pity winked
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 19 May 2021 11: 47
      +1
      Eugene, and TUR Reflex is not included in the T72 B3 ammunition load? He has armor penetration not lower than 950 mm of homogeneous armor, plus DZ! The one that your "challengers" themselves can easily become bonfires on the battlefield.
  15. Pereira
    Pereira 19 May 2021 11: 06
    +1
    What's the chance for these tanks to meet?
  16. steelmaker
    steelmaker 19 May 2021 11: 07
    +3
    I will support the author. Competent analysis and correct comparison. It has been 30 years after the collapse of the USSR and 20 years of Putin's rule. We only have tanks from the times of the USSR and their modernization. Therefore, the British are modernizing their tanks under the "galoshes" of the USSR. And the author is right that he raised this topic. This is how all NATO countries upgrade their tanks to this level. Putin should not rely on Soviet "galoshes", but build his own "galoshes" to leave at least something behind him, except for the mat!
  17. DMi
    DMi 19 May 2021 11: 48
    +3
    This myth about tank duels has already been slightly pissed off. Even in WWII, the vast majority of tank losses were from anti-tank artillery and mines. Zaruba "tank against tank" was a RARE. And already in our time, when each squad has a grenade launcher, each platoon of ATGM, and in the air, helicopters and drones, a duel tank against a tank looks generally statistically tending to zero.
    Yes, and the main task of the tank is to support the infantry with fire and maneuver, and not to hunt for enemy tanks.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 19 May 2021 17: 06
      +1
      winked and despite the fact that tanks are always a means of reinforcing the infantry
  18. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 19 May 2021 13: 29
    +1
    When Challenger 3 appears in the area of ​​the Suwalki corridor, it poses a real threat to the existence of England, as a land surrounded by sea water from all sides. Yes, they are sure we will not bomb our palaces in England. Let them believe !!!
    1. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. 19 May 2021 13: 49
      -2
      Before the advent of nuclear cluster warheads, a regiment with ten mono-heads was aimed at England, wiping the island off the face of the earth. Then there were missiles with three warheads, now there is one missile for one England with ten warheads. Minutes 8-10 and no UK. There aren't any of our own.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 19 May 2021 21: 30
        0
        There aren't any of our own.
        Like, they are sitting at their houses !? wink
  19. alex aircraft
    alex aircraft 19 May 2021 13: 45
    +6
    The author simply compared the TTX t 72b3 and the challenger, and this is clearly not in our favor. So let the uglykalka think a little.
  20. Zum
    Zum 19 May 2021 15: 34
    +1
    First ... let's start with the fact that the British have lost their tank industry ..... so the "fat man 3" is no longer the British model of the BTT ..... we can buy the Merkava, Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard and Challenger .. ..copy components and assemblies ..... and ...... create ... the so-called "ideal tank" ...... which will not be such .... how our "big friends "the Chinese .... I copy our and foreign samples of weapons ... Our tank industry has its own way and it begins in the 30s of the last century ... ... simplicity, maintainability ... the main national feature of the Soviet tank school ....... so we will never have .... like THERE .....
    PS What will happen if you install German 8,8 and optics on the T-34/85 ... the answer is obvious ... but is it necessary ... because the idea is different ... like akht-aht, so and the famous thirty-four ...
  21. tank64rus
    tank64rus 19 May 2021 16: 01
    +1
    Tanks are a collective weapon. They fight along with other branches and types of troops. And portray 150 "Challengers against T-72B3, by the way, there are already T72B3M, T-90AM, T80M, etc. And these tanks are much more than 150 Challengers. And then why such an article.
    1. Nikkon
      Nikkon 19 May 2021 17: 05
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      Tanks are a collective weapon. They fight along with other branches and types of troops. And portray 150 "Challengers against T-72B3, by the way, there are already T72B3M, T-90AM, T80M, etc. And these tanks are much more than 150 Challengers. And then why such an article.

      Right!
      In addition, these modernized Challengers are not yet available, and it is not known when they will appear. In addition, the rational angles of inclination of the T-72 armor also affect the armor penetration, and not only its thickness and the quality of DZ hi
  22. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 19 May 2021 17: 28
    +1
    Damn, I also recognize Damantsev by the title.
  23. sifgame
    sifgame 19 May 2021 18: 04
    0
    We do not need bright prospects, let them keep it for themselves. If we are to discuss a spherical horse in a vacuum, then there are more than 72 T3-B1500 present, 10 pieces for each, modernized Challenger in the future.
  24. Lara Croft
    Lara Croft 19 May 2021 20: 03
    +4
    and for the tank brigades of the Russian Army, hastily transferred to the Kaliningrad zone A2 / AD from the 6th and 20th combined arms armies and equipped with more advanced MBT T-72B3M.

    tank brigades from the Central and Southern military districts

    Author. Not in the composition of the above OA Tbr., As well as in the Southern Military District and the Central Military District, there are all of them for all the RF Armed Forces - 2, one in the ZVO of the 1st TA, the other in the VVO, in the 36th OA (Ulan-Ude) ... ...
    And how to throw the author was going to phantom TBR. in KOR, as part of the KBF, there are only 4 old Polish-built large landing ships of the 70s ...
    But the author "forgot" to mention the deployment in the KOR - MSD ....
    According to reports, the new division is being formed on the basis of the former 79th Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade. First, the 79th motorized rifle regiment was deployed on the basis of the brigade, to which separate communications, reconnaissance and engineer battalions were added. Then, the newly formed motorized rifle regiments of the 275th and 280th, as well as the 11th tank regiment, became part of the already new division.
    The new division will strengthen the 11th Army Corps of the Baltic Fleet. Its formation was a response to NATO exercises near the Russian borders, especially since the Kaliningrad region is surrounded by countries that are not friendly to Russia. Both in Lithuania and in Poland, most of all they shout about the "Russian threat" and invite American troops to their territories.

    https://topwar.ru/182937-nazvany-sroki-formirovanija-novoj-motostrelkovoj-divizii-v-kaliningradskoj-oblasti.html

    Because of the hurray-patriots, the authors of the articles do not particularly try to analyze the Forces of the parties in the theater of operations ... even laziness in WIKI and look at past articles on VO ...
  25. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 19 May 2021 20: 06
    +13
    I read the comments and am surprised. Where do such commentators come from? What they read, where and when they served ... Let's take it in order.
    a) It is not tanks that are fighting, but structures: Air Defense, Fighter Aviation, Tactical, Artillery, ITD ITP. Absolutely agree. But the alignment then is still in favor of NATO, unfortunately. Both qualitative and quantitative. You count the number of planes on each side, add "neutral" Scandinavians to them, just in case. Although even without the addition of the Scandinavians, NATO has both quantitative and qualitative superiority. F-22 and F-35 are already flying (how much an hour of flight each costs is a completely different question). The number of F-16 + F15 + Rafal + Taifun + Grippen + F18 also NOBODY has canceled. Just count. Well, compare with what Russia has. Just by quantity.
    Now the quality, how many of your variants of SU and MIG are equipped with electronics and electronic warfare that meets today's (and not 20 years old) requirements. Just how much? How many have AFAR?
    Let's go further. To what extent do the Russian Air-Air missiles (you are going to win air superiority with them) and Air-Earth (you are going to stop tanks with them) meet the MODERN requirements, and how many of these missiles are there NOW, not in 5 years, but NOW? How many equivalents to Meteor, Amraham, etc., etc., will be in service with the Russian Air Force NOW, and not in the future ... And the equivalents not only in range, but also in guidance systems (shoot and HIT are different things)
    The same question about turntables. (You are going to destroy tanks with them). As far as I know (and I could be wrong), Russia has about 250 of ALL variants of spacecraft. Mi-28, Emnip about 150. Plus, more or less modified MI-24 and spacecraft (in the fleet) EVERYTHING. And now count the number of Apaches in the USA / England, and of all sorts of little things like Tigers, Agust, Mongoose, etc., etc. from "potential partners", and then compare the QUALITY of weapons and radio electronic equipment. And not "promising" but what is now MASSOVO. For example NVG ... Or radars.
    For artillery, missiles, MLRS and UAVs, repeat the same process. Compare the QUANTITY and QUALITY of what is today and now, and at the same time the experience of application.
    One way or another, the US and NATO troops are now practicing at least some kind of combat practice of using different weapons systems and their interaction in Iraq and in the BV. In much larger quantities than Russia in Syria.
    Then compare that we have served at least 4 years, you have one. I will not say whether they paint the grass there and build dachas for the generals or not, I do not know if this is happening now, however, in 4 years, a soldier can be taught much more than one. Moreover, your notorious hazing, gives a good chance that in the event of war, the soldiers will settle scores with each other and not with the enemy. Tested in both Korea and Vietnam. Yes, and in Afghanistan, "Frags" were not isolated.
    Now let's move on to the tanks themselves. "Tanks do not fight tanks." I cried. There is such a proverb "If you want to make the gods laugh, tell them about your plans" ... Tanks with tanks do not fight only in one case, when aviation + turntables knock out enemy tanks and gain superiority over the battlefield. Considering the QUANTITY and QUALITY of what is in the NATO troops and in the Russian troops NOW (and not in the future), I am sure that the superiority OVER the battlefield will be with the NATO troops. Simple and corny, they have a lot more fighters of the 4 ++ generation. There are also 5th generation fighters, but what they are or not is unknown. Tail Slide for example F-35 does. The F-22 is being removed from production not because it is bad, but because a) it is expensive to maintain, b) new technologies have appeared. And how many are there in the SU-57? Right now ... Well, what Grippen is doing with the SU-27 and others like them was shown by the teachings of China. Yes, there were old SU models, but how many new ones did the Russian Air Force have? Yes, and the Grippens there were not the newest, and note, FLU, Not Rafali, not Typhoons and not F15X. I mean, a light fighter cut into a heavy nut. So far, the era of dogfight is over. Super maneuverability at low speeds is no longer needed. Will you need it again? Unknown.
    SAM? Well, for some reason in Syria, the S-400 did not show itself, did not show anything from the word at all. How many Turkish, Israeli, American aircraft were shot down by Russian air defense systems? ZERO. As for the CD and the UAV, here too, the Russians say "They shot everything down", the Americans and the Israelis, without blinking, answer "They didn't shoot down anything, everything flew where it should be," I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    So, given that the superiority OVER the battlefield will not be for Russia, tanks are fighting with tanks.
    Yes, the entire concept of NATO tanks is a turret tank destroyer with an additional function of supporting troops. NATO tanks are sharpened EXACTLY for a tank battle. Therefore - sharply differentiated armor protection (on the T-72 the side armor of the hull, the emnip 85mm, as on the IS-2)
    Some of the commentators said that they say the battle is not going on in the flat steppe. I agree, but now look at the UVN on Russian tanks (declination angle -6 degrees), and on NATO ones (On Challenger -10 degrees). They are precisely sharpened for the hull down position and use the folds of the terrain. Yes, NATO tanks are heavy, but it is not stupid weight that matters, but the thrust-to-weight ratio and specific ground pressure, for Leopard 2A7 it is 0.88kg / sq cm, the same as for the latest T72 modifications. For the T-90, the same indicator is 0.94kg / sq. Cm. For Challenger 2, it is 1kg / sq. Cm. This is about the cross-country ability. That is, the T-90 has no special superiority in cross-country ability. By the way, the M60A3 had the same indicator of 0.79kg / Kw CM. So in terms of cross-country ability, it is not known which is better, the T-90 or the Leopard 2A7, for example. From the point of view of tactical flexibility (UHN) and electronics / night vision devices, the superiority is for NATO (I'm talking about the fact that in the troops massively NOW, and not in the future). We also have railguns in the fleet, as many as 3 emnip. But this does not mean that they should be taken into account.
    About the superiority of the MASSOVO produced BOPSs by NATO over the MASSOVO produced BOPSs of Russia has already been written on this site. Muzzle energy of the German L55 was also written about. Yes, there are new 125mm Cannons in Russia, with increased ballistics, (2A82M1, IIRC) I admit it. The only question is HOW MANY of these guns are ALREADY in the ARMY? ALREADY on tanks?
    Armata. Yes, there is, yes it goes. The question is ... HOW MUCH. Leclerc with a 140mm cannon is already there. The German 130mm is also ALREADY ready, by the way, it was tested on Challenger 3. It also exists and also drives ... But, of course, there is no Leclerc with 140mm, no Leopard with 130mm, no Armata ... even with 125mm, not to mention 152mm. By the way, the M829A4 is ALREADY in the army in large quantities. And the Vacuum? Well, what about your ATGMs launched through the barrels? Well, the same pturs as everything else, and KAZ gets lost, and is diverted by interference, and is blinded by lasers. Wunderwaffe, these 125mm pturs of yours are not, as well as our TOU and Hellfire.
    Someone can say "The enemy is not counted," they do. Maybe if he's ignorant. Both quality and quantity are counted. When, instead of an infantry regiment, a motorized rifle division rushes at you, it's somehow not comfortable. But you have not counted either the opponent's quantity or the quality. Ask Tukhachevsky about the fact that "the enemy is not counted, he is beaten," he also did not count the Poles. He also did not count their French instructors and American weapons ... You can just look at 1941. Didn't count. True, both sides did not count here. Therefore, one side at first retreated to Moscow, and then the other side retreated to Berlin inclusive. And because they did not "count." Well, then the USSR had a completely different commander. The real leader of the nation and leader. And now????
    Listening to all these "The enemy is not counted" and "We can repeat", not by nightfall the mentioned Adolf Alloizovich freaks out "I never taught them anything."

    That the USSR with the WDS countries could not be particularly afraid of NATO. Although there was some quality lag (mainly in electronics, avidvizkam and night vision devices), and the lag itself was minimal, to be honest. That RUSSIA is NOT the USSR, unfortunately. If she were the USSR, I would live in the USSR and work in the USSR and would not fear a serious illness or the risk of losing my job for nothing. But neither I nor you are in the USSR, to my great regret. Neither industrial nor scientific. Moreover, not even stupidly by the population. OVD also no longer exists, that is, you do not have them, they are in full force in NATO. Half of the former republics of the USSR are rushing there, which, in the event of a naughty one, will not remain on the sidelines and, as it should be, will try to snatch their hyenas.
    And for all "we can repeat" and "Uryashnikov" I will remind one sad anecdote "Eeeh, Genatsvali, then we all had a savsem like a trainer." And THEN people believed in something. I don't see anyone going into the attack shouting "For Putin, for Sechin, for Gazprom."
    "A pack of wolves led by a ram loses to a herd of rams led by a wolf" - the absolute truth. THEN you had both a Wolf (with a capital letter, a mustache and a pipe) and a flock ... And now ... ???? Is it possible to raise taxes, raise the retirement age and, like a gentleman in the 19th century, drive grandmothers picking berries and mushrooms in the forest is much ...

    Minus or not, it won't change the facts. The level of technology, its QUANTITY in the ARMY and the LEVEL OF THE FORCES IN USING IT (4 years or 1 year of training) are of great importance. And even decisive.
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 19 May 2021 20: 44
      +2
      Why minus? For sensible comments?
      From me only a plus.
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 19 May 2021 20: 50
        +6
        Yes, there are people here who told me that in Russian tanks, the ammunition and AZ are in the BO, and if something happens to the entire crew, they will not suffer, but that the new BOPSs do not interfere with the old AZs, that the reverse gear has Russian tanks do not exceed 5 km / h, and that night vision devices are weaker than those of American and German tanks. :-) Well, this hasn't changed anything. Throwing cons to me is much easier than asking the manufacturers WHY they produce it, and the Army WHY does it accept this ... Well, it's not for me to fight on these tanks ...
        1. Klingon
          Klingon 19 May 2021 23: 20
          +1
          I'm thinking, well, do we really have crooked workers that are not able to do normal optics? After all, there was (is there?) a LOMO plant and TV and HB matrices can be copied from the Chinese (survived)
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 19 May 2021 23: 46
            +1
            Do you honestly want me to answer this question? Shas again throw me a bunch of minuses. Well, one judge for them.
            a) Workers in Russia are great when an uncle stands over them with a carrot and a stick. With good positive and negative motivation, the mountains are upside down. Without it, they will work for hip-hap and steal everything that is not nailed to the floor, and if there is a hammer, then it will whistle. The mentality is about the same as that of the Irish, Italians, Mexicans and Negroes. I've seen enough here in the United States, both in civilian life and in the Army. Show that there will be good pay for a good job, and there will be merciless punishment for jambs - you will not find the best workers.
            b) Engineers in Russia, firstly, to rush to the West (there is banal more salaries, and less bureaucratic red tape), and secondly, they think out of the ordinary (a unique ability that is simply knocked out from students in the West at universities). Thirdly, the mentality is about the same as that of the workers.
            c) The problem is in "effective managers" and banal in "capitalism" and the "invisible hand of the market". Since the time of tsarism, the mentality has not changed one iota. Why, for example, a British contractor will NEVER supply boots with cardboard soles to the British Army, but a Russian, truly Orthodox, will willingly supply? Why will a German or even a Czech hard worker work conscientiously and will not even come to cheat the customer and the contractor will never substitute the state for him? And this, my friend, is already a mentality. By the way, until recently, putting the army to work differently than the army requires was well, a rarity. The same M16. Yes, there are problems, but what the army ORDERED, it got it. Why are the American shipyards not disrupting the delivery dates for nuclear submarines? Why did the Soviet shipyards not disrupt the delivery dates, but the Russian ones do? Because there is NOTHING except IMMEDIATE profit. And where will the native state go? Will they order corvettes from the Swedes? The problem is in the pursuit of momentary profit, ignoring long-term prospects, interests of both the state, and the army and even your own company, because having hit the jackpot, you can escape to Europe or the United States. Why American aces and their children and money keep and live in the United States. Well, yes, they can have an estate in France or Spain, but permanent residence and the entire business in the United States. Why? Although even in the United States, this is now changing. Why such a mentality? And because most of your "effective" managers, such as Gaidar, Chubais and nanoprezik, START on the country, they DO NOT FEEL themselves citizens of the country and are identified as "WESTERNS". The overwhelming majority of the most stubborn American liberals still identify with AMERICA, and not with anything else, even if their vision of America is such a nightmare that the occupation by the Taliban would be better ... And your "elite" is not yours for a long time and ours. Century commercials since the 18th. Admiration for Europe and the West and contempt for your own country and people amazed your "intelligentsia" and "elite" for a long time and has not gone anywhere.
            1. Crabong
              Crabong 20 May 2021 06: 35
              -2
              Are you driving there on the truck? Yes you are getting rich with a thought ...
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 21 May 2021 01: 15
                +3
                No, I work at the US Armed Forces Veterans Hospital. Where I had the honor to serve as a military medic for 6 years ...
                1. alex3812
                  alex3812 25 May 2021 12: 09
                  +1
                  Why are you, my dear, so worried about the bast shoes of Russia? Return your magnificent ji-ai with the victory over the barbarians, rest in your hospital and then you will "have the honor".
            2. Obliterator
              Obliterator 21 May 2021 01: 12
              +1
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              Admiration for Europe and the West and contempt for your own country and people amazed your "intelligentsia" and "elite" for a long time and has not gone anywhere.

              I would say that this is gradually spreading to the rest of the population.
    2. Intruder
      Intruder 20 May 2021 08: 12
      +1
      Minus or not, it won't change the facts.
      Well, I don’t know about the others, I’m only for myself (like father Makhno good ) put a plus, especially for this:
      And for all "we can repeat" and "Uryashnikov" I will remind one sad anecdote "Eeeh, Genatsvali, then we all had a savsem like a trainer." And THEN people believed in something. I don't see anyone going into the attack shouting "For Putin, for Sechin, for Gazprom."
      and for something else in such a long commentary, although everything is sad ... crying
  26. Dmitry Izmalkov
    Dmitry Izmalkov 19 May 2021 20: 12
    +1
    Damantsev, where do the numbers about penetration come from? For the DM-63, the Germans themselves do not declare 750 no more. And for 3bm60, it’s laughter. Tech Mash said about 600mm exactly
    1. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 19 May 2021 20: 55
      0
      DM63 has 105mm penetration for 530mm gun, 120mm penetration for 800mm, and 20mm penetration for 60mm. So the shells are different, the calibers are different, and the penetration of the RHA is different.
  27. Bogalex
    Bogalex 19 May 2021 21: 13
    0
    ... the operational and tactical advantages of combat vehicles as a threat to motorized rifle and tank units ...
    !!!
    I couldn't read further ...
  28. Klingon
    Klingon 19 May 2021 23: 16
    0
    Quote: Vsevolod
    Yes, not a fig, a duel with tanks is the tenth thing.

    and then! Right now, tanks from medium-sized Drones can be thrown directly into the roof of the tower and / or MTO, and the tanks cannot answer back with anything.
  29. IC
    IC 20 May 2021 00: 33
    0
    Buinwe is a fantasy of some kind of fictional military action. Apparently the author has overplayed the network wars.
  30. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 20 May 2021 18: 08
    +1
    VLD of T-72B3M hulls with 4S22 elements of "Contact-5" reactive armor barely reaches 650 and 600 mm

    article sucks
    Challenger Mk. 3. BOPS kinetic action of the order of 810-850 mm

    VLD T-72B3 is 640 mm
    BUT, incl. 110mm boron carbide equivalent x8 = 880mm + 530mm = 1410-mm
    + slope 530 mm + 30% + 880 mm = 1569-mm
    + DZ equivalent even 400 mm = 1969-mm

    board T-72B3 80 mm armor + 110 mm boron carbide = 880 mm + 80 mm = 960-mm
    + DZ 400-mm = 1360-mm at an angle of 90 degrees.
  31. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 20 May 2021 18: 19
    +2
    frontal armor plates of welded towers of Challengers 3, amounting to about 900-950 mm

    As an exception

    it is not correct to compare Challenger and T-72B3
    on the defensive we have motorized infantry on BMP-2 with ATGM Kornet calculations - 1300 mm for DZ
    and tanks only as reinforcement in tank trenches by sector
    Well, the PT division with Chrysanthemums and Assaults allegedly did not reach
    intelligence pumped up
  32. serzh1960
    serzh1960 21 May 2021 10: 02
    +1
    Do you think that our and British tanks will meet in the vastness of Russia? I doubt something very much. As they traveled around their island, they will remain there.
  33. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 23 May 2021 11: 29
    +1
    I recognize Damantsev "by his gait". wassat
  34. Evgenii Xolod
    Evgenii Xolod 23 May 2021 21: 38
    0
    He is not smart anyway, the question is what he will be after the modernization in terms of mobility and cross-country ability.
  35. Skipper
    Skipper 26 May 2021 22: 15
    0
    For me, the result of the Challengers' actions + the brave training of the crews is seen only this way ... and nothing else ...
  36. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 3 June 2021 14: 56
    0
    Quote: ultra
    The main purpose of the tank is to fight against enemy tanks, our tanks have problems with this.

    Germany lost the war following this principle.
  37. Burtas
    Burtas 6 June 2021 05: 58
    0
    They will not do anything ... even though they will trim it with gold. Modern warfare does not provide for tank duels, let alone a new battle at Beards or Prokhorovka. A company of armed ATGM and Kabzets is enough for the Anglo-Saxons, Germans and the gentry ...