T-80BV in Donbass: forced measure or effective combat unit

130

T-80BV. Source: infosmi.net

Tanks around the head


When regular echelons with armored vehicles removed from storage move to the West, this causes a strange indignation among the public. Say, why are the most modern models of armored vehicles not fighting? Have they ended or turned out to be not so effective? Such questions, of course, have the right to exist, but with big reservations. Firstly, each such exclamation in the network from the category of “everything is lost” pours water on the mill of Ukrainian propaganda. They sprinkled ashes on their heads and immediately received a moral upsurge in the enemy camp. One can only imagine with what epithets they describe the appearance on the fronts of the T-62 as part of volunteer battalions.

Of course, a considerable share of the blame for this “victory” lies with the citizens, doomedly commenting on the passage of the next echelon with outdated equipment to the Donbass. Secondly, why else do you need equipment transferred to storage? What should happen for the unfortunate patriots to finally say - “yes, now remove the T-62 and T-80 from storage just right”? Probably for this you need tanks NATO start storming Moscow. That's why she and the equipment are in storage in order to participate in battles where firepower and armor are crucial. Especially when volunteer units go into battle. I emphasize that not the regular army of the Russian Federation, but volunteers, for whom standard equipment was not initially provided. And if the fighters go to the front under the cover of Soviet-era anti-ballistic armor, there is definitely nothing wrong with that.




T-80BV go to the West. Source: youtube.com

The appearance of the T-62 and T-80BV in Ukraine is a sign of a changing nature of warfare. Losses in tanks on the part of the allied forces, since the transition to positional battles in the Donbass, have dropped sharply. And this is not only an assessment of Russian experts, British and American intelligence insist on this. In many ways, this is why they point to a decrease in the effectiveness of light anti-tank weaponssupplied under Lend-Lease.

Columns of armored vehicles, convenient for shooting from ambush, stopped breaking through deep into the defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And since tanks die less, they naturally become an even more valuable asset on the battlefield. Moreover, the expanses of the east of Ukraine are very favored by this. And, by the way, they reduce the effectiveness of small-caliber artillery of light armored vehicles - there is a lack of power and range. Therefore, if T-62 and T-80BV tanks come to Donbass instead of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, then this is just great news.

Removed from storage and supposedly hopelessly outdated tanks are in all cases more effective than light armored vehicles. Except, of course, forcing reservoirs and transporting troops. Few people use the last option on the line of contact with the enemy. The experience of using Soviet-era tanks may finally make the GABTU realize the inferiority of using the descendants of the BMP-1 and BTR-80 in a high-intensity conflict.

"Flying" tank in the Donbass


Let's move on to the new hero of modern stories special operations in Ukraine - to the T-80BV gas turbine tank, trains with which have already been seen moving in a westerly direction. Apart from the latest Russian T-80BVM and the Soviet T-80U, the BV version can be considered one of the most advanced tanks in the series. For its time, of course. The tank appeared in 1985 and is distinguished by the Kontakt-1 hinged dynamic protection, the upgraded 2A46M-1 gun and the new 1A33-1 fire control system. In total, along with the T-80U and T-80B tanks, at least 3000 vehicles of modification B are in storage. This very clearly demonstrates the potential in heavy weapons that Russia has.

Several dozen tanks are in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and they are actively fighting - at least 13 T-80BVs have already been lost, 5 of them have switched to the service of the allied forces. Currently, there are no T-80BVs in service with the Russian army. On the basis of these tanks, the most modern modification of the BVM was built, which has proven itself well in a special operation in Ukraine. The machine is equipped with a thermal imaging sight, dynamic protection "Relikt" and, the main advantage, a gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1250 liters. With. Its predecessor T-80BV has a gas turbine engine GTD-1000TF not so powerful - only 1100 hp. s., but for a mass of 43,7 tons this is quite enough. In terms of power, the vehicle can be compared with the T-73B3 model of 2014, but the gas turbine tank is three tons lighter, which increases its power-to-weight ratio.

Skeptics often talk about the excessively high fuel consumption of gas turbine tanks. Of course, this is true, but it is always necessary to understand the context of the use of military equipment. For example, the Ukrainian side will certainly suffer from voracious gas turbine engines - not so long ago, all oil refineries were ordered to live long. The Russian army, fortunately, does not experience such problems and can afford voracious tank engines.

At the first stages of the special operation, when tank units made raids behind enemy lines, the efficiency of engines really played a critical role. Now, tanks are often used on the principle of "throw a couple of shells at the nationalists and hide." The firing range usually does not exceed several hundred meters, which seriously complicates return fire from light anti-tank weapons.

Ahead of the allied forces are large-scale assaults on urban development, in which the T-80BV will perfectly replace armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Unfortunately, this light vehicle is forced to carry out suicidal work to suppress enemy firing points in cities almost point-blank. The weight of a volley of 125-mm guns, especially when there are a lot of these guns, becomes an excellent tool for denazifying the cities of Ukraine. Therefore, with the positional nature of the conduct of hostilities, high fuel consumption no longer plays a big role.


T-80BV. Source: warspot.ru

According to the Ukrainian General Staff, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have lost about half of their combat-ready tanks, which means that the likelihood of a duel with enemy armored vehicles is decreasing every day. And this is another argument in favor of the use of decommissioned tanks. Of course, the sighting systems of the new Ukrainian tanks, especially those with thermal imaging observation channels, are much more advanced than the T-80BV equipment. But there is less and less Ukrainian armor at the front, which means that the number of tank-dangerous targets is also decreasing. At the same time, the density of artillery fire remains high and mine warfare is gaining momentum - all these factors seriously complicate the work of light armored vehicles. So, it's time to use the Soviet tank heritage.

The high throttle response and mobility of the T-80BV is another trump card of the Soviet tank. At one time, the T-80 was compared with the T-64A, and it turned out that the Omsk tank (the car was assembled at Omsktransmash) had an average speed 1,3 times higher, acceleration from standstill to 61 km / h was 1,7 less times, and armor protection is 1,25 times more effective. In addition, each gas turbine tank requires a smaller range of fuels and lubricants. According to Russian tankers, the higher the mobility of tanks (all other things being equal) in the Ukrainian theater of operations, the higher the survivability. This is indirectly confirmed by the lower losses of the T-80BVM relative to the T-72B3 - at least based on photographic evidence.

If we go further, it turns out that T-80BV units can more effectively conduct "mobile defense", that is, plug gaps and stop the enemy's counteroffensive. Simply because tanks move faster along the front line. A gas turbine tank is easier for drivers to master, as it requires less maintenance time and is easier to manage. The issue with the restoration of T-80BV systems, which are no longer produced in Russia, is being solved at the expense of donor tanks in the rear repair shops. With such a storage fund, the army can afford to use part of the armored vehicles not on the battlefield, but as a source of spare parts.

Unlike the T-62, the "flying tank" will merge into the battle formations of the allied forces much more organically. At a minimum, it will not require a fourth crew member and specific 115-mm shells. And this means that the T-80BV for the modern conditions of the special operation "Z" will become a completely effective combat unit.
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +51
    27 June 2022 05: 08
    I agree with the author that the storage technique should be used, and storage for the sake of storage does not make sense. The IS-3 was cherished and stored until 1994, and so on. They were also scrapped.
    1. +11
      27 June 2022 05: 22
      In general, the author is right, but he submits directly as some kind of transcendental help, in addition, in my opinion:
      Therefore, with the positional nature of the conduct of hostilities, high fuel consumption no longer plays a big role.

      The assault on urban development does not at all mean the positional nature of the database.
      1. +38
        27 June 2022 06: 35
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        In general, the author is right, but he submits directly as a win

        The main essence of these tanks (in modern combat operations) is highly mobile artillery. Even more secure.
        1. +26
          27 June 2022 15: 01
          A tank is artillery. A cart for a cannon, as Comrade used to say. Grabin. True, for a gun firing, mainly, direct fire in the zone of active fire resistance. If earlier the expression "destroy the enemy with fire and caterpillars" was popular, now, perhaps, only with fire.
          Of course, the "wagon" must be well protected.
          Yes, the horse understands that modern technology is better than the old 72s, 64s and T-62s. And if there were an unlimited number of new tanks, if there were also an unlimited number of tankers, spare parts, repair specialists for them, then not only 62s, but also T-80BV would not be involved in the war.
          As if there were a "sea" of self-propelled guns Msta and Coalition, we would not have observed 2S3 Akatsiya and 2S1 Gvozdika, which are no newer than the T-62M.
          But with proper use, the above-mentioned "old horses" may well be able to successfully complete the tasks of destroying banderlogs, and it is impossible to replace them all with ultra-modern machines.
          1. +14
            27 June 2022 21: 57
            The main problem is in the tankers. We don’t have 1941 or 1812 in our yard - there’s nowhere to get new people from. And where the T-72, having caught the ATGM in the forehead, will go further, the T-62 will split the driver in half with a cumulative jet. Now we have reached the BMP-1, that's really a success.
          2. +4
            28 June 2022 00: 10
            As if there were a "sea" of self-propelled guns Msta and Coalition, we would not have observed 2S3 Akatsiya and 2S1 Gvozdika, which are no newer than the T-62M
            Well, let's say the 2S3 and 2S1 are no newer than the T-62. But the T-62M will be much newer than these self-propelled guns!
    2. +14
      27 June 2022 06: 37
      Well, in the second half of the sixties, a lot of IS-thirds were transferred from storage to the Far East to the border with China. Some were dug into the ground, and some were shoved into the URs. I myself saw a couple of long echelons with these tanks, the tracks on all of them were completely red from rust.
    3. +14
      27 June 2022 08: 55
      In 1994, a lot of things in vain ...
    4. +3
      27 June 2022 10: 14
      I agree. rides, shoots, there is armor, it will go
      1. +1
        30 June 2022 16: 24
        will it go? and would you yourself climb into the T-62, or would you only agree to shove other people you don’t know there? we just have an acute shortage of people, and instead of strengthening the armor, we are sending even less armored vehicles to the front. look at how much of our equipment travels with artisanal armor, the same KAMAZ vehicles are lined with logs and sheathed with steel sheets in order to at least somehow protect themselves and not ride in aquariums. protection of equipment is one of our main problems, the solution of which should be a priority!
        1. -5
          30 June 2022 17: 12
          Mothers still give birth to people
    5. Zug
      +5
      27 June 2022 21: 29
      But who will fight them? There are not enough people, primarily mechanical drivers
    6. -2
      27 June 2022 21: 55
      And they give birth to new volunteers? You can then give the T-34, what is there.
    7. Urs
      +4
      27 June 2022 23: 38
      Well, why immediately to the scrap, I participated in my youth in very large exercises, where old vehicles from storage were used as an imitation of armored objects in defense. Very effective and visual, you don’t feel like a jerk shooting at plywood fellow
      1. 0
        28 June 2022 18: 12
        Have you fired at tanks that imitate the enemy?
  2. +31
    27 June 2022 05: 18
    Currently, there are no T-80BVs in service with the Russian army.
    I don’t know where the author got this information from, but he definitely doesn’t follow the news ...
    December 10, 2021. The marines of the Pacific Fleet were reinforced with modernized T-80BV tanks

    And this is our T-80BV in Mariupol ...
    1. -12
      27 June 2022 05: 49
      I understand that the difference between the army and the navy needs to be explained?)
      1. +12
        27 June 2022 09: 50
        Quote: carstorm 11
        I understand that the difference between the army and the navy needs to be explained?)

        Yes, yes ... also explain what the Coastal Forces of the Fleet are.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -12
          27 June 2022 10: 01
          Just naval tanks do not need to be cited as an example)
          1. +13
            27 June 2022 10: 10
            Quote: carstorm 11
            Just naval tanks do not need to be cited as an example)

            Why? According to the plan, tank units of the Coastal Forces were supposed to receive T-80BVM, but T-80BV were understaffed from army warehouses
            What and to whom will be delivered is decided not by the command of the fleet, but by the GABTU
            1. -13
              27 June 2022 10: 21
              Potgmu that naval is naval. Army is army. For you, this may be bullshit, but for tankers it cuts the ear.
              1. +14
                27 June 2022 15: 55
                Quote: carstorm 11
                For you, this may be bullshit, but for tankers it cuts the ear.

                Yes, what are you saying ... I served here and there, and somehow, nothing hurts the ear ...
                GABTU "it is in Africa" ​​GABTU ...
              2. +11
                27 June 2022 19: 36
                Quote: carstorm 11
                Potgmu that naval is naval. Army is army.

                Okay, here is the data on the distribution of tanks in army units ...
                1st TANK ARMY
                4th Panzer Division (Kantemirovskaya)
                - Tank battalion of the 423rd motorized rifle regiment - 21 T-80BVM tanks and 20 T-80BV tanks.
                35th Combined Arms Army
                A separate tank battalion of the 38th motorized rifle brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
                A separate tank battalion of the 69th cover brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
                Separate tank battalion of the 64th motorized rifle brigade - 11 T-80BV tanks and 20 T-80BVM tanks (received in 2021).
                5th Combined Arms Army
                A separate tank battalion of the 57th motorized rifle brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
                1. 0
                  28 June 2022 03: 54
                  I know. One of them is my last part. And 80 is my tank from the school. Somehow it turned out that I only served for them) But I would not want to go to the navy. Do you understand exactly what I'm talking about?
                  1. +4
                    28 June 2022 08: 20
                    Quote: carstorm 11
                    But I would not want to go to the Navy
                    To each his own, but I’ll say that in the navy there are norms for landmen, they have less vertical power and many issues are resolved easier, and the commander has more space to resolve issues ... In short, it’s easier to serve.
                    1. +1
                      28 June 2022 09: 05
                      Come on) Well, seriously) There is no order in the naval mess, by definition) I wouldn’t want to go there for a reason. There is experience) Everyone who wanted to be connected with the fleet at the school chose MP and coastal ones. But it's a major and it's 99 percent your limit.
                      1. +5
                        28 June 2022 09: 31
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        seriously

                        More than.
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        In the naval mess, by definition, there is no order
                        It's just their own order, different from the landlords.
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        But it's a major and it's 99 percent your limit.

                        Yes, well ... The battalion commander is at least already a lieutenant colonel, and so many after the Academy went to the Ground
                      2. +2
                        28 June 2022 09: 45
                        And how many baht?) You are counting from the total number of officers. So it turns out that 99 percent of a career has a clear limit. Going on land is, of course, the way out. But the academy is also not for everyone. Like a big top with a change of fleet to land. This is not a dispute. Just an exchange of opinion.
                      3. +3
                        28 June 2022 09: 53
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        And how many baht?)

                        There used to be a lot more...
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        You count from the total number of officers

                        Sorry, but this is a general trend. Over three or four platoons there is only one company commander, over three or four company commanders there is only one battalion commander, and so on.
                      4. 0
                        28 June 2022 10: 05
                        Commander bata limit. The landmasses do not. There is something to strive for. Reminiscent of automobile troops in its time. Where, after graduating from college, everyone knew that the autobat is the largest unit and you have little chance. My love for the naval began as a cadet after getting into the naval commandant's office.
                      5. +4
                        28 June 2022 10: 14
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        Commander bata limit.

                        No. There is also a brigade link, there are structures of the Coastal Forces, as a specific fleet, there is the entire fleet of Russia
                      6. 0
                        28 June 2022 13: 05
                        Quote: carstorm 11
                        But it's a major and it's 99 percent your limit.

                        So is the motorist who got into aviation after school.
                      7. +2
                        28 June 2022 15: 12
                        I served with a man who transferred to us from the Chinese border. There was a limit - the captain. Then, after 3 years, he became the captain of the Soviet Union. The whole department is in bed for a week. Then, after another 3 years - captainissimo :)
                      8. 0
                        1 July 2022 14: 05
                        I knew the "fifteen-year-old captain", though one, I also know the "senior lieutenant of the Soviet Union", and the captain - 2 terms is a "careerist"
                      9. 0
                        4 July 2022 20: 56
                        I had the beginning of the shift - starley, and all his peers have long been majors. I did not consider it necessary at one time to report at 82 that a reconnaissance officer was working next to the South Korean Boeing, which was shot down. Then it went up and down. All stuck. ODKP forever stuck in the majors. Although he did not know anything about this plane at all. And our starley, according to a report, of his own free will, went to Afghanistan for the stars ...
                      10. 0
                        28 June 2022 19: 55
                        In the early 90s, several units of the army were transferred to the Ussuri fleet under the Ussuri fleet. No one complained, they didn’t shout swear words at the meeting, they didn’t run errands on Monday
            2. +3
              27 June 2022 10: 24
              Quote: svp67
              T-80BV were understaffed from army warehouses

              Moreover, the T-80BV also underwent a major overhaul in Strelna at JSC "61 Armored Repair Plant".
              https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3130829.html
      2. 0
        28 June 2022 00: 19
        I understand that the difference between the army and the navy needs to be explained?)

        https://altyn73.livejournal.com/1460276.html
        EASTERN MILITARY DISTRICT.
        35th Combined Arms Army
        A separate tank battalion of the 38th motorized rifle brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
        A separate tank battalion of the 69th cover brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
        Separate tank battalion of the 64th motorized rifle brigade - 11 T-80BV tanks and 20 T-80BVM tanks
        ..
        5th Combined Arms Army
        The 83rd Air Assault Brigade has no tanks
        A separate tank battalion of the 57th motorized rifle brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
        ...
        68TH ARMY CORPS
        A separate tank battalion of the 39th motorized rifle brigade - 31 T-80BV tanks.
    2. +12
      27 June 2022 10: 29
      Quote: svp67
      And this is our T-80BV in Mariupol

      T-80BV with its own name Zver in the same location.
    3. +2
      27 June 2022 12: 10
      It would be more correct to replace the "Russian army" with "Russian ground forces".
  3. +7
    27 June 2022 06: 06
    Losses in tanks on the part of the allied forces, since the transition to positional battles in the Donbass, have dropped sharply. And this is not only an assessment of Russian experts, British and American intelligence insist on this. In many ways, this is why they point to a decrease in the effectiveness of light anti-tank weapons supplied under Lend-Lease.

    Why did they decrease? Because artillery and aviation came to the fore. It is they who grind the main forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the tanks and infantry are only cleared. If pockets of resistance appear during the cleanup, artillery and aviation begin to work again.
    1. 0
      19 July 2022 07: 54
      Well, that's right!!! Or do you want, like in the movies: Hooray!! Fight!!!? Let's calculate the loss...
  4. +7
    27 June 2022 06: 25

    Unlike the T-62, the "flying tank" will merge into the battle formations of the allied forces much more organically. At a minimum, it will not require a fourth crew member and specific 115-mm shells. And this means that the T-80BV for the modern conditions of the special operation "Z" will become a completely effective combat unit.

    The last paragraph is the main message to the reader.
    The rest is debatable...
  5. +10
    27 June 2022 07: 16

    Unlike the T-62, the "flying tank" will merge into the battle formations of the allied forces much more organically. At a minimum, it will not require a fourth crew member and specific 115-mm shells. And this means that the T-80BV for the modern conditions of the special operation "Z" will become a completely effective combat unit.

    And who is arguing?

    What should happen for the unfortunate patriots to finally say - “yes, now remove the T-62 and T-80 from storage just right”

    But why the author equalizes the T-62 tank with the T-80 is not clear to me, with the same success we can say we are removing the T-34 and T-90 from storage, you must support us
    In general, again rotten Hurray - "patriotism"
  6. +5
    27 June 2022 07: 32
    We can only speculate why this decision was made.
    I note that the Soviet tanks were not stored in vain: they are quite suitable for the current conditions of the machine. I don’t think that we have run out of resources for modern armored vehicles, it’s just that if older vehicles can handle the tasks, then it’s wiser to use them. But the security of these tanks from anti-tank systems raises the question. Although, most likely, this was investigated before making a decision.
    1. +12
      27 June 2022 07: 58
      But the security of these tanks from anti-tank systems raises the question. Although, most likely, this was investigated before making a decision.

      There is no need for research here, the protection from anti-tank systems is much better than that of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and the gun is more powerful.
      1. Zug
        +2
        27 June 2022 21: 33
        NLAW is a terrible thing, worse than a javelin.
    2. +4
      28 June 2022 10: 46
      “We can only speculate why such a decision was made.”
      Five months have passed, a significant part of the equipment has exhausted its resource and needs repair. The retired equipment must be replaced with something for this time.
    3. 0
      28 June 2022 14: 31
      On several commercials I saw how the Jawa flies 80k. Apparently because of the hot jet. Nlav has a magnetic sensor, but there is an impact core, less effective. Yes, and well, a very smart tank ...
  7. +16
    27 June 2022 08: 32
    Currently, there are no T-80BVs in service with the Russian army. On the basis of these tanks, the most modern modification of the BVM was built, which has proven itself well in a special operation in Ukraine
    At one time, the T-80BM modification was considered the most advanced, but they could not establish their production in the Russian Federation. As some experts say, The turn of the end of 2009 - the first half of 2010 was crucial for the Russian tank building. The decisions made then slowed down the rearmament of the RF Ground Forces with promising and modernized products for at least another decade.When the issue of using the T-80 in modern ASRs and carrying out their modernization for this was decided, there were proposals to adopt the T-80BM, but the Ministry of Defense considered that it would be expensive! That's why they carried out a more "budget" modernization, as a result of which the T-80BVM appeared ... The modernized T-2017BVM tank, demonstrated in 2017 at the Zapad-80 exercises, only partially uses the modernization reserve that Spetsmash had at the beginning 2009! The equipment of the T-80BVM, judging by the pictures provided by the RF Ministry of Defense, is poorer. compared to the T-80BM!

    1. +9
      27 June 2022 14: 39
      It also happened with the T72B2 Slingshot, they chose a more budgetary T72B3.
    2. +7
      27 June 2022 16: 52
      everything is simple, Omsk residents could not sell this tank to the Moscow Region, and UVZ by this time had quite warm relations with the Moscow Region, unlike other manufacturers, who by the time the USSR collapsed, UVZ did not consider it a competitor
      1. -1
        28 June 2022 04: 22
        Yes! 08,08,08 became fateful for the RSV (Russian ground forces) and the navy .. Having made this fateful decision, the top, having made this fateful decision, ended the game of "blind man's buff" with the West, began a breakthrough to break away from the United States in delivery vehicles, modernized under the "Sarmatian" Krasmash, They poured a lot of money into the longest Stalin-Khrushchev project - a nuclear atmospheric engine, an ion space engine, hypersound.
        1. -1
          30 August 2022 12: 13
          Quote: Siberian54
          The rest went according to the residual principle (do we all remember the stool?), which is why we had failures at the level of tactical weapons

          The stupid "stool", for example, launched the development of the "Armata". And the smart Kuzhugetovich came and said: the T-72 is a good tank, your Almaty will wait, it’s better to invest money in real estate.
    3. 0
      27 June 2022 16: 52
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      When the issue of using the T-80 in modern ASRs and carrying out their modernization for this was decided, there were proposals to adopt the T-80BM, but the Ministry of Defense considered that it would be expensive! That's why they carried out a more "budget" modernization, as a result of which the T-80BVM appeared ...

      Well, why, there is a T-80 variant called UM / UMK, by the way, it’s also not a budget one ...
    4. +1
      28 June 2022 13: 21
      In the 90s, the Omsk Governor tried to lobby for the T-80 and the continuation of its production at the Omsk Tank Plant ...
      For this, he even organized and financed the Omsk International Military Exhibition ... At the exhibition site, they demonstrated to the public, in motion, an object with a camouflaged tower, called "Black Eagle" if I remember correctly ...
      The term "flying tank" for the T80 appeared after in the same years, in Abu Dhabi, Omsk testers "flyed" at the training ground over ski jumps, and the Americans on the "Abrams", after trying to "fly", according to rumors, broke their spines .. .
      But it can be seen from the people of Nizhny Tagil, more precisely at the spine of Yeltsin - Rossel, the roof turned out to be cooler in the Moscow Region (how so, even strange) - they began to make "non-flying" T90s, and the tank plant in Omsk withered ...
      Like most urban defense industrial enterprises in general...
  8. +19
    27 June 2022 09: 03
    Who argues the tank is good, only questions arise: have they been modernized before being sent, are the rear units ready, the most important crews are ready. And what is the approach to volunteers?
    1. +8
      27 June 2022 10: 15
      Quote: Mikhail Maslov
      Who argues the tank is good, only questions arise: have they been modernized before being sent, are the rear units ready, the most important crews are ready. And what is the approach to volunteers?

      The same opinion. At least the cutting gratings around the perimeter of the tank turret were welded or the remote sensing modules were screwed on. At least some extra protection. The Syrian Armed Forces did just that.
    2. +1
      28 June 2022 10: 25
      the tbd is important, but here it is such that the tank provides fire support from a long range, so there is no fundamental difference. yes, and putting reservists who served at best on the t-72A / B on the new t-72b3m is at least strange, they will have to be retrained for several months
  9. +6
    27 June 2022 09: 20
    cars are not the main thing: the main thing is well-coordinated crews
    and the losses of tanks are apparently sufficient, since the 62nd appeared, and now we get the 80th from storage
  10. +20
    27 June 2022 09: 30
    There are no questions about the T-80, it’s an excellent car, but the T-62, which even has a different caliber, also requires appropriate ammunition logistics. I'm not talking about the LMS of this fossil. I'm afraid that the game is not worth the candle. Well, the phrase about water "to the enemy's mill" is also amusing. The delivery of the T-62 in itself is already a whole waterfall for this mill.
    1. +2
      27 June 2022 13: 15
      About AK, maybe it’s worth worrying too, isn’t it also a waterfall to the mill? laughing
      After all, this machine is such a long-standing development. How not to burn with shame. wassat
      And then there is the Tu-22 and even the Tu-95, how can we survive, it's even hard to imagine! winked
    2. +3
      28 June 2022 11: 00
      T-62 in one volunteer formation from Ossetia. One battalion. They are not used anywhere else.
    3. +1
      30 June 2022 16: 35
      Of course, the T-80 is a great car. The Americans are not fools that they made their main battle tank gas turbine. I hope ours will learn a lesson from the SVO and we will have a gas turbine armata with the 152nd gun. This is my biggest dream
  11. 0
    27 June 2022 09: 45
    Now everything will be effective .. for cleaning
  12. +2
    27 June 2022 10: 20
    I liked the article. Thanks to the author.
    According to the Ukrainian General Staff, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have lost about half of their combat-ready tanks, which means that the likelihood of a duel with enemy armored vehicles is decreasing every day. And this is another argument in favor of the use of decommissioned tanks. Of course, the sighting systems of the new Ukrainian tanks, especially those with thermal imaging observation channels, are much more advanced than the T-80BV equipment. But there is less and less Ukrainian armor at the front, which means that the number of tank-dangerous targets is also decreasing. At the same time, the density of artillery fire remains high and mine warfare is gaining momentum - all these factors seriously complicate the work of light armored vehicles. So, it's time to use the Soviet tank heritage.

    Yes that's right. Our enemy does not always have enough anti-tank weapons. And it may turn out that in some part of the front the enemy will not have the means at all to stop the tank, whatever it may be. And no matter what sighting system is on it.
    1. +9
      27 June 2022 12: 22
      Maybe it’s Russian again, what does it mean? These are lives, this is an unfulfilled combat mission. There can’t be such a “maybe.” We proceed from what the enemy has: artillery, tanks, a large number of different anti-tank systems, reconnaissance, mining, ambushes. Even during the cleanup, the Russian Guard is faced with both artillery and tanks. Here, justify where the place of the T-62 is? prepare these tanks for the corresponding tasks.
      1. +7
        27 June 2022 12: 39
        Quote: Mikhail Maslov
        Maybe it’s Russian again, what does it mean? These are lives, this is an unfulfilled combat mission. There can’t be such a “maybe.” We proceed from what the enemy has: artillery, tanks, a large number of different anti-tank systems, reconnaissance, mining, ambushes. Even during the cleanup, the Russian Guard is faced with both artillery and tanks. Here, justify where the place of the T-62 is? prepare these tanks for the corresponding tasks.

        This is not Russian maybe, but ordinary arithmetic.
        The resources of the enemy are not infinite.
        If we involve more pieces of equipment in the performance of tasks, then the enemy’s need to saturate his units with anti-tank weapons increases. It is impossible to satisfy these needs everywhere.

        And if "in place" the commanders see that the enemy does not provide countermeasures with anti-tank weapons, then the armored vehicles begin to act more actively (gradually) there. Even a "naked" tank needs to be pierced with something. And if at some stronghold the largest that is is a heavy machine gun and an RPG with an effective firing range of 700 meters, and a couple of mortars ... then this opnik is like a khan))) Even 1 old tank will break it.
        1. 0
          27 June 2022 13: 03
          They were not convinced, the enemy is at a checkpoint with an RPG and a machine gun, mines the approaches, has a connection with artillery and, as a rule, an escape route.
        2. +1
          30 June 2022 16: 38
          crews are needed for any equipment, but I don’t see any hype with a set of tankers who want to go to the NWO. The human resource is the most expensive and longest lasting resource, you should always proceed from this. now is not the 40s where we can sacrifice entire divisions to probe the enemy
      2. +6
        27 June 2022 13: 27
        Features of the T-62, allowing it to be used now, have been repeatedly described in topics on the conflict in Ukraine.
        Do you feel like repeating what has already been said over and over again? For what, may I ask?
        1. +8
          27 June 2022 17: 17
          The slogan: Give NM LNR and DNR T-62M-I personally don’t fully understand ... Not so long ago I read an interview with a Russian military correspondent with a tanker in Mariupol, well-known in the DPR ... This tanker told the military correspondent that during the NWO his unit was the second time gets tanks! His participation in the Special Operation on T-64 tanks began ... When they were knocked out, they received T-72B1 ... when they ran out, they gave T-72B3 ... I read this interview shortly before reports about T-62M tanks for the NM DPR and LNR...
          1. +9
            27 June 2022 17: 28
            Well, then, again on a new one. The T-62 has manual loading, therefore, it can fire without turning on the engine. Due to this, it is not visible to anti-tank systems with thermal homing heads and is more suitable for installation at checkpoints and strong points. Again, thanks to manual loading, it becomes possible to use a number of specific ammunition that is not available with an automatic loader. Installations on them can be made by the loader.
            Most likely, there are political and supply reasons. From reluctance to disclose the contents of modern tanks, to an abundance of 115-mm ammunition in storage.
            1. 0
              28 June 2022 12: 09
              That is, the SLA is mechanical control
              1. +4
                28 June 2022 12: 26
                I would like to remind you that the tank also has a battery. This automatic loader will not be able to operate without starting the engine.
            2. -1
              30 June 2022 16: 40
              installation at roadblocks is the only reasonable use for these tanks. but there is always a but. the crew of this tank is 4 people, and we don’t have a fairly limited list of people who want to go to the outskirts
          2. +3
            27 June 2022 22: 43
            everything is simpler - there was a command to supply tanks, so they decided to play the Syrian card and send the t-62m, which in any case needs to be put somewhere, but for new units that are made from reservists or as a reinforcement, there is not much difference t-62 or t-72
    2. +5
      27 June 2022 16: 54
      he has a lot of anti-tank weapons, but they don’t let him use them, no one is satisfied with tank zerg rushes, as in Tom Clancy’s dreams
  13. +10
    27 June 2022 10: 22
    "Flying" or "not flying", but the videos show that the shooting is carried out from stops.
    Issues of reliability and the availability of trained crews are important, because the tanks are delivered after storage. This is not a T-34.
  14. -9
    27 June 2022 10: 42
    There is no KAZ on any model of tanks. Accordingly, before the main threat - cumulatives - they are all more or less equally defenseless. And if there is no difference - "why pay more?".

    KAZ is hard to say how much, but probably not less than a million dollars. The dead crew - three or four tankers, multiplied by seven million rubles - from 21 to 28 million rubles. What is more beneficial for the state?
    1. +2
      27 June 2022 12: 25
      It is beneficial for the state to keep tankers. Or you have such a vus and you can then be put in a T-62, which will "get off".
    2. +3
      27 June 2022 13: 26
      KAZ - the point is not only in high cost, but also in real efficiency ... it only guarantees in the cinema KAZ, in fact - in a very small range of angles - it can only reduce the likelihood of defeat ... besides, the KAZ locator itself - located on the tower - it is easily vulnerable to enemy weapons and can be easily disabled ...

      here is the whole need for the KAZ tanks available in the Russian Federation ...
    3. 0
      27 June 2022 22: 31
      Kaz bear for snipers
  15. +1
    27 June 2022 11: 14
    And what about light armored vehicles? Neither the T-62 nor the T-80 carry infantry.

    Any modification of the T-80 against the APU is quite modern. In general, nothing fundamentally new has appeared in tanks since the 1960s, composite armor, DZ, but from 39 tons of T-64 tanks over 50+ years have grown to only 50 tons in the latest versions of the T-90. That is, there is not so much growth in armor protection through the addition of metal, as was the case with the transition to tanks with anti-ballistic armor. You can even take a broader look if the T-34 gained 4% additional in 20 years. weight, then during the transition from the T-44 to the T-54, about 12-14% more were gained. But there is almost no difference in mass between the T-54 and T-62. Guns have not changed much since the T-64A and T-72. New versions of 125 mm guns for longer projectiles will not fundamentally change anything, the enemy has no targets for them, and the HE is most likely the same.

    In this regard, the storage of thousands of units of tanks, especially those produced in the 80s and their modernization through the installation of new equipment and hinged protection, is quite justified, in contrast to throwing them out and slapping thousands of replacement units instead.

    The problem is that in the conditions of such a major war, the initial modernization plans of the GPV, which were quite logical at the beginning of the 2010s, are simply insufficient. And equipment from storage, apparently, has to be sent to the front line as is. At least partially.
    1. +5
      27 June 2022 12: 21
      Quote: EvilLion
      And what about light armored vehicles? Neither the T-62 nor the T-80 carry infantry.

      It meant that on fire contact, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have a disproportionately lower survivability compared to a tank. Therefore, when conducting a battle, it is better not to use these cans.
      Quote: EvilLion
      And equipment from storage, apparently, has to be sent to the front line as is.

      Most likely (I can’t say), they simply decided to put the old men in the line of defense, where the visibility (or tactics of use) exceeds the distance of the Ukrainian anti-tank systems.
      1. +5
        27 June 2022 12: 51
        Have you stopped carrying infantry? From what date?

        I remember a video from Mariupol, where people were happy that a relatively modern modification was successfully evacuated, because instead of it the T-72A. It is possible to make something decent out of the T-72A, but for this it must be taken for modernization, obviously, this is not always done, and troops can get anything to replace the T-72B3. And the equipment, even if it is not burned en masse, still gets damaged and wears out, and if it is not repaired on the spot, then it goes to the repair bases.

        And they can take from those storage bases that are closer.
    2. +2
      27 June 2022 12: 26
      Read the memoirs of the tankers in Chechnya. The actions and meticulous analysis are very well written. Errors and problems are the same.
  16. 0
    27 June 2022 11: 44
    In the current conditions, there is a fierce tank with a gun of a fairly large caliber "to the yard." All these T-62s and others like them will not fight with other tanks most of the time, but will perform tasks on secondary fronts.
  17. -7
    27 June 2022 12: 12
    High injectivity and the mobility of the T-80BV is another trump card

    Author, high throttle response - this is a diesel engine.
    The gas turbine engine is very inertial and slowly reaches its maximum power. The T-80 cannot dash.
    1. +15
      27 June 2022 13: 31
      you don’t seem to be familiar with the realities of operating the T80 ... the turbine is spun up to maximum speed, then, if it is not necessary to move, the car with the turbine fully spun ... is put on the brake and stands still ... if necessary, start moving - it will start it with great acceleration than a diesel engine, since the turbine, unlike a diesel engine, does not need to be spun up, it is already at maximum speed ...
  18. -4
    27 June 2022 13: 17
    Tell Sergey, what kind of car is the T-73B3 ??? Did you come up with it yourself? And what kind of tank is the T-72B3, maybe the T-72BZ? Do you even know what it's about?
  19. +9
    27 June 2022 13: 48
    “When the next echelons of armored vehicles removed from storage are advanced to the West, this causes a strange indignation among the public. They say, why don’t the most modern models of armored vehicles fight? Have they run out or turned out to be not so effective? Firstly, each such exclamation in the network from the category of “everything is lost” pours water on the mill of Ukrainian propaganda. you cover those who, at the request of the West, for the sake of their personal ambitions, destroyed modern weapons. A gang of these noobs, who previously traded their homeland, are still in power ... Or maybe you have already forgotten Shoigu's laudatory reports about 70% rearmament of the army? and capitalize on it...
  20. +12
    27 June 2022 14: 31
    Secondly, why else do you need equipment transferred to storage? What should happen for the unfortunate patriots to finally say - “yes, now remove the T-62 and T-80 from storage just right”? Probably, for this, NATO tanks need to start an assault on Moscow.

    Probably for this we need to remember - why these tanks were put in storage. And the legs of all these storage bases grow from the concept of a global limited nuclear war in Europe. When the GSVG and other groups with their T-64s and T-80s annihilate with the Bundeswehr, BRA and parts of the American occupation army with their Leo-2s, Challengers and Abrams, when parts of the Western districts with their T-72s annihilate with NATO reserves and the continental reserves and national guards of the Yankees transferred to Europe with their M60s - then the time will come for the reservists on the T-62 to fight with the same reservists on the Leo-1, Chieftains (and even Centurions) and M48 .
    That is, at the time of the introduction of equipment from storage bases into battle, the level of technical equipment and professionalism of the enemy should have already rolled down to the 60s with rare inclusions of the remaining personnel units.
  21. +9
    27 June 2022 14: 35
    In general, the author is right, but 1) the T-80 appeared in the 78th year, in the 80th received a change in passive booking, in the 85th NDZ Contact-1, 2) in 82-83 the appearance of the T-80A was already taking shape, and then the T- 80U and T-80UD. And if the T-80 and T-80B / BV are equivalent in terms of security to the T-64A / B / BV and T-72A / AV tanks - that is, they belong to vehicles with conditionally the first generation of combined protection, then the T-80U and T-72B are the security of the next generation machine. 3) The use of the T-80B, as well as the T-62M / MV, in the NVO is JUSTIFIED, since the Armed Forces of Ukraine have equipment of a similar level or worse, while there is no point in preserving outdated equipment, its time has come.
    1. -2
      28 June 2022 11: 16
      Quote: War Cat
      while it makes no sense to preserve obsolete equipment, its time has come.

      Does it make sense to protect people? All these old tanks in storage are essentially the last reserve that is supposed to be used in case of exhaustion of normal modern equipment. You propose to put people at risk by forcing them to fight on outdated equipment.
  22. +3
    27 June 2022 15: 49
    Good tank, fit!
    And why not upgrade all these 3000 pieces of T-80BV to the level of T-80BVM?
    The tank itself is quite modern and powerful. Still, this is not the T-62 of which it would be better to make tank support vehicles or heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
    1. 0
      27 June 2022 20: 22
      Why is it unknown what to do from battle tanks? There is a much more modern chassis, on the basis of which a variety of equipment is made. For what purpose do you call on military equipment to ruin?
    2. +2
      27 June 2022 21: 31
      Quote: Common sense
      And why not upgrade all these 3000 pieces of T-80BV to the level of T-80BVM?

      Or maybe up to the level of UM2?
  23. 0
    27 June 2022 15: 58
    Yes, absolutely correct decision. First of all, it is necessary to get rid of obsolete weapons, which cost a lot of money to store, and even more so to dispose of.
    1. +4
      28 June 2022 11: 41
      I agree, it is also necessary to send all former military men, who are well over 50 or even 60, to fight in the Donbas. Youth must be protected
  24. +1
    27 June 2022 16: 04
    It's good that we finally began to "unpack" Soviet stocks in the Moscow Region. Tanks (and especially tankers) must be protected! Therefore, the more modern equipment at the front, the better! In general, in modern conditions, I have a poor idea of ​​​​the T-62 except at checkpoints, but the T-80 will still fight!
    1. +3
      27 June 2022 20: 23
      You have a poor idea of ​​​​the place of the T-62, because you are not familiar with its ammunition load.
  25. -2
    27 June 2022 18: 36
    The high throttle response and mobility of the T-80BV is another trump card of the Soviet tank.
    ...
  26. 0
    27 June 2022 18: 51
    T 80 is newer than 72 e. Why is 72 mainly used?
  27. +4
    27 June 2022 20: 09
    The T-80 is a good car in every respect, if it is properly maintained, however, this applies to any technique. Well, with fuel consumption, everything can be solved by modernization, otherwise the tank is good.
  28. 0
    27 June 2022 21: 02
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    Why is it unknown what to do from battle tanks? There is a much more modern chassis, on the basis of which a variety of equipment is made. For what purpose do you call on military equipment to ruin?

    But the BMPT "Terminator" based on the T-72 and T-90 does not bother you? And to do the same, but from the T-62 does it already mean "ay-yay-yay"? Is it better to let everything rust and rot?
    1. +3
      27 June 2022 21: 49
      When something is done on the basis of the T-72 and T-90, combat units are not destroyed, but a new chassis is made. You, on the other hand, are proposing to destroy combat units with completely non-zero combat capabilities. That is, in fact, you offer sabotage and subversive activities.
  29. -1
    28 June 2022 01: 03
    Where is the T-80u? Where are the T-72B3 / B3M of which there were more than 1000 in the troops? Where is the T-90A? Where is the T-80BVM? Already everything? Did you go for canned goods?
    1. mva
      +2
      28 June 2022 09: 05
      Not all. According to bourgeois estimates, only 1/3 of what the special operation was started with was lost. What needs to be replenished, what is lost, what do you think?
  30. mva
    +3
    28 June 2022 09: 04
    Dear Evgeny Fedorov, could you explain how the T-62 and T-80 can replace infantry fighting vehicles, I’m not talking about armored personnel carriers? Where are you going to place 7 troops in a tank? Have you ever seen an infantry fighting vehicle (armored personnel carrier) from the inside?
  31. -1
    28 June 2022 11: 09
    Secondly, why else do you need equipment transferred to storage? What should happen for the unfortunate patriots to finally say - “yes, now remove the T-62 and T-80 from storage just right”? Probably, for this, NATO tanks need to start an assault on Moscow. That's why she and the equipment are in storage in order to participate in battles where firepower and armor are crucial.

    I like the author's logic. And we also have vigorous ammunition in storage. So maybe it's already time? Why should they lie down. They must fight.
  32. +2
    28 June 2022 11: 12
    As far as I remember, there was a company for the modernization of the T-80 in storage warehouses, and I think that just such tanks are coming, for running in combat conditions, to see what needs to be finalized, and so on.
  33. +1
    28 June 2022 13: 53
    All children BMP-1 and 2 appeared in
    modern warfare is useless because of their cardboard armor. BMP-3 is a little better, but also not great.
    And the T-15 is not the same, but they demanded it.
    T-80BV in the role of a very mobile and high-buffed self-propelled guns increase the fiery power.
    For me it's the right decision.
  34. 0
    28 June 2022 14: 15
    What should happen for the unfortunate patriots to finally say - “yes, now remove the T-62 and T-80 from storage just right”? Probably, for this, NATO tanks need to start an assault on Moscow.

    Quite right, wartime and mass mobilization should happen, and equipment in long-term storage is intended for them. Until that time, in limited conflicts and military operations, a professional army must fight with the latest weapons!
  35. 0
    28 June 2022 14: 38
    As a means of suppressing firing points, it is excellent. But not an offensive weapon under enemy fire. Perfect solution.
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. +2
    28 June 2022 16: 44
    T62 and T80 can fight. They remain effective on various battlefields.
  38. 0
    28 June 2022 18: 50
    and who, in fact, can say why the T80 BV is bad? compared to the enemy. Automatic loader, turret, gun, everything is completely similar to the MBT APU t64. Armor krmposit - at least not worse. The sighting system with a laser rangefinder, at one time recognized that it was at the level of leopard 2 (it is only not recommended to go on the attack at night, due to the lack of a thermal imaging sight) DZ Contact 1 is still quite relevant. In dill, only damask steel with a stronghold surpasses it, but there were only 60 of them at the beginning of the NWO, how many are still not known ... Not much in general. By mobility - covers all who are in this world in this class. It eats a lot, and for this reason it is little used in civilian life, well, ahem, we have fuel, thank God, at least fill up. Why is he bad?)
  39. 0
    28 June 2022 23: 30
    Quote: Procopius Nesterov
    The IS-3 was cherished and stored until 1994, and so what. Written off and scrapped

    And the IS-2 in the fortified areas on the protection of the TransSib in the KDVO stood, guns to the south, in 1988.
    I personally saw it while standing on guard of the echelon.
    And you can also compare with the B-52 in terms of combat readiness. So 70 years have passed since the first takeoff ...
  40. 0
    28 June 2022 23: 31
    Therefore, if T-62 and T-80BV tanks come to Donbass to replace armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, then this is just great news.

    Do not subtract, do not add .... and this characterizes this article as a whole!
    But the topic is interesting! I really don’t want to think that most modern tanks were knocked out in four months (why wouldn’t I be surprised: (but there is no data), but one thing is for sure, the lion’s share of Ukrainian tanks was destroyed, what’s left is rubbish hastily put on the move "Which even the T-62 is quite tough. And most importantly, the tactics of warfare have changed radically, and artillery and, in general, total fire suppression have come to the fore. And tanks are already playing the role of supporting infantry on the battlefield, and not the main shock force at the forefront of attack.
  41. 0
    29 June 2022 01: 50
    Let's be frank: the re-mothballing of tanks 60 years ago does not at all mean that "everything is going according to plan." Everything went according to plan for the Americans and the British in 2003. Then they did not remove the M48 and Centurions from storage. And the petty excuse "volunteers will do" does not paint the author. Firstly, these are no longer volunteers, but conscripts. Secondly, these are Russian people, half of whom already have Russian passports. It somehow never occurred to those same Americans to say "well, these are Alabamians, let them be glad that at least they gave Shermans."
  42. -3
    29 June 2022 11: 32
    If you just count the number of ATGMs and ATGMs brought to Ukraine from the West, and add their own reserves and developments .. then you shouldn’t be surprised at the current picture (railroad trains with armored vehicles removed from storage) at all .. - they knock it out elementary .. You pictures seen from crossings, where instead of pontoon anchors - drowned tanks are abandoned? When there are 20-30 burnt cars at a time or columns are shot on the march? , on which he fights ..
  43. +2
    29 June 2022 17: 03
    Well, for me, it’s like when behind your back or nearby: at least the T-62, but at least the T-55 instead of the BMP-1,2, everything will be calmer! Yes, and a 100mm landmine is very good, for the city, for the armored personnel carrier, for the dugout.
  44. 0
    1 July 2022 09: 03
    Well, the BMP-1 and BMP-2, the predecessors and contemporaries of the T-80, are fighting with might and main in the Donbass and there is nothing, everything is fine.
  45. -1
    1 July 2022 19: 30
    each such exclamation in the network from the category of “everything is lost” pours water on the mill of Ukrainian propaganda

    bullshit... :)
    this is every "silence" from the authorities - a stream of Ukropov propaganda to the mill - they can throw in any nonsense ...
    that they have proved more than once - and then "Moscow" then chews snot, does not know how to "explain", but it's too late ...
    as Solzhenitsyn said - “it is always more difficult to wash off than to spit ... you must be able to quickly and at the right moment spit first”
    but our authorities don't care...
    for those who make decisions, the factor of public opinion is not at all important - there is no internal audience, no internal politics, no "society", "voter", "taxpayer" ...
    their whole system is addressed only to the "world community" ...
    these people do not talk to the people, they do not address them, what the people think is not interesting to them, and this does not affect anything ...
    it is important for ukrostan the influence of power on the inner reader, viewer, voter, which is what they do 24 hours a day ....
    but for ours, the people are ballast ...
  46. +1
    4 July 2022 21: 59
    Any T-80 is a very serious technique for urban battles, because of the armor and reverse gear. So it is in the fields because of the speed.
    Of course, the engine resource is devoured faster in the summer, but in my opinion an engine is better than an infantry fighting vehicle.
    I completely agree with the author.
    A tank as a tool of warfare is more forgiving than an infantry fighting vehicle and weapons are more powerful.
  47. 0
    7 August 2022 15: 30
    You have to be a complete idiot to believe in this demagoguery. The author presents his profanity as some kind of mental achievement. Everything is clear to everyone and questions do not arise from people out of nowhere. In Russia, every generation of men fights, and these people ask such uncomfortable questions with concrete experience behind them.
  48. 0
    19 August 2022 12: 34
    Yes, they already wrote, in my opinion, even immediately after the start of the SVO, that there is no need to waste resources and ammunition of new developments, since the old equipment calmly withstands military operations with gangs of fascists! Ten new tanks is good, but ten new and fifty old tanks are even better! And modern technology will be useful to us when European fascists come to us on new European and American technology!
  49. -1
    25 August 2022 11: 57
    What kind of "wise guy" killed a tank design bureau and tank production at the LKZ .. find and judge "by a quick and right court." (c)
  50. 0
    10 September 2022 06: 52
    Shoot brothers from everything that is, the main thing is to quickly finish off these Nazi non-humans. What a shame, if not Europe, these creatures are finished and therefore finish their holy, charitable work.
  51. 0
    19 September 2022 13: 48
    Especially when volunteer units go into battle. Let me emphasize, not the regular army of the Russian Federation, but specifically volunteers, for whom standard equipment was not initially provided.


    That's it. There are many elderly, it is better for them to be given the equipment that they mastered in active service in their youth.