Tank T-90MS: Analysis of the main characteristics and possible ways to further improve the combat qualities

126
This material by G. Malyshev is given in the order of discussion from the point of view of the average man and does not pretend to any profound military scientific knowledge. Since some of the points in this publication look controversial or superficial, we asked the armored vehicle technician to briefly comment on the statements of the author.


In the recent past, Nizhny Tagil tank the plant released a new model of the main battle tank called the Tagil T-90MS. The tank immediately attracted attention with interesting technical solutions that were not previously used on mass-produced domestic vehicles. It looks very impressive and modern - the design, although not from the Pininfarina studio, was definitely a success. The tank can claim the right to be considered one of the most powerful tanks in the world today.

It would be very curious to analyze the design of this tank as far as possible. Find out what the designers did right and what did not, and what further improvements are possible in the design of this interesting machine.

Brief characteristics of T-90MS are as follows:

Dimensions:
- Mass 48 tons.
- Length 9530 mm.
- Width 3780 mm.
- Height 2228 mm.

Armament:
- The gun-launcher 125-mm 2А46М-5 or 125-mm 2А82 - the main fighting means of the tank, designed to destroy all types of ground, surface (within reach) and low-speed air targets. Ammunition 40 artillery shells of various types: BOPS, OFS, KS or guided missiles (UR) 9K119М Reflex-M.

- 7,62-mm 6P7K machine gun (PKTM), paired with a cannon. It is designed to combat the enemy manpower, which is within the angles of fire of the main armament. The machine gun is paired with a gun and has the same firing sector. Ammunition 2000 of 7,62mmx54R cartridges of various types. This weapon is installed in a completely new tower of circular rotation with a developed zabashhennoy niche.

- Remotely controlled machine gun installation T05BV-1 with 7,62-mm machine gun 6P7K (PKTM). Designed to fight the enemy's manpower, which is sheltered or higher than the main artillery shelling sector, for example, on the upper floors of buildings, on steep mountain slopes. Either below the sector of shelling of the main armament, in shelters, dugouts, or directly at the tank in the so-called. "Dead zone" for a tank gun and a machine gun paired with it. Thus, according to the designers, the combat stability of the tank should be ensured in cramped and urban combat conditions. Ammunition 800 of 7,62mmx54R cartridges of various types.

Fire control, surveillance and target detection systems:
- Fully digital, highly automated automated control system “Kalina” with integrated BIUS. Thermal and television devices intended, including, for circular observation.

Security:
- Multi-layer combined armor of the latest scheme in the frontal part.
- Spaced booking in the side section.
- The latest built-in dynamic protection "Relic".
- Local protection of ammunition.
- Activities that reduce the thermal and noise signature of the tank.

Mobility:
- Multi-fuel diesel engine V12 В-92С2Ф2 with power 1130л.с. (831kW) + automatic transmission.
- Power supply ~ 23l.s./t.
- Maximum speed 60-65 km / h on the highway.
- Power reserve 500 km.

The tank was created on the basis of previous modifications: T-90A and T-90С. Now let's understand in more detail what differences we see on this machine. What immediately catches the eye can be listed by points:

1. New tower with a developed feed niche.
2. New 125-mm gun 2A82.
3. New dynamic protection "Relic".
4. The complex of active protection of the KAZT “Arena-E” tank is absent on the tank.
5. The set of optical-electronic suppression of the CEP "Blind" on the tank is missing.
6. Finally, the tank received a normal rigid armored hull, the “Relic” generously “arched” with elements of dynamic protection (DZ) and latticed screens in the rear part.
7. Anti-aircraft gun with a large-caliber 12,7-mm machine gun NSVT sunk into oblivion. It was replaced by a new machine gun with an 7,62-mm 6P7K machine gun.
8. Somewhat more powerful engine In-92C2F2 + automatic transmission.
9. The tank received an additional power unit in an armored container, mounted in the rear of the hull on the left.
What else can you say about this car?
1. The case, like the previous modifications, mainly remained from the T-72.
2. The chassis also does not show significant differences from the T-72.
3. The new “Kalina” SUO is clearly superior to the 1А45Т “Irtysh” of the T-90А tank.
Now we will try to analyze all these points. What was done and what could theoretically be done in my opinion. So, let's begin.

Comment specialist. The sample of the upgraded main battle tank T-2011С shown at the REA-90 weapons exhibition was primarily aimed at foreign customers, therefore, part of the systems mounted on it was for export. In this regard, I would like to point the author to the fact that the 125-mm 2-82 cannon is not put on the export tank, the 2-46-5 gun is installed on it.
As for the dynamic protection kit, 4C22 elements are installed on this tank, since 4C23 is not allowed for export.
The author complains in vain about the lack of an active protection system for the Arena-E tank, as it can be installed upon the customer’s request. Similarly, at the customer's request, the TShU-1-2М system can be installed. In addition, the upgraded T-90С is equipped with the SPMZ-2E electromagnetic protection system (SEMP) from mines with magnetic fuses.

About the power unit. While on the tank put the engine B-93 power 1100 hp There is no automatic transmission (automatic transmission), but there is an automatic gearshift.


New tower with a developed feed niche

As done. At first glance, the tower looks vulnerable compared to the T-90A or T-72B towers. Most likely, this is the case. The T-72B and T-90A towers were of relatively small size and special shape. The stern vulnerable part of the tower was narrowed and closed with a powerful armored front part within course angles ± 30º. And even such towers managed to punch from the RPG and ATGM into the most vulnerable feeding zones. Needless to say, getting into the aft or onboard part of the T-90MS tower, which is the size of the Leopard-2 or Abrams tower, is not a problem at all. Thus, in terms of security, the aft part of the T-90MS tower is inferior to the security of the towers of all previous tanks of the T-72 model line.

It would seem - a clear regress? By no means. The fact is that the result of penetration of the stern or rear side of the T-72B tower, very often, was a fire or detonation of the ammunition set (BC) and, respectively, partially or completely dead crew. It's all about the location of the BC: in all T-72 series tanks, as well as in T-90, T-90C and T-90А only 22 shots of separate cartouche loading are located under the combat compartment (AM) of the carousel type This carousel, in contrast to the loading mechanism (MH) of the T-64 and T-80 tanks, is relatively well protected: in front of the most powerful frontal armor of the hull, in the back - by the engine, from the sides - supporting rollers and side screens. In addition, the terrain screen itself rarely allows you to hit a tank in the lower part of a regiment of combat.

The problem was mainly in the placement of the rest of the BC. These 23-26 shots with projectiles or SD were located literally everywhere: on the floor, on the walls of the hull, and practically throughout the entire rear hemisphere of the tower. The limited internal space of the T-72 tank simply does not allow placing this firepower that does not fit into the AZ carousel, somewhere else. As a result, this "non-mechanized" ammunition most often ignites or detonates - this is how lucky you are (it is not yet known what is worse).

You can argue, they say, on old tanks T-34-85, KV-85, T-54, T-55, EC-3 and T-10, the ammunition kit was located approximately the same. In this case, the comparison is inappropriate. The ammunition of these tanks consisted of unitary shots. The powder charge was placed in a metal sleeve and the fire hazard of these old machines was incomparably lower. And the charges in the partially burning T-72 sleeve are ready to flare from any contact of the cumulative jet.

The way out of this situation can be like this - do not take into battle that part of the ammunition set, which is located in a non-mechanized ammunition. But then you have to rely only on those 22 shots that are in the carousel AZ. Often they did. But this, of course, does not suit either tank crews, or self-respecting designers. The problem was finally solved in the T-90MS tank: the roundabout on the 22 shot was left, additionally protecting it with local reservations, and the remaining 18 shots were placed in the stern niche of the tower, providing it with expelling panels like the Abrams and Leopard-2. If desired, these 18 shots can also not take with you. In the context of urban combat, it will probably be better to do so.

As a result: in spite of the fact that the T-90MS tower has become more vulnerable to enemy fire than the predecessor towers - T-72B or T-90А, the survivability of the tank, and more importantly, the crew survival rate, has become incomparably higher. The level of survivability of the T-90MS and the survival of its crew in the event of a tank defeat in principle began to correspond to Western tanks. Another plus of such a tower is greater comfort and greater internal space of the habitable compartment of the tank.


Stern niche of the tower T-90MS


How could it be done. Apparently, no way. If you do not take into account any extravagant innovations, then other technical solutions to this tank are not suitable. The old Soviet layout with the placement of the whole BC, along with the crew, has become obsolete. And to place the whole BC in the feed niche following the example of “Abrams” from a certain point of view is unwise and within the limits of the given mass in 50 tons it is practically unrealizable. So off.

Comment specialist. The author is greatly mistaken in drawing conclusions about the decrease in the security of the turret of the new tank. The tower projected onto the plane still provides protection within the course angle 30 degrees, and from the stern it is securely closed with an armored box.
In general, the combat compartment of the upgraded T-90С tank, including the turret, is far less vulnerable than its predecessors. In other words, the whole paragraph about the new turret of the tank contains a lot of reasoning about the one that does not exist.
Refinement on the location of the ammunition. The 22 shots automatic loader, 8 shots in non-mechanized installation at the MTO partition and 10 shots in an armored box isolated from the fighting compartment at the stern of the tower.

New 125-mm gun 2А82

Tank T-90MS: Analysis of the main characteristics and possible ways to further improve the combat qualities

As done. The most powerful 125-mm smoothbore gun of the latest design 2А82 is a completely new development. It is believed that this gun is significantly superior to the previous 125-mm guns of the 2А46 series, the 122-mm threaded 2А17 and 120-mm NATO Rhinemetal guns with 44 and 55 barrel calibers. 2А82 surpasses them both in accuracy and in power of fire. The same applies to the Chinese 125-mm cannon tank ZTZ-99A2 (Type-99A2), which is only an improved "pirated" version of 2A46. However, the former 90-mm gun 125А2М46, which is installed on the T-5А, can apparently be installed on the T-90MS. From this we can conclude that the tanks with the new 2А82 cannon will be supplied to the Russian army, while the 2А46М5 will be equipped with tanks for export. At the same time, knowing the realities of today, it is possible that everyone will do exactly the opposite.

How could it be done. Numerous experimental electrochemical and electromagnetic guns have not yet reached the stage of their installation in a real tank, so we immediately discard them. Alternatively, one could install a new 90-mm or 140-mm cannon on the T-152MS (for example, from an “292 object”). But, in addition to technical difficulties, this could provoke Western countries to a similar modernization of their tanks, which means a new round of the caliber race. So at this stage we decided to develop the 125 mm caliber, which has not yet fully revealed its full potential. A 140-152 mm gun left in reserve. Offset

Comment specialist. It is completely incomprehensible how suddenly the author describes the possibility of installing a 2А82 gun on export tanks. I repeat that this gun is incompatible with ammunition with 2А46 modifications and is prohibited for export.

As for the powerful 152-mm 2А83 guns, which the author proposes to install on the T-90, this is impossible.


New dynamic protection "Relic"

As done. Dynamic protection of the new generation "Relic" refers to the built-in type DZ. It increases armor resistance to cumulative ammunition 2 times and 1,5 resistance to sub-caliber armor-piercing shells. Front and top DZ closes the tank tightly and without gaps. The weakened zones near the gun are also closed by elements of the DZ. The roof over the hatch of the driver is also closed. This is set off. But there is also a "fly in the ointment": the bottom frontal sheet does not have it. This miscalculation - in the lower front sheet of the tank can be pierced. The T-72B had at least one NDZ contact-1 row. The T-90MS has nothing, although theoretically it is possible to install hinged screens on hinges.

Next - the hull board. It is closed to the MTO itself, as well as that of the T-72B, and then the grid screen goes. T-72B had only rubber-fabric screens, therefore this solution is not better than T-90MS. I will explain. The T-72B and T-72 rubber-fabric screens simply initiated the explosion of a cumulative warhead (warhead) of a rocket-propelled grenade at some distance from the main board armor (70 mm). The lattice screen breaks down the body of a rocket-propelled grenade or an anti-tank guided missile, they collapse against these sharp grates. A warhead may not work at all.

The side of the tower - things are not so good. At T-72B, the tower was closed to a DZ to half the length. The role of protivokumulyatnyh screens of the rear hemisphere was played by boxes of spare parts and accessories of OPT. The T-90MS tower is large and long, there is no DZ on the sides of the aft niche, and in fact there is an ammunition. Another vulnerable area is the hull's stern sheet and the back of the tower. There were cases when a rocket grenade that hit the stern sheet of the hull penetrated the MTO right through the engine and hit the fighting compartment of the tank, and there people and ammunition. It is not noticeable that the designers paid at least some attention to this important aspect of protection on the new T-90MS. In terms of resistance to impact in the rear of the hull, it is no better than the base T-72 "Ural".


How could it be done. To protect the tower and the body along the entire perimeter, including the lower frontal part of the body, with elements of the Remote Device "Relikt". It will increase the mass of the tank slightly, but the defense will become much stronger, and most importantly - from all sides, which plays a huge role in urban battles. In general, despite the clear progress, an unambiguous offset can not be put. Although a clear failure too.

Comment specialist. As for the alleged "miscalculation" of designers who did not protect the lower frontal part of the case. I inform the author that NLD accounts for less than one percent of hits - even from the experience of fighting in a flat desert area. At the same time, the elements of dynamic protection installed on the NLD are definitely damaged when performing any prolonged march off-road.
The author’s statements about the tank’s vulnerability to hitting the side and the stern of the turret do not correspond to reality at all. DZ blocks on the sides of the tower cover the entire projection, and the armor box securely closes the stern.


The complex of active protection of the KAZT [1] "Arena-E" tank is absent

As done. On the newest T-90MS there is no KAZT, and after all similar systems were installed on old T-55AD and T-62D tanks. Sadly, such a necessary tank complex is missing.

How could it be done. Install the latest KAZT on T-90MS. Expensive? The cost of a T-90MS tank exploded from an ATGM or RPG is even greater, not to mention the lives of tankers. No

Comment specialist. Again, I repeat: this is a question for the customer. If there is an order for equipment, a full-fledged KAZT will be installed on the tank without any problems: for the Russian army this is “Afghan”, and for export deliveries - “Arena-E”. Both complexes are mated with Kalina.


A set of opto-electronic suppression COEP [2] "Curtain" on the tank is missing

As done. On the T-90MS there is no CEP “Blind”, although it is on previous models T-90, T-90А, T-90С and even on Iraqi T-72М1. And here it is not. Meanwhile, the thing is useful because it significantly reduces the likelihood of the guided missiles entering the tank.

How could it be done. Install on the tank KEPA "Blind-1". Only not instead of elements DZ, as unsuccessfully made at T-90А, and on them. No

Comment specialist. Same as above: upon request of the customer, this system is installed on the tank without problems.


Hard armored bulwark of the case with elements of DZ "Relic" and lattice screens

As done. At last, our tank received a normal hard armored bulwark, besides generously “flavored” with elements of dynamic protection. This is not the case either on previous versions or on T-72B tanks.

In order to create something up-to-date, you need to catch the correct trend, “where the wind blows,” so to speak, and then attach a ruler to this correct vector and extend the line by 10 lengths of this vector. An example is the heavy tank EC-2. How did it come about? Our designers caught a tendency to increase the caliber of tank guns: from 45 mm to 76 mm and, subsequently, to 85 mm, and from the Germans from 50 mm to 75 mm and, finally, to 88 mm. Without following the saying “an hour a teaspoon”, but simply taking and attaching a ruler to this vector and “extending” it, they immediately put a powerful 122-mm gun, which provided the EC-2 with simply overwhelming superiority in firepower over any tank of the world period

But, unfortunately, this correct approach to design, for some reason did not spread to the onboard screens. I will explain to the reader the meaning and purpose of the onboard screen. Its essence is that the screen initiates the operation of a cumulative warhead at such a distance from the main armor ,. when her piercing power drops sharply. If the screen is rigid and metallic, it also reduces penetration and kinetic ammunition, as it can change the angle of contact of the projectile with the main armor, tear off the “Makarovsky tip” from it, or simply damage the core. Hard steel screens of armor 10-20 mm thick appeared even during the Second World War on the German tanks Pz.IV and Pz.V "Panther", the British "Churchill" and "Centurion". They were on the domestic tanks T-28 and T-35. Since then, our western neighbors have not rushed to abandon them.

Paradoxically, but the fact is that despite the fact that on domestic tanks (T-28 and T-35) these screens appeared in step with the times, their further use and elements of their design in domestic combat vehicles followed a dubious path of development. While most Western tanks had developed and fully “adult” onboard screens, which were already an integral part of their spaced-out booking, we did the same.

On the post-war T-54, T-55 and T-62, there were no side screens at all. All of their onboard reservations consisted of the actual armored hull board with a thickness of 80 mm, which was somewhat shielded by relatively large support rollers. Thus, these types of tanks were an easy target even for the first-generation RPGs. On the EC-3M and a series of powerful tanks of the T-10 family there were such “germs” of onboard screens, which only slightly covered the side from above.

Next - a new generation T-64A tank. On it were six “skinny”, turning “vents” with dubious effectiveness. It was the same at the first T-72. The next stage of the long-suffering path of development of onboard screens of domestic tanks appeared on the T-64B, T-72A and T-80. They finally got a solid 10-mm side screen, BUT - rubber-fabric! It is clear that such screens with a small gain in weight compared with metal, almost do not protect against kinetic shells, it is very easily damaged and torn off, exposing the low-armored side of the hull. After a few touches of obstacles or hits (and the tank as a whole), I don’t even talk about how such a screen looks.

The next stage of evolution - tank T-72B. It has the same rubber-fabric screen as the T-72, but the 4C20 elements of the “Contact-1” dynamic protection elements (up to the MTO zone) were hung over the entire area. This greatly enhanced the protection of the onboard projection of the T-72B tank. But not everything is as good as it seems: the weight of the resulting structure turned out to be a large, thin rubber-cloth screen that bends under the weight of NDZ blocks. After two or three hits from an RPG or an ATGM, all this “economy” can simply fall off with all the ensuing consequences.

On the T-64BV introduced power screens under the side elements of NDZ. This appearance has improved, strength - almost none.

Finally we come to the "flying" tank T-80U. He received an almost normal onboard screen - 10-mm armor with built-in elements of dynamic protection "Contact-5". Why "almost"? Because all this “wealth” reaches only half the length of the corps, and even the vulnerable T-80U combat pack does not overlap with a fully powerful screen. Next to the stern is the same rubber screen, as in the T-72A or T-80.

The T-90 series is generally a regression and a return to almost T-72. Instead of the relatively normal T-80U, T-72B and T-64BV on-board screens, the T-90 has the same screen as the T-72A, and six such “squares” of armor with dynamic protection “Contact-5” - three each board And they do not close the middle of the case opposite the ammunition, which would be logical, but its front part. Strange construction. When the enemy is everywhere, turn his forehead to him will not work.

And now, finally appeared T-90MS. He has a normal armored side screen with grilles in front of MTO. All right


How could it be done. Everything was just as necessary, but it had to be done FORTY years ago - on the T-72 Ural tank! But still - Offset


Old British tank "Centurion". Steel side screens 16mm thick do not bend and make the appearance of this tank "powerful" and quite decent. Good example


The anti-aircraft installation with a large-caliber 12,7-mm NSVT machine gun was taken by a new remote installation with an 7,62-mm machine gun 6П7К

As done. The design of domestic medium and main battle tanks is interesting because with the continuous improvement of the quality of the main weapons, there was no progress at the auxiliary. Auxiliary weapons remain virtually unchanged for decades. The period of searches and experiments in this area for medium tanks remained in the distant past of the military and pre-war years. From T-55 to T-90, auxiliary armament consists of an 7,62-mm machine gun paired with a cannon and an anti-aircraft gun with an 12,7-mm machine gun on the turret roof. Of course, this scheme is outdated and needs to be changed.

On the T-90MS, such an attempt was made, but it was unsuccessful. At the cost of abandoning a large-caliber anti-aircraft installation, the designers tried to adapt the tank to combat in urban environments and to ensure the possibility of an effective fight against enemy manpower, primarily with grenade launchers. To do this, instead of 12,7-mm machine gun set more "smart" and maneuverable anti-personnel machine-gun installation with 7,62-mm machine gun and very large vertical angles of guidance.

What happened? With regards to the zenith component. The tank T-72B in the event of an air threat had at its disposal two echelon of air defense:

1. Long range - provided by guided missiles, allowed to fight with helicopters and other low-speed air targets, the range from 1,5 – 2 to 4 – 5 km.

2. If the target broke through to closer, then a short-range echelon came into play - an anti-aircraft gun with a 12,7-mm machine gun NSVT "Rock". He operated at ranges up to 2 – 2,5 km. Everything is quite logical. The T-90A had an even more advanced remote-controlled anti-aircraft gun, similar to the T-64 and T-80UD.

But the T-90MS tank this "short-range" was cut off, which, without doubt, worsened its protective anti-aircraft properties. To cause any serious damage to the modern attack helicopter, and even more so to bring it down, a 7,62 mm bullet is unlikely. But, maybe, now the tank will successfully fight the enemy infantry nestled in the urban jungle? Also no. The main problem of the tank in such a situation - to see in the window opening of the enemy. At the landfill, the living force is simulated by bright and multi-colored balloons that hang in the window openings. It is not difficult to guess that a real grenade thrower will not flaunt in a window opening with a grenade launcher at the ready before the barrel of a tank gun aimed at him. He will hide next to the window, behind the wall and look out occasionally, being sure that the crew of the tank does not see him, and wait for a convenient moment.

Now, they have not yet invented any devices capable of seeing x-ray through concrete walls, so there’s only one way out for the tank - to shoot a high-explosive fragmentation projectile into the empty window where the enemy is supposed to be. Sometimes it helps when they guess, but there will not be enough ammunition to shoot through all the windows, doors and hatches. There is still a way to shoot a machine gun at a wall next to a window or under a window sill. If an enemy is hiding there, he will be amazed. But for this bullet must pierce the wall of the house. Can this be done by a 7,62-mm bullet of a coaxial machine gun or anti-personnel installation of a T-90MS tank? Hardly. And that means almost no sense from it. But 12,7-mm bullet from NSVT is quite capable of this. Conclusion: The new remote install looks beautiful, but - No


How could it be done. The main battle tank T-64А “grew” from the medium tank T-64, which, in turn, was a revolutionary machine, which absorbed the latest advances in design and industry, as well as the best technical solutions of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.


The T-10M is a cold and precise death machine. The most powerful tank in the world of the period 50-x - the beginning of the 60-ies of XX century. It was about the size of an “Abrams” and possessed an optimal combination of high mobility, powerful armor protection and enormous firepower with a weight of 51,5 tons


Why did I suddenly mention heavy tanks? Because a very powerful and perfect tank was in service with the Soviet army for a long time, a meeting with which in battle for any other tank of that time would most likely be the last. His name is T-10M. Powerful, 52-ton handsome, released in the number of 8000 units and stood in service with the Soviet army for about 40 years. This tank had a lot of technical solutions, which distinguished it favorably from medium-sized tanks and from the main battle tanks too (including T-90MS).

The auxiliary armament of the T-10M consisted of an 14,5-mm KPVT machine gun paired with a cannon and one more of the same in an anti-aircraft installation on the roof of the tower. Armor-piercing 14,5-mm bullet B-32 from the distance 500 m calmly penetrates the armor with thickness 32 mm. The total rate of fire of both machine guns - 1200 shots per minute. This allowed the T-10M tank to “cut” in half any BTR or BMP without any problems, even without using the main 122-mm M-62-T2C cannon. The concrete walls of houses and shelters such machine guns also punch "with a bang."

Thus, T-10M with regard to firepower was completely adapted to combat operations in the city. If necessary, he could "saw through" the wall across the floor, where the enemy could hide. These same machine guns had to be put on the T-90MS. At least one - in the anti-aircraft installation on the roof. For the machine gun coupled with a gun, there is a good alternative - the 12,7-mm machine gun YakB-12,7 from the attack helicopter Mi-24В.


Installing USPU-24 with 4-barrel 12,7-mm machine gun YakB-12,7


This machine gun gives out 5000 rounds per minute and is air cooled — this is what T-90MS needs. If there was one such 12,7-mm “lawn mower” in the tank and a powerful 14,5-mm KPVT machine gun in an anti-aircraft gun, the issue of air defense and operations in dense urban areas for T-90MS would have been resolved. With an independent vertical guidance system paired with an 125-mm 2-82 cannon, the 4-12,7-barrel X-machine gun of the YakB-12,7 tank will have all the qualities of the widely advertised BMPT and will not lose the main advantage of the tank - a powerful gun. By the way, BMPT is not the first car of this class in the world. If we analyze - T-28 and T-35 are direct ideological ancestors of the BMPT.

Comment specialist. A lot of words for nothing. Let it be known to the author: in addition to the PCT, the 90-mm machine gun and the 12,7-mm AGS grenade launcher can be supplied to the remote installation platform of the upgraded T-30 tank, depending on the wishes of the customer. Moreover, the digital ballistic tract of the Kalina OMS allows replacing the armament of a remote installation in field conditions, depending on the assigned tasks.


More powerful B-92C2F2 engine with automatic transmission

As done. The engine produces power 1130 hp, which is 130 hp more than the previous T-90A tank (1000 hp). Initially, it was rumored that the engine would be power 1200 hp, but to achieve it, apparently, did not succeed. The engine has a pleasant, smooth sound operation and provides T-90MS power density 23 hp / t. The maximum speed of the tank on the highway - 60-65km / h. This is not bad, but not the best indicator. To match the saying “armor is strong and our tanks are fast ...” T-90MS should accelerate at least to 70-75km / h. A lighter tank should be faster than heavy, western ones. And in order to bring the mobility indicators of T-90MS to the level of T-80, he doesn’t even need an engine, and, most likely, it will be enough to redo the transmission. For example, the tank T-80BV with a mass in 43,7 tons and engine power 1100 HP Accelerates to 80 km / h. What prevents the T-90MS from traveling in the same way? The engine is normal. So you need to improve the transmission.

How could it be done. The limited amount of MTO tank T-72 makes increasing engine power challenging. The same applies to the hull of the T-90MS, which is a direct heir to the T-72. It is necessary to improve the transmission of the tank, which was done, and to choose the right gear ratios. So all the same - Set off.

Comment specialist. The installation of the B-93 engine, despite the increase in the mass of the upgraded tank, increased its power density to 23,5 hp / t versus 21,5 hp / t in T-90А and T-90С tanks. The planned installation of the В-99 engine will give an even greater increase in power density (up to 24,5 hp / t). As for the alleged "automatic transmission", I wrote about it above.



Additional power unit in armored container
Body almost identical to T-72
Chassis is almost identical to the T-72

As done. These three points are summarized in one paragraph, because they are the result of one - too small volume of the T-72 case. The firepower, protection and mobility of the modern MBT has long since “grown” from the dimensions of the T-72. In the photo T-90MS from the side you can see how the large heavy tower literally hangs over the small tank hull, how the equipment hung on it behind the hull that did not fit inside. What does this entail? Here's what:

1. The driver is, in fact, trapped. Its hatch is very small, a gun and a wedge of armor of the tower hangs from above. If something happens - do not get out.
2. The driver’s observation devices had to be positioned not on the roof of the hull, but in the cutouts of the VLD, thus creating a weakened zone - a “decollete” near the hatch.
3. Powerful engine does not deliver - no place.
4. The fuel tanks (part) and auxiliary power unit are outside the armored hull. Obviously, all this is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.
5. The short six-axle chassis has a load limit and is already approaching a reasonable limit on such an important parameter as the specific pressure on the ground. In a word fat No

How could it be done. Let's go back to T-10M. Its body had an ideal shape with a wedge-shaped nose, curved side walls and large dimensions. A soft, semi-support suspension is also available.

The design of the hull and undercarriage of the T-10M tank allows you to:
1. Install complete tower T-90MS.
2. Position the front plates at very high angles and, at the same time, equip a large and convenient driver's hatch through which he can always get out at any position of the gun.
3. The shape of the walls with curved walls greatly enhances its resistance to the effects of various ammunition and, at the same time, leaves the volume reserved niches for the placement of fuel tanks, electronics or auxiliary power unit.
4. Large-sized MTO allows you to install a powerful engine + auxiliary unit.
5. The seven-suspension chassis allows you to withstand weight in 60 tons and more. So the reserves of the T-10M modernization are very wide. It remains only to add rubber bands to the support rollers.


The lower part of the housing T-10M. It is clearly visible how the hull sides are made.


The drawings of the T-10M probably remained. It will hardly be very expensive to revive it in a modern form. In any case, everything will pay off quickly. The second option is to follow the path of the “187 object” - an improved modification of the T-72B. That is just to slightly extend the regular hull of the T-72 tank. By the way, the Chinese went along this path, as a result of which one of the most powerful tanks in the world appeared today - ZTZ-99А2. Equipped with a 125-mm cannon, guided missiles, this Chinese tank ZM-87 is a very dangerous enemy. It is better to overestimate than to underestimate. To fight with him on T-72B is unlikely to work, but on T-90A or T-72BM it will also be oh, how not easy. The days of Damansky are long gone - it is time for the leadership of our armed forces to understand this.


The Chinese main battle tank ZTZ-99A2 is one of the most dangerous opponents for our tank. Unlike the T-90MS, the Chinese look proportionally and not so heavy. It is longer than the T-72, although the Chinese are smaller in height and weight than we


The first version with the T-10M case, in my opinion, still looks more progressive. On the "Type 99" and "object 187" and asked seven-bearing chassis.


The “187 Object” is larger than the T-90A and much more spacious. That, in theory, should have been the base tank T-90 "Vladimir"


Comment specialist. On this point, I consider commenting the flight of thought of “sofa designers” unproductive. This layout is over 50 years old! Here every thesis strikes with deep ignorance. Although, however, for a simple man in the street it would be excusable.


New fire control system "Kalina"

As done. The Kalina SUO clearly surpasses the 1A45T Irtysh system of the T-90A tank: a complete set of thermal imaging devices, automated guidance weapons taking into account all sorts of data including bending of the barrel of the gun, automatic target tracking and much more.
The difference from the T-90A is that the gun can be induced by a not-yet-visible target according to the data of the tank information control system (TIUS). As soon as the target appears in line of sight - the next second shot! Another important aspect is that the OMS is fully computerized. In order to equip a tank with new ammunition, for example, it is not necessary to reconfigure the sight. Simply update the firmware of the LMS and all things conveniently and quickly. However, the missile system remained the same - 9K119М “Reflex-M” with a range of 5 km. This is no longer enough.

For example, guided missiles of the tank “Merkava” Mk.IV - LAHAT have a launch range of 6 – 8 km. Thus, a powerful Israeli tank for the first time surpassed domestic tanks "in their sandbox." The presence of guided missile weapons (URO) has always been an advantage of domestic tanks over Western ones that did not have [3]. Now everything has changed. For separation from competitors on the T-90MS, it is necessary to install a universal anti-aircraft anti-tank missile system with dual-mode guidance. Semi-automatic for firing at tanks and purely automatic (“shot-forgotten”) for firing at aircraft. As for the firing range, it should be at least 10 km (especially for Zour).

In addition, it is unclear how the T-90MS will fight the ZTZ-99A2. After all, an attempt to measure the distance to it with the help of a laser rangefinder will end with a response T-90MS irradiation with a powerful laser setup and instant failure of all optics (it will darken). What will happen next - I think it is clear. Against this background, the statements of some authorities have a ridiculous look, they say - "we are not going to fight with China." All this is reminiscent of the Chamberlain Pact. And if they get together with us, gentlemen? The laser machine ZM-87 is often referred to as “inhuman” weapons. It can damage the sight of the gunner and tank commander. Yes, inhumane, but it is even more inhumane to send people into the battle against the newest XT of the 21 century, people on the 40 technology developed a year ago. This is really inhumane!

On modern tanks, the gunner and the commander observe the target through color monitors. So the laser system of the Chinese tank can not harm their eyes. But it will only damage the tank's optics, and even then, if it does not have special anti-laser filters. Are there any devices on T-90MS? I do not know, but if not, it is urgent to install. Otherwise, the meeting with the “Chinese” will end badly, very badly. And it would not hurt T-90MS to have a combat laser system similar to the Chinese tank ZTZ-99А2.

In general, the LMS and other electronics of the T-90MS are of course modern, but nothing special is visible in it. Unambiguous offset can not be put. However, the failure too.


Comment specialist. As for the author's reasoning about the lack of firing range of the Reflex complex in 5 km, I would like to remind you that the direct vision range on 95% of the terrain of a Central European theater does not exceed 2,5 km.

I can only say one thing about anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles for a tank with a range of 10 km: this is another thesis within the framework of the trend of dense ignorance. Well, about the statements about laser weapons and their effects - the author urgently learn a school course in physics.



Conclusion: The T-90MS is a good, fit modern tank and can be considered one of the most powerful in the world. However, unfortunately, he doesn’t really pull on the compliance with the loud epithet “breakthrough”. Maybe it's the price of the tank. But there are things that can not be saved. Modern weapons of this class simply can not be cheap. The optimal “hodgepodge” of the world's best main battle tank looks something like this:
- body and chassis from T-10M
- tower and side screens from T-90MS
- 125-mm gun 2А82
- 12,7-mm twin machine gun YakB-12,7 from the Mi-24В helicopter
- charger (remote) with 14,5-mm KPVT machine gun from T-10M
- gas turbine or diesel engine with power> 1500 HP
- additional power unit (inside the T-10М case)
- automatic transmission
- DZ "Relikt" around the perimeter.
For "gland" like this.

As for electronics, the following systems should be installed on the tank:
- The complex of active protection of the tank "Arena-E"
- The complex of optical-electronic suppression "Blind-1"
- Universal anti-aircraft anti-tank missile system (UZPTRK) with a launch range> 10 km. Guidance - dual-mode (automatic / semi-automatic), as on the Ka-50/52 helicopter. Missiles can be either universal, or there should be two types of them - SAM and ATGM.
- Fighting laser system, similar to the Chinese tank ZTZ-99A2. It is very important. Plus filters on optics to protect against such systems.
- The system of psycho-physiological monitoring of the state of the crew. It is not a secret that in battle a person can be simply scared. He may also experience other negative emotions: anger, rage, confusion, hysteria, etc. All of this has a negative effect on its combat capability, or even can lead to death. In the new tank you need to mount a special powerful computer that matches intellectual suits and helmets of tankers. Sensors located in them inform the computer about what emotions a soldier is currently experiencing. A computer, in turn, should use special pulses to massage certain areas of the human cerebral cortex through sensors mounted on the head, completely removing harmful emotions that are completely unnecessary to him in battle. The system must be under the control of the tank commander with the ability to turn off and on as desired.
- Means allowing the tank crew to see the enemy through concrete walls. A sort of "X-ray". The fact that it can be harmful to the health of the enemy, there is nothing terrible - this is the enemy. The system is necessary to ensure effective combat operations of tanks in the city. This is the next epoch after the appearance of thermal imagers.
- Devices that provide at least commander visibility on the principle of "glass cabin".
- The system of electromagnetic protection from mines, reducing heat and radar visibility, aerosol and smoke screen.
- It must be possible to control the movement of the tank in battle by the commander with the help of a joystick. This will reduce the crew crew to two people. Commander and gunner. In this case, the workplace of the driver is left as a backup in case of a break in the joystick.
- CIUS integrated into the tank's SLA. It should be common to tanks, helicopters, attack aircraft, radar and air defense systems. This will allow tankers to see the approach of the enemy for many kilometers. aviation and aim your missiles at it in advance.

A “stuffed hodgepodge” of the T-10М / 90MS with a mass of ~ 55-60 tons in a similar way will be an order of magnitude greater than any existing and prospective battle tank of a potential enemy. Yes it will be expensive. Even more. But if this is not done, then the entire foreseeable future will have to fight on the "ageless" T-72B:


The famous T-72B. The coolest and battle tank of the end of 20-th - the beginning of the 21-th century. But today he is like Mike Tyson - still fighting, but many are already beating


Comment specialist. Regarding the proposals on the composition of the “hodgepodge”, “iron” and other conclusions, it is better to refrain from commenting at all, if not to say even worse.


Notes:
[1] KAZT using small-sized radar detects ammunition flying up to the tank, after which it is knocked down by counter fragmentation ammunition. Basically effective against relatively slow ammunition - cumulative shells, rockets and RPG grenades. Does not respond to bullets, shrapnel and small-caliber shells.
[2] Works as an active jammer. In 3-5, the probability of hitting a guided missile with a semi-active laser guidance system in a tank decreases.
[3] Guided missile weapons were hitherto available only on domestic tanks. Recently, they acquired Chinese and Israeli tanks.
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. dastan13
    +1
    14 March 2013 09: 43
    Of everything that is written and the photos I saw, I have one question:
    What will the crew do in case of failure of one of the modules (especially optics)?
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 15: 18
      Quote: dastan13
      Of everything that has been written and the photos seen, I have one question: What will the crew do if one of the modules (especially the optics) fails?


      I am also interested in this question, because judging by the video reports from Syria, all these optical bells and whistles will live in city battles for no more than a day ... snipers will increase all these glasses perhaps even faster ...
      1. +3
        15 March 2013 11: 16
        Letting a tank into a city battle without harming tank dangerous means first is an inadmissible luxury. What a paradox: earlier tanks would have been worse protected from guns, and almost ideally from small arms. Now the tank can withstand the ATGM hit, but it can be disabled from the rifle.
      2. 0
        21 June 2019 07: 37
        And tanks sniper snipers. Once at a time.
  2. +3
    14 March 2013 09: 57
    expert comments are very scarce especially the latest, thanks for the article, I want to
    1. +4
      14 March 2013 22: 59
      I would also like to add about the comments of the "specialist" ... The impression is that he is not a specialist at all, if he cannot reasonably explain his position, but confines himself to a "transition to personalities" of the type: "... strikes with dense ignorance ...", "... sofa constructors ... I think it is unproductive ..." and so on ... A professor who does not know how to explain to a cleaner what he does is not a professor, but emptiness ... so here too ...
  3. 0
    14 March 2013 09: 58
    expert comments are very scarce especially the latest, thanks for the article, I want to
  4. bright
    +3
    14 March 2013 10: 12
    There is a good alternative for a machine gun coaxial with a cannon - a 12,7 mm YakB-12,7 machine gun from a Mi-24V attack helicopter.

    YakB-12,7 in Afghanistan was famous for having a large percentage of failures. But PCT did not fail. Regarding KPVT it would be really not bad.
  5. +1
    14 March 2013 10: 15
    Some of the comments of the "specialist" are incomprehensible - for example, about the shape of the hull and the seven-wheel suspension.
  6. 0
    14 March 2013 10: 20
    But you can in more detail about the new weapon A82 ????
    1. +1
      14 March 2013 14: 31
      It’s just interesting how they were able to so sharply increase their power. There was no news about new ammunition and taking them into service. The caliber is the same barrel length.
      1. -4
        15 March 2013 08: 38
        Kars - how could they sharply increase the power of the navel without new supplies and lengthening the length .... yes it is very simple! Turbo boosted and all things wassat
      2. 0
        15 March 2013 20: 13
        If they talk about the adoption of new ammunition, then they mean exactly the shell. The propellant charge remains in the shade, so they could silently increase the weight of gunpowder.
    2. YuDDP
      0
      14 March 2013 20: 42
      qwert], at the request of Pupyrchaty ask questions?
      1. 0
        15 March 2013 07: 06
        Well no. I have no relation to the promised land. I am most curious.
  7. +1
    14 March 2013 10: 26
    At least with regard to the tower, I agree with the author of the article, this is not even a step to the side, it is a step back. But the comments of a specialist are meager and not supported by any arguments, and I don't want to believe him as the last resort. Especially the phrase that the rear of the tower is "securely covered with an armored box" I wonder how much the thickness of the reliable box is 10 or 20 mm. And the knockout plate does not guarantee the preservation of the crew's combat effectiveness, for after the detonation of two dozen charges behind the back of the head, it is not pleasant.
    1. +5
      14 March 2013 12: 12
      Quote: RPG_
      Especially the phrase that the rear of the tower is "securely covered with an armored box" I wonder how much the thickness of the reliable box is 10 or 20 mm. And the knockout plate does not guarantee the preservation of the crew's combat effectiveness, because after the detonation of two dozen charges behind the back of the head, it is not pleasant.


      I completely agree with the expert. The back of the tower is covered:
      trellis screen
      basket
      armored box with extra shots (10pcs)
      and only then comes the armor of the tower.
      Other teshek rear only boxes with zip and immediately the armor of the tower.

      The sides of the tower, if I remember correctly, the T-90ms are covered with active armor (under the skin).
      In previous tacheks, the board is covered only by boxes (spare parts, cartridge, etc.).

      In general, the residential part of the tower remained as on the previous teshes, but the additional dimension of the tower is precisely the additional protection of the crew.
      1. -3
        14 March 2013 14: 34
        What does it mean and only then comes the armor of the tower? it’s practically not there, as well as shells, it’s necessary to get it without getting out of the tank. So the old version of the tower overlaid with bars and dynamic protection would be much better. And take into account small ammunition as a given and build the tactics of using cars on the basis of this.
        1. 0
          14 March 2013 16: 24
          Quote: RPG_
          What does it mean and only then comes the armor of the tower? it’s practically not there, as well as shells, it’s necessary to get it without getting out of the tank.

          Who told you that there’s no armor at the back of the tower? Additional shots (10 pieces) are in a separate box behind the tower and there is no access to them from inside the tank.
          If my memory serves me, the same was done by the Ukrainian "Oplot", only there are only 5 additional shots there.
          1. -1
            14 March 2013 23: 08
            Well, well ... Shells overboard? So what for then are they at all, if they are not taken during the battle? It turns out that they are, that they do not make any difference - so what is the improvement in general, here I see only the DECREASE in the properties of the machine ... Miracles ...
        2. Explore
          +1
          14 March 2013 22: 51
          It’s getting out. This is a separate module - storage of shells outside the BO and without hatches.
      2. 0
        April 1 2019 14: 26
        screens of course protect from crowbars)))))))))))))))))))))))) or RPG from above)))!
  8. +3
    14 March 2013 10: 30
    Well conceived article!
    The author's thoughts, which are largely amateurish, are given a professional "shock"
    The "break" is, probably, a little succinct.
    But in order to understand the detailed comments of a specialist, one must be one himself, and the volume will come out pretty well.
    1. -4
      14 March 2013 23: 11
      As for the "professional shock" I doubt it ... rather, the same answers to the considerations of one amateur ...
  9. Avenger711
    0
    14 March 2013 10: 48
    There is a good alternative for a machine gun coaxial with a cannon - a 12,7 mm YakB-12,7 machine gun from a Mi-24V attack helicopter.


    Yeah, only he was "supposedly shooting" in helicopters. I have doubts about the reliability of this system (4-barreled) on the ground, gattlings are still quite a capricious weapon. What does not suit the installation of the standard Large-caliber Machine Gun Vladimirov Tank or alteration of any 12.7 mm, if the variant with KPVT (almost twice as much as 12.7 mm in muzzle energy) seems too brutal.

    In general, a heavy machine gun does provide many advantages and penetrates many types of shelters. The Americans in Iraq improvised, removed the anti-aircraft machine gun and put it on the barrel of the gun, altering along the way the electric trigger. There are options for arming the tank with a 20 mm gun instead of 12.7 mm anti-aircraft.

    You can also pay attention to such a hit as the "Bakhcha-U" module with as many as three barrels.

    As for the firing range, it should be at least 10 km (especially for SAM).


    Even 5 km for ATGMs is already doubtful because of the difficulty in finding the target.
  10. Avenger711
    -1
    14 March 2013 10: 48
    There is a good alternative for a machine gun coaxial with a cannon - a 12,7 mm YakB-12,7 machine gun from a Mi-24V attack helicopter.


    Yeah, only he was "supposedly shooting" in helicopters. I have doubts about the reliability of this system (4-barreled) on the ground, gattlings are still quite a capricious weapon. What does not suit the installation of the standard Large-caliber Machine Gun Vladimirov Tank or alteration of any 12.7 mm, if the variant with KPVT (almost twice as much as 12.7 mm in muzzle energy) seems too brutal.

    In general, a heavy machine gun does provide many advantages and penetrates many types of shelters. The Americans in Iraq improvised, removed the anti-aircraft machine gun and put it on the barrel of the gun, altering along the way the electric trigger. There are options for arming the tank with a 20 mm gun instead of 12.7 mm anti-aircraft.

    You can also pay attention to such a hit as the "Bakhcha-U" module with as many as three barrels.

    As for the firing range, it should be at least 10 km (especially for SAM).


    Even 5 km for ATGMs is already doubtful because of the difficulty in finding the target.
  11. 0
    14 March 2013 11: 05
    The article is, to put it mildly, controversial, regarding the knock-out panels, the question is very interesting. During the operation of the abrams, there were isolated cases of saving the crew or the tank at the expense of the ones. An explosion and subsequent detonation, whether of unitary shells or separate loading, leads to 99 cases out of 100 fatalities. and this 1 case to the smallest degree depends on the knock-out panels. Also, any tank should be considered not biased, as a complex of weapons, and not measured by organs. Abrams and the T-72 are the two most warring tanks in the world, and in many respects the T-72 is larger than Mohammed Ali, that is, it was not defeated, while Abrams is a very worthy opponent, and not a parquet tank (such as a leopard or leclerc).
    But undoubtedly the T-72 requires either a replacement or a deep modernization. The T-90 is not what our army needs. Since this modification is more like a wrapper (wrapper), but not really needed.
  12. Avenger711
    -1
    14 March 2013 11: 33
    There is a good alternative for a machine gun coaxial with a cannon - a 12,7 mm YakB-12,7 machine gun from a Mi-24V attack helicopter.


    Yeah, only he was "supposedly shooting" in helicopters. I have doubts about the reliability of this system (4-barreled) on the ground, gattlings are still quite a capricious weapon. What does not suit the installation of the standard Large-caliber Machine Gun Vladimirov Tank or alteration of any 12.7 mm, if the variant with KPVT (almost twice as much as 12.7 mm in muzzle energy) seems too brutal.

    In general, a heavy machine gun does provide many advantages and penetrates many types of shelters. The Americans in Iraq improvised, removed the anti-aircraft machine gun and put it on the barrel of the gun, altering along the way the electric trigger. There are options for arming the tank with a 20 mm gun instead of 12.7 mm anti-aircraft.

    You can also pay attention to such a hit as the "Bakhcha-U" module with as many as three barrels.

    As for the firing range, it should be at least 10 km (especially for SAM).


    Even 5 km for ATGMs is already doubtful because of the difficulty in finding the target.
  13. wolland
    0
    14 March 2013 11: 41
    At the moment, the most balanced combat vehicle in combat qualities, created back in the bright past of the USSR, has no analogues, I would like it to not be .......
  14. candy bar140105
    +1
    14 March 2013 12: 40
    Why did we cling to the T-72 so that it was the basis? maybe it's really better to take the hull from a heavy tank with 7 rollers? The T-10 is a gorgeous tank of its time, and in vain the "expert" dismissed it like that. After all, we only need a body from it, and the tower, electronics and mto can be installed new, or am I mistaken? enlighten ........
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 13: 30
      Well, if you take only the form and apply the combined reservation, something interesting may well come out, but only by that time (I hope and believe) Armata will appear, so there is no sense in twitching. Spending money on the development of another MBT when one is already preparing for the exit is sheer nonsense and only the USSR can afford it, in the days of its highest prosperity.
    2. 0
      14 March 2013 20: 49
      Quote: baton140105
      why did we cling to the t-72 so taking it as a basis? maybe it’s really better to take the hull from a heavy tank with 7 rollers?

      Then it will turn out not modernization, but already another tank. And another tank is already being made (Armata) on a completely new basis, taking into account the most modern requirements.
      I was somehow interested in an informed person with UVZ, whether they plan to put the hull on object 187 on the T-90, because it is only 72cm longer than the T-30 hull, but it no longer has a weakened zone in the area of ​​the viewing devices of the driver’s mechanic In this case, X-shaped engines of 1200 horses are completely placed.
      He replied that new lines were being built at the plant near Armata and there was no sense investing in expensive modernization.
      Although, I think, there would be an order from the military - they would do it without problems.
    3. 0
      April 1 2019 14: 36
      bent armor against crowbars can and will give an effect, but it will give a gain in weight, but finally can’t protect against kmuliation! Lengthening the body is a good idea and in armata like 7m rollers!
  15. NAPOLEON
    +5
    14 March 2013 14: 10
    it says here that the tank has poor air defense. Air defense tasks are not for the tank. The tank should not operate where enemy aircraft operate freely. Although it will be inferior to its enemy than its complement.
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 14: 32
      I hope that the rejection of the anti-aircraft machine gun is due to the calculation that on the battlefield tanks should cover vehicles like the BMP or armor shell from a threat from above
      let's see what will happen on the armature
      1. +1
        14 March 2013 16: 35
        Read the article again:
        Commentary by a specialist. A lot of words for an empty reason. Let the author know: in addition to the PKT, on the platform for the remote installation of the upgraded T-90S You can put a 12,7 mm machine gun and a 30 mm AGS grenade launcher, depending on the wishes of the customer. Moreover, the digital ballistic path of the CMS Kalina allows you to replace the armament of a remote installation in the field, depending on the tasks.
      2. Prohor
        0
        15 March 2013 20: 04
        The word "anti-aircraft" is an atavism, you just need a large-caliber machine gun. And better are removable modules with KORD, KPVT, PKT, but even with an ATGM, an al-slingshot shotgun.
        1. Evgen2509
          0
          16 March 2013 16: 40
          The word "anti-aircraft" is an atavism

          And why a machine gun that shoots only Suba under his feet?)
          Seriously, an "anti-aircraft" gun can fire not only at helicopter planes, but also at windows, so here you are not entirely right.
  16. -3
    14 March 2013 14: 48
    Hi Everyone!
    And why is a tank, with the current armament of infantry, generally needed?
    1. BruderV
      +1
      14 March 2013 16: 20
      Quote: Svityaz
      And why is a tank, with the current armament of infantry, generally needed?

      But at least then that in conditions of radiation and chemical contamination, there will be nothing to fight except tanks. In addition to the BTT, no other ground equipment has yet been invented that can provide comparable maneuverability, firepower, and protection of soldiers on the battlefield. Even ordinary modern infantry needs means for fast movement, infantry in dead defense is cut off from supplies and methodically destroyed. That is, infantry is vital for armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, MRAPs, and to cover them, tanks with increased firepower are needed, which will quickly and reliably destroy enemy infantry fighting vehicles along with infantry and resist enemy tanks. Everything needs to be considered in a complex, because the battles are now combined arms. MBTs are certainly not quite suitable for local wars, here I agree.
    2. Explore
      +1
      20 March 2013 14: 38
      To maximize the firepower of the same infantry.
      Until now, the tank is the most protected self-propelled vehicle with high firepower. Infantry without a tank greatly slows the pace of the offensive, because not every BMP has sufficient firepower to suppress enemy firing points, moreover, its armor protection, as a rule, is significantly inferior to the tank. In turn, a tank without infantry protection also becomes an easy target for anti-tank vehicles. The refusal of the symbiosis of the Tank-Motorized Rifle platoon / squad in the near future is not possible when conducting military operations of large armies.
      And against the partisans - MRAPs to help ...
  17. Georgs
    -1
    14 March 2013 14: 50
    Who would explain to a layman on tank technology why such a monstrous zaman was formed in front of the tower? And if the sub-caliber slides in there? And what will happen if at least a 12 mm bullet gets into all these crazy bells and whistles? And even cooler if 14 mm? Oh, and not about grenade launchers.
    1. BruderV
      0
      14 March 2013 15: 42
      Quote: GeorGS
      And if there is a caliber slip

      At such angles of contact with the armor will fragment (fly apart).
      Quote: GeorGS
      And what will happen if at least a 12 mm bullet gets into all these crazy bells and whistles? And even cooler if 14 mm? Oh about grenade launchers and do not talk

      The feed niche is generally separate from the tower. It is for the transport of additional BC and loading it through the hatch into the tank.
    2. Crang
      -2
      15 March 2013 23: 27
      As the author of the article already wrote, due to the small size of the case. The mechanics simply cannot get out - the hatch is right at the base of the tower. I had to do the lure. The T-10 would not have such problems.
      1. +1
        15 March 2013 23: 55
        Quote: Krang
        The mechanics simply cannot get out - the hatch is right at the base of the tower. I had to do the lure. The T-10 would not have such problems.

        If you lower the cannon in combat, then on both tanks the driver has problems leaving the tank. I don’t know how on T-10 but in T-90 a mechanic can leave the tank through the fighting compartment. This is not as fast as through his hatch, but he has the opportunity to get out of the tank.

        And what kind of "lure" are we talking about? The reverse bevel of the dynamic protection boxes is not so that it would be more convenient for the driver to climb out, but because the remote sensing operation at such angles is the most rational.
        1. Crang
          0
          16 March 2013 08: 13
          Take a closer look at the T-10 hull. The hatch of the driver is not located on the roof, but slightly tilted forward like the Abrams. In addition, it is very large - triangular. Even if the cannon is straight and lowered down to the end, the mechanic will still be able to get out. It's just that even in any direction from the cannon - the hatch allows it. Now look at the small oval mechanic drive hatch on the T-90. Which is pushed close to the tower. The cannon does not even have to go down - even if it is just above the hatch - the fur cannot get out. The casing covers.
    3. Evgen2509
      +2
      16 March 2013 16: 42
      As for the "lure", learn the materiel. This is not a lure, but a remote sensing device, the efficiency of which increases with an increase in the contact angle.
  18. -2
    14 March 2013 14: 53
    guided missiles of the Merkava tank MK.IV - LAHAT have a launch range of 6-8 km
    __________________________________
    In this case, the "Merkava" is not an indicator, for it was sharpened exclusively on the desert area of ​​a clearly defined theater of operations. Something I do not know the facts of the export of this object to states with different climatic conditions.
    I agree with the expert's comment. However, I would like to know the "regalia and services" for the defense of all opposing sides. smile
    1. Crang
      -1
      16 March 2013 08: 36
      You know, I'm looking at you and I understand one thing - the saying "History teaches one thing - history teaches nothing" will live forever. You don't need more than 5 km, right? Because further 2,5 km type "not visible". How many times have already stepped on the same rake ..... How many times ... In the Russian-Japanese war - and why there are more than 20 cables not to get there, so you don't need to train! And all the rare practice shooting was carried out at distances up to 20 cables. In a real battle "suddenly" it turned out that it was necessary to fight with 40 and 60 ... In 41 - 76mm cannon copes with all targets! No more! The "Tiger" appeared and the result - hundreds of burning T-34s .... Operation "Desert Storm" - our T-72Ms were drenched like blind kittens because they did not see more than 1300m at night, and the Abrams were seen at 2500-3000m. It was also "not necessary" right? On a perfectly flat surface of the globe, two people of average height see each other's heads from a distance of 8 km. I can show you and in central Russia a full full of places from where you can see for all 20-25 km.
      You understand that in this situation a single-iron rule should apply: "The further the better" This concerns the detection and firing range. And then there will be no such nightmarish situations as in 41st. If this homebrew specialist called the author of this article "a dense ignoramus", then let him officially call the guys who provided the Israeli tank "Merkava MK.4" with a guided missile firing range of 8 km. The path will call the Americans idiots who are developing a TERM guided missile with a launch range of more than 10 km for the Abrams .... What do you think they are sitting there? With these TERMs they will be able to burn our tanks while still over the horizon (with external target designation).
      1. not good
        0
        16 March 2013 11: 42
        A good note. The rejection of the 140-150mm gun is also not clear, they say a new round of the race of calibers, nonsense. If we are the first, let them catch up if we can.
      2. 0
        16 March 2013 22: 42
        So what is there ... you give a firing range of 45 kilometers and a cannon of 203 mm caliber. Well, about the vaunted "Merkava" ... delve into the infe on its chassis. I sincerely hope to be surprised.
  19. +2
    14 March 2013 16: 05
    Placement of additional b / c in the aft tower niche is progress on the one hand, but the use scheme is extremely inconvenient. There is no access to it from the inside of the tower, it is necessary for one crew member to get out and serve in the tower to charge the automatic loader. In battle, this is simply impossible, for this you will have to leave the battlefield, find a safe place and reload. Those. in fact, the ammunition is limited to shells located in a / z ... Well, why the hell then is this niche?
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 16: 21
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, then why the heck is this niche?

      There is such a concept of transportable ammunition. Abrams also can’t use shells on a turret without leaving the tank.
      and the removal of part of the BC is the correction of a long-standing lack of tanks of the Soviet concept and with AZ / MZ the deployment of charges and shells in the combat compartment.
    2. BruderV
      +2
      14 March 2013 16: 22
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, then why the heck is this niche?

      So that the crew did not sit on the shells.
    3. PLO
      +2
      14 March 2013 16: 27
      judging by the experience of operating tanks in Chechnya, tankers equipped only AZs, and they didn’t take additional shots because it was extremely inconvenient to reload in a battle, after the bk was used up, the tank left the battlefield and reloaded AZ

      so this arrangement is justified
      1. 0
        14 March 2013 23: 49
        Well, having left the battle, the tank was leaving for a certain basing place to where the rear axles brought fuel and fuel. But if you leave the battle, is it better to recharge in full, and not 50%?
    4. +1
      14 March 2013 16: 30
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, then why the heck is this niche?

      The manufacturers believed that 30 rounds (22 + 8) inside the tank was enough. The military insisted on an additional 10 pieces of ammunition
    5. 0
      15 March 2013 09: 24
      If you remember in a turret in a mechanized installation of AZ or MZ (differences - the AZ projectile charge is located one above the other. The drive is electromechanical, MZ - the shells are arranged in the shape of the letter G lying on the back, the charge is vertical, the shell horizontally - the drive is electro-hydraulic) is located from 21 to 22 shells. The tower (T-80) has 6 shots in stacks (behind the back of the commander), and 5 shots in the tank rack on the right hand of the driver’s mechanic, another 3 shots are mounted behind the back of the mechanic. So - for indicating in the MH or AZ shells located in the fighting compartment it is not necessary to leave the battle, but the rest .... the participation of all crew members is necessary.
  20. Director
    +1
    14 March 2013 16: 20
    The author Grigory Malyshev-replayed in the world of tanks. The T-80BV accelerated to 80n due to the transmission: it has 4 of them (transmission), and due to the torque of the gas turbine engine, and the diesel engine reaches such revolutions as China's Peshkom, But in general the T-72 (90) is a tractor, it’s not in vain fathers under Ebna took up the destruction of the Omsk KBP so seriously. And Uravagon supported, I am not Against Tagil but objectively the Black Eagle would be better a hundred times
    1. PLO
      0
      14 March 2013 16: 29
      I myself really like the Black Eagle and the T-80, but how are they fundamentally better than the same T-72/90?
      crazy AZ? a ball like that on the T-90
    2. BruderV
      +1
      14 March 2013 16: 31
      Quote: director
      he has 4 of them at all (deliveries), and due to the torque of the gas turbine engine, and to a diesel engine at such speeds as before China on foot

      So torque or revs? Maximum torque is not issued at maximum speeds. In diesel, on the contrary, starting from the bottom.
    3. Crang
      +1
      16 March 2013 08: 21
      You probably had problems with physics at school. On fingers. Torque is an abstract quantity. Even with my hands I can create the same N * m as the T-80 engine if they give me a lever many, many meters long. It is also referred to as Newton per meter. But the trick is that I will twist with such effort very slow - the damn long lever will turn out. To do this fast - you need something more powerful with shorter length lever. It's like a DT-50 tractor - and its dead 50-horsepower diesel engine can steal anything through a special transmission. But slowabout. DT-50 will never be able to accelerate to hundreds in 5 seconds and develop 200km / h. The same is in tanks. Maximum speed - this is in pure form a characteristic of engine power. Yes, and the dynamics of acceleration in principle, too. The torque here is so - bake on the side.
  21. +3
    14 March 2013 17: 42
    After reading all this, I thought. Is the armor strong? Are they so fast?
    That in the city it is necessary to break through a wall from a machine gun and hit the upper floors, after Chechnya, it is not clear to a political observer or a member of the Duma. What is the weight of the tank nsvt or kpvt - doesn’t matter, either. What is it that makes a tank an impeccable tool for killing bearded with RPGs? Again, helicopters from a probable enemy are up to a fig and more. And what is stopping you?
    When I don’t understand something, I start to be afraid.
    There is one thing you can’t save on. The lives of people. This is our future - this is war.
    1. Ingvald_Bueny
      0
      14 March 2013 18: 19
      The new MBT would be useful for the tank's air defense by a small-sized air defense missile system with Igla missiles and a 30-mm gun placed on the turret behind the crew hatches. To combat the infantry, you can mount modules with AGS and a flamethrower on new MBTs. But why all this if there is BMPT and "Tunguska".
  22. Ingvald_Bueny
    0
    14 March 2013 18: 12
    The article did not report anything new about the T-90SM; all this was known in advance from UVZ brochures, scans of which are walking on the website of Gurkhan Khlopotov. The commentator professionally points out the blunders of the author of the article and draws a conclusion between the lines, read the technical characteristics of vehicles from the source, and not to lead citizens far from tank building.
    It is especially interesting when the author tries to simulate a model of ideal MBT, given that the T-90 body is several times more progressive than that of the T-10, if we compare the thickness of the T-10 armor about 150 mm, the upper vld is a pike nose type welded from several parts (monolithic) , against the 230-mm T-90 and its water pressure from one frontal plate (KB), it becomes clear that the T-90 has more chances against modern ammunition than the long-gone T-10M. At the same time, the T-10 chassis as an ideal model also seems doubtful, since it is not designed for the long dynamic loads that the T-72 chassis can handle, and the T-10 chassis will not provide modernization resources when the tank mass is increased, it is weaker than T-72, this led to the fact that in the USSR, the modernization of the T-10M did not go further than the installation of new airborne and night sights, as well as the modernization of radio communications and individual weapons and fire control systems.
    Regarding the author's worries about the fact that the powerful engine will not fit into the "tight" MTO T-90SM, the author apparently does not know about the Ukrainian T-72-120 in which there is a powerful two-stroke. In any case, it is not clear what the author means by a powerful engine, probably according to the principle the more the more powerful, then of course the engine from the USS Orli berk will hardly fit into the MTO T-90SM.
    The rest of the article is a plus for what makes you dig into the reference literature.
    1. +2
      14 March 2013 18: 23
      Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
      if you compare the thickness of the armor T-10 about 150

      Speech in the article about bot armor and its shape, the T-10 is thicker.
      Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
      as it is not designed for continuous dynamic loads

      And what should not drive on TTX T10? Or are there restrictions on the duration of the dynamic load?

      As for the Specialist, it would be interesting to find out who is hiding under this nickname, title, academic degree that he invented, what he designed.
      1. Ingvald_Bueny
        0
        14 March 2013 18: 39
        Quote: Kars
        speech in the article about bot armor and its shape, at T-10 it is thick

        The T-10M side armor has a thickness of 80 mm, like the T-90 side armor, in both it is monolithic. So, on this basis, the T-10 does not exceed the T-90.


        Quote: Kars
        And what should not drive on TTX T10? Or are there restrictions on the duration of the dynamic load?

        Compared with the T-90, the undercarriage of the T-10 has a shorter life. And of course, there are different conditions for the use of T-10 tanks for a European theater of war, while the T-90 tank is suitable for use in almost any climate zone from the desert to the mountains (except for the northern latitudes).

        Quote: Kars
        As for the Specialist, it would be interesting to find out who is hiding under this nickname, title, academic degree that he invented, what he designed.

        ?
        1. 0
          14 March 2013 19: 03
          Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
          The T-10M side armor has a thickness of 80 mm, like the T-90 side armor, in both it is monolithic. So, on this basis, the T-10 does not exceed the T-90.

          Board of the case (top), mm / city. 120/47 ° [1]
          80/62 ° [1]
          At the same time, the T-90 is vertical, so angles of inclination must be taken into account.
          Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
          Compared with the T-90, the undercarriage of the T-10 has a shorter life.

          Where is it written? What is expressed?
          Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
          And of course, there are different conditions for the use of T-10 tanks for a European theater of war, while the T-90 tank is suitable for use in almost any climate zone from the desert to the mountains (except for the northern latitudes).

          Naturally, there is no confirmation that the T-10 could not be operated under the mentioned conditions.
          1. Ingvald_Bueny
            0
            14 March 2013 19: 26
            Quote: Kars
            Board of the case (top), mm / city. 120/47 ° [1]
            80/62 ° [1]
            At the same time, the T-90 is vertical, so angles of inclination must be taken into account.


            And what of the fact that the bent side sheets of the T-10 body had a thickness of 80 mm and a variable angle of inclination from 0 to 62 °, what does this speak in favor of the T-10 body?

            Quote: Kars
            Where is it written? What is expressed?


            http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_2010_04/p10.php


            Quote: Kars
            Naturally, there is no confirmation that the T-10 could not be operated under the mentioned conditions.

            Do you have what you could?
            1. -1
              14 March 2013 19: 43
              Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
              T-10 had a thickness of 80

              Quote: Kars
              Board of the case (top), mm / city. 120/47

              Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
              from 0 to 62 °, what does this speak in favor of the T-10 case?

              armor calculator to help you
              http://vn-parabellum.com/mis/armorcalculator.html
              Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
              http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_2010_04/p10.php

              is it possible to give a specific quote from the text? what is the given running gear in that one in that, or possessed an X-axis ---, while the running t-72 had a reserve of X - + 100500
              Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
              Do you have what you could?

              It turns out you do not have confirmation of your words. This was expected.
              1. Ingvald_Bueny
                +1
                14 March 2013 20: 04
                Quote: Kars
                armor calculator to help you
                http://vn-parabellum.com/mis/armorcalculator.html

                Thank you for such a useful vesch. All the same, do you think that Morozov made a mistake in designing the sides of the T-64 hull without making it like the Kotinovsky T-10?

                Quote: Kars
                is it possible to give a specific quote from the text? what is the given running gear in that one in that, or possessed an X-axis ---, while the running t-72 had a reserve of X - + 100500

                Do you think that the T-10 has a longer running gear resource compared to the rubber bandages of the rinks of the T-72 tank? At the same time, the T-10 has a large mass, weaker reservation and is inferior to a couple of millimeters in the main caliber.

                Quote: Kars
                It turns out you do not have confirmation of your words. This was expected.

                If we proceed from the fact that the T-10 could not participate anywhere else except for the Danube, then yes.
                1. 0
                  14 March 2013 20: 58
                  Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
                  Morozov made a mistake in designing the sides of the T-64

                  I believe that they made a mistake when they abandoned the IS-7
                  Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
                  Do you think that the T-10 has a longer running gear resource compared to the rubber bandages of the rinks of the T-72 tank?

                  No, you are trying to prove that the T-10 can’t move for a long time.

                  Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
                  Moreover, the T-10 has a large mass

                  So what kind of loss in dynamic loads of the T-10 chassis are you trying to talk about if the t-72 chassis was originally designed for a mass of less than 40 tons.
                  Quote: Ingvald_Bueny
                  If we proceed from the fact that the T-10 could not participate anywhere else except for the Danube, then yes.

                  And this? T-64 was also not exported, so what? At the same time, the IS-3 fought in the Arab-Israeli wars. Is it better than the T-10?
                2. Crang
                  0
                  15 March 2013 23: 15
                  The 122mm gun T-10M M-62-T2S was rifled and designed for a pressure of 4000kg / cm2. It was more powerful and much more accurate than the 125mm T-64 smoothbore. Why did you choose a smoothbore? Then there was a boom in cumulants and with a smooth barrel it is easier to make a powerful COP. And so compare BOPS BM-11 from T-10M and ZBM-10, ZBM-13 from T-64 in terms of characteristics. BM-11 from T-10M with a mass like that of "Abramsovsky" M829A2, it took off at a speed of 1620 m / s. So there is no need for a weak T-10M cannon. She would have done any tank of that time without any problems.
    2. Crang
      0
      15 March 2013 23: 08
      You pick on a little over trifles. If the author of the article pointed to the hull of the T-10M tank and its chassis, this does not mean that it should be taken without any changes. This refers to the T-10M hull with modern combined armor in the frontal part, side armored screens and road wheels with rubber bands and new torsion bars and morters. What's so hard to do? Which one would be stupid to copy? The sides of the T-10M not only have a slope due to which they are much stronger than those of the T-90, but even so, the niches in them leave a lot of space. Why is the T-90 hull "several times more progressive" than the T-10? The T-90 just has a box like the KV-1 only with a straightened VLD. Count T-44. Were you in the mechanic's place in the T-90? There's a cannon right above you and if something happens, you get out the hell. Burn and that's all there. And compare how the T-10 was made.
    3. Crang
      0
      16 March 2013 10: 57
      Ukraine is now a different country. Yes, and two-stroke shit. We need a normal V12, a normal diesel volume. And so it is possible in the T-72 and put the engine from the F1 car. A Th - the power is suitable. Yes, just he will not pull, despite the power.
    4. 0
      19 March 2013 07: 25
      By the way - the running part of the T-10 migrated in detail to the T-64 (which is why 64 weren’t groomed in the army.).
      1. Crang
        -1
        19 March 2013 21: 42
        The T-10 chassis has nothing to do with the T-64 chassis, except for the very principle of a metal roller with internal shock absorption. Then there was simply no normal rubber capable of a long service life under a weight of 52 tons. But the size of the road roller for the T-10 is normal, and not "plate-shaped" like that of the T-64. Naturally, taking the base and chassis of the T-10M as the basis for a promising tank, the road wheels should be replaced with "eighty" ones with rubber bands.
        But the T-64 was not liked for many reasons:
        - unreliable and moody engine
        - Thin plates of rollers because of which the caterpillar often subsided.
        - hellish Ministry of Defense, which cut off the mechanics of the way to the BO (to the exit) and strove to send the entire crew into orbit together with the tower. Well ... there were a lot of problems.
        1. 0
          19 March 2013 21: 55
          Quote: Krang
          This was the MH, which cut off the mechanics of the way to the BO (to the exit) and strove to send the entire crew into orbit together with the tower. Well ... there were a lot of problems

          And for some reason, this hellish MZ was transferred to the T-80, well, if on the T-80 and T-80A when there was a unification with the T-64 tower. But how did it come to B, BV and U which in principle could be called new tank compared to the T-80A than the T-90 compared to the T-72a
          1. Crang
            -1
            19 March 2013 22: 20
            Oh - what is new then? And why by comparison?
            1. +1
              19 March 2013 22: 31
              Quote: Krang
              Oh - what is new then? And why by comparison?

              These issues are considered in the history of the T-80. And in principle, it is visible to everyone who compares the T-80B / BV and T-80U / UD
              1. Crang
                0
                19 March 2013 22: 35
                If you read it, then I would like to hear from you a few of the most important points from this book. If you haven’t read it, then I don’t have to offer to read what you yourself don’t know. Yes, and I would like to see how the issue of the superiority of the T-80U over the T-90 was considered there. At least a couple of sane words.
                1. 0
                  19 March 2013 23: 04
                  Quote: Krang
                  I would like to hear from you

                  You never know what you wanted.

                  http://mirageswar.com/2008/02/14/t80._luchshijj_v_mire_tank.html
                  Quote: Krang
                  T-80U over T-90

                  http://mirageswar.com/2008/01/11/tank_t_80.html
                  This issue is not considered there. Because only people like you are not able to draw logical conclusions.
                  From such facts as the transfer from T-80U control system to T-90. Lower specific power of T-90, etc. And this despite the fact that the T-90 was made LATER than the T-80U and in theory should have exceeded it. But UVZ is not destiny .
                  1. Crang
                    0
                    20 March 2013 08: 26
                    Quote: Kars
                    From such facts as the transfer from T-80U control system to T-90. Lower specific power T-90 and so on.

                    And at the expense of "etc." can be more? Because the power density is practically the only advantage of the T-80U. And what about the MSA? I have already said this a hundred times and will repeat myself:
                    - T-80 including and the T-80U is Russian tank, not Ukrainian.
                    - As for the LMS, its components were developed and created in different parts of the country, by a bunch of allied enterprises, and it is fundamentally incorrect to consider the LMS 1A45T "Irtysh" as belonging to the T-80U. Nothing was transferred to the T-90, but simply also delivered the OMS 1A45T "Irtysh".
                    - And in the end, the electronics on the T-90 are still more modern than on the T-80U, and the level of protection (like its mass) is higher.
                    1. 0
                      20 March 2013 13: 17
                      Quote: Krang
                      T-80 including and the T-80U is a Russian tank, not a Ukrainian

                      SOVIET
                      Quote: Krang
                      They did not carry anything on the T-90, but simply also installed the OMS 1A45T "Irtysh".

                      It was sawed.
                      Quote: Krang
                      and in the end, the electronics on the T-90 are still more modern than on the T-80U

                      Quote: Kars
                      T-90 was made LATER T-80U and in theory was supposed to surpass it

                      cannot be))))
                      Quote: Krang
                      and the level of protection (as well as its mass) is higher.

                      And you try to prove it, especially on the first modifications of the T-90

                      So you will have to reconcile that the T-90 is almost 10 years spent in the empty t-72 to reach the T-80U
                      Quote: Krang
                      into the account "etc." can be more?

                      Are you unable to read, in principle? For example, reduction in ammunition. Reduction in ammunition base AZ / MZ.
                      1. Crang
                        0
                        20 March 2013 15: 59
                        Quote: Kars
                        SOVIET

                        Created by Russians in Leningrad at the Kirov Plant. Today it is the territory of Russia.
                        Quote: Kars
                        It was sawed.

                        How was it sawed? Did you create a "clone" of 1A45T like the Chinese? Or that 1A45T was created in Kharkov? Don't talk nonsense. 1А45Т "Irtysh" is our MSA and we ourselves had nothing to "saw through".
                        Quote: Kars
                        And you try to prove it, especially on the first modifications of the T-90

                        The mass of the first modification of the T-90 "Vladimir" is known - 46,5 tons. The T-90A weighs 48 tons. The mass of the T-80U was exactly 46 tons. The equivalent level of forehead firmness of even the basic T-90 is still secret and you don't need to know about it.
                        Quote: Kars
                        So you will have to reconcile that the T-90 is almost 10 years spent in the empty t-72 to reach the T-80U

                        The T-80U was put into service in 1985 with the Buran-PA combined infrared sight. The T-90 was created in 1989 and put into service in 1992 with the TO-PO-2T "Agava-2" thermal sight. What are 10 years? Before the T-90, the T-72BM already existed - a very powerful tank that can be compared in some aspects with the T-80U.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you unable to read, in principle? For example, reduction in ammunition. Reduction in ammunition base AZ / MZ.

                        Ammunition T-80U - 45 shells. The T-90 has 43 shells. Almost the same with a significantly higher survivability of the latter. At least I can bring this picture. I know - the guys from Kharkov really do not like her:

                        [img] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ukCzciaRJU4/TuJkwl6ZrBI/AAAAAAAAACMg/DhGxUULvoJQ/s
                        640/% 25D1%81%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_1.jpg[/img]
                      2. 0
                        20 March 2013 16: 15
                        Quote: Krang
                        Created by Russians in Leningrad at the Kirov Plant. Today it is the territory of Russia.

                        Created by citizens of the USSR of different nationalities, including Jews.
                        ))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        How was it sawed?

                        Stupid question. Could you guess how they adapt the systems. Including changes in the design of the tower.


                        Quote: Krang
                        assa of the first modification T-90 "Vladimir" is known - 46,5 tons.

                        as much as 500 kg heavier.

                        Quote: Krang
                        -90A weighs 48 tons
                        And what was used up 2 tons 20 years after the appearance of the T-80U. For information T-80U is 1985, T-90A is 2005)))) what progress.

                        Quote: Krang
                        the equivalent level of forehead resistance even of the base T-90 is still secret and you don’t need to know about it

                        Moreover, you will prove that it is more powerful than the T-80U with the same elements of built-in dynamic protection.

                        Quote: Krang
                        What are 10 years old?

                        You're right, rather, as much as twenty years trampling on the spot.

                        Object 630A - the main tank T-80UK. Adopted in the early 1990s. Commander version of the T-80U. Installed: “Shtora-1” system, “Agava-2” thermal imager, new atmospheric parameters sensor, R-163U and R-163K radios, TNA-4 navigation system, remote-controlled projectile remote sensing system, autonomous power plant AB-1-P28

                        T-80UE - modification of 1995. Option T-80UM, designed specifically for the Greek tender; installed hydrostatic transmission and new controls.
                        Object 219AM-1 - the main tank T-80UA. Option for upgrading the T-80U tank.
                        Object 219AS-M - the main tank T-80UM. 1992 modernization. Upgraded version of the T-80U (thermal imager "Agava-2", radar absorbing coating, radio station R-163-50U
                        Quote: Krang
                        Ammunition T-80U - 45 shells. The T-90 has 43 shells.

                        T-80U 46.A T-90A 42
                        Quote: Krang
                        higher survivability of the latter

                        Why would it? It’s either about the same, or even inferior due to the design of the tower of the T-90, for sure, the T-90A will give him 20 years of handicap.
                      3. Crang
                        0
                        20 March 2013 17: 38
                        Quote: Kars
                        as much as 500 kg heavier.

                        But harder.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And what was used up 2 tons 20 years after the appearance of the T-80U. For information T-80U is 1985, T-90A is 2005)))) what progress.

                        On the armor.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Moreover, you will prove that it is more powerful than the T-80U with the same elements of built-in dynamic protection.

                        As you will not prove otherwise. It can be proved by indirect evidence. The T-72BM weighing 44,5-45 tons had the same level of security as the T-80U and T-80UD. The T-90 weighing 46,5 tons has even more reinforced armor. You don't have to remember about the T-90A at all. He has increased the size of the armor, new filler. In addition, the "pie" is not only in the frontal parts of the hull and turret, but also in the hull side. The level of protection is incomparable.
                        Quote: Kars
                        T-80U 46.A T-90A 42

                        T-80U 45, T-90 43, T-90A 42 (but which ones).
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why would it? It’s either about the same, or even inferior due to the design of the tower of the T-90, for sure, the T-90A will give him 20 years of handicap.

                        Well, yes - the design of the tower even of the basic T-90 is more modern. In addition, in the aft parts of the T-72 and T-90 towers, there are boxes of spare parts that are filled in battle with any "filler" of your choice. This greatly increases the durability of the aft and so very narrowed zone of the T-72 and T-90 towers. In the T-80U and T-80UD, the wide stern of the almost square tower is not protected by anything. Only the thin armor itself and that's it. Except for the OPVT pipe located above. The welded tower T-90A is generally new and cannot be compared with any T-80. So you have to give it a 20-year head start. We were stuck in place with our T-64BM and T-80UD. Soon you will go to the museum to take them. With their old cannons and antediluvian shells from the late 80s.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why would it? It’s either about the same, or even inferior due to the design of the tower of the T-90, for sure, the T-90A will give him 20 years of handicap.

                        The T-90A tower has a "pie" on the sides and rolled armor plates. It is much more powerful than that of the T-80.
                      4. 0
                        20 March 2013 18: 52
                        Quote: Krang
                        But harder.

                        Quote: Krang
                        On the armor.

                        Really? Confirm your words.
                        And as many as 20 years, wasted))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-72BM weighing 44,5-45 tons, the level of protection corresponded to T-80U and T-80UD

                        He does not match.
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90 weighing 46,5 tons has even more reinforced armor
                        also no.

                        Quote: Krang
                        You can not even remember about the T-90A. He has increased the size of the armor, new filler. In addition, the "pie" is not only in the frontal parts of the hull and turret, but also in the hull side. The level of protection is incomparable.
                        Compare, while twenty years have passed.
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-80U 45, T-90 43, T-90A 42 (but which ones).

                        46 of them are 28 in the machine, 42 and only 22 in the machine.

                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-90A welded tower is generally new and cannot be compared with any T-80.

                        20 years have passed, less than 500 cars have been built, while the tower is almost copied from the T-80UD

                        Quote: Krang
                        Stuck in place with their T-64BM and T-80UD

                        We are doing what we have, and you are trying to modernize the flawed T-72, even Russia does not want to buy the MS. And so far no one has become interested in foreign countries.
                        The result of the T-80 is better than the T-72. The T-90 ate barely reached the level of T-80U, T-90A after 20 years reached the modifications of the T-80 of the 90s.
                      5. 0
                        20 March 2013 18: 56
                        _____________________
          2. 0
            April 14 2013 21: 06
            The answer is simple. When the T80 was designed, only the MZ was able to provide rocket firing for a new tank, tanks with AZ at that time did not know how to .. bully
            1. 0
              April 14 2013 21: 37
              Quote: svp67
              The answer is simple. When the T80 was designed, only the MZ was able to provide missile firing for a new tank, tanks with AZ at that time did not know how

              And can you find evidence for such a simple answer?
              where does the AZ and MH to the CWF? The dimensions of the missiles are the same, they are separate charges. So justify, for example, what changes have been made in the AZ so that he could CHARGE UR
              1. 0
                April 15 2013 19: 01
                Not in AZ, but in the rocket itself ...
                You yourself know very well the history of KUVs of Soviet tanks, and you know the year when he appeared on the tanks of the T72 series ...
                1. 0
                  April 15 2013 19: 07
                  Quote: svp67
                  You yourself perfectly know the history of KUVs

                  Not that I know, but I have somewhere to write about her.
                  Quote: svp67
                  and you know the year when he appeared on the tanks of the T72 series.

                  what does it matter?
                  Quote: svp67
                  only the Ministry of Defense was able to provide missiles firing a new tank

                  Or did they put MZ on the T-72B? Or did they make a special missile to the KVV Svir? ​​This is why it is not mentioned.
                  1. 0
                    April 15 2013 19: 19
                    Quote: Kars
                    Or did they put MZ on the T-72B? Or did they make a special missile to the KVV Svir? ​​This is why it is not mentioned.


                    9m112 well, not as originally in the AZ "did not climb", but in the MZ it turned out ...



                    Until 9 to 120 came up with
                    1. 0
                      April 15 2013 19: 26
                      Quote: svp67
                      9m112 well, not as originally in the AZ "did not climb", but in the MZ it turned out ...

                      Strange, originally, and so was the MOH.
                      But all the same, I would like confirmation that the physical dimensions of the cobra did not allow the use of AZ, and not the whole body in the LMS.

                      the cider with reference to any source.
                      1. 0
                        April 15 2013 19: 32
                        Didn't understand the question a little. "Body" of what? The rocket itself or the whole complex?
                        Have you had to deal with 9M112?
                    2. 0
                      April 17 2013 16: 51
                      Quote: svp67
                      9m112 well, not as initially in the AZ "did not climb", but in the MZ it turned out.

                      Well, you can all the same link?

                      Quote: svp67
                      Until 9 to 120 came up with

                      Nothing in the bottom photo of the Cobra?
                      Quote: svp67
                      Didn't understand the question a little. "Body" of what?

                      The whole thing, sealed up.
                      Quote: svp67
                      Have you had to deal with 9M112?

                      I personally do not, but so far you have not confirmed your qualifications either.

                      http://topwar.ru/9920-kobra-dlya-t-72.html

                      Ok let's get out of your
                      Quote: svp67
                      only the Ministry of Defense was capable of firing rockets of a new tank, tanks with AZ at that time did not know how

                      phrases imperfection of AZ compared with the Ministry of Health, as it can not provide the correct docking missiles.
                      At the same time, a certain orientation of the Cobra blocks was required, which was ensured when using automatic loading loaders with a basket-type conveyor installed on tanks of the T-64 and T-80 families. On tanks of the T-72 type with a different automatic loader - with a conveyor of the "roundabout" type - the Kobra complex was not used.

                      add a quote
                      Based on this, by the beginning of the eighties, the development of the 72K9 Svir complex intended for the main battle tank T-120 was carried out, as well as its more advanced version 9K119 Reflex for the T-80.

                      The Svir complex intended for the T-72 was closer in construction to the previously created Bastion and Sheksna and did not provide for the use of weapons while the tank was on, and the maximum range was limited to 4 km
  23. Algor73
    0
    14 March 2013 19: 22
    This tank is most likely an advertisement for a foreign customer, this is the maximum that can be squeezed out of the layout of the 60s of the last century. I doubt that he will enter the troops. For the current wars, something fundamentally new is needed ...
  24. stalker
    -2
    14 March 2013 19: 43
    in my opinion, the current combat vehicle before the armata release, maybe it does not pull on a "breakthrough", but we go in the right direction, only the so-called "zaman" is straining the lower part of the tower, it looks weakly protected, will there be a ricochet under the tower request
    1. +1
      14 March 2013 20: 32
      Quote: stalker
      here the lower part of the tower is straining, the so-called "zaman" looks weakly protected, will there be a ricochet under the tower

      Why ricochet? from a box with DZ? The fact that it will not harm the tank will not be able to bring, but the fact that it breaks will be hit by dynamic protection or stuck in the cheekbones of the tower (the most armored part of the tank)
  25. NAPOLEON
    0
    14 March 2013 20: 09
    what happens with the format is unknown. but in my opinion the next generation of tanks should be able to remotely control. why drones are only possible in aviation.
  26. 0
    14 March 2013 20: 16
    Who will tell you in the second photo from the bottom, is it wiring? And if so, why is it so poorly protected (fragments, machine gun and sniper fire)
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 20: 35
      Quote: Patton5
      Who will tell you in the second photo from the bottom, is it wiring?

      That hoses from the air conditioner. Their penetration on the tank’s vitality will not affect absolutely, it will only affect the crew’s comfort (and even in a very hot climate).
      On the surface of the tank there is not protected wiring (for example, to the headlights), but there are no vital for the tank there.
  27. Ruslan_F38
    0
    14 March 2013 21: 07
    Cool tank! Install the missing systems in the troops to replace the t-72!
  28. 0
    14 March 2013 21: 43
    What was bad about “Object 187”?
    Why was the topic closed?
    1. +1
      14 March 2013 22: 41
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      What was bad about “Object 187”?
      Why was the topic closed?

      He was good to everyone, but dear. Choose an option for cheaper.
      Some of the developments on the 187th were then introduced on the later T-90 (in particular, on the tower).
    2. 0
      14 March 2013 22: 46
      Because the main thing was to become the t-84 Kharkov alteration of the Leningrad T-80, so we decided to go along the simpler path of modernization of the T-72, later renamed the T-90
      1. +1
        14 March 2013 22: 57
        Quote: Patton5
        Because the main was to become t-84 Kharkov alteration of the Leningrad T-80

        And what does Kharkov have to do with it, if the decision on a new tank was made after the collapse of the USSR?
        We chose between object 187 and object 188 (which became the T-90) - both UVZ designs.

        Petersburgers could have muddled up something interesting, but with the cost of the T-80, which is almost 2,5 times higher than the cost of the T-72, most likely with its new development (certainly not cheap) they would fly the same.
        Well it is, guesses ...
        1. 0
          14 March 2013 23: 17
          So work on the object was carried out even during the Soviet era, it would be logical to assume that only one machine was to be the main one (Kharkov was chosen), and they decided to abandon 187 and bring the existing fleet of T-72 to the level of 188. And after the collapse of the root cause, finance here again 188 looked "attractive" (But that's my opinion)))
          1. 0
            14 March 2013 23: 45
            Real estate and facilities in Lenegrad were more expensive and privatized faster.

            And project 292 died

            as for efficiency, the question also arises - to continue mass production of the T-80UD even if it is time to buy engines in Ukraine, or to force Omsk to fit the diesel engine from the T-72 (future T-90) according to ready-approved drawings. / just make the T-80U even if it’s more than twice as expensive as T-72 ---- or to twirl T-72 by putting on it the TMS from the T-80 while spending a lot of money on NIIKOR to make about 500 tanks for the Russian Armed Forces.
            1. Crang
              +1
              20 March 2013 09: 44
              As I have repeatedly said, we will do well without you and your shitty engines. The fact that you are trying to impose something on us there only reinforces rejection.
              1. 0
                20 March 2013 13: 20
                Quote: Krang

                As I have said many times,

                You are just a little behind in development and poorly read.
                Quote: Krang
                -80UD even for some time to buy engines in Ukraine,

                This is a DESCRIPTION of the opportunity FOR the early 90's, not modern realities.

                Quote: Krang
                your shitty engines

                China buys them in hundreds for their tanks. And which tanks did your tank engines mount on? Voluntarily, and not because they got stuck in the T-72
  29. -1
    14 March 2013 23: 20
    a decent gap between the hull and the tower. And I think there isn’t much armor there, if something gets there, then at best it will jam the tower in the worst there will be a hole (I could be wrong. Although most on the forums put a minus abrams on this subject, and here it even exposes as a plus )
    1. BruderV
      0
      14 March 2013 23: 29
      Quote: alert_timka
      decent clearance between the hull and the tower

      If the turret is the same in design as on the T-72, it’s just with built-in DZ blocks that are mounted on top and from which, in principle, it will not be able to bounce, just break.
  30. Nitup
    0
    14 March 2013 23: 21
    it is not clear whether they will upgrade the T-72 or purchase the T-90MS, or neither of them, but will wait for Armata. Anyone in the know?
  31. 0
    14 March 2013 23: 22
    And if only 1% of the shells get into the NLD, then does the abrams also face nothing ????
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 23: 39
      Quote: alert_timka
      NLD hits only 1%

      Challenger 2 in Iraq hit twice))))
      1. Crang
        0
        15 March 2013 23: 17
        And they shot from the RPG-29 "Vampire". The mechanic's leg was torn off there.
  32. krot00f
    -1
    14 March 2013 23: 44
    A strange article, so much effort is spent on discussing tank duels, but the likelihood of such collisions is negligible. Do you need an ultra-powerful, modern tank to deal with an underdeveloped enemy (which has no tanks) probably not. For some reason, one of the main problems is not addressed - the fight against tank dangerous targets. For some reason, it is generally accepted that guided ammunition is a panacea for all ills, sub-caliber shells suddenly became the main ones. In a T-72 tank ammunition, the main ammunition for the gun is a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, it solves most of the tasks (they are most in the ammunition set). And for this type of ammunition, our country is still far behind. Correct the tankers if I am not writing this.
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 23: 59
      So in the BC of the majority of NATO tanks it is not at all
      1. krot00f
        0
        15 March 2013 09: 41
        Yes, right, no, or rather, he evolved and began to be called differently. Probably heard DM 11. (multi-purpose)
      2. krot00f
        0
        15 March 2013 09: 42
        Correctly he is not there, He evolved and began to be called differently. Heard-- DM 11.
    2. +1
      15 March 2013 09: 06
      B / k a tank is very dependent on the theater of operations and is not constant for tanks in the middle zone and the Far East. If, according to our previous views, it was believed that the PLA had few tanks, then the number of guided ammunition on the DVO tanks was low - about 3 shots per vehicle. This is due to the fact that the PLA had few armored objects, but there were a lot of human resources, the COP and BPS were 30 percent (now I can be mistaken by 3-5%), the rest of the b / c was occupied by the OFS, there were also ammunition with ready-made lethal elements. In the central theater of operations, on the contrary, it was believed that they would have to stumble with well-armored targets - based on this, the side-mounted tank already included 5 guided shots and 30-35% of the percent was occupied by the OFS, the rest was given under the KS and BPS (somewhere in equal shares ). But this is pure theory - in practice, the cars were not always loaded with a stopped wagon. The OFS cannot be the main projectile - the main target of the tank is the tank, respectively, the main projectile will be the one that hits one or another armored object. And this, in turn, depends on the enemy (his weapons) with whom to fight. This is pretty hard mathematics. I was taught in the "school" that it is better to use KS against Abrams at a distance of 2,5 - 3 thousand meters, at a distance of less than 2 thousand meters. better than BPS - due to the fact that the CS with increasing range is not as critical a loss of speed as the angle of encounter with an obstacle, the BPS has a critical range and the same angle of encounter. Up to 3 thousand meters of BPS could be fought with tanks from Germany and Britain, since it was believed that their booking was worse. I don't write about guided weapons as they have always been considered a "distant" hand. Our OFS had to "lead" into this or that action to wind and twist the cap in order to achieve a fragmentation or high-explosive fragmentation action.
      1. krot00f
        0
        15 March 2013 09: 54
        You are very lucky if you had ammunition in your ammunition with ready-to-use striking elements, there are only a few tanks with the Aynet system.
      2. krot00f
        0
        15 March 2013 09: 55
        You are lucky if you had ammunition in your ammunition with ready-to-use striking elements, there are only a few tanks with the Aynet system.
      3. BruderV
        0
        15 March 2013 10: 01
        Quote: Reserve lieutenant colonel
        Up to 3 thousand m BPS could be fought with the tanks of Germany and Britain, since it was believed that their booking was worse.

        It’s very strange. What tanks and what modifications are we talking about? Is a Challenger reservation worse than Abrams? Well, if Abrams modifications M1A2 SEP and higher then it can be. At Abrams, depending on the modification, the resistance of the frontal armor against BPS varies from 550 to 900 with an extra mm, the same with Leopards2, but there is less scatter there. So the meaning of such instructions is not clear. Or is it about some Chiftein?
        Quote: Reserve lieutenant colonel
        it was believed that the PLA had few tanks

        What kind of years are we talking about? 60s, 70s?
        1. krot00f
          0
          15 March 2013 11: 59
          So he writes correctly. manuals are written based on the available weapons and their characteristics. In such instructions, they write "aim at the ceiling" when shooting at buildings. How the same gunners should be taught. And the instructions are not meaningless, because they are based on the practical use of a specific ammunition. And not just on TTX numbers.
  33. krot00f
    0
    15 March 2013 10: 28
    It’s not the worst thing to twist the cap.)) Moreover, tanks cannot shoot without a cap, it is forbidden to shoot in the rain. The fuse tank installation is traditionally O with a cap. So they turn from Z to O, but this is only at boot time. With such installations, it is not necessary to speak of a high-explosive action and defeat behind an obstacle. About fragmentation with a fuse of times of the Second World War it is better to be silent so as not to be ashamed. Since then, the main goal of the tank is the tank. They can’t hit anything else, especially since a direct hit is needed to defeat the OFS. And you won’t shoot at Lomami in terms of manpower.) OFS needs to be replaced by a multi-purpose projectile, this is like evolution for living organisms. The enemy’s tanks are considered as armored banks that must be knocked out for launch, as in fashionable action movies, but here you need sub-caliber shells.
    1. 0
      15 March 2013 13: 29
      Quote: krot00f
      OFS needs to be replaced by a multi-purpose projectile

      Based on what such conclusions?
      It painfully looks like trying to combine a hunting shotgun with a sniper rifle.
      1. krot00f
        0
        17 March 2013 19: 02
        The fact is that, formally, the OFS is used both to combat manpower outside the fortifications and to defeat a target behind an obstacle. Moreover, in both cases, the characteristics leave much to be desired. If to operate on "gentlemen of great scientists" Odintsov writes about this, he calls the shell "Puchkov" only now he cannot realize the ideas, the crude concept does not fit with the industry. For that, the guys from Search tried to realize these at least industrialists. This is now the OFS a cross between a shotgun and a sniper rifle with an ancient one.)
        1. 0
          17 March 2013 19: 06
          ______________________________
    2. Prohor
      0
      15 March 2013 20: 25
      BPS has no development prospects, it is at the top of its evolution, and KS has.
      This, of course, is unrealistic, but if you make the lining of the cumulative funnel of gold (plasticity and very high density), and make the shape of the funnel not a cone with a direct generatrix, but with a generatrix of variable curvature (like a musical pipe), or cylindrical - the KS will pierce the armor in times thicker than BPS guns of the same caliber.
      We were told at the military department that they tried to introduce "pipe-like funnels" into production, but they turned out to be very difficult to manufacture.
      1. +1
        15 March 2013 23: 04
        Quote: Prokhor
        but if you make the lining of the cumulative funnel of gold

        By the way, we were armed with cumulative shells with funnels made of iron (steel?) And copper, and so, shells with a copper funnel have more penetrating ability than with iron.

        Quote: Prokhor
        .... and make the shape of the funnel not a cone with a direct generatrix, but with a generatrix of variable curvature (like a musical pipe), or a cylindrical ...

        I came across similar material for a long time. I wanted to refresh my memory, but in net found only cumulative charges with a classic funnel sad
        1. +1
          20 March 2013 21: 54
          Quote: Bad_gr
          By the way, we were armed with cumulative shells with funnels made of iron (steel?) And copper, and so, shells with a copper funnel have more penetrating ability than with iron.

          I wonder why the minus is set?
          Is there any doubt that the funnel made of copper has more breakdown effect than the iron one? So after all, there are guides on shells - the information is from there and you don’t need to double-check that big mind. Or was it even lack of traction?
      2. Crang
        +1
        16 March 2013 16: 46
        You know in the 50s they thought that too. In the late 50s, when all tanks had only monolithic armor, powerful cumulative shells were created that penetrated any tank armor and far exceeded BPSs. Moreover, cumulative shells do not lose their effectiveness with increasing distance. The transition to smoothbore guns is also partly related to this. And what happened? 10-20 years passed, and the main fighting vehicle of the tank to fight their own kind became BOPS. It is the shells of this type that are now actively developing and improving. Why? There are two main reasons for this:
        1. BOPS is much more difficult to parry than the COP. A lot of things were invented against the COP - composite armor, DZ, KAZT, semi-active plates, etc. All this is very effective against cumulative shells. At the same time, the effectiveness of all these drugs against BOPS is much lower.
        2. The most important is probably speed. Under the conditions of reliable operation of the warhead of the CS, as well as the power of the projectile itself, its initial speed is limited to 900-1000m / s. Even with the current SLAs, this limits the effective firing range in terms of accuracy to ~ 1500m. Today it’s not enough. So forget about cumulative shells. The cumulative warhead is now the inheritance of ATGMs and rocket propelled grenades.
      3. 0
        17 March 2013 10: 06
        The "pipe-like funnel" has different velocities of the generated cumulative jet - at the top (where the opening angle is small), the velocity is higher than at the outlet, where the opening angle is large; when detonated at a greater than optimal distance from the armor (with a screen), the effectiveness drops sharply. True, the armor action is higher due to the larger diameter of the punched hole.
  34. -1
    15 March 2013 15: 38
    Most likely exemplary, since it seems to me that the bow projection of the tower is very weak in terms of holding the projectile to the reserved volume. Ricochet of a shell from the bottom of the DZ tower and that's it soldier the tower is jammed. I think in front of either re-planning, or you need to put a barbet.
    1. Prohor
      +1
      15 March 2013 20: 28
      "Reschedule" ??? !!! So are you the tower designer? good
    2. BruderV
      +1
      15 March 2013 23: 48
      Why are you all pestering this lure? There will be no ricochet there, a long crowbar is not a bullet, it does not ricochet, but is scattered into pieces. How many more times does this need to be written?
  35. 0
    18 March 2013 04: 34
    When put into service and how much?
  36. Crang
    +1
    20 March 2013 08: 19
    Quote: Kars
    You never know what you wanted.

    Accordingly, I absolutely care about your opinion and desires.
    1. 0
      20 March 2013 13: 22
      Quote: Krang
      not absolutely a light bulb for your opinion and desire

      Me too. My main thing is to discredit your fantasies.
  37. Crang
    +2
    20 March 2013 15: 26
    Quote: Kars
    Me too. My main thing is to discredit your fantasies.

    My fantasies are reality. We don’t need your engines. At the moment, due to their threat-grabbing design, the T-64B, T-64BV and T-64BM tanks almost from the USSR have already been cut into scrap metal for scrap. So you are fantasizing. Or not - you dream.
    1. 0
      20 March 2013 16: 20
      Quote: Krang
      My fantasies are reality

      Naturally, in your inflamed imagination.
      Quote: Krang
      We don’t need your engines

      Well these are your problems, and the Indians are true too.
      Quote: Krang
      Scrap tanks T-64B, T-64BV and T-64BM that were almost left over from the USSR.

      Well, you are reducing the tank fleet, you don’t have spare parts for them - so it’s natural. UVZ does not allow them to be sold by lobbying the T-72. And we have almost completely sold the T-72, and we have been actively operating the T-64 for 20 years.
      Quote: Krang
      Or not - you dream.

      What? Can you formulate?
  38. Crang
    +2
    20 March 2013 16: 31
    Quote: Kars
    Well these are your problems, and the Indians are true too.

    Yes, we do not have problems like that. And it was not with the engines.
    Quote: Kars
    What? Can you formulate?

    As I understand it, what would you sell us your stupid 2-stroke engines.
    Quote: Kars
    And we have almost completely sold the T-72, and the T-64 has been actively operated for 20 years.

    You are now almost defenseless.
    1. -1
      20 March 2013 18: 55
      Quote: Krang
      but we don’t have problems like that. And it wasn’t with the engines

      Oh yes, from this the specific power of the T-90 and T-90A directly rolls over. And the Indians call the T-90C a night butterfly.
      Quote: Krang
      As I understand it, what would you sell us your stupid 2-stroke engines.

      Strange, they are already selling them with success. Nobody put your tanks, even China.
      Quote: Krang
      You are now almost defenseless

      it is strange to hear it from those who hold only on the SNF
      1. Crang
        +2
        20 March 2013 20: 50
        Quote: Kars
        Oh yes, from this the specific power of the T-90 and T-90A directly rolls over. And the Indians call the T-90C a night butterfly.

        Engines in 1000hp and 1200hp We can start making a gas turbine engine again at 1500hp. A diesel of the same power is being prepared. Moreover, these 1200hp. with the B-99, these are full-fledged mustangs of a large and powerful V12. Your 1200 half-dead ponies with a 6TD working volume like that of a "Kamaz" is the same as a gasoline lighter with a resource of 50 km, boosted to death by three turbines and wildly screaming from the strain.
        Quote: Kars
        it is strange to hear it from those who hold only on the SNF

        Well, you are not holding on to anything. And who needs you? You are no longer visible. You and NATO are not needed for hell. Like Georgia.
        1. 0
          20 March 2013 22: 21
          Quote: Krang
          Engines in 1000l.s.

          Here's the reason for the weight gain compared to the T-72
          Quote: Krang
          1200l.s

          which you don’t put anywhere except the T-90MS running layout
          Quote: Krang
          We can start again GTD in 1500l.s

          as you start, and right away. Although why then from the gas turbine engine in 1250 the T-80U was nomad.
          Quote: Krang
          with a resource of 50km.

          yes yes of course just don't be nervous
          Quote: Krang
          And who needs you?

          It pleases me.
          Quote: Krang
          You and NATO do not need to hell
          Enough partnership
    2. -1
      20 March 2013 18: 57
      ______________
  39. stalker
    0
    20 March 2013 17: 34
    The fact that it will not harm the tank will not be able to bring, but the fact that it breaks will be hit by dynamic protection or stuck in the cheekbones of the tower (the most armored part of the tank)
    I hope so
  40. say
    say
    0
    20 March 2013 17: 53
    Good article thanks!
  41. Crang
    +2
    20 March 2013 18: 57
    Quote: Kars
    And as many as 20 years, wasted))))

    Have you spent? I know. No? "Prove your words."
    Quote: Kars
    We are doing what we have, and you are trying to modernize the flawed T-72, even Russia doesn’t want to buy an MS. And so far no one has become interested abroad. As a result, the T-80 is better than the T-72. The T-90 barely reached the T level. -80U, T-90A after 20 years reached the modifications of the T-80 of the 90s.

    Our armor is more powerful, guns are more powerful, shells are more powerful, SLA is better. And stop bringing here nonsense from the site of Andrew. Written the same as you.
    1. -3
      20 March 2013 19: 03
      Quote: Krang
      Have you spent

      Russia with the T-90. At the same time, having refused to please UVZ from the T-80 UE Bars
      Quote: Krang
      "Prove Your Words"

      just as you prove yours))))))
      And this is evident with a naked eye.
      Quote: Krang
      our ronya’s more powerful, guns more powerful, shells more powerful, SLA is better

      Your armor is worse, the guns are more powerful only in your imagination, as are the Chinese. Shells - you froze when you were asked to prove your words that you have only training mangoes.
      1. 0
        20 March 2013 19: 21
        ____________
      2. Crang
        +1
        20 March 2013 20: 45
        Quote: Kars
        Russia with the T-90. At the same time, having refused to please UVZ from the T-80 UE Bars

        Well, I know that for you time has stopped since the times of the USSR. But we are developing. We create new tanks. Here's the T-90MS made. "Armata" will be coming soon. However, the T-90A will easily fry any of your tanks like a stupid pig.
        Quote: Kars
        just as you prove yours))))))

        Very interesting. On the Russian the site is a Ukrainian nationalist who frankly trample into Russian tanks into the ground (and Russian people in this way too) and he also demands that they prove the opposite! Moreover, he himself does not bother to give at least some arguments confirming his point of view. And only gives time after time pictures of what rubbish, which was outdated 30 years ago.
        Quote: Kars
        Your armor is worse, the guns are more powerful only in your imagination, as are the Chinese. Shells - you froze when you were asked to prove your words that you have only training mangoes.

        Our armor is much more powerful than yours. With your old 2A46M cannons and antediluvian ZBM-42 projectiles, you will not be able to penetrate the T-90A not only from 2 kilometers, but even when firing point-blank. And the new high-power BOPSs from the powerful T-90A cannon will sew your old T-64 and T-80 like a knife for opening cans of these cans. Here we need to film a new episode of the Polygon program. About T-90A. The target problem. Shooting at the old broken-down T-34s is somehow not spectacular. Do a favor. Come on any of your tanks. Even take the shells - we are confident in our T-90A. And the program will be interesting, and look at the pictures of the "Scimitar tower in flight"
        1. 0
          20 March 2013 22: 29
          Quote: Krang
          And here we are developing

          In a circle, coming to the 1985 results in 2004
          Quote: Krang
          That T-90MS did

          And we already sell Oplot))))
          Quote: Krang
          However, the T-90A will easily fry any of your tanks like a dumb pig.

          Yes, of course, drink valerian.
          Quote: Krang
          On the Russian site sits a Ukrainian nationalist who frankly trample into Russian tanks into the ground (and Russian people in this way too) and he also demands that they prove the opposite!

          But are you really? Again go to the unconscious? You are humiliating yourself with this.
          Quote: Krang
          And only gives time after time pictures of what rubbish, which was outdated 30 years ago.

          You have almost none. And why is it out of date?
          Quote: Krang
          Our armor is much more powerful than yours.

          I can do that too)))) We have more powerful armor than yours, you even have almost no Relic, and we have better ones on Bulaty.

          Quote: Krang
          ZBM-42

          We have Mango and most of the art shots exported along with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Germany to the GSVG
          Quote: Krang
          Here we need to film a new episode of the Polygon program. About T-90A.
          You better review the impact force.

          Quote: Krang
          give me the brand of your new BOPS of increased power


          But the joke is that you have hysteria again, and slide into babble))))
          1. Crang
            +1
            21 March 2013 08: 47
            Quote: Kars
            In a circle, coming to the 1985 results in 2004

            We are again ahead of the world level. But you stayed there - in the 80s.

            Quote: Kars
            And we already sell Oplot))))

            Who are you selling to? Papuans? However, you are even poorer than the Papusas. You yourself cannot buy your Oplot.
            Quote: Kars
            Yes, of course, drink valerian.

            And a bucket of vodka will not hurt you.
            Quote: Kars
            But are you really? Again go to the unconscious? You are humiliating yourself with this.

            I’m afraid that you are humiliating Russia and the entire Russian people. I do not understand why the administration is silent. You just need to be banned from this site for life. That would carry all the nonsense there in their Ukraine. Here is a good video about you Ukrainian-nationalists:
            http://www.dentv.ru/content/view/o-sovremennom-russkom-natsionalizme/
            This is a clown about you. I have the same question. If you love Ukraine and Ukrainian tanks so much - what are you doing with us?
            Quote: Kars
            I can do that too)))) We have more powerful armor than yours, you even have almost no Relic, and we have better ones on Bulaty.

            Without any remote control, our armor itself is thicker and more powerful than yours. Well, and with the "Relic" that superiority is ours.
            Quote: Kars
            We have Mango and most of the art shots exported along with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Germany to the GSVG

            "Mango" is an old BOPS of the Soviet period. its ultimate armor penetration at close range is 600mm, from a distance of 2km: 500-550mm. This projectile cannot penetrate the T-90A even at close range. As well as any modern Western MBT. How, then, can you so brazenly declare that your tanks are better than ours?
            Quote: Kars
            But the joke is that you have hysteria again, and slide into babble))))

            This is called verbal diarrhea. Let me remind you - my question is:
            Quote: Krang
            And also Kars - give me the brand of your new BOPS of increased power, which is more powerful than "Mango". I brought Russian and not one. Can't lead? Then, despite all the verbal diarrhea that will flow from you - the public will consider them simply no.

            And here is what he answers me:
            Quote: Kars
            But the joke is that you have hysteria again, and slide into babble))))

            It? Of course it is.
            1. 0
              21 March 2013 14: 19
              Quote: Krang
              We are already ahead of the world level again

              Maybe if the MS goes into the series, but this is not provided.
              Quote: Krang
              But you stayed there - in the 80s.

              Yes, there are no T-84s, BM Oplot and BM Bulat are at the world level and are superior to Russian production cars. So there are few of them - so we do not entertain imperial ambitions.
              Quote: Krang
              Who are you selling to? Papuans?

              But you weren’t able to get involved in MS even with lured Indians. And you make the main supplies of tanks on credit, with your own loans.
              Quote: Krang
              I’m afraid that you are humiliating Russia and the entire Russian people.

              The truth cannot humiliate, in contrast to the hysterical behavior of the defective representative of the Russian people with an inferiority complex.
              Quote: Krang
              You just need to be banned from this site for life.

              Contact the administration.
              Quote: Krang
              If you love Ukraine and Ukrainian tanks so much, what do you do with us?

              It has not yet been written that the site is exclusively for Russians, and it is rumored that it was not registered in Russia .. And I am here because it is a military site, and I like the topic, and especially the interface. Yes, and most visitors are adequate people, unlike you childish infantility.

              Quote: Krang
              With this shell T-90A can not even be punched point blank.

              Really? And the board? And maybe all the same you can somehow prove this thesis?

              Quote: Krang
              As well as any modern western MBT

              But to keep this in mind is the main BPS of the Russian army, you could not bring any information about adopting, manufacturing and delivering more modern troops to the troops.

              Quote: Krang
              And here is what he answers me:
              There was a picture. Did you not recognize the shells?

              Quote: Krang
              Russian cited and not one

              You haven’t brought anything, and now you’re just lying.
              Quote: Krang
              It? Of course it

              There is a hysteria, which is the end in itself of my interest in you. From a technical point of view, you are slightly more than zero.
          2. Alexander
            0
            8 September 2014 10: 56
            You only sell strongholds to militias and, by the way, don’t willingly take those, because they too easily turn into a pile of metal. So you can not boast, the war showed what he is capable of.
  42. Crang
    +1
    20 March 2013 20: 59
    And also Kars - give me the brand of your new BOPS of increased power, which is more powerful than "Mango". I brought Russian and not one. Can't lead? Then, despite all the verbal diarrhea that will pour from you, the public will consider them simply no.
  43. Crang
    +2
    21 March 2013 15: 13
    Quote: Kars
    Maybe if the MS goes into the series, but this is not provided.

    Why T-90MS? T-90A is already the best.
    Quote: Kars
    Yes, there are no T-84s, BM Oplot and BM Bulat are at the world level and are superior to Russian production cars. So there are few of them - so we do not entertain imperial ambitions.

    You don’t have them at all. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine bought 10 T-84BMs on loan, which took part in the parade, but could not pay the money. The tanks had to be returned to the factory. Now T-84MS you do not have a single one. Only the old T-64. We have only the T-80BV and T-80U - 4000 pieces - more than you have all the tanks of all types combined, including the T-34 monuments.
    Quote: Kars
    But you weren’t able to get involved in MS even with lured Indians. And you make the main supplies of tanks on credit, with your own loans.

    We sold them the T-90S. And they are satisfied.
    Quote: Kars
    The truth cannot humiliate, in contrast to the hysterical behavior of the defective representative of the Russian people with an inferiority complex.

    Or the whole "flawed Russian people"? You already finish talking. In principle, everyone already sees who you really are. You will burn yourself with your hatred for us.
    Quote: Kars
    Contact the administration.

    I will certainly turn.
    Quote: Kars
    It has not yet been written that the site is exclusively for Russians, and it is rumored that it was not registered in Russia .. And I am here because it is a military site, and I like the topic, and especially the interface. Yes, and most visitors are adequate people, unlike you childish infantility.

    Oh oh oh. And you, I suppose, are such a respectable middle-aged uncle, in a jacket and with such a deep baritone in your voice. They do the very nasty job. Such "baritone" and vparivayut the most rubbish.
    Quote: Kars
    Really? And the board? And maybe all the same you can somehow prove this thesis?

    Well, of course - the T-34s could also have "pushed the Tiger" into the side, but that the ratio of losses was not in favor of the T-34. A typical tank battle starts from 2-3 km. Our T-90A will be the first to detect you due to more modern thermal imagers and will not turn sideways towards you. They will simply shoot your T-80s. Like partridges in a shooting range.
    1. -1
      21 March 2013 15: 48
      Quote: Krang
      The T-34s could also "punch the Tiger" into the side, but that the ratio of losses was not in favor of the T-34.

      The T-34 was in a different weight category. It was a medium tank. And there are no statistics of losses from direct collisions with the Tiger, but it will have to include those tigers that the crews blew up or threw without fuel and ammunition when the T-34 bypassed them and surrounded.

      Quote: Krang
      Peak tank battle begins with 2-3km. Our T-90A will find you first due to more modern thermal imagers and will not turn to board you.

      Oddly, we have the best thermal imager. You could put an analogue only on the MS.
      and besides, you couldn’t prove that the T-84 or BM Oplot couldn’t penetrate you, and the fact that the T-90A couldn’t beat its forehead with our dynamic defense was understandable.
      So the question remains valid
      Quote: Kars
      And maybe all the same you can somehow prove this thesis?

      Even a simple T-84U
      1. 0
        21 March 2013 15: 49
        Quote: Krang
        T-90A is already the best

        He reached only the level of T-80U, and is inferior to the modifications of the T-80UM UE
        Quote: Krang
        You don’t have them at all. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine bought a loan of 10 T-84BM,

        Well, there are a hundred Bulatov, just parity with your T-90A
        Quote: Krang
        We have only the T-80BV and T-80U - 4000 pieces - more than you have all the tanks of all types combined, including the T-34 monuments.


        T Equipment and weapons

        T-55 USSR medium tank 112 [6] in storage
        T-64Б USSR main battle tank 1667 [6]
        T-72 USSR main battle tank 1032 [6] in reserve
        T-80 USSR main battle tank 167 [6]
        T-84U “Oplot” Ukraine main battle tank 10 [6]
        BM "Oplot" Ukraine main battle tank 1
        BM "Bulat" Ukraine main battle tank 98

        for a small country, even in abundance. We have no border with China, thank God, at least in the short term, who knows.
        Quote: Krang
        We sold them the T-90S. And they are satisfied.

        When was this? And they are not particularly happy if they throw so much dough into Arjun. They didn’t have a choice either. In the USSR, they also built a tank repair / production plant under T-72
        Quote: Krang
        Or the whole "flawed Russian people"? You already finish talking

        There are no you personally, and a few more personalities, the percentage of visitors to this resource.
        Quote: Krang
        In principle, everyone already sees who you really are

        Is it all that you also have a multiplication of personalities? Maybe a few more of all will respond, only with a registration date of at least two weeks ago.

        Quote: Krang
        You yourself will burn yourself with your hatred for us.

        But I do not hate you, but I am sorry.

        Quote: Krang
        And you must assume that such a respectable uncle of middle age, in a jacket and with such a deep baritone in his voice

        Almost pleased, except that the jacket is now gone.


        and what about BM Oplot already to say, T-90A to him as if to the moon on foot.
  44. Crang
    +2
    21 March 2013 15: 13
    Quote: Kars
    But to keep this in mind is the main BPS of the Russian army, you could not bring any information about adopting, manufacturing and delivering more modern troops to the troops.

    And I will not bring anything to the Ukrainian spy. This is what a "surprise" if something happens.
    Quote: Kars
    There was a picture. Did you not recognize the shells?

    I have already told you a hundred times. Write in your own words. Are you a photographer or something? Photos they cannot replace dialogue. If you want to prove something - write in your own words. Describe the performance characteristics and principle of operation. While this is not there, you are no one.
    Quote: Kars
    You haven’t brought anything, and now you’re just lying.

    Read the topic about "Yatagan". Led. If you don't find it, I'll stick it with a snout. about 740mm ammunition. Although I'll stick it, otherwise you won't find it:
    The rounds "Lead-1" ZVBM-22, with the ZBM-59 projectile, 740 mm long, charge 4Ж96, and the Lead-2 ZVBM-23, with the ZBM-60 projectile 740 mm long, 4Ж96 high-power charge can only be used for the 2A46M5 gun, with modified AZ, which are installed only on the modification of the T-90A tank and the new T-72BM. So you are lying.
    Quote: Kars
    There is a hysteria, which is the end in itself of my interest in you. From a technical point of view, you are slightly more than zero.

    What do you mean. I can "talk" with you in this way endlessly. Until they take you to the durka. Where is the most suitable place for you.
    1. -1
      21 March 2013 15: 33
      Quote: Krang
      And I will not bring anything to the Ukrainian spy. This is what a "surprise" if something happens.

      Yes, yes of course. Everything you have, heaps like that shoe polish))))
      But at the same time, for some reason, I must tell you about the latest BPS of Ukraine.
      Quote: Krang
      Photos they cannot replace dialogue.

      They are proof. In words, I can say what you want to say, how you do it when you lie.

      Quote: Krang
      rounds "Lead-1" ZVBM-22, with a projectile ZBM-59, length 740mm, charge 4Ж96 and "Lead-2 ZVBM-23, with a projectile ZBM-60, length 740mm

      Well? There are a lot of names, tattoos, leads - and you make them? Besides, these are still Soviet times and general developments. There are no troops in the army.
      Quote: Krang
      ogut can only be used for the 2A46M5 gun

      There was no mention of this weapon at all when they were developed in the USSR, the point here was not the weapon, but in the AZ, where they could not fit in, while the MZ T-80U with minimal overheads.
      Quote: Krang
      I can "talk" with you in this way endlessly.

      And who is against?
      Quote: Krang
      Until you are taken to Durkee. Where is the place for you, by the way?

      I will not be interested in you in the same room.

      Quote: Krang

      And one more thing: the T-90A surpasses the T-84BM "Oplot-M" in all basic characteristics and will easily destroy it on the battlefield.

      Yes, yes, of course, get the orderly out of the way. Maybe you feel better and you can try to substantiate your fantasies.
    2. 0
      21 March 2013 16: 03
      Quote: Krang
      And I will not bring anything to the Ukrainian spy. This is what a "surprise" if something happens.

      By the way, yes, tanks are equipped with rails and power shields, but I won’t justify anything for you as a Russian spy))))))))))))
  45. Crang
    +1
    21 March 2013 15: 15
    And one more thing: the T-90A is superior to the T-84BM "Oplot-M" in all the main characteristics and will easily destroy it on the battlefield.
  46. Crang
    +2
    21 March 2013 16: 48
    Quote: Kars
    But at the same time, for some reason, I must tell you about the latest BPS of Ukraine.

    So the ones that I have given are no longer the newest. Newest Secret. And if you have "secret" ones that are still being developed after the Soviet "Mango" of the 80s, then this is a complete UG in general.
    Quote: Kars
    Yes, yes, of course, get the orderly out of the way. Maybe you feel better and you can try to substantiate your fantasies.

    Yes, this is reality. And this is your nightmare from which you will not wake up. Your "Oplot" cannot penetrate the T-90A at close range, but our T-90A will sew your "Oplot" from 3 km. Your "Oplot" will be able to see our T-90A at night only from 3 km, and our T-90A will see yours from 5 km. Everything is kaput for you.
    Quote: Kars
    They are proof. In words, I can say what you want to say, how you do it when you lie.

    Oh, how interesting. And what is photography? What does she give? An idea of ​​armor penetration, armor and electronics? Just a picture and that's it. And the old one. We still had such under the USSR.
    Quote: Kars
    Well? There are a lot of names, tattoos, leads - and you make them? Besides, these are still Soviet times and general developments. There are no troops in the army.

    We produce. The troops have and are supplied. And all of you are sitting with "Mango".
    Quote: Kars
    and what about BM Oplot already to say, T-90A to him as if to the moon on foot.

    It looks like a steroid concrete-hung T-34. There was such a model in EMNIP in the 42nd. Have you decided to repeat it? Shit wrapped in candy wrapper?
    1. 0
      21 March 2013 19: 36
      Quote: Krang
      then I brought this is not the newest

      And even their production and delivery to the troops is not proven by you.
      Quote: Krang
      The latest secret.

      Quote: Kars
      by the way, tanks are equipped with rails and power shields, but I will not justify anything to you as a Russian spy) I will not justify anything)))))))

      Quote: Krang
      Yes it's a reality

      Quote: Kars
      base their fantasies.

      ?
      Quote: Krang
      Your "Oplot" cannot penetrate the T-90A at close range, but our T-90A will sew your "Oplot" from 3 km.

      Really? And I say the opposite))))))
      Quote: Krang
      And the old one. We still had such under the USSR.
      So bring, otherwise you will look like a liar, which you are.

      Quote: Krang
      Your "Oplot" will be able to see our T-90A at night only from 3 km, and our T-90A will see yours from 5 km. All of you are kaput

      Really?
      "Buran-M" This increases the range of target recognition (from 1200 to 1800 meters).
      How much do you and Katrina have? More than a couple of dozen (and this is for such a huge country)))

      bastion
      Thermal imaging sighting system PTT-2
      Working range, m, not less than:
      • detection range in a narrow field of view
      8000
      • recognition range in a narrow field of view
      4500
      • identification range in a narrow field of view
      2500
      http://www.morozov.com.ua/rus/body/oplot_mbt.php
      Now prove your words with reference to an official source.

      Quote: Krang
      We produce. The troops are and are being supplied.

      Really? Can you prove it?
      Quote: Krang
      Shit wrapped in candy wrapper?

      Why are you talking about the T-90? Its Indians and Algeria are buying. The only country with a developed industry and tank-building industry that bought tanks from Russia is South Korea, and then it took Soviet-made tanks T-80U
      1. 0
        21 March 2013 19: 47
        First, for reference, I’ll say the following (because from experience in communicating even with tank experts I know that they have little idea what the T-90S is). T-90S - there is nothing more than a T-72 tank with weapons, defense, guidance systems, etc. etc. from ... right, from the T-80U developed in KB-3 of the Kirov plant
        power of the V-84MS diesel engine - 840 hp, GTD-1250 - 1250 hp. (I don't even go into details that the T-90S receives less than 800 "horses" for the "star"), and the masses of the tanks are the same - 46 tons each. By the way, in Omsk it was announced that the T-90S had a diesel engine with 1000 h.p. (you should have heard the laughter that was heard among the experts on this matter). But ... this is a pure bluff. This engine does not exist! Those. there are prototypes, but the engine, as they say among engine engineers, does not work. He failed to pass the state tests, burned down on tests in India. And from the performance of the T-90S it was clear that as he lacked strength, he still lacks.

        For the uninformed, it is necessary to inform the following that in Russia there is a state program according to which it is FORBIDDEN to criticize the T-90S tank, and therefore the command is given to PROMOTE this tank everywhere. Do you know why? Because at one time Yeltsin said that the best tanks and engines are made in the Urals. And now, incl. and big generals with stripes don't know what to do about it. We have done enough with the "rivalry" of the T-80U and T-90S so much that they themselves got confused.


        http://www.alexfiles99.narod.ru/library/0001/diesel_or_gasturbine_critiques.htm
  47. Ilya Gurenko
    +1
    21 March 2013 18: 49
    Our designers rape themes that could be embodied about 15 years ago, but in general this excellent modification +
  48. Crang
    +1
    21 March 2013 20: 39
    Quote: Kars
    And even their production and delivery to the troops is not proven by you.

    You clown can’t even name the brand of your latest BOPS, and you still have the audacity to accuse me of not proving the fact of delivering the most famous new ones to the troops. To the fool.
    Quote: Kars
    Really? And I say the opposite))))))

    Prove it. Or did you call the armor penetration figures and the level of resistance with this word? The armor penetration of your "Mango" has long been known. 25 years ago. we had a tank which he could not penetrate.
    Quote: Kars
    So bring, otherwise you will look like a liar, which you are.

    Well, what did you show? Russian T-80UM "Bars" in the photo? So this Our Russian tank
    Quote: Kars
    How much do you and Katrina have? More than a couple of dozens more (and this is for such a huge country))) stronghold PTT-2 thermal imaging sighting system Operating ranges, m, no less than: • detection range in a narrow field of view 8000 • recognition range in a narrow field of view 4500 • range of identification in a narrow field of view 2500 http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot_mbt.phpA now prove your words with reference to an official source.

    Ti-sight "Essa" has a target recognition range characteristic in any conditions not less than 3000m. The history is silent about identification, but according to some sources it is about 6000m. There is no data on "discovery".
    Quote: Kars
    Really? Can you prove it?

    I already told you. You can’t even name, even those that have just been created and are not delivered anywhere. And you want something from me.
    1. 0
      21 March 2013 20: 58
      Quote: Krang
      brand of your latest BOPS

      BM-44U1
      Has it become easier?
      Quote: Krang
      I have not proved the fact of delivery to the troops of the already known latest.

      But he didn’t prove the network. And if he could, he would have already run.
      Quote: Krang
      To Durkee
      Say hello there from me.

      Quote: Krang
      Prove it.

      I do the same as you.
      Quote: Krang
      The armor penetration of your "Mango" has long been known

      like yours.
      Quote: Krang
      Russian T-80UM "Bars" in the photo? So this is our Russian tank

      Yes, yours is really promising, unlike the T-90. But you profiled him.

      Quote: Krang
      Ti-sight "Essa" has a target recognition range characteristic in any conditions not less than 3000m. The history is silent about identification, but according to some sources it is about 6000m. There is no data on "discovery".

      And? Where is the confirmation of your words? I don’t believe you as a liar.
      Moreover, he lied and admitted

      Quote: Krang
      Your "Oplot" will be able to see our T-90A at night only from 3 km, and our T-90A will see yours from 5 km.

      Quote: Krang
      I already told you.

      Yes, I do not care what you said, you're not a word that lies)))))
  49. Crang
    +1
    21 March 2013 20: 39
    Quote: Kars
    First, for reference, I will say the following (because from my experience of communicating even with tank specialists I know that they have little idea of ​​what a T-90S is). T-90S is nothing more than a T-72 tank with weapon systems, protection, guidance, etc. etc. from ... right, from the T-80U, developed in KB-3 of the Kirov plant, the power of the V-84MS diesel engine is 840 hp, the GTD-1250 is 1250 hp. (I don't even go into details that the T-90S receives less than 800 "horses" for the "asterisk"), and the masses of the tanks are the same - 46 tons each. By the way, in Omsk it was announced that the T-90S had a diesel engine with 1000 h.p. (you should have heard the laughter that was heard among the experts on this matter). But ... this is a pure bluff. This engine does not exist! Those. there are prototypes, but the engine, as they say among engine specialists, does not work. He failed to pass the state tests, burned down on tests in India. And from the performance of the T-90S it was clear that as he lacked strength, he still lacks. For the uninformed, it is necessary to inform the following that in Russia there is a state program according to which it is FORBIDDEN to criticize the T-90S tank, and therefore the command is given to PROMOTE this tank everywhere. Do you know why? Because at one time Yeltsin said that the best tanks and engines are made in the Urals. And now, incl. and the big generals with stripes don't know what to do about it. We did so much with the "rivalry" of the T-80U and T-90S that they themselves got confused.

    Oh, how this clown got me .... With his stupid specialists on the BTV website where the same clowns are sitting ... T-90S is an export modification of T-90 and T-90A. The tanks are different, but the export modification is called the same. T-90S is completed under the order. Depending on the wishes of the customer, they will install everything he needs, except for secret cannons, shells and armor. But even unclassified ones are better than yours. You have not done anything in all 20 years. All your new tanks are T-80UD shit-hung with more and more powerful (on paper) engines. Well, it’s fashionable to paint so that it looks good in the photo, too, do not forget. Nothing fundamentally new. Only the form changes - the content remains the same - 20 years.
    1. -1
      21 March 2013 21: 01
      Quote: Krang
      BTVT site

      ))))))))) the link is strangely clear that it is not with BTT.
      Quote: Krang
      depending on the wishes of the customer, they will install everything he needs, except for secret cannons, shells and armor

      Yes, yes, of course, the Indians simply kicked their arms and legs so that they would not put a 1000 strong engine.
      Quote: Krang
      Only the form changes - the content remains the same - 20 years.

      But better than yours. Our even 50 year old is better.
  50. Crang
    +2
    21 March 2013 21: 14
    Quote: Kars
    like yours.

    What do you know how much "Lead-2" breaks through? Well, how much?
    Quote: Kars
    Say hello there from me.

    I’ll tell you that you will come soon. I myself am a doctor there.
    Quote: Kars
    And? Where is the confirmation of your words? I don’t believe you as a liar. Moreover, I myself lied and admitted

    And as I believe you, "a respectable uncle with a deep baritone."
    Quote: Kars
    Yes, yours is really promising, unlike the T-90. But you profiled him.

    He was abandoned because he was inferior to the T-90.
    Quote: Kars
    )))))))) the link is strangely clear that it is not with BTT.

    I know. I even looked. Well, this does not change the essence.
    Quote: Kars
    But better than yours. Our even 50 year old is better.

    I'm afraid that your best tanks today roughly correspond to our base T-90s around the mid-90s.
    1. -1
      21 March 2013 21: 22
      Quote: Krang
      What do you know how much "Lead-2"

      You only have mango
      Quote: Krang
      I myself am a doctor there
      Yes of course.

      Quote: Krang
      And as I believe you, "a solid uncle with a deep baritone"

      Yes, I do not care, I give links, and then I do not care for someone like you to dissuade, and I write here not for this.
      Quote: Kars
      There is a hysteria, which is the end in itself of my interest in you. From a technical point of view, you are slightly more than zero.


      Quote: Krang
      I know. I even looked. Well, it doesn’t change the essence
      Where are they compared to your baseless conviction bordering on fanaticism.

      Quote: Krang
      I'm afraid that your best tanks today roughly correspond to our base T-90s around the mid-90s.


      Do not be afraid, it’s your tanks that didn’t go much further than 1985.
  51. Crang
    0
    21 March 2013 21: 28
    Quote: Kars
    Do not be afraid, it’s your tanks that didn’t go much further than 1985.

    What did you show me that was so scary? "Chicken" or something hung? I can show you the T-90MS. The differences in appearance are like those of Schwarzenegger (T-90MS) and a homeless person with tuberculosis (T-64BM2).
    Quote: Kars
    You only have mango

    We have "Lead-1" and "Lead-2". To receive them, the T-90A and T-72BM tanks are equipped with modified AZ.
    Quote: Kars
    Yes, I do not care, I give links, and then I do not care for someone like you to dissuade, and I write here not for this.

    There's a problem here. I don't believe your links. There is evidence to the contrary.
    And why are you writing here? smile You still can’t convince me - then why?
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 01: 48
      Quote: Krang
      I can show you the T-90MS

      Why? There are plenty of pictures above. At the same time, ours costs four times less, and it’s unlikely that the MS is superior in combat qualities.
      Quote: Krang
      The differences in appearance are like those of Schwarzenegger (T-90MS) and a homeless person with tuberculosis (T-64BM2).

      You also need to treat your eyesight,
      Quote: Krang
      We have "Lead-1" and "Lead-2"

      Where? Why doesn’t anyone know about this or write about it except you?
      Quote: Krang
      I don't believe your links
      Your problems, you don’t give answers, and at the same time you constantly lie.

      Quote: Krang
      You still can’t convince me, then why?

      I'm having fun looking at your helplessness and fanaticism.

      http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-3475.htm
  52. Crang
    0
    22 March 2013 19: 29
    Quote: Kars
    Why? There are plenty of pictures above. At the same time, ours costs four times less, and it’s unlikely that the MS is superior in combat qualities.

    Well, why are you showing yours?
    Quote: Kars
    You also need to treat your eyesight,

    I need. You need "artist".
    Quote: Kars
    Your problems, you don’t give answers, and at the same time you constantly lie.

    If you noticed, I haven’t taken you seriously for a long time. After that night conversation.
    Quote: Kars
    I'm having fun looking at your helplessness and fanaticism.

    Well then, let's continue the fun. Russian T-90 tanks are the best in the world. Ukrainian T-80s are 20 years behind in terms of firepower and protection.
    1. 0
      22 March 2013 21: 01
      Quote: Krang
      Well, why are you showing yours?

      for what purpose, for your overall development.
      If you were interested in armored vehicles, then maybe you understood how our tank builders made a leap forward. With the funds that the Russian Federation spent on restyling the T-72 to the T-90, the Kharkov tank plant would have already made a 5th generation tank, and Omsk would have brought the T- 80 to superiority over the Black Eagle. And our Stronghold was made almost without the use of government funds.
      Quote: Krang
      I need

      Well, that's what I said.
      Quote: Krang
      You need "artist".

      These are photographs.
      Quote: Krang
      If you noticed, I haven’t taken you seriously for a long time. After that night conversation.

      I don’t care.
      Quote: Krang
      Russian T-90 tanks are the best in the world.

      this is self-deception, and probably because of this the Russian Federation is throwing money into Armata and does not buy new T-90s, and especially T-90MS
      Quote: Krang
      Ukrainian T-80s are 20 years behind in terms of firepower and protection.

      It's a shame you couldn't prove it.
      Quote: Kars
      Quote: Krang
      We have "Lead-1" and "Lead-2"
      Where? Why doesn’t anyone know about this or write about it except you?

      )))))))))))))))
      Modification of the T-72B-3 replaces the T-80 tanks. The 138th separate motorized rifle brigade in the village of Kamenka, Leningrad Region, was the first to receive them, and almost immediately found flaws in navigational operation, especially in firing.
      The interlocutor in ZVO says that the T-72B-3 does not justify its cost, taking into account additional equipment worth 52 million rubles, which the team hoped to see a more powerful and advanced machine. A tank can fight an enemy of the model of the early 1990s, and modern armored vehicles, including Georgian modifications of the T-72, which the Israelis brought to mind, will simply tear it to pieces, the officer believes.
      “Of all the innovations in the tank, there was only a good Belarusian Sosna-U sight and modern digital communication systems, everything else is from the base model, that is, 30 years ago,” he added.
      http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/02/72_21.html и коментарии ятоже читал.
  53. Crang
    +2
    23 March 2013 20: 54
    The "officer" is the same type as you. Georgian T-72-SIM-1 were created on the basis of the T-72AV tank. All their improvement was reduced only to improving the control system and other electronics and the possible use of American 125mm BOPS M771. All the hardware of the tank remains the same. In terms of protection level, the T-72AV/T-72-SIM-1 is significantly inferior to the Russian T-72B, which opposed them in Ossetia. The equivalent frontal part of the T-72-SIM-1 does not exceed 360-420mm at the hull and 530mm at the turret. This makes the tank vulnerable even to older types of BOPS. Since the NDZ complex was installed on the T-72AV, which resulted in an increase in weight, and the engine remained the same with the T-72A - 780 hp, then its mobility is the worst among all tanks of the T-72 family. The maximum speed on the highway does not exceed 55 km/h. In addition, unlike the Russian T-72B and T-72BM, most Georgian T-72-SIM-1 did not have guided missiles. Only some of the tanks were equipped with it. So the Georgian T-72-SIM-1, despite the new side: electronics, control system, TIUS, still did not have a clear superiority over the basic T-72B of the Russian army. Comparing it with the T-90 and T-72BM is simply stupid. The T-72-SIM-1 is inferior to them in almost all respects.
    Regarding your “wonderful” turbopiston engines:
    The 6TD-2 engine is the most heat-stressed serial diesel engine in the world, which reduces its reliability. The service life of Ukrainian diesel engines is lower than 4-stroke Russian diesel engines installed in T-72, T-90, T-90S tanks, especially when operating in regions with high dust levels. Among the diesel engines manufactured in the USSR for VGM, the service life of 6TD engines under these operating conditions was the lowest. Despite the entire duration of development of two-stroke diesel engines and power plant systems of T-64 type tanks, it was not possible to achieve acceptable reliability characteristics equal to the characteristics of Ural tanks with a 4-stroke diesel engine. And in one of the interviews in March 2006, S.A., well-versed in the development of armored vehicles in the leading countries of the world, First Deputy Head of the Federal Service for Defense Order (Rosoboronzakaz). Maev said that due to the low operational reliability of T-64 tanks, their further modernization in Russia will not be carried out. These tanks are subject to disposal.
    The increased power of the Kharkov engine (1200 hp) compared to the Chelyabinsk V-92S2 (1000 hp) is a necessary measure. since in all official comparative military tests Ukrainian tanks with engines up to 1000 hp. lost to Tagil ones with 840 hp engines. in average speed (up to 7% on flat terrain, and in hot climates, when the ambient temperature reached +40°C, this loss was up to 15-17%) and travel fuel consumption (fuel consumption was 20-22% higher) . There are no advantages in terms of operational and technical indicators when these tanks move in the mountains.
    http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/NoUPz/NoUPz002.htm
    1. -2
      24 March 2013 00: 31
      Wow, I should have provided a link))))) but what about
      Quote: Krang
      I do not believe

      I just had to give the beginning)))))
      Quote: Krang
      http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/NoUPz/NoUPz002.htm

      View specialists from the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Nizhny Tagil)
      What else can you expect from them, they are only able to brainwash people like you and cut off government money.

      Ukraine and China are preparing to expand the $2011 million contract concluded in 20 for the supply of Ukrainian power plants with the 6TD-2E 9 engine (1200 hp) for the Chinese MBT-2000 main battle tank.
      “By the end of the year, I think there will be a new contract,” a source familiar with the progress of Ukrainian-Chinese cooperation on the MBT-2000 project told the Interfax-Ukraine agency.
      According to him, the volume of the new contract could be at least 200 power units.
      “The deliveries of power plants to China are on schedule. The Chinese side is pleased with the progress of the contract,” the source noted.
      A contract for the supply of 50 engine-transmission units based on the 6TD-2E engine to China with a volume of about $20 million was concluded by the state-owned enterprise Plant named after. Malyshev (Kharkov) in August 2011 and became a continuation of the contract concluded by the Ukrainian and Chinese parties in 2008.
      The Chinese MBT-2000 tank is equipped with composite and rolled homogeneous armor, as well as dynamic protection. It is capable of reaching speeds of up to 72 km/h. The combat radius of the vehicle is 500 km. The tank is armed with a 125 mm smoothbore cannon, as well as 12,7 and 7,62 mm machine guns. The total weight of MBT-2000 is 48 tons.
      According to data from open sources, in 2010 there were 150 units. Morocco purchased the MBT-2000, and in 2011 China signed a contract to supply another 44 MBT-2000 tanks to Bangladesh.

      The state concern Ukrspetsexport signed a contract with representatives of Pakistan for the manufacture and supply to this country of 110 power plants for tanks worth $50 million, the company’s press service reported.
      “The contract is valid for 4 years and will be carried out at the facilities of the Malyshev Plant State Enterprise. Its cost exceeds $50 million,” the press service quotes the words of And. O. Deputy General Director of the company Vadim Kozhevnikov, which he voiced during the International Exhibition IDEX-2013, which takes place in Abu Dhabi (UAE).
      http://economics.unian.net/rus/news/157797-ukrspetseksport-podpisal-krupnyiy-kon
      trakt-s-pakistanom-na-postavku-silovyih-ustanovok-dlya-tankov.html

      .And the total is 1200 hp. no one bought it, and the T-90MS is not going to be produced where it is worth.

      But you can send your article to China and Pakistan, they probably didn’t read it there. Even though Pakistan has been operating the T-84 for more than ten years
      1. Crang
        +2
        24 March 2013 09: 28
        However, in reality everything worked out as S.A. Mayev said. All Russian T-64 tanks have now been scrapped. The Chinese are forced to install 6TD until they have created their own X-shaped diesel engine.
        1. 0
          24 March 2013 14: 00
          Quote: Krang
          All Russian T-64 tanks have now been scrapped

          These are your problems. How can UVZ deprive you of a penny?
          Quote: Krang
          The Chinese are forced to install 6TD until they have created their own X-shaped diesel

          but for some reason they were forced to not buy yours)))))) and it’s not the first time they’ve bought it, and not just a couple of pieces.
          1. Crang
            0
            24 March 2013 15: 32
            Quote: Kars
            These are your problems. How can UVZ deprive you of a penny?

            Yes, we have no problems, I’m telling you. And what kind of stupid logic is this? According to your Russian Ministry of Defense, would it have been more correct to “deprive a penny” of UVZ and give this penny to Ukraine? No way - MO of Russia gave me a pretty penny Russian plant, and such “respectable guys with deep baritone voices” were left without money. Here you are, Ukrainian nationalists, so aggressively climbing onto Russian sites, foaming at the mouth, proving that your buckets can even be considered tanks.
            Quote: Kars
            but for some reason they were forced to not buy yours)))))) and it’s not the first time they’ve bought it, and not just a couple of pieces.

            Why would they buy ours? They have already studied our V12 and have been producing a copy of it for a long time. Now they will study yours. And then, based on the knowledge gained, they will do something of their own.
            1. 0
              24 March 2013 16: 12
              Quote: Krang
              Yes, we have no problems, I’m telling you. And what kind of stupid logic is this?

              Why are you so bad about your logic. And the problem is that the T-64 was not produced in the Russian Federation, there are no spare parts, so you are removing it from service. The most common logic.
              Quote: Krang
              According to your Russian Ministry of Defense, would it have been more correct to “deprive a penny” of UVZ and give this penny to Ukraine?
              continue to apply your
              Quote: Krang
              stupid logic

              We could use our tank repair plants by re-equipment and establishing small-scale production of components, as we do with the T-72, but it’s easier for UVZ to ruin them than for Delitsa.
              Quote: Krang
              "respectable guys with deep baritone voices" were left without money

              This was not even expected)))
              Quote: Krang
              They have already studied our V12 and have been releasing a copy of it for a long time

              But they don’t put it on their new tanks, they buy our diesel and German ones))))
              Quote: Krang
              And then, based on the knowledge gained, they will do something of their own.

              But for now they are paying us, and this is not the first year. At the same time, Ukraine can block the supply of Chinese tanks to third countries without our consent. As was the case with Peru.
  54. Crang
    +1
    23 March 2013 22: 58
    Quote: Kars
    which the Israelis were perfecting, will simply tear it apart, the officer believes. “Of all the innovations in the tank, only the good Belarusian Sosna-U sight and modern digital communication systems appeared, everything else is from the base model, that is, 30 years ago, - he added.

    Especially for the “officer” invented by you and your friends, I will tell you the difference between the modernized and rebuilt T-72BM at the tank repair plant and the regular T-72B:
    1. New thermal imaging sight "Sosna-U" for the gunner, which has an automatic target tracking device and is part of the new 1A40-1M fire control system with a digital ballistic computer on microprocessors and a new atmospheric conditions sensor.
    2. The commander receives an improved TKN-3M command complex, the night channel of which is expanded to cover the entire field of view of the day channel.
    3. A new VDZ “Kontakt-V” or “Relic” is installed.
    4. Engine V-84-1 840 hp. replaced by B-92S2 with 1000 hp power. as a result, the maximum speed of the tank increases from 60 to 65 km/h.
    5. A significantly more powerful 125mm 2A46M5 gun is installed with increased barrel rigidity and strength, a chrome-plated pipe and a SUIS barrel bending system (this is taken into account in the 1A40-1M control system).
    6. A new AZ is installed with trays designed for BOPS 740mm long - “Svinets-1” and “Svinets-2”.
    7. These BOPS themselves are loaded.
    8. URO "Svir" is replaced by the more advanced "Reflex".
    This is the main difference between the T-72BM and the T-72B, and not that some fictitious devil dreamed it up.
    1. 0
      24 March 2013 00: 52
      Quote: Krang
      6. A new AZ is installed with trays designed for BOPS 740mm long - “Svinets-1” and “Svinets-2”.
      7. These BOPS themselves are loaded.

      I wonder why there is no link here? Are you lying?
      Quote: Krang
      T-72BM moved at a tank repair plant from a regular T-72B:

      This is declared, but as we see, not only I (which is understandable) do not see the fact of appearance in the troops, but also
      Quote: Kars
      138th separate motorized rifle brigade in the village of Kamenka Leningradskaya

      And not mine but

      http://izvestia.ru/news/545300#ixzz2LV46vJND
      Surely this was done by a specialist for the joy of Ukrainians)))
      Quote: Krang
      This is the main difference between the T-72BM and the T-72B, and not that some fictitious devil dreamed it up

      ))))))))))
      Today in the Izvestia newspaper, which is rapidly raising the level of its publications on defense topics, an interesting article appeared under the heading “The troops abandoned the modernized T-72 tank.” The article, once again, is interesting, but not without errors and not indisputable. Let's try to figure it out.


      Especially if you abstract from pure technology and think about economics. T-72B, but with the Sosna-U sight, is quite adequate in the modern situation
      In my opinion, statements of dissatisfaction by this officer, I note, are only at the brigade level, nothing more than “Yaroslavna’s cry” over the fact that her beloved “eighty” was taken away.

      http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/02/723_21.html

      Even the gurchik does not consider the officer to be fictitious.
      And he doesn’t remember about the new shells but says
      Or does an unnamed officer seriously think that "on March 17, 2013, the Abrams will end up in Khimki"?


      only about mythical ones
      new and more powerful ammunition,

      Would you really be embarrassed to name names like you?
      1. Crang
        +1
        24 March 2013 09: 43
        Yes links are needed:
        http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050054054056050.html

        http://3mv.ru/publ/dve_motostrelkovye_brigady_rossijskoj_armii_polnostju_ukomple




        ktovany_modernizirovannymi_tankami_t_72bm_bmp_2m_i_btr_82/1-1-0-13662

        http://www.terrorunet.ru/node/522

        http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/ground/news/more.htm?id=11099075@egNews






        In addition, there are many video reports on this topic. Regarding shells, do you need to know exactly how many new shells we have as a spy? Fuck you. There is a fact - new AZ. It was not cheap to modify and replace them. Did they just do that? No - just for new shells. They Yes in the troops. Now about your T-84. Only the sight and electronics are new. As well as the VDZ complex. The gun is old 2A46. The shells for them are old. That is, in terms of firepower, the tank remained in the early 90s. The thickness of the armor does not increase - even from a small mass this can be seen. They only hang new parts and paint them more and more fashionably. Engine.... 6TD with a power of 1000 hp. - still a Soviet development in 1983. Your own - 6TD-2 with a power of 1200 hp. That is, in 30 years you managed to increase the power of your tank diesel engine by only 200 hp. (20%). Our Ural diesel engine in the 80s, the B-84-1, produced 840 hp. Today the T-90MS is equipped with a V-92S2F2 diesel engine with a power of 1130 hp. In addition, the T-90A and T-90MS are equipped with a V-99 diesel engine with a power of 1200 hp. The power increase was 360 hp. or 43%. This is not counting the promising 1500-horsepower engine.
        1. 0
          24 March 2013 14: 20
          Quote: Krang
          http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050054054056050.html

          Southern Military District, they are mastering the modernized T-72BM tanks, which entered the troops of the Southern Military District (SMD) at the end of 2011
          Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050054054056050.html

          No mention of equipment or new shells
          Quote: Krang
          ktovany_modernizirovannymi_tankami_t_72bm_bmp_2m_i_btr_82/1-1-0-13662


          Unfortunately, Internet Explorer cannot find the ktovany_modernizirovannymi_tankami_t_72bm_bmp_2m_i_btr_82 page.
          Quote: Krang
          http://www.terrorunet.ru/node/522

          More than 40 units of modernized T-72BM tanks and 120 units of BTR-82 armored personnel carriers will enter the troops of the Southern Military District by the end of 2012
          WILL ARRIVE, and again no information about the configuration, it is quite possible that the same thing
          Quote: Kars
          "Sosna-U" and modern digital communication systems, everything else is from the basic model, that is, 30 years ago

          Quote: Krang
          http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/ground/news/more.htm?id=11099075@egNews

          the same thing is not about anything.
          Quote: Krang
          counting shells - you spy needs to know exactly how many new shells we have

          Why how many? Just at least adoption and the start of mass production. If this is not there, then there are no shells. I don’t argue, maybe WHEN there will be some, but for sure the tanks will have to be sent to UVZ to convert the AZ to 800 mm)))
          Quote: Krang
          Now about your T-84.

          I recommend familiarizing yourself with it so as not to be driven by a blizzard
          http://topwar.ru/11197-tanki-oplot-i-yatagan-nadezhda-ukrainskogo-tankoproma.htm
          l
          Quote: Krang
          The thickness of the armor does not increase - even with a small mass this can be seen

          Who are you comparing it with? Oplot 51 tons, early versions 48 tons
          Quote: Krang
          Our Ural diesel engine in the 80s, the B-84-1, produced 840 hp

          It's not our fault that back in the 80s they made an engine more powerful than yours.
          And if we assume that 160 hp. you added just to catch up with the 6TD, then during the same period you were able to add only 130 hp. And we also have promising engines of 1500 hp.
          1. Crang
            0
            24 March 2013 15: 35
            Quote: Kars
            It's not our fault that back in the 80s they made an engine more powerful than yours.

            It wasn't you, it was us.
            As for your 6TD-3 with 1500 hp, it is complete crap with a minimal resource and fake horses. This engine was made a long time ago, but is not used anywhere. But our engine is real.
            1. 0
              24 March 2013 16: 01
              Quote: Krang
              It wasn't you, it was us.

              Are we UVZ or something? Here we have Kharkov and UVZ, it was different even under the USSR.

              And something like you as a countdown to us
              Quote: Krang
              Your own - 6TD-2 with a power of 1200 hp. That is, in 30 years
              so since Soviet times)))
              Quote: Krang
              As for your 6TD-3 with 1500 hp, it’s complete crap

              It’s not for you to judge, you don’t have 1500 at all.
              Quote: Krang
              This is not counting the promising 1500-horsepower engine.

              where is it used?

              I like it better how you grabbed masses of tanks. I guess the sign made you feel sick)))))
              Quote: Krang
              But our engine is real

              about the same as your new BPS

              But I liked more how you messed with the weight of tanks)))))
  55. Crang
    0
    24 March 2013 16: 37
    Quote: Kars
    Are we UVZ or something? Here we have Kharkov and UVZ, it was different even under the USSR.

    It was common, it became yours.
    Quote: Kars
    It’s not for you to judge, you don’t have 1500 at all.

    We also. Write in the column "maximum power" - 1500 hp. and a vocational school student can do it.
    Quote: Kars
    about the same as your new BPS, but I liked more how you messed with the weight of the tanks)))))

    I didn't screw up. T-64BM2 "Bulat" weighs 45 tons. Namely, these are the ones you have in service. You don’t have a single T-84BM “Oplot-M”. We bought 10 pieces on credit, but were unable to pay the debt and returned them to the factory. You cannot buy your own tanks from yourself. And you sell them to someone there. In the end, this “someone” will kick your Ukrainian asses with your own tanks. We export not the best we have. The best is for internal use only. You are completely sold out.
    1. 0
      24 March 2013 16: 55
      Quote: Krang
      It was common, it became yours

      Moreover, I have the right to declare
      Quote: Kars

      It's not our fault that back in the 80s they made an engine more powerful than yours.
      And if we assume that 160 hp. you added just to catch up with the 6TD, then during the same period you were able to add only 130 hp. And we also have promising engines of 1500 hp.

      Quote: Krang
      Write in the column "maximum power" - 1500 hp. and a vocational school student can do it.

      Can he bring it to Nizhny Tagil and show it to Putin)))))))?
      Quote: Krang
      T-64BM2 "Bulat" weighs 45 tons

      what are you talking about? you're not crazy)))

      Quote: Krang
      Now about your T-84. Only the sight and electronics are new. As well as the VDZ complex. The gun is old 2A46. The shells for them are old. That is, in terms of firepower, the tank remained in the early 90s. The thickness of the armor does not increase - even with a small mass this can be seen

      And now, having lost your mind, you are trying to jump onto Bulat)))) they won’t allow you to do that here))))
      Quote: Krang
      You cannot buy your own tanks from yourself. And you sell them to someone there

      Well, we don’t waste oil like some people do, and we don’t pretend to be world leaders.

      Quote: Krang
      And you sell them to someone there. In the end, this “someone” will kick your Ukrainian asses with your own tanks

      Thailand))))))) for us? Or maybe China and Pakistan)))) but you are just supplying China with new weapons)))
      Quote: Krang
      The Best - For Internal Use Only

      We see how you purchase T-90MS))))
      Quote: Krang
      You are completely sold out

      It’s not dangerous for us. I wish the patent rights were confirmed)))
      1. 0
        24 March 2013 16: 57
        ___________________
        1. +2
          24 March 2013 21: 13
          By engines:
          http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/search?q=%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D
          0%BE%D0%B5+%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B5+%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D
          0%B8%D1%85+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2


          In the photo, the Kharkov engine and the Chelyabinsk (X-shaped) are old models. If I’m not mistaken, it was this X-shaped engine that was used at facility 187, which means it has 1200 l/s.

          In the second photo there is a new X-shaped engine A-85-3 ".... The rated power of the engine is 1500 hp, the power of the derated version is 1200 - 1350 hp with a significant increase in service life, the power with boost is 1800-2000-2200 hp. With...."
          1. -1
            24 March 2013 21: 28
            Quote: Bad_gr
            In the second photo there is a new X-shaped engine A-85-3 ".... The rated power of the engine is 1500 hp, the power of the derated version is 1200 - 1350 hp with a significant increase in service life, the power with boost is 1800-2000-2200 hp. With...."



            and?how many people have been talking about him?about twenty years?
            1. +1
              24 March 2013 21: 42
              Quote: Kars
              and?how many people have been talking about him?about twenty years?

              So read the articles and the questions will immediately disappear, both about X-shaped ones and about all the others.
              This is not the first time I’ve given a link, but the questions about Russian engines are still the same. More precisely, the statement that we do not have normal engines.
              1. -1
                24 March 2013 21: 46
                Quote: Bad_gr
                questions will disappear immediately

                any questions? did I ask something?
                Quote: Bad_gr
                More precisely, the statement that we do not have normal engines.

                And where are they installed? Who are they selling to? Who bought them?
                These are the questions I asked.
                1. +1
                  24 March 2013 21: 57
                  Quote: Kars
                  And where are they installed? Who are they selling to? Who bought them?
                  These are the questions I asked.

                  So what am I talking about?
                  The links say that this series of engines is now used in the oil and gas industry. Versions for armored vehicles have undergone a full cycle of testing at facility 195. The same engines will power the Armata.
                  1. 0
                    24 March 2013 22: 02
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    So what am I talking about?

                    About what?
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    for armored vehicles passed a full cycle of tests at facility 195

                    Of course, I skimmed superficially and didn’t see any reliable confirmation of tests at object 195.
                    as well as about the shooting of the two 195 you mentioned earlier.
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    The same engines will power the Armata.

                    Is this a discussion of armata? I think Krengi here talks about the T-90 (different variations), how their engines are superior to the 6TD.

                    And as soon as they install it on the armature, we’ll talk.
                    1. +1
                      24 March 2013 22: 13
                      Quote: Kars
                      Of course, I looked superficially at the reliable confirmation of tests at object 195.....

                      Have you read the material via links? Oh well ...

                      Quote: Kars
                      .....as well as about the execution of the two 195 you mentioned earlier.

                      Is this what you expected to find in the topic about motors?
                      1. 0
                        24 March 2013 22: 23
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Have you read the material via links? Oh well

                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course I skimmed

                        there about the fact that engines no more than 1000 hp have been exhausted. and about attracting foreign technologies. etc.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Is this what you expected to find in the topic about motors?

                        I didn’t count. I hoped. What’s not in the context.

                        and it's a gift
                      2. +2
                        24 March 2013 22: 39
                        Quote: Kars
                        there about the fact that engines no more than 1000 hp have been exhausted. and about attracting foreign technologies. etc.....

                        There are 9 articles (parts) on engines + an interview with the plant director (again, on engines) + presentation by ChTZ-Uraltrak (the same, engines)

                        The fiery heart of Russian tanks-9

                        Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Interview with V.M. Platonov Part 5
                        Video presentation of ChTZ-Uraltrak Part 6 Part 7 Part 8
                      3. 0
                        24 March 2013 22: 53
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        The fiery heart of Russian tanks-9

                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course I skimmed

                        I am not interested in this topic. The end result is enough for me.

                        Quote: Kars
                        And where are they installed? Who are they selling to? Who bought them?


                        Well, of course I’m interested in project 195
                      4. +1
                        24 March 2013 23: 18
                        Quote: Kars
                        I am not interested in this topic. The end result is enough for me.

                        So there was a heated discussion about tank engines:
                        Quote: Kars
                        It's not our fault that back in the 80s they made an engine more powerful than yours.
                        .............And we also have promising engines of 1500 hp.

                        Quote: Kars
                        It’s not for you to judge, you don’t have 1500 at all.

                        and as soon as I gave a selection of materials on this topic that does not coincide with your opinion, then the topic no longer interests you.
                        And in the next tank topic it will again be: “.. and you don’t have this, and you don’t know how to do this...”
                        Quote: Kars
                        .....well, of course I’m interested in object 195.

                        From comments on the article (links to which are above) (on object 195)
                        ".......Uv.thresher, IUS is an information and control system - a “digital board”. With its help, launch and control, diagnostics, adjustments, protection and many other very useful options are carried out. The system is so smart, that in the event of injury or even death of the driver, he independently produces a number of control commands aimed at preserving the tank......"
                      5. 0
                        25 March 2013 00: 20
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        So there was a heated discussion about tank engines

                        cash and sellable.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        and as soon as I gave a selection of materials on this topic that does not coincide with your opinion

                        why mismatched?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And where are they installed? Who are they selling to? Who bought them?

                        And I never saw 1500 hp.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        ., power of the derated version - 1200 - 1350 hp.

                        I was so quick to believe in deboosting just for the sake of reliability, especially when you get a spread of 150 hp.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        You are no longer interested

                        And I'm really not interested in her.
              2. +1
                24 March 2013 21: 50
                Interestingly, 200 points were just spent, last week - more than three hundred -
                Whose callus did I step on so painfully? there are no arguments, but there is a possibility....
                Maybe you can immediately demote me to black shoulder straps?
                laughing
  56. Crang
    +1
    24 March 2013 17: 09
    Quote: Kars
    Moreover, I have the right to declare Quote: Kars It’s not our fault that back in the 80s we made an engine more powerful than yours And if we assume that 160 hp. you added just to catch up with the 6TD, then during the same period you were able to add only 130 hp. And we also have promising engines of 1500 hp. Quote: Crang Write in the “maximum power” column - 1500 hp. and a vocational school student will be able to. And will he be able to bring him to Nizhny Tagil and show Putin)))))))?

    Yes Easy. Putin doesn’t understand anything about this. Just like your Yanukovych. Gone are the days of Stalin, who delved into everything.
    Quote: Kars
    And now, having lost your mind, you are trying to jump onto Bulat)))) they won’t allow you to do that here))))

    Cool. "Here" I am at home. Won't you allow it? Regarding the export T-84BM "Oplot-M" - our export T-90MS will destroy it after the 1st minute of the battle.
    Quote: Kars
    Well, we don’t waste oil like some people do, and we don’t pretend to be world leaders.

    Why are you quacking here then?
    Quote: Kars
    Thailand))))))) for us? Or maybe China and Pakistan)))) but you are just supplying China with new weapons)))

    We haven't supplied it for a long time. They themselves have already learned. If they kill us, then you will be their snack. and your American friends with whom you have a “partnership” on the principle “We (NATO) have you, and you smile,” will not rush to help you.
    Quote: Kars
    We see how you purchase T-90MS))))

    We don't really need the T-90MS. We are preparing "Armata". T-90Ms is for export.
    Quote: Kars
    It’s not dangerous for us. I wish the patent rights were confirmed)))

    It seems so to you. You are the same as we Slavs. And you are also hated by all the Anglo-Saxon tribes. They attack everyone who has power. As long as we exist, you are, as it were, opposed to us. If we are gone, then neither will you. In any case, you can “cooperate” with them only on the terms “you’re shit - they’re gentlemen” and nothing else.
    1. 0
      24 March 2013 17: 34
      Quote: Krang
      Yes Easy. Putin doesn’t understand anything about this

      Do you judge by your personal experience of displaying the T-90MS?
      Quote: Krang
      Cool. "Here" I am at home

      You are here on the Internet and you are no different from me, except of course for a low level of knowledge and lack of logic.
      Quote: Krang
      Regarding the export T-84BM "Oplot-M" - our export T-90MS will destroy it after the 1st minute of the battle.

      Of course, especially considering your direct theory of the connection between weight and armor protection, your 48 tons will destroy our 51 tons)))) drink some valerian)))
      Quote: Krang
      Why are you quacking here then?

      I'm laughing at you)) and casually ruining your illusions.

      Quote: Krang
      We haven't supplied it for a long time

      You supply.
      Quote: Krang
      If they kill us, then you will be their snack

      It’s unlikely that China does not lay claim to the territories beyond the Urals.
      Quote: Krang
      We don't really need the T-90MS. We are preparing "Armata". T-90MS is for export

      Naturally, UVZ needs to spend more money before its privatization, whoever is Putin’s friends.
      Quote: Krang
      T-90MS is for export

      So far no one wants to take it, not even the Indians.
      Quote: Krang
      It seems so to you

      So far so good.
      Quote: Krang
      you can only deal with them on the terms “you’re shit - they’re gentlemen” and nothing else.

      You are retelling the foreign policy of the Russian Federation and the customs union.
      Quote: Krang
      If we're not there

      Where will you go? Maybe there will be more Muslims and narrow-eyed people in the Far East.
      1. 0
        24 March 2013 17: 47
        ___________________
        1. Crang
          +2
          24 March 2013 17: 56
          Quote: Kars
          Do you judge by your personal experience of displaying the T-90MS?

          Based on the experience of showing and describing military equipment to him by noob top managers, the level of knowledge about armored vehicles is at the level of a 1st grade student. Putin was once shown a comparison table of the T-90A and Merkava.MK.4, where in the picture instead of the T-90A a Chinese Type-69 tank was drawn. Nothing - swallowed it.
          Quote: Kars
          You are here on the Internet and you are no different from me, except of course for a low level of knowledge and lack of logic.

          This is RuNet. Russian site. I have the rights of the owner here, and you are the guest. There is no need to remember your level of knowledge and logic after that night conversation. The mere fact that you so brazenly and unceremoniously mix Russian tanks with crap on the Russian website speaks of your limitations.
          Quote: Kars
          Of course, especially considering your direct theory of the connection between weight and armor protection, your 48 tons will destroy our 51 tons)))) drink some valerian)))

          This T-90A weighs 48 tons. T-90MS weighs 50 tons.
          Quote: Kars
          I'm laughing at you)) and casually ruining your illusions.

          These are not illusions. This is a reality that you can’t dispel with stupid photos.
          Quote: Kars
          It’s unlikely that China does not lay claim to the territories beyond the Urals.

          He does not formally lay claim to the territory beyond the Urals. But this is how appetite comes while eating. If you defeated a giant, why not grab the impudent yapping booger for one?
          Quote: Kars
          Naturally, UVZ needs to spend more money before its privatization, whoever is Putin’s friends.

          This is our common problem.
          Quote: Kars
          So far no one wants to take it, not even the Indians.

          Well why not? Indians use our T-90S "Bishma" and are happy.
          Quote: Kars
          So far so good.

          As long as we exist. So it seems that everything is fine.
          1. 0
            24 March 2013 20: 04
            Quote: Krang
            Based on show experience

            These are your personal problems. But this does not negate the presence of 1500 hp. at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil. And they probably would have allowed cockerels there, or you’d try to prove the opposite.
            Quote: Krang
            I have the rights of the owner here

            You have the same problems as any other user. Or you can copy and paste this from the site rules.
            Quote: Krang
            that night conversation.

            I then completely screwed you over and proved that you are incompetent.
            Quote: Krang
            This T-90A weighs 48 tons. T-90MS weighs 50 tons

            Really? And then what is written in this article? at the very top? and UVZ advertising brochure
            http://mirageswar.com/armor/armor_after_ww2/55302-t-90ms-modernizirovannyy-tank-

            t-90s.html
            Quote: Krang
            These are not illusions. This is a reality that you can’t dispel with stupid photos.

            Oh well))))
            Quote: Krang
            He doesn’t formally lay claim to the territory beyond the Urals either.

            FORMAL, but he’s already shading them on his maps.
            Quote: Krang
            This is our common problem

            UVZ is your problem.
            Quote: Krang
            Well why not? Indians use our T-90S "Bishma" and are happy

            It's strange, you're being dumb again - we were talking about
            Quote: Krang
            T-90MS is for export

            and the Indians are not so happy.
            Quote: Krang
            While we exist

            You are a big part of our problems, but this will not last long.

            Quote: Krang
            Russian tanks with crap on the Russian site shows your limitations.

            and what does this mean? and why do you really dislike it so much?
            Quote: Krang
            This is me retelling
            I’m not interested in this nonsense of yours, let’s talk about tanks. It’s about new Russian shells.
            otherwise I have enough
            Quote: Krang
            Without us you are nothing

            to appreciate the limitations of your education and logic.
            1. Crang
              +1
              25 March 2013 09: 43
              Quote: Kars
              These are your personal problems. But this does not negate the presence of 1500 hp. at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil. And they probably would have allowed cockerels there, or you’d try to prove the opposite.

              I won't prove anything to you. If you don't believe it, that's your problem. I don't care.
              Quote: Kars
              I then completely screwed you over and proved that you are incompetent.

              You clown then could not distinguish design specifications from tank equipment.
              Quote: Kars
              FORMAL, but he’s already shading them on his maps.

              Show me at least one such shaded map.
              Quote: Kars
              UVZ is your problem.

              And yours is all your country.
              Quote: Kars
              You are a big part of our problems, but this will not last long.

              Don't worry. You will bend and become slaves of the Tatars and Americans much earlier than we fall apart.
              Quote: Kars
              and what does this mean? and why do you really dislike it so much?

              Why should I like it? Can you and I conduct an experiment? Will you lie down and I’ll hit you in the face? What - you don't like it!? This speaks of your stupidity and limitations.
              This “nonsense” of mine will soon become your waking nightmare. From which you will never wake up.

              Quote: Kars
              I'm not interested in this nonsense of yours
              1. 0
                25 March 2013 15: 41
                Quote: Krang
                I won't prove anything to you

                Why are you puffing then?
                And this does not correspond to your behavior, when you can provide a link, you provide it, it’s a pity that you poorly understand what you are reading.
                Quote: Krang
                You clown then couldn't distinguish design specifications from tank equipment

                Really? I immediately wrote that without context, I don’t understand what your sick imagination gave out. And I provided alphanumeric symbols suitable for the nonsense you threw in
                Quote: Kars
                Quote: Krang
                First, tell us what VP, VM, E3, E4, TE4 and so on are.
                These are alphanumeric abbreviations that can mean anything in your overpowered brain, so context is needed.

                Quote: Krang
                And yours is all your country

                Well, we’re talking about tanks here, and about the reasons for such active pumping of government money into UVZ.
                Quote: Krang
                You will bend and become slaves to the Tatars and Americans much earlier than we fall apart

                Only time will judge on this.
                Quote: Krang
                Why should I like it?

                And just because you don’t like her, will your rights somehow change?
                Quote: Krang
                This “nonsense” of mine will soon become your waking nightmare.

                How can it become if no one is buying a T-90 nursery. And the characteristics already ARE.
                Quote: Krang
                Will you lie down and I’ll hit you in the face?

                And what did I promise you? I said that my face is the best in the world in terms of impenetrability)))) And by the way, the proposed experiment is amazingly stupid. You can say that Ukraine has an outdated submarine, and since this is true, I agree. You will say that we have no prospects in the transition to 5th generation fighters, I agree. If you say that UVZ before Armata was able to make a tank better than the T-80 series (this means the entire modernization line), you will be lying.
                Quote: Krang
                Show me at least one such shaded map.

                Oh yeah )))))))))))))
                1. Crang
                  +1
                  26 March 2013 09: 28
                  Quote: Kars
                  and then why are you puffing? And this does not correspond to your behavior, when you can provide a link, you provide it, it’s a pity that you poorly understand what you are reading.

                  I’m not puffing, but I’m commenting with interest on all the nonsense that you’re talking about.
                  Quote: Kars
                  Really? I immediately wrote that without context, I don’t understand what your sick imagination gave out. And I provided alphanumeric symbols suitable for the nonsense you threw in

                  What a nerd...
                  Quote: Kars
                  And just because you don’t like her, will your rights somehow change?

                  I'm pleased with the truth. Russian tanks are much better. Which wildly infuriates comrade Karsa, who can’t even say anything, but keeps quacking about something here.
                  Quote: Kars
                  If you say that we have no prospects for the transition to 5th generation fighters, I agree. If you say that UVZ was able to make a tank better than the T-80 series before Armata (meaning the entire modernization line), you will be lying.

                  The T-72 base was initially made better and more powerful than the T-80, which was a slightly modified T-64. The T-72 even looks much cooler in appearance. And today our T-90A has superiority in almost all respects over your Oplot. Higher firepower, better protection with the same mobility.
                  Quote: Kars
                  Oh yeah )))))))))))))

                  I've seen this map for a long time. It's homemade. In general, taking into account strategic nuclear forces, the likelihood of a direct military invasion of China into Russian territory is close to zero. This scenario is designed mainly for the situation if we, like ancient Rome, fall apart from the inside. By this time you will be long gone. The outskirts will never last longer than the center.
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2013 14: 53
                    Quote: Krang
                    and I comment with interest

                    then it doesn't fit
                    Quote: Krang
                    I won't prove anything to you



                    Quote: Krang
                    What a nerd...

                    Well, why are you talking like that to yourself? Don’t worry, learn the abbreviations used in tank instructions. It will be useful for you.
                    Quote: Krang
                    Russian tanks are much better
                    You see, you are trying to deceive yourself)))) even though you don’t know the weight of the tank about which this article was written, which you are trying to comment on


                    Quote: Krang
                    T-90MS weighs 50 tons

                    did you even read it?
                    Quote: Kars
                    http://mirageswar.com/armor/armor_after_ww2/55302-t-90ms-modernizirovannyy-tank-


                    t-90s.html


                    Quote: Krang
                    who can’t even say anything

                    Compared to you, I simply shine with eloquence, and most importantly, you have already responded to quacking so much, while showing your impenetrable stupidity mixed with fanaticism.
                    Quote: Krang
                    The T-72 base was initially made better and more powerful than the T-80

                    this is a direct lie. Moreover, the T-80 base is made on the basis of the T-64 and was immediately designed for an engine of 1000 hp. and a large mass.
                    Quote: Krang
                    And today our T-90A has superiority in almost all respects over your Oplot.

                    The only advantage of the T-90 is its power reserve. In other respects it is much inferior.

                    Quote: Krang
                    I've seen this map for a long time. She's homemade

                    Well, yes, of course))))) but that’s your problem. So far I haven’t seen a homemade map with the territory of Ukraine.
                    Quote: Krang
                    The T-72 even looks much cooler in appearance

                    I already wrote that you need to treat your eyesight.
                    1. Crang
                      0
                      26 March 2013 18: 00
                      Quote: Kars
                      I already wrote that you need to treat your eyesight.

                      I don't need anything. I have seen the T-80U many times. T-72/90 is cooler.
                      Quote: Kars
                      Well, yes, of course))))) but that’s your problem. So far I haven’t seen a homemade map with the territory of Ukraine.

                      If you pay, I’ll draw it and send it to you by mail.
                      Quote: Kars
                      The only advantage of the T-90 is its power reserve. In other respects it is much inferior.

                      The T-90 surpasses your Oplot in firepower by 30-40 percent. On defense too. Same speed. Moreover, all these percentages are conditional. Your Oplot will not be able to penetrate our T-90 at point blank range. On the T-90, warm butter will cut through your armor like a knife.
                      Quote: Kars
                      this is a direct lie. Moreover, the T-80 base is made on the basis of the T-64 and was immediately designed for an engine of 1000 hp. and a large mass.

                      How big a mass? T-64 (base) weighed 38,5 tons, T-72 "Ural" - 41 tons. T-80 - 42 tons. The T-80 was created because the T-64T, even with a gas turbine engine power of only 700 hp. his chicken chassis was falling apart.
                      Quote: Kars
                      Compared to you, I simply shine with eloquence, and most importantly, you have already responded to quacking so much, while showing your impenetrable stupidity mixed with fanaticism.

                      That's what I noticed. I’ve been talking to you for a long time over beer and popcorn.
                      Quote: Kars
                      You see, you are trying to deceive yourself)))) even though you don’t know the weight of the tank about which this article was written, which you are trying to comment on

                      I read it. And I liked the article. But that’s not the point now. The T-90Ms still weighs 50 tons, not 48.
                      1. 0
                        26 March 2013 18: 13
                        Quote: Krang
                        I don't need anything. I have seen the T-80U many times. T-72/90 is cooler

                        Especially probably the T-72 without a closed anti-aircraft gun and a worse fire control system
                        Quote: Krang
                        If you pay, I’ll draw it and send it to you by mail.

                        Not without samples to pay))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90 is superior to your Oplot

                        chatter without evidence. And you have already lost one tender to us.
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-80 - 42 tons

                        More by a whole ton (you used to value 500 kg dearly) and a power of 1000 hp. compared to T-72
                        Quote: Krang
                        That's what I noticed. I’ve been talking to you for a long time over beer and popcorn.

                        Then I feel sorry for you that you can’t find something more interesting to do. And it also becomes clear why you’re talking such drunken nonsense.

                        Quote: Krang
                        But that’s not the point now. T-90Ms still weighs 50 tons, not 48

                        Quote: Kars
                        http://mirageswar.com/armor/armor_after_ww2/55302-t-90ms-modernizirovannyy-tank-



                        t-90s.html

                        Name: T-90MS. Upgraded T-90S tank
                        Author: Team
                        Publisher: OJSC NPK Uralvagonzavod

                        COMMON DATA
                        Tank weight with ammunition, t 48
                        Crew, people. 3
                        Specific power, kW/t (hp/t) not less than 17,7 (24)
                        WEAPON COMPLEX
                        Gun 2A46M-5 - 125 mm smoothbore
                        Types of projectiles used: BPS, OFS, BKS, UR
                        Machine gun coaxial with 7,62 mm PKTM (6P7K) cannon
                        Machine gun mount with 7,62 mm machine gun 7,62 mm PKTM (6P7K) with UDP (T05BV-1)
                        Ammunition
                        Shots for a cannon, pcs. at least 40
                        Cartridges for coaxial machine gun, pcs. 2000
                        Cartridges for machine gun mount, pcs. 800

                        ))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      2. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 18: 27
                        Quote: Kars
                        Especially probably the T-72 without a closed anti-aircraft gun and a worse fire control system

                        The T-72 may have a worse control system than the T-64A, but at the same time it is no worse than the T-80. At least the T-72A is the same age as the T-80.
                        Quote: Kars
                        chatter without evidence. And you have already lost one tender to us.

                        This is lobbying the US. And your tanks are crap.
                        Quote: Kars
                        More by a whole ton (you used to value 500 kg dearly) and a power of 1000 hp. compared to T-72

                        The T-80 is approximately the same age as the T-72A, which was already 41,5 tons.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Then I feel sorry for you that you can’t find something more interesting to do. And it also becomes clear why you’re talking such drunken nonsense.

                        And how I feel sorry for you. Did you even look - what time is it do you pay attention to networking? Your personal life is clearly not going well, my friend. And even sticking tanks doesn’t make up for communication. Only I’m not your favorite girl (who remains only in your dreams) and it’s not so interesting to be with me.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Name: T-90MS. Upgraded T-90S tank

                        It could also be said that this is a modernized T-90A. There is nothing modernized there. Half (including the tower) are new. Yes, we are not Germans - there is no need to find fault with designations so harshly. The T-90S was both an export version of the basic T-90 and became an export version of the T-90A. Without any changes in designation. How else was the T-72S like this? The letter "C" is universal. Everything exported is hung up indiscriminately.
                      3. 0
                        26 March 2013 18: 40
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-72 may have a worse control system than the T-64A, but at the same time it is no worse than the T-80

                        Quote: Krang
                        with a beer

                        Quote: Krang
                        I won't prove anything to you

                        ))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        but at the same time no worse than the T-80. At least the T-72A is the same age as the T-80.



                        For example, I can throw in such a piece from Suvorov (not Rezun).
                        The firepower indicators of the T-72 tanks corresponded to the T-64 tanks, and the T-72A tank corresponded to the T-80 tanks. However, with the adoption of the T-64B and T-80B tanks into service by the Soviet Army, these indicators even for the T-72B tank, which was put into service almost 9 years later, were somewhat inferior. The T-72A and T-72B tanks do not have an automated control system, as a result of which the time for preparing and firing the first and subsequent shots increases. The number of operations that a gunner needs to perform to fire a shot from a T-72A or T-72B tank exceeds the number of operations required to fire a shot from T-80B and T-64B tanks. The T-72 has lower firing accuracy from a tank gun, again due to the lack of an automated fire control system. Undoubtedly, installing a ballistic computer in a tank increases the cost of the vehicle, but when it comes to the lives of people on the battlefield, I believe that “bargaining is out of the question here.”

                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-80 is approximately the same age as the T-72A, which was already 41,5 tons.

                        But at the same time, the T-72 is a direct descendant of the T-72, which means this is already an overload of the front landing gear.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Have you even looked - how much time do you devote to the network?
                        the work is annoying.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Only I’m not your beloved girl (who remains only in your dreams)

                        I’ll definitely tell my wife, she’ll probably agree with you.
                        Quote: Krang
                        This is lobbying the US.

                        Well, of course, Thailand was lobbied by the United States, but why not in favor of Abrams or Leopard 2
                        Quote: Krang
                        It could also be said that this is a modernized T-90A.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Publisher: OJSC NPK Uralvagonzavod

                        You probably know better than them)))) said 50 tons means 50 tons.))))
                      4. +2
                        26 March 2013 19: 17
                        Quote: Kars
                        ...On the T-72A and T-72B tanks there is no automated control system, ....

                        It has already been written more than once (with references to primary sources and specific people) that all electronics for all Soviet tanks were produced at the same enterprises, and the plant (tank manufacturer) only adapted them to its tank layout. The decision on what exactly to put on a tank model was made not by the plant, but by the levels of the country's political leadership.
                        They were not allowed to put expensive components on the T-72.
                      5. 0
                        26 March 2013 19: 37
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        It has already been written more than once

                        This made the T-72B shoot better than the T-80B. We are interested in the facts.
                        By the way, they didn’t allow you to install ZPU on the T-72 either?

                        maybe this will still confirm that the T-72 is a simplified mobilization reserve tank,
                      6. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 20: 00
                        Quote: Kars
                        This made the T-72B shoot better than the T-80B. We are interested in the facts.

                        At a distance of up to 1500m at high speed, the T-72B is better due to the much more advanced 2E42 “Jasmine” stabilizer. If from a standstill and at a low speed, then the T-80B is better.
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, they didn’t allow you to install ZPU on the T-72 either?

                        If you don’t know, then the T-80, T-80B and T-80BV were equipped with a “Utes” installation similar to the T-72, and not a ZPU like the T-64. The advantages of the latter are only beginning to be felt recently with the advent of color displays and motion sensors. In those distant times, it was much more difficult to observe a high-speed air target (especially a group of targets) through optics, which was a step back in the effectiveness of the installation compared to an open one like the T-72, although it protected the tank commander well.
                      7. 0
                        31 March 2013 01: 01
                        Quote: Krang
                        At a distance of up to 1500m at high speed, the T-72B is better due to the much more advanced 2E42 “Jasmine” stabilizer.

                        And of course you can confirm this with a link.
                        Quote: Krang
                        The advantages of the latter begin to be felt only recently with the advent of color displays and motion sensors

                        tell this to those tank crews who were killed and even now they are killed in Syria when they try to use a heavy machine gun.
                      8. 0
                        26 March 2013 18: 30
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-72 base was initially made better and more powerful than the T-8

                        By the way, yes, you got a cruel laugh here))

                        Alexander D. March 18, 2013 23:46 0
                        I also wonder since when is the T-72 base better than the T-80 base??

                        http://topwar.ru/25463-posle-modernizacii-ukrainskiy-tank-yatagan-mozhet-stat-od
                        nim-iz-luchshih-v-mire.html#comment-id-1012564
                      9. Crang
                        +1
                        26 March 2013 18: 43
                        Quote: Kars
                        By the way, yes, you got a cruel laugh here)) Alexander D. March 18, 2013 23:46 0 I’m also wondering since when is the T-72 base better than the T-80 base??

                        She was always better. Optimal strength. Optimal size (and the T-72 rollers shield the AZ well). Optimal rigidity. The T-80 doesn't have this. Here's an interesting link:
                        http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/t-64-t-72-ili-t-80-chto-luchshe/
                      10. 0
                        26 March 2013 19: 00
                        Quote: Krang
                        http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/t-64-t-72-ili-t-80-chto-luchshe/

                        They've been laughing at her for so many years. She was here too. Antipas's work - he was laughed at so much here that he no longer goes to the top var.


                        In the end, with a small margin from the T-80BV leads T-72B. He is the cheapest trinity tank. Apparently it was not for nothing that his base was chosen for development.


                        Is it really funny? We were embarrassed to compare with the T-80U and UD. And cheapness was put at the forefront))))))))
                        And by the way, the article is nothing at all, basically pure statements. And the rollers of the T-80 and T-72 are almost the same in size. And I wonder why they used the caterpillar from the T-90 on the T-80?
                      11. Crang
                        +1
                        26 March 2013 19: 07
                        Quote: Kars
                        Isn’t it funny? They were embarrassed to compare with the T-80U and UD. And cheapness was put at the forefront)))))))) And by the way, the article doesn’t make any basically pure statements. And the rollers of the T-80 and T-72 are almost the same in size .and I wonder why they used a caterpillar from the T-90 on the T-80?

                        No, it's not funny. T-80U and UD are later models. The T-72BM must be compared with them. And the skating rinks are not identical in size, but different. And about the caterpillar. Have you had too much to drink? On the T-72 and T-90 the caterpillar is from the T-72! The goose with rubber from the T-80 has not been used and is not used anywhere else except the T-80.
                      12. +1
                        26 March 2013 19: 27
                        By tracks http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/search?q=%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B2%D
                        0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC+%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B+%D1%81+%D0%BF%
                        D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1
                        %8B%D0%BC+%D0%B8+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1
                        %8B%D0%BC+%D0%A0%D0%9C%D0%A8+
                      13. 0
                        26 March 2013 19: 34
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        http://gurkhan.

                        And? The T-90 doesn’t have a track from the T-80? Or not?
                      14. Crang
                        +1
                        26 March 2013 19: 54
                        No. There's a track from a T-72.
                      15. 0
                        26 March 2013 19: 59
                        )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        No. There's a track from a T-72

                        )))))))))))))))
                      16. 0
                        26 March 2013 20: 01
                        What then?
                      17. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 20: 29
                        The T-55 and T-72 tracks are interchangeable. But it's not the same thing.
                      18. +1
                        26 March 2013 20: 15
                        Quote: Kars
                        And? The T-90 doesn’t have a track from the T-80? Or not?

                        I wonder if you even sometimes read links with answers?
                      19. -1
                        26 March 2013 21: 29
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I wonder if you even sometimes read links with answers?

                        I always read.
                        Can you answer a direct question?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And? The T-90 doesn’t have a track from the T-80? Or not?

                        Yes - NO, one of two things.
                      20. Crang
                        +1
                        26 March 2013 21: 37
                        No. Not a T-80 truck. On the T-80 the track has a rubber tread. This is not the case on the T-90. Although all gooses are interchangeable. The T-90 also has an asphalt track. Used in parades. In practice, it is of little use. Two or three turns on the spot (on the asphalt) and all these rubber shoes will die.
                      21. +1
                        26 March 2013 21: 43
                        Quote: Kars
                        Kars
                        And? The T-90 doesn’t have a track from the T-80? Or not?
                        Yes - NO, one of two things.

                        The caterpillar is the same, but without the rubber track. The link says this (that they are unified). And if on the T-80 this caterpillar justifies itself, since it allows you to move at high speed, then installing it on the T-72 and T-90 has the only advantage - unification, and in other respects it is inferior to the old RMS (starting from a higher price, and lower efficiency, ending with worse cross-country ability.
                      22. 0
                        26 March 2013 22: 00
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        The caterpillar is the same

                        Still neither yes nor no.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        The link says this

                        Source: Scientific and technical journal of the USSR Ministry of Defense Industry “Bulletin of Armored Equipment” No. 3/1970. pp. 19-22 and Gurchik’s comment is not considered a link; it would be better if they found confirmation of Khopotov’s words about the adoption of Svinets BPS(s).

                        whereas the caterpillar with the rubber track removed in order to reduce the cost and insufficient engine power of the first T-90 was put into service in 1994 or 1996.

                        And removing the rubber is of course a huge change, but for some reason the original tracks of the super T-72 did not fit.
                      23. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 22: 26
                        Why? In general, the T-90's road wheels are slightly wider than those of the T-72. But their diameter and design are the same.
                      24. 0
                        26 March 2013 22: 35
                        Quote: Krang
                        Why?

                        Well, they changed them.
                      25. +1
                        27 March 2013 00: 46
                        Quote: Kars

                        Bad_gr
                        - The caterpillar is the same
                        Kars
                        - Still, neither yes nor no.

                        And how many possible answers can there be in the word “same”?
                        After all, he described it in detail, and pointed to the link twice, and in the link it was confirmed by documents....

                        And after all this, my answer to my opponent is not clear.... request
                        Either I've become dumb over the years, or I'm not feeding the horse.
                      26. 0
                        27 March 2013 01: 51
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I've become dumber over the years

                        no need to make assumptions.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        And how many options

                        I was asked Yes or NO. The same answer was not offered.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        and pointed to the link twice

                        in this link there is no mention of tracks for the T-90, there is a comparison of two types of tracks. And a mention of the tracks of the T-64 tank. So it would be interesting what exactly in the link you are referring to regarding the track adopted for service in 1994, according to the article in the link from 1970

                        and an interesting point - are there still modern tanks with a non-rubber treadmill?
                        and also why you entered into a dialogue specifically on caterpillars, but did not notify us of your opinion in
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-72 base was initially made better and more powerful than the T-80,

                        ?????It can even be expanded, I can’t even dream about yes or no.
                      27. +1
                        27 March 2013 17: 53
                        Quote: Kars
                        and also why you entered into a dialogue specifically on caterpillars, but did not notify us of your opinion in ....

                        There was a debate on tracks - I gave a link to information on the tracks on our tanks. How they differ, their characteristics, and why they are now the same and not others. There are also Khlopotov’s comments in the comments, which do not contradict the materials and documents that he posted earlier.
                        What's wrong ?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Crang
                        - The T-72 base was initially made better and more powerful than the T-80,

                        I have no data to confirm or refute this. But judging by the fact that the T-80 easily jumped from the springboard from the very beginning without any problems for the chassis, and the T-72 only after the chassis was modified, then initially the T-80 chassis was more energy-intensive.
                      28. Crang
                        0
                        27 March 2013 20: 35
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I have no data to confirm or refute this. But judging by the fact that the T-80 easily jumped from a springboard from the very beginning without any problems for the chassis, and the T-72 only after the chassis was modified, then initially the T-80 chassis was more energy-intensive

                        You are confusing something. Even the BT-7 and T-34 jumped from the springboard easily. The T-72 has a stronger chassis than the T-80. He's just slower, that's all. T-80 (gas tube) can reach 80 km/h. T-72 at best 65-70km/h. Although the rated speeds of both cars are slightly lower.
                      29. +1
                        27 March 2013 22: 12
                        Quote: Krang
                        ....Even BT-7 and T-34 jumped from a springboard with ease.....
                        A lot of things jumped from armored vehicles, and Abrams and Merkava are no exception. But the T-72-90 began to jump relatively recently.

                        There was information that the travel of the T-90 rollers was increased compared to that of the T-72. Why increase the speed of the roller if the chassis is already good?
                        PS
                        I wouldn't mind looking at a photo of a jumping T-64...
                      30. 0
                        27 March 2013 22: 38
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I wouldn't mind looking at a photo of a jumping T-64

                        There’s nothing to say, but maybe there will be some.

                        interesting movie, maybe you won’t classify it as dill propaganda)))))

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkyfSHSWwcI




                        Don't look at the banks, otherwise you'll choke
                      31. Crang
                        +2
                        27 March 2013 22: 39
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        There was information that the travel of the T-90 rollers was increased compared to that of the T-72. Why increase the speed of the roller if the chassis is already good?

                        It cannot be increased. The T-72 has the maximum possible speed of its rollers. And there is simply no point in doing it anymore - the tank will sit on the bottom.
                        The course of the T-72 road wheelsThe course of the T-72 road wheels
                      32. +1
                        28 March 2013 00: 26
                        Quote: Krang
                        It cannot be increased. The T-72 has the maximum possible speed of its rollers.

                        The T-72 tank has a ground clearance of 470 mm
                        tank T-72B ground clearance 490 mm
                        http://pro-tank.ru/brone-russia/316-tank-t-72?start=6
                      33. Crang
                        0
                        28 March 2013 08: 06
                        The torsion bars were inserted more rigidly. This does not affect the ability to jump from springboards in any way.
                      34. Crang
                        0
                        27 March 2013 22: 49
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        A lot of things jumped from armored vehicles, and Abrams and Merkava are no exception. But the T-72-90 began to jump relatively recently.

                        What stopped them from jumping earlier? They jumped in exactly the same way. No modifications to the chassis were made. Its safety margin is more than sufficient. Moreover, the basic T-72 is 7 tons lighter than the T-90A.
                      35. 0
                        27 March 2013 22: 26
                        Quote: Krang
                        You are confusing something

                        It seems like only you are sure that the T-72 is a super running one with such fanatical dedication.
                      36. 0
                        27 March 2013 22: 28
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        What's wrong ?

                        there are no T-90 tracks, and the troublesome task in those comments is to throw mud at the T-64.
                      37. Crang
                        +1
                        27 March 2013 22: 52
                        Quote: Kars
                        there are no T-90 tracks, and the troublesome task in those comments is to throw mud at the T-64.

                        We must somehow respond to the attempts of some to throw mud at the T-72. Here's a good article:
                        http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2011/10/64-2011.html
                        One could accuse the author of trying to “throw mud at” the T-64 if, despite his article, we would see hundreds of repaired T-64s in service, shiny with new paint. Because this is not the case. Because The T-64 was really, really sawed up and melted down, that means article objective, and not an attempt to throw mud at someone there.
                      38. 0
                        27 March 2013 23: 04
                        Quote: Krang
                        http://gurkhan.blog

                        Do you remember what you wrote to me about http://btvt.narod.ru/

                        Quote: Krang
                        according to his article, we would have seen hundreds of refurbished T-64s in service,

                        Please.
                        About
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-64 was really, truly sawed up and melted down,

                        so you have spare parts cut off from manufacturers, they are cut with the UVZ monopolist. Just like many other tanks, including the T-72, are cut.
                      39. +1
                        28 March 2013 18: 51
                        Quote: Kars
                        there are no T-90 tracks, and the troublesome task in those comments is to throw mud at the T-64.

                        The article on tracks was written with reference to "Source: Scientific and technical journal of the USSR Ministry of Defense Industry "Bulletin of Armored Equipment" No. 3/1970, pp. 19-22"

                        All comments by Khlopotov on caterpillars:

                        1. Supporters of the T-64 tank, which is currently being withdrawn from service in Russia and sent for melting down into open-hearth furnaces (because many vehicles cannot be stuffed into museums, and it is simply impossible to use the T-64 in any other way), like to point a finger at the designers from Nizhny Tagil with criticism of the chassis of the T-72 type tank. It’s so heavy, and so archaic, and they make up a lot of other things, at the same time praising the chassis of their “favorite” T-64. As you, dear reader, have already understood from the above material without any deletions, the caterpillar with a parallel rubber-metal joint developed in Kharkov for the T-64 tank turns out, to put it mildly, not so good. According to the results of tests carried out in 1969-70, it outright lost to the track of the then experimental tank “Object 172M” - the future T-72. Moreover, for the purity of the experiment, and I focus your attention on this, the experiment was carried out on the same vehicle - a T-64 type tank! ..........

                        2. On the T-80, the caterpillar, although similar to the T-64 caterpillar, is still structurally very different from the latter - its choice and design were subject to one requirement - ensuring optimal propulsion efficiency at maximum speeds. They began to be installed on the T-90 and modernized T-72 at the request of the military in order to unify them with the T-80 and to ensure the possibility of using asphalt pads. At the same time, they lost in cost and manufacturability, the roll angles decreased, and worst of all, they gained strategic vulnerability - if previously tracks could, if necessary, be cast in almost any foundry, now there is only one plant for them in Tikhvin, which is very close to border (even if we are not going to fight with NATO) - there is no factory and the entire park is without tracks.....

                        3. ............
                        2. What, UVZ makes “Armata” on its own initiative as it wants? There are clear and strict specifications for the customer - you can’t walk to the right or to the left! But let’s say the design bureau lays a new track - who will build it? In small-scale production it will turn out to be golden. In general, UKBTM has long ago developed a caterpillar that eliminates existing problems - the so-called “with oblique lug” - drawing 172.55.010sb-2, but no one produces or purchases it. From what? I don't know!...
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        Dear Kars, indicate where in the comments there is falsification or distortion of facts about the tracks in order to “throw mud at” the T-64 tank.
                      40. 0
                        29 March 2013 01: 09
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        USSR “Bulletin of Armored Vehicles” No. 3/1970. pp. 19-22"

                        Quote: Kars
                        then it would be interesting what exactly in the link you are referring to regarding the caterpillar adopted for service in 1994, according to the article in the link from 1970.


                        At the same time, if the article is anything, then I wasn’t going to read Gurchik’s comments.

                        is this not enough?
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        (because it’s impossible to stuff a lot of cars into museums, and it’s simply impossible to use the T-64 in any other way),

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        at the same time praising the chassis of his
                        "favorite"
                        As I showed you, the film of the Russian army basically refutes the opinions of the gurchik, and not only in this article.

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        turns out, to put it mildly, not so good
                        It’s strange when in the video the Russian military man calls the T-64 chassis and tracks the king of mud (meaning excellent maneuverability)
                      41. 0
                        28 March 2013 18: 54
                        Quote: Kars
                        there are no T-90 tracks, and the troublesome task in those comments is to throw mud at the T-64.

                        The article on tracks was written with reference to "Source: Scientific and technical journal of the USSR Ministry of Defense Industry "Bulletin of Armored Equipment" No. 3/1970, pp. 19-22"

                        All comments by Khlopotov on caterpillars:

                        1. Supporters of the T-64 tank, which is currently being withdrawn from service in Russia and sent for melting down into open-hearth furnaces (because many vehicles cannot be stuffed into museums, and it is simply impossible to use the T-64 in any other way), like to point a finger at the designers from Nizhny Tagil with criticism of the chassis of the T-72 type tank. It’s so heavy, and so archaic, and they make up a lot of other things, at the same time praising the chassis of their “favorite” T-64. As you, dear reader, have already understood from the above material without any deletions, the caterpillar with a parallel rubber-metal joint developed in Kharkov for the T-64 tank turns out, to put it mildly, not so good. According to the results of tests carried out in 1969-70, it outright lost to the track of the then experimental tank “Object 172M” - the future T-72. Moreover, for the purity of the experiment, and I focus your attention on this, the experiment was carried out on the same vehicle - a T-64 type tank! ..........

                        2. On the T-80, the caterpillar, although similar to the T-64 caterpillar, is still structurally very different from the latter - its choice and design were subject to one requirement - ensuring optimal propulsion efficiency at maximum speeds. They began to be installed on the T-90 and modernized T-72 at the request of the military in order to unify them with the T-80 and to ensure the possibility of using asphalt pads. At the same time, they lost in cost and manufacturability, the roll angles decreased, and worst of all, they gained strategic vulnerability - if previously tracks could, if necessary, be cast in almost any foundry, now there is only one plant for them in Tikhvin, which is very close to border (even if we are not going to fight with NATO) - there is no factory and the entire park is without tracks.....

                        3. ............
                        2. What, UVZ makes “Armata” on its own initiative as it wants? There are clear and strict specifications for the customer - you can’t walk to the right or to the left! But let’s say the design bureau lays a new track - who will build it? In small-scale production it will turn out to be golden. In general, UKBTM has long ago developed a caterpillar that eliminates existing problems - the so-called “with oblique lug” - drawing 172.55.010sb-2, but no one produces or purchases it. From what? I don't know!...
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        Dear Kars, indicate where in the comments there is falsification or distortion of facts about the tracks in order to “throw mud at” the T-64 tank.
                      42. 0
                        28 March 2013 18: 55
                        Quote: Kars
                        there are no T-90 tracks, and the troublesome task in those comments is to throw mud at the T-64.

                        The article on tracks was written with reference to "Source: Scientific and technical journal of the USSR Ministry of Defense Industry "Bulletin of Armored Equipment" No. 3/1970, pp. 19-22"

                        All comments by Khlopotov on caterpillars:

                        1. Supporters of the T-64 tank, which is currently being withdrawn from service in Russia and sent for melting down into open-hearth furnaces (because many vehicles cannot be stuffed into museums, and it is simply impossible to use the T-64 in any other way), like to point a finger at the designers from Nizhny Tagil with criticism of the chassis of the T-72 type tank. It’s so heavy, and so archaic, and they make up a lot of other things, at the same time praising the chassis of their “favorite” T-64. As you, dear reader, have already understood from the above material without any deletions, the caterpillar with a parallel rubber-metal joint developed in Kharkov for the T-64 tank turns out, to put it mildly, not so good. According to the results of tests carried out in 1969-70, it outright lost to the track of the then experimental tank “Object 172M” - the future T-72. Moreover, for the purity of the experiment, and I focus your attention on this, the experiment was carried out on the same vehicle - a T-64 type tank! ..........

                        2. On the T-80, the caterpillar, although similar to the T-64 caterpillar, is still structurally very different from the latter - its choice and design were subject to one requirement - ensuring optimal propulsion efficiency at maximum speeds. They began to be installed on the T-90 and modernized T-72 at the request of the military in order to unify them with the T-80 and to ensure the possibility of using asphalt pads. At the same time, they lost in cost and manufacturability, the roll angles decreased, and worst of all, they gained strategic vulnerability - if previously tracks could, if necessary, be cast in almost any foundry, now there is only one plant for them in Tikhvin, which is very close to border (even if we are not going to fight with NATO) - there is no factory and the entire park is without tracks.....

                        3. ............
                        2. What, UVZ makes “Armata” on its own initiative as it wants? There are clear and strict specifications for the customer - you can’t walk to the right or to the left! But let’s say the design bureau lays a new track - who will build it? In small-scale production it will turn out to be golden. In general, UKBTM has long ago developed a caterpillar that eliminates existing problems - the so-called “with oblique lug” - drawing 172.55.010sb-2, but no one produces or purchases it. From what? I don't know!...
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        Dear Kars, indicate where in the comments there is falsification or distortion of facts about the tracks in order to “throw mud at” the T-64 tank.
                      43. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 19: 36
                        No - this is a mistake. The T-72 track is different from the one used on the T-54/55 and T-62. Subsequently, the T-62 track was used on the modernized T-55M/MV/D/MVD and T-5AM/AMV/AD/M72 tanks.
                      44. 0
                        26 March 2013 19: 41
                        Quote: Krang
                        No - this is a mistake.

                        The poor things have been unable to correct a mistake for 20 years that even the Krengi know about))))
                      45. Crang
                        0
                        26 March 2013 19: 53
                        You do not understand. The T-72/90 track is different from the one used on the T-54/55 and T-62. Despite the external resemblance.
                      46. 0
                        26 March 2013 20: 02
                        Quote: Krang
                        Caterpillar T-72/90

                        Quote: Krang
                        Despite the external resemblance

                        I think the external difference is clearly visible there.
                      47. 0
                        27 March 2013 02: 03
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-80U

                        1985 year,
                        The T-64BV also entered service in 1985

                        T-72B 1985, to be more precise, was put into service on January 23, 1985.

                        Quote: Krang
                        And the skating rinks are not identical in size, but different

                        Quote: Krang
                        But their diameter and design are the same

                        Quote: Krang
                        The goose with rubber from the T-80 has not been used and is not used anywhere else except the T-80.

                        Of course, I understand that you shouldn’t be offered Ukrainian tanks, but the first thing that came to mind was the Msta-S. And what’s funny is that besides the T-90, I can’t remember the modern Abram or Leclerc tank with a non-rubber treadmill. Maybe only Merkavas.
                      48. Crang
                        0
                        27 March 2013 20: 40
                        Quote: Kars
                        And the skating rinks are not identical in size, but different

                        Here I meant the differences between the T-72 and T-80 road wheels.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But their diameter and design are the same

                        And here are the differences between the T-72 and T-90 road wheels.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, I understand that you shouldn’t be offered Ukrainian tanks, but the first thing that came to mind was the Msta-S. And what’s funny is that besides the T-90, I can’t remember the modern Abram or Leclerc tank with a non-rubber treadmill. Maybe only Merkavas.

                        Well, except for the Merkava. I have already written that the T-90 also has an asphalt track with rubber shoes, but in a combat situation this track is worse than an ordinary agricultural one. As for the rubber treadmill, it is not at all clear why it is needed. What would melt from fire on the battlefield? I would understand everything if the T-80 had all-metal road wheels. Got it. But if the rollers are already covered with rubber, what will the rubber-on-rubber contact give? Additional resistance?
                      49. 0
                        27 March 2013 22: 25
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-80U and UD are later models

                        Quote: Kars
                        1985 year,
                        The T-64BV also entered service in 1985

                        T-72B 1985, more precisely, on January 23, 1985, it was put into service


                        What are you jumping off for?
                        Quote: Krang
                        rollers T-72 and T-80
                        But I meant that they are similar in size, and protect the side of the tank from damage in approximately the same way.

                        Quote: Krang
                        As for the rubber treadmill, it is not at all clear why it is needed.

                        Well, you don’t understand, but for some reason the designers making tanks needed it. And everywhere. Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, Type 90, Type 88, Leopard 2.
                        Quote: Kars
                        it came Msta-S

                        also, as I see it, it was swallowed.
                      50. Crang
                        0
                        29 March 2013 08: 59
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you don’t understand, but for some reason the designers making tanks needed it. And everywhere. Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, Type 90, Type 88, Leopard 2.

                        Well, if you are so smart, then explain. The guys are fine, but when NATO tanks turn around on the spot and on the asphalt, their rubber boots fly apart.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But I meant that they are similar in size, and protect the side of the tank from damage in approximately the same way.

                        Not approximately similar, but the T-80 has less. And its rollers screen the side much worse than those of the T-72. With a more vulnerable ammunition rack.
                        [img] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ukCzciaRJU4/TuJkwl6ZrBI/AAAAAAAAACMg/DhGxUULvoJQ/s
                        640/%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_1.jpg[/img]
                      51. Crang
                        0
                        29 March 2013 08: 59
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you don’t understand, but for some reason the designers making tanks needed it. And everywhere. Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, Type 90, Type 88, Leopard 2.

                        Well, if you are so smart, then explain. The guys are fine, but when NATO tanks turn around on the spot and on the asphalt, their rubber boots fly apart.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But I meant that they are similar in size, and protect the side of the tank from damage in approximately the same way.

                        Not approximately similar, but the T-80 has less. And its rollers screen the side much worse than those of the T-72. With a more vulnerable ammunition rack.
                        [img] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ukCzciaRJU4/TuJkwl6ZrBI/AAAAAAAAACMg/DhGxUULvoJQ/s
                        640/%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_1.jpg[/img]
                      52. Crang
                        0
                        29 March 2013 09: 01
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you don’t understand, but for some reason the designers making tanks needed it. And everywhere. Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, Type 90, Type 88, Leopard 2.

                        Well, if you are so smart, then explain. The guys are fine, but when NATO tanks turn around on the spot and on the asphalt, their rubber boots fly apart.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But I meant that they are similar in size, and protect the side of the tank from damage in approximately the same way.

                        Not approximately similar, but the T-80 has less. And its rollers screen the side much worse than those of the T-72. With a more vulnerable ammunition rack.
                        T-80UT-80U
                      53. Crang
                        0
                        29 March 2013 09: 01
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you don’t understand, but for some reason the designers making tanks needed it. And everywhere. Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, Type 90, Type 88, Leopard 2.

                        Well, if you are so smart, then explain. The guys are fine, but when NATO tanks turn around on the spot and on the asphalt, their rubber boots fly apart.
                        Quote: Kars
                        But I meant that they are similar in size, and protect the side of the tank from damage in approximately the same way.

                        Not approximately similar, but the T-80 has less. And its rollers screen the side much worse than those of the T-72. With a more vulnerable ammunition rack.
                        T-80UT-80U
                      54. 0
                        29 March 2013 14: 39
                        Quote: Krang
                        , then explain

                        Let me remember this? It’s almost impossible. And the facts are modern tanks with a caterpillar with a rubberized treadmill. Can he deny that Leclerc, Leopard 2 and Abrams have such a caterpillar?
                        Quote: Krang
                        the rubber shoes just fly apart.

                        What does this have to do with shoes? We’re talking about the rubber of the treadmill, don’t jump.
                        Quote: Krang
                        worse than the T-72

                        Is it really worse and the rollers are smaller? By how much?
                        I could give a painted picture of the T-72, considering that the armor protection there is weaker.
                      55. 0
                        29 March 2013 14: 40
                        ______________________
                      56. 0
                        29 March 2013 14: 41
                        __________________________
                      57. Crang
                        +1
                        30 March 2013 17: 18
                        Quote: Kars
                        Let me remember this? It’s almost impossible. And the facts are modern tanks with a caterpillar with a rubberized treadmill. Can he deny that Leclerc, Leopard 2 and Abrams have such a caterpillar?

                        Why are you bringing Leopard 2 and Leclerc to me? Are these the best tanks in the world or what? If only the best are in the west.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Is it really worse and the rollers are smaller? By how much? I could give a painted picture of the T-72, considering that the armor protection there is weaker.

                        Well, you brought the picture yourself. So look at her. The T-72 rollers do a good job of shielding its flat AZ. Rollers T-64 they don't close at all his MOH. Regarding “considering that the armor protection there is weaker.” - What kind of dream of the mind is this? Literally next to this there is a topic where the T-64 is described in detail. Including his booking scheme. Board T-64 - 30-80mm. And 70mm in the MTO area. The T-72 simply has a flat side of 80mm before the MTO and 70mm after. Add to this normal road wheels that cover the side well and normal rubber-fabric screens instead of the idiotic windows of the T-64A and you will see that there is no trace of any superiority of the T-64 in side protection. Quite the opposite.
                      58. 0
                        30 March 2013 18: 01
                        Quote: Krang
                        Why are you bringing Leopard 2 and Leclerc to me?

                        Well, you can’t bring anyone with such a caterpillar. And
                        Quote: Krang
                        Are they the best tanks in the world?

                        Remind me what you said about Leclerc? And the best are not the best, and the design of modern tanks is quite small. And the vast majority have rubberized treadmills.
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-72 rollers do a good job of shielding its flat AZ.

                        Really? Why is it so small in my picture from Khlopotov and does not correspond to the drawings? At the same time, in the picture of the T-80 you paint over the supply of shells, do you think the AZ T-72 does not deliver shells and charges to the dispensing line?
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-64 rollers do not cover its MZ at all

                        Yes, they don’t close it, but then screens appeared.

                        Quote: Krang
                        T-64

                        no need to jump over the idea of ​​the T-80, where the rollers are 70 mm smaller

                        Quote: Krang
                        you see that there is no superiority of the T-64

                        I’ll repeat the talk about the T-80, and in your work even the forehead is painted red)))))
                      59. 0
                        30 March 2013 18: 15
                        Quote: Krang
                        Board T-64 - 30-80mm. And 70mm in the MTO area. The T-72 simply has a flat side of 80mm before MTO and 70mm after

                        Really?

                        SECURITY When designing the T-64 tank, the designers paid no less attention to the issue of protection than to firepower and mobility. Firstly, the T-64 tank had the most powerful armor not only among Soviet tanks. Not a single medium or heavy tank in the world could compare in terms of armor protection with the T-64 tank. The appearance of the T-64 tank led to the collapse of all anti-tank weapons development programs in the West.

                        For the first time in the world, multi-layer armor for the frontal parts of the hull and turret was used on a production tank. The frontal armor of the hull consisted of three layers - armor steel, fiberglass, armor steel. The use of multi-layer armor on the T-64 reliably protected the tank from all cumulative ammunition existing at that time and significantly increased the protection of the crew from fragments caused by armor-piercing shells.

                        Unfortunately, at this time we are not allowed to publish information about the exact characteristics of the T-64 frontal armor. However, some approximate characteristics, the accuracy of which we will not comment on, were published on the Internet. Based on these materials, using the "Layer5" program for a personal computer, developed by V. Mukhin in 1991 using the methods of the Steel Research Institute for calculating the resistance of armor, the author of the program made a calculation. According to the calculation results, the resistance of the frontal armor of the T-64A hull corresponds to 410 mm of homogeneous armor against cumulative ammunition and 299 mm against armor-piercing ammunition. For the frontal armor of the turret - 450 and 364 mm, respectively.

                        The 80 mm side armor of the tank was quite serious and exceeded the thickness of the frontal armor of the then newest West German Leopard tank. In addition, even the thickness of the side armor was differentiated: in the area of ​​the combat compartment and control compartment there was more, in the logistics area there was less.

                        To further protect the sides of the hull from short-range cumulative weapons, folding aluminum anti-cumulative shields were installed on the sides of the tank, which were later replaced with solid rubber screens. Aluminum additional fuel tanks and boxes for spare parts were placed on the fenders of the tank, which also served as a screen and covered the entire upper part of the tank’s side.

                        To protect the chassis, the diameters of the support and guide wheels were reduced as much as possible, which reduced the likelihood of their damage. In addition, in case of loss of the guide wheel, its role could be played by the first support roller, which unfolded together with the balancer and acted as a guide wheel. This made it possible to quickly restore the mobility of a damaged vehicle.

                        http://flibusta.net/b/237761/read
                      60. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 18: 29
                        Well, you gave it.... You have nothing to say for sure... Firstly, the phrase “Firstly, the T-64 tank had the most powerful armor, not only among Soviet tanks” - refers to the period when the T-72 did not yet exist. And besides, this only applies to the frontal part where combined armor was applied. In terms of protecting the side and stern, the T-64 is hopelessly inferior to the serial IS-3, IS-4 and T-10. Secondly: “The 80 mm side armor of the tank was quite serious and exceeded the thickness of the frontal armor of the then newest West German Leopard tank.” You found something to compare with. I would compare it with the frontal armor of the same M48. The side of the T-64 was not 80mm everywhere (and the T-72 had 64mm everywhere before the MTO) - in some places the T-30 had 70mm on board. In addition, in the MTO area, the thickness of the side was reduced to 54mm. For comparison: T-55/62 and T-80 side along the entire length is 1mm, KV-75 - 2mm, IS-46,5 (90t) - 82mm, "Tiger" - 64mm. So you can forget about the “reliable side protection” of the T-XNUMX. It was no better than any medium tank of that period and much worse than heavy tanks.
                      61. 0
                        30 March 2013 18: 36
                        Quote: Krang
                        Well, you did.

                        _))))))))))))))))00 I gave))))))))))))))))))))))))

                        M. Saenko, V. Chobitok T-64
                        T-64. MAIN BATTLE TANK
                        Quote: Kars
                        The 80 mm side armor of the tank was quite serious

                        Quote: Krang
                        So you can forget about the “reliable side protection” of the T-64

                        )))))))))))))))
                        poor thing, you poor clown, you're probably starting to stutter already)) you're confusing words and meanings))))
                      62. Crang
                        +1
                        30 March 2013 18: 57
                        Yes, I haven't had any problems with it yet. Although it’s very cool to communicate with you after taking 0,5. Essentially, 80mm today only protects against small arms fire and small-caliber automatic guns.
                      63. -2
                        30 March 2013 19: 03
                        Quote: Krang
                        taking 0,5

                        I don’t doubt it. This is by the way and well explains the nonsense that you are talking about.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Essentially - 80mm today only protects about

                        By the way, is yours thicker? The hull is also protected by screens and dynamic protection. By the way, hard screens on the T-90MS were used much later than on the BM Oplot. At the same time, we have much more developed on-board protection.
                      64. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 19: 12
                        The T-72 has a solid side of 80mm before the MTO, and not like the T-64 where it is variable 30mm/80mm. In addition, one uncle here spoke about the “superiority of the onboard armor” of the T-64 over the T-72. What do Oplot and T-90MS have to do with it? And how did you increase the durability of the side? By hanging all sorts of shit on board, which increased the overall width to 4m? This is the simplest and most stupid way. We also had similar projects - to add additional grilles. But this is not a solution. This is a tank. It shouldn't be "fat", it should just be strong.
                      65. 0
                        30 March 2013 19: 20
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-72 has a solid side of 80mm before the MTO, and not like the T-64 where it is variable 30mm/80mm

                        Where is the T-64 30 mm)))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        In addition, one uncle here spoke about the “superiority of onboard reservations”

                        EXCELLENT)))))))))))))))) for the T-80
                        Quote: Kars
                        I could give a painted picture of the T-72, considering that the armor protection there is weaker.

                        But now you will start telling me that the forehead of the T-72 is more powerful than the forehead of the T-72))))))))
                        For the drunken clown, I’ll explain the picture painted over in the same way as the T-72, as you did with the T-80U
                      66. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 18: 41
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you can’t bring anyone with such a caterpillar. And

                        T-90A.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Remind me what you said about Leclerc? And the best are not the best, and the design of modern tanks is quite small. And the vast majority have rubberized treadmills.

                        I said that the Leclerc is the most powerful Western tank and one of the best in the world.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? Why is it so small in my picture from Khlopotov and does not correspond to the drawings? At the same time, in the picture of the T-80 you paint over the supply of shells, do you think the AZ T-72 does not deliver shells and charges to the dispensing line?

                        In the picture the T-80 was painted over all ammunition rack Both MOH and additional. Regarding the "output to the forwarding line". Or maybe also paint over those areas where the projectile is accidentally may be? It is displayed on the loading line for seconds. And the chance that at exactly this moment a projectile or a KM jet will hit him directly is negligible. And the shells are constantly in the AZ. It's painted over.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, they don’t close it, but then screens appeared.

                        Screens appeared on the T-72. In the T-64 they appeared only on the T-64B modification.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I’ll repeat the talk about the T-80, and in your work even the forehead is painted red)))))

                        Are you having problems with geometry? MZ is round. And its projection will be rectangular, either in the “Front View” or in the “Side View”.
                      67. 0
                        30 March 2013 18: 53
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90A.

                        ))))))))who would doubt it))even the Indians didn’t covet Arjun????
                        Quote: Krang
                        said that the Leclerc is the most powerful Western tank and one of the best in the world.

                        Quote: Krang
                        Why are you bringing Leopard 2 and Leclerc to me? Are these the best tanks in the world or what?

                        )))) and at the same time a caterpillar with a rubberized running track.
                        Quote: Krang
                        In the picture of the T-80, the entire ammunition rack was painted over. And MOH and additional

                        I don’t see the same one with the T-72 anywhere in your design.
                        Quote: Krang
                        It is displayed on the loading line for seconds. And the chance that exactly at this moment a projectile or a KM jet will hit him directly is negligible

                        But in your picture it is painted red))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Screens appeared on the T-72. In the T-64 they appeared only on the T-64B modification.

                        Really? Maybe you’ll still learn the history of tank building. And you think that the T-64A was driven until the end of its service without screens))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Are you having problems with geometry? MZ is round. And its projection will be rectangular, either in the “Front View” or in the “Side View”

                        You have problems with common sense)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        With a more vulnerable ammunition rack

                        Probably from the frontal projections it is very vulnerable, and the T-72 cannot be seen from the frontal projections))))
                      68. Crang
                        +1
                        30 March 2013 19: 01
                        Quote: Kars
                        But in your picture it is painted red))

                        There is a non-mechanized ammunition rack painted over.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? Maybe you’ll still learn the history of tank building. And you think that the T-64A was driven until the end of its service without screens))))))))

                        Yes.
                        Quote: Kars
                        You have problems with common sense)))

                        At your place. Learn geometry. AZ/MZ round. They give the same projections in front/side/rear views.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Probably from the frontal projections it is very vulnerable, and the T-72 cannot be seen from the frontal projections))))

                        How to say... She is there and if VLD they still punched through, then the blow will spread to her. In addition, NLD is generally only 80mm.
                      69. 0
                        30 March 2013 19: 16
                        Quote: Krang
                        Yes.

                        ))))))))))))))))))) teach swearing part clown)))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        At your place. Learn geometry. AZ/MZ round. They give the same projections in front/side/rear views.

                        that means when you paint over the T-72, don’t forget))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        She is there and if the VLD is still penetrated, then the blow will spread to her

                        it means there is everything
                        Quote: Krang
                        non-mechanized ammunition rack is painted over

                        yeah))))))))isn’t that a lot?
                      70. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 19: 22
                        Quote: Kars
                        )learn swearing part clown)

                        I know the hardware. You don’t know the “independent”, whose ass will soon be kicked by his own “Oplot-M”.
                        Quote: Kars
                        it means there is everything

                        Without any doubt.
                        Quote: Kars
                        yeah))))))))isn’t that a lot?

                        Fine. A projectile or Kuma is not a laser beam that burns only one specific point.
                      71. 0
                        30 March 2013 19: 25
                        Quote: Krang
                        I know the hardware. It's you who don't know "independence"

                        You didn’t prove it. T-64 And they received the screens during scheduled repairs))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        with our own "Oplot-M"

                        Of course, Thailand will start a war with Ukraine with tanks, and China and the Russian Federation will not use Sushki))) and the rest is junk that you sell them)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Fine. A projectile or Kuma is not a laser beam that burns only one specific point.

                        What are you doing)))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Or maybe also paint over those areas where a projectile could accidentally end up? It is displayed on the loading line for seconds. And the chance that exactly at this moment a projectile or a KM jet will hit him directly is negligible

                        )))))and painted over the vet))))))))))))))))
                      72. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 19: 32
                        Quote: Kars
                        You didn’t prove it. T-64 And they received the screens during scheduled repairs))))))

                        You're a photographer. Please show me at least one T-64A (not to be confused with the T-64B) with side screens.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, Thailand will start a war with Ukraine with tanks, and China and the Russian Federation will not use Sushki))) and the rest is junk that you sell them)))

                        The Chinese Type-90/99 are still somehow comparable to our T-90A and T-72BM, but they will simply tear your “Oplot” and will not even notice it.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and painted over the vet

                        And then.
                      73. 0
                        30 March 2013 19: 34
                        Quote: Krang
                        The Chinese Type-90/99 are still somehow comparable to our T-90A and T-72BM, but they will simply tear your “Oplot” and will not even notice it.

                        Yes, yes, of course)))))))))))) but the Chinese don’t have type 90))) and of course they will tear it up, definitely in your wild imagination)))))
                      74. Crang
                        0
                        30 March 2013 20: 13
                        Type-90 is their export tank. Like our T-90S. If they want, they will put them in their army. In addition to Type-96 and Type-99.
                      75. 0
                        30 March 2013 19: 32
                        Quote: Krang
                        I know the hardware.

                        )))))))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? Maybe you’ll still learn the history of tank building. And you think that the T-64A was driven until the end of its service without screens))))))))
                        Yes.

                        )))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      76. Crang
                        +1
                        30 March 2013 20: 14
                        Proved. Reinforced concrete. No questions.
                      77. 0
                        30 March 2013 20: 28
                        Quote: Krang
                        Proved. Reinforced concrete. No questions.

                        http://www.morozov.com.ua/rus/body/tanks/t-64a.php
  57. Crang
    +3
    24 March 2013 17: 57
    Quote: Kars
    You are retelling the foreign policy of the Russian Federation and the customs union.

    This is me retelling normal human logic. Comrade Stalin also said: “Only the strong are taken into account.” If you are weak, you can sue the European Court, you can complain to the UN, you can shake the fake Chamberlin Pacts, you can throw copies of the Geneva Convention papers in their faces. They'll wipe your ass with them. History shows this time after time. There is no difference between a polite ambassador from Washington and the kids at the kiosk who want something from you. You are like “independent and sovereign” Ukraine, but you live, as you said, “okay” only because we exist. Or did the example of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya teach you nothing? There is a good saying: “History teaches one thing - history teaches nothing.” Without us you are nothing. And no one will talk or cooperate with you. What for? Do you have a fleet? No. Do you have strategic nuclear forces? No. Do you have an army? Almost not. So why bother yourself with standards of decency and unnecessary forced smiles? A partnership based on the principle “you are shit - the West is master” is a completely normal desire for the West and the Americans, who have always been distinguished by their simplicity. Moreover, it is necessary to somehow convince the senators to increase the military budget.... Somehow to split the money allocated for the war... Somehow to test new weapons systems....
    1. +1
      26 March 2013 19: 51
      I'm reading an article - T90MS
      I go to the UVZ website http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/57 T-90CM
      If MS sometimes write “Tagil” after their name, then SM often writes “Proryv”. I conclude: Either the letter indices after the name are complete nonsense, if they can be swapped, which is unlikely, or there is a mixture of two tanks by Internet experts, or abstruse disinformation from UVZ.
      Does anyone know? Can you explain?
      1. Crang
        0
        26 March 2013 20: 27
        Quote: perepilka
        I’m reading an article - T90MS I go to the UVZ website http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/57 T-90SM If MS sometimes write “Tagil” after the name, then SM often has “Breakthrough”. I conclude: Either the letter indices after the name are complete nonsense, if they can be swapped, which is unlikely, or there is a mixture of two tanks by Internet experts, or abstruse disinformation from UVZ. Does anyone know? Can you explain?

        This is a mishmash and a hodgepodge. The designations T-90M and T-90AM may also appear. All these indexes are already outdated. Depending on the configuration, they will supply everything the customer desires. There is also a T-90A variant with elements of the T-90MS. And “Breakthrough” is a topic of R&D, the very name of the tank is “Tagil”.
  58. Crang
    +1
    28 March 2013 08: 51
    This is what a normal tank engine should sound like:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnNsQQy_h4
    Just a song. Smoothly almost like a gas turbine engine.
    1. 0
      28 March 2013 11: 37
      Quote: Krang
      normal tank engine:

      And not normal))))))))))

      And it seems to have the lowest power density among modern tanks
    2. +1
      31 March 2013 04: 35
      Quote: Krang
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnNsQQy_h4

      Cool video, haven't seen it before.
      Listen, does the 64 and 80 have a tray that is removed back after a shot or thrown away, like on the 72-90? I don’t remember anymore.
      It even looks funny in the video, the main thing is not to stand next to it, so as not to sell it)))
      1. +1
        31 March 2013 10: 29
        Quote: Mikhado
        and for 64 and 80, the pallet is removed or thrown back after the shot,

        It is retracted, which increases the contamination of the fighting compartment with powder gases.
  59. Crang
    -1
    29 March 2013 13: 56
    Quote: Kars
    And it seems to have the lowest power density among modern tanks

    The lowest is the British tank "Challenger 2" - 19,2 hp/t.
    1. 0
      29 March 2013 14: 42
      Quote: Krang
      Tang tank "Challenger-2" - 19,2 hp/t.

      Really?
      Parameter
      Unit of measurement
      T-90

      Full mass
      т
      46,5

      Crew
      people.
      3

      Specific power
      hp/t
      18

      What kind of link do you have in your link? Not a T-90?
      1. +1
        29 March 2013 17: 17
        Quote: Kars
        What kind of link do you have in your link? Not a T-90?

        T-64 Tank
        power 700 l/s
        weight 38,5 t
        total 700 / 385 = 18,18181818181818 hp per ton

        T-90 Tank
        power 1000-1020 l/s (http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/3)
        46,5 tons weight
        total 1000 / 46,5 = 21,5-21,9 hp per ton
        1. 0
          29 March 2013 18: 11
          Quote: Bad_gr
          power 700 l/s

          Is it true?

          Quote: Kars
          modern tanks

          Quote: Bad_gr
          T-90 Tank

          Quote: Bad_gr
          power 1000-1020 l/s (http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/3)

          )))))))))))))))
          840 hp
          And 1000 hp is already 2005 on model A, and most likely not on all of them.

          Our Bulat is 18,9, with a mass of 45 tons.

          By the way, if you consider the T-90A 2004-5, you can use the Chel 2E with the German 1.5 thousand hp for the Challenger. At least the Challenger has a more efficient hydropneumatic suspension.


          1. +1
            29 March 2013 20: 06
            Quote: Kars
            840 hp
            And 1000 hp is already 2005 on model A, and most likely not on all of them.

            I don’t understand what you didn’t like, because I answered exactly in your style:
            took the opponent’s oldest weapon and compared it with a modern one from another camp. By the way, they correctly noted that from modern modifications of the Bulat tanks with their 18.8 (http://www.malyshevplant.com/content/tank-bulat) one of the weakest.
            Regarding the T-90.
            The 1000-horsepower engine on the T-90 appeared (already on the assembly line) in 1999 on the T-90S Bishma tank for the Indians. For the domestic market, a 1000-horsepower unit has been installed since 2004 on the T-90A modification. Nowadays, the same transmission with a thousandth wheel is installed on modernized T-72s.
            T-90s with an 840-horsepower engine were produced during Yeltsin’s time, and there weren’t many of them in the Russian Army, since the Army didn’t buy much at that time.
            And if we count all the T-90s produced at UVZ, then the number of tanks with weak engines is generally scanty and comparing modern tanks with this old modification, passing it off as the bulk of the tanks produced, looks like quackery.
            1. 0
              29 March 2013 21: 35
              Quote: Bad_gr
              I don't understand what you didn't like

              who said that I don’t like it. I’m even pleased when you put the T-64 on par with the T-90
              Quote: Bad_gr
              one of the weakest

              Well, at least one of)))))) and just according to the level of tanks surrounding Ukraine geographically
              Quote: Bad_gr
              (http://www.malyshevplant.com/content/tank-bulat

              and replace such weak links when everything is there)))

              http://www.morozov.com.ua/rus/body/bulat.php
              Quote: Bad_gr
              A 1000-horsepower engine appeared on the T-90


              http://www.alexfiles99.narod.ru/library/0001/diesel_or_gasturbine_critiques.htm
              in Omsk it was announced that the T-90S was equipped with a diesel engine with 1000 hp. (You should have heard the laughter that rang out among the experts on this matter). But... this is pure bluff. This engine doesn't exist! Those. there are prototypes, but the engine, as engine experts say, does not work

              Quote: Bad_gr
              Nowadays, the same transmission with a thousandth wheel is installed on modernized T-72s.

              Which is also not particularly confirmed by the troops.
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And if we count all the T-90s produced at UVZ,

              And there are honest statistics? And not ..military secrets ..
              Quote: Bad_gr
              scanty
              out of 500?
              1. +1
                29 March 2013 23: 00
                Quote: Kars
                and replace such weak links when everything is there)))

                Is the link to your Malyshev plant website not reputable? Do they often lie?

                Quote: Kars
                in Omsk it was announced that the T-90S was equipped with a diesel engine with 1000 hp. (You should have heard the laughter that rang out among the experts on this matter). But... this is pure bluff. This engine doesn't exist! Those. there are prototypes, but the engine, as engine experts say, does not work

                Wow, what reliable information..... what
                More than 400 tanks with this transmission were sold to the Indians, and no one noticed that it contained an engine that did not meet the requirements of the contract. Naive people.
                1. 0
                  29 March 2013 23: 16
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  link to your website of the Malyshev plant

                  10 lines, in your opinion a lot.
                  Not so informative. KB provides broader coverage of the topic.
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Wow, some reliable information...

                  Quote: Kars
                  http://www.alexfiles99.narod.ru/library/0001/diesel_or_gasturbine_critiques.htm

                  Contact us.
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  More than 400 tanks with this transmission were sold to the Indians,

                  Really? Since what year? With 99? Can you share a link to the Indians?
                  1. 0
                    29 March 2013 23: 37
                    Quote: Kars
                    Really? Can you share a link to the Indians?

                    According to the site (http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90a/t-90A.htm), who was not noticed to have any special love for UVZ, then:
                    from 2001 to 2009 supplied to India 434 T-90C,
                    and if with kits for assembling tanks on their territory then
                    now in India 657 T-90s tanks
                    By the way (from the same site)
                    delivered to Algeria 186 T-90SA (another people vilely deceived by engines?)
                    1. 0
                      29 March 2013 23: 50
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      if you believe the site

                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      T-90S

                      Really? And what about engine power?
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      with assembly kits

                      How many 1000 hp engines are in these kits?
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      186 T-90SA delivered to Algeria

                      from 1999 to 2004?
                      1. +1
                        30 March 2013 00: 35
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? And what about engine power?

                        According to the contract, the engines must be 1000 l/s. This was one of the first conditions when purchasing the T-90. If there is other information on the engines, please indicate where it comes from.
                        If you have information that more than 90 T-840 tanks with an 120 l/s engine were produced, please indicate the source of information.

                        So what about the veracity of the information on the official website of the plant named after. "Malysheva"?
                        Or, at least, what caused your negative attitude towards him?
                      2. 0
                        30 March 2013 00: 41
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        about the contract, the engines must be 1000l/s

                        I haven’t read the contract, and it was signed in 2001 or 2, and I don’t even know when the assembly began. And were the first couple of hundred from 1000???

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        regarding the veracity of the information on the official website of the plant named after. "Malysheva"?

                        TRUTH?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Let's replace such weak links when all Yes

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        http://www.malyshevplant.com/content/tank-bulat

                        Ankh "Bulat"
                        The purpose of modernization is to comprehensively improve the characteristics of the tank. For protection - by installing additional passive protection, built-in dynamic protection and a fire protection system; in terms of firepower - due to the installation of the 1A43U fire control system, the PNK-4SR commander's night sighting system, and a new loading mechanism drive with two-way rotation; mobility characteristics are improved due to the installation of a 5TD engine.

                        Weight, t.........................................45
                        Crew, people ...........................3
                        Overall dimensions, mm:
                        -length.............................9225
                        - width ........................3560
                        -height ...............................2184
                        Armament:
                        -gun, mm ........................125
                        - coaxial machine gun, mm......7,62
                        - anti-aircraft machine gun, mm.........12,7
                        Engine power, hp .......850
                        Maximum speed, km / h 60,5
                        Cruising range, km up to ...................600
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://www.morozov.com.ua/rus/body/bulat.php

                        Ank BM BULAT is the result of modernization of the T-64B tank.

                        The purpose of the modernization was to bring the combat and technical characteristics of the tank to the modern level.

                        Modernization is carried out in three main areas:

                        Mobility (modernization of the power compartment)
                        Protection (reduction of vulnerability from modern anti-tank weapons)
                        Firepower (upgrading weapons and fire control systems to increase fire efficiency)
                        MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODERNIZED BM BULAT TANK
                        Parameter unit of measurement Value
                        Combat weight t 45
                        Crew 3
                        Specific power hp/t 18,9
                        Specific ground pressure kgf/cm2 no more than 0,98
                        Operating temperature °C -40...+55
                        Maximum elevation angle 30 degrees
                        Maximum roll angle 25 degrees
                        Ditch width m 2,85
                        Vertical wall height m 0,8
                        Depth of ford surmountable without preparation m 1,8
                        Maximum depth of water hazard m 5,0
                        Gun
                        Name KBA3 or 2A46M-1
                      3. 0
                        30 March 2013 00: 43
                        Type smoothbore
                        Caliber mm 125
                        Coaxial machine gun
                        Name KT-7,62 or PKT
                        Caliber mm 7,62
                        Anti-aircraft machine gun installation
                        Type autonomous, closed, stabilized in the vertical plane
                        Sight PZU-7
                        Anti-aircraft machine gun
                        Name KT-12,7 or NSVT-12,7
                        Caliber mm 12,7
                        Mobility
                        To increase mobility, a higher-power power unit is installed in the engine-transmission compartment. The 5TDFM engine with a power of 850 hp was used as a new power plant, which is a forced modification of the 5TDF engine with measures taken to increase power.

                        Installing a 5TDFM engine requires replacing the standard air cleaner with a new one and modifying the exhaust system.

                        Technical characteristics of the T-64B tank before and after modernization of the power plant
                        Parameter name unit of measurement Parameter value
                        T-64B BM BULAT
                        General machine characteristics
                        Weight t 40,6 (42,5 - T-64BV) 45
                        Specific power hp/t 17,2 (16,5 for T-64BV) 18,9
                        Power point
                        Engine
                        Type Two-stroke multi-fuel, 5-cylinder diesel engine with gas turbine supercharging, liquid cooling, with horizontal cylinders and counter-moving pistons
                        Brand 5TDF 5TDFM
                        Maximum power hp 700 850 (1000 - 6TD-1)
                        Crankshaft rotation speed at maximum power rpm 2800 2800
                        Specific fuel consumption at maximum power mode, g/hp.h 178 >160 (158 - 6TD-1)
                        Motor length mm 1413 1413
                        Engine width mm 955 955
                        Engine height mm 581 581
                        Dry engine weight kg 1040 1040
                        Air supply system
                        Type Two-stage, with ejection dust removal: the first stage is a hopper with an inertial grille, the second stage is a cassette-free cyclone-type air cleaner
                        Air purifier maintenance frequency km 350 400
                        Compressor
                        Type Piston three-stage two-cylinder air-cooled
                        Brand AK-150SV
                        Working pressure kgf/cm2 135 165
                        Productivity m3/h 2.4
                        Transmission
                        Type Planetary, with friction engagement and hydraulic control
                        Number of gearboxes pcs. 2
                        Number of forward gears 7
                        Number of reverse gears 1
                        Performance characteristics:
                        Parameter name unit of measurement Parameter value
                        T-64B BM BULAT
                        Hourly fuel consumption when driving l/h 104 113
                        Fuel consumption per 1 km l/km 4,6 4,06
                        Fuel capacity l 1270 1270
                        Average speed km/h 30 37
                        Cruising range km 306
                        Modernization is carried out by replacing the 5TDF engine with a 5TDFM engine, installing a new air cleaner with increased air flow to power the engine and modifying the exhaust system.

                        To modernize the power plant of a BM BULAT tank with a 5TDFM engine, you need:

                        Engine 5TDFM - 1 set
                        Air purifier - 1 set
                        Spare parts and tools - 1 set
                      4. 0
                        30 March 2013 00: 43
                        Asphalt shoes for the BM BULAT tank
                        KMDB developed a design, manufactured parts and tested asphalt shoes (ASB) on the tracks of the BM BULAT tank and its modifications.

                        No modifications to the track parts are required. Asphalt shoes with fastening elements are supplied separately.


                        Modernization of the fire control complex
                        After modernization, the fire control complex (FCS) of the BM BULAT tank exceeds the characteristics of the FCS of the T-80U tank.

                        Scope of modernization

                        Increased tactical and technical characteristics are ensured by installing the following devices, complexes and systems:
                        gunner's sight 1G46M
                        gunner's night complex TO1-KO1ER (it is possible to install a Buran-Katrin thermal imager instead)
                        tank ballistic computer 1V528-1
                        individual devices and stabilizer blocks of the main armament 2E42M
                        sighting and observation system PNK-4CR
                        anti-aircraft gun sight PZU-7
                        control system ZU 1ETs29M
                        TAKO-621 guided weapons complex
                        Modernization of the fire control complex provides the following tactical and technical characteristics

                        TO THE GUNNER

                        Parameter name unit of measurement Parameter value
                        T-64B BM BULAT
                        Actual firing range
                        in the afternoon
                        m 1700...2000 2300...2500
                        at night
                        m 400...600 1200...1500
                        Probability of being hit by a guided missile
                        at a distance of 4000 m
                        m 0,8 0,8
                        at a distance of 5000 m
                        m - 0,8
                        The probability of reliable measurement of the range by a laser rangefinder to a “tank” type target at a range of:
                        500...2500 m
                        0,9 0,9
                        2500...3000 m
                        0,7 0,9
                        3000...4000 m
                        0,5 0,9
                        in the presence of shielding objects
                        0,5 (manual selection) 0,8 (automatic selection)
                        Systematic error in range measurement m 25 25
                        TO THE COMMANDER

                        Parameter name unit of measurement Parameter value
                        T-64B BM BULAT
                        Target Detection Range
                        in the afternoon
                        m 2000 4000
                        at night
                        m 400 800
                        Target designation error for gunner mрd less than 40 less than 4
                        Actual firing range in dual fire control mode:
                        in the afternoon
                        m Firing from a cannon and coaxial machine gun from the commander’s position is not provided 1200...1500
                        at night
                        800 1000 ...
                        Shooting at ground and air targets from an anti-aircraft gun in a stabilized mode on the move no in the AUTOMATIC charger mode through the TKN-4CR sight
                        Automatic input of aiming angles (PNK-4, PNK-5) no provided
                        The above systems have the following main characteristics:
                      5. 0
                        30 March 2013 00: 45
                        And that’s not all? Whose link do you think is more informative and powerful?
                      6. 0
                        30 March 2013 09: 49
                        Quote: Kars
                        And that’s not all? Whose link do you think is more informative and powerful?

                        smile So they discussed the tank’s power supply. That is: the weight and power of the engine that carries this weight. I give a link to the site where I got this parameter, and I get the comment “and let’s replace such weak links...” So it’s interesting, it became clear why the official website of the plant is bad. as a source of information
                      7. 0
                        30 March 2013 13: 23
                        belay
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        power supply of the tank

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I'm giving a link

                        then why do you give it? when you are asked for a link, you usually don’t provide it - and when a trivial question has already been answered
                        Quote: Kars
                        Our Bulat is 18,9, with a mass of 45 tons.

                        For some reason you are giving a link, but it is poorly informative.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        The official website of the plant is bad. as a source of information

                        So I haven’t convinced you that there is more detailed information on the Morozov Design Bureau website?
                    2. Crang
                      0
                      30 March 2013 21: 35
                      You are nuts? This is the best engine.
                      1. 0
                        30 March 2013 22: 52
                        Quote: Krang
                        are you crazy? This is the best engine

                        Where? Who said?
                    3. +1
                      April 2 2013 17: 48
                      By number of tanks in India (from another source):
                      "...... has already been adopted by the Indian ground forces 800 T-90S tanks out of 1657 ordered , as well as 124 tanks locally designed and produced by arjun. Modernization of the T-72 fleet is also ongoing..."
                      http://warfiles.ru/show-27692-indiya-provodit-masshtabnuyu-modernizaciyu-boevyh-
                      machine-infantry.html
                      1. 0
                        April 2 2013 20: 17
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        By the number of tanks in India

                        I was once interested in the number of tanks in India?
                        the number is one thing, but bringing the engine to condition and in your interpretation of the transmission is another.


                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Ndus sold more than 400 tanks with this transmissions


                        And we are interested in the period up to 2005 inclusive.
                        As well as the continuation of developments on the national tank of India and the reason why they decided not to use the Russian engine, and ..WOW.. they decided to use a rifled gun.
                      2. 0
                        April 2 2013 21: 22
                        Quote: Kars
                        I was once interested in the number of tanks in India?

                        Where is it written that the message is intended specifically for you?
                        I have added to my previous message, purely informational.
                      3. 0
                        April 2 2013 22: 59
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I have added to my previous message,

                        But it is addressed to me))))))
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? Can you share a link to the Indians?
                        According to the site (http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90a/t-90A.htm)

                        So,,,,,,
                      4. 0
                        April 3 2013 14: 34
                        It's a pity Bad_gr seems to have faded away, unable to bear the heavy burden.
                      5. +3
                        April 3 2013 18: 35
                        Quote: Kars
                        It's a pity Bad_gr seems to have faded away, unable to bear the heavy burden.

                        Kars, on this forum I discuss mainly with you. Lately there haven’t been a lot of arguments from you, but in a little more than a week I lost 1600 points and it’s only possible to get that many points off with shoulder straps like yours.
                        So, call your dad, you are on my “black list”, and read yourself.
                      6. -1
                        April 5 2013 01: 01
                        The professor lasts longer.
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Lately I haven't had a lot of arguments from you

                        Maybe someone just doesn’t want to accept them? By the way, on the Armata (the prototype that WAS GOING to be shown in the fall has the same engine as on the MC)

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I'm gone
                        Wow, I’ve also lost a little bit,

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        So, call your dad, you are on my “black list”

                        )))))))))))))))))))
      2. Crang
        0
        30 March 2013 17: 22
        We are talking about modern tanks?
        T-90A 1000hp/48t = 20,8hp/t. - 65km/h.
        "Challenger-2" 1200hp/62,5t = 19,2hp/t. - 56km/h.
        М1А2SEP 1500hp/63,1t = 23,8hp/t. - 67km/h.
        ZTZ-99A2 1500hp/54t = 27,8hp/t. - 80km/h.
        1. 0
          30 March 2013 17: 48
          Quote: Krang
          We're talking about modern tanks, aren't we?

          In principle, yes, about modern ones.
          It’s just bad luck, perhaps the video in which you admire the noise of the engine idling is signed T-90A, but it’s not a fact that the engine is 1000 horsepower, and it’s certainly not a fact that supercharging is on.

          Quote: Krang
          Maximum speed is more of an operational characteristic and not a combat one.

          and I didn’t say anything about the maximum speed, and specific power not only characterizes it. At the same time, the Challenger weighs much more and has a more modern suspension. Moreover, if you take the year of manufacture of the T-90A, then you can take the Challenger 2E with 1500 hp which did not go into production.



          Naturally you won't like the sound here

          1. Crang
            +1
            30 March 2013 21: 57
            Quote: Kars
            That's just bad luck, perhaps the video in which you admire the noise of the engine idling is signed T-90A

            Oh wow. He was actually gasping.
            Quote: Kars
            but it’s not a fact that the engine is 1000 horsepower, and it’s certainly not a fact that supercharging is on.

            There was a T-90A, which means the engine was 1000 hp. B-92.
            Quote: Kars
            In addition, if you take the year of production of the T-90A, then you can take the Challenger 2E with 1500 hp, which did not go into production.

            You never know we have tanks that “didn’t go into production.” We also have a V-99 engine with a power of 1500 hp. If we want, we’ll put it on the T-72A and it will reach 120 km/h.
            1. 0
              30 March 2013 22: 52
              Quote: Krang
              He was actually gasping.

              aha
              Quote: Krang
              There was a T-90A, which means the engine was 1000 hp. B-92

              You never know what they wrote.
              Quote: Krang
              We also have a V-99 engine with a power of 1500 hp. If we want, we’ll put it on the T-72A and it will reach 120 km/h.

              Find out who is in the way. Or better yet, find the fools who will buy them. The Challenger 2E was equipped with a German diesel engine from the Leopard 2.
              1. Crang
                +2
                30 March 2013 23: 02
                Quote: Kars
                aha

                Didn't you notice while watching the video?
                Quote: Kars
                You never know what they wrote.

                Well, stop being stupid already. Just as the T-72A had 780 hp, the T-72B had 840 hp, and the T-90A had 1000 hp. It would be nice if this was some kind of new development requiring huge financial investments. But no, the engine is almost the same.

                Quote: Kars
                Find out who is in the way. Or better yet, find the fools who will buy them. The Challenger 2E was equipped with a German diesel engine from the Leopard 2.

                Unlike you, we are not for sale. We'll put it on your tanks. Let strangers watch. And what you, Ukraine, are proud of here is unclear. It feels like a special perverted form of prostitution - when fucking you for money “suddenly” begins to be seen as some kind of achievement.... If you created all these “Strongholds” and put them in your own troops, then I understand . So what? Who are you making weapons for? WHO ARE YOU GIVING WEAPONS TO, CLOWN? And what are you proud of?
                1. -1
                  30 March 2013 23: 32
                  Quote: Krang
                  - didn’t notice?

                  Nope
                  Quote: Krang
                  But no, the engine is almost the same

                  well
                  Quote: Krang
                  Unlike you, we are not for sale

                  don't buy?
                  Quote: Krang
                  We will put this on our tanks

                  supply
                  Quote: Krang
                  And what are you proud of here, Ukraine, is unclear

                  It’s strange when a contract is concluded with Bangladesh for the supply of weapons for Russian loans, you are proud. When you sell small arms in the USA - Saiga or something like that - you are proud)))
                  Quote: Krang
                  If you created all these “Strongholds” and placed them in your own troops, then I understand

                  It’s unlikely that you are capable of understanding something.

                  Quote: Krang
                  So what? Who are you making weapons for?

                  For those who need it.
                  Quote: Krang
                  And what are you proud of?

                  the fact that Ukraine, despite the difficulties, was able to maintain a tank school, and makes the best tanks in the world)))
                  It’s a pity that I can only imagine what Kharkov would have done if, like UVZ, it had stolen so many billions of budget money.
                  1. Crang
                    +1
                    30 March 2013 23: 50
                    Quote: Kars
                    Nope

                    Watch the video again with the Bass turned all the way.
                    Quote: Kars
                    well

                    Not fundamentally new let's say.
                    Quote: Kars
                    supply

                    Yes, what problems. We will also supply gas turbine engines if necessary.
                    Quote: Kars
                    don't buy?

                    Are trying to bribe, but they can't. So “fat sucked.”
                    Quote: Kars
                    For those who need it.

                    Well, if “those who are needed” are not Ukraine, then we are dealing with a special perverted form of mosachistic suicide.
                    Quote: Kars
                    and makes the best tanks in the world)))

                    Tell me - are you crazy?
                    Quote: Kars
                    It’s a pity that I can only imagine what Kharkov would have done if, like UVZ, it had stolen so many billions of budget money.

                    To begin with, these were our money. They are not "independent" for you. Secondly, you have no prospects. No. There is hopelessness ahead. Better join the USSR back, clowns. And then we’ll live.
                    1. 0
                      31 March 2013 00: 10
                      Quote: Krang
                      with the Bass turned all the way.

                      ??
                      Quote: Krang
                      Not fundamentally new let's say

                      ))))))))
                      Quote: Krang
                      Yes, what problems. We will also supply gas turbine engines if necessary.

                      put
                      Quote: Krang
                      They try to bribe, but they can’t. So "fat sucked"

                      Really? And why should they (who cares?) if used diesel engines with 1.5 thousand liters are already sold in the world (even without ours)
                      Quote: Krang
                      th mosachistic suicide

                      How dangerous is it now to sell weapons in the world)))) that’s why the USA and Russia are probably in the top ten (as is Ukraine), while we haven’t sold anything special to Romania, unlike your relations with China))))
                      Quote: Krang
                      Tell me - are you crazy?
                      I am completely adequate))) unlike you, who likes to pawn by the collar and then tell stories))))

                      Quote: Krang
                      To begin with, it was our money.

                      Yours, no one argues, but it’s such a waste to spend them)))))

                      Quote: Krang
                      better join back to the USSR

                      Quote: Krang
                      And then we'll live

                      I was daydreaming)))))
                      1. Crang
                        +1
                        31 March 2013 00: 21
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? And why should they (who cares?) if used diesel engines with 1.5 thousand liters are already sold in the world (even without ours)

                        Don’t you know what “overall power” is? Or maybe it will bring you
                        Quote: Kars
                        How dangerous is it now to sell weapons in the world)))) that’s why the USA and Russia are probably in the top ten (as is Ukraine), while we haven’t sold anything special to Romania, unlike your relations with China))))

                        Well, it’s one thing between us and the United States, which sell export weapons that are obviously worse than ours. And it’s a completely different matter for you who sell absolutely everything, incl. and what you yourself do not have in your troops.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yours, no one argues, but it’s such a waste to spend them)))))

                        Well, if creating the best tank in the world is “mediocre,” then I don’t know. You've certainly been screwed.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I was daydreaming)))))

                        Me or you? Well, dig your own grave further. If you don't understand that you and I are one. This has already happened. I recommend turning to the history of ancient centuries and the Tatar-Mongol Yoke.
                      2. 0
                        31 March 2013 00: 49
                        Quote: Krang
                        Don’t you know what “overall power” is?

                        Overall power from nothing? Equal to nothing)))
                        It would be better to answer WHO is going to buy something that you have not yet installed on the tank,
                        Quote: Krang
                        Well, it’s one thing between us and the United States, which sell export weapons that are obviously worse than ours.

                        naive))))))) only the blacks will buy yours))) and I didn’t hear that the USA would ban someone bullshit Apaches))) Abrash and removed the uranium armor - well, it’s not for everyone and ice)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        you who sell absolutely everything, incl. and what you yourself don’t have in your troops
                        What's the difference? If we don't sell it like this, no one will buy it, and they won't even have a chance to supply their troops if the factories and design bureaus die out of hunger.

                        Quote: Krang
                        Well, if creating the best tank in the world is “mediocre” then I don’t know

                        Well, it’s too early to call Armata that, but with the T-90 you were completely burned out. You literally threw money down the drain.

                        Quote: Krang
                        You've certainly been screwed.

                        It’s just that you couldn’t prove it)))))
                        By the way, I found a mention in TV about Lead 1 and 2, do you know what’s funny?))) the link is not to the order for adoption, but to Khlopotov’s article))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Me or you?

                        You

                        Quote: Krang
                        If you don't understand that you and I are one

                        Maybe when they were building bright communism, but building capitalism together is nonsense.
                      3. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 01: 28
                        Quote: Kars
                        It would be better to answer WHO is going to buy something that you have not yet installed on the tank,

                        That's not what we suggested. We are not you - corrupt bastards.
                        Quote: Kars
                        naive))))))) only the blacks will buy yours))) and I didn’t hear that the USA would ban someone bullshit Apaches))) Abrash and removed the uranium armor - well, it’s not for everyone and ice)))

                        Our Mi-24VP and its latest modifications with air-to-air missiles are better.
                        Quote: Kars
                        What's the difference? If we don't sell it like this, no one will buy it, and they won't even have a chance to supply their troops if the factories and design bureaus die out of hunger.

                        What are you doing???? So don’t starve to death, but work! Do something clown. Well, at least something. Just not military products, but civilian ones.
                        Quote: Kars
                        You

                        No. You.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Maybe when they were building bright communism, but building capitalism together is nonsense.

                        Blockhead... Capitalism is from ancient times. Build Communism with us, clown. You will quickly see how you will begin to sleep peacefully and even begin to stand.
                      4. 0
                        31 March 2013 01: 46
                        Quote: Krang
                        We didn't offer that

                        )))))) so they invented it themselves)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        They try to bribe, but they can't

                        Quote: Krang
                        Our Mi-24VP and its latest modifications with air-to-air missiles are better

                        this is not for me
                        Quote: Krang
                        So don’t starve to death, but work!

                        This is what tank builders do)))) work, sell)) and not squeeze money out of the state)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Just not military products, but civilian ones.

                        Well, of course, so that you have less competition))))) daydreaming)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        No. You.

                        You're strange
                        Quote: Krang
                        Better join the USSR back, clowns. And then we’ll live.
                        you are campaigning for the USSR))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Capitalism is from ancient times

                        Quote: Krang
                        Build Communism with us

                        ))) I haven’t heard anything like that))) in the Russian Federation they are going to nationalize the means of production or something)))))))))) yes, he said - 2 liters are needed? or what.

                        Quote: Krang
                        and even starts to stand

                        I heard that alcohol abuse causes problems with this, so this is where it turns out that the dog rummaged that you are so crazy))))
                      5. Crang
                        +2
                        31 March 2013 01: 59
                        Quote: Kars
                        )))))) so they invented it themselves)))

                        That's right.
                        Quote: Kars
                        This is what tank builders do)))) work, sell)) and not squeeze money out of the state)))

                        They are generally aware Who are they selling to? Stop smoking marijuana, guys.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, of course, so that you have less competition))))) daydreaming)))

                        First, Zhoporozhets, do it right, clown. And then take on the tanks.
                        Quote: Kars
                        ))) I haven’t heard anything like that))) in the Russian Federation they are going to nationalize the means of production or something)))))))))) yes, he said - 2 liters are needed? or what.

                        Let's just be one country again. A great empire where there will be no claims to nationality.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I heard that alcohol abuse causes problems with this, so this is where it turns out that the dog rummaged that you are so crazy))))

                        E-moeee... Stop posting "blue" chicks, and start paying attention to women of model appearance.
                      6. 0
                        31 March 2013 02: 16
                        Quote: Krang

                        That's right.

                        Expectedly, because who needs it))) x figurative unknown.
                        Quote: Krang
                        First, Zhoporozhets, do it right, clown. And then take on the tanks.

                        Well, we have finished your Zhiguli car))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Let's just be one country again. great empire

                        What division? Vovan 1 (first)? Emperor of all White Rus', Little Russia, etc.))) or land for peasants, factories for workers))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        E-moee... Stop posting the "blue" chicks
                        I’ve never heard that chicks can get bad results from vodka))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        on women of model appearance.

                        Men don't throw dice))))))
                        You definitely don’t have a problem with women since you mention them in the topic with tanks.

                        Quote: Krang
                        Do they even know who they are selling to?

                        What is the problem with our clients? Is their money counterfeit?
                        http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/02/2005-2011.html
                      7. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 02: 33
                        Quote: Kars
                        Expectedly, because who needs it))) x figurative unknown.

                        This is the best engine in the world.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, we have finished your Zhiguli car))))

                        What "Zhiguli"? VAZ-Priora, according to TX, makes all its classmates at a lower price. And your constipation. Well..... 968M was perhaps the swan song. Because subsequent clones of “Kalos”, “Perdana”, etc. are all crap.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I’ve never heard that chicks can get bad results from vodka))))

                        By doing so, you let yourself down. Well, I said it correctly: “Lard sucked dick.”
                        Quote: Kars
                        Guys don’t throw dice)))))) you definitely don’t have a problem with women since you mention them in the topic with tanks.

                        Well then, go ahead and fuck fat Aunt Nyura and say that you are a “man.”
                      8. 0
                        31 March 2013 02: 39
                        Quote: Krang
                        also the best engine in the world.

                        yeah, the same as your best tank in the world)))) which no one has even put into production yet)))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        What a "Zhiguli"
                        which is called T-90

                        Quote: Krang
                        By doing so, you let yourself down.

                        What? What I heard, and what I learned about anatomy at school)))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        fat Aunt Nyura and say that you are a “man”.

                        wow for you .. man .. or not .. man .. depends on the weight of the partner)))


                        ))))))))))))))))))))))))) become a real man))))
                      9. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 02: 57
                        Quote: Kars
                        yeah, the same as your best tank in the world)))) which no one has even put into production yet)))))

                        And rightly so. A unique thing should not be mass-produced.
                        Quote: Kars
                        which is called T-90

                        Oh “sorry” I’m generally silent about the ZAZ-968M.
                        Quote: Kars
                        wow for you .. man .. or not .. man .. depends on the weight of the partner)))

                        Blockhead. These are the ones I put on the barrel of my 2A82:
                      10. 0
                        31 March 2013 03: 11
                        Quote: Krang
                        And rightly so. A unique thing should not be mass-produced.

                        Exactly, this applies especially to tanks.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Oh “sorry” I’m generally silent about the ZAZ-968M

                        with this you need to send a form to motorists))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        These are the ones I put on the barrel of my 2A82

                        ))))))yes, of course.))))))I’ll plant these, his tank is the best. The engines are the best))) a braggart, a chatterbox, especially under the blue)))))
                      11. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 03: 32
                        Enough with advertising the Christmas tree already... Can I show you the rmal tank? For example T-90A.
                      12. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 03: 32
                        Enough with advertising the Christmas tree already... Can I show you the rmal tank? For example T-90A.
                      13. 0
                        31 March 2013 14: 12
                        )))))))))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90A

                        Quote: Krang
                        rmal tank

                        and that’s all, and only at a stretch. You have to torture the T-20 for almost 72 years to reach the level of the T-80U.
                      14. Crang
                        -1
                        31 March 2013 20: 40
                        Quote: Kars
                        and that’s all, and only at a stretch. You have to torture the T-20 for almost 72 years to reach the level of the T-80U.

                        Kars this is not true. Compare the basic T-72 "Ural" and T-72A with the basic T-80. And even the basic T-90 will be better than the T-80U. If we compare with the T-80U, T-72BM, then the 72 is inferior to the 80 in terms of the perfection of the control system and night technical vision, as well as in mobility. But 72 is better protected, stronger and more durable. This very often plays a decisive role.
                      15. 0
                        31 March 2013 20: 57
                        Quote: Krang
                        Kars this is not true

                        Give reasons.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Compare the basic T-72 "Ural" and T-72A with the basic T-80

                        No, let’s compare only in terms of guns and ammunition. It was inferior in terms of mobility and protection. Otherwise, you can give a reason why the T-80 tank was adopted for service. At the same time, the T-72 was inferior to option B in accuracy and fire efficiency. Could not use guided weapons on the move.
                        Quote: Krang
                        And even the basic T-90 will be better than the T-80U

                        Only the T-80A has reached the T-90U variant and Slightly improved (of course, 20 years have passed) the basic T-80U, while being inferior in mobility
                        Quote: Krang
                        But 72 is better protected, stronger and more durable
                        this is even your compatriot (and T-72 lover)
                        Quote: Bad_gr

                        not confirmed clearly.
                        Just like you couldn’t bring anything to confirm these insinuations of yours.
                      16. 0
                        31 March 2013 21: 01
                        ____________________
                      17. Crang
                        0
                        31 March 2013 21: 51
                        Quote: Kars
                        No, let’s compare only in terms of guns and ammunition. It was inferior in terms of mobility and protection. Otherwise, you can give a reason why the T-80 tank was adopted for service.

                        Because the T-80 had a gas turbine engine. In terms of protection, the T-80 (basic) is no better than the T-72A. In terms of survivability it is worse than him. According to the control system, both tanks are equivalent.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only the T-80A has reached the T-90U variant and Slightly improved (of course, 20 years have passed) the basic T-80U, while being inferior in mobility

                        The T-90 "Vladimir" is already better than the T-80U. The T-90A is simply completely better than the T-80U. The T-90A has much more powerful armor, a much more modern fire control system, and much better technical vision. A more powerful and accurate 2A46M-5 gun and more powerful shells. The T-80U has practically no chance against the T-90A.
                        Quote: Kars
                        didn’t confirm it unequivocally. Just like you, you couldn’t bring anything to confirm these insinuations of yours

                        I’ve already brought them a hundred times, but you don’t want to see them point-blank. Once again, point by point why the T-90A is completely better than the T-80U:
                        1. A more powerful 125mm 2A46M-5 gun and AZ designed for the latest BOPS. The T-80U of the latest releases had at most 2A46M-4.
                        2. More powerful armor of increased size. The welded turret of a new design with a larger internal volume is created from rolled armor plates. The AZ has local anti-fragmentation protection. The new VDZ "Relikt" is much more effective than the VDZ "Kontakt-5" which was installed on the T-80U tank.
                        3. The Sosna-U sight of the T-90A tank has a built-in automatic target tracking. The T-80U does not have this.
                        4. The Ti-device "Essa" of the T-90A tank has a target detection range at night, which meets all modern requirements and even exceeds the world average. The T-80U makes do with a much less advanced Ti-device TO-PO-2T "Agava-2" similar to the one installed on the base T-90. In addition, a significant part of the T-80U is equipped with an even less intelligible Buran-PA IK device.
                        5. T-90A has KOEP TShU-1 "Shtora". The T-80U does not have one.
                        The T-90A has air conditioning, but the T-80U does not. AZ T-90A does not block mechanics’ access to the BO, but it does block access to the T-80U. The spent pallets in the T-90A are thrown away, but in the T-80U they remain stinking inside the tank.
                        6. The microprocessor control system of the T-90A is much more advanced than that of the T-80U and takes into account more data. Including the bending of the gun. For this purpose, the barrel of the 2A46M-5 gun has a SUIS (barrel bending accounting system).
                        Thus, in the event of any duel, we can say with confidence that the T-90A will be the first to discover T-80U and will do this at a greater distance than the T-80U can see anything. The T-90A will be the first to fire with deadly accuracy. And its powerful Svinets-2 BOPS will fit into the frontal armor of the T-80U like a knife through butter. Even if T-80U shells can hit the T-90A, they will not be able to penetrate its powerful new generation armor. A difference in maximum speed of 5-15 km/h cannot have any influence on such an outcome of the battle.
                      18. 0
                        31 March 2013 23: 16
                        Quote: Krang
                        In terms of protection, the T-80 (basic) is no better than the T-72A

                        To begin with, if you are not a student (and it is already clear that you don’t know the swearing part, including platitudes about side screens), the basic T-80 is the T-80B from 1978, while the T-72 was inferior in armor protection to the frontal projection of the T-64, until the appearance T-72A in 1976
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90 "Vladimir" is already better than T-80U

                        no better, and even inferior in mobility and armor protection.
                        Quote: Krang
                        -90A is simply completely better than the T-80U.

                        just a little bit only thanks to the Essa sight and the change in the composition of the dynamic protection - which could have been installed on the T-80U, which was done in the prototypes.
                        Quote: Krang
                        1. A more powerful 125mm 2A46M-5 gun and AZ designed for the latest BOPS. The T-80U of the latest releases had at most 2A46M-4

                        The gun cannot become more powerful from chrome plating, but there are no shells --- (there are, of course, various other features declared that the Ukrainian KBZ received a long time ago, but nothing special) at the same time, it can easily be installed in the T-80U
                        Quote: Krang
                        3. Sight "Sosna-U"

                        What year is it installed, and how can this be attributed to the shortcoming of the T-80U, the progress of which, thanks to the efforts of UVZ, ended in 2003-2005
                        Quote: Krang
                        5. T-90A has KOEP TShU-1 "Shtora". T-80U does not have one

                        ))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        AZ T-90A does not block mechanics’ access to the BO, but it does block access to the T-80U. The spent pallets in the T-90A are thrown away, but in the T-80U they remain stinking inside the tank

                        Well, of course, if you shoot with open hatches and do not turn on the FVS. At the same time, the T-80U passed state tests of the USSR, among which was a test for gas contamination.
                        Quote: Krang
                        6. Microprocessor control system

                        Well, what can I say in twenty years of marking time, microelectronics in the world has changed a lot.
                        Quote: Krang
                        -90A will be the first to detect the T-80U and will do it at a greater distance than the T-80U can see anything. T-90A will be the first to fire with deadly accuracy

                        One thing that’s bad is that for some reason their range of application of the HUV is the same: 5000 m
                        Quote: Krang
                        Svinets-2 BOPS will be included in the frontal armor of the T-80U

                        Well, maybe they will be brought to fruition and adopted by the Russian Federation, but for now they are only in Khopotov’s articles.
                        and you wrote as usual without footnotes or sources, but you couldn’t refute me
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only the T-80A reached the T-90U variant and Slightly improved
                      19. Crang
                        +1
                        31 March 2013 23: 54
                        Quote: Kars
                        To begin with, if you are not a student (and it is already clear that you don’t know the swearing part, including platitudes about side screens), the basic T-80 is the T-80B from 1978, while the T-72 was inferior in armor protection to the frontal projection of the T-64, until the appearance T-72A in 1976

                        I'm not talking about the T-72, but about the T-72A. It is better armored than the T-64A and no worse than the T-80 (basic). The control system of the T-72A and T-80 is almost the same. There is no need to sing songs about the T-80B. This is a different model.
                        Quote: Kars
                        no better, and even inferior in mobility and armor protection.

                        The basic T-90 is better than the T-80U. And it surpasses it in armor and survivability. And also in terms of the perfection of the control system and electronics.
                        Quote: Kars
                        just a little bit only thanks to the Essa sight and the change in the composition of the dynamic protection - which could have been installed on the T-80U, which was done in the prototypes.

                        The T-90A is completely better than the T-80U. I just brought you six points in which the superiority of the T-90A is obvious. But you are apparently so stupid that you simply don’t see obvious things and continue to hammer away at the same crap like a woodpecker.
                        Quote: Kars
                        The gun cannot become more powerful from chrome plating, but there are no shells --- (there are, of course, various other features declared that the Ukrainian KBZ received a long time ago, but nothing special) at the same time, it can easily be installed in the T-80U

                        The new 125mm 2A46M-5 gun has new alloys, greater strength and rigidity of the barrel and significantly increased muzzle energy. Chrome plating of the barrel and SUIS available. “It can be easily installed on the T-80U” - and here it is for you. You will be installing your KBA-3 from 30 years ago.
                        Quote: Kars
                        ))))))))))))

                        What can I say, baby?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, what can I say in twenty years of marking time, microelectronics in the world has changed a lot.

                        Otherwise... Not like the 20-year-old T-80U.
                        Quote: Kars
                        One thing that’s bad is that for some reason their range of application of the HUV is the same: 5000 m

                        I'll tell you a terrible secret. The UR 9M119 "Reflex" does not penetrate the frontal part of the T-90A at all, anywhere or how.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, maybe they will be brought to fruition and adopted by the Russian Federation, but for now they are only in Khopotov’s articles. And you wrote as hard as usual without footnotes and sources, but you couldn’t refute me

                        And you me. It will be a "surprise" and a nightmare for you and your friends. "Lead-2" will penetrate through any existing Ukrainian tank. Not a single Ukrainian tank can penetrate the T-90A with BOPS even at point-blank range. So you will need the “speed” of your T-80U when meeting with the T-90A. You will have to run away at a pace. Farting on a two-stroke motorcycle.
                      20. 0
                        April 1 2013 00: 59
                        .

                        Quote: Krang
                        Otherwise... Not like the 20-year-old T-80U

                        It’s a pity that you still didn’t understand)))) it took UVZ a whole 20 years to make the tank that was made in Leningrad back in the USSR

                        Quote: Krang
                        The UR 9M119 "Reflex" does not penetrate the frontal part of the T-90A at all, anywhere or how.

                        but this does not change the fact that the same KUV is installed on the T-80U and T-90A, and you are lying about the huge...superiority))) and the Ukrainian UR Combat will penetrate)))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        It will be a surprise and

                        how can they be a surprise if you divulge .. SECRET))))) information along with troublesome
                        Quote: Krang
                        And his powerful Svinets-2 BOPS

                        ))))))))))))))))) but it seems like they are only in your imagination)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Not a single Ukrainian tank can penetrate the T-90A with BOPS even at point-blank range.
                        Well, this needs to be found out by trial))))
                      21. 0
                        April 1 2013 01: 21
                        structure of the T-64 The T-64 tank had a welded hull with an angle of inclination of the frontal plates of 68° and beveled zygomatic plates. The front plate was a multi-layer armor barrier (armor steel, fiberglass, armor steel), providing protection for the tank from all types of armor-piercing sub-caliber and cumulative projectiles and ATGMs that were in service with NATO. Already during the consideration of the technical design of object 432, the possibility of armor-piercing shells hitting the cheekbones of the front plate ricocheting into the tank turret was noted, which was confirmed by the results of shelling the tank. Therefore, starting from 1964, characteristic protection in the form of “eyebrows” was introduced on the front plate of the tank in front of the driver’s viewing devices and on the front plate of the hull roof. Beginning in 1967, to increase the armor resistance of the frontal plate and simplify the production technology of armored hulls, tanks began to be produced with a straight frontal plate and a straight hull roof. On cars produced before 1967, the driver had three TNPO-160 inspection devices, and starting from 1967 - one TNPO-168.
                        Tank turret cast with sharp differentiated multilayer armor (armor steel, aluminum alloy, armor steel) the maximum thickness of which
                        wasa 600 mm


                        and this is T-72
                      22. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 09: 25
                        Quote: Kars
                        The tank's turret was cast with sharply differentiated multi-layer armor (armor steel, aluminum alloy, armor steel) the maximum thickness of which was 600 mm

                        You can't say anything. 600mm is obtained if you draw a line parallel to the longitudinal axis of the machine along the left or right cheekbone of the tower. Since the turret is round and the armor in that place is already deflected to the side, it turns out to be ~600mm. Same thing on the T-72A. But if it’s just at right angles to the armor anywhere - then 420-460mm and that’s it.
                      23. 0
                        April 1 2013 12: 58
                        Quote: Krang
                        You can't say anything.

                        )))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        if just at right angles to the armor anywhere - then 420-460mm and that’s it

                        Provide confirmation of your version of the booking. Not just your drunken itch.
                      24. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 14: 14
                        I'll be happy to see your confirmation. Where will you show the thickness of the T-64 armor at 600mm. Not the given size, but the actual size.
                      25. 0
                        April 1 2013 15: 28
                        Quote: Kars
                        year - one TNPO-168.
                        The tank turret is cast with sharply differentiated multi-layer armor (armor steel, aluminum alloy, armor steel) the maximum thickness of which
                        was 600 mm

                        Brought Saenko, Chobitok T-64 tank
                        So it's your turn to prove AT LEAST something.
                        At least given, at least the dimensions))))))
                      26. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 09: 13
                        Quote: Kars
                        It’s a pity that you still didn’t understand)))) it took UVZ a whole 20 years to make the tank that was made in Leningrad back in the USSR

                        I can also say that the T-80U is the same T-72A. Everything that was hung on it could be installed on the T-72A. The T-90A is far superior to the T-80U.
                        Quote: Kars
                        but this does not change the fact that the same KUV is installed on the T-80U and T-90A, and you are lying about the huge...superiority))) and the Ukrainian UR Combat will penetrate)))))

                        My friend, one of the points I voiced about the superiority of the T-90 and T-90A over the T-80U was the presence of the TShU-1 “Shtora” on the first KOEP. What did you laugh at cheerfully (well, there’s nothing to say). KOEP TSHU-1 "Shtora" reduces the probability of a semi-automatic laser-guided missile hitting a tank by 3-5 times. So, if the T-90 and T-80U decide to exchange missile strikes at a distance of 4-5 km, which side do you think will win?
                      27. 0
                        April 1 2013 13: 04
                        Quote: Krang
                        I can also say that the T-80U is the same T-72A

                        no you can't.
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-90A is far superior to the T-80U.

                        only since 2008 with foreign equipment.
                        Quote: Krang
                        My friend, one of the points I voiced about the superiority of the T-90 and T-90A over the T-80U was the presence of the TShU-1 “Shtora” on the first KOEP.

                        Did you really not see the curtains in the photo of the T-80U that I showed?
                        Quote: Krang
                        So if the T-90 and T-80U decide

                        You, like a storyteller, blurted out about the enormous superiority in detection ranges, but here the T-90 and T-80U have the same KUV with the same range))))

                        Maybe you can also say that the photo is not a T-80U))))))
                      28. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 14: 26
                        Quote: Kars
                        no you can't.

                        I can. T-80U is the same T-72A with a more modern control system.
                        Quote: Kars
                        only since 2008 with foreign equipment.

                        The T-90A is far superior to the T-80U. Even just for hardware without taking into account electronics.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Did you really not see the curtains in the photo of the T-80U that I showed?

                        It seems that someone here was still quacking about the T-80U, and not about the T-80UM1.
                        Quote: Kars
                        You, like a storyteller, blurted out about the enormous superiority in detection ranges, but here the T-90 and T-80U have the same KUV with the same range))))

                        What kind of storyteller am I? What does the missile launch range have to do with the target detection range during the day or at night? T-90A recognizes T-80U at night from a distance of 3500m. And then you can use missile launchers, or you can just use shells. A perfect fire control system at such a range will also hit with shells. The T-80U, even with Agava, will be able to detect the T-90A at night from a maximum of 2500m. At such a distance, the T-80U tank does not need KUV at night. All the advantages of missile weapons are felt during the day in good weather. Here both tanks will detect each other from any distance to the horizon of ~9 km. When approaching 5 km, an exchange of missile strikes will occur. The probability of hitting a tank-type target with the KUV 9M119 "Reflex" at a range of 4-5 km is 0,7 (that is, 70%). Thus, the probability that a missile fired by a T-90A will hit a T-80U is 70% - a good indicator. In turn, the TShU-1 Shtora KOEP reduces the likelihood of a semi-automatic laser-guided missile hitting a tank by 4 times. 0,7/4=0,18. That is, the probability that a missile fired by a T-80U will hit a T-90A with the TShU-1 COEP enabled is only 18%. If he speaks in naval terms, then the T-80U is faster than the T-90A and he can choose the “optimal combat distance for himself.” Please - let him choose. T-90A has full advantage on any. Whichever one he chooses.
                      29. 0
                        April 1 2013 15: 27
                        Quote: Krang
                        I can. T-80U

                        Well, you can. T-72A is the same T-62))))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        T-90A is far superior to T-80U

                        The T-90A is minimally superior to the T-80U and its modifications, and only due to the time difference of 20 years.
                        Quote: Krang
                        It seems that someone here was still quacking about the T-80U, and not about the T-80UM1.

                        Why not? As you can see, the curtain is installed simply, and it was not necessary to make a T-90 for this))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        What kind of storyteller am I?

                        The most natural, even without knowing the hardware.
                        Quote: Krang
                        The T-90A has a complete advantage in any case.

                        Only with the French ESSA sight, and that’s a stretch.
                      30. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 16: 03
                        The T-72A appeared earlier than the T-80U. In order to install a new engine and fire control system, it was not necessary to make a new tank.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, you can. T-72A is the same T-62))))))

                        And the T-64 is a creatively redesigned T-34, which in turn is an improved Garford-Putilovets model.
                        Quote: Kars
                        The T-90A is minimally superior to the T-80U and its modifications, and only due to the time difference of 20 years.

                        The T-90A is superior to the T-80U as much as the T-80U is better than the T-72.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only with the French ESSA sight, and that’s a stretch.

                        Without any stretch of the imagination, the T-90A is better. This is an axiom. Get used to these words.
                      31. 0
                        April 1 2013 16: 26
                        [quote=Krang] The T-72A appeared earlier than the T-80U. In order to install a new engine and fire control system, it was not necessary to make a new tank.[/quote]
                        T-62 also appeared before T-72))))
                        And not only a new engine - 500 hp more, but also a new turret, built-in dynamic protection. By installing this (not all) you made the T-90A in 20 years))
                        [quote=Krang]And the T-64 is a creatively redesigned T-34, which in turn is an improved model of the Garford-Putilovets[/quote]
                        But the T-64 is a new generation tank, the first Soviet MBT
                        [Quote] Malysheva (KhZTM). a new tank, begun in the early fifties, after ten years of intense research and experimentation culminated in the creation of the T-64 tank. Thus, two decades after the creation of the legendary thirty-four, the design solutions of which had a revolutionary impact on the entire world tank building of the 40s and 50s, Kharkov designers created a new masterpiece of tank building - the T-64 tank, which became the founder of a new class of combat vehicles called today “main battle tanks”. [/ Quote]
                        [/ Quote]
                        [quote=Krang]The T-90A is superior to the T-80U as much as the T-80U is better than the T-72.[/quote]
                        The Black Eagle in the 640 modification would have been so superior to the Object 2008. And in twenty years the T-90A was able to surpass it slightly [quote=Krang] Without any stretch, the T-90A is better. This is an axiom[/quote]With a HUGE stretch. If it were as you write, you would easily prove it)) and your entire evidence base is built on illiteracy and fanaticism.
                      32. 0
                        April 1 2013 16: 38
                        By the way, Kharkov even the T-55 will modernize you better))))
                      33. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 16: 51
                        What else is this? Advertisement “I eat chocolate jam in the morning”? Compare with our T-55AM-5.
                      34. 0
                        April 1 2013 17: 48
                        Quote: Krang
                        Compare with our T-55AM-5

                        So don’t be shy to compare)))))
                        T-55M8A2 Typhoon
                        •Engine and transmission compartment with 5TDFM engine
                        •Improved chassis
                        •Automated motion control system with steering wheel
                        •Additional passive protection, built-in dynamic protection, optical-electronic countermeasures system, new fire-fighting equipment
                        •Modern fire control system with duplicate control from the commander’s seat
                        •Automatic loader
                        •Closed anti-aircraft installation
                        •The new gun, at the request of the customer, can be of 125 mm caliber
                        Combat weight 46t
                        Crew 3 people

                        Average speed
                        on a dirt road 32...35 km/h

                        on the highway 40...45 km/h
                        Maximum speed on the highway 65...75 km/h
                        Ambient air temperature for tank operation -40...+55 °C
                        Depth of water obstacle overcome without preparation 1,8 m

                        Engine 5TDFMA, two-stroke diesel with counter-moving pistons, turbocharged, liquid-cooled, multi-fuel
                        Maximum power 1050 hp
                      35. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 18: 27
                        Please tell me - are you really a fool? Or will they organize races here? These are tanks, not Formula 1 cars. So add into comparison such “insignificant” and “unimportant” characteristics in your opinion as firepower and security.
                      36. 0
                        April 1 2013 18: 38
                        Quote: Krang
                        Or will they organize races here?

                        So why are you embarrassed to compare?
                        Quote: Krang
                        Compare with our T-55AM-5.

                        what is it? In addition to speed, there are other parameters)))
                        http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065977074&c
                        hannel=defence

                        7d2d8729
                      37. Crang
                        0
                        April 1 2013 18: 33
                        Object-640 "Black Eagle" is a tank that existed only as a show tank. Most of what was planned in it was not embodied in reality. In the form in which it existed, it was practically no better than the T-90A. It is correct that they abandoned it because "Black Eagle" is just a standard Western layout taken to its logical conclusion. They are already outdated. A tank of a fundamentally new design, the Armata, is already being developed and there is no point in wasting effort and resources on implementing yesterday’s ideas. For us there will be "Armata". And the T-90, which has been brought to perfection, will be supplied for export, which will also be equipped with all modern developments.
                      38. 0
                        April 1 2013 18: 45
                        Quote: Krang
                        Object-640 "Black Eagle" is a tank that existed

                        But it was truly promising. And when I saw it in Khalyavsky’s Encyclopedia of Tanks in 1999, I really hoped that it would actually enter service.
                        Quote: Krang
                        The finished T-90 will be exported

                        Yes, we see it, there is no end to customers))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        "Black Eagle" is just a standard Western layout taken to its logical conclusion
                        For some reason, its elements are present in the T-90MS.
                        Quote: Krang
                        neither is already outdated. A tank of a fundamentally new layout "Armata" is already being developed
                        not exactly a blunt cutter)))) it was back in the late 90s, but UVZ snatched up Omsk, let’s hope that they will use at least something in the armature, but according to rumors, there is nothing special to hope for, which is what they are talking about and the cancellation of the show in Nizhny Tagil in the fall.

                        The first information about the new tank appeared 13 years ago. In September 1996, Tankman Day was celebrated on a large scale in Kubinka. After the failures in Chechnya, when a wave of denigration of our armored vehicles arose, the military decided to rehabilitate them in the eyes of taxpayers and foreign buyers.

                        To show the reliability of the armor, the tanks were fired at with anti-tank missiles from various RPGs. They hit them from other tanks. They also showed the Drozd active protection complex in action.
                      39. 0
                        April 1 2013 18: 58
                        _______________________
                      40. 0
                        April 1 2013 23: 50
                        Andrey92630 December 28, 2011 16:25 1
                        I didn’t fight on these tanks, fate decreed it that way. But I have extensive experience in operating the T-72 (volume 184), T-80 (volume 478) and T-80 (volume 219), in operation the T-80 (volume 219) is head and shoulders above everyone else. You just open the roof of the MTO and the eye is pleased, just like in an operating room, the translation can be done within a day, the engine can be changed in the field in an hour. Starting the engine in any frost. In my GSVG, two mechanics alerted nine cars out of 10 in January. One training vehicle was at the training ground. What other tanks can boast of this? And in the field there is no one better than the T-80 (volume 219), whoever saw a gas turbine fly out of an anti-tank ditch - the soul rejoices to see this, but the T-72 cannot always crawl out. There is a concept for tanks - specific power, the only vehicle with more than 25. And this is the main characteristic of any tank. Yes, just look at the driving standards and everything is clearly visible. Yes, just come over to warm up and dry your foot wraps and pea coat. And who took off the tents after the exercises, everything is covered in ice, you adjust the turbine and after 5 minutes it is dry. And anyone who has pulled tanks out of the mud knows that the T-80 (volume 219) can pull out almost anything. Yes, high fuel consumption and that’s it, there’s only one drawback. Let's discuss who finds more.
                        P,S, And the T-90 was put into service because the director of Uralvagonzavod found an approach, or simply gave a bribe. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION