"Not inferior to Western tanks or even superior to them": foreign experts "calculated" the scale of losses and production of the T-90M

Among those massively involved at the front tanks The most modern and effective is the T-90M "Proryv". Western experts have tried to calculate the size of its production.

The T-90M was designed to counter NATO-standard MBTs such as the Leopard 2A7, Abrams M1A2 SEP V3 and Leclerc XLR. In combat, it has demonstrated capabilities that are equal to or even superior to many Western tanks.

- noted in the publication Army Recognition.

As indicated, the T-90M, which stands out for its maneuverability on soft ground, is equipped with a modernized 125-mm 2A82-1M cannon capable of firing the Reflex ATGM, a new-generation Kalina fire control system and a digital battlefield management architecture, which has improved target detection, data exchange and command efficiency during combined arms operations.

Survivability has been significantly increased by installing the Relikt active protection system, which provides better protection against tandem cumulative munitions and APFSDS. The vehicle is equipped with multilayer composite armor, modular armor panels, armored canopies (side "skirts" and "barbecue"), as well as active electronic countermeasure systems and radar warning systems designed to counter drones and loitering munitions, which became the basis of the anti-tank strategy of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The T-90M is typically used for breakthrough and support of motorized rifle units. Their firepower is used to suppress fortified positions, and their protection allows them to operate on the front line in conditions of intense opposition.

- says the foreign publication.

Russia has reportedly produced between 2022 and 540 T-630Ms since 90. According to Western experts, at least 130 of these have been visually confirmed as destroyed or abandoned, leaving between 410 and 500 vehicles in service, or about 15% of the total number of tanks deployed by the Russian Armed Forces on the Ukrainian front. Continued deliveries of new T-90Ms are offsetting the losses:

Despite Western sanctions, export controls and tightening global supply chains, Russia has managed to maintain and even strengthen its defense industrial base.

It is noted that in 2020-2021, about 60 T-90Ms were produced annually, up to 300 tanks of this model are currently being manufactured, and by 2028, up to 1000 vehicles of this type may be produced.

Comments

[isv000]

The Russians are constantly trying to create a car, but they always end up with the best tank in the world!

[Arzoo]

Now almost nothing from armor comes to LBS, because it is not needed. Due to the vulnerability of modern armored vehicles.

[Montezuma]

Quote: Arzoo

Now almost nothing from armor comes to LBS, because it is not needed. Due to the vulnerability of modern armored vehicles.

Are you suggesting to stop producing armored vehicles? A very unexpected and original conclusion. I suggest you throw this idea at NATO, maybe they'll buy it?

[Arzoo]

No, the Ministry of Defense knows better. I'm just stating a fact.

[1976AG]

Quote: Arzoo

No, the Ministry of Defense knows better. I'm just stating a fact.

Where do you get your facts from? According to my information, both BMP-3 and T-90M are supplied to LBS. Or are you talking about the Ukrainian side?

[bayard]

Stop picking on Dima, he knows better from Donbass how they fight now. He's talking about the use and the arrival of new armor to the front. Now they mostly storm in small groups on bikes. I have a friend who fights like that now (since 2014), recently his Kubanka was battered by a drop, small fragments were taken, the biggest one got stuck in a smartphone, the wound was not counted - they're saving money. And the guy has five concussions, he also took Mariupol, his group was the first to enter the city, then in the city they united with Struna's group.
And new equipment is now going to new units, it is better to save it for NATO. In assaults like we have now, under "super-barbecues" it is better to use old tanks, which is what is being done. Tanks are now used more and more as fire reinforcements for infantry, less and less in assaults. So new equipment is not here. It is for breakthroughs and maneuver warfare. With such an abundance of FPV, this is difficult.

[1976AG]

"And new equipment is now being sent to new units; it is better to save it for NATO."

So NATO won't take into account the experience of the war in Ukraine and won't use drones? Or they simply don't have drones and won't have them in the next 10 years?

[Sergey3]

That is, NATO will not take into account the experience of the war in Ukraine and will not use drones?

NATO is as sluggish and bureaucratic as the Russian MoD. There would be an order of magnitude fewer drones on the Ukrainian front if it weren't for the supplies from volunteers, and the same thing on that side of the front, and if we take into account a battle with a regular NATO army in its current form, then the density of drones will be lower and the air defense should cope.

[Sergey3]

Secondly, small FPV drones are effective only in positional warfare, as now, when both sides are in a stalemate, Ukraine due to limited mobilization resources, Russia due to the reluctance to involve additional forces in the war. If a tank breakthrough is carried out with large forces, there will simply be no one to send FPV drones in such quantities.

[Dart]

Sound conclusion, thank you.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Sergey3

Secondly, small FPV drones are only effective in positional warfare, as is the case now, when both sides are in a stalemate.

That's right, only you forgot to add that the situation is such, slot, positional warfare arose from the fact that both sides do not have modern air forces. This led from the beginning of the war to the wild use of artillery and shells, since it was necessary to replace bombs with artillery and as a consequence to drones.

Quote: Sergey3

If a tank breakthrough is carried out with large forces, there will simply be no one to send FPV drones in such quantities.

How can the Russian Armed Forces organize this, given that NATO has SAR satellite groups, satellites with AFAR radars, which, for example, the Russian Armed Forces do not have, to also monitor the movements of NATO forces? And again, modern air forces today are 4+, 5th generation aircraft with AFAR radars, the Link-16 broadband communication system, a large number of AWACS/ELINT aircraft that are capable of taking out air defense and controlling airspace. Of course, the EU/NATO countries that directly border the Russian Federation, such as the Baltic countries, due to their size and theater of operations, are easy to capture from several directions for a short time, with Finland, due to the complex theater of operations, it is not at all easy. The rest are inaccessible, since Ukraine is on the way. Tanks like the T-72/90 and BMP-2/3 can of course be churned out, but what about aviation? The losses in the Russian Aerospace Forces of all types of aircraft over 3,5 years are greater than the military-industrial complex is able to replenish, and the Russian military-industrial complex has completely forgotten how to make some types of aircraft. That is why I do not particularly believe in a war with NATO, except for a short-term seizure of the Baltic countries.

[spyder100]

Your comment looks like a provocation, I have doubts that you are Russian-speaking. They don't write "satellites" in Russian, there is a word "sputnik", and they use it. Besides, what kind of "capture of the Baltic countries", for what purpose, what kind of nonsense is this? It looks like an attempt to "test the audience"

[Sergey3]

I have doubts that you are Russian-speaking. They don't write "satellites" in Russian,

And don't tell them what they're doing to the Russian-speaking audience, they're too small-minded themselves, and without a hint, they'll never understand it. Zadornov once said about them: well, dumb***.

[BASHAR ASAD]

It is time to change the military doctrine again. An attack by any NATO country is considered an attack by the entire NATO bloc, and even political threats of attack are considered an attack, with all the consequences that entails.

[bayard]

Quote: 1976AG

That is, NATO will not take into account the experience of the war in Ukraine and will not use drones?

I wrote it to you in plain English - the new equipment is being used to equip new units, the decision on the deployment of which was made in the fall of 2022. This is where all the new T-90M, T-80BVM and the lion's share of T-72B3M are going. The active Army is still satisfied with what it has. Tanks have been used extremely rarely in offensives lately. Mainly as a means of fire support. Such is the nature of combat operations.
And they increasingly go to assaults in small groups on foot, on dirt bikes, buggies and ATVs. I often see them here at Putilovka (Putilovsky district of Donetsk). I also have a friend who is now fighting in assaults on a dirt bike - military intelligence. This is the nature of this war, there is a constant search for new tactical methods, means of struggle and counteraction, the old methods are no longer suitable. But this will not happen in another place, in another war, next time. It's just that this war has a pronounced positional nature. In fact, since the end of 2022.
War with NATO will be completely different, without all these checks and restrictions. Only nuclear and maneuverable in post-apocalyptic conditions. But I don't think that this time we will go to the English Channel. Most likely, total nuclear bombardment and occupation of buffer zones in the adjacent territory. That's when these tanks will come in handy.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: bayard

The active Army still has enough of what it has.

But there is an opinion that this is precisely what is missing.

Quote: bayard

This is the nature of this war, there is a constant search for new tactical methods, means of struggle and counteraction, the old methods are no longer suitable

Of course they are no good if there is a problem with supplies, the army is in chaos and the generals fundamentally do not know how to fight.

[Vik_Vik]

As I understand it, you should be appointed commander-in-chief. You will quickly teach the generals how to fight. How to conduct deep operations with available forces and resources. And, of course, with minimal losses.
Just in case, I’ll explain, to put it as simply as possible, forces are personnel, resources are weapons and equipment.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Vik_Vik

As I understand it, you need to be appointed commander-in-chief.

So you want to say that we fundamentally don't have better generals? Then it's really sad. Especially remembering the Iraqi war and the recent Iran-Israel war.

[DO]

Quote: bayard

War with NATO will be completely different, without all these checks and restrictions. Only nuclear and maneuverable in post-apocalyptic conditions.

Why would a hypothetical land war with NATO be "completely other"? In the SVO, the main losses of the parties today occur primarily from various drones, and secondarily from artillery and gliding bombs. Therefore, in combat operations on land, the effectiveness of these weapons, and therefore their predominance, will most likely not go anywhere.
Future combat operations at sea are another matter. NATO's fleet, which is many times superior to Russia's, is the main carrier of the alliance's missiles. And in the event of massive shelling of Russia from the sea, the Russian Armed Forces will hardly have any other choice but to use nuclear weapons against the enemy fleet.
If the escalation reaches a direct military clash between the US and Russia, massive landings will be very problematic. Therefore, mutual damage to the land infrastructure of the opponents will be possible only through the use of missiles, God forbid, nuclear strategic ones.

[Sergei S]

Quote: DO

Why would a hypothetical land war with NATO be "completely different"?

And there was no talk of a land war, but of war in general. If there is a land phase, it will be at the very end. They will fight against us mainly with aircraft and missile launches, that is, MRAU from all possible carriers. There may also be launches of UAVs from countries bordering us, such as the Baltic countries (they say that they have already launched them from there on the LO). There may also be sabotage, like the notorious "web".
But they will move to the land phase only if they can break and disorganize our defense, much like they did with the Iraqi army.

[DO]

Quote: Sergei S

The land phase, if it happens, will be at the very end. They will fight against us mainly with aircraft and missile launches, that is, MRAU from all possible carriers. There may also be launches of UAVs from countries bordering us, such as the Baltic countries (they say that they have already launched them from there on the LO). There may also be sabotage, like the notorious "web".

NATO and especially the US Navy carries 80% of its strike missiles. That is why the Russian Armed Forces will be forced to use nuclear weapons against it, otherwise NATO Navy strikes will indeed quickly disable our infrastructure - thereby preparing the ground for an effective ground invasion.
However, even if the NATO fleet is partially destroyed and partially driven to a safe distance, the land of NATO countries will be used in the same way as the territory of the Ukrainian Reich is used today - as a platform for launching strike weapons at Russia, saturated with missiles and UAVs from wherever possible. All with the same goal - to critically destroy our infrastructure. The power of Western industry and the labor force of NATO countries significantly exceeds Russia's. Therefore, the only way for Russia to win this war is to occupy the European territories of those NATO countries that have shown aggression towards Russia as quickly as possible. First of all, by systematically destroying logistics routes (in the example of Ukraine, these are the notorious bridges across the Dnieper, the tunnel, the depot, the rolling stock of the railway, etc.).
The Russian Armed Forces are unlikely to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Firstly, it is not much more effective than using conventional weapons, since the Central Military District has taught both sides to disperse military forces and assets. Secondly, there will be few volunteers to go into breaches at the sites of their own nuclear strikes. And thirdly, who needs contaminated territory?
But the Russian Armed Forces will naturally be forced to give a symmetrical nuclear response to hypothetical NATO nuclear strikes from land.

[Sergei S]

Quote: DO

NATO, and especially the US, have 80% of their strike missiles carried by their navies.

Yes, but we should not forget that they have a very powerful Air Force, which is many times larger than the capabilities of the Russian Aerospace Forces. The results of the work of modern Western-style Air Forces were demonstrated to us in the recent "12-day war" between Israel and Iran. In this operation, about 200 tactical aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-35) were simultaneously involved from the Israeli side. On our western flank, NATO has significantly more than 200 aircraft. They will definitely use this significant factor and this is what causes very serious concern.

[DO]

Quote: Sergei S

Yes, but we should not forget that they have a very powerful Air Force, which is many times larger than the capabilities of the Russian Aerospace Forces. The results of the work of modern Western-style Air Forces were demonstrated to us in the recent "12-day war" between Israel and Iran. In this operation, about 200 tactical aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-35) were simultaneously involved from the Israeli side. On our western flank, NATO has significantly more than 200 aircraft. They will definitely use this significant factor and this is what causes very serious concern.

In the 12-day war, the most painful blows to the leadership, air defense and scientists of Iran were dealt at the very beginning by the Iranian "fifth column", + the element of surprise.
God grant that our leadership will draw adequate conclusions from the 12-day war, and also from the earlier attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (+ the Russian "fifth column") on our strategists using drones from trucks parked near the airfield.

[Sergei S]

Quote: DO

In the 12-day war, the most painful blows to the leadership, air defense and scientists of Iran were dealt at the very beginning by the Iranian "fifth column", + the element of surprise.

This was the decisive factor at the very beginning, when they thinned out the already rare air defense system, and also caused a small collapse of the country's governance system. But immediately after that, massive raids by Israeli aviation began, and they were very effective.

Quote: DO

God grant that our leadership will draw adequate conclusions from the 12-day war, and also from the earlier attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (+ the Russian "fifth column") on our strategists using drones from trucks parked near the airfield.

But the attack on our strategic forces and what happened in Iran are essentially the same thing. The same trucks with drones flying out of them and saboteurs. The style is the same and, most likely, the author is also the same.

[skeptic]

Quote: DO

God grant that our leadership will draw adequate conclusions from the 12-day war, and also from the earlier attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (+ the Russian "fifth column") on our strategists using drones from trucks parked near the airfield.

If you take into account the "well-wishers" who have dispersed throughout Russia, then Iran is "in chocolate".

[Kyrgyz]

Almost everything that flies from the water is guided by satellites, in the event of a full-scale war with NATO, one of the first strikes will be directed precisely into space at the guidance and control systems, after which, in many ways, the capabilities will roll back to the level of the 70-90s. Regarding volunteers for passing through radiation areas, there will be no volunteers, in the event of such a conflict there will be a full mobilization of the State Planning Committee, the Cheka and SMERSH, the economy and rights there will be postponed for later

[DO]

Quote: Kyrgyz

Almost everything that flies from the water is guided by satellites; in the event of a full-scale war with NATO, one of the first strikes will be directed into space at the guidance and control systems, after which the capabilities will largely roll back to the level of the 70-90s.

Western satellite systems have been used for military, sabotage and terrorist purposes against the Russian Federation for four years now, in the Black Sea and on land, including not only the SVO zone in Ukraine, but also the entire territory of Russia.
Therefore, all these years Russia has had reason to work on the mentioned Western satellite groups - not only by jamming, but also by SELECTIVELY disabling enemy satellites (to avoid escalation, without much publicity).

[Kyrgyz]

The game is not worth the candle, given the heat of passions, raising the stakes like that, everyone will lose satellites with such an approach, this is an extreme measure, nuclear weapons would also speed up demilitarization, but it is inappropriate

[DO]

Quote: Kyrgyz

Not worth powder and shot

The sheepskin - in our case, these are numerous lives of military and civilians, burned Russian strategic aircraft, sunken Russian military ships in the Black Sea, damaged early warning radar, oil storage facilities, factory workshops and other Russian infrastructure. The speed of our troops' advance in Ukraine is significantly slowed by the transfer of satellite intelligence data to NATO by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Quote: Kyrgyz

everyone will lose satellites with this approach

Yes, both sides will lose satellites. But the Russian army will gain a significant advantage.

[DO]

Quote: Kyrgyz

Regarding volunteers for passing through radiation areas, there will be no volunteers, in the event of such a conflict there will be a full mobilization of the State Planning Committee, the Cheka and SMERSH, the economy and rights there will be postponed for later

If the West were to use nuclear weapons against Russia first, this could happen.
However, nuclear bombing of land is unlikely to be Russia's initiative; I have already written about the reasons above.
But it is logical that the use of Russian tactical nuclear weapons against NATO naval forces could be an initiative of Russia, with the aim of preventing the destruction of Russian infrastructure by the massive missile strikes that have begun from the sea.

[bayard]

Quote: DO

Why would a hypothetical land war with NATO be "completely different"?

Yes, because the balance of power will be completely different. And the risk of defeat/death is orders of magnitude higher. That is why there is an Axiom - a war with NATO can only be nuclear and only total, immediately. Without any special escalation build-up. After all, any miscalculation of such a "conventional" war shows that nuclear weapons will definitely be used sooner or later. That is why it is better immediately, and better with a First/Preemptive Strike - against the entire military, industrial, administrative, transport and other infrastructure of NATO. In order of priorities. They will not be able to repel an attack by our hypersonic missiles, therefore immediately against headquarters, command centers, arsenals, naval bases, airfield network, with the extinction of air defense systems. Then cruise missiles against other infrastructure and logistics. The new IRBM "Oreshnik" allows to cover huge areas with a "nuclear carpet" (35 independently targetable nuclear warheads, this is VERY serious) with annihilation of both entire industrial areas and NATO troops deployed for an offensive. "Kinzhal", "Tsirkon" and "Iskander" in nuclear design deliver pinpoint strikes, taking out air defenses, command centers, bases, airfields. As a result, there will be no one and nothing to intercept the next wave of cruise missiles, and they will finish what they started. Then additional reconnaissance, repeat. So several times and ... silence in the eurozone.
If the US gets involved in this mess, then they will have to suffer too. And this is only PART of the scenario.
And in the post-apocalypse, drones and all other unprotected electronics will turn into non-working toys. But to establish security zones after a massive nuclear suppression, the ground forces will still have to move out to clear the area to a specified depth with the installation of minefields, control equipment and other fortifications to prevent "zombies" from entering their territory.
It's a bad scenario, but it's much better than taking the first hit ourselves.

Quote: DO

military operations at sea. NATO fleet, many times superior to the Russian one

But this is something completely different. We don't have an ocean fleet, but China does, and it just declared that "it won't allow Russia's strategic defeat." But we do have a pretty good nuclear submarine fleet. If China is/becomes an ally, we can give anyone a real beating at sea.
If a nuclear war becomes inevitable, you must strike first. With full force, against all enemies, and for sure - with a guarantee.

[DO]

Quote: bayard

there is an axiom - a war with NATO can only be nuclear and only total, immediately. Without any special escalation

Any axiom is based on empirical experience. For example, the axiom that parallel lines do not intersect is based on banal observations of a huge number of people - for example, seeing railroad tracks.
BUT what you are writing about, that is, a world war that began with massive nuclear strikes, has never happened in the known history of mankind. Therefore, let us not underestimate the natural desire of politicians and generals on both sides to survive, to help their families, relatives and friends survive, to prevent the tragedy of their peoples. Which still implies a smooth escalation, "hot" contacts between politicians and generals of the opposing sides, etc.

Quote: bayard

If China becomes an ally, it will be possible to seriously beat up anyone at sea.

IF it happens. But for now, on this weekday, Chinese banks continue to block direct Russian payments for Chinese electronics - in compliance with Western sanctions.

[bayard]

Quote: DO

Let us not underestimate the natural desire of politicians and generals on both sides to survive, to ensure that their families, relatives and friends survive, and to prevent the tragedy of their peoples.

This is the whole point of strategic nuclear deterrence. I rely on the doctrine adopted back in the 90s, under Yeltsin, that a war with NATO and the USA can only be nuclear. Because the Russian Federation, left alone, has no chance in a conventional war. It was precisely when officers in the 90s were not paid salaries for half a year or more and mere pennies were allocated for defense, money was always allocated for the strategic nuclear forces in full, there were no delays in salaries, and in the 90s the work was completed and the Topol-M ICBM was accepted into service. I knew some of its developers at that time. And the Liner SLBM was developed, tested and put into service in those same years. And work on maneuvering warheads for ICBMs/SLBMs continued. And work on new nuclear warheads/physical packages also continued. Therefore, the Strategic Nuclear Forces in the Russian Federation were not only maintained in readiness and serviceability, but were also improved and rearmed according to long-term plans since the early 90s. No matter how strange it may look against the backdrop of the all-Russian collapse, decline and disgrace. LIVE and retain the right to the property seized during Privatization, everyone who held power at that time wanted. And this principle of the Military Doctrine has not changed since then. And the Enemy knows about it. He probes, provokes, but Knows. So I simply transferred the main principle of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation to the current reality. And on this point, ALL Russian elites have a complete consensus. This is like the "main law of the Universe" for them. So do not doubt. Everyone wants to live, but in the event of a war with NATO, all the algorithms have long been prescribed and introduced into flight missions.

Quote: DO

As of today, Chinese banks continue to block direct Russian payments for Chinese electronics - in compliance with Western sanctions.

Actually, Trump has already lifted a number of sanctions from several Russian banks. And he intends to lift them further. He is determined to do so. He wants to trade. But he does not want to fight with us at all.
As for a possible joint war between Russia and China against the US, this was a purely empirical, but very probable (in the event of, say, a change of power in the US)... assumption. We will definitely not fight under Trump.
And Chinese banks can be understood - they work with the whole world and do not want to fall under sanctions at all. Therefore, for purchases and payments there is a system of "gaskets". It is not very convenient, but such are the times.

[Poplar]

Funds for the nuclear forces were always allocated in full, there were no delays in salary payments

Here you have gone a little too far with such statements. In the Strategic Missile Forces, as everywhere else, there were delays in salaries, diesel fuel was in short supply, the Yankees were roaming around our BSPs as if they were at home, the BZhRKs were destroyed, the missile formations and units on the outskirts and in Belarus were largely disbanded, the silos were destroyed, and so on. But yes, combat duty was carried out in the same way as before, the combat readiness of the units that remained in service almost did not suffer. But this is only thanks to the honor and loyalty to duty of the missile officers. "Perhaps this is not a feat, but there is something heroic in it" (a quote from an old film). And the fact that some developments continued, so it is rather simply due to inertia: funding was greatly cut, many projects were closed, and the pace of the remaining projects and work slowed down significantly. Moreover, the reasons for all these processes were not only economic, but also political. In general, the fact that the Strategic Missile Forces survived in the 90s and did not lose their combat readiness can be called a miracle.

[bayard]

Of course, the Strategic Missile Forces were greatly reduced (but still within the framework of the START Treaty), and there were difficulties with material support and even salaries everywhere, but not to such an extent in the Strategic Missile Forces. And the fact is that the topic of a new ICBM and SLBM was brought to mind in the 90s and a reserve was made for the "Yars", this is a fact. And the continuation of work in this segment looked then ... unexpected (for those who were not in the know and suddenly found out). Simply having deprived all other branches of the military, the Strategic Nuclear Forces were still preserved and carried out duty. And they even worked out the launch of SLBMs "from the pier" in the event of a sudden attack. And having lost the SPRN stations in Ukraine, the Baltics and Transcaucasia (and even having blown up the one in Krasnoyarsk), already from the beginning of the 00s they began to develop, build and deploy new ones to ensure full visibility, without dead zones and with redundancy. That is, The threat of a surprise attack was recognized and insured. Especially after Yugoslavia.
That is why I repeat - regarding the fact that a war with NATO can only be nuclear, the decision was made back then - in the 90s. But this is precisely what later relaxed in the "fat 00s" and in the 10s regarding the other branches of the armed forces. The army was made "Funny" - "Little". Not fit for anything except parades and "peacekeeping operations". "Well, who would dare to attack a nuclear superpower?" But they did - with a non-nuclear doll, reprogrammed Russians. So the SVO cured the towers of fatal pacifism. Because only Healthy Militarism is capable of uniting, strengthening, developing the state, the Army and solving issues on the external contour. But the level and pace of "growing up" is like ... in short - a kindergarten, a nursery group. Such is the level and quality of public administration. Fortunately, not everyone there is like that ... but almost.
It's time to grow up.

[DO]

Quote: bayard

Russia, left alone, has no chance in a conventional war

It is strange to hear this from you, a resident of Donbass. Why then is the Russian army in Ukraine now slowly but surely advancing, despite the supplies of all the necessary weapons to Ukraine from the West, the provision of satellite, radar and other Western intelligence data to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the West paying Ukraine mercenaries from all over the world, the participation of NATO specialists "on vacation" in the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and in complex technical issues? After all, in fact, in Ukraine today Russia is fighting the strongest army of pro-Western countries, unanimously supported by the entire collective West?

Quote: bayard

It was precisely when officers in the 90s were not paid their salaries for half a year or more and mere pennies were allocated for defense, that money was always allocated in full for the Strategic Nuclear Forces, and there were no delays in salary payments.

I can't assess the situation in the 90s throughout the country, but I have a distant relative who served in the strategic missile forces at the time (an officer who, when given an order, would stick in and turn the "key to start"). So, in the 90s, he resigned from the army due to non-payment of wages.

Quote: bayard

So I simply transferred the main principle of the Russian Federation Military Doctrine to current reality.

Probably, it is not worth elevating the document called military doctrine to the absolute - above military-political expediency and common sense. Because after the Ukrainian Armed Forces' strikes on the Russian long-range radar, after their repeated strikes on Russian strategic aircraft, Russia, according to the letter of the military doctrine, could have launched nuclear strikes on Ukraine. But this did not happen.

Quote: bayard

And Chinese banks are understandable - they work with the whole world and don't want to fall under sanctions at all.

Well, if you think that Chinese banks, controlled by the Chinese government, can be understood and forgiven for implementing Western sanctions against Russia, then where does your confidence come from that the Chinese Navy will sink the NATO fleet in alliance with Russia? :)))

[bayard]

Quote: DO

Quote: bayard
Russia, left alone, has no chance in a conventional war
It's strange to hear this from you, a resident of Donbass. Why then is the Russian army now slowly but surely advancing in Ukraine?

You didn't read carefully, I wrote this about the 90s, when the nouveau riche in power in the Russian Federation realized that they had been swindled, and that after Yugoslavia it would be them. It was then, having realistically assessed all the chances and all the scenarios, that they came to the only possible solution - a war with NATO could only be nuclear. And there was complete consensus on this decision. And then, already sick and "exhausted by narzan", Yeltsin rejected all the "successors" from the liberal schizophrenia offered to him and chose a security official. With the task of returning the defense capability, stability on the external contour and the "former status" of Russia. And since 2000, the restoration began. Do you know where Putin flew literally the next day after his inauguration? To Dnepropetrovsk and Pavlograd. Concluded contracts for technical support and extension of the service life of the Voevoda ICBM, and also wanted to buy out the Molodets ICBMs with the remaining service life from Yuzhmash and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for the rearmament of the BZHRK, the service life of the missiles of which had already expired (the first batch had an assigned service life of only 10 years). Everything worked out with the first contract and Yuzhmash supported and extended the service life of the Voevoda until 2014, but it didn’t work out with the Molodets - the US intervened and, for a bribe of 5 billion dollars, forced Kuchma to refuse Putin the Molodets that still had service life. They all were torn apart, disassembled into stages, the nozzle blocks were removed and they were put into storage awaiting disposal. They also failed to buy out all the Ukrainian Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3. Only a few. The rest were destroyed demonstratively, in front of cameras and under the control of the American ambassador and representatives of the Pentagon.

Quote: DO

So, in the 90s he resigned from the army due to non-payment of wages.

Maybe. At that time, the Strategic Missile Forces were undergoing major layoffs, entire divisions, they were blowing up mines, mainly with old UR-100s. My godmother's sister's husband was the commander of two such reduced divisions in a row. One was in the Saratov region, the other in the Krasnoyarsk region. Maybe your relative served in one of the divisions that was being laid off, then their salaries could definitely be delayed. Simply by forcing them to resign themselves, and not due to staff reductions, when they are entitled to very substantial cash payments.

Quote: DO

after the Ukrainian Armed Forces' strikes on the Russian early warning radar, after their repeated strikes on Russian strategic aircraft, Russia, according to the letter of its military doctrine, could have launched nuclear strikes on Ukraine. But this did not happen

Because it was impractical. And this is exactly what they provoked us to do. Instead, the RF continued to recruit under contract, training centers prepared reinforcements non-stop, new SSBNs, MAPLs, and ICBMs continued to enter service, the military-industrial complex was accelerating, and combat aircraft production was increasing at an accelerated pace (before the SVO, 8 Su-35S, Su-30SMs, and Su-34s were delivered per year, and this year, production of all these types has been increased to 30 units annually, while this year, 57 Su-30s will be delivered on the first assembly line, the second assembly line will produce its first products (it will mainly supply for export), and the third assembly line, which will probably assemble the two-seater version of the Su-57, is already being equipped). Similar things can be seen in other areas. That is, all these 3,5 years were not wasted and Russia is rapidly preparing for an almost inevitable war. Just consider that in these 3 years the Navy received 3 new SSBNs and 3 new Yasen-M submarines. And some number of submarines have been repaired and modernized. And we are not at all the same as we were in 2022. And certainly not the same as we were in 2014. And this is despite the sabotage of compradors and provocations from NATO and the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
And now Black Rock declares that they are stopping the search for investors to restore Ukraine, because they are not sure of preserving its statehood. And this is a good sign. It means that the Enemy has already admitted its defeat, has realized the impossibility of achieving its goals.

Quote: DO

Where do you get your confidence from that the Chinese Navy will sink the NATO fleet in alliance with Russia?

I am not so sure. I simply quoted the Chinese Foreign Minister and considered one of the possible scenarios. China will fight with us only in one case - if the US is already fighting with them. But this is exactly what Trump is going to do. Not right now, and perhaps not immediately rudely and openly, but he has already begun a policy of comprehensive containment of China. Let's see how things go. In the meantime, the US has lifted some of the sanctions against Russia - against several of our banks and companies.

[Poplar]

And then, already sick and "exhausted by narzan", Yeltsin rejected all the "successors" offered to him from the liberal schizophrenia and chose a security official. With the task of returning the defense capability, stability on the external contour and "the former status" of Russia. And since 2000, the restoration has begun.

I cannot agree with this statement of yours. There is no logic in the fact that EBN chose VVP as his successor. I would rather call it God's providence. Regarding the restoration that has begun, there is also a controversial statement: the "stool-holder" especially distinguished himself in this field. I will not list all his "feats", the Internet is full of information on this topic, there is a list for more than one page.
There is another point about the dismissal of officers from the Strategic Missile Forces in the 90s: places of service on the outskirts and in Belarus were considered not exactly "prestigious", but very desirable. Few people wanted to move from such places to Siberia, so many quit. There were problems with salary payments everywhere. But for this reason, it was mainly young officers who quit, not burdened with families. The "old men" endured: many were not far from retirement, and rushing off into the unknown with a family on their shoulders was not so bad - they quit only if they had good offers in civilian life from friends or relatives. I served in the 80s and 90s, so I know that it was not distant relatives or acquaintances of acquaintances who were doing the work there.

[1976AG]

"A war with NATO will be completely different, without all these checks and restrictions. Only nuclear and maneuverable in the conditions of the post-apocalypse."

How many specialists were there in our headquarters who knew exactly what kind of war we should prepare for, but when the time came, it immediately became clear - they were not prophets at all. And here you are too.....another prophet.....

[bayard]

Quote: 1976AG

How many specialists were there in our headquarters who knew exactly what kind of war we should prepare for, but when the time came, it immediately became clear - they were not prophets at all.

Did you serve in these headquarters?
Or are you talking about the miscalculations of the VPR when planning the VSO?
So, the VPR is not headquarters at all, it is... Power. A kind of "aristocracy" in the service of Capital. It is impossible to wage war with a "Small Army", without reserves, the introduction of fresh forces into battle to develop success (and oh, what a success it was in the first phase), without normal rotation and supplies. It seems that the VPR was generally impromptu or as an emergency response to a threat, this SVO organized... To the extent of talent and without a cold calculation of subsequent events. As a result, what happened happened, and about which it is impossible to express thoughts without "military" vocabulary. Because it boils.
But the RF Armed Forces, the group allocated for the SVO, fulfilled its task at 150-200% of the estimated possible. For if at the very beginning the ratio of forces (numerically) was 2,5-3 to 1, and by the beginning of autumn it was already from 5 to 7 to 1, thanks to the General Mobilization of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... what can be presented to the Army itself? She did the impossible - she disrupted the offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the LPR and DPR, in one dash reached Kyiv, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Nikolaev, Krivoy Rog, took Kharkov in a semi-ring, surrounded and stormed Mariupol (although in Mariupol the group that was surrounded was twice as large as the forces of the encircling and storming group. This is not just a feat ... legends should be made about such things ... if not for what followed ... solely due to the fault of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the quality of public administration. Stalnoye wrote in other posts. And since the fall of 2, we have been on the strategic defensive. We are now advancing using the method of small positional breakthroughs - from defense.
When the Army is ready for the offensive, you will see it. I hope to see it myself. Now it is not just the SVO that is going on - preparations for the TMV are underway. Reserves and resources are being prepared for it. And in the b\u itself, a lot will soon change. I am not prophesying, but I see it that way.

[1976AG]

Don't get all worked up. Considering others dumber than you is not a sign of great intelligence. You're not a strategist either, so don't tell me who was wrong about what and how the clash between NATO and Russia will develop. There are already too many experts on this resource.

[bayard]

Quote: 1976AG

There are already too many experts on this resource.

This is the resource, that is what it was created for. If you do not agree with my opinion, object, but give reasons. I am expressing my opinion.

Quote: bayard

I'm not prophesying, but I see it that way.

[1976AG]

"This is the resource, that's what it was created for. If you don't agree with my opinion, object, but give reasons. I am expressing my opinion."

You don't express your opinion, you impose it, not allowing for any other possible scenarios. Do you understand the difference? What's the point of you citing arguments for the possible fallacy of your opinion if you are not going to delve into the arguments of your opponents in principle. Well, maybe with time you will understand something else... maybe.

[bayard]

Quote: 1976AG

You do not express your opinion, but impose it, not allowing for any other options.

So state your vision, your opinion, arguments, reasons. For now you only have skepticism, without a reasoned alternative. This is a platform for discussion.

Quote: 1976AG

What is the point of you citing arguments for the possible fallacy of your opinion if you are not going to delve into the arguments of your opponents in principle?

And you try. Maybe I will agree with your arguments and reasons, but I don't see them. Show "the city and the World" your opinion, and not your skepticism about the opinion of your opponent.

Quote: 1976AG

Well, maybe with time you will understand something else.

I had a lot of time, I've been living here for a long time.

[1976AG]

"So state your vision, your opinion, arguments, reasons. For now you only have skepticism, without a reasoned alternative. This is a platform for discussion."

Of course, I don't know how exactly NATO will act, but I think that they themselves don't have a full idea of ​​this right now. Based on the experience of past conflicts, we can say that in each specific case they identify not only weak points in defense, but also try to use methods of undermining defense capability that the enemy either doesn't take into account or doesn't pay enough attention to. For example, what is NATO doing now? On the one hand, they are now testing our capabilities in terms of defending the country as a whole and individual facilities in particular, as well as our determination to seriously respond to their aggression. Let me explain. They already know the capabilities of our air defense quite well. The protection of our defense industry enterprises is not up to par. This is an excellent excuse to use Ukraine to strike our important military facilities and critical civilian or dual-use facilities. Which is what they are gradually doing now and may further intensify such strikes in order to reduce our defense capability. Let me remind you. Not long ago, strikes were carried out on our early warning systems. We were unable to protect these stations and we did not punish the real culprits. They have taken note of this, rest assured. And for us it is a bad sign. From the most recent strike on our airfields with strategic aviation. The result is again not in our favor. That is, they are already slowly destroying our military potential. Thus, NATO has long been waging a war with us by the hands of Ukraine and further actions will depend on whether they find some option for a strike on Russia, in which we will not be able to inflict a worthy response. Or they will not find one. At the moment, there is no reason to think that they will not be able to destroy our aircraft and disable our early warning systems. And they continue to gradually reduce our capabilities in terms of defense and retaliatory strikes. What option for the final strike on Russia they will choose will depend on the results of their actions to reduce our military capabilities. Now regarding preparations for World War III... Are you sure that it is not already underway? Here it all depends on what signs to ascribe to it. If we consider nuclear strikes to be a sign of World War III, then yes. It has not yet begun. But how do we determine the beginning of World War II? After all, it was not from an attack on the USSR, but essentially from the beginning of the confrontation between two coalitions of states - Hitler's and anti-Hitler's. Now the struggle between two coalitions is an indisputable fact. Of course, officially no one declared war on anyone, but the essence of it does not change.

[bayard]

Quote: 1976AG

regarding preparations for World War III... Are you sure that it is not already underway?

We had no doubt that it was already underway back in 2014.
And their Pope announced it (declared its beginning) back in 2012. So everything depends on the perception and classification of events.
The fact that they are constantly probing the weak points and vulnerabilities of our defense, early warning systems, internal social and interethnic tensions, constantly forming and initiating these conflicts... it has always been like this, they have never stopped this.
Nobody expected strikes on the SPRN back then, but remember WHEN it happened - the RF Armed Forces found themselves in a "positional deadlock" and we were constantly provoked, literally begging Russia for nuclear strikes on the former. And the strike on the SPRN stations was such an impetus for this. And immediately the howl of the demshiza and the hurray-war-patriots that "according to the military doctrine, the RF is obliged to use nuclear weapons". But the fact that these weapons should not be used on the former, but on the USA and NATO, they somehow kept silent about. And there were many similar attempts to beg for a nuclear strike. And praise be to Ahura Mazda, we did not fall for it. But we took note.
The strike on strategic aviation airfields is also from this category. Also a provocation and a test of "weakness". But with Operation Spider's Web and a similar (but larger scale) operation in Iran, England opened itself up and opened NATO up to a mirror response. Do you think their airfields, naval bases, headquarters, barracks, energy infrastructure, chemical plants and oil refineries... are less vulnerable to such attacks?
Oh yeah.
And the copters and combat equipment for them cost mere pennies compared to the damage caused. The debt can be covered by the "Red Payment". Which is red because it covers the debt with interest.
These are not statements of how things will be, these are scenarios of how things can be, and sometimes how they should be. Passive defense never leads to victory. Passivity can be justified by a period of accumulation of forces and preparation of actions. Only then can temporary passivity be justified. And do not be like a stupid dog, which is poked with a stick, and it bites this stick. A smart dog will make a lunge and bite the arm ... or the throat.
And regarding the search for and use of our weaknesses... Our enemies promised a year ago to set the Caucasus and Central Asia on fire this summer and to raise migrants to massacre Russians in their cities. And it is this threat that I see much more clearly. Those who have been importing these Wahhabis, criminals from all over Central Asia and Transcaucasia for so many years, did it purposefully - as a secret army named after the Trojan Horse. This is what I see as the greatest threat today. And the VPR not only "missed" all this, it was they/it (the VPR) who imported this horde. And even if some kind of "enlightenment" suddenly happened in the towers and they wanted to expel this entire alien and hostile gathering from the country, then... how can this be done in relation to at least 10 million "valuable specialists"? Here Stalin's examples of the deportation of Chechens, Crimean Tatars and Volga Germans will seem like child's play.
And something tells me that our grandmaster will again say that he was deceived... And it was backgammon, not chess.
And NATO will wait for the results of the detonation of this mine... or rather this minefield under Russia.
Here's another scenario for you.
And I still have them.

[DO]

Quote: 1976AG

another prophet

Do you have any substantive objections, or can you only hang labels on it?

[1976AG]

Quote: DO

Quote: 1976AG

another prophet

Do you have any substantive objections, or can you only hang labels on it?

This comrade confidently describes how NATO will act during a war with us. Don't you think that this fact in itself speaks of the frivolity of his statements? At least for the simple reason that this comrade is not involved in the development of these plans and has not even seen them. But this does not prevent him from asserting that it will be exactly as he says. Typical self-confidence without any real knowledge. In this situation, I do not even need to present my arguments, this comrade himself has admitted his incompetence, but his inflated self-esteem does not allow him to understand this.

[DO]

This comrade confidently describes how NATO will act during a war with us. Don't you think that this fact in itself speaks of the frivolity of the statements. At least for the simple reason that this comrade is not involved in the development of these plans and has not even seen them with his own eyes.

On this page you should not meet people involved "in the development of these plans" by definition. This is where armchair experts frolic. Among them, comrade bayard stands out for his knowledge (or his long-standing interest in the topic under discussion). And he lives where the processes under discussion can be observed directly in many ways, and discussed live with the direct participants.
Maybe I personally don't always agree with all the details of his statements. But this page is intended for discussions.

[1976AG]

"Among whom, comrade bayard stands out for his knowledge (or his long-standing interest in the topic under discussion)."

Still involved in developing plans for armed conflict?

"And he lives in a place where the processes being discussed can be observed directly in many ways, and discussed live with the direct participants."

Lives near NATO headquarters?

Read his statement about the conflict with NATO again carefully. This is not an opinion. This is like a precise scenario. What can we discuss here? The man initially took the position that he knows everything, and the rest should listen carefully to what he tells them (that is, us).

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Bayard, what have you lost your nerve, self-proclaimed expert? Did the OBS suddenly seem like a secret document of the General Staff to you?! You are amused by the presence of sent plusers on materials about which you have neither the slightest idea nor need to know, but there is pathos, pathos and arrogance in abundance.

Don't make the silent ones laugh, who feel awkward writing comments on your fantasies from the green snake about a war with "..NATO, nuclear, maneuverable and in post-apocalyptic conditions..." Don't teach them how to live, who can read both Western European and Mandarin and Cantonese dialects of Chinese...

Don't poke them in the face with your Russians, your meaningful know-it-all, bayard. And not at all with the Leningrad lack of respect for the opponent - this is in fact the nature of your comments on VO.

I wish you peaceful skies and general health, bayard!

[bayard]

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

You are funny because of the presence of sent plusers

I wonder who would have sent them?
And where from? I don't have anyone at all.

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

Your fantasies from the green snake

I haven't even smelled it for about half a year.

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

Don't teach them how to live, they can read both Western European and Mandarin and Cantonese dialects of Chinese...

A very commendable and valuable skill. But on the forum, communication is in absentia, and regalia are not written on a nickname. If you feel awkward writing comments, there is a personal message, where communication can be less public, more calm and thorough.

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

I wish you a peaceful sky and general health,

I wish you health and success in your work.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: bayard

It is for breakthroughs and maneuver warfare.

It's already funny. Where are these generals hiding who can conduct a maneuver war?

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Where are these generals hiding who can engage in maneuver warfare?

the same ones who deployed troops to Kyiv three days later?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

the same ones who deployed troops to Kyiv three days later?

The same ones who couldn't hold the airfield and ran away as soon as the Sumerians started fighting, and not just watching the parade march of the Russian Armed Forces. The same ones who ran away from the Kharkov region, left Kherson and then allowed part of the Kursk region to be captured. Which in turn they threatened to quickly recapture, but things didn't work out and they had to fight long and hard with the "running and ending" UAF troops. The same ones who have been organizing meat assaults and positional warfare for the fourth year now.

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

The same ones who couldn't hold the airfield

What is Gostomel squeezing your balls for, dill or something? The airfield was held until the order,
So was it a war of maneuver or throwing shit?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

So was it a war of maneuver or throwing shit?

There were attempts to get into it. In the end, they were unsuccessful.

Quote: poquello

Why is Gostomel squeezing your eggs, or is it dill?

And isn't your fourth year too tight for you? Not enough Russians have died, little Briton?

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: poquello

So was it a war of maneuver or throwing shit?

There were attempts at it.

the assigned task was completed

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Doesn't your fourth year feel too tight for you?

Are you suggesting that I surrender? )

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Little Briton

I'm near Moscow, I won't specify

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

the assigned task was completed

The task was to escape from the Kharkov region and surrender Kherson? Well, ok.

Quote: poquello

Are you suggesting that I surrender? )

I suggest we get rid of illusions.

Quote: poquello

I'm near Moscow, I won't specify

Abandoned MI6 agent?

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

running from Kharkiv region

the volunteer battalion turned out to be the five hundredth, in war as in war

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

surrender of Kherson

Correct the manual, the Ukrainian Armed Forces drowned him with their own, what would have happened to ours - it would have been right to leave it

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

I suggest we get rid of illusions.

screw it, screw it, to Medinsky

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

the volunteer battalion turned out to be the five hundredth, in war as in war

That's it, the Dobrobat is to blame for everything. Apparently, they built the chapel in the 14th century too.

Quote: poquello

Correct the manual, the Ukrainian Armed Forces drowned him with their own, what would have happened to ours - it would have been right to leave it

As far as I remember, a significant part of the city was not flooded.

Quote: poquello

screw it, screw it, to Medinsky

So you and he are quite similar in terms of illusions.

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: poquello

the volunteer battalion turned out to be the five hundredth, in war as in war

So that's it, the volunteer battalion is to blame for everything.

It's strange that you don't know this, it's strange that you don't realize that a serious collapse of the front is fraught with consequences, neighboring units were hit

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

So you and he are quite similar in terms of illusions.

believe, believe that illusions

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

believe, believe that illusions

You have blind faith, I have understanding. To each his own.

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: poquello

believe, believe that illusions

You have blind faith, I have understanding. To each his own.

The Europeans are blind, they are bursting at the seams and are sulking

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

The Europeans are blind, they are bursting at the seams and are sulking

And we don't have any cracks? Or will it only crack when the economy gets really bad, and a Sumerian drone flies into someone's house in the Moscow region? It's probably not bad that everything is fine for you. But for others it's not like that. And the sun doesn't shine only for you.

[poquello]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: poquello

The Europeans are blind, they are bursting at the seams and are sulking

And ours isn't cracking?

No, it is growing, the world economy is not supported by Europe alone

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: poquello

No, it is growing, the world economy is not supported by Europe alone

Is it really growing? Somehow, the same Gref doesn't seem particularly optimistic. And KAMAZ will discuss switching to a reduced work schedule at the end of July. Apparently, he's tired of the growth.

[Dart]

Hold your tongue. I've known this guy for about ten years, and he has sound reasoning for the most part. But no one knows you, my dear fellow, and you've already started waving your sword.

[bayard]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

There were attempts to get into it. In the end, they were unsuccessful.

A maneuver war is typical for the initial period of a war, and it ends either with a quick victory or a transition to a positional war, if the enemy manages to build defense lines. This has always been the case in all wars. The first/initial period of the SVO was very successful for our Army, but there were no forces to develop the success and/or consolidate the results of the first breakthrough. It is not the Army's fault. It is the fault of the VPR. Since the fall of 2022, the war has acquired a clearly pronounced positional character, and the RF Armed Forces have gone on the strategic defense. To accumulate forces, deploy new units, launch the military-industrial complex. According to all calculations and canons (especially with such a mess as in the RF), at least 2 years were needed for this. Our SVO grouping approximately equaled the Armed Forces of Ukraine in numbers only by the end of last year. All this time, no one demanded breakthroughs and dashing offensives from the Army. There was a positional meat grinder with the accumulation of forces and the turning of the tide of events in their favor.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

yours hasn't been tight for four years?

Everyone is tired, especially here in Donbass. Our war has been going on for 12 years already.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Not enough Russians died?

And who counted them/us (Russians) since 2014?
Russians are dying on both sides of the front. 12.
Or do you, Makar, consider some other Russians?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: bayard

Maneuverable warfare is typical for the initial period of a war, and it ends either with a quick victory or a transition to positional warfare if the enemy manages to build lines of defense.

So offensive operations in World War II are now considered positional warfare? I somehow wasn't aware of that.

Quote: bayard

Wines of the VPR

The guilt of the VPR does not cancel out the guilt of the generals.

Quote: bayard

There was a positional meat grinder with the accumulation of forces

She's still walking, in case anyone hasn't noticed.

Quote: bayard

and turning the tide of events in their favor.

In light of all the failures of our drivers, I would be wary of such statements.

Quote: bayard

Everyone is tired, especially here in Donbass. Our war has been going on for 12 years already.

Well, you're the one who's tired. And the Medinskys and Peskovs are ready to fight for another twenty years peacefully.

Quote: bayard

Russians are dying on both sides of the front. 12. Or are you, Makar, counting some other Russians?

You are considering some other Russians, apparently, from a parallel universe, where everything is fine and wonderful for them. But in my universe it is not so. Here they die every day. Thanks to all sorts of incompetents and scoundrels.

[bayard]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

So offensive operations during the Second World War are now considered positional warfare?

Do you want me to teach you a course in operational and strategic planning? That's not on my salary. WWII, and the Great Patriotic War as a part of it, were quite dynamic in nature, and offensive operations after a front breakthrough had the features and character of a maneuver war. But then the size of the armies was completely different, and Comrade Stalin prepared the Country, the Army, the Economy and the People for war... for real. He lived with passion and at a Stakhanovite pace. But the Karelian Front almost the entire war, the Leningrad Front right up until the lifting of the blockade - an example of a long positional war. Because there were not enough forces for an offensive on all the fronts.
But our nouveau riche did not prepare for war, they had fun with biathlons and parades, compulsory military training was abolished in schools in the early 90s, reserves were not prepared in case of mobilization and reservists were not even registered. During the first months of the Second World War, military commissariats almost drove volunteers away with obscenities - "we have enough". Embezzlers, saboteurs and just spies in the leadership of the Ministry of Defense ... how many were arrested, and how many were quietly removed? Because - our own. Wars are not won with such an "elite". It took a whole "rebellion" of Prigozhin and Utkin to shake this swamp. Otherwise, both the Army and the Country would have been ruined. And the fronts were held at that time thanks to the Will, courage and tenacity of Russian soldiers ... of different ranks and titles. And to the volunteers who could travel around half the country before finding an opportunity to join combat units. Because the Ministry of Defense categorically did not accept them. And thanks to the All-People's Aid of their Army, when ordinary people collected money and bought everything the fighters needed, because General Shoigi stole everything and did not provide anything. I know how it was and how it is. And changes are happening both in the Russian Federation and in the Army... Slowly, with creaking and resistance, with sabotage and sabotage. But they are happening. And the war must be won in any case. And not left for "later".

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

And the Medinskys and Peskovs are ready to fight peacefully for another twenty years.

These are ready. It's even better for them this way.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: bayard
Russians are dying on both sides of the front. 12. Or are you, Makar, counting some other Russians?
Are you considering some other Russians?

I didn't drink to brotherhood with you, Makar, so choose your words.
Whose people are you? Don't you have any relatives on the other side of the front? And almost all of us have friends, acquaintances, relatives on that side. Since 2014, it's not at all uncommon for brothers, or father and son, or uncle and nephew, to fight on different sides. Civil War is when one nation fights against itself. There are no "Ukrainians" in nature, just an entry in the passport, and for some, both parents are often Russian, but the child has recorded himself as "Ukrainian". This has been the case since the times of the USSR. Russians are fighting on both sides of the front. Only on the other side they are stoned on propaganda, NLP and drugs. And now the overwhelming majority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are forcibly mobilized. And the English and Co., who captured this part of Russia (the former Ukrainian SSR), All these years they have been keeping records of the killed and the maimed without separating. Have you heard this joke from Tsarev: "They bring the British ambassador to Ukraine a report - 200 Russians and 200 "Ukrainians" were killed in 400 hours. And the ambassador writes in his report to London - "XNUMX Russians were killed"." Have you ever wondered why the "government quarter" in Kyiv is standing intact? Why are Zelensky and Co. under a guarantee of immunity from the guarantor of all guarantees?
I don't know how all this nonsense will end, but for now we need to do one thing - win. We'll ask questions later.

[Vik_Vik]

Do you even have a rough idea of ​​the balance of forces near Kiev to throw words around like that? You weren't there. You would have easily defeated an enemy that was many times superior in strength.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Vik_Vik

Do you even have a rough idea of ​​the balance of forces near Kiev to throw words around like that? You weren't there. You would have easily defeated an enemy that was many times superior in strength.

You will still blame me for the miscalculations of our generals. And it is good that I was not. Dying heroically because of someone's stupidity is not at all to my liking.

[bayard]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Where are these generals hiding who can engage in maneuver warfare?

We have such generals and their names are known.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Already funny.

But the Sumerians don't find it funny.
And the English and Franks don't find it funny.
And the Germans and Poles don't find it funny.
And even in the US it's not funny at all. Not at all. The arsenals are empty, there's a hole in the budget, Russia is only getting stronger in 3,5 years of conflict, the RF Armed Forces are growing in numbers and quality, they've gained colossal combat experience, the military-industrial complex has been promoted so much that the entire NATO collective farm can't keep up.
And Makar is funny.
Did you fight, Makar?
Or is it the natural memory of a fish? Don't you remember the first days, weeks, months of the SVO? When the Russian Armed Forces with meager forces entered from 5-6 directions. To Kyiv, to Sumy, to Kharkov, Kherson and Zaporozhye. Have you forgotten? Or are we pretending? How our troops stood almost at Krivoy Rog, at Nikolaev, at Zhitomir? How they held Kyiv in a semi-ring?
Not ?
"Forgot" ?
But the Kyiv group of the Russian Armed Forces numbered only 30 bayonets!
That's all!
And the Kherson group was no bigger, even smaller.
And how they quickly took Mariupol into a ring, and stormed the city itself? Do you remember? When the troops storming and surrounding Mariupol were almost 2 times less than the fascists in the city... And they took it.
And how did they immediately seize and take control of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant?
Makar!! That's exactly what it is, that's what is called - Maneuverable Warfare. And it's not the Army's fault that such a tiny force was prepared and dispatched for the SVO. It's the VPR. But the Army showed HOW it can fight a maneuver war. Against an enemy that was 2,5-3 times superior (initially!) to it. Without reserves, with logistical difficulties. Against an enemy that began a General Mobilization on the very first day of the war... And the RF VPR decided on a "partial" one only more than half a year later.
If our Army had not been able to conduct a maneuver war, with such a balance of forces and with SUCH a military-political leadership, the Russian Federation would have lost the war in the summer of 2022 and certainly in the beginning of autumn XNUMX.
It is not the Army's fault that the military performance was of such a quality, especially at the beginning of the Second World War. But it was thanks to the Army's skill that the most difficult and dangerous period from autumn 2022 to autumn 2023 was passed without defeats, retreats and disasters. And then the movement towards Victory began.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: bayard

And then the movement towards Victory began.

Is that what it's called now? When in the 4th year of war you control less territory than in the first? I hope I'll live to see that victory. Because with such a pace of advance there's a good chance that it won't. And if NATO intervenes directly then there's no longer any point in talking about victory.

[bayard]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Is that what it's called now? When in the 4th year of war you control less territory than in the first?

And what part of the first year of the SVO do you mean? The end of the first year of the SVO? Well, then we controlled a much smaller territory and the Donetsk agglomeration was under artillery fire. Donetsk was regularly covered with "Grads". And my house was hit. And the whole yard was covered with "Lepestkas", and the glass was cracked from the shock wave. And how many civilians were beaten/maimed...
And now the front has gone far to the west. The longest-range artillery has not been able to finish off for a long time. "Hymars" sometimes fly in, but they are usually intercepted. You haven't heard any cannonade for a long time. And recently even the FAB and UMPK, which our aviation uses. The Luhansk region has already been completely liberated, the entire south of the Donetsk region.
Or are you looking at the map of February 2022 breakthroughs?
So these strikes from different sides were supposed to disrupt the Ukrainian Armed Forces' offensive against the LPR and DPR. We were facing a select 150-strong group. The shelling began in early January 2022 and steadily increased. And this offensive was disrupted. And was it really possible to take Kyiv with a 30-strong group? Its peacetime garrison had that number. Kyiv alone mobilized 000 volunteers in the first 3 weeks, not counting the reserves that were transferred and its own 70-strong garrison. And at the same time, Kyiv was essentially encircled and held under fire.
For what ?
To facilitate the coup in Kyiv.
Not fused.
But the minimum task was accomplished - the offensive on the LPR and DPR was disrupted, the entire Mariupol enemy group was surrounded, destroyed and captured. With much smaller forces than the enemy.
And then they went into strategic defense. Because the VPR did not want to develop and maintain the Army before the SVO, and for the parade, 280 thousand (together with conscripts, of whom half) of the Ground Forces would be enough. This Folly and Folly is now being cured and corrected by War.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

And if NATO intervenes directly, then there will be no point in talking about victory.

Now it's too late for NATO. Their train and last chance have left. And their choice is simple - crawl under the bench and pretend to be a mouse, or die in a Nuclear War. Guaranteed and without any chance.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: bayard

What part of the first year of the SVO do you mean?

To gestures of goodwill.

Quote: bayard

Now it's too late for NATO. Their train and their last chance have left.

It’s a pity that NATO doesn’t know about this and continues to arm itself and arm Ukraine.

[bayard]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

To gestures of goodwill.

These were forced gestures, we did not have the strength then near Kiev not only to continue the pressure, but also to hold the positions, our "pincers" around Kyiv were already being cut off from the flanks. If we had had a group of at least 100 thousand there, we would have pressed them, and it would have been enough to control the rear. But in fact, they barely managed to jump out of their encirclement. That is why there was a lot of abandoned equipment - without fuel, with poor supplies of ammunition. Columns from near Kyiv flew out at full speed. Otherwise, they would have been routed. Against ours then less than 30 thousand, the enemy had at least 120 thousand. According to other sources - up to 150 thousand. Let half of them have just been mobilized, but there are forests around Kyiv, and in such conditions, quantity always matters.

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

It's a pity that NATO doesn't know about this.

He knows. He knows, he's shaking, and he'll arm himself anyway and flatter himself. They are Ukraine, just like before, under external control. And it's scary, and they don't want to, but they do it. So don't even doubt it, there will be a war with NATO. They've already started brainwashing them with the use of NLM and using methods tested on used cars. Soon they'll start catching men on the streets, too, at the TCC.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

the biggest one is stuck in a smartphone,

They are, apparently, prohibited from being used on LBS, as a good beacon for enemy RT troops... At the same time, the overwhelming majority of fighters use smartphones in such a way that they give up and leak colossal amounts of information. Some "especially gifted" ones also insert captured SIM cards from Ukrainian mobile operators and install applications like Getcontact.

Quote: bayard

Tanks are now increasingly used as fire support for infantry, and less and less in assaults.

What a contradiction...That's how they reinforce the infantry during assaults.

Quote: bayard

So new technology is not here. It is for breakthroughs and maneuver warfare.

That is, it is no longer needed on the LBS, since there are no breakthroughs and you have to maneuver behind your infantry.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

It seems that they are prohibited from being used on LBS, as a good beacon for enemy RT troops...

You can do it wisely - in a melized coffee bag, which shields. You can do it without a SIM card, but use it as a surveillance camera from cover. Call or send a message only in the rear. Our guys have been fighting for 12 years, they can even spot snipers with heat sinks at night with a smartphone camera (the camera's range of perception is wider than the human eye, the heat sink glows).
That's why I mentioned this incident - yesterday I just received a message from a friend describing what happened. We couldn't talk. You can quickly shoot an SMS on the air, especially when moving (not in combat). And in a foil bag you won't even find a smartphone with special equipment at point-blank range. Especially if the battery is insulated - it's enough to put some cellophane between it.

Quote: Askold65

What a contradiction...That's how they reinforce the infantry during assaults.

Now they go on assault differently. First, reconnaissance and powerful suppression, then a quick dash of the assault group or groups (if they are distracted in a neighboring area, drawing the drone operators towards themselves) on motorcycles/ATVs/buggy (but mainly motorcycles) - capture of a strongpoint, clearing, consolidation, flag and defense until reinforcements arrive. Such dashes. Tanks can cover and support with flat HE shells. Even "super barbecues" are used less and less now - there are too many drones in the sky.

Quote: Askold65

Quote: bayard
So new technology is not here. It is for breakthroughs and maneuver warfare.
That is, it is no longer needed on the LBS, since there are no breakthroughs and you have to maneuver behind your infantry.

Well, I wrote - the equipment that the SVO groups currently have is sufficient. It is enough. And the new equipment, so from the factory, goes to new units that are being formed in the rear or deployed along the western border with NATO. Equipment is NEEDED, but it goes from the factories to where it is needed more. So new tanks, as a rule, go to new units. And if some direction needs to be strengthened/saturated with such equipment, it is always there - the factories are not working in vain.

Quote: Askold65

you have to maneuver behind your infantry.

That's right. Right now - that's right. In order to avoid unjustified losses. We learned to fight in new conditions, we adapted. New tactical methods were born, military tricks. In war as in war.

[Askold65]

Thanks for the detailed answer. But still...

Quote: bayard

Tanks can provide cover and support with flat HE shells. Even "super-barbecues" are used less and less now - there are too many drones in the sky.

By flat fire - is it direct fire. Or is it more correct - high-angle, from behind cover?
So, it seems that "super barbecues" are designed to protect against a large number of drones? They are reportedly capable of withstanding up to 20 hits.

Quote: bayard

And the new one, so from the factory, goes to new units that are being formed in the rear or deployed along the western border with NATO. The equipment is NEEDED, but it goes from the factories to where it is needed more.

Because modern equipment with new fire systems, thermal imagers and other "bells and whistles" is needed at the front to more effectively beat the Banderite enemies armed with Western weapons. Old stuff is usually sent to the rear to police units to fight bandits and other terrorists.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

By flat fire - is it direct fire. Or is it more correct - high-angle, from behind cover?

It happens this way and that way, war demands different things. And our tankers have learned to fire from closed positions since 2023.

Quote: Askold65

So, it seems that "super barbecues" are designed to protect against a large number of drones? They are reportedly capable of withstanding up to 20 hits.

Any barn built around a tank can be destroyed by a large number of hits. This is not a wunderwaffe, but a forced measure and soldier's ingenuity. If you want to live, you won't spread yourself like that. And in war you have to want to live.

Quote: Askold65

Because modern technology with new fire systems, thermal imagers and other "bells and whistles" is needed at the front

Yes, there is this equipment, all tanks with thermal imagers. But right now they are rarely used. When the time comes, they will be put into action. Now, in essence, there are "local battles" along the entire battle line and a creeping offensive in the conditions of a positional war. When the time comes for the Offensive, tanks will go into battle. In the meantime, there is a message that the Ministry of Defense has purchased 100 motocross motorcycles for the assault cavalry. There is an effect from combat use - now they will probably invent a new branch of the armed forces - assault cavalry.

Quote: Askold65

The old stuff is usually sent to the rear to police units to fight bandits and other terrorists.

Well, for control of the rear and at checkpoints, that's of course also, but the T-62M, and even the T-55 in defense as a fire reinforcement for infantry, are very useful, they were driven into the troops from the very beginning of 2023 - during the shell famine. Because there were simply tons of OFS for 100 mm and 115 mm tank guns in warehouses. So much for "utilization of old ammunition with benefit", and high-quality reinforcement of infantry in defense. IYO the combat resistance of even an old tank from counter-battery fire is much higher than that of any self-propelled gun, towed gun or BMP-3. Old tanks have been very relevant since then. And why transfer the resource of 125 mm tank guns and waste valuable OFS, when you can with the same success use 115 mm and 100 mm. to be attacked by enemy shells. Cheap, accessible and very angry.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

IYUO the combat resistance of even an old tank against counter-battery fire is much higher than that of any self-propelled gun, towed gun or BMP-3.

Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are not designed for counter-battery combat. They are direct support weapons. But the best way to fight like this is to quickly abandon positions. Or, as is now the case, towed guns are dug into the ground, lining the trench with logs with careful camouflage and dugouts for the crew. And also additionally hanging FPV nets for additional camouflage. They are much more resistant to counter-fighting and drones.

Quote: bayard

And why waste the resource of 125 mm tank guns and waste valuable HE shells when you can just as successfully use 115 mm and 100 mm shells to beat the enemy. Cheap, accessible and very angry.

This is a forced measure in the conditions of a shell shortage. I agree. But the power of the 125 caliber is still higher and the production of replacement barrels is established. And where to get used rifled barrels for old tanks? If only to remove from other rusty ones from storage.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are not intended for counter-battery warfare in principle.

But nevertheless they can do it. Especially since the BMP-3 gun can be raised as much as 70 degrees and fire from some ravine or forest clearing.

Quote: Askold65

Now, towed guns are buried in the ground, lining the trench with logs with careful camouflage and dugouts for the crew. And also additionally hanging nets from FPV and for additional camouflage. They have much higher resistance to counter-fighting and drones.

Well, cover the old tank with a barbecue shed, with nets, young trees and tie it with branches, and try to recognize it, and it is not easy to hit at all, and it can change position quickly, and during the change of position, combat stability is an order of magnitude higher than that of any other. Everything that is available, everything is used, adapted. The Marines have adapted to mounting naval rocket launchers on tank chassis and Motolyga. And they have been firing since 2023. What kind of Frankensteins will you not see in such a war. And this happened in WWII too, I read a lot about it in soldiers' memoirs at the time.

Quote: Askold65

Where can I get used rifled barrels for old tanks? If only I could take them from other rusty ones in storage.

Well, just take it from storage. I don't know, maybe during the disposal of the T-55, the guns were removed and put into storage. Well, that's it... they shot up the gun, there's no replacement, they removed the turret, covered it with a sheet - here's your evacuation tractor. Or they'll attach another module there. At least a Grad launcher, or something else. Back in 2015-2016, I saw how they assembled various Frankensteins from damaged tanks after the Debaltseve operation. They even tried to attach a BMP-2 turret to one tank without a turret. I don't know if it worked, but in Algeria, all T-62s received the Berezhok module on the podium instead of a turret. And they're happy...

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

But nevertheless they can do it. Especially since the BMP-3 gun can be raised as much as 70 degrees and fire from some ravine or forest clearing.

That's right - this is a 100-mm MORTAR with a rifled barrel and a fire range of about 7 km.

Quote: bayard

The Marines have started installing naval rocket launchers on tank and Motolyga chassis.

Yes, I saw it. There was a lot of noise, but little sense.

Quote: bayard

Well, that's how it is... they shot up the gun, there is no replacement, they removed the turret, covered it with a sheet - here you have an evacuation tractor.

It would be better to convert them into heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

That's right - this is a 100-mm MORTAR with a rifled barrel and a fire range of about 7 km.

But it can do just about anything with direct fire, and with an ATGM. But in a positional war and for actions from ambushes and closed positions for infantry it is the best.

Quote: Askold65

Yes, I saw it. There was a lot of noise, but little sense.

Well, that's a different matter. But when there's not enough firepower and shells, and only our own are ordered to fight, not only everything comes from the naval warehouses and reserves. They even put a 25 mm anti-aircraft machine gun on the Motolyga. And then there's THIS caliber. Although it's not far and not very accurate, it makes a lot of noise and can cause trouble if it hits.

Quote: Askold65

It would be better to convert them into heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

In the BMP, this is a lot of work for fitters and welders, if the right one, with a rear door or an aparel. And if you just put infantry in the fighting compartment, then it would be better to use some other module. There are still enough tanks in warehouses, and at the beginning of the SVO there were 72 and 80 T-55s and T-62s, T-1500s and T-2000Ms respectively. So let the tanks be tanks for reinforcing infantry in defense, for checkpoints in rear areas, and modernized T-62Ms with a thermal imager from the T-80U\T-90A in less priority areas as line tanks.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

But if you just want to put infantry in the fighting compartment, then some other module would be better.

Yes, as our grandfathers did in WWII - they converted captured Pz-III into SPG-76I, with a gun from T-34 in an armored cabin. However, on the chassis of the same T-34 they made SU-100 or SU-122 based on IS-2. Why ours do not do the same is a mystery to me...

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

or SU-122 based on IS-2.

The Su-122 was also based on the T-34 chassis. The SU-2 and ISU-152 were based on the IS-152 chassis.

Quote: Askold65

Why our people don't do the same is a mystery to me...

Probably because it is economically inexpedient and technically irrational. If we are talking about converting old T-55 and T-62 into TBMP\TBTR. Besides, there are not as many of these tanks in storage as some people think, but there are still plenty of shells for them in the warehouse. So let them work in the SVO as a self-propelled gun to reinforce the fire, and the old shells are usefully disposed of. And when the shells, the service life of the guns, and the service life of the tanks themselves are exhausted, they can be disposed of.
We have all the reserves of self-propelled guns, towed guns, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers from storage bases, all suitable for restoration and modernization. Repair plants are busy with this. But TBTRs, TBMPs need to be built from scratch - so that the resource is zero, so that it is enough for the entire cycle of wars. There was a chance to solve the issue with the production of TBTRs from T-64s on their base, their chassis. But I'm afraid that time has already been lost and it is more rational to build such vehicles on the T-90 chassis (as the most common, cheap and the troops have enough spare parts for it).
But the BMP-1 with a new combat module (from the BTR-82A), with reinforced armor, with side screens and DZ "Kaktus", have already appeared at the parade this year. In principle, a good modernization, but still not for assaults.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

Probably because it is economically inexpedient and technically irrational. If we are talking about converting old T-55 and T-62 into TBMP\TBTR. Besides, there are not as many of these tanks in storage as some people think, but there are still plenty of shells for them in the warehouse. So let them work in the SVO as a self-propelled gun to reinforce the fire, and the old shells are usefully disposed of. And when the shells, the service life of the guns, and the service life of the tanks themselves are exhausted, they can be disposed of.
We have all the reserves of self-propelled guns, towed guns, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers from our storage bases and they are now being put into use.

It is precisely the old towed guns that need to be installed in armored cabins on tank chassis. As you wrote above - for mobility and combat stability with an increased caliber. And some tanks should be left for the disposal of stale ammunition.
[

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

It is precisely the old towed guns that need to be installed in armored cabins on tank chassis.

Just instead of a turret?? Or will we have to invent a turret for them? No way, it's better to take an old (but with a full/almost full barrel resource) gun, say "Mstu-B", take a new 8x8 automobile chassis for it, armor the cabin and get, voila - "Malva". And an excellent wheeled self-propelled gun turns out.
And let the tanks remain tanks, their hulls are such a hassle to remake... Well, there was an idea to put the old BM "Terminator" tanks on the podium. Without grenade launchers, only cannons, a machine gun and ATGMs. "Terminator-2" they called it. Algeria ordered 300 of them and received them. A long time ago. And then he got so into it that he remade another 300 of his T-62s into "Terminator-light" by removing the turrets and putting the BM "Berezhok" turret on the podium. And now he has as many as 600 "Hellish Threshers" of two types with the protection level of a tank. We wouldn't mind this either, but we have so few of these (old) tanks left anyway - they were sold off in previous years. So let them all remain infantry fire support tanks until the end of the SVO and then - until resource exhaustion. While there are shells. Well, really, 1500 T-55 and 2000 T-62M, this is not much at all, and there were so many at storage bases somewhere in 2020. 800 T-62M are being modernized (they are already finishing this order) - a new more powerful engine, ERA "Contact-1", side screens with ERA and grids, a thermal imager and a sighting system from the T-80U and T-90A. The modernization itself is very inexpensive, but the tank becomes very good and can fight at the level of MBT in not the most critical areas. Its modernization is 4-5 times cheaper than the modernization of the T-72B3M.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

Just instead of a tower?? Or will we also have to make up a tower for them?

No, you didn't read my post carefully -- remove the turret, no need to redesign the hull, and instead weld on an armored cabin made of rolled armor steel sheets (even multilayered) like on the SU-100 and install a 130mm M46 or 152mm D-20 cannon. And please, put the Msta-B on the Malva. Only the Malva needs a new chassis, which is also less stable in counter-battery combat and less passable.

Quote: bayard

.....but we have so few of these (old) tanks left - they were sold off in previous years.

Once sold, they can be bought back. For Ukraine, the West bought up wherever possible. In extreme cases, you can ask in North Korea or through it in China. The firing range and the power of the projectile HE of such SPGs are incomparable with tank guns.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

we remove the turret, there is no need to redesign the hull, and instead we weld on an armored cabin from sheets of rolled armor steel

Do you want an assault SPG? Our 125 mm can handle it quite well in terms of power. I wrote about the desirability of such an assault SPG or assault tank with a 152 mm cannon of reduced ballistics. For storming cities, capital defensive lines, and I wrote about it many times and long before the SVO. But now it’s too late due to the abundance of attack drones over the battlefield. So there’s no point in fussing about the result. We have enough SPGs, and why stick something like that on the chassis of old tanks? An SPG needs a completely different layout, a fairly large fighting compartment for the ammo and a rotating turret. Such SPGs need to be made from scratch so that the old chassis doesn’t fall apart at the most crucial moment during the battle. Our armored vehicle factories have seriously expanded their production. For long-range SPGs of 152 mm caliber. Now a wheeled chassis with an armored cabin is preferable. Counter-battery warfare now looks different - reconnaissance from UAVs and guidance of the "Krasnopol" by a laser beam. The chassis has high cross-country ability, and a trailer is not needed for movement on public roads. For the "Coalition", an unsuccessful (too short, six-wheel) chassis was initially chosen, a seven-wheel one is needed and not from the T-90, but from the T-80, which is certainly better and will absorb powerful recoil better. They did not have time to launch the production of ammunition for the Coalition into series ... so we are fighting this war without this wonderful, but unfinished self-propelled gun. There is no need to mold Frankensteins - we have a lot of tanks in storage, they have powerful guns, their power is sufficient for assault operations. So they need to be built at maximum speed - new and modernized.
And the self-propelled guns with the Msta and Giatsint guns should be built on wheeled chassis - it's faster, cheaper and more convenient in logistics. It would be good to get the Koalitsiya on a wheeled chassis, I know that there was such a prototype with a turret on a wheeled chassis for coastal defense. But you can also think about the Koalitsiya on a wheeled chassis like the Malva. But after this war.

[Askold65]

Quote: bayard

Do you want an assault self-propelled gun? Our 125 mm is quite powerful and can handle it.

No, a self-propelled artillery gun in a protected cabin. But, in principle, it can act as an assault gun. In terms of power, the 152nd caliber is much higher, including in terms of range and accuracy of firing a rifled barrel, than 100 - 125 mm.

Quote: bayard

The existing range of SPGs is enough for us, but why stick something like this on the chassis of old tanks? SPGs need a completely different layout, a sufficiently large fighting compartment for the ammo and a rotating turret.

It's not even a question of the range, but the number of self-propelled guns at the front. How many of them did the Ukrainians burn? According to some data, there is a shortage of armored vehicles at the front. Including self-propelled artillery. In addition to your theses that such a self-propelled gun, unlike the "Msta" and "Akatsiya", is more stable in counter-battery combat, since it is better armored against shrapnel and other weapons. Because not every shell can hit the target accurately, even with laser guidance. Which also depends on the weather. Towed artillery loses in counter-battery combat. These can be covered with just "Hymars" cluster missiles.

Quote: bayard

The SPG needs a completely different layout, a large enough fighting compartment for the ammo and a rotating turret. Such SPGs need to be made from scratch so that the old chassis doesn't fall apart at the most crucial moment during the battle.

SPGs are needed here and now, not when they are made in the required quantity. And now we take an old chassis, an old barrel, weld on a simple cabin and we can go into battle until they send new ones.
The Germans also converted their obsolete Pz-III into "Sturmgeschütz", which drank a lot of blood from our tank crews. But this was also caused by the fact that the German production could not cope with the increase in production of labor-intensive tanks with rotating turrets. We are now in the same situation.....

Quote: bayard

There is no need to mold Frankensteins - we have many tanks in storage, they have powerful guns, their power is sufficient for assault operations. So they need to be built at maximum speed - new and modernized.

That's what I'm writing about - we have a lot of obsolete tanks in storage, we have a lot of old howitzers in storage. And from them you can very quickly build, not a Frankenstein, but a very well-armored self-propelled gun. Fast, cheap and cheerful. But new ones from scratch - long and expensive....
Frankenstein is when a rocket launcher is mounted on a tank chassis. Practically useless on the front lines.

[bayard]

Quote: Askold65

Frankenstein is when a rocket launcher is mounted on a tank chassis. Practically useless on the front lines.

If you want to live, you won't spread yourself like that. The Marines were then told to fight with what they had, so they perverted themselves based on the capabilities of the naval warehouses. Moreover, there was a shortage of shells and they had to get by. That's how they got by.

Quote: Askold65

self-propelled artillery gun in a protected cabin.

Will it fit there properly? Look at the ISU-152, do you want that? The entire frontal part has been redesigned. These SPGs were built from scratch. And look at their rate of fire. A tank with a 125 mm cannon and automatic loader can fire several shells at one target if necessary, but it will be mobile and can turn the turret in any direction. And how will this SPG turn? What if it is in an urban area? What if you need to jump out with a gun on board and quickly fire a shot or two and back?
If we talk about something similar for high-angle shooting at long/medium distances, then for this there are "Malva" and "Acacia-S". The wheeled chassis is much more versatile and has sufficient cross-country ability, cheaper and faster to produce, and it is possible to use towed guns from storage bases to equip an artillery unit.
Our problems with self-propelled guns are not only and not so much due to losses, but because of the barrels being shot down. And because of the breakdowns of old equipment, because they have been in warehouses for more than 30 years. Age takes its toll. And also because of the "deficit", because new units are being equipped and they also need artillery. And not only for the SVO, our western border is now being actively strengthened.

Quote: Askold65

Fast, cheap and angry.

Fast, cheap, angry is a self-propelled gun on a wheeled base. They are cheaper and faster to produce, they have armored cabins and they are much more convenient and self-sufficient in logistics. So leave the tanks alone, they are good and versatile in themselves. Now the production of gun barrels needs to be urgently increased. And we turn tanks into assault weapons by covering them with a super-barn "shed" and nets. And still, in the current reality, these are one-throw machines. Run under drone strikes to the line of sight of the strongpoint, shoot it with a gun, knock it out ... and after the battle for repairs. Doing the same with a 152 mm gun, say with a D-20, it will be very labor-intensive, long, expensive, and it will turn out even worse. Because the rate of fire and aiming time are low, there is no stabilization, no automatic reserve, small ammo count, non-optimal configuration. If it were rational, it would have been done long ago, fortunately there is plenty of broken equipment for such creativity. But I do not recall a single such case. Such an assault tank with a low-ballistics gun should be developed in peacetime, tested on proving grounds and shooting ranges, assessing the feasibility and combat value of such a monster.
The main thing now:
- shells,
- gun barrels,
- serial production of wheeled self-propelled guns to replace towed and, to some extent, tracked ones.
- modernization and return to operation of all stocks of storage bases.
- development and expanded production of the Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled gun in several versions (a tracked seven-wheel chassis with a classic turret, a wheeled chassis with a standard Koalitsiya-SV turret, a wheeled chassis with an open gun mount a la Malva or the French Caesar).
The weakest point now (as I see it) is the insufficient capacity for producing gun barrels for the existing guns and the organization of mass production of shells and propellant charges for the Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled guns. All these issues need to be addressed systematically and on the necessary scale.

[Alexey Lantukh]

So new technology is not here. It is for breakthroughs and maneuver warfare. With such an abundance of FPV it is difficult.

It seems that so far the LBS is mostly a positional war. And the reason is FPV. As soon as they build a decent defense against drones, then "tanks forward". I don't think they are not working on this issue. But, for now, there is silence ... .

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

so far on LBS there is mainly a positional war. And the reason is FPV. As soon as they build a decent defense against drones, then "tanks forward". I don't think that this issue is not being addressed.

That's right. In addition to the SVO, we need to maintain and strengthen the anti-NATO group along the entire western border. So now there is where to distribute new tanks.

[Dilettante grandfather]

I'm just stating a fact.

Sorry, a fact is a confirmed value. Please confirm with documents that armored vehicles are not supplied to LBS. Refute what we are told in all official media. I am waiting.

[ROSS_51]

Quote: Arzoo

No, the Ministry of Defense knows better. I'm just stating a fact.

Foreigners write that we have formed and are still forming up to 13 new divisions, the personnel of which are not involved anywhere. Perhaps they are being equipped. Perhaps they are waiting for where the front will break through.
Perhaps the foreigners are mistaken. Ours are silent and rightly so.
But the fact that trains with equipment leave factories and are transferred to the Ministry of Defense is a fact.

[paul3390]

And what do they have to do - they have not been producing heavy armored vehicles for a long time now... They are only modernizing what was built earlier.

[tralflot1832]

Alexander I came across a video from that side, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces has a captured T-90, it’s good, sometimes it allows him to go wild.

[Aviator_]

Is this the same one that the Kantemirovskaya division abandoned in 2022? Well, it seems to have already been recaptured.

[Montezuma]

Quote: tralflot1832

I came across a video from that side, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the captured T-90 is good, sometimes it allows them to be outrageous

Andrey, I saw it too.

[bulgaria_]

Just think about it - did Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger cause the most damage to you? Or was it F-PV, Himars, and low-profile missiles?

[Scientist_]

Why then are they increasing production of T-90?

[Arzoo]

This question should be asked to the Ministry of Defense. Clearly not for the current needs of the front.

[VitaminBF3mg]

If they are increasing it means it is not bad. For a certain "action" - a certain tank is needed.

[Sorensen]

They are increasing the production of T-90s to trample the Danes, Tribalts and Poles into the mud.

[Neptus]

Yes. Almost all new armored vehicles go to the newly created Leningrad Military District.

[Dilettante grandfather]

trample the Finiks, Tribalts and Psheks into the mud.

There are no people of ours in Poland or Finland. It is enough to send missiles there. Why drive tanks if there will be no enemy troops on the territory? There are still people of ours in the Baltics. But alas, even if a skirmish with Lithuania starts, there will be no opportunity to work on the enemy with velvet gloves: the NATO member must be destroyed as quickly as possible. In the case of the Baltic bugs, one cannot waste time playing diplomacy.

[dimon642]

And where do so many believers come from to reach the English Channel?

[bayard]

Quote from Scientist

Why then are they increasing production of T-90?

To equip new units and for a future war with NATO. On the active fronts, what is there is quite enough. This is, of course, about tanks.

[ergh081]

It is supplied. I recently went to that steppe: they bring new ones there, burnt ones from there. If they bring them, it means there is a need. Finally, a tank is the only means that can work under enemy fire. How long or short? Yes, that's the question, but there is no other

[Obstacle from the right]

Now almost nothing from armor comes to LBS, because it is not needed. Due to the vulnerability of modern armored vehicles.

Hurricanes hurricane, breakthroughs break through, and chatterboxes chatter...

[Egeny]

...something didn't get you, Dima.

[Scientist_]

By 2028, up to 1000 vehicles of this type could be produced

The much-hyped Armata is gone, it has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Arzoo]

I think, like all tanks. There is no salvation against drones. And there will be none.

[Scientist_]

Tanks have been buried many times. But there is no replacement for them and none is expected.

[Arzoo]

There are none on LBS now. There are still some super-barbecues here and there. There are only a few of them. And the motorized vehicles sometimes use them as kamikaze drones, fill them with TMs and launch them towards the enemy stronghold. That's all the armor.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

After the introduction of a normal APS, these drones will fade into the background as anti-personnel weapons. And then, only until the infantry is given normal means of counteracting drones.

[Arzoo]

I saw a video this week of a small Chinese quadcopter flying at 300 km/h. At such speeds and with machine vision, no KAZ will help.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Well, yes. A KAZ that can intercept APFSDSs at a speed of 1600-1800 meters per second will not be able to react to drones at a speed of 300 km/h.
lol and only

[Arzoo]

lol and only

Yes, you also take into account the number of such drones. And the fact that they can fly not only in the upper hemisphere.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

and you should take into account that a normal KAZ can repel a dozen drones at the same time. and the systems that, for example, Lobaev is already developing (radar + automatic shotgun of large caliber) are also cheap and rapid-fire.

[Arzoo]

and those systems that, for example, Lobaev is already developing (radar + large-caliber automatic shotgun) are also cheap and rapid-fire.

Well, this is very important. Perhaps it will help. Since attaching machine vision to a drone will lead to a very small increase in the cost of the drone. Yes, the software there is complex to distinguish one's own first of all. But at the level of components, the cost is like an inexpensive phone.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

that is why the priority is given to physical interception, and not to all sorts of KOEP, which was emphasized on the T-90 (IR searchlights) and KOEP on the Armata (covers the upper hemisphere).
The KOEP is the first stage that can take away some drones or ATGMs, but not all of them, then physical interception comes in and it is not like it was at first in Trophy where the mortar reloads in 2 seconds and a salvo of 2 ATGMs with an interval of 1 second hit the tank. The APS should be multi-charge and automatic, preferably multi-barrel (in the case of mortars this is true, there are at least 2 of them, and it is possible to have up to 4 per side or up to 12 per tank if from all sides). And only after them the DZ and armor come into effect.
This is how it should be, and I hope that this is how it will be for us.

[Dirty Liar]

It won't be able to. Pavel, I think we've already had a discussion about this. The APS is not very effective against drones because it has a lower response limit. For Iron Fist - 252 km/h. And drones fly 100-150 km/h. The APS simply won't consider them a threat. If you lower the lower limit - there will be a huge number of false alarms for birds/bunnies that carelessly jumped towards the tank.

[Askold65]

Quote from: DirtyLiar

The KAZ is not very effective against drones because it has a lower response limit.

This algorithm was designed with optimization for past threats. The KAZ included in the work is dangerous for its infantry in any case, and birds/bunnies (by the way, running on the ground, not flying) during combat operations, as a rule, hide somewhere. But even if there is a false alarm on a flying sparrow, than a defeat from an FPV drone. Yes, maybe video cameras with AI can additionally visually monitor the surrounding environment.

[Dirty Liar]

Well, we remove the lower response threshold.
Situation: the column is moving towards the LBS. Taking into account how far FPV drones can now fly, KAZ needs to be included at least 10-15 kilometers away.
One can estimate how many activations of the APS will be due to lumps of dirt and stones flying out from under the wheels/tracks of the vehicle in front. I think quite a few.
As for working with infantry, you won't believe it - just yesterday there was an article about a new Swedish infantry fighting vehicle with a KAZ. An infantry fighting vehicle, damn it! Which is designed for transporting and landing infantry. I can just picture it - the infantry fighting vehicle stops, the troops jump out (they are in close proximity to the vehicle) and then they shoot at the infantry fighting vehicle. What will happen to the troops? That's right - nothing good. And there are 6 of them.

[Askold65]

Quote from: DirtyLiar

One can estimate how many activations of the APS will be due to lumps of dirt and stones flying out from under the wheels/tracks of the vehicle in front. I think quite a few.

And what distance should there be between cars so that the lumps of dirt flying into the sky are not taken seriously?

Quote from: DirtyLiar

What will happen to the landing force? That's right - nothing good.

The KAZ will be turned on when vehicles with troops are moving on the march, and during the landing, the main thing is not to forget to turn it off.

[Dirty Liar]

And what distance should there be between cars so that the lumps of dirt flying into the sky are not taken seriously?

As very common cases show (there are quite a few of them on the Internet), when a stone flies into the windshield from under the wheels of a truck in front, the distance should be greater than the standard for civilian cars on the highway. Should we stretch the column?

The KAZ will be turned on when vehicles with troops are moving on the march, and during the landing, the main thing is not to forget to turn it off.

Hmm... That is, exactly at the point of the battle, where the landing force is being landed (after all, it would be stupid to land it five kilometers from the place where they were going) we stop (or slow down as much as possible so that the landing force is not injured during the landing) and turn off KAZ. Excellent target - motionless and without APS. Smells like masochism.

[Askold65]

Quote from: DirtyLiar

As shown by very common cases (there are quite a lot of them on the Internet), when a stone flies into the windshield from under the wheels of a truck in front,

Common, when you watch numerous videos on the Internet, which were filmed somewhere, sometime, in different parts of the world.... In reality - not so daily. And depending on what other stones - the size of FPV? Unless it was some kind of brick that flew out of the back of a KAMAZ truck in front.

Quote from: DirtyLiar

This smells like masochism.

Masochism, when you don’t turn off the APS and carry out a landing operation.

Quote from: DirtyLiar

and turn off the APS. An excellent target - stationary and without APS.

Yes, it will. This is a target not only for RPGs, ATGMs and drones, but also for artillery shells, tanks and automatic guns. Therefore, everything must be done very quickly and, if possible, covered by shelters, folds of terrain and smoke screens.

[Arzoo]

only until the infantry is given normal means of counteracting drones.

There are attempts to work with anti-drone nets from a 12-gauge cartridge. Well, they are not exactly nets, but pins. The result is weak so far.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

the KAZ will either have a mortar that also has a blast wave, or shrapnel that is enough even for ATGMs and APFSDS, not to mention more fragile drones

[Dmitry_Nemets]

What KAZ are you talking about? We don't even have enough Kontakt-1 boxes now, volunteers make them and bring them to tank crews. If they can't even set up mass production of the required number of old DZ boxes, then what's the point of dreaming about KAZ.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

We don't even have enough Kontakt-1 boxes now, their volunteers do it and they bring it to the tankers

Quote: In a boring voice

The KNDZ "Contact" consists of a container stamped from sheet steel with a thickness of 3 mm and two flat protective elements (FPE) equipped with VV PVV-5A and placed inside the container

- which of the following, in your opinion,done by volunteers"?
- "at your place" - where is it?

[Dmitry_Nemets]

We have this in the Lao army. Volunteers bring the EDS, that is, the boxes themselves. For example, the No Pasaran foundation does this, which also supplies machine gun boxes and belts, which are also in short supply. Didn't you know? Or do you have everything according to your reports and the army doesn't need anything?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Volunteers bring the EDS, that is, the boxes themselves

And the filling? The empty box is good for storing the car in the park.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

There are EDS in warehouses, but no boxes

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

There are EDS in warehouses, but no boxes

Clear. thank

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

after the introduction of a normal KAZ, these drones will fade into the background

Not at all. The main goal in combat is not to destroy a tank, but to disable it. No matter what kind of APS you install, drones can still seriously damage a tank. Finally, no one has canceled the gaping tanker with an open hatch. But you mentioned the infantry correctly - it is its equipment or equipping light platforms with adequate means of defeating drones that is the key to protecting tanks.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Even a hammer can still cause damage if you hit the sight with it.
If the KAZ works properly, then no drone will even scratch the paint, let alone "damage" it
PS KAZ works automatically and is ahead of any infantryman in terms of information processing speed, moreover, KAZ, due to the fact that it is installed on equipment, is not limited by dimensions and power consumption, therefore, a priori, it has more capabilities than portable equipment.

[Neptus]

The KAZ can be easily depleted - a dozen stupid drones and the charges in the current defense sector will run out.
The tank should not defend itself - its function is to destroy enemy firing points. To protect the tank and close infantry, a support vehicle should be used (I wanted to say BMPT, but with its single-turret combat module there will be no point) with a pair of 30mm rapid-response automatic gun modules (against exposed dangerous points with RPGs, ATGMs, ...), with a close-in air defense function (against kamikazes, UAV guidance, incoming grenades and missiles), with an optical target detection station (all of the above, including ground mines and unexploded ..., for destruction from the gun) and a mine front trawl.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

The charge for the mortar costs much less than the drone.
If the APS is normal, then you can install a hundred charges. Even a dozen will cover the needs in 80% of cases when 5-10 drones fly at the tank.
and if at the same time the other branches of the military are not catching crows, then while these 5-10 drones are hitting the tank, at the same moment Krasnopol flies to the positions of the drone operators or the remote antenna.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

The charge for the mortar costs much less than the drone.

It's not about the cost, it's about the location in the open space around the tower - they will blow themselves up.

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

while these 5-10 drones are hitting the tank, at the same moment Krasnopol flies to the drone operators’ positions or the remote antenna.

Antennas can be switched and have different frequencies, i.e. you will shoot somewhere between them.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

they won't blow them up because they are so powerful that they clearly won't penetrate the tank's armor, and in order to blow them up, something would first have to fly at them, and for that, they would have to overcome that very APS and those mortars with charges.
As for antennas, it doesn't matter at all because a multispectral analyzer costs less than an iPhone. And it doesn't care about 400 mg or 6 ghz, it will still detect the signal source and transmit its coordinates where needed. And besides this, you also need to have a SIGINT UAV, with the same direction finder analyzers (aircraft type, because for SIGINT the size of the antenna may matter and the computer there, if it fits, then only a large one, but a copter can hang and this is a blessing for SIGINT) that will detect the coordinates of the drone operators' antenna and transmit them to the artillery, which will destroy everything that controls the drones with Krasnopolyami. And then no drones will disrupt the attack.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

they won't blow them up because they are so powerful that they clearly won't penetrate the tank's armor

I'm not talking about armor, but about these shells and mechanisms that cannot be covered in large quantities.

I'll continue, I accidentally clicked "reply".

[Pavel Kislyakov]

They are also protected from shrapnel and small arms fire like DZ blocks. There, the FAR canvases are vulnerable to shrapnel and small arms fire, so they plan to make them as small as possible. And mortar blocks will be difficult to break even with a sledgehammer.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

and it will be difficult to break the mortar blocks even with a sledgehammer.

Firstly, mortars are for a smoke screen (one-time action).
But the KAZ is different. The Armata has lying stacks of "tablets" in the space between the turret slopes. The Merkava has external containers with charges.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

As for antennas, it doesn't matter at all because a multispectral analyzer costs less than an iPhone. And it doesn't care whether it's 400mg or 6ghz, it will still detect the signal source and transmit its coordinates where needed.

You are very far from the topic. A pair of antennas can create a virtual positioning point, like a pair of speakers can create a sound position between them. This is used in electronic warfare, when a pair of helicopters makes the enemy fire at empty space. That is, a false/virtual picture of the location of the signal sources is created.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Don't tell this to an engineer who received awards for this in the SVO (the awards weren't really for this, but I encountered this topic more than once, at least during quarrels with commanders and their threats to send me to the electronic warfare department, which we sadly half-jokingly called temporary residents; apparently they didn't think of making false positions with a signal).
your pair of antennas is taken into consideration and their double signal is divided by the same pair of antennas. just like 2 microphones detect the shooter's position, but a double shot spoils their work, but adding a 3rd microphone allows you to separate even the 3rd shot.
if anything, KAZ uses 2 antennas per side (although in theory, even a phased array can split the signal on its own). although if you're talking about single canvases like in the old Arena, then that might be the case.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

your pair of antennas is taken into consideration and their double signal is divided by the same pair of antennas. just like 2 microphones detect the shooter's position, but a double shot spoils their work, but adding a 3rd microphone allows you to separate even the 3rd shot.

You have it all mixed up here. I'll answer from the end.
The 2nd and 3rd shots don't ruin anything. If your microphones go muffled, it means someone is doing something wrong.

Two antennas, due to the phase shift, create a new virtual point of radiation and the receiving group of antennas, like a passive antenna array of a radar (PFAR), will receive a signal from this point - this is a spatial deception, like a hologram in optics, like 3D sound in acoustics (have you played games?).

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

send me to the electronic warfare department, which we sadly half-jokingly called temporary residents

This is electronic warfare of dull noise jamming from a single station.
For a safe version of such electronic warfare, a pair of synchronized stations is needed, with the formation of a false radiation pattern. What such a thing exists in the army - I don't know.
In aviation, multiple false targets are created by groups of aircraft with synchronized active phased array antennas or special electronic warfare equipment.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

I know how it works, I also know that even directional radiation does not go in a straight line, but in a triangle + echo (and with omnidirectional antennas it is generally difficult to do), so some of the radiation still reaches two antennas and by the time difference in receiving the same packets on two different antennas, both signals are burned and the false one is filtered out, and three even more accurately triangulate the location. and 4 is even better. you just won’t put 3 and 4 antennas on the KAZ, this is a matter for electronic warfare. What you are writing was tried to do back in 2022. It works somewhere, and doesn’t somewhere else. But it works where there is no appropriate equipment and doesn’t work where it is. In a normal KAZ, this equipment is there and making software to make it work as it should is not difficult. Our only problem here is that the customer gave an order to detect incoming PTS, and not for electronic warfare and electronic warfare. That’s why the contractors don’t do these functions. But give me a normal technical specification and you’ll get a piece of cake. but there are no people at the top who will give normal technical specifications. moreover, there are a lot of people at the top who reject normal ideas and do not put them into action.
How it works was explained to me in plain English back in 2022, when I was also throwing out ideas, it turned out that no one needs any ideas until someone from above shouts that they need them.

[Neptus]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

I am also aware that even directional radiation does not go in a straight line but in a triangle + echo, therefore part of the radiation still reaches two antennas and by the difference in reception of identical packets on two different antennas both signals are detected and the false one is filtered out, and three even more accurately triangulate the location.

Actually, the third one is needed for a 360-degree circular picture, not a one-sided one, less than 180 deg, with two antennas. And they will show what the transmitting side wants, the picture it has formed.
And triangulation is a geodetic determination of a point, and cannot prove the truth of the direction of radiation.
Unfortunately, you are not a radio engineer and are far from mathematics.

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

You won't install it on the KAZ, it's the business of the SAR. What you're writing was tried to be done back in 2022. It works in some places, and doesn't work in others. But it works where there is no appropriate equipment and doesn't work where it is. In a normal KAZ, this equipment is there and there's nothing complicated about making software to make it work as it should. Our only problem here is that the customer gave an order to detect incoming PTS, and not for EW and SAR. That's why the contractors don't do these functions. Give me a normal one

We, at the beginning, discussed the detection of the drone control station antenna, where you said how easy it is to cover it with Krasnopol. I said that it can be hidden, and the number of drones attacking a tank with an APS will be limited only by the actual number of them in the enemy.

Regarding the KAZ, I can simply say that there is a phased array (in the Armata), so it is possible to use calculations to eliminate any interference that should not be present in the immediate area.

[Disant]

Pavel Kislyakov
As for antennas, it doesn't matter at all because a multispectral analyzer costs less than an iPhone. And it doesn't care whether it's 400mg or 6ghz, it will still detect the signal source and transmit its coordinates where needed.

What are you even talking about? Maybe you control signals from the remote control (from the repeater) you are confusing with video signal, coming from a drone?
or are we talking about trowels?

[Dilettante grandfather]

The main goal in battle is not to destroy the tank, but to disable it.

With a damaged chassis, the tank is disabled. But partially. It can still fire, search for and find targets. Therefore, disabling the tank is not critical for it, the tank.
The main thing in fighting armored vehicles is to disable the crew. An infantryman cannot replace a commander or a gunner. Neither can a paratrooper. Yes, the driver can be replaced. At least intuitively understand the controls - it is possible. And start the internal combustion engine, and move somewhere.
And in the dispute between armor and projectiles, there has always been approximate equality. Either armor or projectile/bullet wins. I think drones will soon disappear. In about 50 years.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

in future tanks everything will be computerized, I really hope that in 10-15 years tankers will all be WoT players and will only suffer weight losses, and even then small ones.
Drones will disappear in 5-10 years. And with great efforts, they can be put to an end in a month, because drone operators are more vulnerable than their targets. But this is with competent command and the right equipment. Even optics can detect drone operators' locations.

[Dilettante grandfather]

In future tanks everything will be computerized

Don't get your hopes up. It won't happen.

In 10-15 years, tankers will all consist of WoT players and will only suffer weight losses, and even then, small ones.

Since World of Tanks, like Wargaming.net, are structures hostile to us, your statement is more than questionable.
The owner of Lesta, if you are not aware, is currently under trial, and Lesta's accounts have been frozen.
So World of Tanks won't work either. And I won't even mention the "tankers". A virtual war is not real. Especially if only tanks go into battle, without infantry, artillery, aviation, mines...

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Yes, Japan Frame, you'll still pick on the commas.
what, because Lesta was not only arrested but even taken into state ownership, did the players stop being Russian? or is the problem to create another, more realistic simulator. especially since I am talking about WoT as an example, because on a real tank everything will be different and there will be many more "buttons" there.
I'm talking to you about the idea itself that soon all the main functions will be taken over by automation, and tankers in augmented reality helmets will have other tasks, then with the development of quantum communication, which cannot be intercepted (although IMHO it can still be jammed) completely unmanned tanks may appear where tankers in these same augmented reality helmets will sit in a bunker in Moscow.
and what can such helmets do, look at the videos about "transparent armor" on Israeli tanks. their future has already arrived. and now it is moving forward even faster. we will have to catch up there.

[Dilettante grandfather]

more realistic simulator.

Was created. A long time ago. "T-34 vs. Tiger".

then with the development of quantum communication

I assume you live in Japan? Or in China, huh?
When have we ever introduced new developments in a timely manner?! Have you been reading too many science fiction books?
What does "But in Israel..." have to do with it? "But among the Americans..."
Sergey Ivanov spoke about virtual tankers in 2016 or 2018. I haven't seen a single drone tank yet. People decide. And a tank, plane, or gun is just an addition to people.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Do you really think that the control interface of the tank of the future will use the control interface of WoW tanks?
and what I described is ALREADY available NOW, the only question is the price and quantity of products. because NOW it is very expensive, like radars in the 30-40s, and which were weaker than cheap infantry radars in 30 years.
technologies are developing and what is now used in pilot projects in 10 years in the form of bulky equipment will already be available for technology, in another 15 it will even be installed on cars. and in another 15 even one person will be able to have something like this.
PS drone tanks have been used on the ruins for a year now. Another problem is that there are about ten of them. But radio-controlled cargo delivery vehicles or wounded evacuators are already quite common.
and this is like the first planes that had no speed and carried such loads that the second pilot was already a problem for takeoff. and what can planes do now? the same with ground drones. now the technologies are still complex and expensive, so they are not produced in large quantities (helmets for Israeli tanks are also not very willingly bought because equipping them with such helmets is like paying for half a tank, but this is FOR NOW. because at first the helmets cost 700 thousand and after 3 years already 400 thousand dollars. in 10 years they will be at the price of an iPhone because in the States Microsoft develops such helmets even for the infantry at a price of about 5 thousand dollars and they are more stuffed because the infantry needs its own heat sensors on the helmet and not a picture from IR cameras, which are already included in the price of the tank and not the helmet)

[Dilettante grandfather]

In reality, it is not tanks, drones, shells or guns that decide.
People decide. People! Please remember once and for all: helmets, drones, tanks are just an appendage. People make decisions.
And all this "5 thousand bucks" is crap. Even 100 thousand bucks, euros... If there is no man, there will be no such idiotic concepts as dollar or euro. And there will be no rubles. And no yuan.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

The machine gun is also an appendage, but as the late Evdokikov said in his speeches, he liked to walk around with an axe, and people understood him better with an axe.
otherwise you abruptly jumped from the topic of protecting tanks from drones to people making decisions. By the way, the Pentagon disagrees with you and is already working on AI that will control troops because it makes decisions instantly without wasting time on coordination between branches of the military. In fact, network centricity was needed for this.

[Dilettante grandfather]

The Pentagon disagrees with you and is already working on AI that will control the troops

They do. Sharply increasing the probability of a global nuclear war. Because AI is far from perfect, and will not calculate all the consequences for humanity. And - yes, AI - will only sort through the options that people put into it. And not make its own decisions.

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

Drones will become extinct in 5-10 years

won't do. This is a new type of weapon that has been developing for a long time and has finally reached the level of both efficiency and mass production. And it won't disappear quickly, but will continue to develop. Their presence will simply have to be taken into account.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

They have achieved nothing. They are widespread only because they are cheap, and they are cheap only because they have civilian technologies. The price tag of drones for the Pentagon and the Russian Defense Ministry is completely different. True, the possibilities are higher.
and they are effective now only because they are not really trying to fight them. and they come up with half measures. but if they had taken a comprehensive approach, which I have already gotten tired of writing about, then the drone topic would have faded away in a couple of months.
Today's drones are the weapon of the poor.

[multi-category]

Well, "civilian technologies" don't interfere with the use of Molotov bottles, just like a lot of other equipment that is currently being used in the SVO.
And if you're tired of writing, try turning not against the wind

[Pavel Kislyakov]

You tell our soldiers that when enemy tanks come at them, they need to forget about ATGMs, drones, RPGs, and stock up on Molotov cocktails.
and other armies at this time will fight modern ones.
you'll laugh together.
and so the military eat stewed meat just like civilians. Only this does not affect the Strategic Missile Forces in any way.
because the topic was originally drones versus tanks. and now drones are effective only because essentially no one is fighting them. let's fight, but do it this way: I can hit you, but you can't hit me. the most you can do is dodge, and how much will you get beaten like that?
it's the same with tanks. and if a tank has means of physically intercepting drones and PTS, the drones will sit and nervously smoke on the sidelines. if not the drones themselves, then their operators for sure.
and when the price tag on drones will be the same as on a car, even the General Staff will start smoking nervously

[multi-category]

You've got something mixed up. Shotguns and hunting sniper rifles are used against drones. Throw them out??? And get the infantry off their motorcycles... for what? The army has nothing. Run on foot? Why do you have to climb into a bottle to solve every problem?

[Pavel Kislyakov]

study the material and read again what I write. Stop asking questions that I have already answered.
if anything, civilian FPV drones are easily extinguished by directed microwave radiation. and this is the main difference between civilian and military products. the same applies to EMP. therefore, even whole swarms of Chinese drones that look like wunderwaffe on Chinese videos can only cause harm to those who were not going to fight such a thing. and a normal enemy, not the Laotian army, will finish with such a thing very quickly. and with military products it will be much more difficult. but the price tag there will be such that every Chinese will sell a kidney to equip his army in large quantities.
For example, compare the cost of the Lancet and the FPV drone. Even the FPV drone has a comparable range. The warhead there is approximately the same, a cumulative mass of 2-3 kg, and in new versions of the Lancet up to 5 kg, but the cost is even higher.
and by the way, the Lancet is still not a completely military product. Some of the electronics there are purely civilian. The same recognition modules there are civilian Teslas from NVIDIA. And the price tag is still oh-hoho

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

this will end very quickly

you are hysterical. Firstly, EMP will harm itself more in defense and where is it used? Secondly, we are talking about drones as part of the war, and not the only means of weapons. If the very fact of the presence of drones forces to drag equipment to fight them and hide, not to be impudent, they have already done half the job. Now about the microwave. Military drones fall from it in the same way, maybe somewhere the shielding was added, but nothing more. Finally, now there are mass workshops that re-equip civilian drones for suitability on the battlefield and it is simply not clear - this is civilian technology or military. There is no section.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

in defense, fortification is used most of all, EMP is actually of no use to it. secondly, EMP can be directed.
As for the microwave, military drones fall from it in the same way that military aircraft fall from anti-aircraft fire, from which civilian aircraft generally fall like crazy. But hitting a Boeing 747 and a Su-35 is not the same thing.
so with military drones and civilian ones, civilian ones fall from the slightest radiation that easily passes through plastic, but military drones have more resistant microelectronics that can even be resistant to radiation, and the housings there are usually made of shielded composites that conduct microwaves worse. Yes, both are vulnerable, but I repeat - the difference between them is very big. Actually, that is why the cost is so different.
I'm going to visit now, if anything, I'll answer tomorrow.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Why then does the crew immediately flee when a tank, chassis or engine is damaged?
Because the tank that is standing will soon be destroyed. They will finish it off.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Why then does the crew immediately flee when a tank, chassis or engine is damaged?

Those who are cowards run away. Those who fight for Victory fight to the end.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Are you a hero in the name of victory anyway? Slogans and reality are very different. Losing an experienced crew in an immobilized tank is the height of stupidity.

[Dilettante grandfather]

If everyone ran away when a tank was damaged, we would not have won the Great Patriotic War. A crew that has not completed a combat mission has no right to run away.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

It seems that way to you from your comfortable sofa. And don't drag in the Great Patriotic War, which has no parallels to today's events.

[Dilettante grandfather]

And there is no need to bring up the Great Patriotic War, which has no parallels to today’s events.

Really?! The fight against Nazism doesn't seem like a fight against Nazism to you?! I wouldn't be surprised if you are in Lviv.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Don't make me laugh. Comparing some murky war with agreements and unclear and vague goals with the Great Patriotic War is pretty stupid.
It must be cool to fight Nazism by releasing Nazi leaders from captivity?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Comparing some murky war with agreements and unclear and vague goals with the Great Patriotic War is rather stupid

Hmm... and this is allegedly written contract soldier of the Russian Armed Forces. It's funny.

For some reason I remember a duck: it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[Dmitry_Nemets]

What makes you think I'm a contract soldier?
And what exactly do you disagree with?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

What makes you think I'm a contract soldier?

Because conscripts are not involved there. Or are they lying too?

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

And what exactly do you disagree with?

None of the people I know and who are currently taking part characterize what is happening the way you do.

Next - see above about the duck.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Is there no one else besides contract soldiers and conscripts?
Or maybe your friends are sitting in comfort in the rear? Maybe if they had gone on assaults a couple of times, their opinion would have changed?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Is there no one else besides contract soldiers and conscripts?

And who is there?

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Or maybe your friends are sitting comfortably in the rear?

Absolutely not.

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Maybe if they had gone on the assault a couple of times, their opinion would have changed?

So you go on assaults. Regularly. I remember.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Remember who else is there. Who has already been forgotten.
Cheap manipulation about the assault. Then you will attribute to me what I wrote.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Remember who else is there

Why? Better tell me who you consider yourself to be. In the affirmative, um... form.

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Cheap manipulation about the assault. Then you will attribute to me what I wrote.

Umm... you didn't write this?

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Or maybe your friends are sitting in comfort in the rear? Maybe if they had gone on assaults a couple of times, their opinion would have changed?

You wrote this in response to the fact that

Quote: Paranoid62

None of the people I know and who are currently taking part characterize what is happening the way you do.

It is logical that since you think differently than the people I wrote about, you still go on assaults. Repeatedly. Where is the manipulation here?

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Can't you do it yourself? Are you so disgusted by this word?
The rest is just stupidity. Apparently you haven't played enough spies yet.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Can't you do it yourself? Are you so disgusted by this word?

I don't get it. You haven't named the word, but you've already declared that it disgusts me. This is, in fact, typical manipulation.

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Apparently you haven't played enough spies yet.

No, I just have a day off today.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Well, okay, since you can't remember or are just kidding. There is such a category of military personnel - mobilized.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

mobilized

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated September 21.09.2022, 647 No. XNUMX "On the announcement of partial mobilization in the Russian Federation", citizens of the Russian Federation called up for military service under mobilization have the status of military personnel serving in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation under a contract

It's strange that you don't know about this. And yes - what about the assaults?

[Dmitry_Nemets]

Here you can see, a person very far from reality. You will also say that we have the same rights and salary.
Mobiks and contrabasses are two completely different categories of military personnel. Otherwise, mobs would not be forced to sign contracts.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Mobiki and double basses are two completely different categories of military personnel

What exactly is the difference? Enlighten a person who is far from reality, and you will be rewarded.

On the subject of reality: a friend's son was mobilized, somewhere in the north now. He came on vacation in the fall, I talked to him. He somehow forgot to mention the difference you mentioned, I guess.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

In many ways. In attitude, in salary, in restrictions, in opportunities, etc.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

In many ways. In attitude, in salary, in restrictions, in opportunities, etc.

I see. It's all about nothing. Doubts are getting thicker.

And yes, what about the assaults? You hinted that they were there.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

I don't give a damn about your doubts. Some home storyteller will tell me about reality.
What about the assaults? Let's get down to business.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

What about the assaults? Let's get down to business.

Do you have a bad memory? Let me remind you:

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Don't make me laugh. Comparing some murky war with agreements and unclear and vague goals with the Great Patriotic War is pretty stupid.

Quote: Paranoid62

None of the people I know and who are currently taking part characterize what is happening the way you do.

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

Or maybe your friends are sitting in comfort in the rear? Maybe if they had gone on assaults a couple of times, their opinion would have changed?

That is you did go on assaults, and that's why you allow yourself to characterize the SVOAs

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

... some kind of murky war with agreements and unclear and vague goals

Actually, that's it. I'm listening to you attentively.

[Dmitry_Nemets]

So he went and gave a reference. What next?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

So he went and gave a description.

Well, here's the strange thing: for some reason, my people don't criticize everyone. Although they don't slack off either. And why would that be?

[Terenin]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Why then does the crew immediately flee when a tank, chassis or engine is damaged?

Those who are cowards run away. Those who fight for Victory fight to the end.

There are no contradictions in your dialogue. The German would definitely run away...

[Dmitry_Nemets]

And you are heroes, of course. And you would sit in a tank until it is burned. It is good to dream about heroism on the couch.

[Terenin]

Quote: Dmitry_Nemets

And you are heroes, of course. And you would sit in a tank until it is burned. It is good to dream about heroism on the couch.

Sofa, sofa... Listen, dear sir, it feels like you write your posts strictly in a trench, on the boot of a dead Banderite.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Terenin

A German would definitely run away...

Well, what's great for a Russian is... not so great for a German.

[Lptsk]

Reb will help and Kaz. Now they will figure it out and we will look at the artillery again.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

KAZ can also be on passive detection means, for example, in the Afghanit Armata KOEP there are UV sensors. They are of little help against APFSDS, but they detect ATGM launches in no time. Considering that UV sensors can also work with the sky background, they can also work against drones. But there are other technologies besides UV and IR.
In addition, the EW must have a direct line of sight with the radar, and given the terrain in the European theater of operations, this is a range of several kilometers. That is, the KAZ will even be able to show where the EW emitter is located and you can fire a tank gun at it. By the way, tankers are the main enemy of EW after artillery with drones.

[Lptsk]

no need to see. need to turn off the frequency

[Pavel Kislyakov]

to suppress the frequency you need to have more power. and these are the dimensions of the emitter, which for the KAZ are the phased array. and the power of the phased array also depends on the size of the phased array, for the KAZ this is an important indicator because the smaller the phased array, the greater the chance that fragments from the artillery will not cut it. but to show that the radiation of the electronic warfare is coming from there and throw an OFS there is just what the doctor ordered

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

you can hit it with a tank gun

You can go for a bang, but only the idiots won't sit in cover.
But the truck doesn't have a howitzer-type gun, it won't cope.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Don't talk nonsense, I already wrote above that tankers after artillery and drones are the main enemies of the rabovtsy.
We had a lot of people die from direct tank fire.
or do you think that the electronic warfare is sitting 100 km behind the ruler?
the bulk of the electronic warfare is located 1-5 km from the LBS and often the pot was sent to shoot single tanks at the electronic warfare guys, our guys did the same. and yes, like in theory this tank should have been hit before it opened fire. but for some reason they didn't.

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

Don't talk nonsense, I already wrote above that tankers

Well then explain how a tank commander, knowing only an approximate vector, can find and hit an EW group entrenched in a hole or other fold in the terrain? Let me remind you that it is quite difficult to accurately determine the vector even for two coordinated teams of direction finders, and this is a tank commander, he has not been trained to do this. A tank cannot shoot by intuition, it needs at least a reference point for shooting. But most likely, they shoot at random and hit someone.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

Now the tank driver is simply told on the radio to go there and shoot there.
and the tank of the FUTURE, where there is a normal ACS with the necessary equipment, will not even need a radio, because on the augmented reality display the FCS itself will point with an arrow to a circle or whatever will be there for the sight symbol to show danger or interference here. The FCS will even show the grenade launcher if the OLS recognizes him (finds him by heat and then recognition). If desired, the ACS will even be able to calculate the coordinates of the radio and transmit it to the tankers, and show clearly where the radio is broadcasting from

[multi-category]

Quote: Pavel Kislyakov

at the tank of the FUTURE

Well, when we stop passing off T72 clones as modern tanks, then maybe the tank of the future will appear in the future, but now, blessed by the ghost of the Armata, they fire cast iron from tanks designed in the late 60s and will continue for the next 10 years. Such a future.

[1976AG]

"There are none on the LBS now. There are still some super barbecues in some places."

Do you know what a super grill is?

[Dilettante grandfather]

The much-hyped Armata is gone, it has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Don't be shy, provide evidence.
The fact that a tank is not used in the Air Defense Forces does not mean that it has been written off.
Justify your idea. Show documents that Armata is everything, or even everything. Then we'll talk.

[1976AG]

"The fact that a tank is not used in the Air Defense Forces does not mean that it has been written off."

Who said that it is not used? Did Arzo say that?) Don't believe me, they are used. Arzo just doesn't know.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Who said that it is not applied? Did Arzo say that?)

You know, I don't know who "Arzo" is. I only know that the Armata was recognized as being ahead of its time, and therefore impractical to produce: it costs more than the same T-90 "Proryv". There are mentions of the T-72 and T-80, with the T-90 - in the media. But about the T-14 - silence.

[1976AG]

I didn't say anything about the armata at all. And Arzo is the guy here who claims that armored vehicles are not supplied to LBS.

[Dilettante grandfather]

I didn't say anything about the armature at all.

Hmm... So I wrote about Armata, and you opposed me, but not about Armata?! I'll go and think... I'm not sure I'll find time for you after that.

[1976AG]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

I didn't say anything about the armature at all.

Hmm... So I wrote about Armata, and you opposed me, but not about Armata?! I'll go and think... I'm not sure I'll find time for you after that.

You don't have to think, I don't need your time.

[Sergei S]

Quote from Scientist

The much-hyped Armata is gone, it has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

"Armata" is a platform for heavy armored vehicles. The current T-72/T-90 will need to be replaced with something, because it is already becoming morally obsolete. Therefore, "Armata" has not gone anywhere, it is simply not needed in the realities of the SVO, because it is much more rational to produce what is already established.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

The vehicle is equipped with multi-layer composite armor, modular armor panels, armored canopies (side "skirts" and "barbecue"), as well as active electronic countermeasure systems and radar warning systems designed to counter drones and loitering munitions, which have become the basis of the anti-tank strategy of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

and what kind of drones and loitering munitions have radar guidance?

[Carlos Hall]

Forget tanks. This is not a war for tanks. Tanks had their glory days in World War II, like cavalry in the Middle Ages or machine guns in World War I. This is a war for drones and loitering munitions. And Russia has a strong case with its FPV, Lancet and Geran.

[AK-1945]

Foreign experts "calculated" the scale of losses and production of T-90M

So I want to tell them that they’d better count their losses.

[anatolv]

Leading experts of the Military Academy have said that tanks are already "done", let's go home guys!

[Grim Reaper]

Quote: anatolv

Leading experts of the Military Academy have said that tanks are already "done", let's go home guys!

Leading experts of the VO said such things in a simple article on energy that it became clear to me, as someone who has worked in the energy sector for 15 years, that leading specialists don’t understand anything in other areas either.
99 percent.
But I read the comments. :)

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Grim Reaper

... leading experts... said such a thing in a simple article on energy that it became clear to me, as someone who has worked in the energy sector for 15 years, that leading experts don't understand anything in other areas either

Quote: Grim Reaper

But I read the comments. :)

And wow... so much positive energy, all at once and in one bottle

[lubesky]

Quote: Grim Reaper

Leading experts of the VO said such things in a simple article on energy that I, as someone who has worked in the energy sector for 15 years,

Where leading experts couldn't understand the difference between voltage and current? My colleague read it, but kept quiet so that they wouldn't throw transformers and electric kettles at me.

[anatolv]

I support you completely!

[Clear]

Quote: lubesky

Leading experts couldn't understand the difference between voltage and current?

It was enchanting!

[Emperor_Alive]

I don't mean it as criticism, but out of interest.
Has anyone seen videos with real examples of the KAZ in action in war?
Somehow I haven't come across any.
I don't insist that they should be.
Maybe these are just single experimental specimens for now, and the topic is secret....
But if anyone has seen any of the published ones, please share.

[spektr9]

Relic is dynamic protection, 2A82-1M gun from Armata which was never installed on T90M, as well as KAZ...
I don't know who wrote the article or edited the translation, but in the end it wasn't science fiction.

[Montezuma]

Quote: paul3390

What do they have to do - they have not been producing heavy armored vehicles for a long time now... They are only modernizing what was built earlier

Not only modernization. This is the message that came in the other day.

German defense company Rheinmetall has officially announced the development of the Panther KF51, the continent's first fifth-generation main battle tank (MBT). The new vehicle is radically different from existing analogues such as the Leopard 2 or Abrams, thanks to advanced technologies, digital architecture, and a reduced crew.

The Panther's key feature is the 130mm Future Gun System (FGS), which provides 50% greater range than standard 120mm guns. An automated loading system increases the rate of fire, and integration with HERO 120 loitering munitions allows for engagement of targets beyond line of sight.

https://hi-tech.mail.ru/news/129748-v-evrope-nachali-razrabotku-pervogo-na-kontinente-boevogo-tanka-pyatogo-pokoleniya/

The Turks are also putting a new tank into service.

The new Altay tank developed in Turkey will enter service with the country's army in 2025. This was announced by the head of the Defense Industry Department, Haluk Gergün, Daily Sabah reports.

https://lenta.ru/news/2025/02/26/turtsiya-poluchit-novyy-tank-v-2025-godu/?ysclid=mcq3g336v4919956334

[anatolv]

This is all happening because these dark and uneducated people do not read the experts of the Military Academy! Otherwise, they would have already abandoned many types of weapons, and not cling with their calloused brains to all sorts of old stuff!

[Scientist_]

Quote: Arzoo

There are none on LBS now. There are still some super barbecues here and there. There are only a few of them.

Read RIA Novosti:
""The arsonists are planning to send 400-odd tanks to Ukraine. The same as with ammunition. During this time, we will produce new ones, and the existing ones will also be modernized, over 1600, and the total number of Russian tanks will exceed the number of Ukrainian Armed Forces tanks by three times, even more than three times," Putin added." https://ria.ru/20230325/tanki-1860640723.html

[multi-category]

The T90M is a very well protected tank, possibly the best in terms of all protection, but the question of whether it is the best tank or not depends on many characteristics. I am not sure that this is so. The same Leclerc has recently shown itself well in battles and there is something to compare it with. In terms of equipment with a thermal imager, communications and a number of other electronics, the T90M is definitely not a leader. The sub-caliber shell is also not the best in comparison. I would be more careful in making statements. For me, it is clear only that the T90M is one of the most combat-ready tanks today. In addition, its mass use in the conflict gives a chance to gather experience for designing a new tank with more advanced protection and to break ahead for some time. But whether it will be used is a big question. Looking at the results of the Armata program, I have too much skepticism.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

The same Leclerc has recently shown himself to be good in battles and there is something to compare with.

Is the Leclerc mass-produced on a conveyor belt or are these just individual units? If this is individual production, then, by default, it is a bad tank.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

If this is a piece production, then, by default, it is a bad tank

There are several hundred of them and only slightly less than the T90M. Calm down the interfering emotions.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

There are several hundred of them and only slightly less than the T90M. Calm down the interfering emotions.

"Several hundred" over several decades of production. They make 20-30 of them a year, while T-90Ms make 300-400 a year, that is, 10-20 times more. In summary: "Leclerc" is a small-scale (piecemeal) tank. It is bad.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

They make 20-30 of them a year... He's bad.

Recently they made a similar amount of T90M
is he bad too?
But seriously, more than 800 Leclercs have been produced and production continues, this is not 20 per year at all. They have not been actively produced lately for various reasons, and one of them is preparation for mass production of the new generation. One of the options is with a new German gun. So stop focusing on the number, the T90 has no advantage in this. And this is a Leclerc, of which there are relatively few. There are many times more Leopards of the A6 version than T90M. What do you say to this?

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

There are many more Leopards of the A6 version than T90M. What do you say about this?

Before writing nonsense, you need to do some basic fact-checking. During the entire existence of this model, 2 Leopard 6A225 tanks were produced for Germany and a few more for other countries. This amount of T-90M is produced in about half a year, a year at most.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

Before you write nonsense... 225 units were produced

That's right, don't write nonsense. A massive upgrade to the A6 level was carried out.
Krauss-Maffei has carried out several hundred such upgrades, and now for the third year it has been upgrading to the A3 level, and in 7 contracts have already been signed for more than 25 units. And even the Portuguese are planning 180 upgrades - but the contract is still being discussed.
It's better to study the news than to feed your arrogance.
Let me remind you that the T90M is also not a new tank. They are converted from early T90s or deeply modernized T72s from warehouses. And the maximum rate is about 40-50 units per year, I WILL REMIND you that 300 units per year is the total of the T90M and T72B3, T90Ms are actually produced much less, which is not stated in the article. Before the contract of 21, they made 30-40 per year.
And compare with real figures from Europe. There will be 7-3 times more Leopard A4s this year. And I haven't even taken into account Poland, which also has modernization plans. I'm just too lazy to look.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

That's right, don't write nonsense. A massive upgrade to the A6 level was carried out.
Krauss-Maffei has carried out several hundred such upgrades, and now for the third year it has been upgrading to the A3 level, and in 7 contracts have already been signed for more than 25 units. And even the Portuguese are planning 180 upgrades - but the contract is still being discussed.

That is, the Germans have several hundred tanks that they are modernizing. They do not have serial production of new tanks.

Quote: multicaat

And the maximum rate is about 40-50 pieces per year, I WILL REMIND you that 300 pieces per year is the total of T90M and T72B3, T90M is actually produced much less, which is not stated in the article.

This is a lie. 300-400 T-90M per year is about the production of new tanks on the UVZ conveyor from scratch or a deep modernization of the T-90. About the production of T-90M from T-72 is generally funny: these are too different tanks and such a "modernization" is practically impossible. Therefore, the T-72 is modernized to T-72B3M.
The total number of tanks of different models and modifications entering the Russian Federation is approximately 1500 units per year, and this is an incomparable and unattainable number for the entire Western tank industry.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

300-400 T-90M per year - this is about the production of new tanks on the UVZ conveyor from scratch or a deep modernization of the T-90

Whose speech is this???? You should listen more to the blockheads, you'll start singing even worse.
1. There is not a single T90 "from scratch". All are modernizations.
2. UVZ is physically incapable of producing even a hundred T90Ms without modernizing its workshops - this was stated by the director himself, but there was no modernization of production.
3. There is no 400. It's your fantasy. There is a number 300, but after these numbers it says t90m And T72B3 Research the source before arguing.
4. Finally, you don't have a pumpkin on your shoulders, you have a head. Well, you can't magically increase production from 30-40 units a year by 10 times. We don't live in a fairy tale. This requires preparation, which the Ministry of Defense has confidently failed, moreover, UVZ was recently saved from bankruptcy. Read the news.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

1. There is not a single T90 "from scratch". All are modernizations.

It's a lie.

Quote: multicaat

2. UVZ is physically incapable of producing even a hundred T90Ms without modernizing its workshops - this was stated by the director himself, but there was no modernization of production.

A lie out of thin air.

Quote: multicaat

3. There is no 400. It's your fantasy. There is a number 300, but after these numbers it says t90m and T72B3. Study the source before arguing.

I said 300-400, we are talking specifically about the T-90M, either by producing it from scratch or by upgrading it from the T-90A. But no one knows and cannot know the exact data on how many are produced, because such information is a state secret. Therefore, the source is always from the media and they say different things.
The total production volume is 1500 tanks per year (new + modernized). And this number is for 23/24 years, and production is growing, as evidenced by the mass hiring of employees at UVZ.

Quote: multicaat

4. Finally, you don't have a pumpkin on your shoulders, you have a head. Well, you can't magically increase production from 30-40 units a year by 10 times. We don't live in a fairy tale. This requires preparation, which the Ministry of Defense has confidently failed, moreover, UVZ was recently saved from bankruptcy. Read the news.

Just a set of words, only emotions and no facts. UVZ is the largest tank plant in the world, which has a conveyor assembly of tanks. It can scale up production in an elementary way, the main thing is that there is a government order.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

There is not a single T90 "from scratch". All are modernizations.

A link confirming this statement to the studio for study. Otherwise, it is simply a provocative lie from the ceiling.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

A link confirming this statement is in the studio.

First and foremost, MO doesn't post everything online. This is probably a surprise for the TikTok consciousness.
and secondly... let's start with the fact that the first T-90 appeared simply by renaming one of the T-72 modifications, it was not a new tank, and for sale abroad, so that the plant would not go under. Then what could be called the T90A appeared, then the T90S, and all this was just a development of the same machine, but the difference was that we no longer produced armor for the T72 and instead of new tanks, we began to remake the T72s that were already in stock, and the T72A was no good - its hull armor was too weak.
And as a result, there were 2 branches - a moderate modernization on our spare parts, which came to the T72B3, and the second branch - T90 - these were already vehicles that were modernized in full, including a new turret, thermal imager electronics on French matrices and oh my God, secure digital communication appeared there (the basic version of the T72B3 still does not have it!!!) Now follow the links. https://dzen.ru/a/XoomYV_epSaBjBqI The fact that they assemble the T90 from scratch is a lie. They take the old hull and hang everything on it, recently they began to change the frontal armor. There is little left from the old T72, but this is definitely not a 100% new tank. By the way, they also did not install the improved chassis gearbox from the T80 and left another and old one, because of which there are significant power losses. I believe this is the most obvious example that the tank is not completely new.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

Now follow the links. https://dzen.ru/a/XoomYV_epSaBjBqI

This article puts forward a purely hypothetical opinion that the T-90M can be obtained from the T-72 through very deep modernization. However, nothing is said about this being so.

Quote: multicaat

The idea that T90s are assembled from scratch is a lie.

Where is the confirmation?

Quote: multicaat

I think this is the most obvious example that the tank is not entirely new.

No, this is far from the most illustrative example. This is the usual unsubstantiated empty talk, which refers to an article by a certain anonymous person who wrote an article on Zen in 2020, in which he expressed a purely hypothetical assumption that it is possible to carry out a deep modernization of the T-72 and get the T-90M.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

They take the old hull and hang everything on it, and recently they started changing the frontal armor. There's not much left of the old T72,

The production of T-90M from old T-72 is a lie and nonsense. There is not a single mention of such modernization. And here is why:
Direct modernization of T-72 tanks to the level of T-90M "Proryv" is technically impossible and economically impractical. These are fundamentally different machines in their architecture and level of technology.

That's why:

1. Fundamental differences in the basic platform:

- The T-90M ("Object 188M") is based on a significantly later and deeply redesigned version of the T-90 chassis ("Object 188"), which itself is a development of the T-72B ("Object 184"), but with significant changes. The T-90M hull has a different armor design (including built-in "Relikt" elements), reinforced suspension units designed for the greater weight of the new turret and equipment.

- The T-72 hull (especially the early modifications) is physically not suitable for installing the entire range of T-90M systems without a radical, almost complete redesign, comparable in cost to building a new tank.

2. Incompatibility of key systems:

- Turret: The T-90M uses a completely new, modular turret with dramatically increased protection (including built-in "Relikt"), an active protection system "Afganit" and a modern fire control system "Kalina". Installing this turret on the T-72 hull would require huge modifications to the hull (strengthening the ring, redistributing the weight, integrating new control systems).

- FCS "Kalina": This is a digital, network-centric system that requires an appropriate onboard digital architecture and power supply, which the basic T-72 does not have. Integration would require replacing almost all onboard electronics and wiring.

- The Afganit active protection system: Its installation on the T-72 is extremely difficult due to the need to integrate radars, launchers and a control system, for which there is simply no room or necessary interfaces in the T-72 design.

- Engine and transmission: While some T-72B3s received the V-92S2 engine (1000 hp), the T-90M uses the more powerful V-92S2F (1130 hp) and a transmission designed for the increased weight. Installing this engine in the T-72 hull is possible, but that's only part of the problem.

- Ergonomics and life support systems: Integration of air conditioning, modern displays and digital communication systems into the T-72 crew cabin would require a complete redesign of the fighting compartment.

What do they do with the T-72?

- Russia is conducting large-scale modernization programs for the T-72, but to the level of the T-72B3/B3M (Object 184-M/184-M2), and not to the T-90M. This upgrade includes:

- Installation of the Sosna-U fire control system with a thermal imager (less advanced than the Kalina).

- Strengthening the protection of the hull and turret with dynamic protection "Relikt" (but not to the same extent and not as integrated as on the T-90M).

- Installation of the V-92S2 engine (1000 hp) on the B3M.

- Installation of the Aqueduct communication systems (at B3M).

- Installation of a remotely controlled anti-aircraft machine gun (on some vehicles).

*Lack of the Afganit APS and T-90M-level commander's panoramic sight.*

Conclusion:

- The T-90M "Proryv" is essentially a new tank (or the deepest modernization of the T-90A), built on a much more modern technological base.

- T-72s are only upgraded to the T-72B3/B3M level. This is the maximum possible and economically justified upgrade for this platform.

- An attempt to transform the T-72 into the T-90M would be comparable in complexity and cost to building a new tank., while the result would be a compromise in terms of reliability and combat effectiveness due to the use of the old hull.

[multi-category]

Do you even read what I write???
we are not talking about converting from any random t72, and you are writing here that they are converting from t72b. And what is the difference??? we are saying the same thing.
Besides, you contradict yourself. In one place you write that the T72B hull is good, in another - it is not good. Make up your mind first, then write. And I rely on the words of the plant director and the video of all the phases of the conversion - the Zvezda channel conducted a tour and showed everything. How they disassemble, what they shove. What is this strange dispute for? In ANY T90M you will find at least a side from an old car, a gearbox on the chassis and a number of other parts. I'm sorry, I don't have this tank in the parking lot to show you. And finally, stop talking about "T72". T72A and T72B are very different and nothing is converted from T72A. Therefore, indicate a specific model. Well, about

Quote: Sergei S

An attempt to transform the T-72 into the T-90M would be comparable in complexity and cost to building a new tank.

The T90 is expensive because of the electronics. And it doesn't matter whether it is made anew or from the hull of an old vehicle, BUT the problem is different - side armor plates for tank hulls and a number of other elements are much cheaper and easier not to produce, but to take from stored vehicles. And you, too, if you are not lazy, will find and see this in the statements of officials. In general, ask what kind of deficit of steels of the required grades the military industry currently has.

The T-90M "Proryv" is essentially a new tank (or a deep modernization of the T-90A)

Well, yes, new, with vintage filling... If it were new, I'm already tired of repeating, the chassis would have been changed. For some reason, they didn't make the Armata by extending the T72 base. Perhaps I'll say something terrible... the T72 chassis is not ideal? And if so, and if the tank is ENTIRELY new, it would be the height of stupidity not to improve the chassis. And I wrote above, even a simple replacement of the gearbox will already improve the characteristics.
Regarding the T90M turret and the huge alterations. They change it, they change it for both the T90A and the T72B. I have no idea what alterations there are, but they change it. Period.
Well, and a link to the factory workers - argue with them, I'm tired of butting heads with a lazy person. If you write anything against it, I'll file complaints about spam.
here is just a video of how they install a turret from a T90M on a T72B3 hull
https://vk.com/video-93248495_456241582

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

In one place you write that the T72B case is good, in another - it is not good

It's okay if it's a remake at the price of a new tank, so no one does it. There are no facts to support this.

Quote: multicaat

And you too, if you are not lazy, will find and see this in the statements of officials.

The one who claims must provide evidence and present it. But there is none. There is only unsubstantiated chatter.

Quote: multicaat

Well, yes, new, with vintage stuffing... If it were new, I'm already tired of repeating, the chassis would have been changed.

Again, "vintage stuffing" comes from somewhere. Such stuffing can only be in a tank that was made by upgrading from a T-90A, but new tanks do not have any "vintage stuffing" because they are made from scratch.

Quote: multicaat

If you write anything else against it, I'll start filing spam complaints.

A powerful argument for a man who throws outright lies and disinformation at the "fan" and does not provide ANY evidence for his empty words, and resorts to threats to counter objections.

Quote: multicaat

I'm tired of butting heads with a lazy person

A lazy person is someone who has not provided any evidence to support his words and sends others to search the Internet for information that he is trying to pass off as fact.
The conversation with the empty talker and provocateur is over.

[multi-category]

You even ignore videos that directly show how they make a T90M from an old car. I don't want to talk to a lazy boor any more.

[Sergei S]

Quote: multicaat

But seriously, more than 800 Leclercs have been produced and production continues, that’s not 20 a year.

The Leclerc tank was taken out of production in the 2000s. It is currently not produced at all, only as upgrades or major overhauls: the French army is conducting a large-scale program to upgrade existing Leclerc tanks to the Leclerc XLR standard. By 2025, 122 vehicles are planned to be upgraded, and by 2027 - about 200 modernized tanks.
There is no mass production of tanks in Europe. There is nothing to talk about.

[multi-category]

Quote: Sergei S

There is no mass production of tanks in Europe. There is nothing to talk about.

Last year the French lost 3 Leclercs during operation and ordered replacements.
so there is production, but they have ALREADY made as much as they need, and we cannot do it on time. What kind of strange advantage is this??? Here in the article they praise the T90M, that they are appearing. And why is there no word about what NATO is doing? Even if we forget about the Americans, there is a mass modernization to the level of the A6 and A7, and several hundred per year. And we have several times fewer T90M, the bulk of which is still produced T72B3. And what kind of serial production are you talking about? Replacing the turret and the filling with a T72 from the warehouse is not making a new tank! We still need to look at who actually does not have serial production, but in general we are talking about mass modernization everywhere, not about production.

[Aviator_]

equipped with a modernized 125-mm 2A82-1M cannon, capable of firing Reflex ATGMs,

Are there any cases of using "Reflex" on LBS? I have vague doubts that there are not. That is, this toy is not needed there at all. I will be glad if I am wrong.

[Zenn]

After the Great Patriotic War, interesting statistics were published, such as a comparison of monthly/annual tank production and a comparison during these periods with tank losses. It is clear that the country that produced more tanks/SPGs than there were losses, including that is why it won the war. An equally interesting fact is how many times tanks returned to battle after repairs, before they were lost. So, we will not know more or less truthful data on the SVO for a long time, but one fact is obvious, Ukraine and almost all of NATO cannot ensure the production of tanks more than they lose in Ukraine.

[foxes]

In the comments again are the tank gravediggers. This is already the fourth time in a hundred years. The same way they bury and bury infantry and artillery.

[Scientist_]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The fact that a tank is not used in the Air Defense Forces does not mean that it has been written off.

It means a lot. So yes - they put a cross on it.
For comparison: The T-34 began to be produced in 1940, the following year it entered combat, a year later it became the main one, and three years later it entered the enemy capital.

[Bad_gr]

As indicated, the T-90M, which stands out for its maneuverability on soft ground, is equipped with a modernized 125-mm 2A82-1M cannon,

I wonder since when did they start installing the 90A2-46M gun (the same as on the T-5) on the T-2M instead of the 82A1M-14 gun?
By the way, in the photo in the article, on the railway platform there is not a T-90, but a T-72B3m, which is visible by the chipped protection on the turret (Kantakt-5, on a cast turret)

[Dva parovoza]

I read this article on the Army Recognition website:
https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/alert-russia-increases-production-of-most-modern-t-90m-tank-to-300-yearly-with-target-of-1-000-by-2028
The author's words: "which are not inferior to or even surpass the combat potential of many Western tanks" are taken out of context by the author. Full translation: "On the battlefield, the T-90M demonstrated capabilities that are not inferior to or even surpass the capabilities of many Western tanks in service with the Ukrainian troops."
Agree that "are not inferior to or even surpass the combat potential of many Western tanks" and "are not inferior to or even surpass the capabilities of many Western tanks in service with the Ukrainian troops" - these few "unfinished" words give the phrase a slightly different context? Why does the author lie so brazenly and deliberately manipulate words? The hope that the channel's electorate is stupid and does not read the originals on the primary source? The main thing is to earn the fee? Ugh.

[Scientist_]

Quote: bayard

for a future war with NATO

The war with NATO will be fought with nuclear weapons; tanks will no longer be needed there.

[NakedMan]

You can read how the USSR was going to wage a nuclear war, and why it needed tank armies. But the number of warheads on both sides was much greater.

[bk0010]

Quote from Scientist

The war with NATO will be fought with nuclear weapons; tanks will no longer be needed there.

Tanks are absolutely necessary for a nuclear war. A nuclear apocalypse is just the beginning. And then what will you fight with? Under mushrooms? The first task is to prevent the transfer of reinforcements from the States. To do this, it is necessary to capture major ports and airfields in Western Europe. Well, let's say Rotterdam was vaporized by Poseidon, all of England was glazed. And the rest? So tanks are necessary.

[Totor5]

Then why do tanks need anti-radiation lining and a sealed hull?

Tanks in the doctrine were supposed to suppress the enemy's remaining resistance. And self-propelled guns were supposed to finish off large areas with nuclear shells.

Wonderful World of the Future.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

Then why do tanks need anti-radiation lining and a sealed hull?

Tanks do not have a hermetically sealed hull. Beacon: protection against weapons of mass destruction requires constant maintenance of increased pressure inside the tank.

[Totor5]

This is how airtightness is achieved, isn't it?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Paranoid62

Tanks do not have a hermetically sealed hull. Beacon: protection against weapons of mass destruction requires constant maintenance of increased pressure inside the tank

Quote: Totor5

This is how airtightness is achieved, isn't it?

Wow. Hermetically sealed means neither here nor there, in short. The tank is not hermetically sealed, at least insofar as:

- after the shot, the breech opens, and the powder gases are ejected through the barrel. Otherwise, the tank will become very sour
- the tray is ejected through a hatch in the tower. The hatch must be opened for this, the tightness... auuuu...

The increased pressure is provided by a thing, colloquially called a supercharger, the air passes through the FVU. The report is finished.

[Totor5]

Well, it’s kind of obvious that a tank is not a bottle with a cork.
But still, tightness is ensured...by pressure and additional coating, etc.

"Sealing - ensuring impermeability to gases and liquids"

You can also refer to the quote from the design engineer:

"Uralvagonzavod design engineer Dmitry Antoshkin noted that the protection of the crew and internal equipment from the shock wave was provided by the armored structure of the hull and turret, as well as the sealing of the crew compartments.

"At the same time, protection from radiation dust was implemented by creating excess pressure in the habitable compartments with a special supercharger, continuously supplying dust-free air and removing dust separated by the supercharger to the outside of the tank. This prevented dust from entering the tank with the air flow through individual leaks," the specialist explained."

According to his information, it was also proven by calculation that when firing 30 shots from a 115-mm cannon of a T-62 tank with the hatch cover automatically opening to eject the spent cartridge after each shot, the radiation dose to the tank crew when operating in radiation-contaminated terrain will be below the threshold.

“These calculations were taken into account when developing the T-72 tank’s collective defense system,” he noted, adding that, starting with the T-62 tank, the NBC protection system was also supplemented with individual means (gas masks and chemical protection kits (CPC) placed in the tank’s crew compartments and allowing the crew to carry out the assigned combat mission in the area where weapons of mass destruction are used.

The expert drew attention to the fact that further work on improving the PAZ led to the creation of anti-radiation material (the so-called under- and over-lining), which reduces the radiation dose to the crew several times.

— The first was attached to the hull armor and the turret inside the crew compartments. The second was installed outside the tank on the hatch covers, commander's cupola and on the sides of the hull. Enhanced radiation protection was initially introduced on the T-55A tank, which was accepted into service by the Soviet Army in 1962. Later, it became an integral part of the tanks newly created by the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (UKBTM) and manufactured by Uralvagonzavod, — he specified.

— At the same time, the T-72's collective crew protection system equipment itself has changed significantly, and new units have been introduced into its composition. This has made it possible to significantly increase the level of protection, including against toxic substances. Incidentally, later, on various T-90 modifications, this equipment was replaced with more advanced equipment, — Antoshkin noted.

In addition, according to his data, a device designed for degassing the outer surface of the tank was installed in the T-72 control compartment. Later, it was also replaced with a device with higher performance."

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

But still, the tightness is ensured...by pressure and additional coating, etc.

Wow. Once again, for those who... are not in the tank, and have never been in one:

Quote: Paranoid62

Hermetically sealed means neither here nor there, in short

If it’s scientific, then it’s like this:

Tightness is shell ability (housing), its individual elements and connections hinder gas or liquid exchange between environments separated by this shell

Please note that "exchange" implies both directions, "from" and "to".

The tank is not sealed., by definition, even if you "smear" it all over. The supercharger is needed so that there is no exchange "into the tank" (well, radioactive dust is absolutely not needed there). Exchange "from the tank" is quite present, and in solid volumes. That's all.

[Totor5]

1) I wrote that for total war and protection from radiation and other toxic dust, tanks are hermetically sealed.

2) You wrote that the tanks are not hermetically sealed because pressure is pumped into them, as if this were not obvious from the start. But why is it pumped into them? This is done to achieve sufficient hermeticity! Don't you dispute this?

I gave you the definition of tightness. I cited as an example an interview with the chief designer, who describes the mechanism for achieving TIGHTNESS of a tank, but he is not an authority for you either. Then you start hanging labels and being familiar, as if tightness is only complete total tightness at the molecular level, and not sufficient, for example, for protection from liquid or dust.
That's really all.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

I gave you the definition of tightness

Yes, they did. They just didn't bother to think about it, otherwise they wouldn't have written nonsense.

Hermeticity, the ability of a shell (housing) to prevent gas or liquid exchange between the media separated by this shell

Attention - in both directions. Neither from the outside into the shell, nor from the shell out. Argue with a physical chemist, yes, go ahead.

The tank is not hermetically sealed by definition. The supercharger sucks air from the outside, the pumped air comes out (after the shot) through the barrel channel and the hatch for ejecting the pallets.

Since the pressure in the tank is higher than outside, air from the tank through these holes - out, and all sorts of radioactive crap can't get in there. Also by definition. This is how the crew is protected from radioactive dust.

You are lost in two pines, and you are trying to get me lost in them. It won't work, I know the match pretty well. Unlike some who are not in the tank, and have never been in it.

[Totor5]

Blah blah blah - don't try to get away from the point and hide behind a retelling of obvious things, not noticing my direct questions.
Well, I repeat, if you can't concentrate on the main thing - Is this done to achieve sufficient tightness? Don't you dispute that?

Or are you just another internet genius with an inflated ego who can't answer a direct and simple question?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

Is this done to achieve sufficient tightness?

Definition in the studio - what is "residual tightness". Let's laugh together.

Quote: Totor5

Or are you just another internet genius with an inflated ego who can't answer a direct and simple question?

There is only one internet genius here, and that is you. I am just an engineer who also served in the tank forces. Therefore, unlike you, I know the subject. Not by hearsay

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Paranoid62

Definition in the studio - what is "residual tightness"

UPD: sufficient, naturally. The letter ran away)

Hermeticity is like virginity: either you have it or you don't.

[Totor5]

That is, if we take your concept of tightness and virginity and put an equal sign between them, it turns out that the T90 tank does not provide tightness from the penetration of dangerous radioactive dust and all work in this direction is sabotage, a waste of state money and the stupidity of the Ministry of Defense leadership and design engineers?

If a tank is not capable of providing absolute tightness in a vacuum, then the concept of tightness cannot be applied to it anywhere except in a laboratory... or rather, nowhere except in theory. Don't you think that's a bit over the top?

The chief designer talks about measures to achieve the tank's tightness, but for you he is not an authority either. So what does this mean - everyone around is nuts, except you? Or maybe it's the other way around?

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

if we take your concept of hermeticity and virginity and put an equal sign between them

This is not my concept. This is a scientific concept.

Quote: Totor5

it turns out that the T90 tank does not provide airtightness against the penetration of dangerous radioactive dust

Not so. A tank, starting with the T-55, EMNIS, ensures that "dangerous radioactive dust" cannot penetrate it. Despite the fact that the tank itself is not hermetically sealed. Not once

Quote: Totor5

Don't you think this is a bit too much?

Definitely too much. Ostap got carried away (c)

Quote: Totor5

Chief designer talks about measures to achieve tank tightness

It is unlikely that it was the designer who said this, rather the journalists distorted it. Although - even designers can make mistakes.

Quote: Totor5

So what does this mean - everyone around is nuts, except you? Or maybe it's the other way around?

This shows that you can't read well. And understanding what you read is even worse. But go on, it's quite funny.

And yes - where is the definition "sufficient tightness"? Let's wait.

[Totor5]

That is, for you, the concept of Hermeticity is only some kind of complete theoretical Hermeticity. Well, OK. I will not delve into your special inner world.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Totor5

That is, for you, the concept of Hermeticity is only some kind of complete theoretical Hermeticity

See the definition, it is quite self-sufficient. And yes - this is not my definition, it is generally accepted

Quote: Totor5

I will not delve into your special inner world.

And really, it's not worth it for you. You're unlikely to get through it painlessly.

[spektr9]

Survivability has been significantly increased by installing KAZ "Relikt", which provides better protection against tandem HEAT and APFSDS rounds.

KAZ-Complex ACTIVE of protection
Relic - Complex DYNAMIC of protection
Is everything else in the article also true?

[Pavel57]

All the figures in the article are questionable. But nevertheless, the losses are curious:
According to Western experts, at least 130 of them were visually confirmed as destroyed or abandoned, leaving between 410 and 500 vehicles in service, which is approximately 15% of the total number of tanks deployed by the Russian Armed Forces on the Ukrainian front.

You can estimate the total losses. Hundreds of tanks, which is not surprising.

[Metallurg_2]

According to Western experts.
You can not read further.

[Metallurg_2]

I wonder where Western analysts counted so many destroyed T-90Ms?
Or do they read the VFU reports at night?

[Sergei S]

Quote: Metallurg_2

I wonder where Western analysts counted so many destroyed T-90Ms?
Or do they read the VFU reports at night?

Yes, they often operate with their "authoritative" opinion.

[AC130 Gunship]

Cavalry was also very slowly becoming a thing of the past in the army. We need to look at things realistically. There will be no more Kursk Bulges (well, at least in the European theater of military operations). Tanks are already a thing of the past.

[Totor5]

I was especially pleased about the KAZ Relikt.

[Hank Williams Carter]

It's a good tank, but the Soviet-style gearbox still can't handle fast reverse, which is not always possible in urban and other battles, because turning around and moving forward is not always possible, but a tank is still a maneuvering battle, it's not a self-propelled gun or artillery.

[Brenneke]

[quote][equipped with a modernized 125 mm 2A82-1M cannon/quote]-NO!

[TanSan]

Quote: Montezuma

Quote: Arzoo

Now almost nothing from armor comes to LBS, because it is not needed. Due to the vulnerability of modern armored vehicles.

Are you suggesting to stop producing armored vehicles? A very unexpected and original conclusion. I suggest you throw this idea at NATO, maybe they'll buy it?

Armored vehicles are needed, but modern ones, not ones that have no analogues.

[agond]

It seems that instead of the usual grill on the tower, you can come up with a movable shield on a lever manipulator that could rise and fall, take an inclined position, thereby covering the tank from the side of the attack of a drone, missiles, and even a shell. If the shield is controlled by automation, then it can be made relatively small and not too heavy, and then if the shield control mechanism is installed behind the tower, the weight of this device will balance the weight of the barrel, which is also good.

[Pravodel]

Since 2022, Russia has produced from 540 to 630 T-90M.

For your information:
From 1941 to 1945, the USSR produced 74 tanks, or about 576 thousand tanks per year.
What would happen and where would we end up if we were now producing as many tanks per year as the USSR did!?...

[Hank Williams Carter]

We would have reached poverty very quickly, during WW2 we spent almost half of our GDP on war, now it is within 5-10%

[Pravodel]

We would have reached poverty very quickly...

Really!? The USSR, which spent significantly more on defense than Russia does now, did not reach poverty (I am not considering the betrayal of the elite here, starting with Khrushchev and ending with the marked one). Moreover, the USSR did not know what paid education or paid medicine was. In the USSR, children could attend clubs and sections for free. Sports for adults were also free. There were sanatoriums, boarding houses, etc., where a person could improve his health for a symbolic amount or for free. Pensions in the USSR were not a percentage of points or something else, but corresponded to the average salary from the last place of work for a year and allowed one to live normally after retirement. On a pension, one could go on vacation to the Crimea, the Caucasus.
So, there is no need to talk about a transition to poverty if we switch to a planned economy like the one that currently exists in China, with the strictest control over capitalist business.
And they are pushing us towards this now, surrounding us along the entire perimeter of Russia’s border: the anaconda’s noose is tightening around Russia.

[Hank Williams Carter]

Are you in your right mind? I'm talking about 1941-45, that's not the entire USSR period, if you now make spending 45% of GDP - that's shooting yourself in the balls, so that there won't be any offspring. We've already been through a planned economy, just like communism - the quality of things produced leaves much to be desired, nothing benefits quality, since there is no competition, and there won't be, why produce better or improve anything if they'll buy it anyway? That's why we've already been down this path, and you'd have to be a fool to step on the same rake

[Hank Williams Carter]

And I respect your need for the USSR, and for everything free, but it would be better if they paid you in normal money, and you decide for yourself where to go, to a sanatorium, to the mountains or to go fishing in the Barents Sea, and I am personally against making a flow of equalization again, this is a road to nowhere, it is much easier to use the AI ​​core to create a system of distribution based on your coefficient of utility to society

[Pravodel]

We would have reached poverty very quickly...

Really!? The USSR, which spent significantly more on defense than Russia does now, did not reach poverty (I am not considering the betrayal of the elite here, starting with Khrushchev and ending with the marked one). Moreover, the USSR did not know what paid education or paid medicine was. In the USSR, children could attend clubs and sections for free. Sports for adults were also free. There were sanatoriums, boarding houses, etc., where a person could improve his health for a symbolic amount or for free. Pensions in the USSR were not a percentage of points or something else, but corresponded to the average salary from the last place of work for a year and allowed one to live normally after retirement. On a pension, one could go on vacation to the Crimea, the Caucasus.
So, the horror stories about poverty are just another liberal trick that they are trying to use to scare the people of Russia. There is no need to talk about the transition to poverty in Russia if we switch to a planned economy like the one that currently exists in China, with the strictest control over capitalist business.
And we are being pushed towards this now, encircled along the entire perimeter of Russia's borders: the anaconda's noose is tightening around Russia. The way out of this is a transition to a planned economy with an orientation toward the development of production within the country and absolute control over the oligarchs' income, directed toward their consumption and that of their families and gangs of servants. If these incomes are taxed at 70-90% and incomes directed toward production are exempted from taxation, then much in Russia can be changed.

[ROZdgre]

KAZ "Relikt" installations

Before you post at least read the terminology. KAZ - Active Defense Complex, for example "Arena-M", and "Relikt" is DZ - Dynamic Defense

[Bayun]

The tank could use a couple of anti-drone cover... And everything would fall into place.

It's strange, it seems like it's not hard to come up with an EMP gun with a range of 100-200 meters. Power it from a tank engine, and nothing with microelectronics will fly to it. You can also try acoustics for resonance of drone propellers...

Yes, just an aircraft engine on a tank, with the nozzle forward, so that it BLOWS EVERYTHING AWAY. For a breakthrough - just the thing. Oh, there are few "CURIOUS" people in military science.

[Yuriy77]

In the second photo, a pair of tanks on railway platforms are T-72B3.

[BorzRio]

How far such articles are from the reality on the front... KAZs, infrared systems to counter drones and so on... All this nonsense is transmitted to the reader. As if he does not see how a tank is hidden in a barbecue the size of three garages - this is all these systems and KAZs. It would be better to increase the reverse speed several times.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: BorzRio

It would be better to increase the reverse speed several times

I wonder why you needed this.

[BorzRio]

Если бы вы были немного просвещеннее о опыте применения танков в СВО, то знали бы.