Military Review

Disposal of T-64 in Ukraine: who cares?

55



In the middle of July 2013, Ukrainian and international media did not receive pleasant information for Ukraine: as part of the Partnership for Peace program, the Alliance insists that Kiev send several thousand to be cut and re-melted. tanks T-64 Moreover, in order to discuss the details on this issue, a special commission is planning to arrive in Ukraine at the end of the same month. At the same time, it was also noted that the donor states of the NATO program should allocate funds for the disposal of tanks.

Despite the fact that these tanks are still of Soviet development and production, the state of today, both in service and in military warehouses, is about two thousand vehicles.

According to Vasily Litvinchuk, NSPA project manager in Ukraine (NATO logistics agency, previously NAMSA, the supply and maintenance agency), only America expressed its readiness to allocate about one million dollars for the disposal of Ukrainian tanks.

Such information caused some confusion not only for political forces, but also for the public, because quite recently - more precisely, in April of this year - the second stage of the NATO project of the trust fund of the Partnership for Peace program for recycling small-scale Ukraine weapons, light weapons and conventional ammunition were in jeopardy. Then the main problem was that the alliance simply did not allocate the promised money. Thus, in particular, according to Evgeny Golubenko, Director of Ukroboronservis, due to insufficient funding by donor states, the second phase of the project may not last four years, but at least twice as long, and this is when the disposal of ammunition is more what is relevant for the Ukrainian state.

And suddenly, against the background of these events, three months later, NATO decides that it is fully capable of paying for the disposal of Ukrainian T-64 tanks. By the way, the same Vasily Litvinchuk has repeatedly stated that the NATO projects in Ukraine greatly reduce the risk of man-made disasters. Undoubtedly, the way it is, but only if it comes to ammunition and rocket fuel components. But what relation to technogenic disasters T-64 tanks may have, however, like the already-cut 9K72 “Scud” complexes, long-range Tu-22 bombers or MANPADS, are completely incomprehensible.

Thus, it turns out that the North Atlantic Alliance does not have money only to eliminate funds that are technogenic danger, but the means to cut tanks that do not threaten any catastrophes will be enough to the full ... Weird turns out ...

In a situation like this, it is very important to understand what the goal of NATO really is, and what really this alliance is going to destroy. Currently, the T-64 tanks are, in fact, the main armored fist of the Ukrainian army. The Army has about 690 tanks, the Coast Guard has 40 vehicles, about 1,500 units in military warehouses and storage bases. All this equipment is stored in the arsenals for the purpose of completing tank units in the case of mobile deployment of the Ukrainian armed forces. Approximately 90 percent of all this military equipment is made up of T-72 and T-64B tanks.

Some "experts" say that the T-64 tank has a number of drawbacks. He is considered ineffective, because he was not in service with armies outside the Soviet Union. But in reality, the T-64 is a very complex technique that can be called a revolutionary model among armored vehicles. It was this model that initiated the second generation of tanks, and it was thanks to her that the term “main battle tank” appeared in the world (T-64, according to the standards in force in those years, belonged to the medium class, but due to the fact that it was equipped with heavy tank, in the previous classification did not fit).

It should also be noted that the T-64 due to the high technical complexity and demanded a high level of crew training. Therefore, he was not very "favored" in the Soviet army, which, as we know, was recruited at the expense of conscripts. Therefore, preference was then given to the T-72 tank, which was extremely simple to operate, and which was actively supplied by the Soviet Union to developing countries.

Thus, we can say that the T-64 tank is exactly the machine that is needed by the army, staffed with highly professional personnel, in other words, the kind of armed forces that Ukraine currently aspires to.

It must be said that the obvious indicator of the effectiveness of the T-64 can be the fact that it was these tanks that were equipped with the first-echelon groups of Soviet troops that were located in the Eastern European countries of the socialist camp and, if necessary, should be the first to enter into opposition with NATO by the troops. It is clear that for such purposes only the best equipment and the best weapons were used ...

In 1990, an article on the T-64 tank appeared in one of the Western specialized editions. It talked about the fact that T-64 allegedly could inflict huge losses on the alliance forces, because as soon as it became known in the West, all the programs for the development of anti-tank weapons failed. Obviously, nothing can last forever, and the leadership of this machine, too, but after a few years already T-64 appeared in a new guise, having received jet armor. Thus, NATO crews would have to deal with completely new development of secret weapons. It was thanks to his appearance that the military potential of the Soviet army increased.

Of course, many experts say that the T-64 tanks are outdated long ago, and that under the conditions of the new army this tank has no place in the troops. However, in reality this is not the case: the developers have laid such a powerful potential for improvements that it is quite possible to bring it to the most modern state. A striking example is the modernization of the tank under the T-64 BM Bulat program, which was developed at the Morozov Design Bureau and carried out at the Malyshev plant. The main goal of the modernization was to bring the combat and technical characteristics of the tank to the required modern level in several main areas: protection (reducing vulnerability from anti-tank weapons), mobility (upgrading the power compartment) and firepower (conducting modernization of the fire control system and weapons to increase the effectiveness of fire).

Tanks that have been upgraded under this program, so far continue to enter into service with the Ukrainian army. According to the military, the Ukrainian armed forces needed four hundred of these machines, but due to the lack of sufficient funding last year, the entire 76 T-64 was purchased, most of which were in the 8 Army Corps, in the village of Goncharovsky. In addition, several machines were at the disposal of the Desna training center, as well as the P.Sagaidachny Academy of Land Forces. And if you believe the statement of the new military minister P.Lebedev, in 2013, the agency plans to purchase 9 more such tanks for the needs of the army.

On the one hand, it would be more logical to assume that it would be more profitable for the Ministry of Defense to buy Ukrainian tanks “Oplot”, however, as the representatives of the department themselves say, modernization is still more relevant, because the cost of one “Oplot” is equal to five upgraded T-64.

In addition, the T-64BM Bulat tanks have quite good prospects for promotion in the external market. They are offered to Central European customers, that is, in those countries where these machines have been and are still in service. And this is understandable, because the upgraded T-64 is a very good economy option, because after the technical specifications, this machine is almost as good as modern models, but costs much less.

Thus, if NATO seriously thinks about depriving Ukraine of these tanks, then automatically it will deprive the country of the opportunity to make money on the world arms market. And this, by the way, is not the last argument that makes the alliance actively take up the elimination of Ukrainian technology. In addition, it turns out that NATO actually inclines Ukraine to deprive itself of armored forces. For their restoration, Ukraine will need at least four to five hundred western military vehicles, but due to the lack of adequate funding and rampant corruption, this will be almost impossible in the coming decades ...

And one more thing: a few years ago, the same Litvinchuk said that the alliance is considering the possibility of cooperation with Ukraine in the maritime partnership industry, the essence of which is to provide the Ukrainian side with certain services (refueling, providing navigational services, places for unloading sewage and garbage, providing food and water).

It turns out that NATO not only seeks to deprive Ukraine of the opportunity to earn a little on the foreign arms market, but also to turn it into a kind of marine garbage landfill, where alliance ships can unload all unnecessary and stock up with everything necessary.

Yes, such prospects are not very encouraging ...

Materials used:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2013/07/64.html
http://rus.ruvr.ru/2013_07_22/NATO-predlagaet-Ukraine-rasstatsja-s-sovetskimi-tankami-8955/
http://flot2017.com/posts/new/janukovich_nato_i_sidenie_na_porohovoj_bochke
http://weaponscollection.com/17/822-tank-t-64-bulat-sdelano-v-ukraine.html
Author:
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Beck
    Beck 25 July 2013 07: 14
    48 th
    And why did the author raise a panic?

    The T-64 tank is 49 years old. Today it is iron ballast. Ukraine creates its new tank developments. So it was necessary to scream when the USSR and the T-34 tanks disposed of moving to T-54, 62, 64, 72.
    1. T80UM1
      T80UM1 25 July 2013 08: 35
      52
      What are interesting new developments? Hold M? 1-2 pcs in 10 years? t-84 for 20 years 10 pcs? What if they attack? How will they defend themselves? tanks for salvaged aircraft there, before the Ukrainian Air Force were in third place now, even Kazakhstan has more aircraft than Ukraine. Not paradoxical? I’m becoming more and more convinced that NATO and the Anglo-Caspians are the number one enemy, including for us.
      1. Akim
        Akim 25 July 2013 09: 18
        +4
        Quote: T80UM1
        Earlier, the Ukrainian Air Force was in third place now, even Kazakhstan has more aircraft than Ukraine.

        Well, if you believe Wikipedia, then of course.
        And without jokes. You have more flying Su-27s and that’s all. And Ukraine has no MiG-31.
        1. T80UM1
          T80UM1 25 July 2013 09: 35
          +5
          Su-27s are now the same in number, but there are more flying, we have them all flying. 420 aircraft and 320 helicopters to date, excluding storage bases. you have 185 planes and I don’t know how many helicopters, regardless of what is at the storage bases.
          1. Akim
            Akim 25 July 2013 09: 54
            +2
            Quote: T80UM1
            Su-27s are now the same in number, but there are more flying, we have them all flying. 420 aircraft and


            I don’t know why for a small Kazakh army for every 120 people by plane. As for Ukraine: Indeed, the number of combat aircraft decreased 213 in 2011 208-2012. The number of flying Su-27s increased from 18 to 20 in 2012. The plans are for 23 in 2013 (well, this is autumn).
            1. T80UM1
              T80UM1 25 July 2013 10: 11
              +2
              The expanses are large. Why for every 120 people on the plane? For every 420 on the plane like.
              1. Akim
                Akim 25 July 2013 10: 18
                0
                Quote: T80UM1
                For every 420 on the plane like.

                What is the Kazakh army equal to 180 thousand?
                1. T80UM1
                  T80UM1 25 July 2013 11: 36
                  0
                  185 thousand people
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 25 July 2013 11: 45
                    0
                    Why so much? Is this + from border guards, explosives and the Ministry of Emergencies?
                    1. T80UM1
                      T80UM1 25 July 2013 11: 57
                      +1
                      All together
                      1. washi
                        washi 25 July 2013 14: 10
                        +3
                        It is not enough. You have a border with Central Asia.
                        Again, Russian for you to swell? As it has been in history.
                      2. T80UM1
                        T80UM1 25 July 2013 14: 19
                        13
                        where are you darling then :)
                      3. Beck
                        Beck 25 July 2013 15: 55
                        -9
                        Quote: Vasya
                        Again, Russian for you to swell? As it has been in history.


                        And what kind of self-confidence? If a global conflict, for example, China attacked, then everyone will get involved in a 3MB type.

                        And if hypothetical dushmans, Islamists, then the Kazakh army itself will cope.

                        And in what story was it that an external enemy attacked Kazakhstan, and the Russians fought for the Kazakhs? Vasya, in what story? Answer the inventor.
                      4. Beck
                        Beck 26 July 2013 01: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Beck
                        And in what story was it that an external enemy attacked Kazakhstan, and the Russians fought for the Kazakhs? Vasya, in what story? Answer the inventor.


                        Hey Vasya, Vasya, Cornflower. Well, where are you? What do not give an answer?

                        I blurted out some garbage, but you can’t answer in essence.

                        What is ali stocked in LIKBEZ went?

                        I see that another 8 people in Likbez have to go. These are those who put cons to me, supporting Vaskin’s garbage.
                      5. Revolver
                        Revolver 26 July 2013 04: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: Beck
                        And in what story was

                        In the very ancient.
                        Quote: Beck
                        an external enemy attacked, but did the Russians fight for the Kazakhs?
                        Well kagbe battle of Kalk. Kotyan was a Kipchak khan, that is, in a modern way, a Kazakh. Chingiz's Tumens are quite drawn to an external enemy. Well, the Russian princes fit in with Kotyan, for which they paid.
                        Although of course today such an ancient history is not relevant, but that was what happened.
                      6. Beck
                        Beck 26 July 2013 20: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: Nagan
                        Well kagbe battle of Kalk. Kotyan was a Kipchak khan, that is, in a modern way, a Kazakh. Chingiz's Tumens are quite drawn to an external enemy. Well, the Russian princes fit in with Kotyan, for which they paid.
                        Although of course today such an ancient history is not relevant, but that was what happened.


                        Well, the Revolver of the Nagan system, you drove into the wrong steppe. The essence is completely different.

                        The first one. It was an allied force. And it was not that the Russians were fighting, and the Kipchaks at that time were sitting in yurts.

                        Second. Those "Mongols" who were on Kalka are not today's Mongols and even the line does not go back to them. Those "Mongols" were the Turkic tribes of Naimans, Kereits and others. And they were Turks and the Kipchaks were Turks. No wonder the textbooks of my time wrote that at the negotiations between the Kipchaks and the "Mongol", the latter said - We are of the same blood. And the Kipchaks accepted it. If there were Mongols, then what kind of blood could there be. In European terms, this is to say that the Russians and the Spaniards are of the same blood. With a Belarusian and a Ukrainian, yes, Slavs, but with a Spaniard, the devil knows where.

                        Kazakhs remember and know who belongs to which tribe. The Kazakh people now consist of former Turkic tribes - the Kipchaks, Naimans, Kereites, Argyns and beyond. I belong to the Naiman tribe and what a Mongol I am.

                        And generally speaking. The Mongol is a distorted word not of an ethnonym, but of a political, collective name - MYSKOL. Just like the Kipchaks for the Europeans became commandos. Myn is a thousand, Kol is a hand, the second is the military corps. That is, thousand-armed or thousandth troops. When Genghis Khan united four Turkic tribes - Borjigins, Nimans, Kereites, Taichuites, he said that we would be called Mynkol. Then other tribes joined this core. And as always, the word eventually changed into a Mongol.

                        The current Mongols are xianbi tribes. They lived in inner Mongolia, were vassals of the Chinese emperor and formed the border troops. When the army of Genghis Khan crossed the Gobi Desert, the Syanbi army came out to meet them. Before the battle, the leaders talked about and jointly invaded China and the Syanbi, already under the name Mynkol. Syanbi participated in western campaigns, but not so en masse. Western hiking is the last wave of Turkic migrations. The ancestral home of the Türks - the steppes of Mongolia were empty and it was gradually settled by syanbi.

                        After the death of Genghis Khan, all Turkic tribes returned to their names - Naimans, Kereites. But the syanbi didn’t return and remained moykols, that is, the Mongols.

                        Something signed, but like that.
                      7. Revolver
                        Revolver 27 July 2013 02: 31
                        0
                        Well, you know better who you are, and in what relationship with whom. Judging by the fact that your knowledge of the subject obviously goes beyond the textbook "History of the USSR" of the 1970s and the novel by V. Yan "Chingiz Khan", you should go to the Russian-language Wikipedia and correct / supplement the data, otherwise I am not the only one who is so underinformed.
                      8. Beck
                        Beck 27 July 2013 08: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: Nagan
                        Would you even go to the Russian-language Wikipedia and correct / supplement the data, otherwise I’m not the only one so uninformed.


                        I thank you for your understanding, not a scream.

                        And about wikipedia. Illiterate me. If in 30 years the measure of literacy was the ability to write and count, now it is the ability to use a computer.

                        Once I tried to enter Wikipedia and got lost, according to the present, in three pine trees.
                      9. kotvov
                        kotvov 28 July 2013 19: 33
                        +1
                        I sympathize. but if there is something to fix in your place, as I understand it, you know enough Russian, all the same I tried some more successes.
  • POBEDA
    POBEDA 5 August 2013 23: 21
    0
    20 aircraft to protect the 50 millionth country? not much....
  • NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 25 July 2013 18: 05
    +2
    And not all of us fly. After the flood in Krymsk, the entire regiment, located in the same place, got into a joke. But it is so. For greater accuracy. There are enough problems in our aviation.
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 25 July 2013 08: 36
    19
    Beck In Ukraine primary the current tank is the T-64 and its modifications, a certain number of T-80 and T-72, since these machines were willingly sold by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine all the 90s, Oplotov 10 pieces (In total, the State program provides for the construction 50 BM "Oplot" for the Ukrainian army until 2018.) And then the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine terribly lacks finance for these machines. How will they fight?
    Will they be disposed of and on what will tankers ride horses? There is a modification of the T-64B / BV, which was adopted in 2005, what are you talking about here for 49 years?
    T80UM1 I absolutely agree with you!
    1. Vyalik
      Vyalik 25 July 2013 13: 26
      13
      About what tankers will ride, watch Mikhail Zadornov's video "Maneuvers of the Russian Army" and shift it to the situation in the Ukrainian army. In my opinion, NATO members and amers want only one thing and are afraid of only one thing, as if Ukraine would not be in an alliance with Russia. can not prevent this, then it is necessary to weaken the army of Ukraine to the maximum.Many tankers served on these tanks, and if they are not there, then until they master something else, and whether it will be something is not known, you look no longer needed army.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 25 July 2013 14: 04
        17
        While in Ukraine there is no plain vector of the development path, NATO is quietly disarming the country.
        Suddenly, Ukrainians will turn towards Russia, and the tanks can be upgraded.
        Here is the answer.
        Kui iron while the owner is sleeping !!!
    2. Beck
      Beck 25 July 2013 15: 05
      -6
      Quote: Marrying
      How will they fight?


      Well, why, how small. As if the Ukrainians were slaughtered and left nothing for themselves. For example, there are three thousand. 2 dispose of 1 upgrade.
  • Seraph
    Seraph 25 July 2013 23: 37
    +3
    What are you talking about ?! What are 49 years old ?! Ten or fifteen years ago, the world was actively trading in "fifty-fifths": the whole of Africa was filled up. Peru is just now considering options for replacing the T-55. This is for the USA and NATO T-64 "ballast of iron", and the poor countries will gladly take them for a third of the price. And here the dog is buried: the United States and Europe are also happy to sell their M-60s, Chiefs and Leopards from warehouses. Everything is more turbulent in the world, it may need all the iron
  • Hudo
    Hudo 25 July 2013 07: 18
    +9
    In the light of the fact that Yanukovych was completely upset with the voters of Southeast Ukraine and the victory in the 2015 elections, he could not be seen without fraud with the counting of votes. As well as the fact that his political plundering with ukro-fascists of the Galitsai spill can lead to a confrontation between the Bandera West and the Russian-speaking Southeast of Ukraine, the Evzhopeyts simply do not want Prokhorovka on the territory of Ukraine. In the fire of confrontation, something that the general people would like to put their paw on may die.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 07: 51
      0
      Quote: Hudo
      Eurasianists simply do not want Prokhorovka in Ukraine.

      Even if your "crazy" logic is taken into account, then withdrawing the tanks from the Armed Forces is not a year or two. T-72 was taken out for 5 years. Before the elections, Yanyk will not have time to disperse 2 tank, 9 mechanized brigades and one reinforced (50 tanks) battalion. So your theory is crumbling. Suggest a different version.
      1. sergo0000
        sergo0000 25 July 2013 08: 37
        13
        Quote: Akim
        . Yanyk will not have time to disperse 2 tank, 9 mechanized brigades and one reinforced (50 tanks) battalion by the time of the election.

        Breaking - you know, not building! The USSR was destroyed during a single Bialowieza drunk night. And Hudo’s thoughts are very healthy! West doesn’t need armed Ukraine. If civilizations start to oppose it, eastern and western will not seem to everyone without exception! And even more so for European countries. hi And by the way, I know what tank-64 is in the right hands (of any modification) winked Take the word of the tank commander (by the way, who trained at the aforementioned Desna training center), this vehicle is not much inferior to our T-72. And it is premature to bury it.
        1. Akim
          Akim 25 July 2013 08: 46
          +2
          Quote: sergo0000
          Take the word of the tank commander (by the way, who trained at the aforementioned Desna training center), this vehicle is not much inferior to our T-72. And it is premature to bury it.


          Well, nobody is going to bury her yet. There are no words about this in the Western press, but such publications as "Pulse", "Kommersant", "Khvylya" they could only play with. And the USSR was corrupted de jure overnight. De facto, economies were linked for a long time. And the army too. But this is already becoming a policy.
        2. Jipo
          Jipo 25 July 2013 17: 43
          +7
          NATO will cut the army of Ukraine, and then say: "Guys, we are your friends, we must help you protect yourself from the terrible eastern neighbor!", And then bring in their lads to defend Ukrainian independence. That is why to destroy the army, in the long term of a strong European state, that is why to turn it into a military impotent. It has been said that for the collapse of Great Russia, Ukraine must be taken away from her.
          1. Akim
            Akim 25 July 2013 18: 50
            -7
            Quote: JIPO
            NATO will cut the army of Ukraine, and then say: "Guys, we are your friends, we must help you defend yourself from the terrible eastern neighbor!"

            There are stress pills. They help to remove the paranoid effect. Well, I'm sorry, such an association I have caused your comment.
            1. Jipo
              Jipo 25 July 2013 20: 37
              +4
              I, too, would have caused such a comment the same effect, 25 years ago, but unfortunately such "paranoid" things have come true, but everything started exactly the same way. As a result, there is no USSR, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, NATO, the entire former socialist camp is there. They did exactly what they are now asking Ukraine to do to destroy the weapons of the USSR, break down their military-industrial complex, and then, as new "specialists" come to Georgia to train and introduce equipment from NATO countries. By the way, how many Ukrainian politicians sleep and see themselves there?
              1. Akim
                Akim 25 July 2013 21: 17
                -2
                Quote: JIPO
                . What is the result - the USSR is not, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, in NAT

                The Latvian "Cesna" today caused a painful shock at the forum. Georgia is not a NATO member, but aspires to go there. Ukraine is a non-aligned state and please do not forget this.
            2. Jipo
              Jipo 25 July 2013 20: 44
              +4
              Yes, I forgot to say, maybe put the “pioneer” idealism aside and look at such problems more broadly, without getting hung up on the fact that the West is good. And if it is good for you, then justify your words not only with epithets and give an answer - why should NATO ask a sovereign (not a small state) to destroy, albeit outdated, but rather effective means of protecting its sovereignty?
              1. Akim
                Akim 25 July 2013 21: 20
                -3
                Quote: JIPO
                And if it’s good for you, then argue your words not only with epithets and give an answer - why should NATO ask the sovereign (not a small state) for destruction, even if they are outdated, but quite effective means of protecting their sovereignty.

                I will not comment on and argue this topic inflated from the "yellow article" of "Kommersant" until there was an official meeting and the options for the proposal itself become clear.
                1. Jipo
                  Jipo 25 July 2013 21: 42
                  +2
                  Yeah, the results of the meeting will be sent to you by mail ... Don't tell me. They will pay well and cut, and where the leak occurred is not the essence of the problem. By the way, since when did Kommersant become a "yellow" newspaper? Yes, and write the names of not "yellow" newspapers, if not difficult, I will draw on the occasion of your unbridled optimism and sarcasm, "sirem" to us.
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 25 July 2013 22: 12
                    0
                    Quote: JIPO
                    Yeah, the results of the meeting will be sent to your mail ... Don’t tell. They will pay well and cut, but where the leak occurred is not the essence of the problem

                    In Kazakhstan, two people from Ukrspetsexport have been put down by the whole press, but here 2 thousand tanks will be put under the knife. I am not aware of your journalists, but ours eat from different hands. Therefore, if it is real, something will not be left without attention. In the meantime, this is the level of "escaped dolphins".
                    1. Jipo
                      Jipo 26 July 2013 06: 42
                      0
                      Well, we somehow out of habit not only read our press, or rather do not read it at all, we have them in the style of "how bad everything is" or "how good we are." And "Kommersant" is a very serious publication, there is little yellowness.
                      1. Akim
                        Akim 26 July 2013 08: 59
                        0
                        Quote: JIPO
                        And "Kommersant" is a very serious publication, there is little yellowness.


                        I didn’t say that all there is hepatitis. This is not really "Kommersant", but its branch "Kommersant-Ukraine". From where money is running there and such information is heard. Let's wait. Until the end of July is not long. Today the visit of the delegation from NATO is not planned. Celebrating today Baptism of Russia, And then Navy Day and the end of July.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Valter
            Valter 27 July 2013 00: 22
            0
            Jipo
            "NATO will cut the army of Ukraine, and then say:" Guys, we are your friends, we must help you defend yourself from the terrible eastern neighbor! ", And then bring in their lads to defend Ukrainian independence. That is why destroy the army, in the long term, a strong European state, that's why turn her into a militarily impotent. It has been said that for the collapse of Great Russia it is necessary to take Ukraine away from her. "
            The army of Ukraine has already collapsed, the latter will be destroyed and it will be possible, as they say, to take with warm and bare hands.
      2. Valter
        Valter 27 July 2013 00: 10
        0
        Akim
        "Before the elections, Yanyk will not have time to disperse 2 tank brigades, 9 mechanized brigades and one reinforced (50 tanks) battalion." Overclocking may not work, but selling most of it is easy.
        1. Akim
          Akim 27 July 2013 00: 38
          0
          Quote: Valter
          It may not succeed to disperse, but selling a large part is easy.

          Yanyk is not a sucker, but a normal person with concepts. And he cuts a chip. that with a full-fledged army, he will cut down much more money Sorry. The Donetsk past leaped at me.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • knn54
    knn54 25 July 2013 08: 24
    +2
    To Kim, who does not want the Abrams to rust ...
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 08: 38
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      the one who does not want the Abrams to rust ...

      Well, this is completely illogical from a technical point of view. Poles, before transplanting their armored brigade to the Leopards, had to intern in Germany for six months
  • Zubr
    Zubr 25 July 2013 08: 48
    14
    Everything is much more prosaic, now they will destroy the military-industrial complex of Ukraine and begin to sell them NATO equipment and weapons. The war for the sales market, and even more so the entire elemental base is European, which means that at any moment they can take control of all high-tech developments and paralyze the Ukrainian army.
    They break to our border from all the cracks ..... got it ....
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 08: 56
      +3
      Quote: Zubr
      Everything is much more prosaic, now they will destroy the military-industrial complex of Ukraine and begin to sell them NATO equipment and weapons.


      Okay About the down to earth. Tell me, what Ukraine has adopted from the west, in addition to inflatable special forces and donated Hamers?
    2. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 25 July 2013 16: 50
      +1
      For what shi-shi will Ukraine buy NATO equipment?
      1. NickitaDembelnulsa
        NickitaDembelnulsa 25 July 2013 18: 08
        0
        That's it. T-64 would be useful to Ukraine until better times, until they save up money and buy something NATO.
      2. Luna
        Luna 26 July 2013 01: 20
        +1
        FOR LOANS.

        It's elementary. smile
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 25 July 2013 08: 58
    +1
    Akim Be realistic, they will utilize these tanks, after which they will accept some leopards donated by the FRG as a sign of friendship.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 09: 07
      +1
      Quote: Marrying
      after they will accept some leopards donated by Germany as a sign of friendship.

      Ukraine has its own armored industry. Understand. There are 4 enterprises that will NEVER be liquidated, no matter how much "friends" shout about it from all sides. These are KrAZ, Antonov, KHKB named after Morozov and Yuzhmash. In general, there are much more of them. The hungry 90s have long passed. Although, if you look at "Vesti" there is such an impression. Well, I was carried away in the wrong direction.
      1. Motors1991
        Motors1991 25 July 2013 11: 00
        +9
        Why they’re not liquidating? Here in Pavlograd, the PMZ (Pavlograd Mechanical Plant) branch of Yuzhmash was liquidated, it produced rail-based missiles, for submarines, and something else. They put copper, titanium and other hundreds of tons into scrap metal. So, for a million bucks they not only the T-64, the sex of Ukraine will be cut. And by the way, what will the state fight for? Ukraine has reached such a degree of decline that its own citizens hate it. Read the story, no one has ever fought for such states. Because the enemies are better than their rulers.
        1. Akim
          Akim 25 July 2013 11: 21
          0
          Quote: Motors1991
          In Pavlograd, they liquidated the PMZ (Pavlograd Mechanical Plant) branch of Yuzhmash, produced rail-based missiles, for submarines, and something else


          I am not on friendly terms with the Strategic Missile Forces in understanding their affairs. Sorry for the people, the city too. The plant - not very It was a plant for a large country, for the nuclear shield of the submarine fleet and trains. But there is no such country for a long time, and the plant was unable to make the conversion. And how many enterprises in the former GDR were closed in due time? But the country was delicious. When the PMZ began to die, the people of the new country wanted to survive themselves. Therefore, for the public, he died unnoticed. Now the university, disagreeable to the Ministry of Education, cannot just be closed, let alone strategic enterprises.
        2. washi
          washi 25 July 2013 14: 19
          +2
          But such a state as Ukraine never existed. This is an artificial entity, the same as the Commonwealth. And how did it end? While their kings were Russian, there was at least some state. Look at Lithuania. All these tribes always fell under all, only they do not remember that under Lithuanian Rus all the princes were Russian, and the writing was Russian and Russian faith
          1. Beck
            Beck 25 July 2013 16: 06
            +8
            Quote: Vasya
            and writing was Russian and Russian faith


            Yes, you are Vasya the dreamer with a chauvinistic bias. I will not talk about Ukraine, the Commonwealth.

            But there is NO Russian faith. There is an Orthodox faith in which both Russians, and Albanians, and Greeks, and a bunch of other peoples believe.

            The Russians had their own Russian religion, the pagan - Perun, Yarilo and other gods. But a thousand years ago, the Russians adopted Orthodoxy from the Greeks.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 25 July 2013 17: 53
              +2
              Quote: Beck
              But a thousand years ago, the Russians adopted Orthodoxy from the Greeks.

              Well, this is a moot point, who took over from whom. The Russians won the type of statehood from the Normans and nobody cares that the Normans themselves did not have this very statehood.
              1. Beck
                Beck 25 July 2013 18: 19
                +3
                Quote: Setrac
                Well, this is a moot point, who took over from whom. The Russians won the type of statehood from the Normans and nobody cares that the Normans themselves did not have this very statehood.


                M-yeah. It was stolen in the goiter, it was open below. My heart skipped a beat and the heel sank.

                Setras considered you a normal opponent. I did not expect from you.

                And why then do you celebrate the millennium of the baptism of Russia. And before that, Orthodoxy had existed since 450 some years. When the Great Schism occurred and United Christianity was divided into Western - Catholicism, the center of Rome, and Eastern - Orthodoxy, the center of Constantinople, branches.

                Yeah, I didn’t think that the Orthodox would have to explain the basics.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 25 July 2013 22: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Beck
                  Setras considered you a normal opponent. I did not expect from you.

                  Setrak, not Setras, is the name that was the name of my grandfather, a war veteran.
                  Quote: Beck
                  And why then do you celebrate the millennium of the baptism of Russia.

                  We have many dubious holidays, such as the New Year.
                  Quote: Beck
                  And before that, Orthodoxy had existed since 450 some years.

                  I have no doubt in the existence of the Orthodox Church.
                  Quote: Beck
                  When the Great Schism occurred and United Christianity was divided into Western - Catholicism, the center of Rome, and Eastern - Orthodoxy, the center of Constantinople, branches.

                  You know this from a story written by Catholics, since they didn’t offend their loved ones.
                  Quote: Beck
                  Orthodoxy, the center of Constantinople, branches.

                  In the Russian Orthodox Church, church terms are the same as those of Catholics, I will not argue who is the original, but the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is not from the Greek Church is for sure.
          2. Kir
            Kir 25 July 2013 18: 50
            +3
            As for Rzhechi, the roots were bent In Great Lithuanian, it was by the way to say, according to some information, Lithuanians and Prusians are close relatives of the Slavs with regards to faith, so the Lithuanians, unlike us, adopted Christianity about 400 years later, with regard to Perun as a Russian God, according to some data, this question was also introduced in the original there was Perunas (sort of from the Greeks) And ours are Rukhevit, Lyad-Led, Rudegast, Yarilo, Mara, Lada. Veles and others, but with regards to adopted, sorry "raped" the Skomorokhs - the servants of ancient cults were so persecuted !!! And that's what is interesting on Our Pagan (the same Greek, but damn ....) Poles and Lithuanians also come, so the squabble between us thanks to the Roman Catholic Slavs In Unity is dangerous and unacceptable !!!
          3. Alexander D.
            Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 34
            +1
            Quote: Vasya
            But such a state as Ukraine never existed. This is an artificial entity, the same as the Commonwealth. And how did it end? While their kings were Russian, there was at least some state. Look at Lithuania. All these tribes always fell under all, only they do not remember that under Lithuanian Rus all the princes were Russian, and the writing was Russian and Russian faith

            WELL YOU AND YOU!
      2. Valter
        Valter 28 July 2013 23: 29
        0
        Akim
        "Ukraine has its own armored industry."
        It would be interesting to look where it is? Or are you talking about repair armored factories? So 64-ki will be killed and there will be nothing to repair and upgrade.
        1. Akim
          Akim 29 July 2013 08: 38
          0
          Quote: Valter
          It would be interesting to look where it is?

          I do not think that it is necessary to list the "fresh" that comes out of the factories. The fact that it goes only for export is certainly not the case, but if old tanks are cut, then no one will buy new ones either.
    2. NickitaDembelnulsa
      NickitaDembelnulsa 25 July 2013 18: 10
      +1
      In Europe, the economic situation is very difficult, and giving tanks that are very expensive is not at all right. They are only too happy to make money selling weapons. But in the case of independent money, there isn’t much yet.
      1. A_Alex
        A_Alex 25 July 2013 20: 59
        +1
        Well, you can’t donate it completely, but let’s say give a loan to buy equipment (written-off rubbish from European warehouses). In euroma it is now in the order of things! And the full benefit and trash vtyuhayut and more control over the country will receive, you must! Well, they’ll also be taken from the service.
    3. kotvov
      kotvov 28 July 2013 19: 41
      0
      Well, I don’t think that they will give it. They will give it on credit, that's claw so that the bird gets bogged down.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 25 July 2013 09: 08
    +4
    Fulfillment of NATO requirements is surrender to them, and the result will be the complete looting of the country.
  • Zubr
    Zubr 25 July 2013 09: 08
    +4
    Quote: Akim
    Quote: Zubr
    Everything is much more prosaic, now they will destroy the military-industrial complex of Ukraine and begin to sell them NATO equipment and weapons.


    Okay About the down to earth. Tell me, what Ukraine has adopted from the west, in addition to inflatable special forces and donated Hamers?


    I drew a suggested development scenario. And it takes place ....
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 09: 22
      -4
      Quote: Zubr
      I drew a suggested development scenario. And it takes place ....

      The planet was captured by aliens from the constellation Calypso (Taurus) ...
      I also drew the intended script.
      What are you based on? With a similar article, or do you have facts?
  • knn54
    knn54 25 July 2013 09: 12
    +2
    Kim: They also want to create (at least with ours). Moreover, they will not be "fooled" with new cars, but as Portuguese used planes were sold to Romanians.
    And there are clients beyond the hillock on Bulat. By the way, at one time, fire engines based on the T-64 were exported.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 09: 24
      0
      Quote: knn54
      And there are clients beyond the hill on Bulat


      There were no customers after BM Bulat’s trip to South Africa. But the T-72UA1 sold according to his model.
  • ded_73
    ded_73 25 July 2013 09: 16
    +5
    I beg of you!!!! What kind of disposal? To slander money (in this - we are world champions, there is no universe), and to foolish amers to show the storage site of the Kiev Tank Plant. There it is so broken that at first, and at second, the look is practically utilized. And everything is as always good.
    1. A_Alex
      A_Alex 25 July 2013 21: 03
      +1
      Naive! If amers pay they will arrange control be healthy! At least recall the destruction of the Oka River so there every 10 times they counted, the numbers were verified and stood behind the sappers! And funnels checked whether they blew up!
  • Kars
    Kars 25 July 2013 09: 31
    +9
    About Ukraine and T-64 use Gurk Khan))) http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2013/07/64.html
    it's not kosher)
    1. T80UM1
      T80UM1 25 July 2013 12: 03
      0
      What is the tank in the video? Modification 64 with front MTO?
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 July 2013 12: 14
        +2
        Quote: T80UM1
        Modification 64 with front MTO?

        T-64E MTO in the stern, as usual.
        1. T80UM1
          T80UM1 25 July 2013 12: 18
          +1
          Panorama, DZ knife I see. Is there a thermal imager? Handsome))) I have a model of Skiff, by the way is much better than the Star. Here is the best output for the 2000 t-64
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 July 2013 15: 58
            +2
            Quote: T80UM1
            I have a Skif model, by the way, much better than the Stars

            You are a persevering person. Skiff is not available to me. My hands are not mature. I took the T-55A and started to sell it to the point)) I didn’t know what the T-64 Star was doing, I already saw the Trumpeters ’sites, I haven’t been able to go live.
            Quote: T80UM1
            Here is the best output for the 2000 t-64

            The solution is good, but who will buy them? Ukrainian Armed Forces will have a maximum of 800 vehicles, with half will be in storage.
    2. svp67
      svp67 25 July 2013 20: 32
      0
      [quote = Kars] About Ukraine and T-64 use Gurk Khan))) http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2013/07/64.html
      it's not kosher)
      I thought ... but here on concrete, so any tank can, but on the snow is weak?
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 July 2013 20: 55
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        I thought ... and then on concrete, so any tank can, but on the snow is weak?

        Give me a tank, I’ll try. And can anyone have a video? And then in the snow?
        1. svp67
          svp67 25 July 2013 21: 09
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Give me a tank, I’ll try. And can anyone have a video? And then in the snow?
          On concrete, T64 can still, but in the snow, it is already dangerous for it - a bump, a stump and a piece of wood "breaks down", lack of reagent grade, due to a narrow skating rink
          And you want a video - I have them
          It’s somehow more artaesthetic
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 July 2013 21: 16
            +1
            I don’t argue artistically.
            But
            I did not see a similar maneuver.
            Moreover, I did not see snow, and even more so I did not see
            Quote: svp67
            already dangerous for her - bump, stump

            I would like to see the result.
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 25 July 2013 21: 35
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              I would like to see the result.


              There is such an old video, I saw last year, on the eve of NG with the T-90, but now I could not find it unfortunately.
              1. Alex Nick
                Alex Nick 26 July 2013 02: 55
                +1
                Want to live, know how to spin. Well done guys.
        2. svp67
          svp67 25 July 2013 21: 18
          +1
          And on snow and ice
          1. Kars
            Kars 25 July 2013 21: 28
            +1
            I also don’t see anything special. Moreover, there is little snow, and this is a rolled-up tankodrome. You can’t see any bumps or hemp.
            And it’s not a fact that there would have been a different T-64 there.
            1. Kars
              Kars 25 July 2013 21: 38
              +1

              _______________________
              1. PLO
                PLO 26 July 2013 00: 07
                +3
                ---------------------------
                1. Papakiko
                  Papakiko 26 July 2013 00: 27
                  0
                  Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            2. svp67
              svp67 26 July 2013 19: 52
              0
              Quote: Kars
              And it’s not a fact that there would have been a different T-64 there.
              We won’t argue, it’s all known in practice ...
              Here is a police U-turn on T72
              1. Kars
                Kars 26 July 2013 23: 34
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                We won’t argue, it’s all known in practice ...
                Here is a police U-turn on T72

                Snow? Bumps? Hemp?
                1. Refund_SSSR
                  Refund_SSSR 27 July 2013 11: 31
                  0
                  What do you want to prove then? that Ukrainian tankers are the most tanky tankers? laughing
                  In both videos, I didn’t see icy concrete.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 27 July 2013 21: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: We refund_SSSR
                    What do you want to prove then?

                    Quote: svp67
                    I thought ... but here on concrete, so any tank can, but on the snow is weak?

                    Snow? Bumps? Hemp?
            3. svp67
              svp67 26 July 2013 19: 56
              0
              Or like that, for the public
  • ATATA
    ATATA 25 July 2013 09: 31
    -5
    How many of these 2 t000 are combat ready?
    Why Ukraine 2 000 !!! tanks !!!
    Isn’t it easier to collect 2000-400 serviceable tanks from these 500 through cannibalism and push them to Africa at a bargain price anyway, there will still be more money than disposed of for $ lam, and cut the rest of the hull into open-hearths.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 09: 38
      +2
      Quote: ATATA
      How many of these 2 t000 are combat ready?

      About eight hundred. There are brigades with a three-battalion (2M + TB) core, and there are four (2MB + 2TB) and a brigade artillery group. The battalion has 40 tanks. In the tank brigade in TB-30 tanks. There is also a reinforced battalion (50 tanks) in Transcarpathia and 2TB coastal defense troops. So consider it.
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 25 July 2013 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: Akim
        About eight hundred. There are brigades with a three-battalion (2M + TB) core, and there are four (2MB + 2TB) and a brigade artillery group.

        That is, NATO proposes to utilize those tanks that are part of the army, and not those that are at storage bases?
        1. Akim
          Akim 25 July 2013 13: 58
          +1
          Quote: ATATA
          ATATA

          They asked how many combat-ready T-64s - I answered. And about recycling, I generally do not believe this information and sources to say YES or NO. Already the end of July. No commissions are planned from there.
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 37
      +1
      Quote: ATATA
      How many of these 2 t000 are combat ready?
      Why Ukraine 2 000 !!! tanks !!!
      Isn’t it easier to collect 2000-400 serviceable tanks from these 500 through cannibalism and push them to Africa at a bargain price anyway, there will still be more money than disposed of for $ lam, and cut the rest of the hull into open-hearths.

      But why engage in cannibalism if Ukraine still has the technology for the production of these tanks, the production of their components and assemblies? Several options for deep modernization have been developed with the replacement of many nodes. Well and cannibalism on a fig ?!
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 25 July 2013 21: 56
        0
        Quote: Alexander D.
        Well and cannibalism on a fig ?!

        How many tanks have Ukrainian industry produced in the last 5 years?
        With the volume of tank production in Ukraine, I would call your industry in its current state not an industry, but an experimental workshop.
        1. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 25 July 2013 23: 24
          +1
          I agree, very few produced from scratch. But! Down and Out trouble started. Especially if it threatens national security. The Slavs are famous for the fact that at a critical moment they do not panic, but show maximum concentration of efforts in the right direction. Tank production in Ukraine died out after the Pakistani contract, but the Thai order resuscitated it, even raised it from the dead. A year and a half it took exclusively to establish cooperation of component manufacturing enterprises.
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 25 July 2013 09: 32
    -6
    How disgusting to look at the foreign policy of our smaller brothers. And it really hurts for the common people of Independence. And what looks even worse is the possible future of the civil war in Ukraine, right at our borders. In an effort to dominate the planet, the Anglo-Saxons finally disbanded and did not reckon with human lives for world domination. Based on the general situation around the world, the easiest way to give an opportunity to live on the whole planet is seen. Bomb the mattresses in the Stone Age. To forever forget their pretenses to the world. It is in the Pacific Ocean, in Asia, in the Persian Gulf and Geyrop that they are deprived of their distant koi bases.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 09: 44
      14
      Quote: PROXOR
      How disgusting to look at the foreign policy of our smaller brothers.

      Actually, this is what pets are called. This comparison is unpleasant for me.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 26 July 2013 00: 12
        +1
        Akim, I agree with you that the Ukrainians did not earn their fame in the Sia Breeze parades, but you know what battles. But such a wave went that you were supposedly rushing to NATO. Here and resented, I myself dream of seeing the Ukrainian detachment on the Kremlin paving stones , together we are strength (But national colors will have to be replaced with a unifying color) Dreams, dreams, as Igar says, but let me, a young old man, dream about it.
        1. Akim
          Akim 26 July 2013 05: 47
          0
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          But such a wave has gone that you supposedly rushed to NATO


          Lord But how much can be repeated. Alexei. You are an adequate person. Do you really so propaganda ingrained in the brain? Where does it say that we are striving for NATO?
    2. Sergey_K
      Sergey_K 25 July 2013 13: 32
      0
      Look at yourself in the mirror, Great Russian unfinished.
    3. alex13-61
      alex13-61 25 July 2013 16: 18
      +3
      Quote: PROXOR
      How disgusting to look at the foreign policy of our smaller brothers.

      With such statements you play into the hands of the Russophobian citizens of Ukraine. Explain yourself more carefully, please.
      Quote: PROXOR
      Bomb the mattresses in the Stone Age.

      And look at it more realistically .... although the dream is not bad ...
    4. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 38
      0
      Quote: PROXOR
      How disgusting to look at the foreign policy of our smaller brothers. And it really hurts for the common people of Independence. And what looks even worse is the possible future of the civil war in Ukraine, right at our borders. In an effort to dominate the planet, the Anglo-Saxons finally disbanded and did not reckon with human lives for world domination. Based on the general situation around the world, the easiest way to give an opportunity to live on the whole planet is seen. Bomb the mattresses in the Stone Age. To forever forget their pretenses to the world. It is in the Pacific Ocean, in Asia, in the Persian Gulf and Geyrop that they are deprived of their distant koi bases.

      Hey older brother, actually, Kiev is the mother city of Russians.
      1. Kir
        Kir 25 July 2013 20: 53
        0
        Well, well, this is just one of the theories of the same Pskov and Novgorod, they are not infants, and not one of them, so ......., all the more if I remember correctly to stand on the Principality in (what was it called then? ) Kiev was actually a necessary measure, since in that place the path from the Varangians to the Greeks was subjected to raids from the side in every way !!!
        1. svp67
          svp67 26 July 2013 18: 39
          0
          Quote: Kir
          The reign in (what was it called then?) Kiev was actually a forced measure since in that place the path from the Varangians to the Greeks was subjected to raids from the side in every way !!!
          How noble, to protect merchants from the raid of all trash and for this, according to the law, do not forget to take tax from them, and also for the fact that they carried their goods by land or water, and if something fell to the ground, then entirely to the treasury Prince ... The same "raid", only noble, civilized, according to the law yes
          1. Kir
            Kir 26 July 2013 18: 56
            0
            Well, it’s supposedly Roof, but it’s not invented by me in my opinion at S.M.Solovyov and someone else’s, but Agree as Cleverly!
      2. svp67
        svp67 25 July 2013 23: 39
        +1
        Quote: Alexander D.
        Hey older brother, actually, Kiev is the mother city of Russians.

        Myth. The first was Ladoga ...
        1. Kir
          Kir 26 July 2013 02: 24
          0
          Only not Ladoga, so this trading city was ancient, although in the same area, it seems, there still exists the Real Capital City, but the name will have to be rummaged, and about the mother it went from the priests so that ...... although in objectivity here North Russia was ahead !!!
  • basil200
    basil200 25 July 2013 10: 12
    -1
    Let them sell us, tank corps will not be superfluous. It’s cheaper to upgrade than to pour again.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 39
      +2
      Quote: basil200
      Let them sell us, tank corps will not be superfluous. It’s cheaper to upgrade than to pour again.

      You had not only your corps, but also entire tanks. Do you know where they are now? That's right, they were disposed of by your government for your money, and no NATO has persuaded you about this!
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 July 2013 20: 49
        0
        Quote: Alexander D.
        You had not only your corps, but also entire tanks. Do you know where they are now?
        UralVagonZavod has done so many of them that they still clogged their storage bases. And your country has more than one year to sell them enough .. And yet Omsk and Leningrad tried their best, so there is enough iron. The problem is different, how to quickly and efficiently upgrade it. Thank you, of course, for worrying about our affairs, but you better turn around, but check your household ...
        1. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 25 July 2013 23: 08
          0
          I spoke about the utilized T-55/62/64. Israel in the 80s showed how obsolete equipment can be used (T-55), and in Russia in the XNUMXst century

          1. svp67
            svp67 25 July 2013 23: 43
            0
            Quote: Alexander D.
            I talked about the reclaimed T-55 / 62 / 64. and in Russia in the 21st century

            Well, well, Russia "burst", but show what Ukraine has done in this ...
            In general, I support this decision. Some of the T55-62 tanks were handed over to the Afghans ... the rest for "needles", since more advanced machines - T72 and T80 in Russia more than ...
            1. Alexander D.
              Alexander D. 26 July 2013 00: 02
              +1
              Upgrade Option T-55
              1. svp67
                svp67 26 July 2013 00: 09
                +2
                Quote: Alexander D.
                Upgrade Option T-55
                In the Russian design bureaus, there are also enough modernization options, it more and more resembles a "test of the pen", but where are the serial samples? No, since these tanks are morally outdated so much that converting them into something more modern costs a little less than the production of a new vehicle from scratch. Israel "dabbled" with captured tanks, because it could not fully equip its tank troops with its own tanks, and it is a pity to buy someone else's money, but as soon as the troops received new vehicles, then the trophy went into stock, for sale and "needles"
            2. Alexander D.
              Alexander D. 26 July 2013 00: 04
              +1
              Another version of the T-55
            3. Alexander D.
              Alexander D. 26 July 2013 00: 05
              +1
              Upgrade Option T-62
    2. svp67
      svp67 25 July 2013 20: 43
      +2
      Quote: basil200
      Let them sell us, tank corps will not be superfluous. It’s cheaper to upgrade than to pour again.

      T64 hulls are not needed, here as in the film - "... the grenades of the wrong design ...."
  • fluke
    fluke 25 July 2013 10: 40
    +1
    Of course, 2000 does not need to be disposed of, but I suspect that a very large part of the fleet is not suitable for service and requires major repairs and re-equipment with various components.
    The best option would be to collect 500 combat-ready tanks from these two thousand tanks, put them in specialized storage so that they can be put into operation and left as a strategic reserve.
    For the sake of objectivity, Ukraine is not able to keep 2000 tanks in combat readiness. That is, they are tanks, but they are unsuitable for service.
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 25 July 2013 11: 01
    +4
    They also disarmed us with US money, canned and stored, they won’t ask for bread, but they can protect them from hordes of jihadists, since it’s better to have than not to have.
  • revnagan
    revnagan 25 July 2013 11: 10
    +2
    Hmm, a million dollars ... Interestingly, how much does one modernized T-64B cost? How much can they be bought for a million bucks? There is a proposal not to dispose of, but to modernize and sell to amers at full price! And our enterprises work and budget- money, and the tank fleet will gradually decrease for the sake of amers. Over the years it’s 20ti. And there, even if they sell blacks, even drown in the ocean.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 11: 24
      +4
      Quote: revnagan
      ..It’s interesting, but how much does one modernized T-64B cost

      The article gives the figures 450 pieces of greenery. In fact, it costs 7 hryvnia lemons (900 thousand tanks) + tank.
  • USNik
    USNik 25 July 2013 11: 50
    0
    The author correctly noted in the article that the tank is very complex and requires a well-trained crew. As the experts who skated on the T-72 and T-64 said, the first is a reliable simple Tank, and the second is an aircraft with a cannon. Therefore, he did not give up to any "Africans and Ethiopias". And 2000 tanks will still be scrapped sooner or later. So the idea of ​​allocating 1 million ue for disposal would look sensible if it were not for the theft in the Ministry of Defense, 1.5 tanks would be exponentially cut, and the rest "these hands did not take anything" (c) ...
  • ed65b
    ed65b 25 July 2013 11: 56
    0
    But why should the army of Ukraine join Russia, one country, one army. It is clear to the Kazakhs that their prospects are gloomy and soon they will begin to bite with the Taliban, so they are arming themselves. But you will still be dodged, cut everything down and cut it and wake up for sure; Bought all your politicians in the bud up to 7 knee. Only in revolution is there a way out, since we will not give Putin to you.
  • Yankuz
    Yankuz 25 July 2013 12: 04
    +3
    What is not clear here? Tanks - as shown by the experience of military operations in Syria - are the most effective weapons against militants in urban (and not only) conditions - only if they are equipped with dynamic anti-tank systems. Conclusion - Ukraine is preparing for the Syrian scenario.
  • chenia
    chenia 25 July 2013 12: 35
    +8
    After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine had a third army in the world (We were ahead of China in armaments).

    For 20 years, these National Svidomo losers (followers of the best Luser traditions of Grushevsky, Skoropadsky and Petlyura), confidently turned the Ukrainian Viisko into amusing troops.

    And our dung national-Svidomo raguli for a penny (cents) will cut everything and break it down, just to get the blessings of the Washington regional committee, well, and save up for a "comfortable" old age. And moreover, that orange, that blue - one pack of scoundrels.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 13: 06
      +5
      Quote: chenia
      After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine had a third army in the world (We were ahead of China in armaments).

      Did you serve in the mid-90s? When the staff for half a year did not pay salaries? Or ate dry potatoes from a reserve? And the soldiers at the training grounds with the help of self-propelled guns and infantry fighting vehicles pushed. $ 6 of the cadet at the cadet and all goes to chevrons, toothpaste, filing, badges. I received a half-time security guard 2 times more per week. My kvzvzvoda (starley) asked: can I arrange it like that. Well then, at least rations were still given to officers. I don’t want to remember that time.
    2. Hug
      Hug 25 July 2013 18: 09
      +5
      Oh, how I agree with you! I served in, still a real army, in the Soviet and what happened later I regard as a real tragedy of the military-industrial complex, the officer corps, the state. At one time, I witnessed how at the dawn of NONZALEZHNOST, an emissary of some national Svidomo party came to us, which, with a general psychosis, managed to get into the "Rada". It is not known what he inspected and what he generally understood in technology and the Armed Forces. (probably just left the barn, where he twisted the tails of the cows). So, he asked a question that plunged everyone into a stupor, pointing to the silo launcher: "But this pit can be adapted for a silo pit?" The commander was even at a loss from communicating with such an intellect of the new government and did not answer. So these ... (I do not call them by their proper names - I am afraid to be deprived of a word in the future) modernized the entire army infrastructure, science, and not only theirs - the country under the "silo storage"!
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 26 July 2013 00: 26
        0
        Quote: Kram
        I served in a still real army, in the Soviet
        And I already swore an oath in the Russian Federation, but I heard a lot about "order in the tank troops." My father took me that way, and my grandfather added, so I dangle around the world like in a big forest of carnations.
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 25 July 2013 13: 17
    -8
    The news is politically important - now Ukraine is under NATO and Zionism, the refineries are working for Syrian rebels, but apparently in the future, and this influence is seen as close and the system will change, as in Egypt tanks can strengthen Iran and the Nazis as a whole - they are in a hurry to utilize otherwise why worry. Indirect sign - Fluppen's proposals to Ukraine - Nordic cars.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 13: 23
      +6
      Quote: Volkhov
      factories work for Syrian rebels,

      Sorry, but it had to be so stoned! I ask you not to drive today.
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 25 July 2013 13: 21
    +3
    Quote: Akim
    Quote: Motors1991
    In Pavlograd, they liquidated the PMZ (Pavlograd Mechanical Plant) branch of Yuzhmash, produced rail-based missiles, for submarines, and something else


    I am not on friendly terms with the Strategic Missile Forces in understanding their affairs. Sorry for the people, the city too. The plant - not very It was a plant for a large country, for the nuclear shield of the submarine fleet and trains. But there is no such country for a long time, and the plant was unable to make the conversion. And how many enterprises in the former GDR were closed in due time? But the country was delicious. When the PMZ began to die, the people of the new country wanted to survive themselves. Therefore, for the public, he died unnoticed. Now the university, disagreeable to the Ministry of Education, cannot just be closed, let alone strategic enterprises.



    But it’s not necessary to close it. You just have to pay a meager salary. Old frames will die out, new ones will not come. It’s like with our space. Why are rockets falling? Everything is simple. The old cadres are gone, but there are either no new cadres, or the majority has such experience that in Soviet times they would be allowed to watch but not touch anything.
  • spirit
    spirit 25 July 2013 13: 23
    0
    saw?))) yeah how can I remember the story of a tanker full of tanks captured by pirates) here I will be the same story.
    they will take money, saw 3 tanks for display, and the rest will be quietly sold to Africa winked
    1. NickitaDembelnulsa
      NickitaDembelnulsa 25 July 2013 18: 13
      0
      Nope. The Americans will control everything. 1997 tanks - it will not be possible to hide or not noticeably sell
  • chenia
    chenia 25 July 2013 13: 43
    +6
    Quote: Akim
    Did you serve in the mid-90s? When the staff for half a year did not pay salaries? Or ate dry potatoes from a reserve? And the soldiers at the training grounds were pushing with the help of self-propelled guns and infantry fighting vehicles. $ 6 of the cadet at the cadet and all goes to chevrons, toothpaste, filing, badges. I received a half-time security guard 2 times more per week. I don’t want to remember that time.


    He served for quite some time but in the ARMY, and not in a mock army. You are younger, and you are apparently unlucky to see the real Army (and I am truly sorry), and I do not blame you for this.

    I am talking about villains who seized the Hetman mace with their weak but raking arms. And they brought the country to a state that you described. Well, we (in fairness) ourselves are to blame.
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 13: 52
      +4
      Quote: chenia
      Well, we (in fairness) ourselves are to blame


      I agree. I remember how a neighbor, on December 1, 91, after a referendum, proved to my batiks that we would live like in France. The result is -92% for independence. And indeed, they lived like they did in France after WW2.
      But this is politics, moreover, the politics of bygone days. I had to start studying in another country.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 25 July 2013 13: 43
    +3
    Men, Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, what are we arguing about? In the end, this is an internal affair and the choice of Ukraine, to cut these 2000 T-64s, most of which have already exhausted their service life, or not to cut them. Moreover, the Ukrainians are building new armored vehicles ("Oplot-M", T-84 "Oplot", BTR-4, BTR-3, "Kazak"). unfortunately, all this is exported, and does not enter service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but nevertheless they are there and this is good. That is, Ukraine managed to preserve its tank-building industry, the same KMDB, and not only retained, but also managed to establish the production of new models, and even surpassed us in some ways (the same BTR-4). Dear T80UM1 KZ, there is no need to measure the size of the army with the respected Akim, from the outside it looks ugly, especially since your Motherland, having purchased 200 BTR-82A in Russia, itself purchased 100 BTR-4 vehicle sets in Ukraine. Yours faithfully! hi
  • washi
    washi 25 July 2013 14: 24
    -1
    They give money for recycling. Given the fact that the European order is on the outskirts, the prevalence of Ukrainian cossacks, in the absence of a territory where you can go for zipoons. What do you really think, this money will reach the utilizers.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 25 July 2013 14: 57
    +2
    Thus, we can say that the T-64 tank is exactly the machine that is needed by the army, staffed with highly professional personnel, in other words, the kind of armed forces that Ukraine currently aspires to.


    Another parcheg. The weapon should be as simple as possible, and if, with a formal superiority of TTX by 10%, namely by so much T-64 was superior to T-72, not more, representatives of the plant constantly stick out in parts, because cars are constantly breaking, then this is not a technique for professionals, but just a pile of scrap metal. A rocket, or a fighter, which is several times smaller and with which a whole brigade can babysit, can be difficult, otherwise it will simply collapse, but not a tank. Actually, the T-64 ended in 1987, when after 20 years of torment in trying to bring it to mind, it was finally taken out of production.
  • So_o_tozh
    So_o_tozh 25 July 2013 15: 02
    +1
    On the one hand, it’s right that we don’t need so many tanks, all the same, there are neither solariums for them, nor money for their maintenance, everything else to sell and Bulat and Oploti to build with this money. The army with us is up to 120 people. shrinking ... But someone will warm his hands well on this and we will not change anything in this.
    1. the47th
      the47th 25 July 2013 16: 21
      0
      You can, in the end, sell some kind of Syria or Iran inexpensively.
  • the47th
    the47th 25 July 2013 15: 08
    +3
    If the T-55 is equipped with a modern LMS and a 125-mm cannon, then if the T-64 is replaced with an LMS and a modern cannon (even the turret, most likely will not have to be changed), then a cheap and successful tank can turn out that can successfully fight now. And 2000 tanks is already a huge offensive force. NATO is still afraid of the legacy of the Soviet Union (and rightly so).
  • Yankuz
    Yankuz 25 July 2013 15: 53
    +7
    Though minus slapped me, anyway I will say - Ukraine! Your Future Only Together With Russia !!! An Alliance with Only Its Interests will Ruin You !!!
  • Chaplain
    Chaplain 25 July 2013 16: 27
    +2
    It’s just a pity tanks. But in general, in Russia the last T-55 and T-62 were removed from service this year, we can offer the Slav brothers to buy 600 T-64 tanks from them (with or without the latest modernization) for temporary replacement departed. If with modernization, then we will get modern tanks at a relatively low price and short time, and Ukraine will get jobs and money. If without updating for tanks, then our tank enterprises will get the same thing.
  • 0255
    0255 25 July 2013 16: 33
    +2
    a few years ago, the same Litvinchuk announced that the alliance is considering cooperation with Ukraine in the maritime partnership industry, the essence of which is to provide certain services by the Ukrainian side (refueling, providing navigational services, places for unloading waste water and garbage, providing food and water).

    Cool service, you won’t say anything. NATO countries would hardly have rendered such a "service" to the Ukrainians.
    Ukrainians from the United States have already destroyed the Tu-160. Soon, the United States will force them to withdraw from service the old, but reliable Su-27 and MiG-29 and will sell them F-35 flying irons in return. Instead of the T-64, they also get in some sort of g ...
  • mountain hiker
    mountain hiker 25 July 2013 16: 34
    +3
    Quote: Fibrizio
    But it’s not necessary to close it. You just have to pay a meager salary. Old frames will die out, new ones will not come. It’s like with our space. Why are rockets falling? Everything is simple. The old cadres are gone, but there are either no new cadres, or the majority has such experience that in Soviet times they would be allowed to watch but not touch anything.

    It’s you, it’s too soft - it’s better not to pay at all ... The Malyshev plant, having a multi-million dollar contract for the supply of armored personnel carriers to Iraq, has not paid workers for months. Yes, and there is practically no factory, working equipment remains 1-3%. Out of a dozen machines of the same type, one worker will be assembled. But the scrap metal was taken out unmeasured. As a serial plant, he died. I absolutely agree about the frames! The old ones were fired, the new ones were not recruited or trained. You can only carry out modernization, collecting on your knees, from stocks of undeveloped components and not more than 1-2 tanks per month. KB them. Morozova still seems to be living well, at least takes on young specialists and pays good salaries. Maybe at least something worthwhile will remain from him ...
  • Hug
    Hug 25 July 2013 17: 35
    +1
    Quote: Akim
    Quote: T80UM1
    Earlier, the Ukrainian Air Force was in third place now, even Kazakhstan has more aircraft than Ukraine.

    Well, if you believe Wikipedia, then of course.
    You have more flying Su-27s and that’s all. And Ukraine has no MiG-31.




    Namely "Flying". And we must not forget that Romania is sharpening its teeth on part of the Ukrainian territory. And she has the power of NATO behind her, and her Armed Forces are in a much better state and BG.
    What will Ukraine oppose? Warranties of NATO and Russia? - Filkin’s letter, which is perhaps to wipe!
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 18: 58
      0
      Quote: Kram
      Namely "Flying". And we must not forget that Romania is sharpening its teeth on part of the Ukrainian territory. And she has the power of NATO behind her, and her Armed Forces are in a much better state and BG.

      Tell me. Is the flag of the Weimar Republic getting the correct location? Simply., It seems to me to know better from Odessa. Romanians after "Perspective 2012" turned their whetstone against Serbia. The teeth were wrong. And Serbia wants to buy the Hungarian MiG-29 in response.
      1. Hug
        Hug 25 July 2013 20: 26
        0
        Regarding the "Flag of the Weimar Republic" - you dear were mistaken, this is the flag of von Bundesrepublik Deutschland, modern Germany. I understood your irony, but I am in Dnepropetrovsk most of the time, and not in Germany. The flag of Germany, as you may have guessed, is because my E-mail has the extension ".de". And since this is my work E-mail, I use it. In addition, the remoteness from the theater is not necessarily the remoteness from information - this is about what you know best from Odessa.
        Well, and the last: I hope that you are right in your forecasts.
        1. Akim
          Akim 25 July 2013 20: 38
          +2
          Quote: Kram
          In addition, remoteness from the theater of war is not necessarily remoteness from information - this is about the fact that you know better from Odessa

          So set aside the irony. Romanians will not rock here yet. Found someone weaker. In general, they have unofficial territorial claims against all neighbors. Even to Bulgaria and Hungary. But so far, even Moldova has been left alone. They had enough Ukrainian exercises that year near their borders.
          1. Hug
            Hug 25 July 2013 21: 41
            0
            Thanks for the reply.
            Could you explain why the teachings conducted by Ukraine, so they, well, if not scared, then alerted?
            After all, the economic situation of Ukraine is not the best. Romania is much better. And war is, first and foremost, money, and very considerable. Even if this war is not exhaustion.
            ("Three things are needed for a war: money, money and money again"
            Marshal Gian-Jacopo Trivulzio)

            The fleet as such in Ukraine is not the most powerful, not the most modern. True, the base in Sevostopol will stop the Romanian Air Force from strikes - near the Black Sea Fleet.

            The Ukrainian Air Force will not soon recover from the turmoil associated with the dashing 90s.

            Ukrainian air defense systems could inspire some optimism - but even though they are being modernized (object-based air defense), they still will not last long with high-intensity air-defense systems.

            In addition, the domestic political situation in Ukraine is very, very unstable.

            There are many more reasons for this.
            1. Kars
              Kars 25 July 2013 21: 55
              +2
              Quote: Kram
              e of Ukraine is not the best. Romania is much better

              Why did you decide this? Although you know what was happening there tonight?
              Quote: Kram
              lot, as such, Ukraine is not the most powerful, not the most modern. True, the base in Sevostopol will stop the Romanian Air Force from strikes - near the Black Sea Fleet.

              The Romanian fleet has no tasks at the Black Sea Fleet, and the Russian base has nothing to do with saluting, especially considering a couple of dozen Romanian Mig-21s that can fly.
              Quote: Kram
              The Ukrainian Air Force will not soon recover from the turmoil associated with the dashing 90s.

              At the same time, they are still larger, more modern than the Romanian ones. They have been buying 16 F-16s for 16 years (it turned out cool)
              Quote: Kram
              In addition, the domestic political situation in Ukraine is very, very unstable.

              There are many more reasons for this.


              Sleeping a lot a lot is good.



              http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
              Pretty interesting site, and vryatli it can be blamed for bias,
              1. Hug
                Hug 25 July 2013 22: 24
                0
                1. looked

                http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

                2. Compared
                3. Convincingly
                4. thank
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Akim
              Akim 25 July 2013 22: 23
              +1
              Quote: Kram
              Could you explain why the teachings conducted by Ukraine, so they, well, if not scared, then alerted?

              This is a long time to describe. And there is a lot of politics. I don’t get there. I saw an article on this topic somewhere here. http://topwar.ru/20415-god-2013-ne-za-gorami-smozhet-li-rumyniya-otkusit-kusok-t

              erritorii-ukrainy.html

              There is not everything, but most.
              1. Hug
                Hug 25 July 2013 22: 41
                0
                Thanks, I read it, interesting.

                Best regards
                Hug
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 25 July 2013 17: 37
    +1
    Quote: spirit
    saw?))) yeah how can I remember the story of a tanker full of tanks captured by pirates) here I will be the same story.
    they will take money, saw 3 tanks for display, and the rest will be quietly sold to Africa winked

    Yes, if they had sold ... NATO is giving money, but is a million really money?
    This is only for cutters and that's enough, and to completely dispose of, you need a lot more. In extreme cases, it is enough to bring the equipment into an unrecoverable state and no more. And the cut blanks will fall down ... It's a pity.
    It would be stupid if you buy it at such a cheap price.
  • MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 25 July 2013 17: 38
    +2
    NATO has a feeling of complete lack of trust in Ukraine in the event of a global turmoil. Apparently they are haunted by the thought that if something happens, at some stage the fraternal peoples may be shoulder to shoulder, and not against each other. With this approach, the weakening of the military potential of Ukraine seems justified to NATO. Alas, this is only a thought and there is nothing to back it up yet.
  • Hug
    Hug 25 July 2013 17: 42
    0
    Quote: Vasya
    But such a state as Ukraine never existed. This is an artificial entity, the same as the Commonwealth. And how did it end? While their kings were Russian, there was at least some state. Look at Lithuania. All these tribes always fell under all, only they do not remember that under Lithuanian Rus all the princes were Russian, and the writing was Russian and Russian faith


    If you are not a troll and not a provocateur, then think what you write.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 25 July 2013 19: 55
    0
    Does anyone know the modification of the T-64AV (T-64A with DZ) exists?
    1. Akim
      Akim 25 July 2013 20: 02
      +2
      Quote: Emelya
      Does the T-64AV modification (T-64A with DZ) exist?


      Yes, in rust form in factories, like the T-64A.
      1. Yemelya
        Yemelya 25 July 2013 20: 10
        0
        Quote: Akim
        Yes, in rust form in factories, like the T-64A.


        Is there a photo (not rusting, but primordial)?

        And on the T-64R DZ installed?
        1. Akim
          Akim 25 July 2013 20: 21
          +1
          Quote: Emelya
          Is there a photo (not rusting, but primordial)?

          I have not seen them in the troops. Only "B", "B1" and "BV". Maybe the photo is somewhere.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 25 July 2013 20: 35
            0
            Quote: Akim
            I have not seen them in the troops. Only "B", "B1" and "BV"


            But what about the troops, not at all DZ?
            1. Akim
              Akim 25 July 2013 21: 25
              +1
              Quote: Emelya
              But what about the troops, not at all DZ?

              On combatant at all, on training -no.
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya 25 July 2013 21: 54
                0
                Is there any info about the T-64P? How long were in service?
                1. Akim
                  Akim 25 July 2013 22: 28
                  +1
                  Quote: Emelya
                  Is there any info about the T-64P? How long were in service?

                  Like in a Turkmen song: What I see is what I sing. I did not see them in the army and they are somehow parallel to me. Moreover, this modification is not of great military value.
                  1. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 25 July 2013 22: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Akim
                    I have not seen them


                    I thought: "Have you heard it?"
  • homosum20
    homosum20 25 July 2013 19: 55
    0
    Let Ukraine listen to NATO friends more. They will advise. Not only without tanks - without panties.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 30
      0
      And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 25 July 2013 21: 14
        0
        Alexander, stop talking nonsense, to Venezuela - T-72, 2S19 "Msta-S"; MiG-29, Su-25 to Sudan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Eritrea; the recent delivery of 2S19 "Msta-S" to Azerbaijan. BTR-70, T-72 from the VVO warehouses to Mongolia, the same T-80U deliveries to South Korea and Cyprus. If you wish, open the guide and find out for yourself. Moreover, Russia is trying to occupy new arms markets, and they can only be occupied with new models, especially since this is training of crews, logistics, ammunition and other "goodies". Ukraine, in general, also sells only T-72s, but what will you do with the T-64? Are you waiting for money from NATO for their disposal? There are about 2000 of them in Ukraine, and only 70 have been modernized in Bulat. So. that we'll wait and see. At the same time, by the way, enlighten how many tanks and where Ukraine sold, only with reference to respected sources (Janes, Sipri), and not to some perplexed Svidomite telling fables about Ukraine's fourth place in the arms market.
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 July 2013 21: 21
          +2
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          yes come on you carry nonsense
          T-62s go to the furnace, T-64s go to the furnace too. T-80s are thrown for the winter in the forest.
          Korea and Cyprus, it was already unknown how many years ago. We are interested in the last 5 years.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Moreover, Russia is trying to occupy new arms markets, and they can only be occupied with new models, especially since this is training of crews, logistics, ammunition and other "goodies"

          They haven’t done anything like this for armored vehicles. If we exclude the sale on credit. India’s largest client took the T-90 due to the construction of a factory for the production of T-72 tanks in the USSR and the very similar construction.
          1. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 25 July 2013 21: 52
            0
            Well, for example Uganda in 2011 44 ​​T-90SA, as part of a package contract signed in 2010. About Azerbaijan (delivery of 94 T-90S, with an option for the subsequent delivery of 94 more T-90S, Turkmenistan (40 T-90SA), Algeria (so far 185, but 300 are planned), India (until 2020 2000 T-90) I will modestly keep silent These tank markets have long been firmly occupied by Russia. We will see what will happen with the contract with Peru, at least 3 T-90s are being tested there. So far, about 2572 against 49 Ukrainian "Oplotov-M" (52,5: 1). Selling on credit is a normal practice of all developed countries trying to sell their weapons. The same Ukrainian An-158 is supplied to Cuba on a loan issued by the Russian financial group Ilyushin Finance. By the way, do not enlighten why out of 618 tanks supplied by Ukraine, the overwhelming majority is T-72, some T-55 and 1 T-80BV, but not a single T-64, does Ukraine really want to sell them. I don’t believe it! Or simply cannot find a buyer? Best regards! hi
            1. Kars
              Kars 25 July 2013 22: 13
              +2
              Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
              Uganda

              Uganda is certainly significant. Surely 200 T-72s from Ukraine did not lie near Ethiopia. Moreover, Uganda used the T-72 BEFORE. Like Algeria used the T-72
              Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are generally countries of the Former Union. So where are the new markets? One Venezuela and then a loan.

              Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
              India (until 2020, 2000 T-90) modestly kept silent

              keep silent.

              But the most important thing is that you have gone the wrong way))
              Quote: Alexander D.
              And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?

              Quote: Kars
              T-62s go to the furnace, T-64s go to the furnace too. T-80s are thrown for the winter in the forest.
              Korea and Cyprus, it was already unknown how many years ago. We are interested in the last 5 years.
              Or is there nothing to answer?
              Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
              We will see what will happen with the contract with Peru, at least 3 T-90s pass tests there.

              Already three and not one? Who told you this? At the same time, the Spanish-language media are not spreading something.
              Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
              Yes, by the way, don’t enlighten why of the 618 tanks delivered by Ukraine, the vast majority are T-72, some T-55 and 1 T-80BV, but not a single T-64, does Ukraine really want to sell them. I do not believe! Or just can't find a buyer

              Forgetting the T-80UD in the USA. And it can’t, the T-64 is a more complicated machine, and it’s too tough for the camps of the third world. But as the T-72 is finished, we’ll begin to sell the T-64 where the devatas are.
              1. smiths xnumx
                smiths xnumx 25 July 2013 23: 55
                0
                Well try to argue
                Uganda is certainly significant. Surely 200 T-72s from Ukraine did not lie near Ethiopia. Moreover, Uganda and BEFORE used T-72s. Like Algeria, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan used the countries of the Former Union in general. So where are the new markets? ? One Venezuela and then a loan.

                Exactly, only the supply of the T-90 to Uganda is about the same as the supply by Ukraine of "Oplot-M" to Thailand, new tanks to new countries. By the way, Kars, justify your words about the fact that Uganda has ever used the T-72 at all. Link please, or even better a photo.
                keep silent. But the most important thing is that you went to the wrong step))

                Of course, where do we go before Ukraine supplies the 320 T-80UD to Pakistan.
                T-62s go to the furnace, T-64s go to the furnace too. T-80s are thrown for the winter in the forest.
                Korea and Cyprus, it was already unknown how many years ago. We are interested in the last 5 years.

                Let's start with the fact that the T-62 is outdated, I am sure that in Ukraine they are sold to blacks at best, and at worst in the oven. As for the T-64, it was discontinued in 1987, it was not produced in Russia, spare parts for it are produced in Ukraine, the relationship with which is like a cat with a dog. Currently, Russia has as many T-64 storage warehouses as and in Ukraine about 2000, what to do with them? Selling, they don't buy like that, you can see such a wonderful tank. After a while, the same fate awaits the T-80, since the Omsk plant does not work and the tanks are produced only in Nizhniy Tagil, oriented to the T-72 / T-90, and in the future to the "Armata". As for the supply of armored vehicles by Russia, in addition to the T-72 to Venezuela, in 2009 a contract was signed with Cyprus for the supply of 41 more T-80U / T-80UK, which was completed in 2011.
                Already three and not one? Who told you this? At the same time, the Spanish-language media are not spreading something.

                I agree so far only one T-90 has been delivered to Peru, but nevertheless you will not deny the fact that the T-90, along with the Leopard-2, is participating in a tender for the supply of tanks to Peru?
                Forgetting the T-80UD in the USA. And it can’t, the T-64 is a more complicated machine, and it’s too tough for the camps of the third world. But as the T-72 is finished, we’ll begin to sell the T-64 where the devatas are.

                In addition to the countries of the "third world", the USSR actively supplied military equipment to its allies under the Warsaw Pact, nevertheless, not a single T-64 entered the GDR for example, or do you think that the qualifications of German, Polish, Yugoslavian or Cuban tankers are worse than qualifications Uzbek (Uzbekistan is armed with 100 T-64). For all the time, for some unknown reason, the T-64 was only once taken out to Red Square, in 1985. And why hasn't Ukraine sold the T-64 before? I sold everything (Su-27, Buk M1, Project 206 RCA, T-72, BTR-4, BTR-3, Oplot-M, etc., etc.), but the T-64 is not, probably for NATO she took care that it would pay money for their disposal. However, let them compare the advantages and disadvantages of the T-64 and T-72 Khlopotov and Tarasenko. Yours faithfully! hi
                1. Kars
                  Kars 26 July 2013 10: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Exactly, only the supply of the T-90 to Uganda is about the same as the supply by Ukraine of the Oplot-M to Thailand, new tanks to new countries.


                  Can you compare the position of Uganda t Thailand
                  http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

                  And Uganda is not a new country.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Of course, where do we go before Ukraine supplies the 320 T-80UD to Pakistan.

                  Well, yes, yes, in Pakistan the USSR did not build a tank factory

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Let's start the fact that the T-62 is outdated, I’m sure that in Ukraine they are, at best, sold to blacks,

                  But what about your favorite Assad and Syria? There they are fighting
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  As for the T-64, it was discontinued in 1987, it was not manufactured in Russia, spare parts for it are produced in Ukraine, the relationship with which is like a cat and a dog

                  all your greed, you yourself have lost the money on the Pakistani contract. And Ukraine has established the production of spare parts for the T-72
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Iprom signed a contract for the supply of another 41 T-80U / T-80UK, which was completed in 2011.

                  Cyprus is yes, 96 years old, and until now the contact has not been fulfilled, which says a lot.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  I agree so far only one T-90 has been delivered to Peru, but nevertheless you will not deny the fact that the T-90, along with the Leopard-2, is participating in a tender for the supply of tanks to Peru?

                  But I tried to deny it? It just doesn’t seem like the tank remained in the pen and tests are underway. About such media, they wouldn’t be able to report more often.
                  And the Peruvian delegation was on the Kharkov tank netak for a long time.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  nevertheless, not a single T-64 was entered into the armed assault, for example, NDR GDR, or do you think that the qualifications of German, Polish, Yugoslav or Cuban tankers

                  The T-64 was a secret tank, and the T-72 was a simplified mobilization version whose licensed production was deployed in several countries of the Warsaw Pact, and this explains everything.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  T-64 was only ONE time displayed on Red Square, in 1985

                  Is this accurate data?

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  but the T-64 is not
                  It is hard for blacks and troublesome to explain that if the index is larger, it does not mean that the tank is necessarily better.
                  1. smiths xnumx
                    smiths xnumx 26 July 2013 13: 34
                    +1
                    Can you compare the position of Uganda t Thailand
                    http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp. И Уганда не новая страна.

                    And why should I compare the situation of Uganda and Thailand, and Uganda and Thailand bought new Uganda-44 tanks from Russia, Thailand-49 from Ukraine. That is, justify your own words
                    At the same time, Uganda and used to use the T-72.
                    You can not. The drain is accepted. And, as for the fact that Uganda is not a new country, yes, under the USSR, T-55 and PT-76 were supplied there, well, so Oplot-M went to Thailand after the successful operation of the Ukrainian BTR-3, and Ethiopia with a contract for You are so proud of the delivery of Soviet T-72s, and in general had almost the entire line of Soviet tank building T-34-85, T-54, T-55, T-62. And if you are so proud of the delivery of 618 Soviet tanks by Ukraine in 2005-2009, then Poland is certainly not the leader of the world tank building during the same time, delivered 528 tanks: 480 T-72M1 and 48 RT-91M of the Polish modernization T- 72.
                    Well, yes, yes, in Pakistan the USSR did not build a tank factory
                    do not distort. Do not forget that Pakistan was an enemy of the USSR, actively supporting the Dushmans during the Afghan war, creating training camps on its territory, arming and equipping, so that the USSR could not build a tank plant in Pakistan. Pakistan during the Soviet era focused on American (M-47, M-48) and Chinese technology.
                    But what about your favorite Assad and Syria? There they are fighting
                    From this place, in more detail, how many Ukraine delivered the Syrian tanks and in more detail, or the story with the Ugandan T-72 is repeated. Do you mean the contract for the modernization of the T-55?
                    all your greed, you yourself have lost the money on the Pakistani contract. And Ukraine has established the production of spare parts for the T-72

                    After the end of the Afghan war, the United States lost interest in Pakistan and the supply of weapons stopped. Pakistan's strategic partner, China, has just begun to adopt tanks with a 125-mm cannon (the PLA MBT type 96 was put into service in 1997). There was no money for Leopard-2 and Leclerc. Russia fell away because it was the main supplier of weapons to India, so there was nothing to oppose the Indian T-72, and then Ukraine appeared with the T-80UD. produced at KHKBTM. However, there is a silver lining, the purchase of T-80UD by Pakistan, was the impetus for the purchase of T-90 by India and the establishment of its licensed production.
                    Cyprus is yes, 96 years old, and until now the contact has not been fulfilled, which says a lot.
                    Congratulations to you! Open any directory on the Armed Forces and see that the arsenal of the National Guard of Cyprus consists of 82 T-80Us, of which 41 were delivered in 1995-1997, another 41 in 2009-2011.
                    1. smiths xnumx
                      smiths xnumx 26 July 2013 13: 48
                      0
                      Well, let's continue.
                      But did I try to deny it? It just doesn’t seem like the tank remained in the test and tests are underway. About such media they wouldn’t be able to report more often. And the Peruvian delegation was not on Kharkov Tank for a long time.

                      Let's wait and see while there are two rivals: T-90 and Leopard-2. I don't know why the Peruvian delegation was at the KMDBTM.
                      The T-64 was a secret tank, and the T-72 was a simplified mobilization version whose licensed production was deployed in several countries of the Warsaw Pact, and this explains everything.
                      . Its secrecy does not explain the lack of sales after the collapse of the USSR, in the dashing 90s they sold everything to everyone, but not the T-64.
                      Is this accurate data?

                      Absolutely. Only once in the parade on May 9, 1985, neither before nor after the T-64 was withdrawn. For what reason I do not know, but I think certainly not for reasons of secrecy.
                      It is hard for blacks and troublesome to explain that if the index is larger, it does not mean that the tank is necessarily better.

                      Well, the "holy war between the beaver and the donkey" began: Tarasenko against Khlopotov; T-64 versus T-72. I dare to assure you that I have nothing to do with Khlopotov or UVZ. Although with the fervor with which you began to defend the T-64, I can assume that you are either Tarasenko himself or one of the ardent adherents of his "sect of T-64 lovers." Yours faithfully! hi
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 26 July 2013 16: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Let's wait and see while there are two rivals: T-90 and Leopard-2. I don't know why the Peruvian delegation was at the KMDBTM.

                        Well, the Peruvian press does not think so.
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        . Its secrecy does not explain the lack of sales after the collapse of the USSR, in the dashing 90s they sold everything to everyone, but not the T-64.

                        Well what can I say T-72 were probably cheaper, simpler and designed for low-skilled operation.
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Absolutely. Only once in the parade on May 9, 1985, neither before nor after the T-64 was withdrawn. For what reason I do not know, but I think certainly not for reasons of secrecy.

                        maybe it's from what tanks the court divisions were equipped with?
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Arasenko vs. Khlopotov; T-64 vs T-72. I dare to assure you that I have nothing to do with Khlopotov or UVZ. Although with the ardor with which you became

                        Thank you for the compliment. I can answer you in the same way, to your ardor towards the T-64, but I probably will not name Khlopotov.

                        Cyprus - 68 T-80U, as of 2012 [29], 41 tanks were delivered by Russia in the period from 1996 to 1997 [30]. The total cost of the contract, according to various sources, ranges from $ 156 to $ 174 million [30] [31]. In 2009, a contract was signed for the supply of another 41 T-80U / T-80UK, of which 27 units were delivered in 2010, the rest, according to assumptions, were supposed to be delivered in 2011. The total value of the new contract amounted to $ 156 million [32]

                        will you fix Wikipedia?
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 26 July 2013 16: 04
                      +1
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      And why should I compare the situation of Uganda and Thailand, and Uganda and Thailand bought new Uganda-44 tanks from Russia, Thailand-49 from Ukraine. That is, justify your own words

                      Well, of course, why compare. Thailand is in 20th place. Ethiopia is 28 and Uganda is not in the first 65.

                      What are my words? The fact that Uganda is not a new market, but Thailand is a new one?
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      You can not. The drain is counted. And, as for the fact that Uganda is not a new country, yes, T-55 and PT-76 were delivered there under the USSR

                      Specify what I can’t? And in Uganda there are 10 T-72
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      and Ethiopia is a contract for the supply of Soviet T-72s. You are so proud

                      I am not proud, I oppose.

                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      do not distort. Do not forget that Pakistan was an enemy of the USSR

                      how can I distort? if a T-72 assembly plant was built in India is a fact, it still exists if you do not believe it.


                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      From this place, in more detail, how many Ukraine delivered the Syrian tanks and in more detail, or the story with the Ugandan T-72 is repeated. Do you mean the contract for the modernization of the T-55?

                      You seem to misunderstand something again7How many of the Russian Federation delivered Syria tanks from those that did not drank. Ukraine to Assad by no means.

                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      Russia fell away because it was the main supplier of weapons to India

                      Along with the fulfillment of the Pakistani contract, Ukraine supplied to India
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      and then came Ukraine with the T-80UD. produced at KHKBTM.
                      Well, of course, but it is not completely

                      Quote: Kars
                      all your greed, you yourself lost money on the Pakistani contract

                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      Congratulations to you! Open any directory on the Armed Forces and see that the arsenal of the National Guard of Cyprus consists of 82 T-80Us, of which 41 were delivered in 1995-1997, another 41 in 2009-2011.

                      What directory did you open if not secret?

                      I will give 5 number for 2012. Armored
                      1. smiths xnumx
                        smiths xnumx 26 July 2013 20: 21
                        0
                        Well, the Peruvian press does not think so.

                        I don’t speak Spanish, so I don’t know what the Peruvian press believes. Please link, or better yet, a screen so that it can be run in a translator.
                        Well what can I say T-72 were probably cheaper, simpler and designed for low-skilled operation.

                        That is, you will not dispute the fact that the T-64 does not use ANY commercial demand, for what reasons I do not know. Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc were also sold abroad, which were also designed for highly qualified qualifications, maybe even more than the T-64, but the T-64 NEVER.
                        maybe it's from what tanks the court divisions were equipped with?
                        I think this is not only because the same T-64s at the parade on May 9, 1985 were tanks of the Kantemirov’s division.
                        Thank you for the compliment. I can answer you in the same way, to your ardor towards the T-64, but I probably will not name Khlopotov.

                        It's my pleasure. I have already answered you above, I am not going to participate in the "sacred struggle of a beaver with a donkey: T-64 against T-72". I believe that each tank has its own advantages and disadvantages.
                        you will correct wikipedia

                        By no means am I going to, therefore, here is a link to the English Wikipedia. that Cyprus has 82 T-80U
                        With 125mm Armament T-80U 82 Active http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_National_Guard

                        Well, of course, why compare. Thailand is in 20th place. Ethiopia is 28 and Uganda isn’t in the first 65. What are my words? Is Uganda not a new market but Thailand a new one? Specify what I can’t? And there are 10 T-72s in Uganda

                        And what does the ranking of countries ranking by military power have to do with the procurement of tanks from Russia and Ukraine, you still compare the territory. I ask you for the second day to give a link to the presence of T-72 from Uganda, and I receive unfounded allegations that Uganda from somewhere has 10 T-72. Give a link, or better still a photograph.
                      2. smiths xnumx
                        smiths xnumx 26 July 2013 21: 05
                        0
                        I am not proud, I oppose.

                        That is, you contrast the supply of repaired Soviet tanks by Ukraine to the supply of new Russian tanks by Russia.
                        how can I distort? if a T-72 assembly plant was built in India is a fact, it still exists if you do not believe it.

                        I remind your words
                        Well, yes, yes, in Pakistan the USSR did not build a tank factory
                        I explained above why the USSR could not build a tank factory in Pakistan, and Russia could supply it with weapons.
                        You seem to misunderstand something again7How many of the Russian Federation delivered Syria tanks from those that did not drank. Ukraine to Assad by no means.

                        Again, I remind you of your own words
                        But what about your favorite Assad and Syria? There they are fighting
                        . At the same time, remember where I claimed that Russia delivered tanks to Syria, there are plenty of them from Syria, although I do not know that our BDKs are constantly being dragged to Syria.
                        Along with the fulfillment of the Pakistani contract, Ukraine supplied to India
                        Ukraine supplied to India spare parts for light military transport aircraft "An", which are the main light military transport aircraft of the Indian Air Force, that is, the need has forced it. There are also Russian Mi-8/17 helicopters in Pakistan, which were purchased as civilian ones.
                        Well, of course, but it wasn’t
                        I remind you again of your words
                        all your greed, you yourself have lost money on the Pakistani contract.
                        . I have already explained the reasons for Russia's refusal to supply arms to Pakistan, I will not repeat it. Yours faithfully! hi
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 26 July 2013 23: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        That is, you contrast the supply of repaired Soviet tanks by Ukraine to the supply of new Russian tanks by Russia.

                        Yes, you’re just trying to get away from the new markets you mentioned. Ethiopia is new, Uganda is not very.
                        I remind your words
                        Why, yes, yes, in Pakistan the USSR did not build a tank factory. I explained above why the USSR could not build a tank factory in Pakistan, and Russia supplied it with weapons.

                        And why should we be interested in why the USSR did not build a plant in Pakistan, when we are interested in the fact of having a T-72 plant in India? Or will you deny its existence and existence?
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Again, I remind you of your own words
                        But what about your beloved Assad and Syria? There they are fighting. At the same time, remember where I claimed that Russia supplied tanks to Syria, there are plenty of them from Syria, although I do not know that our BDKs are constantly being dragged to Syria.

                        Damn so many reminders)) but you won’t get dodged
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Let's start the fact that the T-62 is outdated, I’m sure that in Ukraine they are, at best, sold to blacks,
                        But what about your favorite Assad and Syria? There they are fighting


                        A simple phrase, but you didn’t like it that makes you misunderstand it.
                        The T-62s of the RF Armed Forces are disposed of, even though these obsolete tanks, according to your words, are fighting in Syria, the Syrian T-62s are meant, not the ones that are being disposed of. And the BDKs are languishing in the holds.

                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        Ukraine supplied spare parts to India for light military transport aircraft "An

                        As well as Krazy, in Akurat simultaneously with the supply of T-80UD to Pakistan.

                        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                        I remind you again of your words
                        all your greed, you yourself have lost money on the Pakistani contract. . I have already explained the reasons for Russia's refusal to supply arms to Pakistan, I will not repeat it.

                        The usual greed, and an attempt to disrupt the contract. Several tens of millions of dollars were lost by contractors from the Russian Federation, but this is even good, forced Ukraine to organize a full production cycle.
                    3. Kars
                      Kars 26 July 2013 23: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      I don’t speak Spanish, so I don’t know what the Peruvian press believes. Please link, or better yet, a screen so that it can be run in a translator.

                      I used to do it when this topic was discussed. Now look for laziness.
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      That is, the fact that the T-64 does not use ANY commercial demand you will not dispute, for what reasons I do not know

                      why will I, I will not dispute that so far they have not sold anything and here is one of the reasons)) from Gurkhanchik))
                      Gur Khan: it's good that the usual "seventy-two" fell - in fact, there is nothing to break in it, because it was made for fools,

                      http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_26.html
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc were also sold abroad, which were also designed for highly qualified qualifications, maybe even more than the T-64, but the T-64 NEVER.

                      It is certainly good that you understand that the T-64 is the level of Abrams and Leclerc, but you can see that you are not aware of the tank market, Leclerc bought once, a very rich country. In the sale of Abrams, both the political weight of the United States and loans like this is done in Egypt. And the leopard - what country of the level of Uganda / Ethiopia bought the Leopards? and if we exclude NATO members? Think about it, study the market.
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      It's my pleasure. I have already answered you above, I am not going to participate in the "sacred struggle of a beaver with a donkey: T-64 against T-72". I believe that each tank has its own advantages and disadvantages.

                      What are you doing then?
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      With 125mm Armament T-80U 82 Active http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_National_Guard

                      Is English Vika more true for a Russian tank?
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      And what does the ranking of countries by military power have to do with tank purchases from Russia and Ukraine

                      Great value. This is an indicator of technical equipment.
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      Uganda has 10 T-72s from somewhere.

                      Uganda Uganda - 10 T-72, as of 2012 [56] 56. ↑ The Military Balance 2012. - P. 459.
                    4. smiths xnumx
                      smiths xnumx 27 July 2013 12: 20
                      0
                      Yes, you’re just trying to get away from the new markets you mentioned. Ethiopia is new, Uganda is not very.

                      That is, Uganda, which in the 70s, during the war with Tanzania, Muammar Gaddafi handed over the Soviet T-55 tanks, is the old market, and Ethiopia, which in the late 70s and all the 80s of the USSR and its allies supplied T- 34-85, T-54, T-55, T-62, and some both Cubans and in general fought, this is new. Awesome discovery.
                      And why should we be interested in why the USSR did not build a plant in Pakistan, when we are interested in the fact of having a T-72 plant in India? Or will you deny its existence and existence?

                      In my opinion you were the first to raise the issue of the absence of a tank factory in Pakistan
                      Well, yes, yes, in Pakistan the USSR did not build a tank factory
                      I’m not going to deny the obvious things, I can only say with confidence the T-64 plant in India and nowhere else in the world, except in Kharkov.
                      A simple phrase, but you didn’t like it that makes you misunderstand it. The T-62 of the RF Armed Forces are disposed of, although these obsolete tanks, according to your words, are fighting in Syria, the Syrian T-62 is meant, and not the ones that are being utilized. in the holds air.

                      The Russian Armed Forces T-62 fought in Georgia in August 2008, and they even say they killed several T-72s modernized by Georgians and Ukrainians, but this does not make the T-62 a new tank. In Africa, they’re still fighting on the T-34-85, so, by your logic, it’s also a new tank. And what our BDKs carry in their holds, I, unlike you, don’t know, maybe they drag the air, but for some reason, under the guise of BOD and SKR.
                    5. smiths xnumx
                      smiths xnumx 27 July 2013 13: 05
                      0
                      The usual greed, and an attempt to disrupt the contract. Several tens of millions of dollars were lost by contractors from the Russian Federation, but this is even good, forced Ukraine to organize a full production cycle.

                      But you didn’t think why Russia should arm the army of the main enemy of the main buyer of its weapons. Moreover, as I wrote above, Pakistan’s purchase of Ukrainian T-80UD, prompted India to buy the T-90 and a license for their production.
                      I used to do it when this topic was discussed. Now look for laziness.
                      Everything is clear, there are no arguments, the next discharge has been counted.
                      why will I, I will not dispute that so far they have not sold anything and here is one of the reasons)) from Gurkhanchik))
                      . I already wrote to you above that I have nothing to do with Mr. Khlopotov. Although I read both blogs and Khlopotov and Tarasenko and the fact that Tarasenko warms up in such stubborn characters like kotobood I really do not like. And what you wrote, referring to Khlopotov, about the T-72 fully applies to both the T-34 and T-54/55, one of the main advantages of which was the ability to quickly deploy production in war conditions and the lack of necessary materials and skilled workforce.
                      It is certainly good that you understand that the T-64 is the level of Abrams and Leclerc, but you can see that you are not aware of the tank market, Leclerc bought once, a very rich country. In the sale of Abrams, both the political weight of the United States and loans like this is done in Egypt. And the leopard - what country of the level of Uganda / Ethiopia bought the Leopards? and if we exclude NATO members? Think about it, study the market.
                      Do not try to pull the owl onto the globe, but show me where I thought the T-64 was an Abrams or Leopard-2 level machine, because I am not going to compare him with a finger. The political weight of the USSR was no lower than that of the United States, nevertheless, it was not possible to snatch a tank taken out of production in 1987 for anyone, and certainly not for reasons of "secrecy". Uganda or Ethiopia and do not need "Leopards" or "Abrams", as well as Thailand, they are quite enough modernized T-72 or "Oplotov", but Chile, for example, has "Leopards" and the main competitor of the T-90 in Peru is "Leopard ", and when the Abrams are removed from service in the United States, we will see many exotic countries that got them (as in the story with the Stewarts and Shermans)
                    6. smiths xnumx
                      smiths xnumx 27 July 2013 14: 33
                      0
                      What are you doing then?

                      Also, like you, I communicate with adequate, smart people on topics that interest me.
                      Is English Vika more true for a Russian tank?
                      You gave me a link to Wikipedia:
                      will you fix Wikipedia?
                      I answered you with a link to Wikipedia, especially since English is considered more objective and impartial than Russian.
                      Great value. This is an indicator of technical equipment.
                      That is, Uganda has a Su-30, but Thailand does not and therefore it is stronger than Thailand, and Thailand has an aircraft carrier, and Uganda has no access to the sea at all, which means Thailand is stronger than Uganda. It does not seem illogical to you.
                      Uganda Uganda - 10 T-72, as of 2012 [56] 56. ↑ The Military Balance 2012. - P. 459.
                      Again Wikipedia is Russian, for some reason Uganda doesn’t have English in T-72. So, in the Military Balance 2012 guide, I did not find any mention of the presence of 10 T-72 in Uganda. However, I did not find them on the Army Guide. I would be glad if you prove the opposite. Sincerely. hi
                    7. Kars
                      Kars 27 July 2013 21: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      Auger, that you too, communicate with adequate, smart people on topics that interest me.

                      In the topic where you so aggressively attack the T-64
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      You gave me a link to Wikipedia:

                      Russian version. And something neither there nor there is no source with the implementation of the contract.
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      That is, Uganda has a Su-30, but Thailand does not and therefore it is stronger than Thailand, and Thailand has an aircraft carrier, and Uganda has no access to the sea at all, which means Thailand is stronger than Uganda. It does not seem illogical to you.

                      Well, why are you so lazy?
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp.

                      It says in the header how they evaluate - based on more than 40 different factors.
                      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                      So, in the Military Balance 2012 guide, I did not find any mention of the presence of 10 T-72 in Uganda

                      Really? Give a link where you looked?
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 27 July 2013 21: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    And you didn’t think why Russia should arm the army of the main enemy of the main buyer of its weapons

                    China is not embarrassed to arm.
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    Everything is clear, there are no arguments, the next discharge has been counted.

                    Consider what you want, but if you are too lazy to look for news on the Peruvian contract even on this site, then I’m bothering.
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    I already wrote to you above, that to Mr. Khlopotov no



                    Quote: Kars
                    Gur Khan: it's good that the usual "seventy-two" fell - there is essentially nothing to break in it, because for fools done


                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    Do not try to pull the owl onto the globe, but show me where I thought the T-64 was an Abrams or Leopard-2 level machine, because I am not going to compare him with a finger.

                    as where

                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    T-64 is not in any commercial demand, you will not dispute, for what reasons I do not know. Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc were also sold abroad.

                    You put them in one row, and now it's too late to turn on the return.
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    The political weight of the USSR was not lower than that of the United States, nevertheless, to get in someone a tank that was discontinued in 1987

                    Well, discontinued does not mean armament. And this tank is not for fools, Arabs and Negroes, especially those years, but the USSR satellite only were like that. There was a specially made export T-72 which Arabs, etc., were enough for the eyes.

                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    for example, Chile has "Leopards" and the main competitor of the T-90 in Peru is the "Leopard", and when the "Abrams" are removed from service in the United States, we will see many exotic countries that got them (as in the story with the "Stewarts" and " Shermans ")

                    They plan to disarm the Abrams in the 40s and Peru, by the way, has nothing to do with it. Don’t forget Ukraine’s notes about the re-export of Chinese tanks with Ukrainian detectors, Chinese VTs would have been in Peru for five years.
                2. Kars
                  Kars 27 July 2013 21: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  That is, Uganda, which in the 70s

                  Old, with experience in operating Soviet T-72 tanks.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Awesome discovery.

                  learning new is good.

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  In my opinion you were the first to raise the issue of the absence of a tank factory in Pakistan

                  Yes, and he doesn’t exist? Or am I wrong?
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  I’m not going to deny the obvious things, I can only say with confidence the T-64 plant in India and nowhere else in the world, except in Kharkov.

                  There are no leklers, challengers either. As for the production of the T-80, does the T-80 in your bad tank mean?
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  The Russian Armed Forces T-62 fought in Georgia in August 2008, and they even say they killed several T-72 modernized by Georgians and Ukrainians, but this does not make the T-62 a new tank

                  Did I say that it is new? The T-64 and T-72 are also not new. And in Yugoslavia, the T-55 knocked out the T-72
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Africa is still fighting on the T-34-85, so that he, by your logic, is also a new tank.

                  Can you quote my quotes to prove your understanding of my logic? Because you are entering into an incomprehensible denial.

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  I don’t know what our BDKs are carrying in their holds, I don’t know, maybe they drag the air, but for some reason, under the guise of BOD and SKR.

                  Well, of course, the cover means something))) But the new DZ containers on the Syrian tanks are not visible. There was one transport (commercial) with spare parts for the Syrian tanks - so he was arrested in Finland.
                3. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 03: 22
                  0
                  In the topic where you so aggressively attack the T-64

                  Find the place where I, according to your expression, "vehemently" attack the T-64. I just stated the fact of the complete absence of sales of the T-64 tank, or you will argue the opposite. I repeat once again, I believe that both the T-64 and the T-72 have their own advantages and disadvantages, and I did not intend to participate in the "sacred struggle of a beaver with a donkey, T-64 against T-72, Tarasenko against Khlopotov" will. However, by the fervor with which you are responding for the third day to my generally neutral posts, I can assume that you are either Tarasenko himself or one of the followers of his sect "witnesses T-64".
                  Russian version. And there’s nothing there is no source with the fulfillment of the contract
                  That is, the English-language Wikipedia is bad in that it indicates 82 T-80U in Cyprus, and Russian-language is good in that it indicates the presence of Cyprus 41 T-80U. Well, here's the Spanish:
                  Con armamento de 125mm T-80U 82 Activo http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardia_Nacional_de_Chipre
                  ... I will not give the Turkish one, it generally indicates that Cyprus has 41 T-80Us and 41 T-90s. As for the fulfillment-non-fulfillment of the contract between Russia and Cyprus, then you saw the contract or its conditions, which you so confidently assert about its failure. They say that Ukraine also does not fulfill the conditions for the supply of the Oplot-M tanks to Thailand and the BTR-4 to Iraq.
                  Well, why are you so lazy?
                  Let's not get personal and lead the discussion correctly.
                  It says in the header how they evaluate - based on more than 40 different factors.
                  What does this rating have to do with the fact that Uganda purchased the T-90 from Russia and the T-72 from Ethiopia from Ukraine. According to this rating, Thailand is higher than Ukraine (Thailand-20th place, Ukraine-22nd), or do you think the army Ukraine is weaker than the Thai army?
                  Really? Give a link where you looked?

                  Please download watch. Here's the link
                  http://mirknig.com/2013/02/23/the-military-balance-2012.html
                4. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 06: 35
                  0
                  China is not embarrassed to arm

                  What are you talking about? As far as China's arms supplies to Pakistan are concerned, China and Pakistan have been "friends" against India for the last 60 years, so the Indian army has no Chinese weapons. If about the supply of arms to China by Russia, then why not? China does not have OFFICIAL territorial claims against Russia, joint military exercises are being conducted, and military-technical cooperation is developing. Read less Khramchikhin, with his horror stories, especially since Ukraine itself is actively selling weapons to China.
                  Consider what you want, but if you are too lazy to look for news on the Peruvian contract even on this site, then I’m bothering.
                  Please do not strain. Moreover, you defend the merits of the T-64 and Ukrainian tank construction with such ardor that I better wait for the official news.
                  how where you put them in one row, and now it's too late to turn on the return line.
                  ... And I didn’t include it. I have always believed, believe and will assume that Soviet tanks of the 70-80s (T-64, T-72, T-80) are in no way inferior, but in some matters (automatic loader, power reserve, dynamic armor) even surpass the main NATO tanks ("Abrams", Leopard-2, "Leclerc"), but since it was about the T-64, I compared the T-64, so there is no need to pull out my individual phrases from the general meaning of the sentence. that Mr. Khlopotov is a great authority for you, since you constantly refer to him.Suvorov-Rezun, for example, is not an authority for me, therefore I do not refer to his extremely negative opinion about the T-64 in "Tales of the Liberator".
                  Well, discontinued does not mean armament. And this tank is not for fools, Arabs and Negroes, especially those years, but the USSR satellite only were like that. There was a specially made export T-72 which Arabs, etc., were enough for the eyes.

                  That is, all of the more than 50 countries that operate the T-72, including Ukraine, Finland, Cuba, Poland, the former GDR and Yugoslavia, are classified as "fools, Arabs and Negroes." Charles Darwin just smokes nervously on the sidelines. At the same time, take the trouble to explain this fact, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, that is, 22 years ago, and nevertheless, not a single T-64 has been sold. Again "fools, negros and Arabs"? Listen to you, so only T-64 D Artanyan, and all other tanks, especially the T-72, are representatives of the sexual minority.
                5. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 08: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  They plan to disarm the Abrams in the 40s and Peru, by the way, has nothing to do with it. Don’t forget Ukraine’s notes about the re-export of Chinese tanks with Ukrainian detectors, Chinese VTs would have been in Peru for five years.

                  Well, when they’re removed, then we’ll see to whom they will be handed over, if we survive, of course. If grandmother had something, she would be grandfather. That is, in your own language, guilty greed: Ukraine itself did not earn several million dollars, and did not allow China to do so. Thank you, I hope Peru will choose the T-90.
                  Quote: Kars
                  Old, with experience in operating Soviet T-72 tanks.
                  We continue to pull the owl onto the globe, that is, Uganda is the old market, and Ethiopia whose tank troops from the late 70s to this day consist exclusively of Soviet tanks is new. Amazing logic.
                  Quote: Kars
                  learning new is good.

                  Thank you, but I didn’t learn anything new from you. everything that you talk with such fervor can be read out on Tarasenko’s blog.
                  Yes, and he doesn’t exist? Or am I wrong?

                  Did I deny it somewhere and assert that Pakistan has a factory for the production of Soviet (Russian, Ukrainian) tanks?
                  There are no leklers, challengers either. As for the production of the T-80, does the T-80 in your bad tank mean?
                  . Read my previous post, I believe that each model of tanks and T-64 and T-72, has its own advantages and disadvantages, and I think the T-80 is the crown of the domestic post-war tank building.
                  Did I say that it is new? The T-64 and T-72 are also not new. And in Yugoslavia, the T-55 knocked out the T-72
                  . Did I say somewhere that the T-62, T-64, T-72 are new tank models? It is you who constantly focus on the use of the T-62 in the Civil War in Syria, as T-55 is used there. In the same Yugoslavia, the Croatian T-34-85 knocked out the T-55 of the JUNA, unsolvable tanks in nature, you know not.
                  Can you quote my quotes to prove your understanding of my logic? Because you are entering into an incomprehensible denial.
                  Inexplicable denial of what? What is your main point about the superiority of the T-64 over the T-72? Read the answers above.
                  Well, of course, the cover means something))) But the new DZ containers on the Syrian tanks are not visible. There was one transport (commercial) with spare parts for the Syrian tanks - that’s how he was arrested in Finland.
                  . I do not have a source of information in our General Staff that would allow me, as well as you to confidently declare the cargo of our BDK going to Syria:
                  And BDK yearn for air in the holds.
                  . But I am sure that not those who gathered the BDK from 3 fleets are sitting in the General Staff in order to carry air into the holds in Syria. Moreover, each such flight is accompanied by such hype. Yours faithfully! hi
                6. Kars
                  Kars 28 July 2013 09: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  What are you talking about? If about the supply of arms by China

                  I’m talking about Russia's deliveries of weapons to China, a rival to India.
                  Quote: Kars
                  You didn’t think why Russia should arm the army of the main enemy of the main buyer of its weapons
                  China is not embarrassed to arm.

                  You are not embarrassed to arm China.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Please do not strain. Moreover, you defend the merits of the T-64 and Ukrainian tank construction with such ardor that I better wait for the official news.

                  Wait.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  I didn’t turn it on
                  Included, and do not otmazyvatsa.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  therefore, it is not necessary to tear out my individual phrases from the general meaning of the sentence.

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  but there is a fact that the T-64 does not use ANY commercial demand, you will not dispute, for what reasons I do not know. Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc, also designed for highly qualified qualifications, were sold abroad, maybe even more than the T-64, but the T-64 NEVER.

                  Why is there something to pull out. A direct comparison, and even with. But not less ..

                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  By the way, I noticed that Mr. Khlopotov is a great authority for you, since you constantly refer to him

                  He knows more about me about the T-72 and more in detail. And now when he still helped to make the T-90A, he generally did a bit of re-flight.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  That is, all of the more than 50 countries that operate the T-72, including Ukraine, Finland, Cuba, Poland, the former GDR and Yugoslavia, are classified as "fools, Arabs and Negroes."

                  Let’s just separate the Warsaw Pact countries, socialist dependents and what will be obtained. And let's not forget that the T-72 is a cheap, mobilization tank - and that’s it. Finland generally removed the T-72 from service as soon as possible.
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, that is, 22 years ago, but nevertheless, NOT ONE T-64 was sold

                  I already explained - and could re-read several times
                7. Kars
                  Kars 28 July 2013 09: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  The T-64 was a secret tank, and the T-72 was a simplified mobilization version whose licensed production was deployed in several countries of the Warsaw Pact, and this explains everything.
                  A T-72 tank is more widely deployed and mastered by fools, Arabs and Negroes, with spare parts they are produced by several countries, and you can take a used one .. Ukraine put its T-72 into reserve and began to sell it, the developing T-72 country is enough, rich countries buy more modern weapons. And the T-64 fell into the gap between these facts. The T-80 was also sold less especially to blacks and Arabs,
                  Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                  Listen to you, so only T-64 D Artagnan, and all other tanks, especially T-72, representatives of the sexual minority
                  Well, you don’t listen well, but how the military determined the balance and you don’t read well. That's why it’s hard for me to understand how you came to such conclusions.
              2. Kars
                Kars 28 July 2013 09: 01
                +1
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Find the place where I, according to you, "vehemently" attack the T-64

                Almost everything, as you insist on stubbornly pointing out that the T-64 was not exported by the USSR, and this is enough.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                but I was not going to participate in the "sacred fight of a beaver with a donkey, T-64 against T-72, Tarasenko against Khlopotov"

                Then what are you doing here? In an article about the T-64?
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                The third day you answer my generally neutral posts

                Fasting starting with .. Don’t carry Bullshit ..
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Alexander, come on, you bring nonsense,

                Although the Fact on the face of the Russian Federation without any help, it utilizes the armored vehicles that would be useful if I were so fond of Assad. And then you just rushed unclear where.

                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                That is, the English-language Wikipedia is bad in that it indicates 82 T-80U in Cyprus, and Russian-language is good in that it indicates the presence of Cyprus 41 T-80U. Well, here's the Spanish

                All are bad because there is no reference to the fulfillment of the contract. But the Russian-speaking one gives a more objective figure. And the completion of the delivery of tanks to Cyprus would not have gone unnoticed.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Let's not get personal and lead the discussion correctly.

                And let's move on?
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                What does this rating have to do with the fact that Uganda purchased the T-90 from Russia and the T-72 from Ethiopia from Ukraine. According to this rating, Thailand is higher than Ukraine (Thailand-20th place, Ukraine-22nd), or do you think the army Ukraine is weaker than the Thai army?

                The higher the place, the more prestigious and significant the supply of armored vehicles in our particular case. And what to do in Thailand, more dangerous neighbors. Therefore, they pay more attention to their army.

                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                http://mirknig.com/2013/02/23/the-military-balance-2012.html

                Have you downloaded it? Have you opened page 459?

                COMBAT SUPPORT
                1 arty bde
                2 AD bn
                EQUIPMENT BY TY PE †
                MBT 185 T-54 / T-55; 10 T-72
              3. smiths xnumx
                smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 15: 58
                0
                I’m talking about Russia's deliveries of weapons to China, a rival to India.
                You are not embarrassed to arm China.
                You see, the Indian institute is less active in responding to arms supplies to China than to Pakistan. Moreover, relations between China and India have recently improved, and the Indians were able to transfer part of their troops to the Pakistani border. Do not forget that there was only one war between India and China, and three between India and Pakistan (and if we count 1999 Kargil, then four). Have you heard about the armed incidents on the Indo-Chinese border for a long time? But on the Pakistani-Indian they are held regularly. By the way, one of the reasons until the United States could not enter the Indian arms market for the last decade was the supply of weapons by the Americans to Pakistan. Therefore, Russia, having already suffered several heavy defeats (Apache, Chinook, S-17, R-8), cannot afford to lose the billion-dollar Indian market for the sake of several Pakistani millions.
                Let's wait

                So I suggest you wait. Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.
              4. Kars
                Kars 28 July 2013 19: 23
                +1
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                You see, the Indian establishment is less actively reacting to arms supplies to China,

                Of course, that is why India forms tank divisions on the border with China.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Have you heard about armed incidents on the Indo-Chinese border?

                Yes, it seems like the other day there was an article of the Russian Federation losing India and they mentioned the recent conflict
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                So I suggest you wait. I think chickens in the fall

                Let's wait
              5. smiths xnumx
                smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 17: 11
                0
                Of course, that is why India forms tank divisions on the border with China.

                Russia, too, recently conducted the most ambitious exercises since the days of the USSR. in the BBO. on the borders with China. And supplies the latest equipment and weapons to the BBO, this makes Russia an enemy of China.
                Yes, it seems like the other day there was an article of the Russian Federation losing India and they mentioned the recent conflict

                The conflict was that the Chinese unit violated the border with India, realizing its mistake, returned. The use of weapons was not.
                Let's wait
                Wait.
              6. Kars
                Kars 29 July 2013 17: 21
                +1
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                large-scale exercises since the times of the USSR. in the BBO.

                Wrong level.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                And supplies the latest equipment and weapons to the BBO, this makes Russia an enemy of China.

                China and Russia have long been enemies since the USSR. With Germany, before the Second World War, too .. were friends ..
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                The conflict was that the Chinese unit violated the border with India, realizing its mistake, returned. The use of weapons was not.

                But there was a conflict. And both sides are armed.

                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Let's wait

                of course.
        2. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 15: 58
          0
          I’m talking about Russia's deliveries of weapons to China, a rival to India.
          You are not embarrassed to arm China.
          You see, the Indian institute is less active in responding to arms supplies to China than to Pakistan. Moreover, relations between China and India have recently improved, and the Indians were able to transfer part of their troops to the Pakistani border. Do not forget that there was only one war between India and China, and three between India and Pakistan (and if we count 1999 Kargil, then four). Have you heard about the armed incidents on the Indo-Chinese border for a long time? But on the Pakistani-Indian they are held regularly. By the way, one of the reasons until the United States could not enter the Indian arms market for the last decade was the supply of weapons by the Americans to Pakistan. Therefore, Russia, having already suffered several heavy defeats (Apache, Chinook, S-17, R-8), cannot afford to lose the billion-dollar Indian market for the sake of several Pakistani millions.
          Let's wait

          So I suggest you wait. Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.
        3. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 18: 44
          0
          They turned it on, and don’t have to do it. Why do we need to tear something out here? Direct comparison, and even with. THEN NOT LESS.
          Well, if it helps mend your template, torn by the lack of sales of the T-64, think so. Meanwhile, the whole world consists of "fools, Arabs and blacks" using T-72/90, sometimes T-90, as well as "Leclercs", "Abrams", "Challengers" and "Leopards", and their analogue "Miracle -tank "T-64", with the exception of a few dozen modernized "Bulat", is sent to be melted down
          He knows more about me about the T-72 and more in detail. And now when he still helped to make the T-90A, he generally did a bit of re-flight.
          . Well, Mr. Khlopotov has no one to rehabilitate, and nothing, and he himself does not need rehabilitation, he did nothing, he simply defends his point of view, as indeed you and Tarasenko. And then. that you use his phrase, taken out of the general context, that the T-72 tank was designed for fools, then he writes even tighter about the T-64. Read, find out how.
          Let’s just separate the Warsaw Pact countries, socialist dependents and what will be obtained. And let's not forget that the T-72 is a cheap, mobilization tank - and that’s it. Finland generally removed the T-72 from service as soon as possible.

          Forgive me, but to whom the USSR could supply its tanks, except for the Warsaw Pact countries and the countries of the "Third World" of socialist orientation, not their own likely adversaries to the NATO countries and China. The USSR is gone for 22 years and how did this affect the growth of sales of the T-64? Finland is switching to the western standard of weapons, therefore, it is removing from service not only the T-72, but also the Mig-21, Buk M1, S-125, and is purchasing Swedish BMPs and Norwegian air defense systems. And the same Poland, being a NATO member and receiving from the Germans "Leopard-2A4", nevertheless does not abandon the T-72 and its Polish modification RT-91 "Tvyardy", selling tanks a little less than Ukraine.
          I already explained - and could re-read several times
          all your explanations do not give an answer to the fact of the complete absence of T-64 sales.
          A T-72 tank is more widely deployed and mastered by fools, Arabs and Negroes, with spare parts they are produced by several countries, and you can take a used one .. Ukraine put its T-72 into reserve and began to sell it, the developing T-72 country is enough, rich countries buy more modern weapons. And the T-64 fell into the gap between these facts. The T-80 was also sold less especially to blacks and Arabs.
          ... Well, the T-80 was a real "secret" tank at the very same time, especially the T-80U / T-80UD, its army was not enough for it. But after the collapse of the USSR, it began to be sold, among other things, to the Arabs so unloved by Vamams, Russia-Egypt, Belarus, more recently, Yemen, and what of that?
        4. Kars
          Kars 28 July 2013 19: 16
          +1
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          think so.

          Well, I myself wrote so, and now freeze))
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          as well as "Leclercs", "Abrams", "Challengers" and "Leopards"

          I already advised you to learn the tank market, but you can see again being lazy.
          Leclerc - bought one country. Challenger bought one country. Merkavas were not for sale, Japanese Type 90 were not for sale - do you want me to put T-64 among them? Does it make you feel better?
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          The "Miracle Tank" T-64, with the exception of a few dozen modernized "Bulats", is being melted down
          So far, only the Russian T-64.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Well, Mr. Khlopotov has no one to rehabilitate, and nothing, and he himself does not need rehabilitation,

          Wai, wai wai - you are not a case of trouble? Who is trying to slope but then broke down and began to defend himself)) And also call yourself neutral)))
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          And then. that you use his phrase, taken out of the general context, that the T-72 tank was designed for fools, then he writes even tighter about the T-64. Read, find out how.

          I quoted a phrase and didn’t take it out of context but provided a link to the full material, now don’t be unfounded and quote your phrase from Khlopotov, where he writes that the T-64 is a simple tank and its operation is available to fools. Our teacher called T-72 for monkeys.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Sorry, but to whom the USSR could supply its tanks
          And these are not my problems, but yours.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          The USSR has been gone for 22 years and how has this affected the growth of T-64 sales?

          Against the backdrop of the sale of T-72 withdrawn from service, this is understandable.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Poland, being a NATO member and receiving "Leopard-2A4" from the Germans, nevertheless does not abandon the T-72 and its Polish modification RT-91 "Tvyardy

          Well, again, you show the lack of logical thinking - Poland is a manufacturer, why does it need losses in its industry - they are smart supporting a domestic producer.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          All of your explanations do not give an answer to the fact of the complete absence of T-64 sales
          Give, you just do not want to understand.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Well, the T-80 just at the time was a real "secret" tank, especially the T-80U / T-80UD

          What are you)))) maybe he appeared even earlier than the T-64? If not, then you wrote nonsense))
        5. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 20: 46
          +1
          Well, I myself wrote so, and now freeze))

          I wrote this in a post about T-64, and in my opinion I already explained that I consider ALL Soviet tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80) equal, and in some aspects superior to NATO tanks, and if If you don’t understand this, then this is your problem.
          I already advised you to learn the tank market, but you can see again being lazy. Leclerc - bought one country. Challenger bought one country. Merkavas were not for sale, Japanese Type 90 were not for sale - do you want me to put T-64 among them? Does it make you feel better?
          ... Leclerc was bought by one country, and "Oplot-M" was also bought by one country. Israel does not sell Merkavas for fear of technology leaks, especially since heavy armored personnel carriers are made from Merkavas of previous series, and Japanese law prohibits the export of not only tanks, but any weapons in general. What does all this have to do with the lack of sales of the T-64, which simply no one wants to buy.
          So far, only the Russian T-64.
          Well, it’s good that old tanks with exhausted resources, spare parts for which are not produced in Russia, are sent for remelting. It is necessary to support the domestic manufacturer.
          Wai, wai wai - you are not a case of trouble? Who is trying to slope but then broke down and began to defend himself)) And also call yourself neutral)))
          And you are not a case of Tarasenko, propagandizing here his ideas "There is no B-and except for the T-64 and Tarasenko is his prophet."
          I quoted a phrase and didn’t take it out of context but provided a link to the full material, now don’t be unfounded and quote your phrase from Khlopotov, where he writes that the T-64 is a simple tank and its operation is available to fools. Our teacher called T-72 for monkeys.

          Well, then read all the offer, and not just what you want
          Gur Khan: it's good that the usual "seventy-two" has fallen - in fact there is nothing to break in it, because it is made for fools, but what will happen if the T-90A or T-72B3 are overwhelmed like that? Expensive thermal imaging sights with French imported "Catherines" - in a crumpled state! No armor will help here ... I'm not talking about the "Armata" ... And to give such "monkeys" new equipment ??? When will our generals begin to really teach the soldiers and stop pretending?
        6. Kars
          Kars 28 July 2013 21: 27
          +1
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          I wrote this in a post about T-64,

          Just there were no other Soviet tanks, but only imported ones. Why lie then?
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          but there is a fact that the T-64 does not use ANY commercial demand, you will not dispute, for what reasons I do not know. Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc, also designed for highly qualified qualifications, were sold abroad, maybe even more than the T-64, but the T-64 NEVER.

          Where are the other Soviet tanks?
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          T-64, T-72, T-80) equal

          They are not equal.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Leclerc was bought by one country, and "Oplot-M" was also bought by one country. Merkabah Israel does not sell for fear of technology leaks

          Oplot-M is still one country. Since 2006 Merkava has been in open sale, or want to consider 2008.
          One more proof of your incompetence. At the same time, Oplot is less than years on the market. So everything is still ahead.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          . What all this has to do with the lack of sales of the T-64, which simply no one wants to buy.

          The direct is not the only one. And this fact does not prove anything. Resign yourself to this.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Well, it’s good that old tanks with exhausted resources, spare parts for which are not produced in Russia, are sent for remelting. It is necessary to support the domestic manufacturer.

          It’s good for you, it’s bad for us))) Double standards, but at the same time you turned out to be nonsense, and you proved your incompetence. And in fact, it is UVZ that is good.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          And you are not a case of Tarasenko, propagandizing here his ideas "There is no B-and except for the T-64 and Tarasenko is his prophet."
          Yes, you just couldn’t translate the words where I say this. I even wrote in plain text that the T-80 is better than the T-64

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Gur Khan: it's good that the usual "seventy-two" has fallen - in fact there is nothing to break in it, because it is made for fools, but what will happen if the T-90A or T-72B3 are overwhelmed like that? Expensive thermal imaging sights with French imported "Catherines" - in a crumpled state! No armor will help here ... I'm not talking about the "Armata" ... And to give such "monkeys" new equipment ??? When will our generals begin to really teach the soldiers and stop pretending?

          Re-read? And what has changed? The T-72 was made for the FOOL and it remains. And in fact it was put on the series as a SIMPLE, mobilization tank for the draft army, which would put ... partisans on them called up.
          And many ..lovers..T-72 still cry that on the T-72 in the USSR they clamped electronics, FCS, etc.
          Although of course you can compare the T-90A with the T-64, in which the T-72 finally surpassed the standard modifications of the T-64, though 20 years after the latter was discontinued, but of course with the assistance of the West ..))
        7. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 14: 23
          0
          Just there were no other Soviet tanks, but only imported ones. Why lie then? Where are the other Soviet tanks?
          I have already explained to you my position many times, but once again you accuse me of lying, I explain it especially for those who are in the T-64 ", since the topic is about the T-64, the posts are about the T-64, that's why I wrote about the T-64, any questions?
          They are not equal.
          Not equal between whom: among themselves? Yes, the T-80 is more modern than the T-72 and T-64, you yourself admit it, or to your foreign counterparts? Or do you think that the M-1 "Abrams" with a 105-mm cannon, or the first modifications of the M-1A1 "Abrams" or the first modifications of the "Leopard-2", or maybe God forbid, the M-60, "Leopard-1" , "Chieftain" and AMX-30, superior to T-64, T-72 and T-80? Before you communicate with someone, first learn to express yourself clearly, and not in riddles.
          Oplot-M is still one country. Since 2006 Merkava has been in open sale, or want to consider 2008. One more proof of your incompetence. At the same time, Oplot is less than years on the market. So everything is still ahead.
          When we conclude a contract for the supply of "Oplot-M" somewhere else besides Thailand, then we will talk about this topic. "Merkava" is a rather specific machine, created for the Middle East theater of operations, especially since the Merkava Mk1, 2 with 105-mm cannons is no longer comme il faut. And the cost, too, you know, "bites":
          "As a result of many improvements, the cost of the tank has increased significantly. Thus, one Mk.2 tank in 1989 prices cost $ 1,8 million, and the Mk.3 already cost $ 2,3 million. Http: // armor .kiev.ua / Tanks / Modern / Merkava / mer1 / "
          ... but the Merkava Mk.4 is already worth 3,6 million dollars, plus the Trophy KAZ system another 200 thousand. and this is for the IDF, these tanks will cost much more for export. Moreover, the market for them is small: rich Arabs will not buy a Merkava like a Zionist tank, and Israel itself will not sell a Merkava Mk.4, fearing leaks of technology, it is true that there was talk that the Georgians before the war "888 ", they wanted to buy a" Merkava Mk.3 ", but the matter did not go further than conversations, and it is a pity that one more exhibit was added to the line of captured Israeli tanks in Kubinka. Or do you seriously believe that if Israel wants to sell the Merkava to someone, it will not sell it? They even sold modernized captured T-55s in the 90s to Uruguay. As for the Leclerc, do not forget that apart from 388 units in the UAE, it is also in service in France itself (354 units), which the Oplot-M cannot yet boast of. And worth it again "bites" -8 million forever green. Or have you forgotten that the main criterion for the acquisition of Oplot-M by Thailand was its cost, since its main competitor, the South Korean K-2 "Black Panther", cost twice as much as $ 8 million.
        8. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 15: 12
          0
          The direct is not the only one. And this fact does not prove anything. Resign yourself to this.
          Well, of course, there is also the Italian S-1, the Indian Arjun, which, well, cannot be classified as a successful technique, as well as the Iranian Zulfikar (whether it is true or not) and the North Korean Pokpunho. Lovely company. You can also recall the Swedish reckless Strv-103 and the Swiss Pz-61 and Pz-68, although they have already been removed from service and replaced by the Leopard-2. About the Brazilian "Ozorio", I hope we will not remember, the prototype, was not adopted for service either at home or abroad. Oh yes, I almost forgot the "revolutionary" American version of the M-60-M-60A2. That does not prove the fact that there are no sales of the T-64, the fact that the tanks of the T-72 / T-90 family are in steady demand in the world, that they are sold not only by Russia, but also by Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic, even Yugoslavia won decay to supply a batch of tanks of its own modification T-72-M-84 to Kuwait, but nobody needs the T-64 except Ukraine, where they were produced during the years of the USSR, and Uzbekistan. which they inherited from the USSR.
          It’s good for you, it’s bad for us))) Double standards, but at the same time you turned out to be nonsense, and you proved your incompetence. And in fact, it is UVZ that is good.
          Excuse me, who is doing well with you? and who is bad with us? You are talking nonsense, claiming that Russia sent all its armored vehicles to re-melting. And what is my incompetence, in what I believed and believe that Russia should support its manufacturer of armored vehicles-UVZ, producing the T-72 / T-90, and not a foreign one, albeit from a fraternal state, relations with which are far from perfection, and if the second Yushchenko comes to power or God forbid Tyagnibok, they will become even worse, which is a direct competitor. Although, if the plant in Omsk rises, the previously producing T-80U will be only glad, because UVZ will finally have a competitor. Or the fact that the T-1987, which had been exhausted from the assembly line in 64, and to which all the more spare parts are not manufactured in Russia, should be sent for re-melting. Then answer the question, where to put them? 2000 T-64.
          Yes, you just couldn’t translate the words where I say this. I even wrote in plain text that the T-80 is better than the T-64
          Sorry, but we considered the advantages of the T-80. Theme about the T-64. Moreover, I agree with the conclusion that the T-80 is much better than the T-72 and T-64.
        9. Kars
          Kars 29 July 2013 15: 23
          +1
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Well, of course, there is also the Italian S-1

          I Merkava, Type 90, Type 88, Type 99 is enough.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          the fact that tanks of the T-72 / T-90 family are in steady demand in the world, and that they are not sold only

          the Kalashkov assault rifle is also very much in demand. And do not exaggerate the T-90,
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Kraina, Poland, the Czech Republic, even Yugoslavia, before its collapse, managed to deliver a batch of tanks of its modification T-72-M-84 to Kuwait, but T-64 to anyone
          I managed, but what else could she supply? The technology on the T-64 was not transferred to them, and they could have done it.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Nobody needs the T-64 except Ukraine, where they were manufactured during the years of the USSR, and Uzbekistan. to which they inherited from the USSR.
          You forget Transnistria. And it’s not tender, but just haven’t sold it yet, such dumping - they sent T-72 to Ethiopia for a penny, and rodents too.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Excuse me, who is doing well with you? and who is bad with us?

          In Russia, it is good to re-melt second-generation tanks, but in Ukraine for some reason it is bad.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          you are carrying it, claiming that Russia sent all its armored vehicles to re-melting.

          No, you will not get otmazatsa, cross out .. ALL ... and stop talking nonsense.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          And what is my incompetence, in what I thought and believe that Russia should support its manufacturer of armored vehicles-UVZ, producing T-72 / T-90, and not foreign

          I never knew that Leningrad and Omsk is a foreign country))
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          . Although if the plant in Omsk rises, previously producing the T-80U Bud
          Think better of who, and why he was dropped.

          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Then answer the question, where to put them?
          Would you give Assad, and spare parts - could you really set up production? Oh, yes it is more difficult than the T-72 and sculpt their clones.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          Sorry, but we considered the advantages of the T-80. Theme about the T-64. Moreover, I agree with the conclusion that the T-80 is much better than the T-72 and T-64.

          I will not forgive you)) almost all the tanks have already been mentioned here, and I'm glad that you have a decent me even on the T-80.
        10. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 16: 06
          0
          I Merkava, Type 90, Type 88, Type 99 is enough.

          Merkava was discussed why the Japanese type 90 wasn’t for sale either, the South Korean Type 88 wasn’t for sale, because it wasn’t enough to withstand the North Korean T-62, the Chinese for the same reason, weren’t enough.
          the Kalashkov assault rifle is also very much in demand. And do not exaggerate the T-90,
          Of course a simple, reliable, formidable weapon. Or do you have a different opinion? Absolutely not exaggerating: the fact of sales speaks for itself: Uganda - 44 T-90SA, Azerbaijan (delivery of 94 T-90S, with an option for subsequent delivery of another 94 T-90S, Turkmenistan (40 T-90CA), Algeria (so far 185, but 300 is planned), India (until 2020 T-2000 90) So far, approximately 2572 T-90 contracts have been delivered and concluded, not counting those that are in service with the Russian army.
          I managed, but what else could she supply? The technology on the T-64 was not transferred to them, and they could have done it.
          Well, they didn’t hand it over to anyone, but I doubt it on the bill I doubt it: we managed to produce our own jets, frigates, and submarines.
          You forget Transnistria. And it’s not tender, but just haven’t sold it yet, such dumping - they sent T-72 to Ethiopia for a penny, and rodents too.
          . What the Transnistrians managed to capture in the warehouses of the 14th Army (more precisely, what was there), they went there, captured the T-72, went to the T-72, especially since the Moldovans did not have tanks at all, and the Romanians upgraded the Romanians same T-55. Well, not for sale? Although I think there were proposals (everything was sold in the 90s), but something did not work out either in Russia or in Ukraine. And as for the future, wait and see.
          In Russia, it is good to re-melt second-generation tanks, but in Ukraine for some reason it is bad.
          Distort again. Where did I write that in Ukraine this is bad? On the contrary, I wrote, look at my post above that this is an internal affair of Ukraine.
          No, you will not get otmazatsa, cross out .. ALL ... and stop talking nonsense.
          Otmazyvatsya just you, I brought you the phrase of your colleague Alexander D, the defense of which you so selflessly intervened
          Quote: Kars
          Quote: Alexander D.
          And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?

          So keep talking nonsense.
          I never knew that Leningrad and Omsk is a foreign country))
          Distort again. Did I write that Leningrad and Omsk are abroad? On the contrary, I believe that the restoration of tank factories and design bureaus in them will have a fruitful effect on the creation of armored vehicles in Russia.
          Think better of who, and why he was dropped.
          In the "dashing nineties" many defense plants were closed both in Russia and in Ukraine. The army did not need new equipment, and it was not always possible to find buyers abroad. UVZ was able to survive, not least thanks to the T-72, but Omsk and Leningrad did not. Keep your "conspiracy theories" for yourself.
        11. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 16: 11
          -1
          Would you give Assad, and spare parts - could you really set up production? Oh, yes it is more difficult than the T-72 and sculpt their clones.
          But does the legitimate government of Syria need the T-64 now? It is enough for him to drive the T-72 basmachi. And if they ask, I think we will deliver.
          I will not forgive you)) almost all the tanks have already been mentioned here, and I'm glad that you have a decent me even on the T-80.
          I have a decent opinion about the T-64 and consider it a revolutionary tank for its time, but this did not affect the fact of its sales.
        12. Kars
          Kars 29 July 2013 16: 14
          +1
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          It is enough for him to drive the T-72 basmachi.

          If it were enough, they wouldn’t use the T-62 and T-55
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          . And if they ask, I think we will deliver.

          Vryatli: I have already talked about a container ship with spare parts for tanks arrested in Finland.
          Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
          its revolutionary tank for its time, but this did not affect the fact of its sales.
          As well as the fact of lack of sales on the quality of the T-64
        13. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 16: 43
          -1
          If it were enough, they wouldn’t use the T-62 and T-55
          I’m already tired of explaining to you that they are using what Russia has 2000 T-64s, but nevertheless, outdated T-62s were used in Chechnya and Georgia.
          Vryatli: I have already talked about a container ship with spare parts for tanks arrested in Finland.
          I already asked you about the source in the General Staff and what our BDKs are carrying in the holds from three fleets (Black Sea Fleet, Baltic Fleet, Pacific Fleet) to Syria? Do you know
          I don’t, but they carry something.
          As well as the fact of lack of sales on the quality of the T-64

          Well, at least in some ways we have come to a consensus.
    2. Kars
      Kars 29 July 2013 16: 23
      +1
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Merkava was discussed why the Japanese type 90 wasn’t for sale either, the South Korean Type 88 wasn’t for sale, because it wasn’t enough to withstand the North Korean T-62, the Chinese for the same reason, weren’t enough.

      retrain again. may help. But by the fact they were not sold.
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      fact of sales speaks for itself
      Unfortunately, he talks about nothing good. With careful consideration, of course.

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      What Transnistrians
      All the same, they forgot.

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Well, not for sale?

      Did I say that I was for sale?
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Otmazyvatsya just you, I brought you the phrase of your colleague Alexander D, the defense of which you so selflessly intervened

      and you turned out to be nonsense-borne. The Russian Air Force saws and melts its own BTT, not ALL, but a large number.

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Quote: Alexander D.
      And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?
      So keep talking nonsense.


      Does all your T-64s and T-62s feel better for you? I personally don’t see who the comment for Alexander D was addressed to, that user is on the black list.

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Distort again. Did I write that Leningrad and Omsk are abroad?

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      And what is my incompetence, in what I believed and believe that Russia should support its manufacturer of armored vehicles-UVZ, producing T-72 / T-90, and not foreign,

      Here it comes to fruition. As soon as a dreamer can drag Ukraine and Kharkov here.
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      . UVZ was able to survive, not least thanks to the T-72, but Omsk and Leningrad did not

      He survived thanks to Tsar Boriska, a fellow countryman of UVZ.
    3. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 17: 35
      -1
      retrain again. may help. But by the fact they were not sold.

      There is no arguing against the facts, as well as against the fact that the T-64 was not for sale either.
      Unfortunately, he talks about nothing good. With careful consideration, of course.
      Of course: "The chief is all gone." 2500 sold T-90s are not needed by anyone. How can they have up to 49 sold "Oplotov-M"
      All the same, they forgot.
      But firstly, the PMR is not recognized by anyone, the state. Secondly, you forgot that the T-64 is at storage bases in Kazakhstan. Quits
      and you turned out to be nonsense-borne. The Russian Air Force saws and melts its own BTT, not ALL, but a large number.
      What am I talking about? In stating the fact that the Russian Federation is sawing and melting its outdated armored vehicles, another policy is to pull an owl onto the globe. One stupid person said that Russia was cutting ALL of its armored vehicles, another stood up for him, and I was talking nonsense that it was only outdated. I've never heard any greater delirium in my life. "It is necessary to have a snack!"
      Does all your T-64s and T-62s feel better for you? I personally don’t see who the comment for Alexander D was addressed to, that user is on the black list.
      Personally, it’s absolutely parallel to me that Russia is getting rid of its outdated armored vehicles, including the T-62 and T-64. It seems to you no! Especially for you:
      Alexander D. UA July 25, 2013 20:30 ↑
      And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?

      Here it comes to fruition. As soon as a dreamer can drag Ukraine and Kharkov here.
      Another awkward and inept attempt to pull the owl onto the globe. Currently, on the territory of the former USSR, there are only 2 enterprises that produce tanks: UVZ and KKBTM. Leningrad and Omsk "safely" rested in Bose, I hope they will rise in time. Isn't Kharkiv a part of Ukraine?
      He survived thanks to Tsar Boriska, a fellow countryman of UVZ.
      Can you imagine, tsar, as you put it, although Russia has been a republic since 1917, "Boris Piany" was born in the Sverdlovsk region, and not in Nizhny Tagil, where the UVZ is located, but "Tsar Vladimir the Second and seems to be a lifelong" was born in Leningrad, but that's why the tank production there has not resumed.
    4. Kars
      Kars 29 July 2013 18: 26
      +1
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      There is no arguing against the facts, as well as against the fact that the T-64 was not for sale either.

      So what?
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Of course: "The chief is all gone." 2500 sold T-90s are not needed by anyone

      Well, you don’t want to think about it. Look at the level of T-90 operators? Uganda, Algeria. India excuse the only bright spot and it was forced, since the T-90 was uncontested Thanks to the USSR
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      But firstly, the PMR is not recognized by anyone, the state. Secondly, you forgot that the T-64 is at storage bases in Kazakhstan. Quits

      In storage, he still has it and the Russian Federation then what?
      And I did not undertake to bring the T-64 operators unlike you. And Transnistria is an active operator.

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Personally, it’s absolutely parallel to me that Russia is getting rid of its outdated armored vehicles, including the T-62 and T-64

      Your personal problems. It would be better to think HOW she gets rid. For me as a tank lover this is not parallel.
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Another awkward and inept attempt to pull an owl on a globe.

      why are you talking about yourself so clearly
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      And what is my incompetence, in what I believed and believe that Russia should support its manufacturer of armored vehicles-UVZ, producing the T-72 / T-90, and not a foreign one, albeit from a fraternal state, relations with which are far from perfection

      wrote again and now otmazyvatsya. Or are you talking about fraternal China?
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Is Kharkov not a part of Ukraine?

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      not a foreign, albeit from a fraternal state, relations with which are far from perfect,

      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      Can you imagine, tsar, as you put it, although Russia has been a republic since 1917, "Boris the Piany" was born in the Sverdlovsk region, and not in Nizhny Tagil

      Near Ural)))
      Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
      here is "Tsar Vladimir the Second and seems to be for life", was born just in Leningrad,
      it’s a pity that he came to power when Leningrad ate. Now we would drive good tanks. Even the potential for modernization of the T-80U, to the level of which the T-90A had grown in 20 years, and then with the help of the French.
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 16: 24
    +1
    And why are you getting away from the question about the T-72 and Uganda with the Janes?
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 15: 30
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I have repeatedly explained my position to you,

    And here the position, once written, and now lying that would be twisted.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    since the topic is about T-64, posts about T-64, that's why I wrote about T-64, are there any other questions?

    Of course - why do you need to get out? They wrote about the T-64 and put it on the same scale as Leclerc and Leopard. This is probably the subconscious mind that you suppress.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Are not equal between whom: among themselves? Yes

    Yes
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Before communicating with someone, learn how to express yourself clearly, not riddles.

    Well, I’ll calculate that there will be a prepared user, not a lamer. Just write.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    When we conclude a contract for the supply of "Oplot-M" somewhere else besides Thailand, then we will talk about this topic.

    Than one contract is not enough for you? The same amount of Leclerc and Challenger
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    ... "Merkava" is a rather specific machine created for the Middle East theater of operations,

    This is nonsense. And by the way, Colombia showed interest in South America. But the Merkavas are very expensive,
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    and Mk.3 - already $ 2,3 million ht

    Much more expensive.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    "Leclerc", then do not forget that in addition to 388 units in the UAE, it is also in service in France itself (354 units), which "Oplot-M" cannot boast of yet.

    Here the stronghold turned out to be even cooler than the French. Immediately for export. Although formally, the stronghold was adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Oplot-M "Thailand became its cost, since its main competitor, the South Korean K-2" Black Panther ", cost twice as much as $ 8 million.

    The tender included Leopard B \ y T-90 and Oplot. K2 export is still very far away.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 17: 05
    -1
    And here the position, since they wrote, and now you're lying that would be twisted. Of course - why do you get out? They wrote about the T-64 and put it on the same scale as Leclerc and Leopard. This is probably the subconscious mind that you suppress.
    No comments. Bullshit from Tarasenko’s stall. I’m not going to explain anymore.
    Yes
    In what. I look for you the T-64 is superior to the T-72, only because it is made in Kharkov. I have not heard one distinct superiority from you.
    Well, I’ll calculate that there will be a prepared user, not a lamer. Just write.
    Well, what else can we do, we did not finish the "academies". You defended your Ph.D., or you may have already swung yourself at your doctoral dissertation. Then you can present your scientific regalia, which allow you to consider yourself an unsurpassed connoisseur of domestic tank building.
    Than one contract is not enough for you? The same amount of Leclerc and Challenger
    I wrote about Leclerc above, “Challenger” also has one to Jordan for 390 cars, “Challenger-2” to Oman for 38 cars. But do not forget, and "Leclerc" and "Challengers" were produced in the main series for their own aircraft, you can say this about "Oplot-M".
    This is nonsense. And by the way, Colombia showed interest in South America. But the Merkavas are very expensive,

    I agree, roads, I have not heard about Colombian interest, share the link.
    Here the stronghold turned out to be even cooler than the French. Immediately for export. Although formally, the stronghold was adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    In the amount of 10 units, of which 4 are already said to have been sent to the USA. By the way, how did the Armed Forces buy them from the KMDB? If I am not mistaken, Oplot-M went for export. By the way, how is he doing with the adoption of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    The tender included Leopard B \ y T-90 and Oplot. K2 export is still very far away.
    I quote the Russian Wiki, which you yourself recently referred to
    But the Russian-language gives a more objective figure.

    The first contract for the sale of Oplot-M to foreign customers was signed on September 1, 2011. [36] The Royal Thai Army ordered 49 Oplot-M tanks worth $ 240 million. [6] The tank was selected as a result of the tender, in which the South Korean K2 Black Panther, the Russian T-90 and the German Leopard 2 also took part. Http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%BB % D0% BE% D1% 82-% D0% 9C
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 17: 31
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    No comments

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    but there is a fact that the T-64 does not use ANY commercial demand, you will not dispute, for what reasons I do not know. Nevertheless, Abrams and Leopard and Leclerc, also designed for highly qualified qualifications, were sold abroad, maybe even more than the T-64, but the T-64 NEVER.

    What is there to comment. And you wrote it and not Tarasenko.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    In what. I look for you T-64 is superior to T-72, only in what is made in Kharkov

    No, he is simply superior in performance.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I did not hear a single distinct superiority from you.

    Read the literature there everything is written. Immediately this T-64 control system is superior to the T-72. And do not start to distort with modifications. The KVV on the T-64 appeared earlier. And so on.
    T-72 is a simplified mobilization tank and that’s it.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Well, where do we go
    good that you understand that

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    which allow you to consider yourself an unsurpassed connoisseur of domestic tank building.

    Compared to you, I am an expert.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I wrote about Leclerc above, the "Challenger" also has one to Jordan for 390 cars, the "Challenger-2" to Oman for 38 cars. But do not forget, and "Leclerc" and "Challengers" were produced in the main series for their own aircraft, you can say this about "Oplot-M"

    Why did you write above and this? The fact of one contract per person.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I agree, roads, I have not heard about Colombian interest, share the link.

    To Jewish comrades. Maybe they are not too lazy to waste time. After Jaynes and T-72, I don’t see the point of giving you links.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    In the amount of 10 units, of which 4 are already said to have been sent to the United States
    )))) and the USA has already sent 4 T-84 / 80UD

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    If I am not mistaken, Oplot-M went for export. By the way, how is he doing with the adoption of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    It is adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is not worth it with the letters. Thailand receives tanks according to its requirements.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I quote the Russian Wiki, which you yourself recently referred to

    I hope they noticed the T-90? K2 participated there only formally. But even better.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 17: 59
    -1
    What is there to comment. And you wrote it and not Tarasenko.

    No comment.
    No, it just surpasses the TTX. Read the literature there everything is written. Immediately this T-64 control system is superior to the T-72. And do not start to juggle with modifications. The CCF appeared on the T-64 earlier. And so on.
    T-72 is a simplified mobilization tank and that’s it.

    Why should I juggle, all the Soviet leadership are fools and the entire SA is "fools, Arabs and blacks", half of the world is also Russian, since they abandoned the "unsurpassed and perfect tank" T-64, and adopted the T-72. Another conspiracy theory. Who is a spy and a villain, just James Bond, who whispered to DF Ustinov about the need to release the T-72. Can you imagine, the German "Tiger", "Panther" and even the T-4 were much more difficult to manufacture than, for example, the T-34 and even the IS-2 or the American "Sherman" and had higher performance characteristics, but nevertheless Germany lost the war ... Because at that time while 1 "Tiger" was being produced, about 10 T-34s or "Shermans" were produced. Therefore, the T-64s were where they should be in the TD in the GSVG and the western military units, where they should be knocked out by NATO tanks, helicopters and ATGMs, and in their place came fresh divisions from the "partisans", which are much easier to train on T- 72 than on the T-64, the more that the level of training of many soldiers did not differ much from "fools, blacks and other Arabs."
    it's good that you understand this. Compared to you, I am an expert.
    Thank you, I don’t even know how this grace came upon me. Well, how is it with academic titles? And you don’t praise yourself, no one (ungrateful people) will praise you.
    Why did you write above and this? The fact of one contract per person.
    Of course, only you forget one fact that these tanks were officially adopted by your countries and produced in large series, and again I quote the beloved Russian-language Wikipedia.
    Ukraine - The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine ordered 10 BM Oplot. The cost of the contract, which was concluded in 2009, is 295 million UAH. [5] As of the end of 2011, the contract was not executed due to insufficient funding. As of December 2011, HZTM received only 70 of UAH 295 million [38]. In total, the State program provides for the construction of 50 BM Oplot for the Ukrainian army until 2018
    .Since there the first 10 Oplots have already been transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 18: 17
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    No comment.

    Naturally. You will come to terms with this.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Another conspiracy theory

    Well, why. This is written in the history of the creation of the T-72 tank. I needed a simple tank for the draft army, which can be stamped into the arsenals in case of an atomic war.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    half the world, too, Russian, since they abandoned the "unsurpassed and perfect tank" T-64

    Again, a poor knowledge of history. Nobody offered the T-64 a half of the world. But they co-existed in armament of the USSR in parade. And the T-64 of the Russian Federation literally refused not long ago. It created a tank monopolist for itself.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    TTX, but nevertheless Germany lost the war.

    This is a difficult question and you cannot understand the whole background. And to defeat Germany it took 95 wrecked Soviet tanks. 000 percent of all produced and received under the lend-lease.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Therefore, the T-64 was located where they should be in the TD in the GSVG and western military forces, where they should be knocked out by NATO tanks, helicopters and ATGMs

    Therefore, the T-64, and then the T-80 were at the forefront of the strike of the Soviet forces,
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    thank you, I don’t even know how this grace came upon me

    Congratulations.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Of course, only you forget one fact that these tanks were officially adopted by your countries and were produced in large series, and again I quote the beloved Russian-language Wikipedia.

    Of course, but you, as usual, show ignorance in the armored topic. For the interest of the Leclercans, we PLANNED to build 1400 units, built 300 for the French Armed Forces (I’ll exaggerate the figures), about the same with the Challenger - but what can we say about the tank for the Ukrainian Armed Forces that appeared at the height of the crisis. And at the same time, again, the quantity is not related to the topic. The fact of one export contract per person, and you have nothing to cover.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Since there the first 10 "Oplotov" APU have already transferred
    Do you read poorly?

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    as of the end of 2011, the contract was not executed due to insufficient funding.

    Chris, crisis, the absence of a real enemy - that's why Bulatov is quite enough for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They are at the level of T-90A (and with an increase in funding and retrofitting will exceed)
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 31 July 2013 16: 31
    -1
    Quote: Kars
    Well, why. This is written in the history of the creation of the T-72 tank. I needed a simple tank for the draft army, which can be stamped into the arsenals in case of an atomic war.

    This task has been completed. Such a tank was created-T-72, enjoyed undoubted commercial success. Now Rossi is served by his deepest modernization of the T-90, which also enjoys commercial success.
    Quote: Kars
    Again, a poor knowledge of history. Nobody offered the T-64 a half of the world. But they co-existed in armament of the USSR in parade. And the T-64 of the Russian Federation literally refused not long ago. It created a tank monopolist for itself.

    I already wrote to you after the collapse of the USSR, 22 years have passed, and the T-64. so nobody needed it. the same Ukraine sells mainly T-72. The economy of Russia, unlike the USSR, cannot afford the existence of THREE types of tanks, with similar combat characteristics, and with non-interchangeable parts. Omsk and Leningrad could not stand the competition, therefore, the UVZ remained with the T-90, created on the basis of the T-72, a formidable, reliable, unpretentious combat vehicle designed for the draft army, which Russia now has. No conspiracy theory, President Yeltsin who helped the "fellow countrymen", all the more so since the "St. Petersburg" people have been ruling in Russia for 13 years already, who for some reason do not help the LKZ.
    Quote: Kars
    This is a difficult question and you cannot understand the whole background. And to defeat Germany it took 95 wrecked Soviet tanks. 000 percent of all produced and received under the lend-lease.

    The Americans almost until the end of the war, before the M-26 "Pershing" could not create a tank that could withstand the "Tigers" and "Panthers", therefore they themselves admit that for each destroyed German tank they paid 5-6 with their own, and with the "Tigers" generally tried not to get involved, immediately calling the aviation. Therefore, the reasons for such large Soviet losses in tanks lie rather in the tactics of their use, especially when you consider that the spacecraft has been advancing since 1943, and the loss ratio of the attackers and defenders is known to be 3: 1, all the more as it influenced the outcome of the war. In 1941, the Wehrmacht, apart from the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun, had nothing to oppose to the Soviet KV and T-34, nevertheless, this did not prevent them from reaching Moscow.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 18: 20
    -1
    To Jewish comrades. Maybe they are not too lazy to waste time. After Jaynes and T-72, I don’t see the point of giving you links.
    Well, of course, after you refuted the fact that Russia had fulfilled the contract for the supply of T-5U to Cyprus, confirmed by Russia's 80 report to the UN for 2011, with tenacity worthy of better application, you can not provide it. Especially for you, encore since you are too lazy to run down the topic and see the answer to your own statements.
    March 14th. Russia submitted to the UN Register a report for 2011 on the supply of conventional weapons. Below is material on the categories of “battle tanks” and “armored combat vehicles”.

    In the “battle tanks” category, 35 MBTs were declared to be delivered to Venezuela, 14 to Cyprus and 44 to Uganda.

    Thus, Russia completed the delivery of 41 T-80U / UK tanks to Cyprus, the contract for the purchase of which cost $ 156 million for the National Guard was concluded with the Ministry of Defense of Cyprus in 2009. Of these, according to the report, in 2010 27 MBT were delivered. The remaining 14 cars, apparently, were transferred at the beginning of 2011.http: //vpk.name/news/86119_rossiya_predstavila_v_registr_oon_otchet_po_post

    avkam_obyichnyih_vooruzhenii_za_2011_god.html

    )))) and the USA has already sent 4 T-84 / 80UD
    I read about this on the BMPD, while adding "they say", i.e. did not claim.
    It is adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is not worth it with the letters. Thailand receives tanks according to its requirements.
    See post above. It is a personal matter of Thailand which tanks and by what criteria to choose.
    I hope they noticed the T-90? K2 participated there only formally. But even better.
    That is, K-2 still took part, but what about your statement, you are all-knowing our
    The tender included Leopard B \ y T-90 and Oplot. K2 export is still very far away.
    That they turned on the reverse gear. Well, if it was ahead, in Azerbaijan the T-90 was ahead of the "Oplot" and so what? Again, just for you:
    13:50 19.03.2012Negotiations between Ukraine and Azerbaijan on the supply of weapons have entered the final stage. Without tenders and competitive bidding, Ukraine can get the right to supply Azerbaijan with the Oplot tanks that it liked in all respects. Now the parties do not make contact with the press and try not to disclose information about their relationship. Http://agency.ua-tenders.com/news/236521/
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 18: 31
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Well, of course, after you refuted the fact that Russia had fulfilled the contract for the supply of T-5U to Cyprus, confirmed by Russia's 80 report to the UN for 2011, with tenacity worthy of better application, you can not provide it. Especially for you, encore since you are too lazy to run down the topic and see the answer to your own statements.

    So it did not complete.
    And the link with the APPEARANCE is of course interesting.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I read about this on the BMPD, while adding "say", i.e. did not claim

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    In the amount of 10 units, of which 4 are already said to have been sent to the United States.
    Do not remember what to write?

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    That is, K-2 still took part, but what about your statement, you are all-knowing our
    He was considered as a candidate.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    That they turned on the reverse gear. Well, if it was ahead, in Azerbaijan the T-90 was ahead of the "Oplot" and so what? Again, just for you:

    Political pressure. In Morocco, the T-90 lost to a Chinese tank with a Ukrainian engine.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 19: 02
    0
    So it did not complete.
    And the link with the APPEARANCE is of course interesting.

    Of course, how to admit the defeat of the "unsurpassed master" to a simple lamer, or as you put it. A link to the UN website especially for you
    www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register)

    document
    A / 67/212 / Add.2) dated January 30, 2013

    and to page number 7

    A / 67/212 / Add.2
    13-22169
    7
    Russian
    Федерация
    Authentic
    текст
    on
    Russian
    language
    Calendar
    year
    : 2011
    Provided by
    whether
    reference
    information
    :
    Yes
    date
    performances
    : 31
    May
    2012
    year
    National
    contact
    centers
    :
    Yes
    Export
    Abcde
    Notes
    Category
    (I – VII)
    The final
    (
    s
    )
    state
    (
    а
    )-
    importer
    (
    ы
    )
    Quantity
    of
    State
    Origin
    (
    if
    export
    -
    rum
    is
    other
    sovereign
    -
    GUSTs
    )
    In between
    -
    nye
    items
    (
    if
    those
    there are
    )
    Description
    facilities
    Comments
    к
    delivery
    I.
    Combat
    Tanks
    Venezuela
    Cyprus
    Uganda
    35
    14
    44

    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/212/Add.2&referer=http://ww
    w.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/&Lang=R

    Will you blame the government of the Russian Federation for providing a false report to the UN? About the rest in the evening, I’ll go to meet my wife from work.
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 20: 57
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Will you blame the government of the Russian Federation for providing a false report to the UN?

    Who knows. Let it be your way - a few dozens of T-80B / y delivered for several years. It looks like someone put a stick in the wheel.

    In addition, the T-80 is an exception in our dispute,
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 09: 11
    0
    That is, for four days you proved the opposite with manic persistence
    Cyprus is yes, 96 years old, and until now the contact has not been fulfilled, which says a lot.
    .
    Mockingly offered to rewrite Wikipedia, and now, pressed against the wall with OFFICIAL documents, turn on the reverse.
    Who knows. Let it be your way - a few dozens of T-80B / y delivered for several years. It looks like someone put a stick in the wheel.

    In addition, the T-80 is an exception in our dispute,
    "Unsurpassed
    a connoisseur of "armored vehicles, do not behave like a lousy cat whose tail has been pinched, admit your mistake that the contract for Cyprus has taken place and is armed with 82 RUSSIAN T-80Us. Unlike you, I admitted my mistake with Uganda and T-72 ...
    P.S. I also hope to poke you face in the mud again after the official announcement of the cargo of Russian BDK in Syria
  • Kars
    Kars 30 July 2013 09: 28
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    That is, for four days you proved the opposite with manic persistence

    Let's start from the beginning
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    In 2009, a contract was signed with Cyprus for the supply of another 41 T-80U / T-80UK, which was completed in 2011.

    Apparently, all the same, it was not completed until 2012. And 2 years of fiber supply with the supply of used tanks

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Healthily suggested Wikipedia rewrite

    Why mockery? Rewrite - what is there misleading?

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Unsurpassed
    a connoisseur of "armored vehicles, do not behave like a lousy cat whose tail has been pinched, admit your mistake that the contract for Cyprus took place and that he is armed with 82 RUSSIAN T-80Us

    Well, you have more mistakes - not Russian but Soviet.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I, unlike you, admitted my mistake with Uganda and the T-72.

    Yes, but what is your mistake, bring the source yourself and don’t read it. All my links confirmed my words. Do not believe me, go read the Russian Wikipedia.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 17: 38
    0
    Let's start from the beginning

    Let's
    Kuznetsov 1977 RU July 25, 2013 23:55 ↑
    Let's start with the fact that the T-62 is outdated, I am sure that in Ukraine they are sold to blacks at best, and in the worst case in the oven. As for the T-64, it was discontinued in 1987, it was not produced in Russia, spare parts for it are produced in Ukraine, the relationship with which is like a cat with a dog. Currently, Russia has as many T-64 storage warehouses as and in Ukraine about 2000, what to do with them? Selling, they don't buy like that, you can see such a wonderful tank. After a while, the same fate awaits the T-80, since the Omsk plant does not work and the tanks are produced only in Nizhniy Tagil, focused on the T-72 / T-90, and in the future on the "Armata". As for the supply of armored vehicles by Russia, in addition to the T-72 to Venezuela, in 2009 a contract was signed with Cyprus for the supply of 41 more T-80U / T-80UK, which was completed in 2011.

    your answer
    Kars (2) UA July 26, 2013 10:00 ↑
    Cyprus is yes, 96 years old, and until now the contact has not been fulfilled, which says a lot.
    . That is, you acknowledge the fact that for four days they proved what is not.
    Apparently, all the same, it was not completed until 2012. And 2 years of fiber supply with the supply of used tanks
    Have you read the terms of the contract? his terms? Cyprus of Russia did not make official claims. If you presented a link to the studio. I repeat once again for you, this is Russia's report to the UN for 2011, submitted in January 2013, for which reason I do not know.
    Why mockery? Rewrite - what is there misleading?
    I make no complaints about either the Russian or the English Wikipedia, in which the article about the Uganda People’s Defense Forces or the Army Guide website, where there is no mention of the T-72 in Uganda.
    Well, you have more mistakes - not Russian but Soviet.
    Well, start with the fact that the Omsk plant stopped production of the T-80U in 1998, read on the Wikipedia you love so much
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-80%D0%A3.
    You know from which party the tanks delivered to Cyprus were. I admit the idea that from the party released after 1991. And about mistakes, I didn’t declare myself an unrivaled tank expert. And the fact that the T-80U was developed in the USSR does not cause disputes. As it does not, the fact is not disputed. that they are delivered by Russia.
    Yes, but what is your mistake, bring the source yourself and don’t read it. All my links confirmed my words. Do not believe me, go read the Russian Wikipedia.
    I have already admitted my mistake. you stubbornly do not want to admit yours about Cyprus. Reverse pressed against the wall with official documents. As you said yourself
    And here the position, once written, and now lying that would be twisted.
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 18: 26
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    And why are you getting away from the question about the T-72 and Uganda with the Janes?

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    No comment.

    ?????
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 18: 44
    0
    For lovers to read their posts and the answers to them below
    Kuznetsov 1977 RU Today, 12:56 ↑
    I admit my mistake, indeed UKRAINE delivered about 90 T-30s to Uganda in the 72s. That is, for Russia, this is in any case a new market, for Uganda did not buy the modernized Ukrainian T-72 like Ethiopia, but acquired the new T-90 in Russia. It suits you.
  • Kars
    Kars 29 July 2013 21: 01
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    For lovers to read their posts and the answers to them below

    so much flooded. But at the same time it’s interesting - did you read the Jane you referenced? Or did you blur out?
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    about there is in any case a new market for Russia, for Uganda did not buy, like Ethiopia, the modernized Ukrainian T-72s,

    Only in 90 nobody upgraded tanks, but sold directly from a warehouse, although I don’t remember selling Ukraine to Uganda or not. And this is not a new market for Russia, but simply a continuation of the purchase of a tank for low-trained crews. It will be interesting to examine the operation.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 17: 54
    0
    so much flooded. But at the same time it’s interesting - did you read the Jane you referenced? Or did you blur out?

    You flooded as much as mine. Unfortunately, I did not read the reference book "Jane" carefully.
    Only in 90 nobody upgraded tanks, but sold directly from a warehouse, although I don’t remember selling Ukraine to Uganda or not. And this is not a new market for Russia, but simply a continuation of the purchase of a tank for low-trained crews. It will be interesting to examine the operation.

    In the 90s, no one modernized anything. Nevertheless, you consider Ethiopia where the T-72 upgraded by Ukraine is delivered to.
    the market
    Kars (2) UA July 26, 2013 23:32 ↑

    Quote: smiths xnumx
    That is, you contrast the supply of repaired Soviet tanks by Ukraine to the supply of new Russian tanks by Russia.

    Yes, you’re just trying to get away from the new markets you mentioned. Ethiopia is new, Uganda is not very.
    That is, after the collapse of the USSR until 2011, Russia did not supply tanks there, and Ukraine also supplied the old one, and Ethiopia, which the USSR fully armed with tanks, and now Ukraine is arming, is very new. Another attempt to pull the owl onto the globe. I, of course, understand all your deep dislike for the heir to the T-72-T-90, all the more so being the main competitor of the Ukrainian "Oplot", but all the same it is not necessary to distort that. And about the operation, wait and see.
  • Kars
    Kars 28 July 2013 19: 16
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    But after the collapse of the USSR, and it began to be sold, including the so unloved Wamm Arabs, Russia-Egypt, Belarus, most recently, Yemen, and what of this?
    Nothing, some all the same understand the tanks and do not take the T-72. And you can’t do anything better than the T-80, and especially when they are given for debt
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 19: 57
    0
    Almost everything, as you insist on stubbornly pointing out that the T-64 was not exported by the USSR, and this is enough.
    That is a statement of an indisputable fact, the lack of sales of the T-64. is for you, his insult.
    Then what are you doing here? In an article about the T-64?
    The same thing that you are discussing with you for the fourth day, I’m listening to your stories about the superiority of the T-64 over the T-72, about the bad Khlopotov, proving the opposite and that in Russia all the tanks were sent for re-melting and rotted at the storage bases, so that even the Allies have nothing to deliver to Syria, so the BDK carry air in the holds.
    Fasting starting with .. Don’t carry Bullshit ..
    First of all, my post was not addressed to you, but to Alexander D., who, however, was carrying the same thing, like "Russia has lost all polymers"
    Quote: Alexander D.
    And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?

    Although the Fact on the face of the Russian Federation without any help, it utilizes the armored vehicles that would be useful if I were so fond of Assad. And then you just rushed unclear where.
    And that Russia needs someone else's help to dispose of its decommissioned armored vehicles? Or did the legitimate government of Syria turn to Russia with a request to supply him with armored vehicles? If you have such information, please share the link. I think that if the legitimate government of Syria, led by Bashar Assad, turns to Russia with a similar request, then Russia will find a couple of hundred, maybe thousands of units of tanks that can be delivered to Syria.
    All are bad because there is no reference to the fulfillment of the contract. But the Russian-speaking one gives a more objective figure. And the completion of the delivery of tanks to Cyprus would not have gone unnoticed.
    . We continue to pull the owl on the globe, here I believe, here I do not believe. English and Spanish are bad in that they give numbers that do not coincide with your conclusions, but the Russian-speaking is objective in that it gives them. If it were the other way around, then you would post here about the bias of the Russian-speaking Vika and the objectivity of the English-speaking. Especially in the Russian article on the T-80 says. that the contract should be completed in 2011. And why you should have been informed about the completion of the contract, especially since after the scandalous story with the delivery of the S-300 to Cyprus, Russia and Cyprus, they are trying not to talk about their military-technical cooperation.
    And let's move on?
    Let us, therefore, consider your transition to personality to be signs of your weakness, hysteria, and inability to substantiate your evidence.
  • Kars
    Kars 28 July 2013 20: 15
    +1
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    That is a statement of an indisputable fact, the lack of sales of the T-64. is for you, his insult.

    No, an attempt to make you conclude from the fact of lack of sales. And so persistent.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    I’m listening to you for the fourth day, I’m listening

    How does it fit with your refusal to participate in the fight of the T-64
    T72?
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    First of all, my post was not addressed to you, but to Alexander D., who, however, was carrying the same thing, like "Russia has lost all polymers"

    But howl at the fact you turned out to be nonsense. The Russian Federation saws its own tanks.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    And that Russia needs someone else's help to dispose of its decommissioned armored vehicles?

    Well, you have a lot of petrodollars.
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Or the legitimate government of Syria turned to Russia with a request to supply him with armored vehicles
    As for the supply of weapons and spare parts, they were exactly treated. I did not read the specifications.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Russia with a similar request, Russia will find a couple of hundred, or maybe thousands of units of tanks that can be delivered to Syria.

    So far, even the DZ was not found, like the S-300
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Especially in the Russian article on the T-80 says. that the contract should be completed in 2011

    I cited the screen of an authoritative periodical publication on Armored vehicles for mid-2012 for some reason they do not know about it.

    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Let us, therefore, consider your transition to personality to be signs of your weakness, hysteria, and inability to substantiate your evidence.

    If this is easier for you to consider, I would especially like to know about this how carefully you read
    And how do you prove something?
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    http://mirknig.com/2013/02/23/the-military-balance-2012.html
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 28 July 2013 21: 47
    0
    No, an attempt to make you conclude from the fact of lack of sales. And so persistent.
    Where did you see the attempt. Facts in the studio. The usual statement of fact.
    How does this fit with your refusal to participate in the fight of the T-64 T72?
    Ordinarily, why should I participate in this fight? I’m already tired of once again explaining to you how Miklouho-Maclay the Papuans that I believe that each tank and the T-72 and T-64 have their own advantages and disadvantages.
    But howl at the fact you turned out to be nonsense. The Russian Federation saws its own tanks.
    . What are you talking about, that Russia has disposed of all its tanks, so this is definitely complete nonsense. Or did I write somewhere that someone helps Russia recycle tanks? Russia, unlike Ukraine, does not offer money for the disposal of tanks.
    Well, you have a lot of petrodollars.
    . Well, you finally began to pour thought on the tree. Ukraine, with its developed industry and agriculture, should not complain about the lack of minerals and money in the budget. In 1991, almost all the republics of the former USSR were in the same position. And if Ukraine, thanks to its rulers, can’t do anything, then these are Ukraine’s problems and it’s not necessary to shift from healthy to healthy, referring to other people's minerals. It is a sin to envy.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 12: 24
    0
    As for the supply of weapons and spare parts, they were exactly treated. I did not read the specifications.
    I know that they asked the shooter, RPO-A "Bumblebee", about the rest so far "silent." But I am sure that if the legitimate government of Syria or Bashar al-Assad officially turn to us with such a request, it will be satisfied.
    So far, even the DZ was not found, like the S-300
    See my post above about the sources in the General Staff that drag our BDK to Syria.
    I don’t know. But the very fact that the Syrian T-72 and BMP-2, despite the losses are active, is already talking about something.
    I cited the screen of an authoritative periodical publication on Armored vehicles for mid-2012 for some reason they do not know about it.
    Well, here you are:
    March 14th. Russia submitted to the UN Register a report for 2011 on the supply of conventional weapons. Below is material on the categories of “battle tanks” and “armored combat vehicles”.

    In the “battle tanks” category, 35 MBTs were declared to be delivered to Venezuela, 14 to Cyprus and 44 to Uganda.

    Thus, Russia completed the delivery of 41 T-80U / UK tanks to Cyprus, the contract for the purchase of which cost $ 156 million for the National Guard was concluded with the Ministry of Defense of Cyprus in 2009. Of these, according to the report, in 2010 27 MBT were delivered. The remaining 14 cars, apparently, were transferred at the beginning of 2011.http: //vpk.name/news/86119_rossiya_predstavila_v_registr_oon_otchet_po_post
    avkam_obyichnyih_vooruzhenii_za_2011_god.html
    Well, if the report to the UN provided by Russia is not an argument for you, then I just don’t know.
    If this is easier for you, consider. I would especially like to know about this how carefully you read. And how do you prove something?
    . I admit my mistake, indeed UKRAINE delivered about 90 T-30s to Uganda in the 72s.
    http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/bron/tanki/data/ic_nomenrussiabronta
    nki / 13 /
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 29 July 2013 12: 56
    0
    The higher the place, the more prestigious and significant the supply of armored vehicles in our particular case. And what to do in Thailand, more dangerous neighbors. Therefore, they pay more attention to their army.
    Excuse me, what are these dangerous neighbors in Thailand: Cambodia, which does not have its own combat aircraft, in which the civil war only recently ended, but there are border conflicts. but not more; Laos with a 30th army with 35 tanks (10 T-34-85, 10 PT-76, 15 T-55) and also without the Air Force (for comparison, Thailand has a 200th army); or Myanmar, in which the civil war does not stop from the moment of its formation and in which constant military coups.
    Moreover, the United States is in first place in this rating, and who certainly has dangerous neighbors: Mexico dreams of capturing Texas and California, and Canada has introduced its fleet to the Great Lakes. Don't tell my slippers, they are funny anyway. Thailand has more money, among other things, thanks to the tourism business, so it can afford such "goodies" as "Grippen", "Oplot-M" and even its own small aircraft carrier.
    Have you downloaded it? Have you opened page 459?

    I admit my mistake, indeed UKRAINE delivered about 90 T-30s to Uganda in the 72s. That is, for Russia, this is in any case a new market, for Uganda did not buy the modernized Ukrainian T-72 like Ethiopia, but acquired the new T-90 in Russia. It suits you.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 25 July 2013 22: 59
    0
    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
    Total so far about 2572 against 49 Ukrainian "Oplotov-M" (52,5: 1)


    3 more BMPT for Kazakhstan and 4 T-84 for the USA wink
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 25 July 2013 21: 45
    +2
    Quote: Alexander D.
    And who advised Russia that she herself had sent all the tanks to the furnace for her own money?


    In the post-Soviet space, stockpiles of weapons are destroyed that would allow an independent policy to be pursued by any country (region). In Russia, Mosin rifles are disposed of. To whom do rifles interfere? Do they take up a lot of space?

    Disarmament of territories with unreliable populations.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 25 July 2013 23: 14
      0
      Sell ​​these rifles to collectors of rarities and earn money, from which then your mothers and fathers will receive a pension and travel for free in transport. Is this option worse than recycling?
  • Alexander D.
    Alexander D. 25 July 2013 20: 30
    0
    Then began the hacking and barking ...
    Everyone outlined such prospects for Ukraine, as if the final batch of tanks had already gone into the furnace. Lebedev said clearly that the potential cost of all armored vehicles in storage is about UAH 9 billion ($ 1,1 billion). I doubt that the boyars, for the sake of 1 million greens, will agree to "burn them in the oven." Rather, they will offer partners to buy back all equipment for 1,1 billion greens and let them do whatever they want with it!
    1. Hug
      Hug 25 July 2013 21: 55
      0
      But do our boyars do what they should? - Already in what - in what, but in a fit of patriotism they were not seen.
      1. Alexander D.
        Alexander D. 25 July 2013 23: 16
        +1
        Quote: Kram
        But do our boyars do what they should? - Already in what - in what, but in a fit of patriotism they were not seen.

        Believe me, there will go to the pockets of the "powers that be" from the profit from the sale by an order of magnitude or even two more. They are not fools either.
  • morpogr
    morpogr 25 July 2013 21: 36
    0
    It is more logical to sell than to cut.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 25 July 2013 22: 07
    0

    ----------------------------------
  • MichaelVl
    MichaelVl 25 July 2013 22: 30
    +3
    You can scold NATO as much as you like, but they are doing what is in their interests. Is this some kind of unexpected news for someone? It `s naturally! All act in their own interests, not in someone else's.
    But to do at NATO it turns out exactly what Ukraine allows to do in itself (or with itself).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • CAPILATUS
    CAPILATUS 26 July 2013 00: 01
    0
    Quote: Beck
    Quote: Vasya
    Again, Russian for you to swell? As it has been in history.


    And what kind of self-confidence? If a global conflict, for example, China attacked, then everyone will get involved in a 3MB type.

    And if hypothetical dushmans, Islamists, then the Kazakh army itself will cope.

    And in what story was it that an external enemy attacked Kazakhstan, and the Russians fought for the Kazakhs? Vasya, in what story? Answer the inventor.


    You probably don’t know how the Islamists piled on the internal troops and the elite unit of Kazakhstan in the Aktobe region several years ago? If you don’t know, I’ll remind you, they killed the entire unit (more than a dozen people) without their own losses and disappeared.

    10 years ago, there were only a few flying MiG-29s and Su-27s in the Kazakhstani Armed Forces per regiment (I myself saw only five Sushki live). According to one technician, to get several cars to fly, others had to spin. In addition, the pilots had a minimum, if my memory serves me 6000x2000, that is, they could fly only in fact in clear weather - thanks to the lack of normal equipment in the only flight school, which incidentally Kazakhstan got from "Vasya" (there was a higher civilian), I don't know how now 10 years ago, all military pilots had one Yak-18 type of release, then more serious equipment was mastered in the regiments.
    Even if we assume that the situation has improved and now there are twice as many combat-ready vehicles in the Air Force of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I doubt very much that their total number will exceed several tens.

    Therefore, Beck, whether you like it or not, you can't go without "Vasya". Everything else is an empty shake of air
    1. Beck
      Beck 26 July 2013 02: 01
      +1
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      Therefore, Beck, whether you like it or not, you can't go without "Vasya". Everything else is an empty shake of air


      And why drive a wave of sand dunes?

      It is not clear, or what? The army of Kazakhstan is not enough for a global conflict. On the regional - enough.

      And do not misinterpret. There was an incident in Aktobe, based on surprise. Security forces died. Then the Islamists in the semi-desert were caught, who were not caught he was killed. And why drag the counter-terrorist operation over the entire army?

      You do not read the pages of the site? It is often written here that Kazakhstan either bought boats, combat helicopters, transport planes, jeeps, or Israeli weapons, or is now setting up its production of non-technically sophisticated weapons. But the fighters and tanks from the Union went to and Russia carries out the prevention of fighters. Russian pilots make a flying time of 50 hours per year, Kazakhstan pilots 150 hours.

      So that for a regional conflict will be enough.

      Vasya scrap swallowed and does not respond. Maybe you will answer. WHEN, WHEN THE EXTERNAL ENEMY IS ATTACKED IN KAZAKHSTAN, THE RUSSIANS Fought FOR KAZAKH? These are the words of Vasya.

      I repeat in the regional conflict we will not call anyone. And Vasek all the more.
  • gecko
    gecko 18 August 2013 22: 02
    0
    We’ll sell it again for cheap. They’ll give our bribes for our bribes. And ours will all merge
  • Ivan Vasilievich
    Ivan Vasilievich 22 December 2018 18: 43
    0
    Great news. If true.