Military Review

The most belligerent tank T-72: lessons of the defense project

281
The most belligerent tank T-72: lessons of the defense project

7 August 1973 an event occurred that became known to the public only in 1990-ies - by the joint resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers No. 554-172 the T-72 main battle tank (MBT) established in the Urals was adopted by the Soviet Army design bureau of transport engineering and produced at the Ural Carriage Works.


Today it is the most numerous, well-known and "belligerent" MBT of the world. In popularity, it surpasses only that Kalashnikov assault rifle. Unlike many other MBT T-72 causes only two feelings: they either admire or, on the contrary, are subjected to the most destructive criticism. Not a single soldier or engineer who dealt with the "seventy-two war" remained indifferent to her. And T-72 is the visiting card of UVZ and UKBTM in 1970 – 1990-e.

“Seventy Dvd” is not just a fighting machine with a certain set of properties and characteristics, but also a monument to the national industrial culture materialized in metal, combining the experience of the Tagil school of designing combat vehicles, the unsurpassed mastery of mass production and the original fusion of domestic and borrowed technologies.

Of particular value is the fact that the list of countries that have managed to independently develop the design and master the technology for mass production of MBTs is shorter than the list of states that have their own aircraft manufacturing industry. So, simply recognizing the value of Soviet and Russian industrial culture in the field of tank building is completely insufficient. It must be studied, and the conclusions must be taken into account when solving modern problems and tasks. And if you turn to the main character of our publication - tank T-72, it is much more important to know not what kind of tank it is, but to understand why it is so. In other words, we must delve into the logic of the innovation process, into the system of thinking and values ​​of the designers, technologists and military, who created and tested the T-72.

That is how the past can teach lessons to the future.

LESSON FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT: HURRY DON'T HURRY

As is known, tank building originated in Nizhny Tagil in 1941, as a result of the evacuation of the Kharkov plant No. XXUMX. In 183, unlike many other displaced enterprises, the plant was left in the Urals, and in Kharkov, on the basis of the shops that had survived after the occupation, a new one under the number 1945 and a new design bureau appeared. Thus, today the legal successor of the pre-war Kharkov plant number 75 is Uralvagonzavod.

In 1950, Kharkiv citizens began to gradually return to their homeland. By the end of 1950, everyone who wanted to work in Kharkov received this opportunity. Nevertheless, a significant group has already voluntarily remained in Nizhny Tagil, and right up to the 1960-s the former employees of the pre-war plant No. 183 equally constituted the core of the Kharkov and Tagil design bureaus.

The surviving evidence suggests that the decision to remain in Nizhny Tagil or to return to Ukraine, in addition to a mass of personal factors, was also based on a different approach to creating promising armored vehicles. Supporters of "revolutionary" methods (new tank - fundamentally new and most progressive units and assemblies), led by Alexander Morozov, gathered in Kharkov to develop a promising machine, not particularly worrying about the continuity with predecessor tanks. Proponents of evolutionary development and the gradual improvement of combat vehicles remained in Nizhny Tagil.

And then the following happened. Morozov and his colleagues, freed from the problems of servicing the serial production of the T-54 tank, starting from 1952, they were engaged only in a promising tank. At the end of 1966, the T-64 was able, not without problems and intrigues, to push into the arsenal of the Soviet army. And it was immediately known that this was a temporary and intermediate model, which in the coming years had to be replaced by a more powerful T-64A tank - which happened in the 1968 year. And both cars were quite raw. The number of breakdowns and identified design flaws turned out to be such that at the beginning of 1970-ies, USSR Defense Minister Marshal of the Soviet Union Andrei Grechko seriously raised the issue of stopping the release of sixty-fours - at least machines with the 5TDF basic engine. However, it did: the plant and the design bureau were able to bring their offspring to the level of military requirements. In 1973 – 1974, the T-64А tank was considered a combat-ready and more or less reliable vehicle. However, here’s a paradox: by the time technical difficulties were overcome, the car was already inferior to a competitor from Nizhny Tagil (this will be discussed below), and it turned out that it is difficult to modernize.

The total “issue price” today can hardly be set, but it is known that the project resulted in the removal of X-NUMX T-250 prototype tanks - due to their complete incompatibility with mass-produced products and the impossibility of reworking at moderate costs.

And what happened in the meantime in Nizhny Tagil? Uralvagonzavod bore full responsibility for equipping the tank units of the Soviet army with middle-class machines, and in the most dangerous years of the Cold War, full of local conflicts. In order not to fall behind in the arms race, over the course of the 1950-ies, one after another, more and more advanced modifications of the T-54 were created and put into mass production: T-54A, T-54B, T-55. The beginning of the 1960-ies was marked by the creation of the T-62 tank, a fighter of enemy vehicles, equipped for the first time in the world with a smooth-bore 115-mm gun. And finally, in 1969, for the first time in the world, a tank-based IT-1 fighter with antitank-guided missiles as the main weapon was adopted for mass production and mass production.

It should be noted that the promising tank building in Nizhny Tagil after the “sixty-two war” was deliberately inhibited by higher authorities, in order not to create competition for Kharkiv citizens. However, the ban somehow managed - mainly under the flag of the modernization of serial machines. This is how the experimental tanks “167 object”, “167Т object”, “166J object”, “166М object” and others appeared. Tagilchanes run around a promising undercarriage on them, gained experience in operating high-powered engines, worked out their own automatic loader with the installation of 125-mm guns, etc.

And when in the year 1968 opened the opportunity to express themselves in the creation of a “mobilization” version of the T-64, all this wealth immediately migrated to the experienced tanks “object 172” and “172М”. The latter, after the most severe tests that the military, who had been burned to T-64, could have figured out, became a T-72 tank. From the "sixty-four" on it were only the outer contours of the hull and turret, as well as on-board gearboxes. At the same time managed to limit the minimum cost. The number of experimental machines, even taking into account the products of the first half of 1960-s, was approximately 70 units.

As for the military-technical level created in Nizhny Tagil MBT, then, according to the calculations of the branch institute "VNIITrasmash", made already in the post-Soviet period, it exceeded T-23А of the 64 model of the year by 1969%.

And now let us ask ourselves a question: why did the Kharkiv team, despite the magnificent design, the freedom of the hands and the benevolent attitude of the management, lose all their advantages to the finish? There are no reasons for personal property: Alexander Morozov and his closest employees were a brilliant design team. We don’t have to speak about the lack of state support: help in fine-tuning Kharkov tanks was simply unprecedented; this never happened stories not only the Soviet, but, perhaps, the world tank design.

The case, as we see it, lies in the other, namely, in the methodology of creating a new tank.

In the report of Professor Major-General Nikolai Gruzdev, “State of Tank Technology during the War”, read in March 1944 at a meeting of the Tank Section of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry and having a great influence on the post-war development of the national tank industry shows that only the design provides a quick entry into the series, which is based on pre-worked units, that is, design, as a combination of used units. Therefore, continuous improvement of the aggregates is necessary. Designing a new tank while at the same time creating new aggregates means, as a rule, handing over a series of unfinished machines. ”

Alexander Morozov, in an effort to drastically, in a tactical and technical manner, break away from serial products, decided to literally create a new tank. The idea was great, but the burden was overwhelming. Already 5 June 1958, Morozov wrote in his diary: “The task of creating ed. “430” is very complicated, everything is practically new. I have not solved such problems before. ”

Tagilchane acted consistently and evolutionarily - and quite consciously. This is evidenced by the words of the chief designer of that time, Leonid Kartsev: “We always went towards the same goal, but in different ways. Kharkiv had an advantage over us, since in Moscow everyone, up to the Central Committee, relied on them and helped them in every way. On the other hand, the Kharkiv citizens had tremendous difficulties, since they, having no reserve of used components and mechanisms, immediately decided to significantly break away from the production tank in terms of tactical and technical characteristics. We were moving in separate steps, taking and introducing quickly into the serial tank everything that appeared new in science and technology. ”

The opinion of Leonid Kartsev is confirmed by outside observers.

Worked hand in hand with the Tagil designers army tester A.I. Lukyanov later noted an important feature of the work of the Ural KB, which appeared during the creation of the “172M object”: “What was indicative of this whole business? This is the speed of testing. And it was provided with the presence of pre-tested units. As a result, the whole cycle from the start of development to the adoption into service took only three years. So, it seemed, we need to do further: to order advanced units, and then on their base to create a new tank. So far this is probably the only example. Usually it always turned out the opposite. We ordered a new tank, and a new development began - everything from the first to the last bolt again. Here both the ambitions of the chief designer and the connivance of the customer work. ”

And Lukyanov worked no longer with Kartsev, but with his successor as chief designer Valery Venediktov. Traditions of evolutionary development were then supported by other chief designers: Vladimir Potkin and Vladimir Domnin. They persist today, when UKBTM is headed by Andrei Leonidovich Terlikov.

Unfortunately, the desire to solve problems “fundamentally and for years to come” was inherent not only and not so much to designers, but above all to the country's top leaders. Kharkov “revolutionaries” invariably presented brilliant draft designs against which the modest proposals of the Tagil “evolutionists” looked gray and unconvincing. The fact that the “revolutionary” versions will be only partially fulfilled, at the wrong time and at the expense of gigantic costs, and the “evolutionary” versions will be realized with superb accuracy, was too often revealed in hindsight when the game was already played.

LESSON TWO: THE PRICE IS VALUABLE

In specialized publications, from time to time there are publications on the topic of necessity, along with the production of conventional MBTs for the creation and small-scale production of a “tank of limiting parameters,” which absorbed the most advanced ideas, designs and best materials - regardless of their cost.

For the 1980-s, such a tank was a T-80 with a gas turbine engine, opposed to those who were considered more primitive and even “oak” T-72. "Eighties" in the first place and in full received the most advanced fire control systems, armor steel electroslag remelting, etc. On the T-72 went what was left, or cheaper substitutes. As a result, tanks with GTE invariably had, compared to diesel peers, though not too big, but an indisputable advantage in WT coefficients.

The first in the infallibility of well-established assessments was doubted by one of the prominent figures of the Soviet Tankprom, Yuriy Kostenko. No, he did not dispute the VNIITransmash data, but considered the criteria used insufficient and, in particular, ignoring the cost factor. We consider it necessary to give the reasoning of Yuri Kostenko in more detail: “Let us evaluate the specific situation in the domestic tank building that took place at the beginning of 1989 of the year. Consider two of the same type of tank, which were in mass production and in service. Conventionally, we denote their tank number 1 and tank number 2. In accordance with the existing methodology, the coefficient of the technical level of the tank No. 1 is equal to 1,25, and the tank No. 2 to 1,15. Without taking into account economic characteristics, tank No. 1 has some advantage. What are the values ​​of these characteristics? The cost of tank number 1 is equal to 824 thousand rubles., Including the engine - 104 thousand rubles. The cost of the tank number 2 is 280 thousand rubles., Including the engine - 15 thousand rubles. Serial production of tanks No. 1 is significantly less than tanks No. 2, but this circumstance determines the high cost of the tank No. 1, but its design and technological complexity. ”

Designations of Yuri Kostenko - tank No. 1 tank No. 2 - not too difficult masking of the T-80 and T-72. Only one Soviet tank engine - GTD-1000ТF - cost 104 thousand rubles; and the wholesale price of the T-72B tank, according to the 1988 data of the year, was 271,1 thousand rubles, that is, even less than the figure adopted in the calculations of Yuri Kostenko.

It turns out an interesting picture: for the amount required to produce one T-80U tank, it was possible to build three T-72B tanks. Therefore, Yury Kostenko introduced one more indicator into the calculation of VTU - cost - and received the following figures: if VTU of a T-80 tank is 1,25, then a T-72B tank is 3,38. In other words, in the framework of the criterion "efficiency - cost" T-72B is 2,7 times as large as T-80У.

To the above, it can be added that in Soviet times, the cost was directly associated with laboriousness. This means that the labor and power required for the production of three T-72B tanks ensured the release of only one T-80. Of course, in a battle, one "eighty dozen" cannot replace three "seventy-twenties".

The gap in operating costs for T-80 and T-72 is not as great as in production, but also expressed in convincing figures. According to the calculations made in 1997 for the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the cost of capital repairs and depreciation-operating costs for 1 km of run for “eighty dozen” are tens of percent higher than for T-72.

THIRD LESSON: FAMILY BUILDING

Unfortunately, the saying “Everything new is well forgotten old” still does not lose its relevance. All the prospects of modern tank building associated with the development of "platforms" - light, medium and heavy. And each of them will consist of an extensive family of deeply unified, modular combat and engineering vehicles.

The idea itself is not new: it was formulated by the VNIITransmash specialists in Soviet times. And then the first attempts were made. Business did not reach modular design, but the use of a single base seemed promising.

In fact, this happened only in relation to the T-72 tank. Through the efforts of several design bureaus, primarily Nizhnetagilsky UKBTM and Omsk KBTM, in 1970 – 1980, armored repair and recovery vehicles, engineering demarcation machines, bridge layers were created and put into mass production. Then the first combat vehicle based on the T-72 entered service. This is a heavy flamethrower system TOC-1 "Buratino". The situation was different with the Msta-S IG. Its creators, the designers of Uraltransmash, initially focused on the use of a relatively cheap and, most importantly, accessible base of "seventy-two". However, the suspension of the car turned out to be unsuitable for use on a leading self-propelled fire over long distances. Launching was quite feasible, but the high contracting parties did not agree on the deadlines for execution. The Uraltransmash team had to use the chassis of the T-80 tank. Thus, a hybrid appeared in the form of a chassis with the MTO of the T-72 tank and the chassis of the "Eighties".

In the post-Soviet period, improved WRI, BREM and MTU were created and started on a more modern T-90 base. And in the 2000-ies, UKBTM began to offer consumers redesign projects into special and engineering vehicles of obsolete T-72 tanks, which are abundantly available in different countries.

At the same time, a new technique for the battlefield appeared. This is an armored mine clearance vehicle and a tank support combat vehicle - the founder of an entirely new class of armored vehicles. Today, BMPT exists in several versions: the newly built vehicle based on the T-90 tank, modifications of the T-72B tanks, as well as various older versions of the T-72.

Note that they are actively engaged in the transformation of T-72 tanks into various combat and engineering vehicles abroad. Currently, the T-72 / T-90 type tanks are the base for the world's largest armored vehicle family and do not have any serious competitors in this regard.

And now we ask ourselves the question: why exactly T-72? In the USSR, by the end of the 1970s, there was also a more advanced base in the form of the T-80 tank. Some technical problems with its use existed, but there was nothing unsolvable. Here, apparently, a completely different circumstance was played: the high labor intensity of the machine and, consequently, the insufficient number of them did not allow spending expensive equipment for auxiliary needs. Constantly there was a temptation to apply something simpler. The basis for the "platform" can only serve as a relatively cheap, and most importantly, simple to manufacture and therefore a mass machine such as the T-72.

***

The scale of a newspaper article, of course, does not allow even in the first approximation to provide the reader with all the lessons and the entire experience of domestic tank construction in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries. However, we believe this is enough to draw attention to the need for a thorough study of this topic, and in order not so much historical as for the sake of practical purposes, not to repeat past mistakes and misconceptions.

As for the T-72 tank, in its most advanced production versions - the T-90A and T-72B3 - it will serve 20 for years in the Russian army. Modernization of the "seventy-twenty" with the installation of the combat module, presented today on the T-90MS, will allow the old car to live even until the middle of the XXI century.

All of the enterprises, design bureaus and scientific institutions listed in the article, except for the Kharkov plant, are included in the Uralvagonzavod research and production corporation.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
281 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 17 August 2013 08: 18 New
    +9
    Popovkin and Makarov do not think so, they have the best Leopard
    1. Civil
      Civil 17 August 2013 09: 18 New
      26


      hi FSA)
    2. erix-xnumx
      erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 09: 55 New
      +9
      Makarov is already at his dacha, being retired, let him think everything he wants. Avos and Popovkin will soon catch up with him on a demobilization.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 17 August 2013 14: 27 New
        +3
        Yes, but at one time they decided the fate of this tank
        1. vjhbc
          vjhbc 17 August 2013 21: 50 New
          -13
          I apologize to the Russians in advance, but as much as you can already write nonsense, this is not a serious article, but something vile 1.
          The appearance of the T-64 allowed the USSR to make a breakthrough in tank building: the concept of a main battle tank appeared, which erased the differences between medium and heavy tanks. At the same time, there was a breakthrough in areas related to tank building: materials science, combined protection, engine building, cannon and rocket weapons. The USSR secured its leading position in world tank building.
          The development of the T-64 tank intensified the confrontation between the leading design bureaus of Kharkov, Leningrad and Nizhny Tagil inside the country. Having failed its own development of a new medium tank of the 60s, LKZ (object 287) and Uralvagonzavod (object 140), with the support of the CPSU Central Committee (I.F.Dmitriev, I.D.Serbin), the military-industrial complex under the USSR Council of Ministers (O. K. Kuzmin, Yu.P. Kostenko), GBTU of the USSR Ministry of Defense (A.Kh. Babadzhanyan, Yu.A. Ryabov), made an attempt to clone the T-64 tank in relation to its production capabilities, preserving Morozov’s ideology and “pouring mud” Kharkov development.
          Joint tests of the T-64A tanks (V-series engines), T-72 and T-80 conducted in the early 70s confirmed the reliability indicators and high performance characteristics of the Kharkov machine laid down at the design stage and opened the way for further modernization, providing leadership in world tank building.
          The adoption of the T-72 (1973) and T-80 (1976) tanks was a state crime, which entailed millions of financial losses, a decrease in the combat effectiveness of the army, the loss of the USSR's leading position in world tank building and a long, forty-year stagnation.
          The history of domestic tank building clearly shows: the unprofessional and incompetent management of the country, its economy, human and material resources led to the "rocking of the boat" under the name of the Soviet Union and its subsequent collapse.
          Quote: ivshubarin
          Yes, but at one time they decided the fate of this tank
          1. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 21: 54 New
            +3
            And now in your own words, and in short - what are you talking about?
          2. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 03 New
            +5
            Quote: vjhbc
            The adoption of the T-72 (1973) and T-80 (1976) tanks was a state crime,

            I read before this phrase and thought it was good that vjhbc appeared and explained everything to us, finally, illiterate.
            Even professionally climbed into the first koment.

            After this phrase everything became clear.
            Will you continue to argue, or how? The Internet, they say, is big, there is a lot of things written there, look.
            1. vjhbc
              vjhbc 18 August 2013 17: 57 New
              -2
              if it’s clear, tell me whether it’s good to have 3 main tanks at once
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Quote: vjhbc
              The adoption of the T-72 (1973) and T-80 (1976) tanks was a state crime,

              I read before this phrase and thought it was good that vjhbc appeared and explained everything to us, finally, illiterate.
              Even professionally climbed into the first koment.

              After this phrase everything became clear.
              Will you continue to argue, or how? The Internet, they say, is big, there is a lot of things written there, look.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 19 August 2013 10: 42 New
                +4
                Quote: vjhbc
                just understand then tell me

                Andrey, you do not quite understand my sarcasm.

                You very wrongly entered the beginning of the discussion with your "disclosures", without even bothering to read the already written comments.

                Regarding your “disclosures,” I apologize for the harshness, but this is the golem and classic “tankroch.h” between T-64, T-72 and T-80, in which tankers themselves rarely participate.
                Advice from the heart - try to read materials and facts in a "pure" form or mentally "filter" the text, there are a lot of all kinds of "ordered" letters.
                Something like that.
          3. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 18 August 2013 11: 27 New
            +7
            Quote: vjhbc
            the concept of a main battle tank appeared, which blurred the differences between medium and heavy tanks.

            We then had a very promising heavy tank, which, thanks to Morozov, was blocked by oxygen.
            Quote: vjhbc
            At the same time, there was a breakthrough in areas related to tank building: materials science, combined protection,

            The defense was developed by NIIStali, Kharkov is out of work here ..
            Quote: vjhbc
            ... engine building,

            The engine was developed on the basis of the German UMO. Also with similar engines (two pistons in one cylinder, 2 crankshafts), we received ships under Lendlis, similar engines are on shunting locomotives.
            So what is the special merit of the Kharkovites?
            Quote: vjhbc
            cannon and missile weapons ....

            We got ready for our tank from the factory number 9.
            Quote: vjhbc
            made an attempt to clone the T-64 tank, in relation to their production capabilities, while maintaining Morozov’s ideology ...

            In other words, the tank imposed for release by all factories tried to fix its jambs by introducing its own achievements. And judging by the fact that the T-72 tank is now the best-selling on the market, and the T-64 is not sold a single one - everything was done correctly. And Ukraine, for some reason, is building its promising tanks on the basis of the T-80, and not on the revolutionary T-64, which already speaks for itself.
            1. vjhbc
              vjhbc 18 August 2013 18: 09 New
              -1
              do you really think this way or that, just pretend about selling and not selling, then in the Soviet Union there wasn’t such incompetence to sell the secret and best tank, but in order not to bother with lowering the combat qualities of the T-64 and since the Uralites sold their craft then they decided to sell the T-72 since it was inferior to the T-64 in all respects and there was nothing secret on it, but on the contrary, dead-end solutions were applied, then they started to stick it in for everyone
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Quote: vjhbc
              the concept of a main battle tank appeared, which blurred the differences between medium and heavy tanks.

              We then had a very promising heavy tank, which, thanks to Morozov, was blocked by oxygen.
              Quote: vjhbc
              At the same time, there was a breakthrough in areas related to tank building: materials science, combined protection,

              The defense was developed by NIIStali, Kharkov is out of work here ..
              Quote: vjhbc
              ... engine building,

              The engine was developed on the basis of the German UMO. Also with similar engines (two pistons in one cylinder, 2 crankshafts), we received ships under Lendlis, similar engines are on shunting locomotives.
              So what is the special merit of the Kharkovites?
              Quote: vjhbc
              cannon and missile weapons ....

              We got ready for our tank from the factory number 9.
              Quote: vjhbc
              made an attempt to clone the T-64 tank, in relation to their production capabilities, while maintaining Morozov’s ideology ...

              In other words, the tank imposed for release by all factories tried to fix its jambs by introducing its own achievements. And judging by the fact that the T-72 tank is now the best-selling on the market, and the T-64 is not sold a single one - everything was done correctly. And Ukraine, for some reason, is building its promising tanks on the basis of the T-80, and not on the revolutionary T-64, which already speaks for itself.
          4. Alekseev
            Alekseev 18 August 2013 14: 37 New
            +8
            Quote: vjhbc
            I apologize to the Russians in advance, but as much as you can already write nonsense, this is not a serious article, but something vile

            Apologizing is good smile
            But maybe the vile is not an article, but your incomprehensible persistence.
            This entire T-64 revolution is known in detail to specialists and interested.
            Yes, no one denies the merits of scientists and engineers, including in the "breakthrough in related fields".
            But in the first 64s, for all the “breakthrough” it was impossible to drive for a long time, 5tdf was carried in stacks for repairs, the cost of production was high. Let it be known to you that this was the reason for the creation of the T-72, and not at all the craving for some kind of "cloning".
            And now, as one forum member, a tank brother, rightly wrote, the T-64 is, to put it mildly, a "radish."
            (Just like a tank, a platform, it was not without reason that there were practically no vehicles based on the t-64 in the SA) Yes, I personally liked to shoot using the ASA 1A33, but such an ASA could be just as successful on the T-72, it was just too complicated and road...
            So, I apologize to the "non-Russians" tongue , but practice, as you know, the criterion of truth has long put everything in its place.
            1. vjhbc
              vjhbc 18 August 2013 18: 16 New
              -6
              and now tell me at least about one revolutionary tank in which everything at once was good and excellent, and secondly, our tank crews at that time were a little lazy and rested on their laurels, but we had to learn a little and turn on our heads more often and there would be 3 times less breakdowns and practice also put everything in its place and all the tankers who served on both tanks admit that the T-72 is squalid compared to the T-64
              Quote: Alekseev
              Quote: vjhbc
              I apologize to the Russians in advance, but as much as you can already write nonsense, this is not a serious article, but something vile

              Apologizing is good smile
              But maybe the vile is not an article, but your incomprehensible persistence.
              This entire T-64 revolution is known in detail to specialists and interested.
              Yes, no one denies the merits of scientists and engineers, including in the "breakthrough in related fields".
              But in the first 64s, for all the “breakthrough” it was impossible to drive for a long time, 5tdf was carried in stacks for repairs, the cost of production was high. Let it be known to you that this was the reason for the creation of the T-72, and not at all the craving for some kind of "cloning".
              And now, as one forum member, a tank brother, rightly wrote, the T-64 is, to put it mildly, a "radish."
              (Just like a tank, a platform, it was not without reason that there were practically no vehicles based on the t-64 in the SA) Yes, I personally liked to shoot using the ASA 1A33, but such an ASA could be just as successful on the T-72, it was just too complicated and road...
              So, I apologize to the "non-Russians" tongue , but practice, as you know, the criterion of truth has long put everything in its place.
              1. Alekseev
                Alekseev 19 August 2013 14: 00 New
                +3
                Quote: vjhbc
                now tell me

                It’s not grateful to tell you ...
                After all, hears only those who have ears. request
                And about the fact that
                Quote: vjhbc
                all tankers who served on both tanks admit that the T-72 is squalid compared to the T-64

                You obviously distort, I understand that you, as a "broad" apologist, are brought in by the t-64, but ... if you yourself didn’t have any practice, then at least read this forum carefully.
                Take at least me. laughing
                For sim, goodbye, success in everything. wink
                1. vjhbc
                  vjhbc 19 August 2013 21: 45 New
                  -1
                  why the matter is not grateful, I always listen carefully to the opinions of others and, as you have noticed, I’m not Ukrainian or Russian, but Belarus we don’t have our own tank production all the tanks in the T-72 army, we are trying to modernize them, I just don’t quite understand why, to please patriotism tank and make mediocrity why everything good that was created in the USSR but now turned out to be independent in Ukraine became suddenly bad I think that if everything were the other way around the T-64 in the Urals and the T-72 in Ukraine, then you would raise the T-64 and Hayali T-72
                  Quote: Alekseev
                  Quote: vjhbc
                  now tell me

                  It’s not grateful to tell you ...
                  After all, hears only those who have ears. request
                  And about the fact that
                  Quote: vjhbc
                  all tankers who served on both tanks admit that the T-72 is squalid compared to the T-64

                  You obviously distort, I understand that you, as a "broad" apologist, are brought in by the t-64, but ... if you yourself didn’t have any practice, then at least read this forum carefully.
                  Take at least me. laughing
                  For sim, goodbye, success in everything. wink
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 19 August 2013 22: 31 New
                    +4
                    Quote: vjhbc
                    .... I do not quite understand why, for the sake of patriotism, to blame for an excellent tank and to elevate mediocrity ...

                    I completely agree with your opinion: there’s absolutely nothing to praise mediocrity and to blame for a tank that earned its authority in battles, as almost all the crews who fought on it speak (unlike the theoreticians who only read about tanks).
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 19 August 2013 23: 04 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      unlike theorists who only read about tanks

                      good
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 19 August 2013 23: 09 New
                        +3
                        .......................
                      2. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 20 August 2013 00: 10 New
                        +2
                        Yeah, Sash, I saw this video.

                        A dangerous game a bit.
                        In the column, the guns look at 32-0 (the trunk on the right harp), there is always the danger of sticking the commander of the tank in front in the back if the barrel is not correctly positioned after such, in principle, harmless games.
                        And so - guys have fun, okay.
                        smile
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 20 August 2013 00: 17 New
                        +1
                        Yes, Lesh, I’m wound up with my parents somehow, I’ll send a photo, the young fur planted 55k in the mud on the very tower, buried itself, where the father descends directly from the tower to the ground.
  • StolzSS
    StolzSS 26 August 2013 21: 52 New
    0
    They are balabol what to take from them hi
  • Apollo
    Apollo 17 August 2013 08: 22 New
    23
    Tank-72 good Legendary tank by analogy with the T-34 tank




    Syria 2013, T 72 RUSSIA) withstands being hit point blank
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 17 August 2013 09: 29 New
      +4
      Here you are, as an oriental person (sorry, if I make a mistake of course), explain why they always yell and talk to the camera? Is this a fashion like that?
      1. Apollo
        Apollo 17 August 2013 09: 51 New
        +5
        Quote: Marrying
        Here you are, as an oriental person (sorry, if I make a mistake of course), explain why they always yell and talk to the camera? Is this a fashion like that?


        Ponte and apparently advertise themselves they say how cool we are.
        Eugene hi
      2. ivanovfarit
        ivanovfarit 17 August 2013 12: 33 New
        +5
        This is a progress report ... Ato will not send the money. Probably so
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 17 August 2013 12: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: Apollon
      Tank-72


      Greetings Apollon.

      The videos are wonderful, a small amendment about the title of the second video "Shooting from the T-72 Guys rule."
      This is definitely not the T-72.
      I will try to assume that the T-80 with dviglom 6TD.
      And the video itself has always been liked - the guys there are calm, not fussy and correct!
      good
      The "first" shot was only made too late and they are talking among themselves too ... uh ... "right."
      wink
      1. Apollo
        Apollo 17 August 2013 12: 57 New
        +5
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Greetings Apollon.


        Mutually Alex hi
        Quote: Aleks tv
        a small amendment about the title of the second video "Shooting from the T-72 Guys rule."
        This is definitely not the T-72.
        I will try to assume that the T-80 with dviglom 6TD.


        Everything can be request ........ I won’t argue. I’m not a tanker. Let the experts express themselves. But the title of the video says t-72 ....
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 17 August 2013 13: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Apollon
          Everything can be

          Yeah. Everything can be in the internet.
          No problem.
          wink
      2. master_rem
        master_rem 19 August 2013 12: 13 New
        0

        I give a more "correct" video
    3. vitas
      vitas 17 August 2013 12: 41 New
      -6
      Here I forgot the video, otherwise the incomplete picture of the tank is taking shape.

      1. alone
        alone 17 August 2013 13: 23 New
        12
        This video doesn’t prove anything. The granulator fired from the rear. This video is incomplete. The shot was fired from RPG-29. And this is where the infantry cover is unknown. no matter how good a tank is, without covering infantry in city blocks, nothing will help him
        1. vitas
          vitas 17 August 2013 14: 18 New
          -3
          The point is not where and from what they were fired, but what happens when the ammunition in the T-72 explodes, most likely it will be in the T-90, the location and protection of the ammunition is our misfortune.
          1. Argon
            Argon 17 August 2013 14: 49 New
            24
            Amiable vitas, try to study the issue beforehand, or, you better ask the adults, the video you presented shows the ignition of the charges, not like the detonation of the ammunition, and all operational issues (open hatches, as a result of not working out of the air defense system and its overall performance) and tactics of application, but not as if not to the design of the machine. And after undermining the ammunition, the tank as such ceases to exist (this is for you for the future). Respectfully.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 17 August 2013 14: 53 New
              +2
              Quote: Argon
              try to pre-examine the issue

              Rude, but sensible koment, Sergey Vladimirovich.
              At 4 minutes before you wrote the same thing.
              Thoughts converge.
            2. vitas
              vitas 17 August 2013 15: 52 New
              0
              You at the end of the video, explain to the peasant who to ask questions later, to the operation and tactics, or to the design of the machine.



              In the same abrams there is a small chance to survive, and in t-72 if you were punched by 100 percent of the khan.

              http://krasview.ru/video/16930-Priehali._Ekipaj_tanka_Abrams_posle_jestokogo_boy


              a._Irak

              Maybe not at all, but judging by the crew inside the tank, they seriously injured something.

              Z.Y. Do not think that I'm faping in the United States. It’s unpleasant for me that our guys can burn alive in these glands.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 17 August 2013 16: 22 New
                +5
                Quote: vitas
                You explain to the peasant at the end of the video

                Be more careful with such expressions and with such a video, Vitas ...
                I hope without explanation and further comments.
                1. vitas
                  vitas 17 August 2013 16: 33 New
                  -1
                  He didn’t say anything. Informative video for "ardent patriots", if anyone finds such with the participation of Americans, lay out. I thought for a long time to post the video or not, the tanker is very sorry ...
              2. svp67
                svp67 17 August 2013 16: 28 New
                +3
                Quote: vitas
                In the same abrams there is a small chance to survive, and in t-72 if you were punched by 100 percent of the khan.
                Not quite so, in T72, as well as in T64, T80 it all depends on where you got it. There were a lot of cases when they got into the tank and even pierced armor in the MTO area, but the crew survived ...
                Quote: vitas
                Maybe not at all, but judging by the crew inside the tank, they seriously injured something.
                At first - a lot of shell shock ...
                Quote: vitas
                You at the end of the video, explain to the peasant who to ask questions later, to the operation and tactics, or to the design of the machine.
                In this case, to everyone ...
                By design - it’s clear here.
                By tactics - why were grenade launchers allowed to firing range, where was the infantry?
                In operation - is there a partially right bulwark when it was lost? The tank was not covered, a very vulnerable area
                1. romanru4
                  romanru4 17 August 2013 22: 34 New
                  +3
                  "By tactics - why were the grenade launchers allowed on the firing range, where was the infantry?" (end of quote). These are old shots of the beginning of the war. There are many childhood diseases. On later and recent shots from the battlefield, such a frank "mess" is gone. Someone did a good job. An experienced hand is felt. Http://www.youtube.com/watch? V = Z59zbDYi11c
              3. old man54
                old man54 17 August 2013 23: 38 New
                +4
                Quote: vitas
                In the same abrams there is a small chance to survive, and in t-72 if you were punched by 100 percent of the khan.

                you tell it to the p.i.nd.d.s.s.v. tankers who in Iraq in tanks ... well, you know who burned on the HE and from the same RPGs (even 7-ok) here! No sorry this time!
              4. Ivan Mechanic
                Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 13: 45 New
                +8
                No need to poison the delusional tales "In the same abrams there is a small chance to survive, and in the T-72 you were struck by 100% of you!"

                So the first is the destroyed Amer’s tanks - read the statistics of the loss of US tankers in Iraq - maybe they died from an overpopulation or drug overdose?

                And the second is 72 in Chechnya - watch and listen to the stories of a crew member who repeatedly shot RPG shots! Moreover, there are cases when the T-72 was punched more than once! This is not some kind of basin with bolts called abrams - 72 is a tank!
                1. Kars
                  Kars 18 August 2013 15: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                  - read the statistics of the loss of US tankers in Iraq

                  Statistics by the way are very good. Abrams showed himself well. For so many years in the conditions of guerrilla warfare.
                  1. Ivan Mechanic
                    Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 15: 26 New
                    +7
                    I would not say that the statistics of the Ovs are good (in comparison with our troops) - especially taking into account the fact that Nya never lets the tanks go ahead and the main losses of 72k in the same Chechnya fell on the stupid New Year's assault on the formidable! But that is not the fault of the equipment, not the fault of the crews - there is more wine from the staff blockheads and who were sitting in the Kremlin openly setting up our troops! And in Iraq, most of 72 was destroyed by aviation or primitively abandoned and even then undermined by ami (and these frames are on YouTube).
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 15: 38 New
                      +3
                      There is such a thing. For the entire second war, our regiment did not lose a single tank. Although they met, most often because of the dishonesty of "heroes" with large stars.
                      1. Ivan Mechanic
                        Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 16: 13 New
                        +6
                        So, don’t go to the grandmother - the biggest losses are formed either when the technique is used incorrectly (tactical link) or if there are errors in its use in the operational link. It’s impossible to say so about the strategic link because obviously losing battles can be planned in the strategic link (to lure the enemy into a certain situation). Although in the 1st Chechen one we had a huge number of strategic miscalculations - more precisely, that whole company was planned as a losing one to please our Western "partners".
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 18 August 2013 16: 15 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                      I would not say that the statistics are good (compared with our troops)

                      Really? And how did you compare it?
                      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                      Oteri 72-k in the same Chechnya fell on a stupid New Year's assault on the formidable!

                      And who cares? Subtracting them will still not work.
                      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                      ! And in Iraq, most of the 72 was destroyed by aircraft or primitively abandoned and even then undermined by ami (and these frames are on YouTube).

                      It doesn't bother anyone either


                      23.05.2000 |
                      Today, the headquarters of the United Group of Forces in the North Caucasus released data on the loss of armored vehicles of the federal forces during the current Chechen campaign.
                      According to headquarters, the troops lost 208 units of armored vehicles during the hostilities in Dagestan and Chechnya. The militants knocked out 150 infantry fighting vehicles, about 50 armored personnel carriers, 10 tanks. The military notes that the losses of armored vehicles during the current anti-terrorist operation are an order of magnitude lower than in the last Chechen campaign - only tanks then lost more than 100 tanks.

                      And something seems to me that the losses were both after and in the interwar period.
                      1. Ivan Mechanic
                        Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 16: 35 New
                        +5
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? And how did you compare it?

                        And so is you ;-).
                        Quote: Kars
                        And who cares? Subtracting them will still not work.
                        Of course, no one - really, who cares how the tanks are destroyed - whether the crews themselves abandon (the Egyptians) or they are destroyed! I understand that it doesn’t even matter what they destroy the tanks with - 9 mm bullets, howitzer or RS drone! laughing
                        Well, you yourself wrote a refutation - with the correct use of BT, losses were reduced from 100 to 10 tanks - 10 times!
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 18 August 2013 16: 39 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        And so is you ;-).

                        Vryatli, you simply blurted out the campaign.
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        Of course no one - really who cares how to destroy tanks

                        This changes the graph - Irreversible loss?

                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        with the correct use of BT, losses were reduced from 100 to 10 tanks - by 10 times!

                        So it can be attributed to all parties to the conflict.

                        Quote: phantom359
                        It would be interesting to see how he would fight with a worthy opponent, and not with partisans with RPGs and land mines.

                        Yes, I would also look at the T-72. Or the T-90
                      3. Ivan Mechanic
                        Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 17: 11 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Kars
                        Vryatli, you simply blurted out the campaign.

                        But it turns out you didn’t blurt out - you brought the type of numbers? Well, where are your numbers? In your head? I bring to your attention - I can’t read your mind. And on this basis, if you do not blurt out the type - give the numbers!

                        Quote: Kars
                        This changes the graph - Irreversible loss?

                        And what is this "irretrievable loss"? How are they counted? why is this definition used by specialists with skepticism? So this is what you wrote nonsense - irretrievable losses are not so faceless as you think. Those. they always have subcategories based on what they are formed of - some irrecoverable losses are formed from the effects of aviation, some from the effects of RPGs, and others from tank fire or mines. Including in irrevocable shocks, the conditions for using BT are also taken into account. And it’s not just that we took all the losses from the kondachka and begin to talk about efficiency. Moreover, the irretrievable losses themselves are a pretty crafty figure if we take into account the difference in the cost of BT and the decision to restore. The brightest example is the Tiger and T-34. It seems that the T-34 is in the lead in irrevocable losses. BUT the Germans restored this “sort of” in reality even from the presence of a corps - the BODY. Those. in reality, in addition to the hull, it was a new tank! but with the T-34 there was a different situation - most of the T-34 shot down on the battlefield was primitively understaffed and, as it were, written off, which was due to its low cost compared to the Tiger.
                        Quote: Kars
                        So it can be attributed to all parties to the conflict.
                        Which sides of the conflict - that the amers suddenly lost BT losses? I didn’t understand something about which sides of the conflict you wrote.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 18 August 2013 17: 30 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        And it turns out you didn’t blurt out - did you bring the type of figure?

                        Do you need them? You say that they are linden.
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        And on this basis, if you do not blurt out the type - give the numbers!

                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        so the first is the destroyed amer tanks - read the statistics of the losses of US tankers in Iraq

                        You were the first to offer to read the statistics --- here is the first and lay out WHERE YOU AT LEAST read something.
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        And what is this "irretrievable loss"
                        Irrevocable they are irrevocable.

                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        Those. they always have subcategories based on what they are formed of - some irrecoverable losses are formed from the effects of aviation, some from the effects of RPGs, and others from tank fire or mines

                        Yes, what are you talking nonsense? And what is the TOTAL NUMBER CHANGE?
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        It seems that T-34 is the leader in irrevocable losses. BUT, the Germans restored this "sort of" in reality even from the presence of a corps - the BODY.

                        In any case, the T-34 will be the leader, it was released at least 30 times more than the tiger, and the T-34 was also repaired, or will you deny it?
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        T-34 was a different situation - most of the T-34 hit on the battlefield were primitively understaffed and, it seems, decommissioned due to its low cost compared to the Tiger.

                        This is a lie on your part, even if you can try to confirm it. Especially about the most part. There was such a tendency at the end of the war, when it was far from the factories, but it was more than a privacy.
                        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                        Which sides of the conflict - that the amers suddenly lost BT losses? I didn’t understand something about which sides of the conflict you wrote.

                        Any parties to the conflicts with the use of tanks, and the loss of amers was not particularly high.

                        According to data provided by Major General T. Tucker, as of February 2005 of the year, 70% of the tank fleet from the 1135 Abrams deployed in Iraq received damage of varying severity. Of these, 80 vehicles were not recoverable by repair and restoration units deployed at the theater of operations, including 17 rated as irreparable. [54] Thus, irretrievable losses amounted to less than 2% of the total number of damaged tanks.
                        According to some reports, a year later, in February 2006, the number of M1 destroyed in Iraq of all modifications increased to 20 [55].
                        of course, you can dispute the figures a bit - having defended all 80 in a non-refund, but ,,

                        Let's compare with Chechnya?
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 18 August 2013 17: 39 New
                        +1
                        _a data sometimes
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 18 August 2013 17: 40 New
                        +1
                        ______________
          2. phantom359
            phantom359 18 August 2013 16: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Quote: Ivan Mechanic
            - read the statistics of the loss of US tankers in Iraq

            Statistics by the way are very good. Abrams showed himself well. For so many years in the conditions of guerrilla warfare.

            It would be interesting to see how he would fight with a worthy opponent, and not with partisans with RPGs and land mines.
        2. phantom359
          phantom359 18 August 2013 16: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Ivan Mechanic
          No need to poison the delusional tales "In the same abrams there is a small chance to survive, and in the T-72 you were struck by 100% of you!"

          So the first is the destroyed Amer’s tanks - read the statistics of the loss of US tankers in Iraq - maybe they died from an overpopulation or drug overdose?

          And the second is 72 in Chechnya - watch and listen to the stories of a crew member who repeatedly shot RPG shots! Moreover, there are cases when the T-72 was punched more than once! This is not some kind of basin with bolts called abrams - 72 is a tank!

          Balm for the soul.
          1. Kars
            Kars 18 August 2013 16: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: phantom359
            Balm for the soul

            Just don’t flatter yourself, these are cuts over several years. And the total losses were no more than 120 cars, while not all were burned. Yes, and the crews mostly survived.

            And you will be pleased.
            1. Ivan Mechanic
              Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 16: 40 New
              +8
              Amer crews speak safe! Where does such data come from? Do you not know that the US Department of Defense strictly censors information on the amount of losses and, in general, the maintenance of the database! There, correspondents walk in line and write what the US Army Political Administration gives them. Not a line anymore! And judging by the data that periodically pop up in the press (the same amers), US losses are usually underestimated by 2-5 times!
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 August 2013 16: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                US losses are usually underestimated 2-5 times!

                It was written as if only the United States were doing this.

                so offhand
                The knock-out panels on the tower worked normally, the recorded cases of getting into the combat unit to the death of the crew did not lead.

                http://btvt.narod.ru/spec/iraq/abrams_2003_demage.htm

                Give me a place where did you personally get information on the losses of Abrams?
              2. Ivan Mechanic
                Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 17: 42 New
                +4
                Well, not only the United States understates losses. All of their bedding too. Ours have not yet learned how to work to hide losses among technology and l / s - alas. And we don’t need it - for the most part our wars were not colonial and aggressive.
                Now according to the information on abrams - http://istorya.pro/poteri-tankov-quotabramsquot-v-irake-t2.html on this branch of links, both English and ours are quite enough. http://forum-msk.org/material/power/587620.html - this article may be controversial (the author does not have more than one source of information, but in some respects coincides with other sources). Well, another more or less article on the "success" of the war in Iraq http://bulochnikov.livejournal.com/670481.html!
              3. Kars
                Kars 18 August 2013 17: 49 New
                +1
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Ours have not yet learned how to work to hide losses among technology and l / s - alas

                No need to get rid of it.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                http://istorya.pro/poteri-tankov-quotabramsquot-v-irake-t2.html

                wow forum)))) flipped through - by the way nothing special.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                http://forum-msk.org/material/power/587620.html

                Thanks laughed. Let me throw you another one?
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                http://bulochnikov.livejournal.com/670481.html
                And they say that all 200 thousand.

                In general, you are completely off topic.
              4. Ivan Mechanic
                Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 18: 07 New
                +5
                Quote: Kars
                wow forum)))) flipped through - by the way nothing special.

                Well, that's what was required to prove laughing . So let's first decide what sources we will believe. Actually, I did not begin to groan your link - there was something special there, was not. Although from my point of view your link is outright nonsense!
                Quote: Kars
                Thanks laughed. Let me throw you another one?

                It’s very good that I made you laugh. I was especially pleased that you managed to read and comprehend that heap of material that I threw off so quickly for you - well, you saw familiar letters, laughed and this is good! laughing
                Quote: Kars
                In general, you are completely off topic.

                So I do not hide that I am not a developer of tanks, I do not have access to confidential information not in the USA, not in other warring countries. And here you are, apparently, something like the designer of the T-34 Morozov and the reconnaissance Konon Molodoy in one person!
                Quote: Kars
                Irrevocable they are irrevocable.
                Yeah - and people are people what to divide them into men and women, and food is food - that's just you apparently will eat the pygmies very carefully! In general, you decide - you in general (and not about anything), or with detail and so on.
                Quote: Kars
                Let's compare with Chechnya?

                Let’s - only if we take Tucker (as a source of information), we will take a source of information from our official sources in Chechnya, such as the current major general.
              5. Kars
                Kars 18 August 2013 20: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Well, that's what was required to prove

                What was required then there is nothing there.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Actually, I did not begin to groan your link - there was something special there, was not

                Yes groan, do mercy.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Although from my point of view your link is outright nonsense!

                From your point of view == this can be said praise.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                I felt very pleased that you managed to read and comprehend that
                Do you think you threw off the NEWS)) it was already here.
                And it came across before
                http://voenipoteka.ucoz.ru/publ/voennaja_analitika/amerikanskaja_armija_samyj_bo
                lshoj_mif_khkh_veka / 2-1-0-48
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                And here you are, apparently, something like the designer of the T-34 Morozov
                I am a big fan of tank truth.

                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                In general, you decide - you in general (and not about anything), or with detail and so on.
                Funny arguments that still do not affect the outcome of the lossless losses.

                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Let’s - only if we take Tucker (as a source of information), we will take a source of information from our official sources in Chechnya, such as the current major general
                So I already brought more in Chechnya, and in a shorter period. Moreover, Chechnya is an internal republic, and Iraq was a sovereign camp, and its rebels got the majority of the arsenals of the most powerful army of the Persian Gulf, and not a couple of military divisions like the Chechens.
              6. Ivan Mechanic
                Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 21: 40 New
                +5
                Quote: Kars
                I am a big fan of tank truth.

                Well, I already noticed that an amateur - I usually call them a paper tanker (pilot, sailor, ... rambo). But there is no more terrible beast in the world than an amateur (senseless and merciless) imagining himself true in the last resort. Therefore, I continue to consider our discussion pointless. You will now be telling me tales about those sources that you type are considered authoritative and reject those sources that do not fit into your vision. Even your example
                Quote: Kars
                At the same time, Chechnya is an internal republic, and Iraq was a sovereign camp, and its rebels got the majority of the arsenals of the most powerful army of the Persian Gulf, and not a couple of military divisions like the Chechens.
                shows your complete amateurism because you immediately show that you can’t even imagine that not only technology is important in the war - economies are fighting primarily (and money poured into Chechnya simply in a furious stream, unlike Iraq), morale and training of troops (in Iraq, money for huge betrayals of their people poured in - some guards regiments tried to fight there, but in Chechnya, the money poured into the terrorists), and only then there is military equipment BUT the training of military personnel to use it is of no small importance (example - Yugoslavia , calculation of the air defense which the stealth demolished). And these are all the details (puzzles) of which the overall picture is formed, despite the fact
                Quote: Kars
                Funny arguments that still do not affect the outcome of the lossless losses.
                you so idolize the totals! In general, good luck, an amateur of some kind of truth there (I still do not ask questions about what the truth is and how much it depends on its point of consideration).
              7. Kars
                Kars 18 August 2013 21: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                But there is no worse animal in the world than dilettan
                Defaced,))))
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Therefore, I continue to consider our discussion pointless.

                Naturally - you lied and were smart that you are familiar with the statistics of US tanker losses in Iraq, then you yourself said that there is no data
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Are you really not aware that the US Department of Defense is strictly censoring information on the number of losses and, in general, maintaining the database!
                But before that, they vehemently claimed that they had acquainted with her.

                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                - read the statistics of the loss of US tankers in Iraq - maybe they died from an interruption or an overdose of drugs?
                But it’s obvious that you just had to be smart and a couple of cut videos for several years with a dozen Abrams lined with lead.

                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                Type you consider authoritative and reject those sources that do not fit into your vision

                You have cited articles of a general sense that critics cannot stand, but are very popular among cheers, haters.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                shows your complete amateurism because you immediately show that you can’t even imagine that not only technology is important in the war - economies are fighting primarily (and money poured into Chechnya simply in a frantic flow, unlike Iraq)

                By this you did not show your deletandism, but simply monstrous stupidity.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                (an example is Yugoslavia, the calculation of the air defense which the stealth demolished).

                How could it be without this example))) the read the statute.
                Quote: Ivan Mechanic
                In general, good luck, an amateur of some kind of truth there (I still do not ask questions what is the truth and how much it depends on its point of consideration)

                True, it is one. You froze stupidity. In Iraq, the M1A1-A2 proved to be good, modern MBTs of the third generation. It was difficult to expect the best from them, while the Americans took into account the experience of military operations and quickly carried out the modernization of their tanks. To fight the partisan tactics. In clashes with the T-72 they showed their complete superiority. This is indirectly confirmed by articles on the .. tank .. biathlon where, in opposition to the latest Abrams models, they do not offer T-72, and not even T-90, namely, AM.
              8. Crang
                Crang 18 August 2013 23: 39 New
                +6
                Quote: Kars
                It was difficult to expect anything better from them, while the Americans took into account the experience of military operations and quickly carried out the modernization of their tanks. To combat guerrilla tactics. In the clashes with the T-72 they showed their complete superiority

                They did not show anything interesting. They showed that the “Abrams”, with full domination of their aircraft in the air, in desert conditions with large open spaces, are completely superior to the antediluvian T-55, Type-59 and T-72M (the weakest export modification in the entire T-72 line, weaker basic model), which were loaded with ZBM3 shells - we have been using such rubbish for 30 years only as training. So "superiority" is not surprising to say the least. Replace the Abrams with any other more or less modern tank and the result will be exactly the same.
              9. Kars
                Kars 19 August 2013 00: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                They showed nothing interesting.

                Equilibrium was expected from them? Dzhigitovka?
                Quote: Krang
                Replace the Abrams with any other more or less modern tank and the result will be exactly the same.

                Quote: Kars
                as good, modern third-generation MBTs

                Why write so much if I already wrote everything?
            2. Crang
              Crang 18 August 2013 23: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: Kars
              . Which is indirectly confirmed by articles on the .. tank .. biathlon where, in opposition to the latest Abrams models do not offer the T-72, and not even the T-90A, namely the AM.

              Just the T-90AM is more modern. And so the T-90A will also not give in to the Abrash’s fire control system and the sights of the T-90A are no worse, but where and where better than the Abrams.
            3. Kars
              Kars 18 August 2013 23: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              Just T-90AM more modern

              So modern that there is one thing, at best.
              Quote: Krang
              And so the T-90A will also not give in to the “Abrasha” SLA and the sights of the T-90A are no worse, but where is better than the “Abrams”

              Could you give more details? And why is this
              Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine’s editor-in-chief Viktor Murakhovsky, NATO members will arrive in cars of the latest modifications, it is likely that the Americans will exhibit the M-1A2 SEP V2, and the Germans - the Leopard-2A6 or even A7. Our T-90A is inferior to these machines in many respects, in particular in the capabilities of the fire control system. Of course, you can win on this tank, but then officers with great experience will have to land for armor
            4. Crang
              Crang 19 August 2013 00: 09 New
              +2
              Quote: Kars
              Our T-90A is inferior to these machines in many respects, in particular in the capabilities of the fire control system.

              This is nonsense. The T-90A thermal imager is already better than the Abrams. On the T-90S there is also a machine for capturing and tracking targets. The speed of the shells is large. The estimated part of the LMS ... Well inferior, but not significantly. Everything will depend on the configuration of the tanks.
            5. Kars
              Kars 19 August 2013 00: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              T-90A's thermal imager is already better than Abrams’s
              How do you know? Have you compared them? Maybe there are some tables?
              Quote: Krang
              On the T-90С there is also an automatic machine for capturing and tracking the target.

              This is what kind of C? Indian or what?
              Quote: Krang
              The speed of shells is large

              NDA - you need to come up with something? Maybe then the stiffness of the trunks and the quality of thermowells?
          2. Crang
            Crang 19 August 2013 00: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Of course, you can win on this tank, but then officers with great experience will have to land for armor

            The SLA is fully automated. Experience does not play any role here. As the computer counts, such will be shooting.
          3. Kars
            Kars 19 August 2013 00: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: Krang
            The SLA is fully automated. Experience does not play any role here. As the computer counts, such will be shooting.

            Wow, have you fallen into fantasies again? But surely you should go to Murakhovsky’s pritenziya, even though you’ve set Murakhovsky’s example as an example.
    4. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 01: 45 New
      +3
      Exactly, for sure - she’s the only one ".. so said the pharaoh, he was very smart and for this he was called Tutankhamoooon!" laughing . Of course, of course - only Abrams, only he belongs to the generation 10 +++++++++++ laughing . And only he "great and mighty" spreading the clouds with his legs proved it in collisions with the T-150 (the super-newest tank in Russia that has not yet been created but is already worse than Abrams laughing ) It’s so cool to read your bedtime stories. And you (by the way) move around the house — how do you reproduce the rumble of a tank? Saucepan or just growl? laughing . As I understand it, you are a bucket of bolts called abrams from yourself! laughing . You’ll be more careful, because inadvertently the partisans will shit like an RPG and tryndets will come belay They are partisans - they are evil and do not get very obscured by the fantasies of paper tankers!
    5. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 09: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Exactly, for sure - she’s the only one ".. so said the pharaoh, he was very smart and for that he was called Tutankhamoooon!

      It also sings songs))))
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      only Abrams, only he belongs to the 10 generation +++++++++++

      there is no such tingling - Abrams is the third, the latest modifications are referred to 3 +
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      collisions with the T-150
      I understand that verbal diarrhea has begun?

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      So cool to read your bedtime stories
      It’s a pity that they couldn’t find better entertainment.

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      and then after all inadvertently partisans as shmallnut from RPG

      I'm more afraid of cats.
    6. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 12: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      Abrams is the third, the latest modifications are attributed to 3+
      Yes, where to run, where to go! laughing
      Quote: Kars
      I understand that verbal diarrhea has begun?
      So are you an amateur expert on verbal diarrhea? Noticeably!
      Quote: Kars
      It’s a pity that they couldn’t find better entertainment.
      And you would also learn to save effort. Why go somewhere and for some reason go when at hand there is an amateur expert who only fights with tanks wink
      Well, the pictures once again demonstrate (although for some it’s not a fact) that you are a paper tactical command tanker with some attempts at the operational command and a complete lack of strategic thinking. sad . And until you understand that the economies of the warring parties are fighting first, the people are second, and equipment and weapons occupy only the third position in the confrontation - you will dig in with droplets and levers doing empty calculations of the best tank or plane. But in reality, you just need to know + and - exploited and opposing models of equipment and effectively use these + and -!
    7. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 13: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Yes, where to run, where to go!

      I don’t know, these are your problems.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      So are you an amateur expert on verbal diarrhea? Noticeably!

      Comes such diarrhea as you come here quite often. Already not the first time to dip them into their own diarrhea.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Well, the pictures once again demonstrate (although for some it’s not a fact) that you are a paper tankman

      Plastic, and you generally NO, just a diarrhea.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      a complete lack of strategic thinking
      Compared to you, I am almost Vasilevsky and Manstein

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      And until you understand that they are fighting first of all the economies of the warring parties,
      What are you)) And therefore, it is not necessary to take into account the loss of equipment? And how then did the Russian Federation in Chechnya, with full economic superiority, lose so many tanks? Yes, even without the use of aviation by the enemy.

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      But in reality, you just need to know + and - exploited and opposing models of equipment and effectively use these + and -!

      yes, but you just show that you don’t know anything at all, specifically about tanks, write absurdity, refute yourself, and do not want to understand what they will explain to you. And you’re lying too ..
    8. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 13: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      Plastic
      Radish horseradish is not sweeter! That paper that plastic - one result - a void.
      Quote: Kars
      Compared to you, I am almost Vasilevsky and Manstein
      I won’t argue with that - where am I to your level? laughing - but you apparently were modest without attributing Napoleon to yourself laughing
      Quote: Kars
      And how then did the Russian Federation in Chechnya, with complete economic superiority, lose so many tanks? Yes, even without the use of aviation by the enemy.
      Yes, you really Napoleon since still have not bothered to understand - you lose the first Chechen woman was programmed at the political level (and where are you mumbling the economy? - and the economy is "respected" to become politics after a billion, I will answer you).
      Quote: Kars
      yes, but you just show that you don’t know anything at all, specifically about tanks, write absurdity, refute yourself, and do not want to understand what they will explain to you. And you’re lying too ..

      You also have very bad memory. I wrote to you in Russian letters and words - I'm not a developer of tanks and I’m not puffed up how you can be a super-expert on the location of levers and nuts!
    9. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 14: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Ren radish is not sweeter! That paper that plastic - one result - a void.

      How did you come to this conclusion?
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Oh, you apparently were modest without attributing Napoleon to yourself

      Under Napoleon there were no tanks. But even so, Waterloo, I read a bit of the Price.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      lose the 1 Chechen was programmed at the political level

      Yes, but what does it have to do with the number of tanks wrecked? What could not have been lost without bearing such significant losses? Or was it the politicians who fired from an RPG instead of bearded men?

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      I wrote to you in Russian letters and words - I am not a developer of tanks and I am not puffed up how you can be a super-expert on the arrangement of levers and nuts!

      Yes, it’s clear that you’re nobody in tanks, and perhaps in general, but why then you shouldn’t tell me that you read and know the statistics of American tank losses. I personally am interested in both modelism and armored vehicles from the 9 class of the school, and these real tank crews since you don’t call me.
    10. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 16: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: Kars
      How did you come to this conclusion?
      On the basis of centuries-old folk wisdom expressed in a magnificent proverb - "It was smooth on paper, forgot about the Avragi!" and on the vital confirmation of at least the same New Year’s assault on Grozny!
      Quote: Kars
      Yes, but what does it have to do with the number of tanks wrecked? What could not have been lost without bearing such significant losses? Or was it the politicians who fired from an RPG instead of bearded men?

      Oh, how great it is for you - to lose without joining the battle and without suffering losses! Original thinking - only this is called not “planned defeat” but “surrender”. BUT in the 1st Chechen it was precisely the “planned defeat” at the strategic level - but the lower ranks did not need to know about this.
      Quote: Kars
      Yes, it’s clear that you’re nobody in tanks, and perhaps in general, but why then you shouldn’t tell me that you read and know the statistics of American tank losses. I personally am interested in both modelism and armored vehicles from the 9 class of the school, and these real tank crews since you don’t call me.
      Yes, I’m not fond of knowing what thread is on this or that bolt in the tank, and I don’t care who you think I am. Because all these thicknesses of armor and bolts are without proper logistics (which would at least deliver food and shells to fighters - it is impossible to fight without them), the organization of the battle itself where the tank is nothing more than a link in the huge warfare mechanism is bullshit. Only in integration with other capabilities and means does the tank represent (like an airplane, like a submarine, like a fighter) a formidable force. And what is integration - this is reconnaissance and battle formations (where the infantry is ahead, a little behind the tank and behind the artillery tank with air and electronic warfare support) and logistics (I repeat) and propaganda and distinct tactical tasks and substantiated operational tasks and a real strategic plan! And where is your tank in this ocean? Nowhere - a bolt or nut in the huge mechanism of war! And this “better-worse” nonsense this or that tank breaks up very easily about the first months of the Great Patriotic War when the Germans on weaker T-III tanks despite the fact that in the SA were much better its T-34 and KV tanks advanced quite successfully . There you have the "best" tanks, but here is the effectiveness of their use! And where is your armor and steel as the most important condition for victory! In the ass!
      As for your assessment by forum users, it is a private matter for everyone how to evaluate you. For me, you are nothing more than a plastic tankman fan of nuts and bolts and not knowing anything in real military affairs. And on this basis for the future - or fan from bolts and gadgets but then do not interfere in losses and in general in the conduct of hostilities except for the tactical level of a naked tank (which in itself is nonsense)! Or go in for education and understand the simple truth - it all starts with politics, goes down to the economy, then the operational level (military operations) follows, the integrated tactical level of battles follows, and only after that begin bolts, nuts, armor and other technical gadgets! Because it’s just such plastic tankers like you who filled the menacing blood of our guys in 94-95. The regiment took everything without reconnaissance, without infantry, artillery and air support, even without normal war maps! The entire thickness of the armor was counted! here and counted. Although they were needed by the then political leadership!
    11. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 16: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      It was smooth on paper, they forgot about the Avragi! "And on the life confirmation of at least the same New Year’s assault on Grozny!

      Do you blame me for the failure of the Storming Terrible? Of course I can’t prove to you - but if you want to find in my comments that I wouldn’t have entered tanks in infantry without infantry, and without equipped DZ - so your centuries-old wisdom played with you a bad joke.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Oh, how great it is for you - to lose without joining the battle and without losing

      Again lying, I only clarified why the losses are so high that they didn’t succeed in smaller ones, and individual battles and losses completely show both the effectiveness of the tank and the crew’s training and general training.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      well, I'm not a fan of knowing what thread is on this or that bolt in the tank, and I don’t care who you think I am

      In the same way, the traitor Rezun / Suvorov explains his lie about secular tank troops in the above privacy.

      And the rest to read and answer - verbal diarrhea and rubbing. Especially with the mention of the second world initial period - your ignorance of the topic of the Border Battle and the reasons for the defeat of 1941 of the year also showed.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      it’s just such plastic tankers like you who filled the menacing blood of our guys in the 94-95 year
      Well, yes, you certainly wouldn’t fill it in - a complete deletant who read a couple of articles about the US Army))))
    12. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 16: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      In the same way, the traitor Rezun / Suvorov explains his lie about secular tank troops in the above privacy.
      Well, finally, and before comparing with the rezun, our plastic tankman was honored laughing . BeautyGG !!
      Quote: Kars
      Do you blame me for the failure of Storm the Terrible?
      Blame you? I beg you - how can you blame a plastic tankman for anything? It's like blaming a 1-clack for not knowing the Fourier series!
      Quote: Kars
      I wouldn’t have entered tanks in the mine without infantry, and without equipped DZ - so your centuries-old wisdom played a bad joke with you.
      Yes, I have no doubt that you would show adversaries where the crayfish hibernate laughing .
      Quote: Kars
      Especially with the mention of the second world initial period - your ignorance of the theme of the Border Battle and the reasons for the 1941 defeat also showed.
      Exactly - the Germans had better tanks! laughing So I do not argue with you about this! And not just tanks, but plastic tank was better laughing
      Quote: Kars
      Well, yes, you certainly wouldn’t fill it in - a complete deletant who read a couple of articles about the US Army))))
      Well, here you would certainly decide - you wouldn’t have entered tanks without infantry and DZ, now it turns out that you agree with the big losses in Grozny (but for some reason the US Army)! Burn esche plikovy tanker!
    13. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 17: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      before comparison with rezunom

      One to one.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      It's like blaming the 1 clan for not knowing the Fourier series!

      Well, I read about the Storming of Berlin and Beirut, but Grachev has a feeling that there isn’t.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      but I have no doubt that you would show adversaries where the crayfish hibernate

      Probably.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Exactly - the Germans had better tanks!
      And you would read the history of Soviet tanks - maybe something would be recognized. Maybe about the comparative tests of the T-3 and T-34.

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Well, here you would certainly decide - you wouldn’t have entered tanks without infantry and DZ, now it turns out that you agree with the big losses in Grozny (but for some reason the US Army)! Burn esche plikovy tanker!

      You already rave on a hike, do you understand what you wrote?

      You can read too.


      And by the way, something you generally started to write uninformatively.
    14. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 17: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      And by the way, something you generally started to write uninformatively.
      Of course uninformative! Indeed, what kind of information can a first-grade student see in an integral - yes, no! laughing

      Quote: Kars
      And you would read the history of Soviet tanks - maybe something would be recognized. Maybe about the comparative tests of the T-3 and T-34.
      So you also managed to read the history of Soviet tanks? Do you understand anything but the names of the tanks? laughing
      Quote: Kars
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      but I have no doubt that you would show adversaries where the crayfish hibernate
      Probably.
      Well, I certainly didn’t doubt it! I have long understood that cooler than a plastic tankman on the battlefield is only Napoleon! laughing
      Quote: Kars
      Well, I read about the Storming of Berlin and Beirut, but Grachev has a feeling that there isn’t
      You simply amaze me with your erudition - you could read about the assault on Berlin and Beirut. Although, again, the question is - did you understand anything?
      Quote: Kars
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      before comparison with rezunom
      One to one.
      Well, I certainly didn’t doubt it. laughing .
    15. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 18: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Of course uninformative!

      Though you understand it.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      so you also managed to read the history of the soviet tanks Do you understand anything but the names of the tanks?

      More than you.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Well, I certainly didn’t doubt it!
      Do it right.

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      yes they could read about the assault on Berlin and Beirut. Although, again, the question is - at least they understood something

      Yes.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Well, I certainly didn’t doubt it
      You know yourself better, and the assumptions are exactly the same - like Rezun’s ... I don’t understand nuts .. but I still know everything)))
    16. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 22: 07 New
      0
      So, except to mumble the delirium ".... like Rezun ...." nothing more sensible and could not prescribe. sad Anyway. And now I will tell you about the value of operational and tactical analysis in confrontation using your own example. Why on your one yes reason is the logic of confrontation in the internet that in reality is similar. So, you, the super-duper expert of this forum, and I'm a newbie. What each of us can get in this struggle is you — but only a decline in your authority (to rise then (you think) nowhere even if you would win this fight), I - or nothing - I have no authority even the desire to earn it, or even the rise of authority. This is operational art. Next tactic - well, here you worked strictly according to the trolling patterns, and quite primitive and stupid, very often comparing me and Rezun
      Quote: Kars
      You know yourself better, and certainly the same messages - like Rezun’s
      And by this, you yourself have trapped yourself. Why? Yes, because someone would not read this thread begins to think about me (given your existing authority) that I (according to your statements) seem to be the same traitor and liar as a rezun. And then seeing the opposite reasonably transfers the negative to you. As a result, they begin to perceive you as a hollow fish and a slumber! And of course you must not forget your reality - a plastic-paper tanker (PBT) laughing. Well, where is the strategy you ask? And the strategy - this is precisely the information war in which fighters like you (knowingly or foolishly) begin to mumble with the flashy numbers of the Amer’s propaganda industry about the superiority of all basins with Abrams type bolts over the T-90! So good luck - and learn!
      PS being a smart brow you will write me something like “good varnish” and being stupid you will start to write a delirium again relying on your plastic and paper speculation!
    17. Kars
      Kars 20 August 2013 12: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      So, except to mumble the delirium ".... like Rezun ...

      So vet one in one, which you refuse.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      now i will tell you

      no, don’t be funny, such attempts.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      asto comparing me and Rezun

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Yes, I’m not fond of knowing what thread is on this or that bolt in the tank, and I don’t care who you think I am. Because all these thicknesses of armor and bolts
      Rezun's almost exact words from Icebreaker
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      And then, seeing the opposite reasonably transfers the negative to you

      And he who reads the opposite will not see, because he is not there. You are trying to engage in self-deception and hatred, talk about a topic in which you do not make sense, but are familiar with articles of dubious nature.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      to moo about the superiority of all basins with Abrams type bolts over the T-90

      Why American? Murakhovsky is a well-known authority in armored vehicles.
      Quote: Kars
      Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine’s editor-in-chief Viktor Murakhovsky, NATO members will arrive in cars of the latest modifications, it is likely that the Americans will exhibit the M-1A2 SEP V2, and the Germans - the Leopard-2A6 or even A7. Our T-90A is inferior to these machines in many respects, in particular in the capabilities of the fire control system. Of course, you can win on this tank, but then officers with great experience will have to land for armor

      http://otvaga2004.ru/authors/muraxovskij-viktor-ivanovich/
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      PS being a smart brow you will write me something like “good varnish” and being stupid you will start to write a delirium again relying on your plastic and paper speculation!

      I'll be just laughing at you.
    18. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 20 August 2013 15: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: Kars
      I'll be just laughing at you.

      And that good! Laughter say prolongs life!
      Quote: Kars
      Why American? Murakhovsky is a well-known authority in armored vehicles.
      Authority so what. There are other opinions of equally reputable people. Well, God be with them - what do you also think that Amers or Germans will put ordinary fighters into tanks? And the second - if inferior - let them prove it. No theory will ever outweigh practice! Practice is the criterion for confirming the theory. And before her, all these expert opinions are nothing more than speculations with some probability!
      Quote: Kars
      You are trying to engage in self-deception and hatred, talk about a topic in which you do not understand anything, but are familiar with articles of dubious nature.
      Write beautifully - just like an "independent" and "objective" Western press laughing
      Quote: Kars
      Rezun's almost exact words from Icebreaker
      So you find yourself an ardent adherent of Rezun with his delirium Icebreaker? Even literally study it laughing . Well, at least it's good - you have to start self-education with something. Now I recommend you read Isaev! You will learn a lot of new and interesting things about the works of your idol Rezun!
      Quote: Kars
      no, don’t be funny, such attempts.
      You already decide whether to make you laugh or not to make you laugh. And then you are like a girl-whole before the wedding - then come on then do not.
    19. Kars
      Kars 20 August 2013 19: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Authority so what. There are other opinions of equally reputable people

      WHO? Link as I did.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      And before her, all these expert opinions are nothing more than speculations with some probability!

      American tankers a priori get more practice - according to their training systems and the contract army. In the Russian Federation, the army of conscripts - let them land them.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Write beautifully - just like an "independent" and "objective" Western press

      In the tank theme, I try to be as objective as possible. The only exception is the attack on the Oplot.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      So you find yourself an ardent adherent of Rezun with his delirium Icebreaker?

      Was reading.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Even literally study it

      This introduction was very striking, and on the topic I refute the theory of rezun regarding the armored factor in his theories. This is in my early comments, and more than once.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Now I recommend you read Isaev!

      I read, but you vryatli.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      You already decide - to make you laugh or not to make you laugh

      And you can only laugh, there is no choice.
    20. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 20 August 2013 23: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      And you can only laugh, there is no choice.

      Poor you are unhappy, and on the lasso you are dragged and forced to read at gunpoint laughing . Sympathize with you.
      Quote: Kars
      I read, but you vryatli.
      Well, it’s good that they could read Isaev’s surname from me. All that remains for you is to find him at least one book and try to understand what he is writing about. But here I am not your assistant.
      Quote: Kars
      This is in my early comments, and more than once.
      Of course, of course - there you once wrote somewhere. So be it, I believe you that you, with your expert opinion of a plastic tankman, crushed the enemy of the BTV Rezun laughing
      Quote: Kars
      In the tank theme, I try to be as objective as possible.
      this is exactly what the narrowness of vision and blindness on the armor, speed, bolts and gadgets are felt - "we don’t need tactics; we need tanks; give us strategies; we don’t need enough armor!"
      Quote: Kars
      The exception is only attacks on the Bastion.
      How is it possible to attack the best tank of all wars and conflicts that exists mainly on paper? I support you - you can’t attack paper tanks, because you’ll tear it to shreds! After all, you cannot, as a plastic tanker, insult a paper tank - corporate solidarity however wink
      Quote: Kars
      American tankers a priori get more practice - according to their training systems and the contract army. In the Russian Federation, the army of conscripts - let them land them.
      I am for the same thing - amers definitely should not have polygon crews, but from real parts! And there are such downs that the hair stands on end!
      Quote: Kars
      WHO? Link as I did.
      Here, even without links, it should actually be clear - if there is an opinion, then there will be a counter-opinion. Yes, and that far to go - http://army-news.ru/2013/06/eshhyo-raz-o-tankovom-biatlone-zachem-on-nuzhen/
    21. Kars
      Kars 20 August 2013 23: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Sympathize with you.

      As I am to all your associates, who comes in contact with you.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Well, it’s good that they could read Isaev’s surname from me. All that remains for you is to find him at least one book and try to understand what he is writing about. But here I am not your assistant

      I have almost everything, in anticipation of your stupidity I will say - I read them, and I understood. But not all. If I need a list I will write.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      Of course, of course - there you once wrote somewhere. So be it, I believe you that you, with your expert opinion of a plastic tankman, crushed the enemy of the BTV Rezun

      Personally no, but many resunoids yes.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      from this one can definitely feel the narrowness of vision and blindness on the armor, speed, bolts and gadgets - "we don’t need tactics; we need tanks; give us strategies; we don’t need enough armor!"

      In strategy and tactics, I understand better than you several orders of magnitude, while you wrote or nonsense or platitudes.
      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      I am for the same thing - amers definitely should not have polygon crews, but from real parts! And there are such downs that the hair stands on end!
      Those downs work under the contract, don’t parade ground, but are engaged in combat training. And as for downs, it’s clear from your example that there are enough of them in the Russian army, and if you bring Dagestanis and the rest, then ..

      Quote: Ivan Mechanic
      http://army-news.ru/2013/06/eshhyo-raz-o-tankovom-biatlone-zachem-on-nuzhen/

      And where TMA says that T-90A is better than Abrams M1A2 mod 2008 year?
      You are still unable to read.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 20 August 2013 19: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    NATO will arrive on cars of the latest modifications, it is likely that the Americans will put out the M-1A2 SEP V2, and the Germans - “Leopard-2A6” or even A7. Our T-90A is inferior to these machines in many respects, in particular in the capabilities of the fire control system.

    And what's wrong with that ? We will find out the real state of things, and we will not hold our breath, to heed someone’s opinion about someone’s superiority.
    Reports are one thing, facts are quite another.
    Remind of _ Significant victory of our leader who came second?
    laughing
  • Kars
    Kars 20 August 2013 19: 36 New
    +2
    Quote: Cynic
    And what's wrong with that ?

    I did not give this rating.
    Quote: Cynic
    Remind of _ Significant victory of our leader who came second?

    I don’t understand this.

    And I would be interested if in the .. tank .. biathlon .. let T-80U and T-72Б and T-90 and T-90A with full-time crews.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 20 August 2013 20: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: Cynic
    And what's wrong with that ?

    I did not give this rating.

    Pure rhetoric.
    Quote: Kars
    I don’t understand this.

    A very old joke.
    Its essence is that the content of the message is not so much important as the way it is presented.
    We organized a running competition between the President of the United States and our leader of the then USSR (let's call him the President of the USSR).
    Our lost.

    In American News:
    "There were running competitions between the presidents of the United States and the USSR. The US president won."

    In our news:
    "There were running competitions between leaders of different states. The presidents of the USA and the USSR took part in the competition. At the same time, our president came to the finish line second, only a few meters behind the leader. But the US president ran so that he finished only in the last but one place and didn’t even see the back of the one who ran in front of him. "
    I draw your attention to the fact that in our news, as well as in American, there is not a single word of untruth. But what the reader sees, I hope everyone understands

    Quote: Kars
    with full-time crews.

    Yeah, you still remember about equal conditions
    wink
  • Kars
    Kars 20 August 2013 20: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Cynic
    Yeah, you still remember about equal conditions

    Well, I hope for this a priori. After all, a sports competition.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 20 August 2013 20: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    After all, a sporting event.

    Pure water self-deception here and there!
    There are basically no identical conditions, just as there are no identical people and machines!
    hi
  • Kars
    Kars 20 August 2013 21: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Cynic
    true water self-deception here and there!
    There are basically no identical conditions, just as there are no identical people and machines!

    Well, you’re too pozymatichny. We don’t need the same machines just like people. But one tankodrome with the same conditions may well be. I will discard the change in wind direction and lighting level.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 20 August 2013 21: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    But one tankodrome

    Well, exactly the same will go first and last
  • Kars
    Kars 20 August 2013 21: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: Cynic
    Well, exactly the same will go first and last

    You’re already climbing into the deepest privacy. You can make the track a few hundred meters wide, and they’ll vryatly an 4 tank, passing one tankodrome will break such a track that the fourth will sit on his belly
  • Cynic
    Cynic 21 August 2013 17: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    You are already in deep privacy

    The devil is in the details.

    An example is distant about present times, but ...
    Gorka, after the exit, about fifty meters in the mud pit, detour on the right.
    Everything seems simple?
    Nothing like this ! On one of the cars, the right clutch did not immediately catch the neutral!
    I think there is no need to explain further
    wink
  • phantom359
    phantom359 18 August 2013 16: 15 New
    +4
    Quote: lonely
    This video doesn’t prove anything. The granulator fired from the rear. This video is incomplete. The shot was fired from RPG-29. And this is where the infantry cover is unknown. no matter how good a tank is, without covering infantry in city blocks, nothing will help him

    Definitely. I can’t understand. why the Syrians use tanks so poorly in the city.
    1. romanru4
      romanru4 18 August 2013 21: 43 New
      +6
      phantom359 Here in the comments are videos from YouTube more than a year ago. This in the conditions of that war can be compared with our first Chechen one. Nonsense at least eat ass! On later videos from Syria, the picture is completely different. There you will no longer see the T-72 coming out onto the bridge and twisting its gun in different directions. On the rollers of this summer, the firm hand of the officers who passed the second Chechen one is already felt. Syrian soldiers and officers are learning fast. In such conditions it is impossible otherwise. I recommend that you carefully read and analyze it yourself: http: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = Z59zbDYi11c
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 August 2013 14: 45 New
    +7
    Quote: vitas
    Here I forgot the video, otherwise the incomplete picture of the tank is taking shape.

    There are no perfect cars. As invisible, unfortunately, the cover in this video.


    The RPG hit between the tower and the hull (on the side of the rear ZIP box, with the shutter wedge open? Frankly, I didn’t make an opinion.
    And then, it feels like charges were burning without detonating shells - a strong flame with pressure.

    It’s difficult to get into the AZ conveyor belt, it’s the wrong stamp, which has already gored. Shots in it can detonate, but only as a result.
    The trouble in the ammunition located in the tower around the towers, as a rule, they do not carry it with them.
    I suppose, in this case, that they just got into the tank rack with charges ...
    There are NO identical blasts, each blast is sadly unique.

    Memory to the tankmen ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 August 2013 16: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      The RPG hit between the tower and the hull (on the side of the rear ZIP box, with the shutter wedge open? Frankly, I didn’t make an opinion.


      As for the barrel, a shot is quite possible if the gun was loaded. An open wedge is doubtful.
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 August 2013 16: 36 New
        +6
        Quote: Kars
        As for the barrel, a shot is quite possible if the gun was loaded. An open wedge is doubtful.

        With all due respect to you, but it’s immediately clear that you only saw the “live” tanks “in the pictures”. the operator for a long time kept the camera on a "trap" in which the firing pan was sticking out. If the gun was loaded, then it would not be there - the algorithm of actions of the AZ is as follows. At the expense of the open shutter - the tank was in battle, which means that in order to charge the gun it must be open ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 August 2013 16: 43 New
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          time kept the camera on a "trap" in which a shot pan was sticking out

          A variant of damage to the charging mechanism and, accordingly, the mechanism of extraction of the sleeve is not considered?

          And honestly I don’t see what you are talking about in the video. And how you could open the pallet.
          1. Day 11
            Day 11 17 August 2013 17: 06 New
            +2
            Dear KARS, YOU, as an amateur of armored vehicles, check out the pictures on the branch about surveillance devices
          2. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 17: 21 New
            +5
            Quote: Kars
            A variant of damage to the charging mechanism and, accordingly, the mechanism of extraction of the sleeve is not considered?
            Well then, the tank fired only one shot, since in the SDA the trap would have been freed from the pallet. The pallet is clearly visible, its edges are not bent, which means that after this shot, their guns were not fired ... otherwise the “flying out” pallet would bend them ...
            Quote: Kars
            And honestly I don’t see what you are talking about in the video. And how you could open the pallet.

            Well, sometimes you just hit me, look from 1.3 to 1.45 seconds. You know where and what to look or suggest ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 August 2013 20: 25 New
              +5
              Quote: svp67
              You know where and what to look or suggest ...

              Theoretically I know. But I can’t make out anything.
              And the question arises of why the gun takes so long to charge.



              that the hit comes at the time of the open shutter.
              1. svp67
                svp67 17 August 2013 20: 36 New
                +2
                This is a shot pan 125mm TP. All the same, try to consider it at the time indicated by me sticking out of the trap "dulce" forward ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 August 2013 20: 40 New
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  all the same try to consider it at the time indicated by me

                  I guess I need new glasses.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 17 August 2013 21: 27 New
                    +6
                    Quote: Kars
                    I guess I need new glasses.
                    When "I didn’t know, I didn’t know, and then I forgot" some charisma eyepieces won’t save ... Sorry, but I repeat that T72 you at best were sitting either in the photo or on any demonstration site, details and subtleties to you not known ... by the way, I applied a video of comparing the work of Ms and AZ there, here the pallets are clearly visible, so after each shot, they still “smoke” for a while and it catches the eye ...
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 17 August 2013 21: 42 New
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    When "did not know, did not know, and then also forgot"

                    How did you not know that? I know very well where the place of ejection of the pallet from the T-72 is, and by the way from the angle in the video it is almost impossible to consider.
                    Quote: svp67
                    Excuse me, but I’ll repeat that T72, at best, you were either sitting in the photo or at some demonstration site,

                    And I never hid it.
                    Quote: svp67
                    Ms and AZ, pallets are clearly visible there, so after each shot, they still “smoke” for a while and it catches the eye ...
                    So they are inside the tank, and in the video we watch the surveillance.
                  3. svp67
                    svp67 17 August 2013 21: 48 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    How did you not know that? I know very well where the place of ejection of the pallet from the T-72 is, and by the way from the angle in the video it is almost impossible to consider.

                    Discharge Site - Yes. But the pallet itself is visible in the trap, since it is also visible in a damaged Russian tank.
                  4. svp67
                    svp67 17 August 2013 21: 49 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    So they are inside the tank, and in the video we watch the surveillance.
                    At the time that I pointed out the operator through the open hatch, it shows the inside of the tank, and in the foreground it’s the AZ trap with the pallet in it ... As they say - the same eggs, only the view from the side ...
                  5. Kars
                    Kars 17 August 2013 22: 03 New
                    +2
                    Let’s you take a screenshot and cut this trap enlarged?

                    and at the same time, what is the argument already about? You have confirmed my words that the gun fired.
                  6. svp67
                    svp67 17 August 2013 22: 12 New
                    +1
                    Understood, I realized, at the expense of points - again, I'm sorry. You need to watch Vitas’s message and video about the wrecked 72 in Chechnya ...
                  7. Kars
                    Kars 17 August 2013 22: 15 New
                    +2
                    Quote: svp67
                    Understood, understood

                    it happens.
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 20: 49 New
      +2
      On the first video. I considered it in different projections, and my opinion is as follows.
      At the time of breaking through the armor, the tank was fully combat ready, that is, the gun was loaded and the gunner’s hatch was closed, that is, it was not put on the stop, unlike the commander’s hatch. When the ignition of the charges - gases, for the exit they found a “loophole” and opened the hatch, for one they pulled out and threw out the gunner, for one and undressed him, he apparently held onto the remote control before the flight and with the beginning it pulled the “cheburashka” up, as in the video it is evident that the gun suddenly abruptly pulled up and at the same time pressed the button, as a result of a shot. After the shot, according to the embedded algorithm, the shutter remains in the open position ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 August 2013 20: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        , that is, the gun was loaded

        Quote: svp67
        simultaneously pressed the button, as a result of a shot

        So I said just that.
        Quote: Kars
        then a shot is possible if the gun was loaded. An open wedge is doubtful.

        It means that at the time of the defeat, the wedge was not open
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 20: 55 New
          +1
          At the time of the defeat itself, the wedge was definitely closed, otherwise the shot would not be fired ...
      2. bask
        bask 17 August 2013 21: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: svp67

        It is difficult to speak on the basis of so little shown, I can only assume that the entire ammunition load was loaded into the tank and the RPG grenade set fire to one of the additional charges, and everything blazed from it.
        .
        This is the main thing that the entire BK is in the fighting compartment of the T-72. There will always be a threat when penetrated - the detonation of the BK.
        The only thing that needs to be modernized in the T-72, to place the ammunition with charges in the aft niche of the tower. How did Omsk try to do on the tank Black Eagle.
        Re-create the tower, but also change the diesel. Required minimum 1000l / s.
        The new SLA, DZ, KAZ, and T-72 will be relevant and modern for a long time. A real workhorse of war. How will the electronic-armed MBT Armata behave in such situations ... And how high should be the training of crews ...
      3. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 August 2013 21: 12 New
        +1
        Serezha, forgive the amateur, but what have you done to him? I have a feeling that something happened inside the tank.
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 21: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: Alex 241
          Serezha, forgive the amateur, but what have you done to him? I have a feeling that something happened inside the tank.

          The topic has been discussed for a long time and on either side is not very good for us, since this tank was hit from our RPG29 "Vampire", which is almost not available from us.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 August 2013 21: 22 New
          +1
          Seryozha, then the runaway man most likely is the grenade launcher, he shot from the dead zone at point-blank range, therefore, the burst of fire from the shot is not visible.
        3. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 21: 43 New
          0
          Not. The Kars video is larger and the projectile flight is visible there. shot from the upper floors of houses. And in my video, if you look closely from the end of the 0.12 sec on the 0.14, a gunner’s flight is visible ...
        4. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 August 2013 21: 48 New
          +1
          Thanks Seryozha, I saw it.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 22: 14 New
      +1
      [quote = svp67] [quote = alex 241] Serezha, forgive the amateur, but what did you play on him? I have a feeling that something happened inside the tank. [/ quote]
      At T-72, the upper projection is weakly armored, the thinnest armor on top, hatches.
      Fights in the city become the main for MBT in Syria.
      With the layout (BC in the coma of the tower) abrams, eclcr chances of the crew to survive much more.
      [quote = svp67] Question to our chemists and designers, why the issue of detonations has not been resolved in so many years? [/ Quote] + Lack of OFS warhead.
      But still, the placement of the BC is crucial.
      The test of abrams.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 18 August 2013 08: 47 New
    +3
    Of course we can say that the tank is not perfect and out of date, BUT. The tank stood in the open area + motionless + without the support of infantry + in the city, my father is a tankman and I remember his words when they brought tanks into Grozny in 1994 “They will burn everything there,” and it happened.
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: Aleks tv
    The RPG hit between the tower and the hull (on the side of the rear ZIP box, with the shutter wedge open? Frankly, I didn’t make an opinion.
    And then, it feels like charges were burning without detonating shells - a strong flame with pressure.

    It is difficult to speak on the basis of so little shown, I can only assume that the entire ammunition load was loaded into the tank and the RPG grenade set fire to one of the additional charges, and everything blazed from it. I remember one comrade who tried to introduce the term "fire of ammunition" into circulation, precisely to such a development of events ...
    Sorry guys. Everlasting memory.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 17 August 2013 16: 40 New
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      set fire to one of the additional charges, and it blazed from him

      It looks like it.
      Quote: svp67
      Everlasting memory.

      Everlasting memory.
  • novobranets
    novobranets 17 August 2013 16: 39 New
    +2
    The shells were not detonated, gunpowder burned out from the pallets (one of the minuses of separate loading). Tankers have eternal memory.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 17 August 2013 17: 43 New
      0
      What are you burying them - this is a militant tank after the Ukrainian repair with the installation of T-55 rinks (in Ukraine there is a deficit of T-72 rinks), the tanks shot high-explosive shells and stood empty, the Syrians burned 1 in the video, burned armor-piercing charges that were not needed in the city. If there were crews inside, they would spin the turrets of the remaining tanks - it’s interesting.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 18 August 2013 13: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Volkhov
        If there were crews inside, they would spin the turrets of the remaining tanks - it’s interesting.

        Look carefully.
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 17 August 2013 18: 54 New
    0
    As I understand it, the man who was thrown through the hatch (everything was burnt, as I understand it), he ran fraudulently, most likely died in a short time.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • juneart
    juneart 17 August 2013 20: 50 New
    +1
    It’s interesting, but where did the man running away at the end “fall out”? ... Is it not clear whether he is a soldier or a civilian?
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 20: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: juneart
      Am it incomprehensible to a soldier or civilian?
      A soldier, a crew member of a wrecked tank and his flight is visible, you just need to take a closer look ... They say that he also "left" for his crew ...
  • STALGRAD76
    STALGRAD76 19 August 2013 17: 02 New
    +1
    I think soon there will be a lot of similar videos from Egypt, and they have abrams, so we'll see and compare, but the fact that in a standing tank and from the floor of the 3 floor is approximately, and in the rear of the tower, this video should be shown to all tankers how to behave in the city must be rather deadly
  • vjhbc
    vjhbc 17 August 2013 21: 59 New
    -8
    the worst tank if for yourself, but for export the most then and how can you admire a tank specially made for the Papuans [quote = Apollon] Tank-72 good Legendary tank by analogy with the T-34 tank
    1. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 13: 21 New
      0
      Well, you answered yourself, I didn’t hear about the tank battles of the Abrams in Yugoslavia, I think everything there would not be so rosy. And in the museum you can fool around
  • romanru4
    romanru4 17 August 2013 22: 22 New
    +1
    In the last video, it’s like x .. in a pan! Where is the cover? Not a single ZUSHKA is visible to work out the upper floors. Why was he standing there and taking the barrel? It seems that he just went to an open place, so that perfumes from RPG worked out on him.
    1. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 13: 24 New
      0
      And then he went out to be burned. So they did not write off. and without writing off abrams did not sell
  • master_rem
    master_rem 19 August 2013 12: 19 New
    0
    yoop - he even survived without DZ!
  • Kars
    Kars 17 August 2013 10: 03 New
    +6
    In other words, within the framework of the criterion “efficiency - cost”, the T-72B is 2,7 times superior to the T-80У.


    Yes, we must be careful to think so, it’s interesting how many T-55 will be in these criteria? An article is probably an attempt to justify the 90’s mistake - the transfer of efforts from the modernization and production of the T-80 to a cheaper option to upgrade the T-72 to T- 90: This threw off the development of tank building for about 15 years.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 17 August 2013 11: 34 New
      0
      I agree. T-80 is the best tank. Especially when you consider his best defense against WMD (!!!) and the fact that in the next war they will fight only with the equipment that will be available, i.e. there will be very little time for repairs and production (and the value of the cost is no longer so important). And from this it follows that each combat unit should have the best combination of characteristics, EXACTLY FOR THE CONDITIONS OF THE FUTURE WAR !, and not for saving on the lives of tankers ...
      And the T-72 is just a good commercial product ... for sale to the Papuans.
      1. nick-name
        nick-name 17 August 2013 16: 19 New
        +4
        Of course the T-80 is the best. Eats a lot, is expensive, has no advantages over the T-72 line. What is the best?
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 16: 42 New
          +3
          Quote: nick-name
          What is the best?

          Let's start:
          - Yes, he “eats” more, but thanks to this he is more dynamic, which increases his maneuverability and allows him to carry more armor and weapons, as well as equipment. Agree - it’s already good.
          It costs more - yes. But it’s also worth remembering that this cost included equipment that only appears on the T72, and that’s not all.
          According to the criterion of "combat effectiveness" T80Y - from 1,5 to2 times exceeded T72Б ...
          1. nick-name
            nick-name 17 August 2013 23: 37 New
            +2
            Oh damn .... Now let's fantasize about the English Channel tanks. The T-80 has a speed of 100 km / h, I’m not sorry)) the T-72 has 60 km / h. The speed of the T-80 column is 25-35 km / h, the speed of the T-72 column is 25-35 km / h. Attention is the question - who is the first to reach the English Channel (taking into account the fact that the real transportable fuel supply of the T-80 is enough for 200 kilometers (at this pace of movement)))
            About equipment - do you know that the instrument engineering of the USSR simply could not provide all the T-72 with the necessary devices? And so there were seventy-two options with normal SLAs
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: nick-name
              Oh damn .... Now let's fantasize about the English Channel tanks.

              Well, they themselves answered their own question - fantasize further, who interferes with that ...
              Tired of fantasizing, take a BUSV to read for a start and so on.
              After half a year we can talk.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 18 August 2013 00: 22 New
                +2
                Well, if you are approached from these positions, BUSV, then he, however, is right. The speed of the column on the march is limited by no means to the limiting speed of the tanks.

                And in battle, as far as I know, the speed is rather limited by the capabilities of the gun stabilizer.

                ps I heard that the creation of the Mi-26TZ was caused precisely by the appearance of the T-80 in the troops
        2. kirpich
          kirpich 17 August 2013 21: 42 New
          0
          Well ... Ahramad’s gun.
      2. t72
        t72 18 August 2013 13: 14 New
        +1
        I’m wondering, but at the present the Abrams fought, i.e. against the enemy and not against museums with their guides?
    2. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 13: 09 New
      0
      Yes, no need to juggle! It is known that it threw off any modernization and not by 15 but by all 30 years, and here the problem is not in choosing a topic, but in the ideology of those choosing.
  • erased
    erased 17 August 2013 10: 06 New
    +1
    Well, the tank has earned all the praise. But it’s time to highlight Armatu already. And make it major for 50 years.
    1. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 13: 34 New
      +1
      Oh, I don’t understand that you argue that! There, in about ten years we’ll be copying robotic systems for everyone. Tanks will be without crews. That's where you need to break through! And all the talk about the groundwork for half a century Armant and others like her is nonsense from the field of modernization of Aurora.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 17 August 2013 11: 22 New
    +7
    The article describes the current situation.
    By analogy - Armata, a fundamentally new tank on new nodes,
    it can turn out to be very expensive, raw, and will require lengthy refinement.
    The war horse for this time will be the t-90 and its subsequent upgrades.
    It will be a pity if this happens.
  • solomon
    solomon 17 August 2013 11: 34 New
    +6
    The T-72 tank is definitely a MIRACLE-MASTERPIECE of engineering.
    And for a long time he will have something to say.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 17 August 2013 17: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: solomon
      The T-72 tank is definitely a MIRACLE-MASTERPIECE of engineering

      Syrian tank crews who know about him out of tales love the tank. Interviews with tank crews. Http://voenhronika.ru/publ/sirija_vojna/vojna_v_sirii_tanki
      _sir
      ija_podb
      orka_video_2012_2013_god/58-1-0-2184
  • Remko
    Remko 17 August 2013 11: 39 New
    -30
    T-72 or death to the crew.
    1. Remko
      Remko 17 August 2013 22: 21 New
      -14
      The end of the vaunted tank.
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 August 2013 22: 27 New
        +7
        Well, what can I say. You can knock out any tank. Of course, it is necessary to draw conclusions from this, but not so and not like you. In this case, if on the T72 "Curtain" this would not have happened. Well and the last - With such moods you have nothing to do here, and if you continue in the same vein, I personally will do my best to make your stay here END.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 August 2013 22: 33 New
          +3
          I join !!!!!!!!!!!!
          1. Normal
            Normal 17 August 2013 22: 57 New
            +4
            Quote: svp67
            and if you continue in the same vein, then personally I will make every effort so that your END comes here.

            Quote: Alex 241
            I join !!!!!!!!!!!!

            I will participate.
        2. Remko
          Remko 17 August 2013 22: 37 New
          -12
          And what really hurts your eyes? Or do you need to join everyone and sing in a chorus that killed thousands of tankers?
          1. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 22: 42 New
            12
            Dear, didn’t you count how many lives of infantrymen, ordinary people did these tanks save? I think this figure is very difficult, and it is not possible to calculate, but there are many, many, many more than the tankers died. And this tank, with all its shortcomings, still deserves warm words, its enormous reliability. This is actually a Kalashnikov assault rifle of tank forces.
            And its shortcomings are well known to us, and they concern us directly, since it is on them that we have to serve and fight so far, but this is not a reason to refuse to serve the Motherland, but a reason to think about how to prevent the enemy from destroying ourselves and, accordingly, destroying it.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 17 August 2013 22: 47 New
              +5
              Earrings, do not waste eloquence, in fact, he does not care about the dead tankers, End of the vaunted tank. These words speak for themselves.
            2. Remko
              Remko 17 August 2013 22: 48 New
              -9
              Look carefully at the video, and not the one that advertises it and yourself will understand without comment.
              1. Normal
                Normal 17 August 2013 23: 11 New
                +4
                Quote: Remko
                Look carefully at the video,
                Yes, unlike you, those who watched this video were much earlier than the release of this article. And even more so they understood more than you. Want to give your opinion? You are welcome! Convince in an honest dispute of Karsa, svp67 or Mechanic. But there is no need to gloat. I think that you, not just say the above mentioned comrades nothing new for them, but even me. I think that you don’t even know how the thread in the blind hole is cut with a tap.
                1. bask
                  bask 17 August 2013 23: 27 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Normal
                  Convince in an honest dispute of Karsa, svp67 or Mechanic.

                  Good evening. Vladimir, you forgot to say about Aleks TV, he fought in Chechnya.
                  The combat experience of fighting in the city. It’s worth it. Considering how many armored vehicles we lost in Grozny in the 1st Chechen one.
                  Crews fight in tanks. If the invaluable combat experience is not passed on to the young, there will be meaningless losses again in the next war (and it will sooner or later be loved).
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 17 August 2013 23: 32 New
                    +3
                    Aleks tv it is better not to catch his eye!
                  2. Normal
                    Normal 17 August 2013 23: 46 New
                    +3
                    Quote: bask
                    Good evening. Vladimir

                    Good, bask. I have not met Aleks TV. Since Kars crushed me with the IS-7 tank laughing , I am a rare guest on this topic. Here he went in, and here a sort of undead from Holland casts off above our technology. I do not like ... In his skull!
                    1. bask
                      bask 18 August 2013 00: 20 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Normal
                      s crushed me with the IS-7 tank

                      And that the IS-7 is my favorite tank. It’s 20 years ahead of its time.
                      Quote: Normal
                      .. in his skull!

                      Caterpillar parrot and black mark angry laughing
                      1. Normal
                        Normal 18 August 2013 00: 47 New
                        +3
                        Quote: bask
                        . Ahead of his time so 20 years.

                        You know, bask, I’m very wary of the technique "unparalleled" and "ahead of its time." It’s somehow closer to me that which is actually being produced and fighting, and not that which is very advanced, but there is no way to release this massively. There are enough examples. Even this article. Of course, the T-64 and T-80 are cooler, but the T-72 is cheaper and therefore more massive.
                        I say right away; I will not argue and I will remain in my opinion laughing
                        Quote: bask
                        And that the IS-7 is my favorite tank

                        In-in! At Karsa this tank is also the most beloved of domestic. He crushed me with tanks for criticizing his pet laughing
                        But I survived ... wink
                  3. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 16 New
                    +4
                    Quote: bask
                    You forgot to say about Aleks TV, he fought in Chechnya.

                    Yes, I somehow tried closer to the kitchen ...
                    wink
            3. Remko
              Remko 17 August 2013 23: 14 New
              -5
              So they recognized all the same that they HAVE TO SERVE and fight.
              1. svp67
                svp67 17 August 2013 23: 22 New
                +3
                Quote: Remko
                So they recognized all the same that they HAVE TO SERVE and fight.

                and you don’t cling to words. Moreover, from my answer you have missed the word BYE. I really hope that Armata will soon join the troops and this tank will turn out to be just as reliable, but more protected ... But for now we have nothing to choose from, certainly Abrams or Leopards, as Holland did, unable to deploy its own tanks, our country will not purchase.
                1. Remko
                  Remko 17 August 2013 23: 29 New
                  -5
                  Well, when he comes out, then we'll talk. In the meantime, we are not discussing Armata, but T-72.
              2. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 31 New
                +7
                Quote: Remko
                So they recognized all the same that they HAVE TO SERVE and fight.

                Personally, I am proud of it.
                These machines are unique and incomparably tenacious in their own way, both in battle and during operation.
                In a combat situation, the tank should be properly worn and used with skill. The chances of surviving the T-72 and T-80 under these conditions are very high.
                And you can knock out anything.
          2. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 22: 53 New
            +1
            And at the expense of video. Getting under such an angle of ATGM in a tank, and even without bulwarks, is GUARANTEED led to the destruction of the crew - I will specify ANY TANK. And the fact that the tower does not fly away from him at that moment will somehow be a little comfort to the widows ...
            1. Remko
              Remko 17 August 2013 23: 10 New
              -9
              From T-72 the tower always flies away, this is the signature horse of this triple coffin. Continue to praise him, but do not misinterpret about other tanks.
              1. svp67
                svp67 17 August 2013 23: 17 New
                +1
                Quote: Remko
                From T-72 the tower always flies away, this is the signature horse of this triple coffin. Continue to praise him, but do not misinterpret about other tanks.
                And here you don’t have to invent anything - not just one tank of the world, under similar conditions there is NO CHANCE TO SAVE THE CREW. Do you think the Americans just scandal about the appearance of our "Cornets" raised? They, too, VERY want to live ...
                1. Normal
                  Normal 17 August 2013 23: 23 New
                  +6
                  Quote: svp67
                  And here you do not need to invent anything

                  Sergey, who are you explaining to here? He in a cafe-shop, after a jamb and pies with hash, pounds on the clave.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 18 August 2013 08: 19 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Normal
                    Quote: svp67
                    And here you do not need to invent anything

                    Sergey, who are you explaining to here? He in a cafe-shop, after a jamb and pies with hash, pounds on the clave.

                    I understand everything perfectly, but the more messages he makes, the faster he can be sent to the “dump” ...
                2. Remko
                  Remko 17 August 2013 23: 36 New
                  -11
                  I say again, do not compare other tanks with your tin can. Cornets are not atomic bombs to raise a scandal. Keep this alarmism to yourself. For foreign tanks, they are not so scary.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 17 August 2013 23: 48 New
                    0
                    The world's only production tank protected from the Cornet is the 4th Merkava. Do you know about this?
                    1. kirpich
                      kirpich 18 August 2013 01: 56 New
                      +2
                      C'mon, don’t tell. From the "Cornet" maybe? defend himself, but against the "Vampire" will not stand. And if you add a bottle of Molotov cocktail ... Mmmm !!!, far your chariot will run away?
                  2. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 39 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Remko
                    I say again, do not compare other tanks with your tin can.

                    I say again, do not compare your cans with our real tanks.
                    This is my answer to you. Well - Does it sound funny? Yes.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 00: 45 New
                      +2
                      It seems he has read opus from HBO. His next post should be the story that the "Cornets" do not break through the tandem dynamic defense.
                      1. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 18 August 2013 01: 10 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Spade
                        Looks like he read opus from HBO

                        Ага.
                        Or weed a smoke from his Holland, so he imagines something.
                        Probably sick.
                        In the Urals, he needs to treat us.
                        Hey Remko? Her, her, treat.
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 18 August 2013 01: 14 New
                        +2
                        No Lesh, it’s better where polar bears roam, but not yet a preferential area laughing
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 18 August 2013 09: 29 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      that the "cornets" do not break through the tandem dynamic defense.

                      And what is it somewhere besides Oplot? And does it strike? And the anti-tandem.
                    3. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 10: 16 New
                      +2
                      On the "stronghold" tandem dynamic protection ??? Here are those times ... And I thought that such a DZ, acceptable in terms of its overall dimensions for installation on tanks, had not yet been created ...
                    4. Kars
                      Kars 18 August 2013 12: 20 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      And I thought that such a DZ, acceptable in terms of its overall dimensions for installation on tanks, had not yet been created ..

                      Quote: Spade
                      that the "cornets" do not break through the tandem dynamic defense.

                      What then write about?

                      Quote: Spade
                      and "stronghold" tandem dynamic protection ???

                      Quote: Kars
                      And anti-tandem.

                      Quote: Spade
                      Here are those times ..

                      these are the two
                    5. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 15: 16 New
                      0
                      And where is the "tandem dynamic defense" here?

                      Not watching
                    6. Kars
                      Kars 18 August 2013 15: 19 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Not watching

                      Quote: Spade
                      What then write about?



                      и

                      Quote: Kars
                      And anti-tandem.
                    7. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 15: 30 New
                      +1
                      Experienced tandem exist. They are not installed on tanks due to their bulkiness. And high weight. BB charge - armor plate (too lazy to look, like 8 cm), damping material - air gap - explosive charge.

                      "Duplet" is hardly a tandem DZ, I do not observe devices that prevent detonation of an overlapping charge
                    8. Kars
                      Kars 18 August 2013 16: 11 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      Experienced tandem exist

                      Oh really.
                      Quote: Spade
                      "Duplet" is hardly a tandem DZ

                      it’s necessary, but you still couldn’t understand that it is ANTANDOUT.

                      It’s also not clear why it was in one sentence to mention the tandem protection and .. Cornet ..
                    9. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 18 August 2013 17: 58 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Oh really.

                      already

                      Quote: Kars
                      Wow

                      And then

                      Quote: Kars
                      you still couldn’t understand that it is ANTANDOUT.

                      Is not a fact


                      Quote: Kars
                      It’s also not clear

                      Well this is normal

                      Quote: Kars
                      why

                      Because



                      Quote: Kars
                      It’s also not clear why it was in one sentence to mention the tandem protection and .. Cornet ..

                      Stupid question. This article was in HBO. Gosp. Thistle (your guru?)
                    10. Kars
                      Kars 19 August 2013 18: 16 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      already

                      yah
                      Quote: Spade
                      And then

                      and what
                      Quote: Spade
                      Well this is normal

                      given your rambling writings yes
                      Quote: Spade
                      Because

                      Because??
                      Quote: Spade
                      Stupid question. This article was in HBO. Gosp. Thistle (your guru?)
                      Where is the milk thistle from?
                      Quote: Spade
                      that the "cornets" do not break through the tandem dynamic defense.
  • svp67
    svp67 18 August 2013 08: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Remko
    I say again, do not compare other tanks with your tin can. TO
    Correctly she is OUR. What we did on that and we are fighting, and most importantly we are winning. But the Dutch are not even able to do something like that and are forced to "fight" - who will sell what ...
    Quote: Remko
    Cornets are not atomic bombs to raise a scandal.
    This is not for me, it's you in the US State Department to send a message so that they would not bother us about this. We have to do with the fact that Iran "suddenly" "independently" began to produce them. You see, the US is worried ... belay And for me, for the USA, there’s another reason to think about whether to climb into Iran ...
    Yes, here's another
    For the first time December 6 became known to the Palestinian militants about the use of the Russian anti-tank complex Kornet (ATGW). It was on this day that the Palestinians were the first to succeed in smashing an Israeli Merkava-3 tank. The Israeli side acknowledged this fact, as stated by Gabi Ashkenazi, the chief of the General Staff of Israel. He made his statement during the working meeting of the Israeli Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Affairs and Defense. In particular, Ashkenazi said: "This is a heavy rocket, which is one of the most dangerous, previously used in our region."
    According to a senior Israeli military, the Kornet rocket pierced the armor of the Merkava-3 tank, which patrolled an electronic barrier installed along the border with the troubled Gaza Strip. The crew of the armored vehicle was saved only by the fact that, for some unknown reason, the Cornet’s rocket was not blown up. However, according to Israeli sources, the tank was hit.
  • Normal
    Normal 17 August 2013 23: 21 New
    +4
    Quote: Remko
    A tower always flies from the T-72,

    This tower flew away from you. Long. Forever.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 36 New
    +2
    Quote: Remko
    From T-72 the tower always flies away, this is the signature horse of this triple coffin.

    Exactly, you are not an amateur child. you are a troll.
    Learn mat.chast, so that at least professionally lay out something.

    In these cases, the tower flies off only because of the detonation of the ammunition, and this is always secondary.
    A competent crew can avoid detonation or delay it in time to leave the car. And only then it (the tower) is removed by journalists, this often happened.
    1. Remko
      Remko 18 August 2013 01: 08 New
      -10
      And how do you stop the detonation of ammunition? laughing
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 18 August 2013 01: 32 New
        10
        Quote: Remko
        And how do you stop the detonation of ammunition?

        If you remove your stupid emoticon, then the question is serious, the same answer to it:
        Firstly, by labor, by preparing the machine. The boxes must be filled, the tailgate bolted. PPO is working properly.
        Secondly ... yes, everything that the situation requires: ajar hatches of the towers, mounted spare tracks, the absence of bk on the shelves of the tower, charging the conveyor is enough.

        In case of undermining or breaking through, overpressure is most dangerous, so it must be removed. After guaranteed you get a concussion, but you can leave the car.
        About 10 cases around 8 mi survived. It is a fact. These are serious things and laughter is inappropriate here.

        Our tanks are more adapted to conducting continuous hostilities, when almost always there is a malfunction with the supply of spare parts and maintenance facilities. When “working”, the T-72 is always somewhere a little broken, but always on the go, it has tremendous operational survivability. And this does not really boast of foreign models, which before the fight need to be prepared as a bride to be extradited, and then a bunch of people are preparing him again for the second battle.

        The problem is not in the tanks, but in the methods and methods of their use. We have problems, but believe me, they are of a different nature.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 August 2013 01: 37 New
        +1
        They say the fire extinguishing system helps a lot.

        Direct detonation of shells is possible only in the event of a detonation of a large mine under the bottom. Well, very big. This is the only time when nothing can be delayed.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 18 August 2013 01: 52 New
          +7
          Quote: Spade
          They say the fire extinguishing system helps a lot.

          HIGHLY.
          Baska only hurts her, but it does not matter.
          The trouble is that her gas station is small, it often ended, but I still had to “work”, that’s bad.

          Quote: Spade
          Direct detonation of shells is possible only in the event of a detonation of a large mine under the bottom. Well, very big. This is the only time when nothing can be delayed.

          Alas ... there’s certainly nothing you can do.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 18 August 2013 09: 44 New
            +1
            [quote = Aleks tv] [quote = Shovels] They say the fire extinguishing system helps a lot. [/ quote]
            HIGHLY.
            Baska only hurts her, but it does not matter.
            The trouble is that her gas station is small, it often ended, but I still had to “work”, that’s bad.

            tell me, how do “non-locked hatches” for “pressure relief” go together with the operation of the fire extinguishing system?
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 August 2013 10: 12 New
            0
            It hurts because the old compounds were toxic. But in our regiment, they were precisely replaced by tankers with new ones, as far as I remember, in 2003.

            by getting a jet or crowbar directly into the shell, even here the probability of detonation is not 100%
          3. ramsi
            ramsi 18 August 2013 10: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            It hurts because the old compounds were toxic. But in our regiment, they were precisely replaced by tankers with new ones, as far as I remember, in 2003.

            I'm not talking about a headache, but about the fact that open hatches should interfere with the operation of the fire extinguishing system
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 19 August 2013 10: 31 New
          0
          Quote: ramsi
          tell me, how do “non-locked hatches” for “pressure relief” go together with the operation of the fire extinguishing system?

          I couldn’t answer right away, but here Sunday ...

          The effectiveness of the PPS in the fighting compartment with open hatches is certainly lower (in the MTO, no difference). The extinguishing mixture under pressure comes out.
          It is very difficult to bear this rubbish when bullied, how many cases were at the training grounds, when the crew mistakenly activated it - they simply flew out of the armor with square eyes.
          But to survive with the open in the aggregate of all factors is more likely.

          I already wrote that the problem in the small number of starts, as a rule on 3, was weakly felt, although the one-time volume is always the same (perhaps the bypass valve junked and drove the mixture into empty cylinders). Or have we already breathed ... wink
          And, unfortunately, there have been cases of system failure. PPO is quite antediluvian, now, it seems, they are putting a more advanced system.
    2. svp67
      svp67 18 August 2013 08: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Direct detonation of shells is possible only in the event of a detonation of a large mine under the bottom.
      Or a direct hit in a bk shell - which is, in principle, a rarity ...
  • t72
    t72 18 August 2013 12: 18 New
    +1
    That's it! I agree one hundred percent! And in general, what's the difference how the crew dies from detonation or from bullets leaving a lined abrams
  • Remko
    Remko 17 August 2013 23: 31 New
    -13
    Well, of course, the reason is in the false boats. Found the excuse. winked
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 18 August 2013 01: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Remko
      the reason is in the false boats.

      The strike keeps the normal false-side with all the bells and whistles, it’s very difficult to reach the 1-2 body with RPG shots, the crew almost always not only survived, but continued to carry out the task.
      But sometimes they tear them themselves, clinging to some trash.
    2. svp67
      svp67 18 August 2013 08: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: Remko
      Well, of course, the reason is in the false boats. Found the excuse.
      This is a statement of fact. Or will you claim that the bulwark is intact?
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 26 New
    +4
    Quote: Remko
    And what really hurts your eyes?

    I hear hearing voices in the video cut.
    Quote: Remko
    Or do you need to join everyone and sing in a chorus that killed thousands of tankers?

    About "ditched ..." - such phrases are written either by amateur children or enemies trying to get the tankmen out of themselves.
    What category do you belong to?
  • Ivan Mechanic
    Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 15: 57 New
    +6
    "True pricks eyes," say? What is the truth? She happens to be different. Well, for example, there is a “truth” of stupid sons and their supporters (from the Netherlands in particular) - this truth says that cannibals and infanticide in Syria are “freedom fighters”. And there is another truth (of normal people) which states that cannibals and child murders are moral! Well, there’s another truth - how can a state representative in which they can’t even make a washing machine possess any normal technical knowledge! Savages from the Netherlands in life can only give an expert assessment of the quality of the joint! laughing
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 18 August 2013 16: 03 New
      +5
      Ah well done Ivan! Mentally applaud! drinks good
      1. Ivan Mechanic
        Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 16: 20 New
        +1
        laughing drinks A gorgeous film is one of the films that showed the work of pilots and vehicles in reality!
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 14 New
    +4
    Quote: svp67
    I will do my best to make your stay here END.

    I will support.
    Chel made clear his position, the same is the answer.
    1. Remko
      Remko 18 August 2013 01: 11 New
      -11
      Are you used to when you all assent in chorus? Somehow and without my compliments you will interrupt. winked
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 18 August 2013 01: 21 New
        +4
        We will grieve immensely without your compliments!
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: Remko
        Are you used to when you all assent in chorus?

        Leo (I always try by name), but for yourself, like all THIS, what are you doing?
        They came, poured mud and ... what?

        Do you enjoy it? Do you like to write something you have no idea about? And how do you think those who gave most of their lives to their cause should respond? And we answer you - in a friendly osprey. So Russians live - TOGETHER.
        When someone is against us, we unite.

        Do you live somehow differently in your Holland?
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 18 August 2013 02: 10 New
          +4
          I will add: for us, technology is not a piece of iron. Alexei, you understand what I mean! Sometimes they say goodbye to tanks, planes, ships more sentimentally than to people!
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 23 New
            +3
            Quote: Alex 241
            I will add: for us, technology is not a piece of iron.

            I absolutely agree, Alexander.
            yes
            It’s we who like it, like carelessly, we call iron ... but in fact ...
            Now I can confess that with my lips I touched the armor furtively ... and many did something similar.
            winked
            Eheh, sometimes it turns out to snatch to the tankodrome, but that's not it ...
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 18 August 2013 02: 30 New
              +3
              Now I can confess that with my lips I touched the armor furtively ... Lesh is not a shame in this. Here is a bit of aviation humor to you, as planes escorted.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 43 New
                +2
                Quote: Alex 241
                aviation humor

                good
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 18 August 2013 02: 49 New
                  +3
                  Well, they are seeing us off, be sure to touch the console. And who after that will say that this is a piece of iron?
                2. Ivan Mechanic
                  Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 16: 26 New
                  +1
                  be sure to touch the console is not a fact :-) (although many do) but the techie in the picture shows the chassis racks slightly pumped over. It would be possible to assume that there are 4 tons of kerosene on board, but the rocket suspension says that it flies to the combat range, which means at least 7 tons of fuel! and so the console should get without jumping.
                3. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 18 August 2013 16: 53 New
                  +2
                  Ivan is the Su-33, it is taller than the Su-27.
                4. Ivan Mechanic
                  Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 18: 19 New
                  0
                  I know smile at 27K (or 33) the vertical speed is higher when landing because the stroke of the shock absorber rod is slightly larger to compensate for the impact on the aircraft carrier’s GDP! It’s just that in the first photo of the front pillar and the cabin (the "eyes" of the OLS - it is offset at 27 normal in the center) it was not visible :-). Although maybe in the latest versions 27 have already appeared, and two front pneumatics and OLS removed.
                5. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 18 August 2013 18: 37 New
                  +2
                  Shooting combat missiles at OKIAP.
                  Filed under: Su-27 Su-27, Su-33 Su-33, Deckers http://pilot.strizhi.info/2011/01/27/9248
                6. Ivan Mechanic
                  Ivan Mechanic 18 August 2013 21: 51 New
                  +2
                  Handsome men! Although honestly I don't really like humpbacks (sparks) - it’s a very huge cabin! The combat sides are more beautiful! Especially when with full tanks and full suspension from the duty link go on takeoff! The wings in front of our eyes go up, picking up a stream! yes 29 is smaller and uglier, and therefore the wing-set of the stream is not so clearly visible with the eyes.
                7. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 18 August 2013 21: 53 New
                  +2
                  Wan, you’re just an esthete good
                8. Ivan Mechanic
                  Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 02: 07 New
                  +1
                  repeat In general, in this case, you can envy the pilots (a little morally because the work is still the same - especially on the flight) - under the ass (27 I write) 30 tons of live weight, from the bottom 10 of someone’s lives, behind 25 tons of traction and all this colossus death presses you into a chair at the start, dropping his nose almost to the ground (at the beginning). And then you feel like a plane, catching a stream, raises its nose and then he climbs up himself!
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 13: 10 New
    +2
    I already told this story is not a sin and repeat. I walk through the park, the fighter washes his stained 72-ku after passing the final test. Or the commission came - rolled out, I don’t remember anymore. Something mutters to himself under his breath. I think let me come. Sneaked up and hear him talking to the tank. I don’t remember exactly, but something like: "Well, Vasya, you’ve gotten smeared. He’s completely dirty. Nothing, I’ll wash off the little pig. You’ll shine like a new one." I laughed at the whole park. laughing
    Although, what a sin to conceal, and I often speak with technology. repeat
    1. Ivan Mechanic
      Ivan Mechanic 19 August 2013 14: 02 New
      +2
      The technique is like a belly, understands everything repeat . Somehow, before the flights, I didn’t want to fly a horror - I went up to the side, put my arms around the cone and thought, “Well, I don’t want to work everything today.” And a miracle! I roll out on the CZ a fully working board and everything flies from it except my direction - EVERYTHING !!! All the specialists on the ears all day and I just overslept on the stairs. And the next day (non-flying) everything suddenly worked laughing and with the native units on the flight.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 19 August 2013 19: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: Ivan Mechanic
        fully working board and everything flies with it except my direction - EVERYTHING !!!

        Ivan, the machine saved you on a hike, you don’t know what, but ... hell knows, so it was necessary.
        It happens.
        wink
      2. Alex 241
        Alex 241 19 August 2013 19: 22 New
        +2
        Hi Lesh, anything can happen, we had such a plane spoken, onboard 17, flew only when he wanted to laughing
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 19 August 2013 19: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Alex 241
        spellbound plane

        Hi Sasha.

        I believe.
        Technique sometimes throws such pretzels that you believe in anything ...
        There was one lucky side, well, nothing happened to him.
        Two morons with sledgehammers pulled a stuck charge from the barrel (there was no shell), even henna.
        The same charge burned out later later outside the tank under incomprehensible circumstances ... horseradish understand why.
        You will believe in anything. The fighters loved this side.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 19 August 2013 19: 15 New
    +2
    Quote: Iraclius
    "Well, Vasya, you’ve been smeared. He’s completely dirty. Nothing, I’ll wash it off, a little pig. You’ll shine like a new one."

    good
    Fine, Andrew. But what without it ...
  • Arabist
    Arabist 18 August 2013 17: 52 New
    +1
    Friends, yes, you hammer on this Leo. You don’t prove anything to him anyway. In addition to dirt, he will not give you anything. You should not waste strength and emotions on such insignificance.
  • t72
    t72 18 August 2013 13: 52 New
    +1
    Yes, let the poison splash sometimes it’s useful, if in small doses. But what you need, you need to show him the abrams that the Papuans destroyed from the bows. We all remember that our “bad” weapons kicked the ass of an excellent American in Vietnam. It’s clear that technology should be not only modern but also skillfully used. And not like in the Middle East.
  • t72
    t72 18 August 2013 12: 05 New
    +1
    You won’t wait! I’ll cross some more with a caterpillar! And if in fact, a dozen green berets from the M16 in the jungle will kill hundreds of two archers of the Yumba mumba and then they will eat it. Then the avengers on phantoms and Hornets will fly and carry the jungle to atoms and all at once will understand that the m16 is the best in the world!
  • phantom359
    phantom359 18 August 2013 16: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Remko
    T-72 or death to the crew.

    Stupid you, kid. Abrash and the leopard are no less deadly for the crew.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 August 2013 12: 20 New
    12
    Although he is deeply in love with howling “turtle” - T-72, but the article did not like.

    The SPIRIT of writing itself is not to its liking - the pericarp.
    Written in the spirit of "Tagil".
    I know a lot of proven cases of undercover intrigues, personal agreements between designers and Moscow Region, the defense industry when creating and adopting the T-64, T-72, T-80, but did not describe them in the holiday material. So it will be like cheap savoring fried episodes, as grandmothers do in the mound or the same, ugh, malachov.
    Intrigue as a story - yes, it’s interesting to know, but don’t mix them with what happened.
    But it was - The patriotic goal of the design bureau is the creation of military vehicles, without regard to wealth and power ...

    Nizhny Tagil, adopting the new T-64 idea, already rolled in metal, put on it the components and assemblies of the T-62 to be modernized that were almost perfected, and they just got an excellent serial car.
    Well done. But not only them.

    Yes, all the innovations of electronics and the rest of the Pribluda went to the T-80, but the T-72 didn’t put “what remains”, but what can be produced in a war. T-72 is a "special period" machine. Those. in the event of a large-scale conflict, the plants could produce T-72 in the quantities that are needed, but not possible.

    Regarding a single base: it was generally a headache for the USSR Army after the war.
    It really is.
    BREM and BTS, which are in service with the units, were often not replaceable with linear machines, they simply weren’t there, that’s all. And the multi-colored bases of military-engineering equipment amazed the engineers sappers, sincere sympathy.

    Glory to the Honored Worker - T-72 !!!
    And the article ..., hmm, without a plus.
    1. smprofi
      smprofi 17 August 2013 15: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Regarding a single base: it was generally a headache for the USSR Army after the war

      yeah ... brother was a senior car. We went to "fight" from PrikVO through Poland to Czechoslovakia. KAMAZ with a trailer. the brakes were covered in the car, the tee flew. fell out of the column. technical closing machines did not wait. than sitting in the field, according to soldier ingenuity, let's twist the tee off the trailer (the same KamAZ) and put it in the car. and figurines! tees in the brake system of the machine and the standard trailer - different! and this is one and the same "producer"!
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 17: 36 New
      +4
      I fully support. We are of the same opinion. I also really respect the “power-saw bench” - T64, but this does not mean that I do not see its disadvantages and advantages, as well as other tanks. Honestly, I really regret that at one time the Tagil people were not allowed to put about.NUMX on the conveyor, this would be more useful ... But what happened, it already happened. Honestly, I’m very glad that the situation in Tagil, especially in terms of the development of the design direction, has changed a lot in a positive direction, and frankly it’s a pity that I see signs of degradation in Kharkov, even though they are competitors to us now ...
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 17 August 2013 23: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Honestly, I’m very glad that the situation in Tagil, especially in terms of the development of the design direction, has changed a lot in a positive direction, and frankly it’s a pity that I see signs of degradation in Kharkov, even though they are competitors to us now ...

        is it possible in more detail? Just in my opinion (not a specialist) the t90 has no advantages over the stronghold, and vice versa (I repeat, I'm not an expert, just my opinion)
    3. novobranets
      novobranets 18 August 2013 08: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Glory to the Honored Worker - T-72 !!!

      И не так уж он уязвим.http://video.yandex.kz/search?text=%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D1%8
      2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D0%B4%
      D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&where=all&f
      ilmId = oR59RGPgzws
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 18 August 2013 09: 34 New
        +1
        And here's another .http: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = GcXqiUKfA-4
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 17 August 2013 13: 39 New
    +1
    That's right, in wartime conditions the country will not be able to produce complex and highly expensive equipment, which will require a large amount of working time, there will be no examples of the T-34 before that. I will make a reservation at once in Chechnya and Afghanistan in this case. In such conditions, it is possible and necessary to use new and sophisticated equipment so that in a serious war one does not try to put things that have not been tested on the conveyor belt. Example Tiger and Panther.
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 17: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      That's right, in wartime conditions the country will not be able to produce complex and highly expensive equipment, which will require a large amount of working time, there will not be time before and the T-34 example showed this.
      With one caveat, military equipment must be "effective"; otherwise, the issue of mass release does not make sense ...
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 17 August 2013 23: 08 New
        +1
        I agree, it was possible to mass produce T70, or T34-76, with obvious consequences
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 13: 56 New
    +2
    Each tank has its own field. The T-80 is amazing for the north of the country, the T-72 is almost universal, the T-55 was quite (in those days) enough against China, Japan and other Asian countries. , 60s did not come across, which means they were aimed at Europe and were not recommended for use in other areas.
    Watch Soviet films. Find confirmation to my words
    1. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 12: 24 New
      +2
      And THE MAIN THIS IS WHEN ANOTHER TANK KNOWS THE CREW! THERE EIGHTY TEN THERE WERE YEARS STOPPED WHEN THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED AND WHAT? AND THAT! WOULD NOT THE ENGINE START BUTTON PRESS SO THE CARRIER IS DROPED OUT!
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 17 August 2013 14: 11 New
    +1
    Interestingly, "Armada" by what principle is done?
  • smprofi
    smprofi 17 August 2013 14: 57 New
    +2
    As you know, tank building arose in Nizhny Tagil in 1941 as a result of the evacuation of Kharkov Plant No. 183

    well, glory ... [insert the desired] recognized. and then, for a number of "reasons", the current zhurnalyugi and some "historians" prefer not to recall or deny it at all.
    Tagilchane acted consistently and evolutionarily - and quite consciously. This is evidenced by the words of the chief designer of that time, Leonid Kartsev: “We always went towards the same goal, but in different ways. Kharkiv had an advantage over us, since in Moscow everyone, up to the Central Committee, relied on them and helped them in every way. On the other hand, the Kharkiv citizens had tremendous difficulties, since they, having no reserve of used components and mechanisms, immediately decided to significantly break away from the production tank in terms of tactical and technical characteristics. We were moving in separate steps, taking and introducing quickly into the serial tank everything that appeared new in science and technology. ”

    beautiful! only here is another evidence:

    And our tanks are fast!
    Released: Russia, Wings of Russia
    7th series, watch a video from 21'20 "



    Eriy of Babylon, in the 70-th head of the power plant department of the Uralvagonzavod Design Bureau, speaks directly about the sabotage of the Morozov tank and its advancement.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 17 August 2013 15: 00 New
      +3
      Quote: smprofi
      directly speaks of the sabotage of the "Morozov tank" and its advancement.

      There was a lot of everything ... "mutual."
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 17: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: smprofi
      Eriy of Babylon, in the 70-th head of the power plant department of the Uralvagonzavod Design Bureau, speaks directly about the sabotage of the Morozov tank and its advancement.

      That's right, as well as the fact that then the “Kharkovites” also sabotaged the production of gas turbine engines, by the way the production line of which was already built (as if money weren’t considered then), in favor of installing 6TD ...
    3. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 17: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: smprofi
      Well, glory ... [insert right] recognized. and then, for a number of "reasons", the current zhurnalyugi and some "historians" prefer not to recall or deny it at all.
      But then it should be recognized that the deployment of tank production in N. Tagil was laid by mobile plans since the 1940 of the year, albeit not in such volumes, but KhPZ moved there for a reason ...
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 17 August 2013 23: 10 New
        0
        let's dig deeper-turnkey plant bought in the USA ...
        1. smprofi
          smprofi 17 August 2013 23: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: maxvet
          KhPZ plant purchased in the United States on a turnkey basis.

          with all the achievements, designers and drawings for all tanks. starting from T-34.
          so?
          1. maxvet
            maxvet 17 August 2013 23: 39 New
            +1
            After all, you can consider the version that the T34 development of BT (aka Christie), while I do not detract from the work of our designers, technologists, workers
            1. smprofi
              smprofi 18 August 2013 00: 01 New
              +1
              Quote: maxvet
              can consider version

              everything can be considered!
              but the same T-34 is the same "Christie" as the Porsche 911 is completely ripped off from Ford T.
              let's not do verbiage
      2. smprofi
        smprofi 17 August 2013 23: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        laid by mobile plans since 1940

        much was laid. and before the war. and after.
        let's talk about what happened in reality. and what has been done in reality.
        For example, I can talk about the plans of the party and the government about the development of electronics in Zelenograd. and how, in particular, they got into a puddle with a copy of Intel 8086. With full funding and full support of both the party and the government. and as in Kiev “Crystal” the same Intel 8086 was partly guilty in the same way, and financing (in a much smaller amount) was received only at the final stage of OCD.
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 09 New
    +4
    The article is very controversial, many statements and conclusions are not intended.
    Supporters of the “revolutionary” methods (a new tank — fundamentally new and most progressive units and assemblies) led by Alexander Morozov gathered in Kharkov to develop a promising vehicle, not particularly caring for continuity with their predecessor tanks. Supporters of evolutionary development and gradual improvement of military vehicles remained in Nizhny Tagil.

    Do not forget that it was at that time in the USSR in all areas of military construction that he was striving to use everything new, this also concerned aviation, the appearance of the T4 and MiG23 and 25 aircraft, and the fleet, "atomic-powered robots." Yes, and if the T64 design is well disassembled, it will immediately become clear that it is a direct development of our heavy tanks.
    It should be noted that the promising tank building in Nizhny Tagil after the “sixty-two” was deliberately slowed down by higher authorities in order not to create competition for Kharkiv citizens.
    Here the ambiguity of standards, if something is done by the “Kharkivites” - then by means of intrigue, if the “Tagilians” - then “courageously overcoming difficulties ...”. I believe that at that time, in the USSR there really was no tank designer equal to Morozov, and the top leadership understood this. So, the choice of the team to create a new generation of tanks was obvious. In addition, T62 was born at the time of the creation of T64, or rather a protracted creation, so to say that N. Tagil did not create anything at that moment, like "not really ..."
    The total “issue price” today can hardly be set, but it is known that the project resulted in the removal of X-NUMX T-250 prototype tanks - due to their complete incompatibility with mass-produced products and the impossibility of reworking at moderate costs.
    I don’t know what the author is trying to say, but experienced tanks “leave” before the resource is used up, so their cancellation is not a big tragedy. If he wanted to say that T64 were decommissioned due to the impossibility of alteration, he could tell him such a fact. These tanks, namely the T64, of the first series, until the 1987 of the year, were stored in large numbers at storage bases, in particular near the Korobochkino station in the Kharkov region, and only then they began to be replaced and written off ...
    The laboring hand in hand with the Tagil designers, army tester A.I. Lukyanov later noted an important feature of the work of the Ural Design Bureau that manifested itself during the creation of the “172M facility”: “What was indicative of this whole thing? This is the speed of mining. And it was provided by the presence of pre-worked units. ... Until now, this is perhaps the only example. Usually it always turned out the other way around. They ordered a new tank, and a new development began - everything from the first to the last bolt again. This is where the ambitions of the chief designer and the connivance of the customer work. ”
    It remains for me to add that the "Tagilians" were not embarrassed to use what the "revolutionaries" invented and brought to mind for a long time ...
    It turns out an interesting picture: for the amount required for the production of one T-80Y tank, it was possible to build three T-72Б tanks.
    ... or two dozen T34-85, and a dozen T55. But the question is, who had higher combat effectiveness and which of these machines gave more chances to survive on the battlefield? Give me personally the opportunity to choose what to fight at that time, then without any doubt I would choose T80 ...
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 10 New
    +1
    In other words, within the framework of the criterion “efficiency - cost”, the T-72B is 2,7 times superior to the T-80У.
    - The argument is very far-fetched. the fact that the commander at T80U has a great ability to control fire, even to the point that he can fire from all weapons, significantly increases combat effectiveness, despite the cost ...
    Now let's ask ourselves: why the T-72?
    I’m afraid that the true answer will not be as clear as the author is trying to prove. And if the first president of Russia had suddenly been a native of Siberia, the author would have now argued that T80 is much better than T64 and T72, which is much easier by the way ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 13 New
    +4
    And in the nomination “the most warring tank” I would still consider the T54 / 55 as the main candidate for first place ...
    1. smprofi
      smprofi 17 August 2013 16: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      And in the nomination “the most warring tank” I would still consider the T54 / 55 as the main candidate for first place.

      I agree. although the T-34 should also not be forgotten.
  • Jarserge
    Jarserge 17 August 2013 16: 49 New
    +2
    The conclusions are controversial and the author is clearly lobbying the Urals. And the facts are that Uralvagonzavod using its lobby launched a tank identical to its TTX 64-ke in serial production, just like the Leningraders, using the fashionable theme and the support of supporters at the top of the military-industrial complex, they launched the T-80 series. As a result, the Soviet Army was armed there were three cars with their own shortcomings and no special differences. The winners in this particular case write the history of the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod. And the T-72 tank as a tank is no worse but no better than the T-64 and the T-80 they just won in intrigue. We won’t know whether this is better or worse ..... But this whole undercover story smells bad. It’s not for nothing that the Kharkovites and their supporters in all publications carefully water shit and this article is no exception
  • sergey72
    sergey72 17 August 2013 17: 41 New
    +3
    I like him like that ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 17: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: sergey72
      I like him like that ...

      The taste and color. I like this more
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 August 2013 17: 58 New
    +1
    Well, the tank is closed, I wish to the rink, the Russians removed, but did they remove their generals? dumber and brutally not seen
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 17 August 2013 18: 05 New
      +4
      In the tank biathlon, the T-72 of Russia won “red." Only broadcast on TV Star.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 August 2013 18: 09 New
        +3
        http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201308171354-eq6x.htm
      2. svp67
        svp67 17 August 2013 18: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: Alex 241
        In the tank biathlon, T-72 of Russia won the "red".
        Hooray!!! The Reds once again won. But again, the victory is somewhat blurred, I would really like him to compete with at least T80. You look and the victory would have been more significant or "the strongest would have won ..."
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 August 2013 18: 11 New
          +2
          The mattresses, they said they would think, maybe next time they would take part, that’s how they would wind the tail!
          1. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 18: 32 New
            +3
            Quote: Alex 241
            The mattresses, they said they would think, maybe next time they would take part, that’s how they would wind the tail!
            I would very much like for someone else to be invited to Leopard2, at least the Finns. And honestly, I will be glad of any result of these competitions, even defeat. Since it would significantly accelerate the rearmament of our army. And I will rejoice in victory in double, because I know that it will not be easy to get ...
          2. old man54
            old man54 18 August 2013 00: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Alex 241
            Mattresses, they said they would think, maybe next time they will take part,here it would wind the tail!

            good laughing
      3. M. Peter
        M. Peter 17 August 2013 19: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: Alex 241
        In the tank biathlon, the T-72 of Russia won “red." Only broadcast on TV Star.

  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 17 August 2013 18: 36 New
    +9
    Sergey, we must win by anyone. Why are our guys worse?
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 18: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex 241
      need to win on any

      and this is not even discussed. it’s not in vain that one of the mottos of our tank troops is “We do hard things immediately, impossible a little later ...”
      Quote: Alex 241
      Why are our guys worse?

      Here we can even say better, even very better. But even this poorly compensates, for example, the absence of an overwhelming mass of our tanks — a combat information system and something else ... It’s a pity our guys deserve to serve and fight on the best and most advanced MBT models.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 August 2013 19: 05 New
        +5
        Such is our destiny: He sharpened an ax to the ringing, cut a quarter of moonshine, and said that he would lead the enemy even by the horns!
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 19: 39 New
          +1
          But let’s bring it ... let us wash ourselves with blood, but we’ll get these one and the same punishment ... and let them not be offended then ...
        2. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 19: 41 New
          +1
          Somehow I recalled a nursery rhyme "... and the end is blue and I’m happy with myself ... I mean even scrap, blue. It’s not too lazy ... That's why there are no white people? They also plan to carry out winter stages ?
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 19: 12 New
      +2
      And by the way, due to the design of the MTO, the “police U-turn” on the T72 is more difficult to complete than on the T64 ... So this is what the master does ...
      1. Argon
        Argon 18 August 2013 00: 46 New
        -1
        In my opinion, it has died out, if this was not done deliberately, then this is a "fly in the ointment" and a "vodmeh" is higher than the CCM does not pull. laughing
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 18 August 2013 01: 03 New
          +1
          Judging by the fresh color, and the lack of a tail number, the factory crew, and the bellows there are far from teapots.
    3. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex 241
      Why are our guys worse?

      Very good U-turn.
      good
      It’s difficult to make such a summer, easier in the winter.
      There are features on the T-72, otherwise BKP can ... ahem ...
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 17 August 2013 18: 40 New
    +5
    Here is a video of our and their tanks! hi Russian Tanks in Battles: Facts and Evidence!
    1. Remko
      Remko 17 August 2013 22: 16 New
      -15
      Another ode to the T-72, and the Iraqis did not in vain abandon them in favor of the American Abrams.
      1. old man54
        old man54 18 August 2013 00: 14 New
        +4
        Oh you ... (censorship)! Do they, the Iraqis, have any choice ??? the same thing would be very funny if during the reign of Najibula in Afghanistan, when our troops were there, they, the Afghans would have decided to buy, well, let's say the same M-60. laughing
        The head must be thought, and not only it is!
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 45 New
        +4
        Quote: Remko
        the Iraqis have not in vain abandoned them in favor of the American Abrams.

        Iraqis have given up a lot of things, such as their lives. And no one asked them about it.
      3. t72
        t72 18 August 2013 12: 27 New
        +1
        Hee hee what a naive! She herself understood what he had said! The Iraqis refused ... Yes, the one who now steers it?
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 18 August 2013 13: 29 New
          +1
          Dear, follow the rules.
          Calm, Calm.
    2. Proud.
      Proud. 18 August 2013 21: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: vm68dm
      Fighting: Facts and Evidence!

      Great video!
  • klirens
    klirens 17 August 2013 18: 48 New
    +6
    I had to serve on the T-72 for 2 years 1987-1989. Here is the difference between the T-72 and the T-64.

    1. The loading cycle of the T-72’s guns is carried out in 2 steps of the recoil box - first the projectile, then the cassette drops to the angle of charge loading and the sucker makes the second move, adding the charge. On the video above, where the crew performs the UKS - there is no T-72. There, loading takes place in one stroke of the dopelike, such as the T-64. The main task of the tank in battle is to hit the target first, preferably from the first shot. If the target is not hit from the first shot, who has the chance to shoot earlier again in the T-72 or T-64, the answer is obvious.
    2. Targeted shooting from NSVT ("Cliff") on the T-72 immediately, in principle, is not possible. But there is a high probability that the turret will roll the neck of the commander. On the T-64, targeted firing from the NSVT is carried out from the commander’s regular place without opening the hatch.
    These are all well-known things. Few people think that the T-72 is inferior to the T-64 in these basic parameters.
    Now about the reliable T-72 engine. If mv drowned the engine at a cool temperature. liquid above 100 degrees and the engine has cooled, due to design features with uneven cooling of the studs on the heads, bubbles begin to flow from under the gaskets. The machine is being transferred to a combat training group. And this was often the case with young mvs, and if the commander did not keep track of and did not force to start and cool down in the wound state - I described the result.
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 19: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: klirens
      If the target is not hit from the first shot, who has the chance to shoot earlier at the T-72 or T-64, the answer is obvious.

      Of course - the chances are equal, since the combat rate of fire is the same, despite the different loading schemes, and it all depends on the crew’s training.
      Quote: klirens
      Targeted shooting from NSVT ("Cliff") on the T-72 immediately, in principle, is not possible.
      As it is not possible with the T64, regardless of its ZPU, since it does not have a stabilizer ...
      Quote: klirens
      Now about the reliable T-72 engine. If mv drowned the engine at a cool temperature. liquids over 100 degrees and the engine has cooled down,

      That is, you want to say that the “overheated” 5TDF or 6TD behaves better. Yes, do not tell "fairy tales" these engines, just because of their design and operational features are more sensitive to temperature conditions ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. klirens
        klirens 17 August 2013 19: 41 New
        +5
        The crew training does not affect the second shot. All actions of the crew - the gunner - switch the choice of the shell in the desired type and presses the loading button. All. Then the following happens:
        1. The gun stops at the loading angle, the pan is ejected from the previous shot.
        2. At this time, the VT begins to rotate and the mechanism for selecting shells captures the desired type of projectile. We assume that the required projectile in the VT is the closest and the VT does not need to be twisted further.
        3. Cassette with the desired charge pair — the projectile is removed in the T-72 to the projectile level, then the dowser sends out the projectile (often in this position it remained, because the AZR knocked it out). After the projectile is sent out, the cassette drops to the charge mark and the doselnik repeats the same actions.
        3. Cassette with the desired charge pair — the projectile is retrieved in the T-64 to the send level, while simultaneously unfolding them in a single line, then the despatcher sends out the entire shot in one turn.
        4. The gun is removed from the stopper and returns to the line of sight. The gunner has a signal ready.
        Crew training does not affect anything. Only the operation algorithm of the MOH and AZ affects. At the Ministry of Health, it has fewer operations.

        I will clarify the second thesis
        Shooting from NSVT ("Cliff") on the T-72 immediately, in principle, is not possible. Proven in practice.

        As for the engines, both cars had problems. At T-72 I described. And young MBs for this reason were afraid of marches on 50 km and above.
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 19: 57 New
          0
          Quote: klirens
          Crew training does not affect the time of the second shot
          Stupidity. You are very far from the theory and practice of shooting. Since it took a second shot, it means the first one did not achieve the result, most likely a miss, and here the crew starts training - to estimate the miss size, this is a great merit of the mech. Water, since from his place we often see the result better, and of course the commander, make an adjustment in the sight, or rather choose an adjustment method, carry it out and shoot ... That's how it seems everything is simple, but not easy, and all this is achieved only by training ... And you say training does not mean what
        2. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 20: 17 New
          0
          Quote: klirens
          I will clarify the second thesis. Shooting from the NSVT ("Cliff") on the T-72 is not immediately possible, in principle. Proven in practice.

          And I will clarify it even more.
          -Aiming is not possible, but the shooting itself, with the horizontal stoppers closed, so to speak “to fright”, is possible, and this is also verified ...
          Quote: klirens
          As for the engines, both cars had problems. At T-72 I described. And young MBs for this reason were afraid of marches on 50 km and above.

          Your young MVs are apparently very frightened by your stories like this, in fact, the TD series engine is more frightening not only young but also more experienced MVs, since they require closer monitoring, the B series engine is more lenient, although not without its drawbacks, for example, a reverse start-up, which is not so tragic on the TD, on B leads to serious damage
          1. klirens
            klirens 18 August 2013 01: 05 New
            +1
            Fright shooting is not our methods. And at 72 - this is the only method of shooting from the cliff.
            And I am very close to the practice of firing from the T-72 through 1A40 both from a supplementary barrel and with a standard D-81T shell. Therefore, the tales that from the first shot I get into whoever you want are fairy tales for ... Warming up the barrel, updated correction for the wind, poor reconciliation ..... This is all that is in real life. Hence the importance of the second shot increases many times. And nothing should prevent it from becoming the first ... And you are a strong theorist, but the theory does not always coincide with practice. For two years, I shot regular shots at the cost of the VAZ-2105 in 1987 prices.

            The question on AZ and MZ, as I understand it, is closed. I also forgot to add the VT capacity in T-72 12 - OF + 7-BP + 5 KUM = 22 shots, and in T-64 - 28 shots.

            From mv, overheated engine, 1000 kronor + sp. sheet for citizen (rumored). So these are not my stories, but the harsh reality of combat training.

            Do not call me a theorist ...

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr4qBnQhyEQ хороший фильм, правдивый.

            The production and operation of the T-64 required a high culture at that time. UVZ could not master its production in those years. T-64s could no longer be driven by civilian tractor drivers who were accustomed to paving the furrow directly and without jerking. And in the training did not have time to retrain them on the proper operation of the REVOLUTIONARY tank. Were it not for the T-64, there would be no T-72. The big question is - will ARMATA appear in real time?
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 18 August 2013 01: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: klirens
              Do not call me a theorist ...

              Why? I was interested to read.
              We are all "moping" in our own iron ... Do not draw conclusions, just starting to communicate ...

              And about transporters: yes, the Ministry of Health makes the cycle faster, plus there is a "series" system. But I prefer AZ.
              - Maintenance easier, drive only on electrics.
              - A slightly different installation system and if the sleeves from the FCT crumble out of the bag and roll, the conveyor does not wedge as much as it does in the MZ.
              - The entire bk AZ is under the floor, and not around you, which increases survival.
              - The acceleration of loading during the shots was done like this:
              after loading the shots into the conveyor, the cartridge was called up for unloading, thereby turning the conveyor, choosing its idle speed, then the command was canceled, the cartridge went down and entered the instant-rise mode. On the consoles everything is in the "car".
              When called with the "AZ" button, 1-th moment charging. You take the second shot and the subsequent ones right away as soon as possible, the transporter takes only one step and the rate of fire is such that you do not have time to reset the data on the range and blink with a new meter, even without using the "funny" Delta.

              So that the rate of fire at the AZ can be brought to an acceptable level, it will push, sweat ... smile

              Glad to read the meticulous opinions of the tankman.
              wink
              1. klirens
                klirens 18 August 2013 02: 07 New
                +1
                Aleks tv - This is the use of undocumented features. But what came up with this method is super. But how did shells by type be scattered at BT?
                1. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 28 New
                  0
                  Quote: klirens
                  But how did shells by type be scattered at BT?

                  And as it was necessary. Everything depended on the task.
                  They were wise with priority, trying to predict the sequence of shots, but you need to be careful here, since the conveyor will look for the closest requested type of shot in a circle, you can outwit yourself.
                  And then only almost one OF used, it became easier, made a standard layout, bringing the first OF to the lift.

                  Yes, in principle, many did.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 18 August 2013 07: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    And as it was necessary. Everything depended on the task.
                    They were wise with priority, trying to predict the sequence of shots, but you need to be careful here, since the conveyor will look for the closest requested type of shot in a circle, you can outwit yourself.
                    And then only almost one OF used, it became easier, made a standard layout, bringing the first OF to the lift.
                    Asa, these “layouts of marriages” have already become less relevant, with the advent of the T72B, on which the VT rotates in both directions, but they did not have time to do this on the T64, maybe now during modernization ..
            2. svp67
              svp67 18 August 2013 07: 36 New
              0
              Quote: klirens
              And I am very close to the practice of firing from the T-72 through the 1A40, both from the supplementary barrel and the standard D-81T shell.
              That's just the point, that is close, but not in 10 ...
              Quote: klirens
              Therefore, the tales that from the first shot I will fall into whoever you want are fairy tales for ...

              If he himself hadn’t shot, he probably would have believed, and this is not a fairy tale, but a true story. Otherwise, with the three available shells - three holes for the purpose was not ...
              Quote: klirens
              Warm up the barrel, adjusted correction for the wind, poor alignment ..... That's all there is in real life
              Well, let's say the barrel is warmed up during the first shot and, to be more precise, the target is hit just below the target cent. Correction for the wind - you probably had very ancient T72, at present this is compensated by electronics. Well, a bad reconciliation - here excuse me, from whom from where the eyes and hands grow ...
              Quote: klirens
              For two years I shot regular shots at the cost of the VAZ-2105 at 1987 prices.
              Speak to two VAZ-21о5, but probably it’s cool, but honestly I don’t even know six complete b / c in four days - how much? In our case, in Zhiguli, they haven’t measured this for a long time. And for that matter, in the 1987 year the TOUR of the Cobra cost as one Zhigul, I was fortunate enough to let three of them go to 1988. Well, what will be measured next? Take my word for it in the Russian army, especially in the former air-defense system they always shot a lot. And here we also had three messes, where they did not spare shells ...
              And once again I repeat - the loading time of A.V. MH and AZ do not differ much, and the merit in the production of an accurate second shot still depends on crew training. Since in order to at least turn on the “Series” on T64, you need to know where and what ...
              1. klirens
                klirens 18 August 2013 11: 41 New
                0
                And why should we argue - they shot at the SA no less. And I expressed 3 parameters, which in my opinion confirm that the T-72 is an economy version of the T-64 with degraded parameters.
                And it is not yet known if he would have appeared if not for the T-64. Rather, “evolutionary design-modernization of the T-62 line. And so, UVZ turned out to be an excellent constructive analogue from Kharkov.
                Now UVZ has a chance on Armata to show its ability / inability to create something new on its own. Time will tell how it all ends with Armata.
            3. svp67
              svp67 18 August 2013 07: 49 New
              0
              Quote: klirens
              . I also forgot to add the VT capacity in the T-72 12 - OF + 7-BP + 5 KUM = 22 shots,
              The amount converges, but only the terms differ for us, for the Central Organ - their own, for the Far East - their own ...
        3. Cynic
          Cynic 17 August 2013 20: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: klirens
          I will clarify the second thesis
          Shooting from NSVT ("Cliff") on the T-72 immediately, in principle, is not possible. Proven in practice.

          A very long time ago, an intelligent man said
          Test30 Machine Gun Shooting
          Tank T-80U test performed.
          Comments of the Greek crew: the impossibility of aimed fire from the NSVT machine gun in motion, due to the lack of stabilization in the horizontal plane.
          Shoot with a stabilized mark through the panoramic. All the same, better.
          1. klirens
            klirens 18 August 2013 01: 21 New
            +1
            So on the T-72 and this was not. Simplified ...
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: klirens
              So on the T-72 and this was not. Simplified ...

              About the cliff?
              Shooting from it is practically impossible in combat conditions, unfortunately. Only if there is no direct contact at the "shooting" range.

              And you can’t shoot at the training grounds without proper training, there aren’t enough “hands” to lock the vertical and horizontal with the hand wheel and lever, and even press the electric trigger ...
              This is yes ...
        4. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: klirens
          because knocked out his AZR

          A metal plate is taken and added to the AZR. And so to all the "critical" fuses, so that they do not break out then, when not needed. They did so.
          Those. they always look ahead.
          1. klirens
            klirens 18 August 2013 01: 43 New
            +1
            Those. Is the problem of unreasonable knocking out of the AZR, including the rammer confirmed by practice? And at the same time, as a commander, I have to observe in the TKN, to control the AZ in terms of whether the projectile has been sent - the charge (he sometimes hung a gun that was bitten in the chamber and had to hold it with his hand until the dopelik came to life from the knocked out AZR and sent it to the shell). This is the practice of loading AZ. The TTX combat rate of fire does not know anything about such loading nuances ...
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: klirens
              Those. Is the problem of unreasonable knocking out of the AZR, including the rammer confirmed by practice?

              No, it’s just that practice has shown insurance against all the crucial issues, not only about AZ ...
              Tightened it just in case (not kidding).
          2. t72
            t72 18 August 2013 13: 01 New
            +1
            But I’ve always told you something different! I don’t need a tower machine gun in this form on a tank. If you put in a machine that is completely independent of man, otherwise why would he
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 19: 20 New
      +3
      ______________
      And how much AZ is slow ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 August 2013 19: 27 New
        +2
        Compared to MOH
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 17 August 2013 19: 31 New
          +2
          .................
          1. svp67
            svp67 17 August 2013 19: 36 New
            +3
            Here the loader “throws” armor-piercing shells, it’s interesting how long he can so famously “throw” high-explosive shells, even such “undershots” that are used on M1
        2. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 19: 34 New
          +4
          Message to KARS. On the video data, the algorithm of the "travel" of the trays and the operation of the capture mechanisms is clearly visible ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 August 2013 20: 33 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            used pallets and the operation of trapping mechanisms ...

            Well, it's inside, not outside.
            Quote: svp67
            will be able to so famously "throw" HE shells, even such "undershots" that are used on M1

            But what ammunition is so huge? Yes, and it is doubtful to me that when there is any need to make the OFS series more than 3 pieces in a row. Then everything will be closed by smoke and it will not be visible where to shoot.
        3. Zhenya
          Zhenya 18 August 2013 08: 39 New
          0
          What kind of ammunition is shooting? It’s just that Abrams has 0th smoke, shooting is carried out by armor-piercing, and then after a good 6-8 shells, there will be nothing to breathe
    3. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 18 August 2013 00: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: klirens
      If mv drowned the engine at a cool temperature. liquids over 100 degrees

      Then this is not a mechanic-driver, but simply a “driver”, because when driving he did not control.
      On the T-72 you go to lower and increase the speed. The tank should stop at a normal temperature.
      1. klirens
        klirens 18 August 2013 01: 30 New
        +2
        Aleks TV - it is, at the same time, the fan speed increased and everything returned to normal, but in life it was for everyone - they jammed and overheated. The culture of exploitation .. So whistling on the opposite and not saying that there were problems with the V-shaped is incorrect.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 18 August 2013 02: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: klirens
          So whistling on the opposite and not saying that there were problems with the V-shaped is incorrect.

          Oppository hardly exploited, more B-46 and B-84, normal engines, quite reliable, they consume matyukov in moderation ...
          wink
          It’s difficult somehow without a name on your page.
        2. svp67
          svp67 18 August 2013 07: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: klirens
          So whistling on the opposite and not saying that there were problems with the V-shaped is incorrect.
          Any complex machine has problems. There are diesel engines "B" and gas turbine "GTE", but they are an order of magnitude smaller than that of a diesel engine "TD", into which everything was extreme during design, because of the desire to squeeze the maximum power, with a minimum size and weight, you have to pay for everything ...
    4. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 12: 32 New
      0
      Well, here's how anyone likes it, some very two-stroke 64 "LOVE"
      1. svp67
        svp67 19 August 2013 20: 51 New
        0
        Here we can say only one thing:
        "It's good to have a house in the village, worse when the house" has "you ..."
  • GUSAR
    GUSAR 17 August 2013 18: 49 New
    +1
    The T-72 is a cool car, and in my modernization potential, it’s far from exhausted
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 17 August 2013 19: 21 New
      0
      The tank may be a good one, BUT look at a series of photos of the destroyed T-72s, 70% of them without a tower, which means that there was a detonation of the ammunition. What is the conclusion? The tank is good, but it has exhausted itself and we need to think not about the piece of iron, but about those inside.
      ps
      During the Second World War, German tankers called Sherman lighters, as they burned after the first hit, which very often disabled the crew, usually if it survived, then 1-2 crew members.
      We currently have this
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 August 2013 19: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Marrying
        The tank is good, but it has exhausted itself and we need to think not about the piece of iron, but about those inside.
        ps
        There are many reasons for this. And their roots are much deeper. Still T34 had a tendency to detonation bk A question for our chemists and designers, why for so many years the question of detonations has not been resolved?
  • kirpich
    kirpich 17 August 2013 19: 05 New
    0
    In the report of Professor Major-General Nikolai Gruzdev, “State of Tank Technology during the War”, read in March 1944 at a meeting of the Tank Section of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry and having a great influence on the post-war development of the national tank industry shows that only the design provides a quick entry into the series, which is based on pre-worked units, that is, design, as a combination of used units. Therefore, continuous improvement of the aggregates is necessary. Designing a new tank while at the same time creating new aggregates means, as a rule, handing over a series of unfinished machines. ”

    Alexander Morozov, in an effort to drastically, in a tactical and technical manner, break away from serial products, decided to literally create a new tank. The idea was great, but the burden was overwhelming. Already 5 June 1958, Morozov wrote in his diary: “The task of creating ed. “430” is very complicated, everything is practically new. I have not solved such problems before. ”

    Tagilchane acted consistently and evolutionarily - and quite consciously. This is evidenced by the words of the chief designer of that time, Leonid Kartsev: “We always went towards the same goal, but in different ways. Kharkiv had an advantage over us, since in Moscow everyone, up to the Central Committee, relied on them and helped them in every way. On the other hand, the Kharkiv citizens had tremendous difficulties, since they, having no reserve of used components and mechanisms, immediately decided to significantly break away from the production tank in terms of tactical and technical characteristics. We were moving in separate steps, taking and introducing quickly into the serial tank everything that appeared new in science and technology. ”

    The opinion of Leonid Kartsev is confirmed by outside observers.


    I’m bi, Comrade General Gruzdev put the bi in a tank, and sent him on the attack.
    Maybe he beat on his own skin felt the bi, what it feels like not going to go broke, but to protect people (I. Stalin)
  • Flooding
    Flooding 17 August 2013 19: 22 New
    +2
    I have not read the article. Author, do not blame me. A lot has already been written and read on this topic.
    I went tokmo for the sake of reviews. And my aspirations were not deceived. Thanks to the tankers, pleased.
    svp67, Aleks tv, write about your favorite cars more and more often.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 17 August 2013 19: 30 New
    0
    And now we ask ourselves the question: why exactly T-72? In the USSR, by the end of the 1970s, there was also a more advanced base in the form of the T-80 tank. Some technical problems with its use existed, but there was nothing unsolvable. Here, apparently, a completely different circumstance was played: the high labor intensity of the machine and, consequently, the insufficient number of them did not allow spending expensive equipment for auxiliary needs. Constantly there was a temptation to apply something simpler. The basis for the "platform" can only serve as a relatively cheap, and most importantly, simple to manufacture and therefore a mass machine such as the T-72.


    Dear, you will not believe it, but the mass machine is the T-54, T-55. They are still on conservation, and are ready to start at any time. They don’t even need shells, there would be fuel in the tanks.
    1. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: kirpich
      Now let's ask ourselves: why the T-72?
      Moreover, at the end of the 80, a government decree was passed according to which the T80U became a single tank for the USSR Armed Forces. What, by the way, was the transition of the Kharkov plant from T64 to T80. Something similar was supposed to happen at UVZ, but ....
    2. svp67
      svp67 17 August 2013 20: 11 New
      -1
      Quote: kirpich
      The basis for the “platform” can only be a relatively cheap, and most importantly, easy to manufacture and therefore mass machine - such as the T-72.

      In terms of the cheapness of the “platform”, the T80 is not nearly more expensive than the T72. Here the question is the price of the engine, of course, the gas turbine engine is much more expensive than the "B". But at that time there was not such a powerful tank engine. By the way, it was planned to install a new 80В2 diesel engine at T2, which would remove many questions ...
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 17 August 2013 20: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: kirpich
      They are still on conservation, and are ready to start at any time. They don’t even need shells, there would be fuel in the tanks.

      May be . Only where?
      In my eyes stands _ The field is made up by 55-year-olds and evening / night lightning from the autogenous.
      Times EBN ...
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 August 2013 20: 38 New
        +2
        Times EBN .. Not times, timelessness ...........
        1. svp67
          svp67 17 August 2013 21: 01 New
          +3
          In the photo is T62, and in the distance it looks like T64, although not sure
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 18 August 2013 18: 48 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            In the photo T62 ...

            Yes, the characteristic hatch is visible.
            As far as I remember, they cut the 54/55th, brought from central Russia.
            drinks
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 17 August 2013 22: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    In the eyes stands _ Field forced

    Quote: Alex 241
    Times EBN .. Not times, timelessness ...........



    But, after all there is a "forced field", and is ready for use ... repeat
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 August 2013 18: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: kirpich
      But, after all, there is a “forced field”

      It was said
      Quote: Cynic
      The field is made up of 55-year-olds and evening / night lightning from the autogenous.

      Who knows understand!
      hi
  • nick-name
    nick-name 17 August 2013 23: 23 New
    +4
    Quote: bask
    The only thing that needs to be modernized in the T-72, to place the ammunition with charges in the aft niche of the tower.

    Did you see what happens to the tank during the detonation of the BC? And what will save the feed niche?
    1. Argon
      Argon 18 August 2013 02: 05 New
      -1
      I completely agree with you, dear nick-name, all the more so since it brings more engineering problems than there are more advantages such a tower, less armored, worse balanced, but I especially feel sorry for the stabilizer designers to solve "unsolvable" problems, given the weight the tower itself, a rather significant range of mass changes (at the expense of the ammunition tank) .... And the result is shown on the frames of the "abrams" with a falling gun, taking into account that most promising anti-tank weapons are designed taking into account the defeat of the tank from above. The main reason for the detonation of ammunition is the direct the impact on the shell of the evolving factor (cumulative jet, kinetic energy of the BPS core), therefore, the BC should be hidden "deeper", trying to create as many obstacles in the way of the FS as structural elements, equipment, and maybe a separate armored module.
      1. t72
        t72 18 August 2013 12: 47 New
        0
        Oh, I don’t understand what you grabbed for seventy-two! The car of its time, the time has come to change. You still would discuss the capabilities of the Aurora cruiser in modern naval combat.
    2. svp67
      svp67 18 August 2013 07: 53 New
      0
      Quote: nick-name
      Did you see what happens to the tank during the detonation of the BC? And what will save the feed niche?
      And by the fact that it can be fenced off from the crew by armored partitions, and from above to make knock-out panels, through which the main force of the explosion will leave, since this is done on Abrams
      1. Zhenya
        Zhenya 18 August 2013 13: 16 New
        +1
        I am afraid with such a detonation this is unlikely to save the crew.
        1. bask
          bask 18 August 2013 13: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: Marrying
          I am afraid with such a detonation this is unlikely to save the crew.

          Omichi, this topic has been developed since the beginning of the 90s.
          I do not think that they did not carry out the corresponding calculations and tests on this topic.
          On the topic, Black Eagle, and the modernization of the T-55M6.
          On the T-55M6, a new tower was installed. The basis was taken, the T-72B tower. The tower retained part of the structure, weapons and a number of equipment. The T-55M6 received a 125 mm 2A46 gun. An armored ammunition box is located in the aft niche of the new tower. Inside it, isolated from the fighting compartment, with an armored partition, there are up to 22 separate shells. On the upper part of the box there are knockout plates. To deliver ammunition, Omsk created a new automatic loader.
          The aft arrangement of the BC, in the turret with knock-out panels, of course, does not 100% guarantee crew survival, with the detonation of the BC. BUT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THEIR CHANCE !!!
          1. Zhenya
            Zhenya 18 August 2013 14: 00 New
            +2
            I’m wondering, but in armature the crew’s esolation from BC will be implemented.
            1. Argon
              Argon 18 August 2013 16: 11 New
              +1
              Practice has shown that protecting the crew as an end in itself is not feasible in weight up to 55 tons, including in the “BC in the tower niche” layout, let’s take the Abrams nedotank as an example: in spite of the knock-out panels, armored curtains, the desire to fit into the TZ mass flow and to ensure at least some acceptable reservation of the side projections of the tower led to the fact that the tower, having a satisfactory (according to amers) local strength, does not have enough overall (i.e., when knocking is deformed, it partially deforms), which can be seen in the video above. about Omsk developments: the main idea is to reduce the loading time of ammunition, because the niche is detachable and is a transportable module. After a comprehensive analysis, this topic was recognized as not promising, it had all the shortcomings of the Abrams \ leopard layouts, it was not possible to achieve complete isolation of the BC and its combustion products from the crew, but the main reason the warriors called the “spaced” design of the MOH, that is, the kinematics feed is in the module and the one sending in the tower, so the crew is not able to check / adjust the MH in case the module is not brought in, or is forced to partially unload the module, which reduces almost not all the benefits of its use.
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 August 2013 16: 35 New
                +1
                Quote: Argon
                d (i.e., when knocking, it deforms partially collapsing), which can be seen in the video above.

                And what of this? Tanam after detonation of the BC is mostly a waste road, and capra = ont has a better chance for Abrasha. Carrots all three after the detonation of the BC went to the scrap with all the crew members without exception.
          2. ramsi
            ramsi 18 August 2013 16: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: bask
            Quote: Marrying
            I am afraid with such a detonation this is unlikely to save the crew.

            Omichi, this topic has been developed since the beginning of the 90s.
            I do not think that they did not carry out the corresponding calculations and tests on this topic.
            On the topic, Black Eagle, and the modernization of the T-55M6.
            On the T-55M6, a new tower was installed. The basis was taken, the T-72B tower. The tower retained part of the structure, weapons and a number of equipment. The T-55M6 received a 125 mm 2A46 gun. An armored ammunition box is located in the aft niche of the new tower. Inside it, isolated from the fighting compartment, with an armored partition, there are up to 22 separate shells.

            here, too, bzik ... If the feed niche of the tower, then why separate shots ... - there were no others? ..
      2. Speedy
        Speedy 18 August 2013 17: 09 New
        +1
        The Americans only carry scraps there. In the OF explosion, the kick-out panels are unsaved.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 17 August 2013 23: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    May be . Only where?
    In the eyes stands


    Believe me, there are places where tanks are at a low start.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 August 2013 18: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: kirpich
      Believe me, there are places where tanks are at a low start.

      Not the 55th, thirty years ago, we only had the 62nd cropped ones.
      wink
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 17 August 2013 23: 50 New
    -4
    Article fuvlo, did not even read it! T-72 is an export tank for Africa and Arabs (mobilization - military primitive) created on the basis of T-64 on a simplified topic ...

    Simple, cheap, massive like Kalash, but the tank must fight the TANKS, and here it is the worst of OUR!
    The T-64 is revolutionary and complex, OPTIMUM was a T-80 with a diesel engine, but history ordered otherwise ...
    1. harrymur
      harrymur 18 August 2013 03: 38 New
      -9
      this is urya the article here is better not to interfere, peck,
      we don’t have the normal level of Leo, Merkava and Abram, we all know this very well,
      but Urya doesn’t allow you to recognize the obvious, the Soviet past obt is spam by tanks,
      and Russia cannot afford it, armata is in question,
      in kind, they bought the best Leo, so there’s no hurry to our tank industry, you give Soviet spam with tanks of the last century, release-urya t72
      1. Massaraks
        Massaraks 18 August 2013 13: 01 New
        +2
        typical WoT player comment wink
      2. Regis
        Regis 18 August 2013 13: 49 New
        +1
        You of course have no normal OBT. But in Russia they are.
        Just put up with it if the level of tenacity allows.
        Quote: harrimur
        soviet past obt is spam by tanks,

        Do not be offended by Druk, but these are the words of a stupid gamer.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 18 August 2013 18: 39 New
          +2
          Quote: Regis
          but these are the words of a stupid gamer.

          No, rather stubborn.
          These games are not stupid people do gradually bringing to the minds of players true knowledge!
          After all, to read special literature, memoirs sku-u-uchno, and here ...
          In general, at one time, it fell out, when in some shooter AK jammed in line!
          I read the manual, indeed our AK according to their descriptions is unreliable _ it immediately overheats and wedges, the dirt itself sticks, you can’t drop it!
          drinks
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 19 August 2013 10: 27 New
        0
        Quote: harrimur
        in kind, they bought the best Leo, so there’s no hurry to our tank industry, you give Soviet spam with tanks of the last century, release-urya t72

        Harrimur, do you even know how lithol-24 smells? ..
        And all there, and even "Urya" led completely out of place.
    2. t72
      t72 18 August 2013 12: 14 New
      +1
      Into the jungle! Into the jungle! M16 into your hands and into the jungle!
  • Massaraks
    Massaraks 18 August 2013 12: 59 New
    +5
    Tanks fight with tanks only when necessary. Tanks burn and everything explodes. On Abrams, in order to load the cannon faster, the curtains are open in battle, so such a tower is no better. And no matter how good the tank is, it will have its own funds. And whatever you, excuse me, yapping, our tanks are the most warring. For the peacetime army, imports are better, but it is only possible to fight normally on ours. proven by time.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 18 August 2013 13: 14 New
    +2
    I am not a tanker. Moreover, when in my first exercises, in my first year, as part of a motorized rifle division, a tank (T-55) was shot next to us, I was a little in my pants ...
    And I also remember that when I was in college, the T-62 was secret and we, in the course of armored vehicles (a cool name, even got the tractor operator’s crusts) smile ) the preparations were studied all the same T-55, as well as "fought" with them in the exercises, while already T-72 was in full swing armed.
    Our head of the department of tactics was a tankman, and some teachers of the same department too, so it was only thanks to them that we were in the know about the modern tank fleet of the SA.
    Well, this article, although for the Urals, but, in my opinion, is too much against the Kharkiv people.
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 18 August 2013 13: 37 New
    +3
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Quote: Remko
    the reason is in the false boats.

    The strike keeps the normal false-side with all the bells and whistles, it’s very difficult to reach the 1-2 body with RPG shots, the crew almost always not only survived, but continued to carry out the task.
    But sometimes they tear them themselves, clinging to some trash.
    At the expense of the sides. Here is a video hi
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 18 August 2013 13: 57 New
      -2
      I’m not sure that this tanker is still alive.
      1. Regis
        Regis 18 August 2013 14: 21 New
        +7
        If you believe Anna News - is alive. In my opinion, 1 time was wounded, but alive.
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 18 August 2013 19: 55 New
          +2
          And thank God that he is alive.
          1. Regis
            Regis 18 August 2013 21: 10 New
            +2
            There, by the way, there are a lot of interesting videos.

            For example, several cases in which the old T-72 receive several injuries from an RPG and fail, but without loss of personnel. The immobilized tanks are evacuated, repaired and they are returned to duty. True, in one video, mechanical water died, but a sniper killed him when he got out of an immobilized car.

            These videos are also interesting because many of our compatriots, thanks to Discovery, think that the T-72 explodes from any hit)
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 18 August 2013 20: 17 New
    +1
    We had the object "785" of the Chelyabinsk Design Bureau:

    had an original chassis with rollers from T-80, 7 pieces per side,
    the driver’s mechanic was sitting on the left, his surveillance devices came out through the roof of the case, and not through the frontal sheet, thereby not weakening it.
    The frontal sheet itself, and indeed the bow of the hull, had an original design, which will subsequently be borrowed developed on Kharkiv and Tagil promising machines vol. 187, vol. 477 and, of course, vol. 195.
    The main armament was a powerful rifled 130mm gun with an ammunition load of 50 rounds. This is the largest stock of shots among Soviet tanks of the second generation. Moreover 30 shots were in the automatic loader..
    Had a power unit MTU-2 (with an X-shaped engine 2V) ....



    Eh, Chelyabinsk citizens were unlucky with the introduction of their technology (there was no strong lobby), otherwise who knows what kind of tank we are discussing now ....
  • Crang
    Crang 18 August 2013 21: 11 New
    +1
    T-72 is just a fucking tank! Cool and unique looking. Powerful. With the largest caliber tank gun in the world. Beast.
  • Wynd
    Wynd 19 August 2013 11: 42 New
    0
    But I still like the T-80 tank.
  • master_rem
    master_rem 19 August 2013 12: 23 New
    0

    true artillery, but still
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 15: 04 New
    0
    Guys, the site recently had a wonderful article on the experience of using 72-k in Chechnya. With an abundance of photos. So, there, special attention was paid to a kind of inconspicuous "magic wand" - a ZiP box behind the tower, in which there were many hits of RPG shots, but which did not lead to penetration of armor and detonation or ignition of gunpowder in pallets. The question is - is this generally somehow taken into account by designers in KB? Or when operating a tank in combat? Or was it just an accident and luck? I just look at the Syrian tanks - it’s not that boxes are not visible - often DZ is not hung.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 15: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      Question - is this generally somehow taken into account by designers in KB

      It takes into account almost all modern tanks hung with similar drawers.
      According to Syria, they could have been damaged earlier, lost, etc. In Syria, there are very few tanks staffed in the state.

      For example, the 2 Challenger the entire aft of the tower is a type of spare parts boxes, personal equipment of the crew, water supply, etc. If the joints are visible, the joints will be noticeable.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 19 August 2013 19: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      The question is - is this generally somehow taken into account by designers in KB?

      In theory - is taken into account.
      There are three ZIP boxes on the T-72, one of them at the back with an OPVT pipe.
      ZIP - In principle, this is a box with two metal walls in front of the armor, the cumulative stream will at least spread or weaken, plus any junk inside.

      Quote: Iraclius
      I just look at the Syrian tanks - it’s not that boxes are not visible - often DZ is not hung.

      There T-72 of the first series, Andrei, moreover, an export, weakened version ...
      It's like heaven and earth with serial cars for the USSR even of that period, you’ll understand how the hell they are fighting ... DZ was not even provided for at that time.
      Good luck to them.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 15: 15 New
    0
    If it is raskhrenachit, then how to change it - as I understand it, that it is structurally part of the tower? I mean, what, in the field, it seems, can not be replaced? And this is not very good.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 15: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      I understand that it is structurally part of the tower?

      If you are talking about the Challenger - then no, this is a hinged modular equipment, as well as on the T-72, T-80, etc. And changing is the problem of tomorrow, the main thing is that today they will play the role of a spaced reservation.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 16: 08 New
    0
    Yeah, that's better seen. Another question - all these boxes successfully play the role of a kind of "anti-torpedo bulkheads." Why not use this to increase the security and other projections of the tank - in addition to the bot screens - cheaply and angrily. Especially if it is expected that the enemy will actively use precisely cumulative ammunition.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 August 2013 22: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      in addition to bot screens - cheap and cheerful.

      Everything rests on dimensions and weight .. And so instead of it now the distribution of lattice has received.
      I would even suggest making screens on telescopic mounts so that in combat conditions move the screens a meter to twenty meters away
  • Vincente
    Vincente 21 August 2013 09: 54 New
    0
    In February, 80 T-72 tanks were to be modernized. how success is interesting smile
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 21 August 2013 18: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Vincente
      In February, 80 T-72 tanks were to be modernized. how success is interesting smile
      There was information on the plant’s website that the modernization works were completed ahead of schedule.
  • dvvv
    dvvv 22 August 2013 13: 34 New
    0
    there are definitely a lot of tankers on the forum)
  • nick-name
    nick-name 28 August 2013 17: 51 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    from above make knockout panels through which the main force of the explosion will leave, as this is done on Abrams

    An overworked AZ is more vulnerable. On the abrams there is no detonation of the CD, burnout occurs. If 3UOF26 pulled out there, the Tryndets would come to the crew.