Military Review

Sergey Maev: “Armat” will need to pull up to the level of T-95

122
A month later, at the arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, the country's top leadership will be shown the heavy caterpillar unified platform “Armata”. This will be the crown of many years of work to create a promising Russian tank. A special role in creating the tank of the future was played by Colonel-General Sergei Maev, Chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF). From 1996 to 2003, he served as the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OKR "Perfection-88"). The chief editor of Rosinformburo Vyacheslav Prunov managed to talk with the patriarch of Russian tank building.


Illustrations, as well as signatures to them, are presented by A. Khlopotov.

-Sergey Alexandrovich, in your opinion, will the “Armata”, which will be presented at a closed show in Nizhny Tagil, be a revolution in tank design? Or will we again "beat the tails" and catch up with the West?

-I ended my service at the Automobile Armored Office in 2003. By this time the type of Russian armored vehicles was created. At the exit was a T-95 tank on the theme “Improving -88”. At the exit was a group of light armored tracked vehicles of the BMP type of various modifications. At the exit was a group of armored personnel carriers: the BTR "Rostok" and the upgraded BTR-70 and BTR-60. And, it would seem, everything went to the finish line. We showed the public new tanks "Black Eagle" and "Golden Eagle".

-"Golden eagle"?

-Yes, "Berkut", at the Omsk plant. These were the prototypes that I started to create a competitive spirit, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to divert attention from the main work “Improvement -88”, which was conducted on “Uralvagonzavod”.

And at the Kharkov Tank Plant they developed new Boxer and Hammer machines. There was a rendered high-caliber gun 152 mm, chassis as on the T-64, boxer engine with a capacity of one and a half thousand horsepower. True, the crew was placed in the usual way. But in the Kharkov machine there were former disadvantages of the T-64. Very complex loading mechanism, tight layout.

The disadvantage of our tanks was that shells were placed in the center of the machine, in the automatic loader. It turned out the least protected place: 60 mm side armor and the center of the target. After all, the enemy always marks the center of the car. This was clearly manifested in Chechnya, when our RPG-7, at close range, beat the center and detonation of ammunition, complete destruction of the tank and the death of the crew. It just blows it to pieces.

Tank "Object-195" on the test site

Therefore, it was decided to enter a completely new type of design, which was implemented on the "Improvement-88". The prospective T-95 tank had portable armament and a separate crew capsule located in front of the hull. All processes, including the control of the course and the organization of the shooting, were automated.

The radar detected enemy targets at a distance of 10 km. The range of the missile, as a means of high-precision destruction, more than 5 km. Shooting a gun at a distance of 3 thousand meters using "technical vision".

The machine was a very powerful structure. And most importantly, she had a very high stock of engine power. In spite of the fact that the weight was within 52-58 tons, on the move, during 10 seconds, it reached a speed of up to 70 km / h. So was competently designed suspension and chassis.

Sergey Maev: “Armat” will need to pull up to the level of T-95- There were seven rollers?

- Seven rollers. The course was smooth and the suspension ratio is very high. The suspension was so soft that from the shot it went like on water. We had to make changes to the design of the shock absorbers to remove these vibrations. Very comfortable position was the driver's mechanic - the floor is recumbent. Management push-button, easier than the American "Abrams". I myself, personally, drove T-95 for three hours through a snowy forest, trying to plant, get a push in the ass, and I did not succeed.

Our cars have always had problems with ergonomics and comfort. And in the T-95- there was a very high level of comfort. The crew was placed linearly. Shoulder to shoulder. On the left is the driver mechanic. In the middle is the commander, and to the right is the gunner of the gun. The commander and driver mechanic could replace each other.

-And not close to them? Enough space?

- Enough, how! Machine width - 2 centimeters 30. They sat on the couch. And between the elbows there was still a distance of 20 centimeters. Ergonomic chairs, well, management does not require any physical strength. All on joysticks. I did not see such comfort as in this car, not in one car of the world. I drove the Abrams and the driving feeling of the T-95 was more comfortable than from the Abrams and Leopard.

In this case, the fire power of this machine was very high. I will not talk about the rocket, it was unique. A piercing projectile punched (...) cm of homogeneous armor.


Experimental installation of 152-mm gun 2А83 on the gun of the B-4 howitzer. Polygon STIM


Of course, the car is expensive. Only highly qualified specialists could work on it. It was assumed that this should be contract. Although, could teach and the draft. There was a very high quality on-board machine, which completely determined the state of all components and assemblies using 60 parameters. And immediately issued a warning. Any malfunction, and on the screen of the mechanic - the driver pops up a note saying that this and that should be done.

- Was the whole crew in a capsule? Probably, behind such armor, the tankers felt invulnerable?

-They were in a capsule that was mounted in an armored case. The capsule separated the crew from the compartment where the ammunition was. And it gave a special sense of security. The French conducted special studies and found that the effectiveness of the crew in heavy vehicles is three times higher than in light armored vehicles. Because in a heavy car the crew feels invulnerable.

“But it’s not enough to save the crew, you still need to protect the ammunition.

-Ammunition security was also very high. Moreover, there extinguishing panels were provided. If something was happening - the kick panel was knocked out, but since there were no people there, it could be afforded, and it saved the car. She could be restored.

But with such a "ship" caliber there should have been a small ammunition?

The ammunition on the T-95 was 40 ammunition, just like on conventional machines.

-And the engine? In such a large tank and the engine must be very powerful.

-H-shaped engine. Of course, there it was possible to provide for the placement of both the gas turbine and boxer engines. But we decided to refine our X-shaped diesel. Power and a half thousand horsepower. There was a problem with the fuel supply, problems in relation to heat load. But these issues were resolved by our Chelyabinsk plant. The 15 engines were released, and the operating time was within 1000 hours.

Many have noted the unusual appearance of the T-95. Unlike other Russian tanks, it was very tall.

-Our military can not get rid of the idea that the machine should be squat. But that was when there were no guided projectiles. And now. If a guided projectile flies on a mass of metal or on heat, it will find an equal target, even if it lies on the ground.

-It is believed that at that level of electronics, the problem of “technical vision” could not be completely resolved.

- Of course, there would be some problems when operating the machine. Take the T-80. Now T-80 is an absolutely reliable machine. And at first, everyone was from her, as she was unreliable. And on the T-95 there could be such problems. But I am clearly confident that, thanks to the rapid development of technology, these shortcomings would be eliminated.

- The main thing is that a completely new version of the design was found. You said that T-64 was different from T-62, just like T-55 was different from T-34, and T-34 was different from BT-7. And the T-95, it was a new high-quality technical race.

“And how did the Ministry of Defense handle this revolutionary tank?”

-It was planned, in 2005, to complete state tests and put it into a series. In the first year they had to make 100 machines, then 300 machines. This is ahead of the development of the world tank building years on 15. Two years ago, at an exhibition in Paris, I saw the layout of the Leopard, in which German designers tried to somehow replicate the T-95 to accommodate the crew, ammunition and the gun and the elements of technical vision. But it was just a layout.

-And we already had a new generation car in metal.

-And we have two samples of T-95 already departed 15 thousand. Km. And the gun has already made 287 shots. The tank was ready. It was necessary to create a third option, conduct a full-scale revision, based on the first and second samples, and on the third option, conduct state tests, make some changes and launch the series. And we would have the best tank in the world.

- But what happened? Why abandoned the finished T-95 and opened a new work on "Armata"?

- What happened is difficult to explain. I was at one of the meetings of the military-industrial commission, when the customers spoke, and Nikolay Yershov was the head of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, I told them that in order to finish this car, one more tank had to be made, to spend about 500 mln. rubles,

Well, this is not fantastic money.

- Yes, they stayed, this money. The creation of T-95 was not allocated a lot, total 2.2 billion rubles. And when I left, we had 700 million left. 400 million to make a third car and 300- for state tests.

But, I was objected that the machine is structurally too complicated and it will not be mastered and will be very expensive. And I said: “Yes, it is expensive and complicated, but now you will not spend 700 millions of rubles, but much more, simplify the specifications and make the car. Which class will be lower. " So I said: "You will make a bastard."

What is now being done with “Armata” - I do not know. But I think chief designer Andrei Terlikov will try to drag all the best from the T-95 into Armat.

-Walked that for display in Nizhny Tagil, they would take apart the T-90 MS "Tagil" and put a new combat module on its six-base base.

Yes, there should be no problems with the case. After all, the experience gained enormous. I came to the head of the cupola in 1996 year. This car was in draft design stage. I declared myself the leader of this project. He began to personally hold the advice of chief designers. There was little money. The stomach was empty, and the head worked well. But when there was more money, the head began to work worse.

“And now, on an empty stomach, the Ural designers made the T-95 and made a revolution in tank building, and the heavy universal tracked platform“ Armata ”will be such a breakthrough?

-I do not know this. I cannot blame Armata, but I will not exaggerate the importance of this development.


Likely view of a promising T-14 tank based on the Armata TGUP


-It is known that on the "Armata" will not be installed 152 mm, and 125 mm gun. Why do you think the designers went for the deliberate reduction of firepower?

- The reason is the difficulty of manufacturing large-caliber tank guns. The first 152 mm cannon exploded on the 86 shot. We could not understand the reasons for a long time. It turns out that internally the pressure increased to 7 500 atmospheres, while other tanks had 3000. The aggressiveness of the powder and the initial speed are very high. And we began to change the thickness of the walls of the trunk, that would change the amplitude of oscillations of metal. And came out on 280 shots. And the projectile of this caliber is a very complex product. And so, apparently decided to take the old proven design.

Former GABTU chief Alexander Galkin warned: “If you give up on the 152 mm gun, the whole idea will fail!”. After all, the Americans, in stock is 140 mm tank gun. They will simply modernize and install a new weapon on the Abrams. The 125 mm gun makes this machine (“Armata”) uncompetitive on the battlefield under any circumstances. And the 152 mm gun must be on a new car necessarily!

- Does the designers take a step back when creating “Armatu”?

-Creating T-95, we went to a new class of car. Unfortunately, it is lost. The paradox is that “Armata” will need to be dragged by characteristics to the level of “Improvement-88”. But the enemy is not in place.

-Do you think “Armat” will be worse than T-95?

-Well, of course, it will be worse than "Perfection-88". I think so. But the new just does not come. It was necessary to squeeze all the will into a fist and bring the T-95 to mind. In the 2005 year, we could actually begin to release a new tank. It is now -2013 year. Eight years have passed!

“And yet, why didn't the T-95 be adopted?” Why put an end to the already finished best tank in the world? Why undertook a new, dubious development work? Could it be money? After all, KB lives by development?

- Forgive me, Lord! It seems to me that there are only personal motives. I wanted Ershov to become an outstanding tanker. I warned him: "You will be kicked out in a year!" And so it happened.
Originator:
http://rosinform.ru/
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makst83
    makst83 30 August 2013 09: 50 New
    40
    The situation is similar to what is happening in the aircraft industry! There is a wonderful Tu-334, there is very little left until the release .... but Mr. Poghosyan considered the Tu-334 to be a direct competitor to his brainchild SSJ and that’s all, the project is closed! Personal ambitions and shortsightedness ruined such a wonderful project. So here (((
    1. experienced
      experienced 30 August 2013 15: 53 New
      17
      From 1996 to 2003, he served as the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OKR "Perfection-88"). The chief editor of Rosinformburo Vyacheslav Prunov managed to talk with the patriarch of Russian tank building.

      You can’t read further, managing development doesn’t mean designing and creating, otherwise we have Indians with their “leadership” (no need for asbestos, put little or little brick) are also “patriarchs” of aircraft construction. Chel is sincerely sure that everything that was created under his leadership is "ideal", and that which was created after he "resigned" sucks and poop. wink
      It seems to me that there are only personal motives. I wanted to become outstanding Ershov tankman. I warned him: "You will be expelled in a year!" And so it happened.

      Poor Michael Wittmann in a coffin spins thinks that he is in competition for Ershov laughing
      And this pearl simply delights with its logic
      What is being done with Armata now - I don’t know. But I think the chief designer Andrei Terlikov will try to drag the best with the T-95 into “Armata».

      Like, Armata will come out badly, I warned, and if it is worthy, it was stolen from us, as we had come up with lol
      1. Kars
        Kars 30 August 2013 16: 09 New
        +7
        More like fairy tales on the T-95. Like the photos are very unintelligible. In the bash under the rag, they’ve wiped the 152 mm gun.
        The suspension is so cool - but they didn’t say which - torsion bars, hydropneumatics?
        1. uwzek
          uwzek 30 August 2013 22: 52 New
          0
          The photo is really unintelligible. But, given the significantly larger dimensions of the "ninety-fifth" case, it is difficult to judge caliber
          1. postman
            postman 31 August 2013 02: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: uwzek
            But, given the significantly larger dimensions of the "ninety-fifth" case, it is difficult to judge caliber


            dance from the diameter of the track roller.
            Using a ruler, a TFT monitor (or a printed page) and 2 arithmetic operations = get a "gauge"
      2. mark1
        mark1 30 August 2013 16: 12 New
        +5
        From the very beginning, “Armata” was announced as “a T-95 tank, simplified and adapted to the realities of Russian production,” everything seems to be as good as on the T-95, only easier and cheaper. Well, they are still "improving" and "simplifying" ... (most likely they are sculpting something new, but that does not mean that the best)
        1. Genry
          Genry 30 August 2013 16: 47 New
          +8
          The idea of ​​Armata does not contradict the concept of T-95, these are different entities.
          They just want to make, first of all, a set of parts (constructor) from which any base can be made, for a tank (wheeled, floating, medium, heavy), BMPT, self-propelled guns, ZSU, BMP, etc. Only the hulls and weapons modules will be specific, and the assembly is all the same. This simplifies the possibilities of production (!!!), operation, repair, logistics of spare parts and consumables, a single basic maintenance (!!!).
          1. mark1
            mark1 30 August 2013 17: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Genry
            They just want to make, first of all, a set of parts (constructor) from which any base can be made, for a tank (wheeled, floating, medium, heavy), BMPT, self-propelled guns, ZSU, BMP, etc. Only the hulls and weapons modules will be specific, and the assembly is all the same.

            Well, here you grabbed a little, wheeled, floating and medium, nothing will happen, Armata is a universal heavy platform, and medium and light are Kurganets-25 and Boomerang, respectively. The T-95 could also well be taken as the basis for the development of the platform (but "expensive" and "low-tech")
          2. vjhbc
            vjhbc 31 August 2013 09: 33 New
            +3
            so it will turn out F-35 only in the tank and our people will admire that such a station wagon turned out and it will be very funny when the same specialist writes the F-35 station wagon badly, but the station wagon is good
            Quote: Genry
            The idea of ​​Armata does not contradict the concept of T-95, these are different entities.
            They just want to make, first of all, a set of parts (constructor) from which any base can be made, for a tank (wheeled, floating, medium, heavy), BMPT, self-propelled guns, ZSU, BMP, etc. Only the hulls and weapons modules will be specific, and the assembly is all the same. This simplifies the possibilities of production (!!!), operation, repair, logistics of spare parts and consumables, a single basic maintenance (!!!).
        2. Basil123
          Basil123 31 August 2013 08: 50 New
          +1
          to distract attention from the main work “Improvement -88”, which was conducted at Uralvagonzavod.
          maybe 95 is an eye tap what
      3. sub307
        sub307 30 August 2013 17: 49 New
        +2
        I agree with you. These "fairy tales", well, just "deja vu", on the eve of the "presentation" of something more or less new come out as if by "magic": here they say just now, under my strict guidance, it was either - ohogo, just, damn it, they wanted the best , it turned out .... A curse is direct, with an evil eye. Okay, “the atmosphere is heating up and vibrating”, we’ve almost waited. So we’ll have a look.
      4. novobranets
        novobranets 30 August 2013 18: 46 New
        +3
        Wittman, let him spin, he is due for his sins. And the tank is a pity. How to undermine defense for personal reasons. Actually, it was a new concept. I wonder if it is possible to resume work? what
        1. uwzek
          uwzek 30 August 2013 23: 32 New
          +1
          No need to regret the semi-mythical tank T-95. “Armata” - it is, only on a more modern basis and as a basis for various modifications. It’s easier to install a more powerful gun on this machine ...
          Another thing is that statements on the subject of lower cost and greater manufacturability of the new machine compared to the "Object 195" are very controversial. Cars will be more expensive than currently available.
          Armata is not a constructor in the sense that some suggest. None of the tank will be able to do self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, etc. These machines have various enclosures and layouts. Unification for spare parts - yes ...
          Ten years ago, the main tank was proposed in the style of "full kaput", now a family of combat vehicles in the same style. In terms of TTD is a breakthrough. Who should be presented with this family (at various stages of readiness). Will the “armats” accept the issue not for manufacturers ...
      5. Deniska
        Deniska 30 August 2013 19: 30 New
        +7
        1. Each sandpiper praises its swamp. :)
        2. Neither of us knows anything about the T-95 or Armata.
        3. If the T-95 has a remote uninhabited tower ?! what prevented it from being replaced, for example, by an air defense tower.
        4. In my opinion, ARMATA is part of the next "cut", but wait and see or maybe again something "super duper" will wait;)
    2. Joker
      Joker 30 August 2013 16: 33 New
      16
      And I remember when the Americans said that Armata would be simplified T-95, everyone rushed to throw their caps on them, apparently, they turned out to be right, I hope only in this.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 30 August 2013 17: 20 New
        +3
        The article is too subjective. I have no trust in her. Mlyn found someone to ask about Armata. Journalists, such journalists! negative
      2. uwzek
        uwzek 30 August 2013 23: 33 New
        0
        Americans are wrong. They just don’t have money for such cars, but I don’t know if we have ...
    3. Civil
      Civil 30 August 2013 17: 07 New
      +5
      It's good that the t-95 was not shown in public, right now there would be so much scream!
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 30 August 2013 18: 49 New
        +6
        They dug up a cellar too large. laughing
    4. the polar
      the polar 31 August 2013 08: 39 New
      0
      Quote: makst83
      The situation is similar to what is happening in the aircraft industry! There is a wonderful Tu-334, there is very little left until the release .... but Mr. Poghosyan considered the Tu-334 to be a direct competitor to his brainchild SSJ and that’s all, the project is closed! Personal ambitions and shortsightedness ruined such a wonderful project. So here (((

      And all this is because on the "vertical of power" instead of the head sits ... pas, in which its interests diverge from state
  2. alone
    alone 30 August 2013 15: 43 New
    +8
    "Armata" will need to be pulled up to the level of T-95



    if the armature must be brought to the level of t-95, then why then abandoned the t-95? another cut
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 30 August 2013 18: 51 New
      +3
      Who knows. Nothing is known about the armature, about the T-95, practically the same.
      1. uwzek
        uwzek 31 August 2013 00: 16 New
        +2
        And they say that they don’t know how to keep secrets
    2. uwzek
      uwzek 31 August 2013 00: 14 New
      +4
      No one sawed the T-95 - the initiative development of UVZ for money from India’s supply of the first batch of T-90 in quite “dashing” years, when almost the entire defense industry disappeared. At the time of the adoption of the question about the fate of this tank, half of the component manufacturers for it practically did not exist. It is entirely possible that this was the main reason for the non-enrollment of the vehicle for combat allowance.
      Currently, everything is a little different. And a lot of different boxes for the tank are made, and the reliability of their work has increased. Therefore, events have come to a new round of spirals. It is not necessary to reach new T-95 levels. If these machines are adopted by our army (“Armata” will not go for sure abroad) - the event will be akin to the appearance of the “Dreadnought”, but this pleasure will be expensive.
  3. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 30 August 2013 15: 52 New
    -3
    Poghosyan is an enemy of Russia.
    1. mark1
      mark1 30 August 2013 16: 03 New
      24
      Cool! We are talking about tanks, and the enemy of everything is reasonable and advanced Poghosyan. Unexpected conclusion!
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 30 August 2013 16: 08 New
        14
        Quote: mark1
        Unexpected conclusion!

        This is what we are afraid of enemies with, our unpredictability. smile
    2. experienced
      experienced 30 August 2013 16: 11 New
      12
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Poghosyan is an enemy of Russia.

      Bugaga, this is "5" wassat on adequacy, but why did Serdyukov and Vasiliev forget? laughing
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 30 August 2013 19: 22 New
        +4
        You +, the only one who appreciated the irony in my kamenti, as sheldon says it was the irony of Bugagashenka
        1. smile
          smile 30 August 2013 22: 44 New
          -2
          tilovaykrisa
          Sorry. I also did not understand the humor and minus jerked ... "something with my humor has become, everything that was not with me ...." ... :))) well, you would at least put a smiley ... and then some of these statements quite seriously utter ...
    3. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 30 August 2013 16: 17 New
      +2
      T-50 to you on the dark, and you mean a friend of Russia ...?!)))
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 31 August 2013 01: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Lone gunman
        T-50 to you on the dark, and you mean a friend of Russia ...?!)))

        And what about the MiG-35, SKAT, Su-37?
    4. novobranets
      novobranets 30 August 2013 18: 52 New
      0
      Exaggeration
    5. dmit-xnumx
      dmit-xnumx 30 August 2013 19: 04 New
      +1
      Yah?! What about Carthage (it "must be destroyed")?
    6. Voskepar
      Voskepar 31 August 2013 15: 24 New
      0
      And not only the enemy of Russia, but also Azerbaijan, Armenia, Lockheed Martin, Boeing
      ....))))
  4. USNik
    USNik 30 August 2013 15: 58 New
    +6
    Pichalbida

    let's not breed a panic and wait for the appearance of Armata. And then the comparisons in each 3 article of an already abandoned project with a tank that has not yet been released begin to get out. stop
  5. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 30 August 2013 16: 03 New
    +9
    The T-95 is a prototype tank of a new type, just as it was once the T-64.

    There is an opinion why he was not allowed into the series:
    For its serial production, it was necessary to replace the fig cloud of the machine park in a huge number of plants and prepare skilled workers to work on them.
    Those. it was a kind of "Global Upgrade Program", primarily of factories.

    If this is so, then it was NECESSARY to do it first of all, but it’s not a pity to spend money on the stabilization fund.

    Whether it is true or not, I don’t know for sure, but by reason, it’s close to the truth.

    The termination of work on the T-95 caused annoyance.
    How it turned out - only rumors, there are almost no facts.
    Everything is interesting on itStarting from the layout, ending with the radar station.

    I hope that Armata will incorporate the maximum idea of ​​the T-95.
    I hope that the principle of "a single platform" does not harm the tank itself, and will finally make a normal unified BMP-T.
    It remains only to wait for the release of a new car and to monitor the current modernization of the existing fleet, as many novies do not rivet right away.
    1. Vlad 1965
      Vlad 1965 30 August 2013 16: 15 New
      15
      This is where you involuntarily recall the brilliant manager Beria, with the no less brilliant Leader of the country Stalin, with them there would definitely not be such a mess.
      the problem is in factories, machine tools, ec ... yes the problem is in "effectively defective" owners ...
      Who knows how much a worker gets at the Arzamas factory? Now find out, you’re gasping, who’s going to go there ...
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 30 August 2013 19: 44 New
      -2
      Quote: Aleks tv
      The T-95 is a prototype tank of a new type, just as it was once the T-64.

      Md-ah.
      Sometimes they try to replace the lack of knowledge with assumptions, but in order not to know tank history to such an extent ...
      Although, based on the fact that the prototype is available in the amount of several thousand pieces and is more perfect than the subsequent sample, then yes.
      laughing
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 30 August 2013 19: 54 New
        +2
        Quote: Cynic
        Sometimes they try to replace the lack of knowledge with assumptions, but in order not to know tank history to such an extent ...

        Vladimir, I certainly understand the irony, but do not overdo it, pliz.

        The principle of constructing this phrase will be clear to anyone who is more or less familiar with modern tank building.
        I can correct it a bit and instead of "T-64" write "Objects 430, 432 and 434".

        So satisfied?
        Tried to be correct.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 1 September 2013 18: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Vladimir, I certainly understand the irony, but do not overdo it, pliz.

          With what, with irony?
          Okay I will try .
          so free to handle
          instead of an insufficiently correct word.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          I can correct it a bit and instead of "T-64" write "Objects 430, 432 and 434".

          Moreover, it is not clear to Alexei how you could write such a thing right away.
          With the fact that the product 195 could serve / served, I think no one will argue, it is obvious that creating a new product from scratch in the declared time is more than unlikely.
          But to call the pearl of Soviet tank construction, a prototype, this is more than not correct.
          Sorry, prototypes in the amount of several thousand are not produced and are not accepted for service as main ones.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          The principle of constructing this phrase will be clear to anyone who is more or less familiar with modern tank building.

          Do not tell, here you, in my opinion, did not understand the reason for the severity of my reaction.
          Yes, I apologize for the delay in responding. I was not online yesterday.
          hi
    3. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 31 August 2013 06: 30 New
      +1
      Hello to all those present, They began to discuss again what they even didn’t see in the picture, It’s funny to read the comments on the article, Yes, what’s being created is of interest, At one time, one lady posted a photo of the Black Eagle and the T-95 didn’t just lay out the comments those who did this, Now we must forget about such things, Yes, these systems were created on the verge of the possibilities that there were then too many new products and new systems laid down in these models, But the trouble was that it was all created at the limit of dashing 2000 Until 2008, there was a struggle for R&D costs optimization, many enterprises survived due to foreign orders, There were almost no domestic ones, Yes they are very beautiful and not what is laid out here, But remember those temporary people who thought about new products, I remember how brave generals at any briefings noisily expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the new requires a complete restructuring of production that they really forgotten the very high cost, Yes they were too late they were brought up to the conditions that were set by the projects, With a large-caliber tank gun it was not so easy to go back to the working tool, the Generals screamed that the junk was slipping back, And Nizhny Tagil was quietly releasing their T-90A tank, And the customer was, And those who suffered with these samples fell into the abyss of hopelessness, the enterprises themselves went bankrupt, All work was stopped, It’s not just a statement of reality, and yet another point here no one voices Can the country pull these projects, the military-industrial complex began to fall apart, and what remains is to focus on what is being released, I remember those old photos and I don’t think that what was found on those and it will be lost in the new platform, It can’t be that it didn’t succeed for a very long time, but then they managed to find solutions that will disappear, No need to ride in front of the horse,
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 31 August 2013 14: 28 New
        0
        Hello Igor.
        You know, your comment is very well written.
        Only for some reason, later in the comments you also began to discuss and say what is right and what is not ... How to understand this?
        I read and look at almost all the topics of the forum, you’re an expert everywhere - SV, Navy, Air Force.

        In no case do not say that you are a know-it-all, believe me, no.
        But you have a slight irony in many comments on all topics in which you are absolutely sure ...
        Maybe modesty is still not a vice?
        And so - respect for your opinion, unlike many.
  6. Russ69
    Russ69 30 August 2013 16: 08 New
    +6
    I honestly will not say what is better, what is worse. But the article resembles a proverb: "every sandpiper praises its own swamp."
    Like, I'm the smartest in tank building, and all the fools ...
  7. Genry
    Genry 30 August 2013 16: 09 New
    +8
    I have not read the book - but I condemn! I didn’t see Armata - but I’m discussing it!
    But otherwise, a very interesting article!
  8. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 30 August 2013 16: 13 New
    +4
    Each frog praises its swamp.
    It is not sad to realize this fact, but the formula for the ideal weapon has long been deduced - it should be cheap, simple and affordable. Unlike the Yankees, who can buy expensive Mku, F-22 and F-35 gold for their soldiers, we don’t have a machine and we have to use cheaper weapons, but do it in such a way as not to be inferior to them.
    The designer himself notes that the T-95 is very good, but very expensive and not easy to maintain, and is available only to high-class specialists. Why did you prefer the t-72, which was better than his brother t-64? the answer is simple - simplicity of design and reliability in the Russian mentality (forgot to clean, fig oil, bad solarium, etc.).
    I have no doubt that the ideas that were used in the T-95 will be used in Armata.
  9. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 30 August 2013 16: 31 New
    +6
    Avaricious pays twice, saying for all times and for all occasions. So it is here. And then they go and whine that we see whether the tanks are bad and the production of rubbish.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 30 August 2013 17: 20 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Avaricious pays twice, saying for all times and for all occasions.

      A stupid saying, not all folk wisdom is wisdom.
      For example, the 30000 T-72 is better than the 6500 T-64.
      1. Kars
        Kars 30 August 2013 18: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: Setrac
        For example, the 30000 T-72 is better than the 6500 T-64.

        Where did you get that? Does it look like your 1 T-64 was like the 4,6 T-72?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 30 August 2013 20: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Where did you get that? Does it look like your 1 T-64 was like the 4,6 T-72?

          I do not insist on the 4.6 figure, but does the fact that so many tanks were produced mean something?
          1. Kars
            Kars 30 August 2013 20: 43 New
            +5
            Quote: Setrac
            I do not insist on the 4.6 figure, but does the fact that so many tanks were produced mean something?

            It means, but not what you mean in the commentary. There is more the influence of preparation for the global thermonuclear war, for which weapons were accumulated, and were chosen under the draft army, with low training, and lack of time for retraining on more complex machines.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 30 August 2013 21: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              It means, but not what you mean in the commentary. There is more the influence of preparation for the global thermonuclear war, for which weapons were accumulated, and were chosen under the draft army, with low training, and lack of time for retraining on more complex machines.

              This indicates the fallacy of the MBT concept; tanks must be made different.
              1. Kars
                Kars 30 August 2013 21: 59 New
                +4
                Quote: Setrac
                This indicates the fallacy of the MBT concept; tanks must be made different.

                A strange conclusion. And what it is based on, I personally do not understand. Especially from the above comments. By the way, the USSR also had three different MBTs, without counting medium tanks.
            2. Setrac
              Setrac 30 August 2013 23: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              So, but not what you mean in the comments.

              You want to say that the T-72 is not cheaper than the T-64?
              1. Kars
                Kars 31 August 2013 11: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: Setrac
                You want to say that the T-72 is not cheaper than the T-64?

                maybe a little bit - and then depending on what modifications with which to compare.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 31 August 2013 13: 29 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Kars
                  maybe a little bit - and then depending on what modifications with which to compare.

                  It means that? T-72, with upgrades from Versace for 3 megabytes per unit will cost as bare, just from the T-64 factory? Almost no difference in price.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 31 August 2013 13: 40 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Setrac
                    It means that? T-72, with upgrades from Versace for 3 megabytes per unit will cost as bare, just from the T-64 factory? Almost no difference in price.

                    Well, as I understand it in the topic you are floating, it’s not to Ukraine, but it’s pouring.
                    Three mega bucks is the approximate cost of the T-90A, but it is not so important if you decide to think, and suddenly remember that the USSR did not use megabytes for internal calculations.
                    And according to the results, it will be possible to say that the T-64 is about 1,1 - 1,2 T-72, of course, given that it was better to train personnel for operating the T-64. And T-64, which also did not fit into the concept of the T-80 as a mobilization tank of nuclear war.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 31 August 2013 14: 19 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Well, as I understand it in the topic you are swimming

                      This means that your answer did not suit me.
                      Quote: Kars
                      it’s not to Ukraine but pouring.

                      What does Ukraine have to do with it? Yes you are a maniac! Why do you constantly draw nationalistic conclusions from particular questions?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 31 August 2013 15: 24 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Setrac
                        This means that your answer did not suit me.

                        Naturally ... how can he suit you.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        What does Ukraine have to do with it? Yes you are a maniac! Why do you constantly draw nationalistic conclusions from particular questions?

                        Well, I’m not the first to know you, so I can repeat with full confidence.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, as I understand it in the topic you are floating, it’s not to Ukraine, but it’s pouring.
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 31 August 2013 15: 59 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, I’m not the first to know you, so I can repeat with full confidence.

                        Heh, Ukraine is Kars! So it turns out? (or any other Russophobic bender on this resource)
                        Quote: Kars
                        Naturally ... how can he suit you.

                        You, as a tanker (allegedly), initially owned the necessary numbers, but hastened to get rid of a dubious phrase
                        Quote: Kars
                        maybe a little bit - and then depending on what modifications with which to compare.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 31 August 2013 16: 48 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Heh, Ukraine is Kars! So it turns out?

                        Well, not really - an article about Ukraine, and there you are one of the Ukrainians who think of it yourself.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        You, as a tanker (allegedly), initially owned the necessary numbers, but hastened to get rid of a dubious phrase

                        Allegedly --- you tell me when you find my statement that I am a tanker.
                        Quote: Kars
                        maybe a little bit - and then depending on what modifications with which to compare.

                        And it’s very difficult to compare like this, even though everything is absolutely correct,
        2. uwzek
          uwzek 31 August 2013 00: 30 New
          0
          The bulk of the T-72 tanks in armament is identical to the T-64 equipment. Only the first cars and tanks that went abroad were simpler. In servicing the engine, the Ukrainian car is probably easier. But the reliability and lower cost of production - this is the advantage of the Ural tank. Hence the difference in output volumes.
          1. svp67
            svp67 31 August 2013 01: 10 New
            0
            Quote: uwzek
            The bulk of the T-72 tanks in armament is identical to the T-64 equipment.
            All T72 in armament are equal to the main mass of T64, having a 125 mm tank gun as the main armament, the T64 unit has 115 mm, the 7,62 mm PKT machine gun paired with it and part of the tanks as additional armament, the 12,7 mm NSV machine gun T64 - NSVT ... But in terms of equipment, the overwhelming mass of T72, but consider everything was inferior to T64, since the latter in modification "B" had a ZPU and a 1g42 PDPS sight, which were not installed on the T72, as well as a bunch of small ones units and assemblies ...
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 31 August 2013 01: 28 New
              0
              Quote: svp67
              12,7 mm NSV machine gun, on Т64 - NSVT ...

              It seems that everyone had a tank modification with an electric trigger.
  10. svp67
    svp67 31 August 2013 01: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    For example, the 30000 T-72 is better than the 6500 T-64.
    How to say? And where can you find crews on 30000 tanks?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 31 August 2013 07: 31 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      How to say? And where can you find crews on 30000 tanks?

      If you said "where you can find crews for 30 tanks," I would understand, but crews will be recruited for 000 crews. It feels like you have nothing more to say?
  • Setrac
    Setrac 30 August 2013 17: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: vladsolo56
    Avaricious pays twice, saying for all times and for all occasions. So it is here. And then they go and whine that we see whether the tanks are bad and the production of rubbish.

    Well, explain to me how much the soldiers will pay on the battlefield for the fact that instead of 10 "normal" tanks there will be one "magnificent" on the battlefield. Ten trunks are better than one, even if one trunk is inside the "golden" platform.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 31 August 2013 04: 48 New
      +4
      Take a look at history and take an interest in the fact that before being knocked down, a German tiger destroyed not one or two Soviet T-34s, but there are at least 4 people in each crew. Why did you decide that the loss of even several tanks with crews is economically justified. And why did you decide that there are fewer good tanks to build. Well, let’s give out to our soldiers shotguns instead of modern automatic rifles, it’s much more economical, and we will transfer the pilots to corn farmers, why do we need a T-50. It doesn’t fit into my head why tanks should be flawed just because someone decided to save. A modern tank should be designed and manufactured so that it would be relevant for 10-20 years, or even 30. And if it is already outdated, then why spend money on it at all
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 31 August 2013 07: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: vladsolo56
        It doesn’t fit into my head why tanks should be flawed just because someone decided to save.

        The question is not trivial economy; the question is, can we purchase (produce) the NECESSARY number of tanks? I am with both hands for the best and dearest!
        - "Where is the money Zin?"
        Quote: vladsolo56
        Take a look at the story and take an interest in the fact that before being knocked down, a German tiger destroyed not one or two Soviet T-34s, but there are at least 4 people in each crew.

        Take a look at the story and you will see that the tanks were hit by anti-tank artillery, mines, aircraft, hand-held anti-tank systems, and only then tanks. Separate relapses of oncoming tank battles - exceptions that only confirm the rule - tanks do not fight tanks.
        1. Kars
          Kars 31 August 2013 12: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Setrac
          Take a look at the story and you will see that the tanks were hit by anti-tank artillery, mines, aircraft, hand-held anti-tank systems and only then tanks

          Well, this is not the right alignment of forces --- aviation, manual anti-tank missiles, land mines grazing far behind. German specifics led to the mass construction of anti-tank artillery self-propelled guns, and their tanks got skewed to anti-tank properties
          Quote: Setrac
          Tanks do not fight tanks.

          Well, this is only in the projections. And so the Arab-Israeli ones. That the Indo-Pakistani, Iran-Iraq war could not confirm this thesis.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 31 August 2013 13: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Well, this is only in the projections. And so the Arab-Israeli ones. That the Indo-Pakistani, Iran-Iraq war could not confirm this thesis.

            This suggests that all these Arab-Israelis, Indo-Pakistanis and other Iranian-Iraqis do not know how to fight, because they can’t realize the strengths of tanks with tanks and without tanks.
            1. Kars
              Kars 31 August 2013 13: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              This suggests that all these Arab-Israelis, Indo-Pakistanis and other Iranian-Iraqis do not know how to fight, because they can’t realize the strengths of tanks with tanks and without tanks.

              Naturally, you know how, of course. Although you only have a tank blitzkrieg / deep breakthrough tactic from the Second World War in your head, there wasn’t enough room for the general progress of attack and defense equipment.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 31 August 2013 14: 25 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Naturally you can, of course.

                A lot of emotions, you are definitely an officer in the armored forces?
                Quote: Kars
                Although the campaign in your head is only a tank blitzkrieg / tactics of a deep breakthrough during the Second World War, and there was not enough space for the general progress of the means of attack and defense.

                In your opinion, tactical sophistication in modern warfare is not appropriate? Not feasible?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 31 August 2013 15: 26 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Setrac
                  A lot of emotions, you are definitely an officer in the armored forces?

                  I'm definitely not an officer in the armored forces.
                  Quote: Setrac
                  In your opinion, tactical sophistication in modern warfare is not appropriate? Not feasible?

                  Unless in the global thermonuclear scenario Breakthrough to the English Channel.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 31 August 2013 16: 01 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    I'm definitely not an officer in the armored forces.

                    Does it mean they tricked me? Maybe the former?
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 31 August 2013 16: 45 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Does it mean they tricked me? Maybe the former?

                      Who tricked you?
  • Val_y
    Val_y 30 August 2013 16: 32 New
    +3
    Oh, how many grannies the country has threatened with “personal motives” in the past (for example, Korolev’s confrontation with Yangel, it cost a lot of money to the country), unique samples (for example, T-4 “weaving”) were ruined without any motives. And now I see nothing has changed. recourse
    1. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 30 August 2013 20: 33 New
      +1
      I also thought that the T-4 “weaving” was destroyed by other people's intrigues, but once I read how one tester casually mentioned, “Do you remember a hundred? It flew badly, albeit quickly, but when landing all the devils and gods you will remember and curse”. Here you have the well-known intrigue between Tupolev and Myasischev, and the unknown test facts of the "hundred". If the testers sweated when landing, then what would be in the troops? RS-72 could only be raised by test pilots, the MiG-25 built for its interception is considered a military aircraft. So who is better in case of the RS-72 or MiG-25 war, which could intercept the Blackbirds and perform their functions (reconnaissance) at the same heights and at the same speeds?
  • Hey
    Hey 30 August 2013 16: 33 New
    +3
    I read one sentence, "What is being done with Armata now, I don’t know." And this expert is trying to talk about something. The article put a minus.
  • Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 30 August 2013 16: 34 New
    -1
    I don’t understand one thing. For some reason, the “old” military leaders praise Soviet or Early Russian equipment, but they don’t organically digest modern military technology, or we have engineers on the creeping line (the announcement is not legal, in my opinion), which, in turn, have diplomas by bought? !! in what world do they live? !! for pensioners there is a cool occupation -HOLIDAY PLOT-COTTAGE!
    1. mark1
      mark1 30 August 2013 17: 43 New
      +9
      Sergey Aleksandrovich Mayev is a very competent and worthy man who has put a lot of effort into the development of the Soviet and Russian armored forces and deserves respect, and the technology of the T-95 was nowhere more modern, on the verge of industrial capabilities.
    2. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 30 August 2013 20: 38 New
      +2
      Previously, managers got through initiative or a lot of experience. Now everything is decided by money or their absence. Young people in the administrative apparatus are proactive, and in industry and the state system there is more mess and theft.
  • Vitmir
    Vitmir 30 August 2013 16: 35 New
    +3
    I once said once that Armata will be the most simplified and cheaper version of the T-95. "Women still give birth", "Number more, at a cheaper price," as always :(
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 31 August 2013 00: 39 New
      +2
      I had a rare opportunity to touch both of these machines with my hands - not a bit “Armata” is easier than “T-95”. There are differences, but in ten years nothing has become cheaper ...
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 31 August 2013 01: 19 New
        0
        Quote: uwzek
        “Armata” is no simpler than “T-95”.

        If so, this is good (in the sense that Armata is no worse).
        Good luck to tank builders.
        1. svp67
          svp67 31 August 2013 01: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          If so, this is good (in the sense that Armata is no worse).
          Salute. Not easier or worse - the concepts are still different.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 31 August 2013 01: 36 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Not easier or worse - the concepts are still different.

            Greetings, Sergey.
            Your truth, I froze a little, and therefore got better in brackets.

            Yes, I kind of gave myself the vow not to get into the discussions of Armata, but here, eprst, about the "195 object" ... I could not resist it.
            repeat
            1. svp67
              svp67 31 August 2013 01: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Yes, I kind of gave myself the vow not to get into the discussions of Armata, but here, eprst, about the "195 object" ... I could not resist it.
              I support. "You can push the water in the mortar ad infinitum," but the result is not what ... "Armata" first needs to at least visually feel and draw conclusions, otherwise, on the example of T72B3, I come to the conclusion that the tendency of Taghilians to unnecessary simplification did not pass
      2. maxvet
        maxvet 31 August 2013 09: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: uwzek
        I had a rare opportunity to touch both of these machines with my hands - not a bit “Armata” is easier than “T-95”. There are differences, but in ten years nothing has become cheaper ...

        Can your post be regarded as the post of a person directly related to tank building?
  • bootlegger
    bootlegger 30 August 2013 16: 45 New
    +2
    Worse or better, the characteristic is ambiguous. And should be considered in conjunction with the estimated volume of production.
    We need a lot of good tanks, not just one great one.
    Already solved these issues.
    During the period from August 1942 to August 1944, the Germans produced 1350 Tiger-I type vehicles, and T34 of various modifications 84 units.
  • Massik
    Massik 30 August 2013 16: 56 New
    -2
    I read that there is nothing particularly surprising, everything is done with such gagging, but it looks very much like a fairy tale, even if you attach a clear photo, it can be assumed that this is a layout; Now, if there was a video where a kind of miracle tank rolls and shoots, I would probably believe it. If this is true, then all of these samples are classified from the very beginning and what we are doing now will not be known, especially since no one would have given such explanations in any "conversations".
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 30 August 2013 17: 02 New
    +3
    Nevertheless, the leading measure of any weaponry, including tanks, is the price-quality ratio. Already, it is technically feasible to make a tank without a crew, which is quite capable of "breaking firewood" on the battlefield. But how much will it cost? What industry will handle the mass circulation of such tanks and which budget can withstand? Recent wars, even with weak countries, have shown that the ammunition of precision weapons ends in a couple of months. And then they move on to the “bongs” of the time of King Peas. The same will be in the big war with the massive use of technology. Everything accumulated will be destroyed in the first days of the war, and then they will begin to switch to ordinary cheap guns, old tanks without electronics and shells of the "second imperialist war." Therefore, I understand the desire of our leadership to make tanks cheap. So that they could fight in modern conditions, but were not too expensive. That is why the T-95 did not find its place in our army.
  • yanus
    yanus 30 August 2013 17: 06 New
    +1
    Damn, again the offended designer praises his unaccepted weapon. The situation is generally understandable and excusable, but one moment is very distressing.
    The attempt to “push through” a 152mm gun is upset, because the adversaries have a ready 140mm tank. First of all, it is sad that this commentary clearly indicates that the designer still perceives the tank as a weapon against another tank.
    In technical terms, this designer is perhaps a genius. But how can one trust the development of technology to a person who does not see its place on the battlefield? And I strongly suspect that the designers of Almaty are not far gone.
    Still, young people who are ready to keep their finger on the pulse need to be "poured" into the designer. The same applies to military customers.
    1. Cheloveck
      Cheloveck 30 August 2013 22: 29 New
      0
      Quote: yanus
      The attempt to “push through” a 152mm gun is upset, because the adversaries have a ready 140mm tank. First of all, the fact that the constructor clearly follows from this comment still perceives the tank as a weapon against another tank.In technical terms, this designer is perhaps a genius. But how can one trust the development of technology to a person who does not see its place on the battlefield? And I strongly suspect that the designers of Almaty have not far gone. Nevertheless, young people who are ready to keep their finger on the pulse must be "poured" into the designer. The same applies to military customers.

      No, of course!
      German generals also claimed that tanks did not fight tanks, but, damn it, the realities were somewhat different.
      Russia, by and large, has so far 2 real probable opponents in the person of NATO and China.
      In both cases, the tanks will inevitably have to meet their brothers on the battlefield.
      But, if, like the current States, to fight against Burkina Faso, then yes, tanks do not fight tanks.
      As for the "infusion" of youth, it is welcomed with two hands!
      True, there is one small nuance: in order for something to come out of a young designer, he first needs to eat at least half a pound of salt ... smile
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 30 August 2013 23: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Cheloveck
        German generals also claimed that tanks did not fight tanks, but, damn it, the realities were somewhat different.

        However, the massive and cheap T-34-ki defeated less numerous tigers.
        1. Cheloveck
          Cheloveck 30 August 2013 23: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          However, the massive and cheap T-34-ki defeated less numerous tigers.

          And I mean the same thing. smile
        2. Kars
          Kars 31 August 2013 12: 08 New
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          However, the massive and cheap T-34-ki defeated less numerous tigers.

          Well, this is a rude remark - Soviet industry and the Soviet soldier won. As the lack of resources at Germany and the blockade influenced. But the tank forces of the USSR won in the 95 000 tanks (of all types)
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 31 August 2013 13: 45 New
            -1
            Quote: Kars
            Well this is a rude remark - Soviet industry won

            The industry of the Third Reich with the occupied territories exceeded the industry of the USSR several times.
            Quote: Kars
            the lack of resources in Germany and the blockade had an impact.

            Hitler did not have the resources of ALL Europe? The USSR also lacked a lot of what. What kind of blockade? The US traded with Hitler Germany through third countries until the very end of the war!
            Quote: Kars
            But the tank forces of the USSR victory cost 95 tanks (all types)

            I would like to know the TRUE data on similar losses from the Wehrmacht and the Allies.
            1. Kars
              Kars 31 August 2013 13: 51 New
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              The industry of the Third Reich with the occupied territories exceeded the industry of the USSR several times.

              It’s vryatli, and then still remember the B-17 raids
              Liberator
              Quote: Setrac
              Hitler did not have the resources of ALL Europe?

              Yes, it wasn’t enough, the USSR also didn’t have enough resources of the 1 / 6 part of the Sushi - if they had driven so much junk through Lend-Lease.

              Quote: Setrac
              what a blockade? The US traded with Hitler Germany through third countries until the very end of the war!
              But not in such a volume as everyone would like.

              Quote: Setrac
              I would like to know the TRUE data on similar losses from the Wehrmacht and the Allies.

              And what’s the problem? Germany signed an unconditional surrender - this means losses of 100%, Soviet losses (without allies) in the region of 75% of the total, and somewhere 460% of the amount of armored vehicles on the 22.06.1941
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 31 August 2013 14: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                It’s vryatli, and then still remember the B-17 raids
                Liberator

                At the end of the war, when the outcome thereof was already clear.
                Quote: Kars
                Yes, it wasn’t enough, the USSR also didn’t have enough resources of the 1 / 6 part of the Sushi - if they had driven so much junk through Lend-Lease.

                Four percent of the military production of the USSR, drop dead help. Moreover, the main supply went from the end of 42-beginning of 43 years. The USSR survived and won in the most difficult battles without the help of allies!
                Quote: Kars
                But not in such a volume as everyone would like.

                Golem excuse.
                Quote: Kars
                What are the problems?

                Problems in Germany loss data. How did they even manage to lose the war with such low losses? Why did the Wehrmacht offensive stop by the winter of 41, if the losses were so meager? They lie to us impudently, and we should believe?
                Quote: Kars
                Germany signed an unconditional surrender - this goes 100% loss

                Does not exceed.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 31 August 2013 15: 23 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  At the end of the war, when the outcome thereof was already clear.

                  Well, why so - they bombed from the 40 of the year. Yes, and you can’t quickly integrate the industrial potential of the network in the occupied countries, and even with high efficiency.
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Four percent of the military production of the USSR, drop dead help

                  This is an eternal debate about which there are a lot of articles here, take an interest. And then your figure is about the average temperature in a hospital. For example, tanks delivered more than 4 percent. Armored personnel carriers delivered MUCH more than 4 percent and so on.
                  Quote: Setrac
                  The USSR survived and won in the most difficult battles without the help of allies!

                  He survived - he just rolled back to the Volga and Moscow
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Golem excuse.
                  Why is it balcony? Or say that Germany, thanks to supplies from the United States bypassing the blockade, did not elicit fuel hunger? Lack of alloying materials?

                  Quote: Setrac
                  Problems in Germany loss data. How did they even manage to lose the war with such low losses?

                  You think too narrowly, although BTT gave you enough that you might think.
                  Quote: Setrac
                  They lie to us impudently, and we should believe?
                  Who's lying to you? Me?

                  Quote: Setrac
                  Does not exceed.

                  So, come out. Or else how much do you think? 150% of the proceeds?
        3. vladsolo56
          vladsolo56 31 August 2013 18: 41 New
          0
          Of course they won, only you didn’t take into account the loss ratio, how long will we save on hardware and pay with people's lives. It’s good to reason like this when you are in the chair, and not in the tank.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 30 August 2013 17: 08 New
    0
    If only he would. Yep sent the patriarch to retire, so he got hurt. Improvement and modernization of 72 to infinity will not work, any of those products has a limit for this. The T-72 has practically exhausted it. Armata, albeit raw, will give new scope for work to improve and improve 30 years ahead. And the brave old men, veterans of 80-90 models will still fight a lot.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 30 August 2013 17: 11 New
    +6
    After reading the article, several questions arise - the first why the T-95, and not the Object 195? As far as I know, the amateur such names T- "number" are assigned to machines that have already been adopted, and until that moment they are all "objects". The second question - in no case do not question the author’s competence, but the statement that amers can put 140 mm on Abrash also seems strange - not so long ago there was an article on the site about tank guns of a larger caliber, which said that in the west refused to increase the caliber in favor of improving the projectile and developing standard-caliber guns, but with better ballistic characteristics. And then, the amers, and almost everyone else, have a loader in the tank, which does not feel very well with modern 120mm shells, but what about 140mm?
    In general, it seems that the interviewed general simply praises the project that he led: my father works for me at a defense plant and he told me repeatedly that any experimental model always has a lot of flaws that only seem easy to fix, and how it starts "file processing" is the necessary amount and will be inflated at times.
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 18: 46 New
      +6
      Quote: Albert1988
      then amers can put on Abrashu 140 mm also seems strange

      They can deliver it without question. Even a Negro-loader if something else pulls.
      Quote: Albert1988
      the benefit of improving the projectile and developing guns of standard calibers, but with better ballistic characteristics.

      there was simply no incentive, 120 mm is already coping with its tasks, although the Fritz increased the barrel by 1,5 meters (conditionally)
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 30 August 2013 19: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        They can deliver it without question. Even a Negro-loader if something else pulls.

        A Negro loader can pull it, but here’s how the tank itself pulls: I saw a picture of the abrams with this gun - the tower is clearly increased, and therefore the weight is more, the load on the suspension, on the drive of the tower itself is more. It’s just like options for possible problems. So it seems to me that the Armata will more likely stimulate amers to accelerate their next-generation tank project, rather than radically modernize the current ones.
        PS And then, who said that it will not be possible to install a module with a 152mm fool on the armature, we, in the end, do not fully know its capabilities)))
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 August 2013 19: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: Albert1988
          The Negro-loader will pull, only here is how the tank itself will pull: I saw a picture of the abrams with this gun - the tower is clearly enlarged, which means the weight is more

          Well, if this is the photo about which I think it's fake. T-84 Ukraine puts the 140 mm gun, the Swiss put it on the Leopard 2
          Quote: Albert1988
          which means less ammunition

          How much can it decrease,
          Quote: Albert1988
          speed up your next-generation tank project, than radically modernize the current ones.

          This is a dozen years and a couple of dozen billion bucks, which the Yankees will vryatli go. Not now.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 30 August 2013 20: 01 New
            +1

            Quote: Kars
            This is a dozen years and a couple of dozen billion bucks, which the Yankees will vryatli go. Not now.

            Again, on a site in long-standing articles, it was mentioned that the amers were already developing the next-generation tank project, only stopped somewhere in the 2000s, or am I confusing something?
            I meant here this photo - if fake, then very high quality.
            1. Kars
              Kars 30 August 2013 20: 06 New
              +3
              Quote: Albert1988
              I meant here this photo - if fake, then very high quality.

              There is an opinion that this is a photo of the tank for the Transformers movie.
            2. Kars
              Kars 30 August 2013 20: 08 New
              +2
              _________________
            3. Kars
              Kars 30 August 2013 20: 09 New
              +2
              _________________________
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 30 August 2013 20: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                There is an opinion that this is a photo of the tank for the Transformers movie.

                I looked, unfortunately I can’t find an adequate shot now, but the gun there was a nominal 120mm caliber, except that there were all kinds of unnecessary bells and whistles on the tower, so our “Terminator” was reminded.
                And now a bit late question - how did the leopard feel after installing 140mm?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 30 August 2013 20: 22 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  about the gun there was a nominal 120mm caliber,

                  If it’s honest with the photo and doesn’t determine 140 or not.

                  Quote: Albert1988
                  And now a bit late question - how did the leopard feel after installing 140mm?

                  Not announced.

                  fellow
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 30 August 2013 20: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    If it’s honest with the photo and doesn’t determine 140 or not.

                    I agree, but the fact that the tower is enlarged is clearly visible, and this may also be evidence of an increase in the breech of the gun. In the photo, the "little blue" is clearly an ordinary tower, although the cannon is valid - these are now fashionable in strategies to draw)))
                    Quote: Kars
                    Not announced.

                    This is alarming! It would be all right, as if they would have trumpeted in order to advertise their products)
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 30 August 2013 20: 38 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      but the fact that the tower is enlarged is clearly visible, and this may also be evidence of an increase in the breech of the gun

                      Well, why, this may indicate an attempt to increase the BC, put the automatic charge. And it is even possible that the integrated boxes of spare parts and personal equipment of the tankers are caged for less radar visibility.
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      This is alarming! It would be all right, as if they would have trumpeted in order to advertise their products)

                      This is the Swiss, and even the announcement of a successful installation does not add anything. The French also declare the possibility of staging on the 140 mmlerkler, where even the name flickered Clermont.
                      1. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 30 August 2013 21: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, why, this may indicate an attempt to increase the BC, put the automatic charge. And it is even possible that the integrated boxes of spare parts and personal equipment of the tankers are caged for less radar visibility.

                        It may well be - I just made an assumption, although the gun is clearly different from those that are put on production cars.
                        Quote: Kars
                        This is the Swiss, and even the announcement of a successful installation does not add anything. The French also declare the possibility of staging on the 140 mmlerkler, where even the name flickered Clermont.

                        Suppose that on abrams, leopard and leclerc can be installed without problems 140mm. But still the question remains: why can't the same 152mm be installed on the armature? I think the fact that they put 125 on it does not mean that it will not pull a larger caliber, it is quite possible that everything depends on the difficulties of mass production of new 152mm guns and ammunition for them.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 30 August 2013 21: 05 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        But still the question remains: why can't the same 152mm be installed on the armature? I think the fact that they put 125 on it does not mean that it will not pull a larger caliber, it is quite possible that everything depends on the difficulties of mass production of new 152mm guns and ammunition for them.

                        And this is already a very complicated question. For now, at least it’s invisible that they were stolen in Armata there.
                      3. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 30 August 2013 21: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And this is already a very complicated question. For now, at least it’s invisible that they were stolen in Armata there.

                        So I’m talking about the same thing, it’s just starting to bother me a little that everyone doesn’t know anything about armature yet, they try to somehow lower it, although this is possible so that the joy would be stronger if a successful car turns out)
                  2. postman
                    postman 31 August 2013 02: 36 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, why, this may indicate an attempt to increase the BC, put the automatic charging

                    Yeah

                2. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 31 August 2013 07: 57 New
                  0
                  And if it’s not a tower case, but a “false” against the cumulus. charges attributed to max. distance from tower armor?
                  1. postman
                    postman 31 August 2013 13: 47 New
                    +1
                    Quote: shasherin_pavel
                    And if it’s not a tower case, but a “false” against the cumulus. charges

                    Well, I basically paid attention to the back ...
                    And what are the cumulative ...
                    1. The rear towers increase due to the increase in "ammunition volume"
                    3,14 x (140mm in square-120mm in square / 4 (this is the diameter)
                    length difference in weight (140mm heavier) x additionally required MV volume
                    NPzK-140 The gun should have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ (MJ), which would mean a doubling of muzzle energy compared to L / 44. The system should be equipped with an automatic loader, which makes it easy to integrate the system into the existing main battle tank (approx. Ran into problems, it didn’t fit, it required the development of a new tower)
                    Paul-Werner Krapke: Leopard 2 sein Werden und seine Leistung, Seite 9 der Ergänzung von Rolf Hilmes, Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt 2004

                    2. in the side boxes they were supposed to place
                    Firefly Chaff Launcher (2): Located on the sides of the tower, they are designed to "confuse" the attacking missiles.
              2. postman
                postman 31 August 2013 02: 34 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Not announced.

                You are “behind” life in your Zaporizhzhya.
                Briefly here:
                http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf
                You can ask here:

                Dr. Josef Kruse
                Rheinmetall W&M GmbH
                Neuensothriether Strasse 20
                D-29345 Unterluesz
                Germany
                Phone: +49 5827 6471
                Fax: + 49 5827 6044
                e-mail: [email protected]

                for more details (in English)
                Weapon Systems:

                Main Gun: The Leopard III enjoys a +3 to strike for the main gun using the laser targeting sights and radar, and because of its gyrostabilization the gun can be fired without penalties "on the move". The cannon can angle from -5 degrees to +15 degrees up, and the turret can rotate through 360 degrees.
                140 mm Smooth Bore Cannon: Mounted in the tank's turret and fully automated, this was a rather old (and refined) weapon capable of knocking out any tank then in service. It fires a variety of ammunition with combustible cases, meaning there is no need to eject spent casings.
                Maximum Effective Range: Direct fire range is 8202 feet (2,500 meters) for HEAT or Plasma, but 14763.7 feet (4,500 meters) for APFSDS. Indirect fire for all rounds is 36089.2 feet (6.8 miles / 11,000 meters). Indirect fire for all rounds is 11,000 meters.
                Mega-Damage: (HEAT): 3D4x10, blast radius of 10 ft. (APFSDS): 2D6x10 + 20 (optional rule is that cannon gets a critical on a natural 18, 19, or 20 due to its high penetration). (PLASMA): 3D6x10, blast radius of 30 ft. Fragmentation: 6D6, blast radius of 40 feet.
                Rate of Fire: Three times per melee.
                Payload: 42 gun rounds. Normally 12 HEAT, 22 APFSDS, and 8 Plasma, but this can be varied according to need. An additional round can be stored, ready to fire, in the main gun. If they are available, this is usually a plasma round so that the tank can deal with a surprise attack of any type. Also note that plasma only became available just before the Rifts, and before that the tank carried Fragmentation rounds.
                Of these rounds 30 are stored horizontally stacked in the large turret bustle and on the left side of the gun, and are ready to feed into the autoloader. In essence, the bustle is part of the autoloader assembly. The last 12 shells are stored in the tanks main body, and must be manually loaded into the autoloader by the commander or gunner, at a rate of two shells per rounds.
                Bonuses: +2 to strike at all times with cannon shells from the laser sight and fire control computer, including when on the move. For indirect long-range fire has a +1 to strike, but only when standing still.
                Tri-barrel Pulse Laser cannon: This weapon is sometimes substituted for the 140 mm smoothbore. Essentially it is the same weapon and powerpack as fitted into later versions of the Panther MBT. The fusion powerpack is located entirely inside of the turret, taking up the space of the old ammunition storage. The laser has less range and power than the smoothbore, but is not dependentant on ammunition. It is also markedly shorter than the smoothbore, making for easyer turret traverse.
                Note that this weapon was never fitted in pre-Rifts times, and is only available as a conversion option in the NGR.
                Maximum Effective Range: 10,000 feet (3000 meters)
                Mega-Damage: 1D4x10 per barrel, usually fires bursts of 3 pulses for 3D4x10.
                Rate of Fire: Three bursts per melee.
                Payload: Unlimited
                Bonuses: +2 to strike at all times with cannon shells and tri-barrel laser from the laser sight and fire control computer, including when on the move. For indirect long-range fire has a +1 to strike, but only when standing still.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 31 August 2013 12: 15 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  Dr. Josef Kruse
                  Rheinmetall W&M GmbH
                  Neuensothriether Strasse 20
                  D-29345 Unterluesz
                  Germany
                  Phone: +49 5827 6471

                  So he rushed to call. High Her Kraus. Shnyalya, Hitler Kaput.
                  Quote: Postman
                  You are “behind” life in your Zaporizhzhya.
                  Yes, it’s not Rio De Janeiro. And actually I talked about the Swiss 140 mm, whose analogue Ukraine can produce.
                  1. postman
                    postman 31 August 2013 14: 11 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    .Hai Her Kraus

                    Why .. just write to the mail: Ja, Ja Volkswagen! ..
                    He will immediately understand what it is about. love
                    Quote: Kars
                    And in general, I spoke about the Swiss 140 mm, whose analogue can produce Ukraine

                    1. I didn’t understand, it seems like it was about Leo
                    You thought about NPz K-140
                    2. Are they big differences?
                    - NPz K-140
                    -140 mm smoothbore gun from GIAT Industries
                    -or 140 mm gun from Royal Ordnance
                    -or 140 mm XM-291
                    ?


                    Quote: Kars
                    whose analogue can produce Ukraine.

                    and the 140 mm Bagira gun is not your development?
                    Or you have a joint venture with Switzerland.
                    Have I missed something already in the summer?

                    "We don’t want our guns to go doubtful countries", - said Joseph Dice, head of the Swiss diplomatic department, earlier in Kiev on this occasion. Brigitte Pfuiti - a representative of the Swiss company Suisse Ordnance Enterprise, being a business partner of Kiev in the production of tanks, made it clear that this restriction directly relates to Turkey. "

                    In my opinion, the Swiss Ordnance Enterprise Corporation (Allmendstrasse 86, CH-3602 Thun, Switzerland) installed Leo87 licensed NPz K-2 on its only one (which was converted into 140 battalions). No?


                    Note you will be interested:
                    http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/papers.2007-12-21/armor.x.efbp.2000.minimum_i

                    mpact_energy_for_ke_penetrators_in_rha_targets.lanz_odermatt.2000.pdf
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 31 August 2013 14: 16 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    why .. just write to the mail: Ja, Ja Volkswagen! ..

                    will give is fantastic.
                    Quote: Postman
                    1. I didn’t understand, it seems like it was about Leo

                    And Leo 2, not Leo 3 where the Swiss were wise, above the photo.
                    Quote: Postman
                    and the 140 mm Bagira gun is not your development?
                    Or you have a joint venture with Switzerland.

                    Well, in principle, ours, but on the basis of technology transferred by Switzerland. Like the 120 mm NATO model for Yatagan.
                  3. postman
                    postman 31 August 2013 18: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Like the 120 mm NATO model for Yatagan.

                    120- Yes, I know. It is official
                    And HERE about 140 = did not hear ..
                    Quote: Kars
                    based on technology transferred by Switzerland

                    Do you want to say the dwarves have given you the line ??????
                    I thought he supplied the barrel, and the "armature" is yours.
                    OR?
                    Are you sure you gave the line?
                    (this is both expensive and bulky, and very rarely done, how to transfer the production of the wing)
                    Check
                  4. Kars
                    Kars 31 August 2013 19: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Postman
                    Are you sure you gave the line?

                    Well, they probably didn’t give the line, but the documentation is accurate.
                    And the line we drew ourselves - thanks to the Russian Federation, they did not want to sell tools for the Pakistani contract. And in Bagheera all the elements of Ukrainian production.
                  5. postman
                    postman 1 September 2013 15: 11 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Thanks to the Russian Federation, they did not want to sell tools for the Pakistani contract.


                    what petty my compatriots ...
                    .
                    In fraternity, you need this:
                    -gun to you (what problems? these are ordinary tar)
                    us a modernized satan.
                    all are shy and share xs of what.
                    tuzlu for example

                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, they probably didn’t give the line, but the documentation is accurate.

                    believe me without technology (production) - technical documentation - nothing.
                    We (you) and Germany have slightly different technological processes.
                    As an example: for thin-walled corrugated spiral pipes, I drive metal from Austria.
                    No one but the Koreans (and they do not sell) do and cannot do it (what I need).
                    And you say a gun.
                    Trunks are likely to sell you
                  6. Kars
                    Kars 1 September 2013 15: 14 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Postman
                    In fraternity, you need this:
                    gun am

                    It’s not even fraternal, but for good money. And so they bought machine guns for Pakistani tanks in Bulgaria.
                  7. postman
                    postman 1 September 2013 21: 34 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    And so, machine guns for Pakistani tanks were bought in Bulgaria.

                    horror. goons.

                    This is unfair competition.
                    and where does the FAS look?
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 30 August 2013 17: 13 New
    +1
    Something with the Armat tank is some kind of unhealthy intrigue .. already annoying .. honestly. (Although the T-34 and Katyusha were not secretly secret either ..) Then, before the Second World War. Maybe now the same situation ..?
  • Konstantm
    Konstantm 30 August 2013 17: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: tilovaykrisa
    Poghosyan is an enemy of Russia.

    Carthage must be destroyed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Corsair
    Corsair 30 August 2013 17: 40 New
    +3
    Quote from text:
    Colonel General Sergei Maev, chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF), played a special role in creating the tank of the future. From 1996 to 2003, he served as the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OKR Improvement-88).


    The article did not find a place for a photo, fill the gap.

    P / S:I would like to believe that the majority of what is stated in the article is still an artful "disinformation" ...
  • Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 30 August 2013 17: 50 New
    11
    The more I read about Armata, the more I am afraid to be disappointed, root for our army and want to be proud of it.
  • pakfa-t-50
    pakfa-t-50 30 August 2013 17: 51 New
    +3
    This tank must be the best in the world!
  • WIN969
    WIN969 30 August 2013 17: 52 New
    0
    In the photo is not Armata.
    1. aleshka
      aleshka 30 August 2013 19: 58 New
      +2
      and this is not a photo !!!
  • Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 30 August 2013 18: 08 New
    0
    I can’t believe that Armata is worse than T-95! At a minimum, electronics on a more advanced kit, active and dynamic protection will obviously be more modern, a new engine ... There is experience of real military operations. I do not believe it unambiguously!
    1. Tan4ik
      Tan4ik 30 August 2013 18: 16 New
      +2
      It should not be worse!
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 31 August 2013 06: 47 New
      0
      I completely agree with you,
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 30 August 2013 18: 27 New
    0
    QUOTE: Sergey Maev: “Armata” will need to be pulled up to the level of T-95

    Atmata is a prototype ... T-64

    This is complete ...
  • awg75
    awg75 30 August 2013 18: 51 New
    +1
    in general, it always has been that every frog praises its swamp. offensive to the designer for his offspring and you can understand it ... I'm sure Armata will turn out just as good, but in many ways better
  • observer
    observer 30 August 2013 19: 01 New
    0
    Armwty prototype in the photo is somewhat reminiscent of the French AMX
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 30 August 2013 19: 17 New
    +1
    If I hide, then it’s so necessary .. calm down .. (Chinese with soap dishes and not only around ..))) laughing
  • Cynic
    Cynic 30 August 2013 19: 28 New
    +3
    The article left an ambiguous impression, frankly strange, sort of with its internal contradictions.
    But essentially a panegyric to the glory of UVZ and another blasphemy against the T-80 and the Black Eagle. After all, one of the participants in the destruction of the ZTM software.
    By the way, not a sound about the T-90 super tank.
    Yes, to all Uriah-Armatovtsy, pay attention to the terms for the development and launch of the new machine indicated by the authors of the article. Absolutely nothing in common with those that are named for Almaty (as for a new machine naturally), leads to certain thoughts.
  • Bezarius
    Bezarius 30 August 2013 19: 28 New
    0
    We have a tank biathlon, and on it we need to determine who is better.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 30 August 2013 19: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: Bezarius
      We have a tank biathlon, and on it we need to determine who is better.

      And where does the development of Almaty, T-95 and ... tank biathlon?

      As if from completely different stables of the concept.
  • Jacob31
    Jacob31 30 August 2013 19: 29 New
    +2
    As long as we don’t see Armata and its characteristics, we don’t know anything, and in fact we also didn’t see the T-95 and there is nothing to compare with Armata. A new tank will love an order of magnitude ahead of the competition !!!!
  • voliador
    voliador 30 August 2013 19: 40 New
    +3
    What the fuck ... biathlon. Full-scale tests and nothing more! And different tank biathlon is all window dressing.
  • mithridate
    mithridate 30 August 2013 19: 40 New
    +4
    or maybe you should not exaggerate the role of personal ambitions, but think about the work of Western intelligence?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 30 August 2013 19: 59 New
      +3
      Quote: Mithridates
      and think about the work of Western intelligence?

      Did you speak out as an interested person or what?
      The damage inflicted by Gorby and the EBN of Russia's defense capability cannot be compared with the damage caused by the work of special services.
      I will not be surprised that the product documentation for 195 has long been replicated.
      And yet, copy, doom yourself to eternal lag.
      wink
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 19: 53 New
    17
    Mayev is a sensible tanker but no more! Unfortunately, it was because of him that 195 didn’t go beyond the prototype — he was very stubborn and maximalist — he had to go not to break and bend and dodge in court games! (Although most likely it wouldn’t help) He Unfortunately this does not know how! In addition, there were weighty arguments against it and 195 - such as the price due to the widespread use of titanium alloys (in the article, by the way, quite stopped by "censorship", there is no mention of the use of titanium but data on the weight of "52-58 tons" are mentioned and if take the average, it will turn out 55 tons, which in principle confirms (for non-believers like KARS) that these weights are achieved only thanks to titanium (given that 195 and longer and higher armata and guns are not 125 and 152, etc.) The second Mayev is cunning when he says that 195 was ready for the series (he was ready .. but industry is not) 2005 and the hull motor group and the gun would be mastered quickly and then the forest .. Maev, due to the fact that the optoelectronic aiming had not been brought to mind at that time, insisted on launching in the 195 series with a trimmed electronic performance, insisted on the immediate launch 195 in a series - as it is, with subsequent modernization - he planned to make direct optical channels over the armored capsule the main sighting system (two huge sights at the gunner and commander, by the way, only because of this, the gun had to be set so high) and over time, as it started new x 195 related industries bring to mind. Well, a huge range of problems of a non-technical nature, undercover games !! Everyone wants money and rewards and a tank-one! So people like Popovkin and Makarov got out, who proposed (by the way, not their idea) a single heavy platform! The first six-wheeled simplified “Armats” is their idea — these pictures as much as you want on the forums. Only with a more detailed approach to Armata it turned out that she needed ALL THE SAME (new manufactures and technologies) WHAT FOR 195 !!
    Incidentally, the article was castrated in everything and could not have been otherwise, for Armata is a deeply modernized 195 with truncation in caliber and additional armaments. MAYEV MENTIONED HOW HE PERSONALLY DROPPED 195 — which once again confirms that the motor-transmission group was already worked out at that time (on joysticks !!) and there were no problems with overheating of the sampler — for the sake of monoblock and modularity they put the motor along the axis cases and transmissions, which lengthened the MTO a little, but allowed the introduction of additional fuel tanks in the MTO and created an excellent cooling system (so let some "experts" do not write nonsense about overheating and the unavailability of x-samples for Armata !!!) What Mayev writes about his ignorance about AWP THAT MAY -VESMA PRAVDA- invited him initially as a consultant but even then he continued to insist on launching 195-we can and for this he was excommunicated from the information and Armate..kak Hlopotova way!
    As for the 152mm, I think it will be on Armata .. over time ... maybe it’s already electrothermochemical)))
    Yes, even about what the Baumans proposed .. in short, a tank robot without a crew !!! I think that future tankers should now seriously take the game WOT !!)))))
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 19: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: alexpro66
      "52-58 tons" and if you take the average, you get 55 tons, which in principle confirms (for non-believers like KARS) that these weight indicators are achieved only

      All that can confirm that there was no finished specimen, and it didn’t weigh. I don’t know about titanium. I’m not special in metal science, and I’ve not heard about armor alloys based on it.
      Quote: alexpro66
      The article, by the way, is not-it is castrated in everything and could not be otherwise.

      It follows that you saw the original before censorship?
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 30 August 2013 20: 06 New
      0
      Quote: alexpro66
      in short - a robot tank without a crew !!!

      Hmm, and Iskin on 90nm chips of Russian production? Since in Chinese it is fraught ...
      Against the Yusovites completely, but against their homeland ...
      Fundamentally not new.
    3. starhina01
      starhina01 30 August 2013 20: 45 New
      0
      I don’t argue competently good
    4. mark1
      mark1 30 August 2013 20: 52 New
      +1
      For alexpro66 ME Thank you, interesting information, but there is a question-
      Quote: alexpro66
      Armata is a deeply modernized 195

      Quote: alexpro66
      the motor-transmission group was already worked out at that time (on joysticks !!)

      - if everything has already been worked out on the prototype, what is it that took so long to develop a simplified version of the platform? technical reasons or palace intrigues again?
    5. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 31 August 2013 07: 08 New
      0
      Finally, there is another very attentive person taking off my hat, Here one passage that you did not mention T-90A was already massively going to India, the production was somehow established somehow, And this sample meant a complete reconstruction or construction of new industries, Our star generals made noise about it it’s a big expense to never happen to it, Time was such a waste of money we won’t let it get out, Now a new stage of development is beginning, And everything that they’ve managed to create can be changed and brought to mind can be changed, After all, how much can Fishing is from this beginning of a new car is to be found in it,
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 30 August 2013 19: 59 New
    0
    It's time to create tanks, robots to create, and the developers are all trying to hide the crew ...
    Since they dragged on the development, there is nothing to reinvent the wheel - immediately jump to combat robots.
    There must be a lead in the creation of technology.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 30 August 2013 21: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      It's time to create tanks, robots to create, and the developers are all trying to hide the crew ...
      Since they dragged on the development, there is nothing to reinvent the wheel - immediately jump to combat robots.
      There must be a lead in the creation of technology.

      Unmanned combat vehicles do not cancel manned ones, but supplement them. If they make an unmanned tank, this does not eliminate the need to create a manned vehicle.
      In addition, remote control is an unacceptable option.
      1. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov 30 August 2013 21: 57 New
        0
        Remote Control Yesterday.
        It's about AI.
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 August 2013 22: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Ivan Tarasov
          It's about AI.

          Well, yes, and then the AI ​​decides that people have nothing to do with it)))
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 20: 08 New
    +5
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    "52-58 tons" and if you take the average, you get 55 tons, which in principle confirms (for non-believers like KARS) that these weight indicators are achieved only

    All that can confirm that there was no finished specimen, and it didn’t weigh. I don’t know about titanium. I’m not special in metal science, and I’ve not heard about armor alloys based on it.
    Quote: alexpro66
    The article, by the way, is not-it is castrated in everything and could not be otherwise.

    It follows that you saw the original before censorship?

    1. Well, you haven’t heard much or seen much yet!))
    2. It is difficult to see the original .. but to hear ...))) I have been familiar with Mayev since 1998, though not close but several times we sat and drank vodka at the same table)) This answer will suit ?????)))) )
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 20: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      1. Well, you haven’t heard much or seen much yet!))

      It is impossible to embrace the vast.

      Quote: alexpro66
      Mayev is familiar with 1998 of the year, though not close, but several times at the same table sat and drank vodka)) This answer will suit ?????)))))

      No, it will not work.
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 20: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: Ivan Tarasov
    It's time to create tanks, robots to create, and the developers are all trying to hide the crew ...
    Since they dragged on the development, there is nothing to reinvent the wheel - immediately jump to combat robots.
    There must be a lead in the creation of technology.

    Well, they are there and intensely "REPEAT" AI!)))
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 30 August 2013 20: 28 New
    -1
    Quote: MIKHAN
    Something with the Armat tank is some kind of unhealthy intrigue .. already annoying .. honestly. (Although the T-34 and Katyusha were not secretly secret either ..) Then, before the Second World War. Maybe now the same situation ..?

    And that minus ..? I’m not special in tanks, but the photo shows double caterpillars .. the idea is not bad !! (if they are autonomous.) and if they are thrown off and rushing along the road on wheels ..? this is all known of course .. I think the tank will be like a transformer .. with an armored control capsule .. something like that (like a tank and it’s not like a tank .. ) There will be something new universal .. and it’s not in vain that they obviously hide .. We are all waiting for the interest to be laid out aha now straight .. hehe
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 30 August 2013 20: 36 New
      0
      Quote: MIKHAN
      in the photo double caterpillars can be seen .. the idea is not bad !!

      Vitaly, in which photo?
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 20: 38 New
    +4
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    1. Well, you haven’t heard much or seen much yet!))

    It is impossible to embrace the vast.

    Quote: alexpro66
    Mayev is familiar with 1998 of the year, though not close, but several times at the same table sat and drank vodka)) This answer will suit ?????)))))

    No, it will not work.

    Mayev is too serious a person to carry nonsense, like a Mechanic, for example! HE SAYS BETTER THAN BROUGHT TALES IN THE MASSES!
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 20: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      Mayev is too serious a person to carry nonsense

      Mayev yes, even though his seriousness does not guarantee anything. Should I remind about the statements of the generals of the Russian Federation about the purchase of the Leopard and the 17 modification?

      Quote: alexpro66
      HE SAYS BETTER THAN BROUGHT TALES IN THE MASSES!

      but you are not.
  • starhina01
    starhina01 30 August 2013 20: 48 New
    +1
    You gopher see belay no request me neither what but he is hi WE WILL SEE good
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 30 August 2013 20: 54 New
    -1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Quote: MIKHAN
    in the photo double caterpillars can be seen .. the idea is not bad !!

    Vitaly, in which photo?

    On a computer in the article .. and what ??)) I just understand that there will not be a tank as such .. in the development of "Armata" .. I think this will be the basis from which you can transform any armored system and light, including such a feeling me .. Tanks as such are already outdated and too vulnerable. in modern warfare .. and the thickness of the armor no longer plays a role ..
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 30 August 2013 21: 03 New
      0
      Quote: MIKHAN
      On the computer in the article .. and what ??)

      Yes so ...
      On the comp. Figure, the caterpillar is single, similar to the T-80 harp, two-link tracks fastened with "binoculars", now everyone is moving to it.

      No complaints, Vitaly, and I'm not smart, it just seemed like he missed something while reading the article.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 21: 07 New
    +4
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    Mayev is too serious a person to carry nonsense

    Mayev yes, even though his seriousness does not guarantee anything. Should I remind about the statements of the generals of the Russian Federation about the purchase of the Leopard and the 17 modification?

    Quote: alexpro66
    HE SAYS BETTER THAN BROUGHT TALES IN THE MASSES!

    but you are not.

    Do not distort the generals, I’m talking about a specific person. And there are enough fools in general form in Ukraine!
    Well, to whom are fables and to whom come true, and so it will do for you!
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 21: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      Do not distort the generals, I’m telling you about a specific person

      Why should I distort? There are no infallible people
      Quote: alexpro66
      Well, to whom are fables and to whom come true, and so it will do for you!

      Well, it will do, it will not do - but you failed to show yourself.
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 21: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    Do not distort the generals, I’m telling you about a specific person

    Why should I distort? There are no infallible people
    Quote: alexpro66
    Well, to whom are fables and to whom come true, and so it will do for you!

    Well, it will do, it will not do - but you failed to show yourself.

    Well, I know one infallible - under the nickname KARS
    But here's the thing - you hurt your sick and beloved point, pride! You have already shown yourself everywhere, can we give way? Well, what to do, some know more of yours, humble yourself!))
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 21: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      Well, I know one infallible - under the nickname KARS

      You flatter me
      Quote: alexpro66
      But here's the thing -you hurt your sick and beloved point-pride

      Who where?
      Quote: alexpro66
      You have already shown yourself everywhere, we can give way

      only under guard or for a bribe
      Quote: alexpro66
      Well, what to do, some know more of yours, humble yourself!))

      some yes but you no
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 21: 55 New
    +3
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    Well, I know one infallible - under the nickname KARS

    You flatter me
    Quote: alexpro66
    But here's the thing -you hurt your sick and beloved point-pride

    Who where?
    Quote: alexpro66
    You have already shown yourself everywhere, we can give way

    only under guard or for a bribe
    Quote: alexpro66
    Well, what to do, some know more of yours, humble yourself!))

    some yes but you no

    Well, if you said it means so! Poor I am poor, Dunno!)))
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 21: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      Poor I am poor, Dunno!)))

      no more like Pinocchio
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 30 August 2013 21: 58 New
    +4
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: alexpro66
    Poor I am poor, Dunno!)))

    no more like Pinocchio

    Oh Poor I am poor Pinocchio! The great and infallible Kars himself said so !! Everything is like a verdict! I cried !!!
    1. Kars
      Kars 30 August 2013 22: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: alexpro66
      The great and infallible Kars himself said so!

      Thank you.
      Quote: alexpro66
      I'm crying !!!

      Well, it’s not worth it, think up less, and you will, though not, not be.

      Quote: alexpro66
      Oh Poor I am poor Pinocchio!

      When do you learn to respond normally? There is such a button under the comment - reply.
      1. alexpro66
        alexpro66 30 August 2013 22: 08 New
        +4
        Quote: Kars
        Quote: alexpro66
        The great and infallible Kars himself said so!

        Thank you.
        Quote: alexpro66
        I'm crying !!!

        Well, it’s not worth it, think up less, and you will, though not, not be.

        Quote: alexpro66
        Oh Poor I am poor Pinocchio!

        When do you learn to respond normally? There is such a button under the comment - reply.

        O great TEACHER and LETTER, I will immediately learn! Excuse me! Will not happen again!!
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 August 2013 22: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: alexpro66
          Oh great TEACHER and LETTER I

          not worth it - I don’t pretend to Mao laurels.


          Quote: alexpro66
          I will learn immediately! Sorry! Will not happen again!

          I hope so.
  • Grif
    Grif 30 August 2013 22: 08 New
    +3
    Oh, we miss Lavrenty Palycha ...
  • clidon
    clidon 30 August 2013 23: 13 New
    0
    From Maev’s words I understood what turns out to be a hefty tank, this turns out to be good. Heavy is good! With kick panels it's good! With a tall tower great! Security is needed, but the crew is better off reclining. All the time, admirers of domestic tank equipment said the opposite.
    And why he with all this economy "did not take off" a rhetorical question. It is strange that anti-aircraft missiles, an electronic warfare complex and a field kitchen were not screwed onto it.