Military Review

Tank T-80U - a step into the future

206
Tank T-80U - a step into the future

In 1976, the world's first production tank equipped with a gas turbine engine (GTE), the T-80, rolled off the assembly line, and four years later, the Americans made a similar car. So far, only two countries in the world have Tanks with GTE - it was a "small revolution" in tank engine building. The remote competition of these machines has begun, which continues to this day.


Unfortunately, today the indiscriminate criticism of modern Russian tanks by “experts” who know little about this issue has become fashionable in the domestic media. Did not escape this fate and tanks T-80U *. All these “analytical” works are distinguished by obvious bias. Apparently, there is a long-acquired reflex - to praise everything that comes from behind the "hillock". One has only to recall the endless conversations about the purchases abroad, allegedly having no analogues, "Mistral", armored cars, UAVs, etc.

Meanwhile, over the past five years, the sales of our military equipment abroad has increased 2 times (from 6,5 to 12 billion dollars), and many of the samples are serious competition for similar US products. So, we recently delivered to Cyprus another batch of T-80 tanks.

* Baryatinsky M. Whose tanks are better: T-80 against Abrams // HBO.-2011, No. 34.

The combination of all the basic parameters of a modern tank (armor protection, firepower and mobility) defines its basis as a combat vehicle. Time has identified other advantages: automation of combat work, information sufficiency, good “vision”, especially at night, navigation, and, of course, the economic criterion “cost-effectiveness”.

Maybe it’s even good that there was reason for a serious analysis of the problems of domestic tank building, which seems to be “forgotten” by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the defense industry. Of course, the bet today is on missiles, Aviation and the submarine fleet is no doubt true. At the same time, both our and foreign experience suggests that in modern conditions it is practically impossible to conduct combat operations without tanks.

80 years ago (in 1932), the tank design bureau of the Kirov factory (now - Spetsmash OJSC), which became famous in the country and abroad, was organized. Following the replacement in the post-war period of piston engines in aviation with gas turbine and jet engines, the outstanding designer of the Leningrad Kirov Plant, Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin, began developing a new tank with a gas turbine engine.

While working on upgrading the latest models of the IS series, J.-J. Kotin could not help thinking about the appearance of a new, more powerful heavy tank. Layout studies showed the main directions: machine weight - 55 t, gun - caliber not less than 130 mm, power unit capacity - not less than 1000 hp Such a power of a diesel engine in those years seemed unattainable. Then they decided to reserve the second engine - the CCD, since it could be done here at the factory.

In 1955, at the Kirov Plant, on the instructions of the GBTU, the development of GTE for heavy tanks began. Under the guidance of designer G.A. Ogloblina created two prototypes. They passed the bench tests. However, the Kirov turbine builders, who worked on the ship's machinery, did not have experience in designing tank power plants. As a result, these works were curtailed.

Nevertheless, there were also projects of a tank with a diesel engine ("277 Object", lead designer - NF Shashmurin), and with GTE ("278 Object", lead designer - NM Chistyakov). For various reasons, the design of the tank "Object 278" did not receive further development, and the "Object 277" even got to show the top leadership of the country.


Experienced heavy tank "Object 277"


It should be noted here that the “277 Object” possessed excellent tactical and technical characteristics for its time. Suffice it to say that its X-NUMX-mm rifled M-130 cannon, with its muzzle energy and accuracy, was superior to the 65-2 with some modern Russian tanks almost 46-fold.

What happened after inspecting the cars of N.S. Khrushchev is well known. The fate of heavy tanks was decided. But the dream of a tank GTE lived and stirred the imagination of designers. The idea of ​​such an engine J.J. Kotin "infected" S.P. Izotov - an outstanding designer of aircraft and helicopter engines. Moreover, Kotin was well aware that the efforts of some design teams - to adapt aviation GTEs to work in a tank - are unpromising. The operating conditions in the tank are so specific that it is necessary right away, from the first line of the drawing, to create a “purely tank” GTE - unpretentious, adapted to heavy and extra-heavy conditions. It was necessary to “accustom” the engine spoiled with clean air to the rough work associated with frequent starts and stops, vibrations and shock overloads, with constant acceleration and deceleration. And all this in conditions of unbearable heat and penetrating cold, in dirt and dust, and with technical support, far from aviation.

When we started, we immediately told Sergey Petrovich Izotov: “If you want the tank with your engine to take root in the troops, immediately“ lay down ”his work under all these conditions and teach him to“ swallow ”at least 2% of the skipped dust” (by the way, bargained up to 1,5%).

There was another problem for the design bureau of the plant. V.Ya. Klimov, where S.P. Izotov was the chief designer - it was required, in accordance with a government decree, to create a CCD in the MTO dimensions of the T-64 tank as an alternative to diesel. That is why the GTE used a two-stage centrifugal turbocharger. Thus, the protection of the flow part against abrasive wear and, finally, the original system of vibration cleaning and “blowing” the dust appeared. Then before the teams headed by SP Izotov and N.S. Popov, there were many difficult tasks that had to be solved in the shortest possible time, established and controlled at the highest level.

In the course of the work, the main ways of eliminating the main drawback of the CCD - high specific fuel consumption were identified. Improving the fuel economy performance of gas turbine engines was proposed to be achieved by increasing the operating temperature of the gas, which is ensured by using materials with increased heat resistance for turbines and a significant increase in the efficiency of cooling of turbine blades and SA. It was necessary to develop and confirm with the results of tests the theory and design of high-temperature turbines, high-performance and compact heat exchangers, measures for controlling the acceleration and deceleration of turbines.

The gas turbine power plant (GTSU) and transmission were to be placed in the existing MTO volume of the T-64A tank. In addition, it was necessary to ensure the possibility of replacing the power plant and transmission with the 5TDF engine on the GTSU during the overhaul of the tank. The requirements for the air-supply system of the GTSU consisted in ensuring the quality cleaning of the air entering the engine, the automatic removal of dust from the dust box and the absence of the need to maintain the air cleaner during operation. The latter circumstance is extremely important for a combat vehicle.

It is worth saying that all engine designers proceed from the fact that the air for the engine would be cleaned by all 100%. They can be understood - dust is a terrible enemy, especially for piston engines. It is, in fact, sandpaper, which "eats" the working surface.

That is why the American firm Donaldson, the developer of the air cleaner for the AGT-1500 engine, was demanded to design an air filter, albeit of a large volume (two cubes, which is 6 times more than T-80), but always with absolute cleaning up. Yes, and could not be otherwise.

Firstly, Lycoming Allison applied an axial centrifugal compressor in its GTE. Experts know that its axial thin blades do not tolerate abrasives at all. Let me remind you, the compressors on T-80U are centrifugal, small-sized.

Secondly, in AGT-1500 a stationary ring plate heat exchanger was “laid”, which “hates” dust more because of the clogging of the smallest cells between the plates. All this led to an increase in the dimensions of the tank. The volume of MTO at Abrams became 6,8 м3 (in 2,5 times more than at T-80). It was necessary to make a semi-support chassis and, as a result, the tank mass reached 54,5 tons. Gradually strengthening the protection, the Abrams mass was now brought to 68 tons (75 “short American tons”), which is 1,5 times higher than that of T-80 and T-90. This means that AGT-1500 “drags” 20 with tons of excess weight. Add another loss of mobility due to the worst ratio of "L" to "B" - known from the theory of motion as a "turning" coefficient (L is the length of the support surface of the caterpillar, B is the width of the track).

In addition, the lateral projection area М1А1 - 15,5 м2, which is 20% more than T-80 (12,2м2); true, it is said that with the advent of high-precision weapons the factor of small size does not matter and still try to understand this issue, although it is not so simple. By the way, according to a reputable news agency REGNUM, confirmed tank losses from high-precision weapons of the United States in Yugoslavia made up all 12 units — not the best result.


Projections of tanks M1А1 and T-80U


General Designer of the tank KB-3 of the Kirov Plant N.S. Popov, returning from Abu Dhabi (UAE), where the international arms exhibition was held, told how the founder of Abrams, Dr. Philip Lett, advertised his tank, including its comfort and spacious volumes. However, after examining the T-80U, he agreed with Nikolai Sergeevich's arguments about the advantages of assembling our tank. Later, Nikolai Sergeevich answered a question from I. Lisochkin, a special correspondent for the newspaper St. Petersburg Vedomosti (1 in April 1993): “But why is our T-80 better than tanks from other countries?

- Let's start with the general characteristics. The weight of the American "Abrams" - 62 tons, engine power - 1500 hp We have, respectively, 46 tons, 1250 hp Our tank is more compact, due to less inertia - more mobile. True, in conversation the Americans tried to convince us that their car is more spacious, “more comfortable”. But I think with such "comfort" on the obstacles only bumps nashibat. I am convinced that our certain crew’s “tightness” is much more expedient ”.

In this regard, I will add N.S. Popov and recall that the decisive parameter of mobility is the specific power, i.e. power per unit mass of the machine. Let's compare: X-NUMX hp / t in T-27,2 and 80 hp / t in Abrams - we only have 24,2% more, but this is when they have more power than 10%. These are the numbers, such is the price of the size!

Another important point. It is not so difficult to make an “absolute” two-stage air cleaner (especially for a large volume). The paths are known, there are types. The first stage is a direct-flow (or reverse flow) cyclone, the second is a barrier one. For example, paper (tractor K-700, "Abrams"), thin wire- "putanka" in oil (T-72). The task of the second stage is “to besiege” and hold back everything that broke through the first stage, and then, by washing and purging, remove it during maintenance.

Simply! But ... That's just the point - a lot of “but”! I fully agree with the assessment of M. Baryatinsky: “when operating the Abrams, however, it requires frequent maintenance of the filter, which really limits the mobility of the tank in conditions of high air dustiness”. It is known that in Operation Desert Storm, filters were cleaned several times a day. How can you fight?

There is one more extremely important "but": during combat work in the contaminated area, you will have to carry a time bomb with you. Do not build the "Chernobyl sarcophagus" around the air cleaner.

Such is the price of significant dimensions of the hull. Let's try to compare the power plants of the two tanks, at least in several key parameters, and talk about the prospects. It is impossible to answer whose tank is better. Some parameters are better for us, others are better for them. However, tank builders have a so-called "comprehensive assessment of the technical level of the tank." Without going into scientific calculations and specific terminology, I will only say that this method is based on generalized autonomous estimates of combat properties and performance indicators using special coefficients, and for each of the three "whales" on which the combat vehicle is based - firepower, security and mobility. Since the mobility theme dominates in this article, it can be added that its components are the parameters of permeability, speed and autonomy, which, after statistical processing of the experimental data, can calculate the corresponding estimated coefficients. And such calculations in scientific research institutes and tank design bureaus exist.

A few words about why we are criticized - for the “voracity of the engine”, for the lack of power reserve, etc. I must say that we do not dismiss healthy criticism and are grateful to our opponents for it. I just don’t like the evil spirits or incompetence of some “experts”.

When they talk about the continuous improvement of the tanks type M1, usually forget that the T-80 went through a number of upgrades in various directions. I will mention only a few of these options.

For example, the tank T-80UA. When upgrading, the machine was equipped with an improved gun 2А46М-4, a fire control system (CGI) 1A45-1, a day-night sighting system of the commander T01-K04, a night sighting system T01-K05-TXNUMX-KXNUMX-XXNUMX, a night sighting system TXNUMX-KXNUMX-TXNUMX-XXUMX-XXUMX, KXNUMX night aiming complex TXNUMX-KXNUMX-XXUMX-XXNUMX other innovations.

T-80UЕ1 is a modernization of the T-80BV tank, made by installing the T-80UD tank on its chassis of the combat compartment (previously T-80UD was decommissioned due to the low reliability of logging equipment and focused on the storage bases). Used gas turbine engine GTD-1250 1250 horsepower. and an air intake device that allows to overcome without preparation a ford to a depth of 1,8 m. In addition, the built-in dynamic protection is mounted on the VLD and the sides of the hull. Implemented and a number of other improvements. As a result, the modernization of the T-80BV upgraded its military-technical level and ensured unification with the T-80U and T-90А tanks on TEM and guided weapons.

The upgraded T-80BA tanks (“Object 219РБ”), T-80UA (“Object 219АМ-1”) and T-80ЕЕ1 (“Object 219АС-1”) by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation from 16.04.2005 No. 435Ф adopted by the Charter on the Provision of the RF on 27.05.2005, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Charter of the Russian Federation, adopted by the law of the federal The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation from 043, No. XXUMX, and into service.


Upgraded T-80UA tank



Upgraded T-80UEX1 Tank


If we talk about fuel consumption, then the T-80U (tank adopted for service in accordance with the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR CM from 27.12.1984, No. 1184-301) it is 225 g / hp.ch (for T-80 - 240 g / hp).

So, only the installation of the power unit GTA-18А allowed, without using the lifespan of the main gas turbine engine, to provide all the energy and reduce the consumption of 8 – 10% in operation. A significant contribution was made by the system of automatic switching on of the parking small gas mode (SMG) - 8 – 9% and the automatic mode reduction system (SAUR). In a word, running costs of fuel have decreased in 1,3 – 1,4 times.

Power reserve (with barrels) - 440 km (for Abrams advertising 395 – 400 km, according to TTX - 275 miles, i.e. 442 km). At the same time, Americans believe that the power reserve is not the only criterion for assessing the real operational fuel efficiency of the engine. It is very important, in their estimation, to have low fuel consumption at idle, since the engine works in this mode most of the time in a combat situation. The fuel consumption of the AGT-1500 at idle is 28 kg / h.

Knowing the importance of reducing fuel consumption at idle is not worse than Americans, after deep research we introduced the CMS mode - in automatic mode. In accordance with the program, after 1,5 min work on MG (low gas) the engine reduces the turbocharger speed of stage II from 64 to 56%, and the fuel consumption is set to 32 kg / h (in one group of injectors). But the main thing is that you can stop the engine and “power up” the entire power of the tank from the auxiliary power unit GTA-18А, where the flow (depending on the generator load) 18 – 20 kg / h. All this can be done manually.

Completing the consideration of the issue of the power reserve, I will point out some more figures, but from operational practice. It is known that the so-called “travel fuel consumption” (in liters) per 100 km of track and 1 km of path of a gas turbine engine largely depends on the average speed of movement - the higher it is, the lower the consumption. Thus, when testing at Kubinka with Vcp = 56 km / h, the flow rate of 3,3 l / km was determined; on control tests (CI) "Typhoon" in Transbaikalia at Vcp = 51 km / h - 4,8л / km; on similar tests "Acacia" with Vcp = 40 km / h - 6,83 l / km. The resulting data scatter, among other things, is explained by different weather, geographic, and organizational conditions.


View of the MTO tank T-80U


Face-to-face competition with Abrams - tests in Greece in 1998 - gave the following almost equal results: T-80U - 4 / km, "Abrams" - 4,1 l / km. It is easy to count the real power reserve for different conditions.

Further improvement of the tank "Abrams" is associated with the transverse engine. This allows you to free up the volume where you can place additional 75 gallons (284 l) of fuel, or 10 projectiles of 120 mm caliber, or, which is considered particularly important, an auxiliary power unit (today, the Gemini power unit is suspended from the stern as a temporary “node”). The built-in “Gemini” allows reducing fuel consumption by almost 40%, since during exercises, in a peaceful environment, the tank is idling for a long time. Before 2020, the Abrams MBT should be upgraded to the M1A2SEP (System Enhancement Program) level.

Among the tasks formulated by the US military, considerable attention is paid to the mobility of the new generation tank. So, he must fight on rough terrain with a speed of 65 km / h, have a maximum speed of 100 km / h, while the mass of the machine should be about 40 t, and the frontal projection - less by 40% (why, if, as already mentioned , sizes with precision weapons "do not play a role"?). Today, Abrams has a frontal projection area of ​​7,68 m 2, while T-80 has 7,1 m 2 (or 5,1 and 4,2 m X NUMX without clearance and bevels). Installation of the GTE LV-2-100 engine, developed by General Electric and Honivem Engines (USA), unified with AGT-5 on 1500%, 40 HP power is proposed. and the best 1500% fuel economy. But the main thing is that it has almost a smaller volume in 30. The cost of the engine is estimated at 2 thousand dollars (AGT-480 has recently cost 1500 316 dollars) with a planned decrease in this figure to the level of the cost of diesel engines, i.e. somewhere 500 dollars per 200 hp, or the total cost 1 300 dollars.


T-80U Tank Supply System


Still keeping the leading positions in some performance indicators of technical characteristics (in particular, in terms of mass-dimensional indicators of gas turbine engines, density of the MTO layout), we, unfortunately, lose in terms of the parameters characterizing the engine workflow. No funding is allocated for R & D and OCD to solve these problems. At the same time, proven modernization methods are not being implemented to enable automatic gear shifting, an increase in 10 – 12% of the average speed and reduction in track fuel consumption, the use of GOP (hydrostatic transmission). Elaboration and testing of short-term afterburner (up to 1400 hp) serial GTE does not find application. Workable samples, forced to 1500 hp, were useless. And what excellent results were obtained on the tests of the onboard information management system (BIUS). At the same time, as shown by special studies, a more “smooth” start-up is carried out, when starting up, there are no “over-temperatures” of temperatures - and this is the reliability and durability of the engine. The calculated experimental estimate yields up to 8 – 9% fuel economy and a decrease in fuel operating costs from 22 – 29% (by the way, BIUS has been used for a long time by the ABUS, and we stopped at the stage of manufacturing a prototype). It would seem that it is necessary to introduce! But again there is no finance.

The capacity of the fuel tanks T-80 - 1860 l (Americans carry 2000 l). The main fuel - diesel, auxiliary (spare) - kerosene, gasoline and mixtures thereof. Barrels - two, two hundred liters, they are mounted on special brackets behind the hull back slate. True, there was a very short time and the third barrel - on the roof of the logistics, but it was removed at the request of the military.


Air intake device (VZU) of the T-80U tank


Two more words about air cleaning. This problem was solved in a complex.

First, the use of a maintenance-free, small volume of air filter (with a skip ratio of 1,5%), including GTE and gearbox oil cooler cooling system radiators.

Secondly - by installing a special nozzle for fan-shaped formation of gases on the exhaust, apron and side screens on the body, as well as the original new unit - the air intake device (OVC). OVC allowed to solve several problems:

- produce air intake in the cleanest area at the height of the tower, i.e. about 2200 mm (without additional nozzles);
- increase the ford depth to 1,8 (instead of 1,2);
- to solve the problem of protecting the suction louvers from bullets, splinters and defeat by “napalm” mixtures.
The soft skirt guaranteed the work of the OVC in the wide operational positions of the tower relative to the longitudinal axis (the tower on the stopper is “traveling” - to the right, that is, at the 13 position).

In conclusion, I would like to note the following.

A huge role in the formation of the GTE in the tank played DF. Ustinov - Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, and later the Minister of Defense. It was a person who supports everything new, or, in modern terminology, advanced innovative projects. Like no one else, he knew how to look into the future, to help us - the pioneers of creating a tank with a GTD. And this is despite the fact that it was intended to put T-64 on the flow at tank-producing plants in Leningrad, Kharkov and Nizhny Tagil. By the way, if the Leningrad residents were instructed to “save” the Kharkov tank (more precisely, the 5TDF engine) with their gas turbine, then the Tagil residents, in the framework of the mobilization option, with the B-45 diesel engine. As a result, the Nizhny Tagil tank was assigned the index "Object 172М", in 1973, it was adopted as T-72, and later received the name "Ural".

When adopting the T-80U, we proposed, since this car was, in fact, a new tank, different from the previous ones by a number of fundamental innovations, to assign it a new brand (by analogy with how the modernized T-72 was called T-90). However, the military were against it, saying that it was a regular upgrade: name, for example, T-80М (recall that after T-80 there were upgraded T-80B and T-80BV). A consensus was found - the name T-80U (“219АС object”) was approved, and the customer had no doubt that the letter “U” means “improved”. And we were secretly proud that the name of Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov, whose merits in the birth of the world's first production tank with GTE are indisputable, was immortalized in this peculiar way.


Of course, an objective comparison of such different tanks (T-80 and M1) gives plenty of food for thought, allows you to conduct a critical assessment of the past. In this regard, let me advise: do not rush. Do not evaluate the car, even if you do not sympathize with it, through the prism of their subjective impressions. I do not get tired of repeating young specialists - there is no “ideal” BT technology. Not only numbers TTX and manufacturability design determine the perfection of the combat vehicle. She has one more “essence” - that which is achieved by the image of a conscientious designer-researcher, which is associated with belonging to a certain tank school. For specialists of Spetsmash, this is the school of J.Ya. Kotin, where the alphabet of the developer of heavy tanks was the "conquest" of the limiting parameters of the machine. Recall that the famous heavy tanks KB and IP were famous for the best for their time security and firepower, minimizing size and weight and even taking into account the criterion of “cost-effectiveness”, although due to circumstances the latter sometimes did not reflect.

I will cite one of the associates of J.I. Kotin - veteran of the KB N. F. Shashmurin, a man of complex, but the designer "from God", twice the winner of the Stalin Prize, candidate of technical sciences. In his book "50 years of confrontation," Nikolai Fyodorovich wrote about his vision of design work:

"It was necessary to differently interpret almost the same thing in some cast-iron heads: история - this is yesterday, today and tomorrow. The misunderstanding of these temporary categories has been taught to use ... At the same time, the reader will not find out information about what demand follows from us, tank builders.

There is an important section in the whole tank creation complex - our role and responsibility are very significant. ”

It is a big responsibility to be aware of the involvement in the state business started in the 80 design bureau years ago. Tank building in Russia has always been at the forefront. I believe that this will continue.

Progress in tank building, ultimately, determines the intelligence of specialists and, of course, its own school. Tank T-80U occupies a special place among the products of JSC "Spetsmash", among the implemented projects. In this tank focused many years of achievements of high quality domestic designers. He absorbed all the most advanced of the various fields of technology.

The creation of such a complex and multifaceted model of military equipment, which is a modern tank, contributes to the development on its basis of completely new, including purely peaceful vehicles. It can be said that, due to its importance, the GTE tank is a step into the future of tank construction. The potential of domestic tank building is still inexhaustible, and stereotypes about its systemic crisis are untenable.

Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
206 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 6 September 2013 09: 57 New
    +6
    for me it’s the most beautiful tank, does anyone know about their modernization? or will they develop a resource in a landfill?
    1. aspirin02
      aspirin02 6 September 2013 10: 16 New
      +5
      modernization Ukrainian tank-t 84y-t84yatagan-t84oplot (export) -t84Oplot.M .....
      1. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 10: 27 New
        +7
        ______________________
      2. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 6 September 2013 14: 47 New
        +2
        Diesel, Ukrainians produce only diesel power plants.
    2. aspirin02
      aspirin02 6 September 2013 10: 19 New
      +4
      modernization Ukrainian tank-t 84y-t84yatagan-t84oplot (export) -t84Oplot.M .....
      1. knyazDmitriy
        knyazDmitriy 6 September 2013 10: 26 New
        +7
        it’s not ours, at least on a territorial basis.
        1. phantom359
          phantom359 7 September 2013 14: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: knyazDmitriy
          it’s not ours, at least on a territorial basis.

          Normal move, and who are yours?
    3. Yemelya
      Yemelya 6 September 2013 18: 18 New
      +4
      Here the article talked about the T-80UA and T80BA. What is the T-80BA, I don’t know, I haven’t seen any mention of it anywhere else. There is another option for upgrading the T-80B to the level of. 219M, by analogy with the T-72B2 Slingshot.

      About. 219M with KAZ "Arena":
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 6 September 2013 23: 55 New
        +4
        T-80 camouflage :)
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 8 September 2013 11: 32 New
          +2
          Happy holiday, everyone !!!

          drinks
          1. Jin
            Jin 8 September 2013 11: 50 New
            0
            Mutually, from the heart !!! drinks
  2. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 6 September 2013 10: 43 New
    10
    What are his prospects? All with the T-72 rush, and the tankers, so all polls praise the T-80.
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 6 September 2013 11: 51 New
      -10
      In my opinion, the diesel engine should be on the tank. It is simple, reliable and not expensive. T-80 is an interesting experiment and no more. At the expense of the T-72, in my opinion you should not bother with Armatoi, etc. nonsense, expensive! Let me give an example - Abrams and Leopard 2, how many years in the ranks, how many upgrades they have. And tanks are considered the best to date. With a competent approach, you can make a super-candy from the T-72.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 12: 12 New
        +4
        Quote: ka5280
        With a competent approach, you can make a super-candy from T-72.

        Some kind of strange comment you have, Dmitry.
        It seems that all the words are correct (as in this quote), but if the whole text is read in its entirety ...
        Something embarrasses me, I’m a red girl ...
        Are you from our "stable"?
        1. ka5280
          ka5280 6 September 2013 14: 37 New
          -1
          In my opinion, the optimal tank today is the T-72B3.
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 6 September 2013 15: 15 New
            +1
            And why not a more advanced and no less realistic B2?
          2. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 15: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: ka5280
            the optimal tank today is the T-72Б3.

            Not quite right.
            Read at least the previous topics in this forum.
            Tired of telling the same thing ten times already.
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 6 September 2013 13: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: ka5280
        And tanks are considered the best to date.


        Traditionally, it doesn’t stink its own. I would be very surprised if America began to consider the t80u the best tank in the world.
        1. ka5280
          ka5280 6 September 2013 14: 36 New
          +2
          First, not her, but he. Secondly the flag of Liberia. In the third, where in my koment, I said that I think these tanks are the best? In my opinion, the best tank in terms of all the parameters is the T-72B3.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 16: 02 New
            0
            Quote: ka5280
            the best tank in the aggregate of all parameters is the T-72Б3.

            It depends on what to compare "by the totality of parameters" and what they are, these "parameters".
          2. Yemelya
            Yemelya 6 September 2013 18: 20 New
            0
            Quote: ka5280
            the best tank in the aggregate of all parameters is the T-72Б3.


            Even from the developers such statements are not heard.
      3. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 6 September 2013 14: 50 New
        +2
        Diesel is just not very reliable, it needs very high-quality fuel, and in winter it’s so special, the gas turbine engine is much unpretentious. Yes, and smaller in size.
        1. Rider
          Rider 6 September 2013 15: 05 New
          0
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Diesel is just not very reliable.


          Well, I don’t know, it would be nice to compare the engine life of both engines before overhaul.

          and more on fuel.
          right now there are plenty of additives for working in the winter.
          at the extreme, mix with kerosene in a proportion of 1/10.
          And yet, who knows, they put heating boilers on the 72 series?
          if so then I don’t see any particular difficulties.
          Some fuel equipment have such a feature, they pass a much larger amount of fuel through themselves than they consume, i.e. fuel is heated passing through the working sections of the fuel tank and goes back to the tank (and in some cases the first fuel filter)
          therefore, it is enough to start the engine, and the problem with thickening the fuel no longer occurs.

          If anyone is special on this topic, let him unsubscribe.
          1. Jin
            Jin 6 September 2013 16: 04 New
            0
            Quote: Rider
            And yet, who knows, they put heating boilers on the 72 series?


            We didn’t have 72s, there were just 80s. I can say for sure that there are heating boilers on the BMP!
            1. Rider
              Rider 6 September 2013 16: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Jin
              I can say for sure that there are heating boilers on the BMP!


              I just know that
              it turns out the advantage in starting (in winter) at 80 to 72 only in the boiler / under, or as a fuel mixture?
              if only in the boiler, then this problem is removed by its installation, but do not know about topl / app?
              if it is of the type as I described (that is, pumping an excessive amount of fuel through dvigun) then there should be no problems with fuel.

              it remains to find out the motor resource of both engines, and then it is more than easy to compare.

              If in the course, unsubscribe.
              1. Jin
                Jin 6 September 2013 16: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: Rider
                it turns out the advantage in starting (in winter) at 80 to 72 only in the boiler / under, or as a fuel mixture?


                No, not only. GTE can be started at any (reasonable of course) low temperature, there is only one problem - you need to make sure that the batteries are always charged and not freezing (for example, when they are parked for a long time)! In parks they are generally removed. There are 4 of them there, putting and removing something else is a "pleasure"!))) Heavy ... They darling decide everything, unlike diesel. There, even with a boiler, it will take much more time to start. And time, you yourself understand ... sometimes the life of the crew! GTE is launched in cascades, the impression is that the plane is being launched))) a pleasant sound.
                1. Rider
                  Rider 6 September 2013 16: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: Jin
                  . And time, you yourself understand ... sometimes the life of the crew!


                  Well, how can I tell you, just in those places where an extra second can cost a life, the comrades dryuchit, the commanders of the crew so that they dryuch mechanical drivers, so that they warm the engine by launching in 2-3 hours.
                  and besides the Terek, the winter is such that special warming up is not required.
                  not for nothing among the shift workers was a joke (until the 90s) - the northern Caucasus is better than southern Siberia.

                  in other cases, this is not critical.

                  and air start "cold" is possible?
                  1. Jin
                    Jin 6 September 2013 20: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rider
                    and air start "cold" is possible?


                    At the TBG? Are you kidding me? request

                    Quote: Rider
                    Komruchi dryuchit, the crew commanders so that they dryuchuv mekhvod, so that they warmed dvigun launch after 2-3 hours.


                    And if the ribbon "convoy" has crooked up somewhere and fuel is not expected in the near future? And if the human factor. Well, I didn’t warm it, I fell asleep ... "Will you shoot at the third rink"? It may seem too much if, but from if everything develops, as practice shows
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 6 September 2013 21: 48 New
                      0
                      Quote: Jin
                      At the TBG? Are you kidding me?


                      not just interested.
                      it’s impossible, but on BMP the craftsmen managed.
                      Quote: Jin
                      And if ... if ... if


                      so with such opening, and 80ka will rise.
                      1. Jin
                        Jin 6 September 2013 22: 21 New
                        0
                        Quote: Rider
                        But on BMP craftsmen managed.


                        Actually, on BMP, according to all the canons this is a regular launch, it turns out I can even try to remember the sequence of actions at startup ... although we never started them (engines) from the tank, always with battery ...
                      2. Rider
                        Rider 6 September 2013 22: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: Jin
                        although we (engines) have never started them "from the tank", with akb always ...


                        our mechanical drives - too, since the air system was poisoning, air constantly came out of the receiver.
                        probably that's why I thought that the starter is the main launcher.
                      3. Jin
                        Jin 6 September 2013 22: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: Rider
                        probably that's why I thought that the starter is the main launcher.


                        No, just a spare)
                  2. Jin
                    Jin 6 September 2013 22: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rider
                    so with such opening, and 80ka will rise.


                    It will arise, but later than the 72nd ... under equal conditions ... in short, all this is stupid !!!! If he gets up, he won’t get up, like that impotent on a camomile ... Too many factors influence this, to judge like that)))
                  3. Rider
                    Rider 6 September 2013 22: 36 New
                    0
                    Quote: Jin
                    Get up, not get up ...

                    well, such an introduction is your idea.

                    I just wanted to know the difference between the launches of both units in winter conditions.
                  4. Jin
                    Jin 6 September 2013 22: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rider
                    well, such an introduction is your idea.


                    I didn’t want to offend anything! It’s very interesting to polemicize with you, don’t judge strictly ... just a bit of humor drinks
          2. Jin
            Jin 6 September 2013 20: 36 New
            0
            Quote: Rider
            Well, how can I tell you, just in those places where an extra second can cost a life, comrades dryuchit,


            Good...
            T-80:
            Sleep in the barracks, winter, frost. Anxiety. I got dressed in a jump and into the park, there the armor was frosty ... They dragged the batteries, into the hatch, accepted, installed, threw the terminals, start, cascades, ready to leave ...

            T-72:

            Sleep in the barracks, winter, frost. Anxiety. He dressed in a jump and into the park, there the armor is frosty ... Further action, colleague?
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 6 September 2013 20: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Jin
              T-72:

              In winter:
              In case of combat alert, an emergency launch system.
              In case of training anxiety and in everyday life - fuck 20 minutes ...
              wink
              1. Jin
                Jin 6 September 2013 21: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                In case of training anxiety and in everyday life - fuck 20 minutes ...


                +good laughing Well, we understood each other drinks Well, something like this...
              2. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 30 New
                0
                Quote: Jin
                Well, we understood each other

                And then.
                drinks
          3. Rider
            Rider 6 September 2013 22: 04 New
            0
            Quote: Jin
            Good...

            Sleep in the barracks, anxiety frost and raced


            Actually for the sake of this, I asked questions about the difference between the launch of both machines.
            but never received a sensible answer.
            if on both machines there is a cat / under, then why does the 80ka start faster?
            I just had to somehow start the excavator at -42, and this, as it were, arouses professional interest in me.
            Quote: Jin
            launch cascades

            and if it’s not difficult then explain what cascades are.
            and if it’s not a pity at all, the order of starting both cars.
            if the topic is too long, you can answer tomorrow, I’ll come to look anyway.

            Thanks in advance.

            PS - and on alert, we jumped on the armor, or occupied the rifle cell.

            hi
            1. Jin
              Jin 6 September 2013 22: 51 New
              +2
              Quote: Rider
              Why does the 80ka start faster?


              Because the launch comes from the battery, which "spins" the turbine and no fuel injection pumps, carburetors, injectors, thickened oils in the crankcase, etc. ... launch is guaranteed.

              Quote: Rider
              and if it’s not difficult then explain what cascades are.


              Cascades are "stages", turbine spin-ups (I explain how I can, from experience)

              there are several of them at launch ... I'm not a GTE specialist at all, but if you heard how helicopters are launched at the sites, about the same ...
              The first cascade is low bass, the second with an increase in speed and the transition of the "bass" to high tones, even a squeal. The third, turning into a hiss from the divider (aft), idle noise, when, if you stand from the front of the movement, then it (dvigla) is almost inaudible even. Easy "rustling" only. I’m not a search engine laser, I write as I remember ... Do not judge strictly.
            2. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 06 New
              +2
              Quote: Jin
              The first cascade is low bass, the second with an increase in speed and the transition of the "bass" to high tones, even a squeal. The third, turning into a hiss from the divider (aft), idle noise, when, if you stand from the front of the movement, then it (dvigla) is almost inaudible even. Easy "rustling" only.

              good
              This is music...
              Thank you, Eugene, for the memories ...

              I remember with the same warmth how I turn on the stabilizer ...
              Eheh.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. Alex 241
              Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 22 New
              +2
              ................
            5. Alex 241
              Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 25 New
              0
              ............
            6. studentmati
              studentmati 6 September 2013 23: 30 New
              +1
              I understand you, Sasha is not a sound, this is a “Melody”! drinks
            7. Alex 241
              Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 34 New
              +2
              Sanya, apparently from his father with the genes passed, tanks are sacred drinks
            8. studentmati
              studentmati 6 September 2013 23: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              Sanya, apparently from his father with the genes passed, tanks are sacred


              The harmony of the elements! Earth and sky! drinks
            9. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: studentmati
              The harmony of the elements! Earth and sky!

              Allow me to join such a wonderful toast, comrades Alexandra! Do not count for being impudent.
              drinks
            10. Alex 241
              Alex 241 7 September 2013 00: 00 New
              +3
              And my traditional: Let's live!
            11. studentmati
              studentmati 7 September 2013 00: 08 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              And my traditional: Let's live!


              Of course we will, they won’t wait!
            12. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 7 September 2013 00: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: studentmati
              will not wait!

              good
              Bastard from this expression ...
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex 241
      apparently transmitted from the father with the genes, tanks are sacred

      Dad + Sunday = Kabzdets liver.
      Don’t forget, Sanya.
      wink
    3. Alex 241
      Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 53 New
      +1
      Lech, I'll take a spare with me laughing
    4. studentmati
      studentmati 7 September 2013 00: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Alex 241
      Leh, I'll take a spare with me laughing


      Is there hope, but rather confidence, that our engine, which is as unpretentious as the 80s, will digest all the fuel offered?

      Otherwise, who will fulfill the tasks and how?
  3. Jin
    Jin 6 September 2013 23: 24 New
    +2
    Quote: Aleks tv

    This is music...
    Thank you, Eugene, for the memories ...

    I remember with the same warmth how I turn on the stabilizer ...
    Eheh.


    Thank you, Lesh, and you for remembering this music !!! drinks Any "grimy" of this "organ" (about an instrument, not an internal organ, I mean smile ) will never forget! It really is warm! How much do we have at the exit of the divider? + - 300 centigrade? Kirsu dries through the sole, along with footcloths, already burns his legs)))

    Eheh ... drinks

    Yes, there were fighting fights, but they say some more,
    It is not for nothing that all Russia remembers, about Borodin's day)))
  4. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: Jin
    Thank you, Lesh, and you for remembering this music !!!

    Zhen, she’s dreaming, radish ...
    Sometimes it turns out to escape to the guys at the tankodrome, and there I rest ...
    drinks
    Sunday is coming ...
    The scribe to the flies.
    wink
  5. Jin
    Jin 6 September 2013 23: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: Rider
    PS - and on alert, we jumped on the armor, or occupied the rifle cell.


    We also jumped, it was nice to talk!

    Forced to go to sleep, gentlemen.

    I have the honor!
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 16: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: Rider
    And yet, who knows, they put heating boilers on the 72 series?

    There is a standard heating system, from 10 to 30 minutes, depending on the air temperature.
    There is an emergency launch system in case of combat alert. The B-46-6 and B-84 engines are designed for several such starts. It does not apply even in exercises to save motor resources, only the Okrug has sanctioned before.
    1. Rider
      Rider 6 September 2013 16: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv
      There is a standard heating system


      and what is its difference from the boiler 7

      and another question, is it possible to start the air in winter without warming up the engine?
      (subject to winter oil of course)
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 17: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Rider
        and what is its difference from the boiler 7

        I do not quite understand the question ...

        Quote: Rider
        air start in winter time without warming up is possible?
        (subject to winter oil of course)

        It all depends on the ambient temperature.
        And the pneumatic start-up is the regular start-up of the T-72 after creating pressure in the oil system by the MZNom, it is electric, i.e. electricity is also needed.
        1. Rider
          Rider 6 September 2013 17: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          I do not quite understand the question ...


          the question is what is "standard heating system " if this is the same boiler, then why do you have to (as they say) climb MTO with lamps?
          Quote: Aleks tv
          A pneumatic start is a regular launch of the T-72

          But what about the starter? or is he not?
          and if there is, then (in my opinion) the start from the starter should be regular, and the pneumatic start is just auxiliary, in case the batteries are discharged

          (I think dvigun will survive from one launch without preliminary oil injection)

          why am I asking all this, I just came across an article where the price of both models is given. it specifically said that for the price of one t80, you can buy 2 or even 3 t72.
          including on dvigunami, where the price of one gas turbine engine GORAAAZDO more than a conventional diesel engine.
          So I would like to know where such a difference in price comes from.
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 September 2013 18: 03 New
            +2
            ________________
          2. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 18: 03 New
            0
            Quote: Rider
            if this is the same boiler, then why do you have to (as they say) climb MTO with lamps?

            Ordinary heating system, nothing supernatural.
            The pneumatic valve is located behind the commander.
            With "lamps" to climb MTO? It depends on which mechanic ...
            Just don’t forget to stick the “pipe”. If you look, then on the right side, the extreme rear support rollers are always smoked.
            wink

            Quote: Rider
            But what about the starter? or is he not?

            Whose eee ...
            And the crawls and the rake and the scythe at the barn cost ...
            Joke.
            There is of course, but somehow in practice, they try to launch by air, if it does not work, then they launch in combination.

            Quote: Rider
            just came across an article where the price is given

            That babai knows them, these prices, this question is definitely not for me, I am a simple practitioner.
            hi

            With respect.
            Alex.
            1. Rider
              Rider 6 September 2013 18: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Ordinary heating system, nothing supernatural.
              The pneumatic valve is located behind the commander.


              yes that's just something supernatural.
              I understand (found an article) that standard heating system it’s just a glow plug (or spiral) that warms up air for combustion chambers.
              (something like that stood on YaMZ engines for excavators)
              that is, it does NOT heat engine oil or the cooling system.

              you will forgive, but compared to the NORMAL heating boiler, it is practically NOTHING.
              I’m telling you as a machine operator.

              colleague Kars_a has a good reason for sarcasm.

              otherwise, thanks for the clarification.
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 6 September 2013 19: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Rider
                I understand (found an article) that the standard heating system is just a glow plug (or spiral) that heats the air for the combustion chambers.
                (something like that stood on YaMZ engines for excavators)
                that is, it does NOT heat engine oil or the cooling system.

                Alexander, you got a little lost ...
                Or I do not clearly explain, I'm sorry, I wrote today that I have to work and will disconnect from the Internet ...

                Once again about the T-72:
                1. The standard system, nothing supernatural, the usual heating system. Boiler (combustion chamber and heat exchanger), candle, nozzle, supercharger. It has its own fuel pump. We drive the coolant until it warms up and gives up heat to the engine, it all depends on the air temperature, I already wrote that about 10-30 minutes.
                Everything is simple, but how else?
                There is a system for exhaust gas, the outer "pipe" is inserted manually between the rear rollers on the starboard side separately.

                2. Emergency start system. It is EXTREMELY RARE. Only to exit the park on a real combat alert or during combat operations. There goes the principle of heating the air in dvigl.
                If the features are interesting, look for the book "Technical Description and Operating Instructions", I do not know if it is on the Internet.
                Starting with a “tie” is not at all recommended in any case.

                Quote: Rider
                colleague Kars_a has a good reason for sarcasm.

                I don’t think that with Kars we will mutually “sarcastically” about this.
                I do not like it.
                wink

                If anything, ask what I can - I will answer, sometimes here.
                hi
              2. Rider
                Rider 6 September 2013 20: 11 New
                0
                Well now everything is more clear.
                they would say right away, the usual c / p for heating the COOLANT.

                and I thought that it was just a glow plug for a short-term supply of warm air to the cylinders (for better ignition of the fuel mixture)

                then the question of sarcasm is removed.

                hi drinks
              3. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 6 September 2013 20: 25 New
                0
                Quote: Rider
                they would say right away, the usual c / p for heating the COOLANT.

                That I myself stepped ...
                Quote: Rider
                and what is its difference from the boiler 7

                It was necessary to read as "boiler?", And I read literally: "boiler 7" ...
                Shaw, I think, for "Cauldron 7" drew ...
                laughing
                hi
              4. Rider
                Rider 6 September 2013 22: 08 New
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Shaw, I think, for "Cauldron 7" drew ..


                shift is stupid, it's time to clave.

                laughing
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 6 September 2013 21: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: Rider
              but I thought it was just a glow plug ....

              In the T-62, the heating boiler is located in the fighting compartment on the left side (along the tank) in front of the engine compartment. The boiler exhaust hatch opens from inside the tank. Before supplying fuel to the boiler, the glow plug first warms up, then fuel is supplied and the boiler starts.

              The main type of launch of a tank engine is by air. I think this is more correct than the batteries, since the starter eats a lot: four times it is pulled by the starter - and the batteries are already seated, but they will not charge immediately (unlike the same air in the cylinders).

              Before starting the engine, the oil pump is first turned on and only after reaching 4 atmospheres (and above) the engine is started. In practice, however, there were cases when batteries were absent on the tank and they were run dry: on the left side of the driver there is a pneumatic valve to which 24 volts are supplied under normal conditions, it opens, air goes into the engine. But it can also be opened manually, with a dog (a small lever on the valve).
            3. Rider
              Rider 6 September 2013 22: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Bad_gr

              how the cat / under works, I know, I use it every winter.
              and why I need MLM - I also have a presentation.
              but the fact that the BASIC type of launch is by air is news to me.
              but with the battery there are also enough problems, then they will sit down in the cold, then drive the cat / under them, and then oil the engine.
              and if you consider that the electronic filling is sensitive to amperage, then in principle it is clear why this happened.

              thanks for clarification.
            4. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 6 September 2013 23: 36 New
              +2
              Quote: Rider
              how the cat / under works, I know every winter I use .....

              I painted in detail for one reason: I am writing about the T-62 tank and, possibly, there may be differences from the T-72 tank unit.
            5. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 52 New
              +3
              Quote: Bad_gr
              I am writing about the T-62 tank

              And rightly so.
              Nowadays there are few specialists about this wonderful car on the site, I always read with interest from you, Vladimir.
              drinks
            6. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 7 September 2013 00: 11 New
              +1
              Alex,
              thanks for the kind word!
  • Jin
    Jin 6 September 2013 16: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: vladsolo56
    Diesel is just not very reliable, it needs very high-quality fuel, and in winter it’s so special, the gas turbine engine is much unpretentious.


    you are not quite right, colleague. About civilian engines, yes, but tank engines are actually multi-fuel! And they are created to "devour" such fuel from which the "civilian" simply wedges ... In severe frost, you can pour gasoline, kerosene ...
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 6 September 2013 16: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Jin
      and tank they are actually multi-fuel! And they are created to "devour" such fuel from which the "civilian" simply wedges ...

      Eugene, good
      Hold on while with the comments, soon "ours" will roll up, bent with clarifications.

      I'm trying to work, not always in touch.
      wink
      1. Jin
        Jin 6 September 2013 16: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Hold on while with the comments, soon "ours" will roll up, bent with clarifications.

        I'm trying to work, not always in touch.


        Thank you!)
    2. Rider
      Rider 6 September 2013 16: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Jin
      and tank they are actually multi-fuel! And they are created to "devour" such fuel from which the "civilian" simply wedges ...


      I will allow myself a correction, not a wedge, but topl / app
      sits down, and will not be able to maintain working pressure in the nozzles, and those in turn will clog.
      dvigun only have excessive soot in the combustion chamber and wear of the piston rings.

      wink
      1. Jin
        Jin 6 September 2013 16: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Rider
        sits down, and will not be able to maintain working pressure in the nozzles, and those in turn will clog.
        dvigun only have excessive soot in the combustion chamber and wear of the piston rings.


        "Wedge" I put it figuratively)) Moreover, with a cranked piston, you won’t especially roll out)
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 6 September 2013 21: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Rider
        I will allow myself a correction, not a wedge, but topl / app
        sits ...
        .
        This is due to the fact that the fuel pump is lubricated with diesel fuel. The tank fuel pump has a separate oil lubrication system, so it pumps diesel fuel or, for example, kerosene, not critically.

        If I am mistaken, correct.
        1. Rider
          Rider 6 September 2013 22: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          If I am mistaken, correct.


          Well, you are not completely mistaken, EVERY vehicle is lubricated with oil - or rather, their shafts, gears, racks, etc.
          he takes it from bl gears on the front plate of the motor (where installed).
          and "sits" t / n due to dirt or water since plunger pairs / sections or valves (depending on the model) lose obturation (and simply the gaps increase, which causes the outlet pressure to fall)
          and the lubrication of these elements is actually produced by the fuel pumped by them.

          and a separate lubrication system of military vehicles on tanks, connected (in my opinion) with power from various fuels.
          for example, solarium and kerosene have different lubricating properties.
  • Uhe
    Uhe 6 September 2013 19: 55 New
    +1
    If I am not mistaken, modern tank diesel engines are not whimsical and multi-fuel and consume low-grade gasoline and kerosene.
    1. Jin
      Jin 6 September 2013 20: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Uhe
      If I'm not mistaken, modern tank diesel engines are not whimsical and multi-fuel and consume low-grade gasoline and kerosene


      Do not be mistaken, it is
  • svp67
    svp67 6 September 2013 20: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: vladsolo56
    Diesel is just not very reliable, it needs very high-quality fuel, and in winter it’s so special, the gas turbine engine is much unpretentious. Yes, and smaller in size.
    Not entirely true, since gas turbine engines on ground-based vehicles are more demanding on air cleaning and battery storage ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 6 September 2013 21: 04 New
      +1
      Seryozha, Lesh, Zheny hello because the diesel is multi-fuel, or I’m wrong. I will recall Yazov’s expression about the diesel engine: ... They won’t start from the cable .........
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        Seryozha, Lesh, Zhen greetings

        Hi Sasha!
        Dizelyuki yes, pour sho hosh, only the power changes a little.
        I am here at times on the "topic" ... work.
        hi
    2. Jin
      Jin 6 September 2013 21: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      GTE on ground technology is more demanding on air cleaning, on battery management


      + absolute
  • Jin
    Jin 6 September 2013 14: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: ka5280
    In my opinion, the diesel engine should be on the tank. It is simple, reliable and not expensive.


    So on a fig on GTD abrams then put ???
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 6 September 2013 17: 08 New
    +2
    Super candy this is the T-80
  • Uhe
    Uhe 6 September 2013 19: 53 New
    -1
    For the price of 1 T-80, you can create 3 T-72 :) We all remember from history how the Germans rushed with Panthers and Tigers 2 instead of leaning on improving the T-4 and riveting them in the same quantities that T- 34. As a result, they always didn’t have enough to plug holes in tank formations, they had to take out wrecked tanks to the rear in order to rebuild them, while we could afford to throw wrecked tanks on the battlefield and bring new ones from the factory. The economy must be taken into account.

    Well, only the richest USSR could afford to have different types of tanks in service, including the expensive T-80. After all, the T-64 has its advantages over the T-72, so all three tanks were in service. The economy of the Russian Federation is breathing frankly, there would be cheap tanks so as not to rot :)
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 6 September 2013 20: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Uhe
      For the price of 1 T-80, you can create 3 T-72 :)


      It seems that the difference in the cost of the T-80U and T-90 was less.


      Quote: Uhe
      After all, the T-64 has its advantages over the T-72, so all three tanks were in service.


      If in the existence of a pair of T-80 and T-72 you can still find some logic, such as one cheap mass, another elite progressive, then the T-64 is generally not ... needed.
      1. Jin
        Jin 6 September 2013 20: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Emelya
        one cheap mass, another elite progressive,


        These tanks (T-72 and T-80), in addition to the power plant, transmission and chassis, have a lot in common, so dividing them into “cheap and elite” is not entirely correct ... not to say that 72 is cheap ... reliable MBT, honored veteran, in vain you are so about him
        1. Yemelya
          Yemelya 6 September 2013 20: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Jin
          honored veteran, in vain you are so about him


          I did not say that the T-72 is bad. Low cost usually put him in a plus.

          Quote: Jin
          in addition to the power plant, transmission and chassis, they have a lot in common, so dividing them into "cheap and luxury" is not entirely correct ...


          The difference in cost was largely due to the presence / absence of the LMS and the CLE.


          Quote: Jin
          not to say that 72 is cheap ... reliable MBT,


          One does not exclude the other.
          1. Jin
            Jin 6 September 2013 20: 52 New
            0
            Quote: Emelya
            I did not say that the T-72 is bad. Low cost usually put him in a plus.


            Low? Everything in the world is relative. There is the concept of "cost-effectiveness" (in the article they mention it, by the way).

            Quote: Emelya
            The difference in cost was largely due to the presence / absence of the LMS and the CLE.


            This is a matter of modernization, the presence of "stuffing" if you want, and not the evaluation parameters of the tank as a whole, an example of the T-72BZ


            Quote: Emelya
            One does not exclude the other.


            Here you are mistaken. You want to say that a cheap tank (or other high-tech weapon) can be cheap and reliable? Again, again, cheap regarding what ???
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Jin
              Low? Everything in the world is relative. There is the concept of "cost-effectiveness" (in the article they mention it, by the way).


              Everything in the world, no doubt, is relative, but I had in mind the absolute cost (in rubles)


              Quote: Jin
              This is a matter of modernization, the presence of "stuffing" if you want, and not the evaluation parameters of the tank as a whole, an example of the T-72BZ


              Nevertheless, the cost was determined, inter alia, by the presence of "stuffing".


              Quote: Jin
              Here you are mistaken. You want to say that a cheap tank (or other high-tech weapon) can be cheap and reliable?


              The T-72 was cheaper to manufacture than the T-64 and T-80 (an indisputable fact). The reliability of the T-72, too, seems to be not in dispute. What am I wrong about? request

              Quote: Jin
              Again, again, cheap regarding what ???


              Regarding the T-80 and T-64.
              1. Jin
                Jin 6 September 2013 22: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Emelya
                . What am I wrong about?


                I’m not saying that you are wrong, I’m talking a little about something else. The average price of T-80s delivered, for example, to Cyprus is 3 Baku llamas, these are the T-80U and T-80UK, how much does a 72 cost to buyers? I deliberately do not take prices for the Russian MO, this is the top secret.
                1. Yemelya
                  Yemelya 6 September 2013 22: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Jin
                  The average price of T-80s delivered, for example, to Cyprus is 3 Baku lama, these are T-80U and T-80UK


                  This is still, IMHO, not the cost, but the excess profit from the sale of cars produced during the USSR and withdrawn from the troops (undermining the country's defense capability, if simpler).

                  Quote: Jin
                  How much does a 72 customer cost? I deliberately do not take prices for the Russian MO, this is the top secret.


                  Yes, it seems to be no secret: T-90A - 114 million rubles.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 20: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: Emelya
        one cheap mass, another elite progressive,

        He began the "line" of T-64. Objects 430, 434, 434 were a breakthrough in tank building.
        Due to insufficient capacity for mass production, Kharkov decided to produce a "mobilization" option in Tagil, but UVZ created an excellent mass tank, the T-64, based on technological solutions for the T-62 and the modernization reserve of the T-72 (and ... 184 object - my love). Leningrad, accordingly, made a model with a gas turbine engine, where they threw a complex LMS from the T-64 and modernized it.

        Accordingly, received the "mass" T-72 and the "complex" T-80. They continued to produce T-64, since Kharkov launched mass production with 5TDF, and there was no buzzing to change machines either.
        So they got what they got - three tanks.
        Everything is very simple and I don’t understand the disputes in this area at all - the country was doing a MASS ISSUE, there was the task of completely re-equipping new models in a short time (only dreaming of those times).
        Comparison of characteristics is another matter, but it was necessary to serve on what accounted for.

        If the process of creating T-72 is interesting, then here:
        http://topwar.ru/31638-istoriya-sozdaniya-legendy-40-let-tanku-t-72.html
        hi
        1. Yemelya
          Yemelya 6 September 2013 20: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Due to insufficient capacity for mass production, Kharkov decided to produce a "mobilization" option in Tagil, but UVZ created an excellent mass tank, the T-64, based on technological solutions for the T-62 and the modernization reserve of the T-72.


          The mistake was in the production of the T-64. Would be produced at all T-72 plants and it would become even cheaper than in reality.

          Quote: Aleks tv
          -64 continued to be produced, since Kharkov launched mass production with 5TDF, and there were no buzzes to change machines either.


          If the leadership of the defense industry had immediately realized that it would not work to produce the T-64 in the volumes necessary for the SA, the production of the 5TD would not have begun.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Emelya
            The mistake was in the production of the T-64. Would be produced at all T-72 plants and it would become even cheaper than in reality.

            Emelya, I said what I wanted to say.
            The controversy about this is not mine.
            Once again, I recommend reading about the creation of the T-72:
            http://topwar.ru/31638-istoriya-sozdaniya-legendy-40-let-tanku-t-72.html
            Remaining an eternal T-72b fan, I will not blame the T-64, since I have not served on it.
            hi
          2. svp67
            svp67 6 September 2013 21: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: Emelya
            The mistake was in the production of the T-64. Would be produced at all T-72 plants and it would become even cheaper than in reality.

            Not a mistake, but a betrayal of the interests of the motherland, was that some "especially wise" did not want to comply with the Government Decree on the transition to a "single MBT" which the T80U should become. And if the “Kharkiv” did this, albeit with their own engine, the Tagil again decided to go their own way ... And “taking” a lot of the filling of T80U, “shoved” it into the T72B, as a result it turned out to be T90. For me, if they "launched" the T80U on their conveyors, but with the 2B16 engine, our country would now have a tank, better and more promising in its capabilities ...
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 38 New
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Not a mistake, but a betrayal of the interests of the motherland, was that some "especially wise" did not want to comply with the Government Decree on the transition to a "single MBT" which the T80U should become. And if the "Kharkiv" did it, albeit with their own engine, then the Tagil again decided to go "their own way"


              I don’t know the details, but I hardly believe in overt sabotage. IMHO, it was decided to leave the T-72B in production due to the fact that the retooling of UVZ and ChTZ would take a considerable time, the rate of production of tanks in the USSR would drop significantly (and in the early 80s a new round of the Cold War began). A T-72 to ser. 90s would be replaced in the production of a completely progressive vol. 187, and then all sorts of about. 477 etc. would have arrived.

              Yes, in addition, a single tank in varants with fundamentally different power plants is somehow not quite uniform.
      3. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 20: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Emelya
        T-80 and T-72 you can still find some kind of logic, such as one cheap mass, another elite progressive, then T-64 is generally not ... needed.

        Well, for starters, it used to be. And not only the cheap T-72, but also the expensive T-80, which received its tower. And the T-64 was discontinued as in the series T-80UD
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 6 September 2013 20: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Well, for starters, it used to be. And not only the cheap T-72, but also the expensive T-80

          Exactly, Kars.
          "Before" is a keyword. And the production process has already been established.
          The truth is true, although I'm not quite a T-64 amateur.
        2. Yemelya
          Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 22 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          And they removed the T-64 from production as a series of T-80UD vulgar


          And it was necessary to shoot how the T-72 went into the series, but it would be better not to start at all, putting in 1967 a tank adapted for production at all tank industry enterprises and not requiring retooling production for a new engine and chassis (all elements of the T-72 distinguishing it from the T-64 — the chassis, the engine, the AZ — had been developed by then. They should have left the horseradish with it, with the AZ).
          1. Kars
            Kars 6 September 2013 21: 27 New
            +2
            Quote: Emelya
            And it was necessary to shoot how the T-72 went into the series

            To shoot the BEST tank in combat effectiveness in order to build the Worst but cheaper?
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              To shoot the BEST tank in combat effectiveness in order to build the Worst but cheaper?


              The key question is why the best in combat effectiveness?
      4. svp67
        svp67 6 September 2013 21: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Emelya
        If in the existence of a pair of T-80 and T-72 you can still find some logic, such as one cheap mass, another elite progressive, then the T-64 is generally not ... needed.

        It was still needed, since the WHOLE production period EXCEEDED the T72 in combat capabilities and was slightly inferior to the T80, and this was only due to the worse driving performance, but it was cheaper than the T80 ...
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 17 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          Even as needed

          Greetings, Sergey.
          Glad I went into the topic.
          hi
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 September 2013 21: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Glad I went into the topic.

            Firework soldier . I am also very glad to be in the company of like-minded and interested people, it is a pity that things are not for a very long time. But, that I can, namely a little annoy, so I will try ... wink . Since it wasn’t T64, not T72, it wasn’t when they were better than T80, especially the U and if it were on the Bars conveyor ... they wouldn’t have kept up.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 33 New
              +2
              Quote: svp67
              if it were on the Bars conveyor ... you wouldn’t have kept pace.

              Eheh ...
            2. Alex 241
              Alex 241 6 September 2013 21: 43 New
              0
              Men and who the "Bars" strangled?
              1. Kars
                Kars 6 September 2013 21: 45 New
                +2
                Money. Well and UVZ a little bit.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 6 September 2013 21: 47 New
                  0
                  Thank you Kars, in principle, you could not ask, the answer in our country, as always, lies on the surface.
              2. svp67
                svp67 7 September 2013 01: 03 New
                +1
                Quote: Alex 241
                Men and who the "Bars" strangled?
                Salute. They strangled the "Omsk" tank, almost immediately after the Leningrad, that is, all those who worked on new modifications of the T80, in particular with the 2B16 engine. They were very strong competitors, as they had the best quality products, but did not have such good and high-level “steam locomotives”. When he was the first secretary of the Sverdlovsk regional committee of the EBN party, he made "close" contacts with the management of the UVZ, or they do not matter, as they say, the point is that when it comes time to choose which tank will be the "single MBT" of Russia, they they took advantage of this, citing the argument that their tank was “cheaper” in production and operation, and promising to soon give a new tank that exceeded the T80y. And indeed they had such a tank - ob187. But the trouble is that they couldn’t produce mass production, for a number of technological reasons, the restructuring of production was required, and where to get the money for this? So the tank went into the series, which is worse than 187, and we know it as T90, but
                the T80 theme was closed by then ... Although they had "looming" interesting cars, the same "Bars", "Black Eagle". Could get a car even better o.187 ... but, but ...
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 08 New
                  +1
                  Serezha run-in script, MiG.Eh also strangled in due time.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 7 September 2013 01: 24 New
                    0
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    Serezha run-in script, MiG.Eh also strangled in due time
                    A pity ... the new MiG light fighter would now oh how would it not hurt
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 26 New
                      +1
                      Yes Seryozha, but my beloved is here.
                    2. svp67
                      svp67 8 September 2013 10: 44 New
                      0
                      "31" very "serious" car - AIRCRAFT good
              3. svp67
                svp67 8 September 2013 10: 41 New
                0
                And who said that this “Eagle” would not have become the “king of the battlefield”, especially since it looks ROYAL ....
      5. Yemelya
        Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 25 New
        0
        Quote: svp67
        Even as it was needed, as the WHOLE period of production of this tank, in combat capabilities EXCEEDED T72


        Here the key question is - what exactly was it superior to?
        1. svp67
          svp67 6 September 2013 21: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Emelya
          Here the key question is - what exactly was it superior to?

          There is such a criterion - "combat effectiveness", it is calculated mathematically. I don’t remember exactly now, but if we take T1M for "72", then T64B will be 1,5. Since it had the best sighting system, a stabilizer of tank weapons and a complex of guided weapons.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 42 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            but if for “1” we take T72M, then T64B will be 1,5. Since it had the best sighting system, a stabilizer of tank weapons and a complex of guided weapons.


            This begs the second key question - what prevented the installation of the best sighting system, KUV tank weapons stabilizer on the T-72, and how would such a T-72 be worse than the T-64?
            1. Kars
              Kars 6 September 2013 21: 44 New
              +2
              Quote: Emelya
              This begs the second key question - what prevented the installation of the best sighting system, KUV tank weapons stabilizer on the T-72, and how would such a T-72 be worse than the T-64?

              Well then, he would BECOME))) not cheap))) and not mobilization))
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya 6 September 2013 21: 55 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Well then, he would BECOME))) not cheap))) and not mobilization))


                It would be cheaper:
                due to engine price
                due to the fact that in the USSR only T-72 (economies of scale) would be produced, albeit in three versions: T-72 with lotions from T-64, the usual (cheap) T-72 and T-72 for countries that got up on the path to building socialism.
                due to the fact that it would be necessary to train tankers for only one type of tank
                due to the fact that it would be easier to master the tankers who had previously served on the T-55, T-62
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 September 2013 22: 00 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Emelya
                  It would be cheaper:

                  What are you doing?
                  Or maybe this T-64 would become even cheaper and even more effective if the funds were not sprayed onto the production of a cheap ANALOGUE.
                  Which by the way was allowed to exceed the mass lemite, which was so limited by the T-64 when it was introduced into mass production.
                  1. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 6 September 2013 22: 12 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Or maybe this T-64 would become even cheaper and even more effective if the funds were not sprayed onto the production of a cheap ANALOGUE.


                    And sprayed a lot?

                    It’s interesting, but how much did it cost the working people to introduce 5TD into production?
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 6 September 2013 22: 16 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    And sprayed a lot?

                    A lot - almost a new tank, counting a few objects.
                    Quote: Emelya
                    It’s interesting, but how much did it cost the working people to introduce 5TD into production?

                    It is still in use, we even export for T-72.
                  3. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 6 September 2013 23: 29 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    A lot - almost a new tank, counting a few objects.


                    If in ser. 60s it would be decided to produce the T-72 (if you like, call the T-64 with a 4-stroke diesel engine and chassis from vol. 167), then it would only be necessary to develop the T-72 and transfer production from B-55 to B-46 that is not too expensive.

                    In the case of the T-64, it was necessary to spend on its design, manufacture and military operation of a couple of hundreds of vol. 430, the transfer of production from B-55 to 5TD, and (except for the "intrigues" of UVZ) the development and testing of vol. 434 + subsequent costs of adopting two tanks.


                    Quote: Kars
                    It is still in use, we even export for T-72.


                    The stump is clear. Under what the plant was imprisoned in the 60s, it produces.
                  4. Kars
                    Kars 6 September 2013 23: 39 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    If in ser. 60's a decision would be made to produce the T-72 (if you like, name the T-64 with an 4-stroke diesel engine and chassis from the 167 rev.)

                    There were no prerequisites for this.
                    Quote: Emelya
                    In the case of the T-64, it was necessary to spend on its design, manufacture and military operation of a couple of hundreds of vol. 430,

                    Well, what do you want it was a tank of NEW GENERATION, and you offer the same T-62 - stomping on the spot.
                  5. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 6 September 2013 23: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    There were no prerequisites for this.


                    ??
                    The prerequisites were immediately known - the inability to make the T-64 a single CA tank due to the impossibility of producing it in the required quantities + the cost of introducing 5TD into production.


                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, what do you want it was a tank of NEW GENERATION, and you offer the same T-62 - stomping on the spot.


                    We return to the question - what were the advantages of this new generation tank over the T-72?
                  6. Kars
                    Kars 7 September 2013 00: 00 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    The prerequisites were immediately known - the inability to make the T-64 a single tank

                    Still nebylo tank T-64 and you already know that it can not be the main))))) talking?
                    Quote: Emelya
                    We return to the question - what were the advantages of this new generation tank over the T-72?

                    First of all such a question CAN’T BE. T-72 at that moment did NOT EXIST,
                  7. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 7 September 2013 00: 36 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Still nebylo tank T-64 and you already know that it can not be the main))))) talking?


                    ??
                    And do you think that nobody calculated the production prospects?
                    And about. Why did they develop 434?


                    Quote: Kars
                    First of all such a question CAN’T BE. T-72 at that moment did NOT EXIST,


                    There was the possibility of producing a T-64 with a 4-stroke diesel engine and chassis from about. 167, and the Acorn was ready, it only remained to decide on the production of such a tank.

                    If you name the advantages of a real T-64 over the hypothetical T-64 described by me for some reason you can’t do, answer the question of what was the advantage of the T-64A over about. 172M at the time of the creation of the latter?
                  8. svp67
                    svp67 7 September 2013 01: 10 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    And about. Why did they develop 434?
                    T64A, or as you write about434, this is the first tank with a 125 mm cannon, that is, the cannon that now stands on all Russian tanks ...
                  9. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 7 September 2013 12: 12 New
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    Quote: Emelya
                    And about. 434 why developed? T64A, or as you write about434, this is the first tank with a 125 mm cannon, that is, the cannon that now stands on all Russian tanks ...


                    A typo, you should read: "And about. 439 why developed?"
                  10. Kars
                    Kars 7 September 2013 12: 43 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    : "Why did you develop 439?"



                    In connection with the decision of the government on the release of T-64A tanks at three plants - Kharkov named after Malyshev, Leningrad Kirov and Uralvagonzavod - the question arose about the power plant of the tank.

                    Since the plant them. Malysheva did not have the capacity to produce engines for three plants, and the 5TDF engine at that time had many complaints about the resource, Decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 15.08.66. No. 645-205 and from 15.08.67 No. 802-266 was instructed in 1968-1969 to conduct research and development work on the development of a backup version of “Object-434” with a B-45 engine.

                    Work on the design of a reserve version of the MTO for the 432 tank in the design bureau began in the 1961 year. Two variants were developed with V-shaped four-stroke engines of the Chelyabinsk and Barnaul plants. Preference was given to the layout of the MTO with the Chelyabinsk B-45 engine (an improved widely known B-2 engine). In 1965, three “432” tanks with the indicated engines were manufactured, which received the name “Object-436”. In 1966-1967 These tanks passed comprehensive tests in the areas of Omsk and Leningrad.

                    Based on the test results of the 436 tanks, the Design Bureau developed a backup version of the T-64A tank with the B-45 engine, which received the name "Object-438", then renamed "Object-439".

                    In the 1968 year, in accordance with the Order of the MNP No. 594 from 12.09.67, design documentation was issued for the manufacture of a prototype tank.

                    In the 1969 year, in accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine No. 623 of 28.09.67, four samples of the 439 tank were manufactured and tested.

                    Successful tests have shown that the T-64A version of the tank with the B-45 reserve engine in terms of mobility is fully consistent with the main version of the tank. Based on the developed layout of the 439 tank power plant, the T-72 tank was subsequently developed


                    As we see, if it weren’t for the need for a mobilization tank, the T-72 could not have been done.
              2. svp67
                svp67 7 September 2013 01: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                What was the advantage of the T-64A over about. 172M at the time of the creation of the latter?
                In the appearance of the T64B ...
              3. Kars
                Kars 7 September 2013 09: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                ??
                And do you think that nobody calculated the production prospects?

                Well, exactly then no one calculated the prospects of the T-72. Is this a revelation for you?
                Quote: Emelya
                And about. Why did they develop 434?

                To get a new promising tank capable of withstanding the 105 mm cannon L7 and its derivatives.
                Quote: Emelya
                There was the possibility of producing the T-64 with an 4-stroke diesel engine and chassis from about. 167,

                and where to put the weight limit? Because of it, the T-64 has such a .. light .. suspension.
                Quote: Emelya
                If you name the advantages of a real T-64 over the hypothetical T-64 that I described, for some reason you can’t do it,
                How can I resist the HYPOTHETIC? Something on the real T-72 combined armor on the tower was not.

                Quote: Emelya
                What was the advantage of the T-64A over about. 172M at the time of the creation of the latter?
                and open literature is not fate?
                And why exactly T-64A? 172 M began to go through tests just when it was put on the stream T-64Б
              4. Yemelya
                Yemelya 7 September 2013 12: 30 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                Well, exactly then no one calculated the prospects of the T-72. Is this a revelation for you?


                And Gosplan? Or .. you think, first put into production, and then looked, what will come of it? request

                Quote: Kars
                Quote: Emelya
                And about. Why did they develop 434?
                To get a new promising tank capable of withstanding the 105 mm cannon L7 and its derivatives.


                A typo, you should read: "And about. 439 why developed?"

                Quote: Kars
                and where to put the weight limit? Because of it, the T-64 has such a .. light .. suspension.


                The decision is at the level of the country's leadership. By vol. 439 it was accepted.

                Quote: Kars
                How can I resist the HYPOTHETIC?


                Turn on the imagination.

                "Confront"))) ... as the forces of evil, straight.

                Quote: Kars
                Something on the real T-72 combined armor on the tower was not.


                IMHO, the reasons could be as follows: A) the cost limit set "from above", B) the unwillingness of the UVZ for the production of towers. If the T-72 would be made in Kharkov, at least part of the T-72 would receive towers with comb. armor.

                Quote: Kars
                and open literature is not fate?
                And why exactly T-64A? 172 M began to go through tests just when it was put on the stream T-64Б


                This is for you to facilitate comparisons, so as not to fight with the hypothetical.

                I will simplify the question for a better understanding: what are the advantages of the chassis and the T-64 engine over the chassis and the T-72 engine?


                Quote: Kars
                172 M began to go through tests just when it was put on stream T-64B


                about. The 172M has been tested since 1970, the T-64B was put into service in 1976. request
              5. Kars
                Kars 7 September 2013 12: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                And Gosplan?

                What are you)) He’s sorry, he’s not omnipotent and cannot foresee everything.
                Quote: Emelya
                Or .. you think, first put into production, and then looked, what will come of it?
                No believed paper calculations.))))))

                Quote: Emelya
                The decision is at the level of the country's leadership. By vol. 439 it was accepted.

                The answer is above.

                Quote: Emelya
                turn on the imagination.

                "Confront"))) ... as the forces of evil, right
                It makes no sense.

                Quote: Emelya
                This is for you to facilitate comparisons, so as not to fight with the hypothetical.

                And what's the point? Even the T-64 was better.

                .
                Quote: Emelya
                about. 172M passed tests with 1970 g., T-64B was adopted by the 1976 g

                Ring confused with the "object 172M-2М" which at least somehow could compete with the T-64А
              6. Kars
                Kars 7 September 2013 12: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                IMHO, the reasons could be as follows: A) the cost limit set "from above", B) the unwillingness of the UVZ for the production of towers. If the T-72 would be made in Kharkov, at least part of the T-72 would receive towers with comb. armor.

                As you can see, if it weren’t for the need for a mobilization ..cheap ..tank, then the appearance of the T-72 would not be necessary in principle.
              7. Yemelya
                Yemelya 7 September 2013 13: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                What are you)) He’s sorry, he’s not omnipotent and cannot foresee everything.


                Quote: Kars
                No believed paper calculations.))))))


                And then who predicted:

                Quote: Kars
                By the decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 15.08.66/645/205. No. 15.08.67-802 and dated 266/1968/1969. No. 434-45 was ordered in XNUMX-XNUMX to conduct research and development work on the development of a backup version of “Object-XNUMX” with a V-XNUMX engine.



                Quote: Kars
                And what's the point? Even the T-64 was better.


                Again, the question: at the expense of what is better?

                Quote: Kars
                if it weren’t for the need for a mobilization ... cheap .. tank, then the appearance of the T-72, in principle, would not be necessary.


                But the need was and the appearance of the T-72 was needed. Hence the reasonable question: if the T-64 to meet the needs of the SA could only be paired with the T-72 (or T-64 with B-46), then why not produce only the T-72 (or T-64 with B- 46), equipping part with advanced equipment, and part simplified?
              8. Kars
                Kars 7 September 2013 15: 03 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                testing the backup version of “Object-434” with the B-45 engine.

                RESERVE option. What do you still not understand? But this has nothing to do with the T-72.
                Quote: Emelya
                Again, the question: at the expense of what is better?

                Forward the monograph, everything has been written there for a long time. For example, the T-64 had better firing accuracy. And so on.
                Quote: Emelya
                But the need was and the appearance of the T-72 was needed
                Yes, as a simplified T-64 for mass mobilization in the event of a nuclear war. The T-64 stood at the tip of the strike, and then they were replaced by the T-80

                Quote: Emelya
                Why not produce only the T-72 (or with the T-64 with the B-46), equipping some with advanced equipment and some simplified?
                Why then was there any fuss with the T-72? In this case, again, the main problems of the T-64 were the weight limit, which was canceled when designing and adopting the T-72. If this were not HYPOTHETICALLY, the T-72 would not even appear in principle.
              9. Yemelya
                Yemelya 8 September 2013 17: 24 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                RESERVE option. What do you still not understand? But this has nothing to do with the T-72.


                If only the T-72 were produced, no backup option would be needed.

                This is nonsense. Create a main tank with two engine options and launch them in parallel. In the USSR, this was only done in the winter of 1941-42, when the T-34 and KV-1 M-17T were installed. But then in general there was an extreme. Several hundred were released and stopped by the summer of 1942.

                And here, in peacetime with two engines - idiocy. They would leave only 4-stroke ones in production, and no problems, no performance degradations, no extra. expenses to the national economy and no reserve would be needed.

                Quote: Kars
                .For example, the T-64 had better firing accuracy. And so on.


                If the T-64 would not be produced, the best sights, due to which the T-64 won before the T-72, would be put on the T-72.
                Quote: Kars
                At the tip of the strike stood first T-64, and then they were replaced by T-80


                If only the T-72 were produced, the T-72 with KUVs, LMS, etc.

                Quote: Kars
                In this case, again, the main problems of the T-64 were the weight limit, which was canceled when designing and adopting the T-72. If it were not for this, the T-72 HYPOTHETICALLY would not have appeared in principle.


                T-72 (in one form or another) would have appeared in any case, because 5TD production was not enough for the production of tanks in quantities necessary for SA.

                As for the limit - a question for the leadership of the country, on which it was necessary to firmly insist. The T-72 is only 64 tons heavier than the T-2A. And that, for the most part, is probably due to the chassis, not the engine. If it is so necessary to fit into the given mass, the T-64 chassis would be left, but the B-46 engine. How much would he add by weight, 0,5-1 tons? If it was absolutely unbearable, they would have removed the armor from the sides and from the stern, to a thickness like that of western tanks.
              10. Kars
                Kars 8 September 2013 18: 47 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                If only the T-72 were produced, no backup option would be needed.

                This is nonsen

                Nonsense is all your attempts. Without the T-64 and its concept, UVZ did not come up with anything of its own.
                Quote: Emelya
                And here, in peacetime with two engines - idiocy

                Could and pereksti other plants on the engine for the T-64
                Quote: Emelya
                If only the T-72 were produced, the T-72 with KUVs, LMS, etc.
                Naturally, if ONE T-62 (sixty-two) remained in service, then they too would be on the cutting edge. But when was the choice.

                Quote: Emelya
                T-72 (in one form or another) would have appeared anyway

                Not a fact. Although in the form of a T-62, it can be slightly improved.
                Quote: Emelya
                As for the limit - a question for the leadership of the country, on which it was necessary to firmly insist.

                right? I thought to you)))))
                Quote: Emelya
                T-72 is heavier than T-64 and only 2 t

                Well, of course, the T-64 immediately appeared in model A)))
                And why the countdown is not from the T-64 (432) weighing in 36 tons?

                Yes, and with mathematics you have something bad - 41 minus 38 T-64A will be 3 tons.

                Quote: Emelya
                T-64 but B-46 engine

                And you didn’t get it with this engine yet? T-64 that couldn’t move? Or didn’t it work on the T-80UD 5Td? Upersa like a new gate)))
              11. Yemelya
                Yemelya 8 September 2013 20: 24 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                Nonsense is all your efforts


                Yes, I don’t really bother too much, maybe you are pushing in front of the monitor, but this is a personal matter, so to speak ...

                Quote: Kars
                Without the T-64 and its concept, UVZ did not invent anything of its own.


                Who argues. The T-64 marked the beginning of the Soviet MBT line. The merit of Kharkov lies in the fact that they were able to implement on the existing tank model the achievements of the Research Institute of Steel to improve armor protection.

                The T-64 should be left as a prototype, using the reservation scheme on the tank with the B-46.

                At the UVZ, the T-64 armored hull was connected with its reliable chassis and reliable, spent diesel engine, which could be produced, unlike the 5TD, in the required numbers.

                Quote: Kars
                Could and pereksti other plants on the engine for the T-64


                It turns out how simple it is.
                The USSR, if you are aware, didn’t particularly fatten, we only got diesel engines on military trucks in the 80s, and not because we didn’t want to, but because there was no money to modernize production.

                And here, let's spend millions to produce a 2-stroke breaking at 700 hp. instead of a reliable spent 4-stroke at 780 hp

                A reasonable question: why the heck?

                Quote: Kars
                But when the choice was.


                The choice was between the T-64 + T-72 and just the T-72.

                Quote: Kars
                Well, of course, the T-64 immediately appeared in model A)))
                And why the countdown is not from the T-64 (432) weighing in 36 tons?


                Because the T-64A got heavier due to the 125 mm gun, the T-72 also had a 125 mm gun. If the T-72 was armed with the D-68, it could be compared with the T-64.

                Quote: Kars
                Not a fact.


                fact

                Quote: Kars
                .Although in the form of a T-62 slightly improved may well be.


                Or in the form of about. 439 or rev. 172, or about. 172M.


                Quote: Kars
                Yes, and with mathematics you have something bad - 41 minus 38 T-64A will be 3 tons.


                Oh-wei, I found a mistake, the essence of this does not change.

                Quote: Kars
                T-64 that could not move?


                This is precisely the question: in the period 1966-1969. 879 engines out of 1305 failed.

                Quote: Kars
                Or didn’t it work on the T-80UD 5TD?
                through 20 years earned.
              12. Kars
                Kars 8 September 2013 23: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: Emelya
                Yes, I don’t really bother,

                Wow))) but what are you crucifying here)))
                Quote: Emelya
                Who argues. T-64 laid the foundation for the Soviet MBT line

                Don’t argue, there is no T-72 here.
                Quote: Emelya
                The merit of Kharkov lies in the fact that they were able to implement on the existing tank model the achievements of the Research Institute of Steel to improve armor protection.

                what narrow thinking, and ignorance of the topic))))
                Quote: Emelya
                The choice was between the T-64 + T-72 and just the T-72.

                In general, you can’t offer a choice)))
                Quote: Emelya
                T-72 only
                )))) and then jump)))

                Quote: Emelya
                Because the T-64 got heavier due to the 125-mm gun, the T-72 also had the 125-mm gun.

                Can you prove it? And the weight limit was distributed on the T-64 IMMEDIATELY)))
                Quote: Emelya
                if the T-72 were armed with the D-68, it could be compared with the T-64.

                you don’t know how to count by fact)))
                Quote: Emelya
                fact

                Obviously, not a fact, I even had to send T-64 to UVZ for study)))
                Quote: Emelya
                Or in the form of about. 439 or rev. 172, or about. 172M.

                No, just a little bit improved T-62 and no more. About 172 you can’t even zaikatsa,
                Quote: Emelya
                This is precisely the question: in the period 1966 — 1969. out of order 879 engines from 1305
                and what? By the way, where did the inflormation come from, what engines were 1305? and how many other engines failed during this period?
                Quote: Emelya
                through 20 years earned.

                and before that, not a single T-1974 engine worked in 64)))
              13. Kars
                Kars 8 September 2013 23: 50 New
                +1
                ___________________
  • cooper
    cooper 7 September 2013 09: 05 New
    +1
    The four-stroke is not so easy to squeeze into the T 64, all MTO will have to be redone, the mass will increase, and all for what? Someone just doesn’t like the two-stroke. And, believe, a two-stroke would be produced where the thread in Chelyabinsk, he would also have “no analogues in the world "
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 7 September 2013 12: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Cooper
    The four-stroke is not so easy to squeeze into the T 64, all the MTO will have to be redone, the mass will increase, and all for what? Someone just doesn't like the two-stroke.


    The 4-stroke B-45 was squeezed into the T-64A and received about. 439 which was supposed to be done at UVZ. All this in order to meet the needs of the CA in modern. tanks, which with the release of the T-64 with only 5TD could not be done.
  • svp67
    svp67 6 September 2013 21: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Emelya
    CWF on the T-72, and how would such a T-72 be worse than the T-64?

    Here they did the T72B and almost evened out, even closed the ZPU and it would have been even better
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 6 September 2013 21: 54 New
      0
      Seryozha, explain, does it make sense from ZPU?
      1. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 21: 58 New
        +3
        Quote: Alex 241
        , from ZPU there is sense?

        That is, they understood back in Berlin and other cities at the end of the Second World War.
        And closed, so that you could shoot from under the armor even better.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 01 New
          0
          Kars, I just inaccurately formulated the question, when working on the ground, undoubtedly, work on air targets is of interest.
        2. Kars
          Kars 6 September 2013 22: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex 241
          interested in work on air targets.

          By air - well, according to them, in principle, NO 12.7 mm that it will make a modern helicopter with ATGMs with a range of 5 km (and more)
          Well, for any occasion.

          North Koreans put MANPADS on their T-62 cuts
        3. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 19 New
          +2
          Here Kars found. An interesting solution.
        4. Kars
          Kars 6 September 2013 22: 22 New
          +3
          Yes, I'm talking about this. It’s not easy with Koreans, they spin as best they can.
        5. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 27 New
          +1
          Even if the solution is at the level of a “housewife”, but next to such a machine you don’t really “walk around”.
        6. studentmati
          studentmati 6 September 2013 22: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Yes, I'm talking about this. It’s not easy with Koreans, they spin as best they can.


          At all times, the basis of Victory was Patriotism! Then the tanks go and the planes fly and the wooden guns shoot ...
        7. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 32 New
          0
          Hi Sanya. drinks
        8. studentmati
          studentmati 6 September 2013 22: 38 New
          +1
          Hi Sanya! drinks No matter how modern and perfect weapons are, their effective use of the brain requires it in the first place. And confidence in the need to use these weapons.
        9. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 42 New
          +2
          Sanya, I think that these guys in ribbed helmets have plenty of both. I’ll move a little from the topic: In American instructions to the pilot they wrote: The Soviet pilot, a product of a totalitarian system, is completely unpredictable in battle ......
        10. studentmati
          studentmati 6 September 2013 22: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          The Soviet pilot, a product of a totalitarian system, is absolutely unpredictable in battle ...


          I am sure that today the Russian President, a child of Soviet education, is given a similar definition: "... absolutely unpredictable in battle ...". Maybe that's why there is such a long and so serious preparation for aggression in Syria?
        11. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 47 New
          +1
          Sash, as one movie hero used to say: Let's see what the Vespers will be ...
        12. studentmati
          studentmati 6 September 2013 22: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex 241
          Let's see what the Vespers will be ...


          It will be very difficult, and the T80-U tank will still show its best!
        13. Kars
          Kars 6 September 2013 22: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: studentmati
          and the T80-At-home tank will still show its best!

          If in the sense of the Korean confrontation, then it will be on the South side.
        14. studentmati
          studentmati 6 September 2013 22: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          If in the sense of the Korean confrontation, then it will be on the South side.


          I'm talking about Syria.
        15. Kars
          Kars 6 September 2013 23: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: studentmati
          I'm talking about Syria.

          Well, there are none
      2. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 00 New
        0
        Andrey 80ki at Southerners?
      3. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 23: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: Alex 241
        80ki southerners?

        Yes, we set off the debts.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 40 New
        +1
        Andrey, how about Panthers?
      6. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 23: 46 New
        +2
        They still don’t go with the Panthers in a series. And Rockit is the same abrams converted to undersized Koreans.

        For the panther, of course, it would be a pity, I would like to put his model on the shelf.
      7. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 49 New
        0
        I mean Andrew, buy a model?
      8. Kars
        Kars 6 September 2013 23: 52 New
        +1
        Well, yes, on a scale of 1 to 35. There is already rookit and X2 is a black panther so far no one does.
      9. Alex 241
        Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 55 New
        +1
        Andrey here is a link, see: http: //scalemodels.ru/news/4401-novinka-Hobby-Gallery--1-35-osno
        vnojj-boevojj-tank-XK-2-Black-Panther.html
      10. Kars
        Kars 7 September 2013 00: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        http://scalemodels.ru/news/4401-novinka-Hobby-Gallery--1-35-osno
        vnojj-boevojj-tank-XK-2-Black-Panther.html

        Thank you.
        It’s not Smol. My hands are too thin for me. Yes, and getting that mess is still there.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    absolutely unpredictable in battle ......

    good
    Yes, we generally brought Hitler to suicide.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 04 New
    +1
    Lesh well, and hell he .... laughingStill to deal with the disadvantages!
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 22: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Alex 241
    interested in work on air targets.

    Sasha, Kars, excuse me for getting in ...
    ZPU The cliff on air targets is almost zero.
    And to work on the earth is the very thing.

    But only with a closed system (T-80), it is better with a stabilizer, as on T-90ms.

    Open ZPU T-72 ...
    I already wrote the procedure for working on it, I can repeat it.
    All nichrome is uncomfortable, without a skill you can’t shoot at all, you need a "third" hand.
  • Kars
    Kars 6 September 2013 23: 18 New
    +2
    Quote: Aleks tv
    better with a stabilizer, as on T-90ms.


    This picture impresses me, only to transfer the module to the roof.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    only move the module to the roof.

    I always liked the add-on module ...
    But, after practice, ideas changed a little:
    On the roof of 7,62 or 12,7 with full independent stabilization and with a fuy cloud of ammunition in one tape.
    Here is the preferred additional armament for the tank so that the Basmache commander chases while the gunner is busy with the standard weapons.

    -There is a line of weapons.
    -There are a number of vehicles in the platoon-company battle group (platoon company with dowries).
    That's what MO and GRAU need. properly balance calibers on these machinesso that they do not copy functions, but effectively support each other.
    IMHO, of course.
  • Kars
    Kars 6 September 2013 23: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: Aleks tv
    But, after practice, ideas changed a little:
    On the roof of 7,62 or 12,7 with full independent stabilization and with a fuy cloud of ammunition in one tape.

    And what’s the practice? Catch the crosshairs on the monitor and press the trigger.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 00: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Catch a crosshair on the monitor and push the trigger.

    Yes, but in this module one barrel is preferable, the question is 20-30 caliber or 7,62 - 12,7?
    In my opinion, the second is preferable, and the 20-30 is for another, nearby car (the balance of weapons of the entire platoon group).

    The tank commander needs this independent (!!!) module precisely as a necessary necessity in the event of any kipish, otherwise he will be carried away by shooting and forget his duties.
    And in modern combat (it doesn’t matter if it’s a Basmachi or a Yankens) it is MUCH more difficult to detect and classify a target than to destroy it.
    Something like that.

    Kars, somehow ready to talk with pleasure on this topic, is also interesting.
    Do not mind ?
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 7 September 2013 00: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Yes, but in this module one barrel is preferable, the question is 20-30 caliber or 7,62 - 12,7? ...

    About object 195

    "......– A 152-mm gun, which with one shot turns an enemy tank into a pile of metal, often an excess weapon on the battlefield. Was there any additional weaponry on the“ ninety-fifth "?

    - Yes. This is a 30 mm 2A42 gun, as on the BMP-2 or BMPT. It was mounted in the combat module along with the main gun. At the same time, the automatic gun had its own drive, both vertically and partly horizontally. She could not turn 180 degrees, but in a certain sector she could work independently. A 30 mm quick-fire gun is an alternative to the excessive consumption of the main ammunition. Those goals for which it’s not worth spending an expensive heavy shot can be hit from this gun ...... "
    http://www.rosinform.ru/2013/08/11/istoriya-sozdaniya-perspektivnogo-tanka-russk
    iy-tigr-t-95 /
  • Kars
    Kars 7 September 2013 09: 20 New
    +1
    Several times I wrote how I see a promising tank.
    The composition of the armament of the machine weighing 68-75 tons
    1X152 mm gun paired with 30 mm autocannon
    Top firing point 45 mm paired with 12.7 mm
    easel grenade launcher
    Crew 4 person + MH / AZ
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 46 New
    +1
    Lesh, I'm sorry, I'm all about my own, this is an aggregate, and you will be irresistible in any puddle laughing
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 00: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    this is the unit

    Yes, Sanya, this is ... pretzel ...
    Wah.

    Old anecdote:
    - I went to the village, there I met a girl.
    “And the locals didn't touch you?”
    - Not a, I was with a friend, we, as always - only two.
    - How many locals were there?
    - 20 or 30, I don’t know for sure
    -... ??? Are you cool Rimbaud?
    -Not a, but my friend is cool.
    “And who is a double friend?”
    - Machine gun...
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 00: 20 New
    0
    Well, why should I hang up a useless piece of metal that is standing right now, it’s better to think over and put something sensible. On the GSP, even mating with a calculator, there will be such a CVC! War and Germans laughing
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 54 New
    +1
    I’ll give an example of a well-known minigun. The mass of the installation without ammunition systems is 22,7 kg. Therefore, turret, pedestal, and pivot mounts are used to install the Miniguns, which compensate for the powerful power of the machine gun. The recoil force of the M134D Minigun machine gun at a rate of fire of 3000 rounds per minute (50 rounds per second) is about 68 kg, with a peak recoil force of up to 135 kg. In the famous sci-fi thriller “Predator,” one of the heroes’s faces, Blaine Cooper, pours lead from the XM-214, an 5,56 mm experimental machine gun made specifically for the film and fired with blank ammunition. The rate of fire during filming was forcibly reduced to 2000 rounds per minute, and the power cable was “masked” in the actor’s trousers. In order not to fly away from the recoil and hold the machine gun in his hands, the actor rested on a special support, of course this is not visible in the frame.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 56 New
    0
    .............
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 02: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    and the power cable was “masked” in the actor’s trousers. In order not to fly away from the recoil and hold the machine gun in his hands, the actor rested on a special support, of course this is not visible in the frame.

    Also heard this ...
    Rambo horseradish.
    laughing
    But how beautiful it works ...

    We only shot from a PC with our hands, tried it with PKT - we can fly away, we almost hit our own. In ave. Fools were young ...
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 02: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    PKT - finally fly away, almost hit her. In ave. Fools were young ...
    Lesh accidentally you did not study in Chelyabinsk?
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 02: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    did not study in Chelyabinsk?

    SchA in PM.
  • svp67
    svp67 7 September 2013 01: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    Seryozha, explain, does it make sense from ZPU?
    Any weapon makes sense when you know how to use it. 12,7mm bullet in urban conditions is a very weighty argument, and it so happened that it was the only type of weapon that the commander could directly use when it was necessary to solve some kind of fire problem, without distracting the gunner’s gun ... and of course this is a "palliative"
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      12,7mm bullet in
      Seryozha, I would say almost a shell.
    2. svp67
      svp67 7 September 2013 01: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex 241
      Seryozha, I would say almost a shell.
      By the way, it’s a very interesting video, as a cadet fires from an open ZPU of the T80B tank of the Leningrad plant. There are moments on the video when the commander’s hatch is shown and it’s “half” - a feature of the “Leningrad” good
    3. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 September 2013 01: 39 New
      0
      Seryozha, tell me how special why they do not stabilize ZPU?
    4. svp67
      svp67 7 September 2013 04: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Alex 241
      Seryozha, tell me how special why they do not stabilize ZPU?
      Previously, the gyroscopic component of any STV (tank weapon stabilizer) cost a lot of money, as we were told at the school, then they use the effect of artificial weightlessness to produce them, respectively, for ZPU, no one wanted to spend such expenses. Now there are stabilization methods much cheaper, but thanks to this, the price of the tank rises, and judging by Т72Б3 no one is going to shell out extra "devices" ... Although devices from the stabilized aiming lines are used, but it's not quite ...
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 02: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    practically a shell.

    Thanks for the video, Sanya!
    Yes, this is the T-80.
    And the half-hatch and the TKN lamp-headlight “look in the wrong direction” look like on the T-72.

    - In the right hand (it is not visible) the flywheel, you twist it. On the flywheel handle, the stopper is the lever, you hold it with your fingers (to fix it vertically) without releasing the handle of the flywheel with a brush.
    - In the left hand there is a long lever, with your muscles you move the entire ZPU horizontally, when you press the lever down, the horizontal stops.

    When locking the vertical and horizontal it is possible to fire.
    The descent is clearly visible in the left hand - the lever is like a brake on the lisaped.

    Without dexterity in the hands it is possible to get confused, two are missing. It has not yet been shown how to translate it from their marching into battle and vice versa, how to charge it ...
    And if you need to drop everything and dive under the armor in case of danger (without turning into marching), then all this shit will hang out like your mother does not grieve, the commander in the TKN will not see any nifigushenki.
    This is how ...
    Eheh.

    A stable indoor installation is expensive, although not so much, and the effectiveness in firing would be MUCH MORE !!!
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 02: 16 New
    +1
    Lesh, no more expensive than the life of tankers, as well as the sighting station for the commander, silsin sensor, silsin receiver. And you can not ventilate your head, but sit quietly in the tower and smoke. Here's an example in Tu -95
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 02: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    Lesh, no more expensive than the life of tankers,

    Yah...
    belay
    This is sarcasm, Sanya ...

    Well, there is already the elderly TKN-4s-01 for the commander, not a fountain of course, but at least something to control the ZPU (it is the main device of the commander) ...
    Not so expensive, I didn’t shoot it myself, but stopudovo is better than “open”.
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 02: 41 New
    +1
    Ah Lesh, our words to God’s ears!
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 7 September 2013 02: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    our words

    It would be nice...

    Sanya, I have to disconnect Nana ...
    Bye buddy !!!
    drinks
  • Alex 241
    Alex 241 7 September 2013 02: 50 New
    +1
    All my friend see you. I also ore stop. drinks
  • svp67
    svp67 7 September 2013 04: 47 New
    0
    Alex, what's wrong with this airplane? Why is there a problem with the chassis or steering?
  • Denga
    Denga 6 September 2013 10: 49 New
    0
    The specific fuel consumption for a gas turbine engine is 149 g / h.p. If this is not a mistake and not a publicity stunt, then the Americans have seriously advanced in engine building.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 6 September 2013 14: 52 New
      0
      ours also worked on improvement and there was even progress, only the topic was closed.
  • knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 6 September 2013 10: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Yoon Clob
    What are his prospects? All with the T-72 rush, and the tankers, so all polls praise the T-80.

    Of course praise, the dynamics at altitude, the readiness of a few minutes. I consider. that this tank is the best for northern latitudes
  • Mjolnir
    Mjolnir 6 September 2013 10: 54 New
    0
    Something like that was there.
  • Mjolnir
    Mjolnir 6 September 2013 10: 57 New
    0
    And the second photo.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 7 September 2013 00: 22 New
      +1
      Pitertsev had Object 219RD (T-80 with a 2V-16-2 engine), the same engine was on object 187 (No. 5 and No. 6). In the photo is a relative of this engine, which was driven in at facility 195 and will be standing on Armata.
  • tverskoi77
    tverskoi77 6 September 2013 11: 09 New
    0
    Explain pzhl: at T-80 the air intake is attached to the tower and the fence passes through it? (the question arose when considering the first photo)
    1. Jin
      Jin 6 September 2013 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: tverskoi77
      Explain pzhl: at T-80 the air intake is attached to the tower and the fence passes through it? (the question arose when considering the first photo)


      This is the "casing" of the fence, but it is attached to the tower. But the fence does not occur "through the tower" !!! It is combined with the fence in the stowed position. This is when the gun “looks” forward-to-right, the position is “at 13 o’clock”, which provides unhindered access to the driver’s seat. Also, he can ride in a camping trip, i.e. "sticking his head" out of the hatch. The hatch itself opens up and to the right, which is also impossible if the gun above it (the hatch) ...
      1. tverskoi77
        tverskoi77 6 September 2013 15: 10 New
        0
        Thank! I already broke my head.
      2. Rider
        Rider 6 September 2013 15: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Jin
        But the fence does not occur "through the tower" !!! It is combined with the fence in the stowed position.


        But how then does air filtration occur in a combat situation?
        it turns out that the casing "works" only in the stowed position.
        and on the driver’s hatch, and why was it made reclining, and not turning (it seems like 72x) something can interfere?
        1. Jin
          Jin 6 September 2013 15: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Rider
          But how then does air filtration occur in a combat situation?
          it turns out that the casing "works" only in the stowed position


          It's about a casing, not a filtration system! Its functionality boils down to bringing the area of ​​air intake higher, to the “clean zone”, to the level of the “roof” of the tower, higher from the road, as well as increasing the depth of the ford, overcome without preparation, from 1,2 m to 1,8, XNUMX m. In the "combat" position, air intake occurs from the area of ​​the MTO cover.


          Quote: Rider
          and on the driver’s hatch, and why was it made reclining, and not turning, can something interfere?


          He is turning. There is such a “lamb” that the fur rotates and the hatch (it is oval) first rises and then drives off to the right. If the gun is above the hatch, it may open, of course, but the tanker may not get out ... There is one more in the bottom, under the seat of the fur) Emergency, so to speak, in this case ...
          1. Rider
            Rider 6 September 2013 16: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: Jin
            It's about a casing, not a filtration system! Its functionality is reduced to bringing the area of ​​air intake above, to the “clean zone”, to a level


            it turns out that the main cleaning system is located in the MTO case - it’s understandable, and by the hatch, I was misled by your expression about the opening of the hatch, I thought that it “leans back” like a tower, although I vaguely remember (how much time has passed) that it drives off to the driver’s drive side.

            thank you for clarification.
            1. Jin
              Jin 6 September 2013 16: 23 New
              +1
              Quote: Rider
              thank you for clarification.


              Not at all, colleague! drinks
          2. Yemelya
            Yemelya 6 September 2013 18: 36 New
            0
            On about. 640 VZU to install will not work.
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 15: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Jin
        This is when the gun "looks" forward-to-right, the position is "at 13 hours",

        Eugene, I’ll slightly correct you, if not against it.
        In the stowed position:
        Forward on the right caterpillar (32-0) the gun at T-72 looks.
        The T-80 and T-64 can be and vice versa, on the left harp (28-0), it all depends on the location of the "Moon" on the modifications of these machines.
        1. Jin
          Jin 6 September 2013 16: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          The T-80 and T-64 can be and vice versa, on the left track (28-0), it all depends on the location of the "Moon" on the modifications of these machines


          At the 80s Moon, from the commander’s side to the right of the gun, next to the PKT. The trunk looks forward-right, in the direction of travel. So they stand in the park and in a marching movement ... did I write something wrong? what
        2. Jin
          Jin 6 September 2013 16: 25 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          The T-80 and T-64 can be and vice versa, on the left harp (28-0), it all depends on the location of the "Moon" on the modifications of these machines.


          Got it!!! I'm stupid))) I never met the T-80 with the Moon on the left, but I won’t argue, thanks!
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 17: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: Jin
            I have never met the T-80 with the moon on the left

            There was such a letter on the T-64 and T-80.
            A mechanic is selected from his "heroic" place, and a PKT flame arrester cheerfully smiles at him in the back ...
            I don’t know why they did it, I read something about it.

            Like this:
            1. Jin
              Jin 6 September 2013 20: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Aleks tv
              A mechanic is selected from his "heroic" place, and a PKT flame arrester cheerfully smiles at him in the back ...


              Abaldet! laughing Got it, but it's not 80! This is 72, and I wrote about 80 smile
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 6 September 2013 20: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Jin
                but this is not 80! This is 72, but I wrote about 80

                Eugene, this is not T-72 ...
                Itself swelled when I found this photo (I just looked in the total mass of the photo for an example of the left moon).
                The scope is not the T-72.
                ZIP boxes - not T-72.
                The air supply pipe behind the tower is not a T-72.
                ZPU - not T-72.

                Only the “prism" of the mech as on the T-72.

                Maybe these are the first versions of the T-64? I don’t know this car so well, maybe Sergey (svp67) will come and tell me or someone who knows will orient ...
                Maybe it's generally a foreigner ...
                hi
                1. svp67
                  svp67 6 September 2013 21: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  Eugene, this is not T-72 ...

                  Alex, only calmly ... your "suspicions" are justified, this is the T64, most likely the B1 modification, since I do not see the GTN25 "box". Pay attention to the rollers - small and solid, without bandage and smoke, thick bluish smoke from the stern - a "visiting card" of T64, I'm not talking about "holey caterpillars"
                  1. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 26 New
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    Alex, only calmly ... your "suspicions" are justified, this is T64,

                    laughing
                    good
                    I didn’t even look at the road wheels, I thought it wasn’t visible, but I didn’t see the “exhaust”, I saw ...
                    Damn, getting old ...
                    repeat laughing
                2. Jin
                  Jin 6 September 2013 21: 16 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  Eugene, this is not T-72 ...


                  what Well, it’s necessary ... I was still embarrassed by the exhaust ... for 72 it’s “wrong and not there” smile Well, clearly, not the point ...

                  But with the "left" moon it is strong! laughing Thanks for the exclusive!
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 September 2013 21: 32 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Jin
                    But with the "left" moon it is strong! Thanks for the exclusive!

                    This is not an "exclusive" for the T64. this is typical, so by the way they are easy to distinguish in the pictures
        3. svp67
          svp67 6 September 2013 21: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          The T-80 and T-64 can be and vice versa, on the left harp (28-0), it all depends on the location of the "Moon" on the modifications of these machines.

          Alex, you are not accurate. Security requirements, they are in Africa, security requirements, for this you want, you don’t want, but with a machine gun installed, only to the right, but without it ... you can left.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 September 2013 21: 19 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            if you want it, you don’t want it, but with the machine gun mounted, only to the right, but without it ... you can and to the left.

            I understood, Sergey, and if the PCT and the Moon are installed on the left, then ... then how about the mehany?
            I just did not meet this in practice, I wonder what they did.
            1. svp67
              svp67 6 September 2013 21: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Aleks tv
              I understood, Sergey, and if the PCT and the Moon are installed on the left, then ... then how about the mehany?
              I just did not meet this in practice, I wonder what they did.

              Nothing, "steer" doesn’t interfere, climb out - Yes, well here - eat less wink
          2. Jin
            Jin 6 September 2013 21: 21 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Security requirements, they are also in Africa security requirements, for this you want, you don’t want, but with a machine gun mounted, only to the right, but without it ... you can left


            Greetings, colleague! But the Moon on the left, as I wrote to Alexei above, is a dead end branch of evolution .... Live and learn. Why was this device suspended from the left? Enlighten pliz)
            1. svp67
              svp67 6 September 2013 21: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: Jin
              Enlighten pliz)

              Closer to the axis of the gun, with the right FCT it interferes with the night sight - a beam with an increase in range is less than "leading" away from the aiming line
  • Argon
    Argon 6 September 2013 11: 35 New
    +7
    In general, I am perplexed by the positioning of the Amerov machine as some kind of standard with which it is customary to compare something now, even in view of the fact that the Abrams and T-80 have the same type of EI, the mattress does not draw any comparison. First, the machine is essentially the desire of the customer to keep the cost of the program at least in some visual aisles (and all subsequent modifications are nothing more than fine-tuning the sample is already in operation), reservation is a series of controversial decisions. Yes and in general, how long have the amers learned tanks to build? In my opinion this is the first production car which in proportion to the world analogues, stopping the series of "leaning towers", which is the great merit of the Germans.
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 6 September 2013 13: 57 New
      +2
      [/ i] [i] "How long have the amers learned how to build tanks?" [/ i]
      On Abrashka the gun is German, the armor is English. "Learned to build," it is said.
  • washi
    washi 6 September 2013 11: 44 New
    +2
    Quote: Argon
    In general, I am perplexed by the positioning of the Amerov machine as some kind of standard with which it is customary to compare something now, even in view of the fact that the Abrams and T-80 have the same type of EI, the mattress does not draw any comparison. First, the machine is essentially the desire of the customer to keep the cost of the program at least in some visual aisles (and all subsequent modifications are nothing more than fine-tuning the sample is already in operation), reservation is a series of controversial decisions. Yes and in general, how long have the amers learned tanks to build? In my opinion this is the first production car which in proportion to the world analogues, stopping the series of "leaning towers", which is the great merit of the Germans.

    I agree with both hands. If we compare our tanks, then with the German, where the tank building school is older than ours and has its own ideology, and not with imitators.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 11: 56 New
    15
    He served all the service on the T-72b and will never betray his "turtle."
    But I consider T-80 the best fighting vehicle in the world.

    GTE is her horse, the dream of the deputy technicians: the smallest maintenance problems.
    Chassis - unkillable, harp - super.
    RMSh + rubberized roller + rubber gusli pad - give a stunning effect of silence when moving the car.
    I remember how, in the cold of 20 minutes, we jumped from the commander’s place to the rear right skating rinks with our “samovar tubes”, including heaters, basking in the cold in a classic barrel with diesel fuel.
    The guys on the early version of the T-80 just got into the car, unwound the cascades and ... let's go.
    Starting off is fundamentally different. T-72 almost always results in a breakthrough, T-80 can start moving like ... a passenger car.

    There is no need to talk about the sighting system of the gunner and the commander’s devices - the dream of all fuel oil.
    1Г46 sight Irtysh, 1В528 ballistic computer, transverse wind, roll, tank speed and heading angle sensors, Buran-PA night sight.
    The commander TKN-4s with a vertical stabilizer.
    Song.
    But it seems that only T-80ud was closed, it seems I’m mistaken, it was installed with TKN-4с-01.

    About comparison with Abrashka:
    By combat capabilities - almost the same.
    On operational properties - T-80 will pass where the abrashka gets stuck or is swallowed by dust.
    Amerikos will simply die without technical support during protracted hostilities, which the T-80 can’t do.

    SUCCESSFUL FURTHER SERVICE TO YOU - T-80U !!!
    Full Respect.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 6 September 2013 14: 55 New
      +3
      Who will dispute the opinion of a knowledgeable person? well, at least there are those who can objectively tell about the tank. And then there was a cloud of critics.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 15: 54 New
        +2
        Vladimir, I’m not an expert ... well, a simple practitioner.
        T-80 certainly has flaws, but this is not for me.

        What do not like:
        MH.
        Yes, the rate of fire is slightly higher, but the ammunition in the conveyor is slightly larger, But:
        - You feel completely uncomfortable surrounded by a garland of MH charges.
        - The rate of fire and on the T-72 a competent crew will make such that little will not seem to the baboons (I already wrote about this).
        - MZ is more complex due to the presence of hydraulics and electrics during operation, in contrast to electric AZ.
        - When we went to “work”, we never loaded the bk into the tower, only into the conveyor, they sent and did not load all of them. 22 of the “gift” was enough, there was no case whatsoever that completely the cranes, “self-propelled” or “rooks” always helped out.
        - If the PKT cartridge case ruptures and the microflash will fall apart ... it will not seem enough in the Ministry of Health. In such cases, I had no problems at the AZ, I don’t know, maybe it’s just lucky. Somehow they "sat" with glasses of tea and asked the techie what the difference was, to which he replied: "They, ik, gaps, ik-ik, are different."

        But this is my IMHO, I will only be glad if the guys from T-80 debunk him.
        drinks
  • Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 6 September 2013 11: 59 New
    0
    About the gluttony of tanks with a gas turbine engine. Here the Americans in their "gluttonous" Abrams captured the oil-bearing country of Iraq. And now who is interested in how much these tanks burned when there was a sea of ​​oil at their feet.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 12: 01 New
    +1
    And here is T-80 at the parade in Nicosia.
    Cyprus.
    Shocking a little when you see them there, huh?
    The Greeks are proud of them.
    wink
    clickable.
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 September 2013 12: 09 New
      +2
      South Korea,,,,,,,,,,
    2. tverskoi77
      tverskoi77 6 September 2013 15: 09 New
      0
      And here is T-80 at the parade in Nicosia.
      Cyprus ... ... Greeks are proud of them.
      with pride they even forgot about their left-hand traffic)))
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 6 September 2013 12: 38 New
    +8
    A bit of nostalgia:
    ...........
    When he climbed into the place of the mechanic in the T-80, the guys asked:
    - Riding a Mercedes?
    - Not a.
    - THIS IS BETTER.
    Turned out to be right. On no passenger car, I did not feel such a smooth ride, just a ship.
    good
    I remember that they were warned by an affectionate little wench so that, out of habit, they would not pull the friction clutches to the extreme rear position at speed.
    They were also right ...
    laughing

    Wonder car. This is from me, rude and fuel oil:
    love
    1. Jin
      Jin 6 September 2013 15: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      I remember that they were warned by an affectionate little wench so that, out of habit, they would not pull the friction clutches to the extreme rear position at speed.


      + From me. There’s such a thing, we’ve ruined the training 80 on driving ... right in front of the inspector general ... laughing
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 15: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Jin
        There is such a thing

        wink
    2. Alex 241
      Alex 241 6 September 2013 22: 55 New
      +1
      Xh on my gases in Kazakhstan 80ka overtook the "penny", the sight is still a poor driver a penny laughing Then I was “swept” by the buzz, words can not express!
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 23: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        Xh on my gases in Kazakhstan 80ka overtook the "penny", the sight is still a poor driver a penny

        I agree, Sanya, the sight is something else ...
        This is a must see.

        There is also a legend about the T-80 in the GSVG, which is going to overtake civilian cars and a bus.
        A lot of things were invented in that story, but something like that was for sure.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 6 September 2013 23: 31 New
          +1
          Lesh, the tankers for giving them a flight in the weekend jackets, and their everyday uniforms, tunic and overcoat for combat reviews, they paired ours overnight, sewed ours, and then in reverse order laughing They were ready to simply give the tank.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 7 September 2013 00: 00 New
            +2
            Quote: Alex 241
            They were ready to simply give the tank.

            laughing
            By the way, there was a story in Mongolia ... They told me in Borzya (they told ZabVO):
            There is nothing to drink, we drove on a tank for a booze to the local shepherds.
            He agreed to exchange for ... a tank.
            (in general, on the one hand, “a complete shepherd,” on the other hand, “completely drunk,” they signed such an agreement in words and sealed it with joyful exclamations.)

            The shepherd ... tied the tank with a rope to some crap like a fence (like a ram) and wandered off to sleep.
            The people sobered up in the morning, there is no tank, let's search, found, started and left with all this attached crap.

            This legend is already overgrown with a beard, but something like that was during the times of the USSR.
            It is funny and sad at the same time...
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 7 September 2013 00: 11 New
              +1
              Lash fasten to a chair: Our guards technician Dima (I won’t give my name) worked long and hard with one Kazakh on the topic of drinking strong drinks, well, already in fair drinking, the Kazakh had the imprudence to say how rich he was. modestly downcast, he said: “I have a plane, you can buy it, I’ll sell it cheaply. Kazakh demanded proof, Dima got a certificate where the inscription proudly flaunted: the plane’s technician. They agreed on the amount of 200 rubles. on his ears, the Kazakh came to pick up the plane. Thanks to the head of the headquarters, the case was hushed up. But the news was thundering throughout the air army.
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 7 September 2013 00: 15 New
                +2
                Normal combat work! drinks Dreams of suspicious and anxious - no comment .... sad
              2. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 7 September 2013 00: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: Alex 241
                Dima took out a certificate where the inscription was proudly flaunted: the technician of the plane. They agreed on the amount of 200rub. They washed the deal, and Dima swaying swayed into the darkness.

                laughing
                Sanya, honestly - I believe!
                But the Red Army is all the same - all the stronger.
                yes

                Disconnecting, Guys!
                Dog on the street to ask ...
                Whit.
                repeat
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 7 September 2013 00: 26 New
                  +2
                  Next time I’ll tell you how they shot from a gun GSh-6.
                  1. studentmati
                    studentmati 7 September 2013 00: 28 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    Next time I’ll tell you how they shot from a gun GSh-6.


                    The campaign of virtual communication is clearly not enough!
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 7 September 2013 00: 30 New
                      +2
                      Yes San, now I would have a "clearing" under a barbecue and white. drinks
                      1. studentmati
                        studentmati 7 September 2013 00: 36 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Yes San, now I would have a "clearing" under a barbecue and white. drinks


                        ... normal combat work ... drinks
  • Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 6 September 2013 12: 48 New
    +1
    T-80 tanker's dream ...
  • Rider
    Rider 6 September 2013 14: 56 New
    0
    80ka car certainly cool.

    I just came across infa that at the price of one T-80, you can buy 3 T-72, or 1,5-2 T-90.

    why am I, we were able to win the Patriotic War (including) because we could rivet tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them.
    but the Germans went the other way, by creating wunderwafes, and the famous German quality.

    if anyone knows what the price difference between the models consists of, please share.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 6 September 2013 21: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Rider
      I just came across infa that at the price of one T-80, you can buy 3 T-72,

      "... according to 1988

      The cost of the T-80U tank is 824 thousand rubles, including the engine - 104 thousand rubles.
      The cost of the T-72B tank is 271,1 thousand rubles, including the engine - 15 thousand rubles. ..... "
      1. Rider
        Rider 6 September 2013 21: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        "... according to 1988


        Well, that's the answer.
        it's like a Tiger and T 34 competition.
        reds start, build up and win.

        thanks for the info
  • URAL72
    URAL72 6 September 2013 16: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    And here is T-80 at the parade in Nicosia.
    Cyprus.
    Shocking a little when you see them there, huh?
    The Greeks are proud of them.
    wink
    clickable.


    Could write in Texas, GLONASS failed ... laughing
    1. Rider
      Rider 6 September 2013 16: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: URAL72
      Could write in Texas, GLONASS failed



      no, this is an invasion of Georgia.

      wink
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 September 2013 17: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: URAL72
        GLONASS failed ...

        good
        Yeah, a bit "lost" ...
        It is a pity that there is no Glonass, only now appear on technology.

        Quote: URAL72
        Could write in Texas

        Quote: Rider
        no, this is an invasion of Georgia.

        laughing
        Then it’s better: Victory Parade in the Vashin.k.ton municipal district. Drive along Stalin Avenue.
  • bandabas
    bandabas 6 September 2013 22: 50 New
    +1
    In our state, the old is destroyed, while not creating a new one. It concerns not only the tank industry, but also everything else. And they steal, they steal, they steal ... It's a shame. Say up, you will regret, and, very much.
  • builder
    builder 6 September 2013 23: 51 New
    0
    Good article and great comments. I read it with pleasure. good
  • Cpa
    Cpa 7 September 2013 06: 11 New
    0
    There is a problem in the production of alloys for turbine blades, I think that is why Russia buys helicopter engines abroad and does not produce this wonderful tank.
  • cooper
    cooper 7 September 2013 08: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Emelya
    Quote: Kars
    A lot - almost a new tank, counting a few objects.


    If in ser. 60s it would be decided to produce the T-72 (if you like, call the T-64 with a 4-stroke diesel engine and chassis from vol. 167), then it would only be necessary to develop the T-72 and transfer production from B-55 to B-46 that is not too expensive.

    In the case of the T-64, it was necessary to spend on its design, manufacture and military operation of a couple of hundreds of vol. 430, the transfer of production from B-55 to 5TD, and (except for the "intrigues" of UVZ) the development and testing of vol. 434 + subsequent costs of adopting two tanks.


    Quote: Kars
    It is still in use, we even export for T-72.


    The stump is clear. Under what the plant was imprisoned in the 60s, it produces.
    it should be noted that all the DEAR best practices were later successful on the T80 and T 72
  • Witold
    Witold 8 September 2013 20: 54 New
    0
    And not a word about the air conditioner. It is somehow strange that Cyprus bought it at an average temperature in the summer of +30 degrees.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 September 2013 23: 02 New
      0
      Only Indians remember the air conditioner, since at their request part of the electronics on their T-90 is installed in France, which does not hold a high temperature. Our full-time electronics on tests kept the temperature at 80.
      1. Witold
        Witold 9 September 2013 23: 00 New
        0
        At a temperature of +30, the temperature in the tank is +56. And the standard (well, they came up with the term) themselves measured (
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 September 2013 22: 37 New
          0
          For two years, I was a driver in Hungary as a driver. The tanks of our company were with increased resource for engine hours (something between training and combat), there was a lot of practice, and I earned the first class of a driver already half a year after training - in general, I have an idea about the temperature in the tank.