Military Review

New tanks entered service with the 20 Army of the Western Military District.

166

In the Mulino garrison of the Nizhny Novgorod region, the last batch of new combat vehicles received at the disposal of the 20 st army army was unloaded. It is reported by the press service of the Western Military District.


In the near future, the equipment received will be put into operation, the personnel of the brigade have already been retrained for a new type of military equipment in the first half of this year. In total, more than 20 units were received in the formations of the 150th Army located in the Nizhny Novgorod Region tanks T-72B3.

From the predecessors of the tank T-72B3 distinguishes the latest fire control system. “The digital ballistic computer allows several times to reduce the time of calculations and increase their efficiency. The thermal channel of the main sight ensures reliable operation of pointing devices in any weather conditions, regardless of the time of day,” said Colonel Oleg Kochetkov, head of the press service of the Western Military District.
Originator:
http://www.rg.ru/
166 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 15 October 2013 10: 55 New
    43
    Why not T 90? Or T 90 we have become a purely export option sad
    1. Boot under the carpet
      Boot under the carpet 15 October 2013 10: 59 New
      52
      Maybe new tanks mean upgrading old ones?
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 15 October 2013 11: 03 New
        +6
        As in the proverb "everything new is well forgotten old".
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 15 October 2013 13: 42 New
          24
          1. T-90 RA has not been purchasing for several years
          2. Still, the decision to leave the T-72 and T-90 by removing the T-80 from the ChPG, although logical (the presence of 2 MBTs is finally eliminated), but ... emotionally wrong laughing (As for me).
          The T-80 was always more perfect than the T-72, more beautiful.
          Yes, and the existing 4400 T-80 would be enough for the entire RA. Although of course these are emotions ...
          1. танк
            танк 15 October 2013 15: 36 New
            +3
            80-ki gas turbine engine requires a lot of oxygen, which is not enough in the same mountains, but I agree with you about it)
            1. combat192
              combat192 15 October 2013 17: 02 New
              17
              tank (2) RU Today, 15: 36 ↑ New
              80-ki gas turbine engine requires a lot of oxygen, which is not enough in the same mountains, but I agree with you about it)

              The 80 gas turbine engine has enough oxygen for its eyes that is contained in the air of all altitude ranges at which tanks can be operated.
              Diesel is more sensitive to "oxygen starvation" than GTE. Learn materiel, dear!
              PS Tanks do not fly in the stratosphere.
              1. vladstro
                vladstro 15 October 2013 18: 04 New
                +5
                the gas turbine engine needs a lot of jet fuel, and helicopters will fly
              2. Armata
                Armata 15 October 2013 18: 31 New
                +4
                Quote: combat192
                The 80 gas turbine engine has enough oxygen for its eyes that is contained in the air of all altitude ranges at which tanks can be operated.
                Diesel is more sensitive to "oxygen starvation" than GTE. Learn materiel, dear!
                PS Tanks do not fly in the stratosphere.
                Since when has diesel become more sensitive to oxygen starvation? The fact that consumption is growing, but it does not stall?
                1. 31231
                  31231 15 October 2013 18: 58 New
                  +4
                  You shouldn’t be so. In the highlands of Yakutia, our diesel engine lost power. It feels good at times.
                2. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 15 October 2013 19: 09 New
                  10
                  And when the diesel starts to hover through the muffler ... is it not because of oxygen starvation, when the air filter is clogged and does not allow the required amount of oxygen to pass through? If the filter does not pass the required amount of oxygen, then at least fill it with fuel, but it will not burn precisely because of the lack of oxygen. And here you also need to take into account whose diesel is on the car. In Soviet times, in the Andes, each "Belarus" was greeted with a festive procession, because at their heights only "Belarus" diesel engines pulled plows in the fields, and before the appearance of these tractors, all field work was carried out manually. We are used to the fact that our machines work from the Arctic Circle to Kushka and Chukotka, while others prayed for our cars.
                  1. Armata
                    Armata 15 October 2013 19: 27 New
                    +3
                    Quote: 31231
                    You shouldn’t be so. In the highlands of Yakutia, our diesel engine lost power. It feels good at times.

                    Quote: shasherin_pavel
                    And when the diesel starts to hover through the muffler ... is it not because of oxygen starvation, when the air filter is clogged and does not allow the required amount of oxygen to pass through? If the filter does not pass the required amount of oxygen, then at least fill it with fuel, but it will not burn precisely because of the lack of oxygen. And here you also need to take into account whose diesel is on the car. In Soviet times, in the Andes, each "Belarus" was greeted with a festive procession, because at their heights only "Belarus" diesel engines pulled plows in the fields, and before the appearance of these tractors, all field work was carried out manually. We are used to the fact that our machines work from the Arctic Circle to Kushka and Chukotka, while others prayed for our cars.
                    Do the tractors get up too? Do not confuse aspirated air with forced injection, with a high-pressure turbine "for example, on Mercias, Toyota, Mitsubah.) Tanks are already soaring, and if you start the air vent, they smoke, but they go. And what will happen to the gas turbine engine?"
                    1. 31231
                      31231 15 October 2013 20: 24 New
                      +1
                      Do not confuse aspirated with forced injection, with a high-pressure turbine "for example, on Mercs, Toyota, Mitsuba)

                      Now I remember, yes, like old cars with yamzeshnymi sixes and eights had such problems. Recently, our turbocharged engines have not noticed this. Probably turbocharged better tolerate oxygen deficiency.
                      1. Armata
                        Armata 15 October 2013 20: 40 New
                        +4
                        Quote: 31231
                        Recently, our turbocharged engines have not noticed this. Probably turbocharged better tolerate oxygen deficiency.
                        You're right. When excessive air pressure is created, correspondingly increased oxidizer enrichment is created. The engine is much more stable. Moreover, a diesel engine is more unpretentious to air quality.
                      2. abdrah
                        abdrah 16 October 2013 02: 15 New
                        +1
                        You are a mechanic, at least you have such a nickname. You may not need to drive a diesel car, but you need to know the principle of its action. An atmospheric diesel engine runs more stably in conditions of oxygen starvation, and a turbocharged one with a supercharger is worse, it is a highly accelerated engine where the power was increased by putting more of the working mixture into the same volume - the high-pressure pump will pour the solariums as much as you like, but it does not burn without oxygen However, increasing the diesel supply in one volume by a factor of two, it is necessary to increase the air volume and at least 2 times for this purpose boost. The more forced the engine, the smaller its volume, the higher the compression ratio, speed and boost pressure the more demanding about n to the amount of oxygen in the air.
                        For comparison, you:
                        Ural-4320 (1977-2013 onwards) - Engine displacement, 10.850cm³,
                        Engine power, l with. at rpm 210 \ 2600
                        Maximum torque: 637 Nm
                        и
                        BMW 525d AT xDrive (2013) - Displacement: 1.955 cm³
                        Engine power hp / rpm: 218/4400
                        Torque / RPM: 450/1500
                        As if the difference is only in the moment, and even then don’t put a couple of gears into the box and you can put a 2 liter engine in the Urals from BMW?

                        P.S. in the Urals, if you forget there is no boost.
                      3. Alekseev
                        Alekseev 16 October 2013 12: 36 New
                        +1
                        Quote: abdrah
                        As if the difference is only in the moment, and even then don’t put a couple of gears into the box and you can put a 2 liter engine in the Urals from BMW?

                        Such a question I often ask a stupid comrade in technology. I can’t guess, my dear, why the above-mentioned 2-liter engine from BMW can not be put in the Urals! laughing You can even put it ... There is a place lol
                        But here is how such a Ural will ride ... smile
                        Even the promise that he will immediately receive the Nobel Prize, if he guesses why this is not done, does not advance him to the right answer ... request
                        And when I remind you that there are only 80-90 horses on a Belarus tractor, he falls into complete bewilderment. fool
                      4. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 17 October 2013 20: 59 New
                        0
                        It turns out that the capacities of some cars and the capacities of others are different capacities? Then how do you explain this?
                        (Tuareg 5.0 tdi Torque 750/2000 Nm)



                        Maybe the Urals could do the same, although I'm not sure. Just power - it is power in Africa too. Turbines, by the way, are also different. For example, those that are powered not from the energy of exhaust gases, but from electric drives (see Leclerc). Accordingly, when the pressure drops overboard, the system increases the speed of the motor and thereby increases the pressure. And what will the aspirator do in this case? Question...
          2. Avenger711
            Avenger711 16 October 2013 02: 00 New
            +1
            The shortcomings of gas turbine engines have long been known to the whole world; stop kicking a corpse.
          3. lucidlook
            lucidlook 16 October 2013 02: 09 New
            0
            There is still need to consider that a lot depends on the design of the diesel engine. For example, 6TD-1/2 is more economical. And one should also take into account the power drop with an increase in temperature overboard (for a gas turbine engine 10% by 10 degrees, and for a 6TD-2 only 2%). But there are still questions of maintenance of the same notorious air purification system. And you have to choose - or the tank will spend 690 liters per 100 km (GTE) and without maintenance of air filters, or 420 liters (6 TD), but with maintenance and the risk of failure of the piston group. A difficult choice, agree.

            As for the highlands and turbines, for some reason helicopters immediately came to mind.
            1. abdrah
              abdrah 16 October 2013 02: 31 New
              +2
              But still the efficiency of the technology of our sworn friends still lead -
              "The Abrams tank has a capacity of 500 gallons (1900 liters). The fuel is in four fuel compartments: 2 compartments in the front, 2 compartments in the back. According to military estimates, the fuel consumption of the Abrams tanks was 7 gallons per mile. (16,5 liters per km), including the engine idling, in which the engine worked mainly to ensure the operation of tank electrical equipment. "(Http://topwar.ru/10738-tanki-abram
              si-bmp-bredli-v-op
              eracii-burya-v-pustyne.html)

              I do not presume to judge the truth in the first person but
              Compared to 690 liters in the Russian gas turbine engine, an American consumption of 1650 liters per hundred rapidly brings hydrocarbon collapse to the earth.
            2. Alekseev
              Alekseev 16 October 2013 19: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: lucidlook
              And you have to choose - or the tank will spend 690 liters per 100 km (GTE) and without maintenance of air filters, or 420 liters (6 TD), but with maintenance and the risk of failure of the piston group. A difficult choice, agree.

              There's one filter, the big truth fellow but who whistled it for you that after 100 km (do you need to wash the air? Yes, yes, it’s washed on a special stand with hot water and detergent SF-2U. However, if this diesel engine (5TDF, TD) is old, it throws oil, air filter cyclones get dirty quickly, which is a congenital flaw in this motor.
              It’s funny to read how much percent the 6TD loses power (as well as nonsense that it doesn’t get warm in the heat, mountains). At the stern of the T-64 tank, on the left along the way, there is even a tiny hatch, under it the "Mountain" flag is called-pressed and limited the fuel supply (and, of course, power). otherwise, kirdyk, in high mountains.
              I just clicked one reptile at a driving test, as he did not try, did not pass. Not pulling, the car says! request wink What are the percentages ...
              "Here it is necessary to take into account" that you are a well-read person, are interested in weapons and military equipment, but it is better not to talk about specific topics without having personal experience of operating the "shell".
              1. lucidlook
                lucidlook 17 October 2013 15: 59 New
                0
                Quote: Alekseev
                but who is it that you whistled that after 100 km (do you have to wash the air?

                And why you it struck that service only after 100 km? Trying to find inconsistencies where they do not exist? Filters for diesel must service - and the point. And after how much exactly km is how lucky (sorry for the pun). Or maybe you washed them on your T-64 only after 350 km? wink

                And once you have remembered 5TDF, that is, the opinions of other specialists in this regard. For example, here is this:
                In the best case, according to Boris Petrov (who already served in the 1985th Guards Division in the GSVG in 87-10), “the upper air filter ... was constantly clogged with needles and oil. Something like plasticine turned out. every 100 km.
                http://www.meshwar.vistcom.ru/tech/t-64.htm

                Funny right?

                As for interest and other things, here is a quote and a source:
                The tests were carried out in 1983 at the testing ground 38 of the Research Institute of BTVT in the village of Kubinka in the amount of 6000 km. The test program was completed in full.
                As a result of the work carried out, it was established:
                in terms of mobility of a tank with GTE and 6TD engines with a capacity of 1000 hp equivalent;
                maximum tank speeds are the same;
                overclocking characteristics do not differ;
                fuel efficiency of tanks with a piston engine is better 1,6-1,7 times. In this regard, the same range is provided with smaller volumes of fuel tanks;
                piston engine braking performance is 1,4 times better.
                The average speeds and accelerating characteristics of the compared tanks were the same, fuel consumption in liters per 100 km was:
                with GTE - 690, with 6 GT-1 - 420 l / 100 km, which is 1,65 times less compared to the GTE;
                power losses with a temperature increase of 10 ° С: with a gas turbine engine - 10%, with a 6TD-1 - 2%.

                http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-80ud/t-80ud.htm

                I willingly admit that your personal experience in operating tanks repeatedly rolls over the indicated 6000 km, so I cite the data only as a remark, and no more.

                And the last: I don’t remember something when they wrote you to me as a teacher to indicate what I should talk about and what not. So please keep your personal opinion of those around you on a short leash.
                1. Alekseev
                  Alekseev 17 October 2013 19: 26 New
                  0
                  Which tanks did the mentioned Petrov serve in the Ural Volunteer?
                  On the T-64, which you mentioned about the clogging of the air cleaner, there is ONE air filter, there is no upper (lower) one. Although, really, enough to discuss "these little things".
                  And I didn’t write to you as a teacher. wink And teaching YOU is completely useless. If only because it is completely useless because of the painful pride of the "learner", and the enormous self-confidence: they say, he read literature! And he will tell others! They have hardly heard of anything like that. lol
                  Take off your short leash and talk about how and what you want for your health.
                  I say goodbye to you for this.
                  Good luck in the armored field!
                  Until!
          4. tor11121
            tor11121 16 October 2013 07: 38 New
            +2
            Yes, at least learn. they didn’t go to hell in the highlands. The air is discharged and even dust. Like cement. as for choosing a tank. now the level of world tank building is more or less the same. in something inferior in something win. more valuable is who is sitting in these tanks and how prepared.
      2. Snipe 74
        Snipe 74 15 October 2013 16: 32 New
        +2
        Yes, and the existing 4400 T-80 would be enough for the entire RA. And where are they 4400 pieces?
      3. combat192
        combat192 15 October 2013 17: 10 New
        +7
        Once I heard one story regarding the adoption of the T-80. I don’t answer for truthfulness, but according to the narrator, when the prototypes of the T-80 represented the competent commission, it (the commission) was very struck that when the frost was around 30 degrees below zero, the tanks were ready to move literally 5 minutes after starting the cold engines . I served for a long time in areas with a particularly cold climate, so even in mobilization standards it was laid down to warm up and start the T-72 40 minutes engine. In reality, it took more.
  2. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 15 October 2013 11: 46 New
    10
    Quote: Boot under the carpet
    Maybe new tanks mean upgrading old ones?

    Right And the money will go away as a purchase of a new one.
    1. afire
      afire 15 October 2013 14: 30 New
      10
      It’s better to drive T90 abroad expensively, we have so little of them and it makes no sense to keep one more modification in the troops. Let the 72nd, and then Armata, I think they are doing it right.
      Unification and quick repair - free up resources for the purchase of new equipment, than to distort and repair non-mass T90 expensively.
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 15 October 2013 14: 53 New
        +1
        T-90 520 units all modifications.
      2. Denis
        Denis 15 October 2013 14: 54 New
        0
        Quote: afire
        and then Armata, I think they’re doing it right.

        And when is the Armada? At least approximately, not in a single copy, but as expected, in batches.
        1. afire
          afire 15 October 2013 14: 57 New
          +5
          when necessary, then Armata, but for now 72B3 good
          Everything will be fine.
          T50 also waited and waited! And wait for Armata, believe in the country and its engineers.

          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          T-90 520 units all modifications.

          They themselves answered their own question that there are too many modifications to carry out additional research and development. The meaning is that? It is better to concentrate power in Armata.
          1. Algor73
            Algor73 15 October 2013 15: 26 New
            +4
            "... T50 also waited and waited" - alas, not yet ...
      3. Armata
        Armata 15 October 2013 18: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: afire
        Let 72, and then Armata, I think they are doing it right.
        Do you even know when Armata will enter the army? I personally do not.
        1. afire
          afire 15 October 2013 20: 58 New
          +2
          Well friends, I, just like you would like it to be sooner, but let it be licked as it should, then to serve the truth, than to give it to us and the troops now, and then we will humiliate it for frequent breakdowns and a bunch of childhood diseases .
          1. Armata
            Armata 15 October 2013 21: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: afire
            Well friends, I, just like you would like it to be sooner, but let it be licked as it should, then to serve the truth, than to give it to us and the troops now, and then we will humiliate it for frequent breakdowns and a bunch of childhood diseases .
            Dmitriy. Until the tank goes to the masses and is not exploited, all sores cannot be identified. There is one thing, but there is no ready-made sample for mass production. The same fate as the Black Eagle. Then no one could establish its mass production, with a small re-equipment of production. Armata is far from being a serial, low-tech machine at the moment (unlike the T90) there are many ambiguous solutions. and for a long time will not become serial.
  3. biznaw
    biznaw 15 October 2013 19: 44 New
    +1
    By new is meant a new (off-line) tank.
  4. e3tozy
    e3tozy 15 October 2013 21: 28 New
    +1
    And as everything was formulated: ,, We refuse the T-80, the T-72 and T-90 remain in service. The release of T-90 for the RA Armed Forces is discontinued. So okuratnenko made it clear they say: ,, be content with the 72nd, Armata on the way ,,. Only it has not yet been seen even from the stratosphere.
  • de bouillon
    de bouillon 15 October 2013 11: 07 New
    +8
    modernization of the existing T-72
    1. alone
      alone 15 October 2013 11: 14 New
      14
      don’t know that the T-72 is a new tank! modernization of any equipment does not mean that it is new.
      1. don.kryyuger
        don.kryyuger 15 October 2013 18: 03 New
        +2
        "VOLKSWAGEN GOLF". SEE THE FIRST MODEL AND THE LAST.
      2. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 15 October 2013 19: 25 New
        +1
        Tell that to tankmen in '44 when they received the T-34-85 instead of the T-34 '42. By the way, in 1943, along with the T-34 with a "nut" turret, T-34s tanks were produced. (high-speed), I personally cannot distinguish between the 41 g tank and the T-34s, but the 5-speed gearbox with fixed gears, improved maneuverability due to new planetary mechanisms and lightweight control levers, and even then the Cyclone air filters, which increased the diesel engine's service life. The most interesting thing is that the cost of the T-34 -85 was lower than the T-34 of the first releases, in 42 g more than 570 inventions and about 1500 rationalizations were introduced into the tank, which reduced the cost of the tank by half and the T-34-85 did not surpass the T-34 in cost. -1941 XNUMX release.
        1. Armata
          Armata 15 October 2013 19: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: shasherin_pavel
          but 5 gearbox with fixed gears,
          What is it like? If the gears are stationary, how to shift gears?
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 16 October 2013 02: 05 New
          0
          Distinguish T-34 arr. The 43rd year from earlier models is exceptionally simple, a completely different tower.
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 15 October 2013 11: 51 New
      +5
      Quote: de Bouillon
      modernization of the existing T-72

      So it is necessary to write that the updated, not new. The tank is good, there is no word, maybe I’m just finding fault, but to give out the old for the new, it’s somehow not right.
      1. Muadipus
        Muadipus 15 October 2013 13: 15 New
        +3
        So it’s necessary to write that updatedAnd not New. The tank is good, no words, maybe I'm just picking on, but old for new give out, it’s somehow not right.
        This is all the great Russian language! :)
        New - it means that the fly has not yet rolled on it. And the fact that the troops are receiving "new" equipment is good.

        Shl. when you brag to a friend about buying a new car, what is the meaning of the word "new"? :)
        1. helg717
          helg717 15 October 2013 14: 33 New
          0
          that's it, the 2012 car can also be new
    3. e3tozy
      e3tozy 15 October 2013 21: 55 New
      +2
      At T-72 and T-90, the main reservation is very different, as if a knife in oil and a knife in wood, and this is people's lives. This is what should be in service yesterday. Modernization will take place forever, the same armature will have dozens of them, cardinal ones too. it is necessary to derive from the tail the old one to sell it. We have the opposite. God forbid, we have a lot of hot places and our children will be in these tanks.
  • Edward72
    Edward72 15 October 2013 11: 12 New
    31
    T-90 for export, Eagle-buried, Armata until they bring to mind twenty years will pass, so we are glad that there is. It’s good that not the T-34s and the IS-2 drove up to modernized.
    1. 31231
      31231 15 October 2013 19: 22 New
      +1
      Well, take a look at how much M1A1 is in the US Army. Some of them were also upgraded to the level of M1A2.
      1. alone
        alone 15 October 2013 19: 26 New
        +3
        I welcome Sergey! you are absolutely right, but that does not say that the Abrams are the newest tank, also the old tanks that are being upgraded. But only in the author’s mistake. Instead of the new ones, you could write updated ones. After reading the article, I thought in the yard a wonderful 70s))
        1. 31231
          31231 15 October 2013 22: 22 New
          0
          here only in the author’s mistake. instead of new ones, you could write updated ones.


          Yes, I rarely take these journalists seriously. They write Hollywood colorfully. But the truth or not, they are not interested. And they do not teach them this either in universities or in work.

          So it’s better to read technical literature on the topic, and people who use this technique.
          1. alone
            alone 15 October 2013 22: 52 New
            0
            laughing that's why here we are sitting, so that at least from the original sources-professionals to find out what we may not know yet)) drinks
  • Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 15 October 2013 11: 15 New
    +6
    Great news. The good news is that articles sometimes appear on the site, albeit small in volume about our tanks, and not just about the Israeli merkava)).
    1. танк
      танк 15 October 2013 11: 24 New
      25
      T-72B3 is a major overhaul with a budget upgrade of previously released cars. The equipment was determined by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (the decision was made by Vladimir Popovkin when he was the chief of armaments, and Nikolai Makarov, the former head of the General Staff). The cost of upgrading one T-72B3 is 52 million rubles. Of these, about 30 million rubles. goes to the tank overhaul - the machines are completely disassembled, inspected all parts and replaced outdated with new ones; the remaining money is spent on modernization - the purchase and installation of new equipment and other complexes that the customer has chosen.
      1. танк
        танк 15 October 2013 11: 35 New
        +9
        By the way, this tank took part in the tank biathlon. Next year, as I understand it, it’s up to it to defer the honor of fighting with the NATO.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 04 New
          +3
          He did not participate, but was exhibited. Competitions were held on the T-72B
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 15 October 2013 14: 13 New
          0
          By the way, this tank took part in the tank biathlon. Next year, as I understand it, it’s up to it to defer the honor of fighting with the NATO.

          It seems not quite (about next year).
          For the sake of competition, as I understand it, there were statements from individuals from the Moscow Region about the need for a new tank.
          I hope that the T-90SM.

          And then, taking into account the results shown this year, our current participants on the T-1B (I don’t know how on the T-2B72 - although the engine there is weaker than the T-72CM) can not cope with the M3A90SEP with a good crew. Apparently because of the stated
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 15 October 2013 11: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: tank
        T-72B3 is a major overhaul with a budget upgrade of previously released cars.

        If you have info about the cost of capital, please click on the link.
        1. танк
          танк 15 October 2013 12: 55 New
          +1
          http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=3322
      3. military
        military 15 October 2013 13: 03 New
        0
        Quote: tank
        T-72B3 is a major overhaul with a budget upgrade of previously released cars

        but how it all began well ...
        ... last batch new combat vehicles ...

        repeat
      4. the polar
        the polar 15 October 2013 14: 35 New
        0
        Quote: tank
        T-72B3 is a major overhaul with a budget upgrade of previously released cars. The equipment was determined by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (the decision was made by Vladimir Popovkin when he was the chief of armaments, and Nikolai Makarov, the former head of the General Staff). The cost of upgrading one T-72B3 is 52 million rubles. Of these, about 30 million rubles. goes to the tank overhaul - the machines are completely disassembled, inspected all parts and replaced outdated with new ones; the remaining money is spent on modernization - the purchase and installation of new equipment and other complexes that the customer has chosen.

        I wonder how much the new T-90 costs. Really more expensive than 52 million. And yet, why was it necessary to spend the budget on the development of the T-90 if they decided to upgrade the T-72B. Export production is unlikely to recoup development costs.
        1. alone
          alone 15 October 2013 19: 29 New
          0
          those t-90s tanks that we bought from Russia cost about 4,5-5 million dollars apiece. but, the filling there is from t-90cm.
          1. ruslan207
            ruslan207 15 October 2013 19: 44 New
            +2
            lonely -In Russia, a huge number of t-72s will be purchased by t-90s and 72 that they’ll put on needles
            1. alone
              alone 15 October 2013 21: 54 New
              0
              what they are going to do is purely their concern. I just indicated the price of the t-90s, because in the comment above the forum member was interested in its price.
        2. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 15 October 2013 19: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Polar
          why spend the budget on the development of the T-90,

          And there is no thought that between 72 and 90 there are 8 more models that did not reach the army, but remained in an intermediate version, and different versions of weapons or engines were tested on them. If you watched biathlon, then the phrase "the T-72 tank's center of gravity is shifted back, therefore, when overcoming the counter-escarp, the T-72 lifts its nose higher than the T-90 and therefore falls forward with greater dynamics, the T-90's center of gravity is shifted forward , and he overcomes the obstacle softer, faster lowering the bow and throwing the stern. " Maybe "T-74" was created only for the purpose of checking the location of the center of gravity. The T-76 had a new engine and so on.
          1. Armata
            Armata 15 October 2013 19: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: shasherin_pavel
            Maybe "T-74" was created only for the purpose of checking the location of the center of gravity. The T-76 had a new engine and so on.
            Why do you need to know about this? After all, we have T90, this is a deeply modernized t 72 drinks smile
      5. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 15 October 2013 14: 55 New
        +4
        T-72B3 - An upgraded version of the T-72; began to be delivered to the RA in 2012. The tank has the latest OMS, VDZ Kontakt-5, a V-84-1 engine with an output of 840 hp, a central locking system, a Sosna-U multi-channel sight, a wind sensor, and the latest communications equipment , an improved weapon stabilizer and a complex of protection against weapons of mass destruction. The automatic loader of the gun for new ammunition has been improved and the running gear, which has received caterpillar tracks with a parallel hinge, has been improved.
    2. major071
      major071 15 October 2013 13: 26 New
      +6
      Already in the course of Merkava have you gotten enough? laughing Me by the way too. hi
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 15 October 2013 15: 22 New
        0
        Quote: major071
        Already in the course of Merkava have you gotten enough? laughing me by the way too. hi


        I got it, it is very softly and correctly said! hi
  • tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 15 October 2013 11: 47 New
    13
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90? Or T 90 we have become a purely export option

    We have many T-72 tanks. If it is correct, properly modernized, it will turn out what you need. Of course it’s not t-90ms, but it’s cheaper, the increased power of the tank and so on. The main thing here is that officials here should not be knocked over with pens, otherwise the modernization will go through their wallets but not tanks.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 15 October 2013 11: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      increased tank power

      If the driving performance and power density, then dvigl left the same: B-84.
    2. танк
      танк 15 October 2013 11: 55 New
      +6
      The purchase of the t-90 was stopped due to the development of Armata, it makes sense to buy it if it is practically no different from 72.
      The T-72 and T-90 penetrate with tandem shells, which means they are outdated. A fundamentally new platform is needed.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 10 New
        +5
        There are no tandem shells, there are grenades. For example, an RPG-29 grenade is good powerful, it can fill up a merkava or an abrams (although a trophy costs on a merkava and you have to shoot a lot like that), but there’s nothing to say about T-shkahs that are modernized by the standards of the 90s. Well, suppose the T-72 is no different from the T-90 ... but the fact that another tower with a different FCS is also a different weapon, a built-in KDZ and a NEW engine with a new transmission.
        In the T-90 from 72 matches, only the body and suspension remained.
        1. танк
          танк 15 October 2013 13: 00 New
          0
          I agree, I was mistaken, the shell is on the artillery side))
          And as for the difference between these two tanks, if the survivability does not differ much, then the difference is not significant, but of course the issue is debatable, of course, there is information about 7 hits from RPGs in the T-90 and the tank remained on track.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 15 October 2013 13: 34 New
            +1
            Yeah, the contact from the relic is not different, but ... the relic does not fly off and this increases the survivability of the machine, especially in the city at times, and the new arrangement of blocks.
            A more powerful engine and gearbox allow you to gain speed faster, and as the experience of Syria shows, the main losses of tanks occur at the moment when the tank does not move, therefore, the greater the mobility, the greater the probability of survival,
            By the way, 7 hits from RPGs and 72 can withstand, but here the crew is a question.
            A more reliable AZ is also a plus for the survival of the tank, and the LMS indirectly affects survival.
      2. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 15 October 2013 19: 45 New
        +3
        The "King Tiger" was pierced by 85 mm shells, but it did not have time to become obsolete until the end of the war. Even the KV, impenetrable by the 37 mm anti-tank cannons, could be penetrated by the 8,8 anti-aircraft guns, I'm not talking about the Shermans, they were “outdated” then on the conveyor. There is no and there was no absolutely impenetrable tank ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • SAG
    SAG 15 October 2013 12: 01 New
    +5
    T-90S and T-90SM are not purchased due to saving money for re-equipping with the latest tanks on the new generation Armata chassis.
    In fact, these T-72B3 tanks are not new, but have passed the modernization of the T-72 of the 70x-80x release.
    So everything has its time. We are waiting and hoping soldier
  • lelikas
    lelikas 15 October 2013 12: 17 New
    +4
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90?

    Because now we have new, this is modernized old.
  • LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 15 October 2013 12: 36 New
    +5
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90? Or T 90 we have become a purely export option


    So I ask the same question ??? Where are our T 90, which have no analogues in the world ???? -And where?!!!

    Or the whole world will ride "there are no analogues in the world", and our soldiers will ride 72 ... ПЗДЦ! negative
  • Apollo
    Apollo 15 October 2013 12: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90? Or T 90 we have become a purely export option


    the newest to others and nothing to myself, I apologize for the modernized ......... I wrote with irony and sarcasm.
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 15 October 2013 14: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90? Or T 90 we have become a purely export option

    I think that buying a t-90 is not necessary, because it is expensive. It is better to invest in the production of Almaty and restore the slowly destroyed tank troops at a new technical level.
    A T-72B3 to support army pants and UVZ, maintaining the minimum required level of combat capability.
  • edge
    edge 15 October 2013 15: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Why not T 90?

    Elementary: they will rearm on a new concept car ........
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 06 New
    0
    Article title: "New tanks entered service with the 20th Army of the Western Military District "
    Quote from the article: "In total, more than 20 tanks have entered the formations of the 150th army located in the Nizhny Novgorod region. T-72B3."
    I don’t get it? Now what year, 70th ??
    Why does the OLD equipment enter the army ??!
    WHERE ARE NEW TANKS ???
    I wonder bl .. who made such a "wise" decision ?? belay angry
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 15 October 2013 18: 42 New
      +6
      This is not an old technique. The armor of the production of the last century is no worse than modern (if not better). It has been perfectly preserved over the years (and will serve the same amount). Iron decayed over the years of storage (ordinary tins - fenders) is, of course, replaced by a new one, the hulls are not brought to a common denominator (T-72M) - it’s an extremely expensive business, they didn’t install the engine from T-90 due to the large supply of Diesel engines B -86 (by the way, they haven’t been released for a long time). Firepower increased sharply due to the use of a thermal imager (an order of magnitude, no less), protection equivalent to the protection of the T-90 tank. In reality, what else would you have to fork out for - the distant control of an anti-aircraft machine gun (but its ammunition is extremely small, there are only two cartridges of ammunition, and it is extremely difficult to change it under fire).
      The looting of tanks located at the storage bases is very exaggerated (personally convinced of this), but the combat readiness of these vehicles tends to zero. I’m saying that if tomorrow’s camping, then nothing will go (including the T-80, mentioned in the discussion), but it will immediately require repairs, not the current one. Therefore, the return of some of these machines into operation in a very updated form is a perfectly reasonable step by the state, on the balance of which there are a bunch of machines of no value ...
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 09 New
    +4
    And why are we then making new modifications of tanks, if they still do not get into the army ??????!
  • Jaros81
    Jaros81 16 October 2013 08: 54 New
    0
    The T-90 is T-72, originally it was called T-72BU, by the way I do not recommend laughing at the letter, a common thing when tanks are being modernized. Yes, and we have them in service - 500 units
  • waisson
    waisson 15 October 2013 11: 03 New
    +7
    everything is exported but not to the native troops -native troops get a hold of the modernized 72 am
  • Andrey57
    Andrey57 15 October 2013 11: 08 New
    13
    "Cutting the dough" is still the main priority in the thieves' state! In the coming years, India plans to increase the number of T-90s to 1400 units, and we have a cat in the army of these tanks. negative
    1. танк
      танк 15 October 2013 11: 32 New
      +9
      But we have 9000 t-72 of various modifications
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 15 October 2013 11: 54 New
        +7
        Quote: tank
        But we have 9000 t-72 of various modifications

        and four thousand T-80s and its modifications ...
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 11 New
          +3
          By the way, there is a project of diesel 80-c.
          1. Nikone
            Nikone 16 October 2013 03: 59 New
            0
            no such projects
            1. LeXXSkAt
              LeXXSkAt 16 October 2013 07: 32 New
              0
              t-80ud. Think fiction and non-existent machine?
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 20 New
          -2
          Quote: PSih2097
          Quote: tank
          But we have 9000 t-72 of various modifications

          and four thousand T-80s and its modifications ...

          In, as the saying goes: we’ll give the country coal, even if it’s small, but to .. I!
          Why do we need novice? We have fucking junk! wassat
          And you say miracles do not happen! ... fool
        3. uwzek
          uwzek 15 October 2013 19: 19 New
          +3
          There are not so many combat-ready T-80s in the Russian army! These tanks are already about thirty years old, some of the tin on them has definitely rotted, it is much more difficult with the threaded holes of the hull: if some of them can be repaired using small machines, some machines are needed to restore some of them, into which the entire armored hull is charged, these machines are definitely not in Omsk left. Nobody is producing the equipment installed on the eighties (there are not even factories left), the available reserve stock of blocks has long been working in some "Oplot" ...
      2. pahom54
        pahom54 15 October 2013 12: 39 New
        0
        on which the motor resource has long been almost exhausted ... that’s what would be worn out too much - and for re-melting or selling some kind of jucheonium ... Better than 10 completely new tanks than 20 undergoing major repairs ...
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 15 October 2013 14: 39 New
          -3
          Quote: pahom54
          on which the motor resource has long been almost exhausted ... that’s what would be worn out too much - and for re-melting or selling some kind of jucheonium ... Better than 10 completely new tanks than 20 undergoing major repairs ...

          Well, yes ... And then we will whine why only 10 new ones, and saw the rest and scatter everything else, and what remains is a complete junk with a worked out resource ...
        2. edge
          edge 15 October 2013 15: 39 New
          +3
          Quote: pahom54
          Better 10 brand new tanks than 20 undergoing major repairs.

          Well, my friend, you’ve got into a conversation; keep in mind that the case of the beginning of the bd new equipment + crews will be disabled, and it will be easier for newcomers to remember past experience than to retrain (this is the basis of mobilization measures). Therefore, 72 will be the main combat vehicle for a long time (I think 20-30 years), although they will be transferred to preservation.
          1. Snipe 74
            Snipe 74 15 October 2013 17: 00 New
            +4
            I agree with you, if B.D. the losses will be huge on all sides. Therefore, it would not be bad to conserve 6-8 72 thousand. It is they who can make the necessary reserve and cover the most dangerous breakthroughs (if any). And we will wait for Armata for a long time. And he will enter the army A YEAR ON A TEA SPOON.
            1. recrut6666
              recrut6666 16 October 2013 09: 12 New
              0
              my friend was training at a training ground under the upper pyshma, at the tank storage. and so the officer told him: out of 10, 8-7 will start, 5-6 will reach loading, 1-2 will reach the battle.
          2. pahom54
            pahom54 15 October 2013 17: 11 New
            +1
            So what is the conversation about ??? Here are the old ones - to the reserve, and not to the capital in order to pass off as new. And new ones - they will be new (well, just those that, at the beginning of hostilities, in your words, will be disabled).
            And as for the reserve - both the old T-72 and the reserve personnel, I completely agree with you ...
      3. Nitup
        Nitup 15 October 2013 12: 50 New
        +2
        It was believed that the tank will be adopted under the T-72BU index, in accordance with the designation in the official documents “The T-72B Advanced Tank”, however, Russian President Boris Yeltsin ordered that the tank be given its own name - T-90
        1. military
          military 15 October 2013 13: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: Nitup
          under the T-72BU index, in accordance with the designation in official documents “The T-72B Advanced Tank”

          "second-hand"...
  • Andrey57
    Andrey57 15 October 2013 11: 08 New
    -2
    "Cutting the dough" is still the main priority in the thieves' state! In the coming years, India plans to increase the number of T-90s to 1400 units, and we have a cat in the army of these tanks. negative
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 15 October 2013 11: 08 New
    +3
    So there was a statement that in the next five-year period our troops will not purchase new MBTs. It’s just that the author of this news article did not correctly design the title.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 15 October 2013 11: 12 New
    +2
    Tanks are not new, with the engine of the old model and the old dynamic protection. Tanks modernized.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 15 October 2013 11: 16 New
    +7
    Well, what's up ...No.
    This is certainly better than nothing ...
    BUT!
    These are not new tanks, albeit from a new building. Tank biathlon showed how the best crews shoot on similar "new" tanks.
    1. flak155
      flak155 15 October 2013 11: 59 New
      +1
      and you compared accuracy with what? for example, the American tanks M60 and M1 Abrams (the first modification) had a 1,5km chance of getting no more than 10-20% (data from the American table). But for modern M1A1s and leklers in the USSR, there were SLAs that were no worse than them on T-80 tanks and oddly enough T-64.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 15 October 2013 13: 58 New
        +2
        But for modern M1A1s and leklers in the USSR, there were SLAs that were no worse than them on T-80 tanks and oddly enough T-64.

        Dear, do not confuse soft with warm. On the modern Abramsah, Chelejedzhery, Merkavah, Leopard and Leclkirkah are OMS, analogues which could not be in the USSR (i.e. 25 years ago). hi
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 15 October 2013 14: 26 New
        +2
        But for modern M1A1 and leklerk in the USSR there were SLAs that are not inferior to them on T-80 tanks


        About Leclerc is not a fact, but about M1A1 - yes.
        Only now the T-80 is being decommissioned.
        The new SLAs are probably good, but I think the accuracy of the M1A2SEPv2 is only on the T-90SM with a new gun, stabilizer, and the SLAs will surpass
  • Oskar
    Oskar 15 October 2013 11: 19 New
    +6
    If the T-90s in large volumes do not put in their aircraft based on the subsequent (I hope soon) appearance of a completely new, revolutionary tank, then for now it is advisable to squeeze everything out of the 72s, and then immediately switch to a new model (bypassing the T- 90). That is what it will be necessary to implement in the armed forces at an accelerated pace. We will see.
    1. Orik
      Orik 15 October 2013 13: 25 New
      +5
      The main thing is to have time to go, the events in the world are alarming.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 31 New
      -1
      Quote: Oskar
      If the T-90s in large volumes do not put in their aircraft based on the subsequent (I hope soon) appearance of a completely new, revolutionary tank, then for now it is advisable to squeeze everything out of the 72s, and then immediately switch to a new model (bypassing the T- 90). That is what it will be necessary to implement in the armed forces at an accelerated pace. We will see.

      What are you talking about now? What new tank? Do you mean Armata? Or something else?
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 15 October 2013 11: 35 New
    14
    T-72B3 is a very controversial version of the upgrade.

    This machine is certainly more advanced than previous versions, but ... leaves the bewilderment of the obvious "unfinished business".
    A number of childhood diseases have not yet been resolved.
    And in light of the fact that the T-72Б3 is fully bet (the production of T-90 is discontinued, the issue of the T-80 withdrawal from service has been resolved), this machine will be BASIC until the adoption of the Armata ...
    A lot of questions arise.

    I have almost prepared an article about this tank, but I have not yet received objective feedback from colleagues about the work of "Sosna". As soon as the material will be ready - I will send it to the Military Review for moderation.
    Something like this.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 14 New
      +5
      We are waiting, waiting, waiting impatiently !!!
    2. танк
      танк 15 October 2013 16: 05 New
      +2
      http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-5697.htm

      I read here, it’s also interesting. They specifically saved on the tank
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      I have almost prepared an article about this tank, but I have not yet received objective feedback from colleagues about the work of "Sosna". As soon as the material will be ready - I will send it to the Military Review for moderation.
      Something like this.

      It will be interesting to read. We wait!
    4. Armata
      Armata 15 October 2013 18: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Aleks tv
      And in light of the fact that the T-72Б3 is fully bet (the production of T-90 is discontinued, the issue of the T-80 withdrawal from service has been resolved), this machine will be BASIC until the adoption of the Armata ...
      hi Aleksey. Please answer one question. Why should the emphasis be on the T90 modifications at the exhibition, and the T72B3 modestly stood apart? T90 in any version is much better than Slingshot. So this is a moot point.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 15 October 2013 18: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: Mechanic
        Why should the emphasis be on the T90 modifications at the exhibition, and the T72B3 modestly stood apart? T90 in any version is much better than Slingshot.

        Greetings, Eugene. Glad to hear that.

        Babai knows why to do this ...
        Probably to promote the T-90 to foreigners. So more profitable for money.
        request
        And the T-72B3 is being drawn into the troops.

        I regret a little that I didn’t go to the exhibition this year, I had to climb on B3, sometimes I was allowed to use an ID card.

        By the way, Zhen, can you tell me almost on the topic: I just can't find out about the novelty - the protection of the commander at the "city tank".
        Is this pretzel attached to the shoulder strap of the TKN-3 commander’s turret? Or to the shoulder strap of ZPU Utes?
        How is it that lock-unstuck for use?
        1. Armata
          Armata 15 October 2013 19: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          By the way, Zhen, can you tell me almost on the topic: I just can't find out about the novelty - the protection of the commander at the "city tank".
          Is this pretzel attached to the shoulder strap of the TKN-3 commander’s turret? Or to the shoulder strap of ZPU Utes?
          How is it that lock-unstuck for use?
          I will not prompt. I’m just doing hodovka. And everything else is not dedicated to me.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 15 October 2013 19: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: Mechanic
            I’m just doing hodovka.

            Yes in the know ... Just asked just in case.
            Good luck in business, Eugene.
            wink
            1. Armata
              Armata 15 October 2013 20: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Good luck in business, Eugene.
              Thank you drinks
        2. Alekseev
          Alekseev 16 October 2013 19: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Is this pretzel attached to the shoulder strap of the TKN-3 commander’s turret? Or to the shoulder strap of ZPU Utes?

          And they have different epaulettes? what
          And the "Utes" does not seem to be a ZPU, but the NSV-12,7 machine gun itself (and NSVT too) wink
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 18 October 2013 07: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Alekseev
            And they have different epaulettes?

            Hooray, at least someone was interested in these issues.
            fellow

            How else, namesake?
            When using the TKN-3, we rotate the commander’s turret in the internal pursuit. NSVT is locked in the external (average) pursuit in the stowed position.
            When using a cliff:
            - stop the commander’s turret, open the shoulder strap with the cliff. Those. when turning the ZPU, we always have a stalled TKN-3, and it looks “backward”, spinning along with the cliff's shoulder strap, otherwise it will interfere.

            So I don’t understand a bit, HOW is this new commander’s protection (pictured) fixed? What shoulder strap?
            In theory - to the commander’s turret with the TKN-3, otherwise the commander will simply not see anything, turning the observation device to the sides.
            When using NSVT, this protection will stop together with the TKN-3 and rotate on the open chase of the ZPU.
            Fantasy cannot yet come up with another option for operating the T-72 ... Maybe it just became old?
            laughing

            If so, in terms of use, imagine - what is it like in everyday activities: at any turn of the commander’s turret, toss such a fool around?
            The rotation is done manually, by the muscles behind the "horns" of TKN-3 ...
            Hands then fall off ...
            winked
  • 6 sunrise 9
    6 sunrise 9 15 October 2013 11: 35 New
    +8
    Well, apparently to Armata, some new tanks the army of the Russian Federation will not wait. Although the troops already have 500 T-90s, the T-80 and T-72 are undergoing repairs and are constantly being improved. As I want to see the armature ... I hope this really will be a revolutionary machine. soldier
    1. Armata
      Armata 15 October 2013 18: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: 6Sunrise9
      As I want to see the armature ... I hope this really will be a revolutionary machine.
      How long will it take to rearm all units in Armata? And when will they accept her? Just think and decide for yourself what you are waiting for.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 15 October 2013 18: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: Mechanic
        How long will it take to rearm all units in Armata?

        Exactly. And the key word here is "ALL".
        1. Armata
          Armata 15 October 2013 19: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Exactly. And the key word here is "ALL".
          There is still a moment. Presented terminator based on t72. How much time will pass until they are at least put in the troops, ate UVZ type sharpen on the armature.
      2. 6 sunrise 9
        6 sunrise 9 15 October 2013 21: 32 New
        0
        Quote: Mechanic
        How long will it take to rearm all units in Armata?


        I will not even hope that by 2020. will be able to rearm even 1/3 of the entire tank fleet. But if they put, say 500 pieces, then I will be pleased with this.
        1. Armata
          Armata 15 October 2013 21: 41 New
          0
          Quote: 6Sunrise9
          I don’t even hope for 2020. will be able to rearm even 1 / 3 from the entire tank fleet.

          7 years left. Production is only ready at 5%, by force, for the mass. On the transmash (by the way, it was UKBTM that developed this platform), production simply collapses from the supply of UVZ (they will do Spectra). What 20 year could it be? with all due respect, these are fairy tales.
          1. 6 sunrise 9
            6 sunrise 9 16 October 2013 07: 59 New
            0
            it seemed to say that the production of reinforcement will be started in 2015. request
  • ZU-23
    ZU-23 15 October 2013 11: 42 New
    -3
    I don’t understand those who are not happy, as if the T-72B3 was not needed, it is a light tank with more than 90 T-XNUMX combat use tasks.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 15 October 2013 11: 48 New
      +5
      Quote: ZU-23
      as if the T-72B3 is not needed, it is a light tank with more combat missions than the T-90.

      ??
      I finally can’t understand you, Roman.
      What does light mean and why does it have more tasks?
      1. ZU-23
        ZU-23 15 October 2013 11: 59 New
        0
        Well, it’s not easy, of course, but compared to t-90 there is a difference, but why are there many T-90s if most of the problems are solved by t-72 and t-80, he is a participant in the hostilities and I know that t-90 were not needed in Chechnya , and if you peck on a dalnyak, so there and the self-propelled guns do not sickly work out. It seems that large heavy tanks are more the prestige of the army and not for victory in battles.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 15 October 2013 12: 28 New
          +6
          Quote: ZU-23
          Well, it’s not easy, of course, but compared to t-90 there is a difference, but why are there many T-90s if most of the problems are solved by t-72 and t-80, he is a participant in the hostilities and I know that t-90 were not needed in Chechnya , and if you peck on a dalnyak, so there and the self-propelled guns do not sickly work out. It seems that large heavy tanks are more the prestige of the army and not for victory in battles.


          Again, complete bewilderment from your comments ... and from each phrase.
          Especially from the servant ...

          Lana. Everyone has their own truth.
          There, they put the pluses for you, agree ... here again there is a cloud of omniscient experts, where am I?
          1. ZU-23
            ZU-23 15 October 2013 12: 54 New
            -1
            you are here after the world of tanks now the tankers are completely divorced))), each tank has its own goals, like airplanes. Why take a behu or a Merc in a taxi, if the Lada is not bad))). Of course, everyone has their own truth, well, I argue from the economy to the fighting, until they squeeze out the t-90 batch and hammer it on you.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 15 October 2013 13: 12 New
              +6
              Quote: ZU-23
              you are here after the world of tanks now the tankers are completely divorced))), each tank has its own goals, like airplanes. Why take a behu or a Merc in a taxi, if the Lada is not bad))). Of course, everyone has their own truth, well, I argue from the economy to the fighting, until they squeeze out the t-90 batch and hammer it on you.

              I don’t play games, I don’t need adrenaline.
              10 years of service on the T-72Б.
              Again in your koment did not understand anything, already the third in a row ...
              Well, okay, I’m on the drum. Maybe others will understand.
              1. Patton5
                Patton5 15 October 2013 13: 48 New
                +2
                There are such people)))) Recently, one of my servants (Ukrainian) was proving that they brought absolutely new T-82s to their unit, they say he saw them himself and that they can shoot beyond the mountains with a projectile as well))) as soon as I don’t I tried to prove that this is nonsense, nothing happened, so he remained at his own.
            2. Patton5
              Patton5 15 October 2013 13: 51 New
              +1
              you are not a case of shell shock? with all due respect! hi
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 15 October 2013 14: 31 New
            +2
            Lana. Everyone has their own truth.
            There, they put the pluses for you, agree ... here again there is a cloud of omniscient experts, where am I?


            I put the pros, for example, just for a respectful style of discussion laughing
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 15 New
      +5
      It is very interesting how they from MBT for 40 years became easy? I understand the PT-76, a light tank, but the T-72 .. HOW?
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 15 October 2013 12: 38 New
        +5
        Quote: cth; fyn
        HOW?

        Andrew...
        If you type the word "light" next to the abbreviation T-72 on the Kopma keyboard, then probably ... it will become "light". Business then.
        Probably so.
        wink
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 54 New
          +4
          By the way, about light tanks, and the PT-76 is a very good car, why is it not updated? Marines need it for a cut, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a grenade-proof version with a mine-resistant bottom, cheap powerful and tenacious machines.
          1. edge
            edge 15 October 2013 15: 52 New
            0
            Quote: cth; fyn
            By the way, about light tanks, and the PT-76 is a very good car, why is it not updated? Marines need it for a cut, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a grenade-proof version with a mine-resistant bottom, cheap powerful and tenacious machines

            because BMP-3 came ...
          2. Prapor-527
            Prapor-527 15 October 2013 18: 19 New
            +1
            For them, and created "Sprut" - a worthy replacement for the PT-76
      2. igor36
        igor36 15 October 2013 13: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: cth; fyn
        It is very interesting how they from MBT for 40 years became easy? I understand the PT-76, a light tank, but the T-72 .. HOW?

        Probably erased for so many years, so I feel better ...
      3. Orik
        Orik 15 October 2013 13: 29 New
        0
        Likely comparing the t-72 and the abrams, that one is really heavier.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Orik
          Likely comparing the t-72 and the abrams, that one is really heavier.

          Compared to the weight of Abrams, any tank will be easier! There, under the armor, depleted uranium!
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 15 October 2013 14: 29 New
      0
      it is a light tank with more than one T-90 combat mission.

      ??? like the T-72B3 and T-90 in the same weight category.
      And how does it differ from a 500pcs T-90 ???
  • Kazakh-uly
    Kazakh-uly 15 October 2013 11: 59 New
    -3
    Arkady Shipunov 30 years old weapons are rubbish, it seems to me that these machines are more like training or type is better than nothing
    1. tor11121
      tor11121 16 October 2013 08: 11 New
      +1
      this 30 year old with a good crew whoever you want will comb the armor.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 15 October 2013 12: 00 New
    +9
    And what kind of criticism is this ...? The modernization of equipment is the normal practice of all armies. Something I don’t hear chuckles when modernizing equipment abroad. In Russia, a bunch of T-72 remained. What to do with them then, on metal to start everything up? With this approach, we are more likely to be left without everything.
    1. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 15 October 2013 19: 59 New
      +1
      It should be added that Egypt asked to upgrade the MiG - 21 and no one laughs.
    2. 10kAzAk01
      10kAzAk01 16 October 2013 07: 42 New
      +1
      I completely agree, the main thing is the efficiency of modernization! It is also possible to carry out combat missions effectively with the "old" T-72s; a trained crew is important here. (By the way, during the Second World War, they shot down jet aircraft with piston aircraft!)
  • mithridate
    mithridate 15 October 2013 12: 02 New
    +4
    and what's wrong with modernization?
    1. v.lyamkin
      v.lyamkin 15 October 2013 12: 23 New
      +5
      Nothing bad, just the author called the note unsuccessfully.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 15 October 2013 16: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Mithridates
      and what's wrong with modernization?

      It's nothing.
      But good, with a much newer model and the possibility of its delivery to the army, is also nothing!
      We would take an inventory of the materiel among the old models, select the most worn ones, give them to UVZ for remelting at the expense of the new T-90s, at the rate of 1 / 2,1 / 3 with a surcharge naturally! You can think of such options as you want. It is always better to have, for example, 100 new tanks than 200 old ones (which also require constant repairs due to wear and tear!).
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 13 New
    +2
    The title of the article is not correct (as many others have already mentioned this before me), modernization is certainly good, but the old tank is not a new tank.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 15 October 2013 21: 53 New
      0
      Quote: cth; fyn
      The title of the article is not correct (as many others have already mentioned this before me), modernization is certainly good, but the old tank is not a new tank.

      I don’t see anything correct. The Lada and the tank have one thing in common, the bearing body, but if it has rusted through the Lada for 10 years, then the tank is almost eternal (if a shell or grenade has not entered it), and therefore it’s old ( by age) the hull equipped with new units, weapons and other things is new a tank
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 15 October 2013 12: 22 New
    +4
    Even after the release of Almaty, it is not immediately stamped much to replace the entire tank fleet of 11 vehicles. So the modernization of the T-000 will still be relevant for a long time.
  • Agent 008
    Agent 008 15 October 2013 12: 24 New
    +4
    In Russia: New is a well-renovated old ...
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 15 October 2013 12: 37 New
    +7
    Why are they tied to the "peg"? Tea is not horses, they will not run away ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 57 New
      +3
      It’s not the tanks that are tied, but the cables are hung up. It should be so.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 15 October 2013 14: 43 New
        0
        I guessed what was supposed to be, and why?
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 15 October 2013 15: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          I guessed what was supposed to be, and why?

          In case of fire, you could quickly pull it out of action.
    2. igor36
      igor36 15 October 2013 13: 15 New
      +2
      This anti-theft is so ...
  • Maks-80
    Maks-80 15 October 2013 12: 43 New
    -2
    They put junk, and sawed the money for new samples.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 15 October 2013 15: 34 New
      +2
      Do not forget that there are tanks on which they study and constantly use at the training grounds. And there is an NZ park that needs to be stored and modernized. The tank is stored for a long time and not using stocks of junk is unpleasant.
  • potterz
    potterz 15 October 2013 12: 53 New
    0
    Again this word "New technology" Modernization does not lead to new machines !!! What nonsense !? - article!
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 15 October 2013 12: 57 New
    -1
    In the Mulin garrison of the Nizhny Novgorod region, the last batch of new combat vehicles was unloaded, more than 150 T-72B3 tanks arrived.
    Is this in terms of the Lebedenko T-72 tank new?
  • andrei332809
    andrei332809 15 October 2013 12: 57 New
    +4
    Quote: potterz
    Again this word "New technology"



  • Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 15 October 2013 13: 10 New
    +7
    The T-72B3 tank is a great tank! And if the logic of the Ministry of Defense is such that there is no need to spend a lot of money on the T-90, when Armata is on the way, then I completely agree.
    We will sell normal T-90 export goods abroad, we will upgrade our magnificent T-72, and we will rivet Armata with the money received, she will be ready by then. And we will go weapons not obsolete T-90, and modern Armata.
    1. major071
      major071 15 October 2013 13: 31 New
      +8
      Totally agree with you. Just add - the main thing that they put in the troops, and did not leave on paper in the form of promises. soldier
    2. Patton5
      Patton5 15 October 2013 13: 57 New
      +1
      So that t-72 product is also not what, upon receipt of Almaty, it is also possible to soar over the hill or the allies, Leopards, Abrams from the Armed Forces supply ....
    3. Armata
      Armata 15 October 2013 18: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Silkway0026
      The T-72B3 tank is a great tank! And if the logic of the Ministry of Defense is such that there is no need to spend a lot of money on the T-90, when Armata is on the way, then I completely agree.
      We will sell normal T-90 export goods abroad, we will upgrade our magnificent T-72, and we will rivet Armata with the money received, she will be ready by then. And we will go weapons not obsolete T-90, and modern Armata.
      In the course how much does the platform of the platform cost, without a combat module?
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 15 October 2013 13: 49 New
    +2
    In principle, I believe that the policy is correct, since it is not worth spending money on the purchase of the T-90 tank, it is urgent to develop a promising model and put it into service. And to maintain the defense capability, the modernized T-72B3 tanks will suffice at the present time, especially since this tank has been proven and has proven itself in battle. The main thing is to teach personnel, this is what you need to do.
    1. andrei332809
      andrei332809 15 October 2013 13: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: bistrov.
      The main thing is to teach personnel, this is what you need to do.

      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 15 October 2013 14: 45 New
        +1
        Someone explain - HOW ???? How did he smog so drop the tank?
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 15 October 2013 15: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          Someone explain - HOW ???? How did he smog so drop the tank?

          *** can be broken with a fool - on the right a mound with a puddle of 0,50 seconds - from there he flew off.
          1. edge
            edge 15 October 2013 16: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: lelikas
            Someone explain - HOW ???? How did he smog so drop the tank?

            there is such an obstacle, "a destroyed bridge", there are two beams a little wider than the tracks, you jump over them: you can see it from it and crashed .......
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 15 October 2013 16: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: hert
              there is such an obstacle, "destroyed bridge",

              Sergei, this is called the "track bridge".
              But somehow it is not visible on the horizon.
              Kosogor, his mother's leg, is guilty as usual - he grows "not there" ...
              wink

              ps No matter what the width of the tank-racing track would be, small trees are always lying inexplicably knocked down on the side ...
              "Tankist wisdom".
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 15 October 2013 15: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          How did he smog so drop the tank?

          Denis, there is a slope drawn from the side.
          If there are such non-statutory hillocks next to the tank-training track, there will always be a smart guy who will climb on them with one gusli, with a fool giving turns "to the polic".
          Moreover, the control of the mechanic on this machine is "tape", this is not the "soft" hydraulics of the T-72. More difficult physically.
      2. bistrov.
        bistrov. 15 October 2013 15: 31 New
        +6
        Quote: andrei332809
        The main thing is to teach personnel, this is what you need to do

        In response to your "aphorism" I would like to cite a case from my military service. As you know, any servicemen is a hostage of their commanders if they have a bad conscience. To some extent, I had to become such a hostage too. Once I received a command on a KRAZ-255 tractor with a trailer to deliver six floor slabs to a neighboring area, at a known address, at a distance of more than 150 km. Not only was the tractor out of order about the middle of the way, and I had to spend the night in the middle of the field, and in order to inform the unit about the accident I had to get more than twenty kilometers to the nearest settlement with a phone, but we must pay tribute, emergency the service worked fine and no later than 12:00 the next day, a spare tractor arrived, on this MAZ-537 and having hooked up the trailer, I continued the task. Imagine my surprise when, arriving at the indicated address (a sapper battalion serving the missile army) and calling its command, I saw an E-305 excavator leaving the checkpoint (an excavator based on KRAZ-255 with a separate drive-motor for the excavator itself). Led by this excavator, the elder took command, since he was older than me in rank, they drove another 40 kilometers to a well-known point and arrived at the private construction of a house with an open pit and building materials scrambled around Captain, (senior E-305), without hesitation, unrolled to my surprise, he grabbed a sling (spider) onto the bucket and began to unload the floor slabs that I had brought. I must say that by that time I already had extensive experience in loading and unloading and moving all kinds of cargo, including non-standard ones, since I served in a strategic missile division as a commander of a transport-loading platoon. The first plate was unloaded safely, but on the second, due to the too sharp movement of the E-305 boom, it tilted sharply and, carried away by its movement, collapsed and lay on its side. By time it was already getting dark. I must say that the owners gave us a lodging for the night, although they had to sleep on the floor, they fed us, in the morning the captain could not find a place for himself, I got up, walked around the fallen excavator, looked, ordered the tractor driver to unhook the trailer, drove it perpendicular to the fallen excavator, hooked it with a cable to the opposite side and ordered to pull slowly. The excavator is now on wheels. To our great surprise, we just replenished the leaked out of the oil from the crankcase of the Kraz 255 engine using the excavator engine and it started up perfectly. The captain hugged me for joy and kissed me. One can only be surprised at the safety margin of Soviet technology. As I later found out, the movement of the plates was caused by the fact that the deputy commander of the missile army crashed his personal car, and a specialist in car straightening began building a house. Well, what have I got to do with it?
        1. andrei332809
          andrei332809 15 October 2013 15: 37 New
          +1
          a normal, kind story about a small theft of command personnel. they didn’t know how to turn around now. but "our technique is reliable, but you will not spend on drink" laughing
          1. bistrov.
            bistrov. 15 October 2013 16: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: andrei332809
            about a small theft of command personnel

            Yes, indeed, if we consider that the cost of the stove at the then prices was about 60 rubles, and the salary of the deputy commander of the army was within 800 rubles, then we are talking about "innocent" theft. But it began with this! What is it? Was it possible that a deliberately wrong principle was laid down in the state structure of the USSR and we served the wrong one? Somehow I don't want to believe it.
            1. andrei332809
              andrei332809 15 October 2013 16: 50 New
              0
              Quote: bistrov.
              But it all started with this!

              Yes, nope, some other current "versions" were finishing. the old would not have dreamed of such a lafa even in the most rosy dream
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 15 October 2013 16: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: bistrov.
          KRAZ -255

          The Lapper ...
          Beast car. Just nostalgia ....... Few people know that the cabin and the doors inside are made of wood.
          Thanks for the story.
          wink
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 15 October 2013 16: 55 New
            +3
            familiar device, hard worker good
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 15 October 2013 17: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              familiar device, hard worker

              Hi Sanya!
              No, it seems 256.

              255 Lapperger is a little different, here he is with the PMP link:
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 15 October 2013 17: 55 New
                +2
                Hi Lesh, I’ve found it.
            2. Russ69
              Russ69 15 October 2013 17: 58 New
              0
              Quote: Alex 241
              familiar device, hard worker

              Me on this device in 85, before the army was sent to study for 2 weeks ...
            3. bistrov.
              bistrov. 15 October 2013 18: 06 New
              0
              Quote: Alex 241
              familiar device, hard worker

              Your picture shows KRAZ-258, an aircraft refueler. Similar refueling tanks were also used in the Strategic Missile Forces to transport special fuel and oxidizing agents for liquid ballistic missiles.
        3. starhina01
          starhina01 16 October 2013 00: 44 New
          0
          you want it or not, but I had a similar situation on the E-305 (an excavator based on KRAZ -255 with a separate drive-motor for the excavator itself). We managed not to fit into the rotation at the landfill, and therefore this colossus fell on its side with it turned on the engine at the installation. then I was young the first to jump out of the cabin to shut off the installation. But as the battalion commander, I (the driver is a contractor my mentor a great man) didn’t say anything, but we had to get it using a 1-kraz260 crane. two zil-131s with a winch. and Ural 43202. All the trouble involved refilling the electrolyte into batteries, adding water and oil. After storage, there was the release of 1986 last year from Peter to Petrozavodsk in the winter they overtook it without any adventures, I hope it will still serve. The equipment is excellent.
  • shtanko.49
    shtanko.49 15 October 2013 14: 14 New
    +3
    Before you build a new, modern, unparalleled technique, you need to replace the means of production with the appropriate ones. Other accuracy classes, errors, tolerances, etc. are needed. and huge funds are needed for this, so let the upgraded equipment work for now to prepare the release of a truly new, and not just another semi-finished product.
  • mmrr
    mmrr 15 October 2013 14: 30 New
    0
    Yes, poor seventy-second, how much it has been upgraded already. And the T-80 is a pity, as is the pity of Omsk. Nizhny Tagil completely destroyed Omsk, which is very bad. It came from such a lower VAZ. Destroyed, the most important thing is the competition between design bureaus and factories. Monopoly is always a bad thing, the best was obtained, thanks to the competition in the design ideas of these two design bureaus, and now when there is no competition, we will get the next AvtoVAZ products.
  • starhina01
    starhina01 15 October 2013 14: 55 New
    0
    Old tank furrow does not spoil soldier and the author of the radish could call it another article hi
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 15 October 2013 15: 04 New
    +2
    T-72B3 worth 52 million? In 2010, the purchase price of T-90 under the contracts for the supply to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was 70 Million rubles.
    I’m not saying that we need to buy T-90, I’m saying that the troops need T-90M (!) Which are much better protected by the crew, and what we see on the T-72, Syria did not give examples when, when the crew broke through 90 % dead body. Our military does not value the lives of soldiers at all.
    T-72B3 - VDZ "Contact-5", the B-84-1 engine with an output of 840 hp ( 60 hp better than the model of the 80s), CBV, Sosna-U multi-channel sight, wind sensor, the latest communications equipment, an advanced weapon stabilizer and a complex of protection against weapons of mass destruction. The automatic loader of the gun for new ammunition has been improved and the running gear, which has received caterpillar tracks with a parallel hinge, has been improved. And is it worth 52 million? Awesome!
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 15 October 2013 15: 17 New
    -2

    Didn’t our military really see this?
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 15 October 2013 15: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Marrying
      Didn’t our military really see this?

      Eugene, this video has already been discussed before the holes both on the Military Review and on other resources.

      But there are no identical bombings. Every blast, unfortunately - is unique ...
      Memory for the guys ...
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 15 October 2013 15: 39 New
      0
      And what is there to watch? how stupid cars put on public display as if in a dash? There is no sin with RPGhi.
      Look at Kh / F Purgatory, how there 80 danced under RPG fire!
      Tank battle tactics are getting closer to Pokryshkin’s formula: Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire (with the exception of height).
      1. танк
        танк 15 October 2013 16: 33 New
        0
        Purgatory is a statement, although plausible, without covering 80 it would have melted there a long time ago. Have you seen what places she skated alone there? I don’t want to ... And there weren’t any Vampires in Chechnya, as I understand it slammed with him?
    3. edge
      edge 15 October 2013 16: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Marrying
      Didn’t our military really see this?

      and who said that it’s a combat loss; you take an abandoned or wrecked car, you drive it over and stupidly shoot a few loot RPGs, the prestige is ringing around the world that Russian tanks burn easily.
    4. Nikone
      Nikone 16 October 2013 04: 11 New
      0
      So what??? You made the discovery that people die in war ??? !!!
  • sha20289145
    sha20289145 15 October 2013 16: 35 New
    0
    No matter how the weapons are improved, but the tanks remain in demand. Tanks are quite perfect in comparison with world counterparts and it is hardly worth "puzzling" about the models for the future. You will not make them either flying or floating, and it is not necessary, for this there are other types of weapons . Regarding the speed, the tracked vehicle is also limited. Regarding the electronics, it seems to me, it should be minimal and absolutely reliable. In the T-64 they tried to improve the chassis and returned to the T-62 with some modifications, borrowing for the T-72 and subsequent models. With modern weapons, the tank is easily amazed, no matter how tricky. I would put the question differently. Does a modern tank need such a gun for aviation and other weapons? Apparently this is due to the heredity of military operations of the past. After all, guns of this caliber are not installed on tanks everywhere ...
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 15 October 2013 17: 10 New
      0
      Quote: sha20289145
      After all, guns of this caliber are not always installed on tanks.

      Almost all the leading tank powers in the world have a similar gun on their tanks. Only Great Britain took a somewhat unconventional path. They have a 2 mm rifled gun on the Challenger -120.
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 15 October 2013 17: 21 New
    0
    Someone tell me - the lower frontal projection is equipped with DZ?
  • Sergey47
    Sergey47 15 October 2013 17: 57 New
    +1
    Probably some Murland refused to buy, and they scratch about new tanks. I would like really new ones. But it turns out that the new Arab sheikhs with the Bedouins are prancing, and they are not even potential to us, but the real enemies.
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 15 October 2013 18: 50 New
    0
    Quote: starhina01
    Old tank furrow does not spoil soldier and the author of the radish could call it another article hi

    I agree ! New tanks will be (and good ones should be completely different in essence from what exists in Russia) ..
    And 150 tanks (modernized) ..
    The T-72B3 tank differs from its predecessors by the latest fire control system. "The digital ballistic computer allows several times to reduce the calculation time and increase their efficiency. The thermal imaging channel of the main sight ensures reliable operation of guidance devices in all weather conditions, regardless of the time of day."
    This is already a force and not a small one .. in the current situation on the borders of Russia .. I think the good news ..! No need to err, the work is underway and this is the most important thing .. The armor is strong and our tanks are fast! If something rushes so that some will abandon their "merkva" Abrams, etc. with their vaunted electronics and protection ..!
  • me
    me 15 October 2013 18: 53 New
    -7
    Tanks for cannon fodder, whose task is to take the number and not technical bells and whistles.
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 15 October 2013 19: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: i
      Tanks for cannon fodder, the task of which is to take the number ...

      Bullshit darling. T-72 is not a bad tank. In addition, everything is determined by the training of personnel. I do not think that Abrams M-1 and Leopard-2 can oppose something to the modernized T-72.
      1. me
        me 15 October 2013 21: 05 New
        -1
        Here, in order not to be unfounded http://www.strategium.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=16147 You can also watch a video from Syria to make sure that the T72’s crew is disposable, and all because in Soviet times the emphasis was on quantity, and not on the quality of technology, but on people all did not care. And you shouldn’t rely on just training, the bourgeois also be well trained and decide the outcome of the battle will be the technical stuffing, sighting system, tank security, etc.
    2. Ivan Tarasov
      Ivan Tarasov 15 October 2013 21: 29 New
      +1
      Tank for tank battle in the operational space.
      For fights in urban conditions, of course, you need a different car.
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 15 October 2013 19: 56 New
    0
    Quote: bistrov.
    Quote: i
    Tanks for cannon fodder, the task of which is to take the number ...

    Bullshit darling. T-72 is not a bad tank. In addition, everything is determined by the training of personnel. I do not think that Abrams M-1 and Leopard-2 can oppose something to the modernized T-72.

    I agree with you! tanks are our thing ..! Waiting for the latest tanks for Russia is now like death .. Upgraded (and I think not so old cars ..) 150 tanks (with support) with well-trained crews can do business ..
  • The comment was deleted.
  • serezhafili
    serezhafili 15 October 2013 20: 27 New
    +2
    And why not the T-34ABVGD99? Also a very promising model ...
  • Imigrantt
    Imigrantt 15 October 2013 21: 13 New
    +1
    The dog barks and the caravan goes !!!! One day fuck a pike with cancer! I put it near the pond and planted such a thing that the pike swam with cancer !!!! And nothing has changed!!!!! Glasses rubbed in the last century! And much earlier !! Now what! Calming yourself !!!!!! Guys upstairs, have you really misled the notes, or really hold people for it !!!! That's why Serdyuk, everywhere in the photo with a viper !!! Maybe it's time for Vova to wake up! Together with his "honest" environment! As my grandfather said after the whole Second World War! A worthy man is a person who is obligatory, in all his actions !!!! May our rulers hear me !! Shame and shame on them !!!!! Lies to lies !!!! am
  • Rossmk
    Rossmk 15 October 2013 21: 50 New
    0
    Well, yes, new ones ... So they would report that they were modernized. But this is not bad.
  • voliador
    voliador 15 October 2013 23: 33 New
    0
    While this Armata will not be in the metal, they will modernize both the T-72 and T-80 and T-90.
  • dimann271
    dimann271 16 October 2013 00: 04 New
    0
    Brothers, what are you doing? If the platform contains opportunities for improvement (- "modernization"), then why do you perceive everything new with hostility? Yes, for God's sake, I have a friend who is no longer alive, and who got to Afghanistan in 79th, when the troops were brought in there, as the commander of a tank company, he simply prayed on a T-72! And for 2 years there - not a single soldier lost! To fight, simply, you need to know how! And do not chew snot!
  • go
    go 16 October 2013 00: 13 New
    -3
    The T-72 seems to be outdated in all versions, like the Terminator, even 2. Below the video - getting into the forehead from an RPG is minus the mechanical drive ... you just need to say that you hit the bottom - hit means it is possible. Cubes are not a panacea - they are ripped off in the city. After the first hit, at least bare armor remains. Therefore, NATO abandoned the dice in favor of a more complex basic armor. And this is about ragtags with RPG7 if they were lucky with RPG26 or ATGMs and cumulative mines. And if we talk about a normal army, it will be Jewels, German tandem RPGs, helpfires and mavericks, guns from the regional metal. With these dice, both the T72 and the terminators will burn ... There is no need to talk about the wrong tactics, it will begin after the first successful maneuver of the enemy. Nothing has changed since the pre-war era - the armor is strong and our tanks are fast. As it came to the prepared enemy, the Nazis flashed them right through while they managed to get closer to the range of action of the weapon. And ours rushed under the tigers with grenades.

    We need a new platform that will meet modern requirements, and not the battles with the Holodrans, who, by the way, are also rearming. I am not a tanker - but is it logical in my opinion or what? From the 3rd minute:

    1. me
      me 16 October 2013 16: 22 New
      0
      I completely agree. Previously, the concept of the union was bigger and cheaper. Now we’re kind of moving to a professional army, it’s understanding that we need to take it with skill, not with numbers, but professionals need a completely different weapon, here we can’t get off cheaply and angrily with an interpretation, in short, all hope for armature.
  • Megatron
    Megatron 16 October 2013 00: 49 New
    0
    I do not quite understand why they are tied? Like a bollard? ))))
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 16 October 2013 02: 10 New
    0
    From an economic point of view, there is little use for modernization, because the equipment itself is more expensive than steel boxes and a lot of manual labor when cutting these same boxes, which at one time were assembled on an assembly line with minimal labor. True, there is still such an option as a beggarly upgrade at a minimum, and then write in the reports that so many tanks have been modernized, even if all the modernization there is a couple of new devices.
    That is, support for the plant with the purchase of new T-90s is justified.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 16 October 2013 03: 43 New
    0
    It's like in civil aviation! Until now, 154e carcasses are flying (hr knows what years). And when I found out that with us the 134th flies, I was generally in shock.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 16 October 2013 04: 16 New
      0
      A tank is not a plane !!!
  • slav4ikus
    slav4ikus 16 October 2013 09: 35 New
    0
    but where are the upgraded t-34-120?
  • slav4ikus
    slav4ikus 16 October 2013 09: 36 New
    0
    but where is the upgraded t-34-120? can we upgrade a mosin rifle and get sabers for tankmen?
  • vty971
    vty971 16 October 2013 09: 42 New
    +1
    T-90, monthly a train (from 40 to 50 units) is shipped from the Uralvagonzavod for export, usually to India (personal observations). Why does India have money for modern technology and Russia does not?