Military Review

T-72: king-tank

218
T-72: king-tank



Long thought about the creation of this article, and yet thought up. In my opinion, the T-72 is the best tank in the world. As you already know, Western experts consider differently: "they say your bank is outdated and cannot be compared with our work of art called Abrams". But is it? Now we will understand.

T-72 was created as a deep modification of T-64, and T-64 was a real breakthrough in the world tank building, respectively, T-72 was ahead for many years of all its opponents.

The T-72 is a classic design, that is, a low silhouette and, accordingly, it is not so easy to detect. Armor (frontal) has a rational angle of inclination and has a sufficient thickness of 205 mm. The forehead of the tower from 305 mm to 410 mm, in addition, it has the shape of a hemisphere, which at times increases the chance of rebound. Boards and feed are also well protected. For Abrams, the situation is not so good, the thickness of the armor is very unevenly distributed: the hull is the 1 forehead meter, the beads and the feed are no more than 50 mm; completely irrational, right? Electronics and optics at the moment on the T-72 in TV is not bad, I would even say, not inferior to Western models. This is how our fighter is written on paper.

But the fight is completely different. And his tank baptism of fire went well. By the way, there is irrefutable evidence of a direct collision between T-72 and Abrams. It was in Lebanon back in the year 1982. According to the story of a Soviet military adviser, he and Syrian tankmen were circling around the seventy-twenties that had just been brought from the USSR in the region of southern Lebanon shortly before Israel’s aggression against this country (Operation “World of Galilee”).

The column, moving along the road, went around a large hill, and when the first tank, in which the narrator was located, began to leave the hill, then quite unexpectedly he found three unknown at a distance of about 800 meters tankthat were not like Israeli. These tanks also moved in a convoy and, finding Syrian vehicles, quickly began to rebuild in line for the attack. Unknown vehicles were the first to fire, our third tank, which had just left the hill, got into the tower. The tank did not penetrate the projectile, however, due to a strong dynamic impact, the car died out. The crew at the same time received a medium concussion. The second enemy tank, firing almost immediately with the first shot, hit the T-72 medium tank in the convoy in the stern compartment, disabling the engine.

Seeing such aggressive behavior of strangers, the narrator, being the commander of the tank, gave the order to open fire on the rightmost tank and, after his defeat, on the middle one. Here, the adviser noted the high proficiency of the Syrian gunner, who did not allow any delay during aiming and firing. It was decided to use BPS. Having made two shots with an interval of approximately 7 seconds, they achieved two hits, both of them to the towers. The third tank, which remained intact, retreated behind the two wounded, tried to evacuate the wounded and killed. However, I could not completely do this, since the T-72 opened fire from a coaxial machine gun. Having taken the wounded, the unknown tank quickly retreated.

Arriving at the wrecked vehicles and making sure that no one was dangerous there, the crew, getting out, examined the tanks. The doubts that these were not Israeli tanks were confirmed, since they did not resemble the Centurion, the M60, or the Merkava, which had just appeared, the adviser saw his photos and therefore could not confuse him. The form of the two killed tankers was also not similar to the Israeli one. They wanted to take one tank in tow, however, considering the remaining fuel (it was necessary to tow your tank too), we decided to get to the unit and report to the authorities about the location of the enemy vehicle, and then take measures to evacuate.

The contused crew, having regained consciousness, was able to start a tank, and the convoy moved back. However, the planned time for the route for technical reasons tripled, and the tanks arrived home only at night. Reported on the form of what happened, they decided to send intelligence immediately in the morning. However, there were many doubts that something would remain, which was confirmed the next morning. In the square where the battle took place, there were no wounded tanks, however there were many traces of wheeled vehicles, apparently tractors, which evacuated the tanks.

Subsequently, when comparing photographs of the identification of tanks with which the collision occurred, it was identified, surprisingly to many, by the American M1 Abrams. Apparently, he passed the test in Israel in order to familiarize the Israeli specialists with the tank, but why it was necessary to start the battle, if the tank was secret, no one understood. Some suggested that having a faster tank and, as the Abrams ’crews believed, a more reliable booking, they wanted to impose a battle at distances that were favorable to them and, if possible, take the trophy, because the T-72 was neither from the Americans nor the Israelis did not have. The outcome of this fight was left to the Syrians, which raised them to a higher level of security and efficiency weapons new Soviet tanks. And notice the facts about the high durability of our tanks: hitting the front of the tower did not disrupt it and did not cause an explosion of the ammunition, hitting the rear of our tank did not light it like a match, but simply disabled the engine, and that was that.

By the way, they were T-72 without a DZ, so the safety margin of the T-72 is huge.

Chechen conflicts are another test for our tanks, where they showed themselves at a high level of combat effectiveness, namely, they successfully fought against the enemy’s anti-tank weapons. T-72 did not take the RPG and ATGM mines and grenades militants.

Iraqi conflicts. Not the best use of tanks by the Iraqi army led to their destruction. But the Americans claim that they were the Abrams who destroyed our tanks. But the whole point is that Americans from the time of World War II love to use Aviation in order to destroy a stronger enemy, thus, most of Iraq’s wrecked tanks were destroyed by aviation. In addition, low personnel training affected this.

The current civil war in Syria shows how strong our tanks are - this is irrefutable proof.

The combat experience of the T-72 is the largest among all tanks of the post-war generation, and it is irreplaceable. And this is one of its main advantages over the American. Maintainability is another important factor. T-72 is easy and quick to repair in most cases without repair crews, and try to repair the gas turbine of Abrams four of us (the crew of Abrams is a 4 person) - no, it will not work. Ours is cheap in production, and it is numerically superior to American. I will say briefly about the automatic loader: this thing improved the survival rate of the personnel as a whole, since the crew decreased per person. Well, perhaps I have brought enough arguments in favor of our tank. The next step in tank building will be Armata’s combat platform, but this is a completely different one. история...
Author:
218 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Soviet_Union
    Soviet_Union 28 November 2013 07: 49 New
    40
    For a long time, fashion went to compare weapons not by combat effectiveness, but by all sorts of bells and whistles, electronic gadgets and cost. So it is not surprising that the good old 72nd and its modifications for many are junk, etc. Well, few people tried his tooth.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 28 November 2013 12: 18 New
      +8
      I’m not competent in the matter, but one fact torments me: in the tank biathlon they smeared and broke, and the crews were considered the best of the best ... did they drive on decommissioned tanks? if so, then everything was not bad ... what
      1. Wal
        Wal 28 November 2013 12: 38 New
        11
        They compete in the tanks of the combat training group, and they are always hackneyed.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 28 November 2013 14: 25 New
      +7
      Destroyed "Abrams" aka Magah-7, aka M-60 shielded.
    3. recrut6666
      recrut6666 28 November 2013 15: 15 New
      -10 qualifying.
      Watch the video from the tank cemetery in Khankala, how Georgian tanks burned in Tskhenvali !!!
      here is just the first video, complete burnout styling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNlsTPur53Y
      1. inc_non
        inc_non 28 November 2013 18: 16 New
        +4
        Is there a tank on the video? This, in my opinion, is an armored personnel carrier.
      2. 0255
        0255 28 November 2013 23: 36 New
        10
        Quote: recrut6666
        Watch the video from the tank cemetery in Khankala, how Georgian tanks burned in Tskhenvali !!!
        here is just the first video, complete burnout styling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNlsTPur53Y

        the article does not say that the T-72 is absolutely indestructible. It is only the Americans and the Israelis who buy stories about the fact that in wars they lost a maximum of 2-3 tanks, but write off their damaged tanks for non-combat reasons.
        1. rodz
          rodz 29 November 2013 19: 59 New
          +6
          in fact, all the damaged equipment was stored in the Khankala ... and for my seven business trips to two Chechen companies I don’t remember anything about tank battles in which our tanks were defeated ... and with a high-explosive or ambush shot from an anti-tank missile system armored vehicles ...
    4. Basarev
      Basarev 21 February 2014 22: 40 New
      0
      This is because there are very few who can handle the T-72.
  2. just exp
    just exp 28 November 2013 07: 52 New
    39
    T72, this is the thirty-four of our time, an excellent tank, massive, unpretentious, reliable and with great survivability. Yes, the tank is not without flaws, but there are no ideal products, its flaws are due to the war strategy that was planned in the USSR, and for this war our tanks are the best.
    1. recrut6666
      recrut6666 28 November 2013 15: 17 New
      -15 qualifying.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1qNwxDTXVQ
      1. just exp
        just exp 28 November 2013 19: 42 New
        +4
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaswXzplQwM
    2. svp67
      svp67 28 November 2013 23: 42 New
      -1
      Yes, the fact of the matter is that
      Quote: just explo
      which was planned in the USSR, and for this war our tanks are the best.
      in modern conditions, the T72 is outdated ... In all respects, except for reliability.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 3 December 2013 02: 40 New
      -1
      Quote: just explo
      for this war our tanks are the best

      The title of the article is a bit dumb. Given that the Tsar Cannon didn’t shoot, the Tsar Bell didn’t ring, and the original Tsar Tank [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tsar-tank] got stuck in a swamp before reaching the front, this name did not flatters the T-72, but rather the opposite.
      And so the car for its time was very advanced, and now, naturally, after refinement and in the hands of an intelligent crew, it is quite adequate.
  3. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 28 November 2013 08: 11 New
    23
    The incident that occurred during the fighting in the Bekaa Valley, when a Syrian tankman saw marks on the armor of his seventy-two marks from Israeli shells, began to kiss his armor.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 28 November 2013 14: 58 New
      -20 qualifying.
      Now I’m reading a little more and going to search on Wikipedia how many years ago Israel ceased to exist and how the brave Syrians, Egyptians and Iordats, armed with the best Soviet equipment in the world, smashed the army of Israel.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 28 November 2013 18: 07 New
      +2
      Even without penetration he would have known about the blow.
  4. Same lech
    Same lech 28 November 2013 08: 24 New
    14
    The professor will say that ABRAMS is the best.
    In real tank battles, this machine still has not shown itself.
    1. avt
      avt 28 November 2013 10: 08 New
      13
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      The professor will say that ABRAMS is the best.

      No, he will say and already said that this was not, and Carrots from 72 m did not meet.
      1. Patton5
        Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 44 New
        +5
        I also tend to believe that this is a bike! at least for this, to be able to get hold of the most modern tank of the "conditional" enemy, and not use ... request
        1. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 28 November 2013 15: 47 New
          -16 qualifying.
          Quote: Patton5
          I also tend to believe that this is a bike! at least for this, to be able to get hold of the most modern tank of the "conditional" enemy, and not use ...

          Who would doubt that the bike, definitely the bike, the hedgehog's delirium in the fog. This is from the opera that Tirpitz torpedoed in World War II. They were cool torpedoes, though the Germans didn’t bastard, they somehow didn’t notice whether you understand the ungrateful.

          Quote: Patton5
          But the whole point is that since the days of World War II, Americans have been fond of using aviation to destroy a stronger enemy, thus, most of Iraq’s wrecked tanks were destroyed by aviation.

          And they’re doing it right, if there is an opportunity to resolve the issue painlessly, then why climb on the rampage.
      2. Professor
        Professor 28 November 2013 11: 25 New
        +5
        Quote: avt
        No, he will say and already said that this was not, and Carrots from 72 m did not meet.

        So it was, did not meet. They missed each other, and about the Abrams in Lebanon on trials in general nonsense.
        1. edge
          edge 28 November 2013 15: 39 New
          +6
          Quote: Professor
          but about the Abrams in Lebanon on the tests in general nonsense.

          don’t give me a gop ..... ours in Vtnam experienced Mig-21 and air defense system. The zone of the current conflict allows you to quickly test any type of weapons .... someone who hides, usually flies with an order. Moreover, the company develops for the Yankees, and the state buys a tested and proven sample
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 November 2013 16: 32 New
            +2
            Quote: hert
            don’t give me a gop ..... ours in Vtnam experienced Mig-21 and zrk. The zone of the current conflict allows you to quickly test any type of weapons .... the one who is hiding usually flies with an order.

            Can you imagine what you're talking about? Like the military attache of America asked the Minister of Defense Sharon, he dropped the order along the chain of chief of the General Staff, the commander of the northern district, the army, the divisional commander, the commander of the tank battalion and the platoon. I’m generally silent about logistics, like at night they dragged me into a quiet place so that no one would see it along the mountain Lebanese roads ... And most interesting, all of the above completely forgot about this case (of course, under pain of torture in Shabak) and even just none of the soldiers of Tsakhal I didn’t notice Abramsov who fought in Lebanon ... In Israel, this is even theoretically impossible.

            Quote: hert
            Moreover, the company is developing the Yankees, and the state buys a tested and proven model

            Ask for whose money Abrams was developed.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 28 November 2013 18: 24 New
              +6
              Quote: Professor
              Ask for whose money Abrams was developed.

              Naturally taxpayers! Whose else is it!
              And dear edge made a slight inaccuracy, not
              Quote: hert
              company develops
              ,
              and develop of firms on a competition basis .
              There was still a dark story with the winner of the contest hi
        2. 0255
          0255 28 November 2013 23: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: avt
          No, he will say and already said that this was not, and Carrots from 72 m did not meet.

          So it was, did not meet. They missed each other, and about the Abrams in Lebanon on trials in general nonsense.

          because the Americans said so? Do they really confess to the loss of "Abrams"?
          1. Professor
            Professor 29 November 2013 08: 58 New
            +5
            Quote: 0255
            because the Americans said so?

            Because, apart from the nameless adviser, no one saw them or even saw photographs.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 November 2013 10: 42 New
      13
      In real tank battles, this machine still has not shown itself.

      But why? Against the Bedouins on camels, she showed herself perfectly. Cars can push on the highway successfully. Sometimes it even shoots ...
      1. GastaClaus69
        GastaClaus69 28 November 2013 15: 01 New
        +8
        Forgot to mention the journalists who Abrams for one or two removed with the help of its high-precision optics.
      2. The fat man
        The fat man 29 November 2013 00: 21 New
        -9
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq-MIBl2OZw
        I already said below
        American aviation has nothing to do with the same. Iraqi tank crews had 10 years of experience in the war with Iran.
        25 again
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 29 November 2013 00: 26 New
          +7
          Discovery, one-sided information provided, you still look at the great air battles, the source is not trustworthy.
          1. studentmati
            studentmati 29 November 2013 00: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Alex 241
            Discovery, one-sided information provided, you still look at the great air battles, the source is not trustworthy.

            Like yes! There is some mistrust!

            Hi Sasha!
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 29 November 2013 00: 36 New
              +1
              Hi Sash, you can take note, but I would not trust peremptorily.
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 29 November 2013 00: 41 New
                0
                It is to take note. drinks No more!
    3. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 28 November 2013 11: 13 New
      +9
      Quote: The same Lech
      The professor will say that ABRAMS is the best.
      In real tank battles, this machine still has not shown itself.

      If Abrams did not show himself in real tank battles, then with whom did the T-72 show himself, in what tank battles, who was his enemy? And it turns out that Abrams did not fight, Leopard, Challenger, did not fight. With whom did the T-72 fight.
      1. edge
        edge 28 November 2013 15: 45 New
        12
        Quote: DoctorOleg
        And it turns out that Abrams did not fight, Leopard, Challenger, did not fight. Who fought the T-72

        with the most dangerous enemy, with infantry ..... no, for a tank it’s more dangerous than the enemy, he’s unpredictable, omnipresent, knows the vulnerability of cars and hides them like a beast, is provided with an appropriate set of tools for destruction, devoid of fear, highly mobile .....
      2. typhoon7
        typhoon7 28 November 2013 18: 45 New
        11
        T-72, this is the only main tank in the world that is still massively used in combat operations. In Syria, in street battles, they carry out an enormous amount of work, although they suffer losses. I have not yet learned how to upload videos to the forum, and I have a lot of videos on this topic. It seems that not every tank can withstand the Syrian city kroshevo. If Western tanks on a march in the desert get up, then compared to what is happening during the fighting in the cities of Syria, these are flowers. The monstrous frontal armor of Abrams there is no longer so relevant, they can hammer from anywhere. The entire modern body kit is removed by snipers. Almost one optics works. And the large dimensions of western tanks make them awkward among blocks of concrete and reinforcement, good targets for grenade launchers and even more so for ATGMs.
    4. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 13: 51 New
      +2
      May I ask, what do you think are real tank battles? in Syria, for example, real? and in Chechnya ????
      1. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 28 November 2013 16: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: Patton5
        May I ask, what do you think are real tank battles? in Syria, for example, real? and in Chechnya ????

        Well, Abrams participated in such battles + Iraq, where there were regular units. But for some reason they say that in real tank battles he did not show himself in any way about this writes the same Lech. Probably they mean battles against tanks with equally well-trained crews. So I asked about participation in such battles T-72. And about Syria - there are different videos and where our tanks flash from one grenade and where they can withstand several. And nowhere is there statistics - how much was hit and how in comparison with the Abrams. Useless argument. It has already been unsubscribed here that the T-72 is a mobilization tank for a big war, where quantity is more important than superiority in the technical characteristics - this is a lesson from the Second World War.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 28 November 2013 16: 50 New
          +6
          Quote: DoctorOleg
          And nowhere is there statistics - how much was hit and how in comparison with the Abrams.

          This is classified information. And the Americans are right to do that. They dose their data, unlike us.
          Nobody canceled the information war.

          In Iraq, as soon as they did not try to analyze the loss of abrashek ... up to the use of reports on the collection of equipment, they are also subjective, since they considered separate theater of operations for which contracts were concluded and not for the entire period of hostilities.
        2. Patton5
          Patton5 28 November 2013 17: 36 New
          0
          Well, Abrams participated in such fights

          So what am I telling you! If a person claims that Abrams did not participate in tank battles, completely ignoring the two Iraqi companies, then I had a question what does this person mean by tank battles .... request maybe the battle near Prokhorovna is real, but the battles in Syria are already virtual battles !!!
        3. typhoon7
          typhoon7 28 November 2013 22: 28 New
          +5
          Actually, American tanks were massively used in the city of Fallujah in Iraq, where they suffered heavy losses (I don’t remember exactly whether 11, irretrievably or 17 in a few days). After that, troops were withdrawn from the city, and the city itself was bombarded with phosphorus. By the way, in addition to tanks, they also burned a bunch of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles there.
          1. sapran
            sapran 29 November 2013 01: 06 New
            0
            Lf Yes, yes! And then they poured napalm! as they say in Odessa, I AM SURPRISED TO YOU!
    5. edge
      edge 28 November 2013 15: 31 New
      +2
      [quote = The same LYOKHA] In real tank battles, this machine has not yet shown itself [/ qu but why tank battles, they will no longer be: Iraq showed no matter how the Americans yapped, but their tanks burn much brighter than ours ... .. there would be a normally developed doctrine of the use of the Sun and the Yankees' teeth would be broken. Even the presence of an ultra-modern complex of weapons does not provide security guarantees if the personnel are not ready to use them, or even more so they cannot ...
      1. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 28 November 2013 16: 27 New
        +2
        [quote = herd] [quote = The same LYOKHA] In real tank battles, this machine has not yet shown itself [/ qu but why tank battles, they will no longer be: Iraq showed no matter how the Americans yapped, but their tanks burn much brighter than ours ..... there would be a normally developed doctrine of the use of the sun and the Yankees would have broken their teeth. Even the presence of an ultra-modern complex of weapons does not provide security guarantees if the personnel are not ready to use them, or even more so they do not know how .... [/ quote]
        And how did you compare the burning brightness? There are statistics on the padded Abrams in Iraq and Afghanistan and the padded T-72 in Syria? In addition, there was a regular army in Iraq.
    6. The fat man
      The fat man 29 November 2013 00: 20 New
      -2
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq-MIBl2OZw
      I already said below
      American aviation has nothing to do with the same. Iraqi tank crews had 10 years of experience in the war with Iran.
    7. svdshka
      svdshka 4 December 2013 19: 25 New
      +1
      Gentlemen, you have already bored many of you. ABRAMS ABRAMSY You yourself have long been concerned about the fact that the side armor is weak. A 10mm plate covering tracks and rollers from RPG shots DOES NOT Cope WITH YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Do not mess gentlemen, they will not engage in direct battle with our new tanks and they will meet the old T34-85 who would prefer to point helicopters or 2 from TOU to it Hammer will let them use the tactics of the Fritz on tigers who fought if there is a possibility of a long arm, they will certainly use it
  5. Slavogor
    Slavogor 28 November 2013 08: 34 New
    10
    An excellent article, it’s a pity about the T-72 that our army is modernizing them badly.
  6. Bad_Santa99
    Bad_Santa99 28 November 2013 08: 40 New
    12
    YES, 62 tons of iron ARAMSA can only drown in the sands of IRAQ and shoot at civilians.
    What then were they not given to Georgia before 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX ... they were probably afraid to screw up ..
    1. edge
      edge 28 November 2013 15: 48 New
      12
      Quote: Bad_Santa99
      What then were they not given to Georgia before 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX ... they were probably afraid to screw up ..

      God forbid, the Russians would have shot them, how then to yell that Abrams are better, and teshki d .... rmo.
  7. complete zero
    complete zero 28 November 2013 08: 47 New
    12
    It is difficult to judge whose tank (and not only the tank) is better or better at what? (judging from the press) Merkava leaves great chances for the crew to survive, the dignity of Soviet (Russian) equipment is reliability, unpretentiousness (I would add a low profile) - well, and the possibility of servicing (let's say so) - not too much "wise tanker" that until now the doctrine of the armed forces of Russia is based on the ground forces (and therefore tanks, their number), in many ways, the main thing becomes, its price .... in general 72 solid decent tank.
  8. Cormorants
    Cormorants 28 November 2013 09: 15 New
    10
    In principle, comparing the Abrams and T-72 tanks is a little incorrect, the Abrams is heavy and was designed as a containment tank for countless fast Soviet tanks at one time standing in Europe, and the T-72 medium tank, fast, was created for quick breakthroughs deep into the territory captured by the enemy.
    And so, our tank is certainly better than foreign counterparts, Abrams has nothing to brag about, especially Leopard (this is generally only a ride on German autobahns). It is enough to recall the testing of world tanks in the desert of Saudi Arabia.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 28 November 2013 09: 26 New
      +6
      Which tank or any weapon system is better, which is worse, is not a correct question without taking into account what tasks they were created for, in what conditions they will be used. An article for "organizing" idle chatter on a "gnawed to the bone" question.
      1. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 28 November 2013 11: 10 New
        +3
        Quote: Alekseev
        Which tank or any weapon system is better, which is worse, is not a correct question without taking into account what tasks they were created for, in what conditions they will be used. An article for "organizing" idle chatter on a "gnawed to the bone" question.

        I totally agree.
    2. UVB
      UVB 28 November 2013 09: 32 New
      +5
      The last medium tank was the T-62, and the T-72 is BASIC.
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 28 November 2013 09: 55 New
        +3
        Here, we are not talking about the accepted classification, but about the comparison of Abrams and seventy-two, so the use of the term "average" is probably acceptable.
    3. duke
      duke 28 November 2013 09: 45 New
      +4
      I wonder what will happen if an armor-piercing (no matter cumulative or sub-caliber, even old) shell, or a grenade from an RPG hits Abrams in the tower, in the forehead? There, after all, it seems that packages of plates from depleted uranium were installed, I understand that even if the tower is not penetrated through, these plates will be destroyed one way or another, which means the crew will still have delayed karachun, swallowed by radioactive dust, uranium is uranium. I could not find any information on this issue (limited damage to the Abrams), but it is known from the press that many American military personnel, including tankers, after returning to the United States, were discharged from service due to problems caused by radioactive damage to the respiratory tract ... however, the issue is explained by the massive use by Americans of shells of various calibers with depleted uranium cores ... In addition, how to restore such tanks in chemical protection suits? Remember the TV story, in Baghdad, somewhere under the bridge, where am. tankers drove a car fleeing shelling as they climbed out of a burning car through tower hatches, trying to extinguish a fire from a bottle of mineral water, imagine - crawling along such a hefty, burning tower, with uranium filler ... brrrr ...
      1. IGS
        IGS 28 November 2013 10: 30 New
        +1
        You can listen to stories about terrible depleted uranium (uranium fluoride (VI)) as much as you like, but there is no direct and clear evidence of any diseases due to its radioactivity, they argue about its harmfulness at different levels, but even the presence of disputes suggests that most facts far-fetched. It is lightly radioactive, due to the long half-life, it is more harmful to travel in the subway, because of the marble lining of the stations. It is more dangerous due to chemical activity, with prolonged interaction with water (water vapor), hydrofluoric acid is formed, which is not very good for health. Its danger is indicated by the method of storage at the enterprises: it is stored in steel barrels on the street of 12 tons each, next to the processing plant. Many cries about its terrible impact, I suspect, were caused by the desire of the grandmother to disrupt. Although it can not be called useful. According to WHO estimates, the ingestion of its particles into the body and accumulation can increase the likelihood of cancer by 2%. But smoking is anyway worse smile
        1. Andrey57
          Andrey57 28 November 2013 10: 52 New
          +9
          You, dear, are poorly aware of the toxicity of uranium and its compounds that are formed in the body when uranium dust enters the lungs, it seems that you are completely ignorant of chemistry, but you can look at any chemistry reference books containing toxicity data. These data will unpleasantly surprise you - uranium and its compounds, even without a radioactive component, are very toxic and "long-lasting" poisons, which increase the risk of cancer at times. hi
          1. IGS
            IGS 28 November 2013 11: 28 New
            +1
            Here, a respected one should not be a chemist, but a toxicologist. A link, please, to calculations based on studies and confirmed statistics approved by WHO, and confirming at times the increased risk of cancer by contact with depleted uranium, and not with its reaction products in pure form and in critical doses. If you go your own way and follow your logic, then drink sparkling water, and even more so from a plastic bottle (polyethylene terephthalate), is much more dangerous, or refute me as a chemist?
            1. duke
              duke 28 November 2013 15: 25 New
              +2
              Dr. Chris Busby, a member of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, is studying the consequences of using depleted uranium. “When we arrived in Fallujah,” says Chris Busby, “we found there an increased level of congenital malformations and cancer. We began to examine parents who had children with congenital malformations. "We took samples of their hair to understand what genotoxic substances can be in them and lead to the development of congenital defects, and we found uranium in them."
              Contact with uranium leads to serious genetic damage and also causes cancer. Thus, all traces lead to uranium. Its only source could be uranium weapons, which were used by the forces of the US-led coalition. The United States and NATO made extensive use of depleted uranium ammunition during the 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia. If such a projectile or rocket hits the target, dust is formed containing uranium oxide, which is extremely dangerous for human health. It affects the kidneys, the immune system and causes cancer. Shortly after the aggression against Yugoslavia, there was an outbreak of leukemia among the Italian troops participating in the peacekeeping contingent in Kosovo.
              According to Kommersant, all cancer-affected servicemen served in the Balkans, and all of them became ill after they had visited areas where uranium core shells were used. Also in the press there were reports of frequent births in the region of children with various malformations.
              1. IGS
                IGS 28 November 2013 19: 53 New
                +1
                I asked to rely on official data. Not that the grandmother in the village said. It’s not without reason that I asked you about a bottle of soda, I will not, as you write extensively, find it on the Internet because I want to talk about something else. So, according to grandmothers and others (I don’t remember and don’t want names) in the world, about 2 million (2000000) people die from the effects of harmful substances that a person receives after drinking water gas in plastic bottles. Including the consequences of poisoning by phosgene formed in bottles with improper manufacturing techniques.
                But this is not what I want to say. Have you carefully read the commentary under which we all write?
                Remember the TV story, in Baghdad, somewhere under the bridge, where am. tankers drove a car fleeing shelling as they climbed out of a burning car through tower hatches, trying to extinguish a fire from a bottle of mineral water, imagine - crawling along such a hefty, burning tower, with uranium filler ... brrrr ...

                The man is taken aback not by the fact that people are escaping from a burning tank, not by the fact that they can be bearded from the KPVT to pieces to pieces, after all, not because the BC will now explode and the tower will fly off 60 meters, and not because maybe in shock after cantusia (I didn’t see the plot, so I don’t know) they are trying to put out the tank from the bottle, and because in the armor there is depleted Uranium. And if I esteem me, then they are generally suicides! FROM A PLASTIC BOTTLE and WATERED DEDICATED URANIUM. Similar articles, comments, etc. that are not verified, not confirmed, phobias are imposed on people. I did not say that it is useful. But specifically, its effect on humans has not been studied and the recognized data on its carcinogenicity are only those that I cited, they relate, by the way, to dust. You know, I can tell so much about what is in our kitchen that after listening, for example, my wife will faint, terrified that she fed children almost from birth. You can argue about its effects with people who are involved in this in a narrow circle, convincing them to amend, for example, the storage specifications of depleted uranium. There is such a thing as psychological health. A military bacteriologist does not bring the Ebola virus to your house, and does not try to prove to you how harmful it is with an example. And similar discussions on forums resemble rumors that people perceive very well. For example, I am opposed to considering chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction. Look at the statistics of its use during the first world! To destroy one person, TONS of poisonous substances were required. Military chemists will correct what their standards are. It became the PSYCHOLOGICAL WEAPON OF MASS DEFEAT! Initially, it became so because of the terrible appearance of the consequences of its use. And then with rumors, articles, etc. we made it of him. It can cause great harm and loss, with proper use and a certain amount of luck, since its effective use is highly dependent on external factors. And now, in order to stop the unnecessary argument, I’ll write what I had to write from the very beginning:
                Basic rules for the management of depleted uranium:
                1. DO NOT EAT! not tasty and not nutritious, and kind of bad
                2. DO NOT USE AS A LOAD WHEN LEAVING Cabbage! have respect! this is what vigorous bombs are made of !!
                3. IF EVACUATIONS FROM A BURNING TANK IN THE BATTLE AREA, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS CANCELED. smile
      2. Patton5
        Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 36 New
        +3
        in your reasoning there is neither knowledge nor logic!
    4. Komandir_T-72
      28 November 2013 10: 31 New
      +3
      These both tanks are MBT (main battle tank), it combines the properties of a heavy one: powerful weapons and strong armor; and medium: high dynamics and speed. So do not confuse - this is important.
    5. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 38 New
      -1
      In principle, comparing the Abrams and T-72 tanks is a little incorrect, the Abrams is heavy and was designed as a containment tank for countless fast Soviet tanks at one time standing in Europe, and the T-72 medium tank, fast, was created for quick breakthroughs deep into the territory captured by the enemy.
      And so, our tank is certainly better than foreign counterparts, Abrams has nothing to brag about, especially Leopard (this is generally only a ride on German autobahns). It is enough to recall the testing of world tanks in the desert of Saudi Arabia.
      fool
    6. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 11: 16 New
      0
      T-72 Speed ​​on the highway, km / h 60,
      Cross country speed, km / h 35.
      "Abrams" Speed ​​on the highway, M1 km / h 72, M1A1, M1A2: km / h 66,8
      Cross country speed, M1A1, M1A2: km / h 48
      1. edge
        edge 28 November 2013 15: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: Patton5
        T-72 Speed ​​on the highway, km / h 60, Speed ​​on rough terrain, km / h 35. "Abrams" Speed ​​on the highway, M1 km / h 72, M1A1, M1A2: km / h 66,8 Speed ​​over rough terrain, M1A1 , M1A2: km / h 48

        well, who was going to arrange a race? .... tanks throw railway trains over long ranges. Everything else is necessary only for the fulfillment of tasks: this is the dismemberment of the enemy’s defense and its breakthrough, a forced march to hub stations and economic regions, their neutralization (destruction)
      2. 31231
        31231 28 November 2013 22: 44 New
        +1
        I either confuse or actually, for 72 matches the recommended speed is given, and not the maximum possible. Tankers need to ask about this topic.
    7. just exp
      just exp 28 November 2013 11: 46 New
      +7
      as for me, so I would generally attribute the abrash not to MBT, but to a tank destroyer.
    8. sapran
      sapran 28 November 2013 11: 49 New
      +3
      ... and how did the testing go? Who do the Saudis want to buy?
      1. edge
        edge 28 November 2013 16: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: sapran
        Who do the Saudis want to buy?

        Of course they crawl backwards before the owner .....
        1. sapran
          sapran 28 November 2013 17: 23 New
          +1
          Like the Germans are the owners of the Saudis? Why aren't the French then? Here the crisis in the country is not to buy really "master's" tanks and support the pants for the owners !!! Do not write nonsense ... What they want, but somehow the sale is awkward.
          The Saudis take what they want (what can be bought), in principle, P *** money allows them.
      2. typhoon7
        typhoon7 28 November 2013 18: 51 New
        +1
        The Saudis buy what they recommend, in Washington.
        1. sapran
          sapran 28 November 2013 19: 03 New
          +1
          Yes? So I ask what is not in the price list of Abrams? With a budget, is there a lack of space for space wars?
          1. typhoon7
            typhoon7 28 November 2013 22: 34 New
            0
            I heard that the Saud wanted to stock up on Leopards, and they most likely did not take Soviet and Russian equipment a priori.
  9. Goodvin55
    Goodvin55 28 November 2013 09: 33 New
    18
    My VUS 420100, I know what the T-72 is not by hearsay, a good car in case of global war, not a tank of limit parameters, not a standard. Reliability controversial, maintainability, yes. Motor, umm left on the conscience of the manufacturer. In general, the T-64B exceeded it in terms of the LMS and was generally performed at a higher technological level, the T-80 in all respects except fuel efficiency. As for the survival of the machine, this is a matter of chance, a 72-ka can get several hits and nothing, and it can burn out after one hit of an RPG, like any other tank. Tank mass mobilization army of the 80s of the 20th century. Actually, he was never the crown of Soviet tank-building thought, but was a simpler addition to the 64th in the development of which there were problems in the troops, and for the partisans who served at 55 and 62, 64 was not at all suitable, a simple mass tank appeared, without claims to perfection. The topic is not about anything.
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 28 November 2013 11: 47 New
      +2
      Speak correctly. Many people want to compare the maximum characteristics indicated in the forms and TTD, but the reality is completely different unfortunately. T-72 is not a bad tank at all, but nothing more ...
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 28 November 2013 18: 24 New
      +5
      Quote: Goodvin55
      A good car in case of global war, not a tank of limit parameters, not a standard.

      In general, I agree.
      The T-72 arose due to problems with the T-64 engine, at the same time instead of the MZ they installed a simpler and cheaper (I do not think it is worse) AZ and simpler and cheaper STVs, an aim, i.e. OMS.
      On the T-90, a simple and cheap MSA was replaced, plus many more advanced and expensive "bells and whistles", the combat efficiency increased significantly. And the price too. MBT is not an airplane.
      And probably, indeed, there is no point in purchasing the T-90, if Armata is on the way. If, reallyon the way.
      Well, the modernization must be done. Let it be according to option B3, but not so obscene. Think over the "little things": the placement of a remote sensing device protected by a ZPU with an electronic device, at least a 1G42 sight, screens, grilles, replace the imperfect TKN. If the weight does not exceed 42-44 tons, then the B-84 does not have to be changed to the B-92s.
      But for the success of such modernization, it is necessary that the technical specifications for this work should be given by specialists-tankers, and not by those who by hook or by crook climbed up. And the price will be normal. And this option, in terms of price-quality, will be a champion.
      That's where the dog is buried.
  10. major071
    major071 28 November 2013 09: 37 New
    +8
    I will say briefly - "swallow"!
    1. Komandir_T-72
      29 November 2013 16: 13 New
      0
      Like for the profile picture and comments)
  11. tchoni
    tchoni 28 November 2013 09: 42 New
    +3
    The article is somewhat chaotic, but still a plus.
  12. Echo
    Echo 28 November 2013 09: 52 New
    +4
    T-72 is the most copied tank in our time, and also the most massive tank in history after our T-55. This is about something, yes it says!
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 32 New
      0
      T-54 \ 55 36775pcs, T-34 35 467pcs, M4 Sherman 49 234pcs, T-72 about 30pcs .... hi
      1. POMA
        POMA 28 November 2013 11: 05 New
        +6
        Do not lie T-34 84070 pcs
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 28 November 2013 13: 37 New
          +1
          I wrote about t-34-76
          but the idea of ​​the post is not in this, but in the fact that 72ka is not the most massive tank and not even in second place ... maybe the most massive MBT? I agree with this hi
  13. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 28 November 2013 09: 56 New
    +6
    T-80 is better, but in general for lack of a better one we praise what is. If you consider what year the development of the T-72 is, then to say that it is the best is somehow not even logical.
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 22 New
      +2
      Each person has his own point of view !!! And even if the Syrian kissed 72ku, then immediately all doubts disappear, indeed the best !!!
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 28 November 2013 10: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Patton5
        Each person has his own point of view !!! And even if the Syrian kissed 72ku, then immediately all doubts disappear, indeed the best !!!

        A Syrian is fighting against terrorists, this is not an indicator, I saw how 72 behave in a tank biathlon, provided that the best crews came there, I had a doubt that the 72 tank is an effective machine for modern combat.
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 51 New
          +2
          with a kiss, this is sarcasm! I’m just tired of reading this story everywhere, which supposedly should prove the unsurpassed t-72 .... And for that matter, you need to take this Syrian, and tanks of different production (countries) ... say, kiss that which is more like it. It will be much more objective
        2. edge
          edge 28 November 2013 16: 06 New
          +4
          Quote: vladsolo56
          I saw how 72 behaved in a tank biathlon, provided that the best crews arrived there, I had a doubt that the 72 tank is an effective vehicle for modern combat

          I saw these cars in battle, thanks to them my ass remained intact ...... but, Beatlon is just a race with a shot .....
          1. typhoon7
            typhoon7 28 November 2013 22: 37 New
            +1
            Yes, 72 is a hard worker and a good friend.
          2. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 29 November 2013 05: 03 New
            0
            In a fight with whom? with militants or with an army of equal strength? what can I argue
    2. Komandir_T-72
      28 November 2013 10: 33 New
      +4
      Well, the year of development does not play a role here. It is still in service with many countries and is showing great performance.
  14. Evgan
    Evgan 28 November 2013 09: 57 New
    +4
    T-72 was created as a deep modification of T-64, and T-64 was a real breakthrough in the world tank building, respectively, T-72 was ahead for many years of all its opponents.


    I really do not agree that the T-72 is a deep modification of the T-64. Modification implies an improvement in properties (deep modification is a significant improvement), and in the T-72 there were both improvements and simplifications (in the same LMS).
  15. Evgan
    Evgan 28 November 2013 09: 59 New
    +1
    T-72 was created as a deep modification of T-64, and T-64 was a real breakthrough in the world tank building, respectively, T-72 was ahead for many years of all its opponents.


    I really do not agree that the T-72 is a deep modification of the T-64. Modification implies an improvement in properties (deep modification is a significant improvement), and in the T-72 there were both improvements and simplifications (in the same LMS).
    1. Argon
      Argon 28 November 2013 10: 50 New
      +1
      I share the opinion of vladsolo56, while I would like to note, dear EvgAn-modification is a design processing of a structure in order to change the balance of characteristics of the considered structure in one direction or another. refusal) with a decrease in COST, at the cost of a certain decrease in EFFICIENCY.
  16. Goodvin55
    Goodvin55 28 November 2013 10: 04 New
    +6
    But the most terrible and incomprehensible to me as a zampotech is why the designers on a tank designed for mass warfare actually neglected the possibility of firing without power supply in the network or AZ failure. When the AZ fails (and it’s very easy to disable it, it’s enough to drop something on the policeman), shooting from a tank turns into acrobatics in a limited space, even the rate of fire in this mode is not indicated in the instruction manual. And if the power disappeared during the charging process and the frame was in the wrong position, then you can’t shoot anymore. At the same time, manual loading on tanks with MZ is much simpler and more convenient.
    1. Komandir_T-72
      28 November 2013 10: 42 New
      +2
      when the ammunition is disabled or emptied in the AZ, the gunner himself puts the shell into the gun, in the old grandfather's way: he put the shell in, pushed it, then put the sleeve in (because it’s separate-shell loading). In the AZ there are 22 shells out of 39. So disabling it will not lead to anything bad unless it is critically damaged, of course.
      1. Goodvin55
        Goodvin55 28 November 2013 12: 00 New
        11
        Nonsense. I don't even want to comment, you don't know the materiel. There is such a book in the troops "Tank" Ural "Technical description and operating instructions." Moscow, military publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Defense, 1975. Manual loading of a tank gun in accordance with this publication is possible only if there is power in the tank's on-board network.
        What is your grandfather way like if there are no shells in a non-mechanized warhead (run out):
        The T-72 tank commander shifts the gun’s right guard forward, opens the bolt wedge, after which the T-72 gunner lowers the gun as far down as possible. In parallel, the gunner prepares the initial settings for firing (sets the type of projectile on the sight, enters the range to the target, and solves the firing task).
        Next, the T-72 tank commander unlocks the commander’s turret and turns it to the right. Then the tank commander leans forward, with the left hand engages the manual descent lock from the cannon, and then with the right hand turns and holds the stop lever of the rotating conveyor, which is located on the conveyor floor. With his left hand, moving up and down the lever of the manual drive for turning the rotating conveyor, he turns it by half a step, then releases the stopper and rotates the conveyor until it stops completely.
        Next, the tank commander turns the body back 180 ° and, using the manual mechanism for lifting the cassettes, raises the cassette to the discharge line. If there is another type of projectile in the raised cassette, then you will have to lower the cassette down again, turn forward again and turn the conveyor again in the manner described above. And this will continue until the desired type of projectile is in the raised cartridge.
        Next, the tank commander must first shell from the cartridge, then charge. In this case, the projectile stopper must press the gunner and only after that the commander can remove the projectile from the cartridge. (what to do with the pulled out projectile and charge depends on the commander’s ingenuity, because it lies on the floor)
        Next, the tank commander must lower the cartridge down, and then the gunner then lower the gun at the loading angle. Then send the projectile and charge into the barrel of the gun. Next, the commander turns off the mechanism for blocking the manual descent from the gun. Turns the commander's cupola to its original position and gives the gunner a command to open fire.
        But how this happens in life, it must be seen, acrobatics in a confined space.
        1. sapran
          sapran 28 November 2013 12: 05 New
          +2
          honestly Plus, but people do not understand all this sweat, they were told that this is fiction, that's all ...
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 28 November 2013 14: 15 New
          +6
          Quote: Goodvin55
          But how this happens in life, it must be seen, acrobatics in a confined space.

          Yuri, the process of manually loading the gun is painted wonderfully.
          It really is acrobatics and depends a lot on crew training.
          By the way, AZ, as a power supply, very rarely get out of standing completely, most often there is a partial exit of one of the AZ mechanisms. I had to act in a semi-manual way: do some loading steps automatically, some hands. A shot in our tanks is also possible manually. I personally brought the rate of fire to 4 rounds per minute.

          And the option of FULL de-energizing the tank is an unambiguous coffin of metal in cases with foreign equipment.
          Domestic technology - ... ALMOST the same, except for the first T-72 models (172A object).
          Just many forget that electricity is needed not only for loading and firing a shot, but also for:
          stabilizer
          -work SLA.
          If the stabilizer can be leveled by mechanical flywheels, then there is nothing to replace the LMS operation in the T-64, T-72Б, T-80.
          But in the ancient "Object 172A" it is possible. Since there is a MECHANICAL ballistic calculator and an OPTICAL rangefinder ...

          The T-72 of early releases is the king among modern tanks with TOTAL power loss, for example ... in the case of an electromagnetic pulse.
          wink
          1. sapran
            sapran 28 November 2013 14: 20 New
            +1
            Nude, nude, And the T-64A is there? only the tower’s porch is softer on Leo to A3 and LEO 1, all modifications there are sporting sights there. For shaving (conservative fucking) the same thing that shoot reptiles shoot ...
          2. Goodvin55
            Goodvin55 28 November 2013 14: 34 New
            +1
            Well, 4 shots per minute, it is necessary that the crew be perfectly prepared, but I think I should not tell you how things are with the training of crews, they can never shoot a minute. I agree that a complete loss of power supply is a rarity, a partial loss is enough) As for AZ, here I would rather be happy with the Ministry of Health where the malfunctions are usually two pressure loss and an oil leak, and both of these are usually quickly eliminated, as far as I know, they made a garden with AZ because of that that industry could not provide the necessary amount of MOH.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 28 November 2013 14: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Goodvin55
              As for AZ, here I would rather be glad MZ

              For me - AZ is preferable, I have already spoken out why.
              But my opinion is unequivocally subjective, since the Ministry of Health used only on the simulator, in contrast to the AZ almost moved by hands.

              A detailed article from practice of both systems with a detailed drawing of this question by:
              - daily operation,
              - combat effectiveness of the application,
              - reliability
              - safety for the crew.

              Many would be pleased to read.
              1. Goodvin55
                Goodvin55 28 November 2013 15: 01 New
                0
                The hint is understood) Only practices with the Ministry of Health, unfortunately, are few, but I can make a generalizing article with my own opinion based on experience.
              2. sapran
                sapran 28 November 2013 15: 03 New
                0
                it would probably be hard here. A lot would be subjective.
                You yourself know that if you are used to performing a certain operation, then relearning is difficult (and annoying)
                I personally in a close T-64 BV didn’t even think about my head, which could have been more conveniently done when loading the MZ. And the guys were very pleased with the work of AZ. Very different cars for maintenance, do you agree with this?
                Even more, the difference comes up in repairing field conditions. here it is necessary to agree that with whom knowledge and practice has grown, then it will be praised.
          3. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 28 November 2013 17: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            But in the ancient "Object 172A" it is possible.

            Excuse me generously ...
            "Object 172M".
            I made a mistake and got the letters wrong ... their whole 33 pieces, so I got lost a little in the wilds of the alphabet.
            repeat

            Forgot to add:
            A very beautiful photo to the title of the article.
            I'm pretty sure this is a return on a side track with a turn to the "Origin" on the Tank Headmistress. In such cases, the barrel should ALWAYS look at the "Main direction of fire", the turret is "led" by the Cheburashka gunner with the stabilizer turned off, only on one "drive" (GN), peering into a simple triplex with an eye to the direction indicator.
            This is one of the indicators of mastery, especially when the entire platoon does so synchronously.

            I really like such a moment at the training grounds and such photos.
            good
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Goodvin55
        Goodvin55 28 November 2013 12: 20 New
        +1
        The rate of fire for manual loading from a non-mechanized ammunition rack is 1-2 rounds per minute, this is to say "So disabling it will not lead to anything bad." And to disable the AZ is as easy as shelling pears, this happens all the time during operation, as well as loss of power in the on-board network, especially when hit.
        And by the way there is no sleeve there, but there is a charge.
        1. Komandir_T-72
          28 November 2013 12: 52 New
          0
          Russian, black and white SEPARATE HOUSING CHARGING !!! TITLE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
        2. Komandir_T-72
          28 November 2013 12: 53 New
          +1
          IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER ASSUMPTION
          1. Goodvin55
            Goodvin55 28 November 2013 13: 22 New
            +2
            We just learn to speak correctly, if we write about tanks. First, the projectile is sent to the gun’s chamber, then the charge (it consists of a partially burning cartridge case consisting of a burning part, a tray with a capsule tube (which is ejected after a shot) and the charge itself. But although the charge has a partially burning cartridge, it remains a charge not a sleeve.
        3. Alekseev
          Alekseev 28 November 2013 18: 04 New
          +2
          Quote: Goodvin55
          And by the way there is no sleeve there, but there is a charge.

          The charge is in a burning sleeve with a metal tray. wink
          So there is a sleeve, hell and burning.
          And about the "loss of voltage in the electrical network of the tank" my opinion - carcass lighting, free the room. Turning it manually that AZ is bad, that MZ is even worse. It is also difficult to bend, getting a shell from a non-mechanized warhead. But you can!
          Suppose the tank is in a trench, it is damaged and there is a "power failure in the tank's electrical network."
          It is quite possible, albeit hard, to load the gun, to point it manually and to hit the tank, infantry fighting vehicle and whether or not another enemy object.
          But will there be such an opportunity in Armata? It is unlikely.
          Let's hope that neither the power supply, nor anything else disappears there, well, or almost never disappears.
          1. Goodvin55
            Goodvin55 28 November 2013 18: 16 New
            0
            I described the charge design above. Agree that the cannon still charges, and not the case.
            Why is MH manually turning worse? This statement has no basis.
            You will fire a shot, but where you get, aiming is dubious.
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 28 November 2013 18: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Goodvin55
              I described the charge design above. Agree that the cannon still charges, and not the case.

              Let me tell you, as an "artist to an artist", let's not ... exercise in terminology and there is a cartridge case and a charge yes Still write 4zh40 (52). How interesting everyone will be! yes
              But turn the handle of the MZ, and especially raise the feed lever with the tray in which the O / f projectile lies, in the cramped space of the BO on the T-64 (80), and even drop it on the bottom in the midst of "battles" laughing I assure you the same is not comfortable.
              But to aim the cannon of a standing tank, to enter a range with a handwheel, or to shoot and get within the range of a direct shot is not such a problem. Especially at a range of 1000 - 1200m, and for BOPS and much more. Well, down the drain, maybe take half-figure corrections. The first exercises of the DC we shot from the spot that way.
              1. Goodvin55
                Goodvin55 28 November 2013 19: 09 New
                0
                Agree to sit still and rotate the handle is much easier than acrobatic studies on 72-ke. And the rate of fire in this mode is 1 shot per minute on the T-6
                4B.
                1. Alekseev
                  Alekseev 28 November 2013 20: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Goodvin55
                  Agree to sit still and rotate the handle is much easier than acrobatic studies on 72-ke. And the rate of fire in this mode is 1 shot per minute on the T-6
                  4B.

                  If the strength in the left, especially the arm is not measured, then it may be easier ...
                  Acrobatic sketch in place of the commander of the T-64 (80)? Only such a very thin warrior can make such studies, in the T-72 there is still a little more space.
                  If it were easy to charge in this mode, then there would be no rate of fire of only 1 shot per minute.
          2. sapran
            sapran 28 November 2013 18: 24 New
            0
            The practical question is in which machine (s) did you do this?
          3. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 28 November 2013 18: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: Alekseev
            The charge is in a burning sleeve with a metal tray.

            Lesh, did you make a "glass" from the pallet?
            Very capacious capacity is obtained. The main positiveness of such a vessel is that you’ll break a horseradish.
            laughing

            Quote: Alekseev
            And about the "loss of voltage in the electrical network of the tank", my opinion is - mascara lighting, empty the room.

            Yes, it's a pitchfork ...
            But more often than not - it simply knocks out AZR.
            They did this - with a steel plate they fixed the problem switches in the "forward" position.
            The 2-3 multiple safety margin of the Soviet school of tank construction more than covered this barbaric attitude to technology.
            Something like that.
            yes
            repeat
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 28 November 2013 19: 30 New
              +2
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Lesh, did you make a "glass" from the pallet?

              I don’t remember, although the dishes would be very stable! laughing
              Speaking of birds (about the charge 4zh40), the device which Goodwin described here earlier.
              This same charge taught me for life to be extremely respectful of ammunition.
              Once, in my youth, I decided to destroy the extra charge by the "burning method"
              He broke open a burning cartridge case, put it together with the artisan who joined me, put the gunpowder in a pile, tore open the igniter bag with black gunpowder and made a rather long path to this pile. Set fire to this track. I did not think that the combustion process would happen so instantly! fellow Not an explosion, of course, but the consequences exceeded expectations. request forgot our name! A bunch of powder pasta began to rush along the ravine, where we did this good deed. Had to work out the team lie down! It cost little blood, a light burn of the hand, yet the path had to be made longer and longer! lol And it would be better to bury or drown the gunpowder!
    2. sapran
      sapran 28 November 2013 11: 39 New
      +2
      You wrote this in vain about the subtleties of working with AZ in the absence of lipetricity ... It's not accepted here. You were told in Russian "the car is still kosher!"
      Author You naturally patriot is normal. But each accident has a name, surname and position (Kaganovich) I'm talking about a case with animals unknown to science, that is, with M1.
      1. During this period, according to advisers from BT there was a limited contingent of specialists in Syria
      2. And something from the two heads of departments (Tanks, and repair and restoration) with KVTIU I do not recall such an important case.
      3. Even the events with the investigation of the first hit Merkava belong to skirmishes in the Bek valley (from there they brought at least part of the BC and that the guys could screw up with Pskov), and here is a summary of the battle.
      4 Why did Vrazhin have THREE tanks (disguised as Syrians) at the time of the US Army tank platoon 4 cars?
      There is no desire to raise the "eternal theme to holivar" about the advantages and disadvantages of the machine (I studied the T-72 and, though not for long, I found them before the moment of decommissioning and replacing them with the T-64). If the zampotekh is in place and the "soldaten" is properly "promoted" the car is decent for everyday service. But God forbid "tupanut" with the engine or drop a couple of links from the PKT or there other small things on the floor or VKU. A porn film with elements of sadomaso is provided ...
      1. Goodvin55
        Goodvin55 28 November 2013 12: 05 New
        +5
        About the links from the FCT to the point, and if you drop something bigger ...)))
  17. Patton5
    Patton5 28 November 2013 10: 16 New
    +3
    In my opinion, the T-72 is the best tank in the world.

    that would be the end ...
    The T-72 was created as a deep modification of the T-64, and the T-64 was a real breakthrough in world tank building, respectively, the T-72 was ahead of its opponents for many years

    Modification - (late Lat. Modificatio - establishment of a measure, from Lat. Modus - measure, form, image, transitory property and Lat. Facio - to do), transformation, improvementmodifying anything with acquisition of new properties. Modifications are qualitatively different states or varieties of something ....
    Ours is cheap to manufacture, and it is numerically superior to the American

    The main conclusion of the article!
  18. 1969s9691g.
    1969s9691g. 28 November 2013 10: 17 New
    +5
    tanks are just tin cans. It all depends on who is in the tank. A well-coordinated and professional crew robot is the main criterion for success in battle. And the technical equipment and everything else is approximately on the same level.
  19. complete zero
    complete zero 28 November 2013 10: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: Goodvin55
    But the most terrible and incomprehensible to me as a zampotech is why the designers on a tank designed for mass warfare actually neglected the possibility of firing without power supply in the network or AZ failure. When the AZ fails (and it’s very easy to disable it, it’s enough to drop something on the policeman), shooting from a tank turns into acrobatics in a limited space, even the rate of fire in this mode is not indicated in the instruction manual. And if the power disappeared during the charging process and the frame was in the wrong position, then you can’t shoot anymore. At the same time, manual loading on tanks with MZ is much simpler and more convenient.
  20. complete zero
    complete zero 28 November 2013 10: 52 New
    +2
    here, plus a respected Zampotech War, not a tank biathlon ...
  21. Professor
    Professor 28 November 2013 11: 17 New
    +5
    According to the story of the Soviet military adviser, he and the Syrian tankers circled the seventy-two who had just arrived from the USSR in the region of Southern Lebanon shortly before the Israeli aggression against this country (Operation Peace Galilee).

    And who is this still classified adviser? wink

    Apparently, he was tested in Israel in order to familiarize Israeli experts with the tank, but for what purpose it was necessary to start the battle, if the tank was secret, no one understood.

    Well, how much can these bikes be reprinted? I don’t even want to comment on this nonsense.
    1. Komandir_T-72
      28 November 2013 12: 54 New
      -3
      I DON'T KNOW THE NAME IS ANNOUNCED
      1. sapran
        sapran 28 November 2013 13: 35 New
        +3
        Sorry, but this is a fairy tale.
        1997, in Kiev, at a tank-repairing mastirim with a T-54 for the Syrians, something more interesting than what came to us
        1. The engines set B-46-6, an additional air cleaner on the caterpillar shelf, we remake the guitar drive to the fan (in my opinion that's all)
        2. We put in the oil the trunks + the Bastion complex + commander’s turrets from the sawn T-72 of the R173 Radio (we suck our finger with 123M)
        3. digest the place of the melekot, weld the pier, strengthen the mine protection with additional sheets, at the same time we muffle the hole under the SGMT, we weld along the rack body for mounting panels with DZ like T-64BV
        4. the body receives a doplist on the forehead of 30 mm on which we fasten the bolts under the DZ "contact"
        5 cars get over to be painted to be tested and shipped to the Syrians
        The homeland suffers losses because someone signed a contract where everything specified is estimated at 175 tys U.E. Most of the rough work is done with the help of cadets (the scholarship of that year is 47 UAH from an excellent student)
        We ask the Syrians on ***** goat button accordion buy quietly on the T-72 ?!
        The Syrian’s response is almost without an emphasis where he would like to put it and crank something up to someone who came up with it ....... Then, removing emotions, he explained that for the parade and Sinai it’s what is needed, but in everything else it’s like *** * do not. photo where the buildings in 4 tiers are laid out, I could not find.
        Their cars (what they collected were watching in action) really from RPGs and dynamics enough for their eyes if they beat like RPG-29 then forgive me here for how the chip will fall.
        but then that now he pointed to the CHARGES that the metal sleeve is heavier but more reliable and that the main task is to shoot (fire support) directly and on the side. however, it’s not necessary to shoot a lot at the tank
  22. svp67
    svp67 28 November 2013 11: 17 New
    +7
    When we talk about a tank, it’s worthwhile to understand that this is a MACHINE, a BATTLE MACHINE and it’s worth evaluating it from this point of view.
    T72 - like a MACHINE, very reliable and relatively not whimsical.
    T72 - as a BATTLE MACHINE, today does not meet the requirements: - neither by the power of weapons - nor the ability to use new BPS,
    - neither in terms of security, - the cast tower, in its intrinsic resistance, is lower than welded from rolled sheets, not to mention the not-so-well-thought-out DZ installation scheme and the absence of removable additional protection modules in weakened areas,
    - neither in terms of mobility, the 860 hp engine, although reliable, is already ... out of date
    - neither by means of observation and aiming,
    - not by communication means.

    Conclusion, without modernization, deep modernization of the T72, it cannot be considered modern now and no high reliability can compensate for the low combat qualities ...
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 28 November 2013 14: 32 New
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      without modernization, deep modernization of the T72, it cannot be considered modern today

      Unfortunately, yes, Sergey ...

      About the article:

      As an incurable "patient" in relation to the T-72B - definitely a plus.
      I’ll fix it a little, with the permission of Nikolai:
      - T-72 is a MOBILIZATION version of the T-64.
      - A strong headline, but the whole article is based on only one legend about the meeting of T-72 with an abrashka, this is not enough. One of the strengths of the T-72 is SURVIVAL. It would be nice to add practical examples to the article about 5-7 RPG hits in the tank, while maintaining combat mobility and the ability to conduct a battle crew.
      IMHO, of course. And so - thanks for the warm attitude to the "turtle".

      In my personal opinion T-72 has fantastic operational survival - this is its MAIN trump card. It is possible almost on a knee in the field to play a prank and he will be combat-ready. The machine in conditions of ruthless operation will always be a little broken somewhere, but it is always able to carry out a combat mission, it was always amazing.
      The T-72 is not a super-duper wunderwafer like a tank, it is a formidable weapon in the hands of an ABLE crew, whose hands are growing from the right place.

      I spoke and will talk about the need to modernize the T-72B:
      - thermal imager to the gunner (done);
      - panoramic to the commander;
      - closed ZPU;
      - circular protection.
      This is at the very minimum minimum !!! Then T-72 will show Kuzkin’s mother many more.
      The T-72 is an ESSENTIAL workhorse.
      1. edge
        edge 28 November 2013 16: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: Aleks tv
        It would be nice to add practical examples to the article about 5-7 RPG hits in the tank

        there are some stupid people who shoot at point blank range from RPGs and hope that the armor will be broken;
      2. Komandir_T-72
        29 November 2013 16: 24 New
        0
        and what protection (DZ) is mounted or built-in?
      3. Komandir_T-72
        29 November 2013 16: 27 New
        0
        about 5-7 hits from RPGs - there’s a similar article about Chechnya when they shot at 72 where they even wanted to stern, but didn’t achieve the result
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 28 November 2013 19: 09 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Conclusion, without modernization, deep modernization of the T72, it cannot be considered modern now and no high reliability can compensate for the low combat qualities ...

      Well, I think that no one can argue with this conclusion, yet 41 years in service request
      The whole question is which upgrade is effective?
      And no modernization will do absolutely modern T-72.
    3. Komandir_T-72
      29 November 2013 16: 50 New
      0
      you apparently do not understand metallurgy and metal structures. The cast construction of the tower is stronger than welded. When a projectile hits a tower, the impulse is scattered over its area and looks for a way out, but in a whole and unified design it does not find it and fades away or goes to another part already weakened, when it hits the weld, it begins to crack at the seams in the literal sense. The t-72 engine is reliable and efficient, regardless of its age. A 125 mm cannon and used shells for it are capable of hitting any tank of a potential enemy. Do not drive DZ to the incorrect installation of DZ containers, if you are so smart, then take and rearrange as you see fit. There were problems with communication and OMS, but they are already in the past.
      "and no high reliability can compensate for the low combat qualities" you know, the reliability is the guarantee of the tank's survival in modern conditions. Heavy self-propelled guns have a weapon "Mama Do Not Cry" and zero protection. In addition, our tank is the most unpretentious, unlike Western gentlemen, who wipe the tracks after each exit and only drive on an asphalt road.
  23. Tuzik
    Tuzik 28 November 2013 11: 24 New
    +1
    I would rather attribute the abrams to an anti-tank sau, he didn’t even have high-explosive shots, and the T-72 is a real tank, and against tanks, and infantry support. different design concepts. the same machine on t 72 allows you to conduct a quick fire at once, in the abrams a quick fire is possible only from a parking lot in a shelter.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 28 November 2013 15: 47 New
      +2
      In principle, Abrams will get the fire on the move, but alas, the Negro Joe will not be able to do this while the stabilizer is on. It is impossible to throw a heavy 25 kilogram shell into a breech that runs wildly back and forth, provided that Joe also needs to keep his balance in a moving machine, and any meeting between the breech and his arm will result in a serious injury, he has a lot of fun.
      1. The fat man
        The fat man 29 November 2013 00: 45 New
        +1
        you have no reason to think so here I am a clear example take a look UTB Leopard 2
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISdt3qyiY4
        and here is the black man Joe on Abrams by the way the car is in motion
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyrAqNv1odM
  24. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 28 November 2013 11: 25 New
    +1
    For a long time, everyone knows that the bike of an alleged "eyewitness" wandering around the forums about the alleged meeting of the T-72 and "Abrams" in the Sinai desert is nonsense.
  25. tuts
    tuts 28 November 2013 11: 25 New
    +3
    came across a video
    1. svp67
      svp67 28 November 2013 11: 51 New
      +5
      On the video T90, but for such a "transportation" of people, and even civilians ?????? driver-mechanic, tank commander, unit commander are obliged to incur a DISCIPLINARY punishment, as safety requirements are grossly violated. This is not a war to risk the lives of "civilians" ... 9 out of 10 cases of death of people on tanks occur precisely because of such skating ...
  26. saramb
    saramb 28 November 2013 11: 26 New
    +5
    The following year, 2014, we invited Amers, Germans, French, Israel to take part in the tank biathlon on their cars. Here and see whose is better. If they refuse, then their tanks. smile
  27. Algor73
    Algor73 28 November 2013 12: 04 New
    +3
    Much depends on the tankers. There was a case during the Second World War when the T-70 knocked out "Ferdinand" and "Tiger". But if the tank is technologically newer, the chances of its victory are much higher. And they are fighting in Syria, they fought in Chechnya, etc. on what they have or have had.
  28. vm68dm
    vm68dm 28 November 2013 13: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Soviet_Union
    For a long time, fashion went to compare weapons not by combat effectiveness, but by all sorts of bells and whistles, electronic gadgets and cost. So it is not surprising that the good old 72nd and its modifications for many are junk, etc. Well, few people tried his tooth.
    I agree! The T-34 was not without flaws. However, this did not prevent him from becoming the best tank in the world of all time !!!
    WATCH the 42nd minute!
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 13: 46 New
      +3
      We all know this here, and without this stinky discovery!
  29. Hektor
    Hektor 28 November 2013 13: 44 New
    -15 qualifying.
    But the battle is another. And the tank went through its baptism of fire successfully. By the way, there is irrefutable evidence of a direct collision of the T-72 and Abrams. It was in Lebanon back in 1982. According to the story of the Soviet military adviser, he and the Syrian tankers circled seventy-two just brought from the USSR in the region of southern Lebanon shortly before the Israeli aggression against this country (Operation Peace Galilee).


    Much depends on the tank crew. There was a case during the Second World Warwhen the T-70 knocked out "Ferdinand" and "Tiger".


    T-72 was created as a deep modification of the T-64, and the T-64 was a real breakthrough in world tank building, respectively, the T-72 was ahead of its opponents for many years


    Laughing out loud wassat What are you doing? T 70 is cooler than Elephant ??? what abrams in lebanon ??? since when T 72 yavl. Maud. T 64, or between T 62 and T 64 there is no difference ???

    Quote: Komandir_T-72
    In my opinion, the T-72 is the best tank in the world.


    Tell it to those Arab, Russian, Georgian tankers who were dying on these tanks negative

    Quote: Komandir_T-72
    By the way, they were T-72 without a DZ, so the safety margin of the T-72 is huge.


    Not funny negative

    The current civil war in Syria shows how strong our tanks are - this is irrefutable proof.


    In a country for which the only victorious war is participation on the side of the Americans (with the Abrams))) in the Desert Storm in 1991, as it is said too loudly ...

    PS In general, if you are too lazy to read books (M. Baryatinsky, Abrams is only 90 pages), you can at least go to Wikipedia.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 28 November 2013 14: 46 New
      +9
      Quote: Hektor
      Tell it to those Arab, Russian, Georgian tankers who were dying on these tanks

      Easy cornering ...................
      There are phrases that only a tanker can tell a tanker. You can’t easily scatter these words.
      How much is it possible to point to IT already ??? Where is elementary professional correctness ???

      In a face-to-face meeting for such a phrase, it is possible to get into a hollow without warning, consider this.
      No offense.
      1. Hektor
        Hektor 28 November 2013 19: 01 New
        -1
        No offense, of course ...
        just such words

        In my opinion, the T-72 is the best tank in the world.


        or it is NOT necessary to speak, or it is necessary to RESPOND for them.
        It is difficult to call the "Best" tank at all, which was beaten (and with the death of entire crews) during all battles.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 28 November 2013 19: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: Hektor
          or it is NOT necessary to speak, or it is necessary to RESPOND for them.

          YES.

          Like you for your words.

          Personally, I spoke and will say: T-72B - one of the best tanks in the world.
          More than once it was proved and described in detail, there are a lot of things in comments.
          The flaws of the car also never hid.
          But each tanker has his own opinion.
          1. sapran
            sapran 28 November 2013 19: 38 New
            +2
            100%!!! that who has mastered what we’re sure of, we praise, and the rest is lyrics.
            My respected reserve colonel Shmuglenko (who served in Kubinka for a long time) once said that it’s hard not to fall in love with all these different and "harmful" boxes ... He liked the Panther and for which they tested for a long time how the suspension worked, he liked 433 other swallows and irons ... his dream was to try the Merkava and ride Leo.
          2. Hektor
            Hektor 28 November 2013 22: 37 New
            -3
            Like you for your words.


            Well, at least some of my words do not contradict others

            Personally, I spoke and will say: T-72B - one of the best tanks in the world


            The flaws of the car also never hid.


            How many people have so many opinions, BUT I think (I’m sorry, I’m not a tanker, I served only in the reconnaissance company of the motorized rifle) and not only in my opinion, the T80U was the BEST SOVIET tank, the efforts that the Western intelligence agencies used to make it a good confirmation to get it. In general, a lot of things could be squeezed out of this tank ... a new 130 mm cannon, armor reinforcement, an engine of 1500-1700 horses, a new SLA, a little futuristic, but could be done with an uninhabited tower and catapults for a small radius UAV and it turned out would a new generation tank.
        2. Alekseev
          Alekseev 28 November 2013 20: 47 New
          +3
          Quote: Hektor
          which was a bit (and with the death of entire crews) during all the battles.

          Bit during all fights wassat And in Karabakh too? wink
          We must take this saying into service!
          It seems like in the "course of all battles" troops can be "beaten", not tanks, guns, revolvers ...
          It can be seen, writes an old warrior and a knowledgeable tanker!
          1. Hektor
            Hektor 28 November 2013 23: 14 New
            -2
            And in Karabakh too?


            And what about Karabakh ??? They showed themselves differently than in Iraq, Chechnya and Georgia ???

            We must take this saying into service!


            Please observe copyright only. wassat

            It seems like in the "course of all battles" troops can be "beaten", not tanks, guns, revolvers ...


            That is, according to your logic, Schwarzeneggers and Rambo (and Schwarzkopf are probably the rebirth of Clausewitz) served in the American army in 1991, since they were able to make (to put it mildly) "indestructible" T 72, "indestructible" MiG 29, and "impenetrable" Soviet air defense ???

            Or does the strength and quality of "tanks, guns and revolvers" matter ??? As it had for the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, for the Russians in the Crimean War, and for the Zulu in the wars with the English.

            It can be seen, writes an old warrior and a knowledgeable tanker!


            Forgive me, I didn’t set a flag over Berlin, I didn’t parade in Paris, I didn’t climb Everest, I didn’t spit on the portrait of George Washington in the Oval Office, I didn’t fly to the Moon, and I didn’t return Karabakh during the year of service. recourse
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 28 November 2013 23: 17 New
              +3
              Quote: Hektor
              Excuse me, I didn’t set a flag over Berlin
              The banner is generally hoisted, put in a corner.
              1. Hektor
                Hektor 29 November 2013 02: 05 New
                -2
                Quote: Alex 241
                Quote: Hektor
                Excuse me, I didn’t set a flag over Berlin
                The banner is generally hoisted, put in a corner.


                That is, in such a big post, you are stuck only to hoisting the flag ??? belay
          2. sapran
            sapran 29 November 2013 01: 12 New
            -1
            The only victorious "war" with the participation of the T-72, if I'm not mistaken This is kicking Georgia. Even in the Iran-Iraq war, there was a technical draw. In other conflicts there was "Shvakh" Correct If you forgot something ...
            1. Hektor
              Hektor 29 November 2013 02: 23 New
              -3
              The only victorious "war" with the participation of the T-72, if I'm not mistaken This is kicking Georgia.


              This does not count, there were "SHVAKHs" on both sides.

              Even in the Iran-Iraq war, there was a technical draw. In other conflicts there was "Shvakh" Correct If you forgot something ...


              There are, in principle, many reasons for the fiasco of the Iraqi offensive (the main thing is that our brilliant military specialists did not send pontoon bridges to Iraqis, deciding that in a country in which 2 of the 3 largest Middle Eastern rivers flow, they are not needed) ... Although the defeat of the elite Iraqi forces in tank battles, and despite the numerical superiority and helicopter support, mine is very significant.

              Py.sy. Interestingly, in Iran, the main striking power of their army (TD of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) is still armed with Chieftains, and in "ordinary" TDs, Chinese and Korean copies of the T 62 and T 72.
              1. sapran
                sapran 29 November 2013 02: 27 New
                +1
                You have not verified information. Daddy drove there under the guise of almost all of his T-72s under the guise of "railway ovens"
                1. Hektor
                  Hektor 29 November 2013 10: 29 New
                  +1
                  "Father" is this in the sense of Saddam ?? smile
    2. edge
      edge 28 November 2013 16: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Hektor
      You can at least go to Wikipedia

      and who said that wika is an absolute among sources - appeal to more truthful information
      1. Hektor
        Hektor 28 November 2013 19: 03 New
        -1
        Wiki is certainly not an absolute, but much more reliable than unfounded rumors (I would say fairy tales), besides what do you dislike about Baryatinsky ??
    3. Komandir_T-72
      30 November 2013 08: 42 New
      +1
      Are you Mr. Obama? "T 70 is cooler than Elephanta" - what the fuck is that for the phrase of a patient who escaped from the fool? What is the T-70 light tank of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War? It's not about him a blockhead. which elephant is a heavy German self-propelled gun Geschutzwagen Elefant? And again it's not about her. Man or boy, you made a mistake with the website. You have no idea what it is talking about at all.
      1. Hektor
        Hektor 3 December 2013 00: 27 New
        -2
        There is no oak tree and a descendant of oak trees, I am not Obama !!
        What t-70 is the light tank of the Red Army since the Great Patriotic War?

        Take binoculars and better read what people write. By the way, I didn’t take it from heaven !!
        And again it's not about her.

        Drunk go sober, crazy go get treated, mentally retarded get treated again ... or don’t write any x ****** to the kraynyak
        Py.sy. I hinted at this and the captain evidence !!
        Man or boy, you made a mistake on the site. You have no idea what is being said here.

        Judging by this nonsense, no! fool
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 3 December 2013 16: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Hektor
          No ...

          This is not a social network, so keep EMOTIONS to yourself.
          Quote: Hektor
          What t-70 is the light tank of the Red Army since the Great Patriotic War?

          Such

          If you wish to challenge, please. Only reasonably without emotion striking over the edge.
  30. Romanychby
    Romanychby 28 November 2013 14: 02 New
    +4
    With the advent of more modern ATGMs -72 it is already becoming rather weak (one "Vampire" is worth something). And so, 72 is very good in terms of survivability.
  31. tank 34
    tank 34 28 November 2013 14: 13 New
    +3
    This article is an advertisement for pure water. Do not forget that the t-72 was originally created as a mobilization version of the t-64. According to their characteristics, they are very close. And it was this option that was created with the aim of exporting abroad. As for the notorious Almaty, then the conversations are about 10 years. UVZ should be given their due, they decided to implement the project of their competitors KHKBM. But A. Morozov, back in 1972, proposed a project and successfully defended it in the USSR Ministry of Defense, T-74. And if UVZ honestly admits that this is not their project, but still it will be put into practice, it will be the best monument to all our TANK DESIGNERS !!!!
    1. sapran
      sapran 28 November 2013 14: 27 New
      0
      Unfortunately, after Morozovsky T-74 there were cars in the midst of his design on the topic Boxer.
      With a very high degree of probability, I say that on the territory of Malyshev this experimental chassis is no longer there.
      and "Armata" well, don't expect a revolution about it. Most likely this is a chassis in the spirit of UVZ, it is just that most likely it is already 7 roller. yes plus FINALLY then re-arrange MTO.
      And what’s above the body is what the soul desires ...
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 28 November 2013 15: 03 New
        +4



        The remains of the "Boxer" object in St. Petersburg. "Object 299" developed by the Leningrad Design Bureau "Spetsmash".
      2. fzr1000
        fzr1000 28 November 2013 15: 04 New
        0
        Comparison of Morozov tanks. A - T-64A, BM - T-64BM, 74 - T-74.
        1. sapran
          sapran 28 November 2013 15: 10 New
          +1
          Is this from the diaries?
          What A. Morozov sought was to prevent a further increase in tank mass.
          The design galaxy that replaced it went a different way.
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 28 November 2013 17: 11 New
            0
            Yes, here, if interested

            http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1538
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 28 November 2013 15: 07 New
      +1






      T-74. The layout of the crew, BC, SU and layout.
  32. Stinger
    Stinger 28 November 2013 14: 30 New
    +8
    The T-72 debate is reminiscent of the AK-47 and M16 debate. They have not calmed down yet. But as soon as it comes to real hostilities in difficult conditions, for some reason, most users drop their M16 and take Kalashnikov into their hands. In my opinion, the T-72 is a tank Kalashnikov.
    1. Endrew
      Endrew 28 November 2013 16: 27 New
      +1
      The US Army almost no longer uses the M16; they switched to the M4 carbine and the HK416, the latter being considered one of the most reliable in the world!
      Well, if you compare the ak 47 and the m16, then the AK is certainly better because in m16 the mXNUMX proved to be unreliable and, moreover, the soldiers did not like him!
    2. Patton5
      Patton5 28 November 2013 20: 56 New
      +2
      The T-72 debate is reminiscent of the AK-47 and M16 debate. They are still
      all these disputes give rise to folly, the weapon must solve the tasks that are set before it. T-72 is an excellent tank, but there is no limit to perfection .... It is time to stop singing mantras, the most with the most.
  33. nightingale
    nightingale 28 November 2013 15: 57 New
    0
    If t 72 is better than abrams, then why should it be modernized - only to spoil it. will fall will become expensive, will stop breaking in the field will not be repairable fit.
  34. Endrew
    Endrew 28 November 2013 16: 15 New
    +2
    Abrams is probably the best tank to attack since he has very thick frontal armor 700mm thick at an angle of 900mm (M1A2). Armor T-72 200 + pads (110 + 20) = 320mm at an angle somewhere of ~ 550mm. And using Abrams in urban conditions without DZ was stupid because even from RPG-7 you could easily beat Abrams aboard.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 28 November 2013 20: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Endrew
      ..... because he has a very thick frontal armor with a thickness of 700mm at an angle of 900mm (M1A2).

      Interesting math:
      70-90 cm of armor in the nose, despite the fact that the VLD is 8 cm, the roof of the tower is 4 cm, the aft sheet is 4 cm (but the radiators can also be broken with a 30 mm caliber cannon), the bottom is 2 cm.

      From the sides the tank is covered with bulwarks. But here's a photo of the inside of the bulwark pierced by shrapnel (looks like a tin box with some kind of stuffing).

      At T-72 board 7-8 cm of armor + bulwark
      1. Endrew
        Endrew 28 November 2013 23: 55 New
        0
        NOS did you mean NLD!? And about the interesting mathematics of VLD 80mm BUT! at an angle (82 °) it is almost impossible to pierce it in the horizontal plane, shells simply ricochet. But VLD is vulnerable from the air!
        Well, the boron is 50mm, but you forgot it has a lot thicker side screens.
        1. svp67
          svp67 28 November 2013 23: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Endrew
          at an angle (82 °) it is almost impossible to pierce it in the horizontal plane of the shells

          Everything is real, firstly, the "meeting angle" may turn out to be much less than 82 degrees, and shells have long been taught to "bite" the armor that it is almost impossible to reduce the benefits from rational angles of inclination.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 29 November 2013 00: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Endrew
          Nose did you mean NLD!? And about the interesting mathematics of VLD 80mm BUT! .....................
          Yes. But I pay attention to another: 70cm of armor on the lower frontal, and further along the tank, the armor thickness is from 8 to 2cm. Something is hard to believe in these 70cm. Most likely this is the equivalent of a 70cm armor.
          By the way, his board is not always 50mm, sometimes 20mm.

          In the photo 5cm of armor on board only in the place where the patch At later Abrams, this extra armor stretches almost to the engine compartment. But everything where the chassis mount is the same weakened zone.
  35. Snoop
    Snoop 28 November 2013 17: 25 New
    +2
    It’s real that Abrams and T-72 will meet normal crews in a tank battle, and then it will be clear who is better or worse. On the other hand, one battle is a matter of chance, one of the parties may have a tactically more advantageous position, or superior numbers. One can only judge when either side is engaging in a full-blown armed conflict, using the T-72 on the other, Abrams, but then in general it will be possible to draw conclusions about the best in terms of efficiency, maintainability, etc.

    A tank king ... at the time of the appearance of the T-72, he, I think, was really one of the best, but time is running out ...
  36. The fat man
    The fat man 28 November 2013 19: 03 New
    0
    thus, most of Iraq’s wrecked tanks were destroyed by aviation. In addition, low personnel training affected this.

    I didn’t understand something from this delusional article. Didn’t the Iraqis have 10 years of experience in the war with Iran
    1. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 28 November 2013 19: 16 New
      0
      They had, but these Iraqis posed for journalists on Death Highway during Desert Storm
      1. The fat man
        The fat man 28 November 2013 23: 49 New
        0
        posed not only on the highway of death - but this is a matter of aviation
        but on other fronts I'm talking about the Iraqi divisions of Tavalkan Novukhodonosor. Medina there was a different situation armor against armor
        So the training of Iraqi tankmen has nothing to do with it ??????? or????
    2. Komandir_T-72
      29 November 2013 16: 55 New
      -1
      They had, but they met a completely new enemy, they were abrams and not obsolete M60 or centurions or chieftains
  37. mvg
    mvg 28 November 2013 19: 21 New
    0
    The t-72 is not a breakthrough after the t-64, the t-64 is stronger and more technologically advanced, tanks of the same time. Already argued about it. t-72 fought a lot, because the most common in the world. all the more so for the Araps, who have been fighting almost constantly since the age of 48, but have never won for some reason ... about the case that the author describes, yes, the Abrams were tested, but they had 105 mm guns, and not 120, as of now .. and other engines. By the way, both the Abrams and the T-72 are almost the same age .. the Syrians, too, at that moment still did not buy them in bulk. and about the tank battle between the Abrams and the T-72, it’s incorrect to speak now, b1a2ser cannot be compared with any modernization of the T-72. Iraq had no chance, and it is believed that about 40000 shells are now lying in the desert, with a lot of uranium core .. (they claimed to have fallen from the first shot :-)) and they remembered well about biathlon, it’s just screaming ..: -)
    1. sapran
      sapran 28 November 2013 19: 30 New
      0
      Please do not create rumors. Why once again raise a storm in a glass because of the drunken statement of a pseudo participant in the events? for all the time many trophies fell to ours, but each case sooner or later became the property of the public. But such "fairy tales" are like a legend about a meat grinder between T-72 Merkava visas. Each side tells something to puff up and is not able to prove something. If the F-117 was shot down, then there are details, and then fairy tales as an excuse to beg for a glass ...
  38. sss5.papu
    sss5.papu 28 November 2013 20: 42 New
    0
    Compare t-72 and Abrams is stupid, to say the least. Many patriots would like owls. the tanks were the best in the world. No characteristics can be compared - 72 is yesterday. If DZ is hung on a tower, this already says a lot. The round armor is unnecessarily cast, and modern tanks only have welded sheets. And the speed and weight of ABRAMS speaks for itself. Competitions in NATO among tank crews and this infamous biathlon shows the difference not only in the training of tankers but also in the tanks themselves. And the MSA where the tanks fired past even from a place not to mention firing on the move (they fired almost stopping) do not go in comparison with either ABRAMS or Leoparl or Leclerc and French TVP (ECCE firms). Even the late Chavez now preferred the Brazilian OZORIO to Owls / Russian tanks. And much, much more.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 28 November 2013 21: 00 New
      0
      Quote: sss5.papu
      Compare t-72 and Abrams is stupid, to say the least.

      It’s foolish, to say the least, to try to prove something using arguments that dazzle you with their naivety.
      Quote: sss5.papu
      modern tanks only have welded sheets.

      And what?
      The first tanks were also riveted and welded.
      Quote: sss5.papu
      .And the speed and weight of ABRAMS speaks for itself.

      Do you even understand what you wrote?
      lol
      Sorry, but it seems that you did not understand what the article was about.
      1. sss5.papu
        sss5.papu 28 November 2013 21: 48 New
        -4
        And what?
        The first tanks were also riveted and welded.
        And that is why in Chechnya they burned like matches from RPGs. Without DZ it is a tin. But also with DZ against BPS it is also a tin.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 28 November 2013 21: 59 New
          +3
          ] In your opinion, in conditions of urban battle Abramsov would burn less?
          1. sss5.papu
            sss5.papu 28 November 2013 22: 13 New
            -2
            If you shoot from above, then Abrams probably burns like the t-72, and if you do not hang the DZ on the sides of the case, it will also burn. But the Abrams tower is not penetrable for RPGs. multilayer. In addition, the purpose of the tank is not only urban combat. And in general I think the argument is better than idiotic - you can not compare Zaporozhets and Mercedes
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 29 November 2013 17: 00 New
              0
              Quote: sss5.papu
              If you hit it from above, then Abrams probably burns like the t-72, and if you do not hang the DZ on the sides of the case, it will also burn. But the Abrams tower is not penetrable for RPGs because layered.

              In your case, the lack of knowledge is not a lack, but a virtue! So paraffin his panegyric to Abrams his own defenders !!!
          2. Komandir_T-72
            29 November 2013 16: 59 New
            0
            That's when the Americans on their rolls drove into the towns (Afghan, a storm in a glass) they were burned here by the Taliban, or who are the old Soviet RPGs
        3. Komandir_T-72
          29 November 2013 16: 58 New
          0
          good pour, no one as you say did not burn.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 28 November 2013 21: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: sss5.papu
      And much, much more.

      Apupil while reading your entire comment ...
      Kindly translate, pliz, all these words into a normal language.
      1. sss5.papu
        sss5.papu 28 November 2013 21: 44 New
        -3
        Probably you don’t want to understand or really don’t understand anything!
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 28 November 2013 21: 47 New
          +1
          To be honest, we don’t really understand.
          1. sss5.papu
            sss5.papu 28 November 2013 22: 02 New
            0
            What exactly is not clear?
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 28 November 2013 22: 27 New
          0
          Quote: sss5.papu
          Probably you don’t want to understand or really don’t understand anything!

          Really - we don’t understand ...
          I here, modestly served on the T-72B, and "worked" on them.

          But your comments do not understand.
          Repeated request:
          Translate them into a normal language, okay?
          And then you already want to sleep ... In the Urals, it's already half-past twelve.
          1. sss5.papu
            sss5.papu 28 November 2013 22: 53 New
            -2
            With all due respect to your work, for comparison you would have to work on ABRAMS
            1. family tree
              family tree 29 November 2013 00: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: sss5.papu
              With all due respect to your work, for comparison you would have to work on ABRAMS

              Let me know which tanks you worked on.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 29 November 2013 17: 45 New
              +1
              Quote: sss5.papu
              for comparison, you would have to work on Abrams

              In life, we have to work on the Abrams, if that.

          2. Hektor
            Hektor 28 November 2013 23: 18 New
            -1
            I modestly served on the T-72B


            Well, you didn’t serve on the Abrams and Leopards, then where did such conclusions come from ??
            1. svp67
              svp67 29 November 2013 00: 24 New
              +4
              Quote: Hektor
              Well, you didn’t serve on the Abrams and Leopards, then where did such conclusions come from ??

              Well, if you are a little interested in it, I managed to stay in L2 and M60. I must say right away that a LOT has been done there for the crew to work properly, they missed one thing - they made them VERY big, which may not have the best effect on the crew's "health". Although, of course, the "chests" are very strong, including the "Abrams", but you can beat them and put them to us, I will do everything in my power to prove it more than once ...
              1. Hektor
                Hektor 29 November 2013 00: 56 New
                -4
                Although, of course, the "chests" are very strong, including the "Abrams", but you can beat them and put them to us, I will do my best to ensure that this is not once proved ...


                Well everyone will do it soldier

                Py.sy. At the age of 14 I was at the training ground and was able to climb (with difficulty) T 55, T 62 and T 64 ... closely like in a coffin (sorry for the comparison) and this is a small, thin boy. At the age of 23 in the army I managed to see up close our vaunted "Lvov" (T 72 mod. Aslan), again cramped (though now my height is 1 meter 83). For a person with tall stature, long arms and legs, it is generally extremely uncomfortable, and then the understanding of what a reclining position is for a mechanic comes. The warrant officer (in our crews, all personnel and mostly warrant officers with at least 7 years of experience) have a scar over his eyebrow due to the protruding Israeli sight, and in general there was a general opinion that the tanker on the T 72 (especially in those heaped up with a lot of electronics ) should be a kind of sapper and watch his every move.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 29 November 2013 08: 59 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Hektor
                  T 55, T 62 and T 64 ... closely as in a coffin

                  From this list T62 - completely, and T55 - to a greater extent does not correspond to what you said, well, unless of course they are not compared with buses ....
                2. Cynic
                  Cynic 29 November 2013 17: 22 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Hektor
                  About 14 years old he was at the training ground and was able to climb (with difficulty) T 55, T 62 and T 64 ...

                  Mmmm, about the 55s and 62s I agree that they climbed, but the T-64 ... If it's not a secret what year it was?
                  Quote: Hektor
                  closely as in a coffin (excuse me for comparing) and this is a thin, thin boy.

                  Do you really think that there are only virtual tankers on the site who did not smell the solarium and did not sit at the levers?
                  Moreover, as it is logically difficult, your arguments are compatible
                  Quote: Hektor
                  closely as in a coffin (excuse me for comparing) and this is a thin, thin boy.

                  and then
                  Quote: Hektor
                  At the age of 23, he managed to see in the army close ..., again, closely (though now I have a growth of 1 meter 83).

                  Ehehe.
                  And at 14 years closely and at 23 years closely. Do you happen to suffer from claustrophobia?
                  hi
                  1. Hektor
                    Hektor 3 December 2013 01: 38 New
                    -1
                    Mmmm, about the 55s and 62s I agree that they climbed, but the T-64 ... If it's not a secret what year it was?

                    In 2004, what ?? Or do you doubt that there were T64 in Azerbaijan ??
                    Do you really think that there are only virtual tankers on the site who did not smell the solarium and did not sit at the levers?

                    Some yes. The T70 is compared with Elephant, and the Tank with a car ...
                    Moreover, as it is logically difficult, your arguments are compatible

                    What is so hard to compatible ??? Did I write that in T 62 there is space and comfort, and T 72 is a vice and flour ???
                    And at 14 years closely and at 23 years closely. Do you happen to suffer from claustrophobia?

                    Yes, no, it seems)) I ride a lift 10 times a day and nothing)))
                    Just mine between 11m3 and 20m3 there is a difference ...
                    how in between.
                    http://armor.kiev.ua/wiki/images/thumb/5/54/Moderntanks.png/348px-Moderntanks.pn
                    g
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic 3 December 2013 16: 24 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Hektor
                      In 2004

                      I see.
                      Quote: Hektor
                      Why is it so hard to compatible?

                      I repeat
                      Quote: Cynic
                      And at 14 years closely and at 23 years closely.

                      For the future, do not vomit someone’s statements and comment on these pieces individually.
                      Moreover, at my 182cm and 96kg, it was comfortable behind the levers in the T-55/62, and then the T-80. I do not speak spaciously, but did not feel discomfort.
                      Here OZK was not comfortable to wear, more than! In the 80s, the Most High mercifully dressed, he was already in a different category.
                    2. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 3 December 2013 17: 55 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Hektor
                      Just mine between 11m3 and 20m3 there is a difference ...
                      And you also need to be able to intelligently manage this volume. Photos of the fighting compartment, where it is clearly visible that in Western tanks the crew is freer, can you post here?
                      I think you can’t.

                      Here, for example, "Abrams". There is a gunner at the feet of the commander, is he very spacious there?

                      And our gunner has his own hatch over his head.

                      And here is the commander’s place (T-90). Compare with the commander’s place in Abrams.

                      The Leopard has a combat height (from the floor to the ceiling) of 165 cm. In Abrams is comparable. Imagine the work of the loader in this space. There is no loader in our tanks, therefore, the volume under the armor is not provided for it.
                3. Komandir_T-72
                  30 November 2013 08: 49 New
                  0
                  you don’t know much in a car, but who promised you spacious mansions? This is military equipment and comfort is far from the main thing in this matter.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 29 November 2013 17: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Hektor
              , then where are such conclusions ??

              1. Hektor
                Hektor 3 December 2013 01: 42 New
                0
                And what did you mean by that ???
    3. GastaClaus69
      GastaClaus69 28 November 2013 22: 20 New
      0
      Quote: sss5.papu
      Compare t-72 and Abrams is stupid, to say the least. Many patriots would like owls. the tanks were the best in the world. No characteristics can be compared - 72 is yesterday.

      Well, why, both have tracks, a tower, a cannon! It is foolish to compare the very effectiveness of tanks imprisoned under different doctrines of warfare. At one time, owls. the tanks were the best when the NATO members learned about 64ke, they burned down!
      Quote: sss5.papu
      The round armor is unnecessarily cast, and modern tanks only have welded sheets.

      At the T-90 and Oplot towers, welded BUTs are round at the same time.
      Quote: sss5.papu
      Competitions in NATO among tank crews and this infamous biathlon shows the difference not only in the training of tankers but also in the tanks themselves.

      Next year we will find out for sure.
      Quote: sss5.papu
      And the SLA where the tanks fired past even from a place not to mention firing on the move (they fired almost stopping)

      My friend participated in the competition for the best tank platoon, struck 64 out of 9 on the T-10BV in the exercises, but only 4 in the competition, the human factor really decides!
      Osorio is the current of which 4 prototypes were released and the program was blown up by this?
      1. Endrew
        Endrew 29 November 2013 00: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: GastaClaus69
        My friend participated in the competition for the best tank platoon, struck 64 out of 9 on the T-10BV in the exercises, but only 4 in the competition, the human factor really decides!

        Unless the targets were beyond 20m lol

        attention at 00:12 1:12
        very rare when the video shows the schools of tanks!
        1. Komandir_T-72
          30 November 2013 08: 51 New
          -1
          In Ukraine, there is still, but I thought everything was already sold
  39. GEO
    GEO 28 November 2013 21: 36 New
    0
    Quote: sapran
    ... and how did the testing go? Who do the Saudis want to buy?

    whom they say will be bought
    1. sapran
      sapran 29 November 2013 01: 25 New
      0
      Please do not measure the world with your arshin. Frets? They take what they can reach as much as possible. (they love good things) although they themselves are not always correct in their use.
  40. Michael_59
    Michael_59 28 November 2013 21: 59 New
    +1
    Throughout the development of military technology, there were machines that the troops loved, but there were machines that were "not very" favored. And what they love is the best. After all, not everyone succeeds in deserving this, and it is worth a lot ...
  41. sss5.papu
    sss5.papu 28 November 2013 22: 41 New
    -1
    Osorio is the current of which 4 prototypes were released and the program was blown up by this?
    Where did you hear that? Not even funny!
    "At one time, Soviet tanks were the best, when NATO members learned about the 64k they burned a lot!"
    - That's it in due time!
    "On the T-90 and Oplot, the towers are welded but round."
    - and how do you represent it? In addition, for "force" or something, the T-90 began to be covered with sheets to resemble modern Zap. tanks
    - and why your friend having such indicators did not get on this biathlon?
    1. sapran
      sapran 29 November 2013 01: 30 New
      0
      what for? It's just a Competition of Russian divisions. (then they decided to try to turn it into an analogue of the "Canadian Army prize"). When this happens and it will be a decent show then it will be possible to send the T-64BV let it creep to the delight of the "patriots" The rest will be sent, to put it mildly, not in a sporting way.
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 29 November 2013 17: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: sss5.papu
      In addition, for "force" or something, the T-90 began to be covered with sheets to resemble modern Zap. tanks

      Oh _ Hold me seven !
      Dear, do you even imagine the history of dynamic and exploded protection ?! About armor chobham и porcelain have you heard?
      What do you think is the year the report appeared?
      Scientific research institute of BT in the Kubinka firing range equipped with standard screens- "Shurtsens" of the captured tank Pz.Kpfw.IV. The faustpatron (judging by the attached Panzerfaust 60M or Panzerfaust 100M) attached to the report on the screen led to its destruction and defeat of the tank tower. A cumulative [684] jet pierced the Pz.Kpfw.IV tower from side to side through and through.
  42. iConst
    iConst 28 November 2013 22: 54 New
    +1
    On the "video in the topic": Well, damn they are stupid. How the parrots set up "Allahu Akbar" ...
  43. family tree
    family tree 29 November 2013 00: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: sss5.papu
    Osorio is the current of which 4 prototypes were released and the program was blown up by this?
    Where did you hear that? Not even funny!

    Firm "Angesa" was spinning while making light wheeled armored vehicles, but after "Ozorio" went bankrupt, in 1990, without launching it into series.
    Quote: sss5.papu
    "On the T-90 and Oplot, the towers are welded but round."
    - and how do you imagine it? In addition, for "force" or something, the T-90 began to be covered with sheets to resemble modern Zap. tanks

    Oh, in vain, I probably got here what
    1. family tree
      family tree 29 November 2013 00: 56 New
      +2
      "Round tower covered with sheets" belay
  44. dmn2
    dmn2 29 November 2013 03: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Endrew
    attention at 00:12 1:12
    very rare when the video shows the schools of tanks!


    at 1:04 and 1:08 - similar jambs. The commentator is really sure that "... the shells go to the target"))
    1. sapran
      sapran 29 November 2013 03: 30 New
      0
      That you will take the same "commentator".
      and in fact, the competition turned out to be very provocative and useful since the guys did not know the target situation, and the main task and responsibility in this exercise was for the tank commander (to identify the target and give target designations), and in this regard the T-64 BV is not up to par. OGS ZAMANA Vladimir Mikhailovich especially insists wherever possible on the introduction of advanced training methods and can not stand the classic targets. in addition to the crews, other requirements were presented related to both driving and working out standards ... there is something to interest people.
  45. fumanchu
    fumanchu 29 November 2013 05: 54 New
    +1
    The tank is not a woman. Even if it is outdated by certain parameters, then this is fixable. If a modern fire control system were installed on the T-72, and a couple more nishtyaks in the form of active protection, etc., then we would have lived another 20 years.
    True ammunition is out of date. More effective are needed. I don’t know if new ones can be adapted to his cannon. Then also a new gun is needed.
    Maybe I'm confusing it now, but there seems to be ammunition due to the vertical arrangement in terms of ammunition dimensions. Then, in general, a tower from the T-90s, together with a loading automatic machine, should be slammed. There seems to have eliminated this dead end.

    In general, the engine and chassis are reliable, and the rest is fixable.
  46. basmach
    basmach 29 November 2013 13: 28 New
    0
    I would like to remind you that in the first Iraqi war about a third of the Abrams did not make it to the front line due to breakdowns (he really doesn’t like dust, sand and dirt), and the spacious fighting compartment makes it impossible for the crew to work normally on rough terrain, In general, an asphalt warrior. The next nuance is that most of the leading tank-building countries stop developing new tanks (this is a very expensive pleasure) and are engaged in deep modernization of the existing fleet of equipment. How many new tanks have appeared in the last ten years? And the main thing is the crew and in the skillful hands of the T-72 - a very formidable weapon (which the Yankees admitted back in the first Iraqi, and in the second, most of the equipment was simply thrown by the Iraqis e-ea cowardice). He himself was only in Syria on a business trip, but communicated with colleagues who were on business trips in Iraq (and during the Iran-Iraq war), they are still fighters.
    1. Komandir_T-72
      30 November 2013 09: 49 New
      +2
      Naturally, he also has a gas turbine power plant, its fear of dust and dirt became known back in the USSR, when the T-64, T-72 and T-80 were driven across the hot Kazakh desert in the 70s. Just the same on the T-80 and found such a flaw, tk. it was the world's first tank with a gas turbine engine, but this drawback was eliminated after the installation of the device, which periodically "shaken" the engine units, thereby preventing dust from settling on the device, and after the installation of a compressed air engine purge system. The Americans apparently did not reach all this
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 30 November 2013 16: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Komandir_T-72
        but this drawback was done away with after the installation of the device, which periodically "shaken" the engine units, thereby preventing dust from settling on the device, and after installing the engine purge system with compressed air

        Scientifically speaking
        The T-80 used an inertial (cyclone) air purification method based on the use of centrifugal forces. This method provides 97 percent air purification. In addition, every 3-4 hours of operation, the turbine rotor blades are vibro-cleaned, and before starting the engine and after stopping it, the engine is purged to remove residual unbound dust concentrations.

        Everything is so, only for the desert eighty put additional dust protection sections, removable.
        wink
        1. Komandir_T-72
          6 December 2013 11: 52 New
          0
          I must say that the T-80 is more technologically advanced and more secure than the T-72, but it does not have combat experience as far as I know. And it looks more like NATO tanks oddly enough
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 6 December 2013 17: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Komandir_T-72
            I must say that the T-80 is technologically advanced and more secure than the T-72

            As I disagree with the first, I also agree in the second.
            72-ka is a much simpler machine than 80-ka, take a word.
            Quote: Komandir_T-72
            And it looks more like NATO tanks oddly enough

            For example ?
    2. Hektor
      Hektor 3 December 2013 01: 53 New
      -2
      Ohhh, I’d like to remind you that the first Iraq war the Abrams ended in As Samavah, and where then were T 72 ???
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 10 January 2014 15: 28 New
        +1
        Where T-72s are now working in Syria, the Abrams, carrots, etc. have nothing to catch. There they will not turn around, nor the towers will turn. The entire sniper body kit will be removed in three minutes, in the city these are just huge and capricious targets, it is not in vain that Israel is taking a large number of Carrots out of combat personnel. And the T-72 is an unpretentious hard worker, unlike its glamorous colleagues. But Iraq must be viewed differently. The country has been under sanctions with destroyed air defense for more than 10 years. with old appliances. And against this state moved more than two dozen states. Most of the generals were bought by US intelligence. So most of the tanks were left on the march or abandoned in positions. Most of the tanks were destroyed by A-10 or helicopters. Abrams worked mainly at night using thermal imagers, but this was not often. But in Fallujah, where they were given the battle, they irretrievably lost about 17 tanks in a few days, not counting the BMP and the armored personnel carrier. But Yugoslavia gave battle, and although NATO's punks had overwhelming superiority in the air, losses in armored vehicles were minimal, NATO spent their high-precision weapons on the destruction of plywood tanks. Since 2003, the United States has not used Abrams in large quantities, in the city they are much more vulnerable than the T-72, and we still have the T-8o, T-90.
  47. Mooh
    Mooh 29 November 2013 13: 29 New
    +1
    Dear author, before writing an article, you need to study at least some materials other than Wikipedia and flyers. At least a short book for elementary school age from the odious writer Baryatinsky. The article is about nothing, the topic is not disclosed in any way - a fat minus.
    And the tank is beautiful. In this budget, only the Chinese can do better, and then not soon.
  48. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 30 November 2013 16: 49 New
    +1
    Guys, these days I thought that nothing better than the tank family - T-72, T-80, T-90, is impossible to do. Praise the author!
  49. Juleandr
    Juleandr 9 December 2013 01: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    in the tank biathlon they smeared and broke, and the crews were considered the best of the best ... did they drive off decommissioned tanks? if so, then everything was not bad ..

    If ... the fact of the matter is that both the proven tanks and the crews are the best, and the result is ... very disastrous Vaska !!!
  50. Flibustiero
    Flibustiero 10 January 2014 12: 57 New
    0
    But how then in Chechnya, the Basmachi beat T 72? if RPG-7 didn’t take it?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 10 January 2014 14: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Flibustiero
      But how then in Chechnya, the Basmachi beat T 72?

      Invulnerable does not happen by definition.