Military Review

Do I need in the modern tank automatic loading?

338
The consequences of attempting to solve insoluble problems


Unfortunately, in stories the domestic “defense industry”, and indeed the industry as a whole, there are many examples of very dubious achievements. Moreover, all of them, as a rule, are a subject of our special pride. This fully applies to the most controversial element in the construction of Soviet / Russian tanks - automatic loading. Thanks to this interesting mechanism, the crew of domestic tanks has long corresponded to the song from the movie "Tractors".

Indeed, we are accustomed to emphasize with a touch of superiority: we are equipping our tanks with such machine guns, but foreign manufacturers in the absolute majority are not. But why? Could it be that the development of this unit turned out to be too tough for American, German, English, Japanese (hereafter, almost to infinity) engineers, and only Russian technical thought could cope with such a complex problem? Let's try to figure it out.

The indicator is important, but not the main

The idea of ​​using an automatic loader was born in Kharkov during the design of the T-64 tank, was included in the TTZ for this car, and then inherited by the T-72 and T-80 tanks. For reasons unknown to the author, this device is referred to as a loading mechanism (MV) on the T-64 and T-80, and an automatic device (AZ) on the T-72. Probably to completely confuse the likely enemy. In addition, it should be noted that the MOH on T-64 and T-80 are identical, and the AZ on T-72 (and on T-90) has a fundamentally different design. However, the theme of unification, or rather, its almost complete absence, from the three Soviet main tanks, simultaneously mass-produced for almost 15 years, requires a separate detailed discussion. Now it's not about that.

We will try to answer the question: why did T-64 need a loading mechanism? The official version is this: due to the refusal of the loader, it was possible to reduce the reserved volume, reduce the size of the vehicle, and turn the saved mass into reinforcement of armor protection. In addition, increasing the rate of fire and facilitating the work of crew members are commonly mentioned. Which of the following is important? It is clear that the first three factors. Indeed, in Kharkov they tried to solve an unsolvable task: to create a tank with the smallest dimensions and weight, but with the most powerful weapons and armor protection. So it was for this reason that the automatic, forgive, loading mechanism was introduced.

Pros and cons of automatic loader

Pros due to the rejection of the loader:
- it was possible to reduce the reserved volume;
- reduce the size of the machine;
- and to save the mass to increase the armor protection;
- increase the rate of fire;
- facilitates the preparation for the shot.

Cons:
- The machine has a final capacity, and almost always it is less than the total number of shots that can be loaded into the tank;
- relatively small ammunition;
- the inability to use ammunition of greater length;
- the difficulty of replenishing the automatic loader ammunition when using all shots in the AZ;
- when the AZ fails, the tank's rate of fire decreases to 1-2 shots per minute, or the tank generally loses the ability to shoot;
- low security AZ or other shots.

Manual loading

Pros:

- all shots are in an armored fighting set, separated from the crew;
- no restrictions on the use of elongated shots;
- the presence of an extra crew member facilitates and reduces the time for loading ammunition and technical equipment maintenance.

Cons:
- low compared to AZ rate of fire, reducing along the loader fatigue;
- large size of the tower and the resulting weight of the tank;
- injury when loading in movement over rough terrain.

Is it really so?

According to experts, confirmed by relevant tests, the rate of fire with manual loading of the first 10-12 unitary ammunition is almost the same as that carried out with the help of AZ, even slightly higher. It is eight to ten shots per minute, fluctuating depending on the agility and fitness of the loader. Then the indicator begins to gradually decrease: the loader fatigues.

The standard rate of fire tanks for manual loading - 6-7 rounds per minute. Automatic loader provides a rate of approximately 4-8 shots per minute. As you can see, the difference is not very large and, as can be seen from the commercials, depends on the preparation of the loader.


Work loader tank "Abrams"



Work loader tank "Leopard-2"



Work charging tank "Challenger-2»



Work loader tank "Merkava Mk4"


Main minus - loader prone to physical fatigue, which negatively affects the rate of fire of the gun. If at the beginning of the battle the pace of work of the loader exceeds the pace of work of the automatic loader, then at the end of the battle the situation changes to the opposite, especially in the process of moving the tank with an increased speed over rough terrain.

But, as we can see from this video, the loader has enough time to recuperate, and he is not so much wary of him in the fighting compartment.


Work loader tank "Abrams" in combat conditions


And this is how automatic loaders work on various tanks.


Work autoloader T-72 / 90



Work autoloader T-64 / 80



The work of the automatic loading of the tank "Leclerc" (France), K-2 (South Korea) and Tip-90 (Japan)


My opinion. Foreign designers, faced with difficulties in creating and operating loading mechanisms, decided to leave the loader as a member of the crew.

The reasons:
1. From the above, such a system is naturally more reliable. In case of problems with the power supply network and hydraulics of the machines, in contrast to them in such conditions, it provides greater reliability and rate of fire.
2. There is no load on the tank commander and gunner - they are engaged only in direct duties, without being distracted, that is, they are engaged in combat.
3. Greater ammunition.
4. Charger has other responsibilities, primarily in maintenance.

And then, now the emphasis is on using managed weaponsand not to increase the rate of fire.

Hard and dangerous ammunition

It is probably worth asking another question: what happens if the T-72 uses up all the ammunition from the autoloader? Despite the fact that modern combat is dynamic and transient, it can be assumed. In the 1973 year, for example, in Sinai and Golan, tank duels lasted quite a long time. We won’t guess how long a shot can be spent on the 22 (the amount of ammunition in AZ “seventy-second”), we will try to imagine what will happen next. Just look at the layout of the ammunition in the T-72 tank to see:

T-72 tank ammunition makes 45 shots separate loading. 22 shots are in the automatic loader, and 23 projectiles and charges are spliced ​​throughout the combat compartment, which makes it extremely difficult to use them.

Do I need in the modern tank automatic loading?

The layout of the ammunition in the T-72


But the main thing - who will charge? Charging because there is no! But there is an instruction manual, which instructs the commander and gunner to do this alternately. There is even a special table for placing projectiles and charges, as well as the sequence of loading the gun manually, for example, with the first three shots.


Table loading the first three shots in the T-72


And so for 23 ammunition. With the only difference that, starting from the fifth, in the column “Position of the tower,” the angle is given on the scale of the azimuth pointer, to which it must be turned to reach the projectile and charge. So I want to ask: tankers (gunner and commander) should remember all this?

For the sake of fairness, it must be said that in this respect they do not differ for the better from the "seventy-second" and T-64 with T-80. For example:

T-64 tank ammunition makes 37 shots separate loading. 28 shots are in the automatic loader, and 9 projectiles and charges are spliced ​​throughout the combat compartment, which makes it extremely difficult to use them.


Stacking shots in the office of control


Seven more are stationed in the control compartment, and two shells and a charge are on the cabin floor. In combat, the crew can only rely on ammunition in the cockpit, since neither the gunner nor the commander can get into the control department. Although the relevant operating instructions state that only shots with high-explosive and cumulative shells can be outside the loading mechanism. From this, however, it does not get any easier.


The layout of the ammunition in the T-64


It is obvious that after the shooting of ammunition from the loader or its failure for any reason, the T-72 practically loses its combat capability. It is curious to note that the T-64А instruction manual on loading the gun with the hands of the commander and gunner is completely absent (although manual loading in the T-64 is a bit faster and simpler than in T-72), that is, the crew, as it were, are prepared in advance for that he will have to rely only on 28 shots in the MOH. Both in that and in the other tank, it is true that the delivery of shots to the dismounting line by hand is provided, but this is subject to the failure of only the actuator. In the case of a rotating conveyor jamming, shells and charges in it simply cannot be reached.

And what is going on in a possible opponent?

It should be noted that for the first time a French light tank AMX13 was equipped with an automatic loader in the 1951 year. So this is not our invention. Later in the West, several AZ designs of various types, including carousel, were developed. But none of them were used on serial tanks: no one was engaged in reducing the reserved volume there.

Ammunition of the Abrams tank is 40 unitary shots, with 34 projectile located in the niche of the tower. The loader sits sideways to the gun (facing the breech) to his left and sends out shots with his right hand, and not his left, as in Soviet tanks with manual loading.


The layout of the ammunition tank "Abrams"


The main part of the ammunition to the cannon is located in the isolated compartment of the turret, equipped with expelling panels. The remaining shells are stored in an isolated compartment in the tank hull.

The ammunition of the Leopard-2 tank is 42 unitary shots, but the tower contains only 15 unitars, and this indicator is inferior to Abrams and T-72.


The layout of the ammunition of the tank "Leopard-2"



15 shots are located on the left in the aft niche of the tower.



Additional ammunition (27 shots) is located in the housing to the left of the driver


Ammunition of the tank "Challenger II" makes 52 shot with separate loading, and the shells are located in the aft niche of the tower, and the charges are located below the shoulder strap of the tower in armored containers. The above-mentioned armored containers have “shirts” with a special liquid.


The layout of the ammunition tank "Challenger II"




Shots placed in the tower


Only French specialists went the Soviet way, setting the AZ on the Leclerc. The reason for this decision is easy to understand: they, too, sought to reduce the booked volume, only within the limits of other dimensions and mass. However, the design of the Leclerc automaton is fundamentally different, and in terms of layout and usability it is much better than ours.


The layout of the ammunition tank "Leclerc"


Ammunition of the Leclerc tank It is 40 unitary shots, of which 22 are in the automatic loader, the shells are placed in the cells of the horizontal conveyor, located across the cannon, opposite the breech of which the feed window is arranged. On command from the console, the gun is mounted on the loading angle - 1,8 °, the conveyor delivers a cell to the window with an appropriate shot. Automation is able to provide a technical rate of fire (excluding aiming and aiming) up to 15 shots per minute. The effective rate of fire - 10-12 rounds per minute (for T-72 - eight), both from a standstill and in motion, and also 18 are in the drummed pack in the control section, and can be moved by the gunner to the automatic loader as the ammunition is spent in it

Equipment of the conveyor cells is conducted from the outside through the loading hatch in the stern wall of the tower or from the inside, from the gunner's seat, which can replenish the machine gun from the ammunition - rotating drum on 18 shots mounted in the case to the right of the driver. There is no need to distribute ammunition by type, because the machine is equipped with a reading device that is connected to a processor that can recognize at least five types of ammunition.
Compartment guns and AZ separated from the jobs of the commander and the gunner sealed walls, which increases safety and survivability. In addition to the convenience of replenishing the machine both outside and inside, the French unit has another advantage over the Soviet counterpart - it is adapted for any type of ammunition, while the domestic MOH and AZ do not allow placing modern shots with elongated sabers in them.

The exact opposite of the Soviet and French solution is the Israeli tank Merkava Mk4.
Ammunition of the tank "Merkava Mk4" It is 46 unitary shots, of which 10 are in the drum mechanism, feeds the projectile loader, and the remaining 36 projectiles are placed in refractory containers in the stern of the hull.

However, in the crew of the car there was a loader, which, based on the situation, determines how to load the gun: manually or with the help of a machine gun.


The layout of the tank ammunition "Merkava Mk4"



Fireproof containers in the aft hull


What can I say? There is a completely different approach: AZ together with the loader, and not in its place. It really solved the problem of facilitating the work of crew members and increasing the rate of fire.

Thus, neither American, nor German, nor Israeli tanks lose their combat capability, until the complete execution of ammunition, which takes much less time to load into these vehicles compared to T-72.

The question naturally suggests itself: is non-mechanized styling necessary at all? In addition to its uselessness for shooting, it carries a clear threat to the life of the crew. The whole world went around the photos of T-72 with towers, ripped off by an explosion of ammunition, from Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Syria. For some experts, this fact was puzzling: after all, the shots in the automatic loading of this tank are below the level of the road wheels. In the machine - yes, but in non-mechanized packing - no. Apparently, the latter and are the catalyst for the process of detonation of ammunition.

So need or not modern tank automatic loading? As we see, the development trends of world tank building do not give a definitive answer to this question. One thing is clear: in the form in which it exists in domestic tanks, AZ (MH) is definitely not needed.

Sources:
http://weaponscollection.com/17/1475-vazhnyy-element-v-tanke-avtomat-zaryazhaniya.html
http://arma.at.ua/blog/otechestvennye_tanki_i_ikh_zarubezhnye_konkurenty/2012-06-01-10
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/4.html
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com
Author:
338 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich April 22 2014 07: 36
    +10
    so, the word is our fuel oil! we wait! the conversation will be serious ... hi
    1. family tree
      family tree April 22 2014 08: 26
      +4
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      so, the word is our fuel oil! we wait! the conversation will be serious ... hi

      Oh yes how much do you want
      http://topwar.ru/8271-zachem-tanku-avtomat-zaryazhaniya.html
      I can still throw, the topic is already so chewed ...
      http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/193-t-90-protiv-abramsa
    2. Civil
      Civil April 22 2014 08: 43
      +21
      As the Israeli version seems to remove all questions, the era of miniaturization solved the problems in terms of the volume occupied by the AZ, leaving room for the loader.
      At the same time, the future is still with maximum robotization, up to giving up the crew, the appearance of an unmanned tank is a matter of time.
      1. family tree
        family tree April 22 2014 09: 07
        +9
        Quote: Civil
        As the Israeli version seems to remove all questions, the era of miniaturization solved the problems in terms of the volume occupied by the AZ, leaving room for the loader.

        There is no AZ in "carrots". There is a conveyor that delivers a projectile to the loader, which (conveyor) is replenished with the same loader.
        1. Civil
          Civil April 22 2014 09: 21
          -4
          Quote: perepilka
          Quote: Civil
          As the Israeli version seems to remove all questions, the era of miniaturization solved the problems in terms of the volume occupied by the AZ, leaving room for the loader.

          There is no AZ in "carrots". There is a conveyor that delivers a projectile to the loader, which (conveyor) is replenished with the same loader.

          So this is my option, the most correct.
      2. GRune
        GRune April 22 2014 10: 59
        +4
        Merkava is just HUGE!
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 22 2014 12: 06
          -9

          The difference is not really critical. But the comfortable location of the crew, and, as a result, greater efficiency in battle helps a lot
          1. Canep
            Canep April 22 2014 12: 41
            +27
            Quote: Pimply
            The difference is not really critical.

            I think the exact opposite. 72 will be able to hide on a corn field, but at Merkava the floor of the tower will stick out. A full rest in the tank will not work either in this case. If you talk like that, then you need to make an assault rifle (rifle) so that by transforming it into a clamshell so that the soldier could take a nap before the battle.

            In general, Merkava and T-72 are designed for different conditions of war and principles of application. Merkava can act alone or in a group of 2-5 armored vehicles, the T-72 was created for a large-scale war as part of the tank compounds.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 22 2014 13: 04
              -2
              Quote: Canep
              I think the exact opposite. 72 will be able to hide on a corn field, but at Merkava the floor of the tower will stick out. A full rest in the tank will not work either in this case. If you talk like that, then you need to make an assault rifle (rifle) so that by transforming it into a clamshell so that the soldier could take a nap before the battle.

              Are you kidding, right? Do you really appreciate with modern detection methods how the tank is hiding in the corn field (if so, then the corn is three meters high, merkava 2600, T-72 - 2200. Difference 40 cm, if that. Awesome big)?
              Comfortable combat and rest in a tank are two big differences. Have you ever tried to spend 12 hours in combat in a reserved space? I had such an experience. Not in the "carrot", but was. And where it is cramped, low, dark and stuffy, the comfort of conducting combat operations and the effectiveness of the crew's actions are much lower than where it is spacious, light and air-conditioned.



              Quote: Canep
              In general, Merkava and T-72 are designed for different conditions of war and principles of application. Merkava can act alone or in a group of 2-5 armored vehicles, the T-72 was created for large-scale war as part of tank formations.

              Listen, where do you get such grass?
            2. Michael_59
              Michael_59 April 23 2014 13: 54
              +9
              Quote: Canep
              72nd will be able to hide in a corn field, but near Merkava the floor of the tower will stick out


              Then the 72nd will be able to hide even behind the "Merkava", which is already without a tower.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Hon
            Hon April 22 2014 15: 59
            +14
            Quote: Pimply
            The difference is not really critical. But the comfortable location of the crew, and, as a result, greater efficiency in battle helps a lot

            The difference will be felt well during transportation, in addition, the large armored volume adversely affects the armor, so that the mercava would provide a level of protection like the T-90, much more material should be used. that merkava weighs like a half teshes.
          4. _CAMOBAP_
            _CAMOBAP_ April 22 2014 21: 46
            +17
            What do you mean "not critical"? 40 cm is, after all, this is not a separate sticking out plastic pumppa, this is additional weight - and considerable (!) - with all the consequences. And plus 40 cm to the silhouette - this, my friend, maybe oh, how critical - this is what I am telling you as an anti-tank officer.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 22 2014 21: 51
              -5
              Quote: _CAMOBAP_
              What do you mean "not critical"? 40 cm is, after all, this is not a separate sticking out plastic pumppa, this is additional weight - and considerable (!) - with all the consequences. And plus 40 cm to the silhouette - this, my friend, maybe oh, how critical - this is what I am telling you as an anti-tank officer.


              40 cm to 40 cm - this is critical. 40 cm to more than 2 meters - not really. Modern tools level this difference. This is one way or another a very big fool, not the size of a car. And one of my army specialties is RPG-Schnick
              1. BYRY
                BYRY April 22 2014 23: 41
                +3
                And the Swiss and the reaper and the igrets on the pipe. Another air submariner?
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply April 23 2014 00: 13
                  +4
                  Quote: BYRY
                  And the Swiss and the reaper and the igrets on the pipe. Another air submariner?

                  I have three specialties in different types of mortars - 52, 60, 82 mm, specialization in RPGs, courses on a large-caliber machine gun browning, on 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, on RPG and LAU grenade launchers, 4-month courses of medical trainers, urban combat course. And the general course 4 + 2,5 of the month of general combat training. Does any of this bother you?
                  1. free
                    free April 23 2014 08: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Quote: BYRY
                    And the Swiss and the reaper and the igrets on the pipe. Another air submariner?

                    I have three specialties in different types of mortars - 52, 60, 82 mm, specialization in RPGs, courses on a large-caliber machine gun browning, on 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, on RPG and LAU grenade launchers, 4-month courses of medical trainers, urban combat course. And the general course 4 + 2,5 of the month of general combat training. Does any of this bother you?


                    where did he study this? troops?
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply April 23 2014 20: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: free
                      where did he study this? troops?

                      IDF. Indicate your unit? Now it’s the battalion of the Kfir brigade
                  2. _CAMOBAP_
                    _CAMOBAP_ April 23 2014 09: 58
                    0
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Quote: BYRY
                    And the Swiss and the reaper and the igrets on the pipe. Another air submariner?

                    I have three specialties in different types of mortars - 52, 60, 82 mm, specialization in RPGs, courses on a large-caliber machine gun browning, on 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, on RPG and LAU grenade launchers, 4-month courses of medical trainers, urban combat course. And the general course 4 + 2,5 of the month of general combat training. Does any of this bother you?

                    And how does the specialty 52 mm mortar differ from the specialty 82 mm?
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply April 23 2014 20: 24
                      +1
                      Quote: _CAMOBAP_
                      And how does the specialty 52 mm mortar differ from the specialty 82 mm?

                      Much. 52 mm is elementary. 82 is installed in an armored personnel carrier or on another mobile platform, it implies acquaintance with a ballistic computer.
                      1. anon8573
                        anon8573 April 25 2014 19: 09
                        +1
                        Of course, I wildly apologize, but I have a question: And why the ballistic computer to 82 mm mortar ?!
                      2. Vittt
                        Vittt 2 February 2017 17: 48
                        -1
                        I feel a little sorry for you, you are fighting against the entire Muslim world. Well, stop it! Give Merkavi peace!
          5. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 22 2014 23: 17
            +3
            It also makes life easier for enemy gunners.
          6. user1212
            user1212 April 24 2014 04: 38
            +2
            Quote: Pimply

            The difference is not really critical. But the comfortable location of the crew, and, as a result, greater efficiency in battle helps a lot

            Recall the grandfathers. Sherman - the best way to serve in peacetime
    3. Canep
      Canep April 22 2014 08: 47
      +55
      The autoloader is a natural step in the development of tanks. The naval artillery went the same way, from manual separate loading to 130 guns with a rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute. The speed of reloading in battle is of great importance, those who played in "Tanchiki" know this very well. 22 shots in AZ, in my opinion, is quite enough, with a fortunate coincidence, these are 22 destroyed tanks, or 4 hero stars. Therefore, when loading 5 sub-caliber and 5 active-reactive, there are 12 places for high-explosive fragmentation, if you shoot wisely, this will be enough for a day of intense combat. during which at least 5 tanks and 8-10 non-armored targets will be destroyed. If the tankers shoot it in one battle, then the star of the hero is provided to the crew according to the standards of the Second World War.

      And the smaller the number of people in battle, the cheaper this battle. Any war ends with the exhaustion of resources by one of the adversaries. Preparing and maintaining a crew of 4 people requires more material costs, and in any case 3 funerals are better than 4th.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply April 22 2014 12: 12
        -5
        Quote: Canep
        those who played "Tanchiki" know this very well. 22 shots in AZ, in my opinion, is quite enough, with a fortunate coincidence, these are 22 destroyed tanks, or 4 hero stars.

        Are you really trying to judge the combat interaction and modern warfare from a computer game, moreover, a game where everything is specially simplified?
        1. Canep
          Canep April 22 2014 12: 33
          +23
          I gave an example about the game because I think there are more tankers in "tanks" on the site than tankers on T-72/90. Therefore, I think the people will understand it this way. And if the game is complicated to real conditions, then the reload speed will become vital. About the 4th hero stars - this is not from the game, but from the Second World War, then for 5 tanks they gave a star of the hero of the Soviet Union, respectively, for 22 tanks 4 hero stars were put, although no one really received 4, and two at once too.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 13: 05
            -9
            Quote: Canep
            I gave an example about the game because I think there are more tankers in "tanks" on the site than tankers on T-72/90. Therefore, I think the people will understand it this way. And if the game is complicated to real conditions, then the reload speed will become vital. About the 4th hero stars - this is not from the game, but from the Second World War, then for 5 tanks they gave a star of the hero of the Soviet Union, respectively, for 22 tanks 4 hero stars were put, although no one really received 4, and two at once too.

            A GAME IS A GAME. What's wrong? Everything except tanks is excluded there. This is not even a simulator. Wake up
            1. Canep
              Canep April 22 2014 14: 40
              +14
              Quote: Pimply
              A GAME IS A GAME. What's wrong? Everything except tanks is excluded there. This is not even a simulator. Wake up

              Well, in your opinion, if you add infantry, mines, armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, aviation, etc. then the reload speed of the gun will not be fundamental, even if it recharges at least an hour, if only it would be Merkava. Are you out of your mind ?, even on a simplified model, reload speed is a very important parameter.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply April 22 2014 14: 46
                -6
                Quote: Canep
                Well, in your opinion, if you add infantry, mines, armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, aviation, etc. then the reload speed of the gun will not be fundamental, even if it recharges at least an hour, if only it would be Merkava. Are you out of your mind ?, even on a simplified model, reload speed is a very important parameter.

                Time to aim, to leave the line of fire, and so on. Are you not counting? The actual rate of fire in battle is well below 10-12 rounds per minute.
          2. Babon
            Babon April 22 2014 14: 16
            +4
            Well, at least you remember the Battle of Sinai. As you write, the Egyptians should have just skated the rink around the Israelis. For some reason, it didn’t work out.
        2. ruslan207
          ruslan207 April 22 2014 20: 07
          +5

          Pimple-In modern warfare, you can not have time to make more than one shot
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 20: 45
            0
            Quote: ruslan207
            Pimple-In modern warfare, you can not have time to make more than one shot

            In any war, so
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. goose
        goose April 22 2014 16: 41
        +30
        I’ll add from myself that the main thing is the speed of choosing the type of projectile, and then the second one. A tank with a shell in the barrel does not drive. I found the target - I chose the type of projectile - I gave the order to the loader (to say a phrase - do not press a button) - I waited until they were charged, I received confirmation, the aiming mark has long been combined with the target - a shot! Missed - another same sequence with the amendment - the second shot. About this picture.

        Noticed some sub-caliber in the Abrams picture? And if RPG-7 in the bushes? I'm afraid that at a speed of 30-40 km / h in the field to charge the tank, even with hydropneumatics, it will not work in 10 seconds, or maybe in 20 seconds. And now, how much does a 120 mm unitary weigh? Both (!) Hands are busy with the loader, what will he hold on to, aiming at the full gallop in the rammer? It is good that the loader is a man, and even a Negro, his tail has not atrophied yet and a small black snake is in stock. And NOW, imagine that you still need to aim, even with small tubercles, the stabilizer saves this ton of metal up and down - just dodge. No wonder at the end of the video he frantically grabs hold of both hands with his hands and takes his body away. What if he pulls a muscle, or simply unsuccessfully takes a shell wet with sweat from his hands? Is the tank over? maybe not, but the rate of fire will drop below the baseboard.
        The main purpose of having a loader is to service the tank, guard, missile defense, day work.
        1. rolik2
          April 22 2014 16: 54
          -24%
          Quote: goose
          I'm afraid that at a speed of 30-40 km / h in the field to charge the tank, even with hydropneumatics, it will not work in 10 seconds, and

          Why charge it at that speed? And how are you going to hit the target moving at that speed?
          For some reason, all the arguments of the loader’s uselessness rest on the difficulty of loading the gun when driving at high speed and in rough terrain. But our grandfathers somehow managed this, and burned German tanks, and at the same time tried to take on board more shells.
          So having a charger is not a luxury, but a necessary measure.
          He will be able not only to load the gun when the AZ fails, but also to fire with the ZPU, relieving the commander of this obligation. And when servicing, extra hands will not be superfluous.
          1. goose
            goose April 22 2014 17: 04
            +22
            This, by the way, is the most common speed of movement in an open and relatively flat area, if hunting is to be lived. They drive faster, the stabilizer copes quite well, unlike the mechanical drive. They rolled me, nothing supernatural. From one fold of terrain to another fold. And standing tanks exist only on the direct track. In battle, they do not exist for long.
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 22 2014 23: 25
            +9
            Quote: rolik2
            But our grandfathers somehow managed this, and burned German tanks

            “We’ll think about it,” said Joseph Vissarionovich and again turned our conversation into military affairs, purely tank ones, and asked: “Are tankers firing on the move?”
            I replied that no, they don’t shoot.
            - Why not?
            The Supreme looked at me intently.
            “Accuracy on the move is bad, and we regret the shells,” I replied. - After all, our applications for ammunition are not fully satisfied.
            Stalin stopped, looked at me point blank and spoke clearly, pausing each word:
            - Tell me, comrade Katukov, please, do you need to hit the German batteries during the attack? It is necessary. And to whom first of all? Of course, tankers who are prevented by enemy cannons from moving forward. Even if your shells do not hit directly into the enemy’s guns, but are torn nearby. How will the Germans shoot in such an environment?
            - Of course, enemy fire accuracy will decrease.
            “That’s what you need,” said Stalin. - Shoot on the move, give shells, now we will have shells.
            (Katukov M. E. "On the edge of the main blow")
            It is far from always necessary to hit the target, often you just need to shoot - otherwise all the infantry would be armed with SVD, and not with Kalash. In addition, a stationary tank is an excellent target.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 23 2014 10: 45
              +2
              Quote: Dart2027
              It’s not always necessary to hit the target, often you just need to shoot

              It is always necessary and desirable, otherwise it is a waste of ammunition.
              Shells for modern tanks are not cheap to launch into the air.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion April 23 2014 15: 46
                -3
                A high-explosive projectile even now costs a penny, which is why Abrams does not have it in the BC, you cannot cash in on it.
          3. free
            free April 23 2014 08: 55
            0
            Quote: rolik2
            Quote: goose
            I'm afraid that at a speed of 30-40 km / h in the field to charge the tank, even with hydropneumatics, it will not work in 10 seconds, and

            Why charge it at that speed? And how are you going to hit the target moving at that speed?
            For some reason, all the arguments of the loader’s uselessness rest on the difficulty of loading the gun when driving at high speed and in rough terrain. But our grandfathers somehow managed this, and burned German tanks, and at the same time tried to take on board more shells.
            So having a charger is not a luxury, but a necessary measure.
            He will be able not only to load the gun when the AZ fails, but also to fire with the ZPU, relieving the commander of this obligation. And when servicing, extra hands will not be superfluous.


            I think you’re not quite right, the time is not right, and the methods of warfare are changing, now mobility is one of the main conditions for survival, hence the talk about movement at speeds.
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren April 23 2014 11: 54
              -1
              Quote: free
              I think you’re not quite right, the time is not right, and the methods of warfare are changing, now mobility is one of the main conditions for survival, hence the talk about movement at speeds.


              For Western tanks, it is irrelevant, purely from the fact that Western tanks play the role of mobile pillboxes.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 22 2014 21: 50
          +3
          Oh, let’s load the machine guns manually. and Navy AC-130
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 22: 24
            -1
            Quote: Kassandra
            Oh, let’s load the machine guns manually. and Navy AC-130

            The machine guns have a slightly different element.
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 22 2014 21: 54
          0
          As if - yes, let's still machine guns charge manually. and naval AS-130
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. atarix
        atarix April 22 2014 19: 28
        0
        in fact yes. for some reason they forget about the life time of a combat unit in a real battle.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 23 2014 06: 43
          +2
          And this is where the question becomes interesting. Minutes of the life of armored vehicles in battle were typical for massive armies with massive use of armored vehicles under the influence of far from infantry anti-tank equipment, but the same massive weapons as, for example, attack aircraft. Here you can well remember how the Germans, in the conditions of the massive use of the T-1 and T-2 tanks, crushed the French, who were massively armed with medium and even heavy tanks. So, in general, we can say that tanks should be the most simple, lightweight and mobile and agree that the best tank is a Hummer with enhanced mine protection. And what little else we were shown films of how dashing American marines on Hummers defeat the "bad guys", rushing past them at speed and demolishing them with hundreds of machine guns. Or how the Libyan and Syrian rebels "fought" in jeeps with ZSU and machine guns (by the way, recently in Syria the number of such "combat units" has been seriously reduced). If we look at the example of the Lebanese campaigns of the Jews, or our Chechen campaigns, then armored vehicles (if used correctly, of course) had a very high survival rate. And just because the enemy had mainly infantry PTSs, which cannot massively destroy modern armored vehicles. To riddled "flies" of a tank that has been set up without infantry cover and constrained by a maneuver in the city is one thing, but repelling a massive tank attack in the field with their help is completely different. Thus, we can say that with a general reduction in the number of armies, caused not only by financial problems, but also by an increase in firepower (and, yes, the cost) of individual combat units, more and more individual characteristics of weapons. By and large, the history of weapons has made another circle and the history is repeating itself with the displacement of the mass militia by a relatively small knightly, and later by the Condottieri professional army. What is typical even now, given the ever-growing importance of aircraft on the battlefield, the massive use of conventional weapons is becoming unprofitable, as the campaigns in the Gulf showed, where the massive Iraqi army was defeated by the Americans with rather small losses due to air superiority. Including armored vehicles. Since the Iraqis could not, under air strikes, massage the use of anti-tank weapons and their tanks, and the main brunt of the fight against allied armored vehicles fell on RPGs and, in part, ATGMs. At the same time, Saddam's tank troops suffered catastrophic losses from the air enemy.
    4. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder April 22 2014 14: 55
      +4
      I would say to the author, you have not seen Armata, where the crew will sit below, and the tower will be uninhabited, there will be an automatic loader by the way. If the Germans made cars with rear-wheel drive, this does not mean that the front-wheel drive is bad.
    5. CAMS
      CAMS April 22 2014 16: 18
      +13
      type in the search engine "what do the Yankees think about Russian tanks", there the American test tanker explains in great detail what a wonderful manual reloading in quotation marks. back. The minus article is unambiguous. The T 72 in Syria explained everything to everyone.
      1. CAMS
        CAMS April 22 2014 16: 36
        +22
        About manual loading on the Abrams:

        Let's first navigate the tank. Imagine the working conditions of the loader.

        1. The weight of the projectile. Not so moved, not so taken, not put - and, at least, a bruise on his hand or pinched finger. And you can break something or tear or stretch the ligaments of the hands. Therefore, the loader is always at any time in a tank in winter mittens or at least in gloves.

        2. Small dimensions of the fighting compartment. Around only protruding metal parts. Catch the cap for something - and "we will be removed from the rubble." Therefore, the loader always takes the projectile so that with the palm of his left hand to impose on the bottom of the sleeve, covering the capsule.

        3. Wedge shutter. Heavy detail. The most powerful spring closes the bolt (moves the wedge from left to right) in half a second. I placed my hand incorrectly when sending it, spread my fingers - and the word "pinched" is no longer suitable here. Fragmentation. Amputation. Therefore, after inserting the projectile into the chamber, the loader sends it in one powerful movement, while simultaneously accompanying the bottom of the case with his left hand folded into a fist. Thumb to yourself. In this case, the wedge, closing, gently shifts the hand to the right. If the ram was not energetic or the projectile was not accompanied by a hand to the end, then the wedge may break loose from the stoppers ahead of time and "bite" the sleeve. Then it is necessary to push the projectile into the chamber with a special wooden pusher and allow the wedge to close. Sometimes, in a hurry, a metal stopper of a cannon in a traveling manner comes across. And sometimes this metal stopper hits the capsule ... Then again we sing the song from point two. Read more "What do the Yankees think about Russian tanks"
        1. rolik2
          April 22 2014 17: 03
          -4
          Quote: KAMS
          Hook on something with a primer - and "we will be pulled out from under the rubble."

          And how many such cases were recorded?
          Quote: KAMS
          Shutter wedge. Heavy detail. The most powerful spring closes the bolt (moves the wedge from left to right) in half a second. I placed my hand incorrectly when sending it, spread my fingers - and the word "pinched" is no longer suitable here. Fragmentation. Amputation. Therefore, after inserting the projectile into the chamber, the loader sends it in one powerful movement, while simultaneously accompanying the bottom of the case with his left hand folded into a fist. Thumb to yourself. In this case, the wedge, closing, gently shifts the hand to the right.

          Judging by the video, loading the Abrams gun is devoid of such horrors, before the projectile is sent, the gun stops, and the wedge moves from bottom to top and "pinch" something there is problematic.

          And on the brush of the thesis "what do the Yankees think about Russian tanks" that is, there is also another thesis "it's good where we don't exist" ask a Russian tanker what he thinks about the convenience of working in foreign tanks.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 22 2014 18: 57
            +7
            Quote: rolik2

            And on the brush of the thesis "what do the Yankees think about Russian tanks" that is, there is also another thesis "it's good where we don't exist" ask a Russian tanker what he thinks about the convenience of working in foreign tanks.


            There is such a very popular saying ... Hmm ..
            It sounds like this: "In the wrong hands, the hell is always thicker." laughing
          2. CAMS
            CAMS April 23 2014 03: 07
            0
            that's exactly about the stopper, read on, I wrote where, "what the Yankees think about Russian tanks" - it is the Yankees who write about the shortcomings of manual loading in a real battle against our tanks, taken from the amersky forum.
          3. svp67
            svp67 2 May 2014 16: 10
            0
            Quote: rolik2
            And how many such cases were recorded?
            Alas, capsules of electro-mechanical initiation are used in tanks, therefore it is STRICTLY forbidden to put charges on the armor with the bottom part, there were cases of breakdown of an electric spark and initiation of charges
          4. nedgen
            nedgen 23 March 2020 23: 40
            0
            Quote: rolik2
            Quote: KAMS
            Hook on something with a primer - and "we will be pulled out from under the rubble."

            And how many such cases were recorded?
            Quote: KAMS
            Shutter wedge. Heavy detail. The most powerful spring closes the bolt (moves the wedge from left to right) in half a second. I placed my hand incorrectly when sending it, spread my fingers - and the word "pinched" is no longer suitable here. Fragmentation. Amputation. Therefore, after inserting the projectile into the chamber, the loader sends it in one powerful movement, while simultaneously accompanying the bottom of the case with his left hand folded into a fist. Thumb to yourself. In this case, the wedge, closing, gently shifts the hand to the right.

            Judging by the video, loading the Abrams gun is devoid of such horrors, before the projectile is sent, the gun stops, and the wedge moves from bottom to top and "pinch" something there is problematic.

            And on the brush of the thesis "what do the Yankees think about Russian tanks" that is, there is also another thesis "it's good where we don't exist" ask a Russian tanker what he thinks about the convenience of working in foreign tanks.


            Well, yes, Abrik’s vertical wedge, but the Soviet T-54-55-62’s also had a vertical wedge and the gun stopped, the stabilizer turned off more likely, although it wasn’t quite the same, but the gun stopped 100% with the turret. If I’m not mistaken for this purpose, the loader pressed the special button (although I can be mistaken) and the loader aprica clicks on the sash open button, which also stops the gun and turns off the stabilizer accordingly. This, however, didn’t exclude the possibility of being left without a finger while closing the shutter (wedge). In general, the CCM about the danger to the fingers is that Abrik that all other tanks with manual loading are absolutely right. It doesn't matter which side the wedge is moving. The dune of a vertical wedge is even more powerful than that of a horizontal wedge.
        2. Kasym
          Kasym April 22 2014 19: 00
          +22
          Kams, good day! I read comparisons of Abrams and T-72 of Amer’s tankers with their combat training ground, where ALL armored vehicles are tested. That's roughly why the T-72 is better in their opinion:
          1. A rocket launched through the bore. Range 5 km. Abrams cannon hits up to 3 km. "In order to knock out the T-72, I need to approach 3 km, and it has an advantage of 2 km. While I will overcome these 2 km, he will not even be subtle with his missiles, but if it hits, all the outboard superstructures will be demolished or damaged - optics, antennas and etc. And how can I be without it? How to aim, how to communicate to interact with my own?
          2. These 2 km I am a target, as in a dash. He can stand and shoot. and remain out of reach for me. Well let's say I got to the dist. 3 km. But after all, I will need to stop before each shot - I do not have an AZ, and when moving, the loader must hold onto the handrails. Otherwise, if it drops the shell and it detonates ... And when I stand, I’m an easy target. And he can be charged on the go.
          3. If the Russians stuff their tank with all their defenses - DZ, AZ, Shtora and armor. For comparison, Abrams has only armor + DZ. Draw your own conclusion. " hi
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 19: 31
            -2
            Quote: Kasym
            Kams, good day! I read comparisons of Abrams and T-72 of Amer’s tankers with their combat training ground, where ALL armored vehicles are tested. That's roughly why the T-72 is better in their opinion:

            You can find this article, and, most importantly, its original
            1. Kasym
              Kasym April 23 2014 17: 23
              +1
              Unlikely . I don’t even remember where I came across her. I do not collect articles.
              But in principle, everything is true. And what is wrong in your opinion? hi
              1. Pimply
                Pimply April 23 2014 20: 27
                0
                Quote: Kasym
                Unlikely . I don’t even remember where I came across her. I do not collect articles.
                But in principle, everything is true. And what is wrong in your opinion?

                I prefer to believe facts and data, rather than OBS.
          2. Sledgehammer
            Sledgehammer April 23 2014 03: 14
            +1
            I read comparisons of Abrams and T-72 Amerov tankers from their combat training ground, where ALL armored vehicles are tested

            They were given a head start by Marked and Alkash, but soon nothing would be left of her.
          3. svp67
            svp67 2 May 2014 20: 20
            0
            Quote: Kasym
            But after all, I will need to stop before each shot - I do not have an AZ, and when moving, the loader must hold onto the handrails. Otherwise, if it drops the shell and it detonates ...
            As information: an artillery shell fuse has SEVERAL fuses, which are switched off in stages only AFTER a shot ... So that they are afraid that the shell detonates when dropped.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 May 2014 20: 54
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              As information: an artillery shell fuse has SEVERAL fuses, which are switched off in stages only AFTER a shot ... So that they are afraid that the shell detonates when dropped.

              But the charge does not have such protection - drop the sleeve on the bottom of a sleeve onto a bolt with a capsule and then they will sing the rest of the crew throughout the tank crew.
              Or I'm wrong ?

              By the way, when loading the ammunition into the T-62 tank, a unitary shot is fed to the tank, and then inside the tank only with the projectile down and nothing else.
        3. svp67
          svp67 2 May 2014 16: 07
          +1
          Quote: KAMS
          Shutter wedge. Heavy detail. The most powerful spring closes the bolt (moves the wedge from left to right) in half a second. I placed my hand incorrectly when sending it, spread my fingers - and the word "pinched" is no longer suitable here. Fragmentation. Amputation. Therefore, after inserting the projectile into the chamber, the loader sends it in one powerful movement, while simultaneously accompanying the bottom of the case with his left hand folded into a fist. Thumb to yourself. In this case, the wedge, closing, gently shifts the hand to the right.
          It seems to say everything correctly, but what a heresy. How can I drive YOURSELF into the breech along with the sleeve? Where to put it there? The sleeve, the charge has a flange-flange, larger in radius than the sleeve itself, it does not allow the sleeve (charge) to completely drown in the chamber. And she closes the chamber like a lid - tightly, so that God forbid, the powder gases would not break back into the fighting compartment.
          The upper and lower stoppers of the wedge-gate (the so-called hooks of the ejectors (extractors)) move with this edge and until it completely presses the wedge it will not start moving ... But this will not happen if something or someone gets between the flange and the breech
          To prevent premature closing of the wedge during loading, which is possible when the firing elements act on the grip of the ejectors, the wedge in the open position is held by the hook of the upper ejector, and if it is knocked down, by the hook of the lower ejector. From capture by the elements of the shot when loading, the grip of the lower ejector is partially protected by a tray, which is folding and is attached to the lower right of the wedge groove of the breech. The tray is designed to direct the elements of the shot during loading. It consists of the actual tray, rack, lever, traction, screw, hook, two springs and two axles. When the wedge is closed, the tray is in the extreme right position and is held in place by the hook during the opening of the shutter wedge and extraction of the fired pan. At the end of the run, after the extraction of the pallet, the hook, running onto the copier, which is mounted on the cradle guard, rotates and releases the tray, which, under the action of the spring, occupies the working position in the wedge groove of the breech and engages with the wedge. In this position, the charging process takes place.

          So something to pinch, and even more so to BREAK - well, do not make nonsense. The wedge slides along the bottom of the sleeve, pressing it to the breech and VERY gently throws your hand to the side, that you are holding it with your fist, that you are holding it correctly, namely pushing the shell inside the fist ...
    6. AlexxxNik
      AlexxxNik April 24 2014 12: 16
      +1
      maybe it is so, only from the 42nd year aviation fell on top to fill up tanks with small cumulative bombs, and now, in general, more than half of high-precision munitions are hit in the roof, precisely in these ammunition containers, so that the troubles of the mechanisms begin when they hit a mine and shoot at the side but the loader’s troubles will start when a cassette container hits the same Tornado with a PT container and ammunition with an impact core striking the roof
  2. mpa945
    mpa945 April 22 2014 07: 43
    +20
    But the statistics on the author’s refusals were not allowed? What is the statement based on? Computer strategist?
    Or is everything domestic bad?
    Article minus.
  3. Narkom
    Narkom April 22 2014 07: 48
    +19
    wassat and what is already an agreement on the supply of blacks from the states?
    1. Wheel
      Wheel April 22 2014 10: 48
      +12
      Quote: Narkom
      and what is already an agreement on the supply of blacks from the states?

      From the language removed! yes
      I would like to advise the author to work "Negro" and then write an article.
  4. saag
    saag April 22 2014 07: 51
    +5
    need an exoskeleton for charging
  5. blizart
    blizart April 22 2014 07: 59
    +9
    Not really the Negro from Abrams is the most dexterous, raaz over his shoulder and not a single extra movement
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 22 2014 09: 57
      +1
      Quote: blizart
      Not really the Negro from Abrams is the most dexterous, raaz over his shoulder and not a single extra movement

      Why is a Negro in Leopard 2 bad or Challenger?
      1. rolik
        rolik April 22 2014 14: 14
        +6
        Quote: Nayhas
        Why is a Negro in Leopard 2 bad or Challenger?

        I propose to arrange a competition between these three blacks)))))))))))
        1. Zaslavsky-S
          Zaslavsky-S April 22 2014 22: 31
          0
          So we agree to the Asians in our tanks. n ...... tank corps.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. aleks 62
      aleks 62 April 22 2014 10: 20
      +15
      Quote: blizart
      Not really the Negro from Abrams is the most dexterous, raaz over his shoulder and not a single extra movement

      .... Well, yes ... when firing from a place ... And at the intersection I would have looked like he was flying in a fighting compartment with an 40-50kg device and juggling it ...
      1. badandrew
        badandrew April 22 2014 11: 03
        +7
        And taking into account the emerging trend of transition to a larger caliber, the weight of shells will only increase
      2. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi April 22 2014 11: 50
        +1
        Quote: aleks 62

        .... Well, yes ... when firing from a place ... And at the intersection I would have looked like he was flying in a fighting compartment with an 40-50kg device and juggling it ...

        when driving on STRONGLY rugged terrain, shooting right off the bat is a meaningless translation of ammunition.
      3. Pimply
        Pimply April 22 2014 12: 31
        -4
        Quote: aleks 62
        .... Well, yes ... when firing from a place ... And at the intersection I would have looked like he was flying in a fighting compartment with an 40-50kg device and juggling it ...

        In fact, there’s nowhere to fly
        1. free
          free April 23 2014 09: 06
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Quote: aleks 62
          .... Well, yes ... when firing from a place ... And at the intersection I would have looked like he was flying in a fighting compartment with an 40-50kg device and juggling it ...

          In fact, there’s nowhere to fly


          surprise? hit a little enough!
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 23 2014 20: 28
            -2
            Quote: free
            surprise? hit a little enough!

            And what will happen?
      4. goose
        goose April 22 2014 16: 46
        +11
        With the arrival of 140-mm or 152-mm cannons, manual loading is no longer possible. Now imagine that the representative of Vietnam will stand in the place of the black man, can he even turn the 120-mm shot at a complete stop?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 22 2014 18: 01
          -9
          Quote: goose
          With the arrival of 140-mm or 152-mm cannons, manual loading is no longer possible. Now imagine that the representative of Vietnam will stand in the place of the black man, can he even turn the 120-mm shot at a complete stop?

          Will the guns of these calibers come? No special need for them so far
        2. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi April 22 2014 20: 52
          0
          Quote: goose
          With the arrival of 140-mm or 152-mm cannons, manual loading is no longer possible. Now imagine that the representative of Vietnam will stand in the place of the black man, can he even turn the 120-mm shot at a complete stop?

          If 140mm cannons go, I think you are right you cannot do without the MZ, but so far there is a tendency towards an increase in the "power of ammunition", and not an increase in caliber.
        3. badger1974
          badger1974 April 23 2014 09: 11
          +3
          in vain you can't underestimate the Vietnamese, these yellow devils with their height of one and a half meters, almost two-meter "arrow-2" robustly fell the star-striped flyers, and the DShK pulled on the hump, and the palm trees on the cables stretched so that the s-75 was a surprise, about the Vietnamese it is not necessary -for
      5. The comment was deleted.
  6. DesToeR
    DesToeR April 22 2014 08: 02
    +77
    What can I say? It is enough to read the "minuses" on the MH and AZ of domestic tanks and impose them on foreign realities. The author, you do not notice any contradictions in your article? Abrams has 34 shells ready for immediate use, Leopard and that one have 15, the Challenger still has shells like on our IS2 here, and charges there. And what is bad in comparison with this 28 shells on the T-72 ??? In the Leopard, the loader, according to your logic, will need to shuttle (rather, crawl) from the main ammo rack in the control compartment to the cannon. We must also remember the length of 120mm unitary shells and how convenient it is for the loader to drag the ammunition from the additional ammunition rack, and even during the battle. About the susceptibility and failure of the AZ or MZ, it's still cool! And what about Western tanks that charge all immortals? They cannot be concussed or injured, do they give out an excellent loading rate after a couple of sleepless nights and a march of transitions? In the age of robotics, the article is clearly nothing.
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult April 22 2014 08: 13
      +25
      Moreover, being a British and the host of the program "In the commander's room," while telling and showing the show jumping, he himself said that they did not show the declared rate of fire on tests, even if there were special courses for loaders. The Syrians generally just use only mechanized ammunition and that's it.
      The author has not yet taken into account that there are different types of carousels that will be used in tanks with uninhabited towers.
      PS Well, amers with a large number of Afro-Americans are easier to have 4th.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply April 22 2014 12: 32
        -5
        Quote: CruorVult
        The Syrians generally just use only a mechanized ammunition storage and that’s it.

        The Syrians at this stage have no special competitors in the form of tanks
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. NOMADE
      NOMADE April 22 2014 08: 29
      +8
      I agree with you. But the article was useful to me. I was surprised to learn that in Leopard there is ammunition in the bow. Where is the logic? This is a huge minus in survivability.
      1. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 April 22 2014 17: 49
        +3
        There are no high-explosive ordnance on the Leopard.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr April 23 2014 19: 52
          0
          Quote: 78bor1973
          There are no high-explosive ordnance on the Leopard.

          To ditch the entire crew, in the fighting compartment, an explosion of gunpowder from one sleeve is enough.
    4. rolik2
      April 22 2014 08: 38
      -9
      Quote: DesToeR
      In the age of robotics

      You comrade probably forget that the simpler the more reliable, the main reason for the popularity of Soviet weapons is simplicity, in this case, foreign tank builders took a simple path.
      I don’t know if the failure statistics of AZ or MZ are kept, but the same biathlon showed that the failures are not so rare, and in case of failure the tank remains unarmed. Whereas in tanks without an AZ even the death of the loader does not lead to his failure (he can be replaced either by the commander or gunner).
      1. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 April 22 2014 18: 01
        +1
        I will say not only the simple ingress of foreign objects between the rotating part of the MZ and the bottom of the tank leads to seizing and failure of the MZ. AZ has another problem: the hydraulic drive, oil leaks when the pipes are damaged and AZ does not work, but these are all moments we have come a long way in operation and production, and we can’t refuse this, the author forgot to mention our other tank, the T-90MS there is a completely different MZ so that we do not stand still.
        1. nedgen
          nedgen 23 March 2020 23: 59
          0
          Quote: 78bor1973
          I will say not only the simple ingress of foreign objects between the rotating part of the MZ and the bottom of the tank leads to seizing and failure of the MZ. AZ has another problem: the hydraulic drive, oil leaks when the pipes are damaged and AZ does not work, but these are all moments we have come a long way in operation and production, and we can’t refuse this, the author forgot to mention our other tank, the T-90MS there is a completely different MZ so that we do not stand still.

          Well, if I’m not mistaken, the AZ on the T-72 is FULLY ELECTRIC. Hydraulics on the T-64 and T-80.
          So in AZ it is even theoretically impossible to lose fluid because it does NOT exist there at all.
      2. IRBIS
        IRBIS April 22 2014 18: 51
        +11
        Quote: rolik2
        the same biathlon showed that failures are not so rare

        I studied and served on the T-72, in the end - seven years. Not a single refusal AZ, NOT ONE !!! It was not a bobbin .... (soldier's wisdom)
        Quote: rolik2
        and in case of failure the tank remains unarmed.

        This is what a fright?
        Quote: rolik2
        (it can be replaced either by the commander or gunner).

        Sorry, but who will replace the gunner then?
    5. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 09: 00
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      And what about western tanks loading completely immortal?

      Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew. I won’t upload the videos, there are hundreds of them in the net.

      Quote: CruorVult
      Syrians generally just use a mechanized ammunition storage and all

      That's right, less ammunition is distributed throughout the tank, more likely to survive.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 09: 26
        +23
        Quote: Professor
        Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew. I won’t upload the videos, there are hundreds of them in the net.

        And there are many more cases when the same penetration did NOT result in anything, but such a shot is rarely shown, since there is no FIREWORK and it is not spectacular ...
        1. Professor
          Professor April 22 2014 10: 14
          -3
          Quote: svp67
          And there are many more cases when the same penetration did NOT result in anything, but such a shot is rarely shown, since there is no FIREWORK and it is not spectacular ...

          Only not "penetrations", but "hits". Where do you think the cumulative jet is going?
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 10: 54
            +13
            Quote: Professor
            Where do you think the cumulative stream goes?

            It happens for everyone ... It happens to be taken over by one of the crew members :-(, and more often it falls into already empty ammunition racks, then into something else ... Basically, the tank caught fire and exploded, due to falling into those ammunition that was outside the mechanized ammunition rack ...
            1. Professor
              Professor April 22 2014 11: 18
              -4
              Quote: svp67
              It happens for everyone ... It happens to be taken over by one of the crew members :-(, and more often it falls into the already empty ammunition racks, then into something else ...

              One hope is that they are already empty, otherwise the tower flies away.

              Quote: svp67
              Basically, the tank caught fire and exploded, due to falling into those ammunition that were OUT of a mechanized ammunition ...

              Yeah, they have innate immunity. fellow
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 22 2014 11: 23
                +7
                Quote: Professor
                One hope is that they are already empty, otherwise the tower flies away.

                So not everyone got to it, not everyone ...
                Quote: Professor
                Yeah, their immunity is degenerate.

                Forgive me for not understanding the depth of thought ... well, "armored" what will you take ... belay
                1. Professor
                  Professor April 22 2014 11: 34
                  -9
                  Quote: svp67
                  So not everyone got to it, not everyone ...

                  It is clear that not everyone, but ... look at the AZ and assess the likelihood of a jet meeting with the ammunition.

                  Quote: svp67
                  Forgive me for not understanding the depth of thought ... well, "armored" what will you take ...

                  The idea is simple. According to you, "Basically, the tank caught fire and exploded, due to hitting those ammunition that were OUTSIDE the mechanized ammunition rack ...". Question: what happens when the jet hits the ammunition that is in the mechanized ammunition rack? Are they impenetrable?
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 April 22 2014 11: 40
                    +11
                    Quote: Professor
                    It is clear that not everyone, but ... look at the AZ and assess the likelihood of a jet meeting with the ammunition.

                    I will say this - three times less than in the combat unit MZ T64 and T80 ...
                    Quote: Professor
                    Question: what happens when a jet gets into those ammunition that are in a mechanized combat unit? Are they impenetrable?

                    To begin with, it is very difficult to get into the ammunition located in the mechanized laying of AZs, although of course it is possible in this case too, they behave the same as those in the non-mechanized laying, did you want to hear that?
                    1. Professor
                      Professor April 22 2014 11: 48
                      -10%
                      Quote: svp67
                      I will say this - three times less than in the combat unit MZ T64 and T80 ...

                      This is not about AZ and MZ, but about the presence of a loader. Where man performs his functions, the probability of detonation of ammunition is much lower.

                      Quote: svp67
                      To begin with, it is very difficult to get into the ammunition located in mechanized laying of AZ

                      Heavy? Because they are symmetrically distributed around the perimeter of the tower and it does not matter which side the penetration will be? request
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 April 22 2014 11: 59
                        +9
                        Quote: Professor
                        This is not about AZ and MZ, but about the presence of a loader. Where man performs his functions, the probability of detonation of ammunition is much lower.

                        I disagree. Our Az and MZ = systems of the first generation, and if it had not been for the collapse of the USSR, then our army would have already had new tanks, with new systems ... Even now, the introduction of the "abandoned MZ" can equalize the explosion protection of our tanks with Western tanks. Here are just other questions, it is not so easy to solve. For me, only the transition to "liquid propellants" can make a real revolution in this matter ...
                        Quote: Professor
                        Heavy? Because they are symmetrically distributed around the perimeter of the tower and it does not matter which side the penetration will be?

                        Professor, with all due respect to you, but you have little knowledge of the technical component of the issue ... AZ is actually located AT THE BOTTOM of the hull of the tank, and not in the tower itself ... The crew SIT on ammunition, unlike the crews with our MZ, where there are few what sits is also surrounded by them ...
                      2. Professor
                        Professor April 22 2014 12: 11
                        -4
                        Quote: svp67
                        I disagree. Our Az and MZ = systems of the first generation, and if it had not been for the collapse of the USSR, then our army would have already had new tanks, with new systems ... Even now, the introduction of the "abandoned MZ" can equalize the explosion protection of our tanks with Western tanks. Here are just other questions, it is not so easy to solve. For me, only the transition to "liquid propellants" can make a real revolution in this matter ...

                        However, we are discussing existing systems here, not promising or futuristic.

                        Quote: svp67
                        Professor, with all due respect to you, but you have little knowledge of the technical component of the issue ... AZ is actually located AT THE BOTTOM of the hull of the tank, and not in the tower itself ... The crew SIT on ammunition, unlike the crews with our MZ, where there are few what sits is also surrounded by them ...

                        AZ or MZ the difference in semantics and no more. Show us the layout of ammunition in the AZ / MZ and compare with the schemes with manual loading hi
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 34
                        +7
                        Quote: Professor
                        AZ or MZ the difference in semantics and no more. Show us the layout of ammunition in the AZ / MZ and compare with the schemes with manual loading

                        Professor, why "grind water in a mortar", this topic is already SO OVERALL that it is no longer a desire to argue. Fair. Type your question in any search engine and it will give you so many articles ... I am more interested in which AZ the "Armata" designers will now stop at, I know they are working on several types. AND
                        And the trouble with the poor explosion protection of our tanks is not in the AZ and MZ, but in the use of a charge with a partially combusted sleeve. The use of a normal liner MUCH MAY make our tanks protection ...
                      4. Professor
                        Professor April 22 2014 12: 37
                        -3
                        Quote: svp67
                        Type your question in any search engine and you will get so many articles ..

                        Thanks for sending me to ... Google hi
                      5. svp67
                        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        Thanks for sending me to ... Google
                        Yes, not at all ..
                  2. dixicon
                    dixicon April 22 2014 14: 15
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    W or MZ difference in semantics and no more. Show us the layout of ammunition in the AZ / MZ and compare with the schemes with manual loading

                    the picture shows that it lies at the bottom.
                  3. Professor
                    Professor April 22 2014 14: 29
                    -7
                    Quote: dixicon
                    the picture shows that it lies at the bottom

                    but in this picture?


                  4. Sledgehammer
                    Sledgehammer April 22 2014 15: 34
                    +8
                    And in this picture t-64 (t-80) and they have t-72 (t-90)
                    different AZ and paraphrasing you "learn materiel" :)
                  5. Professor
                    Professor April 22 2014 16: 26
                    -13%
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    And in this picture t-64 (t-80) and they have t-72 (t-90)
                    different AZ and paraphrasing you "learn materiel" :)

                    What are you saying ... Different? laughing And I thought they were the same everywhere. By the way, it is discussed here what is more useful than AZ (not specific, but in general) or a person.
                  6. rolik2
                    April 22 2014 16: 39
                    -9
                    Quote: Professor
                    By the way, it is discussed here what is more useful than AZ (not specific, but generally) or a person.

                    That professor would be quick to prove something to someone, there wouldn’t be any mention of Americans in the article, then a constructive conversation could have turned out, as well as some attacks on poor amers, some emotions.
                  7. Sledgehammer
                    Sledgehammer April 22 2014 17: 40
                    +1
                    By the way, it is discussed here what is more useful than AZ (not specific, but generally) or a person.

                    By the way, the probability of defeat was discussed in this thread.
                    Az in tanks of the Soviet period smile
                    What are you saying ... Different? And I thought they were the same everywhere.

                    Well now you know what not smile
                  8. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 04
                    0
                    AZ ..........
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • turanchox
    turanchox April 22 2014 16: 17
    +4
    The main advantage of mechanized combat storage of Soviet tanks is the lowest ammunition location, even in comparison with ext. ammunition of foreign cars, most of the cumulative and BOPS hits in the tank are much higher.
    on the latest version of the T-90 add. the ammunition is located outside the tower in a special container, from which within 15 minutes it is transported by 2 crew members to the conveyor, of course, the tank should leave the battle at this time, which is quite acceptable and achievable in a real battle
  • ruslan207
    ruslan207 April 22 2014 20: 12
    +4
    Professor doesn’t have to be clever. That our few tanks lost, Americans in Iraq don’t need to refer to Wikipedia links, etc.
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 20: 41
      -5
      Quote: ruslan207
      Professor doesn’t have to be clever. That our few tanks lost, Americans in Iraq don’t need to refer to Wikipedia links, etc.

      1. few
      2. I do not refer to the wiki
  • ruslan207
    ruslan207 April 22 2014 20: 12
    0
    Professor doesn’t have to be clever. That our few tanks lost, Americans in Iraq don’t need to refer to Wikipedia links, etc.
  • aleks 62
    aleks 62 April 22 2014 10: 35
    +13
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Professor
    Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew. I won’t upload the videos, there are hundreds of them in the net.

    And there are many more cases when the same penetration did NOT result in anything, but such a shot is rarely shown, since there is no FIREWORK and it is not spectacular ...

    ...Yes Yes!!! There was a photo of t-72 from Chechnya ... I counted 4 holes ... And nitsche .... All alive ...
  • Old skeptic
    Old skeptic April 22 2014 09: 42
    +10
    The article ignored several more factors acting on the loader:
    1. The charger is in an unstable position (do not fasten it with belts), it is shaken not only by fluctuations in the tank’s body over rough terrain, but also by the rotation of the tank’s turret (you need a good vestibular apparatus and strong arms to hold a heavy unitary shot when the turret rotates, and even get them in the breech).
    2. With all of the above factors, the breech still constantly jumping is a constant source of injuries (gun stabilization).
    3. Cases of injuries to the loader when sending a shot by the lock of the breech are not uncommon (especially when the loader is already tired).
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 22 2014 11: 16
      0
      Quote: Old Skeptic
      castle breech (especially when the loader is already tired).

      Laughing from the heart .... The best joke from the NON-SPECIALIST was not to be heard ... it’s necessary to be WHAT .... CURVED-HANDED, so that the wedge-gate would pinch something for you ... Guys do not blame the Bullshit, she already Ukraine now gets ...
      1. kotvov
        kotvov April 22 2014 12: 01
        0
        as I understand you are a specialist. difference in loading the guns with automatic weapons or manually? is it visible that you are moving in a tank, like on a sofa? Technique failure can be anyway, but no one has done anything from the motors yet.
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 22
        +1
        So I understand the minus from Krivotonkoruky, well, tell me how and WHAT did you pinch the wedge-bolt? Laugh together ...
      3. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 13: 21
        +4
        Hey "minus players" show me WHERE is the "KAZENNIK'S CASTLE" located? Which should NIP THAT ... Comedians ...
        1. Old skeptic
          Old skeptic April 22 2014 14: 25
          +5
          I didn’t minus. At the expense of the "breech lock" (I could not remember how this detail was made repeat) - I’m neither an artilleryman nor a tanker, but what I wrote about in an article I read about a foreigner (like a polkan, and it seemed he was charging).

          Do not shoot the pianist, he plays as best he can. wink
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 21: 44
            +2
            For God's sake ... why shoot something, only I would be glad to help others sort out the issues
            Quote: Old Skeptic
            "breech castle"

            This detail, or rather the whole unit is called "SHUTTER", on the overwhelming majority of tanks, and on our modern all, the "WEDGE-SHUTTER" is used
  • aleks 62
    aleks 62 April 22 2014 10: 34
    +4
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: DesToeR
    And what about western tanks loading completely immortal?

    Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew. I won’t upload the videos, there are hundreds of them in the net.

    Quote: CruorVult
    Syrians generally just use a mechanized ammunition storage and all

    That's right, less ammunition is distributed throughout the tank, more likely to survive.

    .... And penetration of armor in merkava which leads to immortality ???? As for the mechanized one, I only agree .... And in general, I don’t think that the use of special units, partitions greatly increases survivability ... If it explodes, then no knock-out panels will help the crew ....
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 11: 23
      -5
      Quote: aleks 62
      .... And penetration of armor in merkava which leads to immortality ????

      Detonation of the Merkava ammunition is a rarity, and a departed tower is generally a rarity.

      Quote: aleks 62
      If it explodes, then no kick panels will help the crew ....

      That is the whole point. The jet will fall into the ammunition and there is no tank, but when the soldiers are sitting surrounded by beautifully distributed ammunition so that breaking through from almost any angle will lead to getting into the ammunition is one thing. Another thing is when a practical fire leads to the detonation of ammunition ...
      1. kotvov
        kotvov April 22 2014 12: 09
        +2
        dear professor, you know, a friend of mine fought in Egypt in 72, and imagine from Israeli pilots, maps were seized that marked the location of Soviet air defense systems. They were marked with a red line that was forbidden to cross Israeli planes. the matter is the training of personnel.
  • Absurdidat
    Absurdidat April 22 2014 12: 00
    +9
    That. Rollers in the internet ... What, ammunition burned out only in Russian tanks? Always, on the go, with one hit? Tanks even without dynamic protection showed decent survivability in Chechnya and high maintainability, this even if they were used in the cities in the first company in the most illiterate way and very competent actions of the opposing side took place. Ammunition most often detonated after the tank was shot point blank with several shots, when the tank was immobilized, the crew was wounded or shell-shocked. Often blazed not from the ignition of the ammunition, but from the fact that some were filled with gasoline for sloppiness. The main fire was fired by a sniper-grenade launcher at the driver to concuss him and stop the tank, (if it was not possible to let the tank go forward. This suggests that it is not so easy to force the ammunition to be detonated with one shot), the comrades finished off the tower from the flanks, and the engine and often even used cocktails; sometimes the tanks were used quite stupidly, and the crews were poorly trained tactically, not to mention the shooting training, the reaction to the shots from grenade launchers. Analysis of the quality of the hits showed a large number of sniper-grenade throwers in Chechens. And the PG-7VR grenade they had was like dirt. This is with regard to the number of tanks lost in the first campaign. I did not find a brochure with reports and analysis for accurate figures, but those who returned from one or two hits from hand-held anti-tank tanks were three times more than irretrievable ones. So it was not a bobbin ...
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 12: 14
      -15%
      Quote: Absurdidat
      Tanks even without dynamic protection showed decent survivability in Chechnya and high maintainability, this even if they were used in the cities in the first company in the most illiterate way and very competent actions of the opposing side took place. Ammunition most often detonated after the tank was shot point blank with several shots, when the tank was immobilized, the crew was wounded or shell-shocked.

      These tales went all the way to Syria and the presence of mobile phones for every action movie. This is more urban legends do not channel. Now you can see flying towers almost live.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 39
        +5
        Quote: Professor
        Now you can see flying towers almost live.

        Well, show me something fresh, we will analyze the plot, discuss
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 50
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        Now you can see flying towers almost live.

        In my opinion, no matter what tanks the Syrian army "T" or "M" fought on, the number of dead crews would be the same. Especially JUST KILL this video

        Where is the GOVERNMENT INFANTRY, as you can expect in a PARTISAN war to win tanks ...
        1. Atlas
          Atlas April 22 2014 20: 54
          +1
          The tank was empty as I understand it, or the crew was already dead. And such a h.r.e. and with a grenade will not stand any tank, neither with AZ nor with charging IMHO ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. goose
      goose April 22 2014 16: 59
      +1
      This is the distance of a pistol shot, at which, in the presence of military guard, there will be no grenade launchers. So in AZ you can only get a mine, yes.
  • user1212
    user1212 April 24 2014 04: 59
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew. I won’t upload the videos, there are hundreds of them in the net.


    A YouTube video demonstrating the detonation of the BK turns out to prove that the BK detonates with every hit.
    Hundreds of videos? Why not 100500? Take the statistics for Chechnya:
    65 tanks are irretrievable losses (2 tanks when advancing to Grozny, 49 in battles for Grozny, 14 in operations after Grozny
    +9 tanks in the second war
    We don’t have so many irretrievable losses (and after the detonation of the BC the tank definitely cannot be restored) to remove 100 clips about the detonation of the BC
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 April 22 2014 09: 42
    +5
    Quote: DesToeR
    In the age of robotics, the article is clearly nothing

    I remembered 2003. All the channels then drove the information that Russia secretly delivered anti-tank systems to Iraq. And the video showed the Abrams exploded. The tower didn't fly away. Only restoration, there was subject to bright memory.
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 April 23 2014 04: 00
      +2
      Quote: samoletil18
      I remembered 2003g. All channels then drove the Old, which Russia secretly delivered an anti-tank missile system to Iraq.
      Not 2003, but ..... ATGM 9K129 "Cornet-E" used in Iraq. March 2014
      http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/1100237/1100237_original.jpg
      taken from here http://bmpd.livejournal.com/808949.html
  • The comment was deleted.
  • aleks 62
    aleks 62 April 22 2014 10: 28
    +4
    Quote: DesToeR
    What can I say? It is enough to read the "minuses" on the MH and AZ of domestic tanks and impose them on foreign realities. The author, you do not notice any contradictions in your article? Abrams has 34 shells ready for immediate use, Leopard and that one have 15, the Challenger still has shells like on our IS2 here, and charges there. And what is bad in comparison with this 28 shells on the T-72 ??? In the Leopard, the loader, according to your logic, will need to shuttle (rather, crawl) from the main ammo rack in the control compartment to the cannon. We must also remember the length of 120mm unitary shells and how convenient it is for the loader to drag the ammunition from the additional ammunition rack, and even during the battle. About the susceptibility and failure of the AZ or MZ, it's still cool! And what about Western tanks that charge all immortals? They cannot be concussed or injured, do they give out an excellent loading rate after a couple of sleepless nights and a march of transitions? In the age of robotics, the article is clearly nothing.

    ....Yes Yes!!!! It’s interesting how he would control a projectile with an increased length of 1,1-1,3 m .... And in general, in my opinion, they have a different approach to the functions of tanks and ours .... Their tank is primarily a defensive purpose ( therefore, ammunition and dimensions are not particularly tight), but we have an offensive approach (minimum dimensions and all that) .... In my opinion, the one who saw the first wins .... There may not be a second shot ... Extreme options type 1 versus 3-5 out of the blue we do not consider for well-known reasons ...
    1. goose
      goose April 22 2014 17: 08
      0
      Why not consider it? If the tank is for defense - get ready for a ratio of 1 to 4 at least according to the charter. I’m afraid, without AZ, I can’t resist.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey78
    Andrey78 April 22 2014 08: 17
    +1
    It was on the site about the loader.
    http://topwar.ru/23040-chto-dumayut-yanki-pro-russkie-tanki.html
  • ramsi
    ramsi April 22 2014 08: 37
    0
    it’s funny, but they’re already talking about removing the driver’s gear ... With a deserted tower, there’s nothing to argue about
  • ilf
    ilf April 22 2014 08: 44
    +7
    I watched the tank biathlon, the best crews of the districts participated, and so many misses and mistakes in normal conditions, how so? I'm not a tanker explain
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 22 2014 08: 59
      +5
      They shot there without automatic equipment, but the state of emergency of the Armenians clearly shows that the author is just a nerd, a man turning 20 + kg of iron is already at great risk.
    2. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 22 2014 15: 40
      0
      Nerves, and the training can be different, real or on simulators :)
  • Alexey
    Alexey April 22 2014 08: 46
    +4
    The author is inadequate
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 08: 48
    +37
    Quote: DesToeR
    And why are 28 shells on the T-72 bad in comparison with this ??? Leopard has a dawn

    In the T-72 there are 22 shells in mechanized laying, but otherwise you are absolutely right, but the author is familiar with tanks in books at best. I will explain: 1) The difference between AZ and MZ is that the first is electromechanical, the second is electro-hydromechanical, this difference affects the name - this is brief, we know about the difference in 22 and 28 shells. AZ is more reliable; in the Ministry of Health, the rate of fire and the number of shells are greater. Further, the MZ rate of fire is 7-8 rounds per minute, not at all 4. Maybe on the first modifications there was something similar when the conveyor rotated only in one direction! And a complete blunder, about loading the commander with the gunner in turn, the author didn’t even climb into the tank, not that he charged, when loading the mechanic gives the gunner from the ground, the gunner commander in the tower and nothing else, if the MZ is damaged in addition to the automatic and manual modes there is a SEM mode. Author-ZERO! But the Americans and Germans, as well as the Israelis, took a different path, I mean the presence of a loader, because they have a different tank building concept!
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2014 12: 23
      +9
      Here you can not argue, just look at any western tank placed next to the T-72/90. Heaven and earth, Abrams is visually 2 times larger, 1.5 times heavier at times more expensive, and even requires 4 zinc to pack the crew, what's the point that he carries 60 shots with him if he makes a maximum of 10-20 shots in battle. Then either the battle ends or the tank is destroyed. I consider the stability in battle and the effectiveness of the T-72/90 to be 2-3 times higher than that of Abrams due to the smaller dimensions, the use of active-rockets, and 2 times the rate of fire of the gun, and the T-72 is cheaper, which is of modern warfare is critical. The USSR defeated Germany mainly because it built 40000-60000 or maybe not expensive tanks, but spent the resources most likely less than Germany spent on its armored vehicles.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply April 22 2014 13: 16
        -3
        About visibility
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 22 2014 15: 47
          +4
          There is a frontal T-72 (t-90) less, and if you take the total
          area (also smaller) in terms of mass, then
          weight of armor per sq. meter more than Abrams.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 17: 59
            -14%
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            There is a frontal T-72 (t-90) less, and if you take the total
            area (also smaller) in terms of mass, then
            weight of armor per sq. meter more than Abrams.


            Naturally less. Only he is not less fundamentally strong, but the comfort of the crew, and, as a result, its effectiveness in battle, is reduced
            1. Sledgehammer
              Sledgehammer April 22 2014 18: 49
              +4
              and crew comfort

              This is not a limousine after all, but a tank.
              as a result, its effectiveness in battle is reduced

              What is it expressed in?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply April 22 2014 19: 38
                -6
                Quote: Sledgehammer
                This is not a limousine after all, but a tank.

                Exactly. It depends on the crew’s comfort how quickly the crew will regulate how quickly they will get tired in battle. For some reason, you cannot understand that comfort is actually more important to a tanker than a passenger of a limousine.

                Here, Kars laid out a very detailed article with measurements of the response time and other data laid out under different conditions. Read.
                1. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 22 2014 20: 00
                  +1
                  It depends on the crew’s comfort how quickly the crew will adjust, how quickly they will get tired in battle

                  Well, yes, there are no chairs with massage on Russian tanks, I agree :)
                  In principle, you can buy it yourself, there is no Conder either, then more often
                  turn on the exhaust fans. If I'm not talking about that, excuse me,
                  because I asked a question
                  What is it expressed in?

                  but didn’t receive a specific answer :)
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply April 22 2014 20: 49
                    -7
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    Well, yes, there are no chairs with massage on Russian tanks, I agree :)

                    You are talking nonsense because you cannot distinguish the crew’s convenience and comfort necessary for efficient work from excesses. It seems to you that banal convenience is an excess, and this is stupidity.

                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    In principle, you can buy it yourself, there is no Conder either, then more often
                    turn on the exhaust fans. If I'm not talking about that, excuse me,
                    because I asked a question

                    We are talking about the amount of reserved space, and yes - about the same shareholders you are so disparagingly talking about. On the power steering of the same tank and much more. This is not overkill.
                    With your approach, excess and suspension in the car, and seat belts, and a spacious interior ..
                    1. Sledgehammer
                      Sledgehammer April 22 2014 21: 12
                      0
                      necessary for effective work, from excesses.

                      Maybe because you keep ignoring completely
                      specific question.
                      What is it expressed in?

                      And while I read nonsense from you smile
                      It's about the amount of reserved space

                      Our tankers are not very fat, there is enough space for two people smile
                      On the power steering of the same tank and much more.

                      Are there leverage in the know?
                      With your approach, excess and suspension in the car, and seat belts, and a spacious interior.

                      Ah, well, well smile
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply April 22 2014 22: 20
                        -2
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        necessary for effective work, from excesses.

                        Maybe because you keep ignoring completely
                        specific question.
                        What is it expressed in?

                        And while I read nonsense from you smile
                        It's about the amount of reserved space

                        Our tankers are not very fat, there is enough space for two people smile
                        On the power steering of the same tank and much more.

                        Are there leverage in the know?
                        With your approach, excess and suspension in the car, and seat belts, and a spacious interior.

                        Ah, well, well smile

                        I don't see a specific question from you. I see a lot of "white noise". I don't see the question. Formulate. Just so that it really was a question.

                        And about leverage - you're cool. In the know that now on the vast majority of new tanks - the helm?
                      2. Sledgehammer
                        Sledgehammer April 23 2014 00: 43
                        0
                        as a result, its effectiveness in battle is reduced

                        The question follows What is it expressed in?
                        What is not clear here?
                        So far, only about power steering read everything
                        although all of our leverage.
                  2. family tree
                    family tree April 22 2014 21: 28
                    +2
                    Quote: Pimply
                    On the power steering of the same tank

                    Now there is no MBT without control amplifiers.
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    Are there leverage in the know?

                    On our T-90MS, the helm. On not ours, basically the helm.
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply April 22 2014 21: 53
                      -3
                      Quote: perepilka
                      Now there is no MBT without control amplifiers.

                      I know.
                    2. Sledgehammer
                      Sledgehammer April 23 2014 00: 37
                      +1
                      On our T-90MS, the helm. On not ours, basically the helm.

                      T-90MS a lot of these? The rest of the T-72 (T-90) are levers.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 19
                +2
                But do you know in what conditions the mechanic driver Abrashi has to drive a tank without any substantial hope of his emergency escape?
          2. starley
            starley April 23 2014 00: 46
            +2
            a funny approach to assessing a tank as a crew resting place.
            And if you relax with the girls, then Merkava is a windowsill.
          3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Diesel
        Diesel April 22 2014 18: 12
        0
        Для вас http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0
        %B8%D0%B2%D0%B0
      3. _CAMOBAP_
        _CAMOBAP_ April 22 2014 21: 49
        +3
        Did you open the hatches on ours for "visibility" too?
      4. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 15
        +1
        now put a leopardica next to them
        By the way, everywhere in the world they buy it or tehu, but I can’t paint it
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Hon
      Hon April 22 2014 16: 28
      +1
      The high price of Western tanks is largely due to the cost of various needed whistle-blowers such as a fire control system and a thermal imager. when installing all this on our tanks, they become not so very cheap.
      And besides us, no one uses active rockets? It seems like everyone has it, but there are also adjustable ones.
      The rate of fire of our tanks is lower, but so far the loader is not tired.
      At the battle for 73, the benefits of the T-72 were not revealed. Yes, and modern warfare is being built a little differently; technology and not mass production came first.
  • Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer April 22 2014 15: 43
    0
    in case of damage to the MOH, in addition to automatic and manual modes, there is a mode SEMI-AUTOMATICS.

    And what is his principle of work?
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 12
    +2
    it’s not a matter of concept, they just don’t border on 1.500.000.000 Chinese.
    You are tormented by charging.
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 08: 51
    +6
    Not a single tanker will ever call "seventy-two" "seventy-second"!
  • TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 April 22 2014 08: 54
    0
    why, when the conversation is about tanks and their tth, then there is still merkava
  • Professor
    Professor April 22 2014 08: 55
    0
    However, in the crew of the car there was a loader, which, based on the situation, determines how to load the gun: manually or with the help of a machine gun.

    So, it’s not an automatic machine a priori, but only a mechanized installation. request
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 08: 57
    +3
    And the author did not hear about the immediate and subsequent tasks of the battalion at all, the specialist who suggested that the tank-rack with bricks should fill up tanks from books better!
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 22 2014 08: 57
    +14
    The author is a nerd and is not treated. The rate of fire when manually loading with modern shells per 20 kg weight does not exceed 3-4 rds / min. It would be thrust into a tank to reload such a gun on the go.

    I don’t even want to comment on the pearls about isolating the crew from ammunition, the light door closing the ammunition will not save from detonation. And much greater danger for the T-72 is represented by shells scattered throughout the tank outside the mechanized installation.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply April 22 2014 12: 41
      -7
      Quote: EvilLion
      The author is a nerd and is not treated. The rate of fire when manually loading with modern shells per 20 kg weight does not exceed 3-4 rds / min. It would be thrust into a tank to reload such a gun on the go.

      This we are talking about the actual. So in AZ it is about the same. Ideal yes - up to 10-12 per minute can reach
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 23 2014 15: 52
        0
        Not actual, but polygon. Regarding the actual speed, it can be compared with the program for marking the hard disk, 99.9% of the time it is not needed, but it was needed nowhere without it, it instantly becomes vital. In a situation where there are a lot of targets, or the first shot is past, and the response will arrive at any moment, seconds of reloading can mean the destruction of the car.
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 09: 04
    +7
    And last for the author
    It is obvious that after the shooting of ammunition from the loader or its failure for any reason, the T-72 practically loses its combat capability. It is curious to note that the T-64А instruction manual on loading the gun with the hands of the commander and gunner is completely absent (although manual loading in the T-64 is a bit faster and simpler than in T-72), that is, the crew, as it were, are prepared in advance for that he will have to rely only on 28 shots in the MOH. Both in that and in the other tank, it is true that the delivery of shots to the dismounting line by hand is provided, but this is subject to the failure of only the actuator. In the case of a rotating conveyor jamming, shells and charges in it simply cannot be reached.
    All 3 tanks are manually charged, as well as ammunition from non-mechanized laying in the conveyor only being parked by the forces of the WHOLE CREW, but a crew of 2 people is quite capable of firing: a mechanic and a gunner. Author, do not disgrace!
  • ambiorix
    ambiorix April 22 2014 09: 11
    +17
    It is strange that the Syrian tank crews do not have any claims to AZ in contrast to couch experts.

    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 10: 08
      -27%
      Quote: ambiorix
      It is strange that the Syrian tank crews do not have any claims to AZ in contrast to couch experts.

      The dead claims can not arise.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 22 2014 10: 34
        +26
        Quote: Professor
        The dead claims can not arise.

        That's for sure, so let's not talk about it, all tanks are vulnerable.



        1. Alrid
          Alrid April 22 2014 11: 03
          +7
          So, what is next? Of course vulnerable. Do you want to say that after a hit, the loader can continue to charge the shells, but the machine does not? Nonsense
        2. Professor
          Professor April 22 2014 11: 26
          -15%
          Quote: wanderer_032
          That's for sure, so let's not talk about it, all tanks are vulnerable.

          Thank you for the photo of the Merkava on a land mine and with a torn side where no one was hurt and even the tank did not lose its combat effectiveness.

          Non-breakable there are only idiots, but not tanks (this is not about you). But not all tanks are the same helpful reserved.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 22 2014 12: 07
            +5
            Quote: Professor
            Thank you for the photo of the Merkava on a land mine and with a torn side where no one was hurt and even the tank did not lose its combat effectiveness.


            That's just not necessary to "sculpt hunchback" and try to prove that it was a blast on a land mine.
            From the nature of the damage, anyone who has eyesight and understands armored vehicles for this damage can see that such damage could have been caused by either an artillery shell, or a shot from an RPG or other anti-tank medium.
            A shell or rocket went along a gentle path from the bottom up, and broke through the junction of the tower and the hull. Which suggests that the one who shot was lower than the affected tank.
            And they aimed at a specific place, at the junction of the tower and the hull, the most vulnerable spot of any tank. And the screen tore off along the way, most likely with secondary fragments at the rupture of the ammunition that hit the tank.
            If the tank was blown up on a landmine, then the first part was damaged.
            In addition, the landmine version speaks against the fact that the battle took place not in the US point, but in an open area.
            1. Professor
              Professor April 22 2014 12: 29
              0
              Quote: wanderer_032
              That's just not necessary to "sculpt hunchback" and try to prove that it was a blast on a land mine.
              From the nature of the damage, anyone who has eyesight and understands armored vehicles for this damage can see that such damage could have been caused by either an artillery shell, or a shot from an RPG or other anti-tank medium.

              Well, Tsahal is constantly lying and hiding his losses, it’s as clear as God's day. True, he has not yet been caught in a lie, but these are no longer interesting details. All the losses of the second Lebanese were painted to the smallest detail. Where tanks were hit by ATGMs honestly indicated this, but here it turns out to be lying. They give out a defeat from an ATGM for a mine blast.

              Quote: wanderer_032
              If the tank was blown up on a landmine, then the first part was damaged.

              I saw what they are doing land mines with Merkava in Gaza. The tank has no chance. In one case, a landmine (200 liter barrel of TNT with a hollow cone) was blown up under the engine. The engine vomited and it tore off the tower.

              Quote: wanderer_032
              In addition, the landmine version speaks against the fact that the battle took place not in the US point, but in an open area.

              Of course you are aware of the details of the battle and you do not need to tell them? Or tell?
              1. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 April 22 2014 14: 45
                +2
                Quote: Professor
                Of course you are aware of the details of the battle and you do not need to tell them?

                Similarly, no. I see everything from the photo.
                1. Professor
                  Professor April 22 2014 14: 48
                  -2
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  Similarly, no. I see everything from the photo.

                  Bravo. good And the contents of the books on the cover? wink
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 26
                    +1
                    Are you talking about Mein Kampf? than not an option ...
              2. Old skeptic
                Old skeptic April 22 2014 14: 57
                +4
                Quote: Professor
                Quote: wanderer_032 If the tank had blown up on a landmine, then the first part was damaged.

                I saw what they are doing land mines with Merkava in Gaza. The tank has no chance. In one case, a landmine (200 liter barrel of TNT with a hollow cone) was blown up under the engine. The engine vomited and it tore off the tower.


                Dear, and you are cunning, and move away from the topic:
                In the photo of a wrecked merkava, it’s not like a land mine, in any case where there is a photo of the side. The rollers are not damaged by the harp whole, but a hole in the board. And sho is it for a high-explosive mine of selective action?
                1. Professor
                  Professor April 22 2014 16: 07
                  -2
                  Quote: Old Skeptic
                  In the photo of a wrecked merkava, it’s not like a land mine, in any case where there is a photo of the side. The rollers are not damaged by the harp whole, but a hole in the board. And sho is it for a high-explosive mine of selective action?

                  Do you think the mine explodes solely under the caterpillar? Oh well. You then still have to study and learn. Learn what happened to Merkava 3 Bases on February 14, 2002 in the Gaza Strip and what the tank looked like after that.

                  PS
                  Well, since the Merkava of the 2th brigade died on August 847, 2006?

                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  And why not, because the fact that Mk.4 can be hit by banal anti-aircraft warfare in a very widespread vulnerable area does not affect the reputation of machines that are offered for export in the best way. So lying is profitable

                  Not punched are only ... What is the reputation? Will foreign customers stop buying it and will Tsahal switch to Abrams? How then to be with the fact that Tsakhal acknowledged the loss of the fours from ATGMs? After all, even their photos are not on the network, you can lie to the utmost.

                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  Just badly caught. In addition, it is widely known that Israel has good special services that can hush up any unpleasant or uncomfortable fact.

                  Well, the flag in your hands, catch better. Anat Kam to help you.
                  How interesting can ShinBet hide the loss? To kill a family?

                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  But we here, too, "do not slurp soup".

                  You just tremble without understanding the realities. sad
                  1. wanderer_032
                    wanderer_032 April 22 2014 19: 26
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    You just tremble without understanding the realities.


                    If it was an undermining, then this could only be done with this type of ammunition:



                    But the local "craftsmen" are unlikely to have such a thing, so it was an aimed shot.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor April 22 2014 20: 49
                      -2
                      Quote: wanderer_032
                      If it was an undermining, then this could only be done with this type of ammunition:

                      Well, what do you climb into a topic in which you do not understand?
                      Craft cumulative charge with a total weight of about 100 kg was laid in a metal tank for heating water, buried under the road.
                      Gaza attack analysis.

                      Quote: wanderer_032
                      But the local "craftsmen" are unlikely to have such a thing, so it was an aimed shot.

                      I’ll stop feeding soon. angry


                      1. _CAMOBAP_
                        _CAMOBAP_ April 22 2014 21: 59
                        +3
                        A "handicraft shaped charge with a total weight of about 100 kg" was buried under the road ... And the fact that it was a cumulative charge - how was it determined by the hole? I don’t know what your experience says, but mine tells me - with 100 kilos of explosives there is no point in fiddling around, making a "cumulative" out of it .. bury it in bags - and any tank, even a T-90, even an Abrams, and even "Merkava" is enough for the eyes.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor April 22 2014 22: 03
                        0
                        Quote: _CAMOBAP_
                        And the fact that he was cumulative - is this how they determined by a hole?

                        Determined by neutralized IEDs and captured terrorists.

                        Quote: _CAMOBAP_
                        I don’t know what your experience says, but mine tells me - with 100 kilos of explosives there is no point in fiddling around, making a "cumulative" out of it .. bury it in bags - and any tank, even a T-90, even an Abrams, and even "Merkava" is enough for the eyes.

                        My experience suggests that even the mentioned barrel with plastid does not guarantee the defeat of armored vehicles. For example, D9 from such a gift simply died out and nothing more.
                      3. _CAMOBAP_
                        _CAMOBAP_ April 23 2014 10: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        Determined by neutralized IEDs and captured terrorists.

                        Quote: Professor
                        Determined by neutralized IEDs and captured terrorists.

                        Are you writing about a specific case, in the photo - or already "in general"?
                        Quote: Professor
                        My experience suggests that even the mentioned barrel with plastid does not guarantee the defeat of armored vehicles. For example, D9 from such a gift simply died out and nothing more.

                        The weight of the barrel, did the explosive detonate? About a stalled engine .. it could be, it could be ... Only here I personally find that after detonating 100 kg under the bottom, the rollers also fly far away, and the tower is "on one side", and the crew is dramatically worse.
                      4. Professor
                        Professor April 23 2014 10: 22
                        0
                        Quote: _CAMOBAP_
                        Are you writing about a specific case, in the photo - or already "in general"?

                        I am writing about a "specific case in Gaza", not a photo from Lebanon.

                        Quote: _CAMOBAP_
                        The weight of the barrel, did the explosive detonate? About a stalled engine .. it could be, it could be ... Only here I personally find that after detonating 100 kg under the bottom, the rollers also fly far away, and the tower is "on one side", and the crew is dramatically worse.

                        The crew of the tank can’t survive, but the D9’s engine just stalled.
                2. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 23 2014 03: 26
                  0
                  Such they won’t penetrate the tank’s armor, it’s more for the Hamers
                  trucks or maybe for armored personnel carriers and then on board.
                  If "Merkavas" are certainly not made of tin smile
                  The option with a barrel is still doubtful, the soil is rocky.
                3. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 23 2014 03: 39
                  +1
                  Analysis of the terrorist attack in Gaza.

                  The explosion was supposed to destroy the bow.
                  However in the photo

                  rather detonated ammunition, all stern
                  the part is broken.
            2. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 22 2014 20: 08
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              How interesting can ShinBet hide the loss? To kill a family?


              Shin-Bet belongs to the Israeli intelligence system and is engaged in counterintelligence and internal security. (Quote from Wikipedia).
              In fact, in such structures there are departments (departments) that work on misinformation and counter-propaganda.
              In addition, all special services have long arms, and they are far from serving "kindergarteners" who play in the sandbox. They can kill if necessary. yes

              1. Pimply
                Pimply April 22 2014 20: 50
                -3
                Quote: wanderer_032
                In fact, in such structures there are departments (departments) that work on misinformation and counter-propaganda.

                You are so familiar with the SHABAK - which no one calls Shin-Bet already knows how many years hell?
              2. Professor
                Professor April 22 2014 21: 19
                -1
                Quote: wanderer_032
                They can kill if necessary

                You absolutely do not understand what to write about. Anat Kam to help you.
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 April 22 2014 21: 57
                  +3
                  Quote: Professor
                  You absolutely do not understand what to write about. Anat Kam to help you.

                  The link to the article that you cited about the destruction of the tank which is shown in the 2nd photo does not say anything.
                  The difference in damage is obvious.
                  The tank in the article was hit in the bottom from the bottom in front, the tank which in the photo was hit in the joint of the tower and the hull on the side.
                  It follows the conclusion that the tank in the photo and the tank in the article are completely different tanks.
                  This leads to the conclusion that you are trying very hard to distort the obvious fact.
                  This is also evident in your emotional reaction, which you show when trying to do this.
                  Your rudeness does not hurt me at all, so try in vain.
                2. Professor
                  Professor April 22 2014 22: 07
                  -3
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  The link to the article that you cited about the destruction of the tank which is shown in the 2nd photo does not tell

                  I'm sorry you didn’t understand anything. As promised, I will not feed more. hi
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm April 22 2014 23: 30
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            Learn what happened to Merkava 3 Bases on February 14, 2002 in the Gaza Strip and what the tank looked like after that.

            This incident has nothing to do with the photo posted by the Wanderer, and on February 14.02.2002, XNUMX, the crew died.
            From the force of the explosion, the "Merkava" walk-behind tractor (engine + transmission), located in front and weighing more than three tons, was torn from the mountings and thrown upwards. At the same time, he crashed into the cannon and, turning it into a lever, tore off the turret (weight 22 tons) of the tank, which flew 10 meters away. The tank commander and loader who were in it were killed when the turret landed and crushed them with its weight. The driver was killed by the steering wheel immediately thrown back.
          3. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm April 23 2014 21: 45
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Well, since the Merkava of the 2th brigade died on August 847, 2006?

            Around 11: 00 "Merkava" MK.2 of the 847-th armored brigade was in the area of ​​the village of Aita a-Shaab. The tank lost track due to a technical breakdown or simply stood still, and at that moment an ATGM hit it. The tank exploded - the entire crew died: Gilad Shtokelman (company commander and tank commander), Nir Cohen, Nimrod Segev and Noam Goldman.
            Here it is in the photo.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 23 2014 22: 27
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Around 11: 00 "Merkava" MK.2 of the 847-th armored brigade was in the area of ​​the village of Aita a-Shaab. The tank lost track due to a technical breakdown or simply stood still, and at that moment an ATGM hit it. The tank exploded - the entire crew died: Gilad Shtokelman (company commander and tank commander), Nir Cohen, Nimrod Segev and Noam Goldman.
              Here it is in the photo.


              Dear, do not cut information or read copies of the original sources. Here is the complete phrase:

              Around 11: 00 "Merkava" MK.2 of the 847-th armored brigade was in the area of ​​the village of Aita a-Shaab. The tank lost track due to a technical breakdown or simply stood still, and at that moment an ATGM hit it. The whole crew died: Gilad Shtokelman (company commander and tank commander), Nir Cohen, Nimrod Segev and Noam Goldman. According to another version, Gilad was outside the tank, at this time he was replaced by a loader in the place of the tank commander. The tank hit a land mine, with the explosion a tower being broken, the loader was killed, the rest of the crew were injured. Gilad climbed back onto the tank and began to help the wounded, at that moment the tank was hit by ATGMs, Gilad and the wounded were killed.


              He ran into a land mine
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 24 2014 16: 25
                +2
                Quote: Pimply
                According to another version

                That is, the militants fired ATGM on a tank without a tower?
                Is there a third and fourth version?
                Is there a tank in the photo?
              2. Ujin61
                Ujin61 31 May 2014 16: 12
                0
                Well, you burn pimply! Re-read what you quote.
      2. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 22 2014 14: 58
        +4
        Quote: Professor

        Well, Tsahal is constantly lying and hiding his losses, it’s as clear as God's day.


        And why not, because the fact that Mk.4 can be struck by the banal PT-sr into your very widespread vulnerable zone does not affect the reputation of the machines that are offered for export in the best way. So lying is profitable.

        Quote: Professor
        True, he has not yet been caught in a lie, but these are no longer interesting details.


        Just badly caught. In addition, it is widely known that Israel has good special services that can hush up any unpleasant or uncomfortable fact.
        There is a master in the Promised Land to make black from white, and white from black.
        But we here, too, "do not slurp soup".

        laughing
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 22 2014 19: 02
          +1
          I remember the Americans themselves admitted that during the tests
          Javelin put inside tank about 20 kg of explosives
          for "entertainment". And where is the guarantee that the explosion was caused
          if you hit, do not work explosives :)))
          1. Pimply
            Pimply April 22 2014 19: 38
            -3
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            I remember the Americans themselves admitted that during the tests
            "Javelin" put about 20 kg of explosives inside the tank
            for "entertainment". And where is the guarantee that the explosion was caused

            Find the original of recognition
            1. Sledgehammer
              Sledgehammer April 22 2014 20: 48
              +1
              http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-12440.html
          2. Professor
            Professor April 22 2014 21: 16
            -2
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            I remember the Americans themselves admitted that during the tests
            "Javelin" put about 20 kg of explosives inside the tank
            for "entertainment". And where is the guarantee that the explosion was caused
            if you hit, do not work explosives :)))

            Again the tales went. bully
            Robert C. Reid
            Director

            Office of Ethics and Business Conduct

            Lockheed Martin Corporation
            6801 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817
            Telephone 301-897-6000

            Robert Reid, ATTENTION !!! HR director of ethics talks about rocket testing. Laughing out loud. By the way, there is his telephone. Call. I called... laughing
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 28
              +1
              on cu sent?
            2. Sledgehammer
              Sledgehammer April 23 2014 00: 49
              0
              And you directly bring data from the Pentagon laughing
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 22 2014 23: 09
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Where tanks were hit by ATGMs honestly indicated this, but here it turns out to be lying. They give out a defeat from an ATGM for a mine blast.

        The tank blew up on a land mine. (Click)
        1. Professor
          Professor April 23 2014 09: 35
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The tank blew up on a land mine. (Click)

          You wanted to say: "This is how the tank looks after a land mine."
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 24
      +2
      the main thing is that he did not lose combat efficiency, even in this form.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 23 2014 03: 55
      0
      And here, probably, no one doubts this :))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 23 2014 16: 12
    0
    Security and "Merkava" are incompatible concepts of which it is enough to be convinced by comparing the specific booking per 1 cubic meter. m. volume. The T-90 has this parameter EMNIP 2.4 tons versus 1.9 for the "carrot". Well, there are also plenty of photos of T-72 or T-80 that retained their combat effectiveness after a lot of hits, including those with penetrations.
  • Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer April 22 2014 18: 53
    0
    Special thanks for the photo :)
  • aleks 62
    aleks 62 April 22 2014 10: 51
    +3
    .... Pliz fotochkas unkillable merkava .... Weak ???
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 11: 27
      +1
      Quote: aleks 62
      .... Pliz fotochkas unkillable merkava .... Weak ???

      Will the video go? wink
      1. Diesel
        Diesel April 22 2014 18: 18
        +1
        I don’t understand, is there a rebound? What did they shoot from?
        1. zaazua
          zaazua April 22 2014 18: 50
          0
          this is the tail of the ATGM flew off
        2. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 23 2014 04: 13
          +1
          The RPG probably didn’t work and ricocheted off.
          The third generally weaved into the ground without exploding.
          As this confirms the invulnerability of the "Merkava" is not
          I know, although they can say that it was shot with the "Cornet" laughing
          1. Professor
            Professor April 23 2014 09: 39
            0
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            RPG probably didn’t work and ricocheted off

            They told you- ATGM and its engine ...

            PS
            The tank survived, there were no injuries (no one was in the tank). laughing
      2. CRASHBULLET
        CRASHBULLET April 23 2014 05: 04
        -3

        Here are the strengths and weaknesses of 72ki
        1. Professor
          Professor April 23 2014 09: 39
          0
          Quote: CRASHBULLET
          Here are the strengths and weaknesses of 72ki

          Where are the strengths? Whether the second tank caught fire or not is not clear ...
        2. doxtop
          doxtop 18 September 2014 10: 52
          0
          Somewhere I saw this video completely. The bottom line is:
          The first tank is detonated by a landmine. The case is not broken, from serious malfunctions - the harp is broken, the rollers are damaged.
          In the second tank - hit (most likely RPG). The video captures the operation of the remote sensing unit. There is no penetration. The crew is intact and slowly rolls back.
          But that's not all. This video ends with the most interesting:
          The first tank (blown up by a land mine) after a while "comes to life" (apparently there was a concussion of the crew and the engine stopped) and tries to crawl back. After the crew realizes that the right track has been torn off, the tank stops and the crew continues to "probe" the situation by periodically rotating the turret.
          In the commentary under the video I saw it was written that after some time the first tank was towed and transported to a safe place.
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 09: 15
    +2
    Quote: ilf
    I watched the tank biathlon, the best crews of the districts participated, and so many misses and mistakes in normal conditions, how so? I'm not a tanker explain

    And misses due to the fact that the tank is a very complex technique and the result depends on the technique (preparation, reconciliation, bringing to normal battle, etc.) and on the crew, well, a little luck!
  • wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 22 2014 09: 28
    +8
    AZ is needed for MBT.
    I will state the arguments for.
    1. Probably the most important advantage of the AZ is that it allows you to reduce the tank crew by at least one person. This allows you to make the tank smaller in size and weight (which generally increases the chances of survival, due to a decrease in visual visibility and other related factors).
    2.Allows you to reduce the load on the crew and not distract them from performing basic tasks, because in the case of a wound loader, for example, someone will need to charge the shells (gunner or commander). Also AZ significantly reduces the physical load of the crew.
    3.AZ allows you to load a gun faster than a person can do, thereby increasing the rate of fire of the gun. This saves time on other operations to open fire.
    1. max702
      max702 April 22 2014 12: 04
      +4
      Point 3 is especially important when driving on rough terrain, as always the video of the loader’s work when the tank is standing or with minimal movement on a flat surface, but when he moves along the gully trying to shoot down the enemy’s sight, he’ll get into the breech of the gun walking around the tower with a shell for 30 kg and more than a meter in length it’s very unlikely what kind of rate there is .. what 8-10 rounds per minute ... It’s clear that the tanks of the Western school were planned to be used as mobile pillboxes, but then there are chances, though now they had to change their tasks decades later even do OFS ..
    2. Pimply
      Pimply April 22 2014 12: 45
      -5
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Probably the most important advantage of the AZ is that it allows you to reduce the tank crew by at least one person.

      This is an extremely implicit virtue. In Soviet tanks, such a reduction was made because of the doctrine of nuclear war - and as a defense against a nuclear strike (one of them), a decrease in reserved space and an increase in the armor itself were considered.
      The reduction of the tank crew leads to a greater load on the crew itself in daily and combat activities.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 22 2014 14: 14
        +3
        Quote: Pimply
        The reduction of the tank crew leads to a greater load on the crew itself in daily and combat activities.


        This is if there is nothing to compensate for it.
        Then, according to your logic, it turns out that tanks need to be released as in the 1 world in order to replace equipment with people, and not vice versa.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 22 2014 14: 19
          -4
          Quote: wanderer_032
          Then, according to your logic, it turns out that tanks need to be released as in the 1 world in order to replace equipment with people, and not vice versa.

          Not. Just a crew in 4 person is sufficient for efficient maintenance of the tank, and for three people the load increases significantly
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 22 2014 15: 25
            +4
            Quote: Pimply

            Not. Just a crew in 4 person is sufficient for efficient maintenance of the tank, and for three people the load increases significantly


            And how?
            Tell me more.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 22 2014 16: 44
              +1
              http://topwar.ru/12977-tank-chelovek-sreda-mashina.html
              1. Pimply
                Pimply April 22 2014 17: 56
                -1
                Great article, all on the shelves
            2. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 31
              0
              they probably decided to go into battle with all the workshops, into the psychic.
    3. Stone
      Stone April 22 2014 14: 38
      +1
      I would add point 4. AZ allows further robotization of the tank. Maybe even in Armata there will be 2 crew members, where the commander will only confirm (choose) the targets proposed by the computer for defeat.
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK April 22 2014 09: 30
    +10
    It’s rare when articles come across worse, especially when you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about! The author hooked me!
  • umah
    umah April 22 2014 09: 33
    +9
    So is a modern automatic tank needed or not?

    Well then, you can ask the question: are tanks needed? Towed artillery can perform the same tasks.
    If you watch programs about foreign equipment (for example, about PzH 2000), then there automated loading is presented as a high-end military industry. So do not assume that our engineers were completely stupid, this is a sofa examination. In addition, there is a way to prove that something is done badly - to do better!
  • rennim
    rennim April 22 2014 09: 40
    +4
    The main task of the automatic loader is the use of separate loading. T.O. can achieve the versatility of the tank guns. Because you can change the number of charges in the sleeve. Even in the 2C3 howitzers, the mechanized loading was initially mechanized. The projectile and charge are placed in the tray alternately and the charging presses a button. Even this method is not bad for tanks. And manually push the shell into the breech and charge is complete anachronismIt is certainly faster to charge a unitary cartridge even in manual mode. But a unitary cartridge with similar characteristics for separate charging will weigh much more.
    1. Genry
      Genry April 22 2014 13: 45
      -1
      Forget about separate loading.
      For modern shells (arrows and missiles), a length of up to 1,5 meters is needed.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 22 2014 09: 47
    +15
    So much work was spent by the author and as a result, "the mountain gave birth to a mouse" ... This is what it means when a person is "an enthusiast in his field, but not an expert ...". With all the right words and like the right conclusions, he misses the main thing - on modern foreign tanks there is no COMPLETE high-explosive fragmentation projectile ... On all the proposed videos, the "offhand" dashingly throw BPS, which are just "fluff" in comparison with the OFS. Believe me, if they showed the work of our tank commander, manual loading of the BPS cannon, of course, because of the cramped state, it would not be so fast, but not slow, and his face would not have a "gram of tension". The thing is that our tanks are not only, and even not so much anti-tank weapons, unlike the tanks of our vis-a-vie, but they are that shield and sword that should not only reliably cover the infantry with armor, but also with their EFFECTIVE fire to clear its way to victory, destroying what the artillery and aviation could not finish off.
    The fact that our AZ and MZ were already outdated was understandable back in the 80s of the 20th century, when there was a lot of research and development in this direction. For me, the most promising of them were - for the use of "liquid propellants", by the way, they have already been brought to a state of practical use in today's Russia. Well, the most simple and applicable method so far is the creation of a turret-mounted AZ, which has been demonstrated more than once by our design bureaus, and various ones, at exhibitions ...
    With one I can agree with the author, on a new machine, on the topic "Armata", I would still like to see 4 crew members, so that the tank commander again becomes just a COMMANDER, and not a SPECIALIST FOR ALL HANDS, to the detriment of his main duty. ..
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 22 2014 10: 27
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      With one I can agree with the author, on a new machine, on the topic "Armata", I would still like to see 4 crew members, so that the tank commander again becomes just a COMMANDER, and not a SPECIALIST FOR ALL HANDS, to the detriment of his main duty. ..


      He doesn’t need the 4 in the tank, he has nothing to do there. On the contrary, it is necessary to reduce the number of people in the carriage, and not increase it. Previously, there was no such technical level of development, which is why the tank had to be equipped with such a number of people.
      Example T-34. According to the recollections of veterans on the T-34-76, a radio operator was definitely needed in the carriage, but after more reliable and convenient radio stations appeared, the need for radio operators disappeared and the tanks went into battle with crews of three people. This was done for a reason, because arrow-radio operators died most often if the tank caught fire after being hit, they often simply did not have time to climb out and burned alive. And after the appearance of the T-34-85, the radio-gunners were in the crews of only battalion commanders and above (for reasonable reasons). And the main gun was fired from the machine gun.
      Read the book by A. Drabkin "I fought in the T-34".

      Quote: Canep

      And the smaller the number of people in battle, the cheaper this battle. Any war ends with the exhaustion of resources by one of the adversaries. Preparing and maintaining a crew of 4 people requires more material costs, and in any case 3 funerals are better than 4th.


      Here with this opinion, I completely agree. Because no one has invented invulnerable armored vehicles.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 10: 42
        0
        You contradict yourself, namely ...
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Not needed in the 4 tank, he has nothing to do there

        and right there ...
        Quote: wanderer_032
        And after the appearance of the T-34-85, the radio-gunners were in the crews of only battalion commanders and above (for reasonable reasons).

        So SUCH reasonable reasons now exist in EVERYONE of our modern tank. Since the tank commander (platoon, company, battalion) is forced to be distracted from fulfilling his immediate and, moreover, vital duties, in order to solve service tasks, and this is in battle ...
        Are you a tanker yourself?
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 22 2014 11: 04
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Since the tank commander (platoon, company, battalion) is forced to be distracted from fulfilling his immediate and, moreover, vital duties, in order to solve service tasks, and this is in battle ...


          There are no contradictions in what I wrote.
          In 34-ka communication equipment was mounted according to a different scheme than in modern tanks.
          Nowadays, all the necessary communications equipment for the tank commander is at hand. Platoon and company commanders have enough of these cp-communications.
          In addition, special commander modifications of tanks are issued (with a more advanced set of sr-in communications) allowing to replace the KShM. Especially for commanders of battalions, regiments, brigades.

          Quote: svp67
          Are you a tanker yourself?

          And you? wink

          Then if you are so knowledgeable, please answer these questions.
          Why is a 4th tank needed in a modern tank?
          What will he do there, what will be his specialty?
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 11: 28
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            And you?

            Yes ... An officer of tank forces, he served almost his entire military career in "armor" ...
            Quote: wanderer_032
            why in a modern tank is needed in the 4th crew?
            What will he do there, what will be his specialty?

            You are reading the previous comments, I don’t want to "crush water in a mortar" again ... And yet, you are not confused by the question that the T34-76 had a crew of 4 people, and the T34-85 already had 5 people, by the way , to replenish the crews were sent "armor-piercing" from the disbanded subdivisions of the PTR ... And do you know the position of this new (5th crew member), and why it was introduced into the crew. Find out - and you will receive an answer, to many of your questions ...
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 22 2014 18: 24
              0
              Quote: svp67
              that the T34-76 had a crew of 4 people, and the T34-85 already had 5 people, by the way, "armor-piercers" from the disbanded PTR units were sent to replenish the crews ... And do you know the position of this new (5th crew member ), and why she was introduced to the crew


              According to the state, it was supposed to be so. But in fact it was a little different.
              On the T-34-85, the 5th was the gunner. I wrote about the "local" reduction, which took place directly in units and subunits on the front line.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 22 2014 20: 37
                +1
                Quote: wanderer_032
                But in fact it was a little different.
                The T-34-85 was the 5th gunner.
                Right. And this gunner, according to the old "tower commander", removed this duty from the tank commander, who had to shoot and observe and command earlier. The Commander became the Commander and the effectiveness of tanks and armored forces increased ...
          2. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 13: 25
            0
            Quote: wanderer_032
            In 34-ka communication equipment was mounted according to a different scheme than in modern tanks.

            Yes, what are you saying ... And what are the differences in MOUNTING? Both there and there the radio station is located in the HOUSING and on the hull of the tank, and there and there it connects the entire crew through TPU and APU - what are the differences in installation?
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 22 2014 15: 15
              0
              Quote: svp67
              And what are the differences in MOUNTING?


              And let's see.



              location of the radio station on the T-34.



              the location of the radio station on the T-72, is located in the tower as it is not strange.

              As you can see, the difference is significant.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 22 2014 20: 40
                -1
                Quote: wanderer_032
                the location of the radio station on the T-72, is located in the tower as it is not strange.

                Somehow go to any tank unit on the day of the tanker, this is the second Sunday of September. Then they show tanks for the civilian population, ask them to open the commander’s hatch and let them show you the location of the radio station, you will be VERY surprised - it is fixed to the HULL of the tank ...
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 April 22 2014 22: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  ask to open the commander’s hatch and let them show you the location of the radio station, you will be VERY surprised - it is fixed to the HULL of the tank ...

                  I'm just in a ... yee ... belay
                  Probably the commander’s place in 72-ke is also attached to the board along with the R-123 or R-173. And when the tower rotates, the poor commander jumps to the tower’s policeman while taking his seat out so that she doesn’t tear something off when the gunner rotates. wassat laughing
      2. Kars
        Kars April 22 2014 11: 50
        +2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Not needed in the 4 tank, he has nothing to do there

        but I think that we need the 4, as well as more powerful anti-aircraft weapons.
        1. ruslan207
          ruslan207 April 22 2014 20: 17
          +1
          Anti-aircraft weapons are better than kaz against whom this anti-aircraft weapons will be effective?
      3. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 12: 18
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        And the main gun was fired from the machine gun.

        Give an example of this, this is from Drabkin ... we read, we will analyze. Since the machine gun in the T34 was far from the fur, I wonder how they did it ...
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 22 2014 14: 41
          0
          Quote: svp67
          Since the machine gun in the T34 was far from the fur, I wonder how they did it ...

          But how did they do it on 54? What prevented the adaption of an exchange-rate machine gun for firing mechanized water on 34 tracks.
          Away? Yah?
          At arm's length, is that far ???
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 20: 41
            0
            Quote: wanderer_032
            But how did they do it on 54?

            Using the ELECTRIC TIMER, whose button was located on the control lever ... on the T34 this was not ...
        2. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 22 2014 17: 04
          +1
          Quote: svp67

          Give an example of this, this is from Drabkin ... we read, we will analyze.


          Here are the quotes:
          The course machine gun mounted in the hull could be used effectively only in close combat, when the infantrymen with grenades and Molotov cocktails surrounded the tank, which was immobilized for one reason or another.
          "This is a melee weapon, when the tank was knocked out and it stopped. The Germans come up and you can mow them down, be healthy like that" - V.P. Bryukhov.
          It was almost impossible to shoot from the machine gun on the move, since the telescopic sight of the machine gun provided insignificant opportunities for observation and aiming.
          "And I, in fact, did not have any sight. I have such a hole there, I can't see a damn thing in it," recalls P.I. Kirichenko (who by the way served as a gunner-radio operator on the T-34), (pp. 29-30).
          And here is what he himself said about this in an interview:
          Honestly, I believe that the radio operator in the T-34 was not needed. The communication scheme is the simplest, any crew member could handle it, because they worked, as a rule, on one or two waves. So the radio operator as a signalman was useless. And he was useless as a machine gunner (p. 167).
          And here is what V.P. Bryukhov recalled (he began the tanker’s combat career in Kursk as a T-34 commander, and after the war he rose to the rank of general).
          About loaders:
          “In addition, when firing, powder gases accumulate in the turret. In winter, the fans have time to throw them out, and in summer, in hot weather, they don't. Sometimes you shouted to the loader:“ Load the shrapnel! ” He pushed him: “Shrapnel is ready!” And then he does not answer. You look, and he lies on the ammunition rack, he was burned, having swallowed these gases, and lost consciousness. to the 85mm cannon ... and not to the 120mm) It moves more, and the 85mm round weighs two pounds, so the load is very high (p. 194).
          About what is happening inside the affected, burning tank:
          "So, when the tank caught fire and it was engulfed in flames, here not to lose self-control is, brother, you need to have great courage. The temperature is wild at once, diesel fuel is burning, and if the fire licks you, you already completely lose control over yourself. He needs to remove the hooks, unscrew, open the hatch, and if he panicked or the fire grabbed him, then he will never jump out.
          Most of all, of course, the radio operators died. They are in the most disadvantageous position - a mechanic on the left, a loader behind. Until one of them clears the road, he cannot get out, but the count goes on for seconds. So the commander jumps out, the loader jumps out, and the rest are as lucky "(p. 200).
          A. Drabkin "I fought on the T-34" published by "Eksmo" 2007.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 20: 42
            0
            And where is it about the fact that the mech-water fired from the machine gun?
          2. Sledgehammer
            Sledgehammer April 23 2014 08: 00
            +1
            I agree that in the T-44 there was no longer a radio operator arrow, as well as a course
            machine gun. And it was a machine completely created taking into account experience
            War.
      4. Pimply
        Pimply April 22 2014 12: 49
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        He doesn’t need the 4 in the tank, he has nothing to do there. On the contrary, it is necessary to reduce the number of people in the carriage, and not increase it. Previously, there was no such technical level of development, which is why the tank had to be equipped with such a number of people.

        I think many tankers would argue with you. Especially during machine maintenance
        1. goose
          goose April 22 2014 17: 28
          +2
          To remove the battery - to pose a problem? Shells to ship? I don’t see the sergeant’s elite raid in the tower. I have to do everything. They clean all the cannons and help the driver. I saw gentle boys in the army ... They don’t know where the electric launch is, tank commanders.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 20: 45
            0
            Quote: goose
            To remove the battery - to pose a problem? Shells to ship? I don’t see the sergeant’s elite raid in the tower.

            Yes, no one speaks of any kind of elitism, each has its own responsibilities. And the question is, do you think that the fourth person would be superfluous in the carriage when working on technology?
            1. goose
              goose April 23 2014 09: 19
              +1
              not superfluous, but he should not sit in the tank, I believe that this additional person (s) should ride either in the BREM or in the support and control platoon. He should not go into battle. The caterpillar and the three of them can be mastered. But two crew members are already tin.
              1. badger1974
                badger1974 April 23 2014 17: 20
                0
                huh, but what is the crew in the bat? or do you think less work in batre? don't be dumb
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 April 22 2014 10: 52
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      With one I can agree with the author, on a new car, on the topic "Armata", I would still like to see 4 crew members, so that the tank commander again becomes just a COMMANDER, and not a SPECIALIST FOR ALL HANDS, to the detriment of his main duty

      I am not special in BTT, but perhaps I completely agree with you on this ...
      The fourth (let's call him conditionally "loader") can take over the functions of the one who is responsible for choosing the type of ammunition, even if there is AZ on the tank. Extra hands will reduce the workload on the crew, which will lead to less fatigue and, as a result, fewer errors. In addition, the "loader", if necessary, can take over the functions of the gunner ...
      Yes, and in the fourth to service the tank is still easier than in three. But tanks are now very complicated things ...
      I hope, dear Sergey, I correctly understood your idea about the fourth in the crew? ..
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 22 2014 11: 35
        +2
        Quote: Chicot 1
        The fourth (let's call him conditionally "loader") can take over the functions of the one who is responsible for choosing the type of ammunition, even if there is AZ on the tank.

        Thanks for the help ... That's the question of choosing ammunition, this is not a question at all. Automatic loading makes it half a second - a chore, boiling down to which button to press on the remote control or in what position to put the ammunition select switch ...
        Quote: Chicot 1
        The fourth (let's call him conditionally "loader") can take over the functions of the one who is responsible for choosing the type of ammunition, even if there is AZ on the tank. Extra hands will reduce the workload on the crew, which will lead to less fatigue and, as a result, fewer errors. In addition, the "loader", if necessary, can take over the functions of the gunner ...

        Almost ... The main thing is that the fourth crew member is OBLIGATED to free the tank commander from fulfilling his affairs NOT CONSIDERABLE to the commander ... The commander must constantly carry out his duties, without being distracted, not only timely and successful completion of the assigned task by the crew and unit, but also the life of the whole crew ...
        1. Kars
          Kars April 22 2014 11: 52
          +2
          http://topwar.ru/12977-tank-chelovek-sreda-mashina.html

          maybe let the administration repost.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply April 22 2014 12: 53
          -2
          Quote: svp67
          Almost ... The main thing is that the fourth crew member is OBLIGATED to free the tank commander from fulfilling his affairs NOT CONSIDERABLE to the commander ... The commander must constantly carry out his duties, without being distracted, not only timely and successful completion of the assigned task by the crew and unit, but also the life of the whole crew ...

          In principle, one of the reasons for reducing the reserved volume and increasing armor, as well as automating actions and reducing the number of crew members was the military doctrine, which involved actions during an atomic war. That is, not the only reason, but one of. Therefore, the forced reduction of the fourth crew member is quite, it is worth noting, necessary not only for direct functions.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 22 2014 20: 46
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            Therefore, the forced reduction of the fourth crew member is quite, it is worth noting, necessary not only for direct functions.
            According to some sources, "Armata" will not be as miniature as its predecessors ... that is, there will be room for a fourth person ...
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 22 2014 21: 02
              -3
              Quote: svp67
              According to some sources, "Armata" will not be as miniature as its predecessors ... that is, there will be room for a fourth person ...

              Wait and see. In manual mode, the loader can quickly change the projectile. IMHO, a successful solution really gives a semiautomatic device Merkava - but still inferior.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 22 2014 22: 37
            0
            just made AZ and the rest didn’t get it,
            the brain works differently, worse.

            for eastern Europe, the mass of MBT should not exceed 45 tons, the standard in this regard was set by the IS-2 and Panther for cross-country ability, as well as the format of railway platforms and bridges, and it is maintained.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 22 2014 22: 50
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              AZ was made in growth and the rest didn’t get it,
              the brain works differently, worse.

              Well yes, right. All the rest are fools.

              AZ is a part of a certain concept. And certain TK. The fact that the Soviet tanks received it has obvious reasons. But AZ in this form has a number of certain very significant drawbacks.
  • Kar Karych
    Kar Karych April 22 2014 09: 50
    +2
    It should be noted that for the first time, the French light tank AMX13 was equipped with an automatic loader in 1951. So this is not our invention.

    This is already funny. The type of automatic loader in French has a big difference from ours. The principle of the swinging tower, which was then licked in Israel because of its big flaws, even Amer did not like. Having shot the whole drum and then stand and reload, in the movement to do this it was impossible to do a large projectile length, a small tower space, God forbid anyone else to cripple. The author is clearly a sofa bug.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 22 2014 10: 15
      +2
      Quote: Kar Karych
      It should be noted that for the first time, the French light tank AMX13 was equipped with an automatic loader in 1951. So this is not our invention.

      Considering that back in 1940, Grabin, when developing a 107mm tank gun, he already used an automatic loader ...
  • Poppy
    Poppy April 22 2014 09: 59
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Mortal, but almost any penetration of armor in car tanks leads to detonation of the ammunition and death of the entire crew.

    so this is an occasion to improve the design, and not to abandon it at all
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 11: 15
      -3
      Quote: Poppy
      so this is an occasion to improve the design, and not to abandon it at all

      If the design is not so successful, then why improve it? I am not against AZ as such, but not like that.
  • cucun
    cucun April 22 2014 09: 59
    +1
    Empty. We are waiting for "Armata", there will be something to discuss ...
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas April 22 2014 10: 03
    0
    I would like to ask a question about maintenance. Having a fourth crew member greatly simplifies maintenance.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 22 2014 10: 18
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      I would like to ask a question about maintenance. Having a fourth crew member greatly simplifies maintenance.

      The issue is debatable, now Westerners are more focused on the use of special maintenance units ... Another thing is that urgent repair in a combat situation, equipping positions, guarding it with four crew members is easier than three ...
      1. ramsi
        ramsi April 22 2014 10: 36
        +2
        if the fourth is not charging, then what does he do in the tank?
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 22 2014 10: 48
          0
          Quote: ramsi
          if the fourth is not charging, then what does he do in the tank?
          In a modern tank, more and more various additional systems appear, moreover, even now it is possible to give this crew member work with the ZPU, so that the tank commander does not break away from managing the crew to solve a specific task ... The commander must direct all actions crew and constantly keep "a finger on the pulse" of the battle ... And besides, assign the loader tasks to the fourth crew member in case of M (A) Z failure and, of course, reload additional weapons - machine guns
          1. ramsi
            ramsi April 22 2014 11: 15
            +2
            I'm not an expert, but in my opinion, there is a significant difference between the roles of the commander-gunner in the T-34-76 and the commander and gunner in modern tanks. I doubt that the current tank commander is so overworked, unless, of course, he is a "brake"
          2. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 22 2014 11: 22
            +5
            Quote: svp67
            And besides, to assign to the fourth crew member the tasks of the loader, in case of failure of M (A) XNUMX and of course reload additional weapons - machine guns


            In short, bring-give-went to .. y-do not bother.
            I think that such a ... um ... "interesting" technical specialty will be very expensive for the country. laughing
            In addition to the fact that the tank must be designed for 4 people, this dunce must be "shaved" on TV, put on allowance, pay a considerable amount of money (if he is a contract soldier ... and leave where he wants to go with his family, incl.) ...
            Despite the fact that in the tank he is "ballast", a burden for himself and for others.

            1. svp67
              svp67 April 22 2014 20: 48
              0
              Quote: wanderer_032
              In addition to the fact that the tank must be designed for 4 people, this dunce must be "shaved" in TV, put on allowance, pay a considerable amount of money
              We now have not a five-million-strong army with 22 tanks, let alone find 000 tanks ...
              1. PLO
                PLO April 22 2014 21: 38
                +1
                We now have not a five-million-strong army with 22 tanks, let alone find 000 tanks ...

                So it seems that according to the staff of the current army, about 2500 tanks should be in service?
  • badger1974
    badger1974 April 22 2014 10: 31
    +5
    guys, what to argue, in general, a tank is a means of breaking through the enemy’s defense, based on this circumstance, the design idea works in sculpting armored vehicles, then e is the maximum protection in the frontal projection, the maximum unloading of the crew by automating secondary work in servicing the guns, is all that is needed to the tank, based on this, we draw conclusions — the Soviet idea of ​​the designers about AZ and MZ — it was a huge reserve for the present and future of tanks, but if the author considers the tank as a walking pillbox, he is deeply mistaken, all pillboxes are breaking, but the tank fists are rapidly attacking so far nni who never restrained in history
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 23 2014 01: 17
      0
      mobile tank defenses and their deterrent actions
    2. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 23 2014 01: 51
      0
      >> in general, a tank is a means of breaking through enemy defenses

      Only in the USSR! West tanks DEFENDS. The West is approaching. Tanks go to the place cleared by aviation, which, faced with opposition, again causes aviation. And only having occupied new positions of defense, tanks of the West are ready to fight.
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 April 23 2014 09: 39
        +1
        here I completely agree, from this point of view of the designer and look what the tank needs in this territory
  • Prutkov
    Prutkov April 22 2014 10: 53
    +5
    I am not a tanker. But my grandfather, who served on the IS-2, died in the 56th year in Germany during exercises, having gone through the whole war. According to the father’s stories, an accident occurred in which the grandfather loading the tank, trying to maintain the required rate of fire, immediately after loading the projectile into the gun, took out the next shell from the ammunition shell, which was laid next to it. And after the shot of the first shell, a shell or a shell tray (alas, not special, I don’t know what is called right) jumped out of the breech and hit the already prepared shell. The result was tragic.
    1. Svyatoslavovich
      Svyatoslavovich April 22 2014 13: 50
      +1
      You are confusing something, you can even hit the projectile with a hammer, it will not explode. Self-cocking a projectile (in simple terms) occurs after a shot. On Isah there was separate loading, the shells and propelling charges to them were located on the sides of the loader, there was no sense in taking the shell out of laying and laying on the floor, moreover, it would be easier and faster to take the shell and drive it into the breech than bend over it. Apparently the theory was brought to you as it could be .....
      1. goose
        goose April 22 2014 17: 34
        0
        Most likely - inaccuracy, IS-2 - a separate shot, a pre-prepared charge can well be exploded.

        OFS has a sensitive fuse, if defective it can explode, there have been cases.
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 April 23 2014 17: 30
          0
          young woman, you’re stupid to disgrace, in order to activate the fuse for 125 mm 3OF19 you need to try, approximately with a sledgehammer in B-15
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 23 2014 01: 52
      0
      Therefore, according to Tank Gunnery Abrams, if, during exercises or exams, someone notices that the loader has removed a new shell before the old one is shot, the exercises immediately stop, the tank is withdrawn, the loader is removed from the tests.
  • Serge56
    Serge56 April 22 2014 11: 11
    -9
    tanks are ... yesterday. The antiques are called "Budeny's cavalry". You need to think about tomorrow
    1. TELEMARK
      TELEMARK April 22 2014 11: 17
      +2
      In what troops are you thinking about tomorrow, Budyonny?
    2. badger1974
      badger1974 April 22 2014 11: 34
      0
      in the upcoming massacre, I would like to see your frightened face when the 40-year-old colossus crumbles everything for herself, don’t sit behind the stove, the third world war is on the nose, the walking bunkers of the khan, current ma are swift attacks and firing on the move on the horse, in the 20th White Guards this maneuver was dragged away, in the 43rd identity too, well, in the 21st century, science will go west along the way, like the first time gritsa is randomness, the second time is coincidence, the third time is regularity
    3. family tree
      family tree April 22 2014 20: 40
      +3
      Quote: Serge56
      tanks are ... yesterday. The antiques are called "Budeny's cavalry". You need to think about tomorrow

      Cavalry, this is yesterday, the Germans thought, in World War II. After meeting with the guys Belov and Dovator, they scratched their turnips, decided that they were wrong and began to increase the number of cavalrymen laughing
    4. ilya63
      ilya63 9 May 2014 02: 17
      0
      Do you know what will happen tomorrow? you can’t say anything for yourself, but you’re climbing where you don’t get. About Budyonny just go and know that he’s the commander of 1 horse and that’s all?
  • Kubatai
    Kubatai April 22 2014 11: 24
    +2
    um .. concept next. generations of the tank goes towards the crewless tower ..
    the crew put in the armor a capsule, which is immersed in the body .. from here the conclusion of the AZ is needed .. moreover, the AZ will have to operate with all the ammunition ..
  • La-5
    La-5 April 22 2014 11: 26
    0
    In my opinion, one of the most positive qualities of the AZ, which the author did not mention, is that our tanks with AZ are much lower than their western competitors, and this is a very big plus in battle.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 23 2014 01: 54
      0
      The Javelin rocket, which hits from above, doesn't care what the tank’s height is. Let it be as flat as a pancake ...
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 April 23 2014 09: 44
        0
        ATGM Dzhova is suitable for a current MA on a standing T-55 at the range to fire, for the uninitiated, a tank equipped with a full "minced meat" dynamic and active protection of the Jove is too tough. moreover, a waste of money, I hope it's not worth reminding how much it costs to shoot a javelin7 or just remind
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast April 23 2014 11: 52
          0
          "tank equipped with full" stuffing "with dynamic and active protection"

          Please give an example of a serial tank, in which the roof of the tower is covered in this way.
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 April 23 2014 17: 38
            0
            is it the serial number of the tank for you, or will you manage to view the info on the net? Exactly like the photo from the battlefield? Well, how, hands haven’t dried up to ask this, read smart and technically competent murzilka, what do you know murzilka?
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast April 23 2014 22: 53
              -2
              What is murzilka you know?

              Try a better answer later. Well, when you sober up.
              1. badger1974
                badger1974 April 23 2014 23: 57
                0
                sober sober faster? it’s not like Murzilka and my own ... I’m in my bear hat
  • qwert
    qwert April 22 2014 11: 28
    +13
    I am surprised. According to the author, the French were dumb with their Leclerc. Following the Germans and Americans are stupid developing automatic charging. It is strange of course .... In addition, the author does not take into account the fact that manually loading on a tank that rushes over rough terrain is not as fast and convenient as in a tank that is standing. Therefore, for Merkava, given the specifics of the fighting on that theater, it is possible that an automatic machine is not needed. But the author does not mean Merkava. And ours, in which maneuverability and mobility are some of the main elements of survivability and tactics of application.

    And one more analogy. For years in the 1992-1995 there were several articles that the Yak-141 is a dead-end aircraft. They say vertical take-off and supersonic sound are utopia, and lifting force due to high-temperature gases is the stupidity of designers. At the same time, the authors also cited the fact that there is no such thing in the US and British aviation and they went the other way. I dream, from the beginning of production of F-35, to pinch those authors and ask them, and now they think so or what? If someone does otherwise, does not mean that it is wrong with us. In Europe, washed once a year. They were also right, and our ancestors are fools ????
    1. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 11: 37
      -4
      Quote: qwert
      Following the Germans and Americans are stupid developing automatic charging

      The Americans are not developing this. They generally reduce the production of tanks and the plant in Lima is alive only thanks to lobbyists.

      Quote: qwert
      In addition, the author slightly does not take into account the fact that manual loading on a tank that rushes over rough terrain is not as fast and convenient as in a tank that is standing. Therefore, for Merkava, given the specifics of the fighting on that theater, it is possible that an automatic machine is not needed. But the author does not mean Merkava. And ours, in which maneuverability and mobility are some of the main elements of survivability and tactics of application.

      In your opinion, is Merkava a static firing point? wink
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 April 22 2014 12: 59
        +4
        exactly like that, and no more, a tank is a means of breakthrough, and a measure is a pillbox, in the European arena, not every bridge will withstand, but we have streams here to f ... not a mother, we are waiting for 60-ton abra with a pander across Hohland will go, it will look funny when they will burn in packs from the "sevens"
        1. goose
          goose April 22 2014 17: 36
          +1
          Recent modifications (and others no longer fight) 67-69 tons weigh.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Canep
        Canep April 22 2014 18: 20
        0
        Quote: Professor
        The Americans are not developing this. They generally reduce the production of tanks and the plant in Lima is alive only thanks to lobbyists.

        That’s for sure, the Pentogon is being slightly sucked in by these tanks.
        Good Professor hi
      3. family tree
        family tree April 22 2014 20: 59
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        The Americans are not developing this. They generally reduce the production of tanks and the plant in Lima is alive only thanks to lobbyists.

        Do not develop. Back in 1988, Western Design developed and tested the FASTDRAW automatic loader.
      4. qwert
        qwert April 23 2014 06: 57
        0
        In the Foreign Military Review (such a magazine there was an article on the Americans' study of the possibility of installing a West German automatic loader on a promising tank and on the M1 in a modernization variant.
        About the Merkava. As far as I remember, the tank was initially created by priority: protection, firepower, mobility. Moreover, was it not in Israel itself that it was recognized that the last years of the Merkabah were used more as "hospitals"? Although I do not argue, the tank is excellent, and is completely designed for its own theater of operations.
  • domjoly
    domjoly April 22 2014 11: 34
    +3
    On the question of the required number of crew members, as practice says, there is a criterion of truth, therefore, for the successful completion of tasks in the tank there must be 4 tankers and a dog
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa April 22 2014 12: 06
    +1
    AZ itself is a useful thing, you just need to eliminate the flaws. On the arm, everything seems to go to this. What the dispute is not very clear about.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi April 22 2014 12: 06
    +3
    I served in the engineering battalion, which is assigned to the 401 t / b. I talked a lot with our tankers. According to them, the IDF abandoned the AZ for the following reasons, increased explosiveness during penetration with fire, in the event of a penetration of the tank without ignition and failure of a part of the crew, the damaged vehicle is put into operation much more quickly than when the AZ is destroyed + the exit of a part of the crew. And the limitation in the size of the ammunition. Today, the IDF uses "longer" ammunition than the RA and, in the opinion of our tankers, they have an "advantage in power." If something goes wrong, I ask you not to throw your slippers, I myself have been in the tank only as a tourist. repeat
  • understudy
    understudy April 22 2014 12: 08
    +1
    Yeah ... if such arguments against the machine gun were laid out by "expert" Korotchenko, I would not be surprised, since he certainly did not "throw" shells.
  • indeveral
    indeveral April 22 2014 12: 19
    +3
    From my point of view, the automatic loader should never be abandoned. Only he provides a consistently high rate of fire in motion during the battle. Well, the main complaints about it like the impossibility of using "extended" ammunition, difficulties in charging, when the ammunition in the machine is exhausted, the high probability of detonation of the ammunition, when it enters the hull, these problems must be solved comprehensively when developing a new Armata platform. And for the T-90 and T-72, some modifications could be made in terms of using new ammunition and reducing the risks of ammunition detonation.
  • Karampax
    Karampax April 22 2014 12: 30
    -2
    An automatic loader is indisputably needed! But, in my opinion, our tankers have little time, if any, to leave the damaged tank. All tanks, without exception, are burned and destroyed, but the experience of the surviving crew is invaluable, so the Western school of tank building means ensuring the survivability of the epipage and not the rate of fire. In addition, with modern SLAs, one shot is often enough. Not a single armored monster survived on the battlefield!
  • Kar Karych
    Kar Karych April 22 2014 12: 38
    +2
    In your opinion, is Merkava a static firing point? wink[/ Quote]

    Well, judging by your last military operations, then yes!
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi April 22 2014 12: 52
      0
      [quote = Kar Karych] In your opinion, is Merkava a static firing point? wink[/ Quote]

      Well, judging by your last military operations, then yes! [/ Quote]
      You are not right. In VLV, tanks played a major role in forcing X-la to cease fire. Despite the fact that the latter spent six years on the creation of a modern anti-tank system in extremely difficult terrain for tanks.
      1. _CAMOBAP_
        _CAMOBAP_ April 22 2014 22: 29
        0
        As for the "modern PTO" performed by "H-ll", you got excited. I am not saying that they can be "showered with hats" - they just do not have the opportunity to organize a full-fledged VET.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 22 2014 22: 52
          0
          Quote: _CAMOBAP_
          they do not have a full-fledged VET organization.

          What in your understanding is a full-fledged VET?
          1. _CAMOBAP_
            _CAMOBAP_ April 23 2014 10: 21
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            Quote: _CAMOBAP_
            they do not have a full-fledged VET organization.

            What in your understanding is a full-fledged VET?

            If your availability of RPGs, ATGMs and self-propelled landmines is already a full-fledged VET, then I see no reason to argue. If you want to find out how the VET is built - with engineering support, separation, etc., etc. - then the whole will try to help you.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply April 23 2014 21: 58
              0
              Quote: _CAMOBAP_
              If your availability of RPGs, ATGMs and self-propelled landmines is already a full-fledged VET, then I see no reason to argue. If you want to find out how the VET is built - with engineering support, separation, etc., etc. - then the whole will try to help you.

              Then for what reason, understanding a full-fledged anti-terrorist operation, are you talking with disdain about the lines of defense of Hezbollah?
    2. Pimply
      Pimply April 22 2014 13: 21
      -2
      Quote: Kar Karych
      Well, judging by your last military operations, then yes!

      Apparently you studied them poorly
    3. badger1974
      badger1974 April 22 2014 13: 23
      +2
      and what do you want to argue? Well then, I would see how our GK-22 will overcome 60 tons, more than a bridge holds no more than 20, and this is one in a thousand, and do not look that the river is not wide there is three meters silt
      1. Professor
        Professor April 22 2014 13: 39
        -1
        Quote: badger1974
        bo bridge holds no more than 20

        And how much do teshki weigh? wink
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 April 22 2014 14: 13
          +2
          40 tons, but there is a technical weight limit in the form of a round white road sign with a red border and black, the forbidden mass for travel is indicated, but taking into account the operating load is usually 5 times higher than the forbidden mass according to the SNIP of USSR norms, do not you find this remarkable a fact for the European part of the former USSR, no one has ever built new bridges for us, but for proforma, in Crimea we drive seven or six times and six times at a time, in columns, so for information, but one measure is enough to make the crossing
        2. goose
          goose April 22 2014 17: 40
          0
          Weigh from 42 to 50 tons.
        3. The comment was deleted.
  • Boricello
    Boricello April 22 2014 12: 59
    +2
    The professor, as always, in his repertoire. Calm down, no one in their right mind will say that the merkava is a bad tank. The tank is wonderful, but only for its theater of operations no more. And do not poke unsinkable and not killed carrots. So far, you have fought with armies and soldiers at the Stone Age level compared to you. There are not enough polite people for you wink
    1. Pimply
      Pimply April 22 2014 13: 23
      -3
      Quote: Boricello
      There are not enough polite people for you

      That is, the military advisers of the USSR is a stone age?
    2. Professor
      Professor April 22 2014 13: 42
      -7
      Quote: Boricello
      The professor, as always, in his repertoire. Calm down, no one in their right mind will say that the merkava is a bad tank.

      The discussion is about the advantages of AZ and its disadvantages, and not about the best world tank.

      Quote: Boricello
      So far, you have fought with armies and soldiers at the Stone Age level compared to you.

      Tens of thousands of Soviet primitive military personnel ...

      Quote: Boricello
      There are not enough polite people for you

      Israel catches / shoots its green little men in batches and one by one. The hunting season does not stop.


  • Kar Karych
    Kar Karych April 22 2014 13: 08
    +3
    You're not right. In VLV, tanks played a major role in forcing X-la to cease fire. Despite the fact that the latter spent six years on the creation of a modern anti-tank system in extremely difficult terrain for tanks. [/ Quote]

    Are you talking about the second Lebanon war or something, excuse me what VET, judging by the results, it looks more like guerrilla warfare than normal military operations. You fought not against the front, but with separate firing points which mainly consisted of 3, 5 people. And hammering airplanes on partisans is certainly cool.
  • badger1974
    badger1974 April 22 2014 13: 12
    +3
    it’s shorter than hare to scoop up our MZ and AZ, so I couldn’t even dream of negroes and any Western charging kachegars, because weak 35 kg into the breech, and does our MZ and AZ easily have foam on my lips?
    1. srelock
      srelock April 24 2014 14: 38
      +1
      badger1974 would like to complement you.
      The mass of a 120mm NATO tank unitary shot does not exceed 25kg (which is very decent), but if there were a domestic 125mm unitary shot (OFS) in nature, it would just weigh about 35kg and would be more than a meter in length. We would then have to make "armored sheds" of the Merkava type and plant two loaders there laughing, and so, separately charge, separately shell and AZ / MZ in addition, conveniently and compactly.
      In general, in my opinion, the question of which is better AZ / MZ or the loader should be asked to those "blacks". I wonder what they say?
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren April 24 2014 14: 50
        0
        >> I wonder what they say?

        "It's better in a tank than outside!" This I mean, having removed them from the tank, they will be given the M16 in their hands and forced to run as part of the infantry. And "in the tank is better than outside!"
        1. srelock
          srelock April 24 2014 22: 53
          0
          “It's better in a tank than outside!” - I think it depends on the situation.
          "They will be given an M16 in their hands and forced to run as part of the infantry" - they will rather be sent to the repair company.
          And you, as I understand it, did not serve as loaders?
  • mkpda
    mkpda April 22 2014 13: 16
    +6
    The article is another propaganda campaign. "How good everything is there and how bad it is with us."
    It seems to me that even a crew of three is a consequence of the low level of automation of tanks. In aviation, for a long time (on attack planes and helicopters) the crew does not exceed two people at a significantly higher speed (hence less time to make a decision). Why do we need a gunner today? In fact, it replaces automation, taking information from the commander about the identified target and launching the aiming system, and when the system is ready, fires.
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 April 22 2014 13: 30
    +3
    In the next study: does the infantryman need a machine gun, or does the attack go with pistols?
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 April 22 2014 13: 45
      +2
      why with pistols? judging by the author of the article with muzzle-loading muskets, you need to go on the attack, probably I didn’t read about Levsha in my youth, because the British are unclean with a brick gun
    2. shurup
      shurup April 22 2014 13: 54
      +4
      A bit wrong.
      Why would a soldier have an assault rifle if you give him a simple carbine and loader. Let the fighter aim and pull the trigger.
      In the future, the reduction of the crew to two, and here are some thoughts of the last century.
      1. Voodoo
        Voodoo April 22 2014 14: 38
        +1
        All this is so. But the question is precisely what the design of the last century’s AZs are used on modern Russian tanks and no longer meet modern requirements. That is the problem. The author is right. And the fact that the loader’s problems (wound, malaise, vomiting, diarrhea, wife didn’t give, etc.) endanger the life of the entire tank crew, it’s a fact)))
  • Betelgeuse
    Betelgeuse April 22 2014 13: 53
    +4
    The author and why you did not write that 60t. Is it convenient for Abrams to ram the walls of houses and crush enemy equipment? And then the T-72 with its 40s just can not. Such a serious minus was missed.

    Regarding the loader and the AZ, if the loader is banged, the commander and gunner in Abrams, Leopard (and others) will also have to load the shells themselves. And their instruction is not a fact that they have, they definitely have nothing in the contract for loading shells)))

    And what does the T64 have to do with it? Is that also in Russia MBT today?
  • RuslanNN
    RuslanNN April 22 2014 14: 38
    +2
    Quote: Serge56
    tanks are ... yesterday. The antiques are called "Budeny's cavalry". You need to think about tomorrow

    God forbid you to meet with this "antiques" on the battlefield