Military Review

Armor is strong, but their tanks are not fast.

111
Armor is strong, but their tanks are not fast.

Recently, a sea of ​​articles about a possible war between Russia and the United States or NATO has been published.


The most politically correct text was signed by the American superbast, George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence agency STRATFOR. In his article, American Strategy after Ukraine, he gave a clear answer to the question why neither the United States nor NATO is currently in a position to fight with Russia.

“Direct US military intervention in Ukraine is impossible. First, Ukraine is a big country, and the United States does not have the strength necessary to defend it. Secondly, the dispatch of such forces will require a supply and supply system, which does not exist and will take much time to create. And finally, such intervention is inconceivable without a strong system of alliances, covering the entire West and the Black Sea perimeter. The United States is capable of providing economic and political support, but Ukraine is unable to create a counterbalance to Russia, and the United States cannot escalate to the point of using its armed forces. Ukraine is a battlefield in which Russia has advantages, and in such a situation, the United States can be defeated.

If the US decides to confront Russia using a military component, they need a stable perimeter with the widest possible front in order to stretch Russian forces and reduce the likelihood of a Russian attack in one sector under the fear of a retaliatory strike in another. An ideal mechanism for such a strategy could be a NATO alliance, which includes almost all important countries with the exception of Azerbaijan and Georgia. But the problem is that NATO is an ineffective alliance. It was created for the conduct of the Cold War at the turn, which is far to the west of the current line of confrontation. Moreover, earlier there was a common opinion that the USSR poses a threat to the existence of Western Europe.

This unity is no more. Different countries have different ideas about Russia and different concerns. For many, the repetition of the Cold War, even in the face of Russian actions in Ukraine, is worse than compromise and reconciliation. In addition, with the end of the Cold War in Europe, there was a large-scale reduction of troops. NATO is simply not strong enough, unless their powerful and sudden build-up occurs. And this will not happen due to the financial crisis and for many other reasons. The North Atlantic Alliance needs unanimity to begin to act, but there is no such unanimity. ”

The key factors in the impossibility of conducting the "defense" of Ukraine by military means according to Friedman are the lack of a supply system and the remoteness of the main NATO bases from the borders of Ukraine.

Consideration should also be given to a significant reduction in NATO forces in recent years.

The main strike force of any army is Tanks.

On 1 in January, 2011 in the troops of NATO countries (including the US), included in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), on the European territory was the 11624 tank (of which 40% falls on Turkey and Greece), 22788 BBM, 13264 artillery systems 3621 aircraft and 1085 helicopters. Among them, the most powerful is the Bundeswehr of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is armed with 1048 tanks, 2050 BBM, 734 artillery systems, 301 aircraft, 153 helicopter. For comparison: Russia at the same time had in the zone of the CFE Treaty, that is, to the Urals, 3660 tanks, 7690 armored vehicles, 4634 gun systems, 1542 aircraft and 365 helicopters.



The most modern Russian tank - T-90. They are in the army of the Russian Federation - about 500. Also 4500 T-80 tanks of various modifications. In addition, in the troops and in storage 12500 T-72.



The best tank of NATO - the German "Leopard-2", armed with the NATO countries, they are about 2000. The tank's weight is almost 60 tons. Remember this figure.



Americans consider the Abrams М1А2 to be the best tank in the world. The latest modifications of this certainly superb tank weigh up to 66 tons.



The arsenal of the NATO countries also includes the English Challenger, a tank of about the same class as the Leopard with the Abrams. Its weight is over 60 tons.

Why do I persistently pay attention to the weight of NATO tanks? And because they were created for the possible opposition of thousands of advancing Soviet tanks. That is, their task was anti-tank fight. This is not attacking, but defensive machines. For blitzkrieg, they are not suitable. They are heavy, rather slow-moving and cumbersome.



How so, you say - and the blitz-game in Iraq?

Yes, after months of bombing of the enemy’s defense and infrastructure, after their destruction aviation and air defense systems, the armored armies of NATO moved across Iraqi deserts as smooth as a board, and taking advantage of their long range, shot Saddam’s tanks as in exercises. Moreover, it was announced that the loss of several dozen Abrams occurred for technical reasons, and not because of enemy retaliatory fire.

So, NATO will not have the possibility of unpunished bombing in the event of a military conflict with Russia. The shelling will be mutual and it is not known who will prevail. The production of all types of cruise missiles at Russian factories has increased several dozen times in recent years.

In addition, all this multi-ton armada must still be delivered to the theater of military operations. In its own turn, in principle, it is possible, but then the service life will be developed. The Americans have excellent engineering services that simply replace the worn-out Abrams gas turbine units with new ones. But this means that it is also necessary to transfer engineering parts to a probable theater, and this is not a matter of a single day. It took half a year to fully prepare for the Iraqi blitzkrieg.

In addition, Ukraine and Russia are not Iraq. The soil here is marshy and NATO tanks will get stuck in it, as Hitler's "Tigers" got stuck.

And one more thing - most of the bridges of Ukraine and Russia are designed for 20 tons load, since they have a serious margin of safety, they can withstand the weight of Russian tanks (46 tons), but they will completely fail under NATO mastodons.

Transporting tanks by rail is even more difficult.

Armor is strong, but their tanks are not fast.

The fact that the tank "Abrams" of all modifications beyond the size of the railway platform, and much more.

The German Wehrmacht had the same problems with the Tiger tank. They solved them by removing the outer rollers (for the “Tiger”, the rollers are staggered in several rows) and installing special “transport” narrow tracks.

The "Abrams" will not succeed because of the design features of the case.

In principle, in peacetime, the transportation of “Abrams” by rail is possible - but only within the designated sections of the railway bed specifically for this, and it is necessary to block the movement along the second path so as not to hook the tanks with the oncoming train).

In the USA, such sections of railways are arranged, as a rule, from tank repair plants to armored vehicle storage bases.

It is impossible to freely move tanks of this size along public railways.

Russian and, by the way, Chinese tanks were initially designed in such a way as to fit into the size of standard railway platforms and not create problems with the transfer of public railway tracks.

The Abrams is 3.65 m wide, and the T-72 / T-90 family of tanks in the transport position (without side screens) is 3.46 m.

The difference seems to be small - only 19 centimeters. But as a result, it is impossible to transport by ordinary railways because of the danger of a hook on the trusses of bridges and other poles and protrusions protruding on the tracks.

And to transport their armored vehicles, if the NATO members still want to make war with Russia, they will have to go far. In the event of a possible collision in Novorossia - a half thousand kilometers. This is such a complex engineering task that its implementation will require huge financial costs and several months of preparation.

You can, of course, transfer the Soviet T-72 or Romanian T-55 that are in service with the Poles without any problems by rail. Indeed, quite recently, the Kiev governors quite successfully transported over two hundred units of their armored vehicles from the western borders to the town of Izium in eastern Ukraine.

But in this case, modern Russian tanks will also shoot outdated Soviet equipment without any problems, as during exercises. So such a garden should not even be a fuss, and NATO understands this perfectly well.

As a result: the transfer of NATO armored vehicles to a potential theater of military operations will require large financial and time costs, which will enable the enemy (that is, Russia) to organize effective defense.

Why are NATO strategists so miscalculated? While the USSR existed, NATO tank armada were intended for defense and deployed in advance on the lines of the likely offensive of the Soviet tank armies.

And the possibility that the forests and fields of Ukraine will become a potential theater theater has not been taken into account. Until recently, NATO believed that it would be possible to endlessly talk and deceive Russia, gradually pushing NATO to its borders.

We have analyzed in some detail the situation with the potential enemy tank forces. Now briefly touch aviation and air defense.

We will not delve into the technical characteristics of Russian and NATO combat aircraft. Until very recently, it was believed that Russian aircraft had the best maneuverability, while NATO had the best avionics.

But 14 of April of this year, during exercises at the Muhor-Konduy training ground in Buryatia, Su-34 fighter-bombers interfered with the A-50 early-warning and guidance aircraft, MiG-31 fighter-interceptors, and ground-based air defense grouping. The newest electronic warfare system Khibiny - U, developed by the Kaluga Radio Engineering Research Institute and Samara Scientific Research Institute Ekran (where, by the way, the author of these lines underwent the internship at student years) was commissioned for jamming. It is said that it was with this system that the old Russian SU-24 bomber paralyzed all the electronics of the American attack destroyer Donald Cook, which extremely angered the American military.

I don't know how it really was stories with the destroyer, but the truth of life is that now the Americans need to understand the real possibilities of the new Russian EW system, and on the basis of the intelligence they have received, decide whether or not they are ready for an armed conflict with Russia.

By the way, NATO fighters redeployed to the Baltic states while patrolling the borders will surely probe "accidentally" the Russian airplanes they have encountered for the presence of a new EW system and try to assess its capabilities.

In any case, NATO will not be able to gain air supremacy because of the absolute and unconditional superiority of the Russian air defense systems. C-300, C-400 and other complexes guarantee reliable protection of our ground facilities and the army.

Technique of technique, but the guarantee of victory in the war - the morale and training of soldiers and officers. Moreover, the key role is played by special forces, the army elite. The events in the Crimea and in Novorossia convincingly prove to our opponents that here, too, Russia has an undoubted superiority. And the exploits of a bearded Cossack nicknamed Babai, who blew up a helicopter at the Kramatorsk airfield, are not known from where they remind us that Russia has not only polite "green men", but also fearful politically-inclined partisans.

In total, NATO strategists rightly believe that currently a military conflict with Russia is undesirable. Their position is shared by American politicians of the highest level. Recently, US Secretary of State John Kerry was summoned to the US Senate carpet and sharply criticized for the endless concessions to the "Russian aggression in Ukraine." Kerry asked the senators only one question: “Who among you wants a war with Russia?” The answer was deathly silence.

America never attacks equal opponents. Only on obviously weaker ones. There are no other reasons for refusing aggression if there are any geopolitical prerequisites for it.

Since there are quite a few technical factors for refusing to start a war with Russia, this means that there will be no war, at least in the medium term. That is, for five to seven years.

And what will happen next, beyond the mid-term horizon? If we do not fall into geopolitical insanity and we clearly understand that only friendship with it is worse than a war with America, then there will still be peace.
Author:
Originator:
http://ai-zhilin.livejournal.com/1346248.html
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov 13 May 2014 07: 51
    +33
    America is fighting for the interests of Ukraine, not even funny!
    1. from punk
      from punk 13 May 2014 07: 55
      +5
      Quote: serega.fedotov
      America is fighting for the interests of Ukraine, not even funny!

      so in Ukraine, large deposits of shale gas and oil sad
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Vitaly Anisimov
        Vitaly Anisimov 13 May 2014 08: 22
        +12
        exploits of an unknown bearded Cossack who came to be known as Babai who exploded a helicopter
        While such men in Russia, we have nothing to fear (but we must arm ourselves unconditionally)
        1. andj61
          andj61 13 May 2014 08: 45
          +14
          Quote: MIKHAN
          America never attacks equal opponents. Only on obviously weaker ones. There are no other reasons for refusing aggression if there are any geopolitical prerequisites for it.


          Now women are frightened not only by children, but also by the Great Patriarchs, as well as all of NATO.
          1. evgenii67
            evgenii67 13 May 2014 09: 27
            +9
            "They are heavy, rather slow moving and clumsy." author you give the performance characteristics of tanks for comparison (I'm talking about slow-moving and slowness), and then write like that (how much can you? Already a hundred thousand articles were about comparing tanks), otherwise I agree with the article.
            1. Nicholas C.
              Nicholas C. 13 May 2014 09: 34
              +13
              The West again brings us its civilization. In Ukraine already built a concentration camp. informburo.dn.ua/cgi-bin/iburo/start.cgi?info1=0295

              Well, they want the best for them, but it will be as always.
              1. jjj
                jjj 13 May 2014 11: 31
                +5
                And in the summer in the heat they drink warm vodka from the throat
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 14 May 2014 04: 35
                  0
                  [/ Center]
                  Quote: jjj
                  And in the summer in the heat they drink warm vodka from the throat

                  On the beach? Vodka from the soap dish? I'll be!
            2. demo
              demo 13 May 2014 12: 46
              +1
              The author left to the reader's conscience the study and comparison of the performance characteristics.
              We go nostril with them.
        2. RBLip
          RBLip 13 May 2014 11: 10
          +5
          Quote: MIKHAN
          While such men in Russia, we have nothing to fear

          there is. always have been and will be.
        3. podpolkovnik
          podpolkovnik 13 May 2014 12: 33
          +6
          Quote: MIKHAN
          exploits of an unknown bearded Cossack who came to be known as Babai who exploded a helicopter
          While such men in Russia, we have nothing to fear (but we must arm ourselves unconditionally)
      3. aleks700
        aleks700 13 May 2014 08: 27
        +5
        Zasr-en - of the target gas. More precisely.
      4. mamont5
        mamont5 13 May 2014 08: 55
        +4
        Quote: punk
        so in Ukraine there are large deposits of shale gas and oil :(


        And a lot of space for missile defense bases.
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. Turik
        Turik 13 May 2014 10: 23
        +3
        so in Ukraine, large deposits of shale gas and oil


        Amendment: in Crimea, large oil reserves, and in the Donetsk People's Republic - shale gas.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Hon
          Hon 13 May 2014 12: 40
          0
          Quote: Turik
          in Crimea, large oil reserves, and in the Donetsk People's Republic - shale gas.

          The reserves are small, and it is difficult to mine there, at best, Crimea can provide for itself. Everything is complicated with shale gas, there are many reserves where there is, but no one is in a hurry to produce.
    2. Turik
      Turik 13 May 2014 08: 50
      +16
      What lyada the author was attached to the tanks?

      If such a dog fight does exist, then it should be considered not tanks, but nuclear charges.
      At least they will end the war.

      But suppose tanks, artillery and infantry go into battle, the Americans will somehow re-escort their tanks to Donetsk. Then the battle, no one can lose - huge image losses, etc. The loser raises the stakes - trades more and more powerful weapons and so on. As a result, the conflict will become even more aggravated, and at a certain stage, in order to avoid complete defeat, someone will be forced to use nuclear weapons.
      1. ostekalix
        ostekalix 13 May 2014 09: 56
        +5
        The USSR was in conflict with the United States in different regions of the world. But the matter did not reach the exchange of nuclear strikes for one simple reason: the Americans did not really want to die for an idea guaranteed. And now the most reliable guarantee of Russia's security will be 100% READY TO USE NW. It is very sobering
        1. jjj
          jjj 13 May 2014 11: 33
          +3
          Quote: ostekalix
          And now the most reliable guarantee of Russia's security will be 100% READY TO USE NW.

          According to our doctrine, we can use nuclear weapons proactively
          1. Hon
            Hon 13 May 2014 12: 44
            +1
            Quote: jjj
            According to our doctrine, we can use nuclear weapons proactively

            Die second
      2. demo
        demo 13 May 2014 10: 12
        +3
        There will be no nuclear exchange.
        The result is known to all, both to them and to us.
        But Europeans can fight only if they have warm closets, an evening shower, a vacation in a brothel on Saturday and Sunday.
        Mandatory buffet.
        At the same time: kosher, for adherents of Islam and, accordingly, for Christians.
        In the trenches of lice, no one dare to feed them.
        The only seriously combat-capable unit is the Foreign Legion of France.
        1. Bormental
          Bormental 13 May 2014 10: 53
          +4
          As for the legion, hardly. It was created for the war with the baboons, it was also used, hence the legend of its invincibility. In a battle with a properly trained unit, there will be no advantages. Well, morale - well, who will die for the theoretically possible citizenship of France?
          1. jjj
            jjj 13 May 2014 11: 34
            +4
            "Grad" does not care whether the legionnaires are there or just crap
            1. Altona
              Altona 13 May 2014 13: 15
              0
              And when the Iskanders cover the command post and the headquarters, the NATO warriors will generally subside the ardor ... As for the tanks, whatever they are, it is really not ice to carry them around Ukraine ... Moreover, they need an appropriate repair and production infrastructure ... And in general, where will the Americans deploy their operational group? We will blow it off with the same Iskander ... laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Corsair0304
          Corsair0304 13 May 2014 13: 42
          0
          And how many Russian speakers are there? They think twice to send Russians to fight with Russians.
          1. Pushkar
            Pushkar 13 May 2014 22: 33
            0
            Do not take this into account. Already hoped for proletarian solidarity. I personally know several of my classmates from VU, one of whom is even from Ryazan, who have become Russian-speaking Bandera.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. from punk
    from punk 13 May 2014 07: 56
    +7
    I hope it won’t get to tank battles. I don’t want to check in practice who is better
  3. Nitarius
    Nitarius 13 May 2014 08: 06
    +3
    Well, something more or less adequate calculation of those and other features
  4. plotnikov561956
    plotnikov561956 13 May 2014 08: 08
    +32
    "... America never attacks equal opponents. Only the obviously weaker ones. There are no other reasons for refusing aggression, if there are any geopolitical prerequisites for it ...."

    APPLAUSE ARTICLE ... !!!

    "... Kerry asked the senators only one question:" Which of you wants a war with Russia? " The answer was deathly silence .... "

    SIMPLY MISSING ACCENTORATED MOMENTS ...
  5. Arkan
    Arkan 13 May 2014 08: 09
    +8
    Kerry asked the senators only one question: “How many wants a war with Russia?” The answer was deathly silence.


    The US is afraid to get a wort, but they will wind up nerves, sanctions and more. We need to be on guard and solve our geopolitical tasks.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 13 May 2014 08: 25
      +5
      Quote: Arkan
      The US is afraid to get a wort, but they will wind up nerves, sanctions and more. We need to be on guard and solve our geopolitical tasks.
      But in fact, we did not oppose the imposed sanctions while, I emphasizeUNTIL nothing. And this "doing nothing" shakes a "soul" out of the Americans more than ill-considered impulsive-reflex actions.

      The West pulled its heads into cowards, realizing that Russia is FOCUSING ...
      1. aleks700
        aleks700 13 May 2014 08: 30
        +1
        Yes. And we get nerves.
        1. ostekalix
          ostekalix 13 May 2014 10: 05
          +3
          Viewers only. Russia has a very clear strategy. And obviously now every step on the "world board" is calculated and the answers are made not only in the "local position of Ukraine", but also in others. Nobody guarantees that Russia will win, but we have a stronger chance of getting out of this whole mess than the USSR was in the 85th.
    2. Mikros
      Mikros 13 May 2014 15: 08
      0
      The amusement of sanctions is also that we are not limited in our actions. Americans will constantly check the lists))) If you don’t miss)
  6. gandalf
    gandalf 13 May 2014 08: 14
    +8
    The Yankees always try to fight with strong strangers. With the weak - they are the first, and even then, after Vietnam, they won’t climb unless 10 is checked again.

    And now they are already fighting in Ukraine with us, but at the hands of Bandera, mercenaries.
  7. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 13 May 2014 08: 15
    +5
    The analysis of the article shows ... that in the near future it is possible for NATO to engage in building up the supply infrastructure for moving towards Russia ... there is reason for us to think and prepare.
    And it’s time already in Europe to withdraw from the conventional arms treaty ... there are too many risks at our borders ...
  8. mackonya
    mackonya 13 May 2014 08: 18
    +3
    Thanks for the article, it was interesting to read. Only PMCs are concerned.
    1. JACTUS RECTUS
      JACTUS RECTUS 13 May 2014 09: 38
      +5
      PMCs are not suitable for a serious conflict, low morale, and mercenaries will not stand to the end and die for money, these are not Papuans with 47mi as in a shooting gallery.
  9. Aldo
    Aldo 13 May 2014 08: 19
    +2
    Something is doubtful that 19 Santiki play a decisive role in transportation by rail. If 19 is divided by 2, it turns out a ledge on each side will be 9,5 santiks.
    1. igordok
      igordok 13 May 2014 08: 44
      +3
      For the possibility of transportation by rail, the width of the tank must be taken into account the current rules on the transport of goods of various sizes. For the USSR railway network, the overall size of the 1-B train is 3250 mm in width. The maximum width of the load at which it does not go out of dimension, 3414 mm.

      In Western European countries, bulk cargo has a width of up to 3150 mm, in the USA - up to 3130 mm and in England - up to 2920 mm.

      The ubiquity of trailers for transporting tanks and the inability to create a full-fledged main tank with a width of 3,0 - 3,15 m led to an increase in the size of foreign tanks: the American M60A1 (3,63 m), the English "Chieftain" (3,61 m) and the West German "Leopard" (3,25 m). Thus, in order to obtain the necessary combat properties, the designers went on to complicate the railway transportation and did not sacrifice the basic combat properties of the tanks for the convenience of transportation by rail.


      http://armor.kiev.ua/lib/tanks_and_armor/part2_1/
    2. andj61
      andj61 13 May 2014 08: 50
      +11
      This is not just about 95 mm. Any equipment mounted on the platform is not rigid, and can move when moving within a few centimeters. It is these centimeters that are decisive. Equipment on the platform that does not fit into the railway dimension, dangerous during transportation, can always hook something.
      And try to place exactly along the railway axis. platforms with an accuracy of 5 mm a huge fool weighing more than 60 tons!
    3. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 13 May 2014 09: 22
      +5
      In the geyrop, the narrow track and, accordingly, the distance between the paths is less. To drag tanks from Germany through Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia means to paralyze the entire railway network of eastern Europe. So the population will howl with such joy ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Hon
        Hon 13 May 2014 12: 47
        0
        And how did they only transfer tanks to Iraq by rail?
    4. igor36
      igor36 13 May 2014 10: 09
      +4
      The width of the railway platform is 3204 mm (the widest model), so even our tanks protrude beyond the edges, and even more so western ones. So 10 cm can be a critical moment.
    5. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 13 May 2014 19: 09
      0
      Well, don't tell. They play and how. For example, the internal width of the standard platforms used on our track is from 2770 to 3140 mm. So even our tanks come with a stretch. There was a case when there was a service railcar with a trailed platform, and so in it what kind of metal structures were not laid on it, went a little beyond the size, and "cut" quite a few wires.
  10. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 13 May 2014 08: 19
    -3
    nafuya all these pieces of iron? the author is just a graphomaniac. The war between the Russian Federation and the USA in the classical form is impossible while there are nuclear weapons
    1. asar
      asar 13 May 2014 08: 29
      +10
      Nuclear weapons are the most extreme argument! We showed it on May 8, the nuclear "triad" of Russia is alive and well and sends greetings to the Yankees! laughing
    2. lewerlin53rus
      lewerlin53rus 13 May 2014 08: 41
      +3
      Quote: Ivan Petrovich
      The war between the Russian Federation and the USA in the classical form is impossible while there are nuclear weapons

      Is not a fact. local clashes with NATO forces are, in principle, possible. And nuclear weapons will not be used until there is a threat to the strategic security of one of the parties. But, fortunately, there are no absolute idiots from either side, and nobody will bring things to such a development of events. What eloquently say the words of Kerry: "Which of you wants a war with Russia?" And the silence of the Senate in response.
      1. andr327
        andr327 13 May 2014 09: 16
        +6
        Well, as far as idiots go far by examples, don’t look at the current rulers of the Outskirts, at the Psaki, Nurland or the bright image of Russian liberalism - the new-door. There is such a tendency here that these .... in bad conditions can be concentrated in one place.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 13 May 2014 10: 30
        +2
        Quote: lewerlin53rus
        Is not a fact. local clashes with NATO forces are, in principle, possible.

        But the Americans are likely to perform only command functions, and the newly admitted NATO members will be driven into the trenches. Well, air cover.
        But this is an extreme option, they will again try to bleed us with someone, they are masters of this matter hi .
    3. andj61
      andj61 13 May 2014 09: 00
      +5
      Quote: Ivan Petrovich
      nafuya all these pieces of iron? the author is just a graphomaniac. The war between the Russian Federation and the USA in the classical form is impossible while there are nuclear weapons


      With the help of strategic nuclear weapons it is impossible to defeat, you can only destroy the enemy. Victory is provided, as a rule, by ground forces.
  11. mister2013
    mister2013 13 May 2014 08: 25
    +6
    Excellent article! good Briefly and clearly addressed the main issues. And then they will start pouring water and to the point of not care.
  12. maxxdesign
    maxxdesign 13 May 2014 08: 28
    +2
    they will answer for ssanktsii! we’ll collapse the fucking downhill economy of the United States, and let their banks instead of smelly dollars print murals ... we can last a couple more years!
  13. Mature Hrych
    Mature Hrych 13 May 2014 08: 28
    +12
    Quote - Ukraine is a battlefield in which Russia has advantages, and in such a situation, the United States may be defeated.
    The stump is clear 0chko is playing with them .... it’s not Libya or Iraq for you, here you can grab such lyuli as on the White House, as if the victory flag did not shine ....
    Poem.
    Thumped soldier a tear rolled
    Played trophy patifon
    And on his chest glowed
    Medal for the city of Washington
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 May 2014 11: 38
      +3
      Quote: Inveterate Hrych
      Played trophy patifon

      The Pathé firm produced a gramophone of an original design, named after the “gramophone” company.
  14. Echelon
    Echelon 13 May 2014 08: 32
    +6
    The correct alignment, a good article, plus.
    For saying: "Russia has not only polite" green men ", but also terrible politically incorrect partisans" with me a glass of cognac with a slide laughing
  15. kmike
    kmike 13 May 2014 08: 34
    +3
    And to get involved in a big massacre, an ordinary American soldier is obviously a loss. An American soldier, and a general, will not fight with a country like Russia - it is 100% .It would fight, oh, how I want, but only with the wrong hands.
  16. igordok
    igordok 13 May 2014 08: 34
    +5
    And to transport their armored vehicles, if the NATO members still want to make war with Russia, they will have to go far. In the event of a possible collision in Novorossia - a half thousand kilometers. This is such a complex engineering task that its implementation will require huge financial costs and several months of preparation.

    To get to Ukraine, you need to drive through Europe, where the track is already narrower.
    This is how much fuel they will burn if all BTs are transported on trailers.
    1. wasjasibirjac
      wasjasibirjac 13 May 2014 14: 26
      0
      do not forget about the possibility of sea transportation of tanks, in this case the limitation of railway transportation, in addition, there is a possibility of road transportation of tanks using heavy trawls. on bridges - the provision of army ferries and floating bridges. therefore, one should not rely only on geographical restrictions on the delivery of tanks to the military theater. it is necessary to be ready ourselves to “limit” the presence of hostile armored vehicles in the military theater. remember, those Ukrop armored personnel carriers that the "wind" turned over when they were sent to YUVU. who worked there with the "wind"?
  17. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 13 May 2014 08: 41
    +1
    I liked the article, plus.
  18. Lyton
    Lyton 13 May 2014 08: 45
    +1
    Strategists believe that Prala is right, but we need not to lose time, build up arms, so that they would continue to think so.
  19. xoma58
    xoma58 13 May 2014 08: 46
    +5
    In general, there is such a "national" fun in gayrope. At least once in a hundred years to go to war against Russia, it's cool to get lula and crawl into the lair to lick your wounds. True, the last time, in 1945, there were no longer wounds, and the Russian Bear chopped off half of the body. Probably forgotten.
  20. Flinky
    Flinky 13 May 2014 08: 48
    +5
    And then there is the "Chrysanthemum", which is guaranteed to pierce any imported tank.
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 12: 42
      +1
      Quote: Flinky
      And then there is the "Chrysanthemum", which is guaranteed to pierce any imported tank.

      "Chrysanthemum" "as a gift" to each Abrams!
  21. mamont5
    mamont5 13 May 2014 08: 49
    +6
    "... and in such a situation, the defeat of the United States is possible."

    The defeat of the United States is predetermined historically, regardless of the situation.

    "The Americans have excellent engineering services that simply replace the worn-out gas turbine units of the Abrams with new ones. But this means that it is necessary to transfer engineering units to the probable theater of operations, and this is not a matter of one day."

    Yeah, bring the tanks to the border. Here they will quickly change the engines for them, and we will sit and watch while the Americans get ready.
    1. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 13 May 2014 09: 28
      +4
      I wonder what is their temporary standard for replacing a gas turbine engine? My colleague in the GSVG, the sergeant was in remvzvoda. A diesel in a tank could replace alone per day! And with helpers even faster.
  22. designer_59
    designer_59 13 May 2014 08: 51
    +6
    ... worse than the war with America - only friendship with it ...

    Strongly said. A nation of merchants, bankers and speculators parasitizes the whole world with the help of green papers. If possible, betray all those who trusted them. They understand only the language of power.
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 13: 03
      0
      Quote: designer_59
      ... worse than the war with America - only friendship with it ...

      Strongly said. A nation of merchants, bankers and speculators parasitizes the whole world with the help of green papers. If possible, betray all those who trusted them. They understand only the language of power.

      But once it was a country of farmers, shepherds and mass industrial production and degraded to a country of traders of bankers and speculators ... Shame!
  23. bubalik
    bubalik 13 May 2014 08: 54
    +22
    The war of Russia and America. belay Our captured Americanos, tied to a pole and interrogated:
    - Here from yo name?
    - May name is from Peter.
    It should hit.
    - Here from yo name?
    - May name from Peter ...
    Another hit, stronger. Already meaner:
    - Here from yo name?
    - May name from Peter! May name from Peter!
    He - in the face again. Scream:
    - Here from yo name? Last time I ask ...
    Cry:
    - May ... May name from ... from Peter ...
    A bang, scream again:
    - What is x ## Peter, I ask you - how many tanks do you have ?! laughing
    1. old man
      old man 13 May 2014 09: 30
      +4
      Squeezed, thanks.
  24. DNX1970
    DNX1970 13 May 2014 08: 55
    +2
    It’s clear what will be fought for, more importantly who? I doubt that for citizenship someone will go to Russia to fight. And the main idea is that Americans will not fight (for real) with an equal opponent, for the same reasons!
  25. andj61
    andj61 13 May 2014 08: 56
    +3
    America never attacks equal opponents. Only on obviously weaker ones. There are no other reasons for refusing aggression if there are any geopolitical prerequisites for it.

    Our task is not to be weak. Moreover, both militarily and politically, and economically.
    Since there are quite a few technical factors for refusing to start a war with Russia, this means that there will be no war, at least in the medium term. That is, for five to seven years.

    By 2018, we plan to completely re-equip the army, equip it with modern weapons. We just need this time. But our sworn "friends" also understand this. Therefore, they are tempted to arrange a sluggish conflict near our borders in order to weaken Russia. This should not be forgotten.
    Article plus. Solid, competent analysis.
  26. Strashila
    Strashila 13 May 2014 08: 58
    +15
    "... NATO tank armadas moved across the board-smooth Iraqi deserts and, taking advantage of the advantage in range, shot Saddam's tanks, as in an exercise ..." ... well, well ...
    if we take away the armored vehicles destroyed by aviation, artillery, simply abandoned by the Iraqis, we will not forget about the contribution of the Allies from NATO ... what do we have in the bottom line ... ???
    Something about 14 thousand armor-piercing shells with depleted uranium for tanks was officially spent, and how many simple armor-piercing and sub-caliber shells ... there is a world secret. 940 thousand shells with the same filling for 30 mm guns ... and this is only the USA !!!
    Subtract ... divide ... and what, in fact, we have several tank ammunition for one unit destroyed by armor, and these are T-55 tanks ... BMP ... BTR ... and each one took ten tank shells and a hundred 30 mm shells, and this is only with depleted uranium .... and if you add the other types of ammunition spent at the same time ... and this is only the USA !!!
    And what is the advantage of Western technology ???
    wink
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 13 May 2014 10: 13
      +5
      Quote: Strashila
      And what is the advantage of Western technology ???

      In highly productive printing, duplicating and copying machines, controlled media and a large amount of paper for various uses and applications. wink
  27. Klim2011
    Klim2011 13 May 2014 09: 00
    +5
    Indisputable conclusion:
    America never attacks equal opponents. Only on obviously weaker ones.

    Regarding the title of the article, honestly did not understand the author:
    Leopard highway speed - 72 km / h Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,0 / 1,10
    Abrams speed on highway-67 Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,97 / 1,07, ford depth, m 1,2
    T80 - 70km / h (GTD) Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,40
    T 90 (diesel) Speed ​​on the highway, km / h 60, Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,20
    I do not see a radical difference in speed.
    In addition, Ukraine and Russia are not Iraq. The soil here is marshy and NATO tanks will get stuck in it, as Hitler's "Tigers" got stuck.

    Yes, it’s not Iraq, there is no sand, and accordingly the air can’t be blocked.
    when loading onto the railway platform of our 80s, with the sides folded down, the car already protrudes beyond the dimensions of the platform, for the memory of 10 centimeters on each side, the pillars really were not knocked down during transportation.
    Well, the Germans are stupid, they don’t carry their tanks on the railway, the wide ones hurt, they didn’t calculate in advance drinks
    I do not comment on air defense and aviation, I can not compare, but the author wrote about tanks ...! .... not exactly repeat
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 13 May 2014 11: 18
      +2
      I want to add to your comment one nuance, the performance characteristics of Russian-Soviet tanks and other military equipment were ALWAYS underestimated, and in the west, inflated for advertising purposes. If there are tankers on the forum, confirm or deny, but I saw T72 with my own eyes at a speed of about 90 km / h, on a flat primer, BTR-60 to 105 km / h on the highway, on ONE (the second one was turned off) engine. BMP-2 to 120 km / h, but on asphalt slides. Mig 31 developed over 3,5max, further the edges of the planes began to burn.
      P.S.Just the designers have a different approach, the main thing there is to cut the dough (M-16) in the west, and we have the AK-47, weapons in the first place should be reliable, simple and cheap.
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 13 May 2014 13: 31
        +1
        Quote: screw cutter
        I want to add to your comment one nuance, the performance characteristics of Russian-Soviet tanks and other military equipment were ALWAYS underestimated, and in the west, for advertising purposes they were too high ...

        I absolutely agree with you, I’m not a tanker, but from another experience I can add that, as a rule, we publish only the GUARANTEED characteristics of EXPORT versions of military equipment, and the approach there is completely different, about the same as in the West. Moreover, the actual combat characteristics and capabilities of exported products are, as a rule, lower than their analogues developed for the RA.
      2. Klim2011
        Klim2011 13 May 2014 14: 33
        0
        According to the remark that glides on the pavement at speed, I see that you have encountered directly with this technique, but still:
        1. Apparently the gun gauge is not included in the performance characteristics? Or he too understated laughing
        2. T 72 (diesel, max 840 horses) does not drive 90kmch, T 80 with a cargo customs control from a hill and at the same time good the wind still admit.
        An article from a series of Uryakolok no more
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 13 May 2014 15: 00
        +1
        Quote: screw cutter
        BMP-2 to 120km / h, but glides on the pavement.

        I have never seen a Behu flying at 120km / h)))
        I guess I'm out of luck.
        lol

        А on asphalt the whole goose slides sideways at speeds above 50 km / h, more precisely - "floats". Above 80 km / h the car is almost uncontrollable - it just keeps the "direction". Much depends on the gusli themselves.

        By article:
        The author began "for health" (according to the title of the article) - about tanks, ... ended up with a general smear of the situation using populist phrases.
        ??
        request

        Here he is - our speedy handsome:
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 May 2014 11: 58
      +1
      Quote: Klim2011
      I do not see a radical difference in speed.

      As in the joke: "Will he drink half a liter of vodka? He will drink something, but who will give him?!" On the battlefield, everyone will crawl from hillock to hillock, from hole to hole at approximately the same speed. perhaps a "blitzkrieg" on concrete autobahns, but for this, you yourself understand what conditions must be met.
    3. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 13: 17
      0
      Quote: Klim2011
      ...
      Regarding the title of the article, honestly did not understand the author:
      Leopard highway speed - 72 km / h ...
      Abrams speed on highway-67 ...
      T80 - 70km / h (GTD) ...
      T 90 (diesel) Speed ​​on the highway, km / h 60 ...
      ... regarding tanks, the author wrote ...! .... not exactly repeat

      Driving along the highway and maneuvering over rough terrain, into a field, and even shooting at the same time, are a bit different things, don’t you find? Do not forget that the enemy will also shoot at you!
      The greater the mass and dimensions, the worse the maneuverability, and so, German tanks in the Second World War also drove quite well along the highway ... hi
    4. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 13 May 2014 14: 00
      0
      Quote: Klim2011
      Leopard highway speed - 72 km / h Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,0 / 1,10
      Abrams speed on highway-67 Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,97 / 1,07, ford depth, m 1,2
      T80 - 70km / h (GTD) Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,40
      T 90 (diesel) Speed ​​on the highway, km / h 60, Specific ground pressure, kg / cm 0,85, ford depth, m 1,20
      I do not see a radical difference in speed.


      Kuzhugetovich will arrange a tank biathlon with the invitation of the Leoperds and other animals, then something can somehow be judged. And everything else - theoretical calculations.
  28. another RUSICH
    another RUSICH 13 May 2014 09: 13
    +2
    The author has not yet mentioned the balance of strategic nuclear weapons. I'm not special. I watched a "star" program about it on TV. It stated that the nuclear potential of the United States is at the level of the 70s. It has not been updated since then. Until now, obsolete blowjob and trident persings are in service. At the same time, Russia has a very updated rocket fleet. In addition to this, outdated cruise missile delivery vehicles were also mentioned. There is no counterweight to our carcasses and bears. And their stealth B2 turned out to be too expensive and, horror, it is visible for Russian radars. On top of that, the B2 is not capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles. Well, it was said about the submarine missile fleet. Everyone already knows about our new apl with a mace in service ...
  29. Hon
    Hon 13 May 2014 09: 14
    +1
    In short, we will throw their caps
    1. alebor
      alebor 13 May 2014 10: 47
      +2
      It seems to me that the author of the article argues in terms of the Second World War, when tank armades, crushing the enemy, move towards the enemy. But, if you have the goal not to conquer and occupy someone else’s territory, but only to defeat your opponent (a modern industrial country) and impose your conditions on him, there is no need to use tanks, a completely improved Yugoslav version. As far as I know, it is precisely such strategies in the USA that are being developed - when the enemy is hit with the use of hundreds of cruise missiles, which destroy all the main economic and military targets of the enemy and, in fact, paralyze the country, deprive it of its ability to resist.
      Of course, C-400 is a good system, but how many of them are in service with us? Is our air defense system capable of destroying most of the many hundreds of cruise missiles launched against us?
      Fortunately, Russia has nuclear weapons, which so far guarantees that the fate of Yugoslavia will not befall us.
      1. screw cutter
        screw cutter 13 May 2014 12: 37
        0
        Well, they won’t start all the CRs right away, but until they launch, Iskander will fly to the launcher. And it’s not necessary to shoot all the CRs with C400 mi, you can immediately remove the GPS group from the orbit with the same C400 mi. .
      2. Prometey
        Prometey 13 May 2014 13: 02
        0
        Quote: alebor
        I think the author of the article argues in terms of the Second World War

        No, the author reasoned sensibly. Cruise missiles are a weapon of terror and pin strikes. They will be able to damage the enemy, but not to defeat him. Yugoslavia - it was a country that could NOT respond to strikes with ANYTHING, therefore it could be shot as if in a shooting gallery. Therefore, it was possible to smoke and wait for the Serbs to refuse to resist. Russia is not Serbia, and it will not work to destroy its economic potential, even with complete superiority in cruise missiles - the scale is different. wink
        And yet - the stock of precision weapons - is limited. Massively stamping tomahawks, even the Yankees are not economically viable. Therefore, whatever one may say, a final operation over the enemy will require a ground operation using tanks and infantry and the good old attack aircraft and turntables. Or - a nuclear strike.
        Therefore, the author is realistic - is there any strength and will for NATO?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 13: 58
      0
      Quote: Hon
      In short, we will throw their caps

      In my opinion, it’s they who are going to throw us hats, we are not going to throw anyone, and for adequate defense (so that it wouldn’t hurt anyone to attack us), it’s enough and how and how.
  30. bubalik
    bubalik 13 May 2014 09: 17
    +8
    In addition, Ukraine and Russia are not Iraq. The soil here is marshy and NATO tanks will get stuck in it, as Hitler's "Tigers" got stuck.
    recourse
    1. Rohon
      Rohon 13 May 2014 09: 55
      +1
      Our Machmala is the best in the world. laughing
    2. Roshchin
      Roshchin 13 May 2014 12: 13
      +3
      In the 41st, German tank general Guderian, reporting to Hitler about the reasons for not taking Moscow, reported that, unfortunately, the Russian roads were not adapted for the movement of German tanks. It’s worth a little while to wait, when in October Moscow will freeze a little. They waited. It froze so that the narrowly tracked T-2, T-3 froze in the mud and stopped.
      Remember gentlemen occupiers popular wisdom: "WHO WILL COME TO US WITH TANKS, AND WILL DIE FROM TANKS."
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Serg 122
      Serg 122 13 May 2014 16: 33
      +2
      In addition, Ukraine and Russia are not Iraq. The soil here is marshy and NATO tanks will get stuck in it, as Hitler's "Tigers" got stuck.
      Are you talking about it? laughing ?
  31. 3vs
    3vs 13 May 2014 09: 22
    +2
    We need to make it clear to all the "tough guys" there that in the event of an attack on Russia, no one will seem like little.
    Both vacuum and nuclear weapons will be used, this is without talk and doubt.
    Let the Europeans think a hundred times before agreeing to go on the line with the Americans, who
    care ONLY FOR YOUR INTERESTS!

    As the saying goes, "Whoever came to us with a sword - p ~ pile up products!"
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 14: 04
      0
      Quote: 3vs
      We need to make it clear to all the "tough guys" there that in the event of an attack on Russia, no one will seem like little.
      Both vacuum and nuclear weapons will be used, this is without talk and doubt.
      Let the Europeans think a hundred times before agreeing to go on the line with the Americans, who
      care ONLY FOR YOUR INTERESTS!

      As the saying goes, "Whoever came to us with a sword - p ~ pile up products!"

      There is also an impulse weapon that will translate any war from the modern network-centric into a kind of war of the mid-twentieth century, without any electronics and JPS ...
  32. suharev-52
    suharev-52 13 May 2014 09: 29
    +2
    Thank you for the article. Good analytics. Roughness, they are in any publication. Sincerely.
  33. Stasi
    Stasi 13 May 2014 09: 36
    +2
    In principle, everything is correctly said, Russia has advantages over NATO in the European theater of operations. But a number of points have not been taken into account. Firstly, it is not said about the possibilities of cyber weapons, but the fact that this type of weapon is effective can not be said. What are the cyber weapons capabilities of NATO and Russia in the article is not said. Secondly, modern warfare is impossible without a satellite constellation, which conducts space reconnaissance, provides communications and much more, without which the modern army cannot fight. Therefore, the priority actions will be aimed at destroying the satellite constellation of the enemy.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 13 May 2014 14: 13
      0
      S-400 ... for satellite constellation, well, promising S-500, S-600
  34. Georgich
    Georgich 13 May 2014 09: 39
    +1
    Quote: Inveterate Hrych
    Thumped soldier a tear rolled
    Played a trophy gramophone
    And on his chest glowed
    Medal for the city of Washington

    Soulful verse. And the medal will be for the capture or release of Vashik?
    1. Ishtan
      Ishtan 13 May 2014 13: 00
      0
      Take is thought
  35. Svetovod
    Svetovod 13 May 2014 09: 40
    +3
    The most powerful army with the best technology and weapons will not stand the betrayal.

    As for the spent ammunition of NATO countries, this is not an indicator of the destruction of the enemy. SSykun shoot 100 times more often than they hit. And they fall more often into the civilian population and their situation than they have a battle with a real enemy.

    -contaaaaact !!!! 400 meters 10 hours !!!
    minute shooting from all calibres.
    -Who was there?
    -Do not know, but it seems they were moving.
  36. Cristall
    Cristall 13 May 2014 09: 41
    +3
    Why consider tanks (yes they can be brought up by the sea if that)?
    US open war only with a coalition climb. While there is no reason and no coalition
    unless an official request for NATO entry.
    In general, you need to consider options not as in Iraq but in a new way ...
    It all depends on the riskiness of the players ...
  37. SHOCK.
    SHOCK. 13 May 2014 09: 42
    +2
    The article is good, once again explaining that the war with NATO is something from the realm of fantasy. The only force capable of resisting the Russian soldier-Germans is mired in a swamp of Western values ​​and tolerance, considering the rest as opponents is not serious. The same Americans are strong technically, but weak in spirit. The nation of bandits and adventurers cannot be re-educated and turned into knights overnight without fear and reproach.
    A peculiar irony of history is that the former communist countries have the same, still classical understanding of politics, where war, according to the German classic, is a continuation of politics. The situation in Ukraine shows that, unlike Western leaders, Vladimir Putin is capable of making purely political decisions and executing them with the help of the armed forces. Everyone expected that, in the manner of Western postmodernists, the Russian president would impose diplomatic and economic sanctions on rebellious Ukraine, raise gas prices, and Russian veterinary control would find some kind of insects in Ukrainian meat. Everyone thought so, because they are political instruments of Machiavellian parlors from European drawing rooms. Meanwhile, Putin showed that he would not play such games, but sent paratroopers to take the Crimea with weapons in their hands and conduct giant military maneuvers near the borders of Ukraine. He knows very well how the salon politicians from Brussels will react: they will chat, gather, assemble tables for negotiations, issue 72 declarations with Kiev's support, approve diplomatic sanctions. Nobody will die for Crimea, there will not be a second Crimean War, because Western governments are not capable of making radical political decisions, and Western societies are not ready to suffer human and economic losses from military operations. If such a war began, then one can easily imagine that the Western staff officers would give it the code name "Rainbow Freedom" or something similar.
  38. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 13 May 2014 09: 47
    +3
    As the author predicts that no war is foreseen in the near future, it means that Russia needs to behave a little bit westerly with the West and strive for its superiority over the United States.
  39. Alf
    Alf 13 May 2014 10: 04
    +6
    Quote: Aldo
    Something is doubtful that 19 Santiki play a decisive role in transportation by rail. If 19 is divided by 2, it turns out a ledge on each side will be 9,5 santiks.

    Not quite right. I had an acquaintance who served on a rather little-known IS-4 tank, which weighs just 60 tons. They have been transported on standard platforms more than once. But, as he said, "you will love to align the tank. The difference in overhangs from different sides should be no more than 1 (ONE) centimeter, otherwise you can fly off the platform at the turn of the train."
  40. heruv1me
    heruv1me 13 May 2014 10: 07
    +2
    Posted by Vladimir PROKHVATILOV, President of the Real Politics Fund
    An article by an amateur who has played enough in the world of tank. The phrase "These are not attacking, but defensive machines. They are not suitable for a blitzkrieg. They are heavy, rather slow-moving and clumsy" - killed on the spot. Learn the materiel author.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 13 May 2014 14: 18
      +2
      Your answer is no less killer. How do you argue, besides the desire to learn the materiel?
  41. Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 13 May 2014 10: 10
    +5
    The article is capricious. When the author shows the number of units of our types of weapons, he forgot to mention a little that they are all scattered across different corners of our country, and forgot to tell that the military equipment in storage is no longer the equipment that can quickly get into operation.
    In addition, yes, in terms of numbers, everything is fine with us, but how many of these machines are really ready for battle, for example, the day after tomorrow?
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 13 May 2014 14: 24
      +1
      No one talks about the day after tomorrow. Try for a week or two to create the necessary fist on the border with Russia + logistics and so on. and so on. I don’t think that all this time our people will sit back and watch indifferently for all this disgrace.
    2. Penzyac
      Penzyac 13 May 2014 14: 37
      +1
      Quote: Fuzeler
      The article is capricious ... yes, in terms of numbers, everything is fine with us ...

      Well, where did you get that they are doing as well as in numbers? Let the dust in their eyes with numbers from their masters are such that ours before them as before Mars.
      According to the figures, for example, the same Count Suvorov-Rymniksky should never have won, but, on the contrary, he never lost ... hi
  42. Giant thought
    Giant thought 13 May 2014 10: 27
    +2
    It is impossible to exclude anything in our life, everything can happen, we must be prepared for everything, including a heavy war with heavy losses.
  43. X Y Z
    X Y Z 13 May 2014 10: 32
    +1
    As for George Friedman, the author clearly got excited. He is not a superhawk, but a great storyteller. It takes him at times hard enough and you can’t read his pearls without laughing. For example, how Poland will grow with Russian lands when Russia breaks up, and Poland becomes a European superpower.
  44. Vyacheslav 64
    Vyacheslav 64 13 May 2014 10: 33
    +2
    Quote: Georgich
    Quote: Inveterate Hrych
    Thumped soldier a tear rolled
    Played a trophy gramophone
    And on his chest glowed
    Medal for the city of Washington

    Soulful verse. And the medal will be for the capture or release of Vashik?

    And these words are synonyms!
  45. Spike
    Spike 13 May 2014 10: 37
    +1
    American tanks in Ukraine is at least funny fool Recently, they have become accustomed to raking in heat with the wrong hands. But they can throw something out of various kinds of little things.
  46. kind
    kind 13 May 2014 10: 38
    +1
    The United States is plagued with internal problems and these metastases are growing rapidly. Take Detroit, which is practically extinct, and there are many such cities. The problem of the southern states is very acute. They have long gravitated towards Mexico. All this and much more is hushed up by the state government, and the disease is already irreversible. One gets the impression that Obama and his government live by the principle, "After us, even a flood."
  47. Free Island
    Free Island 13 May 2014 11: 09
    0
    interesting material))) let there be no war with NATO, everything is correctly written-they have not had any unity, means or desire for a long time. And even the tanks have nothing to do with it.
  48. HAM
    HAM 13 May 2014 11: 14
    +1
    quote: "... worse than a war with America - only friendship with her .." - golden words, we have already passed this!
  49. Horn
    Horn 13 May 2014 11: 22
    +3
    worse than war with America - only friendship with it

    - This phrase should be written on posters and posted in all crowded places, from schools to public transport stops! Enough of ashamed of healthy patriotism!
  50. 2224460
    2224460 13 May 2014 11: 41
    0
    Quote: Bormental
    Well, who will die for the theoretically possible citizenship of France?

    Of course, no one will go, and even if such a mess happens, then France will not, but the French federal district can be formed.