The criterion for comparing foreign and Russian tanks should be efficiency in combat, and not the presence of a dry closet




The opinions of a number of military experts and leaders that Tanks Russian-made tanks are inferior to foreign vehicles in their combat capabilities and characteristics, completely groundless, said Vyacheslav Halitov, deputy general director of the Uralvagonzavod research and production corporation for the development of special equipment.

He said that there are a number of criteria on the basis of which a true assessment of the combat capabilities of the vehicle is given, so let us proceed from these criteria. Khalitov, in particular, is amazed by the statements of some domestic experts who state that the main drawback of the T-90С tank is that the ammunition load in it is located next to the crew. But, where is the ammunition on the "Abrams" and "Leopard", is it not next to the crew? - retorted Vyacheslav Halitov.

According to him, the T-90C tank, produced in Russia, shows itself very effectively in confrontation with armored targets, shows perfect reliability on the march. But these experts for some reason do not speak. Further, the production worker said that recently our tank passed 1,5 thousands of kilometers, while there was not a single failure. But can experts who criticize the T-90C show the 1,5 thousands of kilometers that the Leopard or Abrams tanks have passed? He thinks not.

Khalitov noted that the result of a tank battle depends on numerous factors. All these factors must be taken into account, and not to pull out some obscure elements.

He admits that the Russian tank does not have a dry closet, but at the same time it is on the 80 cm below the profile of the Leopard. And if you raise the tower and install a bio-toilet, then the probability of hitting such a tank increases dramatically.

V. Khalitov says that we should not forget that a tank is primarily a combat vehicle. And this machine is designed for combat, and not to make a Europe Plus hotel of a tank.

Statements of a series of so-called. According to V. Khalitov, military experts, regarding the fact that domestic tanks allegedly are thoroughly inferior in terms of armor protection to advanced foreign analogues and therefore need to acquire armor abroad, do not stand up to scrutiny.

He says that at present all this advertised foreign armor has not shown itself anywhere. Along with these, there is a mass of photographs in which it can be seen that the same "Abrams" are making their way through 12-mm ammunition from the back of the tower. Therefore, to assert that Western armor is better than Russian, this is not true.

According to V. Khalitov, domestic armor is currently one of the best in the world, and therefore there is no need to spend huge amounts of money on new capital developments in this direction. At the same time, these works do not stop. Already, Russian tanks are equipped with fifth-generation dynamic protection, active protection is being used, and systems for remotely detonating mines According to V. Khalitov, all this together gives a good protection of the tanks, not only no worse than that of the "Leclerc" and "Abrams", but even better.

He explained that there is such a thing as a weakened zone. As an example, the weakened zone of the frontal projection of the tank. So, the T-90С ratio of weakened zones on 10-15% is lower than that of the same Abrams and Leopard.

Thus, V. Khalitov said, domestic technology is not worse than its Western counterparts, and this is confirmed by the participation of our tanks in various armed conflicts.

Earlier, Alexander Postnikov, commander-in-chief of the Ground Forces, stated that those samples of military equipment and armaments that the armed forces receive according to the nomenclature of the Ground Forces, including missile and artillery weapons, and armored vehicles do not quite correspond to Western models.

Speaking at a meeting of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, he cited the main battle tank T-90С as an example. In his words, this lauded T-90C is the seventeenth modification of the T-72 tank, worth 118 millions. According to the general, for that kind of money you can buy three Leopards.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Escander
    Escander 3 June 2011 10: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    --- "He admits that the Russian tank does not have a dry closet, and if you raise the tower and install a dry closet, then the probability of getting into the tank increases."

    Yeah! Gotcha! So the dry closet, microwave and TV with sofa are still gone!
    This is how then to fight a Pindos on a trophy technique? That is what Taburetkin bakes about.
  2. PSih2097 3 June 2011 10: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We don’t have Coca-Cola or diapers in the army either ... sad ...
  3. Superduck
    Superduck 3 June 2011 11: 19 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    A delusional article and an amateur writer.
    They criticized it not because the ammunition was near the crew, but because the fuel tank was next to the driver’s mechanic in the reserved volume. Those. if this tank makes its way, the tank is filled knee-deep with a solarium. And it was not a dry closet that was discussed, but an air conditioner. You tried, dear readers, to do something at a temperature of +40 degrees, neither the head nor the arms nor legs work at this temperature!
    And I am silent for the normal thermal imager and the integration system in the tactical unit. That is why it is called not the 3rd modification of the T90 and the 17th T72, because in terms of its capabilities it has not yet earned a new number.
    1. PSih2097 3 June 2011 12: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And where did you read about conditioning here?
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 3 June 2011 13: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And where did you read about dry closets besides this article? In my opinion, the author decided to bring the topic to an absurdity and began to write nonsense about toilets and coffee makers, which are not and are not planned in any tank. At least I have never met information about the availability of a toilet in Leopard, and the article discusses this as a given.
        I carefully studied the essence of the claims to T90 in the press and wrote those claims that apparently the author had in mind but decided to pee a little nonsense.
        1. Dvu.ru-shnik
          Dvu.ru-shnik 3 June 2011 19: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is an air-conditioning system on the T-90, but the exhaust hood on all our cars needs more power, how many sunken crews can be taken out of the hatches ...
          1. Superduck
            Superduck 3 June 2011 19: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I met a huge amount of criticism of the t90 regarding the lack of air conditioning, apparently everything depended on the series and configuration. In short, he himself believed that he did not exist at all. I admit myself divorced :-)
        2. dmitri077
          dmitri077 27 January 2012 02: 00 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          the author of the article came up with a dry closet and himself refutes it with a laugh ... it was about the air conditioner! In what war did the t-90 prove its superiority in practice? where are the facts? where is the video? the most warring “Abrams” and “Merkavs” today have colossal experience in the fight against our old armored vehicles (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt) ... what can we boast of?
          1. feanor 5 October 2012 16: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Abrams" and "Merkava" have colossal experience in the fight against our old armored vehicles
            Key word old.
  4. max
    max 3 June 2011 12: 30 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    AvtoVAZ designers comment on their products in approximately the same way:
    VAZ excellent car in terms of price and quality. if it breaks, you can fix it on the road. Where have you seen a foreign car with such maintainability?

    Well, not nonsense. Author you are a stupid person
  5. Superduck
    Superduck 3 June 2011 13: 15 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And indeed, serious people do not compare the T90 with an abrams and a leopard. There are much more worthy candidates. And this is Korean K2 and Japanese Type 10, or at worst Kharkov stronghold. Abrams and Leopard is a technique that is used as auxiliary by its own army and no serious money has been invested in their development for many years.
    Comparisons of the T90 with the abrams are fiction for youngsters and fermented patriots, and usually all such comparisons contain relevant links to similar ones: PPSh against MG-34, T34 against Tiger and armored train against a submarine.
    1. Paveldv
      Paveldv 3 June 2011 14: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Before ironic about the article and its author, you need to at least a little drive into the topic.
      On the T-90 is the air conditioning system SKS-3 which provides cooling and partial drying of the air. Effective at ambient temperatures up to + 50.
      As for the dry closet, Khalitov simply expressed it figuratively. By the way, there is a dry closet on BMP "Warrior".
      So, if you recorded yourself in "serious people", then you just flatter yourself.
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 3 June 2011 15: 25 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes, you are absolutely right. There is such an option with air conditioning, at least starting with the C modification.
        As for irony, I don’t understand at all what is not irony. I do not understand what is bad even in a dry closet if it improves the living conditions of the crew and does not lead to a deterioration in the fighting qualities of the tank.
        But in general, I don’t know, in my own words, the interview was told of the representative of the ural carriage plant, who brought 3-4 well-known facts that it was lower, that he traveled a thousand kilometers in the desert through Arabia without breakdowns and even there, which means that our tank is the best in the world, so chtoli? And probably this representative of the plant in Torii cannot say that this tank is worse in some way, otherwise it would be just a jerk. But one must be a complete moron in order to believe that this tank is really the best in the world in all respects, although the T90 is certainly very good for its grandmas. I can find the same article for you about Muscovite-402, Tu-134 and Hennessy cognac of the Vladikavkaz distillery. Further, in general, nonsense, about the fact that the feed of the tower at the abrams breaks out from a heavy machine gun from this it is concluded that their armor is shit. He is either mudlan or makes readers mudlans. The abrams has a weakened zone there, there is ammunition and this solution has many drawbacks, but the advantage is that detonation of the ammunition is much less likely to burn the reserved volume together with the crew, although the probability of its actual defeat increases. But the reservation of this space was not originally conceived, the blast wave should not be reflected by this armor, but simply easy to tear it down. The fact is that in order for a shell (especially an American one) to detonate most often, it is not enough to directly hit a bullet in it. The installation is done in such a way that even if the powder bangs, the warhead (American unitary shells) will penetrate this light armor and will not detonate. What happens if gunpowder bangs inside the reserved volume, I think everyone understands. The concept of a western school of tank-stronting is focused on the survivability of the crew, while the USSR school was a little more concerned about the survival of the machine itself and there are a lot of objective reasons for this, but these differences cause significant differences in the design of tanks, and they have such a layout not from lack of intelligence but due to slightly different survivability requirements and tactics and strategies for using MBT. Therefore, I say that the stronghold and the Chinese type99 are much more interesting in terms of comparing the characteristics.
        1. Escander
          Escander 3 June 2011 22: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          --- “Laying (on Abrams) is done in such a way that even if the powder bangs, the warhead will pierce this light armor and not detonate.”

          It was smooth on paper ...
          And why then do the knock-out panels from above, if "does not detonate"?
          As far as I know, the panels are just for detonating the ammunition, so that the explosion energy is directed to the top. Only the effectiveness of this solution amers themselves doubt. And the lazy negro-loader, in addition to everything, forgets to close the armor curtain. As the tankers say, it’s better to die right away than to live with what is left of you after the detonation in Abrams.
          1. BVB
            BVB 4 June 2011 14: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And the lazy negro-loader, in addition to everything, forgets to close the armor curtain.


            The armored curtain there automatically closes as soon as the loader takes the next charge. But, if there is a hit at this time - skew is quite possible and then no knockout panels will help ...

            In addition, often loaders simply keep the curtain open to quickly fend off the order of which type of projectile is next.
            1. Escander
              Escander 4 June 2011 18: 59 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              --- "In addition, often loaders simply keep the curtain open to quickly fend off the order of which type of projectile is next."

              Correctly. A lazy black man does just that.
              Well, what's the point in such a "separate" lineup?
        2. Paveldv
          Paveldv 4 June 2011 02: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ".... I do not understand what is bad even in a dry closet if it improves the living conditions of the crew ...."

          From my father’s stories: When he met with the boys as a boy, those wishing to pin him up shouted, “Hey you, city dwellers, in your house!”
          So I’m like that country now - what good is shit in a tank? In the eyes of comrades?
          You correctly noted the different concepts of tank building, but I want to note that focusing on the survival of the tank, not the crew, does not make the tank worse.
          Well, the last. I understand why you are so hostile to the words of one of the leaders of Uralvagonzavod ("your sandpiper ...", "kvass patriotism"), but I don’t understand why you have such confidence in the laudatory reviews of Western experts about their tanks ? Let me remind you that in the early 90s, the Americans declared that Abrams was practically not vulnerable, but it turned out that it could be knocked out from a simple RPG.
          1. Superduck
            Superduck 6 June 2011 12: 08 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            PavelDV, you confused me with someone or wrote me not. I am trying to be objective and understandable to you in Cyrillic writing about the shortcomings of the combat station concept from the USA and the USSR, there are no ideal solutions in technology, any solution is a compromise. Nowhere do I extol the US technology, it has its own advantages and they have, there are undoubted advantages for the Soviet Union as well.
            Just what this representative of the Uralvagonozoda wrote was practically not confirmed by facts. And in the case of booking the tower poop, there is generally a manipulation of facts, as a result of reading this many young patriots will take it on faith and at one point they will go to a thematic forum or drink beer with a specialist and will feel like idiots, although usually they’re seem fools because all around are Israeli citizens and liberals. Even if we take the thesis about the reliability of the machine, i.e. It is obvious to everyone that the more a machine can go without repair, the better, everything is simple and unambiguous, including for me. Only here the concept of using the same abrams implies that there are no problems with maintenance, spare parts and fuel, and so far they almost never got into a situation when it was otherwise. Those. regarding reliability, they can reduce requirements for the sake of engine power and crew comfort. Suppose a simple example of a torsion bar suspension is several times more reliable than hydropneumatic. But the hydropneumatic suspension gives a bunch of advantages, including combat ones, when it works normally, for example, smaller body vibrations improve firing accuracy (and the gun stabilizer is not a panacea here, unless in the absence of gravity), crew fatigue the reliability of on-board equipment due to less vibration and so on and so forth. If for the British with their changer or Koreans with their panther this compromise is acceptable, then for the Russian Federation there is none. This does not mean at the same time that the Koreans -removed- they have different requirements and other conditions for the use of technology, that's all. Therefore, it makes sense to discuss which tank is really better - this is complete nonsense. Let me give you an example, I’m the commander of the troops of a poor country from central Africa, I need a tank. So, I have requirements, the tank should be extremely cheap ($ 2000), provide protection against hand grenades and heavy machine guns, mainly used as a stationary firing point, have an 85mm artillery system and 2 machine guns. Voila, the ideal T34-85 tank for me. Compare tanks only by cogs, i.e. hodovka, weapons, SLAs, protection, and so on and as a result we get not that this tank is better than another, but a list of advantages and disadvantages. I have seen, for example, comparisons of late versions Pz4 and T34-85, where the panzer looked quite decent and in many respects did 34-ku, but this does not mean that one of them is the best.
        3. avdkrd 6 November 2011 22: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Nonsense. The Americans in 90 (after Iraq, 1 company) admitted that even with the regular operation of the blow-out panels, the tank is full ..dec. Regarding the 12mm, it’s probably an exaggeration, but it’s “sewn on board 30mm with BMP-1 fact from the same Iraq, and the APU is really ignited from the DShK and in this case Abrams usually burns to the ground. Somewhere on the forums the Russian-speaking American tankman (commander) posted and admired just the fire and survivability control system of the entire line of Soviet and Russian tanks (they are taught this) .Although Abrams was created as an “anti-tank”, they are advised to avoid direct collisions even with the T-72 (even the same Iraqi ancients, first releases). On Abrams, the crew’s information field (thermal imagers, proven systems for interacting with other branches of the armed forces, etc.) was much better (it was), everything was worked out the same on the T-90, everything was perfected on the latest version of the T-90MS, including the newest gun 2A46M-5, and when installing 2A82 there are no equal at all (2A46M-5 is more powerful and more accurately Leopard 2 cannons, is still the leader among tank guns, by the way, the Leopard one is on Abrams), but the reality is that Thu in the army it is unlikely to appear. Our main "stool manager" is more puzzled by the cut and priorities are given to the purchase of Italian and French junk.
      2. Dvu.ru-shnik
        Dvu.ru-shnik 3 June 2011 19: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Although not bio, there is also a toilet on the BMP-3.
  6. Veselchak U
    Veselchak U 3 June 2011 14: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    after reading the article, I recalled the film by Shmuel Maoz "Lebanon" about the crew of a Jewish tank, which worked as a dry closet and a black raven
    (http://badnews.org.ru/news/livan_shmuehlja_maoza/2010-06-27-1871)
    of course the movie there is about
    "
    ... 95% of the action takes place inside the tank - a tiny enclosed asphyxiating space where four soldiers live for several hours ...
    ... From time to time, in the tank, in addition to its four main inhabitants, there are corpses, which the command agrees to take out only when the crew begins to go crazy with a cadaverous stench, then quite live captives - Syrian and Lebanese Arabs, with whom it is also unclear what to do. ..
    "
    I’ll add that on the floor there was 10 cm of urine with blood, in an iron safe jar under the ruthless hot Libyan sun ...
    and you're talking about dry closets ... such things ...
  7. rumpeljschtizhe
    rumpeljschtizhe 3 June 2011 14: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, nothing about the article
  8. nnz226 3 June 2011 17: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In fact, now they are no longer considering the protection of tanks (there are a bunch of shots where the Abrams are blazing like a pioneer bonfire), but the fact that Soviet ammunition for tank guns is still inferior to NATO, and their estimated armor penetration is low compared to competitors in the west. .. They say that our shell will not take their "armor" ... And if so, then everything else is no longer necessary .... Prokhorovka was already in 1943, although they won, but at what cost, and the number of tanks .. .
  9. datur 4 June 2011 16: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Though not bio, but there is a toilet on the BMP-3 .---- here you are stuck on the toilet topic.
  10. vladimer
    vladimer 5 June 2011 03: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The machine is disposable, the toilet is not needed, the motor cannot be changed, cramped. And most importantly, after the battle, look at each tank, the tower is lying 20-30 meters from the tank, here’s your automatic loader! Caring for people
  11. Escander
    Escander 5 June 2011 05: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As if the Abrams tower is not tearing. See photos on this site.
    And the concern for people is that they need to climb out of the machine gun and the driver-mechanic cannot evacuate through his hatch without turning the turret.
    1. Redfox71
      Redfox71 18 June 2011 01: 16 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      But the driver does not need to be evacuated from the T-90! He along with the tower "evacuates" after the explosion of BC!
  12. SOLDIERru
    SOLDIERru 5 June 2011 09: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No doubt, the T-90 (90C) are not bad tanks, with their strengths and weaknesses. The trouble is that time is running out and the weaknesses of this tank are becoming more obvious, and those shortcomings that were tolerable yesterday, by modern standards, lead to zero effectiveness of military equipment.

    Who argues the chassis of the T-90 (T-72) is wonderful. And the engines are not bad. The main weapons fully copes with the tasks assigned to them. And the last modification of the commander’s turret I personally really like.
    But as a result of the unsuccessful location of ammunition in the automatic loader, the survivability of the tank is almost zero. In the Western models of the tank industry, even the defeat of the combat unit does not lead to such deplorable consequences. The crew fatigue in the T90 is much higher. Fire control systems are also inferior to Western systems. The armor is weaker. Dynamic booking is a double-edged sword (in case of a volume explosion, it is only harmful). Prices are overpriced. Product quality is poor. The Indians sent the last batch they bought back to finalize the flaws. And their receivers generally came to N. Tagil with a stick to receive equipment on site.

    I want to remind you that there were no orders for the purchase of T90C a long time ago. And now the Indians did not need it. At the moment, tank production in N. Tagil has been phased out.

    PS Little respected Vyacheslav Khalitov, probably the UVZovskam leadership will have enough to fly on weekends and holidays to Moscow on personal planes. And to fly helicopters for fishing. It may be worth investing in the development of new models of equipment. And do not say to the workers that the salary of 5000 rubles is a lot, tomorrow they will generally work for the stew. If you start to work, you look, and they will trample the order.
    1. Paveldv
      Paveldv 5 June 2011 10: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Guys, have a conscience!
      The T-90 tank was adopted in 1992. 19 years ago!
      After that, the object 640 (Black Eagle) was developed in Omsk, and the object 195 (with a tower without a crew) in Nizhny Tagil. And it is not their fault that funding for these tanks ceased and did not go further than prototypes.
      At Uralvagonzavod, they can upgrade the old project and get a VERY NOT BAD tank.
      And you shit on their heads here. Without any dry closet.
    2. avdkrd 6 November 2011 22: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In what western samples is the defeat of the combat station not leading to disastrous consequences? Look where the ammunition is located in Leopard 2 and Abrams (they do not have everything in the niche too), and the niche is too controversial and its defeat is also fatal for the tank (the tower just does not fly that far). Volumetric detonating ammunition against the tank is generally nonsense - let's say Bumblebee’s efficiency will be close to zero, but if it’s an aviation munition, what the hell is the difference between Abrams or T-90. Built-in dynamic protection is present in absolutely all modern tanks, including Abrams, Leopard and Leclerc and its effectiveness is not particularly discussed (it is recognized), about the Indians - where does this data come from? Indians, especially those involved, that is, the military are delighted with the T-90, although as always there is a fly in the ointment (quality), it’s another thing that they have strong lobbying (not without Western corporations) for creating their own tank and even periodically “pop up” statements, that they supposedly created it and it’s better ..... then they refute it, since their samples somehow do not want to meet the declared characteristics.
    3. Anthrax
      Anthrax 30 December 2011 05: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Since 1993, the production of tanks has been curtailed in the USA and nothing lives on.
      In 1993, we made about half a hundred new ones., Only in 2010 did 61 tanks
      We probably have more money than in the states, so from 2014 or 2015, a new tank is completed, it will go into production
      Z.Y. I liked the pearl about the almost zero survivability of the tank.
  13. PSih2097 5 June 2011 11: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Therefore, funding has been curtailed because they want to buy not local, but NATO, so that it would be easier to turn in the country.
    1. Anthrax
      Anthrax 30 December 2011 15: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Which NATO?
      Since 2000, not a single new tank has been built in NATO
      And only in 2010 we released 61 brand new tanks.
      Since 2011, they have not released new tanks just because a new type of tank will go into production in 2014 or 2015 ..
  14. Fantom75100
    Fantom75100 5 June 2011 13: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As for the fighting performance, technology. And in ARMEYK YOU SERVED WHO-THREAD?
    To write in a personal, I do not answer goblins.
  15. syday
    syday 5 June 2011 14: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Regarding UVZ,
    On the Indian order, only their pentagon profited, instantly without exception moved to the cool foreign cars. Workers also listened to speeches about the homeland and help to the enterprise. Salary is really very, very sometimes. Quality ??? They heard the joke of a local spill, at a demonstration of technology: one tank jumps, one tank shoots, one tank floats. One mustache.
    You can fire MB as much as you like, but for now in the factories the shit is fattening and sawing the loot, we will have nothing.
  16. antidivanii expert
    antidivanii expert 5 June 2011 18: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    According to V. Khalitov, domestic armor is currently one of the best in the world.
    oh yes! somewhere I already heard this nonsense! and the fact that our trains are the most trained and so on!
  17. antidivanii expert
    antidivanii expert 5 June 2011 18: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    generally strange! some experts say that the t-90 is the best tank in the world! others that it is a deeply modernized t-34! who to believe then?
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 6 June 2011 13: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And everyone is right, but at the same time the best tank in the world in nature does not exist, and the T-34 is a very successful concept that still justifies itself.
    2. avdkrd 6 November 2011 22: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I heard such an opinion (about t-34) and it was expressed by a monster on the letter M, which can have only one relation to the army - cut the dough, which these managers do from stools. I am amazed at the "wisdom" of the leadership of our country, it is strange only that they do not put the minister of finance as finance officer (with whom I had studied before). Our assignments to key posts in the state do not occur on the principle of professionalism, but on the principle of loyalty to the most important "people's" elect. Therefore, such opinions then arise, then the T-90 is a bad tank, then the BTR-90 is bad, because w @ pa doesn’t climb into the side door (and it’s better to buy Italians as well) and the Tiger is for some reason worse than Iveco who has her ceramic armor holds only the first shot, and then it is sewn like paper (to put all this fraternity in this very Iveka and tear a 6kg HE beneath under it. they claim to be holding, but I know for sure that 6kg of TNT will throw its inhabitants into a better world)
  18. SOLDIERru
    SOLDIERru 6 June 2011 06: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Let me remind you that the T-90 by and large is the crossing of the T-72 chassis and the turret from the T-80.

    Of course, we can be proud of the Russian tank industry or not, but it is not enough that changes. The question is whether the offspring of this tank industry are being sold or not. Is it possible to put into service new models, or not.
    But Russian tanks do not want to buy. And there’s no difference what’s the reason. Is there a result. And he is zero. In service in such units, 95% are T-62, T-72 (in general, of course, not bad tanks). But not bad for their time.
    At the same time, almost all the equipment is in a disgusting technical condition. And the probable enemy doesn’t care for what reason the troops of the Russian Federation will be in combat form.
    1. Redfox71
      Redfox71 18 June 2011 01: 08 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      And when you consider that the 72nd began to be developed on the basis of the T-64A back in 1968 ... then there are simply no words when this pi ... Khalitov ball is opening his incompetent mittens about: "no worse than something there ... "
      I would also like to clarify with him about the participation of the T-90 in "various armed conflicts", with specific results of combat use!
  19. Ivan Caesar
    Ivan Caesar 1 July 2011 23: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    We have air conditioners installed from the T-64 series of tanks ... Who says "we don’t have air conditioners on tanks, etc." that finally doesn’t mean anything in tanks ... The main feature of Russian tanks is that they have a larger radius of fire (unlike Leopard and Abrams), the tank can shoot when I find it and successfully hit the target (as Ukrainian "Oplot" is known I don’t know how to shoot) and the level of protection of our tanks is higher (we will not forget that tank building in Russia is developed, but for example the fleet ...).
  20. King 12 December 2011 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    our tanks are better than world analogues. vaunted abrams in the desert of Iraq got stuck and got up from sand. interesting to see the statistics of the downed NATO tanks by the Taliban and Iraqi rebels
  21. nemo778 30 December 2011 03: 10 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    YOU ARE ALL SUCH SMARTER !!!!! GO !! AND PERFECT POWER !!! COUNTRY !!!! AND LET OURS !!! CHILDREN!!! SLEEP !!! QUIET !!!! WHILE YOU ARE HERE HERE !!! NEED FOOT BOW !! ALL THEMMM !!!! WHO CREATED !!! AND SUPPORTS DEFENSE POWER !!!!!!! RUSSIAIIIIIIII !!!!!!!!! BULYA IN YARS IN THE ASS OF AMERICA !!!!!! SATAN WILL MEET THEM! AMEN winked
  22. NKVD 2 January 2012 22: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And to hell in general, this dry closet? You’ll get into a mess at the moment, and you won’t even have time to undo the button, and neither your crew nor experienced warriors will laugh at this matter. It’s just movies about the war that are easy to watch