Five reasons to buy or not to buy Abrams

1. The current defense industry in Russia has completely shifted to market rails, and in the wildest market. Prices for its products are consistent with the world level, which of course can not be said about quality. Using their monopolistic position, enterprises lift up prices and pull deadlines without shame. Well, see for yourself, T-90 and “Abrams” with a “wholesale discount,” as Colonel Baranets writes, cost the same. And the wages of workers? In our company and in the US differ by several times. “Abrams” is also heavier than tons on 15 and this weight is not due to the stupidity of the designers and not with river sand, but with armor and equipment. Not to mention the fact that T-90 is not an original development, but an alteration of T-72, so to say “penny” into a “top five”. So it would be nice to create competition for our obalduyam, maybe then they would run for good money. People buy our cars because they are cheaper, and if not - then foreign cars and with joy.

2. The military affairs in our country are strongly ideologized; other military men do not want American Tanks not because they are bad, but "because the US bombed Yugoslavia," although this is not their business. Their job is for the army to be equipped with modern technology and able to fight on a world level. Lobbying the interests of industry is the business of the Ministry of Economy, politics is at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In addition, there is a moment of fear of retraining and, in connection with this, the possibility of losing credibility among intelligent subordinates. Who needs Budyonny in the era of tank war? Guderian here retrained from the cavalry, but not all the same here the high-speed Heinz.

3. The maintenance of foreign tanks in the army seems unusually, but has no fundamental and insurmountable difficulties. In the course of V.O.V. the army has perfectly mastered both the Shermans and the other Air Cobras with the Spitfires. Not to mention the Studebaker, doji and jeep (the dream of any commander, jeeps were cool and then). In the IDF, foreign tanks are full and nothing, coping. Abrams is in service with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Australia. Surely our stupid camel and kengurovodov?

4.Studebekkers, Doji and Wilis made a car revolution in the USSR. The people understood what a modern car is, and the industry was able to reproduce it, even if not immediately. The acquisition of foreign technology can have the same value, finally, our eagles will understand what a modern war is. Otherwise, we risk, as during the siege of Sevastopol, the Anglo-French-Turkish-Sardinians to remain with flint-guns and bricks against the rod choke. When our defense industry will be reborn, and in the army they will understand that they do not clean the guns with bricks, one Allah is in charge, and it’s necessary to fight even with Georgia, at least with someone, soon.

5. "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Merkava" - not fundamentally, what is better, then buy. Or not to buy, but to make yours in a finite time, and not to the next presidency. But without any “ideological narrow-mindedness” there (c). In 30's Comrade. Stalin did not hesitate to buy Christie tanks, Cardin-Lloyd tankettes, cruisers in Germany and destroyers in Italy. And our submarines of some types were so similar to the German ones that they had to specially change their equipment. I don’t write about Maxim, Lewis, Shosh, Nagan and Berdan.

Comments

[sniper]

five reasons to drive from the management of the Armed Forces of Russia
such "smart guys" in three necks!
absolutely not reasoned article.
The military-industrial complex has a very good "safety margin" and production potential. It remains only to return the scientific and technical base to the proper level and the development of weapons, OUR weapons will again hold leading positions.

[Smirnov Vadim]

Market laws do not apply to weapons. I will explain. The tank is not a car. Its price is determined on the basis of its combat capabilities. At last, prestige, comfort, and so on are evaluated.
Now on the points.
1. Payment for workers is a problem of officials. The fact that our hard workers get less overseas colleagues wine officials. The design of the tanks is nothing to do with. The author writes that Abrams is heavier on 15 tons, and he sounds like a virtue. However, he did not think at all about such moments, for example, as the passage of bridges. Most bridges in Europe have a load capacity of 50-60 tons. T-90 will pass, Abrams can destroy them.
2. Ideology is also a significant factor. And the point is not that the pendosy of the Yugoslavs were bombed, but how people will relate to the fact that a country with a long tradition of tank building will buy tanks. Yes, and Budenny is not necessary to expose a stupid cavalryman. At the beginning of the war, he successfully fought with the Germans and was well aware of the importance of tanks. And the Germans themselves throughout the war increased the number of cavalry divisions. Cavalry was used as a means of transporting infantry over rough terrain.
3. The Red Army bought the Shermans not because they were so good. And according to the principle - on bezrybe and cancer fish. Read the memories of our veterans and veterans of the Wehrmacht. No one gives good ratings pendosovskim tanks. The only thing they say is comfortable inside. Again, comfort, this is the last thing you need in the army.
4. Our army is well aware of what a modern war is. The author embarks on verbiage about flint-guns and bricks. And the fact that Russian weapons are successfully bought in many countries? Or do they not understand the nature of modern war too? Only one pendosov open And this mystery?
5. The USSR bought a tank from the pendos in 30. But I bought only the chassis. So what? BT tanks were killed at the beginning of the Second World War, they were not produced later. Light tanks are no longer needed in the army. Yes, different models of foreign rifle systems were bought in our army. Only Maxim got accustomed, the rest were used only because of his own lack of poverty. But Soviet weapons are bought with pleasure, the author recall about the AK? His whole world yuzat.

[Vlad]

Author, you are wrong. In the field of tanks, we can say with confidence that the T-90, in general, is not much inferior to foreign tanks, there are certainly some shortcomings, but this is not a "five out of a penny", but a very decent tank. What are Abrams and Merkavas, what are you? The Merkava was specially created for operations in the Middle East theater of operations; do you think a desert tank will cut through the swamps of Transbaikalia !? Abrams is a technically difficult tank, well-trained crews are required, each of which is headed by an officer, and not like our sergeant, a village guy. And do not forget that there is a Russian tank school (ideology), and there is a Western one, so our tanks fit perfectly with the Russian one.

[Andrei]

The author does not understand anything at all in matters of tanks, nor in matters of economics. First, about the economy:
When we buy a tank from our industry, we thereby support not only and not so much the tank manufacturer itself, but all the sectors of our economy that are relevant to the whole tank. This is an additional issue of steel, armor, electronics, and so on and so forth, which will be acquired by the tank manufacturer from our own enterprises. Accordingly, our defense industry suppliers will receive additional revenue, which will be partly invested in fixed assets (additional production of machine tools and equipment, again, mainly Russian), paid in the form of wages, etc. And the salary of our people will again go not only to imported washing machines but also to additional meat, milk, etc., etc. - i.e. you need to clearly understand - giving money to our defense industry, we create a new product, new jobs and develop our CIVIL industry. And vice versa - by purchasing imported military equipment - we develop the import industry (not only and not so much the military)
Therefore, from the point of view of general utility for the state as a whole, the purchase of military equipment abroad is absurd. And let's say it only if the country itself cannot produce the necessary equipment in principle. We can.
Relatively equal cost - it would not hurt to recall the volume of production of tanks in recent years. We would buy tanks as the US Armed Forces - the price of the T-90 would be significantly lower. Elementary law - with the growth of production, the price decreases ...
And yet - even if we assume that our defense industry is being controlled very badly, whose fault is it under capitalist laws? This is the fault of the owner. And who is the owner of the military-industrial complex?
Well, the author’s calls for the purchase of Abrams (pierced from the sides with a 30 mm armor-piercing projectile, the chances of breaking the RPG side of the early series (into the hull above the ice rinks and the side of the tower) - 50% according to the statistics of the wars in Iraq) are simply the murder of our guys in Chechnya.

[Putin]

Andrei,
Vadimis,
-Remitted swearing- your mom! Oh - removed the curse-!

[berimor]

I don't quite agree with the article. The fact is that when purchasing equipment in America (read - in Israel, Germany, etc.), we will be rigidly dependent on remanufacturing, ammunition, etc., not to mention the fact that these guys are unlikely to sell more know-how. Yes, small countries and even larger states buy foreign equipment. But we must not forget that today, although Russia is not ideologically the antipode of the kapmir, it still seeks to limit the unipolar monopoly in the world, that is, it tries to oppose its geopolitical ambitions to those of the United States and others like them. And in the event of a sharp exacerbation of relations (and they are already quite tense!) Russia will find itself in a very "interesting position."
I have a very rich experience of participating in hostilities in the Middle East .. And I personally had to observe a situation where, at the most acute moment, in the army of Egypt, Syria, hunger for ammunition, equipment, spare parts, etc. began to be felt. Although of course the military-industrial complex must be put in place very seriously !!! Snickering !! In this I completely agree with the author.

[aleks-s2011]

I served on the t-72. on training machines. and often repairs were carried out from the knee. not a whimsical car. and it’s quite difficult for our conscripts to break anything. Yes, and many other advantages I can list.