Military Review

Say a word about a Russian tank - T-72

368
Say a word about a Russian tank - T-72



According to rating tanks the world, prepared by the American agency Forecast International, the best tank currently is the American M1A2 SEP Abrams of General Dynamics Corporation, which has proven itself during the war in Iraq. In second place is the Israeli Merkava Mk IV tank from Israel Ordnance Corps. He also showed excellent performance during the fighting. In third place is the Japanese Type 90 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It was created on the basis of the German "Leopard-2", but due to the numerous innovations of the "Type 90" in technological terms, it can be considered the most advanced tank in the world. However, there is no experience of its combat use.

For the same reasons, the latest modification of the German tank "Leopard-2А6" (manufacturer - Krauss-Maffei Wegmann) took only fourth place.

What is remarkable and quite natural, in the ranking there was no place for the Russian T-72 and T-90С tanks, which are very widely used in various local wars and armed conflicts. For example, T-90С has already managed to perfectly show itself in tank battles on the Indo-Pakistan border. Moreover, it is the only tank in the world that has successfully passed test runs in the Indian Thar Desert and the jungles of Malaysia. But most importantly, the compilers of the rating did not take into account the results of hostilities during the operation in Dagestan and the Chechen Republic. Here, the Russian T-72 tanks and even the "veterans" of the T-62 far surpassed in survivability the vaunted "Abrams" used in the course of the aggression against Iraq.
Presented by the Americans as invulnerable and without measure praised by the American (and for good money by our own) media, the Abrams, however, was successfully struck by the Soviet-made anti-tank weapons that were used by the Iraqi army. Including hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. They were mainly affected by onboard, stern and upper parts of the tank.

In this regard, the author found it necessary to talk about two of the many combat episodes he knew, in which the high reliability and survivability of Russian tanks were clearly demonstrated.

During the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation, units and units of both the North Caucasus and other military districts operated in the United Group of Forces (forces). In this case, we will focus on the actions of the division 506 Guards. MSW 27 Guards MICD of the Volga Military District (since September 1 2001 - Privolzhsko-Uralsky Military District). This regiment showed itself very well when performing combat missions during the first Chechen campaign, from February 1995 to the autumn 1996. Its units also competently and selflessly fought during the second Chechen campaign, including soldiers of the tank battalion . At the same time, in fights with militants, not only good training, courage and heroism of military personnel were shown, but also high reliability and survivability of military equipment were demonstrated.

Thus, in early January, 2000, in the course of hostilities to liberate Grozny, one of the regiment's assault squads led fierce battles in the area of ​​the railway depot. The actions of the motorized infantry, as expected, were supported by the T-72B tanks of the regiment's tank battalion. The enemy defended stubbornly and desperately, skillfully using large quantities of anti-tank grenade launchers and even anti-tank systems. Therefore, despite the well-organized and constantly maintained interaction of tanks with infantry, a powerful fire damage inflicted on the enemy by artillery, combat vehicles were still subjected to repeated hits of grenades and even ATGM.



1,2. Tank T-72B №613 - "friend" tank №611, both of the 1-second tank platoon. The wounds of the combat vehicle are clearly visible. Khankala, June 2000



3. Tank 72B №611, front view and on the left side. It is prepared for following to the station for loading on a railway transport and sending to a place of constant deployment. The tower is turned back and locked, the trunk is additionally secured with a regular towing cable. Traces of active combat activity are clearly visible on the combat vehicle. Khankala, June 2000



4. Tank T-72B №611, rear view on the right side. Khankala, June 2000

In the course of these battles, the tank with airborne No.611 from / tr. During the 2 of the day of continuous combat, the 3 ATGM of the Fagot class and 6 grenades from RPG-7 fell into this car.


The hits occurred in the following parts of the tank.

ATGM - to the left under the tower (all):

• two - in the fuel tanks on the fenders under the turret, which, during the fighting, the tank crews always kept them “dry”. Bucky swelled and torn, then the elements of the hinged dynamic protection on the tower worked, there was no armor penetration;

• one - in the board under the tower; reflected by the triggered element mounted dynamic protection mounted on rubber metal side screens.

Grenades from RPG-7:

• one - on top of the commander's hatch of the tower; a cumulative jet pierced the hatch and, without hitting the tank commander, went into the aft wall of the tower;

• two - to the left in the upper frontal part of the tower; neutralized with activated elements of mounted dynamic protection;

• three - on the hull side, 2 on the left and 1 on the right; all reflected by dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens.



5. The fuel tank on the right flank of the tank # XXUMX, swollen and exploded as a result of hitting the cumulative RPG grenades (in a combat situation, as expected, was empty). The fuel tanks on tank No.613 in January 611 also looked the same after the ATGM hit them. Khankala, June 2000



6. "Burn" from getting ATGM in the dynamic protection of the tower of one of the tanks T-72B. Khankala, June 2000



7. Brewed hole from the cumulative PG-7 grenade in the stern sheet of the hull of the T-72B tank No. 623. And no memories ...
Khankala, June 2000




8,9. Fragments of the left side of the tank T-72B №623. Khankala, June 2000

As a result, not a single hit resulted in the loss of combat capability of the tank, which continuously continued to perform the combat mission. This fact was confirmed during the personal conversation of the author with the commander of this tank and the company commander in June 2000. Moreover, the commanders of the units confirmed that all the other battalion tanks had been repeatedly hit by an anti-tank missile and RPG grenades, had explosions on mines and land mines . But all the crews remained alive, and the tanks were efficient! After explosions on mines and land mines, the equipment was restored in a short time, either by the forces of the crews, or by military repair agencies, depending on the nature of the damage received.

The photographs taken by the author in the summer of 2000 showed tank No. 611 and some others with characteristic traces of the effects of ATGM and cumulative grenades from various RPGs. The combat vehicles were in the field park in Khankala and prepared for transportation by rail to the place of permanent deployment, therefore, many of them have towers turned towards the stern.

I would like to note that much more new and "invulnerable" American tanks hitting grenades from RPGs in the side screens covering the sides above the support rollers, had sad consequences: armored screens and hulls penetrated, after which the tanks, as a rule, were burned out.



10. The right fender of one of the tanks of the 2 tank company. Here, too, was the fuel tank, destroyed by a grenade from an RPG. Has got also to the next tank. Khankala, June 2000

A very interesting and illustrative incident occurred with the tank number XXUMX (623 tr of the same tank battalion). In the middle of December, 2 was the entrance of hostilities in the 1999 town of Grozny, one of the units of the 15 Guards. The company received a combat mission to unlock the surrounded unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and ensure its access to the location of our units.

The task was successfully completed. When covering the withdrawal of the Internal Troops unit, tank No.623 pulled forward to the square and, breaking away from the cover of motorized riflemen, acted alone, actively maneuvered and conducted intense and effective fire on the enemy, which stunned the militants, inflicted heavy losses and greatly contributed to successful the exit of our units from the environment.
After receiving the command to retreat by radio, the tank began to depart not in reverse, but turned around.

To cover the departure of his tower was turned back. Thus, he gave the enemy a poorly protected feed. Errors in the war are not forgiven: the militants immediately opened up strong and accurate fire from grenade launchers. As a result, the combat vehicle received 3 hits of anti-tank grenades from RPG-7 in a short period of time:

• the first is in a metal barrel aft for additional fuel (in a battle on tanks, these barrels were always “dry”). A cumulative jet pierced through a barrel that immediately cracked along the welds, but the tank hull was not pierced

• the second - in the side of the hull; it was neutralized by hinged dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens;

• the third - in the lower part of the stern sheet, while the shooting mercenary Arab was “cut off” by a machine-gun burst from the tank; a cumulative jet, breaking through the stern sheet, pierced the lower part of the engine crankcase and “stalled” at the partition in the fighting compartment.


Nevertheless, the tank, under its own power, with the engine crankcase (!) Broken from below, passed 300 m at high speed and took shelter in a nearby street, in the location of our troops. There the crew stopped the car and quickly left it. The tank crews reported that oil-but-fuel mist began to appear inside the tank and that a fire and explosion could occur. Soon the engine stalled. But nothing caught fire or exploded. In a short time, the engine was replaced, the inlet from the cumulative grenade was welded, and the tank again with the same crew performed combat missions before being withdrawn from Chechnya.



11. The author of the article with the crew of the T-72B tank, called up from the Samara region, before going on escort of the convoy to the Vedeno gorge. Above the blocks with mounted dynamic protection on the turret there are boxes with cartridges for a twin PKT machine gun. The tank had a KMT-7 anti-mine roller trawl (not visible in the photo) and walked in the head of the column. Khankala, April 1996

In general, the tank battalion 506 Guards. MSP, which had a T-31B tank in 72 state, for 8 months (autumn 1999 - winter and spring 2000) had no continuous fighting in the plains, in the city and mountainous regions of Chechnya. The only exception was one tank, which constantly and too often "found" mines and land mines, and the crew, respectively, received contusions. He was recognized as “unlucky,” “terribly unlucky,” and after another blast, at the urgent request of the battalion and regiment command, he was handed over to the repair and restoration battalion to be sent to a repair plant. “Bad luck” with frequent explosions stopped. It is impossible to explain this from a scientific point of view, but it happens in war.

The reasons for the high survivability of Russian tanks are, above all, the well-thought-out design of combat vehicles created in accordance with the principles and rules of the Soviet (inherited - Russian) tank school. The same applies to subsequent upgrades conducted in accordance with our Russian understanding of the further development of armored vehicles.

Along with this, it should be noted, and a sufficiently high quality manufacturing tanks. Exactly. Of course, there are flaws in the design, there is also a factory defect during the construction of combat vehicles. Without this, there is no. But still it is more the exception to the rule than the law. With proper operation and timely maintenance, our military equipment will never let you down.

An important reason for the high survivability of combat vehicles was the fact that during the counter-terrorist operation, the technical support of military operations was well organized and carried out. This made it possible to service tanks in a timely and efficient manner and, in a short time, to repair equipment that received combat damage.

Along with this, the most important reason for the successful use of tanks in the second Chechen campaign, in contrast to the first, is a much higher level of professional training for servicemen. This ensured the correct use of combat vehicles, maintaining close interaction with motorized infantry, operating on foot, and destroying enemy grenade launchers (priority goals!) During combat operations. The enemy was not allowed to fire at RPG tanks without difficulty and, especially, to hit them in the upper and aft parts of the hull and turret. The tasks of engineering support were solved in a timely and effective manner, which made it possible to minimize the explosions of combat vehicles on mines and land mines of the enemy.
Author:
368 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nukem999
    Nukem999 21 September 2013 07: 57
    88 th
    ....................
    1. Consul-t
      Consul-t 21 September 2013 12: 24
      146
      Beautiful commercial, nothing more.
      He goes well through the fields, and he loosens the land in turns. Good tractor.
      Have you tried to ride in the mountains?
      And ... does he also have the tower turning?
      He laughed heartily.
      You just make people laugh with your video.

      Previously, they wrote in various forums that Russia is no longer the same. Raw materials in the hands of the oligarchs. If someone snoops around to us, the people will not defend themselves as in 41.
      I also thought that probably it is.
      And now I look at these abrams and anger takes.
      I tell you Nukem999, you can minus me further.
      But if you stick to us, I’ll tear .. the sciences. I’ll go to the forests and you will not have life.
      Sit at home. You fucking blue can not beat Russia.
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 21 September 2013 12: 41
        50
        T-72 is the best tank in the world and the same Syrian company proves this.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 21 September 2013 14: 08
          -5
          T-72 is the best tank in the world and the same Syrian company proves this.


          And how does she prove it?
          The fact that sometimes tanks are not hit and it gets into youtube?
          Or the fact that there are more clips with burning tanks?

          The T-72 tank is not bad of course, only now - the original evil in the form of a tight layout has not gone away. The placement of charges without metal shells in unprotected fuel tanks, and even right next to the crew - a dream of course. Luke mech water is also a song, BKP - certainly not bad for the 1950s, but already in the 1970s it looked behind. Well, rudimentary fire controls too.

          On the other hand - on the T-90MS, it seems like the tanks were armored, the non-mechanized laying was removed from the BO, they say the charges were removed in individual protected canisters.
          The transmission, of course, has remained blatantly backward, and its computerization doesn’t change that.

          For me, the ideal would be something like:
          Case from pr. 187
          Chassis or from pr. 187, or from T-80
          BO from T-90MS with 2A82
          engine - continuation of the line B-2 - B-99 for example
          GM transmission - at least licensed Renk
          Mandatory presence of TIUS, connection of all main units to a single bus, availability of diagnostic systems
          BIUS
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 21 September 2013 16: 46
            +3
            Quote: cdrt
            For me, the ideal would be something like:
            Case from pr. 187
            Chassis or from pr. 187, or from T-80
            BO from T-90MS with 2A82
            engine - continuation of the line B-2 - B-99 for example
            GM transmission - at least licensed Renk

            Wow. What do you know about 2A82?
            1. slacker
              slacker 23 September 2013 14: 45
              +6
              According to the rating of tanks of the world, prepared by the American agency Forecast International, the best tank currently is the American M1A2 SEP Abrams


              And recently on "VO" someone was spitting saliva proving that the best tank in the world is the Ukrainian "Oplot". It would be interesting to know the opinion of the fans of this pepelats, why was there no place for Oplot in the American rating? Probably the Yankees are afraid to even mention the Ukrainian competitor, right?
              1. v.lyamkin
                v.lyamkin 24 September 2013 06: 52
                +7
                I read your comment and the head popped up: "Whoever eats a girl dances her." Well, or something like this: "Who orders the study, he wins in it."
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. ruslan207
            ruslan207 21 September 2013 18: 35
            -2
            cdrt-As I understand it, you already checked the t-90ms in battles that such an unflattering opinion about him means the designers of this tank again did not take into account anything?
          4. Saburov
            Saburov 21 September 2013 19: 38
            45
            The T-90, like the upgraded T-72, is a good, fit modern tank, as already mentioned a good hundred times, although not without flaws. Yes, in some ways it can be worse than Leopard-2 and other Western showerheads, however, Russian industry can produce it, as well as spare parts for it, and domestic repairmen know how to repair it, which is important. Shkolota, kicking on the Internet, just forgets that not millimeters of calibers and not kilometers per hour of speed are fighting. Yes, not even tanks fighting. People are at war, and the outcome of the battle depends on a huge number of factors, in particular, on the use of aviation, artillery and other types of troops, the coherence of their actions and the degree of headaches of the command. No matter how cool the tank, the turntable, armed with ATGMs, will take apart a whole column of such tins for scrap, if they are not covered from air attacks, which was brilliantly confirmed by the “Gulf War” when the vast majority of T-72 tanks were pierced with sides with cumulative ammunition. Cunning ass Americans, taking advantage of the OMS and intelligence, hit Iraqi tanks with ATGMs mounted on the Bradley, while the Iraqis learned that they were being fired after the shells started to click on their armor.
            1. Juleandr
              Juleandr 12 November 2013 21: 52
              -1
              Good and fit are two different things. The same Leo or Abrashka protect the crew much better than teshes. In the West they value the lives of tankers, and this is the most important thing. Teshka, this is a good but cheap workhorse that dies in battle along with its crew. You are not looking at the statistics of the destruction of the Abrams, but at the number of dead tankers ... believe me, statistics will not be in favor of the teshes.
          5. rolik
            rolik 21 September 2013 19: 58
            49
            Quote: cdrt
            And how does she prove it?

            Let me ask you the following question. You served in tank units, controlled a tank, fired from it?
            Personally, I have a rather distant relationship with tanks)))) But there is one thing, but my younger brother served in Volgograd in a tank battalion. He served in the years 94-96, you probably understand why I bring these years. He was there, returned alive. Many times from him, I heard words of gratitude to his tank. For me there is no better recommendation. And the fact that some tanks that went to war in boxes with DZ did not contain active substances, let it remain on the conscience of those who sleep from there .... l. Thus, the young guys of the tankers were doomed to death.
            1. cumastra1
              cumastra1 22 September 2013 12: 10
              18
              no no no, not "let it be kept on the conscience", but to investigate in the most thorough way, identify the culprits and roughly jail them, since this is not theft, but sabotage, and no conventions apply to such saboteurs. In wartime, scoundrels were hanged.
              1. chief.matros
                chief.matros 27 October 2013 23: 26
                +1
                yeah, but the fact that our valiant army for a long time (I don’t remember exactly, but about 20 years old) delivered bulletproof vests, made not of material needed, but of aluminum instead of titanium, and this was even shown on television for some reason planted, and those bulletproof vests back in the first Chechen were
          6. mirag2
            mirag2 22 September 2013 04: 05
            -2
            Tell me everything about cutting the dough, so the real cut is the creation of some kind of Almaty. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. You need to remove the shells from the BO for the T-90 (as the comrade noted above), make a modern transmission, a little more powerful engine + complex active protection (excellent). And that’s it. That would be spending money and solving problems in German.
            And such a tank would have served before changing the type of weapon to robots. And the introduction of a new tank, new assembly lines, etc. and so on, so much time and money. Moreover, it will still remain the same as now. Only the so-called dough cut will happen. It will differ like ak12 from ak74m.
            1. Viktorych
              Viktorych 27 September 2013 22: 03
              +1
              Quote: mirag2
              It will differ as ak12 from ak74m.

              О

              I ask, do not need anything about AK12, so far the marriage is in the region of 70%. For 2 years, a rifle for hunting was made at its base; it was not made. Everything is very sad.
          7. Alekseev
            Alekseev 23 October 2013 13: 15
            0
            Quote: cdrt
            only now - the original evil in the form of a tight layout has not gone anywhere

            The denser the layout, the thicker the armor! wink Here or -or.
            Quote: cdrt
            The transmission, of course, has remained blatantly backward, and its computerization doesn’t change that.

            The hydraulic control system and lubrication is not new, that's for sure, but at the same time, it is quite acceptable. I have not heard complaints about it.
            There is no problem to change the fire control system and they are changing it now.
            But to replace burning sleeves with metal ones and separate BO from tanks with armored partitions would not hurt.
            About TIUS I will not, little time and place. But what exactly, mean by BIUS for the T-72 tank I do not know. Probably each his own. wink
          8. air wolf
            air wolf 31 October 2013 11: 05
            0
            Listen to "admiral" as a person who understands, I explain that the T-72 is not ideal, the layout cannot be altered, the automatic loader cannot be thrown away. It's too late to alter anything, just modernize: a new thermal imager, cover the ammunition with screens, a remotely controlled machine gun, etc. But this tank is the most belligerent in the theater of operations, if the Tigers and Abrams fought like this, I think there would be no less losses.
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 21 September 2013 16: 03
          20
          According to the rating of tanks of the world, prepared by the American agency Forecast International, the best tank is currently the American M1A2 SEP Abrams of General Dynamics Corporation
          I immediately remembered the film Sergeant Bilko, in which the development of the world's best hovercraft took place. Something from this series. lol Well, for the information of our tanks who are scourging, I will say this, for every scrap, there is a method. There are no invulnerable tanks, but there are better ones, and the fact is who and how much buys BT. Well, Syria, as well as the conflict in the Caucasus (described above) is a confirmation of this. I hope our tank building, this conflict will be beneficial, they will take into account all the shortcomings, and the wishes of the ATS tankers.
        3. mirag2
          mirag2 22 September 2013 03: 54
          +4
          Abrams was created as a breakthrough tank. It has thick frontal armor equivalent to 610mm armor (depleted uranium inserts are possible, 1.7 times denser than lead, and additional DZ). So it’s very hard to break through it. But it’s possible. And it has no armor at the back.
          But why is the new Leclerc not mentioned? Leclerc is better than the ancient Abrams.
          1. M. Peter
            M. Peter 22 September 2013 06: 42
            18
            Quote: mirag2
            Abrams was created as a breakthrough tank

            Abrams was created in contrast to just the Soviet tanks breaking through the NATO defense line, so they have such thick frontal armor.
          2. ilya63
            ilya63 23 September 2013 19: 55
            +9
            Abrams was created primarily as an anti-tank weapon against Soviet tanks (primarily from ambushes, from a long range, with the likelihood of a first strike, they did not expect a rebuff) there are no inserts in the armor; there is a different filling of the spaced armor including uranium sand , sense affects the crew of the abrams itself, and we have a sub-caliber with a uranium tip (it's about a cunning ass and horseradish with a screw), it’s practically the same about the detection range, so they won’t have the first shot, but hit the tank from the tank guns at a distance of more than 4 km it is a question of who is who, so teach materiel buddy
            1. mvg
              mvg 16 November 2013 10: 36
              +1
              tank biathlon looked, what is our Shoigu doing? what is the percentage of hits there, and there it’s not 4 km ..., 1500-2000, do not be lazy, find the results for the same NATO battalion ... you will be surprised .. t72 is generally blind, and still do not do night-vision cameras, we buy from frogs for t90 that go for export. Challenger that took the last. place allowed 2 !!! miss on the go ... what are we talking about?
              1. Juleandr
                Juleandr 9 February 2014 21: 39
                0
                And where did you find the results for NATO countries? Unfortunately I did not find anything in the internet, but it is very curious! Throw a link if not difficult, please.
          3. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 24 September 2013 19: 23
            +9
            I know how they suffer from radiation after Chernobyl on themselves. And I would not have got into a tank in depleted uranium armor for any price or dignity. Whether you die or not in the war, it's still my grandmother said for two, But in peacetime, getting even weak radiation is a headache for the rest of your life, the very minimum from radiation. But more really skin cancer. But no matter how they praised this tin can, I cannot name it otherwise, since the breakthrough tank must first of all resist the infantry, in the trenches or in the BMP, and wherever it is. After all, it turns out that having learned about the presence of the "Abrams" on the battlefield, it is enough to deliver grenade launchers in maskhalats to the battlefield on the BMP, and retreat to a distance of 4 km. And any attack of the Abrams will choke as soon as they substitute the sides for the grenade launchers.
        4. Sirs
          Sirs 22 September 2013 16: 05
          +4
          Much depends on the skill of the crew and the asuv (automatic command and control system), the interaction (coordination) of tanks and infantry is strength. almost any adversary will fall even with abrams or leopards, mercans. IMHO
          The Syrian army does not have asuv.
        5. sanecc
          sanecc 23 September 2013 12: 33
          24 th
          what does Chechnya and Syria and the Caucasus and Georgia have to do with it - the abrams was used there ........... the tank battle was only in Iraq - where the ruusso tanks lost all 108 tanks and did not knock down more than one abrams ... due to technical reasons, the 12 machines went to the rewind; the 72 machines were no longer subject to repair, alas ...
          1. air wolf
            air wolf 31 October 2013 11: 56
            -1
            These losses of Iraq, according to the Entente, and you darling from them)) The Iraqi patriots and tankers actually left them for the most part, and shooting at targets as in a shooting gallery is not a war!
      2. Simon
        Simon 21 September 2013 17: 44
        +3
        It is clear that amers praise their offspring, although his armor is not worth the shell of a rotten egg.
        1. ruslan207
          ruslan207 21 September 2013 18: 37
          10
          Each sandpiper praises its swamp, but the fact that Abrams is so bad, too, I do not agree
          1. chief.matros
            chief.matros 27 October 2013 23: 33
            0
            why did they then die in Iraq and die like rats from poison?
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 25 November 2013 15: 58
              0
              And at least one because of a ram-sheep fell from the bridge into the Tigris River and drowned. After it caught 4 carcasses
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 25 November 2013 15: 56
            0
            But meanwhile, his auxiliary power plant is set on fire even from the ancient DShK! Is it a matter when the tank burns to the ground from bullets for 45 years?
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 38
          +6
          But why? in two small places on Abrash is not the frail English armor of Chobham, but it's like a fix leaf, just cover the shame.
      3. edge
        edge 21 September 2013 17: 51
        +3
        Quote: Consul-t
        Beautiful commercial, nothing more

        Well, this is already familiar by the 41st year, scared already ......., and we were also very well taught to burn them, and the fear of the tank was literally eliminated from school (they were tested)
        1. kenig1
          kenig1 23 September 2013 10: 32
          +4
          What do you know about 41 years, just the T-34 burned everything German that was moving, but the German tanks did not penetrate the focus of the T-34. Abrams makes his way closer to the engine from the KPVT caliber 14,5 mm.
      4. Basarev
        Basarev 25 November 2013 15: 45
        0
        I also support you. And if the war starts, then I will not hesitate to go to defend the Motherland
    2. Arthur 775
      Arthur 775 21 September 2013 16: 18
      14
      Yes, let the amers be with all their ratings, they, except for Vietnam, did not really participate in the batch, and they confused the concepts for a long time. They know how to take away the candy from the "kid" ........ sy.
      The emotions of the couple rushed. Yes
    3. bif
      bif 21 September 2013 17: 13
      19

      To compare something, one must be unbiased and be guided by FACTS, not speculation and rumors ..
      1. edge
        edge 21 September 2013 17: 58
        +1
        Yes, it’s not a question of how else you can become a hero .... take a picture against the background of a shot-box, and yell at home, I slammed him
    4. edge
      edge 21 September 2013 17: 45
      +3
      nothing personal, just a business, who will buy a tin can expensively ... here are the advertisers and yelling, Schaub loot dripped.
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 21 September 2013 21: 25
      20
      Good afternoon, gentlemen and comrades. In the first Iraqi campaign, the Abrams (M1a1) left like a parade, without active armor and protection of engines from dust and sand ... that's a fact! ... and these vaunted tractors burned very briskly for the glory of democracy. .. model amers active armor and what? This miracle of American tank building stalled, clogged with dust and sand ... it turned out to be a gentle aggregate ... that on the gun, since you should not praise it, but the range is not more than 4 km (this is the amers themselves declare) against 5 km for our T-90 ... in terms of armor, there are also a lot of questions (and by the way, our car has a lower profile, a trifle, but nice) ... in terms of engines, too, the advantage is on our side, why ... yes, because in field conditions, you can fix it, but you need to drag the abrams into the repair box ... on one site I got acquainted with the rating of independent experts (as far as independence allowed them) ... so, the first place is firmly for the T-90, the second merkava, the leopard 3 -th and only in 4th place Abrams! So, gentlemen ... and this video is for the call to the tank units of young illiterate American youths and no more ... you can draw such videos with ours and even better (I talked about both m1a1 and m1a2) ... but all this darkens one little fact-Russia has abandoned the real and indisputable owner of the fields and vesey- "black eagle" ... looking at which, even amers did not have the courage to say that this bird has at least some competitors.
      1. Demetrius29
        Demetrius29 21 September 2013 21: 58
        +2
        People, what merkava is in second place? Merkava was created EXCLUSIVELY for its region and actions near the borders. And this is a very, very important factor. Remember WWII. German tanks, in general, superior to the tanks of the USSR (prototypes, t 34 and kV will not be considered due to their small numbers), famously broke off in our regions. Caterpillars are small in size, the engine is gasoline.
      2. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 03: 01
        +1
        NEXUS RU 21 September 2013 21: 25 ↑

        ,, ... and so, the first place is firmly for the T-90, the Merkava is the second, the leopard is the third and only in the fourth place is the Abrams! So, gentlemen ... "

        Is Leclerc not even mentioned? To judge the superiority of a particular tank, they need to arrange an 10 battle on the 10 without the support of other military branches. Everything else is from the evil one. The superiority of our tanks in maintainability can only affect a protracted conflict. At the expense of Almaty ... I want to believe that the tank is really advanced (which has no analogues))), BUT !!! HOW to hang in grams? When will he begin to enter the troops and in what quantity? Can you count on at least one tank a day?
    6. air defense veteran
      air defense veteran 21 September 2013 22: 15
      18
      HA-HA-HA (3 times) Instead of admiring this commercial dummy, head over to the anna-newsinfo point and watch hours of HD footage of our armored vehicles being used in combat in Syria this September. This will be a good argument for those "theorists" who can criticize this article for "outdated" material of 13 years ago. Like, now the T-72 is certainly scrap metal. NOTHING LIKE THIS! Professional terrorists with the most modern anti-tank weapons are not capable of much against professional tankers on our equipment.
      1. igor67
        igor67 21 September 2013 22: 53
        -6
        Quote: Air Defense Veteran
        HA-HA-HA (3 times) Instead of admiring this commercial dummy, head over to the anna-newsinfo point and watch hours of HD footage of our armored vehicles being used in combat in Syria this September. This will be a good argument for those "theorists" who can criticize this article for "outdated" material of 13 years ago. Like, now the T-72 is certainly scrap metal. NOTHING LIKE THIS! Professional terrorists with the most modern anti-tank weapons are not capable of much against professional tankers on our equipment.

        I went to Anna -news, even they show the truth. Everything burns, unfortunately
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 00: 36
          19
          Yes, everything burns!
          1. Uruska
            Uruska 25 September 2013 13: 28
            +4
            And it burns so well ...
          2. Juleandr
            Juleandr 9 February 2014 21: 56
            0
            It burns, of course, but judging by the hatches of the crew, the tank has long been gone and they are most likely watching the dying tank from the side. Judging by the video above, where the car dies, the crew unfortunately has been watching the burning tank from the other world, and this is a big difference !!!
        2. sanecc
          sanecc 23 September 2013 12: 19
          -3
          sorry Leonid - mom is crying somewhere
        3. Dmitriy1975
          Dmitriy1975 24 November 2013 00: 35
          0
          Quote: igor67
          Quote: Air Defense Veteran
          HA-HA-HA (3 times) Instead of admiring this commercial dummy, head over to the anna-newsinfo point and watch hours of HD footage of our armored vehicles being used in combat in Syria this September. This will be a good argument for those "theorists" who can criticize this article for "outdated" material of 13 years ago. Like, now the T-72 is certainly scrap metal. NOTHING LIKE THIS! Professional terrorists with the most modern anti-tank weapons are not capable of much against professional tankers on our equipment.

          I went to Anna -news, even they show the truth. Everything burns, unfortunately

          Yeah burning
    7. One of the former
      One of the former 22 September 2013 04: 41
      32
      If there come a time when a tanker who has served up on conscription, at least once every six months, your crew, will get the opportunity at a military, competently organized by professional methodological officers (not sons from the committee of soldiers’s mothers and not for showing on TV and the president, painting the tanks in different colors) for at least XNUMX hours, or better three, to service the tank, reconcile sighting devices, check the operation of all other systems, debug the work of all mechanisms and ride and shoot at the simulators and at the training ground, and once every two or three years, take part in your tank in your crew on tactical exercises with live shooting, and this opportunity will be provided to him regularly until the age of forty, then we can sometimes proudly sing at the festive table: "Armor is strong and our tanks are fast ..."
      Otherwise, our children and grandchildren and Russia have no future, no matter what tanks and other equipment, under the leadership of Rogozin, they were designed to arm the Russian army.
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 13: 44
        +6
        I support! Only for all military branches! We need reservists supporting their skills and studying new equipment and weapons entering the troops. At least 1 week in 3-5 years (once every six months we will not pull).
        But the Swiss on this principle live for many years!
        1. Somad
          Somad 22 September 2013 22: 41
          +8
          By the way, on anna-news I saw reviews of Syrian tank crews about the combat use of the T-72. Very, I tell you, objective, in the case and without any cheers-patriotism ...
  2. Nukem999
    Nukem999 21 September 2013 07: 57
    35 th
    ....................
    1. sergey72
      sergey72 21 September 2013 08: 12
      15
      What can I say ... filmed beautifully, spectacularly .... The only question remains: where "Leo" fought, eh?
      1. Nukem999
        Nukem999 21 September 2013 08: 28
        104 th
        Abrams, Merkava are the only modern tanks with combat experience.
        1. sergey72
          sergey72 21 September 2013 08: 54
          21
          Well, about Abrams, I agree .... But Merkava-2,3 - they have no experience of "tank against tank", I don't comment on the four at all_ there experience at the level of our second Chechen ... I don’t understand one thing, what does the Polish sports car have to do with it ?
          1. Arthur 775
            Arthur 775 21 September 2013 16: 20
            +3
            about a sports car, to the point ++++
            1. Arthur 775
              Arthur 775 21 September 2013 16: 42
              0
              about polish of course
        2. duke
          duke 21 September 2013 13: 59
          +1
          it seems you speak about this experience ??? What to say in vain, it's better to see stop http://video.yandex.ru/users/krion109/collection/7/
          1. sergey72
            sergey72 21 September 2013 14: 14
            0
            Well, I clearly said "... at the level of the SECOND Chechen ..." and you show me a video from Syria request
        3. Simon
          Simon 21 September 2013 17: 39
          10
          The T-72 is also not a bad military experience, in addition, the Abrams and Merkov never fought in cramped city streets. The Americans beautifully advertise their tank, but it is known that in Iraq our outdated RPGs freely pierced their armor. They even presented claims to us for the supply of modern anti-tank weapons, although there were no supplies to Iraq at that time.
          1. Quiet
            Quiet 21 September 2013 22: 09
            +8
            They even claimed us for the supply of modern anti-tank weapons

            Can I also show them to roll in for the delivery of "stingers" to dushmans in Avgan ??
        4. cooper
          cooper 22 September 2013 13: 09
          11 th
          you were torn apart, sales didn’t happen to me :)))
      2. Su-9
        Su-9 21 September 2013 08: 30
        +3
        very slightly in Afghanistan.
        but it’s not bad.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. sergey72
          sergey72 21 September 2013 08: 48
          +5
          In Afghanistan as part of the Canadian contingent, right? So this is one company and that on "Leo-1" ...
          1. Juleandr
            Juleandr 13 February 2014 01: 36
            0
            Not true. Canadians drove and Leo2 including the Danes too !!!
      3. postman
        postman 21 September 2013 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: sergey72
        The only question remains: where did "Leo" fight, eh?

        Operation MEDUZA, 2006 Canadian Battle Group (tank battalion) Leopard C2 (1C2)
        1994-95 UNPROFOR in Bosnia Leopard 1A5 (Danish)
        1. sergey72
          sergey72 21 September 2013 12: 45
          11
          Is this a war? belay Did they even scratch the paint there?
          1. postman
            postman 21 September 2013 15: 22
            0
            Quote: sergey72
            Did they even scratch the paint there?

            The task is not to scratch the armor, and the tank is NOT INTENDED for battle tank against tank, life is not WoT
            Canadian officer, Major Trevor Cadou (Canadian Army Journal) noted: “Before we got the Leopard tanks, even the massive fire of the 25 mm guns of our LAV combat vehicles could not penetrate nearly meter-long stone-clay duvols, strong as concrete, - wrote in a published article. “Therefore, we were often forced to request aviation or risk our lives by sending them closer to the wall in order to penetrate it with anti-tank weapons or to undermine it with a mine or explosives.” But only a 105-mm C2 Leopard projectile from a distance of up to 4000 meters - that is, twice as long as the effective fire range of a 25-mm LAV armored cannon - pierced a 5x5 meter hole in such a "fortress" without touching the same time, neighboring buildings or infantrymen located nearby. ”
            1. sergey72
              sergey72 21 September 2013 15: 34
              +9
              Quote: Postman
              and the tank is NOT INTENDED for battle the tank against the tank, life is not WoT
              -Oh how, belay but I didn’t know! You tell the tankers, otherwise the poor will shoot the entire service at targets simulating a tank! Or better to the Israelis, they’ll have enough of them right there laughing And finally, explain to me unreasonable why in the standard ammunition tanks almost half of the BPS? request
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 September 2013 15: 51
                +5
                Quote: sergey72
                why in the standard ammunition tanks almost half of the BPS

                and who travels with standard ammunition? And interestingly, is there such a thing at all - or maybe the BCs are loaded in accordance with the task and the situation?

                about the purpose of the tank - it is intended to fight and destroy the enemy and not to fight tanks or fight infantry
                1. sergey72
                  sergey72 21 September 2013 16: 04
                  10
                  Quote: Kars
                  and who rides with full-time ammunition?
                  In the 80s we traveled, God forbid, a full-time combat ordnance of T-62 -18 BPS shells, 4 cumulative, the rest are high-explosive ...
                  Quote: Kars
                  to destroy the enemy and not to fight
                  -Kars-Sorry of course, but did you yourself understand what you said?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 September 2013 16: 07
                    +3
                    Quote: sergey72
                    In the 80's we went, God forbid, a standard T-62 ammunition

                    So where did you go? At the tankodrome?
                    Quote: sergey72
                    Kars, sorry, of course, but did you yourself understand what you said?

                    I perfectly understood what I said - the tank is a universal ground combat vehicle, not a tank destroyer
                    1. sergey72
                      sergey72 21 September 2013 16: 42
                      17
                      Quote: Kars
                      So where did you go? At the tankodrome?
                      Yes, at the tankodrome .... I just didn’t go - they drove me, I'm charging ...
                      And relatively armored radio-controlled targets .... in our army .... Exercises Zapad_81, at the training ground near Brest, a couple of hundred T-34s were used to simulate a tank attack, just with engines started, without crews. The task of repelling a massive tank attack was worked out. .. Part of the tanks could not be hit and they passed through the defense of the regiment ... The generals were especially pleased: one of the T-34s, passing the control tower, rolled on a general helicopter ..... soldiers from the support battalion barely managed to push the helicopter out of the target tank ...Something like that.
                      1. avg
                        avg 21 September 2013 17: 43
                        -4
                        . Teachings Zapad_81, at a training ground near Brest, to simulate a tank attack, they used a couple of hundred T-34s, just with engines started, without crews. The task of repelling a massive tank attack was worked out ...

                        With similar bikes, you better go to another site. I think people here are more serious.
                      2. sergey72
                        sergey72 21 September 2013 18: 14
                        +4
                        Does a young man talk about seriousness to you? In this case, this is not a bike, a real story told by my partner at work - he watched this action from the side, being a mechanic on "Shilka".
                    2. cth; fyn
                      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 44
                      +1
                      That's something like

                      In the days they were ... repeat
                    3. Eugene
                      Eugene 21 September 2013 18: 46
                      +3
                      Not Brest. The famous Dretun, Vitebsk region, as I recall. I studied myself, but daddy frolic there with homies.
            2. postman
              postman 21 September 2013 16: 01
              0
              Quote: sergey72
              You tell the tankers, otherwise the poor will shoot the entire service at targets simulating a tank.

              The tanker refuses at all to play HER, motivating him with what I described above.
              This is the way his words

              Quote: sergey72
              otherwise they shoot the whole service at targets

              What should they shoot at home?

              Nowadays, tankers and artillerymen use high-speed robotic armored vehicles as targets. They shoot at them, though from cannons, but not with shells, but with ordinary cartridges, with special inserts in gun barrels. Tracer bullets allow you to clearly see if the target is hit or not.


              Armored plate from T-34, hung on the chassis from the "Sherman", served as a target for training Israeli tankers

              Quote: sergey72
              And better to the Israelis,

              For 40 years they haven’t seen such an opponent


              Quote: sergey72
              why in the regular ammunition tanks almost half of the BPS?

              The tank is a the largest and most powerful weapon system on the battlefieldSo he is a priority target for all fire weapons of the enemy, including his tankswho have all the capabilities to perform such a task.

              Tactics of tank troops, Kuznetsov T.P. Tactics of tank troops. - M.: Military Publishing House of the NPO of the USSR, 1940.
              Tanks and tank troops. Military Publishing House, 1970, edited by A. Kh. BABAJANYAN

              ===================
              On June 12, the SS Hauptsturm Fuhrer Michael Wittmann of the 101st Panzer Battalion of the 1st SS Panzer Corps, on a single heavy tank, found a column of the 7th Panzer Division of the British on the march, firing due to natural cover, knocked out 20 Cromwell tanks during the day ”, Four“ Sherman ”three light tanks, three armored vehicles and one semi-tracked conveyor. When Bitmann himself was ambushed on July 9 and his “Tiger” was destroyed by the fire of five Canadian Sherman tanks, 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns of the enemy were considered to have been destroyed on the account of the SS Haupttturmführer who died in that battle.
              1. sergey72
                sergey72 21 September 2013 16: 18
                +5
                Quote: Postman
                What should they shoot at home?
                And where are the real goals to take? laughing Georgians do not seem to climb anymore?
                Quote: Postman
                robotic armored vehicles
                This is where such are used in our army? belay
                Quote: Postman
                Armored plate from T-34, hung on the chassis from the "Sherman", served as a target for training Israeli tankers
                And where does the training of the Israelis come from? In our army, barrel firing was not used stop ..
                Quote: Postman
                is a priority target for all enemy firepower, including its tanks
                I do not see a contradiction with what I said request
                1. Nirag013
                  Nirag013 21 September 2013 20: 54
                  +3
                  How is it that the barrels were not used ?! They were also used! That way, in the years 1977-1979, he passed military service in the repair department of the 12th gtr of the Kantemirovsk division and our gunsmiths were constantly engaged in the installation, repair and maintenance of inset barrels (that is, "barrels")!
                  1. Uruska
                    Uruska 25 September 2013 14: 55
                    0
                    They are now constantly used (loose trunks)!
                2. postman
                  postman 22 September 2013 13: 51
                  0
                  Quote: sergey72
                  Georgians do not seem to climb anymore?

                  Well, maybe. LAG excites a lot, mbh?
                  Quote: sergey72
                  This is where such are used in our army?

                  Yenenasha meant. Our Germans had to build a special center.
                  Quote: sergey72
                  And where does the training of the Israelis come from? In our army, barrel firing was not used

                  as an example, we are "tankers, but in general
                  were used
                  Quote: sergey72
                  I do not see a contradiction with what I said

                  your thought: the tank is intended to destroy the tank (the marshals are looking at the map and looking for the enemy to arrange an oncoming battle)
                  mine9 and I hope it’s generally accepted): the tank is not for battle with the tank (for which I will not repeat it), if the oncoming is already bad, miscalculation. overlay, the possibility of defeat and heavy losses. Tear, get around, hit from the rear (on the flank), CUT THE COMMUNICATIONS, PUSH THE LAN AND EQUIPMENT,

                  +++ AGREE IS THE DIFFERENCE
              2. ruslan207
                ruslan207 21 September 2013 18: 43
                0
                Something I can’t believe it seems from Hollywood movies
              3. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 00
                +2
                Quote: Postman
                Nowadays, tankers and artillerymen use high-speed robotic armored vehicles as targets. They shoot at them, though from cannons, but not with shells, but with ordinary cartridges, with special inserts in gun barrels. Tracer bullets allow you to clearly see if the target is hit or not.

                I read, had fun ...
                - The tankers have their own directors.
                - Target robots?
                Plywood movable targets - single (tank) and coupled (BZO) trolleys are driven on rails.
                - See the tracer when hit?
                A metal mesh that closes the contacts with flying ammunition.
                - Spacer insert?
                Extension barrel 14,5mm.
            3. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 16: 08
              +1
              Quote: sergey72
              Quote: Postman
              and the tank is NOT INTENDED for battle the tank against the tank, life is not WoT
              -Oh how, belay but I didn’t know! You tell the tankers, otherwise the poor will shoot the entire service at targets simulating a tank! Or better to the Israelis, they’ll have enough of them right there laughing And finally, explain to me unreasonable why in the standard ammunition tanks almost half of the BPS? request

              Alas, this is largely true. Tank versus tank is largely due to the weakness of other anti-tank weapons. Today, for example, one of the reasons for the sharp reduction in the number of AOI tank fleets is the saturation of infantry with medium and heavy ATGMs.
              1. sergey72
                sergey72 21 September 2013 18: 18
                +2
                So that's it, dear Aron, BUT remember what Merkava was originally created for and everything will fall into place ...
              2. poquello
                poquello 21 September 2013 20: 56
                +1
                Quote: Aaron Zawi

                Alas, this is largely true. Tank versus tank is largely due to the weakness of other anti-tank weapons. Today, for example, one of the reasons for the sharp reduction in the number of AOI tank fleets is the saturation of infantry with medium and heavy ATGMs.

                Interestingly, and massive offensives? Give the options with the Kursk in the modern version.
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 22: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: poquello

                  Interestingly, and massive offensives? Give the options with the Kursk in the modern version.

                  maybe I will disappoint you, but the main losses of both our and the German BTV were from means of anti-aircraft and aviation.
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 22 September 2013 17: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Aaron Zawi
                    Quote: poquello

                    Interestingly, and massive offensives? Give the options with the Kursk in the modern version.

                    maybe I will disappoint you, but the main losses of both our and the German BTV were from means of anti-aircraft and aviation.

                    I'm not about losses, I'm about tasks.
            4. kenig1
              kenig1 23 September 2013 11: 02
              +1
              the tank in the war (not against terrorists) is designed to break through the enemy’s defense, and the counterattack will also be carried out by tanks.
          2. _CAMOBAP_
            _CAMOBAP_ 21 September 2013 16: 49
            +8
            Do they have there, the task of destroying as many tank duels as possible? So any self-propelled gun will make a hole anyway.
            1. Airman
              Airman 22 September 2013 23: 17
              +5
              Quote: _CAMOBAP_
              Do they have there, the task of destroying as many tank duels as possible? So any self-propelled gun will make a hole anyway.

              The Afghan experience shows that the Duvali, and all that is made of clay, is best pierced by the Shilka with a short burst of 20-28 rounds from 4 barrels.
          3. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 17: 48
            +7
            And why this opus? What's the point of comparing 105mm and 25mm guns ???
            Abroms and Leo have 2 calibers of 120mm, our 125mm ......... so what?
            What, IS-2 of the Second World War with its 122mm shell will make a hole less?
            1. In the reeds
              In the reeds 22 September 2013 12: 36
              -2
              Shell 120mm increased power (officially so) with an initial flight speed of 1700m.s Continue?
              1. air wolf
                air wolf 31 October 2013 12: 13
                0
                Young man, did you measure the speed of this shell? And how many shots do you need to change the gun barrel?
          4. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 42
            +2
            As I understand it, it was Leo-1 in terms of the caliber of the gun? (It’s clear that its mod, but still) And Leo-1 from Leo-2 is different as T-55 from T-90, these are completely different cars.
  3. sanecc
    sanecc 23 September 2013 12: 10
    +2
    Well ---------- and where is Russo tank - in the picture the leopard and abrams - in their weight categories heavy ....... and sho?
  • Bosk
    Bosk 21 September 2013 08: 10
    22
    It is not correct to compare the T-72 with the Abrams and other Merkavas, because the Abra-Merki were created starting from the same T-72s and to fight them and judging by what kind of monsters they turned out ... not bad advertising in itself.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 09: 35
      +6
      With Mk-4 it is definitely not correct. "Four" went into service only in 2004 and until 2007 it had time to correct only childhood illnesses, but the machine was from a different generation than the T-72.
    2. ka5280
      ka5280 21 September 2013 10: 57
      16
      My opinion is that neither Leo2 nor Abrams will be able to fight in Russia because of the overwhelming mass. In the territory of the former USSR, the locality is crossed and the road network is poorly developed. Here the T-72 will reveal its full potential!
      1. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka 21 September 2013 12: 19
        15 th
        Quote: ka5280
        My opinion is that neither Leo2 nor Abrams will be able to fight in Russia because of the overwhelming mass. In the territory of the former USSR, the locality is crossed and the road network is poorly developed. Here the T-72 will reveal its full potential!

        They were not created for Russia.
        The harm article is correct, but the situation is shown here when using domestic anti-tank weapons, which is currently insufficient. Let's just say it does not meet the modern level. And the probable enemy is armed with a completely different weaponry, an order of magnitude higher than kvass and there is simply nothing to resist. The tanks will be knocked out, even before entering the battle line.
        1. 31231
          31231 21 September 2013 12: 55
          +4
          And what will Carrots say to this, after Lebanon 2006 ?! Or American silver carp after the fighting in Fallujah ?!
          1. alone
            alone 21 September 2013 22: 14
            -8
            what about merkava I’ll say this. in 2006, during the second Lebanese company, the loss of irretrievable losses in tanks amounted to only 5 vehicles, of which 2 were blown up on high-explosive bombs of 1,5 tons of TNT. But no one considered how many anti-tank weapons were spent. I’ll think about a thousand and a half rounds of RPG-7 and ptursov. If you honestly judge, a good result for tanks. And then of these 5 vehicles, not all were of the 4th modification. After the fighting, Israel decided to install a trophy system on MK4.
            1. 31231
              31231 21 September 2013 22: 42
              11
              2 were blown up on powerful 1,5t TNT mines
              Another Jewish tale. Like the fact that about 1500 rockets (grenades) were fired at the tanks.

              I, as an industrial explosive, can cite such a fact. We carve metal ingots and kazly at one metallurgical plant. The total charge mass is limited to 40 kg. The explosive is distributed evenly over the holes, and is not focused by a HE bomb. The armored plate is covered with a stove of 70 tons. The plate flies up to 1,5 meters.
              Another example, under a block of stone about 30 m3 (weighing 60 tons) was laid a 40 kg-th bag of explosives (grammonite). Large fragments flew to a distance of over 50 meters.
              1. Armata
                Armata 21 September 2013 22: 47
                +7
                Quote: 31231
                Another Jewish tale. Like the fact that about 1500 rockets (grenades) were fired at the tanks.
                Koment good And about 1,5 tone, he doesn’t say where after that the merkava flew away. And how many of these landmines were buried. laughing
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 September 2013 23: 06
                  +3
                  Quote: Mechanic
                  And about 1,5 tone, he's not talking

                  Merkava »MK2 of the Alef Company of the 82 Battalion of the 7 Armored Brigade was sent to Lebanon opposite the Israeli village of Zarit in order to occupy a position in 500 meters from the border at the prevailing height from which the road leading to the village of Aita Hashabah was controlled . From there, the tank was supposed to prevent Lebanese vehicles from accessing the border. "Merkava" was blown up by a land mine containing 900-1,100 kg (!) EXPLOSIVES was such a force that the turret of the tank was thrown at a distance of 130 meters from the site of the explosion. Some debris was thrown to a distance of 800 m and fell into Israeli territory


                  After Slavin’s tank was hit, the battalion commander of the 52th battalion of the 401th armored brigade Guy Kabili to the Merkava Mk.4 hastened to help and, in violation of his own order, decided to shorten the path and drove along the highway. The highway was mined, and Guy's tank was blown up by a land mine containing 300-350 kg of explosives. There were 7 people in the tank (apparently, officers of the battalion's headquarters, including an artillery support officer - KASHA), a gunner - Kobi Smilg died in the explosion, the battalion commander received moderate injuries (according to another source - severe wounds). The tank turned over from the explosion, then the 3 ATGM “Baby” were fired at it, although it is unclear whether they hit the target. It should be noted that the bow was completely demolished from the mine explosion (see 3 photo below). However, 6 crew members (including the driver) survived.

                  1. 31231
                    31231 22 September 2013 09: 38
                    +3
                    Do not tell me how to measure the weight of the already exploded explosives ?! On the explosion funnel ?!
                    In general, write a lot that you can. The paper will endure.
                    1. In the reeds
                      In the reeds 22 September 2013 12: 23
                      -5
                      No. Only dressing.
                2. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 12: 55
                  +5
                  Quote: Mechanic
                  And about 1,5 tons, he does not say where after this the merkava flew away. And how many of these landmines buried

                  Well, it was possible not to bury, but to use a drainage pipe under the canvas.
                  And where she flew away - it’s known, to God, to the court ...
                  Fot photo of the explosion on standard mines

                  [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0uB5_lv-T48/TzjBYTgh1VI/AAAAAAAACoU/P0phQerEi6M/s


                  640 / rice-2.jpg [/ img]




                  [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0uB5_lv-T48/TzjBYTgh1VI/AAAAAAAACoU/P0phQerEi6M/s

                  640 / rice-2.jpg [/ img]

                  Charges up to 9 kg were used - with a 1500 kg charge, I think I can only remove one funnel ...
                  1. shasherin_pavel
                    shasherin_pavel 24 September 2013 20: 26
                    +1
                    What are you doing from vinaigrette photos? He signed the top photo about BMPT and below the rest he didn’t sign that it’s running gear from the T-54 A, not even the T-55, those already had other road wheels and sloths of a different design. And as for the high-explosive mine, and so in the memoirs of one colonel of the armored forces, a case was described when a ton bomb flew under the KV-1 bottom. An explosion from the floor of the HF threw the earth and it collapsed into the funnel, where it fit with the tower, that is, at first it seemed that nothing was left of the tank, but after some time the gun barrel appeared from the funnel, it’s a tank , back and forth - moving forward, crawled out from under the ground collapsing upon him. A tank 10 mm thick was bent inward at the tank 40 cm, but after changing the crew who received shell shock in the tank, KV participated in repulsing the attack half an hour later and spent another month before sending it for repair. Of course, the case is unique, and perhaps one of a kind, because the bomb would shift a little to the side and the tank would be turned upside down by caterpillars. But the chassis wasn’t affected either.
                3. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 13: 05
                  +1
                  Like this.........
                4. Semen Semyonitch
                  Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 03: 28
                  +3
                  Quote: Mechanic
                  Quote: 31231
                  Another Jewish tale. Like the fact that about 1500 rockets (grenades) were fired at the tanks.
                  Koment good And about 1,5 tone, he doesn’t say where after that the merkava flew away. And how many of these landmines were buried. laughing

                  Worked out the concept of access to Earth orbit)))
                  1. kirpich
                    kirpich 26 September 2013 10: 30
                    +1
                    Semyon Semyonovich (movie "The Diamond Arm") good good drinks
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 21 September 2013 18: 16
          +2
          Quote: Vovka Levka
          A probable enemy is armed with a completely different weapon, an order of magnitude higher than kvass

          Here is the last word and you can judge what weapons the probable opponent laughing
        3. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 06
          13
          This article cannot be wrong ...... this is a documentary story of a practitioner (and not a theorist’s fantasy) with a lot of facts and photos. And who told you that Soviet-Russian anti-tank weapons are not enough ....... Abroms are enough ....... even RPG-7 (from Vietnam)
          And only our ATGMs are sold all over the world, in your opinion, due to the fact that "they do not meet the modern level"?
          And what kind of "completely different" weaponry does the likely enemy have? Moreover, by an order of magnitude (for those who do not know, order is ten times).
          And, by the way, access to the combat line is carried out exclusively through the orders of their troops. Therefore, only their own can knock out tanks. :)
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 21 September 2013 14: 10
        13 th
        And what does the mass have to do with it? On the bridges pass and okay. But with a specific pressure at the bottom how? Yes, and with mobility better than ours
        1. 31231
          31231 21 September 2013 19: 38
          +3
          Ground pressure is of course an indicator. I’m not a tanker, but in Russian conditions I saw earth moving and caterpillar equipment drowning. And always, the larger it is, the more often it drowns. Although the specific pressure is the same as that of a small one due to the larger size of the tracks.
          I personally can explain this by the fact that in statics this specific pressure on the ground is an indicator indicator. But when the tank moves and maneuvers on the road, the center of gravity of it is very much shifted and here the mass makes itself felt.
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 21 September 2013 22: 11
            +3
            Quote: 31231
            I’m not a tanker, but in Russian conditions I saw earth moving and caterpillar equipment drowning. And always, the larger it is, the more often it drowns. Although the specific pressure is the same as that of a small one due to the larger size of the tracks.

            So yes, my experience and conclusions are the same. The theoretical justification is difficult to summarize, I graduated from high school a long time ago ... laughing . One of Newton’s laws states that the force of gravitational attraction between two material points of mass m_1 and m_2, separated by a distance R, is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Since the distance between the Earth and the tanks in the same area is the same, the mass of the Earth is the same, the gravitational constant is called - the constant, it turns out that everything depends on the mass of the tank. The larger it is, the greater the gravitational attraction. Again, the kinetic energy of the body depends on mass and speed and, at the same speed, the greater the mass, the greater the kinetic energy. And since the kinetic energy of the foreign tanks is higher and directed when moving stronger toward the center of the Earth, then they will sink deeper and better! Proved by Svyatogor! By the way smile
            Okay, this is all a physical and lyrical digression with which I wanted to show that life is not a guide. Specific pressure is, of course, an important indicator. But provided that the movement is uniform, rectilinear, without sharp turns, braking, jumping and lifting. Even in peacetime, such conditions are rare, and even more so in battle.
            Okay, Nick justified, I'll go get some tea ...
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 29 September 2013 20: 10
              0
              In childhood, I watched a TV report on how a T-100 tractor was pulled out from under the ice. I remember standing on the ice Zil-130. His specific pressure is clearly no less.
          2. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 24 September 2013 20: 33
            +2
            From my own experience, I can say that the DT-75 tracked tractor will not follow the T-25 "Vladimir" by the smallest Soviet wheeled tractor. Whatever it was, weight is more important than the specific load on the ground.
            1. kirpich
              kirpich 26 September 2013 10: 39
              0
              To whom did he prove?
        2. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 15
          +6
          they won’t pass on our bridges!
          90% of bridges in Russia of regional significance with a limited carrying capacity of 25-30 tons. Therefore, 90% of overcoming water barriers occurs in the ford (where partisans live and feed) :)
          And their mobility is much worse than ours due to the worse L / H ratio and lower power density per unit weight.
          1. In the reeds
            In the reeds 22 September 2013 12: 59
            -9
            We don’t need your bridges and your tanks on the side of them in real theaters ... Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan. Who is going to fight in Russia ... (Just how to build roads)
            1. Airman
              Airman 22 September 2013 23: 32
              +1
              Quote: In the reeds
              We don’t need your bridges and your tanks on the side of them in real theaters ... Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan. Who is going to fight in Russia ... (Just how to build roads)

              Therefore, you have to wait a long time, because we have two troubles: roads and fools in the government, until we change the second, we will not have the first!
        3. Semen Semyonitch
          Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 03: 34
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          And what does the mass have to do with it? On the bridges pass and okay. But with a specific pressure at the bottom how? Yes, and with mobility better than ours

          Pass then they, maybe, will pass ... Only who will give them? With mobility is better, did you mean speed in reverse gear ??? laughing
      3. Simon
        Simon 21 September 2013 17: 49
        +3
        Yeah, in our swamps they will have a cemetery. laughing
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 21 September 2013 18: 13
          +3
          There is such an expression "tank-dangerous direction", I mean that Russia is not just some swamps and dense forests, but also the so-called "tank-dangerous directions" and no matter how strange these directions sound in Russia ... the chessboard of lines, this is me to the fact that not everything is so simple.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 48
            +2
            not so simple

            And then there are the valiant Engineer Troops ... and mine !!! am
            1. Bosk
              Bosk 21 September 2013 19: 36
              +1
              Note ... both of the one and the other side!, I mean that if anyone says that "Abrams" but crawls to the Urals ... well, Duc dilettante is not a profession.
          2. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 17
            11
            In Russia, in dangerous areas for a long time, DANGEROUS ROADS !!! :)
            1. Bosk
              Bosk 22 September 2013 06: 42
              0
              I don’t want to sound like an amateur ... but for the tank the main thing is not the quality of the road, but its availability, I’m talking about those who didn’t drive at full speed on the tank on asphalt ...
              1. svp67
                svp67 22 September 2013 13: 12
                +2
                Quote: Bosk
                I don’t want to sound like an amateur ... but for the tank the main thing is not the quality of the road, but its availability, I’m talking about those who didn’t drive at full speed on the tank on asphalt ...

                I can say more, the main thing for a tank is not even the presence of a road, but the DIRECTION of movement, and then how the crew will decide whether to move on the road or off-road ... Sometimes, in most cases, the latter is more "useful" for health ...
            2. In the reeds
              In the reeds 22 September 2013 13: 25
              -4
              And a rake, well, to be honest, like a biathlon
            3. shasherin_pavel
              shasherin_pavel 24 September 2013 20: 50
              +1
              And where in Russia are palm groves, can you tell me? I can't figure it out: is it Abrams or Leclerc drowning among Russian "birches"?
        2. In the reeds
          In the reeds 22 September 2013 13: 07
          -9
          So build inflatable tanks and name T-7 2 times
        3. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 24 September 2013 20: 45
          0
          Simon! and you looked beyond your nose? I drove on the 99th in 2005 from Murmansk to the Black Sea and I was especially struck by the lands below Moscow, watched and sometimes thought how I would build an anti-tank defense here and realized that even if I had a regiment of that time, I would be bypassed on the flanks, even on the left, even on the right, let alone Voronezh open spaces and Krasnodar, I’m generally silent, in dry weather you can drive anywhere in Zhiguli. Only on water barriers and hope, because there are pontoon crossings. Or you will only lure enemies into the swamps under Peter.
      4. ruslan207
        ruslan207 21 September 2013 18: 49
        +1
        It seems that the IS-7 under the weight of the mercenaries was refused that not one bridge of such weight could not withstand yes and railway transport is also problematic
    3. duke
      duke 21 September 2013 13: 30
      24
      the abrams in Iraq, using their superiority, in that they had modern ones: sights, SLAs, thermal imagers, armor-piercing shells, shot at Iraqi tanks (including t-72s, and there were not only them, but also t -54,55 and their Chinese clones) only from limiting distances of 2,5-3 km, as soon as a battle ensued at shorter distances, where the Iraqis could use the capabilities of their equipment, the amers immediately called attack aircraft or helicopters, but didn’t got involved, so there is no question of correctness. What is this duel when only one duelist shoots? The frontal armor of the tower and the Abrams hull provide protection against anti-tank weapons that were in service with the Iraqi army. However, the side and aft projections remain vulnerable to grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.
      Cases of tank failure by fire from the stern of both 25 mm cannons of “their own” BMD “Bradley” and 30 mm cannons of BMP-2 were recorded. Not fit into the allotted weight restrictions, the designers were forced to sacrifice the armoring of the sides of the hull, which provides protection against armor-piercing shells of a 30-mm gun only at a heading angle of + - 30 degrees, where side screens with a thickness of 70 mm are installed. The remaining sections of the side are 5 mm mild steel, followed by 30 mm of the hull armored steel. Such an obstacle is struck by 30 mm BMP-2 cannons with 2000 m cannons (when using armor-piercing sub-caliber shells), when using conventional armor-piercing shells this distance is slightly lower. So one “Abrams” ("due to the secondary effect") that was fired from a 12,7 mm DShK machine gun. The bullet hit the left rear of the tower, where the APU is located, broke a box, disabled the unit, and burning fuel and oil spilled out of it into the MTO. The power plant ignited, which completely burned out, the tank cannot be restored. According to the materials of the US Army Automobile Armored Directorate (TACOM) and the US Army Experience Experience Center (CALL), the 3rd Mechanized Division in 21 days of the operation carried out by enemy fire or as a result of friendly fire, only 23 M1A1 Abrams and M2 / M3 IFVs were hit "Bradley." Fifteen of them (including nine Abrams and six Bradley) were hit from RPG-7. The superiority of the United States is not in Abrams, but in the responsibility of the commanding staff, competent planning of operations, excellent troop controllability, communication, coordination and coordination by the actions of all involved arms of service, saturation with modern instruments, training, and finally logistics. This is not a question of whether the t-72 is good or bad, I think that the amers on the old t-72 would defeat any enemy in Iraq, and they would also praise that they say a good tank.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 September 2013 13: 53
        0
        The fact is that already on M2 the APU was removed from the balcony behind the tower, and if we take into account that they all upgraded their abrams to the M2 level, then this minus can no longer be considered, but other disadvantages, such as a weak feed side, a large gap between the hull and they will not be able to remove the tower laughing
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 24
          +7
          The sides and sterns of Abrams are really protected worse than ours (and thinner), but the Pentagon’s biggest military secret is that its upper (roof) armor plates are pierced through with the bottom of regular ammunition PUSHEK 23-30 mm of all Soviet-Russian helicopters.
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 22: 32
            +3
            Pictures are cool but they haven’t changed the total.
            1. soldier of fortune
              soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 00: 42
              0
              As in the dispute between a boxer and a nerd :)
      2. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka 21 September 2013 13: 55
        +6
        Quote: duke
        the abrams in Iraq, using their superiority, in that they had modern ones: sights, SLAs, thermal imagers, armor-piercing shells, shot at Iraqi tanks (including t-72s, and there were not only them, but also t -54,55 and their Chinese clones) only from limiting distances of 2,5-3 km, as soon as a battle ensued at shorter distances, where the Iraqis could use the capabilities of their equipment, the amers immediately called attack aircraft or helicopters, but didn’t got involved, so there is no question of correctness. What is this duel when only one duelist shoots? The frontal armor of the tower and the Abrams hull provide protection against anti-tank weapons that were in service with the Iraqi army. However, the side and aft projections remain vulnerable to grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.
        Cases of tank failure by fire from the stern of both 25 mm cannons of “their own” BMD “Bradley” and 30 mm cannons of BMP-2 were recorded. Not fit into the allotted weight restrictions, the designers were forced to sacrifice the armoring of the sides of the hull, which provides protection against armor-piercing shells of a 30-mm gun only at a heading angle of + - 30 degrees, where side screens with a thickness of 70 mm are installed. The remaining sections of the side are 5 mm mild steel, followed by 30 mm of the hull armored steel. Such an obstacle is struck by 30 mm BMP-2 cannons with 2000 m cannons (when using armor-piercing sub-caliber shells), when using conventional armor-piercing shells this distance is slightly lower. So one “Abrams” ("due to the secondary effect") that was fired from a 12,7 mm DShK machine gun. The bullet hit the left rear of the tower, where the APU is located, broke a box, disabled the unit, and burning fuel and oil spilled out of it into the MTO. The power plant ignited, which completely burned out, the tank cannot be restored. According to the materials of the US Army Automobile Armored Directorate (TACOM) and the US Army Experience Experience Center (CALL), the 3rd Mechanized Division in 21 days of the operation carried out by enemy fire or as a result of friendly fire, only 23 M1A1 Abrams and M2 / M3 IFVs were hit "Bradley." Fifteen of them (including nine Abrams and six Bradley) were hit from RPG-7. The superiority of the United States is not in Abrams, but in the responsibility of the commanding staff, competent planning of operations, excellent troop controllability, communication, coordination and coordination by the actions of all involved arms of service, saturation with modern instruments, training, and finally logistics. This is not a question of whether the t-72 is good or bad, I think that the amers on the old t-72 would defeat any enemy in Iraq, and they would also praise that they say a good tank.

        Totally agree with you.
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 21 September 2013 14: 13
        +1
        So what is described and called competent tactics.
        All tanks have only a forehead protected, everybody is sometimes struck aboard RPG-7, and RPG-7 with a tandem confidently. So ... war rebellion is not an indicator, but the opportunity to grind the T-72 at night from distances such that they sometimes could not see the danger - this is an achievement!
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 32
          +2
          sometimes on board and RPG-7

          Dear cdrt, have you ever read an article?
          In the course of these battles, the tank with airborne No.611 from / tr. During the 2 of the day of continuous combat, the 3 ATGM of the Fagot class and 6 grenades from RPG-7 fell into this car.


          The hits occurred in the following parts of the tank.

          ATGM - to the left under the tower (all):

          • two - in the fuel tanks on the fenders under the turret, which, during the fighting, the tank crews always kept them “dry”. Bucky swelled and torn, then the elements of the hinged dynamic protection on the tower worked, there was no armor penetration;

          <br>• one - on board under the tower; it is reflected by the activated element of the mounted dynamic protection mounted on rubber-metal side screens.

          Grenades from RPG-7:

          • one - on top of the commander's hatch of the tower; a cumulative jet pierced the hatch and, without hitting the tank commander, went into the aft wall of the tower;

          • two - to the left in the upper frontal part of the tower; neutralized with activated elements of mounted dynamic protection;

          <br>• three - on board cases, 2 on the left and 1 on the right; all are reflected by dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens.
        2. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 28
          +3
          but they themselves did not get sour from the poorly trained and poorly armed militia from RPG-7 (Vietnam)
      4. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 14: 45
        +3
        Quote: duke
        What is this duel when only one duelist shoots?

        War.
        1. duke
          duke 22 September 2013 08: 53
          +1
          thanks for the humor Aaron - in the style of Tsar Leonid - is short and clear, not even a war, but the beating of Herod by infants ... my question was rhetorical drinks
      5. hiocraib
        hiocraib 21 September 2013 17: 10
        +6
        Quote: duke
        the abrams in Iraq, using their superiority, in that they had modern ones: sights, SLAs, thermal imagers, armor-piercing shells, shot at Iraqi tanks (including t-72s, and there were not only them, but also t -54,55 and their Chinese clones) only from limiting distances of 2,5-3 km, as soon as a battle ensued at shorter distances, where the Iraqis could use the capabilities of their equipment, the amers immediately called attack aircraft or helicopters, but didn’t got involved, so there is no question of correctness. What is this duel when only one duelist shoots?

        and we have always been taught (SA) that it should be so - the soldier’s task is not to die heroically, but to kill as many enemies as possible.
        and leave any whining about the "duel" to the poor and weak screamers.
        1. duke
          duke 22 September 2013 08: 39
          +5
          you don’t know how to read to the end and listen to others - he wanted to understand, because no one disputed the literacy of the American command and the experience of the tank crews, but it was said that the amers avoided a direct, duel clash with the t-72, t. to. even the old cumulative or BPS (produced before 1973) hit the forehead of the tower of Abram, even if the armor did not penetrate, it caused destruction of depleted uranium plates that are built into the frontal armor of its tower, I think the consequences for the crews are clear, they have not yet learned how to extract radioactive dust from the lungs. A delayed, but guaranteed death of American crews, damaged tanks, including and from friendly fire even from small-caliber guns, due to the massive use in their armor-piercing shells of the same depleted uranium, alas, it was no longer heroic — in hospitals or on the streets in America. The rest, as you ask, I leave you stop
      6. Borz
        Borz 21 September 2013 18: 20
        +7
        I can not disagree with you. Competent planning and command and control, communications and, as a result, coordinated actions are the main components of success on the battlefield. Example: in the first days of the war, our KV and T-34, in terms of performance characteristics superior to ALL available on that Wehrmacht tanks, NOTHING (except in cases of desperate heroism in hopeless situations) could not be opposed to the organized onslaught of the Germans. Well, we didn’t have coordination in combat work, there was no one to say anything. And they threw equipment (without shells and fuel), and counterattacked without the support of the infantry. Everything was until we learned how to fight.
        1. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 21 September 2013 19: 40
          +2
          Quote: Borz
          I can not disagree with you. Competent planning and command and control, communications and, as a result, coordinated actions are the main components of success on the battlefield. Example: in the first days of the war, our KV and T-34, in terms of performance characteristics superior to ALL available on that Wehrmacht tanks, NOTHING (except in cases of desperate heroism in hopeless situations) could not be opposed to the organized onslaught of the Germans. Well, we didn’t have coordination in combat work, there was no one to say anything. And they threw equipment (without shells and fuel), and counterattacked without the support of the infantry. Everything was until we learned how to fight.

          What was, was.
      7. vikruss
        vikruss 28 October 2013 18: 15
        0
        Here is an example of a worthy Analyst ... Thank you very honestly clever and reasonable.
  • Nukem999
    Nukem999 21 September 2013 08: 20
    21 th
    .................
  • Nukem999
    Nukem999 21 September 2013 08: 23
    14 th
    .................
    1. viktorR
      viktorR 21 September 2013 11: 09
      21
      Nukem finish already post these crafts, what do they have to do with tanks? And you are not tired of posting a video with foreign equipment in all articles about our equipment? I’m already tired of minus you.
    2. duke
      duke 21 September 2013 13: 41
      +5
      Yes, no doubt, a beautiful design, but when it is released and the main characteristics are known, then we'll talk, but how about the boys in the dispute, and the neighbor won’t like it, but everything is bad with us ... It's difficult to discuss the layout, I I always said that a comprehensive and systematic approach to the whole cycle is needed - from understanding tasks, development, to using military equipment, and in combination with other types of troops, like the amers in Iraq. As the director of the ballet troupe said to the beginning ballerina, in response to a request to make her prima - uh ... wait and see ...
      1. avg
        avg 21 September 2013 17: 50
        +1
        yes no doubt, beautiful design, but when it is released and the main characteristics are known, then we'll talk

        They can release it in a couple of months, now computer games are quickly riveted, and "armored specialists" like "Nukem999" will include it in the next rating.
  • T-73
    T-73 21 September 2013 08: 25
    +8
    Well, of course, Abrams is the best tank in the world. True, one of those that he will encounter on the theater is hardly possible. The American agency cannot allow its tankers to kneel, not to mention the other owners of the best tanks in the world, especially at number 3. And as Matroskin said: I can still embroider, in the sense: we will still have Armata) )
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 21 September 2013 13: 20
      +5
      Quote: T-73
      Well, of course, Abrams is the best tank in the world.

      They forgot the stronghold. According to our Ukrainian friends, he is the best.
      As I said, whoever conducts the simulation wins
  • Revolver
    Revolver 21 September 2013 08: 25
    +1
    But most importantly, the compilers of the rating did not take into account the results of the hostilities during the operation in Dagestan and the Chechen Republic. Here, Russian T-72 tanks and even T-62 "veterans" far surpassed in their survivability the vaunted "Abrams" used during the aggression against Iraq.
    I would not know the facts, I would have thought that the “Abrams” participated in the battles in the Caucasus. The author should learn to express thoughts in a way that is easy and unambiguous to understand. And the article itself deserves a plus.
  • Su-9
    Su-9 21 September 2013 08: 26
    14
    According to the photo, and the description of the fighting, the article - what you need!
    But a comparison of any complex types of weapons is a thankless task. You can choose 10k characteristics and rig them as you want - at least show that the Royal Tiger is the best tank in the world (which of course is not true even in WWII). The article begins with the mention of some absolutely unauthorized rating (such as one grandmother said), and then describes the combat biography of tanks in Chechnya. And what is the conclusion? Less need to pay attention to propaganda from the West / East, and engage in the same propaganda if you want to!
    Of course - the T-72 is one of the best tanks of its time by the criterion of cost / effectiveness. And the fighters who fought on it can confirm its high survival rate with the right tactics. With the wrong tactics, a completely different picture is obtained (unfortunately, there are also enough examples).
    It is possible to compare the combat survivability in the event of a cumulative grenade only in the field conditions - 3 rounds per side / feed for each and see what happens. So of course no one is comparing, or comparing, but not disclosed.
    Of course, when people believe the bad "Discovery" propaganda that the Abrams are the most and cannot be pierced by anything, this only shows the stupidity of the people themselves. But the same RPG7 Abrams do not hold badly at all, it is certainly comparable to the T-72. The vampire of course will make them on board the only way.
    Again, if you compare the tanks, it would be nice to have them at least sometimes in a theoretical battle face to face with the same trained crew in the same conditions (which in itself is on the verge of fiction).
    But this is probably the only qualitative comparison. I don’t know if the T-72 would be the winner in this duel in most cases ... The T-84/90 would have better chances, like the Leopard, by the way.
    But a tank, as I understand it, is a weapon of the concept of combat doctrine, so that even with weaker individually, but more organized, trained units, the enemy can be captured, cut off and stabbed even at a tactical level. But quantity / ease of maintenance play a role (as an example - T-34-76 versus T-4/5/6).
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 12
      +4
      The T-72 lacks the "Cowboy" armored suit, and then the survival rate of the crews under the armored impact would have increased significantly, but unfortunately we have these cowboys only by 1/3 l / s.
    2. ka5280
      ka5280 21 September 2013 11: 25
      +2
      Golden words!
  • vladstro
    vladstro 21 September 2013 08: 31
    +6
    and still do not forget about the automatic loader, still a person can be tired and shell-shocked
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 17
      +4
      And AZ is the protection of shells, practically the shells located in the AZ cannot detonate, because they are located in the most difficult site of the tank and are covered on all sides by the structure of the AZ itself, as well as the armor of the tank, and on the sides by rubber-fabric screens and rollers.
      After all, those shells that are not in the AZ are detonated, because the charge is made combustible and, unlike, for example, shells with a steel sleeve, is more exposed to external negative factors.
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 39
        +3
        A small correction ........... The cumulative jet and the caliber projectile hit the BC, as well as the 122-155mm HE bomb hit the side of the tower at an angle close to the direct and normally worked ABSOLUTELY DO NOT care how the BC lies and what type it is ( unitary or split sleeve) if it suffers, it will take down the tower! (for heavy Leo2 and Merkav it may not be demolished, but the tank is UNDER CHARGED!)

        ........ photo proto so (there may not have been a detonation but the result is the same)
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 21 September 2013 13: 25
      +2
      Quote: vladstro
      and still do not forget about the automatic loader

      And even better about SU-whoever shoots accurately and wins.
      Then he watched a tank biathlon, of four crews, without a doubt the best in their districts, three shamelessly anointed, and from a standing position
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 21 September 2013 14: 07
        +2
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Then he watched a tank biathlon, of four crews, without a doubt the best in their districts, three shamelessly anointed, and from a standing position

        In a live biathlon, they also smear, and if they suddenly start to hit, then the targets will be reduced.
      2. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 46
        +2
        yes ........ there were times when for such a shooting in the presence of Moscow Region they were removed from their posts and demoted :)
        A co-worker told: After firing the ZVO, the commander’s platoon was lowered in rank (it shot worse than subordinates). And the colleague with the crew was given a letter and a letter (5 shots of 5 hits + a march without breakdowns and a strip without jambs)
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 21 September 2013 08: 36
    +8
    Vitality is of course good, and we can agree with this, but we must agree that the main task of the tank is not just to survive, but to inflict maximum damage to the enemy as soon as possible and at the maximum distance, but according to these parameters, our 72 is inferior to many tanks, T- 90 is quite competitive, but only in the export version. they buy to Russia as cheaply as possible, which means without modern guidance, search and protection devices, at least as many experts say.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 21
      +1
      And the fact that now, in connection with the rejection of the T-80 (personal opinion), you began to put Sosna-U on the T-72, as if you did not notice?
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 21 September 2013 11: 49
      +4
      Quote: vladsolo56
      as cheap as possible, which means without modern guidance devices

      Just a modern sight with a thermal imager was installed on the "budget" modification of the T-72B3.
      This, of course, is the main thing that was missing, but, on the other, really, how
      Quote: vladsolo56
      say many experts.
      , alas ... no money.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 21 September 2013 14: 12
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      but we must agree that the main task of the tank is not just to survive, but to inflict maximum damage to the enemy as soon as possible and at the maximum distance, but according to these parameters, our 72 is inferior to many tanks

      You have the wrong tank doctrine. The main task of the tanks is to break through the enemy’s defenses in a bottleneck, go to the rear and, riding a transport artery, cut off the supply of the enemy army. And the infantry support on the battlefield is carried out by assault guns and other self-propelled guns, to support the infantry - firing from a place at an external target designation - such expensive vehicles are redundant.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 21 September 2013 18: 41
        +1
        Doctrine, then it is a doctrine, and if there is no narrow revenge then what? only if it happens like under Prokhorovka, did the tanks come together and then what? And by the way, I’m not sure that today there is such a stupid commander who will send infantry to the enemy’s defended positions in an attack. First, everything must be destroyed by artillery and from the air.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 50
        +1
        But will you name the assault guns now in service with the RA, sir?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 21 September 2013 21: 56
          0
          Quote: cth; fyn
          But will you name the assault guns now in service with the RA, sir?

          And there is nothing to be proud of. Previously, tanks were shoved everywhere, but now they are expensive and they simply will not be enough.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 21 September 2013 22: 42
            0
            but the assault guns ended in the 44th.
    4. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 55
      0
      Well, I would not believe all the experts ...... it was too much of them divorced writing all sorts of nonsense. And as for the LMS, optics and mechanics should be loved (at least as a reserve). Our humidity and frost, with sudden changes in temperature, the electronics have not yet learned to endure. In Siberia, because of this, they began to abandon LCD avionics and electronic avionics on airplanes (including the AN-2) and switch to analog. RELIABILITY - BEFORE EVERYTHING !!!
  • krpmlws
    krpmlws 21 September 2013 08: 51
    +1
    How many readers can be stuffed with "authoritative" foreign ratings and opinions? Do we have our own heads on our shoulders, perhaps, our own experts?
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 21 September 2013 09: 23
      20
      We have a tank biathlon, where T-72 shells hit the target "tank" at 1,6-1,8 km with conventional shells 5 times out of 12.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 09: 37
        +3
        Quote: Dunno
        We have a tank biathlon, where T-72 shells hit the target "tank" at 1,6-1,8 km with conventional shells 5 times out of 12.

        My acquaintances tankers said that with the T-72 gun control system, firing cumulative shells at 1.6-1.8 km, the result is not bad.
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 September 2013 10: 05
          +3
          Cumulative shells with an initial velocity of 905 m / s from the T-72B without an automated control system (TBV T-72B only takes into account the flank speed of the target and the distance, and even then the first parameter must be entered into the control system manually) from a distance of 1,6-1,8 km - Of course the result will not be so hot: Here the data given by someone about 42% of hits may well correspond to reality. But when firing BOPS with an initial speed of 1700-1800m / s, the results should be much better. If from a place in calm weather on a serviceable tank, then at least 70% of hits.
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 23
          +2
          It depends on what modification and under what conditions, it’s not a secret for anyone that they put on the T-72 cheaper, and all the cream went to the T-80 and T-64
          1. Crang
            Crang 21 September 2013 11: 25
            0
            That's not true.
        3. Alekseev
          Alekseev 21 September 2013 11: 45
          11
          Your friends are not competent! fool
          From place to this range, "normal" (true, meaning practical shells, analogue of ammunition) at the target "tank", for information, the size is not small - 2 m 37 cm * 3 m 42 cm) of 12 shots should be 12 hits, and in an area with a diameter of 1 m, and on the move it is perfectly necessary to hit from 3 shots at least 2 times.
          Maybe, of course, that the weapons were not brought to a normal battle ...
          Or, the warrior was sitting in a stupid tank. One out of two...
          I can’t believe that it was possible that they fired from a gun with such wear on the barrel channel that it scattered shells like a shotgun.
          The TMS on the T-72 is simpler, of course, than, for example, the TMS on 1A33 (1A34) used on the (T-80B, T-64B, analogue on the T-90), but nonetheless effective enough for military operations like the Chechen wars and abruptly ..
          At the present time, of course, the T-72 "tank-soldier" itself is a little outdated and requires either deep modernization (T-90 various modifications) or replacement (MBT on the Armata platform).
          Least, the installation of modern all-weather aiming and surveillance devices (like the T-72B3), amplification of remote sensing and the use of more powerful ammunition.
          And a little "old horse that does not spoil the furrows", a reliable, strong combat vehicle will serve!
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 23 September 2013 19: 58
            0
            Quote: Alekseev
            Your friends are not competent! fool

            Maybe, but here is an excerpt from their discussion of the topic on waronline. By the way, Gilad reserve major participated in battles with the Syrians back in 1982, as a junior tank officer.
            gilad
             
            Yaf said: ↑
            So I say, integrity has increased markedly.
            They just aimed too painfully slowly. Interestingly, how much time is given for tanks to heal us?

            We have? There is no clear standard in battle. This will be a time that is sufficient to confidently hit the target, but not enough for the goal to hit us. If you did not manage on time, then urgently change the position.
            If we talk about sports standards, then at brigade or division competitions in high-speed shooting from a platoon of 3 tanks (3500-3700 m), the winners showed a result of about 20 seconds (sometimes several seconds faster). That is, each goal took up to 7 seconds or less.
            Today the standards are the same, but the distances are further. The forum has a gunner-sniper Mike - he can talk about more interesting exercises.
            gilad, Yesterday, at 23:47 # 1386 Edited by gilad, Yesterday, at 23:52
            Mike
             
            The M60 tank (MAGAH-6-bet) with the GMS Gal was a design feature - it did not manage to compensate for the angle between the sight mirror and the declination of the gun in less than 2 - 2.5 seconds (EMNIP). On simulators, we beat this speed, but there is a computer simulation and all the targets at known distances. Sleight of hand and a bit of fraud.
            At the training grounds, cool crews could and should have fired the first shell 4 seconds after leaving the position. Then everything depends on the adjustment and the conditions of the terrain / goals.
            Less than 3.5 seconds to the first target - it was already aerobatics. (implies that the target should be hit)
            3 goals in 20 seconds - this is quite realistic if the goals are on the same line with a spread of up to 50 meters in range.

      2. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 21 September 2013 10: 28
        +3
        Some crews did not hit a single target, such training in the army
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 24
          +2
          The melancholy is sad, and what to do if the guys are mostly stuffed with notes, my friend the Gunner says he always sat in the self-propelled guns 2 times, in 2010 he served as a guy.
          1. Semen Semyonitch
            Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 04: 26
            0
            Quote: cth; fyn
            The melancholy is sad, and what to do if the guys are mostly stuffed with notes, my friend the Gunner says he always sat in the self-propelled guns 2 times, in 2010 he served as a guy.

            Have you watched biathlon? There, some "boys" are well over 30. These are "contrabass" and officers, and the best crews in their districts. And the conclusion is simply CARAUL. Either the guns are really dead, or, don't shoot the pianist "... How the conscripts will shoot, it's scary to think. Armata, of course, is a good thing. But first, we would like to modernize what we have, and learn, study and study ...
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 29 September 2013 20: 55
              0
              And when they show an arms exhibition, then everything falls into everything from the first shot. Probably the targets are mined.
        2. hiocraib
          hiocraib 21 September 2013 17: 27
          +1
          did not hit due to the set outboard temperature of -18 degrees. with all the tanks.
          1. Semen Semyonitch
            Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 04: 28
            0
            Quote: hiocraib
            did not hit due to the set outboard temperature of -18 degrees. with all the tanks.

            In combat conditions, it will be necessary for the enemy to tell ... Adjusted for the wind ...
      3. mashinist
        mashinist 21 September 2013 14: 02
        +3
        Honestly, as for me, terrible results. A lot of no hits. And now you imagine that our tank needs to carry out complex maneuvers during the fighting and get into the enemy also performing maneuvers. And this despite the fact that these crews (saw the interview) were selected from the best, and then trained for a very long time. Draw your own conclusions.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 September 2013 14: 39
          +1
          Quote: mashinist
          selected from the best

          here the old tankers threw it that they would tear the best crews like a hot-water bottle. therefore, it’s more likely not a matter of technology but of preparation. However, it is still alarming that the crews were not conscripts but contract soldiers.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 09
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            then the old tankers threw it to the foretaste that they would tear these best crews like an ace warmer.

            Greetings, Kars.
            In all cases, shooting was not difficult at the biathlon.
            Ordinary UKSs are more complicated ...

            There is an assumption that there were errors when setting the handbook on all tanks (settings on the T-72B are manual), i.e. lhunula service support.
            But this is a wild guess.
            IMHO.
            1. Flooding
              Flooding 23 September 2013 10: 20
              0
              Quote: Aleks tv
              There is an assumption that there were errors when setting the handbook on all tanks (settings on the T-72B are manual), i.e. lhunula service support.

              No, no, it was a temptation for the Americans.
              To peck at the invitation.
          2. Semen Semyonitch
            Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 04: 33
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Quote: mashinist
            selected from the best

            here the old tankers threw it that they would tear the best crews like a hot-water bottle. therefore, it’s more likely not a matter of technology but of preparation. However, it is still alarming that the crews were not conscripts but contract soldiers.


            Yeah, if the three of us fit in the tank)))
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 23 September 2013 05: 56
              0
              Quote: Semyon Semyonich
              Yeah, if the three of us fit in the tank)))

              ??
      4. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 21 September 2013 15: 05
        +1
        Today almost everyone hit.
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 September 2013 15: 08
          +1
          Well done Shoigu - came up with a good game.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 52
            +1
            Well done Shoigu - came up with a good game.

            I remembered, but did not come up with, and along the way, funds for it were found from the withdrawal from combat duty of the T-80.
      5. Simon
        Simon 21 September 2013 18: 01
        +1
        Today I watched on TV about tank biathlon, a cool thing and sergeants conscripts are performing. good
      6. Darakht
        Darakht 21 September 2013 18: 33
        -1
        Quote: Dunno
        We have a tank biathlon, where T-72 shells hit the target "tank" at 1,6-1,8 km with conventional shells 5 times out of 12.

        Perhaps the reason for this lies.
        1. Armata
          Armata 21 September 2013 20: 32
          +4
          And how does this video generally relate to the theme of tanks?
          Quote: Daraht
          Perhaps the reason for this lies.
          There are enough such idiots all over the world.
          1. Darakht
            Darakht 21 September 2013 20: 37
            -3
            Quote: Mechanic
            And how does this video generally relate to the theme of tanks?

            Exactly as much as tanks belong to the army.
            1. Armata
              Armata 21 September 2013 20: 43
              +1
              Quote: Daraht
              Exactly as much as tanks belong to the army.
              This video is already visible in the second article. If I still see, I will ask to be banned for spam. By the way for reference. On this occasion, the military prosecutor’s office has already left for the unit. All these personnel are threatened by diesel, but the officers will be much worse.
              1. Darakht
                Darakht 21 September 2013 20: 48
                -1
                Quote: Mechanic
                This video is already visible in the second article. If I still see, I will ask to be banned for spam.

                Well, ask! They deleted it in that article, let it be deleted in this and banned, what will it change for me personally? Nothing. What will change nothing in the glorious ranks of the Armed Forces! You can, of course, close your eyes and say that everything is fine, but this is not so!
                1. Armata
                  Armata 21 September 2013 20: 53
                  +4
                  Quote: Daraht
                  Well, ask! In that article, deleted
                  I forgive you. I deleted.
                  Quote: Daraht
                  let it be deleted in this and banned, what will it change for me personally?
                  Nothing, just like me.
                  Quote: Daraht
                  What will change nothing in the glorious ranks of the Armed Forces! You can, of course, close your eyes and say that everything is fine, but this is not so!
                  You can look for all the trash on the Internet, but you can go and serve. I served at 80, and also got plywood when I was young. But I am proud to have served.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 21 September 2013 20: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Mechanic
                    But I am proud to have served.

                    hi
                    Drinks, Zhen, a long time ago you were not visible. hi
                    1. Armata
                      Armata 21 September 2013 21: 03
                      +2
                      Quote: atalef
                      Drinks, Zhen, a long time ago you were not visible.
                      Hi Sasha. hi Yes, it turned out a little time went out to read what people are writing now. drinks
                  2. Darakht
                    Darakht 21 September 2013 21: 03
                    -3
                    Quote: Mechanic
                    You can look for all the trash on the Internet, but you can go and serve.

                    If you look for all the garbage, I’m afraid the psyche of many visitors to this site will not withstand stress.
                    Quote: Mechanic
                    I forgive you. I deleted.

                    I do not need to forgive, there will be a lot of honor.
                    Quote: Mechanic
                    But I am proud to have served.

                    good
                  3. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Mechanic
                    But I am proud to have served.

                    Eugene.
                    good
                    1. Armata
                      Armata 21 September 2013 22: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Aleks tv
                      Eugene
                      Hi Aleksey. drinks Glad to see you.
                      1. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 45
                        +3
                        Quote: Mechanic
                        Glad to see you.

                        Mutually.
                        drinks

                        I went to the topic in the morning. I wrote a bit and disconnected, I was with my family.
                        I do not like tankosrach.
                        I read ... I wish there were few sensible comments.
                        There are few tankers and paper experts are clogging them with enthusiasm.
                        I’m not even surprised anymore, I just would like to read something sensible and interesting from ours, from fuel oil ...
                      2. Armata
                        Armata 21 September 2013 22: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        I went to the topic in the morning. I wrote a bit and disconnected, I was with my family.
                        Himself in the morning he was tearing an apartment.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        I do not like tankosrach.
                        Nobody loves him, but some are constantly happy.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        I read ... I wish there were few sensible comments.
                        There are few tankers and paper experts are clogging them with enthusiasm.
                        I’m not even surprised anymore, I just would like to read something sensible and interesting from ours, from fuel oil ...
                        The more empty, the less knowledgeable people write. So you look at all this circus from the side. There’s no one to argue with. And there’s no point in swearing empty.
                      3. Semen Semyonitch
                        Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 04: 46
                        0
                        And you do not swear ... you write. Often, in the comments of people, in the topic "is more sense than in the article ...
  • soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 22: 59
    +1
    I agree - a SHAME !!! Already on such a show they had to "beat a squirrel in the eye"!
    In the USSR, for such shooting in the presence of Moscow Region, they were removed from their posts and demoted!
  • Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 21 September 2013 10: 59
    +3
    Quote: krpmlws
    Do we have our own heads on our shoulders or something, our experts?

    Those who know for sure and the experts are simply silent.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 09: 27
    16
    Rating thing provocative and low-precision. Three years ago, before the last MAGAH-7 was written off from the reserve for storage, competitions were held between 40 summer reservists at the MAGAHs and conscripts at the MK-4. Despite the complete superiority of the MK-4 in all performance characteristics, the reservists went around the youth in all positions, starting from driving with increased complexity, ending with shooting at a maximum range (7 km) and accuracy (tower projection) in a given time. So the tankers do the result no less than the machine.
    1. sergey72
      sergey72 21 September 2013 09: 38
      +9
      I totally agree with you! At the end of the 80s, I myself attended a competition of tank crews from different districts. So the T-55 crew won there by a wide margin, outfitting their rivals on the T-80 (!) wink
      1. Crang
        Crang 21 September 2013 10: 13
        +5
        Maybe it was a T-55AM with the Volna automated control system. And it was opposed by the usual basic T-80 with an OMS approximately similar to the T-72 or T-72A. In addition, the 100mm D-10T2S rifled gun is significantly more accurate than the earlier variation on the 2A46 for the T-80. So it's not surprising.
        1. sergey72
          sergey72 21 September 2013 10: 53
          +2
          Rather, it was T-55D or T-55AD - he had "Ilyich's eyebrows"
          1. Crang
            Crang 21 September 2013 11: 09
            +4
            I don't know the modifications of the T-55D (I know the T-62D). But the T-55AD is the world's first serial tank equipped with active protection "Drozd". Has additional armor modules incl. and "Ilyich's eyebrows". But most likely it was the T-55AM. Equipped with an automated "Volna" FCS with a digital ballistic computer and a system of input information sensors, this tank, thanks to its precise, rifled 100mm cannon, can fire quite accurately at long distances. The superiority in accuracy of rifled guns: 100mm D-10T2S (T-55) and 122mm M-62T2S (T-10M) over 115mm and early 125mm smooth bore cannons can be traced in a very indicative case. Somehow - a long time ago (after the Arab-Israeli war), our command decided to check what is the limit of the effective firing range of domestic tanks and how accurately they shoot at long distances. For this, 3 conventional T-55 and 3 conventional T-62 were taken at the tank range. Sunny, calm weather. The target of the "tank" type was moved to a distance of about 4 km. Moreover, this distance was known to the tank gunners to within a meter. The shooting was carried out from the spot. T-62 fired 12 shots. Total: 0 hits (0%). The T-55 also fired 12 shots. Result: 3 hits (25%).
            1. sergey72
              sergey72 21 September 2013 11: 13
              +1
              I won't argue, but I remember Ilyich's eyebrows for sure ...
      2. krpmlws
        krpmlws 21 September 2013 11: 33
        +8
        My uncle served urgently in the 60s, he witnessed how partisans, veterans of the Great Patriotic War, showed a master class on driving and shooting on tanks, the jaw dropped in the eyes of young tankers and their eyes went round. training, cadres decide everything.
      3. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 04: 53
        0
        Quote: sergey72
        I totally agree with you! At the end of the 80s, I myself attended a competition of tank crews from different districts. So the T-55 crew won there by a wide margin, outfitting their rivals on the T-80 (!) wink

        But who is arguing with you? Training, she, of course, training ... But what if two equally trained crews on different tanks if possible? It's like in the formula 1-pilots are about the same level, and top teams win ...
    2. Rosomaha67
      Rosomaha67 21 September 2013 13: 55
      +2
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      ........... So the tankers do the result no less than the machine.


      .... I completely agree with the author of the commentary, I believe that it was the lack of good training that led to such a huge difference in losses during the American-Iraqi war, when the tank units of the Iraqi army were losing battles to the Americans "almost dry" ..... and not were able to provide any significant rebuff. Than by the way they caused quite a lot of damage to the prestige of Soviet (Russian) military equipment .......
    3. ruslan207
      ruslan207 21 September 2013 18: 53
      +1
      Yes, the cadres decide everything, or almost everything, but they probably managed to smell the gunpowder as these reservists
  • Crang
    Crang 21 September 2013 09: 55
    +9
    The author, you do not watch this moronic program "Top-10". Whatever this program touches: the top ten tanks / aircraft / ships / submarines, it invariably turns into the "top ten of american tanks / aircraft / ships / submarines with some dilution with NATO equipment. The absurdity and delirium of the criteria by which the "best" is selected there is obvious even to a schoolchild. The injustice and simply the unwillingness of the authors of the program to admit the existence of others (not American) and at the same time very successful models of military equipment is also evident. As for the tanks, the real Top 10 (+/-) is something like this:
    1st place is shared:
    T-90MS, ZTZ-99A2 (Type-99A2), "Merkava-MK.IV".
    2st place is shared:
    T-90A, ZTZ-96 (Type-96), AMX-56 "Leclerc", T-84M "Oplot-M".
    3st place is shared:
    T-90 (in the version with a thermal imager), M1A2SEP "Abrams", "Leopard-2A7", T-72BZ, Type-90 (Japan).
    4st place is shared:
    T-80U, М1А2 "Abrams", "Challenger-2", "Merkava-MK.III".
    5st place is shared:
    T-72B, T-80BV, T-64BV, M1A1, Challenger-1, Merkava-MK.II, Leopard-2.
    6st place is shared:
    T-72A, T-72AV, M1 "Abrams", "Merkava-MK.I".
    7st place is shared:
    T-72, T-62MV, T-62M, M60A3TTS, AMX-40, T-55AMV, T-55AM, Chieftain, T-10M.
    8st place is shared:
    T-62, "Leopard-1", М60А3, "Centurion".
    9st place is shared:
    T-10A, T-10B, T-55, M60, M103, "Centurion".
    10st place is shared:
    T-10, IS-3M, T-54, M48.
    The list is not thoroughly accurate, but it gives a very accurate picture of the real VTX of tanks from different countries and years of production. The "balance" here is something like this: a tank occupying a certain place in the "hierarchy" of power can more or less bearably fight a tank that surpasses it by two positions (for example, a tank of the 9th "level" can still cope with a tank of the 7th with a certain skill) ... But the meeting of a 9th level tank with a 6th and younger tank in practice will mean "drain" in an unequal battle.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 10: 33
      +3
      Two kopecks about the Israeli machines. As for the Mk-1, I do not agree, its level is a maximum of 8th place, the tank was raw. Rather, the Mk-2V can be put in the sixth position, and the DorDalet Mk-2V on the fifth.
      1. Kars
        Kars 21 September 2013 12: 37
        +3
        Figs with him that the stronghold divides the 2 place. But to put Zizi 96 on the same shelf with Leclerc. This should be done. It looks like who made up has a penchant for Chinese tanks.

        Well, T-90 (with thermal imager))) put on a par with the Leopard 2A7

        Well, so change t-90MS to BM Oplot and everything will be in openwork.
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 September 2013 13: 11
          +4
          Quote: Kars
          But to put Zizi 96 on the same shelf with Leclerc. This should be done. It looks like who made up has a penchant for Chinese tanks.

          Take a look at the TTX of this ZTZ-96. And it was made not by the Chinese in the barn, but by the Chinese at a factory in China. with the best Chinese (the benefit is huge).
          Quote: Kars
          Well, T-90 (with thermal imager))) put on a par with the Leopard 2A7

          "Leopard-2A7" is a further departure from reality into epic insanity. Missing missiles. The wedge of the tower is so large that the mechanic drive hatch had to be welded (now it is like in the IS-2). Extremely weak protection of the roof and sides of the tower. Only the LMS is first-class. It is quite possible to compare with the T-90 release of ~ 1997.
          Quote: Kars
          Well, so change t-90MS to BM Oplot and everything will be in openwork.

          The fact that I put the T-84BM "Oplot-M" on the level of the T-90A should do you credit for Kars. A tank with an old cannon and old ammunition. With a shitty motorcycle engine. With outdated MH. Well, taking into account its merits, I just put it on the level of the T-90A.
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 13: 39
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            Take a look at the TTX of this ZTZ-96.

            And what's so? The same T-72, the Slovaks did better.

            Quote: Krang
            Leopard-2A7 "- further departure from reality into epic insanity

            Well, well
            Quote: Krang
            Missile missiles

            what?
            Quote: Krang
            A wedge of a tower of such a size that the mechanical drive hatch had to be brewed

            directly brew?
            Quote: Krang
            Only the SLA is first-class. It can be compared with the T-90 release ~ 1997 of the year.

            Well yes
            Quote: Krang
            The fact that I put the T-84BM "Oplot-M" on the level of the T-90A should do you credit Kars
            Actually no, it does honor T-90A

            Quote: Krang
            Tank with an old cannon and old ammunition.

            Well do not be so bad about the T-90A
            Quote: Krang
            Well, taking into account its merits, I put it at the level of T-90A.

            ))) straight demiurge
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 21 September 2013 13: 56
              0
              As far as I know, they can put 120mm NATO on the Oplot, right?
              1. Crang
                Crang 21 September 2013 14: 14
                +1
                Such an apparatus is called "Yatagan".
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 September 2013 14: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: Krang
                  Such an apparatus is called "Yatagan".

                  And they can put 140 mm
          2. cooper
            cooper 22 September 2013 13: 38
            0
            Why is the T 90C better? A thermal imager? Anti-tame protection for the sides and turret? A more powerful engine? The ability to make corrections due to the thermal bending of the barrel? Yes, and the MZ is more calmly undermining a mine in contrast to the AZ (bottom deflection).
            1. svp67
              svp67 22 September 2013 13: 52
              0
              Quote: Cooper
              And why is the T 90C better?
              Better than your Oplot? If yes, then the presence on the T90MS of a sight that is not inferior to leading foreign ones, and even manufactured at home, is already better, in addition, compare the security of the sights, only the blind will not get into yours, moreover, it is installed so that it HINDERS the work of the ZPU on ground targets, the "skirt" of the side screens at the "Oplot" is set so that its dimensions have significantly increased, which is not very good for passability, and the integrity of these screens, after moving in places with limited dimensions, is questionable ...
              1. cooper
                cooper 22 September 2013 14: 29
                0
                the sight is slightly inferior:) is it like? et as having no analogues ??? And the productions of Belarus. And in Oplot it is multi-channel with an optical channel, which is not in the T 90.
                With regards to the Skirt, it is better to have it with anti-tandem protection than without it (Syria is a clear confirmation of this)
                1. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 14: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: Cooper
                  And production of Belarus
                  Well, start with the fact that
                  TPV "Sosna-U" - the development of the Belarusian designers of the enterprise "Peleng" (Minsk). However, due to various agreements, the scope is manufactured in Russia by the Volgograd enterprise “VOMZ”.
                  Quote: Cooper
                  And in Oplot there is a multichannel with an optical channel, which is not in T 90.

                  Are you talking about?
                  The main characteristics of TPV "Sosna-U":
                  - optical day channel;
                  - thermal imaging channel, which uses a second generation thermal imaging camera with 8-12 micron characteristics;
                  - laser range finder;
                  - channel to control missiles;
                  - distance to 5 kilometers of detection of objects of the class "tank";
                  - independent 2-x planar stabilization of the review.
                  Quote: Cooper
                  With regards to the Skirt, it is better to have it with anti-tandem protection than without it (Syria is a clear confirmation of this)

                  So I am about that. It's one thing to flaunt in a "fashionable skirt" on a "concrete", and another to spin between trees, stones and buildings, where it is very easy to lose it without any enemy influence ...
                2. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 14: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: Cooper
                  which is not in T 90.
                  The main thing that is not in the sighting complex of the T90MS tank, in contrast to the BM "Oplot" - foreign components ...
                  1. cooper
                    cooper 22 September 2013 15: 10
                    0
                    Is this what? Or a hint of matrices? I think that as in the ninety they are not Russian-made.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 22 September 2013 15: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Cooper
                      I think that in the nineties they are not of Russian origin.
                      Be happy for us, OURS. For the first time in the history of our tank building, we have adjusted it. Yes, according to their characteristics, they are "strong middle peasants", but OUR, and I really hope that they will not stop there ...
                      1. cooper
                        cooper 22 September 2013 15: 23
                        0
                        I did not know. I hope good and high-quality
        2. In the reeds
          In the reeds 22 September 2013 13: 43
          -1
          Kars, but in HERE the Tiger had no equal before the 1943 year, a player? No, he has to stick the antennae under the gun
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 September 2013 15: 22
            +1
            Quote: In the reeds
            Kars, but in HERE the Tiger had no equal before the 1943 year, a player? No, he has to stick the antennae under the gun

            I didn’t understand anything. If I don’t play about the World of Tanks.
        3. Semen Semyonitch
          Semen Semyonitch 23 September 2013 05: 02
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Figs with him that the stronghold divides the 2 place. But to put Zizi 96 on the same shelf with Leclerc. This should be done. It looks like who made up has a penchant for Chinese tanks.

          Well, T-90 (with thermal imager))) put on a par with the Leopard 2A7

          Well, so change t-90MS to BM Oplot and everything will be in openwork.

          No, the Bastion should stand two steps higher. How do you patriot hi But seriously, then the Bastion, and the T-90MS second line for the eyes ...
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 21 September 2013 14: 21
      0
      Another rating, but "sick is correct" laughing because the T-90 comes first laughing
      What about the evidence?
      1. alone
        alone 21 September 2013 22: 22
        +1
        laughing the proof is that he is Russian)) fellow
  • Rash
    Rash 21 September 2013 09: 58
    +3
    T-90S has already managed to show itself perfectly in tank battles on the Indo-Pakistani border

    Copyipaster, look carefully at the source material for blunders! Especially 7 years ago ...
  • Algor73
    Algor73 21 September 2013 10: 03
    15
    T-72 tank is a hard worker. He was a great tank in the 70s, good in the 80s, not bad in the 90s, but his time has passed. It is not a competitor without significant modernization. For local conflicts will go (also T-54 \ 55 are at war), but for their own army needs modernization. But here's the question, the author writes "... The T-90S has already managed to show itself excellently in tank battles on the Indo-Pakistani border ..." Something I don't remember such news. Either the author confused something, or I missed something. About the rating. The one who calls the tune is the one who dances. We can only say about one thing - the T-34 is the best tank, since it went through the whole war and took part in tank battles. "Abrams" in Iraq fought practically with partisans. There were no such duels, according to which it can be argued that he is the best. And the declared characteristics in reality often turn out to be "inflated".
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 21 September 2013 19: 30
      +2
      Quote: Algor73
      . One can say only one thing - the T-34 is the best tank, since it went through the whole war, participated in tank battles.

      by the same logic, you can add PZ4
  • shurup
    shurup 21 September 2013 10: 17
    +5
    T-72 is even pleasant to smell. I love like a horse. "Tanka! Come to me!" - runs contentedly.
    1. In the reeds
      In the reeds 22 September 2013 13: 20
      0
      The Arabs say the Mongol is straight from the horse, p ... t, and how ... et a serious adversary, all the swamps will spoil your basurman ...
  • stranik72
    stranik72 21 September 2013 10: 18
    +1
    Everything is learned in comparison, so their helicopters were highly praised, they began to fly with us and it turns out that the characteristics are "a little" not the same and the operating conditions are not quite "theirs" and the reliability was greatly overestimated. And we, to please them, are ruining our production of light helicopters (Mi-34, Mi-54). Yes, the T-72 probably does not quite meet its time, only it fought almost always in the conditions of the enemy's total superiority in the means of anti-tank warfare.
  • ebrd
    ebrd 21 September 2013 10: 19
    +7
    All these Western ratings do not deserve any attention at all - sheer distortions, the pulling of facts by the ears and just outright lies. I watched one such, “objective” rating according to the Discovery channel - unrestrained praise of the notorious Abrams, without shying away from the banal lies --- Abrams -de ,, the first in the world !! ??? ,, a tank with a gas turbine engine !!! The Soviet T-80 with a gas turbine engine was adopted in 1976 .-- Abrams actually did not exist in nature at that time - he was an experienced experimental tank with an index of KhM-1.
  • ka5280
    ka5280 21 September 2013 10: 30
    +3
    Thank you for the article. Reiting is complete bullshit! Everyone praises what he wants to sell. Mathematical calculations of fights, this is of course cool! But until the two armies collide head-on all these comparisons, ratings, etc. will remain bullshit. The Great Patriotic War showed that the grammar crew on the t-70 could overwhelm Ferdinand. So wait and see.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 21 September 2013 19: 31
      0
      Apparently the T70 crew was very lucky
  • Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 21 September 2013 10: 43
    +2
    in the rating there was no place for Russian T-72 and T-90S tanks,

    So that task is simply being solved. They are advertising their goods, and they are not interested in advertising Russian goods.
    Met on one site description of participation in hostilities of all kinds of "Merkav". According to the description, thousands of pturs flew in them. Interesting. how did they manage to dodge them, and how did the author's language not get confused in so many wires on the battlefield?
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 21 September 2013 11: 02
      +1
      Quote: Hedgehog

      Met on one site description of participation in hostilities of all kinds of "Merkav". According to the description, thousands of pturs flew in them. Interesting. how did they manage to dodge them, and how did the author's language not get confused in so many wires on the battlefield?

      Well, if the tanker wrote, it's understandable. Remember in 43-45, every German tank was written "Tiger".
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 21 September 2013 11: 52
        +1
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Well, if the tankman wrote, it’s understandable.

        I doubt that it was a tanker. By the way, this was written on an Israeli site dedicated to the Israeli army, too, its participation in wars.
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Remember in 43-

        I do not remember. At that time I did not exist. laughing good
  • Rayden
    Rayden 21 September 2013 11: 01
    +3
    There was also a transfer of 10 top tanks' English version, in my opinion, the Soviet T-34/85 tank took the first place, the vaunted Abrams came second, how can you compare tanks from different eras? All these transmissions are for people of a certain intellectual level who have not seen the tank in their eyes. And about our 72 shek, at the moment they are fighting in Syria. There are many hit videos. There are also sad moments and we must not forget the tank for about 30 years, the weapon does not stand still. In Iraq, there was a case of beating Abram with a large-caliber machine gun
    1. raven75
      raven75 21 September 2013 15: 04
      +2
      You looked inattentively, they compared them, taking into account the eras. The British in this regard, more honest than the Americans, would have declared their "Sherman" the best.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 07
    +2
    and walked in the head of the column

    Already somewhere I read it, but all the same well done guys, the main thing is that they correctly used the technology.
    Somewhat embarrassing is the reduction of the T-80 to the reserve, but nevertheless it made it possible to free up money to improve training, it is not for nothing that they say that the so-called "tank biathlon" is a well-forgotten past.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 21 September 2013 11: 29
    22
    Thanks to the author for the article, although she has been reading for many years.

    T-72B - this machine, which is amazing.
    In addition to proper protection, firepower and mobility, the tank has unique survival.
    It can always be broken somewhere, damaged, but ... always on the go and always ready to carry out the task.

    If we compare the T-72B with the abrashka, then these are equivalent opponents, so the amers in Iraq did not go into their heads without aviation (and these are old export T-72 without proper protection).
    And if we compare the operational properties, then the T-72B is definitely head-on more tenacious in a long-term conflict with interruptions in maintenance.

    In the arsenal of the 27 division were my Native "turtles", the same modifications of the T-72Б.
    This arrangement of protection was recognized as the most effective (there was another modification).
    With proper and competent protection with DZ "boxes" and correct tactical use, the T-72B is very difficult to knock out, believe me ...
    One of the T-72Б 27 ... -th regiment, the Czechs could stop only with a aimed shot (from above) into the commander’s hatch ...

    Just a wonderful car ....
    Love for life ...
    Clickable (wallpaper)
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 11: 37
      +3
      Still, the armored carriers of ammunition and spare parts would not be prevented, on the basis of the tanks themselves.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 21 September 2013 11: 54
      12
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Just a wonderful car ....

      Someone minus again ...
      As these "paper" tankers have already tired ...
      They will begin to criticize with enthusiasm, sprinkling with terms and TTX.
      lol

      I’ll go as I better bake pancakes for my daughter.
      Then I’ll come in, read, the mood is just good so far.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 21 September 2013 20: 21
        -1
        Quote: Aleks tv

        Someone minus again ...
        As these "paper" tankers have already tired ...
        They will begin to criticize with enthusiasm, sprinkling with terms and TTX.

        did not minus. But. Speaking about a particular technique, one should evaluate in comparison. For example, experienced snipers with access to modern sniper rifles giving interviews, although they try to say good things about domestic weapons, still prefer foreign ones. You, having access only to domestic tanks, giving them an assessment, definitely cannot do it adequately, because on the Abrams of the latest model, Leclerke there, Merkava 4 did not work.
        For example, one of my comrades for a long time exploited the VAZ-2109, believing that the car is quite not worse, but in some ways better, while it did not have experience in foreign cars, it was rather critical of them. However, he decided and bought a seven-year-old right-handed Japanese, after which he admitted that, in comparison, the VAZ-2109 is not a car at all and is not worthy to be called that way. I mean, do not make too loud statements relying only on limited experience.
        P.S. In my opinion, the events in Syria showed that it costs T-72. Instant detonation of the BC with the subsequent separation of the tower and the death of the crew. Just because the T-72 leaves no chance of survival for its crew (and the crew is the most valuable in the tank), it is not worthy of high lines in any ratings.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 31
          +6
          Quote: Nayhas
          You, having access only to domestic tanks, giving them an assessment, definitely cannot do it adequately, because the Abrams of the latest model, Leclerke there, Merkava 4 did not work.

          Yes, it didn’t work on other tanks.
          But in his T-72B he was SURE. And would not flinch in front of "foreigners". And this confidence was not stupid, but conscious.
          Is that enough?
          Quote: Nayhas
          I mean, do not make too loud statements relying only on limited experience.

          The feeling that I have more experience of serving in tank units than you do not find?
          So, unfortunately, I’ll ask you this question of yours, especially regarding your next phrase:
          Quote: Nayhas
          events in Syria showed what is the T-72. Instant detonation of the BC with the subsequent separation of the tower and the death of the crew. Just because the T-72 leaves no chance for its crew to survive (and the crew is the most valuable in the tank) is it not worthy of high lines in any ratings.

          Instant detonation with the subsequent detachment of the tower at the T-72 is already ducked.
          Even grandmothers at the entrance can blabber about it (thanks to the profane journalists).

          Such cases are ONE.
          I'm sick of explaining this already.
          If really interested, I will explain again why.

          Sincerely.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 22 September 2013 10: 23
            -1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            But in his T-72B he was SURE. And would not flinch in front of "foreigners". And this confidence was not stupid, but conscious.
            Is that enough?

            No. The question is not whether you would tremble or not. The question is what would your opinion of Abrams be if you had a chance to work on it as part of a trained crew.
            Quote: Aleks tv
            The feeling that I have more experience of serving in tank units than you do not find?

            And he didn’t pretend, he only saw tanks this way, he wasn’t inside, he didn’t serve in tank units. However, this does not mean that your opinion should be taken on faith unconditionally.
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Instant detonation with the subsequent detachment of the tower at the T-72 is already ducked.

            Quote: Aleks tv
            Such cases are ONE.

            Well, as if Google were to help you, there are a lot of photos and videos of the T-72 instantly turning into a false lamp or an explosion with a separation of the tower. Chechnya, Georgia, Sudan, and finally Syria, according to the latest video, are especially numerous, both from the opposition and from the government side.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 22 September 2013 15: 33
              +4
              I could not immediately answer, Sunday all the same.
              Shish kebab-mashlyk, fatherly duties ...


              Quote: Nayhas
              The question is what would your opinion of Abrams be if you had a chance to work on it as part of a trained crew.

              If you follow your logic, then until you try ALL the tanks of the world, you can’t say which is better.
              The right idea, I do not argue, but absolutely idealistic and not feasible.
              There are many aspects of impracticability, for example:
              - In order to “know” a tank, it is necessary not only to “ride” or “fuck it”, but also to operate it daily and work in a combat situation.
              - No one has canceled the privacy mode. In T-90ms or the latest modifications, abrashki will NEVER let foreigners in without removing (hiding) the chipboard equipment, respectively, it is not possible to understand the true capabilities of the machine.

              You will not "try" ALL brands of cars to say that some is better? (your example).
              By the way, foreigners never hay, the enemy must be taken seriously. But I don’t think it is an abrashka an outstanding machine.
              And in our tanks we were really SURE.

              Quote: Nayhas
              And he didn’t pretend, he only saw tanks this way, he wasn’t inside, he didn’t serve in tank units. However, this does not mean that your opinion should be taken on faith unconditionally.

              Thanks for the honesty, it really impresses, not everyone does this on the site ..
              And my opinion should not be taken unconditionally. There are many tankers on this site.
              I am a simple practitioner, at least listen, and do not be offended. I don’t talk about submarines or airplanes, but I know this topic.

              Next:
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 22 September 2013 15: 38
                +7
                Quote: Nayhas
                Well, as if Google were to help you, there are a lot of photos and videos of the T-72 instantly turning into a false lamp or an explosion with a separation of the tower. Chechnya, Georgia, Sudan, and finally Syria, according to the latest video, are especially numerous, both from the opposition and from the government side.

                It just jars when the Nepets, having read an Internet and seen a lot of YouTube, begin to APPROVE, and not ask ...., be interested in .... and find out (not personally to you but rhetorically)
                About google:
                Infopropaganda amers delivered be healthy. All kinds of dangerous articles there are carefully extorted and “wrong” photos are immediately destroyed, even among ordinary people. We still have to learn and learn.
                Our amateur correspondents are shooting the “cherry”, as they themselves told us, they don’t care about anything else, otherwise the editor will not accept the material. Feel the difference?

                About the bombings:
                No equal. Each is unique and unique.
                General safety rules (I will not talk about tactics):
                - "Boxes" are equipped.
                - The solarium is drained from the external tanks.
                - B / c from the tower removed (except, of course, AZ).
                - PPO refueled and serviceable.
                “The hatches in the tower are open.”
                This is what I remembered vskidku.

                Most often, the "seven" does not penetrate the armor, the crew simply "shakes", you feel how the internal organs collide.
                If the "jet" went inside, then you get injured from any crap flying inside, and not from the thinnest liquid metal. With open hatches, due to the created excess pressure, you can fly out of the bottle like a cork, there is a chance to survive. If the penetration is partial, then you remain inside, but the concussion is ensured, the PPO extinguishes itself.
                If the stream clearly falls into the CHARGE (and we remove it from the fighting compartment), then an instant fire occurs under strong pressure, if it is thrown out through the hatch with this pressure, then the towers have a chance for life, but a small one (the mechanic does not). PPO does not have time to cope.
                If there is a clear hit of the jet in the projectile (and we remove it from the fighting compartment) - then an instant blast, but - only when it enters the HE ... for some reason everyone forgets about it.

                Next:
                1. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 22 September 2013 15: 40
                  +6
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  Next:

                  Getting into AZ is quite difficult.
                  To do this, turn the side screen with boxes in the trash or break the road wheels. Only under these conditions it is possible to get to the conveyor AZ, which will be - wrote above.
                  Those. you need several aimed shots from the seven to one point, which is not so simple. And here Tactics already comes into its own. This is a separate conversation.

                  Most often, when the T-72B is blown up, it continues to move (an amazing machine), smoke appears and you feel a very specific smell of the triggered PPO (you can’t compare it with anything and it’s very painful then).
                  The crew is trying to leave the line of fire, WHEREOF, so that everyone has the opportunity to get out, including the heroic (without sarcasm) mech.
                  After that, everyone leaves the car, tries to be heroic, and wait for what will happen to her.
                  - If you stopped smoking, smoking, then they return to her and prepare for towing.
                  - If the assembly line pulled off the AZ (with the mandatory flight of the tower), then ... get baptized and climb into another platoon tank or go to bow to the infantry commander.

                  Have you seen a lot of bombings in YouTube with “boxes” or FULLY closed sides?
                  And in Syria, the first export T-72 (object 172) is still working, with simplified unclassified armor, a mechanical ballistic computer, an optical rangefinder, old shots and the P-123 radio station.

                  My opinion is modest. The motherland defended only two concussions, damaged lungs to a bronchial atsma, and broken left leg and arm.
                  But this sometimes allows you to have “fun” time with colleagues in the hospital on the Broad River (Sverdlovsk residents know his profile), I have lifelong hydrocephalus after shell shock. We eat vodka there, “rehabilitating ourselves,” so to speak.
                  But survived.
                  And I don’t think that if we had an "abrashka" in the same conditions as our T-72B, we would have survived more.
                  I don’t think so. T-72B is not a super car. of course, but Worthy TANK.

                  Now try to match what you read with what you saw on YouTube, and do it. pliz, conclusions.
                  Undermines are different, as are the willingness of the machines themselves.
                  Just told.

                  Sincerely
                  Alex.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 22 September 2013 19: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    If the stream clearly falls into the CHARGE (and we remove it from the fighting compartment), then an instant fire occurs under strong pressure, if it is thrown out through the hatch with this pressure, then the towers have a chance for life, but a small one (the mechanic does not). PPO does not have time to cope.
                    If there is a clear hit of the jet in the projectile (and we remove it from the fighting compartment) - then an instant blast, but - only when it enters the HE ... for some reason everyone forgets about it.

                    You described options related to the T-72. But as I said, everything is relative. You as a tanker probably know that at 120 mm. a German tank cannon uses shells with a unitary shot, and the safety advantages of a unitary shot over a projectile with a partially combustible shell are also likely. I hope you will not deny this? The placement of shells in Abrams is also known to all and the effectiveness of the knockout plates in the aft niche is recognized by everyone (at least I have not seen that detonation of shells in the aft niche would lead to the death of the crew). The shells that are located inside the body are in armored containers and there are not many, 11 pcs. Those. the death of the crew from detonation of shells is practically excluded, so there is time to leave the wrecked tank. It is possible that with the same training of the crew in street battles, when the advantages in electronic stuffing are equalized, Abrams will live exactly the same, but the crew will have more chances to survive, and what could be more important?
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 20: 52
                      +3
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      shells with a unitary shot, and the safety advantages of a unitary shot over a projectile with a partially combustible shell probably also. I hope you will not deny this?

                      Of course there is a difference in safety.
                      But not so strong.
                      -If the jet clearly breaks through, then it breaks through everything, without a difference, a combustible sleeve or from a metal alloy. Everyone will have a blast.
                      -If it passes nearby and a fire occurs, then our crews really have less time, but it is possible to leave, it all depends on the level of shell shock, and here all the crews are equal regardless of the country.

                      More than once I saw charred charges ... they remained intact.
                      PPO, if there is still gas station and it is working, it works well. But here it really is a lot of complaints, made clumsily.

                      Quote: Nayhas
                      Shells that are located inside the case are in armored containers and there are not many, 11 pcs.

                      Understand, in the armored container or in the floor of the AZ, the difference is small, no matter how wild it sounds, the difference is only in the residual strength of the commutative jet. And if the armor is open, then generally the same conditions.
                      One crap - they (shots) inside the tank.

                      There are differences, but they are:
                      -Abrashka is easier to knock into the same crazy ammunition, the car leaves the battle quickly, the crew rolls back alive, if allowed.
                      -T-72Б will be beaten from all sides until they break it. The machine LONGER performs a combat mission. And the crew will survive if it has time to hit the road until the fire reaches the AZ.

                      A clear hit of the jet in the cartridge case (in the fighting compartment at the abrashka and in the AZ at the T-72B) and instant detonation - REDOK and both crews are DONE identically.

                      I just want to say again - the replicated "problem" of the T-72 about the presence of w / c inside the case is media hysteria.
                      It has a place to be, but not nearly as sharp as it is described. It's just "fashionable" to talk about this now.
                      How to secure the car, wrote above, helps.
                    2. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 22 September 2013 22: 01
                      +2
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      You as a tanker probably know that at 120 mm. a German tank cannon uses shells with a unitary shot, and the safety advantages of a unitary shot over a projectile with a partially combustible shell are probably also ......

                      And who told you that their unitar does not have a burning sleeve? In them, as in ours, in the liner only the pallet does not burn.


                      And if you recall Leo-2, then he has a combat unit not only in the tower, but also in the hull (to the left of the driver), and the side of the hull is four times thinner than ours.
                      1. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 22 September 2013 22: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        In them, as in ours, in the liner only the pallet does not burn.

                        Greetings, Vladimir.
                        hi
                        Somehow or forgot or did not know about foreign charges ... also combustible?
                        Thanks for the info.

                        ps The guys all call in one German town for an exhibition, there it’s possible to arrange a little drive to Leo.
                        Nadot still get to know this "beast".
                        wink
                      2. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 22 September 2013 23: 41
                        +1
                        Greetings, Alex.
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        The guys all call in one German town for an exhibition, there it’s possible to arrange a little drive to Leo.

                        smile If it succeeds, I think the pokatushki in Leo will leave the most positive impression - the Germans know how to make technique. But if, God forbid, fight, then I would prefer a domestic tank.

                        There will be an opportunity, try to look into the French tank. One of the most sophisticated tanks. One power plant is worth: a diesel + gas turbine. And if I understood the description correctly, then the turbine runs on kerosene, but diesel, respectively, on diesel fuel. The turbine serves to increase the pressure in the engine cylinders + the generator sits on it. Diesel without a turbine does not work. In general, a dream of reason, but it’s interesting to see.
              2. Kars
                Kars 22 September 2013 15: 44
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                With hatches open, due to overpressure

                For example, I have not heard about the excess pressure created by the defeat of the tank) of the armored object) by cumulative ammunition. Since the overpressure should not be transmitted through the hole in the 5-10 mm.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 16: 02
                  +2
                  Quote: Kars
                  For example, I have not heard

                  There is such a factor. In particular, for the solution, its hatches are left ajar, since on tanks after T62, the internal volume is small and this immediately affects ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 22 September 2013 16: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    There is such a factor.

                    And where is it described? How are the glass sights broken inside the tank?

                    as for open hatches --- then I heard a version about what I wouldn’t have to cut out with an autogenous if the crew got injured and couldn’t open the hatches myself.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 22 September 2013 16: 21
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      How do glass sights break inside a tank?
                      In order to concuss a person a lot, it’s not necessary ... and the glass remains intact ... they are not alive.
                2. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 22 September 2013 16: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  For example, I have not heard

                  Kars, the bombings are all different, the same does not happen.

                  But there is "excess", the hatches immediately go to the stopper.
                  Contusion, for example, is not an indicator of pressure (its presence), it can be for various reasons.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 22 September 2013 16: 25
                    +2
                    ___________

                    Many people claim that the main damaging factor in RPGs is the increased pressure that incapacitates the crew. This went with Popel’s description of the effect of the Faustpatrons in the Second World War. Contusions may well be caused by other factors.
            2. Nayhas
              Nayhas 22 September 2013 18: 53
              -1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              If you follow your logic, then until you try ALL the tanks of the world, you can’t say which is better.

              Forecast International agency collects and analyzes information for many industries, including defense and aerospace, making a rating for tanks was able to evaluate almost all the main tanks in the world, possibly except Chinese. Many T-72s came from the USA from different countries, from Eastern Europe, possibly Ukraine, not to mention Iraq. T-80U in the 90s was sold to the UK, I have no doubt that they shared with an ally. There, as if no one is hiding it now. There are so many of them that they are tested with anti-tank ammunition and sold to collectors. I mean, the main tanks of the USSR for the USA have not been a secret for a long time. But at the Abrams training grounds we don’t even have the very first modifications, just like there are no Leopards, Merkav. Therefore, I would not say that Forecast International deliberately did not include the T-72 and T-90C tanks in the rating only for patriotic reasons.
          2. svp67
            svp67 22 September 2013 15: 39
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            The question is what would your opinion of Abrams be if you had a chance to work on it as part of a trained crew.
            You do not ask me, but I will also express myself, the discussion is open. "Abrams" is a very serious opponent, but this tank can be "beaten" and if, God forbid, such an opportunity appears, then I will do everything to do it and as much as possible.
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, as if Google were to help you, there are a lot of photos and videos of the T-72 that instantly turn into a raised beam or an explosion with a separation of the tower. Chechnya, Georgia, Sudan, and finally Syria,

            What to do, this tank is used VERY widely and often by poorly trained crews and without adequate support. M1 "Abrams" cannot boast of such popularity ...
          3. nick-name
            nick-name 23 September 2013 11: 45
            +3
            You would read a smaller democratic press. I’m just paying attention when the T-72 hits the stern from an RPG-29, it’s a bad tank, and when it’s merkav in the forehead, it’s bad Russians delivering weapons to terrorists.
      2. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 23: 40
        +4
        On behalf of and on behalf of experienced snipers I’ll say ..... that like your friend in civilian life, everyone prefers foreign cars because you don’t have to fight for them! And when working in the city, comfort, image, prestige ........ and other pleasant spools and baubles are more important. About accuracy .... a separate issue ..... In the city no one in the world shoots at 1000m (if only to shoot at the sky), a maximum of 100-200m, most often from the roof 50-100. Automatic rifles are also rarely used ...... there is no need for permanent (more reliable 2,3,4 ..... put the arrow on one target than to arrange high-speed shooting). And if there was a war, everyone will take up what is in service (but they can grab their own good ...... for everyone .... who happens to be). And they will do this for purely practical reasons: ammunition, reliability in all conditions, centralized supply and repair, a wide range of possible range targets. High accuracy for hitting the limbs is also not important, etc. etc.
        And if a war happened, your friend and I will move to UAZ, ZIL, KAMAZ or TIGER for the same reasons. :)

        And about the T-72 in Syria (old and defenseless), many have already answered you. Read comments, including mine. INVALID TANKES NO !!! Tankers in any tank can die not only from detonation. 90% of dead tankers from shrapnel wounds and burns without detonation of BC.
        Although I would rather choose the detonation of BC than a wounded and broken burn in a tank alive!

        photo as a gift ......... :)
        1. Kars
          Kars 22 September 2013 00: 03
          +2
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          INVALID TANKES NO !!! Tankers in any tank may die

          Well what can I say - if there was a choice (even if I insisted on a woman) I chose the 2 Challenger (if you exclude Oplot from the list as a batch)
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 September 2013 11: 30
          +1
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          On behalf of and on behalf of experienced snipers I’ll say ...

          How did you start out floridly. The question was simple, what do professionals choose when they have a choice. And there is no need here about distance and accuracy, this is not an important question in this particular case. And the answer had to be simple, yes, the sniper is loved by foreign countries, this is a fact. If the Ministry of Defense has already switched to the purchase of "Manlicherovin", then what can we say about the professionals from the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which did this a long time ago.
          As for armored vehicles, our tankers have no such choice, but they are happy (at least here on the website) with the T-72 and T-90, but when evaluating foreign tanks they do it by bare numbers and pictures, they did not have to operate them . For Americans, tanks made by the USSR are enough to test all the characteristics and make all kinds of comparisons; moreover, private collectors already have them.
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          And if a war happened, your friend and I will move to UAZ, ZIL, KAMAZ or TIGER for the same reasons. :)

          This is understandable, because you and I simply will not have a choice. But if, for example, I would be offered in 2000 to move along mountain roads not on ZIL-131 or Gas-66, but on Matador or Marauder, then I would certainly choose the latter. Or am I wrong?
          1. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 15: 12
            +6
            Forgive me, but the fact that you are not pros already understood everything. This is the women in the supermarket so the pads are chosen. And they are professionals in this matter (by nature). And only for you the distance to the target and accuracy do not matter when choosing a rifle. For everyone else, the choice is determined by the conditions of the upcoming work. And if the SVD is a universal instrument well known to all, allowing you to work at any available range with sufficient accuracy to defeat (even if not guaranteed destruction) the enemy in infantry orders. Then no one in their right mind will take your Manliher with a sliding shutter into the trenches. The reliability of the SVD has been tested for years and all wars since 1958. Foreign cars take more for the soul, like a car. Travel to competitions (in sterile conditions), again for the city (not in the swamp to sit). Specialists, again, for the tasks of ONE SHOT SHOT, where guaranteed destruction is required (i.e., hitting a point on the target’s body) and no quick automatic fire is needed on targets scattered in range and front in a wide sector.
            Moscow Region purchased a trial batch of these foreign cars for SPECIALS of all levels (for testing). I doubt that it will receive the same distribution in the troops as the SVD. By the way, our ORSIS is no worse. And the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (which have nothing to do with the Ministry of Defense) appreciated this. And for your money you can buy yourself anything (if the mouth is such a right) from a bow with arrows to a tank. :)
            And in order for your Manlicher to take root in the troops, you must not forget to build your cartridge plant. I will find a 7,62x54 cartridge for SVD everywhere on this planet, and a 7,62x51 (without flange) sniper cartridge - only in the NATO bloc.
            I don’t want to upset you, but in no army in the world do tankers have a choice. Somewhere else and the T-54 are fighting. The war is always not going according to plan and contrary to your desires and fantasies. Use what is in the circumstances. And in the Russian Armed Forces, the choice of tanks (including storage) is 3 times more than in most armies in the world.
            You also didn’t stop using other people's tanks, however, for some reason you think they are better than ours. Could it be because of advertising leaflets with TTX and pictures. And no matter how much they have our tanks, they will never copy the T-72, 80, 90 externally. Otherwise, everyone will understand whose tanks and industry are better. You yourself have confirmed this by mentioning collectors. Every weapon collector in the world has AK, SVD and Saiga 12k ..... and what does it say? :) And we will always tear apart technologies and notions from each other. They removed the GTE from us 15 years later ...... they just made it through the ass (they just stuck it from the plane).

            No you are not right! Always wrong! Matador and Marader are available since 2007. and no one would have offered them to you in 2000! But ZIL and GAZ should not take part in the database at all (this is freight transport) and the fact that this is happening is a criminal stupidity of the country's leadership and the Moscow Region. And in the database zone, I'd rather choose Typhoon, Wolf, BMP-3, any tank or armored Urals with a Tiger at worst.
            Well, where am I on the African (Maradera) I will look for spare parts? Zampatekh with shit gobbled up! And they will devour it from the top, the car will be repaired for weeks, and the soldiers will stomp them! The door handle will fall off ... why the heck to weld, right? Some bourgeois wagon filters are needed. Your diby Lynxes_Iveki have already been drained !!!
            Serve first brother! If you get smarter, you’ll understand what the salt of the earth is! Maybe THOUGHT will appear!
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 22 September 2013 20: 21
              -1
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              And if the SVD is a universal instrument well known to all, allowing you to work at any available range with sufficient accuracy to defeat (even if not guaranteed destruction) the enemy in infantry orders. Then no one in their right mind will take your Manliher with a sliding shutter into the trenches. The reliability of the SVD has been tested for years and all wars since 1958.

              You contradict yourself somewhat. It seems that Manliherovka is not needed in the troops, but Orsis is needed. Of course, I am not a professional sniper, and I only shot from SVD from SVD and then at night in order to just feel, but I have repeatedly met the saying that a sniper is a jeweler who needs a very accurate tool, and SVD is for beginners apprentices. For conscripts, whom no one is going to teach. What professionals prefer the best, which is the enemy of the good.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              By the way, our ORSIS is no worse

              Well ours is it said loudly. Equipment and metal are not ours. It's like a Toyota assembled in Russia, sort of with our own hands, but still a foreign car, not Lada Priora.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              And in order for your Manlicher to take root in the troops, you must not forget to build your cartridge plant. I will find a 7,62x54 cartridge for SVD everywhere on this planet, and a 7,62x51 cartridge (without flange) sniper - only in NATO

              Not mine, not mine ... But at the expense of ammunition it’s not worth bowing to the adversaries, they have been released for a long time at the Tula, Barnaul and Novosibirsk cartridge factories.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              I don’t want to upset you, but in no army in the world do tankers have a choice.

              Well, I would not say that. Countries that do not produce tanks themselves usually buy them on the side and tankers are always present in the competition committee.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              You also didn’t stop using other people's tanks, however, for some reason you think they are better than ours. Could it be because of advertising leaflets with TTX and pictures.

              I don’t, and the American rating agency had the opportunity to get reviews of all the tanks. I think you are aware that everything is known about Soviet tanks in NATO. T-72s came to the United States in large numbers from both Eastern Europe and Iraq. But our T-80Us were sold to Great Britain themselves and it is foolish to believe that they did not share with the USA.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              No you are not right! Always wrong! Matador and Marader are available since 2007. and no one would have offered them to you in 2000!

              The question was hypothetical.
              Quote: soldier of fortune
              But ZIL and GAZ should not take part in the database at all (this is freight transport) and the fact that this is happening is a criminal stupidity of the country's leadership and the Moscow Region.

              So and on what it was to move between settlements? And the transportation of goods?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 22 September 2013 22: 17
                +1
                Quote: soldier of fortune
                I don’t want to upset you, but in no army in the world do tankers have a choice.
                Nayhas
                Well, I would not say that. Countries that do not produce tanks themselves usually buy them on the side and tankers are always present in the competition committee.

                By the way, here our tanks are the best-selling (both T-72 and T-90) - what does this mean?
  • Crang
    Crang 21 September 2013 12: 01
    +9
    They would allow the tank crews (who have a rich dad) to carry out the tuning of their T-72B themselves with the permission of the higher command naturally. What you can do with your own hands, that would be cool:

    1. Instead of rubber-fabric side screens, install 5 mm thick metal sections that fold up on the tank.

    2. Attach a rubber "skirt" to these metal sections from below so that it falls below the track roller hubs.

    3. Close the entire area of ​​the metal side screens evenly, without gaps, with 4S20 NDZ "Contact-1" loaded elements. To the stern, and not MTO as in the stock.

    4. The feed sheet with a thickness of 40 mm is also possible to close with 4C20 elements.

    5. The lower frontal sheet (monolith 80mm) - the weak point of the tank. To one row of 4C20 elements add (above) rubber-fabric screens of the T-80BV type. And the bulldozer blade when folded.

    6. Thoroughly wash the tank from the "Karcher" and paint it normally with cool camouflage.

    7. In place of the commander, fasten the mount with the car GPS / GLONASS-navigator with the receiver from the external antenna. Bring out the GPS antenna. This will give the exact coordinates of the location as well as the digital environment (NAVITEL is certainly not the Abrams FBCB2 system) but not bad either.

    8. Pour Mobil-1 oil into the engine.

    9. In the place of the gunner-operator, fix the car cover with the "LG" car radio + "Bose" acoustics around the BO perimeter. (remember that psycho on the Abrams - "I plug my headphones into a charlie box ...")

    10. Throw out all the cumulative shells from the BC. Charge the tank:
    - AZ: 13 BOPS ZBM-42 "Mango" + 6 OFS + 3 UR.
    - non-mechanized warhead: 15 UR + 5 OFS + 3 BOPS ZBM-41.

    11. ZIP boxes on the tower to load red brick scrap.

    12. At the stern, leave the external fuel tanks, but pour vodka or alcohol into one of them and drinking water into the other.

    13. On the tower, in the center, fix the camcorder.

    This is something that, with a little skill, you can do it yourself. In this form, the T-72B can go even to hell and under heavy "death metal" to smash the enemy, crush him with caterpillars and destroy him with powerful fire.
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 21 September 2013 12: 08
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      They would allow tankers (who have a rich dad) to conduct tuning of their T-72B

      Any rich dad here will find a way to save. He will simply buy his son from the service. And for the money saved, he will buy a diploma for his son. wassat
      1. Crang
        Crang 21 September 2013 12: 17
        +1
        It means - real, ideological tankers. Which do not need their dad to buy.
      2. Kars
        Kars 21 September 2013 12: 44
        +6
        Quote: Krang
        (whose dad is rich)
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 September 2013 12: 47
          +5
          Kars - I saw you in the photo for the first time. You are a nice guy. Just don't scare your enemies with your "Scorpion" or whatever you have, but rather ride it through the streets of night Chicago.
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 12: 51
            +4
            Quote: Krang
            Kars - the first time I saw you in the photo

            You do not slap the main photo when you will drive.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 September 2013 14: 41
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                I won’t get it.

                Well, your problems with potency do not bother me. You still don’t slap, swat, etc.
          2. sergey72
            sergey72 21 September 2013 13: 11
            +2
            This is the British self-propelled gun "Abbott" based on the "Scorpion" ...
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 37
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      They would allow the tank crews (who have a rich dad) to carry out the tuning of their T-72B themselves with the permission of the higher command naturally. What you can do with your own hands, that would be cool:

      Krang, as usual, was amused.
      Explanatory komenty + stormy own fantasy.

      Be careful with serious things:
      Quote: Krang
      Throw out all cumulative shells from the BC. Charge the tank:
      - AZ: 13 BOPS ZBM-42 "Mango" + 6 OFS + 3 UR.
      - non-mechanized warhead: 15 UR + 5 OFS + 3 BOPS ZBM-41.

      B / c depends on the theater.
      At least half of the b / c will ALWAYS be occupied by PF.
      Your example is rare, it's Prokhorovka-2

      Quote: Krang
      with "LG" car radio + "Bose" acoustics around the BO perimeter.

      In the headset headphones - ONLY communication.
      There were already cranks who tuned the P-123 to Mouzon. They paid hard, but not with their lives, but with the neighboring crew ...
      1. Crang
        Crang 22 September 2013 08: 23
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Quote: Krang
        with "LG" car radio + "Bose" acoustics around the BO perimeter.
        In the headset headphones - ONLY communication.

        It seems in Russian it was written: LG car radio + Bose acoustics around the BO perimeter. What does the headset's headphones have to do with it? You once again appropriated your fantasies to me, and then you yourself dispelled them. I know that there is ONLY communication in the headphones of the headset. It should be so. Powerful 45-watt cymbals will "rock" so that it will be heard normally through the headset. You will get audio information beating in two channels (two attention loops). This has long been practiced by pilots. So it's okay.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 22 September 2013 15: 51
          +3
          Quote: Krang
          It seems in Russian it was written: car radio LG + Bose speakers around the perimeter of the BO.

          Krang ...
          Well, have fun with your imagination yourself, but where does the site's readers then?
          After all, children drop in here, but why do little children need to powder their brains?
          Or write like that - it's humor. In this vein - finally your class.

          That, you see, give them a tank for tankers, and then shoot it from a cannon.
          That, you see, Mouzon them in the tower stick ...
          Karcher wash them ...

          If only something decent and worth dreaming:
          About a warmer heating system, for example, or more comfortable siduhs, shobs were also stuck to the ceiling for mine protection, and laid out for a comfortable position to "suppress the mass" on the march ...
          These are worthy dreams, which are definitely fantasies, since MO and finger on finger will not move about it.

          Oh, yes, I forgot ... you’ve already sat 1,5 times in the tank ...
          Where to me to you.
          You are confident in your fantasies ...
          I don’t care from the big bell tower, but people read you.
          1. Armata
            Armata 22 September 2013 16: 04
            +1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            If only something decent and worth dreaming:
            About a warmer heating system, for example, or more comfortable siduhs, shobs were also stuck to the ceiling for mine protection, and laid out for a comfortable position to "suppress the mass" on the march ...
            These are worthy dreams, which are definitely fantasies, since MO and finger on finger will not move about it.
            Hi Aleksey. The T90MS provides a complete set with air conditioning and an independent diesel stove, but it is expensive and the consumption flies up. The seats are specially made taking into account ergonomics and adjustments. But there are 2 large BUT 1 T90MS not in service, 2 toilets were not provided for in it.
            1. svp67
              svp67 22 September 2013 16: 09
              +2
              Quote: Mechanic
              toilets in it never provided.
              And the "heroes" hatch?
              1. Armata
                Armata 22 September 2013 16: 17
                0
                Quote: svp67
                And the "heroes" hatch?
                Hello, Sergey. Once again, only in Russian. Where is it? I'm an engineer, I’m used to the exact terms. laughing
                1. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 16: 19
                  +2
                  Quote: Mechanic
                  Where is it?
                  Emergency hatch, under the seat of a mechanic ... Very often used for this purpose ...
                  1. Armata
                    Armata 22 September 2013 16: 26
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    Emergency hatch, under the seat of a mechanic.
                    And where will he go? I just don’t know how they are misused.
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 16: 36
                      +1
                      Quote: Mechanic
                      I just don’t know how they are misused.

                      Sad hatch.
                      In order to use it, we can turn out the siduha with meat, settling on top, then push it (siduha) somewhere (nowhere).
                      Opening the hatch is also almost impossible.
                      You have to be a "hero" to manage to get out through it.

                      So there is a saying: I got out through it (already get crazy) - get a "hero".
                    2. Armata
                      Armata 22 September 2013 16: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Aleks tv
                      Sad hatch.
                      In order to use it, we can turn out the siduha with meat, settling on top, then push it (siduha) somewhere (nowhere).
                      Opening the hatch is also almost impossible.
                      You have to be a "hero" to manage to get out through it.
                      When I was at the assembly in the MC, it was different there. Siduhu back to the stop, you lean back forward (as in the old constipation) and here it is a hatch.
                    3. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 16: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: Mechanic
                      Siduhu back to the stop, you lean back forward (as in the old constipation) and here it is a hatch.

                      Wow ...
                      Thanks for the info.

                      And on the T-72 you need to take out the siduha and the back with meat.
                      Opening:
                      Four "zadriiki", and they are ... pinned ...
                      You’ll open horseradish without a hammer or hatchet ...
                      Requirements HTP, damn it.

                      Plus any trash around and on the hatch itself ...
                      And this is in training ...
                      And so ... mechanics do not have time to open it, and they cannot physically because of the explosion ...
                      It is not for nothing that it was called the "heroes hatch" ...
                      Eheh.
                    4. Crang
                      Crang 22 September 2013 17: 05
                      -1
                      Then the T-72 mechanics need to conduct trainings on leaving the tank through the gunner’s hatch. But the mechanics on the T-64 and T-80 need to be equipped with hacksaws for metal. And train them for high-speed sawing off the barrel of the gun and then leaving the tank through its hatch.
                    5. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 17: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      Then the mechanics of the T-72 need to conduct training on high-speed leaving the tank through the gunner’s hatch.

                      And so it was. And it was through the place of the gunner - it was free there, and the commander was always lying around with rubbish.

                      When undermining (or shaking after falling into a DZ), the mechanic drove the car somewhere around the corner and the gunner tried not to shoot and slowly withdraw the barrel of the gun on the 32-0 (slowly, so as not to jam something, you’ll know where the hell was) .
                      Further, the Mahan crawls into a gunner, who is already squatting on a siduha.
                      Then all three come out AT ONCE ...

                      The tower on the 32-0 is put just in case, if the mechanic has to get out of the standard hatch.

                      And so - it’s even possible to shoot if necessary, since the hatch is closed, the stabilizer works ...
                      Anything can happen.
              2. svp67
                svp67 23 September 2013 14: 35
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Opening the hatch is also almost impossible.
                It is worse when it is poorly closed, we had a case when this hatch didn’t "batten down" the fur properly and in motion it opened under the pressure of mud - the seat cushion withstood than saved the fur, but the control compartment turned out to be knee-deep with mud ... they drew it out, the tank was not running ...
              3. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 23 September 2013 15: 15
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                Worse when it is poorly closed, we had a case,

                Good day, Sergey.

                Yes, in general - "trouble" with this hatch ...
                It seems to be needed, but complete crap is obtained when using it.
                Well, not in an arc or in the Red Army ... Although, maybe he helped someone, the guys told about this, but he didn’t see it.
                Who knows.
              4. svp67
                svp67 23 September 2013 17: 40
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Good day, Sergey.
                Kind and warm, but very rainy ... fellow
        2. svp67
          svp67 23 September 2013 14: 31
          0
          Quote: Mechanic
          And where will he go? I just don’t know how they are misused.
          Litter ... what forgot to add - "on T55 and T62" fellow ... But on newer cars, this is, of course, very difficult to do, especially on those with enhanced mine protection of the bottom. Either a hatch, you can still somehow disassemble it, but assembling it - without help "from outside" is already problematic ... And on "A ......" this "device" was left?
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 22 September 2013 16: 23
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    And the "heroes" hatch?

    how is the toilet
    laughing laughing laughing
    good

    The hero's hatch is the mechanic's "luck" ...
    Nafik, nafik, nafik - use it.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 22 September 2013 16: 22
    0
    Quote: Mechanic
    T90MS not in service

    Greetings, Eugene.
    Eheh ...
    For the information about the stove - very interesting, because we are warming ourselves with the "gut" in winter, the people, if they see, are afraid of the appearance of the tank ...
    laughing
  • Crang
    Crang 22 September 2013 16: 27
    -1
    A toilet is needed in case of a nuclear war. When it is impossible to leave the tank without the risk of receiving a lethal dose of radiation. It would seem a laugh. But in reality I know at least two such "funny" cases. The first is when the newest nuclear submarine had to naturally interrupt the combat campaign and return to the base due to the failure of the latrines. And the second is even more terrible. After takeoff, the fighter pilot was sharply pinned, and specifically. Without wasting time on such trifles as a request for a landing and orders from the command, he, with grief, managed to land the plane in half, jump out of it to the staircase and run to the nearest grove past the astonished faces of the authorities. then of course he explained everything, but unpleasant.
    Quote: Mechanic
    The T90MS provides a complete set with air conditioning and an independent diesel stove, but it is expensive and the consumption flies up.

    Konday is still being put on the Indian version of the T-90S "Bshikhma". There it is already a necessity, not a luxury.
  • Crang
    Crang 22 September 2013 16: 46
    -1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Oh yes, I forgot ... you already sat 1,5 times in the tank

    This is in the T-80BV. And so I was a couple of times in the T-34-85. So that:
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Where to me to you.

    Quote: Aleks tv
    You are confident in your fantasies ...

    All these "fantasies" about tuning a pangolin are quite realizable in the presence of straight arms, what kind of tool and sheet metal (maybe even structural). If you fundamentally disagree with some point, you can reasonedly refute. Arguably, and not as they "proved" to me the existence of the "series" regime in the T-80 ...
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 17: 01
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Arguably, and not as they "proved" to me the existence of the "series" regime in the T-80 ...

      And why the heck to prove "reasonably" THAT IS?
      Your problems. The control device called you.

      Lana. We drove through.
      I see no reason for an empty bazaar.
      About interesting and serious - you are always welcome, I am not vindictive. me "pofik-broom" all sorts of scandals ...
      wink
  • Crang
    Crang 22 September 2013 16: 51
    -2
    Quote: Aleks tv
    or more comfortable siduh

    I recommend to install from some old B3 Passat. Both comfortable and inexpensive. In general, do not hope that someone will "make" your tank for you. Do it yourself. And get down to business with heart.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 17: 04
      0
      Quote: Krang
      from some old B3-th Passat.

      only it’s possible for the gunner to stick, others will not succeed.
      And such a chair is unnecessary combustible material, unfortunately.

      A good siduha is a super "theme" that designers overlook.
      Eheh.
      1. Crang
        Crang 22 September 2013 17: 10
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        only it’s possible for the gunner to stick, others will not succeed.

        Well, the regular mechanic's chair (at least in the T-80BV) seemed to me then (15 years ago) quite convenient, although it should be changed to Passatovsky too. But the commander does not need a chair from the Passat. The commander must conduct surveillance through his complex 360 degrees. How will he do this while sitting in a chair fixed in the forward position? He needs something like a bar stool on which he can turn 360 degrees with his appliance. And a separate backrest with a headrest that slides in / out in a relaxed environment. Something like this.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 22 September 2013 17: 24
          0
          Quote: Krang
          Something like this.

          Cool koment, Gregory.

          Yet:
          Mehan - you need to be able to get out through the emergency hatch and to the towers.
          To the gunner, there is nothing to do, only the convenience of tilting to the worm pair of the stabilizer.
          To the commander - the convenience of a reclining position when loading b / c in the AZ, tilting forward to recharge the FCT and controlling the P-173, as well as the ability to turn right and back to control the heater block (this is with the chair fixed).

          Does the commander need a swivel chair? this is a moot point ... Extra details ... We need a powerful electric motor ... It is better that the commander’s turret sharply rotates on its own stabilizer, and the commander can spin on a fixed chair.
          But this is IMHO, maybe not right.

          And the topic of siduh is really worthwhile and serious.
          1. Crang
            Crang 22 September 2013 18: 06
            -1
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Extra details ... We need a powerful electric motor ... It is better that the commander’s turret sharply rotates on its own stabilizer, and the commander can spin on a fixed chair.

            The best option: the commander’s swivel chair associated with its sighting and observation system. The whole system should be equipped with fast and accurate power drives and a counter-rotation system from the tower (so that when the tower is rotated, the commander with his unit does not turn with it). Something similar was realized by the Americans on the experimental tank MVT-70.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 22 September 2013 22: 53
            +2
            Quote: Aleks tv
            It is better that the commander’s turret sharply rotates quickly on its own stabilizer, and the commander can spin in a fixed chair.
            But this is IMHO, maybe not right.

            Alex, good evening!
            I think the stabilizer on the commander’s tower can cripple the commander if the gunner, without coordination, turns the tower, and the commander’s remains in place.
            In my opinion, the rotary commander’s turret will be a thing of the past, and there will be a panoramic observation device that will look in any direction, depending on the rotation of the helm from the commander’s place. Like the T-90 ms.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 22 September 2013 23: 15
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              the stabilizer on the commander’s tower can cripple the commander if the gunner, without coordination, turns the tower, and the commander’s remains in place.

              Hmm ...
              There are more questions than answers, because the commander did not work with stabilizers, only on the T-80 there were TKN-4s-01 with vertical. Stable ...

              Quote: Bad_gr
              there will be a panoramic observation device,

              This is my dream, Vladimir ...
              repeat wink
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 22 September 2013 22: 29
    +2
    Quote: Krang
    They would allow tankers (who have a rich dad) to conduct tuning of their T-72Bs themselves with the permission of a higher command naturally ........

    I would put a spoiler over the engine, and adjust the exhaust sound, so that there would be more bottoms. By the way, in BMW a whole department deals with exhaust sound, and in our opinion, in my opinion, they do not pay attention to this at all.

    I remembered:
    "The leadership of the Palestinian Authority has banned those Israeli tanks whose noise level exceeds 90 decibels from entering their settlements."
    1. svp67
      svp67 23 September 2013 02: 12
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      I remembered:
      "The leadership of the Palestinian Authority has banned those Israeli tanks whose noise level exceeds 90 decibels from entering their settlements."

      Funny. good And interestingly, they didn’t let a lot? am
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 29 September 2013 21: 49
    +1
    so the T-34-85 can become a worthy competitor to the Abrams
  • soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 23: 11
    +1
    I support! Aleks TV ...... Respect and Respect! All right! Write comments often with documentary facts from life! And then the ignorant youth went (especially in technical matters). Some theorists and science fiction writers! :)
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 22 September 2013 00: 04
      +1
      Quote: soldier of fortune
      Some theorists and science fiction writers!

      Greetings, unfortunately, I do not know the name.

      Saturday today.
      Not enough "fuel oil" on the site ...
      Guys walk around, have fun ... Well, that's right.
      wink
      drinks
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 00: 53
        +2
        Yes, there are all nameless .......
        Call Mercenary ...... lnt stock (long time ago)
        drinks
  • rolik
    rolik 22 September 2013 00: 32
    +6
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Thanks to the author for the article, although she has been reading for many years

    And I want to dilute with humor such a serious discussion))))
    I have once posted on the website this article about Abrash, not written by me, but surprisingly easy to read))))) I repeat, perhaps))))
    Excellent tank "Abrams". The main thing is high-tech. Instead of an automatic loader, he has a black jock, throwing shots into the breech. Historically, missile firing is not provided for in it. It looks impressive as well. The tower is the size of a garden house. The engine is great. Almost like the T80, only better. The temperature of the outgoing gases is such that the IR seeker sees it from space. The issue of insufficient power of the main engine for twisting a garden house with a cannon has been correctly resolved. An additional diesel engine is attached to the turret. They usually tend to shoot him with a machine gun, which inevitably leads to the complete burnout of the entire tank. Another advantage is the low price and good manufacturability. Probably because, practically no one is going to buy them, except for the US Army. In the USSR and Russia, there was always a tension with blacks. It must be assumed that the graduates of the Peoples' Friendship University of Moscow. Patrice Lumumba categorically did not want to go to the loaders. Therefore, in "teshkas", starting from the mid-70s, even with the T-72, automatic cannons were installed, and the crew, respectively, was three people, without a loader. Accordingly, the "teshki" are both shorter in height and lighter in weight, and their tower is somehow small and "flattened", no "solidity." And the "Abrams" looks impressive. Ba-alshoy so-akoy. And the temperature of the outgoing gases is such that the satellite sees the Abrams from space in any weather. And the helicopter anti-tank missile guidance system will even more see, even from a maximum distance. But the engine is excellent - as much as one and a half thousand horses. Where is there "teshkam" with theirs twelve hundred. True, if we take the specific power (per 1 kg of weight), then the "teshki" have it higher, because the "teshki" are one and a half times lighter. Well, of course, it’s undersized. And historically, missile firing in the Abrams is not provided for. And why the heck it is necessary. Abrams is intended to crush all sorts of savages, natives, and where did they get helicopters and satellites? Abrams is good to everyone. This is how they write everywhere and everywhere. Only now there were some irresponsible ones, with independent thinking. Which are looking for all sorts of shortcomings, digging up. And then they dug up. To turn this agro-tower tower, even the power of fifteen hundred horses is not enough. Therefore, the tower on the main engine rotates very slowly. However, this is a drawback of all tanks with large turrets, even starting with the "tiger". To increase the rotation speed of the tower, the designers attached an additional diesel engine (DDM) behind the tower. And since DDM is not a vital element (if the DDM fails, the tower still rotates, only slowly), then the additional engine was not enclosed in the main armor the citadel, but simply covered it with a steel box with a wall one and a half centimeters thick from stray bullets and shrapnel.
    Tu bi Continent))))
    1. rolik
      rolik 22 September 2013 00: 35
      +7
      Quote: rolik
      Tu bi Continent))))

      Continuation of the monologue about Abrash.
      So, self-thinking people, after having read several Sunnas from the Qur'an and praised Allah, they pick up a Soviet-made large-caliber machine gun DSHK.
      Our grandfathers still beat the Fritz with Leningrad and Sevastopol with an anti-machine gun (colloquially “tar”). The DShK was adopted by the Red Army back in 1938, and over the course of these 70 years an unmeasured amount has been produced. "Tar" among the heavy machine guns - like a "Kalash" among the machine guns. The most massive, with a wide margin from competitors. Therefore, every self-respecting detachment of "jihad warriors" has this machine gun in service. As a rule, not one. Cheap and cheerful.
      And the intrepid Mujahideen begin to beat from the "antediluvian" DShK through the additional engine of the ultra-modern "Abrams" armor-piercing incendiary bullets that reliably penetrate two-centimeter armor. DDM fails and lights up. Smoke enters the compartment where the "Negro-loader" is located. The black man is used to the clean air of his native Alabama and therefore jumps out of the tank with a cry of “Fuck you fucking motherfuckers !!!”, which we will not translate, for cultural people.
      The Mujahideen do not like this either, because Sharia categorically against environmental pollution with bad words. Therefore, they begin to peel a black man from the “Kalash”, which they have one in each hand and one more “Kalash” behind the back for the Pontus. Despite the claims of “experts” that it is impossible to get anywhere from “Kalash”, they still end up in a black man. Let us return to the tank. The fire spreads to the main engine and the entire engine compartment lights up already. It’s already impossible to be in the tank from complete smoke and temperature rise and the whole crew jumps out of it shouting “Sucking cunts and assholes !!!”, which cultural people don’t use, and Muslims go into complete fury, for sacrilege. In short, the fate of the crew is unenviable. Which conclusion follows from this? In any environment, you can and should be a polite and well-mannered person. If the American tankers peacefully left the tank with their hands up and culturally said “Salam Aleikum,” no one would have touched them, because, according to the Sharia, to shoot an unarmed surrendered enemy is an unworthy cowardice for a jihad warrior. However, let us return to the tank. The fire spreads throughout the tank, the temperature reaches a critical point and an ammunition explosion occurs - 40 large-caliber shells.
      I’ll also add that the ultra-modern composite armor of Abrams, which has no analogues in the world, any of our RPGs, starting from the 50s of release, easily flashes when it gets into the side projection of the tank from any range. (What the amers in Iraq saw with some surprise. They even naively assumed that some unknown enemy was supplying Iraqi partisans with some top-secret weapons unknown to military science. Then they were even more surprised when they caught an old man with a shaitan pipe worth 400 dollars, from which he knocked out the abrams ...)
      However, only the most recent RPG modifications take this armor into the frontal projection. (RPG-manual anti-tank grenade launcher) Mujahideen do not have such yet. So the cunning Islam warriors come in from the side. And even from the rear.
      And coming from the rear, judging by the latest homosexual fashion in the mattress army, they somehow like it more lol
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 22 September 2013 02: 43
        +2
        Quote: rolik
        Continuation of the monologue about Abrash.

        Thanks, Roman.
        Cool humor
        laughing

        Hello brother.
        20-I division, after all ...
        wink
        1. rolik
          rolik 22 September 2013 18: 50
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Hello brother.

          the whole family brother, now he left for Bulgaria to visit dad)))))) I arrived, he left))) Apples are now bursting from his garden))))
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 22 September 2013 19: 04
            +1
            Quote: rolik
            Apples are now bursting from his garden))))

            good
            And it is right.
            Good luck to him.
            1. rolik
              rolik 22 September 2013 19: 09
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Good luck to him.

              To you as well drinks
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 22 September 2013 20: 56
                0
                Quote: rolik
                To you as well

                drinks
      2. samoletil18
        samoletil18 29 September 2013 21: 58
        +1
        It became scary for the American tankers if they climb into Syria.
  • user
    user 21 September 2013 11: 51
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    As for all kinds of Tor 10, such a huh ... I, then planes, then submarines, then ... I don’t even want to list, in essence one - propaganda of American weapons or, at worst, NATO.
    As one of the leaders said. The most important of the arts is cinema, in this case PROPAGANDA
    1. Crang
      Crang 21 September 2013 15: 19
      +3
      I watched "Top Best Ships" - among battleships and aircraft carriers. The first place, of course, was taken by the American Iowa-class battleship. At the same time, the Japanese superlinker Yamato did not even receive a brief mention of itself.
  • major071
    major071 21 September 2013 12: 04
    20
    The tankman himself, the officer. He studied from 1989 to 1993 at the Chelyabinsk Higher Tank Command School named after the 50th anniversary of the Great October Revolution. They studied at the T-72. For 4 years, of course, we drove both T-62 and T-64, even T-80, but the main training was on the T-72. The tank is beautiful. Reliable, powerful, with a trained crew capable of withstanding any foreign tanks at that time. Repaired "roughly on the knee". I consider it the best tank (including mods). And about the Abrams, Leopers, etc. you can write different things. This is a business. I have no, but I advertise it, and you are sweet, but there is no advertisement. Question: from whom will they buy? Managers rule.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 21 September 2013 20: 28
      -6
      Quote: major071
      The tank is beautiful. Reliable, powerful, with a trained crew capable of withstanding any foreign tanks at that time. Repaired "roughly on the knee"

      Tell this to the Syrian tankers who were alive in it, who had not had time to leave the tank because of cramped conditions and because of the instant ignition of propellant charges.
      PS: video on the flying towers of the T-72 sea on the network ...
      1. major071
        major071 21 September 2013 20: 47
        12
        All tanks are on fire. On the modern battlefield the infantryman lives the longest - about 40 minutes, the tank about 5. Do not blame the tank only for what you spotted there on YouTube. The Syrians have a good opinion of him. If they had Abrams, they would burn and explode in the same way. IMHO. soldier
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 September 2013 09: 43
          -4
          Quote: major071
          All tanks are on fire. On the modern battlefield the infantryman lives the longest - about 40 minutes, the tank about 5.

          This is certain. All are burning. The only question is how. And here you need to look at statistics on the number of tanks burned down and the number of crews killed while doing so.
          1. major071
            major071 22 September 2013 22: 07
            +7
            I agree with you. Here it is necessary to take into account not only the number of dead tanks and their crews, but also which tanks (their mods) are knocked out, the crew’s trainability. And the data is not taken from YouTube. Recently, a lot of experts have divorced, who saw the tank only in the picture and on TV, read articles and go on wiping it. a person who was not even in the tank while driving, I'm not talking about shooting (and participation in exercises is generally super), cannot judge objectively about a car. My son, dad, said correctly, why is Abrams better than our tanks? Who told you? Yes, they constantly talk about it on TV. And who is talking? Yes, the Americans shot a documentary. About what? Yes, that their tank is the best. Who thinks so? The Americans. Well, let them think so. Dad, I saw on YouTube that their tanks are on fire. Burn of course. So they are not the best. Of course there is no son, there are no better tanks, they all burn. Are ours better? Ours are better!
      2. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 21: 24
        +6
        And the Syrian tankers have already said a lot of laudatory words about our tanks !!! Video sea on the net ..... as well as photos from the video of the burned Abrams. So what?
        And 350-400 thousand people a year die all over the world on the roads! So what? Say it to motorists?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 September 2013 10: 12
          -3
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          And the Syrian tankers have already said a lot of laudatory words about our tanks !!! Video sea on the net ..... as well as photos from the video of the burned Abrams. So what?

          Syrian tankers are desperate guys, this is not for them to occupy. But it should be recognized that their opponents have no serious anti-tank weapons. RPG-7, this is the main anti-tank artillery of jihadists and SSA, and it is not enough to defeat the T-72. Where the ATGMs and RPGs are working more seriously, the Syrian tankers no longer comment on anything.
          With regards to the photos and videos of the burned Abrams, they certainly are. But these frames do not show the "flying tower" effect that is usually accompanied by hitting the T-72. Yes, Abrams is on fire, or rather the fuel on which his gas turbine is running, but the crew has time to leave the burning tank. When you look at the video of the T-72 exploding, you realize that no one could survive there, the crew simply does not have enough time to jump out ...
          1. Crang
            Crang 22 September 2013 12: 18
            +2
            Quote: Nayhas
            But it should be recognized that their opponents have no serious anti-tank weapons. RPG-7, this is the main anti-tank artillery of jihadists and SSA, and it is not enough to defeat the T-72.

            How is it not? There is. They have a whole range of Soviet anti-tank equipment. From RPG-7 and SPG-9 to RPG-29 and ATGM.
            Quote: Nayhas
            With regards to the photos and videos of the burned Abrams, they certainly are. But these frames do not show the effect of a "flying tower" that usually accompanied by a hit in the T-72.

            I have highlighted your main mistake in bold. Firstly, you do not distinguish here and therefore mixed together two parameters that characterize the security of a modern tank (in reality there are even more of them): a) armor protection and tank survivability and b) crew survivability in the event of a tank defeat. You must be able to distinguish between them. So in the first parameter (armor protection and tank survivability) the T-72B is superior to the Abrams. Thanks to the reliable and sturdy design of the units, the perfect shape of the hull and the dense body kit with DZ elements, it is extremely difficult to knock out the T-72B in a circle. In Chechnya, and in Syria, to disable a serviceable and equipped T-72B, the enemy required an average of 4 to 7 hits from a WG / ATGM. The record was set by a certain T-72B in Chechnya, which withstood 17 (!) Hits from RPG-7/18/22, SPG-9 and ATGM. Western tanks (with the possible exception of the "Merkava") did not even come close to this level. Have you seen many videos of the T-72 ripping off the turret? Firstly, not all of them were T-72Bs and not even all T-72AVs. Secondly, you can watch in the same place how many videos there are on the topic: "Hit and not penetration", "T-72 withstood ....", "T-72 against RPGs ...", "T-72 withstood a few ... "I assure you there are an order of magnitude more of them. For one case of hitting a T-72B with a turret detachment, there are 20-30 safe hits. At the same time, history knows the case of the destruction of the "Abrams" by the fire of a 12,7mm DShK machine gun (here it is a GTE).
            1. Kars
              Kars 22 September 2013 12: 37
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              the cord was delivered by a certain T-72B in Chechnya, which withstood 17 (!) hits from RPG-7/18/22, SPG-9 and ATGM. Western tanks (with the possible exception of the "Merkava") did not even come close to this level.



              And what level have they reached? Or is it an unfounded conclusion for the sake of personal opinion? Do you have statistics on tank destruction in Chechnya and Iraq?
              Quote: Krang
              I "Abrams" fire 12,7mm machine gun DShK (here it is GTE).

              And where does the GTE come from? In Chechnya, the T-72 was disabled by the KPVT fire, is it a diesel?
              Quote: Krang
              They are not desperate, they are just normal disciplined tankers who, (pay attention), unlike you, believe in their weapons - the T-72 tank

              Do they have a choice? Except desertion?
              Quote: Krang
              In "Abrams" the gunner is like in a trap

              what is it? It seems like there are two hatches on the roof, does the mechanic have a separate one in the case, or was it brewed?
              Quote: Krang
              And in "Abrams" you run the risk of simply being burned alive, having received a sea of ​​impressions in the end.
              Here the question arises why would it suddenly be? From the available statistics? On Abrash there is not even a storage tank, tanks in the bow of the hull, armored and protected
              Quote: Krang
              In Iraq they burned like candles from our ATGM "Konkurs".

              Just like candles? And probably on YouTube there is a video?
              Quote: Krang
              If it’s so scary to burn, you can go to the infantry and die there with your severed leg stepping on a mine
              It is better to go to long-range artillery or to the OTRK / MLRS.
              1. Crang
                Crang 22 September 2013 12: 53
                +1
                Kars, leave me alone. We are arguing with another person. You just get in the way.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 22 September 2013 15: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  Kars, leave me alone. We are arguing with another person. You just get in the way.

                  Dreaming, one-eyed))))
            2. svp67
              svp67 22 September 2013 13: 25
              0
              Quote: Krang
              here it is the TBG).
              Well, actually there is clearly a blunder of the designers, the APU was struck, and not the GTE itself. By the way, the APU really needs a thing, and I was very happy when it appeared on our tanks, and by the way, our designers protected it very worthily ...
          2. Crang
            Crang 22 September 2013 12: 20
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            Syrian tankers are desperate guys, this is not for them to occupy.

            They are not desperate, they are just normal disciplined tankers who, (note) unlike you believe in their weapons - the T-72 tank. But if the T-72 had everything as sad as you describe, then, according to the logic of things, the Syrian tankers were the first to panic.
            Quote: Nayhas
            Yes, Abrams is on fire, or rather, the fuel on which his gas turbine is running is on, but the crew has time to leave the burning tank.

            That would immediately immediately explode instantly - this happens, but quite rarely. Usually the crew is given a time from 5-10s to several minutes to jump out, which they (considering that each has a separate hatch above their heads) and do. Sometimes it doesn't explode at all and the tank just burns up. It depends. Here we come to point b) the survival of the crew in the event of a tank defeat. Indeed, here the T-72 is inferior to the Abrams, BUT it is not as critical as it is customary to think about it. I have already mentioned individual hatches in the T-72. In "Abrams" the gunner is like in a trap. Secondly, "Abrams" burns like all other tanks ie. not fuel, but the entire tank: fuel, oil, paint on iron, the remains of uranium BOPS that pierced the armor. Everything is on fire. And even if you take the most zvizdets that can happen to a lizard - the detonation and separation of the tower. This is an instant, painless death. And in "Abrams" you run the risk of simply being burned alive, having received a sea of ​​impressions in the end. So, in this respect, the harsh Ural guys, while designing the T-72 themselves, without expecting it, turned out to be even more humane, the "philanthropic" Americans who designed the Abrams. And so - yes, the percentage of survival in "Abrams" is higher in case of defeat. But it turned out to be much easier to hit "Abrams". In Iraq they burned like candles from our ATGM "Konkurs". So that's rough parity. The tank is not for mama's sons at all. If it is so scary to burn, you can go to the infantry and die there with a torn off leg stepping on a mine and burn up being doused with napalm from a flamethrower. Or you can go to the radar operators and evaporate after being hit by an anti-radar missile or a Tomahawk.
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 22 September 2013 00: 11
        12
        Quote: Nayhas
        Tell that to the Syrian tankmen burning alive in it,

        There are certain phrases that only those ... have the right to pronounce ...
        Tried to be cultured. VERY ATTEMPTED.

        If you do not understand, these are your problems, but try not to express yourself like that anymore.
        For example, in a personal meeting with a tanker for IT it is possible to get into a tambourine without warning.
        I'm not kidding.
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 01: 08
          +8
          And I’ll add a couple of times, although not a tanker!
          Who participated will confirm that the ARMOR - oh, how it helps! fellow And even I don’t care what, at least on the T-34 and everything helped with fire and shelter !!!
          TANKIST infantry BROTHER! Moreover, the eldest! With such a brother behind or at the head and into the fray is not so scary! soldier
        2. svp67
          svp67 22 September 2013 12: 50
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          I'm not kidding.

          Something tells me that there will be a "Series" ... I support.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 22 September 2013 15: 59
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            Something tells me that there will be a "Series" ... I support.

            Greetings, Sergey.
            Not mistaken ...
            laughing

            Glad to see you.
  • Ulysses
    Ulysses 21 September 2013 12: 23
    +6
    Comments pleased no less than the article itself. love
    1. Ulysses
      Ulysses 21 September 2013 13: 13
      +4
      To lovers of abrams and leoperds, thank you for the minus sign. laughing
  • 31231
    31231 21 September 2013 12: 35
    +6
    Thanks to the author for the article. They’re fighting not ratings, but people. And you also need to see what the American silver carp will show in rough terrain against 72 against us.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 21 September 2013 13: 58
    +2
    Abrams Abrams. And how they were invited to a tank biathlon, they immediately combed themselves in one place!
    1. Ulysses
      Ulysses 21 September 2013 14: 31
      +1
      Aha, there in their engine a strange farting sound appeared and does not pass in any way. laughing
    2. Ulysses
      Ulysses 21 September 2013 14: 36
      0
      And "he (the Russians) have grenades of the wrong system." wink
  • Katalizator7
    Katalizator7 21 September 2013 14: 19
    +4
    The Americans last dealt with the Russians in the Korean War. Since then they have not risked, even Georgians were afraid to support in 2008. In the meantime, there will not be such a direct check, all of their advertising efforts are simply chatter. Comparing the capabilities of technology without the human factor is just as stupid. To beat with impunity the technically and numerically weak enemy, the NATO people are no master, no doubt, but they have a norm for war - no more than 5% losses! With such norms, they will not snoop on Russia, they will set vassals, such as Georgians, or Turks. We only need to keep them in mind if we turn up (or rather, when turn up) we will beat not only the vassals, but also the owners too, then we’ll see where their much-praised technologies will be ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 21 September 2013 14: 46
      10
      The last time in Vietnam. Moreover, Vietnam showed that we were able to teach the Vietnamese and they fully realized what tank war what (decisive) significance it has in modern highly mobile warfare. The Vietnamese managed to use armada of their T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76 in the jungle and achieved brilliant results. The Americans used their М48А1 and М551 "Sherridan" very limitedly, in small groups, everywhere and always achieving only limited, small goals. It is not surprising that it was our T-54 that finally knocked down the gates of the American embassy in Saigon, and not vice versa (aviation did not help the Yankees). The Americans managed to learn the art of tank warfare only by 1991, during Operation Desert Storm. More than 50 years after this art was first used in the world by the Russians (in the Far East), the Germans (in Europe).
      What is alarming is that we are honored teachers and sensei in the field of tank warfare, who have perfectly mastered this "sword-kladenets" since WW2 began to gradually lose our skills under the onslaught of corrupt journalists, insolent media and idiotic defense ministers. Tank divisions are being formed, and instead small tank brigades are being created, capable of solving only limited and at the same time not strategic tasks. After all, what can a tank do by itself in modern warfare? Almost nothing. The power of tanks is in their quantity. In their armada. When this countless armored power, creeping motors creeps, destroying everything in its path. This is where the means of VET and aviation become useless. The USSR possessed such an instrument. We have almost lost such an instrument (despite the thousands of tanks in fact). It needs to be revived: numerous WoT fans are perfect as crews. What is needed for victory in modern warfare? WMD, air defense and armada tanks with means of moving them over long distances by land and water. This is the main thing. Everything else is secondary.
      1. Kars
        Kars 21 September 2013 14: 52
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        . The Vietnamese managed to use the armada of their T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76 in

        just Armada)))) how much?

        and who cares and even with pictures find
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 September 2013 14: 56
          0
          Quote: Kars

          just Armada)))) how much?

          For the conditions of impenetrable jungle - a lot.
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 15: 03
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            For the conditions of impenetrable jungle - a lot.

            there is not only the jungle - there are also rice fields and so on. And not armada, but rather a limited number. And if you call a dozen tanks in an attack an armada.
            1. Crang
              Crang 21 September 2013 15: 06
              +1
              Many more than 10 tanks took part in strategic offensive operations. And in local battles, such as the destruction with the help of 10 PT-76 American military bases, special forces (along with the commandos themselves) really do not need much.
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 September 2013 15: 25
                +2
                Quote: Krang
                Much more than 10 tanks took part in strategic offensive operations

                How much more is this? At least they reached the Soviet tank division in terms of numbers? I'm not talking about TA anymore - where is the armada really.

                Quote: Krang
                0-ka PT-76 American military base of special forces (along with the commandos themselves) - really a lot

                read it somewhere on the internet? or share it with the public?
                1. Crang
                  Crang 21 September 2013 15: 44
                  +3
                  Quote: Kars
                  How much more is this? At least they reached the Soviet tank division in terms of numbers? I'm not talking about TA anymore - where is the armada really.

                  Read it happens:
                  http://www.zelezki.ru/interest/history/vek-tankov/3347-malenkaya-kolonialnaya-vo
                  jna.html
                  Quote: Kars
                  read it somewhere on the internet? or share it with the public?

                  The defeat of the American Lang Wei Special Forces base in February 1968. All the work was done in a few hours with the help of a dozen not the most formidable (but well suited to that area) PT-76.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 September 2013 16: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: Krang
                    http://www.zelezki.ru/interest/history/vek-tankov/3347-malenkaya-kolonialnaya-vo



                    jna.html

                    Does it really bother you about Korea?
                    By June 1950, KPA had only 258 tanks

                    More details: http://www.zelezki.ru/interest/history/vek-tankov/3347-malenkaya-kolonialnaya-vo


                    % 20jna.html # ixzz2fWpOCHdC

                    then a little bit of vietnam
                    8 March 1965 year in Da Nang landed the first part of the US Marine Corps, including tanks M48AZ "Patton" 3-th tank battalion.

                    More details: http://www.zelezki.ru/interest/history/vek-tankov/3347-malenkaya-kolonialnaya-vo

                    % 20jna.html # ixzz2fWqCXOZQ



                    They relied entirely on aviation assistance, and their ground forces showed complete helplessness in the fight against large tank formations, although they were only North Vietnamese tank regiments, and not Soviet tank armies.

                    More details: http://www.zelezki.ru/interest/history/vek-tankov/3347-malenkaya-kolonialnaya-vo
                    % 20jna.html # ixzz2fWqi47cK

                    Quote: Krang
                    The defeat of the American Lang Wei Special Forces base in February 1968. All the work was done in a few hours with the help of a dozen not the most formidable (but well suited to that area) PT-76.

                    And? All were killed? How many special forces were on the special base? Who took part in the attack of the promo 10 tanks? How many mortars? Infantry?
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 21 September 2013 16: 18
                      0
                      Well read it. Well it's written right there.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 21 September 2013 16: 22
                        +3
                        Quote: Krang
                        Well read it. Well it's written right there.

                        Nothing is written there about Armada. About the 1972 offensive - so there’s not a completely different song there, and even there are a couple of hundreds of tanks sprayed in many directions. And not such a jungle. It’s hard to get into a Soviet TD.
            2. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 21 September 2013 18: 57
              0
              Kars, well you say a dozen everyone knows that there were about 500 tanks.
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 September 2013 19: 06
                +2
                Quote: cth; fyn
                Kars, well you say a dozen everyone knows that there were about 500 tanks.

                in one attack? the total - for the entire period - maybe. but this is far from armada.
                1. cth; fyn
                  cth; fyn 21 September 2013 19: 13
                  0
                  That is yes. The jungle, you will not concentrate much in one place, and they left half after the breakdowns, in general, there was a strange war.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 September 2013 19: 16
                    +2
                    I don’t remember just that, Vietnam Laos or Cambodia
                    1. cth; fyn
                      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 19: 21
                      0
                      ginger tank laughing we have the same place on the Glory Square, only painted in light green color laughing laughing laughing
            3. air wolf
              air wolf 31 October 2013 12: 28
              0
              Darling, did you see a tank alive on the go when it rolls at you? After that, one tank will seem like an armada!
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 21 September 2013 15: 30
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          just Armada)))) how much?

          laughing What kind of enemy, such are the "armada".
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 15: 54
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            What kind of enemy, such are the "armada".

            And? What does this saying mean? Americans in Vietnam were few armored vehicles? A lot? to develop a thought then?
          2. Kars
            Kars 21 September 2013 15: 58
            +1
            _________________
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 21 September 2013 17: 02
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        The Americans managed to learn the art of tank war only by 1991

        The main reason for their success was a thermal imager, which Iraqi cars didn’t have. At night or during a sandstorm, this was a shooting.
  • rks5317
    rks5317 21 September 2013 15: 10
    +2
    Nothing-faced with RUSSIAN crews-have to change the rating ...
  • chernomor62
    chernomor62 21 September 2013 15: 20
    0
    interesting article. whatever one may say, our weapon is very, very.
  • lotar
    lotar 21 September 2013 15: 51
    +1
    Any technique is created for certain tasks, and it happens that the solution to the same problem can occur in different ways and it is not surprising that each country positions its equipment as the best one. At the moment there is either no or very few real clashes it does not make sense to make any technique with its analogues and to make premature conclusions, if only as an advertising move and an element of information war. The outcome of any battle depends on many reasons and to say that the Abrams tank is in any battle with its counterpart will win prezhdevremenno.Ne once or twice in the history of the seemingly most modern armed army advanced models of equipment destroyed their opponents.
  • Bagatur
    Bagatur 21 September 2013 16: 06
    +2
    Presented by the Americans as invulnerable and without measure praised by the American (and for good money by our own) media, the Abrams, however, was successfully struck by the Soviet-made anti-tank weapons that were used by the Iraqi army. Including hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. They were mainly affected by onboard, stern and upper parts of the tank.

    As we say in Bolarry, it’s better to put people in their mouth and foot ...))) Amer knows how he praises himself ...
  • lucidlook
    lucidlook 21 September 2013 16: 58
    +2
    It's funny that the British Challenger 2 was not included in the rating at all - the only tank that did not suffer losses as a result of enemy fire during all operations in the bay. One of the cars withstood 14 hits from an RPG, was rebuilt and returned to service 6 hours later. Impressive?
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 21 September 2013 20: 43
      0
      Quote: lucidlook
      One of the cars withstood 14 hits from an RPG

      This does not mean anything - maybe she was bombarded alone and the hits were unsuccessful. Statistics accumulate over a long period of time
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 September 2013 20: 50
        +3
        One T-80 withstood 18 hits from RPGs, read about the storming of Grozny and you will understand that this is not an isolated case, our tanks are very difficult to disable.
        1. lucidlook
          lucidlook 21 September 2013 21: 51
          0
          Quote: cth; fyn
          One T-80 withstood 18 hits from RPGs, read about the storming of Grozny and you will understand that this is not an isolated case, our tanks are very difficult to disable.


          Read:

          During the storming of Grozny from December 31 to 1994, to April 1 to 1995, our losses amounted to 1426 people killed and 4630 wounded, 96 soldiers and officers were captured by militants. Irrecoverable losses of military equipment amounted to approximately 49 tanks, 132 infantry fighting vehicles, 98 armored personnel carriers, 51 vehicles based on infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers (according to the statement of Colonel General A. Galkin, head of the Main Automobile Armored Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense, for the first month and a half of battles in Chechnya, irretrievable losses of armored vehicles made up 225 units, 62 of which are tanks).
      2. lucidlook
        lucidlook 21 September 2013 21: 49
        0
        Quote: Pilat2009
        It doesn’t mean anything, maybe she was shelled alone

        Emnip, something about 120 cars fought there. It is unlikely that they all sat on airfields, and this one and only was specially prepared to withstand RPGs.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 22: 06
          0
          Terrible. TANKS. How it was
          Most of the tanks that received an average of 7 to 12 hits from RPGs during all the battles in Grozny were restored several times in repair battalions. For example, the T-72B1 tank (board No. 221) 276 MSP had 2 through holes from the RPG during the battle at the hospital complex on January 16, 1995, and after the current repair was damaged again on January 21, 1995 near the Council of Ministers building with five RPG grenades. The first hit the starboard side above the 4th ice rink, the second, third and fourth - to the left side and the fifth - to the tower above the barrel with damage to the AZ. The tank was sent for major repairs. Tank T-80BV from the composition of 133 Guards. during the battles in Grozny, he received 18 hits from an RPG and 1 detonation on a land mine.

          Note: they are not lost, not burned, but only knocked down, and repaired.
  • repytw
    repytw 21 September 2013 16: 58
    +2
    Quote: Katalizator7
    The Americans last dealt with the Russians in the Korean War. Since then they have not risked, even Georgians were afraid to support in 2008. In the meantime, there will not be such a direct check, all of their advertising efforts are simply chatter. Comparing the capabilities of technology without the human factor is just as stupid. To beat with impunity the technically and numerically weak enemy, the NATO people are no master, no doubt, but they have a norm for war - no more than 5% losses! With such norms, they will not snoop on Russia, they will set vassals, such as Georgians, or Turks. We only need to keep them in mind if we turn up (or rather, when turn up) we will beat not only the vassals, but also the owners too, then we’ll see where their much-praised technologies will be ...



    Okay with the Russians, their semi-trained Koreans on t-34-85 at the beginning of the conflict were smashed to dry until the Pershing were brought.
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 21 September 2013 19: 41
      0
      in my opinion the tank crews of the North Koreans fought in the Second World War on our side
      1. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 22 September 2013 02: 28
        -2
        They could not fight in the Second World War. North Korea appeared only after the war, as a result of Soviet aggression.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 22 September 2013 03: 06
          +1
          And why didn’t South Korea appear as a result of American aggression? You are our imperialist!
        2. maxvet
          maxvet 22 September 2013 11: 47
          0
          well, it’s clear that they became North Korean later, I read about the crews at Baryatinsky
  • Bradley
    Bradley 21 September 2013 17: 56
    13 th
    For me, the safety of soldiers in a tank has always been more important. Alas, here the T-72/90 and a penny broken are not worth it. Whoever said that, but the T-72/90 is a box with BK fuel and people.
    Leopard, Merkava and Abrams are the best here.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 19: 06
      0
      You have to pay for everything. Abrashka and Leo paid a heavy weight, but ours decided to put pressure on the crews of the armored vehicles and in principle it works, only the situation with the armored suits dragged on, and the mistakes of the commanders who let the tanks full of solarium and extra ammunition into the battle also did their job, look at the statistics casualties after the first Chechen month, tank losses, and especially detonation, plummeted, and why? because everyone understood where the weak points are and why they are weak. As a result, the tanks went into battle only with a loaded AZ and didn’t take any more shells with them, and the fennel tanks were empty, they simply didn’t learn this and everything had to be comprehended by the old-fashioned trial and error method.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 21 September 2013 20: 41
        0
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Abrashka and Leo paid a heavy weight, but ours decided to put on the armored carriages and in principle it works, but the situation dragged on with armored suits

        And how will body armor help when the BC detonates? Or will propelling charges ignite?

        Quote: cth; fyn
        As a result, tanks went into battle only with a loaded AZ and more shells did not take aft and track tanks with them empty

        And what's so good about that? Is it a plus to achieve survival by reducing performance?
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 20: 57
          +1
          Well, let's try Abrache before the fight to reduce the gap between the hull and the tower or to cast iron on the sides. Firstly, feed and nadgusny tanks are used only on marches, and secondly, try to reload a cannon from a non-mechanized installation while the target tracking machine and gun stabilizer are working, this is simply impossible, therefore the tank will have to leave the battle to charge the AZ, and why carry it with gunpowder in the living room? moreover, he is not protected, but in AZ he is protected so that in any case he is not threatened there.
          So this is not a decrease in performance, but rather a transfer of them from paper to practice, on a piece of paper and on the Fu-35, dvigla replacement = 2 hours, but in practice it came out of eco.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 22 September 2013 10: 00
            0
            Quote: cth; fyn
            So this is not a decline in performance, but rather a translation from paper to practice,

            In your opinion, it turns out that domestic tanks with automatic loaders are initially worse, because in fact, the BC is limited to 22 shells of all types. And what's so good about that?
        2. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 21: 40
          +1
          Well, no theory helped these Abrams!
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 21: 44
          +1
          Well, no theory helped these Abrams!
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 22 September 2013 09: 49
            +1
            Quote: soldier of fortune
            Well, no theory helped these Abrams!

            You really don’t understand or pretend? Photos of burned tanks are many, there are Abrams and Merkava. But there is a difference in how they burn. Swiftly, not giving the crew a chance to leave the burning tank, as is the case with the T-72, or slowly burning out before the eyes of the crew who left the tank, as is the case in your photo. Am I available to explain the difference? Or do you care whether the crew died or survived?
            1. soldier of fortune
              soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 15: 54
              +4
              Not that you do not understand! Because they didn’t try to leave the tank quickly. And it makes no difference how they burn! If BC detonates, no one will ever be able to escape from any tank even on a catapult !!!
              And if a tankman has lost a goby, a lighter, a blowtorch and a rag or rubber has caught fire, then everyone will leave without haste. BC will not detonate soon. The minimum standard for ammunition resistance to open fire is 45 seconds. Even in the Second World War, there were times when a check from a grenade in the stack took off and the tanker managed to jump out.
              Tankers in any tank can die not only from detonation. 90% of dead tankers around the world from shrapnel wounds, shell shock and burns without detonation of BC. Although I would rather choose the detonation of BC than a wounded and broken burn in a tank alive!

              And the photo is not mine but Iraqi. I don’t know anything about the crew of this tank, but even if they jumped out, they helped them out under the fire from the ambush.
              Not for nothing the loss of the Pentagon - MYSTERY FOR FAMILY PRINT !!!

              Our tankers are not indifferent to me! The author of the article also explained everything to you in detail. Do I understand you clearly? :)
        5. Quiet
          Quiet 22 September 2013 02: 35
          0
          It was on this tank that there were no active protection "boxes".
    2. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 21: 36
      +3
      Why are they better here? The same boxes with BC fuel and people!
      T-72, T-80, Abrams, Merkava, Leopard ........ and others in peacetime are equally relatively safe for the crew.
      And security in war is a Utopian concept!
      The crew’s security is another matter .......... but the author of the article, as the source, explained everything clearly and easily. And if you and such facts (firsthand) are not satisfied then ........ can you tear your fifth point to the British or the African flag - this is only your subjective opinion :)
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 21 September 2013 22: 47
        +1
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        And if you and such facts (firsthand) are not satisfied then ........ can you tear your fifth point to the British or the African flag - this is only your subjective opinion :)

        good
        drinks
    3. Crang
      Crang 22 September 2013 12: 29
      +1
      Then only "Abrams". Because in the "Merkava", for example, everything is exactly the same as in the T-72. Shells right into the BO along with people. Well, in "Leopard", in principle, almost the same.
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 21 September 2013 17: 59
    +2
    The T-72 is just a Kalash tank: simple, reliable ...

    But, TODAY does not meet the MODERN requirements of MBT: the modularity of the platform, the presence of CIUS ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 September 2013 19: 08
      +1
      And you are in the Course that the T-90 is a T72BU? and accordingly T90MS is the continuation of the modernization of the T-72? although there is one body and suspension from the T-72.
      1. ruslan207
        ruslan207 21 September 2013 22: 17
        0
        T-90ms is already a new tank tower is already another suo it has little in common with 72koy AKP
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 September 2013 22: 45
          +1
          So the T-90 tower already has a welded tower instead of the cast one of the T-72, but nevertheless they wanted to call it T-72BU at the beginning, and the 1000-horsepower engine is a new KDZ and OMS.
          The role does not change it is just a modernization.
  • soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 18: 10
    +3
    Great article, great practice with real experience!
    Without snot and pathos - one bare facts! Against which an intelligent person will not trample, but still bootet to tear his ass on the British flag ..... or on the American :)

    More to such articles with real facts and first-person photos! And then science fiction theorists divorced .... it's time to sprinkle with dust! :)))))))))))
  • Sharingan
    Sharingan 21 September 2013 18: 15
    +2
    Who cares about these NATO ratings? request
    Exports now depend more on geopolitics than on the quality of weapons.
  • erofich
    erofich 21 September 2013 18: 29
    +1
    Strange reasoning, what would happen if. Moreover, far-fetched ratings. It’s just that you need to build new tanks as they once built and add a little, as for yourself. Nowadays, everyone is trying to steal more, including the generals. And this is death. It's my personal opinion.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 21 September 2013 19: 32
    +5
    Watch less with worn television, a mixture of lollipops and gaskets. What is the argument about? How did our tanks shoot in the dark? It is clear that the thermal imagers gave an undeniable advantage, and the Arabs are not Russian, there is no ingenuity and enthusiasm. And to compare naked tanks, like women in a bath.
  • Moore
    Moore 21 September 2013 19: 33
    +4
    According to the rating of tanks of the world, prepared by the American agency Forecast International

    Interestingly, if somewhere in the 1944th the departments of Speer and Goebbels were instructed to compile a rating of tankers, would the T-34 enter it?
  • kostya_a
    kostya_a 21 September 2013 19: 45
    +3
    All these comparisons are blown. Not a single tank has met with its modern counterpart. In the conditions of the city T-72, even with DZ Kontakt-1 shows high combat survivability and this is a fact. But Abrams proved to be quite good during the Iraq war and this is also a fact. But the conditions are different. In the first case, a city battle, in the second battle in an open space. For example, Abrams has an urban defense kit called tusk 2, the RPG will definitely not break, but then again, it was not used in the conditions of the city, there is no experience!
    1. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 21 September 2013 23: 52
      +1
      M1A with TUSK 2 RPG-7 will not break through from the front and sides. Feed and all upper armor breaks through easily not only RPGs but also with all Soviet cannons of caliber over 23mm. (all tobish helicopters)
      1. Kars
        Kars 21 September 2013 23: 57
        +2
        Quote: soldier of fortune
        The stern and all the upper armor break through easily not only RPGs but also with all Soviet cannons of caliber over 23mm

        the only thing left is to shoot at these projections. it’s still at a good angle, otherwise there are very good chances of ricochets.
        1. soldier of fortune
          soldier of fortune 22 September 2013 15: 27
          +1
          Well, in the city it’s not difficult and most often they do it! And for aviation, these are generally the main projections of defeat!
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 September 2013 15: 48
            +1
            Quote: soldier of fortune
            And for aviation, these are generally the main projections of defeat!

            That's just the angle there for aviation, well, very unsuccessful, and this has not changed since the time of IL-2

            http://www.battlefield.ru/il2-vs-panzers.html
        2. svp67
          svp67 22 September 2013 15: 32
          0
          Quote: Kars
          the only thing left is to shoot at these projections. it’s still at a good angle, otherwise there are very good chances of ricochets.

          On rough terrain - it’s not very difficult ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 September 2013 15: 41
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            On rough terrain - it’s not very difficult ...

            Really? And the rough terrain is the difference in height 9-20 meters? At a distance for RPGs 300 meters? But from the BMP and get into the roof of the tank at an optimal angle, is that how it should be put?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 September 2013 15: 54
                +1
                Well, there’s no rushing here. The gun and the tank will both be in an inclined strip,
                And the roofs of the cars in front at the right angle can be seen only when they rise on the rise. For small-sized vehicles, the distance may still not be a fact, but for RPGs - shish))

                But in fact, I didn’t see any mention of the defeat of roofs from non-aircraft-based auto-guns. Although there were cases of placing Zushka on the 2-3 floors in the same Iraq. But what will be the angle of the meeting at a distance of 400-500 meters?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 22 September 2013 15: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  But what will be the angle of the meeting at a distance of 400-500 meters?
                  And then as luck, but I think that the chances are high ...

                  1. Kars
                    Kars 22 September 2013 16: 02
                    +1
                    Well, in the above photos, I’m behind the roof of the tank against the 23-30 mm BPS wavets will not
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 22 September 2013 16: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Well, in the above photos, I’m behind the roof of the tank against the 23-30 mm BPS wavets will not
                      But in vain ... 30mm BPS is a very serious argument, and the photo is just an attempt to give directions to your thoughts, every time you need to develop techniques for a particular area ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 22 September 2013 16: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        But in vain ... 30mm BPS is a very serious argument

                        at an angle from 90 to 60 is serious, but on sharper ones))

                        By the beginning of the 2000's RWM Rheinmetall Waffe und Munition, formerly Oerlikon, developed a cartridge with a fired PM303 subcaliber projectile for the 30-mm guns 2A42 and 2A72 using Swiss technology for constructing a plastic pallet [2] made of a thermoplastic composite based on a composite The BOPTS of the PMX303 cartridge is an adapted version (to the domestic case of a smaller 30 × 165 mm sleeve) of the fired shell PMC287 of the standard NATO cartridge 30X173 mm due to the corresponding reduction in the size and weight of the flight part [3]. The initial velocity of a fledged projectile weighing 195 g is 1325 m / s, armor penetration is 47 mm (rolled steel homogeneous armor (English) Russian) at an angle of 60 ° at a distance of 1 km.


                        and the cover on the 40 mm abrash - and I brought the data of the projectile much better than the small-caliber artillery that the Russian Federation has for the Ukraine and Ukraine (I’m not talking about Iraq and Syria)
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 22 September 2013 16: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        at an angle from 90 to 60 is serious, but on sharper ones))

                        You have the darkness of roads running along the bottom of the ravines, so you can catch the necessary angles ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        and the cover on the 40 mm abrash - and I brought the data of the projectile much better than the small-caliber artillery that the Russian Federation has for the Ukraine and Ukraine (I’m not talking about Iraq and Syria)

                        But there are also ATGMs, even for the first generation, this is not the limit, far from the limit ...
                        And really, if the DShK is flashing the stern of the "Ambara" tower, then you think that for 30mm it and the MTO roof will remain out of reach ...
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 22 September 2013 16: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        You have the darkness of roads running along the bottom of the ravines, so you can catch the necessary angles ...

                        Well, you can fly into space. But here's the ZPU set, or BMP-2

                        Quote: svp67
                        But there are also ATGMs

                        About Ptury there is no question.
                        Quote: svp67
                        And right, if the DShK is flashing the stern of the Ambara tower

                        Here I am wondering at what distance DShK penetrates 40 mm armor? If with 500 m reference armor penetration 15 / 20 mm
        3. svp67
          svp67 22 September 2013 15: 51
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Really? And rugged terrain is a height difference of 9-20 meters?
          Listen, you are a smart person, well, take a ride out of town, these are the typical views for the Zaporozhye region. I think you can guess how and where it will be necessary to "catch" "Abrams"
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 21 September 2013 21: 14
    +2
    The Germans, during the Kursk battle, used "Tigers" and "Panthers", which in their performance characteristics were superior to our T-34s. So what? Yes, our tankers had a hard time. But, indeed, the more powerful tanks of the Germans could not win the battle.
    I do not believe in the analyzes and assessments that Americans give to samples of military equipment. Of course. they give the palm to their tanks and the technology of their satellites. The criterion of truth is fighting. And the fighting is equal in power capabilities of opponents. It is impossible to evaluate American tanks based on the results of the war with the obviously weak enemy - Iraq.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Bradley
    Bradley 21 September 2013 21: 26
    -1
    Quote: Asan Ata
    What is the argument about? How did our tanks shoot in the dark? It is clear that the thermal imagers gave an undeniable advantage, and the Arabs are not Russian, there is no ingenuity and enthusiasm.

    How many do you take on yourself, dear? In your Arabs downs?
    It's always funny to read about "they are not Russian, they are not smart" ... Circus and nothing more.



    Quote: kostya_a
    For example, Abrams has an urban defense kit called tusk 2, the RPG will definitely not break, but then again, it was not used in the conditions of the city, there is no experience!

    Who told you such nonsense?


    1. Asan Ata
      Asan Ata 21 September 2013 23: 24
      +2
      My friend, of course, is Arab strife. But they did not have the Great Patriotic War behind their backs and centuries of technical development of the country. Probably they love their homeland no less than ours, but it doesn’t work like that to fight with equipment. Owing to their superfast development, the children missed the stage of technical education and bitterness, turning into the ability to destroy the enemy. hi
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 21 September 2013 21: 51
    +7
    Quote: Nukem999
    Abrams, Merkava are the only modern tanks with combat experience.

    oh well! And 72 and 90, so, they smoked nervously in the vestibule ... both Chechen, 72-th conflict between Egypt and Israel (by the way, then in that tank battle our machine washed Jews) ... let it be known Dear that 72 is recognized as the most belligerent tank in the world, as well as the Mi-24 helicopter ... this is a statement by experts!
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 21 September 2013 22: 01
    +6
    Quote: kostya_a
    All these comparisons are blown. Not a single tank has met with its modern counterpart. In the conditions of the city T-72, even with DZ Kontakt-1 shows high combat survivability and this is a fact. But Abrams proved to be quite good during the Iraq war and this is also a fact. But the conditions are different. In the first case, a city battle, in the second battle in an open space. For example, Abrams has an urban defense kit called tusk 2, the RPG will definitely not break, but then again, it was not used in the conditions of the city, there is no experience!

    you align the hell with your finger, dear ... maybe in a Chechen company our tankers fought with tankers of the same school and sitting on 72-kahs too ... and the abrams went out into the open field against t-55! so what a real comparison speech? Against the abrams stood the technique of the 50's, it was crumbled like a dash ... these are the good fellows these Americans beat, it’s obvious that they asked for it from retirement years ago ...
    1. kostya_a
      kostya_a 22 September 2013 19: 28
      0
      Yes, I do not equal. I indicate the facts, I do not build assumptions.
  • alone
    alone 21 September 2013 22: 27
    +3
    any tank is vulnerable. The survivability of the tank is determined by the tactics of warfare and the actions of the crew. And without covering the infantry, there’s nothing to talk about.
  • poccinin
    poccinin 22 September 2013 01: 30
    +1
    Quote: Nukem999
    Abrams, Merkava are the only modern tanks with combat experience.
    I didn’t understand something. You came from what planet. You have a TV.