Military Review

T-72 were the best tanks of the Iran-Iraq war

106

During the bloody and prolonged Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) Tanks T-72s were considered the best main tank. Fighters of the Iranian army called the T-72 the most valuable trophy that was able to recapture the army of Saddam Hussein. These tanks were immediately thrown into battle again, but already against the former owners.


The Iraq-Iran armed conflict became a serious test for both Iraq and Iran and was extremely beneficial to their eastern and western "partners", as the two powers claiming leadership in the region were linked by a bloody war that bound all their resources.

Both sides at the beginning of the war widely used armored forces. The Iraqi armed forces mainly used Soviet-made tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The Iranian army started the war mainly with Western-made machines (American M60, M47 and M48, British Chieftain and Scorpion). So, before the 1979 revolution, Iran received about 1000 "Chiftenov" modifications of the Mk 3 and Mk 5. Their 120-mm guns were guaranteed to hit all the existing Soviet-made tanks that were used by the Iraqi army. But after the start of the war, although Iraq was the aggressor, Western countries broke off relations with the Islamic Republic. Without new supplies and spare parts, the park "Chiftenov" quickly declined. By the end of the war, a little more than XI NUMX "Chiftenov" remained in the Iranian army. True, a lot of Soviet-made and Chinese-made cars appeared in the Iranian forces, which were supplied from China, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

In the first phase of the war, from September to December 1980, when Iraq launched a broad offensive on the front approximately 700 km, Baghdad struck out with four armored divisions. At the same time, Iraqi generals made a serious miscalculation - armored units bogged down in the capture of cities, which led to large losses in tanks and loss of time. The Iranian army was able to recover and organize stubborn resistance. At the beginning of the war, the Iraqi tank battalion equipped with T-72, in a battle in the area of ​​Kesre-Shirin, defeated the Iranian part armed with the British "Chieftainers".

From the end of 1980 to September 1981, a relative balance of power was established at the front. Then the strategic initiative began to cross the Islamic Republic, the Iranian troops launched a counteroffensive. Iran has returned almost all the previously lost areas and moved the fighting to Iraqi territory. During the Iranian offensive in 1981, several significant tank battles took place. One of these battles occurred in the valley of Harha near the town of Susangerd.

In January 1981, a reinforced Iranian 16th Panzer Division (300 Chiften and M60 tanks), supported by a parachute brigade, prepared an attack near the Iranian Susengerd with the task of freeing up the road to Ahvaz and lifting the Iraqi siege from the city of Abadan. The Iraqi command predicted the enemy’s maneuver, and advanced a tank division (300 T-62 tanks). On January 5, Iraqi intelligence discovered Iranian tank columns. Iraqi forces were concentrated near the village of Ahmet-Abad in the Kharhi Valley. On January 6, an advanced Iranian brigade entered Iraqi positions. The Iranians felt that they were facing minor forces. The Iranian division on the move, without intelligence, went on the attack. The Iraqi forces withdrew, luring the enemy in a pre-prepared fire bag, and attacked from the flanks. The Iranian brigade was defeated, losing up to hundreds of cars. On January 7-8, two other Iranian brigades were defeated. They acted separately, without the support of infantry. Aviation could not provide support, as the opponents came close. As a result, the Iranian division was defeated and retreated. Iraqis said they destroyed and captured more than 200 Iranian tanks (Iranians admitted losing 88 vehicles). Iraq lost 45 T-62 tanks in the battle. During the battle, it turned out that modern Soviet-made tanks are better than Western vehicles. An armor-piercing projectile of a 115-mm cannon of the T-62 tank reliably pierced the frontal armor of the British "Chieftains". After this battle, the Iranians avoided frontal battles with Iraqi armored forces.

However, superiority in human resources allowed Iran to continue the offensive. Iraq has moved to a strategic defense. After the fall of 1982 in May of Khorramshahr, the Iraqi command stopped using armored forces as the attacking point of the troops. The tanks are now mostly located in the second echelon, in shelters. To cover their maneuver, moats or sand mounds were often built. For counterattacks, armored units were used only as a last resort, if enemy units did not have heavy anti-tank weapons. weapons.

In the 1982, the use of T-72 was also noted. During the July battles near Basra, the Iraqi 10 Brigade launched a flank attack on the Iranian division. As a result, the Iranian army lost more than 200 armored vehicles. This battle marked the capture of T-72 by the Iranians - the Iraqi army lost 12 machines.

The last mass use of armored forces occurred in 1988, when Iraq, having mobilized the economy to the maximum, prepared a major counter-offensive. Using advanced internal communications, covered by aviation, Baghdad 17 April threw about 200 thousand soldiers into the attack. The main blow was struck by the Iraqi Republican Guard, armed with T-72 tanks. The Iraqi Air Force delivered a powerful blow to the Iranian positions, the Iraqis also used chemical weapons. Before the offensive, Iraqi special forces cut off communications between the defensive positions of Iranian troops. Then the tanks launched an offensive supported by combat helicopters and infantry. In addition, airplanes and helicopters attacked Iranian communications to impede the Iranian reserves approach.

As a result, the Iraqi army completely liberated its territory and again invaded Iran. However, the resources to continue the war were not. Seeing the further futility of the war, both sides entered into a truce.

T-72 were the best tanks of the Iran-Iraq war



Photo source: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4.htm

The Soviet censorship before 1985 did not give information to the use of the T-72 in the Iran-Iraq war. In reports from the battlefield, it was forbidden to mention the presence of these tanks in the Iraqi army. Only then did censorship restrictions be removed, and Soviet-made tanks began to flicker frequently in the plots of information programs.

The first 100 Soviet-made machines were obtained by Baghdad in the 1979-1980. These were the cars, the former export versions of the T-72 "Ural-1" with an optical sight-rangefinder TPD-2-49. From the tanks that came into service with the Soviet army, they differed mainly in the design of armor protection of the frontal part of the turret and in the systems of anti-nuclear defense and ammunition equipment.

The Soviet government, irritated by the Iraqi army’s invasion of Iran, temporarily banned arms shipments to Iraq in 1980. However, the USSR, contrary to popular belief, did not control the actions of the allies in the socialist bloc. A holy place is never empty, especially when it comes to such a lucrative business as the supply of weapons. At the start of 1982, Poland delivered 250 T-72М tanks to Iraq. In the same year, Moscow decided to lift the embargo on arms supplies to Iraq. In total, during the years of the Iran-Iraq war, Baghdad received 1100 T-72 tanks, mainly of Polish production. After the war, Baghdad set up the release of a licensed version of the T-72М1 called the Babylonian Lion. However, many failed to release them, because the Iraqis could not start production of high-quality tank barrels.

The Soviet units were equipped with elite units that were under the command of the Iraqi Republican Guard: the 1-I Hammurabi tank division, the 2-I Medina, 3-I mechanized Tavacalna, 6-I mechanized division, Navohozon, NNWD-X. In addition, T-72 was armed with one division that was not part of the guard - 3-I tank division "Saladin".

The "seventy-twos" took part in all phases of the confrontation between Iraq and Iran. At the same time, the Iraqi command kept these tanks as the best weapons of the ground forces. The existing seventy-doubles park was used only on the most important areas.

According to some reports, the Iraqis lost around 60 T-72 and around 500 T-62 in the battles with Iranian troops. Some of these tanks were seized whole or poorly damaged, they were used already in the Iranian army. These tanks, the Iranian military set significantly higher than the main battle tanks of the British production "Chief." Although British tanks could hit Soviet tanks, their two-stroke diesel engines proved to be ill-equipped for operations in the desert region. In addition, heavy British main tanks, which had insufficient power density, significantly lost their mobility in Soviet-made tanks.

After the war, Iranian tank commander Adar Froorian called the T-72 the most formidable enemy on the battlefield. He reported that his car crashed twice due to hit T-72 shells. In the first case, the T-72 projectile hit the engine of his tank, and the crew had to leave the tank. Adar also noted the high maneuverability of the Iraqi "seventy-twenty", when the "Chieftainers" had to spend a lot of time for cooling due to insufficient engine power.

Iranian fighters recalled that if the old Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks could have been hit from the grenade launcher in the forehead, then in order to hit the T-72 one had to “dodge”, to look for an opportunity to hit the board or the stern. “Capturing a serviceable T-72 tank was considered a great success. A real feat, ”noted the fighter of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

After the war, Tehran, remembering the high combat qualities of the T-72, decided to buy a large batch of Russian tanks. Under license in 1993-2001. 300 T-72C was assembled. It was also bought a certain amount of T-72 in Poland and Belarus. In addition, on the basis of T-72 (Western technologies were also partially used), the Iranian main battle tank Zulfiqar was created.



Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 06: 38
    +22
    T-72 were the best tanks of the Iran-Iraq war
    and Oleg the Professor will say: it's just that there weren't any "merkavas" ... recourse
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 06: 44
      +16
      by the way, here is the "zulfiqar" that was mentioned ... this is the third modification, it seems.
    2. chirioner
      chirioner 2 February 2015 09: 33
      +40
      I would have so briefly formulated my vision of the T-72: this is tank Kalash. Bulk, cheap, simple. And less effective compared to Western samples. Reflects the ideology of the Soviet army: mass character, insensitivity to losses. Brothers do not minus much, otherwise I will soon reach the skulls
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 2 February 2015 11: 21
        +8
        Reflects the ideology of the Soviet army: mass character, insensitivity to losses.


        This is an ideology not of the army, but of the people, and therefore the largest in territory, and the cradles were always given to the adversary! hi
      2. Angro Magno
        Angro Magno 2 February 2015 11: 24
        +30
        Chironer,
        Not going to minus. This opinion also has the right to life.
        But I would argue with low efficiency.
        At least because the article clearly indicates (with the opinion of the Iranian tankers) - Chieftain is less effective than the T-72. Including because it is difficult to operate. And this is one of the important components of efficiency.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 2 February 2015 18: 22
          +3
          Quote: Angro Magno
          Chieftain is less effective than the T-72

          So it’s clear to the donkey
          But modern tanks have gone far from Chieftain
          Now the victory is determined by the SLA, and it is clearly better on Western vehicles and active-passive defense systems. Well, and detection with timely targeting. In addition, the appearance of new means of destruction, such as self-guided submunitions, will add headaches to tanks
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 2 February 2015 19: 04
            +10
            The T-90 is too far from the early T-72.
          2. Angro Magno
            Angro Magno 2 February 2015 19: 14
            +3
            In addition, the emergence of new means of destruction, such as self-guided submunitions, will add headaches to tanks

            Fair. Only after all, he will add the Chieftain and Merkavas. More precisely, the last one has already added. And the first ones are unlikely to be at war.
          3. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 11: 27
        +13
        Quote: Chignoner
        Brothers do not minus much, otherwise I will soon reach the skulls

        why minus? this is your opinion, not trolling. hi
        1. Angro Magno
          Angro Magno 2 February 2015 11: 37
          +4
          Do not tell. A man rightly fears. There were precedents.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      5. Tanks
        Tanks 2 February 2015 11: 47
        +2
        About ideology - nonsense.
      6. 2sila
        2sila 2 February 2015 12: 36
        0
        Well, about the effectiveness of something unreasonably. The statement itself requires something to be provided, at least a comparative table of characteristics, if there is nothing else.
        1. Angro Magno
          Angro Magno 2 February 2015 13: 19
          +2
          Characteristics are not worth watching. This is not enough.
          Characteristics make sense when modeling a duel. In the war, units are fighting. If a pair of tanks is not wound up, the unit will lose the battle. So maintainability ensures victory. And this is just one of the factors.
          1. 2sila
            2sila 2 February 2015 22: 36
            0
            That was sarcasm.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      7. T-130
        T-130 2 February 2015 13: 45
        +2
        If it is less effective, it is only because it is less crammed with all kinds of electronics, and in some circumstances this can be a plus, but in terms of vitality, only a mercab can argue with it!
      8. Alekseev
        Alekseev 2 February 2015 19: 54
        +4
        Quote: Chignoner
        And less effective compared to Western samples.

        I would like to specifically: how is this "less efficiency" expressed?
        What engineering decisions in the design of the T-72 affect this level of efficiency?
        What specific "Western samples" and in what way are the T-72 superior? And what are they inferior to?
        Two years ago, here was an article by a Ukrainian tanker about joint exercises at the Shirokolanovsky training center with the French. There he well noticed some features of Leclerc.
        And this article describes the course of hostilities between Iraq and Iran, and not the specifics of the combat use and design of the T-72.
      9. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 2 February 2015 21: 53
        0
        A tank is a mass weapon!
      10. UNFAMILIAR
        UNFAMILIAR 2 February 2015 23: 26
        0
        And then the T-80 RPK? laughing
      11. Dry_T-50
        Dry_T-50 13 February 2015 12: 15
        0
        Quote: Chignoner
        Reflects the ideology of the Soviet army: mass, insensitivity to losses

        Why, why. I know many examples of the Soviet military-industrial complex that produced advanced products.
        In general, I liked the comparison
    3. Professor
      Professor 2 February 2015 09: 42
      +2
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      and Oleg the Professor will say: it's just that there weren't any "merkavas" ...

      There were few ATGMs. wink
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 10: 01
        +7
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        and Oleg the Professor will say: it's just that there weren't any "merkavas" ...

        There were few ATGMs. wink

        the smoking room is alive! hi
      2. The fat man
        The fat man 2 February 2015 14: 09
        -2
        sorry that was not
        the war would not drag on so long

        and by the way a good answer too. Why not?
  2. shamil
    shamil 2 February 2015 06: 45
    +10
    T 72 hard worker
  3. corporal
    corporal 2 February 2015 07: 10
    -34%
    T-72 were the best tanks of the Iran-Iraq war
    And chariots, times of the wars of the pharaohs. fool
    The moral is to revive the chariots .....
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 2 February 2015 09: 08
      +17
      Quote: Corporal
      T-72s were the best tanks of the Iran-Iraq war, and chariots-times of the wars of the Pharaohs. The moral is to revive the chariots .....


      Anyone who does not know the successes of the past will not find success in the future! negative
  4. Denis
    Denis 2 February 2015 07: 18
    +5
    The fighters of the Iranian army called the T-72 the most valuable trophy that could be recaptured from the army of Saddam Hussein. These tanks were immediately thrown into battle again, but already against the former owners.
    Is it a popular Arab joke to supply enemies with equipment?
    Israel used to be generously supplied
    But, most importantly, the combat training of the Egyptian tankers was much lower than the Israeli. Affected by the low general educational level of the bulk of the personnel, which impeded the development of military equipment. The morale of the soldiers, who did not show the necessary stamina and perseverance, was also low.
    The latter circumstance is well illustrated by the episode, unique from the point of view of a tank battle, but typical for a "six-day" war. One IS-3M was hit in the Rafah area by a hand grenade that accidentally flew into an open turret hatch. Egyptian tankers went into battle with open hatches in order to be able to quickly leave the tank in case of defeat.
    Do they have such a tradition?
    it's just there "merkavas" weren't there.
    So they declared themselves and so designed it that it will not be used abroad
    1. enot73
      enot73 2 February 2015 08: 02
      +14
      Quote: Denis
      Is it a popular Arab joke to supply enemies with equipment?
      Exactly the same "trick" exists at the present time in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it is called "voentorg", at one time the Nazis "left their equipment to the Red Army and vice versa. There are many examples.
      1. Denis
        Denis 2 February 2015 13: 15
        +1
        Quote: enot73
        There are many examples.

        Not to find
        The museum displays many exhibits of armored vehicles, whose forces were directed against each other, and here they are in the same row. Here are the Centurions, Shermans, T-54, T-55, T-62, and the Israeli "Merkava" is translated as a chariot. Not forgotten, as Isa and T-34, which helped our ancestors bring victory in the second world war
        http://gde.co.il/muzej-bronetexniki-v-latrune/
        This is a museum of armored vehicles in Latrun, there are more than half of ours, but they were not delivered to them at all
        Although it’s not bad, samples of equipment will be preserved
      2. Vadim12
        Vadim12 2 February 2015 20: 22
        0
        Panthers? .. recourse
    2. The fat man
      The fat man 2 February 2015 14: 21
      0
      Is it a popular Arab joke to supply enemies with equipment?
      Israel used to be generously supplied

      I don’t know if it’s true or not, but according to the stories of my teacher who worked in the diplomats in the Arab countries in the 70s, he said that, unlike the centurions and mages, the T-55 and T62 tanks were not adapted and massively stalled on the march and there was no battle time to repair them and then they brought to mind.
      also according to his stories, he said that the Arabs ceased to respect the Soviet military and diplomats after they fell into the hands of easily damaged Israeli tanks, they were surprised by the comfort and reasonableness of the designs
      as the Arabs said, they went into the Israeli tank in white gloves and went out in white, and then they were seized by despondency and disappointment

      PS is not my words but the words of a university professor
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 2 February 2015 20: 45
        +3
        Quote: Fat Man
        according to the stories of my teacher

        Quote: Fat Man
        not my words but the words of a university professor

        Where a horse with a hoof, there is cancer with a claw! laughing
        Professor - professor, and fuel oil - armored.
        Verily, verily, I tell you that the dirt and dust in tanks, even outdated ones, such as 55-k, are mainly from l / s.
        On shooting, driving, the trainee climbs into the hatch sometimes having a "pood" of dirt on each boot (boot), or they will pour diesel fuel and oil on the car when refueling.
        And so, dust and dirt should not get into them, even a supercharger is available to create excess pressure in the tank with purified air (including the T-55): so that the radioactive dust doesn’t, and the powder gases go away! yes
        Well, if on a dust in the column, and with open hatches, then that Israeli, German, that Soviet tank - one hell ... yes
      2. Nettle
        Nettle 3 February 2015 04: 16
        +1
        That Tolstoy writes correctly. That's for sure, we don’t think of a soldier at all. Recently I spoke with a contractor from my former battalion, so I learned that those miserable captains and starlings had already become colonels and that the leadership style and its level of fucking had not changed for 12 years. All the same toilet instead of the brains of our generals. Normal will not be allowed to the top because it will immediately become apparent what other morons.
  5. Magic archer
    Magic archer 2 February 2015 07: 28
    +13
    By the way, the first Merkava harshly received from the T-72 in the Bekaa Valley. Then our tanks completely defeated the Israeli. The professor may not agree, but there are too many facts from different sources
    1. Ricardo
      Ricardo 2 February 2015 07: 53
      +3
      Well, don’t be unfounded and bring these sources, otherwise there are enough dreamers ...
      1. Magic archer
        Magic archer 2 February 2015 08: 20
        +5
        Two myths of one battle: the Syrian T-72 in the Lebanese war of the 1982 of the year
        just select and google. I read about this in the magazine about T-72. Now there is a lot of information on these battles, but it is contradictory. The Syrians say one thing, the Jews are different. Where it is true and where lies, everyone decides for himself wink
        1. Zymran
          Zymran 2 February 2015 08: 44
          +3
          Quote: Magic Archer
          By the way, for the first time, the Merkavas received toughly from the T-72 in the Bekaa Valley. Then our tanks completely defeated the Israeli ones.


          Quote: Magic Archer
          Two myths of one battle: the Syrian T-72 in the Lebanese war of the 1982 of the year


          I read. The article concludes that in 1982 Merkava and T-72 did not meet each other in battle.
          1. Magic archer
            Magic archer 2 February 2015 09: 03
            +9
            So I say that there are a lot of articles on this topic and the conclusions are radically different! Each side puts forward its own point of view. For example, the Syrians have refuted the myth that Merkava is not on fire! There are photos proving this.
            1. Professor
              Professor 2 February 2015 09: 42
              -4
              Quote: Magic Archer
              For example, the Syrians have denied the myth that Merkava is not on fire! There are photos proving this.

              The Syrians have anything to do with this photo? Why did the Merkave-1 late model appear rastas?
              1. Magic archer
                Magic archer 2 February 2015 09: 48
                +5
                Here most likely we are talking about a tank wrecked in Lebanon. My mistake, I admit hi
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 2 February 2015 11: 17
              +6
              You can not say - it does not burn.
              Extinguishing media usually
              extinguish a fire in the bud. But not always.
              But in this case, the fire after breaking into Merkava
              spreads slowly due to the fact that
              each shell is stored in a separate fireproof
              armor case. Therefore, no detonation occurs.
              The crew has time to leave the lit tank.
              1. Manul
                Manul 4 February 2015 23: 37
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                the projectile is stored in a separate fireproof
                armor case.

                What a good thing. Interesting, but can such bookmark boxes for T-72 be organized, or is there not enough space?
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 08: 23
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Professor may not agree

      yes here comes, and does not agree ... fellow
    3. Professor
      Professor 2 February 2015 09: 40
      +4
      Quote: Magic Archer
      The professor may not agree, but too many facts from different sources

      Do not need a lot of facts, give at least one fact that Merkava and T-72 generally intersected. hi
      1. Magic archer
        Magic archer 2 February 2015 09: 54
        +7
        Good morning, Professor! So I want to clarify! You are our specialist no matter how the Arab-Israeli conflicts! I shoveled many different references and periodicals. At one time I came across twice that there were direct clashes of T-72 and Merkav. At what they were mentioned from Syrian, Lebanese and oddly enough our sources (our instructors). There were laudatory reviews. One of the sources, if I remember correctly, is the mini-encyclopedia of the Minsk publishing house Ast. The second is a magazine dedicated to the T-72 itself .And in the sources related to From I ailem of direct clashes data not nashol.Vse loss allegedly by anti-tank and rpg.Znachit I am wrong ???
        1. Professor
          Professor 2 February 2015 11: 02
          0
          Quote: Magic Archer
          So I'm wrong ???

          Merkava did not collide with the T-72. In Lebanon, there were naturally losses of the Merkav, but not from the T-72, and the T-72 themselves were destroyed by the ATGM. These are the facts, and I don't even want to discuss the "memories" of nameless advisers.
          hi
      2. Magic archer
        Magic archer 2 February 2015 09: 56
        +10
        Here is another link found
        "Equipment and weapons yesterday, today, tomorrow" No. 7, 2006).
        S. Suvorov
        "Armored vehicles in modern wars"

        "Of course, it is not entirely correct to compare the T-72, even the model of 1975 release (they prevailed at that time in the Syrian army), with the M60A1. The T-55, which the Syrians had, also coped with American tanks. But in the war in the summer of 1982 The Israelis presented on the battlefield a more worthy enemy - the tank "Merkava" Mk 1. This machine was newer than our "seventy-two." But in those cases when they met with the T-72, Soviet technology also won. According to a participant in those events, an officer of the Syrian army Mazin Fauri, in front of his eyes, a T-72 with a single high-explosive fragmentation projectile (armor-piercing subcaliber and cumulative at that moment had already ended) "removed" the tower from the Israeli tank "Merkava". Another Syrian tanker , who studied at our armored academy, also confirmed the high survivability of the T-72 on the battlefield: after the battle was over, he, seeing on the armor of his T-72 only marks from the armor-piercing subcaliber shells of the Israelis, began to kiss the armor of his cars like a beloved woman. As mentioned above, the gun on the "Merkava" was 105-mm and none of the types of shells used on it in those days "took" the T-72 in the forehead.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 2 February 2015 11: 30
          +1
          In Israel, the M-60s were modernized, covered
          hinged passive armor and DZ ("Magician").
          They successfully fought until the 21st century.
          The M-60 has an excellent SLA and a gun, the tank is very
          comfortable for the crew. On medium and long
          at distances he confidently replayed in duels of M-72.
          In close combat (1 km), the T-72 has advantages.
          The M-60 had one major flaw: the liquid
          the hydraulics of the tower were very flammable and caused quick
          tank fire.
          1. The fat man
            The fat man 2 February 2015 14: 26
            +1
            I will not say anything about the M-60
            but about the M-48 captured by the Syrians experienced in a kubinka
            where the obsolete M-48 shell confidently pierced the T-72 armor
          2. chirioner
            chirioner 2 February 2015 15: 39
            -1
            Yes, yes ... the same problem in the first and second merkava
        2. chirioner
          chirioner 2 February 2015 15: 37
          +2
          Already repeatedly discussed topic. 8 T-72 was shot down in that battle, but the Merkavas had nothing to do with it. The anti-tank company of the airborne brigade worked with the ATGM Tou. The truth is that in the battle T-72 did not meet with Merkava, he met with M1A1 and the results of those meetings are well known
          1. Dry_T-50
            Dry_T-50 13 February 2015 12: 19
            0
            Quote: Chignoner
            Already repeatedly discussed topic. 8 T-72 was shot down in that battle, but the Merkavas had nothing to do with it. The anti-tank company of the airborne brigade worked with the ATGM Tou. The truth is that in the battle T-72 did not meet with Merkava, he met with M1A1 and the results of those meetings are well known

            Well, the Abrams also burn in battles in Iraq and Syria
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 2 February 2015 10: 03
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        Do not need a lot of facts, give at least one fact that Merkava and T-72 generally intersected.

        Oleg, you did not disappoint me! lol
        1. Professor
          Professor 2 February 2015 11: 03
          -1
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          Oleg, you did not disappoint me!

          I myself got upset. And then I would have overwhelmed you with pictures of T-72 with towers torn off by Merkava, but not fate. laughing
          1. Dry_T-50
            Dry_T-50 13 February 2015 12: 20
            0
            Or vice versa. Professor, don't minus me
    4. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2015 21: 53
      0
      Quote: Magic Archer
      By the way, the first Merkava harshly received from the T-72 in the Bekaa Valley. Then our tanks completely defeated the Israeli. The professor may not agree, but there are too many facts from different sources

      If anything, then they had no collisions at all
  6. strannik1985
    strannik1985 2 February 2015 08: 49
    +5
    In fairness, it is worth noting that in Iran only that there was a revolution - the supply of new cars, spare parts, modernization of machines could not be made.
    Accordingly, the purchase of Western-made cars for Iran was impossible after the war, but the USSR and the former ATS countries sold rel. new BM at a relatively inexpensive price.
    Losses incurred by the officer corps, i.e. statutory use of machines was difficult.
    After the Iran-Iraq war, both sides of the conflict sold their Chieftains to Jordan.
    The British, with all the upgrades, already by the end of the 80s considered Chieftain a morally obsolete tank.
  7. Free wind
    Free wind 2 February 2015 08: 58
    +9
    Didn't understand this war then. I don't understand now. For what leshim Hussein flooded to Iran? People were killed. everyone stayed with their own interests. The war went on for 10 years. The tanks poked at each other. I read that the export "Chiefs" were made with reduced armor. Well, all sorts of baboons will do.
    1. Konar
      Konar 2 February 2015 09: 14
      +3
      I wanted to take advantage of the chaos that could have formed after the Islamic revolution, to squeeze the oil region out of the limelight and let off steam from our population with a small victorious war.
      1. Astrahanec
        Astrahanec 2 February 2015 14: 08
        +3
        Unlucky Hussein .... was
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. apro
      apro 2 February 2015 10: 20
      +7
      Americans asked from the axis of evil, struck out a loan, gave a billion for the little things helped, they wanted to punish Iran themselves, it’s not just enough Poroshenko now.
  8. Yarik
    Yarik 2 February 2015 09: 25
    0
    enot73 (3) SU Today, 08:02 ↑ New
    Quote: Denis
    Is it a popular Arab joke to supply the enemies with equipment? Exactly the same "joke" exists now in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it is called "Voentorg", at one time the Nazis "left their equipment to the Red Army and vice versa. There are many examples.

    It’s interesting (it’s nowhere to come across), but how did our T-5s evaluate?
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 2 February 2015 10: 29
      0
      Actually, here is Zulfikar-3, in the photo above Zulfikar-1:


      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. padded jacket
        padded jacket 2 February 2015 11: 19
        +3
        Iranian T-72:

        All of them, despite their age, are in excellent condition and are intensively exploited.
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 February 2015 11: 23
    -18%
    Incidentally, the same T-72, the same divisions of the Guard
    Iraq was met in the Gulf of Americans.
    But there didn’t go so full dress music ...
    The lined Iraqi armored lines occupied
    desert spaces from horizon to horizon.
    1. Tanks
      Tanks 2 February 2015 11: 35
      +7
      If the United States landed in Israel, would it be different with a mercava?
    2. Metlik
      Metlik 2 February 2015 11: 43
      +5
      This is the merit of the Tomahawks, but not the Abrams.
    3. Magic archer
      Magic archer 2 February 2015 11: 44
      +9
      Almost all the equipment was destroyed from the air. So the example is not quite correct, Dear hi
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 February 2015 12: 05
        -9
        In the year 91, yes, you are right, mainly from aviation, especially
        "road of death" along which the Iraqi army retreated from
        captured Kuwait. But there were tank battles.
        In 2003, the main ones were, on the contrary, tank battles,
        not air strikes (specifically to exclude air strikes
        his, frequent in 1991).
        1. Astrahanec
          Astrahanec 2 February 2015 14: 14
          +4
          The one who has more modern weapons does not always win. WWII is the most striking example. At the initial stage, the Red Army lost with more modern tanks (KV-1; T-34), and ended the war by defeating the Wehrmacht with beautiful tanks (Tiger, Panther). And the initial period of the formation of the state of Israel also proves this truth.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 2 February 2015 22: 31
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          In 2003, the main ones were, on the contrary, tank battles,

          there were no thermal imagers on the t-72
          Suo steers
        3. Aleksandr72
          Aleksandr72 3 February 2015 12: 20
          +1
          Sorry, but from what sources do you judge the results of the above tank battles and the losses in them. If my memory serves me right, all the information about this war came from only one source, of course, completely disinterested and crystal-clear (sarcasm) - the American media, which were under the control of the US State Department (there was information and quite reliable that reporters were not allowed to zone of the database.We didn’t have to wait for any information, either reliable or frankly lying from the other side of the conflict — Iraq, in contrast to the previous one, in view of the information blockade, so we will probably never learn the truth about this war.
    4. The fat man
      The fat man 2 February 2015 14: 29
      +1
      Incidentally, the same T-72, the same divisions of the Guard
      Iraq was met in the Gulf of Americans.

      and even though Iraqi tankers had 10 years of experience in the war with Iran
      so the training and training of the Iraqis has nothing to do with it right?
    5. Dry_T-50
      Dry_T-50 13 February 2015 12: 24
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Incidentally, the same T-72, the same divisions of the Guard
      Iraq was met in the Gulf of Americans.
      But there didn’t go so full dress music ...
      The lined Iraqi armored lines occupied
      desert spaces from horizon to horizon.

      Tomahawks plus aviation against T72-unequal conditions. By the way, Abrams also burn quite well (search: use M against ISIS)
  10. tchoni
    tchoni 2 February 2015 14: 08
    +7
    Honestly, even a little boring. Again srach on the topic "hto cooler." The question is that the tank MUST NOT fight with the tank. If this happens - then either the situation is critical or the commander -. Therefore, it is probably worth evaluating a tank not only by the criterion "The number of enemy tanks destroyed", but also by several other indicators. Such as ease of maintenance, the required efforts of the logistics service, the survival rate of the crews (it would be nice to have statistics on the number of hits, the number of penetrations, the number of critical injuries and losses in the crews), ease of use ..., the ratio of the number of released to the number of fighters and to the number of losses (returnable and non-returnable), etc. etc. etc.
    Simply, as already mentioned here, any armored vehicles burn. And with today's saturation of troops with anti-tank weapons, tank avalanches and oncoming tank battles should generally be gradually forgotten.
    1. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 2 February 2015 21: 57
      +2
      I agree. And in WWII, most of the tanks were destroyed by anti-tank artillery.
  11. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 2 February 2015 14: 21
    +9
    It is worth noting that the overwhelming number of tank battles in the Iran-Iraq war was won by Iraqi tanks. An interesting point was the fact that the equally trained tankers fought, which makes it possible to soberly evaluate combat vehicles, and not by the speed of the Arabs running from India or from Israel.
    The first tank battles took place in Mehran, the Iranians lost several dozen "Chiefs" from the fire of T-62 and Iraqi aviation. At Abadan, a brigade of rooted Chieftains stood up in a deep defense and did not allow Iraqi tanks to take it by storm. In the mountainous regions, the Iranians had only the old American M24 "Chaffees" and "Shermans", which for the Iraqis acted more as training targets. Only the modern M60 managed to defeat one tank battalion in one battle and launch a short counteroffensive. By the end of 1980, the Iranians had irretrievably lost about 270 tanks, of which 56 were taken as trophies (of which 31 were Chieftain). The Iraqis lost about 100 tanks, mostly at Abadan.
    In early 1981, Iran tried to penetrate the Iraqi defenses near Dizful with a division of 330 Chieftain and M60 tanks. On January 5, 1981, Iranian tank divisions of 300 M60A1 and Chieftain tanks left the city of Susengerd and crossed the Karkheh River. The Iraqis learned about the advancement of equipment and prepared a defense of 300 T-62 tanks. On January 6, the largest tank battle of the war began. As a result of the battle, three Iranian tank brigades were defeated, losses amounted to 250 M60A1 and Chieftain tanks. The Iranian counteroffensive stopped. According to Western journalists, 44 Iraqi T-62s were lost, about 80 other vehicles, the Iranians lost 141 tanks and more than 100 other armored vehicles burned out, and several dozen more tanks were captured.

    The three Iraqi T-55 brigades abandoned by the siege of Abadan did not manage to take the city by the end of 1981, but managed to cut off supply lines. Iran first began to use the living waves of tank destroyers, which actually saved the city.

    By October, only one company remained of the Chieftain Brigade. The Iraqis began to ambush Iranian reinforcements moving towards the city. In September 1981, Iran decided to use the M-48 Patton to halt the Iraqi advance on Abadan and finally bring down the siege of the city, which ended in failure as they came under attack from the T-55 from several directions. The Iranian ground forces were defeated, in just one day the Iranians lost 150 M48 tanks destroyed and captured. Later, Iraq arranged a sale of Iranian tanks. In mid-October, Iraqi T-55s shot down a battalion of Chieftains covering a large convoy.

    Iran's biggest victory was the liberation of the province of Khuzestan, where Iranian aircraft, with the support of the Chiefs and M60s, defeated the Iraqi division with T-62 and T-55 tanks - exactly the division that fired the first shots in the war. The Iraqis lost 320 tanks and armored vehicles during the battle, while the Iranians also suffered huge losses, one day they lost 196 tanks.
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 2 February 2015 14: 22
      +14
      In 1982, the main tank battles took place near Basra. Iranian living waves, with the support of the Chiefs and M60s and the massive use of aviation, managed to capture the approaches to the city and break the resistance of the Iraqi troops armed with T-55 and T-62. The loss of Basra meant a virtual defeat for Iraq in the war, and for the first time Saddam decided to use the presidential T-72 brigade guarding Baghdad. The brigade attacked the flank of the Iranian division, causing the Iranian tankers to flee. The Iranians decided to use helicopters, but if the TOW missiles still somehow penetrated the T-55 and T-62 armor, then they were completely useless against the T-72. Ignoring the fire of Iranian helicopters, the T-72 defeated the Iranians in Zobeidat, after which the Iranians refused to take Basra. The result of the battle was the loss of 100 tanks by Iraq, of which only 12 T-72 and several dozen armored vehicles, Iran lost 400 tanks and armored vehicles. During the battles, it turned out that the 105mm cannons were practically useless against the frontal armor of the T-72.

      From 1983 to 1986, Iranian armored vehicles were depleted and were already little used, and the main role was assigned to live waves and aviation. Both sides began buying Chinese Type-59 and Type-69 tanks due to the embargo. Ironically, Iran bought its own M48 tanks from Iraq (via the UAE), which it lost in 1981. In turn, Saddam donated 120 Chieftains captured in the war to Jordan, including 30 vehicles in perfect condition, as well as 19 light British tanks "Scorpion". One "Chieftain" and one "Scorpio" were taken by Soviet military advisers to the USSR, and now they are on display in Kubinka.


      In March 1986, more than 50 Iraqi MiG-23BNs "covered" a cluster of Iranian armored vehicles in the Ahfaz area, completely defeating a mechanized division consisting of 300 tanks, mainly M60, and 200 M113 armored personnel carriers.
      In 1987 and 1988, Iraq made extensive use of the Republican Guard, armed with T-72. After conducting several major operations, she knocked out all Iranian forces from the territory of Iraq. Iran has lost more than 600 tanks and a huge amount of other armored vehicles, which had to be taken to Iraq within four days.
      In total, during the war, Iraq lost 60 T-72 tanks, about 500 T-62 and up to 1000 T-54, T-55 and Chinese copies. Iran lost 815 Chieftains, 350 M60s, 300 M47s and M48s, 200 Scorpions and about 500 Chinese Type-59 and Type-69.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 2 February 2015 15: 34
        +6
        Quote: Novel 1977
        Iraq made extensive use of the Republican Guard armed with the T-72.

        Roman, welcome.
        Glad to see your good comments again, buddy.
        hi

        I’ll add a little:
        The T-72 went to Iraq as an export modification of the first T-72 ("E" object 172M).
        - optical range finder,
        - mechanical ballistic computer,
        - simplified booking,
        - radio station P-123.

        How they worked with the optical rangefinder ... I don’t know, but they got the hang of shooting on the move, flicking this “wheel” of the rangefinder over the Cheburashka sight.
        I tried to do it somehow - full of fun.
        laughing
        Well done guys.

        Thank you to the author of the article for sound material.
        smile
        And if I am not mistaken, the Iraqi 3rd Guards Division was called not "Tavakalna" but a little differently: "Tavalkana al Allah".
        The famous division, by the way ... We examined its actions in the school ...
        Wow, well done guys in it.
        wink
  12. Lesorub
    Lesorub 2 February 2015 16: 45
    +3
    I already met this article somewhere, a few years ago.
    1. Manul
      Manul 4 February 2015 23: 46
      0
      Quote: Lesorub
      I already met this article somewhere, a few years ago.

      But do you mind if we get acquainted too? wink
  13. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 2 February 2015 17: 22
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Magic Archer
    So I'm wrong ???

    Merkava did not collide with the T-72. In Lebanon, there were naturally losses of the Merkav, but not from the T-72, and the T-72 themselves were destroyed by the ATGM. These are the facts, and I don't even want to discuss the "memories" of nameless advisers.
    hi

    "Destruction of ATGM" is a fishing bike worse than the tales of military experts about the shooting of the "Merkavtsev" convoy at refueling and refueling.
    There are only memories of anonymus, photo-toad reconstruction and a photo of a single pile of garbage on the road, which can be anything but the remains of a tank column, a single pile, there are no signs of explosion and fire, the asphalt is smooth.
    But the F-15 falling on Beirut, shot down by the owls of the R-24T military aircraft on the "absent" MiG-23ML in June 82, was documented from the ground in frames, and the debris looks good. The FKP of Major Howe survived with a double victory, although he was credited with one, well, the data of objective control of AWACS are also indicative. And in the return, all 5 winning F-16s 1-2 MiG-23MFs were shot down fifteenth, not sixteenth, where Babich confused himself + underestimated the launch range of the R-23T and R-24T, which he denied with the MF for political reasons. And for some reason, the F-15 was shot down mainly by inferior winders-L, the "Sparrow" of the existing mod in close combat let down. The sixth MiG was shot down not by the Israelis, but by a friendly fire, the Buk fired on the wrong target, judging by the last words of the pilot.
    "No loss" (c) was not invented by Ukrainians.
    True, the scale is so incomparable, well, yes, Russian folk wisdom: "Where a Ukrainian passed, two Jews have nothing to do."
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 2 February 2015 20: 11
      +3
      The tale of the dozens of T-72s destroyed by Israeli warriors from the ATGM ATGM went from the WarOnline website, and I think the Israelis believe in it sacredly, but this is a TALE.
    2. Professor
      Professor 2 February 2015 20: 30
      -1
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      But the F-15 falling on Beirut, shot down by the owls of the R-24T military aircraft on the "absent" MiG-23ML in June 82, was documented from the ground in frames, and the debris looks good.

      Well? Where are the frames then? wink
  14. Ruslan102
    Ruslan102 2 February 2015 17: 25
    0
    Quote: Magic Archer
    Two myths of one battle: the Syrian T-72 in the Lebanese war of the 1982 of the year
    just select and google. I read about this in the magazine about T-72. Now there is a lot of information on these battles, but it is contradictory. The Syrians say one thing, the Jews are different. Where it is true and where lies, everyone decides for himself wink

    Jews understand why they conceal losses, do not want to drop the survival of their tank in the face of buyers in the arms market.
  15. nekto_ii
    nekto_ii 2 February 2015 17: 38
    +1
    Good afternoon. Of course, I understand that it’s a little off topic, and little is known about Armata yet, but still. Yesterday a rumor reached me that Armata was not accepted. Allegedly the tower was taken, but the trolley is no good. Can anyone confirm or deny?
  16. igorka357
    igorka357 2 February 2015 18: 49
    +2
    Quote: Ruslan102
    Quote: Magic Archer
    Two myths of one battle: the Syrian T-72 in the Lebanese war of the 1982 of the year
    just select and google. I read about this in the magazine about T-72. Now there is a lot of information on these battles, but it is contradictory. The Syrians say one thing, the Jews are different. Where it is true and where lies, everyone decides for himself wink

    Jews understand why they conceal losses, do not want to drop the survival of their tank in the face of buyers in the arms market.

    But it seemed to me they didn’t sell merkavu .... this is a narrowly tailored tank for their region))) !!! Maybe I'm wrong)))?
    1. Astrahanec
      Astrahanec 2 February 2015 19: 40
      +1
      Psychological pressure on the enemy also should not be discounted.
  17. MaHrycT
    MaHrycT 2 February 2015 19: 39
    +1
    Everything with him: armor, mobility and firepower.
  18. gla172
    gla172 2 February 2015 20: 00
    0
    "...... But" seventy-two "met not only with the American М60А1, but also with the British" Centurions "Mk.9 and the newest Israeli" Merkavas ". The Syrian tankers successfully fought all these machines. officer Mazin Fauri, with whom the author of these lines was lucky enough to meet in 1984, once the Syrian "seventy-two" high-explosive fragmentation projectile "removed" the tower from the "Merkava". All this happened before his eyes ...... "

    This is just a small part of the article.
  19. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 2 February 2015 23: 37
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Thronekeeper
    But the F-15 falling on Beirut, shot down by the owls of the R-24T military aircraft on the "absent" MiG-23ML in June 82, was documented from the ground in frames, and the debris looks good.

    Well? Where are the frames then? wink

    http://samlib.ru/img/s/shitjakow_andrej_aleksandrowich/warinlie-1/haumig-23mfbyr
    -60mkillsf-16a.jpg
    This is Major Howe. The R-24T fell off the 12-km F-16 and the R-60M2 fells the F-15, moreover, in the teaching staff, then he turns around with a japper.
    Syrians did not count F-16 out of direct visibility to Howe - you never know what banged there.
    The fact that he dodged five siders and the sixth was fatally damaged, catapulting in front of a hard emergency, does not mean the death of FKP. This is the same black box. See the complaint of galvanized sealed for film and inside 2mm titanium - not for strength, just titanium does not allow heat to pass almost completely, kagbe titanium handles of pots so that a housewife with borsch does not burn: 0
    And the padded litak-vinischuvach Howe did not burn.

    This is all from one storyboard. I will drive a Yandex disk there a storyboard and fragments and FKP processed.
    Two-keel twin-engine car.
    1. Thronekeeper
      Thronekeeper 2 February 2015 23: 55
      0
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Quote: Professor
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      But the F-15 falling on Beirut, shot down by the owls of the R-24T military aircraft on the "absent" MiG-23ML in June 82, was documented from the ground in frames, and the debris looks good.

      Well? Where are the frames then? wink

      -60mkillsf-16a.jpg
      This is Major Howe (litter, he was downstairs). The R-24T fell off the 12-km F-16 and the R-60M2 fells the F-15, moreover, in the teaching staff, then he turns around with a japper.
      Syrians did not count F-16 out of direct visibility to Howe - you never know what banged there.
      The fact that he dodged five siders and the sixth was fatally damaged, catapulting in front of a hard emergency, does not mean the death of FKP. This is the same black box. See the complaint of galvanized sealed for film and inside 2mm titanium - not for strength, just titanium does not allow heat to pass almost completely, kagbe titanium handles of pots so that a housewife with borsch does not burn: 0
      And the padded litak-vinischuvach Howe did not burn.

      This is all from one storyboard. I will help Yandex disk http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2015/440/lxsa431.jpgthere the storyboard and the wreckage and FKP processed.
      Two-keel twin-engine car.
    2. Professor
      Professor 3 February 2015 07: 22
      0
      How nice to imagine the MiG-25 for the F-15. You are uploading screenshots here with a video that I fully uploaded. EMNIP there are even shots of debris on the ground. Moreover, I even translated the Arabic text behind the scenes ... request

      Go for it.

      PS
      I see you are new here, but I can also poke you with one place in the original video. wink
  20. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 3 February 2015 09: 24
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    PS
    I see you are new here, but I can also poke you with one place in the original video. wink

    Plus immediately and unconditionally!
    Thank you prof! I will be very grateful.
    No need to "poke something somewhere" at me, I lost this video of a German journalist without any Arabic voice-overs. Most of all I understand Arabic, although I can’t master the quick chatter.
    Really new, although professional in a certain way.
    Let's do it without invective irony. We are cultural people.
    The question of the June war hurts both your and my national pride, yes. All the same, you can correctly.
    Moreover, well, I don’t like the “jackal of the Middle East” (by analogy with the definition of Poland) and even consider it necessary for a macaque with a nuclear grenade in a third of Nerezinovsk to have a minimum delivery vehicle Sherikho-4 and even 3 to knock out, preferably negotiations, no - exclusively conventional, however, this is not anti-Semitism, but geopolitics.
    And so Intel will understand ;-)
    Quote: Professor
    How nice to imagine the MiG-25 for the F-15. You are uploading screenshots here with a video that I fully uploaded. EMNIP there are even shots of debris on the ground. Moreover, I even translated the Arabic text behind the scenes ... request

    Sorry, "magnified" - there are no Foxbat wingtips, since they did not fight in Lebanon MiG-25 - 2, was twice in Syria, watched videos and museums - three.
    Eagle flight on earth.
    According to Howe, I see the slip is counted? :-)
    1. Professor
      Professor 3 February 2015 09: 41
      0
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Plus immediately and unconditionally!

      If you were longer on the site you would know that I have pluses and minuses for the penis.

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Thank you prof! I will be very grateful.
      No need to "poke something somewhere" at me, I lost this video of a German journalist without any Arabic voice-overs. Most of all I understand Arabic, although I can’t master the quick chatter.

      The filmman is not German, but his own, Arabic. Now he shoveled half of his comments. I haven’t found it yet. I keep looking.

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Let's do it without invective irony. We are cultural people.

      You think well of me.

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      The question of the June war hurts both your and my national pride, yes. All the same, you can correctly.

      I spit on pride. I'm tired of storytellers.

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Moreover, well, I don’t like the “jackal of the Middle East” (by analogy with the definition of Poland) and even consider it necessary for a macaque with a nuclear grenade in a third of Nerezinovsk to have a minimum delivery vehicle Sherikho-4 and even 3 to knock out, preferably negotiations, no - exclusively conventional, however, this is not anti-Semitism, but geopolitics.

      Printing is not harmful, unless of course in moderation and the rocket is called Jericho.

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Really new, although professional in a certain way.

      At what plan?

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Sorry, "magnified" - there are no Foxbat wingtips, since they did not fight in Lebanon MiG-25 - 2, was twice in Syria, watched videos and museums - three.
      Eagle flight on earth.

      Didn’t MiG-25 fight in Lebanon? Where are the fragments of the F-15 from the museum? Can the tail number inform?

      Quote: Thronekeeper
      According to Howe, I see the slip is counted? :-)

      I do not discuss nonsense.

      PS


      Found. Enjoy:
  21. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 February 2015 11: 35
    -1
    Israel did not formally lose the F-15 during the Lebanon war.
    But one plane received a rocket at close range
    VV Syrian fighter in the nozzle of one of the engines.
    He reached the base in a very loose state.
    The plane was returned to service for a long time, but returned.
    The Syrians probably wrote him down (with some reason:
    at least, this board was permanently disabled for a long time).
  22. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 3 February 2015 14: 48
    +3
    [quote = professor] [quote = Thronekeeper] Plus immediately and unconditionally! [/ quote]
    If you were longer on the site you would know that I have pluses and minuses for the penis.
    I will consider. And I don’t :) In addition, how else, except verbally, to express respect and gratitude to a cell, plus - it is at least somehow material.

    [quote = Thronekeeper] Thank you, prof! I will be very grateful.
    No need to "poke something somewhere" at me, I lost this video of a German journalist without any Arabic voice-overs. I understand even more in Arabic, although I can’t master the quick chatter. [/ Quote]


    [quote = Thronekeeper] Let's not have an invective irony. We are cultural people. [/ Quote]
    [quote = professor] You think well of me.
    Well, of course, and so you are uncivilized and incorrect?: -)))) [/ quote]

    [quote = Thronekeeper] The June war question hurts both yours and my national pride, yes. All the same, you can correctly. [/ Quote]
    [quote = professor] I spit on pride. I'm tired of storytellers. [/ Quote]
    I'm tired of it too. Particularly Schizophrenian with his Judo-Nazi War-in-lie. Fishing tales with an ambush of ATGM and MiG-29, shot down by a pair of F-16.

    By the way, yes...
    Quoting Fofan, you go against the general line of the party :-)
    But what about Ariel-automat, who said that the "Mercobts" did not suffer losses and carried out 11 T-72s? :-)
    There are no losses (s)
    How then to believe in the integrity of the IAF purely theoretically - well, I really don’t know.
    IRL T-72 had 4 victories (irrevocable) over the Merkavites, hitting the flank of the 90th TD of the IDF, 3 on the account of the T-62, three irrevocable - Mi-24V and A, how many maintainable - I do not know. I do not know the exact number of MiG-23BN destroyed by Gazelles and PTAB-kums.
    If about ATGM without anonymous fishing tales - 2 near Beirut were burned by antique "Babies" of the Lebanese rebels, passibles, Hizbov.
    And the loss of the T-72 really was not.
    By the way, yes. The VLD of the Merkava made its way not only with the tungsten carbide sausage BM-21, but also with the "impossible" BM-3 of the same T-62, with only a tungsten carbide damper on the NMS projectile, because the armor scheme 55mm + 55 through the fuel tank it kept the godfather well, but OBPS - spaced apart without ceramics were perceived by the projectile as 34 and 55mm. Again, cast armor - but Israel, I understand, there are no rolling mills and dies for thermomechanical hardening, but the Englishmen who have all this, but put cast sheets on the Challengers, and even the removal of the mosquito - 120mm rifling, which cuts off the performance characteristics of OBPS and kumas according to unbalance - beyond logic.
    T-72 and T-62 had modern equipment of the initial battle, which, of course, even Merkava dor-1 did not have. Especially the example of the heroic 58th Syrian OTBR in night battles is indicative.
    By the way, with "Abramovich" the same thing. In addition to the worthless three-inch monolithic VLD, A1NA and A2 on a uranium anti-cumulative one, the towers and NLDs hold the OBPS an order of magnitude worse than the M1A1 with corundum ceramics, which, by the way, is produced in the Ta-Keme region and now our Egyptians are replacing it with silicon nitride. And "Attack", "Arkan", "Reflex", "Cornet" still do not hold.
    Not to mention the fact that the Merkava dor4 and M1A2SEP will soon overtake the tiger in terms of the mass of königs, the abrams is already a "parquet tank", sand, mud / snow are contraindicated for him.
    Generally - excuse me, but I consider the Abrams tank destroyer and the "police" TBMP "Merkava" to be miscarriages of the world tank building, for mnu there is a Soviet / Russian school represented by the T-90 and a Western one by the Leopard-2 (leclerk, in view small number, and "Challenger" in view of the above, I ignore).
    1. Professor
      Professor 3 February 2015 14: 54
      -3
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Particularly Schizophrenian with his Judo-Nazi ...

      I did not read further. Everything is clear with you. hi
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 3 February 2015 15: 55
        +3
        Professor, how nice to get away from the topic (in the Western manner), but not on this site !!! We (the readers) would like you to respond to this particular post, in its "technical" part !!!!!!!!
        1. Professor
          Professor 3 February 2015 18: 27
          0
          Quote: neri73-r
          Professor, how beautifully you move away from the topic (in a Western manner), but not on this site !!!

          Why should I go? If I don’t know something, either I don’t get into the topic or boldly declare it.

          Quote: neri73-r
          We (the readers) would like you to respond to this particular post, in its "technical" part !!!!!!!!

          IRL T-72 had 4 victories (irrevocable) over the Merkavites, hitting the flank of the 90th TD of the IDF, 3 on the account of the T-62, three irrevocable - Mi-24V and A, how many maintainable - I do not know. I do not know the exact number of MiG-23BN destroyed by Gazelles and PTAB-kums.
          Comment on this nonsense sucked from a finger? request

          If about ATGM without anonymous fishing tales - 2 near Beirut were burned by antique "Babies" of the Lebanese rebels, passibles, Hizbov.
          They were burned in 1982 by the Hezbollah organization founded in 1985. Continue I see no reason. Opponent level rushing out of all holes. fool Dismiss Further I will not read this set of letters. negative
  23. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 3 February 2015 14: 49
    +1
    Quote: Thronekeeper
    Moreover, well, I don’t like the “jackal of the Middle East” (by analogy with the definition of Poland) and even consider it necessary for a macaque with a nuclear grenade in a third of Nerezinovsk to have a minimum delivery vehicle Sherikho-4 and even 3 to knock out, preferably negotiations, no - exclusively conventional, however, this is not anti-Semitism, but geopolitics.

    Quote: Professor
    Printing is not harmful, unless of course in moderation and the rocket is called Jericho.

    Do you doubt that the Israeli police army is one tooth for the Air Force / Navy of the Russian Federation? Do you believe in wicked cumpol and Potz-errow? Are you a supporter of the Likud war party and the gallows Netanyahu? Do you think that nuclear weapons give something to Israel, besides the passion to get the "Voevoda" on the flat in case of a serious mess? Do you believe that you will get a ticket for the (* boat from the Titanic *) plane to New York?
    You give the impression of an intelligent person, never Judaization, therefore, it is strange.
    For the Russian Federation, the issue of nuclear disarmament of Kosheristan and the deterrence of the Sodomite Sheep is a matter of self-preservation, therefore, nothing personal, just business. Plus, this oil will level out for a normal 200uyev / barrel, especially if the ISIL bases in Saudovka are in the oil fields, well, or "Caliber" will miss like a tomahawk at the Chinese embassy. I do not understand why the Guardian Choir with Israel and the sodomites lisps, although it is time to bring the light of the secular state and civilization to and fro in the style of Barak Husseinich.

    Quote: Thronekeeper
    Really new, although professional in a certain way.

    Quote: Professor
    At what plan?

    Updated the profile info. Generally - such questions are asked in the RM.

    Quote: Thronekeeper
    Sorry, "magnified" - there are no Foxbat wingtips, since MiG-25 - 2 did not fight in Lebanon, I was in Syria three times, I watched videos and museums - three.
    Eagle flight on earth.

    Quote: Professor
    Didn’t MiG-25 fight in Lebanon? Where are the fragments of the F-15 from the museum? Can the tail number inform?

    He did not fight in the June Confrontation. Debris and w / n from me, I agree, fairly. And on other F-15s and especially "Falcons" (more of them filled up) - thank you - they fell on the territory controlled by the Tsakhal or in the sea.
    Quote: Thronekeeper
    According to Howe, I see the slip is counted? :-)

    Quote: Professor
    I do not discuss nonsense.

    FKP - not nonsense, but an irrefutable evidence. I can post it again, but there is the F-16th and a mirage, or it’s also Tokma sionizhenny among the Franks aka Kefira.



    Quote: Professor
    Found. Enjoy:

    Already.
    Thank you very much! drinks
    1. Professor
      Professor 3 February 2015 14: 58
      -2
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      You give the impression of an intelligent person, never Judaization

      Another similar attack and you are a friend in emergencies.
      1. Professor
        Professor 3 February 2015 15: 39
        0
        Yeah right now. I'm on "You"; did not pass with you.
        However, you are already there.

        Erased the video of the downed MiG-25? wink There will be a need, come and poke as promised. I keep my word. bully
  24. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 3 February 2015 15: 12
    +1
    Yeah right now. I did not switch to "You" with you.
    However, you are already there.
    1. Seaman77
      Seaman77 3 February 2015 22: 27
      +4
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Yeah right now. I did not switch to "You" with you.
      However, you are already there.


      In vain you are a professor in emergency situations ...
      He is a local attraction here. Almost like the pyramids in Egypt.
      It will be boring without him. smile
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2015 22: 50
      0
      Quote: Thronekeeper
      Yeah right now. I did not switch to "You" with you.
      However, you are already there.

      My friend, do you really think that if you are rude and carry nonsense, while using you, your rudeness will become more noble from this, and stubborn ignorance more aesthetic? You speak to sensible opponents or people who are respected for one reason or another. You, my friend, with your lack of culture and stubbornness, even with difficulty you have worked out
  25. Thronekeeper
    Thronekeeper 4 February 2015 00: 42
    +2
    Quote: Seaman77
    In vain you are a professor in emergency situations ...
    He is a local attraction here. Almost like the pyramids in Egypt.
    It will be boring without him. smile


    Already removed from the emergency, almost immediately. He reacted inadequately to rudeness, ultimatums "get out of the way of a PRAAAtive friend" in relation to a Russian poet and a Russian officer, and even then and this, one might say, is a brand.

    And so, prof - of course, a troll, but an interesting and informed troll.
    It would be just an ideological opponent, it would be easier to communicate.
    But here, in spite of the deliberate trolling, it is still possible to argue in terms of materiel and geopolitics. Only, it turns out, "you have to be more tender, more tender" (c)
    "Local landmark," you say?
    Boom know boom know laughing
    1. Seaman77
      Seaman77 4 February 2015 00: 54
      +2
      Well, with the "baptism of fire" you! smile
    2. padded jacket
      padded jacket 5 February 2015 15: 08
      0
      Do not be offended by the Israeli citizens, they are almost like one here, storytellers. Without their funny stories it would be "sad"
      and so something "soak" at least stand, at least fall lol
  26. The fat man
    The fat man 4 February 2015 00: 48
    +1
    Well comrade Pupyrchaty and Professor I congratulate you
    worthy replacement for Vatniku laughing
    at least do not add it to the emergency
    1. Professor
      Professor 4 February 2015 09: 33
      +1
      Quote: Fat Man
      Well comrade Pupyrchaty and Professor I congratulate you
      worthy replacement for Vatniku

      Not sure if this is not his clone. smile

      Quote: Fat Man
      at least do not add it to the emergency

      Why do I need? Can you learn something interesting and useful from him (a rhetorical question)?
      1. The fat man
        The fat man 4 February 2015 10: 14
        0
        you mentioned that in this war were not used anti-tank systems
        strange but really there is no information about this
        did any of the parties have them? and why ?
  27. Cornet77
    Cornet77 11 February 2015 09: 05
    0
    And it is natural that the 72nd was the best. His in that war there is no one to compare, not with the Amer’s ugly freaks, and not with the Chinese clones. Respect article. And commenting too