General - Empty Head

General - Empty HeadThe chief of the General Staff, General Nikolai Makarov, a few days ago greatly surprised the most respectable Russian public. He made a number of strange statements. Some experts interpreted his words as malicious sabotage.


Speaking to the press, N. Makarov said that the T-90MS tank, presented at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, "has a lot of shortcomings." So far, only his tower has been qualitatively executed, which arouses serious respect among the general. Apparently, the one below is not interested in the military leader. This attitude to the latest Russian tank, on which they worked at the Uralvagonzavod for several years, caused a flurry of criticism. Moreover, this particular machine was introduced to V. Putin and was praised.

As experts say, this tank is intended only for export. The Ministry of Defense (MO) to its creation has nothing to do. Now it turns out that with his chatter a high-ranking general simply spoiled the reputation of our manufacturers in the overseas market. The damage from such ill-considered statements is difficult to calculate, but it is possible that it will amount to billions of dollars.

Sources of "AN" in the Defense Ministry claim that the general simply did not understand or did not want to understand. He allegedly meant the T-90MA tank, which is proposed for our army. However, the Ministry of Defense acknowledges that it was possible to keep silent. Moreover, the Chief of the General Staff himself recently “conducted a conversation” on the topic of rash and emotional public statements with the Chief of the Ground Forces General Postnikov. The conversation was just about the tanks.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ZEBRASH
    ZEBRASH 16 September 2011 14: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And such beautiful awards on his chest and go anniversary wink
    But seriously, even by physiognomy it’s clear that a narrow-minded person no
    1. Vadivak 16 September 2011 14: 21 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      But the general’s tower seems to be of poor quality,
    2. KuigoroZHIK 17 September 2011 00: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, he is stubborn by something ..... sitting under the coke ... look at his eyes
    3. puffnutiy
      puffnutiy 20 September 2011 15: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I don’t understand, why should I wear anniversary awards?
  2. Joker
    Joker 16 September 2011 14: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And a look full of emptiness ..
  3. Varnaga 16 September 2011 14: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It seems to me that Makarov has more than proved his inability to lead the General Staff. What is it worth is that the combat manuals, which should regulate the activity of the troops, have been in development for the third year already.
  4. PSih2097 16 September 2011 14: 26 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    He was mainly busy at headquarters ...
    1967-1971 - cadet of the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School named after the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. He graduated with a gold medal.
    1971-1977 - platoon commander, company commander, battalion commander in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.
    1977-1979 - student of the Military Academy named after M.V. Frunze. He graduated with a gold medal.
    1979-1991 - chief of staff - deputy regiment commander, regiment commander, chief of staff - deputy division commander, commander of a motorized rifle division in the Trans-Baikal Military District.
    1991-1993 - student of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. He graduated with a gold medal.
    1993-1996 - Chief of Staff of the United Group of Russian Forces in Tajikistan; Chief of Staff - First Deputy Commander of the 11th Guards Combined Arms Army (Kaliningrad).
    1996-1997 - commander of the 2nd Guards Tank Army of the Volga Military District (Samara).
    November 1997 - September 1999 - commander of the land and coastal forces - deputy commander of the Baltic Fleet for land and coastal troops (Kaliningrad).
    September 1999 - December 2002 - Chief of Staff - First Deputy Commander of the Troops of the Moscow Military District.
    May 9, 2001 commanded a military parade in honor of Victory Day on Red Square in Moscow.
    In April-July 2001, he served as commander of the troops of the Moscow Military District.
    December 2002 - April 2007 - commander of the troops of the Siberian Military District.
    April 2007 - June 2008 - Chief of Armament of the Armed Forces - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.
    Since June 3, 2008 - Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.

    Since June 26, 2008, a member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation.
    1. SLAVA 16 September 2011 14: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      GGG ndaaa truly "combat" Eneral, probably the awards that he handed to himself too !!!
      1. Banshee 16 September 2011 15: 32 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        God works in mysterious ways!
        And the list is not bad, and Mosvok School is not one of the last ...
        And he was not in Moscow at the posts ...
        Well, such a fool is not following the bazaar ... Relaxed, apparently.
  5. stas 16 September 2011 15: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Based on criticism, which increasingly sounds to the leadership of Moscow Region,
    Putin does not need a very competent defense minister and chief of the General Staff.

    As in that joke, the battalion commander scolds the soldier for poor service and tells him, “And where are such fools taken into the army?”, The soldier replies, “They sent smart people to the smart ones, and they sent me to you.”
    1. AleksUkr 16 September 2011 17: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That's right. Our rulers do not really need smart heads. But Mo and the NSS have long and viciously criticized the stupid reforms in the army. But things are still there. They are kept, it means that someone needs it. And the locksmith Taburetkin even composes poems and songs. The soul rejoices. Maybe they are kept for jesters? So they still can’t reach Zhirinovsky !.
  6. hellbringer
    hellbringer 16 September 2011 16: 04 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Do you believe that he says this stupidly? This variety of corrupt generals thinks differently than a simple layman.
    This is just a PR preparation before purchasing tanks in the west.
    1. almost demobil 16 September 2011 16: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Very similar to that. Very comfortable general, got along well with a stool.
  7. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 16: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Unfortunately, General Makarov is right.
    Tank Park of the Russian Federation, is a miserable sight.
    Affected by 20 years of democratic reform ...
    T-90 tanks (modernized T-72) are an anachronism.
    Judge for yourselves: the mass is 49t (!), It’s not even funny anymore, here you have to cry ...
    The sooner the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation switch to next-generation tanks (mass 70t, armament 152-160mm), the higher the strike potential of the ground forces.
    1. Joker
      Joker 16 September 2011 16: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      The sooner the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation switch to next-generation tanks (mass 70t, armament 152-160mm), the higher the strike potential of the ground forces.


      - take it higher, the mass is not lower than 100-120 tons, the gun is at least 210 mm. In general, such a tank already exists, and in conditions of great secrecy, such vehicles have already been set up by Qadafi to counter the rebels and NATO.
      Does such a device fit your opinion?

      Gaddafi's forces win at the expense of the Russian "T-92 supertanks"
      http://topwar.ru/4273-sily-kaddafi-pobezhdayut-za-schet-rossiyskih-supertankov-t
      -92.html # comment-id-5365

      Object 192, a prototype series of 12 cars was produced, years in the 70s.

      During the union, 7 cars were deployed on the western border, 2 in the Urals, and 3 opposite China.

      Thanks to the presence of several tracks, impressive armor and an extra long-range cannon, such a monster could hold back an enemy tank army for quite some time.

      After the collapse in accordance with the START, all ten machines were disposed of.

      But this is not the most interesting. Traces of two cars are lost after release. There is indirect evidence that they were sent to the Middle East, for a break-in battle.

      But I doubt it came to their application. If they use at least one installation - they can easily regain full control of the coast, and even seriously pat their fleet. This may be an indirect reason for the fear of NATO to conduct a ground operation, a kind of parity has been established.

      I give the approximate installation data:

      - Weight about 75 tons.
      - Armor - equivalent along the entire perimeter (it was supposed to act against the accumulation of enemy forces, and they could sneak up behind), provides reliable protection even from modern PBS and KBS at a distance of up to 300 meters inclusive.
      - Cruising range of about 1000 km.
      - The main armament is not exactly known, but there is indirect information about the installation of a “cut off” sea gun similar to that installed on Project 1144 ships (data for a ship’s gun: 180 mm caliber, 37 km firing range, 97,5 kg projectile weight, initial speed 920 m / s)
      - auxiliary - according to indirect data, a universal installation based on 57 mm anti-aircraft guns.
      - The installation has autonomy of about 30 days, which is especially important when operating in the desert.
      1. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 17: 14 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        I do not quite agree with you.
        120t is not suitable for the main tank.
        It can be self-propelled guns, but not like a tank.
        Transportation of such an object by railway transport is very difficult.
        Air transportability is also doubtful (only Ruslan).
        The new tank of the Russian Federation should have a mass of not more than 70 tons.
        In armament, superior to Western counterparts.
        Smoothbore 160mm gun, may well be considered the best solution, based on a given mass.
        With a mass of RP grenades of 50-60 kg, the fire potential will surpass the western ones by head.
        Yes, and sub-caliber armor-piercing, having an initial speed of 1800m.s, and in two greater lateral loads, compared with existing ones, it will be able to deal with all types of MBTs at ranges up to 3 km.
        But at the expense of the machine gun 57mm, then it will fit for the BMP weighing 60-65t (landing 9 people).
        This is also a promising direction.
        The existing BMP-3 cannot fully meet the requirements of modern combat.
        1. Joker
          Joker 16 September 2011 17: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I insist on a mass of 120 tons, so you can achieve stunning autonomy of the system, this advantage of the T-92 was clearly demonstrated in Libya. Do you think why the cadaffy regime still holds? It is due to these machines.
          1. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 17: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For the main tank, its parameters are doubtful.
            In addition, the above photo on your link, an explicit photoshop.
            1. Joker
              Joker 16 September 2011 17: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              You can follow the link and see the comments about the performance characteristics of the “tank” - this is a joke.

              Seriously, at the moment, the following trend is being observed, the development of a family of highly protected vehicles weighing no more than 50 tons by the US military.

              What is the reason for this? The machine is highly transportable and has a good level of cross-country ability. Abrashi has these qualities at a low level.

              The mass of the tank is not an end in itself, but as for the further increase in security, there were references in the press to armor based on new principles (electromagnetic or something like this), but at the moment the level is being increased due to new materials and dynamic armor.

              The 125-mm guns have also not yet exhausted their potential (including due to the larger volume of the charging chamber), although the 152-mm gun certainly has prospects.

              Based on the foregoing, I think the mass of promising tanks will not exceed 50-60 tons (60 in body armor in a circle for operations in the city).
              1. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 17: 54 New
                • -3
                • 0
                -3
                Need to be proactive.
                After some time, the military will understand the harmfulness of the chosen concept (50-60t)
                It should be based on the MBT parameter, namely 70t.
                At the expense of patency, everything can be decided.
                The main thing is to decide on the concept.
                The 125mm gun no longer meets modern requirements, and the point here is not in enhancing the charge, it is in caliber.
                The main vector is the strengthening of the fire potential (and it is possible only when moving to a larger caliber of 152-160 mm).
                Then, adjust the protection to the maximum (based on the given mass).
                From the masses, you need to squeeze everything possible.
                So, we get the next generation tank.
                1. Joker
                  Joker 17 September 2011 14: 43 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I repeat "The machine is highly transportable and has a good level of cross."

                  Quote: Ivan Tarasov
                  After some time, the military will understand the harmfulness of the chosen concept (50-60t)


                  - immediately after changing the laws of physics, or at least reducing the force of gravity of the earth.

                  If interested, you can search for information on the IS-4. Based on the results of the military operation of this tank, a weight limit of 50 tons was adopted and the production of IS-7 was canceled.
                  1. Ivan Tarasov 18 September 2011 20: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    For a mass of 70 t, a supporting area of ​​8 sq.m is required
                    The use of heavy (HE) 160mm shells will require an increase in the mass of ammunition.
                    80 shots - 7t
                    Plus, refueling, equipment and crew.
                    We get the mass of empty MBT -60t.
                    All these tasks, today, are completely solvable.
                    Mass, as you have noticed, is not an end in itself.
                    But the inevitability associated with an increase in internal volume.
                    Reducing the crew to 2 people (driver, commander-operator), will allow partly to solve the problem.
                    1. Joker
                      Joker 20 September 2011 16: 29 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The justification for the need for a mass of 70 tons for the main tank in your words I have not found.

                      As for the crew of 2 people. A study was carried out in the region of the 60-70s, in relation to missile tanks. Then it was planned to create purely missile tanks with automatic guidance, the commander simply gives target designation, the target is hit automatically. Studies have shown that if the crew was reduced to 2 people, most tank maintenance procedures increased by an order of magnitude in time, and some were simply impossible. By the way, when designing Merkava MK.4, the Israeli military insisted on a crew of 4 people.

                      I do not think that ALL representatives of the military customer around the world decided to suddenly limit the mass of tanks for nothing. Pindos did it according to the results of actual exploitation (military operations).
                      1. Ivan Tarasov 20 September 2011 17: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        An attack helicopter is much more difficult to use, however, it costs a crew of two.
                        In a modern tank, a panoramic tablet is used.
                        As soon as the operator just pokes a finger at the target on the screen, the computer will do everything by itself.
                        The mass of 70 tons is justified by the use of a powerful gun, with huge returns, heavy ammunition, and an impressive internal volume.
                        Yes, for a western 120 mm gun, a mass of 50-60t is quite suitable.
                        However, if we calculate the ratio of the internal volume for 120 mm shots and 160 mm (with the same number of shots), then the difference will give us an increase in mass.
                      2. Joker
                        Joker 20 September 2011 17: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        As for helicopters, they can do with one pilot, the KA-50 has clearly demonstrated this. 2 people in the KA-52 are the result of the conservatism of the military, at least the developers say so.

                        But with a helicopter in this case, the comparison is incorrect. The helicopter returns to the base where it is serviced by technical specialists. Do you propose, for example, every time you bring mechanics to carry out maintenance of the machine, or in the event of a track breakdown, for example, under enemy fire, bring their crew to the tank?

                        I explained to you that the question of the number of crew members is far from as clear as it might seem at first glance and this moment is confirmed by scientific research. And practice, if you notice, proves.

                        Regarding the need for a 160 mm gun. If we take the 152-mm caliber, it fits perfectly into the existing base; there is an experimental model with a rifled gun based on the T-80. Ammunition can be increased by placing extra. b.k. in a developed tower niche.


                      3. Joker
                        Joker 20 September 2011 17: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Ivan Tarasov
                        Attack helicopter, much more difficult to use,


                        - after this phrase I see no reason to continue the dialogue with you.
                      4. Ivan Tarasov 20 September 2011 20: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Tanks are not moving alone, they are accompanied by infantry fighting vehicles.
                        In case of caterpillar rupture, the crew does not have to leave the tank.
                        "experimental model with a rifled gun based on the T-80"
                        A rifled gun is not suitable for a modern tank.
                        It should be smoothbore.

                        It was nice to have a conversation.
                        All the best.
          2. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 18: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            With regard to electromagnetic protection, this is a distant prospect, you do not need to sit and wait until it appears, otherwise we will miss time.
            We must work with what we have.
  • Banshee 16 September 2011 17: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Anyone to hit something?
  • Asmoday 16 September 2011 16: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    hmm .. there is so much patriotism and intelligence in my eyes that I don’t even know what to say ... SHOOT SUCH SALES BITCHES !!! If you look at what these creatures do (have already done) with the army. I mean not only such "patriots" but also our "governments" they need to be judged and introduced the death penalty under article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation!
  • starley77
    starley77 16 September 2011 17: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why blame Makarov? Tank and indeed with jambs
    1. Ivan Tarasov 16 September 2011 17: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The tank is not with jambs, the tank, for its time (if we come from the mid 80s) is clearly advanced.
      The time of this tank, passed 25 years ago!
      Before us is an anachronism.
    2. AleksUkr 16 September 2011 17: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      It’s not a matter of the tank, but of our beloved military command’s attitude towards the development of its military industry, armaments, and independence from external supplies, but it seems that they are of little interest. Like our ostentatious tandem.
  • SAVA555.IVANOV
    SAVA555.IVANOV 18 September 2011 21: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    WELL SO ABOUT THIS IT WAS NOT MANDATORY WAS DRINKING .., SUCH ANY MEETING WAS ENOUGH. HOW OLD IS HE? Is it time for a retirement ?!
  • kostya
    kostya 19 September 2011 05: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    there is no Stalin on him, otherwise he would have already been shot