Military Review

T-14 vs. VT-4. Fight in the open spaces of the information space

97
The emergence of a new Russian core tank T-14 on the basis of the unified platform "Armata" made a splash. This machine has become the subject of a lot of discussion, including in domestic and foreign media. Not so long ago, thanks to the German press, we were surprised - and the employees of Uralvagonzavod, apparently with great surprise - found out that the Armata project is based on some German developments thirty years ago. Now the list of strange publications about the T-14 tank has been replenished with an article from China's Daily.


Chinese opinion

The 5 of June on the website of the Chinese edition appeared the article Tank maker to increase exports on land armaments (“The tank manufacturer aims to increase the export of ground weapons”). Under this heading, which did not attract much attention, there was a curious article about the latest actions and statements of the Chinese corporation Norinco, which produces various weapons and military equipment, including tanks. The publication China's Daily told about new projects of the corporation, as well as about the latest interesting statements of its press service.

Norinco Corporation intends to use the newest and most popular technologies to promote its products. Advertising of weapons and equipment produced by the corporation should now appear in the popular application for WeChat smartphones. This application is designed for instant messaging and has an audience of about 500 million people. Recently, many enterprises of the Chinese defense industry began to advertise in WeChat and thereby promote their products in the international market.

T-14 vs. VT-4. Fight in the open spaces of the information space
Tank T-14 "Armata". Photos Ru.wikipedia.org, Vitaly V. Kuzmin


In addition to the usual advertising in the application are placed various articles with full information on any topic. Usually in WeChat published materials that for various reasons can not be posted on the official website of the corporation. One of the recent publications of the corporation Norinco in the WeChat application was devoted to the latest Russian and Chinese developments. The only manufacturer of tanks in China decided to study the situation with the newest projects of the two countries.

The authors of the publication remind that the western countries turned down the production of tanks for a long time. Because of this, new armored vehicles of this class are built only in Russia and in China. Thus, if a third country wishes to purchase a new tank, then it will not have much choice. She will have to choose between the Russian and Chinese proposal.

At present, the Russian industry has only one export project of the tank - T-90С. China, in turn, offers three armored vehicles to foreign customers at once. The client can order relatively cheap VT-2 tanks, VT-1 “middle class” vehicles, or the most expensive and sophisticated VT-4 tanks. Thus, as noted by representatives of Norinco, the customer can get the equipment that best meets their requirements.

China is currently Russia's main competitor in the production of export tanks. The main competition is for orders from developing countries that wish to upgrade their armored forces. At the same time, the market for tanks is extremely limited in size, and the volume of new orders is constantly decreasing. Referring to Moscow World Trade Analysis Center weapons, the authors from Norinco claim that in the 2014-17 years there is a significant decrease in the demand for tanks in comparison with the previous four-year period. As a result, we should expect that the competitive struggle in the market will escalate.

According to Chinese experts, the main Russian export tank T-90С, belonging to the third post-war generation, is quite capable of competing with the Chinese VT-1. At the same time, according to representatives of Norinco, the latest Russian development of the T-90AM has no significant improvements that can give an advantage over Chinese tanks. As a result, as stated in the article of the Chinese corporation, seeing the advantages of the VT-4 tank, the Russian manufacturer will have to offer foreign customers the newest T-14 machine.

The debut of the new Russian tank T-14 "Armat" was held on May 9 at the Victory Parade. According to Russian media, Norinco reminds that this car is the first tank of the fourth generation. In addition, it surpasses all existing foreign developments in a number of characteristics. After the start of full operation, this tank will become the most powerful combat vehicle in the world.


Tank VT-4 (MBT-3000)


However, Norinco experts are not inclined to agree with Russian statements. Moreover, they have a diametrically opposite opinion. An article in a corporation published in WeChat states that T-14 is inferior to Chinese VT-4 in a number of parameters. Chinese tank builders saw a lag in automation, mobility, and fire control systems. In addition, the Chinese tank has an advantage in terms of cost.

Recalling the incident at the rehearsal of the parade on Red Square, Norinco experts claim that there are problems with the transmission of the new Russian tank. The Chinese machine VT-4, allegedly, never encountered such problems. In addition, the authors of the article claim that Chinese-made fire control systems have characteristics at the level of world leaders, and similar Russian equipment is inferior to them.

In addition, representatives of Norinco talked about the cost of combat vehicles. According to their data, the price of the Russian T-14 tank should not seriously differ from the American M1A2 Abrams. In this case, the Chinese armored vehicles have significant advantages, since they have high performance and low price.

It seems that the Norinco article in the WeChat application is an advertisement for Chinese armored vehicles and an attempt to belittle a potential competitor. The second half of the material fully confirms this. Further description of the VT-4 is similar to advertising and can hardly be considered a fair and unbiased assessment of the capabilities of this machine.

According to the manufacturer, the VT-4 tank has a modern fire control system, the latest active protection, and is also equipped with a new automatic transmission. In addition, the electronic equipment of the tank included equipment for communication with other machines and command. Such equipment allows the tank unit to exchange real-time information about the state of the battlefield and the location of targets.

The chief designer of the VT-4 tank, Feng Ibai, notes that the car is equipped with a diesel engine with an HP 1200 power. with electronic control system. This power plant provides the tank with a maximum speed of 68 km / h. The “main caliber” of the armored vehicle is the 125-mm smoothbore weapon. In ammunition includes both armor-piercing sabots and fired shells, and high-explosive fragmentation ammunition. It also provides for the possibility of firing guided missiles with a range of up to 5 km.

Fan Ibay separately notes the characteristics of the protection of the tank, developed under his leadership. Despite the high level of protection, the combat weight of the tank is equal to 52 tons. It is argued that foreign vehicles with similar protection characteristics weigh on the order of 60 t. This feature ultimately increases the mobility of the Chinese tank in comparison with foreign competitors.

Norinco senior research and development manager Liu Sun believes that VT-4 can compete with all modern foreign tanks, including the American M1A2 Abrams and the German Leopard 2A6. In August last year, a demonstration of the VT-4 tank took place in Inner Mongolia, which was attended by representatives of 44 from foreign countries. According to Liu Song, some foreign officials expressed interest in a new Chinese development and expressed willingness to begin negotiations on possible purchases. Details of these events and negotiations were not disclosed. Nevertheless, it became known from the chief designer of the project that the VT-4 tank would be tested by the Pakistani military.

Chinese experts tend to appreciate the export potential of VT-4 tanks. So, military expert Shi Yang, quoted in Norinco, believes that new Chinese tanks may be of interest to many countries in the Middle East. Chinese VT-1 machines are already in service with many Asian countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and China intends to increase the number of foreign customers.

In addition, China is developing a light tank of a new generation. This machine, according to available data, is intended for work in mountain conditions. In particular, the new light tank will receive a hydropneumatic suspension designed to operate in difficult conditions.

According to the UN Register of Conventional Weapons, from 1992 to 2013, China sold 461 a tank to foreign customers. 296 machines were purchased by Pakistan. Over the same period, Russian enterprises transferred 1297 tanks to customers. The United States and Germany sold 21 and 5511 tanks, respectively, for the 2680 year.

Russian response

It is easy to see that the authors of the Chinese publication do not have much respect for the new Russian development. Moreover, in their desire to make advertising their own products, they seem to be ready for various not entirely honest statements. Naturally, such an approach to the promotion of its development could not fail to provoke a corresponding reaction from the Russian side.

9 June, the online publication Vestnik Mordovii, known for its interest in armored vehicles, published the article under the loud title "One Russian Armata" equivalent to 10 Chinese tanks MBT-3000. " The author of this article, Lev Romanov, tried to sort out Chinese statements and answer them. As can be seen from the title, the Russian journalist is more than disagree with the Chinese experts.

L. Romanov began his article with a reminder of foreign publications that appeared shortly after the "premiere" of the newest Russian tank. Earlier, the American press wrote about some borrowing from American projects, and later similar publications appeared in the German media. However, the Chinese article seriously stands out against the background of other foreign statements. China, which has extensive experience in copying foreign products without a permit, has reached the allegations that VT-4, which has a specific origin, is superior to T-14.


Al Khalid Tank (MBT-2000). Photo En.wikipedia.org


"Messenger of Mordovia" recalled some features of the VT-4 project, also known under the designation MBT-3000. This tank is a further development of the Al Khalid tank (MBT-2000) joint Chinese-Pakistani development. The development of the basic project began in 1988, and in 91 the first Al Khalid prototype was put to the test. In the future, several modifications of the armored vehicle appeared, differing from each other in the types of engines used. For various reasons, the deployment of mass production of tanks took about 10 years.

After Pakistan conducted tests of nuclear weapons, Western countries imposed sanctions against this state. Among other things, the sanctions led to the impossibility of using engines of American and European production. As a result, Al Khalid tanks received Ukrainian 6TD-2 type engines. Such motors are considered optimal in terms of cost and performance.

The Russian edition notes that when creating the Al Khalid tank, the most widely used components and assemblies were borrowed from Soviet armored vehicles. Thus, the T-72M tank, inherited by China through connections with third countries, “shared” some elements of the undercarriage, the 125-mm smoothbore gun and automatic loader for it.

Also, the Herald of Mordovia recalled the comparative tests of Russian and Chinese tanks. A few years ago, Saudi Arabia decided to check the T-90C and Al Khalid tanks. The Russian armored vehicle successfully covered the entire distance at the tankodrome, while the MBT-2000 encountered numerous problems. For these reasons, the Chinese tank was removed from the tests, and the Russian T-90C was declared the winner.

It should be noted that in the future, "Al Khalid" was upgraded. In 2012, an updated version of this tank called the MBT-3000 was demonstrated. L. Romanov notes that in this car there was a noticeable influence of the Russian T-90CM tank. During the modernization of the Chinese tank received a new dynamic protection, as well as an updated power plant. Instead of the Ukrainian engine, it was decided to use a domestic HP 1200 motor. Nevertheless, such a replacement had some negative features: the resource of Chinese engines leaves much to be desired.

On the workplace of the driver appeared new equipment. Now all the necessary information was displayed on an electronic display, and it was proposed to drive the car using the steering wheel, which replaced the traditional levers. Nevertheless, as experts noted, the design of new governing bodies was not developed. In some situations, the steering wheel not only interfered with driving a tank, but also posed a danger to the driver.

On the published photos of the combat compartment of the MBT-3000 tank, specialists and the interested public were able to see some interesting features of this vehicle. At first attention was attracted by color displays to display various information. However, in the same photographs it was noticeable that at least some of the details of the newest Chinese tank were covered with rust. This problem noticeably hit the MBT-3000 reputation.


The infamous photo of a tank with rust.


As a result, it turns out that they are trying to compare the Chinese-made armored vehicle with a number of characteristic — and not the very best — features with the latest Russian T-14 tank. Meanwhile, unnamed experts who are referred to by the journalist of the Vestnik of Mordovia believe that a tank based on the Armat platform has great advantages over Chinese cars. According to their calculations, one T-14 on the battlefield will be able to destroy up to a company of MBT-3000 tanks. This is facilitated by the latest weapon with a record speed of sabot projectiles and a perfect fire control system based on domestic components.

In addition, L. Romanov notes the use of a new complex of active protection, which significantly increases the survivability of the tank. As a result, the Armata’s T-14 is protected from the weapons of the most modern enemy tanks, superior to the Chinese MBT-3000.

Who is right?

According to different sources, currently the T-14 tank based on the Armata platform is being tested. In addition, the development of various systems and preparation for the mass production of such equipment is underway. Over the next few years, the first production tanks of the new model will be transferred to the armed forces. In general, the current progress of the project may be cause for optimism. Nevertheless, there are not quite pleasant moments for the public.

At the moment, most of the information about the Armata project is still hidden under secrecy. It is unlikely that most of the information about the T-14 tank will become public in the next few years. For this reason, so far it is necessary to rely only on the available fragmentary information, various assessments, etc. All this does not yet allow to form a full-fledged opinion on the newest Russian tank, and also seriously complicates its comparison with other armored vehicles.

As a result, it can be assumed that Chinese specialists were quick to compare two tanks and, as a result, arrived at the wrong conclusion. However, this version does not fully correspond to reality. The fact is that the publication of the corporation Norinco is more like an advertisement than an attempt at an objective comparison. The various nuances of this article can serve as an excellent confirmation of this assumption.

As for the publication of the Vestnik of Mordovia, it can be considered a worthy response to the claims of Chinese experts, in fact, based on just one incident with an unplanned stop of the T-14 tank. In the article from Norinco there is only one fact capable of casting a shadow on Armata. L. Romanov, in his turn, cited several examples at once, speaking about the problems of the VT-4 / MBT-3000 tank. Such features of the two articles may look ambiguous, but they perfectly reveal the topic of praising their equipment and belittling foreign ones.

As you know, advertising is the engine of commerce. Nevertheless, the advertising material of the corporation Norinco, recently published in WeChat, can hardly be considered a worthy example of content intended for the promotion of its products. This fact, as well as the features of vehicles from different countries, suggest that in the future the situation in the international market of tanks will hardly change. The probability of increasing the share of China is still less than it would be desirable for Chinese enterprises.


Based on:
http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0605/c90786-8902744.html
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12450.htm
Author:
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Moore
    Moore 15 June 2015 06: 27
    25
    As for the publication of the Bulletin of Mordovia, it can be considered a worthy response to the claims of Chinese experts, which are actually based on just one incident with an unplanned stop of the T-14 tank.

    To this, it is not out of place to recall the failures of Chinese equipment at the tank biathlon. A trifle, but in the bank of doubts about the effectiveness of the Chinese BTT - an increase.
    1. yugan
      yugan 15 June 2015 08: 02
      19
      Well, you can also recall the quality of the Chinese copies of the Kalashnikovs. And in general, what to compare? You might think the Chinese know the real characteristics of the "Armata".
      1. Greg
        Greg 15 June 2015 16: 41
        +2
        Hmm ... Here's the question, do we know their characteristics? .. Well, maybe at least he will appear at the biathlon and put everyone in
      2. edge
        edge 15 June 2015 18: 22
        +2
        Quote: manganese
        You can also recall the quality of the Chinese copies of the Kalashnikovs. And in general what to compare? You might think the Chinese know the real characteristics of the "Armata".

        Yes, these whales went ... Threat in the bathhouse, forever everything is better for them (such an inferiority complex) ... that they have been wading around the world does not say anything; moreover, they have been doing this for centuries ..... what will we hear more?
    2. Serg 122
      Serg 122 15 June 2015 08: 41
      +4
      Meanwhile unnamed expertsreferred to by the journalist of the Bulletin of Mordovia, believe that a tank based on the Armata platform has major advantages in front of chinese cars

      Why are we worse than the Chinese? It is clear that both of these articles (ours and Chinese) are like a pitchfork on water, until the corresponding tests are carried out. But the interest in our new tank in the world is huge ... hi
      1. Marconi41
        Marconi41 15 June 2015 11: 14
        +4
        Quote: Serg 122
        Why are we worse than the Chinese? It is clear that both of these articles (ours and Chinese) are like a pitchfork on water, until the corresponding tests are carried out.

        Yes sir! Prototype versus prototype is pretty cool! Laughter takes: Either we compare the T-50 with something, or the Armata. Not there, not there, the tests are not finished and what the serial copy will be is also unknown.
        Although fiction is interesting.
        1. edge
          edge 15 June 2015 18: 26
          +1
          Quote: Marconi41
          Laughter takes: That T-50 is compared with something

          they just changed the drying glider a bit, increased the tanks, put Russian engines; and now it’s the 5th generation satellite, the second after the USA .......
      2. iv_v virtual 4
        iv_v virtual 4 15 June 2015 11: 25
        -3
        A surprising number of people are ready to discuss the response of the Vestnik Mordovii Internet publication to the malicious "materials that, for various reasons, cannot be posted on the official website of the Norinco corporation.

        In the article I see two sane phrases:
        Western countries have long ago turned off the production of tanks

        the tank market is extremely limited, and new orders are constantly declining


        It is these phrases, as I understand it, that cause no public interest.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 15 June 2015 12: 07
          +6
          Quote: iv_v virtual 4
          It is these phrases, as I understand it, that cause no public interest.

          What can I say?
          "Western countries have curtailed the production of tanks for a long time" - well, so the USSR collapsed, the arms race stopped, so they began to get rid of what they then thought were unnecessary costs. As a result, they are now biting their elbows, the Germans have announced the development of their new generation tank, although before that they sang like everything about the uselessness of tanks in the modern army.

          "The tank market is extremely limited, and the volume of new orders is constantly decreasing" - what's so surprising about that? Now, really, thousands of tank armadas are not needed, plus the tanks serve for a long time, they often do not need to be changed, and in many cases it is easier to modernize old ones than buy new ones.
          And the last thing - the Chinese are so boiling that one might think that our T-14s are already being offered for export. This is when you consider that by the beginning of the 2020s, our Defense Ministry plans to purchase only T-14 tanks about 2000! for our army. This is without taking into account the production of the T-15 BMP and the Coalition self-propelled guns, which are made on the same platform - I think with such and such plans about the export of "armature" in the next 5 years will not have to talk at all.
          1. iv_v virtual 4
            iv_v virtual 4 15 June 2015 13: 27
            +1
            Yes, hard.
            Quote: Albert1988
            Germans announced the development of their new generation tank

            Where did you get it from? From the newspaper "Argumenty i Fakty", is this?

            http://www.aif.ru/society/army/germaniya_i_franciya_namereny_sozdat_konkurenta_t
            anka_armata

            And if you do not believe the retelling of the AIF, but read the actual Die Welt? It says that members of parliament requested the Bundeswehr and received a written response that replacing the Leopard-2 with a new MBT could be considered after 2030 (Die Nutzungsdauer des Leopard 2 ende um das Jahr 2030, schreibt Grübel. Daher müsse untersucht werden, wie die Fähigkeit erhalten werden könne).

            I would translate it as "fuck off".

            http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article141368041/Von-der-Leyen-reagiert-a
            uf-Russlands-Aufruestung.html

            Who like, but I do not take seriously the initiatives of deputies, even German, regarding promising weapons.


            Quote: Albert1988
            Thousands of armored tanks are not needed, plus tanks serve for a long time, often they do not need to be changed, and in many cases it’s easier to upgrade old ones than to buy new ones.

            Quote: Albert1988
            Moscow Region plans to purchase only T-14 tanks around 2000!


            Does this paragraph seem strange to you?
            1. ILDM1986
              ILDM1986 15 June 2015 18: 53
              +2
              well 2000 not so much wink "small thousand" - I would say so laughing In general, it is the Defense Ministry that should decide what these tanks are for and when - to create "shock" groups, whether to partially replace the outdated BTT with plans for the next five years, a decade, or 50 years. I personally would like several hundreds of cars for the short term, partial for the mid-term and full replacement in 15-20 years. Only me, but perhaps our military has serious concerns about NATO's plans, all of a sudden they want to test us for strength ... then it is clear why urgent rearmament. By the way, 2000 is specifically about the T-14, or generally about the "armature" - there is not only MBT, but also BMP, and ACS, and engineering vehicles promise.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 16 June 2015 00: 33
                0
                Quote: ILDM1986
                By the way, 2000 is specifically about the T-14, or generally about the "armature" - there is not only MBT, but also BMP, and ACS, and engineering vehicles promise.

                The fact of the matter is that the numbers were voiced regarding only the T-15, and so far nothing has been said about the T-15 and the possible coalition.
          2. skeptic
            skeptic 15 June 2015 16: 22
            +1
            Quote: Albert1988
            And the last - the Chinese are so boiling that you might think - our T-14s are already being offered for export.


            Since the guys are terry copiers, spinning on "weak", they hope that some of the designers will ruffle, at least some performance characteristics.
    3. skeptic
      skeptic 15 June 2015 16: 17
      +3
      Quote: Moore
      To this, it is not out of place to recall the failures of Chinese equipment at the tank biathlon. A trifle, but in the bank of doubts about the effectiveness of the Chinese BTT - an increase.



      Well, yes, before Ponte pound against the T-14, let their VT-4 bypass the T-72, not to mention the T-90.
    4. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 16 June 2015 02: 56
      +1
      Good stuffing?
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 15 June 2015 06: 41
    11
    The funny thing is that the Western leading countries, after the information on Armata appeared, immediately thought about an adequate answer. The Germans even announced the approximate timeframe when the answer to our car will appear in 2030. The Americans are also scratching their turnips on what to do next. And only the Chinese, eternal copyrists, said that their "super-tank" is ahead of the rest laughing
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 15 June 2015 07: 24
      10
      We are waiting for an answer from bully
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 15 June 2015 11: 02
        +4
        Quote: Hammer
        We are waiting for an answer from bully

        So it already happened: they wrote that it was made of cardboard, and also some expert was proving the superiority of "Oplot" over the T-14.
        1. Alf
          Alf 15 June 2015 22: 08
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          So it already happened: they wrote that it was made of cardboard, and also some expert was proving the superiority of "Oplot" over the T-14.

          Moreover, one instance of Almaty has already been destroyed by the valiant ukrovoyaki.
      2. Corcap
        Corcap 16 June 2015 03: 33
        0
        Quote: Hammer
        We are waiting for an answer from bully


        Kaa-ars ! Where are you ?
    2. SERGEY UI
      SERGEY UI 15 June 2015 07: 49
      +7
      The Chinese are now cooking something for a month)))
    3. edge
      edge 15 June 2015 18: 30
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      And only the Chinese, eternal copyrists, declared that their "super-tank" is ahead of the rest

      they invented gunpowder, and not the Arabs: they built the great wall (with loopholes to the rear), and they are the most ancient on the Earth (it is necessary) - only dill are equal to them in the invention of fairy tales.
      1. Alf
        Alf 15 June 2015 22: 09
        0
        Quote: hert
        : and built a great wall (with loopholes to the rear)

        It’s not to fight off enemies, but to keep your own from scattering.
  3. qwert
    qwert 15 June 2015 07: 19
    +8
    It is difficult to say something, knowing about Armata only her appearance. Here there will be at least officially declared characteristics then comparable. And even the weight in different sources differs by 9 tons. The characteristics of the guns are also unknown, it is only said that it is better than the German one. And by what indicators and by how much? What is the reservation system? Why are there no blocks of active armor? Is this a step back, or is it opposite a completely different and new level?
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 15 June 2015 14: 45
      +2
      The main problem of tanks of previous generations is the inability to effectively counter anti-tank anti-tank ammunition (with rods of tungsten, tungsten carbide, depleted uranium ...) and from attacks from above. If the T-14 demonstrates the ability to hit the rods at a safe distance and, having radars, will be able to shoot down missiles with and without homing, then this will be a real breakthrough in the next generation. The decrease in sales in the tank market is precisely due to the insufficient defense capability of tanks of previous generations.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 June 2015 15: 07
      +1
      We can already say for Armata that installing a radar on a tank with an AFAR will make this tank a target for anti-radar missiles.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 15 June 2015 15: 27
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        We can already say for Armata that installing a radar on a tank with an AFAR will make this tank a target for anti-radar missiles.

        If you believe the advertising, then the active systems of Almaty are able to bring down a sub-caliber projectile, the speed of which is 2-3 times faster than the modern ATGM. So, the anti-radar missile should be shot down without problems.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 15 June 2015 18: 48
          0
          KAZ will not be able to shoot down an anti-radar missile, it flies at Mach 2 and weighs 10 times more than an anti-tank missile, and in terms of warhead power it surpasses ATGMs by 20 times.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 15 June 2015 19: 11
            +3
            Quote: Vadim237
            KAZ will not be able to shoot down an anti-radar missile, it flies at Mach 2 and weighs 10 times more than an anti-tank missile, and in terms of warhead power it surpasses ATGMs by 20 times.


            BOPS flies 1500 - 1800 m / s; 1 Mach = 330 m / s

            And - in the world there are rumors that Afghanit is shooting .. shhh .. strike core belay

            So I would not say with confidence - "it will knock it down - it will not knock it down".
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 15 June 2015 22: 49
              -4
              In Armata, I just saw aerosol grenades pointing up and there aren’t any missiles pointing up on the tank - the plane will make a barrel, launch a missile that is guided by radio beam and will go directly to the roof of the tank - there are no more tanks in the hatch on the tower and tank, as well as the crew.
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null 15 June 2015 23: 34
                +5
                Quote: Vadim237
                On Armata I only saw

                Vadim, you’ve come to the tank, in general, closer than a hundred meters sometime (I’ve come - more than once .. yes ) .. why did you decide that it was "aerosol grenades?"

                That's about Afghanit, nothing else was found ..

                Quote: http://topwar.ru/31710-sistemy-aktivnoy-zaschity-bronetehniki.html
                The most recently developed model of active protection is the Russian KAZ Afganit of the Kolomna KBM designed for installation on combat vehicles created in the framework of the prospective Armata armored platform. From open sources of information, only the millimeter range of his radar is known, the near line of interception and the maximum rate of interception of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells - 1700 m / s. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that, unlike domestic and foreign predecessors, for the first time in “Afganit” it is planned to use protective ammunition with a warhead of the shock core type, described in the Russian patent RU 2263268. The launcher consists of a carriage rotating in a vertical and horizontal plane. Additional targeting of the shock core to the target is carried out using a programmed initiation of one of the fuses located in the form of a matrix on the back side of the explosive unit of the warhead.


                Quote: Vadim237
                the bang of the tank is gone, as well as the crew.

                Well, yes, well, yes .. and the designer - suckers, and didn’t know .. Vadim, you’re an adult, and you all play tanks No.
              2. Cat man null
                Cat man null 16 June 2015 02: 11
                +2
                Quote: Vadim237
                the plane will make a barrel, launch a missile that is guided by a radio beam will go directly to the roof of the tank

                Vadim, why the plane do a barrel????? belay

                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 16 June 2015 13: 24
                  -3
                  I said so about the barrel for aesthetics, I don’t play in the tank - I am a big fan of tanks and armored vehicles, I approached Armata closely in the parking lot, accompanied by good friends from the General Staff on one of the days of the rehearsal for the Victory Parade, and in conversation one of them said that these are special smoke grenades on the roof. And with the radar, the designers really miscalculated, not a useful thing, but against this thing there is its own no less effective thing.
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 16 June 2015 14: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    Я about the barrel said so for aestheticsI don’t play in a tank - I’m a big fan of tanks and armored vehicles, I came close to Armata in the parking lot, accompanied by good friends from the General Staff on one of the days of the rehearsal of the Victory Parade and in conversation one of them said that it was on the roof special smoke grenades

                    Vadim, you are a miracle !! love

                    Quote: Vadim237
                    And with the radar, the designers really miscalculated, not a useful thing, but against this thing there is its own no less effective thing

                    Vadim, I’ll tell you a secret: on any the tricky ass has a corresponding bolt. You don’t even have to prove it. yes

                    You have already been answered correctly:

                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    A tank cannot be protected from everything. The local air defense (tunguska, ASEZ) should cover it from bombs and missiles, and the T-14 is sufficiently protected from shells and ATGMs.

                    From myself I’ll add:

                    - It is not mostly airplanes with barrels that fight tanks
                    - from flying - the "worst friend" of the tank - a helicopter
                    - earlier in the tank regiment (in each!) there was a Shilok division in order to cover from the air. And in the division was an anti-aircraft missile regiment. What is there now - no idea, but something is for sure
                    - do not shoot down "acquaintances from the General Staff", why are you?
                    - and do not write nonsense .. catch the minuses ..

                    hi
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 16 June 2015 16: 08
                      -1
                      I don’t sculpt friends from the General Staff, because they are, one of them is a senior lieutenant, the second colonel. Nonsense is that I said no, everything is purely technical truth.
                      1. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 16 June 2015 18: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        I don’t sculpt friends from the General Staff, because they are, one of them is a senior lieutenant, the second colonel

                        I said - don't shoot. A now you’re burning them.. Eh, Vadim, Vadim ..

                        Quote: Vadim237
                        Nonsense is that I said no, everything is purely technical truth.

                        Uhm ... okay, I'm silent laughing
              3. Dam
                Dam 21 June 2015 23: 47
                +1
                Vasya, and he can also make a dead loop and shy away with a blaster or laser from space. Where are you fantasists treated?
          2. ILDM1986
            ILDM1986 15 June 2015 19: 36
            +3
            certainly superior, only in the power of a high-explosive bomb - there it is not a cumulative and not an impact core. But the tank also surpasses the usual air defense installation in armoring, and the fuse of the warhead is not a contact, especially so that the radar is guaranteed to break. of course something will bend, but I don’t think that it’s enough to destroy the tank, in extreme cases, they fix it up at a rembase and go back into battle.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 15 June 2015 22: 37
              +1
              The tank will smash the warhead of 100 kilograms of TNT, and add here the kinetic energy of the rocket, the mass of which is almost 500 kilograms, after such a hit on a rembase, they will sigh with a sigh, looking at a bunch of debris from the tank, that all this will go to re-melting.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 15 June 2015 23: 18
                +5
                Quote: Vadim237
                The tank will smash the warhead of 100 kilograms of TNT, and add here the kinetic energy of the rocket, the mass of which is almost 500 kilograms, after such a hit on a rembase, they will sigh with a sigh, looking at a bunch of debris from the tank, that all this will go to re-melting.

                The Americans also have bombs about 15 tons in weight. Such a bomb, when hit in a tank, does not even have to explode. I think that a tank after getting such a bomb into it also cannot be repaired.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 15 June 2015 23: 25
                  -2
                  Only these bombs do not have radio beam guidance from the radar, and this missile can also be attached to a helicopter.
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 15 June 2015 23: 29
                  -2
                  But the enemy will be hurt - why drag ATGMs when one missile without modernization can now destroy two different targets, the Radar and the tank, at a great distance.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 15 June 2015 23: 42
                    +3
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    But the enemy will be hurt - why drag ATGMs when one missile without modernization can now destroy two different targets, the Radar and the tank, at a great distance.

                    A tank cannot be protected from everything. The local air defense (tunguska, ASEZ) should cover it from bombs and missiles, and the T-14 is sufficiently protected from shells and ATGMs. At least there are more countermeasures on it than on any other modern tank.
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 16 June 2015 13: 27
                      0
                      I’m saying that one missile for destruction and air defense systems and a tank.
                3. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 15 June 2015 23: 41
                  +4
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  The Americans also have bombs about 15 tons in weight. Such a bomb, when hit in a tank, does not even have to explode. I think that a tank after getting such a bomb into it also cannot be repaired.

                  Right !! And there’s crap called GBU-28 Bunker Buster .. Well, if it gets there .. fellow

                  And if, God forbid, nuclear ... where the poor tank go ..

                  Vadim237, this is such a banter, do not take it seriously, plz laughing

                  Quote: Vadim237
                  But the enemy will be hurt - why drag ATGMs when one missile without modernization can now destroy two different targets, the Radar and the tank, at a great distance.

                  Damn .. and you are stubborn .. Vadim, from the "sparrow cannon" - have you ever heard such an expression? wink
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 16 June 2015 13: 31
                    -1
                    These missiles are 3-4 times cheaper than a tank, so the expression "from a cannon to sparrows" is not suitable here.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 15 June 2015 22: 56
              -1
              In this rocket, the contact fuse is almost the same air rocket - the earth with only a different homing head.
    3. uwzek
      uwzek 15 June 2015 16: 38
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      Why are there no blocks of active armor?

      If you are talking about dynamic protection, then it is just complete. There are simply no visible gaps (coverage by DZ modules is almost continuous) ...
    4. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 15 June 2015 19: 02
      +1
      yes, it seems as it is - built-in under the outer armor casing, somewhere they write that it is based on a fundamentally different method of influencing the projectile - such as vibration - only the truth or someone lets a duck naturally incomprehensible. In general, the question is - here the United States is promoting its technology at the stage of drawings, praising it from all sides, drawing numbers from the ceiling, but we do not even want to say in general terms what and where on the new tank is. It is clear that it is a harsh military secret, only we live under capitalism, and sooner or later "armata" will go to the external market, and we missed such an opportunity for PR. And as a result, we are losing the information war again, because any scribbler can now pour mud on our tank and compose fables. It's a shame just for our designers, it is probably unpleasant for them to read any heresy.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 15 June 2015 20: 46
        +1
        Quote: uwzek

        Quote: qwert
        Why are there no blocks of active armor?
        Quote: uwzek
        If you are talking about dynamic protection, then it is just complete. There are simply no visible gaps (coverage by DZ modules is almost continuous) ...

        By the way, ours developed a dynamic defense in which the filling is not explosive. Perhaps it is installed on the T-14.
      2. Zoilent
        Zoilent 15 June 2015 21: 50
        +3
        Mystery, above all a mystery. And tanks are not bought by sprinklers.
  4. Marwel-f
    Marwel-f 15 June 2015 08: 29
    11
    The Americans, Germans, Ukrainians, after the May 9 parade and the T - 14 demonstration, shouted in unison: - Our development! The Chinese, not knowing the performance characteristics of the "Armata", hardly assuming the performance characteristics of their tank, have already made a comparison in their favor. Dear foreign partners, wipe yourself down and envy in silence.
  5. maxxdesign
    maxxdesign 15 June 2015 08: 42
    24
    "Armata" can be safely considered the best tank in the world! because this tank has not yet fired a single shot, and there are already so many shell-shocked in the world! ))))
  6. Gromm
    Gromm 15 June 2015 09: 30
    +7
    The Chinese made fun! Not even a specialist understands that this is nonsense of a swollen Chinese brain! They licked the cosmonaut’s spacesuit and wrote at home that this was Chinese know-how! Clowns. But what they do well is the CHINESE! Already a half billion on riveted!
    1. Major_Vortex
      Major_Vortex 15 June 2015 10: 02
      +4
      Now the Chinese are not only making Chinese. There was a scandal in the USA that the "greats" even buy microelectronic components for their missiles in the Celestial Empire. Moreover, not of the best quality. The Chinese put the best electronics into their technology laughing
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 15 June 2015 09: 56
    +3
    A ridiculous comparison: the Chinese were constantly trying to pull VT-4 up to the T-90 level, and here it is bam, and it became even better than the T-14. I wonder what? By the fact that they replaced the Khokhlyatsky two-wheel drive with a clone of a German diesel engine? Well, the diesel engine is good, the original, but the Chinese one so far does not shine with either a resource or reliability. Or maybe a low-resource clone of the Soviet cannon is better than the latest on Armata? And I wonder why they changed the size and angle of inclination of the NLD compared to the original T-72? Rationalizing geniuses laughing
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 June 2015 10: 32
      +6
      for Engineer:

      "I also wonder why they changed the size and
      angle of inclination of the NLD in comparison with the original T-72 "////

      This is just understandable.
      The Chinese have fixed one of the main
      disadvantages of the T-72: inclined upper armor plate
      with an extremely vulnerable hatch exactly in the middle of the target.
      This is fixed on Armata. VLD - horizontal,
      hatches - on the sides.
    2. Alf
      Alf 15 June 2015 22: 13
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      A ridiculous comparison: the Chinese were constantly trying to pull VT-4 up to the T-90 level, and here it is bam, and it became even better than the T-14. I wonder what?

      a Chinese tank has an advantage in terms of cost.

      Who would argue ...
      The most interesting thing is that having run into Armata, the Chinese immediately showed a desire to buy it. If the T-14 is bad, then why buy it? The problem, however.
      But the fact is that the Chinese were refused to sell Armat to them. That's why they come to guano.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 15 June 2015 22: 14
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        If the T-14 is bad, then why buy it? The problem, however.

        They knock down the price. Traded lol
  8. WE ARE MAKING
    WE ARE MAKING 15 June 2015 10: 59
    +1
    We discuss too much the topic of comparing a machine that has not yet passed the test, nor has it entered the series. That will be adopted and will compare our modified swallow
    PS: I don’t feel welcome soon :(
  9. Aslan
    Aslan 15 June 2015 11: 25
    +2
    Okay, a nemchura would be indignant or some Americans, choking with envy, but from the Chinese "partners" it was quite unexpected to hear slander on the armature. Apparently one place itches, I want to get it and take it out as soon as possible !!
    1. Garay dgonson
      Garay dgonson 15 June 2015 11: 34
      +3
      This is a business baby, "friendship" with the Chinese only in pink dreams, along with unicorns, and especially in naive ones.
    2. edge
      edge 15 June 2015 18: 36
      0
      Quote: Aslan
      Okay, a nemchura would be indignant or some Americans, choking with envy, but from the Chinese "partners" it was rather unexpected to hear slander on the armature.

      that’s how they see us as an eternal adversary, it’s just that we and their interests coincide .... but only for the time being.
  10. Taoist
    Taoist 15 June 2015 11: 35
    +1
    Marketing battles ... as they say you will not praise yourself ...
    So you need to be more calm about this. Ours now also praise themselves very much. And what will happen in real life? Yes, no one will say, even if you simulate a fight in a computer - this is all crap ... A real battle from a computer is always different ... And in the end it turns out that the next wunderwaffe is not quite a wunder and not a waffe at all ... soldier
  11. new communist
    new communist 15 June 2015 11: 38
    -4
    “One Russian Armata is equivalent to 10 Chinese MBT-3000 tanks.” The author of this article, Lev Romanov, tried to parse the Chinese statements and answer them. The author froze stupidity, you can not relate to the Chinese underestimating them. Let's start with the invulnerability of Almaty, whether it vryat will withstand the blow of a Chinese sub-caliber projectile with a 30 k1 uranium base released at a speed of 1,73 km per second. And here are 10 guns. Then, for China, the loss of crew is not as critical as for us, and three people in service are better than two in Almaty. Armata is an elite tank for certain tasks, and the Chinese combined arms.
  12. Lavrenty Palych
    Lavrenty Palych 15 June 2015 11: 55
    +2
    Gentlemen, tankers, I have already tried to ask somehow, but I have not received any sensible answers, explain why, given the current level of fire control means in a tank, there are 3-4 crew members? If the tanks went for the price of an aircraft, why not leave one "pilot" here too? This will reduce the size, weight, price, fuel consumption and tankers' consumption.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 15 June 2015 12: 26
      +2
      Quote: Lavrenty Palych
      Gentlemen, tankers, I have already tried to ask somehow, but I have not received any sensible answers, explain why, given the current level of fire control means in a tank, there are 3-4 crew members? If the tanks went for the price of an aircraft, why not leave one "pilot" here too? This will reduce the size, weight, price, fuel consumption and tankers' consumption.

      - The driver is fully engaged in the management of the tank on rough terrain, where there are static obstacles (trenches, bumps, large stones, etc.) with a shaft + dynamically changing environment (actions with the equipment of the unit, maneuvers taking into account the actions of the enemy, etc.) .
      - The gunner, of course, conducts a battle with the enemy (search, guidance of means of destruction, accounting for related parameters, destruction of targets)
      - the commander coordinates all this with the actions of the unit + additional eyes for both the driver and the gunner.

      And who can be reduced here?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 June 2015 16: 35
        +2
        Quote: Bad_gr
        - The gunner, of course, conducts a battle with the enemy (search, guidance of means of destruction, accounting for related parameters, destruction of targets)

        Searching, sorting targets by priority and target designation is, for the most part, the task of the commander. The task of the gunner is to aim the gun to defeat the target / goals indicated by the commander.

        Self-discovery of targets by the gunner is also spelled out as a task. But the last word remains with the commander - because he knows better the situation on the battlefield and understands that the armored personnel carrier discovered by the gunner will wait, but the unmanned ATGM must be crushed as soon as possible.
      2. edge
        edge 15 June 2015 18: 41
        +2
        Quote: Bad_gr
        - The driver is fully engaged in the management of the tank on rough terrain, where there are static obstacles (trenches, bumps, large stones, etc.) with a shaft + dynamically changing environment (actions with the equipment of the unit, maneuvers taking into account the actions of the enemy, etc.) .
        - The gunner, of course, conducts a battle with the enemy (search, guidance of means of destruction, accounting for related parameters, destruction of targets)
        - the commander coordinates all this with the actions of the unit + additional eyes for both the driver and the gunner.

        - I’ll add a little - the machine needs to be serviced, taken out of battle, repaired, and in case of damage to the electronics, fight using mechanics.
      3. Altona
        Altona 15 June 2015 21: 21
        +1
        Quote: Bad_gr
        - The driver is fully engaged in the management of the tank on rough terrain, where there are static obstacles (trenches, bumps, large stones, etc.) with a shaft + dynamically changing environment (actions with the equipment of the unit, maneuvers taking into account the actions of the enemy, etc.) .
        - The gunner, of course, conducts a battle with the enemy (search, guidance of means of destruction, accounting for related parameters, destruction of targets)
        - the commander coordinates all this with the actions of the unit + additional eyes for both the driver and the gunner.

        And who can be reduced here?

        -----------------------
        Field repairs, chassis, for example, replacing the roller or track tracks, problems with the engine ... So there will be even three of them, the work is physical ...
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 15 June 2015 21: 59
          +1
          Quote: Altona
          Field repairs, chassis, for example, replacing the roller or track tracks, problems with the engine ... So there will be even three of them, the work is physical ...

          I think it’s time to change something in the maintenance of the tank. Should be additionally those staff. Like in aviation. Of course, the crew should take part in the maintenance (each in their own area), but something global (loading and unloading the ammunition, replacing rollers, tracks) - there must be additional people. Type of rem company, only with other tasks.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 15 June 2015 22: 22
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Of course, the crew should also take part in the maintenance (each in their own field), but something global (loading and unloading of ammunition, replacement of rollers, tracks) - there must be additional people. Type remrota, only with other tasks.

            What you listed as "global" is actually almost everyday:

            - the caterpillar can fly off and the skating rink can fall off anytime and anywhere (I had both). What, are we standing in the field, waiting for the "remrotu"?
            - loading BC - generally a routine ..
            - the engine in the field, if suddenly, not the crew changes. And not with his hands, nobody canceled TPM with an arrow:
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 15 June 2015 23: 29
              +1
              Quote: Cat Man Null
              What you listed as "global" is actually almost everyday:

              I can quite imagine what I am talking about: 2 years in the tank forces, as a driver-mechanic at "increased consumption".
              Quote: Cat Man Null
              in the field, waiting for the "remrotu"?

              If it is not, then of course you pick yourself. But if the tank is practically a robot, then a specialist, and not a soldier, even a contract soldier, should be picking at his giblets.
      4. NOMADE
        NOMADE 16 June 2015 02: 22
        +1
        That's right, plus:
        1) Do not forget about the human "reserve".
        2) The three of us are even hard to restore the caterpillar, but what about 2x or even 1 person?
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. uwzek
      uwzek 15 June 2015 17: 05
      +1
      Quote: Lavrenty Palych
      Gentlemen, tankers, I have already tried to ask somehow, but I have not received any sensible answers, explain why, given the current level of fire control means in a tank, there are 3-4 crew members? If the tanks went for the price of an aircraft, why not leave one "pilot" here too? This will reduce the size, weight, price, fuel consumption and tankers' consumption.

      Inattentively read topics. At least once refer to the site archives. The question you asked was answered many times.
      Before reducing the crew of the tank, try one to pull the track after damage to the track in battle. You can safely hang yourself on the trunk (before that, do not forget to put the barrel on the stopper).
      A tank is not a plane. The view from the ground is much more limited, and not only the pilot controls the plane (there are also ground services). And in all aircraft fighting on a shaver there is a separate weapons operator. One person cannot drive a machine dangerously close to the ground and quickly dispose of weapons. And in the tank (due to the limited visibility and difficulties with the radio channels) it is even worse.
      At the moment, putting less than three people in a tank is inefficient. Robot tanks (especially drones) are generally fairy tales ...
      1. ILDM1986
        ILDM1986 15 June 2015 19: 19
        0
        so the Germans, Americans, French, Israelis do not want to give up the loader - after all, there is still a pair of hands and a pair of eyes, there is someone to shoot from a tower machine gun. in general, of course, in a few years it will actually be possible to reduce the crew to 2 mechanized drivers, for example, you can replace it with a computer. there will be only 2 operators - one for the main weapon, the second for commanding the computer mechanic and observation, as well as firing from additional weapons; for repairs, it will be possible to use a drone (yeah, like R2D2 from "Star Wars" fellow ) or wear exoskeleton on the crew. only for now it's all a dream, at least for the next 10 years.
    3. Alf
      Alf 15 June 2015 22: 19
      0
      Quote: Lavrenty Palych
      Gentlemen, tankers, I have already tried to ask somehow, but I have not received any sensible answers, explain why, given the current level of fire control means in a tank, there are 3-4 crew members? If the tanks went for the price of an aircraft, why not leave one "pilot" here too? This will reduce the size, weight, price, fuel consumption and tankers' consumption.

      Lavrenty Palych, if you have a car, try to drive on it through an unfamiliar field, while driving, looking at a map of roads, talking on a cell phone and figuring out distances to any objects. How far will you leave?
  13. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 15 June 2015 12: 21
    0
    It is interesting how people who did not come up with anything (except plagiarism of military equipment) are trying to denigrate the tank from recognized leaders in world tank building.
  14. alexdn
    alexdn 15 June 2015 12: 42
    +1
    Submission to WeChat is very fun (it's like a social network like): the advertisement will probably be like this - a large company will sell tanks (experience, retail), delivery after 100% payment, pickup possible!
  15. Stas57
    Stas57 15 June 2015 13: 26
    +1
    Feeble here to disassemble?
    Armata is a competitor to the Chinese, and even if it is weak, the Chinese are obliged to start a company but by exaggerating their own, and enforcing Armata.
    Business, clean, multi-billion dollar business ...
  16. Free wind
    Free wind 15 June 2015 15: 04
    -6
    What nonsense. There are no such articles, and never will be. It is possible and necessary to discuss the concept, but everyone understands that there is a huge distance from a self-propelled layout to a prototype. And before the production model, the prototype, .... few people got it. With this article, you show that, Kitaez spit on you, cheers patriots. Discuss layouts .... but for what?
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 15 June 2015 17: 13
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      self-propelled layout,

      Your "models" cost the country several trillion rubles. Of course, something was stolen. But "armata" are quite real machines, not self-propelled samples. Another thing is that they will now be constantly refined during the tests.
      1. ILDM1986
        ILDM1986 16 June 2015 03: 13
        0
        not stolen, but bought. to create the Armata, the developments of foreign manufacturers were considered, at least the Slovak ones. what exactly was taken is not known, but the fact is that it was considered. technologies for the production of armor steel or ceramic filler simply cannot be obtained by stealing a sample. and our tank school for more than 80 years has made a touch on my mother do not worry, so the word "theft" to use is slander. wheels for example round, not square - who stole the idea? and the caterpillars are along and not across ...
    2. edge
      edge 15 June 2015 18: 46
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      cheers patriots. Discuss layouts .... but for what?

      -Well .... Oh, where did you see the mock-ups: these are the samples that reached the military tests: -After they are finished, -series.
  17. Sochi
    Sochi 15 June 2015 16: 00
    +1
    Yeah, the Chinese have such an awesome tank building school ... and vast experience in fighting with the massive use of tanks. Real schools of tank building are only in Russia and Germany, all the rest are engaged only in borrowing and licking up the ideas of leading tank builders. And our schools have slightly different concepts. And the world is trying to combine these concepts or simply copying, by virtue of its capabilities, then us Germans. So, the Chinese would be better if they were silent.
    1. yehat
      yehat 21 June 2015 19: 53
      0
      you are very wrong.
      tank building schools are in the USA, England, France
      Before World War II, the French created some of the best prototypes of tanks - the AMX 2, Somoma. The British, too, not only made useless irons.
      China also gained some experience. Of course, there is a difference between Russia and China, but this is not an abyss, but much less, because China has half a century of experience in operating and fine-tuning tanks. Look at their latest teachings, there the noak showed a level of training close to the level of the Warsaw Pact.
  18. Free wind
    Free wind 15 June 2015 16: 09
    -5
    The Chinese have experience with US tanks, in Korea. And with the tanks of the USSR in VIETNAM !!!. in principle, parity
    1. Sochi
      Sochi 15 June 2015 16: 27
      +2
      Then they didn’t HAVE their tanks, and the tank building school didn’t HAVE either !!! and the clashes were not large-scale, episodic (Do not compare with the Second World War) and could not provide extensive material for analysis ... so they do not have a tank building school. They created a tank with the Pakistanis ... copies from here, from here, well done, but these are just copies of other people's ideas. They have not created anything new in tank building and will not create it for a long time.
    2. edge
      edge 15 June 2015 18: 49
      +1
      Quote: Free Wind
      The Chinese have experience with US tanks, in Korea. And with the tanks of the USSR in VIETNAM !!!. in principle, parity

      yeah, and in Damansky, where only dust remained from their division along with the tank regiment.
    3. Alf
      Alf 15 June 2015 22: 27
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      The Chinese have experience with US tanks, in Korea. And with the tanks of the USSR in VIETNAM !!!. in principle, parity

      Models of CHINESE tanks in these collisions, please list
  19. bogart047
    bogart047 15 June 2015 16: 25
    0
    the Chinese have no experience of tank wars, whatever they build, it will be a dubious acquisition.
    1. itr
      itr 15 June 2015 18: 13
      0
      Borat yes they have generally the last centuries only the experience of slavery
      1. edge
        edge 15 June 2015 18: 51
        0
        Quote: itr
        Yes, they generally have the last centuries only the experience of slavery

        and only the USSR in the autumn of 45 pulled them out.
  20. Garris199
    Garris199 15 June 2015 18: 41
    0
    Disposable, Chinese tanks with usb and bluetooth are a dubious acquisition. Chinese kings of consumer goods and the point.
  21. gladcu2
    gladcu2 15 June 2015 20: 04
    0
    Of all the comments, only the "free wind" has a rational link.

    The Chinese are good students. And over the past 15 years, they raised the material base.
    Until now, there has not yet been criticism of Soviet tanks on their part.
    But as you can see, time does not stand still. They seriously aspire to become trendsetters.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 15 June 2015 21: 12
      +1
      Quote: gladcu2
      But as you can see, time does not stand still. They seriously aspire to become trendsetters.

      Engaged in alterations of someone else’s, it’s unlikely to become a legislator.

      In our biathlon, Chinese tanks often break down. And this is not a war, where the maintenance of equipment is much worse, but a competition. That is, tanks that were specially trained for competitions break down, and in a foreign country. Like our "Kamaz" for the Dakar. After that, is it worth the Chinese to talk about some kind of superiority in technology, if even specially prepared equipment at competitions, with the best crew, even if it does not break down, does not shine with results?
      Interestingly, those who operate them speak of Chinese tanks?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 June 2015 11: 59
        -1
        But the Chinese do not cost anything quickly
        rivet a hundred tanks for some
        tender for several months. And in Russia
        such a delivery will take several years.
        (For the sake of speed of delivery, many customers are willing to tolerate
        some decrease in the level of quality).
        Although the Chinese began to cope with quality. Only
        in metal technology they have a lag. In appliances
        they have already begun to overtake the Russians.
        1. yehat
          yehat 21 June 2015 19: 56
          0
          you are wrong about devices. Chinese overtake in only 3 components:
          the speed of implementation of new developments, mobility and the size of investments and lower foreign bans on the import of the necessary elements.
  22. Jackking
    Jackking 15 June 2015 22: 06
    +1
    Let at first without copying at least a bronze cannon be cast ... wink
  23. Mathematician
    Mathematician 15 June 2015 22: 16
    +1
    If our tank is so bad, why did the Chinese express a desire to be the first foreign buyers? And even before the tank was shown at the Victory Parade.
  24. BARMEN628651
    BARMEN628651 19 June 2015 16: 42
    0
    Mega experts immediately see comparing tanks of different generations
  25. yehat
    yehat 21 June 2015 19: 48
    0
    For many components, comparing VT4 and Armata is understandable. But, I don’t understand in which tank the ergonomics and the OMS are better, what is the difference - can anyone answer?
  26. BARMEN628651
    BARMEN628651 30 June 2015 10: 24
    0
    Let's take it in order: 1.vt 4 in essence is a Chinese version of t90 s. It is 6 roller and not 7.
    2. The engine on the armada is considered 2 types: X-shaped and gas-turbine, X-shaped much smaller than previous engines of Russian production, more powerful and with the possibility of deep boosting, the gas-turbine engine also has a number + especially in its use in the northern latitudes + significantly increased resource and efficiency.
    3. T14 stood on the square due to the fact that the mechanic put it on a mountain brake, and since the new technique did not understand what he had done and could not figure out what happened to him.
    4. tanks of different generations there is no point in comparing them, t 14 has increased the time the tank spent on the battlefield compared to competitors, and the Chinese just want to raise the price of their tank so that it can at least in words cooler than 90 am which will become a transition machine with t 72 -80-90 on t 14 with which it has a lot of similar control systems and nodes.