Military Review

Tank Games

188
Before the mass production of "Armat" case may not reach


Over the course of the year, the VPK newspaper published a series of articles by Sergey Ustyantsev, scientific editor of the Ural Carriage Works. The author argued, in particular, that tank the Wehrmacht armada lost outright to the Soviet tank crews also because the German “defense industry” made a strategic mistake by biasing towards the creation of heavy and expensive tanks and self-propelled guns (Tiger, Panther, Ferdinand and others). It seems that today the creators of "Almaty" are making the same mistake that led Hitler Germany to collapse.

The following data on the labor intensity of the production of T-34 and Panther are given: at the beginning of 1943, our tank made 17 thousand man-hours, and the German one - 150 thousand. It turns out that the “Panthers” of the “Panthers” released by all German enterprises in the 5500 – 1943 years corresponded roughly to the 1944 to the thousands of T-50.

Tank GamesBased on this, it can be assumed that the main German tank of the final stage of the war, surpassing ours by 8,5 in terms of labor intensity, was as much superior to its combat effectiveness. Here is what Ustyantsev writes about this: “If we take the coefficient of the T-34-85 tank as one, then for the Panther it will be equal to 1,5. In other words, the combat value of the three T-34-85 is equal to two "Panthers". For T-34-76, the coefficient is naturally much lower. But if we recall that only one Ural tank factory No. 183 built 1943 tank T-1944-9304 and 34 units T-76-6583 for 34 – 85, it turns out that their total power is at least 1,5 more than all these years are the Panthers. But the “thirty-three” assembled four more Soviet factories ”.

Of course, if modern "Armata" could be produced in the same quantity as the T-90, one could only be happy. But apparently, "Armat" will be much smaller than the tanks of potential opponents. And the thing is primarily in their exorbitant price - 7,8 million dollars. Defenders of "Armata" compare it with 8,5 million dollars, which cost the creation of an American tank МХNUMXА1 SEP "Abrams". This is true. But while America is stronger in electronics, we should not even think about such high-tech tanks. The enemy is just waiting for Uralvagonzavod to rebuild its production lines for the release of "Almaty". Because neither the new generation dynamic protection system, nor the non-proactive active protection, nor the anti-cumulative grids will protect this beautiful toy from, say, the Hook-2 “Hook” with its innovative for hand-held grenade launchers using a target simulator to overcome active protection. At a distance of 30 – 200 meters, this development by the designers of NPO Basalt breaks through 300-mm armor.

Of course, it is assumed that Armata will not allow anyone closer to 200 meters, but everyone understands that in modern armed conflicts, battles are mostly fought in populated areas. Understands this and the deputy director of the corporation "UVZ" for special equipment Vyacheslav Halitov. “Nowadays very few people are fighting in an open area,” he notes in the publication “More than a tank” (“MIC”, No. 36, 2015).

It is not serious to expect that the Russian Federation will not sell Hook for a long time abroad. Moreover, it is unlikely that it will take a long time to wait for an analogue to appear in the West.

The best defense for a tank is to attack and destroy the enemy. Compete with the "Abrams", "Leopards", "Challengers" and "Merkavami" can only be the same as with their predecessors - "Tigers" and "Panthers". "Armata" is trying to compete with foreign counterparts not only fighting qualities, but also at the price of a million dollars in 7,8. American "Abrams", as stated, - 8,5 million dollars, German "Leopard" - 6,8 million, English "Challenger" - 8,6 million, South Korean 2 Black Panther - 8,8 million, Japanese Type-90 - more than 9 million, French "Leclerc" - over 10 millions.

However, some experts believe that the comparison with our cheap T-72 and T-90 is inappropriate. According to, for example, journalist Alexander Plekhanov, these tanks were created for a mass non-professional army. “For their levers,” explains Plekhanov, “ordinary recruits should have sat down. One car will die - three new ones will take its place. “Armata” was not considered as a consumable from the beginning. ”

That is, he relies on the "Armat" indestructibility. I will object: if Armat is much less than its rivals, none of its improvements will help. Our fathers and grandfathers understood this perfectly well, winning both the Prokhorov tank battle and the battle for Berlin.

T-34 became the best tank of the Second World War also because the tradition of the Soviet tank building clearly did not include the corruption component, which today in the Russian market crumbles into dozens and hundreds of co-executives, component suppliers. Everyone wants to grab their share.

By the way, the same Plekhanov proposes to imagine what would happen if the Armata converges in a duel with one or another famous tank. Imagine, but from myself, we add that not with one, but with a flock of tanks, since one UVZ will not do as much as all of Europe and America.

Today we need to think and write not about the fact that for the first time in many years our army gets the best tank in the world instead of conversion pans and vacuum cleaners, but about whether it will be able to win as T-34. The point is not in the unique fighting qualities, but as a result. Unfortunately, many do not understand that success is a component of many factors.

It is possible to congratulate the UVZ, which created such a tank as the Armata, but in today's circumstances it would be better in Nizhny Tagil to focus on the production of the T-90, making them as much as possible. The situation in the country and the world is such that hands may not be able to make Armat in mass production.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/27412
188 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 8 October 2015 14: 27 New
    39
    The following data on the labor intensity of the production of T-34 and Panther are given: at the beginning of 1943, our tank made 17 thousand man-hours, and the German one - 150 thousand. It turns out that the “Panthers” of the “Panthers” released by all German enterprises in the 5500 – 1943 years corresponded roughly to the 1944 to the thousands of T-50.

    That is, the ratio is somewhere around 1:10 in favor of T34
    And if you look and compare data on and the ratio:
    - how much equipment was lost for military and technical reasons

    Yes "Armata" is a very expensive and difficult tank now, but it was the same when it was put into service and T34, T64, T80, T90 ...
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam 8 October 2015 14: 32 New
      14
      Quote: svp67
      how much equipment was lost for military and technical reasons

      I read that half of the "Tigers" did not reach the battlefield, that is, half were not combat losses.
      1. Borets
        Borets 8 October 2015 14: 36 New
        62
        If you listen to the author, then you need to urgently begin the release of T-34-85, cheaply and a lot.
        1. oleg-gr
          oleg-gr 8 October 2015 14: 39 New
          20
          T-34 for its time was a perfect tank. Like Armata now. We need a balance and unification, and not the diversity of the lineup, as it was in the USSR.
          1. Eugene-Eugene
            Eugene-Eugene 8 October 2015 14: 53 New
            +6
            72 will eventually fly away. T-90 only 600 machines in service. And you propose to unify under it? Rave.
          2. DVxa
            DVxa 8 October 2015 15: 13 New
            17
            The Soviet armored armada was made for one purpose, to crush Europe with caterpillars, in case we were attacked.
            To date, more sophisticated retaliatory weapons have been created.
            And the question is not worth it in modern Russia to travel across Europe on tanks, although Mr. Ustyantsev apparently thinks differently.
            The defense industry should not stand still; its development means industrial and not only rise.
            1. Wheel
              Wheel 8 October 2015 15: 38 New
              -42
              Quote: DVxa
              The Soviet armored armada was made for one purpose, to crush Europe with caterpillars, in case we were attacked.
              To date, more sophisticated retaliatory weapons have been created.

              I still wildly apologize ...
              But could you list these "more advanced retaliatory weapons" on your fingers?
              Something other than shutting off a gas tap comes to mind ...
              1. your1970
                your1970 8 October 2015 18: 26 New
                +8
                quite responsibly declare-a closed tap is very painful, lived here just now on a hut with cut off gas, terribly uncomfortable !!!!!! crying belay yes
                ZY a strike on ISIS from the Caspian Sea shows that it will be a "retaliatory strike" (with nuclear warheads) - and tanks by and large will be needed just in case, so drive zombies
              2. Felix1
                Felix1 8 October 2015 23: 17 New
                -7
                you don’t scare you with a closed crane, the times are not the same, yes two years ago.
            2. alekc75
              alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 51 New
              16
              you just need to reduce costs - remove unnecessary in the control device
              1. Felix1
                Felix1 8 October 2015 23: 22 New
                -1
                I agree, reduce the bureaucracy by 60-70%, make payments, register businesses and other things onlain. And dismiss 20-30% of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and redirect money to medicine and education.
          3. pilot8878
            pilot8878 8 October 2015 15: 15 New
            22
            Quote: oleg-gr
            T-34 for its time was a perfect tank. Like Armata now.

            I disagree with you: the T-34 was a good, but by no means a revolutionary tank - it did not have a single solution that had not been previously encountered anywhere. MI Koshkin must be given credit for his ability to compose these decisions and push them through the People's Commissariat of Arms. The Armata, in contrast to the T-34, is a tank where the ideas of the latest wars were first embodied.
            1. Army soldier2
              Army soldier2 8 October 2015 17: 12 New
              +1
              Actually, the t-34 is the first tank with such an angle of inclination of armor plates ...
              1. pilot8878
                pilot8878 8 October 2015 18: 04 New
                +4
                Quote: Army 2
                Actually, the t-34 is the first tank with such an angle of inclination of armor plates ...

                Not at all, no. Previously, this arrangement was used by many. The simplest example: the front of the hull of BT tanks. Check out World of Tanks. There you can find examples such as AMX-40, Somua-35, which are by no means a figment of the imagination of Wargaming's designers. If you ask, there was also a prototype called BT-SV ("Turtle"), the ideas of which were embodied in the creation of the A-20 and A-32 tanks.
              2. Poppy
                Poppy 9 October 2015 09: 29 New
                0
                no not the first
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 9 October 2015 23: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: Poppy
                  no not the first

                  Of course, even in a bicycle you can find planes with such an inclination, but on the T-34 almost all the armor had such an inclination, unlike the rest of the "non-first" ones.
            2. Army soldier2
              Army soldier2 8 October 2015 17: 12 New
              -2
              Actually, the t-34 is the first tank with such an angle of inclination of armor plates ...
            3. Robinzon57
              Robinzon57 8 October 2015 22: 02 New
              +4
              Quote: pilot8878
              pilot8878 (1)

              Have you invented anything in your life?

              Quote: pilot8878
              The T-34 was a good, but by no means a revolutionary tank - it did not have a single solution that would not have been encountered elsewhere.

              All revolutionary inventions are based on previous developments (we stand on the shoulders of the predecessors) - Cart-car - and here and there wheels, seat, propulsion, control system, brakes, and in the first case more modern (acoustic) ones. What is important is not a standard view of the obvious things, so from the outside it seems simple, but in fact - the Revolution! fellow
              1. pilot8878
                pilot8878 9 October 2015 11: 47 New
                +2
                Quote: Robinzon57
                Have you invented anything in your life?

                And what does this have to do with the subject of dialogue?
                Quote: Robinzon57
                All revolutionary inventions are based on previous developments (we stand on the shoulders of the predecessors) - Cart-car - and here and there wheels, seat, propulsion, control system, brakes, and in the first case more modern (acoustic) ones. What is important is not a standard view of the obvious things,

                In order:
                1. The engine - the cart has a muscular drive, the car - ICE. This is the main feature that determines the difference.
                2. Brakes on the cart, by the way, are not acoustic at all, but very "mechanical" due to the termination of the transfer of the pulling force. The drive is no less mechanical: by pulling the reins.
                3. A non-standard view of things HELPS to open new facets of opportunities in them, but it is not a sign of revolutionism. The revolution is made by the use of new technologies, it can be made by the use of new technical solutions, other concepts of solving already known problems.
                And about the revolution of the T-34, with all my love for it, the machine, at the time of its appearance, and even later, was not revolutionary. No need to repeat the old cliches, try to look impartially (I will list the main disadvantages regarding the solutions already used in those years, then I will add the pluses):
                and). Backward suspension (T-50, KV, SMK already stood on the torsion bars, which had more room for modernization),
                b) Disgusting review from ANY workplace,
                in). Very high danger to the crew associated with the placement of fuel in the fighting compartment,
                d). The low mobility associated with the disgusting gearbox, leading to chronic malfunctions of the main clutch and destruction of the shafts and gears of the gearbox itself, which was corrected only in 1942 with the introduction of 5-tbsp. synchronized gearbox,
                e). Great efforts on the control levers of the tank, which leads to a decrease in mobility in battle and increased fatigue on the march,
                e). Overloaded commander, corrected only on T-34-85,
                g). Low-quality surveillance devices, which was only partially corrected at -85.
                The above problems were sharply aggravated by the low quality of the crews.
                There were also many other problems, but they could be considered to be overlooked as less significant.
              2. pilot8878
                pilot8878 9 October 2015 12: 10 New
                +1
                The undoubted advantages of the T-34 were:
                1. Long-barrel 76-mm gun.
                2. A large supply of fuel.
                3. High cross-country ability in off-road conditions.
                4. Ballistic armor, which can withstand the most common anti-tank missile and tank guns of the Wehrmacht at the outbreak of war at long ranges.
                Unfortunately, at the beginning of the war these were, perhaps, all the advantages of our main tank.
                1. Robinzon57
                  Robinzon57 10 October 2015 17: 56 New
                  -1
                  Quote: pilot8878
                  pilot8878 (1

                  And yet, the T-34 is revolutionary! It consists of a set of features: you list them - sloped armor, diesel engine, long-barreled gun, wide tracks, power reserve. The main thing is manufacturability and comparative low cost of production. And the "childhood diseases" that you list are inevitable given such a speed of adoption. With the present experience and technological base, how long did it take to "lick" T-64 or Armata. Yours faithfully!
                  1. pilot8878
                    pilot8878 11 October 2015 01: 26 New
                    -1
                    Revolutionary, I repeat, lies in the use of new TECHNOLOGIES, and not in the application of a set of solutions. And 4 (four) of the "childhood diseases" I have listed have not been eliminated. I have not mentioned MANY shortcomings of this tank. By the way, manufacturability and low production cost are also not immediately achieved advantages. Ask how much the tank cost in 1941 prices, compare with the Pz.4, for example.
                    The slanted armor that you so persistently offer as Roar. sign, it is not at all such, since before the T-34 DESIGN the French light N-35 Hotchkiss and Renault R-35, medium Somua S-35, which had anti-shell armor and a large number of TILT armored parts of the hull and turret, were already released. Let me remind you that for many tanks of that time, which had bulletproof armor, in order to strengthen it without increasing mass, parts were also assembled at an angle to the vertical, for example: conical towers of T-35, BT-7, T-26 mod. 1938, T-26 arr. 1939 with TILT sheets of turret box.
                    The wide tracks that you are talking about appeared only on the tanks of 1941, on the tanks released before the war and lost in border battles, there was a narrower track with a smooth track.
                    Unreliable diesel and fuel in the fighting compartment are also doubts. On the first series of the T-34, as I think, it would be better to put the old, reliable and used in the production of the M-17T (which, incidentally, was put on some of the 1942 cars).
                    The L-11 gun, which was put on the car first, also did not shine with outstanding advantages and was therefore replaced by the F-34.
                    Thus, we come to the conclusion that the T-34 is not a revolutionary, but an EVOLUTION tank, obtained as a result of a well-posed assignment of ABTU, a good analysis of engineering achievements and their application in practice of KB KhPZ under the direction of M.I. Koshkin.
          4. alekc75
            alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 49 New
            -4
            t-34 was raw and unfinished
            1. Trigger-Happy
              Trigger-Happy 8 October 2015 16: 47 New
              10
              After the 43rd, little remained of dampness. He was made what he was supposed to be according to the requirements of the army.
          5. Das Boot
            Das Boot 8 October 2015 16: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: oleg-gr
            T-34 for its time was a perfect tank.

            Yes, the T-34 was never a "perfect tank". His youth and maturity fell on the war, which determined the priorities. Or do you mean by perfection only manufacturability and mass character?
          6. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 8 October 2015 16: 52 New
            +8
            The T-34 was a progressive tank, but by no means perfect. Initially, it was not planned to be mass-produced. Mass tank was supposed to be the T-50. The T-64 became a new generation tank, but for mass production they made it a simpler option - the T-72. I think they feel Armata for a reason. Bring to mind and then begin mass production. Unless of course there will be a war. And of course it is better to have different engineering projects than one standard one. But if they figure out how to provide an indestructible encrypted communication with equipment, it will be more convenient to make several hundred thousand small and relatively cheap (thousands of 15-20 dollars) unmanned vehicles controlled by operators.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 9 October 2015 23: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              But if they figure out how to provide an indestructible encrypted communication with equipment, it will be more convenient to make several hundred thousand small and relatively cheap (thousands of 15-20 dollars) unmanned vehicles controlled by operators.

              Armored unmanned platform mini weight up to five tons:
              tank - 57 mm gun
              self-propelled gun - 76 mm gun
              self-propelled mortar - 82 mm
              self-propelled anti-aircraft gun - spark 23 mm
              mini BMP (carrier of mini drones) - 14 mm machine gun + 10 drones
              mini armored personnel carrier 7.76 mm + 20 drones
              missile tank - ATGM and air defense missiles

              Operators are certainly wonderful, but the robot must be able to perform tasks independently, at least the simplest ones.
          7. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 October 2015 22: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: oleg-gr
            T-34 for its time was a perfect tank.

        2. alekc75
          alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 46 New
          0
          not really, you need to remove unnecessary expenses
        3. Eragon
          Eragon 8 October 2015 15: 49 New
          +4
          Quote: Borets
          If you listen to the author, then you need to urgently begin the release of T-34-85, cheaply and a lot.

          Yes, a little different. It is necessary to produce the T-14 without reducing the production of the T-90 and modernizing the T-72. The T-14 is a powerful tank, at least according to what we are told. But this weapon is from the "we can do it" category. Yes, maybe he will destroy 2-4 "Abrams", but the war with him cannot be won - an expensive machine. It is possible to produce in peacetime, but in war? For a war, simple and cheap tanks are needed, and this is the T-72 and its incarnation, the T-90. But "Armata" is definitely needed. As long as there is a possibility, you need to build. After all, the machine is really powerful, it protects against bad thoughts for sure.
          1. Longmire
            Longmire 8 October 2015 16: 53 New
            +4
            Quote: Eragon
            Yes, a little different. It is necessary to produce the T-14 without reducing the production of the T-90 and modernizing the T-72. The T-14 is a powerful tank, at least according to what we are told. But this weapon is from the "we can do it" category. Yes, maybe he will destroy 2-4 "Abrams", but the war with him cannot be won - an expensive machine. It is possible to produce in peacetime, but in war? For a war, simple and cheap tanks are needed, and this is the T-72 and its incarnation, the T-90. But "Armata" is definitely needed. As long as there is a possibility, you need to build. After all, the machine is really powerful, it protects against bad thoughts for sure.

            with modern weapons, do you think it will be where to produce? The primary goals are precisely the production of weapons.
          2. g1v2
            g1v2 8 October 2015 17: 00 New
            +7
            The basis of our tank units for another 10 years will be modifications of the T72, as our strength in mass. 2 t72b3 will cope with leopard2 for anyone, for example. But if we do not supply Armata to the troops, then sooner or later we will find ourselves with T34 against the Abrams. There will be purchases — first in the court units, then in especially dangerous positions, then they will reach regular units. And the more they are released, the lower the price will be and sooner or later the generation will change completely, and the T72 will remain in storage, as now the T55. But for now, the basis is the T72 modifications. According to the data that I saw, in August 600 tanks were upgraded from January. A lesson in dill has only 450 tanks for example, about 350 of them drive, and in our country in less than a year 600 units of T72 and T90 were modernized and I think that 200 more will be delivered by the end of the year.
          3. kotvov
            kotvov 8 October 2015 19: 47 New
            -1
            . It is necessary to produce T-14 without reducing the production of T-90 and modernization of T-72 ,,
            I understood correctly, you will throw money and power.
          4. PSih2097
            PSih2097 8 October 2015 22: 13 New
            -1
            Quote: Eragon
            It is necessary to produce the T-14 without reducing the production of the T-90 and the modernization of the T-72.

            And where did the T-80 go? or is it worse than 72x?
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 8 October 2015 22: 16 New
              0
              Quote: PSih2097
              And where did the T-80 go?

              Release of the T-80 is discontinued. In 1998, EMNIP.
        4. kirpich
          kirpich 8 October 2015 16: 27 New
          +1
          What for? T-72 are on conservation and are waiting in the wings.
          Z.Y. T-72 - granddaughter of T-34-85
        5. KSLip
          KSLip 8 October 2015 17: 50 New
          +3
          Quote: Borets
          If you listen to the author, then you need to urgently begin the release of T-34-85, cheaply and a lot.

          can we switch to plate infantry? laughing
        6. KSLip
          KSLip 8 October 2015 17: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Borets
          If you listen to the author, then you need to urgently begin the release of T-34-85, cheaply and a lot.

          You can use plate infantry. with RPG. laughing
        7. NEXUS
          NEXUS 8 October 2015 23: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Borets
          If you listen to the author, then you need to urgently begin the release of T-34-85, cheaply and a lot.

          Why? We have a whole range of tank. laughing
        8. Blondy
          Blondy 9 October 2015 03: 56 New
          0
          But the question arises - why the hell are we, for example, 50 thousand cheap tanks?
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 10 October 2015 00: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Blondy
            But the question arises - why the hell are we, for example, 50 thousand cheap tanks?

            The number of trunks is more important than the amount of armor.
      2. Eugene-Eugene
        Eugene-Eugene 8 October 2015 14: 38 New
        +8
        Author: it would be better in Nizhny Tagil to focus on the production of T-90, making them as much as possible

        And if you unlock and modernize T-55, you will get a tank armada almost for nothing
        1. svp67
          svp67 8 October 2015 15: 25 New
          +5
          Quote: Eugene-Eugene
          And if you unlock and modernize T-55, you will get a tank armada almost for nothing

          The combat potential of this armada will NOT be GREAT, in modern warfare.
          1. Eragon
            Eragon 8 October 2015 15: 54 New
            10
            Quote: svp67
            The combat potential of this armada will NOT be GREAT, in modern warfare.

            For reference: T-14-34 are in service in 85 countries of the world. In Africa, of course, but true. And also the German "Panthers. And in Russia the IS-2 was withdrawn from service in ... 1993.
            1. svp67
              svp67 8 October 2015 16: 07 New
              +3
              Quote: Eragon
              For reference: T-14-34 are in service in 85 countries of the world ...

              And in that certificate it is not indicated how many of these countries have PURCHASED them, but did not receive as international assistance?
            2. Das Boot
              Das Boot 8 October 2015 16: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: Eragon
              For reference: T-14-34 are in service in 85 countries of the world. In Africa, of course, but true. And also the German "Panthers. And in Russia the IS-2 was withdrawn from service in ... 1993.

              and what does it mean?
              1. Eragon
                Eragon 8 October 2015 16: 33 New
                +3
                Quote: Das Boot
                and what does it mean?

                In Yugoslavia, from a closed position, the T-34-85 destroyed the 1 BMP manufactured in the UK and damaged the 2 BMP (or I can’t remember exactly) the US production. And what it says - judge for yourself. At least in battle, they will not be superfluous.
                1. Das Boot
                  Das Boot 8 October 2015 17: 00 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Eragon
                  from a closed position T-34-85 destroyed 1 BMP

                  Well, any tank of WWII times would have dealt with this. I doubt that this is a sufficient argument in favor of the conservation and storage of this scrap metal.
                  1. Robinzon57
                    Robinzon57 8 October 2015 22: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: Das Boot
                    Das Boot (3)

                    In modern warfare, tanks are more often used as self-propelled guns or as large sniper rifles, and for this, the T-54 is suitable. An offensive is better to sit in a tank than to run in body armor! hi
                    1. Cat man null
                      Cat man null 8 October 2015 22: 52 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Robinzon57
                      In modern warfare, tanks are more often used as self-propelled guns or as large sniper rifles

                      Explain the idea - how is it?

                      Quote: Robinzon57
                      for this, the t-54 is suitable

                      Nu-nu .. with manual loading, the inability to shoot right away, without a laser rangefinder, without a ballistic computer, without a thermal imager .. with armor of "those times" against modern means of destruction ..

                      I do not believe (s)

                      PS: if you only saw the tank in the picture - better not argue. Since I saw both the T-55 (T-54 - I did not find it), and more modern ones, too. From the inside out. There is something to compare with yes
                  2. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 10 October 2015 00: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: Das Boot
                    scrap metal.

                    working equipment, albeit outdated - not scrap.
                    1. Cat man null
                      Cat man null 10 October 2015 00: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      working equipment, albeit outdated - not scrap

                      Ad absurdum: gun. Flint. Serviceable. Will you go to battle with him? wink
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 10 October 2015 00: 07 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            The combat potential of this armada will NOT be GREAT, in modern warfare.

            You are wrong, their potential is still here, it’s small only against more modern tanks
        2. alekc75
          alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 53 New
          +2
          T-55 is useless to upgrade
          1. Vladimir 1964
            Vladimir 1964 8 October 2015 16: 27 New
            +7
            Quote: alekc75
            T-55 is useless to upgrade


            However, dear alekc75, modernize, and quite successfully and originally. And they are not in a hurry to remove weapons, albeit in Africa. By the way, the site had an article on the Italians modernizing the T-72 of the Syrian army, and I don’t know why it wasn’t said about the T-55; in the video reports 55 repeatedly slipped with the same Italian sight as the 72nd.
            Something like this, Dear. hi
            1. Das Boot
              Das Boot 8 October 2015 17: 50 New
              +2
              Quote: Vladimir 1964
              and I don’t know why it wasn’t said about the T-55, in the video reports 55 repeatedly slipped with the same Italian sight as the 72nd.

              turms-t 's Italians equipped only T-72. 55 only with a wave with LD KTD2 equipped, EMNIP
              Quote: Vladimir 1964
              Something like this, Dear.
          2. KSLip
            KSLip 8 October 2015 17: 42 New
            +4
            Quote: alekc75
            T-55 is useless to upgrade

            tell the Romanians. and google about the teachings of the Romanians with mattresses at the same time ...
            1. Vladimir 1964
              Vladimir 1964 8 October 2015 17: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: KSLip
              tell the Romanians. and google about the teachings of the Romanians with mattresses at the same time ...


              Here, Aleksey, really reminded. Romanians really have a pretty cool upgrade. hi
              1. skifd
                skifd 8 October 2015 18: 39 New
                +4
                Quote: Vladimir 1964
                Here, Aleksey, really reminded. Romanians really have a pretty cool upgrade.


                Already laid out, but I repeat:

                Romanian T-55 tanks at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams
                13 September 2014 15: 45 898

                Quote:
                Romanian modernized Soviet tanks T-55 at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams

                As the Romanian Ministry of Defense told reporters, the armored division was sent to a training ground near the city of Hohenfels, where, together with colleagues from the 14 NATO countries, they worked out joint offensive operations, as well as storming settlements with heavy armored vehicles.

                Romania was represented at the exercises by TR-85 Bizon machines, which form the basis of the country's armored forces and are a deeply modernized version of the Soviet T-55, produced in the USSR in the 50-ies. last century, writes the magazine MIC.

                “In the course of the training, a training battle was held between the Romanian TR-85-M1" Bison "against the American M1" Abrahams ". Our tankers knocked out 8 from 11 American vehicles. According to the crews, after the training battle, the Americans looked very annoyed, ”said the Romanian newspaper Ziare.
            2. skifd
              skifd 8 October 2015 18: 36 New
              0
              Quote: KSLip
              tell the Romanians. and google about the teachings of the Romanians with mattresses at the same time ...


              Already laid out, but I repeat:

              Romanian T-55 tanks at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams
              13 September 2014 15: 45 898

              Quote:
              Romanian modernized Soviet tanks T-55 at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams

              As the Romanian Ministry of Defense told reporters, the armored division was sent to a training ground near the city of Hohenfels, where, together with colleagues from the 14 NATO countries, they worked out joint offensive operations, as well as storming settlements with heavy armored vehicles.

              Romania was represented at the exercises by TR-85 Bizon machines, which form the basis of the country's armored forces and are a deeply modernized version of the Soviet T-55, produced in the USSR in the 50-ies. last century, writes the magazine MIC.

              “In the course of the training, a training battle was held between the Romanian TR-85-M1" Bison "against the American M1" Abrahams ". Our tankers knocked out 8 from 11 American vehicles. According to the crews, after the training battle, the Americans looked very annoyed, ”said the Romanian newspaper Ziare.
            3. skifd
              skifd 8 October 2015 18: 54 New
              0
              Quote: KSLip
              Quote: alekc75
              T-55 is useless to upgrade

              tell the Romanians. and google about the teachings of the Romanians with mattresses at the same time ...


              Already laid out, but:

              Romanian T-55 tanks at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams
              13 September 2014 15: 45 898

              Quote:
              Romanian modernized Soviet tanks T-55 at the NATO exercises knocked out American Abrams

              As the Romanian Ministry of Defense told reporters, the armored division was sent to a training ground near the city of Hohenfels, where, together with colleagues from the 14 NATO countries, they worked out joint offensive operations, as well as storming settlements with heavy armored vehicles.

              Romania was represented at the exercises by TR-85 Bizon machines, which form the basis of the country's armored forces and are a deeply modernized version of the Soviet T-55, produced in the USSR in the 50-ies. last century, writes the magazine MIC.

              “In the course of the training, a training battle was held between the Romanian TR-85-M1" Bison "against the American M1" Abrahams ". Our tankers knocked out 8 from 11 American vehicles. According to the crews, after the training battle, the Americans looked very annoyed, ”said the Romanian newspaper Ziare.
              1. skifd
                skifd 8 October 2015 19: 14 New
                0
                I apologize to the forum users, the post was not stubbornly inserted ..... repeat
                1. Das Boot
                  Das Boot 8 October 2015 20: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: skifd
                  I apologize to the forum users, the post was not stubbornly inserted .....

                  so it does not matter. I hope you yourself understand that a repost of a translation of an article from a Romanian newspaper about the victories of the Romanian tankers is insignificant nonsense?
                  1. skifd
                    skifd 8 October 2015 21: 37 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Das Boot
                    so it does not matter. I hope you yourself understand that a repost of a translation of an article from a Romanian newspaper about the victories of the Romanian tankers is insignificant nonsense?


                    I do not presume to judge the authenticity of the Romanians' "reversal" as something that actually happened, but we do not know the conditions of the "training oncoming battle". Maybe it worked for the Romanians because of the excessive self-confidence of the "mattresses" yes smile , Who knows .
      3. smershxnumx
        smershxnumx 8 October 2015 14: 46 New
        +6
        An article something from the series "everything disappeared" and "poured" laughing minus hi
        1. alekc75
          alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 54 New
          -4
          it's sure that everything was gone
          1. Vladimir 1964
            Vladimir 1964 8 October 2015 16: 29 New
            0
            Quote: alekc75
            it's sure that everything was gone


            No, it's such a joke at SMERSHA. wassat laughing hi
      4. Albert1988
        Albert1988 8 October 2015 14: 47 New
        +8
        Quote: MainBeam
        I read that half of the "Tigers" did not reach the battlefield, that is, half were not combat losses.

        In those days - yes, tigers were overcomplicated, their design was poorly optimized for mass and most importantly fast production, but now another time - what then broke through every kilometer now became quite reliable, overwhelming computerization appeared, etc.
        And if you talk like Mr. Ustyantsev, then in general you need to fight, I use a maximum of T-34 and a Mosin rifle ...
        1. Peterhof 73
          Peterhof 73 8 October 2015 15: 26 New
          10
          Come on (T-34, Mosin). It is necessary to organize the production of the MS-1, like Renault FT-17, in the amount of 100500 units, and use them to plow everything into dust. Well, in the opinion of the author, everything is the same, to fight in cities. And here the crew is only two people (even less than in the "Armata." Am I wrong respected author?
          1. alekc75
            alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 55 New
            +2
            you are very right on all 100
          2. Das Boot
            Das Boot 8 October 2015 16: 33 New
            +4
            Quote: Petergofsky73
            make tanks (well, in the title of the article) radio-controlled. The cost of each tank will be about 5500 rubles (I calculated). Effectiveness 100: 1 versus Panther.

            You can’t be radio-controlled - but interference? I’m thinking about psychokinetic tanks. Atomic draft. In a hopeless situation - self-destruction. It's beautiful - atomic fungi on the battlefield ...
            1. Peterhof 73
              Peterhof 73 8 October 2015 17: 27 New
              +2
              I remember in the 90s, in some kind of comp. the toy was Harvesters and Sonic Tank. Maybe it was psychokinetic.
              And about the article (-) kindergarten 3 year 2 quarter "sticking tanks".

              In recalled: DUNE game was called. Cool way.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Das Boot
                Das Boot 8 October 2015 18: 06 New
                +3
                Quote: Petergofsky73
                And about the article (-) kindergarten 3 year 2 quarter "sticking tanks".

                maybe an article from WOT's forums?
              3. Albert1988
                Albert1988 8 October 2015 21: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Petergofsky73
                In recalled: DUNE game was called. Cool way.

                No, that's in the ideological heirs of Dune, namely Command and Conquer and Red Alert - yes, there were tanks! Huge, with impenetrable armor, two 152 mm cannons, rocket launchers on the tower, mammoths were called (well, or "apocalypses" in the USSR in Red Alert), and most interestingly, it was almost impossible to fill them with a crowd of cheap and weak ones ...
      5. Rus2012
        Rus2012 8 October 2015 14: 59 New
        10
        And the main thing is their exorbitant price - 7,8 million dollars. Defenders of “Almaty” compare it with 8,5 million dollars, which cost the creation of the American tank M1A2 SEP “Abrams”.

        ... but -
        The cost of one promising main battle tank T-14, created on the basis of the Armata universal tracked platform of heavy equipment, will be about 250 million rubles.

        those. at the rate of 1 $ = 60р, less than 4,5mln.doll

        On the other hand, should the T-72 and other old tanks be disposed of with horseradish?
        It is necessary, as in the USSR, to put it in storage.
        Those. for local wars - go T-14 with SBR (quick reaction forces). If a general war is a general mobilization and all that stands in reserves rises ... right up to the T-34 from the pedestals!
        1. Mainbeam
          Mainbeam 8 October 2015 15: 48 New
          12
          Quote: Rus2012
          all the way to the T-34 with pedestals

          Yes, good, kind, old joke
      6. AKESHA
        AKESHA 8 October 2015 17: 45 New
        +3
        Reading this article, the question involuntarily arises, why do they not take into account that in modern war there will be no factories at all, they will be destroyed, it turns out that they will have to fight on what was done before the hostilities, which means they must be slapped in advance as much as possible.
      7. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 October 2015 23: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: MainBeam
        I read that half of the "Tigers" did not reach the battlefield, that is, half were not combat losses.

    2. dorz
      dorz 8 October 2015 14: 35 New
      +6
      I do not like such decadent statements. Still I would remember the First World War.
      1. marlin1203
        marlin1203 8 October 2015 14: 40 New
        12
        A sensible idea, but no one says that with the arrival of Almaty all the other tanks will disappear. Gradually there will be an update. Separate units on T72, T90 and T14 will be operational at the same time, and the composition will be qualitatively albeit non-quick but vary. That's all.
        1. Sigizbarn
          Sigizbarn 8 October 2015 15: 51 New
          +9
          No one, including the author, speaks of the tankers themselves.
          We are not at the Second World War, you cannot train a tanker for 2 weeks, including the t-90.
          This is an expensive and time consuming process. Therefore, the survival of trained personnel is a critical moment in modern tanks.
      2. Das Boot
        Das Boot 8 October 2015 17: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: dorz
        Still I would remember the First World War.

        Train. Kaputno.
    3. Albert1988
      Albert1988 8 October 2015 14: 43 New
      13
      Quote: svp67
      Yes "Armata" is a very expensive and difficult tank now, but it was the same when it was put into service and T34, T64, T80, T90 ...

      Exactly, moreover, Mr. Ustyantsev is engaged in the good old retrograde - in the courtyard is the 21st century, and not the 1941 year, when tanks were used in large numbers and green recruits were sitting at their levers. Times have changed, no one will now use tanks massively and most importantly. that after the start of the large-scale conflict as the Great Patriotic War, there will be no more time for the production of new equipment, we’ll have to fight with what we have and what lies in the warehouses, by the way, our leaders understood this even during the Cold War, and therefore sought to make such big stocks of ammunition and weapons, as expected. that at the beginning of the war most plants will be bombed by the same ballistic missiles.

      I will summarize my "many beeches" with one thing - we need to get rid of the all-embracing retrograde and learn to think in a new way, we need to prepare for a new war, not the previous one ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 8 October 2015 14: 53 New
      18
      another author forgot that armata is not INSTEAD but TOGETHER with the t-90 and t-72. This is not just a new tank, it is a new platform, a new concept, new technologies. at a cost comparable to that of the Abrams, it surpasses both it and our t-90a and t-72b3 by a head. absolutely everything is new in the t-14: the layout, the engine, the gun, the armor, the control system, for the first time KAZ, BIUS, TIUS will appear in series. I would not be surprised if in the near future there will be options for upgrading the T-90 using the T-14 developments.
      1. Longmire
        Longmire 8 October 2015 17: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: ILDM1986
        it is a new platform, a new concept, new technologies. at a cost comparable to the "Abrams", it is head and shoulders above both it and our t-90a and t-72b3

        even the tank designers are talking about a 30% advantage over the Abrams, and you are already "on the head" (how much by the way?) laughing
        1. ILDM1986
          ILDM1986 8 October 2015 17: 14 New
          +5
          Do you have a head of more than 30% of the body? belay I sympathize
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 8 October 2015 17: 20 New
            +3
            Quote: ILDM1986
            Do you have a head of more than 30% of the body?

            + million laughing
    5. avt
      avt 8 October 2015 15: 19 New
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, "Armata" is a very expensive and difficult tank now,

      This is a peacetime tank, unlike the vehicles of the Patriotic War
      Quote: svp67
      only equipment was lost for military and technical reasons

      who after the war underwent a special program to bring to the proper technical level.
      Quote: oleg-gr
      -34 for its time was a perfect tank.

      All the same, let us clarify - on the basis of a combination of factors, including the possibility of mass production at a production with an insufficient number of highly professional personnel and a modern machine park.
    6. KGB WATCH YOU
      KGB WATCH YOU 8 October 2015 15: 49 New
      +2
      Maybe I exaggerate a little of course, but with all due respect to the T-34 tank and the tankmen who fought on it, thirty-four were lost about as much as tanks lost by other countries combined. Sorry, but I would not want to repeat this story. Better to fight with skill, not with numbers.
    7. The comment was deleted.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 10 October 2015 00: 14 New
        0
        Quote: yushch
        analogues of Americans and Germans will cost three to four times more expensive

        An analogue in the west in the near future can not be built.
    8. The comment was deleted.
    9. Air Force captain
      Air Force captain 8 October 2015 16: 25 New
      -2
      Shabalin the alarmist and Judah ...
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 8 October 2015 17: 20 New
        -2
        And yet the T-72 century and its cosmetic refinement of the T-90 are passing. On this strategically important issue, I am radical: Russian tank troops should be armed only with Armata. And all the other tanks, even from the most forgotten storage bases, are sold out in vain. And which are not for sale - in martin or reefs to build. But the zoo should no longer be.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 8 October 2015 22: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: Basarev
          And yet the T-72 century and its cosmetic refinement of the T-90 are passing. On this strategically important issue, I am radical: Russian tank troops should be armed only with Armata. And all the other tanks, even from the most forgotten storage bases, are sold out in vain. And which are not for sale - in martin or reefs to build. But the zoo should no longer be.


          when the number of t14 equals t72 and t80 and t90 (both in service and on conservation) then please, but before that, no ...
    10. SALLAK
      SALLAK 12 October 2015 09: 37 New
      0
      Yes, only T 34 ... T90 was brought to a series in the USSR, industrial power for Russia in the current situation is not achievable, fact! The article is 100% correct ... Who is stronger than ten wolves or one bear ??? In a real war, what is easier to maintain in the field ??? and what to establish on a mass basis ?? And to prepare the crew? And tell me why Kalash is so popular ??? Not for its simplicity and reliability ??? Practice has already shown ...
  2. Good_Taxist
    Good_Taxist 8 October 2015 14: 32 New
    +2
    Syrian may not reach ...?
    This is the TANK that drove along Red Square on the 70th anniversary of the Victory ....?
    Well, you are the "sage" Author!
    1. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 15: 58 New
      +2
      no he's just too smart
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 8 October 2015 18: 33 New
        +6
        The author simply did not think that in the same Germany in service no more than 350 tanks (in France and England, too, no more). And how can they respond to at least the same number of Armat with darkness T-72 (90)? That is, they need at least a tank no worse than the Armata. And now a question to the author: "And how much will the analogue of Armata for the USA or Germany pour out?" Here they will definitely come out too heavy. Because the Leopard or Abrams base cannot be used. Those. the tank must be created from scratch. And one development, judging by the F-22 (or 35), will be very expensive. And after that the exact same Germany will release 500 tanks - how much will they cost !? Taking into account the development - gold. Only the Yankees are capable of "investing" in this way or a common EU (but judging by Eurofiter, they will pull the blanket for a long time, and this will last for many years). But the Yankees didn’t even rivet so many Abrams, 10 thousand. And the new US tank will definitely not be 10 mil., But rather many times more. Against this background, the Armata will be the most competitive car on the market. So there is every chance that there will be the most massive among "peers" and therefore the price will fall. hi
  3. Kalmar
    Kalmar 8 October 2015 14: 32 New
    20
    The author thinks in terms of the Second World War, when whole armies converged in battles. Now this is not the case, all current military conflicts are local in nature. In such conditions, thousands of cheap tanks are not needed, here the principle "less is more, but better." And then, no one bothers to continue the production of the same T-90 precisely in the role of extras in the unlikely event that you have to fight with a real army.
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam 8 October 2015 14: 39 New
      +6
      Quote: Kalmar
      current military conflicts are local.

      If we take Syria as an example, the presence of the T-14 "Armata" would not have saved the Mujahideen. On the other hand, the presence of the T-55, T-90 or T-14 in the Syrian government army is not a big difference with the support of Russian aviation.

      It’s hard for me to imagine a modern tank battle in principle. If only Syria will converge in a war with Israel. But in this war, as in the Second World War, it will be decisive for perfection or the number of tanks, and full support for aviation and the presence of modern anti-tank guns.

      Therefore, I think the article is fundamentally wrong. The development of modern weapons, including tanks, is an indispensable component of a sovereign state. But modern weapons are not simple and cheap. Yes, the tank should be trouble-free and maintainable, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle, but expect from a modern tank the same simplicity as the T-34 - naivety.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 8 October 2015 15: 15 New
        +4
        If we take Syria as an example, the presence of the T-14 "Armata" would not have saved the Mujahideen. On the other hand, the presence of the T-55, T-90 or T-14 in the Syrian government army is not a big difference with the support of Russian aviation.

        Of course. A tank is only one of the components of a full-fledged army, and successfully it can only be used in combination with other components. Without proper air defense and air support, a tank is just a target. So yes, he would not bring any benefit to the Mujahideen.

        The Syrian army also doesn’t need a T-14, just as the Americans didn’t need their F-22 in Iraq: there is simply no job for it. Fighting partisans chasing pickups with machine guns can be done without tanks, and there will be much more benefit from aviation (especially attack helicopters).
        1. Mainbeam
          Mainbeam 8 October 2015 15: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: Kalmar
          T-14 army is also not needed

          That is the trick. If your armed forces in the complex are strong, then the number of tanks is not important. And the quality of the tanks, including the survival of the crew, is the main component. Whether we have 10.000 T-90 or 5.000 T-14 - there is no fundamental difference for the country's defense capability.

          Modern tanks in their filling are approaching aircraft. And in the Su-34 crew can stand up, stretch their legs, go for a push. A modern tank should be convenient for the crew in peacetime. But also during combat operations, many hours of fatigue and crew performance are important.

          I am not talking about armaments, comprehensive protection, maintainability and reliability.

          with a quote - a joke if someone did not understand
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 8 October 2015 15: 59 New
            +3
            If your armed forces in the complex are strong, then the number of tanks is not important. And the quality of the tanks, including the survival of the crew, is the main component.

            Supplement: this is when it comes to local conflict. That is, if we introduce some kind of limited contingent somewhere there, then we must strive to maximize its quality. Let a hundred tanks sent be very expensive, but on the other hand, they will complete the task and come home relatively relatively whole.

            In a "big" war to the last patron, the situation is yin, quantity in itself can turn into quality. An example is the same T-34. It was definitely not the most powerful or the most advanced WWII tank, but it made up for in manufacturability that allowed it to be riveted in the thousands.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. alekc75
        alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 00 New
        +2
        all new tanks are complex and expensive
  4. a-cola
    a-cola 8 October 2015 14: 33 New
    18
    You can breed donkeys instead of tanks. They will turn out even more for the same money. Idiocy and not an article.
    1. Rader
      Rader 8 October 2015 15: 59 New
      +2
      It seems that the author himself pointed out that hostilities are being transferred from the "field" to the "city" and immediately concludes that the T-14, protected by built-in DZ, KAZ, new composite armor, would be preferable to something cheap and massive ... How long will this "cheap and mass" tank, without KAZ, with a simple DZ, even simpler armor, in the case when the enemy "will definitely have RPG-30"? Where is the author going to recruit crews for the "cheap and simple" armada? The author cites the Second World War as an example, so does the author know how much blood our tankers drank during the storming of Berlin by the Nazis with faust patrons? How much does the T-14 actually cost (bala infa that serial samples will cost around 5 million forever green)?
      And another 1000 ???? ...
      The author himself got confused in his own arguments.
    2. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 02 New
      0
      she won’t go, where to get so much fodder for them?
  5. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 8 October 2015 14: 35 New
    +1
    I propose, as in the fleets, to switch to the creation of self-propelled launchers for missiles, with a vertical launch and subsequent declination to the trajectory at an altitude of 50-100m. A set of 2-4 small UAVs with cameras and backlight lasers. Management from the second machine, where there are 2-4 UAV and launch operators. There is no need for such an installation to protrude from behind shelters, and its missiles will strike any target with a top strike.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 8 October 2015 14: 51 New
      +1
      You forget that a tank is not just a self-propelled gun, but also armor! A tank on the battlefield is needed not just as a mobile vehicle with good weapons, but also with good armor. Moreover, missiles are extremely expensive and vulnerable to electronic warfare systems, which are also being actively improved, and it is often cheaper to hit the target with "simple" cannon shells than to waste an expensive missile.
      1. Armored optimist
        Armored optimist 8 October 2015 17: 23 New
        +2
        Nobody cancels the armor. Electronic warfare develops both on the offensive and defensive sides. The price of rockets, which are known to be made "like sausages", is not that high. And the comparison of missiles and projectiles, taking into account their quantity required to defeat the target, the "specific", so to speak, the cost is even less. And there is no target that a projectile could hit, but a missile could not hit.
        The survivability of such a complex will be many times greater. Vision of the battlefield, opening of targets is also more effective. Ideally, this is not a substitute for tanks, but their support from an area inaccessible to enemy tanks.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 8 October 2015 20: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: armored optimist
          The price of rockets, which are known to be made "like sausages", is not that high. And the comparison of missiles and projectiles, taking into account their quantity required to defeat the target, the "specific", so to speak, the cost is even less.

          Then the logical question arises - why even tank haters such as Americans, who are talking about the obsolescence and uselessness of tanks in the modern theater of operations, massively use these same tanks in all their ground operations?
          Let me give you an example: the infantry came across a fortification built of a dozen concrete blocks and in which a bearded man with a machine gun was sitting. What to do? Call aviation? Artillery strike? It will be expensive and strangely long - the plane needs to take off (taking into account the preparation) and fly, the artifact must at least be at a normal distance of fire. If you take into account the number of such self-made fortifications, then artillery with aviation is simply pulled to solve such small tactical tasks, distracting them from more important tasks. Now imagine. that along with the infantry there is an armored fool with a powerful weapon - that is a bish tank. He simply creeps out into the distance of a direct shot and destroys an impromptu pillbox with bearded men inside a shell whose cost is much less than the cost of any corresponding missile. Moreover, infantry can hide behind a tank from enemy fire.
          Moreover, the tank itself, having entrenched, can serve as a fortified point due to powerful armor. At the same time, with the development of KAZ systems, the protection of tanks (primarily from missiles !!!) will increase significantly. That's basically what a tank is for in modern conditions.
          And what you described is classical artillery, and you really should not confuse it with machine tools.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 9 October 2015 00: 42 New
            0
            why even such tank haters as Americans ... in all their ground operations massively use these same tanks?

            So after all, the taxpayers need to show that millions are not just spent. By the way, did anyone evaluate the effect of using these tanks? There was an opinion that in Iraq, say, the Abrams inflicted more damage on each other than on the Iraqi army.

            Let me give you an example: the infantry came across a fortification built of a dozen concrete blocks and in which a bearded man with a machine gun was sitting. What to do?

            Obviously - to hit the ATGM. It can be installed on an army SUV, armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, and much more. ATGM, of course, is more expensive than a conventional tank shell, but incomparably cheaper than the tank itself.

            It will be expensive and strangely long - the plane needs to take off (taking into account preparation) and fly

            Therefore, mankind came up with a helicopter that can hang directly over the battlefield. At the same time, unlike the tank, it has an excellent overview and can very quickly switch to targets in different parts of this same field.

            digging the tank itself can serve as a fortified point due to powerful armor

            In battles "in the field", perhaps, it will work. In a city, for example, the enemy can always enter from the flank, from the rear, or generally from above (from the roof of a skyscraper to fire at some). As the experience of the same Iraq has shown, even the Abrams that I do not want booked from the sides and stern are very vulnerable even to the good old RPG-7.

            with the development of KAZ systems, the protection of tanks (primarily from missiles !!!) will increase significantly

            Generally speaking, KAZ can be put on BMPs. Then, it is not clear whether KAZ will be able to "repulse" the massive shelling, when several dushmans start hammering at the tank at once. Finally, how to protect the KAZ itself from small arms (say, large-caliber machine guns)?
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 12 October 2015 11: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              Obviously - to hit the ATGM. It can be installed on an army SUV, armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, and much more. ATGM, of course, is more expensive than a conventional tank shell, but incomparably cheaper than the tank itself.

              And what is the armor of this BMP / SUV / BTR? He himself under enemy fire will not stingy before ATGM leads? That's the same thing.
              The same thing with a helicopter - it has a limited time of being on the battlefield is commonplace, unlike a tank. And then - how many ATGM you bring with you in the same infantry fighting vehicle (after all, you also need to carry infantry, the ATGM installation itself is very vulnerable) and how many shells in the tank at the tank ...
              So not everything is as simple as it seems.

              Quote: Kalmar
              In battles "in the field", perhaps, it will work. In a city, for example, the enemy can always enter from the flank, from the rear, or generally from above (from the roof of a skyscraper to fire at some). As the experience of the same Iraq has shown, even the Abrams that I do not want booked from the sides and stern are very vulnerable even to the good old RPG-7.

              In cities, their own tactics of using armored vehicles and their tasks are slightly different from those in the field. Abrams is essentially an old-mode tank designed specifically for a head-on collision in the field with other tanks, the armature of the same with the protection of the upper hemisphere is much more interesting.

              Quote: Kalmar
              Generally speaking, KAZ can be put on BMPs. Then, it is not clear whether KAZ will be able to "repulse" the massive shelling, when several dushmans start hammering at the tank at once. Finally, how to protect the KAZ itself from small arms (say, large-caliber machine guns)?

              I think this is a matter of engineers and tests)))) And then - our KAZ won both BMP and tanks, but still the armor of the tank is much superior to the armor of BMPs even with KAZ (and TBMP in the world so far is 1 - T-15 and one TBTR - intent).
  6. ArcanAG
    ArcanAG 8 October 2015 14: 35 New
    +9
    The creators wrote that after the launch of Almaty in a series, its price should fall by half.
    At the front were not only relatively inexpensive T-34s, but also IS-2, IS-3, etc.

    It seems that the article was written out of envy.
    1. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 04 New
      0
      this is as it should be when released on the conveyor
  7. Oleko
    Oleko 8 October 2015 14: 36 New
    -17
    I will be the first to put a plus. Not a specialist, not for me to judge the qualities of the "Armata" and what a tank is like in battle. But the article is a tub of cold water on the heated head of a hurray-patriot.
    1. arutun
      arutun 8 October 2015 14: 56 New
      +7
      And then cheers - patriotism, let's not do tanks. we will buy pickups from tayota, put DShK on them and how to drive the IG along the fields, and that a pickup is cheaper than a tank.
      This is all nonsense.
      As soon as the T-64/80 appeared, everyone was saying why we needed such a tank in production, the T-55 / T-62 is cheaper.
      Tank "T-14" is a breakthrough, for the first time the protection of the crew at the level of the best tanks in the world, even higher. God forbid there will be a war, there will be no time to rivet tanks, in a global war you will have to shoot nuclear weapons.
      And in relatively peaceful times, it is necessary to create and implement a universal platform. And gradually transfer all parts to it.
      If necessary, you can rivet the T-90, it is 3 times cheaper than modern tanks.
      But the T-14 is a new concept, this is the future of tank building.
    2. Anatole
      Anatole 8 October 2015 15: 20 New
      +6
      How already this cliché "hurray" has been lifted up, like a plug in every hole, with any dissenting vanity.
      The essence of the tank is that they finally attended to the life of the crew, the crew was removed from the category of consumables. This is not to say that this is a new milestone in technology and materials science, R&D is an engine of not only progress but also sectors of the economy. And from a tub it’s better to drink your heartburn wassat
    3. Cat man null
      Cat man null 8 October 2015 15: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Anatole
      The essence of the tank is

      The essence of the tank is a lot.

      But the main thing is it is not just a tank. It's plat-for-ma .. y-no-fi-qi-ro-van-on-i..

      Everything else is secondary, compared to this.
      1. Anatole
        Anatole 8 October 2015 16: 54 New
        +3
        I agree, but I considered it superfluous to disclose any unfolding with the commentator who initially stated "Not special, not for me to judge" No. Not nearly underestimating the unification, of course it will at least reduce the cost and simplify the nomenclature of consumables, "economies, not ideologies" are fighting. Now we do not have Kharkov and Omsk tanks, so there will no longer be whole MBT lines and competition between tank design bureaus, although on the unified platform 72 there is also a large range of vehicles, BREM-1, MTU-72 tank bridge layer, IMR clearing engineering vehicle -2, from part 2C19. The writer of the article is still talking about the T14 tank, albeit on the basis of a platform, and compares it with tanks. In my opinion, the announced Revolutionism, still in the layout and security of the crew, everything else is a balance of unification and technology. respectfully hi
      2. fif21
        fif21 8 October 2015 19: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        it is not just a tank. This is plat-for-ma .. y-no-fi-qi-ro-van-on-ya ..
        Here it is the essence of the matter! And cost reduction, refinement, is a matter of time. Maintainability, engine life, transmission reliability, upgradeability, weight, ground pressure are just a few criteria for evaluating the platform. There are no limits to perfection. And do not forget that you need both a medium and a heavy tank, they have different goals and objectives.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  8. Liasenski
    Liasenski 8 October 2015 14: 36 New
    +3
    I’ll probably say stupidity, but it seems to me that there will be no more wars such as the Second World War. Everything will happen very quickly, so there’s no need to produce anything, but you have to fight with what you have.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist 8 October 2015 14: 43 New
      +5
      And in this case, efficiency, say 2 to 1, means twice as good logistics as the transfer of tank units and units, which will allow to reduce the response time or even put them into operation before the enemy unfolds.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 06 New
      0
      so you need to have a reserve of tanks
  9. a-cola
    a-cola 8 October 2015 14: 38 New
    +4
    Quote: Oleko
    I will be the first to put a plus. Not a specialist, not for me to judge the qualities of the "Armata" and what a tank is like in battle. But the article is a tub of cold water on the heated head of a hurray-patriot.


    The same layman as the author of the article. But it is necessary to blur out. Hands itch.
    1. Oleko
      Oleko 8 October 2015 15: 29 New
      -9
      The usual, "harness-and-spous" rudeness. Complete sucks and stupid. Are you, dear, blind, stupid person? I signed up as a specialist, idiot? I do not blurt out, rubbish, but write.
  10. da Vinci
    da Vinci 8 October 2015 14: 44 New
    +3
    Reflections are not devoid of logic. During the Second World War, Hitler's bet on Penters, Royal Tigers, etc. led to the curtailment of the production of cheaper and improved (after modernization) models of equipment. Wunderwaffe has not saved anyone yet, and it is the height of carelessness to bet on one superweapon. It is necessary to find a middle ground and not waste money on a successful system, but unbalanced in terms of "price-quality" (for example, the US rate on F22 and F35 and damage to F18 and other cars. authorities. drinks
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 October 2015 15: 20 New
      +7
      "During the Second World War, Hitler's bet on Penters, Royal Tigers, etc.
      led to curtailing the production of cheaper and better
      (after modernization) samples of equipment "////

      For many tanks you need to prepare a lot of crews. Need a lot
      fuel, a lot of shells.
      Even if the Nazis stamped another 100,000 "workhorses"
      T-4, they couldn’t bring this whole armada into action, make
      its expeditiously fit. They did not have human resources, reserves, fuel.

      Therefore, Hitler's bet on high-quality, but expensive tanks was economically justified.
      Although she could no longer change the outcome of the war - Hitler fought with the three largest
      military powers of the world - USSR, USA, England (with all their resources around the world)
      - at the same time.
      1. uwzek
        uwzek 8 October 2015 23: 48 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        For many tanks you need to prepare a lot of crews. Need a lot
        fuel, a lot of shells.

        Absolutely agree. Not quite tanks fight. Basically, tankers and those who ensure the performance of their iron horses fight. Nowadays, you won’t get enough of every tank of a tank ...
      2. The Chat
        The Chat 9 October 2015 13: 51 New
        0
        Hitler fought only with the USSR, the rest of the vultures joined only when cutting the carcasses of defeated Germany ...
    2. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 08 New
      +1
      need to keep track of money
      1. Oprychnik
        Oprychnik 8 October 2015 21: 40 New
        0
        “Many tanks need to train many crews.
        fuel, lots of shells. "

        Considering that the war is likely to be limited to the consumption of nuclear weapons, after which there will be no fuel, no communications, no shells, nor, moreover, crews, no power stations, no mobile, and no communication at all, I took care of the General Staff would be the procurement of a sufficient number of bows and arrows, prudently placed in storages that will be available to the surviving population in different time zones.)))
    3. uwzek
      uwzek 8 October 2015 23: 43 New
      0
      Quote: da Vinci
      The main thing is that there should not be a cut of money for the sake of pets and swindlers in power.

      Cut will ALWAYS be present until they find an effective way to deal with it. The percentage of cut does not depend on the subject of production. If a certain percentage of the allocated money is sawed, it is still better to produce something newer ...
  11. Doomph
    Doomph 8 October 2015 14: 45 New
    +1
    Balabol is just one word. A question from the category: "What is heavier: 1kg of iron or 1kg of cotton wool?"
    1. AUL
      AUL 8 October 2015 16: 31 New
      0
      By the way, this is not such a pointless question - for those who understand. There is a well-reasoned answer.
      1. AUL
        AUL 9 October 2015 20: 06 New
        0
        For someone who put a minus, I can say that a kilogram of iron is heavier than a kilogram of cotton wool. And let him try to understand why! School knowledge for grade 7 is enough for this,
  12. NEXUS
    NEXUS 8 October 2015 14: 46 New
    +6
    Over time, the production of Armata will become significantly cheaper. Representatives of the UralVagonzavod also spoke about this. But while the army is saturated with Armata, the T-90 "PRORIV" will also be purchased. So I see nothing wrong with high-tech and slower and more expensive assembly of T -14. Over time, everything will become cheaper in its production.
    And as regards the Abrams and Leopards with their price, I want to see how much the new tanks of the NATO countries will cost, which will at least approach the Armata level.
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 9 October 2015 00: 06 New
      0
      Quote: NEXUS
      .But while the army is being saturated with Armata, the T-90 PRORIV will also be purchased.

      We will have to pay for all these devices. Of course, from a public pocket ...
      But now the situation is simpler. The army is not saturated with armatures (tanks in iron. Of course. There are. But they are undergoing the state tests, the decision to take them into service will appear two years later, after which the process of saturating the army with machines will start. Well, or it won’t start). Breakthroughs of the T-90MS were never even ordered for our army (all the more so since there are already four different tanks under this nickname).
  13. win
    win 8 October 2015 14: 46 New
    +2
    obviously was not part of the tradition of Soviet tank building corruption component, which today in the conditions of the Russian market falls into tens and hundreds of co-contractors, suppliers of components. Everyone wants to grab their share.

    It would be now Soviet Cheka, then the Armata tank would cost like an ordinary truck
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 October 2015 15: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: Siegen
      If there were now the Soviet Cheka, the Armata tank would cost like an ordinary truck

      Tell Salzmann this. For the first HF, he requested 1 million per tank. Barely shot down to 800. The very first serial HFs, with all their structural deficiencies and dampness, went 000 thousand each. Is it a lot or a little? For comparison: in 600 the selling price of the modernized HF was only 1942 thousand.
      But what about Salzman? And he in July 1942 took the post of Commissar of the tank industry.
    2. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 10 New
      0
      no a little expensive
    3. uwzek
      uwzek 9 October 2015 00: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Siegen
      If there were now the Soviet Cheka, the Armata tank would cost like an ordinary truck

      Or (with approximately the same probability) it would not exist at all. The Cheka fought little with corruption (this fight was not its task). And do not idealize the Soviet era, then they also very successfully used the proximity to power ...
  14. linadherent
    linadherent 8 October 2015 14: 47 New
    +2
    We need both tanks ... Armata for wars with the Papuans and T-90 in case of general mobilization. Yes, and in the great Patriotic war on the front, in addition to the T-34, there were still short-range HFs, but they were not superfluous! By the way, the Wehrmacht tanks went all over Europe, and were considered the best. The Soviet Union won not so much due to the technology or skill of the military, but due to the fact that he could offer a two-to-one exchange, or even three ... We won the war thanks to the high spirit of our soldiers. .. There will be no such war anymore, because tank wedges and carpet bombing no longer steer, steers tactical nuclear weapons and this is where Armata will give a big head start to T-90 ... hi
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 8 October 2015 14: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: linadherent
      T-90 in case of general mobilization.

      It is believed that in the event of a large-scale war, military operations will be conducted mainly by aviation and cruise / ballistic missiles, and tanks will play an auxiliary role and be used accordingly very limited, so it’s better to have better tanks, anyway there will be no massive tank armada, and T -90 is ideal as a backup tank for quick replenishment of losses.
    2. Peterhof 73
      Peterhof 73 8 October 2015 15: 15 New
      -1
      If the truth in this dispute is, as always, in the middle, then it might be better to mass-produce (2-3 thousand units) T-90MS. What? Cheaper than "Armata", but more modern than the T-90?
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 8 October 2015 16: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Petergofsky73
        , then maybe it would be better to mass-produce (2-3 thousand units) T-90MS. What? Cheaper than "Armata", but more modern than the T-90?

        You forget about the main thing - about the modernization potential. With all the excellent characteristics of this machine, the T-90MS will become completely obsolete in about 10-15 years, and machines on the armata platform will have an upgrade margin of at least another 30 years, and maybe even 50, because you should not forget that, unlike the T- 90 of the same armata is a platform, that is, a set of unified units and assemblies, and not a specific product, and on its basis you can produce a bunch of everything.
        1. Peterhof 73
          Peterhof 73 8 October 2015 17: 19 New
          +1
          So I'm not against "Armata" in any way. It's just that the author claims that very few of them will be produced (the crisis has lasted). And mass armies still need new vehicles. But 72B3 is not ice. That would be the T-90ms instead. But this is only from the perspective of the article. They will figure out without me what is better and what is cheaper.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 8 October 2015 18: 02 New
            +4
            Quote: Petergofsky73
            So I'm not against "Armata" in any way. It's just that the author claims that very few of them will be produced (the crisis has lasted).

            The problem is that the price of the T-90 MS with all its bells and whistles is not much inferior to the same armature provided it is mass-produced. This begs the logical question - why do it at all, if the characteristics are worse, the modernization potential has been fully exhausted, and the cost is not so less. to recoup all these shortcomings?
            Moreover, in any case, rebar will be produced in decent quantities so that the price is acceptable. And as a "reserve" tank, you can use the existing T-90s and upgrade the T-72s, and even then they will optimize the fittings enough.
            1. Peterhof 73
              Peterhof 73 9 October 2015 17: 28 New
              0
              Yes, you convinced me. And what can you say about the prospects of the tank for urban battles (based on the T-72 with a bulldozer blade)? Now, probably, the Syrian army needs such desperately. And there probably wouldn’t be any harm in having such an army of 20 in each district. In addition to the Arctic, I guess. There T-80 they rule.
    3. uwzek
      uwzek 9 October 2015 00: 22 New
      0
      Quote: linadherent
      steers tactical nuclear weapons and this is where Armata will give a big head start T-90 ...

      From a direct hit by a nuclear land mine, little will save you. except a deep bunker. Act in the zone of radioactive contamination could still T-55. The equipment, by the way, is of the same type and on all subsequent machines (possibly on a valve, the glass of a VZU there really is different, a more modern radiochemical reconnaissance device can be used. On previous machines it was a sample of the sixties of the last century) ...
  15. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 8 October 2015 14: 48 New
    +2
    The author expressed his opinion. Well, or the opinion of the one who asked him to voice.
    But in my opinion right now it is necessary to go forward, and not look back, because only by developing something new will we be able to surpass a potential enemy in the future.

    "But while America is stronger in electronics, we shouldn't even think about such high-tech tanks."
    Nothing of the kind! Production is not enough, yes. But not in any way brains. A quarter of Silicon Valley is emigrants from several waves of the USSR. They showed our factory for the collection and production of electronics through the zomboy box, asked the director a question, "Can you produce iPhones from your components?" - "Yes, it's easy, let's order - we'll do it."
    And in the future, it is the defense industry that will become the engine of instrumentation and electronic production.
    1. alekc75
      alekc75 8 October 2015 16: 13 New
      +1
      so you can’t let her ditch
  16. Kirill
    Kirill 8 October 2015 14: 49 New
    +2
    I agree with the author of the article. Often I wonder what will happen when the personnel army suffers heavy losses. On what and with what we will fight, and who. Do not rejoice that we have smart weapons. How many people can use it and what is the mobilization reserve.
    1. Darkoff
      Darkoff 8 October 2015 15: 15 New
      +2
      Control of the tank is sharpened, rather, for gamers. And every student now has a gaming computer.
      The control itself, just does not require high qualifications (automatic transmission, joysticks, buttons). The tank does a lot on its own. Service except that requires high qualifications. But technology is not often at the forefront.
  17. linadherent
    linadherent 8 October 2015 14: 50 New
    +1
    Mobilization reserve? You suggest throwing hats, maybe then we need motor boats at sea? Is there enough corn in the air? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I wrote above that during the time of nuclear weapons no one will arrange a battle of Kursk ...
    PS I do not pretend to be a military expert, it's just my humble opinion ... soldier
  18. Maksus
    Maksus 8 October 2015 14: 51 New
    +1
    The author. Following his logic - why release expensive T-90, if you can make T-72, and even better T-55, there is no T-34-76 right away! We will fill the country with hordes of BTshek !!! Give the carts and ballista! A sling is a weapon of the 21 century.
    No one says that UVZ will now dramatically produce 2000 Armat. Re-equipment is the task of decades. In the process of release, the tank is constantly being upgraded, improvements are being made. T-90 will go into the troops for a long time, as well as modernize the T-72.
    1. uwzek
      uwzek 9 October 2015 00: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Maksus
      T-90 will go to the troops for a long time

      Over the entire period of the existence of the Russian Federation, exactly 66 T-90 vehicles have come into the troops (there are also semi-legendary several tanks made for India, but used in the Chechen company). For the modernization of the T-72 money is also constantly not enough ...
  19. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 8 October 2015 14: 53 New
    10
    Instructions for valve:

    1) Running:
    - If the chassis 6-katkovaya - "it is outdated and does not have the modernization potential."
    - If the chassis 7-katkovaya - "it is redundant and eats up all the weight gain."
    2) Exhaust:
    - If the exhaust side - "unmasks the tank and weakens the protection."
    - If the exhaust is from behind - “prevents movement in the column.”
    3) Optical channel:
    - If there is a direct optical channel - "complicates and increases the cost of construction, indicates the backwardness of Russian electronics."
    - If there is no direct optical channel - "the system is unreliable, with the slightest malfunction the tank goes blind."
    4) Protection:
    - "Protection boards is insufficient." No options.
    - "Protection of the roof is insufficient." No options.
    5) CAS:
    - If KAZ is not present - “a tank without KAZ cannot be considered promising.”
    - If there is a KAZ - “it unmasks a tank and makes it difficult to interact with infantry, the radar stations are vulnerable”.
    6) DZ:
    - "Shitty." No options.
    7) COEP:
    - "Horseradish." No options.
    Sighting system:
    - "Horseradish." No options.
    9) Anti-aircraft machine gun:
    “If 12,7 is“ redundant, outdated caliber, clear posons put 7,62. ”
    - If 7,62 is “insufficient outdated caliber, clear posons put 12,7.”
    10) Armament:
    - If 125 mm - "insufficient and outdated caliber for a promising tank."
    - If 152 mm - "excessive caliber, indicates the backwardness of Russian shells."
    11) Cost:
    - If less than 5 million dollars - "one-time cheap."
    - If more than 5 million dollars - "drank."
  20. Siberian1965
    Siberian1965 8 October 2015 14: 56 New
    +2
    I didn’t even begin to read it, Id..t. Compares incomparable things, a medium tank with a heavy one, or more simply ... with a finger. And he probably doesn’t even know, "analyst", that at 41 the Germans did not have any heavy tanks at all, and the T-34s did not penetrate with anti-tank guns. And we had a heavy KV tank in the same 41st. Where do such experts come from?
  21. katalonec2014
    katalonec2014 8 October 2015 14: 57 New
    +2
    As for me, the comparison is not entirely correct. The author recalls the Second World War, but modestly kept silent about the significant difference, the problem is that Germany relied on high-tech machines directly during the war, there is no war now, which hinders the purchase of high-tech equipment now, when the batch goes it’s too late, then we’ll move on to the production of cheap and mass armored vehicles.
  22. lopvlad
    lopvlad 8 October 2015 14: 59 New
    +2
    The best defense for a tank is to attack and destroy the enemy.

    This is from the category "It is unnecessary to produce expensive bulletproof vests, it is better to teach soldiers to run quickly and attack on the sly."

    It is foolish to compare the war of the 2nd generation war (WWII) with the modern war of the sixth generation. It makes no sense to stamp the deeply modernized version of the T-72 (T-90 tank) if it does not meet the conditions of the modern
    All weaknesses of this tank in the West have long been dismantled and studied.

    As for the export RPG-30, their electronics have bookmarks that will not allow them to be used against tanks made for our defense industry.
  23. shliapnik
    shliapnik 8 October 2015 15: 00 New
    0
    And what is so expensive. Is it really impossible for yourself to be cheaper. But what about the import substitution of Stalin for them is not enough ... oligarchs ...
  24. Arkan
    Arkan 8 October 2015 15: 02 New
    +3
    Article sucks ----. Bullshit.
  25. Longmire
    Longmire 8 October 2015 15: 07 New
    +2
    the article is at least untrue since the author compares the Second World War with modern warfare.
    The 21st century in the yard, the strategy and tactics of war has already changed.
  26. Peterhof 73
    Peterhof 73 8 October 2015 15: 10 New
    +1
    Imagine, but add on our own that not with one, but with a flock of tanks, since one UVZ will not do as much as the whole of Europe and America.

    "And they call to repentance before the enemy's sword of verbiage.
    And princes strive who in the slaves of gray hair acquired.
    Let the darkness burst forth. Silence the Judas.
    God is not in power, but in truth.
    Truth in loyal hearts. "

    Zhanna Bichevskaya "All Russia has become the Kulikov field"
  27. Darkoff
    Darkoff 8 October 2015 15: 11 New
    +5
    since one UVZ will not do as much as the whole of Europe and America.

    If you set a goal and count, then FIG knows more. In fact, this is the only tank conveyor in the world!

    The cost of weapons is a very relative concept during the war. In Germany, workers were paid a salary, and my grandmother cooked armor for soldering bread. How can you compare the cost? So Armata in certain conditions can cost incomparably.

    Armata is a breakthrough and success. And it must be developed in any case. If he gets the proper development and begins to displace the T-72, then will it be bad? The T-72 is the most massive tank in the world and it once replaced ... T-55 T-34.
    Armata compared to the T-90, like the T-90 compared to the T-55 (figuratively speaking). We got to this somehow. They did not stand still.
    PS
    And the Patriotic War of 1812 was won on foot, but on horseback. And the Battle of the Ice in general with the help of the forces of nature and ingenuity.
  28. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 8 October 2015 15: 12 New
    +1
    Following the logic of author:
    If we go back to the times of WWII, we must remember that the penny value of the Faust cartridge destroyed the expensive tank. And now, anti-tank weapons have not just taken a step, a powerful leap forward.
    So maybe no tanks are needed at all? Focus solely on the production of anti-tank weapons? lol
    I can exaggerate even more, but I will not wink hi
  29. maxxdesign
    maxxdesign 8 October 2015 15: 14 New
    +2
    another "A-ah-ah-ah! everything is lost! we are all going to die !!!"

    I would also compare the production of KV-1 and "mouse" .. finally two pieces were produced, none of them reached the battlefield .... 1 mouse was fired upon by the Germans themselves at the firing range, the second also remained a prototype, in the end after the war, one of the two was collected, and now it stands in Kubinka
  30. Vladimir.
    Vladimir. 8 October 2015 15: 22 New
    +2
    "The defenders of" Armata "compare it with 8,5 million dollars, which costs the creation of the American M1A2 SEP" Abrams "tank. This is so. But as long as America is stronger in electronics, we should not even think about such high-tech tanks. The enemy is just waiting for Uralvagonzavod to rebuild its production lines for the production of "Armata". "

    Yeah, just waiting. Let's make it clear. The T-90 is a modernization of the T-72, which is a cheap version of the T-64, because the Petrovichi could not repair such technologically advanced tanks at that time.
    But in the 21st century, fighting on the descendants of the T-64 will no longer work. And do not forget that the Abrams is a very successful tank. Well, for ardent patriots I'm talking nonsense now, but let's not look at the world through " pink glasses".
    "Abrams" coped well with the T-72. And the T-90 is not a super-tank, but the modernization of the T-72, and the main problems have not been resolved. For example, the ammunition storage together with the crew. The real accuracy of the BPS remained at the level 1.6-2 km.

    The bottom line is that even the "Panthers" shot a bunch of T-34s before they were destroyed. And the veterans will never tell you: "We flew like cannon fodder in a tank with a set of suicide bombers from tanks and ammunition rack under the crew, on "Panther" without fear, for there are more of us. "
    If Germany had not cut off the supply of resources, then the ability to produce "Panthers" and "Tigers" in large numbers would be.

    Let's go back to the 21st century. In the 21st century, a normal state needs a tank that protects its crew, and not one that is built according to the concept of "a lot of cannon fodder."
    The concept of "Women are nagging" in the 21st century, in a country where the death rate exceeds the birth rate ... When the "Ivans" run out, we capitulate, because. I doubt that the officials will pick up machine guns and go to the front, or their sons from Europe will come to us to fight.

    Therefore, a new tank is vital for us. And 2000 Armat is not enough. Especially if the states make M1A3.
    "Armata" is not a novelty in the world of tank building. Tanks similar to it existed before it. For example, the same "Abrams" Blcok 3. But the USSR collapsed, new "wunderwaffe for the concept of an avalanche of tanks" was not foreseen. The USA is not us. their industry, electronics and economy are much better developed. If they need a new tank, they will make it. And definitely not 2000, but all 5000-10000, or even more.
    And there is no need to tell stories about the fact that UVZ can produce "Armata" in heaps. This is nonsense. Even with the reorganization of the plant, "Armata" will be produced no more than 50 per month, well, a maximum of 100, if everyone is on power engineering.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 8 October 2015 16: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir.
      And there is no need to tell stories about the fact that UVZ can produce "Armata" in heaps.

      UVZ is not one plant in Nizhny Tagil, but a CORPORATION of heavy engineering enterprises. It also includes other plants where it is possible to expand the production of both individual components and the assembly of tanks and other heavy armored vehicles.
      So nonsense is what you wrote about it.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 8 October 2015 16: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Vladimir.
      And there is no need to tell stories about the fact that UVZ can produce "Armata" in heaps. This is nonsense. Even with the reorganization of the plant, "Armata" will be produced no more than 50 per month, well, a maximum of 100, if everyone is on power engineering.


      Bullshit is what you wrote about it.
      Because UVZ is not one plant in Nizhny Tagil, but a CORPORATION of HEAVY ENGINEERING enterprises. And this means that the production of both individual components and the final assembly of machines can be carried out at other enterprises included in the UVZ corporation.
  31. Riv
    Riv 8 October 2015 15: 22 New
    0
    A mediocre article by an author who has outplayed WoT. "Aaaaaaa! Save the pamagite! Mouse doesn't pay off! 111" And I'll tell you this: you need to donate wisely.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 October 2015 15: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: Riv
      And I’ll tell you this: donate wisely.

    2. nizrum
      nizrum 8 October 2015 16: 48 New
      +3
      If you play wisely, donating is not necessary at all.
  32. beer-youk
    beer-youk 8 October 2015 15: 38 New
    0
    The first two lines were enough for me. "Scientific editor of the Ural Carriage Works" - what's this ?! That Uralvagonzavod is a pseudo-scientific journal, since there is an editor there ?!
    1. theodore rasp
      theodore rasp 8 October 2015 17: 07 New
      +1
      The explanation is simple - another couch academician who is not likely to find Nizhny Tagil on the map!
    2. uwzek
      uwzek 9 October 2015 00: 57 New
      0
      Quote: beer-youk
      What is the Uralvagonzavod near-scientific journal, since there is an editor there ?!

      First there is. At the press service. Where he sits: in Moscow or Tagil, I don't know. The author quoted the announcements of this gentleman to the book on the history of tank building, which describes the creation and production process of T-34 tanks in the corresponding years. published by UVZ. The same books are available about the entire production technique of the plant. It is clear that Mr. Ustyantsev never asserted the need to produce simpler machines instead of producing armatures (at least from belonging to UVZ). This is already the author "developed" the discussion of the merits of the T-34 on the current realities ...
  33. Evil 55
    Evil 55 8 October 2015 15: 40 New
    0
    A new, unified army base is needed .. This is a step forward .. But you shouldn’t forget about the release of the T-90 .. Not those times to rest on our laurels ...
  34. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 October 2015 15: 43 New
    +3
    YOKLMN! How many times have already been said: "Armata" will be made not to replace the previous models of tanks, but as a quality reinforcement tank. In short, everything is just like in the 40s: mass medium tanks T-34 / T-44 (now - MBT T-72 / T-90) in linear units, if necessary reinforced with heavy tanks KV / IS ("Armatami") from the ogvtpp / ogvtbr.
  35. HMR333
    HMR333 8 October 2015 15: 43 New
    +2
    this is not an article but a whining is not justified! not historical figures about losses and incredible stupidity to compare those tanks with the current ones I would still compare them with bows and arrows! Yes, and let the author ask a question on what he would like to fight if he had to on the T90 or on a newer more secure and generally better T14? but they will release and launch into the series as soon as they finish everything and as much as necessary! and now it’s not a great domestic and not the same technology where the quantity played a role now accuracy power security .... plays a role one tank can replace 2-3 completely! remember 90 then the same booze was what for we are new there are a bunch of old we’ll upgrade a bit and that's enough! but in the end, the tanks that are good and old only the weapons were better and in the armature the capsule deserves respect because the life of the crew is more expensive than iron and even the life of an experienced tanker who still goes into battle before the fears of death!
  36. sisa29
    sisa29 8 October 2015 15: 56 New
    +1
    Trying to say that the cost of armata is 7, 8 million is expensive, for some reason the author does not try to further understand what kind of money it is. And these are the salaries of several thousand employees of UVZ, the training of new specialists, the development of hundreds of related suppliers. This is a kind of investment in Russian industry. This is, in my opinion, the most important thing. I don’t think that someone will buy a yacht from each armata, but tens of thousands of people involved will work and live with the idea that they work for the good of the Motherland!
    1. Felix1
      Felix1 9 October 2015 00: 12 New
      -2
      Well then, let's buy 10 million, or 500 rubles each, good investment in agriculture, salaries and training for thousands of peasants. everything has its own price, no one should just feed anyone. Everyone must earn for themselves.
  37. A-Sim
    A-Sim 8 October 2015 16: 02 New
    +2
    how easy is it to provoke to blurt out "unnecessary" information by simple stuffing? See above.
  38. astronom1973n
    astronom1973n 8 October 2015 16: 07 New
    -1
    Hmm .. interesting, and the mobilization in which case will happen?
    Or can we handle this?
    We sit on a non-existent armature and drove!
    I mean, the "green whistle" is always unexpected, counting on it to whistle when super duper tanks appear, at least it's stupid!
    As the saying goes, the chicken in the nest, but the armata is invincible !! yes dear comrades, it still did not pass state tests (the parade does not count!)
    And it can happen in our native country that the armata will not look like armature! But about tanks their efficiency and quality can only be said by professional tankers! But my personal opinion is that the crew should be mastered by the crew as soon as possible during the war or a threatened period. Undoubtedly, the equipment must meet the realities of modern combat, but too abstruse, the mass mobilized reservist will not quickly master. Something like this.
  39. AlexTires
    AlexTires 8 October 2015 16: 07 New
    +3
    In my opinion, it is inappropriate to transfer the realities of the Second World War into the modern era. In an atmosphere of total mobilization in 1943 - 1944. for Germany and the USSR, indeed, every man-hour and kilogram of steel counts. In these conditions, the winning solution was the one that saved scarce resources. And tankers were, by and large, consumables. But now the situation is completely different. There is no total opposition of potentials, there is no race for every man-hour. Things like the relative combat effectiveness of tanks (regardless of price), crew survivability and other things that are of little importance from the point of view of World War II are gaining much greater importance. As for the "exorbitant price", this argument is not serious. If "extra" 60 billion dollars were found for the Olympics (this money can be used to produce about 10 thousand "Armata"), if 150 billion dollars are invested in US Treasury bonds (financing a potential opponent), then what can we say about the rest? Even if the tank costs not 10, but 100 million dollars a piece, finding funds for its production is a matter of goal-setting in the distribution of available resources, and nothing more.
  40. 2s1122
    2s1122 8 October 2015 16: 08 New
    +2
    I am not a specialist, but it was said that Armata is a mobile platform on which everything else will be installed. And if there is a single platform, then the T-14, Kurgan and so on, TP will go at a minus in cost. The T-90 also found it expensive and another, and now it’s just wah like we don’t have much in our troops. It’s always so shitty in the pants first and then take them off. am
  41. Sasha75
    Sasha75 8 October 2015 16: 10 New
    +3
    The author of the article, or only about two tanks, read something or even only heard something from someone. War is not only tanks, but also artillery, air infantry. Also very important, if not the main production base, or shells and fuels and lubricants from the air are taken. The Germans lost the war of engines. At 43 they already had a shortage of fuel and lubricants, and at the end of the war it simply did not exist. Our units captured airfields with serviceable airplanes, but if they had even a drop of fuel, even if they had leopards without fuel, this was just a good fixed target for everything. And if someone doesn’t remember, we had ISa against the tigers and something the Germans did not knowingly in orders in the exact instructions gave them not to engage in battle. Armata will be produced and what is there for fools to listen to the minus article.
  42. Garris199
    Garris199 8 October 2015 16: 24 New
    +4
    It's time to knock this Soviet psychology (its worst aspects) out of their heads with a hot iron. It's the 21st century, and many "experts" still think in terms of the Second World War. Ale! 70 years have passed! The most valuable thing about a tank is its crew. When will these common truths reach the insane "scoops"? The country was pissed away because of such an attitude towards people. Fuck you.
  43. Vedroid 5.0
    Vedroid 5.0 8 October 2015 16: 24 New
    +2
    T-90 has not gone anywhere.
  44. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 8 October 2015 16: 34 New
    0
    And who told the author that the old family of cars would quickly resign?

    There is such a thing as production planning. And before that, factory tests, landfill / military, state tests, adoption for service, trial operation in the army, and only then - mass production.

    So 72-cam and 90-th before the demobilization even as far as China on foot.
  45. Vladimir
    Vladimir 8 October 2015 16: 39 New
    +1
    This article will not stop the development of modern tanks and new weapons in general. As much as there is not enough money, work will be carried out in the field of weapons, so the time and geopolitical situation require it, therefore it is too early to grieve for the new tanks BE and BE AGAIN.
  46. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 8 October 2015 16: 40 New
    +1
    Leningrad T-80, Omsk T-90, Ural let Armata let out.
  47. lopvlad
    lopvlad 8 October 2015 16: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Vladimir.
    which there is a cheap version of the T-64, because the Petrovichi could not repair such technologically advanced tanks at that time.


    It’s not about Petrovichi, but about the impossibility of the USSR industry to mass-produce T-64 tanks. Simply, the designer, when developing the tank, did not rely on the catalog of products that the industry already produces, but every last nut came up with his own.

    Simply clever designers first find out whether the country's enterprises are able to quickly and inexpensively organize the production of "some kind of zagulina", but first they will draw, make a prototype by hand, and then it turns out that the industry is not able to arrange the production of parts for its home-made.

    "Abrams" is a very successful tank


    no one disputes that it’s successful. But successful for the 80s, and a man who fired shells instead of an automatic loader is not cool. The tank itself is heavy and clumsy. Abrams without any modifications is equivalent to the T-72 of those years and the last modification to our T-90.
  48. krot_tank
    krot_tank 8 October 2015 17: 01 New
    +3
    One gets the impression that a hypothetical tank should fight alone against everyone. A tank is an element of a "combined arms subunit" type system that has its own mission. The better one unit performs its task, the more stable the system as a whole.
    A modern tank is the answer to the modern requirements of combined arms combat - nothing more. T-34 and KV-1 - the answer to the inquiries of the concept of "Deep Operation" by Vladimir Kiriakovich Triandafillov.
    T-12, T-14, Boomerang, Coalition, etc. and most importantly, the filling is a response to the concept of hybrid wars with a "network-centric" control system of the armed forces and modern means of destruction. If the T-12 does converge with potential tanks of its generation, it will mean that aviation, artillery, anti-tank equipment and, most importantly, reconnaissance have not fulfilled their tasks. Even from the Second World War, it became clear that only anti-tank guided missiles (then later, ATGM missiles) are effectively fighting the tank. Therefore, protection from RPGs, ATGMs, controllability in the unit and situational awareness at the head of the Armata project. Fuck him a low profile if it is already visible in the IR and UV spectrum, and the rocket arrives from the side of the upper hemisphere. And "Abrek" with RPG-7V shot "Uralov" and "Abrams" more than they shot each other. The people do not consider people engaged in tank building for a decade more stupid than themselves. In this car, the soul of many designers and workers, she is the Child of her time. She just needs to be taught how to fight and cure childhood diseases (like any child).
    And if the adversaries are to blame, then the strong boy is growing!
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 October 2015 17: 13 New
    0
    The following data on the labor intensity of the production of T-34 and Panther are given: at the beginning of 1943, our tank made 17 thousand man-hours, and the German one - 150 thousand. It turns out that the “Panthers” of the “Panthers” released by all German enterprises in the 5500 – 1943 years corresponded roughly to the 1944 to the thousands of T-50.

    Again, compare the incomparable.
    At the beginning of 1943, the Panther was just crawling from the prototype stage to the serial production stage. In fact, in January-February, the serial production of the first serial modification of the Ausf. D1.
    And we compare this tank of the first series with all its jambs, frills and low-tech refinements with 3 years in the T-34-76 model arr. 1943. smile
    And most importantly, we are transferring the laboriousness of manufacturing the first series of the first modification of "Panthers" to all subsequent production models.