Military Review

Why did Russia send T-90A to Syria, and not budget-upgraded T-72B3?

162
Why did Russia send T-90A to Syria, and not budget-upgraded T-72B3?



The outgoing year 2015 was marked by the fact that the T-90A, the most modern tank in the arsenal of the Russian Army, was at war for the first time. Despite the fact that the terrorists have already managed to post on the web a rough-cooked Hollywood-style video with the "destruction" of such tank, seriously talking about how the T-90A shows itself in a hot spot, it is too early.



True, military experts have already noted the fact that T-90А went to war, and not budget-upgraded T-72B3, which continue to enter the troops from the time they were at the helm of the military department of the former leadership of the Ministry of Defense. Not surprising: the T-90A has a more powerful frontal armoring. The Shtora-1 optoelectronic suppression complex installed on the tank is capable of neutralizing the anti-tank missile systems available to the militants.

On T-72B3 "Curtains" no. And according to the characteristics of the protection, the B3 corresponds to the level, at best, of the second half of the 80's.



Tank officers who participated in the first Chechen war demanded that the tanks be equipped with closed machine gun installations, such as that of the T-90.

But officials in cozy offices did not understand how the tank commanders risk shooting from an openly installed large-caliber machine gun, forced during the battle to crawl out of the hatch under bullets and shrapnel.

On the T-90A installed a system of remote blasting "Ainet". The Vestnik of Mordovia has already talked about the principle of its work: the gunner-operator of the tank using a laser sight-rangefinder measures the distance to the target (the target may be calculations of ATGM, infantry in the trenches, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, frozen helicopters, etc.) Before firing, information about the distance to the target enters the electronic fuse, and when the projectile is in the right place, it is undermined in the air. If we compare the effectiveness of the use with a conventional high-explosive fragmentation projectile (OFS), then Ainet increases it threefold. Firing range - more than 4 km.



In addition to the use of conventional OFS, in which the old fuse is replaced with a new one, it is possible to use ammunition with ready striking elements. Then the effectiveness of the application increases even more. Unfortunately, on “Aynete” on T-72B3 also saved.

As a result, a paradoxical picture emerged: the army continues, by inertia, a machine that, by most characteristics, is significantly inferior not only to the newest Korean and Chinese tanks, but even to the Polish Leopard-2-X5. T-90, in its latest versions, with a number of modified systems and air conditioners are now being exported, including our neighbors.



As for the T-90A in Syria, we already wrote that the combat vehicles operating there urgently need additional measures to protect the side projection and the stern, as a result, the effectiveness of such tanks will further increase. Let's not wait for unjustified losses.
Author:
Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-14448.htm
162 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kamski
    kamski 13 December 2015 05: 16 New
    35
    It’s time it’s time to make boards not of rubber that flies off from everything you’ll rub, but to look at least at the Germans how it is implemented there. And then the gypsy turns everywhere rags weigh dangling
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 13 December 2015 06: 04 New
      44
      Uh-huh.
      But this is not the main issue.
      The main question is:
      - Where is KAZ ???
      (on equipment sent to places of active hostilities)
      1. Afotin
        Afotin 13 December 2015 06: 16 New
        +9
        All KAZ are secret products in one way or another.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 13 December 2015 06: 21 New
          18
          KR X-101 is also a secret product, like Caliber.
          But this is not a reason not to use them!
          1. midivan
            midivan 13 December 2015 07: 07 New
            34
            I dare to assume that the x-101 or caliber is much more difficult for the enemy to intercept and disassemble for research, unlike the tank with its KAZ, so the defense industry boldly shoots missiles and KAZ saves for a more important case smile
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 14 December 2015 03: 28 New
              +4
              Ash-root! But, actually, you could send an “Arena” to Syria, and “Afganit” to save “for yourself.”
              1. crazyrom
                crazyrom 14 December 2015 05: 26 New
                21
                The answer to the question of the article: you need to check new weapons in battle, run in.

                Oh yeah, another small detail: the T-72 is less protected and cheaper, it is designed for the masses, tank wedges for Europe. If a few percent die - sorry, but statistics. And in Syria, each loss of a single tank will be sucked in for a long time by the world's media, so the coolest were sent there, having more chances to remain intact, more protected by T-90.
            2. goose
              goose 14 December 2015 10: 43 New
              +6
              KAZ is dangerous for the infantry, and battles mainly take place in the city, in close interaction with it.
            3. Conductor
              Conductor 15 December 2015 11: 32 New
              -16
              As a result, a paradoxical picture emerged: a machine continues to enter the troops by inertia, which in most characteristics is significantly inferior not only to the latest Korean, Chinese tanks, but even to the Polish Leopard-2A5

              "Not having analogues in the world" T-90 inferior EVEN 2A5? even... laughing Well, besides, probably German, because to Poland they are not in a “stripped down” version, with all the necessary equipment
              1. Vlad5307
                Vlad5307 15 December 2015 20: 54 New
                +3
                You are very inattentive - in this case we were talking about T72B3! repeat
          2. demo
            demo 13 December 2015 08: 27 New
            +3
            YOU also remember about "Satan".
            1. dima mzk
              dima mzk 14 December 2015 01: 54 New
              +1
              and what do you remember? it is already modified is quiet, + old storage
          3. Sharapov
            Sharapov 13 December 2015 08: 27 New
            37
            On T-90, Arabs will fight against Arabs. Where is the guarantee that a couple of tanks will not leave on their own in ISIS? After all, there was already a sea of ​​cases.
            1. Felix2
              Felix2 13 December 2015 09: 44 New
              13
              then why give 90 if without KAZ? It’s cheaper then 72ki.
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 December 2015 10: 25 New
                17
                Cheaper than the T-55 which, with DZ, showed themselves well in Syria. And about the horror, they are also modernizing the Lviv BTRz
                1. n.kolesnichenko
                  n.kolesnichenko 13 December 2015 13: 47 New
                  13
                  It’s even cheaper to send carts, can we send them? There is a concept: price-quality ratio --- that's what they come from !!!
            2. Xxxl
              Xxxl 13 December 2015 10: 36 New
              +9
              On T-90, Arabs will fight against Arabs. Where is the guarantee that a couple of tanks will not leave on their own in ISIS? After all, there was already a sea of ​​cases.

              They say that our tankers are for the protection of Russian targets in Syria. It’s already worth a battery of howitzers.
            3. dyksi
              dyksi 13 December 2015 12: 01 New
              30
              The most expensive in the tank is the crew (especially experienced), in Syria they are already worth their weight in gold, as they suffered very large losses, they are much more expensive than all these KAZs.
              1. Lord of Wrath
                Lord of Wrath 13 December 2015 22: 55 New
                -6
                IMHO a big PR error to send tanks to Syria.
                As a tank, do not protect, do not reserve, all the same there will be losses.
                And every photo of a burned tank is an anti-advertisement
                1. gleb0606
                  gleb0606 1 January 2016 03: 13 New
                  0
                  Quote: Lord of Wrath
                  IMHO a big PR error to send tanks to Syria.
                  As a tank, do not protect, do not reserve, all the same there will be losses.
                  And every photo of a burned tank is an anti-advertisement

                  It’s not a matter of PR, but of running-in equipment in conditions of real combat operations, so that “If tomorrow is a war, if tomorrow is a campaign”, “be ready for a campaign today”
            4. prosto_rgb
              prosto_rgb 13 December 2015 18: 11 New
              -7
              Quote: Sharapov
              On T-90, Arabs will fight against Arabs. Where is the guarantee that a couple of tanks will not leave on their own in ISIS? After all, there was already a sea of ​​cases.

              Even if they leave.
              What's next?
              Continue the thought logically.
              A pair of T-90 tanks from KAZ "left" to the "bearded" ...
              And then what?
              1. kapitan92
                kapitan92 14 December 2015 11: 21 New
                +7
                What next! Further to the Saudis, and further to am. Great "material" for testing the means of destruction of the latest modifications of Russian tanks.
            5. Pissarro
              Pissarro 13 December 2015 19: 29 New
              16
              put a crew of Alawites or Christians and they will soon blow up the tank with you, than they will leave for ISIS. There were no cases when the non-Sunni part of the army moved to the side of ISIS, because there immediately
          4. kush62
            kush62 13 December 2015 08: 58 New
            +8
            prosto_rgb (1) Today, 06:21 ↑ New
            KR X-101 is also a secret product, like Caliber.
            But this is not a reason not to use them!

            How can you reassemble these missiles into a whole after use, by fragments?
            1. n.kolesnichenko
              n.kolesnichenko 13 December 2015 13: 54 New
              +4
              Sometimes rockets fall before reaching the target. Gulf War (1991) - For the entire duration of the operation, according to the "Comprehensive Report on the Air Force in the Gulf War" (orig. - "Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report"), 297 missiles were fired, 282 of which successfully hit targets, 6 missiles failed immediately after launch and 9 missiles did not launch due to failure reasons on board the Kyrgyz Republic.
              1. midivan
                midivan 13 December 2015 18: 47 New
                +6
                then, under Yeltsin, even birds fell, now another thing smile and I think on calibers and x-101 it is provided that they don’t fall into the wrong hands, I don’t think it’s difficult
              2. goose
                goose 14 December 2015 10: 57 New
                +7
                Quote: n.kolesnichenko
                Sometimes rockets fall before reaching the target. Gulf War (1991) - For the entire duration of the operation, according to the "Comprehensive Report on the Air Force in the Gulf War" (orig. - "Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report"), 297 missiles were fired, 282 of which successfully hit targets, 6 missiles failed immediately after launch and 9 missiles did not launch due to failure reasons on board the Kyrgyz Republic.

                This is bullshit, not information, see how many tomahawks were shot down with the help of the Shiloks set at the navigation points. Iraqis quickly realized visually that there are few landmarks in the desert, and to which landmarks the routes of the Kyrgyz Republic are tied. After that they rearranged anti-aircraft guns to these points. At least 9 missiles were shot down only by 1 (!) Installation. And you give statistics that of the released 297 missiles, only 17 did not reach. 11 missiles were reliably lost on the coastline, also from ZAK fire, according to Iraqi statistics, of course, much more. This is already a minimum of 20. The Iraqis had about 9000 similar installations at that time. In total, along only the highway that led to Baghdad, over which rockets flew, about 200 installations were deployed from the first day of the war. Near the navigational points, over which the corners were made, there were 4-5 installations. And you want to say that they did not bring down anything?
                In addition, there were cases of collisions of missiles with obstacles, at least 3 such cases with witnesses.
                Your statistics say ONLY about the number of rockets fired that took off. And nothing about hitting and destroying targets.
              3. goose
                goose 14 December 2015 11: 08 New
                +2
                Aviation statistics are also very controversial http://4ygeca.com/bvp.html
          5. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 14 December 2015 03: 24 New
            +2
            For KAZ, there is a greater probability of capture by the enemy ....
          6. 717
            717 14 December 2015 08: 10 New
            +3
            Yes, but the caliber is not allowed to rotate in the "someone else's hands."
          7. DenZ
            DenZ 14 December 2015 09: 17 New
            0
            And what is the likelihood that the X-101 or Caliber can fall into the hands of the enemy, unlike KAZ on the tank?
        2. Patton5
          Patton5 13 December 2015 08: 42 New
          +1
          There is "ARENA-E" which is actively offered for export!
          All KAZ are secret products in one way or another.
          this is not entirely accurate. Here the matter is different, or in the great Russian maybe! Either conclusions will be made after exploitation in combat
          1. 717
            717 14 December 2015 08: 13 New
            0
            Arena E-export option.
        3. Kars
          Kars 13 December 2015 10: 24 New
          +9
          This doesn’t bother the Jews with Trophy. And they didn’t drag an arena to any exhibitions. Yes, and whose spies in the Russian Federation just a couple of years ago they worked.
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket 13 December 2015 15: 15 New
            15
            Quote: Kars
            Jews with Trophy does not bother

            The Jews of KAZ Trophy also have a maximum of 700 tanks and armored personnel carriers out of more than 8000 such vehicles located in the troops, and often their tanks, like armored personnel carriers, go into battle without them. But for example, the United States and Germany, France, England, although they have repeatedly participated in various conflicts, have no serial KAZ at all.
            And Kars as an experienced model-designer and assembler-glueer of various model tanks and other armored vehicles tell me this on one scale?
            Merkava Towers, Leopard, T-90.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 December 2015 16: 18 New
              14
              Quote: quilted jacket
              Merkava Towers, Leopard, T-90.

              I wouldn’t get it.
              one scale - just look at the gun’s barrel.
              Quote: quilted jacket
              The Jews of KAZ Trophy also have a maximum on 700 tanks and BT

              here .. also .. it is not appropriate. but in Syria for testing in combat conditions it would be possible to send tanks from the kaz.
              1. padded jacket
                padded jacket 13 December 2015 21: 48 New
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                I wouldn’t get it.

                That's why I signed lol
                Quote: Kars
                but it’s not appropriate. But in Syria for testing in combat conditions it would be possible to send tanks from the kaz.

                Everything is possible, however, the United States fought in the same Iraq without KAZ, and now the KAZ is rare and despite all the attempts of Israel to advertise its allegedly great efficiency, no one is buying it despite the fact that not stupid people are engaged in the procurement of various weapons.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 13 December 2015 22: 07 New
                  +1
                  Quote: quilted jacket
                  Everything is possible, however, the USA fought in the same Iraq without KAZ

                  We compared the number of US troops involved in Iraq and the fact that the Russian Federation is in Syria. And then the Abrams suffered decent losses when the retention of the territory began, in Syria everything is much worse.
                  Quote: quilted jacket
                  no one buys it despite the fact that not stupid people are engaged in the procurement of various weapons.

                  The rich countries try to do it themselves. Moreover, Trophy has its own problems. And the poor simply cannot afford it. Well, and as usual, the military’s inertia.
                  Quote: quilted jacket
                  That's why I signed

                  Still modifications would be indicated.
                  1. padded jacket
                    padded jacket 13 December 2015 23: 06 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    And then the Abrams suffered decent losses when the retention of the territory began, in Syria everything was much worse.

                    This does not at all negate the fact that even such a rich state as the United States did not (and still does not) install KAZ on its tanks, although it could purchase it from Israel.
                    Quote: Kars
                    Rich countries are trying to do it themselves.

                    Perhaps they are trying, but still do not pose, although they participate in conflicts.
                    Hence the question - that the USA, Germany, France, England do not take care of their soldiers or do they have such stupid designers who cannot create KAZ in their design bureau?
                    Quote: Kars
                    Still modifications would indicate

                    Don’t be offended, I just wrote for everyone who knows how many pros like you are.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 13 December 2015 23: 22 New
                      +3
                      Quote: quilted jacket
                      This does not completely cancel the fact that even such a rich state as the United States has not installed (and still does not) on its tanks

                      They made several attempts. They have a good set of optical suppression.
                      Quote: quilted jacket
                      KAZ though it could buy on their tanks from Israel.

                      And what year did the Trophy adopt, and allow export?
                      Quote: quilted jacket
                      they have such stupid designers who cannot create KAZ in KB?

                      There are many factors. But you will not deny that Israel is constantly fighting, and the same England turned off the production of tanks. German and French tanks almost did not participate in the battles and did not suffer losses (the Eclairs seemed to go, but not enough) And the fact that someone didn’t does, does not oblige the same to do the Russian Federation.
                      South Korea is going to bet on the Black Panther.
                      Quote: quilted jacket
                      Don't be offended

                      We drove through.
            2. pesny2006
              pesny2006 14 December 2015 08: 16 New
              +1
              Not quite so. We have a 125 mm gun, while the Germans have 120 and our gun is longer than a leopard.
              1. Kars
                Kars 14 December 2015 11: 14 New
                +2
                Quote: pesny2006
                We have a gun 125 mm, and the Germans 120

                And you think in the 35 or 72 scale that you can visually see in the photo? But the difference in the thickness of the gun between the 72 and 35 scales will be striking.
        4. shans2
          shans2 13 December 2015 14: 34 New
          +1
          the arena is exporting itself, it saves from RPGs and ATGMs
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. remy
          remy 3 January 2016 17: 23 New
          0
          T-72B3 is certainly good though
          T-90A is even better
          but it would be even better to quickly T-14
      2. Forest
        Forest 13 December 2015 11: 26 New
        +3
        There is no T-90, KAZ, no. And in no way can Afganit from T-14 put on the 90 tick.
      3. rubidiy
        rubidiy 13 December 2015 15: 06 New
        +2
        where-where ... in stock. KAZ is an expensive pleasure. It’s cheaper to send soldiers to death. Do not think that our army is so infallible. Here is an example in Syria. Take a look. One regiment and he does not really want to provide. Let the SU24 get shot down. We have a lot of them. Yes, and they are out of date ... Why think that they will definitely try to bring them down on the border with Turkey? Why spend money on escorts? Why hang air-to-air missiles on a su34? All this is expensive. That's when they bring down, then we hang. And even then only to the camera in front of reporters, who even can’t distinguish between models of aircraft and the types of ammunition installed on them.
        Why send new tanks to Syria, look at their shortcomings, and refine? Send there a tank from the 90s, whose protection systems have already been abandoned. Why stop the pseudo-modernization of the T72? Grandmas sawn. All in a bunch.
        If even now it’s not clear, then I’ll hint: “The British do not clean their guns with bricks.”
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 13 December 2015 18: 07 New
          +5
          For good, the T-72 modification should include:
          1) More powerful engine
          2) Dynamic Relic Protection
          3) KAZ "Afghanit"
          4) Modern tank combat information management system
          5) Modern optical systems
          6) Lattice around the perimeter of the tank
    2. vandarus
      vandarus 14 December 2015 14: 06 New
      +1
      On-board screens made of rubber on which DZ is mounted is the optimal solution because when maneuvering, the mechanic strips off everything that hangs badly from the tank. On the narrow city streets amid the rubble, the tank runs the risk of being left without side screens at all. Do you know where the AZ conveyor is? Side screens made of rubber tend to return to their original position upon deformation.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 14 December 2015 15: 04 New
        0
        The secret is that the T-90s are sent to the Arabs. From the point of view of the generals, it is not a pity for dear friends, not even the T-90. And the Russians ... They’ll have enough of seventy-two. Women still give birth.
        1. iouris
          iouris 14 December 2015 22: 54 New
          0
          After the start of the operation, the Russian Federation is fighting in Syria, and the T-72 will be destroyed with the help of TOW.
        2. AlexG83
          AlexG83 15 December 2015 17: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: Basarev
          The secret is that the T-90s are sent to the Arabs. From the point of view of the generals, it is not a pity for dear friends, not even the T-90. And the Russians ... They’ll have enough of seventy-two. Women still give birth.


          Is it trolling or is it really air in your head? Armature for whom do?
          It’s not rational to make an obsolete T-90 for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation when a tank is approaching in all respects superior in all respects. Thanks to sales of the T-90 over the hill, UVZ has the money to develop equipment on the new platform.
  2. Afotin
    Afotin 13 December 2015 05: 23 New
    +2
    The entire T-90 family at one time was developed with an eye on export. Plus, the T-72B3 may also be a budget option, but since it was made for its own, it included a number of secret components, the falling of which into the hands of our sworn friends would be extremely undesirable.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 December 2015 07: 05 New
      26
      Sworn friends already have everything, thanks to the fraternal people.
      1. Mitek
        Mitek 13 December 2015 07: 29 New
        27
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Sworn friends already have everything, thanks to the fraternal people.

        these people sold only what the USSR had. but we still moved further.
      2. Kars
        Kars 13 December 2015 10: 26 New
        +8
        Thrush and something else old. The arena was not on the territory.
  3. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 13 December 2015 05: 33 New
    15
    It seems that the most advanced weapons are exported, and the army purchases on a residual basis (for which there is enough money). It is very dangerous.
    1. Afotin
      Afotin 13 December 2015 06: 12 New
      17
      T-90A is already quite an old modification, the performance characteristics of which have long been known to all interested parties. Indeed, no country in the world exports the most advanced weapons and military equipment.
      1. mvg
        mvg 13 December 2015 18: 52 New
        +3
        what the pre? Leopard-2A7 Arapam, F-15SA .. Americans can only dream of such a modification. Needle ..
        for your money - any whim
    2. midivan
      midivan 13 December 2015 07: 12 New
      13
      what But what did they fill Syria with Armata? Maybe they sell the T-90 in order to give life to Armata, anyway, you need money, 72 few people can boil IMHO
      1. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 13 December 2015 10: 28 New
        -14
        Yes, where does the “Armata” sell exclusively for profits and cuts. Not everyone from the tube has a pacifier. And in your army, all that is no longer needed is out of date ... The State Department’s social order is sacred to our home-grown liberals. So "Uralvagonzavod" stepped on a slippery path.
        1. Azitral
          Azitral 13 December 2015 13: 10 New
          +5
          Maybe - enough already about the "State Department"? You do not know and cannot know, so all this is your speculation. Insinuations, and not offensive. "Run! The generals betrayed us !!!)
        2. midivan
          midivan 13 December 2015 18: 56 New
          +7
          for some reason, everyone loves to talk about cuts, but few people pay attention to new boats, equipment and plants, where does it all come from? and anticipating the question that I saw all this on kissel tv, I’ll say yes on TV, let’s kissel, but new equipment or restored, modernized is born, and this requires money and not small
        3. Pissarro
          Pissarro 13 December 2015 19: 34 New
          +9
          you heresy write, what a profit from the current Syria can be fucked? Syria’s weapons will not pay for these mountains in a hundred years, everyone understands that this is free support for a key ally in the region
          1. kapitan92
            kapitan92 14 December 2015 11: 46 New
            +8
            Geopolitics! Syria is gas and oil! Syria is the shortest energy delivery routes from Qatar and Saud. Ar. to Europe. Syria is the last two bases of the Russian Navy and Air Force in that region. It is possible and further.
          2. iouris
            iouris 14 December 2015 22: 57 New
            0
            If the commander is wrong, see Art. 1!
        4. hawk
          hawk 13 December 2015 22: 39 New
          +4
          The army is different. Special forces trained and ready for anything. A mass meeting, which is also suitable for unmanned military equipment. And the state defense order is needed for a shorter period of ensuring supplies to the army.
          To do less, longer, spending time retraining ... now we can not afford.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. slaw14
        slaw14 13 December 2015 11: 52 New
        +8
        And where did you get the idea that the T-90 is being sold there, the article says about shipping.
    3. Xxxl
      Xxxl 13 December 2015 10: 37 New
      0
      He who pays money dances.
    4. Forest
      Forest 13 December 2015 11: 31 New
      +5
      To buy yourself, you need money, and only the United States makes money from the air, and even then it is not infinite. Here you are either with obsolete equipment (T-90) without outdated (T-72), but with no prospect in the next fifty years for new equipment (T-14), or you will get new equipment diluted with outdated as soon as possible, but better than nothing.
      1. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 13 December 2015 12: 52 New
        +1
        T-14 is a very complex technique, you can’t put a conscript on it. So, without "workhorses" in any way. As for money, ... holy naivety to all those who believe in their intended use. Please strain your head and remove the pink glasses.
        1. Forest
          Forest 13 December 2015 13: 02 New
          +4
          The army is moving on a contract basis. And to buy a tank that is more expensive than a more advanced model to the detriment of the production of the latter is generally from a series of nonsense. And without money, I wonder how parts of the equipment will be procured; do workers need to give salaries to stabilizers and DZ? Even the Soviet Union spent money during the Second World War, not to mention our capitalist economy. Still, I advise you to think about where it comes from and where the legs from the production of equipment come from.
        2. Xxxl
          Xxxl 13 December 2015 13: 16 New
          +5
          Quote: Evgeniy667b
          T-14 is a very complex technique, you can’t put a conscript on it.

          Our statesmen think the same: some stupid people leave schools.
          What is so complicated about this technique? If the electronics and automation are solid there, they won’t be able to press the necessary buttons? They will not repair it in the field. I think such a tank will be restored only by a team of specialists and not under the open sky.
          1. Forest
            Forest 13 December 2015 13: 36 New
            +8
            For some, AK is a tricky thing. There are geniuses who bend the trunk, clog the gas chamber with rubble. At one of the forums, one of such clever men wrote that AK-74m began to make bad butts - he wanted to open the jammed APC hatch with the butt, but the polyamide could not stand it, what a trouble, sadness.
            1. Evgeniy667b
              Evgeniy667b 13 December 2015 14: 19 New
              +5
              There are all sorts of geniuses, I do not argue. However, I saw information that the T-14 crews would be recruited exclusively from contractors. This tank cannot be massive for a long time, i.e. workhorses needed. Not soon will his "childhood illnesses" end. For example, they will arm the brigade and they will run in, modify. How long will it take? And the adversary is already knocking at the gate, there is no time to relax! (T-34 probably only brought to mind by the year 43). You can, of course, remove my native T-62 from conservation, but it’s like an ancient old man. The T-90 is still better than the 72B3, and all of them are in India, the Arabs, and for themselves, figs with oil
              1. Forest
                Forest 13 December 2015 14: 43 New
                +7
                So if you don’t sell anything, you won’t get anything for yourself, but donate 20% of the US global arms market so that their defense develops, but ours so that it falls apart and there is no possibility for a normal improvement of technology. In order to purchase T-90, it is necessary to completely stop the production of any other equipment and completely close the Armata program. So a couple of thousand T-72B3s with improved mobility and firepower in sufficient quantities plus T-14 on the way are better than several hundred T-90СМ at the price of T-14 + Т-72Б3 without the prospect of modernization. And the army is already for the most part contractual. Only recently in the MO at the meeting it was announced that at 2015 we have 352 thousand contract soldiers and 297 thousand recruits.
                1. Evgeniy667b
                  Evgeniy667b 13 December 2015 15: 05 New
                  +1
                  All the 90s in Russia only did what they sold, but nothing to themselves. Even until 2010, while Shoigu did not become Minister of Defense. So, here it is another matter. And the technique was cut to please the Americans. Well, the navies and the air forces are guilty of this. 18 submarines were built with my modest participation. They served only 20 years, and the project "Fin", "Lira", the 641st put the staff on their ears. Therefore, they did everything to remove them from sight. All equipment is financed from the budget, based on collected taxes. But there for every ruble you need to report. And still manage to steal. If it depended on exports, then the queue in the personnel department stood at the same UVZ. But this is not. People are kept on a leash and nothing more. It’s just that export money is easier to hide and cut, because it is not included in the budget. Like a "leftist" in a truck driver. For an experienced accountant, this is not a question. But kickbacks, everything is as it should.
                  1. Phantom Revolution
                    Phantom Revolution 13 December 2015 17: 47 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Evgeniy667b
                    All 90s in Russia only did what they sold, but nothing to themselves. Even until the 2010 year, until Shoigu became the Minister of Defense.

                    Due to the factories sold, factories survived and personnel remained. And the 90s almost did not allocate money for the defense industry for "special" reasons, friendship with the United States and the situation in Ukraine.
                    1. Evgeniy667b
                      Evgeniy667b 13 December 2015 18: 05 New
                      -4
                      Q.E.D! Cash flows were passing by. And the appetite comes with eating. So that purely selfish interests. It’s just now that it has begun to reach — if nothing is done, there is nothing good to wait for.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. mvg
                    mvg 13 December 2015 19: 01 New
                    0
                    Plyat - ZODOTAYA Lyra (even for the budget of the USSR), and 641, when the boat was made for rockets, and not vice versa .. The staff are still on the ears. And quietly neigh like horses ..
                    You do not put yourself too modestly?
                    1. Evgeniy667b
                      Evgeniy667b 14 December 2015 05: 56 New
                      0
                      And why, then, quietly neighing staff members allocated money to cut three Sharks ??? And they know the expense of money. Sly! After all, Dmitry Donskoy was re-equipped under the Mace. Even if not all the mines. Lyra had shortcomings, but the idea was correct. Instead of finalizing the project, under pressure from the US it was quietly curtailed, as was the fin too. They did not have and do not have submarines that operate at 1000m and capable of firing from 800! Can you really say that this is populism, the pursuit of records? Or maybe survival and task completion, first of all?
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 14 December 2015 12: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Evgeniy667b
                        And why, then, quietly neighing staff members allocated money to cut three Sharks ??? And they know the expense of money. Sly! After all, Dmitry Donskoy was re-equipped under the Mace. Even if not all the mines.

                        One mine. For experimental launches with short-term access to the sea - and not for combat duty.
                        If you re-equip all 941 under the "Mace", then you can forget about the new SSBNs. Moreover, taking into account the years of laying the "sharks", even after modernization, they still have to go on duty for 7-10 years.
                        The result is sad: in case of modernization of pr. 941, we will spend money on excessively huge and slow-moving ships with a short service life. In addition, by the time they are written off, the dates for 667BDR / BDRM will also be suitable. And the terms of construction and commissioning of the 955 project will be shifted by 5 years - due to the fact that Severodvinsk will be busy with modernization of pr. 941.
                        And it turns out that when choosing the option with the modernization of 941 projects, the fleet will ultimately remain with new raw and buggy 955 / 955A, which it will not have time to properly master, and the industry will not have time to take into account comments on their operation. And there will be no “pillows” in the form of 667BDRM.
                  4. Forest
                    Forest 13 December 2015 20: 03 New
                    +6
                    If everything went to the left somewhere, then Russia would no longer exist. More precisely, there was one time, but too quickly merged from the level of a superpower to the disaster of the 98 year. In general, while nothing is being sold or bought, the development of the military-industrial complex is slowing down (well, or it doesn’t interact, ala MiG Belenko, captured by Saber in Korea, etc.). For example, China, which until the 90’s had been riveting regular parodies of the T-54, once purchased in the USSR, while the T-72 and others like them got a carbon copy. A little later they climbed Leo, and now release the T-72, patched up under Leo.
              2. svd-xnumx
                svd-xnumx 13 December 2015 20: 14 New
                +2
                However, I saw information that the T-14 crews would be recruited exclusively from contractors. This tank cannot be massive for a long time, i.e. workhorses needed. Not soon will his "childhood illnesses" end. For example, they will arm the brigade and they will run in, modify. How long will it take? And the adversary is already knocking at the gate, there is no time to relax! (T-34 probably only brought to mind by the year 43). You can, of course, remove my native T-62 from conservation, but it’s like an ancient old man. The T-90 is still better than the 72B3, and all of them are in India, the Arabs, and for themselves, figs with oil
                Something recently about Zvezda about state tests of the 7-90CM they say, probably the Moscow Region still decided to buy the party.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Xxxl
              Xxxl 13 December 2015 15: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Forest
              For some, AK is a tricky thing. There are geniuses who bend the trunk, clog the gas chamber with rubble.

              I think that all the same, “three classes two corridors” is an extreme case. laughing You do not need all "one size fits all."
          2. iouris
            iouris 14 December 2015 22: 59 New
            0
            T-14 is made for a fool. The trouble is if it was created by fools.
        3. would
          would 13 December 2015 23: 02 New
          0
          T-14 is a very complex technique, you can’t put a draftee on it


          It has been said more than once that in control and use due to robotics and modern electronics the T-14 is easier than the same T72 which is controlled by the same conscripts. We got to the point that now the computer itself most accurately determines the malfunction, in a female voice tells the crew what and where to do it.

          But the repair itself has become more difficult, but this is not the crew, and certainly not in the open.

          But we generally have a widespread opinion that all fighters are quite down and down Australopithecus. It is worth them to look at something and it immediately breaks down ... only it is not clear why they are generally accepted as fit for military service? And why, for example, do they buy vacuum cleaners in the barracks if they don’t have their conscripts and they will be stored like the apple of an eye for almost the entire service life?
          1. Evgeniy667b
            Evgeniy667b 14 December 2015 06: 06 New
            -2
            And how do you imagine the evacuation of damaged Armata, and even to the repair plant in combat conditions? To agree with the enemy first? He is clearly not interested in this.
            1. would
              would 14 December 2015 10: 54 New
              +2
              I can’t imagine, but this process is very described and required for any technique. How do you imagine repairing any equipment on the battlefield under enemy fire? Then the crew would have to carry their feet.

              Yes, even at the factory in combat conditions


              If required, the equipment is sent to the factory, and this also applies to the T72 and any other equipment. In case of less significant damage, repairs are carried out at the location / field where the necessary capacities and personnel are deployed.

              In general, I am amazed by people who think that at least some equipment does not need to be evacuated on the battlefield after incapacitation, but can be repaired in the event of damage of any complexity with the help of such a mother and crew, under the help of such mothers and crews.
          2. iouris
            iouris 17 December 2015 14: 45 New
            0
            These things were introduced in aviation for a very long time and also at first caused a nervous reaction. Information about failures in a female voice against the background of radio exchange is not lost, and digital automation does not require adjustment. Repair of combat damage should be carried out by special units, and not just the crew.
    5. Patton5
      Patton5 13 December 2015 16: 43 New
      0
      It is very dangerous
      For whom is it dangerous? For those who make decisions? I think in these "modern" tanks do not burn IMHO ...
    6. iouris
      iouris 14 December 2015 22: 56 New
      +1
      It is one thing when deliveries go to the Gulf countries, it is quite another when the Syrians are in this particular situation.
    7. Nirvanko
      Nirvanko 5 January 2016 12: 40 New
      0
      In this case, the war is in Syria and not in Russia. Therefore, the best weapons should go there. In my opinion this is logical. Or do you think that if it comes to tank battles in Russia? Well then, what about nuclear weapons then?
  4. dFG
    dFG 13 December 2015 06: 40 New
    12
    I believe that deliveries to the RF Armed Forces T-72B3 are a crime against the country ... I propose the chief designer who approved this modification and the military representative who put her in the troops to be put into these tanks and sent to Syria, so that they are responsible for the "quality" of products by personal example.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 December 2015 07: 06 New
      +9
      Well, well, they won’t crawl into the hatches, experience and experience will not allow
      1. hawk
        hawk 13 December 2015 22: 43 New
        0
        Yes, and "authority" does not crawl ...
      2. Zefr
        Zefr 14 December 2015 22: 44 New
        0
        Hatches cut, put the crew and brew.
    2. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 13 December 2015 19: 44 New
      +2
      the designers piled what they were ordered. The budget for modernization was allocated, the performance characteristics were adjusted for it and the equipment was more or less acceptable (+ part of the dough was cut for cutting, but how could it be). As a result, they ordered something and received it, but it seems like asking no one ...
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 December 2015 20: 29 New
      +4
      Quote: dfg
      ... I propose the chief designer who approved this modification and the military representative who let her in the troops ....

      What about the designer? they developed a lot of things and offer them to the troops. The same T-72 "Slingshot" and now is better than the T-72B3 - and so what? Chooses what to buy in the troops of the Moscow Region. As often happens, choose the most budget option.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 December 2015 13: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: dfg
      I believe that deliveries to the RF Armed Forces T-72B3 are a crime against the country ... I propose the chief designer who approved this modification and the military representative who put her in the troops to be put into these tanks and sent to Syria, so that they are responsible for the "quality" of products by personal example.

      And I propose to put those who oppose the T-72B3, for the levers of the T-72A / B. Or the "bald" T-62 42 msd. Or T-55AM 18 pool. Release 30-50 years ago. And send them to Syria too. Because it was precisely these models of tanks that were most common in 2008 in the BTV of the Russian Federation that he had to replace.

      When developing the T-72B3, the main requirement was to create a massive cheap tank for the emergency replacement of obsolete and physically worn out tanks, which comprised 80-85% of the Russian armored vehicles fleet. It was not up to the fat: when they decided on T-72B3, the army received 65 new tanks a year. And it was necessary to replace about 2000 cars. And replace urgently - otherwise the tank units would turn into a bunch tank corps commanders.
    5. Nirvanko
      Nirvanko 5 January 2016 12: 42 New
      0
      Do you offer to take and cut all having T-72 tanks instead of upgrading them? Or do you think that foreign customers are so stupid that they want to buy a T-72 - albeit a modified one - instead of a T-90?
  5. gla172
    gla172 13 December 2015 07: 16 New
    +2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OiB0GQ7BoY
    1. Dryuya2
      Dryuya2 13 December 2015 10: 01 New
      15
      Quote: gla172
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OiB0GQ7BoY

      1. gla172
        gla172 13 December 2015 11: 07 New
        +2
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4EFRFJLZvY

        This is a continuation of the topic.
      2. Proud.
        Proud. 13 December 2015 12: 52 New
        13
        Quote: Dryuya2
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4EFRFJLZvY

        Ardent greetings to the shaitans from T-72:
      3. midivan
        midivan 13 December 2015 19: 07 New
        +4
        little things are not decisive, they decide everything! haven't you taken into account and corrected all the time? it's a shame like that sad
      4. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 December 2015 20: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Dryuya2
        Quote: gla172
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OiB0GQ7BoY


        Perhaps I do not agree with the opinion of the Syrian tanker about the more powerful mounting of the side screens. The tank has 840 horses and for 40 tons of weight. What will happen if the side screens have a powerful mount, and the tank hooks the reinforced concrete corner of the house? Anyway, it will tear off the side screens, only instead of with shelves and spare parts, if these are left shelves, and if they are right, then shelves and external tanks.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 13 December 2015 20: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          What will happen if the side screens have a powerful mount, and the tank hooks the reinforced concrete corner of the house? Anyway, it will tear off the side screens, only instead of with shelves and spare parts, if these are left shelves, and if they are right, then shelves and external tanks.

          Hello Volodya.
          Glad to hear that.
          hi
          On the side screens really is not so simple ...
          My repost:
          .
          Based on the realities of the application of mounted DZ boards in the city, we can draw some conclusions:

          The contact of the case with a non-combat obstacle:
          Weak:
          - Rubber fabric screen with boxes DZ well bends around minor obstacles WITHOUT damage to the protection itself.
          - Frame hanging DZ demolishes.
          - Heavy screens are in place.
          Среднее:
          - Rezinotkanevy screen pulls away cell by cell, if they are not fixed among themselves.
          - Frame hanging demolishes.
          - Heavy screen stands still.
          Strong:
          - Rubber in the trash.
          - Skeleton in twist.
          - Heavy screen pulls down one span.

          ...........

          For many, opinions differ on board protection.
          For me, the BMO-T screens of the 32 go are the best)))
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 13 December 2015 21: 09 New
            +1
            Alex, welcome!
            Quote: Aleks tv
            For me, the BMO-T screens of the 32 go are the best)))

            I agree. By the way, the T-90MS has thin side screens, but they are the same as DZ.
        2. rudolff
          rudolff 13 December 2015 21: 09 New
          +1
          Maybe he meant not so much a more powerful or rigid mount, but simply reinforced? Indeed, only three rather flimsy mounting points on the entire side screen somehow do not inspire confidence. If it hooks around the corner of a reinforced-concrete building, the screen will certainly rip off anyway, but you must admit that it’s a shame to lose screens after contacting some kind of wooden shed or pushing a truck off the road.
      5. kapitan92
        kapitan92 14 December 2015 12: 00 New
        +4
        Great movie. Our specialists at Uralvagonzavod need to visit hot spots where their cars are fighting more often. Their tankers will be whole!
  6. Pavel_J
    Pavel_J 13 December 2015 07: 49 New
    14
    It was only necessary to deliver tanks to Syria in this form, was it difficult to do this with the T-90? It seems to me the point here is in bureaucrats who do not want to change the appearance of the tank. Apparently it’s unbearably hard for them to modify the tanks in the troops with a body kit for additional protection. Also note that the T-90 has 4 mounts for side screens with DZ, and only 3 hangs, and no one took the 4th out of the warehouse and hung it.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 13 December 2015 11: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Pavel_J
      It seems to me the point here is in bureaucrats who do not want to change the appearance of the tank.

      The thing is in a hurry and khmemen, the tanks are not prepared for work in Syria. They didn’t even painted it in the corresponding color, not to mention the installation of the dumps and the additional protection of the sides.
      1. gjv
        gjv 13 December 2015 12: 26 New
        +5
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Not even painted in the appropriate color

        And what color doesn’t particularly correspond to the landscapes of Latakia? request

        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 13 December 2015 14: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: gjv
          And what color doesn’t particularly correspond to the landscapes of Latakia?

          Syrians paint their tanks in dirty yellow, probably they know better. There are not very many greens there ...
        2. Egor123
          Egor123 13 December 2015 16: 06 New
          +1
          At least our EMR (who does not know, this is the camouflage in which the soldiers are dressed) there definitely does not work well. I myself am the owner of this camouflage, which works only in a dense forest and in the mountains.
      2. Rader
        Rader 13 December 2015 12: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Quote: Pavel_J
        It seems to me the point here is in bureaucrats who do not want to change the appearance of the tank.

        The thing is in a hurry and khmemen, the tanks are not prepared for work in Syria. They didn’t even painted it in the corresponding color, not to mention the installation of the dumps and the additional protection of the sides.

        Maybe so, but I hardly believe that Assad called Putin, said "help," and he gives the order immediately: "What would there be an air base in Syria in a week, and what would the marines protect on horseback on the T-90 ... "
        And in general, tanks are not ready for war, not only in Syria, but simply for battles in urban areas! Representatives of UVZ drag in exhibitions either the T-72 in the “city body kit”, or the T-90MS they bring, which can compete on equal terms with the Leopards of the latest modifications ... Well, okay, if they are delivered to Assad’s troops in this form, but I don’t believe it again that Tartus is guarded by the T-90 in the maximum configuration, and in warehouses scattered across the vastness of Russia, five hundred modernized (as it should, but not "how cheaper") are waiting in the wings.
        P.S. But the shed on the roof of the T-90 (pictured above) is clearly unnecessary.
        1. mvg
          mvg 13 December 2015 19: 13 New
          +1
          And why such confidence that there are 500 T-72s "upgraded to Chertikoff." One definitely is, it is driven through exhibitions. T-90MS, also in a single copy. In the "warehouses" there are 400 T-90A. No better than the T-72, by and large.
          Who said the T-90MS is the level of Leo-2A7? Again the channel "Star"? If only for the money .. then yes, equal ...
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 13 December 2015 20: 51 New
            +4
            Quote: mvg
            Who said the T-90MS is the level of Leo-2A7? Again the channel "Star"? If only for the money .. then yes, equal ...

            Why is Leo-2A7 so good? In fact, he did not fight anywhere. Board 2cm thick (T-72 - 7-8cm). batteries on the fenders, almost like our external tanks. Accessories on the shelves. On it a blank arrow - and he will not be able to continue the battle.
            But it’s far-fetched - no further.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 13 December 2015 21: 40 New
              +4
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Board 2cm thick (T-72 - 7-8cm). batteries on the fenders, almost like our external tanks. Accessories on the shelves. On it a blank arrow - and he will not be able to continue the battle.

              With all due respect to Leo - yeah, that's right.
              Plus bk in the fighting compartment on the shelves - for some reason they all forget about it, but our cars ... they kick it for that reason)))
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 December 2015 22: 09 New
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv
                With all due respect to Leo - yeah, that's right.

                As I already wrote, Leo is overestimated. But the 2 Challenger is a thing.
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 13 December 2015 19: 43 New
        +7
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Not even painted in the appropriate color,

        This suggests that the machine with LINEAR parts of the Russian Federation.
        Those. This is not export bullshit.
        Draw your own conclusions ...
        ............

        By article:

        Ainet is installed only on the T-90AK, as well as on the T-80UK, and not on all linear tanks.

        T-90 is really much more serious than B3.
        B3 is simply ... not up to modernized.
        It remains to add something quite a bit:
        - a new PNK to the commander with the ability to control "external" equipment,
        - accordingly, it will be possible to install a closed ZPU. On the current TKN-3, this is simply not possible.
        - Circular protection of the hull and turret.
        - due to the increase in mass, it may be necessary to shove mares into serial B-92 machines in 1000.
        That's FSE, costs - minimum, efficiency - maximum.

        ...................
        And the recipe for a good T-72 upgrade is simple:
        - we take a basic complete set B3 (do not forget that ALL cars should have 2A46M-5 fluff, a new AZ and ... it would be nice to stick a tactical tablet to the P-168,
        - we put dvigl, we modernize transmission and running as at T-72BA,
        - we strengthen the defense and take the commander’s PNA as in T-90A (better of course the commander TKN-4С-02, "Agat-MDT" or PKP-T ... all the same, the 21 century in the yard),
        - we put closed ZPU as at T-80U,
        - we hang and install cunning khokholyashki like T-72B2,
        - close the sides like BMO-T.
        ALL.
        As a result, we get a supercar even for the present.
        Lisaped, damn it, has long been invented.
        And every tanker knows about it.

        But GSH ... probably not in the know.
        And GABTU ... well, in general ... why ruin the mood on Sunday?
        That's right, we won’t.
    2. slaw14
      slaw14 13 December 2015 13: 14 New
      0
      In the picture is the T-72. The fourth DZ mount is missing here.
  7. Hammer
    Hammer 13 December 2015 08: 33 New
    +4
    Tank experts approached ...
  8. tchoni
    tchoni 13 December 2015 08: 36 New
    +1
    I, as I understand it, the t-72b3 decision is a forced one, pending the appearance of armata and associates ... So they continue to shove it by inertia ... And after 10 years, as I understand it, they’re going to completely upgrade the park to fit ...
    1. 2s1122
      2s1122 13 December 2015 11: 02 New
      +2
      My dear, if in stagnation for half a year at DOSAF you were trained in driving MTLB tractors and served for 2 years. That’s with the current preparation of T-14 Armata mechanical drives only for contract soldiers. This is not Lada.
      1. iouris
        iouris 13 December 2015 13: 21 New
        +3
        You are wrong: modern machines are more suited to study, use and maintenance, but they need modern logistics support. Integrated automation of all processes makes it possible to increase combat effectiveness by a factor of 1,5-2. The decision to send a more modern version to Syria is right, just in view of the shortage of personnel. Be sure to send a version of "Terminator". Any tanks without support will be destroyed by the enemy.
        1. mvg
          mvg 13 December 2015 20: 25 New
          +1
          You are wrong: modern machines are more suited to study, use and maintenance, but they need modern logistics support. Integrated automation of all processes makes it possible to increase combat effectiveness by a factor of 1,5-2. The decision to send a more modern version to Syria is right, just in view of the shortage of personnel. Be sure to send a version of "Terminator". Any tanks without support will be destroyed by the enemy.

          You do not say so. I'm confused .. There is a normal Russian language and, when not enough, checkmate .. in the end
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 13 December 2015 14: 07 New
        +1
        Do you want to say with this simplicity that in the whole of Russia where about a million people serve in total, there will not be two thousand double basses?
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 13 December 2015 08: 42 New
    +2
    The whole of the Russian Federation contains about 500 t – 90 and one and a half thousand seventy deuces, which, in fact, will be used as a mob reserve in case of an epic war. Problems, related to local conflicts, as I understand it, are planned to be solved using more modern t90 .. Well, and, as I said earlier, they are waiting for the atom.
  10. Shark Lover
    Shark Lover 13 December 2015 09: 23 New
    +1
    Interestingly, where did all the t-62s go ?. Can you imagine how many shells were made for them and where they are now, they are unitary.
    1. gjv
      gjv 13 December 2015 12: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Shark Lover
      and where did all the t-62?

      Algeria - 300 T-62, Angola - 50 T-62, Afghanistan - 255 T-62 units delivered from the USSR and 12 to 50 T-62K units delivered from Russia, Vietnam - 70 T-62, Egypt - 500 T-62 in storage, Israel - 126 T-54/55 and T-62S, Iran - more than 75 T-62, Yemen - 200 T-62, Kazakhstan - 280 T-62, DPRK - 500 T-62 units delivered from the USSR and 470 T-62 units were produced under license under the designation Chonma-Ho, Cuba - 400 T-62 units were delivered from the USSR from 1976 to 1988, Libya - a certain amount of T-62, Syria - 1000 T-62K and T-62M, Somalia, Tajikistan - 7 T-62, Uzbekistan - 170 T-62, Ethiopia - 140 T-62. Unitary shots are also delivered there.
      1. Shark Lover
        Shark Lover 14 December 2015 11: 45 New
        0
        Thank you, smart answer. Is this all on the Internet ??
  11. kvarfax
    kvarfax 13 December 2015 10: 02 New
    +2
    Tanks are good! And it’s good that you can learn for someone else’s own land. And I’m sure there is something to learn - one thing seems to have been learned: it’s worth sending not just “meat” to the battle.
  12. wicked pinnochio
    wicked pinnochio 13 December 2015 10: 09 New
    -3
    Arabs need to send 72 upgraded ones and our t-90 breakthrough to the troops until the armature is completely launched, you can not many t-90 pieces 600 700 no longer pull
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 December 2015 11: 08 New
      +3
      And at whose expense this banquet - our MO will not pay for T 90.
    2. Forest
      Forest 13 December 2015 11: 35 New
      +2
      There is no money for the T-90, no. Moreover, on such a huge number of 600-700 machines. It is generally necessary to curtail the production of all new equipment.
      1. wicked pinnochio
        wicked pinnochio 13 December 2015 16: 08 New
        +1
        Well, why should Arabs be sent, and you are wrong, there is money if you shake anyone
      2. goblin xnumx
        goblin xnumx 13 December 2015 19: 17 New
        +2
        for bombing Syria and all sorts of darts and biathlon, is there, but for defense, no? - Can this not be a mine of defense?
  13. Xxxl
    Xxxl 13 December 2015 10: 25 New
    12
    The title is wrong! It is necessary:Why did Russia send to Syria not the T-90SM, but the budget-modernized T-90A?
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 13 December 2015 10: 34 New
      +2
      Armata with a tower from the T-90MS would look beautiful.
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 13 December 2015 14: 01 New
        0
        Quote: rudolff
        Armata with a tower from the T-90MS would look beautiful.

        It seems to me that after the DZ body kit, it will look something like this ...
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 13 December 2015 17: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: Semen Semenych
          It seems to me that after the DZ body kit, it will look something like this ...

          It seems to me that there will be more modernization of the tower.
    2. Egor123
      Egor123 13 December 2015 16: 02 New
      +2
      Well, at least not t-72Б3. We will be glad at least good
  14. gingerbread man 59
    gingerbread man 59 13 December 2015 10: 53 New
    +2
    Yes, I’m not against the appearance of several T-90s in Syria. But they will be with Russian crews because everything needs to be tested in real combat conditions. In order to identify good or bad sides, because no one will ever create the ideal
  15. rudolff
    rudolff 13 December 2015 11: 14 New
    +8
    For Syria and the T-55 to Ur would go!
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 13 December 2015 11: 29 New
    +6
    Above Iraqi, and this is Serbian.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 December 2015 14: 31 New
      0
      All of this is certainly good, but these 55 body kits will not save the T 2 from the TOW XNUMX tandem warhead
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 13 December 2015 16: 37 New
        +2
        And what prevents KAZ from installing? Here is the T-55AD with the KAZ Drozd of the mid-80s.
      2. kapitan92
        kapitan92 16 December 2015 00: 04 New
        +4
        TOU 2 is an expensive pleasure for this miracle. Enough RPG 29 or even simpler. By the way, the Israelis from the Egyptian T-55 made excellent infantry fighting vehicles, which served for 20 years.
  17. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 13 December 2015 12: 21 New
    +1
    "Despite the fact that the terrorists have already managed to post roughly cooked up in Hollywood on the Web
    video style with the "destruction" of such a tank "////

    I watched the video in U-Tube. Hit the rear of the engine with
    gas tank explosion and ammunition detonation.
    Is it the T-90 or the T-72?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      gjv 13 December 2015 13: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Is it the T-90 or the T-72?

      The aft overhang of the tower, and the shape of the barrel, is more similar to the T-72.
    3. Mera joota
      Mera joota 13 December 2015 15: 19 New
      -4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I watched the video in U-Tube. Hit the rear of the engine with
      gas tank explosion and ammunition detonation.

      We’ll see quite a few. ISIS took Makhin back, the warehouses of which the Assad warriors of course filled Bumblebee with anti-tank weapons and flamethrowers and, accordingly, left all this good safe and sound ...



      1. kapitan92
        kapitan92 15 December 2015 09: 01 New
        +4
        Sadly ALL this! It’s hard for Europeans to understand the Arabs. It’s better to give up to the enemy than to destroy, or maybe they scuttled off very quickly or agreed !?
  18. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 13 December 2015 12: 31 New
    +4
    Quote: tchoni
    I, as I understand it, the t-72b3 decision is a forced one, pending the appearance of armata and associates ... So they continue to shove it by inertia ... And after 10 years, as I understand it, they’re going to completely upgrade the park to fit ...

    If forced, it’s not at all successful, modernization according to Serdyukovsky! Here, the T72B3 was already disassembled by screws in the VO and in general gave a negative assessment of this option, even in comparison with other modernization options with the same B2 “Slingshot”. Unfortunately, the budget option was chosen and apparently for the banal loading of plants. But to stop this and admit that this decision is a mistake lacks courage. But the worst thing is that until mass supplies of Armata to the troops, we’ll stay for five ten years with half a thousand (already apparently less) T90 and “budget” B3.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 13 December 2015 14: 29 New
      0
      That's it ... Any modernization of a superficial nature cannot significantly increase the combat potential of the 72ki, the machine, by the way, is not very bad ... Therefore, they chose the most budget option. And given that, with all its might, it’s all the component of the armed forces that’s all - and in general, the decision on budgetary modernization becomes understandable and logical ... It’s just that no one was seriously planning to use the “birch” in battle ... And needs they were like a school desk, first of all, to preserve the potential of the tank troops ... And here the "birch" is just right for it was said by smart people: "learn to ride scrap metal - you’ll go to a novie without problems" all the more if you look at believe tank biathlon, then the birch next to the Chinese novice is not so pale Motril ...
  19. da Vinci
    da Vinci 13 December 2015 12: 43 New
    +3
    The greedy pays twice - in the sense that saving, especially in the military, is often very expensive. request
  20. rennim
    rennim 13 December 2015 15: 34 New
    +1
    As always, all the best to foreigners. And their own, as always, do not mind. Everything is always repeated ...
  21. Radikal
    Radikal 13 December 2015 18: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Pavel_J
    It was only necessary to deliver tanks to Syria in this form, was it difficult to do this with the T-90? It seems to me the point here is in bureaucrats who do not want to change the appearance of the tank. Apparently it’s unbearably hard for them to modify the tanks in the troops with a body kit for additional protection. Also note that the T-90 has 4 mounts for side screens with DZ, and only 3 hangs, and no one took the 4th out of the warehouse and hung it.

    Moreover, in the photo the tank is in an export desert camouflage, Indian, or Pakistani. After all, when for money. Will it suit us anyway?
  22. potalevl
    potalevl 13 December 2015 18: 04 New
    +4
    Testing equipment at the training ground is one thing, but in real combat conditions it’s completely different. I think the T-90 was sent to Syria to test in combat conditions, especially since there are legitimate reasons for this. If this equipment were sent to the theater of war of unrecognized DNR / LC, we would be "civilized countries" accused of overt support for the "separatists". Although I think through not recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it would be necessary to deliver. These tanks are a good help to Donbass, a good testing ground for us, all the more so in any way the mattresses accuse us of all sins, so what is the difference in principle in such a situation. Something like this.
    1. Killj
      Killj 13 December 2015 18: 54 New
      0
      Quote: potalevl
      Testing equipment at the training ground is one thing, but in real combat conditions it’s completely different

      in Syria, there is a semi-guerrilla war, there are these tanks, and in a city like a dead poultice (in the sense they are not at all adapted for urban battle).
    2. Raider
      Raider 13 December 2015 21: 55 New
      +2
      I support this point of view. Better than war - there is no training ground. Not everything is new at home either. If you take the average for the army in Russia, it’s not at all the equipment that walks in parades and is shown at exhibitions. Recently I was in one of the tank units, entirely T-72. Yes, and in warehouses full of. So even to test your average weapon in a war and a different climate is a good test. SU-24 and SU-25 also after modernization. No country in the world can, by magic, replace all weapons with new ones. So, considering new modernization options for existing weapons and finding weaknesses for developing promising weapons is better than not finding a war.
  23. rudolff
    rudolff 13 December 2015 18: 38 New
    +2
    It was from this point of view that it was necessary not to send the T-90, but the T-72B3. Maybe then it would finally come to the conclusion that such modernization is not saving money, but saving people!
  24. APASUS
    APASUS 13 December 2015 18: 59 New
    +1
    Syria now has no opportunity to pay for the purchase of the T-90, in fact, all the work will have to be done on loan, but we would not be able to offer the Syrians the modernization of their tanks. If the modernization concerns only the means of protection of the tank, this will be progress
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 December 2015 23: 06 New
      0
      And what are we doing there if Syria has no opportunity to pay? There, the fate of not only Syria is decided. And Abramovich can pay for deliveries. His FC will fall two positions down - not deadly.
  25. becks
    becks 13 December 2015 20: 01 New
    +1
    they’ll test and add a polygon, it is a polygon !!!
  26. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 13 December 2015 23: 48 New
    +1
    With all the advantages of Almaty, its armament raises certain questions. Why does a heavy tank need a gun from a medium tank? The main name is sheer craftiness, for weight speaks for itself. The armata should have two guns, one approximately 140mm — to destroy enemy tanks with one hit and a tank with a short 152mm howitzer gun for fighting in the city along with the T-15. But we do not have assault brigades for taking fortified areas, cities and fortresses. In motorized rifle divisions and brigades, such heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles based on armata are superfluous and will slow down the offensive, and they will quickly exhaust their resources. Motorized riflemen should surround the enemy, and attack aircraft, not paratroopers with bmd cardboard armor, should destroy it in fortified places.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 14 December 2015 00: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      Why does a heavy tank need a gun from a medium tank?

      Armata weight is less than 50 tons. 125 mm gun
      Abrams weighs more than 60 tons. gun - 120mm
      ---- Merkava Mk.4M - 70 tons. Gun - 120mm

      Our lower weight gun has a slightly larger caliber, and with a larger muzzle energy (gun 2A82)
    2. kapitan92
      kapitan92 14 December 2015 11: 33 New
      +4
      So let's not talk about the "Armat" raw tank yet. Year as min. tests. The first model t-95 (in 1 copy) was with a 152mm gun. Now for eternal fun. Why they refused, why it didn’t work, one should ask the designers. Increasing the caliber is changing the ammunition and kit, and most importantly the lack of a modern projectile for this caliber.
  27. flashigraSher
    flashigraSher 14 December 2015 02: 43 New
    0
    Flash-Igra.Net website. Here you will find flash games that will not take you a lot of time, but will give you the opportunity to relax and even laugh heartily. In order to play flash games, you do not need to download and install anything, you will start playing the game in them directly in the browser window.
    All the toys on our website have always been and will be free of charge, we will never charge users for flash games from users.
    Over the past year, flash games have become a very fast growing entertainment market. Any user with access to the Internet can instantly and for free start playing thousands of flash games on Flash-Igra.Net.


    http://www.budennovsk.net/index.php?name=account&op=info&uname=utubake
  28. kirgudu
    kirgudu 14 December 2015 09: 48 New
    0
    Blind-1 only works against laser-guided ATGMs. And the Papuans have almost the same TOW, with a tip on the wire. A curtain of nichrome will not save.
  29. archi.sailor
    archi.sailor 14 December 2015 10: 36 New
    +2
    Quote: mvg
    and 641, when the boat was made under rockets

    and under what missiles did 641 projects do not tell me? very interesting
  30. Rednek
    Rednek 14 December 2015 12: 24 New
    0
    A strange article, instead of one modification of the t72, sent another t72bu (t90)
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 18 December 2015 21: 05 New
      0
      Rednek "A strange article, instead of one modification of the t72, sent another t72bu (t90)"
      Hehe .... but what difference does the troll ukropovsky?)))))
  31. Appraiser
    Appraiser 14 December 2015 13: 36 New
    0
    Why did Russia send T-90A to Syria? And what is there to guess, you need to run the car in real combat operations, without this you can’t talk about all the advantages and disadvantages of this model, especially since it is the main tank of the Russian Armed Forces. soldier
  32. Konstantin Yu
    Konstantin Yu 14 December 2015 13: 42 New
    0
    So the conclusion suggests itself: you need an assault city tank (in general, installation, system) to clean up former residential neighborhoods. Like, I drove up to a problem zone, whom I spotted, I’m not at home, or something like that ... so that after it you don’t have to run on floors, roofs, windows and holes in the house to look out ... I think all animals will no longer want to fight in animals. .
  33. tank64rus
    tank64rus 14 December 2015 13: 48 New
    -1
    There are no tank battles in Syria, so far it’s possible to send tanks adapted there specifically for war to tank-dangerous manpower. It can be various modifications of the T-72, and T-80 and T-90, naturally modified accordingly. If there had been Comrade Stalin, specialists would have gathered several times and the military would have worked out decisions, determined the executors and the deadlines for implementation. Well, of course, all the responsible persons knew WHAT they were facing for failure to fulfill this “order” on time. There is no need to talk about theft. Something similar happened after the participation of our tankers in the Spanish Civil War.
    1. kapitan92
      kapitan92 14 December 2015 22: 16 New
      +4
      So let's only comrade Stalin will not remember. If it would, it would interfere. It is only in the film "Liberation, the Kursk Bulge" that we wet tigers in packs. Search in the internet and compare tank losses.
      It is wonderful that there are NO tank battles so far, otherwise we would have been shot from a distance of 4-5 km.
      Russia still has time to rearm and accept new tank ammunition.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 December 2015 17: 44 New
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      If there had been Comrade Stalin, specialists would have gathered several times and the military would have worked out decisions, determined the executors and the deadlines for implementation. Well, of course, all the responsible persons knew WHAT they were facing for failure to fulfill this “order” on time. There is no need to talk about theft. Something similar happened after the participation of our tankers in the Spanish Civil War.
      ... and, despite all this, these responsible persons would frustrate both the plan and the deadlines.
      You remind - when the Red Army was supposed to get the T-34 and in what quantities? When was STZ supposed to start their production? And what really happened?
      To KhPZ, until the last they held on to the BT-7M mastered in the series and with all their might delayed the production of the T-34 series. Since the BT-7M army is guaranteed to accept and pay. And with the new T-34 - there will be one hemorrhoids. As a result, in 1940 Kharkovites surrendered only 115/117 T-34s. Of these, 90% returned to the factory for repair under warranty.
      Instead of establishing production facilities, STZ was engaged in knocking out a full operational set of CDs from Kharkov. Because the resulting drawings of the tower did not dock with the hull, since they belonged to different versions. However, at the STZ itself, the jambs had a higher roof - the T-34 assembled from Kharkov machine kits could only be launched in a couple of months.
      And what - someone for failure to meet all deadlines went to Kolyma? Figures. smile
  34. South Ural
    South Ural 14 December 2015 14: 12 New
    0
    I really want to believe that among our leadership, practicality (in its positive, national significance) prevails so that the history of Lefty 2.0 does not come out
  35. Evil 55
    Evil 55 15 December 2015 03: 14 New
    0
    Why T-90? A strange question ... Because the machine at the exhibition and really experienced trial and combat use are completely different things ... Now all design and technological flaws are being identified in order to further prevent them ..
  36. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 15 December 2015 20: 57 New
    +1
    "Unfortunately, they also saved on the Ainet on the T-72B3.
    As a result, a paradoxical picture emerged: a machine continues to enter the troops by inertia, which in most characteristics is significantly inferior not only to the latest Korean, Chinese tanks, but even to the Polish Leopard-2A5. "

    Quote: Explorer
    "Not having any analogues in the world" T-90 inferior EVEN 2A5? even ... It's ridiculous. Besides, probably, German, because they don't go to Poland in the "stripped down" version, with all the necessary equipment

    Horseradish you Explorer - must be read carefully! In this case, it was a T72B3, not a T90! laughing laughing
  37. Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 1 February 2016 09: 37 New
    0
    Oh, rather, “Armata” brought to production. And then you don’t have to wait t 90.