Military Review

NI: The difference between the military potentials of the Russian Federation and the United States "narrowed to statistical error"

104
The Pentagon failed the ambitious program “Fighting Systems of the Future”, wasting years and money, while Russia during this time was able to minimize the difference between the military capabilities of the two countries, retired American officer Daniel Davis, who was previously part of the US troops in Afghanistan.


NI: The difference between the military potentials of the Russian Federation and the United States "narrowed to statistical error"


“One of the Pentagon’s most flagrant mistakes was the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, launched as the official plan for a radical rearmament and reorganization of the American army in 2003. Six years later, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates closed the program due to numerous problems in execution, ”the newspaper article cited. MIC.

According to Davis, “almost ten years, during which it was possible to modernize the Armed Forces and even further break away from the armies of other countries of the world, were wasted by the American military leadership,” which also damaged the prestige of the United States.

“The impressive difference in military potentials that once existed between the United States and other countries of the world narrowed to statistical error,” the author writes. “The handicap has decreased, and Russia, who developed and implemented the Armata’s Universal Battle Platform, pointed to the Americans.”

“The combat systems of the future” were to become a “system of systems” - it planned to use a unified tracked chassis for eight different types of armored combat vehicles, a combat platform (tank) and self-propelled artillery, notes Davis. “For ten years, twenty billion dollars have been spent, but none of the ideas have been realized.”

It took Russia only 6 years to “design, test and launch technologically advanced combat vehicles, like tank T-14 Armata and BMP T-15, equipped with the latest technology. "

“T-14 was at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams. In the 1991, Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against a tank of any potential adversary. Now this advantage has been lost, ”the officer states.

In his opinion, America has lost its advantage largely due to its “self-destructive arrogance acquired after the Iraq campaign — now it has to be paid for.”
Photos used:
gurkhan.blogspot.com
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 9 February 2016 15: 18
    46
    All this fortune-telling on coffee grounds ... There are many factors and it is not even a matter of quantity of equipment. How much can it be transferred to the combat zone, what ammunition, the training of crews and pilots. Pilot raid. For the operation in Iraq, the United States and NATO, a year they gathered an army of 300 thousand.
    1. Smoked
      Smoked 9 February 2016 15: 20
      17
      To whom fortunetelling, and to whom bread and butter in the face of all kinds of experts.
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 9 February 2016 15: 45
        34
        Quote: Smoked
        To whom fortunetelling, and to whom bread and butter in the face of all kinds of experts.

        If all such articles are taken at face value, it will soon turn out that Russia's military potential has reached the size of the universe and is about to go beyond it.
        This is a product for use on their own information field. It is necessary to show the inhabitants what kind of Russians are terrible, otherwise they will not want to vote for politicians who will cut the budget in the field of child prodigy.
        1. Temples
          Temples 9 February 2016 15: 50
          +4
          otherwise they won’t want to vote for politicians who will cut the budget in the field of child prodigy.

          It is as if someone is coordinating their military expenses with the inhabitants of the countries.
          It is a myth. The myth of democracy under the heading "The people decide everything"
          Ameri-goats certainly do not.
          As much as they want and spend.
          1. severniy
            severniy 9 February 2016 16: 02
            +2
            twenty billion dollars

            ¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            Uhh already breathtaking from the number of saw cutters good
            In 1991 Abrams would have won

            He would have remembered the time of the conquistadors ...
            And to console this warrior, he needs to unsubscribe that our auto industry is still slapping auto developments of the middle of the last century. Let at least something rejoice ...
          2. skrabplus.ru
            skrabplus.ru 9 February 2016 16: 08
            0
            how many candy wrappers are needed - so much print
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 9 February 2016 16: 54
              +7
              It took Russia only 6 years to "design, test and put into production technologically advanced combat vehicles, such as the T-14 Armata tank and the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle, equipped with the latest technology."

              “T-14 was at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams. In the 1991, Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against a tank of any potential adversary. Now this advantage has been lost, ”the officer states.

              This reminded me of an article on Censor. -The forces on the Black Sea have changed dramatically in favor of Ukraine. And then the text about plans to build, when in the future ships.
              There is no Armat and all the rest.
              1. TRex
                TRex 9 February 2016 20: 43
                +2
                And the amerovsky journal "National Interest" is an analogue of our VO, where anyone can make "deep analysis" and "comprehensive conclusions." Not the fact that "retired US officer Daniel Davis, formerly with US troops in Afghanistan"is such and expresses the official point of view of actual military experts.
              2. avdkrd
                avdkrd 9 February 2016 22: 53
                +3
                Quote: Alexander Romanov

                “T-14 was at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams. In the 1991, Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against a tank of any potential adversary. Now this advantage has been lost, ”the officer states.
                This reminded me of an article on Censor. -The forces on the Black Sea have changed dramatically in favor of Ukraine. And then the text about plans to build, when in the future ships.
                There is no Armat and all the rest.

                What does the Censor have to do with the fact that there is no Armat? The American is not correct at the expense of 1991. One-on-one Abrams could not compete with the t-91 in 80, not in 2016 could not compete with the t-90 (not even with the Breakthrough), at least one cannot speak of unconditional superiority. As a former tanker (T-80 90-92), I can say that Abrams is a bad example.
                1. bannik
                  bannik 10 February 2016 03: 16
                  -2
                  Actually, we do not really need "Armata" and we need it, except perhaps to go to the Channel for a swim, although the weather there does not suit me very much.
                2. navalskii
                  navalskii 10 February 2016 09: 18
                  0
                  Here rather with Leopard 2, a comparison must be made
          3. GRAY
            GRAY 9 February 2016 16: 17
            +1
            Quote: Temples
            It is as if someone is coordinating their military expenses with the inhabitants of the countries.
            It is a myth. The myth of democracy under the heading "The people decide everything"

            But at least the semblance of democracy must be maintained, about the "exclusive nation" there, tell on TV, or about how "the German people are extending a helping hand to the unfortunate refugees."
            They also talk about the "terrible Russians" because the people should take the wishes of politicians as their own. Politicians are calmer this way.
        2. Pirogov
          Pirogov 9 February 2016 17: 35
          0
          If all such articles are taken at face value, it will soon turn out that the military potential of Russia has reached the size of the universe and is about to go beyond it ....................... ..................................................
          ............................................ That's exactly Russia still work and work in the defense industry.
        3. APASUS
          APASUS 9 February 2016 18: 47
          0
          Quote: GRAY
          This is a product for use on their own information field. It is necessary to show the inhabitants what kind of Russians are terrible, otherwise they will not want to vote for politicians who will cut the budget in the field of child prodigy.

          See how the theft of money is correctly described in American:
          In his opinion, America has lost its advantage largely due to its “self-destructive arrogance acquired after the Iraq campaign — now it has to be paid for.”
    2. Thrall
      Thrall 9 February 2016 15: 20
      91
      Abrams with Armata to compare by status is not supposed smile
      I offer BT-7:
      1. snifer
        snifer 9 February 2016 15: 28
        12
        I wonder after landing in BT, what was the condition of the crew?
        1. REDBLUE
          REDBLUE 9 February 2016 15: 38
          10
          very funny.
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 9 February 2016 15: 56
            21
            Quote: REDBLUE
            very funny.


            And this amused me!

            "The T-14 proved to be at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams. In 1991, the Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against any potential enemy tank."

            And what do the Iraqis and Afghans say about "impenetrability"? In my opinion, it is crumbled from an old RPG with a bang! And here on the VO I read that he had some kind of engine either under the turret, or behind the turret, into which even a hit from a machine gun would disable the entire "powerful and unbreakable" tank!
            1. 33 Watcher
              33 Watcher 9 February 2016 16: 38
              +1
              Well, not that it would be straight with a bang ... But crumble, quite efficiently ... yes
            2. Travian
              Travian 9 February 2016 18: 04
              +4
              at the rear of the turret there is a GU generator set (for powering the tank in place, without starting the main engine) the silhouette is large, an armor plate of about 10 mm is pierced from our side by our dshk (NSVT) not to mention 14,5 mm and even more so 30 mm hit by armor-piercing incendiary leads to fire ignition GU system PPO in case of fire discharges (if it works properly) GU and at the same time ammunition. the tank will probably survive (for some time) since there are almost no shells left in this case.
            3. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 9 February 2016 20: 17
              +1
              On the back niche of the tower of Abrams, in some older modification there (like now, after the Iraq war, this was eliminated) there was an auxiliary generator set. All tank systems in the parking lot are fed from it. In order not to start the gluttonous main engine.
              So, this installation was covered with a 10 mm armored plate, which is pierced by heavy machine guns. After breaking through and possibly a fire. But most importantly, fuel began to flow down straight into the air intakes of the main engine with the guaranteed ignition of the main engine and the subsequent burnout of the entire tank.
              It seems to have eliminated this jamb in subsequent upgrades. But I will not say for sure.
          2. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 9 February 2016 16: 15
            0
            Quote: snifer
            I wonder after landing in BT, what was the condition of the crew?
            Or maybe there is no crew there. Maybe in the Red Army an uninhabited tank was tested like this. bully I would not be surprised if this is so. Many developments are gathering dust in safe places and are just waiting in the wings. For example, with the development of modern technology, it is quite possible to create a fully robotic tank and a control module that will "sneak" a little behind. True, this idea cannot be hone in scale. each on the shoulder.Ural tank builders hinted that there are such ideas ...
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 9 February 2016 16: 20
          +1
          I wonder after landing in BT, what was the condition of the crew?

          He kind of flopped into the water. Familiar frame.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 9 February 2016 20: 19
            +1
            He did not plop into the water. This is a shot from a movie about tankers. It was they who were there in the film, either in battle or in training, jumping over a collapsed bridge.
        3. avdkrd
          avdkrd 10 February 2016 00: 13
          0
          Quote: snifer
          I wonder after landing in BT, what was the condition of the crew?

          compression injuries of the spine ....
          To be honest, the Flying Tank meme is annoying, especially when some scribbler or commentator talks about this show element as an advantage. Any modern tank with the appropriate power density will take off. Another thing is that it will not remain without a trace for him, at least if the tank is not prepared accordingly, and the differences should be the same as for Kamaz serving on Dakar and serial.
    3. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 9 February 2016 15: 21
      47
      For ten years has been spent twenty billion dollars, but not one of the ideas was implemented

      After these words Serdyukov cried, buried in the shoulder of the sobbing Zhenechka Vasilyeva. Yet their American counterparts are astounding.
      1. oldseaman1957
        oldseaman1957 9 February 2016 15: 29
        0
        ... America has lost its advantage largely because of its "self-destructive arrogance ...
        - That would always be so!
      2. MIKHALYCH1
        MIKHALYCH1 9 February 2016 15: 30
        +9
        There is such a concept of the RUSSIAN SPIRIT! And everything else will follow ... That is why they call us a "mysterious country" and they make up all sorts of fables!
        And we just want to LIVE and in fairness!
        And we have a lot of "tricky, technical and simple riddles" ...
        Let's live in peace...
      3. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 9 February 2016 15: 31
        +6
        Twenty billion dollars were spent in ten years, but not one of the ideas was realized. ”

        How was not one of the ideas implemented? - And the money spent does not count?
        1. Blondy
          Blondy 9 February 2016 16: 26
          10
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          Twenty billion dollars were spent in ten years, but not one of the ideas was realized. ”

          It’s better to look in the mirror: how much was spent on the Chubais Rusnano, and what they got - two smartphones on their components and their production, and a nanometer so that the fur coats would not be stolen.
          1. Kent0001
            Kent0001 9 February 2016 18: 09
            0
            Zachoooooot. Liked.
      4. nicolay338
        nicolay338 9 February 2016 15: 32
        +2
        Our no less than c3,14dzili))) But it makes no sense to compare Abrams with Armata))) 15 thousand pieces of Abrams have already been born, and Armata is still being rolled in (((
        1. Sura
          Sura 9 February 2016 15: 53
          11
          Our no less than c3,14dzili))) But it makes no sense to compare Abrams with Armata))) 15 thousand pieces of Abrams have already been born, and Armata is still being rolled in (((

          Abrashek was made in Detroit at the Arsenal plant 6500 pieces. The plant no longer exists, even the foundation is gone, there is no place to make tanks. 10 plants are renovating 1 plant is modernizing. There is no design bureau, but a design bureau is a team of engineers who know how to invent and invent something new, and such a team has been gathering and grinding for years and decades, everything must be done from scratch.
          1. Kars
            Kars 9 February 2016 15: 54
            +6
            Quote: Sura
            Abrashek was made in Detroit at the Arsenal plant 6500 pieces. The factory is no more

            Yes, how much))) Ohio plant. And is still working.
            1. Sura
              Sura 9 February 2016 16: 08
              +2
              Yes, how much))) Ohio plant. And is still working.

              1 plant is modernizing http://twower.livejournal.com/822569.html but no more.
              1. Kars
                Kars 9 February 2016 16: 13
                +1
                Quote: Sura
                http://twower.livejournal.com/822569.html

                Well, yes, by modernization, with a full cycle and stamping car kits for Egypt.
                1. avdkrd
                  avdkrd 10 February 2016 00: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, yes, by modernization, with a full cycle and stamping car kits for Egypt.

                  for Egypt comes with steel armor.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 10 February 2016 00: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: avdkrd
                    for Egypt comes with steel armor.

                    And? Does this mean that there is no complete cycle? And that the Abrams are no longer produced?
            2. spy008
              spy008 9 February 2016 16: 10
              +1
              And I'm talking about: Americans, of course, are stupid, but not so much as to destroy both production facilities and design bureaus
          2. nicolay338
            nicolay338 9 February 2016 15: 59
            +1
            And where are there more of them in today's war? 15 thousand is enough. There will no longer be such massive tank battles - there is no one to just fight with as in the Second World War ... the means of destruction have since been invented and invented mulienne options and the tank, as the main combat unit, is no longer considered. No, well, he can of course decide on the battlefield, but the emphasis is still right on "can", and not "decide")))
        2. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 9 February 2016 15: 58
          +2
          Quote: nicolay338
          Our at least s3,14zdili)))

          Is there an atomic bomb?
          Quote: nicolay338
          But it’s pointless to compare Abrams with Armata)))

          Of course, it makes no sense to compare the tank, the production of which began in the year of the Moscow Olympics with the latest development.
          Quote: nicolay338
          Abramsov 15 thousand pieces have already been born

          Only five thousand have already been handed over for scrap. Judging by how many Abrams are now in service with all countries of the world, including the United States.
          1. nicolay338
            nicolay338 9 February 2016 16: 07
            +2
            No one argues that they wrote off part)
            The question is different ... is that the Amer tank is there and it is in service, and our promising tank is only running around. And today, and even cheating, for the next 20 years there will be no threat from itself, because perhaps we have exceeded quality, but we can take quantity only in war conditions (when plants fully utilize their full potential, and corruption issues will be resolved by chopping off the head to beneficiaries) ...
        3. 2s1122
          2s1122 9 February 2016 16: 01
          16
          I’m not a tanker, but they write such crap. Comparing Abrams and T-14, they compared a camel to a horse. It would be different when I compared Abrams with 72 or 80,90.
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 9 February 2016 18: 16
            0
            What they have with that and compare. The article is crap.
        4. spy008
          spy008 9 February 2016 16: 01
          +4
          And I, despite the minuses, put you a plus. And I’ll add from myself that the F-22, in the USA, for 2011, was in service with 180 pieces. Why the article is not clear ... the spirit and patriotism of the Russians, and without the opinion of an American expert is enough hi
          1. nicolay338
            nicolay338 9 February 2016 16: 38
            0
            the spirit and patriotism of the Russians, and without the opinion of an American expert is enough

            That's for sure soldier
        5. DMM2006
          DMM2006 9 February 2016 17: 30
          +5
          Colleague, where did you get such stunning information about 15 thousand pieces? The quantity you mentioned is the aggregate production of vehicles, and not US tanks.
          As far as I remember, according to published data from the Pentagon, the Ameri ..rov, together with the mobilization reserve, have Abramsov of all modifications a little less than 6 thousand pieces. At the same time, I emphasize ALL MODIFICATIONS, including cars of the 70s (which by the way are most) that even the T-72A had as it wanted during the Arab-Israeli war.
          According to the most am .. r military experts RELATIVELY combat-ready from them are 1,5 - 1,8 thousand vehicles, and modern, conditionally impenetrable M1A2SEP in general 200 units or one armored cavalry brigade (by the way, their impenetrability is too high ame .. rams) .
          We have conditionally combat-ready tanks of 6 units, and in total we are armed with a mobile reserve of exactly 000. That's it!
          By the way, after the publication of these facts in 2014, the European command of NATO was hysterical as it could and it was precisely under this bench that funds for modernizing the fleet of vehicles and amérams, Bundes, and even modest Swedes were knocked out.
          1. Fat
            Fat 9 February 2016 21: 19
            -1
            Quote: DMM2006
            including cars of the 70s (which by the way are most) which even the T-72A had as it wanted during the Arab-Israeli war.

            What kind of wars? "Doomsday" (1973), operations "world of Galilee" and subsequent events (1982 - 1985). Where can you find information about these M1s? How did they end up with the peacekeepers? Or Israel?
            M1, M1A1 / A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank Information claims that the first samples of this technique were produced in 1978, the first M1A1 - 1985, and the first M1A2 in 1986.
            1. avdkrd
              avdkrd 10 February 2016 01: 14
              +1
              Quote: Thick
              What kind of wars? "Doomsday" (1973), operations "world of Galilee" and subsequent events (1982 - 1985). Where can you find information about these M1s? How did they end up with the peacekeepers? Or Israel?
              M1, M1A1 / A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank Information claims that the first samples of this technique were produced in 1978, the first M1A1 - 1985, and the first M1A2 in 1986.
              Reply Quote Report Abuse

              You can google where our military adviser in Syria describes the meeting of the t-72 and m-1 of the first release in 1982. (http://btvt.narod.ru/2/m1in_war.htm) I don’t know exactly how reliable this is, but I’m ready to believe it. At least there are no contradictions in the description of the battle. He himself served in the tank forces in the ZGV and the materiel of the unconditional enemy was taught well. All known cases of the defeat of the Abrams only confirm the old Soviet manuals. Personally, I would prefer a Russian or Soviet tank of the same year of manufacture. Abrams does not have the advantages advertised by the Americans, and there are more disadvantages than advantages. The gun is not striking in its accuracy and power, the control system had a temporary priority in terms of the availability of a thermal imaging channel, while there was a serious drawback associated with the operation of the laser range finder (now probably fixed, but not a fact), the enormous weight, large projection and GTE reliability cannot be compared with the Soviet counterpart GTD-1000TF. The frontal reservation was always at about the same level, but Abrams had a much larger area of ​​weakened zones, the DZ of Soviet and Russian tanks always gave an advantage, the presence of a guided missile made it possible to start a duel at much greater distances than the Yankees, the automatic loader was not nervous during the battle and Don't bounce on bumps. The Yankees claim that their BPS is better, but there is another opinion that long and fashionable BPS are prone to ricochet and destruction.
              The mobility of Abrams was actually replaced by a high power density of the engine, but the real mobility of the tank is the ability to get under its own power to any point on the map, regardless of roads. When the Swedes chose their main tank in 1991, they very objectively assessed the applicants, they were really amazed at the level of protection, maneuverability and reliability. The Leopard 2 was put into service under pressure and for half the price. The Swedes openly declared the superiority of the T-80, including over the Leopard in all respects, and the Leopard2 once won the competition when the question of a single (USA, FRG) tank was being decided. The only thing that the Swedes were not impressed with was the effectiveness of the shells - maybe because, as always, "export" ones were offered, or maybe this generally refers to the smoothbore (at that time, the Swedes had Centurions and Strv 103 with 105mm rifled rifles.)
              1. Travian
                Travian 10 February 2016 07: 40
                +1
                I would see our BPS of 152 mm caliber, a long, massive one flies quickly smoothly without rebounds. if it doesn’t break through the armor, it will remove the tower from the epaulet for sure.
        6. Travian
          Travian 9 February 2016 18: 06
          +1
          In general, Abrams was created in response to our T-80
    4. Finches
      Finches 9 February 2016 15: 54
      +4
      "self-destructive arrogance ... after the Iraqi campaign" - the American officer haughtily declared! laughing

      Before that, the invincible were so directly ... Animals! All Somalia and Gabon kept in fear! laughing
    5. 222222
      222222 9 February 2016 16: 08
      +5
      NI: The difference between the military potentials of the Russian Federation and the United States "narrowed to statistical error"

      Fiscal Year 2017 Defense Budget.
      ... debate begins on the US Department of Defense's 2017 budget (FY2017 starts Oct 1, 2016). "Dengi, COME !!"
    6. sherman1506
      sherman1506 9 February 2016 18: 31
      0
      They got tired, Russia has already overtaken the armaments. Evidence, frantic tantrum in the west, there will still be roofing felts.
    7. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 9 February 2016 23: 23
      +1
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      All this fortune-telling on coffee grounds ... There are many factors and it is not even a matter of quantity of equipment. How much can it be transferred to the combat zone, what ammunition, the training of crews and pilots. Pilot raid. For the operation in Iraq, the United States and NATO, a year they gathered an army of 300 thousand.

      In fact, if we take from history where Russians and Americans met in other countries on the battlefield, then the soldiers of America always got a hat, and our weapons proved their superiority to the Americans, only who in America recognizes this, they still lead to the public themselves as narcissistic turkeys there are such birds if anyone does not know!
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Kars
    Kars 9 February 2016 15: 19
    23
    They want to get money out of Congress. That's the whole background.


    The CIA has already stolen test documentation?))
    “The T-14 turned out to be at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 February 2016 15: 21
      +9
      Quote: Kars
      The CIA has already stolen test documentation

      Take it higher, Armata and Abrams have already met in battle. laughing
      1. Olkass
        Olkass 9 February 2016 16: 03
        +8
        Take it higher, Armata and Abrams have already met in battle.

        If my memory serves me right, "on the fat-eating forums" it seems like they already "filled up" a couple of T-14s. Either in the area of ​​Debaltsevsky or in the area of ​​the Ilovaisky cauldrons.
        So the guys unsubscribed like: "Huh! And tse Armata? Nothing special! The products of Kharkivskigo tractyrnogy click the vaunted Rusnya at once!"
        They probably wrote against the background of post-boiler shock.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 9 February 2016 16: 21
        0
        At the Aberdeen test site or .... I hope ours rolled them dry.)))
  4. poquello
    poquello 9 February 2016 15: 20
    0
    From the implementation of tasks by our defense industry, the bourgeois crushes and sausages, which Hephaestus alone is cheap and cheerful.
    1. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 9 February 2016 15: 54
      +1
      Quote: poquello
      From the implementation of tasks by our defense industry, the bourgeois crushes and sausages, which Hephaestus alone is cheap and cheerful.

      To "Hephaestus", in order to work, GLONASS is attached and (or) a drone in some cases. So, angrily, yes, but at the expense of cheap, do not tell dear. soldier
      1. poquello
        poquello 9 February 2016 16: 31
        -2
        Quote: cherkas.oe
        Quote: poquello
        From the implementation of tasks by our defense industry, the bourgeois crushes and sausages, which Hephaestus alone is cheap and cheerful.

        To "Hephaestus", in order to work, GLONASS is attached and (or) a drone in some cases. So, angrily, yes, but at the expense of cheap, do not tell dear. soldier

        depending on what to compare, is the Pentagon cheaper?
  5. sergi801
    sergi801 9 February 2016 15: 21
    +7
    Pride is one of mortal sins, I think it will destroy America. Starting to do it now.
  6. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 9 February 2016 15: 22
    13
    Give money, give money .. You can not compare the military potentials of countries whose military budgets differ tenfold. With all due respect and disrespect for us.
  7. Bulrumeb
    Bulrumeb 9 February 2016 15: 22
    +5
    In 1991, the Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against any potential enemy tank.


    it seems to me that this statement is wagged by one water authority.
    1. alex-s
      alex-s 9 February 2016 15: 54
      0
      And in 1914 - for sure! wink
    2. DMM2006
      DMM2006 9 February 2016 17: 34
      0
      I agree with you. Sheer nonsense. In a normal battle, and not at the training ground, Abrams will not stand not only against the T-90, but even against the French Leclerc of the latest modifications. And as for the fourth Merkava and the fourth Leopard, I generally keep quiet. They will devour and not be asked a name.
  8. Albert1
    Albert1 9 February 2016 15: 24
    +4
    No article ... people, horses all mixed up ... and everything is in a fog.
  9. kagorta
    kagorta 9 February 2016 15: 25
    12
    Tanks do not fight one on one. Fighting formations and fronts. The Germans, in the summer of 41, did not notice our superiority in performance characteristics of tanks especially. They began to whimper only when our tactics got better. Already closer to the winter of 1941.
    1. Travian
      Travian 10 February 2016 07: 52
      0
      Not certainly in that way. the Germans were just struck by the presence of the KV-1 heavy tank in the Red Army and whined strongly from it. in the forehead did not go, could not take the armor. and this is a recognition of excellence in performance characteristics. and the fact that these KV-1s could not affect the situation on the fronts of 41 years is understandable. There were few heavy tanks, the front was crumbling, the complete superiority of the Germans in the air. Actually there is such a concept-tank duel. any tank battle begins with a tank duel. this is when the patrol car first takes the battle with the first enemy machine (for example, on the march), and only then when they are deployed in battle formation - the cut goes
  10. Dam
    Dam 9 February 2016 15: 25
    +4
    The American budget is like a pear tree, you just need to beat a bigger club and shake yourself the necessary amount of billions for life. And the Russians are a magnificent horror story for the watchman of this tree
    1. pravdor
      pravdor 9 February 2016 16: 34
      +3
      At us, in Russia, though not with a club, they pound, but the result is much better! :)
  11. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 9 February 2016 15: 28
    +2
    Well, retired officers went to cry as soon as the budget was cut))
    At the end of each such article, you need to do a postscript - Give money! wassat
  12. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 9 February 2016 15: 28
    +6
    National Interest calls Russian tank "Uran-9" a herald of the future
    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160209/1371852005.html
    something new . On May 9, such a robotic complex was not shown at the parade.

    Uran-9 is designed for remote reconnaissance and fire support of combined arms, reconnaissance and anti-terrorist units. It consists of two reconnaissance and fire support robots, a tractor for their transportation and a mobile control station.
    The armament of reconnaissance and fire support robots includes a 30A2 72-mm automatic cannon and a 7,62-mm machine gun coaxial with it, and “Attack” anti-tank guided missiles.
    1. Travian
      Travian 10 February 2016 10: 50
      0
      wedges new life! poisonous infections. small, nimble, with strong firepower. before our eyes, a new kind of troops is emerging. and battle tactics will change under them.
  13. Monos
    Monos 9 February 2016 15: 33
    23
    Americans just don't know how to listen. They were also warned about the "asymmetric response".
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 9 February 2016 15: 57
      +4
      This is not an RPG-7. Tower forehead to break for 200 bucks will not work.
      1. rafaelich
        rafaelich 9 February 2016 16: 17
        +1
        But it turned out! ..;)))
      2. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 9 February 2016 21: 56
        +2
        I agree, but how much does the rocket cost for the Cornet M? Vryatli is comparable to the price of a tank or repairing a tank after a defeat.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  14. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 9 February 2016 15: 39
    10
    Again virtual analytics, so far there is nothing to compare with. "Armata" has been developed, but not implemented. With what to compare? If he goes to the troops in serious numbers, then we must cry, but now no one interferes with working on new tanks. So that the regrets of this retiree about nothing ...
    1. Travian
      Travian 10 February 2016 10: 53
      0
      tolerate you will armata in the army
  15. potalevl
    potalevl 9 February 2016 15: 42
    +8
    What equality of military-industrial potential between Russia and the United States can be talked about if mattresses spend ten times more on the army than Russia. Plus, their handicap was ten years old, at least when we destroyed our army in the 90s, and they increased our potential. After the collapse of the Union, we multiplied all industry by zero, and all of Europe and Asia worked on them. Today, the military-industrial complex has just begun to revive from ruins. The mattresses are muddied so that we stop developing our defense industry.
  16. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 9 February 2016 15: 44
    +7
    Quote: Monos
    "Impenetrable and powerful, like the American" Abrams "

    "even I doubt it" chuckled RPG 7)))
  17. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 9 February 2016 15: 45
    +3
    in previous koment)
  18. Engineer
    Engineer 9 February 2016 15: 50
    +9
    Not a single T-14 and T-15 is in our army, like the T-90AM, and the Americans have Abrams - the main tank. What the author compares is not clear. Also, we do not have a single 5th generation fighter. And the Americans F-22 is already preparing for modernization and bring to mind the F-35. We have an analogue of the F-35, even no plans. It may still go through the Navy with 1 of our destroyers against 6 dozen American ones. And another American nuclear submarine carries cruise missiles more than our entire surface fleet. Enough to quote these stupid articles for the layman. Let's be realistic: only the Strategic Missile Forces can compete on equal terms with the US.
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 9 February 2016 16: 04
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      Enough to quote these stupid articles for the layman. Let's be realistic: only the Strategic Missile Forces can compete on equal terms with the US.

      I don’t even know why such articles are published here. Again, all with a bang. Retiree Davis does not praise the Russian Armed Forces at all. He complains about a cut in defense spending in the United States. No more no less. So, our army has nothing to do with it.
    2. Wheel
      Wheel 9 February 2016 16: 11
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      We have an analogue of the F-35, even no plans.

      Holy Holy Holy
      Do not need!
    3. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 9 February 2016 16: 15
      -1
      That's right said. More or less armament parity could drag only the USSR. But instead of engaging in the country and not serving the capitalists, the authorities are only looking for the guilty. Either Stalin was to blame for them, the USSR didn’t do everything like that, now Lenin is to blame for all the troubles, and put a bomb under the current system, and he crap someone in his pants.
      1. Travian
        Travian 10 February 2016 11: 04
        0
        and what is wrong with Lenin? who established the Ukrainian SSR, BSSR, KazSSR, etc. He made a revolution — so leave the administrative division of the empire unchanged, rather than divide it into national republics with the slogan of self-determination - this is the bomb that detonated in 1991 and now continues to burst in Ukraine (Belarus -?, Kazakhstan-?).
    4. Achilles
      Achilles 9 February 2016 16: 49
      +4
      Here you can argue, the F-22 and F-35 planes are too much praised by the Americans, our 4+ and 4 ++ planes are not inferior to anything, even superior in the maneuverable plan, as then explain the fact when the air show in the UK was held it was suggested that any aircraft compete with our aircraft in a training battle, and everyone refused, if the F-22 and F-35 are so cool, what did they get scared, they could immediately show who is the best, this only says one thing that American planes are too for advertised
    5. Achilles
      Achilles 9 February 2016 17: 30
      +3
      Our T-90 is in no way inferior to Abrams, Abrams is again an advertised tank, Abram has never fired at modern shells during all wars, and his RPG-7 makes its way only on the road, our T-90 was tested in every way, for example, from a distance 200 m shells equivalent to those of Abrams and T-6 were fired at 90m under their own power and returned to the base, after which modern grenade launchers (not an old RPG-90) were fired at the sides of the T-7 and, at least henna, Abrams could not shoot our T-90 missiles can (5 km), Abrams generally doesn’t have such protection as the T-90 SHTOR, which takes the missiles to the side, there were also demonstrations in India on the road, all the tanks failed only our T-90 passed the whole distance, and Abrams even got a caterpillar. So there is no need to fill in about Abroms, we have no worse than the T-90 and also the main one, but there is a lot of junk, but it is also being modernized and updated with modern tanks.
      1. Sura
        Sura 9 February 2016 18: 14
        +1
        You Achilles look here and everything will fall into place http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 9 February 2016 22: 23
          0
          He who lives his own mind in his head, sees everything himself, and who has only Wishlist inside his skull - ...... well, how lucky it is, it all depends on whose agitator is the first to succeed.
      2. Sailor
        Sailor 9 February 2016 22: 30
        +1
        The author was mistaken, in the 91st Leo-2 he would have broken Abrams, we can really compete with the latest versions of the above T-90AM tanks, well, still partly the Ukrainian Oplot with a gun like our tank.
        1. Travian
          Travian 10 February 2016 11: 14
          0
          That's exactly HOW our tank. NINE is in the Urals and in the light of recent events the Kharkov plant does not receive our guns.
    6. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 9 February 2016 22: 11
      +1
      An attack always requires a greater variety of weapons than for defense. In addition, both F22 and F35 were not very successful. For operations within Eurasia, many destroyers are not needed, missile frigates and large missile boats will be enough. Russia is not America, it would be necessary to return its own and to hold it, so much to run after a stranger.
      P.S. Americans are scampering around the world, and as a result, either forced "love" or outright hatred.
    7. shinobi
      shinobi 9 February 2016 23: 24
      +1
      As practical shooting on abrams of Sauds from RPGs and anti-tank systems of Soviet production still showed, everything rests on the training of the military. And the praised abrashes burn like our 72s and claim that the opponent wasn’t presumptuous for him. . That's just it did not help Hussein, the generals sold their own.
    8. Travian
      Travian 10 February 2016 10: 55
      0
      But how many Amer nuclear submarines carry cruise missiles?
  19. Lanista
    Lanista 9 February 2016 15: 54
    +5
    It makes no sense to compare fundamentally different systems.
    The Americans are imprisoned somewhat for tasks other than us. The basis of their doctrine is the rapid use of force anywhere in the world, why do they primarily develop means of delivery of this same force (do you know how much it costs to maintain an aircraft carrier in working condition?) And consider ensuring their mobility the main direction of development of ground forces (see Stryker) . Moreover, the last time the Americans conducted a large (front-scale) ground offensive operation in the 2004 year (Iraq), after which they were not seen in the use of large formations. In Russian, at the moment, they have NO EXPERIENCE, NO MEANS for carrying out a major ground operation.
    Unlike the Americans, we carried out several large military operations during the same period (Chechnya-2, Georgia, partly Syria + our specialists in the Donbass), and we are not sharpened by pin shots, but by a great sledgehammer.
    In the event of a serious clash on a European theater or even in Syria, we will have a clear and obvious advantage, especially if we preempt them in deployment.
    1. Travian
      Travian 10 February 2016 11: 20
      0
      it is not a question of advantage, but parity. We have no advantages over NATO, but parity is possible, which seems to require confirmation
  20. Altona
    Altona 9 February 2016 15: 56
    +3
    Twenty billion dollars have been spent in ten years, but none of the ideas have been implemented.
    -----------------------
    Come on? For 25 years, $ 8,5 TRLN has been dissolved in the bowels of the Pentagon. To what, it is not clear. For $ 382 BILLION, they created the "F-35 Lightning II aviation triune platform", created a family of combat robots, both wheeled and stepping-foot robots, created exoskeletons, created Osprey transport copters, created new Aegis missile defense components, both in terms of missiles and carriers -ships. Now I am listing and it is immediately clear against whom this is being created, since conventional types of weapons and aviation have not gone through anything so revolutionary in terms of modernization, but now the United States is too late to rush about modernizing conventional weapons, since they are now barely fighting small states. Even the aforementioned Iraq was finished off with money, not weapons. The Abrams entered the quiet, peaceful city of Baghdad, which did not offer adequate resistance like Basra.
  21. GSVG 86-88
    GSVG 86-88 9 February 2016 16: 13
    +5
    “The T-14 turned out to be at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams.
    Well, as for the T-14, this has not yet been tested in combat conditions, but the Abrams burn very well in various photo and video reports.
  22. mik6403
    mik6403 9 February 2016 16: 18
    +4
    The Pentagon, of course, is looking for reasons for additional funding, but some sorrowful optimists have the feeling that we are on par with conventional weapons from the USA ....
  23. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 9 February 2016 16: 19
    0
    “The impressive difference in military capabilities that once existed between the United States and other countries of the world has narrowed to a statistical error,” the author writes.

    This means that the difference in military budgets between the United States and Russia, respectively, should grow to space heights! Only in this way the Yankees will be ready to enter the battlefield with the "green men"!
  24. Wedmak
    Wedmak 9 February 2016 16: 23
    +4
    Well, in general, both the T-15 and the T-15 are still in trials. Like the T-16 (ARV). If you keep the promise by the end of the year to start the series, and the series goes, then we will shout bravo.
    But still we are ahead of the Americans in the generations of BBM. At least a little, but there is. The United States does not even have a replacement for Abramsu on paper.
  25. Travian
    Travian 9 February 2016 18: 13
    0
    armata is not just a tank - it is a concept. robot without crew. and in the crew of the abrams, by the way, there is a loader.
  26. Nick888
    Nick888 9 February 2016 18: 24
    0
    “The T-14 turned out to be at least as impenetrable and powerful as the American Abrams.

    Pff ...
    In 1991, the Abrams would have won a one-on-one battle against any potential enemy tank.

    Pff ... x 2
  27. Bayun
    Bayun 9 February 2016 18: 56
    0
    About modern tanks in the distant theater of operations, one can say in the words of a German general about the "Tigers": "They will be very good wherever they can be delivered."
  28. Flat5160
    Flat5160 9 February 2016 19: 50
    0
    That's right - arrogance. They puffed out their cheeks and began to hand each other medals for victory in the Cold War. Well, now they are one of the arbiters of the fate of the world, Russia is destroyed by nobody .... In short forgot. And happiness was so close, so possible!
  29. avebersek
    avebersek 9 February 2016 23: 11
    0
    Quote: GRAY
    Quote: Smoked
    To whom fortunetelling, and to whom bread and butter in the face of all kinds of experts.

    If all such articles are taken at face value, it will soon turn out that Russia's military potential has reached the size of the universe and is about to go beyond it.
    This is a product for use on their own information field. It is necessary to show the inhabitants what kind of Russians are terrible, otherwise they will not want to vote for politicians who will cut the budget in the field of child prodigy.

    Well, it is. The power of Russia has not been surpassed so far. And Omerikosy can only lick their lips at the power of Russia. They can bomb the weak from far. Stalingrad, they can’t. There is no practice.