Military Review

Photo of the Syrian T-90, who withstood the hit of the missile complex TOW-2

203
After the sensational video hit by the TOW-90 anti-tank missile in the Syrian T-2 tank, military experts, speculating about the fortress of Russian equipment, began to wait for any news from Syria about the fate of the combat vehicle. And now, recently a photo of that tank, Said Messenger of Mordovia.


Tank after hitting the rocket

Earlier, the editor of the magazine “Arsenal of the Fatherland” Viktor Murakhovsky reported on the website “Courage” that “everything is fine with the tank: he arrived at the Syrian armored repair factory, where he was replaced with dynamic protection and the tip of the sights”.

“And finally, the photo of the tank was made public. Judging by him, the car received minimal damage, the hit of an anti-tank missile, in fact, had to be in dynamic protection and elements of the Blind complex. There was no fire, let alone an explosion about which they hurried to write "informed Ukrainian sources,", says Lev Romanov, author of the article.

Tank before the operation
Photos used:
Brave2004
203 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. maxiban
    maxiban 21 March 2016 10: 57
    +188
    Well, great! So much talk was different. Successes guys and victories! And do not turn off the birdhouse!
    1. bulvas
      bulvas 21 March 2016 10: 58
      +104
      Careless article

      Ukrovoyaki upset

      Next in line is the javelin test to calm the Estonian fighters


      1. oleg-gr
        oleg-gr 21 March 2016 11: 05
        +56
        The armor is strong. Dynamic protection works. Great news! Well, let "friends and partners" shed tears. They are good at it. No wonder they watch Mexican soap operas.
        1. Mobius
          Mobius 21 March 2016 11: 35
          +26
          Quote: oleg-gr
          The armor is strong. Dynamic protection works. Great news!

          Wonderful "Russian piece of iron" good
          1. 34 region
            34 region 21 March 2016 11: 40
            -42%
            Mobius! 11.35. All this is certainly good. But the Israelis seem to have a system that sends fiery greetings to the offender that is incompatible with life. Or is there no such thing? And is there such a system with us?
            1. Mobius
              Mobius 21 March 2016 12: 04
              +29
              Quote: 34 region
              Mobius! 11.35. All this is certainly good. But the Israelis seem to have a system that sends fiery greetings to the offender that is incompatible with life. Or is there no such thing? And is there such a system with us?


              I, what side to Israel?

              And that you remembered the Promised Land, as if we had already sent our "boxes" there ...
              1. 34 region
                34 region 21 March 2016 12: 42
                -6
                Mobius! 12.04. Remember the Promised Land? Yes, just this news inspired something. And it's not in the boxes. The point is technology. Technology-protect and technology protect and punish. There is a difference? Substitute a second cheek or give in the face after trying to hit the first cheek?
                1. Alekseev
                  Alekseev 21 March 2016 14: 30
                  +32
                  Quote: Region 34
                  just this news inspired something.

                  It is not clear what you mean? Fantasies, what, they say, after hitting a tank, for example, an ATGM, the "technology" should aim the tank armament at the "offender" and open fire on him?
                  This, in fact, must be done earlier, before the launch of the rocket. laughing
                  For this, the tank has a crew.
                  And there are no "technologies" without a crew yet, not in Israel, not anywhere else.
                  For the T-90 pride. TOW powerful ATGM, 152 mm, damage is not critical, I'm glad.
                  1. aba
                    aba 21 March 2016 17: 05
                    +9
                    I'm glad.

                    I support! Especially. that it’s not just joy, but also someone’s saved lives!
                2. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 21 March 2016 18: 23
                  +2
                  No punishment can be compared to a 125mm cannon.
            2. Muvka
              Muvka 21 March 2016 14: 39
              +12
              Quote: 34 region
              Mobius! 11.35. All this is certainly good. But the Israelis seem to have a system that sends fiery greetings to the offender that is incompatible with life. Or is there no such thing? And is there such a system with us?

              There is no such system on the T-90. On the T-14 will already be KAZ Afghanit, which also knows how.
            3. Andrey ABC
              Andrey ABC 22 March 2016 16: 10
              +1
              Ask "Armata"!
          2. Armored optimist
            Armored optimist 21 March 2016 11: 45
            +24
            Are there any photos from the port side? The rocket poked in there.
            1. shuhartred
              shuhartred 21 March 2016 12: 06
              +7
              Quote: armored optimist
              Are there any photos from the port side? The rocket poked in there.

              I am worried about something else. And if the second came for the first missile? Well, how on airplanes work from two MANPADS, that would be for sure. The first "wounded" the second ..... what
              1. Aljavad
                Aljavad 23 March 2016 02: 52
                +2
                I'm worried about something else. And what if the second one came for the first missile? Well, how on airplanes work from two MANPADS, that would be for sure. The first "wounded" the second ..... what


                To get two ATGMs at one, roughly speaking, point? Those. in the same remote sensing segment? I’m playing around ... request
            2. FenH
              FenH 21 March 2016 12: 58
              +9
              Quote: armored optimist
              Are there any photos from the port side? The rocket poked in there.

              There is no such photo, which is a bit strange request
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 21 March 2016 14: 06
                +17
                Quote: FenH
                which is a little strange

                Yes, not a little, but very strange. If you decide to show a wrecked tank, then you need to show from all angles, and ESPECIALLY the place of impact. Or do not show at all. No.
                1. Rec
                  Rec 22 March 2016 00: 31
                  +10
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  Yes, not a little, but very strange. If you decide to show a wrecked tank, then you need to show from all angles, and ESPECIALLY the place of impact. Or do not show at all.

                  Maybe that’s why they didn’t show that the bearded didn’t make the necessary conclusions for themselves.
            3. Brain Yurich
              Brain Yurich 21 March 2016 19: 47
              +2
              I would also like to look at him. not for nothing they apparently showed the other side
            4. poacher
              poacher 21 March 2016 22: 31
              +4
              what's the difference, left-right, the tank itself is "alive" and the crew, since they left for repairs themselves, everything works what else is needed?
            5. puskarinkis
              puskarinkis 22 March 2016 00: 17
              +9
              If my subordinates would try to take a selfie against the port side, and even lay out somewhere, I would ... I would explain to them popularly that this is not worth doing. Although, as a person, I am also interested! But, not only to me ...
          3. VIK_1961
            VIK_1961 22 March 2016 21: 55
            +1
            Irony is not appropriate. The armor is really strong. Take my word for it, I know it personally. DZ (in the photo it is hard to see what kind of product the Scientific Research Institute of Steel is on the car), but I am 100% sure that they are testing the standard equipment of the 90s for both the RF Ministry of Defense and the "export" version. "Purqua pa ???" - why not ???
            1. Foxmara
              Foxmara 23 March 2016 17: 23
              0
              Quote: VIK_1961
              The standard equipment of the 90th vehicles is being tested both for the RF Ministry of Defense and the "export" version.

              there are our T-90A, sent in an accelerated version. Not export. Without cooling, alas, because the Syrians ride with open hatches.
        2. makst83
          makst83 21 March 2016 11: 43
          +9
          The left eye blinked and was hit for it! laughing
      2. little girl15
        little girl15 21 March 2016 11: 14
        +13
        bulvas (3) RU Today, 10:58 ↑ New
        Careless article

        Ukrovoyaki upset

        Next in line is the javelin test to calm the Estonian fighters

        Well, you, ukrovoyak began testing "a new innovative tank." They say it will be cooler than ours.
        1. Lukich
          Lukich 21 March 2016 11: 48
          +23
          Quote: Vovochka15
          Well, you, ukrovoyak began testing "a new innovative tank." They say it will be cooler than ours.
          1. vadson
            vadson 21 March 2016 13: 07
            +7
            shots per second hang? not, but what? think of it and put it in canned food will write guns, that’s the correspondence of those to the task)))
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 21 March 2016 14: 15
              +2
              Quote: vadson
              shots per second hang? not, but what?

              Well, yes, we went too far in fantasies. The "Pantsir" and "Tunguska" have a rate of fire of 41 shots / sec. on the trunk. laughing
              1. KCA
                KCA 21 March 2016 18: 19
                +5
                from "Shilka" 10 per second turns out sort of like, 2400 per minute from 4 barrels, but it didn't seem to anyone either before or now, but 50 per second, how's that? rrrrraz and all the ammunition of the APU flew away?
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 21 March 2016 22: 29
                  +6
                  rrrrraz and all the APU ammunition flew away?
                  monthly stock ...
                2. Aljavad
                  Aljavad 23 March 2016 02: 59
                  +1
                  KCA RU March 21, 2016 18:19 ↑ New
                  from "Shilka" 10 per second turns out sort of like, 2400 per minute from 4 barrels, but it didn't seem to anyone either before or now, but 50 per second, how's that? rrrrraz and all the ammunition of the APU flew away?


                  And behind, to that tank - the TRAILER for ammunition, in the form of a freight car, and is covered with a grid - for masking! belay
          2. Foxmara
            Foxmara 23 March 2016 17: 52
            +1
            the fact is that Azovets shoots from the GSh-23 aircraft cannon. Its rate of fire is actually 10000 / min, which is 166 / sec. Apparently dill somehow modernized a good cannon, so that it began to shoot 3 times slower. This is according to WIKI. But the "corner of the sky" claims that its speed is 2500-3400 / min. We get 41-56 / sec. Which basically corresponds. I was more pleased with the welded armor. It would be interesting to fire it from the cord, for example.
        2. Drmadfisher
          Drmadfisher 21 March 2016 13: 42
          +2
          one complex javelin half defective state .. countries 404
        3. BMP-2
          BMP-2 21 March 2016 15: 03
          +4
          Quote: Vovochka15
          ukrovoyak began testing a "new innovative tank"


          Well, so far, this tank has successfully destroyed only innovations in Ukraine, and is the best project in cutting investments. request
      3. Pravdarm
        Pravdarm 21 March 2016 11: 16
        +15
        Quote: bulvas
        Ukrovoyaki upset
        Nothing like that! They will simply shout: "Here are quilted jackets, Colorads, stupid ones! They think that we do not see that this is not the right tank!" fellow
      4. tol100v
        tol100v 21 March 2016 11: 17
        +9
        Quote: bulvas
        Ukrovoyaki upset

        To the state of loose stool!
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. Now we are free
        Now we are free 21 March 2016 11: 38
        +94
        All this is good, BUT for the future:
        First of all- it is necessary to spread this information earlier (while the "Iron is hot") and the "destruction of the T-90" in the network was not trumpeted only by the Russophobe of the sick CPU. And then the photo "arrived in time". And now let's imagine a video of a tank which itself was able to get away from the place where it was hit by the vaunted American ATGM "TOU-2" with minor damage and the Syrian colonel / general "Life-giving stars" who was distributing the tank to the Syrian crew for doubting the armor resistance of the tank and left the combat vehicle in full force, scratching their ears. One such video, which appeared not after two weeks, but within a couple of days, costs 10 or even hundreds of "Destroyed" / "Non-Destroyed" tanks in words. As they say, it is better to see once than hear a hundred times.
        Secondly- ... nevertheless, the th crew should be given both for the shutdown "Curtain" and for the selected position of the tank at which only a militant who was ill with the same CPU could not shoot.
        third- since the photos are being laid out (albeit belatedly) regarding the fact that the tank was damaged a little and the more so remained in the hands of the SAA, it would be necessary to make at least a thirty-second video with smiling Syrian tank crews (Syrian and what did you think? laughing ) showing the sign "Victory" or thumbs up and shouting that the moderate "Woe-ATGMs" are waiting for an ambulance and inevitable "response".
        Yes, many will say that it is easy to say that, about all these ostentatious video footage and feigned plots, but in fact the war is a dirty and difficult matter, where there is no place for "Potemkin reports" ... BUT guys, let's be honest, "Moderate thugs" are spreading a video where one or another CAA technique is knocked out and then you can scratch at least a count on your head saying that this is only an isolated case, but that's just this SINGLE CASE that the whole world sees on YouTube, and even more so the CAA soldiers who go the next day take another height / city. Information war almost surpasses the actual war in its significance, and whoever showed the picture of his victory / victories earlier and more literately forms the public consciousness. What to say about the fact that in this case the reputation of the defense industry of Russia is at stake, if not Russia itself (the Tank is Russian and this is by no means the T-55). Therefore, it is necessary to react more quickly to such videos of terrorists, which in this case could be turned in favor of ourselves and our allies -SAA. I hope the domestic military curators of the media / Internet resources will make far-reaching conclusions.

        The first victim of any war is Truth. So let’s at least truthfully and in time convey to the world (since we don’t know how to lie like Americans, and to be honest we don’t like by nature).
        1. Senior manager
          Senior manager 21 March 2016 11: 59
          +7
          They harness for a long time, but they drive fast (about us). Politics is not a quick thing. It will be clear to interested people - the tank is good, but take out the couch and put it down. As a bad mother-in-law "still not so."
        2. Blondy
          Blondy 21 March 2016 12: 14
          +5
          Quote: Now we are free
          since the photos are being laid out (albeit belatedly) regarding the fact that the tank was slightly damaged and, moreover, remained in the hands of the SAA,

          Well, then take off the side on which they shot, and not the opposite.
        3. VP
          VP 21 March 2016 12: 54
          +8
          Quote: Now we are free
          secondly ... the crew still needs to be given for the shutdown "Curtain"

          It seems that the work of the Curtain is blocked with the sunroof open. And in the video they just perl with an open hatch.
          Those. specially no one didn’t turn off the curtain.
          1. Brain Yurich
            Brain Yurich 21 March 2016 19: 52
            +1
            they don’t have air conditioning in the tank?
            1. Foxmara
              Foxmara 23 March 2016 17: 57
              0
              This is not an export option. To coordinate for a long time. Ours took from operation, if not from storage. T-90A.
              Acc. did not have.
          2. goblin xnumx
            goblin xnumx 23 March 2016 23: 01
            0
            and below the video where t 90 with the shutter on and open hatches rides, video editing?
        4. Ayujak
          Ayujak 21 March 2016 13: 36
          +5
          You say the thing! good
        5. Lieutenant Izhe
          Lieutenant Izhe 21 March 2016 14: 19
          -2
          and the Syrian colonel / general of the "Life-giving stars" distributing the tank to the Syrian crew for doubting the armor resistance of the tank and leaving the combat vehicle in (full strength)

          simply, the Syrian crews need to be shackled in the tank so that the gouging "vigilance" DO NOT LOSE! angry
          PS The vigorous bonba in the hands of the Papuan is just .... DUBINE!(C) wassat
        6. Vetal999
          Vetal999 21 March 2016 18: 47
          -2
          Do not go to the crew, after this, and so, they threw in their pants.
        7. Kunar
          Kunar 21 March 2016 21: 41
          -1
          The tank is good !!! But the Arabs, jerking out of it, leave much to be desired ....
          1. lex locis
            lex locis 22 March 2016 13: 56
            +2
            Kunar
            But the Arabs, jerking out of it, leave much to be desired ...

            You would have died of a heart attack there ...
            It’s good to criticize from the side.
            Right jumped out and most importantly quickly and without much panic.
            Could something detonate, catch fire ...
          2. Kunar
            Kunar 23 March 2016 08: 09
            +1
            Gentlemen minusers!)) What is the name of the actions of the crew that threw workable equipment on the battlefield without trying to evacuate it? Or was the tank out of turn? When you answer this question, at least zamusnuyte))))
      7. vic58
        vic58 21 March 2016 12: 43
        +2
        Okay! The main thing is not to be tested by a "highly professional Ukrainian crew"! These and the cast-iron blank will gouge!))))
      8. Stas157
        Stas157 21 March 2016 14: 40
        +4
        Quote: bulvas
        Next in line is the javelin test to calm the Estonian fighters

        But it’s better not to bring it to this! Javelin beats from above and with tandem ammunition intended to open DZ. But, how the T-90 withstood a direct hit TOU, this is mega cool!
      9. MAD_SERGANT
        MAD_SERGANT 23 March 2016 19: 00
        +1
        It won't work! Our "gallant" warriors have now created a commission to investigate the incident, the fact that the rocket did not explode when it hit the BTR-70 hull))) absolutely motionless, but what to say about a moving tank))) After the "parade", I talked with such a grenade launcher)) he said that from the moment the target is detected, until the shot is fired, at least 1.5 minutes are needed, and if you do not shoot in 2.5 minutes, then in principle the missile can be thrown out! One shot costs about 100K euros !!!
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 21 March 2016 11: 02
      +26
      After the sensational video hit in the T-90 Syrian tank missiles anti-tank complex TOW-2
      “Everything is fine with the tank: he arrived at the Syrian armored repair plant, where he changed the dynamic protection and the head of the sights”

      Bill the manufacturers of the TOW-2 system for damage and shipping costs!
      1. Brain Yurich
        Brain Yurich 21 March 2016 19: 54
        +4
        CASCO will cover everything)
        1. Mih
          Mih 23 March 2016 23: 13
          0
          CASCO will cover everything laughing

          Creative brother !!! fellow
    3. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 21 March 2016 11: 06
      +2
      Quote: maxiban
      Well, great! So many conversations were different

      Everything is great. But questions remain:
      - why didn’t they post the photo before (it happened two weeks ago) in order to avoid rumors?
      - what about the side screens? It seems that the patches are worth it. Another hit?
      1. maxiban
        maxiban 21 March 2016 11: 20
        +13
        Yes, just in Syria did not know that such a hype would rise. Still, war is not up to photos. It’s the terrorists who shoot every bunch of them in the video.
        1. max702
          max702 21 March 2016 12: 34
          +2
          Quote: maxiban
          Yes, just in Syria did not know that such a hype would rise. Still, war is not up to photos. It’s the terrorists who shoot every bunch of them in the video.

          Why are they doing this? Maybe their curators thought about it and strictly obliged them to do it? Maybe they (the curators) understand HOW this is important, but again we waved away? There is progress on this front, conferences, reports, etc. .. But here they obviously missed it, and a photo of some kind of muddy tank that doesn’t give the whole picture is shown on the opposite side from the place of defeat, but we really had to show it so that there was no doubt that TOU trash and T-90 taxis .. Defective ...
      2. lelikas
        lelikas 21 March 2016 11: 21
        +5
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        - why didn’t they post the photo before (it happened two weeks ago) in order to avoid rumors?
        - what about the side screens? It seems that the patches are worth it. Another hit?

        Also a photo on the other side of the tower ,,,
        And with the screens, everything is fine - they got used to the wall - they were distorted.
        I think they simply are not up to our experiences - that’s not a picture.
      3. opus
        opus 21 March 2016 11: 33
        +4
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        - why didn’t they post the photo before (it happened two weeks ago) in order to avoid rumors?

        the tank does not weigh 20 tons.
        Deliver to the repair plant from the war zone - the same time should be bored, inspected, etc.
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        - what about the side screens? It seems that the patches are worth it. Another hit?


        nothing moved a little BB


    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 21 March 2016 11: 07
      +3
      Somehow I missed the news about the hit, the tank of course escaped with a slight startle.
      1. FenH
        FenH 21 March 2016 11: 38
        +1
        Quote: vodolaz
        Somehow I missed the news about the hit, the tank of course escaped with a slight startle.

        Here you can see dear
        https://youtu.be/y-1LgcZNsfQ
    5. demo
      demo 21 March 2016 11: 20
      +2
      To prevent the "starlings" from arriving?
    6. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2016 11: 20
      +2
      only it’s not clear whether it was broken or not. To do this, show the place of impact. The hole from the cumulative stream is small, some TOWs hit from above with the strike core, dynamic protection against the strike core does not save, because in the video the rocket explodes over the tank, most likely the system with the strike core was used
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 21 March 2016 11: 31
        +12
        Quote: Hon
        The hole from the cumulative stream is small, some TOWs hit with an impact core from above ..
        If the tower had been pierced, the gunner (albeit from fright or shell shock) would not have jumped out so quickly. I wouldn’t have jumped out at all ..
        Quote: lelikas
        I think they simply are not up to our experiences - that’s not a picture.
        Well yes. They don’t suspect how we are worried about them here. People do combat work.
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 March 2016 12: 02
          +1
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          If the tower had been pierced, the gunner (albeit from fright or shell shock) would not have jumped out so quickly. I wouldn’t have jumped out at all ..

          it’s if the tower was pierced, and if the top was hit by a core, it would have been a little to the left of the mechanical drive
      2. opus
        opus 21 March 2016 11: 43
        +6
        Quote: Hon
        only it’s not clear whether it was broken or not.

        if there was a PUNCH, there would be nothing to repair.
        And no Syrian tanker would run to ventilate his pants after being hit (right away), but most likely he would not be able to run at all.
        Quote: Hon
        because in the video a rocket explodes over a tank,

        right on the forehead of the tower

        original shooting

        Quote: Hon
        most likely the system with the shock core was used

        The warhead - cumulative, also tandem (TOW-2M) - on a special pin in front of the rocket a small charge is advanced, which initiates an element of dynamic defense of the target.
        Telescopic tip - three-section

        BGM-71E TOW-2A = tandem warhead

        BGM-71F TOW-2B only has OTA (Overflight Top Attack). But in Syria they have not yet been used (probably the Americans have not yet decided to supply)
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 21 March 2016 11: 46
          0
          Only now the rocket did not hit the frontal part of the tower, and above - the cumulative stream slipped slippery along the roof of the tower.
          1. opus
            opus 21 March 2016 16: 57
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            As soon as the rocket hit neither the frontal part of the tower, and above - the cumulative stream slipped slippery along the roof of the tower.

            where the marker was pointed, it got there.

            The operator was safe (tank diamond, part of the body behind the wall), the tower on them

            There was no “slip-through” COP.
            This is a DZ response


            Like here:




            If the curtain were on, it would be like that
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 21 March 2016 17: 44
              +1
              This is just not a dynamic protection actuation, since in these tiles on the roof of the explosive there are only 100 grams - it was a rocket explosion - the rocket fell into the gunner’s optical device and worked and the cumulative stream slipped slippery along the roof of the tower.
        2. Hon
          Hon 21 March 2016 12: 06
          +1
          Quote: opus
          if there was a PUNCH, there would be nothing to repair.
          And no Syrian tanker would run to ventilate his pants after being hit (right away), but most likely he would not be able to run at all.

          Why so? tanks are often put into operation after repair, the armor is brewed, equipment is changed or repaired, and you can fight again
          1. opus
            opus 21 March 2016 16: 46
            +1
            Quote: Hon
            tanks are often put into operation after repair, the armor is brewed, equipment is changed or repaired


            What is there to change / repair?
            (it's true land mine, in my opinion)




            Tou-2 (and other Generations No. 2, No. 3) is not a toy, clapperboard



      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 March 2016 13: 37
        +7
        for Hon:

        "video rocket explodes over the tank, most likely it is the system with
        shock core and used "////

        These TOU (with shock core) are not exported.
        The missile still involved DZ and hit the frontal plate of the tower.
        The explosion seems to be from DZ. Breakthrough, I think, was not. Missile hit
        to the tank’s most protected, strongest place.
    7. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 21 March 2016 11: 44
      +3
      and it is very pleasing .....
    8. Rostovchanin
      Rostovchanin 21 March 2016 11: 45
      -9
      Where is at least a photo of the right side ???? I can so give out any T90 for the one that hit TOW2. Guys, don’t be so naive.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 21 March 2016 13: 52
        +2
        In the photo, the left "birdhouse" is damaged. Apparently this is the tank
      2. opus
        opus 21 March 2016 18: 06
        +5
        Quote: Rostovchanin
        Where is at least a photo of the right side ????

        This is the photo of the RIGHT side of the tank (along the MBT)
        They will not show the left to you (nor to us). Why reveal the secret of TOU-2 impact on our T-90?
        1. Rostovchanin
          Rostovchanin 22 March 2016 11: 25
          0
          got it, litter
          of course left
    9. The comment was deleted.
    10. Shamsik
      Shamsik 22 March 2016 12: 35
      +1
      But in general, it would be worth saying that the tank could not stand it, it broke, etc. Let them continue to think that their tanks penetrate our tanks. And at the right moment, bam! and unexpected!
  2. PROSTEEL
    PROSTEEL 21 March 2016 10: 57
    +6
    "Contact-5" showed itself to be 5+! I would very much like to look and the revenge of the hit.
    For experts, this would be very useful!
    P.S. "Baron" Andrey is probably terribly upset hi
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 10
      +6
      Quote: PROSTEEL
      "Contact-5" showed itself to be 5+! I would very much like to look and the revenge of the hit.
      For experts, this would be very useful!

      Moreover, judging by the first photo, the curtains fell into the section of the tower between the gun and the "searchlight", and in this section there is just this small block of DZ, and what is most interesting - only slightly deformed ones are visible on the armor (despite the fact that the gun is a little interfering) fastening of this very block of DZ and no serious "dents" or other traces of a missile hit.
      So it worked just fine.
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2016 11: 22
      +3
      Quote: PROSTEEL
      I'd love to see the revenge of getting.

      that’s exactly the place of hit and do not show
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 29
        0
        Quote: Hon
        that’s exactly the place of hit and do not show

        Come on - "en-fas" - yes, they do not show it, but you can still see it in the photo, and understand the damage from the article - the gunner's curtain and sight were damaged (apparently), and the area of ​​armor where the rocket was (most likely ) hit - and so it is visible enough.
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 March 2016 11: 43
          0
          This is how cumulative jet damage looks like

          Modernization of TOW-2 was carried out as part of the PIP program (from the English Product Improvement Program). The contract for the development of ATGM "TOW-2B" company "Hughes" was received in September 1987, small-scale production was launched in 1990, and a new modification entered service in 1992.

          The main innovation was the implementation of the OTA (English Overflight Top Attack) mode - attacking the target from above when flying above it into the least armored part of the hull. In “TOW-2B” a new warhead of the “shock core" type was used, which included two sequentially triggered charges

          In the video, the fuse fires when the rocket is above the tank, but does not fall into it, which means that it was possible to use the modification with shock cores, so the place of impact should be somewhere above the driver’s head. Just that place and the bearded dude does not allow to make out
          1. opus
            opus 21 March 2016 11: 52
            +1
            Quote: Hon
            in the video, the fuse is fired when a rocket is above the tank

            1. Directly in the forehead of the tower, no "ABOVE"
            here is "over"

            2. What you see in the video "broads" is the triggering of the remote sensing modules (the warhead of the ATGM is simply destroyed, and you cannot determine what it was)


            Quote: Hon
            was the implementation of the OTA mode (English Overflight Top Attack)


            BGM-71F TOW-2B in Syria have not been noticed, here are the T-72 and BGM-71F TOW-2B with OTA


            Quote: Hon
            it means that it is quite possible that the modification with shock nuclei was used,

            You will not see (outside) in the video - the difference between the "shock core" and just a cumulative warhead
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 21 March 2016 12: 36
              +6
              Last fake video. The tank was full of explosives to the eyeballs. That's why the tower was torn down.
              the difference between the "shock core" and just a cumulative warhead

              How can we not see this? The shock nucleus is formed at a greater distance from the charge than the cumulative jet. And it flies several tens of meters, in contrast to the same cumulative stream, scattering already after half a meter.
              1. opus
                opus 21 March 2016 17: 05
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                The tank was full of explosives to the eyeballs. That's why the tower was torn down.

                maybe I won’t argue, maybe an imitation of full BK

                Quote: Wedmak
                How can we not see this? The shock core is formed at a greater distance from the charge than the cumulative jet

                Quote: Wedmak
                You will not see(outside) by video


                Yes, and a tall angle, like our T-90 in Syria
                1.Cumulative

                2. Both that and that


                3.About dozens, this is overkill (an explosion should occur at a distance of more than 1-1.5 meters from the armor), dozens, this is for very large (mines)

                generally about the COP and UY
          2. Albert1988
            Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 53
            +2
            That is, do you think that the hit was in, relatively speaking, the roof of the tower above the gunner? But then the question is - why did the DZ work on the front of the tower? And if this block worked from the shock wave, why didn’t the others work? Why did the gunner stay alive? Why did the tower slightly turn to the side after being hit? And then why do you conclude that it was the modification with the impact core that was used?
            As for the video - I’ve just reviewed it - the explosion occurs when the rocket is on the same level with that part of the tower’s forehead, on which there is a soot stain and a disrupted spotlight of the curtain, and not above the machine.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 21 March 2016 14: 28
              0
              "But then the question is - why did the remote sensing on the front of the tower work?" - Did it work at all?
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 21 March 2016 16: 26
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                Did she even work?

                Pay attention to the absence on the first photo of the DZ block (a small one) to the left of the gun - where there is still a soot stain and its mounts are visible - it is clear that the DZ block at this place worked.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 21 March 2016 17: 49
                  +1
                  This block was blown up by a rocket explosion, together with a spotlight of the Curtain - the rocket hit higher - in the gunner’s optics.
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 21 March 2016 18: 55
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    This block was blown up by a rocket explosion, together with a spotlight of the Curtain - the rocket hit higher - in the gunner’s optics.

                    In conclusion about the missile getting into the optics of the gunner - at least shy. This time.
                    Two - the question immediately arises - if the blast demolished this block and the searchlight, then why didn’t it demolish all the others that are on the left side of the tower behind the searchlight - if we assume that the rocket really hit the optics, then the distance from the optics to all elements of the remote sensing is the same , which means that all elements of the DZ had to be demolished on the left side of the tower, but the rest except for the missing one in the photo are intact - this is clearly seen by the presence of a box that looks out over the flashed spotlight - it is mounted directly on the DZ block, so it wouldn’t be detonated either It was.
              2. opus
                opus 21 March 2016 17: 06
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                Did she even work?

                be sure to watch from 1:16 in the video, everything is visible, clear (the shell is different, it confuses)


                Well, the result (photo to repair)
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 21 March 2016 17: 55
                  0
                  You all the other videos look where they fall from this ATGM into the tanks and you will understand that it was a rocket explosion, and not dynamic protection — they do dynamic defense so that if one unit were triggered, the neighboring ones would not work.
                  1. opus
                    opus 21 March 2016 18: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    You all the other videos look where they get from this ATGM to tanks

                    Yes, I’ve already seen, this is not the initiation of the COP


                    This is from the "plant"
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 21 March 2016 23: 51
                      0
                      In the last video - just the initiation of a cumulative jet and the explosion is the same as when hit in the T 90. It remains to be hoped that the pictures of the roof of the tank tower will be laid out - everything will be completely clear there.
          3. Black Colonel
            Black Colonel 21 March 2016 13: 55
            +1
            "... does not allow the bearded dude to be seen."
            See the first phoography
    3. Maxom75
      Maxom75 21 March 2016 11: 43
      +3
      I don’t know about Contact 5, but after this incident the following upgraded T-72s for the Russian army are already equipped with the Relic DZ and this suggests. Apparently this DZ proved to be better. Well, I really want to hope in this, we need powerful and strong tanks, and still alive and healthy guys, tank crews are waiting for them at home.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Wiruz
    Wiruz 21 March 2016 10: 57
    +46
    Fs fse fret! The tank burned to the ground, conscripts from Rostov captured! And in the photo in general a tank of cardboard and plywood wassat

    PySy: I’m the daughter of a tanker and the son of a Syrian rebel - I know laughing
    1. Riv
      Riv 21 March 2016 11: 33
      +5
      Yes Yes! This is a Russian armored collar 100 mm thick, a secret development. It does not burn, does not sink, is sawn with a jigsaw. Equipped with basic artificial intelligence.
      :)
  4. Giant thought
    Giant thought 21 March 2016 10: 57
    0
    Here is one more proof of the highest quality of our military equipment, burning Abrams here and there are not nearby.
    1. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2016 11: 24
      +1
      Quote: Thought Giant
      Here is one more proof of the highest quality of our military equipment, burning Abrams here and there are not nearby.

      tanks didn’t burn in Chechnya?
      1. chikenous59
        chikenous59 21 March 2016 11: 26
        +8
        Quote: Hon
        tanks didn’t burn in Chechnya?

        It was noted fairly, but I remember in those days there were problems with the presence of remote sensing on tanks due to an empty budget or theft
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 March 2016 11: 44
          -3
          Quote: chikenous59
          It was noted fairly, but I remember in those days there were problems with the presence of remote sensing on tanks due to an empty budget or theft

          not quite so, there were just a lot of hits, as well as on abrases
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 March 2016 11: 55
        +22
        Quote: Hon
        tanks didn’t burn in Chechnya?

        Burned. And the reasons for this are known:
        In January 1995, in Grozny, Major N.G. Gocheryan, the chief of staff of the tank battalion of one of the motorized rifle regiments of the Ural Military District, was fired from an RPG-7 grenade launcher. The grenade hit the starboard side, not covered by a screen, which frustrated in previous battles. The cumulative jet pierced the armor and the right fuel tank. A fire broke out inside the car. The driver stopped the car, and the crew left it by order of the major, while the engine of the car continued to work. The chief of staff took the place of the driver in the burning car and brought her to the location of his battalion. There, improvised means, water from puddles, extinguished the fire in the car. The ammunition in the car was heated up by the fire, and the powder charges of the artillery shots turned black, however, nothing happened. Of course, if the PPO system cylinders were filled with an extinguishing agent, then everything would be simpler, but they were used up earlier. There was nowhere to refuel them, and there was no time, the war was in full swing, and technical and logistical support had not yet been properly organized.

        And here is what the grant and ATGMs get into normally equipped tanks (T-72B):
        Tanks attacked motorized riflemen in battle formations from the line of attack, which is 1200 m away from the positions of the militants. During the attack, the enemy tried to repel a tank attack with anti-tank fire from 9M111 Fagot missiles. A total of 14 launches of ATGMs were made. Two missiles did not reach the goal thanks to the skillfully carried out by the crew of the machine maneuver (both missiles were intended for one tank), 12 missiles hit the tanks, and 4 missiles hit one of the vehicles at once. Nevertheless, after these hits, the crew and the tank retained their combat effectiveness and continued to carry out the assigned combat mission. The machine was damaged turret anti-aircraft machine gun, command observation device TKN-3V and the prismatic observation device of the gunner was broken. On the remaining tanks of the company, which received one or two ATGM hits, there were injuries of the following nature: damage to the boxes with spare parts on the fenders (on two vehicles), destruction of the Luna-4 searchlights (on two vehicles), damage to the NSVT anti-aircraft machine gun turret -12,7 "Cliff" (in one car).

        The remaining ATGM hits in tanks caused only the activation of dynamic protection elements. The penetration of armor was achieved only on one tank as a result of launching a rocket "hill" and getting it into the tower at an angle of 15-20 ° from top to bottom in the area of ​​the gunner’s hatch. As a result of penetration of the armor by a cumulative jet, the electrical wiring was damaged and the senior lettenant I.V. Abramov, who was in the spot of the gunner, was slightly injured (burn and tangential fragmentary wounds of the occipital part of the head). The tank retained its combat effectiveness and, despite the fact that as a result of damage to the wiring, the A3 failed, continued to carry out the task. After the battle, he was sent for repair.

        The second Chechen was even cooler:
        In two days of fighting in the area of ​​the railway depot, the tank with side No. 611 was hit three times by the Fagot ATGM and six times by RPG-7 grenades. Not a single hit resulted in the loss of the tank's combat effectiveness.
  5. Sura
    Sura 21 March 2016 10: 58
    +2
    They can do ...
  6. Muvka
    Muvka 21 March 2016 10: 59
    +2
    Do not kick if that, but looking closer, it occurred to me that the curtain was turned off due to the heat? Is this a big radiator around? So it’s warming, but in the heat in general hell is probably ...
    1. opus
      opus 21 March 2016 19: 50
      +3
      Quote: Muvka
      that the curtain was turned off due to the heat?

      SOEP of two illuminators OTShU-1-7 + red filter (KS-19 glass) interfere with IR coordinators

      radiation with a modulation frequency and spectral range close to that characteristic for tracer shells (missiles) of anti-tank guided weapons with optical determinants of the position of a guided projectile (missile) along the tracer = spectral range, μm 0,65 ... 1,55 (2,55)
      Radiation power, of course, there are many times more than the tracer, but .... a penny, 10 watts, hardly more than 100.
      For MBT with its MTO, which phonites like a sauna, this is nonsense
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 21 March 2016 21: 18
        0
        Quote: opus
        Quote: Muvka
        that the curtain was turned off due to the heat?

        SOEP of two illuminators OTShU-1-7 + red filter (KS-19 glass) interfere with IR coordinators

        radiation with a modulation frequency and spectral range close to that characteristic for tracer shells (missiles) of anti-tank guided weapons with optical determinants of the position of a guided projectile (missile) along the tracer = spectral range, μm 0,65 ... 1,55 (2,55)
        Radiation power, of course, there are many times more than the tracer, but .... a penny, 10 watts, hardly more than 100.
        For MBT with its MTO, which phonites like a sauna, this is nonsense

        I mean, can it overheat? Everything just has a limit, even iron.
        I found it on Wikipedia: An additional infrared emitter with its modulator installed in the stern of the rocket of the newer TOW-2A (in addition to the standard xenon lamp), the signal of which is also perceived by the ATG coordinator - makes the “Shtor” type suppression system ineffective. Maybe that's why it is disconnected, because it is useless?
        The probability of a missile guidance failure (outdated complexes like Milan, HOT, TOW of the first modifications, Baby, Bassoon, Phalanx, Competition, etc.) is approximately 0,8-0,9. And in Syria, the latter use something like. Again Wikipedia. Strongly do not scold :)
        1. opus
          opus 21 March 2016 22: 59
          0
          Quote: Muvka
          I mean, can it overheat?

          Yes, no, hardly from the sun. there at least the emitter efficiency is not even 60%, but the heat flux is scanty
          Quote: Muvka
          An additional infrared emitter with its own modulator installed in the stern of the rocket of the newer TOW-2A (in addition to the standard xenon lamp), the signal of which is also perceived

          "TOW-2A" and "TOW-2B" developed in 1986
          "TOW-2A"

          "TOW-2B"




          no Thermal beacon for a new algorithm for calculating the flight path of a rocket and TSU

          The IR sensors in the TSU switches from wide field of view (FOV) (+ 6 degrees) to medium FOV (+ 1.5 degrees).

          and at T + 2.34 sec./ approximately 520 meters TSU IR sensors medium FOV (+1.5 degrees) end; narrow FOV (+0.25 degrees) begins. Narrow FOV IR sensor is contained in 13 power lens.

          The IR source provides a beacon that is detected by IR sensors in the TSU to determine the position of the rocket relative to the tsu line in the line of sight.

          telescopic sight TSU:
          The TOW system has a stabilized optical sight with a low (2-power) and increased (13 power) magnification position. The shooter can select any power by sliding the MAG switch on the TSU left knob.


          When the gunner selects the LO position, he has a 28-degree field of view (FOV). When pressing on the scope control, the shooter can move the TSU.


          When the vision is in HI position, the gunner has a 4,6-degree viewing angle.



          watch the video carefully:

          understand why
          1. Muvka
            Muvka 22 March 2016 09: 25
            0
            By a more or less new TOW, it meant that the second version is a newer one. And not a new rocket in the framework of version 2) In short, take a look at the wiki about KOEP Curtain.
    2. tank64rus
      tank64rus 21 March 2016 20: 03
      +1
      The Curtain does not have any thermal effect on the crew. But why the T-90 tanks went to Syria without air conditioning is a big question. In this case, such "economy" is a crime. Although the crew survived, the tank received minimal damage, everyone who watched the video can see it. Not some torn off towers, a burning car, etc., of course, the Americans are unpleasant, but that is what it is.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 21 March 2016 21: 25
        0
        Quote: tank64rus
        The Curtain does not have any thermal effect on the crew. But why the T-90 tanks went to Syria without air conditioning is a big question. In this case, such "economy" is a crime. Although the crew survived, the tank received minimal damage, everyone who watched the video can see it. Not some torn off towers, a burning car, etc., of course, the Americans are unpleasant, but that is what it is.

        I am a crew and didn’t mean it. I meant overheating and failure of the COEP itself.
  7. EvgNik
    EvgNik 21 March 2016 11: 00
    +12
    There was no fire, let alone an explosion, about which "informed Ukrainian sources" rushed to write.

    Well, who believes the Ukrainian sources? All the more "informed".
    1. vanavatny
      vanavatny 21 March 2016 11: 05
      +16
      judging by the comments, many continue to read the censor: I envy sincerely, because these are people with iron nerves
      1. Yura
        Yura 21 March 2016 11: 14
        +5
        Quote: vanavate
        because these are people with iron nerves

        In general, without them, they go to the censor because there is not a circus in every city, but on TV one crap of narcissism.
  8. Altona
    Altona 21 March 2016 11: 01
    +3
    "Putin was sitting at the levers, not otherwise." So they will comment on in Ukraine. laughing
  9. aviator1913
    aviator1913 21 March 2016 11: 02
    +5
    The photo was taken from the opposite angle, therefore it does not bear much value and information, with the exception of the fact that the tank did not burn.

    I would like to see the other side of the tower, but this photo is most likely not shown for reasons of secrecy ...
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 13
      +3
      Quote: aviator1913
      The photo was taken from the opposite angle, therefore it does not bear much value and information, with the exception of the fact that the tank did not burn.

      I would like to see the other side of the tower, but this photo is most likely not shown for reasons of secrecy ...

      Judging by the soot spot - the hit was "between" the gun and the curtain infrared searchlight, and this part is just visible, as for the part of the tower that is closed by the torn off searchlight - a box is clearly visible above it, if I am not mistaken, with some elements all the same curtains (there is a similar one on the DZ block to the left of the whole searchlight), and if it is intact, then everything with the "other side" is normal.
  10. ratfly
    ratfly 21 March 2016 11: 03
    0
    It wasn't bad for him. Are there any victims? There was no fire - good. Damage where details. Here are all sorts of ambiguities and omissions, give rise to "competent" yblyudokhohlyachi vysyry in the internet.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 21 March 2016 11: 09
      +2
      He did not get bad. Are there any dead? ,,
      did you carefully read the article? but with the curtain, at least it seemed to me that it didn’t work because part of the perimeter was covered by a wall.
      1. Hon
        Hon 21 March 2016 11: 52
        -3
        Quote: kotvov
        He did not get bad. Are there any dead? ,,
        did you carefully read the article? but with the curtain, at least it seemed to me that it didn’t work because part of the perimeter was covered by a wall.

        the curtain is triggered by the laser, if TGSN then it has nothing to trigger
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 March 2016 17: 57
          +1
          Quote: Hon
          the curtain is triggered by the laser, if TGSN then it has nothing to trigger

          The "Curtain" has 2 counteraction systems. The first - against ATGMs with laser target illumination - is triggered automatically when the tank is irradiated (and only if the hatches are closed).
          And there is a second system - against ATGMs with wire / radio guidance and optical feedback (tracer / xenon in the tail of the ATGM -> sensor on the launcher). This system (modulated IR illuminators) turn on manually and then works continuously until the same manual shutdown, simulating a signal from ATGMs and knocking down the operation of the control system.
          In the "Counter" mode, scatterers should be installed on both emitters, and the emitters themselves must be turned through an angle a, corresponding to half of the radiation divergence angle b, and fixed again. The turn of two symmetrically installed emitters relative to the axis of the gun barrel allows you to obtain a protection sector.
          The emitters are switched on manually by the operator, for example, when approaching the zone of a possible attack from the enemy.
          When using a searchlight installation in the “counteraction” mode at a distance of 2,0-2,5 km from the object, a continuous ATG suppression zone with IR coordinators up to 680-840 m in front is created.
      2. Albert1988
        Albert1988 21 March 2016 12: 08
        +2
        Quote: kotvov
        with a “curtain”, at least it seemed to me that it didn’t work because a wall covered part of the perimeter.

        The curtain works constantly, and if there is laser irradiation of the tank, then it simply cannot not work, it will not "work" only if it is turned off, and there it was exactly what did not work - otherwise the searchlights would glow very characteristic.
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 16
      +2
      Quote: ratfly
      He did not get bad.

      Is there a scratch on the armor and a torn searchlight (which doesn’t do it all the way), do you think this is good?
      Quote: ratfly
      There was no fire - good.

      And where did he come from when the armor is clearly not broken?
      Quote: ratfly
      Here are all sorts of ambiguities and omissions, give rise to "competent" ohohlyachy vysyry in the internet.

      All sorts of "competent conclusions" about the cardboardness of the next "armata" will be born in the hohlonet, but much is clear from the photo in the article, although I really want to hear the opinion of experts.
      1. Hon
        Hon 21 March 2016 11: 51
        +1
        Quote: Albert1988
        And where did he come from when the armor is clearly not broken?

        but this cannot be said without seeing the place of contact
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 57
          +3
          Quote: Hon
          but this cannot be said without seeing the place of contact

          And the fact that the gunner remained alive, who was directly behind this armor? Given the location of the hit, he practically had no chance in case of penetration.
          1. Hon
            Hon 21 March 2016 12: 38
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            And the fact that the gunner remained alive, who was directly behind this armor? Given the location of the hit, he practically had no chance in case of penetration.
            Reply Quote Report Abuse

            and where did you get that hit fell in his direction? By the way, there’s a video where the ammunition detonates from being hit, or rather missile charges, the flame threw the commander out of the nozzle of the rocket, and he was still alive, even jauntily
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 21 March 2016 13: 25
              +1
              Quote: Hon
              and where did you get that hit fell in his direction?

              The video is clearly visible, take a closer look.
              Quote: Hon
              By the way, there’s a video where the ammunition detonates from being hit, or rather missile charges, the flame threw the commander out of the nozzle of the rocket, and he was still alive, even jauntily

              Agree that this is a rare case. Of course, the cumulative stream could even pass by, but considering where the hit came from and at what likely angle - there are almost no options for the gunner to remain intact.
              And then - you seem to have been actively proving that this rocket was of that modification. which strikes with an impact core in the upper hemisphere, and with such a hit the gunner would have a very high probability of cutting and getting out he would hardly be able to.
        2. Forest
          Forest 21 March 2016 12: 25
          +2
          If the armor were broken, no one would get out of the car. And the place of impact is visible, except for the place of impact of the jet itself.
          1. Hon
            Hon 21 March 2016 12: 41
            0
            Quote: Forest
            If the armor were broken, no one would get out of the car. And the place of impact is visible, except for the place of impact of the jet itself.

            the crew often remains alive after breaking through the armor
            1. Forest
              Forest 21 March 2016 13: 37
              +2
              But not under the stream itself, otherwise the gunner would not jump out stunned.
              1. Hon
                Hon 22 March 2016 13: 11
                0
                Quote: Forest
                But not under the stream itself, otherwise the gunner would not jump out stunned.

                let's say a missile landed in a tower, hit slightly at an angle and the jet does not go into the gunner but into the gun’s cradle. on the video the tower is rotated and hitting at an angle is quite possible. But it was impossible to say whether it was breaking or not, not seeing the place of impact
                1. Forest
                  Forest 22 March 2016 19: 50
                  0
                  The rotation angle there is very small, so the gun will not hook.
  11. Obstructia
    Obstructia 21 March 2016 11: 05
    +1
    What about the crew?
    1. vanavatny
      vanavatny 21 March 2016 11: 08
      +1
      drank analgin and dug out blood from ears
  12. inkass_98
    inkass_98 21 March 2016 11: 05
    +2
    It would be nice to see a photo of the left side where the rocket hit. On the right, everything looks sad, but not quite, but what is being done on the left side?
    Z.Y. The attachment will still need to be changed, but the crew is alive, which pleases.
  13. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 21 March 2016 11: 05
    +11
    Nevertheless, it’s nice to realize that our T-90 withstood the attack of the missile from the TOW-2 complex, despite the disabled active defense, while the American Abrams do not withstand the attacks of our Cornets and burn like torches. Whatever you say, the Russian (and Soviet) tank builders are ahead!
    1. cap
      cap 21 March 2016 11: 14
      +3
      Quote: Алексей_К
      Whatever you say, the Russian (and Soviet) tank builders are ahead!


      That's for sure! (C)
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2016 11: 30
      +1
      Quote: Алексей_К
      Nevertheless, it’s nice to realize that our T-90 withstood the attack of the missile from the TOW-2 complex, despite the disabled active defense, while the American Abrams do not withstand the attacks of our Cornets and burn like torches. Whatever you say, the Russian (and Soviet) tank builders are ahead!

      in fact, it’s very difficult to destroy any modern tank, it takes 5-7 hits on average, it can be destroyed from the first shot, but the shot must be very successful, to the weak spot of the tank and not just pierce but cause detonation of the ammunition, or seriously damage a technique that causes a fire that cannot be put out
      1. vadson
        vadson 21 March 2016 13: 26
        +3
        the weak point of the abrash is charging, turn off the black light and abrash without teeth))))
        1. Kunar
          Kunar 23 March 2016 08: 40
          +1
          Garden house he has a weak spot. And diffusers GTE)))) Although the FSE will fit in the ass)))))
  14. Kubatai
    Kubatai 21 March 2016 11: 06
    +1
    If the hatch were still closed, then there would be no stunning / shell-shock of a crew member .. And yes .. the comrade jumped out of the tank .. the Ishilovites were glad ..
  15. igor67
    igor67 21 March 2016 11: 07
    +1
    And why didn’t they take off the damaged board, see the specific damage.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 21
      +3
      Quote: igor67
      And why didn’t they take off the damaged board, see the specific damage.

      Take a closer look at the video on which the hit is shown, and then at the photo in the article - you will see that the hit came in the forehead of the tower to the left of the gun, the tank was sfotkan on the right, but the left part of the forehead of the tower can be seen))))
      1. Hon
        Hon 21 March 2016 11: 53
        -3
        Quote: Albert1988
        Take a closer look at the video on which the hit is shown, and then at the photo in the article - you will see that the hit came in the forehead of the tower to the left of the gun, the tank was sfotkan on the right, but the left part of the forehead of the tower can be seen))))

        revised several times. Missile fires over a tank
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 21 March 2016 12: 01
          +5
          Quote: Hon
          revised several times. Missile fires over a tank

          Strange, you comment above comrade opus I posted a selection of videos of what the explosion looks like "above", so here the hit was exactly on the forehead.
          This is not so much my opinion as my respected daddy (who, by the way, designed this very curtain) - his verdict - "if the curtain worked (taking into account the laser guidance of the rocket), then there would be no" babakha "at all - it would have gone up beautifully or to the side is not yet approaching, and so evenly on the forehead in the DZ block ".
    2. Kunar
      Kunar 23 March 2016 08: 41
      +1
      So that the enemies did not get))))))))))))))
  16. guzik007
    guzik007 21 March 2016 11: 09
    +3
    This is really fucking good news! So, we can hope that the latest developments in air defense are at the same level!
  17. infantry76
    infantry76 21 March 2016 11: 18
    +3
    Lord comrades!
    Well, how do all our enemies (including those in their own country) want us to have everything rotten, thin and unhealthy! But no !!! Do not wait !!!
    I have the honor! soldier
  18. Panabebis
    Panabebis 21 March 2016 11: 21
    +5
    Is this about it?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 25
      0
      Quote: Panaebis
      Is this about it?

      Exactly)))
      By the way, it is clearly visible on the video, where the rocket hit about and how the tower was slightly unfolded (apparently by a blast wave?).
    2. alone
      alone 21 March 2016 11: 48
      +1
      It would be more correct to call the video "the tank withstood the missile hit." When reflected, the missile does not hit the tank. Either it explodes on the approaches, or changes direction
  19. demo
    demo 21 March 2016 11: 27
    0
    It is very good that the car is intact. Pleased with the quality of our products.

    If earlier I did not understand why the Americans ignore our Tank biathlon, considering it simple pokatushkami, then today everything is becoming much more serious.
    Their Ambrose amid our T 90s are just lighters.
    Which can not compete with our technology.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 34
      +6
      Quote: demo
      Their Ambrose amid our T 90s are just lighters.
      Which can not compete with our technology.

      For the sake of fairness, it is worth noting that the Abrams in the hands of qualified tankmen with smart commanders is still a "tough nut to crack", and in the hands of Iraqi half-trained amateur policemen mistakenly called the military, yes - just a lighter, although such "warriors" are like all the Saudis or modern Iraqi "fearless rangers" and T-90 will turn into a lighter ...
      So the tank showed itself very well and the Syrians clearly competently exchanged it (they didn’t set up the rear stern).
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2016 11: 55
      0
      Quote: demo
      It is very good that the car is intact. Pleased with the quality of our products.

      If earlier I did not understand why the Americans ignore our Tank biathlon, considering it simple pokatushkami, then today everything is becoming much more serious.
      Their Ambrose amid our T 90s are just lighters.
      Which can not compete with our technology.

      at the battle of 73 Easting even vied
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 21 March 2016 12: 04
        +2
        Quote: Hon
        at the battle of 73 Easting even vied

        You just forgot to mention which specifically our tanks competed with which specifically American ones.
  20. CRASH
    CRASH 21 March 2016 11: 30
    -14%
    Why isn't the tower on the right shown? Judging by the torn curtain, he had to get into the bathhouse on the right. Or is there not condition? And why did the commander escape, is the tank intact?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 37
      +3
      Quote: CRASH.
      And why did the commander escape, is the tank intact?

      In fact, a gunner jumped out of the tank - he was sitting to the left of the gun (where he had to hit), the commander in our tanks was located to the right of the gun.
    2. Panabebis
      Panabebis 21 March 2016 11: 53
      +1
      And why did the commander escape, is the tank intact?

      Our tank is not so scary as its crew))) But this is not about the Syrians yet ...
  21. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 21 March 2016 11: 35
    +1
    "informed Ukrainian sources" receive the latest information directly from the most informed source - OBS! (not to be confused with OBKhSS, OSCE, SS, etc.) - just Оbottom Бabka Сshowed up.
  22. kill the fascist
    kill the fascist 21 March 2016 11: 35
    +1
    Good news. Ukropopithek, of course, neither hot nor cold from this news, they simply won’t believe it, they burned countless bars. But potential buyers of our equipment have something to think about.
    1. Alex von Dorn
      Alex von Dorn 21 March 2016 11: 49
      +1
      .... and the Pskov Airborne Division destroyed ... 8 times in a row)))
  23. igor67
    igor67 21 March 2016 11: 40
    -4
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: igor67
    And why didn’t they take off the damaged board, see the specific damage.

    Take a closer look at the video on which the hit is shown, and then at the photo in the article - you will see that the hit came in the forehead of the tower to the left of the gun, the tank was sfotkan on the right, but the left part of the forehead of the tower can be seen))))

    It is quite possible to see the specific damage and two big differences. For example, what can you say about this T34?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 11: 47
      +3
      Quote: igor67
      It is quite possible to see the specific damage and two big differences. For example, what can you say about this T34?

      Do not twitch, comrade, in the case of the T-90, we can say with certainty where the hit happened and in the photograph presented in the article the hit point is clearly visible so that it is possible to roughly estimate the extent of damage to the front of the tower. It’s clear that you can’t immediately notice the holes from some types of ammunition, but you can see from the characteristic soot stain that it flew into the armor area, where the gunner was sitting directly, and the gunner was alive, so you can conclude with a very high degree of certainty that the armor is broken was not.
      And then - even if there is a "hole", albeit not through, then no one will allow you to carefully examine it and measure the depth of penetration, because this is already infa secret ...
    2. vanavatny
      vanavatny 21 March 2016 11: 50
      +5
      that he rides on the wall with a hole in the tower
      1. igor67
        igor67 21 March 2016 12: 01
        -5
        Quote: vanavate
        that he rides on the wall with a hole in the tower

        He doesn’t go along the wall, this is how the VO program turned upside down, this is Syrian. T34, the hole in the tower is small, everything is destroyed inside, even the bottom has arched, but it’s 34ka, not 90th,
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 21 March 2016 12: 05
          +1
          Quote: igor67
          even the bottom curved, but it's 34ka, not 90th,

          And what did I write to you about the tanker who jumped out, and apparently he was the only one injured (and that from a shell shock due to an open hatch)?
          So whatever one may say, but breaking through the armor does not work in our case ...
          1. Adai_78
            Adai_78 21 March 2016 22: 58
            0
            One question, is it possible to activate the KAZ "Shtora" without fixing the crew hatches in the "closed" position? There is a risk of the crew being hit by the elements of the fired charge in an explosion 3-5 meters from the turret (shrapnel injury / concussion from an explosion), also applies to the infantry that is possible to be near the tank.
    3. ALS
      ALS 21 March 2016 12: 31
      +1
      This is a tank. Real tank.
    4. Adai_78
      Adai_78 21 March 2016 22: 50
      0
      I'll try to insert my 5 cents. One of the later modifications of the T-34-85 with two fans for cleaning the tower of powder gases with a D-5T gun (not sure because I can’t see the mask of the tower) with a damaged right-hand drive roller-sprocket and a hole in the tower from cumulative munitions, I couldn’t make out the curved bottom, but the front inclined upper frontal sheet seemed to have diverged along the seam and moved away from the hull, possibly from the consequence of the aforementioned explosion inside the tank. hi
    5. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 22 March 2016 02: 00
      +1
      Quote: igor67
      It is quite possible to see the specific damage and two big differences. For example, what can you say about this T34?

      Igor, there are no identical bombings.
      This is an axiom.

      The same cumulative crap can:
      - At the entrance leave a small hole, and inside - the pogrom of Mamaia Khan.
      Or vice versa:
      - Sell the armor and ... dash off somewhere without harm, lost in the wilds of the armor.
      TOW-2 has a lot of modifications, hell knows that the broads got a little help - they worked with power supplies only "for video".
      Morons ................

      T-90 is a serious car, really serious.
      And this tank, this damage, from this ATGM - seeds.
      But ...
      Photo of the tank in the article - THIS IS NOT A PHOTO. This is crap, not a photo.
      I agree with you, brother.
      I shake my hand for an honest koment.
      I really hope to see other photos that everything is normal with 90.
      ...

      By the way, Sanya was found!
      Radish, damn it ... I got worried ...))))))))))
      Heh.
      fellow
      drinks
  24. BOB044
    BOB044 21 March 2016 11: 41
    +3
    Ukrainians can shut up. With its T-64. I still served on it in 1977. Damn damn.
  25. alone
    alone 21 March 2016 11: 45
    +1
    I don’t want to reduce the dignity of the tank. Moreover, my country is also armed with the T-90. But the photo didn’t show us anything. The shell from the ATGM hit the left side of the tank (judging by the Blind, which hangs), and the main bet on the photo was made to the right side. This is so note.

    And the fact that he left on his own, is really good.
  26. Alex von Dorn
    Alex von Dorn 21 March 2016 11: 47
    +1
    Yes God is with them, with ukrovoyaki. You can only be happy for our tanks.
  27. Ros 56
    Ros 56 21 March 2016 11: 48
    +1
    If it's true, then it's great. So our designers and hard workers are able to work, honor and praise to them, and even a lot of money would not hurt.
  28. Hooks
    Hooks 21 March 2016 11: 48
    +3
    From Vasilyeva. All Russian propaganda! The names of the dead tankers became known: Yarosh, Yanek, Gustlik, Grzhes and Sharik.
    1. salad
      salad 21 March 2016 12: 16
      +3
      Damn Ball sorry)))
    2. ALS
      ALS 21 March 2016 12: 33
      +2
      Your untruth! The ball just jumped out. First.
  29. 2s1122
    2s1122 21 March 2016 11: 49
    +1
    It is interesting to look at the other side of the T-90, is the atom visible only to the surviving part of the tower?
  30. igorv501
    igorv501 21 March 2016 11: 58
    +1
    A deep bow to our tank builders and defense developers! Please explain only why in the video shooting at the T-90 there is such a time gap from launch to missile hit.
  31. strelok581
    strelok581 21 March 2016 12: 08
    +1
    I don’t know how this could happen. For 0.10 seconds it can be seen that the fire is being fired from the commander's machine gun, clearly in the direction of the calculation, and for 0.23 seconds it is clearly audible how the bullet flies near the calculation. They saw the light in the tank, so it turns out?
    Why was the "Curtain" DISCONNECTED?
    1. CRASH
      CRASH 21 March 2016 12: 39
      0
      Can it overheat? They shut off for some time, or the muffled tank stood, the APU did not work, there are too many questions, and there are even more speculations, and there are no answers.
    2. Adai_78
      Adai_78 21 March 2016 23: 05
      0
      I asked a similar question "is it possible to activate the Shtora KAZ without fixing the crew hatches in the" closed "position? There is a risk of the crew being damaged by the elements of the fired charge in an explosion 3-5 meters from the tower" above and also interesting. Forgot to turn on or can't turn on? The gunner's hatch is open.
  32. Taygerus
    Taygerus 21 March 2016 12: 37
    +1
    That's great, the news is good, but how many statements were there, I applaud standing up to the designers and developers hi
  33. Herman
    Herman 21 March 2016 12: 49
    +1
    T-90 by the way of the first issues, with a cast tower.
  34. mamont5
    mamont5 21 March 2016 14: 29
    +2
    Quote: armored optimist
    Are there any photos from the port side? The rocket poked in there.

    How could a rocket hit the port side? As far as I remember from the video, the tank stood right behind a small shelter. The missile hit the frontal part, on the left, as can be seen in the photo, which is what the article says (the tip of the scope is minimized). What else does?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 21 March 2016 14: 39
      +1
      Quote: mamont5
      The missile hit the frontal part, on the left, as can be seen in the photo, which is what the article says (the tip of the scope is collapsed). What else does?

      How is that? Many expect to find such a small and inconspicuous hole in the place where the rocket hit, either from a cumulative jet. either from a "shock nucleus", but the question is - if they expect to see a penetration there, then how did the gunner survive, "opposite" whom this penetration happened?)))) Or it is assumed that he was born immediately in 10 shirts (and at the same time in a bulletproof vest), what was so lucky?
  35. Konstantin Yu
    Konstantin Yu 21 March 2016 15: 48
    +2
    Usually there is an observer with a rifle sniper, and such an expensive equipment has no one in such difficult conditions ... invisible demons have time to: spot a tank, set up a tripod for tou, charge, turn on cameras, shoot a movie ..... then curl up and leave. ..something wrong here. Is there really no system that manages to notice the optics before it shoots, and even after the shot to accompany the target ... for sure they are not placed in an open field and the places of the likely place of the shot can be calculated ... well, and disturb those places .. even with smoke, even with a land mine .... And then they will run from each rocket and when to fight? ... enlighten
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 21 March 2016 20: 14
      +2
      Quote: Konstantin Yu.
      are there really no systems that manage to notice optics before it fires?

      There is. Just for these officials to go into the series for some officials, the shock core from TOW should go to one place, so that the brain processes become more active.
      The "curtain" in the form in which it exists is now obsolete. They don't put it on the T-90cm at all. Interesting things can be created from existing developments and nodes from other systems in a short time. "Afghanit" was developed only for the family based on "Armata", and apparently there is no need to protect other equipment. We have already heard what they are riveting and what losses this results in, too. Well, the "riding" school will not become scarce. am
  36. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 21 March 2016 16: 59
    +1
    Not to mention the degree of training of various warriors and warriors of the Middle East, I am very pleased with the quality of Russian military equipment! Keep it up ! Finally !!!!!!

    Well, about the fact that the Tou can be let off as a pair - it's all garbage, it costs so much that in general a tank is bought at this price, and what will happen if the 2 tou is hit - this is from the category that my grandmother would have if she had .. .
  37. Vetal999
    Vetal999 21 March 2016 18: 57
    0
    The crew of the tank completely lost fear. He was exposed as at a training ground. But, LUCKY to them, the rocket successfully hit them. Because the operator-shooter is the bottom of the ball. I must admit that the technology saved just as well.
  38. proud
    proud 21 March 2016 19: 16
    0
    We supply people with tanks, self-T-72 b3, Mind Russia does not understand!
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 21 March 2016 19: 35
      +1
      And what is the B3 of the 2016 model worse than the T-90?
      1. Herman
        Herman 21 March 2016 20: 17
        0
        Muvka RU Today, 19:35 ↑
        And what is the B3 of the 2016 model worse than the T-90?

        There is no laser radiation warning system; there is no Ainet system (projectile detonation at a given point);
        In the photo in the article t-90 of the first series without a thermal imager, here in this parameter it is inferior to t-72b3.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  39. dvg1959
    dvg1959 21 March 2016 19: 45
    0
    An impressive sight, very spectacular.
  40. Adai_78
    Adai_78 21 March 2016 21: 11
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcXqiUKfA-4
    And the previous generation of T-72 and T-80 MBTs are excellent tanks that have worked well in military theaters both in the Middle East (Egypt, Syria, etc.) and in the Caucasus (both Chechen)
    BUT!!!!! The real fighting qualities of the tank are not only in the skillful and coordinated actions of the crew, as someone said in the comments above, but also in the coherence of the military groups involved in military operations. But the most important reason, for some reason, everyone forgets to take into account that the development of the tank's defense systems: both active and passive defense, does not stand still. The only pity is that you have to pay dearly for this, with the lives of the crews.
  41. Viktortopwar
    Viktortopwar 21 March 2016 22: 22
    0
    The tracks of this particular tank in the photo are clearly not from the T-90, but rather from the T-72.
  42. Torins
    Torins 21 March 2016 23: 42
    0
    The missile hit the forehead of the tower on the left side, damage is visible in the photo, by the way not critical at all. So the followers of conspiracy theory are wrong. If the crew of the Arabs, then I won’t be surprised that they so flew ...
  43. puskarinkis
    puskarinkis 22 March 2016 00: 29
    0
    Quote: bulvas
    Careless article

    Ukrovoyaki upset

    Next in line is the javelin test to calm the Estonian fighters

    And not only ukrovoyaks will be upset! But it is better to "calm down" them by other methods. Therefore, I would not want to feel the effect of "Javelin" on myself.
  44. Evil 55
    Evil 55 22 March 2016 02: 20
    0
    Not enough to analyze the left profile view of the machine ..
  45. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 22 March 2016 10: 58
    0
    Good luck to our guys, God forbid that in the future, Almaty would crush adversaries
  46. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 22 March 2016 18: 34
    0
    Although the tanker in World of tanks, I’m happy for our equipment !!!
  47. Hauptam
    Hauptam 22 March 2016 19: 07
    0
    First, it is necessary to include the TShU Curtain. Secondly, as they say, we have the best Rocket (that is, tanks) and ballet.
  48. Torins
    Torins 22 March 2016 19: 14
    0
    Quote: Hauptam
    First, it is necessary to include the TShU Curtain. Secondly, as they say, we have the best Rocket (that is, tanks) and ballet.

    The curtain cannot be turned on when the hatch is open, for some reason they fought with the hatch open request
  49. pomor23
    pomor23 22 March 2016 21: 29
    +1
    Armor is strong and our tanks are fast
    And our people of courage are full
    In the ranks are Russian tankers
    Sons of their great homeland

    Rattling fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel
    Cars go on a furious hike
    When comrade Putin will send us into battle
    And the glorious Shoigu will lead us into battle !!!

    GLORY TO RUSSIA!!!
  50. Gippo
    Gippo 22 March 2016 22: 48
    +1
    The curtain cannot be turned on when the hatch is open, for some reason they fought with an open request

    Why can't it?