@attackmike There exist remote controlled T-90s. First remote controlled tank was a T-26 also known as teletanks TT-26 first appeared around 1939 and saw combat in 1940
@intermsofreality fragile indeed, but that thing can break ur arm if u stick ur arm there. it happened to few unlucky tank crew, they gave their arm to that machine.
it would not be a tactical advantage unless you get a tank autoloader that can set up rates of fire equal to naval autoloading cannons and a top notch FCS that can acquire and engage multiple targets at once. other then that the advantages of an autoloader are more logistical (you can field smaller crews).
@rexregum it is a definite to human because their loading rate varies, some load faster some load slower but key is that they all tend to load slower when a tank is mobile. although a tank loader load slower than naval gun but it is alot more compact, u probably seen a navel loading mechanism, they are HUGE! how can u fit inside a tank when it is only around 2 meter tall?
@Sismiques pros and cons to both approaches... an autoloader is a piece of equipment that is mechanically complex and mission critical to a tank, and cannot be easily replaced. a loader is an extra set of eyes and crew that can help maintain, look out for and take care of a tank.
you get a slightly higher rate of fire with an autoloader (but in practice this isn't as practical as having good fire control) and your tank can be somewhat smaller. but all in all, it depends on what rocks your boat.
the problem with the auto loader is that it requires lots of maintenance and easily gets malfunctions. A tank is basically manufactured to be able to withstand a hit from another tank, but a system like that is never foolproof. If the tank suffers a hit that would destroy even the slightest of wires or electrics, the autoloader would become useless and the tank becomes useless. That's why the Leopard 2 got a manually loading system. To be able to continue to fight after being hit.
Our tanks got many hits in Afghanistan and Chechnya and autoloader showed himself as very reliable mechanism. Don't know about Abrams, but russian electronics designed to be undamaged if there are no armor penetration. Also, big plus from autoloader is -1 crew member, this leads to a smaller size of tank, lighter weight, etc.
@igor7702 & when a spent shell gets stuck in it and someone doesn't stop the loader - the turret (literally) flies off... not to mention, if the gunner puts his arm where it's not supposed to be, the loader rips it off
@AKAtheA guy acually the shell drops out right out of the tank after the shot was fired you think that the russian weapon indestry didnt think about what you wrote they could not have put an autoloader in a tank if they knew that it wont be so effective as a crew member im telling that russian auto loaders are unberakeble amerricans didnt have brains to make an auto loder
@StasTarasov it's supposed to drop out... but if it stays jammed, there's a problem...any machine can break, nothing is undestructible, it's the main reason most russian armored vehicles can start the engine with compressed air or why some of the turrets have hand-cranks...
@downloadgoblin well i heard with an auto loader is if the tank gets hit booommm all the ammo gos up with it. thats why on the M1A1 or the M1A2 they have there shells in an armor thing xD i heard all this from a dude so idk he said the M1A1 has better crew survivrability or somin
@gosciu555 & don't you think that an autolader that can blow up the entire tank is a bit of a safety problem?
The export version was complete crap, the "domestic market" version needed several upgrades to make it usefull, the T-90 is efectively a very upgraded T-72...
As opposed to the M-60? As opposed TO EVERY OTHER TANK OTHER THAN THE M1? And the M1 is very unbalanced because of the design choices. The problem is not the autoloader but the extra ammo stored in the fighting compartment. You can solve that easily by dumping it into a turret bustle.
@gosciu555 trouble is, the T-72 doesn't solve it...even without any extra ammo, the carousel magazine of the loader is unprotected, it doesn't take much to set all of the ammo off...
The M1 has problems of it's own, f.e. the APU can be disabled with a .50 MG, it's apparently something the designers overlooked...(without power, it's just a metal casket)
p.s.in T-72 there's barely enough room for a smaller-than-average person, not sure where a turret bustle could be ;-)
It is protected, there is a steel sheet over the ammo and its very low in the hull. The ammo on the Leo2 isn't protected at all and its in a huge clump. I'm not 100% sure on the LeClerc or the K2, I think they might be in some armored bin but I'm not 100% sure.
It is protected, there is a steel sheet over the ammo and its very low in the hull. The ammo on the Leo2 isn't protected at all and its in a huge clump. I'm not 100% sure on the LeClerc or the K2, I think they might be in some armored bin but I'm not 100% sure.
"The M1 has problems of it's own, f.e. the APU"
Every external APU can be disabled.
"p.s.in T-72 there's barely enough room for a smaller-than-average person"\
@gosciu555 check the video on automatic loaders...both the LeClerc & the K2 are there...
One can't just bolt boxes onto a tank, it has to accessible from within...(apparently some ukrainian upgrade does do it like that, but it's not a simple upgrade)
if a shaped charge can punch through more than double thickness of the turret, some flimsy plate will not stop the jet, check the Chetchna VS Russia wars, the tank crews didn't put full loads into the magazine because of it's lack of protection
@bartlebybartleby When the tank is standing still with the main engine off & is suddenly greeted by a .50 cal burst, it has a problem... the main engine needs a while to start...
From what I understand, the hydraulics (without them, the tank can't do anything) draw a considerable amount of power...
I had to watch this a few times to be sure, but the propellant seems to be separate from the projectile(makes sense, different projectile, same propellant, saves space). So there is no cartridge case to dispose of. What kind of risk of propellant fire is there? This is often a problem in bag(caseless) artillery.
I had to watch this a few times to be sure, but the propellant seems to be separate from the projectile(makes sense, different projectile, same propellant, saves space). So there is no cartidge case to dispose of. What kind of risk of propellant fire is there? This is often a problem in bag(caseless) artillery.
@saguyrabin Ofc they do son....sabot, HEAT are on different places in loader...noone is so stupid to make autoloader that load random ammo in gun.... O.o
@nedeljko031 And that's exactly the reason when AL has to choose different type of ammo delay can reach 12 seconds. Specifically for T-80... (I don't know about T-90).
@BitnikGr yeah, 4,5-5 sec to change ammo and normal time to load. Average 9sec for next shoot. But in fact its rare situation...you mostly know what type you will need so you use only that. We didnt have too much tank-other armor engagements.
@ITmage M84 uses same autoloader like T-72, right?
Thank you for sharing this info. Because one guy who have served at T-80 was saying that reloading there takes from 6 to 12 seconds. Depends on if firing consecutive shots of same or different type. Of course T-72 and T-80 has different mechanisms for reloading, right?
@BitnikGr M84 use simplified T72 loader, our company Sever made loader on same principe but with 36 moving parts less so its easier to remont and produce. It can sustain 8-9 grenades in minute. Some updated versions even 10, but just few of them exist, and they were build just before war 1991. I served on M84AB.
@ITmage Thanks again. It is very interesting. Of course Russian themselves call autoloader on T-72 as "avtomatic" loading, while on T-80 it is called "mechanism" for loading. I don't understand why former T-80 commander would say that it takes from 6 to 12 seconds to reload a gun in T-80.
9 shots per minute is fine for modern battle tank. In Greek MBT tender in 1998 participated Abrams M1A2, Challenger 2E, Leo 2A5, Leclerc, T-80 and T-84. 3 with autoloaders, 3 with human loaders. In test for...
@BitnikGr Hardly, i mean T90 autoloader can load even 12 per minute, but there is big problem of gun barrel overheat. That guns would need to have water or oil cooling. Well you know...after 2 minutes of loading 8 round...loader gets tired....autoloader never gets tired,and he dont need food or water xD
@bittemeinrammstein I agree with the three second count, but that only looked like the projectile being loaded, not the charge cartridge. Does the T-90 use two-piece ammunition like some artillery..8inch, or some naval guns, or the 175mm?
There is a hydraulic drive of the loading MECHANISM. at t-72 and Т-90 electric drive of the loading AUTOMATIC MACHINE . These are 2 different devices. Sorry for my english
Да нет... для НАТО тоже не нужны Абрамсы. У ведущих стран есть Леклерки, Челенджеры, Леопарды. У стран поменьше есть выбор (предпочитают Леопарды). Пока нет ни одной страны в Европе с Абрамсами. Нафиг они нужны... запчасти из-за океана ждать.
@bartlebybartleby Seems likely they will with only a little work, after all, they don't share a land border. Unlike some folks who don't like either Russia or U.S.
@stewart113 It cost the peoples and the state, but it's pofitable to weapons industries and their political connection. Bush and Cheney don't pay the war through their pocket, they pay using tax payers money. Let the taxpayers bear the cost and the Corporate reap most of the profits.
@stewart113 While we are on the topic of retardation, it also appears that retards repeatedly state that wars cost money. Although correct, this retard missed the fact that war does get you somewheres. War brought you an end to a great depression, rational thoughts on slavery, the moon, aerospace engineering, the internet (yes retard read my comment before harassing it) and of course no-fog ski goggles. Yes war sucks "dude". But to have a retardedly ignorant view on war, its just that; Retarded.
@Fleskhjerta1I'm not Russian i'm pashtun but I think Russian fuck you like cold war era. You friends and comrades in gay bar, pindos. All Russian hate west and that is cool, they will fight to victory. I've talked with Russians and know their moods.
@dragonzmaj1 T-80 and T-90 both use hydrolic loaders which are virtually identical in performance. It is hard to say... T-80's loader might about be 0.14 seconds slower than the T-90's loader.
Ваще Китай много работает на Америку, это так сказать кладезь дешевой рабочей силы и не думай что они пойдут за нас, еслр что они тоже не против кусок хапнуть
что "ну-ну"?.. знатоки, блин... Первая модификация "Танк "Урал", объект 172 уже был с АЗ и в танке никогда не предусматривался основной режим загрузки "вручную". Вручную скорострельность у Т-72 - 2 выстрела в минуту максимум. Плюс раздельное заряжание.
Эй знаток. ты в свои 19 уже все знаешь. Я вот Т-72 водил и стрелял из него. Я тебе говорю не весь боекомплект в АЗ. Вначале экспорные были без него, так как вся эта байда была секртена. Нам полковник один рассказывал.
))).. И тебя с новым годом, хуилко неграмотное!.. )) Т-72 со 115мм?.. )) Какой это объект? Пиши, жжошь.. Счастья тебе и здоровья, семье - только радостей!.. И сопри себе де-нить книгу об.172.
немчуры автомат заряжания на pz 2000 есть, у леклерка тож есть. Наши понаделали т64-72-80-90 (причем по характеристикам не сильно уж и отличаются), а взаимозаменяемость деталей не больше 20%-будет война какая, много мароки с этим. У табрамса и леоперда 2, 60%
Ты баран, абрамсы, есть в Автралии, ещё в какой-то стране, лягушачью леклерки в ОАЭ, и абрамсы неплохо ездят по грязи, ты пиздец крест, в инете хуйни обчяитаешься, а танк максимум в живую на поклонной горе виде))))
fener4e durik? ti vsjo pro 4e4nju tverdi6? da prodali russkix solgat tam! Dumae6 v Amerike vsjo oxuenno? Xuli pizdi6, esli ne znae6? Te lap6u govorjat a ti tut umnik pereskazivae6! Rossiju s na4alo vekov uni4towitj xotjat i ne mogut.
Opyat gluposti gorodi6.6vabi 4inili i svoi i va6i tanki.Potomu raznica takova v poteryah.Pod prohorovkoy oni poteryali 2(!) a va6i 130-potomu 4to nu4yu pole ostalos za nimi-oni svoi ma6ini zanovo otremontirovali a va6i vzorvali
da ne znayu na skolko ti sitiy sedi6.4toto k vam krome kavkazkoy i sredneaziatskoy ne4isti ni kto ne edet.A va6i je prodoljayut v Wevropu da v 6tati uezjat-te 4to 4toto umeyut.A rimlyan krestyane,t.e jidi zakanali,kak zakanali i va6u Rusiyu v 17tom.Sey4as prosto dobivayut 4tobi eye voob6te kak ponyatiya ne ostalos.I v etom vinovati ne amerikanci-oni normalnie trudolyubivie lyudi,a va6i praviteli kotorie vot uje 100 s li6nem let kormyastsa u mirovoy jidovskoy mafii i vas je stirayut s lica zemli
V livanskoy voyne v 82,siriyaki bili na 72kah-novih togda e6te i 4to.Poteri to bili bol6e u nih.Daje slu4alos m60 podbivali 72ki,a siriyakam daje i KUBi nepomogli i MiGi toje
A u fas ego net i kogda v va6i u4rejdeniya vrivayutsta rezaki to mo4at narod sotnyami,a narod eto tolko stoit i bleet.U vas bandite lu46e 4em menti voorujeni i krugom razboy.Negovorya 4to nikakoy orujeynoy kulturi u vas netu.Ya videl fotki kak va6i menti derjat pistolet-vidno srazu nikogda do togo ne derjali
i e6te.Eto tolko u retarda ho4etsya orujie izpolzovat 4tobi kompleksi uti6it.Ya ne sli6al 4tobi lu46ie strelki mira ubivali po ulicam kogo to.A v 6tatah gde eti nedomaslenie demokrati ne uspeli v dela sunutsya tam prestupleniy protiv sobstvenosti i li4nosti net i naoborot.
Da posmotri na English Russia,4to tayfuni va6i uje spisivayut i rezat na4inayut.Sami je va6i smi pi6ut 4to na severnom flote vot uje 20 let novogo korablya v stroy ne postupalo.Pi6ut 4to Petr Velikiy uje v takom plohom teh sostoyanii 4to vzorvatsya mojet.Takoe daje pro dryahliy uje Nimitz ya ne sli6al
vse parni zdorovie begut ot armii,4to bi ih tam ne zastavlyali prostituirovat(eto va6i je smi pi6ut)za nimi voenkomati e6te v 6kolah na4inayut ohotitsya.Sami je va6i podpogon6tiki hni4at 4to nekomu v armii slujit-odni sociopati da narkomani
da eto tak.Va6i podlodki sami tonut.Flot stoit ne dejurit-net deneg na kapitalniy remont bol6ih korabley.Iz typhoonov 3 uje v metaloome,1-v rezerve,vihodyat na dejurstva tolko 2(i to redko)Sam glavkom severnogo flota zayavil,4to net u vas podlodki s bol6e 4em 12(!!)raketami
I 4em je eti voyska perevoorujat?Medvedevskoy boltavney?Ot kuda eto deneg vozmete?I kto v etoy va6ey armii budet slujit?A kitayci vas ne siloy vozmut,a prosto viselyat iz sibiri postepenno
i kto eto dokazal to?Net bogatoy strani kotoraya bi pokupala va6i tanki.Daje Kuwait i OAE kupili tolko bmp da Tunguski.Tanki va6i daje arabam uje ne po nutru
Kto eto takuyu statistiku to ustanovil?Va6i"eksperti"navernoe.Ya pomnyu kak va6i podpogon6tiki jdali v 2003tem:"vot mol 6as amerikanci podavyatsya.."i 4to-razdavili cigan v dva s4eta-te srazu pobejali
Ya ne me4tayu.uvidi6 sam 4ezez 20 let 4to tak i polu4itsya.Moy sovet-lu46i yanki 4em kitayci.U yankov mojno koe 4emu nau4itsya,a jeltie vas sotrut s lica zemli
U tebya avtomat est?Net.togda 4to pizdi6.A v Amerike na rukah u naseleniya bol6e 400mln edinic orujiya.Yanki ot rodu s orujiem.U vas ono v kazarmah i na kartinkah.Tak 4to ne znayu tebya 4to kabenit 4to negretyat Kala6ami zovut
Esli bi jidi im merkavi prodali kak namerevalis,to vryad li tak prosto im bi nadavali.Kto skazal 4to Abrams ne derjit rpg?U vas eto izpitali gde to?Da va6 tank de6evle no ot nego i polzi voob6eto men6e.I po4emu to armii u kotorih dengi est pokupayut ne va6i tanki
Nu i pust diktuyut.Tuda kto poehal s golodu ne pomer a naoborot.Kogda tvoya strana dostignet togo jiznenogo urovnya dlya svoih lyudey(esli eto voob6te kogda nebud slu4itsya) togda i kor4ite iz sebya kogo hotite.A segodnya eto odna strana v kotoroy kto umeet 4to nebud mojet jit horo6e.I eto ne va6a strana
A sey4as razve est?Tak vse videli va6i tanki kak goryat vezde gde oni voevali.Hot v Osetii.U vas vryd li est dostata4no strelkovogo orujiya 4tobi vseh voorujit iz 40mln godnih voevat.U yankov je vse est.I kultura orujeynaya na mnogo vi6e.Va6i krome kak na kartinkah da v kazarme orujie ne gde ne vidyat
5 mln na perednem krayu(to4nee v Poll6e) bili,potomu 4to poteri 10/1 bili.Plennih va6ih za vsyu voynu 3mln 6vabam ostavili.I vi nikogda normalno im protivostoyat ne mogli-vsegda va6i poteri bili bol6e ihnih,daje v konce voyni
Va6im dedam toje"garantirovali"4to voyni na va6ey teritorii bol6e ne budet.I US armed forces tebe ne bednie evropeyci kakimi bili 6vabi(da oni nebili stranoy s neograni4enimi zapasami).Amerikancev 300mln.bol6e 4em vas.Esli im nehvatit lyudey zavezut iz Meksiki.
To 4to ostanavlivaet poka nato napast tak eto va6i yadernie boegolovki.I ne tak 4to amerikancam stra6no ot nih,prosto 4tobi ih obezvredit im predetsya lupit nukami toje,a oni tam hozyayni4at sobirayutsta. Konvencionalnimi sredstvami je vam neustoyat protiv dyadi Sama.Oni mogut voevat neograni4enoe vremya,4to i delayut uje bol6e 10ti let.Rosiya je net
Da ni u odnoy strani potomu 4to ne bilo 20000 tankov i 11000 boevih samoletov. Na ruskih je 6vabi napali s 4000 tankami i 4200 samoletami(ne vse iz nih bili germanskimi)i nesmotrya na eto razmazali prigrani4nie armii a posle Kieva realno mogli vzyat Moskvu(prosto sami promedlii grabya Ukrainu)4to bi bilo koncom va6ey strani
fener4e, приводимые числа не имеют никакого смысла. Факт, что план Барбаросса был расчитан на 3 месяца максимум. А затянулся до осени. Они то уж точно знали с чем и против чего нападали и значит верили в свои силы.
V ob6tem to mnogoe znayu.Dlya t72 i t80 vkladnie stvoli s batey uje kotoriy god delaem(znae6 4to takoe?vryad li)A nas4et "goroda" jidi ved toje v gorodah mestnih arabov mo4at,a v livanskoy voyne poteryali 3(tri!!!)merkavi ot fugasov. Sudi sam
Do vtoroy mirovoy u vas toje bilo tankov bol6e vseh i kak va6im dedam govorili "lu46ih"4em ostalnie.V itoge 6vabi do Moskvi do6li za neskolko mesyacev.Tak 4to molis 4tobi eti"herovie" Abramsi po tvoey strane ne pokatilis odin den,ato na etot raz vam ne sdobrovat
va6i tanki jgli na ulicah Groznogo polugramotnie cigani u kotorih nebilo daje takih"spisanih".Ya videl na fotkah daje t80 razvoro4ennih do neuznavaemosti.Uznal po vihlopu szadi
Lesser speed doesnt mean that T-90 bad. Speed some lesser but its more reliable than motor of leo 2 or abrams that can work just in sterile conditions. Motor of T-90 work too under water an at very low and high temperatures. + Speed doesnt mean nothing when u can hit moving enemys tank from range 5km isnt it?
I know. In the duel situation even the latest versions of Abrams almost have no chance against T-90, because it need to come closer then 2km do hit T-90.
I only wanna show that our "tanker" torak101 even do not know basics about tanks.
So funny to listen, how many T-72s killeach tanker, when USA were able to confirm.... 14 T-72 kills. FOURTEEN! And some of them had damage as on tank lefted before hit.
Autoloader work perfectly. In chechnya there was no problem with it even after 4-5 hits from RPG.
The autoloader is the same as in t 80 or t 64. t 72 and 90 use a diferent type of autoloader. The bigest user of t 64 tanks is ukrain. Russia has alot of 64's too but most of them are in reserv. Boath counrys use T 80 tanks. Now the guys in this clip speaks fluent russian with no ukrainian accent. So my money is on a russian T 80BV.
Why in the world do Russians hate America so bad?!!..I'm not looking for some more "America sucks, Russia's better" kind of crap...I actually want to know why.
Well, as far as I can see, it all stemmed from the cold war. After WW2, the soviet union and the americans were the only 2 superpowers left in existence and basically shot dirty glances at each other till 1991, afraid of the potential threat each nation could do to the other nation. Once you hold a grudge for that long, it doesn't easily evaporate, and there tends to be a whole mythos of bad things that gets invented about the opposing force (they eat babies etc.) that just exacerbates things...
lol have you seen readed something at all ...Well lets got back in ww2 where US entered 1944 USSR was already winning agaist hutler but guess what america took some from the victory cake and after the end of WW2 Truman made a anti communistic doctorine ... America started the cold war propaganda wars north korea vietnam ugoslavia and so America spits on Russia but they are messing with a sleeping beast ... witch is unwise ...you will see sooner or later America will pay for their crimes..
Hahahaha you gotta be joking xD. although the U.S. did enter late in WW2 it dosen't mean we wanted to go to take your glory. Remember the U.S. didn't want to go to war until Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Also if we didnt fought the majority of Japanese military you would've had to go over the Pacific and beat their army which i doubt you would've been able to do. remember the lend and lease? Remember Russia and Germany started WW2 together by invading poland until hitler stab their back.
so don't you think I don't know that you think I agree or I am on american side ? ;0 first look at my country 2 I put facts not my side or something
I know that the soviet army wiped 90% of german I know that I also know everything about the ww2 and the fact that america entered and claim that they won ww2 was very stupid egoistic aggrogant move for this they deserve more then their country to few apart.. or be destroyed...
only because of hitlers major mistake of fighting on 2 fronts ..if he'd listend to his generals and not split his forces....the full might of nazi germany would have smashed russis and instead of borsht youd be eating sauer kraut
you should know that 90 percent of hitler armies was destroyed by russia and onlly 10 percent fighted on the western front. so the american intervention, just speeded up Hitlers defeat
they point being if the other 10% as you say had been there it would have caused a total collapse of the front...hell the german army made thier goals until they reached the rivers and had to stop for resupply
And poverty in the America?!...you know my grandma had a saying: "don't throw stones if you're living in a glass house"...does that mean anything to you DiscoverRussia?...in other words maybe you should look in the mirror before you speak of poverty. Russians need not look beyond there own borders to find ALL of the impoverished people they could ever want to see. I could give you actual figures(i.e. poverty in the US vs. poverty in Russia)but I don't want to depress you anymore.
Umm...yeah we've never needed VSTOL aircraft for our carriers because we use catapults dumbass...the YAK-141 never even broke the speed of sound, you're talking out of you ass again. and Andrey Sinitsin?...you mean the Russian software developer?...And no your schools are most certainly NOT "101% free"...
Oh yes they are...they're capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and more...WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK THEY WERE MADE?!...Tactical missiles are PAT 1, 2 &3's department...and the S-500 doesn't exist yet, one thing at a time discover...
yak 141 program was deleted in 1992, and what about ahed in tecnology? it have to use afterbunner to take off or land vertically, and also sheer speed is nothing since the 70's, a fighter aircraft needs manuvrability and agility and excess thrust, also range and payload is important
and education is better?
well looks like you're the only one insulting people wich has opinions different from your propaganda ones (like: we have the best thing around while the rest of the world sucks)
Our literacy rate is @ 99%! So no, it's NOT "50% less developed than Russia's"...more than 30 of the worlds highest-ranked 45 institutions are in the United States, NONE of those are in Russia. The US also has the highest number of higher education students in the world, a figure of 14,261,778 or 4.75% of the worlds total population, Russia is less than half that figure. Russia has1,100 establishments of higher learning, the US has 5,758. And no not all of your universities are free. idiot
As far as the satellite thing goes, the ONLY reason Khrushchev decided to push for that is because he knew that he would never ever be able to beat the US bomber force, so he decided to go a different route, but once he did the US took advantage of work that had been proceeding at a slow pace and quickly shot ahead of you guys. You weren't even able to catch up until the late-60's! Try again douchebag...
The US was never out to develop a VSTOL aircraft because we didn't need it, but the British did and that single engined fighter would have killed ANY of your "VSTOL" paper aircraft, even the YAK-141.
one step closer to an automated tank drone=D
attackmike 3 months ago
@attackmike There exist remote controlled T-90s. First remote controlled tank was a T-26 also known as teletanks TT-26 first appeared around 1939 and saw combat in 1940
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn thank you did not know that.
attackmike 3 months ago
that is really cool
FieldMarshallRommel 4 months ago
RUSSIA & AMERICA FOREVER!
donttreadonme1751 7 months ago
Т-64B
DisgorgeKILLusa 8 months ago
well....that's fast
8900609 8 months ago
That thing looks so fragile.
intermsofreality 9 months ago
@intermsofreality fragile indeed, but that thing can break ur arm if u stick ur arm there. it happened to few unlucky tank crew, they gave their arm to that machine.
jack99889988 9 months ago
it would not be a tactical advantage unless you get a tank autoloader that can set up rates of fire equal to naval autoloading cannons and a top notch FCS that can acquire and engage multiple targets at once. other then that the advantages of an autoloader are more logistical (you can field smaller crews).
rexregum 11 months ago
@rexregum it is a definite to human because their loading rate varies, some load faster some load slower but key is that they all tend to load slower when a tank is mobile. although a tank loader load slower than naval gun but it is alot more compact, u probably seen a navel loading mechanism, they are HUGE! how can u fit inside a tank when it is only around 2 meter tall?
jack99889988 9 months ago
@jack99889988
The only problem at a human loader is, that in real combat he might tire. A machine doesn't, but i have rather a trained loader then an auto loader.
JazzJaRa 5 months ago
@JazzJaRa is a big black guy best autoloader&??
murra84 3 weeks ago
@0willsy01
An autoloader can be repaired, a human loader, once he is dead, he is dead, no repairing him.
Sismiques 11 months ago
@Sismiques pros and cons to both approaches... an autoloader is a piece of equipment that is mechanically complex and mission critical to a tank, and cannot be easily replaced. a loader is an extra set of eyes and crew that can help maintain, look out for and take care of a tank.
you get a slightly higher rate of fire with an autoloader (but in practice this isn't as practical as having good fire control) and your tank can be somewhat smaller. but all in all, it depends on what rocks your boat.
rexregum 11 months ago
weed
bartlebybartleby 1 year ago
the problem with the auto loader is that it requires lots of maintenance and easily gets malfunctions. A tank is basically manufactured to be able to withstand a hit from another tank, but a system like that is never foolproof. If the tank suffers a hit that would destroy even the slightest of wires or electrics, the autoloader would become useless and the tank becomes useless. That's why the Leopard 2 got a manually loading system. To be able to continue to fight after being hit.
downloadgoblin 1 year ago
@downloadgoblin
Our tanks got many hits in Afghanistan and Chechnya and autoloader showed himself as very reliable mechanism. Don't know about Abrams, but russian electronics designed to be undamaged if there are no armor penetration. Also, big plus from autoloader is -1 crew member, this leads to a smaller size of tank, lighter weight, etc.
Camradko 1 year ago
@downloadgoblin man russian autoloaders are like AK-47 might have dirt it can be dameged but it will still work
igor7702 1 year ago
@igor7702 & when a spent shell gets stuck in it and someone doesn't stop the loader - the turret (literally) flies off... not to mention, if the gunner puts his arm where it's not supposed to be, the loader rips it off
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAtheA guy acually the shell drops out right out of the tank after the shot was fired you think that the russian weapon indestry didnt think about what you wrote they could not have put an autoloader in a tank if they knew that it wont be so effective as a crew member im telling that russian auto loaders are unberakeble amerricans didnt have brains to make an auto loder
StasTarasov 1 year ago
@StasTarasov it's supposed to drop out... but if it stays jammed, there's a problem...any machine can break, nothing is undestructible, it's the main reason most russian armored vehicles can start the engine with compressed air or why some of the turrets have hand-cranks...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@downloadgoblin well i heard with an auto loader is if the tank gets hit booommm all the ammo gos up with it. thats why on the M1A1 or the M1A2 they have there shells in an armor thing xD i heard all this from a dude so idk he said the M1A1 has better crew survivrability or somin
bluebuzzardcod4 1 year ago
@bluebuzzardcod4 because it was made that way... the T-72 was (still is) dirt cheap, stuff like crew comfort or protection was...unnescessary...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAtheA thats why abunch of germans died xD
bluebuzzardcod4 1 year ago
@bluebuzzardcod4 I belive that had something to do with Hitler being an ass, that had control everything, even when he couldn't...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAtheA thats true
bluebuzzardcod4 1 year ago
@AKAtheA
Crew comfort secondary but protection is good for the time, depends on the version/modernization.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 & don't you think that an autolader that can blow up the entire tank is a bit of a safety problem?
The export version was complete crap, the "domestic market" version needed several upgrades to make it usefull, the T-90 is efectively a very upgraded T-72...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAthe
As opposed to the M-60? As opposed TO EVERY OTHER TANK OTHER THAN THE M1? And the M1 is very unbalanced because of the design choices. The problem is not the autoloader but the extra ammo stored in the fighting compartment. You can solve that easily by dumping it into a turret bustle.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 trouble is, the T-72 doesn't solve it...even without any extra ammo, the carousel magazine of the loader is unprotected, it doesn't take much to set all of the ammo off...
The M1 has problems of it's own, f.e. the APU can be disabled with a .50 MG, it's apparently something the designers overlooked...(without power, it's just a metal casket)
p.s.in T-72 there's barely enough room for a smaller-than-average person, not sure where a turret bustle could be ;-)
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAtheA
It is protected, there is a steel sheet over the ammo and its very low in the hull. The ammo on the Leo2 isn't protected at all and its in a huge clump. I'm not 100% sure on the LeClerc or the K2, I think they might be in some armored bin but I'm not 100% sure.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@AKAtheA
It is protected, there is a steel sheet over the ammo and its very low in the hull. The ammo on the Leo2 isn't protected at all and its in a huge clump. I'm not 100% sure on the LeClerc or the K2, I think they might be in some armored bin but I'm not 100% sure.
"The M1 has problems of it's own, f.e. the APU"
Every external APU can be disabled.
"p.s.in T-72 there's barely enough room for a smaller-than-average person"\
Add a box to the back of turret.
gosciu555 1 year ago
@gosciu555 check the video on automatic loaders...both the LeClerc & the K2 are there...
One can't just bolt boxes onto a tank, it has to accessible from within...(apparently some ukrainian upgrade does do it like that, but it's not a simple upgrade)
if a shaped charge can punch through more than double thickness of the turret, some flimsy plate will not stop the jet, check the Chetchna VS Russia wars, the tank crews didn't put full loads into the magazine because of it's lack of protection
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@AKAtheA the apu only powers the systems with the engine off.
bartlebybartleby 1 year ago
@bartlebybartleby When the tank is standing still with the main engine off & is suddenly greeted by a .50 cal burst, it has a problem... the main engine needs a while to start...
From what I understand, the hydraulics (without them, the tank can't do anything) draw a considerable amount of power...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
Comment removed
bartlebybartleby 1 year ago
@bluebuzzardcod4
Byt the whole point of having an autoloader, is so the
tank is smaller,harder to hit, and so you have manpower devoted to other tasks.
Sismiques 1 year ago
That is cool. I always wanted to see an autoloader :)
raccoonmatinginyour 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had to watch this a few times to be sure, but the propellant seems to be separate from the projectile(makes sense, different projectile, same propellant, saves space). So there is no cartridge case to dispose of. What kind of risk of propellant fire is there? This is often a problem in bag(caseless) artillery.
JRSchmuke 1 year ago
I had to watch this a few times to be sure, but the propellant seems to be separate from the projectile(makes sense, different projectile, same propellant, saves space). So there is no cartidge case to dispose of. What kind of risk of propellant fire is there? This is often a problem in bag(caseless) artillery.
JRSchmuke 1 year ago
@saguyrabin Ofc they do son....sabot, HEAT are on different places in loader...noone is so stupid to make autoloader that load random ammo in gun.... O.o
nedeljko031 1 year ago
@nedeljko031 that by the way would be awsome, just immagine a russian gunner pressing what's essentially a google "Feel lucky?" button in battle :D
Gjldo 1 year ago
@nedeljko031 And that's exactly the reason when AL has to choose different type of ammo delay can reach 12 seconds. Specifically for T-80... (I don't know about T-90).
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr well on M84 where i served that would be in worst case 4,5-5sec...but in the most cases we have prepared loader before engagement....
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage You want to tell me that in case if you need to fire 1st HEAT, 2nd HE-FRAG it will take only 5seconds?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@ITmage Sorry, I wanted to say first APFSDS and then HE-FRAG (or any combination of different types of ammo). Will it take only 5 second?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr yeah, 4,5-5 sec to change ammo and normal time to load. Average 9sec for next shoot. But in fact its rare situation...you mostly know what type you will need so you use only that. We didnt have too much tank-other armor engagements.
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage M84 uses same autoloader like T-72, right?
Thank you for sharing this info. Because one guy who have served at T-80 was saying that reloading there takes from 6 to 12 seconds. Depends on if firing consecutive shots of same or different type. Of course T-72 and T-80 has different mechanisms for reloading, right?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr M84 use simplified T72 loader, our company Sever made loader on same principe but with 36 moving parts less so its easier to remont and produce. It can sustain 8-9 grenades in minute. Some updated versions even 10, but just few of them exist, and they were build just before war 1991. I served on M84AB.
ITmage 1 year ago
@BitnikGr I think their loaders are almost the same, but far as i know T80s loader is faster, probably its simplified T72 loader.
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage Thanks again. It is very interesting. Of course Russian themselves call autoloader on T-72 as "avtomatic" loading, while on T-80 it is called "mechanism" for loading. I don't understand why former T-80 commander would say that it takes from 6 to 12 seconds to reload a gun in T-80.
9 shots per minute is fine for modern battle tank. In Greek MBT tender in 1998 participated Abrams M1A2, Challenger 2E, Leo 2A5, Leclerc, T-80 and T-84. 3 with autoloaders, 3 with human loaders. In test for...
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@ITmage ... rate of fire Abrams did 8 per minute, every other tank did 9. So, autoloader of M84 is in same league... at least for this parameter.
Koreans, French and Japanese say that future autoloaders would be able to acheive 12-15 rounds per minute. Do you believe if this is possible?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr Hardly, i mean T90 autoloader can load even 12 per minute, but there is big problem of gun barrel overheat. That guns would need to have water or oil cooling. Well you know...after 2 minutes of loading 8 round...loader gets tired....autoloader never gets tired,and he dont need food or water xD
ITmage 1 year ago
Smooth! Only japanese design is superior!
mnnh1 1 year ago
thes rounds need a primer ummm that is fast loading
bakergreen5 1 year ago
Does it still have that killer 10 second delay in the reload cycle? That delay got a lot of people killed in combat.
JRSchmuke 2 years ago
@JRSchmuke No, T-80's and T-90's use a hydrolic loader that is much faster than that of T-72.
T-90 can fire 9 accurate rounds per minute. Which places load time for each round at roughly 3 seconds.
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein I agree with the three second count, but that only looked like the projectile being loaded, not the charge cartridge. Does the T-90 use two-piece ammunition like some artillery..8inch, or some naval guns, or the 175mm?
JRSchmuke 1 year ago
@JRSchmuke that is both the projectile and the charge cartridge being loaded...
patraf222 1 year ago
@patraf222 I see that now, had to look closely, good 3- second cycle time.
JRSchmuke 1 year ago
@JRSchmuke Tell me...when did you saw thank with two piece grenade...with warhead and charge merged -.-?
nedeljko031 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein T-90s have electric loader.
TheBerzzz 1 year ago
@TheBerzzz
No, T-64 and early T-72 was electric. Later T-72, T-80, and T-90's all use hydraulic loading. Which is much faster than electric.
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein
There is a hydraulic drive of the loading MECHANISM. at t-72 and Т-90 electric drive of the loading AUTOMATIC MACHINE . These are 2 different devices. Sorry for my english
TheBerzzz 1 year ago
@JRSchmuke there is no 10sec delay in loading.....
nedeljko031 1 year ago
Да нет... для НАТО тоже не нужны Абрамсы. У ведущих стран есть Леклерки, Челенджеры, Леопарды. У стран поменьше есть выбор (предпочитают Леопарды). Пока нет ни одной страны в Европе с Абрамсами. Нафиг они нужны... запчасти из-за океана ждать.
BitnikGr 2 years ago
russians and americans please be friends
bartlebybartleby 2 years ago 65
@bartlebybartleby Seems likely they will with only a little work, after all, they don't share a land border. Unlike some folks who don't like either Russia or U.S.
JRSchmuke 1 year ago
@bartlebybartleby No don't!! no wars means no profits.
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil No profits... Wars cost ALOT of money. War gets you nowhere.
stewart113 1 year ago
@stewart113 It cost the peoples and the state, but it's pofitable to weapons industries and their political connection. Bush and Cheney don't pay the war through their pocket, they pay using tax payers money. Let the taxpayers bear the cost and the Corporate reap most of the profits.
phadil 1 year ago
@stewart113 you used the internet to comment on this vid right? thats what i thought...
SteamiusEngenius 7 months ago
@SteamiusEngenius Even a retard could figure out that the equipment used in wars are expensive...
stewart113 7 months ago
@stewart113 While we are on the topic of retardation, it also appears that retards repeatedly state that wars cost money. Although correct, this retard missed the fact that war does get you somewheres. War brought you an end to a great depression, rational thoughts on slavery, the moon, aerospace engineering, the internet (yes retard read my comment before harassing it) and of course no-fog ski goggles. Yes war sucks "dude". But to have a retardedly ignorant view on war, its just that; Retarded.
SteamiusEngenius 7 months ago 7
@bartlebybartleby russia was always open for friendship. saxons always suggest slavery or colonisation. its not how friends do.
protfl 1 year ago
@bartlebybartleby Russia and America been friends for a while...
Hatinonthehaters 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bartlebybartleby no! you stupid bitch
XPEH999 1 year ago
@bartlebybartleby
please stop Russians from being such fachists and ANYONE will want them as friends.
Now.. not so much.
EdTheBadass 1 year ago
@bartlebybartleby ameriCUNTs are good target and not friend
DisgorgeKILLusa 8 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa
I hate comrades like you.
Seriously, put it to a rest, the Cold War is over my friend, we lost it, but that doesn't make the Americans the bad guys forever.
They are one of our biggest allies.
Fleskhjerta1 8 months ago
@Fleskhjerta1I'm not Russian i'm pashtun but I think Russian fuck you like cold war era. You friends and comrades in gay bar, pindos. All Russian hate west and that is cool, they will fight to victory. I've talked with Russians and know their moods.
DisgorgeKILLusa 8 months ago
@bartlebybartleby we are at least in the wan that if one of us attacks each other were both screwd
lovegunz1 7 months ago
Can anyone tell me from his own experience which autoloader is better: the one in T-64/80 (MZ) or in T-72/90 (AZ)?
dragonzmaj1 2 years ago
T80's autoloader loads the projectile in one stroke and the other in two strokes. So the former is faster.
fener4e 2 years ago
@dragonzmaj1 T-80 and T-90 both use hydrolic loaders which are virtually identical in performance. It is hard to say... T-80's loader might about be 0.14 seconds slower than the T-90's loader.
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
@otzelot68 62-ку я знаю, ладно не верте, надоело спорить)))
6ScaR9 2 years ago
у нас от бухла каждый год гибнет больше чем за весь авган
6ScaR9 2 years ago
Ваще Китай много работает на Америку, это так сказать кладезь дешевой рабочей силы и не думай что они пойдут за нас, еслр что они тоже не против кусок хапнуть
6ScaR9 2 years ago
По твоим коментам ты ещё сосунок)))
Вообще в тех 72-х не было даже автомата заряжания, т.к. технология эта была ещё секретна и на экспорт не поставлялась)))
6ScaR9 2 years ago
много бреда видел. но такого... диалог навысшем уровне. Что один, чо второй.
Т-72 всегда был с АЗ. И на экспорте тоже. Всегда! И еще: никогда Т-72 не воевали с Меркавой. Не встречались они в бою.
brezant 2 years ago
ну ну
6ScaR9 2 years ago
что "ну-ну"?.. знатоки, блин... Первая модификация "Танк "Урал", объект 172 уже был с АЗ и в танке никогда не предусматривался основной режим загрузки "вручную". Вручную скорострельность у Т-72 - 2 выстрела в минуту максимум. Плюс раздельное заряжание.
brezant 2 years ago
Эй знаток. ты в свои 19 уже все знаешь. Я вот Т-72 водил и стрелял из него. Я тебе говорю не весь боекомплект в АЗ. Вначале экспорные были без него, так как вся эта байда была секртена. Нам полковник один рассказывал.
6ScaR9 2 years ago
Я в свои 19 тебе говорю еще раз: АЗ н экспорт шел всегда. И секретным он не был. Даже МЗ на 64-ке к тому времени не был секретен уже.
brezant 2 years ago
Привет тому полковнику, мля...
Т-72 всегда был с автолоудером. Если ты считаешь, что нет - назови модификацию танка без него. Тут крышу многим знатокам подлечить бы.
brezant 2 years ago
иди в жопу кароче, с наступающим тебя.
И добалю у этих танков кстати 115 мм пушка была с унитарным выстрелом, а то что ты в инете вычитал, это все хуйня как и ты сам)))) С праздником!
6ScaR9 2 years ago
))).. И тебя с новым годом, хуилко неграмотное!.. )) Т-72 со 115мм?.. )) Какой это объект? Пиши, жжошь.. Счастья тебе и здоровья, семье - только радостей!.. И сопри себе де-нить книгу об.172.
brezant 2 years ago
немчуры автомат заряжания на pz 2000 есть, у леклерка тож есть. Наши понаделали т64-72-80-90 (причем по характеристикам не сильно уж и отличаются), а взаимозаменяемость деталей не больше 20%-будет война какая, много мароки с этим. У табрамса и леоперда 2, 60%
6ScaR9 2 years ago
Ты баран, абрамсы, есть в Автралии, ещё в какой-то стране, лягушачью леклерки в ОАЭ, и абрамсы неплохо ездят по грязи, ты пиздец крест, в инете хуйни обчяитаешься, а танк максимум в живую на поклонной горе виде))))
6ScaR9 2 years ago
Эй малообразованый доходяга, учись писать , так что ты Чиди и молчи.xDDD
по приколу введи в яндексе
замена двигателя в танке
и посмари картинки, сразу в первом ряду увидешь pz-4)
6ScaR9 2 years ago
@KiLLeR12007SerJo
балбес ты не прав, немецкие танки отлично ремотривались в полевых условиях, поэтому у них много всяких лючков доступа к агрегатам.
Также на немецких танках не нужно было разбирать половину моторного отделения что бы вытащить двигатель.
6ScaR9 2 years ago
fener4e durik? ti vsjo pro 4e4nju tverdi6? da prodali russkix solgat tam! Dumae6 v Amerike vsjo oxuenno? Xuli pizdi6, esli ne znae6? Te lap6u govorjat a ti tut umnik pereskazivae6! Rossiju s na4alo vekov uni4towitj xotjat i ne mogut.
s4astjetokakoe 2 years ago
Opyat gluposti gorodi6.6vabi 4inili i svoi i va6i tanki.Potomu raznica takova v poteryah.Pod prohorovkoy oni poteryali 2(!) a va6i 130-potomu 4to nu4yu pole ostalos za nimi-oni svoi ma6ini zanovo otremontirovali a va6i vzorvali
fener4e 2 years ago
A vse voyni Rusii kotoraya ona vela obora4ivalis tragediey dlya eye naroda i soldat.
fener4e 2 years ago
da ne znayu na skolko ti sitiy sedi6.4toto k vam krome kavkazkoy i sredneaziatskoy ne4isti ni kto ne edet.A va6i je prodoljayut v Wevropu da v 6tati uezjat-te 4to 4toto umeyut.A rimlyan krestyane,t.e jidi zakanali,kak zakanali i va6u Rusiyu v 17tom.Sey4as prosto dobivayut 4tobi eye voob6te kak ponyatiya ne ostalos.I v etom vinovati ne amerikanci-oni normalnie trudolyubivie lyudi,a va6i praviteli kotorie vot uje 100 s li6nem let kormyastsa u mirovoy jidovskoy mafii i vas je stirayut s lica zemli
fener4e 2 years ago
A 4em eto sila voli u va6ego soldata silnee?Ya 4toto plenenie abramsi u arabov ne videl a vot po groznomu rezaki razejjali na plennih 72kah i bmd
fener4e 2 years ago
A 4em nije uroven jizni tem narod bol6e skoteet pitayas prejde vsego naestsya a ne sozdavat mat.blaga.I rimlyane horo6e voevali-davili vseh pod ryad
fener4e 2 years ago
V livanskoy voyne v 82,siriyaki bili na 72kah-novih togda e6te i 4to.Poteri to bili bol6e u nih.Daje slu4alos m60 podbivali 72ki,a siriyakam daje i KUBi nepomogli i MiGi toje
fener4e 2 years ago
eto tolko po va6im selam to neznali 4to 6vabi navalyatsa.I esli daje i bili lu46ie tanki to yavno nekomu bilo ezdit na nih-eto uj to4no
fener4e 2 years ago
perhaps but supperior western tanks(except the French)lack an autoloader.And just don't say the bulshit that the autoloader is a shortcoming
fener4e 2 years ago
A u fas ego net i kogda v va6i u4rejdeniya vrivayutsta rezaki to mo4at narod sotnyami,a narod eto tolko stoit i bleet.U vas bandite lu46e 4em menti voorujeni i krugom razboy.Negovorya 4to nikakoy orujeynoy kulturi u vas netu.Ya videl fotki kak va6i menti derjat pistolet-vidno srazu nikogda do togo ne derjali
fener4e 2 years ago
i e6te.Eto tolko u retarda ho4etsya orujie izpolzovat 4tobi kompleksi uti6it.Ya ne sli6al 4tobi lu46ie strelki mira ubivali po ulicam kogo to.A v 6tatah gde eti nedomaslenie demokrati ne uspeli v dela sunutsya tam prestupleniy protiv sobstvenosti i li4nosti net i naoborot.
fener4e 2 years ago
Da posmotri na English Russia,4to tayfuni va6i uje spisivayut i rezat na4inayut.Sami je va6i smi pi6ut 4to na severnom flote vot uje 20 let novogo korablya v stroy ne postupalo.Pi6ut 4to Petr Velikiy uje v takom plohom teh sostoyanii 4to vzorvatsya mojet.Takoe daje pro dryahliy uje Nimitz ya ne sli6al
fener4e 2 years ago
vse parni zdorovie begut ot armii,4to bi ih tam ne zastavlyali prostituirovat(eto va6i je smi pi6ut)za nimi voenkomati e6te v 6kolah na4inayut ohotitsya.Sami je va6i podpogon6tiki hni4at 4to nekomu v armii slujit-odni sociopati da narkomani
fener4e 2 years ago
really?They however can make engines and high precision electronics,and you cannot
fener4e 2 years ago
da eto tak.Va6i podlodki sami tonut.Flot stoit ne dejurit-net deneg na kapitalniy remont bol6ih korabley.Iz typhoonov 3 uje v metaloome,1-v rezerve,vihodyat na dejurstva tolko 2(i to redko)Sam glavkom severnogo flota zayavil,4to net u vas podlodki s bol6e 4em 12(!!)raketami
fener4e 2 years ago
I 4em je eti voyska perevoorujat?Medvedevskoy boltavney?Ot kuda eto deneg vozmete?I kto v etoy va6ey armii budet slujit?A kitayci vas ne siloy vozmut,a prosto viselyat iz sibiri postepenno
fener4e 2 years ago
Indusam navernoe zaplatili vot oni i berut.A te u kogo bol6e deneg ne berut
fener4e 2 years ago
i kto eto dokazal to?Net bogatoy strani kotoraya bi pokupala va6i tanki.Daje Kuwait i OAE kupili tolko bmp da Tunguski.Tanki va6i daje arabam uje ne po nutru
fener4e 2 years ago
Kto eto takuyu statistiku to ustanovil?Va6i"eksperti"navernoe.Ya pomnyu kak va6i podpogon6tiki jdali v 2003tem:"vot mol 6as amerikanci podavyatsya.."i 4to-razdavili cigan v dva s4eta-te srazu pobejali
fener4e 2 years ago
nesmojet prosto.Yey ni kto ne dast,srazu ruki oblamayut
fener4e 2 years ago
Ya ne me4tayu.uvidi6 sam 4ezez 20 let 4to tak i polu4itsya.Moy sovet-lu46i yanki 4em kitayci.U yankov mojno koe 4emu nau4itsya,a jeltie vas sotrut s lica zemli
fener4e 2 years ago
U tebya avtomat est?Net.togda 4to pizdi6.A v Amerike na rukah u naseleniya bol6e 400mln edinic orujiya.Yanki ot rodu s orujiem.U vas ono v kazarmah i na kartinkah.Tak 4to ne znayu tebya 4to kabenit 4to negretyat Kala6ami zovut
fener4e 2 years ago
Esli bi jidi im merkavi prodali kak namerevalis,to vryad li tak prosto im bi nadavali.Kto skazal 4to Abrams ne derjit rpg?U vas eto izpitali gde to?Da va6 tank de6evle no ot nego i polzi voob6eto men6e.I po4emu to armii u kotorih dengi est pokupayut ne va6i tanki
fener4e 2 years ago
Uspokaivay sebya.Bili.Bili mongolo-tatagi,bili polyaki,bili francuzi(oni vzyali Moskvu) i Yanki pridut.Vryadli vam ot etogo huje budet,mojet hot blagoustroyut
fener4e 2 years ago
Nu i pust diktuyut.Tuda kto poehal s golodu ne pomer a naoborot.Kogda tvoya strana dostignet togo jiznenogo urovnya dlya svoih lyudey(esli eto voob6te kogda nebud slu4itsya) togda i kor4ite iz sebya kogo hotite.A segodnya eto odna strana v kotoroy kto umeet 4to nebud mojet jit horo6e.I eto ne va6a strana
fener4e 2 years ago
A sey4as razve est?Tak vse videli va6i tanki kak goryat vezde gde oni voevali.Hot v Osetii.U vas vryd li est dostata4no strelkovogo orujiya 4tobi vseh voorujit iz 40mln godnih voevat.U yankov je vse est.I kultura orujeynaya na mnogo vi6e.Va6i krome kak na kartinkah da v kazarme orujie ne gde ne vidyat
fener4e 2 years ago
5 mln na perednem krayu(to4nee v Poll6e) bili,potomu 4to poteri 10/1 bili.Plennih va6ih za vsyu voynu 3mln 6vabam ostavili.I vi nikogda normalno im protivostoyat ne mogli-vsegda va6i poteri bili bol6e ihnih,daje v konce voyni
fener4e 2 years ago
Va6im dedam toje"garantirovali"4to voyni na va6ey teritorii bol6e ne budet.I US armed forces tebe ne bednie evropeyci kakimi bili 6vabi(da oni nebili stranoy s neograni4enimi zapasami).Amerikancev 300mln.bol6e 4em vas.Esli im nehvatit lyudey zavezut iz Meksiki.
fener4e 2 years ago
To 4to ostanavlivaet poka nato napast tak eto va6i yadernie boegolovki.I ne tak 4to amerikancam stra6no ot nih,prosto 4tobi ih obezvredit im predetsya lupit nukami toje,a oni tam hozyayni4at sobirayutsta. Konvencionalnimi sredstvami je vam neustoyat protiv dyadi Sama.Oni mogut voevat neograni4enoe vremya,4to i delayut uje bol6e 10ti let.Rosiya je net
fener4e 2 years ago
Da ni u odnoy strani potomu 4to ne bilo 20000 tankov i 11000 boevih samoletov. Na ruskih je 6vabi napali s 4000 tankami i 4200 samoletami(ne vse iz nih bili germanskimi)i nesmotrya na eto razmazali prigrani4nie armii a posle Kieva realno mogli vzyat Moskvu(prosto sami promedlii grabya Ukrainu)4to bi bilo koncom va6ey strani
fener4e 2 years ago
fener4e, приводимые числа не имеют никакого смысла. Факт, что план Барбаросса был расчитан на 3 месяца максимум. А затянулся до осени. Они то уж точно знали с чем и против чего нападали и значит верили в свои силы.
BitnikGr 2 years ago
V ob6tem to mnogoe znayu.Dlya t72 i t80 vkladnie stvoli s batey uje kotoriy god delaem(znae6 4to takoe?vryad li)A nas4et "goroda" jidi ved toje v gorodah mestnih arabov mo4at,a v livanskoy voyne poteryali 3(tri!!!)merkavi ot fugasov. Sudi sam
fener4e 2 years ago
Do vtoroy mirovoy u vas toje bilo tankov bol6e vseh i kak va6im dedam govorili "lu46ih"4em ostalnie.V itoge 6vabi do Moskvi do6li za neskolko mesyacev.Tak 4to molis 4tobi eti"herovie" Abramsi po tvoey strane ne pokatilis odin den,ato na etot raz vam ne sdobrovat
fener4e 2 years ago
va6i tanki jgli na ulicah Groznogo polugramotnie cigani u kotorih nebilo daje takih"spisanih".Ya videl na fotkah daje t80 razvoro4ennih do neuznavaemosti.Uznal po vihlopu szadi
fener4e 2 years ago
Ahahah torak sure xDDD So i destroyed 100000 and capture 42978 abrams tanks. ))))))))
Redbeastik 2 years ago
U even dont know that T-80 and T-72 have DIFFERENT chassis.
I post "built on same chassis" about T-80U to test u'r knowledge. Look like u realy not tanker.
Rur0uni86 2 years ago
The most massive tank of USA now - M1A1. It is 24 years old now.
T-80U (1985) which "built on the same chassis" in 1991 (Gulf war) had better armor, firepower and mobility then the newest M1A1HA.
"The only thing the T series has going for it is speed"
T-90 have LESSER speed then most of modern tanks. Sorry man, look like u'r not tanker.
Rur0uni86 2 years ago
Lesser speed doesnt mean that T-90 bad. Speed some lesser but its more reliable than motor of leo 2 or abrams that can work just in sterile conditions. Motor of T-90 work too under water an at very low and high temperatures. + Speed doesnt mean nothing when u can hit moving enemys tank from range 5km isnt it?
Redbeastik 2 years ago
I know. In the duel situation even the latest versions of Abrams almost have no chance against T-90, because it need to come closer then 2km do hit T-90.
I only wanna show that our "tanker" torak101 even do not know basics about tanks.
Rur0uni86 2 years ago
Another "fishermans tales" from Iraq?
So funny to listen, how many T-72s killeach tanker, when USA were able to confirm.... 14 T-72 kills. FOURTEEN! And some of them had damage as on tank lefted before hit.
Autoloader work perfectly. In chechnya there was no problem with it even after 4-5 hits from RPG.
Rur0uni86 2 years ago
The autoloader is the same as in t 80 or t 64. t 72 and 90 use a diferent type of autoloader. The bigest user of t 64 tanks is ukrain. Russia has alot of 64's too but most of them are in reserv. Boath counrys use T 80 tanks. Now the guys in this clip speaks fluent russian with no ukrainian accent. So my money is on a russian T 80BV.
cabalabro 2 years ago
that was fucking awesome, i need moreeeee!!!!
SizzleCompany 2 years ago
the program his no longer under development, when and if it will be back tell us, till then shut up
cause it's like saying that america has XB-70, B1A and RAH 66 in service, and by the way Harrier at least has seen war service
Gjldo 3 years ago
DR please without comments like that cause i will just erase them.
ggkiler 3 years ago
Why in the world do Russians hate America so bad?!!..I'm not looking for some more "America sucks, Russia's better" kind of crap...I actually want to know why.
tommytmt 3 years ago
Well, as far as I can see, it all stemmed from the cold war. After WW2, the soviet union and the americans were the only 2 superpowers left in existence and basically shot dirty glances at each other till 1991, afraid of the potential threat each nation could do to the other nation. Once you hold a grudge for that long, it doesn't easily evaporate, and there tends to be a whole mythos of bad things that gets invented about the opposing force (they eat babies etc.) that just exacerbates things...
jonnotantan 2 years ago
Heh, the americans have already told to all the world that they are better than "communist nazis"
PSXDooMERR 2 years ago
communist nazis wtf you realise communist and nazis hate each other
eoghan93 2 years ago 5
Communist nazis? lol looks like you are huge simpsons-fan :)
PSXDooMERR 2 years ago 2
lol
eoghan93 2 years ago
lol have you seen readed something at all ...Well lets got back in ww2 where US entered 1944 USSR was already winning agaist hutler but guess what america took some from the victory cake and after the end of WW2 Truman made a anti communistic doctorine ... America started the cold war propaganda wars north korea vietnam ugoslavia and so America spits on Russia but they are messing with a sleeping beast ... witch is unwise ...you will see sooner or later America will pay for their crimes..
sfs706868 2 years ago
i heard east germany was heavenly
roswell34 2 years ago
Hahahaha you gotta be joking xD. although the U.S. did enter late in WW2 it dosen't mean we wanted to go to take your glory. Remember the U.S. didn't want to go to war until Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor. Also if we didnt fought the majority of Japanese military you would've had to go over the Pacific and beat their army which i doubt you would've been able to do. remember the lend and lease? Remember Russia and Germany started WW2 together by invading poland until hitler stab their back.
DREAMKNIGHT12 2 years ago
so who do you think won WW2??
we did, fighting against millions at germans, while you fighted against 100.000 at france.
we conquested berlin, we liberated eastern europe. We defeated Hitlers armies.
stalingradComando 2 years ago 2
so don't you think I don't know that you think I agree or I am on american side ? ;0 first look at my country 2 I put facts not my side or something
I know that the soviet army wiped 90% of german I know that I also know everything about the ww2 and the fact that america entered and claim that they won ww2 was very stupid egoistic aggrogant move for this they deserve more then their country to few apart.. or be destroyed...
sfs706868 2 years ago
only because of hitlers major mistake of fighting on 2 fronts ..if he'd listend to his generals and not split his forces....the full might of nazi germany would have smashed russis and instead of borsht youd be eating sauer kraut
smyers820gm 2 years ago
you should know that 90 percent of hitler armies was destroyed by russia and onlly 10 percent fighted on the western front. so the american intervention, just speeded up Hitlers defeat
stalingradComando 2 years ago
they point being if the other 10% as you say had been there it would have caused a total collapse of the front...hell the german army made thier goals until they reached the rivers and had to stop for resupply
smyers820gm 2 years ago
that a german problem, we ve won, we killed milions of naizis and pushed hitler s armies back to berlin. What do you want more??
stalingradComando 2 years ago
And poverty in the America?!...you know my grandma had a saying: "don't throw stones if you're living in a glass house"...does that mean anything to you DiscoverRussia?...in other words maybe you should look in the mirror before you speak of poverty. Russians need not look beyond there own borders to find ALL of the impoverished people they could ever want to see. I could give you actual figures(i.e. poverty in the US vs. poverty in Russia)but I don't want to depress you anymore.
tommytmt 3 years ago 2
Umm...yeah we've never needed VSTOL aircraft for our carriers because we use catapults dumbass...the YAK-141 never even broke the speed of sound, you're talking out of you ass again. and Andrey Sinitsin?...you mean the Russian software developer?...And no your schools are most certainly NOT "101% free"...
tommytmt 3 years ago
Oh yes they are...they're capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and more...WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK THEY WERE MADE?!...Tactical missiles are PAT 1, 2 &3's department...and the S-500 doesn't exist yet, one thing at a time discover...
tommytmt 3 years ago
yak 141 program was deleted in 1992, and what about ahed in tecnology? it have to use afterbunner to take off or land vertically, and also sheer speed is nothing since the 70's, a fighter aircraft needs manuvrability and agility and excess thrust, also range and payload is important
and education is better?
well looks like you're the only one insulting people wich has opinions different from your propaganda ones (like: we have the best thing around while the rest of the world sucks)
Gjldo 3 years ago
Our literacy rate is @ 99%! So no, it's NOT "50% less developed than Russia's"...more than 30 of the worlds highest-ranked 45 institutions are in the United States, NONE of those are in Russia. The US also has the highest number of higher education students in the world, a figure of 14,261,778 or 4.75% of the worlds total population, Russia is less than half that figure. Russia has1,100 establishments of higher learning, the US has 5,758. And no not all of your universities are free. idiot
tommytmt 3 years ago
As far as the satellite thing goes, the ONLY reason Khrushchev decided to push for that is because he knew that he would never ever be able to beat the US bomber force, so he decided to go a different route, but once he did the US took advantage of work that had been proceeding at a slow pace and quickly shot ahead of you guys. You weren't even able to catch up until the late-60's! Try again douchebag...
tommytmt 3 years ago
The US was never out to develop a VSTOL aircraft because we didn't need it, but the British did and that single engined fighter would have killed ANY of your "VSTOL" paper aircraft, even the YAK-141.
tommytmt 3 years ago