Comments by "id Usher" (@id_Usher) on "Военное телевидение" channel.

  1. There are a lot of inaccuracies and errors. The T-54/55 is not a pair, the T-55 is just an upgrade of the T-54. The next tank was the T-62. And the T-64 was an innovative design in general, invented at the Kharkov plant. The T-72 was simply a simplified version of the T-64, since the T-64 used an overly complex and unreliable engine, and the chassis was at the limit of its capabilities. The T-72 was fitted with a more reliable engine, a reinforced chassis. Simplified the automatic loader. The T-72 was invented at the Ural plant. The plant in Kharkov, however, continued to improve the design of the T-64, And the plant in Leningrad, offered its solution in improving the design of the T-64, they strengthened the chassis and installed a gas turbine engine. So the T-80 turned out. And by 1980, a paradoxical situation had developed in the USSR, three types of tanks were produced, which, apart from the gun and the general scheme, had nothing in common with each other. After the collapse of the USSR, the Plant in Kharkov ended up in independent Ukraine, where it continued to improve the design of the T-64 by releasing the T-64BM Bulat and T-84 Oplot. And in Russia, the Ural Plant's T-72 tank was modernized, turning it into the T-72B and T-90A. And now the T-90M is being produced.
    75
  2. A very strong misconception about the reloading of the gun. Firstly, the loader is an extra person who needs to be trained and fed. It takes up space and volume in the tank, which must be protected by armor, that is, the mass increases or the protection weakens. The loader simply gets tired, may be injured. And the high rate of fire of Western tanks was achieved in greenhouse conditions. That is, standing, in fact not being in combat, etc. And the only thing that threatens the automatic loader is that it can break))) But like any technique, if properly operated, nothing terrible will happen.
    6
  3. And where does the loader look in Abrams or Leopard))) The "loader" in the tank is an anachronism. Which proves that the Leclerc, Type-10, K2 and the promising Turkish tank use automatic loaders))) With respect. And so you got the gist right. Now Russia has gone even further by creating the T-14, a new generation tank. Just as the USA was ahead of the whole world with its F-22, so Russia was ahead of the whole world with its T-14 Armata.
    5
  4. You're very much mistaken. A person has the property of dying, getting sick, getting tired. Why is there no video about charging speed while driving? To provide a charger with space, you need a lot of volume, which in turn increases the mass. Which is very bad. All modern tanks have automatic loading. Leclerc, Type 10, K2. Armata T14, T-90M. A charging man is an anachronism.
    2
  5. There are 99% of stupid people who have never seen tanks in their lives and do not understand anything about technology and military science.
    2
  6. The T-80 tanks have ceased to be produced, by a large number where mothballed in the 90s, now they are being restored and modernized. The same doctrine of the USSR and Russia implies defense. Due to the large size of the territory, strategic mobility is very important. As the experience of combat operations shows, it is better to have at least some kind of tank than to have the best tank, but not available at the right time in the right place. Because of this, IF Vs and Apps have weaker booking, higher mobility and strong armament. Most of Russia's armored vehicles can cross rivers without prior preparation. Which gives very great mobility and flexibility. Unlike NATO forces, which have at their disposal very power-heavy armored vehicles
    2
  7. Peace is impossible with Nazis and fascists. Russia has been trying to negotiate with Ukraine for 8 years. It didn't work out. The time has come for action, not empty words, which European and American politicians love so much, just to talk and deceive people like that.
    1
  8. And the war against the tank is 80% death.
    1
  9. A typical stereotype. Soviet tanks were the first in the world to be equipped with protection against weapons of mass destruction. And the competence of the Russian troops is beyond doubt. Unlike European ones.
    1
  10. What makes you think the T-90 is less accurate at long distances? Where is the evidence? You manipulate words just like the usual Western fake media. All lies and clichés, no objectivity. At least watch this video about the T-90. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg9kiWsn5VY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqi-S7Tvc3Q prosvyatsya although would before as that the show. No offense! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-fMFgP15I see how Active protection works.
    1
  11. A typical mistake. The USSR had better tanks. And at the expense of lives, you are deeply mistaken, you probably know the story from the movies? At least look at the ratio of forces of the Kwantung army and the USSR. The USSR army destroyed a group of troops in a week, and the Americans, who were 10 times less than the Japanese, took longer and lost tens of thousands of people. The Kuril Islands fought back, do you know the ratio of losses? You won't believe it, the assault groups of the USSR were smaller, but they destroyed the enemy who were ready and waiting, and there were more of them. So think before you shame yourself with your ignorance.
    1
  12. To the point! Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye.
    1
  13.  @etenral7960  Have you compared the preparation? Saudi and Turkish tanks are burning even better now.
    1
  14. Turks in Syria will confirm))))
    1
  15. You know very little, how can you know that if you haven't even seen tanks?
    1
  16. There are a lot of inaccuracies and errors. The T-54/55 is not a pair, the T-55 is just an upgrade of the T-54. The next tank was the T-62. And the T-64 was an innovative design in general, invented at the Kharkov plant. The T-72 was simply a simplified version of the T-64, since the T-64 used an overly complex and unreliable engine, and the chassis was at the limit of its capabilities. The T-72 was fitted with a more reliable engine, a reinforced chassis. Simplified the automatic loader. The T-72 was invented at the Ural plant. The plant in Kharkov, however, continued to improve the design of the T-64, And the plant in Leningrad, offered its solution in improving the design of the T-64, they strengthened the chassis and installed a gas turbine engine. So the T-80 turned out. And by 1980, a paradoxical situation had developed in the USSR, three types of tanks were produced, which, apart from the gun and the general scheme, had nothing in common with each other. After the collapse of the USSR, the Plant in Kharkov ended up in independent Ukraine, where it continued to improve the design of the T-64 by releasing the T-64BM Bulat and T-84 Oplot. And in Russia, the Ural Plant's T-72 tank was modernized, turning it into the T-72B and T-90A. And now the T-90M is being produced.
    1
  17. Naive guy.
    1
  18.  @stephen46xre86  Bullshit. What does the ammunition have to do with it? The amount of ammunition is related to the linear dimensions of the tank, which are limited by the dimensions of the railway platform. The size of the tank directly affects the hit statistics on it, the smaller the tank, the more difficult it is to get into it. And do not rely on aviation, it will simply be destroyed even on approach, the army air defense in Russia is the strongest in the world. The S-300V, Buk, Tor, Tunguska, Wasp, and Strela systems are used. The tanks themselves are capable of shooting down helicopters. Reverse gear in reality does not affect the mobility of the tank so much, since it depends more on the crew. This is not a game.
    1
  19. It looks like kirdyk to Ukraine)
    1
  20. They hit well. There is a target tracking machine.
    1
  21. Зачем вы тут всякие мифы плодите? Какой к черту медведь? Ту-95 назывался Ту-95, и все. Никаких Туполев, никаких медведей.
    1
  22. I haven't heard so much bullshit in a long time.
    1
  23. Don't lie about the ammunition? Only Abrams has a separate ammunition package, the other tanks as well as Russian tanks carry part of the ammunition in the combat compartment. About the danger of Russian/Soviet tanks, this is a MYTH inflated by the Western media. The survivability of tanks is the same, there are many videos where Abrams also exploded with the crew. Turkish Leopards, as well as all were destroyed along with the crew. The frequency of videos and photos with Russian tanks shot down is explained by the frequency of use. For example, the F-4 Phantom 2 was shot down many times, but this does not mean that it is a bad plane? So Russian tanks, they are fighting all who are not lazy. You disappoint the author.
    1
  24. 02:07 What kind of Tupolev Tu-95 bear? I know the Tupolev Tu-95 plane, please call a spade a spade and do not invent something that did not happen. In Russia, they do not call airplanes by their designer. As you like to call, Tupolev, Mikoyan, Yakovlev. It's already known to everyone who they are, the planes are called by the index, MiG, Su, Yak, Tu, An, and the serial number, no more. And keep all your "bears" for yourself. The idiocy with AK is also striking. I do not know any AK-47, it was not and is not in nature. There is a Kalashnikov assault rifle, abbreviated AK, adopted in 1949. What does 47 have to do with it?
    1