Best Tank(My Opinion)

T90

Read More

T90

 

The T-90 is a third-generation Russian main battle tank developed from, and designed to replace the T-72. It uses a 125 mm 2A46 smoothbore main gun, the 1A45T fire-control system, an upgraded engine, and gunner's thermal sight. Standard protective measures include a blend of steel and composite armour, smoke grenade dischargers, Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA) and the Shtora infrared anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) jamming system.

The T-90 was designed and built by Uralvagonzavod, in Nizhny Tagil, Russia. It entered service with the Russian army in 1992.

Development

The T-90 has its origins in a Soviet-era program aimed at developing a replacement for the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series of main battle tanks (MBT). The T-72 platform was selected as the basis for the new generation of tank owing to its cost-effectiveness, simplicity and automotive qualities. The Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau from Nizhny Tagil was responsible for the design work and prepared two parallel proposals—the Object 188, which was a relatively simple upgrade of the existing T-72B tank (Object 184), and the far more advanced Object 187—only vaguely related to the T-72 series and incorporating major improvements to the hull and turret design, armor, powerplant and armament. Development work was approved in 1986 and the first prototypes were completed by 1988. The vehicles resulting from the Object 187 program have not been declassified to this date.[9]

The Object 188 was engineered by a team under V.N. Venediktov. The biggest change was the integration of the 1A45 fire-control system of the T-80U. The Object 188 was initially designated as the T-72BM. The first four of these were delivered for trials in January 1989. An improved variant (called the T-72BU) was delivered beginning in June 1990. In March 1991, the Soviet Ministry of Defense recommended that the Army adopt the Object 188. Work on the Object 187 was simultaneously stopped for unknown reasons.[10]

Production and service history

An early series T-90 with cast turret during a military exercise in Russia, demonstrating deep fording

Russian tank production dwindled in the years before and after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Kharkov tank plant belonged to the newly independent Ukraine, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant ended production in 1989, and Kirov in Leningrad in 1990. In the two remaining tank plants at Omsk and Nizhni-Tagil, state orders all but ceased in 1992. Around the same time, the Russian Ministry of Defense decided it would commit to eventually producing just one tank type.[11]

During the 1980s, the Soviet military had ordered T-64s, T-72s and T-80s, then in simultaneous production from rival tank design firms. Though all three tanks had similar characteristics, they each required different components, which contributed to the Army's logistical burden.[11] Though both Nizhni-Tagil's T-90 and Omsk's T-80U had their merits, the T-80's gas turbine engine was notorious for its high fuel consumption and poor reliability. Additionally, Russian T-80s suffered heavy losses in their first combat use during the First Chechen War. T-90s, which were not deployed to Chechnya, were spared media criticism in spite of the similarly poor performance of the T-72 in the same conflict.[12]

Read More

Soviet-Afghan War

 The Soviet-Afghan War, which lasted from December 24, 1979, to February 15, 1989, was a conflict that played a pivotal role in shaping the late 20th century geopolitical landscape. The war was fought between the Soviet Union, which sought to support the communist government of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), and various Afghan resistance groups, collectively known as the Mujahideen, who opposed the PDPA's rule and sought to expel Soviet forces from their country.

The roots of the conflict lay in the political instability that plagued Afghanistan in the late 1970s. In April 1978, a coup led by the PDPA overthrew the Afghan monarch, Mohammed Daoud Khan, and established a communist government under Nur Muhammad Taraki. The PDPA's radical reforms, including land redistribution and efforts to secularize Afghan society, provoked strong resistance from various segments of Afghan society, including tribal and religious groups. The government's attempts to impose these changes were met with widespread insurgency, and by late 1979, the situation had escalated into a full-blown civil war.

The Soviet Union, led by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, was concerned about the instability in Afghanistan and the potential for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism to its own Muslim-majority regions, particularly in Central Asia. Additionally, the Soviet leadership was worried about the loss of a friendly government on its southern border and the potential for the emergence of a hostile regime backed by Western or regional adversaries. In response, the Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily to support the PDPA and stabilize the situation.

On December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union launched Operation Storm-333, a large-scale invasion that quickly led to the deployment of a significant Soviet military presence in Afghanistan. The Soviet forces initially succeeded in capturing key cities and securing the capital, Kabul, but they faced stiff resistance from the Mujahideen, who were supported by a broad coalition of international actors, including the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. These nations provided the Mujahideen with financial aid, weapons, and training, further complicating the Soviet efforts.

The Soviet military encountered a range of challenges during the conflict. The rugged Afghan terrain, including mountains and deserts, made conventional military operations difficult and favored the guerrilla tactics employed by the Mujahideen. The Soviet forces also faced issues with their supply lines and morale, and the war became increasingly unpopular both within the Soviet Union and internationally. The Soviet Union's heavy-handed tactics, including air strikes and the use of incendiary weapons, contributed to widespread civilian casualties and fueled anti-Soviet sentiment.

The conflict became a quagmire for the Soviet Union, drawing comparisons to the United States' experience in Vietnam. The prolonged engagement strained Soviet resources and contributed to growing dissent within the Soviet Union. The war's financial and human costs further exacerbated the Soviet Union's economic difficulties and political instability.

In response to mounting pressure and the realization that a military victory was unlikely, Soviet leadership under Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to power in 1985, began to seek a negotiated settlement. The Geneva Accords, signed in April 1988, outlined a plan for the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the establishment of a non-aggression pact between the parties involved. The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan on February 15, 1989, marking the end of the Soviet military involvement in the conflict.

The Soviet-Afghan War had significant consequences for both Afghanistan and the broader international community. In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of Soviet forces did not end the conflict, as the civil war continued among various Afghan factions, eventually leading to the rise of the Taliban in the mid-1990s. For the Soviet Union, the war highlighted the limitations of military power and contributed to the growing sense of crisis that eventually led to its collapse. The conflict also had far-reaching implications for U.S.-Soviet relations and was seen as a significant factor in the decline of Soviet influence and the end of the Cold War.

Read More

Collapse Of The USSR

 The dissolution of the Soviet Union, which reached its official end on December 26, 1991, was a monumental event that transformed the global political landscape and marked the conclusion of a superpower that had dominated much of the 20th century. The USSR, formally established in 1922 following the Russian Revolution, was a federation of multiple republics under a single, centralized Communist government. However, by the late 1980s, the Soviet Union faced an array of deep-rooted problems that would ultimately lead to its disintegration.

Economically, the Soviet Union struggled under the weight of a command economy that had become increasingly rigid and inefficient. The centralized planning system, which was initially designed to drive rapid industrialization and development, had begun to falter as it failed to adapt to technological advancements and the changing needs of its people. The economy was plagued by low productivity, a lack of innovation, and widespread shortages of goods and services. The economic malaise was exacerbated by the enormous costs associated with the arms race and the Soviet military interventions in Afghanistan and other regions.

Politically, the Communist Party's grip on power was weakening. Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1985, introduced a series of reforms in an attempt to rejuvenate the Soviet system. His policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) aimed to increase transparency, reduce corruption, and decentralize economic control. However, these reforms had unintended consequences. Glasnost allowed for greater public criticism of the government and exposed the extent of the system's failures, which in turn fueled public dissatisfaction and unrest. Perestroika, intended to revitalize the economy, instead led to further economic disarray and confusion.

The political landscape within the Soviet Union became increasingly fragmented as nationalist movements gained momentum in various republics. The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were at the forefront of these movements, demanding independence from Moscow's control. Similarly, other republics, such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia, began to assert their own identities and seek greater autonomy. The rise of these nationalist movements put additional pressure on the already strained central government.

In August 1991, a dramatic turning point occurred when a group of hardline Communist leaders attempted a coup against Gorbachev. They were opposed to his reforms and sought to restore a more authoritarian regime. The coup, however, was poorly executed and quickly failed, partly due to the resistance led by Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). Yeltsin's defiance of the coup plotters and his call for democratic reforms resonated with the Soviet populace and weakened the central authority even further.

The failed coup had far-reaching consequences. It accelerated the process of disintegration, emboldening republics to declare their independence and push for secession from the Soviet Union. By December 1991, the leaders of the Soviet republics, including Yeltsin, had negotiated the formal dissolution of the USSR and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a loose association of former Soviet republics. On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev announced his resignation as the President of the Soviet Union, effectively marking the end of the USSR. The following day, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union officially voted to dissolve the union.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was not merely the fall of a political entity but a profound shift that reshaped global alliances, economies, and national identities. The end of the Cold War, the emergence of newly independent states, and the transition from communism to varying forms of capitalism and democracy in the former Soviet republics had lasting impacts on international relations and domestic policies across the globe.

Read More

Battle Of Avdiivka

The Battle of Avdiivka, a key confrontation in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, unfolded with intense and strategic significance. Situated just north of Donetsk, Avdiivka has been a flashpoint in the Donbas region, characterized by its strategic importance and the fierce resistance mounted by Ukrainian forces.

The battle began in earnest in late 2022 and continued into 2023, marking a period of brutal urban warfare. Avdiivka, with its industrial infrastructure and proximity to key transport routes, became a critical objective for Russian forces aiming to solidify their control over the eastern part of Ukraine. The city's strategic location made it a vital target for advancing Russian troops seeking to encircle and capture key positions in the Donbas region.

Ukrainian defenders, aware of the city's importance, mounted a resolute defense against the Russian onslaught. The battle was marked by trench warfare, heavy artillery exchanges, and relentless close-quarters combat. Ukrainian forces, utilizing the city's industrial landscape and fortifying positions, employed a combination of defensive strategies and counteroffensives to thwart Russian advances. The dense urban environment provided both opportunities and challenges, as the fighting often occurred amidst the ruins of buildings and infrastructure.

The battle for Avdiivka was characterized by its high intensity and attritional nature. The prolonged conflict saw substantial casualties on both sides, with the relentless exchange of fire taking a heavy toll on both military personnel and civilians. The urban warfare environment, with its dense network of buildings and industrial zones, created a chaotic and dangerous battlefield where every street and block became a contested zone.

Humanitarian conditions in Avdiivka deteriorated rapidly as the conflict dragged on. The city faced severe shortages of essential supplies, including food, water, and medical assistance, while the infrastructure was increasingly battered by the ongoing violence. Civilians, trapped in the crossfire, endured extreme hardships, with many being forced to flee their homes or seek refuge in shelters.

Despite the immense pressure, Ukrainian forces managed to hold their ground, demonstrating a high level of endurance and tactical ingenuity. The battle for Avdiivka became a symbol of the broader struggle in the Donbas region, reflecting the larger strategic objectives of both sides and the significant human and material costs of the conflict.

The eventual outcome of the battle saw no decisive victory for either side, with the frontlines remaining fluid and the city continuing to be a contested area. The ongoing conflict in Avdiivka highlights the broader dynamics of the war in Ukraine, underscoring the challenges of urban warfare and the enduring resilience of Ukrainian defenders in the face of overwhelming odds. The battle serves as a stark reminder of the complex and devastating nature of modern conflicts, where strategic objectives are often pursued at great human cost.

 

Read More

Battle Of Bakhmut

 The Battle of Bakhmut, spanning from August 2022 to May 2023, represents one of the most intense and protracted engagements in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, epitomizing the harrowing and brutal nature of contemporary warfare. Located in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donetsk, Bakhmut emerged as a strategic and symbolic prize, drawing the full focus of military efforts from both sides. The battle commenced when Russian forces, driven by a desire to secure a decisive victory and exert control over the Donbas region, launched a series of aggressive offensives aimed at capturing the city. Underestimating the resolve of Ukrainian defenders, the Russians believed that Bakhmut's capture would provide a critical advantage and act as a catalyst for further advances into Ukrainian territory.

The city, with its labyrinthine streets and dilapidated infrastructure, quickly became a scene of unrelenting urban combat. Ukrainian forces, leveraging the city's complex terrain and fortified positions, mounted a fierce and resilient defense. They turned Bakhmut into a fortress of resistance, employing a combination of trench warfare, guerrilla tactics, and strategic use of artillery to counteract the overwhelming numerical and firepower superiority of the Russian military. The urban battlefield saw a relentless exchange of artillery fire, with both sides suffering significant casualties as they vied for control of key positions and routes. The landscape, once vibrant, was reduced to a maze of rubble and ruins, a stark testament to the ferocity of the conflict.

UKRAINE SOLDIER IN TRENCH

As the battle dragged on, the humanitarian toll became increasingly dire. The civilian population, caught in the crossfire, faced severe shortages of essential supplies and a continuous threat to their safety. The city's infrastructure was systematically destroyed, with essential services crippled and living conditions deteriorating rapidly. Despite these challenges, the Ukrainian defenders, bolstered by a steady stream of reinforcements and supplies, managed to hold their ground and inflict significant losses on the Russian forces.

The battle for Bakhmut became a grinding war of attrition, characterized by its high casualty rates and the immense psychological and physical strain on both combatants and civilians. The prolonged engagement tested the limits of endurance and strategy on both sides, illustrating the brutal realities of modern warfare where victories are often measured in incremental gains rather than sweeping conquests. The Ukrainian counteroffensive, launched in the latter stages of the battle, ultimately forced a Russian withdrawal from Bakhmut. This shift underscored the strategic importance of the city and the broader implications for the conflict.

The battle's resolution not only demonstrated the resilience and strategic capabilities of the Ukrainian forces but also highlighted the broader geopolitical ramifications of the conflict. Bakhmut's fall and subsequent recapture became a symbol of the broader struggle for control in the Donbas region, reflecting the broader dynamics of the war and the enduring spirit of resistance amidst a backdrop of widespread destruction and loss. The protracted and fierce engagement at Bakhmut thus stands as a poignant example of the devastating impact of war, the enduring strength of human resolve, and the ever-shifting tides of geopolitical power.

RUSSIAN VICTORY ON BAKHMUT

Read More

Battle Of Hostomel

The Battle of Hostomel, which took place from February 24 to March 2, 2022, was a critical early engagement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hostomel, a small town located approximately 20 kilometers northwest of Kyiv, was strategically important due to its Antonov Airport, one of the largest cargo airports in Europe. The Russian plan aimed to capture this airport to establish a foothold near the Ukrainian capital and facilitate further military operations. The attack began with a large-scale airborne operation involving Russian VDV (Airborne) troops who landed at the airport in the early hours of February 24. 

Initially, the Russian forces achieved some success, seizing parts of the airport and engaging Ukrainian defenders in heavy combat. The Russians hoped to quickly consolidate their control and use the airport as a launch point for a broader assault on Kyiv. However, the Ukrainian response was swift and determined. Ukrainian forces, including elite units, local defense militias, and territorial defense battalions, mobilized rapidly to counter the invasion. Utilizing their knowledge of the local terrain and leveraging defensive positions, the Ukrainians engaged in fierce and chaotic combat with the invaders.

Russian Cassualties On Top Of BMD-2

Airborne Vehicle

The battle saw intense urban warfare and brutal clashes, with both sides suffering significant casualties. Ukrainian forces employed a variety of tactics to disrupt the Russian advance, including artillery strikes, anti-aircraft fire, and counterattacks. One key aspect of the battle was the Ukrainian use of their own anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems, which proved highly effective in repelling Russian advances and damaging their equipment.

Damaged Russian BMD-4,Stuck On A

Concrete Barrier

 

By March 2, Ukrainian forces had managed to repel the Russian troops from the airport and surrounding areas, reclaiming control of Hostomel. This battle marked a crucial turning point early in the conflict, as it not only thwarted the immediate Russian objectives but also demonstrated Ukraine's resilience and ability to defend its territory effectively. The failure to secure Hostomel Airport forced the Russian military to reassess their strategy and contributed to the broader challenges faced by Russian forces in their campaign to capture Kyiv. The battle underscored the tenacity of Ukrainian resistance and foreshadowed the protracted and intense nature of the conflict that would unfold over the following months.

Ukranian Victory In Hostomel

Read More

Sumatif,Berita Sekolah

Profil SMPK Santa Maria 2

SMPK Santa Maria 2 Malang berdiri pada tahun 1952 di bawah kepemimpinan suster Santa Perawan Maria (SPM) hadir dan ikut serta dalam meningkatkan pendidikan tunas-tunas muda penerus bangsa. Torehan prestasi menjadi kebanggaan dari SMPK Santa Maria 2 Malang.

SMPK Santa Maria 2 Malang
Informasi
Didirikan	1 Agustus 1952
Jenis	Sekolah Swasta
Akreditasi	A
Nomor Statistik Sekolah	2030560101019
Nomor Pokok Sekolah Nasional	20533743
Kepala Sekolah	Sr. M. Dorothea, SPM; M.Pd.
Jumlah kelas	15 Kelas
Rentang kelas	VII, VIII, IX
Kurikulum	Kurikulum 2013
Status	Sekolah Standar Nasional
Alamat
Lokasi	Jalan Panderman No. 7A, Malang, Jawa Timur,  Indonesia
Tel./Faks.	(0341)551871, 082132208671 (WhatsApp)
Situs web	smpksantamaria2malang.sch.id/
Institusi	Perkumpulan Dharmaputri
Moto
Moto	Beriman, Bersaudara, Berilmu, dan Berbudaya

Kepala Sekolah

Tahun Ajaran	Nama
1952–1969	Sr. Gerarda Maria Verhoeks, SPM.
1969–1981/1982	Sr. Liduine Marie, SPM.
1982–1985/1986	Sr. Monika Murdiasih, SPM.
1985/1986–1989/1990	Sr. M. Ignatio Haloho, SPM.
1990/1991–1993/1994	R.P. Budi Martodjo
1993/1994–2000/2001	Sr. Sisca Sis Sukamtinah, SPM.
2001/2002–2004/2005	Sr. M. Margreeth Widiyastuti, SPM.
2005/2006–2010/2011	Sr. Myriam Juniati, SPM; S.E., M.Pd.
2011/2012–2015/2016	Sr. M. Theresella Karti, SPM; S.Pd.
2016/2017–sekarang	Sr. M. Dorothea, SPM; M.Pd.

Fasilitias

1. WiFi Area
2. Ruang Tata Usaha
3. Ruang Bendahara
4. Ruang Kurikulum
5. Ruang Kelas per Mata Pelajaran
6. Ruang OSIS
7. Ruang Band
8. Ruang Multimedia
9. Laboratorium Komputer
10. Laboratorium Fisika
11. Laboratorium Biologi
12. Aula
13. Ruang Tata Tertib Siswa
14. Ruang Bimbingan dan Konseling
15. Ruang UKS
16. Perpustakaan
17. Kebun Hidroponik
18. Green House
19. Taman Gazebo
20. Lapangan Olahraga (Basket, Voli, Futsal)                                                                                   

SOURCE:WIKIPEDIA

TIM KERJA:

Video Profil Smpk Santa Maria 2 Malang:

PPDB SMPK SANTA MARIA 2 MALANG 2024/2025:

Selain itu Smpk Santa Maria 2 memiliki banyak sekali acara-acara yang seru

Seperti 

SHORT MOVIE:

PENTAS SENI:

PENTAS SENI NATAL:

GRADUATION:

Read More

Graduation Kelas 9 2024

 

Guru dan Kepala Sekolah SMPK Santa Maria 2 Malang

 Pada Tahun 2024 Kelas 9 Lulus,dalam acara ini Guru2,murid,wali murid dan Kepala Sekolah berkumpul di Hotel Arya gajah yana.

Hotel Arya Gajah Yana Terletak di:

Hotel Aria Gajayana, Mal Olympic Garden, 

Jl. Kawi, Kauman, Kec. Klojen, Kota Malang, Jawa Timur 65119

Dalam Acara Ini Terdapat Pengumuman Siswa2 Terbaik,siswa2 tersebut akan diberikan piala dan medali

Foto Dari Piala dan medali

Salah Satu Siswi Yang Mendapat Piala

Dalam acara ini juga terdapat beberapa sesi wawancara yang dilakukan oleh sekolah kepada wali murid,selain itu beberapa guru yang mengajar juga di wawancarai oleh sekolah.

Selain itu terdapat pidato dari Kepala Sekolah Terhadap  murid2 yang lulus sebagai bentuk terimakasih sudah bersekolah di

"SMPK Santa Maria 2"

Pidato Suster selaku kepala sekolah

Dalam acara ini juga terdapat sesi menari dimana Siswa-siswi dan guru2 menari sebagai salah satu acara utama,di sesi ini murid2 melakukan tarian yang sudah dipelajari sebelumnya

Murid Murid Menari bersama(antar kelas)

Read More