On the prospects for the procurement of tanks

83
On the prospects for the procurement of tanks

At IndoDefense 2016, FNSS and PTPindad Present a Conceptual Design for Advanced Modern tank medium-weight category MMWT (Modem Medium Weight Tank) of joint development, combining advanced bulletproof and mine protection with a wide range of firepower, from short-range infantry support to combat armored vehicles. A new generation engine of high power is connected to an automatic transmission with electronic control, which allowed to obtain a specific power of at least 20 hp / t, depending on the configurable protection system. The MMWT will have good mobility thanks to six track rollers on each side, torsion bar suspension and double hub tracks

Despite the rapid development of anti-tank weapons, tanks remain an important weapon for many ground forces in the world. However, special attention when updating armored vehicles is paid mainly to upgrading existing platforms, and not to new concepts.



It may be hard to believe in this, but most of the armored vehicles in service today, however, are rooted in the Cold War era, although 25 years have passed since its end. Even the main battle tanks (MBT) developed and produced during this period, such as the 90 Tour and the 10 Tour (Japan), the 2 Tournament (South Korea), the 99 Tour (China), AL KHALID (Pakistan) or ALTAY (Turkey), in fact represent only the development of previous technologies and solutions. Even in the newest machines, such as the third-generation Chinese tank VT-4 (also known as MVT-3000), which is an evolutionary development of the Type 2014A tank shown in 99, real innovations are present in limited amounts.


Chinese tank VT-4 third generation

Planned acquisitions

At the end of 2016, the US Department of Defense approved the sale of 153 "1A1 / A2 systems" of Saudi Arabia for converting M133A1SA ABRAMS and 2 XERUMX XERCULES armored repair and recovery vehicles into 20. At the same time, Morocco announced the delivery of the first batch of M88A1SA ABRAMS tanks - 1 vehicles from the presence of the American army M200А1 ordered in 1 year. General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) was awarded a contract to refine them and reportedly removed depleted uranium armor. All work is scheduled to be completed by March 2012. Algeria, the regional competitor of Morocco, still receives T-2018 tanks from Russia. It is assumed that by the end of 90, Algeria will purchase additional 2017 tanks. Meanwhile, a third contract for 200 T-340 tanks (this time local licensed production) will be signed soon.


Tank M1A2SA ABRAMS of Saudi Arabia

It is rumored that Pakistan intends to buy in the near future Ukraine’s T-84 Oplot-M tanks and dynamic protection systems for them from Ukraine. But this seems rather unrealistic, since Kiev has problems with commitments, because of the huge delays in the supply of these tanks, Thailand, who ordered the Oplot-X 49 tanks, ultimately decided to look for an alternative to them. After the Thai delegations studied the T-90С / MS tank in Russia and the VT-4 (MBT-3000) in China, Thailand decided to purchase VT-4 tanks armed with a 125-mm smooth-bore gun and equipped with automatic loader. The size of the planned supply is unknown, but according to some sources, Thailand will order up to 200 new tanks in the near future. Presumably, the VT-4 tank was also purchased by Iraq and is being offered by China to Peru, which still has the old T-55 tanks and a small number of Chinese MVT-2000 vehicles.

In future purchases, of course, not to do without the tank LEOPARD 2, but the space for new deals is quickly reduced. Rheinmetall is currently supplying Indonesia's 103 MBT from warehouse reserves in the 2 + (rebuilt by the 2A4) and 2RI (with passive armoring, electric targeting systems, which have replaced the original hydraulic system, upgraded with an 120-mm LXNMX gun, replaced with the original 44-mm L11 engine, replaced with the original 2-mm LNNXX engine with an artificially converted, replaced the original hydraulic system with an upgraded 7-mm LXNMX gun, replaced with an artificial 62-mm L11 engine, replaced by the original XNUMX-mm LNNXX engine with an artificially converted XNUMX XMXNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX MBT from Indonesia). DMXNUMX). Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) supplies Qatar with the newest version of the XNUMXАXNUMX + (almost half of the planned XNUMX tanks have been delivered) along with DMXNUMX ammunition.

A few years ago, Saudi Arabia expressed a desire to buy 600-800 2А7 tanks, but the project seems to be closed at the moment. More likely now is a significantly smaller transaction (24 vehicles) for 2А6 tanks for Bulgaria, which according to some data has already allocated additional funding for these purposes. Since in recent years the Netherlands has sold most of their 2А6 tanks to different countries, Bulgaria may be faced with finding the planned number of tanks in this variant.

For the same reason, that is, the shortage of surplus LEOPARD 2 tanks, Poland was forced to abandon its initial plan to replace its outdated Soviet-made T-72М1 tanks of Soviet origin with 2А4 / 2А6 tanks; the purchase of 2A7 / 2A7 + S options was not considered due to their high cost. In the middle of 2016, the Czech delegation visited Spain to evaluate the 2-4 model, but this idea was later reversed due to their poor condition. Presumably, Prague became interested in them as a replacement for its T-72 tanks (versions M / M1 and M4CZ of local production). As a result, Germany is likely to soon be able to stop the production of LEOPARD 2 tanks.



German tank LEOPARD 2А7

At the start of 2015, Germany announced plans to buy LEOPARD 100A2 tanks from the 4 industry. This means that the government canceled its previous decision to reduce the fleet to 225 tanks in five battalions. The reason for this was Russia's actions in 2014 and the increase in power of the Russian armored forces, which turned out to be stronger than previously estimated by the Western intelligence community. The concerns announced by Russia in the middle of 2016 of the agreement with Uralvagonzavod Corporation for supplying more than 100 additional T-14 tanks (60 tanks and 40 additional machines on the Armata chassis: 10 BREM T-16 and 30 heavy BMP T-15) warmed up the concerns

New solutions

According to the official plans of the German Ministry of Defense, the lifespan of the LEOPARD 2 will end approximately in 2030 year. Therefore, Germany plans to create a new tank together with France (where it will replace the LECLERC) under the MGCS program (Main Ground Combat System - the main ground combat system). Polish defense companies have expressed a desire to join the duo KMW and Nexter Systems. According to the German Ministry of Defense, the project must be evaluated by 2018. The program may start somewhere between 2025 and 2035.

So far, no details on the program are known, with the exception of the planned smoothbore gun - the MGCS will probably be armed with the 130-mm L51 cannon, shown at Eurosatory 2016. According to Rheinmetall, the kinetic energy of this gun is 50% more than the kinetic energy of its 120-mm predecessor. Most likely, the MGCS will use solutions from the EGS (Experimentaltrager Gesamtschutz) test program, which provides for only two crew members in the car (but this seems unlikely). In this scenario, the MGCS will have a remote-controlled tower.

As for the new, larger guns, there are rumors that the Russian T-14 Armata tank will be armed with an 152-mm cannon instead of a smooth-bore 125-mm 2-82-1М, which is currently the standard main weapon of the vehicle. Although it may seem incredible, it is worth recalling that both tank concepts 187A Object and 477А1 Object (Note) were armed with an 152-mm cannon with an automatic loader.

These projects were developed at one time by Uralvagonzavod, which has now begun to manufacture T-14 tanks. In late November 2016, it was announced that the company is opening a production line for two guns: 2A46M-5 (for T-90MS "Tagil" and T-72BZ, and light anti-tank units 2S25 Sprut-SD) and 2A82-1M ( for T-14). According to British intelligence, the 2А82-1М gun has better armor penetration characteristics than any other tank gun currently in service and the first of the new tank guns that had no roots in the Cold War era. The first shipments of these guns are scheduled for 2017 year.

Thanks to its constructive solutions and layout, the Armata T-14 tank is without a doubt the winner in the “next generation tank” category (as defined by the fourth-generation NATO or according to the Russian systematics - the fifth). However, Russia needs time and more money to complete the necessary work. Financial constraints mean that the main purchases of T-14 in the number of 2000 tanks by the year 2020 are far from reality.

To date, the Russian military is still based on obsolete tanks, mainly T-72, currently being upgraded to the standard B3 / B3M. In order to combat this threat, NATO member countries state the need to modernize their armored vehicles. One of the proposed solutions is to deploy the latest M829А4 projectiles for ABRAMS tanks. The Americans, who are going to leave the ABRAMS tank in service, at least until 2050, are planning a new platform at the same time. A few years ago, the Pentagon decided to write off all existing tracked vehicles, including ABRAMS, and replace them with the XM1202 Mounted Combat System self-propelled artillery, although this program was closed in the 2009 year.

The Chinese company NORINCO recently showed the VT-5 tank as an export offer. Its components are typical - it has a modular protection kit with optional advanced composite armor or dynamic protection. The VT-5 tank is armed with an 105-mm cannon.

Similar weapons were used in the concept of a modern medium-category tank by MMWT (Modern Medium Weight Tank), which was presented in detail at the end of 2016 by the companies RT Sindad and FNSS. Currently, two prototypes are being manufactured, which will be ready this year. According to the manufacturers, the task of MMWT is to hunt for light and medium infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, as well as to support infantry with direct fire. The MMWT has a CMI Defense CT-CV double turret with an 105-mm rifled cannon that can fire with a cumulative anti-tank, high-explosive and high-explosive projectile with crushed warhead, high-explosive fragmentation shells and armor-piercing shells.


Britain intends to extend the life of the OBT CHALLENGER 2 to 2035 year. At the evaluation stage, Rheimnetall will develop solutions in accordance with the requirements of users, systematized by the Ministry of Defense. The program includes solving the problems of obsolescence, and Rheimnetall will offer options that will support the capabilities and effectiveness of the CHALLENGER 2 tank. The contract for the evaluation stage costs 23 million pounds


It is said that the Russian Armata’s T-14 tank will be armed with a 152-mm cannon instead of a 125-mm 2-82-1M cannon.

Modernization

The most important component of future purchases of armored vehicles will be retrofit kits, currently available for almost all MBT platforms. For example, due to financial constraints, the UK does not plan to purchase a new platform in the short term. Instead, London wants to upgrade its CHALLENGER 2 tanks. Under the LEP program, two teams were selected - BAE Systems Land (UK) along with GDLS UK and Rhelnmetall Defense. According to British plans, up to 227 tanks will be upgraded and remain in service until the 2035 year. Several systems will be upgraded, including stabilized aiming systems and controls, weapon control equipment, and a fire control computer. CHALLENGER 2 LEP will receive new displays for crew members. According to some sources, the British tanks will be equipped with active protection systems (for example, MUSS) and a new gun. A few years ago, the 2-mm L120 smooth-bore gun, which tested surpassed the current rifled L55A30 CHARM, was installed on one CHALLENGER 1 tank.


British tank CHALLENGER 2

Three other Western tanks (ABRAMS, LEOPARD 2 and LECLERC) will remain in service for at least another couple of decades.

In 2017, GDLS will begin shipping the first M1А2 SEP V3 ABRAMS tanks to the US Army, and their deployment is expected to begin at the end of 2020. To date, the contract for the first six tanks has been signed, but the US army wants to modernize around 2000 vehicles to a new standard. In the long term, the same fate awaits the parks of the National Guard and the Marine Corps, which will bring the total number of tanks to about 4000 units. In addition to the option V3, the US military is considering other technical improvements. Surprisingly, this option, instead of a newer gun with the best characteristics, is still armed with the 120-mm M256-1-gun - the American version of the smooth-bore Rheinmetall L44. However, V3 will be able to fire M829А4 armored-piercing shells with a core of dining uranium, according to some data, capable of striking modern dynamic protection and active protection complexes. The tank in the V3 version also has a low-profile combat module CROWS.

As already mentioned, the German government will buy 100 tanks LEOPARD 2А4. In addition, the German armed forces will receive 116 2A6NL tanks from the Netherlands free of charge. From these 116 tanks, Germany upgrades the 84 tank to version 2A7V. The work will be performed by KWM with Rheinmetall as the main subcontractor. The main change will be an improved gun L55A1, which will increase by 20% armor penetration when firing an armor-piercing piercing slug of the next generation KE2020 (DM73). Other changes include air conditioning, auxiliary powerplant Steyer M12, Thales SOTAS intercom system, KMW IFIS information management system and ATTICA thermal imaging cameras from Airbus DS Optronics.

The remaining 32 tanks will not be upgraded and used as MBTs, they will perform auxiliary tasks (bridge-laying machines, engineering machines, etc.). In the 2017 year, Berlin wants to sign the relevant contracts with the manufacturers, after which the first deliveries will take place at the end of the 2018 year. At the end of the process, Germany will be armed with 328 LEOPARD 2A6 / A7S tanks, of which 104 will be the newest version of A7V. In February 2016, Germany signed a technical agreement with the Netherlands regarding the subordination of the Dutch 43 th mechanized brigade of the German 1 th armored division, as well as the organization of a joint tank battalion commanded by the Dutch brigade.


The Thai army has signed an agreement with China on the purchase of tanks MVT-3000

France wants to leave its LECLERC tanks in service, at least until 2035-2040 (a total of 2008 vehicles were delivered by 406 in the year). The first upgraded MBTs must be manufactured by Nexter Systems in the 2018 year and additional 198 machines in the 2020-2028 year. They will be equipped with updated information management systems and enhanced protection, mainly from mines and IEDs. Although the F120 1-mm smoothbore gun LECLERC tanks will be abandoned, the upgraded tanks will be able to shoot advanced non-MZM ammunition. It is also planned to install a remotely controlled weapon module.


French tank LECLERC

Argentina followed in the same way. In the middle of 2016, a modernized version of an obsolete TAM tank was presented. In collaboration with Israeli companies Elblt Systems and IMI Systems (formerly Israel Military Industries), the Israeli-made ballistic protection package IRON WALL of the Israeli company IMI was added to the newest version under the TAM 2IR designation.


Argentine tank TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano)

In November, 2016, in the Indonesian capital Jakarta, Rhelnmetall introduced a new version of the BMD MARDER. The demo model, equipped with a Leonardo HITFACT II turret with an 105-mm rifled gun, was specially designed in accordance with Indonesian requirements. The competitor to this decision under the name MARDER Medium Tank RI is the Turkish-Indonesian project MMWT (see above). The first deliveries can begin within two years after signing the contract.

A relatively bright future lies in front of the T-72 and T-80 platforms, which still have good potential for upgrades. If in general terms, then Russia is currently upgrading the T-72 tanks to the B3 standard; to date, about 560 tanks have been delivered. Despite the plans of 2002, to upgrade T-3000 tanks to 80, in recent years, all those operating T-80 (T-80Б / БВ / У) are reportedly replaced by T-72 tanks in different versions (T-72B, T-72БМ, T-72B1 / B3) and T-90. Russia also bought X-NUMX tanks T-337 and 90 tanks T-130 and announced its intention to return to service a number of T-90BV tanks and upgrade them through the Sosna-U fire control system currently installed on T-80B72 and T tanks -3. The upgraded T-90BV tank will also receive a new generator, engine starter and dynamic protection. According to Russian sources, the initial deployment in the army is almost complete.

At the same time, Uralvagonzavod announced that the development of the newest version of T-90MS Tagil was completed and the tank with improved protection and weapon systems was ready for production. Some of these changes can be implemented on early versions of the T-90. Ukraine has in its portfolio several models of T-series tanks, but the conflict with Russia had a very negative impact on the export opportunities of Kiev, making it difficult for the Oplot to deliver tanks to Thailand and T-64B1М / БМ1М tanks to Congo. For this reason, any large sales of armored vehicles by Ukraine are very problematic in the near future.


Developed for the export market, the Russian T-90CM tank is almost entirely a new tank with an improved chassis and a new modular turret. He has new armor, a new main cannon, a new ammunition, a new fire control system, a new engine and a new active defense system and many more new solutions

China plans to use the latest upgrades of its Toure 96 tank as the basis of its armored units. Option B, introduced in the middle of 2016, will replace outdated platforms, such as the 59 Tour and the 69 Tour.

At the same time, Pakistan intends to continue the program on the AL KHALID 2 tank. During the IDEAS 2016 exhibition in Karachi, it was reported that an upgraded version of the AL KHALID would have more firepower, better protection and maneuverability. At the exhibition in Kiev, a contract was signed for the overhaul and modernization of Pakistani armored vehicles. It is assumed that Ukraine is upgrading the T-XNUMHUD tanks (80 sold in 320 year), and possibly also the fleet of AL KHALID tanks (MBT-1996), on which the 2000ТD-6 engine with a power of 2 hp is installed. - An improved version of the engine 1200TD-6 tank T-1UD. According to some Pakistani sources, Islamabad will purchase 80 200TD-6 3 engines for this program.


Pakistani Al Khalid Tank

The Turkish company Aselsan has already expressed a desire to join the program by offering some onboard systems, including a fire control system, optoelectronic and communication systems. At IDEAS 2016, information was spread that the upgraded version would keep the 125-mm cannon, which can fire an armor-piercing sabot and cumulative anti-tank missiles and the 9М119 “Reflex” anti-tank guided missile.

It is not clear whether Pakistan will continue its project on the new HAIDER MBT or not. Islamabad reportedly evaluated several platforms for this program, including Ukrainian T-84 Oplot-M, Turkish ALTAY and Chinese VM.


Ukrainian tank T-84U Oplot-M

New purchases are not expected from Poland, since Warsaw is currently focused on upgrading its LEOPARD 2A4 tanks to the 2PL standard. The PL variant will have new situational awareness systems (including a thermal imaging camera and new surveillance sensors for the tank commander, a thermal imaging camera for the gunner and a day / night camera for the driver), tower electric drives, hydraulic stabilization of the gun and additional booking. Poland has no plans to replace the original L120 44 gun; however, after upgrading to the 2PL standard, she will be able to shoot the DM63A1 armor-piercing projectile and the high-explosive fragmentation DM11. The first prototype of the 2PL is planned to be made by March 2018 of the year. The Polish experience may be of interest to Chile, which in 2017 was planning to modernize its fleet of 2А4 tanks under the MLU program. Chilean tanks will receive new turrets with electric drives and digital systems, an armament module, modular defense and perhaps a new gun (L55 instead of L44).

Perspective tanks

Although the great experts in tank design for many years predict the death of the tank, it seems that the rumors about his demise are greatly exaggerated. Tanks are and will be an important means of the armed forces of many countries, despite the rapid development of anti-tank threats, including armor-piercing sabots, tandem combat vehicles and modern missiles with attack modes from above. However, the next generation of tanks is very likely waiting for big changes. Considering the fact that practical limitations on mass do not allow the mindless addition of traditional passive armor, the new MBT will have advanced active protection systems, both functional (soft-kill) and direct (hard-kill) damage, as well as situational awareness sensors in as standard equipment.

In addition, we can expect that the next generation MBT will have remotely operated towers or, at least, crew members will be located outside the tower for security reasons. Such solutions are not futuristic - they were very popular during the Cold War, take the concept of T-74 with 125 / 130-mm gun, proposed at the beginning of 70-s, or TTV, proposed to replace the M1 ABRAMS tank. At that time, the immaturity of technology forced them to abandon these ideas. Today, technology has advanced far ahead and concepts will inevitably return. If designers get lucky by the tail, then future tanks will have only two crew members.

Materials used:
www.shephardmedia.com
www.gdls.com
www.baesystems.com
www.kmweg.com
www.uvz.ru
www.rheinmetall.com
www.nexter-group.fr
www.norinco.com
www.imisystems.com
btvt.narod.ru
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    April 25 2017 05: 59
    If the designers catch luck by the tail, then future tanks will have only two members
    The automatic loader will appear, but the Negro will be thrown out ... Yes
    1. 0
      April 25 2017 06: 56
      There are 4 people in Abrams, not 3. That is, the gunner can fly next or the driver.
      1. +1
        April 25 2017 08: 23
        Quote: BlackMokona
        That is, the gunner can fly next or the driver.

        A black man is not a man.
    2. +1
      April 25 2017 07: 10
      What nonsense is that, two people LITTLE, three just right, you put one more.
      1. +1
        April 25 2017 07: 11
        They can plant zero.
      2. +5
        April 25 2017 08: 51
        Two people are not enough. The Germans worked on this concept in the 2000s in their Kampfpanzer Versuchsträger XNUMX (Bw).


        http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_vt_2000_krc
        -a.htm

        The bottom line is in total computerization. Two tank crews (not a gunner / commander / mechanic, namely equal crew members sitting in the same "operator’s workplaces")

        The tank was controlled by a computer. That is, any of the crew members could give the direction of movement, or the destination, and the tank worked out the route. If necessary, any member of the crew could switch to "manual control"
        The same is true for the weapons control system. The operators only indicated the target, ASUNO accompanied it and hit. Just as with the movement, a quick transition to manual guidance by one of the operators was possible.

        In fact, it turned out that the tank had two people who served as the tank commander. Monitoring the situation on the battlefield, making decisions on moving the tank, participating in the detection and identification of targets, making decisions on their defeat.

        So two people is enough. Just a tank should have powerful electronic "brains"
        1. +1
          April 25 2017 08: 58
          Well, of course, it can be in theory, but in practice, people are fighting, not cars, and if something happens, it’s the people who will put the tracks on the rinks, not the electronic brains, all this electronic rubbish tends to be real trivial to refuse, people will be more reliable. Do not find.
          1. +2
            April 25 2017 09: 08
            Quote: Liger
            but in practice people are fighting, not cars

            Well ... it’s people who are fighting in this concept, right?

            Quote: Liger
            all this electronic nonsense has the property of actually corny refusing

            Because there is manual control
            1. +2
              April 26 2017 22: 17
              Quote: Spade
              Well ... it’s people who are fighting in this concept, right?


              Shovel.. hi but to notice .. no one paid attention to the fact that the RF Ministry of Defense plans to return to the T80 purchases ... and this is a signal .. if you analyze which parts are armed with this tank, the characteristics of this machine and its advantages over diesel, the oil painting as a friend said The pilot is taking shape ... Gentlemen .. roll your lip in the Arctic.
        2. 0
          April 25 2017 12: 27
          on rough terrain, no brains of a competent mechanic driver will replace.
          In addition, many do not understand that the tank is served by the crew,
          and it’s really not easy for two.
          1. +2
            April 25 2017 14: 33
            Quote: yehat
            on rough terrain, no brains of a competent mechanic driver will replace.

            In general, they will replace. Only in some, so to speak, special areas, it is necessary to switch to manual. And by the way, the computer is quite capable of warning about problems.

            Quote: yehat
            In addition, many do not understand that the tank is served by the crew,

            I mean, "served"? If you are talking about maintenance, then I don’t think that in a modern tank this is possible. I don’t know how the tankers were, I was not interested, factory brigades came to the artillery for the TO-2 2S19 and the Sturmov. The crew simply does not have enough knowledge, but you will not put people with the highest technical level into the tank?
            1. 0
              April 25 2017 14: 40
              do not confuse maintenance and repair
              1. +3
                April 25 2017 17: 39
                Quote: yehat
                do not confuse maintenance and repair

                I'm just not confusing anything. TO-1 is performed by who? The crew with the involvement of rem. organs. TO-2-rem. units with crew involvement. Since the specialists rem. the mouths of the regiments and the battalion of the division did not have sufficient knowledge for the TO-2, it was carried out by the factory brigades.

                According to the rest, TIUS are developing so rapidly that soon both a company and a company technician will learn about a tank breakdown at the same time as the crew. As well as possible problems.
                The company technician will look at his tablet before the march, take a dosilnik, and go to teach the crew of tank number 222 to fill the fluid in the tank if the computer warned of its lack.
        3. 0
          26 January 2018 22: 42
          Such an electronic tank will cost as a new branch of the Moscow metro, including a rolling stock.
      3. +1
        April 25 2017 12: 16
        If we recall the object 299, then it was planned to put a crew of two people there, i.e. as on a wedge heel, the driver is responsible for the direction of movement, the commander for the selection and defeat of targets. The exact aim was planned to be given into the hands of automation. In principle, the T-14 is complete with the refinement of the allocation and tracking of targets, you can cut the crew to two people. Moreover, the SLA of the tank now it can.

    3. 0
      April 25 2017 07: 12
      No, back to Renault 17. "Negro" just loader rides, gunner thrown out.
    4. 0
      April 25 2017 09: 01
      https://topwar.ru/19128-tariq-falcon-1-iordano-yu
      zhnoafrikanskiy-opytnyy-tank-s-neobitaemoy-bashen
      noy-chastyu.html
      The crew of the TARIQ AB9C4 tank with an uninhabited tower is two people (BM commander and gunner). Judging by the photographs, they are placed on the left / right in the tank body.
    5. +1
      April 25 2017 09: 38
      Quote: Mystery12345
      If the designers catch luck by the tail, then future tanks will have only two members
      The automatic loader will appear, but the Negro will be thrown out ... Yes

      8000 unemployed blacks
    6. 0
      April 25 2017 12: 25
      Negro will move to the engine compartment
    7. +1
      April 25 2017 12: 57
      I understand that they simply won’t take women into the crew.
  2. 0
    April 25 2017 06: 09
    As far as I remember, in Ukraine there is a serious problem with the production of trunks. How will they rivet the tanks ???!
    1. 0
      April 25 2017 06: 49
      What guns? If they even have problems with the production of armor.
      1. 0
        April 25 2017 06: 59
        Quote: kugelblitz
        even problems with making armor

        Especially...
      2. 0
        April 25 2017 07: 03
        They will be like the Germans in 44m to make bad armor thicker, and guns in Poland to buy or in Romania.
        1. 0
          April 25 2017 12: 40
          Romanians have guns only 100 mm from the t-55
  3. +2
    April 25 2017 07: 43
    Although great experts in tank building have been predicting the death of a tank for many years, it seems that rumors of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Not at all exaggerated. Soon the tanks will begin to give proper names as in the fleet, as the number of tanks will be equal to the number of watercraft. A tank is becoming more and more expensive and no less vulnerable. The cost of only the “iron” of one tank has already passed $ 10 million, and the arm of the tank has not become longer. He still can and is destroyed by a barefoot fighter armed with penny weapons. As the ongoing serial series "Civil War in Syria" shows, tanks are no longer the "important means of the armed forces of many countries" as they were 40 years ago. Most generals, as you know, are preparing for the war, because our generation can still touch the tanks with their hands, the next generation will see tanks only in museums. So it was with the carts and battleships. So it will be with the tanks. In their place come (have already come) cheaper and lighter combat platforms. The best example of such platforms is pickup truck action. Developed countries replace "fighters" on their "pickups" with cheap, cheap systems.
    1. 0
      April 25 2017 08: 06
      Wheelbarrows - this is still for the "natives who do not mind."
    2. +7
      April 25 2017 09: 02
      Send your suggestions to the Israeli leadership. Let the valiant warriors of the Tsahal in battle not cover themselves with the armor of a tank, but with the chest of their own comrade.

      Quote: professor
      In their place come (have already come) cheaper and lighter combat platforms. The best example of such platforms is pickup truck action.

      You forgot a little nuance. The machine gun on the pickup truck must be accompanied by a completely disregard for the losses of its personnel, a system of forced "shaving" of non-combatants to make up for high losses, a system of total brainwashing of personnel so that it is not afraid to shove against tanks on pickup trucks.
      And so everything is true. Cheap and cheerful. Write to the leadership of Israel, they will definitely support this.
      1. +2
        April 25 2017 09: 26
        Quote: Spade
        Send your suggestions to the Israeli leadership. Let the valiant warriors of the Tsahal in battle not cover themselves with the armor of a tank, but with the chest of their own comrade.

        They cope without me.

        Quote: Spade
        You forgot a little nuance. The machine gun on the pickup truck must be accompanied by a completely disregard for the losses of its personnel, a system of forced "shaving" of non-combatants to make up for high losses, a system of total brainwashing of personnel so that it is not afraid to shove against tanks on pickup trucks.

        You are not careful. I wrote:"Developed countries replace" fighters "on their" pickups "with cheap, cheap systems."What we are already observing.

        Quote: CruorVult
        Therefore, Israel continues to purchase MK4 Chariots :-D Mb you will transfer to pickups, no?

        And so, Israel disbanded tank brigades, and reinforced the rest with infantry.
        1. +2
          April 25 2017 09: 43
          Quote: professor
          They cope without me.

          Hardly. Too low losses. If they could manage, they would be a couple of orders higher.

          Quote: professor
          You are not careful. I wrote: "Developed countries replace" fighters "on their" pickups "with cheap, cheap systems." What we are already observing.

          Yeah ... They will cost more than a tank, and on the battlefield they will be destroyed faster than a tank. Good offer. Be sure to introduce Hamas into the Israeli army and Hezbollah will be pleased.

          Quote: professor
          And so, Israel disbanded tank brigades, and reinforced the rest with infantry.

          Is it possible in more detail? Just do not need to issue a tank crew re-processing to a mechanized one by adding infantry units to the "disbandment"
          1. +5
            April 25 2017 10: 17
            Quote: Spade
            Hardly. Too low losses. If they could manage, they would be a couple of orders higher.

            I am sure that they manage. Otherwise, darling, they would call me to do in the General Staff. wink

            Low losses are explained by a combination of factors at the head of which is the task of low losses. Although a Jewish woman gives birth in quantities commensurate with the Arab, and compared with some Arab countries, even more, it is somehow not customary for us to flood the enemy with our corpses. If tanks were the solution to this problem, the IDF would not reduce tank units, but would increase them.

            Quote: Spade
            Yeah ... They will cost more than a tank, and on the battlefield they will be destroyed faster than a tank. Good offer. Be sure to introduce Hamas into the Israeli army and Hezbollah will be pleased.

            It is interesting to ask why ground unmanned systems will be more expensive than tanks? Meters of armor are not necessary, the loss of a unit in battle is not so terrible. The electoral system and algorithms are getting cheaper every day. Ammunition in dozens of shells is also not required.

            Hezbollah and Hamas are always very happy and run around the streets with a captive drone pilot when they manage to shoot down a drone laughing . Of course they are pleased. After all, funerals in the families of Israeli tankers will stop coming. Why shouldn’t they be happy? How much will they receive as children in exchange for the captured drone? It’s scary to think. laughing

            Quote: Spade
            Is it possible in more detail? Just do not need to issue a tank crew re-processing to a mechanized one by adding infantry units to the "disbandment"

            Of the current 188th, 7th, 401th and 460th academic ones. We will not consider the disappeared 12th, 4th and 11th brigades, but look at the Kfir tank brigade. Where is she?
            1. +3
              April 25 2017 11: 59
              Quote: professor
              it’s somehow not customary to overwhelm the enemy with our corpses.

              Well this is a total flaw.
              For example, a Hamas machine gunner sits on the second floor of a high-rise building and impedes the advancement of infantry. Now you are driving the tank, and with one shot you are managing it. This is unacceptable. Tank for remelting, platoon of infantry with grenades. Running in the forehead, several people will run down and put down the firing point. Tanks are evil !!!

              Quote: professor
              It is interesting to ask why ground unmanned systems will be more expensive than tanks?

              Because, in addition to all the electronics of the tank, they will have to have a control system, a broadband communication system and a surveillance system that provides the operator with situational awareness at the tank crew level.

              Quote: professor
              Meters of armor are not necessary, the loss of a unit in battle is not so terrible.

              Of course. Armor meters are not necessary. You have to worry about the enemy. There’s no reason for Hezbollah’s fighters to tear themselves away, dragging the Toe, Cornets, and Vampires. For the destruction of Israeli technology, they should have enough ordinary riflemen.
              Good thoughts you have, universal. You will achieve the complete elimination of this inhuman armor from the IDF, and Brussels will nominate you for a Peace Prize for the humanization of war.

              Quote: professor
              and look at the Kfir tank brigade. Where is she?

              Alright, let it be Kfir. They write that it was disbanded in 2003. Compare the number of tanks of the OAI on the "military balance". Strange, the brigade was disbanded, and there were more tanks in the ranks. What is it like?
              1. +3
                April 25 2017 13: 03
                Quote: Spade
                Well this is a total flaw.
                For example, a Hamas machine gunner sits on the second floor of a high-rise building and impedes the advancement of infantry. Now you are driving the tank, and with one shot you are managing it. This is unacceptable. Tank for remelting, platoon of infantry with grenades. Running in the forehead, several people will run down and put down the firing point. Tanks are evil !!!

                There have been such cases. But it’s better not to send a tank to the city. Not a tenant there tank.
                In your opinion, in the same Gaza each machine gunner or sniper was shot with tanks? A machine gunner is shot with pocket artillery.


                Quote: Spade
                Because, in addition to all the electronics of the tank, they will have to have a control system, a broadband communication system and a surveillance system that provides the operator with situational awareness at the tank crew level.

                Do not believe it, but in a modern tank all these systems already exist. Take away the crew and the requirements for these systems can be weakened minus multi-meter armor to protect the crew, minus a powerful engine to carry this armor.

                Quote: Spade
                Of course. Armor meters are not necessary. You have to worry about the enemy. There’s no reason for Hezbollah’s fighters to tear themselves away, dragging the Toe, Cornets, and Vampires. For the destruction of Israeli technology, they should have enough ordinary riflemen.

                Between the meter of armor and what the gunner breaks through, there are several more booking levels.

                Quote: Spade
                Alright, let it be Kfir. They write that it was disbanded in 2003. Compare the number of tanks of the OAI on the "military balance". Strange, the brigade was disbanded, and there were more tanks in the ranks. What is it like?

                Got more? Give your details. Compare. In addition to Kfir, the 263rd reserve armored brigade "Fire Chariots" and another 5 reserve armored brigades were disbanded. Well stupid there in the General Staff.
                http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/ground-
                maneuver-will-always-be-necessary
                1. +1
                  April 25 2017 14: 46
                  Quote: professor
                  There have been such cases. But it’s better not to send a tank to the city. Not a tenant there tank.

                  Practice proves the opposite.

                  Quote: professor
                  Machine gunner removed pocket artillery.

                  Great method. And how many Israeli heroes will the machine gunner manage to kill while they try to "capture" his window while portraying a chest target?

                  Quote: professor
                  Between the meter of armor and what the gunner breaks through, there are several more booking levels.

                  That is, instead of a “cornet” you need an anti-material rifle or light RPG? And then the bread
                  1. +1
                    April 25 2017 17: 39
                    Quote: Spade
                    Practice proves the opposite.

                    Quite the opposite. In the second Lebanese were used more than 600 Tamuz. While you wait for the tank in the building, you yourself lay the bones. Here is just one example of combat use.

                    Show Spikes in Gaza?

                    Quote: Spade
                    Great method. And how many Israeli heroes will the machine gunner manage to kill while they try to "capture" his window while portraying a chest target?

                    The experience of recent operations in one of the most densely populated areas of the planet shows that the machine gunner dies from the fire of pocket artillery before it can cause damage to the operator.

                    Quote: Spade
                    That is, instead of a “cornet” you need an anti-material rifle or light RPG? And then the bread

                    May be so. Sometimes a tank is also undermined by a hand grenade. I will not upload videos.

                    Quote: Spade
                    2010 year. 1525 Merkava tanks of various modifications. 2017 year. 1560 Merkava tanks of various modifications.
                    As I understand it, this is a "reduction"?

                    Give links. Let's see together what they counted there. And it turns out reduced 7 armored brigades, the number of battalions in the remaining did not increase. Is there really twice as many tanks in the Israeli tank battalion as it was 5 years ago? Or maybe they counted these? wink
                    1. +1
                      April 25 2017 18: 06
                      Quote: professor
                      Quite the opposite. In the second Lebanese were used more than 600 Tamuz.

                      I wonder with your logic
                      You declare "the tank in the city is not a tenant"
                      I personally declare that it is exactly the opposite.
                      You refute me, "more than 600 missiles were launched." Damn, are they here with ???
                      Quote: professor
                      The experience of recent operations in one of the most densely populated areas of the planet shows that the machine gunner dies from the fire of pocket artillery before it can cause damage to the operator.

                      So that's why 600 “Tamuzes” were spent ... That is, a machine gunner sits in the back of the five-story building, and you peck the house with expensive rockets up to the second floor? Then it is clear. With this approach, you really do not need tanks, you and the ATGM will spend more than it costs. Good tactics.

                      Quote: professor
                      Let's get links

                      Download. You can find in the free version.

                      Quote: professor
                      And then it turns out reduced 7 armored brigades

                      I'm afraid you are trying to pass off the Sherman, Centurion, M60, and other T-55s as "reducing the number of tanks". You completely wrote them off only three years ago. Back in 13, there were 711 unmodified M60s in storage. Were they removed? A great achievement, clearly testifying to the decline of the era of tanks ...
                      1. +2
                        April 25 2017 19: 27
                        Quote: Spade
                        I wonder with your logic
                        You declare "the tank in the city is not a tenant"
                        I personally declare that it is exactly the opposite.
                        You refute me, "more than 600 missiles were launched." Damn, are they here with ???

                        These missiles did what you propose to do with tanks.

                        Quote: Spade
                        So that's why 600 “Tamuzes” were spent ... That is, a machine gunner sits in the back of the five-story building, and you peck the house with expensive rockets up to the second floor? Then it is clear. With this approach, you really do not need tanks, you and the ATGM will spend more than it costs. Good tactics.

                        No. I hit this expensive rocket in the very window from where the machine gunner prevents me from living. As a result, it turns out cheaper than a tank for $ 10 million and a shot at $ 10. And there is cheaper pocket artillery which I don’t even remember about here. And yes, I will not upload videos of what happens to tanks in the cities of Syria either.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Download. You can find in the free version.

                        I did not expect from you. You upload the numbers and then send me to look for their source in Google? Then let's end this dialogue now.

                        Quote: Spade
                        I'm afraid you are trying to pass off the Sherman, Centurion, M60, and other T-55s as "reducing the number of tanks". You completely wrote them off only three years ago. Back in 13, there were 711 unmodified M60s in storage. Were they removed? A great achievement, clearly testifying to the decline of the era of tanks ...

                        7 (seven) armored brigades ceased to exist in the last 5 years. Not a mouth, not battalions, but brigades. But you repeat the prospects of tanks. Legislators of tank fashion Germans count their tanks in small hundreds, the French and the British too. A Americans generally stopped the production of tanks. The Japanese created a tank at an iron price of more than $ 10 million apiece. It is not surprising that they could not even order a hundred tanks. I don’t know about you, but here it’s called: the tank is unpromising. I myself do not buy shares of tank builders and I will not advise others. burn out. hi
                2. +3
                  April 25 2017 15: 13
                  Quote: professor
                  Got more? Give your details. Compare.

                  2010 year. 1525 Merkava tanks of various modifications. 2017 year. 1560 Merkava tanks of various modifications.
                  As I understand it, this is a "reduction"?
    3. +1
      April 25 2017 09: 08
      Therefore, Israel continues to purchase MK4 Chariots :-D Mb you will transfer to pickups, no?
    4. 0
      April 25 2017 12: 29
      what you described is weapons for guerrilla warfare. vilely hit and run away.
      and tanks are needed for another.
    5. 0
      April 25 2017 13: 10
      ... and an alternative? The battleships were replaced by missile cruisers and moved the distance to hit the target from the ship. And it won’t work out with a tank.
    6. +3
      April 25 2017 18: 39
      According to the stories of smart people, you have outdated information. Everything changed when a specific batch began in the Donbas. Before him, the Americans decided to move away from heavy connections (Abrams + Bradley) to the lungs on the Strikers. All previous wars have said that this is correct: Strikers are cheaper and easier, there are no such problems with the transfer, etc., and the vulnerability is almost the same: ATGM will burn both Abrams and Stryker. But then something happened that had not happened for a long time: after a long break, artillery again entered the battlefield. And it became clear that in such situations, Stryker is a victim, he will simply be swept away. And Abrams may well fight. But a new problem emerged: the Americans dismantled the Abrams factory. Now they are sitting, they are scratching their turnips: either to hammer on artillery in the hope that they will be able to suppress it in time by aviation or to invest fully in the revival of heavy brigades.
      1. 0
        April 25 2017 19: 43
        but anti-tank systems come in different calibers. some will burn, others not.
      2. 0
        6 January 2018 16: 43
        Quote: bk0010
        But then something happened that had not happened for a long time: after a long break, artillery again entered the battlefield.

        For aviation does not apply. A standard American is Tomahawks, aviation, and then ..
        Aviation and missiles are the same "long arm of artillery" only better and further than standard (but more expensive)
    7. +1
      April 25 2017 23: 00
      Quote: professor
      So it was with the carts and battleships.

      This will not happen with tanks.
      Quote: professor
      The cost of only the “iron” of one tank has already passed $ 10 million

      The fact is that the tank is not designed to butt with the enemy at the forefront.
      on the front line infantry goes forward and reveals targets, artillery destroys them, tanks have no place here.
      A tank (armored unit) must break through the enemy’s defenses in a bottleneck, go behind enemy lines and cut communications (supply of enemy troops). And here even the high price of tanks cannot be compared with the defeat of an enemy force of tens or even hundreds of thousands of bayonets.
      Quote: professor
      He still can and is destroyed by a barefoot fighter armed with penny weapons.

      The development of electronic warfare and active defense means that soon it will be possible to get into the tank only with an unguided blank without any explosives inside.
      1. +1
        April 26 2017 07: 03
        Quote: KaPToC
        This will not happen with tanks.

        Already happening. The United Kingdom is armed with as many as 226 tanks. What else can I talk about?
        Quote: Article
        Heated concerns announced by Russia in mid-2016, an agreement with the Uralvagonzavod Corporation for the supply of more than 100 additional T-14 tanks (60 tanks and 40 additional vehicles on the Armata chassis: 10 T-16 armored personnel carriers and 30 T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicles).

        Here is another eloquent proof of how important a tank is in the modern world.

        Quote: KaPToC
        A tank (armored unit) must break through the enemy’s defenses in a bottleneck, go behind enemy lines and cut communications (supply of enemy troops). And here even the high price of tanks cannot be compared with the defeat of an enemy force of tens or even hundreds of thousands of bayonets.

        They thought the same way in the Soviet General Staff and decided to break through the enemy’s defenses in a bottleneck, go behind enemy lines and cut communications. Everything was thought out in the plans, but the plans collapsed when meeting with the Yemeni. I certainly exaggerate, but this is not far from the truth. Even then, it was clear that the era of tanks was approaching sunset.


        Quote: KaPToC
        The development of electronic warfare and active defense means that soon it will be possible to get into the tank only with an unguided blank without any explosives inside.

        No EW funds will stop the old and not good RPG, and KAZ is stupidly clogged with quantity. That's just the number of problems there. The same TOU alone in the United States was released more than 600. Americans can supply them with militias for years. Over 000 Javelins issued. About all small things and about other countries, I do not speak at all. And this is only pocket artillery. And how many people even came up with means to destroy tanks ...
        1. +1
          April 26 2017 18: 11
          Quote: professor
          Already happening. The United Kingdom is armed with as many as 226 tanks. What else can I talk about?

          Equal to the construction of ground forces in Britain? Yes, you're kidding! And I thought you seriously voiced all this.
          Quote: professor
          Even then, it was clear that the era of tanks was approaching sunset.

          The conflict in the Donbass showed the opposite.
          You look for conflicts of low intensity, yes there - there is no place for tanks. In a real war, tanks are very much in demand.
          Quote: professor
          And this is only pocket artillery.

          In a protracted war, high-tech (read-expensive) toys will quickly end.
          1. +2
            April 26 2017 19: 21
            Quote: KaPToC
            Equal to the construction of ground forces in Britain? Yes, you're kidding! And I thought you seriously voiced all this.

            When you come up with the Russian name in exchange for the English "tank", then you will neglect the British in tank building. wink

            Quote: KaPToC
            The conflict in the Donbass showed the opposite.
            You look for conflicts of low intensity, yes there - there is no place for tanks. In a real war, tanks are very much in demand.

            1. Donbass is precisely a conflict of low intensity.
            2. And how did this conflict show itself in terms of tanks?

            Quote: KaPToC
            In a protracted war, high-tech (read-expensive) toys will quickly end.

            Well, tanks for $ 10 million each will not end?
            1. +1
              April 26 2017 19: 53
              Quote: professor
              When you come up with the Russian name in exchange for the English "tank", then you will neglect the British in tank building.

              The British came up with only a name for the tank, but not the tank itself, for example, the Germans called tanks differently. But this doesn’t mean anything, the British ground army is bullshit and it’s not worth it to level up.
              Quote: professor
              1. Donbass is precisely a conflict of low intensity.

              However, this conflict had a short, hot phase of high intensity.
              Quote: professor
              2. And how did this conflict show itself in terms of tanks?

              With the help of tanks, they took the units of the Ukrainian army into the ring according to all the rules of military science.
              Quote: professor
              Well, tanks for $ 10 million each will not end?

              And do not send a car at a cost of $ 10 million butting with cheap infantry at $ 100000 for the launch of ATGM.
              1. +1
                April 27 2017 08: 05
                Quote: KaPToC
                The British came up with only a name for the tank, but not the tank itself, for example, the Germans called tanks differently. But this doesn’t mean anything, the British ground army is bullshit and it’s not worth it to level up.

                About what the British came up with, tell Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton. Don't like the British army? Look at the German army with its 250 Leopards.

                Quote: KaPToC
                However, this conflict had a short, hot phase of high intensity.

                Episode, not phase.

                Quote: KaPToC
                With the help of tanks, they took the units of the Ukrainian army into the ring according to all the rules of military science.

                Do not tell me. Tractor drivers and miners took the units of the Ukrainian army into the ring according to all the rules of military science? I do not want to discuss this conflict.

                Quote: KaPToC
                And do not send a car at a cost of $ 10 million butting with cheap infantry at $ 100000 for the launch of ATGM.

                Why then a tank? Take care of it like a Ferrari? What if the paint gets scratched? wassat
                1. +1
                  April 27 2017 11: 47
                  Quote: professor
                  Look at the German army with its 250 Leopards.

                  At one time, the German army was bending down the English as it wanted, and now it is pumping.
                  Quote: professor
                  Episode, not phase.

                  Sophistry, meaningless pun.
                  Quote: professor
                  I do not want to discuss this conflict.

                  How convenient it is not to notice that does not fit into your picture of the world.
                  Quote: professor
                  Why then a tank? Take care of it like a Ferrari? What if the paint gets scratched?

                  I wrote above for what ... Not in order to "butt" on the front line.
                2. 0
                  April 28 2017 23: 13
                  Quote: professor
                  Don't like the British Army? Look at the German army with its 250 Leopards.

                  Professor! You refer to countries with "police" armies. What can you say about the Polish army, which is gradually increasing the number of tanks? The US Army also does not reduce or decommission its Abrams. China, India, and Israel do not reduce the number of new tanks in units, but gradually increase their number.
                  ATGM, a pickup truck with a machine gun and a drone will not replace a tank - infantry or the Air Force (40% percent) - yes.
                  1. 0
                    April 29 2017 08: 08
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Professor! You refer to countries with "police" armies.

                    Quite the opposite. The number of tanks is growing in countries ready to use them against their people.

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    What can you say about the Polish army, which is gradually increasing the number of tanks?

                    Increases the number of Leopards in exchange for debited Teshkam.

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    The US Army also does not reduce or decommission its Abrams. China, India, and Israel do not reduce the number of new tanks in units, but gradually increase their number.

                    America writes off its tanks, and also gives them to anyone. Israel, as I already wrote here, in recent years has almost halved the number of its armored brigades. The number of tanks in India and China is growing slowly, and tanks are needed there not against each other.

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    ATGM, a pickup truck with a machine gun and a drone will not replace a tank - infantry or the Air Force (40% percent) - yes.

                    They also talked about battleships. Well, where are they now?
                    1. 0
                      April 29 2017 20: 44
                      Quote: professor
                      The number of tanks is growing in countries ready to use them against their people.

                      ? !! Those. Does China, India, South Korea, Russia, Israel need MBT precisely for this?
                      Quote: professor
                      America writes off its tanks, and also gives them to anyone.

                      And to whom did they give them? The US Armed Forces are gradually relying on lighter vehicles as part of the ground forces and armored forces (various infantry fighting vehicles and return to light tanks), but does not abandon MBT at all.
                      Quote: professor
                      Israel, as I already wrote here, in recent years has almost halved the number of its armored brigades.

                      The reduction in the number of brigades does not mean a reduction in MBT in the troops.
                      Quote: professor
                      They also talked about battleships. Well, where are they now?

                      I agree with you only on this topic - the cost and weight of modern MBT have long gone "beyond" the permissible when the loss of an armored car turns into a PR campaign and huge financial losses. That is why there has recently been a growing interest in medium-sized armored combat vehicles (light tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles): the Ajax platform, the Griffin and M8 light tanks, the Scorpion program, Israeli and Russian infantry fighting vehicles, etc.
                      Nevertheless, there will be no abandonment of MBTs in the next 50-60 years - there simply is no armored vehicle that can replace MBTs on the battlefield and compare with them in terms of firepower and security.
                      1. 0
                        April 30 2017 13: 36
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        ? !! Those. Does China, India, South Korea, Russia, Israel need MBT precisely for this?

                        In Russia and Israel, the number of tanks is decreasing. In South Korea too. India and China will not use tanks against each other, but only against their own.

                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        And to whom did they give them? The US Armed Forces are gradually relying on lighter vehicles as part of the ground forces and armored forces (various infantry fighting vehicles and return to light tanks), but does not abandon MBT at all.

                        The USA gave tanks to Iraq. They sell tanks in Marroco and Egypt. The tanks themselves no longer produce.

                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        The reduction in the number of brigades does not mean a reduction in MBT in the troops.

                        Yah? Reduced 7 armored brigades (by half), but didn’t reduce the number of tanks? It turns out that now in one brigade with the same number of battalions there were twice as many tank companies and the world community did not notice this? laughing

                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        Nevertheless, there will be no abandonment of MBTs in the next 50-60 years - there simply is no armored vehicle that can replace MBTs on the battlefield and compare with them in terms of firepower and security.

                        Wait and see. Only the one who lives in the past can call a tank “promising”.
  4. 0
    April 25 2017 08: 11
    Quote: professor
    Although great experts in tank building have been predicting the death of a tank for many years, it seems that rumors of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Not at all exaggerated. Soon the tanks will begin to give proper names as in the fleet, as the number of tanks will be equal to the number of watercraft. A tank is becoming more and more expensive and no less vulnerable. The cost of only the “iron” of one tank has already passed $ 10 million, and the arm of the tank has not become longer. He still can and is destroyed by a barefoot fighter armed with penny weapons. As the ongoing serial series "Civil War in Syria" shows, tanks are no longer the "important means of the armed forces of many countries" as they were 40 years ago. Most generals, as you know, are preparing for the war, because our generation can still touch the tanks with their hands, the next generation will see tanks only in museums. So it was with the carts and battleships. So it will be with the tanks. In their place come (have already come) cheaper and lighter combat platforms. The best example of such platforms is pickup truck action. Developed countries replace "fighters" on their "pickups" with cheap, cheap systems.


    the future belongs to unmanned systems with the so-called drivers, my personal opinion and it is not far off, the tanks were written off before, rather they will change. but the fact that the breakout systems will not leave the battlefield is absolutely certain, and the tank is the defense breakthrough system
    1. +3
      April 25 2017 09: 06
      Quote: Graz
      the future belongs to unmanned systems with the so-called drivers

      They have no future. Radio-electronic suppression systems will not allow normal operation, electronic intelligence systems will pinpoint coordinates, and artillery will destroy.

      Wunderwaffe is a fairy tale. Unmanned systems have their very narrow niche on the battlefield. and completely unable to replace tanks and other BMs.
      1. +4
        April 25 2017 09: 32
        Quote: Spade
        They have no future. Radio-electronic suppression systems will not allow normal operation, electronic intelligence systems will pinpoint coordinates, and artillery will destroy.

        We look and see what happened to the millions of dollars worth of the T-90, which has no analogues in the world. Where is the notorious EW? Where are the electronic intelligence systems? Where is the artillery?
        1. +3
          April 25 2017 09: 54
          Quote: professor
          We look and see what happened to the millions of dollars worth of the T-90, which has no analogues in the world.

          Yeah ... This clearly proves the invulnerability of robotic systems and their control points on the battlefield !!!
          But I don’t understand how ... You will not reveal your very, very winding train of thought?
          1. +1
            April 25 2017 11: 34
            Quote: Spade
            Yeah ... This clearly proves the invulnerability of robotic systems and their control points on the battlefield !!!
            But I don’t understand how ... You will not reveal your very, very winding train of thought?

            Well, why is it meandering? Just like a ruler. In the video we see the result of a collision of tanks (even in shelters), electronic suppression systems, electronic reconnaissance and artillery systems on the one hand, and a robotic complex on the other. The composition of the complex is not known for certain, but I dare to assume that it included UAVs and ATGMs on a light mobile platform.
            1. +1
              April 25 2017 11: 47
              This is the result of the stupid use of tanks, the lack of KAZ, air defense and electronic warfare, it is likely that they fucked out of the usual ATGM with the usual operator and without any drones.
            2. +1
              April 25 2017 14: 49
              Quote: professor
              In the video we see the result of a collision of tanks

              Abajadit.
              And here are the tanks? It’s like you ask me for a video confirmation that you can hammer nails with a microscope, and I will give a video with a hammer sinking in water. Say, "you see, the hammer is sinking. Therefore, nails can be perfectly hammered with an accurate optical device."
              1. +1
                April 25 2017 17: 42
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: professor
                In the video we see the result of a collision of tanks

                Abajadit.
                And here are the tanks? It’s like you ask me for a video confirmation that you can hammer nails with a microscope, and I will give a video with a hammer sinking in water. Say, "you see, the hammer is sinking. Therefore, nails can be perfectly hammered with an accurate optical device."

                Really. And here are the tanks? Why are they needed when they are so vulnerable?
                1. +2
                  April 25 2017 23: 19
                  Quote: professor
                  Really. And here are the tanks? Why are they needed when they are so vulnerable?

                  If you knew how vulnerable a simple infantryman is on the battlefield, this is a complete paragraph.
        2. 0
          April 25 2017 12: 25
          Why not show burning best tanks in the world as an example? That is to say, the most excellent confirmation of the theory of the complete unsuitability of tanks in modern combat. good



          1. +1
            April 25 2017 13: 10
            Quote: kugelblitz
            Why not show burning best tanks in the world as an example? That is to say, the most excellent confirmation of the theory of the complete unsuitability of tanks in modern combat.

            1. None of your tanks burn on any of your videos. In the first case, there is a hit in the tank, in the second KAZ worked. For the Arabs, both incidents are a great victory.
            2. Both of your videos once again confirm how vulnerable the tank is. There were no casualties only as a result of luck.

            Quote: yehat
            firstly, where did you get that there t90 ????

            So they write. I myself did not inspect. For those weapons that T-72, T-90 no difference. The result will be one.

            Quote: yehat
            the fact that they mismanaged tanks there does not mean that the tanks have outlived their own.
            remember YOUR experience when the stupid use of tanks mowed them
            in the doomsday war with BOTH parties dozens.
            maybe you remember HOW Germans used tanks in 41?
            They generally didn’t keep the tank in one position for more than a day, so as not to get such a video

            Here I am about the same. The tank as a concept is out of date for 40 years. There will be no tank breakthroughs. It’s scary to think that Germany will throw all 200 tanks to breakthrough. Or Japan will throw tanks worth more than $ 10 million apiece into the fire.
            1. 0
              April 25 2017 13: 33
              Finally, the early Syrian T-72M and the recently delivered T-90 and T-72B can be compared in the same way as the early Chariots and Mark4. For example, the tower at M is a steel monolith, but B has a filler similar to the semi-active NERA, which are on the latest modifications Abrashek and Leo. Therefore, such a difference in resistance to ATGM. Although the Chariot somehow didn’t impress me, they talked about all-round protection, about which its considerable weight indirectly spoke, but something was really wrong here.





              The most natural cardboard, apparently due to blocks with DZ and more or less confidently holds on the battlefield. In addition, the large booking area contributed to considerable weight. Other Western tanks have the same problem, Leclerc perhaps differs in their movement towards reducing the area, or in Armata the concentration around the capsule. By the way, the difference in weight between the T-64 and the T-72 went to the side defense on the second, which in the battles in the Donbass perfectly confirmed, although having the worst SLA, the battles of the T-72 against the T-64 ended in favor of the former.
              1. +2
                April 25 2017 13: 45
                What are you talking about? I did not catch the essence of your comment and its relation to the topic of the article.

                PS
                This phrase was especially amused.
                Quote: kugelblitz
                The most natural cardboard, apparently due to blocks with DZ and more or less confidently holds on the battlefield.
                1. 0
                  April 25 2017 13: 55
                  And due to what then? That Shabbat collectors observe and sculpted from kosher steel? wassat Although yes, she does not have DZ as they say, it means an ordinary hinged composite. But others say there are.

                  And on the topic, the direction of further development of tanks. Each one in its own way, it’s closer to me like a heavily armored self-propelled gun, having a large-caliber gun about 140-155 mm with a high elevation angle, but poor ballistics, plus powerful OFS, with remote detonation, guided missiles, mortar fire and the launch of anti-tank missiles from the barrel. At least recent wars show this trend.
            2. 0
              April 25 2017 23: 21
              Quote: professor
              Here I am about the same.

              You just sign your own ignorance, for which you still need a tank in the war.
        3. 0
          April 25 2017 12: 33
          firstly, where did you get that there t90 ????
          the fact that they mismanaged tanks there does not mean that the tanks have outlived their own.
          remember YOUR experience when the stupid use of tanks mowed them
          in the doomsday war with BOTH parties dozens.
          maybe you remember HOW Germans used tanks in 41?
          They generally did not keep the tank in one position for more than a day, so as not to get such a video.
        4. 0
          April 25 2017 13: 11
          where is the t-90? They will shoot down or jam with a laser. How to do it with explosives or shoot down KAZ.
        5. 0
          April 25 2017 16: 31
          T-72 Professor and not the most modern modifications. But in this case, the T-90 would not survive.
          Armenia has only 1 T-90; this is at Az-na a lot of them.
          1. +1
            April 25 2017 19: 44
            no one would survive in the tower ...
        6. 0
          April 28 2017 23: 17
          Professor! You exaggerate a little and your example is somewhat incorrect - here is the defeat of the undisguised DZ armored vehicles from ATGMs of the 4th generation, but what happens if there is competent use and normal modification is a question. By the way, after this conflict, Azerbaijan did not rush to reduce its tank units and replace tanks with Spikes.
  5. +1
    April 25 2017 08: 24
    Object 187 had a 125 mm 2A66 cannon, and never had a 152 mm babah.
    The Germans are turning into mutants, In L55A1 increased the muzzle. energy by 4,5% + a new projectile, but magically the armor penetration immediately + 20%, and in the new 130 immediately as much as 50% IMHO bolobolstvo. Completely turned into s, for the sake of PR they overstate the performance characteristics to unrealistic indicators.
    1. 0
      April 25 2017 12: 34
      Well, I don’t know about unrealistic indicators. I saw their new gun - it is larger and has a greater ratio of gun length to caliber. It looks noticeably more powerful than it was.
  6. 0
    April 25 2017 10: 57
    Why are the creators of "promising tanks" still clutching at the ancient L7? She cannot do anything to the modern OT.
    1. 0
      April 25 2017 11: 14
      Lavrov’s catch phrase is easy to explain.
      Although 105 has a niche like a light gun platform, it’s another thing to call it a tank :-D
      1. 0
        April 25 2017 12: 36
        but why isn’t you a tank?
    2. +1
      April 25 2017 12: 14
      Take, for example, Indonesia, the good and the German "medium" and MMWT were originally designed specifically for their army.

      Initially armed with exclusively light and amphibious tanks, they decided to seriously take care of the “armor”. We bought normal MBT from the Germans. However, the local environmental conditions allow them to be applied only to a limited extent, and in most of the country, especially in rainy periods, light and floating cars will “steer”. Actually, they will be the main enemy for the medium tank, which they will eventually put into service.

      Perhaps 105 will be redundant, they generally put 76 direct fire on their wheeled vehicles with direct fire.

      1. 0
        April 26 2017 08: 03
        That's right, and there are such theaters of action. Another thing, for me personally, a light platform with a developed combat module is not a tank. The question is simply more terminology in modern realities.
  7. 0
    26 June 2017 00: 36
    Because T-90
    _
    I am writing to Mamma village -
    Like, my dear, know
    How we rode the tank
    Over your favorite land.

    This is some kind of beast
    There are thousands of forces in the motor.
    Because T-90
    Enraged our enemies.

    He has two machine guns
    The gun is one hundred twenty-five.
    Adversary reluctance
    We stand in the way.

    We can add ATGM
    And destroy to the basics.
    The tank goes through the field with a drill.
    Through the thick snow flooring.