Military Review

Do Russian tanks need an extra 30-mm gun?

136
The fighting in Syria and other conflicts of recent decades have shown that modern Tanks need additional small-caliber guns, writes Messenger of Mordovia.




The presence of such guns "would allow to destroy tank-dangerous manpower, light armored vehicles, mined cars and other targets for which it is inefficient or wasteful to spend ammunition of the main gun," the author of the article Dmitry Lemeshko said.

He recalled that work in this direction in the USSR had been going on for quite a long time: “We can recall an attempt to arm the T-80 30-mm remote-controlled installation with an 2А42 gun, with 450 rounds of ammunition, and 120 gr. on the horizon and from -5 gr. to + 65 gr. vertically. That is, the crew was able to destroy not only ground, but also air targets. ”

Do Russian tanks need an extra 30-mm gun?


There is another example, the 195 Object, also known as T-95. In addition to the 152-mm guns, the 30-mm gun mount was also mounted on it.

Many military experts are surprised that at the newest T-14 "Armata" commander's order is just a remote-controlled 7,62-mm machine gun.

At first, the T-90CM was equipped with the same weapons. "But now we see the 12,7-mm Kord." Therefore, it is only natural that at least on the part of the T-14 machines the same fire weapon and the 30-mm gun appear, ”the author concludes.
Photos used:
Brave2004
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. igorka357
    igorka357 15 May 2018 14: 53
    +33
    The answer is unequivocal .. NO! What are the “Terminators” doing in vain? You still need to stick air defense on the tank, but how can you ... use aviation to cover it, and the field kitchen on the tower, otherwise you don’t have a tank ... , that’s an infection .. it requires and demands! Give the Optimus Prime tank and the Death Star in one tank ... Such a crazy article in fact ...))), damn it, but what about the ammunition set ... you have to attach a container with ammunition to the tank , just to myself .. replenished myself ..)))
    1. BZTM
      BZTM 15 May 2018 15: 17
      +7
      More air defense on the tank must stick

      Gauges and EW ... wink
      1. novel66
        novel66 15 May 2018 15: 36
        +7
        ohhhh! tank "Khibiny" - destroyers to disperse on the battlefield!
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 17 May 2018 00: 00
          +1
          It is clear that if a complex detachment is more efficient there, everyone would fulfill their role. This is an ideal case, and there the tank needs nothing but armor and a gun.
          But life is rarely perfect. And there will be cases when the tank will be alone. And here 30mm is useful against car-martyrs and other easily armored vehicles, and 7,62 against manpower.
    2. JD1979
      JD1979 15 May 2018 15: 44
      +15
      Another expertus divus ... How many BMPTs have you already done? By your logic, the tank and the main gun are not needed. After all, there is a bunch of artillery and other means of destruction of armored vehicles. Something small-caliber is simply asking for a T-14 tower. Given the presence of a radar from the remote control module using good software, you can make candy. And if you are in a “tank” then I remind you that currently in the USA and in China, the tactics of using swarms of small drones as carriers of weapons and the quality of kamikazes is being actively developed. The lack of an extra barrel working through the air at a distance of 3-4 km is not superfluous.
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 15 May 2018 18: 46
        +6
        By air, 3-4 km .. from the trunk? Only guided missiles .. well, like KUV .. everything else in 90% of the case in milk!
      2. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 16 May 2018 19: 54
        +1
        Each weapon must solve the main task with high quality and confidence, and what it is for the tank today depends on the enemy. For Syria, instead of a cannon, a more powerful howitzer is desirable for a tank ... When the enemy has tanks and powerful armored vehicles, then a powerful gun and ATGM are unaffected .. Aviation will always be present with different UAVs. And what do you order to do the tank, to become a means of air defense, then we get something similar to the T-35 from the Red Army. The conclusion begs the creation of an inseparable "compartment" of armored vehicles of joint action: each with its own tasks: anti-tank, air defense, anti-tank, etc., and of course, depending on opposing forces and means of the enemy. As long as we have tanks, BMPs, air defense systems, and all the other weapons separately, it’s difficult to achieve complete coordination in battle with such a range of subordination ... Therefore, it is impossible to hang all the functions on one unit of armored vehicles, because universality always reduces the effectiveness of each individual component, and in hostilities, the slightest indulgence threatens disaster. Some notes: it’s possible to deal with low-altitude UAVs with firing and shrapnel charges of the main gun, of course, “having a chance” on such possibilities ....
    3. tchoni
      tchoni 15 May 2018 17: 42
      0
      Then change the staff, my friend, in the armored forces
    4. svp67
      svp67 15 May 2018 18: 33
      +2
      Quote: igorka357
      The answer is clear.

      YES. Military equipment that has an uninhabited fighting compartment that does not allow, if necessary, to eliminate the malfunctions that occur on the spot, must have additional weapons.
      Quote: igorka357
      What is the vain "Terminators" sculpt?

      You can't send a Terminator for every tank ...
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 15 May 2018 18: 50
        +4
        There’s no one behind each, but a tank platoon supported by a “terminator” and an infantry platoon .. will be capable of a lot of things! The Syrians won’t cover our tanks with “Shilochki” .. You look at battles! A couple of tanks plus “Shilka” are a terrible force .. Yes, I myself have seen more than once .. as a building from bricks to dust crumbles from four trunks of 23 mm!
        1. svp67
          svp67 15 May 2018 19: 03
          +1
          Quote: igorka357
          A pair of tanks plus "Shilka" is a terrible force ..

          Nevertheless, this does not eliminate the need to have additional weapons on a tank with an uninhabited fighting compartment
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 45
            +3
            Why Sergey? How much effort and money it will take! There are Shilka, there are Terminators .. there is military air defense. There are platoons of tank support .. well, this is nonsense .. a waste of time and money!
            1. Alf
              Alf 15 May 2018 21: 47
              +2
              Quote: igorka357
              Why Sergey? How much effort and money it will take! There are Shilka, there are Terminators .. there is military air defense. There are platoons of tank support .. well, this is nonsense .. a waste of time and money!

              Then tanks and machine guns are not needed, but motorized infantry and infantry fighting vehicles also have them.
            2. the most important
              the most important 15 May 2018 23: 00
              +6
              Quote: igorka357
              How much effort and money it will take! There are "Shilki", there are "Terminators" .. there is military air defense. There are platoon support tanks.

              Do you think that all of the above is cheaper than one 30 mm gun? The second gun on the tanks will be! This saves ammunition of the main caliber and is very effective in the presence of targets not protected by thick armor. The second gun will become even more relevant in the case of the transition of Almaty to a larger hummingbird, and this is quite realistic.
            3. svp67
              svp67 16 May 2018 05: 54
              +3
              Quote: igorka357
              There are "Shilka", there are "Terminators"

              There are no Shiloks, but there are no Terminators, and it is not clear how many there will be. I repeat once again for which an additional 30 mm gun is needed. All in the absence of people in the fighting compartment and in case of failures, as well as the use of ammunition for the main gun, the tank becomes unarmed. I have always been an opponent of such an armament scheme, but the T-14 scheme fundamentally changes everything. With the correct location of weapons and the possibility of duplication, the fire from the main and additional guns can be fired separately by the commander and gunner, which will make this tank more "toothy" and here it’s like in the proverb that “you won’t spoil the porridge with butter”
            4. Per se.
              Per se. 16 May 2018 07: 19
              +5
              Quote: igorka357
              Well, nonsense is .. a waste of time and money!
              Allow me, Igor, to disagree with you here. The reserves for increasing the power of existing tank guns of caliber 125 mm (in Russia) and 120 mm (in the West) are practically exhausted, therefore, in fact, work was started on the same 195 object (T-95), with the aim of installing 152 caliber guns on a tank mm This, of course, led to some reduction in the stock of ammunition (ammunition was 36-40 shots, types of ammunition: BPS, OFS, KUV). Here, the 30-2 42-millimeter cannon, which could be used as an alternative to the over-expenditure of the main ammunition, came in handy, the gun was mounted in the combat module with the 152-mm gun. At the same time, the automatic gun had its pointing drives, both vertically and partially horizontally, that is, in a certain sector the gun could be used independently. Installation on the T-14 152 mm cannon is only a matter of time, therefore, in addition to supporting BMPT, a heavy machine like the T-14 needs auxiliary armament. For clarity, photos and projections of the T-95 (195 object), where the 30 mm gun is visible on the tower, on its left side.
              1. svp67
                svp67 16 May 2018 12: 48
                +1
                Quote: Per se.
                The installation of a 14 mm gun on the T-152 is only a matter of time, therefore, in addition to supporting the BMPT, such a heavy machine as the T-14, auxiliary weapons will still be required.

                There is no doubt whatsoever, even with the current 125 mm cannon. By the way, the cannon can be placed in the likeness of how it was done at the Russian-Ukrainian NOTA
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 21 May 2018 10: 41
                  +1
                  Perhaps Sergey, T-14 will be a transitional model, and the final version will be a fusion of all the best from an 195 object, an 477 object, and, T-14. Although the object 195 (T-95) and T-14 are much closer machines than the Kharkiv development, which is also different in its more compact dimensions. The figure shows it (albeit, the 477 object is designated as "447A").
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 21 May 2018 11: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Perhaps Sergey, the T-14 will be a transitional model, and the final version will be an alloy of the best of object 195, object 477, and, T-14

                    It would be very desirable.
            5. gorets50
              gorets50 13 June 2018 06: 39
              0
              Shilka - this is the last century. At the training ground, one or two barrels wedged. And what about the military situation? One splinter in the hose or casing and there is no fire. One incendiary bullet in the forehead \ 400 liters of solarium \ and there is no Shilka with the crew.
        2. gorets50
          gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 15
          +2
          And Shilochka herself from a 30 mm shell turns into a column of smoke and flame. And please do not mind - I know.
        3. gorets50
          gorets50 13 June 2018 06: 45
          0
          Shilka is enough for one fragment - armor .... 10 mm.
    5. Piramidon
      Piramidon 15 May 2018 21: 41
      +1
      Quote: igorka357
      What is the vain "Terminators" sculpt?

      How much does the Terminator cost and how much is a 30mm gun? Feel the difference.
    6. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 15 May 2018 22: 49
      0
      Quote: igorka357
      and the field kitchen to the tower,

      Well, why then immediately to the tower, MTO in vain whether to stand idle, and the exhaust pipe, with the proper skill under the can, can be modified;)
    7. Dam
      Dam 16 May 2018 15: 47
      0
      And take another arrow to the staff, and then put it on the rails. Best the enemy of the good. But I am for a hookah and an extra bed!
    8. max702
      max702 17 May 2018 10: 28
      0
      And why not put the "Age" module on the tower on Armata? Let the commander observe the battlefield through him .. What's the difference that he will look through the panorama of the monitoring device or through the panorama of the module .. All this will of itself be coupled with the main armament with the ability to give target designation, and at the same time it will be able to independently destroy arising threats .. In Syria, by the way, in the video tanks were very often hit at the time of reloading and auxiliary weapons were clearly not enough to stop this ...
  2. Ivan Tarava
    Ivan Tarava 15 May 2018 14: 55
    +8


    T-72 Moderna (Slovakia)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 May 2018 15: 00
      +5
      So it was better to make a machine gun 12,7 and AGS 30 - an excellent spark against the infantry.
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 15 May 2018 15: 05
        +9
        It will not be better for a tank against infantry than infantry itself. 12.7 yes..in the module, the AGS is nonsense .. The machine gun on the tank is effective only when the tank has just entered the city .. then all sights and sensors are clogged with the shooting gun ..
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 15 May 2018 15: 13
          +5
          Small-caliber cannons, paired with the main ones, were installed only on the Leclercs - it did not take root. And on the tower, there’s no point in bogging up such a shafting. All bridges will be - Gazelle will not pass. bully
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 15 May 2018 16: 51
            +3
            Quote: Alex777
            Small-caliber cannons, paired with the main ones, were set only at Leclerc - not

            Not only ! "Read" about the tank AMX-30 ... (105-mm + 20-mm ...)
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 15 May 2018 18: 36
            +1
            Those who build such bridges and approve should be sent back for demolition and forced to build normal ones at their own expense.
          3. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 15 May 2018 22: 48
            0
            Quote: Alex777
            All bridges will be - Gazelle will not pass.

            today 149 caught;)
          4. gorets50
            gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 21
            0
            Well, don’t say. 30 mm on the left. 4 universal missiles on the right are beauty.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 15 May 2018 16: 19
          0
          But the ammunition of the gun must be protected, especially in urban conditions - the AGS will be what is needed against the infantry.
          1. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 15 May 2018 22: 53
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            But the ammunition of the gun must be protected, especially in urban conditions - the AGS will be what is needed against the infantry.

            urban conditions are also different
            with a total meat grinder as in Syria, the most effective in general will be a self-propelled armored 250kg bomb
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 15 May 2018 23: 39
              0
              No, under such conditions, the most effective systems are the Tulip and Serpent Horus mortars.
              1. prosto_rgb
                prosto_rgb 19 May 2018 23: 15
                0
                from an existing one - yes
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 15 May 2018 16: 10
      +7
      But previously a picture of a promising tank flickered ...

      1. Ivan Tarava
        Ivan Tarava 15 May 2018 16: 13
        +2
        Yes, it's just the same Merkava.
      2. just exp
        just exp 15 May 2018 17: 15
        +4
        Yes, and I like this tank more than armata.
        To be honest, I also like the T-90 more than the armata.
        I’d better do the T-90 and steel for Almaty and fasten Afghan on it
        1. Sergey ippon
          Sergey ippon 15 May 2018 18: 49
          0
          me too, squat silhouette.
          T14 on Abrams looks a bit like.
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 15 May 2018 19: 59
          0
          Quote: just explo
          I’d better do the T-90 and steel for Almaty and fasten Afghan on it

          And where would you hook it there, dear, with all its devices?
          Quote: just explo
          Yes, and I like this tank more than armata.

          Quote: Sergey Ippon
          me too, squat silhouette.
          T14 on Abrams looks a bit like.

          Dear, the fact that you do not like the T-14 externally does not get any worse, it’s military equipment, not a supercar, where design is of great importance, a military vehicle may look at least like a bunch of manure, forgive me, but if it is good at the same time fulfills its tasks, then this is a "beautiful" technique.
          1. just exp
            just exp 16 May 2018 09: 51
            0
            in T-14 I still don’t like the hefty size, which if you take into account that the weight is up to 50 tons, this means that the amount of iron (that is, thickness) per square unit of surface in armata is less. that is, the armor is thinner. and no need to sing about multilayer. if there is such an effective multi-layer, then it can also be put on the T-90, and taking into account that the same multi-layer will only be even thicker, the booking level will be higher.
            and I don’t like that there is almost no armor on the tower. the gun is poorly protected even from small-caliber artillery (here I can be wrong and I will be glad if I was wrong).
            Threat afghanit can also be hung on an armored personnel carrier. this is not a very healthy system (and yes, I am aware that the problem is not in weight, but all the elements of afghanite can be put on another BTT).
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 16 May 2018 21: 58
              0
              Hmm, comrade - they haven’t heard about composites ... And what about putting on the T-90 - this will already be a new machine in the old form factor, and they won’t do it. Speak small weight with large dimensions? So it’s because of the same composites plus a very small tower, over there - the abrams block 3 of the experimental one removed its huge tower, so immediately grab more than 20 tons by weight ...
              Well, the size - for the most part they don’t care about modern weapons - will fall into a pancake and a matchbox, so the squat silhouette is not the most important thing now.

              Well, what about the "weak" armor of the tower was generally amused - measured by the photo, like Allan Chumak?
              Well, and about Afghanite - you have no idea. why couldn’t we put all these arenas and blackbirds on our old equipment?
              1. just exp
                just exp 17 May 2018 08: 54
                0
                mdya, it’s hard for some to be given the Russian language that they haven’t dopped what is it that I meant when I wrote
                if there is such an effective multilayer, then it can also be put on the T-90 and taking into account that there will be the same multilayer only even thicker, then the booking level will be higher.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 17 May 2018 19: 50
                  0
                  Namely - the Russian language is hard for some. if you still do not understand what I answered you:
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  And with regards to the T-90, it’s already a new machine that will be de facto in the old form factor, and they won’t do this.

                  And read your text carefully:
                  Quote: just explo
                  and given that there will be the same multi-layer only even thicker

                  And why will it be thicker there? I repeat - the T-90 with composite armor ala armata wherever it is possible to have a new tank, but there are still a bunch of nuances - the protection of the upper hemisphere will be the same as cardboard, the decollete zone will not go anywhere, the mine protection will remain at the same level. .. And yes - "the booking level will be higher" (tm) laughing
        3. gorets50
          gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 26
          0
          Only with an uninhabited tower and the engine in front. And the crew behind in the armored capsule \ 2 people \.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 16 May 2018 21: 59
            0
            Quote: gorets50
            Only with an uninhabited tower and the engine in front. And the crew behind in the armored capsule \ 2 people \.


            And also a plasma gun and a deflector shield!
  3. ANCIENT
    ANCIENT 15 May 2018 15: 11
    +8
    You can put five guns on the tank. But, it is better to have one specialized ammunition of the Terminator type, with its weapons, such a range of tasks is just for me!
  4. fireman sun
    fireman sun 15 May 2018 15: 17
    +5
    the article is really not very correct, there are already terminators for supporting tanks, the main thing is to correctly position the forces
  5. Topotun
    Topotun 15 May 2018 15: 20
    +6
    And what, for the destruction of an armored personnel carrier, for example, the KPVT machine gun is not enough? Or DShK? Like a fish needs a bicycle? Can then add at least 57 mm gun? For reliability?
    1. novel66
      novel66 15 May 2018 15: 39
      +10
      there is nothing new under the sun...
      1. BAI
        BAI 15 May 2018 17: 08
        +2
        And not only the Germans.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 15 May 2018 17: 20
          0
          Here + a lot by the way, the Idea is not new at all and arises with enviable constancy. And this means that it has its own rational link. The HF tank, for example, was also initially powered with two guns in the same tower. Also remember the pair of guns on the BMP-3.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 15 May 2018 20: 02
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            The HF tank, for example, was also initially powered with two guns in the same tower.

            Then they gladly refused it, because “in the field” it showed its complete failure.
            They say correctly - it is better to have a pair of tanks with the support of a pair of terminators. than four miracles hung with all kinds of trunks, such units only look and work in video games ...
            1. Alf
              Alf 15 May 2018 21: 50
              0
              Quote: Albert1988
              Quote: alexmach
              The HF tank, for example, was also initially powered with two guns in the same tower.

              Then they gladly refused it, because “in the field” it showed its complete failure.

              And where were such HF used, in which field? Please clarify.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 15 May 2018 23: 26
                +1
                On tests it turned out that using this is not very realistic, but in modern tanks with loading mechanisms, this should not be a problem.
            2. alexmach
              alexmach 15 May 2018 23: 24
              +1
              Then they gladly refused it, because “in the field” it showed its complete failure.

              But the BMP-3 seems to be nothing like that.
              They say correctly - it is better to have a pair of tanks with the support of a pair of terminators.

              Maybe yes, in any case, the Second World War and post-war tactics come from this, but a couple of tanks and a couple of terminators need to be managed, coordinated, they must work together ... it's not an easy task ...
              Although you are probably right, interaction and coordination are needed in any case.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 16 May 2018 21: 40
                0
                Quote: alexmach
                But the BMP-3 seems to be nothing like that.

                The BMP-3 has its own specifics and its problems, too, yet it is not in vain that its derivation is recognized as more promising than with the classic melon.
                Quote: alexmach
                Maybe yes, in any case, the Second World War and post-war tactics come from this, but a couple of tanks and a couple of terminators need to be managed, coordinated, they must work together ... it's not an easy task ...
                Although you are probably right, interaction and coordination are needed in any case.

                Well, the crew of the tank will have to steer with all these weapons, which will not be easy, and modern means of communication will make it possible to coordinate these tanks and terminators very well.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 16 May 2018 22: 08
                  0
                  The BMP-3 has its own specifics and its problems, too, yet it is not in vain that its derivation is recognized as more promising than with the classic melon.

                  Well, he is now more promising, maybe. At the time of creation it was like a bomb.

                  Well, the tank crew will have to steer with all these weapons, which will not be quite simple

                  Well, the BMP-3’s navigator is somehow controlled with two guns? The tank crew also copes with the commander's machine gun. Why is a 30mm gun worse?
                2. max702
                  max702 17 May 2018 10: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  nevertheless, it’s not in vain that its variation “derivation” is recognized as more promising than with the classic “melon”.

                  It only seems to be UVZ promising because at the development stage the BMP-3 turned out to be from 57mm since no fish is not meat ...
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 19 May 2018 17: 17
                    0
                    Quote: max702
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    nevertheless, it’s not in vain that its variation “derivation” is recognized as more promising than with the classic “melon”.

                    It only seems to be UVZ promising because at the development stage the BMP-3 turned out to be from 57mm since no fish is not meat ...

                    Then maybe - yes, but with modern shells a very convenient caliber.
            3. gorets50
              gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 32
              0
              Of course. Especially. When there was only one tank left in the field. By the way, 1 or even 2 trunks can get up in the trunk from pericos ...
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 15 May 2018 20: 00
          0
          Quote: BAI
          And not only the Germans.

          Well, that’s how the first picture also shows the Soviet “notion” - the VL heavyweight tank - “Vladimir Lenin”))
    2. Sergey ippon
      Sergey ippon 15 May 2018 18: 46
      0
      CPV is enough for the eyes)
  6. Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 15 May 2018 15: 20
    +2
    It makes no sense to mold a 72 mm cannon on T30 tanks and modifications, but if it goes to the T14 series, then on a 30 mm turret together with Cord it’s necessary
    1. Sergey ippon
      Sergey ippon 15 May 2018 18: 47
      0
      just cord - better KPVT, 30 ka too little - there is a main trunk.
      1. gorets50
        gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 35
        0
        On armored personnel carriers in different places you will beat from a gun.
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 18: 53
      0
      30 mm, also "Cord" .. so why the heck then the trunk of the tank is the main ... wink ?
  7. Micfoster
    Micfoster 15 May 2018 15: 23
    +5
    It seems that the author does not understand the purpose of the tank and what is its essence. Hence these suggestions.
    1. novel66
      novel66 15 May 2018 15: 40
      +1
      what is there to understand - go to parades!
  8. RL
    RL 15 May 2018 15: 25
    +12
    There were many experimental research projects and developments. But! The conclusions were as follows - in a combat situation both in the field and in the village, it is necessary to increase the number of crews for servicing (monitoring the situation and firing) additional weapons. This brought with it an increase in the “living” space for the crew and the space for accommodating additional weapons controls, especially if the additional weapons worked independently of the main one (horizontal and vertical direction)
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 15 May 2018 17: 23
      +1
      +1, by the way, the first version of the terminator had as many as 5 crew members.
      1. Rader
        Rader 15 May 2018 19: 45
        0
        Quote: alexmach
        +1, by the way, the first version of the terminator had as many as 5 crew members.

        So it’s like that, but ... Let's start from the end, the crew on the first BMPT was unreasonably increased by pushing two AGSs, and of course ... No, the idea is very good, for the commercial year 1943. In this form, though directly to the front of the Great Patriotic War. The only thing these two people had to do was look at the world around them through triplex and water this world from the ACS.
        If we talk about research studies to increase the crew, I have to say that these surveys were conducted not today and not yesterday. Nowadays, by software (namely, BIOs with IN elements), it is possible to significantly facilitate the work of the commander and gunner in detecting, classifying and hitting a target.
        Of course, when repairing a car (say, a caterpillar is torn) four people (having a loader) will look better than three, but is it worth it to increase the crew artificially for this?
    2. gorets50
      gorets50 16 May 2018 07: 42
      0
      It was a long time ago. Now it’s in an armored capsule .. they’re planting ... the complex is full of sensors. In the case of exhaustion of the BC or loss of all sensors, the tank returns there. From where it was sent to the attack.
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 15 May 2018 15: 38
    +1
    A promising tank can be made two-tier and carry a couple of calibers on the second truck.
    Or daggers, if these are tank units of coastal defense.
  10. Hog
    Hog 15 May 2018 15: 45
    +4
    There is another example, the 195 Object, also known as T-95. In addition to the 152-mm guns, the 30-mm gun mount was also mounted on it.

    For 195th, 30k was added due to the fact that the ammunition load of 152k is less than 125k and it is not advisable to spend its shells on small targets.
    1. Sergey ippon
      Sergey ippon 15 May 2018 18: 49
      0
      here, as it were, for the same purpose, to increase efficiency.
  11. vindigo
    vindigo 15 May 2018 15: 48
    +5
    Straight tank "Bolo" from the "Bolo Brigade". These super-tanks were able to shoot at spaceships. "Hellbor fires sing along to continuous fire systems!"
  12. cats
    cats 15 May 2018 15: 53
    +2
    You can attach a couple of beech trees to the tower and a torpedo on the trailer ..
    And then ... suddenly he’ll go by the water ..
  13. Tektor
    Tektor 15 May 2018 16: 08
    +1
    The 40 mm Balkan grenade launcher as anti-aircraft anti-Javelin / Spike including is much more useful and multi-functional. There are grenades with detonation at a distance / distance, and the barrel is not so long and more durable (when passing obstacles, such as a brick wall / wooden house. It can conduct mounted fire from a hidden position and against the enemy’s latent terrain.
  14. beeper
    beeper 15 May 2018 16: 11
    +2
    In the title picture, the "sixty-four" base is the same as an example?
    What exactly is a 30mm gun? Indeed, for the listed additional goals, a 14,5mm machine gun is enough, the whole installation will weigh less than two times — the LMS mechanisms have less load, guidance is faster and more accurate, all the same, the moment of inertia of the machine gun installation and the turret as a whole is much less, like recoil when shooting ?! Again, b / c to him, with the same total weight, you can take more ?! To destroy light armored vehicles, sub-caliber ammunition should be developed in a caliber of 14,5 mm.
    Of course, we should already have come up with something better than the KPVT, but for the first time it will also work out so that there are no “gaps” in armament.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 15 May 2018 16: 58
      +3
      Quote: pishchak
      In the title picture, the “sixty-four” base is

      By the way, about the "sixty-fours" .... On the next "experimental model" the Ukrainians put on the tower a combat module with an 23-mm gun ...
    2. Morglenn
      Morglenn 15 May 2018 18: 49
      +2
      By the way, I also thought: why do not they put KPVT tanks as anti-aircraft guns on tanks? And powerful enough, and compact and ammunition can be taken more than with a small-caliber cannon. Comrade Vladimirov would be modernized, lightened there, a little resource added to the barrel, to bring in new armor-piercing ammunition, and it will be what the doctor ordered!
      ZY: in the title picture, the T-74 layout, if I'm not mistaken
      1. beeper
        beeper 15 May 2018 22: 15
        +3
        The Soviet HCBTM (and, by inertia, a few more years of “independence”) had a lot of search projects, which of them is “T-74” —It’s unknown, and it’s not particularly interesting, since the Kharkov Design Bureau died, the continuity is gone, there was only terry amateurism, exploiting more Soviet achievements. IMHO.
        The 14,5mm caliber is powerful enough and has not yet fully exhausted itself, but the KPVT asks, cries to be replaced by a more reliable, heap-shooting and not so dangerous in operation, possibly based on automation with the removal of powder gases and with the selective supply of ammunition .. .
        30mm autocannon on the tank turret is too much! yes Apparently, those who offer this do not quite imagine how it all works in combination, how it affects the characteristics of the OMS and turret drives, the mobility of tanks ... movement, at least along forest clearing, under low overhanging tree branches. ..
        Not only that, the tank’s cannon and look where the thread sticks in, it’s also such a 30mm long caliber “driin” on top of the tower that will hang in all directions and cling to everything in a row ... IMHO.
        hi
  15. Kerensky
    Kerensky 15 May 2018 16: 11
    0
    Add an insert to the barrel of the main gun. We had systems in the bunkers when the machine gun shot through the barrel of the gun. Think Designers!
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 15 May 2018 18: 17
      +5
      Quote: Kerensky
      Add an insert to the barrel of the main gun. We had systems in the bunkers when the machine gun shot through the barrel of the gun. Think Designers!

      The designers have already come up with everything. Insertion barrel 23 mm. have long been on all tanks. You are late with the idea laughing drinks
      1. Kerensky
        Kerensky 15 May 2018 18: 25
        0
        Insertion barrel 23 mm. have long been on all tanks. You are late with the idea

        Well, then you need to make it quick-extract, so as not to interfere with peeling with regular shells, missiles.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 15 May 2018 20: 01
          +4
          Quote: Kerensky
          Insertion barrel 23 mm. have long been on all tanks. You are late with the idea

          Well, then you need to make it quick-extract, so as not to interfere with peeling with regular shells, missiles.

          To remove / put the stem itself is not a problem, but each time to disassemble the partition. Well I do not know laughing Maybe it's easier to stick the second gun? Under the conditions, koi remembered before drinks
      2. Bad thing
        Bad thing 15 May 2018 23: 08
        +1
        For 125 mm insert 14.5, 23 mm for 100-115 mm. ballistics similar for carrying out training firing. But each time when you shoot, you need to reconcile .. and this thing shoots only single. KPVT can’t be put there, there is no place, from the word at all.
  16. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 15 May 2018 16: 26
    +3
    Rave. For this automatic gun, a separate crew member will be needed, as a result of which it will be necessary to increase the internal volume of the tank, and this entails an increase in the dimensions of the tank and mass. If you put something else, it is better to put a 14,5-mm machine gun, built with a gun and a 7,62 machine gun. Although I think that nothing extra needs to be put. Soviet tanks T-10 put KPVT, but experience has shown that it is not needed.
  17. pepel79
    pepel79 15 May 2018 16: 32
    0
    They started talking over ... if the author’s opinion does not coincide with yours, this does not mean that it makes no sense .. From the moment the tank commander detects the target, and until the main gun is aimed at the target, it can take (by the standards of battle) a sufficiently long period with the ensuing consequences ... this div ice will allow you to immediately open fire, and a caliber above 12,7 mm., will expand the objects of destruction (high penetration, high-explosive action), and its number of storeys ... this fact will not replace the "Terminators", but will only complement the firepower of the entire unit ... why just have a couple of eyes free, if you can embed ... mattresses, the same UAV used to be a scout, but now ... Yes, and you can’t attach BMPTs to each tank ... so that healthy criticism and the cries of the victim, this is not the same ... express criticism justify as well ... wassat
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 18: 59
      +1
      Firstly, Boris, they justified it above, secondly, it’s not a div ice, but a device .. and not really .. and it’s deprived !!! It seems that only you crowed!
      1. The comment was deleted.
  18. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 15 May 2018 16: 32
    0
    T-14 can be equipped with any type of small arms, all as necessary ...
  19. net0103net
    net0103net 15 May 2018 16: 44
    +2
    In order for tank-dangerous objects and subjects not only to be destroyed, but not even to understand how they died. Armata is an expensive high-performance tank, shots from its guns are therefore also very expensive. So that shooting at frogs from the swamp was not carried out by the main caliber, a gun was installed. This is also an anti-aircraft tool, more effective than a machine gun, I think it’s far from always necessary to manually aim this auxiliary caliber. An automatic gun will destroy the infantry faster than a machine gun, because it is possible to use fragmentation shells. Such a picture looms.
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 00
      0
      Automatic guidance systems, recognition of friend or foe, is this gun? Or will a little man cram into a tank?
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 15 May 2018 22: 53
        0
        I agree with all your comments! Many simply did not see what all these external sensors and observation devices after a massive shelling from the rifleman turn into. In the village, the eyes and ears of BTT are infantry attached to them.
        1. net0103net
          net0103net 15 May 2018 23: 13
          0
          About infantry - this is very correctly noticed, and so it will remain. But in the infantry comes the time of Warrior-3. If you are an engineer, you will understand how everything will now be. You’ll also understand why, instead of making Armat, it’s more profitable to modernize older equipment - this is directly related to the fact that infantry is the eyes of the tank.
      2. net0103net
        net0103net 15 May 2018 23: 08
        0
        Though he understood that he wrote something. Watch the movie about Armata - you’ll figure it out yourself.
  20. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 15 May 2018 16: 58
    +3
    Quote: igorka357
    The answer is unequivocal .. NO! What are the “Terminators” doing in vain? You still need to stick air defense on the tank, but how can you ... use aviation to cover it, and the field kitchen on the tower, otherwise you don’t have a tank ... , that’s an infection .. it requires and demands! Give the Optimus Prime tank and the Death Star in one tank ... Such a crazy article in fact ...))), damn it, but what about the ammunition set ... you have to attach a container with ammunition to the tank , just to myself .. replenished myself ..)))


    So I imagine a locksmith, of any profile, he came on call, and he has one screwdriver, or a hammer, well, okay, a screwdriver and a hammer! Your reaction Eyebrows bend in such an arc that no Su-57 will repeat! A verbal set, in general, is under a three-time ban! And what is a tank more primitive than a locksmith? Can handle one sledgehammer or a rasp? I just do not have decent words when you need to evaluate a sofa expert! The terminator therefore appeared because tank builders themselves feel the lack of tools on their products! These are individual maximalist warriors who believe that guns with a machine gun are enough for the eyes! Something, like, stubbornness and at the same time stupidity of the French and English “commanders” in the 30st MV, demanding to run in frontal attacks with a dense formation on the German machine guns of their subordinates! And life dictates its own rules! Already what types of extra armor were not hung on the tanks (?), But you could be content with one armor too! But it’s obvious and completely dumb, it won’t survive! But the tools as they were from the time of the Tsar-Gorkha, so use them, dear ones! Nothing for you pity! But even a mechanical drive could take part in the defense of the tank in its own plane, only the drive buttons on the helm or the levers! And the commander would not be hindered by his own fire group from the KKP, XNUMX-mm gun and automatic grenade launcher! So the Terminator is part of an unfinished tank!
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 07
      +3
      The Siberian chieftain, as I understand it ... well read the chieftain using MBT .. and then write a lot of beech, in your case you look like a complete ignoramus! The tank is made for certain purposes, and in the city without the support of infantry .. it is doomed, even though you him 23 caliber sticky, at least 30 .. even four on different sides .. Did you even sit in the tank after a shot .. or for example when you caught PGshku forehead ... what the hell is the enemy infantry around and watching her .. ears and sparks from the eyes .. and soot in the car you can’t even imagine how much, it’s not clear .. whether we’re burning or hell knows what ... you’re working only on the machine, adrenaline and recklessness! Don’t drive the snowman ataman! You at least talk with fuel oil!
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 48
      +2
      Ah ha ha ... multi-helm mech ... laughing
    3. Bad thing
      Bad thing 15 May 2018 23: 28
      +1
      Ataman, what are you smoking? WOT or AW? The tank alone is at war among fools, but not for long. 12.7 in a closed installation is enough. And in the fight against anti-tank weapons, the main thing is their timely detection. And who will score this grenade launcher, the tank itself, BMP (BTR) or foot soldiers is no longer important. Now about air defense. What are the range of application of aircraft PTS (Hellfire) - up to 8 km and the latest modifications to 11. What for this case to fasten to the tank?
  21. ARES623
    ARES623 15 May 2018 17: 36
    +1
    We need a tank, not Mur and Merilis.
    I.V. Stalin
    The history of the use of multi-turret tanks showed the correctness of the IVS. To protect tanks from tank infantry, today they are trying to introduce BMPT. Only this BMPT should have special means of reconnaissance of targets against ATGM optical sights. Well, and, of course, it is necessary to eliminate the eternal lack of tactical forces — the poor interaction of the combat arms and units.
  22. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 15 May 2018 17: 42
    +6
    In MBT and Nafik do not need an additional 30-mm gun. It remains to stick an atomic engine to fly into space and the ability to dive into the water for 6000 m.
  23. John22
    John22 15 May 2018 18: 06
    +1
    Do not break your spears because of this offer. The thought is somewhat robust. But we have all the offers long-lived, in the sense of implementation. After Chechnya and Syria, it took more than 20 years for the Ministry of Defense to realize the need for BMPT. Thank God. They began to produce after tests in Syria. Now it takes another 20 years to saturate platoons and companies. The same Syria and the fighting in the Donbass showed the need for DUPU on the tank. But only on new tanks and tanks for exhibitions are they, and for Linear tanks - this is an unattainable dream. First of all, one should think about the life of a soldier, but they save money with us. But you also have to pay for the deceased.
    1. beeper
      beeper 15 May 2018 21: 45
      +1
      You don’t have to pay for the deceased, you can write to your relatives “missing” and let them think that they want, even if they have been waiting for them from the war for decades, hope and believe ?! request
      I recalled the “sixty-four” ZPU with DU when my heart was bleeding, looking at the consequences of the dashing “New Year’s assault” ... but Tagil and Leningrad copywriters didn’t have “their own vision” of tank battle, they had more than real human lives ?!
  24. demiurg
    demiurg 15 May 2018 18: 07
    +2
    If additional weapons are introduced into the tank, then someone must control these weapons. And this is either another crew member, or the distraction of the tank commander from his main duties. If you really need, there is a turret with a cord. 12.7 is a very strong caliber, enough for anything.
    Couchy opinion that someone makes the wrong conclusions. The fact that there are not enough eyes and means of destruction on the battlefield does not mean that it needs to be pushed into the tank. There is also a BMP on the battlefield. There are infantry and artillery.
    So, here is my most divine opinion. Instead of pushing another shot into the tank, or driving out an incomprehensible BMPT on the battlefield, you need to organize the transfer of target coordinates between existing forces. Means of destruction are enough now, there are no goals. Network centric, tudy her in a swing.
    And if the Syrian army, even in elite units, can not afford it, then we can slowly introduce it at home.
    The battalion advances on a section of 1-1.5-2 km, which is 30 infantry fighting vehicles, 10 of their tanks and how much will be attached. Division of 120mm mortars. Three AGS platoons. And this is without the forces of a regiment / brigade / division, and without aviation. Means of destruction are enough. Thirty on the towers are needed like a dog's fifth leg. Need more "eyes."
    Of course I borschanul with the artillery of the battalion, but I will not correct it.
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 11
      +2
      Valery .. the last paragraph about the battalion is coming, forget it ... there won’t be such a war ...! Last time it was in the 41st!
  25. Doliva63
    Doliva63 15 May 2018 18: 27
    +5
    "Do Russian tanks need an extra 30 mm cannon?"
    If it does not greatly affect the dimensions and will shoot “through” the radar, then it will be very useful. At the same time, you can send away UVZ with its Terminators - why the hell do you need extra cars in battle formations?
    1. Zubr
      Zubr 15 May 2018 19: 19
      +1
      I heard about the BMPT during the union, it was very much awaited then in the army.
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 15 May 2018 20: 10
        +6
        Quote: Zubr
        I heard about the BMPT during the union, it was very much awaited then in the army.

        Who and why were waiting for them? I finished tanking in the 80s, I did not hear any ideas about them. They spoke about a tank with an uninhabited tower, but not about this nonsense. And where to stick it in battle formation - instead of infantry, behind infantry or in front of the "line"? laughing drinks
        It’s horrible how many tankers divorced in the VO - in the Union, probably, there were so many tanks laughing
        1. Zubr
          Zubr 15 May 2018 21: 02
          +1
          I do not agree with you. We were already told in a training manual in 1987 that similarities to today's BMPT are being developed and there were prototypes. And everyone really wanted to see her and try it out. As the saying goes, what I bought.
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 15 May 2018 22: 08
            +6
            So I am not against everything new if it meets the requirements of tactics, but BMPT is a fantasy of shooters. Where do you stick it? You did not answer.
            1. Zubr
              Zubr 15 May 2018 22: 31
              +1
              Where do you stick it? You have not answered.


              Your truth, in an open battle on the plain, she certainly does not belong. Too good a target. And four ATGMs are not a panacea. The only places where I see her use in caponier from an ambush, to support the infantry during the assault on high-rises, they write well showed in urban conditions.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 16 May 2018 01: 02
                +3
                Quote: Zubr
                to support the infantry

                Actually, this is precisely the kind of thought that appears when one “looks” at the BMPT with a recall of the combat use of Shilok, for example, in Syria ... I think that interest in the BMPT is “abroad” (if it really exists ... ) caused precisely by these considerations, infantry support
                1. Doliva63
                  Doliva63 16 May 2018 16: 52
                  +4
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  Quote: Zubr
                  to support the infantry

                  Actually, this is precisely the kind of thought that appears when one “looks” at the BMPT with a recall of the combat use of Shilok, for example, in Syria ... I think that interest in the BMPT is “abroad” (if it really exists ... ) caused precisely by these considerations, infantry support

                  So, either to make an airborne compartment in the BMPT, or add BMP weapons - and all disputes will cease laughing drinks
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 16 May 2018 00: 50
              +3
              Quote: Doliva63
              Where do you stick it?

              Duc .... not only you are "tormented" by this question! Indeed, where is the BMPT in the battle order of a tank unit? request "Pi ... glee" about the, the most important role of BMPT in modern combat, "a lot, but who saw the tactical" calculations "with options for combat formation and use?
      2. beeper
        beeper 15 May 2018 23: 17
        +2
        Under the Union, I have never heard of BMPT like this in tanker circles, even hints!
        There were, at the level of rumors, about the tests, on the “super secret” “eighties” (as we called them “jet breakthrough tanks”) of a system for detecting a laser radiation source and automatic turret turn in its direction, there were rumors about “reactive armor” , trainee trainees from the "advanced" tank schools, secretly said that their diploma thesis would be exactly the layout of the "boxes" on the hull and turret of the tank, but I didn’t see those with "reactive armor" until the collapse of the Union, although it was retrained on the T-64B. yes
        On the “sixty-fours” there were excellent ZVU NSVT with remote control and a telescopic sight, an elevation angle of up to 85 °, shooting from them was carried out with the sunroof closed, from the commander’s place, simple and convenient. And honestly, it was crazy for me to see open turrets on the T-72 and T-80 negative ! On the Kharkov T-80UD there was also a closed turret ZPU good !
        Until the collapse of the USSR, we had absolutely no dreams and expectations of BMPT, and even more so after that! It is in the province itself request , still entirely with combat training T-62 pristine modifications.
        Maybe it was in some "ceremonial" divisions of the Moscow District that there was some "secret knowledge about BMPT" and its "expectation" ?! winked
        hi
        1. Zubr
          Zubr 15 May 2018 23: 48
          +2
          Instead of unnecessary words ... hi
          https://topwar.ru/27164-istoriya-poyavleniya-bmpt
          .html
          1. beeper
            beeper 16 May 2018 00: 46
            +1
            Checked out your zeal and perseverance, comrade Zubr good ! Have you carefully read your link? In the late 80s, at the end of the Union, only the first design studies appeared, known to a very narrow circle of initiates!
            And for us, non-capitalist tankers, even the T-80 remained a secret "terra incognita", which was learned only from private stories of the comrades who served on them! yes I was then assigned the next officer rank, largely for the development of "new technology" in the form of "T-64B" yes but during this retraining did not learn anything about BMPT developments and did not hear (and therefore could not dream of them and wait! yes ).
            I do not deny at all that you could be aware of secret developments, and therefore look forward to their appearance in the army ?! wink
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 16 May 2018 01: 26
          +3
          The “analysis” of the BMPT’s armaments somehow more inspires an idea of ​​the BMPPP (infantry fire support combat vehicle) ... It’s possible. And the BMPP (... assault support ...). As for the tanks .... maybe it’s worth presenting "BMPT in the form of" hypertrophied "(" group ") KAZ or" tank "air defense systems of narrow" specialization "? The main function is to protect tanks from anti-aircraft missiles at long and medium distances? In the "clean field"? Then the question of a small-caliber tank gun would be more appropriate!? Like a "personal" pistol of a "special Nazaz"!
  26. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 15 May 2018 19: 08
    0
    my opinion is, the tank is where you need to destroy, and to shoot to crumble is the lot of bmp and armored personnel carriers, and to set the tank against the little things, it's like shooting a sparrow from a cannon
  27. Zubr
    Zubr 15 May 2018 19: 16
    +1
    It will make the tank heavier, it will have to expand the fighting compartment. Well, we already have experience with the BMP-3. I have nothing against this design, but if you put such a module, it needs to be made autonomous in control, regardless of the main gun and all-aspect. It will be possible for the commander not to take control of the main tower on himself and let the operator work.
    1. Kerensky
      Kerensky 15 May 2018 19: 26
      +2
      if you put such a module, it needs to be made autonomous in control, regardless of the main gun and all-aspect.

      And this is again a multi-story armament.
      The body of the gun itself, its drive, ammunition, protection of all this ....
      Then it’s easier to increase the regular BC. Well, so as not to feel sorry for the missile target ....
  28. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 15 May 2018 20: 24
    +2
    Yes, let it be so right away.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 May 2018 23: 40
      0
      This car is not enough reservation.
      1. Incvizitor
        Incvizitor 16 May 2018 01: 02
        0
        It will not help her, or artillery or aircraft will cover it anyway. laughing
  29. Old26
    Old26 16 May 2018 00: 04
    +1
    Quote: igorka357
    What is the vain "Terminators" sculpt?

    Actually in vain. The history of the "Terminator" has been around for 30 years, it began with an attempt to create a "mountain tank" after Afghanistan. But here's how to embed this "Terminator" in the existing staffing structure of the troops. In a tank company they do not need nafig. In a motorized rifle - even more so. In principle, this machine could have been dispensed with if the commanders acted as they were taught. And they did not throw tanks into battle, as they had in Grozny. When the street is not cleared, the firing points of the enemy are not suppressed. But a 30 mm tank would have played this role of “support”. By the way, either the Poles or the Czechs equipped the T-72 with a pair of 30-mm guns ..
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 16 May 2018 16: 55
      +4
      Absolutely sober! drinks
  30. Konatantin 1992
    Konatantin 1992 16 May 2018 05: 05
    +1
    A 23-30 mm caliber gun is clearly needed to combat lightly armored targets and manpower. On the modern battlefield, tanks do not always accompany BMPTs and infantry (recent conflicts are the example of the large losses of tanks in Syria, the loss of M 60 and Leo 4 Turkish in Syria). But when you recall the absence of a remotely controlled machine gun installation on the T72 B3 tanks (the most massive in the Russian troops, which will have to fight), you just feel sad, on the same T 64 B there was a remotely controlled NSVT.
    1. Vadim Kurbatov
      Vadim Kurbatov 16 May 2018 08: 10
      0
      the main losses of these tanks occurred due to the use of ptura
  31. kordon332
    kordon332 16 May 2018 06: 27
    +1
    They like multi-towered tanks in Russia, you don’t have Stalin, and there’s no doubt that the second tower will appear. installation of 30 mm is simpler and easier than that on the BTR-82A does not work, and this is a serious design and weight and dimensions. Moreover, the combat effectiveness of this tower will be extremely low, because the commander has enough tasks, and so, he either shoots tank dangerous personnel from a cannon, abandoning commanding the tank, which is not permissible, or a 30-mm turret will bother as an unnecessary decoration.
  32. Bacha
    Bacha 16 May 2018 09: 51
    0
    Quote: JD1979
    Another expertus divus ... How many BMPTs have you already done? By your logic, the tank and the main gun are not needed. After all, there is a bunch of artillery and other means of destruction of armored vehicles. Something small-caliber is simply asking for a T-14 tower. Given the presence of a radar from the remote control module using good software, you can make candy. And if you are in a “tank” then I remind you that currently in the USA and in China, the tactics of using swarms of small drones as carriers of weapons and the quality of kamikazes is being actively developed. The lack of an extra barrel working through the air at a distance of 3-4 km is not superfluous.

    Shrapnel over them, shrapnel !!!
  33. Hiller
    Hiller 16 May 2018 21: 49
    0
    Like a fish needs a bicycle??? Tanks that are separate from the infantry? Read BUSV ... how tanks are used in various types of combat .. Or they decided to "gag" some money. BMPT built .. enough probably already ..