Military Review

New medium tanks. Saving and returning to old ideas

110
Different countries of the world continue to work on the development of armored vehicles, using different approaches to creating promising projects. World Tank Leaders Continue Improving Main Combat tanks, implying the creation of new cars or modernization of old ones. Other countries cannot afford such expensive equipment, as a result of which a completely new concept is being formed. It provides for the construction of a medium-mass tank with the maximum possible characteristics for it.


It should be noted that this concept is not fully new. The first projects of this kind appeared in the seventies of the last century. However, in the future, the situation in the field of armored vehicles changed, and as a result, the designers had to return to old ideas that could be implemented with the use of modern technologies and components.

New old concept

Over the past few decades, the army and tank builders have shown great interest in the so-called. main battle tanks (MBT). This class of equipment combines high mobility, good security and outstanding firepower. However, modern MBT is not without flaws. First of all, the development of technology and increased performance has led to a serious increase in cost. As a result, not all armies of the world who wish to upgrade their fleet of armored vehicles can afford to purchase a significant number of main tanks.


Medium tank TAM, based on the Marder BMP. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


In addition, in some regions, the purchase of high-grade modern MBT does not make sense for objective reasons. A likely opponent of the buying country may have a weak army with outdated equipment, and in this case, the latest tanks will be simply redundant to solve their problems. Much more successful tool for waging war in such a situation could be a tank, which has major differences from the classic MBT.

In the past decades, a light tank with less powerful defenses and weaker weapons was considered the addition or alternative to MBT. However, actual threats on the battlefield have so far reduced the value of such equipment. Light tanks of the past, above all, no longer meet the requirements for protection, and this fact was taken into account when creating new projects.

To date, tank-building enterprises of several countries - both recognized industry leaders and smaller manufacturers - have managed to work out and form a new concept for armored vehicles. She has not yet received the generally accepted name, but most often these machines are called medium tanks. It should be borne in mind that the modern medium tank is significantly different from the same-name machine, which in the past gave way to MBT.

Requirements and opportunities

A key feature of the "new" medium tank is the reduced cost. This problem is solved by reasonably simplifying the configuration and, as a result, some reduction in performance compared to MBT. It is understood that the average tank on the battlefield may not meet with the main one, and his opponent will be a different technique. As a result, when designing it, it is necessary to take into account real threats in the proposed theater of military operations. The specificity of modern local conflicts makes it possible to rationally reduce some characteristics, which leads to cheaper cars.


Upgraded TAM 2IP tank. Photo Gurkhan.blogspot.com


The first way to simplify, facilitate and reduce the cost of a new medium tank is to use less powerful armor. The main threat to technology in current conflicts are small weapon large caliber and small-caliber artillery, as well as anti-tank missiles and grenades. Thus, instead of a powerful armored obstacle, typical of MBT foreheads, you can use lightweight protection on an average tank, which can withstand hitting projectiles of caliber up to 30 mm. Modern anti-tank grenades and missiles are capable of striking even the main tanks, and therefore not only armor is needed to protect against them. Medium tank should be equipped with dynamic or active protection. In the conflicts of the last decades, explosive devices were of particular importance, which requires equipping the armored vehicle with anti-mine protection.

On a number of theaters the medium tank will not be able to meet with the main one, since it will have to fight light armored vehicles and outdated tanks. Thanks to this, it becomes possible to save money on armaments by abandoning the most powerful weapons. The caliber of the main gun can be reduced to 100-105 mm, which will be enough to defeat outdated tanks, not to mention lightweight technology. At the same time, there is still a need to use twin and anti-aircraft machine guns.

The fire control system can be simplified in accordance with the wishes of the customer, but you should not save much on it. With the help of all-day and all-weather observation devices, an average tank will be able to find and attack targets earlier, reducing the risks of a successful retaliatory strike. In some situations, even a simplified tank with a modern MSA will be able to implement the concept of "hunter-killer" and effectively deal with actual goals.

A modern medium tank should have a combat mass of no more than 35-40 and show high mobility characteristics. When designing it, it is advisable to use already existing components of one or another purpose, which will speed up and reduce the cost of production, as well as simplify operation.

New medium tanks. Saving and returning to old ideas
Medium tank Marder Medium MBT from Rheinmetall. Photo Military-today.com


"New medium tank", differing from other armored vehicles, is able to solve various combat missions. First of all, he can carry out support for infantry in conditions of general arms combat or low-intensity conflict. At the same time, it can be used both in ground and in airborne troops. Also an average tank can be a reconnaissance vehicle capable of standing up for itself. In fact, this technique is more flexible tool than the modern MBT traditional appearance.

Class representatives

The first representative of the conditional class of the "new" medium tanks can be considered the TAM armored vehicle, developed in the mid-seventies by the German industry for the army of Argentina. The customer could not buy an expensive car, and in addition, he had strict mass requirements related to the landscape and road network of the country. The design problems were solved in an interesting way. The Thyssen-Henschel company, which developed the TAM tank, took the Marder serial infantry fighting vehicle as a basis. Its insides were seriously reworked, and a tower with an 105 caliber mm gun was placed on the roof.

The TAM tank had a battle mass of just over 30 t, was protected from bullets, fragments and small-caliber shells, but at the same time carried a relatively powerful weapon. 105-mm shells could hit all types of armored vehicles that were in service with neighboring countries. Subsequently, various tank modernization projects were developed and implemented. The tank chassis, developed on the basis of the BMP, proved to be very successful. Later, on its base, other machines for various purposes were created.

In 2013, Rheinmetall presented its vision of a medium tank called the Marder Medium MBT. This machine was also based on the chassis of a serial BMP and, in its overall appearance, differed little from the TAM tank. At the same time, it used modern units and components. The specimen presented was claimed to withstand a projectile with a caliber of at least 30 mm, and also carried an 105-mm cannon with a modern SLA. Combat weight reached 43 t - primarily due to the installation of additional booking corps.

As far as is known, the medium tank Marder Medium MBT never went into the series, although it was able to attract the attention of foreign experts. In this case, we can assume that this particular vehicle gave impetus to the new stage in the development of armored vehicles, which is being observed at the present time. The concept of a lightweight and cheap tank interested the military in different countries and was implemented in new projects. One of them will soon reach mass production.


Medium tank Harimau Turkish-Indonesian development. Photo PT Pindad / pindad.com


According to the latest data, this year the Indonesian Ministry of Defense will sign a contract for the serial production of MMWT Harimau medium tanks, developed jointly with Turkey. This machine is based on the redesigned chassis of the Kaplan 30 multipurpose platform. It installs a ready-made CMI Cockerill 3105 tower with a 105 caliber mm. The tank is protected from small-caliber artillery and is capable of destroying outdated tanks. The mass, according to various estimates, does not exceed 30-35 t.

The customer of the Harimau tank was Indonesia, and soon she plans to sign the first contract for the supply of production vehicles. It also became known that some other countries of Southeast Asia are showing interest in this tank. They can also become customers of such equipment. Unless, of course, the Indonesian industry copes with its release.

Russian version

With the advent of MBT, light and medium tanks have lost their importance, and therefore for several decades in our country they have not received too much attention. Nevertheless, the development of one of the promising areas in the past led to the emergence of a combat armored vehicle that meets modern requirements for "new" medium tanks. It was a self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP) 2C25 "Sprut-SD". It is curious that in foreign publications the Russian UTP is often referred to as a light or medium tank.

The Sprut-SD of the base modification was built on the basis of the chassis of an experienced light tank. The armor of this body provided all-view protection against small arms of normal caliber, and the frontal unit could withstand shelling from large-caliber systems. Not so long ago, a new version of the 2C25M Sprut-SDM1 was created, using a different chassis with similar protection options. Both chassis used give the car a high mobility, as well as provide for crossing water obstacles by swimming.

A smooth-bore gun-launcher 2А75 of caliber 125 mm - a modified version of the tank gun 2А46. Such a gun can use all existing 125-mm projectiles and missiles, so that in its firepower SPTP 2-25 only slightly lags behind the Soviet and Russian main tanks. The main gun is complemented by machine guns and smoke grenade launchers. In the latest modification of the “SDM1” self-propelled gun gets modern observation and guidance systems, as well as fire control tools that enhance its similarity to Russian tanks.


Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2C25M "Sprut-SDM1". Photo concern "Tractor plants" / tplants.com


Thus, despite the official classification, the 2C25 “Sprut-SD” cars can be considered as another representatives of the class of new medium tanks. They combine low mass, high mobility, limited protection and firepower almost at the level of the MBT. Nevertheless, the Russian command considers these UTP exclusively as a means of fire support for air assault forces. Such equipment is available only for the Russian Airborne Forces and is not planned to re-equip other types of troops.

Response to a threat

The formation of a new class of armored combat vehicles leads to the appearance of obvious questions about how to combat them. A careful study of this topic can show the curious features of the situation. "New" medium tanks are still gaining popularity, and effective means of dealing with them already exist and are being introduced.

Obviously, the specificity of the fight with a specific model of armored vehicles is determined by the characteristics of its protection. Almost all new medium tanks, as well as many other light and medium armored vehicles of other classes, have frontal projection protection that can withstand an 30-mm artillery projectile. This means that large-caliber weapons are needed to combat them. However, it turns out that not all existing systems are suitable for this task.

Modern tank gun caliber 120 or 125 mm guaranteed to hit the tank TAM, Marder Medium MBT or Harimau. However, the characteristics of such weapons are unnecessary for these purposes, and therefore shooting at them will not be economically advantageous. Medium-caliber guns can be a more convenient means to combat current targets. They can show the required characteristics with limited cost and complexity.


The “Baikal” combat module with the 57-mm automatic cannon is a promising means of combating new medium tanks. Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru


In recent years, the issue of creating automatic guns of the 40 caliber mm has been actively studied abroad. Such weapons are considered as weapons of modernized and new armored combat vehicles. The installation of 40-mm guns in the towers and remotely controlled combat modules. In addition, this year the Chinese project of a light self-propelled unit with similar weapons, built on the basis of an unprotected all-terrain chassis, was presented.

Russian designers went even further. For several years, exhibitions showcased promising combat modules equipped with an 57-mm automatic cannon. Such products have found application in a number of projects involving the construction of new equipment or the modernization of old ones. According to calculations, the caliber 57 mm provides a significant increase in muzzle energy and, consequently, the power of the projectile. Due to this, it is possible to effectively hit equipment with light protivosnoryadnoy protection. It is also possible to break through the armor of outdated tanks.

Thus, in parallel with the new class of armored vehicles, means for combating it, which are distinguished by high efficiency, are being developed. The tools of enlarged calibers are gradually being introduced into new projects and reach operation in the army. In the future, as new equipment appears with characteristics that meet modern requirements, such weapons should become more widespread.

Ways of development

A number of characteristic factors that limit the development of armored combat vehicles, leads to the formation of new unexpected concepts. Thus, against the background of the rapid development of powerful and efficient main battle tanks, there was a gradual return to the idea of ​​a simplified and cheap medium tank with reduced characteristics and modern equipment. New projects of this kind appear regularly, and some of the promising designs get a chance to go into service.

The events of recent years show that small and poor countries that do not have the ability or desire to acquire main battle tanks still do not remain without the necessary armored vehicles. They prefer to buy samples of other classes that meet existing requirements and financial or production capabilities. However, not all the projects of the “new” medium tanks reached mass production, and such equipment is still not widely used. But it can be expected that in the future this situation will change, and this will lead to new curious events.

On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
https://armyrecognition.com/
https://breakingdefense.com/
https://rheinmetall-defence.com/
http://military-today.com/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
110 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parma
    parma 20 November 2018 06: 18
    +16
    Considering the number of T-55, T-72 and T-62 tanks (although there are plenty of all M-60 and Leo tanks) dumped onto the market after the end of the Cold War, it seems to me that the development and construction of a modern version of such tanks as TAM or EE-T1 does not looks economical .. Given the design work and the small series, the price tag will be between the updated t-72 and the new t-90 (figuratively) ... And when you take into account the heap of ATGMs, the situation becomes even worse
    1. zyzx
      zyzx 20 November 2018 06: 54
      +13
      T-55 is our everything and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. This tank was built according to the results of the 2nd World War. The concept that 10 cheap mobile tanks will be taken away by 2 heavy-duty heaped up ones hasn’t gone and is not outdated.
      1. jonht
        jonht 20 November 2018 07: 48
        0
        The T-55 is a wonderful machine, but it just needs to be modernized in terms of equipment and some internal modules, and here the question is, what time does it get up and does it make sense to redo it, or maybe it's easier and cheaper to build from scratch ......?
      2. svp67
        svp67 20 November 2018 19: 10
        -4
        Quote: zyzx
        The concept that 10 cheap mobile tanks will be taken away by 2 heavy-duty heaped up ones hasn’t gone and is not outdated.

        Refuted by the results of the Second World War
        1. Usher
          Usher 20 November 2018 21: 25
          -2
          Just the opposite, the T-34 and KV defeated the Tigers. So think
          1. svp67
            svp67 20 November 2018 21: 57
            0
            Quote: Usher
            Just the opposite, the T-34 and KV defeated the Tigers. So think

            At the cost of huge losses. This is what you should think about.
            1. Usher
              Usher 20 November 2018 22: 01
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: Usher
              Just the opposite, the T-34 and KV defeated the Tigers. So think

              At the cost of huge losses. This is what you should think about.

              If they had not won, then the losses would have been 100%, so this is what you need to think about. It is necessary to win in the war, and not how to survive. For example, what's the point of surviving a battle if you know that you lose the war and your loved ones die? And the concept of more numerous combat vehicles has passed the test of time. That is why the United States is not reproached, although their M4 was just as not an outstanding machine, but simple and cheap. And in the Pacific Ocean they threw Japan with corpses. There were 10 American on One Japanese ship, which were worse in terms of performance characteristics, but they were and there were LOTS of them!
              1. svp67
                svp67 21 November 2018 01: 33
                +3
                Quote: Usher
                It is necessary to win in the war, and not how to survive.

                I agree. But also do not make your tanks "targets"
                Quote: Usher
                And the concept of larger combat vehicles has stood the test of time

                Everything that you say now was more or less true at that time, but not now. One question, tell me who Russia has a numerical advantage in the population, in armament? And you will get the answer, are we now able to lose 5-7 tanks, per enemy.
                Do not live in the past, live in the present and future.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 21 November 2018 13: 48
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  And you will get an answer, whether we are now able to lose 5-7 tanks, to one enemy
                  That's right, Sergei, the problem is that having picked up capitalism, we have lost not only such a factor as the number (number), but, not to a small extent, and quality (skill). So, it is just right to carry out a new industrialization ... So far, the Soviet reserve, the Soviet reserve of strength in military affairs, science and technology is saving. Health care, education, science and industry, have they gotten better under the new masters? If so, let's take off the "dusty helmets" and bow low to them, Russia will not be lost. If not, how to make one of our tanks in the future better, more perfect than several enemy ones, and yesterday's fan of "DurDom 2", expressing his thoughts with emoticons in social networks, was able to competently and selflessly defend his homeland?
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 21 November 2018 21: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Per se.
                    we have not only lost such a factor as numbers (number), but, not to a small extent, quality (skill)

                    what does this have to do with
                    Quote: Per se.
                    So, just right to carry out a new industrialization

                    ?
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Health, education, science and industry, have they become better with the new gentlemen?

                    You have a bias in "let's cry how bad it is," but what's the point? After all, you just brought some stamps without meaning.
                    Health care has become worse, and medicine is better, but this is not the same thing.
                    Education has become worse, and the educational process is better.
                    Science is the same. Itself as an industry suffers, about the process is going on, and in conditions of exclusion from the exchange of technologies.
                    Industry? And in what you measure the best? On a production scale? Then it decreased, and if in efficiency, it increased. Now there is no way to drive anything without looking at the efficiency and culture of production. And they have grown.
                    Only this is still dependent on demand. Since it was almost absent, then of course nothing could remain at the same level. But this is not a matter of industry itself.
                    Gentlemen ... no matter what word you use, they will always be, have been and will be about the union, and now they will be in a different form and so on. And this is a given, the world is developing so.
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 22 November 2018 06: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Red_Baron
                      You have a bias in "let's cry how bad it is," but what's the point?
                      No, sir-comrade "Richtofen", you are pulling out of context what you wanted. What was it about (comment by svp67 (Sergey))?
                      Question one, call me before whom Russia has a numerical advantage in population, in armament?
                      We have lost many territories with population, production, this time. Secondly, in addition to the fact that production ties were interrupted, cooperation with the former Soviet republics, countries of the socialist camp, now we are also under sanctions. In addition, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many enterprises, design bureaus, research institutes, stands, testing grounds were closed in Russia itself, technologies and scientific schools were lost. With all this, it is very difficult to hope that today's Russia, in its confrontation with the West (and it exists and is getting worse), will be able to count not only on quantitative superiority, but also on quality. Everything would be so good, the missiles would not fall, and the floating dock with the aircraft carrier did not sink, and much more, which has obviously become worse in technology, is more problematic. Yes, now it is no longer possible to "drive anything without looking at efficiency", since now, by and large, there is no possibility at all to "drive" anything, we have been building small ships for ten years for our fleet, and if our hucksters drive anything else, so oil and gas, plus for export, the equipment that we can still produce on the Soviet reserve, Soviet developments. You are an optimist, but for God's sake, I said, if it really got better under the new masters, “let's take off the dusty helmets and bow low to them, Russia will not disappear,” only you ignored it, pulled an elderberry out of the “vegetable garden”. I expressed my opinion, you are yours, thank you for your attention.
                      1. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 22 November 2018 16: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: Per se.
                        No, sir-comrade "Richtofen", you are pulling out of context what you wanted.

                        No, Mr. Percy, I took your entire post, in which you answered there was no whining about politics.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        We have lost many territories with population, production, this time.

                        And why did you decide that these territories were yours? Everything is easy for you and by default it is considered. Have you even noticed how this territory ceased to be a common state? And the prerequisites that have been accumulating for decades, too, did not notice? A bunch of unresolved issues, at least with the fact that the world has changed. They didn’t notice that in addition to this, approaches on many issues have changed a lot, but this was not all decided and whether it was possible to decide at that time - I don’t know.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Secondly, in addition to the fact that production relations, cooperation with the former Union republics, countries of the social camp were interrupted, now we are also under sanctions.

                        Yes, actually, before the events in Ukraine, there was pretty tight cooperation with her on some issues. This is not a question of division of territories.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        In addition, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many enterprises, design bureaus, research institutes, stands, training grounds, technology, scientific schools were lost in Russia itself.

                        Oh, how interesting, and where does the current state and the current "Lord"? Now, in contrast to that time, the activation is taking place. Loss of technology, for example, what? If we are talking about the military, then we have inherited and on the basis of these technologies and are producing many of the modern types of weapons.
                        And the closure of enterprises and other things were prerequisites even before the collapse.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        With all this, it is very difficult to hope that present-day Russia, in confrontation with the West (which is and is aggravated), can count not only on quantitative superiority, but also on qualitative superiority.

                        Looking from which west. If you're talking about a collective west, then this is in terms of the number of people, weapons, area, and so on, roughly speaking the floor of the world. That confrontation takes into account not only this.
                        And if you are talking specifically about a military conflict, then yes, we are losing to this half of the earth both in this and that.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        It would be so good, the rockets would not fall, and the floating dock with the aircraft carrier would not drown, and much more, which obviously became worse in the technique, more problematic.

                        Here I am about this. Grandmothers on the bench at the entrance say that the girls have now become indecent and the benches are not so comfortable and the government is cursed!
                        These are all senile lamentations and whoop. You see, it was not for nothing that I wrote it originally. There is a category of people who is always dissatisfied with everything and will scold the victim for any reason, and sometimes even for opposite reasons, not considering this to be illogical. The main thing is that there would be someone to scold, even the reasons are not important and understanding is all the more so. Just while scolding someone you already do not consider yourself such a loser, because all the troubles can be blamed on someone.
                        I completely agree with you that the private dock, which was contracted for the work, was personally sank by someone from the authorities. And then he drove into the past and dropped rockets there, so that would not be different from today. I traveled around countries and damaged rockets there too. And then they fall and do not fall anywhere else. I will even help you - if everything was good then the bread would be tastier, we would be younger and peace and tranquility reigned in us, but for now terrible Mordor. As they say - Lia Medzhidovna go under your real name, otherwise we did not recognize you.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Yes, now it is no longer possible to "drive anything without looking at efficiency", since now, by and large, there is no possibility at all to "drive" anything, we have been building small ships for ten years for our fleet

                        You see what I said, neither logic nor the real state of things is important - the main thing is to carry it on.
                        That is, to do inefficiently spending a sea of ​​resources and exposing other areas is normal, the transition to another type of production is bad. Although all of our competitors switched to it a long time ago, but then it was better no matter how.
                        As for the small ships, I’ll tell you a secret - some have already been built and not in 10 years. And more recently, we did not build anything at all, but only sold and sawed it on metal, but this also eluded you. You see - from some sort of recession, something began to be done, but the grandmas on the bench at the entrance are against it, well, they don’t like it.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        and if our traders drive anything else, then oil and gas, plus for export, the equipment that we can still produce on the Soviet backlog, Soviet developments.

                        Here is another example of some kind of ill health. And it’s immediately obvious that you didn’t even invent it yourself, but took common cliches, moreover, stupid and specially invented. Well, apparently not in vain.
                        I will reveal many more secrets, because I envy you, new discoveries every day.
                        Many countries drive oil and gas - you can see the list of importers. Countries are completely different with their pros and cons. But they can, but we cannot, because the grandmas on the bench do not approve of this. There are no other reasons. Moreover, traders !!! Nothing that about the USSR trade in hydrocarbons occupied a significant part of budgeting and the main foreign exchange income? That is, there were some traders there? So in our miserable country, at least once it was normal? Or have we never managed to please you?
                        Not only that - all industries now use hydrocarbons as fuel and they don’t care who will supply them, not us, then others will immediately occupy this niche and these others will receive money and these others will use them. But they can, it’s impossible only to the terrible Mordor.
                        But that is not all. Sooner or later, the fuel used will change again, for example, hydrogen and oil and gas will simply be liquids or gas with a set of certain chemical properties and that’s all.
                        Regarding the sale of weapons, you, sorry, write such nonsense that it overshadows everything you wrote earlier. You just wrote that we have lost technology and development - and now we are manufacturing them too. Where is the logic? And why is she. Not only that, you have misinterpreted, they are based on the very developments, and then they are already modern. And they’re not just driven for export, but sold because it is an enterprise that they need to live on in order to maintain capacity and somehow earn money. If the MO will place orders for such an amount that it will not be necessary to sell, then the sales volume will sharply decrease, but then it will be necessary to spend several times more on military expenses. Than you will again be unhappy, well, you are always unhappy. So I'm not mistaken. Not only that, at least read why the arms market is being formed, how, how it is supported and why. Why our competitors also sell, and give to someone. Find out a little before writing.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        You are an optimist, but for God's sake, I said, if it really got better under the new gentlemen, "let's take off the" dusty helmets "and bow low to them

                        But don’t bow to anyone. Apparently you were not taught to respect people, their work, and so on in childhood. But I do not smear everyone with one paint, I try not to pick up the cliches and try to figure it out and respect people who do something. And people like you today are scolding some, even half not understanding what is happening, yesterday they scolded Stalin, before Grozny. You have an eternal curse, our unwashed Russia, you are always dissatisfied with it and its leadership.
                      2. Per se.
                        Per se. 23 November 2018 07: 40
                        +1
                        Well, Andrey, thank you, your comment would quite pass for an article, so to speak, a critical analysis. Thanks again for your attention, I will not argue, especially if the opponent is "brother-crest" or "brother-retired" (and, even more so, if both, together). All the best, take care of your optimism and faith in a bright capitalist future.
                      3. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 23 November 2018 11: 10
                        +1
                        I apologize for the harsh expressions, but I really don’t like it when they substitute for me a serious and interesting discussion with cliches partly from our intelligentsia who fled to neighboring countries.
                        And my faith is precisely in the socialist future, not just now, but when either capitalism will be obsolete or a weighty premise will be created. And this is all over the world and not in our country. The world is now global and most countries are tightly linked.
                  2. ser56
                    ser56 23 November 2018 13: 19
                    0
                    If it’s not a secret, were you treated in the USSR? Well, at least the teeth? bully It seems no ....
                    1. Red_Baron
                      Red_Baron 23 November 2018 14: 34
                      0
                      By the way, I was not so long ago in a hospital, and six months before that I was treating my teeth. Everything is free. I wrote a big thank you note. Perhaps I was lucky with the specialists and in the hospital it coincided and the whole coincidence was pleasant. But I was in shock. I first learned what it is to treat teeth in normal, and free of charge, and in the USSR and in the 90s I treated both for free and for a fee, but it didn’t seem to be close. My relatives were in the hospital under the USSR, from the point of view of medicine I won’t say it, it was probably no worse, although since that time medicine has advanced greatly in both treatment and methods. But staying in the hospital was much worse than now.
                      But the nurses used to be more caring, now the young do not spit on much, but often. And those who have been working for a long time are quite another matter. By the way, I’ll also share, in the hospital, as in the dental clinic, a large number of myths were dispelled. Mainly about pain and sloppy installation of droppers, blood sampling and other intravenous procedures.
                      1. ser56
                        ser56 23 November 2018 18: 16
                        0
                        maybe you were younger before and therefore the nurses were more caring? bully
                      2. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 23 November 2018 19: 40
                        0
                        I also thought so, I also attributed that I was prettier, but whom am I kidding :(
                        laughing
                2. Archon
                  Archon 25 November 2018 19: 45
                  0
                  it is still necessary to calculate the number of modern people who do not mind dying for now no longer understand what. It used to be a struggle for territory, living space, and now everyone is striving for metropolitan cities, and the territory is mostly abandoned. In the USSR it was possible for the homeland, for the family, for a bright future for posterity, and now for what? Will there be a bright future at all? Moreover, it is now much easier to immigrate to other countries than at that time. A vivid example is Ukraine, whose population was saved from the army by active migration anywhere.
                  So I agree with you, winning by quantity without quality is not relevant today. More relevant is diplomacy, economic power, the soft power of culture, the media and other means of influence.
                  Yes, I do not imagine Russia in a major conflict, when the children and relatives of our officials live in potential adversary countries, the billionaires who own the country's natural wealth, live abroad and have several citizenships. In which case, they will immediately leave for Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, or to some smaller countries such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Monaco.
              2. Vladimir 5
                Vladimir 5 24 November 2018 23: 42
                +1
                Usher. You, my dear, are thinking in the categories of G. Zhukov - to kill ten times more than your own, but to win with massive "heroism" and pressure. Today the Russian Federation is in the opposite situation, which means that the principles of applying others are. According to the article and the medium tank, there is nothing to reinvent the wheel when there are hundreds of T-62, T-72 in storage. It is several times cheaper to modernize and the quality is several times higher than the new "medium" tank with armor protection against small arms up to 40mm ... scrap metal ......
          2. svp67
            svp67 21 November 2018 21: 01
            +1
            Quote: Usher
            Just the opposite, the T-34 and KV defeated the Tigers. So think

            For me. our tank is the winner, in that war - IS-2. It was with the help of him that our grandfathers could win with little blood.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 20 November 2018 22: 26
        -1
        ... rather T-62
      4. 4thParasinok
        4thParasinok 26 January 2019 14: 41
        0
        Quote: zyzx
        T-55 is our everything and no need to reinvent the wheel

        Are you sure that 39 litas. B-55 with a capacity of 580 l / s is better than 750 l / s 12 lit. YaMZ-780, that it is more reliable, more compact and more economical, and that it will be cheaper in production deployed from scratch and only for this tank? What D-10T2S is better in all respects, (including the presence of a charging) than 2A75 from the Octopus-SD? And how much will it cost to develop an alteration of the T55 tower for modern sights did you think? It seems no ...
        It’s easier to create a new modern medium tank than to remodel an old one with modern engines and weapons and set up its production.
        Quote: parma
        Considering the number of T-55, T-72 and T-62 tanks (although there are plenty of all M-60 and Leo tanks) dumped onto the market after the end of the Cold War, it seems to me that the development and construction of a modern version of such tanks as TAM or EE-T1 does not looks economical .. Given the design work and the small series, the price tag will be between the updated t-72 and the new t-90 (figuratively) ... And when you take into account the heap of ATGMs, the situation becomes even worse
        You seem to have never encountered an old technique with a dead resource. Its operation is much more expensive than buying a new one. But there is no new one. Those Turks, not from a good life, decided to produce the tanks themselves, but by the fact that what the Amers and Germans offer them is not suitable for either the characteristics or the price.
        And at the expense of the necessary quantity and price, everything rests on the fact that right now there is no modern medium tank brought to mind on sale, only concepts.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 20 November 2018 10: 35
      +3
      TAM, for example, had a hard weight dimension of 30 tons. For outside the industrial areas - bridges still damned Spanish exploiters of the Argentine people built.

      Similarly, the Black Tiger (Turkey / Indonesia) - the main requirements for transportation by sea, including commercial small barges / ferries. High cross in the jungle and on bad roads. High operational mobility of the connection. Plus the most advanced LMS - which in itself gives an advantage over all sorts of T-62 / 72.

      In general, this is a very niche technique - but it is also needed. Therefore, small projects take off. Won the Turks with this Tiger and BMP on the same base are going to specifically occupy Asia before the 20 of the year, in the mass of marketing and advertising companies.
      1. svp67
        svp67 20 November 2018 19: 11
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        basic requirements for transportation by sea, including commercial small barges / ferries

        Not only, but also movement on local marshy soils
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 22 November 2018 23: 44
      0
      Quote: parma
      Given the number of tanks T-55, T-72 and T-62

      The T-72 is the "cheaper" tank described by the author, only with full armor and a cannon.
      1. 4thParasinok
        4thParasinok 26 January 2019 14: 48
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        The T-72 is the "cheaper" tank described by the author, only with full armor and a cannon.
        and weighing over 40 tons. even in the original version. And in Asia and Africa with Latin America, a tank no heavier than 35 tons is needed, and in many cases up to 25. If I'm not mistaken, it is Brazil that is happy to have bought a hundred BMP-3s that climb the jungle, but are unhappy with the lack of a full gun.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 26 January 2019 20: 39
          0
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          and weighing over 40 tons. even in the original version. And in Asia and Africa with Latin America you need a tank no heavier than 35 tons, and in many cases up to 25.

          These are your speculations - who needs what.
          1. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 27 January 2019 16: 08
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            These are your speculations - who needs what.

            and how are they worse than yours? or maybe only you are allowed to express your opinion?
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 27 January 2019 16: 13
              +1
              Quote: 4-th Paradise
              and how are they worse than yours?

              Mine is better because they are mine, I believe in them.
              Quote: 4-th Paradise
              or maybe only you are allowed to express your opinion?

              Usually I try to substantiate my opinion with some kind of calculations. Nobody cares about your opinion, but I wonder how you came to it.
              This is not an attempt to insult or run over, it is a question - on the basis of what did you come to your conclusions.
              1. 4thParasinok
                4thParasinok 27 January 2019 16: 21
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Usually I try to substantiate my opinion with some kind of calculations.

                which are either simply absent as a class, or have no base under them. an example of such reasoning:
                Quote: Setrac
                The T-72 is the "cheaper" tank described by the author, only with full armor and a cannon.

                so that......
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 27 January 2019 20: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: 4-th Paradise
                  so that......

                  You probably do not know when our state (USSR) realized that the T-64 is expensive and not technologically advanced - then they created the T-72, which could be produced in large quantities. Worked on cheaper and improved technology. This is the history of tank building, and not my opinion and does not require my justification.
                  As a result, T-72 tanks created 30 units, and T-000A - only 64.
                  1. 4thParasinok
                    4thParasinok 12 February 2019 23: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    You probably do not know when our state (USSR) realized that the T-64 is expensive and not technologically advanced - then they created the T-72, which could be produced in large numbers ..
                    You are too superficially familiar with the history of tank building:
                    Firstly, the T-64 was a disgusting engine with a very small resource and difficult to repair, OPPOSIT. So to replace the nozzles it was necessary to remove the entire engine from the tank ...
                    And secondly
                    With this design, the driver was isolated from the commander and gunner, and the powder charges of artillery shots in burning shells were located vertically around the perimeter of the fighting compartment. It was in the literal sense of the word "powder keg". Along with this, this design was unnecessarily complex and was not technologically advanced. I was surprised that Morozov agreed with this decision. There was one more question. Nabutovsky, in pursuit of weight reduction, replaced the duplicating manual mechanical lifting mechanism of the gun with a hydraulic one, connecting it to the hydraulic system of the gun stabilizer in a vertical plane. This original and beautiful, from the point of view of saving weight and internal volumes of the fighting compartment, design solution did not withstand any criticism from the point of view of the special requirements for reliability to redundant guidance drives. The whole point of duplicate gun guidance drives was that in a battle situation when both hydraulics and electrics were to fail in the tank, but the crew still retained some combat readiness, the gunner could use his muscular strength and mechanical guidance drives to fire from the gun. In this regard, the hydraulic manual lifting mechanism of the gun was contrary to common sense
                    - Kostenko Yu. P. on the design of the T-64

                    Yes, the T-72 is a good tank, but to create a new medium tank it can be used as a base, but no more. In particular, it is necessary to reduce the weight and dimensions, make a new cheaper tower, use new engines and put a box automatic, etc.
                  2. 4thParasinok
                    4thParasinok 13 February 2019 00: 16
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    and the T-64A - only 8000.

                    no need to cheat on quantity. there were another 5000 T-64s, and there were still T-64Bs their exact number is unknown.
                    The T-64 was originally stillborn, it was created only for the sake of victory in the competition, and not in order to make a good tank.
                    Here's more about the T-64:
                    Since the creation of the “Object 64”, the main idea was laid in the T-430A tank - less mass and minimal internal volume. It led to the futility of this tank, since the engine, chassis and other components and mechanisms worked to the limit of their capabilities, without a margin of safety. It was also difficult for the crew due to cabin shots.
                    - Kartsev L. N. “Memories of the Chief Designer of Tanks”
  2. Per se.
    Per se. 20 November 2018 06: 52
    +10
    A number of characteristic factors that limit the development of armored combat vehicles, leads to the formation of new unexpected concepts.
    There are statements that everything is new, this is well forgotten old, but, most importantly, technology is developing, therefore, changes are inevitable. What we have today, 120-125 mm tank guns reached the limit of their capabilities, and, in the fight against new, promising types of protection, in our country, back in the days of the Soviet Union, work began to create tanks for 152 mm guns. So, "Object 292", an experimental tank of the design bureau of the Kirov plant (OJSC "Spetsmash") and scientists of the All-Russian Research Institute "Transmash", where a new tower with a 80-mm LP-152 cannon was installed on the chassis of the T-83U tank. Fundamentally new tanks were the "Object 195" and "Object 477", where 152 mm caliber guns were also installed. Moreover, to reduce the increased weight, titanium had to be used on the new tanks, nevertheless, the weight of the T-95 (object 195) with the new 152 mm 2A83 cannon approached 60 tons (55-58 tons). The increased weight of the new "Leopard" and "Merkava", even with 120 mm cannons, is already close to critical for acceptable combat characteristics. Why is this said, it is impossible to endlessly increase the caliber of tank guns and the thickness of the armor. It seems that MBT in the current situation will again be divided into classes, where, in addition to heavy tanks (or heavy anti-tank self-propelled guns), both light and medium vehicles will be in demand, where specialization and universalization will coexist in different types, depending on the geographic environment, combat missions , even the financial capabilities of different countries. It is possible that the tanks will suffer the fate of battleships in the fleet, where the growth of the main caliber and the thickness of the armor was stopped by rocket armament and the appearance of nuclear weapons. In this sense, for the new appearance of the tank, heavy weapons will replace guided missiles, the caliber of which already corresponds to 152 mm and can increase along with power, range and accuracy. With the consumption of one missile for guaranteed destruction of a well-protected target, the ammunition of the "main caliber" can be reduced, and for "secondary purposes" a 57 mm automatic cannon can be used, which is much lighter, which can be carried into various "uninhabited modules" or "armored capsules". without embarrassing the crew. The figure shows one of the possible options for a universal missile and cannon tank (if anyone wants, let the BMPT). Similar vehicles can be created on the basis of old tanks (T-55 / T-72).
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 20 November 2018 09: 07
      +3
      I agree with you that tanks can still be improved! And an example: not implemented in the late 50s and early 60s. last century, the concept of "rocket tank"! History knows many examples when an idea that could not be realized in the past is revived after a certain time at a different technical (technological) level. It seems that now the idea of ​​a "rocket tank" is still too early for "birth" in an "absolute" form , but, it is likely that this time is "not far off"! And, indeed, the "old", but numerous T-55 still "wins the applause" ... especially, the modernized (T-55MV, etc.) If rely on the T-55 as a "new medium tank", then modernization is indispensable. The assertions that "the game is not worth the shot" for modernization have no serious justification (in any case, I have not met them), although there is a right to fear. A cheap "car from scratch"? Very problematic! If it was not profitable to modernize old cars, then no one would be doing this ... but they are! And there is demand in "certain circles" ... because an "old" but modernized combat vehicle costs the buyer less than a new one! If in the jungle no big difference between T-55 and T-90 ... between M-48/60 and Abrams (especially in terms of mobility),then why pay more?
  3. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 November 2018 11: 29
    +7
    Attempts to put the tank gun on a platform with cardboard armor do not stop.
    What for?
    Until the first meeting with MBT. Then they will say: "Oops, got excited," the "average" tankers of the "medium tank" burned out for a penny.
    There is nothing to tempt butting with an MBT vehicle that is poorly armored. On such combat vehicles should be placed guns 30-40 mm to support infantry. I saw MBT - get off, do not show off.
    1. parma
      parma 20 November 2018 14: 44
      0
      Well, consider LA, where is the MBT, who? Only Chile and Venezuela ... Yes, and for the Venezuelan T72 105 guns should be enough ... Chile has Leo 2a5, but with their terrain, there’s no sense in him (as well as in any tank) ....
      In Africa (if you do not take the north of the continent) basically the same thing ...
    2. NF68
      NF68 20 November 2018 16: 13
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Attempts to put the tank gun on a platform with cardboard armor do not stop.
      What for?
      Until the first meeting with MBT. Then they will say: "Oops, got excited," the "average" tankers of the "medium tank" burned out for a penny.
      There is nothing to tempt butting with an MBT vehicle that is poorly armored. On such combat vehicles should be placed guns 30-40 mm to support infantry. I saw MBT - get off, do not show off.


      MBT because of their size and weight are difficult to "deliver" by air. And similar products are more suitable for fast delivery.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 November 2018 16: 17
        +1
        I am not against combat vehicles supporting infantry, landing, etc.
        And air mobility is an important thing.
        But do not load large-caliber guns on them that create a deceptive illusion of anti-tank power.
        1. NF68
          NF68 20 November 2018 21: 37
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I am not against combat vehicles supporting infantry, landing, etc.
          And air mobility is an important thing.
          But do not load large-caliber guns on them that create a deceptive illusion of anti-tank power.


          Powerful weapons are just what is needed in order to be able to at least somehow combat MBT.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 23 November 2018 18: 58
            0
            Quote: NF68
            Powerful weapons are just what is needed in order to be able to at least somehow combat MBT.

            they don’t need a tank gun. Two or four anti-tank ATGMs, and that's enough.
      2. svp67
        svp67 20 November 2018 19: 13
        +1
        Quote: NF68
        MBT because of their size and weight are difficult to "deliver" by air.

        But it’s entirely possible
        1. NF68
          NF68 20 November 2018 21: 39
          0
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: NF68
          MBT because of their size and weight are difficult to "deliver" by air.

          But it’s entirely possible


          I do not argue. But the possibilities for airborne transport of MBTs are still quite limited both by the presence of transport aircraft capable of transporting MBTs and by the aerodromes on which these aircraft can land on board MBTs.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 November 2018 07: 35
        0
        MBT because of their size and weight are difficult to "deliver" by air. And similar products are more suitable for fast delivery.
        Hmm ... 30-40 tons, this is certainly not 50-60. But in the case of airmobility, it doesn't matter. Fundamental transportable "difference" - 10-15 tons
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 20 November 2018 22: 28
      0
      40-50mm gun and anti-tank systems ....
    4. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 21 November 2018 07: 31
      0
      Until the first meeting with MBT.
      In the jungle colorfully painted in the article, it’s more likely not with MBT, but with an RPG or a heavy machine gun in the ass.
    5. Per se.
      Per se. 21 November 2018 10: 43
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I saw OBT - dump, do not show off.
      Alexey, for some MBTs there will be T-55 (36 tons), for others the "Merkava" MK IV (70 tons), and this, as they say, is a big difference. If we are so stubborn, our T-90MS (48 tons), especially the T-72B3 (46 tons) against the background of the same "Merkava" will be "medium tanks." This is not a criterion, in short. Moreover, much still determines the position, the training of the crew, the weapons used, and finally, simple luck. It will not be easier for you, from which the roof of the heaped-up "Carrot" blew off the roof, planted the MBT of the latest modification, or the same "Sprut-SD" from a similar tank gun. The same can be said with a successful attack by a guided missile from an BMPT or BMP, defeat from weapons of any light armored vehicles, which may turn out to be more maneuverable, less noticeable, and win some other qualities from a fat-ass monster.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 November 2018 11: 16
        +1
        War is not based on luck.
        In a tank duel, hitting and breaking does not occur from the first shell. With a duel of a full tank and a net tank, a full (with strong armor) will have an overwhelming advantage. An under-tank needs to be pierced from the first shell, which is not very realistic. A full tank can afford to shoot safely.
        In practice, this will result in the defeat-slaughter of under-tanks.
        As it happened in the Second World War when meeting heavy and light tanks.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 21 November 2018 13: 10
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          War is not based on luck.
          War is based on money, first of all, they determine all the motives, causes and consequences, why about some "Merkavas", while others have T-54 / T-55 not the first freshness. Nevertheless, fortune in war is far from the last thing. Finally, what do you mean by a "full-fledged tank", its armament, protection, maneuverability, maneuverability, range and speed, cost, manufacturability? As a rule, in tank building there is always the so-called "Trishkin caftan", the strengthening of some qualities, causes the weakening of others, we are talking about a reasonable compromise, from which usefulness begins, in relation to which types of combat, in which region. Under the Mga station (Leningrad region), in August 1942, the Germans first used the latest "Tigers", which were simply bogged down in a swampy area, here is an example for you, where a "full-fledged tank" from a hunter can turn into prey. The same can be said about street battles, which are especially dangerous for any armored vehicles, and here the "under-tank" can hide behind buildings, thereby compensating for weaker armor, and from a closer distance, from an ambush, especially in the stern of the enemy, and weaker the cannon can easily destroy a "full tank". Therefore, the topic arises, "what is good for a Russian, then death for a German" can be paraphrased here and under Israel, in relation to tanks, to the tactics of their use in a specific region, against a specific enemy. In short, personally, I would not speak so categorically about "full-fledged tanks". In any case, victory or defeat is not in the least determined by the competent use of technology, and foolishly, as you know, you can break a penis and lose the most modern tanks. I will not repeat myself, I will only say that different tanks are needed, different tanks are important, and, to each his own, the defense of Israel and the defense of Russia are not the same thing.
    6. Setrac
      Setrac 22 November 2018 23: 51
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Attempts to put the tank gun on a platform with cardboard armor do not stop.
      What for?

      This is because medium tanks need to be designed from scratch, rather than trying to cross the hedgehog and already installing a tank gun on the lightly armored armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 23 November 2018 19: 05
        0
        Marder is definitely not lightly armored. But Octopus and its base BMDshka, unfortunately, really tin ...
        1. 4thParasinok
          4thParasinok 26 January 2019 15: 09
          0
          Quote: psiho117
          Marder is definitely not lightly armored. But Octopus and its base BMDshka, unfortunately, really tin ...
          The controversial statement on the account of the marder. Its native armor is not much thicker than that of the Octopus, and it is taller in height of the hull, which adds at least 5 tons of weight, plus a heavier engine, plus more fuel ...
          And I remember the BMP-3 designed hinged armor that makes its protection higher than that of Marder, it just stops swimming after hitching, like Marder ... And who forbids Sprut to immediately increase protection in the standard? Yes, no one, just any whim for your money. But personally, my opinion is better to use a different chassis, without a variable clearance, and best of all lightened from the T-72 with the YaMZ-780 engine (12,5 liters, 750 l / s). and with a reinforced tower from the Octopus.
  4. Cat Kuzya
    Cat Kuzya 20 November 2018 13: 28
    +2
    If you look at the "western" tanks, it is "striking" that their turrets are surrounded by massive screens of additional armor, which increase the armor resistance, just like the hulls themselves. There is no such thing on Russian tanks. Why?
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 20 November 2018 13: 41
      0
      Is this a joke or something?
      1. Cat Kuzya
        Cat Kuzya 20 November 2018 13: 44
        0
        No, not a joke. I do not mean "active armor" with explosives, but "passive" - ​​"with different types of fillers." Yes, Russian turrets have such a “built-in” “combined” armor, but Western ones also use such overhead armor, which significantly increases resistance against cumulative ammunition with a tandem warhead. On the Russian light tank (or on what is meant by it), there is nothing at all (in any case, on the turret-hull, judging by the developed fenders, it may have something), see the photo.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 November 2018 14: 50
          +1
          Called: mounted armor, mounted panels.
          So the reservation was made Merkava 3 and 4.
          Quick-detachable cermets with fillers, bolted.
          When an ATGM missile hits, it flies into pieces, but does not let the jet through. Then the "technician" hangs a new panel. There are also disadvantages ...
        2. maximghost
          maximghost 20 November 2018 19: 24
          0
          Look at the t-55 and t-62 with Brezhnev's eyebrows. All of these screens are all kinds of survival kits in the city, not on all tanks, and especially not on light ones. Such a kit is not always justified, because adds weight to the tank, and may never come in handy.
        3. LMN
          LMN 21 November 2018 01: 43
          +1
          Quote: Cat Kuzya
          No, not a joke. I do not mean "active armor" with explosives, but "passive" - ​​"with different types of fillers." Yes, Russian turrets have such a “built-in” “combined” armor, but Western ones also use such overhead armor, which significantly increases resistance against cumulative ammunition with a tandem warhead. On the Russian light tank (or on what is meant by it), there is nothing at all (in any case, on the turret-hull, judging by the developed fenders, it may have something), see the photo.

          This is the "philosophy" of tank building. Western and Russian. If I understand the question correctly hi
          The West relied on a simple increase in the size of the armor, hence they have such "monsters" in comparison with ours. Ours, in response, built mobile, with a large number of active protection machines.
          It's the same as on airplanes now. They are "stealth", we are: "maneuverability". yes

          By the way, the question about "medium" tanks, the last week (there were a lot of articles on VO) I was interested in. But from the article, I still did not understand: why is it needed, this medium tank?
          The question of cost immediately arose. But the difference of 10-15 lyam does not allow you to buy 2 medium tanks, instead of 1 main request
          Why buy 3 medium vehicles (which will avoid meeting with 2 of the main enemy), if you can buy 2 main tanks, and for the remaining money to buy modern ATGM? what

          PS. Once the topic of tanks ..
          I met such a photo on VO. I did not see Armata live.


          Is the T-14 really so huge? belay
          1. Gary zucker
            Gary zucker 21 November 2018 09: 27
            +1
            Judging by large-scale models, yes. Very healthy
          2. Vadmir
            Vadmir 21 November 2018 17: 58
            +1
            Why buy 3 medium vehicles (which will avoid meeting with 2 of the main enemy), if you can buy 2 main tanks, and for the remaining money to buy modern ATGM?
            You are right, but if it concerns Africa or South America, or Southeast Asia, then the situation is changing, they don’t need an expensive tank, because their probable opponents do not have such tanks either. Another thing is that the new medium tank will cost more than the T-55 - T-62 - M-60 with an updated SLA, and armor protection is worse than the above tanks.
            1. LastPS
              LastPS 22 November 2018 14: 51
              0
              A very narrow market segment is simple. This concept is trying to push through more than one manufacturer, they just take their tracked infantry fighting vehicles and put a module with 105mm, so the tank came out. But this can only work for those who operate these BMPs, like Argentina, which uses "Marders", for example - unification is convenient. Therefore, no one wants to buy this. Old MBTs also have their drawbacks against the background of these machines, to some extent. It is necessary to change the power plant, suo, the weapon, most likely from the inside there are significant changes to install additional equipment and ammunition, to convert an old car into something suitable, too, not to say that it is cheap and simple.
        4. 4thParasinok
          4thParasinok 26 January 2019 15: 15
          0
          Quote: Kuzya the Cat
          No, not a joke. I do not mean "active armor" with explosives, but "passive" - ​​"with different types of fillers"
          On our tanks, another one uses a different design - originally spaced armor in the forehead of the tower and hull. And from the side projection, our towers are less than 3 times smaller, and the armor is at an angle (tapering towards the stern)
  5. Usher
    Usher 20 November 2018 21: 25
    0
    "Nevertheless, the Russian command views these SPTP exclusively as a means of fire support for airborne assault forces. Such equipment is available only to the Russian Airborne Forces and is not planned for the rearmament of other branches of the military." Because our opponents just have MBT. The author you turn on the logic or what?
  6. VictorZhivilov
    VictorZhivilov 20 November 2018 22: 50
    0
    I don't want to offend anyone, but Marder Medium MBT reminds me remotely BT-SV. smile
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 November 2018 08: 26
    0
    and therefore, shooting at them will not be economically advantageous.


    Yeah, save 100 $ on the projectile by destroying the tank for a couple of millions.

    Otherwise, the idea of ​​medium tanks has nothing to do, all these are light tanks with large guns, less than 40 tons for a less decent defense will not work. Against the background of Leo-2 it looks interesting, but against the background of the T-90 it is somehow not very.
  8. Tuzik
    Tuzik 21 November 2018 13: 01
    0
    A modern tank gun of 120 or 125 mm caliber is guaranteed to hit the TAM, Marder Medium MBT or Harimau tank. However, the characteristics of such weapons are unnecessary for these purposes, and therefore firing at them will not be economically advantageous.
    I imagine the crew of the tank, seeing a light tank sitting and smoking,
    not expensive to shoot at him
    .
    Yes, in a war of guns, even single figures are beaten ...
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 21 November 2018 13: 42
      0
      In addition, with such a machine it is not necessary to nail a sub-caliber, you can also shoot with an offset.
    2. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 12 February 2019 23: 42
      0
      Quote: Tuzik
      I imagine the crew of the tank, seeing a light tank sitting and smoking,

      yeah, the whole crew sitting on the tower good
  9. Snape
    Snape 21 November 2018 15: 36
    0
    The 57mm automatic gun was put on the YAK9.While in WWII, you don’t really have to invent anything.
    1. Snape
      Snape 21 November 2018 15: 57
      0
      But no ... I'm lying. 57mm did not set.
    2. maximghost
      maximghost 21 November 2018 16: 00
      +2
      Where did the firewood come from? The Yak-9 with a 45mm cannon was only released in a series, but with 57mm they weren’t even there. 57mm automatic guns (anti-aircraft guns) were already after the war. Including they were placed on the ZSU-57-2.
  10. garri-lin
    garri-lin 21 November 2018 20: 16
    -2
    We take BMP 3, we recompute the case. Strengthen your forehead bookings. We transfer the crew to the armored capsule located in the former landing compartment. Reduce the geometric dimensions of the body to the minimum possible. The released weight is directed to increase the armor in every way. Ready medium tank with acceptable armor and good weapons. Plus the crew is well protected.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 21 November 2018 21: 49
      0
      Of course not.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 21 November 2018 23: 53
        0
        A more detailed answer? Why not? In fact, any BMP is a light tank spoiled by the need to transport troops. Remove the landing and increase the armor and get the middle one. And making a car 8 10 tone easier MBT makes no sense. Winning in mass should be a tone that way at 15. Minimum.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 22 November 2018 01: 04
          0
          If you want to quickly get some ersatz tank, then this is quite possible., But only in this case. If you want to get a full-fledged light tank, then the events will be quite significant and you will still get a cardboard Octopus.
          When removing the airborne squad, moving the crew, restructuring the internal space, strengthening the roof and shoulder straps, strengthening armor and placing additional armor, placing ammunition. Firstly, it will give a serious change to the balancing and load on the suspension, and secondly, the need to change the engine and change or change the transmission. And still not the fact that you get something suitable. Ideally, the hull should be redesigned taking into account not only the thickness of the armor, but also rational angles. It might be better to use the armor either combined or with additional protection from another material, if aluminum is somewhere, then steel is in the forehead, the possibility of placing DZ, although I do not know how relevant this is for this. But it may not be possible to install it at all on the base case without crap.
          And about the armored capsule, the uninhabited turret and the remote control of weapons, this is necessarily AZ, serious equipment. Do you need such a light tank? I don’t know if the task is to get easy, simple and cheap, then definitely not.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 22 November 2018 11: 04
            0
            A tank is needed not light but medium. And this is a gun with at least some explosive impact. The Bahça module fits this concept perfectly. The latest version is automated to the maximum. Transfer controls from the tower directly to the building, with such automation of labor will not be. Of purely manual operations, there remained the loading of guided missiles.
            On the body. Will have to do completely in a new way. Transmission save. Weight save dimensions reduce. Booking to improve.
            BMP lucky landing. Large internal volumes. If they are radically reduced, then the car can be booked much more strongly.
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 22 November 2018 16: 53
              0
              Well, what kind of need I do not know, I wrote to you according to what you wrote. High impact? Why is a tank for this? If we somehow refer to the article, it says clearly about a military tool that can fight with other light combat vehicles. And then a landmine from 2a70 does not get off.
              Quote: garri-lin
              Transfer controls from the tower directly to the building, with such automation of labor will not be.

              Like this? Workplaces should be equipped with not only controls, but also surveillance of the battlefield. And in which combat vehicles besides the T-14 do we have this implemented?
              Quote: garri-lin
              On the body. Will have to do completely in a new way.

              But this is where I started.
              Quote: garri-lin
              Transmission save.

              With a changed mass, engine power?
              Quote: garri-lin
              Large internal volumes. If they are radically reduced, then the car can be booked much more strongly.

              Yes you hear me. This is not rational. Purely physically it can be done, but it is not rational. If you put the given armor of the same T-90 stupidly at a small angle, it will turn out to be a huge thickness and weight. It is clear that a light tank also does not need to be booked, but the general meaning is still preserved.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 22 November 2018 19: 32
                0
                First. Tanks do not fight tanks. Nonsense is written in the article. Otherwise, all tanks would have been armed with punchers with high projectile velocity. The main purpose of the tank is to support the infantry. 100 is the most it. And for a force majeure "melon" and a rocket can be launched. And a land mine from 100mm in the forehead would be enough for any non-tank to lose its combat effectiveness.
                The second one. There is experience in creating Armata. What prevents, based on this experience, to refine the Bahch module for remote control. The problem is completely solvable.
                Third and most important. The most important thing is to change the weight; you do not need to maintain the original weight of the BMP 3. This is, if I remember correctly, 23 tons. In the most armored version. Transmission and engine native. Redraw the geometry of the case by reducing the dimensions. Release the released weight on the crew’s armored capsule and strengthen armor in vulnerable areas.
                The result is a small mobile vehicle with strong weapons and medium armor. Medium tank.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 22 November 2018 23: 58
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      We take BMP 3, we recompute the case. Strengthen your forehead bookings. We transfer the crew to the armored capsule located in the former landing compartment. Reduce the geometric dimensions of the body to the minimum possible. The released weight is directed to increase the armor in every way.

      In short and cheaper - we design a medium tank from scratch.
    3. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 13 February 2019 00: 06
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      Reduce the geometric dimensions of the body to the minimum possible.

      it doesn’t work, there you have to redo the entire engine compartment, redo the suspension, etc. .. You still propose to take the PT-76 as a basis. And for your information BMP-3 received alteration PT-Object 934. 939 served as the basis for the Octopus-SD.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 13 February 2019 18: 48
        0
        There it is necessary to create a new housing without touching the engine and transmission. Cases above 4 but the topic is more abstract. Nobody is going to do this.
        1. 4thParasinok
          4thParasinok 16 February 2019 00: 59
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          There it is necessary to create a new housing without touching the engine and transmission.

          1. The engine is located along the hull; a similar scheme was abandoned back in 1943 when designing the T-44. So the transmission from the BMP-3 is not suitable, and it is not designed for an engine with a capacity of 600 hp.
          2. An engine with a capacity of 500 hp is enough for equipment of 16-20 tons, but for 30-38 tons it will not be enough. Mobility will decrease. So less than 700 hp no way.
          3. Structurally, the UTD-29 engine from BMP-3 is not suitable. It’s almost the opposite, the collapse of the cylinders is 144,4 degrees

          Even turned across, it will take up a lot of space. tank engines are trying to do as narrow as possible, the standard is an angle of 60 degrees. Here is the B-92 from the T-90:

          So the engine created for Kurganets-25 is the best fit, namely the in-line 12,5 liter YaMZ-780 with a capacity of 750 hp. 850 mm wide versus 1230 mm (reduction of the engine compartment) and combined with an automatic transmission.
  11. storm
    storm 22 November 2018 02: 12
    0
    2C25 "Sprut-SD" vehicles can be considered as yet another representative of the class of new medium tanks. They combine low weight, high mobility, limited protection and firepower almost at the level of MBT. Nevertheless, the Russian command considers these SPTs exclusively as a means of fire support for airborne assault forces. Only the Russian Airborne Forces have such equipment and are not planned for the rearmament of other combat arms.


    and the Marines again forgot ....
    the battalion of floating Octopus in each brigade MP significantly enhance their combat potential.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 23 November 2018 00: 01
      0
      Quote: assault
      and the Marines again forgot ....
      the battalion of floating Octopus in each brigade MP significantly enhance their combat potential.

      Does the Marine Corps EMNIP seem to have normal tanks? Why do they need such an ersatz? It’s easier to carry tanks by sea than by air.
  12. abc_alex
    abc_alex 22 November 2018 11: 47
    +1
    I don't really understand the concept of a "medium tank" as interpreted by the author. To combat light armored vehicles, the 100 mm caliber is a clear overkill. From WW2 experience it is known that even 85-88 mm cope with any armor perfectly easy armored vehicles. Even 76 mm will be enough to dismantle any modern car with light armor. I suspect that the 57-mm machine gun will be behind the eyes. For light armored vehicles... And for confronting outdated tanks, if we do not mean WW2 tanks, but at least 50-60 years old, ATGMs mounted on or inside the armor will be much more useful. Moreover, a skirmish with a tank from the 50s and 60s, which was booked much stronger than the "medium tank" assumed by the author, would be fatal for a new class of vehicles. A simplified LMS for the sake of low cost is unlikely to give advantages over the modernized LMS of tanks of the 50-60s.
    The described "medium tank", supposed on the basis of various infantry fighting vehicles, cannot be considered a tank at all. And the conditions for the use of "medium tanks" described in the article are more like police operations. Action against irregular formations such as "beards in slippers". But the paradox is that the country that has been waging such wars for the last half century prefers not such crafts, and not just heavy, but very heavy vehicles weighing 70 tons. Why would that?

    I believe that the author accepted the tank palliative of countries that do not have the resources to acquire the main tanks for signs of the emergence of a new class of vehicles.

    A 2S25M "Octopus-SDM1" is not a tank, but self-propelled guns.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 22 November 2018 12: 13
      0
      A heavy tank is designed to pull a blow. Medium escape from the blow. Easy not to get hit.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 22 November 2018 13: 11
        0
        ??? No tank will leave the ATGM.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 22 November 2018 19: 14
          0
          You are greatly mistaken. On rough terrain, a tank with good mobility can make it impossible to even capture a target. And to escape from the slow ATGM, hiding behind a smoke screen is no problem. 50 - 70 tonne engines are limited and mobility 25-30 tons can be quite frisky.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 22 November 2018 23: 30
            0
            Which ATGMs do you consider slow? If we are talking about a heavy ATGM "Attack", then it is 500 m / s. Portable ATGMs have 200-300 m / s, but there are less distances. In any case, ATGM missiles fly to the maximum range for no more than 10 seconds. I do not think that in such a time the 30-ton vehicle will move somewhere much. Yes, if the tank knows in advance about the launch, it will be able to hide behind the smoke and leave. But this is equally possible for a 30 ton and 50 ton machine. But who will tell him in advance? Moreover, if we are talking not just about a medium-weight tank, but about a cheap medium-weight tank with a simplified MSA. Ultimately, no one tries to dodge ATGMs on BMPs and armored personnel carriers. And they weigh just 25-30 tons at NATO.
    2. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 26 January 2019 15: 28
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      Moreover, a skirmish with a tank from the 50s and 60s, which was booked much stronger than the "medium tank" assumed by the author, would be fatal for a new class of vehicles.
      The author does not suggest, but describes what has been done, and this does not mean that the newly created medium tank will have thinner armor than the Leopard-1.
  13. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 22 November 2018 17: 07
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    According to the 2MV experience, it is known that even 85-88 mm perfectly cope with any armor of light armored vehicles. Even 76 mm will be enough to dismantle any modern car with light armor.

    But it’s not enough to launch an ATGM. Yes, and I'm afraid of a conventional bb shell, the range of destruction will differ from 100-105mm.
    Quote: abc_alex
    Moreover, a skirmish with a tank from the 50s and 60s, which was booked much stronger than the "medium tank" assumed by the author, would be fatal for a new class of vehicles.

    From 100-105 mm cannons, you can hit not only an outdated tank or a light one, but also modern tanks when attacking on board. If KAZ is not intercepted, but it is even easier for him to intercept the ATGM.
    Quote: abc_alex
    But the paradox is that the country that has been waging just such wars for the past half century prefers not just such crafts, not just heavy, but very heavy vehicles weighing 70 tons. Why would that be?

    It is not true. That country WAS TO this. And she came, because her opponents, including potential ones, are not bearded men at all, but countries that have modern tanks in service. Moreover, anyone sees and knows that this country has always wanted to have an advantage in armaments, what in the sky, what on earth, what it was striving for. So do not substitute concepts.
    Quote: abc_alex
    I believe that the author accepted the tank palliative of countries that do not have the resources to acquire the main tanks for signs of the emergence of a new class of vehicles.

    Hmm, for example the USA? Which is full of light tank projects.
    By the way, the author clearly writes in the text "In addition, in some regions, the purchase of full-fledged modern MBTs does not make sense for objective reasons. The probable enemy of the buying country may have a weak army with outdated equipment, and in this case, the newest tanks will be simply redundant for solving their tasks. "
    Quote: abc_alex
    A 2S25M "Octopus-SDM1" is not a tank, but self-propelled guns.

    And again, oppa - the author says in the article - self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP)
    It seems that you or another article have read or made some conclusions of your own from something not clear.
  14. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 22 November 2018 17: 08
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    ??? No tank will leave the ATGM.

    It is strange why then KAZ is doing.
    Moreover, besides him, it was full of various means, even before there were anti-tank missiles of various generations.
    Not only that, but are all ATGMs able to cope with the armor of modern tanks, whose resistance against cumulative ammunition is more than 1000-1100?
  15. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 22 November 2018 19: 56
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    The first one. Tanks do not fight tanks.

    What? What else would you say for stupidity?
    Quote: garri-lin
    The article says stupidity. Otherwise, all tanks would be armed with hole punchers with a high projectile speed.

    Soooo, I see the second nonsense.
    Quote: garri-lin
    And for a force majeure "melon" and a rocket can be launched.

    Can you calculate the difference between the cost of a projectile and an ATGM? 2A70 can use ATGMs with a penetration of a maximum of 750 mm, which has long been no longer enough to destroy modern tanks. What force majeure do you have there, I do not know.
    Quote: garri-lin
    The second one. There is experience in creating Armata. What prevents, based on this experience, to refine the Bahch module for remote control. The problem is completely solvable.

    This is not a remote control; it is a replacement of all devices with electronics and control and monitoring via a display. But solved.
    Yes, nobody needs your Bahce, that's why they put a normal gun on Octopus.
    Quote: garri-lin
    Third and most important. The most important thing is to change the weight; you do not need to maintain the original weight of the BMP 3. This is, if I remember correctly, 23 tons. In the most armored version. Transmission and engine native. Redraw the geometry of the case by reducing the dimensions. Release the released weight on the crew’s armored capsule and strengthen armor in vulnerable areas.
    The result is a small mobile vehicle with strong weapons and medium armor. Medium tank.

    Yes, do not tell, well, it will result in an Octopus, which is cardboard and which is not a medium tank, which for the most part is simply a cannon carrier. This is not enough.
    Bahcea is not a powerful weapon. From the word at all.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 22 November 2018 22: 40
      0
      Octopus is an anti-tank self-propelled gun. Focused on defense and ambush action. It has nothing to do with the tank. They initially took the gun and figured out how to drop it and carry it. What happened then happened.
      Look at what modern devices and controls are. Everything is on the wires. From the camera to the screen and from the joystick to the actuator. (Electric motor or solenoid valve for hydraulics). Wires can be made sooo long.
      And by the way, in tanks (main), the main weapon for defeating other tanks is the BOPS, which is sometimes more expensive than PTURA.
      And even if you are gathered on medium tanks butted with heavy / basic ones, then you are guaranteed either a hero star (if you trample in person) or a tribunal (if you send subordinates).
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 22 November 2018 22: 45
      0
      Well and more. Seeing stupidity is fun. Express self-esteem about her in an original way. Only sometimes from the outside such an opinion also looks quite extravagant.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 23 November 2018 00: 47
        0
        Do not be offended. It's just that you are fixated on some idea and the arguments are not important to you, you will still defend it. That is, any disputes are a priori useless. When I see some of your statements, I fall into a stupor. How do you plan a tank or its various units, tasks, etc. without knowing this, and without trying to find out.
        But, I admit that I was wrong, let's give more details.
        Quote: garri-lin
        The first one. Tanks do not fight tanks.

        This is not true completely. Modern tanks have an anti-tank gun. About what you yourself mentioned when describing the Octopus. There is a modification of the usual 2a46. Look at the BK tanks there all is completely Anti tank in some even there is no OB. If the tasks do not have this, then all the same the first goal and the most important for tanks are tanks.
        And what you say means that tanks have their own task in battle, for example:
        “Tank troops in the system of modern combined arms offensive combat are:
        1) the most advantageous way to bypass or cover the flanks of the enemy’s defensive position that were discovered or created by a breakthrough;
        2) one of the powerful means of breaking through the enemy's defensive position;
        3) along with artillery and aviation, one of the means of simultaneously suppressing the tactical depth of enemy defense;
        4) an active part of the anti-tank system of the advancing infantry fighting order.

        Quote: garri-lin
        The article says stupidity. Otherwise, all tanks would be armed with hole punchers with a high projectile speed.

        Now about it. Are you sure you aren’t confusing anything with the tanks of World War II and World of Tanks?
        The tanks have just such shells with great speed. And for modern distances and armor, no hole punch is no longer suitable. Even the 120-125 guns at maximum striking power, all countries are thinking about large calibers.
        Quote: garri-lin
        The main purpose of the tank is infantry support. 100 is it.

        You yourself read what you write? There is nothing in this phrase. Infantry support, ok, but against whom? Do you understand? Infantry support is an action without any specifics. There is no point in this definition and your statement about 100mm caliber. You have not written down the purposes for which the shells from a cannon of this caliber are intended. So I’ll give you, for example, bunkers, and hello you 100 caliber and even ATGM.
        Moreover, the calibres are different, you understand that the 2a70 cannon is a low-ballistic cannon and using good HE shells and cumulatives is not intended for firing bb, it has a low firing range and all the other jokes related to its peculiarity. This is not the same as a 100 mm anti-tank gun. Just think about it properly.
        Once again, no matter what the purpose of the tanks on the battlefield, the tank will be the strongest and most dangerous enemy for it, so tanks have anti-tank guns and shells.
        Quote: abc_alex
        According to the 2MV experience, it is known that even 85-88 mm perfectly cope with any armor of light armored vehicles.

        And this is also a phrase completely detached from reality. What other experience of the second world war? Do you understand what you write? You entered several components into one phrase at once, which changed radically. Firstly, the guns themselves and everything connected with it, secondly, shells for them, thirdly, armor and light equipment. That is, the experience of the Second World War in general does not apply to any image to modern realities, even on one point, and here at least three.
        For penetrating any light equipment, 57mm projectile is enough now, ammunition can be for him BOPS. But if shells of this caliber are used to hit other types of targets, they will be extremely ineffective. And for more severe, you will need separate anti-tank systems. Surprise, but such machines already exist - this is an BMP.

        Once again I say, I wrote briefly because I was sure that these were obvious things and there was no point in discussing them. Most of them generally stupidly follow from the evolution of tanks.
  16. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 22 November 2018 23: 32
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Octopus is an anti-tank self-propelled gun. Focused on defense and ambush action. It has nothing to do with the tank. They initially took the gun and figured out how to drop it and carry it. What happened then happened.

    Yes, and that is exactly what I wrote to another colleague.
    I just wrote to you what happens from your concept of redevelopment and something to build on.
    Quote: garri-lin
    Look at what modern devices and controls are. Everything is on the wires. From the camera to the screen and from the joystick to the actuator. (Electric motor or solenoid valve for hydraulics). Wires can be made sooo long.

    Yes, I’m generally an electronic engineer in a civilian specialty. :)))
    I’m writing about the organization of jobs, and not about how far you can place the governing bodies. Once again, I repeat to you that no one has yet made an armored capsule for such small and weakly protected devices, as well as remote workstations with the output of everything to displays and control through them. If one could say how difficult it is to organize, how expensive, how much space and weight it takes and so on.
    Quote: garri-lin
    And by the way, in tanks (main), the main weapon for defeating other tanks is the BOPS, which is sometimes more expensive than PTURA.

    But it’s not more expensive. Somehow I was wondering with one colleague we looked at the German crowbars of the latest modifications and compared them with the Cornets. It turned out that scraps are even the most perfect and German cheaper than our ptura. We did not compare with the latest generation ATGMs with the same Jewelin and Tou
    Moreover, this is force majeure, and basically the goals will be less protected, where the usual bb discs that are riveted by the sea are perfect.
    Quote: garri-lin
    And even if you are gathered on medium tanks butted with heavy / basic ones, then you are guaranteed either a hero star (if you trample in person) or a tribunal (if you send subordinates).

    Medium tanks - what is it? Can be more?
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 23 November 2018 03: 48
      0
      How I want to discuss with you over a glass of tea. Alas, I am not a writer and I express my thoughts in writing quite mediocre.
      But let's start from the end. What is a medium tank. This is a massive military unit. Armor infantry. In 60 years, the medium tank was transformed into the main. And he stayed in this form until the end of the 80s. The shooting star is short. Modern tanks are complex, expensive, overweight, and still have a lot of shortcomings. The time has come to return the title of heavy monsters to modern monsters and will begin to revive the medium. In the USSR, this role was played by BMP. But they have a serious minus very weak armor from everything up to the rifleman. The BMP armor will return, it can again be used as tanks. . Medium tank. Mass tank in the ranks of the infantry. Able to pick and pillbox and bunker and much more. And the VET task of the TANK AT THE LAST PLACE. Especially in the middle.
  17. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 23 November 2018 05: 48
    0
    Quote: garri-lin

    How I want to discuss with you over a glass of tea. Alas, I am not a writer and I express my thoughts in writing quite mediocre.

    I respect tea very much! :)
    Quote: garri-lin
    But let's start from the end. What is a medium tank. This is a massive military unit. Armor infantry. In 60 years, the medium tank was transformed into the main. And he stayed in this form until the end of the 80s. The shooting star is short. Modern tanks are complex, expensive, overweight, and still have a lot of shortcomings.

    In general, the classification is quite muddy, because according to the classifications of different countries the same tanks were medium and heavy.
    Now here is what I found:
    "At present, it is the basis of modern tank parks of the armed forces of any country in the world.
    Strengthening motorized rifle troops (motorized infantry) and other military branches in all types of battles and operations;
    breakthrough of fortified positions;
    destruction of firing points;
    destruction of enemy equipment and manpower;
    rapid organization of defensive lines. "

    So this is what I had in mind with the question about the medium tank - what was at one time more or less clear to me. And what to take for an average tank now? Just weight loss? I think this is not entirely true.
    If we are talking about some sort of more or less distinguished group, we must first understand what tasks they will face. And what is required to fulfill them. And one more nuance, and this is reflected in the article. In the West, they usually use the term light tank, as opposed to the main one. Not average, but light. Personally, I would use just such a term, although at first glance the name is something like a BMP. But no, for example 551 sheridan or relatively modern M8.
    And it’s not just that, having several types of tanks is very expensive and not convenient in terms of interchangeability, parts, repair. For this country and have massively one tank.
    We already have this situation - 3 tanks already exist. T-72, T-90, T-14. Well, a different number of tanks, which in fact survive their lives and not the fact that they will be modernized. The T-72 was and will probably be a tank of mobilization time. Thousands of which riveted and which in storage to varying degrees of severity. This is a cheaper option, simpler. T-90 and T-14 are our best tanks, the T-90 is the main one, and with the T-14 the situation has hung, but we will watch. So, the T-72 and T-90 are used, upgraded, repaired, and although they are very similar in many respects, there are quite a lot of differences, especially with the latest modifications. And where else to put a massive separate tank, I do not know. If he still will be on another platform, then this will be extremely unprofitable. To be honest, I can’t imagine what benefits he would carry, what would outweigh this.
  18. Tigerclaw-x
    Tigerclaw-x 23 November 2018 18: 18
    +1
    Oh, how I "like" all sorts of rascals who reinvent the wheel and then sell it to suckers. Even more I "like people" who are confused in materiel. So. the author writes a report on "new medium tanks". reality check. The terms MEDIUM tank and MBT are interchangeable. Those tanks about which the author writes, this is a new concept of light tanks. "Tanks for the Poor". Which is also far from new. I remind AFFTaru that in the 60s-70s there were ideas that the best defense of the tank is maneuverability and armor is not needed. The French made AMX30 and its derivatives, the Germans riveted Leopard 1. Consider that there was no armor on them. Exactly against 30mm guns. The armament was at the level of the L7 Cannon or its French version. Weight - in the region of 35 tons. What "new" tank concepts does the author describe to us? Low-armored, mobile, with normal weapons. If not at the level of the office, then "almost at the level" (the same 105mm). Weight - in the region of 30 tons. Don't you get the impression that all these "new" concepts are nothing more than "old songs in a new way"? Just companies are trying to persuade suckers all sorts of homemade products. Designed specifically for the poor. No, do not get me wrong. If you have half the country it is the ALPS then you do not need 50 ton tanks. But the niche of light tanks has been successfully replaced for a long time, with the light hand of the arrogant (once) galls ... armored vehicles. There is no need to invent anything new either. Everything is already there and verified. Centaur -Italian car with 120mm cannon (by the way 125mm can also be shoved). French AMX10RC there 105mm. Armored vehicles with 90mm cannons are generally dofig. And the "outdated" or "lightweight" tank, even 90mm is enough for the eyes. And not only 90mm, Italians who make excellent weapons but cannot make a car sawed off a 60mm cannon. Which calmly intermeddle in ... Chilean Chaffik - M24. And it has armor penetration comparable to 90mm. And the "poor countries" do not need remakes at all, which are just "old songs about the main thing." Against light / obsolete tanks. This 60mm is a great hole punch. By the way, it was installed not only on the good old Sherman (yes, they are still running), the tower with such a cannon (and the LMS) was pushed even on the M113. What do I want to say? a) the author does not know the difference between the Office and the medium tank. He smartly writes about "Marder MediuM" calls it "average" and says that it weighs 42 tons. The first version of the T-72 had a weight of 42 tons. That the T-72 is also "average"? Teach materiel. b) "new concepts" - well-forgotten old ones c) "New tanks" for "new concepts" are nothing more than a scam for money. d) It is not necessary to invent a lisped with a smart look. Everything has already been invented before us. e) They will only buy weapons to combat "outdated tanks" f) The armor of a tank, in general, must withstand the detonation of its own active protection. And if so, then MINIMUM two inches of armor is REQUIRED (exactly like on Sherman, for example). f) The whole concept of those tanks that the author calls, unknowingly, medium - this is the concept of light tanks. These tanks have a very, very narrow range of applications. For example, in the sea or airborne assault. Or in a place where the Office will not be able to work. In all other cases, such a "new" light tank is a tin can - with the corpses of the crew. The author says that the MBT are easily hit by ATGMs. Far from easy. In Iraq, the Abrams, not even the SEPs, withstood the entry of ATGMs into the frontal projection. The fact that the tank is struck aboard does not mean that you do not need to book your forehead. They hope that the enemy will set the board, and in the hope of abandoning heavy weapons, this is either idiocy or sabotage. Yes 40-57mm guns have their own niche. But not for the fight against the Office, but for the fight against their own kind. Previously, 25mm-30mm was enough for this - now it’s gone. Armor BMPshek is getting fat. Many BMPs do not swim on their own. On the Bradley, even on the first modifications there was 60mm of armor at an angle. A 30mm cannon will simply not penetrate. So the transition to 57mm is logical. HF action of 57mm projectile is much higher than HF action of 30 or 25mm. But this does not mean that the Office will substitute the sides for 57mm.
    The overwhelming part of the cost of modern MBT is electronics and weapons. The author proposes to keep electronics and weapons "practically at the level of the office." That is, there will be no savings .. They will save on the engine, transmission and armor. But at the expense of the tank's survivability. Such "light" tanks will be guaranteed to be destroyed even by 30mm Rardens. By the way, neither Rarden nor the Soviet 2mm M3A30 Bradley is taken anywhere at all. 22 tons. The concept of "light, cheap tanks" is fundamentally flawed. At the meeting with the Office, the pictures "M4 Sherman vs. Tiger" will be repeated. Loss 7: 1. So it's cheaper to buy 30MBT than 210 canned panzer martyrs.
    Light tanks have their own niche: Airborne Forces, Marines, Mountain Units, difficult terrain. But replacing the Office with "lungs" is suicide. By the way, wheeled vehicles with heavy weapons: Centavro, AMX10RC and already with them will not only be cheaper than such "light tanks" but also lighter. Learn materiel. I repeat, the expectation that you have to fight "outdated technology" is either idiocy or sabotage.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 24 November 2018 16: 57
      0
      Quote: Tigerclaw-x
      By the way, the M2A3 Bradley is neither taken by the Garden nor the Soviet 30mm at all

      You are mistaken. Booking Bradley - STANAG 4.
      this means that he is holding a B-32 bullet from the CPV from 200 meters.
      tower and lobeshnik - STANAG 5, holds a 25mm tungsten snapper with 500m. On the latest upgrades, a mounted DZ appeared, but it does not save from armor piercing.
      for protection from 30mm (with 500m) you need STANAG 6, and so units are armored.
      only Germans come to mind - Puma and Mardera’s lobeshnik
      The BM90 CV5 reservation STANAG 30+, it holds XNUMXmm with a set of mounted extra. reservation
  19. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 23 November 2018 19: 48
    0
    Quote: Tigerclaw-x
    a) the author does not know the difference between the Office and the medium tank.

    Quote: Tigerclaw-x
    The terms MEDIUM tank and MBT are interchangeable.

    Main Battle Tank - MBT
    MBT = medium tank? Really?
  20. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 24 November 2018 09: 00
    0
    Quote: Tigerclaw-x
    By the way, the M2A3 Bradley is neither taken by the Garden nor the Soviet 30mm at all. 22 tons.

    Let's not lie like that to confirm our theory.
    Firstly, by increasing the reservation, Bradley’s forehead creates the equivalent of 110-130 mm of armor, but not on the sides. And modern BOPTS just for our 2a42 reach a penetration of 55mm at an angle of 60 degrees at a distance of 1000 meters. Just great for Bradley's sides and a good heap of bursts is also possible for the forehead. What you indicated was only true for regular bb.
    Well, 22 tons is not even funny. The latest modifications Bradley weighs 30, according to other sources 33 tons.
  21. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 24 November 2018 22: 39
    0
    Quote: zyzx
    T-55 is our everything and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. This tank was built according to the results of the 2nd World War. The concept that 10 cheap mobile tanks will be taken away by 2 heavy-duty heaped up ones hasn’t gone and is not outdated.

    In some places, and 34-85 still hoo how to use, and do not squeak about all sorts of new products there)

    https://twitter.com/YemeniObserv
  22. Clone
    Clone 26 November 2018 23: 38
    0
    What's the point with such a "modern tank" with cardboard protection? No, well, if only there is nowhere to invest money ...
  23. egsp
    egsp 27 November 2018 15: 16
    0
    It hurts TAM like a Panther, he would still have skating rinks in a staggered manner and that’s all .... you can act in films about the 2nd World War.
  24. bone1
    bone1 9 December 2018 18: 56
    0
    Who needs a tank without armor? -Although, it’s cheap and looks like a real one. laughing
  25. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 10 January 2019 03: 16
    0
    An interesting selection of countries interested in such technology - small and not rich. And if they are big and poor, then EE-T1 and T2 are "Ozorio", and if they are small and rich, then the "Leopards" are the penultimate ones, or even "Leclercs".
  26. acetophenone
    acetophenone 12 January 2019 11: 33
    0
    However, the characteristics of such weapons are unnecessary for these purposes, and therefore firing at them will not be economically advantageous.
    Of course! It is much more profitable not to hit the enemy with the first shot, but to wait for a retaliatory strike! And scratch your armor with brains. And other low-value parts of the body.