Modern tank battle: how relevant and what is


Quite often in the media, the point of view slips that in modern warfare Tanks lose their important role. As cavalry in the XNUMXth century gave way to armored vehicles, so in the XNUMXst century tanks become less and less relevant. But can such an opinion be considered fair?


Skeptics argue that the development of various anti-tank systems, the emergence and improvement of high-precision weaponsThe transition to remote forms of warfare significantly reduces the demand for tanks as the main striking force of the ground forces.

Initially, the tank emerged as a weapon to break through the enemy’s positions during the First World War. Then the war was of a positional nature, the enemy troops could be in the trenches for months, and a tank attack allowed to break through the line of defense.

The peak of success of tank attacks is World War II.

But in the modern world, the importance of air and missile strikes has increased many times. On the other hand, the likelihood of a direct tank confrontation between the two sides was reduced.

According to critics of the “tank concept,” NATO’s less interest in them is clear evidence of tank obsolescence. And indeed it is. But in this case, how to explain that China, Russia or India, which are also interested in modern and combat-ready armed forces, continue to develop and build up their tank forces?

The thing is that modern local conflicts, which are becoming more and more, open up new opportunities for the use of tanks. Special forces and infantry fighting in urban conditions need a powerful assault weapon, which would be practically invulnerable to a lightly armed enemy. Therefore, tanks were widely used in Syria and the Donbas, and Israel, which is actually in a state of constant war, takes the strengthening and development of tank troops no less seriously than Russia, and does not at all share the position of NATO strategists regarding the future of tanks and tank troops.


A modern tank should have several key features. Firstly, it is the ability to conduct combat at any time of the day, in any climatic conditions. Secondly, this is a well-established communication system, the exchange of information with other tanks of your unit and with other units as a whole. Thirdly, it is an opportunity to fight with tanks and armored vehicles, as well as enemy infantry during the battle, as well as the ability to deal with enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft.

Experts argue that in a modern tank battle, the ideal option is to return to the crew of four tankmen - the commander, the driver, the gunner, the loader. An additional crew member in the person of the loader facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing individual functions during the battle.


In addition, the combat use of the tank in modern conditions should only be comprehensive - they must operate together with attack helicopters, reconnaissance and reconnaissance-attack aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and special forces. In this case, a tank strike acquires new content and becomes a truly effective means of suppressing the enemy.

Thus, in modern local warfare, the importance of tanks remains extremely high. High firepower, armor protection and tank mobility are qualities that no other ground combat vehicle has yet. In the face of confrontation in a city or other locality, tanks provide invaluable support to infantry units and special forces, as verified by practice in the "hot spots" of the Middle East.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

156 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uncle lee 5 February 2020 14: 26 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    "Thundering with fire, sparkling with a gleam of steel,
    Cars will go on a furious campaign "!
    1. 1959ain 5 February 2020 16: 05 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      As long as the enemy has missiles or planes, a one-on-one tank battle from a great 2 km distance from the great Russian one is hardly possible. Amerra in Iraq knocked out Saddam's tanks by most, aviation
      1. svp67 5 February 2020 22: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: 1959ain
        Amerra in Iraq knocked out Saddam's tanks by most, aviation

        Just because Iraq was not able to effectively counteract them with its aircraft and air defense forces.
        Thus, in modern local warfare, the importance of tanks remains extremely high.
        But I just didn’t understand what the author wanted to say ... Does the meaning of the tank in a local war is high, but in a global one, not nuclear or limited nuclear, what will it mean? Are there many means in the armies for action in zones of infection?
        In addition, the combat use of the tank in modern conditions should only be comprehensive - they must operate together with attack helicopters, reconnaissance and reconnaissance-attack aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and special forces. In this case, a tank strike acquires new content and becomes a truly effective means of suppressing the enemy.
        Mean tank "effective means of suppressing the enemy"but it makes artillery excellent, better than a tank. But the author did not think, and who will destroy the enemy? I will not reveal the secret of the open door, but the infantry does it excellently, and the tanks should support it in this matter and, if necessary, cover it with armor. And in such cases it is necessary to act with well-organized interaction with artillery, here is the main strike troika: artillery-tanks-infantry.
        1. Alexander Makarinsky 11 February 2020 18: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The author wanted to say that from the tank you need to throw the automatic loader and put the loader in there so that
          Quote: Experts argue that in a modern tank battle, the ideal option is to return to the crew of four tankers - a commander, a driver, a gunner loading. An additional crew member in the person of the loader facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing individual functions during the battle.
          I’m wondering what additional functions a loader can perform during a battle? scratch the commander’s ear, or tell a joke?
          1. svp67 11 February 2020 20: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexander Makarinsky
            scratch the commander’s ear, or tell a joke?

            In vain irony. The fourth crew member is sometimes very helpful. Another thing is that now Russia will not return to such a crew on the tank. Here a bunch of problems of one of them in particular is the limited size of our army in peacetime. And the appearance of the fourth crew member, which means it will be necessary to increase it by several thousand more.
    2. Evil Booth 6 February 2020 18: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      t62 with its OFZ may well surprise KAZ afghanite t-14 with sedges without hitting and breaking the gun barrel and devices. similarly with 12km t-72 shrapnel breaks the barrel of the gun abrams abrams himself like a leopard for targets like infantryman firing bops with a diameter of 2cm for unchanged OFZ and all experts go nafig wholesale the word has long been abusive. Shl shcha barrels 6 * 0,2 meters used to be 3 to 0,1 and half in the armored casing and OFZ were several times lighter almost always and then stably carried gun trunks with sedges
  2. mark1 5 February 2020 14: 30 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    [quoteThe additional crew member in the person of the loader facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing individual functions during the battle] [/ quote]
    In other words - in a close-knit carriage you need a sniper ...
    Experts know ... Oh, these "experts."
    1. Vladimir_2U 5 February 2020 14: 52 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Quote: mark1
      Oh, these "experts."
      Yeah, also Acacia in the last photo posted.
      1. max702 5 February 2020 15: 15 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Quote: mark1
        Oh, these "experts."
        Yeah, also Acacia in the last photo posted.

        But this is a Freudian clause, because today such a machine is needed .. that is, well-protected (tank armor) and with a powerful gun capable of firing not only direct fire (with very limited angles), but also along the hinged trajectory Acacia .. After the Second World War, tanks (especially those of the “partners”) actually turned into anti-tank destroyers with the main task of destroying BTs, hence the most sophisticated weapons with an enormous speed of shots, and cunning uranium shells, and anti-tank missiles costing a good car .. let's add to this no less complicated expensive with The self-propelled guns and the scanty resource of an expensive gun barrel were received by the self-propelled guns .. And who will solve the tasks and requests of the infantry? That’s what the naked Akatsiya self-propelled guns and others poke on the cutting edge with a sad outcome for the latter (there’s no armor) .. That’s why today there’s a request for such weapons, but why traditional tank builders ignore this direction apparently they’re not interested, an attempt to create a BMPT correct, but the implementation is beyond that .. BMPT requires a large caliber to destroy fortifications and needs an independent fire post to cover and destroy tank-dangerous infantry which is not observed in modern technology ..
        1. Vladimir_2U 5 February 2020 15: 47 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Yeah, and the cannon in Acacia in the photo up so badly pulled up that almost almost horizontally. From the lack of tanks or from the general stupidity so self-propelled guns are used.
          Quote: max702
          And who will solve the tasks and requests of the infantry

          The predominance of HE shells in the tank of domestic tanks seems to give an answer to this, and the HE shell of 125 mm is slightly weaker, if at all weaker than 122 mm, but not of Acacia, of course, but of Carnation.
          1. max702 5 February 2020 16: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            The fact that the trunk at the bottom in the photo does not cancel the fact that it can almost vertically up .. The tank cannot do this, the fact that we have an OFS in the tank’s presence in the tank is fine, but it is more expensive in the first place, and yes because of the thick the walls are less powerful .. Roughly speaking, tanks with a self-propelled guns or self-propelled guns with tank armor would be used with pleasure but they aren’t banal in nature therefore they can be twisted by what they are .. It seems to me that the main question is as always, but how will it be direct fire at the tank with such a low initial speed? Like, it won’t break through the armor .. And the whole question is closed .. And the fact that in recent decades targets in conflicts of 99% are by no means tanks is the matter of the fifteenth .. Let's just say self-propelled guns with tank armor for modern conflicts are a more universal tool than a classic tank .. But they are not .. and I repeat on this self-propelled guns and go into battle ..
            1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 16: 50 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: max702
              Tank can't do that

              Moreover, the tank does not need this.
              For firing of this kind with large elevation angles will continue only until the enemy gets tired of it and the tank does not rake anything from above.
            2. Vladimir_2U 5 February 2020 17: 09 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: max702
              Let's just say self-propelled guns with tank armor for modern conflicts are a more versatile tool than a classic tank
              Maybe so, but without a rotating turret this is nonsense, and with a turret and armor one damn tank comes out.
              Quote: max702
              but it’s primarily more expensive, and yes because of the thick walls it’s less powerful
              Because of the plumage is more expensive, but why are the walls thicker, why? After all, there is no additional charge as in BOPs, the mass is much larger and the initial speed is correspondingly much less, plus the rotation speed is many times lower than that of rifled shells, so why would the walls be thicker?
              1. ser56 5 February 2020 17: 23 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                but without a rotating tower this is nonsense,

                why rotation? Do fires often endure at high degrees in battle? Even in WW2, artillery assaults cost quite ... request
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                After all, an additional charge like that of BOPs n

                But is BOPS needed in the era of missiles with tandem warheads that shoot through the barrel?
                1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 18: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  why rotation?

                  To provide the ability to fire in motion.

                  Quote: ser56
                  But is BOPS needed in the era of missiles with tandem warheads that shoot through the barrel?

                  BOPS is more likely to overcome the protection of the tank (BMP, BTR), including KAZ and KOEP

                  Quote: ser56
                  Something prevents the use of a lower charge for the OFS?

                  Inadequate gun automation
                  1. riwas 6 February 2020 05: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    BOPS is more likely to overcome the protection of the tank (BMP, BTR), including KAZ and KOEP

                    Israeli company Elbit Systems has announced the testing of an active protection system for main battle tanks and other types of armored vehicles Iron Fist from BOPS. According to Jane's, during the tests, the system successfully intercepted a 120-millimeter caliber armor-piercing stabilized projectile.
                    Afghanite is also capable of this.
                    1. Lopatov 6 February 2020 14: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: riwas
                      According to Jane's, during the tests, the system successfully intercepted a 120-millimeter caliber armor-piercing stabilized projectile.
                      Afghanite is also capable of this.

                      However, subsonic or transonic ATGMs affect such systems much, much more successfully.
                      1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 21: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        However, subsonic or transonic ATGMs such systems hit much, much more successfully .... it is doubtful that all kinds of tests are in the course of the hothouse conditions to attract financing. in fact, everything is not so rosy and even nasty. published tests on the KAZ have never shown the interception of paired anti-tank ammunition, even paired or built from different directions of RPG shots, and if you complicate the task of a combined attack on armored vehicles with the KAZ using the heavy RPG and ATGM shooting ..... I don’t need to explain what of this good in local conflict zones that are mud in a swamp,
                    2. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 21: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      According to Jane's, during the tests, the system successfully intercepted the sub-caliber ......... it is doubtful that, at first, the KAZ’s threat of an approach of 1600 m per second is not enough. and if two BOPS. Yes, however, and 2 OF. it’s practically impossible, except in a country of dreams, and indeed, KAZ is a soapy expensive bubble, and it doesn’t matter if Trophy is Afghanit or Bullfinch, so he looted for 50 years
                  2. ser56 6 February 2020 13: 54 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    To provide the ability to fire in motion.

                    Are there 15 sectors from the axis? or all for the sake of beautiful frames on TV?
                    Quote: Spade
                    BOPS is more likely to overcome the protection of the tank (BMP, BTR), including KAZ and KOEP

                    but the rocket shoots at a great distance and can dive onto a weakly protected roof ...
                    Quote: Spade
                    Inadequate gun automation

                    the issue of TK for tool designers ... there are much more bonuses from a little complication - an increase in the power of the projectile (due to the explosive value) and a decrease in the wear of the barrel channel of the OFS.
                    1. Lopatov 6 February 2020 14: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: ser56
                      Are there 15 sectors from the axis? or all for the sake of beautiful frames on TV?

                      Trigonometry, the solution of the triangle. Just think how little 15 degrees

                      Quote: ser56
                      but the rocket shoots at a great distance

                      What is the difference, to what range, if in the end it is knocked down?
                      1. ser56 6 February 2020 14: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Trigonometry, the solution of the triangle. Just think how little 15 degrees

                        at a distance of 1 km 15 degrees this is 267 m ... which is already more than the distance between the tanks in deployed PSUs .. request
                        Quote: Spade
                        if in the end they knock her down?

                        You can shoot down BOPS ... request
                      2. Lopatov 6 February 2020 18: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: ser56
                        it's 267 m ... which is already more than the distance

                        8))))
                        They say an American motorized infantry platoon defends a strip up to 400 meters wide


                        Quote: ser56
                        You can shoot down BOPS ...

                        Can. But the probability is much less
                      3. ser56 6 February 2020 18: 22 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        They say an American motorized infantry platoon defends a strip up to 400 meters wide

                        I will tell you the secret of arithmetic + and -15 degrees is 267 * 2 = 534m ... repeat However, attacking a platoon stronghold with one tank is extremely reckless ... request
                      4. Lopatov 6 February 2020 18: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: ser56
                        I will tell you the secret of arithmetic + and -15 degrees this

                        ... a sector of 30 degrees. About three times more than self-propelled guns of the ISU-152 type

                        From this we take away the “tolerances” for the stabilization system. And it remains just a little bit.


                        Quote: ser56
                        However, attacking a platoon stronghold with one tank is extremely reckless ...

                        At the same time, lone platoon strongpoints without a neighbor to the right and left are also a very rare occurrence.
                      5. ser56 7 February 2020 11: 44 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        About three times more than self-propelled guns of the ISU-152 type

                        in TTX ISU-122 (closer in caliber) 10 degrees are given, usually they give half of the axis ... so 20 ...
                        Quote: Spade
                        And it remains just a little bit.

                        such as ISU-122, 152, Su-85 and 100 fought ... request
                        Quote: Spade
                        At the same time, lone platoon strongpoints without a neighbor to the right and left are also a very rare occurrence.

                        attacking without interacting with art and aircraft is not reasonable either ... hi
                        Another question is how reasonable it is to have a tower spin, or rather, the limitations in the design that its presence creates - and there are many of them!
                      6. Lopatov 7 February 2020 13: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: ser56
                        in TTX ISU-122 (closer in caliber) 10 degrees are given, usually they give half of the axis ... so 20 ...

                        No ... They don’t give "Half off axis." Or "+ -", or general degrees. 10 degrees is ± 5

                        Quote: ser56
                        attack without interacting with art and aviation is not reasonable either

                        Oh ... It's good that they reminded. laughing
                        Count the sector not for 1 km, but for 200 m. The safe removal line for tank units. When artillery and aviation will not be able to provide support.
                      7. ser56 7 February 2020 13: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        and for 200 m.

                        you have a curious understanding of the location of the concentration area request
    2. Vladimir_2U 6 February 2020 03: 22 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: ser56
      why rotation
      Are you seriously? In urban combat, do not need the rotation of the tower?
      Quote: ser56
      Is BOPS needed in the era of missiles with tandem warheads fired through the barrel
      Take a look at how far from the muzzle end fuses of tank missiles are blown up, compare the cost of BOPS and a rocket, not even a tandem one, and I hope there will be no questions about the need for BOPS.
      1. ser56 6 February 2020 13: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Are you seriously?

        absolutely...
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        In urban combat, do not rotate the tower?

        Do you need a long barrel and BOPS? bully
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        compare the cost of BOPS and rockets,

        compare efficiency? for example, the possibility of hitting the enemy with a rocket and BOPS at 5km?

        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        and questions about the need for BOPS I hope will disappear.

        Unfortunately no...
        1. Vladimir_2U 6 February 2020 14: 29 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          at what distance from the muzzle end are fuses of tank missiles
          You seem to have missed this, or did not understand.
          Quote: ser56
          In urban combat, do not rotate the tower?
          Do you need a long barrel and BOPS?
          That's strange, do you contrast the long barrel and BOPS to a rotating tower? So do you need a rotating tower or not?
          Quote: ser56
          compare efficiency? for example, the possibility of hitting the enemy with a rocket and BOPS at 5km?
          Will you find a lot of open 5 km spaces in the city? Even in Europe, not in development, the maximum totaled 3 km of open area. Let me remind you that anti-aircraft missiles are cocked at 50-200 m, or 1,5 - 2 s. when shooting point-blank, and in the city it is very likely, the rocket can be useless. Look at the use of tanks in the city, all the time there are exits with a deployed tower, a shot and an instant retreat, just figure out how crazy self-propelled guns will be writhing in this case.
  3. max702 5 February 2020 18: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I just propose to put another weapon from the same Vienna, for example, or Carnation, into the modified tank tower, the weight will increase. Well, this equipment doesn’t need much mobility, and it will be fought in an urban area ..
  • ser56 5 February 2020 17: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: max702
    and yes because of the thick walls less powerful

    Something prevents the use of a lower charge for the OFS? repeat
    1. Vladimir_2U 6 February 2020 03: 26 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: ser56
      Something prevents the use of a lower charge for the OFS?

      In Russian tank OFSs, and so on, only a throwing half charge with a pallet is used, as it is correctly called there, BOPS always has an additional throwing charge around the “scrap” itself, and the automation does not have anything to do with it.
  • the most important 5 February 2020 15: 03 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: mark1
    Experts know ... Oh, these "experts."

    What is the essence of the article? The topic is not disclosed at all ... An article at the level of a first-grader student. Why would such a thing be placed on VO? If that works, then soon there will simply be headlines, and the rest "add yourself" ...
  • Amateur 5 February 2020 15: 15 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing individual functions during the battle

    Bottle "for three" and no one on duty. And so there is always a daily.
    1. Machito 5 February 2020 16: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You also need to add a dog to the crew.
  • ser56 5 February 2020 17: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    Oh, these "experts."

    aha, given that the requirements for security have increased, and an extra crew member is an extra volume ... hence the abrams in 60t ... request
  • ccsr 5 February 2020 20: 03 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: mark1
    In other words - in a close-knit carriage you need a sniper ...
    Experts know ... Oh, these "experts."

    This "expert" does not know that an "additional crew member" is needed in the tank, but in the service unit of the tank regiment, because the more complex the equipment, the more serious the training should be for those who will do it. They will provide security if necessary.
  • Amateur 5 February 2020 14: 33 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    As cavalry in the XNUMXth century gave way to armored vehicles,

    The iron horse replaces the peasant horse! (O. Bender)

    Compare cavalry with tanks? The cavalry ended because trucks, armored cars, and, ultimately, tanks — vehicles using other physical principles — arrived.
    Tanks will end if they come up with something that gives the soldier the same protection, firepower and significantly superior tank mobility capabilities, i.e. some "pieces of iron" (or plastic "soap dishes") also use either other physical principles or other sources of energy.
    1. Uncle Izya 5 February 2020 15: 04 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      The armored cars did not end. Is it your fantasies, but how about a tiger armored personnel carriers?
      1. Amateur 5 February 2020 15: 13 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Armored cars did not end it's your fantasies

        Dear Uncle Izya. At the expense of fantasies - this is for you to Aunt Sarah.
        But if your knowledge of the Russian language is not enough, then in my comment we are talking about replacing cavalry with vehicles with an internal combustion engine (ICE) and about replacing vehicles with ICE with vehicles with other energy sources.
        1. Uncle Izya 5 February 2020 15: 15 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          What is not enough knowledge and more?
          1. Amateur 5 February 2020 15: 19 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            your fantasies a tiger armored vehiclesа О н P tera like

            And where did the word "tiger" come from? drinks
          2. Krasnodar 5 February 2020 15: 35 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Uncle Izya
            What is not enough knowledge and more?

            That's it - Nick’s choice has dire consequences))
            1. kiril1246 5 February 2020 15: 41 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              Quote: Krasnodar
              That's it - Nick’s choice has serious consequences))

              He took only three hours as a Jewish nickname, and as a Russian already hates.
              1. Krasnodar 5 February 2020 15: 49 New
                • 11
                • 2
                +9
                Dad, I want to be Russian
                So I’ll tell the driver, Schaub drove you not to school, but to a tram stop
                Mom, I want to be Russian
                So - do not eat pike cutlets, now I will order you dumplings
                Grandfather, I want to be Russian
                Well, instead of a thousand rubles a day, you’ll get two hundred in your pocket
                Damn - Russian for five minutes, but I already hate you!
                1. kiril1246 5 February 2020 15: 52 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  Dad, I want to be Russian
                  So I’ll tell the driver, Schaub drove you not to school, but to a tram stop
                  Mom, I want to be Russian
                  So - do not eat pike cutlets, now I will order you dumplings
                  Grandfather, I want to be Russian
                  Well, instead of a thousand rubles a day, you’ll get two hundred in your pocket
                  Damn - Russian for five minutes, but I already hate you!

                  In-in. Zionists frolic with might and main on the site and this is at a time when these patriots lack Rosenthal's textbook.
                  1. Krasnodar 5 February 2020 15: 55 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    All that is positive in the Zionists is the Wasserman reaction!
                2. Alexey RA 5 February 2020 17: 32 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  Dad, I want to be Russian

                  - God, I can no longer be a Jew! Make me considered Russian!
                  “Good,” said God. And he sent a Russian Jew to Israel.
                  ©
                  1. Krasnodar 5 February 2020 17: 32 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    I have not heard - good good
                3. 3x3zsave 5 February 2020 20: 21 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  From the identity of the old Odessa joke!
              2. Uncle Izya 6 February 2020 08: 59 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                How can I hate my native language? Do you hate the country?
      2. Winnie76 5 February 2020 18: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        armored personnel carriers

        For the "pihot" laughing
    2. ccsr 5 February 2020 20: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Amateur
      Tanks will end if they come up with something that gives the soldier the same protection, firepower and significantly superior tank mobility capabilities, i.e. some "pieces of iron"

      So it’s been invented for a long time - self-propelled guns, MLRS which give everything that you need. And at the same time, they do not need to go straight to defeat the enemy, since the use of reconnaissance equipment and UAVs allows them to fire at long distances. The tank is inferior in several respects - cost, huge weight, relatively small caliber, but most importantly, it has places with weak armor, which does not save the tank crew from ATGMs attacking from different sides. So what's the point of developing this type of weapon if we do not get from it what it was originally intended for?
  • smaug78 5 February 2020 14: 35 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    "Experts say that in a modern tank battle, an ideal option is to return to the crew of four tankmen - a commander, a driver, a gunner, a loader. An additional crew member in the person of a loader facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing individual functions during battlefield. " - I immediately understood: the author of the delirium is Polonsky. laughing
    In addition, Polonsky himself still does not remember what he wrote in the article about the shortcomings of the Abrams tank, charging there is bad laughing
    Now we are waiting for the criticism of the T-14 from Polonsky, there is no loader ...
    1. Alexander Suvorov 5 February 2020 14: 40 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      Well, yes, replacing the autoloader with a Negro-loader, this is the height of the "genius" of tank theorists ... laughing laughing laughing
      1. Sancho_SP 5 February 2020 14: 43 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Strictly speaking, in wartime conditions it can be more difficult to produce technologically sophisticated automatic loaders than mobilizing Negro-loaders.
        1. smaug78 5 February 2020 14: 46 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Strictly speaking, the author of the article has completely different arguments ...
        2. BARKHAN 5 February 2020 15: 20 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          blacks-loaders.

          You wanted to say an afro-tanker? But it’s not tolerant, like that ...
        3. Alex_You 5 February 2020 18: 01 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          than the mobilization of blacks-loaders

          Only long since in Russia a problem with them. request
          Although...
        4. Yuriy_999 5 February 2020 20: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          than the mobilization of blacks-loaders.

          For some countries, simply not relevant
        5. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 22: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          automatic loaders can be more difficult than mobilizing blacks-loaders .... see the video with Leo-2 charging, easier and cheaper than AZ. it is a fact
      2. smaug78 5 February 2020 14: 45 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Which will simultaneously throw shells and guard the tank laughing laughing laughing
      3. Cruel beaver 5 February 2020 16: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yeah. and tied to a chain as in f. "Masks in the partisan detachment" of the border guard tied .... Pushcha protects from adversaries .... laughing
  • Operator 5 February 2020 14: 36 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Since the installation of KAZ, intercepting the most massive anti-tank weapons such as PTURS and RGP, tanks again (as in WWII) have the opportunity to independently conduct combat operations, without hiding behind the backs of infantry, including fighting a tank against a tank.

    And against anti-tank mines and IEDs there are “Gorynych Snakes” and drones with GPR.
    1. Sancho_SP 5 February 2020 14: 44 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      KAZ is expensive. And overcome by the launch of two shells with a small interval.
      1. Operator 5 February 2020 14: 55 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        KAZ costs 1/10 of the 100% protected tank. Two attack shells are intercepted by two KAZ counter-munitions, three by three, etc.
    2. Kalmar 5 February 2020 14: 45 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Operator
      Since the installation of KAZ, intercepting the most massive anti-tank weapons such as PTURS and RGP, tanks again (as in WWII) are able to independently conduct combat operations, without hiding behind the backs of infantry

      Local conflicts are characterized by clashes in urban settings, where since the time of the same WWII tanks without infantry it is better not to drive. KAZ is, of course, good, but it is relatively easy to “overload”: give a volley of several RPGs, for example.
      1. Operator 5 February 2020 14: 57 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Ask the Israelis - SAZ "Trophy" on the drum the city conditions, since the minimum distance of its operation coincides with the minimum cocking distance of an RPG fuse, not to mention ATGM.

        Another thing is that the turnaround time of one of the two launchers is not enough to respond to an unexpected shelling from an RPG from another azimuth, but this is an inherent problem of the Trophy and Iron Fest, but not the Arena, which does not deploy PU, but counter-munition after the shot.
        1. Uncle Izya 5 February 2020 15: 07 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          And the infantry will not suffer from the kaz?
          What is there a lot of modern means in gas?
          Well, the cumulative manual ones are asking from above, and all things
          1. Operator 5 February 2020 15: 17 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            And the FIG tank infantry within a radius of 150 meters, when there is a KAZ?

            Against "throwing something from above" there is a tested tactic of General Shamanov in Chechnya - the complete destruction by artillery of houses standing along the streets in the tank offensive zone.
            1. Uncle Izya 5 February 2020 15: 31 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              These are your assumptions, kaz is not a panacea will learn and deal with it
            2. Kalmar 5 February 2020 15: 35 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Operator
              total destruction by artillery of houses standing along the streets in the offensive zone of tanks

              Well, it’s easier to roll the whole village into a pancake, then tanks are not needed.

              Quote: Operator
              And the FIG tank infantry within a radius of 150 meters, when there is a KAZ?

              KAZ ammunition is not unlimited. Well, its radar / radar can be disabled by a successful hit from something armor-piercing.
              1. Operator 5 February 2020 15: 48 New
                • 6
                • 2
                +4
                Do not tell me - to shoot houses along the streets selected as lanes for a tank offensive is much cheaper than to destroy all the buildings and structures in the city.

                KAZ radar can be disabled only by hitting a small-caliber projectile from 20 mm or more - it is protected from armor-piercing bullets and fragments by a ceramic plate, and RPGs and ATGMs are interrupted by counter-munitions. The amount of KAZ ammunition depends on the design - if it is located in the rear of the turret, the quantity will be measured in tens of units (more than enough for one battle).
            3. chenia 5 February 2020 16: 34 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              And the FIG tank infantry within a radius of 150 meters, when there is a KAZ?


              Here BMPT with several independent fire channels is needed. Well, then in a radius of 150-200 m. And infantry.
              By the way, why did the author forget about artillery. Helicopters, drones, even airplanes, and this was in the immediate vicinity of the battle line of the tanks (into interaction !!!). And the elephant (the main firing line of troops) was not noticed. It's a shame, however.
            4. icant007 5 February 2020 16: 59 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              Against "throwing something from above" there is a tested tactic of General Shamanov in Chechnya - the complete destruction by artillery of houses standing along the streets in the tank offensive zone.


              The method is certainly good, but fraught with humanitarian cries.
              But it does not require great leadership talent)
              1. Operator 5 February 2020 19: 54 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                The main thing in any method is efficiency.
                1. ccsr 5 February 2020 20: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  The main thing in any method is efficiency.

                  The whole problem is that tanks for linear combat are not effective, and this is already true, which is why large-scale tank battles are not expected here. Using tanks to suppress gangs or some local enemy groups is also not the smartest decision, in light of costs and possible losses - the set of wearable anti-tank weapons is quite large, starting with land mines and mines. So the fate of the armored horses of the time of the knights, is destined for tanks - just not everyone wants to believe it, but it is.
                  1. Operator 5 February 2020 21: 41 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    With KAZ, artillery support, UAVs, georadars, and "Serpents Gorynichy" - effective.
                    1. ccsr 6 February 2020 17: 31 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      With KAZ, artillery support, UAVs, georadars, and "Serpents Gorynichy" - effective.

                      You just can’t imagine how the transportation of the tank differs from the transportation of BMPs not only on the trailer, but also on the railway - believe there are not only six-axle platforms, and even different fasteners are provided. But this is not the point - why should a huge mass of iron be transferred to the battlefield if the thickness of the armor does not guarantee the safety of the tank even from portable ATGMs, and the gun’s caliber is at least 30 mm less than the self-propelled guns. What, for the sake of someone’s ambitions, should we turn a blind eye to the real capabilities of tanks in modern wars?
                      Since you are writing about artillery support, why build tanks if the self-propelled guns do this very well and at the same time provide ballistic protection for the crew.
                      1. Operator 6 February 2020 17: 36 New
                        • 5
                        • 0
                        +5
                        And I'm talking about that - in the presence of KAZ, it is quite enough in a circle of 80-mm armor (steel homogeneous equivalent) to protect against bullets, fragments and small-caliber shells.

                        If about the caliber of a tank gun, then it is high time to switch to 152-160 mm howitzers with a barrel length of 30-40 calibers for firing with guided APCs and uncontrolled OFSs.

                        But without a tank - the only protected means of contact battle - we can not do.
                      2. ccsr 6 February 2020 18: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        If about the caliber of a tank gun, then it is high time to switch to 152-160 mm howitzers with a barrel length of 30-40 calibers for firing with guided APCs and uncontrolled OFSs.

                        Can the tower stand such a caliber?
                        Quote: Operator
                        in a circle of 80 mm armor (steel homogeneous equivalent) to protect against bullets, fragments and small-caliber shells.

                        And such armor will save from the sub-caliber?

                        Quote: Operator
                        But without a tank - the only protected means of contact battle - we can not do.

                        The trouble is that there will be no mass contact battle - and you will have to put up with this. It is enough to recall the first war in the bay, and everything becomes clear - the tanks there were unnecessary.
                      3. Operator 6 February 2020 20: 13 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        The howitzer is called a low-ballistic weapon - the initial velocity of its shells (and, accordingly, the recoil momentum) is half that of a gun.

                        Recently, there was an article at the VO stating that the Iron Fest CJSC intercepted BOPS.

                        In all wars in the Persian Gulf, American tanks formed the basis of tactical groups, raided and participated in oncoming tank battles in the field.
                      4. ccsr 7 February 2020 12: 40 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        The howitzer is called a low-ballistic weapon - the initial velocity of its shells (and, accordingly, the recoil momentum) is half that of a gun.

                        But it is adapted for firing nuclear tactical charges. And its guided projectiles on the final section of the trajectory can turn into rockets, developing speeds close to space, breaking through any armor.
                        Quote: Operator
                        In all wars in the Persian Gulf, American tanks formed the basis of tactical groups, raided and participated in oncoming tank battles in the field.

                        And while the main defeat to the troops of Saddam was caused by the Air Force and the US Navy.
                      5. Operator 7 February 2020 12: 52 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        Therefore, I recommend using a howitzer gun as a tank gun (with active-reactive BS).

                        I had in mind tanks as the main strike component of the US Army in the Gulf Wars.
          2. lucul 5 February 2020 22: 18 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            The whole problem is that tanks for linear combat are not effective, and this is already true, which is why large-scale tank battles are not expected here.

            And why does everyone think that the tanks are intended EXCLUSIVELY for breaking through the defense? ))))
            Tanks are designed for blitzkrieg after a breakthrough of defense. And they will do business behind enemy lines to an operational depth of 300 km ....
            How was it in 1944? They concentrate artillery on a narrow section of the front — they plow up their defenses, tanks enter the gap that has formed, and they go to do things behind enemy lines.
            But for some reason everyone thinks that tanks must go forehead, to a fortified position .....
            1. ccsr 6 February 2020 17: 38 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: lucul
              Tanks are designed for blitzkrieg after a breakthrough of defense.

              There will be no breakthrough of defense in a blitzkrieg - this is what we must proceed from when deciding what we will fight with our main adversary.
              Quote: lucul
              And they will do business behind enemy lines to an operational depth of 300 km ....

              For 300 km inland, you can arrange a non-living zone without and without tanks - it will be much cheaper than maintaining a tank army for this.

              Quote: lucul
              How was it in 1944?

              Forget it - in 1944 we did not use the experience of the Battle of Borodino, there was already another dynamics of the war. The same is true of present times in comparison with 1944.
        2. icant007 5 February 2020 21: 04 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The main thing in any method is efficiency.


          It depends on what to minimize. If its losses, then this method can be considered effective.
          If the consumption of ammunition, then not really.
          Well, if you take into account the vain civilian casualties, the need for subsequent restoration of civilian objects, etc. etc., it’s not at all effective.

          However, this I am theorizing.
          In war, as in war.
          ,
  • Yuriy_999 5 February 2020 20: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    More about drones with GPR can?
    1. Operator 5 February 2020 21: 48 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      https://russiandrone.ru/publications/novyy-podkhod-k-ispolzovaniyu-sistemy-georadar-dron/
      1. Yuriy_999 7 February 2020 12: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Can small objects, such as landmines, be detected using the integrated georadar-drone system? This system cannot. A version of the system with a high-frequency radar will soon be available, capable of detecting small objects at a depth of 4-8 m, depending on the ground and the characteristics of the target.

        Unfortunately, not yet
  • Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 22: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    From the moment the KAZ was installed, ... they get the opportunity to conduct combat operations independently, without hiding behind the backs of the infantry, ...... they get the opportunity to get the whole body kit along with the KAZ along the tower with a take-out to the clean, and after that the boar section
  • Lekz 5 February 2020 14: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Much of what is written is true. But the absolutization of the experience of local conflicts was embarrassing. But the purpose of tank formations in another is a breakthrough with subsequent violation of the integrity of the enemy’s battle formations to strategic depth. In this sense, the use of WWII experience is much more useful. To do this, it is necessary to ensure the saturation of tank formations with weapons and weapons that provide autonomous protection against weapons, primarily aircraft.
    1. Andrey VOV 5 February 2020 16: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What do you mean by the autonomy of the protection of the tank from aviation? How can he do it ???
      1. Lekz 5 February 2020 19: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I spoke not of tanks that already have a KAZ, but of tank units. First of all, you need to protect from attack helicopters, UAVs and attack aircraft. As part of the tank units need to have means of detection and destruction of air targets. Moreover, with comparable protection to conventional weapons of destruction of BT and not at all defenseless. Type of Shell-S, but brutal.
  • Sancho_SP 5 February 2020 14: 41 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Taschemta, the bottom line is that the tank is a heavily armored self-propelled gun. It is a mistake to consider tank troops the successor to the cavalry.

    The tank needed heavy armor for direct fire, because during the formation of the tank forces there were no other methods of precise aiming.

    Today, on the one hand, there are effective methods of aiming from closed positions (UAVs, homing, shotguns, etc.), and on the other, effective means of overcoming this very armor, making it armor not so heavy.

    This, of course, applies to major conflicts. For local conflicts, using a direct-fire tank is simply cheaper.
    1. smaug78 5 February 2020 14: 48 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Taschemta, you are the same "theoretician" as the author of the opus ... For firing from closed positions in normal conditions, tanks are not used from the word at all ..
      1. Sancho_SP 5 February 2020 14: 56 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Read through the eyes, my dear non-theoretician. I wrote that tanks are becoming less popular for this reason.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Sancho_SP 5 February 2020 15: 04 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            So I say that, due to the lack of need for direct fire, the role of tanks (which can only be operated in a straight line) is reduced. With eyes, with eyes read ...
            1. smaug78 5 February 2020 15: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I'm sorry, I have dyslexia hi drinks
      2. Lopatov 5 February 2020 16: 55 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: smaug78
        For firing from closed positions in normal conditions, tanks are not used from the word at all ..

        This is not a question of opportunity and necessity, it is a question of training.


        Lack of skills in shooting with PDO seriously limits the capabilities of tanks and tank units.
    2. Lopatov 5 February 2020 16: 57 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Today, on the one hand, there are effective methods of aiming from closed positions (UAVs, homing, shotguns, etc.)

      However, they are not so good as to provide the same efficiency as when shooting direct fire. This is especially true for unplanned point targets.
      1. Sancho_SP 6 February 2020 19: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Right. Only here sometimes the targets are shot back. And here everything is not so clear. It’s always more reliable to hide behind the hill than with half-meter armor, even with technological one.
        1. Lopatov 6 February 2020 19: 50 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          Only here sometimes the targets are shot back.

          So they must be hit earlier.
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          It’s always safer to hide behind a hill

          8)))))
          Not sure. Especially when the enemy has a bunch of forces and means to detect this "behind the hill", starting with a fighter with a stopwatch and a compass and ending with "Penicillin"

          It’s just a reinforced concrete fact. A direct hit on a target is an open fire before, this is less than shells, this is less total time to hit a target.
          And some, for example, single armored ones, are completely inappropriate to fire with PDO.
  • Tektor 5 February 2020 14: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Secondly, this is a well-established communication system, the exchange of information with other tanks of your unit and with other units as a whole.
    KVM, this is not "second," but "in the main," and it is the situational awareness of the entire crew ...
    Plus - remote recognition of mining and counteraction to undermining of the tank. The next war may be a mine, shackling. Plus antivirus.
  • Gust 5 February 2020 15: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Tanks can and will receive the fourth member of the crew, but not loading, that's for sure. An intelligence UAV operator and / or a robot tank operator will be required. The driver, commander, weapons operator, drone operator.
    If you abandon minimalism in the design of tanks, then it can be turned into a universal combat vehicle. If KAZ radars are installed, it makes sense to install anti-aircraft missiles on external units (by analogy with ATGM units on modern modules). A 152 mm rifled gun is desirable, while it becomes possible to use it with a ZP as an SPG and as a tank destroyer. These measures will cause a mass increase of up to 60 tons, but neither amers nor Israelis even bother with 70 tons of weight.
    1. Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 18: 28 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Do you hear yourself?
      Quote: Rafale
      If you abandon minimalism in the design of tanks, then it can be turned into a universal combat vehicle.
      abandoned minimalism and got Abrams, just not stuffed with your crap, but this is not a tank, but a road processor. repeat It is the minimalism of the reserved space that creates the opportunity to make a TANK.
  • Alsur 5 February 2020 15: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The cavalry lost its place not because of tanks, but because of machine guns that appeared.
  • Operator 5 February 2020 15: 32 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Uncle Izya
    learn and deal with it

    Whistle as soon as you learn laughing
  • alien308 5 February 2020 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Aloizovich complained that when attacking the enemy’s tight battle formations, tanks turn into self-propelled infantry support.
  • Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 16: 22 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    According to critics of the “tank concept,” NATO’s less interest in them is clear evidence of tank obsolescence.
    Tanks are very expensive (therefore they have: "grapes are green") NATO is without the United States. The Europeans hope that the USA will bring their tanks and concepts and do everything for them. repeat
    1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 17: 04 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      The Europeans hope that the USA will bring their tanks and concepts and do everything for them.

      Especially if you look at such "Europeans" as the Turks and Greeks who are preparing to fight with each other, that is, without the involvement of the Americans.
      Turkey has 2 tanks, Greece has 379 .... The United States has 1 tanks in service.
      1. Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 17: 15 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        II, naturlich. tank battles in the Aegean, this is true. And without theory, nothing. request Still a liter ..... So you can hoo that ....
        Seriously gentlemen ... Turkey, Greece, there are still arrogant there, also theorists. repeat
        1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 17: 34 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          II, naturlich. tank battles in the Aegean, this is true.

          Firstly, the map states that Turkey and Greece have a common border. About 150 km.
          But if you do not believe geography, the corrupt girl of imperialism, will you believe your eyes?

          For tanks, even the Aegean Sea is no barrier. And about two hundred tanks participated in the invasion of Cyprus from Turkey

          By the way, last summer, Turkey transferred 42 Leopards to Cyprus in order to provide an “Answer as in the past” (c)
          1. Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 18: 07 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Firstly, the map states that Turkey and Greece have a common border. About 150 km.
            But if you do not believe geography, the corrupt girl of imperialism, will you believe your eyes?

            Selling girl still let you down. Where do you rush for tank battles in the Rhodope Mountains or in Thrace? and will you use 2000 highway to transport 1 tanks? Absurd. repeat
            1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 18: 19 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              Selling girl still let you down.

              Rather than you. So much so that you have "forgotten" about the common border between Turkey and Greece.

              Quote: Mavrikiy
              and will you use 2000 highway to transport 1 tanks?

              Just open Wikipedia, the Turkish Ground Forces tab and see where the 1st Field Army and specifically the 5th Army Corps are located.
              1. Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 18: 35 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                My dear, who went to the Soviet school, he will never forget about the border of Turkey and Greece. repeat And let Turkey push the 4 armies there, the efficiency will be the same. The army operation will not unfold in the frontline. request
                1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 18: 49 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Quote: Mavrikiy
                  My dear, who went to the Soviet school, he will never forget about the border of Turkey and Greece.

                  So you didn’t go?
                  Or walked. but decided to "forget" about the unfortunate fact of having a common border?

                  Quote: Mavrikiy
                  And let Turkey push the 4 armies there, the efficiency will be the same.

                  Did they study history in a Soviet school? With numerous examples of the successful use of tanks in the highlands ...
                  Starting with the battle for the Caucasus (find Malgobek on the Google map and look at the "satellite") and ending with the Khingan-Mukden operation.
  • Lamata 5 February 2020 16: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    If there is no air support (and even then not always) then you won’t play much against the tank, even with
  • Knell wardenheart 5 February 2020 17: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “from security to performing certain functions in a tank” - it is better to entrust security to sensors and automation. Otherwise, we have a certain dude who, on the one hand, is engaged in a very dusty, difficult and numbing business, is less protected and informed than the other three crew members, on the other hand, “a little what”, he should be a Swiss, a reaper and a dude playing . This is pure anachronism, not to mention the timing and cost of training such a crew member (and at least a superficial acquaintance with the functions that he "can" will replace).
  • smaug78 5 February 2020 17: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: smaug78
    For firing from closed positions in normal conditions, tanks are not used from the word at all ..

    This is not a question of opportunity and necessity, it is a question of training.


    Lack of skills in shooting with PDO seriously limits the capabilities of tanks and tank units.

    Now it remains to give instructions that firing with PDO tanks is a regular situation laughing
    1. Ros 56 5 February 2020 17: 20 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      You do not open the page, otherwise the striped ones will find out what they wrote there in 1958. laughing laughing laughing
      1. smaug78 5 February 2020 17: 28 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Yes, I opened ... I’m waiting for instructions where the shooting of the T-90 or T-14 with a PDO is a normal situation .. Continue ...
      2. Ros 56 5 February 2020 17: 43 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        And what kind of redneck set minus, or someone strained with humor. It happens however.
        1. Lamata 5 February 2020 18: 17 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Here the trolls are hiding minusers.
          1. Ros 56 6 February 2020 09: 31 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Who has no minus and the troll? laughing
        2. Mavrikiy 5 February 2020 18: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          And what kind of redneck set minus, or someone strained with humor. It happens however.

          Probably inquisitive, he hastened to give a hand so as not to interfere with penetrating secrets. Or maybe the hand faltered and instead of +, hit-. By the way, the new, this is the well-forgotten old. Not for nothing, everyone reads "Treatise on the War" by Sun Tzu
    2. ser56 5 February 2020 17: 29 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: smaug78
      that shooting with PDO tanks is a standard situation

      this is Grabin described in his memoirs, the use of F-34 for these purposes ...
      1. smaug78 5 February 2020 17: 38 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And what does Grabin and T-90 and T-14 have to do with it? laughingYes, and you dad and mom did not tell you that to dissemble is not good?
        1. ser56 5 February 2020 18: 07 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: smaug78
          And what does Grabin and T-90 and T-14 have to do with it?

          despite the fact that the idea of ​​using tank guns for firing with PDO was put forward precisely then!
          The guns of the tanks since then have not fundamentally different, as well as the size of the BC! hi
          Quote: smaug78
          Yes, and you dad and mom did not tell you that to dissemble is not good?

          my mom and dad said to ignore fools and trolls, especially those who think they are smart ... bully but using the 1958 edition book for
          Quote: smaug78
          T-90 and T-14?
          bully
          1. smaug78 5 February 2020 20: 35 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Thanks, you can see the balabok right away ...
            1. ser56 6 February 2020 13: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: smaug78
              Thanks, you can see the balabok right away ...

              you are welcome! your knowledge, politeness and good breeding amuse you with your absence!
      2. Alexey RA 5 February 2020 18: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: ser56
        this is Grabin described in his memoirs, the use of F-34 for these purposes ...

        Yeah ... and they did this thing in a single connection.
        Apparently because the tankers then did not have any means of linking the OP, calculating data for firing and adjusting the fire. However, now it’s not better.
        In addition, the then tank commanders knew how to fire only direct fire. Actually, that is why after the KV-2 and SU-122 all projects of tanks and self-propelled guns with howitzers died. And in the fight for the direct-fire range, they even put up with the decrease in the power of the General Pharmacopoeia - just not to reduce the initial velocity of the projectile.
        1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 18: 22 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Yeah ... and they did this thing in a single connection.

          No need arose. Like, for example, the Americans in Korea
        2. ser56 6 February 2020 13: 50 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Apparently because the tankers then did not have any means of linking the OP, calculating data for firing and adjusting the fire.

          let's just say - the training of tankers of the Red Army was not very high in many components ...
    3. Lopatov 5 February 2020 17: 37 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: smaug78
      Now it remains to give instructions that firing with PDO tanks is a regular situation

      And what is a “regular situation” for you?
      For example, repair of a leaking tap is a “normal situation” for you, or do you prefer to pay a hungover plumber with trembling hands because you do not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to correct the situation?
      1. smaug78 5 February 2020 17: 43 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Already the plumbers went into business))) "I look forward to instructions, where the shooting of the T-90 or T-14 with a PDO is a normal situation" ..- there is an answer or do not shake the air laughing laughing laughing laughing
        1. Lopatov 5 February 2020 18: 00 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          You have not answered my question.
          Sophisticated too?
          The question is not about plumbing, the question is what do you mean by the word "regular"

          Quote: smaug78
          the answer is or don't shake the air

          Exactly. Gold words.
        2. chenia 5 February 2020 18: 26 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: smaug78
          “abnormal situation” ..- the answer is or don’t shake the air


          Just in modern conditions, when it is very difficult to create superiority (massaging) of firearms (while maintaining the secrecy of the event). and the dowry artillery of the RGC will only advance to the prepared positions (during the fire cover of the extension), and it is necessary to use all the resources for this cover and the beginning of the fire training.
          And for this in and in TP. and in the SMEs of gunners in bulk. They will count everything. crews are only performers. Well, something like this.
  • Ros 56 5 February 2020 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    And it depends on which country, in PapuaZ, New Ukraine is relevant, in the Middle East and Asia, too, but they have not tried it in the EU yet.
  • Pavel57 5 February 2020 17: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For the city, specialized specialized assault guns are needed. A tank with a long-barrel gun is not optimal.
  • bubasa 5 February 2020 18: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "An additional crew member in the person of the loader facilitates the solution of many tasks - from guarding the tank itself to performing certain functions during the battle."

    Is the author sure that tanks operate alone? what protection? from whom ? from car thieves? in the GTA outplayed? What are these "separate" functions during a battle with a loader other than loading a gun? reading the latest press? making coffee? wiping the fighting compartment?

    and also, in a real battle, the loader is good at the first shots, then, unlike the loader, it tends to get tired, look at the flawed tanks on the Do (where they still could not create a normal loader) and on the example of toys, such as tanks (there is a computer, and not charging and it does not get tired). So what is charging why? For "protection" from common sense or for "separate" functions and joys?
  • WapentakeLokki 5 February 2020 18: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tank battle (1x1) is ... like hand-to-hand combat in the airborne forces ... is studied and cultivated but ... in a real battle it is difficult to imagine the possibility of using the CLEAN melee; it is necessary to sow your Kalash, bayonet-knife, MSL, and even a helmet and meet the same slobber on the ROVN site in the middle of the battle (BATTLE Karl) ...
  • Petrol cutter 5 February 2020 19: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What a twist! I prepared a report of sheets of ten to read, and here it’s on you ...
  • Operator 5 February 2020 19: 52 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: chenia
    Here BMPT with several independent fire channels is needed.

    Tank KAZ eliminates the need to spend money on BMPT.
  • smaug78 5 February 2020 20: 32 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Quote: Spade
    You have not answered my question.
    Sophisticated too?
    The question is not about plumbing, the question is what do you mean by the word "regular"

    Quote: smaug78
    the answer is or don't shake the air

    Exactly. Gold words.

    You had no question, just ruined the air ...
  • Protos 5 February 2020 21: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 1959ain
    As long as the enemy has missiles or planes, a one-on-one tank battle from a great 2 km distance from the great Russian one is hardly possible. Amerra in Iraq knocked out Saddam's tanks by most, aviation

    Iraq is a forest-steppe and semi-desert!
    Firing range - to the horizon :)
    In many regions, we can’t shoot beyond a kilometer laughing
    1. ccsr 6 February 2020 17: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Protos
      In many regions, we can’t shoot beyond a kilometer

      As one respected tanker told me, a true tank commander will never open fire in battle if there is more than a kilometer to the target, despite all the bells and whistles of tank equipment.
  • Avior 5 February 2020 22: 02 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The possibilities of using tanks are limited as ATGMs develop, including portable ones, and with the guidance “shot-forgot”
    If the enemy infantry is saturated with ATGM, the use of tanks is possible only in special circumstances, or a very short time.
  • 75 Sergey 5 February 2020 22: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, the concept of hostilities nefig has not changed.
    What we are observing now is the result of a guerrilla war, and in the event of a global conflict between serious armies, there will again be fronts.
  • Aleks2000 5 February 2020 22: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    IMHO, some kind of empty article. Some common words, no numbers, no examples, no statistics.
  • smaug78 6 February 2020 13: 55 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: ser56
    Quote: smaug78
    Thanks, you can see the balabok right away ...

    you are welcome! your knowledge, politeness and good breeding amuse you with your absence!

    You are always welcome, with people like you - this is the only sure way to communicate.
    PS I’m waiting for instructions where the shooting of the T-90 or T-14 with a PDO is a normal situation ...
  • Operator 7 February 2020 12: 55 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: Yuri_999
    This system cannot

    The emphasis in the text is that "this" system cannot - therefore, the new system will.
  • Alexander Makarinsky 11 February 2020 18: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    guys! and why the heck does a tank need a big catch and why the hell in the front end if there is a tank?
    if you have lead angles for fighting in the city! but let me argue this will not help, the tank, like most armored vehicles, is blind, it needs eyes!
    but if the tank acts in cooperation with the assault group, then it doesn’t need large angles, since the "assault group" detects the target and directs the tank at it before that is in cover! the tank attacks the target from the greatest possible distance and relative safety, although safety in battle sounds like ....
  • E.S.A. 3 March 2020 03: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Moreover, the tank does not need this.
    For firing of this kind with large elevation angles will continue only until the enemy gets tired of it and the tank does not rake anything from above.

    Well, it’s in vain. You are so. If tank guided missiles are invented, then there is always the possibility of a "return" by helicopters from a tank gun, and if you purposefully create a tank missile, this is generally wonderful.
    In addition to a decent elevation angle, tanks also need decent declination angles, -10 degrees IMHO a little, better -15 degrees. (and ideally, the declination angle should be equal to the angle of maximum ascent along the slope, this is about 30-35 degrees.) so that, according to the example of "strv-103", you can call on the top of the slope ready to shoot aiming at those below, as well as after the shot roll over a hill slope.