Military Review

Squat and hybrid: what will be the tanks of the future

59

I often have to answer questions that are related to this or that type of weapon. Oddly enough, but an excess of information is sometimes even more harmful than a lack. Today the conversation will be about tanks the future. And in general, is there a future for tanks ...


I understand where the "wind blows". Why did questions arise about the future of tank units and formations? It is from the excess of information from "scientists and forecasting experts" of modern wars. There, the point of view about the decline of tanks as weapons matured.

What is this point of view based on? First of all, on the appearance in the arsenal of the army of light and quite effective TCP. Today, a soldier does not need to overcome open areas crawling to throw a grenade. Enough "Flies" or the like weaponswhich is enough even in a motorized rifle unit.

There is another point of view related to faith in people. Once upon a time, in childhood, my father seated me on my knees and letting me, the five-year-old kid "steer" MAZ-502, said a phrase that has helped me so far. “Remember son, everyone who rides along the road near, behind, in front, towards - fools. So drive smart. Be smart! Take a look at the road: it happens when two fools meet. ”

Quite a lot of readers believe that there will be no greater war. And tanks for a breakthrough of defense or vice versa, for defense will no longer be needed. After all, it’s not fools that Europeans or Americans once again brew the same porridge that was brewed in the 30-40s of the last century. Well, drivers on the road also do not want to get into accidents, but accidents every day ...

There are also “great American generals,” thanks to whom there was a belief in the power of high-tech, or rather, high-precision weapons. From there, the so-called contactless war. We’ll shoot missiles at each other, launch robots and sit in control centers for thousands of kilometers, while these pieces of iron with electronic filling will destroy each other. Not a war, but a chess tournament.

Well, the last argument from the series “look at it yourself”. Modern war is fleeting. And combat missions will be mainly solved by the MTR and units or formations of quick response. Undoubtedly, MTRs and rapid response units are good for “plugging holes” and performing local tasks. But I’ll look at the paratrooper brigade or even the Airborne Division, which will "trample on the forehead" at a fully equipped motorized rifle regiment. 

No, the time of the tanks has not passed and will not pass yet. In one of the articles I already wrote the reason why this will not happen. How many missiles do not start, how many robots do not use, but the main task of any battle or battle, the occupation of enemy positions, is performed by a motorized infantry soldier. A soldier stepped over an enemy trench, took an enemy dugout, dined on an enemy battery, that’s all. And the tank for this very soldier is a huge assistant, defender, fortress and percussion fist.

What is a modern tank? The same T-34 or "Tiger", the same cars from the First World War, but with improved features, stuffed with electronics and automation, with better armor. But, all this just changes the tactics of tank combat, but does not change the essence of tank units. Either an armored fist, or a mini-fortification on tracks in defense.

What will the tank of the future look like?


If you look at the world tank building, then two directions of creating modern vehicles are revealed at once. The first direction, constantly criticized by our "sofa tankers", but recognized as the main one today in the overwhelming majority of manufacturing countries, is the modernization of existing models of machines.

Sometimes I am amazed at the liberal attitude of readers towards Western tank builders and intolerant towards ours. Upgrading the Abrams for the ninth (!) Time to the level of M1A2 SEP V2 is good, but the T-72 is bad. The Germans upgraded their Leopard 2 to the 2A7 + level, good. We with our T-90 "are hopelessly behind." Even the Ukrainians are upgrading their T-80UDs to the T-84 Oplot. Strange, at least the point of view.

Do you know how many and which countries are actually developing new tanks? They don't talk about the need for creation and so on, but do they? Only five countries! Russia, China, North and South Korea, Japan. Plus the Turks, who created the tank more in order to enter the list of manufacturing countries.

Based on the main task of the tanks in battle, the machine must be able to destroy everything that prevents the motorized rifle from completing the task. Some readers, having seen enough of the films about the war, are sure that the tank must first destroy the enemy’s tanks. Sheer stupidity. Tank battle is an exception to the rule. The combined arms commander has enough TCP to destroy enemy tanks. Tank versus tank is "the king’s last argument." But quite possible in war.

The Russian tank will most likely have a cannon of the same caliber as now - 125 mm. This will increase the length of the gun barrel. In this case, we will be able to use armor-piercing sabot shells with an extended armor-piercing core. However, it should be noted that we already have another tank gun with a caliber of 140 mm. However, its use in modern vehicles is problematic due to the sharp reduction in the tank's ammunition.

Western tanks, most likely, will use exactly 140-mm guns. At least, the Germans are already actively working with just such an instrument for their Leopard. And the Americans are developing just such a gun.

The next important question is the height of the machine. Tanks will become squat. The fact is that the main requirements of tank customers are simple and understandable. Firstly, the tank should be invisible for as long as possible. Secondly, the tank should have the smallest possible area both in the frontal and lateral projections. Thirdly, the tank should “hold the blow”, be resistant to hit by shells and other PTS.

The tank will become more mobile. Already today, great attention is paid to this. Especially on heavy western cars. So, firstly, engine power and torque will be increased. Something revolutionary in engines will not happen? The same diesel engines and gas turbine engines ... But still, the appearance of hybrids is possible. And hybrids in this case are not at all a tribute to fashion, but a matter of efficiency, including the fuel supply and its consumption, and therefore the tank’s power reserve.

Further, one should expect the massive appearance of hydromechanical automatic transmissions. At least they are already being used in Western countries today. I don't think that we and China will lag behind for a long time in this matter.

You can endlessly talk about promising tanks. But I have one more task today. Answer the questions of those who have already "buried" the tanks. Therefore, I touched only a small part of the promising developments that already exist. Tanks be! Let them look a little different. Let them be stuffed with electronics. Let them have a lot of protection systems, but they will still be tanks. Those same armored fists of motorized riflemen. 
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus
    Lexus 26 February 2020 18: 10 New
    0
    If things continue this way, soon all the tanks of the opposing sides in any significant quantities will be exclusively virtual.
    1. mark2
      mark2 26 February 2020 18: 20 New
      +4
      Well yes. Logged in to the world of tanks to fight, the winner is revealed, pay reparations. smile
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 26 February 2020 18: 48 New
        +5
        As it turned out, it is enough to adhere to the "liberal course" and "register" in an organization called the WTO in order to start paying "reparations". Tanks have nothing to do with it.
      2. bandabas
        bandabas 27 February 2020 13: 55 New
        0
        By the way, you're right good .
  2. Alien From
    Alien From 26 February 2020 18: 27 New
    -1
    Well, at least drive them into minus abysses, but the main thing in a war is a soldier !!! And tanks and other equipment will be almost unmanned! I do not pretend to the truth, my personal opinion.
    1. Mouse
      Mouse 26 February 2020 18: 49 New
      +6
      but the main soldier in war !!!


      winked
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 26 February 2020 18: 51 New
        +2
        The way it is!
  3. Professor Preobrazhensky
    Professor Preobrazhensky 26 February 2020 18: 28 New
    -2
    Today is a day of fiction - sixth generation aircraft, hybrid tanks of the future ...
    1. Cut Samshitov
      Cut Samshitov 26 February 2020 19: 10 New
      +3
      Today is a day of fiction - sixth generation aircraft, hybrid tanks of the future ...
      Yeah. The word "hybrid" sounds the same as "nanotechnology" - it smells like a scam.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 26 February 2020 20: 18 New
        +7
        Quote: Sawing Boxwood
        The word "hybrid" sounds the same as "nanotechnology" - it smells like a scam.

        Not without that.
        But, again, in order to talk about the future appearance of tanks and BTTs, one does not need to be firmer in the subject.
        Let's take some abstracts of the article.
        For example, about the relationship between the length of the barrel and the length of the core BOPS? wink Yes, and the caliber of 140 mm is the caliber of NATO, and we have long had tank guns of the caliber of 152 mm.
        About the desire for a squat - that's for sure, but about the hybrid engine - the song of an amateur. And not only because the batteries for such a power plant are very heavy and cumbersome, but also because the power plant of the tank operates in a completely different mode than that of a car. This is not an electric bus. There, almost all the time, m / v pushes "to the polic." This is also why the resource of tank engines is many times less than their automobile brothers. There is no time, no extra power to charge the battery.
        Claims about "hydromechanical automatic transmissions" also carry a touch of automotive knowledge. Modern hydro-controlled planetary gearboxes used on tanks are very easy to automate. An example is the T-90M or the Aurus car, there is also a similar KP. And the torque converter is not needed there. And shifting gears is like moving the automatic transmission selector on a car. Yes, for us and China there is no lag in this matter (the classic type hydromechanical transmission has been successfully used even on the BMP-3), there is simply no need. Here is a hydromechanical turning mechanism, it would not hurt for smoothness, by the way, there are also developments in stock.
        The tank of the future will undoubtedly have a number of interesting new systems both in the field of armaments and the base. It would be interesting to read about it and discuss, but .... at a serious competent level. yes
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 February 2020 21: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Alekseev
          About the desire for squat - that's for sure

          Nope, I disagree, there is the same connection as with "gun length == BOPS length", so what's the point in a super low tank if it can't shoot because of the aiming angles? (Especially on the move)
          Quote: Alekseev
          hybrid engine is an amateur song. And not just because the battery

          Hybrids are not only a battery and generally not so much a battery as "energy buffering", that is, a hybrid can also be hydraulically powered with a pneumo-hydraulic buffer. And in general, the main feature of the hybrid is the layout, not power, efficiency, etc.
          Quote: Alekseev
          The tank of the future will undoubtedly have a number of interesting new systems both in the field of armaments and the base. It would be interesting to read about it and discuss, but .... at a serious competent level. yes

          In this I agree, but this will not happen, because without pay people will not work (collect and process information), and those who will be "lefties, kulibins, city madmen" or "sawers", in the end everything will again be reduced to "srachiks" (holivaras / holy wars).
        2. georgiigennadievitch
          georgiigennadievitch 27 February 2020 13: 54 New
          0
          It is certainly true, but the future of tanks and armored troops will depend on how much they meet such a simple criterion as cost-effectiveness. If you look at the history of the issue, the German "tiger" with its 88mm cannon was superior to the T34 in terms of performance characteristics and combat capabilities. 85. However, it was much more difficult to manufacture and significantly (several times) more expensive. Therefore, the Germans had such tanks several times less than the same 34s. And when 4-5 34s piled on one "tiger", the outcome of this battle was obvious. Even with the loss of 2 tanks, 34s ​​came out It seems that even now the main obstacle to re-equipping the "armature" is not engines and electronics, but mainly the price. A modern tank armed with a smooth-bore cannon, even with missile and cannon armament, is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 8-10 km, and no more . Moreover, mainly at the range of the so-called direct shot, because the terrain (folds of the terrain, buildings, structures, forest, etc.) does not allow the use of the entire range of target destruction inherent in the weaponry. Passive protection against modern weapons no longer protects , and the active one is becoming more and more complicated and expensive. Based on this, it is necessary to look and calculate which is more effective and cheaper: the defeat of the same targets with self-propelled artillery from closed firing positions using guided high-precision projectiles with drones or Moreover, modern self-propelled guns have a firing range by an order of magnitude superior to tank weapons and high accuracy of destruction of even highly mobile armored targets, as well as high mobility. I had to take part in 1973 in experimental air defense exercises of a tank (motorized rifle) division ... It turned out that tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are practically unarmed against helicopters. Hovering over a forest, hill, etc. from any direction, detecting a target (tank) from a distance of 5-6 km (American TOU) and aiming an anti-tank gun at it and a shot according to the principle: fired and forgot the helicopter crew took from 40 to 50 seconds, depending on the level of training. The air defense weapons, arrows, etc., which were then in service) simply either did not have time to react, or did not reach in range. the foe has much more modern helicopters and anti-tank guns. (12 km or more) T.O. time has passed, but the problems of air defense on the battlefield for tankers and motorized riflemen remain, the more they increase with the appearance of anti-tank vehicles type "javelin". This can lead to very large losses of armored vehicles and personnel. Combat and fire destruction of the enemy is increasingly becoming combined arms and tanks in it can occupy only a narrow niche on the front edge, determined by their available means of destruction and mobility and no more Togo.
  4. Vaddik
    Vaddik 26 February 2020 18: 32 New
    0
    Body armor is a modern chain mail of a fighter. Tank - a modern shield
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 26 February 2020 18: 36 New
      +1
      Tank - a modern shield

      Well, it’s more about BMP.
  5. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 26 February 2020 18: 40 New
    -2
    The author is absolutely right. Well, how can tanks be buried if you have 20000 of them? It’s impossible even for you, only 2000. Just throw it in a landfill? Well, throw it out?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 February 2020 19: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Well, how can tanks be buried if you have 20000 of them? It’s not possible even with only 2000 of you.

      Yeah ... you tell Khrushchev about the art that he drank all over.
      1. Sergey Averchenkov
        Sergey Averchenkov 26 February 2020 19: 04 New
        -1
        I agree with you. Khrushchev is an eructation of Ukraine.
        1. Graz
          Graz 27 February 2020 00: 06 New
          +1
          the reduction of the state of the army and navy was a necessary thing because the municipality ate a lot of the country's resources, another thing is that it was worth putting the equipment in storage or selling a part, and not destroying
          1. Sergey Averchenkov
            Sergey Averchenkov 27 February 2020 10: 11 New
            0
            One who does not feed his army ... will feed someone else's. Can you give historical examples? They are full.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 February 2020 19: 20 New
    +9
    As for the fact that the tank is an integral component of the ground forces (and not only marines, for example, they also do not refuse them) of the modern army, it will be so for years to come ... in general, I won’t live so much, so here I am with the author completely in agreement. But here it is ...
    Sometimes I am amazed at the liberal attitude of readers towards Western tank builders and intolerant towards ours. Upgrading the Abrams for the ninth (!) Time to the level of M1A2 SEP V2 is good, but the T-72 is bad.

    If the T-72 had been upgraded to the T-90MS level, no one would have had any questions. But alas, it will be upgraded to the T-72B3 level, and this ... let's say, infinitely far from the M1A2 SEP V2. Therefore, it’s bad.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 27 February 2020 10: 22 New
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      If the T-72 were upgraded to the T-90MS level ... But alas, it will be upgraded to the T-72B3 level, and this ... let's say, infinitely far from the M1A2 SEP V2. .

      And if we assume that upgrading the T-72 to the T-72B3 level is cheaper and "faster" than to the T-90M level ...? What, then, does it mean to have a T-72B3 and a T-90M? Maybe this means: to have one (!) "Base", but 2 tanks ...: T-72B3 - "budget" option and T-90M - "prime-class" option? Is it advisable to fight against "partisans" too, and against the "cyborgs", and against the "regulars of the early 20th century." with the same tank? And "Armata" is, first of all, a concept! Shaw do "Hans" and "Johns"? Previously produced "Leopards" and "Abrams" are being "altered"! Why can't Russia "alter" T-72 and T-90! But, when rust and ATGM will devour all these "leopards", "Abrams", T-72/90, then Russia "will" have "armats"; and the "Hans-Jones" will have to be smart from scratch!
  7. iouris
    iouris 26 February 2020 19: 27 New
    0
    Quote: "Modern warfare is fleeting." End of quote.
    Yes, so much so that even hostilities do not have time to begin.
    1. Gado
      Gado 26 February 2020 20: 25 New
      +1
      I just read at VO yesterday that modern war is slow, they are going to attack with small forces, etc. Does anyone specify what kind of beast this is - modern war?
  8. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 26 February 2020 19: 27 New
    -1
    Sometimes I am surprised by the liberal attitude of readers towards Western tank builders and intolerant of ours.
    Everything is clear here. Rotten outside, sticky inside. repeat
  9. svp67
    svp67 26 February 2020 19: 40 New
    +4
    Tanks will become squat.
    What is already a big doubt.
    Visual invisibility is no longer a fundamental factor with the advent of ground-based radars and thermal imagers, as well as their installation on combat vehicles and the widespread use of reconnaissance UAVs
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 26 February 2020 23: 38 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Visual invisibility is no longer a fundamental factor with the advent of ground-based radars and thermal imagers

      In general, it’s right, and a lot of ammunition already knows how to hit from above today. However, it is too early to name a squat silhouette too superfluous today. It even helps at times. laughing

    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 04: 30 New
      +1
      Squat is nowhere to go, only if the crew is lying down, but here without a hookah it is no longer suitable! )))
      1. svp67
        svp67 27 February 2020 05: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Squat is nowhere to go, only if the crew is lying down, but here without a hookah it is no longer suitable! )))

        Yes there is a possibility, the entire crew, reduced to two people in the hull, and the gun on the carriage ... as on ob.299

        I like this tank more than the Armata, I especially like the option of placing missiles with vertical launch on its base.

        It is possible to place anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles in them ...
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 06: 14 New
          0
          In my opinion, it differs from the Armata-tank only by the front MTO, but there is also the Armata-BMP, so your application is almost complete! )) But personally, I do not see the benefits, all the same, the evacuation from the stern is not implemented (difficult to implement). And yet, Almaty has a combined layout, a gun-tower, in her case, the survivability of the guns is much higher!
          1. svp67
            svp67 27 February 2020 06: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            In my opinion, it’s different from the Armata-tank only by the front MTO,

            Not really, there are three people in "Armata", but here there are two, which allows the sides to be made more protected
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            And yet, Almaty has a combined layout, a gun-tower, in her case, the survivability of the guns is much higher!

            What?
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 06: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              Not really, there are three people in "Armata", but here there are two
              Two people in the carriage, this is from the area of ​​Wishlist. )))
              Quote: svp67
              gun survivability is much higher!
              What?
              Obviously! The forehead is still okay, although the trunnions, all kinds of anti-recoil rollbacks, the DOUBM wiring must be covered, but the gun is stupidly unprotected from the groats on the sides, plus, importantly, in the case of the montage arrangement, the entire sighting system, and not just the tip, is on the roof!
        2. sen
          sen 27 February 2020 07: 14 New
          +1
          It is possible to place anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles in them ...

          Iraq showed that the main enemy of the tank is aviation, and in the war against the barmales in Syria - ATGMs. So the tank needs regular air defense systems (maybe universal systems like ADATS) and a more powerful system of interference, including illumination of instruments and eyes.
  10. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 26 February 2020 19: 58 New
    0
    The article is not bad. I was glad that it was written by a man with an understanding of combined arms combat. As for the development of tanks, they will most likely be focused on complex weapons - like the Terminator. The cannon is good, but the experience of firing from tanks in local conflicts shows that a tank cannon is more effective for destroying long-term defensive fortifications, rather than destroying a living enemy in a defensive or offensive battle. Today's infantry tactics are maneuverable combat, not "not a step back" or "we will not stand the price."
  11. Ovrag
    Ovrag 26 February 2020 20: 24 New
    0
    To compare the modernization of the Abrams and the T72, who vryat in this life will see at least a pan-gun sight ...
    No need to be a genius to predict where the development of tanks will go. And this is not a squat silhouette that by and large has not surrendered to anyone and does not play any role.

    The main directions of development are:
    1. Strengthening automation and reducing crew up to the possibility of unmanned work.
    2. Increased tank vision. Panoramic sights, thermal imagers, radars, drones, etc. Blindness is one of the main opponents of the tank.
    3. Increase the efficiency and economy of current power plants and the possible transition to hybrids. The only place the author has guessed.
    4. The development of KAZ means, as a result of the actual exhaustion of the possibilities of passive protection. Modern KAZ have already come out of the diapers and are actively working on new and modernized equipment. Perhaps modern systems such as Trophy or Iron Fist, within a few years will cause laughter with their backwardness.
    5. Further integration of tanks into a single combat information space.
  12. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 26 February 2020 20: 33 New
    +2
    Tanks will not be squat, because this makes no sense, for a helicopter radar and thermal homing heads that are three meters high, that two, there is no big difference. But the problems at low altitude are creating quite decent, one restriction on the angle of the negative slope of the barrel is worth it, not to mention the limited space for the crew.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 04: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      Tanks will not be squat
      But they will not grow upward, Armata by the way confidently set the tone for height.
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      that three meters high, that two, there is no big difference
      It is too early to refuse powerful armor, even intercepting the BOPS on approach will not save the thin-armored vehicle, and the higher the vehicle, the heavier it is, with equal armor, so the difference is very large.
      1. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 27 February 2020 06: 56 New
        0
        The higher the car, the heavier it is when .... No, "with equal reservation, a low car for the crew is worse habitable" yes. And there is no equal booking.
  13. Klingon
    Klingon 26 February 2020 21: 01 New
    +3
    disagree with the author on the issue of modernizing tanks. In the west, ONE type of tank is being modernized, be it Abrams or Leopard. This is a matter of logistics and maintainability. and we have 3 different types of them, and I'm puzzled by the fact that although the T-72 / T-90 are compatible with each other, for some reason, the T-72 is upgraded only to the level of the T-72 B3 (with a stupid turret on the roof of the tower for the shooter a 'la like on the IS-3) - why not immediately upgrade to the level of the T-90M? Well, by the way, we still have the T-80BVM, which is completely different in everything except perhaps the weapon. And we also have a super tank Armata, which is also completely different and does not look like any other tank, but with which nothing is clear to the end, except for demonstrative and entertaining rides at parades.
    Oh yes, I forgot to remind you, I don’t know what North Korea has developed for tanks, but by the way, you forgot about India, which also has its own tank - Arjun
  14. acetophenon
    acetophenon 26 February 2020 21: 11 New
    +2
    This article seemed illogical to me. To put it mildly. It is assumed that a tank against a tank is an exceptional rarity, that the tank’s job is to destroy everything that interferes with the infantry - and at the same time a long gun of a typical anti-tank type and caliber ...
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 04: 36 New
      0
      Quote: acetophenon
      to neglect everything that interferes with the infantry - and at the same time a long gun of a typical anti-tank type
      Here is a classic to help, something about "a sword that may be needed only once in a lifetime, and only because of this it should always be worn."
  15. fa2998
    fa2998 26 February 2020 21: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: Alekseev
    About the desire for squat

    Squat ?! Something I don't see the T-14's squatness. The "unmanned" tower has become larger than the habitable one. And the overall profile has increased. Or we have "our own way." request hi
  16. Brigadier
    Brigadier 26 February 2020 21: 50 New
    -1
    "Some readers, having seen enough of the films about the war, are sure that the tank must first destroy the enemy’s tanks. Utter stupidity."

    The author, yes, you, it turns out, is an expert ...

    As I understand it, under Prokhorovka tanks fought against cavalry, and throughout the war tanks fought against each other only 10-15 times, not more.

    And in today's tanks, judging by your article, the calibers are 125-140 mm. solely in order to fight the enemy’s machine-gun nests and fire at the enemy’s infantry, because there’s no other way to take it today, and modern tank shells, with great penetrating power, are made exclusively for the aesthetic pleasure of the tankers themselves ...

    What kind of "sofa experts" do not write such articles ...
    Better write about cats and dogs. There, at least everything is more or less known.
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 26 February 2020 23: 37 New
      -1
      Under Prokhorovka, if my memory serves me right, most of the tanks died from artillery fire and were blown up in minefields. And modern BOPS is the most underutilized type of ammunition.
  17. iouris
    iouris 26 February 2020 22: 23 New
    +1
    Comrade foreman, do the tanks of the future fly?
  18. Avior
    Avior 26 February 2020 22: 28 New
    +1
    The tank has a natural flaw - limited visibility, so the use of UAVs and quadroopters from the tank is just obvious.
    For example, simple, possibly disposable, as an option with no control in flight at all, with a program in place with a flight path, for example, barrage in the front with image transmission, or with minimal control, to increase the visibility and situational awareness of the crew and to make it difficult for the enemy to use anti-aircraft equipment
    I think that in the near future we will see UAVs of one type or another, most likely electric quadroptors in the standard armament of the tank, which will significantly increase its survival and make it difficult for the enemy to use anti-aircraft equipment.
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 26 February 2020 23: 40 New
      +1

      You can do without quadrocopters
      1. Avior
        Avior 26 February 2020 23: 53 New
        +1
        no, it's not the same thing.
        it is a transparent cabin, now actively developed.
        improves visibility directly from armored vehicles, and aiming.
        This is also one of the promising areas of modern military equipment, both air and ground.
        but I’m talking about something else - a quadroter hanging during a battle at an altitude will allow you to see what is hidden from the crew with relief, buildings and other things.
        In the video, the picture is from a flat, undeveloped and overgrown area, but if there are obstacles to the view, this will not help you, but the crew hanging from the top with a live broadcast of the picture will change the situational awareness dramatically, everything will be in full view.
        in terms of weight and price, equipping a tank with a quadroperter is no problem, both more expensive reusable and cheaper disposable ones, which will launch if necessary in a dangerous direction, and it is much cheaper than what is shown in the video you quoted.
        Remember the picture from the quadroper where the Turkish armored car and the Syrian tank dance round dances?
        If the crew had the opportunity to see directly the picture from the same quadroper, an armored vehicle would be met by an aimed barrel and a shot when leaving the bushes
      2. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 27 February 2020 08: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        You can do without quadrocopters

        What for they seem to be shoe polish?
  19. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 26 February 2020 22: 34 New
    +3
    In the course of the author's idea that everything around is fools, and he is the most intelligent still.
  20. fif21
    fif21 26 February 2020 23: 14 New
    0
    The creation and use of new weapons implies a change in the strategy and tactics of modern war. The main indicator is economic efficiency. The presence of nuclear weapons, high-precision weapons, hyper-velocity missiles, and other modern weapons, puts forward new requirements for a self-propelled gun (tank). But whether designers can create a self-propelled cannon (tank) that meets modern requirements is another question. A completely new tank concept is needed, the time of the classics is coming to an end. hi
  21. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 27 February 2020 01: 23 New
    +2
    Well, right away ... and describe the "tanks of the future"? And for what ? To braid the convolutions and sweat the brains? Duc, for us, our "ancestors have already tried! Take a book from the publishing house of the 60s of the last century and ... read it! It describes the" tanks of the future "... that is, the time that is now ... Here and the tanks" on the air pillow ", and with an" atomic engine "(no, I'm lying! There were also" on batteries "! ...), and with" electric armor ", and an" electromagnetic gun ", and with homing shells, and with a powerful anti-aircraft missile weapons ...! Everything was invented before us! Read and compare! wink
  22. Archon
    Archon 27 February 2020 04: 07 New
    +2
    the author says that the tanks will become squat, but the facts say the opposite. even the T-14 was made higher than the usual tanks. and in general the role of "mini-fortresses" is now more pronounced than "striking fist", as this fist is quickly turning into scrap metal. judging by real videos of military operations, tanks are constantly hiding behind city walls, behind natural fortifications, in trenches. it can even be assumed that to date, anti-tank weapons have bypassed the capabilities of tank armor.
  23. Stas1973
    Stas1973 27 February 2020 04: 15 New
    0
    The aspect of war and, as a consequence, the weapons are not considered from the point of view of production and mobresources of all kinds. High technology and all these generations are good in peacetime and in local conflicts. And in the case of a large batch will have to fight by the fact that it will be removed from storage. And the more reserves, the more chances to remain a winner, because all this is new and the prospect will burn out in the first minutes.
  24. Archon
    Archon 27 February 2020 04: 30 New
    +1
    in the future there will be all the same tanks until the AI ​​of normal quality appears. then the tanks will decrease by 2 times and become flat and simpler. Most likely, the tanks will become very simple and modular, it will be easy to change the tank modules for emergency, rescue, medical, mine, transport, tank support and other vehicles. I put on the armor blocks - the tank to the front, removed the blocks, hung the air defense unit, removed the air defense unit, put on the crane blocks and turned out to be a tractor. Of course, there is a minus - any universal device is worse than a specialized one, but in finance it is much more profitable.
    in general, this will have to happen with the "armata" platform and even though it is still in trials, this is the right direction.
    battle of the future I imagine how each commander’s tank controls a group of tanks with AI.
  25. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 27 February 2020 08: 53 New
    -1
    The fleet in its evolution goes somewhat ahead of the NE. Therefore, let me make some interpolation from the development of the ship to the future of the tank.
    1. Only anti-skid armor will remain and, possibly, in the frontal projection up to 30-50 mm;
    2. Protection will be carried out by electronic countermeasures, active and dynamic protection;
    3. There will remain a small-caliber rapid-fire gun, machine gun and grenade launcher;
    4. A large-caliber gun will be replaced by a missile defense system, possibly with a vertical launch, ammunition not quantitatively inferior to the current one and the ability to destroy both ground and air targets within line of sight (up to 6-10 km).
  26. smaug78
    smaug78 27 February 2020 10: 46 New
    +1
    Another nonsense ...
  27. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 29 February 2020 10: 12 New
    +1
    My tank equipment teacher, Colonel Presnov, who received a Star for the assault on Berlin, said: if the war starts, the first thing you do is set your sights on a direct shot and forget about all the other bells and whistles. For they will all be disconnected from the first stroke of the disc. And I just want my tank to have a direct shot more than the enemy tank.
  28. remal
    remal 29 February 2020 17: 15 New
    0
    Tank of the future = tank of the present, but without a crew. The same T-72, T-90. There will also be new propulsion systems, new armor. I would place the fuel in the mesh armor. "hybrids" are an intermediate option to a new technique.
  29. Mister who
    Mister who 2 March 2020 08: 24 New
    0
    Whether you like it or not, everything in the future will be AI, progress does not stand still, not that tanks and planes with pilots are the last century), besides, why break through the defense of a conditional enemy’s territory with tanks whose territory you are not going to capture (sense!), threw a couple of megatons and nh to succumb there