Military Review

How to be a tank?

107

World War I - time of birth tank. His evolution continues to this day. As noted by Soviet military experts at the end of the last century, tank guns of 120-125 mm caliber reached the limit of their development. To confidently defeat promising enemy tanks, even then a more powerful gun was required.


In the Soviet Union, the development of both 125-mm cannons of "increased power" and experimental 130-152 mm tank guns began. Projects of new tanks appeared, for example, “Object 225”, “Object 226”, “Object 785”, “Object 477”, “Object 299”, “Object 195”.

The most interesting here is the development of a promising project, which was launched as part of the research project "Improvement-88" (1988). For a long time, the project was one of the most secret developments in the USSR and post-Soviet Russia.

The development is interesting in that, firstly, the most powerful 152-mm gun was installed on the tank. Secondly, this is the only fruitful project that has made its way from the Soviet Union to modern Russia and left its mark on the creation of the Armata platform (T-14). Speaking about how to be a tank, first we’ll note in more detail history the creation of this particular combat vehicle.

When the Soviet Union began to create one of the most powerful tanks in the world, the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Nizhny Tagil) was the lead developer, and the production of the tank was carried out by the Uralvagonzavod Production Association (Nizhny Tagil). In addition, a large group of enterprises throughout the Soviet Union acted as co-executors of research and development.

The topic was designated "Object 195", work began on the creation of a fundamentally new tank, which was not even in the future for any army in the world.

The collapse of the USSR made adjustments, the assembly of the first prototype began at UVZ in 1999 and 2000, and by 2005 the new tank was almost ready.



The main weapons the tank became the 152-mm smoothbore gun 2A83 (was the development of the Design Bureau of Plant No. 9 and VNIITM).

The ammunition of the gun consisted of 40 rounds, which in itself is comparable to the amount of ammunition on other types of tanks (types of ammunition: BPS, OFS, KUV).

In addition, the new tank received a 30 mm 2A42 automatic cannon (for secondary purposes), which was located on the side of the tower and had independent guidance angles, to save shells of the “main caliber”.

In the photo - object 195 with the caterpillars removed, in the factory floor (barrel 30 mm gun 2A42, on the side of the tower, raised up):



Performance characteristics of 152-mm gun 2А83:

Type of gun - smoothbore, with a chrome-plated barrel.
Weight - more than 5000 kg.
Barrel length - 7200 mm.
The initial velocity of the projectile - 1980 m / s.
Effective shot range:
- shells - 5100 m;
- URS Krasnopol 2K25 - 20 000 m;
- URS "Krasnopol" ZOF38 - 12 000 m.
Rate of fire - 10-15 rounds per minute.
Muzzle energy shot - 20-25 MJ.
Penetration:
- BPS - mm 1024;
- ATGM - 1200-1400 m.
The resource of the gun barrel - 280 shots.
Ammunition - 40 shells.
Automatic loader - 24 projectile.

As can be seen from the characteristics of the gun, the 2A83 gun has significant potential, in which there is the possibility of firing ammunition up to 1 meter long, such as Krasnopol (they were previously used in the Msta-S self-propelled guns).

The use of a powerful heavy gun forced the developers to look for radical solutions for the layout of the tank, which received external weapons (uninhabited tower) and a separate capsule for the crew, located in front of the hull. All processes, including course control and organization of firing, were fully automated.

The tank’s radar detected enemy targets at a distance of up to 10 kilometers. The flight range of the rocket through the barrel as a means of high-precision destruction was more than 5 km. Shooting from a cannon at a distance of up to 3 thousand meters was carried out using "technical vision".

Despite the fact that the weight of the "Object 195" reached 55-58 tons, the tank on the move within 10 seconds developed a speed of up to 70 km / h thanks to the excellent suspension and chassis of seven rollers.

Three engine options were used:

The first is a prototype of an X-shaped diesel with a capacity of about 1500 hp. (development of design bureaus of ChTZ engines).
The second is a prototype of an X-shaped diesel with a capacity of 1650 hp. (development of KB "Barnaultransmash").
The third - GTE development and production of design bureaus and plant them. V.Ya. Klimova with a power of 1500 hp

As noted, the control of the tank was very convenient and easy, not requiring any physical strength, "everything is on the joysticks" (according to experts, control is easier than the American "Abrams").

In general, the tank had a very high level of comfort for the crew, although the crew was placed linearly, shoulder to shoulder. On the left is the driver, in the middle - the commander, and on the right - the gunner. The commander and the driver could replace each other. The crew sat on a sofa (ergonomic chairs), very freely, between the elbows there was still a distance of up to 20 centimeters.

The protection of the tank was unprecedented, provided for several levels. Firstly, these are various coverings of camouflage type, such as anti-radar wraps and various deformation stains. Secondly, it is a complex of active defense, for the “Object 195” KAZ “Standart” was developed, which combined the qualities of “Arena” and “Drozda”. At the same time, the Blind-2 complex of active optoelectronic counteraction was operating.

The next level included a complex of dynamic protection, a universal modular DZ "Relict" with elements 4C23 (developed by the Research Institute of Steel, Moscow).

Next up is the 81B Launcher 902B Tucha for staging smoke and aerosol screens, anti-nuclear defense equipment.

Tank armor included various alloys, ceramics, and composites. The armored titanium capsule itself was mounted in an armored corps, separating the crew from the compartment where there were weapons and ammunition. Ammunition security was also very high, knockout panels were provided.

In addition, the crew themselves received a set of protective uniforms for tankers (such as “Cowboy”), consisting of a first-class anti-fragmentation vest, a fireproof suit and an anti-fragmentation pad on a tank helmet. Special fibers made the equipment durable and fireproof.

Two prototypes then departed 15 thousand kilometers, 2 shots were fired from the 83A287 gun.

Based on experience, the first and second samples required completion of the tank and only on the third option - conducting state tests. It was planned in 2005 to complete the tests and launch the tank in the initial series, where 100 vehicles were to be made in the first year, after which another 300 more.



What happened next? Although this is already a separate story, its essence will have to be reflected in order to understand the further evolution of this development, which has switched to the Armata platform.

So, as noted by Colonel General Sergey Aleksandrovich Maev, who from 1996 to 2003 held the position of head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the tank ("Object 195"), to finish this machine, it was necessary to make another tank (third instance ) and spend about 500 million rubles on this.

The money in the project remained about 700 million rubles (2,2 billion rubles were allocated for the creation of the tank). It must be emphasized that our army and the military-industrial complex were going through hard times at that time, and this also touched on the subject of testing Object 195.

Alas, the process of fine-tuning a promising project was delayed, and after that it was generally put an end to. But it was the creation of a tank with a powerful 152 mm gun that was the quintessence of efforts, allowing you to get a super tank capable of destroying all existing and promising enemy tanks from the first shot, even at maximum range, remaining outside the area of ​​their return fire.

To understand the future, we need to recall in more detail our recent past: on April 9, 2010, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Vladimir Popovkin said that the Object 195 program was closed and there was no plan to take the tank into service. The tank was called too expensive and complicated for conscripts, even morally obsolete ...

In general, under Anatoly Eduardovich (Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov, from 2007 to 2012), new trends appeared in our army, such as outsourcing, reduction and optimization. In a large army, then, in general, the need seemed to have disappeared, in friendship with the United States and NATO (the impossibility of a major war). Criticism of Soviet technology gained momentum, and purchases of foreign weapons increased.

The army was supposed to become compact, the probability was recognized only of local wars and limited conflicts. The main readiness of the troops was to be the readiness for counter-terrorism operations, which required more police, counter-guerrilla equipment, rather than equipment in a large-scale war.

Particular attention was paid to foreign samples with MRAP technology (English mine resistant ambush protected, that is, protected from undermining and attacks from ambushes, mine-resistant, ambush-protected). It should be noted here that the V-shaped bottom by this technology enhances protection against undermining, but inevitably increases the overall height of the machine, its dimensions, substituting the side. This is good against militants using guerrilla tactics, but not the fact that this will be in demand in the war against full-fledged armies with all kinds of troops.

However, such “armored buses” would suit us against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, in military convoys on the roads.

It so happened that the theme of “platforms” sounded like a discovery, like something new, created from scratch by “brilliant reformers”. The supertank was not really needed, but the creation of a kind of “transformer”, where everything was in one bottle, seemed revolutionary and economical.

As if in the Soviet Union there were no families of equipment created on the basis of the same T-72 (bridge layers, BREM, self-propelled guns, BMO-T, TOS, BMPT and others) or the base platform MT-LB, BMP / BMD.

“Revolutionary” was only that if earlier the base, the platform was a successful and time-tested equipment already in service, technologically advanced and well mastered by the industry, now the “platform” did not become a technology, but was appointed in advance.

Accordingly, all design work in the "platform" was created using a "pig in a poke", which has not yet been adopted for service. Such a “furniture set” was exhibited in terms of integrity, balance as the idea of ​​“ahead of the rest”, under a compact army and anti-terrorism tasks at the forefront.

“Object 195” was the victim of a “remake”: they decided to create a kind of “transformer” from a tank - a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and a tank (front engine, rear engine). All this should have led to unavoidable compromises in resolving the often contradictory requirements in such a “unification”.


To all and the development of ARVs, BMPT, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns and more. Everything that will be ordered on this heavy, expensive, complex, and, most importantly, still raw base.

Probably, you need to take off your hat to those who were forced to creatively solve these problems, maybe selfishly rejoicing in investments, maybe patriotically cursing those who came up with such "savings".

They spared money on the refinement of the almost finished “Object 195”, Colonel General Mayev prophetically said that they would subsequently spend not 700 million rubles, but much more, simplify the characteristics and make the car lower in class. He then literally uttered: "You will make" ... "(the illegitimate offspring of a purebred noble parent).

Sergei Alexandrovich looked like into the water: according to Vladimir Putin, 64 billion rubles were spent on the R&D and R&D of the Armata platform alone, not counting the money that went into the production of raw T-14 and T-15 for parades. Now the yard is already mid-2020, there is still no new tank in service, a lot of money has been lost, and most importantly - time.


They say that the new tank in the "platform" immediately became cheaper, from 450 million ("Object 195") to 400 million (T-14 "Armata"), and after the tank should become even more budget (with mass production - about 250-270 million rubles).

That's just for conscripts the car has not become easier, it is generally not for them. The tank lost a 30-mm automatic gun and, most importantly, a 152-mm gun, for which everything was originally started.

A 14-mm 125A2-82M gun was installed on the T-1, which, of course, occupies a leading position in the world of tank guns, but, as noted in Soviet times, the modernization potential of 120-125 mm tank calibers is approaching its logical finale.

In addition, a modernized T-90 tank can be produced with such a gun, that is, the T-14 has no significant advantages in terms of firepower, being more expensive and more difficult, having larger dimensions, despite the fact that it is possible to hit the enemy from a safe distance the first shot is already virtually lost.


Naturally, not everything was simple, the first 152-mm gun for the “Object 195” was torn apart on the 86th shot. During the tests, for a long time they could not understand the reasons, it turned out that the internal pressure increased to 7500 atmospheres, there were 125 on 3000-mm tank guns. The aggressiveness of the powder and the initial speed were very high. I had to change the thickness of the barrel walls to change the amplitude of the metal vibrations, got 280 shots per barrel. A 152-mm caliber projectile is also a very complex product, no doubt it seems easier to use a 125-mm caliber.

Nevertheless, another former head of the State Academic Technical University (1987-1996), Colonel-General Alexander Alexandrovich Galkin warned: “If you refuse the 152-mm gun, the whole idea will fail!”

Indeed, our “partners” have a real prospect of supplying a 140-mm tank gun. Using a 125-mm gun here makes the T-14 uncompetitive in the long run on the battlefield, takes a step back from what was achieved earlier, which is why time is wasted.

Returning to the 152-mm gun again will require time and money, although this was initially the most important. The fact that we do not want an arms race (leaving the 125-mm caliber) somehow does not irritate the “partners” - nothing more than demagogy that covers what has already been done. Our "reformers" generally wanted to destroy all the stocks of old tanks, and then make "thousands" of new ones on the Armata platform. Fortunately, this adventurous stupidity (or sabotage) has not yet been implemented.

Moreover, T-14s began to be presented as a kind of leader tank, which could lead a unit from the same T-90s. They started talking again about the return of the 152-mm gun, its installation on the T-14.

It remains to hope, together with Colonel General Mayev, that the chief designer of "Almaty", Andrei Leonidovich Terlikov (or who else), will try to "drag" all the best with T-95 ("Object 195") into T-14, that the work will not be lost .

After the “reforms”, divisions and military schools had to be restored, and much more. But the "headsets" voila "platform" is still "in trend" ...

One can also be glad that UVZ did not fail to go bankrupt, such as the Omsk Tank Plant (2015). That people got a job, the enterprise is an update.

Speaking about the development of tanks, about what they should be, one should not forget about such an interesting domestic development as the “Object 640”, or “Black Eagle”.

In general, the Nizhny Tagil T-95 ("Object 195") and the Omsk "Black Eagle" (object 640) used to be constantly confused.


Unlike the “Object 195”, where the crew was taken out into a separate armored capsule, an automatic loading unit with a part of the ammunition load compartment (aft niche) was placed in a separate armored capsule on the “Orel”.

How to be a tank?

The tank, although it was a development from the T-80, was already an independent project on a seven-track chassis. Initially armed with a 125 mm cannon, later a more powerful gun from 130 to 152 mm was supposed.

This tank was absolutely uninteresting to our defense officials. If the T-95 (“Object 195”) at least had any chances, transformed into a T-14, the “Eagle” immediately had their wings cut off, saying that the tank is interesting only for export.

Maybe that's why there were unverified rumors that the documentation for the Black Eagle was bought by the Chinese. It is also hoped that the best ideas of the project can somehow be used for further modernization of the remaining T-80 or in new versions of the T-90.




“Object 6402, like“ Object 195 ”, is in its own way a feat of our designers, a triumph of the Soviet school of tank building.

Speaking about the creation of promising tanks with more powerful guns, it should be noted that the confrontation between armor and shell was most clearly manifested even at navy with the advent of armadillos and lasted a very long time, until the appearance of rocket weapons.

Currently, the “main caliber” at sea has moved from artillery to missiles, and the armor, where it was preserved, began to perform auxiliary functions, more as an element of increasing overall survivability, and not an element of achieving invulnerability.

The appearance of tanks also gave rise to the confrontation of armor and shell, already on land.

The caliber of the guns also increased, the thickness of the armor, the total weight of the tanks increased. Already in the second half of the last century, the strengthening of armaments, as well as the increase in armor, came across the limit of the reason for the ever-increasing weight of military vehicles. In fact, it is impossible to infinitely increase the caliber of tank guns, as well as the total weight of the protection of tanks.

Then what else should a tank be? Maybe rocket?

In fact, in addition to the topic of increasing the caliber of tank guns, there were other attempts in the Soviet Union to increase the combat power of the tank.

We are talking about "missile tanks", where the "main caliber" are not artillery shells, but compact missiles. Three Soviet developments can be distinguished: objects 150, 287 and 775.

Tank IT-1 ("Object 150") is best known.



Few people know that the “Object 150” was adopted by our army (Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 703-261 of September 3 and Order of the Minister of Defense No. 0269 of November 6, 1968) under the designation IT-1 (tank destroyer), was produced in series .

The armament of the tank consisted of a 2K4 "Dragon" guided missile system and 15 missiles (the main weapon), a 7,62 mm PKT machine gun with 2000 rounds of ammunition was installed as auxiliary armament.

The effectiveness of hitting a target is from the first or second shot. Automatic launcher loading. Automation was actuated by pressing a button on the day sight.

Aiming at the target, firing a shot was carried out using the control panel of the day sight 1-OP2. Safety glasses of sights had an electric heating system.

Before launching the missile, the range to the target was determined, this characteristic was introduced into the sight. The operator, holding the crosshair on the target, pressed the start button.

The first 0,5 seconds the rocket flew uncontrollable, after the coordinates of the flying rocket they were determined automatically, encrypted radio commands were generated and emitted in the direction of the rocket on which they were received, decrypted and fed to the steering wheels.

Firing range ranged from 300 to 3300 m during the day and 400 to 600 m at night. Armor penetration at an angle of 60 ° was 250 mm.

The tank was manufactured in series at the Uralvagonzavod from 1968 to 1970. The IT-1 was not in service for long, its design flaws affected, mainly the outdated element base, large dead zone, and the lack of a gun on the tank, which led to the removal of IT-1 from service.

In real hostilities, these machines did not participate and were not exported.

Since the advent of IT-1, a lot of time has passed, more missile tanks in our army were not accepted for service. The ability to launch missiles through the barrel of a tank gun was largely replaced by the solutions used at facilities 150, 287 or 775.

Nevertheless, missile weapons are rapidly improving, becoming more compact and at the same time more powerful, more and more phrases “shot and forgot” and the purely sniper “one shot, one corpse” begin to approach modern anti-tank missiles. Domestic developments ATGM in this have good potential. So is it possible on land to repeat what happened at sea when rockets became the "main caliber" and artillery became auxiliary?

We already have combat vehicles known as BMPTs, combining powerful tank protection with fast-firing automatic guns and anti-tank missiles.



Maybe similar tanks (or new BMPTs) will appear on their base?


At IT-1, weapons were considered a weak point (and indeed defense), where so far only the machine gun (PKT) was attached to the already obsolete 2K4 Dragon.

Modern guided missiles with a 57-mm automatic cannon can provide completely new opportunities, allowing you to optimize dimensions and combat weight while maintaining powerful tank protection for effective weapons. It is known that it is a gun, especially a large-caliber one, that gives a significant increase in mass and requires volume, and the use of a small-caliber automatic gun as an auxiliary and powerful, but compact missiles (the main anti-tank weapon) allows you to get a well-balanced machine both on a new chassis and when using the base existing tanks (T-72 / T-90).

More recently, MBT has dominated. But more and more developments of “light tanks” appear in different armies of the world, we have a tank self-propelled gun (Sprut-SD), we have a specialized BMPT, a heavy tank leader with a 152-mm gun (which, possibly, will become a T -14), in the West - heavy tanks with 140 mm guns.

So what should be the tank of the future? A tank for Russia with its geographical environment, climate, and alarming borders is more than a tank. I would like it to be decided not by “effective managers”, “buy-sell” specialists, and even less so by traitors, but by real tankers, military engineers and designers, generals, talented tacticians and theorists.

It is interesting to hear the opinion of everyone who cares. Both professionals, true “fuel oil”, and those who have a mother teacher, and father is a pianist.
Author:
Photos used:
https://yandex.ru/images, https://topwar.ru
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 6 June 2020 05: 07 New
    18
    This topic is inexhaustible on several volumes. Here and the respected author contributed. It was interesting. Thank you.
    1. Umalta
      Umalta 7 June 2020 01: 33 New
      +3
      The topic is inexhaustible, but it is alarming that specialists in stools who have picked up a "hole" more willingly than unwittingly, after a series of pertutations, become effective managers. This can be said about Roskosmos and the Ministry of Health, many other industries can also be burned.
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 6 June 2020 05: 27 New
    +5
    With t95 nothing came of someone else’s ambitions, namely this tank, by hook or by crook, had to be brought to mind and put into production. And T14 will long be a child without an eye, but with a bunch of nannies! Someone wanted the best possible, but it didn’t work out at all!
    1. Umalta
      Umalta 7 June 2020 01: 43 New
      +4
      No ambition! Money!!! new project, financing and opportunity to learn.
  3. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 June 2020 05: 38 New
    15
    The article is very detailed and detailed, which is rare in recent years at the HE.
    Now, according to the article itself ... with regards to Armata, which is really, something like an economical version of the object 195. I absolutely agree with the author regarding the choice of tools. The very meaning of all that was started under the new platform, when they put the gun in 125 mm, disappeared. With such an instrument, the very idea of ​​a new tank rolled back to the previous generation, de facto. Yes, he has an increased range, new shells, but ... this platform has been created for at least 25 years, taking into account modernization. And here the question arises: will this caliber be insufficient in 10 years? And for me, the answer is obvious - it will definitely be insufficient.
    Then the following question arises - is the T-14 turret designed for the installation of a 152 mm gun? I have big doubts about this.
    In summary, I will say this ... the platform of Almaty is really crude, starting with the engine and ending with the tower. All this requires complete processing and conversion for a new 152 mm gun. At the same time, new shells are needed for such an instrument. In this case, the T-14 tank will be truly a breakthrough tank in terms of ideas and its implementation.
    And today, the T-14 with a 125 mm gun is no better than the T-90M and the logical question arises - why pay more for the carrier of the same gun?
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 6 June 2020 09: 10 New
      -2
      Quote: NEXUS
      And today, the T-14 with a 125 mm gun is no better than the T-90M and the logical question arises - why pay more for the carrier of the same gun?

      In your opinion, the whole point of the tank comes down to the "gun" and its caliber? Well, the caliber of the barrel is the same for AK and PKM, although the length of the sleeve, the mass of the bullet and the weight of the gunpowder are different - but these are trifles, the main thing is that the caliber is the same - 7.62.
      If you argue in the framework of such logic, then yes, the T-90M is the same as the T-14. lol

      As for the 152 mm gun, I have one question - "what for?"
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 June 2020 09: 24 New
        +5
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        In your opinion, the whole point of the tank comes down to the "gun" and its caliber?

        In my opinion, the meaning of the tank consists precisely in the first place, the gun, then the armor and mobility.
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        If you argue in the framework of such logic, then yes, the T-90M is the same as the T-14.

        And excuse me, what will Armata greatly beat the T-90M, with the same guns? And I’ll ask you to note that we have T-72, which are the basis of the T-90, about 7 thousand (God forbid, memory), but how many T-14 do we have?
        Well, the price of the issue. Starting with the development program of Almaty itself, as a platform and in particular the T-14, in comparison with the existing T-72.
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        As for the 152 mm gun, I have one question - "what for?"

        The question is very stupid. Here and increased range, and armor penetration and the ability to use a large range of missiles.
        Also, I will give you an answer from an interview with Viktor Murakhovsky, member of the expert council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation:
        “The gun already exists.” It was developed as part of the experimental design of the tank "Object 195", many know it as T-95. I can now tell you even the brand of this gun - 2A83. She successfully passed tests, including with new types of ammunition.

        - Rogozin said that the shell of this gun can burn a meter of steel. Isn't that a bold statement?

        - This statement is not only realistic, but, I would say, very soft. For in fact, this gun can penetrate more than a meter of steel.

        - Will it strike two meters?

        - But about this I will not say anything ...

        At the same time, if a 152 mm shell even explodes next to the tank, there is a very high probability that the tank will turn over by a blast wave, which by the way was proved back in the days of the Second World War, using the example of St. John's Wort.
        1. Ded_Mazay
          Ded_Mazay 6 June 2020 11: 05 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          In my opinion, the meaning of the tank consists precisely in the first place, the gun, then the armor and mobility.

          According to this logic, a tank can do without electronic equipment. Half of the tankers fought in the Second World War in vehicles without radio communications.
          Quote: NEXUS
          And excuse me, what will Armata greatly beat the T-90M, with the same guns?

          I repeat:
          Quote: Ded_Mazay
          Well, AKs with PCMs have the same caliber of the barrel, though the length of the sleeve, the mass of the bullet and the weight of gunpowder are different - but the little things, the main thing is that the caliber is one - 7.62

          In general, read about automatic loaders and used ammunition - you will learn a lot of new things.
          Quote: NEXUS
          Here and increased range, and armor penetration and the ability to use a large range of missiles.
          - The question is the same - "what for?"
          The option with a 152mm gun has a number of disadvantages:
          - decreases the rate of fire
          - reduced ammunition in the AZ
          - the ballistics and accuracy of the guns are deteriorating
          - reduced tool life
          - the mass of the tank increases
          - reduced turret turning speed
          - the car is more unmasked when fired
          - increases the area of ​​hazardous acoustic impact when fired
          and etc.
          If the answer is in the spirit of "so that it was" or "more is better" then there is nothing to talk about. We need concrete, weighty reasons for installing a 152mm gun on an MBT, despite a number of existing shortcomings. Until then, keeping the 125mm gun is preferred.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 6 June 2020 14: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Ded_Mazay
            According to this logic, a tank can do without electronic equipment. Half of the tankers fought in the Second World War in vehicles without radio communications.

            In theory, the tank should become a moving observation post.
            Well protected enough to be in the first line. And well-armed enough to quickly implement the received intelligence on pinpoint targets.

            But without fanaticism. For network-centrism allows you to quickly get a very, very powerful support
            1. Ded_Mazay
              Ded_Mazay 6 June 2020 15: 22 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: Ded_Mazay
              According to this logic, a tank can do without electronic equipment. Half of the tankers fought in the Second World War in vehicles without radio communications.

              In theory, the tank should become a moving observation post.
              Well protected enough to be in the first line. And well-armed enough to quickly implement the received intelligence on pinpoint targets.

              But without fanaticism. For network-centrism allows you to quickly get a very, very powerful support

              lol Good joke.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 6 June 2020 15: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Ded_Mazay
                Good joke.

                Why a joke?
                The French are already working out the concept.

                1. Ded_Mazay
                  Ded_Mazay 6 June 2020 16: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Well protected enough to be in the front line.

                  And what does this wheel have to do with it?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 6 June 2020 20: 20 New
                    +1
                    Despite the fact that his reconnaissance capabilities are very much superior to the necessary weapons.
                    1. Ded_Mazay
                      Ded_Mazay 6 June 2020 21: 59 New
                      +1
                      Somehow you are confused.
                      First talk about the tank:
                      Quote: Ded_Mazay
                      In theory, the tank should become a mobile observation post. Well protected enough to be in the first line. And well-armed enough to quickly implement the received intelligence on pinpoint targets.

                      Then jump to the French with their Jaguar EBRC Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle.
                      To the question "what does it have to do with the topic of tanks" for some reason, the question of reconnaissance capabilities is raised:
                      Quote: Spade
                      Despite the fact that his reconnaissance capabilities are very much superior to the necessary weapons.

                      My brain somehow does not perceive such a semantic eclecticism.
          2. Mazuta
            Mazuta 7 June 2020 21: 27 New
            0
            for grandfather Mazay
            Your number of shortcomings just touches !!!
            Complete it:
            increased fuel consumption,
            increased adverse effects on flora and fauna,
            increase in dynamic loads on fragile organisms of crew members.
            To your question "what for" can only be the same answer ...

            "... We need concrete, weighty reasons for installing 152mm guns on MBT, despite a number of existing shortcomings ..."
            More than thirty years ago, such reasons appeared and made them "move" but, following your logic, they (reasons) disappeared!
            What happened, open our eyes ...
            1. Ded_Mazay
              Ded_Mazay 8 June 2020 08: 32 New
              +1
              lol
              Quote: Mazuta
              increase in dynamic loads on fragile organisms of crew members.
              Well, if you think that all tankers are fighting with an open hatch, like those syringes from a video from the T 90, then maybe it is ...
              But personally, I’m much more concerned about the motorized rifle, which was discussed. Or will your tanks never have to fight in urban areas with infantry again? As Syria shows, there is a risk that will come. And woe to anyone who is in the wrong place when the tank commander decides to shoot someone.
              Like for example in this video.
              https://topwar.ru/162678-nadejus-on-poshutil-vystrel-iz-t-72-nadolgo-zapomnitsja-snimavshemu-video.html
              Now imagine what would happen if it were a 152 mm gun.

              Quote: Mazuta
              More than thirty years ago, such reasons appeared and made them "move" but, following your logic, they (reasons) disappeared!

              Following my logic, since the times of 2A46M and 3BM48 "Lead" 30 years ago, a lot of new and interesting things have appeared in the 125 caliber. What can not be said about the "reasons" ...
          3. Tavrik
            Tavrik 8 June 2020 16: 13 New
            0
            This caliber bothers me too ... Isn't this too redundant? Is it possible due to explosives, and something else to increase firepower? I recall how during the war the Germans planted 150 mm guns on destroyers, while 120-130 mm were used in all fleets. Nothing good came of it. In the skirmishes of destroyers, the rate of fire and the size of the ammunition were more important.
            Isn't that the case with tanks?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Ded_Mazay
              Ded_Mazay 8 June 2020 18: 10 New
              -1
              Quote: Tavrik
              Is it possible due to explosives, and something else to increase firepower?

              Can. To achieve greater armor penetration, you can increase the length of the gun barrel and the pressure at the time of the shot, and therefore the permissible mass of the propellant charge. In addition, it is possible to develop new OBPS with a longer "rod" length, thereby increasing the mass of the projectile while maintaining the same cross-section across. Both do not require an increase in the caliber of the gun and the associated costs.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 June 2020 14: 28 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          In my opinion, the meaning of the tank consists precisely in the first place, the gun, then the armor and mobility.

          First of all, handling.
          And then everything else.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 6 June 2020 16: 13 New
            -2
            Quote: Spade
            First of all, handling.
            And then everything else.

            Without a gun in the first place, the tank turns ... the tank turns into an armored personnel carrier.
            And just then I said that for the sake of the 125 mm gun, it wasn’t up to all to do this with Armata, since in fact we get only the crew’s protection and an expensive platform compared to the T-90M.
            For the T-14 to become a truly breakthrough tank, it must have a 152 mm gun.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 6 June 2020 20: 32 New
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Without a gun in the first place, the tank turns ... the tank turns into an armored personnel carrier.

              It does not "turn into an armored personnel carrier", The absence of a gun does not mean the ability to carry infantry.

              Quote: NEXUS
              For the T-14 to become a truly breakthrough tank, it must have a 152 mm gun.

              And why not more? For example, 203 or 240?
              1. ANB
                ANB 6 June 2020 23: 38 New
                +2
                . And why not more? For example, 203 or 240

                Not serious. You must immediately put 380. Then it’s not necessary to break through armor either. :)
                1. Umalta
                  Umalta 7 June 2020 01: 48 New
                  +1
                  The combination of armor, active protection, maneuverability and a powerful weapon, this is what the designers and engineers achieved, but the bureaucrats buried it.
                  1. ANB
                    ANB 7 June 2020 01: 57 New
                    0
                    . but the bureaucrats buried it.

                    Maybe not buried. Who will tell you the truth in such matters?
                    In addition to the hot war, there is also an information one. And she goes in full.
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 6 June 2020 11: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS

      The article is very detailed and detailed, which is rare in recent years at the HE.

      Totally agree with you.
      And, as soon as the author addressed: - "It is interesting to hear the opinion of everyone who is not indifferent to it. Both professionals, true" mazut ", and those whose mother is a teacher, and father is a pianist." tanker, I will use the author's suggestion and insert my amateurish 5 kopecks.
      From my own experience, I know that universalism is the enemy of the good. Hence the MBT, for me, a layman, sounds somewhat .... not comfortable.
      1. First you need to answer the question - on which theater will the machine fight?
      On one it is redundant, on the other it is insufficient, on the third it is just right.
      2. Against which enemy? Why am I asking? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that we will not need tanks against a serious adversary - the United States and China - based on our military doctrine.
      And against another opponent, again what kind? Against one - and BMPT enough, against the other enough and T-72B3 and T-90M, and the "Object 195" or T-14 will be superfluous.
      Redundant in the sense of - expensive.
      But, since we live in an unstable measure, and therefore, should be ready for everything, then the tanks should be different. How different cars are in both carrying capacity, cross-country ability, and purpose (trucks, cars).
      Therefore, in the tank troops, not mixing in tank regiments, brigades, divisions. there should be a T-90M, a BMPT, and something brought up with a 152mm cannon (if these characteristics are not so, then from the first shot a guaranteed defeat of the enemy MBT is guaranteed).
      I understand that it is very expensive, but for any occasion, we will have a cheap but effective answer.
      P.C. Why not mix in one conditional regiment, a division? So it will be cheaper in training hp. and in the content of the equipment. And work out the interaction on exercises.
    3. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 6 June 2020 12: 42 New
      0
      In principle, you might think that there is an option in the future to put a powerful new gun with a new turret, but for the 152 and AZ another one needs something that tells me I will have to redo the whole platform.
      Of course, you will have to fight against the Papuans, but they may have abrashki and leo, which would also be nice to take into account, and it seems better to take the Indians for export with a powerful weapon.
      In general, bmpt is good for fighting in the city, and with automatic guns the upper floors are shot through and powerful missiles are available and reservations.
    4. paul3390
      paul3390 6 June 2020 13: 07 New
      +5
      And today, the T-14 with a 125 mm gun is no better than the T-90M and the logical question arises - why pay more for the carrier of the same gun?
      The strange situation at the beginning of the war is repeated, when a heavy HF had a cannon of the caliber like the average T-34, even a little weaker .. But those were the first, why now reproduce the same errors?
    5. vVvAD
      vVvAD 6 June 2020 21: 41 New
      +5
      Quote: NEXUS
      Then the following question arises - is the T-14 turret designed for the installation of a 152 mm gun? I have big doubts about this.
      In summary, I will say this ... the platform of Almaty is really crude, starting with the engine and ending with the tower. All this requires complete processing and conversion for a new 152 mm gun.

      It is calculated. Who followed the development of the tank - in the know. And the reserve capacity of the tank, and the dimensions of the tower.
      Under the 2A82-1M, the "Vacuum-1" BOPS with a length of 900 mm was developed, which may also indirectly indicate this.
      Processing under 152 gauge will affect the mask of the gun and the compartment with the ammunition.
    6. bar
      bar 8 June 2020 09: 02 New
      +4
      In summary, I will say this ... the platform of Almaty is really crude, starting with the engine and ending with the tower.

      "Object 195", made in only two copies, was even more raw, no matter how nostalgic praises were sung to him here. That there are only a few variants of absolutely new experimental engines, in itself the refinement and launch into a series of which is a separate long song. This is not to mention the heap of completely new equipment that was planned to be installed on it. With this tank, the business was just beginning and ending. I hope that many of the ideas and developments put into it by the designers were not thrown into the basket, but "transformed into T-14".
      But from a technical point of view, the article is certainly interesting. For a long time there were no such people here. Thanks to the author.
  4. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 6 June 2020 05: 44 New
    +7
    I think that in the future a BMPT-type tank with a 57mm cannon and an arsenal of missiles like the Chrysanthemum for various purposes will be relevant.
    1. riwas
      riwas 6 June 2020 06: 22 New
      +3
      I think that in the future a tank like BMPT with a 57mm gun and an arsenal of missiles will be relevant

      Right. Only it should be universal, i.e. should work on air targets, and as automated as possible, since there really is a danger of attack UAVs, combat helicopters and ATGMs. I called it a watch tank, the article was written back in 1999.
      http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren/tank_21.htm
      The journal "TEKHNIKA-YOUTH" published (albeit in an abbreviated and distorted form) this article - "Tactics dictates technology" in N5 2000.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 6 June 2020 09: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Pessimist22
      I think that in the future a BMPT-type tank with a 57mm cannon and an arsenal of missiles like the Chrysanthemum for various purposes will be relevant.

      But I think that in the future tanks will be replaced by android robots, because gigantism has never led to anything good in this area.
      Fiction, as history has shown, is not as far from fiction as it seems.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 6 June 2020 22: 32 New
        +1
        But I think that in the future tanks will be replaced by android robots

        The idea, of course, is great. But something while fighting androids is not observed in any army in the world. When they learn how to autonomously navigate the environment, overcome obstacles (jump, crawl), use infantry weapons and fire while lying down, they will probably be able to replace infantry on the battlefield. But at the same time they will be insanely expensive due to their versatility.
        Specialized military equipment at the same technological level will still be cheaper, because You can not implement the elements that are not needed for her and integrate the necessary ones: somehow: armor, power supplies, platforms for installing weapons (stabilization, issues of recoil, etc.).
    3. vVvAD
      vVvAD 6 June 2020 22: 15 New
      0
      Will not be. The MOP (fire support vehicle), which is now the official name of a class of equipment such as BMPT, is not capable of suppressing the firing points of a structure. For this you need an OFS. It is expensive to use rockets for this - it's like firing a cannon at sparrows. Therefore, all tank missiles are ATGMs with a cumulative BG. That's why she and the MOP, that she has other tasks: ATGM and RPG calculations, light and medium BM. Own ATGMs are available rather in case of an emergency meeting with a tank, otherwise AZ would have been implemented, as in the IS-1, or something similar to the existing cornet BM "Tiger" and "Typhoon" with ATGM "Cornet".
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 8 June 2020 22: 58 New
        0
        Quote: vVvAD
        Because all tank missiles - ATGM with cumulative BG

        there is a high-explosive rocket and a thermobaric on the cornet wink
        1. vVvAD
          vVvAD 9 June 2020 15: 38 New
          0
          They do not shoot cornet from the tank barrel.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 9 June 2020 19: 37 New
            0
            so it’s a tank, but you wrote about MOS (BMPT), and there it is (FBCH).
  5. sen
    sen 6 June 2020 05: 58 New
    +4
    WWII experience. In front are tanks, and behind, somewhere in 300 meters, an ACS with larger-caliber guns for fire support of tanks. It may be necessary to have two types of tanks: "normal" 125-mm caliber and for fire support of the last tanks with a 152-mm cannon.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 6 June 2020 06: 29 New
      +2
      and let's get three?) the experience of the Second World War is not relevant at all now. there will be no tank attacks or offensives. the concentration of large forces will be spotted instantly and simply broken down even on the march. Now the tank is a gain. situational with it. when the whole fire appears, all the forces and means will be directed precisely to the destruction of tanks. the caliber will not give anything in fact. the tank is now gradually turning into a sort of sniper working from a long distance. Well put 152 mm and what will it give? all statistics say that more than 75 percent of all tank losses in the world do not account for fire from enemy tank guns. where and where to apply 152? all targets that are intended to defeat are perfectly taken 125. not. Of course, local collisions with small forces are possible, but for the sake of this, to arrange a bodygirl with an increase in caliber? What's the point of this? that would hypothetically be able to hit an enemy tank with one shot?
      1. illi
        illi 6 June 2020 07: 15 New
        +2
        Exactly. In the war between the major powers, the tanks most likely will not play any role at all and will be knocked out by aircraft and various types of guided weapons. And in conflicts of little intensity, tanks play a role, reconnaissance in battle, assault guns and point destruction at long distances. For these purposes, and T90 for the eyes. Here we must focus not on a powerful gun, but on protection against missiles. What actually everyone in the world is doing
        1. illi
          illi 6 June 2020 10: 49 New
          +1
          I also want to add that in a modern war this is generally the fate of all armored vehicles, more likely to be destroyed remotely or from an ambush, without refusing any influence on the enemy.
          Now it’s much easier to enter enemy cities in tayot, ford and hunday than on tanks.
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 6 June 2020 20: 33 New
          0
          Quote: illi
          In the war between the major powers, the tanks most likely will not play any role at all and will be knocked out by aircraft and various types of guided weapons.
          In a war between major powers, aircraft will be knocked out along with airfields, making no more than one take-off.
          1. illi
            illi 7 June 2020 04: 29 New
            0
            Aviation can only be knocked out by atomic strikes. When applied, in general, any other weapon loses its meaning.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 7 June 2020 12: 15 New
              0
              Quote: illi
              Aviation can only be knocked out by atomic strikes.
              Cluster munitions can also help a lot.
              Quote: illi
              When applied, in general, any other weapon loses its meaning.
              Tanks do not lose.
        3. Tavrik
          Tavrik 8 June 2020 17: 07 New
          0
          Wars between major developed powers are fought on stock exchanges and other financial and economic markets. Carpet buying or selling shares. Diversion of saboteurs in the form of "their" people to the boards of directors of corporations. Mining of promising directions for the development of the enemy by sanctions, etc.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 June 2020 14: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: carstorm 11
        WWII experience is not relevant at all now.

        ?
        Constantly used. Just instead of assault self-propelled guns they use much less protected self-propelled guns and SPTRK.
    2. Train
      Train 6 June 2020 07: 30 New
      +4
      This was done with the IS-2 tanks. They were allowed to hit in the second echelon against targets that were previously identified. The gun allowed
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 6 June 2020 09: 09 New
      0
      Quote: sen
      WWII experience. In front are tanks, and behind, somewhere in 300 meters, an ACS with larger-caliber guns for fire support of tanks. It may be necessary to have two types of tanks: "normal" 125-mm caliber and for fire support of the last tanks with a 152-mm cannon.

      Do you seriously think that now the war is tank breakthroughs and wedges? The times of the Kursk Bulge have sunk into oblivion and there will never be any more.
      In fact, the war has moved to cities, as Syria clearly shows. And where are your rows of MBT and self-propelled guns in the wedge stuffed there?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 6 June 2020 14: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS
        In fact, the war has moved to cities, as Syria clearly shows. And where are your rows of MBT and self-propelled guns in the wedge stuffed there?

        In cities without armored vehicles, there is practically nothing to do.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 6 June 2020 16: 08 New
          -1
          Quote: Spade
          In cities without armored vehicles, there is practically nothing to do.

          True, but ... where do you cram a tank wedge, and even with a line of self-propelled guns in support in the city, do not tell?
          The man said that ...
          Quote: sen
          WWII experience. In front are tanks, and behind, somewhere in 300 meters, an ACS with larger-caliber guns for fire support of tanks. It may be necessary to have two types of tanks: "normal" 125-mm caliber and for fire support of the last tanks with a 152-mm cannon.
          1. riwas
            riwas 7 June 2020 02: 54 New
            +1
            During the storming of cities in Syria and during the storming of Berlin, 152-mm guns were very much in demand.
            1. riwas
              riwas 7 June 2020 02: 59 New
              +1
              During the storming of cities in Syria and during the storming of Berlin, 152-mm guns were very much in demand.

              You can offer an alternative. Armored ground robot with 300 mm rockets in steel pipes and armored, remotely-opening covers. Firing range up to 1 km, wire guidance, like ATGMs of the second generation.
      2. ANB
        ANB 6 June 2020 23: 48 New
        0
        . In fact, the war has moved to cities, as Syria clearly shows. And where are your rows of MBT and self-propelled guns in the wedge stuffed there?

        It seems that this is one of the reasons why the mass production of the T14 was slowed down.
        A tank costs almost half a billion rubles. These are 100 average apartments.
        But at the same time, his role on the battlefield is not entirely clear. They will still think and run in different options. Fortunately, there are still quite suitable previous models. And something tells me that when the solution is (or maybe it already exists) they will not tell us about it. And it is right.
  6. mark1
    mark1 6 June 2020 06: 05 New
    -1
    The tank of the future is a crewless vehicle (or, as an option, the ability to accommodate the operator if necessary), in dimensions T-64/72, active protection, auxiliary drones, missile-cannon weapons (at least 150 mm) with the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons, capable of independently solve problems at an operational depth of up to 300 kM, both independently and as part of units. Laser lasers, etc. EMP are welcome.
    Well, in general, I see it that way.
    1. your1970
      your1970 6 June 2020 07: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      Well, in general, I see it that way.

      Piu-piu is still not enough .... belay

      The question rests on money, the possibility of quick production and the possibility of repair in the field.
      If the tank is too expensive, we will not be able to release a lot of them, even with a small margin.
      If the tank is complex, we will not be able to dramatically increase its output and reduce the training time for it
      If the tank is complicated, we will not be able to repair it in the field, on the knee ...
      In general, everything depends on what the war will be like.
      If they are terrorists, this is one tank, if China is another, if NATO is the third.

      Moreover, all three species will be crucially differ in design, security, complexity and cost
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. mark1
        mark1 6 June 2020 07: 44 New
        0
        Quote: your1970
        Piu-piu is still not enough ....

        Piu-piu is a must-have option for non-wealthy buyers
        And so what kind of tank of the future will be shown only by life, I was repelled from the realities of the present, and what will happen at least in terms of years, who knows ...
    2. Train
      Train 6 June 2020 07: 29 New
      +1
      By the way, drones that a war machine can launch is a good idea. A mini drone is a scout, even a one-time drone will give the tank a general picture of the battlefield. And by the way, as I believe, it’s not expensive and the advantages are obvious
    3. Tavrik
      Tavrik 8 June 2020 19: 03 New
      0
      For 300 km, how will you manage it? By HF radio station?
      1. mark1
        mark1 8 June 2020 19: 11 New
        0
        Why manage it, manage a mare - he needs to set tasks
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 9 June 2020 10: 16 New
          0
          Are you joking, I think so? wink
          The statement of the problem is part of the management process.
          To set a task, you need to know where the complex is located and in what technical condition it is. And this is the task of collecting information about him. And after setting the task, you are not interested in whether it has been completed or not? Have you heard about the "control cycle"?
          1. mark1
            mark1 9 June 2020 12: 59 New
            0
            No need to "be smart", you perfectly understood what I said, what kind of management.
  7. Free wind
    Free wind 6 June 2020 06: 57 New
    +2
    Conscripts, that the author was so upset against them, for many years races on quadrocopters have been held indoors, venerable uncles with a bang lose to 15 year old boys. In the same way, a 19-year-old prankster, with a certain desire, will master masterly management much faster than a 40-year-old major. If something breaks in the car, from electronics, there super specialists can hardly determine the breakdown. Somewhere the wires will fray, and not find it. Future? And I hope the future lies in peaceful coexistence. WORLD
    PEACE ! Pipirka war.
    1. vVvAD
      vVvAD 6 June 2020 22: 51 New
      +1
      The tank is like a quadrocopter. And the majors do not drive tanks. The thing is that so that this 19-year-old prankster does not ditch himself, the crew and equipment, he must be trained and motivated to treat technology with care, and not like a Chinese phone. Gouging to her for a cannon shot should not be allowed. It takes a banal time to understand how these nonsense behave in a particular situation, and whether they can be allowed to such a technique.
      In France, the number of "Leclercs" was reduced, the crews became rotational, as a result, a huge number of cars were damaged. And these are contract soldiers! Motivated, as it were.
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 6 June 2020 07: 01 New
    +4
    It will be difficult to say what the tank of the future will be, but one can imagine. Thanks to the author for the detailed article and the work done. Informative.
  9. SVD68
    SVD68 6 June 2020 07: 19 New
    +4
    It is useless to discuss military equipment outside the tactics of its application.
    For example, a missile tank. What are the advantages of a rocket over a shell? Range and accuracy at long range. But the distance of the tank battle in most cases is less. And because missiles on the tank make up a smaller part of the ammunition. And they are also installed on light brand equipment, which should operate from the second line of battle formations.
    The tactics of using such machines as BMPT and heavy infantry fighting vehicles are also not understood (or not worked out).
    Light tank concepts fail over and over again. Because their security does not allow them to be at the forefront. And their firepower is for the front edge.
  10. Catfish
    Catfish 6 June 2020 07: 22 New
    +4
    I am not a professional, I have only three years of military service in the tank forces as a com. tank. I would very much like our army to receive a new tank, as magnificent for its time as our beloved "Half-Staple" was.
    Many thanks to the author for the work done. It was very interesting to read and something to think about. smile hi
  11. Train
    Train 6 June 2020 07: 27 New
    +3
    The gun repeats the story of the T-34 and KV-1 tanks. Where the same guns stood .. And where the KV was more expensive than the T-34 and heavier.
  12. Professor
    Professor 6 June 2020 07: 30 New
    -6
    So what should be the tank of the future?

    None. There will be no tanks in the future. They will repeat the fate of the battleships.
    1. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 6 June 2020 09: 55 New
      +3
      You are mistaken, the tanks will be without crews and the tanks will not disappear soon
      1. Professor
        Professor 6 June 2020 12: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        You are mistaken, the tanks will be without crews and the tanks will not disappear soon

        Only it will not Tanksrather lightly armored vehicles. However, such already exist.
        1. Incvizitor
          Incvizitor 6 June 2020 12: 51 New
          +1
          The enemy will also have such machines only heavily armored and destroy the lungs ...
          1. Professor
            Professor 6 June 2020 20: 10 New
            +3
            Quote: Incvizitor
            The enemy will also have such machines only heavily armored and destroy the lungs ...

            1. It makes no sense to invest in booking uninhabited cars.
            2. Unmanned vehicles are consumables.
            3. No armor guarantees the survival of the machine.
            1. your1970
              your1970 7 June 2020 02: 36 New
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              2. Unmanned vehicles are consumables.

              quite expensive and not very fast riveted
  13. Pavel57
    Pavel57 6 June 2020 07: 53 New
    0
    In Europe, 30% of hostilities will be in the city. Which tank is needed for urban conditions?
    1. illi
      illi 6 June 2020 11: 14 New
      +3
      thirty? Ha ha 30 percent and not only in Europe but everywhere.
    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 6 June 2020 12: 51 New
      0
      BMPT needed there.
  14. Gardamir
    Gardamir 6 June 2020 07: 56 New
    0
    I repeat for all the author approached the writing of the article in detail.
    More recently, I was an enemy of tanks. Because there will be no more battles like Kursk. But life shows you need a city car. If possible, fireproof with a powerful gun and a bunch of heavy machine guns.
    Something similar from the author is depicted in the last three photographs.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 June 2020 14: 18 New
      -1
      Quote: Gardamir
      I repeat for all the author approached the writing of the article in detail.
      More recently, I was an enemy of tanks. Because there will be no more battles like Kursk. But life shows you need a city car. If possible, fireproof with a powerful gun and a bunch of heavy machine guns.
      Something similar from the author is depicted in the last three photographs.

      laughing laughing laughing
      Do not disgrace ...
  15. Operator
    Operator 6 June 2020 08: 27 New
    -7
    The T-14 will not take off (like the object 195) because of the German straightforwardness of technical solutions:
    - shed-shaped form factor with a low degree of security;
    - the use of unguided active shells instead of guided active-reactive;
    - excess tankers (3 instead of 2);
    - KAZ, not protecting the entire upper hemisphere.

    Tagil Design Bureau has clearly exhausted its potential.
  16. smaug78
    smaug78 6 June 2020 08: 31 New
    +1
    Peeling and mastering the budget, unfortunately, is our everything (((
  17. DWG1905
    DWG1905 6 June 2020 09: 26 New
    +6
    Very interesting article. A “heavy” tank with a powerful gun is definitely needed. In order to predict future conflicts, several factors must be considered. 1. The world order established after World War II is coming to an end; new players are entering the arena. 2. Wars are always waged for resources, markets, etc. things. 2. The population of the planet and living standards are growing, ie there are not enough resources for everyone. The first ones to feel the lack of resources will be the Anglo-Saxon civilization (which now includes Europe, North America, Australia, Japan and the little things), because those who produce the resources themselves will eat them. 3. It is easy to guess where on the planet there is a place where there are many resources and few people. Therefore, from the point of view of the development of armored weapons, it is necessary to consider conflicts (or rather another European campaign to the east) on the European theater of operations, and at least conflicts in the south with the aim of taking this region under control with access to the African continent. Therefore, taking into account the specifics of various turboprop engines, different tanks are needed. Where there is enough armored personnel carrier with a machine gun, and where we face a stubborn enemy armed in full. Hoping for aviation in a serious conflict is not necessary because it is tied to a highly vulnerable infrastructure, which the opposing parties will try to make in the first place. And in general, until mankind finds a more effective way to extract and conserve energy than burning hydrocarbons, special breakthroughs in the development of weapons and equipment should not be expected. Yes, I am for peace, but one must be extremely naive to believe that there will be no more wars, after the 4st World War some also thought. An example of a modern conflict over resources is Egypt's hitting Ethiopia over platinum on the Nile.
  18. Okolotochny
    Okolotochny 6 June 2020 10: 14 New
    +2
    By the way, Colonel General Galkin (in the article) is the father of “the famous humorist and husband of the“ prima donna. ”This is such an“ apple tree ”and such an“ apple ”.
    1. DWG1905
      DWG1905 6 June 2020 11: 04 New
      +1
      So in the army it is impossible to serve without a sense of humor, although anyone who served in the army does not laugh. Probably the abilities were passed from father to son.
  19. Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 6 June 2020 11: 35 New
    +3
    Quote: Free Wind
    Conscripts, that the author was so upset against them, for many years races on quadrocopters have been held indoors, venerable uncles with a bang lose to 15 year old boys. In the same way, a 19-year-old prankster, with a certain desire, will master masterly management much faster than a 40-year-old major. If something breaks in the car, from electronics, there super specialists can hardly determine the breakdown. Somewhere the wires will fray, and not find it. Future? And I hope the future lies in peaceful coexistence. WORLD
    PEACE ! Pipirka war.

    In my army when I was still serving for 2 years, conscripts became a true professional in their field by about a year and a half. And now? And now is the year. Plus a catastrophic failure in education. And most importantly - the operation and maintenance of sophisticated military equipment is not a bit COMPUTER shooting, and not some kind of competition. No need to compare thick with soft! And I agree that for teenagers, of course, the reaction is faster than for those who are 40+. But on some reactions with an erection you can’t do much serious things. You also need a HEAD !!! But with this, alas, in the modern world there are big problems.
  20. demiurg
    demiurg 6 June 2020 12: 46 New
    0
    In all previous recent wars, even with different levels of opponents such as Iraq and the USA, tanks destroyed a maximum of 18% of enemy tanks. So, dear experts, I have a question:
    -How much will the percentage of destroyed tanks increase when replacing a woman?
    Early reply:
    -1-2%, and this is an optimistic forecast. Neither aviation, nor artillery, nor anti-tank weapons will give their means. And this is not remembering about mines


    And after such a digression, I have one more question:
    And why, then, make the tank heavier, reduce its ammunition load, raise the price of the car by cramming the invisible, i.e. 152mm babah?
    A tank is primarily a mobile bunker for infantry. And this pillbox has no need for a 40kg shell. There is a need to improve protection against anti-tank systems and drones. It would be nice to have a reserved volume for the removal of the wounded and the transportation of ammunition. In general, I am for the T-15 with 57 mm about a gun. The time of long trunks is over.
  21. Whowhy
    Whowhy 6 June 2020 13: 55 New
    +3
    It seems to me like this: a tank with a low ballistic cannon, with high elevation angles, caliber 160mm (ammunition for conventional and guided missiles), and with an automatic cannon with a caliber of 30mm (or maybe 57mm), can drag a small armored trailer with guided missiles vertical launch of different calibers from 120 to 320mm (depending on the target), with a range of up to 3-4 km. Accordingly, modern means of detection and aiming are needed. The tank fights against armored objects and helicopters, at long range - with the help of guided missiles launched from the gun barrel, and at short distances - with the help of vertical-launch guided missiles (from the trailer). Against manpower - conventional ammunition, mortar type, vertical launch missiles and an automatic weapon. Vertical launch missiles can be equipped with various warheads - high-explosive, cluster, thermobaric, incendiary, etc. acoustic device for determining the direction of the shot. Well, and accordingly KAZ, smoke grenade launchers, "Shtora", etc. and so on .. In general, everything is as the author prescribed ... fellow wink
    1. prodi
      prodi 6 June 2020 14: 42 New
      +1
      based on the tendency that there is nothing massive at all now, then I am inclined to your opinion on the account of the 152mm low-ballistic rifled gun with large angles, and with an independent upper module 30 - 7.62mm and MANPADS
    2. vVvAD
      vVvAD 6 June 2020 23: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: whowhy
      tank with a low ballistic gun, with high elevation angles, caliber 160mm

      Now think about what volumes (I mean height) are required for large elevation angles of 160mm weapons. Have you seen the MSTA-S tower or the Coalition-SV?
      Quote: whowhy
      and with an automatic gun with a caliber of 30mm (or maybe 57mm)

      And what kind of tank guns and autocannon will have a PSU?
      Quote: whowhy
      can drag a small armored trailer with guided missiles of vertical launch of different calibers from 120 to 320 mm (depending on the target), with a range of up to 3-4 km.

      And what then will the tank have the length and radius of the turn?
      Quote: whowhy
      Against manpower - conventional ammunition, mortar type, vertical launch rockets and automatic guns.

      From a gun on sparrows - yes.
      And to burn these bulky clumsy banduras will be cheap RPGs and NARs.
      1. Whowhy
        Whowhy 8 June 2020 07: 15 New
        0
        Now think about what volumes (I mean height) are required for large elevation angles of 160mm weapons. Have you seen the MSTA-S tower or the Coalition-SV?

        Since when has MSTA-S, or the Coalition-SV acquired low-ballistic weapons? Have you seen Nona?
        And what kind of tank guns and autocannon will have a PSU?

        Appropriate. :)
        And what then will the tank have the length and radius of the turn?

        The length will correspond to the design documentation. The turning radius (whether we are talking about an airplane or something) will remain, in fact, the same. If hydraulic elements are added to the hitch, then cross-country ability will even improve.
        From a gun on sparrows - yes.

        Are tank guns firing at sparrows now?
        And to burn these bulky clumsy banduras will be cheap RPGs and NARs.

        But where does bulkyness and slowness come from? An ordinary tank, with a small cart at the back, equipped with modern detection tools and a good overview of the surroundings due to the UAV. Guided missiles of vertical launch with fragmentation warheads of the beam type generally do not leave any chances for infantry with RPGs. Yes, and KAZ then what? For some reason, the NARs also dragged here. To more or less accurately hit the NARS, the helicopter must approach a distance that is too dangerous for him. Here ATGMs, indeed, are still dangerous (as for any MBT). Modern aircraft ATGMs reach a range of up to 20km. It is for this that I propose to make the caliber of the gun 160mm, since with smaller calibers a comparable radius of action is unattainable. In addition, the UAV can provide timely detection of not only flying ATGMs, but also the helicopters themselves.
        1. vVvAD
          vVvAD 9 June 2020 15: 07 New
          0
          Quote: whowhy
          Appropriate. :)

          Yeah, God forbid, 20 shells for a tank gun and 300 for AP.
          Quote: whowhy
          The length will correspond to the design documentation.

          This is a formal reply. Given the length of the coupling is almost twice as long - look at the two-link tractors. Vulnerability in the airborne projection grows according to an increase in its area.
          Quote: whowhy
          But where does bulkyness and slowness come from? An ordinary tank, with a small cart at the back ...

          Quote: whowhy
          The turning radius (whether we are talking about an airplane or something) will remain, in fact, the same.

          What do you think is small? 1 axle trailer? Or it will bog down and reduce the tank’s cross-country ability on the road, or it’s a full tracked platform. But the conversation is not about cross-country ability - and so it is clear that the specific ground pressure of the diesel fuel is less.
          Will not stay. You see, DT cannot turn in place or turn sharply 90 degrees, and such intersections in cities are darkness. Correction: in cities where fighting is taking place, and a detour through half a city is banal dangerous. How will such a tank move along narrow city streets with blockages, if even a long cannon sometimes bothers them now? Also do not forget that no one is fighting in the field, now more than half of all battles are in cities. In the future - up to 80%
          Quote: whowhy
          Guided missiles of vertical launch with fragmentation warheads of the beam type generally do not leave any chances for infantry with RPGs

          Do you know what I'm talking about "from a cannon to the sparrows"? Besides, the cost of RPG and UR is incomparable.
          Do you also know why the Coalition is single-cannon? Losing 2 guns with the loss of one BBM is an inadmissible luxury. This trailer will be useless not only in case of loss of a tank, but even in case of loss of mobility, because the first turns into an excellent target that can be shot from all sides, and this cart corny lacks the channel to repel all attacks. And also, if she interrupts the truck, the tank will also lose mobility. And if you want to unhook it in this case, then if you please, refuse to transfer the transmission and increase its size due to your own propulsion and fuel supply. Oh yes: for the price it will fly into almost 2 tanks with a functional barely reaching one and a half. Hint: T-28.
          Quote: whowhy
          To more or less accurately hit the NARS, the helicopter must approach a distance that is too dangerous for him.

          Quote: whowhy
          A small armored trailer with vertical launch guided missiles of various calibers from 120 to 320 mm (depending on the target), with a range of up to 3-4 km.

          S-8OFP Armor-gunner, effective firing range 6 km + "Strelets" complex.
          But we have it. And about the NARs, I mean that for a tank with such maneuverability in urban combat conditions (read above), for aiming, the Apache just needs to stick out his AN / APG-78 millimeter guidance radar, placed above the main rotor hub, and then emerge for seconds on 5 or less to launch NAR. And now give me an example of such an air defense system that will have time to track the target, give guidance and fire a missile from the seeker during this time? Okay, to hell with him - shot. And the helicopter is behind the house. Or missiles are now also deployed on the spot?
          Quote: whowhy
          It is for this that I propose to make the caliber of the gun 160mm, since with smaller calibers a comparable radius of action is unattainable.

          Do you even understand what you are offering? Can't you solve the problem cheaper? Well, at least increase the range of your own ATGMs if you have such a fantasy.
          In the end, the tank is not fighting in a spherical vacuum: what about the attached means of military air defense, MOS, motorized infantry? Cheaper and many times more effective.
          1. Whowhy
            Whowhy 10 June 2020 19: 10 New
            -1
            The T-72 has, for example, 22 rounds in the carousel, although the ammunition carried is larger, but now everything else is being removed for the duration of the battle…. Nona has a transportable ammunition stock of 30 rounds (120mm, with caseless charges), so it is two and a half times less than the T-72. Now there are no battles, as during the Second World War, when the tank armies met. So 20 rounds is fine. When the engine is in front, a special elevator can be added for shooting from closed positions.
            The BMP-2 has 500 rounds of ammunition and 2000 rounds per machine gun. So there in the tower there is also a commander with a gunner sitting.
            Are you kidding me? Am I supposed to expose millimeters to you on a conceptual idea? Why should I look at two-link tractors? The launch tubes, placed vertically in several rows, in sections for different calibers, can be transported on 4 wheels and on a hook type hitch. A tank with it will turn on the spot, as without it, even if the coupling is not a "hook", but a "parallelogram" and will enter any street (which it will fit into without a cart). And the permeability will not suffer much. As a last resort, it will be possible to put on tape tracks on the wheels. The price of this cart is scanty (in comparison with the tank), there is no "channel" - all "channel" is in the tank.  And it is not clear about the reflection of what "all attacks" this very "channel" may not be enough. Like, like in space fiction or what? - Are armored monsters climbing from all sides?
            What fright do you compare the cost of RPGs and SD in this situation? And what prevents you from comparing the cost of weapons and a tank?
            Che, you clearly re-read heroic literature about the Second World War. A trailer is primarily a weapon. And if the tank loses mobility and there is no infantry around (well, anything can happen in a war, including stupidity), then the use of a couple of 320mm missiles, even though they are there in the kit and, say, 4 pieces in total (however, how much you put) - this is the clearing of the area from the enemy manpower in about half a block (the rest will simply scatter). In addition, a low ballistics gun (cannon-howitzer-mortar), due to the large elevation angle, will demolish all the upper floors around, and a 30mm cannon will be able to quickly "extinguish" all firing points and also at all levels. In addition, having modern means of observation and detection, such as UAVs and millimeter-wave radar, the tank will not climb into the trap. And it will be methodically, surrounded by motorized infantry (tanks, let it be known to you, do not fight alone) to clear quarter after quarter.
            "If an elephant is written on the cage with a tiger, don't believe your eyes" (Kozma Prutkov). S-8OFP An armored gunner has nothing to do with anti-tank weapons at all, and 6 km for approaching such a tank is a deadly distance (he will be knocked down by an UR from a cannon by 10 km).
            You read the description of the concept extremely inattentively. UAVs with an excess of 30-50m above the tank will not leave any chance for a helicopter. He still will not have time to put out the antenna, as he will fly ... And then, something quickly comes out of your mind.  Is he going to stick out an antenna for what? That's right - to find the target by scanning the horizon (and it takes a lot more time), then you will need to identify this target, make a decision to defeat, and only then try to pop out to launch ATGMs. During this time, having fixed the radiation from the radar and its direction, you can also do a lot of things, starting from aerosol jamming and ending with the defeat of a special (and preferably universal) UR helicopter.
            Firstly, again, the UAV, which this helicopter will detect in advance. Secondly, for a vertically launching rocket it is not necessary to turn around in place, it is enough to turn the warhead to the ground, and then turn it a little, thirdly, there is an automatic gun with large elevation angles, and fourthly, a point-blank shot with any projectile from a 160 mm gun (which again with high elevation angles).
            Do you yourself understand what you are writing about? Can you first carefully read what is proposed, and then "throw yourself at the embrasure"?  At least one normal argument was given. Comprehension work is very different from recognizing individual words in sentences.
            Just everything in this MBT concept is aimed at simplifying and reducing the cost. A universal powerful gun (cannon-howitzer-mortar) that can work effectively both in the field and in urban areas (for example, shoot through a house on a neighboring street), while losing nothing compared to existing MBTs, and vice versa , surpassing them in all respects of defeat, manpower, fortifications, armored objects and helicopters. By the way, increasing the caliber to 160mm just allows you to significantly increase the range of SDs fired from a gun.
            Sorry, but your comments are not included. 
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. vVvAD
              vVvAD 10 June 2020 22: 16 New
              0
              Wow, what a cart ...
              [quote = WhoWhy] So 20 shells are quite normal. [/ quote]
              Tell it to the military. In irregular battles, the requirements for tank autonomy are not reduced.
              [quote = WhoWhy] When the engine is in front ... [/ quote]
              According to the modern BMP concept, the engine is placed in front to increase very weak own armor in the side projection, the preservation of the landing is a priority - motorized riflemen are fighting under cover of the BMP. The tank has frontal armor in the frontal view. A tank with a damaged engine can only be left through the well-shot hatches, unlike BMPs. Therefore, the tank crew is more likely to survive while maintaining its mobility, even if there are wounded. In our country, no one will deliver a tank to the front engine.
              [quote = WhoWhy] BMP-2 has 500 rounds of ammunition and 2000 rounds per machine gun. So there in the tower there is also a commander with a gunner sitting. [/ Quote]
              Yes, only she doesn't have a tank gun. And the proposed 160mm gun will eat up more space than 125. If you want to at least roughly understand how much BP will fit in the case of installing 30mm AP as an additional weapon, there is an example - BMP-3. More precisely, for 125mm: there were proposals to put a 30mm twin cannon, the idea was abandoned: the power supply unit is only 200. For the 57mm AP it is even less. Well, or a tower like that of "Abrams", the height, silhouette, suspension requirements, weight, ground pressure, and gluttony are growing enchantingly.
              [quote = WhoWhy] Launch pipes, placed vertically in several rows, in sections for different calibers, can be transported on 4 wheels and on a hook type hitch. [/ quote]
              [quote = vVvAD] Or it will bog down and reduce the patency of the tank on the road, or is it a full tracked platform [/ quote]
              [quote = WhoWhy] In extreme cases, it will be possible to put on tape tracks on wheels [/ quote]
              Yeah, rubber. Oh well. Maintainability 0.
              [quote = WhoWhy] and on a hook [/ quote]
              And the control commands will also be transmitted via the hook type coupling?
              [quote = WhoWhy] The price of this cart is scanty (compared to the tank) [/ quote]
              Why do you think so? Missiles are not cheap fun. Especially 300mm caliber.
              And where are you going to place the surveillance radar and the backlight radar on the tank, how will you protect it from bullets and AP shells?
              [quote = WhoWhy] there is no "channel" - all "channel" in the tank [/ quote]
              [quote = WhoWhy] And it is not clear about the reflection of what "all attacks" this very "channel" may not be enough. [/ quote]
              It makes no difference, if a tank loses mobility, everyone who is not lazy will start to beat it.
              Dear, read carefully so that I do not repeat myself.
              [quote = WhoWhy] With what fright do you compare the cost of RPGs and SD in this situation? [/ quote]
              With such that the preparation and equipment of almost suicide bombers with RPGs (which is very important in local wars) is several times cheaper than the SDs with which you are going to destroy them. With such an economy, the war will be lost before it even begins.
              [quote = WhoWhy] then the use of a couple of URs with a caliber of 320mm, even though they are there in the kit and, say, 4 pieces in total (however, how much you put) is cleaning the enemy’s manpower in about half a quarter (the rest will just scatter) [/ quote]
              Nobody is fighting in the field. Check out the materials for the dispersal of fragmentation submunitions in confined spaces and no longer write nonsense.
              [quote = WhoWhy] In addition, a low-ballistic weapon (cannon-howitzer-mortar), due to the large elevation angle, will demolish all the upper floors around [/ quote]
              And how long will it take to clean up? And the enemies, then, will "take turns"? [/ Quote]
              [quote = WhoWhy] In addition, having modern means of observation and detection, both a UAV and a millimeter-wave radar will not get into a trap. [/ quote]
              You want to say: will scan through all the buildings? Do not disgrace! Advance Detect an ambush in a city only by infantry.
              [quote = WhoWhy] And it will be methodically surrounded by motorized infantry (tanks, let it be known, do not fight alone) to clear quarter after quarter. [/ quote]
              And why then turn the OT into a monster if the infantry takes upon itself what it cannot do?
              [quote = WhoWhy] He still doesn’t have time to put out the antenna as he arrives at him .... [/ quote]
              [quote = WhoWhy] First, again, the UAV, which this helicopter will detect in advance. [/ quote]
              And how, I would like to know? The helicopter can hide in the folds of the terrain, make short flights. Actually, this is how they behave. He will be the first to shoot down your UAV. Actually, therefore, they refused from the tethered UAV on the "Armata" - ponto 0. In addition, the tethered UAV will not see the helicopter behind the obstacle (there is a difference: the UAV's range is tens of meters and kilometers to the helicopter - count the angles yourself) and will not be able to issue missiles TSU. And even if it does, it simply won't have enough reaction time to issue a control center.
              [quote = WhoWhy] During this time, having fixed the radiation from the radar and its direction, you can also do a lot of things, starting from aerosol jamming and ending with the defeat of a special (and better universal) UR. [/ quote]
              Listen, firstly, in the case of the United States, there are reconnaissance and attack helicopters to detect targets. Secondly, additional attack can be carried out by attack helicopter, moving between obstacles. So the helicopter for the control and strike time will need a little - a matter of seconds. He has a trite advantage in maneuverability.
              [quote = WhoWhy] Just everything in this concept of MBT is aimed at simplifying and reducing the cost. Universal powerful gun (cannon-howitzer-mortar) [/ quote]
              This is not a cheapening, but a waste of money.
              [quote = WhoWhy] while not losing anything, compared with existing MBTs, but rather, surpassing them in all respects [/ quote]
              The guns of this type have less muzzle energy, therefore, less range and power, as you know. You know, right? Or is it a surprise for you?
              [quote = WhoWhy] Should you set millimeters on a conceptual idea? [/ quote]
              On a conceptual basis, another project. Well, or complete nonsense.
              Do you think you're the only one so clever, and hundreds of designers justifying certain schemes in tank design bureaus are wasting their bread? Who do you want to make laugh?
              [quote = WhoWhy] Work on understanding the text is very different from recognizing individual words in sentences. [/ quote]
              I tried to show you that you have jambs in the project through the proposal. But apparently useless. As they say, stupidity is worse than stubbornness.
              You are tired of me.
              1. Whowhy
                Whowhy 10 June 2020 23: 03 New
                0
                Have you looked in the mirror for a long time?
                Again, on each argument, you distort, or even invent something that I never wrote. So discussions are not conducted, my friend. request
  22. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 6 June 2020 14: 02 New
    +3
    After the collapse of the union, we faced an economic and strategic dilemma, I would even say a complex dilemma. It can be expressed like this -
    1) the USSR relied on a planned economy, which allowed it to give the military-industrial complex much more opportunities and means than a raw market economy (the difference between a raw market economy and an established market economy is huge, and it has been separated by years). The USSR used these opportunities for:
    2) The creation of massive offensive units, the purpose of which was to capture Europe with blitz in the most terrible war that humanity has ever seen. It required a quantitative and fire overwhelming superiority over the enemy (NATO), and since according to dem. we were inferior to NATO’s potential and economy - we couldn’t prepare processions similar to the NATO ones, and therefore relied on the draft army and the appropriate approach to creating a military base on which this draft army will fight.

    Thus, the USSR was able to create gigantic series of equipment for the draft army and some epic conflict (or series of conflicts) - and this was part of one approach, one complex.

    With the collapse of the USSR, we lost half of the dem. potential, lost the planned economy, the country was in crisis, the army was clearly hypertrophied, like the number of military equipment, given the real direct threats to our country at that time. Given the impossibility of adequately supporting a weak market economy on effective draft troops (in the long run), as well as the impossibility of maintaining a large BT fleet, given the changing nature and scale of threats (instead of war with NATO, operations against militants and in local conflicts), the country faced the need to develop a high-quality solution, taking into account the specifics of the transition (from existing-to planned-expedient). It was a painful, dull and kleptocratic transition, but its necessity does not raise my doubts.

    Thus, we needed a smaller tank, oriented to use for less mass use (as part of a more modest set of tools, for solving smaller tasks), in which (due to less mass) it is necessary to sacrifice maintainability in favor of survival and slaughter qualities, and therefore, you have to sacrifice the price (due to the small lot and the quality of workmanship), and also because the crew needs a professional crew for such an approach, due to the fact that the product is more expensive and the price for an error is higher.

    At the moment, we are about the end of such a transition.

    The products described above fell on the initial-middle section of such a transition, where we did not yet economically pull their creation / did not have a sufficient measure of transition to a contract army. Now we LIKE HOW approached certain parameters - and "Armata" appeared exactly when it was supposed to.
    Its delays are explained by the subsidence of the economic situation (and the redistribution of funds in connection with it), the diversion of resources to the formation of police forces and the excessive dedication of our aircraft to the aviation component. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
    1. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 6 June 2020 14: 30 New
      +2
      Zy ah yes, with regard to the development of the "tank of the future". There will be development of drones for the tank - probably 2 devices, both with the aim of improving awareness, and possibly with some kind of attacking means (in the future). This is inevitable due to the development of the theme of urban battles and the well-known inconveniences of tanks in such conditions, its network centricity and the increase in the "value" of the product and the crew.
      An increase in value always leads to breaking the impasse of pursuit of quality indicators (armor, power of weapons) to innovation.
      Probably for this reason, one should not expect a 152mm gun so soon, developers all over the world are literally "on the belly" creeping towards an increase in caliber - because this is a serious parameter that increases the "value" of the series and production time, but apart from innovations, it may be excessive for real means defeat of tanks. I mean, taking into account the improvement of "smart" weapons and their massiveness, the enemy of the tank is less and less another tank - and more and more something else. In such conditions, the pursuit of dueling character. a controversial matter, especially since a network-centric war implies the superiority of a complex of means. I guess they will stop at 130-140x, if they even reach these values.
      Involuntarily, the tank will turn into a kind of protected focal point on earth as part of a group of assets (including infantry), if I am right to develop automation and electronic stuffing, you will need to find a place - get rid of 1 crew member (there will be 2-3 people) - Part of the functions of the departed will be taken over by the AI ​​(in the group exchange of tactical information), UAVs and other means of observation.
      The passive survival of the tank in this regard should increase - KAZs, etc. Probably it will be critically important to acquire some kind of automatic means of fighting the enemy's UAV.
      All this makes me think that modularity to expand the functions of the tank will develop - probably the convenience of such modularity will be brought deep into the design - and little-needed "kits" will run away and add tactically more necessary ones (including from the point of view of reducing the cost of the product) ...

      This leads to the idea that, on the one hand, the tank of the future will be a high-tech product, on the other hand, the main factor will not be its dueling qualities but its network-centric functionality and cost-maintainability - despite the fact that these will not be such massive products with extensive functionality and proff . crews)
  23. iouris
    iouris 6 June 2020 14: 35 New
    +1
    The USSR had 80000 tanks. Not having solved the main question "What should the state be?", It is too early to take on the secondary ones. Because it is impossible to answer the question: "Why do we need a tank?"
  24. ANB
    ANB 7 June 2020 00: 01 New
    -1
    The novelty of Almaty is not in armor and not in caliber. In T14, you can simply remove the crew, replacing it with a remote control. Not for nothing so popular wot. Ready crews. To date, there is no technology for fast, reliable and secure remote control. But T14 is not allowed in a large series. AI is still in its infancy, the dreams of the 60s that now, did not take off. The problem is more complicated. But as soon as it appears, the computer will rise into the capsule.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 8 June 2020 19: 11 New
      +1
      This is the correct thought. Now this is difficult to implement, but over time it will work out. I already wrote here about Ender's Game.
  25. Tuzik
    Tuzik 7 June 2020 01: 04 New
    -1
    It seems to me that the future belongs to inexpensive, light, brisk tanks, with a bunch of different ammunition, with the possibility of destroying any target, with one inexpensive little man on board who will press the yes or no button on the options offered by the computer.
  26. storm
    storm 7 June 2020 18: 43 New
    0
    A competent and honest article confirming the thoughtless chaotic policy of the country's leadership in the development of domestic armored vehicles and rearmament of the army.
  27. Alien From
    Alien From 8 June 2020 05: 43 New
    +1
    It was interesting to read the article. Many thanks to the author!)
  28. Aleksey Aleksandrovich
    Aleksey Aleksandrovich 8 June 2020 06: 58 New
    -1
    Tank to be.
  29. Tavrik
    Tavrik 8 June 2020 19: 07 New
    0
    Quote: whowhy
    The tank has a UAV set on a leash of 30-50m (high-frequency power makes it possible to make a thin and durable cable), with a video camera, radar and an acoustic device for determining the direction of a shot.

    Strongly against. Everyone must do their job.
  30. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 8 June 2020 21: 04 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author.
    There are a lot of provocative speeches and stories about Armata, it’s good that they made the object, embodied the ideas, they say they even experienced them in Syria, but so far this is only talk. As is the case nga actually known only to the testers, this is understandable, only incomprehensible, provocative stories about the object, which is still in service, are incomprehensible.
    Operation cover-ups, cover-ups, misrepresentation?
  31. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 9 June 2020 22: 22 New
    0
    Not a drop is a tanker / gunner. But here is the question, knowledgeable people. Why immediately consider moving from 125mm to 152? Why not consider the calibers 130, 131, 132 ... And so on, in increments of at least half a millimeter?
  32. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 11 June 2020 04: 38 New
    +1
    Funny set out
  33. Δεγραδ-Οτραδ
    Δεγραδ-Οτραδ 11 June 2020 21: 29 New
    0
    This, of course, is good, but nevertheless, neither 30 nor 57 mm can replace all 120. In the end, 125, and even more than 152, in principle, can destroy some long-term enemy fortifications. Most likely the gun-launcher will be preserved.
    Ps is important not only the ability to apply, but also the caliber.