Military Review

Protection of ground combat equipment. Reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection?

116

Armor distribution



As we said earlier, the main factors limiting the use of armor protection on various types of ground equipment is its mass and dimensions. An attempt to make a tank capable of withstanding all-round shelling with all types of existing ammunition will lead to the appearance of a clumsy monster that is difficult to move and has great cost.


Superheavy fighting vehicles: the American experimental self-propelled artillery T28 (T95) weighing 86 tons, the German Panzerkampfwagen VIII "Maus" weighing 188,9 tons and the German project tank Landkreuzer p. 1000 ratte weighing 1000 tons

The most critical projections and individual units of armored vehicles are protected as much as possible. Historically, the most protected part of armored vehicles is the frontal part of the hull and turret (if any): it is it that is subjected to shelling by the enemy in a frontal attack in the first place.


Reservation zones with different levels of protection (conditional)


Sectional examples of tank armor

More precisely, it was relevant during the Second World War. Nowadays, attacks are no longer so linear, the front line is often absent, it is believed that military operations will more and more resemble a high-intensity partisan conflict in which the most high-tech weapons will be used. Under these conditions, armored vehicles can be attacked from any angle that the enemy considers the most vulnerable.

Another factor reducing the value of zone reservation is the proliferation of weapons that can attack the upper part of the building. It can be assumed that in the future, high-precision weaponcapable of recognizing the image of the target, it will be able to intelligently attack the least protected projections of the target, after recognizing its type by automatic guidance. Even if we throw all our efforts into booking the roof, promising ammunition may well be aimed at the side or even “dive” under the bottom.


FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile system hits armored targets in the least protected upper hemisphere

In these conditions, the question arises: is it really necessary to ensure the maximum reservation of the frontal part of the armored vehicle’s body? Perhaps the best solution would be to “smear” the armor evenly across the hull?

Although we cannot provide round-robin reservations against armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS) and heavy anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), it may be possible to provide circular protection against quick-fire cannons of caliber up to 57 mm, light manual anti-tank grenade launchers (RPGs) and ATGMs , and, possibly, from the ammunition of the "shock core" type. In other words, to provide maximum protection against those threats that armored vehicles are most likely to encounter.

After all, if we talk about BOPS, the confrontation with which the heavy frontal armor of the tank is “sharpened” in the first place, then what is the likelihood of a tank meeting with an enemy tank? And what is the likelihood that the tank will be attacked by the Javelin ATGM or shot by a half-dozen RPGs?

Protection of ground combat equipment. Reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection?

The latest American M829A4 BOPS with a depleted uranium core for M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks is potentially capable of breaking through the armor of the latest Russian T-90M tanks

On the other hand, the crews of armored vehicles already have established tactics of warfare, an important element of which is the presence of powerful frontal armor. In addition, the presence of such a “shield” will allow to realize promising armored vehicles with electric propulsion automated maneuver similar to that described in the article “Defense of ground-based military equipment: take cover and dodge”when, when attacking, the armored vehicle automatically turns around with the frontal part of the hull towards the attacking ammunition.


In advanced armored vehicles with electric movement, advanced control systems can automatically or semi-automatically carry out a protective maneuver to evade enemy ammunition or change the position of the hull so that a possible hit would fall into the most protected part of the hull. In particular, in the presented image, based on an analysis of the type of attacking ammunition (speed, flight path) and surrounding terrain parameters, the control system may try to hide the armored car from an ATGM attack behind buildings (1, 2), or deploy it with the front of the hull towards attack (3)

However, as we have already said, from ammunition attacking from above and on the span, all this will not help, therefore, the question of the feasibility of enhanced reservation of the frontal part is not removed. So what will be the answer?

This issue should at least be worked out. It is possible that he will be removed at the stage of preliminary study, because the rejection of reinforced frontal armor will not significantly strengthen the remaining projections.

But another option is also possible, for example, when in case of refusal of reinforced frontal armor capable of withstanding BFPS and heavy ATGMs, we will get circular protection that can effectively withstand light RPGs, automatic guns of caliber up to 57 mm, as well as ammunition of the type “shock nucleus". At the same time, we will assign protection from BOPS and heavy ATGMs to KAZ.


At the same time, let's assume that the capabilities of a similar classic-style armored vehicle in all projections, except the frontal, provide protection only from guns with a caliber of up to 30 mm and limited protection against light RPGs.


It is unlikely that the armor of modern tanks of the classic layout will be able to withstand shells from a 57 mm gun

It is possible that the creation of two types of armored vehicles will be the optimal solution: with a classic reservation scheme, with the most protected frontal part, and with uniformly distributed armor protection. The former will be used mainly on flat terrain, and the latter in mountainous-wooded areas and during battles in settlements. In this case, the optimal booking scheme or the optimal ratio of armored vehicles of both types will help to identify the practice.

Modular armor


As part of the study of the American FCS program, when it became clear that the security of the 20-ton vehicle would be insufficient, a modular, optionally mounted armor was considered. It was assumed that the tank delivers one C-130, and the hinged armor the second. The idea, let’s say, is not viable. The fact that the number of flights doubles is half the trouble, but the fact that you need to hang 10-20 tons of armor on the tank near the front line is already worse. Will there be time for this, will the delivery fail? In fact, “unarmored” tanks, with corresponding consequences for them, would most likely go into battle.

However, modular armor can be useful if one considers modularity not as an opportunity to equip a combat vehicle before a battle and to permanently remove and attach armored elements, but as a way to simplify repair and modernization of a combat vehicle. In this case, modularity is rather a system of standards, uniform sizes and fixtures. Of course, the possibility of quick installation / dismantling of armored elements should not go to the detriment of their intended purpose - providing armor protection, i.e. armor should not crumble from the tank after the slightest hit, like autumn leaves from a tree from a gust of wind.


Modular armor can be useful to simplify the repair and modernization of promising combat vehicles; it is much more difficult to repair and upgrade the built-in armored elements

Another option may be considered, directly, however, not related to the concept of “modularity”. As you know, the width of armored vehicles is limited by the dimensions of the railway platforms. At the same time, some types of protection, for example, rather simple and effective anti-cumulative lattice screens, are advisable to move away from the case in order to ensure premature operation of the cumulative ammunition.

You can consider the implementation of automatic screens, lifting electric drives during transportation, lowering and locking in position. The presence of such automatic screens will allow transportation of armored vehicles without going beyond the required dimensions and provide additional protection during combat work.


Automatic protective screens

The mass of such screens will be limited by the power of electric drives and mounts that hold the screens in a "combat" position. At a minimum, these can be anti-cumulative gratings that are placed at an optimum distance from the housing. It is impossible to exclude a denser arrangement of protective screens when blocks of composite and foam materials can be placed behind the cumulative gratings: lightweight and durable, but quite voluminous.


Composite structured and foamed materials are considered one of the important directions for the development of promising armor.

In principle, the crew can use the lifting screens in different tactical situations and in the upper position, for example, when the lower part of the hull is covered by the terrain. This will limit the possibility of turning the turret, but it will not interfere with the operation of the remotely controlled weapon module with a machine gun or automatic cannon.

The most important factor that enhances protected armored vehicles is the availability of active protection systems, which we will discuss in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
btvt.info, btvt.narod.ru
Articles from this series:
Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd
Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or infantry?
Increased situational awareness of armored combat vehicle crews
Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms for promising armored vehicles
Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles
Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd
Electric tank: prospects for the use of electric propulsion in ground combat equipment
Protecting ground combat equipment: take cover and dodge
Protection of ground combat equipment. There isn’t much armor?
116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Geeeei
    Geeeei 29 June 2020 18: 13 New
    +3
    The best anime crossover ever
    L2A5I x T-14
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 30 June 2020 06: 40 New
      +3
      The author incorrectly considers booking T-14 in principle. The most basic feature of the T-14 reservation is the crew’s armored capsule, plus the protection of the rest of the hull is a combination of armor and active protection.
      Electric screens are generally such nonsense that it’s not even funny.
      Considering booking a tank, the author for some reason forgot about such a vital element as caterpillars, though it could be for the better, or they would be hung with moving screens.
      Not better - book tracks too!
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 1 July 2020 08: 36 New
        -1
        What kind of apparatus is this?
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 1 July 2020 08: 55 New
          +1
          German mine clearance vehicle from the times of the 2nd world war. I saw in Kubinka in the museum - impressive!
          http://zonwar.ru/news/news_62_VsKfz_617.html?utm_source=warfiles.ru
        2. Turist1996
          Turist1996 30 August 2020 20: 40 New
          +1
          Imperial armored vehicle, version 1.0. Generic features are visible! laughing laughing laughing
          Joke! But when you see him, the music from "Star Wars" really starts to sound in your head: to-to-to-to-to-to .. !! laughing
  2. Avior
    Avior 29 June 2020 18: 15 New
    0
    Analysis of the possibility of creating equally armored vehicles must begin with an analysis of the capabilities of the means of destruction of a potential enemy, including promising ones.
    If it is impossible to ensure equal reservation from all projections from weapons that the enemy has in sufficient quantity or that he can get quickly enough, then you can forget about equal-strength booking.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 29 June 2020 18: 58 New
      +3
      I agree. The author emphasizes that in the future, "smart" ammunition will strike from above. Why not in the stern? The ammunition is with AI. Or even, having made an instant analysis ", choose the least protected place on the target machine?
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 00 New
        +7
        Digging will do. And especially developed AIs agree with each other, everyone wants to live.
        1. Shopping Mall
          29 June 2020 20: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: Grazdanin
          Digging will do. ...


          Why not? The option of diving a heavy ATGM and undermining under the bottom is theoretically quite real and realizable. Something like a hybrid of anti-bunker ammunition and a landmine.

          This does not mean that such ammunition will appear, but rather an example that the enemy can always find a "thin spot" in the armor.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 30 June 2020 12: 12 New
            +1
            I am much more strained by the tendency of the tank's increasing dependence on external integrated devices - the same KAZs, radars, radiation detectors, etc. The more solid piece of the tank's defense will depend on them, the more likely we will soon get a "retaliatory move" of the weapon, in the face of the priority impact on these particular nodes.
            1. Shopping Mall
              1 July 2020 12: 18 New
              0
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              I am much more strained by the tendency of the tank's increasing dependence on external integrated devices - the same KAZs, radars, radiation detectors, etc. The more solid piece of the tank's defense will depend on them, the more likely we will soon get a "retaliatory move" of the weapon, in the face of the priority impact on these particular nodes.


              I agree. Surely combined blows will be practiced - EMP, false targets (corner reflectors in a streamlined polymer case), ahead of warheads with the release of an aerosol-smoke metal cloud, etc. There is no escape from armor. Too smart systems can be fooled.
            2. Simargl
              Simargl 17 September 2020 10: 50 New
              0
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              the more likely we will soon get a "response" of weapons, in the face of the priority of impact on these particular nodes.
              You are probably missing something? Even in the instructions of the Great Patriotic War, there are instructions to beat on observation devices, sights, if there are no heavy weapons - on the chassis.
              The problem is not that they will influence (they will, they will definitely be), but that they should react (suppress) in a timely manner and with high quality to this influence.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 17 September 2020 10: 59 New
                -1
                Since we are talking about an automatic weapon (in the current conditions, a person on the battlefield is more and more vulnerable), then there is a big difference between "indication" and program orientation. In the case of a software and technical orientation towards this task, the accuracy will be incomparably higher, and the product itself will be excessively expensive and of little use for solving other problems.
                The same fighter with an anti-tank missile system could work both on the tracks and on the mechanic's hatch and on the viewing devices, along the barrel (it probably happened like that) - automatic weapons practically exclude this. If our task is to disable, for example, the complex optics of a tank or its radar equipment, in solving this problem, there will probably be little demand for ammunition that is dangerous for neighboring nodes. So, in any case, it will be exactly the Bet on the result, not a directive.
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 17 September 2020 11: 14 New
                  0
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Since it comes
                  Honestly - I didn't understand anything!
                  By and large, a paintball player can blind a tank.
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  automatic weapons practically exclude this
                  Aha! Even yesterday, face recognition was almost fantastic, but today a mask is not a problem either. If necessary, they will recognize the necessary areas on the carcass of technology better than a person. Electronics are getting cheaper, productivity is increasing. Tomorrow is the future.
          2. vVvAD
            vVvAD 30 June 2020 13: 47 New
            0
            The maximum area just at the roof, incl. towers and bottoms, with an increase in their reservation, problems will arise due to the large mass of armor needed. In principle, this can end, because
            Quote: AVM
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Digging will do. ...

            ..not protected by comparable frontal armor, not just places, but angles and projections, will remain, unless there is a breakthrough in materials science or EI. It is possible to spread the armor on the sides, the issue of the sufficiency and expediency of protection from 57mm, including taking into account the tactical component that you correctly noted in the article as giving significant advantages, and active protection means, which should include, in addition to KAZ, dynamic protection, EIA and REP, as well as measures to reduce visibility in different wavelength ranges, increase mobility and situational awareness, integration of avionics with OMS, etc. Protection is a comprehensive indicator.
            But back to our rams: another projection with a minimum area (and, as a rule, thickness) of the reservation is the feed, in which the engine is traditionally located on domestic tanks, which in itself is a good passive defense.
            Judging by the available schemes, there is some space between the stern armor and the engine on the T-14 Armata, which, in particular, can be used to spread armor, use lootings and other means of reinforcing protection without greatly increasing the mass of the reservation, it is quite possible up to caliber 57mm. So here is the question in terms of the lack of known information about the platform.
          3. Passing
            Passing 30 June 2020 16: 00 New
            0
            Quote: AVM
            The option of diving a heavy ATGM and undermining under the bottom is theoretically quite real and realizable.

            The idea is not viable, we get an analogue of a high-explosive mine. Which modern tanks, specially protected from it, does not take. For explosives fit in a rocket a little, 10 pounds maximum. For example, the crew of Merkava survived after undermining about a hundred kg somewhere in the vicinity of the bottom. In general, high-fire resistance is now more developed than ever, and will only grow in the future. Already now, for MPCs, 10 kg landmine under the bottom is a normal situation.
            1. prodi
              prodi 1 July 2020 07: 06 New
              0
              the idea of ​​rolling a drone under the bottom is quite viable, both by possible direct damage, and by distracting the crew to eliminate the threat, even if it was already a forced turn with the board being put under enemy fire. And I would distinguish between a high explosive mine burst under the track and cumulative under the bottom
              1. Passing
                Passing 1 July 2020 13: 54 New
                0
                Look at any car in the forehead. See clearance clearance? Not? And the rocket in flight will not see him. A maneuver with a decrease of twenty centimeters in front of the target itself is also not an option, technically it is possible, but it will cost as a super advanced unmanned aircraft with a radar, sensors, an AI system + kinetic missile defense interceptor. The only option that makes practical sense is to dive into the ground in front of the tank at an acute angle. But, if the soil is hard, if asphalt, then the idea loses its meaning. What kind of weapon is it that works, then doesn’t, and you define it not you, but the enemy? Shit, not a weapon.
                Further, the cumulative charge across the rocket is meaningless. It will be very weak. Ask why, because there is a bunch of anti-mortise missiles? Everything is simple - the impact core is everywhere there, and the angle of the funnel cone for the impact core is obtuse, and for the cumulative ammunition it is sharp. And from here the geometrical impossibility to place in the small diameter of the rocket somehow high, with a large diameter of the funnel (powerful) cumulative charge. It doesn’t even make sense to strengthen the bottom so that this weak stream does not penetrate the bottom - it will pierce, and it’s not scary, the charge power itself will be small and the reserved effect will be meager. Well, about how Americans praised Abrams in Iraq - like an RPG, he broke through his armor, but only damaged a can of Coca-Cola.
                Further, a warhead with an impact core is meaningless due to the underground nature of the explosion. If there was a cumulative warhead, then a half-meter-meter of soft soil for its very thin stream is not particularly critical, but the shock core has a huge diameter, it will get stuck / lose all the energy in this soil.
                There remains a high-explosive warhead, also meaningless due to a breakthrough in high-explosive resistance achieved in recent years. Including undermining under the bottom.
                1. prodi
                  prodi 1 July 2020 14: 14 New
                  0
                  with a missile brute force. Near-field tracked drone, 10-20 kg weight
                  1. Passing
                    Passing 1 July 2020 15: 14 New
                    0
                    The land bot is certainly a real option. At the moment. But, in the future, it all depends on the progress of tank systems of control of the surrounding space. For example, there are plans, including for Almaty, for a panoramic synthesized picture. Panoramic radars in Armata are already standing, although so far they only work for high-speed purposes, but who knows, it can actually deliver radars of a wider spectrum of action. And if this bot is guaranteed to be detected by automation, then it becomes useless, because it is guaranteed to be destroyed.
                    1. prodi
                      prodi 1 July 2020 15: 35 New
                      0
                      In any case, a very sensible addition to the current RPG
          4. alexmach
            alexmach 1 July 2020 12: 16 New
            0
            The option of diving a heavy ATGM and undermining under the bottom is theoretically quite real and realizable

            And it is not solved by a simple rubber screen "sweeping" the surface between the tracks?
            1. Shopping Mall
              1 July 2020 12: 20 New
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              The option of diving a heavy ATGM and undermining under the bottom is theoretically quite real and realizable

              And it is not solved by a simple rubber screen "sweeping" the surface between the tracks?


              So he can "dive" into the ground by 30-50 cm, or simply break through the screen. And then two or three cumulative warheads, or shock core.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 1 July 2020 12: 24 New
                +1
                Some kind of wild fantasy.
                But on the other hand, in my opinion, the issue of protecting equipment from the upper hemisphere has not yet been resolved. Until he was reliably determined to think about diving ammunition too early. And with the solution of this problem, for example, using KAZ, you can see and diving ammunition can be shot down on approach, regardless of what they are going to do at the terminal site
                1. Shopping Mall
                  1 July 2020 12: 31 New
                  +1
                  Quote: alexmach
                  Some kind of wild fantasy.
                  But on the other hand, in my opinion, the issue of protecting equipment from the upper hemisphere has not yet been resolved. Until he was reliably determined to think about diving ammunition too early. And with the solution of this problem, for example, using KAZ, you can see and diving ammunition can be shot down on approach, regardless of what they are going to do at the terminal site


                  As I said earlier, this is more of an assumption on the topic that vulnerabilities can be found in the most unusual way. In reality, such ammunition is unlikely to be needed.

                  And about the fantasy - anti-bunker bombs penetrate tens of meters of soil and undermine. Can you imagine what kind of overload and load on the mechanisms.
                  1. abrakadabre
                    abrakadabre 29 August 2020 12: 30 New
                    0
                    As I said earlier, this is rather an assumption that vulnerabilities can be found in the most unusual way.
                    They will fly into the muzzle with a cumulative jet attack on the breech of the gun. How do you like this idea in a piggy bank? I give. Do not thank wassat
            2. prodi
              prodi 1 July 2020 13: 04 New
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              And it is not solved by a simple rubber screen "sweeping" the surface between the tracks?

              with a rubber screen - definitely not, you have to be wise with the dropping ones, and maybe even two if you can’t shoot in the bustle
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 29 June 2020 19: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        The author emphasizes that in the future, "smart" ammunition will strike from above. Why not in the stern?

        Why? He (the author) writes:
        Under these conditions, armored vehicles can be attacked with any foreshortening, which the enemy considers the most vulnerable.

        Perhaps, in such conditions, tanks will develop in the same way as the fleet: shifting the focus from passive armor to active defenses (a sort of tank mini-air defense).
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 30 New
          -3
          Quote: Kalmar
          passive armor on active protective equipment

          KAZ not? Israel and the United States put them in series, almost all-new developments of the new armored vehicles come with built-in KAZ.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 29 June 2020 19: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            KAZ not?

            Yes, I'm talking about him. Just now, KAZ is a kind of secondary to passive armor. In the future, his role is likely to grow.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 42 New
              0
              I don’t think Western countries do not develop new MBT at all, there are only studies on this topic. More and more projects of light and medium tanks with KAZ from the USA to Turkey. The US Marine Corps generally abandons tanks. Now in armored vehicles seek to increase mobility and an increasing share of electronics.
              1. Florian geyer
                Florian geyer 30 June 2020 10: 22 New
                0
                Quote: Grazdanin
                Western countries are not developing new MBT at all, there is only research on this topic

                How is this not being done? Speaking specifically about Western countries, they are jointly developing a new generation of MBT. Some Eastern countries are doing the same.

                Quote: Grazdanin
                The US Marine Corps generally abandons tanks.

                Not certainly in that way. Now the ILC is a small copy of the armed forces as a whole, with their own command structures and types / types of troops in miniature (essentially a strategic expeditionary unit). What causes a flurry of army generals who are promoting the idea of ​​making the Marine Corps a light assault infantry from the ILC, and all the nishtyaks involved in planning and maintaining a database (medals and promotions) and procurement and equipment (kickbacks + posts to the corporation after resignation ) give to these generals.
                But apparently it will not take off, since behind the fleet there are no less influential political and financial forces than behind the army.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 30 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Florian Geyer
                  How is this not being done?

                  Which for example? Development and research on the subject are two different things. They only develop modifications to existing tanks.
                  Quote: Florian Geyer
                  Not certainly in that way. Now ILC is a small copy

                  I mean the recently published concept of the development of the ILC until 2030.
          2. +5
            +5 30 June 2020 09: 38 New
            -1
            USA - does not raise yet ... problems with installing Trophy turned out to be with weight and lack of power source. And there is no question of installing Trophy on all M1.

            And about the development of new technology with KAZ .... laughed ... there is no development other than drawing renderings in the West today, especially with KAZ
          3. Private-K
            Private-K 30 June 2020 10: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            almost all-new developments of the new armored vehicles come with a built-in KAZ.

            Exactly KAZ is not a "built-in" option, but a fundamentally "mounted" option.
            Another thing is that the KAZ control can / should be integrated into the general control loop of the combat vehicle. But this is also an optional bonus.
        2. vVvAD
          vVvAD 30 June 2020 13: 58 New
          0
          So far, this option is limited by the lack of energy and size for this whole holiday of life. Also, do not forget that on the most powerful warships of our time, just the same constructive protection of the most vulnerable elements is provided at a very high level: armored belts and loots, protection against cellar detonation, a system of pressurized compartments and other measures to increase survival.
        3. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 29 August 2020 12: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          a shift in emphasis from passive armor to active means of protection (a kind of tank mini-air defense)

          Moreover, taking into account the limited volume of one tank, as part of the connection. A kind of tank order (group) - an analogue of the AUG. Some vehicles with shock weapons, some with the protection of the entire group, some with radars, drones, etc.
          laughing
      3. Vicontas
        Vicontas 29 June 2020 20: 46 New
        +1
        Install a movable multilayer shield on the manipulator, which is controlled by the AI ​​will be deployed towards the attacking ammunition at the corner of the rebound and cover the attacked area! In case of penetration, carry spare! In general, an analogue of the combat shield of a warrior of antiquity! I think the mass of such a shield will not be critical for military equipment!
        1. Florian geyer
          Florian geyer 30 June 2020 10: 25 New
          0
          The manipulator is expensive and weighs heavier. Each tank must be given an infantry squad with such a shield. They will run with him in the right direction at the command of the tank commander.
          1. Vicontas
            Vicontas 30 June 2020 19: 26 New
            0
            Making all funeral expenses heavy! And additional armor, which loads the engine, which makes the apparatus inactive and overloaded. And the shield just has an increased resistance to shells and small size and weight, compared to the additional armor "smeared" all over the body! If there is a danger of attacking an armored vehicle from different directions, it is necessary to unite several units of equipment into a group, closing all directions of attack on them.
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 29 August 2020 12: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Vicontas
          Install a movable multi-layer shield on the manipulator, which, controlled by the AI, will turn towards the attacking ammunition at the ricochet angle and cover the attacked area! Carry spare in case of a breakthrough!

          This whole idea is killed by the responsiveness of the drives. Especially taking into account the required strength (and hence the mass) and the length of the lever. The required speed of reaction (turn, change of the angle of position) from the drives is available only to explosives. In fact, this is a one-off thing.
          At the same time, it resolves the issue of a simultaneous attack from two angles. And even from one angle with a separation of several meters.
    2. lucul
      lucul 29 June 2020 19: 49 New
      +5
      Analysis of the possibility of creating equally armored vehicles must begin with an analysis of the capabilities of the means of destruction of a potential enemy, including promising ones.

      Exactly the same question was raised when creating the T-34 tank, almost 100 years ago. Then decided that uniform armor is better. As practice has shown by war, this opinion is erroneous. Purely psychologically, for the crew, it is extremely important to have at least one side protected, and put it under attack. This is an analogue of a shield for a warrior. If you are initially vulnerable from all sides, then this implies low morale (infantry under archery). And when there is a powerful frontal armor, it can always be used as a shield, from this and build your tactics.
      I am for frontal armor.
      1. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 29 June 2020 19: 57 New
        0
        Quote: lucul
        Analysis of the possibility of creating equally armored vehicles must begin with an analysis of the capabilities of the means of destruction of a potential enemy, including promising ones.

        Exactly the same question was raised when creating the T-34 tank, almost 100 years ago. Then decided that uniform armor is better. As practice has shown by war, this opinion is erroneous. Purely psychologically, for the crew, it is extremely important to have at least one side protected, and put it under attack. This is an analogue of a shield for a warrior. If you are initially vulnerable from all sides, then this implies low morale (infantry under archery). And when there is a powerful frontal armor, it can always be used as a shield, from this and build your tactics.
        I am for frontal armor.

        Frontal armor + good cas
        1. lucul
          lucul 29 June 2020 20: 08 New
          +8
          Frontal armor + good cas

          Frontal armor + most advanced and best detection tools. As soon as the armored vehicles get rid of "blindness", they will immediately become a monster on the battlefield again. The principle is simple - whoever discovered earlier won. When the tank clearly sees the target, everyone runs from its line of fire. All the tank needs is new "eyes" - means of detecting what it will be - I have no idea, even though the scanner of human biosignals, but new "eyes" need to be developed, this is paramount.
          As an alternative - broadcast to the tank, to monitors, the environment around the tank in a radius of 5 km, from a drone. Moreover, each tank has its own. Capturing a target on the commander’s monitor screen (Armata) would also be nice - a direct analogue of the pilot’s display highlighting all possible targets, but only for the tank. So it’s faster for a gunner to detect a target in a rapidly changing battle environment.
          1. Private-K
            Private-K 30 June 2020 10: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            whoever discovered earlier won.

            Previously discovered, the first shot, thanks to power and accuracy - hit and destroyed the Ave.
            Defense advocates often forget about this, as well as tactics.
            Quote: lucul
            broadcast to the tank, to monitors, the environment around the tank in a radius of 5 km, from a drone

            They are actively working on this. First of all, for command vehicles with an overlay on an electronic map of the area with augmented reality, with the possibility of target designation to subordinate crews.
            Quote: lucul
            Moreover, each tank has its own.

            Will be distracting. The machines of komvzvod and komrot are sufficient and optimal. For the rest of the broadcast only in special conditions such as "tank on patrol" or performs the task separately from the main group.
            Quote: lucul
            Capturing a target on the commander’s monitor screen (Armata) would also be nice - a direct analogue of the pilot’s display highlighting all possible targets

            Has already. Augmented reality is an essential element of modern optoelectronic sighting systems.
      2. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 29 June 2020 23: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: lucul
        that uniform armor is better. As practice has shown by war, this opinion is erroneous. Purely psychologically, for the crew, it is extremely important to have at least one side protected, and put it under attack. This is an analogue of a shield for a warrior.

        True thought, but the justification is just vyrviglaznoe ... The problem of the author of the article is that he takes into account "tactics" in terms of attack, but does not take them into account in terms of defense. If you give your example with shields, then the construction of the "turtle" type and the like is not taken into account. In tanks, of course, there are no turtles, but they are not needed there, since there are long-range means of attack. That is, the all-round protection of the AFV is provided not by armor and DZ \ KAZ, but by the tactics of use and interaction. Hence the contradictory illustrative examples in some cases, the command staff worked great in others, crap, and there are few intermediate cases ...
  3. BAI
    BAI 29 June 2020 18: 22 New
    +2
    automatic screens, lifting electric drives during transportation, lowering and locking in position.

    These moving parts will be disabled in the first battle.
    1. prodi
      prodi 29 June 2020 18: 36 New
      0
      protecting the tower instead of the sides is a cool, much more practical lattice umbrella above the tower and the engine from an attack from above. There are doubts about the reality of an attack by a strike nucleus: how does it fly up, freeze, take aim?
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 29 June 2020 19: 37 New
        0
        Quote: prodi
        There are doubts about the reality of an attack by a strike nucleus: how does it fly up, freeze, take aim?

        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1507397.html
        1. prodi
          prodi 30 June 2020 08: 53 New
          0
          the doubts are mainly those that the ammunition with an impact core has less breakdown power than a conventional cumulative, and putting it on an ATGM is not reasonable. Well, he’ll take the BTR-BMP type target easily, but a tank like the T-90 is no longer a fact: you can hit it either in the roof of the tower, which is easy to cover with DZ, or in the open part of the engine compartment, but the aiming will obviously go in the center of the target, i.e. tower
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 30 June 2020 09: 07 New
            0
            Quote: prodi
            but a tank like the T-90 is no longer a fact: you can hit it either in the roof of the tower, which is easy to cover with DZ, or in the open part of the engine compartment, but the aiming will obviously go in the center of the target, i.e. the tower

            Once I read that it is not so easy to put a DZ on the roof (and all other "thin-armored" sections): the armor under the DZ block may not withstand its detonation.

            As for aiming: to "teach" the ammunition to aim not strictly at the center, but, let's say, at the "tip" is a simple matter.
          2. Florian geyer
            Florian geyer 30 June 2020 10: 32 New
            0
            Cassette PTB - they are quite cumulative.
    2. Shopping Mall
      29 June 2020 20: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      automatic screens, lifting electric drives during transportation, lowering and locking in position.

      These moving parts will be disabled in the first battle.


      What exactly? Grid screens? Yes, and to hell with them, you can hang new ones - they should be inexpensive. Electric drives? Perhaps, but they are not made of gold, and even fall into them. In any case, the loss of screens is not comparable with the loss of the machine itself. If they fulfill their task, then their death is not so important.

      There should not be anything complicated - a simple, primitive, oak construction - up to the side / down to the side, grilles, perhaps some other easy protection.
      1. BAI
        BAI 30 June 2020 12: 11 New
        +1
        Why move the gratings? They can and should be fixedly mounted. Which is being done on an industrial scale.

  4. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 29 June 2020 18: 34 New
    0
    After such articles, I recall the old, not funny joke “Am I alone in the Israeli army?”
    The use of armored vehicles implies joint use with infantry, other armored vehicles, artillery, aviation, etc. Is armored vehicles only armor and a gun? Mobility, KAZ, surveillance and aiming systems, various electronic systems not?
    If the enemy came from the sides or stern, then you have something wrong with the command. For accidents, there is an ambush KAZ and other "electronic" assistants.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 29 June 2020 18: 54 New
      +4
      Quote: Grazdanin
      If the enemy came from the sides or stern, then you

      ... modern warfare.
      And in the "classic" war, open flanks are not uncommon
    2. Shopping Mall
      29 June 2020 20: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Grazdanin
      After such articles, I recall the old, not funny joke “Am I alone in the Israeli army?”
      The use of armored vehicles implies joint use with infantry, other armored vehicles, artillery, aviation, etc. Is armored vehicles only armor and a gun? Mobility, KAZ, surveillance and aiming systems, various electronic systems not?
      If the enemy came from the sides or stern, then you have something wrong with the command. For accidents, there is an ambush KAZ and other "electronic" assistants.


      So this is a series of articles - at the end there are links, and there about mobility and situational awareness, ergonomics, we will reach both KAZ and weapons.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 June 2020 20: 47 New
        0
        Ok, thanks, wait)
        In my opinion, high armor penetration of weapons and KAZ devalue the armor. The importance of situational awareness, mobility, KAZ and other electronic defense systems is becoming more important than armor.
  5. ares1988
    ares1988 29 June 2020 18: 39 New
    +1
    Video topic:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&v=L2NXSgD_INY
    1. Shopping Mall
      29 June 2020 20: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: ares1988
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&v=L2NXSgD_INY


      Great example. Maneuverability + shields.

      The only caveat is that the car under this program will be too light, it will be processed from a 30-57 mm gun, no maneuverability will help. Armor is still needed.
  6. Local from the Volga
    Local from the Volga 29 June 2020 20: 02 New
    0
    RPG ?? !!! Which already penetrate a meter of armor ....
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 29 June 2020 20: 19 New
      0
      Why is "Vampire" not an RPG for you? In general, this part in the article is the most fragile. RPGs do not lag behind ATGMs in terms of armor penetration. Here, in order to protect the sides, it is not armor that is needed, but situational awareness. RPGs are far from being targeted.
      1. Shopping Mall
        29 June 2020 20: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: garri-lin
        Why is "Vampire" not an RPG for you? In general, this part in the article is the most fragile. RPGs do not lag behind ATGMs in terms of armor penetration. Here, in order to protect the sides, it is not armor that is needed, but situational awareness. RPGs are far from being targeted.


        It does not interfere. It's like an onion - Disguise, did not help - KAZ, did not help - DZ, did not help - competent reservation of components + crew capsule.

        Even if the RPG breaks through the armor, then its back-off action may be too weak to significantly damage the tank - the fire extinguishing system extinguishes a fire, excess pressure knocks out special hatches, the crew in the armored compartment, as in T-14
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 29 June 2020 20: 30 New
          0
          So no one argues that an integrated approach drives. It’s just that today RPG and Ptura have comparable armor penetration.
          1. Shopping Mall
            29 June 2020 20: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: garri-lin
            So no one argues that an integrated approach drives. It’s just that today RPG and Ptura have comparable armor penetration.


            It is comparable, but there are massive Kornet-type ATGMs where armor penetration is 1400 mm for DZ and more, and there are small ones, such as Metis where 950, but rather 750, and RPG / or RPG-29 with their 650-750 mm. The first ones can "try it for a tooth" and the frontal armor, and for the second only the sides and the roof.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 29 June 2020 21: 10 New
              +1
              To make boards with the equivalent of a cumulative with a penetration of 700 mm is a deliberate overload of equipment.
              1. Shopping Mall
                30 June 2020 08: 18 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                To make boards with the equivalent of a cumulative with a penetration of 700 mm is a deliberate overload of equipment.


                If we are talking about homogeneous, or even just combined armor, then yes. But if we have a lattice screen with 50 cm from the case, causing premature operation of the precharge, followed by a DZ (possibly tandem) and behind it already composite armor, then it can work out.
            2. +5
              +5 30 June 2020 09: 45 New
              0
              Well, in Abrams 40% of the frontal projection is weakened zone. Again, the angles of safe maneuvering, the latest Saudi M1A2SA (analogous to SEPv.2) was hit by the ancient Fagot (as it was preserved, it didn’t deteriorate) in the back of the tower in the BC with fireworks from the hatches when starting from the frontal projection.
              You can try - each tank is fully weakened don even in the forehead ... that's just the probability of success ...
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 29 June 2020 23: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: AVM
          It does not interfere. It's like an onion - Disguise, did not help - KAZ, did not help - DZ, did not help - competent reservation of components + crew capsule.

          The author somewhere read about onion skin. It pleases, over time, and all sorts of strange bad ideas about armor protection will stop coming to his mind.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 29 June 2020 20: 39 New
        0
        That's what I said, dear! I meant the point in the article on protection against RPGs!
    2. Shopping Mall
      29 June 2020 20: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Local from the Volga
      RPG ?? !!! Which already penetrate a meter of armor ....


      It is a homogeneous steel armor. And if we have a layered "sandwich" made of steel, polyethylene, ceramics, DZ and lattice screen, the result will be completely different.
      1. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 29 June 2020 20: 42 New
        0
        I agree! But, as a rule, one fighter does not reach the target! Ah, a salvo of 2-3 vampires-khan tank!
        1. Shopping Mall
          29 June 2020 20: 50 New
          +3
          Quote: Local from the Volga
          I agree! But, as a rule, one fighter does not reach the target! Ah, a salvo of 2-3 vampires-khan tank!


          There are examples of the incredible survivability of tanks. Hence the question, what if the even distribution of armor becomes a straw breaking a camel's ridge? Those. will shift parity in favor of armored vehicles.
          https://topwar.ru/27952-t-72-vyzhivaemost-v-boyu.html

          In the course of these battles, the tank with airborne No.611 from / tr. During the 2 of the day of continuous combat, the 3 ATGM of the Fagot class and 6 grenades from RPG-7 fell into this car.

          The hits occurred in the following parts of the tank.
          ATGM - to the left under the tower (all):
          • two - to the fuel tanks on the fences under the turret, which the tank crews always kept “dry” during the fighting. Bucky swelled and torn, then the elements of the hinged dynamic protection on the tower worked, there was no armor penetration;
          • one - in the board under the tower; reflected by the triggered element mounted dynamic protection mounted on rubber metal side screens.
          Grenades from RPG-7:
          • one - on top of the commander's hatch of the tower; a cumulative jet pierced the hatch and, without hitting the tank commander, went into the aft wall of the tower;
          • two - to the left in the upper frontal part of the tower; neutralized with activated elements of mounted dynamic protection;
          • three - on the hull side, 2 on the left and 1 on the right; all reflected by dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens.

          As a result, not a single hit led to the loss of combat capability of the tank, which continuously continued to carry out the combat mission. This fact was confirmed during a personal conversation between the author and the commander of this tank and company commander in June 2000. Moreover, unit commanders confirmed that all other tanks of the battalion were repeatedly hit by ATGMs and rocket-propelled grenades from RPGs.
          1. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 29 June 2020 21: 27 New
            0
            I agree, again ... But the RPG-7 is far from a vampire, not a hook, not a cranberry or a launch! and "bassoon" is not "cornet" or even "reflex"!
        2. Private-K
          Private-K 30 June 2020 10: 36 New
          0
          T-80BV. Grozny-94 / 95g. Survived from 6 to 18 hits from RPG - the norm.
      2. lucul
        lucul 29 June 2020 21: 00 New
        0
        It is a homogeneous steel armor. And if we have a layered "sandwich" made of steel, polyethylene, ceramics, DZ and lattice screen, the result will be completely different.

        If we draw an analogy with edged weapons, then as soon as the armor equaled the level of manufacturing technology with a sword, they immediately became impenetrable. And now the core of the BOPS is seriously superior to tank armor in strength, as soon as they become equal, the BOPS will become ineffective.
        The question is that it is expensive, but as the Middle Ages showed, everything is decided ...
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 29 June 2020 21: 34 New
          -1
          As the Middle Ages showed, weapons are superior to defense and mobility with situational awareness is more important.
          1. lucul
            lucul 29 June 2020 22: 14 New
            +2
            As the Middle Ages showed

            As the Middle Ages showed, armor disappeared only with the advent of firearms. So they completely protected from other types of weapons. And only a breakthrough in technology (gunpowder) put an end to them.
            So is the tank - until an effective laser is created, armor will matter.
            1. Usher
              Usher 30 June 2020 00: 24 New
              -1
              Quote: lucul
              As the Middle Ages showed

              As the Middle Ages showed, armor disappeared only with the advent of firearms. So they completely protected from other types of weapons. And only a breakthrough in technology (gunpowder) put an end to them.
              So is the tank - until an effective laser is created, armor will matter.

              A mirror and smoke will protect you from the laser.
              1. Shopping Mall
                30 June 2020 08: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Usher
                Quote: lucul
                As the Middle Ages showed

                As the Middle Ages showed, armor disappeared only with the advent of firearms. So they completely protected from other types of weapons. And only a breakthrough in technology (gunpowder) put an end to them.
                So is the tank - until an effective laser is created, armor will matter.

                A mirror and smoke will protect you from the laser.


                No, it will not protect. But a laser that can quickly and quickly burn through even the armor of the T-34, and which at the same time can be placed on the tank, will not appear for another 50 years, or even more. LO has other tasks.
        2. KCA
          KCA 30 June 2020 09: 39 New
          0
          BOPS is excellent when shooting at a stub of a tank at a firing range, the angle of hit of the BOPS is not at all 90 degrees to the armor, it is possible to rebound and hit along the side, the tank does not seem to stand still, but moves like T-90s move over rough terrain We saw everything, what projection it will be turned at the time of the shot does not predict
      3. +5
        +5 30 June 2020 09: 47 New
        0
        So any armored obstacle is conditionally converted to this conditional RHA, though the same obstacle will be 700 mm according to RHA for OBPS and 1000 mm according to RHA for kuma (conditionally).
  7. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 29 June 2020 20: 50 New
    +2
    The attack can be from any direction, so you need to remove the protected side, so that from all sides equally punched laughing
    As a result, the latest tanks with a mass of electronics and a space price will be perfectly destroyed by the ancient T-54s, T-55s without electronics and maximum, with new sights. wassat
    Brilliant!
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 June 2020 00: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: stock buildbat
      The attack can be from any direction, so you need to remove the protected side, so that from all sides equally punched laughing
      As a result, the latest tanks with a mass of electronics and a space price will be perfectly destroyed by the ancient T-54s, T-55s without electronics and maximum, with new sights. wassat
      Brilliant!


      Firstly, the redistribution of armor is not a statement, but a question.
      Secondly, It’s not a fact that the T-54 or T-55 will be able to penetrate even the armor of a tank with evenly distributed armor.
      Thirdly, there may be several types of vehicles with a tank reservation level. One type of classic layout, in case there is a significant risk of collision with enemy armored vehicles. And the second type, for those conflicts that for the most part have been going on lately, when tanks almost do not fight tanks, and the armored vehicles bear the greatest losses from enemy aircraft and infantry. And from infantry in particular in cities and in the mountains.

      Something tells me that, according to the results, the ratio of classic to uniform armor will be 1 to 3 or more in favor of the latter. But this is on condition that the distribution of the armor really makes it possible to enhance other projections, which brings us back to the "first".
      1. Florian geyer
        Florian geyer 30 June 2020 11: 01 New
        0
        The MBT concept itself is a compromise when, for the sake of economic feasibility, it was necessary to sacrifice certain qualities of the tank. Which corresponded to the accepted concept of war.
        Make from MBT, a super tank does not make sense. Then it’s easier to return to dividing the categories of tanks by task / weight and size. Which by the way in a certain situation may be justified
      2. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 30 June 2020 16: 18 New
        0
        Andrey Mitrofanov, if you have forgotten what you wrote in the article, here is a quote for you: "Let us not be able to provide circular booking from armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS) and heavy anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), but it may be possible to provide circular protection rapid-fire cannons of up to 57 mm caliber, light hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers (RPGs) and ATGMs, and, possibly, from 'shock core' ammunition. "
        And for general education I will tell you that the T-54, T-55 have guns "slightly" larger in caliber than 57mm
  8. Cer59
    Cer59 29 June 2020 20: 53 New
    0
    There is one interesting question. What is the engine power for the tank needed? guys and you have enough 100 hp. and 000 500 hp? tank weighing that way 000 tons? and? and the size is 2000 by 10 meters. Guys, now you can have any power. so put any armor forward.
  9. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 29 June 2020 21: 34 New
    0
    With subsonic missiles that can attack from any angle, KAZ can handle, but with hypersonic BOPS armor only.
    1. Usher
      Usher 30 June 2020 00: 23 New
      -1
      Quote: Andrey.AN
      With subsonic missiles that can attack from any angle, KAZ can handle, but with hypersonic BOPS armor only.

      Modern KAZs can intercept BOPS. And they are not hypersonic.
      1. Shopping Mall
        30 June 2020 08: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Usher
        Quote: Andrey.AN
        With subsonic missiles that can attack from any angle, KAZ can handle, but with hypersonic BOPS armor only.

        Modern KAZs can intercept BOPS. And they are not hypersonic.


        It seems like Afghan and Barrier can intercept. BOPS hypersonic, speed of the order - 1700 m / s, and this is more than 5M, hypersound is considered.
        1. Andrey.AN
          Andrey.AN 30 June 2020 13: 35 New
          0
          It is not profitable for KAZ to additionally focus on BOPS, even if it is likely. BOPS for KAZ will not be different from small-caliber shells of an automatic gun. Any BMP this KAZ will cut down in turn while the ATGM flies.
  10. Alien From
    Alien From 29 June 2020 23: 22 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author a huge, interesting topic raised!)
  11. Usher
    Usher 30 June 2020 00: 22 New
    0
    Although we cannot provide round-robin reservations against armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS) and heavy anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), it may be possible to provide circular protection against quick-fire cannons of caliber up to 57 mm, light manual anti-tank grenade launchers (RPGs) and ATGMs , and, possibly, from the ammunition of the "shock core" type. In other words, to provide maximum protection against those threats that armored vehicles are most likely to encounter.
    And now MBTs are not protected similarly. Useless air shake. For whom are side screens and grilles?
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 June 2020 08: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Usher
      Although we cannot provide round-robin reservations against armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS) and heavy anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), it may be possible to provide circular protection against quick-fire cannons of caliber up to 57 mm, light manual anti-tank grenade launchers (RPGs) and ATGMs , and, possibly, from the ammunition of the "shock core" type. In other words, to provide maximum protection against those threats that armored vehicles are most likely to encounter.
      And now MBTs are not protected similarly. Useless air shake. For whom are side screens and grilles?


      Not really. If you pay attention, then gratings are applied to a limited extent. Either they are hung up artificially already during the conflict, or they cover limited areas.

      The PMSM problem is that for their effective operation they should be 30-50 cm from the case, and this increases the dimensions too much during transportation - it will not fit on the railway platform. Make removable? Troublesome, the crew to remove them, put them somewhere to store. And in any case, the weight is not small. And automatically raise - there are no special problems.
      1. KCA
        KCA 30 June 2020 10: 05 New
        0
        I had to load the T-72 on the railway platform, what are you talking about? What does not fit where? The goslings are straight to the size of the platform, they got up, put on their shoes, pulled everything up, and what hangs from the sides, put on, but let the net stick out at least two meters on each side, fit between the posts and
  12. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 30 June 2020 01: 41 New
    +2
    Or maybe evolution will affect protection materials? Are there any new developments? Recently I read about molecularly converted steel, its strength has increased by an order of magnitude! It is clear that so far these are only laboratory samples at a space price, but nonetheless ...
  13. riwas
    riwas 30 June 2020 05: 54 New
    +2
    You can consider the implementation of automatic screens, lifting electric drives during transportation, lowering and locking in position. The presence of such automatic screens will allow transportation of armored vehicles without going beyond the required dimensions and provide additional protection during combat work.

    I already met something similar in an article in 2005.
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren3/btr_ww.htm
    "To protect against cumulative projectiles, it is proposed to use a nylon net, which unfolds obliquely towards the enemy with the help of pneumatic struts quickly inflated with compressed air. Something like airbags, but of a more complex shape, with a net. Instead of pneumatic deployment of the net, it is possible to use for this the target is an elastic, pre-deformed steel tape. At first it is rolled into a roll, when released, it self-unfolds, straightens and rolls up about its longitudinal axis, turning into a rather rigid pipe, the circumference of which is approximately equal to the width of the tape. "
  14. Graz
    Graz 30 June 2020 06: 09 New
    0
    I don’t know, in my opinion, the idea with crewless machines that can be made both expendable cheap material and equipped with the most advanced protection and expensive electronics for special operations is still more promising, it is also possible that the overall ground vehicles will be replaced by a cheap analogue of flying drones
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 June 2020 07: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Graz
      I don’t know, in my opinion, the idea with crewless machines that can be made both expendable cheap material and equipped with the most advanced protection and expensive electronics for special operations is still more promising, it is also possible that the overall ground vehicles will be replaced by a cheap analogue of flying drones


      While there is no full-fledged AI without crew technology and UAVs, they can only complement the manned one, but not replace it.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 30 June 2020 14: 37 New
        -1
        Quote: AVM
        without crew technology and UAVs can only complement


        A full-fledged AI is not needed for UAVs, existing technologies allow you to carry out the tasks without problems.
        There are many more problems with ground-based equipment, while only special vehicles on the radio remote control are cleared, actions in the emergency zone, etc.
  15. SVD68
    SVD68 30 June 2020 06: 45 New
    +1
    The question of the distribution of armor in a tank is not a question of logic, but statistics.
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 June 2020 07: 53 New
      0
      Quote: SVD68
      The question of the distribution of armor in a tank is not a question of logic, but statistics.


      Yes, I also thought about it - to distribute the reservation based on the analysis of hits in previous conflicts. Not here there is one caveat - the armament is changing, the accuracy of hits is increasing, there is an opportunity for the enemy to choose a specific hit zone, so in the next conflict the statistics may be different.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 30 June 2020 08: 51 New
        0
        In any case, practice is the criterion of truth. Without practice, it is impossible to decide which of the logical connections are more significant. Those. need practice in the form of statistics.
  16. +5
    +5 30 June 2020 09: 36 New
    0
    In fact, Soviet / Russian tanks (and Merkava) are much better protected side / top than their western counterparts. Therefore, I do not think that the T-14 refused this.
    ATGM, ATGM ..... destroying a tank with an ATGM is a very difficult task, more precisely, more than one penetration is needed, in Chechnya there are enough cases when tanks crawled under their own power after 5-7 penetrations (not penetrations - penetration). Again, the installation of KAZ will significantly reduce the effectiveness of ATGMs. We don’t know how many tank destroyers and, in general, ATGM calculations for 1 video of a successful tank defeat in a warhead ....
    I would be more SPBE from MLRS afraid that Donbass and ....

    But it’s a crowbar, the armor impact is much higher than from the kuma, KAZ needs to be taken more seriously to intercept it (Trophy for crowbar does not work), the probability of interception is much lower than ATGM .... Therefore, you can’t refuse to protect your forehead. Moreover, the existing shells in Rheinmetall-120 are already extreme, to squeeze something more than in the M829A4 is not at all a fact that it will work out ...
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 30 June 2020 14: 33 New
      -1
      Quote: 5-9
      existing shells in rheinmetall-120 are already limiting

      Yeah, they have long been ready to replace the 140 mm gun, but so far there are no goals for it.
      1. +5
        +5 30 June 2020 14: 36 New
        0
        It’s not so ready, but the point is this, there’s simply nowhere to put it, instead of the 120 mm it won’t stand up anyway. It is necessary either a new tank or saw a completely new tower, rather uninhabited, at the current time and the loot is not very different from the new tank.

        With the mass appearance of the T-14, such a goal will appear ...
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 30 June 2020 14: 45 New
          -1
          Leclerc already planned with 140 mm. Earlier tanks, yes, the tower needs to be modified. But not a problem. T14 will not create a new call. Its advantages are not armor, but the layout and modern "electronics". I think there is less armor than even on the T72, given that Armata is larger in size than leopard and abrams, and does not exceed 55 tons in mass.
  17. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 30 June 2020 12: 07 New
    0
    I think that the answers to many of these searches already exist in history - we can recall the history of the development of knightly armor and weapons capable of piercing it. When the armor became too heavy, modernization went along the way:
    1) The increase of armor on the most often really affected areas - and vice versa, the weakening of the less affected.
    2) Giving rational tilt angles
    3) Deepening the thoroughness of product processing (best materials)
    4) Tactical techniques to minimize the threat to a specific target at a time.

    In turn, the weapon also did not stand still - and as a result, with the advent of light and powerful penetrating weapons (a relatively powerful firearm, swords, progress in fragmentation), at some point the armor of a particular combat unit was ineffective, because the widest range and volume threats met approximately the same in armor and without. And point number 4 came to the fore - namely, the tactics of using military force against weapons.
    However, what is noteworthy is that before that moment we see that the armor has come to the cuirass and helmet, partly for reasons of standardization, partly for quite reasonable reasons - maximum protection and rational angles in the most affected area (torso), reduced protection and rational angles on critical area (head). Other areas were protected by cloth armor and what can be called additional "hinged armor protection" - without much spread, but it was. All this was the most compromise approach to solving this problem - namely, the issue of protecting the target to the limit when this protection is most effective and does not cross the curve of decreasing combat effectiveness (overloading armor).
    I delved into all this - as in my opinion a good example of how our logic should work in the matter of booking. If we take marine vessels, the process there roughly corresponded to the same. Information and tactical security comes to the fore.
    So my thoughts on the issue - definitely in the design of the tank should be present modularity, providing options for reinforcing armor side-to-top. Under this should be calculated engine power and mass alignment should be subject to this. It is not necessary to use this reinforcement - but there should be constructive features of it providing for specific situations.
    I believe that it’s still better to arm the forehead of equipment, but without much fanaticism, relying not on the blunt thickness increase, but on the increase in the cost of this forehead - composites, ceramics, corners and extensions should give the most effective protection output before crossing the penalty curve for mobility.
    Perhaps the stage has come when some other combat unit should take over some of the functions of protecting tanks from defeat - an automatic or semi-automatic complex separated from the tank but in close information interaction with it. Because on four points the problem of an accurate strike from different directions cannot be solved - in an attempt to do this, we will overload the tank with either armor or body kits.
    1. agond
      agond 30 June 2020 18: 55 New
      +1
      The weakest link of a tank is its crew, without a tank, the tank will be at least a quarter shorter and one third lower, then its weight will be two three times less (about 20 tons), but it will have to be controlled (in the absence of artificial intelligence) from out of cover or from another tank with crew.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 30 June 2020 20: 04 New
        +1
        The issue of remote control with all its attractiveness is fraught with a lot of pitfalls.
        The same tank will be much easier to detect with technical intelligence, perhaps even this will play a role in the highly accurate guidance of artillery / aviation / missile ammunition on it.
        The problem of delaying the signal to the control point — from it becomes even more critical in a combat situation — when EW tools are used. In general, an increase in the effectiveness of electronic warfare and dependence on satellites, including within this concept, is not a moment that increases security in general.
        The question of the possibility of interception / substitution of a signal from such a device is also relevant. How much more dependent on sensors than on a car with a crew (and, accordingly, a blow to sensory capabilities increases the risk of machine death, an increase in sensory capabilities increases its cost, load, and complexity of repairs)
        While a full-fledged AI is excluded because the wild volume of information, the price of the product will be great in the realities of our country, the program, power, reliability and other factors exclude completely intelligent solutions.

        If we talk about your thoughts, it seems to me that everything is going to reduce the number of crew and the transition of some AI functions, as well as the gradual network integration of the tank. An alternative to this (as I imagine it) would be the development of an algorithmic AI with the issuance of directives or the interception of direct control directly from infantry units operating with the tank and located near it. However, all this beauty will instantly collapse - as soon as they begin to use tactical low-power nuclear weapons. So far this threat is only growing.
        So it seems to me that for a long time we will be forced to be content with crew tanks.
        1. t7310
          t7310 1 July 2020 09: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          While a full-fledged AI is excluded because the wild volume of information, the price of the product will be high in the realities of our country, the program, power, reliability and other factors exclude completely intelligent solutions

          I do not agree about the price, firstly, this price will feed the engineers and workers of the factories, and the peaceful and partially military products of these factories will be sold, well, and secondly, if you need to sacrifice a machine in battle in which it was you, and then on the scales on the one hand absence ... and here I just don't know how the factories are being built, probably a little everywhere, let's call it conditionally "part of the reserve fund", but at the same time, the presence of a plant and if the plant makes a profit then "part of the reserve fund" will be, but the other side of the balance is the presence of a "part of the reserve fund" well, and your life, would you be ready to give your life leftover and for the army you wouldn’t buy it for a lot?
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 1 July 2020 12: 24 New
            +1
            You are considering the issue "in theory" - in practice, in our country's economy, the military faction is quite well divided from the peaceful. It is divided by both ubiquitous secrecy and objective economic laws. Our non-military men will not be satisfied with the price of the Elbrus processor, because they are offered a product, albeit more reliable, but structurally less perfect than their foreign counterparts. With an unknown level of technical support and the Ministry of Defense behind your back, which, if something happens, will "move" the issues of your business in the interests of security and government orders.
            Some part of these products will be purchased by state structures - those same state structures where computers usually do not change for 15 years - and those whose activities will really depend (the same as state monopolists) will dodge and buy foreign ones. What actually happens.
            No, I'm not saying that domestic is worse. I point out that since Soviet times, we have had a certain separation of military and civilian products, which in various directions hinders the improvement of the healthy commercialization of many domestic enterprises.
            And it turns out that, according to the laws of the market, what is being done for the military is too expensive, and it does not work out to lower this price by scattering on peace contracts or systematically expanding production, just like the mechanism of economic self-modernization of this industry, based on competition, is also not works.
            At the very price - a full-fledged AI is a very VERY well-optimized code (as I understand it), it’s a lot of work hours than is spent today on creating operating systems (and correspondingly large economic costs), this is a long-term work of a really powerful team with a very competently set task. Given the fact that AI should be created unified by cr. least for all current ground equipment - this task also collects and works with a huge amount of data, tests, etc.
            Let's say the state found money and time (and people) for this. The next stage is the multiple increase in the production of domestic microcircuits (again, exclusively at the expense of the military and a limited state order). Our current chips are quite large and (probably) would have to drastically reduce their size - and this is a change in production lines and additional expenses.
            Track. stage - testing / equipping all such equipment with systems of the so-called "machine vision" - specifically in the military version, that is, redundant, reliable, all-weather, etc. It will be a pretty penny and will drag on for a long time - for 10 years now, unmanned vehicles have been testing around the world, and there is no end in sight.
            The next stage is a question of friend or foe system for ALL infantry units. With all the disadvantages of such systems. Otherwise, there will be tin (for example, automatic ship defense systems).

            Each of these problems is a mountain. Those developments in AI that are now used in all "Uranus" are childish pampering, suitable at best for the protection of deep rear objects. As far as I understand. I think that the era of AI control on ground vehicles and in a combat situation has not yet come (and probably will not come for another 25 years)

            Z. about the factories. The problem is that our domestic market is small and weak. We were squeezed out of the CIS by western / eastern IT giants. In the domestic market, they also hold a niche firmly - it can be built factories but they won’t pay for themselves, or even at all - they won’t sell assembly lines to us in the west and things will get up. Everything rests on the economy (Sorry!) And not on opportunity or will.
  18. Alexander Samoilov
    Alexander Samoilov 1 July 2020 08: 05 New
    0
    I agree with almost everything. good True, lifting screens on a typical MBT (it doesn’t matter with an inhabited tower or DUM) are not real. DARPA is working on such an option on its GXV-T, but there it is about half the overall dimensions. In addition, this does not solve the problem of protecting the upper hemisphere.
  19. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 1 July 2020 08: 39 New
    0
    At least I see two trends:
    1.reduction of frontal armor and thickening of the side
    2. Attaching additional armor, depending on the specific application.
  20. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 1 July 2020 09: 08 New
    0
    So they started talking about 57mm caliber. And what kind of 57mm are you talking about? For example, there are Swedish ones with an initial HE shell velocity of 1000+ Meters per second. And this is not BOPS, this is a land mine. BOPS will be much faster, for example there are Israeli / Italian 60mm Hypervelocity guns. They tested it on our M113 (by the way successfully), and stuck it in all kinds of old tanks, EMNIP Chaffee, M4. She even works calmly with a British 6 pound carriage. This gun accelerates BOPS (by the way, NOT uranium) to 1620 m / s. What armor will you protect yourself from THIS? Here's what you will defend against this gun? At 2000m, it pierces 120mm Armor at 60 degrees. 120mm is more than booking the hull on the T90, EMNIP, and clearly more than booking anything on any BMP. Which, since she climbed onto the M113, you can calmly shove it into almost any light armored vehicle. And these are NOT new guns. And if this is not enough for you, then in the 80s we played with a hyper-speed 75mm gun, ARES, its BOPS had the same armor penetration indicators as the M774 BOPS 105mm caliber. And this ARES was pushed onto Stryker. How will you defend against THESE guns in an onboard projection? By the way, ARESA also had an automatic loader. Also, EMNIP shoved on Stryker. Cover from all angles? From what? From 30mm? Which ones? Shooting what? Is 30mm regular BBShka and 30mm BOPS two different levels of protection? But already put on the BMP 40mmm For example, the Swedes. and 35nn Bushmaster, and they will be more powerful than the Soviet 30mm. From 57mm? From what? The 57mm short-barrel that they want to push into the new BMP is not at all the level of armor penetration that the Italian / Israeli 60mm has. Or, especially the 75mm ARES gun. If you cover your tank with 120mm armor from all angles (so that the 2000mm Italian gun does not flash you for 60m) you will get Ko-Te. And this is due to the fact that this 60mm cannon is a project 80s, that is, she’s 40 years old, and if she is updated, then the armor penetration will increase even more. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-chile-m-60-sherman-hvms/ Therefore, an all-round protection, even from a 60mm gun 40 years ago, will turn your tank into a hippo.
    1. agond
      agond 1 July 2020 21: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      You are considering the question "in theory" - in practice

      In practice, a tank without a crew will be tasked with fighting for several minutes, that is, drive along a given route for 500m to look around, analyze the picture, find a target on it and shoot, so you can get by with a very modest AI