Military Review

Russian two-link tank of the future: two heads are better

98
Previously presented appearance of a hypothetical two-link tank

Changing priorities



Soviet tank builders more than once surprised world: now Russian developers have taken over the baton. As TASS reported on August 25, within the framework of the launched Army-2020 forum, the 38th Scientific Research Testing Institute of Armored Weapons and Equipment (NII BTVT) presented the concept of an unusual two-link tank.

It should be said right away that we are not talking about an alternative for the T-14, created on the basis of the Armata tracked platform. This is the machine of the future.

“Such a combat vehicle is being considered today by specialists from the 38th Institute in a variant of a two-link articulated design. The front combat module can have a control compartment with three crew members in a highly protected armored capsule. In the middle part of the combat module, it is planned to place an uninhabited tower with the installation of an electrothermochemical cannon with an automatic loader in it, "

- said Colonel Yevgeny Gubanov, deputy head of the Research Institute of BTVT.

They want to increase the capabilities of the weapon through the use of new compositions, where the ignition will be carried out by means of an electric discharge. They intend to hit targets with new hypersonic projectiles. In addition to the innovative weapon, the tank will receive an active protection complex, a laser system to blind the enemy, and an electromagnetic pulse generator. The complex will complement the impressive arsenal of the front module, which will be able to hit targets with missiles at a distance of up to twelve kilometers.

The second link is designed to accommodate a three thousand horsepower multi-fuel gas turbine engine. It will also be possible to place a module for motorized riflemen and a compartment with additional weapons. It is allowed to place various ground and flying drones in the module, which will be able to conduct reconnaissance and search for mines.

The high efficiency of using the tank in battle should be ensured by what is now called "transparent armor". As far as one can judge, we are talking about installing many sensors around the perimeter of the tank, which will provide the crew of the combat vehicle with the most complete information about what is happening around.


The presented concept is just a start for the future. The engineers explain the original layout by the need to increase the firepower and protection of the tank in comparison with existing analogues. The latter invariably leads to an increase in the already very large mass of combat vehicles. At the same time, the use of two links will reduce the specific ground pressure.

The 2040s are named as a possible date for the adoption of the tank. It is noteworthy that at about the same time (or somewhat earlier), the Europeans want to put into operation a promising MGCS (Main Ground Combat System) tank. Unlike Russian designers, German and French engineers seem to have chosen the conservative path. Now the tank is seen as a development of ideas embodied in such machines as "Leclerc" and "Leopard 2".


The main difference between the new "European" should be a weapon of increased power. Germany's Rheinmetall is currently experimenting with a 130mm cannon using the Challenger 2 as a base, while France's Nexter is testing its new 140mm cannon using a modernized version of the Leclerc as its base. The Americans, who do not intend to give up the Abrams, are even less certain on this score. Overseas, of course, they plan to have a new tank with them, but for now we are talking about a light combat vehicle designed to complement the M1 Abrams.

Reviving the "dead"


For all the unusualness of the concept, it should be noted that two-section combat vehicles are far from being new. Back in the 80s, the USSR began to produce a two-link all-terrain vehicle on a caterpillar track DT-10 "Vityaz", designed for transportation of goods in difficult climatic conditions (for example, in the Far North). For the Russian armed forces, a version of the DT-10PM "Omnipresent" was created, in which special attention was paid to armor.


History knows two-tier tanks. An example is the Swedish light tank of a two-section design UDES XX 20, the development of which began in the 70s. The combat vehicle weighed 26 tons, they wanted to equip it with the L / 44 gun. The crew is three people. The Swedes built only one copy: tests showed that the layout had both pros and cons. Among the advantages is the solution of many issues related to armament and protection of crew members.

“Another question is that all this, as a rule, rested either on the impossibility of ensuring effective communication between the two links, or on the rather high cost of the full implementation of this plan. This can be said about the two-tier layout as a whole ",

- quotes "Gazeta.Ru" the words of the military expert Mikhail Baryatinsky in his comments on the promising Russian tank.


Another issue is related to the mobility of such a combat vehicle. Of course, in some cases (for example, in extreme climatic conditions), the selected layout can give the tank certain advantages over the MBT of the usual scheme. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the use of such a machine in urban conditions, where an important requirement is good (or at least satisfactory) maneuverability. It is obvious that a tank consisting of two links simply cannot provide it. Meanwhile, the failure of one link or block between them in a real battle will mean the actual loss of an expensive combat unit.

In a word, if such a scheme had undeniable advantages over the classical one (in terms of the sum of factors), then tank builders would have actively used it before, but we do not see this.

There is another factor worth noting. The thesis is true, according to which the combat potential of the tank of the future will depend not so much on the chosen layout, but on the electronic "filling". Together with more powerful armament and an active protection complex, such a vehicle can gain a decisive conceptual advantage over Cold War tanks.

This is indirectly confirmed by the above-mentioned American Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program, designed to give the US Army a light tank. The Griffin II vehicle presented by the General Dynamics Ground System, although it will have less protection in comparison with the main battle tanks, will be able to boast of firepower at the level of the best Russian or Western MBTs.


Also, a heavy two-section tank does not fit into the modern "trend" of creating unmanned ground combat systems. With a high degree of probability, due to the absence of a compartment with a crew, they will have a lower mass than modern tanks. This means that the problem of increasing mass, voiced by Russian experts, may be solved by itself in the future.
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. V1er
    V1er 27 August 2020 18: 10 New
    10

    I imagine something like that.
    1. Borik
      Borik 27 August 2020 18: 20 New
      24
      In my opinion, a two-link tank has no prospects. Perhaps in the future, so in a hundred years. The usual layout is simpler. Or let's start developing walking tanks.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 27 August 2020 18: 32 New
        +8
        Do not give the development of the titans of the Emperor class
      2. Pandiurin
        Pandiurin 27 August 2020 18: 33 New
        +6
        The idea is interesting, like a lizard with a tail swinging back. When the ammunition detonates, the first module is unhooked and quickly removed.
        People are saved
        true
        - the combat mission was not completed.
        - Again, the mass will be greater.
        - The logistics with the transfer is more complicated, the pantones for the crossing will need others.
        - The price will also rise.

        And then
        - the next generation of tanks is unmanned with AI.
        1. KCA
          KCA 27 August 2020 18: 50 New
          +6
          I recently read a fant. novel, there was a two-link wheeled armored car, in the second link of the nuclear power plant, well, in a difficult situation, the heroes unhooked the second link and blew it up, destroying the enemy, as an option for a tank
        2. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 27 August 2020 20: 54 New
          -8
          comrade you are trained to read and write? the second unit is purely power, but in general the rotten licks would be flooded into disputes if from a small number of people with remember the old youth technology there, everything with blasters and hand-held lasers like ak-47 knocks down other people's space large landing ships give such nonsense ... two goals and if any is defeated, this is all, the tank is now low-profile, highly armored, plus all the electronics are already in good hands, the semi-robot is the main thing, super effective protection, although, honestly speaking, the projectile wins the defense (there is no such steel that the Bolsheviks did not take)
        3. Alf
          Alf 27 August 2020 21: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Pandiurin
          When the ammunition detonates, the first module is unhooked and quickly removed.

          If ammo detonates, then the module will not have time to unhook. There will be one module turned into nuts, and the second with a stern-rose.
        4. JD1979
          JD1979 27 August 2020 23: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: Pandiurin
          When the ammunition detonates, the first module is unhooked and quickly removed.

          Hmm. and it moves away on its own or in parts in the direction of the blast wave propagation.
        5. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 31 August 2020 16: 31 New
          +1
          to develop something, you need to know the conditions of hostilities ... so look ahead in terms of developing such tanks ... not comme il faut, let's just say ..
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 27 August 2020 20: 46 New
        -1
        Quote: Borik
        In my opinion, a two-link tank has no prospects. Perhaps in the future, so in a hundred years

        Shaw? belay What, Humpty Dumpty, two-tier tanks in a hundred years? fool Look better at the animated series "ECHO Platoon" and then you will understand what will happen in 100 years! And there will be tady in the head, happiness and peace in the convolutions!
      4. Peter is not the first
        Peter is not the first 27 August 2020 21: 24 New
        +6
        In my opinion, a two-link tank has no prospects.

        The main thing in this news from our tank builders is to set a trend so that other countries also think about such designs and instead of a reasonable and proven design, spend money, resources and time on a dead-end concept.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 31 August 2020 07: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Peter is not the first
          The main thing in this news from our tank builders is to set a trend so that other countries also think about such designs and instead of a reasonable and proven design, spend money, resources and time on a dead-end concept.

          You can make a model and drive around Red Square to fear enemies. PR tank is a very modern solution!
      5. YOUR
        YOUR 28 August 2020 03: 40 New
        +8
        Projects, projectors, projectors ....... although they would start producing the Armata or T-90s, not 30 units per year, along with the modernized ones, but at least re-equip the regiment.
      6. Yuriy71
        Yuriy71 28 August 2020 11: 22 New
        0
        Absolutely agree! Here we are talking, most likely, about knocking out money for new projects - they learned from Roscosmos and Rogozin with his billions of projects)))
      7. vVvAD
        vVvAD 28 August 2020 12: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: Borik
        In my opinion, a two-link tank has no prospects. Perhaps in the future, so in a hundred years. The usual layout is still simpler.

        Don't jump to conclusions. A two-link tank can probably be designed in such a way as to turn the disadvantages of a two-link design into advantages, the question is how expedient it is, and how much it will cost. The futuristic render laid out by V1er prompts me personally to think of an optional two-link tank (the question of its feasibility is outside the brackets due to the speculativeness of the proposals):

        The rear link is basic, autonomous, fully functional. In fact, it is the tank itself. The articulation mechanism is quick-detachable in combat conditions without the crew going outside. Tank transmission with drive shafts to the front link. Accordingly, when disconnected, the specific power of the tank's control system will increase, fuel consumption will decrease, and maneuverability will increase.
        The front link is shortened. It provides the tank with additional protection (mortars KAZ, DZ, its own armor, including reinforced frontal, bulletproof aft (behind the tank), constructive), carried out in front of the tank itself, mine resistance (accepts the impact of anti-track and anti-bottom mines). In addition to the front extension of the "glass cockpit" own cameras, replacing tank cameras in coupling mode, additional surveillance systems can be installed on it. Also, without significant harm to the security of the tank, an additional fuel tank and / or battery packs, an additional transportable power supply unit can be placed in it. However, to ensure the automatic supply of the latter between the links without weakening the frontal protection of the tank itself, apparently, is not possible.
        At the same time, the front link can have a unified shoulder strap for various DBMS, which will expand the functionality of the tank, depending on the current combat mission, by replacing the entire front link, which is more feasible, or only the DBM, which will have logistical advantages. And / or transport small RTKs or UAVs in free space.
        At the same time, with such an arrangement, a two-link tank should have good agility, i.e. the second link should also not be as long as the T-14, but probably have the proportions normal for our tank school, or even somewhat shortened. Perhaps the use of a two-tier scheme will also allow maintaining the height of the tower roof at the level of domestic tanks of the previous generation.
        It is also possible to slightly expand the reservation of the 1st link to the stern (including the removable one), if this will increase the protection of the main link of the tank at small angles from the longitudinal axis (if appropriate). Or something similar to the sides of the T-15's nose in the aft part.
        1. vVvAD
          vVvAD 28 August 2020 13: 12 New
          -1
          And the front link should be as cheap as possible, although this does not fit well with the placement of expensive DBM or UAV / RTK in it. If only, in order to reduce the cost, they will also be as simple as possible, and with a small resource, unified with those used on the RTK of the transportable or other classes.
        2. John22
          John22 28 August 2020 14: 20 New
          0
          I agree completely. Because the tracks of the tank are easily vulnerable, the second module will allow the tank not to stand still as a target.
      8. Alexey Z
        Alexey Z 29 August 2020 18: 39 New
        +1
        Well, it seems there are prospects, the enemy will either get pissed off from fear, or piss off ... laughter.
    2. Alber alber
      Alber alber 28 August 2020 00: 23 New
      +2
      One sees something unmanned, as small as possible, an electrochemical cannon, with guided ammunition of increased power and possibly due to this reduction in caliber and as a consequence of the mass of the main gun and an increase in ammunition. In terms of the propeller and engine, apart from the caterpillar track, you probably cannot think of anything better yet, until the appearance of antigravity and powerful magnets, powerful radar and electronic equipment on board, reliable anti-jamming communication with the operator, the ability to work autonomously under the control of ai, well, the initial stages of self-repair of a machine, such as fast-hardening compositions, the development of mutually duplicating systems for electronics, when the operation of the failed electronics of the machine gun can be taken over by the electronics of the ATGM complex, somehow
    3. philosopher
      philosopher 28 August 2020 17: 10 New
      +3
      This is most likely how it was planned, and not like that tractor. By the way, such a scheme with an independent traction of each of the four goslings with its own electric motor with a hybrid power plant and a powerful battery assembly will give real survivability on the battlefield, while maintaining mobility even with the engine knocked out and two of the four caterpillar tracks.
      By the way, battery cells can be divided into separate assemblies and, as additional armor, fence off more important components and assemblies. Well, as in that principle: "protecting the more important - less important."
  2. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 27 August 2020 18: 17 New
    13
    The future belongs to robots, and this is anachronism and dough
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 August 2020 21: 17 New
      +6
      Quote: rotkiv04
      The future belongs to robots, and this is anachronism and dough

      laughing
      At the current level of development of technology, even a crew of two is fantastic.
  3. Alien From
    Alien From 27 August 2020 18: 20 New
    +9
    And where will they only take money for such nonsense ...... more precisely, who will pay for it ..... ???
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 27 August 2020 18: 23 New
      13
      Please treat this with understanding. ©
      1. lelik613
        lelik613 27 August 2020 18: 57 New
        +1
        And take care of a doctor and a good hospital for Honduran combers.
  4. Doccor18
    Doccor18 27 August 2020 18: 25 New
    +8
    The two-link system is not new, it is already 50 years old. It has pluses, but much more minuses. Therefore, the idea never materialized in metal.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 28 August 2020 21: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Doccor18
      The two-link system is not new, it is already 50 years old.
      50? The two-link system was used in the first diamond-shaped tanks, but it was in the form of a cart. Today, the two-link system is used mainly where the ground is very weak, and / or the terrain is so rugged that you need to lengthen the base to amazing sizes.
  5. prodi
    prodi 27 August 2020 19: 00 New
    -1
    At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the use of such a machine in urban conditions, where an important requirement is good (or at least satisfactory) maneuverability. It is obvious that a tank consisting of two links simply cannot provide it. Meanwhile, the failure of one link or block between them in a real battle will mean the actual loss of an expensive combat unit.

    why so immediately? The loss of only the combat unit will allow the "wounded" to escape from the battlefield, the loss of the power unit - to continue the battle; and in general, the destruction of the vehicle requires at least two (missed) shells
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 27 August 2020 19: 57 New
      +8
      Quote: prodi
      At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the use of such a machine in urban conditions, where an important requirement is good (or at least satisfactory) maneuverability.

      For battles in urban agglomerations, it's time to make a specialized assault tank.
      He doesn't need high speed, he doesn't need a long-barreled gun. no need for a sub-caliber projectile.
      Complex electronics are not needed, more precisely, another is needed - providing the ability to control the mounted fire from the drone in real time.
      It can have a shorter range than the main tank.
      He needs good armoring of the frontal and side projections, the roof, primarily from cumulative and high-explosive ammunition.
      You need a large-caliber 152 - 160mm gun - a short-barreled howitzer or a Nona-style mortar gun.
      An assault tank can and should be significantly, at times, cheaper than the main tank.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 28 August 2020 13: 23 New
        -1
        And how do you imagine that?
        But even if it is cheaper while maintaining efficiency, it will be, firstly, additional, very significant, i.e. one order of spending, and secondly, on a highly specialized machine that is not flexible in use.
        A removable tank adaptation kit for urban combat seems to be a more rational proposal both in terms of cost / efficiency scale and in terms of the range of tasks performed.
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 30 August 2020 20: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: vVvAD
          A removable tank adaptation kit for urban combat seems to be a more rational proposal both in terms of cost / efficiency scale and in terms of the range of tasks performed.

          The main tank is of limited efficiency in urban combat:
          - the weak high-explosive effect of the HE shell does not allow to bring down most buildings with one or two hits
          - capable of hitting targets only within line of sight, tk. the projectile has a flat trajectory
          - small elevation angles of the gun will not allow hitting targets on the upper floors.
          An assault tank with a short-barreled gun 152 - 160mm does not have these disadvantages.
          The assault tank is also good in other types of combat for providing fire support for main tanks and infantry. It is not a substitute for the main one, but as a means of fire support.
          1. prodi
            prodi 31 August 2020 07: 00 New
            +1
            it is quite possible that the current MBT, as station wagons, will continue to "specialize" in the classic, assault (with the addition of the rifled 152mm paired 30mm) and terminators, more sharpened for threats from the air and from ATGM
      2. Oprichnik
        Oprichnik 30 August 2020 15: 04 New
        0
        Great, I myself thought about this and I think that such a car is needed. But I would add two remote-controlled machine-gun turrets with GSh-7,62 or with Utyos and AGS-30 behind the main tower. And also on the stern and launcher for volumetric detonating ammunition such as Bumblebee or a flamethrower such as LPO-70. True, the crew will be 5-6 people.
        1. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 30 August 2020 15: 11 New
          0
          I forgot to say that this is in a regular case and not in an articulated
        2. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 30 August 2020 20: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Oprichnik
          But I would add two remote-controlled machine-gun turrets with GSh-7,62 or with Utyos and AGS-30 behind the main tower. And also on the stern and launcher for volumetric detonating ammunition such as Bumblebee or a flamethrower such as LPO-70. True, the crew will be 5-6 people.

          There is no need to make a land cruiser out of an assault tank. A machine-gun mount, of course, is needed, and the rest is from the evil one.
  6. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 27 August 2020 19: 14 New
    +9
    It's absurd even that people are discussing this issue here)) Twice as many problems with caterpillars. 1/4 of the total body turns out to be too vulnerable from the side. The length of the car increases, its mobility decreases. Complicated transportation and overall maintainability likely to deteriorate.

    What would we get in return for this? Improving the energy capabilities of the tank and its firepower? This painfully resembles the dead-end development of interbellum - it turns out a gigantic, full of potency something that will then be thrown or bombed from the air. Need some additional generating capacity - what's the problem? There is a BMPT - make an armored mobile power plant according to a similar principle.

    It is known how to get extra space in the tank - by reducing the crew. 2 people + well-coordinated work of automation and a network-centric approach to the conduct of hostilities. Deeper work on the specification of ammunition - improving the methods of their delivery, charging, etc., their characteristics, and the accuracy of the gun. This will lead to a decrease in the ammunition carried - the space will also decrease.
    1. prodi
      prodi 27 August 2020 19: 28 New
      +2
      - with caterpillars debatable: two (four) short, versus one (two) long (plus a possible one torn)?
      - there are pluses with maintainability: from two damaged vehicles with different blocks, in a difficult situation, it is quite possible to assemble one fully combat-ready unit by the forces of the surviving crew
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 27 August 2020 19: 54 New
        +3
        As far as I understand - although a lot depends on layout tricks (which, however, often do not benefit real combat vehicles) - we will have to have and produce 2 motors instead of one, but at the same time do both with sufficient resources in case of self-evacuation with moderate damage ... This is fraught with resource overuse. In the case of the classical arrangement of states between "alive" and "dead", there is not so much as in this scheme. There will also be problems with third-party evacuation - if the integrity is preserved, more effort will be needed than to evacuate a modern tank (therefore, the evacuation equipment will have to be made larger and more sophisticated, the question of its ease of transportation and vulnerability, etc.) will arise. In case of separate evacuation, you will have to make 2 approaches or distract twice as much equipment. I see this as a minus ..

        Damage to the divided part will affect the mobility of the whole - the strength characteristics, in turn, will have to be reduced (most likely) - otherwise it will be necessary to increase the mass of the common product, for the sake of reducing which, among other things, all this seems to be started. If in some imaginary tank battles this can still creak, then such a scheme will react worse to any force majeure than a modern one - and now the war, unfortunately, is a continuous force majeure.

        IMHO a conceptually modern tank has long been "ready" and replacing it with some kind of "supertank" will hardly work out - by improving in a couple of directions we will get hell on much larger ones. Perhaps a similar line-up would be suitable for a number of other machines, for example, for some kind of laser systems for short-range air defense or tank destroyers or a kind of field drone carrier. But it seems to me that a particular tank will not benefit from it.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 27 August 2020 20: 03 New
          +2
          And what is the main advantage of a two-section tank? What is the highlight so to speak?
          1. prodi
            prodi 27 August 2020 20: 12 New
            -2
            this is nonsense
            In general, for Russia in modern realities, 100-150 t-14, 200-300 t-90 and about 500 t-72 in unmanned mode will be quite enough. But they should be stuffed to the max.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 27 August 2020 20: 59 New
              +2
              It will be enough for Russia to carry out the planned modernization of the existing tanks. Retrofit the tanks of the most efficient formations of the modern KAZ. From 20 21 to start producing 30 Armata tanks a year. After getting rid of childhood diseases of mass exploitation, increase the rate of release.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 27 August 2020 21: 21 New
                +1
                It seems to me that all these searches in recent years are tied to a discrepancy in the approach to the tank. There is the so-called "Yom Kippur War" - a hypothetical world conflict in which a lot of things will be used and the same requirements for the tank. There are also much more likely and frequent local wars, where these products are redundant in some parameters, and insufficient in others. Since the end of the Cold War, this imbalance has been gradually increasing and we see the actual search for its solution (as far as I understand).
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 27 August 2020 21: 33 New
                  +1
                  This imbalance was clear in the mid-80s. Afghan helped. BMP 3 with Bakhchi attempt to level. But one-sided. Nobody dared to divide tanks into two types. Although additional armor kits for work on rugged terrain have appeared. Half measure.
          2. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 27 August 2020 21: 16 New
            +1
            The raisin, as far as I understand, is to create some kind of killer-monstrous thing that would have better autonomy and firepower, to the detriment of its offensive properties, stealth and much more. All this is purely conceptual research as conceived by the authors, probably. From the section "deep brainstorming" - shouldn't we make a tank with two guns? Shouldn't we make a huge humanoid robot? Isn't it time to design the death star? well, like that.
            A negligible percentage of these surveys can actually "shoot" and become a breakthrough.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 27 August 2020 21: 21 New
              +1
              There are no advantages for the tank.
          3. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 28 August 2020 23: 07 New
            0
            Cross-country ability, one link pushes another, or pulls, evacuates, minuses, it is more difficult to maintain and hide, it would be better if the tanks would be locked and disengaged as needed.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 28 August 2020 23: 11 New
              0
              This design has the plus of permeability on well, completely liquid soils. And the need to book such a monster will take away all the benefits.
              1. Andrey.AN
                Andrey.AN 28 August 2020 23: 14 New
                0
                not necessarily on liquid, if you push or pull up, you can also take a hill steeper, any step.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 28 August 2020 23: 17 New
                  0
                  It depends more on HP per ton than on the multilink.
                  1. Andrey.AN
                    Andrey.AN 28 August 2020 23: 31 New
                    0
                    Who knows, the two-link has its own advantages, no one needs to look for a suitable pair, in impassable areas it is easier to install these machines than to alter everything.
        2. prodi
          prodi 27 August 2020 20: 18 New
          +1
          [quote = Knell Wardenheart] [/ quote]
          - no need for two motors - a hybrid basically and an electric motor in the towed module (probably with its own small generator)
          - in case of evacuation - what prevents the modules from being disconnected and evacuated separately?
          - conceptually agree: this is a scheme for an infantry fighting vehicle, not a tank
        3. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 30 August 2020 15: 07 New
          +1
          Any complication of the system leads to a decrease in reliability and an increase in cost. Few pluses aren't worth the cons.
  7. garri-lin
    garri-lin 27 August 2020 19: 18 New
    +3
    If you really suffer from such technoPerversions, then the crew must be put in the rear compartment. Frontal armor, engine, BM in the front. The crew is in the back. Plus in the rear module there is an additional ammo for the weapon and guided weapons.
  8. Amorphis
    Amorphis 27 August 2020 19: 18 New
    0
    And if you install an automatic cannon or a large-caliber machine gun on the back, it might not come out badly.
  9. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 27 August 2020 19: 41 New
    +3
    3000 horses is good. But with such power, it is still necessary to make couplings from external fuel tanks. Like a barrel of kvass, and as you use up these tanks, shoot on the go.
  10. Undecim
    Undecim 27 August 2020 19: 58 New
    +5
    “Such a combat vehicle is being considered today by specialists from the 38th Institute in a variant of a two-link articulated design. The front combat module can have a control compartment with three crew members in a highly protected armored capsule. It is planned to place an uninhabited tower in the middle part of the combat module with the installation of an electrothermochemical cannon with an automatic loader in it, ”said Colonel Yevgeny Gubanov, deputy head of the NII BTVT.
    Colonel Gubanov simply hangs an assortment of different varieties of noodles, such as an articulated structure or an electrothermochemical gun, on the audience's ears. We have already tried compound tanks and electrochemical guns. So far, no fundamental discoveries that would allow us to talk about the prospect of such structures have not been observed.

    Articulated tank Martel. India. 1930 year.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 August 2020 21: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      We have already tried compound tanks and electrochemical guns. So far, no fundamental discoveries that would allow us to talk about the prospect of such structures have not been observed.

      "Coalition".
      Electrothermochemical generation 1+
      Charge initiation not yet controlled, but close to that. It will be managed, there will be a second generation.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 27 August 2020 21: 28 New
        0
        What is its "electrothermochemical" - does it use liquid propellants? Do you like coming up with generations?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 August 2020 21: 42 New
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          What is its "electrothermochemical" - liquid propellants are used in it?

          Sorry, but LMW and electrothermochemical weapons are completely different topics.

          ETH weapon is from the first generation - electric charge initiation and up to the highest generation - electrical decomposition of an inert substance into combustible elements, followed by controlled initiation and controlled combustion

          Well, ZhMV has long been ready for real combat use. It remains only to find the money. For according to modern technologies, the production of "fuel equipment", especially for binary LMVs, will not cost less than the rest of the tank.
          There is nothing impossible, just problems with "accuracy / cost" Either the first is not enough, or the second is prohibitive

          Quote: Undecim
          Do you like coming up with generations?

          Et not me, et the Germans had a breakdown by generations.
          In the description of work on a 130-mm tank gun.
  11. Alexander X
    Alexander X 27 August 2020 20: 03 New
    +2
    The two-link all-terrain vehicles demonstrate amazing cross-country ability. The reliability of the drive is such that the manufacturing plant gives a guarantee for 6 km of mileage or 10 years. So the tanks of the future for the Arctic may be two-tier. The idea is not so bad. For certain conditions of use .... IMHO ...
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 27 August 2020 20: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Alexander X
      So the tanks of the future for the Arctic may be two-tier.

      Do you need tanks for the Arctic? For what, if not a secret?
      1. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 27 August 2020 22: 17 New
        0
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        Quote: Alexander X
        So the tanks of the future for the Arctic may be two-tier.

        Do you need tanks for the Arctic? For what, if not a secret?

        For the Arctic, it is quite suitable. There are no cities, and agility is not so necessary. Turn around with a radius of 199 meters? Who's going to stop? Tank battles are not foreseen there, most likely with landings, when the crew and the attached unit can live in the cold for a decent time. Passage through snow, with fractured ice, is better than that of a single-link, traditional one. Autonomy is greater, both in terms of weapons, and in terms of nutrition for people.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 August 2020 21: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexander X
      The two-link all-terrain vehicles demonstrate amazing cross-country ability.

      But there is a big drawback. Dvuhzvenniki do not turn in place
      1. prodi
        prodi 28 August 2020 14: 01 New
        0
        do not spin, because no one bothers with the transmission, but technically there is such an opportunity
  12. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 27 August 2020 20: 59 New
    0
    Complete nonsense, they won't do that.
  13. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
    Kuzmich Sibiryakov 27 August 2020 22: 13 New
    +1
    Nobody offered a tank on four stilts yet? Then I am the author of the idea.
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle 28 August 2020 06: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Kuzmich Sibiryakov
      Nobody offered a tank on four stilts yet? Then I am the author of the idea.

      Four is a lot. Three is enough. Wells had already suggested that.
      1. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 28 August 2020 08: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Shuttle
        Quote: Kuzmich Sibiryakov
        Nobody offered a tank on four stilts yet? Then I am the author of the idea.

        Four is a lot. Three is enough. Wells had already suggested that.

        Yes you are right. Somehow I did not take into account that the three-legged platform stands without swaying on any surface. Stable. And again, saving on one stilt.
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 30 August 2020 01: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Shuttle
        Four is a lot. Three is enough

        No, you need six. But on the ship!
        This will be a breakthrough! wassat wassat wassat

  14. silver_roman
    silver_roman 27 August 2020 22: 26 New
    +1
    Apocalypse from Red alert. laughing
    But seriously, even ... not seriously talking about a new tank now.
  15. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 27 August 2020 22: 33 New
    0
    what nonsense? April 1 is long gone
  16. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 27 August 2020 23: 05 New
    +2
    Here you are all seriously discussing.
    And most importantly, it passed by !!!
    This is how much money you can cut through development, PR and discussions!
    2 hulls, 2 undercarriages, 2 engines, hitch, the promised missiles and pilots ...

    It is clear that even the development will cost the money, and unemployment will definitely not threaten the observers !!!
  17. Private SA
    Private SA 28 August 2020 04: 53 New
    -3
    Well, they'll shoot a slightly longer burst of shells from the A-10 (Thunderbolt)
    with depleted uranium cores. Or two missiles will be fired instead
    one. "Perstineless".
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle 30 August 2020 10: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Private SA
      Well, they'll shoot a slightly longer burst of shells from the A-10 (Thunderbolt)
      with depleted uranium cores. Or two missiles will be fired instead
      one. "Perstineless".

      "Warthog" for you, it seems to me, is a direct wunderwaffe, some kind of immortal and inexhaustible. Yeah.
  18. Shuttle
    Shuttle 28 August 2020 06: 09 New
    -1
    And in my opinion, there are still some prospects! Imagine that a well-protected, armored capsule with a crew has its own engine, albeit not large, but quite sufficient for maneuvering on the battlefield. And then the whole structure does not have to be tightly connected.
    Then you can use the technique when the crew in the armored capsule occupies the most favorable position in terms of observation and survival. A powerful unmanned combat remotely controlled module performs a combat mission without the risk of losing the crew. And maybe in this case, the dichotomy will no longer seem so superfluous. Then one crew, in principle, will take control of not only one remote combat module, but also the second, and possibly the third. Perhaps instead of the lost crew. And perhaps in advance, because instead of an armored capsule with crews it is possible to dock to some combat modules ... an armored pad with ammunition and fuel, leaving them in a safe place before the battle.
    Those. on the march, the modules move together, and the attack can go apart, leaving the crews and supplies in relatively safe places. A completely different tactic. What baboons will fight on an equal footing with theo-controlled "fearless" tanks? So much for network centricity and drones. Why carry a carriage with you? To shorten the communication lines and, as a consequence, the possibility of exposure to enemy interference and the possibility of detection. Of course, such a tactical application only complements the classic "armor is strong and our tanks are fast, and our people are full of courage." But the addition can be very significant.
    For example, to restore the combat capability of a subunit, in most cases it will be enough to simply deliver new combat modules, and evacuate the damaged ones to the rear. Moreover, the most important part of the subdivision, i.e. crew continues to carry out combat work.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 30 August 2020 01: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Shuttle
      Then you can use the technique when the crew in the armored capsule takes the most advantageous position from the point of view of observation and survival. And a powerful unmanned combat remotely controlled module performs a combat mission without the risk of losing the crew.

      Why then the crew? just a remotely controlled module is enough.
      To which everything is going now.
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 30 August 2020 10: 21 New
        0
        Quote: psiho117
        Quote: Shuttle
        Then you can use the technique when the crew in the armored capsule takes the most advantageous position from the point of view of observation and survival. And a powerful unmanned combat remotely controlled module performs a combat mission without the risk of losing the crew.

        Why then the crew? just a remotely controlled module is enough.
        To which everything is going now.

        It is impossible to arrange a lot of ultra-fast super-wide over-the-air interference-free communication channels from a planetary scale. But local ones, i.e. with a range of several kilometers or tens of kilometers - you can. And not very expensive. It's all about physics and computer science. To transmit more information, you need to increase the signal frequency. High frequency means worse propagation.
        That is why, by the way, much more is required above 5G than 2/3 / 4G towers.
  19. Shuttle
    Shuttle 28 August 2020 06: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex2000
    Here you are all seriously discussing.
    And most importantly, it passed by !!!
    This is how much money you can cut through development, PR and discussions!
    2 hulls, 2 undercarriages, 2 engines, hitch, the promised missiles and pilots ...

    It is clear that even the development will cost the money, and unemployment will definitely not threaten the observers !!!

    And let's give all these babos to pensioners! Well, the Americans do exactly that? Or are there Chinese, British, Germans, Turks? Not. Why not?
    In fact, we will do it for years. Only at first it will be necessary to socialize ownership of the means of production all over the world so that the results of the long-standing worldwide division of social labor are also shared by the public, and not by private property in one way or another. Those. proletarians of all countries unite!
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 30 August 2020 01: 26 New
      -1
      Yeah, "we will destroy the whole world of violence, to the ground, and then - we are ours, we will build a new world" drinks
      They learned to destroy well.
      That's just, with the construction of a new world, everything is not going ...
  20. Graz
    Graz 28 August 2020 06: 52 New
    -2
    I suggest that you immediately think about the tank on antigrav. hovering above the surface a meter away! smile
  21. Dedok
    Dedok 28 August 2020 08: 21 New
    +1
    I don’t understand why we, the electorate, "throw" such news?
    There are no others from the "word" at all?
  22. da Vinci
    da Vinci 28 August 2020 08: 31 New
    0
    It was infa that the Army Coalition has an electric ignition system.
  23. Clueless
    Clueless 28 August 2020 08: 51 New
    0
    There is no maneuverability in 2 links.
  24. Mikhail Ya2
    Mikhail Ya2 28 August 2020 09: 10 New
    -1
    I think 2040 is too far away, and we need an intermediate version with 5 towers ala T-35. So more dough can be cut
  25. Shadow041
    Shadow041 28 August 2020 11: 32 New
    +1
    Perhaps such a design is applicable for the far north, where the decisive moment will be to increase the cross-country ability of such a design, due to a decrease in ground pressure, compared to conventional tanks, but I do not see any application for it in the middle lane. Such a design will be more difficult and more vulnerable to damage and enemy fire than a classic tank. Firstly, the coupling will suffer, and secondly, the track of the engine semitrailer (rear link) will differ from the track of the fighting compartment (front link), which will lead to additional destruction of equipment on mines.
  26. megavolt823
    megavolt823 28 August 2020 14: 02 New
    +1
    Again, T35 ?!
  27. iouris
    iouris 28 August 2020 14: 23 New
    0
    The developer's web address is www.tankov.net.
  28. Eskobar
    Eskobar 28 August 2020 23: 11 New
    0
    Wunderwife is off the charts
  29. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 29 August 2020 10: 17 New
    0
    I think that the Armat cart will be enough for the future until the 2100s. Carrying capacity is good for the future. Nobody will make tanks heavier. And motors, guns and systems will be gradually modernized.
  30. barium
    barium 29 August 2020 12: 10 New
    0
    another wunderwaffe! ARMAT was not put into the troops ... apparently someone from the country's leadership, looked after a house in the states, money is needed ... ...
  31. mmaxx
    mmaxx 30 August 2020 06: 34 New
    0
    The two-link tank is crap. These are two chassis together. I won't envy the crew. Poor maneuverability. The price can only be higher. In civilian use, it may be profitable somewhere. In a war, hardly.
  32. Shuttle
    Shuttle 30 August 2020 10: 13 New
    0
    Quote: psiho117
    Yeah, "we will destroy the whole world of violence, to the ground, and then - we are ours, we will build a new world" drinks
    They learned to destroy well.
    That's just, with the construction of a new world, everything is not going ...

    In fact, the communists built a new world. 40% of the population of this planet is China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos.
    Yes, the USSR itself collapsed. This is the dialectic. Everything new is born in the weak, and is defeated with the old. But in this struggle he grows stronger and eventually wins. And, by the way, if not for the wreckage of the power of the USSR, then where would you be!
  33. bbss
    bbss 30 August 2020 11: 24 New
    0
    Poor maneuverability is yes. However, who prevents the back module from making / enabling detachable. Empower AI. When the situation becomes more complicated, separation. Replenishment of BC and fuel on demand. Covering the rear and evacuating the main module in case of damage. By the way, you can envisage docking with more than one module. There are many things you can think of.
  34. gggdddsssccc
    gggdddsssccc 30 August 2020 13: 54 New
    -1
    "Armata" then you cannot put into a series, but here are fairy tales about 2040,
    we still have to live to see him.
  35. Volga073
    Volga073 31 August 2020 08: 23 New
    0
    We need 40 links !!
    Caterpillars survived in nature !!
  36. Barmal
    Barmal 31 August 2020 12: 15 New
    0
    "Trend" of creation of unmanned ground combat systems. With a high degree of probability, due to the lack of a compartment with a crew, they will have a lower mass than modern tanks.

    and there will be a problem of interception of control.
  37. tank64rus
    tank64rus 31 August 2020 18: 23 New
    0
    All this was already developed in the 70-80s. Then they abandoned it, considering the project too exotic, and the decrease in the silhouette of the tank already then ceased to play its role, as did the increase in the thickness of the armor due to the appearance of guided and homing weapons and the increase in armor penetration of cumulative ammunition. There is one more feature, the decrease in the height of the tank leads to an increase in the area of ​​the upper projection. This is another problem. Now it is better to start developing robotic tanks that will be combined with ROCs.
    1. Svlad
      Svlad 6 September 2020 05: 41 New
      0
      I have an idea. Why 2 links? Immediately the armored train is tracked. The first link with a 300 mm twin installation, the second with the crew and electronic warfare, the third reactor, the fourth air defense system, the fifth auxiliary + AI drones. Equipped with a periscope and can be hidden in the seas and lakes. Food autonomy.