Military Review

What tanks do the Russian army need in modern warfare?

114
What tanks do the Russian army need in modern warfare?

Recently, in the expert environment, especially in foreign, there is a regular discussion about the role tanks in modern warfare, and even views are expressed about the inexpediency of having them in the army. In these discussions, when considering the role and place of tanks, it must be borne in mind that tanks were and remain the striking force of the ground forces and the seizure of territories is always not carried out. aviation and missiles, and ground forces with the support of tanks and interaction with other branches of the military.


The level of technical and technological superiority of the opposing sides in tanks and means of destruction of tanks makes it possible to achieve a serious advantage in the implementation of assigned tasks in military conflicts of varying intensity.

The role of tanks in recent conflicts


Tanks can be used in large-scale (global), regional and local conflicts. In each of them, the requirements for tanks and their role are fundamentally different. In a global conflict in a clash of opponents with high-tech weapons, will require the massive use of tanks with high mobility characteristics, the ability to effectively fire over long distances, good protection from various means of destruction and integration into a single command and control system.

In regional conflicts with the participation of leading countries of the world, as was the case in Iraq, it is not their number that becomes decisive, but the technical level of equipment of tanks and the ability to quickly control them on the battlefield.

In local conflicts, opponents use a limited number of tanks and, as a rule, with rather low characteristics. The conditions for conducting battles are completely different, fleeting clashes at short distances, often in urban development and saturation of sides in anti-tank systems and RPGs, where high firepower is not needed for a tank, it must be well protected from short-range weapons.

It is also necessary to bear in mind the appearance on the battlefield of new threats to the tank in the form of UAVs of various classes and purposes, high-precision land and air-based weapons, powerful and long-range MLRS systems.

There has not yet been a global conflict after the Second World War; regional conflicts have arisen regularly. They used large tank groupings of several thousand tanks, and local conflicts with the use of several hundred tanks were not uncommon. The last two wars in Iraq, 1991 and 2003, can serve as an example of regional conflicts, and local ones - in Donbass in 2014 and recently flared up in Karabakh. In all these conflicts, tanks were used and one of the leading roles was assigned to them.

In the first war of 1991, Desert Storm, the US-led coalition used an armored fist of 5600 tanks, of which about 2000 M1A1s and 250 British Challengers. Despite the relatively large number of Iraqi tank parks, they hardly represented a real combat force, Iraq put up 5500 tanks, of which 4900 T-55 and T-62 and about 600 T-72.

In the second war, 2003 ("Shock and Awe"), the United States had only 760 tanks, of which 640 М1А1 and М1А2 and 120 Challengers. The Iraqi army could oppose about 2200-2600 tanks, of which only 700-900 T-72, T-72M and T-72M1, and most of the armored vehicles were obsolete T-55 and T-62 vehicles and their Chinese clones "Type 59 "And" Type 69 ".

The types of tanks show that the Iraqi tanks could not seriously resist the American ones. In the first war, the characteristics of the M1A1 with the T-55 / T-62 were simply incomparable, and in the second the M1A2 was significantly superior to the T-72.

The Americans, naturally, achieved impressive results, the Iraqi tank groupings were defeated with minimal American losses. In the 1991 operation, they lost only 21 M1A1 tanks, which was due to the short duration of the battles - only a few weeks, the weakening of the Iraqi army due to massive air strikes, the superiority of the Americans in technology, intelligence and command and control. In oncoming tank battles, the Iraqis lost and suffered serious losses at long distances due to the imperfection of their tanks and the significant superiority of the American in the effectiveness of firing, especially at night, using thermal imaging sights. The Iraqis were ready to seriously confront the Americans, but the equipment was incomparable and they lacked the level of training even in this technique, and the elite Iraqi tank divisions were defeated.

During the second war, the Americans used more advanced M1A2 tanks, which had information control and navigation systems, independent sights for the commander and gunner, and a perfect ballistic computer with a set of sensors. In addition, after the capture of Baghdad, the Iraqi defense ceased to exist, since the Americans managed to bribe most of the Iraqi generals, who surrendered, and the Iraqi troops fled to their homes. On the streets of Baghdad and Tikrit, several hundred T-72s with unused ammunition were abandoned in perfect working order.

In these two wars, the decisive role was played not by the number of tanks, but by the technical superiority of the Americans and the betrayal of the commanders of the Iraqi army, which allowed the Americans to win in the shortest possible time.

In the local conflict in Donbass in 2014, the Armed Forces used up to about 500 tanks, mainly modifications of the T-64B, and a certain number of T-72B1, on the part of the militia several hundred tanks, mainly modifications of the T-72B to T-72B3, and a number of modifications of the T-64B. Tanks were not used en masse, they were mainly used as part of battalion tactical groups and during the capture of strongholds and settlements. There were no oncoming tank battles, there were isolated cases of tank duels. With a fairly high technical level of tanks, the losses of the sides were significant, the Armed Forces lost 184 tanks, 48 ​​were captured by the militia, and 88 tanks were lost by the militia, 5 were captured by the enemy.

According to statistics, up to 70% of the tanks were destroyed by cannon and rocket artillery and a certain amount from ATGM and RPG fire. The high level of losses of the parties was due to poor training of tankers at all levels, the lack of technical means on tanks for interaction between tanks, artillery and infantry, and the lack of thoughtful tactics of using tanks.

On both sides, tanks of the same technical level and approximately the same training of tankers were used; neither side achieved a decisive advantage with significant losses of tanks. As a result of the conflict, the task arose to strengthen the protection of tanks from artillery, anti-tank systems and RPGs.

In the Karabakh conflict, hundreds of tanks are also used, in the Azerbaijani army 760 tanks, including about 470 T-72 tanks, 200 T-90S and about a hundred T-55, and in the Armenian army 320 tanks, including 270 T-72. 40 T-55 and several T-80. In fact, T-72s are opposing each other on both sides.

According to the results of three weeks of fighting, the sides suffer serious losses, according to their unconfirmed statements, each side lost up to 150 tanks. There are many videos of tanks actually being destroyed. The reasons are the same: poor training of tankers, lack of well-thought-out tactics for their use and restrictions on the terrain. In this conflict, a new threat to tanks quickly emerged - attack UAVs and gliding ammunition, easily hitting tanks in the least protected upper projection.

The experience of using tanks in recent conflicts shows that none of the conflicts is complete without the serious use of tanks. Do you need or do not need tanks in modern warfare? The question is answered unequivocally: they are needed. What tanks are needed? This issue requires an analysis of threats from a potential enemy, his technical equipment and the ability to oppose him with the required number of tanks with appropriate technical characteristics.

Technical level of existing tanks


Past conflicts have shown that the weak link of tanks is not firepower and mobility, but security and the ability to interact with each other and with other military branches.

In terms of firepower and mobility, tanks have reached a certain level. There has been no qualitative leap here for a long time. Tracked undercarriage, diesel engine or gas turbine engine with all its advantages and disadvantages provide acceptable power density. It does not fundamentally differ on both existing and promising tanks.

In terms of firepower, modern tanks are close to the optimal caliber of the gun. No one is going to further increase the caliber to 152 mm, and this is hardly advisable, since it leads to an unjustified increase in the mass of the tank, a decrease in the amount of ammunition and a decrease in its mobility. They found another way to increase the firepower of the tank - without significantly increasing its mass, through the use of guided weapons.

The tank's fire control systems based on optical, thermal imaging and television channels ensure effective firing and acceptable conditions for target detection and tracking. At the same time, a significant drawback has not been eliminated - unsatisfactory visibility from the tank and the lack of a convenient presentation of information about the environment to the crew. A tank needs good "eyes", and they can only be provided by integrated information within the information and control system.

The classic protection of the tank with armor and its increase inevitably led to an increase in mass and a decrease in mobility. The use of explosive reactive armor partially solved this problem, but it also has its limits and does not lead to a guaranteed protection of the tank from means of destruction.

Achievements in the creation of active protection systems operating on the principle of destroying a projectile flying into a tank (ATGM) by counter ammunition did not allow the creation of an effective KAZ. The mass of technical difficulties in ensuring the meeting point of the ammunition flying into the tank and the fired ammunition with existing technologies does not allow solving this problem with high quality and in the required dimensions.

There is still no effective "antidote" against the new means of destruction of tanks (UAVs) and gliding ammunition attacking a tank from above. The tank is practically defenseless against this threat. They tried to completely close the upper hemisphere of the tank with the help of the Shater KAZ developed in the 80s, but they did not achieve a positive result. This task has not been solved even today. The electrodynamic protection systems developed on the basis of new principles are still far from being realized due to the lack of mass and size energy sources acceptable for the tank. Today, the solution to the problem of ensuring security (including promising tanks) remains the most urgent.

The place and role of the promising tank "Armata"


In this regard, the question arises about the effectiveness of the promising Armata tank and its place in the Russian army. He seems to be and defiles at parades, but in fact was not adopted for service and for the sixth year it is not clear what tests have been going on. It should be emphasized that the Armata tank first appeared at the parade in May 2015, when, after the annexation of Crimea, the West seriously "ran over" to Russia, and it was necessary to show its strength. The unfinished "raw" Armata successfully fulfilled its advertising task, and the declared high characteristics must be confirmed, this takes years, and the development of the tank is still ongoing.

"Armata" is undoubtedly a new generation tank, they are trying to introduce original technical solutions that give the tank a new quality, but the military is in no hurry to adopt it, and this has its own reason. In addition to the ambiguous technical solution with an uninhabited tower, the effectiveness of which can only be tested in a real combat situation, there are other questions. If we compare the main characteristics of the "Armata" with the most advanced serial T-72 B3M and T-90MS, then the characteristics are better in terms of firepower and mobility, but there is no fundamental separation. In terms of cross-country ability, a high power density was achieved, but it can also be achieved on existing tanks by installing a powerful engine up to 1500 hp.

The tank uses the more advanced 125 mm 2A82 cannon, a further development of the serial 2A46. Still, they reasonably refused to install the 152-mm cannon, this decision, which was mentioned above, brings too many problems for the tank. Apparently, on the basis of a tank and 152-mm cannon, it is more expedient to create specialized self-propelled guns to support tanks and hack enemy defenses. The fire control system uses the same technical solutions based on heat and television channels that are used in the Kalina fire control system to modernize the existing generation of tanks. The issue of guided weapons operating on the “fire-and-forget” principle has not been resolved either. At the same time, a high degree of integration of fire control devices with KAZ and OEP protection systems has been achieved, which makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of fire.

In terms of the security of the tank, the separation is mainly due to the installation of the KAZ "Afganit", but the declared characteristics for intercepting the BOPS on these tank samples are hardly achieved. The use of advanced radar and infrared systems solved the problem of fixing and calculating the meeting point of an approaching projectile (ATGM) and fired ammunition. But the task of its guaranteed destruction has not been solved, for this we need fundamentally new damaging ammunition, they are not yet available.

For the declared defeat of the BOPS, according to experts, a fundamentally different damaging ammunition of the "shock core" type with a predetermined flight trajectory is needed by initiating one of the matrix fuses on the rear side of the warhead and with a projectile interception speed of 2000-3000 m / s mounted on the rotary in two planes of the platform and tracking the incoming projectile. As you can see in the photographs of the tank, there is none of this, the turret has rigidly fixed launchers developed in the early 70s with an ammunition delivery speed of about 120 m / s, and they cannot provide a solution to the task. That is, the KAZ does not yet provide guaranteed protection for the tank, especially from an attack from above, and the tank also requires refinement in terms of protection.

"Armata" has one indisputable advantage - the presence of a tank information and control system, making it a network-centric tank, capable of interacting with other tanks and military branches in the process of network-centric combat. The experience of recent military conflicts has revealed new threats to the tank. He is hardly capable of opposing them as a separate combat unit. To counter such threats in the most advanced armies of the world, information and control systems for conducting network-centric combat are being developed, which give a completely different quality. This is especially true with the advent of UAVs, which are hardly advisable to attach to each tank, but such devices in a tank company would significantly increase its capabilities: the transfer of an integrated picture from the battlefield to the unit would expand the "vision" of tank crews.

First of all, tanks are equipped with such systems, for example, in the USA and Germany, the M1A2 and Leopard 2A2 tanks are already equipped with the second generation TIUS, while the Russian army does not yet have such systems. In the 80s, I had to substantiate and develop the basic principles for creating such systems, but the Union collapsed and the work seriously stalled. The information and control system of the tactical level is now being developed by the Sozvezdiye concern, which also includes the Armata tank, but so far, apart from advertising statements, we have not heard about its implementation in the army, and we, being pioneers in their creation, are seriously lagging behind today. The system makes "Armata" the tank of the future, and such a tank should be in the army.

What tanks do the Russian army need?


An analysis of regional and local conflicts of recent decades shows that success in superiority over the enemy at the last stage of conquering a territory is always achieved with the use of tanks - the most effective means of achieving this goal. At the same time, the tank cannot be a universal tool for all types of conflicts.

In a global conflict, when the forces of the main world players, possessing the most advanced technologies in the mass production of weapons, clash, the most advanced tanks and in large numbers will be required, capable of successfully resisting both in large-scale clashes of forces and equipment in large territories with different terrain, and in conditions local collisions in the agglomeration of urban development.

In regional conflicts, depending on the participants, a massive or limited use of tanks may be required, while their technical level should exceed the tanks of a potential enemy.

In local conflicts, the use of tanks is limited by the capabilities of the parties and the conditions of the theater of operations for solving the assigned tasks and, as a rule, a high technical level of tanks is not required, and the current generation of tanks may well satisfy them.

The territory of Russia covers several theaters of operations (Far Eastern, Central Asian, Caucasian, European). And a threat appears in the northern theater of operations, which NATO is trying to reach. All this suggests that the Russian army needs tanks, and in a fairly large number.

What kind of tanks does the Russian army need? Now, according to open information, in the Russian army in combat units in 86 tank battalions there are 2685 tanks of various modifications T-72, T-80, T-90 and about 400 T-72 tanks in training centers. In terms of its technical level, about a quarter has high performance at the level of the latest achievements. These tanks are comparable to Western designs. The rest require major modernization. In addition, many thousands of tanks still produced by the Soviet Union are in storage bases.

To what technical level should tanks in combat units be brought? Apparently, through a major modernization of the main characteristics, the fleet of tanks of about 3000 units in combat units should be unified and brought to the level of T-72B3M and T-90MS in terms of their characteristics and equipment. It makes no sense to produce new T-72 and T-90, production capacities must be loaded with the modernization of previously released tanks and bringing them to the required level and the fulfillment of foreign contracts, which the United States and Germany have been doing for many years.

Thousands of reserve tanks at storage bases must be maintained in a working condition with the characteristics laid down in them for quick use if necessary, as well as for appropriate modernization and replenishment of those out of order in combat units.

Tank "Armata" must be brought to the confirmation of the declared characteristics and put into mass production. There will not be so many such tanks so far, their number will increase over time, while technical interaction with the existing generation of tanks should be ensured, which should be equipped with TIUS. A serious program of modernization of tanks is needed with the installation of digital systems for control of movement, protection, fire and interaction, compatible with the systems of the Armata tank.

With this approach, the Russian army will have three tiers of tanks: advanced, modernized and previous generations. The production cycle of a tank and its component parts and systems is very long, therefore, in reserve at storage bases for a special period, it is necessary to keep, albeit not entirely perfect, but combat-ready tanks, ready in a short time for use in the army or modernization in case of a large-scale regional or global conflict. The quantitative composition of tanks of each tier will be determined by the needs of the army and the state of the international situation, in accordance with which it can be adjusted for each tier.
Author:
Photos used:
yandex.ru
114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 26 October 2020 05: 52
    +2
    Worrying about the extreme vulnerability of tanks from attacks from the upper hemisphere ... where the armor is less.
    And how the tank crew will react to the appearance of an air enemy, the same UAVs.
    They, like mosquitoes, can drink all the blood from a mammoth.
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 26 October 2020 08: 03
      16
      This is not a problem with tanks; ACS, MLRS, BMP, etc. are also vulnerable. to solve this problem is all the same by means of air defense and electronic warfare.
      It's just banal if you also install anti-drone air defense on the tank, then you get a very expensive car, both in cost and in operating costs.
      1. Thorvlobnor IV
        Thorvlobnor IV 26 October 2020 11: 40
        -1
        to solve this problem is all the same with air defense and electronic warfare.
        It's just banal if you also install anti-drone air defense on the tank, then you get a very expensive car, both in cost and in operating costs.

        We need a whole millimeter-wave radar to guard the upper hemisphere, not much more complicated than a fishing echo sounder, and the equipment already has the means of setting smoke screens. The kamikaze drone relies on telescoping and IR signature, which means you need to hide in the smoke and deceive with retractable or fired IR traps. Well, the tank automatic grenade launcher can be adapted to shoot in the direction of the drone with something like buckshot - after all, drones are slow and cardboard, these are not BOPS.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 12: 19
          +5
          Quote: Torvlobnor IV
          We need a whole millimeter-wave radar to guard the upper hemisphere, not much more complicated than a fishing echo sounder,

          Funny.
          More difficult, and very much more difficult.
      2. VO3A
        VO3A 26 October 2020 14: 29
        +4
        The theoretical message in the article is correct:
        "Armata" has one indisputable advantage - the presence of a tank information and control system, making it a network-centric tank, capable of interacting with other tanks and military branches in the process of network-centric combat. The experience of recent military conflicts has revealed new threats to the tank. He is hardly capable of opposing them as a separate combat unit. To counter such threats in the most advanced armies of the world, information and control systems for conducting network-centric combat are being developed, which give a completely different quality.

        But we don't have such systems at all! What advantage are we talking about then? We don't need tanks, including Armata, because they are vulnerable due to the complete absence of such systems ... We should not confuse network-centric, or rather Combat Information Systems, with Automated Troop Control Systems, which we allegedly have (but nowhere are used because of their uselessness), and in which the Information Component about the enemy in real time is completely absent .... The program for creating a LSI has completely failed, and first of all the General Staff of the Armed Forces, because there are not even requirements and tasks for the creation of such systems .. Moreover, the General Staff considers such systems useless because of their vulnerability to electronic warfare systems ... Glory to our great leaders for their stupid backwardness ...
        A pitiful resemblance of ESU TZ "Constellation-M", personally adopted by Gerasimov, is buried ... His HANDS and ROKs cause laughter and bewilderment ...
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 12: 12
      +3
      For some reason, the article talks about a single tank, this concept is erroneous. You can't make a tank for all occasions. The division of tanks into light, medium, and heavy is back in fashion. More and more projects of wheeled, light / medium tracked tanks in development and as part of advanced armies. The USA does not even plan to replace the Abrams, the Stryker with a 105 mm cannon is already in the army, the MPF program has been forced. The Turkish medium tank Kaplan is already in the army, Altai is clearly freezing. The extreme modifications of the western MBTs in the urban body kit were transformed into full-fledged heavy tanks, from their 55 tons at the beginning of the journey, now under or already over 80 tons, and the tendency towards weighting continues.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2020 13: 27
        +1
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The division of tanks into light, medium, and heavy is back in fashion.

        Dull economy.
        Multiplied by the nonsense of the generals and the greed of the representatives of the military-industrial complex.

        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The USA does not even plan to replace the Abrams, the Stryker with a 105 mm cannon is already in the army, the MPF program has been forced.

        A striking example that confirms the thesis.

        "Abrams", which because of its weight can only be used in "heavy" teams
        Without tanks in the "light" and "striker" it was not very good, so they stuck into the "striker" ersatz, in fact, self-propelled 105-mm assault guns on a wheeled chassis.
        But there is at least some way to justify it, there is still one base, the same Stryker armored personnel carrier.
        But how to justify MPF for light brigades ???
  2. Maki maki
    Maki maki 26 October 2020 05: 53
    20
    Basically, thoughts on the prospects of tanks are the same. Agree with the author hi
    1. Asad
      Asad 26 October 2020 06: 03
      +8
      A question to specialists, I wonder if tanks from storage will be able to withstand an external threat? I remember in the distant 1983, when an alarm was triggered, the equipment from NZ was started, this is horror!
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 26 October 2020 06: 40
        -3
        in case of war, what? if this is an invasion, then everyone will be included. in general, EVERYTHING that can move and perform tasks.
        1. Asad
          Asad 26 October 2020 06: 47
          +7
          So I asked the specialists, CAN tanks from storage fulfill their purpose? There is no mockery in my question! An article about the current equipment in the troops. Plus to the author!
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 26 October 2020 06: 47
            -4
            where will they go? this was the answer) resource mobilization will be universal.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 28 October 2020 01: 27
              0
              And they will take and not start.
      2. d4rkmesa
        d4rkmesa 26 October 2020 10: 27
        +6
        Well, so, they will be able to move somewhere as a stationary-mobile checkpoint. For a fight with modern armored vehicles, there is no normal control system, most likely. DZ is also far from everywhere.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 13: 12
          +8
          Quote: d4rkmesa
          move out somewhere as a stationary-mobile checkpoint will be able to

          Oh oh
          Of course, I am not a tanker, but I have been to the units, I have seen equipment at the DH. We were even entrusted to somehow carry out maintenance of the launcher air defense system. No, nifiga she's not going anywhere. We did not even manage to bring the chassis to a transportable state with a sledgehammer, the stoppers were tightly hammered.
          It is unlikely that that part was unique in handling technology.
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 26 October 2020 17: 48
            +1
            you are not talking about that. it's not about the first minutes but the days. everything will return to service. by any means. depending on the degree of readiness and storage. all factories and what can work with equipment will be transferred from civil work to mobilization rails.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 28 October 2020 01: 33
              0
              The norm for returning a truck from storage is about a day or two, if my sclerosis does not change me, I think the numbers with the tank should be of the same order. Whether it is possible to make this return depends on how it was put on this storage, and how it was served there in this storage (Surprise, yes, it is necessary to service the equipment for storage, every 5 years if my memory serves me correctly about the automotive equipment). What does the factories have to do with it. The return of equipment from storage should be carried out not by the factories in general, but by the crews that receive it, and with the involvement of resources no more than a field workshop. This is ideal if stored properly.
        2. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 26 October 2020 17: 51
          -1
          tasks are different in nature. you do not understand the topic of the conversation. when the war starts and the mobilization goes on, everything will go into service. even removed from the pedestals, if necessary, and returned to service. every opportunity is being sought to organize the defense.
          1. d4rkmesa
            d4rkmesa 26 October 2020 19: 07
            +2
            The only question is why. The technique, which in any case fails and which is impossible to fight, also rushes without a twinge of conscience. How the T-26 rushed. So - even in this case, not everything will go into service.
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 26 October 2020 20: 16
              -1
              Still how it goes. Even just for escorting in the rear, it is also necessary to allocate equipment. And she will be missed
      3. Engineer
        Engineer 26 October 2020 12: 13
        +5
        I am not an expert.
        From service experience 2005-2007
        There is equipment in the HH in linear parts and connections. In most cases, it will start and somehow fight by the forces of military personnel.
        Equipment on BHVT in a divine form can be brought only with the help of factory specialists and setting up for repair in enterprises for the repair and modernization of the BHVT.
    2. Grandfather
      Grandfather 26 October 2020 06: 07
      13
      I don’t know what kind of tank our army needs, but I know that I don’t want to be a tanker. stop
  3. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 26 October 2020 06: 08
    +5
    Qualitative, balanced and intelligibly explaining to a non-specialist what and how an article. I liked it very much, thank you.
  4. apro
    apro 26 October 2020 06: 20
    +1
    What should it be? The question is incorrectly posed ... for what purposes. An armored vehicle for what. To support the infantry or to fight against the enemy's armored vehicles.
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 26 October 2020 14: 56
      +1
      Oleg hi judging by the rate of "rearmament", the Russian army does not need any tanks.
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 October 2020 06: 28
    +8
    The use of tanks is not massive, without setting a "breakthrough" mission into the operational depth, make them hostages of tactics of use. Everyone knows about the problems of single tanks on the ground, often used as a mobile firing point. The infantry does not cover, they have not heard about the air defense, there is no camouflage (and what is it?) ...
    UAVs fly and burn them to choose from, like kamikaze drones, which is not at all surprising. If the tank is in ambush - it is buried, camouflage and wait, do not forget to mask the tracks from the tracks ... Then you can get some benefit from your tank. If the crew, of course, knows how to handle the cannon ...
  6. Konnick
    Konnick 26 October 2020 07: 01
    +7
    "Armata "has one indisputable advantage - the presence of a tank information and control system, which makes it a network-centric tank, capable of interacting with other tanks and military branches in the process of network-centric combat."
    This same system makes Armatu, with her birdhouses on the tower, highly vulnerable even to conventional infantry small arms. Tank designers abroad are engaged in minimizing observation devices for sights and devices for detecting projectiles and anti-tank missiles. I'm sure UVZ cheated and did not fire Armat from machine guns of regular and large caliber. The explosion of a high-explosive 152-mm projectile near the tank will blow the accessories off the turret and leave the crew blind. In Chechnya, there were cases when militants stopped armored vehicles, smashing optical devices with precise fire from small arms, and the optical-electronic systems of modern tanks are very vulnerable. In the manned turret, it is possible to replace the periscopic devices without leaving the tank; in Armata, this cannot be done. On the outer armor of the gun module, the designers positioned the optics so that it would, as it were, collect bullets and debris into itself. We stuck everything we could on the outer body kit of the tower, but before the first hit. I wonder if armored vehicles are put into service, are they exposed to fire?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2020 13: 28
      -2
      Quote: Konnick
      "Armata" has one indisputable advantage - the presence of a tank information and control system, making it a network-centric tank, capable of interacting with other tanks and military branches in the process of network-centric combat. "
      This same system makes Armatu, with her birdhouses on the tower, highly vulnerable even to conventional infantry small arms.

      ??
      Masha was in a white dress, and therefore did not know how to peel potatoes?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  7. Operator
    Operator 26 October 2020 08: 15
    -5
    Tanks are needed, first of all, with a simple and effective KAZ (which we do not have), otherwise they will be remotely shot as in a shooting range using UAVs and homing ATGMs of the latest generation.

    Hey GABTU!
    1. tank64rus
      tank64rus 26 October 2020 09: 33
      -1
      RF patents: No. 146083, No. 146999, No. 2553860, No. 105422, No. 2399859, Patent No. 111907, Patent No. 26669248. All of them increase the efficiency and protection of the tank. Homemade products based on some have even been used in hostilities and successfully. We presented ourselves at Army 2015 and Army 2018. But this is Russia.
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 October 2020 10: 08
        0
        Of all the listed patents, Google found only two - the foam camouflage of the tank (after which it becomes completely unusable) and flamethrowers installed openly on the armor (such as to make it easier to set fire to the tank from small arms).

        Let the Israelis introduce these patents on the Merkava ACS laughing
        1. tank64rus
          tank64rus 26 October 2020 13: 23
          0
          There is no such thing the Swedes are introducing on their stealth tank. And brag about it.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2020 13: 32
          0
          Quote: Operator
          foam camouflage of the tank (after which it becomes completely incapacitated)


          Why?
          1. Operator
            Operator 26 October 2020 14: 02
            -5
            And what is the disguise? laughing
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 12
              +1
              In the foam.
              https://thepresentation.ru/armiya/sredstva-pennoy-maskirovki
              You have not figured it out.
              http://btvt.info/5library/tom_3_2011_pena.htm

              This is actually the same "Cape" that reduces IR and RL signature. It's just cheaper. True, it is necessary to update in 5-7 days.
              1. Operator
                Operator 26 October 2020 14: 15
                -7
                But what about the visibility of the "tank in the foam" in the optical and near infrared (which is provided by the same glass optics and uncooled matrix)? laughing
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  But what about the visibility of a "naked tank in the foam" in the optical and near-infrared (which is provided by the same glass optics and uncooled matrix)?

                  Same as with "Cape"
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 26 October 2020 14: 23
                    -8
                    Those. nothing - which was demonstrated in the video footage of the attacks of Azerbaijani BBs on Armenian equipment under the capes, which are perfectly distinguishable on the video picture in HD resolution.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      on the video footage of the attacks of Azerbaijani BBs on Armenian equipment under the capes, which are perfectly visible in the video picture.

                      And where is it?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 14: 34
                        -4
                        Look in the news on VO: there was a video shot from the side of the BB, which dived into a tank trench, covered with something cloth, but quite distinguishable by the human eye from the surrounding area.

                        The feature of guided munitions with high-resolution video cameras and a communication channel is that a person directs the ammunition to the target, and not the GOS. And against the scrap (person) there is no reception (cape, foam, etc.)
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        And there is no reception against scrap (man)

                        Even as it is. In addition, a person is not as fast as electronics, and for his convenience it is necessary to reduce the speed of the ammunition, which greatly contributes to the convenience of air defense systems.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 14: 42
                        -6
                        The speed of the BB is limited by the speed of sound in air - 300 m / s. In addition, the speed for the human operator plays a role only when aiming at the last segment of the trajectory, but after capturing a target at a distance of several hundred meters, you can always switch to the automatic machine, which does not matter the speed of convergence.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        but after capturing the target

                        ... camouflage systems like RPMs or foam covers start to work great, greatly reducing the likelihood of being hit.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 14: 48
                        -7
                        I don’t know about you, but I can visually distinguish a BTT covered with a "cape" from any other item of natural or artificial origin.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        I don't know about you, but I can easily distinguish BTT,

                        On photos? When do you know for sure that there is a tank?
                        Well, naturally.

                        But in reality, everything is quite complicated.
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 14: 54
                        -7
                        Why in the photo - in the video, which is full since the beginning of the Karabakh war in 2020.

                        In 1973, for the first time in my life, I fired from an AKM at the shooting range of a training regiment as part of the school course of the NVP - I fulfilled the standard for good, despite my vision -1 without glasses (now my vision is normal). Maybe my eye is so special - shot? laughing
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2020 14: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        Why in the photo - in the video, which is full since the beginning of the Karabakh war in 2020.

                        Irrelevant. The main thing is that you know that the tank is there.
                      9. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 15: 06
                        -7
                        Not a tank, but some kind of target: MBT, self-propelled guns, cannon, air defense system, etc. At the same time, I do not know, but I suppose - from the video picture of the camouflage net, tarpaulin, cloak, the contours of the caponier, the message moves, the presence of a strong point as such, etc.

                        A human operator, especially a trained one, is a terrible force.
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2020 15: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        At the same time, I do not know, but I suppose - from the video picture of the camouflage net, tarpaulin, cloak, the contours of the caponier, the message moves, the presence of a strong point as such, etc.

                        It may be empty, only a corner reflector and a catalytic wick oven
                      11. Operator
                        Operator 26 October 2020 16: 55
                        -7
                        And to hell with them (corner reflector and catalytic heat source): the enemy will double-triple the consumption of penny BB, that's all.

                        To reveal false positions, there is a multispectral survey, which, in particular, can distinguish the trail of tank tracks to the caponier and give an assessment of what happened earlier - the entry of the tank into or out of the caponier.

                        In any case, after the start of the battle, all the actual positions of armored vehicles are revealed at once by the muzzle flame of tank guns, heating of the gun barrels and the soil in front of them.
                      12. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 27 October 2020 17: 42
                        0
                        In Afghanistan, I have seen it more than once when, before leaving for an operation, an armored personnel carrier was driven to puddles and the soldiers made mud on it. After which he no longer shone with paint, and from afar on the ground was completely lost. I think the foam and "cape" have wider possibilities than the dirt smeared on the armor and fully justify their use.
        3. Operator
          Operator 26 October 2020 22: 05
          -6
          From the moment of switching to automatic control (at the terminal section of the trajectory), the BB simply flies to the point indicated by the operator, without target / non-target recognition.
  8. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 26 October 2020 21: 34
    0
    Quote: Operator

    The feature of guided munitions with high-resolution video cameras and a communication channel is that a person directs the ammunition to the target, and not the GOS. And against the scrap (person) there is no reception (cape, foam, etc.)
    Apply camouflage equipment of a suitable level ...
    future camouflage net
    Camouflage network of the future. Article in the Zvezda weekly of April 14, 2016
  • Per se.
    Per se. 26 October 2020 11: 38
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Hey GABTU!


    Back in 2018, it was announced.
    Russian tanks will receive a unique thermal invisibility cap. It effectively protects combat vehicles from heat-seeking ammunition. The "hat" is installed on the engine-transmission compartment and distorts the infrared signature of combat vehicles. At the same time, it can be easily manufactured by ordinary repair units of a motorized rifle regiment. The novelty was developed by military engineers from the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School (MosVOKU).


    One KAZ, especially "simple and effective", is not a panacea. Probably, more attention will have to be paid to the complexes that interfere with the homing heads, and not only to their problematic shooting.

    Perhaps this is the same "Cape", complexes of heat traps, smoke grenades, noise generation.
    "Javelin" is initially aimed at the side projections of the target, before hitting the target, the missile makes a "slide", if they figure out how to deceive it on the "top view", there will also be an option.
    1. Operator
      Operator 26 October 2020 11: 40
      -5
      Quote: Per se
      . "Hat" .... "Cape", complexes of heat traps, smoke grenades, jamming

      Vanity of vanities - all-aspect KAZ is the head of everything.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 26 October 2020 11: 42
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        all-aspect KAZ head for everything
        One does not interfere with the other, if a good head and a decent backside.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2020 13: 38
      +4
      Quote: Per se.
      Perhaps this is the same "Cape", complexes of heat traps, smoke grenades, noise generation.

  • 113262a
    113262a 26 October 2020 08: 27
    +9
    At 14 I was literally KILLED by the stupidity of the use of armored vehicles by the command on both sides. Setting a combat mission-go, pokoshchmar, otherwise they interfere, and send ONE tank without reconnaissance and combat escort. Often they stupidly did not reach, either mines, or a rapier in my side!))) There were duels, but Soviet-trained crews worked on the campaign from both sides, almost immediately put their foreheads, fired back and dispersed. A lot of losses from art on the approach to the front end - or the Grad covered - even one tank was released half a packet each, or threw 120 mines. Yes, a mine - also penetrates the transmission! tank blind and deaf, it is!
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 26 October 2020 09: 22
      +1
      On "VO" there is an article "The choice of weapons in the confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan"
      Here is a part of my comment:
      "I read a new word in the article - mobile pillboxes ... A tank as a pillbox, but the pillbox has a powerful roof, and a standing tank is destroyed even by a mortar, even active defense will not help. The article is unsuccessful."
      Another "analyst" came up with a tank function. Armata will not be able to withstand mortar systems, especially since the rate of fire and accuracy have increased now. They are even capable of performing a multi-projectile system of simultaneous detonation, and this is the summation of the shock wave. Making Armata is money down the drain.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 October 2020 10: 45
      +2
      Quote: 113262
      At 14 I was literally KILLED by the stupidity of the use of armored vehicles by the command on both sides. Setting a combat mission-go, pokoshchmar, otherwise they interfere, and send ONE tank without reconnaissance and combat escort. Often they did not reach stupidly, either mines, or a rapier in my side!)))

      Hmmm ... and everything will repeat itself as of old ... ©
      1. In November, the 50th Infantry Division sent one T-26 tank of the 20th Tank Brigade with the task of "combing the forest", as a result the tank was knocked out by enemy fire. After clearing the forest from the enemy by the motorized rifle battalion of the 20th tank brigade, the tank was evacuated.
      2. The commander of the 151st motorized rifle brigade in October for a number of days scattered his entire tank battalion with separate tanks for unnecessary reconnaissance, combing the forest, etc., as a result, most of the tanks died from enemy guns, without inflicting losses on the enemy and not ensuring the execution tasks.

      © Reports and reports of the ABTU fronts, armies, formations and tank units on the hostilities for October 1941 - January 1942; descriptions and reviews of hostilities; combat and strength reports
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2020 13: 44
      +3
      Quote: 113262
      Setting a combat mission-go, pokoshchmar, otherwise they interfere, and send ONE tank without reconnaissance and combat escort. Often they did not reach stupidly, either mines, or a rapier in my side!))

      Voooot
      And then everything is "protection". "protection"....
      In fact, the main thing for a modern tank is high situational awareness.
      Everything else is secondary
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 27 October 2020 00: 23
        0
        "The main thing for a modern tank is high situational awareness." ///
        ----
        Wisely! The tank must know in advance when Harop will fly into the hatch of the tower.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 October 2020 17: 01
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Wisely! The tank must know in advance when Harop will fly into the hatch of the tower.

          Exactly.
          And defend against it. Disguising, moving, using defenses and terrain properties

          And with "Nagors" you can easily fight by destroying control points. Give a volley of MLRS batteries incendiary., Fry the area where the transmission is coming from ... 43 with a penny of a thousand incendiary submunitions weighing under 6 kg, equipped with pyrogels

          After several times, only suicides will be recruited into the operators.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 27 October 2020 17: 07
            0
            "Give a volley of MLRS battery incendiary" ///
            ----
            Exactly! How to burn a battery for 800-900 km ...
            What are you doing? laughing
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 October 2020 19: 17
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Exactly! How to burn a battery for 800-900 km ...

              laughing
              Are you sure they can control it at such a distance?
              I heard that the number there is much less. Moreover, even with the complete absence of electronic countermeasures.
              So they will get it.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 26 October 2020 09: 24
    -1
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    Of course, weapons systems must meet the challenges of the time. And a modern tank should be equipped with KAZ and TIUS. And most importantly, tanks going into battle must be supported from the air. UAVs for reconnaissance and target designation, attack UAVs, attack helicopters - all this is in the sky, and on the ground - tanks and mobile tactical groups of the MTR. And all this should be connected by a single ACS. This is the present and future of tanks ..
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 26 October 2020 09: 28
      -1
      You forgot about a nuclear strike to support "tanks going into battle", and even a MTR, a very fashionable abbreviation, terminator robots.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 26 October 2020 09: 38
        +4
        You forgot about a nuclear strike to support "tanks going into battle" ..

        A nuclear strike is the end, not the beginning ...
        Fortunately, leaders, unlike you, have enough understanding in this matter ...
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 26 October 2020 10: 09
          -3
          Quote: Doccor18
          A nuclear strike is the end, not the beginning ...

          For some it's definitely the end, but for some it's just the beginning soldier
        2. Konnick
          Konnick 26 October 2020 10: 32
          +2
          Luckily that's sarcasm fellow The concept of using tanks during the design, starting with the T-55 and ending with the T-80, assumed the protection of tanks from weapons of mass destruction, after the use of which the tanks went through the terrain, previously cleared of the enemy by tactical nuclear strikes. Modern conflicts have shown the need to create armored vehicles for urban battles, where a long-barreled gun with its flatness is not needed. Tanks with tanks should not fight. When a tank leaves for direct fire, it itself becomes a target for a variety of anti-tank systems. The war in Karabakh shows a new principle of hostilities, the main thing in this is to have information about the enemy and strike without entering into direct combat.
  • Xenofont
    Xenofont 26 October 2020 09: 33
    0
    The author's fantasies on the subject of Afghanite and KAZ in general are simply surprising. This topic is 7 seals and only people with high levels of tolerance can claim something. Hence, some of the conclusions are simply built on the sand.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 26 October 2020 09: 35
    0
    1 topical issue of modernization of T80, I have not heard anything, everyone is talking about T72 2 it is important to modernize the tanks of the battle group, reserves, otherwise why are they?
    3 my opinion is that a combat system is needed that combines both tanks and infantry, self-propelled guns, air defense formations, reb, etc. so it does not make much sense to consider only a tank separately, but it is clear that in a separate article it is not possible to consider the tactics and strategy of the entire army and videoconferencing immediately.
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 26 October 2020 10: 33
      +3
      Ad. 1) Tanks T-80 are now being upgraded to the level of T-80BVM


      https://topwar.ru/164249-minoborony-poluchilo-partiju-modernizirovannyh-tankov-t-80bvm.html
      https://topwar.ru/173055-bronetehnika-dlja-arktiki-osnovnoj-boevoj-tank-t-80bvm-idet-v-vojska.html
      https://topwar.ru/138277-t-80bvm-staryy-tank-s-novymi-vozmozhnostyami.html
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 26 October 2020 21: 31
        +1
        thank you, very glad, let them serve
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 26 October 2020 22: 03
          +1
          In my opinion, it was the best tank of its time - and by far the most impressive.
          It would be foolish not to modernize it - until you spoil it, like the Ukrainians of Oplot with a nightmarish quality of performance.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 27 October 2020 15: 22
            0
            I agree, you need to be careful about the technique, but I heard it is very fast, and it starts up very well in the north, although the view is almost t72,. I like our Russian tanks, they are light and creep on the ground, and not foreign freaks are angular and so heavy and oversized that I wonder what a stupid engineer came up with a tank that does not fit on a railway platform and sinks in a swamp ..... and sinks on a bridge. ...
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 26 October 2020 09: 56
    -9
    in the Azerbaijani army 760 tanks, including about 470 T-72 tanks, 200 T-90C

    And how did potential aggressors have 200 of the latest Russian tanks, while potential victims of aggression - none? Maybe the sellers of the military trade should release the goods according to the passport?
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 26 October 2020 10: 33
    +3
    Something about innovative tank protection (South Park):
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 26 October 2020 14: 59
      0
      Without Mrs. Garrison and the Masochist, the defense is incomplete. Saved. lol
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 26 October 2020 10: 38
    0
    A possible way out of the situation with the protection of the upper hemisphere would be an approach that, if I am not mistaken, is implemented in the protection of stationary silos with nuclear missiles. It uses a multi-barreled vertical system, stupidly creating a cloud of large co-directional striking elements at high speed - in the direction of the enemy weapon (missile). Perhaps in the case of a tank turret, it would be possible to create an analogue - with the development of a cartridge for this task.
    The issue of detecting a projectile from this direction is a much more difficult task, perhaps a lidar would be required to solve it .. but all this is pure hypothesis, brainstorming, so to speak ..

    As for the number of tanks - it seems to me that it is better for us to save on quantity - by choosing the option of greater quality and the cost of the freed up funds for improving informational support of tanks, designing UAVs and improving aviation. Tanks have a much deeper modernization potential than aviation, and judging by the last major wars, tanks are far from aviation in terms of damage. Now, unlike the USSR, we do not have epic offensive missions "if something happens" - therefore we rely more on the strategy of "unacceptable damage" to the enemy's infrastructure and manpower. For this concept, we do not have enough modern aviation, in which, among other things, a qualitative lag behind the enemy is also growing (the number and performance characteristics of modern US aircraft, the projected rates of production of the 5th generation aircraft of the PRC). Considering the qualitatively better and greater reconnaissance capabilities of the potential enemy, reducing the backlog in informing the troops about the tactical situation is also an important factor. Finally, the UAV, due to the incommensurability of their cost with the modern. tank and many moving targets for them - this is the direction we should look at, including for expanding the concept of unacceptable damage - at a lower cost.

    Considering that, with the exception of some Asian countries, there has been no qualitative modernization / sharp quantitative increase in the tank parks of our potential adversaries in recent decades, I probably would not be in a hurry to drive along this path.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 13: 01
      +2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      A possible way out of the situation with the protection of the upper hemisphere would be an approach that, if I am not mistaken, is implemented in the protection of stationary silos with nuclear missiles. It uses a multi-barreled vertical system that bluntly creates a cloud of large co-directional submunitions at high speed -

      Don't you really see the difference between a tank and a stationary bunker?
      At our technological level, such a thing cannot be piled on a tank.
      Here, in the next comment, it is not in vain that they write that even what they were able to do on the Armata are huge "birdhouses" absolutely vulnerable to any fragment or bullet.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 26 October 2020 18: 33
        0
        In the case of the protection of a mine-based complex, artillery barrels are used, which is due to the high kinetic energy required to intercept the object. In the case of a tank turret, it would be enough to accumulate bucket-casts (one-time use can even be used), structurally arranged so as to spit out a counter-charge towards the missile on a signal from a radar or lidar. I don't see any fundamental complexity or loudness in this scheme, because the accumulation of grape-shoots can be made removable and the radar-lidar integrated. The task of this system would be to intercept missiles from UAVs, therefore, the required power of the striking elements for kinetic interception would be an order of magnitude less than the power required for KAZs.
        The weight and size characteristics of such a system also do not seem to me to be something supernatural, because the product does not require a good shooting distance or high accuracy - it is enough to create a cloud of polyethylene with a high initial velocity and direction. This is far more feasible than integrated lasers and a surgical precision automatic cannon, and far easier than booking a roof.
        Z. I imagine this in the form of some kind of a thick removable rug - several rugs with cavities-card holders with a depth of thumb. The question of the theoretical effectiveness of such a system is the lot of specialists, for me this is the most obvious concept.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 19: 29
          +1
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          I imagine it as some kind of a thick removable rug - several rugs with cavities - card holders with a thumb deep

          And I imagine it as the same KAZ that closes the side projections. Both the size of the grapeshot and the size of the "birdhouse" with antennas and optics can be estimated from those already in service. The tank looks like a fireworks mortar. And all this works until the first hit, because all these antennas and sensors will be blown away by the slightest nearest explosion. Why is there an explosion, just shoot it with a rifle (you can google about the Abrams shot down from a machine gun).
          Yes, the tank will have to spend not one, but two charges. If there is a tandem ammunition for a grenade launcher, it is even easier to make the same for a UAV. Well, it will become a little more expensive. But the killed tank will become much more expensive and much stronger.
          What is war? - one of the ways to inflict damage on an opponent with minimal damage to yourself.
          Consider, without even shooting, you have already caused damage by forcing to spend a million, and you yourself spent a thousand.
  • iouris
    iouris 26 October 2020 11: 24
    +1
    The concepts "in modern conditions" as well as "modern war" are used by "domestic authors" completely thoughtlessly. You have not fit into the "modern conditions", and therefore the "modern war" has already been lost. Get ready for a future war and seize the moment. Do not catch up, but run across the path.
    What kind of Russian tanks did the Armenian Armed Forces need in the "modern war"?
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 11: 46
      -2
      Quote: iouris
      What kind of Russian tanks did the Armenian Armed Forces need in the "modern war"?

      There is a very specific theater of operations. I think Sprut-SD would show itself well. High mobility, high firepower. That is what is needed against sabotage reconnaissance groups, namely they are fighting there. Due to mobility, it is possible to protect against UAVs, you do not need to constantly keep in position, pushing it out only if necessary, and positions can be changed more often.
      But here is the question of the qualifications of the Armenian officers.
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 26 October 2020 12: 17
        +3
        Sprut-SD will be the next target for UAVs or ATMs. And how is it known about DRG? What exactly are they fighting there? Why are they needed there, but Armenia needs them, but not the Azerbaijani army. The Azerbaijanis already have information from the UAVs, which point the artoa at the targets. With an anti-tank gun against the DRG? Against the DRG, the BTR70, with which the border troops of Azerbaijan are armed, will be enough.
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 12: 46
        +1
        Octopus would burn in the same way, even brighter, because the protection is "cardboard".
        Application tactics are where to start. And in defense, ordinary bunkers, with a competent organization, could be more useful, put a cannon in it, in a neighboring anti-aircraft gun, hang an air reconnaissance and air interceptor on top, organize an anti-jamming instant communication,
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 13: 00
          -2
          Defense alone cannot win a war, we need counter attacks. It is necessary to take into account the theater of operations. Either DRGs or small detachments with 3-4 armored vehicles are fighting there. Maneuverability and speed are important for these units. Battles are short, if protracted skirmishes begin, artillery covers everyone. In general, wheeled tanks would be better suited, but we don't have them. And the question was which of our arsenal would fit.
      3. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 26 October 2020 19: 03
        +3
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        That is what is needed against sabotage reconnaissance groups, namely they are fighting there

        A 125mm cannon firing with uranium crowbars is useless against DRGs.
    2. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 31 October 2020 21: 50
      0
      Quote: iouris
      What kind of Russian tanks did the Armenian Armed Forces need in the "modern war"?


      Inflatable. It is not joke. It was necessary to have many, many plausible imitators to have a wide variety of techniques. And even open imitators in positions can always try to secretly substitute real technique.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 26 October 2020 12: 13
    0
    Do you need or do not need tanks in modern warfare? The question is answered unequivocally: they are needed.

    Some kind of contradictory thesis turns out. The Americans brought 7 times fewer tanks to the second Iraqi campaign than to the first, and this did not stop them. In the Donbass, judging by the article, tanks did not play a big role and died rather stupidly. In Karabakh, the story is the same: the effectiveness of tanks is questionable, losses are great. There is also a new fashion for shock UAVs, which, as it turned out, a modern tank cannot really oppose anything. With all this, it is argued that tanks are very, very necessary. Either I read inattentively, or did not understand anything (
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 12: 45
      -1
      Rather, that the time of "tank wedges" is gone, the tactics of using tanks have changed. They turned into infantry fire support vehicles.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 16: 24
        +1
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        the time of "tank wedges" is gone

        Tank wedges were successful only with complete air supremacy.
        The tank is just one of the,.
        The infantry takes the cities, the rest support - tanks, planes, artillery, diplomats, the media ...
        And if at least one thing you don't have, that's it, you're killed.
      2. nonsense
        nonsense 26 October 2020 20: 20
        +1
        they have never ceased to be these same BM of infantry fire support - since their inception. It's just that the infantry, after receiving its "own" order of the BMP, itself became able to "hammer" these same "wedges" with no less efficiency than tanks ...
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 14: 03
      +1
      Quote: Kalmar
      shock UAVs, which, as it turned out, a modern tank cannot really oppose anything. With all this, it is argued that tanks are very, very necessary. Either I read inattentively, or did not understand anything (

      And what can / could a tank oppose to an aircraft, helicopter, MLRS?
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 26 October 2020 12: 42
    +3
    There are many words
    What I understood:
    - Different tanks are needed for different types of combat.
    For a breakthrough in the field some, for defense in the mountains others, for the city in general, completely different.
    - for a war on an equal footing with a strong enemy, it is necessary to catch up with them in technologies - information awareness of the crew, exchange of information with the commander and neighbors, interaction with other types of troops ...
    - to increase the security of each tank - multilayer armor, active armor, screens, KAZs in all directions, incl. up. Here, however, there are restrictions, you can turn a tank into a bunker, but then he will not be able to go either.
    - tactics of application, necessarily an integrated approach, one is not a warrior in the field. Be sure to have your own reconnaissance aircraft, be sure to have your own air defense from the ground, be sure to cover from the air, no matter the plane or UAV.

    There is no wunderwafele for all occasions.
    And yes, you have to come to terms with the fact that the tank is still just a consumable. Even the "death star" can be killed if wisely.
  • nonsense
    nonsense 26 October 2020 14: 19
    +1
    IMHO first of all it is necessary to improve interaction at the lower tactical level between tanks-infantry-sappers-air defense-electronic warfare. Those. tank (mechanized - purely tank is simply not needed) subunits (battalions) should be "overgrown" with platoons a) reconnaissance (BRDMs in the full sense of the word, not BRDM-2); b) air defense (also with real air defense and target designation for arming the covered tanks), and not carriers of MANPADS shooters; c) WIS (with means of transportation and quick installation on tanks of attached engineering equipment and camouflage means).
    Well, the tanks of domestic production themselves are quite realistic to equip removable modules for different purposes in the rear niche of the turret. It is possible to install modules with weapons (machine-gun-grenade-launcher-cannon (MZA)) or with electronic warfare equipment. Depending on the task to be performed in scientifically based proportions.
    PS: by the way, here the author came up with the idea of ​​reducing ammunition when switching to a 152mm tank gun. So even now, smart people, in addition to ammunition in the automatic loader, try not to load additionally into tanks. - Explosive / fire-dangerous. Those. 22-28 shots. IMHO with this approach and in the case of the 152mm gun, the ammunition will decrease slightly ... In this regard, it would be nice to facilitate the loading of ammunition into the tank. - For example, move the fighting compartment to the stern instead of the power compartment - it will become possible to load ammunition into the AZ through the rear armored door without the crew's acrobatic sketches ...
  • dgonni
    dgonni 26 October 2020 16: 24
    0
    In what I completely agree with the author. So this is with the fact that it is already necessary to decide on the main tank and the fact that there should be tanks of the same type in the combat half-units. And not the zoo that exists at the moment.
    Armata is a matter of long-term perspective, but what is in service in units must be modern, based on one platform and be unified.
  • csm
    csm 26 October 2020 17: 49
    0
    The article is good, one cannot but agree with the author.
    The future belongs to the digital board.
    You could also add about the advantage of the IMS in providing the easiest modernization in terms of an open network architecture.
  • Just a Traveler
    Just a Traveler 26 October 2020 18: 25
    -1
    Fuck these tanks - a waste of taxpayer money!
    Grandmas stand up to the sky, and like an armed conflict they burn them without measure without problems.
    Money down the drain .... tankers are all suicide bombers.
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 26 October 2020 20: 16
      +1
      laughing and what instead of tanks? without armored vehicles at all? with a bare belly on machine guns?
      1. Just a Traveler
        Just a Traveler 27 October 2020 12: 14
        -1
        xs .... let military analysts offer options based on modern concepts!
        Just throwing folk grandmothers to the wind is not an option at all.
  • Radapupin
    Radapupin 26 October 2020 20: 38
    -1
    Air force + self-propelled guns + drones and all tanks in the past.
    1. Reiter
      Reiter 27 October 2020 12: 35
      0
      Tanks are still needed, it's like a stone, paper scissors, only drones have been added to the modern configuration. But due to the fact that drones easily destroy not only tanks but also infantry and radar stations and cars, we will not give up all this. You just need to get overwhelmed and develop air defense so that the ability to effectively resist UAVs appears. At one time, attack helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft became a new threat, but now they have already learned to deal with this, MANPADS and Tunguska-like installations have appeared. So it will be in the end and the UAV. And tanks are front-line artillery, protected by a large-caliber sniper. By itself, it will not win the war, but it will play its role. Yes, and in an attack, covered by long-range artillery and air defense aircraft, he will be able to play a role together with the infantry, causing fire on himself and thus identifying points of enemy resistance.
      1. UFO
        UFO 9 November 2020 15: 29
        0
        [/ quote] And tanks are the artillery of the front line [quote]
        The front line belongs to the generals of past wars. Today the speed and range of drones are the same as those of missiles (an example of a drone torpedo delivered by a rocket). Therefore, the region is almost the whole country. All tank ammunition can be loaded on drones cheaper and they solve all problems. The infantry can only check the quality of the drones' clearance of the territory. Therefore, it is high time to throw planes, submarines and even more so tanks into the trash heap of the history of past wars. Future wars are drone-AI wars. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to build ground, air and sea-based drone carriers and catch up with Turkey.
        1. Reiter
          Reiter 10 November 2020 20: 08
          0
          Nothing of the kind, just another stage in the fight between sword and shield. Drones, rather weak and weak structures for us today, are only small in size. The next stage, energy armor, lasers as protection against all kinds of missiles, kamikaze drones, etc. if a tank is a protected, powerful energy station for powerful lasers that provide protection against all kinds of flying ammunition in the near zone, then it is not a task and in the future it will break through the resistance line causing fire on itself, thereby detecting the opposing forces of the enemy, unmasking them for application hitting them with other types of equipment.
  • balabol
    balabol 26 October 2020 22: 13
    +1
    It is very interesting to discuss technology, but this is a tool, well, or one of the tools of war. What war are you preparing for? For tasks and choose a tool. It is clear that there is a trivial maxim, they say, we are preparing for the last war, but this is not a productive answer. Apparently, the winner will be the one whose forecast is more accurate, or he will be able to lead the conflict according to his own scenario, having prepared the optimal set of "tools". The question is: with whom, where and in what situation the discussed technique will most likely be used?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 27 October 2020 18: 02
    0
    In terms of the security of the tank, the separation is mainly due to the installation of the KAZ "Afganit", but the declared characteristics for intercepting the BOPS on these tank samples are hardly achieved. The use of advanced radar and infrared systems solved the problem of fixing and calculating the meeting point of an approaching projectile (ATGM) and fired ammunition. But the task of its guaranteed destruction has not been solved, for this we need fundamentally new damaging ammunition, they are not yet available.
    For the declared defeat of BOPS, according to experts, a fundamentally different damaging ammunition of the "shock core" type with a given flight path is required ........................
    It seems that the author did not really read about the KAZ "Afghanit". The striking element of this system is precisely the "shock core" and it is fired not from mortars that are firmly fixed on the turret, but from a submunition that is fired off by these mortars. That is, first, a submunition is fired from the mortar towards the threat, and already from it (moreover, sideways from its trajectory) a "shock core" is fired into the incoming projectile (missile) of the enemy.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 27 October 2020 22: 26
    +1
    Armata ”has one indisputable advantage - the presence of a tank information and control system, making it a network-centric tank, capable of interacting with other tanks and military branches in the process of network-centric combat.


    What is the use of a tank BIUS, which can possibly somehow "interface" with something, if all the rest of the equipment in service with our army has nothing "can be interfaced with" ...
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 27 October 2020 23: 46
      0
      Quote: SovAr238A
      What is the use of a tank BIUS, which can possibly somehow "interface" with something, if all the rest of the equipment in service with our army has nothing "can be interfaced with" ...

      Nothing can appear in the troops instantly. Where to start. We started with "Armata" and, I think, it will also work on new equipment such as "Boomerang" and "Kurganets". And then, the turn will come to the old technique.
  • Generator Systems
    Generator Systems 31 October 2020 13: 02
    0
    Flying
    1. iouris
      iouris 1 November 2020 00: 09
      0
      As you name the tank, so it will fly.
  • Andron59
    Andron59 3 November 2020 22: 57
    0
    It is foolish to consider a single tank in isolation from the entire army with echeloned air defense.
  • Grif
    Grif 28 November 2020 23: 47
    0
    The T-54 can also carry out the enemy's fortifications. The main condition is air supremacy.