What is behind the hype around the Shturm robotic tank

62

Source: youtube.com

At the end of May, there were reports that UVZ began to create the first prototypes of a heavy shock robotic tank "Storm" intended for combat in the city. The complex will include robotic tanks with various combat modules and a mobile control center for combat vehicles of the complex, all vehicles of the complex are supposed to be built on the chassis of the T-72B3 tank, and Uralvagonzavod will be the head of the complex.

The main purpose of the "Shturm" complex is to identify and suppress long-term firing points, to destroy enemy manpower, primarily anti-tank crews, which pose a particular danger to armored vehicles during combat operations in urban areas.



The combat modules of the tank will include a 125-mm shortened cannon of reduced ballistics, blocks of Shmel-M flamethrowers, paired 30-mm automatic cannons, blocks of 220-mm thermobaric unguided rockets TOS "Solntsepek". At the same time, the tank must have a high level of protection against enemy anti-tank weapons.

The initiator of the statements about the development of the Shturm tank, distributed by many publications, is the same person - the military expert Murakhovsky, who claims that

“All machines of the Shturm robotic complex are designed for action on the front line, both directly in battle formations and autonomously ...
In an offensive, heavy-class attack RTKs are planned to be used as an advanced echelon of battle formation, for reconnaissance in force, as a means of fire support during combat in urbanized areas, in dense infrastructure buildings. "

That is, he believes that the Shturm tank is intended not only for military operations in urban areas, but also in the advanced echelons of battle formation, and this raises many questions.

According to the expert, heavy-class RTKs will become one of the elements of a set of weapons for the Ground Forces, which will appear in the near future, and the creation of so-called "robotic" companies in the combined-arms formations of the Ground Forces is already predicted, which will facilitate the introduction of forms and methods of combat into the practice of combat training of troops application of robotic systems.

These statements give the impression that the tank has already been created and it remains only to work out the mechanisms of its use. Far from it. And such dashing statements must be treated rather carefully so that it does not happen, as with the Armata tank, according to which, since 2015, the fifth deadline for its adoption into service has been named - 2022. It should be noted that since Soviet times, Murakhovsky's statements have always been distinguished, to put it mildly, in their bias: everything that was developed at UVZ is ingenious, is beyond doubt and should be introduced into the troops. The expert should still try to objectively evaluate the material and be more critical of his statements.

How the Shturm tank appeared


According to Murakhovsky, in 2018, research was carried out to create a system of robotic systems for the Ground Forces. Based on the results of research and development, it was found expedient to use the already tested weapon options (ammunition for the Shmel-M flamethrower, 30-mm automatic cannons, 220 mm thermobaric ammunition TOS "Solntsepek"), create an assault weapon of moderate ballistics with a shortened barrel and work out a version with a 152 mm gun ... Based on the results of the research work, the ROC "Shturm" was set, the lead contractor was "Uralvagonzavod" and the T-72 tank was chosen as the platform. The director of UVZ unexpectedly announced the creation of a robotic complex in the same 2018 based on the T-72.

At the end of 2019, reports appeared that in 2020 R&D will begin to create a robotic tank complex of the heavy class "Shturm" based on the chassis of the T-72B3 tank. At the same time, a discussion was launched on the VO website about the possibility and necessity of creating such a tank and about its technical appearance.

According to the proposals of 2019, UVZ planned to develop a family of four machines: with a 125 mm or 152 mm cannon, with blocks of launchers for Shmel-M rocket-throwers, with two 30-mm automatic cannons and blocks for launchers for Shmel-M "(Continuation of the development of the BMPT" Terminator ", which for more than twenty years has not been able to attach somewhere), as well as with blocks of launchers of 220 mm thermobaric ammunition TOS" Solntsepek ". With this approach, it was supposed to have four vehicles with different weapons, which is clearly expensive for industry and the army.

In 2021, we are talking about one machine with different combat modules and only for warfare in the city, although Marakhovsky claims that this machine can have a wide range of applications.

Why you need such a tank and the requirements for it


In urban combat conditions, the tank is easily vulnerable, since it has poor protection against melee anti-tank weapons, lack of visibility, limited cross-country ability in urban blockages, and does not have effective means of engaging manpower and anti-tank weapons calculations. The most vulnerable point is the lack of reliable protection in the upper hemisphere, since the tank can be attacked from any angle. Due to the high probability of hitting the tank, it is advisable to remove the most valuable thing from it - the crew, and make it remotely controlled.

When creating a robotic tank, two sets of tasks must be solved at once: the first is to create a well-protected tank with the necessary set of weapons, and the second is to equip it with remote control systems.

For three years of discussions on this tank, everything has been considered, except for the main problem - how and with what it will be protected. Without this, no robotic innovation will save the machine. Reliable protection in the upper hemisphere is the main task of the tank designer. Apparently, there is no good solution and it will have to be looked for in a combination of armor, dynamic and active protection.

In terms of armament, the use of ammunition of various calibers is surprising: 90 mm for Shmel-M missiles, 125 mm for the main cannon, 220 mm for Solntsepek thermobaric missiles, isn't it too much for one vehicle?

All the more surprising is the placement of unprotected and explosive missiles "Shmel-M" and "Solntsepek" outside the tank. If the enemy hits this ammunition, nothing will remain from the tank. For example, TPS "Solntsepek" is not weapons the battlefield, it is easily vulnerable to anti-tank systems and grenade launchers, as a result of which it goes in the second echelon and, under the cover of tanks, provides fire support for the attackers.

It would probably be advisable to place the missiles in the reserved volume, as it was customary at one time in the development of guided tank armament. This requires modifications of the Shmel-M and Solntsepek missiles in 125 mm caliber, with their placement in the automatic loader's ammunition rack and launching through the gun barrel, which is already done with the Reflex guided missile and its modifications, especially for this no high ballistics cannon needed. In addition, the shortened cannon for close range operations in urban areas and rubble provides good mobility for the tank.

In order to increase the all-aspect effective fire from the tank, the installation of a combat module on the tower with a horizontal and vertical decoupling from the tower with 30 mm automatic cannons or a cannon and a machine gun with an elevation angle of about 70 degrees to combat targets in multi-storey buildings suggests itself.

The use, as previously predicted, of the T-72B3 fighting compartment does not make much sense. All attempts to treat the MSA of this "humpbacked" did not lead to anything good, it turned out some kind of heap of devices and systems without much success in terms of the effectiveness of firing. The most promising base of sighting complexes T-90, inherited from the T-80UD. To replace these sighting systems for the T-90M, the Sosna-U fire control system and a panorama of the Sokoliniy eye commander developed by the Peleng Belarusian Central Design Bureau, on the basis of which the Armata tank fire control system has probably been developed, is already planned, there is nothing fundamentally new so far.

Robotic Tank Systems


To solve the problems of the robotic complex, the tank must be equipped with remote control systems for movement, fire and interaction. This requires the introduction of technical means for detecting, identifying and capturing targets on the tank, inertial and satellite systems for determining the location of the tank, protected and high-speed communication channels, systems for ensuring automatic movement with terrain assessment and the ability to overcome obstacles operating on various physical principles.

To ensure visibility, the tank needs intelligent "eyes" - a system of all-aspect volumetric video image of the battlefield picture: "a look at the tank from the outside", an integrated image formed according to special algorithms from various observation means, which contributes to an adequate assessment of the situation.

A primitive arrangement of video cameras around the perimeter of a car will never solve this problem. The generated picture using secure video transmission channels must be transmitted to the control center for decision-making. Robotic systems are not created by the developers of the tank, but by specialized enterprises; it is impossible to create a robotic tank without joining the efforts of these enterprises.

On which base to create a tank


The development of a robotic tank can go in two directions: a deep modernization of the existing generation of tanks, equipping them with the necessary means for remote control and the development of a fundamentally new family of tanks.

Initially, work on the Shturm tank was supposed to be built on the basis of the T-72B3 chassis, now they are talking about the chassis of the T-72 and T-90 family of tanks. This is quite reasonable, in the army and at storage bases of thousands of T-72 tanks of various modifications, and it can be used as a base chassis. At the same time, the tower, most likely, will be different, since a set of weapons, security requirements and the absence of a crew will require a complete re-arrangement of the fighting compartment.

The chassis will require good protection and high power of the power plant, since the tank, taking into account the requirements imposed, will certainly be of a large mass. We will have to save the driver's seat as a technological one, since it will be required during transportation, loading and maintenance of the tank.

From the point of view of ensuring cross-country ability in urban blockages, the tank will not need a primitive dump drawn in the pictures of the Shturm tank, which is almost a hundred years old, but the development of fundamentally new mechanisms and systems for clearing passages in the blockages.

The second direction is a promising heavy robotic complex and it can be created on the basis of the Armata tank, especially since on this tank almost everything has already been laid in terms of remote control of the vehicle.

The modernized and new tanks should use unified elements of the remote control system for movement, fire and interaction of tanks, being developed as part of the network-centric combat control system of the tactical link "Constellation M", which is under development, and for which there are still a lot of unresolved problems.

The robotic tank "Shturm" is planned to be created for warfare in urban agglomeration. It can, of course, be used for other purposes as well - reconnaissance of the enemy's defenses in action, work from ambushes, as a means of fire support, barrage of the offensive zone, suppression of enemy resistance nodes, and evacuation of damaged equipment.

At the same time, not all military personnel consider it correct to introduce a robotic tank into the troops, since in terms of its firepower it does not surpass crewed vehicles and does not provide obvious advantages, but it will be expensive. In addition, such tanks need to be serviced, refueled, sheltered, repaired and transported to the place of use, and this requires people.

In this regard, the creation in the near future of "robotic tank companies" looks clearly far-fetched, not supported either by the corresponding state of the development of the tank and robotic systems, or by the necessary organizational and structural measures in the army. Apparently, a robotic tank is not needed in the army in large quantities, but as a means for use in specific operations.

The development and use of a robotic tank in the army requires a special study, the definition of the tasks to be solved, the place in the battle formations, the tactics of use and, in accordance with this, the justification of its main tactical and technical characteristics.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -6
    8 June 2021 05: 15
    Some kind of grumbling.
    Why is it bad to create a combat robot, well protected and heavily armed, certainly better than cardboard "Uranus". Moreover, on a ready-made chassis, of which there are many hundreds, if not thousands, and even the military feel sorry for putting live crews there. Missiles with 125 mm guns do not need to be bulky.
    1. +12
      8 June 2021 05: 25
      Bad in cost and the lack of a printing press in our country as in the United States.
      It is necessary to add a bunch of electronics to the tank and protection is better than that of a tank with a crew (about this in the article).
      It is not easier then to make less protected wedges, but cheap, easy-to-manufacture, modular electronics suitable for many tasks. Take by quantity.
      1. +4
        8 June 2021 05: 34
        Quote: Login_Off
        It is not easier then to make less protected wedges, but cheap, easy-to-manufacture, modular electronics suitable for many tasks. Take by quantity.

        Once again, I will point out that the chassis is already there and a LOT. And the electronics, what is there, what will cost the same, so what is better, electronics well-covered with armor or poorly covered?


        Quote: Login_Off
        It is necessary to add a bunch of electronics to the tank and protection is better than that of a tank with a crew (about this in the article).

        And the tanks have weak protection in the upper hemisphere, and in the absence of a crew, it is much easier to strengthen it due to the screens, because the hatches will not need to be opened. Well, without a crew, the volumes for electronics will be released.
        1. +15
          8 June 2021 07: 00
          Once again, I will point out that the chassis is already there and a LOT.

          What's the point? In general, the author is right about one thing - the electronics will not be made by a tank factory. And the idea with this robot looks like this "Give us an anti-gravity engine, and we will build such a tank for you, you will download it." Yes, Christmas trees, sticks, as if it were so simple to blind technical vision with recognition, reflexes, brains. In short, a tanker. Yes, this steel box is so small compared to the main volume of work that has not yet been done.
          It's like buying electronics, mechanics and batteries for 50 thousand on Ali-express, cutting the body out of Russian styrofoam and proudly declaring "I made a drone-model of an airplane myself"
          1. 0
            8 June 2021 07: 26
            Quote: dauria
            Yes, Christmas trees, sticks, as if it were so simple to blind technical vision with recognition, reflexes, brains. In short, a tanker. Yes, here this steel box is so small compared to the main volume of work that has not yet been done.
            There is a cardboard "Uranus", albeit not with such functionality that you painted, so what prevents its filling in the T-72 to stick?
            1. 0
              9 June 2021 14: 35
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: dauria
              Yes, Christmas trees, sticks, as if it were so simple to blind technical vision with recognition, reflexes, brains. In short, a tanker. Yes, here this steel box is so small compared to the main volume of work that has not yet been done.
              There is a cardboard "Uranus", albeit not with such functionality that you painted, so what prevents its filling in the T-72 to stick?


              It interferes with the fact that the filling of Uranus is very fluid ...

              Since nothing but remote control, which even at a distance of up to 500 meters from the operator, manages to "hang" ...

              Uranus is a complete failure.
              1. -1
                9 June 2021 16: 51
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Since nothing but remote control, which even at a distance of up to 500 meters from the operator, manages to "hang" ...
                Uranus is a complete failure.
                Yes, and where does the information come from?
                1. +1
                  9 June 2021 20: 25
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Since nothing but remote control, which even at a distance of up to 500 meters from the operator, manages to "hang" ...
                  Uranus is a complete failure.
                  Yes, and where does the information come from?

                  From there.
                  From one report.
                  I wrote about this several months ago, indicating the place of the conference, participants, etc.
                  Believe me, this is not a civic conference at all.
                  1. +1
                    10 June 2021 23: 00
                    by no means all the military consider it correct to introduce a robotic tank into the troops, since in terms of its firepower it does not surpass crew vehicles and does not give clear advantages

                    That is, the ability to send equipment into battle without risking crews does not seem to someone an advantage?
                    Is this incompetence or a crime?
                    (C)
      2. 0
        9 June 2021 17: 31
        During the storming of Berlin, heavy direct-fire guns were used to destroy houses. But then the defenders had a maximum of machine guns and faust cartridges, now they have ATGMs. Here, it seems to me, we are talking about a thing that can drive around the corner under fire and zhahnat direct fire "over there in that house", drive back, recharge and zhahnut again. Here, a highly intelligent system is not needed, but the ability to withstand an RPG or ATGM with the forehead
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. -1
        10 June 2021 15: 07
        Quote: Login_Off
        It is not easier then to make less protected wedges, but cheap, easy-to-manufacture, modular electronics suitable for many tasks. Take by quantity.


        Somehow
    2. -6
      8 June 2021 05: 32
      And the whole point is that Apukhtin is a representative of the industry, and, in my opinion, also the Ukrainian one. For clearly "drowns" for all sorts of nishtyaki from KhTZ (hence the poorly concealed hatred of UVZ).
      But Murakhovsky is a real expert, for he is a tank officer who, during his service, dealt with the entire triad of our main tanks: T-64, T-72, T-80. And he spoke extremely negatively about the Kharkov product against the background of other cars.
      Because - yes, this is exactly the grumbling from the author.
      1. +1
        8 June 2021 05: 38
        Quote: Turist1996
        And the whole point is that Apukhtin is a representative of the industry, and, in my opinion, also the Ukrainian one. For clearly "drowns" for all sorts of nishtyaki from KhTZ (hence the poorly concealed hatred of UVZ).

        Even how? But when you write about a clear promotion or vice versa, rottenness of some products, directions, concepts, the authors are offended in an illusory way.
      2. +2
        8 June 2021 17: 47
        Quote: Turist1996
        Apukhtin is a representative of the industry, and, in my opinion, also of the Ukrainian

        Right. Only SOVIET. In modern Ukraine, he managed to sit for his views and now lives in Russia. What drowns against UVZ - well, he is a representative of the Kharkiv design bureau (but not a modern one), he drowns reasonably, IMHO. Robots are, of course, gut, but as a result of their work in Syria, something was silenced about them. I was also surprised that the author wrote only about the tank aspect of the problem. But what about electronic warfare? If the enemy is stronger than the flea ones (and this is going on), then the control channels will be clogged and suppressed, all this beauty will rise. Again, IMHO, but robots are a kind of trend that has been caught by the developers of everything: aircraft, tanks. And for this business, apparently, it is easier to get funding.
      3. +2
        9 June 2021 14: 37
        Quote: Turist1996
        And the whole point is that Apukhtin is a representative of the industry, and, in my opinion, also the Ukrainian one. For clearly "drowns" for all sorts of nishtyaki from KhTZ (hence the poorly concealed hatred of UVZ).
        But Murakhovsky is a real expert, for he is a tank officer who, during his service, dealt with the entire triad of our main tanks: T-64, T-72, T-80. And he spoke extremely negatively about the Kharkov product against the background of other cars.
        Because - yes, this is exactly the grumbling from the author.


        Murakhovsky - a tanker, he still needs to become a systems engineer, with experience in the development and implementation of technical vision systems and an architect of algorithms ...

        Only after that, it will be possible to hear something from him on the topic of robotic complexes.

        Now, Murakhovsky is at about zero in robotics.
    3. +3
      9 June 2021 00: 26
      This is never any robot because its autonomy is round zero. It's just a radio-controlled tank
      1. 0
        9 June 2021 02: 58
        Quote: Klingon
        This is never any robot because its autonomy is round zero. It's just a radio-controlled tank

        The question of terminology, well, with the task "Drive to the intersection, unfigach the specified house and step back" I think such a car will cope without a radio with wires.
        1. +5
          9 June 2021 14: 44
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Klingon
          This is never any robot because its autonomy is round zero. It's just a radio-controlled tank

          The question of terminology, well, with the task "Drive to the intersection, unfigach the specified house and step back" I think such a car will cope without a radio with wires.


          Oh well...
          now explain to the world of "zeros and ones" - what is an intersection, what is a house, what is to get there, what is to leave ...

          At the same time, ask how self-driving cars work, what subsystems are divided into, and what is the final layout.
          And the task of creating an unmanned vehicle is actually a couple of orders of magnitude easier than creating an unmanned tank ...
          1. +1
            9 June 2021 16: 46
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Oh well...
            now explain to the world of "zeros and ones" - what is an intersection, what is a house, what is to get there, what is to leave ...
            And that the loaded map in combination with the navigation system will not allow you to operate a car with an increased cross-country ability, while the operator will set the route and the order of actions? And what is a "move away" any slighly complex drone is able to "understand", albeit by GPS, but probably something more complicated on a combat robot, such as an inertial system.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            At the same time, ask how self-driving cars work, what subsystems are divided into, and what is the final layout.
            And the task of creating an unmanned vehicle is actually a couple of orders of magnitude easier than creating an unmanned tank ...
            Lyalyal, it is enough for a modern combat robot to act from the operator at a distance of several hundred meters, and I'm not talking about remote control, I'm talking about simple tasks set using a tablet connected via a connector, for example.
  2. +6
    8 June 2021 05: 51
    It is probably effective to use "Armata" as a platform, but expensive, the "Armata" robot will be 100% more expensive than the crew version, and the security will not be ideal anyway. In my opinion, it is much more correct to use the T-72 platform (with a turret! And practically free). The idea expressed by the author about the need to develop standardized ammunition is sensible and I agree with it, but using the existing automated ammunition rack (and why abandon the standard turret?), The use of standard Bumblebees and other types of portable weapons is better, in my opinion, on lightweight robotic platforms. "LMS" you don't want to "but you need a new one. Any other useful gadgets - machine guns on columns, remote sensing / KAZs, all kinds of subdrones, manipulators, of course, are needed and should be introduced as they appear.
    1. +12
      8 June 2021 07: 16
      The fact is that various types of ammunition have long been developed for a 125mm tank gun. At the training camp in the late 2000s, they showed us an assault guided missile with a thermobaric warhead and a non-motorized guided munition of increased power. But for some reason, they still do not go into the series. Why, I do not know.
      So it is absolutely not required to fence gardens with the installation of "Bumblebees" and "Solntsepёkov" on the tower. There is already ammunition in the existing caliber. But then the development of a new tower is unnecessary. And this is a loss of dough for R&D, R&D, etc. that's the whole answer.
      1. +2
        8 June 2021 09: 10
        I agree - briefly and specifically.
      2. +3
        8 June 2021 12: 26
        Quote: Old Tankman
        And this is a loss of dough for R&D, R&D, etc. that's the whole answer.
        This unit, which was called "Storm", is more suitable for assault means. Even during the war, the Germans created the likeness of robots, for example, the remote-controlled tankette mine "Goliath".

        The tankette turned out to be expensive, low-speed, weakly protected, but at least it is a specialized self-propelled mine, especially a squat, small-sized one.

        What can a weakly protected "Shturm" do with a "body kit" of cannons and missiles, and with control and observation units sticking out over the top of the tower, is a big question. Here, a self-propelled unmanned robot demolition, such as the improved "Goliath", and even more so "assault guided missile", it seems more reasonable to have.
  3. +3
    8 June 2021 05: 59
    ".... I blinded you out of what was ..."
    The author is right, hanging everything on the tank is superfluous, in close combat even the cannon gets it, it also needs to be protected by armor, and the mounted Solntsepek is nonsense.
  4. sen
    +4
    8 June 2021 07: 31
    It may be better to shoot from closed positions with guided missiles at the Solntsepek base, using forward gunners or UAVs for guidance. Control by laser beam or even wire.
    1. +7
      8 June 2021 07: 53
      It may be better to shoot from closed positions with guided missiles at the Solntsepek base

      Of course, it's better to have the information you need. An assault robotic tank will either be immobilized or destroyed in the very first minutes of close combat if the enemy has the appropriate weapon. The same dead robotic bank will become another obstacle to advancement. It is better to have reconnaissance mini-equipment and, accordingly, hit targets with high-precision fire from afar without the enemy's opposition to this fire, and not directly in contact.
      It's just that UralVagonZavod goes out of its way to load its production, comes up with all sorts of crap, developing not necessary for the army, but necessary for the plant. This cunning is already beginning to enrage. The government needs to do UVZ. Their cars, overweight and expensive, are of no use to anyone, at one time they managed to introduce new tank cars with a "reinforced" frame instead of a light backbone frame and a boiler made of 12 mm sheet instead of a set of 12 mm lower armor and 10 mm upper armor, significantly making the structure heavier , citing the fact that buffers will be placed on the reinforced frame in order to enter Europe ... so not a single tank car rolled there, but they, with their lobbies, prevented other factories from introducing advanced designs. Cunning will not lead to good.
      1. -1
        8 June 2021 08: 18
        Quote: Konnick
        An assault robotic tank will either be immobilized or destroyed in the very first minutes of close combat if the enemy has the appropriate weapon.

        Gorgeous logic. It can also be extended to non-robotic vehicles. And what to do in this case?
        Quote: Konnick
        It is better to have reconnaissance mini-equipment and, accordingly, hit targets with high-precision fire from afar without the enemy's opposition to this fire, and not directly in contact.

        And why, besides you, did no one know about it? Urgently inform everyone. And then the stupid warriors continue to climb into the settlements impassively, but they could remotely cut out the foe under a beer on the couch.
        1. +4
          8 June 2021 08: 43
          And why, besides you, no one guessed about it

          Why didn't you guess? Azerbaijan very cleverly carried out the defeat of the Armenians. And you do not think that those who drive armored vehicles into the city on an unsuppressed defense with a bunch of anti-tank weapons are stupid. Therefore, the military are looking for a variant of the tank for close assault combat, since the modern MBT is now only for long-range combat.
          1. -3
            8 June 2021 15: 05
            Quote: Konnick
            Azerbaijan very cleverly carried out the defeat of the Armenians.

            It is not necessary to make a military uber-vehicle with elite super-fighters from the Azerbaijani army, driven by brilliant commanders. In that war, in fact, the smaller of the two fools won. And the Bayraktarians did not endure the superdots of the Mannerheim line. And the infantry suddenly took part in the assault on the NP. So this reference to the Armenian-Azerbaijani war is not at all relevant.
            Quote: Konnick
            And you do not think that those who drive armored vehicles into the city on an unsuppressed defense with a bunch of anti-tank weapons are stupid.

            I think there is no need to invent and engage in demagoguery like you. If you do not want to leave a heap of rubble from the city, you will in any case have to use infantry and armored vehicles. So far, there is no other way. And in general, initially it was about the fact that you are not satisfied with robotic systems. But apparently you realized that you screwed up and began to divert the conversation in the other direction.
            1. +3
              8 June 2021 16: 16
              And the infantry suddenly participated in the assault

              Are you talking about Shusha? And I did not drink with you, so no need to poke.
              If about Shusha, then there were no armored vehicles at all, they are not stupid.

              And the bairaktar did not endure the superdots of the Mannerheim line


              Now you have to be dumb to create such structures as stationary support nodes. As you said "carried out", it is now easier than ever to take them out without tanks, even bayraktars will not be needed. ...
              1. -3
                8 June 2021 18: 46
                Quote: Konnick
                If about Shusha, then there were no armored vehicles at all, they are not stupid.

                Mountains are generally an inconvenient place for tanks. And in principle, it is not necessary to storm the city with the help of tanks. It all depends on the circumstances. So again, your example is nothing.
                Quote: Konnick
                As you said "carried out", it is now easier than ever to take them out without tanks, even bayraktars will not be needed.

                If the fact that a heap of rubble will remain from the city is not important at all. But again you are falling into demagoguery. And I'm really not going to drink with you. Much honor.
      2. +4
        8 June 2021 10: 24
        ... UralVagonThe plant goes out of its way to load its production, comes up with all sorts of crap, developing not necessary for the army, but necessary for the plant. This cunning is already beginning to enrage. The government needs to do UVZ.

        Hello.

        In fact, UVZ is a state-owned enterprise.
        100% owned by the state.
        The state also decides how to spend the "profit".
        The same B3 plant can be more tasty to complete, but it only puts what is prescribed in the TTZ and ... financed.
        I am not defending UVZ, this is just a fact for thought.

        Talk about an assault city tank has been going on for a long time. The idea of ​​a short-barreled 152 caliber down, an IMR-style dump and reinforced all-round protection is floating around.
        I hardly believe in it, too narrow-sharpened small series.
        About hanging "on top of the tower" of Bumblebees and Buratin toys - this is pampering.
        Everything on the tower is demolished in the city almost immediately.

        Although the GABTU can hit the head with liquid - to make an experimental batch for the assault HMB, of the type created in the Murom brigade.

        I'm not criticizing, I'm just tired of "verbal tales". In the Tank Forces there is a lot to do and there is a lot to spend money on.
        .....................
        Generally speaking the main striking force in the city is the PENEKHOTINETS... And the armor in the assault unit performs the function of protecting and supporting this infantry with fire.
        In a multi-storey city, a "herringbone" was being built.
        With proper Tactics, an ordinary tank is super effective in the city.
        And the drone?
        The most important issue here is CLOSE INTERACTION WITH THE INFANTRY COMING RIDE.
        You can't do without it. Operators must be "in the same ranks" with the soldiers of the assault unit.
        1. +2
          8 June 2021 11: 01
          100% owned by the state.

          UralVagonZavod is a Federal State Unitary Enterprise, this does not mean that the state pays wages, it is simply the state that owns, and the rest of the commerce and 100 billion of debt to the state must be returned, so they flutter, but due to the fact that all the specialists are home-grown, there is no fresh "blood" they don't have much ideas. UVZ cannot even solve the problem of weld cracks in the new breakthrough tower. I just know their level, at one time their cars were not nursed until the first depot repair because of cracks in the frame. And the design of Khanin's carriage bogie was ridiculously defiled with its crooked dead center earring. Young, ambitious leaders and designers, but there are few bright minds, or rather not, it is impossible to find them only in Nizhny Tagil. There is no rotation of personnel, so provincial professional arrogance is flourishing.
  5. +4
    8 June 2021 07: 35
    Due to the high probability of hitting the tank, it is advisable to remove the most valuable thing from it - the crew, and make it remotely controlled.

    Take away the crew, do not take away the crew, add additional armor, do not add, etc., anyway: if the battle is being fought in urban conditions, then without cover, fire support from the infantry - any armored vehicle is simply doomed. At least, its operational life tends to zero very quickly.
  6. +2
    8 June 2021 07: 47
    Initially, you need to decide why such a technique is needed. And then sculpt for tasks. An unmanned tank next to live infantry looks illogical. This technique should work in isolation. Summon fire on yourself, identify firing points and hit them. 125 shortening is not bad. 30 mm is meaningless in the presence of LSHO 57. Bumblebee M in the city is almost a weapon of mass destruction. Sunshine? Unless at the beginning of the battle, on the way to blast through the most obvious and convenient places for the enemy. But such a technique must take a punch. Like battleships. Get multiple hits without losing your HP. Armor, screens, KAZ, without this, such an expensive car will simply turn into a target.
  7. -1
    8 June 2021 08: 11
    In Estonia, this has been produced for 2 years already.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3982776.html
    https://igate.com.ua/news/25237-v-ehstonii-startovali-ispytaniya-umnogo-bespilotnogo-tanka
  8. +4
    8 June 2021 08: 22
    Gospidya! Who is Murakhovsky? Yes, this is one shot from the "group" of balabols: Korotchenko, Leontiev, Murakhovsky and ... who else is there? These are "professional" "experts" - balabols! Meet in various media on every occasion! Often they talk nonsense; so you shouldn't believe them too much! "Rumors" about the development of the "assault" robotic complex have existed, in general, a long time ago ... (either from the beginning of the century, or from the "tenths" ...) and during this time the "performance characteristics" of the complex have not been at all have changed, which raises some doubts about the veracity of the information! And these "performance characteristics" are such that they raise doubts about the expediency (effectiveness) of such weapons! More real infa that somehow "experimented" with the "unmanned" T-72 ... but the "complex" is hardly "talked about"!
    PS Unfortunately, we have to "interrupt" again! But I'll try to return to the comment later ...
    1. +3
      8 June 2021 15: 38
      PS I managed to get back to the comment, quite late ... I'm tired ... Honestly, I have no desire to continue commenting! The only thing I can add is that there is no need to "overtake the locomotive on a bike"! Maybe you shouldn't immediately "count on a full-fledged (" real ") robot"? Can you still follow the path of using "remotely controlled" UAVs with "automation elements" from the beginning of this century? The T-72 can be used as a platform ... Specificity of application: battles in the city ... Such "specificity" presupposes the presence of obligatory and, possibly, considerable losses. 1 "Tankmen" must be protected! Therefore, operators of remote-controlled combat platforms will be deployed in heavy infantry fighting vehicles of increased security on the "outskirts" of the city! Battle platforms will enter the city! This is where not just "telecontrol" is needed; and "super.control"! Therefore, you should not save on the "abundance" of video cameras ("video panels" - "transparent armor" ...), a trust-protected communication channel ... The "independence" of the combat platform can be realized, for example, in the automatic detection of the enemy's laser designator and automatic turn launchers with aerosol-forming grenades towards the "threat"! Armament must be unified ... all ammunition (SAMs, anti-tank missiles, "thermobars", "napalms", penetrating OFB ...) must be executed in one form factor! Of course, I also wanted to add ... but I repeat ... I'm tired ... I have no strength ... it's time to sleep!
  9. +8
    8 June 2021 08: 38
    A tank is as blind as a mole - and in the field, if without a retinue = - it went out and burned, and you drive it into the city! Someone forgot about Syria and Grozny? Now the infantry is armed to the teeth - any armor is clearly not covered with hats. It is now fashionable to pick out infantry from settlements only by erasing these points themselves from the ground. A striking example is Debaltseve and the city of Donbass .. Yes, the same (the same) airports. So make ONE, drive it to us, give it to an office like Sparta and try it out in real life. Why bury money?
    1. +2
      8 June 2021 08: 58
      Why bury money?

      UVZ suffers without orders, at the expense of the state budget it wants to enter paradise on Shturm and others, it did not work on Armata ...
  10. +4
    8 June 2021 11: 03
    A tank in the city fights as a means of fire support for assault groups, which include sappers and flamethrowers and snipers. Their task is to defend the tank and support it with fire, just like their tank. How the interaction of motorized riflemen with the tank crew will be worked out is the main thing. If the tank is robotized, interaction issues become more complicated. about Soncepek on the tower is of course cool. What prevents the commander of a motorized rifle unit from ordering fire to the TOS company on the detected targets. Unclear. And if you create robotic complexes, then for all types of combat, and not only in the city, which smart generals usually bypass cutting off supply routes, and then destroy the centers of resistance with ALL possible fire weapons.
    1. +10
      8 June 2021 12: 32
      How a tank fights in the city, I know the hard way!)) It is in the city, when around the bullfight and muddleheads are shell-shocked. Even summer with a heat under 40- .. When the infantry was pressed by mortars, the big heads have an idea - to send a tank, and preferably two and SHOOT the adversaries. Around the ruins, no landmarks, the radio is jammed. On all bands. And 120 mines are falling from the sky. ... We met the dawn on foot. ... So it's only smooth on paper. At the lectures at the Academy of the General Staff.
  11. -2
    8 June 2021 12: 22
    So I understood, there is no tank. There is an idea and the beginning of development.
    What, why, how - is unclear. And just now it will be heavy, and a bunch of previous developments will be lighter ...
  12. +4
    8 June 2021 13: 37
    A robot tank is needed, but not remotely controlled. The crew needs 1-2 people (maximally protected) and AI. In order to detect the enemy as quickly as possible and aim weapons at him on the machine. So far, it is too expensive, but technologies do not stand still - it will become cheaper over time. Separately, we need installations for destruction, like those suggested by sen. And little robots are needed. Such as the 23 kg RS1A3 Minirex developed by Lobaev.
    https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/242222-rs1a3-minirex-takticheskiy-robot-dlya-gorodskogo-boya/
    1. +3
      9 June 2021 00: 36
      What you are writing about is, in principle, correct and by the way the Jews are going to bungle up an advanced BMP with Iron Vision + AI technology good
  13. 0
    8 June 2021 14: 51
    A vehicle designed for action in a city will never have missiles outside its armor, this is suicide for the vehicle. The robot should be small, light and high-speed, and most importantly, there should be no external control, except perhaps a backup one.
    1. +1
      8 June 2021 17: 24
      The city is primarily natural and artificial rubble. Heavy machines capable of passing through / clearing those blockages are definitely needed. And since they will work in the first line, it is advisable to make them unmanned.
  14. 0
    8 June 2021 17: 42
    People, tell me, what kind of platform does this "tank" have? The M113 shape reminded me too much!)
  15. 0
    8 June 2021 22: 39
    The main thing in it will not be the human factor, like fear, panic.
    Even though the broken one will stand and shoot at the advancing enemies. And the manager, sitting far away on a chair, drinking coffee will shoot and yell "at you, at you!";))

    That is, there will be no fear, panic, concussion, etc. On the drum there will be a joystick holder.

    And this can help in strengthening distant positions, in creating cover for the retreat of a group of soldiers, etc.

    That is, a special concept of its application is needed.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. 0
    9 June 2021 13: 00
    The development and use of a robotic tank in the army requires a special study, the definition of the tasks to be solved, the place in the battle formations, the tactics of use and, in accordance with this, the justification of its main tactical and technical characteristics.

    This is the author's conclusion at the end of the article. Why is everything else written? To show that robots are not needed in the army? Or that Uralvagonzavod has nothing to do with this topic?
    Process automation is the mainstream in all technology, not only in military, and robotization is the final stage of automation, the transition to automation. Therefore, there is nothing to specifically investigate, you just need to do it.
    You can follow an evolutionary path, robotizing the functions of technology in the already existing tactics of application - that is, robotizing tanks, self-propelled guns, airplanes (which, in fact, is already happening before our eyes) - for them, the tactics of application have long existed. You can go in a revolutionary way, creating technical means completely different from the existing ones (which, in fact, is also happening before our eyes - loitering ammunition, swarms of shock drones, underwater automatic reconnaissance and hunters, etc.), defining tasks to be solved for them and creating tactics their application. You just need to do it, and the authors of VO offer appropriate options. Otherwise, why write all this at all.
    1. +2
      9 June 2021 14: 55
      Quote: Conjurer
      The development and use of a robotic tank in the army requires a special study, the definition of the tasks to be solved, the place in the battle formations, the tactics of use and, in accordance with this, the justification of its main tactical and technical characteristics.

      This is the author's conclusion at the end of the article. Why is everything else written? To show that robots are not needed in the army? Or that Uralvagonzavod has nothing to do with this topic?
      Process automation is the mainstream in all technology, not only in military, and robotization is the final stage of automation, the transition to automation. Therefore, there is nothing to specifically investigate, you just need to do it.
      You can follow an evolutionary path, robotizing the functions of technology in the already existing tactics of application - that is, robotizing tanks, self-propelled guns, airplanes (which, in fact, is already happening before our eyes) - for them, the tactics of application have long existed. You can go in a revolutionary way, creating technical means completely different from the existing ones (which, in fact, is also happening before our eyes - loitering ammunition, swarms of shock drones, underwater automatic reconnaissance and hunters, etc.), defining tasks to be solved for them and creating tactics their application. You just need to do it, and the authors of VO offer appropriate options. Otherwise, why write all this at all.

      That you wrote so much empty water, everything in general and nothing in reality.


      Do you know a lot of university graduates dealing with technical vision?
      Recognition of all types of images that arise in urban environments.
      Can you distinguish a car that can move from a car that cannot move, as an ordinary 25-year-old man does? and even on your "there is nothing to specifically investigate"?
      But this is a common and obligatory task for the image recognition system of military equipment ...
      Mandatory.
      Do you know the answer to this problem?
      Describe the algorithm for the computer vision system?
      Well, what would this algorithm be introduced as a decision-making methodology ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. 0
    9 June 2021 15: 07
    Quote: SovAr238A
    That you wrote so much empty water, everything in general and nothing in reality.

    Do you, as I understand it, live in some kind of reality? Ie do not watch TV, do not read news articles on the Internet, do not know anything about the current state of technology. Look, then on your smartphone (or you don't use smartphones either?) - after all, he recognizes and highlights the face in the frame (including yours, try for fun, you will be surprised, how is he?). I enlighten - even now a lot of things can be done automatically, without human intervention, and the further, the more. Many people are engaged in this by virtue of their profession, including very young people, and even with artificial intelligence - just completely.
    1. +1
      9 June 2021 23: 01
      Are many smartphones produced in Russia?
  19. -2
    9 June 2021 18: 50
    The generated picture using secure video transmission channels must be transmitted to the control center for decision-making. Robotic systems are not created by the developers of the tank, but by specialized enterprises; it is impossible to create a robotic tank without joining the efforts of these enterprises.

    On the whole, these systems have been worked out and tested on the Uran-9; there is no great difficulty in adapting to a new vehicle.
  20. +2
    9 June 2021 22: 59
    Some kind of "Technology of Youth".
    We do not manufacture semiconductors.
    What kind of robots can we talk about?
    The very idea of ​​putting thermobaric ammunition outside the hull and putting IT in the first line - how do you like it?
    and put another 5 calibers on top and attach a quadcopter. This is already "Young Technician".
    You have gray hair, and you are talking nonsense
    1. +1
      10 June 2021 03: 23
      Quote: Rollback
      how do you?

      And UVZ are still convinced that a double-barreled cannon with a separate ammunition supply is cool.
      It already smells like a clinic ... negative
  21. -1
    11 June 2021 08: 41
    Even I do not understand what does the armata and the development of a new project have to do with it? In my opinion, the idea is just the opposite. Make a massive and CHEAP car from the available stock. A tank won't live long in the city anyway. Conditionally, we take an old tank, change the turret with a new weapon and electronics, and that's it, into battle. Burned, followed by another ...
  22. 0
    9 July 2021 13: 33
    Then it makes sense to robotize Object 782, there is a 30 mm cannon with 500 rounds and a 100 mm cannon with 50 rounds, and it will be easier to adapt the Bumblebee-M and the ATGMs are already in warehouses ... Yes, and AGSs can be left, then you get a solid car
  23. 0
    21 July 2021 19: 29
    I wonder when they will end up with this gigantomania? A modern tank, even the most advanced and sophisticated, lives on the battlefield for a maximum of 40 minutes. Probably just in Russia it is convenient to cut budget funds on such projects?)) And in many countries they are already simply getting rid of tanks. Trash is given to underdeveloped countries.
    Why not change the very approach to the solution? Create an individual armored off-road capsule for a motorized infantryman - an individual combat vehicle of a motorized infantryman? Manual weapons: small arms, RPGs, MANPADS are available today, which means that BMM can be equipped with them and also life support means of a motorized rifle.
    The design has no analogues. It can be created on electric or internal combustion engines.
    For many years I have been trying to reach out to all instances of the RF Ministry of Defense and enterprises of the defense complex, just with a proposal for computer engineering modeling of the structure. A few hours of work of a modern design engineer on a computer is enough, to create a volumetric model from my sketches and specialists can comprehend the operability of the structure, manufacturability.
    And like, I'm not off the street. All his life he taught drivers of vehicles: tractors, cars. I have seven individual copyright patents in mechanics. I am familiar with the designs of all known all-terrain vehicles and vehicles.
    Hope any organization or industry is interested?
    I have no doubt that this is more effective, more reliable than the exoskeletons currently in development.
  24. 0
    16 August 2021 14: 14
    Given the presence of thousands of T-72 tanks in long-term storage, any attempt to create something unmanned from them seems like a good idea. These masses of tanks are the last reserve. The country does not have enough trained tankers to quickly put them into operation, and after the first phase of the big war, there will be even fewer of them. It is also necessary to work out technologies, 72 ka are suitable for this, there are a lot of them
  25. -1
    16 August 2021 17: 27
    if the T-72 is unmanned, count. shells up to 125mm in the automatic loader, there are no additional shells. There is a lot of empty space. It is possible to seal the automatic loader inside and all other systems and fill the space inside the tank with a special viscous and fire-fighting mass. After breaking through the main armor, fragments, darts and everything else will get stuck in this mass without causing harm, and a fire is also excluded.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"