Military Review

How do they see the prospects for tank building in Russia

127
How do they see the prospects for tank building in Russia

В article "Prospects for the development of a tank fleet, taking into account global trends" sets out the results of the discussion by representatives of the military and industry at a scientific-practical conference on the future of the Russian tank fleet. Based on the results, rather interesting conclusions were drawn. On some of them in terms of layout diagrams tank future, firepower, robotization and command control of the tank, I would like to dwell in more detail.


Layout of the tank


Experts noted the conceptual ambiguity of the tank due to different approaches to the alleged nature of future wars. On the one hand, tanks must meet the requirements for conducting large-scale combat operations, on the other hand, for participation in local conflicts of varying intensity, including in urban agglomeration, requiring different approaches to the concept of a tank.

Depending on the type of hostilities, the requirements for the tank will be fundamentally different, and the layout schemes may be different. Experts came to the conclusion that in high-efficiency conflicts, a manned main tank of a classic layout will be in demand, while the tank's crew should be of three people with the possibility of their interchangeability.

In the 80s, I had to deal with the justification of the number of the crew, and then, based on the analysis of the workload of the crew members, an unambiguous conclusion was made that the minimum number of the crew is three people. The analysis showed that it was impossible to combine the functions of the commander to control the tank and the unit, as well as to search for targets, with the functions of the gunner for firing, and the issue of creating a tank with two crew members was then closed.

It should be noted that even the experience of using the T-34-76 and T-60 (T-70) tanks in real combat operations, in which the functions of the commander and gunner were combined, showed the viciousness of such a scheme. So the classic scheme of the tank for the near future, most likely, will be retained, as of today there are still no effective technical means to automate the functions of controlling the movement, fire and interaction of the tank, and to reduce the number of crew members.

For local conflicts of low efficiency, configuration options are possible with different types of weapons, depending on the solution to the combat mission - with heavy and light weapons, including robotic tanks designed for solving specialized tasks.

The question of the unmanned turret, which is the basis for the layout of the Armata tank, remains open so far. There is too little information for an objective assessment of the positive and negative factors of such an arrangement, it takes time to check the decisions made in real operating conditions.

Robotic tank


According to experts, the widespread introduction of robotic tanks or tanks robots not yet expected in the near future. They are at the stage of research and development work, and based on their results, a decision will be made on the directions for the development of this type of armored vehicles. This approach is understandable, today there is no tactics for the use of such tanks, there are no reasonable tactical and technical requirements for them, and there are no effective technical means to implement the necessary functions.

The creation of a tank-robot requires the efforts of not so much the developer of the tank, as the efforts of specialized organizations on fundamentally new systems of the robotic complex. For example, such a tank needs good "eyes" to create an integrated picture of the battlefield terrain with the presentation of the picture to the crew members not on the monitor, but in a stabilized information display system associated with the operator's eyes (helmet display or field of view of an observation device). It is impossible to create such a system using video cameras and monitors; fundamentally new technological solutions are needed, which are not yet available. Also, broadband noise-immune and protected channels for transmitting audio and video information are needed, operating under conditions of active jamming and, most likely, on new physical principles.

It should be noted that the palliative attempts being made to present the development of a robotic tank based on the T-72B3 (Shturm tank) do not stand up to criticism and cannot lead to positive results. Much has been written about this tank that these are mainly attempts to promote the ideas of the BMPT "Terminator" only with remote control, for which they cannot find a place in the army.

Such work, of course, is needed, only it should be considered as an opportunity to develop technical solutions for tank robotization, create the necessary systems and algorithms for using such a tank and, possibly, design a simplified version of a radio-controlled tank based on a fleet of outdated vehicles to solve specific reconnaissance tasks. demining, destruction of strong points, etc.

It is unlikely that it will be possible to create a full-fledged robotic tank based on a tank of the previous generation, which was not intended for solving such problems: as a transitional option for using an aging fleet of vehicles, it is quite suitable, the only question is in assessing the cost and effectiveness of such a conversion.

The creation of a robotic tank, and even more so a robot tank, is a separate specialized area of ​​development of armored vehicles, which must begin with determining its purpose, developing tactics for use and place in battle formations, substantiating tactical and technical characteristics, linking interaction with other types of troops on the battlefield, training requirements for specific tank systems and determining the circle of developers and manufacturers of everything necessary for this tank.
This is serious work and, judging by the open information, it has not yet begun, the direction of development of this type of armored vehicles will depend on its results.

So in the near future, the development of a classic main tank with a crew of three people remains, as the main armament is a cannon with an all-weather and all-day fire control system.

Firepower


The scientific and practical conference came to the conclusion that the main armament of the tank should be a 125-mm cannon - a launcher for firing artillery shells and guided missiles.

Apparently, the previously discussed issue of installing a 152-mm cannon on a tank is no longer relevant and does not arouse interest, since the use of such a caliber is too expensive for a tank and leads to a decrease in its passability and protection due to an increase in the mass of the tank. The use of a 152-mm caliber is promising when creating an ACS based on the chassis of a promising tank to strengthen it in battle formations, and in this direction, most likely, the use of such a gun will go, as the ISU-152 was once created.

According to experts, the Soviet 125-mm D-81 cannon has a reserve for improving and increasing its energy intensity, it has already undergone a number of successful upgrades and can be upgraded further. The main emphasis should be placed on increasing the power of ammunition, especially armor-piercing, work on which is being successfully carried out.

It should be understood here that an increase in the armor penetration of sub-caliber projectiles is often associated with an increase in the length of the projectile, which is not always possible in carousel-type automatic loaders. An increase in the length of the projectile entails an increase in the width of the tank hull, which is limited by the width of the railway platform for transporting the tank. In this regard, the layout of a tank with a different loading principle, most likely, with the placement of ammunition in the rear of the tower, will have to be developed.

To increase the firepower, the task is to ensure effective firing from a tank of more than 5000 m, and this can only be achieved by using a new generation of guided missiles.

Today's laser-guided Reflex missiles do not meet the range requirements and fire-and-forget requirements. In addition, the tank does not have means of detecting targets at a distance of more than 5000 m. Missiles with homing heads are required, operating in various ranges under active jamming conditions and integrated into a single system for tracking the battlefield, target designation and target distribution. This requires the interconnection of the tank with the UAV.

Giving drone each tank will be very expensive, apparently, they will have to equip tank units at the platoon or company level with the creation of special groups of UAV operators with the necessary technical means, included in the structure of the unit and reporting to its commander. This will allow the creation of "remote eyes" for a tank unit, which will also receive information from other participants in the network-centric system involved in solving a specific combat mission.

The fire control system must also undergo major changes, all crew members will need all-day and all-weather observation and aiming devices with high resolution and the required range, as well as with the possibility of duplication in case of failure. The technical groundwork in this direction is quite significant, the task is to optimally integrate the instruments in the tank with other elements of the network-centric combat control system.

Command handling


Experts noted the insufficient command control of tanks on the battlefield, since the existing controls only with voice unprotected radio communication exclude effective control of tanks and the use of their capabilities when interacting with other forces involved in solving the assigned combat mission.

I've already had to writethat the solution to this problem lies in the plane of creating a network-centric control system of the tactical level, in which the tank is one of the defining elements. It must be equipped with the necessary technical means and built into a system that ensures the interconnection of all forces participating in the solution of the assigned task. Such a system is being developed within the framework of the Sozvezdie-M ROC, and the tank of the future, of course, must be equipped with it. We are talking about the introduction of a tank information and control system, which, as it were, has already been implemented on the Armata tank.

This painful issue has been resolved for many years, work on the creation of TIUS for the first time in the world began in the Soviet Union and has been underway since the 80s, but there is still no such system on tanks for various reasons. The Americans have already implemented the second generation of such systems on the M1A2 tank and continue to successfully implement a tactical control system with elements of a network-centric system in the ground forces, having tested them during the Desert Storm operation in Iraq and made sure of their effectiveness.

The effectiveness of such a system for increasing the controllability of tanks is indisputable, but to create it, a lot of effort must be made, and mainly not by the developers of the tank, but by the designers of specialized systems that ensure the integration of a classic or robotic tank (robot) into a single network-centric control system of the tactical link.
Author:
Photos used:
ucrazy.ru
127 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 9 August 2021 05: 31
    +14
    How do they see the prospects for tank building in Russia
    From the analysis of the article, it turns out that a tank with three crew members, a powerful 125-mm tank gun and the ability to install a turret-mounted MZ, for a BOPS of increased power, looks like this ...
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 9 August 2021 05: 49
      +5
      How do they see the prospects for tank building in Russia

      request
      This painful issue has been resolved for many years ...
    2. Civil
      Civil 9 August 2021 08: 56
      -9
      The future belongs only to unmanned tanks. Control or artificial intelligence and or remote control. There are no other options.
      1. Terran ghost
        Terran ghost 9 August 2021 10: 58
        +8
        The future belongs only to unmanned tanks. Control or artificial intelligence and or remote control. There are no other options.

        Remote controlled tanks Believe it or not, they've been developing since the late 1930s. So far they have not replaced "traditional" tanks with a crew.
        1. Civil
          Civil 9 August 2021 11: 02
          +2
          Quote: Terran Ghost
          Remote controlled tanks Believe it or not, they've been developing since the late 1930s. So far they have not replaced "traditional" tanks with a crew.

          I readily believe, by analogy with UAVs, everyone also considered them toys, but now it is impossible to imagine a modern army without UAVs.
          1. Tavrik
            Tavrik 9 August 2021 18: 08
            +9
            It is much easier to control a UAV than a crawling object: there is always a line of sight to a small UAV, which means you can make a wide channel with the ability to transmit video. Before the tank, line of sight is only for show. In real conditions, it will not be due to the rough terrain, the presence of buildings and the need to move operators away from the tank itself. In these conditions, the VHF range is better suited, but real-time video and good quality are not transmitted in it ...
            Also, the UAV cannot get stuck in a ditch (anti-tank ditch) or throw off a caterpillar. A tank is easy. And no one will dig it up and fix it quickly. And the crew will run for several kilometers to save their brainchild ...
          2. Alf
            Alf 9 August 2021 20: 04
            +5
            Quote: Civil
            by analogy with UAVs, everyone also considered them toys, but now it is impossible to imagine a modern army without UAVs.

            But no one is going to replace manned aircraft with drones.
        2. Xlor
          Xlor 9 August 2021 11: 36
          +2
          Remote controlled tanks have been in development since the late 1930s. So far they have not replaced "traditional" tanks with a crew.

          In the 30s of the last century, there was no what is now called "artificial intelligence" ...
          1. Prosha
            Prosha 9 August 2021 19: 05
            +2
            Modern artificial intelligence can only play chess and compose incomprehensible music ...
            1. svp67
              svp67 9 August 2021 20: 30
              +1
              Quote: Prosha
              Modern artificial intelligence can only play chess and compose incomprehensible music ...

              But he also knows how to control entire weapons systems and determine targets for destruction, and only a man-made restriction on "allowing fire without man's approval" is still holding him back from opening fire on his own, but this restriction can also be lifted
              1. Prosha
                Prosha 20 August 2021 22: 03
                0
                Today I listened to a broadcast on FM radio, a very smart expert (Al. Losev) spoke - this is his thesis, to work on artificial intelligence, you need to return to classical education - mathematics, physics and the main complex of engineering and natural sciences in the image and likeness of the old Soviet education, only this will make it possible to move the problem off the ground, and digital education is a road to a dead end and degradation. By the way, he noted that the main successes of AI are only in the defense industry, and the rest of the industries do not talk about anything at all ...
                [media = https: //radiovesti.ru/brand/63899/episode/1375164/#]
          2. Siberian54
            Siberian54 10 August 2021 14: 02
            0
            xlor \ When a couple of dozen "Lomonosovs" can be pushed into a suitcase, drones-tanks may appear ... But for now, fantastica ///
      2. Castro Ruiz
        Castro Ruiz 11 August 2021 11: 40
        0
        Yes, the future for tanks is drones, but only in the presence of full-fledged AI.
      3. Anatoly Petrovich
        Anatoly Petrovich 23 August 2021 11: 07
        0
        We still have to live to see this future. At this stage, we are seriously lagging behind in the implementation of advanced technologies in the LMS and combat.
    3. venik
      venik 9 August 2021 19: 28
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      How do they see the prospects for tank building in Russia
      From the analysis of the article, it turns out that a tank with three crew members, a powerful 125-mm tank gun and the ability to install a turret-mounted MZ, for a BOPS of increased power, looks like this ...

      =======
      It’s more correct to say: Like this! The "Breakthrough" does not have a suspended AZ, only a part of the transported ammunition load is located ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 9 August 2021 19: 41
        +5
        Quote: venik
        It would be more correct to say: Something like this! The "Breakthrough" does not have a suspended AZ, only a part of the transportable ammunition is placed .....

        But you can install it there ... as on ob. 292
        1. venik
          venik 9 August 2021 19: 53
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          But you can install it there ... as on ob. 292

          =======
          That's why he said: "About so ". In general, AZ (or MZ) there (on the T-90M) asks ... drinks
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2021 19: 54
            +4
            Quote: venik
            In general, AZ (or MZ) asks there (on the T-90M) ...

            good
            For elongated BOPS, and OFS, KS and TOURs can be left in the carousel
    4. Sigbiern
      Sigbiern 20 October 2021 15: 37
      0
      T90m does not have a turret engine
  2. mark1
    mark1 9 August 2021 06: 37
    +11
    What promising period in the development of MBT was considered at the conference?
    I got the impression that the segment is from the 80s of the last century to the 21st year and 5 years after ... that is, almost the modern period. The thesis is attracted (I absolutely agree with svp67) about the ideality of the T-90M (in fact, the development of the T-64 / T-72). This suggests that for some reason someone (industry / military) does not want / cannot start the widespread introduction of the T-14 and brings the scientific basis under this embarrassment (the tradition already has its roots, it is enough to recall the "scientific" justification of the installation of the AU directly on the take-off deck of "Halzan" Ave.)
    I absolutely disagree with the views on the average perspective on the development of robotization, the sufficiency of the D-81 and the three-member crew (but of course this is just my personal opinion)
  3. Konnick
    Konnick 9 August 2021 06: 40
    +3
    The question of the unmanned turret, which is the basis for the layout of the Armata tank, remains open so far. There is too little information for an objective assessment of the positive and negative factors of such a layout, it takes time to check the decisions made in real operating conditions


    And conclusion

    Experts came to the conclusion that in high-efficiency conflicts, a manned main tank of a classic layout will be in demand, while the tank's crew should be of three people with the possibility of their interchangeability.
  4. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 9 August 2021 07: 40
    +19
    Experts noted the conceptual ambiguity of the tank due to different approaches to the anticipated nature of future wars. On the one hand, tanks must meet the requirements for maintaining large-scale hostilities, with another - for participation in local conflicts of varying intensity, including in urban agglomerationrequiring different approaches to the concept of a tank.
    What is the difference between the approaches is not entirely clear. Does the high intensity of hostilities exclude actions in urban agglomerations? In the case of low-intensity conflicts, are means of destruction of armored vehicles used, which in principle are not used in a big war?
    It is time.
    For local conflicts of low efficiency, configuration options are possible with different types of weapons, depending on the solution of the combat mission - with heavy and light weapons
    This is also a clear approval of the introduction of BMPT in general order with tanks. But at the same time:
    these are attempts to promote the ideas of the BMPT "Terminator" only with remote control, who can't find a place in the army.
    Decide already: either put on your panties, or remove the cross, so to speak. These are two.
    Creation robotic tank and especially tank robot
    Uh ... What's the difference? A tank either with a crew, it does not matter, with a high degree of automation or not, or a tank-robot without a crew. Everything. Dot. In the second case, it can be of three types: non-autonomous - the operator / operators are in control; semi-autonomous - with partial decision making and the ability to work according to predefined simple algorithms; autonomous - full database management under the control of AI. These are three.
    For example, such a tank needs good "eyes" to create an integrated picture of the battlefield terrain with the presentation of the picture to the crew members not on the monitor, but in a stabilized information display system associated with the operator's eyes (helmet display or field of view of an observation device). It is impossible to create such a system using video cameras and monitors; fundamentally new technological solutions are needed, which are not yet available.
    Truth? Are you seriously? To give the author a link to Aliexpress for augmented reality systems? Or is the author unaware of augmented reality helmets for the Air Force? We can talk about reliability, technical incompleteness or the cost of existing options. But the author also argues about the fundamental impossibility of implementation at this level of technology development. These are four.
    Also, broadband noise-immune and protected channels for transmitting audio and video information are needed, operating in conditions of active jamming and, apparently, on new physical principles
    What kind of new physical principles does the author dream about? Antigravity? Time travel? Intergalactic portals? The thoughtless use of the term "new physical principles" as applied to military technology has already become a vulgar bad manners. What are the new ones? What is their novelty for modern physics? It's five.

    In conclusion, the sixth. Not a word was said whether the issue of the industry's ability to produce the latest models of armored vehicles in quantities adequate for the country's defense was discussed. Moreover, both in peacetime - for the rearmament of the army, and in war - the replenishment of combat losses. Because the development and release of several copies, even the most advanced technology, does not raise the country's defense in any way.
    Also, was the question of the speed of transfer of industry (mobilization) discussed in the event of a war? In Soviet times, there was a certainty about this. Moreover, it is quite optimistic certainty. And now?
    1. Prosha
      Prosha 9 August 2021 19: 15
      -1
      Not a word was said whether the issue of the industry's ability to produce ...

      Further I did not even quote), what are you talking about? Maybe I'm not quite right or I do not have the information available to the extent possible, but it seems that all the automation in the defense industry comes from Aliexpress.
      Only in my city, in less than 10 years, 5 large enterprises of the union value were closed, and the remaining 4 were "castrated" to the level of cooperatives ... and you are talking about the ability of industry.
  5. tank64rus
    tank64rus 9 August 2021 09: 44
    +6
    "Giving a drone to each tank will be very costly, most likely, they will have to staff tank units at the platoon or company level with the creation of special groups of UAV operators with the necessary technical means, included in the structure of the unit and subordinate to his commander." The Italians have been equipping their tanks with UAVs in the amount of two disposable ones and launched through the barrel with compressed air for five years now, and they are normally controlled from the tank. Shown at exhibitions for five years. The Americans at the last conference came to the same conclusion, only their UAVs, according to the requirements developed there, can be used in two versions in conjunction with a tank and without it. There, four promising projects were selected, some based on a reckless tank, others with a classic layout. As for the niche, even in Soviet times, the BTV Academy was working on the issue of placing the burning ammunition cartridges into the lower part of the turntable module and installing an automatic loader there. This made it possible to drastically reduce the possibility of an ammunition explosion and the ability to increase the tank's ammunition load. In the Russian Federation, there is even a patent for this. As for robotization, we will not get away from this, the main thing is not to stay on the sidelines. And you still need to seriously tackle the issues of camouflage in all EMP ranges and tank protection from WTO and TOSZH.
  6. riwas
    riwas 9 August 2021 09: 45
    +1
    In the 80s, I had to deal with the justification of the number of the crew, and then, based on the analysis of the workload of the crew members, an unambiguous conclusion was made that the minimum number of the crew is three people. The analysis showed that it was impossible to combine the functions of the commander to control the tank and the unit, as well as to search for targets, with the functions of the gunner for firing, and the issue of creating a tank with two crew members was then closed.

    But then the 80s, now new sensors, AI are able to independently conduct reconnaissance of targets, identify, select the most important targets, aim weapons at them. And to do it much faster than a person. So in the future, 1-2 people in the MBT crew.
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 9 August 2021 16: 11
      +7
      I strongly doubt whether a crew of 1-2 people will be able to cope with, for example, changing tracks, quickly loading ammunition, etc.
      It was these trivial problems, in addition to the described dilemmas of the commander and gunner, that made the projects of Morozov's two-seater tanks projects.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 10 August 2021 13: 21
        +1
        Quote: Constanty
        I strongly doubt whether a crew of 1-2 people will be able to cope with, for example, changing tracks, quickly loading ammunition, etc.
        It was these trivial problems, in addition to the described dilemmas of the commander and gunner, that made the projects of Morozov's two-seater tanks projects.


        In modern combat, the goose will not be changed.
        They just leave the tank and that's it.

        And after the battle, or outside of hostilities, special service units will be involved for this.
        The pilots themselves do not repair their planes, the engines do not change, the guns do not clean, the bombs do not hang.
        The pilots simply became operators of the weapons system.
        So in the tank forces they will come to this - precisely to the idea of ​​"operator of the weapons system" ...
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 11 August 2021 00: 45
        +2
        Quote: Constanty
        I strongly doubt whether a crew of 1-2 people will be able to cope with, for example, changing tracks, quickly loading ammunition, etc.

        This is not even the point. And in such a thing as human physiology. For example, you have combined a tank commander and a gunner in one person. In this case, you give him two opposite tasks: the commander must defocus his attention over a wide area of ​​view. And the gunner - to focus on a specific target in a narrow range. Simultaneously. There are simply no people who can do this.
        And no matter how you try to combine the functions of a gunner, mechanic drive and commander, you get the same thing - incompatible tasks.
        Perhaps, with the development of machine vision, it will be possible to robotize the process of driving a tank, but how to robotize the process of choosing a route?
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 10 August 2021 13: 18
      +3
      Quote: riwas

      But then the 80s, now new sensors, AI are able to independently conduct reconnaissance of targets, identify, select the most important targets, aim weapons at them. And to do it much faster than a person. So in the future, 1-2 people in the MBT crew.


      Again.
      AI does not exist and cannot exist for many, many years.
      There are only decision-making systems based on machine analysis of the situation.
      Those. Of course, it is no longer an enumeration of all the options written in memory, but not far from "enumeration" ...
      The difference in machine analysis from AI is how the obsidian ax differs from the current range of cordless tools.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 August 2021 09: 51
    +8
    So what is this article about? About everything (!) ... and about nothing (!) At once! If anyone hopes to find a "fresh look" on the near future of tank building, then he is not here! The article is a "compilation" of Internet articles, rushing about in the "creative" inventions of eksperds, half of which are "couch" ... But, as they say, there is a silver lining! If someone is too lazy to "dig" on the Internet and read a dozen articles; then this is your article!
  8. riwas
    riwas 9 August 2021 09: 52
    +3
    We need different tanks. For example, we need a patrol tank that would not only perform the functions of close air defense directly in battle formations, but would also protect against infantry and ATGMs.
    https://bukren.my1.ru/Ware/tank_21.doc
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 9 August 2021 11: 10
      -1
      I think that flying infantry fighting vehicles based on the Mi-8amtsh will soon appear - they will be booked with ceramics from 30-mm shells
      also based on tiltrotors with 4 swivel nacelles with propellers
      2 options. 1.for the transfer of the same BMP-3. Option 2 - armored for special forces
  9. Old Orc
    Old Orc 9 August 2021 09: 57
    +1
    In my incompetent opinion, the future belongs to 4 crew tanks. Since the same transition will take place as in aviation, where a manned aircraft / tank is supplemented by auxiliary unmanned vehicles. And to control them, you will have to introduce 4 crew members of the UAV operator
    1. Genry
      Genry 9 August 2021 10: 47
      +1
      Quote: Old Orc
      To control them, you will have to introduce 4 crew members of the UAV operator

      If you expect that communication will work, then the tank's crew should tend to zero.
      1. Old Orc
        Old Orc 9 August 2021 13: 50
        +3
        Why not. At a short distance, the transmission of the signal can be organized, so to speak, by improvised methods. Wires, increasing signal power, laser. But at distances of tens or hundreds of kilometers. without which the meaning of remote control is lost, electronic warfare can already play its role. And completely without carriage, complete garbage. they can easily be stopped by an antipersonnel minefield. The gusli was plucked and all in 4-6 hours, take away the trophy completely ready for battle, just interrupt who are theirs who are strangers. unless, of course, there is nothing on board the "Fedor" that will come out and wave a repair tool.
        1. Genry
          Genry 9 August 2021 15: 38
          +2
          Quote: Old Orc
          And completely without carriage, complete garbage. they can easily be stopped by an antipersonnel minefield.

          Anti-personnel? Not mistaken - against the tank.

          Quote: Old Orc
          the gusli was plucked and everything in 4-6 hours take away the trophy completely ready for battle, just interrupt who are theirs who are strangers

          And what is the use of a shell-shocked crew? This is not a bottle of vodka to drink. Sitting still able to steer, but there is no way to carry the pieces of iron.
          And there is an ARV (tow truck) for repairs.
          1. Old Orc
            Old Orc 9 August 2021 16: 57
            +1
            The fact of the matter is that without the crew, it is not necessary to destroy their immobilization and that's it, and for this, the antipersonnel push is enough. although they may have to be slightly strengthened, they will still be 5 times lighter and cheaper than anti-tank ones. which means more. in principle, this can lead to an additional flourishing of anti-material anti-tank guns.
            So the BREM will be an automatic machine with the aim of hooking and taking out. that's the problem of automatic machines. Narrowed specialization. not narrow, namely narrowed, Any problem and all wait for BREM. Of this, the number of ARVs should be equal to the number of tanks. The harp slid down - the BREM workshop, Interrupted the optical channel of the BREM workshop. The automatic loader of the BREM workshop is stuck, I think that professional tankers will give 100 options for what can disable the tank and that the crew can eliminate or bypass it in a short time, but which will lead to the fact that the automatic or robotic tank will have to wait for the ARV and go relax in the workshops.
            1. Genry
              Genry 9 August 2021 18: 24
              +4
              Excuse me, are you a blonde by any chance?
    2. Prosha
      Prosha 9 August 2021 19: 26
      +2
      Well, IMHO, the experience of aviation for the landowners is not on the topic, in the sky there is still not so much dust, smoke and other joys (trees, bushes and fortification) through which the battlefield becomes not "understandable" and where "they can see everything from above" becomes a big problem, and here we need technologies for reconnaissance and "digital" for display in combat conditions, and this is not a computer game at all.
  10. Per se.
    Per se. 9 August 2021 12: 04
    +5
    The use of a 152-mm caliber is promising when creating an ACS based on the chassis of a promising tank to strengthen it in battle formations.
    Again on the topic, the growth of calibers cannot continue indefinitely, it is obvious that 152 mm is the limit that can be used on tanks. But what's next? It is possible that, as in the navy, the "main caliber" will be missile weapons, which are becoming more powerful and more compact, and artillery can be auxiliary, for example, a 57 mm automatic cannon. For example, we can recall our IT-1, which was not even in service for a long time, but besides rocket armament it had only a PKT, which, together with a still damp missile, was not enough. Here, the capabilities of the new anti-tank systems, plus an automatic cannon, could revive the IT-1 theme in a new capacity, even on the basis of the T-90.



    If we talk about a powerful anti-tank self-propelled gun, then the 152 mm cannon, which was supposed to be on the subject of object 195, could be used with the front engine placement, for example, on the basis of the T-15 BMP.



    If we talk about MBT, perhaps the best solution, with a crew of three, is what was done on the Omsk tank "Black Eagle" (object 640), where the AZ was moved to the aft niche with part of the ammunition.
  11. Undecim
    Undecim 9 August 2021 12: 40
    +5
    The article "Prospects for the development of a tank fleet taking into account global trends" presents the results of the discussion by representatives of the military and industry at a scientific-practical conference on the future of the Russian tank fleet.

    The author did not even bother to attend to the primary source of information.
    In the Kazan Higher Tank Command School in the period from April 21 to 23, 2021, a scientific and practical conference "Analysis of the operation and combat use of tanks, improving their combat and operational characteristics" was held.
    The following issues were considered at the conference:
    - Discussion and comparison of the characteristics of tanks, including for individual components, assemblies and devices.
    - Options for improving performance (reliability, power, handling, maneuverability).
    - Options for improving combat characteristics (command controllability, sight information content, target detection and identification capabilities, convenience of working with aiming and surveillance organs).
    And only the fourth question:
    - The main directions for improving existing tanks, development prospects and tactical and technical requirements for promising models.
    Judging by the composition of the participants of this forum

    to build some kind of far-reaching forecasts of the future prospects of tanks, at least - recklessly.
    Moreover, no one saw the real materials of the conference, and all the information is known exclusively from the words of the journalist Avdeev.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 August 2021 12: 48
    +3
    This approach is explainable, today there are no tactics for the use of such tanks, there are no substantiated tactical and technical requirements for them, and there are no effective technical means to implement the necessary functions. This is the Author about "robotic tanks"! So maybe the Author, just now, has revealed the secret secret of why the "stone flower" of the "Armata" variety does not come out, despite the heroic efforts of the developers and testers of the T-14? ! There are not so many differences! Well, except that the T-14 has a crew of people and there is no need to develop (install) two-way telecommunications control equipment! Here and truncated! What does the tanker work with in the armature? With info displayed on monitors (displays) in the tank! What does a remote-controlled tank operator work with? With information displayed on monitors (displays) in the mobile control room! And in fact, and in other cases, infa is read with the help of "heat cameras", laser devices, "microradars" ... well, and from the "network-centric environment"! The only difference is that in "Armata" infa is fed to the monitor through a piece of cable 14-1 meters long ... well, let it be up to 2 meters; and in a remotely controlled combat vehicle (DUBM) infa is fed through the "air" at a distance of hundreds of meters-kilometers! Do we call "Armata" "robotic tank"? Probably not ! So before the appearance of "real robotic tanks" we can only rely on remotely controlled equipment of the "5st stage" (remotely controlled combat vehicles-DUBM) "Robotanks" - this is the next, more distant, stage! Having solved the problems with the "Armata", we will almost solve the problems with the DBMS ... If we talk about the DBMS as an unsolved (not "ripe") problem; it will be possible to say that the problems of the "Armata" have not been completely resolved ... and before the solution of these problems the "mass" appearance, like the "Armata", so remote-controlled combat vehicles should not be expected!
  13. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 August 2021 13: 36
    +4
    1. Apparently, the previously discussed issue of installing a 152-mm cannon on a tank is no longer relevant and does not arouse interest, since the use of such a caliber is too expensive for a tank and leads to a decrease in its passability and protection ... It is possible that it is so ... But is it possible to create an assault tank with a 152-mm low-ballistic cannon and thereby somewhat neutralize the problems created by a 152-mm high-ballistic tank gun? The "chips" of the "new" 152-mm gun should be corrected ... and possibly also active-reactive artillery shells! In the dimensions of a 152-mm artillery round, it is easier and cheaper to make an adjustable projectile ... and more effective than in a 125 mm caliber! It is in the 152 mm caliber that it is possible to create an effective and relatively cheap self-aiming artillery projectile ... The same is true in the development of tank guided missiles (TURs).
    2. Today's modifications of "Reflex" missiles with laser beam control do not fulfill the requirements for range and ensure the "fire and forget" principle. In addition, the tank does not have means of detecting targets at a distance of more than 5000 m. Missiles with homing heads are required, operating in various ranges under conditions of active jamming and integrated into a single system for tracking the battlefield, target designation and target distribution.
    And nevertheless ... even, one might say, in the "Soviet times" the "Ametekh" enterprise developed missiles with seeker ("Sokol-1" and "Sokol-2") with a range of up to 8 km ... "Reincarnation" of "Sokolov"! ... (There was a message about the development of the "Sokol-V" TUR with a guidance system, like "product 305") with a range of 8 km ... Thinking about your own tank UAV-copter has been in the air for a long time .. and even promises sounded! But the question immediately arises: how is the detection of armored targets at a distance of 8 km from the South Koreans? They have KSTAM-II tank ammunition (of the SPBE type) with a range of up to 8 km; but I have not heard of tank drones!
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 11 August 2021 00: 25
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      But is it possible to create an assault tank with a 152-mm low-ballistic cannon and thereby somewhat neutralize the problems created by a 152-mm high-ballistic tank gun?

      What for? What's wrong with an ACS in the same caliber? Why do we need a tank - that is, a heavily armored front-line vehicle with such a cannon?


  14. spectr
    spectr 9 August 2021 14: 01
    +1
    IMHO, the tank of the future is something averaged in terms of parameters that allows you to perform most tasks, and is equipped with a "picatinny bar" type device for retrofitting for specialized tasks.
  15. Conjurer
    Conjurer 9 August 2021 15: 08
    +2
    To talk about the future of tanks, you need to understand what they are.
    A tank is a heavily armored device with built-in weapons of destruction. Its counterpart is the heavily armored equestrian knight. Have you seen the knights act alone, without the support of infantry and archers (or rather, than it usually ended)? Nothing has changed since then, because this is a universal rule. Heavy armor is needed to reduce infantry losses, archers - to increase enemy losses, because it is the infantry that is responsible for capturing / holding territory, the rest support it.
    Accordingly, the first requirement for a tank is to ensure effective interaction with the infantry to fulfill the tasks assigned to it in terms of covering up with armor and hitting enemy targets. From this point of view, the tank must be reliable (stands on the battlefield), effective in defeating objects - infantry, armored vehicles, defensive structures (of various types, including rubble and minefields), assault aircraft. If all this cannot be combined in one machine, there must be a group of machines acting as a whole, this does not change the essence of the requirement.
    With regard to automation, it should be at the maximum level at which the reliability of the machine is still ensured with the current level of technology development. Automation makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of a vehicle as a means of destruction, but reduces its reliability, so a reasonable compromise must be sought here. That is, trying to predict the future of this technology, it is necessary, first of all, to predict the development of automation tools.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 9 August 2021 19: 32
      0
      Quote: Conjurer
      You saw the knights act alone, without the support of infantry and archers

      The most prominent representative of this cohort is Don Quixote
  16. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 15: 42
    -1
    Quote: Civil
    The future belongs only to unmanned tanks. Control or artificial intelligence and or remote control. There are no other options.


    Let's imagine for a second that the game "world of tanks" (tanks) is the very same, remote battle of robotic tanks, which are controlled by, say, "good players". 8-))) Battlefield - a picture in real time from a satellite, for example. 8-))) The noise immunity factor for confident control of the "technique" is perhaps the most "delicate" moment. Perhaps, for any "noise-immune" control there is necessarily a "cunning bolt". And the price of the question ... If it, the "price", is indecent, then there will certainly be experts who, like two times, will prove the advantages of a manned tank. And vice versa. Theoretically, the war in Syria could have ended with "a couple of three dozen" massive bombing raids. All sorts of vacuum and vumny bonbs. Reactive SZO ... How to roll Dresden or Nagasaku into dust. No bomb shelters will save you. But ... expensive, inhumane and all that jazz. And it is unprofitable to roll into the ground the territory where it is planned (?????) to enter and rule. Therefore, the soldiers will die for a long time.
  17. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 15: 54
    0
    Quote: Per se.
    The use of a 152-mm caliber is promising when creating an ACS based on the chassis of a promising tank to strengthen it in battle formations.
    Again on the topic, the growth of calibers cannot continue indefinitely, it is obvious that 152 mm is the limit that can be used on tanks. But what's next? It is possible that, as in the navy, the "main caliber" will be missile weapons, which are becoming more powerful and more compact, and artillery can be auxiliary, for example, a 57 mm automatic cannon. For example, we can recall our IT-1, which was not even in service for a long time, but besides rocket armament it had only a PKT, which, together with a still damp missile, was not enough. Here, the capabilities of the new anti-tank systems, plus an automatic cannon, could revive the IT-1 theme in a new capacity, even on the basis of the T-90.



    If we talk about a powerful anti-tank self-propelled gun, then the 152 mm cannon, which was supposed to be on the subject of object 195, could be used with the front engine placement, for example, on the basis of the T-15 BMP.



    If we talk about MBT, perhaps the best solution, with a crew of three, is what was done on the Omsk tank "Black Eagle" (object 640), where the AZ was moved to the aft niche with part of the ammunition.


    Beautiful model of the Eagle. Have you built it yourself? Decently painted! The color modulation is impressive. Who is the manufacturer?
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 9 August 2021 16: 15
      +3

      Beautiful model of the Eagle. Have you built it yourself?

      I don't see the Eagle model there.
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 19: 51
      +1
      Quote: seld
      Beautiful model of the Eagle. Have you built it yourself? Decently painted! The color modulation is impressive. Who is the manufacturer?

      Ahem, I'm sorry, but what kind of eagle? This is a common compilation of the T-15 TBMP model hull and the T-14 turret in 1/35 scale from Zvezda.
  18. Mark_Pars
    Mark_Pars 9 August 2021 15: 57
    -1
    What is this nonsense about a 152mm cannon? Why would she be dear then? It's just a tool, hundreds of thousands of them were made, ale ... There is simply no desire to do anything new - this is a natural result of the 20-year rule of the conservatives in Russia.
    P.S. personally, I think that the most optimal caliber is 135-140 mm, and we have the experience of creating a 140 mm smoothbore gun by the way.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 19: 53
      +2
      Quote: Mark_Pars
      What is this nonsense about a 152mm cannon? Why would she be dear then? It's just a tool, hundreds of thousands of them were made, ale ... There is simply no desire to do anything new - this is a natural result of the 20-year rule of the conservatives in Russia.

      How would it have already been done ... The weight is five tons, the cost is prohibitive and very big problems - the barrel resource is only about 200 shots. There is no need to compare a smoothbore 152 mm tank gun and a 152 mm rifled gun for an SPG ...
  19. Eug
    Eug 9 August 2021 16: 48
    -2
    As for projectiles, I see the main potential progress in the metered (depending on the required range of the shot) use of liquid propellants, which, most likely, will allow not to increase the length of the projectile with the growth of power. Well, I see the tank as a two-link one - in the first link there is a running gear, the links are flexibly interconnected. The fighting compartment is in the second link. In my opinion, this arrangement will improve survivability and ease of maintenance.
  20. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 17: 06
    0
    Quote: Constanty

    Beautiful model of the Eagle. Have you built it yourself?

    I don't see the Eagle model there.


    Yes? Well, that means - not the Eagle. But the model is still painting. Only the triplexes are not quite clearly understood.
  21. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 17: 11
    +1
    Quote: Eug
    As for projectiles, I see the main potential progress in the metered (depending on the required range of the shot) use of liquid propellants, which, most likely, will allow not to increase the length of the projectile with the growth of power. Well, I see the tank as a two-link one - in the first link there is a running gear, the links are flexibly interconnected. The fighting compartment is in the second link. In my opinion, this arrangement will improve survivability and ease of maintenance.


    And what about the production of a "tank with a trailer"? Also "simple"? I wonder how it looks in practice when the driver's mechanic sits "in the second link"? Like, in the second row? Like, in the gallery? As in a locomotive-steam locomotive? There, the cabin is also not in the "first link". They look into the distance through the side akoshi from the back. And buzzing ...
  22. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 17: 19
    -1
    Quote: Mark_Pars
    What is this nonsense about a 152mm cannon? Why would she be dear then? It's just a tool, hundreds of thousands of them were made, ale ... There is simply no desire to do anything new - this is a natural result of the 20-year rule of the conservatives in Russia.
    P.S. personally, I think that the most optimal caliber is 135-140 mm, and we have the experience of creating a 140 mm smoothbore gun by the way.


    No, well, that's panayayayayayatna. The mass dimensions of the 152 mm down are obviously not a factor for you. What is 30, what is 100, what is 120, what is 152 mm - everything is one! Valikul, then we will disassemble! No, well, but the loader will be clean, jock-arnold. Some muscles. How else? Try to recharge the whole day "this is just a weapon", "152 mm" ... Or you are planning to shove the automatic loader there too. To shove, so to speak, do not fit in ... And at what distance is it planned to shoot at a flat one with such a caliber? Just wondering ... I'll name it: the earth is round ... 8-)))
  23. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 17: 41
    +3
    Quote: Per se.
    obviously 152 mm is the limit that can be used on tanks


    There, when calculating the caliber, by the way, there are sooooooo many difficult subtleties. In addition to purely "everyday" problems (such as an increase in the mass / size of the gun leads to: an increase in the total mass of the tank / an increase in the strength of the chassis as a result / an increase in engine power / a drop in speed / cross-country ability / the effect of rollback on mountings, etc., etc. .) we face: ....
    For example: we have 152 mm.; we plan to bang it 1 km accurately and flatly; "1000 g of gunpowder" is required (all figures are conditional). They banged. I got it. Struck. Gut? It seems - gut. But ... Distance is "penny".
    And if you nadot on "2 km" shmalnut? Well, the same "1000 g of gunpowder", suppose they send a blank to the target (already with a little ballistics). I got it. But .... did NOT break through. For the charge of gunpowder for penetration is no longer enough. Solution: increase the weight of the "gunpowder" to "1500 g". Truncated? Ha! And for this, you need to take additional volume for additional powder from somewhere. We increase the volume for gunpowder by reducing the warhead. They banged. I got it. Again, I did NOT strike. Because the disc has become too small ... Etc.
    There you still need to take corrections for the "round earth". And not only.
    In short, the field is not plowed for any dissertations. And the most tsimus: the shell should not be as expensive as a "cast-iron bridge across the Neva".
    Otherwise, no budgets can withstand even one day of war ...
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 10 August 2021 13: 29
      +3
      Quote: seld
      Quote: Per se.
      obviously 152 mm is the limit that can be used on tanks


      There, when calculating the caliber, by the way, there are sooooooo many difficult subtleties. In addition to purely "everyday" problems (such as an increase in the mass / size of the gun leads to: an increase in the total mass of the tank / an increase in the strength of the chassis as a result / an increase in engine power / a drop in speed / cross-country ability / the effect of rollback on mountings, etc., etc. .) we face: ....
      For example: we have 152 mm.; we plan to bang it 1 km accurately and flatly; "1000 g of gunpowder" is required (all figures are conditional). They banged. I got it. Struck. Gut? It seems - gut. But ... Distance is "penny".
      And if you nadot on "2 km" shmalnut? Well, the same "1000 g of gunpowder", suppose they send a blank to the target (already with a little ballistics). I got it. But .... did NOT break through. For the charge of gunpowder for penetration is no longer enough. Solution: increase the weight of the "gunpowder" to "1500 g". Truncated? Ha! And for this, you need to take additional volume for additional powder from somewhere. We increase the volume for gunpowder by reducing the warhead. They banged. I got it. Again, I did NOT strike. Because the disc has become too small ... Etc.
      There you still need to take corrections for the "round earth". And not only.
      In short, the field is not plowed for any dissertations. And the most tsimus: the shell should not be as expensive as a "cast-iron bridge across the Neva".
      Otherwise, no budgets can withstand even one day of war ...


      Those. are you not familiar with the sounds of "ballistic calculator"?
      You see, everything that you have written has been automated since the 40s.
      You just need to enter the range and type of projectile used.
      And the amount of "gunpowder" - the system will automatically shove you into the breech and the elevation angle of the barrel itself will correct depending on the entered data ...
  24. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 18: 21
    0
    Easier at once with gold bars of Kidatsa. Or .... it will be cheaper to just ... buy, corrupt, an adversary. Schaub peacefully and disperse the edges. It will be cheaper and more comfortable for everyone
  25. alexpro66
    alexpro66 9 August 2021 18: 23
    0
    OND RATFAAA
  26. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 9 August 2021 19: 05
    +2
    Experts came to the conclusion that in high-efficiency conflicts, a manned main tank of a classic layout will be in demand, while the tank's crew should be of three people with the possibility of their interchangeability.
    I imagined this tank (when there was only talk about the T-14) as follows

    (3D Fedor Podporin)
    The question of the unmanned turret, which is the basis for the layout of the Armata tank, remains open so far.
    And what are the questions? A bunch of remote-controlled modules with weapons of calibers from 7,62mm to 155mm are produced and installed on military equipment. For example, the German DONAR

    The artillery module is installed both on tracked and wheeled platforms.
    .... the issue of installing a 152-mm cannon on a tank is no longer relevant and does not arouse interest, since the use of such a caliber is too expensive for a tank and leads to a decrease in its passability and protection due to an increase in the mass of the tank.
    And why not consider the calibers 130-140 mm?
    An increase in the length of the projectile entails an increase in the width of the tank hull,
    Conveyor BMP-3 (installed before the installation of "Bakhchi")
    Pay attention to how the ammo is located. And if they are staggered in the inner part of the drum, then the length of the ammunition can be much greater than the radius of the drum (conveyor). And no increase in the diameter of the conveyor, and therefore the width of the tank hull.
    Today's laser-guided Reflex missiles do not meet the range requirements and fire-and-forget requirements.
    Why is it necessary to launch an ATGM through the barrel? What is the problem to fix a couple of containers with ATGMs of normal diameter on the turret? And if you do not save on money, then you can hang about six pieces with a vertical start on the rear armor plate (covering them with anti-splinter armor).
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 33
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      I imagined this tank (when there was only talk about the T-14) as follows

      In fact, armata is the same - the difference is only cosmetic.
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Pay attention to how the ammo is located. And if they are staggered in the inner part of the drum, then the length of the ammunition can be much greater than the radius of the drum (conveyor). And no increase in the diameter of the conveyor, and therefore the width of the tank hull.

      There is an opinion that this is exactly what they did in the AZ T-14, after all, the body there, if wider, then within 10-15 cm, and the shells can fit as much as 900 mm long ...
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Why is it necessary to launch an ATGM through the barrel? What is the problem to fix a couple of containers with ATGMs of normal diameter on the turret?

      Vulnerable are obtained. Although nothing prevents you from putting them as a kind of "option" - you want to put it, you want to take it off.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 9 August 2021 21: 48
        +3
        Quote: Albert1988
        In fact, armata is the same - the difference is only cosmetic.

        The T-14 does not have a 30mm cannon with large vertical aiming angles (for example, in the city, to shoot the enemy from the upper floors of the building)
        Quote: Albert1988
        Apparently it means that 152 mm 2A83 are already in the metal, and those still need to be developed.

        130 mm the same is in the metal (rolled on object 785)
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 51
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          The T-14 does not have a 30mm cannon with large vertical aiming angles (for example, in the city, to shoot the enemy from the upper floors of the building)

          This is not the point - such a cannon was stuck in Object 195 - it turned out to be not very necessary.
          Quote: Bad_gr
          130 mm the same is in the metal (rolled on object 785)

          She was rifled yet ...
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 9 August 2021 21: 53
            +1
            Quote: Albert1988
            She was rifled yet ...

            It was in two versions, but the developers believed that it was more promising in the rifled version.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 56
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              It was in two versions, but the developers believed that it was more promising in the rifled version.

              The main thing is that there is no smooth-bore in metal now, and rifled ones are already outdated for objective reasons. So now, in any case, you will have to make such a gun again.
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 40
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      And why not consider the calibers 130-140 mm?

      Apparently it means that 152 mm 2A83 are already in the metal, and those still need to be developed. In my amateurish way, if you make 140 + - mm - it will be very good.
    3. abc_alex
      abc_alex 11 August 2021 00: 20
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Why is it necessary to launch an ATGM through the barrel? What is the problem to fix a couple of containers with ATGMs of normal diameter on the turret? And if you do not save on money, then you can hang about six pieces with a vertical start on the rear armor plate (covering them with anti-splinter armor).


      Because NONE of the developers will give any guarantee of the normal operation of such a system in battle. The missiles are not designed to be hit by bullets and shrapnel, or to the impact of a shock wave from nearby explosions of high-explosive or volume-detonating ammunition. They began to remove the ATGMs inside the car not with a hangover, but for quite objective reasons. This decision was made on the experience of creating "rocket tanks" in the 60s.
      In addition, the tank does not need ATGMs with a range of more than 5 km. In any case, until an external target designation system appears on it.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 34
        0
        Quote: abc_alex
        Because NONE of the developers will give any guarantee of the normal operation of such a system in battle.

        For the sake of fairness, I would like to note that the American "Bradleys" functioned normally in battle for some reason. Our new infantry fighting vehicles and new-old infantry fighting vehicles also have a lot of such containers on the turret from something ... But so far only the North Koreans put this on tanks ...
        I confirm the rest. Although I note that the external target designation system for a tank is no longer a fantasy ...
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 11 August 2021 15: 39
          +1
          Quote: Albert1988
          For the sake of fairness, I would like to note that the American "Bradleys" functioned normally in battle for some reason. Our new infantry fighting vehicles and new-old infantry fighting vehicles also have a lot of such containers on the turret.

          So BMPs are used in a different way. They are also booked differently. In a combined arms battle, they go in the second line, and tanks come into direct contact. Infantry fighting vehicles are not at the forefront only when the enemy is "bearded in sneakers."
          But the "BMPT", which should go in one line with the tanks, has not been accepted in the army. Including because the developers of missile weapons give it skeptical assessments.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 11 August 2021 15: 55
            +1
            Quote: abc_alex
            So BMPs are used in a different way. They are also booked differently. In a combined arms battle, they go in the second line, and tanks come into direct contact. Infantry fighting vehicles are not at the forefront only when the enemy is "bearded in sneakers."

            Therefore, tanks will continue to use ATGMs launched through a gun))) That, in addition to safety, is also convenient!
            Quote: abc_alex
            But the "BMPT", which should go in one line with the tanks, has not been accepted in the army. Including because the developers of missile weapons give it skeptical assessments.

            In general, there is an interesting situation with the "thermos" - it slipped that after a voyage to Syria they began to supply it to the army for trial operation. Although in my opinion, when the T-15 comes with the "dagger" module (57mm + machine gun + ATGM), then the "terminator" in its pure form is no longer needed ...
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 15 August 2021 01: 36
              0
              Quote: Albert1988
              In general, there is an interesting situation with the "thermos" - it slipped that after a voyage to Syria they began to supply it to the army for trial operation. Although in my opinion, when the T-15 comes with the "dagger" module (57mm + machine gun + ATGM), then the "terminator" in its pure form is no longer needed ...


              And this is not a BM for tank support. It is not capable of performing this function. But here is how the basis for the checkpoint at the "barmaley" intersection is almost ideal. Cover it with foundation blocks on three sides and provide an external power source - who fuck you will get to the post even on a crawl, even on a martyr's mobile. Perhaps it is somehow suitable for supporting special units.
              So, it is possible that they will somehow screw it to something in the army.
              Yes, about the T-15, I think you are right. But the question of BMPT will still remain. So, I think, there will be "Terminator-3" ... God forbid, that already sane design.
  27. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 19: 46
    +2
    Handsome ... Do you know where they start to design a "tank"? From .... the size of the railway. platform and its carrying capacity. And also on the parameters of the railway. networks in general. Then they estimate to the bow of the visitor, the bridges withstand the maximum on average on the ground, where a clean tank will drive. They also look at the map and calculate the quality and dwarfism of obstacles for the future ride of the planned tank. At the same time, on accounts with knuckles, the availability of resources (well, there, for example, iron or production facilities) in the territory of the state of the manufacturer is precisely determined. Sometimes they even go to the pilots and measure the dimensions of transport aircraft. Strange, right?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 9 August 2021 19: 57
      +1
      Quote: seld
      Do you know where they start to design a "tank"?

      From the receipt of the terms of reference, where everything is spelled out.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 10 August 2021 13: 30
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Quote: seld
        Do you know where they start to design a "tank"?

        From the receipt of the terms of reference, where everything is spelled out.


        who prescribes the terms of reference?
        Where do the indicators that appear in those tasks come from?
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 21
          +1
          Quote: SovAr238A
          who prescribes the terms of reference?

          You will not believe it - the customers, that is, the military!
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Where do the indicators that appear in those tasks come from?

          Again, you will not believe - but they are based on an analysis of current tasks and threats to MBT on the battlefield. For example - if the American BOPS penetrates 800 mm from 2 km, then the armor should keep it at these 2 km, if Java hits the roof, then a cunning system should protect this roof from Java ...
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 11 August 2021 00: 18
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            Quote: SovAr238A
            who prescribes the terms of reference?

            You will not believe it - the customers, that is, the military!
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Where do the indicators that appear in those tasks come from?

            Again, you will not believe - but they are based on an analysis of current tasks and threats to MBT on the battlefield. For example - if the American BOPS penetrates 800 mm from 2 km, then the armor should keep it at these 2 km, if Java hits the roof, then a cunning system should protect this roof from Java ...


            As a process engineer, as a systems engineer, I don't understand you ...
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 11 August 2021 11: 22
              -1
              Quote: SovAr238A
              As a process engineer, as a systems engineer, I don't understand you ...

              Then I recommend that you think seriously ...
  28. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 20: 17
    +1
    Д
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: seld
    Do you know where they start to design a "tank"?

    From the receipt of the terms of reference, where everything is spelled out.

    Daaaaaa .... Warriors immediately order a miracle pepelats. It is so for them. But the task of the designer, engineer, economist is to superficially cool off excess ardor. And this is what the specialized research institutes are doing ... By the way, a classic example, when the warriors-customers (sculptors of technical assignments) did not find a common language with the technicians / factory workers - tanks of Nazi Germany. And vice versa - the tanks of the USSR.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 36
      0
      Quote: seld
      Daaaaaa .... Warriors immediately order a miracle pepelats. It is so for them. But the task of the designer, engineer, economist is to superficially cool off excess ardor.

      And if you do not do this, then in the end you get monsters like the same object 195 - in terms of performance characteristics, sweetie, for everything else - complete oh!
      Quote: seld
      By the way, a classic example, when the warriors-customers (sculptors of technical assignments) did not find a common language with the technicians / factory workers - tanks of Nazi Germany. And vice versa - the tanks of the USSR.

      For the Fritzes, on the contrary, the military was unanimous with the constructors in gigantomania and the desire to screw up technologies, because ubertechnologies will defeat the "Bolshevik primitive", which in the end - everyone knows ...
  29. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 21: 12
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: seld
    Beautiful model of the Eagle. Have you built it yourself? Decently painted! The color modulation is impressive. Who is the manufacturer?

    Ahem, I'm sorry, but what kind of eagle? This is a common compilation of the T-15 TBMP model hull and the T-14 turret in 1/35 scale from Zvezda.


    Understood. I did not see the tower from the armata. It turned out beautifully. The star is growing. And the model builder is the Master! Respect!
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 35
      +1
      Quote: seld
      Understood. I did not see the tower from the armata. It turned out beautifully. The star is "growing"

      as a modeler, I fully support! Terminator models, T-90SM, T-14 and T-15, they are generally excellent (like all new ones with yellow acantochki on the boxes wink )
      Quote: seld
      And the model builder is the Master! Respect!

      I don't remember his name, but this is one of the coolest domestic BTT modelers who saw the conversion)
  30. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 21: 20
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Mark_Pars
    What is this nonsense about a 152mm cannon? Why would she be dear then? It's just a tool, hundreds of thousands of them were made, ale ... There is simply no desire to do anything new - this is a natural result of the 20-year rule of the conservatives in Russia.

    How would it have already been done ... The weight is five tons, the cost is prohibitive and very big problems - the barrel resource is only about 200 shots. There is no need to compare a smoothbore 152 mm tank gun and a 152 mm rifled gun for an SPG ...

    Yes! Fluff resource is also a nuance. I would add: after the shots, due to the sharp heating - cooling, the fluff tends to bend ... Your sensible remark! And all these "little things" put everything in my place. In general, it seems to me that the "last word" in the development of modern technology will belong to materials scientists. A breakthrough is needed. You need something very very light and at the same time extremely durable. Otherwise ... it seems to me that it is no longer possible to invent and build anything fundamentally new and breakthrough.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 39
      +1
      Quote: seld
      Yes! Fluff resource is also a nuance. I would add: after the shots, due to the sharp heating - cooling, the fluff tends to bend ... Your sensible remark! And all these "little things" put everything in my place. In general, it seems to me that the "last word" in the development of modern technology will belong to materials scientists. A breakthrough is needed. You need something very very light and at the same time extremely durable. Otherwise ... it seems to me that it is no longer possible to invent and build anything fundamentally new and breakthrough.

      I will add an encouraging moment - the first samples of 152 mm 2A83 tank (for object 195) vomited in general after 50 shots, then they reached 120, then up to 200 with a tail. What is important - work on this gun was NOT stopped, on the contrary, it was only more classified. So anything can be.
      And a little more - the cannon, in addition to the caliber, has one more problem - the shells! Feathered shells for smooth-bore 152mm are not mass-produced by us. Object 195 fired highly modified projectiles for the MSTA-S (except for the BOPS, which was developed separately). 125mm 2A82 can use at least old shells for armata.
  31. nonsense
    nonsense 9 August 2021 21: 34
    +1
    IMHO what about the real prospect of dividing MBT into two combat vehicles: a) SPTP and b) assault vehicle (infantry)? Everything goes to this - to the recognition that the very concept of "MBT" was erroneous!
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2021 21: 55
      0
      Quote: nespich
      IMHO what about the real prospect of dividing MBT into two combat vehicles: a) SPTP and b) assault vehicle (infantry)?

      Most likely, everything will come to a hybrid of MBT and TBMP - such a machine will definitely send MBT to the dustbin of history)))

      Quote: nespich
      It all goes to this - to the recognition that the very concept of "MBT" was erroneous!

      Not erroneous, but outdated - it worked properly for almost 50 years! Considering that tanks as a type of weapon are only 104 years old, this is very significant.
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 10 August 2021 13: 49
        0
        Not erroneous, but outdated - it worked properly for almost 50 years!

        and in what wars did the MBT concept "work properly"? - then nothing comes to my mind ...
        Most likely everything will come to a hybrid of MBT and TBMP

        this is unlikely ... :) because the concept of "BMP" was also wrong! And these infantry fighting vehicles did not show themselves in any war ... even though light or heavy ...
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 23
          -1
          Quote: nespich
          and in what wars did the MBT concept "work properly"? - then nothing comes to my mind ...

          In all conflicts after the Second World War, where MBT was used.
          Quote: nespich
          this is unlikely ... :) because the concept of "BMP" was also wrong! And these infantry fighting vehicles did not show themselves in any war ... even though light or heavy ...

          Oh, yes, of course, well, they just didn't show it)))) We recall, for example, Bradley in Iraq and the intentions and azerites in Israel ...
          You at least study the materiel what works and how))))
          1. nonsense
            nonsense 10 August 2021 19: 43
            0
            In all conflicts after the Second World War, where MBT was used.

            :) hmm ... you speak Irish ... nothing ...
            Let us recall, for example, Bradley in Iraq and the intents and azerites in Israel ...

            laughing "Azherites"? - translated as Azerbonian herites?
            And what about "Bradley" in Iraq? - But they did not show themselves in any way! If it were not for them at all (if the Americans were traveling on the Iraqi highways on school buses), the war would have ended more successfully and faster! All the frankly advertising stories of the Americans about the Gulf War and the "successful" use of the Tou with their infantry fighting vehicles should not be considered true. Shot abandoned Iraqi tanks and passed off as the triumph of American armored vehicles. By the way, :) EMNIP spent 3 thousand tank BOPS M40 and several thousand more Tou missiles on 829 thousand abandoned Iraqi tanks - this is the true efficiency and effectiveness of American armored vehicles in the 1991 Gulf!
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 45
              0
              Quote: nespich
              :) hmm ... you speak Irish ... nothing ...

              Thanks, laughed laughing
              Good luck hi

              Py.Sy .: You don't joke like that in the presence of tankers - otherwise they may not understand your "subtle" humor, heavy bodily harm can ...

              Py.Py.Sy .: Health to you, and I take my leave hi
  32. Seld
    Seld 9 August 2021 22: 08
    0
    BMP-3
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: seld
    Understood. I did not see the tower from the armata. It turned out beautifully. The star is "growing"

    as a modeler, I fully support! Terminator models, T-90SM, T-14 and T-15, they are generally excellent (like all new ones with yellow acantochki on the boxes wink )
    Quote: seld
    And the model builder is the Master! Respect!

    I don't remember his name, but this is one of the coolest domestic BTT modelers who saw the conversion)


    Also recently assembled bmp-3 ...
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 24
      0
      Quote: seld
      Also recently assembled bmp-3 ...

      Eh, the picture is not loaded ((((
  33. Maikcg
    Maikcg 10 August 2021 04: 27
    +1
    Each tank needs a drone, behind the tower, visit the basket with a quadcopter on a cord, power and a communication channel along the cord, say the noise immunity of the tek. And from 50 meters from a quadric and at 25 km it will be possible to look, only put good optics. And a Chinese laser pointer) for target designation. And a radio link to the big drone. And pills for greed, but more.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 24
      0
      Quote: MaikCG
      Each tank needs a drone, behind the tower, visit the basket with a quadcopter on a cord, power and a communication channel along the cord, say the noise immunity of the tek. And from 50 meters from a quadric and at 25 km it will be possible to look, only put good optics. And a Chinese laser pointer) for target designation. And a radio link to the big drone. And pills for greed, but more.

      Actually, such a thing for the armata is being developed - "pterodactyl" is called)))
  34. csm
    csm 10 August 2021 13: 44
    0
    And where is BIUS?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 24
      0
      Quote: csm
      And where is BIUS?

      Inside))))
  35. Metlik
    Metlik 10 August 2021 15: 05
    0
    It is obvious that it is more profitable for people who have the money of our country in their hands to feed someone else's army, not their own.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 10 August 2021 19: 25
      -1
      Quote: Metlik
      It is obvious that it is more profitable for people who have the money of our country in their hands to feed someone else's army, not their own.

      Is that why the army is being saturated with new weapons? Or is the Russian army a foreign army for you? recourse
      1. Metlik
        Metlik 11 August 2021 11: 12
        0
        Everything that is supplied to the army is a Soviet legacy, like the T72 tank. The authorities, due to the collapse of the military-industrial complex and total embezzlement, are not able to develop really new models or put them into the army.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 11 August 2021 11: 21
          -1
          Quote: Metlik
          Everything that is supplied to the army is a Soviet legacy, like the T72 tank.

          They joked funny, I laughed)))
          Let it be known to you that only one thing can be understood under "Soviet heritage" - equipment that was completely produced in the USSR. Therefore, T-90S and M, Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-35, Borei, "calibers", "poplars" and "Yars", Su-35 and Su-34, "tigers", "typhoons", robots the "uranium" line, numerous small drones - this is NOT the Soviet Heritage!
          Here in Ukraine, yes - except for a small number of cargo Anov, about 70 tanks and a couple of dozen armored personnel carriers - everything is Soviet ...

          My beloved dad (long years and health) in this very defense industry worked for 45 years until 2018, so you don't have to tell me about the collapse ...
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 11 August 2021 11: 38
            0
            I won't argue about drones, but are there enough of them in the army? The events in Armenia showed that it was not. T-90S and M, Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-35, Borei, "calibers", "poplars" and "Yars", Su-35 and Su-34 is this NOT Soviet Heritage?
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 29
              -1
              Quote: Metlik
              I won't argue about drones, but are there enough of them in the army?

              More than, considering how many of them are launched in the exercises. There are a lot of them in Syria - there even combat ones have already been noted, they even flew over the Donbas.
              Quote: Metlik
              The events in Armenia showed that it was not.

              laughing laughing laughing good Class, well, you are a comedian! Therefore, I will ask the main question - tell me which parts of the Russian army took part in the Karabakh conflict?
              Quote: Metlik
              T-90S and M, Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-35, Borei, "calibers", "poplars" and "Yars", Su-35 and Su-34 is this NOT Soviet Heritage?

              Let's take it in order - the T-90 was only conceived in the USSR, its main development and production and numerous refinements were already carried out in the Russian Federation. Ka-52 - development and first flight in the 90s (1996 if I remember), Su-35 development - late 90s - 2000s (first flight 2007), Borey - the main development in the 90s, laid down in 1996 (first) - slowed down due to the fact that they abandoned the Soviet "Bark" (80s) in favor of the Russian mace (they began to develop in 1998), "caliber" - the deepest processing of two other Soviet missiles for other purposes (strategic nuclear 3M10 and anti-ship "turquoise"), which is important - the range of the "caliber" is noticeably greater than that of its predecessors. "Topol" - began to be developed in the USSR, but the development was completed in Russia and production is also in Russia. Yars - development started at 90, testing began in 2007.
              Should I continue or is everything already clear?
              1. Metlik
                Metlik 11 August 2021 12: 45
                0
                which parts of the Russian army took part in the Karabakh conflict?
                It is no secret that Armenia is our ally in the CSTO, and uses our best equipment to resist Azerbaijan.

                Half of what you have listed is the modernization of Soviet models made with Indian, Chinese money, so our authorities cannot attribute this to themselves as a merit.

                And if you remember the long list of ceremonial models that have not been brought to mind, "on trial", there is no money for mass production, and so on. the reasoning of experts in the spirit becomes clear - we do not need this, the bullet is a fool and the bayonet is great, the threaded fitting is too expensive, and in general, with caps, if anything, we'll throw it in.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 11 August 2021 13: 14
                  -1
                  Quote: Metlik
                  which parts of the Russian army took part in the Karabakh conflict?
                  It's no secret that Armenia is our ally in the CSTO

                  Oh, but nothing that from the moment the Pashinyan magpie came to power, this "ally" openly spat in our faces and licked the ass of the USA? Even after the conflict, which was extinguished only by Russia in fact, they gave Bidon at the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs gratitude for "a large warehouse for the establishment of peace in Karabakh", while he did not care at all, and the staff were 80% for Azerbaijan ...
                  Quote: Metlik
                  and uses our best equipment to resist Azerbaijan.

                  Are you a joker again or are you pretending? Firstly, only export castrated, and secondly - the antediluvian "wasp", bought on the secondary housing from some Arabs, and the former basis of their air defense in Karabakh - what is the best Russian thing? The lonely S-300, almost non-functional, the old Soviet one - is this the "best example"?

                  And most importantly, you are aware that we are defending Armenia within the framework of the CSTO, only if the enemy will bomb Yerevan, but we did not recognize Karabakh for Armenia from the very beginning!
                  Quote: Metlik
                  Half of what you have listed is the modernization of Soviet models made with Indian, Chinese money, so our authorities cannot attribute this to themselves as a merit.

                  Oha, such a "modernization" that either everything inside is completely new (Su-35), and even the airframe has been changed, or a strong alteration (Ka-52), which requires serious investments, etc. Secondly, what kind of "Chinese money" laughing The Chinese only buy individual samples, they have not invested a single yuan in the development! The Indians invested in the T-90 parts only in production - all our development and our hard-earned money.

                  Quote: Metlik
                  And if you remember the long list of ceremonial models that have not been brought to mind, "on trial", there is no money for mass production, and so on.

                  And what are these "ceremonial models"? These are either demonstrators of technologies, such as the Su-37 and or Su-47, which no one was going to produce, or they are completely new machines, such as the armata and kurganets, which were built from scratch and are actually the most complex complexes at the level of aircraft. By the way, the T-14 is already gradually entering the army. And if you think that for a long time - so the Americans fiddled with their F-35 for almost 15 years until the first one, and then they catch the "serial" jamb on the jamb ...

                  Although I understand you - if you know a little, then you can invent a lot, it's more interesting, I agree))))
                  1. Metlik
                    Metlik 11 August 2021 13: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    T-14 - is already gradually entering the army
                    We have been hearing this tale about the emir, donkey and Khoja for more than a dozen years.
                    1. Albert1988
                      Albert1988 11 August 2021 16: 09
                      -2
                      Quote: Metlik
                      We have been hearing this tale about the emir, donkey and Khoja for more than a dozen years.

                      What is more than a dozen, dear? In 2008, R&D started on Armata, R&D started on Armata in 2011. In 2015 (!), The first batch of fully functional machines, numbering about 30 units, was manufactured! Not bad so? After that, the car began a long cycle of tests, which went in 2 peculiar stages - the first stage until 2019, when the car was simply forced to work as a single complex (it was necessary to work out the connection of all components with new electronic brains, which should also be able to work with anything from the modern nomenclature of external devices!). At this stage, the machine had many components (sights) either of the current generation (only automated), or components of foreign origin (the thermal imager was made from a French element base), just to understand how it would work together to work out the electronics that work (if simplified) like a spacer between optics and electronic brains. As this stage progressed, when it became clear that everything was normal in general, the development of more advanced filling + finishing of domestic components began (the thermal imager matrix is ​​the same). Now the car is being run in with a completely updated filling. + In parallel to all this - the development, production and delivery of simulators for these machines, and training on them for the beginning of instructors.
                      So the "donkey" did speak, and in a very pleasant female voice (the crews call the voice of the T-14 computer "Mashenka").

                      Therefore, my insistent and benevolent recommendation to you - try to bury yourself in the materiel before any dispute ...
  36. Whowhy
    Whowhy 11 August 2021 09: 44
    0
    The development of new tanks is impossible without revising the concept of their use. In my opinion, the idea of ​​increasing the caliber of the gun is only partly correct. Yes, IMHO, the caliber needs to be increased, but not to increase the energy of the shot, but to decrease it - you need to switch to a universal weapon (cannon-howitzer-mortar-launcher), like in Nona and Lotus. This will make it possible, on the one hand, to create homing missiles for this weapon with the coveted range of 5-6 km without special costs, and on the other hand, to increase the power and range of use (due to the large angle of elevation of the barrel) of conventional ammunition. Naturally, due to the low speed of the projectile, it will be necessary to improve the fire control system to hit high-speed targets on the battlefield (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc.), but this is not such a difficult and expensive task, compared to installing a high-energy gun on a tank large caliber.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 47
      0
      Quote: whowhy
      Yes, IMHO, the caliber needs to be increased, but not to increase the energy of the shot, but to decrease it - you need to switch to a universal weapon (cannon-howitzer-mortar-launcher)

      At one time, the incompetent Soviet Marshal Kulik advocated the creation of so-called "universal weapons" - what happened in the end - you can read, there is a lot of sad things.
      Quote: whowhy
      like "Nona" and "Lotus"

      I will disappoint you - a tank gun and a howitzer / mortar have completely different ballistics.
      Quote: whowhy
      This will make it possible, on the one hand, without special costs to create homing missiles for this weapon with the coveted range of 5-6 km.

      So they already exist)))) It will simply be possible to create rockets of greater power - that's another matter. In general, I will tell you that for simple tank guns now there is such a range of ammunition, that Mama don’t worry! So it makes sense to give a greater elevation angle of the barrel - only shoot at the upper floors. Moreover - a large angle with a large caliber - this is the tower MSTA-S, Coalition-S, or at least Acacia - can you imagine this on a tank?
      Quote: whowhy
      but this is not such a difficult and costly task, compared to installing a high-energy large-caliber cannon on a tank.

      Such a gun is placed on a tank with the main goal - to shoot powerful BOPSs at other tanks, because BOPSs for 125 mm can now take a meter of steel (equivalent), and BOPSs for 152 mm can take up to one and a half meters!
      And in general, the most important thing is that the tank has its own tasks, the SPG has different ones, and therefore their features, and you don't need to mix these two concepts - you will get an unviable krakozyabra ..
      1. Whowhy
        Whowhy 12 August 2021 09: 49
        0
        At one time, the incompetent Soviet Marshal Kulik advocated the creation of so-called "universal weapons" - what happened in the end - you can read, there is a lot of sad things.

        And what does Kulik have to do with it? :) This, however, was Tukhachevsky. And on the other hand, you can ask - why then did they not stop at "Nona" (well, indulge in it and that's enough), but began to make "Lotus"?
        I will disappoint you - a tank gun and a howitzer / mortar have completely different ballistics.

        The same to me - "discovered America." lol And I'll tell you: "Well ... what then?"
        "So they already exist))))"

        Well, maybe by helicopters. So, there and maybe a caliber of 125mm.
        So it makes sense to give a greater elevation angle of the barrel - only shoot at the upper floors.

        Not only. There are many more options for the combat use of this.
        Moreover - a large angle with a large caliber - this is the tower MSTA-S, Coalition-S, or at least Acacia - can you imagine this on a tank?

        And what would you not remember about "Nona" and "Lotus"? Quite a compact car. Moreover, the "Nona" has 20 rounds in the ammunition rack (the T-72 has 22 rounds), while the "Lotos" has almost twice as many. wink
        Such a gun is placed on a tank with the main goal - to shoot powerful BOPSs at other tanks, because BOPSs for 125 mm can now take a meter of steel (equivalent), and BOPSs for 152 mm can take up to one and a half meters!

        But some argue that tanks with tanks only fight with bad commanders. wink On the other hand, hitting a HE tank with a shell with a caliber of even 152mm will definitely disable the tank (and if from the side, it will turn it over altogether). You, simply, have never seen the consequences of the explosion of a 152mm projectile (and I assume that 160mm should be done, or at least 155mm).
        Guided / homing missiles will work for especially dangerous targets (tanks and helicopters).
        BOPS, of course, are great, since they are still cheaper than missiles, but if you count it carefully, it may turn out that the gain is not great either. For example, if you compare the cost of a tank with a 152mm cannon (high ballistics) and the probability of hitting a target with "cheap" BOPSs and expensive missiles (if you didn't hit it the first time, then consider yourself destroyed).
        Yes, a serious drawback of a low ballistic cannon is a low projectile speed, which makes it very difficult (until the appearance of more advanced fire control systems) to hit maneuvering targets, but this is a relatively simple engineering task. On the other hand, due to the reduced energy of the shot, the possibility of creating guided (and even homing) projectiles for such weapons is improved, and not missiles, which, for example, will hit tanks in the upper projection.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 12 August 2021 14: 20
          0
          Quote: whowhy
          And what does Kulik have to do with it? :) This, however, was Tukhachevsky.

          Tukhach patronized - Kulik was the main ideologist)))
          Quote: whowhy
          The same to me - "discovered America." And I'll tell you: "Well ... what then?"

          But you are proposing to make them a hybrid laughing
          Quote: whowhy
          Well, maybe by helicopters. So, there and maybe a caliber of 125mm.

          And with 152 mm caliber, it will be possible to launch such a thing through the barrel. But there is a BUT - the development of KAZ in the near future strongly emasculates the capabilities of ATGMs, but BOPSs will still be a serious argument. Therefore, a tank gun must first of all be capable of throwing a powerful BOPS at high speed.
          Quote: whowhy
          And on the other hand, you can ask - why then did they not stop at "Nona" (well, indulge in it and that's enough), but began to make "Lotus"?

          Why didn't they stop at MSTA-S - did the Coalition start doing it? And what didn’t stop at Akatsia - did MSTA-S start doing it? Probably from the fact that the new barrel has better ballistics (+ new electronics + greater accuracy), a greater resource, a high rate of fire, some kind of "hellfire" mode can now be implemented by all sorts of Western mortar workers, and so on.
          Quote: whowhy
          And what would you not remember about "Nona" and "Lotus"? Quite a compact car. Moreover, the "Nona" has 20 rounds in the ammunition rack (the T-72 has 22 rounds), while the "Lotos" has almost twice as many.

          Well, you answered that you did not stop at Nona))) And why remember them - this is its own niche, the MBT has its own, completely different, why cross them? Why load the tank with unnecessary functions (like nona and lotus) that are not typical for them?
          Quote: whowhy
          But some argue that tanks with tanks only fight with bad commanders.

          Some of them are about 70-80 years behind the times. In the thirties - early forties, tanks really were not intended for this. But now, for example, among the amers and the Germans, the fight against enemy tanks is the main function of their MBT. Ours are also persistently developing new BOPSs for old guns (2A43 - pattern) and new BOPSs for new guns (2A82 - vacuum). And in the USSR, all the work in the field of tank development went in the direction of creating machines with a large caliber and high ballistics of guns - for throwing the most powerful BOPS, which will be destroyed by Abrash lobsters and kittens.
          Quote: whowhy
          BOPS, of course, are great, since they are still cheaper than missiles, but if you count it well, it may turn out that the gain is not great either.

          We have already counted - a gain at times, and if you add KAZ marching around the world, which make missiles a full oh, then BOPS become almost vital.
          Quote: whowhy
          Yes, a serious drawback of a low ballistic cannon is a low projectile speed, which makes it very difficult (until the appearance of more advanced fire control systems) to hit maneuvering targets, but this is a relatively simple engineering task. On the other hand, due to the reduced energy of the shot, the possibility of creating guided (and even homing) projectiles for such weapons is improved.

          And what will these slow projectiles do? What is their principle? Cumulative? You are aware that an abrashka from a kuma has a forehead equivalent to 1200mm! And from BOPS no more than 800mm! The T-90M's forehead from the kuma is also healthy - there is a little more than 1000 mm from the kuma, taking into account the DZ. Even an increase in caliber will not save you - new packages and 152mm godfather will successfully hold back from the lobster.
          And a slow projectile is a more convenient target for KAZ.

          Therefore, "low ballistics" is the lot of small-caliber infantry threshers of the BMP type (remember Kurganets-25 with a 57 mm low ballistics cannon) - programmable shells for infantry are just that. Well, or self-propelled mortars / mortars.
          1. Whowhy
            Whowhy 12 August 2021 19: 52
            0
            You have not read my arguments carefully. :)
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 13 August 2021 12: 43
              0
              Quote: whowhy
              You have not read my arguments carefully. :)

              I read this carefully:
              Quote: whowhy
              Yes, IMHO, the caliber needs to be increased, but not to increase the energy of the shot, but to decrease it - you need to switch to a universal weapon (cannon-howitzer-mortar-launcher), like in Nona and Lotus. This will make it possible, on the one hand, to create homing missiles for this weapon with the coveted range of 5-6 km without special costs, and on the other hand, to increase the power and range of use (due to the large angle of elevation of the barrel) of conventional ammunition.

              So - any competent engineer familiar with this topic will explain to you that this is impossible - a tank with a low ballistics cannon will not make any sense, since it will not be able to perform a number of the most important tasks of a modern tank. Homing ammunition is expensive and you can't get away with it alone. The use of "classic ammunition" will be covered with a copper basin, since they are designed for different ballistics.
              There is only one conclusion - what you proposed simply DOES NOT work. Did you think that the engineers themselves would not have thought of this?
              1. Whowhy
                Whowhy 14 August 2021 12: 22
                0
                Did you think that the engineers themselves would not have thought of this?

                It's not the engineers who decide, but the military - whoever pays calls the tune. And the military, as you know, are preparing for the last war ...
                Homing ammunition is expensive and you can't get away with it alone.

                According to forecasts, such tank battles as on the Kursk Bulge are no longer expected, wink therefore, homing ammunition is designed to destroy especially dangerous targets, which are not so many on the battlefield. Naturally, it is necessary to develop means of reconnaissance and target detection.
                The use of "classic ammunition" will be covered with a copper basin, since they are designed for different ballistics.

                It depends on what you mean by this. The same "Nona" and "Lotus" successfully use them for some reason. In addition, large elevation angles make it possible to destroy especially dangerous targets from behind cover (in the presence of advanced reconnaissance means).
                a tank with a low ballistic cannon will not make any sense, since it will not be able to perform a number of the most important tasks of a modern tank.

                "Money for the fish again." lol What are the "most important tasks" he will suddenly be unable to perform? In the event of an unexpected encounter with MBT at close ranges, a low ballistic gun of a large (for example, 160mm) caliber will leave no chances for any of the existing tanks, even when using a HE shell. In addition, cumulative-rod projectiles (a cross between BOPS and cumulative) can be used. Although they are still only in development, there is no such tank yet either ...
                At long distances, when using homing shells, with a defeat in the upper hemisphere - the same thing (and again, the HE shell is enough).
                So far, there is no KAZ to protect the upper hemisphere, and so far KAZ catches shells very poorly. The difference in the speed of missiles and projectiles (even if fired from a low ballistic weapon is quite significant). In addition, "there is a bolt for every nut" - KAZ, like any electronics, is susceptible to suppression by means of electronic warfare, or you can come up with something simpler, like in the RPG-30.
                So - any competent engineer familiar with this topic will explain to you that this is impossible

                I, too, "any competent engineer", and according to the VUS - the commander of a tank platoon (although this is a military department, but I have an idea), however, I do not see anything impossible in this.
  37. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 11 August 2021 10: 29
    +1
    Quote: abc_alex
    Why do you need a tank

    The world is not without ambiguity! There was a time when self-propelled guns were called "tanks"! (assault tank, anti-aircraft tank, tank destroyer ...). What do you refer to the KV-2 tank (!) I was able to somehow read an article where the author attributed the self-propelled guns on a tank chassis and with weapons (a gun of a larger caliber than on the main tank) in a rotating turret to assault tanks (!); and other self-propelled guns (for example, on a "non-tank" chassis and with weapons in the wheelhouse ...) to the SPG! SPG-mobile (self-propelled) Weapon (!) In "armor", so that it would not be removed from standing by fragments of a shell that flew into a position from afar or by bullets from a sabotage (partisan) group ... SHT (assault tank) - for battles in a fortified point (battles in the city, assault on the defensive line, heavily fortified in the sense of fortification ...) And perhaps a "long-range" "tank destroyer" ... (As you know, in WW2 anti-tank self-propelled guns "tank destroyers" were created on a tank chassis using a larger caliber gun than on a tank ...). In general, self-propelled guns - shoot on the sidelines of the front line ... and an assault tank is a hoplite, a knight ... in need of not only powerful weapons, but also powerful armor! A plant that produces main and assault tanks can quickly cut production of some and increase production of others! And it is possible that the layout of the "Armata" is more suitable for this ...
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 51
      +1
      There is a small addition to your comment - there were rumors circulating in the network that the T-14 with a 125 mm gun would be exactly a tank in the classical sense of the word, and a hypothetical, say, a T-14,5 with a 152 mm gun would be a tank destroyer, since in BC will have only fierce crowbars, piercing almost 1,5 meters of steel!
  38. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 11 August 2021 11: 34
    -1
    There is no network-centric system "Constellation-M" and will not be available so soon. Badly.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 11 August 2021 12: 48
      -1
      Quote: CastroRuiz
      There is no network-centric system "Constellation-M" and will not be available so soon. Badly.

      Who told you that? Shoigu? Developers? Share the sources, dear ...
  39. Seld
    Seld 11 August 2021 15: 04
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: seld
    Also recently assembled bmp-3 ...

    Eh, the picture is not loaded ((((


    Here you can see pictures of my "sculpture". https://karopka.ru/community/user/10585/?MODEL=599509
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 11 August 2021 15: 56
      0
      Chipping is gorgeous! I don't know how to do this yet))) My cars turn out to be only "dirty", but very new in appearance with a minimum of scuffs))))
  40. Seld
    Seld 11 August 2021 15: 45
    +2
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Quote: seld
    Quote: Per se.
    obviously 152 mm is the limit that can be used on tanks


    There, when calculating the caliber, by the way, there are sooooooo many difficult subtleties. In addition to purely "everyday" problems (such as an increase in the mass / size of the gun leads to: an increase in the total mass of the tank / an increase in the strength of the chassis as a result / an increase in engine power / a drop in speed / cross-country ability / the effect of rollback on mountings, etc., etc. .) we face: ....
    For example: we have 152 mm.; we plan to bang it 1 km accurately and flatly; "1000 g of gunpowder" is required (all figures are conditional). They banged. I got it. Struck. Gut? It seems - gut. But ... Distance is "penny".
    And if you nadot on "2 km" shmalnut? Well, the same "1000 g of gunpowder", suppose they send a blank to the target (already with a little ballistics). I got it. But .... did NOT break through. For the charge of gunpowder for penetration is no longer enough. Solution: increase the weight of the "gunpowder" to "1500 g". Truncated? Ha! And for this, you need to take additional volume for additional powder from somewhere. We increase the volume for gunpowder by reducing the warhead. They banged. I got it. Again, I did NOT strike. Because the disc has become too small ... Etc.
    There you still need to take corrections for the "round earth". And not only.
    In short, the field is not plowed for any dissertations. And the most tsimus: the shell should not be as expensive as a "cast-iron bridge across the Neva".
    Otherwise, no budgets can withstand even one day of war ...


    Those. are you not familiar with the sounds of "ballistic calculator"?
    You see, everything that you have written has been automated since the 40s.
    You just need to enter the range and type of projectile used.
    And the amount of "gunpowder" - the system will automatically shove you into the breech and the elevation angle of the barrel itself will correct depending on the entered data ...


    "The principle of operation of the tank ballistic computer is based on the formation in the memory of the calculator of ballistic curves for each type of projectile by the method of piecewise linear approximation of the firing tables depending on the range, meteoballistic and kinematic conditions of movement of the tank and the target during firing."
    Sorry, obviously, we're talking about fundamentally different things ...
    Or do you want to say that the unitary "shot" is filled with gunpowder every time in a different way? Do they fall asleep straight into the sleeve of a unitary shot like in a crater? 8-))) By the way, I can't imagine this process at all: the machine gun "figured out, took a shot, cut the sleeve, added gunpowder, sealed the sleeve, banged ....".
  41. Seld
    Seld 13 August 2021 10: 50
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Chipping is gorgeous! I don't know how to do this yet))) My cars turn out to be only "dirty", but very new in appearance with a minimum of scuffs))))


    THX! Wisdom is not great. There are ready-made master classes on the same frame. And video lessons on the internet - the sea. If something worked out for me, it will work for you.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 13 August 2021 12: 44
      0
      Quote: seld
      THX! Wisdom is not great. There are ready-made master classes on the same frame. And video lessons on the internet - the sea. If something worked out for me, it will work for you.

      Thank you for the kind words! But in addition to video lessons, you also need hands! Of all the methods, I get such scuffs-chips only by hand to draw, so work for a week turns out lol
      But here is my opinion - we overdid it with the filter - it turned out a little dark ...
  42. Seld
    Seld 13 August 2021 14: 56
    0
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: seld
    THX! Wisdom is not great. There are ready-made master classes on the same frame. And video lessons on the internet - the sea. If something worked out for me, it will work for you.

    Thank you for the kind words! But in addition to video lessons, you also need hands! Of all the methods, I get such scuffs-chips only by hand to draw, so work for a week turns out lol
    But here is my opinion - we overdid it with the filter - it turned out a little dark ...


    YEAH! Definitely right! I was in a hurry! Didn't let the filters dry completely, at least 8 hours. Therefore, the colors of the filters mixed and gave "darkness". There was, however, the idea of ​​imposing a winter camo. Highlight this way. But - time ... Alas, sir.
    And I also draw chips and scuffs by hand. How else? With a brush. Dry incl. Sometimes I just scrub with a hard brush. You can do EVERYTHING on tanks! I also made chips and stuff with a toothpick. Regular. But first, before a layer of the final camo, the technique was poured with air in the color of the chips. And then you rip off the camo and you get a very realistic chip, abrasion, obgadding.
    It would be time !!!!!
  43. VLADIMIR MIRONOV
    VLADIMIR MIRONOV 22 August 2021 15: 05
    0
    I will say this, in the near future, the path of development of tanks will not be finally determined. There are no global wars of the WWII type, and it is in them that all the dots above the island break out, and local conflicts do not provide an opportunity to see the prospects for development. I think that no revolution in this matter is foreseen yet. If only the production of experimental samples.
    A caliber of 120-125 mm will be effective for a long time and put, bangs, caliber 152-155 mm well ... not economically or something.
  44. Usher
    Usher 22 September 2021 02: 29
    -1
    It should be noted that even the experience of using the T-34-76 and T-60 (T-70) tanks in real combat operations, in which the functions of the commander and gunner were combined, showed the viciousness of such a scheme
    You would still remember the Napoleonic Wars. Found something to compare with.
  45. Ravshan Jumshut
    Ravshan Jumshut 14 October 2021 09: 59
    0
    The key question with whom to fight, and then everything else, including what weapon, and so the article is interesting