Umbrella for the tank and "roof-fighters"

Entry

In June of this year, photographs of the T-72B3 (the newest, by the way, modification) with a kind of canopy - either a visor, or an umbrella, flashed across the Internet.

These cars lit up at the Kadamovsky training ground in the Rostov region. On June 17, the press service of the Ministry of Defense announced a demonstration by the commanders of the combined-arms formations of the Southern Military District of their shooting skills from tank... General leadership was carried out by the commander of the Southern Military District, General of the Army Dvornikov.

Well, in general, generals also have to pull up well, run, shoot a pistol, and so on. It is right.

But fire from a tank? What for?

It's still specific weapon.

Why not AGS or shooting from Tunguska?

Well, this is a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, let's skip it.

The intrigue was in the photographs of these structures on the tanks. The press service then did not comment on these structures in any way. But a holy place is never empty, and the information vacuum began inevitably to be filled with different content.

In the beginning, based on the primary information about the general's shooting, they were instantly dubbed "general's umbrellas", so that the sun would not bother their superiors too much.

In principle, the heads of the commanders must be protected, they need to think a lot about who, where and in what composition to send to fight / protect, and so on. Yes, and they are already elderly ... I know very well what summer heat and dust are like a pillar at the training ground, and when outside it is +25, and in armor under +40 and above it crushes. Yes, and the rain can go (the weather does not react to the orders of the command), and then there is a canopy. At least some comfort.

Then there was information about the newest, unparalleled protection of the tank in the upper projection, it was picked up by almost the entire media space, at least somehow connected with the military theme, and it began ...

The discussions covered everything from:

- We, with our ingenuity, have created a penny defense against the bayraktar, and the bourgeoisie are spending millen dough on all sorts of garbage!

And ending with:

- It's a shame! Shame on the jungle! Shame!

Later…

Then the New Visor appeared. Quite unlike the first ...

So first I propose to consider the June one, so as not to get confused.

This article is my point of view. I’ll say right away that I’m not an expert, they did that word very much, ahem ... Well, in general, it’s understandable. And I do not consider myself as such.

I am a tanker, and I will consider this issue "from the inside" of the tank. My opinion, of course, is subjective, but there is a place to be. Let my experience help in some way, but I have something to say ...

Come on.

Part 1. Umbrella for a man

Take a closer look at the photographs.

What is this construction?

The metal frame, connected by a crate, is attached with four posts to the top of the tower. Some soft mats are fixed on the crate.

Can this structure protect the upper hemisphere?

And from what?

From Bayraktar and Javelin?

So it is cumulative ammunition. A serious weapon, but there is protection against it.

The photo shows a design similar to an anti-cumulative grate.

Can any design withstand cumulative munitions?

No.

The grate must destroy the cumulative funnel of the ammunition. The strips of metal cut it into pieces, as it were. Grenades with "shock" piezoelectric fuses can simply ... get stuck between the gratings, or the plate breaks the electrical contact from the fuse (shock or shock-inertial) to the bottom detonator. If the fuse hits the edge of the strip, then the normal operation occurs BEFORE the armor, and here the distance BEFORE it is important, it must exceed the focal length of the shaped charge. And so on down the list.

That is, everything is important: the thickness of the sheet strip and its width, the distance between the sheets, fasteners. The distance between the grill and the armor.

Does this "visor" look like the work of the Research Institute of Steel?

Doesn't look like it at all.

If you look closely at the photos, then the crate is made of reinforcement, the frame is made of a corner. The uprights do not provide a solid supporting surface for the screen.

Can it prevent HEAT ammunition from hitting the roof? Or not?

Or, in ideal conditions, reduce the armor penetration of an unlucky grenade / rocket charge by 100 mm.

And how much cumulative breaks through?

They are different: some are 100 mm, and some are 700 mm.

So it's really just a "rain and sun shade."

So what?

Quite good at training grounds. And it closes from the heat, and the downpour does not lash into the open hatch. So the following photos from India are really relevant here.

In the fall, photos of tanks with visors flashed on the Internet again. But… these are already other constructions. Look at them carefully. Strong frame, sheet (!) Iron, solid support at six points. Previously, the front part of the "visor" was supported by thin racks at an angle, now - straight.

Don't you find that the design looks more serious and has something in common with the above?

Yes, there is something. But for some reason, mistrust that this was done by the Research Institute of Steel.

Why?

Because you need to climb up and take it with your hands.

But this is already a DIFFERENT construction that really wants to be a defense, and not that first parody of it.

Do RIGHT grilles protect?

Wrong question.

They give a decrease in the likelihood of hitting armored vehicles. And everyone uses them (regular lattices). And amers in Afghanistan, and we, and so on.

Do they do something homemade?

Yes Easy! Everywhere and always.

At Komsomolsky:

However, there is also a fly in the ointment for the gratings - modern shaped-charge ammunition uses highly sensitive inertial fuses, and the detonator can start the process of forming a shaped-charge jet BEFORE meeting the grating.
Therefore, the grilles move away from the armored vehicles already at unimaginable distances, serious ammunition, even with the beginning of defocusing, can do a lot of trouble, especially on thin armor. And on the upper projection of the tank turret, it is not at all thick ...

And on what principle are the cumulative ammunition of the bayraktar and java built?

This is not a question for me, but retelling the Internet is not interesting, everyone can do it. Maybe the experts will tell you something in the comments?

Then it will be clear how much this lattice protection of the upper part of the tank turret reduces the damaging effect of the cumulative ammunition of the bayraktar and javelin.

It seems that I tried to be as objective as possible in finding the usefulness of this design.

It was the turn to talk about the cons.

They are.

It is useless to talk about the increase in the height of the tank and the silhouette, they no longer pay attention to this.

How comfortable will it be for the crew to occupy combat positions? And leave the car?

The whistle dance with the loading of the BC was already a fun concert, and then the piano was thrown.

Actually, these are standards. And they don't joke with them.

But the most serious thing will begin in a clash with the enemy.

The most important and point by point:

1. In case of fire contact, the attachments of the tank are scattered in different directions, the gradation of possible losses is large: from a little to full rubbish. What will happen if this structure bends or turns into a hedgehog bristling with sheets of iron after being hit by the cumulative? Or will a blast wave from a land mine crush the support legs?
It is highly likely that the heads of the sights and observation devices of the tower will be blocked.

Will it be possible to leave the wrecked car through the tower hatches? 90% - no. This question arose in my head very first when I saw a photo with a "June" visor. Probably because he was leaving the wrecked car. And sometimes he didn’t leave, but they dragged me out, because in case of a shell shock, it’s not that you can’t say “mu”, and you don’t even understand that you are a human being. That is why the turret hatches were kept open, not because of some kind of increased pressure during detonation, but simply to jump out quickly or would pull you out. There is no time to turn the handle inside and the key outside, there is no time.

Is the "Hero" hatch at the mech?

Go to it yourself, try it. Just first make your way into the control department (I give advice - climb your head forward), then somewhere for the day of a dead or, at best, a heavily shell-shocked mecha (advice - shove it into the pedal assembly), disassemble all the structures above the hatch and voila - two ship racks separate you from the posthumous award that you can pick up on the ground. Forget about getting out, the clearance will probably not allow, we are not standing on the asphalt.

So we climb into the top hatch of the mechanic, if the barrel, of course ... not in the position from 29-00 to 31-00 fell on top of the hatch, otherwise it’s completely cranky. Let Mehan sit in the pedal unit, there is nothing to interfere.

Well, is there still a desire to climb to the mech?

Then do not forget to stop the VN worm gear and manually, with a flywheel, raise the barrel. This will determine whether you can get out through the mechanic's standard hatch.
Usually the other way around: this is a mechanic, if alive, climbs to the turrets, as fluff on the hatch lay down or he is simply shell-shocked and is in a state of "not Copenhagen" at all.

It seems that the upper lattice will save from the cumulative effect, weaken the effect, but ... just a little later you will go to Heaven, and not immediately.

It's not funny at all.

Why did I have this question first, when I saw this visor?

Why didn't it appear in others? Those who invented it, signed it, sculpted it, edited it?

2. Low situational awareness in the upper hemisphere. Nothing is visible. I've always stuck in an open hatch. But everyone knew what was around. And he dived into the armor - not to hide, but to reach the weapons, because he knew WHERE the enemy was.

3. What data will the meteorological tower collect? What will the wind direction and speed readings be entered into the electronic ballistic computer? And why is he needed then, since he will lie? Let's rearrange / lengthen it then.

4. It is impossible to fire with NSVT (Korda). The racks make it difficult to turn the shoulder strap horizontally. I am silent about the vertical - it is useless to fire at air targets from it. But on the land to give a light, especially with 12,7 mm is very useful. But no, now it is impossible. Yes, then take it off, finally. Expand it forward in advance, before installing the visor? The T-72 does not work, or rather, it does, but then the commander's TKN-3 will look ... backwards, we put the inner shoulder strap on the stopper and remove the middle shoulder strap with the Utes from the stopper, turning it towards the target.

Something like that…

I didn’t think of anything, didn’t invent anything and didn’t get it out of my finger.

Now I’ll ask myself a question:

- Would you go to combat work with such a canopy?

Then the counter question:

- And ... at the moment I have no other means of protecting the upper projection?

- No.

- If there is a chance to meet a "roof-boy", then YES, I will choose the lesser of evils. And if the "roof-fighters" do not loom in the future of a meeting at this theater of operations, then ... but in figs he surrendered to me! This canopy itself and will beat me inadvertently.

Here is my honest answer.

And now we come to the main thing, for which I wrote an article (well, not about an umbrella).

Part 2. An uninvited guest

Ratsheboi.

What kind of animals are these?

Those who "fly" from above and hit the roof.

When everyone screamed that the era of tanks was over, and bayraktar is manna from heaven? Yes, after the Second Karabakh.

Let me briefly tell you my opinion about this war?

A whole generation of Armenians rested on the laurels of the Victory, and a whole generation of Azerbaijanis bought technology and weapons, studied diligently, thought, and prepared scrupulously. The winner on the pedestal sticks out, and the loser in the basement pulls iron. They found weak points, determined the method of combat operations and the type of weapons, chose a place, and bided their time.

Hard work was rewarded at its true worth. It was the long-term work that won the war, not the UAV. If another weapon was needed, then there would be another weapon.
This is a lesson in perseverance in achieving a goal. Well done.

But to say that bayraktar closed the era of the tank ... It's like comparing warm with soft.
There were rats before, but no one paid attention to them, and this was, in principle, justified.

Tank ... The tank is the main striking force of the ground forces. The boots of the infantryman and the gusl of the tank are always together, they are the ones who are fighting on the front line, there are no others there. The rest at various lines support, cover, provide. It is the tank that always seeks to destroy the enemy. Eliminate by all means and available means. Because if the tank is not stopped, it will crush you.

Almost after every war, anywhere, the generals analyzed their own and others' strategies, checked the actions for operational and tactical actions.

Were the troops able to accomplish their missions on them and why?

Did the tanks manage to take certain lines? And if not, then who, under what conditions, with what weapon stopped them?

The statisticians scrupulously counted the wrecked cars and found out the places of the penetration.

Mathematicians took calculus in one hand, and the theory of probability in the other, and began to make forecasts of the defeats of combat vehicles in the near future and calculate what actions should be taken to minimize losses from these MOST probabilistic defeats.

Everyone knows what this led to - tanks all over the world have an almost impenetrable forehead and good side armor. So? So. And nobody is surprised by this. You can ask just about anyone:

- Why is the tank's tower and VLD the strongest?

And get a completely logical answer:

- So they shoot there most of all when the tank is advancing or defending!

Statisticians and mathematicians again and again brought data from the battlefield that, in percentage terms, the forehead and partly sides are still the most dangerous for defeat. Yes, the tanks were hit through the bottom with mines, and through the engine compartment with grenades and through the roof with cumulative bombs, but in percentage terms, the tanks continued to suffer the greatest losses when the turret, VLD and hull sides were hit.

So they paid attention to what needs to be paid - the most dangerous places for defeat.

So we are now and have come to the conclusion that the top of the tower, the roof of the MTO and the bottom of the armor monsters ... are poorly protected. And this is a trend in all countries. Show me at least one tank that will withstand the defeat of a shaped charge in the area of ​​the engine compartment?

Is this natural?

Yes.

But time passes, swords and shields are modified, new types of weapons and equipment appear.

The first serious bells rang with the helicopter's full-fledged entry into the battlefield.
Calculus and probability theory showed an average increase in the percentage of the tank hitting through the roof. But this did not change the overall picture of the main dangerous zones of the combat vehicle.

The designers went through the layers of armor, coming up with new fillers, specifically to protect the tank from the front and side projections. The first explosive reactive armor appeared in the same place.

Then there were more bells, they were given by the frontline aviation, and MLRS with self-aiming warheads.
Precision ammunition waved their paws happily: excalibur, fireball, merlin, LOCAAS.
That is, the roof-fighters entered the arena.

The percentage of the likelihood of hitting a tank through the roof was increased, but again not to those values ​​when you need to work on the roof with the same diligence as, for example, VLD.
They began to mitigate this danger in a comprehensive manner - the Tungusks learned to fire with "trunks" on the move, corner reflectors and heat traps with songs and dances tried to distract the roof-fighters from the tanks, and on the combat vehicles themselves, the tower roof was protected by dynamic protection, not quite the roof itself, but began to protect ...

Protection in the upper part of the T-72B turret.

Let's just say that in the Caucasus at one time there were many bearded lovers to carry a "seven" on themselves as an element of national dress. And if they had to fire a grenade from above into the tank, they tried to hit the hatches of the turrets. Because Contact-1 on the roof made it difficult for them to confidently hit the combat vehicle.

I will not list all the "bells" and the whole range of measures to counteract those wishing to break through the roof of the tank - there is no need for this. The main thing is to understand that the appearance of a new weapon was taken into account, and countermeasures were applied to it, BUT the seriousness of these countermeasures was determined precisely by the degree of danger of this weapon in comparison with other available means of destruction of the tank.

In a nutshell, we did it, but poorly. All (namely all) countries continued to focus on improving armor on the usual projections - front, sides.

And the family of roof-fighters continued to grow little by little, gradually increasing the percentage of their danger.

Javelin is just one of them. Yes, he's good. He's very good, radish.

But has anyone in the world concerned themselves with the opposition from the Java?

No. For a quarter of a century they haven't even touched a finger.

And what are we?

And we ... Born into the world a variant of the modernization of the tank in the form of the T-72B3, practically exposing the roof.

Well what can I say?

It’s okay, it’s not for them to go into battle, someone has to publish the "Battle Leaflet", everyone has their own job.

Have you spoken about it before or have you caught yourself now?

All and sundry were talking, reporting and shouting. This article (T-72B3 ... what is this beast? 1 part
T-72B3 ... what is this beast? 2 part ) on "VO" back from 2013.

Almost every "tank blogger" in the media has been trumpeting about this for as soon as 10 years ...

And here, against this background, when the means of counteraction and protection were clearly late, another "roof-boy" came out - bayraktar.

So much for the addition of the factors of its success.

I just happened to be in the right place at the right time on the prepared soil ...

But bayraktar is not a superweapon against a tank, it turned out to be the last straw that overflowed the bowl of ignoring the increase in the percentage of probable destruction of a combat vehicle through the top of the tower.

Matanalysis has already yelled that the percentage of damage from roof-breakers, although it remained insignificant in comparison with the frontal and lateral threat, is catastrophic when applied.

For example, in order to disable the T-72B3 in a lateral projection using the RPG-7, several shots are needed. Different grenade launchers, not just one. Consistently, not chaotic. And the theory of probability does not say that the result will be 100% even with 5 hits.

And to break through the roof is enough ... one shot with high probability mate. expectations.

Nicely closed the front sides, right? And this despite the very glaring holes in the dynamic tower defense.

The roof protection is not so smart, isn't it?

Why did he give B3 as an example?

Because the old T-72B is better protected in the roof area ...

But, again, this approach remains with all tank developers around the world. There is no tank, no developments with adequate protection of the upper part of the tower and the roof of the MTO.
Bayraktar simply overflowed the bowl of disregard for the upper defense and took the glory of a great roof-breaker, although he is not. In some theaters, the Javelin will be much more dangerous than a UAV, and sometimes a volley of a MLRS battery with SPBE can make them both and disrupt a tank attack completely. In general, each weapon has its own place in the database.

That's all, he persuaded, it's clear - the roof-fighters are dangerous, and the world tank building missed them with timely protection from them.

So what to do?

Defend. The shield must catch up with the sword - the good old game continues.

Yes, modern combined-arms combat is therefore "combined-arms", that we all climb into a quarrel with our individual weapons and work, albeit for different purposes, but together and for the benefit of one combat mission.

Yes, a tank should not fight alone with an orphan infantryman, they should make a fiery shaft of art, air cover should be carried out by army air defense, mortarmen should be mortar, sappers should be sappers and so on, army multifaceted units and units should act as a whole. This is all clear and a topic for another conversation, especially in the light of the creation of "platforms".

But what if it so happened that the multi-echelon complex protection still missed a lone ammunition, pretending to be a peaceful crow?

Is it possible?

Possible.

Or is it just a local DB case. For example, BB-shniks carry out their tedious sweep in the settlement, and you, on a hillock, by looking at your turtles, are trying to make it clear to the population that it is not worth resisting the ongoing scam.

And here, as usual, a handful of inadequate people refuse to perceive logic as thinking, and from the hillock "flies" into the roof of the tower.

And it began ...

A familiar picture, is not it?

Yes, the tank also needs its own protection from roof-breakers. The tank is involved in a variety of combat operations and actions. He, like Shiva - in the offensive, defense, escort, ambush and ... everywhere.

He is the main striking force of the ground forces.

I will immediately answer the standard "fashionable" nowadays dictum that "tanks do not fight with tanks" - in case of direct contact with the enemy on the battlefield, the tank "fights" WITH ANYONE. He does not choose a target, but breaks everything in order to fulfill the assigned combat mission.

Part 3. We are not afraid of the wolf and the owl

What means and methods of protecting the tank in the upper projection are there at the moment?

What weapons do you need to defend against?

We recall the conversation about visors - from cumulative ammunition.

1.KAZ

Complex of active protection. The most advanced self-defense system for armored vehicles to date. Yes, with its own shortcomings, which "scare" the escort infantry a little, but, as they say, "each has its own shortcomings."

However, as mentioned above, the roof-breakers were ignored, and questions arise:

Are the developed KAZ capable of protecting the upper projection?

Do operating KAZ have a blind funnel on top of the tank?

And most importantly, such active protection systems are expensive. They are really not cheap.
Is it possible to predict that they will instantly appear tomorrow in all linear units on all T-72B3, T-90, T-80BVM?

Photo of KAZ "Arena-M" on T-72B3 back in 2013.

No. Well, it's not real. Even the Germans and the striped ones put KAZ on individual cars, which they could not develop themselves and bought from Israel. And we have them (KAZ), but we have ...

“- You have forgotten, dear friend, about money.
- About what? - Dunno asked with a pleasant smile.
- About money, dear friend, about money! "

2. Semi-active protection systems

They are also in the developed form and new ones can be developed in the shortest possible time. For example, the well-known "Shtora-1".

There is a hazard detection unit - control channel radiation detection sensors and laser radiation detection sensors.

There is a block for counteracting the danger - infrared searchlights and PU smoke grenades.

Is it possible to modify and use?

Possible.

Add a thermal imaging sensor to the hazard detection unit (expensive? Then a good optical one).

The Hazard Counteraction Unit is already good. The searchlights are well pressed by the optoelectronic coordinators of the guidance systems, the DGs close the optics, knock down the target designation quantum beam, and put the "fire and forget" guidance systems into a stupor. Well, yes, we would still have to work with the smoke, and, by the way, they are working on them - they make them even more dirty for the foe.

This is just one example.

How about creating other semi-active security systems operating on different principles? Is it possible?

Possible.

And for the money?

Yes, it will cost something, but this is not KAZ, it is quite lifting money. There is experience in creating such systems. The kits can be produced quickly. Install them - there will be no problems either. In addition to factories, there are also BTRZ sites.

3. Passive protection systems (dynamic and mechanical)

a) Dynamic protection.

What is the advantage of passive protection in everyday service?

The fact that it does not need to be turned on. It always works, even when the tank is muffled and asleep, and the crew shies away somewhere.

The fact that it cannot be detected by anything. It does not emit anything in any spectrum (like active and semi-active protection systems), it does not even glare, since there are no lenses (just kidding). Requires only service after triggering.

And here is the main question, to which I cannot hear a clear answer since the appearance of the T-72B3: why is there no continuous field of DZ blocks on the roof of the tower?

This is where there is an omission. Here it is, the weak point that the roof-fighters groped for.

Is it possible to develop and put on the roof of the tower a DZ complex that also holds tandem cumulative ammunition?

And why not?

This is not a tracked space submarine. Yes, there will be many questions. It is necessary to take into account both the thickness of the armor, and the alignment of the turret with weapons, and the power of the drives in terms of GN.

Hatches?

And peer into the hatches of "Breakthrough-3" and T-14. They are double. And then forward. Here, the bicycle does not need to be reinvented, although modified ones have gone into the series ...

Here it is, an EFFECTIVE and INEXPENSIVE means of countering the roof-breakers who penetrated the complex defense of the unit - DZ against tandem cumulative ammunition!

How quickly is it possible to put it on line tanks?

Yes, in principle, according to patterns and templates, equipment can also be welded in workshops in the fleets of military units of the military units themselves. So quite quickly.

b) Mechanical protection.

And here we have already discussed almost everything. They just did not discuss the screens, but practically everything is said about the grilles. All the pros and cons have already been named.

By the way, somehow they could cover the roof of the MTO, but to serve the opportunity was.

What's left to say?

I forgot to say about the price.

Oh yes, the price! Sheer pennies. The cheapest way is in mechanical protection, which itself is cheaper than semi-active and even more active.

So it turns out that the Ministry of Defense chose grilles as ... the main method of protection against roof-breakers?

Hack and predictor Aviator

Stop.

I just wanted to give information and give my opinion. And draw your own conclusions.
Yes, and I cannot draw normal conclusions - after all, even children can read us.

Comments

[Lech from Android.]

A very interesting view of the author on the problem of protecting a tank from an upper angle ... thank you for the article.
For clarity, one could insert videos of burning tanks from Syria ... where tankers jumped out of burning tanks ... you wonder how they survived when a stream of burning gases rushed from the tank.
I read with interest the comments of tankers and tank specialists.

[Old tanker]

Quite adequate and rather meticulous analysis of the tanker who fought. It completely coincides with what I wrote in the comments to articles on VO on these visors. All tankers who fought in the first place think about the evacuation from the car. And everyone understands perfectly well that the bent structure will lock them in the tank. Whether it will fly into the roof or not is still a question. And there is no trust in this lattice. So it's better without her. It is somehow calmer that you will not remain walled up in the tower.
At the expense of the KDZ on the roof of the tower, I absolutely agree. We (tankers in the eighties) in Chechnya were very jealous of the guys on the T-72B. They have towers, like turtles, all covered with boxes of dynamo protection, and we have "holes" on the roof. Throw it on top where you can additionally yourself. But unfortunately, in few places it turned out to stick.
So I also do not understand why the entire projection of the tower is not completely covered by the DZ on the T-72B3.

[storm]

Strong frame, sheet (!) Iron, solid support at six points. Previously, the front part of the "visor" was supported by thin racks at an angle, now - straight.

And what prevents the "Relikt" DZ blocks from being fixed on top of this strong visor?
You will get a fairly effective two-layer DZ on the roof of the tower and on the visor. spaced by about a meter and combined with semi-active protection systems, it will be able to withstand most "roof-fighters".

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: assault

What prevents the "Relikt" DZ blocks from being fixed on top of this strong visor?

Such proposals have already appeared ... incl. and on page-x VO ... But it's not that simple! For example, attempts to install DZ on light armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles ...) often ended in failure! You can offer a slightly different "DZ" ... like SMART PROTech ...

[storm]

on the "umbrella" you should probably use a lightweight DZ for lightly armored vehicles or soft armor that is used to protect the sides of the T-72B3M

[Barberry25]

will not be able, because long before the meeting they will be demolished from machine guns, Visors are so good that cheap and massive

[storm]

Barberry25 will not be able to, because long before the meeting they will be demolished from machine guns,

The tank also rides on the battlefield for a reason, and high-explosive fragmentation shells will come to these "machine gunners" from a distance much greater than they can cause any significant damage to the tank.

[Barberry25]

it will arrive, it will arrive, but the fact of the matter is that it will also fly in the tank, and the grid will collect less than a whole "plate" of DZ blocks ... in general, you need to put a turret from the T-90M on all tanks, but it is costly and will go whether this MO is not yet known

[Disant]

apparently the towers are different.
after 72, new turrets with reinforced frontal armor began to be installed on the t-1987b.
I will assume that
- on the roof, bonks with dz elements began to interfere with the commander's view from the tkn.
- the strengthening of the frontal projection led to the approach of the tower array to the mechanic drive hatch, and there is a "bottleneck" with further modernization, the driver has nowhere to go, therefore, the "bald patches" from the front around the gun

[Disant]

apparently the towers are different ... - this is my comment to the Old Tankman's comment that
"So I also do not understand why the T-72B3 does not completely cover the entire projection of the tower on the T-XNUMXBXNUMX."

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Old Tankman

So I also do not understand why the entire projection of the tower is not completely covered by the DZ on the T-72B3.

Moreover, where it is covered and that is crooked. Here's how to understand this installation:

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bad_gr

the entire projection of the tower is not completely covered by the DZ.

Of course, the overlap with DZ elements looks a little watery, but I will point out to you and the author that it is pointless to close the entire projection of the tower directly.

It can be seen from the diagram that a significant part of the projection from above is a very thick frontal part and its roof-breakers are deeply purple. The massive breech of the gun also protects the stowage and mechanisms from damage from above, although, of course, the armor effect of the kum.jet on the crew remains.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It can be seen from the diagram that a significant part of the projection from above is a very thick frontal part and its roof-breakers are deeply purple.

This remark is true only in the case of a vertical fall of the enemy's ammunition. If the blow is struck at an angle (from a window of a house or a canopy), then the tank can be destroyed.

The same can be said about the place where the cannon breech is located. Under the ceiling, it happens only when the gun barrel is lowered, the rest of the time there is a large gap and a cumulative jet, passing through an unprotected roof, can pass over the breech and hit the commander or gunner.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bad_gr

If the blow is struck at an angle (from a window of a house or a canopy), then the tank can be destroyed.

I do not argue that the elements of the remote sensing must be placed with an overlap on the armored part. But it is unnecessary to cover the entire upper projection.

[Aleks tv]

... It can be seen from the diagram that a significant part of the projection from above is a very thick frontal part and its roof-breakers are deeply purple. The massive breech of the gun also protects the stowage and mechanisms from damage from above, although, of course, the armor effect of the kum.jet on the crew remains.

Do you mean the so-called "cheeks"?
Do they take up much of the total area of ​​the tower's roof?
There is even no point in talking about the breech.

The top of the T-72B3 turret is NOT COVERED BY DZ.
You just need to climb the tank, go down to the tower and compare - everything will become clear.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aleks tv

Do you mean the so-called "cheeks"?
Do they take up much of the total area of ​​the tower's roof?

Cheekbones, cheeks - yes, I'm talking about them. They take up decently all the same, a number of remote sensing elements can be omitted, as it seems to me.

Quote: Aleks tv

The top of the T-72B3 turret is NOT COVERED BY DZ.

In general, I agree with this, but the T-72B has an overkill, these very cheekbones are overlapped with a surplus, in my opinion.

[Bad_gr]

Here, it's normal:

[Vladimir_2U]

By the way, here I looked at a photo from my colleague Bad_gr, read the comments and thought, if we can keep the inhabited turret, then the hatch covers for the turrets can be made movable, like those of mechanics. Of the obvious advantages - the almost unlimited thickness of the lid and at the same time there is less chance of jamming with a destroyed "umbrella".
An obvious disadvantage is that the rod of the lifting mechanism takes up space and can only be placed against the walls. Well, you, as a specialist, know the pros and cons of such a hatch, which I do not even suspect. But the idea in my opinion is quite sensible.

[Aleks tv]

... Of the obvious advantages - the almost unlimited thickness of the lid and at the same time there is less chance of jamming with a destroyed "umbrella".
An obvious disadvantage is that the rod of the lifting mechanism takes up space and can only be placed against the walls.

Good morning, Vladimir.
Can't sleep too?))

Luke like a mehwad ... to the towers?
If the same as on the T-64/72/80, then ... no.
Unfortunately not.

1.) It takes a very long time to open it. First you unstop. Then use the handle (like a flywheel) to lift the hatch. Then, holding the handle, turn it to the side.
All this must be done for a long time and with both hands.
The towers' hatch is spring-loaded, it opens with one hand and throws itself onto the stopper at the same time as it "crawls out".
2.) The open hatches of the turrets (standard) serve as very good protection, behind which you can take cover.
3.) Remember paragraph 1., it ended with the mechanic getting the opportunity to leave the wrecked car, and in all other cases he MUST lower the hatch to the side with an emphasis on the platform provided for this and ... lock the hatch.
Can you imagine how many movements the mechanic makes and how much time he spends on opening the hatch? The same amount for closing.
Sometimes, in a fever, the mechanic lifts the hatch, pushes it back and ... runs on business "for a second", and then falls into the car and decides to drive it along the "marching" way - sticking out in the hatch up to his neck.
And he gets under way, forgetting that he did not lower the hatch to the stopper ...
.... This is not how combat losses are born ..... or, at best, simply "freaked out" with a hatch in the forehead / nose / neck.

I paint all this in detail in order to explain "on the fingers" why the current hatch of the mechanic is not suitable for the turrets. This will be a complete death to the flies.
This is not my "stubbornness".

Somehow to modify it and put it to the towers - perhaps yes.
But why would it be easier to get out of a hatch of this design if the canopy collapses?

Do the lift up on the hydraulics?))
Is there an emergency on the mechanics?
This is a complication of the design.
Just thinking out loud ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aleks tv

Good morning, Vladimir.
Can't sleep too?))

Hello Alexey. We have a 5 o'clock difference with Moscow (Ulan-Ude), so it's okay. ))

Quote: Aleks tv

I paint all this in detail in order to explain "on the fingers" why the current hatch of the mechanic is not suitable for the turrets.

Yes, thanks for the detailed description of the features and problems.

Quote: Aleks tv

But why would it be easier to get out of a hatch of this design if the canopy collapses?

This problem, it seems to me, is a little far-fetched, because the "umbrella" will be made of serious materials and at most there will be torn and bent strips of metal (photos of breaking through lattice screens are available). This is definitely a problem for the folding hatch. But for hydraulics or mechanics (albeit slowly) it is already quite capable.
I also thought that the elements of the "umbrella" above the hatches could be made folding upwards with large backlashes and powerful hinges.

Quote: Aleks tv

Do the lift up on the hydraulics?))
Is there an emergency on the mechanics?
This is a complication of the design.
Just thinking out loud ...

Against the background of the total cost of the tank, these are tears. )) Well, for the pilots they came up with catapults, and for tankers, a hatch can be made more difficult.
And thinking, arguing and pondering other people's thoughts and arguments is just interesting.

[Aleks tv]

... We have a 5 o'clock difference with Moscow (Ulan-Ude

Wow!!!!
How long have I tried REAL Buzy ...)))
Or is it correct Poses?))
I'm still confused.
But the cafes are "Poznye"?
But from the memories of "Tarasun" is still shaking.))

I served in the ZabVO.

... and the maximum will be torn and bent metal strips

Oh oh....
When destroyed - EVERYTHING in the trash. The thickness of the metal is practically irrelevant ........

Still, I am in favor of reactive armor against tandem ammunition.
This is a pretty impressive structure, almost a "half-visor", but the hatches MUST NOT BE closed.

About KAZ and semi-active - I do not believe that they will finance it. Unfortunately......
.....................
I have to work now, but in the evening I will try to talk more.
If not against, then on "you".
I 50.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aleks tv

If not against, then on "you".
I 50.

Of course only for, Alexey! Moreover, they are of the same age and a little fellow countrymen.

Quote: Aleks tv

How long have I tried REAL Buzy ...)))
Or is it correct Poses?))

Yes, all my life poses were poses, but as soon as the Internet became fast and accessible, irresponsible Russians began to simply burn out over "Hot, burning, appetizing and other POSITIONS."
Buryats are guys with humor and good self-irony, but not all the same, and not everything is so strong in power, so with this renaming of the POZNY to BUUZ, a whole campaign was carried out. But now you can't confuse a strip bar with a cafe, with all the desire.
But the poses didn't get any worse by themselves.

Quote: Aleks tv

But from the memories of "Tarasun" is still shaking.))

As a joke: but the visit to the cafe was the most memorable, especially the next three days.
Good luck at work!

[this]

Hmm, so in the t72b3, it seems like it closes everything you need, and in front there is generally armor of the tower, now on the roof of which baral is not poked, there is simply not enough space left for dz, and it doesn’t work sensibly at a vertical angle.

[OgnennyiKotik]

The article is excellent, logical reasoning with healthy humor. A couple of remarks.
"Western" countries are not surprised at the proper attention to protection from the upper hemisphere, in view of the practical absence of a threat from there. The air will be behind them, their probable opponents do not yet have anti-tank systems of "roof-fighters".
I looked a little differently at the T-14, of course the "roof-boy" will amaze him the same way as the 72/80/90, but the crew has many times more chances of surviving.

[Old tanker]

The T-14 has vertical installations of an aerosol curtain, which is capable of dazzling the seeker of roof-breakers.

[Maki Avellevich]

Quote: Old Tankman

The T-14 has vertical installations of an aerosol curtain, which is capable of dazzling the seeker of roof-breakers.

1.if the system triggered during
2.the weather is kind to aerosols

[Nikolaevich I]

You shouldn't rely on the aerosol curtain ... In order for the "aerosol" to be able to protect the object, it is necessary to contrive that the system is triggered in time (!) At the proper distance from the object and the protective "cloud" must be larger than the object! But even in this case, there is a possibility of ammunition hitting the target; since in case of "disappearance" of the target for the GOS, the INS is turned on ... the ammunition continues to fly!

[Yarhann]

aerosol is 100% effective against any weapon with a seeker operating in the optical range. The main problem is precisely to determine the ATGM attack - to put a hindrance - that is, to automate this process. It is also not difficult to make a leap of the combat vehicle one body forward after the automatic firing of the curtain has been triggered. Protection of the radar air defense missile system and other means is already a neglected topic - but when the radar stopped firing, the PRR lost their target, changed the algorithm of work - the rocket flew stupidly on ins before physical contact. They began to put false targets around the radar, at the same frequency) of higher power, during synchronous operation, the false radar signal is elementary filtered. The tank is actually much easier to defend, but it can be attacked from different projections. In addition, a weapon like Jewelin is the last century - a kamikaze weapon - such a calculation is rolled up even at the moment when they start swarming in position. Modern weapons against tanks are ATGMs with a range of 5+, kamikaze drones are very dangerous if specialized with a seeker - that would definitely hit the cover - because you will not send a kamikaze drone to the tower with your handles.
Yes, now tanks seem to be easy targets - but bipedal with wearable weapons is a meatball - as all modern conflicts show.
Shkolota for the most part simply does not understand in what conditions the war will be - this is either a total war with the use of everything that is - then all these javelins and drones go through the forest, because they will not reach and will not reach, or this is cutting out separatists and partisans - for which they were shock UAVs were created and this is how they were used in Israel, when the Turks were cutting down the Kurds and the Americans in Afghanistan. An attack UAV is a guaranteed death for almost any crew - ATGM, MANPADS, machine gunner, mortar, etc. And it is these means that are now excellent protection of tanks and, in general, motorized riflemen on the march.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Yarhann

aerosol is 100% effective against any weapon with a seeker operating in the optical range

Well, yes ... if we consider the "pure" physical properties of the aerosol, then the aerosol can be quite effective! But this happens on "paper" ... in a real combat situation it does not always go smoothly ... the use of aerosols has its own specifics and limitations. If homing was disrupted late. and modern ammunition has good speeds, then will the tank always "have time" to "move" the hull? In addition, the INS can be equipped with a logical processor that creates a mathematical model of the probable flight trajectory, taking into account the probable movement of the tank ...

[Yarhann]

let's not fantasize well))) GOS is actually very simple to deceive. even banal snow, rain and fog, as a rule, will not allow the use of such weapons. That is why now the most common weapons in real conflicts are guided weapons - by wire, laser, radio channel, etc. A weapon with a seeker has large range restrictions - the seeker simply cannot lock onto the target - especially in the imperfect conditions I mentioned above.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Yarhann

let's not fantasize well)))

I will not argue with you further ... I had an assumption that you do not understand what I am talking about, because you really existing "veschi" (but not known to everyone) called fantasy ...

[Yarhann]

..... ANN can be equipped with a logical processor that creates a mathematical model of the probable flight path, taking into account the probable movement of the tank ..)))) this nonsense can be called nothing more than a fantasy.

[Kerensky]

An attack UAV is a guaranteed death for almost any crew - ATGM, MANPADS, machine gunner, mortar, etc.

Novel. But you will not tell me why we paint all the equipment and soldiers in QR codes? Indeed, in nature there are no straight lines, especially sets of squares. I have two pixel T-shirts, but I want to go out from under the roof in it!
And then the whole units with a QR code for the UAV. Cashiers Pyaterochka in operators?

[Yarhann]

I do not know so well how to implement jamming for OES in which machine learning and AI are used. How to study the microwave range. but I can assume that the AI ​​that controls the drone or is engaged in the processing of intelligence is likely to miss some pictures. here you need to understand how the photo-video information is digitized - you should ask those specialists, based on the algorithms of the work of certain codecs, you can already talk about the possibility of deceiving a program that will work with digitized information.
Precisely because now more and more technical means of reconnaissance are used with the digitization of the information received and it makes no sense to make camouflage look like reality. we must deceive not the eye of the operator, but the program that will process the intelligence.

[Kerensky]

here you need to understand how the photo-video information is digitized - you should ask those specialists, based on the algorithms of the work of certain codecs, you can already talk about the possibility of deceiving a program that will work with digitized information.

Novel. You know perfectly well that now on the bus you can pay with your phone, simply by pointing it at the sticker on the glass. Who among us is a fabulous lizard who does not believe in squares on equipment and on soldiers? No need for streamlined wording. The one who painted the equipment and dressed the soldiers will certainly send them to their death! With promotions and discounts ....

[Yarhann]

I can't decipher your delirium)))

[Kerensky]

I can't decipher your delirium)))

Novel. In fact, any program picks its daddy with target signatures. And compares what was put in her daddy with what she "sees". Well, like every hedgehog has an album with naked priests. The program should be able to distinguish a tank from a stone and a soldier from a log. And we give her this opportunity using pixel camouflage. The Finns went to Talvisota and painted "embrasures" on the boulders. Our people, seeing a black square in the optics on the stone, decided that it was a disguised bunker, rolled out howitzers for direct fire and from the heart beat the granite. One Finn with a can of paint and a brush "ate" a wagon of shells a day!
Well, I’m distracted.
There is nothing square and perpendicular in nature. Why do we unmask equipment and drugs by hanging squares on them?

[Yarhann]

I understood what you mean, ask why all the advanced countries of the world have introduced pixel camouflage. It works both against bipeds at short distances, and against technical vision at long distances.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Let me join your words of gratitude to the author - an extremely balanced article. The tankman himself and, reading, the described processes and movements, it seems that he returned to his youth. Everything is just like that. And the analysis is very competent. Without any rassalivaniya "now if ... you can imagine ..."
Thank you Alexey!

[Aleks tv]

... Thank you, Alexey!

Hello Igor.

To your health.))

..........
Greetings to my dear Mazut in comments!
Pitney ... damn ... it's already knocking on the hatch Friday.)
Have a good weekend.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Thank you. I'm just going home from a business trip. The road is long.
You know, I immediately criticized these "grilles" on the roof. Even in the first news. They could be praised only by those who did not sit in the tank, did not fulfill the standards for landing / loading.
Boards - yes! There the screens showed themselves, but with the roof it won't work out simply. Need to think ...

[storm]

[/ quote] You know, I immediately criticized these "grilles" on the roof. Even in the first news. They could be praised only by those who did not sit in the tank, did not comply with the landing / loading standards. [/ Quote]
the design of the "umbrellas" can be made in such a way that it will not interfere, but help to get out of the tank or get into the tank using handles and brackets welded in the right places.
The same can be said about loading ammunition using the simplest devices attached to the "umbrella" structure, the main thing is to "put your head" on everything and conduct real military tests in various conditions, in winter and summer, under snow and rain.
All standards are easy to check on the tank biathlon.

[Serg4545]

/ So it turns out that the Ministry of Defense chose grilles as ... the main method of protection against roof-breakers? //
Do you think that the grates from above should physically prevent tanks from being hit from above.
But what if the gratings and the mats on them have a completely different purpose?
Let's remember the Javelin aiming principle:
The Javelin launcher remembers the target's thermal "portrait" and inserts this "portrait" into the missile prior to launch. After launching a rocket, it takes off upward. Then it dives into a given area and looks for a thermal "portrait" there, which would coincide with the "portrait" embedded in the rocket before launch. If the rocket finds such a "portrait" then it will aim at it. If he doesn't find it, he misses.
What if the grill and mats are designed to distort / absorb the thermal (and other radiation) of the tank?
The grill and mats will not interfere with the installation of the Javelin to make a thermal "portrait" of the tank from the side. But when the rocket tries to find this "portrait" from above, it will see another "portrait" that will be very different from the one needed. Because the grill with mats, when viewed from above, will distort the thermal picture of the tank. Not finding the required "portrait", Javelin will not be able to hit the tank.

[Aleks tv]

... If the rocket finds such a "portrait" then it will aim at it. If he doesn't find it, he misses.

Yes, there is of course logic in your reasoning.
And Java has not only a "thermal" portrait.

You are talking about a way to "confuse" the 3rd generation system - the loss of visual contact of the seeker with the target.
There are many.
From the same cycle:
https://topwar.ru/190057-versus-dzhavelin-i-bajraktar-protiv-t-72.html
.........
But, if the visor has only THIS function, then according to the calculations of the theory of probability this is a very low effect.
In general - how lucky.

In semi-active defense systems, the coefficient of "utility" in the brain problem of the GOS is much higher.

[svd-xnumx]

But, if the visor has only THIS function, then according to the calculations of the theory of probability this is a very low effect.
In general - how lucky.

And in this case, it is not necessary to fence a monstrous structure, in order to confuse it, it is enough to make it from light alloys.

[storm]

But what if the gratings and the mats on them have a completely different purpose?

I agree with you, this umbrella should have several functions:
- directly lattice screen for the destruction of ATGM;
- as a structure for mounting light DZ from wheeled armored vehicles or, for example, soft side screens used on the T-72B3M;
- as a structure for the installation of radio-opaque coatings of the "cape" type to hide or change the "radar - portrait" of the tank.
- this structure can be used to mount semi-active protection devices, all-round surveillance sensors, means of creating optical interference ...

In general, a fairly useful thing can turn out ...

[Aleks tv]

... In general, a fairly useful thing can turn out ...

Yes, it may be useful.
And ... even harder when destroying and blocking hatches.

Double-edged stick.

[storm]

This design will protect the hatches from blocking and destruction.

[Zaurbek]

Iran publishes photocopies of Spike .... UAVs are used

[Aleks tv]

... "Western" countries are not surprised at the proper attention to protection from the upper hemisphere, in view of the practical absence of a threat from there. The air will be behind them, their probable opponents do not yet have anti-tank systems of "roof-fighters".

Hello.
Unfortunately, I still don’t know your name.

I agree in part.
Yes, we do not have "fire and forget" anti-tank systems and UAVs with the same principle.
And for serious threats to Westerners, they not only "should be" with us, but also be in ENOUGH numbers.
But:
We have roof-breakers as such.
There are many of them, for example, the same SPBE in the S-300 MLRS.
"Western" tanks also have no protection ....
...........
But this is all a "serious" enemy, like us.
But Westerners should not forget about the "frivolous" enemy - the Middle East, for example.

Who prevents the grasping guys from whistling a dozen Javelins and arranging a small agmagedonchik for the manufacturers of this device?
Yes, I'm talking about classic terror and guerrilla warfare.

And I wouldn't go to the warehouse to get Java, because there are other roof-fighters, I would take something.
For example, I threw an 81mm mortar into a pickup truck, several "Merlins" and from closed firing positions would entertain any armored vehicles, ANY COUNTRY, within a radius of 4 kilometers.
........
Well, no one has such protection, but ... weapons are already in bulk.

[storm]

But:
We have roof-breakers as such.
There are many of them, for example, the same SPBE in the S-300 MLRS.

MLRS S-300 does not exist !!!
- There is a S-300 air defense system
- there is a MLRS "SMERCH"

[Aleks tv]

... MLRS S-300 does not exist !!!
- There is a S-300 air defense system
- there is a MLRS "SMERCH"

Yes, right, sealed.
Even closed.

[Alexey Sommer]

Quote: Lech from Android.

For clarity, one could insert videos of burning tanks from Syria ... where tankers jumped out of burning tanks ... you wonder how they survived when a stream of burning gases rushing from the tank

Are you talking about this, about tankers leaving the tank in a "stream" of burning gases?
Abandoned then abandoned, but in parts.
And in another way it is not possible when the "jet" of burning gases.

[Aleks tv]

... about tankers leaving the tank in a "stream" of burning gases?
Abandoned then abandoned, but in parts.
And in another way it is not possible when the "jet" of burning gases.

Hello.

Explosions are not the same, each is unique in its own way.
On your video, I will assume:
- breaking through the tower in the back (slightly from top to bottom),
- ignition of one charge, explosion of one projectile
- BK DETONATION.
.............
And when, as you say, "a stream of burning gases", these are burning charges (when there are several together and not one).
This is possible when they get into the tank rack (below the backs of the towers).
I will say that ... it happens and survived. Yes. But the hatch must "hang out", i.e. being ajar is the hardest thing to do in the city.
...............
So the BC should only be in AZ.
If there is such an opportunity, then only in AZ.
And all will be well.))

[English tarantas]

So the BC should only be in AZ

This is unambiguous, the only way, and the AZ is as deep as possible and blocked a couple of times, and preferably with some kind of fire-prevention device.
Now it is fashionable to make uninhabited combat modules in one block, outside the inner space, but the same light and medium armored vehicles where the decent weight of cc in bc and everything in the tower confuses me. This is how this box with fireworks shuts down the whole box. No matter how many Soviet tshki do not pour the substance, ours have one problem, the gas from the sides and inside is not particularly closed, but the flowing jet into the roof still has to reach. If it doesn't reach, then two, or even all three, will get out of the car at least, and if there is such a designer on top, then it may not get out at all, or they may not have time to get out until they finish it off.

[Alekseev]

"Very interesting look"
That's right!
To paraphrase the classic, he wrote not some kind of revolver, but a tank officer.
The problem of protecting the tank from the upper hemisphere now rises in full growth.
The solution should probably be complex.
Those. and effective remote sensing, and screens with gratings, and KAZ, and Shtora with a Cloud. Expensive? Perhaps, but the time when they took the amount is gone.
Everything will be cheaper than hundreds of machines burnt out from lack of protection.
Of course, the projectile always has an advantage, here not only DZ and KAZ helps out, but also maneuver and fire on the vehicle not only MBT and BMP, but everything that is. Howitzer, MLRS, combat helicopter, etc. this is a very good defense for tanks.

[Aleks tv]

... The problem of protecting the tank from the upper hemisphere now rises in full growth.
The solution should probably be complex.

Alexey, hello.

To the very point.

Glad to hear from you, old guard.
Happy New Year!
We drink champagne only in pallets .... full pallets !!!

[English tarantas]

Alas, the only normal way to stop at the last moment is KAZ. Moreover, you can even make only 1 detection radar and 1 set of anti-projectile shooting, on the back of the tower, looking forward and up. Because a double hatch is nonsense, for roof-breakers, as a rule, penetration is exactly what is normal for cumulative warheads, while many are tandem. Dz may be, but it may require a re-arrangement of the entire tower, contact 5 is quite compact, but to the point, they will make not one, but two leading charges, at the expense of the main one. Well, the grilles and screens are all the more understandable.
+ did not understand how should the same curtain help? Well, a rocket is flying over the tanks, planning, should it shoot a curtain of smoke vertically upwards continuously? Because how will the curtain understand, even if you just install an optical sensor with silhouette recognition, that this particular rocket is about to fall into the tank?
In short, this is my opinion, thanks for the article, they spoke adequately, briefly, on the case, this is not often seen recently)

[Momento]

and mum-l and spear have a tandem cumulative warhead. the visor is most likely a psychological role. although one cumulative part will be spent on overcoming the visor, but what about the second?

and yes they say that dynamic protection tends to burn. probably it was taken from above because the hatches were not closed.

[English tarantas]

the visor is most likely a psychological role

Yes, demoralizing
Yelling, but for your own l / s. Our people ride on the roof of the armored personnel carrier, who decided that if the hatches in the tank were closed, the people would be calm?
+ is useless against ATGMs with manual guidance, the area of ​​the visor leaves you to do better, if it even flies in the forehead, then the rocket falls not at 90 °, but with an inclination, you can easily direct it to the roof of the control compartment and even to the tower itself. Although we need pictures of the second visor from different angles, then it will be seen for sure.

dynamic protection tends to burn. probably it was taken from above because the hatches were not closed

No, it does not burn, its combustion temperature is very high, if the tank receives this, then there is no time for the burning dz, especially since there is no dz behind on the same 72b, you can run there from the hatch. They removed most likely because of money, contact5 is more expensive than contact1, and the toad strangles money on k1 money, since it was 72b / 64bv / 80bv you cannot plunder, if you make as large a markup as possible according to the laws of capitalism, then with a small budget for the required number of modernization the sets of allocated money will not be enough.

[Old tanker]

It is precisely that this visor has a psychological effect. But the opposite! He is catching up with fear for his life that he will not let him get out of the tank.
Dynamic protection does not have the ability to burn. Yes, if you ruffle the plate, pull the plastic explosive out of it and set it on fire, then it (this explosive) will ignite. But if a whole plate is thrown into a fire, then it will not even think to ignite. Since the joints are very tight. Practically sealed.

[Aleks tv]

... Yes, if you ruffle the plate, remove the plastic explosive from it and set it on fire, then it (this is explosive) will ignite.

Hello Sergey.

Damn, this, along the way, everyone dabbled in ...

One of the "goods" of tankers.

And art, as far as I remember, the most scarce commodity for exchange was "nails" ЗШ.))
Oh oh...

[Zaurbek]

That needs to be considered an analogue of the onboard remote sensing ... not just gratings.

[kytx]

I agree with the author. Roof awnings "shame on the jungle!" There is a lot of harm from them and no benefit.

[rocket757]

Just wondering ....
If you look at it, they create exactly the "roofboys" of different types. We must defend the tank.

[Ross xnumx]

I must say right away - not a tanker. And in our country (at one time), many were surprised what a wise head came up with tachometers and made all the hatches on the armored personnel carriers from above. I will not talk about "sticking" to KPVT and reloading. This is not what we are talking about now. It has long been clear to me that it was important for the army to create the T-72 ABVGDEO3 / 3BIS, and some "Aurus" are much more useful for ...
==========
Remark.
When I read:

And for the money?
Yes, it will cost something, but this is not KAZ, it is quite lifting money. There is experience in creating such systems. The kits can be produced quickly. Install them - there will be no problems either. In addition to factories, there are also BTRZ sites.

I always remember:

... 6,6 trillion rubles were pocketed in state purchases

For a year, the head of the Central Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina translated to the United States, think about this figure! SIX TRILLION RUBLES!

Yes, for that kind of money, Russian big-headed kids (and, maybe, girls) would come up with such that these "Javelins" and "Bayraktars" simply "dried up on compote" ...
Indeed, the "most dangerous" weapon against which "well, there are no methods" ... Maybe buy and disassemble a couple of pieces? Flight speed - 100m / s. The time to bring to a combat state is 30 seconds. The effective range is 3 meters. Probably, something should be added to the armament of the BMPT. In the end, this GOS simply must have vulnerabilities ...
Anachronism in the form of a visor? Just about, why the heck fish an umbrella?

[English tarantas]

Maybe buy and disassemble a couple of pieces

Why buy them, there are the guys running around BV and Africa, let them bring them)
In general, there are no secrets in the Javelier, where did they come from, when they did it it was even clear that it was just a compact classic IR gsn, this was done back in the 60s, a thermal imaging camera, automatic aiming at a picture, a trajectory correction system from rudders, a gyroscope and a computational block.
It's another matter that it's expensive, but a live enemy tank is more expensive.

[parma]

Quote: English Tarantas

Maybe buy and disassemble a couple of pieces

Why buy them, there are the guys running around BV and Africa, let them bring them)
In general, there are no secrets in the Javelier, where did they come from, when they did it it was even clear that it was just a compact classic IR gsn, this was done back in the 60s, a thermal imaging camera, automatic aiming at a picture, a trajectory correction system from rudders, a gyroscope and a computational block.
It's another matter that it's expensive, but a live enemy tank is more expensive.

The Americans have a thing worse than Jewelin ... the FGM-172 SRAW has been in the KMP for a long time ... yes, there are not many of them, but the main advantage is that it is light and disposable, like the AT-4, only with a "fire-forget" system and the roof is damaged ... moreover, the rocket is tandem, no umbrella will save ... yes, I had to pay for it with efficiency, but on the front end (with proper funding), you can equip each infantryman ... no special training is needed, the instructions, as they say on the package, and almost anyone can do it due to auto-guidance ...

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: parma

The Americans have something worse than Jewelin ...

... at a distance of 500 - 600 meters.

[parma]

Quote: ROSS 42

Quote: parma

The Americans have something worse than Jewelin ...

... at a distance of 500 - 600 meters.

Do you sincerely believe that battles will take place at a distance of 3-5 km? Have you heard anything about the folds of the terrain? Or about battles in the city ... our country generally has problems with a portable ATGM ... we do not have our own jewel or sraw, we do not have an analogue of eryx in fact, although this 2nd generation ATGM is already being written off in the west ...

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: parma

Do you sincerely believe that battles will take place at a distance of 3-5 km?

Can I tell you what I believe in? What tactics of warfare will I choose?
1. Rocket and bomb attack on a site (region, territory).
2. Artillery bombardment (by the square-nest method) of the territory subjected to the missile and bomb attack.
3. Production of aerial (satellite) reconnaissance of the "cleaned" area.
Repetition if necessary ...
4. A week later, the production of aerial (satellite) reconnaissance.
That's it ... We don't need land in Russia.
I am simply "grinning" at those who consider it an important necessity for a victorious offensive by ground forces on enemy territory ... This is an anachronism ... Would you like what I would have done in Syria? Every day, every hour, the drone UAVs would fly (according to the stated) for 48 hours, changing each other, destroying everything that carries weapons and touches military equipment. So that this mass of "revolutionaries" is afraid to take a stick in their hands, so that the operator (or AI) from above does not think anything bad.
Something like this (I suppose) the war should be waged in the future ... And in the present, as far as possible.
BUT!!! Tanks in the city ... It's cool !!! And then there is the game "Tanki Online" ... How much has already been written about the generals who are preparing for the last war. There will be no passage of troops through the streets of "liberated from capitalism" cities and beautiful girls will not throw flowers under the tracks of tanks.
A thermobaric ammunition has been invented that can "smoke" any "javelin operator" from any slot. It remains to come up with tactics when the alleged enemy will have no chance of fighting with tanks, launching an anti-tank missile system with a seeker.

[parma]

Quote: ROSS 42

Quote: parma

Do you sincerely believe that battles will take place at a distance of 3-5 km?

Can I tell you what I believe in? What tactics of warfare will I choose?
1. Rocket and bomb attack on a site (region, territory).
2. Artillery bombardment (by the square-nest method) of the territory subjected to the missile and bomb attack.
3. Production of aerial (satellite) reconnaissance of the "cleaned" area.
Repetition if necessary ...
4. A week later, the production of aerial (satellite) reconnaissance.
That's it ... We don't need land in Russia.
I am simply "grinning" at those who consider it an important necessity for a victorious offensive by ground forces on enemy territory ... This is an anachronism ... Would you like what I would have done in Syria? Every day, every hour, the drone UAVs would fly (according to the stated) for 48 hours, changing each other, destroying everything that carries weapons and touches military equipment. So that this mass of "revolutionaries" is afraid to take a stick in their hands, so that the operator (or AI) from above does not think anything bad.
Something like this (I suppose) the war should be waged in the future ... And in the present, as far as possible.
BUT!!! Tanks in the city ... It's cool !!! And then there is the game "Tanki Online" ... How much has already been written about the generals who are preparing for the last war. There will be no passage of troops through the streets of "liberated from capitalism" cities and beautiful girls will not throw flowers under the tracks of tanks.
A thermobaric ammunition has been invented that can "smoke" any "javelin operator" from any slot. It remains to come up with tactics when the alleged enemy will have no chance of fighting with tanks, launching an anti-tank missile system with a seeker.

It is of course great that you share NATO's views on how to wage war, this is even correct ... but the whole problem is that to use such tactics against someone more serious than sneaker lovers, you need, in addition to the desire to have NATO resources ... to have a bunch of modern UAVs with good missiles, but we do not yet have production vehicles with 2 missiles, analogues of a 1994 predator (not even a 2000 reaper) ... but the war with slippers in Syria requires the presence of ground forces, because there are local allies there, which often outwardly they do not differ from the broads, and they themselves cannot really fight ... because in Syria, "ichtamnet" operated and operate ... the level of interaction with locals and "tourists" is also not like in the NATO concept ...
As for the tanks in the city, only a "genius" will send some tanks to the city, a normal general will send tanks and infantry and artillery and aviation to clean it, maybe even if you don't occupy other people's cities, you will have to liberate / defend your own ... as an example - Donbass, South Ossetia, both Chechen wars, Syria ... the tank is the main striking force of any army, and the author himself writes about this (did you read the article exactly?) ... forgot "than RPG-7 or RPG-26, because it allows you to hit the enemy's equipment at a distance of 600 meters (in the city, hills, forest more than enough) to any fighter who can read (the cycle of aiming-shot-retreating into cover can be completed in seconds in 10-15) with a chance of defeat tending to 1, DZ or a curtain will not save the technique ... just think, what is your personal chance of hitting a tank from 500 meters using RPG-7 or RPG-26? And how much time will it take you to determine the distance and select the correction even with the standard RPG-7 telescopic sight?

[Ross xnumx]

I mean Thomas, you tell me about Erema. Where would I go about weighing the odds of losing with an RPG? Where did you read this? Explain on the fingers again? Scorched earth tactics at a distance from where the Javelina operator will not threaten the tank. Remote warfare with the destruction of the threat and the enemy.
Example: Let's say a certain country launches missile strikes from the airspace of a third country. Fuck catching these planes every time if you can smooth out the runway and airfield hangars. From the satellite you can see everything: who flew, where he flew, where he landed. It is approximately.
Do you think that the attack on the ENEMY will be carried out by a front ... km wide? Are we liberating our territory or are we engaged in the trivial destruction of the adversary? We don't care where he is. It is important for us that the enemy's firepower cannot cause damage to our manpower and equipment. This is how the war will be fought ...

[parma]

Quote: ROSS 42

I mean Thomas, you tell me about Erema. Where would I go about weighing the odds of losing with an RPG? Where did you read this? Explain on the fingers again? Scorched earth tactics at a distance from where the Javelina operator will not threaten the tank. Remote warfare with the destruction of the threat and the enemy.
Example: Let's say a certain country launches missile strikes from the airspace of a third country. Fuck catching these planes every time if you can smooth out the runway and airfield hangars. From the satellite you can see everything: who flew, where he flew, where he landed. It is approximately.
Do you think that the attack on the ENEMY will be carried out by a front ... km wide? Are we liberating our territory or are we engaged in the trivial destruction of the adversary? We don't care where he is. It is important for us that the enemy's firepower cannot cause damage to our manpower and equipment. This is how the war will be fought ...

You either use something forbidden or are considering a hypothetical version of a war with the Papuans (even NATO cannot afford to fight) who do not know how to equal or (as in the case of NATO) superior in number / quality air defense, air force, electronic warfare, artillery with counter-battery struggle and other things. Even after nuclear exchanges between NATO and Russia will not be destroyed, the war will continue with conventional weapons. It will not work to bomb your opponent with impunity, the battles will still proceed according to the principle - the infantry, with the support of armored vehicles and other means of reinforcement, goes on the attack (it does not matter, at a width of 100 and 1 km), on the other hand, exactly the same set is defending. A conditional infantryman with an AT weapon will meet with a conditional armored vehicle. And here the question arises, raised by the author and supported by me. The author said about the means of protection - NATO has them in embryos (real KAZs on real tanks), we have ersatz "umbrellas", I raised the question of means of destruction - NATO has a UAV with a fairly solid set of weapons and ATGM "fire, forget "Hitting the roof (both portable disposable means of reinforcing an individual soldier in the form of SRAW and its analogues, and more long-range ones for the whole calculation in the person of a dart), we do not have this ...
As a result, we do not have a shield or a sword in terms of "roof-fighters" ... and you are all about your dreams, how far away with little blood on a foreign land ... but the relief is different - in this very reality, an ordinary Ivan will converge with an ordinary John in a combined-arms battle, and the latter has more "trump cards" so far….

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: parma

You either use something forbidden

On this and finish.
I taught tactics from textbooks, did you? They dropped two bombs on Japan - with whom it is fighting ... You are carrying some kind of nonsense about some kind of war by conventional means ... Yes, the war has not fallen into Russia's pocket ... And NATO will continue to talk out of hand all its life ...

[parma]

Quote: ROSS 42

Quote: parma

You either use something forbidden

On this and finish.

Offended? Your right ... and dreams of "remotely, with impunity, with little blood on a foreign land" are also yours ...

[English tarantas]

Japan is not at war with anyone because of the American occupation, and that, in turn, happened not because of nuclear bombings, but because of the blitzkrieg in Manchuria and beyond.
The scenario of a conventional war, even with NATO, is more than real, many "local" conflicts are of very non-local dimensions, and often look like a full-fledged war with combined arms battles, and not a battle of two light infantry divisions, and no one has the desire to wage a war of destruction, this is not it is beneficial to no one, but nobody canceled the profitability of a conventional war, tomorrow NATO will decide that Russia can be handed over and will begin, none of ours will dare to launch missiles at their belongings and relatives, and NATO will not bomb its own trophies. Thank you all for peace, friendship, capitalism, the risk of dying from a peaceful atom has decreased, but the risk of getting a pack of classical lead remains.

[Vadim237]

RPG 7 is a distant past, but modernity and the future in the mass of anti-tank weapons for infantry

a long range of an aimed shot, high hitting accuracy and a fairly wide range of ammunition, the M4 has 13 easier reloading. And our aircraft are still fiddling with RPG 7.

[English tarantas]

SRAW was not removed 15-20 years ago? And there is not a tandem, there is a shock core. Well, yes, it’s not a fact about the bubble, I don’t remember how much it has exceeded the trajectory, but it seems that in the area of ​​a meter, on the visor itself, it will not fly into the tower, well, only if it does not work simultaneously with the displacement of the warhead visor towards the tower.

[parma]

Quote: English Tarantas

SRAW was not removed 15-20 years ago? And there is not a tandem, there is a shock core. Well, yes, it’s not a fact about the bubble, I don’t remember how much it has exceeded the trajectory, but it seems that in the area of ​​a meter, on the visor itself, it will not fly into the tower, well, only if it does not work simultaneously with the displacement of the warhead visor towards the tower.

They were purchased only 15-17 years ago. I read it for a long time, but as far as I remember, they bought a thousand units, then they refused because it was too expensive and there were no particular goals (they fought with slippers, in Afghanistan, at the beginning of the war in the 00s, DELTA used Super-bazookas), put them in a warehouse ... And there a tandem shock the core, as far as I remember (the Americans knew very well about the T72B and their bricks on the roof), rise above the line of sight under 3 meters, so it should go above the umbrella and pierce it (although the main goal was like the engine was)

[Konnick]

I made all the hatches on the armored personnel carriers from above.

Now Armata is in this family, hatches are only on top.

[Konnick]

Ratsheboi, this problem did not appear now, but from the moment the tank appeared on the battlefield. Then the first roof nets from simple grenades appeared. The PMV pilots also carried out attacks and hit the roofs with armor-piercing bullets. The thickness of the upper projection was left the smallest.
During World War II, attack aircraft also hit the roofs of the MTO and the tower. Remember Rudel, the liar, but still beat the tanks. Ours also beat. The Americans and the British dabbled in 152mm RSs. The problem was solved with the help of mobile multi-barrel installations quite successfully.
Now another problem has been added in the form of UAVs and javelins. But no one has yet solved this problem. The decision of our generals remained at the level of the First World War - add. roof. Let's wait a bit, they will come up with separate mobile installations to cover tanks from the upper sphere, why turn each tank into a monster with all kinds of screens, kazes, blocks, nets, when you need to entrust this business to a specially created SPECIAL vehicle. But the time of the analysis of the Second World War continues, and the analysis of Karabakh is from the area of ​​the distant future. And we need a kind of terminator-defenders of tanks, even if it will be one defender for one tank, specialized vehicles for shooting down flying combat units, and not only from above. It is better to remove these KAZs from the tank and transfer them to the support vehicle, filling the empty spaces near the tank with dynamic protection. All the same, these radars are demolished by small arms at one, two times. Or do our tanks only fight tanks and ATGM crews?

[Two]

Informative and without "water"! Many thanks to the author for the specifics and simplicity of presentation!

[Nikolaevich I]

And I, unfortunately, did not master the whole article ... it turned out a lot of letters sleepily! I have to "take a bath, have a cup of coffee" and read again after breakfast!

[Bashkirkhan]

Handmade, sorry for the author of this design is not indicated.

[Mountain shooter]

I read it with pleasure. Respect to the author. I wrote it competently. With feeling. I think these bars on the towers will be removed. Something more aesthetic and effective will appear. Although ammunition from Bayraktar, these visors should hold. Their caliber is small, and the length of the cumulative jet, respectively, is small.

[John22]

If Javelin has an IR homing head, then it is possible, as in aviation, to shoot IR traps. It should work.

[Avior]

The javelin has a matrix seeker, not a point one. Classic traps will not help much

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: John22

If Javelin has an IR homing head, then it is possible, as in aviation, to shoot IR traps. It should work.

Sweetheart! Doesn't work anymore! And in aviation! Doesn't work against 2-band Eagles and Stingers ... does not work as expected ... as it did against Strela-2 and Red Eye! Thermal imaging seeker “plays the same role” as 2-band heat detector seeker!

[Ross xnumx]

10:06

Quote: Nikolaevich I

I have to "take a bath, have a cup of coffee" and read again after breakfast!

.....
09:58

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Sweetheart! Doesn't work anymore!

[Nikolaevich I]

It seems to you! I did not have time to read "again" ... so far I had enough to answer a comment to the article!

[vadimtt]

She is IR, but matrix
And in aviation, IR heads have long been abandoned for simple IR traps.
All of them are ultraviolet and give them silhouettes

[ares1988]

Thank you for the article.

[Glory1974]

When ours in 1943 used anti-tank cumulative bombs from attack aircraft, the losses of German tanks from aviation increased to 20%. The Germans carried out a set of organizational and technical measures and the losses decreased to 5%. They also used a hinged visor. The bomb hit the visor, demolished it completely, but the tank remained intact.
It is the same here. There is a sword and shield competition. If out of two tanks, one will save the visor will be great. And to achieve victory, all means are good. And this visor will not be superfluous. He himself witnessed how boxes with bricks, self-made gratings, etc. were saved from breaking through the armor. Once even a grenade from an RPG hit the handle on the armor in the bow of the BTR-80, the handle was torn off and there were no traces of it, but the armored personnel carrier was intact.

[Konnick]

They also used a hinged visor. The bomb hit the visor, demolished it completely, but the tank remained intact.

Is there any photos. In my opinion, they did not have such roofs. And the effect of PTAB was not so serious. 20% of German losses from our aviation is not serious. Even the allied aviation did not achieve such a result.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Konnick

In my opinion, they did not have such roofs

I also had to read about sheds over German tanks ... but, in my opinion, these were sheds on "bivouacs" ... Also, German tankers tried to place tanks under trees, drive equipment into sheds ...

[Nikolaevich I]

“Fedot, but not that one!” ... I once read that one of the tank subdivisions of Iraq used “canopies” on tanks when the United States pressed Hussein ... But then it was protection against small-caliber cumulative cluster bombs. ..Similar protection may be able to save from Turkish bombs, created on the basis of 70-mm NARs ... but from "Hellfires", "Brimstones" ...? It could be "a completely different story"! The author is also convinced that the turret in the tank is EVERYTHING! But I remember that at the end of the last century, the "emphasis" was placed on the defeat of the tank engine and anti-tank ammunition was developed under this "emphasis"! In particular, it was then that SPBE with IR coordinators came into "fashion" ...

[Aleks tv]

... The author is also convinced that the turret in the tank is EVERYTHING! But I remember that at the end of the last century, the "emphasis" was on the defeat of a tank engine

Hello.

??
No, you probably haven't read the article very carefully ...
There is a threat from above.
There is no protection from below.

I also mentioned the MTO cover ..

[Fedot]

Shiva is multi-armed or octopus, in the hand ~ foot is a brick or disk.
Let it swing in all directions.

[Uh Neuhov]

This visor will fly apart from a hit, an explosion. Then what then? Leave the battlefield to install a new defense.
Such advisers about the primitive defense of military equipment should be driven out of the army.

[Disant]

This visor will fly apart from a hit, an explosion. Then what then?

this will be called - "the visor works"

[riwas]

When ours used anti-tank cumulative bombs from attack aircraft in 1943, the losses of German tanks from aviation increased to 20%.

"Since the summer of 1943, a more advanced weapon has appeared - 1,5 kg cumulative PTAB-2,5-1,5 in 4 cassettes (48 bombs each). Dropping PTAB-2,5-1,5, Il- 2 created a zone of continuous destruction of all types of tanks with a width of 15 m and a length of about 70 m. During the first five days of the Battle of Kursk, 422 tanks were destroyed by them. two tanks. All in all, more than half a million of these bombs were used up in the Battle of Kursk. In 2,5, the industry produced more than 1,5 million PTAB-1943-6, and in 2,5 - about 1,5 million bombs. "
https://bukren.my1.ru/publ/ware/il_2_w/2-1-0-58

[Wildcat]

Good article, and the author is one of the few who write well.
More to such.

By the way, there is another interesting protection system against any nuisance that flies from above.
The Germans are testing and are beginning to adopt a limited range of 40 mm programmable detonation grenade launchers to engage targets in the air, while they are declared as "anti-drone weapon". In principle, an interesting solution for a tank is additional anti-personnel weapons that can be used against air targets.
IMHO, the issue of intercepting Javelins and their analogs could be interestingly resolved in a similar "40 mm" format.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/12/12/baainbw-orders-40mm-airburst-anti-drone-rcws/

[28st region]

But the speeds are not comparable to drones and javelins.
In addition, manual visual guidance, to put something automated on the tank, the volumes will not allow.

[Wildcat]

There's also a good question of detection, not just targeting. And another good question of hitting a target, IMHO, the fact that death for a "soft" contour is not very suitable for an ATM.
But the idea is good. And a worker.

[Knell wardenheart]

The problem, as I see it, is not to intercept, the problem is to detect such launches from the budget and to have a budgetary means that has time to react to them. Because, unfortunately, these are small distances, high speeds and low e.r.p, and it can also fly from any direction.

[Uh Neuhov]

They waste time installing some kind of visors. They will not be needed at the "ostentatious" parade, and they will not help in the war.
Those who have adopted the T-72B3 with objective flaws need to initiate criminal cases.
Is it really impossible to find funding for KAZ. You need to keep up with the times, not lag behind.
The loss of tanks and personnel, as if it will cost a lot.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Uh Neukhov

They waste time installing some kind of visors.

Is it really impossible to find funding at KAZ

Duc, the visors are probably not expensive compared to the KAZ ... especially if the corners and fittings were left after the construction of the fence of the general's dacha!

[Vadim237]

We've been talking about KAZ for 30 years now - and they haven't been in service anyway - they probably think that if a tank is destroyed by artillery shells and MLRS missiles in a real battle - then why is it spent on KAZ if there is no difference the tank will be destroyed anyway - why then pay more.

[Prutkov]

It is always interesting to hear the opinion of a real specialist. A very sober view of the problem. And I think that a comprehensive solution to the problem is needed. We have a kind of "deification" of tanks and a desire to create on their basis, even a "wunderwaffe", and a "superwunderwafe". This is the main mistake. It is impossible to cram everything you need into a small iron box and with all this "happiness try to take off." Air defense copes well with Bayraktars. For the Harop, etc. requires electronic warfare. And against ATGM and helicopter operators, BMPTs can come in handy. In any case, before the operator can shoot, the helicopter must lean out and see the target. And in order to disrupt their attack, it is enough to see and fire in a timely manner, even if it is not possible to destroy the attack, the attack will be thwarted. I think the time has come to introduce a BMPT company into the TB staff instead of the 3rd tank company. The composition of the BMPT company should be such that there is one BMPT vehicle for one tank platoon.

[exo]

It's nice and useful to read the opinion of a professional. With a UAV, unhealthy excitement. A well-organized military air defense system is the main guarantee of successful countermeasures. Not armoring the roof of the tower.

[riwas]

There should be a collective missile defense system on a separate vehicle with an effective range of 1-2 km, capable of intercepting all enemy anti-tank weapons.

[expert]

Thanks so much for the article!
I read it in one breath. Written in excellent, clear, professional language so that even "teapots have entered the subject".
I shake hands with gratitude and respect.

[KKND]

I read it. I liked everything, but I got the impression that the article was written by a "tanker-philosopher".
The consequences of a concussion may affect ...
Visors are good as a means of propaganda among "leavened" patriots. Perhaps in the Ministry of Defense, no one is going to fight with them (visors) in a real war.

[Aleks tv]

... but the impression was that the article was written by a "tanker-philosopher". wassat
The consequences of a concussion may affect ...

Two, dear.
TWO contusions!

[Per se.]

When viewing the article, it seemed voluminous, but I read it with pleasure. I myself thought about these visors and roofs. What I would like to say, there is no invulnerable technology, just as there is no absolutely ideal weapon for all types of combat, this applies to the tanks themselves and the "roof-fighters" against them. In principle, the use of cumulative bombs on our Il-2 back in the Second World War became the prototype of "roof-fighters", as well as 37 mm cannons on the Ju-87, but this did not put an end to the tanks.

The "Javelin" has drawbacks, and there are many of them, to the well-known (high cost of the complex, short firing range, the need for line of sight, the vulnerability of the calculation), and such as - weather factors (smoke, fog, rain, snow, frost ), urban development, woodlands. You can increase the thickness of the armor, active and passive protection, but the main protection will remain what will make the tank invisible to the rocket.
It is interesting to know the opinions on the topic, both "terry fuel oil", and those who

Yes, your mother is a teacher
Your dad is a pianist
Yes, you have the opposite
What kind of a tanker are you ...

[Max PV]

A very competent and objective article. I also immediately thought about how to get out of the car when the visor is deformed. But I disagree somewhat about the effectiveness of the visors as a means of countering the "rooftops". Firstly, the "roof-fighters" should be divided into three types that exist at the moment: cumulative submunitions, ammunition operating on the effect of a cumulative strike nucleus and ATGMs with UABs, with a full-fledged cumulative, usually tandem warhead.
Existing tanks provide some protection in the turret area only from the former, and even then, if the roof section is covered by remote control. MTO is not protected by any one. The visors, especially the last option, with an extremely high probability will protect against a cumulative impact nucleus, since it already has an extremely weak penetration of 70-120mm along the normal, and which is significant (several times reduced, when this very nucleus meets any obstacle on the way to goals). The fact that a cumulative submunition will not penetrate anything at all having exploded on such a visor, at a distance of about a meter from the armor, I think is not worth talking about. But on a full-fledged ATGM question. But the visor, at least, will make any warhead in fact a monoblock - I doubt that a tiny cumulative precharge, exploding at a distance of a meter, will make even Contact-1 work. And even if the cumulative funnel of the main warhead is not damaged, as anti-cumulative gratings should do, an increase in the distance to the armor will lead to a significant drop in the penetration of the jet and the loss of its stability, with partial fragmentation. This can lead to the fact that the EDZ will sufficiently weaken its effect even on the thin armor of the tank roof. If the height of the visor is somewhere 800mm, then at an angle of 45-60 ° the rocket approaches the target, this will give a separation of 1000-1200mm, plus the distance from the ATGM nose to the warhead is another 500-600mm, we get 1500-1600mm from the warhead to the armor, and at such a distance, the cumulative jet will lose somewhere between 50-60% of penetration. Those. from the initial 700mm of penetration, Javelin will remain somewhere around 250-350mm, which may well be "on the shoulder" of the roof armor + DZ. In any case, I once personally saw the consequences of a PG-7V hit with ± the same penetration in the VLD T-72 with a "contact" there, the pothole was fifteen millimeters deep, and about 2x6 cm in size. But here it is debatable - the test results would be look.
And at the expense of testing. I think that in the military-economic plan, the visors have already paid for themselves by the very fact of their appearance, since all manufacturers and main users of ammunition that hit tanks from above had to check how such things affect the penetration of their weapons and the operation of the seeker, and even the price of one third-generation ATGM , as it seems to me, is commensurate with all our costs for all manufactured visors.

[Aleks tv]

... roof-fighters "should be divided into three types that currently exist: cumulative submunitions, ammunition operating on the effect of a cumulative shock core and ATGMs with UABs, with a full-fledged cumulative, usually tandem warhead.

Hello Maxim.

Just great!

I did not delve into the topic, so the article turned out to be large, I thought I would divide it into two parts.

I was hoping for the development of the topic in the comments.
There is also a whole block about the initiation of fuses.
What are on Java and Bayraktar's BP? Inertial?
Block on the capabilities of the current KAZ. Are there any developments? Is there a "blind funnel"?
And a lot more.
It was just necessary to voice the topic as a whole.

Thanks for the comment.))
Alex.

[Passing]

IMHO, how the author suggests to solve the problem of protection against roof-breakers is cheap and cheerful, impossible.

1) A cheap upgrade Curtains with optical sensors are a waste of money. The system will only work against a horse in a vacuum.
- Curtain IR Spotlight does not work against Matrix GOS which are on Javellins and Spikes. Those. The most effective (because long-lasting and does not interfere with combat work) component of the Curtain is no longer relevant. A laser suppressor could replace a searchlight, but this is a completely different money because the system is precision, requiring guidance and target designation. The aerosol curtain remains, but its charges are very limited, and they work extremely situationally.
- Optical (non-UV / thermal) sensor has zero target selectivity. What a dangerous ammunition, what a bird, what a clod of earth from a nearby explosion, she will not see the difference. Relying on AI and a battlefield pattern recognition system for this task is a project for the next 50 years. And there can be no cheap super-system of an ultra-high-speed camera and a powerful computer with real-time AI on board.
- Optical sensors such as TV cameras cannot provide target positioning. Those. it is impossible to predict where this particular ammunition is flying (yes, there are delicate and precise OLS of aircraft with laser rangefinders that solve this problem, but we are talking about cheap and cheerful). As a result, for every shot from a cheap RPG, a curtain will be triggered for all nearby tanks. How many mortars are there for the smoke screen? Dozens of spent RPG charges and you can confidently shoot all the tanks from the Javelin.
As a result, the only currently acceptable option as sensors is IR / UV for selecting targets with a jet engine, and a simplified radar for positioning. Accordingly, it makes no sense not to put penny mortars KAZ. Those. we come to the diagram of the Armata. With its obvious horse price.

2) IMHO, big problems are also observed with the effectiveness of remote sensing on the roof.
- The effectiveness of the Contact type DZ (probably the Relic does not differ much) sharply decreases with the approach of the impact to the normal. Accordingly, all those excellent numbers of body armor from the booklets are strictly for the DZ VLD and, accordingly, the acute angle of meeting of the ammunition and the DZ element. If the angle is larger in the roof, conditionally 60 degrees for Javellin, the effectiveness of the remote sensing will obviously drop.
- There is an effective remote sensing system along the normal, but this is achieved by its very large thickness (some types of on-board remote sensing). But on the roof, it will overlap the optical systems, and, accordingly, you cannot put it there.
Why, then, do they put DZ on the roof? For protection from weak roof-breakers that work in flight over the target. But after the appearance of Javellin, there was little sense in them - to reflect the RPG at an acute angle, no more. Actually, therefore, the DZ was removed from the roof of the B3. IMHO.
- Spaced armor of the roof and hatches - against the 700mm Javellin is absolutely useless, even with a DZ hinge. There is neither the spacing dimension (for example, about 600 mm along the sides), nor the thickness of the armor itself, and it is impossible to ensure all this. At least for existing layouts.

[yaglon]

Don't you think, based on your conclusions, that the tank is outdated as an object on the battlefield? The author of the article is a tanker and of course does not want to remove them from service. But it is already clear that the shell defeated the armor.

[Passing]

The projectile defeated the armor, and the KAZ defeated the projectile. So now it is not the shell-armor that is competing, but the shell-armor + KAZ. So the tank is still relevant. But, with one small caveat - it ceases to be the main striking force for all occasions. Exactly for one reason - a rapidly creeping up price (for really effective, and at the same time not disposable tanks, those with KAZ, network-centric battlefield systems, active IR cloaking, an electromagnetic jammer for mines and missiles, a laser suppressor, etc. and etc.).
In modern realities, UAVs will become the main striking force. IMHO. For the price does not differ from the tank, because a modern tank is not more complicated than a modern UAV, in terms of material consumption of a UAV it is radically more efficient, in terms of mass production capabilities as well (in theory), in terms of shock capabilities, they are conditionally equivalent, and in terms of mobility it surpasses a tank by an order of magnitude. Those. ideal for all conditions except the city. There will be one natural niche for the tank - the storming of cities. I am aware that this is considered bad manners, but so far, apart from the tank, there is simply no one to do this work, with the development of AI, ground drones will take over this niche, but it will still be the same tank, only unmanned.

[tank64rus]

It is necessary to put KAZ on tanks and improve all types of protection. Well, the umbrella is because there is no KAZ. By the way, they showed how the modernized Arena can work in the upper sphere. Call the majors to become tankers and money for KAZ will appear and andrenaline in abundance, more than enough. Well, in general, it is clearly not enough to consider the tank-"Javelin" duel without taking into account all other types of weapons and their interaction and use. Moreover, the tank sometimes drives through the forest and knocks down trees, what will happen with such a roof is a question purely from practice.

[Dante Alighieri]

No, well, it's just some kind of holiday. Finally, I waited for Alexey's article about the state of affairs in the modern Russian tank economy. Now we can safely say that the return to the pages of VO has completely taken place. To be honest, I am incredibly happy about that.

Regarding the article. Written, as always, is interesting and, most importantly, is accessible even for those who are far from armored vehicles, plus every word is supported by a corresponding illustration. All of this makes the argument so concrete. And how could it be otherwise when the author's position is based not on fears or mythologemes, but stems from a rational analysis of the current situation, supported by rich life experience, especially such difficult as participation in hostilities ...

In no case disputing the conclusions drawn, I would nevertheless like to insert my 5 kopecks into the discussion of the problem of the fight between armor and a projectile. In particular, I would like to discuss the experience of upgrading T-72A tanks to the level of T-72BME, which was carried out by the Belarusian industry, as well as how the ideas implemented during this update are applicable to the issue discussed in the article.

It is clear that in the course of the modernization carried out on the tank, many components and assemblies were replaced, but we are only interested in what favorably affected the security of the combat vehicle. There are, in fact, only two such innovations: the installation of an autonomous diesel power source to ensure the operation of the main tank systems in a passive mode, which reduces the thermal signature of the tank and allows you to save the resource of the main engine (visually reflected in the increase in the stern of the tank on the left side), as well as installation anti-cumulative screens, in order to protect the side projections of the MTO and the rear projection of the tower. There is a nuance with the latter. Pay attention to what the protection of the rear of the tower is. In essence, these are the same grilles on which the Contact-1 DZ units were installed.

From the advantages of such a solution, it seems to me: ease of manufacture and price, as well as, apparently, greater efficiency in comparison with classical gratings. In addition, as I understand it, if desired, the structure could be reinforced with a frame from above, on which the remote sensing blocks could also be placed. Thus, it would be possible to get the same visor, but not over the entire area of ​​the tower, but only where additional ammunition is stored. In addition, such an option with a visor may be acceptable when it comes to protecting the upper hemisphere of the MTO, but which cannot be directly placed on the remote sensing unit. The only thing you have to think about is a mechanism for the emergency removal of such a visor if access to the engine is required, but I think this can be solved.

[Disant]

From the advantages of such a solution, it seems to me: ease of manufacture and price

at the stern with such a distance and angle of installation, the dz blocks will not work correctly.
for comparison - dz blocks on the sides of the car (in the same photo) hang in the same way, but they work to shield from fire from a front projection and will make an acute angle when the plane of the plate meets the cumulative, which is required for effective operation.
when fired at the side at a right angle, the dz plate will not work with the desired e
effect.
it seems to me there are empty blocks - check

[Aleks tv]

... modernization of T-72A tanks to the level of T-72BME

Hello Kirill!
I'm glad to hear you.))

MK-72BME seems to be designed for the modernization of foreign machines?
140 BTRZ puts them.
Or is this modernization kit going to Belarus too?

The APU for a tank is always good. If only it did not interfere with the movement and did not bring troubles from the shooter. (were on Abrams).

Tower stern protection ....
That seems to be all to the point:
The lattice is at a distance, there are DZ blocks on it ... Why not? Always dreamed of all-round protection ...
Confused by something, to be honest.
Why did you cover the rear spare parts box with the OEM kit so carefully, but not the side ones?
It seems as if the towers were made to weigh the center of mass or something else ...
Take a closer look.
Maybe he is covering something else, for example add.bk?
..................
And ... It is a pity that the entire Contact-1 tank.
Although, if for export, then there it will be very good against ordinary RPG-7 grenades with a shock fuse.
..............
DZ blocks on the visor?
Yes, for sure if everything is calculated it will not be bad, but .... It will still be destroyed in an armed clash, and maybe not cumulative, but just a stray projectile is the turn of 30, which is annoying.
Closing the hatches is very serious.
Then cut through the hatches in new places.))
................
Roof grilles MTO.
Why not?
Although double, with the possibility of service. And if he rips them open with a roof, well, well, it means that the engine and the mobility of the car saved the drive.
Cut off the remnants and weld on a new one.
But there is a minus - the gratings will stand high above the roof of the MTO, the tower can no longer be rotated 360 degrees.
Here is the lesser of evils to choose.
............

This is so, offhand.
It's three o'clock in the morning with us.
It's time to get in the cradle and put pressure on the ground, otherwise I have already swung the hatches in the new places of the tower to cut through.))))))))

[Knell wardenheart]

I think these are just various tests for a possible solution to the problem. Now these ill-fated screens are testing. Somewhere they can test KAZ, somewhere dynamic protection. The screen, unlike all this, let's say, is more noticeable. Perhaps this is a kind of ersatz version of the available modification in case of some emergency. I think the conclusions were made after Karabakh, the implementation of these conclusions "in metal" is of course a matter of time ..

[yaglon]

As for the MAM bombs from Bayraktar, I will say so. I watched almost all the videos from the Karabakh war regarding the destruction of tanks. Almost everywhere you can see that the operator is aiming at the roof of the MTO. Almost always, the tank is immobilized after being hit (which is not surprising). Logic tells us that the main task of the UAV operators was to thwart a tank attack (in the context of that war, rather a counterattack). And this is very tactically correct. The Azerbaijanis actively attacked and set a very specific task for the operators - to thwart tank attacks, anyway the immobilized tank would fall into the hands of the attackers in a short time. The crew will have to leave, and the tank with only a broken engine will soon become a trophy. Based on the trophy list, this tactic worked in most cases.

[Vadim237]

This bomb has armor penetration from 800 to 1000 mm of armor, since this is an anti-tank missile, simply converted into a bomb without an engine, the operator can plant it in the side - the tank will have a cover.

[yaglon]

I agree with you, MAM-L is 160 mm in diameter, i.e. about 800-1000 mm from the top projection. There, even in the forehead, you can start up. Tank there khan finally in any case, even from such a small bomb. And there the trick with this bomb is not in this, but in terrible accuracy.

[flanker7]

All to the point. Interesting.
I completely agree with the train of thought.
Alexey, thank you for the article!

[General70]

Of course, I'm not a specialist, but I think that an umbrella for a tank is needed. Only it must be electronic. To cause a Java explosion at a distance of about 20-30 meters from the upper projection of the tank.

[Disant]

[Center]
here is for discussion the angle of approach of the Ukrainian javelin.
side view of the tank, with a mask on the cannon.
from above for a test it was unsuccessful (too close to the tower) imitated a visor (peeps out from above the car through the smoke)

[vervolk]

Thank you for the article, and for your view of the situation with roof-breakers and the use of new means and types of weapons. From myself, I can assume that the future lies not with the defense of the tower, but with an uninhabited tower and, in the long term, with an uninhabited tank.

[svoit]

A whole generation of Armenians rested on the laurels of Victory, and a whole generation of Azerbaijanis bought technology

Russia sold weapons to both sides, while it was always stated that this would not lead to an imbalance of the balance of power, but for some reason it was violated, where was our intelligence looking?

[Kars]

Thanks for becoming.

Money, money but kaz is necessary.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Kars

Thanks for becoming.

Money, money but kaz is necessary.

Greetings sincerely, Andrey!

I pulled you out of the dungeon with my article?))

Of course, KAZ is needed, no doubt about it.
But how many already ...
Hope is certainly a strong woman, but not to the same degree ...)))))))))))))))
Here's to humor and remains.

Yes, in three days you have an anniversary: ​​10 years on the site.
Congratulations!
I'm glad to see you.

[Kars]

Yes, yes, I pulled it out))
Thank you. I didn't even know about the anniversary)

[Drugov]

Before diagnosing these visors, it is necessary to test it for all types of ammunition and understand its "need". The solution to the issue of a possible obstacle in the event of deformation of this element may be the option of attaching the main struts together with the pyrotechnical cartridges, which would be triggered on the principle of an airbag in a car. When the ammunition enters the protective screen, the squibs are triggered with a minimum delay and the remnants of this screen are fired off.

[ycuce234-san]

For economic reasons, instead of turret tanks, in the further evolution of armored vehicles, self-propelled cutters and reckless tanks will come to the fore. Examples: Stridsvagn 103 and su-150, su-101.
On their straight inclined walls of the cabin and flat roof it is convenient to place protection blocks and all sorts of gratings; all hatches will disappear, except for the aft hatches on the stern canopy; cuttings will be only aft, engine in front; it is possible that they will make separate crewed armored capsules and armored compartments, if automatic equipment will be engaged in loading and reloading; suspension elements, like torsion bars, will try to be carried to the roof of the motorcycle compartment and the wheelhouse. Similarly, all armored personnel carriers and mrap will change - also aft wheelhouses with a flat roof with protection. Complexes of active protection are too expensive and mass armored vehicles will more likely resemble the Su-101 with dynamo protection.

[FrankyStein]

It was always surprising when they talk about the high cost of implementing effective methods of protecting armor, but at the same time the military industry continues to churn out new machines. Is it cheaper than developing and implementing a specific system? In Syria, the result for the tanks of the Russian military industry was disastrous. And there were no roof-breakers. No conclusions, they continue to rivet the same shnyaga.

[lot]

an easy target for modern ammunition.
like AC-130 = rather to drive the Papuans (Taliban on motorcycles) than something cardinally serious.
aviation, space - whoever owns it is the one who rules. The moon including - whoever slams the base there, the Rumel fortress will be.
I hope Rogozin will write a ballad about this in the next collection of his songs))

[aba]

Attention was drawn to roof-fighters already in the mid-80s of the last century. At least in VNIIStal. But then the use of these tools was more likely to the levels of error. But everything changes, everything flows.
I think that with modern technology, the upper projection of the tank cannot be protected by passive protection.

[Igor Litvin]

There is another way to level the "Bayraktars" and "Javelins" - to stop killing and throw tantrums on TV every day, pouring slops on the brotherly people. Then (not right away, but after a while for a hangover) it will become easier to understand that the 30 million people, the second in the USSR, probably still have the right to subjectivity. Probably these people value their homeland and statehood, it's so natural! And with the awareness that this fraternal people are not "Ukrainians who work out the dollars of the State Department," but people, people - it will be easier to understand him, to restore broken ties.
There is no alternative to this. Even with "visors" on the tanks, even without.
More precisely, the alternative is very bad - this people will have no choice but to defend their state by absolutely all existing means: from alliances with anyone who is against Russia, to pulling banderni and other things from the basements.
And over time, on this forum, we will have to discuss protection against CD, first in normal equipment, then in special equipment. Etc.
And what is their way out? How can they protect themselves in a different way from those who want to destroy their state?

[agond]

Attempts to protect the tank from attacks from above in a passive way with the help of some kind of umbrellas, visors, awnings turns the tank into a caterpillar shed, and perhaps these shed bells and whistles will help in special cases, and all the time they only interfere and make the tank more noticeable, cumbersome, vulnerable, from conventional weapons and generally make it difficult to operate. The protection of the tank from attacks from above must be active, that is, the charge with the sensor (s) is raised above the tower to a height of 2m, explodes when an enemy missile approaches and destroys the missile with striking elements, naturally, the armor of the tank turret must provide protection from the resulting fragments. Four similar charges mounted on racks at the corners of the tower (for example, a 10mm rod, 2m long) are capable of repelling a single attack with a high probability. Naturally, then you will have to change the activated rack with a charge for a new one, and it would be nice to do this automatically.

[ZeeD]

Credit to the author, by itself!

[ata]

Can anyone comment on this video?

[kayman4]

Dear author for a complete analysis
Javelin - Tandem shaped-charge missile warhead with an electronic delay in the detonation of the main charge.

And that means the grate will trigger only 1 charge, blocks will have to work against the second.

2 moment, modern ammunition, as we have seen, can get right into the hatch, say at a standing tank - there were no boxes on the hatch of the T-72B1. and therefore it is advantageous to remove the visual and reduce the thermal reflection - otsbda cape. Well, if there is also Kevlar, it can reduce the damage to the crew from snipers or shrapnel.

Well, 3 who knows him just there are gratings or not.

[Chaplain]

How long ago there were no good, correct in terms of analysis and practice (real) articles. Thanks to the author.

[Histor Hare]

I did not even know about many of the described moments. Great description and charismatic narrative writing style. It can be informative even for a person unfamiliar with the military theme (although there is plenty of jargon that is pleasing to the ear). It completely puts a tanker in the shoes, as they say.

[Igorash]

Excellent and quite professionally stated .. Thank you ... I simply refused to comment on this topic earlier, calling the new invention nonsense ... send your article to Shoigu's website .... maybe this pseudo general, after reading, will still make the right decision on the above issues ...

[mongolian9999]

The first respect to the author for the fusion of his own experience and analytical abilities. The second respect for a clear understanding that much in promising weapons developments depends on mathematical calculations and statistics.
Unfortunately, such data can only be obtained in the course of real combat operations and "effective managers" will not bring any benefit.

[kig]

Meanwhile, the roof is already in battle:

[German]

Quote: parma

As a result, we do not have a shield or a sword in terms of "roof-fighters" ... and you are all about your dreams, how far away with little blood on a foreign land ... but the relief is different - in this very reality, an ordinary Ivan will converge with an ordinary John in a combined-arms battle, and the latter has more "trump cards" so far….

taking into account recent events - you were right, dear Parma.