Our tanks can shoot guided missiles - good, but not always

37
Our tanks can shoot guided missiles - good, but not always

Perhaps there is not a single person who, although somehow interested in armored vehicles, albeit with the help of television programs, has not heard about one of the main advantages of our tanks. This, of course, is about the possibility of firing guided missiles through a cannon barrel.

In dry theory - very accurate weapon, capable of hitting the enemy at great distances. And then there are videos from the special operation zone that constantly come up, where tankers hit the enemy with rockets with enviable accuracy. Advertising is just perfect, but are there pitfalls?



Here we will not talk about the indicators of armor penetration of missiles, their resistance to interference and other narrowly focused moments that can organize a mess even in the brightest head. The message is more prosaic: low accuracy of hits, entirely dependent on the skills of the shooter.

Semi-automatic - good, but not very


Get into the deep jungle stories we will not be guided weapons. It is enough to know here that in the Soviet Union, and it is the legacy of this country that we are using now, there were three main tank missile systems for the 125-mm caliber: "Cobra" with radio command guidance, "Svir" and "Reflex" - both with missile guidance along the laser beam, but with some differences in terms of control equipment. The latter, by the way, is now massively installed on all our modern tanks, including both the T-72B3 and the T-80BVM with T-90 modifications.

Guided missile 9M119M "Invar" missile system "Reflex" tanks T-80U, T-72B3, T-80BVM and modifications T-90
Guided missile 9M119M "Invar" missile system "Reflex" tanks T-80U, T-72B3, T-80BVM and modifications T-90

The differences between the complexes are a wagon and a small cart. However, they are related not only by the Soviet past, but also by the principle of semi-automatic missile guidance.

To understand what kind of magical semi-automatic is, just look at some first-generation missile system. For example, "Baby" will fit - an ancient Soviet ATGM, which, they say, is still alive in some countries, shooting at tanks and other equipment.

Before modernization, there were no aiming systems familiar to us at all. After the launch of the rocket, the operator had to independently control its position in space, trying to give it the correct flight path. At the same time, it was possible to conduct this jet guided projectile even through binoculars, if the proper skills were available. But in the kit there was a monocular sight with an applied aiming mark.

9M14M "Baby" with a monocular sight and joystick control
9M14M "Baby" with a monocular sight and joystick control

Shooting and hitting targets from the Malyutka and similar complexes was extremely difficult and required considerable professionalism from the operator. Here, as they say, it's easier to teach a hare to smoke. Exaggerated, of course.

Semi-automatic in this regard greatly facilitated life.

A feature of anti-tank missile systems with semi-automatic guidance, whether it be our tank "Refleks" or some portable and transportable American "Tou" with "Dragons", is that the system independently controls the position of a flying missile in space and does not allow it to "walk " on both sides.

The operator is only required to keep the aiming mark on the target - the automation itself will bring the guided projectile to the specified trajectory. In general, the feeling that you control a mad horse with a joystick, as with the "Baby", will definitely not be there. But, despite this unconditional progress, no one canceled the lion's share of manual work in guidance.

In fact, even in such a “lightweight” mode, aiming a missile at a target, especially if it does not at all crave its own destruction and maneuvers, is not an easy task. Here, it is impossible to do without skills honed by repeated training and brought to automatism. And most of them, let's say, intuitive order.

View from the optical channel of the Sosna-U gunner's sight of the T-72B3 tank. Through it, as well as through the thermal imaging channel, the missile is guided to the target
View from the optical channel of the Sosna-U gunner's sight of the T-72B3 tank. Through it, as well as through the thermal imaging channel, the missile is guided to the target

In practice, this means that the gunner-operator, since we are talking about a tank, needs to have a very developed eye in order to determine the approximate distance from a flying missile to a target in the eyepiece or on the display of the sight. Take into account the speed of the missile and its ability to maneuver, as well as closely monitor the movement and maneuvers of the target and, if possible, predict its actions in this regard. And all this, taking into account the not very convenient location of the governing body in the person of the notorious "cheburashka", which is also very oaky and requires effort when interacting with it.

On the left - the sight "Sosna-U" with the eyepiece of the optical channel. On the right is a standard 1A40 optical sight. Under the eyepiece and the control panel you can see the control of both sights - the same "cheburashka"
On the left is the sight "Sosna-U" with the eyepiece of the optical channel. On the right is a standard 1A40 optical sight. Under the eyepiece and the control panel you can see the control of both sights - the same "cheburashka"

In general, without intensive practice and exercises on simulators, the presence of a guided missile in the tank's ammo rack does not give great advantages. And, on the contrary, very experienced gunners-operators are able to turn a tank into a sniper weapon for shooting tanks at huge distances - up to 5 km, and even with all sorts of somersaults like driving a rocket "slide" to hit armored vehicles in the upper hemisphere (roof).

Problems of the average crew


Speaking about professional tank gunners who feel a flying missile as an extension of their hand and can easily hit an enemy tank at a conventional 4-5 kilometers, we must dwell on one point - they are in the minority. Therefore, you need to rely on the data of average tank crews who have been trained according to general standards.

For example, similar studies were carried out back in the 80s of the last century in the USSR. As part of these experiments, they tried to understand how effective the guided armament of a tank would be in the hands of a crew that was not drilled, but who had undergone standard army training, if fire was fired from a moving tank at an average speed of 15 km / h at maneuvering targets at a distance of about 4 km.

The maximum probability of hitting a rocket from the first shot was estimated at 68,4% at an average target speed of about 16 km / h. The higher the speed of the target and the intensity of its maneuvers, the lower the chance to hit. As part of the study, the minimum probability was estimated at 59 percent.


And this is in greenhouse conditions. In battle, when the crew is poisoned by the combustion products of gunpowder, tired and in a state of extremely strong tension and stress, these indicators can be safely divided by 2 or even 3.

But here we can say that the USSR has been gone for more than thirty years, and much has changed over the years. There is nothing to argue here - a lot has changed, but the fact that you need to be able to control tank missiles and maintain the entire sighting system of a tank is clearly illustrated by 2020, when the next review of the combat capabilities of equipment took place in Alabino.

In short, guided missiles were fired from T-90A, T-80U and T-80UE-1 tanks at a fixed target at a distance of 2–400 meters.

Each of the vehicles fired four shots at the target and ... hit it only once. The shooting efficiency was at the level of 25% - each tank did not hit the target from one to two times due to guidance errors, probably on the part of the gunner-operator, which military expert Viktor Murakhovsky angrily wrote about on his social network. The rest of the misses, in his own words, related both to technical issues in terms of the failure of the fire control system and weapon stabilizers, and to the failure of the missile guidance.

In contrast, the T-72B3 tanks, most likely delivered straight from Uralvagonzavod, fired at targets with virtually XNUMX% probability, which only once again confirmed the importance of crew professionalism and proper technical training of vehicles.

But these, again, are exceptionally greenhouse conditions, when the crew knows their business, and the target stands motionless at a short distance and is waiting for a hit with open arms.

Electronics sometimes saves


In fact, the situation is not as depressing as it might seem at first glance, since our modern tanks in the face of the T-72B3, T-80BVM and the T-90 modification are equipped not only with the notorious thermal imagers. The thermal imaging digital channel made it possible to introduce an automatic target tracking system into the sighting systems of tanks.

Its main advantage is the minimization of human actions in the process of preparing a shot and aiming at a target. Continuously processing the video signal coming from the thermal imaging camera, the system isolates the target from the general background by its contrast and automatically accompanies it, keeping the aiming mark on it. Also, in accordance with the maneuvers of the target and the movement of its own tank, the turret automatically rotates, and the gun changes the angle of declination to ensure the desired trajectory of the shot.

This really helps not only when firing conventional projectiles, but also guided missiles. The gunner-operator does not need to constantly manually hold the aiming mark on the enemy in order to guide the rocket along the desired trajectory, which has a positive effect on the effectiveness of the fire. So, according to generalized data, the accuracy of guidance for all types of ammunition increases by about three times, and in some situations increases by 45 times.

Image from the Sosna-U thermal imaging channel. Through it, the target tracking machine works
Image from the Sosna-U thermal imaging channel. Through it, the target tracking machine works

However, it is impossible to make some absolutely universal thing out of a target tracking machine. With regards to the conduct of guided missiles, it has significant drawbacks.

It is perfect for firing in an open field, where there are no natural obstacles in the form of vegetation, uneven terrain, as well as artificial - buildings and structures of various kinds. His task is simply to lead the target. And he will lead her, even if she briefly disappeared from view, driving behind some barn. The system will simply continue to move the sight in inertial mode until the enemy reappears in the field of view and it is re-captured in the sight.

But he cannot “understand” when it is necessary to make a rocket maneuver. In situations where it is required to drastically change the trajectory of the missile's flight - to go around the same obstacle or to let it "slide" - manual targeting is still required.

It is also worth taking into account that the machine works exclusively through a thermal imaging signal, so there will be moments when it simply cannot capture a target due to its low contrast or fuzzy silhouette, and far from being as rare as we would like.

In general, it’s good that there is such a thing, but it can’t always help out.

Conclusions


Still, the presence of guided missiles in the ammunition load of our tanks cannot be called completely useless. A skilled gunner can do a lot of things with this weapon - after all, it’s a “long arm”, after all. Any armor-piercing projectile will outperform in terms of firing range, and in terms of accuracy too.

But the strong dependence of the effectiveness of missiles on the skills, physical and psychological state of the user cannot definitely put them in the rank of high-precision weapons. A person is not a robot, and is subject to stress and fatigue, and this will be with one hundred percent probability in a real combat situation. And you should not forget about poisoning with powder gases during intensive shooting. All these factors will definitely affect the accuracy of hits, which, even in "greenhouse" polygon conditions, is not always one hundred percent.

The introduction of such electronic components as an automatic target tracker, on the whole, changes the trend for the better: the number of hits on the enemy increases, and, finally, there is a real possibility of firing missiles on the move. It, by the way, was also available without automation - the same "Reflex" allowed and still allows it to be done - but only formally, since it is very difficult to get from a moving tank with a rocket led by the operator. However, it cannot be made universal. Doesn't always help.

In general, as Aleksey Kuznetsov, an expert at Military Review, said, there is a rocket in the ammunition load - well, that's good. And we will add: no rocket is not a big deal either.

Where to move on in terms of the development of guided weapons on tanks, if it is relevant at all, our military and designers, in principle, have an idea. This direction is towards homing missiles. Prototypes and pre-series samples of these products under the code "Falcon" have already passed some tests and, if they nevertheless go into series, they can be used on all our modern tanks with appropriate refinement.

But already after the completion of a special military operation, since, as they say, they don’t change horses in midstream: making such profound changes in the design of vehicles in conditions of forced production and limited financial opportunities will be more harmful than useful.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    14 February 2023 05: 26
    It would be interesting to know the opinion of tankers practitioners.
    1. +5
      14 February 2023 08: 22
      And all this, taking into account the not very convenient location of the control body in the face of the notorious "cheburashka", which is also very oaky and requires effort when interacting with it.

      Cheburashka is our everything from self-propelled guns to tanks. smile Yes, if my memory serves me, the BMP-2 and 3 are also worth it. on PRP-3 exactly stood
      1. +1
        15 February 2023 02: 23
        Cheburashka is our everything from self-propelled guns to tanks. smile Yes, if my memory serves me, the BMP-2 and 3 are also worth it. on PRP-3 exactly stood
        And what did you miss BMP-1, BRM-1K? Yes, and the BMD series ...
      2. 0
        April 19 2023 21: 07
        Cheburashka is not only on the PRP-3, but also on 4 and all its modifications, the base is one (BMP-1)
    2. +2
      15 February 2023 00: 39
      The practice looks something like this. In the distant 80s, around 1983, the T-64B was adopted by a group of Soviet troops in the GDR. It has a cannon, it is also a Pturs launcher. In our TD, every third company was on Bekhah. Only from the factory. Shooting with a standard projectile is a pleasure. Officers have 3 out of 3 hits, and more often 2 out of 3 hits for l / s when shooting immediately at 1600m. The gun stabilizer is just super, I have never seen better. From the second half of 80- x dealt only with the T-72.
      Now about the birds. There was one demonstration shooting for all employees on the T-64B in the tank division. 6 tanks were allocated for everything about everything. One best crew was allocated from each regiment - they fired (CT and NO). Three tanks, two arrival.
      Then, everyone watches in unison as the lucky ones shoot. Tanks were fired by two helicopters with silencers. They interfere so that the enemy does not scan the frequency at which the ATGM operates. ZIL-131. The task of each is to observe their tank and remember the place of its fall. After each race, search for their own tank, present it to the special officer for verification of the number. Everything coincided, permission is given for the next race. shot from a place at 6m, then on the move.
      The peculiarity of these pturs is that after exiting the bore, it automatically goes up 5-10m from the aiming line and also descends for 1-2 seconds (I don’t remember exactly) to the target. move the desired toggle switch to this position. Then the pturs does not make a slide and flies like an ordinary projectile. What may have happened in biathlon. Pturs then sits on the aiming line with a tracer blinds (blurs) the eye. .Maybe things are different now.
      1. +2
        15 February 2023 15: 22
        Quote from: BULAT_wot
        The peculiarity of these pturs is that after exiting the bore, it automatically went up 5-10m from the aiming line and also lowered itself in 1-2 seconds (I don’t remember exactly) to the target

        These tanks with the "Cobra" complex had two firing modes and one of them was overshot. In Germany, the landfills were located in places where there is a lot of sand, and therefore dust, so the regime with excess there was more suitable
        Quote from: BULAT_wot
        Then the pturs does not make a slide and flies like an ordinary projectile, which may have happened in biathlon.

        Now all TURs (tank guided projectiles) go in excess, and in front of the target they fall on the line of sight, but this happens along a sinusoidal pattern, so at some point the projectile tracer is below the aiming mark, which confuses poorly trained shooters, they believe that the rocket has malfunctioned and does not hold altitude, they begin to correct the flight of the rocket by raising the aiming mark, and the rocket obediently goes into the sky. At the show in Tagil, this was perfectly demonstrated, some people were very negligent in the preparation of part of the crews.
    3. 0
      15 February 2023 02: 14
      It would be interesting to know the opinion of tankers practitioners

      It's beautifully painted here, they say:
      .... research was carried out back in the 80s of the last century in the USSR. As part of these experiments, they tried to understand how effective the guided armament of a tank would be in the hands of a crew that was not drilled, but who had undergone standard army training, if fire was fired from a moving tank at an average speed of 15 km / h at maneuvering targets at a distance of about 4 km.
      Probably the researchers in the supreme headquarters, not far from the Arbat, calculated such studies, in the intervals between "combat" smoke breaks, and they were far from the troops ... And in the troops, in those very 80s ..., the situation was such that for 3,5 years of my service in a tank regiment, firing with a regular projectile was carried out regularly, according to the combat training program ... but, at the same time, the KUV was never used! But everyone knew that a guided projectile was very expensive (they said that 10 thousand rubles or so), so let them lie in the warehouse! ....
  2. +6
    14 February 2023 05: 35
    Thanks to the author, interesting to read! hi Before shot and forgot us still far, far away.
    For some reason, I just remembered biathlon, when one commentator only hit the target with a rocket ....
    1. -2
      14 February 2023 07: 57
      On tanks, the 1-2 generation of ATGMs does not make any sense. For direct fire, there are subcalibers and land mines. They are by default fired and forgotten. The third and higher generation makes sense, just the ability to accurately shoot from closed positions, according to the principle “Fire, evaluate and correct” and “Fire and aim”
      1. +4
        14 February 2023 08: 09
        Quote from cold wind
        For direct fire, there are subcalibers and land mines.

        BOPS for 5 km? Pure luck...
        1. -1
          14 February 2023 08: 31
          Once again I will repeat. The effective firing range of 1-2 generations of ATGMs (S) is 1-1,5 km on the European theater. Further luck, fantasy performance characteristics are not interesting.
          1. +1
            14 February 2023 16: 26
            Quote from cold wind
            Once again I will repeat. The effective firing range of 1-2 generations of ATGMs (S) is 1-1,5 km on the European theater. Further luck, fantasy performance characteristics are not interesting.

            You do not confuse the restriction on the relief and natural theater masks with the range of weapons. And the second generation is noticeably longer-range than the first, both in terms of missiles and in terms of guidance capabilities.
        2. +2
          14 February 2023 09: 11
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote from cold wind
          For direct fire, there are subcalibers and land mines.

          BOPS for 5 km? Pure luck...

          To hit the enemy’s equipment at 5 km with a tank ATGM .... This is also actually luck, and taking into account the speed of the ATGM flight, in some cases it is suicide ... it's good when such a weapon exists, but praying for it is not that very smart ....
          1. +1
            15 February 2023 00: 30
            Not luck, but skill. And what about suicide?
      2. +1
        14 February 2023 09: 41
        The tank is a universal thing.
        On tanks, it makes sense to have a line of missiles with different characteristics and very different prices. It is unreasonable to leave only "expensive" generation 3+ missiles in the ammunition load.
  3. +10
    14 February 2023 05: 58
    Thank you for the article.
    Where to go next in terms of the development of guided weapons on tanks, if it is relevant at all, our military and constructors in principle represent. This direction is towards homing missiles.

    We know where our designers were moving. No one will tell us where the funds went. And our military, represented by Mr. Shoigu, preferred ostentatious tank biathlons on the T-14 to tactical exercises with live firing from the T-90 (T-72M) ...
    * * *
    Tanks - tanks. It would be interesting to know how things are with the "Coalition-SV" ... Will there be a use for it or will it remain in the memory of Russians as "bullshit" for parades of failed victories?
  4. +10
    14 February 2023 08: 02
    Where to move on in terms of the development of guided weapons on tanks, if it is relevant at all, our military and designers, in principle, have an idea. This direction is towards homing missiles. Prototypes and pre-series samples of these products under the code "Falcon" have already passed some tests and, if they nevertheless go into series, they can be used on all our modern tanks with appropriate refinement.
    By "using" the word "Sokol", the author means the Sokol-V tour ... Yes, a homing missile ... but how soon will it appear in service and in what quantity? A small digression into history ...: Somewhere, in the 90s, the "falcon" was already "waving its wings" ... on the "pages of the military press" and on the recently born Internet! These were the "Sokol-1" and "Sokol-2" TOURS with a range of up to 8 km, proposed by the now "late" "Ametekh"! With homing! And where are these "falcons" with "Ametech" itself? Where ! In ... ("Lieutenant Rzhevsky, be silent!") ... So won't "history" repeat itself, as in a joke about the difference between a hungweibing and a zaofan?
  5. +3
    14 February 2023 08: 24
    Quote from: Derbes19
    It would be interesting to know the opinion of tankers practitioners.

    Well, there are few of them here, and many have not been in touch for a long time.
  6. +3
    14 February 2023 08: 42
    Good article, kudos to the author. And should the tank stand all the time the rocket is flying to the target, like a monument, or can it move? Otherwise, it turns into a stationary target for ten seconds, which marks itself with a shot.
    1. +2
      14 February 2023 09: 01
      It is written, if 16 km per hour travels, then half of the rockets into milk.
  7. +6
    14 February 2023 08: 59
    PS In Israel there is an "analogue" of "Reflex" TOUR "LAHAT" ... but, in my opinion, having "some" advantages over "reflex"! This missile with a semi-active laser seeker can hit tanks at a distance of up to 8 km into the "roof"! (The laser homing system allows this!) It is possible to direct these "tank" anti-tank missiles from closed positions with the help of "infantry" on the front line; and now, with UAVs! Lakhat missiles have long "existed" along with laser-beam "reflexes"! What prevented the Russian military-industrial complex, in parallel with laser-beam "reflexes", from setting up the production of modified "reflexes" with a laser seeker? As always, the "natural" laziness and stupidity of Russian officials!
    By the way, even the Indians are now armed with SAMHO TOURS with a laser seeker!
    I would also like to note the "achievements" of the military-industrial complex of South Korea, which produces 2 (!) Types of homing tank shells! One of them is a self-aiming ammunition (SPB)! "Grimly joking" ... St. Petersburg based on "Motive-3"! When else will "Sokol-V" reach the troops on Russian street? Wouldn't it turn out that a "new reflex" with a laser seeker or a tank shell with SPB (SPBE) can be made faster and cheaper than the Sokol-V? Isn't it time to distinguish between developments (R&D) of "peaceful" and wartime? Remember the "concern" of the actor Kartsev about large crayfish for 5 re and small ones, but for 3 re? So I ... not against the "obsolete" laser-beam "vortices" of generation 2+ ... let them be against the "Papuans"! But along with 3rd generation homing missiles! Let there be "Falcons-V" with a telethermal imaging seeker ... "cool" and terribly expensive, which can be accumulated "slowly" in peacetime! But along with the Sokol-1 with a semi-active laser seeker, more technologically advanced and cheaper! Let even laser-beam "reflexes" be "present", so that it would not be a pity to shoot at everything that moves! But everything is in moderation!
  8. Eug
    +3
    14 February 2023 09: 13
    Education has always been a key factor, a competent specialist is able to squeeze
    from technology a little more than was laid down when it was created. As for the introduction of new products, I once read about a tank regiment of the US Army, equipped with the first modification of Abrasha, but equipped with l / s trained at the highest level. So, before the introduction of new equipment in the equipment, the Abramchiks conducted a training battle - ordinary medium-trained tankers on tanks with the proposed novelty and overtrained tankers on the simplest modification. And only if the regiment of tanks equipped with the "novelty" won - consent was given to its implementation. An interesting approach, albeit a controversial one.
  9. +1
    14 February 2023 09: 40
    In general, as Aleksey Kuznetsov, an expert at Military Review, said, there is a rocket in the ammunition load - well, that's good. And we will add: no rocket is not a big deal either.

    Yes, yes ... The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is well done. Babs give birth to new ones.
  10. +3
    14 February 2023 13: 20
    As for the "cheburashka" ... On the BMP 2, it's quite a convenient and accurate thing. Not a mouse for a computer, but it is quite convenient to use. Obviously it is spring-loaded, but to say it straight about the effort, on the contrary, it helps to feel the hover better. At the shooting school, he was the first (with some comrades) to shoot from a cannon. We broke the lifts (so as not to go down, only fixing the hit), who shot worse then just got good grades. As in tanks - I won’t say, I didn’t use it.
    In pursuit, I’ll say that shooting with the KPVT BTR-80 was even more accurate (my personal opinion), you feel everything with your hands, fingertips, the lack of a stabilizer was not a big hindrance. In general, everyone liked to chop off the teachers, including shooting and aiming at the BMP, all by hand. They said after the first hit everything will be cut off, learn for real. Fiends!
  11. +3
    14 February 2023 14: 36
    It seems that (this is the key word) the author understands the problem, even points to the gas contamination of the tank turret and the physical fatigue of the crew, but he lacks an understanding of the 2 most important things in this matter.
    FIRST - this is the impossibility for the crew to get exactly GREAT practical experience in firing exactly EXPENSIVE missiles, and, alas, simulators DO NOT provide "100% imitation of a shot" in any way.
    Personally, while serving in the Soviet Army, I shot every day on a simulator and never missed, and while firing a 9M113 rocket, the wire broke and the ATGM "made a candle". Here's the treadmill for you.
    SECOND - this is the flight path of the ATGM, which, after the launch, describes a "circle of large diameter", i.e. flies in a SPIRAL, which, alas, narrows too slowly, and the closer the target is to the tank or to the ATGM launcher, the higher the likelihood that the missile will simply NOT have time to reach the "line of sight"
    and stupidly "burrows into the ground" on the next turn, or its wire will catch on something and break.
    Oddly enough, but the greater the range to the target, the HIGHER the probability of hitting it with such a missile will be, but on the European theater of operations the "line of sight" range usually does not exceed 2 meters, and at such a "medium" range, even in IDEAL conditions for firing, the probability of hitting such a missile is already less than 000% ...
  12. +1
    14 February 2023 15: 03
    In light of the forthcoming deliveries of western tanks, which will be possible already from 3 - 3,5 km. to hit our tanks with shells, the presence of a tank ATGM, striking at distances of 4-5 km, is the most compelling argument. Therefore, the command and crews of tanks should give priority to this issue and train.
  13. -1
    14 February 2023 15: 38
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    This missile with a semi-active laser seeker can hit tanks at a distance of up to 8 km into the "roof"! (The laser homing system allows this!)

    Serious thing.
    It is interesting whether the Zionists will supply these ammunition to the Bendera, or will it be limited to transferring a small batch of 5 pieces, 000mm howitzer shells, and business trips of instructors from the IDF (like those 000 prisoners who, on the personal instructions of Abramovich, were returned through Riyadh to Israel) .
  14. +1
    14 February 2023 15: 46
    Good article, everything is clearly written. I thought why they don’t show the use of missiles by tanks, because in theory it’s a pretty good weapon.
  15. -2
    14 February 2023 19: 49
    And we will add: no rocket is not a big deal either.

    The trouble is very great! The article is useful. And the conclusions are wrong. These missiles have decent armor-breaking power, and in the conditions of a meeting with NATO tanks, such weapons are paramount for us. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to improve it and modernize it taking into account these problems, as well as train personnel to work with them until the modernization has been carried out.
  16. +1
    14 February 2023 22: 12
    Explain to a non-specialist. A remote-controlled missile is a jet-powered drone. And how realistic is it to launch a more familiar UAV through the barrel? Here, both reconnaissance capabilities and kamikaze can be used, while there is no need to stand still without shelter.
    1. +2
      14 February 2023 23: 36
      It is possible to launch an UAV from a tank from a cannon if it is in size and with a sleeve like the current tank missile weapons. Hence, if you hang something other than the existing charge on the UAV, then the explosive will be less, and the aerodynamics will be much worse. We will get a bad drone and a bad anti-tank missile. At the same time, when shooting, it’s not up to reconnaissance and admiring the question of survival to hit the enemy first. There may not be a second chance. Another scenario is that with the tank there is a drone on the wire, as it was supposed to be on the T-14 - this is interesting. Nothing prevents you from having any drone and transferring a picture from it to a tablet to a crew member - a commander who loads.
      Standing or not standing still does not depend on the presence of a drone ... Then, normally, a tank is not a thing in itself, it always acts in interaction with other tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and infantry.
      How effective would it be if, for example, a swarm of drones around the tank would transmit a 360-degree picture + tactical map and much more to the virtual reality glasses of the driver, gunner and commander. It probably looks great in theory. But there are many practical but:
      they shoot at the tank, they jam the communication - the drones need to be fed somehow - the food is somehow transferred from under the armor. The need to train crews for 2 modes of operation - when drones went blind / virtual reality glasses broke and with them. Integration of goggles and a control / guidance system for a weapon. How much the human psyche will withstand such an immersion. How to broadcast different pictures from one drone to different crew members - the driver will look at the road, the commander will look at the tactical map and into the distance, the gunner on the sides ... The issue is solvable, but not banal and not cheap financially.
      1. -1
        15 February 2023 00: 03
        The issue is resolved by the fourth crew member, the on-board systems operator. It works with UAVs. New European tanks already have it.
        Drones can be of various aircraft type and vertical takeoff, kamikaze and tank-powered. On the panther, they offer the use of 3-4 options. The fact that a tank cannot exist without an UAV is unequivocal.




    2. 0
      14 February 2023 23: 45
      Quote from olgherd
      And how realistic is it to launch a more familiar UAV through the barrel?

      Absolutely real. Oto Melara "Horus"
  17. +1
    14 February 2023 23: 09
    Let me highlight some specific points:
    In the T-72/80/90, there is no poisoning by the combustion products of gunpowder and cannot be under normal firing modes and normal operation of the equipment.
    In terms of missiles, missile weapons are relatively simple BPS, this is a real possibility of a long arm (almost 2 times further) and the ability to deliver the first blow before the enemy reaches the distance of using BPS. Even the god of any of the religions does not give 100% guarantees (in this case, defeat from the first shot with a rocket). Reports that the BPS are foreign, even from the Challenger BC, are designed and capable of guaranteed to hit the enemy at distances of 7-8 km, unscientific fiction - such messages regularly pop up on forums, articles on VO. Shooting from a stop, due to an ambush from 4-5 km, is a viable scenario. Of course it is better in motion and from 10 km and shot and forgot. But no one has implemented such a pack in the tank world, among other things, because there are complexes of means to counter such homing missiles. The increase in distance is both new gunpowder to the rocket and the rocket control system must withstand additional loads when firing from a gun, the issues of gun operation, taking into account the fact that the entire zoo of weapons operates at different pressures. The rocket itself, too, can’t be made by anyone here, and there are already restrictions on the dimensions of the tower, the automatic loader, and so that a regular gun can be loaded into the gun. .. There are questions here. Work is underway. I am convinced that we will have a strong decision in the Russian Federation and we will hit their armored vehicles of our MBTs at distant approaches.

    At the expense of the quality of training of personnel and the effectiveness of defeating the enemy - simulators adequate to the tasks are needed - in my opinion there are no fundamental problems to create a high-quality simulator with an imitation of all possible scenarios for the use of missile weapons.
  18. 0
    19 March 2023 12: 38
    Where to go next in terms of the development of guided weapons for tanks? To understand, you need only a little brain and preferably not a bureaucratic one. There are two directions:
    1. A longer-range missile that will be deployed using a light drone (Mavic, etc.) on which there will be a laser designator. The tank will shoot the drone operator, which can be either one of the tankers or a third-party soldier will aim at the target. Desirable range km 15.
    2. A kamikaze drone fired from a tank muzzle, like a lancet, but because a very large blank can be stuffed into a tank muzzle, it is desirable that this drone has significantly more explosives, kg 5-7 and a good range of about 40-50 km.
    With such weapons, tanks take on a much new meaning in modern wars: a heavily fortified vehicle capable of making noise not only in the trenches in the vicinity, but in the near rear of the enemy.
    It is a pity that these obvious technical solutions are unlikely to ever reach our officials, there are still chances for designers, although they are also not very big.
  19. -1
    April 12 2023 11: 24
    In general, it’s good that there is such a thing, but it can’t always help out.

    strange conclusion. If perishing to speak about "always", then nothing not forever. and you can drown an aircraft carrier, and smash a tank, and shoot down an intercontinental missile. straight captain obvious.
  20. 0
    18 July 2023 09: 11
    The same stupid idea as floating infantry fighting vehicles. Money down the drain.