Tank versus infantry: something needs to be done about it

Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Question by Viktor Murakhovsky

Reserve Colonel Viktor Ivanovich Murakhovsky, a member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, in his telegram blog raised a very topical issue about the vulnerability of modern tanks in front of the infantry. In the light of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, this problem requires separate consideration.

The issue of situational awareness of the crews of armored vehicles escalated once again when there was a lot of video evidence of tanks passing literally under the noses of enemy infantry. On one of them, neither the driver nor the tank commander was able to see the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine hiding literally at the side of the road. As a result, the tank slowly drove past the nationalists' hole and got into the back of the RPG turret.

The Russian tank did not notice the hole with the nationalists (circled in black). In a few seconds, the militant will hit from a grenade launcher into the stern of the tank. Fortunately, to no avail. Source: Telegram

Fortunately, the ammunition only struck the armor without causing any damage to the tank. But he could get into the MTO and immobilize the armored vehicle. The outcome of the event was resolved in a draw. At the same time, the entire video sequence was accompanied by emotional comments from our fighters, who, observing the situation from a quadrocopter, were unable to communicate the position of the enemy to the tank crew by radio. The incident, certainly far from the only one, revealed a long-standing problem in tank building - the crew of a combat vehicle sees little around them.

It's all about the original concept of using tanks. The above-mentioned Viktor Murakhovsky in his telegram channel comments quite clearly:

A modern tank is not very good at killing enemy infantry. For two reasons. The first reason is that the means of reconnaissance and observation of the tank are not well adapted to the detection of infantry. The infantryman perfectly knows how to use the micro-relief of the terrain, vegetation, infrastructure and any object on the battlefield for shelter, up to lined vehicles and corpses. It is very difficult to detect an infantryman from a tank using only observation and aiming devices, especially on the move.

It would seem that support for attacking tanks should be provided by escort infantry fighting vehicles. Regarding the effectiveness of small-caliber artillery (for example, a 30-mm automatic gun 2A42), the reserve colonel also spoke:

In addition, in general, small arms weapon and small-caliber guns do not destroy, but only suppress infantry. In modern wars, 80% of the infantry is killed by fragments of shells and mines, and only 20% - by everything else, including small arms

Often, a tank is forced to go to the front line to the trenches of the Armed Forces of Ukraine alone. It is worth mentioning that such tactics are associated either with the hopelessness of command, or elementary incompetence. An alternative option was to work outside the reach of anti-tank equipment, supporting the infantry at a distance of several hundred meters, or even a kilometer or two. In any other case, the losses of the advancing tanks will be excessive and completely incomparable with the objectives of the operation. The roles on the battlefield have changed - if earlier they said that the tank should attack with the support of the infantry, now the foot soldiers go forward, and the tank moves behind them if necessary.

The second question - if a grenade launcher is found right next to him, how will the tank commander destroy him?

If you're lucky, you can use a course machine gun or even the main caliber. You can take advantage of the Syrian experience, drive up to a building with entrenched infantry and just shoot out the window - heavy contusions are provided to the inhabitants. In the conditions described above, when a Russian tank slipped past the nationalists' hole, it was enough just to fire a cannon over them so that most of the hiding people never got up. But that's if you're very lucky.

In all other cases, the commander has to water the surroundings from a machine gun on the tower, which is sometimes also called anti-aircraft. Only now, in the vast majority of Russian tanks, the commander is forced to operate a heavy machine gun outside the armored vehicle. Neither the T-80BV nor the T-72 "B" series are equipped with a remote-controlled machine gun mount. They are not equipped even now, a year after the start of the special operation. The exception is the T-90M "Breakthrough", on the turret of which the UDP T05BV-1 flaunts with a PKM machine gun. A good product, but the caliber had to be lowered from the original 12,7 mm to 7,62 mm, which affected both the range and lethal force.

Recall that the fighters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for the most part, are well equipped with personal protective equipment, which, under certain conditions, can mitigate the lethal effect of even a machine-gun bullet. The 12,7-mm caliber completely eliminates all the advantages of protected infantry, but for it to work, the tank commander must sacrifice his life. It turns out a vicious circle.

UDP T05BV-1 is the exception rather than the rule on Russian tanks. Source: vk.com

As Victor Murakhovsky rightly notes, most of the enemy infantry is destroyed by artillery or, at best, aviation. Verbatim:

"Due to the fact that the reaction time of both artillery and aviation is not instantaneous, and the accuracy of shooting and bombing is relatively low, the infantry successfully survives on the battlefield."

And a tank capable of responding quickly simply cannot cope with the remaining manpower of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is especially acute in the completely urbanized landscapes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The infantry, under the cover of the ruins of cities, actively maneuvers and enters areas that are not visible to the tank crew.

Ways to solve the problem

The issue of the crew's poor awareness of what is happening around them will never be finally and irrevocably resolved, but you can try. Solutions may or may not be expensive.

Among the expensive ones, of course, is the increase in the crew by one member. It is no coincidence that the Terminator BMPT can accommodate five tankers at once, two of which are exclusively engaged in the destruction of nearby infantry. We are talking about operators of course grenade launchers AG-17D.

The layout and placement of the crew of the BMPT "Terminator". Source: ursa-tm.ru

But here, too, there are paradoxes.

Two powerful anti-personnel weapons are seriously limited in horizontal angles of fire and actually cover only the frontal projection of the armored vehicle. For all other threats, either a twin automatic cannon or, in extreme cases, anti-tank missiles have to take the rap.

By analogy with the BMPT, a fourth crew member, equipped with appropriate surveillance equipment, can seriously enhance the anti-personnel capabilities of the tank. Especially if the tanker is equipped with an all-angle grenade launcher and, in a Western manner, with a small-sized reconnaissance copter. But all this, of course, sounds like a fantasy - no one will remake tank hulls for the sake of such an “insignificant” problem.

There is another way out of the situation - to equip combat tanks with "transparent armor" complexes. For example, the Israeli IronVision helmet from Elbit System allows you to see through the hull and turret of a tank. On commercials, the product looks impressive, but it is completely incomprehensible how to use the equipment in combat conditions. War is not a computer game where, in which case, you can save.

The second way out is to update the staffing of the tank unit. The tank should not go into battle without the support of real-time aerial reconnaissance. For each tank crew - one operator drone. Whether he will transmit a picture to the commander’s monitor or inform on the radio about what is happening around is already a matter of technology. Not bad if the escort quadrocopter is capable of dropping a couple of VOGs on the heads of enemy anti-tank crews. Something similar is already being practiced in a special operation, but how common it is and, most importantly, how it is analyzed by the military, is a matter of discovery.

One of the main discoveries of the Ukrainian campaign was the effectiveness of the “artillery-drone” communication, which turns the ancient D-30s into high-precision guns. Correction from the air is not so important for a tank (after all, most of the time the gun works direct fire), but information support from the air is critical for a blind tank. However, this is far from being only a problem of tanks - the staffing of almost platoons with copters was talked about from the very beginning of the special operation.

Now let's return to the issue of defeating the detected infantry.

As mentioned above, there is virtually nothing to destroy tank-dangerous targets. But the Israelis have. Each Merkava has a 60-mm mortar, which, depending on the modification, is either on the armor or inside the turret. The range of the gun is from 150 to 3 meters. It is not easy to kill infantry in body armor and helmets with such weapons, but it is quite possible to suppress the desire to shoot at a tank.

For reference: the Russian army is armed with a similar 60-mm mortar "Gall". With minor modifications, it can be used from a tank to fight infantry.

Israeli tank mortar. Source: oleggranovsky.livejournal.com

Not easy with tank ammunition. Unlike NATO tanks, we do not have a specialized projectile for effective point-blank shooting at manpower.

The Abrams boasts the M1028 or Canister Shot. More than a thousand 9,5 mm balls effectively mow the clearing in front of the tank. According to sources in the United States, "one such projectile provides a guaranteed defeat of up to 50% of an attacking enemy infantry unit of up to a company at a distance of up to 500 meters." The ammunition works well against light fortifications, barbed wire and thickets.

The Israelis have an M329 Apam in the tank ammunition, firing six consecutive shrapnel charges on a trajectory. As planned, it is better to shoot with such a projectile along the street, which is guaranteed to hit grenade launchers at a great distance.

A great danger to the infantry is the German DM11, capable of undermining the enemy's trenches in the air, or on contact with the target.

An effective anti-personnel weapon is the fragmentation-beam tank "Telnik". Do our tankers have it in a special operation?

Domestic tanks in this area also do not lag behind and are equipped with remote detonation systems for the Ainet ammunition, still of Soviet design, and more modern Telniki. A programmable fuse allows you to set the projectile to explode above the target, as well as with a delay after overcoming an obstacle. For example, behind a brick wall. The shells of the "Telnik" complex are of the fragmentation-beam type and so far are intended only for the T-90M. A beam is a stream of tiny striking elements that a projectile throws out in the air at a given point in the trajectory. In this, the ammunition has similarities with the German DM11.

Interestingly, it is also possible to turn an ordinary high-explosive fragmentation ZOF26 into a programmable projectile - for this it is enough to replace the standard fuse with an electronic 3VM-12.

There is currently no information on the use of tank systems for remote detonation "Aynet" and "Telnik" against nationalists in Ukraine.

Comments

[voice of reason]

By the way, yes. On the use, purpose and general concept of tanks, based on the results of the SVO, conclusions have yet to be drawn. On the one hand, only frontal armor is completely insufficient, in the conditions of modern combat, you need armor from all sides and from above, too, but then the weight grows ... , naturally, dynamic protection is "removed". From a mine explosion, from machine gun fire, and so on. In the conditions of counter-patriotic actions and the fight against terrorists, dynamic protection showed itself well - it reflected a couple of shots from RPGs or ATGMs in different projections, left, changed protection, and when the tank flies all day in the field and over it, it is better to have passive armor protection. Perhaps composite, perhaps modular hinged like scales on chain mail, removable, or something else. It is possible to simply install additional passive protection before combat operations and so on.
The second point is that one large caliber is not enough to fight infantry. you need a fast-firing automatic cannon. BUT not in return! To destroy infantry shelters, a large caliber is also needed, but a gun is also needed. I don't know how to implement and combine it correctly. It is possible as a twin installation or again to think about the concept of a multi-turreted tank, with the difference that the "second turret" can be a controlled uninhabited combat module.
Third, completely inadequate means of reconnaissance and detection. No thermal imaging sights help. Wet foliage extinguishes the signature, the helmet extinguishes, the bulletproof vest extinguishes, the trench with the parapet extinguishes, everything in a row extinguishes in general. The tank, being in front of the forest belt, in which the infantry unit is sheltered in the trenches, sees absolutely nothing. And they see him at a glance and extinguish him with ATGMs from all sides, and they themselves and still point-correct art.
As a result, either the harp will be broken or the trunk will be damaged and that's it! Now in manual mode, this is compensated by the use of an UAV, from which information is processed on the NP and target designations are transmitted to the tank in the form of commands and information about the combat situation. Well, the general problem is that while the enemy’s art works well, it is impossible to concentrate a large number of tanks for an effective joint attack - they immediately become priority targets for defeat. We have to use tanks in small groups of 3-5 vehicles, or even single ones. "Old" decisions and recommendations, such as taking infantry troops on armor or using infantry groups to control the area around the tank and suppress anti-tank weapons, are not suitable here. Firstly, anti-tank weapons can now reach tanks even 3-4 kilometers away, and secondly, the tank is used to suppress firing points under enemy fire - infantry in such conditions is mowed down at once by air explosions and fragmentation shells and mines. And secondly, the life of an infantryman in itself is no longer perceived as a consumable material for covering tanks. Good infantry must also be protected.

[Konnick]

It is possible to simply install additional passive protection before hostilities

This idea comes to me all the time too. Each tank has a support vehicle with a crane, with spare parts for TR, with fuel, ammunition and additional protection, which can be hung for battle and can be removed during marches without fear of destroying the bridge. It is personal, not PARM, not MTO.

[Bad_gr]

There is another way out of the situation - to equip combat tanks with "transparent armor" complexes ...

What kind of transparent armor are we talking about if we have a panorama of the commander, from our tanks, only on the T-90M? And this is the only person in the tank who can look back and see what's going on around the tank. But it's one thing to turn your commander's cupola weighing one and a half hundred kilograms, and quite another to turn the panorama control knob. For the T-72B3M there was a modernization option with the installation of a commander's panorama (from 2014), but it only flashed in the biathlon, it was not purchased by the Army.

Quote: voice of reason

The second point is that one large caliber is not enough to fight infantry. you need a fast-firing automatic cannon.

The Slovaks offered these options (and even a couple of them were assembled in hardware):

[cold wind]

For Serbia, we made such an upgrade of the T-72B.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from cold wind

For Serbia, we made such an upgrade of the T-72B.

This upgrade is T-72MS (Object 184-1MS) = White Eagle =. Panorama was added to the tank, but in my opinion, not very good.

The 2014 version is more harmonious and, not least, more secure.

[nickname7]

transparent armor

In the described case, the copter was responsible for situational awareness. But the tank was deaf, as there was no connection. That is, the problem is not in transparent armor, but in the fact that there is no normal digital walkie-talkie. It was necessary to relay the copter operator to the tank.

[Goto]

The problem in general is that we still do not have a military command and control system.

[stankow]

Wow! Cool analytics!
................

[Old_wars]

Not only Slovaks and we had an experimental version of the placement of a 30 mm gun. "For the T-80 tanks, an installation with a 30-mm automatic gun 2A42 was created and tested. It was intended to replace the Utes machine gun and was mounted in the upper rear part of the turret. The gun pointing angle was 120 degrees horizontally and -5/+65 degrees vertically. The ammunition load was to be 450 rounds." https://topwar.ru/154649-zakat-jery-30-mm-avtomaticheskih-pushek-ili-novyj-jetap-razvitija.html

The question is why it didn't go any further...

But about the Gall mortar, the decision is controversial, since it has no range. A smaller collective farm will be placing an AGS-40 on a tower than pushing a mortar into a tank. For comparison, 40-mm caseless grenades 7P39 contain 85 gr. instead of 40 for AGS-17. In a 60 mm mine (if you follow the text of the article, as in other sources the Gall caliber is 82 mm) about 200-250 gr. explosives. What would be more effective to stop and release 10 minutes per minute or cover with AGS bursts with the ability to quickly change position?
It is worth noting that the placement on the tank will allow removing weight restrictions from the AGS and adding a barrel, thereby increasing the range.

[Eule]

one large caliber is not enough to fight infantry. you need a fast-firing automatic cannon. BUT not in return!

The most obvious thing from a design point of view is to abandon the gun in the middle of the turret. Left 152, right 30mm, both with automatic loader, and 30mm also with some aiming angles relative to the tower.
Advantages - the recoil will go to the turn, and not to the separation-warping of the tower, that is, the reduction in the cost of the "shoulder strap" in the sense of the bearing of the tower. Yes, you will need an amendment when firing, but it is calculated. The breech of the 152nd will become a little protection for the crew from hits from his side, which is also a plus. Inside the volume, not divided by the breech of the gun, it will be easier for the crew. Yes, the automatic loader will become critically necessary, but it has been asking for a long time, as well as automatics with two firing logics, which allow either to drive with an already loaded unitary in the cannon and shoot immediately, or to drive with an open bolt, and having chosen the type of projectile, send it and fire a little later, but what you need at the moment.

install additional passive protection before hostilities

This is also an option. Now the tank is being transported entirely combat-ready, which limits both its width to the dimensions of the railway and its weight. Although, according to the tankers, it is extremely risky to fire from the railway platform to the sides. If you refuse to transport in combat readiness, and transport the tank separately, and additional armor separately and assemble everything together with a crane already near the front, then you can get rid of the size limit by taking the "lattices" of passive protection a meter away from the armor, for example. And make the "canopy" a standard assembly tool.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: eule

The most obvious thing from a design point of view is to abandon the gun in the middle of the turret.

Have you been inside the tank? Almost the entire central part of the turret is occupied by the breech of the gun (you should keep in mind the length of its rollback) with automatic loading and ejection of pallets from the turret (T72-90).

Secondly, if somehow it is possible to put the gun on the side of the tank turret, then when fired, a rotational moment will arise that cannot be stopped by any brake and where the projectile will fly after such a shot, only God knows.
Examples can be found in wars at sea, when one gun fails in two-gun turrets. But on ships, the towers are large and it is easier to slow down its rotation (the lever is larger + the mass of the tower). In a tank, with a regular gun, this is not realistic.

Quote: eule

If you refuse to transport in combat readiness, and carry the tank separately, and additional armor separately and assemble everything together with a crane already near the front, then you can get rid of the size limit by attributing the "lattices"

Tanks are still being transported this way: with everything attached removed (what increases the width of the tank has been removed).
T90M on the platform

[Eule]

Quote: Bad_gr

the entire central part of the tower is occupied by the gun breech

Yes, the tower will become a completely different shape, not near-oval, but with a ledge on the right rear. The autoloader will have to be redesigned to select the type of projectile with the gunner's button, but there are no fundamental difficulties there either.

Quote: Bad_gr

a shot will generate a torque that cannot be stopped by any brake

And it doesn't need to be stopped abruptly. It is quite possible to make a hydraulic brake for a sharp rotation of the tower, while:
At times, the load on the tower bearing, the mass of this assembly will decrease, and reliability will increase.
Accuracy will increase, although this is not immediately obvious, but the point is that during the movement of the projectile along the barrel, it will push the turret to the same angle, which can easily be corrected. Now, the vertical spread or range is affected by what the car is standing on - on concrete or in a swamp. Not much, but there is a difference.
The hydraulic accumulator for reverse rotation of the tower is also not very complicated, I can roughly imagine how it will work.

[Rome]

A tank in any configuration, at least in the minimum, even in the maximum, is a very expensive weapon! Therefore, saving on protection is stupid! You need to hang everything: a cape, a curtain and KAZ Afganit! Kaz is generally an obligatory thing and a completely multifunctional complex can be: it is a layered air defense of a tank (at first a machine gun, or an automatic cannon with remote detonation if they appear, at the end of a special charge), today acres of ATGMs and RPGs, kamikaze UAVs have appeared; The radar, with the proper power and the possibility of settings, can work as a counter-battery radar, can work as a ground reconnaissance radar, if integrated with electronic surveillance equipment, you can get a mini-UAV detection complex and destroy them with an anti-aircraft machine gun or cannon. In short, it is difficult to overestimate the presence of a radar on a tank! The tank must have "transparent armor", it must be hung with sensors, only the AI ​​​​should monitor them, the crew too, but the crew can adjust the response to dangers! KAZ submunitions can be used as fragmentation grenades in close combat with infantry, detonating them when enemy infantry appears in the affected area!
In the 21st century, you need to use artificial intelligence, the troops must be united by a neural network that monitors friends and foes, prompting each fighter or crew about dangers and goals: it's time to introduce your own alien system.
And tactics, too, the tank should not go on the attack alone, the second must definitely block it!

[Guran33 Sergey]

The next generation electronic warfare, which seems to be already being tested at test sites, will solve the problem of everything that is remotely controlled by radio waves and generally has electronics in the front-line zone with drones and rear with homing projectiles / missiles, only space will remain

[cold wind]

Quote: Guran33 Sergey

next generation electronic warfare

And what is this? How can it “solve the problem?

[Guran33 Sergey]

The main problem of electronic warfare is that it indiscriminately jams and burns the filling of everything in the affected area, which is partly why our and the outlying "pre-war" devices did not fire in real life. If at least partial selectivity appears, it will become impossible to use "commercial" drones and the protected one will become "diamond" at a cost and will cease to be massive

[Rome]

I forgot about electronic warfare, it must also be stuck in! The tank becomes such a platform as a carrier of all sorts of useful things on the LBS! He has survivability, firepower and energy available, as they say a tank is a thing!
I doubt that electronic warfare will be able to cope with everything, but in any case it will bring benefits.
Some kind of EMI ammunition will definitely appear to burn small electronics, and here, again, the tank allows the electronics mounted in it to be protected from an EMI strike!

[cold wind]

Quote: Eroma

I forgot about electronic warfare, it must also be stuck in!

So already. The latest Abrams M1A2S has an electronic warfare system against IEDs.

[Konnick]

And ours "thought" of pushing the radar into Armata ... probably so that it would be detected faster.

[Sergey Dvornikov]

What artificial intelligence! You go to war first! A week ago, in Orenburg, we collected firewood, thermal underwear, portable stove burners for heating for soldiers! There, half of all equipment is dismantled and does not work at "full" power! They almost force their officers into their own because they prefer to fight only in networks!

[Sergey Dvornikov]

Lying on the couch, you can think of anything! In formidable, for example, tanks during maneuvers at the station simply ran into each other backwards when trying to cross the railway line! And on some tanks, with continuous fire, all attachments and all false sides with active armor were demolished on them! Moreover, there were a lot of cases when the Czechs simply climbed onto the armor of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and closed the viewing slots, thereby immobilizing the equipment and then, after waiting for the crew to climb out, they shot them and threw grenades into the hatches! Now it's time for big changes, especially the "brains" of all officers, starting with cadets, need to be changed! And most importantly, as many soldiers as possible or even cadets who have served for a year and a half should be sent to this war for real combat experience! And maybe then we will have a professional army and not a circus for parades!

[SergioPetrov]

Traditionally, no conclusions will be drawn, since "and so they did it, without your snotty advice" and "what do you even understand about military affairs?"

[bayard]

Quote: voice of reason

one large caliber is not enough to fight infantry. you need a fast-firing automatic cannon. BUT not in return!

Such work was carried out in the late 80s - early 90s, both with us and with the same Czechs. But this overloads the tank (its crew) with functions, increases its dimensions and weight. Therefore, the most reasonable would be the joint use of MBT and BMPT. This does not remove the problem of situational awareness, but gives such "armored groups" the opportunity to use their weapons in a more balanced way. Moreover (as I see it), it is the BMPT that should act as the skirmisher of the battle - identifying targets and suppressing tank-dangerous infantry. And MBT - on a dancer with the main caliber and the first number when hitting tanks, armored vehicles, and other capital targets.
On situational awareness.
It is necessary (and this is not difficult) to equip each tank and BMPT with a pair of quadrocopters, one of which should hang directly above the tank (height 100 - 200 - 300 m) and detect targets behind an obstacle in the near zone. The second should work as a reconnaissance of targets in the direction of travel. And not necessarily their work should be simultaneous, all according to the situation.
To accommodate and permanently "base" these copters, it is necessary to weld a special box/container in the aft part of the tower, with a device for recharging and launching (copters) through the opening flaps of the upper hatch of the box. All this will look like the aft niche of the tower at the "Abrams" and other NATO tanks. Such a box can be welded on both the T-72 and the T-80 during the restoration modernization. This solution, which is not difficult to implement, will not require lengthy R&D and will be able to appear on our tanks quite quickly. But the tank commander will need a display. Then the tank commander himself will be able to make a decision and choose the highest priority targets. And with the CP, they will only be able to prompt him, having the same picture. Communication with the CP through the loitering UAV, if the transmitter power from the copter is not enough.
And again, there is a problem with the lack of TBTR on the tank chassis and with the tank level of protection. The problem must be urgently solved using the hulls of old tanks from storage bases - T-55 and T-64, of which we have a couple of thousand pieces at our bases. The project is based on the work of Kharkov designers of the 90s on TBTR-55 and TBTR-64.

Quote: voice of reason

in itself, the life of an infantryman is no longer perceived as an expendable material for covering tanks. Good infantry must also be protected.

- Exactly .

[bayard]

And one more consideration.
If it still itchs, supply the MBT with another 30 mm. cannon, that is, a simple and fairly inexpensive solution. Having welded a niche in the aft part of the tower and having received a sufficient platform, it is possible to place a combat module from the BTR-82A on it, and use the welded box itself as ... a box for BC 30 mm. guns. And part of the internal volume is still used for basing copters.
Here are some thoughts on the topic.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: bayard

If it still itchs, supply the MBT with another 30 mm. cannon

2A42? Well I do not know...

[bayard]

Quote: Mordvin 3

2A42? Well I do not know...

2A72, it is much lighter. Look at the BTR-82A module and imagine it on the aft platform above the turret stern box.
It is not necessary to do this at all, but if you really want to have such a gun on a tank, the solution is simple and inexpensive. The commander will have to shoot.

[tank64rus]

I saw all this at the Army 2018, though everything was limited to models. There was a complex of tanks and BMPTs, where the BMPT was used as an advanced control center for tanks or combat robots of the Uran-9 type, there was also an option where the role of the Armata control center with a habitable module for operators in the tower, well, plus a UAV, both on a cable and loitering. Yes, and there are patents of the Russian Federation for this. But everything is as always.

[nickname7]

It seems that no one has seen the video to which the author refers and they are fantasizing from electronic warfare to AI.

The video was filmed from a drone from which they were monitoring the situation, the drone operator reported that a pidrozdel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was found in the trench, the tank did not react in any way while continuing to drive, then the drone operator warns that the soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine took out an RPG, the tank had 0 reaction, the gunner fires from an RPG at the tank but unsuccessfully , the tank continues to drive as if nothing had happened, the video breaks off, maybe they shot again and hit the tank, but this is not known.

In general, the video was much comedic, two clumsy met, some did not see an ambush in the presence of a drone, others could not hit the tank.
Following the results of the questions - to whom did the drone operator transmit the situation? If the one who commanded the operation, then why didn’t the commander relay the presence of the APU to the tank?
Was there a connection with the tank?
Why do you need air surveillance at all if no one responds to intelligence data?


On the face of technical backwardness and confusion, and as a result, they take one village for 1 year.

[BedMax]

The beginning of the article is about detection, the end is about suppression.
The vertical aiming of the KPVT will not allow the destruction of infantry 10_30 meters.
No wonder the infantry is rolled under the belly, the blind zone is 200%. Thermal imagers also will not give an overview of + -20 meters. This is for the city.
But only the Slavs are capable of this). The rest will bypass the tank for 500 m.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: BedMax

The vertical aiming of the KPVT will not allow the destruction of infantry 10_30 meters.

The author overlooks the inconspicuousness of the trench for the tank, no matter how big-eyed it may be, which indirectly confirms this fragment:

At the same time, the entire video sequence was accompanied by emotional comments from our fighters, who, observing the situation from a quadrocopter, were unable to communicate the position of the enemy to the tank crew by radio.

And that 100 percent. confirms this fragment, so the lack of a normal modern connection. The trench was discovered in a timely manner, but what's the point ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Open question to the administration: Dear site administration, when will you return the notification of replies to comments?

[not the one]

When are you going to return notification of replies to comments?

which is 100 percent. confirms this fragment, since the lack of a normal modern connection
Well, yes, it became uncomfortable, many noted ...

[lis-ik]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Open question to the administration: Dear site administration, when will you return the notification of replies to comments?

It seems that they are not specifically restoring it yet, so that there would be less "srach". I noticed that the altercations became much less.

[nickname7]

when you return notification of replies to

Are you arranging this?

[SergioPetrov]

Your comment text is too short

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: nickname7

Are you arranging this?

I, as the author (I bow modestly), was very uncomfortable without such a function ... And I'm afraid what will happen.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: nickname7

Are you arranging this?

I, as the author (I bow modestly), was very uncomfortable without such a function ... And I'm afraid what will happen.

Yes, it sucks without a bell.

[Wildcat]

A good product, but the caliber had to be lowered from the original 12,7 mm to 7,62 mm, which affected both the range and lethal force

in one country, where "tanks against infantry" is a frequent occurrence, they also switched from 12,7 to 7,62 on the gunner's and commander's turrets, because, oddly enough, it was considered that 7,62 was more effective against infantry - and BC larger and more comfortable to handle. 12,7 "moved" to the gun barrel.

That's something like this "tank against infantry" looked, at least before, at least not with us .


Judging by the comments, the idea "and also keep grenades outside the tank, at hand, for example in a box with tape" was popular.

IMHO, of course, but 12,7 for the commander is an anachronism from the times when he was "anti-aircraft against helicopters."
DUM with 7,62 / 12,7 is, of course, a good thing, as are APAMs and Ainets and Telniks. But when even for the T80 they make simpler sights and "lift from storage" the T62 ... Simple decisions need to be made, either simple "closed" installations for a T64 type machine gun, or an "open installation" ...
By the way, I came across the memories of a BB2 tanker from the T34, who used buckshot (I don’t remember, a 76 or 85 mm cannon) - she was a complete delight against the infantry!

[Konnick]

IMHO, of course, but the commander's 12,7 is an anachronism from the time when he was "anti-aircraft against helicopters

Well, what are you, in biathlon they hit a helicopter target, into the white light like a pretty penny ... the most difficult exercise, the tank is standing, and the helicopter is also standing. Of course, it must be installed synchronously with the cannon, then it will be a weapon with excellent aiming, and not a fart with a crazy spread.

[Wildcat]

Here on the forum a user with a speaking nickname Merkava2Bet lives.
It would be nice to lure him here for comments.

If I understand correctly, "their tankers" are just being taught how to deal with enemy infantry using a machine gun at the hatch on the tower and grenades. And, oddly enough, tankers are also taught infantry combat - in case of this very battle.

12,7 on the cannon seemed to be at first for training purposes, and then it turned out that it was not bad in combat either; the installation is not complicated, at first the descent was generally on cables, now there is an electric trigger.

But for sure, without IMHO, Merkava2bet knows all this.

[Konnick]

By the way, I came across the memories of a BB2 tanker from the T34, who used buckshot

Buckshot is sacred ... even against quadrics it would be useful if there was another gun.

[Wildcat]

IMHO, against quadrics, the pointing angles are still too small, but against infantry at close range - the sweetest thing, "cheap and cheerful."

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Wildcat

It is necessary to implement simple solutions, either simple "closed" installations for a T64 machine gun, or "open installation" ...

There is also a crooked weapon, which again, after so many post-war years, tankers and attack aircraft need.
And to make one massive curved consumable barrel or nozzle for existing machines is faster and easier.
And the infantry again needs simple machine tools for launching piece and very small eres on buildings that are much larger than can be used from a grenade launcher.

[cold wind]

In my opinion, the best tank option right now is the EMBT.

30 mm autocannon against UAVs, infantry, light vehicles. Naturally with remote detonation shells and radio sensors. It is operated by 4 crew members, operator. AbramsX also has it.

DUM with 7,62 combined with the commander's panorama - this should already be used as a standard.

On the gunner is a 120-140 mm cannon with a coaxial 12,7 mm machine gun, with its own panorama.

Naturally, "transparent armor" is needed, i.e. 360 degree cameras with AI assistant.
3 pairs of human eyes + machine vision. 3 means of destruction independent of each other. Survivability and the ability to complete the task increases significantly.

UAVs are naturally needed, there are no options. The question is not the interaction of military branches, but the fact that a drone is needed in every infantry platoon and tank. This is binocular level. Of course, what kind of drone should be discussed, reusable with vertical takeoff or kamikaze or optionally returnable or some other

Radars should also be used to increase situational awareness. Only use in KAZ does not need to be limited.

[Wildcat]

IMHO, in theory you are absolutely right.

But in our practice, where the T62 is a harsh reality, and the mast with optics was, IMHO, seen on the BMP3 in the "self-made" version, half of these wonderful things are simply unrealistic.
IMHO:
30 mm with air blast will not.
DUM is possible (and it would be nice in the Protector style, when you can put 7,62, 12,7 or an automatic grenade launcher to choose from), but since "many don't care", it will also be almost nowhere.
There will be no UAVs, since there are not enough of them and a crew of 3 people needs to grow one more head and two arms in order to control it.
KAZ / radars - no.
There will be no closed connection.

In principle, there are ready-made solutions for a reasonable modernization of what is "directly from the shelf and the price is somewhere in the mower bucks":
1. Navigator with up-to-date maps, so as not to arrive where you don't need to.
2. Instead of "transparent armor" you can "prank" 3 car video cameras "rear view". And it seems that folk craftsmen can display images from them on 2 monitors at once - it will be useful for the driver and commander.
3. Normal night vision/thermal imager. Here all hope is for sponsors, they cost about 400 tr. even from the Russian Federation and you can use such a useful thing only by leaning out of the hatch.
4. Communication. Here only the "wrecking Baofeng", cursed by Murz many times, can be "taken off the shelf" yourself. Because it's better than nothing (although possibly worse).
5. Why they don’t put at least the ZPU instead of the DUM for the commander - it’s not clear, but the ZPU is already so easy "you can't take it off the shelf." Well, no one will let the gunner on the tower "collectively farm" PKM on a private basis either.

[cold wind]

Russia needs 15-20 years to modernize the country. The beginning of the 21st century was completely lost. Now the technical and technological difference is catastrophic. Naturally, from what I wrote, the Russian Federation will be able to do nothing in the next 5-10 years.

[Negro]

Quote from cold wind

Russia needs 15-20 years to modernize the country

Erm. Old song.
Give the state twenty years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia

Well, they gave it. 20 years of peace + an unprecedentedly favorable foreign policy situation + an unprecedentedly reasonable economic policy by the standards of Russia in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries + endless money from the sky.

We see the result right now.

[stankow]

CokgWind Quit with the "Voice of America" ​​tie ...

[stankow]

Why do you need a manual baofeng in a tank? Does the tank have a walkie-talkie, and a TPU? What's with the Chinese?

[Lech from Android.]

Why not come up with a helicopter-type UAV with information transmission via cable in the tank's package ... raised such a bird to a height of 50 meters and keep an overview of the battlefield in the infrared range ... it is very problematic for enemy infantry to hide from such an eye ... not necessarily to have such a bird in every tank ... well, although it would be nice to have in every second.
It will be difficult to shoot down the enemy because of its small size.

[voice of reason]

then why the bird? camera on a six-meter telescopic antenna. With all-round visibility controlled. Picked up when needed, removed when needed. Visibility will increase immediately. Of course, it will be blown away by an explosion and fragments. well, it will take the bird down. But the antenna is cheaper. And instead of a bird, you can use a balloon)

[cold wind]

The block of cameras and radars has long been placed on a rising mast.

[Guran33 Sergey]

And with antenna don't need extra head with two arms

[Wildcat]

A drone is installed on the new German Panther KF51, and 4 crew members are introduced, who will deal with "situational awareness", IMHO.

But, again, IMHO, this is just a ridiculous replacement for the information exchange system between departments. Tankers should deal with the tank, "drones" with drones.

[not the one]

I think that this "drone driver" in modern realities will not be superfluous ..

[cold wind]

Not only on the panther. EMBT also has 4 crew members. The commander processes too much information, he is not enough for everything.

[Leader_Barmaleev]

But what about the talk and dreams about compact disposable flamethrower systems? Not humane and unconventional? Oh, don’t tell my slippers ... A very good invention for a distance of 1-30 meters, a cylinder with a diameter of 15 and a length of 45 cm, fills everything with a sea of ​​\u80b\uXNUMXbfire with a very high temperature, you can direct it in any direction - put ten in each direction and from foot soldiers only fried carcasses will remain. By the way, in this development, for the FIRST TIME, a fire protection system was used on the armor - the squib shoots the flared capsule to the side, and on the ground it burns just like a can of gasoline. Simple, cheap, angry AND FORGOTTEN since the XNUMXs.

[malyvalv]

The best tool for fighting infantry is the BMPT. If you add a couple of drone operators operating at a distance with good communication with the tank to the crew.
True, it is not clear why there are 2 identical twin 30mm cannons. If one more 57mm from the S-60 was replaced in general, there would be a supercar.

[Mikhail Kononov]

yesterday there was a big article in MK and there the clown expert said that we don’t need BMPTs, from the word at all.

[cold wind]

Absolutely right, in this form they are not needed from the word at all. We need heavy infantry fighting vehicles on the same base as the tank:

And air defense systems that can support the tank directly on the battlefield.

[Mol_18]

a couple of drone operators operating at a distance with good communication with the tank

, and even so that they all act together. There is a tank platoon, under the cover of drones, BMPTs and infantry are coming with them. And all this rivets either Art, or helicopters, or aviation. Then no defense will survive.

[cold wind]

In your scenario, everything is fine, except for the infantry. You chose her as a suicide bomber. Therefore, a combination of heavy infantry fighting vehicles and tanks is needed.
Dozens of UAVs hang over enemy positions, a fire shaft created by mortars and artillery is coming, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles directly behind it, firing from their cannons. The infantry landed already on the opornik to count the corpses of the enemy and capture those who miraculously survived.

[Mol_18]

This is generally an ideal option, in fact, almost American tactics of military operations in Iraq. the role of the infantry is only to count the corpses and shoot a couple of horns. And UAVs and aircraft take out the enemy without letting him come to his senses, and destroy the rear units and supplies.

[Hanurik]

if earlier it was said that the tank should attack with the support of the infantry, now the foot soldiers go forward, and the tank moves behind them if necessary

What is this nonsense? Infantry support - this means that the infantry is ahead. Well, the fact that this tactic was re-invented, completely forgetting the experience of the Second World War, I am not at all surprised. After all, it is so difficult to open the combat regulations of those years and just read, it is better to reinvent the wheel, shedding blood. Wangui, in a few months it will come to what tanks are needed for, how to break through gaps in the defense and introduce the fur of the connection into them. Minus, I said everything.

[Bingo]

From sensible, it seems, only the thought of a copter attached to the tank. The copter is cheap, the operator does not have to sit in the tank at all !!! no need to cram the fourth in there !!!
About Abram's shrapnel freak, this is because they simply do not have a normal OFS. 8 varieties of various shit, one has a high-explosive action - zero, the other has fragments that are too light, and they are generally like a grenade (this is about a cumulative one with a fragmentation pseudo-shirt). In addition, the introduction of even one extra type of shells is equal to the rejection of an automatic loader, it will turn out to be too complicated. But the main thing there is that such a projectile is simply not needed - the OFS with ears copes with both sheltered and open manpower. unlike shrapnel

[Nikolay Malyugin]

I'm not so smart in this topic, but for some reason I want to say in this topic. Initially, the tank had not only a powerful offensive machine, but also a psychological one. So that we would not be afraid of tanks, we were put in trenches and run around with these machines. Now the tank has become vulnerable to new types of anti-tank weapons, drones. single raids are suitable. An impressive amount of equipment is needed here.

[ivan2022]

There have always been means of fighting tanks, but it has always been obvious that tanks should be launched where these means are suppressed.

It seems to me that our main problem lies elsewhere. She is historic!
As the saying goes, "Novgorodians takali, and drank .."

Our society does not respect specialists. Not in any area. And the military, instead of fulfilling the requirements of specialists, the Oath and the Charter, servilely fulfill the requirements of "effective managers" and politicians.

[bionik]

But the Israelis have. Each Merkava has a 60-mm mortar

Nothing really new, the Germans on the "Tiger" had an anti-personnel mortar of the "S" type, the principle of operation - the mine was fired to a height of 5-7 meters and exploded, hitting the enemy infantry trying to destroy the tank in close combat with fragments.

[Per se.]

Quote: bionik

hitting enemy infantry with fragments trying to destroy the tank in close combat.

The topic of close combat has been relevant for a long time. For example, on the T-34, drivers often drove the tank with the front hatch open, for a better view. To reduce the risk of bullets and fragments flying in, they did not put the hatch on the latch, the cover "blinked", open-closed, which made it possible to better see the battlefield and reduce the risk of an open hatch. TTs were also used to the open hatch (in street battles of the late period of the war), when the driver could earlier notice and shoot the enemy infantryman at the direction of the vehicle, since the gunner’s machine gun was not always effective.

Why this story? The driver can and should have access to firing from the tank. Be it already forgotten course machine guns, or something similar to the German "S" type mortar. Course could be not only machine guns, or anti-personnel mortars, but also grenade launchers, special canisters.

Tanks also need support, primarily modified BMPTs and heavy armored personnel carriers with assault groups of 4-6 people per vehicle. Probably, it's time to return to the specific type of tank, which was the idea with the IT-1, but at a new, high-quality level, with a 57 mm automatic gun and new powerful missiles.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Per se.

To reduce the risk of bullets and fragments flying in, they did not put the hatch on the latch, the cover "blinked", open-closed, which made it possible to better see the battlefield and reduce the risk of an open hatch.

Flashing lights are modern and now could be used over observation devices and, more importantly, over the lenses of modern devices - for anti-fragmentation protection. These are just bars of strong steel rotated very quickly along a long axis by an air motor or an electric motor: simple and quite effective.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

With two hands for giving the driver some kind of weaponry. But what kind of weapons? Where to attach his machine gun or also give him the opportunity to control the machine gun on the tower? This is where implementation matters.
On the same BMP-1, when upgrading it, it is advisable to raise the module with a gun higher, and install a machine-gun module on the commander's hatch. But the tank can't raise the gun higher.

[Vincent price]

Why this demagoguery, if it is known in advance that mo will not do anything? And how to solve the problem of tank security has been known, including the author and Murakhovsky, for a long time. Heavy infantry fighting vehicle, with the appropriate range of weapons. Speaking specifically about an anti-personnel tank, then this is a tank with a rapid-fire 70-100 mm cannon and a different lineup. Basically a new car. Who has the money for this except China and the United States? We definitely don’t, just as they don’t have adequate infantry fighting vehicles (Kurgan) and armored personnel carriers (boomerang). The article is nothing.

[Konnick]

Heavy infantry fighting vehicle, with the appropriate range of weapons.

No need to waste time on trifles ... offer a super-heavy infantry fighting vehicle with ten towers.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Konnick

offer a super-heavy IFV with ten turrets.

Already suggested. Markus Ingal armored car:

[ivan2022]

Smart people thought about all this decades ago. All problems were revealed at war games.

The solution to the problem, or a powerful artillery preparation, after which everything flows from the enemy’s mouth, ears and ass. And "it's a pity to pin him with a bayonet," and not just a tank. Or the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Our current army can do neither.

[Konnick]

The solution to the problem - or a powerful artillery preparation, after which everything flows from the enemy's mouth, ears and ass

During your artillery preparation, while you are hitting the infantry in the trenches, you will be left without artillery, it will simply be destroyed in response, modern artillery is very accurate, while you are hitting squares and ears, they will push you to the fullest and powerfully. Or do you hope, as according to the Khokhlyatsky principle, are we for sho? And there is no end to the counter-battery fight now.

[ivan2022]

And why did you decide that one artillery must necessarily "hit in areas", and the other - for sure? Or maybe you need to "push on ..."? Then look, it will clear up in my head ...

For some reason, during the Second World War, this was not the case in 1944. And neither "above" nor "below" our artillery was destroyed. Why?

[Konnick]

For some reason, during the Second World War, this was not the case in 1944. And neither "above" nor "below" our artillery was destroyed. Why?

In the 44th passed

The work of artillery was organized in such a way that our artillery, on our sector of the front, could never suppress enemy artillery, and the latter, choosing a convenient moment, fell upon our infantry at previously targeted lines and almost completely destroyed it. In the most crucial periods on the battlefield, the fire of the enemy (the defender), and not ours (the attackers), dominated.

This is from a letter to Stalin by Colonel Tolkanyuk, head of the operations department of the 33rd Army, General Gordov, after several offensives on the Western Front in the winter of 43-44.
Now we also cannot suppress the artillery of the enemy, who organized the artillery defense of Marinka, Avdiivka and similar places. I will continue the letter

During this period, the 33rd army lost only 20 people killed, and in total lost 975 people killed, wounded and missing, including 103 killed and 011 wounded division commander, killed and wounded 3 deputy commanders and chiefs of staff of divisions, 1 commanders regiments and their deputies, 8 battalion commanders, during the same period, the army lost 38 tanks and 174 self-propelled guns burned and broken by enemy artillery and aircraft directly on the battlefield; with an unsuccessful input to develop success, he suffered heavy losses and was brought into a non-combat state of the 419nd Guards. Tatsinsky tank corps.

Terrible loss figures for a couple of months of winter. Maybe for this, in addition to other sins, General Gordov was shot in the 49th ...
In the area of ​​the "Belarusian Balcony" Army Group "Center" also organized an artillery defense, and we could not suppress it in the counter-battery fight.
But in June, the Germans sent aircraft to France, Operation Overlord began there, and only 60 fighters remained to cover Army Group Center. Then the operation "Bagration" was carried out, when 6000 aircraft were gathered from several fronts by Stalin's order into one fist, even the fighters of the Karelian Front covered the rear. The first task of aviation was the destruction of Wehrmacht artillery. Further, aviation worked on communications, depriving the Germans of supplies and maneuver. It was then that the marshals told stories about their arrows, what great fellows they were, since Stalin had already died by the time their memoirs were released. Without this decision by Stalin on the concentration of aviation and complete air supremacy, the German generals and their soldiers would not have marched in discordant columns through the streets of Moscow on July 17, 44.

[stankow]

Konncik During the artillery preparation, the enemy artillery is not only silent, the crew does not even hang out of the cracks. Don't listen to the co-battery Skabeeva!
Yes, there is no complete suppression. But where in the letter do they talk about the destruction of artillery? And read - enemy art chooses a convenient momentand does not respond immediately. At the same time - only in one dysfunctional building, and not at all.

[svp67]

Quote: stankow

During the artillery preparation, the enemy artillery is not only silent, the crew does not even hang out of the cracks.

Are you an artilleryman by profession?

Quote: stankow

Yes, there is no complete suppression. But where in the letter do they talk about the destruction of artillery?

Suppression is not destruction or, as you say, defeat. This is just to silence the enemy artillery for a while.

Quote: stankow

And read - the enemy artillery chooses a convenient moment, and does not immediately respond.

Artillerymen in defense pre-shoot certain lines in front of the positions of their troops and, when enemy subunits come out, they open fire on them.

[stankow]

ivan2022 Both can. The first - regularly, the second - for later.

[Konnick]

You can't see face to face...
They turned the tanks into anti-tanks, and when the war began, they combed their turnips, the aiming and range capabilities of the tank gun were not useful, because for this you need to go to the line of sight and shoot from a place, oh what a good target for anti-tank missiles. They thought of shooting from a long-barreled cannon with its flatness from closed positions in the "whom God will send" method, it's like in a video where they fired from a 30mm machine gun with mounted fire and pretended to be aiming fire. In the city, the tank must be used carefully, it is impossible to look up from the tank, you need to open the hatch,
When they finally realized something was wrong, they came up with an ersatz tank against BMPT infantry, but for some reason they are used on their own, but they also need to be driven out for direct fire, although quadrics appeared and you can get visible information without leaving for direct fire under ATGMs. Yes, and automatic grenade launchers, which were made rigidly fixed, would be much more relevant than 30mm machine guns if they were put in a tower.

And the infantry turned out to need a support tank, such that it could crush the resistance of the enemy sitting in the trench without putting itself at risk, and since the frontal super armor turned out to be a useless attribute, well, if only against the RPG-7., then go to the trenches, it is guaranteed to be left without optical instruments and get another javelin in the roof. We need a tank with a low-ballistics gun that could fire from a closed position, and at close range, and mounted fire like a howitzer, and flat fire like a 76mm short-barreled regimental gun model 1927, which just lacked the ability to fire on a mounted trajectory. And you don’t need super-security and super-armor, you don’t need to let the enemy see the tank in the eyepiece of the sight ... I CAN SEE EVERYTHING FROM THE TOP, YOU KNOW SO.

[Victor Leningradets]

Absolutely correct!
We need an assault tank with a 152-mm howitzer gun with high elevation angles + an automatic gun in the upper turret with anti-aircraft / anti-personnel functions. It would be nice to remember the story about the oversized width of the "Tiger" and build up protection and track before the battle. And against conventional tanks (the main purpose of which was the fight against their own kind and participation in biathlons) - vertical launch ATGM + UAVs.
A cruiser tank, which should serve to develop success in the operational space, on the contrary, is lightly protected and armed with a universal gun with a high rate of fire, and paired with it - tank destroyers on the same platform.

[PPD]

Just some deja vu.
Isn't the tank supposed to have its own infantry? And then on the video the tank is all alone.
Where is the interaction?
The vulnerability of some tanks, and even more so single ones, is that news?
The tank does not always see the infantry - this is how instructions on using terrain folds, etc., were written for this.

[ivan2022]

Quote: PPD

Isn't the tank supposed to have its own infantry? And then on the video the tank is all alone.
Where is the interaction?
.

The interaction of military branches for many modern readers is not an accessible thing. As well as the fact that the chief should simply first ensure the suppression of the means of combating tanks from the enemy and only then send tanks there. And not to make a fantastic "Terminator" out of a tank and tankers.

[Konnick]

You read some comments and such pictures arise in the brain

[Gestas]

So there is a tested "wunderwaffle" :)

[stankow]

Good. Yes, as long as you fill up the BC, you will remain without hands

[tank64rus]

It’s better not to talk about drones and a closed machine-gun installation in general. This problem has been around for 10-15 years. They talked about drones for a tank back at the BTV Academy for more than 20 years at least, as well as about masts with surveillance devices on them. And about the creation of a firing complex of a closed machine-gun installation in combination with 4 RPO-A "Bumblebee" about 20 years old from the first Chechen one, as well as with the laying of UDSH checkers, but those self-made ones were used in the second Chechen one. But so what, everything was as it was. Again, all the problems surfaced.

[svp67]

The exception is the T-90M "Breakthrough", on the turret of which the UDP T05BV-1 flaunts with a PKM machine gun.

As well as the T-80U-E1, whose turret was taken from the T-80UD

, T-90 and T-90A

with ZPU 12,7 mm NSVT

[Sergey_28]

I read Murakhovsky's article. Miracle Expert!! Defeated the Terminator to smithereens!!! I remembered the battles in Mariupol, where armored personnel carriers with their cardboard armor hit the windows, or tanks vulnerable from above !! But for some reason there was not one Terminator !!! Who could show their abilities!!! After all, if you look at Israel, where they take care of their soldiers, then you can see a set of equipment for fighting in cities, and specially heavily protected vehicles for personnel !! Maybe the Terminator isn't perfect! But you are improving! Maybe you need to add a short-barreled large-caliber gun, nurses, increase security, etc. But at the moment there is nothing better!! And the reasoning of Herr Murakhovsky, about nothing !!

[ratfly]

An assault tank, a short howitzer barrel 152mm ++ ..., unitary ammunition for an automatic loader, as it were, this is the solution. A? Or not?

[tank64rus]

The patent was received by Baumanka ten years ago, it is called an assault vehicle. There are both 152mm and 30mm guns. The idea is there, but there is no gasoline.

[Guran33 Sergey]

KV in a modern design, for this company where cities have become urami is quite an idea! That tank was built specifically for the "Manenheim line", and then the "St.

[staer-62]

The main reason for our losses is politics. Those who have decided to send troops should not limit the use of weapons. Then the tanks and armored personnel carriers will be used for their intended purpose. I mean that there should be no untouchables from those who take part in the war, these are NATO countries. Nobody canceled nuclear weapons, well, the way is just daggers or calibers, but this must be done.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

Here even the question is not about technology, but tactics. Why the hell is the tank acting on its own, where are the other tanks and where are the infantry in combat vehicles, which should be 150-200 meters behind the tank. Why the UAV operator had no connection with the tank that was driving it is generally strange ...
I understand that they work in small groups for which it is a pity for the enemy to work out with artillery, but this damn thing does not mean that the tank is unaccompanied at all.

[spektr9]

They wrote that there is a panoramic sight for tanks as in the west, not only at 90m. Well, all the other tankers, thanks to the awesome optics, will not find any kind of infantry ambush. Are there any prerequisites for installing such solutions? There is none of them

[K9_SWAT]

I'll tell you more, no one will ever find an ambush!
1) Purely physically, the crew will not be able to, as it will be busy:
mechanic - control of the tank, so as not to run into mines;
gunner - will look for a target in the sight, but the commander will control the tank, holding the map on his knees, comparing it with the view through the observation device, trying to understand where his own, where others are, and where he himself is. He will keep in touch with the command, he will show the path to the mechzan, and the target to the gunner.
In general, no one will look around to see if there is an enemy in the bushes. Not until then.
2) I saw an interview 20 years ago with a well-known GRU special forces officer about the execution of a convoy of 245 SMEs in 1996 near Yaryshmarda. So he said about mistakes, but also what they hung on the commander with idiocy, because. combat guards will NEVER be able to open a well-organized ambush, because they cannot do it in principle. And drones will not help here. People have learned to deceive the thermal imager, but there is nothing more to detect a disguised fighter.

[Mikhail3]

Eh, people .... All these are not technical questions, but ideological ones. That's why they don't decide. You can offer technical solutions as much as you like, but those who make organizational decisions will never accept your ratsuhi! It's so simple!
Look here. Putin yells at the "economic bloc" - why don't you conclude contracts with enterprises?! There are no weapons in the troops! But they can't. Sign contracts when it is necessary, and it will become crystal clear - the money that the economic bloc extorts for concluding contracts is just a racket on the part of the ministries. Well, that is, everyone already understands this, but they can successfully deceive themselves. And if you open your eyes, you won't lie to yourself. You can’t open your eyes, no matter how many people die on the battlefield.
It's the same here. What system do we have? Capitalism. Capitalism became possible when all sorts of military ethics, all these honesty, loyalty, duty, conscience, etc. etc., all these "atavisms" that prevent the capitalists from robbing the people have been pushed aside. Since the military class of edged weapons, which had been training all their lives, was no longer needed. All these trainings are developing this hated fighter so much! And he is becoming more and more significant, with his knowledge and skills! But capitalism is a permanent divorce sucker! No sucker, who to breed?!
And when firearms made it possible to win wars with the help of any kind of meat, which was trained in three days to load barrels and shoot where the sergeant pointed with a club, then capitalism became possible. And then what? What is this disgrace?!
Meat can't fight again!! Well, how is it?! Again a modern warrior, this is no longer a gopota driven from the outskirts. This is again a highly qualified professional. Equip the tanks with modern detection systems, all these sonars, lidars, computer analysis tools, what will happen? All this will have to teach people not a year, not two or three) All tankers. Polls. And in other branches of the military, too. Kashmar!!
Together with professional training, the former meat is again gaining ideas and this damned ethics! They have brains, you see! You can’t teach all this, and at the same time leave the trainee as a sucker! The revival of the military class as an extremely numerous social force will be a verdict on many things. Moreover, these many are not goldsmiths at all) Ai-yay-yay ...

[Ray]

All this is beautifully painted, but the problem is that our big generals are peacetime generals, and they don’t know how, they don’t want to learn either from their own mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Analyze, draw conclusions, take action to eliminate - it's all so boring and dreary.
When, in 1018, it seems, Turkey invaded Syria for a special operation, on the very first day, 10 2A4 leopards were destroyed by the Kurds. This is a relatively new modification. Moreover, one tank was hit by ATGMs by women.
As it turned out, the tanks were without remote sensing. Not to mention KAZ.
Even then it was possible to draw conclusions (which for some reason were not made even after Chechnya) that a tank in urban conditions is a very vulnerable target.
This is the first.
Around the same time in 2018, and it seems even earlier, the world media spread the news about the supply of Javelin anti-tank systems to Ukraine. Our luminaries of the tank forces should be well aware of what kind of weapon it is and where it hits. But with the beginning of the NMD, columns of hundreds and thousands of tanks went to Ukraine without a single defense against the Javelins. The Internet is full of videos where our columns are shot either with javelins or with bayraktars on top, like in a shooting range.
A year has passed, but unfortunately wedding generals and even frank madmen (Muradov) still rule the ball. And confidently move up in ranks.

[German]

No, brother, all this was discussed much earlier: during the Chechen wars and after them. Situational awareness of the crew, interaction with the infantry, communication with neighboring units, additional protection ... 20 years have passed ...

[Berst]

Specifically in the case described, the question has two elementary and inexpensive solutions.
1). Normal communication between infantry and tank
2). The Mavik has a control mode from two remotes, a remote antenna is placed on the tank and the tank commander can view the picture from the copter and, if desired, steer it.
This is what every tank should have, it costs a penny against the general background.
Instead, they will develop for years, do not understand what and why.

[Mikhail3]

No need to offer penny solutions) It is very difficult to steal from them. And few. Therefore, in the army they are never used.

[gromit]

Article on VO dated 30.06/2010/XNUMX.
Leopard with a transparent tower.
Conclusion:
"There is nothing revolutionary in both projects; such modernization options are being worked out in many countries, including Russia."

We did not need all these inventions of Western marketers? And in general, everything was worked out 13 years ago.
What happened?

[Mr. PeZhe]

For reference: the Russian army is armed with a similar 60-mm mortar "Gall".

Mortar 2B25 "Gall" has a caliber of 82 mm.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Additional armament of MBT is certainly an interesting topic. In this case, there is a loss or lack of communication between the UAV operator and the tank crew. The conclusion is simple. Tanks should move forward only when accompanied by a UAV and have a stable connection with the operator. The defeat of the tank - the loss of the crew.

[Andrew 74ru]

The Achilles heel of the Russian army is communication. In that episode, where the tankers drove past the grenade launcher and got shot from behind, a copter hung over them and the operator perfectly saw the danger, but apparently had no direct connection with the crew. If there is direct radio communication between the operator and the crew, no remotely controlled machine guns, no shrapnel shells are needed. I just turned the barrel of the gun to the left and blasted it into the trench with the most common office and that's it.

[SARANCHA1976]

A poor example .. in the first part of the video, the Tank, approaching, fires at the "burrow of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" and directs it from the copter.

[Alexander_Dneprovsky]

A thermal imager or all-round cameras, in principle, should ensure the detection of nearby infantry shelters. Only which of the crew should monitor the near zone? The commander monitors the general situation, the gunner only has a field of view determined by the sight. Only mech-water remains. Will he be able to monitor the near zone and control the tank?

[Kostadinov]

Reserve Colonel Viktor Ivanovich Murakhovsky, a member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, in his telegram blog raised a very topical issue about the vulnerability of modern tanks to infantry

The simplest and most effective answer to testing in the Great Patriotic War is infantry to escort a tank.

[Codett]

We need a panoramic sight for each tank, a closed machine gun mount, a good walkie-talkie and Kaz, since tanks began to be used without infantry support, which is detrimental to crews, and electronic warfare to suppress SVU and mines, a copter can also be used of course.

[shark507]

Tank versus infantry: something needs to be done about it

So the answer was found at the beginning of World War II. Is not it so?
A tank should not fight without infantry support.

[Sergey Venediktov]

A tank should not fight without infantry support.

A tank deprived of AI should not, but tank of the 21st century - must. To detect a target and fire a shot at it, a person is not needed, you need technical vision with AI. While unmanned taxis have been driving around Moscow for many years, tractor operators in the General Staff cannot even put remote-controlled machine guns on tanks. WITH such degenerate generals of the NWO cannot be won. Since 1961 they have not been able to adopt KAZ (Porcupine, Rain, Arena, Thrush - optional :) and continue to demand cannon fodder to protect armored steel with their bodies.

Russia and its people are worthy to don't be cannon fodder, and manage tanks, aircraft, UAVs so that it is safe

If tractor drivers in the General Staff in connection with senile dementia they don’t know how and what to manage, let them ask the doctor of technical sciences Rogozin, who the only one in Russia not afraid / was afraid to compete with I. Mask, because understands that otherwise Russia is doomed to defeat. Therefore, in the Donbass, the Nazis personally hunted only one person, as they felt a real threat from him.

[mildsar]

So, what I understood, the main problems in the use of tanks identified in the SVO:

1) insufficient situational awareness on the battlefield (remember the numerous ambushes on both sides, when the tanks were knocked out at close range). Solutions and in brackets the probability of mass implementation:
- the best surveillance devices: thermal imagers, panoramic sights, etc. (2/10)
- equipping each tank with UAV calculation support (1/10)
- equipping each tank with high-quality radio communications (1/10)
- UAVs on the "line", raised above the tank (0/10)
- telescopic rod with observation devices (0/10)

2) limited maneuverability in reverse:
- equipment with Chinese car cameras to provide a 360-degree view (3/10)
- modernization of gearboxes with increased reverse speed (0/10)

3) insufficiently effective anti-personnel weapons:
- remote-controlled machine gun turrets (3/10)
- remote-controlled turrets with automatic grenade launcher (0/10)

4) insufficient protection against modern anti-tank systems:
- anti-cumulative grilles, visors (3/10)
- KAZ (1/10)
- radiation detectors (1/10)

5) lack of assault tanks for operations in the city:
- equipment with bulldozer blades (1/10)
- equipment with anti-mine trawls (1/10)
- equipping each tank with a wired connection to the terminal at the stern for communication with the infantry (0/10)

[Sergey Venediktov]

Now we are storming forest belts with a trench network outside the cities

all that is needed to smoke out the enemy from there is to fill it with a combustible mixture and burn it

combustible liquid accumulating at the bottom of the trench network and flowing into the dugouts will destroy all life.

It’s easier for everyone to hook up an armored container with a fire pump, a remotely controlled fire nozzle and a flammable liquid (the same gasoline) to the tank on a trailer, which is used to fill the trench net. This is if we do NOT know how to flamethrower tanks in the 21st century.

Even the North Koreans know that the space behind the turret and the place for the remote-controlled turret machine gun can be used rationally. for any tactical task and change weapons as a composition of ammunition.

Why can the North Koreans put an AGS on the tower to destroy enemy infantry by throwing grenades at its trenches (windows in buildings), but our tractor drivers in the General Staff CANNOT?

And the towered space?

Why are there no replaceable remote-controlled modules? Have you learned how to control Mavics remotely? What prevents, without straining the crew of the tank, from also controlling weapons located in the turret space?

This picture is an example (the first one that came across) to show the range of possibilities for using the tower space. We have Lancets-3 per 40 km fly and controlled via a secure radio link from such a distance, and our tractor drivers in the General Staff still think in technologies of the early 20th century, and not only can’t get rid of the crew in the tank, where they have NOT been needed for a long time (there are no pilots in the Lancets), but they don’t even have the mind to experiment with the crazy space. The tank costs almost 3 mil. dollars, the lives of the crews are priceless, and the secure radio link of the Lancet / Orlan, etc. with a range of 40 km worth no more than 1 mil. rubles So it prevents it from being used to control a tank or an additional combat module on a tank (so as not to distract the crew, if there is no way without it)

[Alekseev]

The article raises an important issue, but some phrases indicate that there is some distance from tanks and tactics of tank troops.
For example, they write that, they say, before the infantry supported the tanks, and now the tanks support the infantry from behind
But this "news" is more than 70 years old. It was always noted in the combat regulations that ahead tanks and infantry in vehicles or on foot attack only a suppressed enemy.
In the case of assaults on fortified areas, forests and other fortified areas, the infantry goes ahead. What we are seeing today. Only special forces can move behind an armored personnel carrier, storming a terrorist's hut with an AK or a pistol.
What to do, what to do so that RPGs do not hit the stern or side? It was necessary to ask our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who stormed Berlin, or, easier, read the textbook of a tank sergeant. Everything is written there. How does the assault group operate in the city, for example, etc. The answer, in general, is simple: the organization of proper interaction between infantry, tankers, artillery and aviation and proper combat support.
Of course, no one canceled the use of perfect panoramic aiming and observation devices, remote sensing, gratings and screens. But .... the tank should not advance alone, without cover, in the enemy stronghold, otherwise it will be hit despite effective protection. The trend is that now tankers hit the enemy, mainly with fire, and not with caterpillars, and from fairly large distances. For an RPG 500 - 700 m is a lot, but for arming a tank it's like point-blank range.

[75 Sergey]

Landing on the armor - no?
Like the old fashioned way

[Devil13]

I'll tell you a terrible secret:
360 degree camera surveillance system with motion sensors.
The car costs 50k rubles.
+ CICS, which integrates data transmission.
So that the infantry, copter or high-altitude reconnaissance could transmit to the tank the location of the spotted target in real time, and on the tank it would be displayed as a red marker on the tablet, and the vector and mark - in the target
And that's it. Transparent walls are not needed.
We need a military Internet, which could only be jammed with electronic warfare in dense, which would be leveled by 360 cameras that distinguish movement from 1 to 100 m.
That's all.
ALL.

[storm]

There are a lot of options for rearming tanks to deal with tank-dangerous infantry
1. automatic gun 2A42 in an independent combat module on the tower. (Slovak version).
2. Automatic gun 2A42 mounted above the tank gun and paired with it.
3. Automatic grenade launcher mounted on the tank turret that can be used as a "light mortar" AGS-17/30.
4. "course" AGS-17 mounted on a fender (as on BMPT) controlled by a driver.
5. Remote anti-aircraft machine gun installation. CORD 12,7 mm.
6. Remote memory 2*23mm.
7. Card cases around the perimeter of the tower.

All this can be used in various combinations and without expensive and lengthy modernization at a tank building or tank repair plant by the forces of the Rembat.

[AlexisT]

It is necessary to develop a remotely controlled firing system, which will include the KPVT and AGS. Hang it behind the turret and give it to the tank commander for fire control. Of course, in our tanks there is a lack of control systems and means of observation.

[Hagakure]

We have long needed new tanks. All these T-90s are just a deep modernization of the T-72 and T-80. I would prefer something like the Merkava without any automatic loaders, because of which you need to use a bullet-burning cartridge case, stuffed with electronics for external observation and communication with all allies on the battlefield.

[Timur_kz]

Actually, implementing transparent armor is not so difficult. It will turn out artisanal, of course. Ordinary cameras, compact, high resolution for little money to hell. You can arrange them evenly along the sides, tower, in metal boxes. Display everything in the tower on small tablets, they will be like side and rear mirrors. Ideally, of course, everything can be displayed on VR glasses, since there are a lot of them for sale and also at affordable prices ... The only thing is that it will be inconvenient to switch to the panorama (take off glasses), but if the engineers are bossy, they can connect the commander's sight, the gunner's sight with VR glasses and a small joystick. I don’t see any fantasy in this, if you want to connect institutions, design bureaus - you can implement the idea as soon as possible. And yes, it's easier than combining a copter with a tank. The copter can be jammed, shot down with a gunner, the connection can be junk. While all the external cameras on the tank are connected by wires.

I won’t say anything about the means of destruction, because the main thing is to detect it in time. In the video in the article, the tank could not shoot at all, but simply stupidly drive through enemy positions. At other distances, a course machine gun with the main caliber is enough for the eyes.

[Hagakure]

You don't even need iron boxes. On the same Ali Express, Chinese manufacturers sell completely inexpensive access cameras in the form of a cube with a side size slightly larger than the smallest edge of a matchbox. By the way, despite the fact that they are sold freely in China, they are prohibited for import into Russia as spy equipment. At the same time, they connect to the tablet via Wi-Fi. Theoretically, wrapping a tank around a tank with similar cameras and distributing to the entire crew a wire helmet with a folding screen, each tied to its own tablet - no big mind is needed. Tighten up the programmers - they will drive them out. The very size of the cameras and their cheapness will be protection against fragments. Stick six of them, two per crew member from each direction and it's fine. Nothing fantastic. But ... Here, as usual, for military equipment, you need to be able to produce your own cameras and tablets, wire helmets. And this means that it is necessary to have both an optical industry and an electronic one. To assemble such a camera, all these vaunted nanometers are needed.

[Nicholas_Phoenix]

And they cannot be equipped with enough bombs of strong tear gas to spray it in dangerous directions.

[Viktor Orion]

For 30 years, the defense industry has been destroyed. And now they are looking for some kind of machine guns on the towers and shells. Previously, it was necessary to think and build and not shake iPhones.

[stankow]

The simplest and fastest solution is to develop a canister PSU. There is something to see, there are 76 mm and 122 mm Soviet samples.

[Alexey Anfimov]

I read the article and all the comments to it, and I think:
Suvorov was right when he said that the main danger for the Russian army is not the soldiers and commanders of the enemy, but precisely and exclusively our own fools with big shoulder straps in high positions ...
Alas, but it was so 250 years ago and now the same thing ...
All your suggestions and KNOW-HOW, up to the "old experience" of the Great Patriotic War (infantry on the armor of a tank - "tank landing") - this is all information exclusively for Pentagon analysts, who have an IQ of at least 140 units ( 1 ) , and who search and analyze all military information in the media, and especially in our Russian-language Internet (2), but for officials of the Russian Ministry of Defense, your ideas are empty chatter that they will not notice even if you write a "Letter to the President" or a letter to the site MO RF.
A formal answer will come to any of your letters with KNOW-HOW:
(I quote) "Your proposals are NOT specific,
are of a general nature and are of no practical interest to the Russian Ministry of Defense" ..
THINK ABOUT IT ! ! !