Does Russia need a tank of extreme parameters

99
Does Russia need a tank of extreme parameters


Tank is still alive


To begin with, it is worth deciding on the debatable question - is a tank even needed on the battlefield?



Especially after the revolutionary events in Ukraine. To begin with, it is worth looking at the experience of the Middle East region, where, before the special operation, they were used regularly and with great intensity Tanks for its intended purpose. Not a single country participating in hostilities has abandoned the concept of a tank in the classical sense. Israel, which has the most powerful military-industrial complex in the region, did not dare to replace its Merkavas with something else, but, on the contrary, is constantly upgrading the car.

At the same time, Hezbollah does not feel a lack of anti-tank weapons. The militants regularly and very painfully hand out to Israeli tanks. In 2006, during the Lebanese war, XNUMX out of XNUMX dozen vehicles were destroyed from Kornets-E in one battle. This did not become a reason to abandon tanks, as from an ineffective dinosaur of the past, but only accelerated the development of active defense systems. It's all about the versatility of the tank, surprisingly harmoniously combining three parameters - protection, mobility and firepower.

All other models of military equipment one way or another have to sacrifice combat qualities. Infantry fighting vehicles, depending on the country of origin, lose either security or mobility.

By the way, the real heroine of the BMP-3 special operation is distinguished by outstanding mobility and firepower with quite satisfactory protection. This ensured the success of the machine, developed forty years ago. It makes no sense to consider the effectiveness of armored personnel carriers or self-propelled guns at the forefront of the front - this technique is of narrow specialization and is intended for completely different combat conditions.

Therefore, whatever one may say, the tank remains. They are capable of attacking a fortified area, and they will be able to perfectly shoot a high-rise building with entrenched nationalists, and they can cover the infantry offensive with sniper fire.

To be fair in stories there was one conflict in which tanks were superfluous. This is the fighting of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, when most of the tank regiments had to be withdrawn from motorized rifle divisions. The mountains turned out to be not the best platform for the equipment of the 70s and 80s. Actually, tanks were never intended for war in the gorges.

In all other conflicts, tanks played either a key or an important role. The tank remained the main player in achieving success in combined arms combat, primarily in medium rough terrain. And the special operation in Ukraine only confirms this thesis.

Tank limit parameters


Questions about tank building remain.

Now there is no particular point in once again broadcasting about the security of domestic tanks - the tankers came to the special operation with what they came with. At present, extensive work is being carried out both in the design bureau and in the field to ensure all-round protection against shells and missiles. A year and a half of the special operation raised the question of the advisability of adopting the so-called "limiting parameters tank".

On paper, there are two lines of tanks in the Russian Army - separately the main combat series T-72, T-80, T-90 and separately a vehicle of a qualitatively different level - the T-14 "Armata". Very conditionally, such a duopoly can be compared with the division into heavy and medium tanks that existed until the 60s.

As you know, the first main battle tank in the world is rightfully the Soviet T-64, which successfully combined strike power and protection with the mobility of medium tanks. The first pancake turned out to be a little lumpy, but the concept later captured the whole world.


"Object 237", aka IS-1. It was on the basis of this machine that Nikolai Shamshurin came up with the concept of a "tank of maximum parameters"


Something like this saw the legendary designer Nikolai Shamshurin "tank of limiting parameters"

A little about the concept of the "limiting parameters tank", the author of which is the domestic designer Nikolai Fedorovich Shamshurin. He made a huge contribution to Soviet tank building - suffice it to mention that from under his pen came the founder of a new generation of heavy tanks IS-1. It is believed that it was in this machine that the designer tested the concept of a “tank of maximum parameters”.

According to Shamshurin's idea, the tank should embody all the most progressive solutions for its time. The tank inevitably turns out to be expensive and small-scale, but less costly designs are provided for the numerical compensation of the fleet of military equipment.

For the beginning of the 40s, the T-34 and subsequent medium tanks suited this role.
In 1969, Nikolai Fedorovich defended his Ph.D. thesis, which, in particular, substantiates the need to adopt two types of tanks at once - the main combat tank and the "limiting tank". The second should qualitatively surpass the performance characteristics of the first. At the same time, in the course of operation and combat use, share solutions with your younger brother.

Something similar is now being implemented in the automotive industry - innovative solutions are first tested on cars of the older segment, and then they go down the stairs to cheap models. The “limiting parameters tank” (TPP) should become small-scale and be built exclusively for internal needs, while the main one was also suitable for export.

The journal "Technology and Armament" mentions that "Nikolai Fedorovich did not exclude small-scale production of only the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the internal needs of the country (under a favorable political situation)." It is impossible to call the Chamber of Commerce and Industry a classic heavy tank - they are actually in the same weight category with the main combat one. The best protection is realized through non-metallic armor fillers and the use of active protection.

For example, a typical Chamber of Commerce and Industry "Object 477", better known as the "Hammer", was only 5-6 tons more than the mass of the T-80U. In the 90s, Spetsmash developed the concept of a highly protected tank with a crew of two. Fragmentary ideas of the machine are found in the modern T-14 "Armata", for example, an isolated capsule for the crew in front of the main gun. The real embodiment of the CCI was the "Object 195", better known as the T-95.

The car really was the ultimate in all respects. The main gun - 152 mm, auxiliary - 30 mm, weight no more than 58 tons, three crew members are isolated in an armored capsule, and the tower is made uninhabited. The conditional successor to the T-95 can be called the T-14. This machine clearly belongs to the class of "limiting parameters tanks", which Nikolai Shamshurin dreamed of back in the 60s.


The T-90M is the best tank for a special operation that currently exists.

And now the main question, for the sake of which everything was started - does the modern Russian Army need the notorious CCI, that is, "Armata"?

The events of the last year and a half show that for the T-14 there are no tasks on the battlefield that the existing tanks of the classical layout cannot solve. The powerful anti-tank capabilities of the vehicle are useless in battle - tanks have practically ceased to fight among themselves since the time of the Arab-Israeli wars, and are unlikely to start already. In Iraq, the Bradley infantry fighting vehicles assumed the main burden of destroying Hussein's tanks.

It's all about an extremely wide range of anti-tank weapons - MLRS submunitions, adjustable projectiles, ATGMs, grenade launchers, aviation and finally minefields. The tank will be taken out much earlier than it gets to the other tank. At the forefront of the attack, tanks, if they appear, will be during the march after total artillery preparation and remote demining. In all other cases, the car remains a universal carrier of a rather large caliber, coupled with good armor.

Working out of range of enemy anti-tank weapons, indirect fire and one-time raids on fortified areas - these are the main roles of modern tanks. And as an option - war in urban conditions. It is around such conditions that the design of tanks in the future will be built. "A tank of limiting parameters" is not needed here, from the word at all.

In the most extreme case, the T-72 series of the latest series will suffice. Everyone probably remembers the story of the Terminator BMPT. At the beginning of the special operation, they tried to use the car for its intended purpose, that is, to support tanks on the battlefield. Extermination of tank-dangerous targets, to be exact. But where are the Terminators now? There are few disappearing cars in the reports, or they are completely absent, and there is not a word about increasing production.

Unlike the well-established T-90M and BMP-3, whose manufacturers work day and night. What is it for? To the fact that the tanks finally stopped going on the attack in the classical sense, which means that there was no need for direct support equipment. In the worst case, this very support will be provided by a much more versatile and inexpensive BMP-3.


BMPT "Terminator" in Ukraine has occupied its niche, but has not received distribution. It's all about the changed nature of the use of tanks. Vehicles now operate in isolation from tank-dangerous infantry.

The reader will rightly note that the special operation differs markedly from the hypothetical conflict with NATO. This is where a "tank of limiting parameters" may be required. For example, to fight the latest European and American tanks.

The point of view has the right to life, but with a slight adjustment. At the moment and in the long term, neither Russia nor NATO is ready for a conventional war with each other - in any case, it will slide into a third world war. And here, the fact of the presence of a "tank of limiting parameters" will not play any role.
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    21 July 2023 04: 59
    It seems that the SVO showed that tanks do not live on the modern battlefield, any tanks. Therefore, t / 90 more and there will be happiness
    1. IVZ
      +7
      21 July 2023 08: 21
      It seems that the SVO showed that tanks do not live on the modern battlefield
      They do not live on this particular battlefield and in their current form. What will happen in other conditions, with a different enemy, what qualities of the tank and to what extent will be needed - is unknown. Therefore, the experience of combat use should be studied in order to develop solutions for improving not only tanks, but also other types of military equipment and tactics for their use. By the way, the experience of the Jews is very revealing. And in terms of introducing, and not just developing, KAZ and, which has been quite unexpected for their theater of operations lately, strengthening precisely the anti-tank properties of weapons.
    2. +36
      21 July 2023 08: 22
      Tanks, they say, do not live on the modern battlefield .... request
      Read military history. How tanks lived on the battlefield during the Second World War. You will be surprised that the losses were more, up to hundreds of units in one attack, though stupid. But, nevertheless, without them it was impossible to conduct hostilities.
      In form - the presence of modern PTS, the changes are drastic, but in fact everything has remained as it was. Tanks are successfully used only in combined arms combat, when attacking an enemy's suppressed defenses, when combat support and interaction with aviation and artillery are clearly established.
      Minefields, they say, do not let banderlogs break through the defense.
      And in the Battle of Kursk, that there were no minefields? And there was no defense engineering equipment?
      Why did the Germans actually break through the defenses of the Voronezh Front and had to abandon the strategic reserve - the tank and combined arms armies of the Steppe Front - into battle?
      Yes, because German aviation and artillery destroyed well-equipped and defended by our best troops anti-tank areas "one after another" and suppressed artillery, and sappers, taking advantage of this, did their job. Our aviation was unable to cut down the work of the enemy's dive bombers. German tanks went on the attack precisely interacting with aircraft and artillery.
      All these conditions for breaking through a strong defense have remained to this day. And there were no tank attacks as part of a battalion or even a regiment now because they would break through the defense with appropriate support, and then what?
      Then you need a lot of motorized infantry to secure the breakthrough, protect the flanks and communications. There will be a sufficient number of trained troops and tank units will attack as part of a battalion in order not to recapture a piece of the trench from the enemy, but to take the battalion's defense area and further defeat the brigade's reserves, and then enter the second echelon and fail the defense of the AK with access to operational space.
      True, it is now harder to move in columns and in the depths of enemy defenses than during the years of the Second World War. Because of, again, modern PTS, the tank wedge should be more dispersed, small platoon, company columns, BRD, reconnaissance of UAV ambush sites, providing cover for army aviation, etc. This requires trained platoon and company, and not just competent higher officers
      But this is the only way to achieve success and move from "butting" to operations to destroy large enemy forces.
      As for the maximum parameters, it seems that history is returning. We also need heavy assault tanks with a 152 mm cannon-launcher, lighter great-grandchildren of ISs and MBTs, heirs of the thirty-four.
      1. +4
        21 July 2023 10: 40
        Quote: Alekseev
        Then you need a lot of motorized infantry to secure the breakthrough,

        Which we currently lack. That's why the breakthroughs are not big ...
      2. +1
        21 July 2023 10: 43
        tanks need built-in remote sensing Relic on the roof of the tower
        on an uninhabited tower - it's possible
        but on the tower T-90M, T-72B3M, T-80BVM - there is already something to "scratch turnips" over
        and KAZ working in addition to the horizon also in the upper hemisphere
        By the way, there was an article that the DZ Relic was also put on the stern of the tanks - all-round protection
        they also put DZ over the sloth in over the caterpillar shelf on the T-72B3M like the T-90M
        - it remains to add DZ Relic to the full length above the caterpillar shelf
        1. +1
          23 July 2023 23: 24
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          it remains to add DZ Relic to the full length above the caterpillar shelf
          Bulwark with DZ for the entire length of the chassis T-72B3. T-90M is now being produced with the same (full length and without gratings) bulwark
      3. +5
        21 July 2023 13: 30
        Quote: Alekseev
        We also need heavy assault tanks with a 152 mm cannon-launcher, lighter great-grandchildren of ISs and MBTs, heirs of the thirty-four.

        That's right - it is necessary to return to the concept of a heavy assault tank with 152 mm. tool . And make it on the basis of the "Armata" platform, but not on the basis of the T-14, but on the basis of the T-15, with the front placement of the MTO. The crew capsule can be placed in the stern of the tank (such placement was envisaged in one of the concepts under the Improvement program).
        A heavy assault tank in the BC will not necessarily have sub-caliber and cumulative ammunition, because the usual OFS is 152 mm. caliber will cope with any enemy tank, but a 152 mm rocket. it will be highly desirable for him to hit distant targets.
        The assault on Mariupol has already shown the need for a tank with a gun of just such a caliber for the destruction of capital fortifications and capital buildings turned by the enemy into a fortified area. With the ability to fire both direct fire and from a closed position along a relatively flat trajectory. The gun and turret can be taken from the T-95, I hope the technical documentation and samples remain.
        It is necessary to storm the cities with the appropriate tool. And there is no way to do without a heavy assault tank. Of course, not thousands of such tanks will be required in service, but at least 600 units. it will be necessary to have them. And in general, each tank and motorized rifle division must have a specialized assault brigade. It is an assault, with appropriate training and weapons.
        1. 0
          27 July 2023 13: 46
          And in general, each tank and motorized rifle division must have a specialized assault brigade. It is an assault, with appropriate training and weapons

          Just not in the division. And at least two brigades, and even a division in the army. One assault regiment for urban combat in a normal division will inevitably be used as a normal one. The division also performs tasks outside settlements. And pulling out a "city" regiment from a division is also not good. Only Pavel Grachov promised to take the city with one regiment, but life has shown that it will not work with one regiment. So there should be assault formations, not units. And they should be used exactly for their intended purpose, and not poke into the field to plug a hole.
      4. 0
        21 July 2023 15: 42
        In the Kursk Bulge, a lot of things have not yet been, what is now. 6 "guns with a firing range of 24 km. Specifically, we had three dozen, except for the railway artillery of the fleet. There were no MLRS that fired at 70 km. Anti-aircraft guns, some ZiS-2, A-19 - something like that.
      5. 0
        21 July 2023 19: 13
        Operations are not carried out in their own, at most on the scale of one brigade. It is almost impossible to establish interaction between at least two brigades, but you still need to use different types of troops. It seems that the General Staff should be doing this, but it seems that all they do is choose places where to send high-precision and carry out supplies from the factory to the front line.
      6. 0
        22 July 2023 08: 04
        It is incorrect to compare WWII and our time. The threat to tanks has increased many times over. Each fool has three anti-tank systems that hit at a distance of 3 km, helicopters with vortexes to overweight, drones throwing grenades into the hatch, corrected artillery shells and TD, and so on and so forth. If at the initial stage of the Second World War the Germans had nothing to knock out the KV and //34 rki except for the flak /88, artillery, and u87, now expanse. It is more correct to compare our time with the positional crisis of the WWI when machine guns appeared and everyone was sitting in the trenches. As a result, a tank appeared
      7. +1
        22 July 2023 16: 01
        Hello.
        Quote: Alekseev
        Tanks are successfully used only in combined arms combat, when attacking an enemy's suppressed defenses, when combat support and interaction with aviation and artillery are clearly established.

        It turns out that the tanks go into battle with the complete dominance of aviation and artillery to a sufficient depth? And I, as a civilian, understand from your words that tanks are a tool for realizing the superiority of all components of combined arms combat?
    3. +2
      22 July 2023 17: 03
      The SVO showed that tanks continue to be one of the main forces on the battlefield (with their competent tactical use). Running the T - 14 in real combat conditions is a very correct step that will help you understand where to go next.
  2. +1
    21 July 2023 05: 01
    This is just an MBT with a smooth-bore gun, because its main function is to destroy enemy tanks, but a heavy tank with a minimum of 130 mm on a carved cannon and / or an assault gun with a 152 mm howitzer again, at least, would now go with a bang.
    1. +5
      21 July 2023 10: 44
      Quote: Cartalon
      but a heavy tank with a minimum of 130 mm on a carved cannon and / or an assault gun with a 152 mm howitzer, again at least, would now go with a bang.

      And why is the 130-mm RIFLED gun now superior to the regular 125-mm SMOOTH-BORE? Barrel length? And why does an "assault weapon" need a howitzer? What would complicate the design?
      1. +1
        21 July 2023 11: 38
        It surpasses the power of the projectile, if you mainly work on fortifications, then it’s very useful, an assault gun with a howitzer / mortar may now be useless, perhaps 120mm mortars close this niche, or maybe not, given that we were only able to put 82mm on the car.
        1. +3
          21 July 2023 11: 55
          Quote: Cartalon
          The power of the projectile surpasses

          What projectile, specify?
          Quote: Cartalon
          an assault gun with a howitzer / mortar may not be needed now, perhaps 120mm mortars close this niche, or maybe not, given that we could only put 82mm on a car.

          You seem to have a poor understanding of what an "assault gun" is. His task is to quickly and efficiently break the long-term fortifications of the enemy, helping the rapid advance of the assault groups.
          Here are two samples of such weapons from the Second World War ... From the USSR and Germany.
          1. +1
            21 July 2023 12: 16
            High-explosive fragmentation, naturally, what an assault gun is, I understand, now it is not in nature, and its role is played by obt.
          2. 0
            21 July 2023 15: 54
            We didn’t want to see any assault guns at point-blank range, considering them all to be “turretless”, i.e. "bad" tanks. From the point of view of Grabin (a tank is a cart for a cannon!) There really is not much difference. A mobile protected fire weapon that implements the "I see - I shoot" principle.

            In the manner in which tanks are now used, it would really be better to have something with all-round anti-fragmentation protection, reinforced protection of the roof and from cumulatives - from the muzzle, having a 152-mm caliber howitzer gun (Pat or D-20) as weapons, even with reduced elevation angles compared to modern howitzers. For they still shoot from closed positions. You don't have to call it an "assault gun".
          3. 0
            22 July 2023 01: 40
            You seem to have a poor understanding of what an "assault gun" is. His task is to quickly and efficiently break the long-term fortifications of the enemy, helping the rapid advance of the assault groups.


            Nothing like this. The term itself is German, and what you wrote contradicts the German concept of assault guns. Try on StuG III, especially with a cigarette butt, to pick up long-term fortifications of the enemy.
      2. 0
        21 July 2023 18: 30
        Quote: svp67
        And why is the 130-mm RIFLED gun now superior to the regular 125-mm SMOOTH-BORE?

        Yes, at least accuracy. True, throwing uranium scrap is not very rifled, but in the sense of HE or concrete-piercing shells, rifled taxis. And if a rifled 130, or even better 152, is taught to launch an ATGM through the barrel, this should be enough for a random encounter with enemy tanks.
    2. +1
      21 July 2023 18: 59
      Quote: Cartalon
      assault gun with 152mm howitzer
      Just not with a howitzer. You need a howitzer - use self-propelled guns, and only a cannon on a tank. And it’s easier to hit, and the projectile hammers more impressively. Yes, a 152 mm gun is not sugar, but now the 21st century is in the yard, it is quite possible to make a tank that can work with it.
    3. +1
      22 July 2023 16: 09
      Quote: Cartalon
      / or an assault gun with a 152mm howitzer, again at least, now they would go with a bang.

      and how to ensure the elevation angle of the howitzer or direct fire in the tank turret? laughing
  3. +3
    21 July 2023 05: 20
    Does Russia need a tank of extreme parameters
    A rhetorical question ...
    For local conflicts and fighting partisans, you need a wunderaffe; for a war of attrition, you need a cheap tank with average parameters that you don’t mind losing in battle.
    You won’t go far on expensive weapons ... the economy will not pull.
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 13: 38
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      for a war of attrition, you need a cheap tank with average parameters that you don’t mind losing in battle.

      And a heavy assault tank with 152 mm. a weapon - for the destruction of fortifications and capital buildings with the support of assault infantry.
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      You won’t go far on expensive weapons ... the economy will not pull.

      Exactly . Therefore, everything should be done on serial platforms and with serial equipment. On an assault tank, you can generally install a rifled gun with reduced / low ballistics to use conventional OFS.
      1. 0
        27 July 2023 13: 55
        And a heavy assault tank with 152 mm. a weapon - for the destruction of fortifications and capital buildings with the support of assault infantry.

        There was such - KV-2. But I didn’t go in, since the tank is a universal weapon. And even in Ukraine there were a lot of cases of tank duels, and even for a short time. Especially at the initial stage. How quickly everyone forgot about it, as soon as we got into a tough defense. But let's go on the offensive, there will be tank battles again. Here you will see.
  4. +11
    21 July 2023 05: 33
    As you know, the first main battle tank in the world is rightfully the Soviet T-64
    The question is VERY controversial, it's an honor, the British "Centurion" may well be awarded
    For example, a typical Chamber of Commerce and Industry "Object 477",
    Neither "Hammer", "Boxer", "Nota", and even more so "Armata" ARE TANKS OF LIMITING PARAMETERS.
    Here is such a tank - IS-7

    In our time, it was of course the T-95

    And "Armata", just its SIGNIFICANTLY lightened version.
    Machines of limiting parameters are not created for serial production, they are always experimental machines on which everything is checked to the maximum. Therefore, such machines are VERY NEEDED.
    1. +1
      21 July 2023 05: 50
      Quote: svp67
      The question is VERY controversial, it's an honor, the British "Centurion" may well be awarded

      A tank with a medium tank cannon and medium tank armor cannot be assigned an MBT. So the T-62 can be written in MBT ...
      1. +3
        21 July 2023 10: 33
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        A tank with a medium tank cannon and medium tank armor cannot be assigned an MBT.
        From what position to look. This tank from the British immediately replaced TWO of their classes, infantry and cruiser tanks. So, it can rightly be considered MBT.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Can't a tank with a medium tank cannon

        In 1958, a new modification of the Mk 10 appeared with a 105 mm gun. At that time, a very large weapon
        1. -1
          21 July 2023 11: 30
          Quote: svp67
          From what position to look. This tank from the British immediately replaced TWO of their classes, infantry and cruiser tanks. So, it can rightly be considered MBT.

          Well, no, because the cords remained, and the MBT replaces heavy and medium tanks ...

          Quote: svp67
          In 1958, a new modification of the Mk 10 appeared with a 105 mm gun. At that time, a very large weapon
          The M-60 did not become from this MBT, and the T-54 still had a weave, and the T-115 had 62 mm ...
          1. +2
            21 July 2023 14: 58
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Well, no, because the cords remained, and the MBT replaces heavy and medium tanks ..

            Name Mark. And let me remind you that we have had heavy tanks of the IS-3, IS-4 and T-10 types removed from service since the 90s of the 20th century, does this mean that before this period we did not have MBT?
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            115 mm for T-62...
            So the T-64 with such a gun entered service ... Apparently the caliber of the gun is not so important in determining whether this tank is an MBT or not
            1. Alf
              +1
              21 July 2023 19: 29
              Quote: svp67
              Name Mark.

              Conqueror. Withdrawn from service only in 1966.
              Quote: svp67
              Apparently the caliber of the gun is not so important in determining whether this tank is an MBT or not

              Speed ​​also matters for MBT.
        2. Alf
          +1
          21 July 2023 19: 23
          Quote: svp67
          This tank from the British immediately replaced TWO of their classes, infantry and cruiser tanks. So, it can rightly be considered MBT.

          Only now the speed of 35 km / h does not pull on MBT in any way.
          On the Mk12, the forehead is 120 mm, the side is 51 mm, the turret is 200 mm.
          This is not OBT at all. This is their answer to the T-55, T-62, in which the armor is thicker or the same and the gun is no worse. Not even to mention the difference in speed seriously.
      2. +2
        21 July 2023 15: 48
        The T-62 gun is not a "medium" tank, it is quite comparable with the 105-mm NATO one. The first T-64s also had a 115 mm gun. In terms of armor, it is at least not inferior (modernized and superior) to the Leopard-1 and AMX-30, which are MBTs.
  5. +2
    21 July 2023 05: 49
    For example, to fight the latest European and American tanks.

    And what, they are, these "the latest European (!) And American tanks"
    Announce the entire list please!
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 19: 02
      Quote: Amateur
      And what, they are, these "the latest European (!) And American tanks"
      Announce the entire list please!
      Abrams SEP v4, Leopard 2A8
  6. +5
    21 July 2023 06: 15
    But where are the Terminators now?

    Used as a means of supporting the infantry. Good at destroying strongholds. And the chassis unified with the T-72 simplifies maintenance. For this weapon, the CBO has become a ticket to a normal life - people have figured out how to use it correctly.
  7. -4
    21 July 2023 06: 24
    The events of the last year and a half show that for the T-14 there are no tasks on the battlefield that the existing tanks of the classical layout cannot solve.

    The task, apparently, was unequivocal, from the very beginning - to create a long-term channel for milking attendants.
    Nobody argues that the development of new directions and technologies in BT should be carried out constantly, but through PR, passing off a concept as a sample ready for production is a crime.
    No matter how it turned out with the SU-57 as well
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 09: 11
      not quite so, there are too many foreign critical components in the armata ... actually, after 2014, sanctions were imposed on the military commissar, after which the armata project stalled in terms of mass production, they tried to replace Western components with their own developments, but it didn’t work out, which is why it didn’t go into series ..
    2. +4
      21 July 2023 10: 58
      It also looks beautiful in the reports, and apparently our leadership accepted such reports with pleasure, and the generals grew in positions and ranks for beautiful reports. But the military was not next to our leadership, who were ready to show the inferiority of the military-political decisions of our leadership. The Gostomel operation was supposed to end with the liquidation of the leadership of Ukraine, or the encirclement of Kyiv, this is just the iron logic of military operations. The list of such acts is simply endless.
      1. 0
        21 July 2023 19: 20
        There were no attempts to liquidate the leadership of Ukraine, Zelensky was told on February 24 that they were considered legally elected. It is difficult to say what would happen if our people took Kyiv, another government would broadcast from Lviv, but what our government did not know what to do with Ukrainian cities became clear already in April. Yes, and nothing can be called an operation after Gostomel
  8. +1
    21 July 2023 06: 32
    As tanks appeared in the First World War, the disputes began whether they were needed or not.
    It’s just that earlier, in order to open a dispute, one had to be an authority in the armored field and access to thematic printed publications, and now anyone, even I think, can zababahat an article.
    As a mobile artillery system, the tank is indispensable. We now see what happens to ops without support on our smart phones almost every day. Our tanks need better means of detection and guidance. And here, let's be honest, Russia is in a complete asshole.
    What do we see in the latest news here?
    https://topwar.ru/221895-modernizirovannye-tanki-t-72bm3-poluchili-dinamicheskuju-zaschitu-kormovoj-chasti.html
    The usual T-72B (A?) was hung with contacts 1-5 and relics, and the FCS from the early 80s, without a weather sensor, there is not even an outdated Pine. And you about the "tank of limiting parameters"
  9. +3
    21 July 2023 06: 32
    Previously, they simply said “expensive” about Armata, now a whole article has been bogged down with a rationale for why it is not needed, apparently it’s just “expensive” as it has become boring and is not perceived. So, everything can be substantiated by the uselessness of both aviation and new weapons systems and the fleet, having previously drunk decent sums for R&D and prototypes, loudly declaring "unparalleled in the world."
  10. +10
    21 July 2023 06: 32
    Another nonsense about the uselessness of the tank, the SVO just became an indicator that it would be much more difficult to fight without a tank, and the author in the SVO tanks fight tanks and they also support the infantry with their fire, the only drawback that was revealed in the SVO is that the Russian army does not have a normal protected radio communication. Numerous videos, as well as the statements of soldiers and officers on the front line, show that Russian troops use tanks without infantry support or tanks without normal radio communications act blindly, even having their own UAV above them, they do not have communication with UAV operators and tankers have a narrow view through the sight and triplexes of the tank and do not see the whole picture of what is happening on the battlefield, although their UAVs fly over them and even film them on video and even see ambush sites and operators cannot transmit via radio to tankers that in front or there to the left or to the right of them is an ambush. The Russian Army does not need to think about what kind of tanks it needs, since its tanks are normal and the army needs radio communications yesterday to use tanks and UAVs and the same BMPT Terminator in one bundle and not separately
  11. +4
    21 July 2023 06: 39
    Everything seems to be correctly stated in the article, but here is a paradox without innovative ideas implemented tested in the T-14 "Armata" there will be no progress, in short, my opinion is that Armata should be, but in a small series: let's say one battalion per division.
  12. +2
    21 July 2023 07: 23
    and at the moment and in the long term, neither Russia nor NATO is ready for a conventional war with each other

    For two years now they have been waging a war for which they are not ready, some of you are no analyst

    In the most extreme case, the T-72 series of the latest series will suffice. Everyone probably remembers the story of the Terminator BMPT. At the beginning of the special operation, they tried to use the car for its intended purpose, that is, to support tanks on the battlefield. Extermination of tank-dangerous targets, to be exact. But where are the Terminators now? There are few disappearing cars in the reports, or they are completely absent, and there is not a word about increasing production.

    And in what way does this paragraph reflect the effectiveness of technology? It reflects the inefficiency of the industry
    The conditional successor to the T-95 can be called the T-14. This machine clearly belongs to the class of "limiting parameters tanks"

    Do not apply, the only difference between the T-14 and the new Western serial tanks is the layout of the crew, in other parameters as weapons, self-propelled guns, surveillance devices, and KAZ
    he matches them. Therefore, the T-14 is not a tank of maximum parameters, but an ordinary combat tank that the Russian Federation should have if it does not want to critically lag behind a potential enemy
  13. -6
    21 July 2023 07: 49
    T-90M
    The tank must be reliable and easy to maintain, understandable to the crew, without a sea of ​​​​electronics, video cameras around the perimeter, which there will be no one to repair on the battlefield.
    If the T-62 and T-55 are removed from conservation with might and main, then we cannot produce the T-90M in sufficient quantities either. What can we say about the prospects of Almaty.
  14. +2
    21 July 2023 08: 02
    One of the defining characteristics of any military equipment should be its price. There should be a lot of good technology.
  15. +3
    21 July 2023 09: 13
    neither Russia nor the NATO bloc is ready for a conventional war with each other - in any case, it will slide into a third world war.
    And the whole world is in ruins.
  16. 0
    21 July 2023 09: 23
    As prototypes, it is possible and necessary if some things cannot be verified by computer and full-scale modeling, experiments at test sites. And so the story with the "Tigers" and "Panthers" will repeat itself: the technical characteristics also include the "operational" section. For example, you cannot assign a personal fuel truck to each tank, and it is better to have a few, but combat-ready units, than large payrolls (hello, fleet).
    In our circumstances, it is necessary to analyze more carefully not the notorious "parameters" themselves, but the entire life cycle. How to make it cheaper and better, how to deliver it to the front faster and at lower cost, how to evacuate for repairs (preferably not to the manufacturer itself, but closer), how to modernize, taking into account the analysis of experience (what to sacrifice - and you will have to sacrifice - in order to strengthen something), how to train crews faster and cheaper, etc. and the fuel consumption...
  17. 0
    21 July 2023 09: 50
    The powerful anti-tank capabilities of the vehicle are useless in battle - tanks have practically ceased to fight among themselves since the time of the Arab-Israeli wars, and are unlikely to start already.

    well why? exorbitant greyhound and arrogance of the Israeli Wehrmacht may well receive a well-deserved response.
    1. +1
      21 July 2023 11: 02
      Israel (as a concept) is such an unpleasant thing that it is either turned into a glass skating rink, or it is better not to touch it at all.
  18. +2
    21 July 2023 10: 42
    The T14 is no different from the T90M as a combat unit.
    but t14 has:
    1. Better crew survivability.
    2. Load capacity of the trolley
    3. Reserve for internal combustion engine and transmission
    4. Easier and cheaper replacement of the combat module
    5. Gives a single cart for all heavy tracked vehicles in the RF Armed Forces.

    in general, modern MBTs are already limiting in terms of characteristics and weight. The only trend is to reduce the crew to 2 people. Such experiments are conducted, for example, in Israel.
    1. +1
      21 July 2023 11: 01
      There is not much sense in reducing the crew. The bottom line is to reduce the habitable volume and, as a result, the mass of booking about the same thickness.

      The layout of the T14 already reduces this volume.
      1. -2
        21 July 2023 11: 25
        Less crew, fewer victims, less to teach new ones ..... etc. In aviation, this already leads to a reduction from 2x to 1 pilot ..... in helicopters it does not lead yet. For BT, maybe some UAVs will appear and replace the control center for the tank ..... and this is one fighter ... or maybe the idea will turn out to be so-so.
    2. 0
      21 July 2023 11: 17
      Well, you can also add that due to the greater width of the hull, the T14 allows you to place an AZ with a greater maximum length of the projectile (that is, the penetration of the BOPS, and maybe also the power of the OFS). And the cart is really valuable, and probably even more as a base for heavy transports than MBT. And therefore, even if it doesn’t gain popularity as a tank, it will always be possible to find where to use the front-engined version.
      1. +1
        21 July 2023 11: 22
        Width rests on certain standards for transportation. But the T14 can already use long BOPS 125mm. There, the projectile is in the AZ, like the T-80 and T64.
        1. 0
          21 July 2023 11: 48
          So I write that the T14 can use long BOPS, while the T-72 family has everything, it doesn’t fit. But in general, this problem can also be solved, but by a global reworking of the entire fighting compartment by moving shells to the rear of the tower, approximately as it was proposed to do in the Burlak fighting compartment project (but IMHO it’s right that they refused then, it’s not known what else would have happened and when) . And in general, the "problem of 125mm penetration" is far-fetched. I used to think that just the width of the T-72 had already rested on transportation, but the T14 was further expanded.
          1. +1
            21 July 2023 12: 12
            On the T90M, the 2a82 gun was considered. Even on specialized sites they published a drawing of alterations for a long BOPS. There, the main difficulty is the 2A82 gun itself - and the difficulty of the Russian metallurgy with the quality and stability of blanks for barrels. This, in my opinion, also applies to 152mm Coalition barrels ... and sniper rifle barrels for specialized purposes.
            1. 0
              24 July 2023 01: 26
              Quote: CouchExpert
              Well, you can also add that due to the greater width of the body,

              Where does the data about the greater width of the hull of the T-14 come from?
    3. Alf
      +2
      21 July 2023 19: 34
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The only trend is to reduce the crew to 2 people. Such experiments are conducted, for example, in Israel.

      It won't lead to anything good. How can one person (the second driver) be able to monitor the battlefield, look for targets and hit them?
      I absolutely agree with points 1-5.
    4. 0
      27 July 2023 14: 20
      in general, modern MBTs are already limiting in terms of characteristics and weight. The only trend is to reduce the crew to 2 people. Such experiments are conducted, for example, in Israel.

      Such experiments were carried out in our country at the turn of the late 50s and early 60s (the book "Domestic Armored Vehicles 1945-1965".). A crew of 2 people may well go into battle, but only again there is no commander who monitors the battlefield. Greetings from the USSR tanks of the pre-war generation. For which the war gave a cruel lesson. So we have long decided that there can be no crew in a tank of less than three people. And this does not take into account the increasing workload on the crew during maintenance, equipping positions and serving.
  19. 0
    21 July 2023 10: 59
    Without going into nuances, we need thousands of tanks of maximum parameters, not dozens.

    Here are those of which there will be thousands - such parameters are needed.
  20. +5
    21 July 2023 11: 00
    The tank of maximum performance characteristics, no doubt, is needed by the Russian Federation. Simply because after 15 years its performance characteristics will no longer be limiting.
  21. 0
    21 July 2023 11: 46
    Working out of range of enemy anti-tank weapons, indirect fire and one-time raids on fortified areas - these are the main roles of modern tanks. And as an option - war in urban conditions. It is around such conditions that the design of tanks in the future will be built. "A tank of limiting parameters" is not needed here, from the word at all.

    In this case, you just need to replace the cannon with a large-caliber (say, 160mm) universal gun with high elevation angles (a la Nona and Lotos) and continue work on raising crew awareness and fire control tools. Anti-tank and anti-helicopter functions at long ranges will be performed by missiles, and at close ranges a fragmentation projectile (or a thin-walled projectile of increased power) of this caliber will turn any modern tank into a bucket of bolts and nuts, even without breaking through the armor.
  22. +1
    21 July 2023 13: 11
    "To be fair, there was one conflict in history in which tanks were superfluous. This is the fighting of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, when most of the tank regiments had to be withdrawn from motorized rifle divisions..." (with)
    The truth is, tank units as part of OKSVA existed until 1987, and the tankers performed very serious combat missions ... Some tank regiments were simply "reformatted" on the spot ... into motorized rifle regiments.
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 13: 25
      Rather, more armored self-propelled guns were needed there. and wheeled artillery systems.
  23. -1
    21 July 2023 14: 36
    The conditional successor to the T-95 can be called the T-14. This machine clearly belongs to the class of "limiting parameters tanks", which Nikolai Shamshurin dreamed of back in the 60s.


    Armata is a very conditional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, primarily in terms of armament:
    - instead of 152 mm guns, 125 were installed at the level of T-72 / T-80 of the 80s of the last century.
    - 30 mm automatic gun (paired or in DBM) is ABSENT.
    - KAZs are not included in the basic package.

    Better two new T-90Ms for the price of one Almaty !!!
    1. +1
      23 July 2023 14: 29
      Kaz is an integral part of the T-14. Why did you get the opposite? Did you come up with it yourself?
  24. +1
    21 July 2023 15: 37
    Most likely the development of the tank, like everything goes in a spiral. Now there is a return to heavy (Armata), medium (t-90M, t-80BVM) and light (Sprut-M). Life will show what is true and vice versa.
  25. 0
    21 July 2023 15: 57
    Judging by how “mobile” Leopards are in the southern black soils, I can hardly imagine tanks of “limiting parameters” (with a mass like that of Abrams and Leo) in our latitudes. They won't even cross any ordinary bridge.
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 18: 46
      I consider not a tank, but the direction of "Armata" to be promising and necessary. We need to move further and create a tank without a crew on the basis of "Armata".
  26. 0
    21 July 2023 17: 02
    IMHO it is more interesting to see the development of technology for breaking through minefields and trench fortifications. imagine a "house" hung with many layers of dynamic protection, which rushes at a speed of 50 km / h, does not get stuck anywhere because of its huge dimensions, but relatively low pressure on the ground. and in front of him is a hefty axle, on which self-healing (like a trimmer) chains rotate and hit the ground to a depth of 1-2 meters, which calmly destroy mines, grind fortifications, and so on. and all this without standard weapons, which only increase the vulnerability of the system. those. by abandoning weapons, turrets and other things, you can create a fundamentally better protected machine that will survive everything except otrk and cast iron. Yes, and against them you can find options.
    1. 0
      21 July 2023 18: 48
      It is easier to make tanks without crews with trawls and a system like that of the "Serpent Gorynych".
  27. -3
    21 July 2023 17: 09
    It's funny that the author managed to sideways drive past the long-suffering Almaty, neither praising nor scolding. Apparently they are aware that this freak with a thin casing instead of a turret is hopeless, and the best from it has already been implemented on the T-90M.
    1. Alf
      0
      21 July 2023 19: 38
      Quote from Vashek
      and the best from it has already been implemented on the T-90M.

      For example, the engine and the gun...
  28. 0
    21 July 2023 18: 41
    First of all, brains are needed for what has been written. In the literal sense of the word, strategy and tactics are the basis of everything. Undoubtedly, a qualitative advantage is now very difficult to achieve and whether the question is still possible. "Armata" is a modern promising tank, but it is only a tank, and what is needed for its successful use I wrote above.
  29. 0
    21 July 2023 19: 49
    Author: "Why is this? To the fact that the tanks finally stopped going on the attack in the classical sense, which means that there was no need for direct support equipment." So that's what kind of reindeer you are. How much do you need to drink to carry this??? And the assault on Mariupol, and the assault on Artemovsk by Wagner???? No ... no alle means tanks in the forefront, well, for starters, at least look at YouTube vidos from the front line. Here, in VO, people shouted at the top of their voices that there were not enough tanks in the forefront during the assaults, so they had to substitute armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
  30. 0
    21 July 2023 19: 59
    Comrades, why do you need a caliber of 152 mm so much ??? Shoot strong points with powerful HE shells? For this, a short-barreled mortar-mortar is enough; a long-barreled tank gun is not needed. Against armored vehicles, a missile launched through the barrel.
    And powerful anti-shell armor is also not needed - anti-cumulative protection against ATGMs, including roofers, is much more important.
  31. +1
    21 July 2023 20: 24
    Quote: svp67
    Apparently the caliber of the gun is not so important in determining whether this tank is an MBT or not

    The T-64 with a 115mm cannon was considered a medium tank, while the T-64A with a 125mm was already an MBT. In terms of firepower and protection, it competed with heavy tanks, while maintaining the mobility of a medium one.
  32. -1
    21 July 2023 20: 32
    As you know, the first main battle tank in the world is rightfully the Soviet T-64

    As you know, the world's first MBT (main battle tank -MBT) is not the T-64, whose production began in 1963, but was adopted in 1966. The Americans adopted their M-60 MBT into service in 1960, in the same year the British adopted the Chieftain MBT.
  33. +1
    21 July 2023 20: 36
    Quote: Zaurbek
    There, the projectile is in the AZ, like the T-80 and T64.

    In the MZ of the T-64 (the T-80 inherited the BO from it), the shells are located horizontally, the charges are located vertically.
    So the restrictions on the length of the projectile for the AZ T-72 and the MZ T-64 / T-80 are the same.
    On the T-90M, the diameter of the carousel was increased due to a cutout in the side armor plate.

    [Center]
    1. 0
      24 July 2023 01: 40
      Quote: Alex
      On the T-90M, the diameter of the carousel was increased due to a cutout in the side armor plate.

      A cutout in the sides is needed when installing the 2A82 gun with its automatic loader, and since it is not on the T-90M, there is no point in making slots in the sides.
  34. +1
    21 July 2023 20: 51
    Quote: Dimax-Nemo
    Leopard-1 and AMX-30, which are MBT

    They are medium tanks, not MBTs. They were created at a time when in a shell-armor dispute a projectile was defeated by a clear advantage, and therefore tank builders preferred mobility, including by reducing weight by reducing the thickness of the armor. The first Leopards-1 and AMX-30 weighed less than 40 tons with a VLD thickness of only 70 mm (less than that of World War II tanks).
  35. +1
    21 July 2023 23: 21
    Does Russia need a tank of extreme parameters

    Definitely yes, you need it!
  36. 0
    22 July 2023 18: 16
    Russia needs any tanks. Unless you just drive them stupidly into the attack, hoping for good luck. Any technique is useful if used correctly.
    There are many opportunities for armata, and for a cardboard armored personnel carrier or armorless jeep. I don’t think that warriors and designers don’t have people who also see these options. We just need to let these people turn around, and not drown them, as Prigozhin was drowned ...
  37. +1
    22 July 2023 18: 51
    The author apparently forgot that in addition to defense, there is also an offensive. Yes, and in defense, tanks can quickly advance where fire support is needed, for example, when an enemy breaks through.
    But on the offensive without a tank, nowhere. Self-propelled guns cannot shoot on the move, and their armor protection is symbolic. Infantry fighting vehicles without the support of heavier means will be ground quickly. Therefore, during an offensive, tanks are needed, and many other different equipment for fire support of troops - the same BMPTs, self-propelled ATGMs, anti-aircraft guns.
    And without tanks, the author will continue to sit in the trenches ... until the enemy tanks come.
    I don't know about the limit parameters, but our tanks must outperform the enemy's tanks. And tanks of extreme parameters ... can be used as a kind of tank special forces. For example, in difficult sectors of the front. Or for special operations
  38. 0
    22 July 2023 20: 01
    The author considers the Chamber of Commerce in the focus of its fight against other tanks, without practically considering its ability to support breaking the defense in some local area. At the same time, the hypothetical need for such a hack in the course of the NMD can be traced, since many times we rested and got stuck in the enemy’s defense, saturated with standard anti-tank weapons. Here the key phrase is REGULAR.
    In fact, if we even had an insignificant fleet of heavy products, which, by virtue of their design, would practically not give a damn about these regular means - with these products we could be able to eliminate such "bones in the throat", immediately collapsing the front in some important directions, forcing the enemy to use reserves and, to forestall this, spray more powerful anti-tank resources over threatened sectors of the front.

    The question rests only on whether it is possible to design a tank for this kind of task, so to speak, an object that is really resistant to damage. I believe that this is possible, although structurally such a vehicle will differ significantly from MBT (but the basic principles will remain unchanged - armor, tracks, the presence of heavy and anti-personnel weapons).

    There are problems of assessing the need for just such an approach, as opposed to other means of breaking through the front - yes. The problem of transporting a heavy product also arises - this is also a structural problem that can be solved. We may need such products only on the western borders, in connection with this, the issues of their movement can be worked out in advance in the deployment plans, there will be no need to roll them from the Far East and to the Far East.
  39. 0
    22 July 2023 20: 55
    I read the article and comments, googled a bit and noticed a discrepancy - some call the T-64 the first MBT, while others just call it the first CCI (and not the experimental "Boxers" with the "Black Eagles"), i.e. opposite concept. Who is right, really?
    1. 0
      27 July 2023 14: 42
      Essentially, both are right. Only T-64 with 125mm gun Became the first MBT. And it grew out of the "Object 430", which was created as a new promising tank of maximum parameters. But he was armed with the still promising D-54TS (2A24) gun, which was created in response to the English 83,8 Centurion tank.
  40. +1
    22 July 2023 21: 34
    Russia needs, first of all, brains. Tanks are a thing.
  41. +1
    22 July 2023 22: 22
    All this transfusion from empty to empty, the whole point of the fact that the T14 makes it possible for the crew to survive and the firing efficiency and visibility is better. The T90, like its predecessors, with ammunition around the turret, when hit, gives a beautiful firework with the launch of the turret into orbit, which does not give the crew any chance. And these are professionally trained people who simply cannot be replaced. If you follow such reasoning, then this is tantamount to the phrase "they are still giving birth" ... Nothing should stand still, but there must be progress, and not use the Soviet legacy and shout that this is the best and we do not need anything new. This war has already put a lot in its place, and many had to open their eyes ...
  42. 0
    23 July 2023 14: 25
    "A tank of limiting parameters" is not needed here, from the word at all.
    ____________

    Right? And if a javelin flies from above, a stug is on the side, and a UAV with a pg-7 completes, then nothing is needed? Neither a kaz, nor a protected capsule, nor a separated ammunition load?

    And will it do so?

    The limiting parameters of the tank are not only in armament, but also in security.
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. 0
    24 July 2023 20: 43
    Dear Mr. Fedorov! All sorts of tanks are needed, all kinds of tanks are important! And, of course, a tank of limiting parameters ..... Something like this ....
  45. 0
    5 September 2023 12: 50
    Tanks are needed, because they are quite used for themselves and will be needed in the future. The question is in the filling of the tank.
    But a modern tank needs protection from drones and guided missiles, effective electronic warfare, closed and reliable communications, precision-guided munitions and, accordingly, guidance systems, high-quality optics with good visibility, high-quality secure electronics, and a system for exchanging information about the situation on the battlefield. Well, of course, it is necessary to use tanks wisely.
  46. 0
    11 September 2023 12: 09
    The T-14 is not a tank of extreme parameters... don’t fool people.. And on the battlefield this tank... without cover from the flanks... can’t live... It’s not strike, not fast, not stealthy, not overly protected , heavy and huge... and the weapons are in no way superior to the same T-90. And in reality the T-90 looks and is stronger in combat conditions in the sum of all the parameters of the T-14... But the T-80 once again confirmed the amazing foresight Soviet school..And it is no coincidence that the more advanced version of the T-14 tank was not accepted into service after testing in 1988..It’s time to stop pouring in the budget..and it’s time to return to truly worthy developments of the USSR and create combat ground systems...
  47. 0
    26 September 2023 13: 25
    I agree with the author that we are now witnessing a new type of military conflict. Now it is no longer tanks that play a key role. The tank, while still an important player in achieving success, has lost its dominant position. The worldview of the warriors also changed. The events of the last 19 months show that the main role in defeating the enemy is to gain Priority in Outer and Airspace. Thousands of satellites in low-flying orbit up to 1500 km. NATO has them! (more than 12000) And here (192 in total) the leader has just realized and gives “instructions.” But the worst thing is direct sabotage “at the hands of drivers.” Most of the currently operating NATO spy satellites were launched into low-Earth orbit by our carriers. For example, the USA - RD-180 and RD-181M, and D. Rogozin, under a contract with an English company, - his Soyuz. Now these spy satellites effectively guide enemy missiles and UAVs to our most important targets. This is a catastrophe for our entire territory. With such a ratio in space, there were hopes of gaining dominance in Airspace, but OneWeb and Starlinks do not allow this operation to be carried out. And again the 5th column helps the enemy. Many years of Sabotage against AWACS and U. So the country found itself in the role of a whipping bear. And any, even the most advanced tank, will not survive on the front line for even a week. Therefore, for the T-14 there are no tasks on the battlefield! “For now, the problems can be solved by existing tanks of a classical layout. The powerful anti-tank capabilities of the vehicle are of no use in battle - tanks have practically stopped fighting each other since the Israeli war, and are unlikely to start again. A tank of limiting parameters is not needed now.” Who would have imagined that the active “work” of the Locust would lead to such disastrous results. The increased impudence of NATO in Ukraine indicates the danger of directly connecting the bloc’s forces to the Northern Military District, and the modern Russian Federation, stuffed with traitors, will not cope with a global conflict! And the Time Factor has been missed and the current stagnation is working against Russia! The curious behind-the-scenes “game” is also depressing: We are talking about the declaration of the personal representative of the Russian Federation in New York https://dzen.ru/a/ZCx26jRcrB-Wjv0P?utm_referer=www.google.com
  48. -1
    10 October 2023 15: 59
    What does the T-14 and “limit parameters” have to do with it? a tank is like a tank, little progress compared to the T64 and T72 50-60 years ago. the fact that now it is more profitable to produce what is established, and not to launch something new - so it will end someday, and then what? TPP is a tank with the latest technology and dense layout. The T14 only has a crew capsule as a technology, the rest is a slight evolution. the gun is a little more powerful (but in the same caliber), the diesel engine is newer, etc. while the layout is like that of a barn - the tank seems to have become 1.5 times larger in volume, although the weight has not increased much. no all-angle KAZ, no hybrid engine, no 30mm cannon, no 152mm main gun... it seems the Soviet hammer 35 years ago was more perfect
  49. -1
    10 October 2023 23: 25
    Working beyond the reach of enemy anti-tank weapons, indirect fire and one-time raids on fortified areas - this is the main role of modern tanks.

    This role was forced on our tanks due to the fact that the army does not have modern
    "Tanks of ultimate parameters." If we had brought the T-14 to fruition in a timely manner, produced and put them into service in acceptable quantities, then the situation in the use of tanks would have been completely different. These tanks could be used for their intended purpose, as a striking force and a battering ram to break through enemy defenses. Protection and, above all, active protection of the KAZ would allow this to be done. Without KAZ, our T-72, 80, 90 tanks are defenseless and vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons such as ATGMs, BOPS and even RPGs. That’s why they are now operating from closed positions, like self-propelled guns, rightfully fearing all sorts of javelins, Milans, Gustavs, Stugnas and UAVs with an RPG grenade. If we had our KAZ tanks not only in the circular, but also in the upper sphere, they would be able to act more confidently and freely.