Eh, "Pine" you are mine - restless

67
Eh, "Pine" you are mine - restless
Photo: vitalykuzmin

There is such a very apt expression: what we have - we do not store, having lost - we cry. It is it that clearly characterizes the situation around the Sosna-U two-channel sight, which was installed first on the T-72B3, and then on other Russian tanks. How much criticism was addressed to him before and how much regret that now only the T-90M has it from the newly produced machines.

But we will indulge in worries and we will not regret it, but we will talk about some of the reasons why it is so “crooked” - this, after all, was the basis of criticism of the product.



Okay but inconvenient


As you know, for the first time in the Sosna-U series, it appeared on tanks that received the T-72B3 index more than ten years ago. At that time, many were indignant at the fact that a relatively cheap and far from full-fledged option for upgrading vehicles was chosen, which did not include, for example, increasing the security and situational awareness of tank commanders - there, if all the comments were listed, ten pages would not be enough.

Nevertheless, when there were literally mountains of obsolete T-72B / B1 tanks in active service and storage bases, which were the basis of the Russian tank fleet, and of the more or less modern tanks, only the T-90A, which, as they say, the cat cried ... Then the project no longer looked completely miserable.

Still, one must understand that the T-72B and its "missileless" counterpart T-72B1 had a rather primitive sighting system even for late Soviet times. Sosna-U became the fire control system that significantly expanded the capabilities of modernized tanks.

In general, a very good thermal imager, an optical channel, guidance of guided missiles along a laser beam, an automatic target tracking and a ballistic computer, with other related elements and the corresponding functionality - a gentleman's set that rejuvenated old Soviet tanks well.


But, despite all the advantages of Sosna-U, its location caused great dissatisfaction among operators and experts of various ranks.

What is the essence of the problem?

The fact is that before the modernization, the T-72B / B1 tanks, as, in general, other Soviet vehicles of a similar class, had two sights. The first is optical, which is part of the 1A40 complex and its variations, for firing from a cannon and a coaxial machine gun during daylight hours. It was also tied to the guidance of the gun in the horizontal and vertical planes (the same "cheburashka") and the control of related systems. The second, located to the left of the optical one, served as a night sight and, depending on the modification of the tank, a device for guiding missiles fired from the barrel.

Sosna-U, positioning itself as the main sight for firing from a gun and a coaxial machine gun, was installed in tanks during modernization instead of night guidance / missile control devices - on the same seat, on the left closer to the gunner's hatch. At the same time, the 1A40 complex with its optical sight, having been finalized in order to be able to interact with the new product, was left in the same place with the same functionality.

On the right is the optical sight of the 1A40-4 complex, on the left - Sosna-U
On the right is the optical sight of the 1A40-4 complex, on the left - Sosna-U

As a result, a situation has developed when, while working with Sosna-U, the gunner is forced to bend, as they say, with the letter “shu”: turn his body to the left to look into the eyepiece of the new sight, and his hands to the right, on the “cheburashka” under the old guidance device. In short, the position is not the most comfortable.

In general, the problem is not fatal - you can adapt, and it only manifests itself when you use the Sosna optical channel, since you don’t need an eyepiece to fire using a thermal imager - there is a display to the left. Nevertheless, the issue of convenience exists even in terms of the visual accessibility of the azimuth indicator, without which it is extremely difficult for the gunner to determine the position of the tower.

In this connection, to this day, there are suggestions why the Sosna-U was not installed as the main sight instead of the optical one, forgetting about ergonomics.

Otherwise, do not put


You need to understand that in this case we are talking about a finished product, therefore, arguments about, they say, why Sosna-U was made in this way and not otherwise, are meaningless here. This is a completely different topic. In fact, you have to deal with what is already there.

However, you can often come across a proposal: pull out the optical sight of the 1A40 complex from the tank and put Sosna-U instead, they say, the hole in the roof of the tower will remain - just under the stabilization unit (conditionally the sight head). You don't even need to cut the armor much. In general, the same thing as they did with the night sight.

The idea still finds its followers, but in practical terms it cannot be implemented, from the word at all. The catch here is that the distance between the hole in the roof of the tower, where the head of the sight goes, and the gunner's place is very significant, even with a total relatively small internal space. It is not surprising: the tanks are Soviet, and they were made under Soviet sights. And Soviet sights are gizmos with impressive dimensions.

1A40-1
1A40-1

A set of reflective mirrors, a rangefinder laser transceiver, optical channel lenses, sight control mechanisms in the form of ballistic cams, eccentrics and other details determine the significant distance between the sight head and the eyepiece into which the gunner looks.

"Pine-U"
"Pine-U"

Sosna-U, in turn, is a relatively modern contraption and therefore more compact than its Soviet counterparts. The distance between the scope head and the eyepiece is minimal. Yes, and in general, it is almost two times shorter than the Soviet ones, which can be seen in the image attached below. Therefore, putting it “in the image and holes” of the old sight is dooming the gunner to even greater suffering and back problems than the way it is in the T-72B3 and other tanks. Yes, you won’t have to bend anymore, but the need will make you bend already, sitting on the edge of the seat in order to reach the eyepiece, which has moved several tens of centimeters forward.

Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru, user Wiedzmin
Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru, user Wiedzmin

Yes, you can conditionally neglect this circumstance - let them bend to death, in the end, the hardships and deprivation of military service oblige. But here another problem arises. It is connected with the fact that the cast towers of Soviet tanks have a specific rounded shape with massive frontal parts. Therefore, for the installation of sights, the end parts of which are quite rectangular, on the inner surface of the frontal armor, special cutouts were already provided in the turret castings themselves. In fact, the grooves that allow you to install the sight close to the rear armor.

Cutout in the rear of the frontal armor of the tower for the installation of a sight
Cutout in the rear of the frontal armor of the tower for the installation of a sight

Given the protruding body of the Sosny-U sighting and rangefinder unit, when installing it in place of the old sight, the cutout in the frontal armor of the turret will have to be made even deeper, weakening the overall security of the vehicle - the body of the sight can simply be inside the armor filler. The outlook is so-so.

The body of the sighting and rangefinder unit (BVD)
The body of the sighting and rangefinder unit (BVD)

And what if we forget about all the cutouts from the old sights in the roof of the tower and make a new one, installing the Pine at the optimal distance from the gunner, and finally solve all the problems with ergonomics?

The question is good, but now hardly solvable. Apparently, in tanks, the Sosna-U was not intended to be used in any other way, except in a pair with gun controls, it and turret systems as part of an additional sight or separately. At the very least, it is difficult to make her and the classic control panel related to the type of Soviet products, when the eyepiece is at the top and the Cheburashka is at the bottom, even in terms of dimensions it is difficult - the latter will simply rest on the knees. Not to mention the technical part.

Therefore, even in the T-80BVM and T-90M, the situation is similar: they introduced small-sized backup sights instead of Soviet optics, but in fact the same thing happens - eyes to the left, hands to the right. Albeit with positive changes. It needs a total rebuild.

Place gunner in the T-80BVM
Place gunner in the T-80BVM

“Sosna-U” is a good sight without any conventions, which the same special military operation in Ukraine perfectly proved.

It's just that ergonomics and the layout of devices in the tank also need to be thought about. And there is hope that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will eventually work on this - any experience is useful. The main thing is to draw the right conclusions.
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -68
    22 July 2023 05: 08
    A quarter, a quarter of people support me in terms of a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Something is missing today. Well, okay, I'll wait, after the next bucking of Ukraine - usually the number of people ready to destroy Ukraine after that increases. Well, guys, why should we fight? One hit and all hoohly in Canada. What could be easier?
    1. +39
      22 July 2023 05: 51
      A quarter, a quarter of people support me in terms of a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Something is missing today. Well, okay, I'll wait, after the next bucking of Ukraine - usually the number of people ready to destroy Ukraine after that increases. Well, guys, why should we fight? One hit and all hoohly in Canada. What could be easier?
      Is it somehow connected with "Pine-U" or so, the music inspired? Or just: just to bzdanut?
      1. -34
        22 July 2023 06: 57
        What is bzdanut? This is a systematic study of people's opinions. For me, this is usual, I said from the very beginning of the war - why do we need this? Why lay down thousands of people for some dubious kinship? This question hangs not only here, it hangs on different sites - let's see what happens.
        1. +11
          22 July 2023 18: 09
          This is a systematic study of people's opinions.

          Just research? Really? What then is the sample? What age categories are you interviewing, their gender, property and social status, education and nature of activity? This is so as to purely understand how representative your "research" is and you can, like the president of the whole country, speak on behalf of the people of its inhabitants wassat Or do you, like Rosstat, conduct your polls within the limits of the State Duma and the administration of a non-commander? Or is it generally limited to a conversation with Dmitry Anatolyevich over a 40-degree glass?
          1. -9
            23 July 2023 18: 28
            All those who are missing - I just ask a question and make up my mind on the pros and cons. And what is so impossible? Do you need any special criteria? Well then explain how to. I will listen. And so ... a simple question - do you support the destruction of Ukraine as such? Even with nuclear weapons. No - minus. Yes is a plus. Today, they didn’t support me here much, well, it doesn’t happen - even at the beginning of this fucking war, no one supported me at all.
            1. 0
              25 July 2023 09: 37
              The study is not correct. People downvote not out of pacifism, but because of the irrelevance of the question.
      2. +9
        22 July 2023 10: 36
        Quote: Mikhail Tynda
        A quarter, a quarter of people support me in terms of a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Something is missing today. Well, okay, I'll wait, after the next bucking of Ukraine - usually the number of people ready to destroy Ukraine after that increases. Well, guys, why should we fight? One hit and all hoohly in Canada. What could be easier?
        Is it somehow connected with "Pine-U" or so, the music inspired? Or just: just to bzdanut?
        He has it really or mental, at the level of an obsession, or a mode of auto-playing viciously provocative comments ...
        1. -7
          23 July 2023 18: 34
          You are a bad person. No to your face, no you behind your back. Do you also behave in life? If so... I feel sorry for you. And at the expense of viciously provocative ... you didn’t kill anyone in this war? If not, I'll wait until they kill and see how you start talking.
    2. +19
      22 July 2023 10: 56

      "" "" "" "
      1. +13
        22 July 2023 11: 52
        In the USSR they knew how to make posters, not like now ...
      2. -7
        23 July 2023 18: 42
        And you're not lying? I don't remember this poster. Well, let it be your way, maybe I just missed this poster. Sometimes it happens.
    3. +14
      22 July 2023 12: 07
      what kind of people? Are you in the room? Do you want to put yourself on the valiant list of assassins on a par with Hitler? Shiz like this is amazing.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      22 July 2023 23: 11
      You want to say that 1/4 of Russians are fascists?
      It's time for you to go to hell.
    6. -1
      23 July 2023 06: 57
      Well, guys, why should we fight? One hit and all hoohly in Canada. What could be easier?

      Another hurrah - "patriotic" stuffing, so that God forbid someone in the Russian Federation would not ask why, instead of using tactical nuclear weapons on targets, we are throwing meat at them ...
    7. +2
      23 July 2023 07: 45
      And why do we need a nuclear desert at our side? Even in the border areas it will not be possible to live. Crimea will have to be evacuated. At least 50 years of commercials. Are we friends with the head or not?
      1. -5
        23 July 2023 10: 19
        And why do we need a nuclear desert at our side? Even in the border areas it will not be possible to live. Crimea will have to be evacuated

        That is, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which in terms of radioactive contamination was close to all the stocks of tactical nuclear weapons that the union had, did not turn the border areas into a radioactive desert, but it will turn several tactical nuclear weapons for 50 years
        Are we friends with the head or not?

        Well, now think you are friends with the head or the Ukrainians?
      2. -4
        23 July 2023 10: 31
        In fact, no, even a hundred poplars, especially during air explosions, will not give the infection that was under Chernobol. Specifically, in those cities, but for the next 100 years no one will live (on the regional one you need to throw 10-15 pieces) for complete destruction.
        Of those who feel sorry for only Belarus, they may have to evacuate ...
        Romanians, Poles - it’s even good for us if they poke ... In principle, if you throw 30 poplars, 10 each, on Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil, then even Belarusians won’t have to poke.
    8. 0
      23 July 2023 10: 50
      One nuclear strike on Ukraine and in a week the entire NATO nuclear arsenal with carriers in Ukraine! You are a genius! Not drones will fall on Moscow, but full-fledged Tomahawks per kilotons, so 10-20 you are a super strategist!
      1. -4
        23 July 2023 16: 40
        One nuclear strike on Ukraine and in a week the entire NATO nuclear arsenal with carriers in Ukraine! You are a genius! Not drones will fall on Moscow, but full-fledged Tomahawks per kilotons, so 10-20 you are a super strategist!

        Oh, and you already held a candle or one of the witnesses of the sect - "NATO will fight for Ukraine to the last man" laughing

        In general, I noticed that the cheers-"patriots" have only two yells at the use of tactical nuclear weapons: oh, everything is radioactive, genocide !!!!. And here you are NATO, NATO for this !!!...
        There used to be a third cry: oh, there are our people !!! But now they say for such uratics, even the most ardent fans of the guarantor throw truhanans not the first freshness
      2. -2
        24 July 2023 22: 27
        Quote: Clever man
        One nuclear strike on Ukraine and in a week the entire NATO nuclear arsenal with carriers in Ukraine! You are a genius! Not drones will fall on Moscow, but full-fledged Tomahawks per kilotons, so 10-20 you are a super strategist!

        "wise guy" don't talk nonsense! Do you really think that in the event of a nuclear strike on Ukraine, NATO would launch a nuclear strike on Russia?
      3. The comment was deleted.
    9. +3
      23 July 2023 22: 05
      hi
      I remembered the "White Eagle": the modernization of the T-72B (61 armored personnel carriers).
      Presented 10 years ago.
      MSA "Kalina"
      At the gunner "Pine-U"
      And the commander has a panoramic sight "Falcon's eye"

      Then the Hawkeye was described as follows:
      A feature of this sight is that its design allows you to place the sight on the side, behind, on the roof, almost anywhere in the tower.




      1. 0
        26 July 2023 08: 14
        A sight the size of a half pipe-manhole from OPVT is clearly not our choice.
  2. +1
    22 July 2023 05: 22
    The war will make its own amendments, after the experience gained they will be disassembled and ergonomics can be transferred already in a calm atmosphere.
    1. +7
      22 July 2023 06: 03
      Quote: Vadim S
      The war will make its corrections after the experience gained will be disassembled and already in a calm atmosphere you can transfer (or redo?) Ergonomics.

      What a childish naivety ...
      Here are a few lines about the “former”, which THOUSANDS passed through the state corridors of power!!!
      To describe all the exploits of Klebanov will not have enough strength or time. It can only be noted that they are all more or less identical to those described above. Today, there is little information about Klebanov, it is only known that, by the “good will” that developed among former high-ranking Russian officials, he left the territory of Russia and settled in Israel, where, probably, over a cup of tea poured into expensive Chinese porcelain, he recalls the old days.

      Where did the former Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Ilya Klebanov go, who, according to rumors, made a huge fortune selling secret developments.
      https://dzen.ru/a/ZET9jGcRAC1GH_lc
  3. +11
    22 July 2023 05: 54
    It's just that ergonomics and the layout of devices in the tank also need to be thought about.

    With such a thought (approximately such), I watched a video about the "know-how" in the Russian Navy, where they compared the equipment of the combat fleet and Abramovich's yachts ... The very one that dangles where it is necessary and not necessary, like some kind of object in an ice hole ... A dumb sage (or wiser) ... Without "p", of course ...
    And there is hope that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will eventually work on this - any experience is useful.

    Hope dies last...Together with unrealized results of useful experience...
    The main thing is to draw the right conclusions.

    The main thing is to decide for yourself: to imprison two or three of your friends, to recognize the speculative thieves' plunder of the country as an untenable way of development, or ... wait. when other people who are not involved in such plunder tell you about it in white coats "with axes and pitchforks" ...

    I apologize for my sarcasm and pessimism...
    hi
    1. Eug
      +3
      22 July 2023 06: 45
      "... to plant two or three of your friends ...."
      Especially those who were supposed to supervise and sponsor the pro-Russian forces of Ukraine (for which, as I understand, considerable funds were allocated) and on the basis of whose information the decision on Ukraine was made ...
  4. +12
    22 July 2023 06: 17
    The tank in general is a standard thing. The author writes that "Sosna-U" is LESS than the old sight in size. Why, when creating "Sosna-U", it was impossible to indicate in the TOR that in terms of dimensions it should take the place of the old sight 1: 1? Or is it again the problem of the industry "eat what they give, otherwise this will not happen."
    1. +5
      22 July 2023 23: 16
      Quote: Not the fighter
      Why, when creating "Sosna-U", it was impossible to indicate in the TOR that in terms of dimensions it should take the place of the old sight 1: 1?

      It is obvious that this was the case.
      Therefore, the Sosna-U sight fits perfectly into the place of the former Night Vision Sight.
      And the daytime 1A40 with a laser rangefinder was left as a backup.
      And reserve sights are a standard requirement of the Moscow Region, both the USSR and the Russian Federation. And it is absolutely correct that such requirements exist!
      Therefore, in an "ideal world" it would be correct to make 2 sights, or rather 3:
      - Sosna-U with Cheburashka and put 1A40 in place.
      - next to it is a backup daytime optical with 1A40 functionality.
      - put your panorama to the commander. With the function of the sight, but in the panoramas it is already provided.
      However, this is not the cheapest pleasure.
  5. +2
    22 July 2023 06: 33
    Eduard Sosna is not a Belarusian design bureau Bearing product? Isn't this the reason that we began to buy and receive them much less?
    1. +3
      22 July 2023 23: 03
      Quote: Thrifty
      Eduard Sosna is not a Belarusian design bureau Bearing a product?

      How to eat Belarusian
      Even the article is on the site
      https://topwar.ru/16618-mnogokanalnoe-teplovizionnoe-pricelnoe-prisposoblenie-navodchika-sosna-u.html
      Quote: Thrifty
      Isn't this the reason that we began to buy and receive them much less?

      No, not in this.
      Just limited production capacity.
      And there is no way to quickly expand their capabilities.
      Even in the absence of sanctions. Well, even more so with sanctions.
      In addition, he (Sosna-U) is also regular on the BMP-3, and on the BMD-4, that is, new troikas come with him.
      Accordingly, without it, cars will not have a sight at all, and no one will allow this.
      In addition, everyone read the news by how much the production of BMP-3 was increased compared to 2019.
      1. +4
        23 July 2023 22: 09
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        In addition, he (Pine-U) is a full-time one on the BMP-3, and on the BMD-4, .....

        Place gunner BMD-4M. Everything is on the mind: the main sight is right in front of the gunner, there is also a "cheburashka" right there, at the bottom left there is a turret turn indicator that does not block anything. Screen from the thermal channel, slightly to the left, but this is not critical. The backup sight is slightly to the right, but there are no options here.
        With modernized tanks, it’s understandable, but why couldn’t the new T-90M be immediately made like the BMD-4M?
        1. 0
          23 July 2023 22: 35
          Quote: Bad_gr
          With modernized tanks, it’s understandable, but why couldn’t the new T-90M be immediately made like the BMD-4M?

          Good question.
          The answer to which we will obviously never know.
          1. 0
            26 July 2023 08: 18
            Because a significant part of the T-90M is the modernization of the T-90A. With modified turrets from them in the stern. And the BMD-4 turret was originally designed for the Sosna installation.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. -4
    22 July 2023 07: 11
    Quote: Not the fighter
    The tank in general is a standard thing. The author writes that "Sosna-U" is LESS than the old sight in size. Why, when creating "Sosna-U", it was impossible to indicate in the TOR that in terms of dimensions it should take the place of the old sight 1: 1? Or is it again the problem of the industry "eat what they give, otherwise this will not happen."

    The problem is simple - all those who are interested, who are sitting on cash flows, show the effectiveness of their work in beautiful reports - "here they have developed, it has become smaller in size, it means better, reward me, my beloved."
    In addition to their pocket, few people are interested in anything - except to stay in a warm place.
    1. +3
      22 July 2023 09: 51
      Not Soviet times, when they spent on the army without counting ... The budget of the military is now limited and they will not let you spend more than they let you. There are priority areas, there are less significant ones, and funds are being distributed along them ... That is why they are looking for economically justified solutions. Yes, you can do better, but it will also cost much more.
  8. 0
    22 July 2023 07: 18
    Military ergonomics is the weak point of the Soviet defense industry. Something of the sight that all of them should have been entered on the screens for a long time simply because information can be obtained this way faster.
    Eh, But we thought that armats would fight
  9. 0
    22 July 2023 10: 15
    I recall the proverb about the problems of blacks ... The military-industrial complex does not do what is necessary, convenient and the military wants, but what makes a profit. Hence all the problems. You need to break it through the knee.
    1. +6
      22 July 2023 12: 00
      Quote: quaric
      The military-industrial complex does not do what is necessary, convenient and the military wants, but what makes a profit
      Who told you such nonsense? Where did you see a particularly profitable defense industry? In the West? In our country, if the State Defense Order is completed without loss, it’s already good. For the slightest delay, they sue and hang fines, ruthlessly cut man-days. The military-industrial complex works according to the TOR. TK is approved by the military.
      1. 0
        22 July 2023 16: 37
        My dear, why then the West will not cut its defense industry since it is not profitable? And now we also have capitalism and the capitalists make money on everything, it will be necessary to give my sister to a brothel. soldier
        1. +6
          22 July 2023 18: 01
          Quote: V.
          My dear, why then the West will not cut its defense industry since it is not profitable?
          In the West, it may be profitable, but in our country, in order to continue to deal with the state defense order, even a criminal article was introduced for refusing the state defense order (Article 201.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Try to find out why the Khrunichev plant went bankrupt (hint: not only the suspension of unprofitable organizations on it was the reason for this).
          Quote: V.
          And now we also have capitalism and the capitalists make money on everything, it will be necessary to give my sister to a brothel. soldier
          Maybe someone makes money on the state defense order, but not industry.
      2. +4
        24 July 2023 08: 44
        Well, they gave military specifications for the introduction of Sosny-U. UVZ presented options, maybe even assembled several mock-ups in order to approve some one, the military approved the cheapest one, because "there is no money, but you hold on."
    2. +3
      22 July 2023 17: 00
      Somewhere around the beginning of the 80s, the military-industrial complex gradually degenerated into an industrial-military complex. The Moremans for sure, checked on themselves :(
  10. +3
    22 July 2023 12: 24
    There are 2 more disadvantages of Sosny-U
    1) In the original version, he did not have an armored curtain. There was only an armored cap with 4 bolts. Before the battle, you always had to get out of the tank and unscrew it manually - such a prospect. It seems like in the t-72b3m it was fixed and now the armored shutters open without leaving the tank.
    2) The main and optical sights are located very close to each other, not only inside, but also outside. Any arrival of HE in this part of the tower, even without breaking through the armor, will most likely disable both sights. Moreover, the optical one does not have an armored shutter at all and is covered only by a small visor.
    1. 0
      22 July 2023 20: 59
      1) In the original version, he did not have an armored curtain. There was only an armored cap with 4 bolts. Before the battle, you always had to get out of the tank and unscrew it manually - such a prospect.

      Complete nonsense (if this is true of course).
      Why close it at all if not in battle? fool
      1. +4
        22 July 2023 23: 21
        Quote: Arzt
        Complete nonsense (if this is true of course).

        No, this is not nonsense.
        That's the way things are.
        Just a requirement to reduce the cost of everything and everyone from the most effective.
        And of course, a lever with springs is much more expensive than a free gunner with a wrench.
        1. +1
          23 July 2023 22: 42
          Quote from Escariot
          In the original version, he did not have an armored curtain. There was only an armored cap with 4 bolts ......
          And what's with the aim? You also write down its location on the tower in the shortcomings of the sight.
          Where are the armored shutters as part of the sighting system?
      2. +2
        23 July 2023 01: 59
        In battle, it should just be open so that the gunner can see the battlefield, but let's say on the march or in the rear it should be closed. You never know, a stray artillery shell or a grenade from a quadrocopter will fly in and smash an expensive thing with fragments.
        1. +4
          23 July 2023 10: 42
          On the march, he will cover the lenses with mud, when wiping, the glass will be scratched - it will not be possible to use it normally. Therefore, in peacetime, it was bolted, because night firing at heat-contrast targets occurs once a year at the end. Okay, not once, but not often. In all other cases, use a day sight.
          1. 0
            23 July 2023 22: 39
            Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2
            On the march, it will cover the lenses with mud, when wiping, the glass will be scratched - it will not be possible to use it normally

            It `s naturally.
            But no one bothers to keep the armored shutters closed.
            And of course bolts and a wrench are cheaper in peacetime.
          2. +1
            24 July 2023 08: 51
            On the march, it will cover the lenses with mud, when wiping, the glass will be scratched - it will not be possible to use it normally

            And there is no hydro-pneumatic cleaning system or a janitor at least?
            1. 0
              26 July 2023 08: 31
              On 1A40 there is. And it does not close with a curtain because it was the main one and should always be ready for battle. In the parking lot, on the march, etc. But the joke is that he has now become a spare, and the main one was left under the armored curtain. Instead of installing a visor, wiper and GPO. Covering with a sash is cheaper. Well, in battle, you don’t need to unscrew the bolts. Normal tankers always leave one upper left (in the direction of the tank) bolt slightly loosened, and the rest are removed. If necessary, with a slight movement of the hand, the armored cap leans back.
              1. 0
                28 July 2023 17: 51
                Horrible. Well, damn it, why couldn't it be done normally? Unfortunately, there is no way to express everything that I think about this, because VO rubs profanity, but there are no such words in the normative one.
          3. 0
            26 July 2023 08: 26
            Night shootings are carried out as much as day shootings. Shooting exercises are carried out almost always twice a day - day and night.
    2. 0
      26 July 2023 08: 22
      The main and optical sights are located very close to each other, not only inside, but also outside. Any arrival of HE in this part of the tower, even without breaking through the armor, will most likely disable both sights.


      Any HE arrival is definitely more likely to incapacitate the crew in the tower.
      1. 0
        26 July 2023 14: 10
        Watching what OF. In the end, it could be a 60mm mine and a grenade dropped from a drone.
  11. +1
    22 July 2023 16: 06
    I think all the information from these two devices needs to be converted into digital format and so that the gunner and tank commander, and the driver, in virtual reality glasses, control the shooting and observation of the enemy at any time of the day with a joystick in their hands. Nowadays, it is not so difficult to do this. soldier
  12. +2
    22 July 2023 16: 39
    Quote: V.
    I think all the information from these two devices needs to be converted into digital format and so that the gunner and tank commander, and the driver, in virtual reality glasses, control the shooting and observation of the enemy at any time of the day with a joystick in their hands. Nowadays, it is not so difficult to do this. soldier

    Not difficult. Only for this you need to have the production of your own displays and other electronic components
    1. 0
      24 July 2023 08: 54
      yes, not necessarily, this can be done from components available on the civilian market.
  13. 0
    22 July 2023 17: 49
    Did the author point with Cheburashka? It also needs to be changed to a more accurate joystick, I manually aimed at a target moving perpendicularly, since the Cheburashka cannot smoothly accompany the target. Cheburashka has a too short stroke, which makes finishing near the center difficult. Simply increasing the distance between the knobs will have a dramatic effect on accuracy.
    1. +4
      22 July 2023 18: 55
      I'm even wondering how you imagine it physically. Cheburashka is screwed from below to the sight screwed to the ceiling. How do you put a joystick in its place? Will you turn it upside down?
      And yet, Chuberashka has another non-obvious purpose, namely, the gunner holds on to her. Well, sometimes it shakes in the tank and an additional point of support will obviously not hurt him.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  14. 0
    23 July 2023 12: 26
    More sights, good and different.
  15. +1
    23 July 2023 14: 26
    Surprised, the ergonomics and convenience of the gunner's work are one of the components of the combat effectiveness of the object, think about upgrading the gunner's seat and other jobs. Apparently they did not think about it as well as air conditioning.
    1. 0
      24 July 2023 09: 52
      Why didn't you think? They just saved.
  16. 0
    24 July 2023 17: 54
    "Sosna-U" is regarded as a kind of immutable reality. But for sure, you can reconfigure the device itself, taking into account the internal layout of the tank.
  17. 0
    28 July 2023 10: 31
    It is clear that everything is already outdated. But what can you do when industry, science, personnel, especially in microelectronics, are in the pen. Let a solid, condo, Soviet quality remain in the tank as a backup. But perhaps it’s time for tankers to make modern helmets with information displayed on a helmet-mounted display? With a good panorama, high-quality image and all that. So you can upgrade old tanks, I don’t think it will take up much space. For pilots, they have been doing it for a long time.
  18. 0
    28 July 2023 12: 14
    No, the rearrangement of large, remote equipment tied to armor, most often damage to armor, there’s nothing to talk about!
    But to speculate about how the eyepiece was given to the image intensifier tube, as much as possible!
    A few decades ago, this could be understood by those who know how to calculate reliability.
    But today, the very concept of an image intensifier tube as a single node sins against reliability and security, it doesn’t matter ...
    ... today you can hang the screen anywhere, including the helmet, for both the commander and the driver.
    Yes, and you can electrically take out a cheburashka, or even turn it into a cheburator, to which you just indicate the goal ...
  19. 0
    31 July 2023 16: 37
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    What could be easier?

    It is that simplicity which is worse than theft.