The same “Belka”: Morozov about his vision of a promising tank

“Object 490”, “Object 490B” or “Squirrel” - as they name the concept tank E. A. Morozov, which has long been the subject of controversy and various kinds of insinuations. Some say that the car is completely fictitious, while others say that the tank was almost made of metal.

In fact, the truth is in the middle: there was not a single full-fledged copy of this tank, but the developments that died at the preliminary design stage actually existed. Moreover, in the magazine “Bulletin of Armored Equipment” for 1991, a very voluminous article by Morozov was published about his vision of a promising tank. Of course, the idea is practically unviable, but it’s worth getting acquainted with the designer’s thoughts, which is why we are publishing it here, providing some illustrations.

Possible version of an unconventional tank layout

The advantages and disadvantages of the traditional classical tank layout are analyzed. A possible variant of a non-traditional tank layout is proposed, which provides an increase in its survivability compared to the classical one.

Currently, the army of almost every developed country in the world is armed with tanks. Despite the significant increase in the effectiveness of anti-tank weapons, they remain one of the main types of weapons of the Ground Forces. This is explained by the unique combination of powerful weapons, reliable protection and high mobility in a single vehicle.

It can be argued that the level of combat and operational qualities is greatly influenced not only by its tactical and technical characteristics, but also by the principle of constructing the overall layout of the vehicle.

For almost a quarter of a century, from the appearance of the first tanks in the army (1916) until the end of the 30s, there was a practical search for the appearance of this new type of weapon. During this period, tanks of different weight classes appeared - light, medium and heavy with various designs and layouts, with a crew of two to 12 people, on wheels, caterpillars and combined drives. They were armed with from one to five cannons of a relatively small caliber.

A characteristic feature of this design of tanks was the relatively weak bulletproof armor, since it was precisely from the growing number of rapid-fire small arms weapons the armor was supposed to protect the crew.

At the end of the 1930s, the T-34 tank was adopted by the Red Army, which, as the experience of World War II showed, embodied not only the optimal level of tactical and technical characteristics and high manufacturability of the design, but also determined the rational layout scheme of that time. It was appreciated and accepted as a role model by tank developers, both in the USSR and abroad, and was replicated many times in various tank designs during the Second World War, as well as in the post-war years.

The distinctive features of the layout of the T-34 tank include the following:

1) an armored body with large frontal plate angles and a differentiated level of protection in azimuth;

2) a 360° rotating turret with a cannon and combat crew (tank commander, gunner and loader);

3) engine-transmission compartment (MTO) with a diesel engine, located in the rear part of the hull;

4) control compartment with the driver in the bow of the hull.

This layout scheme gave a number of advantages to this tank, which became the most popular model of armored vehicles of the 40s. Analyzing this layout, we can note the following inherent qualities:

– Placing the main armament (gun) and its combat crew at the top of the vehicle provides a good overview of the battlefield and effective use of the tank’s firepower at long distances.

– Placing the driver in the bow of the hull allows him, in the 90...120° sector, to have a good overview of the route of movement at short average distances, which does not limit high average speeds in battle and on the march.

– The rear location of the power plant in combination with the engine systems, fuel and transmission and drive wheels ensures the compactness of the MTO systems with minimal communication routes, and its shielding by the front part of the hull and turret from the damaging effects of enemy fire supports the high survivability of the power plant, and, as a result, preserves tank mobility in battle.

– Refusal of the wheeled-tracked drive, which was equipped with pre-war high-speed tanks, and equipping them with a chassis with a purely tracked propulsion system made it possible to provide structurally simple and reliable means of ensuring high cross-country ability, acceptable agility and sufficient smoothness when driving over uneven terrain.

The layout scheme developed during the creation of the T-34 tank was so successful that since 1940 it has become traditional for world tank building. The rich experience of the Second World War confirmed its vitality and prospects. This is precisely what can explain the lack of serious attempts to change anything, as a result of which over the next 50 years the layout of the vast majority of Soviet and foreign tanks has not undergone fundamental changes, despite the fact that the level of tactical and technical characteristics of the tank has continuously increased over these years.

The M1 Abrams tank is one of the representatives of tanks with a classic layout

Thus, the caliber of the gun increased by 1,5 times, engine power by 2–3 times, and the level of armor protection by 5–8 times. An automatic loader for the main armament appeared, and the crew size was reduced to three people. Nevertheless, the above layout scheme has been preserved to this day, having received the name “classical” among specialists.

Those rare deviations from established traditions, represented by the Swedish turretless tank Strv 103B with a cannon rigidly mounted in the hull, and the Israeli Merkava Mk. 2, Mk. 3 with a front-mounted MTO, rather confirm than refute the general trends in global tank building.

At the same time, it should be noted that the constant increase in the combat properties of the tank, natural in the conditions of technical progress, and the rivalry of the main countries developing tanks encounter a number of technical difficulties in the layout plan, which gradually develop into contradictions and insoluble problems. Thus, increasing the security of a tank entails an increase in the mass of the tank, which negatively affects a number of important qualities and, above all, mobility. For example, the weight of the T-34 tank produced in 1940 was 26 tons, and the T-80U tank with a 6TD engine produced in 1990 reached 46,1 tons.

Dynamic protection, which was developed in the 80s and the equipping of mass-produced tanks with it, somewhat restrains the growth of the tank’s weight. Nevertheless, even today, weight reduction remains the most pressing and problematic issue for both domestic and foreign tank building.

The constant desire to increase the specific power of a tank, necessary to ensure the tank's superiority in mobility over its opponent in marching and combat conditions, forces the creation of power plants with high rated power, which reduce power utilization rates on the march and worsen fuel efficiency.

The increase in power of the power plant is caused primarily by an increase in the mass of the tank and the desire to improve its acceleration characteristics. The consequence of this is an increase in the volume of transported fuel, which adversely affects the balance of the reserved volume, especially since in order to increase the survivability of the tank, there is a tendency to reduce the volume of fuel placed outside the vehicle.

A number of complications are caused by the intensive growth in the caliber of the main weapons. An increase in the caliber and, consequently, the length of the barrel leads to an increase in the dimensions of the breech of the gun and the armored volume it sweeps during the vertical pumping of the gun and the horizontal rotation of the turret. In addition, the increase in the size of ammunition complicates their placement in the automatic loader and leads to a reduction in ammunition.

These and many other problematic issues that arise before the developers of promising tanks, in our opinion, can be resolved only if they move away from traditional solutions and, above all, in relation to the layout of the tank.

Tank MBT-70

In the 70s, foreign experts carried out in-depth studies of new tank layouts with fundamental differences from the classical design. In the USA, the development of the MVT-70 tank was undertaken, where the entire crew of three people was located in the turret. The driver's capsule had a corresponding counter-rotation when the turret rotated, due to which the driver was always oriented in the direction of movement of the tank.

In Germany, an experimental VTI tank of a turretless design with two guns in the hull above the tracked contours was being developed. The guns in the 105 and 120 mm variants were stabilized in the vertical plane, and in the horizontal plane, guidance was carried out by turning the vehicle. It was supposed to increase the probability of hitting with the first shot to 90% instead of 75% for a turret tank.

Published foreign reports on the further search for promising layout schemes are mainly limited to the development of remote and semi-external weapons, which makes it possible to reduce the area of ​​the frontal and side projection and limit the increase in the mass of the tank.

In general, the revision of the classic tank layout is currently being carried out very carefully and is focused on the long term. At the same time, it is impossible to significantly increase the combat effectiveness of a tank without breaking established canons and traditions that have been established for many decades.

It is necessary to name the fundamental problems of the general layout of the tank, without solving which it is difficult to count on a way out of the current deadlock.

1. The size of the crew must be kept to a minimum and placed in a single compact habitable compartment. This will make it relatively easy to ensure reliable protection of only this compartment from the entire range of destructive agents, including chemical, bacteriological and radiation exposure, and to create the necessary comfort in the habitable compartment. Co-location of the crew radically solves the issues of mutual assistance and interchangeability, significantly simplifies the issues of internal communication and duplication of tank crew functions.

2. All ammunition of the main armament must be fully mechanized and placed in a single automatic loader with a simple trajectory and kinematics for delivering a shot to the gun breech.

3. The entire supply of reserved fuel (except for NZ) must be concentrated in a single container, divided into sections by several partitions to prevent significant loss when armor is penetrated.

4. The tank’s power plant must be able to operate in two modes:

a) maximum power – when driving and difficult road conditions and in combat;

b) in partial mode (~50% Mmax - when driving on good dirt roads and paved roads. Both modes should be equivalent in terms of efficiency, ensuring minimum specific fuel consumption. This is the most radical way to increase the cruising range of a tank with a limited amount of transported fuel .

5. In order to increase the survivability of the chassis, it is advisable to replace the 2-circuit chassis with a 4-circuit chassis with a drive for each circuit. This will make it possible for the tank to not lose mobility if one of the lines (or even two on different sides) breaks.

The implementation of the listed fundamental provisions should be included in the layout diagram at the early stages of design in conjunction with design solutions of the main components and systems, so that the individual tank systems, while performing their own functions, simultaneously contribute to achieving the specified performance characteristics for the vehicle as a whole.

For example, replacing a torsion bar suspension with a hydropneumatic one, in addition to solving the main problem - increasing average speeds by improving the smoothness of the ride - makes it possible to control the tank's ground clearance, which increases its maneuverability and survivability in battle. In addition, the controlled hydropneumatic suspension, by changing the trim of the vehicle, makes it possible to increase the gun pointing angles in the vertical plane. Thus, the introduction of only one system increases the mobility (direct effect), security and firepower of the tank (side effect).

The development of conceptual provisions for a promising layout scheme is only the first stage in the creation of a new tank. Then the most important thing remains - the unification of individual provisions into a single whole, the search for an optimal compromise in case of incompatibility of some initial requirements, the determination to sacrifice secondary indicators for the sake of implementing the most important ones.

Let's consider one of the possible non-traditional tank layout options.

The main principle implemented in this version is the conditional division of the entire vehicle into 5 compartments isolated from each other and their arrangement along the longitudinal axis from bow to stern in a sequence corresponding to their contribution to the combat effectiveness of the tank.

A variant of a non-traditional tank layout: a – longitudinal section; b – plan view with the turret and hull roof removed; 1 – gun; 2 – tower; 3 – turret shoulder strap; 4 – automatic loader compartment cover; 5 – crew compartment; 6 – crew aft hatches; 7 – automatic loader compartment; 8 – power unit compartment; 9 – fuel compartment; 10 – tank body; 11, 16 – engines; 12, 15, 19, 20 – onboard gearboxes for transmitting power to the drive wheels of the front and rear contours; 13, 14, 18, 21 – drive wheels of front and rear contours; 17, 22 – tracks of front and rear contours.

The first is the fuel compartment with the minimum permissible level of armor protection against the most widespread weapons of destruction of the tank. Damage to this compartment and partial loss of fuel in battle will not lead to the tank losing its combat effectiveness.

Behind the fuel compartment in the hull is the power plant compartment, and above it is the main weapons compartment. These compartments have a higher level of protection, since failure of the engine or gun significantly reduces the combat capabilities of the tank. The fuel compartment located in the bow of the hull serves as a screen for the power plant and increases its survivability during shelling.

The power plant includes two identical engines. The hydrostatic transmission allows you to adjust the amount of power transferred to each track. This makes it possible:

– use engines of moderate power with high power of the power plant as a whole;

– continue driving if one of the engines is damaged by combat;

– reduce travel fuel costs by using one of the engines or both together, depending on road conditions.

Then the automatic loader compartment (A3) with ammunition is placed, which has an even higher level of protection and is shielded from frontal fire by the previous three. Damage to this compartment, in addition to the tank losing its firepower, can lead to the detonation of charges with serious consequences. To neutralize the high pressures that arise in the event of detonation of charges, “knockout plates” are provided at the bottom of the compartment, acting as a safety valve. The length of the A3 compartment provides the possibility of placing unitary ammunition and simplifies the kinematics of feeding and sending ammunition into the gun chamber.

The last part of the tank is the crew compartment. The crew is located in a comfortable position - sitting, ensuring all ergonomic requirements. On the roof there is a complex of electro-optical means for searching for targets and controlling the main and additional weapons. This tank layout ensures differentiation of the level of protection and survivability of individual tank components in accordance with their importance.

Possibly one of the models of the Morozov tank

If the first (fuel) compartment has frontal projectile protection at the level specified by the TTT, then the last compartment (crew) will be practically protected 2–2,5 times stronger. Since the creation of shells with such a level of armor penetration is impossible in the foreseeable future, the specified construction of the layout scheme makes it possible to ensure a high probability of tank survival in battle with a minimum mass of armor.

Final World

The proposed version of the non-traditional layout of the tank, which is divided into five isolated compartments with a consistent increase in the level of their armor protection, makes it possible to increase the survivability of the tank with a minimum weight.

[I]Source:
P. F. Gnedash, L. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov Possible version of a non-traditional tank layout / P. F. Gnedash, L. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov // Bulletin of armored vehicles. - 1991. - No. 7.

Comments

[Vladimir80]

The proposed version of the non-traditional layout of the tank, which is divided into five isolated compartments with a consistent increase in the level of their armor protection, makes it possible to increase the survivability of the tank with a minimum weight.

When there was no Internet, one could at least try to ensure the secrecy of military equipment. In today's realities, tanks on the battlefield resemble “guinea pigs”; after the first successful defeat, experience is quickly adopted and the “Wunder Waffe” turns into a dangerous tin can....

[t7310]

Just news - in a “war” it’s dangerous in tanks, I wonder where in a war it’s safer than in a tank? Well, maybe drone control points, at least as long as these points are covered, for example, by tanks..., in tanks it is clearly safer than in infantry where the danger is posed, for example, by a bullet that is not dangerous in a tank, it is clear that it must be used competently, it is clear that it is safer not to fight but that’s something to think about after the “war”

[Ig sura]

Well, not always, first of all, remember one thing: it’s better under protection, but not better without protection; moreover, a tank is a good means of using close combat to suppress points, so tanks are not tin cans, but an excellent weapon for this time

[Amateur]

but also determined the rational layout scheme of that time. It was appreciated and accepted as a role model by tank developers, both in the USSR and abroad, and was replicated many times in various tank designs during the Second World War, as well as in the post-war years.

With all due respect to the T-34 tank and its creators, I would like to clarify with the author how the layout of the T-34 differs from the Renault FT-18, which was created 20 years earlier.
The T-34 is an outstanding tank, but there is no need to attribute to it something that is not there.

[Edward Perov]

I would like to clarify with the author how the layout differs

You don’t need to want this, since these questions can only be asked “in the next world,” and there is no need to rush there. The author died many years ago.

[Amateur]

I meant the author of the article, not the author of the T-34. Mr. Petrov! There is no need to “translate the arrows”. I wrote about your article, not about the tank.
ps My uncle, a front-line soldier, a tanker who lost both legs at the front, spoke about the T-34 exclusively with obscenities because of the driver’s hatch in the frontal armor, which is why he got it in the legs.

[Edward Perov]

I meant the author of the article, not the author of the T-34. Mr. Petrov! There is no need to “translate the arrows”. I wrote about your article, not about the tank.

Not Petrov, but Perov. Author of the article - E.A. Morozov, the son of that Morozov, who was the designer of the T-64 and other combat vehicles. He died a long time ago. The header of this material indicates whose article this is. Or do you have a specific complaint against me?

[KCA]

My grandfather served as a mechanic driver from Finland to Prague, during the Second World War he drove a T-34, not a single injury, two minor concussions after being hit

[陈乐为]

I sympathize with your uncle, but shells don't have eyes. Of course, the protection of the cockpit opening is a noticeable drawback of the T-34, but this does not mean that the T-34 is useless.

[Doctor]

My uncle, a front-line soldier, a tanker who lost both legs at the front, spoke about the T-34 exclusively with obscenities because of the driver’s hatch in the frontal armor, which is why he got his legs.

The distinctive features of the layout of the T-34 tank include the following:

1) an armored body with large frontal plate angles and a differentiated level of protection in azimuth;

About the “rational angles” of armor plates, which, as you know, lie about 60 degrees.

In a regular triangle, the angles will be exactly 60 degrees. But the sides are the same. Therefore, the weight of two armor plates 50 cm thick at an angle of 60 degrees. (legs), will be equal to the weight of one sheet 100 cm thick at an angle of 180 (hypotenuse).

Add here the hemorrhoids of welding at an angle, the “eating up” of useful armor volume, the general complexity of the design, and you will understand why the Germans made a thick “Tiger” with straight walls.
And a hatch on top that cannot be broken.

[Foul skeptic]

Therefore, the weight of two armor plates 50 cm thick at an angle of 60 degrees. (legs), will be equal to the weight of one sheet 100 cm thick at an angle of 180 (hypotenuse).

You don’t take into account that the weight of the side sheets will be less (or the armor volume will be greater). In general, you don’t take a lot of things into account))

About the “rational angles” of the armor plates... and you will understand why the Germans made a thick “Tiger” with straight walls.

How can we understand why all over the world they eventually abandoned the “straight walls” of the forehead))

[Doctor]

How can we understand why all over the world they eventually abandoned the “straight walls” of the forehead))

Have you seen how they are arranged now? This is actually the shape of the armor plate itself.

[Foul skeptic]

What to look for in your picture? It’s not clear what you mean by “the shape of the armor plate itself”?
The leopard has combined armor, and your picture can mislead unknowing people.
This is what a sandwich looks like limited by upper and lower armor plates with rational angles of inclination, in the Leopard's forehead

[Doctor]

What to look for in your picture? It’s not clear what you mean by “the shape of the armor plate itself”?
The leopard has combined armor, and your picture can mislead unknowing people.
This is what a sandwich looks like, bounded by upper and lower armor plates with rational angles of inclination, in the forehead of a Leopard

This is what we are talking about. Modern forms of the tank cannot be considered at all applicable to rational slopes, in the sense as it was understood during the Second World War.

You don't forget one more thing. In order for the projectile to hit a straight armor plate exactly perpendicularly, the gun must be located exactly opposite the tank. If it hits it from the side, for example at an angle of 45%, then a ricocheting angle will occur even with straight sheets, only in a different plane. And most often this happened, because the PTO was installed in batteries.

But the convenience of the crew is much better. This factor perhaps outweighs all these “rational angles”.
Compare the layout of the T-34 and T-IV with approximately equal dimensions

[Foul skeptic]

Modern forms of the tank cannot be considered at all applicable to rational slopes, in the sense as it was understood during the Second World War.

Well, exactly the same principles, even more stringent - after all, even more space in the usable volume must be allocated for combined armor, compared to homogeneous armor.

And most often this happened, because the PTO was installed in batteries.

Or maybe the picture is the opposite))) - with a battery arrangement, you will always have a gun with a firing line closer to the normal than that of individual guns.

Compare the layout of the T-34 and T-IV with approximately equal dimensions

A comparison of dimensions without comparing the mass of armor (protection) will be incorrect.
But we must be honest, the German anti-tank missile system eliminated the best protection at normal combat distances.

[Doctor]

Or maybe the picture is the opposite))) - with a battery arrangement, you will always have a gun with a firing line closer to the normal than that of individual guns.

In theory, yes, but in practice, perhaps the opposite is true. The tank can also “dive” when moving, placing the armor perpendicular; for an attack aircraft, inclined armor is generally ideal.

The fact remains that the T-34’s combat losses are 45.
At the same time, according to the Americans, the probability of the crew dying when penetrated is 75%, including due to the impossibility of getting out. For the Sherman - 18%.
Photo with penetration - more than enough.

There was an article here.
https://topwar.ru/174294-porazhaemost-t-34-otchet-bronevogo-instituta.html

And thick armor is always thick.

[Foul skeptic]

The fact remains that the T-34’s combat losses are 45.

This fact alone, even if one wants to, cannot be associated with the angles of inclination of the armor plates.

At the same time, according to the Americans, the probability of the crew dying during penetration is 75%, due to the inability to get out, among other things. Sherman has 18%.

Need information on the probability of penetration of M4A3 and T-34-85))

[Doctor]

Need information on the probability of penetration of M4A3 and T-34-85))

Yes, they all made their way in about the same way. Except Tiger and Fedya.
But the convenience is incomparable. And convenience means speed of reaction, maneuver, survival.
Driver's place in T-IV. From -3 minutes.

[Foul skeptic]

Yes, they all made their way in about the same way.

Those numbers (75% and 18%) are statistics from the Korean War. And there, for Sherman, even encountering a ZPU-1,2 from the side at 300 meters is fatal. Therefore, you need to look at dangerous anti-tank products not according to the leaders of the list. The devil is always in the details

[futurohunter]

Doctor
I talked with the tank crews. They told me that if the tank caught fire, the T-34 crew had one minute to get out. The Sherman crews and German tanks did not have this moment

[DenVB]

Quote: futurohunter

if the tank caught fire, the T-34 crew had one minute to get out. The Sherman crews and German tanks did not have this moment

"Shermans" scattered across the snow-covered virgin soil. ... Guards Senior Lieutenant Mikhail Kibarev's tank caught fire from a direct hit. The flames, tearing in the wind, blaze behind the turret. Nearby are spare fuel tanks that should have been dropped before the attack, but we are breaking through to the enemy's rear and therefore are forced to deviate from the strict requirements of the instructions...
Loader Mikhail Parfenov climbs up and puts out the fire with a piece of tarpaulin, burning his hands. And the gun commander, Guards Sergeant Nasibulin, continues firing from the gun. The tank commander throws shells into the breech.
The Shermans eventually rush into the firing position, crushing the guns and servants. The tanks stop at my command.

[_KM_]

We are probably talking about millimeters, because... Not a single battleship could withstand steel armor of 100 centimeters.

[Doctor]

Thank you, millimeters of course.

[futurohunter]

Doctor
You probably forgot about the German Panthers and Royal Tigers, which had sloped armor.
The Tiger was rather made in the same traditions as the earlier PzIII and PzIV - simple and technologically advanced boxes. Protection has been improved with thick armor. The increased pressure on the soil was compensated by the staggered arrangement of the rollers. Simple and unpretentious solutions. Nothing groundbreaking about this Tiger. But the T-34 was a breakthrough compared to tanks of the same age

[Doctor]

Doctor
You probably forgot about the German Panthers and Royal Tigers, which had sloped armor.
The Tiger was rather made in the same traditions as the earlier PzIII and PzIV - simple and technologically advanced boxes. Protection has been improved with thick armor. The increased pressure on the soil was compensated by the staggered arrangement of the rollers. Simple and unpretentious solutions. Nothing groundbreaking about this Tiger. But the T-34 was a breakthrough compared to tanks of the same age

The uniqueness of the T-34 does not lie in any breakthrough technologies; it also had plenty of shortcomings.
The main thing we managed to achieve is BALANCE. Primarily between 3 main things: weapons, armor and mobility.
All this with good and satisfactory secondary indicators, manufacturability, maintainability, crew convenience, railway transportation, etc.
It was a tank that could already be used to fight and win.

[Foul skeptic]

The main thing we managed to achieve is BALANCE. Primarily between 3 main things: weapons, armor and mobility.

Balance is not to a small extent - this is precisely the choice of the correct shape - the designers did not just strive to move from a box to a flat faceted spheroid - a sphere has a minimum surface (and therefore surface weight, armor weight) with the maximum volume of other volumetric figures.

[Doctor]

Balance is not to a small extent - this is precisely the choice of the correct shape - the designers did not just strive to move from a box to a flat faceted spheroid - a sphere has a minimum surface (and therefore surface weight, armor weight) with the maximum volume of other volumetric figures.

The main thing in all these “spheroids” is not to reach the point of idiocy. Like in IS-3-4.
From the 2nd minute.

[Foul skeptic]

From the 2nd minute.

Bloggers can take any action to the point of absurdity And mechanical drivers do not need to place the camera, and then themselves relative to the camera, so that the desired frame is obtained.

[Doctor]

Bloggers can take any action request to the point of absurdity. But mechanics don’t need to place the camera, and then themselves in relation to the camera so that the desired frame appears.

Well, our blogger is trying to sit in the driver’s seat. How can you even work there?
The IS-2 does not have a hatch at all. The driver is a suicide bomber right away.
With 12.30.

[futurohunter]

Doctor
What fools the designers were who made round oval towers and wedge-shaped hulls. Here are armchair experts who haven’t even made a model of a tank, but they know how to make tanks

[Doctor]

What fools the designers were who made round oval towers and wedge-shaped hulls. Here are armchair experts who haven’t even made a model of a tank, but they know how to make tanks

Not only sofa, but also real designers made straight, thick-walled cases. Tiger, T-IV, Cromwell, Churchill are such tanks. And many others.

[goose]

Quote: Arzt

Tiger

Tell you how the 46-ton IS-2 differs from the Tiger, weighing from 56 to 65 tons in practice?

[Doctor]

Tell you how the 46-ton IS-2 differs from the Tiger, weighing from 56 to 65 tons in practice?

It would be interesting.

[_KM_]

The blogger is an elderly man, so it is naturally difficult for him to climb into places where a young, medium-sized tanker can easily fit.

Of course, the problem of ergonomics exists; even Kartsev (chief designer of UVZ) wrote about this at one time.

[futurohunter]

_KM_
The problem of ergogonomics exists in any tank, and is essentially insoluble. If we increase the amount of space for the crew, the size and weight of the tank will increase, as will its vulnerability on the battlefield. We will make many convenient hatches for entry in convenient places - we will weaken the armor protection.
Although, without a doubt, it should not be like on the Hetzer to climb through the cannon to get a shell. That is, nothing in the tank should interfere with the crew members doing their work. There must be a comfortable temperature and clean air. There should not be any parts that could cause injury to crew members, etc. But some things - such as small space inside, or ease of exit - are not to the detriment of other qualities of the turtle

[Doctor]

The problem of ergogonomics exists in any tank, and is essentially insoluble. If we increase the amount of space for the crew, the size and weight of the tank will increase, as will its vulnerability on the battlefield. We will make many convenient hatches for entry in convenient places - we will weaken the armor protection.
Although, without a doubt, it should not be like on the Hetzer to climb through the cannon to get a shell. That is, nothing in the tank should interfere with the crew members doing their work. There must be a comfortable temperature and clean air. There should not be any parts that could cause injury to crew members, etc. But some things - such as small space inside, or ease of exit - are not to the detriment of other qualities of the turtle

The problem is the belief in "rational angles". There is no sense in this, especially now, and the fighters rode from above and still ride. Because you can’t get inside, and if you get in, you can’t get out.

[goose]

Quote: futurohunter

Any tank has an ergonomic problem

Excess weight, ergonomic problems, a narrow hatch and wearing winter overalls recede against the background of a high-explosive shell falling into the BO during loading; any tanker flies out of the tank in a second, like a feather.

[futurohunter]

Mmm. The main thing in a tank is...don’t be stupid!
Some tankers I knew didn’t tell me about this.
What do they do then? They run back and wait? What then? Are they calling the sappers?

[goose]

Quote: futurohunter

What do they do then? They run back and wait?

The OFS has a very sensitive fuse; if it does not explode immediately, it is no longer dangerous.

[futurohunter]

In theory, the fuses should not react if the projectile is simply dropped. It should be cocked when a projectile leaves a cannon (I don’t remember the details now)

[goose]

Quote: futurohunter

theoretically, fuses should not react

Anything could happen, which is why 99% of such falls are not fatal, but there is always 1% of chance.

[futurohunter]

Like, the gun hanging on the stage is supposed to go off by the end of the performance?

[goose]

Quote: futurohunter

Like, the gun hanging on the stage is supposed to go off by the end of the performance?

For example, a faulty self-cocking mechanism, an overly sensitive explosive fuse (after 30 years of storage, chemical processes can dramatically increase the sensitivity of explosives to impacts), a hand grenade under a falling shell, and many other rare events that occur much more often in the army than in civilian life.

[futurohunter]

A hand grenade under a falling shell - this is just an enemy saboteur trying his best))
You haven’t yet talked about the fucking life of some military personnel. While I was still serving, I heard a lot. Fortunately, I didn’t see it myself. I remember that when they were throwing combat grenades from the trench, a young soldier dropped a grenade into the trench, behind him everyone jumped out like a bullet, and for some reason the sergeant climbed into the trench again.
Or, the technician did not check the aircraft cannon before removing it from the plane, and it took out his knee - a shell remained in the barrel. A similar situation with a triggered ejection seat

[Doctor]

The blogger is an elderly man, so it is naturally difficult for him to climb into places where a young, medium-sized tanker can easily fit.

A small young man can fit anywhere.
For comparison, this is the driver’s seat in the Tiger, which is equivalent in terms of performance characteristics. From 6 minutes.

[futurohunter]

Doctor
At the time of its appearance, the T-34 was the best tank in the world, in almost all respects (armor protection, survivability, weapon power, mobility). With all its shortcomings (including dampness and lack of development)

[Santa Fe]

The main thing we managed to achieve is BALANCE

Ratings of the tank depend on the conditions of the army where it was adopted. And the industrial capabilities of the country where such a tank was produced

A country that had just undergone belated industrialization was fighting with one of the most developed countries in the world. In the absence of competent and technically educated personnel in the Red Army (as they said, the soldier did not graduate from the academy. Or compare the number of motorcycle clubs in Germany and the USSR before the war).

The T-34 tank in such conditions turned out to be the best solution for the Red Army. Its production was established in tens of thousands. The severe losses were compensated and the tanks became expendable. Alas, this is an objective reality. But in the conditions of the Red Army, this approach worked!

At the same time, the T-34 also had a lot of advanced solutions and its individual performance characteristics were at the level of the best armored vehicles in the world

Fighting as part of the Red Army, such a tank earned fame and became a weapon of Victory. As part of the armies of other countries, the design features of the T-34 would be unacceptable. And such a tank, if it appeared in Germany or the USA, would undergo a specific revision, primarily in terms of improving reliability and working conditions for the crew

[Doctor]

Ratings of the tank depend on the conditions of the army where it was adopted. And the industrial capabilities of the country where such a tank was produced

A country that had just undergone belated industrialization was fighting with one of the most developed countries in the world. In the absence of competent and technically educated personnel in the Red Army (as they said, the soldier did not graduate from the academy. Or compare the number of motorcycle clubs in Germany and the USSR before the war).

The T-34 tank in such conditions turned out to be the best solution for the Red Army. Its production was established in tens of thousands. The severe losses were compensated and the tanks became expendable. Alas, this is an objective reality. But in the conditions of the Red Army, this approach worked!

At the same time, the T-34 also had a lot of advanced solutions and its individual performance characteristics were at the level of the best armored vehicles in the world

Fighting as part of the Red Army, such a tank earned fame and became a weapon of Victory. As part of the armies of other countries, the design features of the T-34 would be unacceptable. And such a tank, if it appeared in Germany or the USA, would undergo a specific revision, primarily in terms of improving reliability and working conditions for the crew

It's like that. But we are talking about a specific thing - rational angles of inclination of armor plates. This topic is always put first in the advantages of the T-34. But not everything is so simple. In addition, a straight-walled tank is easier to make in an industrially undeveloped country. And cheaper.

[goose]

Quote: Arzt

But we are talking about a specific thing - rational angles of inclination of armor plates

Have you ever heard about tank manufacturing technology, cost, etc. boring production and technological things?
If you are making a 100mm armor plate, equivalent to a 60mm plate tilted at 45 degrees, you have to harden it to the full depth, weld it to the full depth, roll that armor plate. And if you also make grooves, like the Germans, and cement the armor... As a result, the cost will go into space with almost equal armor protection. It is the opportunity to obtain equal armor protection at a quarter of the price that is the achievement of the T-34, without the need for a special rolling mill, presses, or very expensive equipment (which the USSR could not buy or manufacture due to the blockade).
I want to remind you that in the USSR, model 1940, rolling even 75 mm armor plates presented a certain problem. And it was for technological reasons that the transition to the T-34M with 60-mm armored parts was postponed, and it was for these reasons that the turrets were not welded, but cast.
I think you should dig deeper in this direction before promoting square tanks.

[Doctor]

Have you ever heard about tank manufacturing technology, cost, etc. boring production and technological things?
If you are making a 100mm armor plate, equivalent to a 60mm plate tilted at 45 degrees, you have to harden it to the full depth, weld it to the full depth, roll that armor plate. And if you also make grooves, like the Germans, and cement the armor... As a result, the cost will go into space with almost equal armor protection. It is the opportunity to obtain equal armor protection at a quarter of the price that is the achievement of the T-34, without the need for a special rolling mill, presses, or very expensive equipment (which the USSR could not buy or manufacture due to the blockade).
I want to remind you that in the USSR, model 1940, rolling even 75 mm armor plates presented a certain problem. And it was for technological reasons that the transition to the T-34M with 60-mm armored parts was postponed, and it was for these reasons that the turrets were not welded, but cast.
I think you should dig deeper in this direction before promoting square tanks.

This is interesting. How did you get into IP? Or when it’s hot, don’t care about the cost?

[Tima62]

[quote]and you will understand why the Germans made a thick “Tiger” with straight walls.quote] Probably the German designers who made the Panther and the Royal Tiger were not familiar with the Germans who made the Tiger with straight walls.

[futurohunter]

Tima62

Probably the German designers who made the Panther and the Royal Tiger were not familiar with the Germans who made the Tiger with straight walls

Now I don’t remember who did what there. But the Box Tiger appeared as a fry before the Panther and Shell Tiger. For the Germans, the box was a classic and a design with a minimum of technical risk. But the shells were something new

[ailcat]

Firstly, 60 degrees from the normal (perpendicular to the direction of the projectile). This is not always 60 degrees even from the vertical position (68, if memory serves, for standard battle conditions in the 1960s. The ballistics of tank guns have changed little since then).
Secondly, sheets with rational angles of inclination work not only as an increase in thickness, but also, first of all, ensure ricocheting of “blanks” (armor-piercing projectiles), including sub-caliber ones with a blunt tip (and this, in addition to the inclination, also requires and cross plates).
That is, to a first approximation, “all other things being equal” (from your data), a vertical sheet of 100 mm and an inclined sheet of 50 will both “withstand” the conditional 10 hits, but will not withstand the 11th (it seems to be the same, right?)... Here only the vertical sheet will receive all 11 incoming shells, and from the sheet with a rational tilt another 10 shells will ricochet, not being among those when the “11th one hits.”

[Doctor]

But the vertical sheet will receive all 11 incoming projectiles, and from the sheet with a rational tilt another 10 projectiles will ricochet, not being among those when the “11th one hits.”

They don't ricochet anywhere unless at very sharp angles.
Armor-piercing shells of those times, for example our BR-350, were blunt-ended, with a soft head fairing; when they met armor, such a shell turned toward the armor and “normalized” in a smart way.
It didn't help Panther.

[futurohunter]

Doctor
Such “catchy” shells did not appear immediately. By the way, they won’t catch at any angle of meeting

[ailcat]

Naturally. But at the time the A-32 prototype was tested by fire, an angle of 45 degrees was sufficient for the ricochet of a pak.36 cannon shell (and a Soviet 45). Moreover, shelling tests in 1942 (probably when sub-caliber projectiles with a blunt tip became quite widespread among the Wehrmacht) showed that the angle of inclination of the frontal plate was 60 degrees (the angle of impact of the projectile when firing from long distances was 52-56 degrees to the normal ) is still enough for even blunt-headed armor-piercing blanks to ricochet, but the side angles of 45 degrees no longer lead to a ricochet of such shells (probably this is why in the T-43 and later projects the inclined sides were abandoned in favor of a simple vertical side)

[ivan2022]

Quote: Amateur

My uncle, a front-line soldier, a tanker who lost both legs at the front, spoke about the T-34 exclusively with obscenities because of the driver’s hatch in the frontal armor, which is why he got his legs.

Among my ancestors there are also maimed and killed soldiers, but I will not frame them.

If you mentioned the uncle yourself, then at least explain how he "got it in the legs" through the landing hatch, was he feet first? Was the hatch open?
Many people praised this hatch because it increased visibility, which saved many lives. So the issue is moot. It weighed approximately 100-150 kg and had anti-ballistic armor.

The infantry didn't have any hatches at all, that's how they fought...and cursed the fascists, not the designers of their weapons.
Those who use it correctly will not fail.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Amateur

ps My uncle, a front-line soldier, a tanker who lost both legs at the front, spoke about the T-34 exclusively with obscenities because of the driver’s hatch in the frontal armor, which is why he got it in the legs.

If there had been no hatch, then there would have been even more swearing at the T-34 - for the disgusting view.
For the driver with his hatch was the only one who saw anything until the middle of the war.
Here are the test results of the pre-war serial T-34 - visibility from the tank commander's seat:

The lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire problem due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 is used only for aiming.
(...)
With simultaneous operation of the rotary mechanism and observation in the PT-6 device, the flywheel and the control handle rest against the chest, making it difficult for the turret to rotate quickly.
(...)
Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head is deflected from the forehead of the PT-6 device, i.e. the rotation of the tower is actually done blindly ...
Telescopic sight TOD-6.
The window of the scale of angles of aiming of the telescopic sight is blocked by the lever of the angles of the terrain of the PT-6 device ... Installation of sighting data is possible at elevation angles of 4 - 5,5 degrees and 9 - 12 degrees, which actually makes it impossible to fire with the TOD-6 sight.
(...)
Periscope sight PT-6.
At an elevation angle of 7 degrees and below, up to the maximum descent angle, access to the handle of the circular view mechanism is possible with only three fingers.
(...)
The viewing device of the "circular review".
Access to the device is extremely difficult and observation is possible in a limited sector to the right up to 120 degrees ... A limited field of view, the complete impossibility of observation in the rest of the sector and ... the inconvenient position of the head during observation makes the viewing device unusable.
(...)
Tower Observation Devices (Side)
The location of the viewing devices relative to the observer is inconvenient. The disadvantages are a significant dead space (15,5 m), a small viewing angle, the impossibility of cleaning protective glasses without leaving the tank and a low position relative to the seat.
All PT-6, TOD-6 sighting devices installed on the tank and observation devices in the fighting compartment and control compartment are not protected from atmospheric precipitation, road dust and dirt.

[vadim dok]

By the way, the T-34 had only 3 hatches for 4 people, which made it difficult to rescue the crew members.

[vadim dok]

In addition, the slopes of the armor greatly reduce the armor volume.

[Ig sura]

Well, the box section increases the mass of tanks, what do you say to that?

[Ig sura]

What is the difference between the T34 and Renault? In essence, you are comparing an elephant with Muravyov. That is, the T34 has a much higher speed and different armor. Why did French tanks with increased armor lose to German tanks? Because they were slow and less maneuverable, and difficult to repair. That was the French wonder weapon. And I will also answer for you. When the Germans took trophies and used these trophies, they somehow did not even remember about French tanks. Can you tell me why they fought better on the T34, but somehow they did not want French trophies, although there were French trophies in the German army because they knew that the French were no match for the T34 in metal?

[Amateur]

What is the difference between the T34 and Renault? In fact, you are comparing an elephant with Muravyov, that is, the speed of the T34 is much higher, and the armor is different

What does the speed and thickness of the armor have to do with it if we are talking about the ARRANGEMENT of tanks?
ps Happy Holidays!

[Ig sura]

And you were probably a tank driver at that time, you understand perfectly well what the layout was like, if there was a sheet at an angle in front, it means the French tank was better, that's hilarious

[t7310]

French tanks with increased armor lost to German tanks because...

...because the German command made the right decisions and the French command was not ready for Germany’s decisions, in this particular case the strategy won and not the tanks, and it seems like a miracle helped us survive the first year of the war and avoid the fate of France, and in the first year too according to “honest”, according to “knightly” one on one, yes, ours would have been easy... and the French, according to “honest”, probably would have too..., but the rules of war are not “honest”, they don’t have more chances to win who has slightly better tanks and the system of soldiers - commander - resources - politics - training..., "systems" then fought "states" and not just tanks or people, and these systems already decided whether they had enough of those tanks and other things or needed more tanks or other tanks anyway, so where should these tanks be? France lost at the moment where these tanks should be and so on, many of their tanks remained on railway platforms, it is possible that the French command was bought by the Germans or sympathized with the Germans

[Dutchman Michel]

I once read an article about a Swedish tank that did not have a classic turret. The tank had one fixed gun, which was aimed either by simply turning the hull itself or by tilting it, using a hydraulic system. But somehow this tank did not take root in the Swedish army

[Edward Perov]

But somehow this tank did not take root in the Swedish army

Strv-103 existed among the Swedes for many years and smoked the sky.

[Xenofont]

In the 70s, the Swedes were looking for a viable version of a new tank under the UDES program and created a working prototype of an articulated tank, even installing a 120mm Leopard cannon on it. The tests were carried out quite successfully, but it was decided that there was no point in using such complex structures.

[alexandre II]

The tank was called STRV, and it caught on, it’s just that everything becomes outdated over time, but the tank is very interesting, a gas turbine engine, an ammunition loading system, an automatic loader, etc.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote from: alexandre

,gas turbine engine

Combined power plant (diesel + gas turbine engine)! Just the realization of the author's dream of 2 modes (cruise/combat) of engine (power plant) operation! And the Swedes have been interested in the automatic loader (AZ) “for a long time and constantly”, and installed it on various armored vehicles (guns)!

[Foul skeptic]

The tank was called STRV

STRV is an abbreviation for Stridsvagn - tank))) - a traditional abbreviation for Swedish tank models. How do we have the letter "T"

[parusnik]

I once read an article about a Swedish tank

In the magazine Tekhnika-Molodezhi, in the early 80s there was such an article, it was not only about the Swedish tank.

[Lykases1]

Well, it no longer looks like a tank, but like a self-propelled gun. Once upon a time, there was an article about him. An interesting machine, but its use is limited by its design. That's why they refused

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Lykases1

An interesting machine, but its use is limited by design

What exactly did the design limit? Is fire control too complicated due to the rigid mounting of the gun?

[Lykases1]

The inability to fire on the move, if the pneumatic system is damaged, it loses effectiveness; if the track is damaged, it simply loses the ability to conduct aimed fire. Ineffective for battles in the city. But it is very good for ambush tactics - low silhouette, variable ground clearance, very fast reloading. Well, that's how I understand it.

[futurohunter]

Lykases1
Strv-103 - for one or two shots. After this he is finished

[ved_med12]

"At the end of 1930, the T-34 tank was adopted by the Red Army,"


It would probably be correct to write “at the end of the 30s of the 20th century”!

[Edward Perov]

It would probably be correct to write “at the end of the 30s of the 20th century”!

Thank you! It's good that you read the materials carefully! Let's fix it.

[Vadim S]

The idea of ​​such a tank is interesting, but everything new here takes root very poorly, and more often than not, it doesn’t take root. Everything needs to be done from scratch, maybe except for the gun and engine, production needs to be rebuilt, no one will do that. They will make the most of what they have.

[pavel.tipin]

Are “drone launchers” on a tank chassis the future?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote from pavel.tipingmail.com

Are “drone launchers” on a tank chassis the future?

And what ? Anything can happen! On the VO pages, relatively recently, one of the VO authors drew pictures of self-propelled ATGMs on a tank "base": including as an alternative to assault guns for urban combat! Probably, it's time for him to replace the ATGMs in these pictures with drones!

[egsp]

I don’t remember who wrote it and where, but the meaning of the article was this: In the future, a symbiosis of a tank and an aircraft is most likely possible. That is, the armor and power of a tank gun and the ability to move regardless of the terrain from an airplane/helicopter.
The idea is tempting, but this “flying tank” will need an anti-gravity engine from Star Wars.

[futurohunter]

egsp
There are already flying tanks - attack aircraft and fire support helicopters. Sorry for the armor, but no Mouse can match the power of weapons

[Adrey]

I came across a good article on this project on AI. From memory, it comes from the early-mid 80s, the production base of the project was KhTZ. They didn’t stop at the paper version then; the development reached the stage of a metal model.
Contrary to what was suggested in the comments, the gun was not rigidly mounted and had relatively decent horizontal aiming angles. As a know-how, in a vertical plane it could even be thrown onto the roof of the habitable compartment and used as an air duct when moving under water. The caliber, by the way, is the now coveted 152 mm.
The project didn't take off. It still looks revolutionary, but then it was simply futuristic. Another reason, and apparently the main one, was the shock from the price of the product after calculating the final cost.

[futurohunter]

The author somehow very vaguely explained the advantage of exactly those solutions as proposed in such a fancy tank. Personally, I see only 2 advantages: unlike most modern tanks, good roof protection, an easy-to-manufacture form of the top armor plate (or several armor plates).
Then there are the cons. The complexity of the design - yes. As a result, a large mass. Morozov, apparently, thought that they would shoot at the tank exclusively from the front, so from the front, yes, this is a practically invulnerable fortress. But the tanks are fired at from all sides, and the crew is least protected from fire from behind. Until the first sub-caliber projectile in the stern. With the “classic” layout, the tank has the thickest armor at the front, and the crew is covered at the rear by the engine. In this tank, the crew is covered from behind only by armor, which is probably thinner.
The crew sitting at the back receives a huge blind area in front, which is covered by a huge cannon. And the rotation of the turret immediately obscures the view of one of the crew members. Hang it with cameras? What if the electronics fail and only optics remain? Moreover, difficulties with visibility appear immediately for the entire crew.
4 caterpillars? Well, yes, it’s easier to change a shorter track. But if such a monster gets stuck in the mud, it will be much more difficult to pull it out. I'm guessing that this dirt and rocks will also get into the space between the rear and front tracks. And if any caterpillar breaks, this monster will be able to continue driving only on hard ground or asphalt. In arable land, and even more so in mud, it will also get stuck, like a “regular” two-track tank. Was it worth it to fence the garden?
The crew also experiences psychological discomfort – the “motor boat effect”. This is when the boatman sits at the stern, and during any turn, the hull of the boat, which protrudes far forward, turns first. By the way, the Armata was scolded for the fact that the gunner and commander “do not feel the rotation of the turret.” In conventional tanks they rotate with the turret and they have a subconscious sense of where they are facing. The same effect will happen here.
Well, and finally, I assume that this masterpiece will be cursed by production workers and technicians.
So we come to the conclusion that the ideal embodiment of the concept for which the author is drowning is that same “Armata”)) But the author never said anything about “Armata”.

[Adrey]

Quote: futurohunter

Morozov, apparently, thought that they would shoot at the tank exclusively from the front, so from the front, yes, this is a practically invulnerable fortress.

There is no need to think here. By that time, huge statistical material had been accumulated about the percentage of hits in different projections of tanks. Now, yes, it requires rethinking, but in any case it will not be possible to create an absolutely invulnerable monster.

Quote: futurohunter

The crew sitting at the back receives a huge blind area in front, which is covered by a huge cannon. And the rotation of the turret immediately obscures the view of one of the crew members.

Triplexes on the roof of the fighting compartment are higher than the cannon.

Quote: futurohunter

But if such a monster gets stuck in the mud, it will be much more difficult to pull it out.

"The cooler the jeep, the further you have to go behind the tractor" . It is difficult to pull out any tank when it sits up to the turret.

Quote: futurohunter

And if any caterpillar breaks, this monster will be able to continue driving only on hard ground or asphalt.

Any modern tank won't go anywhere at all in these conditions

Quote: futurohunter

In arable land, and even more so in mud, it will also get stuck, like a “regular” two-track tank. Was it worth it to fence the garden?

This (like the two engines) was built to increase survivability on the battlefield, and not to improve maneuverability.

Quote: futurohunter

"motorboat effect" This is when the boatman sits at the stern, and during any turn, the hull of the boat, which protrudes far forward, turns first.

In 15 min. you get used to it on the boat. And there is no discomfort at all.

Quote: futurohunter

Well, and finally, I assume that this masterpiece will be cursed by production workers and technicians.

I agree 100% here!

[futurohunter]

Adrey
Huge statistical material about the percentage of hits in different projections of tanks

I suppose this would be the experience of the Great Patriotic War, when tank armadas attacked each other head-on? Well, then the tanks stopped to fire.
As tanks improved, the very nature of tank combat changed. Tanks became fast, maneuverable, and learned to fire at high speed. And the likelihood that a tank will not be fired “head-on” in battle has increased many times over.
True, this “turtle” is clearly not designed for maneuverable combat. Morozov seemed to think the same way as the creators of the Merkava, who viewed their “chariot” simply as a mobile fort.

Triplexes on the roof of the fighting compartment above the gun

You didn't assemble the model of this monster, but I did. And you can even just “put your eye on” the model, spin the gun and look. Your triplexes are not on masts? And the gun is rarely in a horizontal position. The blind area, both front and side, will be huge. And don’t forget about the barmalei from the Gaza Strip.

And if any caterpillar breaks, this monster will be able to continue driving only on hard ground or asphalt

Any modern tank will not go anywhere at all in these conditions

There is a video of a T-80 without one track driving along a hard compacted dirt road.

This (like two engines) was built to increase survivability on the battlefield, and not to improve cross-country ability

The armored personnel carrier eventually abandoned two engines in favor of one. And what will be the higher survivability, if we found out, if if one caterpillar breaks, the monster will still get up.

[Grossvater]

differentiated level of protection in azimuth;

What are you talking about? But the men don’t know! Is it okay that the T-34 hull had 45 mm all around?

[Couchexpert]

The last illustration in the article prompts interesting thoughts: that is, even then the possibility of abandoning the full circular rotation of the tower (reducing the rotation angle to +/-90 degrees along the course) was considered. Yes, and “Belka” itself has nuances with this. But really: in modern conditions, to what extent is the ability to shoot at 360 degrees in demand and necessary for a tank? Only a tower can provide this, imposing a number of technical limitations and creating many problems for designers. If we answer this question with a positive “yes, 360 tower is needed", then IMHO all layout solutions will move somewhere towards "armata-like" concepts (1. we separate the crew and the gun from the ammo in their own separate compartments with an armored wall; 2. we armor the hull to the maximum, the rotating part with the gun is "for delivery" from corps: in the most severe scenarios, the destruction will not go further, we will still be able to escape from the battle). There seem to be no other methods. But if it is enough for us some sector (<180) turning the gun horizontally, then this will allow you to go into, in fact, modern tank destroyers, getting rid of a number of limitations of the classical layout (for example, the vertical aiming angle), which will also make it possible to fully protect both the gun itself and everything else. There are already many more options: the crew can be placed in front “Amato-style”, or the engine can be moved forward, and the crew behind it in the middle part, or the wheelhouse in the middle part, the crew in the stern (approximately as in the last picture)... In general, only application experience (and the desire to acquire this experience) will help in choosing... and another opportunity to lobby for yours, but it is not exactly.

[Adrey]

Quote: CouchExpert

The last illustration in the article gives rise to interesting thoughts:

Throw it down the toilet. In reality, only the diagram is relevant to the project in the article, it is correct.

[futurohunter]

Couchexpert
those. Even then, the possibility of abandoning the full circular rotation of the tower was considered

You surprised, of course. As far as I understand, it could have been turned backwards, but then it would have looked up

In modern conditions, to what extent is the ability to shoot at 360 degrees in demand and necessary for a tank?

In demand as never before. Enemies can appear in modern combat from any side. And the tank itself can go forward, leaving enemies in the rear. You apparently don’t know that after the war, for some time, both here and in the NATO countries, Stugas were produced for some time. These are anti-tank self-propelled guns with a fixed wheelhouse. But then they left together. They are absolutely defenseless when the enemy appears in the rear hemisphere. Tell me, what is faster: turning the tower, or the whole car? What if the car loses speed?

getting rid of the limitations of the classic layout (for example, the vertical angle)

Depends solely on the volume of the turret and the design of the turret-gun system

will make it possible to fully protect the weapon

I don't really understand what you mean. The gun consists of a barrel and a breech. There is nothing stopping you from protecting the breech. Armoring the gun barrel has long been abandoned (although there have been attempts). This creates too many problems. And the probability of hitting a gun is much lower than the tank itself

[Knell wardenheart]

Wide and too long. Empirically, the gun barrel and its mantlet are extremely vulnerable. Such structures would very often fail due to loss of mobility for one reason or another - their overall characteristics and features of the tracks would rather contribute to this than hinder it. Considering the small volume and size of the turret and the large size of the gun, this (in addition to the inevitable increase in the likelihood of its damage from fragments) will contribute to the jamming of the turret from minor damage, and this will probably also affect the automatic loader.
This tank design seems to me completely unsuited to a significant modern threat - namely the threat from above, to rooftop shooters and drones. Nasc. it can be seen from the schematic diagram that the MTO is located under the turret and the stowage will inevitably be located next to the turret - so the problem with the weak point of the turret in this tank would only get worse.

Considering the low landing, it is doubtful that they provided effective mine protection such as a V-shaped bottom. At the same time, as I already noted, the tank is wide and long and has a footprint. reservations will inevitably be weaker at the bottom. Considering its length, I also can’t imagine where it would be possible to sculpt a suitable trawl.

IMHO, the designated tank is not an interesting design in modern conditions, because the conclusions on which it was built are already archaic (these are the conclusions of the late 80s).

A modern tank (while retaining the cannon layout) cannot escape from a large and protected turret - the sensors, again, for the most part will be placed on it AND-OR to third-party objects such as drones (subject to reliable data traffic). The chassis and mine resistance, as well as the optional trawl, which does not significantly worsen the performance characteristics of the tank, must be kept in mind at the very early stages of the project.
Perhaps the discussion on other (non-cannon) tank armament - rockets, conditionally mortars, etc. - has been revived. If this concerns a breakthrough tank, of course.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

If this concerns a breakthrough tank

Is a tank relevant in any other capacity? But the refusal of a gun is quite reasonable - machines like the Terminator go on the attack, it is supported (tactically) by self-propelled guns and an escort vehicle with reconnaissance and attack drones... Unlike the Terminator, it is better to cover the missiles with armor, either like Buratino, or hide them in the hull. For suppression, it has 30 mm guns, and for striking shelters - missiles: high-explosive or thermobaric. Perhaps also air defense missiles from serious drones. Well, and electronic warfare from small ones. Although active armor may be effective against drones, but with different speed settings: for example, 2 detonation channels - from fast targets, as is, and from slow ones - fragmentation and canister...

[Knell wardenheart]

Well, MBT has its niche, but as already noted in VO materials, existing MBTs can no longer be considered sufficiently resistant against defenses saturated with anti-tank weapons. And the engagement distances of these means are already quite large, as a result we get a paradoxical situation - when we cannot break through a hole with a tank “fist” because of the high price for such a penetration.
Accordingly, there is a request for a conceptually low-vulnerability machine capable of making gaps in the defense, although there is an understanding that the dimensions of such a machine must remain within some reasonable limits.
If we meditate on this, we come to understand the limits of the capabilities of the tanks of the current design, in which everything is located as it is. To the capabilities of their armor resistance, firepower, etc. To overcome these limiting parameters, new materials are needed (which makes the tank much more expensive) and there are still weak areas in it that cannot be armored. possible. At the moment, such a weak area, almost completely, is the upper projection. Also, the weak point is the turret in principle because it is mobile, overloaded with body kits and corresponding non-continuous armor zones. Like a gun, in fact, taking into account the progress in shells with remote detonation, disabling the gun itself with something becomes one of the most effective ways to sabotage the activity of the entire vehicle (as well as caterpillar tracks, by the way).
This suggests the idea of ​​sinking the gun into the turret - but within the framework of the traditional “shell” approach, this is an unrealistic task since no one has canceled physics. However, you can sink a launcher into the turret to launch missiles - and yes, it will be more expensive (relative to the price of the shells), however, taking into account the price of the gun and the need to replace it, the loading mechanism, etc., in comparison with missile-oriented analogues, there were POSSIBLE losses would not be so significant. It is worth understanding that a missile is also a precessional instrument with much more flexible variations in the launch trajectory (and therefore better capabilities for firing from closed positions) and aiming at the target. Rocket weapons also provide a potentially higher rate of fire than cannon weapons.
In contrast to the missile approach, which still requires a rotating turret with a recessed launcher, there can be a mortar approach, when the launcher is recessed not into the turret but directly into the tank’s hull and operates with partially adjustable ammunition similar in type and launch to mortar ones.
This approach also has its drawbacks, of course, but such an arrangement would conceptually provide the best protection for the tank from the top projection. In principle, an internal launcher with vertical launch for missiles is also a very suitable option, but, unlike a tower launcher, there will be difficulties in hitting nearby targets.

I believe that in the foreseeable future, one way or another, designers will have to abandon the classic cannon and reconsider the design and arrangement of the tracks - in the era of smart weapons, these are significant vulnerabilities that hinder progress on armor.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I read that in the foreseeable future, one way or another, designers will have to abandon the classic gun

I agree, but with the addition of a large-caliber gun!

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

and track location

switch to an air cushion?

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

booking progress.

Only active armor is promising, naturally with armor from the MKA, it also removes the problem of the upper sphere...

[Knell wardenheart]

I agree, but with the addition of a large-caliber gun!

Now there is an objective problem - “roof busters” and drones (including FPV), in my opinion, this indicates that a high-precision approach to defeat now prevails over “stupid damage”.
If this approach evolves, hitting the gun barrel directly (in the foreseeable future) will be a completely effective strategy for disabling a tank even with small drones. I see this as a problem that will have to be solved. As for the caliber, I agree, a number of functions will inevitably have to be transferred to other products within the network-centric system, while at the same time expanding the tank’s capabilities for targeting these means. That is, the tank’s task will be to survive, cause damage, and deploy other, more destructive means online. This is much more advantageous than a 152 mm push, although it looks impressive.

switch to an air cushion?

God forbid) The tank in any case remains tracked, although there MAY be something in the concept of wheeled tanks if the transition to electrification increases.
IMHO it is advisable to bury the tracks under the hull (here's how to do this - a good question), in the case of an MBT this is not so critical, in the case of a breakthrough tank it will definitely be critical.
The tracks must be as invulnerable to destruction in combat conditions as possible - especially from the front and front-lateral projections. Probably the track needs to be made wider and more massive, in principle, reducing the area of ​​pressure on the ground is always good.
Structurally, it is desirable to increase the resistance of tracks to the loss of significant fragments from explosions and fragments without breaking the chain. This is not God knows what technologies - composites, polymer fibers, etc. A wider caterpillar will allow this to be done, organic design in conjunction with the trawl (the tank and the trawl for it are developed as a single whole from the first minutes of the project, but the trawl is modular ) will reduce the immediate danger of an explosion under the bottom.

Only active armor is promising

Here I am skeptical, although it’s probably impossible without active armor. Personally, I would rely more on multi-layer armor because no KAZ gives 100% probability, and its elements can be knocked out by impacts on the external body kits. Modern materials, ceramics and fillings can be absolutely incredible, this fully manifests itself in the case of an almost continuous armor coating. Actually, a breakthrough tank should be this very “almost continuous” in the concept in which I see it. The KAZ approach implies the presence of a bunch of active strays outside, the tank turns into a Christmas tree - this is much more suitable for an MBT, for a breakthrough tank it is more of an illusion of invulnerability because the density and duration of the impact on it will be greater.

[DrEng02]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

"roof busters" and drones (including FPV),

1) if a random 152/155 hits the roof, then nothing will save you , if controlled, then electronic warfare or aerosol cloud and maneuver.
2) if ATGM/ATGM, then again cloud, electronic warfare, active armor 1 and maneuver
3) If it’s a drone, then again a cloud, electronic warfare, active armor 2 and maneuver!
Active armor 1 is generally accepted - which is against a cumulative jet and scrap.
Active armor 2 is mortars (multi-charged, for example, a la the drum from a revolver) with shrapnel.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

. Probably the track needs to be made wider and more massive, in principle, reducing the area of ​​pressure on the ground is always good.

the mass will increase sharply... it is possible to return to a wheeled-tracked tank; if the caterpillar is broken, mobility is partially lost...

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Modern materials, ceramics and fillings can be absolutely incredible

price.... the tank should be affordable... by removing the large gun and turret, we lighten it and make it cheaper... although asking for something 57 mm with a controlled detonation, this simplifies air defense, incl. from big drones...

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

this is much more suitable for MBT

the concept of MBT is dying, it is generally controversial from the very beginning...

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

because the density and duration of exposure to it will be greater

therefore there should be many of them and, consequently, relatively cheap, possibly in the form of remote-controlled... at the same time, it conducts reconnaissance in force, reconnaissance drones detect firing points and BTs, which are suppressed by the attached SPG. It is not reasonable to hang all the functions on one element of the system...

[futurohunter]

DrEng02
if a random 152/155 hits the roof, then nothing will save

This is wrong. Depends on what kind of projectile (sub-caliber, cumulative or high-explosive), at what speed and at what angle it hit. There may be remote sensing units or screens on the roof. The projectile can be repelled by active protection. And such shells are not “random”)))

by removing the big gun and turret we make it lighter and cheaper...

Bad idea. Tanks don't only hit tanks. First of all, they destroy field fortifications - and here, the larger the caliber, the better. Even 57mm cannot cope with field fortifications

the concept of MBT is dying, it is generally controversial from the very beginning...

Something has been dying for more than 100 years and is not going to. How many miracle weapons have been invented during this time? But somehow the scheme that appeared on the Renault FT17 in 1917 is more alive than all living things

It is not reasonable to hang all functions on one element of the system...

The state of the system changes too quickly, therefore its elements must be universal

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

The projectile can be repelled by active protection.

152? However, you are fantastic...

Quote: futurohunter

First of all, they destroy the field fortifications

this is the task of self-propelled guns

Quote: futurohunter

Something has been dying for over 100 years

As far as I know, the first MBT is the T-62... has it really been 100 years since its creation?

Quote: futurohunter

its elements must be universal

universal means bad...

[futurohunter]

152? However, you are fantastic...

Why not? As I say, it depends on many factors, including the characteristics of the KAZ itself

First of all, they destroy field fortifications

this is the task of self-propelled guns

Self-propelled guns destroy them before the battle. In battle, of course, you can call in self-propelled gun fire, but this takes time. And a tank, which is with the troops all the time and is fighting itself, will simply collapse something after the fact.

Something has been dying for over 100 years

As far as I know, the first MBT is the T-62... has it really been 100 years since its creation?

The tanks themselves are buried for 100 years. And the T-62 is not exactly an MBT, but rather a medium tank - a deep modernization of the T-55.

universal means bad...

Who told you this? The tank is not designed to deliver suitcases and loaves of bread tens of kilometers away, it cannot throw a landmine to the other side of the house, but it is, in fact, a soldier who is heavily armored and heavily armed. And he fights in fact, and like infantry, he can fight both defensively and offensively. Together with the infantry, and on his own

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

I say it depends on many factors

I’m too lazy to further explain to you the common truths...

Quote: futurohunter

Self-propelled guns destroy them before the battle.

i.e. artillery preparation is not part of the battle? interesting...

Quote: futurohunter

In battle, of course, you can call in self-propelled gun fire, but this takes time. And a tank, which is with the troops all the time and is fighting itself, will simply collapse something after the fact.

You have confusion in your head - you confuse the organization of the battle with the properties of the weapon... the tank has poor visibility - targets are indicated to it... the difference with the self-propelled gun is only in the trajectory of the projectile and its power....

Quote: futurohunter

Who told you that?

this is a banality... any universal tool is a compromise...

Quote: futurohunter

And he fights in fact, and like the infantry,

Do you have at least a minimal military education? military rank?

[futurohunter]

DrEng02
Self-propelled guns destroy them before the battle

those. Is artillery preparation not part of the battle?

You are confusing something and attributing to me something that I did not say. You are trying to cancel an entire class of weapons - tanks. I'm all for a variety of weapon classes (within reasonable limits)))

I’m too lazy to further explain the truisms to you...

But I have the impression that you just don’t know physics...

there is poor visibility from the tank - the targets are indicated to it... the difference with self-propelled guns is only in the trajectory of the projectile and its power....

You are definitely confusing tanks and self-propelled guns. The difference is very big. These self-propelled guns indicate targets - they do not fire at them themselves. It is extremely rare for self-propelled guns to operate “direct fire” - only if the enemy has broken through, but this is extreme for self-propelled guns. A tank, as a universal combat unit, can also work “after the fact,” i.e., against a target discovered on the battlefield. Regarding power: I don’t think that the Gvozdika or Nona have any advantages over the 125mm T-72/80/90. But, please note, I am not “cancelling” them - they also have their own “niche”. A tank can fire immediately - this is completely normal for it. I don’t remember self-propelled guns that can fire on the move - they all need at least 1 minute to deploy to a position. The tanks have anti-ballistic armor, screens and remote sensing. Self-propelled guns are unlikely to withstand even 12,7 mm. The tank can conduct a counter battle against other tanks. This mode is generally not for self-propelled guns. The visibility of the tank is still better than that of the self-propelled guns, and they are constantly working to improve it. These are not only triplexes - modern tanks are equipped with cameras and other sensors. I don’t argue that no one refuses target designation.
The tank can also operate as a self-propelled gun - from closed positions, and can conduct the battle itself, even to the point of breaking through behind enemy lines and “walking through the rear.” Can such a self-propelled gun be possible? I don't argue that the tanks are not as powerful as the Acacia, Peony/Malka, Tulip, or even the M109. But their purpose is different.

Do you have at least a minimum military education? military rank?

Eat. I think that active, and even more so, warring military personnel do not write in this forum. And you?

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

And you?

senior lieutenant engineer...

Quote: futurohunter

You are definitely confusing tanks and self-propelled guns. The difference is very big.

you write so much banal things... just think about why tanks now fight like self-propelled guns?

Quote: futurohunter

But I have the impression that you just don’t know physics...

Not at all, I know that, but you don’t understand the difference in the impact of the DZ on scrap and on OFS...

Quote: futurohunter

You are confusing something and attributing to me something that I did not say.

like I was quoting you or into the bushes? or your military education is sofa-like - you don’t know the definition of combat...
"Combat is the main form of tactical actions of troops (forces); organized and coordinated by purpose, place and time strikes, fire and maneuver connections, units and subdivisions."
https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details.htm?id=3567@morfDictionary

Quote: futurohunter

Self-propelled guns destroy them before the fight.

enjoy your ignorance. military specialist!

[futurohunter]

Not at all, I know that, but you don’t understand the difference in the impact of remote sensing on scrap and on OFS...

I'm not talking about DZ, I'm talking about KAZ

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

I'm not talking about DZ, I'm talking about KAZ

even stupider

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
Any rocket and mortar variants cannot in any way replace main tanks, but can only complement them. Neither a missile carrier nor a self-propelled mortar is capable of performing such a variety of tasks as a main universal tank. And what you propose already exists and is widely used: the Nona-S is quite a mortar tank, and the Chrysanthemums and Sturms are missile tanks. The main problem of the mortar is its low shooting accuracy and tilted trajectory. It unmasks the tank and eliminates direct fire. Nona can just shoot direct fire.
Missile tanks have other disadvantages, and it is not at all expensive. I have not heard that there are missile tanks that are capable of aiming their missiles on the move, and during intensive maneuvering. This means that such a miracle weapon will be under attack while the rocket is flying - and it flies much slower than a projectile. As a rule, while a missile is flying, a missile tank cannot launch another. Nothing prevents a “regular” tank from covering the target with several shells in a row.
The tank gun can fire sub-caliber shells, while the ATGM can only carry a cumulative head. There are targets that are better hit using the kinetic energy of a projectile.
The missile tank has an even more important vulnerability. The guidance channel can be interfered with, and missile guidance can be disrupted in conditions of dust, smoke and fire on the battlefield. Just like in the fog. For a regular tank, this is not a problem. The more complex the system, the less reliable it is. The more “smart,” the more capricious the entire “launcher-weapon” system.
Yes, by the way, modern domestic tanks can fire not only shells, but also guided missiles.
In aviation, which is much more saturated with various kinds of smart systems and ammunition, they have not abandoned free-falling cast iron and direct-firing guns.
There is no alternative to a regular tank gun with good guidance devices; everything else is just an addition.
As for vulnerability, everything is destroyed. Here is the usual "armor-shell" duel. There may be different options for protecting the tanks themselves. Well, a lot depends on tactics. Nobody now fights with armadas of tanks like in the Great Patriotic War

[Knell wardenheart]

You are proceeding from archaic ideas about smart weapons. For example, a mosquito - it has a brain the size of a pin, but it knows exactly where you are, how to sneak up on you and drink your blood. It’s not a big deal to load a modern high-volume chip with a satisfactory topology with the ability to figure out where in a certain flight direction (set before launch) a target of given dimensions, shape and a number of other characteristics is located. The choice of the affected area in this case is also not something extraordinary. The only question is how this ammunition will “see” the target. If in single optical guidance mode, then at some point in the trajectory it will turn on the camera, cover the sector in a certain direction, identify the tank, identify whether it is moving or not (and the movement vector) and carry out an attack taking into account this data in a time during which the human commander does not will react. The optical guidance head does not irradiate anything, it does not need illumination - it is passive. If the enemy tank emits radio waves, then at the final stage of the trajectory you can use this data for primitive correction. But it will emit radio, the same KAZs will not work if there is no information about the approach or exposure. How much does a “Krasnopol” type projectile cost, for example? The last time I looked, it was rated as a one-room apartment in Zelenograd. Against the backdrop of such a hefty price tag (or even three times less, for example), the price of a high-volume chip and camera will be stupidly insignificant.
Everything will depend on the economy and industrial capacity - if such a weapon is economically much cheaper than the average damage it causes - and potentially this is an extremely unpleasant weapon, then it will be deployed as enchantingly quickly as all these drones that are causing nightmares to people were deployed.
The beauty of a rocket weapon is that it can adjust its trajectory, there is no need for a long barrel, it can be launched both in a mortar style and in a flat trajectory. And it’s also what’s called “multi-platform,” that is, these toys can be mounted on a UAV, a boat, or a makeshift installation. Now the time is coming when these advantages can no longer be ignored, as FPV drones are causing nightmares for people and equipment, as he hints.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
A mosquito can be seen and swatted. You can scare them away with a smell or lure them with a special lamp. There are quite enough options, and quite effective ones.
What you are talking about is a centuries-old “duel of armor and projectile”. Tanks appeared - anti-tank artillery appeared. Anti-tank artillery appeared - the tanks were overgrown with projectile-proof armor. In response, cumulative and sub-caliber shells appeared. And screens, dynamic protection and multi-layer armor appeared on tanks. And so on.
Your “mosquito” is not invisible at all. He also radiates. At least in the optical range, otherwise it would be invisible))) Its density is higher than the density of air, which means it can be detected, for example, by a technical vision system or a laser locator. If your mosquito is very small, well, yes, it can cause a lot of trouble, but it won’t damage the tank. Yes, and there is a “fly swatter” for it too.
By the way, it’s just a “smart” fly swatter, just the way you like it.
Here's another nuance. As a rule, all sorts of cunning “smarts” are defeated by human cunning and ingenuity. The most overprotected tank can be hit by a “mosquito” flying out of nowhere, controlled by a cunning operator. But an equally cunning operator on the other side of the armor can outwit this cunning one.
Ultimately, only writers still dream about a war of machines. Even behind robots fighting each other there are people who programmed them and can interfere with their automatisms.
In the same way, you fantasize “from the attack side,” and I’m trying to fantasize “from the defense side.” Have you ever thought that your “mosquito” might be chased by “another mosquito”? Or will he fall into the “candle flame”? Or will it sit on a wall so thick and strong that you can’t bite through it?
Regarding missile weapons. They are just a type of aircraft, just like projectiles. Not every rocket can fly along a flat or mounted trajectory. An artillery shell can be made active-reactive - why not a rocket? You can attach wings to a projectile - here you have a gliding bomb, or a cruise missile. The projectile can also be equipped with a control system. And you can even put a jet engine on a projectile! Likewise, you can fire a rocket from a cannon. There are many options. And here one type does not cancel, but complements the other. But there are certain limits and expediency.
Missiles have replaced monstrous mega-caliber cannons. But at the same time, missiles coexist quite peacefully with guns in 76-203 mm calibers. Rocket pistols and rifles did not catch on. Guided bullets never did. Likewise, drones, missiles and guns will be adjacent to each other. And competent military personnel will choose the most suitable option.
And missile euphoria, when missiles tried to displace other types of weapons, has already happened, more than once. In the same way, drones will occupy their niche next to other types of weapons

[futurohunter]

DrEng02
abandoning the weapon is quite reasonable

Throughout history, guns have been canceled several times. But only monsters of huge calibers were abolished - they were replaced by missiles.

vehicles a la Terminator go on the attack, it is supported (tactically) by self-propelled guns and an escort vehicle with reconnaissance and attack drones...

The problem is that all your machines are too highly specialized, and each solves a narrow range of tasks. What if “supplementary” vehicles die in battle? What if your child prodigy suddenly found himself alone? This also happens, and often!

By the way, nothing prevents you from launching drones from the tank itself. Look, on the newest German concept KF52 “Panther”, drones are included in the ammunition load. They also did something similar for the Armata.

Your Terminator is very vulnerable without a tank. If you make a full-fledged self-propelled gun that can go into close combat, you will get the same tank. Essentially, come from the same concept of tank + BMPT. The tank destroys large targets, and the BMPT suppresses small and fast ones (large ones are not fast)

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

all your machines are too highly specialized, and each solves a narrow range of tasks.

that means they are effective...

Quote: futurohunter

What if “supplementary” vehicles die in battle?

this is normal, the problem is being solved by a superior...

Quote: futurohunter

By the way, nothing prevents you from launching drones from the tank itself.

it is possible, but this complicates and increases the cost of an assault tank, which is a priori consumable...

Quote: futurohunter

Your Terminator is very vulnerable without a tank.

From whom?

Quote: futurohunter

Self-propelled guns that can go into close combat

why is she? You have a purely psychological block - tank-gun-attack...

Quote: futurohunter

The tank destroys large targets,

which? if it’s a fortified area, then that’s what self-propelled guns and aviation are for

[futurohunter]

DrEng02
that means they are effective...

...only when solving their own problems, and almost cannot solve others

the problem is solved by a superior...

It’s like the joke about a hedgehog who “is involved in strategy.” You proposed, you defend your idea, and do not point at “outsiders”

complicates and increases the cost of an assault tank, which is a priori consumable...

You have a good “attitude” towards state-owned, and, by the way, “ariori”, expensive property that they are trying to preserve. And for you - like toilet paper (((

psychological block - tank-gun-attack...

Where did I write this? I just wrote that the good thing about tanks is that they are universal. And to support them and eliminate their shortcomings, special escort vehicles are used. This is how an aircraft carrier always stands in the center of the order of ships, so a tank stands in the center of a battle group

The tank destroys large targets,

which? if it’s a fortified area, then that’s what self-propelled guns and aviation are for

Damn... Who here stuttered about “psychological blocks”? Your self-propelled guns and aircraft will turn the fortified area into ruins, and when troops attack it, hidden barmalei will come out. Aviation won't make it in time, but self-propelled guns need to be targeted. There is simply no time for this anymore. And the tank will just extinguish the evil spirits. Your special vehicles with all their small items and ATGMs will be able to extinguish only specific firing points, and the tank will be able to take out an entire position with all the barmaleys at once. Aviation here is like self-propelled guns, only much more efficient.

It is very strange to cancel some class of military equipment. Everyone has their own tasks

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

only when solving their own problems, and almost cannot solve others

I’ll surprise you, any weapon solves specific problems - you can’t knock out a tank with an AKM...

Quote: futurohunter

It’s like the joke about a hedgehog who “is involved in strategy.” You proposed, you defend your idea, and do not point at “outsiders”

do you have a self-prop You confuse the characteristics of weapons and the tactics of their use, as well as the organization and command of troops... Any armored vehicle can be knocked out - the issues of evacuation and replacement of a knocked out unit are decided by the command! Were you taught military affairs?

Quote: futurohunter

And for you - like toilet paper (((

war is an expensive business - the desire to create wunderwaffes or white elephants is due to the inability to think...

Quote: futurohunter

Where did I write this?

Quote: futurohunter

If you make a full-fledged self-propelled gun that can go into close combat

You have pure tankophilia...

Quote: futurohunter

The good thing about tanks is that they are universal.

Not at all! Tanks are a narrowly focused special tool, and due to the current situation they are now being used in a way that was not planned when they were created! And it turned out that the tasks could be solved by the T-90M and T-62 - this is a disaster of the MBT concept!

Quote: futurohunter

This is how an aircraft carrier always stands in the center of the order of ships, so a tank stands in the center of a battle group

you are an amazing tactician...

Quote: futurohunter

The hidden barmalei will come out from there.

you have little idea of ​​the results of an air bomb attack...

Quote: futurohunter

and self-propelled guns need to be targeted

2-3 shot when adjusting from a copter...

Quote: futurohunter

and the tank will be able to take out an entire position with all the barmalei at once

not at all - 125 caliber, the projectile is 2 times lighter than the self-propelled gun, about bombs and compare

Quote: futurohunter

It’s very strange to cancel some class of military equipment

why? military affairs and science are developing

[futurohunter]

DrEng02
The issues of evacuation and replacement of a damaged unit are decided by the command!

Nobody cancels the principle of unity of command. But instead of answering the question, you suggested that abstract command think. And this most abstract command, among other things, is also vitally interested in “evacuating and replacing” as little as possible. There is not always something to replace it with.

You can't knock out a tank with an AKM...

Theoretically (although almost unbelievably), you can break the surveillance devices and shoot the crew who got out)))

Were you taught military affairs?

If you were taught, it was no more than within the military department of the university. Otherwise, you wouldn’t throw away your available funds so easily.

war is an expensive business - the desire to create wunderwaffes or white elephants is due to the inability to think...

You tell this to the creators of Tomahawks, Daggers, Blackbirds, B-2s and other wunderwaffles. ...And yes, thermonuclear and nuclear loaf. At best, they will make you laugh

You have pure tankophilia...

In general, I love weapons... all kinds

tanks narrowly sharpened special. tool, due to the current situation, they are now being used differently than planned when they were created!

Yes, they appeared at first as a means of breakthrough. But already in World War II, tanks were buried in the ground. And the Germans generally had assault self-propelled guns, which they considered to be tanks (although they were not such). There is nothing new under the sun. The good thing about the tank is that it is universal.

And it turned out that the tasks could be solved by the T-90M and T-62 - this is a disaster of the MBT concept!

What is the catastrophe?

you have a hard time imagining the results of an air bomb attack...

You probably think that a bomb always falls from a CEP of 0 meters? And you probably never heard about the fact that after intensive artillery preparation and ironing the front edge with tons of cast iron, the advancing troops suddenly ran into dense oncoming fire? Watch a video from the Middle East. Suddenly, out of nowhere, barmalei jump out of these ruins.

and self-propelled guns need to be targeted

2-3 shot when adjusting from a copter...

Especially against a moving and maneuvering tank. It is not that simple...

and the tank will be able to take out an entire position with all the barmalei at once

not at all - 125 caliber, the projectile is 2 times lighter than the self-propelled gun

What's stopping you from taking a few shots? And one well-placed shell can bring down the floor of a house. High-explosive fragmentation, not sub-caliber)))

military affairs and science are developing

Nobody suggests using flintlocks and sailboats)))

[DrEng02]

Quote: futurohunter

But instead of answering the question, you suggested that abstract command think.

So the question is initially stupid - any equipment can be shot down...

Quote: futurohunter

And yes, thermonuclear and nuclear loaf. At best, they will make you laugh

I don't think so, I know some of them and they know me personally...

Quote: futurohunter

But the Germans generally had assault self-propelled guns, which they considered to be tanks (although they were not). There is nothing new under the sun. The good thing about the tank is that it is universal.

funny with you ...

Quote: futurohunter

What is the catastrophe?

how bad is it with you... 50 years of MBT development have only led to an increase in its price, not its combat capabilities....

Quote: futurohunter

You probably think that a bomb always falls from a CEP of 0 meters?

I know the characteristics! What do you think - what is the zone of complete damage by the shock wave of FAB 500 and 1500?

Quote: futurohunter

Especially against a moving and maneuvering tank

you definitely have tankophilia... if it’s a tank, then it’s better to have a correctable one...

Quote: futurohunter

What's stopping you from taking a few shots?

time...

[Adrey]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Such structures would very often fail due to loss of mobility for one reason or another - their overall characteristics and features of the tracks would rather contribute to this than hinder it.

It was in this car that they tried to maximize the survivability of the chassis. 4 tracks, 2 engines. Ideally, a tank should maintain mobility even if 50% of the chassis and engine parts are lost.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Considering the small volume and size of the turret and the large size of the gun, this (in addition to the inevitable increase in the likelihood of its damage from fragments) will contribute to the jamming of the turret from minor damage, and this will probably also affect the automatic loader.

If you judge a car by the last picture, then you’re in vain. This project in the article is illustrated only by a diagram, it is correct. There is no turret as such at all, it is rather an armored gun casing. Due to its small size it can reach significant thickness.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

This tank design seems to me completely unsuited to a significant modern threat - namely the threat from above, to rooftop shooters and drones.

This vehicle has a roof only over the crew capsule; everything else is a thick VLD at a large angle, similar to the Swedish STRV, on which you can (and should) stick a remote control.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Considering the low landing, it is doubtful that they provided effective mine protection such as a V-shaped bottom

For what? The V-shaped bottom serves primarily to protect the crew (and secondly to protect the mechanisms) from the effects of the blast wave. In the project, the crew is located at the very stern and is protected from explosion by distance. Regarding the chassis, it’s exactly the opposite. When one tracked vehicle is disabled by a mine, the tank retains mobility, unlike its traditional counterparts.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

At the same time, as I already noted, the tank is wide and long

This is more of an “optical illusion” caused by the unusual appearance. The dimensions of equipment are always strictly linked to the dimensions of railway platforms. I don’t think that the tank is much larger than the same “Armata”.

[Knell wardenheart]

4 tracks, 2 engines. Ideally, a tank should maintain mobility even if 50% of the chassis and engine parts are lost

It looked good on paper) I think it's from the same series, because the separated chassis does not guarantee that in case of its partial elimination the other elements will be able to "roll away" the car. On the highway - yes, probably. not far and slowly. On the "lunar landscape" I would rather bet that it will twitch, but the result will be negative. IMHO it is better to make one well-protected and maximally closed track than 2 tracks of this kind, because such an approach is an illusion of survivability.

There is no turret as such at all, it’s more like an armored gun casing

This is even worse because even weak cumulative shells will make the weapon ineffective along its entire length, so to speak. As well as fairly powerful fragments. If we take the picture as a basis, I would say that conceptually this is not a tank at all, but some kind of short-range self-propelled gun invented in the “pre-Javelin era”.

This project in the article illustrates only the diagram, it is correct

True in what sense - survivability? Or how is a sample of the author's ideas correct? I personally didn’t appreciate it in terms of survivability - it looks like a “prev from the 80s”, when they believed that the tank would butt heads with other tanks and survive under artillery, and everything else was in its infancy (relative to what level it is at now).

Regarding the chassis, it’s exactly the opposite. When one tracked vehicle is disabled by a mine, the tank retains mobility, unlike its traditional counterparts.

Low landing + according to the engine design in the front part and at the very bottom of the car, this is a potential vulnerability in my opinion. Considering the length of the tank, I would not be so optimistic about maintaining its manageable maneuvering characteristics in the event that one of its tracks fails. He will PROBABLY retain the ability to move forward (not everywhere) - but turning will be a disaster. I will also note that the multi-track scheme was not new as an idea - but it was always abandoned because hemorrhoids are more expensive and, in general, the advantages are not so pronounced (for military equipment specifically).

I don’t think that the tank is much larger than the same “Armata”

Maybe . The same overall characteristics of the MBT exist within certain limits for a reason - going beyond them is fraught with the appearance of other problems that can level out the gains. Problems with camouflage, for example, with the need to increase the reservation along the length and, accordingly. overweight. Alas and oh overall, it’s really better to keep your imagination within the boundaries of MBT, but conceptually yes, it needs to be radically plowed up..

[Adrey]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

the spaced chassis does not guarantee that if it is partially removed, the remaining elements will be able to “roll away” the car.

An ordinary tank will freeze without a chance.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

IMHO it's better to make one well protected and maximally enclosed track

I wonder how you imagine this? Make it as thick as the VLD and cover it with screens of the same thickness? And it is advisable that it does not touch the ground. Otherwise there might be mines there.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

This is even worse because even weak cumulative shells will make the weapon ineffective along its entire length, so to speak. As well as fairly powerful fragments.

100% applies to any existing tank guns.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

looks like a pre-Ved from the 80s

That's where I'm from. As for modern concepts, no one has yet come up with anything new. Everything is still traditional, only on a new hardware base. The latest development of a new tank is up to the amers, there is fundamentally nothing new there.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I wouldn't be so optimistic about maintaining its manageable maneuvering characteristics if one of its tracks fails. He will PROBABLY retain the ability to move forward (not everywhere) - but turning will be a disaster.

Once again, everyone else will completely freeze in place.

[Knell wardenheart]

Dear Andrey, we are apparently talking about different tanks. I'll make it clear - everything I write does not concern MBT, I'm talking about breakthrough tank concept.
In the case of such a trawl, the most efficient and modular one should be an organic addition developed from the very beginning of the development of the tank. Because without it, a breakthrough tank will not be the same. Of course, he will not give a 100% guarantee of mine elimination, because there will inevitably be special products. I would propose to solve the problem of chassis survivability by increasing the width of the tracks, changing their thickness, shape, design and structural materials. If paired with a trawl, they must be recessed under the hull - I don’t see any other options for a breakthrough tank.
Shallow and medium-sized mines will be suppressed by the trawl; deep-lying mines will not be able to break the entire track if it is wide and designed for maximum tear resistance.

100% applies to any existing tank guns

This is why I point out that the weapon in its current form is a dead end, regardless of its power. In the future, these trends will only worsen.

And as for modern concepts, no one has come up with anything new yet

Exactly. Even in the same "Armata" the tower is conceptually just as defenseless against drones and roof breakers, although the fundamental ability of the tank itself to detect this and react has increased. At the same time, such a number of strays on a tank is, in principle, not good - its dependence on them for survival increases, and they do not live long in the event of real fire contact. It turns out that conceptually a long-range tank, this again is not at all the direction that allows you to overcome defenses.

Once again, everyone else will freeze in place

I don't see the difference between "freezes in place" and "will twitch". because nothing will stop him from finishing him off in both cases. At one time, "Bismarck" was not saved by its ability to move at low speed after being damaged - it was finished off. Relative mobility was good in the era before drones and smart weapons, but now it is a practical analogue of immobility.

[Adrey]

Let’s finish the discussion, dear Knell. When it continues, we will go into such a jungle of theory, strategy and tactics that we could talk about a monograph .
The reason that I got into the “rivets” is that I was impressed by the concept of this project due to its novelty for its time (and even now it is not uninteresting) in terms of technical aspects.
In general, the very concept of tanks is now somewhat “hung” in the air. Whoever guesses the right direction of development (again, not only technically, but rather primarily strategically and tactically) will be “on the horse.” But the fact that they will remain (we’ll see in what form) is certain (IMHO)

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
Even in the same "Armata" the tower is conceptually just as defenseless against drones and roof busters

Wrong point of view. The crew is in an armored capsule, which is well protected from above. The tower needs to be heavily defended only if there are people in it. Have you heard about cases where a cumulative jet burned a hole in the armor, the crew died, but the tank moved on? People are much more vulnerable than any guns, mechanisms and electronics. Therefore, the turret and engine compartment of the Armata are not as strongly protected as the crew capsule. Don't exaggerate the capabilities of drones. They don’t have a lot of explosives and they hit vulnerable places, for example, the Leopard’s turret compartment with ammunition. And the Armata also has a lot of sensors and defense systems. Don't turn smart phones into miracle weapons. Everything is choked with interference.
For "Armata" bullets from heavy machine guns are much more dangerous

[Edward Perov]

Don't exaggerate the capabilities of drones. They don’t have a lot of explosives and they hit vulnerable places, for example, the Leopard’s turret compartment with ammunition.

It depends on what kind of drones. Heavy-duty hexacopter vehicles can carry a PG-7VR grenade, which was demonstrated last fall in Israel when a drone dropped an analogue of this grenade on a Merkava. But no armor on the roof or even a visor can save you from the PG-7VR. Unless it's remote sensing coupled with visors and other gadgets. In principle, many tanks will not be able to withstand this grenade even in the forehead, since it penetrates almost a meter of solid steel without remote protection.

[futurohunter]

Edward Perov
Well, you were right about the screens along with remote sensing. A heavy truck is a large, more visible, and less mobile vehicle. This means that it is easier to detect and defeat it with promising active protection systems. For example, a standard KAZ can be modified to combat drones. Or special drone mortars have been installed. Any attack drone, from a defense point of view, is a type of ATGM, and appropriate protective measures must be taken. You can make ATGMs that fly along a suspended trajectory and attack from above, no one will interfere?

[Edward Perov]

For example, a standard KAZ can be modified to combat drones.

In theory, anything can be improved. The only question is whether this will be implemented in mass production. In the foreseeable future, you don’t have to think about “Arena” and other systems for now. In addition to anti-drone functionality, there are many problems that need to be solved.

This includes training tank crews and maintenance personnel to work with KAZ, its repair and maintenance. Here, in general, a whole cohort of specialists needs to be trained, since such systems have not been in the army since the time of the limited production of Drozd on the T-55.

This includes the introduction into mass production of auxiliary power units for all tanks, since it is necessary to operate a KAZ from the on-board network under a kilowatt of power, and this is especially true when the engine is turned off or stalled.

This is also the problem of protecting KAZ equipment from shelling and shrapnel. Moreover, additional functionality in the form of protection against drones is also a complication of the computational component of the KAZ, since there is a lot of interference (false targets) flying at UAV speeds.

In addition, although indirectly, the problem of crew situational awareness is aggravated, since not a single KAZ operates with the crew hatches open. Let me remind you that during the development of the Merkava Barak, the Israelis introduced a transparent armor system with a display on the tank driver’s helmet in order to protect commanders who often have to lean out of the hatch even with a panoramic surveillance device.

[futurohunter]

Edward Perov
What kind of interference is flying at UAV speed? Birds? I assume that the birds will be scared away in advance by the clanging of the caterpillars and the noise of the battle. KAZ does not detect insects, tumbleweeds, or flying leaves. And in the parking lot the KAZ is most likely turned off. You will also have to turn off the KAZ in forests, ravines and dense bushes. The radar radiation unmasks the KAZ.
An open hatch is a huge vulnerability for a tank. Here, at a minimum, you need to make a visor. Or change the design of the hatch so that it rises when the commander needs to look out. In general, there are many open hatch threats on the battlefield. These are sniper bullets, and stray bullets, and mortar shells, and their fragments, and indeed, any fragments. Almost everything that can fly into the tank will first fly into the hatch. On the battlefield there may be radioactive and chemical contamination. Therefore, ideally, the hatch in battle should be opened only for leaving the tank

[Edward Perov]

What kind of interference is flying at UAV speed? Birds?

Birds, large fragments (sabers) from expiring shells, clods of earth from explosions, elements of various structures (buildings, structures) collapsing during combat operations near the tank, and the like. In “Arena” descriptions you can often find just such a clause “does not react to clods of earth, birds and other animals” and other low-speed objects. In this case, the selection of dangerous targets should go much more in-depth. Especially considering that the drone can fly up at a speed of 5 km per hour or even less, striking already in the KAZ blind zone in close proximity to the tank.

In general, there is still absolutely ethereal talk about the capabilities of KAZ, which have not even been implemented in prototypes yet.

[futurohunter]

Edward Perov
As usual, let's reduce it to a physical problem. Of course, the drone can fly along a very intricate trajectory. And it is most likely impossible to completely avoid dead zones. For example, a tank stands on the crest of a hill, and a drone flies up from below. You can't provide for everything. But, I suppose, it is possible to identify some characteristics (for example, gradients of trajectory changes) along which most drones that are dangerous to humans will fly. Perhaps even some unlikely situations, like your 5 km/h, can be neglected. Because at such a speed, most likely, it will be visually detected and shot down by other means. Well, or the tank will leave him. And if it flies too low, its antennas will not catch the operator’s control signal (and the operator will not receive a picture from it).
Since, in essence, all these drones are primitive weapons, then, I suppose, the solutions can be quite simple, even the same electronic warfare on the tower. Or a simple rotating turret with a shotgun and lidar.
The fun will begin when there is no handicraft, but full-fledged pepelats made at military factories, with a protected channel with frequency tuning, artificial intelligence for target selection and operation without an operator, a complex flight path, group collective intelligence, etc. Now we see, in essence, attempts to fight off the handicraft from the handicraft. Something a little more technologically advanced - like electronic warfare on a tower - wins.
But when technologically advanced drones arrive, everything will be much worse.
By the way, we also see template designs of drones. But what if there is an aircraft-type drone, with a tandem charge (or even with several funnels), a final accelerator, etc.?

[Edward Perov]

As usual, let's reduce it to a physical problem.

Of course, discussions about the expected appearance and functionality of a particular military product are good. Maybe somewhere the truth will appear. But I myself try not to participate in them. It’s just that from the outside it looks, so to speak, like dividing up the skin of an unkilled bear. That is, there is not even a conventional KAZ in the army yet and it is not clear when it will be, and we are already talking about how it will counteract drones.

This is not a matter of today, not tomorrow, and perhaps not the day after tomorrow. And we’re not just talking about the specific Arena, but in general about KAZ on a global scale. But, of course, it was necessary to think about this in advance, because the first not only bells, but already kicks in the door appeared during the Syrian war, when there was a tendency to destroy equipment with the help of UAVs. Everyone at that time was looking in the wrong direction, which is why we had to engage in handicrafts later. Be it for us or for the Israelis.

[futurohunter]

Edward Perov
Calls about drones appeared in Syria... much earlier, if I’m not mistaken, about 60 years ago. Apart from Israel, few people took this seriously at the time.
As for participation... I don’t know what your relation to the topic is... I’m an armchair expert, and I’m just curious. I don’t at all expect that any “serious people” read such forums.
Why am I arguing “from the point of view of banal erudition”? Design thought will still have to follow the same path. All these screens, nets and visors are passive defense. But there are also active options. And this is not necessarily radar detection and destruction by ammunition.
If design thought follows an evolutionary path, that is, through the endless improvement of what exists, then sooner or later it becomes obsolete and ceases to fulfill its function. And then, or better yet much earlier, revolutionary solutions are needed

[Knell wardenheart]

I believe that the disabling of equipment followed by factory repair is only slightly worse than the “sintering” of its crew. Because it needs to be evacuated, taken to the factory, repaired, and sent back. If all this happens en masse, then this kind of loss will be catastrophic - even if the crew is intact. It will simply turn tankers into infantry.
Now a cheap product (if adequate intelligence is created) can cause this kind of problem.
Your ideas about “smarts” are outdated, you still exist in the antediluvian paradigms of thinking in the style of “how it was yesterday,” while SVO directly indicates that you need to think “how it could be at its worst tomorrow.”
At its worst, tomorrow are Inteldrones or batch-launched missiles that choose their own targets, are produced in damn masses and detect targets in passive mode.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
No. You simply think in terms of “the latest miracle weapon.” I look at it from an engineering point of view - what kind of object this is, and what famous objects it is similar to.
And any attack drone is similar to an ATGM, and the means of protection must be similar to those used for ATGMs - tank maneuver, interference with the communication channel and sensors, spaced and shielded armor, active protection. Everything you suggest will come down to one of these options, or a combination of them.
When we discuss tank protection issues, we don’t care how much the weapon costs.

[Knell wardenheart]

In no way - I am pointing out objective, urgent factors that should be taken into account when designing means and creating tools to counter them.
I don’t understand - are you denying progress in the field of AI? I advise you to read materials on the topic of what progress in recognizing objects in a dynamic environment has occurred there in recent years. Maybe it seems to you that the combination of a rocket and a high-resolution optical recognition system is something revolutionary? No again - compact models have been around for about 10 years (if not more), and non-compact ones have been around for much longer. Maybe you think it will be expensive? Modern weapons are generally expensive. Or that it will be ineffective? The SVO shows that modern technology “eliminates” quite well from modern weapons of all types - it is not invulnerable, electronic warfare, KAZs, remote sensing, “barbecues”, all these maneuvering techniques that are spherical in a vacuum that you describe are just fluctuations in statistics. Where it is possible to use funds more or less massively, modern technology will sit without sticking its nose out. You should not take me for an adherent of the “holy drone”, I read more than my comrades who endlessly admire “Geraniums” and “Baba Yaga” - here I am not looking at some distant future, but at the very near future of the production of our opponents, if they are based on the results of the SVO will come to understand that the military-industrial complex is not only an endless feeding trough on golden vanderwaffles, but also a complex capable of generating effective means of destruction. Americans know how to analyze statistics.
I’m not saying that “we need to make a breakthrough tank now, urgently!! 11” or “let’s cut intelligent missiles like sausages” - no. I am simply analyzing the RISKS from such a development of events. There is a problem of survivability that the tank ceases to “hold” intensive interaction, not just some prepared positions, but simply positions fortified and saturated with manual countermeasures. A truck arrived, brought it, distributed it, trained it. The next generation of “smarts” will be even simpler, for an even greater “collective farmer”, and the problems will get worse. We can deny it, we can think about what to do about it in the future. A fight between shield and sword, so to speak.
It is futile to deny the wind of change in this direction. Now we are witnessing revolutionary processes in the area.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
Are you denying progress in the field of AI?

I tested this AI of yours back in the USSR)) In general, AI systems in missiles and “smart bombs” appeared back in the 80s of the last century. There is nothing new under the sun))) This was not the case in mass-produced weapons. And no one has yet allowed AI to “press the button itself.” All the same, the final decision is up to the operator. You write that it has simply become cheap and accessible to the average young technician and not even a botanist.

the combination of a rocket and a high-resolution optical recognition system is something revolutionary

One example is the warhead of the Pershing 2 missile, 80s. More detailed information in the journal “Foreign Military Review” in the same years. Well, not only this rocket...

the maneuvering techniques you describe, spherical in a vacuum, are just fluctuations in statistics

This is where you are absolutely wrong. A person uses a weapon. How many examples of “friendly fire”? And there are many examples of how seemingly good, but formulaic actions failed, while original and sophisticated actions helped to win against the most powerful and technically equipped opponent. A simple example. During the first Iraq War, the Americans widely used cruise missiles, but after losing more than 50% of the missiles that missed their target, they abandoned their use. The Iraqis simply calculated their most likely routes and set up ambushes there. And the most likely targets were protected...with nets strung over 100-meter poles! And the rocket’s charge is not the drone’s charge!

breakthrough tank

A very strange phrase. One of the functions of a modern main battle tank is to break through enemy defenses.

There is a survivability problem that the tank stops “holding” intensive interaction

Have you ever thought that tanks take a direct part in this “interaction”? It’s more likely a question of the survival and functionality of any combat weapon, and the soldier too, in an increasingly rapidly rotating meat grinder

Deny the wind of change

No one denies it)) I already wrote that you drown for attack, and I drown for defense. But this is just a point of view, the level of a specific system! At the supersystem level, your drones are defenders (active defense), and tanks are attackers. And at the subsystem level, the drones themselves are attacked by anti-drone systems.

Therefore, this music will be eternal... if everyone replaces the batteries)) They will engage in an arms race)) Against any scrap, a larger crowbar or a scrap trap will appear))

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
This tank design seems unsuited to the threat from above, roof busters and drones

This is wrong. For the top, thickest sheet of armor is also the top sheet. This tank eliminated the problem of modern tanks with thin roof armor. Nothing prevents you from placing screens, overhead protection and even remote sensing on top

[Knell wardenheart]

You and I see the concept of “defeating a tank” differently, apparently. In your understanding, this is a tank in ruins, the crew is in ruins. In my understanding, this is a tank that is immobilized OR will lose firepower and needs lengthy repairs OR has lost mobility to such an extent that it becomes an easy target for other weapons.
A tank is, first of all, a product whose purpose is to cause some damage to the enemy, while remaining as a combat unit during the process (and preferably after). If this condition is not met, then the task is not completed and the benefit from the tank in military terms will be as much as from a cart with potatoes. How many tanks can the industry of the Nth state produce in one day, and how long will it take for them to get to the front. These are logistics and industrial cycles. Tanks have one, but products that are potentially capable of damaging them have completely different ones. The SVO and NK conflict showed that cheap money can be stupidly paralyzed and knocked out without cheap money, but this is only the tip of the horn - at the moment, the depth of this direction is not yet fully understood. One thing is certain - there are groups of objects that are much easier to reach and cause damage than to detect and shoot them down. Especially in case of mass use. And also that the cost of such objects can be orders of magnitude less than the cost of means to counter them and the equipment they disable.
This is not a problem that should be ignored.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
No. For me, the defeat of a tank means that it stops performing a combat mission, or a significant reduction in its ability to perform it. From this point of view, even surveillance devices covered by something (or broken by a sniper), or a torn track, or a tank that has fallen into a ravine fit this definition quite well.
I gave an example of the defeat of the crew only to show that there may be different options for solving the problem of defeat. In this case, the tank may be quite serviceable. For example, we blind him with a laser. Or what kind of saboteurs are running it somehow what, due to which the engine suddenly stops. Or a neutron bomb explodes nearby, killing the crew, but the tank remains relatively intact (albeit with a terrible noise).
There are many options.
As for countermeasures, they just haven’t done much about it yet.
Yes, by the way, tanks are now already equipped with electronic warfare equipment on the turret.
What am I talking about... There are, in fact, two tasks: preventing a combat vehicle from carrying out its tasks, and neutralizing such attempts. It is from this point of view that we need to reason.
If we start measuring things emotionally (miracle weapons) or economically (cost), we immediately reach a dead end and end up with formulaic and, most likely, ineffective solutions.
By the way, anti-drone nets and visors are even cheaper than these "penny"drones. And there may be other solutions

[Knell wardenheart]

Drones of today are given as an example not as some kind of “absolute weapon”, but as a model object, a kind of forerunner of a much more effective weapon - precessional and mass-produced, not requiring an operator to make decisions, not requiring continuous target designation, only directives and casting to search area.
It would be more accurate to compare what I am writing about not even with drones - with self-aiming combat elements, that’s what this line is called. Quite lethal, but as yet not accurate enough. However, it is already quite algorithmic, and one can already draw conclusions about how unpleasant this would be if the intellectual abilities of such products were improved, the principle of their actions was transferred to a separate small ammunition such as a “rocket” of projectile dimensions or a mine similar to a mortar with drop-down control surfaces capable of correct the fall.

Regarding “obstacles,” you must understand that opposition is always inferior to action in the decision-making cycle because it always requires 1-2 points more. To detect a target with an insignificant RCS, the defender will have to have a powerful radar, this radar will emit, it will need to be powered, other means will be directed to its work, among other things. But for this very purpose, it is enough to simply somehow burn the presence of the tank in order to cause damage to it - and the degree of this damage will be associated with the small problem of modernizing the ammunition, but with the huge problem of modernizing the entire area on which it can potentially have a destructive effect.
This is not an example of some drones, this is an example of a concept. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are now quite effectively using “remote-controlled vessels” - including because the costs of creating these means are nothing compared to the costs of large-scale counteraction to them. This is it now conceptual example, so that you don’t think again that I’m an enthusiastic adherent of everything with a motor.

Old "smarts" are too expensive and bulky, their guidance systems are also archaic - however, even in this form they are quite effective and are a significant deterrent. What will happen when they are replaced by new concepts a la FPV drone (precisely a la, so that you don’t get hooked on drones with motors again), only these will be intelligent missiles with visual or other means of independently detecting and selecting targets?
But okay, there are often these useless disputes here - time and progress will show how it will be. This is the case when I hope that you are right - and that everything will be “sort of like before, maybe a little different,” and that the next revolution in military affairs will not ruin us all in the foreseeable future.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
precessional

Did you mean to say “precise” (accurate)? Precession is the deviation of the axis of rotation. Watch the video to see what trajectory the ATGM takes towards the target - this is precession.

opposition is always inferior to action in the decision-making cycle because it always requires 1-2 points more

Wrong. Any weapon (except a mine) needs time to reach its target. Therefore, the sooner the adversary is detected, the more time the defense system will have to repel the attack.

To detect a target with an insignificant RCS, the defender will have to have a powerful radar

Wrong. Nothing depends on power here at all. Depends on the resolution and the ability to isolate the target from the surrounding picture. Resolution depends on wavelength. Conventional radars use the centimeter range. We use millimeter. Counter-battery radars that detect flying shells and even 88-mm mines (and the drone is no smaller than such a mine) are precisely in the millimeter range. And then there is the optical range - laser locators (lidars) and even visible range cameras with technical vision systems. There are also selection methods. For example, detecting hovering helicopters was once a problem. And then a Doppler shift in the wavelength of the signal reflected from the rotating blades was discovered. I think there are solutions here too. These are your favorite algorithms and AI. Once again, I repeat that your drone is not invisible, therefore, it has physical fields by which it can be detected AND DEFEATED. There are also a lot of options for defeat. It's a question of time.

for this very purpose it is enough to simply somehow burn down the presence of a tank

Then your drone solves the same problem that the defense system against it solves. The same duel “armor versus projectile”. Whoever is faster, who manages to detect and hit first, will win.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces are now effectively using “remote-controlled vessels”

It’s just that there has never been such a threat before, so there are few means of fighting against them. But rest assured, they will find it. It's always been like this

Old smart phones are too expensive and bulky

Here it’s better to say in Putin’s words: “we haven’t started yet.” Handicrafts based on civilian drones are fighting. Well, and something really military (Switch Blade, Lancet). And military electronic warfare systems cope well with this. When there is “everything really military”, and not circles for young technicians, then it will be really scary. But they will cope with this too.

I already wrote that anti-drone systems will appear against any drones. Then they will come up with a new means of attack, for example, some kind of weapon that disables electronic systems. But there will also be protection against him. "This music will last forever." THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE WEAPON

[abrakadabre]

I would add that 2 harps along the entire length of the tank have a larger area of ​​contact with the ground than 4, at least due to the clearance between the front and rear pairs. What affects specific pressure? That is, cross-country ability on soft soils.

[svp67]

Another adjustment of objectionable facts to one’s own “VISION”

360° rotating turret with a cannon and combat crew (tank commander, gunner and loader);

This is about the T-34... There were no three crew members in the turret. The tank commander was both the commander and the loader. And only on the basis of the battles and the experience of German tanks, the commander became only a commander, and a loader appeared in the turret of the T-34/85 tank

The layout scheme developed during the creation of the T-34 tank was so successful that since 1940 it has become traditional for world tank building.

No, in the 40s, both German and American tank building followed a different path

[Adrey]

Quote: svp67

This is about the T-34... The tank commander was both the commander and the loader.

In the T-34, the commander combined the functions of a gunner.

Quote: svp67

No, in the 40s, what is German, what american tank building went a different way

In the early 40s, there was no American tank building as such. By that time, the Americans had finally realized that tanks were necessary, but they had not completely decided on their function and, accordingly, their appearance. The best confirmation of this is the M-3 "Lee" ("Grant"), developed in 1940.
Then yes... we walked “by leaps and bounds”, the benefit of others and our own experience became abundant.

[svp67]

Quote: Adrey

In the T-34, the commander combined the functions of a gunner.

I agree, but this does not change my statement that the placement of crew members was not optimal

Quote: Adrey

In the early 40s, there was no American tank building as such.

Yes it was, otherwise we wouldn’t have Christie’s tanks,

Quote: Adrey

Then yes... we walked “by leaps and bounds”, the benefit of others and our own experience became abundant.

And they began to “walk” along the “German path”

[Adrey]

Quote: svp67

but this does not change my statement that the placement of crew members was not optimal

So I didn’t argue with this. You are absolutely right.

Quote: svp67

Yes it was, otherwise we wouldn’t have Christie’s tanks,

Oh well. Either way, the US Army didn’t have a single vehicle at the Christie base. This is essentially an initiative project of an engineer who did not interest the army. Because at that time she had little interest in tanks at all.

Quote: svp67

And they began to “walk” along the “German path”

By that time, based on accumulated experience, the “path” had become international. All participants "found" the right solutions. In fact, all tanks from the period 1943-50, regardless of the country of manufacture, are similar, if not like twins, then like siblings for sure. But then the searches and experiments began

[svp67]

Quote: Adrey

Either way, the US Army didn’t have a single vehicle at the Christie base.

But there were enough of them in the armies of the USSR, Great Britain and Poland

[Dante77]

Interesting article. Otherwise, I would add to the T-34 that its layout was far from ideal. The main problem was the placement of the turret forward, which negatively affected the weight distribution of the entire tank. This is why all tanks since then have turrets in the middle; over the years this has proven to be the best solution. Of course, there were also ideas for tanks with a rear turret, similar to the tank from the article, but they did not get beyond the design stage. The rear turret has many more disadvantages than advantages.

[futurohunter]

Dante77
The T-34, for all its advantages, had a whole bunch of problems. And this is not a tower in the center of the building at all.
1.Giant vulnerability on the front plate - driver's hatch
2.Outdated “candle” suspension, borrowed from Christie’s tanks. It took up extra volume in the body and did not provide a smooth ride
3. Great efforts on the control levers - the driver had to be a hero
For a long time the tank had poor visibility. The commander was also a gunner. The commander did not have a turret. For a long time, the tank suffered from a large number of manufacturing defects, for example, poor optics.
I can write about this for a long time

[DrEng02]

If we discuss the concept itself, it is quite flawed: the tank turns out to be very expensive and difficult to maintain: 2 engines, complex transmission, 4 tracks...
The T-14 implements 2 ideas: a non-serviceable turret and a crew capsule, in principle, not so little from one concept...

[BAI]

Object 490”, “Object 490B” or “Belka” - as soon as they call the concept of the tank by E. A. Morozov,

Not beautiful. So it's not successful

[futurohunter]

Not beautiful. So it's not successful

This is said about airplanes. And history knows many aircraft that were ugly, but quite successful. For example, the F-4 Phantom II. Or watch Trislander. Quite successful... freak

[Bad_gr]

- Object 490 (“Topol”)

[agond]

A tank with 2 engines and 4 tracks (though with one gun) is two about one, I think it can be done differently, since there is a tendency to place the crew in an isolated armored capsule with remote control of all mechanisms, then for such remote control it is not necessary to keep the crew in the tank, it can be controlled from the outside and then the unmanned tank will sharply decrease in size, weight and price without reducing its combat qualities

[futurohunter]

Remote tanks are a good idea, but they won't replace manned ones. There have already been attempts in history to use unmanned tanks

an unmanned tank will sharply shrink in size

Did you mean Uranus-type robots?

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

Object 490 (“Topol”)

This is more similar to the “Malyshevites”. Until the early 80s, their experimental cars came with the name of rivers, then they came with the name of trees. Where did "Squirrel" come from?????

[Grossvater]

Quote: svp67

No, in the 40s, both German and American tank building followed a different path

German, yes, but in the forties the Americans PRODUCED tanks with a front-mounted transmission, but DEVELOPED the classic M-26.

[acetophenone]

The conditions in which the tank "works" have changed almost to the "opposite". And here there is still maximum frontal protection, and the rest - on a residual principle. And all these articulated, two-gun, turretless schemes are just stillborn monsters. Well, after all, there are statistics on destroyed tanks... Or as in the joke: sowed the keys in the dark, and are looking for them under the lantern, because it is lighter there?

[futurohunter]

In the future, there might be a lot of fast stuff flying over the battlefield. But for some reason no one thinks that later this battlefield will have to be simply cleared and occupied. Well, keep it. And only the oldest regime infantry can do this, which should be supported by a large number of different combat vehicles, primarily tanks

[ved_med12]

There are too many "warnings" to criticize this article or the author,

[futurohunter]

All these rocket-mortar-drone tanks are pointless. Because there are still a lot of reserves for improving modern tanks.

1.New materials that increase security and reduce weight.
2. New types of armor and dynamic protection (DZ), for example, non-explosive DZ; systems for quick replacement of remote control elements
3. Modular layout of tanks - from a tank we quickly get something like a “Terminator” or “Sunny”
4.More compact, powerful and economical engines
5.Powerful electronic “board” - new sensors, reconnaissance systems, combat situation analysis systems based on artificial intelligence
6. Mine protection systems
7.New active protection systems against any flying evil spirits
8.Integration with other tanks, aircraft and other combat “units” into a single combat system. There is already something like this. "Armata" can be a kind of headquarters for a group of simpler tanks. It is possible to create a command tank, which has weapons only for self-defense, but at the same time controls a group of tanks. Or, with the network-centric principle, any tank can become the headquarters for a tank regiment
9. New projectiles - active-reactive, with increased range, guided and homing along the trajectory. This is for fans of “rocket tanks”. Rockets fired from the gun barrel are also being improved
10.Increasing calibers, reducing the weight of guns and recoil, for example, due to the same active-missile projectiles
11.Drones on board the tank
12.Expansion of the range of weapons on board the tank, for example, due to small-caliber turret guns, multi-barreled Gatling-type guns, short-range projectile ammunition, mines, scatterable sensors, etc.
13. Systems for jamming, suppressing and blinding enemy equipment
14. Wheeled tanks have a place in this entire ecosystem, along with caterpillar turtles

To summarize: the tank of the future is such a heavily armed and ultra-protected, very mobile intellectual fortress

[futurohunter]

Ahahaha, who downvoted))) At least admit why and what you disagree with?

[_KM_]

Additional weapons and equipment require additional targeting devices, optics, an operator, and a decision center. The result will be a battleship on tracks.

[futurohunter]

_KM_
Look how much stuff is attached to Armata. And more are planned...

[Ivanov IV]

Thanks to the author for the article. The topic is interesting. Although not without controversy.
There is one question that has not been considered: the protection of the tank from above. Various means of attacking tanks from above have developed significantly. And all these “barbecues” are like a poultice for the dead.

[lelik613]

The old countryman apparently overexerted himself while admiring himself in the mirror. Cadaver is even uglier than Object 279. Unviable and absolutely useless.

[Totor5]

No matter what funny game they come up with, the original root is always the same - a scheme in which tank fights against tank within the limits of safe maneuvering angles! Although with the development of RPGs and drones, getting hit from above or from the side or even in the ass (moreover, from a simple infantryman) is much higher than a tank duel head-on.

[futurohunter]

Well, to put it simply, a tank duel is a Western approach. There, the main purpose of the tank is to fight against its own kind. Up to the absence of OFS in the ammunition. The domestic approach is different: a tank is a super-protected and super-armed, very mobile soldier. Armored tracked super infantry with artillery on board. And when maneuvering on the battlefield, it can arrive from any direction. Therefore, all discussions about “safe corners” are nonsense. There are none

[geologist]

If we apply the analogy method, then the automotive industry has long since figured out this topic. There is a Ferrari and there is a Volkswagen Golf. Let's say we need to create a dreadnought and we choose the British Challenger MBT, realized in 500 copies. If we need a mass tank in a million pieces, then it is necessary to design a simplified version, suitable for conveyor assembly, which is a welded parallelepiped box with a square turret, an engine from a mass truck, a citadel capsule like in battleships, a crew of 2 people, or better yet, one.

[Totor5]

Quote: futurohunter

Well, to put it simply, a tank duel is a Western approach. There, the main purpose of the tank is to fight against its own kind. Up to the absence of OFS in the ammunition. The domestic approach is different: a tank is a super-protected and super-armed, very mobile soldier. Armored tracked super infantry with artillery on board. And when maneuvering on the battlefield, it can arrive from any direction. Therefore, all discussions about “safe corners” are nonsense. There are none

There are such - just look at the design of the T90 turret.

[storm]

The ground forces undoubtedly need an assault tank with armor more powerful than the T-90M, with a short 152 mm cannon-howitzer, with an additional remote-controlled turret housing a 30 mm automatic cannon and a machine gun for use against tank-hazardous infantry entrenched in attics and roofs of buildings.
Fighting in urban conditions showed that long tank guns are extremely inconvenient, while the power of 125 mm shells is not enough to destroy concrete fortifications and entrances of multi-story buildings where the enemy is holed up....
The howitzer gun must operate both in direct fire and in a high-angle trajectory to guarantee the destruction of dugouts, trenches and other earthen and concrete fortifications.

[t7310]

It was in some cartoon - It won’t be enough!!!
Or maybe this is not because 125 is not enough, but because the enemy has settled there because he knows that 125 is not enough and this will always be a problem if the enemy knows the caliber

[lelik613]

The squirrel that Morozov caught... Very reminiscent of Lebedenkovsky's "Tsar Tank". The same unclouded depth of idea. Ahead is only George Lucas with Imperial walkers.

[hector]

– The rear location of the power plant in combination with the engine systems, fuel and transmission and drive wheels ensures the compactness of the MTO systems with minimal communication routes, and its shielding by the front part of the hull and turret from the damaging effects of enemy fire supports the high survivability of the power plant, and, as a result, preserves tank mobility in battle.

If, after being hit in the front part, the driver or the entire crew dies, then there will be no more mobility.

[89824024836]

A 21st century tank should be equipped with a small-sized nuclear power plant, a jumping pneumatic chassis, a laser or electromagnetic cannon, omnivorous all-aspect missiles, a set of UAVs for tracking and observing the battlefield, a circular dump device for rapid immersion under the daylight surface, a digital module for combat control and communication with spacecraft, ejection seats, in the case of crew control, in an unmanned version with remote control and modern armor protection with armor protection systems against ATGM and UAV damage.

[89824024836]

A tank of the 21st century should be: without a gun, with omnivorous missiles of different calibers, with a pneumatic start, with a pneumatic-wheeled chassis that jumps to a height of at least 5 m, with a nuclear power plant, equipped with a laser with a power of at least 300 kW, a set of drones on a cable and without, protection systems against APFSDS and impact nuclei, communication with satellites, ejection seats for operators, the ability to control the battle without a crew.

[Andrey Anisimov_2]

I liked the gun, but I have huge doubts about the chassis.