“Black Eagle” - features of the tank that are still relevant today

111
“Black Eagle” - features of the tank that are still relevant today

“Object 640” or “Black Eagle” is perhaps one of the most famous projects of domestic tank building, developed by Omsk Transmash in the 90s. First presented to the general public more than a quarter of a century ago, it still arouses increased interest today, thanks to design solutions that could be very useful in modern combat.

Indeed, over the past couple of years, “Black Eagle” has been mentioned in the media unusually often. They glorify its characteristics and spread frank tales about the supposed arrival of these machines at the front and putting them into mass production. And the icing on the cake was the recent statement from Military Watch magazine about Omsk’s intention to produce a completely new tank, which was perceived by many as a hint at the revival of the Object 640.



Well, all that remains to be noted here is that there is no mass production of the Black Eagle, and never has been. As there were no government orders for its production and research work on development tank, as reported by the Ministry of Defense in 2009. All activities on “Object 640” were carried out exclusively within the framework of an independent initiative of the Omsk “Transmash”.

A running model of the Black Eagle tank, made on a T-80U chassis with six road wheels on board. Introduced in 1997.
A running model of the Black Eagle tank, made on a T-80U chassis with six road wheels on board. Introduced in 1997.

The tank project itself, after the bankruptcy of the enterprise and its subsequent absorption by Uralvagonzavod, was finally shelved along with the well-known unified fighting compartment, designed on the Burlak theme. So there is no talk about the present “Eagle” - only about the probable future, if the developments on it will be used in the production of “eighties”, which they plan to establish in the future.

By the way, these developments really deserve attention and implementation.

And it’s not a matter of electronics, protection systems or the engine, which, according to patents published in the public domain, looked quite decent compared to the equipment of existing domestic tanks. Much more important are the basic things in the form of structural elements, thanks to which the Omsk team managed to eliminate the largest shortcomings inherent in the current Soviet-style combat vehicles, and at the same time seriously increase the security of their product.

There are at least three of them.

A prototype of the Black Eagle tank, built on a chassis with seven road wheels on board. Introduced in 1999.
A prototype of the Black Eagle tank, built on a chassis with seven road wheels on board. Introduced in 1999.

Transport-charging module


Perhaps one of the main problems of Soviet-type tanks, including the T-64, T-72 and T-80, is the lack of any isolation of the ammunition from the manned compartments. All separately loaded shots in the form of projectiles and propellant charges in combustible cartridges are located inside the body - in tank racks, an automatic gun loading mechanism and additional stowage.

On the one hand, such a solution made it possible to increase the protection of ammunition racks at heading maneuvering angles by reducing the likelihood of their destruction.

On the other hand, it turned the tanks into natural powder kegs, leaving practically no chance for the crew to survive if this defeat did occur. However, for this reason the vehicles themselves often turn into a pile of scrap metal with turrets torn off and hulls blown to shreds.

View of the Black Eagle transport-loading module from the stern
View of the Black Eagle transport-loading module from the stern

In the Black Eagle, this flaw was solved by moving all the ammunition into a removable transport-loading module in the rear of the turret, completely isolated from the fighting compartment. It also houses an automatic longitudinal-type loading mechanism with a conveyor belt with a capacity of more than 30 shots, which are loaded through a hatch in the roof of the module.

The shots in the conveyor are laid in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the gun and are connected to the breech by a hole closed by an armored shutter and opened only during loading of the projectile. Therefore, the crew’s contact with the open ammunition rack is minimal - in fact, a kind of automatic analogue of the “armored blinds” in American tanks.

Top view of the TZM: 1 – gun, 2 – turret, 4 – turret roof, 27 – additional loading hatch with a cover, 28 – two hatches with covers for directing the blast wave during an emergency explosion, 93 – armored housing of the conveyor stopper drive mechanisms and opening the cassettes.
Top view of the TZM: 1 – gun, 2 – turret, 4 – turret roof, 27 – additional loading hatch with a cover, 28 – two hatches with covers for directing the blast wave in an emergency explosion, 93 – armored housing of the conveyor stopper drive mechanisms and opening the cassettes.

Side view of the TZM: 1 – gun, 4 – turret roof, , 8 front wall of the turret structure 9 – rear wall of the turret structure, 10 – shot, 11 – receiving tray body 43 – cassette frame, 92 – ramming mechanism body, 93 – armor housing of drive mechanisms for conveyor stopper and cassette opening. 94 – movable guide.
Side view of the TZM: 1 – gun, 4 – turret roof, 8 – front wall of the turret structure, 9 – rear wall of the turret structure, 10 – shot, 11 – receiving tray body, 43 – cassette frame, 92 – ramming mechanism body, 93 – armored housing of the drive mechanisms of the conveyor stopper and opening of the cassettes, 94 – movable guide.

Also in the roof of the transport-loading module there are two ejection panels, which are designed to relieve pressure and direct the propagation of a shock wave in the event of combustion of powder charges and detonation of shells containing explosives.

It is worth noting that similar modules (containers) were offered by the Omsk "Transmash" in a variety of variations, including the "Burlak" for the T-72 and T-80. And they were offered for good reason, since with their help you can significantly increase the chances of crew survival, and reduce the irretrievable losses of tanks by 5–7 times.

In addition, turreted containers also completely eliminate the problem of classic machine guns/loading mechanisms in terms of limiting the length of sub-caliber projectiles.

So these designs have a future, the only question is implementation.

Fuel tank insulation


Generally speaking, fuel tanks are a source of increased danger in absolutely any tank. Moreover, a fire caused by fuel ignition is one of the most common causes of armored vehicle losses and crew deaths. This is especially true for Soviet tanks, the fuel tanks of which, as well as the ammunition, are located in the habitable compartments.

In the Black Eagle, this problem, although not completely solved - the probability of a fire in any case will not be zero - was minimized by completely isolating the fuel from the crew. This was realized by moving the fuel containers into large compartments in the hull to the right and left of the driver, separated by armored partitions.

Section of the bow of the hull: 39 – sheets of anti-radiation material, 24 – left side, 35, 36, 37 – isolated compartments, 27 – upper frontal plate, 33, 34 – vertical armor plates installed parallel to the tank axis, 25 – right side, 38 – sheets of anti-fragmentation material, 26 – bottom.
Section of the bow of the hull: 39 – sheets of anti-radiation material, 24 – left side, 35, 36, 37 – isolated compartments, 27 – upper frontal sheet; 33, 34 – vertical armor plates installed parallel to the axis of the tank, 25 – starboard side, 38 – sheets of anti-fragmentation material, 26 – bottom.

A similar solution was used, for example, in the American Abrams - it also has two large tanks behind steel plates on either side of the driver. And this decision is completely justified, since it can significantly increase the likelihood of crew survival and the survivability of the tank.

In addition, in “Object 640” the fuel compartments also serve as additional protection. As in the sense that diesel fuel or kerosene themselves are an additional screen that reduces the armor penetration of a cumulative jet. This is also due to armored partitions equipped with anti-fragmentation lining, which protects the crew and internal equipment of the tank from secondary fragments when the armor is penetrated.

Tower with roof protection


The turret of the “Black Eagle” is also interesting, radically different from those of any domestic or foreign tank. Omsk engineers developed it taking into account the increase in armor penetration of classic anti-tank weapons, as well as the proliferation of new missiles at that time that attack the roof of the tank.


In fact, it is part of a completely redesigned fighting compartment of the Soviet T-80, in which the gunner and commander, due to the automatic loader located outside the body, can be located both in the turret in the stowed position, and below the turret shoulder strap in the combat position using height-adjustable seats.

This approach, on the one hand, reduced the likelihood of the crew being hit, since, according to statistics, the turret received the largest number of shell hits. On the other hand, it made it possible to reduce its height and direct the released mass reserve to strengthen the armor.

As for the design, it is made in the form of three compartments isolated from each other. On the left and right, respectively, there are places for the gunner and commander (in the stowed position). On average, there is a “seat” for the main armament in the form of a smoothbore gun. It is worth noting that in “Eagle” it was planned to be completely sealed in order to exclude contact of the turrets with powder gases and to provide additional protection in the event of a projectile hitting one of the compartments.

Plan view of the tank turret
Plan view of the tank turret

Cross section of the tower. 1 – niches for armor filler, formed by external and internal steel sheets, 2 – crew compartments, 3 – gun embrasure
Cross section of the tower. 1 – niches for armor filler, formed by external and internal steel sheets, 2 – crew compartments, 3 – gun embrasure

As you can see from the drawings provided above, the armor of the left and right compartments is formed by external and internal steel sheets spaced apart. They are distributed from the cannon embrasure in the frontal part to the transverse axis of the tower and are presented in the form of coaxially truncated pyramids with an inclination angle of 20–30 degrees.

Inside there are stiffening ribs that protect the outer sheets from bending and breaking when hit by a projectile. And also an armor filler that covers not only the frontal and side projections, but also the roof of the turret, giving it additional protection from “roof-breaking” ammunition. Of course, not absolute - the armor size will not allow this - but very significant relative to serial turrets with 40-mm roofs, which are often not helped by either “reactive armor” or visors, the height of which does not always take into account the residual penetration of cumulative projectiles.

At one time, this version of the tower was rated quite highly, and the authors themselves directly stated the following:

...In the proposed turret design, due to the selection of optimal shapes of armor parts, their relative position and dimensions, an increase in protection by 1,7–2 times is ensured with an increase in the total mass by 20–30%, and the specified level of protection is achieved at heading angles of fire ±35– 40 degrees.

It is still relevant today, both due to the possibility of further strengthening the reservation, and due to the wide distribution drones and other anti-tank weapons capable of hitting a combat vehicle in vulnerable places.

It is noteworthy that low-profile turrets of this kind have some advantages over uninhabited combat modules, since they do not make the crew completely dependent on electronics and provide the opportunity to use optical sights and surveillance devices.

Conclusions


Of course, the innovations of “Black Eagle” do not end there. According to plans, this tank was supposed to have other advantages.

These include redesigned hull protection (using a platform on seven rollers), a new fire control system with multifunctional control panels for the gunner and commander, the Drozd-2 (Afganit) active countermeasures complex, dynamic, hydrodynamic protection, etc.

And it would be good if this car went into serial production entirely, and not partially.

But, unfortunately, most of the innovations cannot currently be implemented due to the lack of a production base and the corresponding burden on industry associated with a special operation in Ukraine.

However, these solutions, tested on the tank in Omsk, in one form or another can clearly serve as the basis for the resumed production of the T-80.
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    28 March 2024 04: 35
    The gunner and commander are isolated from each other. This is bad. No, this is very bad... Tankers will understand me... There are no powder gases due to the constant overpressure created on purpose. This is also an element of anti-nuclear protection... Excess weight.. It is better to strengthen side projections of the tank and the top of the turret... And if there are curtains between the commander and the mechanic, then believe me, they will be dismantled by the crew... The AZ in the rear will inevitably lead to the same irreparable losses. Shooting to the sides is simply fraught with such a tank. .30 degrees to the right and left and the affected area is ideal even with a 30 mm projectile. The same Abrams burn out just like that... And the appearance of the AZ box does not indicate its sufficient armor due to the weakness of the turret ring and drive... In general, as one of concepts deserve attention..But as a panacea, no. Unpromising...Well, that’s who we are...you have to step on the rake yourself to get hit in the forehead...And yet, the developments of the Leningrad Design Bureau in the USSR to create a maximum tank are more promising limits with a front-mounted TO. Despite a number of shortcomings, this design is truly a single platform for almost all types of equipment. But most importantly, it can become an ideal platform for creating a Land Combat Complex, both heavy, medium and light...
    1. +14
      28 March 2024 05: 02
      Quote: Igorash
      But most importantly, it can become an ideal platform for creating a Land Combat Complex, both heavy, medium and light...

      I welcome this thought and give it a plus.
      However, these solutions, tested on the tank in Omsk, in one form or another can clearly serve as the basis for the resumed production of the T-80.

      And here in Russia, the advantages of weapons are usually determined by cost.
      We already have one “analogue in the world”, so it has no analogues both in production and in price not only in the world, but also among Russian samples.
      I remember something from competitions for the best in the Soviet period. Maybe it’s worth adopting this method of production, including direct participants in the hostilities on the selection committee?
      1. -19
        28 March 2024 10: 41
        Everything that is written in the article and comments for a promising tank can be forgotten. With developed modern anti-tank weapons and the availability of modern technical reconnaissance equipment, any tank will not reach the front line. Please do not refer to the SVO. Two backward groups, practically without modern reconnaissance means, simply destroy each other, from a military point of view, in contact combat, using outdated tactics of warfare using the methods of the 2nd World War with the partial use of modern, from their point of view, weapons.
        A promising multi-purpose tank is a technical device, a mixture of self-propelled guns and a tank, which most of the time fires from closed positions at external target designation with “smart” projectiles. Sometimes such a tank, when quickly equipped with armor and mounted container-type protection systems, can clear out individual pockets of resistance from an almost defeated enemy in the 3rd echelon of combat operations and block surrounded populated areas under enemy control. Such a tank should have a 152 mm gun and, in addition to the main one, be provided with external charging. In addition, it will have a transport compartment for soldiers or external equipment, including reconnaissance from UAVs.
        Digest and learn the basics of modern warfare.
        1. +3
          28 March 2024 11: 46
          A promising multi-purpose tank is a technical device, a mixture of self-propelled guns and a tank, which most of the time fires from closed positions at external target designation with “smart” projectiles. Sometimes such a tank, when quickly retrofitted with armor and mounted container-type protection systems, can clear out individual pockets of resistance from an almost defeated enemy in the 3rd echelon of combat operations and block surrounded populated areas under enemy control

          And what equipment will storm enemy positions, maneuver, break through, and envelop? Who will be in the 1st echelon to capture enemy positions?
          I see cognitive distortions in such reasoning, an attempt to pass off the weakness of the SVO as a virtue
          1. 0
            28 March 2024 13: 51
            And what equipment will storm enemy positions, maneuver, break through, and envelop? Who will be in the 1st echelon to capture enemy positions?

            They will create another Wagner, there will be plenty of prisoners throughout the country. A comrade drew an army of the future: in front are hordes of meat, above them are attack drones, behind is a hybrid self-propelled gun with an armored personnel carrier with the possibility of attaching armor plates in case of the delivery of new portions of meat.
        2. +8
          28 March 2024 11: 47
          Quote: Vitov
          A promising multi-purpose tank is a technical device, a mixture of self-propelled guns and a tank, which most of the time fires from closed positions at external target designation with “smart” projectiles.

          Stop talking nonsense! Where does such knowledge come from regarding the requirements for a promising tank and the tactics of modern combat? Is that what it says in shooters?
          I can tell you with 100% certainty that the prospects for the development of any weapons are moving towards the use of drones, when a person (operator) controls the “drone” from afar, being outside the affected area, or the device is controlled by AI.
          The only thing is that no one has yet come up with the idea of ​​protecting electronics from EMP.
          * * *
          Weapons based on new physical principles also became fashionable. Perhaps the devices you describe can be used between the armies of technically advanced countries. But this is when it is necessary to seize the territory of a state.
          They also invented neutron weapons, bacteriological (viral), chemical weapons...
          And it’s not a fact that they don’t remember about it... They just temporarily agreed not to use it.
          But who observes these agreements today?
        3. +4
          28 March 2024 18: 35
          In addition, it will have a transport compartment for soldiers or external equipment, including reconnaissance from UAVs.

          It would be nice to put a BRDM in this transport compartment, and weld an UR-77 in front Yes
          What are you talking about, buddy? I’m silent about “quick retrofitting of armor” lol
        4. Des
          0
          29 March 2024 06: 58
          + to you for your reasoned thought). Yes, and there are surprisingly many (-), even more than + among those criticizing))).
        5. -3
          30 March 2024 13: 06
          Digesting the vomit from Western training manuals, which were written after the wars with the Papuans, is, of course, just “study”. Let it be known to you that the concept of using a tank as a “mixture of self-propelled guns and a tank” was born precisely in the Northern Military District for specific reasons that you obviously do not know about, in the very Army that, in your opinion, looks like a “backward group”, which is at best stupidity, and at worst a deliberate lie. And in the Northern Military District it is NATO that uses “modern technical reconnaissance means,” they could at least know this. And yet, even if NATO uses the mentioned battlefield to improve precisely the “fundamentals of modern warfare,” and modernizes its technical means in accordance with the experience gained there, then the post you wrote, imbued with emergency situations, is completely nullified.
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +3
      28 March 2024 08: 58
      Quote: Igorash
      The gunner and commander are isolated from each other. This is bad. No, this is very bad...

      This also immediately came to mind, even though I’ve never been a tanker.
      But, unfortunately, most of the innovations cannot currently be implemented due to the lack of a production base and the corresponding burden on industry associated with a special operation in Ukraine.
      What prevented this from 1999 to 2022?
    3. +7
      28 March 2024 13: 37
      The military-industrial complex is not able to give the army the T14, there are problems with the wagons! But instead, the Black Eagle needs the T95, or the 195 object, which showed its best side in tests! Serdyukovishche ordered the lines already ready for its production to be rebuilt for the T14, thereby discarding years ago the development of our tank school.
    4. +1
      28 March 2024 17: 10
      And the appearance of the AZ box does not indicate that it is sufficiently armored due to the weakness of the turret ring and drive...

      It can be assumed that this was just an experimental box, just to test the concept.
      1. -1
        29 March 2024 06: 22
        The double turret and double roof are clearly the right concepts for defense against drones and ATGMs. It is possible to place some of the mechanisms inside these cavities, for example, air cylinders, a radio station, spare parts, etc.
  2. +1
    28 March 2024 04: 50
    then they say: it was a military secret.... oh well... look..
    1. +14
      28 March 2024 05: 08
      then they say: it was a military secret.... oh well... look..

      All these drawings were posted many years ago. Especially the towers, which have been hanging in the Yandex database for a long time. Yes
    2. +9
      28 March 2024 05: 19
      I saw the “Black Eagle” in the village of Svetloy near Omsk with the turret still covered. To be honest, I was impressed, but objectively, it was essentially a modernization of the T-80 based on even the Ambrams, but the Leclerc. The Ukrainians proposed something based on the T-72.
      However, the T-14 concept is much more advanced, although it is inferior to the Leningrad and Tamil developments. In particular, against the background of the T-95, the Armata looks faded.
      1. +4
        28 March 2024 09: 54
        and now work is already underway on the implementation of the built-in remote sensing Relikt on the top of the roofs of the turrets of the T-90M tanks and the new Omsk T-80 (not FP=act that the index will remain - BVM)
        and also on top of the built-in and spaced remote sensing Relic - in order to finally “survive” the visors
        on the T-72B3M and T-90M the roof of the towers is already covered from above by a spaced-out DZ Relikt
        by 50-75%
      2. +3
        28 March 2024 10: 59
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        However, the T-14 concept is much more advanced, although it is inferior to the Leningrad and Tamil developments. In particular, against the background of the T-95, the Armata looks faded.

        Alas, the economy is against the "Armata" - it will never become an MBT because it is too expensive. The only justification for such a platform (large and expensive) is a heavy assault tank with an ultimate weapon. For a 152 mm gun. such a platform is just right, then the cost will be justified by the sharply increased combat/fire capabilities. But there won’t be many such tanks either. Even for the Large Army that we are creating today, 600 - 1000 such tanks will be needed. maximum . Because there will be such tanks as a qualitative reinforcement for assault formations. There will be one brigade per army like this for a second.
        But with the resumption of production of the T-80, there is a very serious prospect. Its chassis is better than that of the T-72\90, the engine is more powerful (1250 hp with the prospect of 1500 hp), so it is possible to enhance protection without compromising mobility.
        the reason for the resumption of production of the T-80 is also clear - to return all T-80BVs to service with an upgrade to BVM, engines are needed. Simply capitalizing on the old ones won’t work for long, and we need to return to service all those available at the storage bases (currently there are about 2500 units left). This means we need to resume engine production. If we resume, then the question arises of what to do for the new production when all 2500 pieces. will they be modernized?
        The right thing to do is to resume production of new T-80s. And if so, then in principle it is possible to install a T-90M turret on it, but you can also come up with something more interesting... while production capacities are being restored, cooperation chains, etc. Because after a few years of such intensive work on modernizing the T-80BVM, some time is given for R&D and preparation of a new turret and, in general, a new tank. Maybe the experience of “Black Eagle” will come in handy. Although the towers are each in a separate capsule, it’s kind of... dumb. And FPV drones are now very smart - they strive to reach the most unprotected places. And they will hit precisely the crazy cassette with BC. Let's get an analogue of "Abrams" in the steppes of Ukraine.
        But there is still time to think. In any case, the chassis and overall chassis of the T-80 is the best we have. So it’s not a sin to rivet the next generation of MBT on this chassis. Of course, after the SVO, having analyzed the rich experience of their combat use.
        1. +7
          28 March 2024 11: 56
          Why did everyone think that 152 mm will give the tank some ultimate capabilities?
          A tank with a big gun without a modern sight and situational awareness is the same blind target for enemy high-precision weapons. It is not necessary to invest in a gun (125 is enough to kinetically destroy tanks), but in the situational awareness of the crew, KAZ and protection against drones, both in the form of electronic warfare and in the form of active weapons).
          It’s stupid to talk about the insufficient power of the 125-mm OFS; it’s better to give the tank a laser target designator so that it can illuminate the target for artillery and aviation. The 240 mm "Daredevil" will outshine any 152 mm OFS
          1. +5
            28 March 2024 13: 18
            Quote: Cympak
            Why did everyone think that 152 mm will give the tank some ultimate capabilities?

            We are not talking about an MBT, but about a heavy assault tank. He is not supposed to fight enemy tanks (mainly) but to destroy capital fortifications, buildings and structures with direct fire. Because in use 152 mm. 125 mm projectile on an ordinary house. the shell will punch a hole in the wall up to 1 m in diameter and take out the interior partition. A 152 mm. If a shell hits successfully, it can even bring down an entire entrance. This is from personal observations of 10 years of war in Donbass.
            Quote: Cympak
            125 is enough to kinetically destroy tanks

            Let the MBTs fight enemy tanks. And if you need to dismantle a house, workshop or other powerful barrier or fortification, roll out such a heavy assault tank.
            Quote: Cympak
            It’s better to give the tank a laser designator so that it can highlight the target for artillery and aviation.

            Is this really a job for a tank? The purpose of highlighting? Send a UAV with a laser designator and you will be happy.
            Quote: Cympak
            The 240 mm "Daredevil" will outshine any 152 mm OFS

            Actually, "Daredevil" is a guided mortar mine. Send "Orlan" or "Forpost" and you will have somewhere to throw mines.
            Sometimes a combat situation requires a tool to suppress and destroy enemy fortifications right on the battlefield. Discovered, revealed - destroyed. And while you contact the artillery, while they take a position or prepare to fire, they send a UAV - time will pass. And time during a battle is worth the losses.
            And in general, the point was that the seven-roller Armata platform is justified for a tank only as a special-purpose tank - a heavy assault tank. With a 152 mm gun.
            1. +3
              28 March 2024 14: 43
              An assault tank is a separate type of military equipment, with its own requirements that are different from MBT (other targets, threats, distances)
              Due to the fact that he will have to act in urban development, the following requirements arise:
              - all-aspect protection against RPGs and drones
              - a short gun that minimally protrudes beyond the dimensions of the tank
              - large UVN for the main and auxiliary guns
              - an auxiliary autocannon with vertical guidance angles independent of the main gun, with large air-launchers, both positive (to hit targets on the upper floors of buildings) and negative (to hit targets in the basements of buildings; or a separate autonomous turret on the roof of the tank
              - means of protecting the near zone from enemy infantry (turret, grenades with buckshot)
              - increased all-aspect awareness of the crew, means of interaction with assigned assault infantry, reconnaissance (image transmission from drones)
              and fire weapons (including built-in laser target designator)
              - the presence of external armored containers for transporting ammunition and additional weapons of assigned assault infantry (for example, various disposable grenade launchers, engineering charges)
              etc. .... the form is very slow
              1. +3
                28 March 2024 16: 33
                You described an assault tank for operating in urban areas. But this is a slightly different topic. By the way, several years before the SVO I wrote about the need for this.
                But there are also tasks for hitting targets with direct fire from a greater (usual for a tank) distance. And it is precisely for such a tank that the Armata platform will be in demand. And also as a chassis for the Coalition-SV, because the six-wheel chassis from the T-90 is too... small for it. And it seems that there were some problems with this. Very large and heavy turret, too powerful recoil.
                Concerning
                Quote: Cympak
                - an auxiliary autocannon with vertical guidance angles independent of the main gun, with large air-launchers, both positive (to hit targets on the upper floors of buildings) and negative (to hit targets in the basements of buildings; or a separate autonomous turret on the roof of the tank

                , then it would be rational to place a combat module from the BTR-82A on the roof of the tank. It is quite light and compact and could be controlled by a tank commander.
                As for the actual combat vehicles for assault infantry, it is best to use the Terminator BMPT as a fire support vehicle - SHMP (assault infantry support vehicle), and for the assault infantry itself you need a TBTR on a tank chassis, with a tank level of protection, front-mounted MTO and a convenient ramp in the stern. Additional ammunition and other equipment can be transported in aft lockers on the right and left of the ramp. They will balance the heavy nose of the TBTR and cover the landing force when dismounting. But I have already written about this a hundred times. Such TBTRs must be made from the hulls of old tanks - the same T-64s, of which there are 2500 at our storage bases. Many have already had their turrets and guns removed, but only the hulls and chassis are needed. Rearrangement will require serious work by welders, but as a result, a highly protected armored personnel carrier with full minced meat will cost no more than the new BMP-3 ... or rather, an armored personnel carrier based on it.
                1. 0
                  29 March 2024 15: 01
                  Quote: bayard
                  the same T-64s, of which there are 2500 at our storage bases.

                  I think there are more, from personal experience. There were at least so many of them at one storage base alone, but there were others. T-72A is also a lot.
                  1. +1
                    29 March 2024 17: 57
                    Quote: goose
                    I think there are more, from personal experience. There were at least so many of them at one storage base alone, but there were others.

                    I heard that all T-64s were assembled at one storage base somewhere in Transbaikalia. As for the numbers of tanks in storage, the numbers are approximately as follows: T-55 - 1500 units. (the rest were disposed of and sold), T-62 - about 2000 units. , T-64 - 2500 pcs. , T-72 - no more than 7000 units remained in storage. , now most likely there are fewer, T-80 of all types were about 5000 units. Of these, about 80 T-2500BV units remain.
                    Quote: goose
                    T-72A is also a lot.

                    The T-64s are best suited for conversion into TBTR, because they will definitely not be used as tanks - there are simply no engines for them. But you can remove the guns, because they can be installed instead of the fired ones on the T-72 and T-80. If there is a special need, you can even remove the turrets and install them on a T-72 or T-80, because they have the same shoulder strap and such a replacement is possible from the very beginning - according to the technical specifications.
                    But the hulls and chassis are more than suitable for conversion into TBTR, because for this purpose the chassis and hull are all we need.
                    As for all other tanks, if there is a special need, all of them can be returned to service through repair or modernization. In addition, if desired, they can be used as a base for the BMPT-72 - simply by removing the turret, install the Terminator combat module (without grenade launchers and overcooking the hull. To obtain a highly protected assault infantry support vehicle, you can install any combat module, uninhabited or inhabited. So. in Algeria, they converted all their T-62s into such vehicles, removing the turrets and installing turrets from the BMP-2 (Berezhok module) on the podium and were very pleased with this transformation. The result was such a “Terminator” at minimum wages. We have such modules if desired install even on the T-55 (the Chinese do this at home).
                    From the existing T-64s, you can get 1500 - 2000 TBTR (taking into account the rejection of part of the hulls and reasonable cannibalism, which will be quite enough at first.
                    The engine can be installed on them of any suitable power, but it would be optimal to install the engine that was prepared for the Kurganets-25 with a power of 840 hp. This will be quite enough, because the mass of the TBTR will be about 34-37 tons.
                    Later, and from scratch, such TBTR (and TBMP) can and should be built on the basis of the T-80 chassis.
                2. 0
                  April 5 2024 01: 23
                  That’s why in all the known videos everyone exchanges fire from 200-400 meters, or even less: from an ambush at point-blank range. So yes, shoot direct fire at 7-10 km, who knows who knows, this is a straight tank task
                  1. 0
                    April 5 2024 01: 50
                    Quote: Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich
                    So yes, shoot direct fire at 7-10 km

                    NATO tanks direct fire aiming at 3 km. beat. Our ATGMs through the barrel at 5 km. The rest is shooting along a hinged trajectory. As a necessary measure.
                    With UAVs of all types swarming, the massive use of tanks in deployed formation will simply be a feast for FPV drones and kamikaze UAVs. Not to mention artillery with target designation from the same UAVs. The tactics of combat use of armored vehicles are now changing radically.
              2. VlK
                +2
                29 March 2024 15: 21
                Everything is leading to the fact that assault missions are the main tasks of MBTs today; this became noticeable in Syria; the possibility of massive attacks with raids behind enemy lines is somehow not visible. That is, the tank is returning to its origins - a highly protected means of breaking through fortified defense lines and storming strong points, only in modern conditions all this is shifting mainly to areas with urban development.
            2. 0
              29 March 2024 20: 35
              destroy capital fortifications, buildings and structures with direct fire

              Isn’t it easier to do something like AVRE for this? A short, thick gun with 152 mm cans and additional armor.
              1. +1
                30 March 2024 02: 51
                Quote: Incvizitor
                Isn’t it easier to do something like AVRE for this? A short, thick gun with 152 mm cans and additional armor.

                simpler, but for this you definitely don’t need a seven-wheel chassis, a standard one will suffice. But we will get a highly specialized assault tank / assault self-propelled gun for battles in the city. The tank I described is more versatile, capable of dismantling fortifications and buildings with direct fire, but from a decent distance. Directly supporting assault infantry.
                And in general, I’m trying to attach a seven-roller platform (Armata) for some useful purpose. I have already found two such cases - a chassis for the Coalition-SV (which will be much better than the T-90 chassis) and a heavy assault tank with a 152 mm smoothbore. weapon A tank of high-quality reinforcement when storming powerful fortifications. Maybe it will be useful for something else useful - don’t let the good go to waste.
                And the MBT must be MASSIVE, not overweight, but highly protected, not too expensive, easy to maintain and repair, technologically advanced in terms of production (to ensure mass production). And in this our T-90M and T-80BVM are beyond competition.
                1. 0
                  30 March 2024 07: 02
                  I very much doubt that armata will be used en masse in the Northern Military District, I think there are serious problems with the normal 152 long gun since they didn’t accept it, there was work with these in the Union and something didn’t work out, maybe they don’t have any resource, I’m proceeding from the fact that you can start now, oh, well, for such a gun 152 I think you need a new base for a different caliber, the new turret is not yet clear how it will be shoved into the old platform, all this is not as fast as many people think.
                  1. +1
                    30 March 2024 12: 32
                    Quote: Incvizitor
                    for a normal gun 152 long, I think there are serious problems since they didn’t accept it

                    The T-95 was completed and passed a series of tests, and was ready for state testing, but the new President Medvedev refused to launch such a tank into series. And he pointed to 152 mm as the reason for the refusal. gun They say it will be necessary to develop a whole line of new shells and ATGMs (for firing through a gun), produce a large number of them and store them in warehouses, and this is expensive. We have huge stocks of 125mm. There are now enough shells and their power. The partners don’t bother with new guns... And he immediately gave the order to develop a NEW tank “so that it’s different from all the previous ones,” but with a 125 mm gun. for old ammunition. So don’t look for any wisdom in the appearance of “Armata”. This was the performance of the dope DAM.
                    Because of his (the LADIES) foolishness, a new infantry fighting vehicle and a new wheeled armored personnel carrier were ordered - “From scratch, so that they are unlike all previous ones either in the chassis or in the composition of the weapons” and “so that it is not a modernization of previous models - everything should be developed from absolute scratch .. . as if nothing had happened before." So don’t look for any wisdom in the appearance of “Kurganets” with “Boomerang” - these are strange wishes of the LADIES. Huge amounts of money and the labor of the last years of life of highly qualified specialists of the Soviet school were spent on their satisfaction. Instead of developing and launching viable technology, time and money were spent on concepts for which the industry was absolutely unprepared, which required new production lines and the establishment of new production cooperation. The cars are extremely crude with an overwhelming degree of novelty and are prohibitively expensive. Everything as ordered by DAM. You can start thanking him (LADIES) for this right now.
                    Quote: Incvizitor
                    It’s not yet clear how this will be shoehorned into the old platform,

                    Just take the T-95 turret and put it in place of the ridiculous current Armata turret. Consider also the possibility of installing this (from the T-95) turret on the T-15 chassis (with front mounted MTO) - to increase survivability and to allow the crew to leave the tank through the rear door. But this option (on the T-15 chassis) is still for the distant future. And as a quick solution - option number 1.
                    And of course we will have to create a full line of shells for this gun. From BOPS and high-explosive to ATGMs in this caliber. But in the late USSR, just such a weapon was considered promising for the future of armored forces. and several promising projects were developed for this caliber “with an ultimate caliber weapon.” And the importance and demand for ammunition (of all types) of great/increased power was highlighted very well by the SVO.
        2. 0
          29 March 2024 14: 58
          Quote: bayard
          more powerful engine (1250 hp with the prospect of 1500 hp

          No one is stopping you from turbocharging a diesel engine, having solved the problems with lubrication and cooling, it won’t be much or expensive to boost it up to 1500 hp, and even the torque will increase at the lower speed shelf. But this is worth doing only if the Soviet reserve of ready-made turbines for the T-80 runs out. You can even get perverted and, instead of electronically controlling the engine, make it electromechanical, so that in the event of an atomic explosion it continues to work.
          1. +1
            29 March 2024 16: 16
            Quote: goose
            No one is stopping you from turbocharging your diesel engine,

            The T-90M has a turbocharged engine and its power has been increased from 740 l/s, 860 l/s to the current 1130 l/s. It is unlikely that it will be possible to rock it any further. This is about diesel.
            Quote: goose
            But this should only be done if the Soviet backlog of ready-made turbines for the T-80 runs out.

            The Soviet legacy is already 33 years old. What else do you want from old gas turbine engines? That’s why they are now resuming production of these 1250 hp engines - capitalizing on the old engines won’t be enough for a long time, we still have about 2500 T-80BVs to modernize.
        3. +1
          29 March 2024 22: 41
          I agree with you. The T 80 has always been a very good car. The turret and fire control system are from the T90 and that’s it!
          80 is beyond comparison again!!
  3. -2
    28 March 2024 05: 14
    Quote: Eduard Perov
    The tank project itself, after the bankruptcy of the enterprise and its subsequent absorption by Uralvagonzavod, was finally shelved
    Why did he go under the carpet? Drunk Yeltsin and his shoble didn’t need tanks or did the military somehow not like him?
    1. +11
      28 March 2024 05: 22
      Why did he go under the carpet?

      The tank was initially an initiative development of OZTM. Without an order and hoping to receive it. Given the lack of money and focus on the Uralvagonzavod, followed by the bankruptcy of the Omsk residents, he had no chance.
      1. +2
        28 March 2024 05: 24
        In the absence of money and focus on Uralvagonzavod
        Everything is clear with money. Why didn’t Uralvagonzavod continue the baton?
        1. +10
          28 March 2024 05: 26
          Why didn’t Uralvagonzavod continue the baton?

          And the guys from the Urals had a volume on the way. 195 Yes
        2. IVZ
          +6
          28 March 2024 06: 41
          Why didn’t Uralvagonzavod continue the baton?
          The reasons then were the same for everyone. Unnecessary to the then leadership of the country and limited funds. And then, when there were no competitors, the need for management to change something radically and costly completely disappeared.
        3. +4
          28 March 2024 12: 36
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Everything is clear with money. Why didn’t Uralvagonzavod continue the baton?

          Working on someone else's car to the detriment of your own development? belay
          Yes, this didn’t even work in the USSR - remember how the same UVZ nailed down all plans for producing a simplified T-64 (already approved at the highest level) and rolled out its T-72 in return.
          1. +2
            28 March 2024 13: 07
            Because those who approve, having collected information about the operation in the troops, were convinced of the need for the 72nd. And he is still the basis of BTV today. Otherwise, the question would have been put on edge. If they were released, they wouldn’t go anywhere. Different leadership, different criteria.
            1. 0
              28 March 2024 16: 04
              Quote: Essex62
              Because those who approve, having collected information about the operation in the troops, were convinced of the need for the 72nd.

              And where did the approvers get data on the operation of simplified T-64s in the army (with normal V-shaped diesel engines, and not the 5TDF suitcase), if Tagil never made them? smile
              1. +2
                28 March 2024 17: 44
                What they didn’t do, there’s no point in discussing it. There were plenty of complaints about 64. That’s what we started from. There were a lot of problems there, not only with the engine.
          2. +2
            28 March 2024 14: 47
            Working on someone else's car to the detriment of your own development?
            Well, what if this “foreign car” contains interesting solutions that the engineers from Uralvagonzavod did not think of? German "Tiger", this is also a combination of "Henschel" and "Porsche"
            1. 0
              28 March 2024 18: 16
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              Well, what if this “foreign car” contains interesting solutions that the engineers from Uralvagonzavod did not think of?

              Then you need to tear them out from the Omsk project and apply them in your Object. And to strip the Omsk design bureau in favor of the head office - why does the repair plant need so many designers? wink
        4. +3
          28 March 2024 14: 56
          Why didn’t Uralvagonzavod continue the baton?

          Since Soviet times, a term has been coined for this phenomenon: “military-industrial feudalism”
          The problem is systemic and is associated with improperly organized competition in the military-industrial complex and remuneration for the right to use intellectual property
          1. +1
            28 March 2024 14: 59
            Since Soviet times, a term has been coined for this phenomenon: “military-industrial feudalism”
            Perhaps this feudalism existed in other areas, but in the military-industrial complex there was still competition and a competitive basis
            1. +1
              28 March 2024 15: 09
              It was in the Soviet and then Russian military-industrial complex that “feudalism” crystallized into
              “fencing off” their themes and developments from competition, lack of unification with similar systems of competitors, creation of duplicate types of weapons from different manufacturers, denial of global trends and advantages of enemy weapons in favor of their own developments, etc.
            2. +1
              28 March 2024 16: 00
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              Perhaps this feudalism existed in other areas, but in the military-industrial complex there was still competition and a competitive basis

              Which ultimately led to three simultaneously produced MBTs and a zoo of ICBMs. UVZ didn’t want to make someone else’s car - and even the Council of Ministers and the Central Committee did not order it. smile
              And I still don’t remember about the zoo in aviation - with the same air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, serial combat Yaks that were not accepted for service, and duplication of developments for the Air Force and Air Defense Agency. You can also remember about two air defense systems with completely different systems.
              All Soviet competition often boiled down to the fact that all the sisters were given earrings - and several products from different design bureaus were sent to the troops.
  4. +4
    28 March 2024 05: 56
    In 2024, only the Russian 'T' series tanks are standing in the battle field as the 'winner'. The Leopard's, Challenger's & Abram's have bitten the dust.
    Soviet/Russian tank designers 'defeated' their western counterparts by producing tanks that provides :
    (a) Practicality, (b) Simplicity, (c) Ease of operation, (d) Easy repairability and (e) Ability to deploy in multiple terrains and combat zones.
    The 'common sense' of Russian tank designers & manufacturers is finally won.
    That is, western 'dinosours' like Leopard's, Challenger's & Abram's are 'buried for ever' in the 'soviet soil'.
    1. +6
      28 March 2024 10: 29
      In 2024, only Russian T-series tanks will enter the battlefield as “winners.” "Leopard", "Challenger" and "Abram" were defeated.
      Soviet/Russian tank designers "defeated" their Western counterparts by creating tanks that provide:
      (a) practicality, (b) Simplicity, (c) Ease of operation, (d) Ease of repair, and (e) Deployability in various territories and combat zones.
      The “common sense” of Russian tank designers and manufacturers has finally triumphed.
      That is, Western “dinosaurs” such as Leopard, Challenger and Abram are “buried forever” in “Soviet soil.”
      (Translation)
    2. +1
      29 March 2024 15: 55
      Thank you. But there is no limit to perfection :)
  5. 0
    28 March 2024 06: 10
    If it is possible to install a turret with a charging module from ob.640 on the T-80 hull (without extension) with appropriate crew accommodation, then yes - interesting, an excellent upgrade option. Can also be used for the T-90.
    1. +1
      28 March 2024 12: 03
      KBTM has developed a unified combat module "Burlak", which can be installed on the T-72, T-80, T-90.
      "Burlak" is distinguished by the presence of 2 automatic loaders: a turret carousel, like the T-72/90, and an abandoned built module with a conveyor.
      1. 0
        28 March 2024 12: 51
        Quote: Cympak
        "Burlak" is distinguished by the presence of 2 automatic loaders:

        2 is a lot, it’s not about the number of machine guns, but about the way the crew is placed (below the shoulder straps)
      2. +1
        28 March 2024 14: 13
        T9 gag correction:
        "Burlak" is distinguished by the presence of 2 automatic loaders: a turret-mounted carousel, like the T-72/90, and a turret-mounted quick-detachable module with a conveyor.
  6. +10
    28 March 2024 06: 37
    One of the main problems of Soviet-type tanks, including the T-64, T-72 and T-80, is the lack of any isolation of the ammunition from the habitable compartments.

    ...., ....., .......(Prohibited by VO rules). Well, as much as possible! Even with the Abrams, part of the ammunition is located in the hull, on the right rear, and this is with its cardboard side armor. The Leo-2 has ammunition next to the carrier, just like the English tanks, by the way.
    1. 0
      28 March 2024 12: 07

      The Leo-2 has ammunition next to the carrier, like, by the way, the English tanks

      Looking at the destroyed Leo-2 hull on the fields of Ukraine, the Germans decided to completely remove the ammunition from the fighting compartment (even taking into account its significant reduction) into the turret niche. The French made a similar decision. The released volume is supposed to be given to an additional UAV operator (Germans), for additional communication equipment and electronic warfare (French)
    2. 0
      28 March 2024 12: 45
      Quote: Grossvater
      Well, as much as possible! Even with the Abrams, part of the ammunition is located in the hull, on the right rear, and this is with its cardboard side armor.

      The Abram has only 6 rounds in its ammunition compartment in a theoretically isolated compartment (armored walls, blast-resistant doors, ejection panel). Theoretically, because in practice the door mechanics always rust, preventing them from opening and closing. smile
      Quote: Grossvater
      Leo-2 has ammunition next to the carrier

      With Leo-2, everything was clear even after Turkey - there were frontal plates knocked out by an internal explosion and turrets that flew off.
  7. +4
    28 March 2024 06: 39
    This is especially true for Soviet tanks, the fuel tanks of which, as well as the ammunition, are located in the habitable compartments.

    And the fact that Abrams’ driver sits sandwiched between two hefty fuel tanks, is that okay?
    1. +1
      28 March 2024 12: 11
      And the fact that Abrams’ driver sits sandwiched between two hefty fuel tanks, is that okay?

      The article clearly states that the tanks in the Abrams are isolated from the driver’s workplace with BRONEY. For this reason, some sources call these tanks in Abrams external. T-72, T-80 do not have armor, but have a thin tank wall; moreover, shells and charges are stored in recesses in the tank, the so-called tank rack
  8. +1
    28 March 2024 06: 39
    in the production of "eighties", which they plan to establish in the future.
    EMNIP, the development and production of at least experimental T-80s took place at the Kirov plant in what was then still Leningrad. It should be put into production there, especially since the city is not under siege, and even during the siege Kirovsky continued serial production of the HF. Wherever, somewhere, and in St. Petersburg, a complaint about the lack of qualified specialists will look completely different than in the bearish corner beyond the Urals.
    1. +4
      28 March 2024 10: 19
      That’s right there, everything’s fucked up. Some managers, lawyers and bloggers. The capital of modern culture of life.
      1. +3
        28 March 2024 12: 49
        Quote: Essex62
        That’s right there, everything’s fucked up. Some managers, lawyers and bloggers. The capital of modern culture of life.

        We don't need industry in the city. We will develop trade and tourism.

        © first mayor of St. Petersburg, father of the unsinkable Ksyusha
      2. +1
        28 March 2024 13: 56
        That’s right there, everything’s fucked up.

        Not quite everything.
        The Kirov plant makes the chassis for the S-300V4.
        1. 0
          28 March 2024 14: 46
          Well then I'm calm. St. Petersburg is an industrial giant and the staff is in perfect order.
  9. 0
    28 March 2024 06: 56
    it also has two large tanks behind steel plates on either side of the driver. And this decision is completely justified, since it can significantly increase the likelihood of crew survival and the survivability of the tank.

    I wonder how thick these same slabs are, if the amers could only allocate 1,5" for the side? And what will these slabs do if hit by BOPS?
    1. +1
      28 March 2024 12: 20
      According to some sources, the front tanks are separated from the driver by 19 mm of armor, the side of the Abrams is 30 mm + two-layer ARAT 2 DZ screens
      You also need to hit the side with BOPS. It’s difficult to pierce a crane’s forehead: Abrams’ NLD is very thick with combined armor. In addition, do not forget about the terrain screen, which will complicate aiming.
  10. 0
    28 March 2024 07: 09
    You can say a transitional model between the T-64-72-80-90 and Armata.

    since they do not make the crew completely dependent on electronics and provide the opportunity to use optical sights and surveillance devices.

    Given the current requirements for optics, this opportunity is rather nominal. And taking into account the complete separation of the crew, it is completely formal.
  11. +4
    28 March 2024 08: 34
    All activities on “Object 640” were carried out exclusively within the framework of an independent initiative of the Omsk “Transmash”.

    The tank project itself, after the bankruptcy of the enterprise and its subsequent absorption by Uralvagonzavod, was finally shelved along with the well-known unified fighting compartment, designed on the Burlak theme.


    Why did you highlight these phrases from the article?
    At almost every meeting, Mantur talks about some kind of “competition” in procurement, and how he increases it
    but in reality we see that everything comes down to the idea of ​​“one feeding trough” - which is easier for them to control
    aircraft manufacturing - competition from USSR times - killed
    motor transport - also killed
    Infantry fighting vehicles, armored fighting vehicles, tanks - everything is also concentrated “in one hand”
    and the hands are the hands of non-workers: designers, technologists, workers...
    and the article is a credit: topics like this need to be raised and discussed so that there is no desire to cut down and privatize...
    1. +3
      28 March 2024 14: 32
      They don't care about these articles. They sawed and sawed and will continue to saw. So they “chose” a genius for the next 6 years, now he would like to live them without dying of hunger or from bombing. It's not even about the cuts. Let them take a little for themselves if things worked out. But these are not managers, but managers. They think in money. Read their statements! “By 2030, it has been decided to allocate so many billions for this and that...” It has not been decided to do anything with specifics, but simply to allocate the money. Which will flow through your fingers, as usual, without exhaust. And you won’t show it! They promised to allocate it and they allocated it! But they didn’t promise to do it!
    2. 0
      28 March 2024 15: 22
      Quote: Dedok
      aircraft manufacturing - competition from USSR times - killed

      Competition during the Soviet era in the aviation industry was quite unique. It is enough to recall at least the history of the development of the Tu-160 - more precisely, how the future supersonic strategist became a Tupolev one.
      And the merger of former competitors into giant monopoly concerns is a global trend. Suffice it to remember how many aircraft manufacturers were gobbled up by the same Boeing. Monopoly as a natural result of market competition.
      Quote: Dedok
      Infantry fighting vehicles, armored fighting vehicles, tanks - everything is also concentrated “in one hand”

      Well, yes, three factories, each of which wants its own piece of the pie and its own model in service - this is undoubtedly much better. laughing
      Do you again want three simultaneously produced MBTs that are incompatible with each other?
  12. +1
    28 March 2024 12: 45
    Quote: Cympak
    According to some sources, the front tanks are separated from the driver by 19 mm of armor, the side of the Abrams is 30 mm + two-layer ARAT 2 DZ screens
    You also need to hit the side with BOPS. It’s difficult to pierce a crane’s forehead: Abrams’ NLD is very thick with combined armor. In addition, do not forget about the terrain screen, which will complicate aiming.

    Directly in the forehead, yes, but you can just as well hit the side from the front hemisphere, speaking in aviation parlance. If we talk about the terrain screen, then the Teshek carousel is generally located below the level of the skating rinks.
    All these horrors with the torn down Teshek towers are caused by two circumstances:
    1. In addition to the shells in the carousel, another two dozen shots are scattered in all corners and it is they that provoke the ignition of the charges. The T-90M has “spare” shots placed in the turret niche. One hell of a deal, the carousel cannot be loaded without stopping the tank and, preferably, the crew exiting;
    2. Maybe even more important, I wrote it once already, but apparently not everyone understands. Again I apologize for the caps.
    T-72 TANKS WERE NEVER DELIVERED FOR EXPORT. T-72M TANKS WERE SUPPLIED, HAVING MONOLITHIC ARMOR PROTECTION SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER TO THE COMBINED ARMOR OF THE “REAL” T-72.
    1. +1
      28 March 2024 13: 45
      ... but you can just as easily tin the aircraft from the front hemisphere, speaking in aviation parlance.

      For modern BOPS, 30 mm of side armor on an American tank, and 80 mm on ours, are not a significant obstacle. There is some hope that the modern Relikt remote sensing system will be able to destabilize the BOPS when triggered.
      All these horrors with the torn down Teshek towers

      Instantaneous detonation of a BC does occur, but this is a fairly rare occurrence. As a rule, after a tank is hit, smoke first appears (a combustion center appears inside the tank), after some time a burst of flame breaks out (burnout of fast-burning charge casings followed by their deflagration), after which detonation of the ammunition occurs (not always and sometimes after the charges have completely burned out)
  13. +2
    28 March 2024 12: 52
    Regarding the turret, apparently, such an interesting design was caused by the need to counter the A-10 cannon. This design is almost ideal against its shells.
    The effectiveness against shaped charges is highly questionable. Kmk, there is no alternative to active methods of protection. Well, or move the fuse trigger point.
    Basically, if the KAZ is triggered by a projectile, or a PUR, what prevents it from catching the UAV.
    1. +3
      28 March 2024 13: 56
      Basically, if the KAZ is triggered by a projectile, or a PUR, what prevents it from catching the UAV.

      When creating the KAZ, they were guided by the speed of ATGMs. The KAZ did not react to slower targets (in order to exclude false alarms). Drop from a UAV or FPV drone has a low speed. The Arena-M KAZ is currently undergoing appropriate modifications in order to fend off the threat of UAVs.
      As confirmation, one can cite the dialogue between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and KBM General Designer Valery Kashin, which occurred on February 14, 2024 during a visit to the Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau (KBM) in Kolomna.
      General designer of KBM Valery Kashin:
      This is Arena. Here is this kit that is placed directly on the back of the tank, and this kit is placed around it. At the same time, we are now working to make it possible to combat loitering drones. Here are the speed limits

      Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu:
      This needs to be done quickly
  14. +1
    28 March 2024 13: 39
    Quote: Grossvater
    or PUR

    ATGM of course, I apologize.
  15. +1
    28 March 2024 13: 42
    In addition, turreted containers also completely eliminate the problem of classic machine guns/loading mechanisms in terms of limiting the length of sub-caliber projectiles.

    Yes, but separate charging has another drawback. It is much more difficult to use a telescopic charge, which, in turn, can significantly increase the armor penetration of BOPS.
    1. +2
      28 March 2024 14: 05
      The armor penetration of a BOPS depends on its length. In unitary NATO rounds, the BOPS is recessed into the cartridge case, which significantly reduces the overall length of the shot. We have a separate charge and BOPS with an additional charge, which leads to the fact that the total separate shot is longer, but individually they are shorter than the unitary shot of a NATO tank. Our breech is longer. And this negatively affects the vertical aiming angles
  16. 0
    28 March 2024 14: 18
    Quote: Cympak
    The armor penetration of BOPS depends on its length.

    And, last but not least, from the initial speed. Unitary shot allows the use of a telescopic charge. This is when a projectile is surrounded by a charge and as the projectile moves forward, the combustion area of ​​the charge increases. A peculiar version of the “centipede” that allows you to significantly increase the initial velocity of the projectile without excessively increasing the pressure in the chamber.
    In principle, our crowbar is surrounded by an additional charge, but the unitary is more effective in this regard.
  17. +1
    28 March 2024 14: 22
    Quote: Cympak
    About the insufficient power of the 125 mm OFS

    23 kg, quite and quite convincingly. 48 linear howitzers will have a little less.
    1. 0
      28 March 2024 15: 01
      48 linear howitzers will have a little less.

      What will be less?
      1. +1
        28 March 2024 18: 20
        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
        What will be less?

        OFS-ka.
        For 2S1, 122-mm OFS weigh 21,7 kg with an explosive mass of 3-4 kg.
        The 125-mm OFS weighs 23 kg with an explosive mass of 3,1 kg (TNT or okfol).
        1. 0
          29 March 2024 09: 06
          OFS-ka.

          Alexey, greetings. My question arose from this:
          power 125 mm OFS

          In Grossvater, as it turns out, the power of the OFS is expressed by its mass. I tried to hint to him that this approach was wrong with my message.
  18. +2
    28 March 2024 14: 29
    Quote: Cympak
    When creating the KAZ, they were guided by the speed of ATGMs.

    Here, as it seems to me (crackling beer after a bath and giving advice, are my two favorite activities wink), the optimal option would be “throw it down with a sack, then we’ll take it apart,” we need a system that will demolish everything above the car without discrimination of gender and age. Fortunately, the drones are unmanned and the losses will only be material.
    The closest example from history, the air defense of aircraft carrier formations in WWII, everything that flew over the order was completely lost.
  19. +3
    28 March 2024 14: 40
    Here you need to understand that on average once every 10 years in the same USSR, a tank “generation” was replaced due to progress in design, electronics, materials and progress in means of destroying a tank.
    That is, if we consider the T80 a project more or less adequately reflecting the trends of the 1980s, the T90 a project reflecting the trends of the 90s, cars like the “Black Eagle” are already an approach to the trends of the early 2000s, and thus the conceptual change “if the project is implemented” would be relevant until 2010s.
    Exactly until the era when the gradual drone revolution begins and “smart” ammunition comes into full force. No matter how good and suitable the project of 1997, i.e., the late 90s, was, in 2010 it would have conceptually needed replacement, and in the 2020s it would already be, as they say, outdated. Now it’s 2024 and we’ve jumped two generations (from the T90), the car that should be created today will no longer find any “vanderwaffe solutions” in a project almost 30 years ago.
    Although the concept of a removable TZM seems extremely interesting to me, in real combat conditions such beautiful, openwork solutions may even work somewhat differently than the developers intended.
    Now the main problem of the tank is the survival of the tank itself as a combat unit - together with a living crew capable of performing a combat mission. Everything else is, in general, secondary. Absolutely a modern tank should dig in this direction.
  20. 0
    28 March 2024 16: 13
    Quote: A vile skeptic
    48 linear howitzers will have a little less.

    What will be less?

    Hmm, I offer my deepest apologies, but since my message began with an indication of the mass of a HE projectile of a 125 mm cannon, I, due to my naive faith in humanity, thought that the phrase “a little smaller” would refer to the mass of a HE projectile of 48 linear howitzer. Once again, I'm sorry that you had to solve the riddle I asked you. God knows, I’m not doing it out of malice!
    PS What did you think? wink?
    1. 0
      28 March 2024 16: 28
      Hmm, I offer my deepest apologies, ..., then I, due to my naive faith in humanity, thought, ... Once again, I apologize for the fact that you had to solve the riddle I asked. God knows, I’m not out of malice!
      PS What did you think wink?

      Oh, we have a comedian here. Who doesn't know how to use the "reply" button.
      since my message began with an indication of the mass of a HE shell of a 125 mm cannon... and the phrase: “a little smaller” you would refer to the mass of a HE shell of a 48 linear howitzer.

      I wonder why it seems to me that they were talking about the power of the HE projectile.
      Evaluating which by estimating the mass of the projectile, and not by assessing the power and mass of the loaded explosive, yes, is a mystery.
  21. +1
    28 March 2024 16: 35
    The author is drowning just behind the automatic loader with ammunition, located behind the turret. But even NATO tanks have ammunition carried behind the turret. And it is in this crazy niche that they are hit most often.
    And why fence a garden? No one will do this “Eagle” now. Some solutions, of course, can be applied to the same production tanks.
    But, in fact, there is also the “Armata”, which has not been developed into series. Does the author offer another “abandoned item”?
  22. 0
    28 March 2024 16: 36
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Evaluate which by estimating the mass of the projectile,

    I’m surprised myself, but for some reason this is accepted in literature. Do you have any reason to believe that the mass and grade of explosives in shells of the same type, similar caliber and mass, and fired at the same time, will differ significantly?
    1. -1
      28 March 2024 17: 42
      I’m surprised myself, but for some reason this is accepted in literature.

      Is it true? Do not use such literature.
      Do you have any reason to believe that the mass and grade of explosives in shells of the same type, similar caliber and mass, and fired at the same time, will differ significantly?

      Naturally. If only because different explosives cost different money. Manufacturers make versions of the same projectile, but with different fillings, and therefore - for different wallets.
      And in your case, the design of the shells is generally different.
      Especially for you:
      125 mm OFS - ZOF26, equipment 3,4 kg A-IX-2;
      122 mm OFS, with your permission I will not indicate a specific brand, there are a lot of them, equipment, from 2,98 TNT, to 4,4 A-IX-2, on average 3,6-3,97 kg.

      So this is especially for you
      Quote: Grossvater
      48 linear howitzers will have a little less.

      When you figure out what affects the power of the OFS and which is greater, 3,4 kg A-IX-2 (ZOF26) or 3,97 kg A-IX-2 (ZOF24), come back.
      PS And finally learn how to use the "Reply" button. Or is this on purpose so that your opponent does not know about your answers? recourse
  23. 0
    28 March 2024 16: 54
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    not by assessing the power and mass of the loaded explosive, yes, it’s a mystery.

    Especially for you:
    125 mm OFS - ZOF26, equipment 3,4 kg A-IX-2;
    122 mm OFS, with your permission I will not indicate a specific brand, there are a lot of them, equipment, from 2,98 TNT, to 4,4 A-IX-2, on average 3,6-3,97 kg.
    Sources: there are a lot of articles on the tank gun on the internet, on the 48 linear howitzer I recommend taking the time to reach out to your bookshelf and read: Anatoly Sorokin, “Soviet howitzer D-30”, Moscow 2018.
  24. 0
    28 March 2024 17: 01
    Quote: futurohunter
    Does the author offer another “abandoned item”?

    Both Orel and Armata formed their appearance BEFORE the start of the Northern Military District. These are classic “anti-tank tanks”, thank God they are not self-propelled guns with a rotating turret, like our “partners”. It seems that the appearance of a vehicle for combat operations in such conditions, the idea of ​​such a vehicle, has not yet been formed.
  25. 0
    28 March 2024 21: 20
    Nobody will produce the Black Eagle now - the T-80 would be renewed, and that would be good. And for the future............
    Let there be a tank with a gas turbine engine, if it is so good in terms of reverse speed. With a power of 1500 hp, if the designers can. How to supply fuel is another question.
    Let there be an uninhabited tower with 2 AZs: a carousel and a niche. With reinforced roof protection. Personally, I like the CHO tower much more than the Armata tower. All the talk about the vulnerability of the AZ in the turret niche is nonsense; the turrets of our tanks are still quite vulnerable, and people are sitting in them.
    Let the crew be in the capsule, since we have grown to such a decision on Armata.
    Leave the gun at 125 mm, maximum 130 - the tank doesn’t need a 152 mm gun, it’s not for it. Increase armor penetration due to long BOPS in the turret niche.
  26. 0
    28 March 2024 23: 35
    Quote: Roman Efremov
    Nobody will produce the Black Eagle now - the T-80 would be renewed, and that would be good. And for the future............
    Let there be a tank with a gas turbine engine, if it is so good in terms of reverse speed. With a power of 1500 hp, if the designers can. How to supply fuel is another question.
    Let there be an uninhabited tower with 2 AZs: a carousel and a niche. With reinforced roof protection. Personally, I like the CHO tower much more than the Armata tower. All the talk about the vulnerability of the AZ in the turret niche is nonsense; the turrets of our tanks are still quite vulnerable, and people are sitting in them.
    Let the crew be in the capsule, since we have grown to such a decision on Armata.
    Leave the gun at 125 mm, maximum 130 - the tank doesn’t need a 152 mm gun, it’s not for it. Increase armor penetration due to long BOPS in the turret niche.

    Reverse gear is not provided by the engine. And the transmission

    Why two AZ? The AZ Americans on TTV fired 44 shots. Increasing the ammunition load is not a problem; I can immediately come up with an AZ for 60+ rounds. On the contrary, during the SVO it turned out that the extra ammunition only gets in the way.

    Why is an eagle cardboard box better than an Armata carousel/basket/drum? And how do you know which machine gun is in it?

    We have grown on Armata, but we won’t be able to repeat it unless the Chinese help with the parallel import of optics and electronics

    That's right, a modern tank doesn't need smooth-bore guns at all, they need 152 mm low-ballistic rifled howitzers. And UVN -10 + 35. This is not rofl. In general, it’s time to abandon the name “tank”. We need to take an example from the amers with their Booker and call tanks “fire support vehicles for infantry formations”

    The armor penetration of enemy equipment must be increased by the formation of the corresponding army units and their coordination. Drones, anti-tank guns, aircraft, mines
    1. +1
      29 March 2024 19: 36
      Point by point:
      The transmission is such a transmission - why then don’t they install the same one on the T-90 as on the T-80? I also read here that for the T-80 to reverse, it is enough to reverse the turbine - and forward (that is, backward). Can a diesel engine do this if you give it the appropriate transmission?
      Why 2 AZ - to place long BOPS, this is impossible in a carousel, but in a turret please.
      Excess ammunition is a hindrance - this is when it is in the fighting compartment under the crew, but when the crew is in a capsule, it is a completely different matter.
      If a tank does not need a smoothbore gun with a high-velocity BOPS, it does not need frontal projectile protection. This will not be a tank, but a self-propelled gun, with a short-barreled 152 mm howitzer, with uniform protection from cumulative fire in all directions. I accept this option, I have nothing against it - as an addition to the tank.
      1. 0
        30 March 2024 18: 06
        The transmission is such a transmission - why then don’t they install the same one on the T-90 as on the T-80? I also read here that for the T-80 to reverse, it is enough to reverse the turbine - and forward (that is, backward). Can a diesel engine do this if you give it the appropriate transmission?

        The T90 and T80 have the same side boxes. The performance characteristics are the same but there is no interchangeability. It's just that the turbine can produce high speeds. But building a new tank with a turbine for the sake of it is a special kind of masochism.
  27. +1
    29 March 2024 02: 24
    این تانک بی نظیر بود
    کاش تولید میشد
  28. 0
    29 March 2024 10: 08
    Again and again... All this reminds me of articles in newspapers from the 90s about what AvtoVAZ could have been like if... and then a list of hellish prototypes.

    Black Eagle is a prototype... Essentially a Model. Stop attributing miraculous properties to it. In essence, this is a T80 in terms of characteristics, but with a bunch of oddities such as moving the crew up/down and a double automatic loader.. Which is essentially hellish nonsense, because instead of one vulnerability, there are now two. How lucky.
    A turret-mounted machine gun can hold 22 shells, either from Leclerc, from Ukraine, or from this Orel... besides, those have a unitary charge.
    There will be no new T80, it is not needed. We need a new V12 diesel engine with 1,500 hp and an Armata base updated for it with a turret-mounted AZ and a 152mm rifled gun from the Coalition on variable charges.
    In the meantime, we need a GOP and a steering wheel for the T90m.
  29. 0
    29 March 2024 10: 46
    Quote: Totor5
    new 12hp V1,500 diesel engine

    Who would argue with this, if you read Zverev, your heart bleeds, how many good engines Nikit Sergeich ruined along with heavy tanks.
    However, if on the old B2, sorry B93 or something, the monitoring station is replaced with a turbine, the missing couple of hundred horses will be found.
  30. 0
    29 March 2024 10: 48
    Quote: Totor5
    In the meantime, we need a GOP and a steering wheel on the T90M

    It’s difficult, I’m afraid it’s impossible. There, the entire transmission ideology is based on two on-board boxes. HZ, is it possible to convert them to torque converters and how to ensure straight-line movement.
  31. 0
    29 March 2024 10: 49
    Quote: Totor5
    152mm rifled gun from the Coalition with variable charges.

    Yes!
  32. 0
    29 March 2024 10: 52
    Quote from David1993
    That's right, a modern tank doesn't need smooth-bore guns at all, they need 152 mm low-ballistic rifled howitzers. And UVN -10 + 35. This is not rofl. In general, it’s time to abandon the name “tank”. We need to take an example from the amers with their Booker and call tanks “fire support vehicles for infantry formations”

    The armor penetration of enemy equipment must be increased by the formation of the corresponding army units and their coordination. Drones, anti-tank guns, aircraft, mines

    For the war that is going on now, yes. If not a complete replacement of tanks with this, then at least a parallel existence. In the end, during WWII, a tank war in general, the Americans quite reasonably riveted Shermans with both a long-barreled 3" and a 105 mm howitzer.
  33. 0
    29 March 2024 16: 07
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Totor5
    In the meantime, we need a GOP and a steering wheel on the T90M

    It’s difficult, I’m afraid it’s impossible. There, the entire transmission ideology is based on two on-board boxes. HZ, is it possible to convert them to torque converters and how to ensure straight-line movement.


    When the new T90 first appeared, it had to be at the helm with Gop. In 2014, the director gave an interview at the exhibition in which he said that everything is ready and we will finally have a tank with a main gear and a steering wheel, and that it was time to do this a long time ago... and now 10 years have passed, and things are still there .
  34. 0
    29 March 2024 16: 21
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Totor5
    new 12hp V1,500 diesel engine

    Who would argue with this, if you read Zverev, your heart bleeds, how many good engines Nikit Sergeich ruined along with heavy tanks.
    However, if on the old B2, sorry B93 or something, the monitoring station is replaced with a turbine, the missing couple of hundred horses will be found.


    The old man has a bunch of technical solutions from the 1930s, which are still preserved and which do not provide the opportunity to increase power and reliability/resource. We need the same engine, but at a new technological level. But instead, we spent (as Putin himself said back in 2016) 25 billion on fine-tuning the ridiculous X engine and 64 billion on Armata. And as a result, the engine is still no match for the V12 and has a bunch of problems.
    The X engine problem stems from the erroneous concept of the Armata, which requires a microscopic engine, while the Armata itself is larger than the Abrams. It is necessary to move the Armata AZ to the rear of the turret, this will give more space for the V12 and greater safety for the crew in the event of an ammunition detonation. A large tower will make it possible to cover the engine from threats from above, and the unmanned nature of the tower will allow you to install a barbecue against drones of lower height.
    The Coalition's variable-charge rifled gun will improve the barrel's service life when firing with an incomplete charge from closed firing positions at ranges of +-15 km. A rifled barrel will give accuracy.

    This will be a new generation tank. And this Black Eagle is the same eggs as the T80.
  35. 0
    29 March 2024 17: 41
    Quote: Totor5
    The old man has a bunch of technical solutions from the 1930s, which are still preserved and which do not provide the opportunity to increase power and reliability/resource.

    Well, what really gets in the way is the scheme with the trailed connecting rod itself, which does not allow increasing the diameter of the connecting rod bearing. As for power, you obviously did not take into account that the real power of the latest engines in the series of horses is two hundred more than announced, these fillies are simply turning the monitoring station.
    Put the turbine on boost and they will jump back onto the shaft with a joyful neigh.
  36. 0
    29 March 2024 20: 07
    Explain to me why they bothered with Armata for so many years? If it still didn’t go into serial production. But they simply took her gun and used hull armor technology and sanded it onto the T-90MS. Okay, in the Soviet Union they designed one-off tanks, but they were mass-produced. And here since 2014, we haven’t seen anything like it. It turns out that Black Eagle was initially a good project, but they got carried away in the wrong direction.
  37. -2
    30 March 2024 00: 30
    “black eagle” is a product of the late Meltsyn period....a pompous name covering up tattered underpants. Yeltsin’s pathetic attempt to show the Western world that we “can still do something.”
  38. 0
    30 March 2024 14: 26
    Quote from warlord
    Explain to me why they bothered with Armata for so many years? If it still didn’t go into serial production. But they simply took her gun and used hull armor technology and sanded it onto the T-90MS. Okay, in the Soviet Union they designed one-off tanks, but they were mass-produced. And here since 2014, we haven’t seen anything like it. It turns out that Black Eagle was initially a good project, but they got carried away in the wrong direction.


    I mean, why Armata... And why Boomerang, Kurganets, Iveco, Mistral... then 64 billion had to be spent somewhere. 

    Armata is a development of the T95 project from the 90s, and that, accordingly, is a development of the project from the 80s... There was nothing else, but Serdyukov had the idea of ​​rearmament... the idea of ​​sawing up everything old Soviet and reducing the army, doing something compact in cooperation with Western partners. They wanted to cut up all 20,000 old tanks and buy 2,500 Armata instead. But they got into trouble due to the initial defectiveness of the platform with an uninhabited tower and an unsuccessful X engine. We spent 64 billion on Armata by 2016, but the problems were never eliminated. We decided to abandon purchases and start producing T90m and T72m.

    And if the Armata and T95 were still ready for the assembly line, then the Black Eagle was essentially not - it remained an unfinished prototype, for which they demanded money in Omsk before the bankruptcy of the plant. Now Omsk has been bought by Chelyabinsk and there is no point in rushing from Almaty to Orel, because no one can say what are the advantages of this Eagle? Essentially, this is the same T80 on an extended chassis, with the same gun and engine and a bunch of oddities such as 2 automatic loaders from the turret niche and interior and turret seats moving up/down... what the hell... And all this is essentially has not been tested. But the GTE sect calls this the best tank and demands to start production, only because this is the latest version of their sectarian GTE, to which they attribute a miracle of properties and the sound of which they worship. 

    In fact, all the problems of Russian tanks rest on the lack of a normal 1,500 hp engine and, as a result, must revolve around a shortened wheelbase and a weight of about 50 tons. Almaty and Eagle already weigh about 60 tons, and for these weights we don’t have a V12 or even a GTD1500. GTD1500 is in the plans, but it will not be real 1500hp, but a temporary mode due to problems with cooling and filtration, and in addition, GTD1500 will need a 7-roller chassis like Armata or Orel. There are a lot of problems, but how it is better than the T80 on the proven GTD1250 is not clear.
  39. 0
    30 March 2024 16: 29
    If you introduce all these and other innovations, plus further refine them taking into account your experience, then it will no longer be a T-80 but a new tank
  40. 0
    April 2 2024 16: 45
    A very interesting site, especially for me as a non-professional. I read with pleasure both the articles and the comments. Only one thing is surprising, reading 20 - 30 articles a day, I noticed a trend - a huge number of minuses in the comments of patriotic citizens. Moreover, the next comment necessarily mentions the names of someone from the authorities, indicating that it is they who are to blame... I don’t read just one article, but as I already said, I read many articles a day, and this is more than clearly visible. I understand that the boys are making these comments worthwhile for some money, sowing doubts in our weapons and distrust in the authorities during this difficult period for the country. I myself am far from being a mischief maker and I try to see an objective picture of what is happening. At the same time, one can see truly constructive criticism when knowledgeable people speak in fact about the shortcomings of various weapons systems of our production.
    And by the way, the question is, was there at least one army in history that was superior to all other armies in all components? As I see it, you cannot be the best in all areas, although of course you need to strive for this. Again, as I see it, out of several dozen areas of development of weapon systems, you can only be the best in some of them. And if in the 17th century we had bad sabers and a mediocre fleet (this is me without knowledge of the matter, just at random), then the artillery was one of the best in the world!
    By the way, is there an English-language site on similar topics for comparison? It would be especially interesting to read foreign comments)