Tank under the "crinoline"

54 179 92
Tank under the "crinoline"
Not a bad attempt to maintain fighting qualities tank under anti-drone protection, but not completed


To protect tanks from FPV-drones what they don't do. There are dozens of examples and varieties of the most diverse "barbecues". Factory-made "barbecues" have appeared, which, in general, can be considered a positive phenomenon.



However, it is easy to notice that "mangals" are generally divided into two types. The first type - providing limited and rather conditional protection mainly of the tower and hatches on it. Historically, this is the first type of "mangal", if we do not go into a detailed study stories of this type of equipment. Let's leave this topic to the "riveters".


A good example of a limitedly protected tank.

The second type is one that claims to fully protect a tank, such as a "tank-barn", but at the same time sharply worsens the combat qualities of the vehicle. A tank enclosed by a "barn" may acquire some protection from a drone, but at the same time it ceases to be a tank, turning into an improvised self-propelled gun.




I understand everything, but this can no longer be called a tank.

All this folk-industrial creativity bears the clear stamp of an inability to invent, which stems from the contempt that exists among our people for theorists, inventors and dreamers.

Okay, but how should it be? I'll dare to put forward my version.

Requirements


We need to start with demands.

First, the tank must retain all of its combat capabilities under protection, in particular the ability to rotate the turret and elevate the gun. The tank must also retain its mobility, which means that the weight of the structure must not be excessive.

Second: the protection must provide all-round coverage of the tank, not excluding the tracks and the lower part of the hull, because it is not uncommon for tanks to be hit in this place. If a drone can easily hit the rear plate and hit the engine, then the "grill" on the turret becomes almost useless.

Third: the protection must provide free access to the tank’s components and be easy to remove, since repairs and maintenance have not been cancelled.

Fourth: protection, if possible, should not hinder the embarkation and disembarkation of the crew.

Finally, fifth: protection must to a certain extent be combined with a dynamic protection system, because ATGMs have not disappeared from the battlefield.

If you look at the “barbecue construction” from the point of view of these, in general, obvious requirements, it becomes clear that, perhaps, not a single “barbecue” fits them.

From ideal to solution


The immortal and true teaching of the cunning Baku Jew Genrikh Altshuller - the theory of solving inventive problems - says that first you need to formulate an ideal solution, and then find something technically feasible to match it.

The ideal solution is a hemisphere of mesh or wire that completely covers the tank, protruding beyond its dimensions in such a way that the tank's hull can freely rotate inside without touching this hemisphere.

When you have an ideal in front of your eyes, it is not difficult to develop something that can be made of metal. As a prototype of the design, I took a now forgotten element of women's equipment called "crinoline". These are several thin and light steel hoops that support and shape the skirt from the inside.


It would be worthwhile to get acquainted with the prototype. The hoops create a light and flexible, but at the same time very durable structure

And no need to laugh, “crinoline” will be very useful for a tank too.

In order for the mesh protection to acquire a shape close to hemispherical, at least two hoops, bent from steel tubes, are needed. One is of a smaller diameter, which is rigidly attached above the turret with the help of racks, at a height that allows tankers to climb into the hatches. Above it, slightly curved upward cross-shaped crossbars are installed, forming the frame of the upper dome.

The second one is of a larger diameter, which forms the outer contour of protection. It is suspended from the first hoop on cables. From the second hoop, which is installed at approximately the height of a tank gun, cables are sent down, the length of which should be such that they touch the ground.





For illustration purposes, here is a rough diagram of how it should look. The drawing is not detailed and not complete, without full shading, but I think it is clear what is meant: 1 - tubes, 2 - cables, 3 - mesh

The peculiarity of the second hoop is that it has a slot for a tank gun, and the ends of this slot are secured with cables to the first, upper hoop.

Next, the panels of chain-link mesh, quite small, are attached to this frame of hoops and cables. The panels should be standard in size if possible and should be attached to rings specially welded to the hoops and arcs using clamps on bolts. This is so that if the panel is damaged, it can be easily removed and replaced with a new one.

And a couple more features. Firstly, one or two side panels of the net are left unfastened on the sides, to the hanging cables, so that the crew can throw them back and crawl to the hatches on the tower. This is also necessary when loading ammunition. Secondly, a ring for a crane hook should be installed on the very top crossbar of the dome, so that during repairs or long-term maintenance, all the protection can be unscrewed (for which the fastenings of the support posts of the first, upper, hoop must be made removable) and removed with a crane, and then put back in place.

I did not develop exact dimensions, because here it will be necessary to try out the design with the crew, so that the protection does not interfere with them performing combat and technical tasks. In principle, a tank factory can develop similar designs for all types of tanks in a couple of weeks and put them into production.

What can be done about this?


The tactical and technical advantages are as follows.

Since the entire structure is mounted on the turret, the tank can move and freely rotate the turret in any direction, while remaining protected. A slot in the second, lower hoop allows the tank to freely raise and lower the gun.

The structure is mesh, which does not interfere with the operation of observation and aiming devices. Moreover, additional observation cameras can be installed and secured on the upper elements of the structure, if necessary.

The mesh design is also compatible with dynamic protection. Most likely, an explosion of a dynamic protection element will damage the mesh or the structure itself, but this has to be accepted. As for the active protection system, such as "Arena", additional fittings will be required; it is possible to provide slits in the mesh, fixed with rigid rings at the edges, for the operation of this system.

In general, under such a "crinoline" the tank is protected to ground level. But since the entire lower part, below the second hoop, is flexible, consists of cables and mesh, then if necessary it can be folded up a little, just like a skirt, and secured with wire ties. For example, in muddy conditions, deep mud or in urban battles, so as not to catch or drag any trash.

The hemispherical shape of the protection allows the tank to be additionally camouflaged, both from the outside, with a camouflage net or branches, and from the inside with heat shields, which reduce the tank's visibility in a thermal imager. The tank can be completely covered with heat shields, and even a heat shield can be made for the gun, you just need to leave slots for observation and aiming devices. Well, yes, you will get a self-propelled yurt, but what to do now?

Finally, damage to such a structure is easily repaired by the crew or a field repair base. The main thing is to have a supply of netting, cables, tubes for hoops, and fasteners.

Moreover, this design is quite amenable to improvement and modernization. For example, you can install a net with a smaller cell or even a chainmail net. If necessary, it is not so difficult to add a second layer of net. Additional mesh screens can be installed inside the sphere, for example, additionally protecting the turret or the rear part of the tank.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    18 February 2025 06: 47
    Something it reminds me of!
    1. 0
      21 February 2025 15: 42
      The author respected me with his Friday fantasies)
      Tanks in cities already look wild, there is no point in discussing the maneuvering of a car in a skirt on the streets.
      But the tanks are hidden in the greenery.
      When entering and exiting a forest belt, the tank is guaranteed to lose its "attachment".

      Before diving into the greenery, the crew must "undress" their car?
      And does a tank jump out of the thicket into open terrain in negligee?
      And then, in about 15 minutes, they install this tricky construction of pipes and mesh on it?
      At the same time, the car stands still
  2. +5
    18 February 2025 06: 49
    If necessary, it is not so difficult to add a second layer of mesh. Additional mesh screens can be installed inside the sphere, for example, to further protect the turret or the rear of the tank.
    All this reminds of a hermit crab, which covers itself with other people's shells, cans, pieces of pipe, on tanks all this openwork magnificence of nets, most likely, to the first bushes ... We can recall the Second World War, where with the advent of cumulative ammunition, bed nets and pieces of metal were installed on tanks for us, sandbags and boxes with cobblestones for the allies. Where did it go after? Such a "collective farm" can be used here and now, in a hurry, and, not for the good life. The question is, what prevents the APS, an aerosol smoke screen, from being improved? In addition, the SVO with its self-limitations and oddities is unlikely to be a standard of a new war, where they will not take each village head-on, hammer into more and more new "Maginot Lines", but envelop and bypass, especially with the use of nuclear weapons.
    1. +1
      18 February 2025 07: 03
      Quote: Per se.
      Such a "collective farm" can be used here and now, in a hurry, and not because life is good.

      That's right. The author belittled the people's abilities, and he himself piled up a "collective farm", as you noticed.
      The "original" tank can only be driven around the stadium (tank football) or across the steppes.
      The author gets a minus for his high self-esteem.
    2. +4
      18 February 2025 20: 48
      Quote: Per se.
      The SVO, with its self-limitations and oddities, is unlikely to be the standard for a new war, where they will not take every village head-on, hammer into more and more new "Maginot Lines", but envelop and bypass, especially with the use of nuclear weapons.

      drinks drinks drinks And no one, probably except Gerasimov, can explain this - WHY storm cities/towns, why get bogged down in urban development, why raise flags over the village (Andrei Grigoryev - "they sent to raise the flag") at the cost of the lives of Russian soldiers?
      1. +2
        19 February 2025 08: 31
        And Mr. Gerasimov apparently skipped military history classes at the academy at the local pub, and apparently his other classes were automatically assigned...
    3. +3
      20 February 2025 09: 39
      The problem with the expensive KAZ is that it can be easily disabled by first dropping a VOG-25 on it from a drone, and only then piling FPV on the defenseless tank. Radar and/or thermal imaging,
      rotating detection system electrician, rotating firing system electrician or hydraulics, controlling all electronics. All this is expensive, and is cheap to disable. Regular VOG-25 during 2-stage destruction of the tank.
      The problem with the protection proposed by the author is that it is flimsy. The first FPV drone will make a "tangle" of warped, bent and cracked metal structures, scraps of mesh from this structure, some of which will be thrown onto the tracks and the tank will wind up and break the rest under its own power. The crew will have a hard time repairing these "snots" after each combat mission and will end up driving with hanging debris.
      1. 0
        20 February 2025 09: 53
        Quote: Slon1978
        The problem with the expensive KAZ is that it can be easily disabled by dropping a VOG-25 on it from a drone.
        The problem could be solved by shooting down the drone itself in the kill zone, or by setting up a smoke screen at a distance. Terrorism by drones is largely a consequence of the oddities of the SVO, when combat operations are limited by certain boundaries, both in territory and in nature. The positional stalemate of the First World War would also have been a free rein for UAV operators, and it is unlikely that such successes would have been observed with the rapid change of positions in the final phase of the Great Patriotic War.
    4. 0
      23 February 2025 18: 39
      Quote: Per se.
      SVO with its self-limitations and oddities

      And what's the strangeness?
  3. -3
    18 February 2025 06: 54
    We need to start with demands.

    There is only one requirement - the tank must perform the tasks assigned to it. I don't think that those who made the "mangal" did not understand the limitations it imposes. It just turned out that the tasks of tanks on the battlefield have greatly deviated from the classical understanding of the WWII era. Now it is mainly an armored self-propelled gun operating on the front lines. No turret rotation? Why rotate it if the enemy is only in front? And there is no need to maneuver much, for the same reasons.
    1. +1
      18 February 2025 15: 36
      There is only one requirement: the tank must perform the tasks assigned to it.

      all that remains is a small matter laughing
      therefore, you need to try a little harder
      create a combined Arena-M KAZ and Afghanit mortars
      implement optical stations of the OLS, GOES type coupled with remote machine gun mounts (DPU) for 12-mm smoothbore machine guns with belt feed against FPV drones
      and also to write new software for coupling the KAZ with the OLS against low-speed targets up to 150 meters per second and hovering, sneaking, low-altitude targets at ground level
      by the way
      new 12mm buckshot cartridges confidently hit FPV drones at a range of 60 meters with 60% accuracy
      1. +1
        19 February 2025 20: 44
        There is a simpler option against FPV. At the idea level: a multi-barreled "air gun" with regular balls for pneumatics. The range of destruction is 200-300 m, if powered from the compressor on the equipment.

        Or a "swarm of cover" from interceptor drones. Nothing tricky either, the same "cube" of active protection, only not passively waiting on the tank, but actively flying around it on 4 propellers.
        1. +1
          20 February 2025 14: 32
          and there are also developments in electro-dynamic protection for armored vehicles and ships
          the principle is as follows:
          piezo-ceramic armor in 4 layers is also an electric capacitor and between them there are 3 metal plates on which a magnetic field will be created to destroy the cumulative jet up to 100%
          Reusable EDS - just recharge the piezo-ceramics
          in addition, the thickness of 4 layers of piezo-ceramics 55 mm each made of boron nitride (no boron carbide shift), 220 mm thick has the equivalent of steel armor from 880 mm + gaps for inductive plates up to 1000 mm just from BOPS + you can put DZ Relikt on top
          1 sq.m. of EDS weighs only 600 kg.
          - this is more profitable than 100 mm steel armor equal to 750-800 kg
          1. 0
            21 February 2025 05: 34
            piezo-ceramic armor in 4 layers is also an electric capacitor and between them there are 3 metal plates on which a magnetic field will be created to destroy the cumulative jet up to 100%

            In more detail, please, what is piezo-ceramic armor? Where and why is the electricity capacitor connected? Meter gaps for inductive plates?
            1. 0
              21 February 2025 09: 09
              piezo ceramics

              in addition to the EDS, where ceramics also acts as a capacitor
              Piezo ceramics are used on the Su-57 fighter as a skin for the electronic warfare system
              absorbs radiation from external radars, in the automated control system there is signal distortion and reverse radiation towards the radar
              - distorting the actual location, distance, altitude, RCS, number of targets
              1. 0
                21 February 2025 13: 29
                1. Piezoceramics (written as one word without any hyphens) cannot be used as armor due to its fragility and low strength.
                2. Boron nitride does not belong to the class of piezoelectrics, see pictures.
                Note: there is theoretical article "Piezoelectric properties of 2D boron nitride nanoallotropes" https://www.mathnet.ru/links/66387c7254fe275a81bcb762fd9a4731/ftt8635.pdf, however, a 2D structure is an arrangement of atoms in a single layer. It may be synthesized someday.
                3. Translucent coatings do not change the shape of the probing pulse, the angles in azimuth and in place.
                4. An electric capacitor is at least a pair of conductive media isolated from each other, but not a dielectric in itself.

                Enough to ignore the fabrications.


                Fig. 1 Physical encyclopedia. Fig. 2 Contents of the book about piezoceramics.
                1. 0
                  21 February 2025 13: 38
                  It happens,
                  and the Su-57 has a piezo-ceramic skin
                  and regarding ceramic capacitors - you read the wrong article
                  1. 0
                    21 February 2025 14: 44
                    Let's leave aside the Cy-57 coating, because...
                    And what article should I read, where previously undiscovered properties of a promising material with high hardness and thermal conductivity of one of the allotropic modifications are revealed. The presence of the piezoelectric effect is not secret information, I did not find it in the reference literature.
                    Regarding capacitors, they are energy storage devices, not generators, and for them what is important is not the piezoelectric effect, but the dielectric constant of the medium between the plates.
                    1. 0
                      21 February 2025 14: 55
                      here you most likely need prefabricated material
                      1. magnetic field created by a metal plate
                      2. the influence of magnetic field on the cumulative jet
                      3. ceramic armor coefficient to steel armor
                      there was an article on VO recently about EDS - NOT a very deep material
                      https://topwar.ru/248834-jelektrodinamicheskaja-zaschita-dlja-legkoj-bronetehniki-na-svo.html
                      1. 0
                        21 February 2025 15: 59
                        The main points from the article VO
                        Only then will it be possible to destroy the cumulative jet from a 100 mm munition to the point of armor invulnerability. According to calculations by researchers from the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, at least one cubic meter of the armored vehicle's internal space will be required to accommodate the capacitor. The electrical cabinet will also take up a couple of tons of the vehicle's carrying capacity. But this data is already ten years old, and progress in the technology of accumulation and storage of electric power has since developed by leaps and bounds. Firstly, the technologies have become significantly cheaper (by 10 times), and secondly, the capacity has increased in approximately the same proportion.

                        The highlighted one is a fabrication of the author of the article on VO, not of people from MVTU.
                        We assume the diameter of the jet is 1 cm, the length is 0.5 m, Cu, the temperature is room temperature, to make it easier to calculate, we get an electrical resistance of 0.11 μOhm
                        When a current of 1 MA flows through such a conductor, we obtain an induction on the surface of the conductor of 3.8 Tesla (an order comparable to the figure given in the article).
                        So, the capacitor, in addition to significant capacity, must have low internal resistance, significantly lower than the resistance of the jet, otherwise most of the energy will be released in the capacitor itself. High-capacity capacitors, in this case, have an unacceptably high internal resistance. Fluoroplastic capacitors with thick metal should be used and no ferroelectrics and especially supercapacitors.
                        Diagnosis: at this stage of development the project is not feasible.
                      2. 0
                        24 February 2025 10: 08
                        then we need to tighten up the topic of new ceramic capacitors
                      3. 0
                        24 February 2025 18: 06
                        new ceramic capacitors

                        https://studfile.net/preview/6319561/page:17/
                        Ceramic capacitors are frequency dependent in such a way that with short high-current pulses a noticeable part of the stored energy
                        will be dissipated on the capacitors themselves (destruction)
                        You should forget about ionistors (supercapacitors) altogether, you can’t get a quick discharge from them, although at present their characteristics have improved by an order of magnitude compared to https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ionistory-panasonic-fizika-printsip-raboty-parametry/viewer
                        In general, the very idea of ​​knocking down projectiles with lightning should be thrown to potential enemies.
        2. 0
          22 February 2025 10: 12
          Speaking of flying around:

          It would be interesting to experiment with them being tied to a protected vehicle with a power cable and information cables and carrying a protective and camouflage net (a kind of self-propelled tent).

          When necessary, rise or open part of the curtain.
          Sighting optics can be combined with cameras on drones
          and detection tools can be installed on them.
    2. 0
      21 February 2025 05: 21
      And there is no need to maneuver much, for the same reasons

      Hit with direct fire, aiming through the barrel.
      1. -2
        21 February 2025 06: 58
        Quote: Sensor
        Hit with direct fire

        In essence, that's true. I read the BD participants, they wrote that a tank shell is more dangerous than a howitzer shell, because you hear it a couple of seconds in advance and have a chance to hide, while a tank shell arrives without warning.
        1. 0
          21 February 2025 08: 21
          This was sarcasm. It was only possible in field artillery.
          1. -2
            21 February 2025 09: 29
            Quote: Sensor
            That was sarcasm.

            However, the main task of the tank is to be a kind of armored self-propelled gun, working with direct fire. They are also used in the offensive, but not so often.
  4. +3
    18 February 2025 08: 06
    To the author. The fact that tanks and other technical equipment are equipped with "barbecues" is not a good thing, because the most important task at the front has not been solved by means of electronic warfare: a single protective field has not been created. And we need to move in this direction. I remember how until 2022 on the Zvezda TV channel in the program "Military Acceptance" what kind of "wunderwaffe" the viewer was not shown, unfortunately, the reality turned out to be completely different.
    1. 0
      18 February 2025 10: 16
      Quote: Gomunkul
      To the author. The fact that tanks and other technical equipment are equipped with "barbecues" is not a good thing, because the most important task at the front has not been solved by means of electronic warfare: a single protective field has not been created. And we need to move in this direction. I remember how until 2022 on the Zvezda TV channel in the program "Military Acceptance" what kind of "wunderwaffe" the viewer was not shown, unfortunately, the reality turned out to be completely different.


      Check out the Alpha 17 Terraformer channel (on YouTube) for a selection of videos of drones operating on fiber optics. Both ours and Ukrainians.
      You will immediately understand the complete stupidity of electronic warfare systems.

      And yes, it is impossible in principle to create a single protective field using electronic warfare systems.
      And yes, you need to know what electronic warfare is and that it works in all directions. Both ours and yours.
      1. 0
        18 February 2025 10: 22
        Is there any information about the use of such weapons by our side in the SVO?
        MOSCOW, August 5, 2009 - RIA Novosti. Russian scientists have created a device the size of a small suitcase, capable of instantly disabling all electronic components of an enemy's weapons systems, Vladimir Fortov, a member of the Presidential Council for Science and High Technology and an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RIA Novosti in an interview.
        "Currently, all weapons systems are equipped with electronic components. If you have a powerful and compact source of radio emission - and powerful, in our opinion, is one gigawatt (GW), then all the enemy's electronics can be disabled at once. But the arsenal also includes devices that disable electronic equipment for a short time - for 20 minutes, for example, during special operations," the academician noted.
        "About one second - no more is needed to completely disable all electronic components of the enemy, including locators, night vision devices, electronic sights, mobile communications equipment, and GPS satellite navigation receivers. At a distance, it is possible to stop tanks, knock fighters off course, and detonate radio-controlled mines," the RAS academician concluded.
        1. 0
          18 February 2025 10: 38
          Quote: Gomunkul
          Is there any information about the use of such weapons by our side in the SVO?
          MOSCOW, August 5, 2009 - - concluded the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


          Explosion-based EMP systems have been around for a long time.

          But they are not as cool as our "creators" of the next "unparalleled in the world" like to write...
          But in reality they are frankly weak.
          The world has been studying them for a long time, doing something about them, experiencing them, you can get acquainted with them in literature, including Western and Russian.


          When detonation is initiated in the main explosive charge (equipment) of the device, detonation waves and detonation products, moving towards each other, converge in the central part of the explosive charge. As a result of the convergence of waves and detonation products, an area with extremely high parameters (pressure and temperature) is created. As a result, impact polarization and thermal ionization of the medium occur, accompanied by the generation of an electromagnetic pulse. The body of the device expands and breaks up under the action of detonation waves, forming a large number of fragments. The decomposition products of the explosive substance of the main charge and the plasma-forming composition begin to flow into the interfragment space, as between the electrodes, forming a series of decaying electromagnetic pulses, both due to the flow and as a result of secondary reactions of oxidation of metallic fuels (fragments of the case, as well as aluminum, which is part of both the explosive substance of the main charge and the plasma-forming composition) and ionization of the surrounding air, since the thermal energy of the gas heated to a high temperature during its rapid cooling due to expansion and acceleration to supersonic speeds is directly converted into the energy of electromagnetic radiation.



          This academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences is simply begging for yet another comfortable financing for himself or his cohort of the same slackers and hacks of "new physical principles".
          1. -1
            18 February 2025 10: 49
            "new physical principles".
            Even the Supreme Commander has already publicly declared this weapon more than once, which means it does exist:
            VLADIVOSTOK, 12 Sep 2023 – RIA Novosti. Weapons based on new physical principles will ensure the security of any country in the near future, Russia understands this perfectly well and is working on it, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
            "Even if we look at the sphere of security, weapons based on new physical principles will ensure the security of any country in the near historical perspective. We understand this perfectly well and are working on it," Putin said on Tuesday at a meeting with moderators of key sessions of the WEF.
        2. 0
          19 February 2025 20: 52
          For information: the capacity of the nuclear icebreaker's reactors is about 400 MW.
          2,5 "icebreakers" on LBS and miracle electronic warfare guaranteed...
          1. 0
            21 February 2025 06: 10
            the capacity of the nuclear icebreaker's reactors is about 400 MW
            .
            Power is the energy released per unit of time.
            For TNT: heat of explosion 4,19 MJ/kg; detonation velocity up to 7000 m/s at density of 1,6 g/cm3. A cube of this explosive with edge of 8.55 cm will detonate in 12.2 microseconds and will get power of 0.34 terawatt. Another example, for mobile radar gigawatt pulse power is not so extreme.
            1. 0
              5 March 2025 23: 55
              We are all smart, you got it all;)
      2. 0
        20 February 2025 12: 30
        And yes, you need to know what electronic warfare is and that it works in all directions. Both ours and yours.

        Electronic warfare can be different and does not always work "in all directions". Everything depends on the emitting antenna. For example, an anti-drone gun has a directional antenna and the effect is directed in a certain direction.
        1. 0
          20 February 2025 16: 54
          Quote: wladimirjankov
          And yes, you need to know what electronic warfare is and that it works in all directions. Both ours and yours.

          Electronic warfare can be different and does not always work "in all directions". Everything depends on the emitting antenna. For example, an anti-drone gun has a directional antenna and the effect is directed in a certain direction.

          Oh... Forget about these anti-drone guns. They won't exist anywhere in 5 years. And in 10 years they'll be forgotten.
    2. 0
      18 February 2025 10: 26
      Electronic warfare is powerless against fiber optics.
      1. +1
        18 February 2025 11: 28
        Fiber optics are powerless against distance.
        If the cable is 10 km, then at 11 km everything is safe.
        There is another disadvantage of fiber: since the operator is standing on the ground, the cable gradually also lies on the ground. And it can be damaged by any equipment or soldiers.
        The pros and cons of everything
        1. -3
          19 February 2025 08: 50
          Quote: Reporter
          Fiber optics are powerless against distance.
          If the cable is 10 km, then at 11 km everything is safe.
          There is another disadvantage of fiber: since the operator is standing on the ground, the cable gradually also lies on the ground. And it can be damaged by any equipment or soldiers.
          The pros and cons of everything


          Tried stepping on the fiber? Did it break?
  5. 0
    18 February 2025 08: 56
    If the KAZs on the tank were designed to fight ATGMs, can't they cope with a slow-moving drone? Why aren't tanks equipped with active protection? Too expensive?
    1. +2
      18 February 2025 10: 33
      If the KAZs on the tank were designed to fight ATGMs, can't they cope with a slow-moving drone? Why aren't tanks equipped with active protection? Too expensive?
      Alas. Then it will start reacting to every sparrow, flying clods of earth, stones. The enemy will only have to launch a bunch of stones towards the tank (even from a catapult or drop them from another drone, from a height), and then launch the drone. The ammunition will be used up and the tank will be left without protection.
      1. +2
        18 February 2025 12: 15
        Quote: AKuzenka
        Alas. Then she will start to react to every sparrow, flying lumps of earth, stones.

        It will not start, it is not a semblance of a light sensor for any movement. For example, the already quite old KAZ "Drozd", where the target was detected by radar and then tracked, and the electronic computer took into account the speed, angle of approach and the meeting point for shooting. Only after this, the electronics gave the command to shoot. Then, the complex switched to the mode of waiting for a new target. The new KAZ "Arena-M" should provide all-round defense of the tank, including the upper hemisphere, from almost all types of ammunition. It seems that it is more correct to develop this direction of combating drones, as well as their blinding with a laser, setting smoke screens.
        1. +1
          18 February 2025 15: 25
          For example, the already quite old KAZ "Drozd", where the target was detected by radar and then tracked, and the electronic computer took into account the speed, angle of approach and the meeting point for shooting. Only after this the electronics gave the command to shoot.
          Well, it had thresholds for speed, at a minimum. It's one thing for a projectile or ATGM to fly at 300-800 m/s, and another thing for a sparrow. And how fast does a drone fly? Certainly not more than 30 m/s. This includes a thrown brick, a lump of earth from an explosion, and much more.
      2. -1
        18 February 2025 20: 04
        Quote: AKuzenka
        Then she will begin to react to every sparrow, flying lumps of earth, stones.

        Theoretically, the KAZ can filter incoming objects by the presence of metal.
        1. -2
          19 February 2025 08: 51
          Quote from cpls22
          Quote: AKuzenka
          Then she will begin to react to every sparrow, flying lumps of earth, stones.

          Theoretically, the KAZ can filter incoming objects by the presence of metal.

          can not.
          Remote spectral analysis for military equipment has not yet been invented.
          1. -1
            19 February 2025 10: 24
            Quote: SovAr238A

            Remote spectral analysis for military equipment has not yet been invented.

            So this was a purely theoretical assumption.
            Maybe something like mine detectors, or smart anti-personnel mines that react to people with metal objects? The main difficulty will probably be in limiting the sensitivity of the sensors so that they don't perceive ground objects.
          2. 0
            20 February 2025 17: 49
            [quoteRemote spectral analysis for military equipment has not yet been invented.][/quote]
            However, the recognition of target images by optical-electronic detection systems, which can work together with the KAZ radar, has long been invented. Therefore, sparrows, stones, and other false targets will not be an obstacle for a normal KAZ.
      3. +1
        18 February 2025 23: 27
        In principle, radars can map the terrain and take a picture like a photograph. Then it's a matter of recognition. Not long ago I saw our air defense guys saying that they understand where a bird is, where a drone is based on the reflected signal. The movement of the drone's blades and the flapping of the bird's wings give a different picture.
        There are specialized radars and they distinguish birds from drones: "Accurate classification of targets

        Thanks to innovative micro-Doppler signal processing and deep learning (DNN) technologies, the IRIS system is able to reliably recognize rotating parts such as drone propeller blades. The system's algorithms effectively filter out interference caused by birds and confidently detect both fixed-wing UAVs and hovering drones."
    2. +3
      18 February 2025 12: 09
      Expensive.
      And also excuses like "well, the paratroopers will scratch the armor" and so on.

      Plus, in the end, the KAZ will have to be made new.

      There, the classic one has a minimum target speed and a maximum.
      The drone can slow down, fly up at almost zero speed and send a signal to the detonator.

      And also the corners where he “sees” and can shoot.
      Yes, right above is usually a blind spot, but a drone can fly ABOVE and dive at a 90 degree angle.

      The rocket flies in a straight line, but the drone can veer sharply to the side.
      Trajectory analysis is difficult, and the APS can, in theory, ignore something flying past (it’s already “missing”, so why shoot it down?).

      As a result, either make a new KAZ, or perhaps we will have to make a regular "classic" KAZ and a turret with an OLS and a shotgun from drones.
      Or wait until laser systems arrive.

      (and all this wealth can be easily blown off a tank by some 30mm cannon or 125mm high explosive)
      1. +5
        18 February 2025 13: 10
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        As a result, either make a new KAZ, or perhaps we will have to make a regular "classic" KAZ and a turret with an OLS and a shotgun from drones.
        Or wait until laser systems arrive.

        More precisely, when the turret with the OES and the OES counteraction system are made friends. smile
        Because any UAV, whether with a radio channel or with a fiber optic one, has a common weak spot - a camera that provides the operator with a picture. No pens - no candy no picture - no targeting. So either illumination to saturation (but the UAV can try to maneuver out of the illumination), or "burnout" of the matrix.
        Yes, there are means to counter such KOEP. But they make the equipment heavier and more expensive, which will reduce the number of UAVs.
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        (and all this wealth can be easily blown off a tank by some 30mm cannon or 125mm high explosive)

        Without this wealth, the tank won’t even reach the place where 125-mm and 30-mm shells can reach.
        1. 0
          18 February 2025 14: 25
          Quote: Alexey RA
          or "burning" of the matrix

          Is it unrealistic to upgrade a laser rangefinder to this level?
      2. 0
        18 February 2025 13: 21
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        The drone can slow down, fly up at almost zero speed and send a signal to the detonator.
        This can be solved, to the "smart home", "smart tank", like, APS "Alice" - Alice, track the drone and kill it. Joke... Seriously, with modern electronics, the level of AI, it is quite possible to track all the tricky tricks of the drone operator. Landing on armor, if necessary, the APS can be disabled. In any case, the problem is solvable, and it will be solved, presumably, in comprehensive protection. The golden age of drones is the specificity of the air defense, the habitual places of operators, the familiar landscape of the area, the sighted areas. It is not a fact that this is the standard of a new look of modern warfare, although drones are not going anywhere, especially when they are equipped with AI.
        1. +1
          18 February 2025 13: 55
          Quote: Per se.
          It is quite possible to track all the tricky tricks of a drone operator

          Quite, even without newfangled machine learning.
          But This was not included in the technical specifications for the current KAZs because the classic KAZ is from a previous era when the maximum was an ATGM, a grenade and a shell.
          But design work on something new doesn’t happen quickly.

          Quote: Per se.
          Landing on armor, if necessary, the APS can be disabled.

          And we'll get the same thing as now, only if they screw us over, then more money will go down the drain.
          Here, either you have to overcome resistance and clearly forbid climbing onto the armor, or there is little point.
          1. 0
            18 February 2025 14: 07
            Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
            And we will get the same as now,
            Not a fact, maybe, on the contrary, we will get the cheapest "KAZ" from Russian men with shotguns. Also, a joke... We need a heavy APC, but in general, drones, perhaps, again return the original theme of the BMP, where it was supposed to use motorized riflemen from under the armor before dismounting, especially in conditions of using nuclear weapons. If only such a unit, with the most sophisticated protection, did not become a mass grave for unmounted infantry.
            1. +1
              18 February 2025 14: 13
              Quote: Per se.
              on the contrary, we'll get the cheapest "KAZ" from Russian men with shotguns. Also, a joke

              By the way, there is some truth to this joke. good
              Thermal imager + Saiga\Molot should be good.

              Almost like "skeet shooting".
              (and if this Saiga is on a pump-controlled turret...)
              The only downside is that the thermal imager does not have a 360 field of view, while the lidar/OLS would constantly emit radiation to the outside (like a radar), and it would be a dead giveaway. Although who said that a thermal imager should be 1?
  6. 0
    18 February 2025 09: 57
    The idea proposed by the Author is amateurish and complete stupidity, like attempts to create a completely invulnerable tank. The strength of any armored vehicle is in the optimal combination of maneuverability, armor protection and speed. And no matter how you twist it, this is an axiom that has stood the test of time. The same axiom is that "the best defense tactic is an attack". In my opinion, on the battlefield, you need to not just defend yourself and parry the threat of attack, you need to destroy the attacker. So, to protect equipment on the battlefield, it has long been necessary to develop a single (for all types of equipment) turret machine gun mount, with an optical-electronic all-weather station that has a video and thermal imaging channel for detecting, capturing and tracking a target in automatic mode. It is also a sighting complex that tracks the surrounding environment at 360 degrees, including in the upper hemisphere. As a weapon used on such a turret (again, in my opinion), the most reasonable is to use the GShG rapid-fire machine gun.
  7. -3
    18 February 2025 11: 22
    We need to start with demands

    If you take into account all the requirements that the author has outlined, then you can forget about barbecues.
    How to use an anti-aircraft machine gun with a barbecue, install a pipe to overcome water obstacles. And how will the communication antennas, temperature, air humidity and wind force sensors, which are on the tower, work under the barbecue? And a bunch of other nuances..
    If we take into account all the wishes of the author and preserve all the functionality of the tank, as laid down by the designers, then there is only one way out: a good APS, plus electronic warfare, and strengthening the ERA in case of penetration.
    Well, we need to develop heat traps, like in aviation, to counter ATGMs with homing heads. Well, light-laser countermeasures, to blind those missiles and drones that are guided by the operator through a video camera.
    1. +2
      19 February 2025 22: 15
      2nd paragraph: that's exactly it.
      "The barbecue" needs to somehow cover the stern. A very tasty vulnerable spot. Well, IMHO, instead of the useless Korda/NSV machine gun, it is really necessary to install something autonomous and automatic shotgun. A sort of anti-drone anti-aircraft gun. The question arises: how not to mow down your own infantry. The answer: the same as with the APS. When "accompanied" by infantry, we do not work to the sides. When autonomous - for all the money.

      And let's not forget about mines... Here, too, everything is very complicated. There are a lot of videos where 1 drone observer is enough. As soon as we film, the equipment flies to pieces...
  8. +1
    18 February 2025 11: 59
    And no need to laugh, “crinoline” will be very useful for a tank too.

    In conditions of movement and combat operations in urban areas and wooded areas (movement through forest belts), this entire "crinoline" will fly off to the ground and the tank will remain completely uncovered, at the "hottest" moment.
    Not okay. request
  9. +2
    18 February 2025 15: 17
    A couple of explosions next to such cryolin of joint shells and this chain-link fence will be blown away like the wind. The author himself wrote, to put it simply, before you suggest something, think carefully!!!
  10. 0
    18 February 2025 19: 11
    We need a multi-turret armored vehicle like the T-35 from the WWII era. The main weapon is a low-pulse 120-152 mm caliber gun and rapid-fire anti-drone weapons around the turret perimeter. Naturally, there should be an automatic system for detecting, identifying, selecting and firing at air targets. At the current level, such a combat vehicle may not be as monstrous as the T-35 was. But then again, the cost of such a vehicle will not be cheap. In fact, we need to focus on developing a universal anti-drone module with integrated systems for detecting, selecting and destroying drones, suitable for installation on various vehicles, both armored and transport...
  11. 0
    19 February 2025 13: 50
    the idea is clear, but immediately there is a doubt how it will work on rough roads, in the city and in the forest((everything will come off very quickly, and the tank itself will easily run over with its tracks
  12. 0
    19 February 2025 20: 58
    Dmitry Verkhoturov has reinvented a modern version of the circular mesh protection "Tent".

    We are waiting for the specialized design bureau to reinvent the anti-drone machine gun installation, the preliminary design of which was also completed in the USSR as part of the Oplot-MO research and development project at the turn of the 60s.
    1. +2
      20 February 2025 07: 13
      The "tent" does not seem to allow for 360 degree rotation of the tower (judging by the picture).
      The author seems to have tried to solve this problem first and foremost.
      1. 0
        20 February 2025 21: 52
        The "tent" was attached only to the turret and rotated together with it. The identical slope and length of the frame elements suggest that when the turret rotated, none of them touched the tank's hull.
    2. 0
      20 February 2025 17: 51
      "Tent" turns a tank into a self-propelled gun.
      And what about boarding and disembarking, especially when they hit and set fire? And loading ammunition? And servicing a tank?
      1. 0
        20 February 2025 22: 28
        The "tent" did not prevent the tank's turret from rotating. It made it somewhat difficult for the crew to board the tank. The screen folded up to service the tank.

        This was not welded together "in garages" from rusty pipes and Rabitz mesh. This was developed by VNII-100 (VNIItransmash). Unlike the ZET-1 screen protection, which included sectional screens for the sides and the ZonT mesh barrier for the frontal projection, the Tent protection was never adopted. The urgent need for all-round protection was a matter for the future. However, the ZET-1 was also unable to make its mark in wars and armed conflicts.
        1. +1
          21 February 2025 07: 55
          My option is better in a number of respects.
          1. 0
            21 February 2025 22: 01
            Your version is in some ways more perfect than the VNII-100 proposal from 1961. But the VNII-100 "Tent" was collapsible. Apparently, its "spokes" could be turned toward each other to fold the "Tent" during maintenance and repair of the tank, in the manner of folding the rotors of deck helicopters.

            I would suggest NOT using a Rabitz net, but using the net that covers the area between the lower part of the turret and the hull on the T-90M. The lower vertical part of your "Crinoline", in my opinion, should be made of steel chains with ball-weights on their ends (chains with ball-weights were first used to protect the vulnerable "zaman" zone between the developed niche of the turret and the hull of the Merkava tanks. Of course, the Jews did not reach the ground, but the horizontal armor of the hull). The tendency of such "fringe" to snags, in my opinion, will be significantly lower than cables with net panels attached to them.
            1. 0
              21 February 2025 23: 03
              Without more detailed drawings or a diagram, it is difficult to say what it was and how it worked.

              Rabitz is a forced decision, connected with the fact that it is the most accessible solution. Supply is not the strong point of our army and it is necessary to take this into account.
              Are there better options? Yes.
              For example, double twist gabion mesh. By the way, it is made in sheets.
              Or here, the conveyor mesh assembly type 8. Now that, I would say, is the thing. You can't break through that mesh.
              1. +1
                21 February 2025 23: 28
                Quote: wehr
                Rabitz is a forced decision, connected with the fact that it is the most accessible solution. Supply is not the strong point of our army and it is necessary to take this into account.

                Since there are already "small" variants of development by specialized organizations and factory production, in my opinion, it is worth proceeding from the fact that "large" variants of factory production will also appear soon. The variety of homemade designs in this niche will come to naught.

                It is rather surprising that a factory version like the "Shatr" has not yet appeared in the troops.

                There is even a "seditious" thought that the intellectual potential of specialized research and design organizations in the last century was significantly higher than today. And not only domestic organizations.

                For example, the development in the photo below was brought to field tests in the second half of the 1980s in Great Britain. Today, despite the availability of serial remote-controlled machine gun combat modules, no specialized developers of any of the modern tank-building countries have yet bothered to adapt them for combating micro-UAVs.

                "We have the means. We lack the brains" - Matroskin the cat
        2. 0
          21 February 2025 10: 23
          May I report, Comrade Junior Lieutenant?

          I have not found a video of the "Shatr" tests, i.e. it is not clear to me how to combine the picture of the "Shatr" with the ability to rotate the turret.

          I would be grateful for a link to a more detailed description of the "Tent" design.

          thank you
          1. +1
            21 February 2025 21: 18
            In the picture the net is fixed to the frame, the upper conical part of which is formed by ten "spokes" (one of the "spokes" is equipped with a hollow-angled "window" for a tank gun). All the "spokes" of the frame have the same angle of inclination to the plane of the horizon and a bend from the inclined part to the vertical at the same height from the surface of the earth. If we theoretically draw a plane through the place of bending of the "spokes", then - this plane will be:

            a) parallel to the earth's surface
            b) the cross-section of the network on this plane forms a regular decagon.
            c) The diameter of the circle into which this polygon can be inscribed is about 8 meters (based on the length of the tank hull of about 6,3 meters).

            If you take a picture of a general view of the T-55 tank from above and draw on it a circle of 8 meters in diameter with the center coinciding with the center of the turret ring and inscribe a regular decagon in this circle, you will find that none of the sides of the decagon intersects with the most protruding parts of the tank hull (fenders) in the top view. Rotating the decagon on an axis passing through its center does not change anything here. I hope you will not suggest that I depict this decagon on the top view of the tank hull?
  13. +1
    20 February 2025 07: 10
    The author is a caring person and a good fellow who is trying to somehow think about options for solving the problem of the lack of modern protective devices on equipment in the required quantities and qualities (otherwise there probably wouldn't be so many homemade handicrafts in the field "on the knee"). Unlike various Minusologists and Ruddy Unconstructive Critics of any ideas that don't fit into their perception of the surrounding reality.

    If you solve the following problems:
    1. Maintaining the circular rotation of the tower.
    2. Complete coverage of the tank with a Flexible Passive Protection Kit (FPPK) with a Gap (space between the FPPK and the tank) that minimizes the risk of the lower parts of the FPPK being pinched in the drive unit (tracks and wheels).
    3. Flexibility, allowing passage through narrow passages with reduced risk of destruction of the KGPZ.
    4. High degree of unification of the KGPZ and applicability for different combat vehicles (BM) and other transport vehicles (TS).

    That

    It might be useful to experiment with the following design and materials, combining the solutions described by the author and existing solutions such as (dreadlocks made of cables) described in the comments to the article (https://topwar.ru/259599-uvz-sovremennye-rossijskie-tanki-imejut-luchshuju-zaschitu-po-sravneniju-s-zapadnymi.html)

    These are:
    1. A "Crinoline" type design is used, longitudinally oval in shape, with attachment to the tower.
    2. The material of the protective "layer" of the "Skirt" is metal cables or non-metallic ropes with non-flammable impregnation. (The dreadlocks themselves, which can be partially unbraided at the lower ends, are NOT A MESH).
    3. The upper supporting structure can be made in the form of an oval tubular frame or a Load-bearing Cable/Rope. (Instead of a tubular frame - a Load-bearing Cable (LT = (A and B in the "picture")). In this case, a tubular frame can be used if necessary.
    4. Supporting - Expanding hoops are replaced by flexible Cable(s) (FRC), the widest of which is fixed approximately in the dimensions of the protected object (approximately with the above-described gap. Depends on the minimum bending radius of the Cables/Ropes used).
    5. The support pillars for attaching the KGPZ to the Tower/TS can be rigid. Perhaps, solutions with spring spacers (for example, from automobile springs) between the body and the support pillars, providing some mobility of the entire structure in the horizontal plane, will be interesting. Or spring-loaded hinged fastenings.

    The design features may (or may not) be as follows:

    The Support Cable (NT = (A and B in the "picture") is pulled together with a detachable tie and passes through V-shaped cutouts in the tops of the Support Posts, made, for example, from corners with the top cut at an angle in the form of a short "fork".

    U-shaped sections of cable (1,2,3,4,…N) are attached to the Carrier Cable (A and B in the “picture”) with an overlap.
    Length of the cable section is approximately (L) = 2 Skirt Heights + 3 cable pitches + 2 distances (D) from the lower PRT to the NT. L = 2 * VY + 3 * W + 2 * H, where W = the required Pitch of the vertical cables. L will be different if there are two or more Load-Bearing Cables/Ropes.
    Fastening to the Load-Bearing Cable PRT (B in the "picture") and to each other via Wire Fasteners (WF) = (ties as for fastening concrete reinforcement (pulled together/screwed with special hooks)).

    Perhaps the top part can be made on the principle of the sides of wicker baskets, where the vertical Cables/Ropes are woven with the Carrier Cable/Rope. (For a variant of the Fastening Node, see the "picture" below.)

    Most likely it will be necessary to use several Carrier Cables of different sizes to ensure a uniform step along the entire height of the "Skirt".

    Number of Supports K=f(m(f⌀)), where m=(skirt mass), ⌀=(cable diameter).
    1. +1
      21 February 2025 07: 57
      I think that the main thing in this design problem is the choice of the cable diameter. It is better to take a thicker one, so it is harder to break. But a thick cable is a weight that falls on the tower, therefore on the rotation engine.
      Here we have to walk a line between what is necessary and what is acceptable.
      1. 0
        21 February 2025 09: 55
        yes it is.

        I don't know if they do it

        hollow cables like super long flexible hoses but not made of stainless steel.

        or separately from the wires, a thicker and more "elastic" shielding braid for the current

        in any case, it makes sense to experiment at least on toy models.

        somewhere there should be a theory and manuals (I don't remember what they're called) and coefficients for converting model characteristics to the scale of the final product (so as not to suffer with experiments on natural sizes/dimensions/masses)
        1. 0
          21 February 2025 10: 54
          Now there are detailed specifications for any rolled products, any cables and fasteners. I calculated the length of the cables according to the drawing and calculated the weight.
          1. 0
            21 February 2025 11: 06
            I'm not talking about that, but about experiments with hollow cables and the like.
            because solid metal cables in this design for circular rotation and overall cross-country ability of the entire structure (while maintaining a gap and maximum pressing of the "generators" to the overall dimensions of the protected object) with a probability of 99.(9)% are unliftable crap.
            and the grid with a probability of 99.(9)% puts an end to any passability at all except for the bare steppe/desert.

            i.e. the solution for this design will most likely lie in the area of ​​using hollow cables or ropes (non-metallic cables).

            Well, in general it doesn't matter.
    2. 0
      23 November 2025 02: 34
      Quote: Ing Mech


      It might be useful to experiment with the following design and materials, combining the solutions described by the author and existing solutions such as (dreadlocks made of cables) described in the comments to the article (https://topwar.ru/259599-uvz-sovremennye-rossijskie-tanki-imejut-luchshuju-zaschitu-po-sravneniju-s-zapadnymi.html)

      ...
      2. The material of the protective "layer" of the "Skirt" is metal cables or non-metallic ropes with non-flammable impregnation. (The dreadlocks themselves, which can be partially unbraided at the lower ends, are NOT A MESH).
      ...



      What did I tell you!?
      An excellent development of the idea in the form of an armored dandelion.
      I hope they will appear in metal, and not just in the form of a patent.

      https://topcor.ru/66160-tank-oduvanchik-v-rf-pridumali-novyj-sposob-zaschity-boevoj-tehniki.html
      1. 0
        11 December 2025 07: 14
        [quote=Ing Mech]
        An excellent development of the idea in the form of an armored dandelion
        / Quote]

        And if the Dandelion Armor works within the density and rigidity of its elements, then another development option on the theme of analogs on the Internet could be folding protection similar to umbrellas.

        It makes sense to experiment with the following Armor Umbrella Characteristics:

        1. Spring-loaded mechanisms for full opening and closing, like in hand umbrellas.
        2. Remote cocking (full folding) as in large stationary umbrellas by means of cable drives.
        3. Fractal (branched) design to provide sufficient rigidity (via large branches) for massive large reflective projectiles and sufficient density (via smaller folding branches) for smaller reflective projectiles.
        4. Theoretically, in this fully remotely folding version, it is possible to use the net instead of the Bronezont fabric, which would not significantly impair the overall cross-country ability and the net's own durability in forests and densely populated areas.
      2. 0
        19 January 2026 07: 43
        Quote: Ing Mech
        Quote: Ing Mech


        It might be useful to experiment with the following design and materials, combining the solutions described by the author and existing solutions such as (dreadlocks made of cables) described in the comments to the article (https://topwar.ru/259599-uvz-sovremennye-rossijskie-tanki-imejut-luchshuju-zaschitu-po-sravneniju-s-zapadnymi.html)

        ...
        2. The material of the protective "layer" of the "Skirt" is metal cables or non-metallic ropes with non-flammable impregnation. (The dreadlocks themselves, which can be partially unbraided at the lower ends, are NOT A MESH).
        ...



        What did I tell you!?
        An excellent development of the idea in the form of an armored dandelion.
        I hope they will appear in metal, and not just in the form of a patent.

        https://topcor.ru/66160-tank-oduvanchik-v-rf-pridumali-novyj-sposob-zaschity-boevoj-tehniki.html


        Now that even the French have started crunching on buns, it's high time to think about the process of increasing the technological sophistication and speed of the Armored Dandelionization of BT, through the division of labor and standardization of elements.
        1. 0
          20 January 2026 04: 40
          Quote: Ing Mech
          Quote: Ing Mech
          Quote: Ing Mech


          It might be useful to experiment with the following design and materials, combining the solutions described by the author and existing solutions such as (dreadlocks made of cables) described in the comments to the article (https://topwar.ru/259599-uvz-sovremennye-rossijskie-tanki-imejut-luchshuju-zaschitu-po-sravneniju-s-zapadnymi.html)

          ...
          2. The material of the protective "layer" of the "Skirt" is metal cables or non-metallic ropes with non-flammable impregnation. (The dreadlocks themselves, which can be partially unbraided at the lower ends, are NOT A MESH).
          ...



          What did I tell you!?
          An excellent development of the idea in the form of an armored dandelion.
          I hope they will appear in metal, and not just in the form of a patent.

          https://topcor.ru/66160-tank-oduvanchik-v-rf-pridumali-novyj-sposob-zaschity-boevoj-tehniki.html


          Now that even the French have started crunching on buns, it's high time to think about the process of increasing the technological sophistication and speed of the Armored Dandelionization of BT, through the division of labor and standardization of elements.


          If everyone is happy with the openwork pentagonal pyramid of equilateral triangles on the roof, then in principle, you can get by with just standard equilateral triangles.

          The only thing is that the size of the side of the triangle may be different for different techniques.
  14. Qas
    0
    22 February 2025 02: 00
    A few questions:
    1. How will active protection units installed on the tank's armor work? No way, they explode under the "hood" and can damage the tank itself;
    2. How will the systems for setting up various screens mounted on the tank's armor work? No way, for the same reason;
    3. What will be the maneuverability of a tank under such a hood on rough terrain, in a forest, in the city? The protection, damaged, for example, by trees and buildings, will not damage the equipment on the tank's armor, will not block the tank's hatches?
    4. If you make protection from cables, is it sufficient to repel a UAV attack?
    1. 0
      22 February 2025 07: 43
      Most likely yes (depending on the execution)
    2. 0
      22 February 2025 07: 53
      1. unknown (the implementation of cables should theoretically reduce the number of activations of contact-type protective blocks by destroying the deflection of part of the attacking "warheads").
      2. installed "pod" will not work. They will need to be moved.
      3. worsened (especially in the case of a rigid frame protruding beyond the dimensions of the protected object), but theoretically the design with cables will potentially not significantly worsen the overall cross-country ability.
      4. Most likely yes (depending on the execution)
  15. 0
    22 February 2025 09: 45
    The author has invented a bicycle. Such protection - a hemispherical net on the tower - was proposed back in Soviet times. A drawing even showed up on Topvar some time ago, and it was a normal one, not like the author's
    1. 0
      22 February 2025 10: 32
      Okay, "invented the wheel." But where is this "wheel" in the troops? Why isn't it on every tank? How many tankers were killed and wounded because of the absence of this very "wheel" that was invented a long time ago, but which still hadn't appeared in the troops in the third year of the war?
      What are your answers to these questions?
      If there are none, then keep quiet.
      1. 0
        23 February 2025 19: 19
        As if your article did anything. A real hero - he posted an unfinished child's drawing on the site. And now he shuts everyone up.
        1. 0
          23 February 2025 21: 02
          At least I didn’t remain silent, but tried to do something, at least say something.
          And you tried to shut me up, which allows us to suspect you of being an accomplice.
  16. 0
    22 February 2025 11: 23
    Perhaps the solution will be to separate the upper and lower "Skirts" into:
    1. Tower type as in the picture
    2. Hull/turret almost like on the picture.

    At a minimum, the under-turret "Skirt" should most likely be in the form of a frame, with a rectangular flat hinged structure with a horizontal degree of freedom on the outer side (cable support).
    The closest one (to the body) is rigidly attached to the body, and the cables to it are on hinges with a horizontal degree of freedom.
    The cables rest on the outer frame (tubular guides may be required to provide a step, hinged on the outer frame.

    when hitting a side obstacle, the outer frame is pressed against the inner one (folds under the impact of the obstacle)

    After passing the obstacle, the springs return (extend) the outer frame to the working position.
  17. 0
    23 February 2025 15: 48
    Only active protection means can free the tank from this burden and....return it to the city - what difference does it make whether to fire on duty or at the grenade launcher's forehead.