Robotic tank "Shturm": seems good, but not quite
Not long ago, a robotic one was spotted танк under the name "Shturm", which is a radically redesigned remote-controlled "seventy-two", adapted for action in the first combat formations, including in the city, as an assault vehicle. And, as usual, its appearance immediately attracted the attention of both domestic and foreign media.
Basically, of course, all the rhetoric comes down to one thing. The machine is called a universal robot-attack aircraft, which is capable of radically changing the tactics of combat operations in modern warfare. Moreover, even Western news agencies and various experts, who, especially after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, for the most part treated our tank industry and the military-industrial complex as a whole with skepticism, have noted this.
The author will not go into the details of these dithyrambs - the reader interested in armored vehicles has obviously read them from primary sources. We will also not touch on the currently prevailing opinion that classic tanks have lost their relevance on the battlefield, and the future is in drones on land, in the air and on water. The question that is much more interesting here is: is this product needed in the form it is now?
The concept is not new
In fact, we have been thinking about the need for a frontline assault vehicle for a long time. And the reason for this is quite prosaic: a classic tank, as the main ground vehicle of the forward formations, is simply not capable of handling all combat missions. Yes, this thing is formidable, but not everywhere and not always.
This applies to urban areas and mountainous terrain, where a regular tank cannot realize all of its firepower and becomes extremely vulnerable. And, relatively speaking, to an "open field" with a tank-hazardous enemy force, fortifications, etc., where the power of its main armament is clearly insufficient to hit the entire range of targets - after all, a high-impulse gun, mostly anti-tank, even with high-explosive fragmentation shells, is not a universal means.
A striking example of theoretical developments and speculations on this topic can be found in the works of Leonid Petrovich Orlenko, Doctor of Technical Sciences and Professor of the Department of High-Precision Aircraft at Bauman Moscow State Technical University, published more than 10 years ago. In them, he substantiates the creation of a whole complex of front-line vehicles, not forgetting about their integration into the existing hierarchy of the armed forces, as well as tactical use.
Source: L.P. Orlenko. Assault vehicles for the Ground Forces
In his works, Leonid Petrovich proposed the creation of several specialized assault vehicles, of which two are noteworthy. The first was based on an existing tank with significantly improved protection, and, most importantly, with new weapons, which were to consist of a 152-mm howitzer with large vertical aiming angles (using adjustable and canister ammunition, as well as projectiles with programmable detonation), a 30-mm automatic cannon, an ATGM and a machine gun, which allows for the most effective destruction of fortifications, manpower and enemy equipment.
The second is essentially a remotely controlled tank - also based on an existing vehicle (light "attack aircraft" variants based on the BMP or BMD were also proposed). A sort of modern analogue of the ancient teletanks, which allows saving the lives of the crews, since the use of such robots sharply reduces the value of losses in any military operations - it is cheaper to lose a remotely controlled tank than both the tank and the crew together.
Moreover, the death of the crew, if we exclude the ethical component, which implies the invaluability of human life, will cost even more in total. Training new tankers is not so expensive within the framework of a large budget for military expenses, but their lack of experience will lead to predictable consequences - the tank and crew, as a single combat unit, will have low combat effectiveness. Therefore, all this is true: both specialized assault vehicles and robots are needed - in symbiosis, their work would be the best.
But, as they say, there are nuances.
"Storm"
If you look at the Shturm vehicle itself and its known design tactical and technical characteristics, you can see that it is not very different from a regular T-72 or T-80 tank in terms of main caliber. There is no 152 mm gun that could give a significant advantage in the fight against fortifications and enemy manpower, especially with the use of some Krasnopol-type shells, and also provide the ability to fire at large vertical angles.
Instead, the Shturm is equipped with a shortened 125 mm cannon, which essentially “consumes” the same shells and propellant charges as the 2A46 cannons on the T-72 and T-80 tanks. In fact, this approach has only one advantage: it is less likely to get caught with the barrel in the narrow spaces of city streets. However, this applies not only to streets – in close combat and in the presence of other obstacles, except for pillars, walls, etc., it will also be more convenient.
There are no bonuses in return. The gun operates at standard angles, like its original version (2A46), so it cannot be fired at longer distances (than the standard gun) or "howitzer-style" through folds in the terrain. It is also impossible to provide a higher coefficient of filling its shells with explosives by reducing the wall thickness, since the propellant charges remain standard. Also, shortening the barrel inevitably has a negative effect on ballistics - no matter how you look at it, the initial velocity of the shells will be reduced.
So, it seems that there are some advantages, but in general the difference is not in favor of the "Sturm". Although, considering that the 2A46 type gun and its shortened version are interchangeable on this product, the barrels can be changed if necessary, but this is somewhat labor-intensive. Now about something else.
As an assault vehicle, it should have much greater protection against destructive weapons than a regular tank, especially against hand-held grenade launchers and ATGMs. And, judging by the images published in the past, this can be implemented in it due to the all-round "body kit" of dynamic protection. Moreover, everything is done competently: on the sides and in the rear it has "boxes" with ERA installed at an angle, and in the front there is a block ERA with powerful turret protection. That is, it can be easily destroyed by anti-tank rocket or firing an RPG from somewhere around a corner or trench won't work.
But that was true until 2022. Now cheap FPVs reign supreme.drones, capable of hitting the roof and various other vulnerable spots. The Shturm has a practically bare roof, and this cannot be fixed by installing dynamic protection on it or on any other existing tank in the world. Therefore, if this vehicle somehow miraculously ended up on the battlefields in the SVO zone, it would have to be “marbled” and various canopies made of cables, rubber sheets and other handicrafts would have to be attached to it.
We need an active protection system (APS) that could effectively combat both drones in all projections and conventional ammunition. But for now, this is an unaffordable luxury even for conventional tanks, and not only in our country - there is not a single large-scale APS in the world that would combine this functionality.
Remote control can also be included here - here a robot and a tank have been combined. As stated, "Shturm" can be controlled both by the crew and remotely from a mobile control center. But there are many problems when it comes to "remote control". And the matter is not only that the command post itself, forced to move at a relatively short distance from the assault robot, can come under attack artillery or drones, which are now circling in the air like flies.
The very concept of remote "wireless" control of a ground combat vehicle, even if there is an acceptable level of technical vision, which is highly doubtful, is still too weak all over the world. First of all, because there is a complete and total dependence on the communication channel through which the video stream, telemetry, and control commands are transmitted. Various folds of the terrain, vegetation, buildings (if we are talking about urban development) can break or weaken this connection, which will inevitably lead, as they say now, to "high ping" and can kill precise guidance and high-speed maneuvering.
To minimize these phenomena, signal repeaters are required at least on UAVs, which will require an increase in both personnel and vehicle support equipment. All this is unnecessary expenditure that may not produce the desired result. Simply because electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare systems are not being developed. Even now, ammunition that adjusts its flight using GPS satellites is perfectly jammed. You can be sure that they will find something to jam the control signals of a robot tank.
The sense of terrain is also of great importance. For air and surface drones, this is not critical, but for a heavy, large tank, it is quite important. The crew, controlling it remotely, will not fully “feel” the vehicle, its suspension, the softness of the ground, slopes, and so on. This point is often forgotten, but it can be the cause of situations when the vehicle can get buried up to the turret in mud or fly into some obstacle.
In general, there is a high probability that remote control will be an unnecessary add-on in many cases, and the product will have to be controlled manually, sitting at its levers and sights. Although it cannot be ruled out that somewhere in an open field or in an area that is not difficult to control, such functionality will come in very handy.
That is, it turns out that the idea of the "Sturm" itself seems to be really sound and logically follows from the experience of modern battles: to remove the crew from the attack, increase firepower on the front line and create a universal means for storming fortified areas and cities. However, the devil, as always, is in the details. Remote control inevitably involves problems of at least signal loss and vulnerability of the command post; with protection - the need to adapt to a new threat in the form of drones, from which neither classic armor nor "jet" can protect; with weapons - the absence of that very "raisin" in the form of a 152-mm howitzer.
Conclusions
So what can be said as conclusions?
Firstly, all sorts of mass media always chase hot topics, and the latest appearance of the "Sturm" on the move, especially in our difficult times, is definitely such a topic. After all, the machine is very unusual, especially remotely controlled - after all, the need for such a product has long been recognized at the front, and not in theory, but in practice. But it turned out rather strange.
It seems to be an assault tank. But its all-round protection does not radically exceed that of existing domestic tanks with an additional set of dynamic protection. Like them, the "Sturm" in its current version requires the installation of a "barbecue" or other homemade screening means. Its gun does not exceed the 2A46 gun in its characteristics, and the ability to remotely control is an advantage, but it cannot always be used.
However, let's not indulge in the hysteria of the "doomsayers". The vehicle is essentially a kind of "concept car" from the past. And if it is still produced, then with the proper modifications at least in terms of armament (ideally, a universal APS would also be useful) it can become very useful. Moreover, there is hope, since information has already flashed that developments on a 152-mm cannon for the "Shturm" are in place. In this form, it can be of great help to troops in assault operations on any terrain and in urban areas, even with manual control without the newfangled "remote control".
The source of information:
L.P. Orlenko. Assault vehicles for the Ground Forces. Engineering Journal: Science and Innovation, 2013, issue 3.
Information