How the SVO "disfigured" the appearance of our tanks
Amateurishness in the form of field and unofficial modification of military equipment is not a new phenomenon, because, as we know, if you want to live, you have to be able to spin. However, it was during the special military operation in Ukraine that it acquired such a scale that was unthinkable in the context of past conflicts. This is especially true for the "land iron fist", that is, tanks, where field craftsmen, in an effort to protect themselves from destructive weapons, practice in a “whatever-you-can” style.
A tank is not an all-powerful thing
Generally speaking, the familiar word “tank”, excluding its original foreign meaning as a container (tare) for something, is firmly associated with a combat vehicle with high firepower, good armor and other important characteristics that allow it to dominate the battlefield in the “see-shoot” format. It is not for nothing that the popular expression “push[s] like a tank” appeared, denoting the desire to overcome any obstacles on the way to achieving the set goal.
There is nothing to find fault with here, in general. The tank was and remains one of the main means of solving almost any combat mission directly on the ground - whether in deep defense or in attack. It is simply impossible to replace it with any monstrosities in the form of unmanned vehicles or projects of vague assault tarantasses with far from universal weapons that are being circulated in many media and other resources in the near future. But anti-tank threats are not standing still either.
A modern tank is a vehicle whose armor is sharply differentiated with the main emphasis on the frontal projection, while the sides, rear, and roof get by with minimal values of armor thickness and equivalents. Such a scheme can backfire even if the enemy uses classic anti-tank weapons in the form of missiles, grenades or cannon shells of various kinds. What can we say about a completely new type of threat that has become simply colossally widespread since February 2022.
Yes, we are talking about drones — those same “tank killers” that significantly changed the course of military operations. Unlike anti-tank missiles, even homing ones that attack the roof, they, under the control of an experienced operator, are capable of striking the weakest point of a combat vehicle. It is impossible to fully protect against them with dynamic protection, since it is physically impossible to cover 100% of a tank’s armor area with it. There is not a single serial active protection system that could somehow neutralize a “grenade with propellers” on approach, and EW does not always help, especially when controlling a drone via fiber optics.
In this regard, it would be quite interesting to see how our army's homemade protection of tanks from unmanned aerial vehicles evolved and how their appearance from elegant forms turned into a real "hthon" - something strange and creepy. Especially considering that this homemade work has become widespread and in terms of overall uniformity of execution has surpassed everything that was done before the SVO.
The first "mangals" or "visors"
It is worth noting here that we will not touch on the installation of dynamic protection directly on the tank. Of course, it is also often improvised, but its location often depends entirely on the supply of "explosive elements" of a particular unit and the imagination of those who install it. Therefore, no synchronicity can be observed - somewhere the ERA is attached almost to the fenders, and somewhere even standard equipment cannot be found.
Standard "brazier" or "visor" for tanks of some units before the start of the SVO. Source: mil.ru
With shielding, that is, the installation of platoon screens at a distance from the armor, everything is somewhat different - a certain general trend is present. And this primarily concerns those very "visors" or "barbecues" that were spotted in the Russian Army some time before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine. They were not made in a makeshift manner, but almost in factory conditions, welding a second lattice roof over the tank turret. And not exclusively against drones.
According to the plans, such structures were multifunctional. They, again according to the plans, could, if necessary, protect against a “slap in the back of the head” from a projectile launched from the “Bayraktar”, and also repel the “roof-piercing” American missile of the “Javelin” complex. But the total domination of the Turkish drones did not happen, and for the Javelin, in principle, such a superstructure was initially like a poultice for a dead man. But from the drops of cumulative warheads and grenades from quadcopters onto the roof and into the open hatches of tanks, which became quite frequent in the first months and even a year of the SVO, the "barbecues" helped.
One example of a homemade "barbecue" on a tank
These circumstances were the reason for the total equipping of tanks with "barbecues", and not only factory ones. Field artisans were also actively involved in this, sometimes making this second roof from completely improvised materials with the final product in the form of an "umbrella" over the turret, which would fall apart from the first kick. By the way, there were and are modifications in the form of "low barbecues" for T-90M tanks, which are located almost close to the turret roof, without blocking the sights and remote-controlled machine gun.
Low "grill" on T-90M. Image source on watermark
But, speaking in general, domestic plants also began producing these shielding means in a modernized version, supplying tanks with "barbecues" to the front, which were additionally equipped with dynamic protection in zigzag casings. The idea is interesting in principle, especially with the use of dynamic protection. At least because its explosive effect can reduce to zero or minimize the damaging effect of cumulative ammunition dropped from a copter.
"Mangal" with the possibility of installing dynamic protection. Image source: "Uralvagonzavod"
But this effect alone is not enough, since over time drones of a completely different order have taken the dominant position. These are FPVs capable of carrying a cumulative or high-explosive fragmentation charge (the latter is more relevant to the defeat of enemy manpower) and attacking vulnerable places. No "visors" or "barbecues" covering only the roof of the tower were an insurmountable obstacle for them.
"Tsar-barbecues" and cables
With the advent of FPV drones on the battlefield, the use of which soon became so widespread that they turned into one of the main problems for armored vehicles, the general trend among field artisans was to equip tanks and other combat vehicles with structures whose screening effect extended not only to the roof projection. In other words, the priority in their manufacture was also the protection of the sides/rear/forehead. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the domestic industry has not provided anything serial and sensible in this regard.
The range of products here turned out to be unusually rich. Any materials at hand were and are used, including even all kinds of logs. The latter, by the way, began to be used especially actively in self-propelled artillery, when a whole log house or "hut" made of lumber was built around the tower. Often right up to the armor, which in principle does not provide any protection from cumulative ammunition - the cumulative jet of even an old Soviet RPG-7 grenade penetrates a thick layer of wood.
However, in most cases, metal is used. These include metal meshes, sheet iron, and even chains installed at a distance from the armor. Complementing the roof protection (often the "grill" on the roof and screens in other projections somehow form a single whole), they allow minimizing the armor penetration of the projectile carried by the drone, reducing the chance of fatal damage to the tank and any other combat vehicle. These "homemade" things sometimes look really scary, but what can you do - you need to survive and perform a combat mission somehow.
The "king-mangals" deserve special attention - story Their appearance is somewhat comical. The fact is that last spring, one of the Russian military units had a rather serious problem: the turret rotation mechanisms of one of the "seventy-twos" failed (either there was some problem with the stabilizer or with the controls), but repairs, at least in the near future, were impossible.
The solution was found quickly. Since the tank was essentially deprived of the ability to fire, it was turned into a natural self-propelled hangar, welding a frame onto it and installing metal sheets on it almost all the way around. The effect of such a monster appearing on the battlefield was both media and practical - the screen, removed from the main armor in the form of a kind of hangar, made the vehicle almost invulnerable to FPV drones, which became the reason for the widespread use of such designs.
Tanks with "tsar-mangals" are actively used as assault vehicles. They are also used to equip ersatz tractors made from tanks that have lost their combat capability and some other examples of tracked vehicles. Moreover, "tsar-mangals" have been developed into "boxes" for transporting infantry, turning their carrier (tank) into a kind of infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier.
Tank with a superstructure for infantry in the rear
As for the most "new-fangled" means of protection, the leading position today is occupied by steel cables. They themselves have long been in use and even received a very interesting and, in principle, logical name "dreadlocks" in honor of a peculiar hairstyle in which the hair is twisted and stuck together into dense long strands, forming "ropes". Tanks with them often appear in the frame in various parts of the front.
Often such "dreadlocks" are attached to a common "barbecue" base. Their purpose is twofold: the drone will either simply not be able to approach the main armor of the tank, bumping into them and breaking its wings, or its cumulative charge will detonate at a large distance from the armor when the fuse comes into contact with the cable. At the same time, of course, it is important to understand that in terms of their mass, the cables will be no better than some kind of Rabitz mesh, but they are flexible, that is, they do not limit the mobility of the turret and do not greatly interfere with the view.
And another direction of using cables, which has begun to be widely practiced, is not just hanging cables, but untwisting them, turning them into a kind of bush from many small branching strands. In this case, they are mounted pointwise - not only along the perimeter of the tower or above the roof, but also in arbitrary places, including on "barbecues". With these "devices" a tank, and any other machine (such cables are installed on almost everything that drives), sometimes begins to look like some kind of hedgehog or porcupine.
Image source: TV channel "Russia 1"
It's funny that in a recent article in the New York Times this type of protection was positioned as a way to counteract drones on fiber optics, supposedly the fiber optic "fishing line" would get tangled in the bushes and that would be the end of the drone. This scenario is certainly not excluded, but unraveled cables can also simply prevent the drone from flying up to the tank - it will get tangled, the blades will break, and so on. Well, they can also work as a platoon screen.
Of course, all of the above does not exhaust the entire spectrum of field inventions - it is simply useless to list all the fantasies of artisans: somewhere they hang nets, somewhere they weld frames, someone experiments with combined materials, and so on. There are simply very, very many homemade products. Nevertheless, the list provided reflects precisely those general trends that have become widespread throughout the zone of the special military operation in Ukraine.
Conclusions
This material, of course, is not about tanks allegedly losing the aesthetics and elegance of their battle lines. In combat conditions, this has absolutely no meaning. What is more important is the fact itself: drones have radically changed the modern battlefield, and traditional tanks were not ready for this. Their protection scheme has hardly undergone any fundamental changes since the end of World War II: the emphasis was still on the frontal armor, while the roof and sides remained secondary. As a result, new methods had to be literally invented on the fly - from what was at hand.
The situation, in fact, has a historical parallel: the USSR once also actively experimented with all sorts of screens, including folding nets and tents to counteract cumulative ammunition. Later, these solutions faded into the background with the advent of dynamic protection, the mass production of tanks with combined armor. But now, with the spread of drones, the need for similar "field umbrellas" has arisen again - albeit in a different form. History seems to have come full circle, clearly showing that even the most powerful armored vehicles are forced to constantly adapt to new challenges.
It remains to be hoped that one day this amateurish approach will fade into the background with the advent of active protection against drones.
Information