Military Review

The main battle tank T-100-140 with enhanced combat performance and enhanced crew protection

143
We publish material that our reader Denis Motorny from Kiev sent to the editorial board of the “Courage” website. Your attention is invited to the prospective layout tankcreated on the basis of existing and promising technical solutions, but with the maximum unification of units and assemblies with existing T-84 and Oplot-M tanks. In view of the distant external resemblance to the T-100 twin-turret tank of the 1930s, the author gave his brainchild the conventional name T-100-140.


This work owes its appearance to a large number of video materials on the Internet, which demonstrate the destruction of tanks from RPGs in Syria and Georgia (mainly T-72), which made a negative impression on the author. As a result, he tried to model the layout of the tank, which could provide greater protection for the crew than the T-64 / -72 / -80 tanks.


The basic concept of a unified main battle tank T-100-140


Figure 1. The appearance of the tank T-100-140. Front projection is given in comparison with T-80UD



The idea of ​​the proposed tank, conventionally designated T-100-140, is to create a promising main battle tank with maximum unification of components and assemblies with existing T-84 and Oplot-M tanks, but using a fundamentally new layout with separated electromechanical transmission and 140 -mm smooth-bore “Bagheera” cannon with fully automatic ammunition.

The proposed layout allows you to place in the stern of the tank traction motors, transmission and control compartment. At the same time, the driver has the opportunity to leave the tank through the regular aft door (hatch) at any position of the turret (which is impossible on the T-90CM and Oplot-M). In case of emergency (for example, a tank is stalled under water), the driver may be evacuated from the tank through the crew compartment. The commander and gunner can also urgently leave the tank through the aft door.

The aft arrangement of electric drives in single units with gearboxes allows their quick replacement and reduces vulnerability in frontal shelling or blasting on a mine. The arrangement of a single engine block with a generator in the bow improves the security of the tank when the frontal armor of the hull is broken through and allows for quick replacement of the engine block without dismantling the transmission.

The additionally spaced transmission also allows you to increase the length of the track bearing surface, which provides the 60-ton car with a satisfactory specific ground pressure not exceeding the specific pressure of T-80 / T-84 tanks with the same width and type of track (standard track from T-80 580 width mm). The support surface extended by almost 1000 mm allows the tank to overcome wider moats.

The basic concept of the tank: T-100-140 is to create a promising main battle tank with an optimal balance between:

• crew safety and comfort;
• powerful armor protection;
• functional weapons;
• good mobility;
• simplicity and ease of maintenance.

The main disadvantages * of T-64, T-72, T-80, T-84, T-90CM and Oplot-M tanks, partially or completely excluded on the T-100-140 tank:

1. High probability of irretrievable losses due to the open location of fully combustible charges in the BO and the control compartment (22 / 28 units in the MH / AZ, the rest of the ammunition).

2. High probability of the driver's (MV) defeat by secondary fragments of armor, in the event of a projectile falling into the upper frontal part (VLD) of the tank hull (even if it is not penetrated) or when a mine is detonated.

3. Increased fire hazard due to the presence of fuel tanks in the control compartment and the fighting compartment (BO), not separated by special armored fences.

4. Impossibility of emergency escape of a tank by a driver through BD on T-64, T-80, T-84 and Oplot-M tanks. This is due to the vertical location of the shells in the carousel, blocking the transition of the driver in the BO.

5. The inability to use elongated shots, due to the limited space for projectiles in the AZ / MH (in the proposed T-100-140, this issue is also not yet fully resolved).

6. The presence of a weakened zone in the mine area of ​​the MV sight gauge, due to the specific layout of these machines (this issue was resolved at the experimental “187 facility”).

7. Unbalanced tower, as a result of the constant increase in the size of the frontal armor without adding counterweights in the rear part (this does not apply to T-90CM).

8. The weakened zone in the area of ​​the mask of the gun and coaxial machine gun. Because of the required space for landing, MV on this place is limited by the size of the tower and there is no possibility to install additional armor.

9. The minimum possibility of increasing the size of the armor of the VLD hull and turret, due to the weighting of the front of the tank or the need to exclude the manhole hatch (on T-64, T-72, T-80, T-84, T-90 and Oplot-M impossible)

10. There is no small-caliber rapid-fire cannon to fight combat helicopters, high-speed lightly armored targets and tank-dangerous manpower of the enemy.

11. Limited view of the MW in a combat position, there is no rear view camera (except for the T-90CM).

12. The absence of tank guided missiles (TUR) with homing on the target on the principle of "shot-forgotten."

13. The difficulty of installing guns caliber 140 or 152 mm and placement of their ammunition.

14. The 6-roller chassis can be inferior to the X-NUMX-roller T-7-100 in smoothness, which affects the accuracy of the tank on the move.

15. Smaller traction characteristics of a mechanical transmission at low revs compared with an electromechanical transmission.

* - Probably, the word “flaws” is not quite appropriate for T-64, T-72 and T-80 tanks, rather, these are “bottlenecks” that became the price for tight restrictions in 1960 during their development, most of which there was a severe mass limitation tank. Nevertheless, to invest in 40-42 tons with high mobility and the most powerful frontal armor and gun in the world at that time is a great achievement of Soviet developers and tank builders.


The main disadvantages of the proposed project of the T-100-140 tank, which the author could not solve:

1. The large mass of the tank 60 tons - a fee for powerful armor, 140-mm gun, electromechanical spaced transmission and an extra pair of rollers.

2. The tank's high height is about 3300 mm. Previously, it is possible to reduce its overall height due to the introduction of a rising pedestal for a remote 12,7 mm machine gun and a panorama of the commander. With this solution, in the stowed position, the height of the tank can be reduced to approximately 2600-2700 mm (the level of the upper part of the 30-mm gun).

3. The higher cost of the tank, complicating its potential mass production.

4. The impossibility of using sub-caliber shells with a length of more than 800 mm. Although, in the barrel bore, the length of the sub-caliber shot in the collection is almost 1200 mm.

5. The presence of all the shells in the AZ under the polycom of the fighting compartment, due to the impossibility of placing full ammunition 38 rounds caliber 140 mm only in the stern of the turret.

6. The increased length of the aft niche of the tower compared with the T-84 "Yatagan". On the other hand, it provides a counterweight to the additional mass of increased frontal armor and a longer 140-mm tank gun.

7. It is possible that the accuracy of the tool stabilization on the move is reduced due to the greater length of the 140-mm gun (55 calibers –7700 mm), as a result of the greater moment of unbalance of the longer barrel (At T-90СМ and Oplot-M, the length of the 48 gun caliber –6000 mm ). This is one of the important reasons why Americans and Germans love 44-caliber 120-mm guns (5280 mm) - shorter barrel length, easier to stabilize, respectively, better shooting accuracy on the move. And they “catch up” with armor penetration due to powerful shells from depleted uranium.

8. The diagram does not have a mechanical synchronizer (a shaft with a coupling system) between two traction motors for driving in a straight line and for transferring the power of two motors to one track at turns (perhaps someone will prompt a solution).

9. Estimated cruising range in 400 km (without mounted barrels), due to the location of two traction motors in the rear of the tank, occupying additional space.

10. There is no standard anti-missile system that attacks a tank from above (like Javelin).

11. There is no standard system of active protection complex (KAZ) of the type “Drozd” or “Arena”.

12. Larger than T-90CM and Oplot-M, the unprotected roof surface (the area of ​​the engine and automatic charge pack). However, the penetration of these unprotected surfaces does not threaten the life of the crew.

13. The driver’s rear ramp (Fig. 5.) Protects it only from 30-mm projectiles and RPG-7 type grenades.

The armament of the main battle tank T-100-140


Fig. 2. Department of management and fighting department of the T-100-140 tank in a section


The upgraded elongated turret from the T-84 "Yatagan" tank with an increased size of frontal armor provides accommodation for more powerful weapons. To enhance the frontal armor of the turret, a machine gun coupled to the gun was removed from the combat compartment and transferred to the external combat module.

The proposed composition of the armament of the tank T-100-140:

1. 140-mm smoothbore gun L55 "Bagheera" with separate automatic charging. For powder charges - in the aft part of the 38 tower (19 pairs) and for projectiles - in the lower part of the fighting compartment (similar to T-90CM, on 38 shells - 19 pairs). The automatic loader can work in two modes: “normal” and “paired shot”.

The latter provides an accelerated rate of fire for two similar shells of each cassette. While waiting for the first shot, the 2 projectile and charge are in standby mode for the second shot (the 2 projectile waits in the cassette right under the gun, without interfering with its rollback). The rate of fire in the normal mode - 8-9 shots / min., In the "twin shot" mode - the average 10 shots / min. and 12 shots / min. - between two projectiles of one cassette.
Vertical gun pointing angles: -5 ... + 16 (similar to T-84), horizontal: 360 deg.

2. The armament of the external combat module consists of an 30-2 automatic 72-mm cannon with dual-band power (2x150 shells) and a PKTM 7,62-mm machine gun (2000 ammunition). To simplify the design and reduce the total mass of auxiliary weapons plays the role of coaxial with a gun. That is, the module is rigidly mounted on the tower, and its armament is induced only in the vertical plane. The aiming is synchronized with the line of aiming of the gun L55 and has a single line of stabilization with it.
Vertical guidance angles of auxiliary armaments are significantly increased: -5 ... + 45 (similar to Terminator BMPT).

3. The anti-aircraft anti-aircraft installation, stabilized in two planes, with the 12,7-mm machine gun “The Rock” or “Kord” (4x150 of cartridges). Vertical guidance angles: -8 ... + 60 (similar to T-84), horizontal guidance angles: 360 degrees.

Ammunition of the main battle tank T-100-140

The main battle tank T-100-140 with enhanced combat performance and enhanced crew protection

Fig. 3. Tank ammunition




Figure 4. T-100-140 tank guided missiles in the marching and fighting position


Due to the fact that one of the drawbacks of smooth-bore tank guns (compared to rifled ones) is their lower firing accuracy at long distances, two XURNUMX caliber 38 mm and # 140 are added to the standard ammunition of the 4 tank shells. 2), folding in two parts in the bore using an automatic loader. Missiles are designed to accurately hit the target at a distance of 3 m (TOUR number 5000) and to 3 m (TOUR number 8000)

1. Standard TOUR “Combat” (caliber 140 mm) with tandem warhead (CU), combat length 1150 mm (750 mm + 420 mm), launch range to 5000 m. Guided by an operator or commander. Penetration: DZ + 800 mm.

2. TOUR with laser hsn, caliber 140 mm, length in combat position 1500 mm. The missile is designed to destroy attack helicopters and enemy tanks at a distance of 8000 m, it has a tandem cumulative fragmentation warhead (fragmentation - for remote destruction of combat helicopters with special fragments in the event of a miss). Guidance mode - with the help of the GOS "shot-forgotten." Penetration: DZ + 800 mm.

3. A high-capacity ROUND with a system for countering active protection complexes (such as the Russian Arena or the Israeli Trophy). The rocket is equipped with a trap imitator that is being shot away when approaching the target. The length in the combat position 1500 mm, tandem warhead, launch range to 5000 m. Guided by an operator or commander. Penetration: KAZ + DZ + 900 mm.

All TOURs are located in the automatic ammunition at the bottom of the combat compartment in standard cassettes for shots (as shown in Figure 4). The maximum amount of TUR in an automatic combat pack (No. 2 and No. 3 with a length of 1500 mm) can be 19, the maximum number of standard TOUR No. 1 “Combat” is 38.

The layout of the main battle tank T-100-140


Rice 5. Layout of the hull and turret of the T-100-140 tank with a transverse engine 6TD-3


The layout feature of the T-100-140 tank is the use of separated electromechanical transmissions. In this embodiment, the 6TD-3 engine block with electric generators (2 EG are located under the engine due to the low height 6TD-3) is located perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tank in front of the hull. The power unit, located between the main armor and the internal armored partition, provides additional protection for the crew when penetrating the frontal armor of the hull (envelope from WLD to the inner wall of the tank - almost 3000 mm!).

The drive wheels, gearboxes and electric drives are located in the rear side parts of the machine. The transmission provides additional protection to the driver when penetrating the side armor in the rear part (the envelope from the side screens to the inside of the electric motor is 1500 mm). Settlement capacity of fuel tanks (without external barrels) 1580 liters.

The height of the hull and turret is increased compared with the T-84, Oplot-M and T-90CM, but in length the new tank is increased only by 500 mm compared to the T-84.


Fig. 6. Comparative lateral projections of T-100-140 and T-84-120 tanks


The length of the bearing surface of the T-100-140 tracks on 1000 mm is longer than that of the T-84. Dismantling and replacement of the engine and transmission is made separately.


Fig. 7. The layout and dismantling of the engine and transmission T-100-140



In addition to all of the above, the proposed arrangement provides the possibility of "electric towing" and "electrical probing" of the T-100-140 tank with the help of the second such tank.

Comparative technical characteristics of the main battle tanks





Fig. 8. Comparison of weakened zones in the frontal projection of T-100-140 and T-80UD tanks (highlighted in red)


Do I need an electromechanical transmission now for a promising tank?

Initially, the T-100-140 considered a more compact spaced hydraulic mechanical transmission, but the author later abandoned it in favor of a separated electromechanical transmission - due to the possible increased fire risk, theoretically possible when penetrating the armor or the bottom of the tank and breaking the high-pressure hydraulic lines with subsequent spraying and the ignition of hydraulic oil in BO and control department.

Of course, electromechanical transmission has a number of well-known shortcomings, such as:

1. Weighting tank;

2. The high cost of this transmission in production;

3. Lack of a used solution and an electrical equipment set for installation in a tank;

4. It takes much more space in a tank than manual transmission;

5. The complexity of the simultaneous transmission of the torque of two electric motors per track when turning;

6. Additional cooling of the traction motors and the generator is necessary;

7. Reducing the maximum speed of the tank and others.

But there is a second side to the coin. The electromechanical transmission has several very important "hidden advantages". By implementing this transmission in a promising tank now, these “pluses” will become the basis for a large potential for further tank modernization in the future. Example: T-64 and T-72 tanks have been in service for more than 45 (40) for years and are still easily upgraded.

Consider these "hidden advantages" on the example of the T-100-140 tank (in its place can be any other promising development):

1. Higher traction characteristics at low speeds, which can help overcome a steeper slide + “Electrode” (was implemented on the German Maus tank in 1945 year).

2. Ease of control + the possibility of braking by electric motors - will allow, with a minor complication, to duplicate the controls of the tank on the site of the tank commander. This will allow the commander, in an emergency mode, to fully manage the tank. In normal mode, the commander will be able to urgently stop the tank in case of a sudden threat (if I’m not mistaken, such an emergency brake system was installed on the 2-7 + on the Leopard).

In the tank commander control mode, information from the front video cameras will be transmitted to the commander’s monitor. If the front video cameras are damaged, the review will be fully provided with the existing panorama of the commander, stabilized in two planes. When using a panorama as a surveillance device for moving an anti-aircraft 12,7-mm machine gun in a combat situation, it can function as a course gun. This solution will also make it easy to go to a crew of two (in the tower), if such a “fashion” comes in the future.

3. Serial development of an electromechanical transmission will allow, in a short time, with relatively minor changes, to re-equip a tank with an electromagnetic or electrochemical tank gun (there is quite a lot of information about promising developments in different countries in the field of electromagnetic and electrochemical tank guns).
Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 08: 08
    38
    A tank with a width of 4200 mm cannot be transported by rail when assembled. Width should not exceed 3800 mm for the most preferential dimensions. A failure of the electronics will cause the driver to be unable to see where to go. In general, the concept is not fully thought out.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 17 May 2013 08: 46
      +8
      I support Minesweeper.
      And with such a design, where is the unification with the T-64 / T-80? Bolt thread pitch?
      The inhabited tower is yesterday. Moreover, the driver is sitting on the video cameras. The tank is not thought out.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 17 May 2013 09: 08
        +3
        Quote: ATATA
        The inhabited tower is yesterday.

        Have you already seen the real version of the tank with an uninhabited tower? In my opinion, the uninhabited tower is so far closer to dreams than to reality ...
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 17 May 2013 09: 42
          +3
          Quote: Selevc
          Have you already seen the real version of the tank with an uninhabited tower? In my opinion, the uninhabited tower is so far closer to dreams than to reality ...

          Well, UVZ says that for some time they will produce the dream tank "ARMATA".
          Look on the net. Even the Arabs are already exhausted on this subject.
          1. bask
            bask 17 May 2013 12: 31
            +2
            Quote: ATATA
            Even the Arabs are already exhausted on this subject.

            Rather, not Arabs but South Africa, Arabs and Jordanians only pay $$$. They themselves will never think of such a thing. But well done, they are buying technology from all over the world. We have bought RPGs, they have already built a plant. And all the Syrian fighters.

            Now about the tank; Falcom, developed on the basis of the English tanks Chieftain and Challenger. The concept of a tower with a small area and an automatic loader. The crew of 3 people is located below the shoulder of the tower.
            1. Anat1974
              Anat1974 17 May 2013 21: 22
              +6
              In my opinion a well-painted and combed G. ... but on the basis of the English tanks, Chiften and Challenger.
          2. Alexander D.
            Alexander D. 17 May 2013 21: 36
            0
            Well, UVZ says that for some time they will produce the dream tank "ARMATA".

            And in Kiev they say that they will produce An-70 on their own. And in Moscow they say chickens are milked.
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 50
              +4
              Quote: Alexander D.
              And in Kiev they say that they will produce An-70 on their own. And in Moscow they say chickens are milked.

              PAK FA waited and ARMUTE wait, but what awaits YOU?
              Independent degradation?
              Good luck!
              1. bezumnyiPIT
                bezumnyiPIT 18 May 2013 19: 37
                +2
                No need to offend the brothers Slavs!
                1. ATATA
                  ATATA 19 May 2013 02: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: bezumnyiPIT
                  No need to offend the brothers Slavs!

                  Are they Hutsuls or brothers ?!
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Whitesnow
                    Whitesnow 10 July 2017 13: 42
                    +1
                    It is a sin to refuse relatives, even bad ones. One hundred years ago, they (the Hutsuls) were destroyed by tens of thousands for their loyalty to Russia. How did Russia help them then? So do not la la. I would have looked at you if you had been persuaded for a hundred years that you are not Russian, but Ukrainian.
              2. aliis-M
                aliis-M 27 June 2017 00: 16
                +2
                As a result, Armata was faster than PAK FA lol
                1. karabas-barabas
                  karabas-barabas 27 June 2017 02: 48
                  +1
                  C'mon, wait!) A couple of obscure cars were rented at the parades, but in the army they won’t be seen for a long time, if they bring the car to mind at all.
                  1. aliis-M
                    aliis-M 27 June 2017 21: 11
                    +4
                    In fact, the first batch for the Defense Ministry is already being tested in the troops. The army, accordingly, already sees and feels them. Therefore, we can confidently say that they waited.
                    1. karabas-barabas
                      karabas-barabas 1 July 2017 21: 23
                      0
                      And besides the conversations, are there any facts? Have you figured out the motor? Believe me, they will demonstrate it everywhere then, but for now, careful trips and shooting from a place to close distances, and then, once or twice, that's all.
                      1. Vint73
                        Vint73 4 July 2017 10: 22
                        +4
                        According to Alexei Zharich, Uralvagonzavod Deputy General Director, told Izvestia, there are now about 20 T-14 tanks in the army.

                        “The tests of“ Almaty ”are going on schedule, there are no problems with this,” said Alexei Zharich. - Serial deliveries can begin at any time as soon as the customer wants.
                        =================================================
                        ==
                        According to the expert, partly the T-14 tests are being carried out on the basis of the Research and Testing Center for Armored Vehicles in Kubinka, Moscow Region, structurally belonging to the Third Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, partly in other military units. As Ramm explains, according to established practice, new cars are transported throughout the country for testing in various climatic conditions.

                        - In this process, mixed crews from military personnel and industry representatives take part. Thanks to this, not only the process of actually checking equipment is accelerated, but its development is also underway by representatives of the Ministry of Defense’s armored units, ”says Ramm.
                2. NordOst16
                  NordOst16 28 August 2018 13: 25
                  0
                  And both were not needed were the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
            2. ty60
              ty60 2 November 2017 23: 36
              0
              And Sarmat has already been put on you
        2. ATATA
          ATATA 17 May 2013 10: 37
          +6
          Quote: Selevc
          In my opinion, the uninhabited tower is so far closer to dreams than to reality ...

          What you can only dream about in Ukraine is becoming real in Russia.
          And the Kharkov Design Center will very soon come down to such home-grown projects. Thank the independents for this. hi
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 17 May 2013 11: 40
            +1
            I see why the minus?
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. anton107798
            anton107798 17 May 2013 18: 01
            +5
            Quote: ATATA
            Kharkov design


            Actually, it was written at the beginning of the article that the project was sent by a Kiev resident ... And what about the KHMB? In general, taking into account the fact that he sent the project, it’s not bad, but of course there are a lot of shortcomings like: Strengthening the mass, dimensions ... but for the amateur (if he is an amateur in tank building matters) the project is not bad
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 17 May 2013 19: 37
              +2
              Quote: anton107798
              the project is not bad

              I support such gave!
              Read above.
            2. ty60
              ty60 2 November 2017 23: 40
              0
              Add technological studies to the project. When testing landfills, eliminate the jambs .... How many such bright projects in pure production cannot be solved at a high cost .... Hopes of young men feed ....
          4. krot00f
            krot00f 21 May 2013 18: 43
            0
            The armada has already been designed, at least it meets the requirements of the designers of one enterprise. And not homemade.)
          5. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. aliis-M
              aliis-M 27 June 2017 00: 17
              0
              that's how we live)
            3. Umnichka
              Umnichka 28 June 2017 01: 46
              +2
              Mr. Babaj needs to be banned, insults and rudeness through the word. Mania of greatness on the basis of ignorance. It’s a pity if there are a lot of such people in Ukraine ...
      2. bask
        bask 17 May 2013 12: 16
        +1
        Quote: ATATA
        Inhabited tower it's yesterday

        Who told you that? At least one crew member should have an optical channel.
        The removal of the BC from the fighting compartment is -YES.
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 17 May 2013 14: 38
          -1
          Quote: bask
          Who told you that? At least one crew member should have an optical channel.
          The removal of the BC from the fighting compartment is -YES.

          The ARMATS have triplexes, at least the driver has it.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 17 May 2013 14: 44
            +4
            Oh, and did you see Armata? I would love to see.
          2. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 17 May 2013 15: 39
            +1
            Quote: ATATA
            The ARMATS have triplexes, at least the driver has it.

            The armature is redone already, even before the end and without having done. A mechanic will come and ask him what and how in Armata. He is the only one on the site who has seen the platform and even collects it hi all other pictures from the evil one!
            1. zaitsev
              zaitsev 18 May 2013 01: 06
              +3
              Gives secrets !? Even great guys like us !?

              I do not approve ...
        2. ATATA
          ATATA 17 May 2013 14: 46
          0
          Of course, this image can be considered conditionally ARMATO, but I don’t think that Rogozin was shown a toy from the children's world. Probably something like this will be.
          Triplexes are.
          ps look with pleasure.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 17 May 2013 15: 10
            0
            Well, I saw it. But it’s not a fact that this is ARMATA, but you are already talking about a fait accompli. Not correct.
            I agree the probability is great. But still, not the fact that there will be, but what triplexes will stand.
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 17 May 2013 15: 15
              +2
              Quote: klimpopov
              But still not a fact

              Well, not a fact, but I also agree with you, there is a possibility, especially if you consider that Rogozin was not shown an exhibition from a circle of young modelers. Moreover, there in the background "Tiger" is quite recognizable. hi
              1. klimpopov
                klimpopov 17 May 2013 15: 19
                0
                Well, by the way, Rogozin can be shown and it's just a normal practice to model models, what they actually create and what kind of product will turn out in metal, only the design group knows. Therefore, the model of a promising ... (substitute the necessary) is always different from what is obtained in metal, an example is aircraft construction. I repeat, Armata is still a "Wishlist", you need to wait for at least the first prototype and then you can talk. Although the chassis and platform itself are probably already in the metal. If they really do it.
                1. ATATA
                  ATATA 17 May 2013 15: 27
                  +2
                  Let's wait!
                  One way or another, the appearance of PAK FA approximately corresponds to some crazy images that appeared on the network.
                  http://www.testpilots.ru/2009/03/pyatoe-pokolenie-minus/
                  PAK FA is shown here in an article dated March 16, 2009.
                  And the WTO is about the same angle as a fact.
                  http://lenta.ru/news/2011/08/21/surging/
                  1. klimpopov
                    klimpopov 17 May 2013 15: 31
                    0
                    Do you know how many PAK FA layouts there were before? On the whole, yes, the product naturally then more closely matches the concept.
                    It’s really better to wait and see in real life.
                2. ty60
                  ty60 2 November 2017 23: 47
                  0
                  A very theoretician, you yourself then saw an experienced in metal?
            2. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 17 May 2013 15: 41
              +2
              Quote: klimpopov
              I agree the probability is great.

              Hi Klim! The mechanics were shown these pictures, but he said, and was not standing nearby.
              1. ATATA
                ATATA 17 May 2013 16: 11
                +2
                For reliability, I just compare the pictures.
                See for yourself. There are models of other models. Find one in the picture above.
                1. ATATA
                  ATATA 17 May 2013 16: 14
                  +1
                  And such, the same can be found.
                  1. ATATA
                    ATATA 17 May 2013 16: 15
                    0
                    In short we will see.
                    1. ATATA
                      ATATA 17 May 2013 17: 04
                      +6
                      Ida!
                      Maybe not everyone understood me correctly.
                      I support Denis Motor! Keep it up!
                      Not everything is going smoothly in this project, but I think / I'm sure of the following, he will take into account his mistakes!
                      It is better to spend time on such a simulation than on alcohol and nonsense.
                      Good luck!
                      Such as you wait at UVZ!
              2. klimpopov
                klimpopov 17 May 2013 17: 03
                0
                So here I am about the same.
              3. ATATA
                ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 48
                +1
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                These pictures showed the mechanics, but he said, and there wasn’t

                Where is the Mechanic himself? Storming ARMATU?
      3. Observer2014
        Observer2014 26 June 2017 08: 02
        +1
        Denis Motor would know what would happen in 2014, 15,16, 17th years. laughing So his little ones will remain fantasies on paper.
    2. astra
      astra 17 May 2013 15: 15
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      A tank with a width of 4200 mm cannot be transported by rail when assembled. Width should not exceed 3800 mm for the most preferential dimensions.

      Is it possible to increase platform cars for such tanks while maintaining the same colony? It seems to me that tank builders should not adapt to current transportation platforms, on the contrary, it is easier for railcar builders to change the design for new tanks.
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 17 May 2013 15: 19
        +6
        Quote: astra
        It seems to me that tank builders should not adapt to current transportation platforms, on the contrary, it is easier for railcar builders to change the design for new tanks.
        Excluded.
        Have to shift all the railway tracks. The width of the platform does not play a decisive role. The critical factor is the distance between the oncoming ruts and much more that is related.
        1. astra
          astra 17 May 2013 20: 22
          +2
          Quote: ATATA
          Excluded. All railway tracks have to be shifted. The width of the platform does not play a decisive role. The critical factor is the distance between the oncoming ruts and much more that is related.

          Clear. But what about the Europeans? because their tanks are larger and wider, and their railroad tracks already carry the same as that?
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 34
            +3
            Quote: astra
            Clear. But what about the Europeans? because their tanks are larger and wider, and their railroad tracks already carry the same as that?

            Distances between oncoming tracks! And not the track gauge.
      2. klimpopov
        klimpopov 17 May 2013 15: 28
        +2
        Just fit into the existing transport system is necessary. Remember how in the Second World War the offensive in Europe was delayed? All due to mismatch of transport systems.
        Therefore, everything should be taken into account. For if a special wagon is also needed for a tank, and so on, then there is no question of any unification and simplicity of transfer. These wagons may simply not be in one moment. And how to transfer? And is there a transport aircraft for a new tank and a new aircraft? Who will buy such an expensive toy?
      3. builder
        builder 17 May 2013 20: 15
        0
        It is impossible to increase the dimensions of the platforms - cling to bridge supports, tunnels, etc. will be. The Germans had to make additional narrow caterpillars specially for transporting tigers.
      4. Setrac
        Setrac 17 May 2013 21: 23
        +3
        Quote: astra
        Is it possible to increase platform cars for such tanks while maintaining the same colony? It seems to me that tank builders should not adapt to current transportation platforms, on the contrary, it is easier for railcar builders to change the design for new tanks.

        It is not a matter of wagons, but of passing through bottlenecks: bridges, various technical structures. There is one - the size of the approximation of buildings.
    3. Beck
      Beck 17 May 2013 17: 00
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      A tank with a width of 4200 mm cannot be transported by rail when assembled.


      In my opinion, you don’t take that into account. The width along the outer edges of the tracks of the tanks is the same, at 3400 mm. The protruding parts of the sides, for the outer width of the jibs - the T-80 13,5 cm, on both sides, the T-100 26,5 cm. That is, the T-100 is 13 cm more.

      But the tank on the platform is worth the hook. Well, let the sides of the T-100 be larger than the T-80 by 13 cm. How does this interfere with rail transportation. It seems that no railway structures and masts are closer than 2 meters to the track and do not approach.
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 17 May 2013 17: 08
        +2
        Quote: Beck
        It seems that no railway structures and masts are closer than 2 meters to the track and do not approach.

        What do you think is smarter than everyone?
        1. Beck
          Beck 17 May 2013 20: 22
          +3
          Quote: ATATA
          What do you think is smarter than everyone?


          And why make faces, as on an avatar. Do not agree, so say it. Down below, Minesweeper also does not really agree, so without malice and malice he gave his point of view. We will normally discuss this issue with him.

          Or, since childhood, you weren’t given ATA-TA priests. I forgot about politeness and quiet communication.
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 36
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            Or, since childhood, you weren’t given ATA-TA priests. I forgot about politeness and quiet communication.

            Well, call me if that. But you are not polite either. hi
            1. Beck
              Beck 18 May 2013 08: 22
              0
              Quote: ATATA
              Well, call me if that. But you are not polite either.


              Well, that’s agreed, and good. And I just answered. Anyway. We drove through. It happens.
      2. Canep
        Canep 17 May 2013 19: 37
        +4
        There is such a thing as a loading gauge, and an approximation gauge, if the loading gauge is not sustained, the railroad workers simply will not accept such a car, and this will not be changed by orders (even the president). Railway workers are responsible for the safety of transportation and no one else. You probably have never encountered loading wagons, railway workers have to hand over even empty wagons, and the loaded ones necessarily require an approved loading scheme. By the way, our tanks do not pass through loading dimensions for Western Europe. And here it is proposed to make the tank even wider.

        As you can see, the T-80s are already messing around in oversize. Transportation of goods wider than 3800 will require coordination at the level of the Ministry of Railways, so that, God forbid, a train with oversize also goes to meet this train.
        1. Beck
          Beck 17 May 2013 20: 31
          0
          Quote: Canep
          There is such a thing as loading clearance


          Of course he is. Both in height and in width. But in wartime, I think, they will quickly agree. In youth, when T-54 tanks were loaded onto platforms, the outer cut of the jibs seemed to be the top of the top, with the width of the platform converging. It may even have gone beyond the cut of the platform. And tanks carried nothing at first from Lazo to Ussuriysk, then from Bikin to Lazo.
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 44
            +2
            It is not only an external cut. You brought up our. There are dimensions of tunnels, bridges, bends (understand correctly). And then again tell me what kind of turns the cars have.
            1. Canep
              Canep 17 May 2013 23: 19
              +3
              3750 mm maximum size of the tank in width, 4000 mm in height, 62 tons in weight, there is nothing more to discuss. If you want to create a concept, please fit into these numbers, even Abrams fits.
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 May 2013 23: 29
                +1
                Quote: Canep
                62 t by weight

                Merkava already officially weighs 65 tons, not officially around 70

                Removable screen stronghold 4176
              2. bask
                bask 17 May 2013 23: 30
                0
                Quote: Canep
                3750 mm maximum size of the tank in width, 4000 mm in height, 62 t in weight, it’s big

                And why is the weight limit of 62 tons?
                Nazis, Mouse, in 175-188 tons, were going to carry a piece of iron in the 40s and drove.
                Sizes
                Length with a gun forward, mm 10200
                Case width mm 3630
                Height, mm 3710
                Clearance, mm 500
                1. bask
                  bask 17 May 2013 23: 35
                  0
                  Two identical questions to Minesweeper, with a difference of a minute-cool! soldier
                2. JIaIIoTb
                  JIaIIoTb 17 May 2013 23: 39
                  +1
                  At the end of 1942, on Hitler's initiative, work began on a “breakthrough tank” with the highest possible armor protection. Several companies took part in the creation of the machine at once: the case and the tower were made by the Krup company, Daimler-Benz was responsible for the propulsion system, and Siemens was responsible for the transmission elements. General assembly was carried out at the Alkett factory. The project "Type 205", developed by Ferdinand Porsche, was partially implemented in 1944 in the form of two prototypes of the Mouse tank.

                  Further work on the production of ten serial tanks was discontinued at the direction of Hitler himself, since Germany did not have enough production capacity to produce other, more important weapons.

                  A full-size wooden tank model was presented to Hitler on May 14, 1943, and the first prototype of the Mouse entered sea trials in December 1943. After their rather satisfactory results, the tank was equipped with a real tower for artillery firing and a full set of internal equipment. The second unfinished prototype was equipped with a Daimler-Benz MV 517 diesel engine, which turned out to be capricious and unreliable in operation.

                  The mass of 180 tons excluded the possibility of the Maus crossing the rivers along road bridges. Therefore, it was supposed to transport tanks in pairs along the bottom of the river. At the same time, sealed, without a crew, the Mouse received cable control and power for movement from another Mouse on the shore.

                  In battle, these tanks were not tested. In April 1945, as the units of the Red Army approached the training ground, the Germans decided to destroy the prototypes due to the impossibility of evacuating them. Both tanks were blown up, but only one was significantly destroyed. Subsequently, from both damaged tanks, one was assembled at the direction of the commander of the armored and mechanized troops; On May 4, 1946, he was delivered to the Kubinka training ground. After testing, the power plant as well as all internal equipment was dismantled. Currently, the tank is on display at the Military History Museum of Armored Arms and Technology in Kubinka. [6]
                  By piece of iron, as you put it, they didn’t carry it, they couldn’t even evacuate it because of its bulkiness.
                  1. bask
                    bask 17 May 2013 23: 56
                    +2
                    Quote: JIaIIoTb
                    By piece of iron, as you put it, they didn’t carry it, they couldn’t even evacuate it because of its bulkiness.

                    Well. Well. Photo for memory.

                    In the USSR, and now in the museum in ,, Kubinka, ”they also brought it not in a cart.

                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 18 May 2013 00: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: bask
                      Well. Well. Photo for memory.

                      You're not right! Yes, you can carry Mouse and other oversized cargoes, BUT! Each bottleneck is Plastunsky, with the speed of a turtle, with a complete stop of movement in the area of ​​movement (sorry for the tautology). During WWII, the station chief was shot in an hour of delay.
                      1. bask
                        bask 18 May 2013 01: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        You're not right! Yes, you can carry Mouse and other oversized cargoes, BUT! Each bottleneck by

                        Read carefully the technical characteristics of the data, Mouse, It was just a bulk cargo. But the tonnage was 175-180 tons. I myself am surprised how the bridges withstood in the 40s., By dimensions, it is almost like MBT M1A1,, Abrams. Dimensions:
                        length-9.8
                        width is 3.65
                        height (on top of the tower) -2.44
                    2. JIaIIoTb
                      JIaIIoTb 18 May 2013 06: 37
                      0
                      Dear Basque, you claimed that the Nazis moved him by rail.
                      In the photo, our railway)))
                      1. bask
                        bask 18 May 2013 11: 17
                        0
                        Quote: JIaIIoTb
                        In the photo, our railway)))

                        JlalloTb. Look carefully at what platforms, railway track, and buildings around the object.
                        And that the Nazis .. were worse than the technology in railway transport?
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 18 May 2013 16: 33
                        0
                        Quote: bask
                        And that the Nazis .. were worse than the technology in railway transport?

                        The bottom standards are OTHER, and the track is different, not better or worse, and the other (less)
                  2. yehat
                    yehat 8 June 2017 11: 02
                    0
                    drove under its own power) was abandoned when retreating from Moscow, and how much they burned ... wassat
          2. Beck
            Beck 18 May 2013 08: 40
            -1
            Quote: ATATA
            It is not only an external cut. You brought up our. There are dimensions of tunnels, bridges, bends (understand correctly). And then again tell me what kind of turns the cars have.


            Quote: Canep
            If you want to create a concept, please fit into these numbers, even Abrams fits.


            Dear ATATA and SAPER, I’m not talking about that. I agree there are Guests, dimensions and so on, which in peacetime no one will allow to violate. But the walls of tunnels, trusses of bridges, masts of traffic lights, masts of power lines are designed so that they are not closer than 1,5-2 meters to the external dimensions of a standard car. Parallel track tracks are designed so that between the outer dimensions of cars on these tracks a distance of 3-4 meters.

            Therefore, the protrusion of the sides of the tanks beyond the dimensions of the platform by 13-20-30 cm does not threaten any consequences. Moreover, they will not look at it in a combat situation or during large-scale exercises. The main thing, well, in my opinion, is that the lumps of tanks fit on the platform in their outer cut. But "Abrams" and "Merkava" do not even fit our track gauge and our platforms. Since the outer width of their jibs is much greater than the standard width of our platforms. It seems there is not something like the sides, there the half-width of the jibs will go beyond the standards of our platforms. A tank of such width cannot be fixed on the platform.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 18 May 2013 15: 54
              0
              Quote: Beck
              But the walls of tunnels, trusses of bridges, masts of traffic lights, masts of power lines are designed so that they are not closer than 1,5-2 meters to the external dimensions of a standard car.

              They tell you - there are bottlenecks. and no "about 1.5-2 meters." The distances are specific and 30-50 cm of the ledge is a lot. Given the fact that the car is not static, it moves and sways, it may well hook, for example, a bridge, in order to pass it you need to slow down, strongly (up to 15 km per hour according to the standard). In addition, there are arrows, alarms, a lot of bottlenecks!
    4. fero
      fero 20 May 2013 20: 14
      +1
      We read and study the following documents "Technical conditions for loading and securing cargo on railway transport" and "DCh-1835. Instructions for the transportation of oversized and heavy cargo on the railways of the CIS member states, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Estonia"

      4200 mm is an awesome oversize that requires a lot of approvals. The fifth is the lateral degree of oversizedness, and the second and third lower degrees of oversize ... oddly enough.
  2. zaitsev
    zaitsev 17 May 2013 23: 40
    0
    I do not agree with you:
    1. The side skirts are dismantled during transportation, some tanks (Tiger 1) for railway transportation were even "changed shoes" into narrow tracks.
    As you can see, the width without screens fits perfectly into the width of the platform.
    2. The viewing device on the T-72/80/90 can also fail (like the camera) and the mechanical driver will lead in battle according to the instructions of the commander, and you can also provide a conclusion to the display of the mechanical driver of the picture from the gunner’s or commander’s device, I don’t see any problems with a review (I will not discuss psychology, because I am absolutely not an expert in it))). Or do you mean the complete shutdown of the electronics - the failure of the diesel engine and the APU, the failure of the batteries? So here the T-80/90 will be uncompetent.
    I consider the project to be very interesting and VERY well-developed, most importantly - quite feasible.
    1. bask
      bask 18 May 2013 01: 26
      +1
      Quote: zaitsev
      I think the project is very interesting and VERY well-designed, most importantly - it’s quite feasible

      The project is controversial but interesting.
      Similar projects were discussed on other sites.
      One can hypothetically agree with everything but a mechanical driver. Must sit in the bow of the tank. And see everything through triplexes.
      The main issue has not been resolved. Insulation of the BK from the fighting compartment
      Both the size and weight of the turret, with the aft arrangement of the ammunition to 140 mm gun. Will be excessive.
      And weighing 60 tons, this tank model does not fit.
      The size of the tower, presumably for MBT M1A3, Abrams, with automatic loader. VK for a 120 mm gun in the stern of the tower.
  3. Alekseev
    Alekseev 26 June 2017 19: 21
    0
    Quote: Canep
    In general, the concept is not fully thought out.

    Concepts to write and beautiful pictures to draw - the same thing that trende not bags tossing and turning ... wink
    He saw the concept of a tank with an uninhabited tower in the journal "Science and Life" in 1970, when he was still a very young "boy", even, or rather, a child. yes
    But to draw conclusions what is better and what is worse for the author is too early, it’s not enough to read only popular magazines for this.
    For example, the statement that a longer gun stabilizes worse and that accuracy is lost is a product of our own fabrications. Maybe the indicators are slightly worse (with similar stabilizers), but ...
    Another 40 years ago, the main shot occurred only in the so-called resolution zone, when the axis of the gun coincided with the very precisely stabilized optical axis of the sight. It happened, if the stabilizer is misaligned, between the moment you press the electric release button and the moment you fire, i.e. when the gun entered the resolution zone of the shot, some time passed, somewhere 0,3 - 0,8 s.
    The benefits of an electromechanical transmission are highly controversial.
    There is weight, and lower KPD, and reliability.
    What is the current problem: hydraulically controlled planetary gearboxes?
    Simple enough, the gear changes effortlessly, almost instantly, the use of the HOMP (in Armata) allows you to make turns very smoothly and without loss of power. KP of such a scheme will be on the created presidential car (motorcade).
    So, the article is beautiful, but, unfortunately, not deep. request
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 26 June 2017 19: 42
      0
      Distracted from self-criticism - I criticize myself. laughing
      Although Comrade Motor and from Kiev, but a two-stroke diesel
      TD is by no means the best option for promising models of armored vehicles.
      And it’s not at all because Svidomo and Banderlog are involved here, the only thing here is the presence from the Soviet era of serial production of these engines in Kharkov.
      ALL of these 5TDF and 6TD are capable of an extremely high level of boost and heat load, which objectively reduces the resource and reliability, low starting quality and high cost.
  4. The brightest
    The brightest 14 November 2017 10: 19
    0
    Quote: Canep
    A failure of the electronics will cause the driver to be unable to see where to go

    Nonsense, such things are always duplicated.
  • Dima190579
    Dima190579 17 May 2013 08: 28
    +2
    And how does this tank fit on a railway wagon. Or if that these tanks will go under their own power to the Far East.
    1. Denis_SF
      Denis_SF 17 May 2013 08: 52
      13
      Quote: Dima190579
      And how does this tank fit on a railway wagon. Or if that these tanks will go under their own power to the Far East.

      And why did he need to the Far East? To him through Odessa mother towards Romania, it is possible to Poland.
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 17 May 2013 13: 38
        +1
        Perhaps not everyone will understand what the joke of Denis’s comment is - the first T-72s were sold to the Americans by Pascus-Romanians, former allies!
    2. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Dima190579
      Or if that these tanks will go under their own power to the Far East.
      Overhaul is required in Novosibirsk.
      1. Egen
        Egen 17 May 2013 14: 18
        0
        Quote: Canep
        Overhaul is required in Novosibirsk.

        By the way, but in Novosibirsk there is where to repair? How does Sibselmash for example do? Nearby in Yurga on Yurmash, I’m afraid I’m already really not repairing anything :(
  • urganov
    urganov 17 May 2013 08: 33
    +4
    The idea with the transmission is not bad, although it’s a bit old. And with the rest, everything is doubtful, except for the main caliber. It should be increased by any to 152-156 mm., And maybe more. Sacrifice projectile speed in favor of power. And 30 mm. protection from the stern is an invitation to the funeral of the entire crew. It’s easier to simply abandon the inhabited tower, as much has already been said, here the weight with dimensions will be normal, and there is much room for protection, according to weight characteristics. And about the failure of the electronics for the driver - no one has yet canceled fiber optics.
  • Alexander-Tomsk
    Alexander-Tomsk 17 May 2013 08: 37
    +2
    Gurkhan read this article in God, the idea is interesting and good, but where the Ukrainian industry will get the resources for its implementation is what is interesting (just inappropriately la-la about partners). Yes, and something new, revolutionary is not proposed, rather all the latest existing developments in this industry are taken and "crammed" into t72.
    In general, we expect from our Armata.
  • Kars
    Kars 17 May 2013 09: 11
    +5
    The ideas are interesting. An increase in the caliber of the main and auxiliary weapons is promising. But who needs it? We need the military to come up with a concept, but it's hard to expect from them.
    There are still prospects for improving the classical Soviet layout.
    1. astra
      astra 17 May 2013 15: 23
      +3
      I believe that the author correctly attended to the large losses of tanks in Syria in urban battles and put forward the idea of ​​creating a heavy tank for urban combat. And the experience of the Great Patriotic War showed the need for heavy tanks with increased caliber, they were used to storm the most protected defense facilities, storm the city and other tasks.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 17 May 2013 21: 27
        +3
        Quote: astra
        And the experience of the Great Patriotic War showed the need for heavy tanks with increased caliber, they were used to storm the most protected defense facilities, storm the city and other tasks.

        WWII experience has shown that a tank is a consumable item and it should be as cheap and massive as possible.
        1. bask
          bask 17 May 2013 22: 00
          +5
          Quote: Setrac
          WWII experience has shown that a tank is a consumable item and should be as cheap and massive as possible.

          And the experience of the Arab-Israeli wars proved the opposite.
          And tankers, following your ideology, are also consumables?
          For modern Russia, the tank was supposed to be as secure as possible.
          Quote: astra
          enlarged caliber, they were used to storm the most protected defense facilities, storm the city

          I support only a non-tank, assault gun cal. 152 mm, with anti-ballistic armor. And a cannon from elevation angles is not less than +40 degrees.
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 17 May 2013 22: 13
            +1
            Bask we live to see ARMATA, we see what we want.
            I am sure we will again be proud of our engineers and the country.
            1. bask
              bask 17 May 2013 22: 23
              +1
              Quote: ATATA

              we live to see Armata

              ATTACK You probably have excellent health.
              The mechanic is working hard, not to be seen on the site. good
              But the combat version before the 20th year we will not see.
              And the price of the product? If now the price of T-90MS is 118 lyam.rub.
              How much will it cost, Armata, not a minor of 250 ml.rub in 13-year prices.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 17 May 2013 16: 15
      0
      Quote: Kars
      It is necessary for the military to come up with a concept

      good
      Thoughts are reading, Kars.
      A little lower I wrote my thoughts.
      1. bask
        bask 17 May 2013 22: 34
        +1
        There was already a discussion of a similar tank project on other sites. A year ago.
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 May 2013 22: 35
          +2
          Well, this project's track width remains standard from the T-80UD
          And vet side screens can be made removable.
          1. bask
            bask 17 May 2013 22: 48
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Well, this project's track width remains standard from the T-80UD

            Then gut.
            True, I don’t remember the TTX data of this project.
            The main tower is inhabited. And the BC is removed from the fighting compartment.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 May 2013 22: 51
              +1
              Quote: bask
              I really don’t remember the performance characteristics of this project.
              1. bask
                bask 17 May 2013 22: 57
                0
                Exactly. On ,, Courage.
                The lineup of the armored hull and the turret of the tank ,, Altai ,, BC in the rear of the turret.
          2. dustycat
            dustycat 17 June 2013 12: 33
            0
            Then it’s better on the hinged brackets. Like arrows anti-torpedo networks on the battleships of the beginning of the century.
      2. bask
        bask 17 May 2013 22: 35
        0
        __________________________
  • Diviz
    Diviz 17 May 2013 09: 23
    0
    this tank must be compared with a merkava or an abrams. and now the modernization of the T72 and the appearance of the armata tank are relevant. in Chinese .if I'm not mistaken. tank has the ability to shoot shells with a nuclear charge this is tin.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 4 May 2014 19: 24
      +1
      Even Soviet physicists failed to make an atomic shell with a caliber of less than 152 mm. The Chinese tank, as far as I remember, has a smaller caliber. So the Chinese nuclear tank shell is a bluff.
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 17 May 2013 09: 28
    +5
    Quote: Alexander-Tomsk
    In general, we expect from our Armata.

    But this is true !!! I read a lot about the abandonment of the "black eagle" tanks (sort of). My brother served in 2000 in the Far East in tank ... So these "eagles" have already with might and main flew over the ranges of the Khabarovsk Territory and not in two three copies. And they are in service! Fact!!! You can argue .... but the T-96 is in service. Forgive me, but in which specific tank units I cannot say. You can beat the minuses but the truth is the truth. There is no point in arguing against what was seen with my own eyes.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 17 May 2013 13: 45
      0
      And what's the point of hiding the adoption of new tanks? And how is this possible with super-duper spy satellites?
      1. Ziksura
        Ziksura 17 May 2013 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Prokhor
        And how is this possible with super-duper spy satellites?

        Sorry, buddy, but here's a well-known fact from the fresh: the extreme "spy" was caught in a wig and with a compass. It seems to me that all these "supergadgets" are for amateurs. Anyway in Russia hi
  • Armavir
    Armavir 17 May 2013 09: 38
    0
    Somehow, it’s scary to sit around the tanks with diesel fuel, it turns out any shell in the stern and no one will get out of there?
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 17 May 2013 10: 01
    +2
    Quote: Armavir
    Somehow, it’s scary to sit around the tanks with diesel fuel, it turns out any shell in the stern and no one will get out of there?

    Front hundred grams buddy! and everything is in order! :) :) :) Everything is scary ... But it’s not just that we all (each in his own age) put on his uniform .. and took the oath. This is called honor and conscience.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Thomas A. Anderson
    Thomas A. Anderson 17 May 2013 10: 05
    -6
    A tank in the furnace, also Armata should be 3 times better, and by the way, the point is to increase the caliber? Already on the T-90MS there is 125 mm of increased power, good shells will be good for it) And this will make it possible to double-barrel version of the gun) As well as old tracks, you need a four-track platform, then the tank can continue moving on 3 tracks. Additional weapons are better than 23 mm twin cannons, for helicopters it is. Electric motors on a diesel generator are interesting, oil is getting less and less) Naturally, the tower is uninhabited
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 17 May 2013 20: 14
      +2
      Why did everyone rest against this uninhabited tower? A tank with an uninhabited tower is a fundamentally new design of MBT ... Firstly, the crew will need to be accommodated in the tank’s hull and, accordingly, the hull will be significantly higher ... Secondly, the uninhabited turret will completely change the system of observation, target designation, firing and ammunition storage. ..
      Thirdly, the presence of an uninhabited tower fundamentally changes the layout of the tank and the placement of the MTO ... Wow, in the case somewhere to place the crew and a lot of electronics and ammunition and MTO ??? Fourth, the creation of such a tank is a loss-making business in advance - since this process will drag on for many years, a lot of dough will be thrown into it and as a result the tank will become far from cheap to sell !!!

      It turns out that creating a really battle-worthy tank with an uninhabited tower is a huge headstock + a lot of titanic labor of engineers + plus a lot of time + plus time to test such a tank and fix various sides ... In addition, the survivability of a tank with an uninhabited tower is absolutely unknown - if, for example, something fails in a battle in a tower, the entire tank turns into a useless trough on wheels !!!

      No country will do that !!! As for Almaty - forget about the uninhabited tower !!!

      A separate compartment for storing ammunition - 100% will be.
      The engine ahead - such as increasing the protection of the crew - maybe it will be ...
      The bottom of the tank V-section for additional protection against mines (a la Merkava) - most likely will also be ...
      But there will be no uninhabited tower - these are all fantasies of politicians far from tank building - they would only blurt out their tongues ... And others still believe in such a fucking :))))))))
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 17 May 2013 21: 45
        +1
        Quote: Selevc
        No country will do that !!! As for Almaty - forget about the uninhabited tower !!!

        And why? Is this your personal opinion?
        Explain.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 17 May 2013 23: 42
          +1
          I have listed above in the most general form the reasons why it is very difficult and expensive to create a tank with an uninhabited turret ... Why allow such huge expenses with very vague prospects? Some developed countries created armored vehicles with uninhabited modules (tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers), but for some reason it didn't go beyond prototyping for some reason ... I think that at a certain stage everyone is asking a question like "Is this necessary in principle?" or "Should the entire tank be radically changed just because of the concept of an uninhabited turret?"

          Well, the same Swedes have long had a tank without a tower at all - but for some reason no one is buying it from them and for some reason no one wants to create something like that !!! Could this be a dead end in tank building?
          1. dustycat
            dustycat 17 June 2013 12: 44
            0
            The main reason for the abandonment of uninhabited towers by all generals in all countries rested on the complexity of the control system and the impossibility of manual control when the remote control systems failed.
            And all the generals are happy with the combat effectiveness of such vehicles.

            In general, the situation is with a shot notebook and a shot paper card.
      2. commentor
        commentor 17 May 2013 23: 15
        +2
        If my memory serves me right, then the armata will have a row crew.
        This indirectly indicates an uninhabited tower. Why make a guess, soon we will all know.
        You, why in vain, are engaged in cap-making.
      3. dustycat
        dustycat 17 June 2013 12: 40
        0
        It’s like a tank with the entire crew in the corps in the USSR was already. In the series did not go. But in height it was below T 55.
        Like the version of the tank with the entire crew under the turret (missile tank) .Also, the prototype did not go further.
  • Algor73
    Algor73 17 May 2013 10: 22
    +2
    "Armata" will be released - let's see if it justifies the hopes and advertising. But the world is faced with another problem - expensive tanks are too expensive for most countries. You can stuff a tank with God knows what, like in Japan. But who will buy it? And it is dear to oneself and to others it is impossible. So far, inexpensive tanks of the 1-4 million segment are in demand in the world. Is the rise in price promising? Moreover, the most modern tanks are knocked out, they are undermined, etc. You can shout that the life of a soldier is above all, I agree, but how to hammer this into the heads of generals and ministers?
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 17 June 2013 12: 51
      0
      The high cost of modern tanks for sale is determined by the value of patents.
      If you do like China or Israel "for yourself" then the price becomes quite acceptable. And if for sale - unreal.

      It seems to me that Israel therefore does not sell its Merkavas to anyone because no model will pass patent clearance.
  • cucun
    cucun 17 May 2013 11: 23
    0
    A new factory is already under construction in Nizhny Tagil. Yes, it is a new plant for a promising tank. So, I think waiting is not very good. long.
  • sscha
    sscha 17 May 2013 11: 48
    +1
    Truth is born in argument and discussion. The article is not presented as the ultimate truth. And electromechanics have prospects in BM - this is my opinion. hi
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 17 May 2013 21: 31
      +1
      Quote: sscha
      Truth is born in argument and discussion. The article is not presented as the ultimate truth. And electromechanics have prospects in BM - this is my opinion.

      Enough to quote someone else's stupidity, the truth itself is self-sufficient, does not depend on our disputes, in a dispute we can comprehend it or not laughing
  • USNik
    USNik 17 May 2013 11: 52
    0
    Thanks to Denis, I read it with pleasure. Good work has been done, but in my opinion, the machine gun needs to be combined with a 30mm cannon, add armor to the weakened side of the turret, reduce the overall width of the MBT and protect the mechanical drive observation devices, as now they can be disabled by aimed fire from small arms and paralyze the car. (PS and IMHO, he looks a lot like abrashu what )
    1. zaitsev
      zaitsev 18 May 2013 00: 26
      0
      It doesn’t look like my objective look at all))
  • Sashko07
    Sashko07 17 May 2013 12: 27
    0
    Quote: Dima190579
    And how does this tank fit on a railway wagon. Or if that these tanks will go under their own power to the Far East.

    Why would he need the Far East, such a tank could perform functions such as Merkava in Israel, that is, to fight exclusively on its territory and the territory of neighboring states with a similar relief. But as for me, it’s better if the already existing T-84 Yatagan and T-84 Oplot arm the army.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 17 May 2013 13: 55
      +2
      Curious, Sashko, and with whom are you (Ukrainian, right? hi ) are going to fight on their territory? And on the territory of any such neighboring states?
      1. ed1968
        ed1968 17 May 2013 17: 42
        +2
        this is apparently a hint at the evil brothers who want to deprive independence of an independent one again by attaching it to themselves
  • gych
    gych 17 May 2013 12: 51
    +1
    This tank has no prospects. And not because there are no resources, just who will buy it? The Ukrainian army is unlikely to buy it, and others ...
  • Vanek
    Vanek 17 May 2013 13: 04
    +1
    There is no life without action!
    God will not reveal his business through cowards!


    Well, who knows? Maybe this (the author of this miracle) is a new Koshkin.

    You can only wish success.
  • Vened
    Vened 17 May 2013 13: 07
    +1
    I wish there would be a golden man who would make a similar article about the future Armata winked
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 17 May 2013 21: 47
      +1
      Quote: Vened
      I wish there would be a golden man who would make a similar article about the future Armata

      Yes, it’s very interesting that such a person will just be imprisoned, or immediately shot?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • master_rem
    master_rem 17 May 2013 13: 36
    +3
    Quote: urganov
    The idea with the transmission is not bad, although it’s a bit old. And with the rest, everything is doubtful, except for the main caliber. It should be increased by any to 152-156 mm., And maybe more. Sacrifice projectile speed in favor of power. And 30 mm. protection from the stern is an invitation to the funeral of the entire crew. It’s easier to simply abandon the inhabited tower, as much has already been said, here the weight with dimensions will be normal, and there is much room for protection, according to weight characteristics. And about the failure of the electronics for the driver - no one has yet canceled fiber optics.

    Well, not bad, yes, everyone knows that the mechanical characteristic of the electric motor is rigid (HELL), but the speed must be controlled. How? If you take the DCT, you need the most powerful small-sized rectifiers, but there the collector assembly .. hmm .. The AD is good, simple, reliable, you can control the IGBT-module (chastotnik) We need a shock-proof electronic-power module, resistant to mechanical, dynamic and the like, and non-acidic power. By the way, about power, what voltage will we supply to our propulsion systems? And then we get cables from Valuev’s thigh ... We increase the voltage on the dv-le, we win in copper, but who canceled the TB with a tight armored layout?
  • Egen
    Egen 17 May 2013 14: 16
    +1
    1) The electric transmission is interesting, but because doesn’t really meet, so not everything is so simple with her, right? IMHO, in terms of the quality of our production and service, it will not be better from it
    2) The layout of the MO in front of the BO in my personal opinion is preferable, but according to Merkava, people still argue for a long time and persistently
    3) The goals for the increased caliber are not clear, why?
    4) It is not clear how the crew will fire from the entire arsenal - 140mm, 30mm + another machine gun? And this is overweight and volume.
    The result is a kind of "terminator", the purpose of which is not clear and the effectiveness of all types of weapons at the same time is questionable. IMHO better than the division of functions did not come up with anything: to fight the infantry infantry or Terminators, and with aviation - aviation or air defense. When you try to combine everything in one, you obviously get bullshit.
    In any case, in spite of the unification claimed by the author with existing tanks in production, even the tower and the more so the engine and transmission are new things, and even the suspension will have to at least be recalculated due to the changed weight distribution; the design and implementation of the technology will cost time and money, but what is the effectiveness over the available ones: the equipment, the structure of interaction between the units and the tactics of their application - I honestly did not understand :(
    Of course it's good about the "hidden pluses", but as long as the trial is going on, these pluses will become "0", and others will be needed ...
  • Sashko07
    Sashko07 17 May 2013 14: 19
    +3
    Quote: Prokhor
    Curious, Sashko, and with whom are you (Ukrainian, right? hi ) are going to fight on their territory? And on the territory of any such neighboring states?

    Well, I figuratively say, for example, how to say hi , Israel is fighting in the desert by Merkavas, and the territory near Ukraine is also not very different from that in the country itself, that's what I mean. And if you fight then most likely with the Romanians or Poles, but what did you think about)))?
  • Canep
    Canep 17 May 2013 14: 21
    +2
    It’s easier to make a tanker, following the example of drones, the tank will come out weighing 15-20 tons, and only to stay in place when fired. Neither the protection of the crew does not need a place for him at all.
    1. M. Peter
      M. Peter 17 May 2013 15: 20
      +2
      Several years ago, more than 10 years ago, however, even when "I Serve Russia" was still shown on the first channel, they showed a similar thing, the T-72 tank was made remotely controlled. I do not know why such projects did not go then, due to the financial issue, of course, most likely, but at this time this is quite feasible. Then you don't need to compose any fittings at all, redo the entire existing fleet of equipment.
      1. Canep
        Canep 17 May 2013 16: 53
        0
        No, you have to do a new one. Armor will be needed only by the engine, a gun with an automatic loader and control systems. The layout may be very different. But the weight of the tank will decrease at times, and accordingly, either the speed will increase (you need to modify the chassis), or install an engine of lower power (the tank is even easier).
        1. zaitsev
          zaitsev 18 May 2013 00: 21
          0
          I am sure that such studies are being carried out abroad, but nobody is the first to want to introduce them into the series, which is expensive and risky.
          We can also "stretch our brains" on this topic.
          Now there are no ideas about the further direction in the development of MBT, or whatever it will be called))).
          Another war may spur, God forbid.
  • gych
    gych 17 May 2013 14: 48
    0
    Quote: Prokhor
    Curious, Sashko, and with whom are you (Ukrainian, right? hi ) are going to fight on their territory? And on the territory of any such neighboring states?
    with those who encroach on the sovereignty of Ukraine
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 May 2013 15: 43
    +2
    It was very interesting to read.

    Many thanks to Denis Motor for the work done. It’s nice when a person not only thinks and worries about the fate of tank building, but also tries to create something, even in schemes.
    There are a lot of interesting ideas: line-up of departments, division of BC, original transmission.
    I’m almost sure that everyone who has “tanks in their heads” has some kind of similar projects. I also have a. repeat

    In my opinion, first you need to develop a concept for the use of ground forces, its goals and objectives for potential theater of operations, then draw up the technical specifications for the necessary equipment and weapons, and only then design the appropriate combat unit. And not vice versa.

    Denis did what many in his thoughts did: he stuck maximum weapons on one platform, trying to make some kind of maximum universal BM - so that he would smash all enemies WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM OUTSIDE. I myself had such thoughts. laughing

    Unfortunately, the resulting dreadnought becomes the “goose”: everything knows how, but everything is bad.
    Somehow I can’t dare to criticize Denis - I really liked the approach of the person as such, it is clear that he’s "sick" with his soul on this topic.

    I myself am writing an article in this direction, but so far I am rewriting and rewriting everything ... winked
    Good luck Denis!
    good
  • Sochi
    Sochi 17 May 2013 16: 36
    +2
    the path that German engineers once followed was not received any continuation.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 17 May 2013 17: 14
    0
    So great fellow Denis M.- as a concept model, the in-house project looks impressive. There would be an interest in both the PP and design bureaus. Although here more often jealousy and envy will force him to look for only miscalculations.
  • ed1968
    ed1968 17 May 2013 17: 46
    0
    pouring shit or praising a tank that is not in the iron is pointless to begin with, you need to see it in the light of the test but to really show all its weaknesses and strengths to regret, it may deprive a real battle
    1. zaitsev
      zaitsev 17 May 2013 23: 57
      0
      Any tank (and not only a tank) begins with a TTZ, which must be agreed with the Customer, satisfy his comments or convince him of his rightness, then research, development and development and testing of prototypes. The decision on the layout and the concept is made at the very beginning, long before the tests, and after the tests "the stuffing cannot be turned back))".
      So you can praise or scold now, every promising project is born in a dispute.
      We consider ourselves the selection committee at the advance project))) of the promising MBT.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 17 May 2013 19: 44
    0
    In WWII, both sides worked out an effective concept for an assault gun based on a large-caliber low-ballistic gun.
    In modern conditions, a gun with a large elevation angle can be installed in a tower that can be uninhabited. It is advisable to reduce the size and increase maneuverability. Focuses on protection against IEDs and cumulative ammunition, including from above. Large-caliber machine gun with remote control, a lot of smoke grenades. The most important thing is a powerful complex of observation and target detection, including at night, and an individual crew member for search and target designation with its help. Difficulties - a 152-mm low ballistic gun and ammunition, including managed, everything else is.
    1. zaitsev
      zaitsev 17 May 2013 23: 59
      -1
      with the extreme point of difficulties the least of all. Mortar from "Nona" 120mm will do.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 19 May 2013 18: 34
        0
        I didn’t pass.) A 120mm shell in a city building lacks power. In addition, they plan to transfer artillery to a single 152mm caliber. There is rather something based on acacia and shells for it.
  • Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 17 May 2013 21: 09
    +1
    Interesting concept. Not indisputable, but still interesting. Outwardly (!) Is similar to the Omsk Object 640, better known to the general public under the name "Black Eagle" (not to be confused with the Tagil Object 950!) ...
    But the location of the 30 mm artillery system seems to me not too successful. And its presence on MBT seems to me rather controversial. However, this is my extremely subjective opinion ...
    Electromechanical transmission has been successfully used on the DET-250 heavy industrial bulldozer. Its only difference from the one offered by the author of this concept is one electric motor and the use of a planetary mechanism. It is possible that this solution is more successful than the "twin-engine" one. Moreover, it passed the test during the long-term operation of the bulldozer in various climatic conditions ...

    Bulldozer DET-250M
    1. Canep
      Canep 17 May 2013 23: 37
      +1
      An electric drive is also used in Belaz, but the EDP-600 engines (about 1 m in diameter and 1.5 in length) are much larger than the tank’s onboard gearbox, and Belase’s wheel-mounted two-stage planetary gearboxes are still needed, but you also need to shove the generator, and cool it all, and still close with armor. I think for a tank this is not beneficial only in terms of armor weight.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 18 May 2013 12: 13
        +1
        Quote: Canep
        Belaz also uses an electric drive

        BelAZ of course the car is a garna. And this is of course an indisputable fact. But even if he has an electric drive, the tractor will still be structurally closer to the tank. And this is also a fact ... wink
  • svp67
    svp67 17 May 2013 21: 26
    +1
    And I believe that the refusal of electric transmission and a return to a hydrostatic transmission with a front-mounted VK would be more positive for this object ...
  • svp67
    svp67 17 May 2013 22: 26
    +1
    Further, the armament of the 125-130-140 mm will depend on a more thorough analysis of efficiency and cost, but I initially propose the installation of the 125mm gun as already worked out, but in a tower with a shoulder strap designed for a larger caliber.
    the shape of the tower will also be changed to a lower one, especially in the front part and made of pieces of rolled armor by welding.
    Due to the refusal of electric transmission, it is possible to make the rear doors wider and provide the exit and entrance of the entire crew, which will allow to abandon the hatches to the tower or reduce them to one.
    As an auxiliary weapon, it might be worth considering installing an 20-mm gun instead of an 12, 7 mm machine gun ...
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 17 May 2013 23: 20
    +2
    The concept is original and has the right to life ..., not without jambs, but I would like to find a construct in the discussion here on the forum and ... I will try to answer for the author:

    Canep Today, 08:08
    A tank with a width of 4200 mm cannot be transported by rail when assembled
    - In the picture, the width of the tracks is 3400, like the T-80, and for transportation it’s enough to remove the side screens ... although I don’t see a problem making the width of the new tank the width of the car!

    ATATA Today, 08:46 ↑
    And with such a design, where is the unification with the T-64 / T-80?
    - And for a fig, for a new tank, unification with tanks of the 70-80s of the XX century? Are you buying a new car to unify it with a VAZ 2101?

    ATATA Today, 09:42 ↑
    Well, UVZ says that for some time they will produce the dream tank "ARMATA".
    - YOUR ARMATA is the same outline design as Denis M.’s, but ... without pictures

    ATATA Today, 10:37 ↑
    And the Kharkov Design Center will very soon come down to such home-grown projects.
    - I would just like to remind you, if KhZTM were not there, UVZ as a tank building!

    ATATA Today, 14:38 ↑
    The ARMATS have triplexes, at least the driver has it.
    - Yes ... triplexes at the dream tank, have you ever heard about the concepts of a “glass cabin” and cameras are some of its elements, about the fact that triplex is a weakening of the structure I’ll even keep silent

    gych Today, 12:51
    this tank has no prospects. and not because there are no resources, just who will buy it? The Ukrainian army is unlikely to buy it, and others ...
    - That you tell the Jews with their "Merkava" who produce an excellent tank for ... DEFENSE

    In general, many thanks to Denis Motor for the work done, on my own behalf:
    1. I support the concept, if only I would remove MH / AZ from under the tower’s tile, or equip it only with BPS
    2. The presence of ammunition in the stern of the roof will require additional protection by the mechanic - safety capsule
    3. Would offer a complete set of "field / city", as an option 30-mm gun / grenade launcher for urban combat
    4. Would strengthen the roof of the tower to counter the damaging elements from above
    5. Tank builders would prioritize the safety of tankers and then, to a damn price
    - active protection
    - dynamic protection
    - bump
    - personal protective equipment (armored personnel carrier, fireproof suit, bulletproof helmet ...)
    - the presence of EISU (unified management information system)
    - etc.
    1. svp67
      svp67 18 May 2013 07: 45
      +1
      Quote: sergey158-29
      - YOUR ARMATA is the same outline design as Denis M.’s, but ... without pictures
      OUR "Armata" is already much MORE than a preliminary design ... It is a BASE CHASSIS being developed in Russia for many types of equipment.
      Quote: sergey158-29
      The ARMATS have triplexes, at least the driver has it.
      - Yes ... triplexes at the dream tank, have you ever heard about the concepts of a “glass cabin” and cameras are some of its elements, about the fact that triplex is a weakening of the structure I’ll even keep silent

      what and where it stands we will see through 1, 5 of the year when it will be shown in several versions at the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil. But one thing I can say, with the current development of electronics and means of combating it, the triplexes of a mechanical water supply or its understudy are not unnecessary ...
  • zaitsev
    zaitsev 18 May 2013 00: 15
    +1
    As you option (sketch):
    A tank (rather a self-propelled guns) in the form of a truncated pyramid with a vertically mounted weapon "with low ballistics", guided (corrected) shells for mounted fire. The body is extremely simple, the corners of the armor plates are more than 45 degrees, an automatic loader, a gun of caliber from 120 to 240 mm (I suppose) + DU 23 or 30mm AU, possibly an ATGM in a container for firing at high-speed targets. Motor in front, AZ in rear (ammunition is replenished from the ground like an ACS). Crew of 3 people (mechanic, gunner-operator, commander) in two separate capsules (on the sides of the gun).
    A heavy infantry fighting vehicle is required on the basis of this tank.

    I'm really serious. What do you think?
  • Canep
    Canep 18 May 2013 00: 24
    +1
    Thanks to Denis Motorny, let him not be particularly offended by criticism, I myself work as a designer and am used to it, often they say things in my work and in your case. I wrote about power transmission using the example of Belaz for a tank, it will be acceptable if the traction engine develops at least 3000 rpm then its dimensions decrease significantly, the generator needs to be mounted only on the gas turbine engine because it develops significantly higher revs, but it also eats at least 1.5 times more fuel, this must be taken into account, at high speeds the generator will become more compact. I consider the caliber 140 to be unreasonably large, the armor-piercing projectile is now only sub-caliber, and the caliber will not affect much of the power of the rest. But an increase in caliber will drag an increase in the dimensions of shells, an automatic loader, etc. which will affect the amount of armored space and, as a result, the weight of the tank. As for the driver’s mechanic, it is necessary to transplant him into the front of the tank; video cameras are unacceptable, it is better to use binocular vision for driving. And another 30 mm machine gun can be paired with a 7,62 machine gun and mounted on the suspension that provides anti-aircraft fire, and the machine gun cartridges must be arranged with the machine gun tower, it will not be possible to store the cartridges in the main tower, and the gun should be in a separate one, this gun has belt power.
    For the layout I recommend Compass 3D to master. And take an interest in the design of the T-72 chain rammer. Well, that’s all.
    1. bask
      bask 18 May 2013 00: 36
      0
      But what about the main questions.
      1. The removal of the BC from the fighting compartment and its placement.
      2. A cannon, 120 mm NATO with unitary loading or leave as is 125mm.s separate.
      3. The tower is inhabited or not.
      My version of placing the BC in the tank’s hull ((view of the amateur))) In the tank’s hull, in the reserved space. As on the BMP-T 84. In the landing hatches. But redone under the BC. Separated from the combat armored partition.

      Here is the draft of the new MBT.A, what do you propose the usual modernization.
    2. Quzmi4
      Quzmi4 18 May 2013 03: 31
      0
      Minesweeper, I personally understood that D. Motorny chose the caliber for reasons of ATGM of the "fire-and-forget" type. And you shouldn't forget about the power of the cumulative power supply. With all the rags like a triplet tandem)))) IMHO it will still serve for itself.
      1. Canep
        Canep 18 May 2013 06: 32
        0
        It’s better to make the ATGM caliber smaller than to put a bigger cannon on the tank.
    3. krot00f
      krot00f 21 May 2013 18: 38
      0
      "The caliber will not have a strong effect on the power of the rest" Are you an ammunition for an hour? Also tell the firing range not to increase.)
    4. dustycat
      dustycat 17 June 2013 13: 08
      +1
      In addition to conventional rotary electric motors, flat valve high torque direct-drive electric motors were invented in the USSR.
      Yes, yes, those of the washing machines.

      It is quite possible to fit them into the desired volume.

      But the issue of losses in wires and electrical safety remains very open.
      The cooling issue is also tricky.
  • zaitsev
    zaitsev 18 May 2013 00: 57
    +3
    I think the T-100-140 project is one of the best that I saw on the Internet.
    Liked:
    + Placement of the driver (finally, he was given the right to survive);
    + The entire crew has the ability to leave the tank through the ramp;
    + All ammunition in the automatic loader;
    + "Twin" shots;
    + Separate placement of shells and charges, with a possible transition to LMW, you do not have to re-arrange.

    On imaginary minuses:
    - I do not consider the total height of more than 3 meters a huge drawback, because the height on the roof of the tower is about 2.5 meters - like the Europeans ... (we do not consider the height of the T-90 along with a five-meter antenna, although we could);
    - I consider protection of the ramp from 30mm and RPG-7 to be quite sufficient (many modern tanks will not withstand the side). Strongly "deepened" ramp, clamped by ED - the goal is almost not real;
    - the presence of zones vulnerable to fire from above (engine and control unit with charges), with the modern development of technology, I consider it impossible to make horizontal armor almost equal in stability to vertical. The main crew is not affected, and sacrificing whole units is perfectly acceptable.
  • Ataman
    Ataman 18 May 2013 10: 34
    +1
    The "inventors" of tanks are in competition with the inventors of the bicycle. Who will the author go to fight with in this wunderwaffle? To combat enemy armored vehicles, Russia has an order of magnitude more effective Chrysanthemum. For operations in urban environments, there is a more reasonable version of the Terminator (although the composition of its weapons looks controversial). Where else does the author propose to drive this 60-ton bandura?
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 18 May 2013 13: 50
    +2
    Minesweeper ...

    - In my opinion, the ammunition for a 125 mm tank gun is lagging behind the western ones and requires serious modernization, perhaps in the future it is better to switch to a caliber of 140 mm, but the dimensions and mass of the gun will increase - for this a new tank is created, but the flight speed of the same BPS also increases for which we are fighting!

    - As for the driver’s mechanic - I do not agree, the protection of both the mechanic (at the rear) and other crew members by front engine placement is more important !! Start to appreciate the life of your soldiers !!! As for binocular vision, modern cameras will give you at least a 3D picture :), by the way, a simple sniper can blast the same triplex and blind the driver ...

    - As for me, if we are talking about a new modern tank, it’s time to move away from the layouts of the “mass graves of tankers” sitting, but the ammunition, and to the maximum use the new layouts, the modern capabilities of both electronic components in equipment and elements of artificial intelligence ... there should be a new the platform on which we assemble the equipment and weapons depending on the application of the tank ...

    I do not pretend to be true
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 17 June 2013 13: 19
      0
      On the network and on this site there is an example of shelling a T72 from a captured abrams with a 105mm gun. The result for the T72 is more than sad.
      So the increase in caliber (especially when there is information about the development of promising homing ammunition of a caliber of 80 mm or less) is a dead end.

      It’s worth considering the protection and survivability of the car and crew.
      In the end, the tank can be stopped by breaking the tracks, and then fill it with mines of 100 mm caliber or more. Recall at least the cumulative PTAB-500 for IL-2 - 2,5 kg and there is no tank.
  • I. Brovkin
    I. Brovkin 18 May 2013 22: 33
    0
    An electromechanical transmission has an advantage only when it is necessary to have high torque (train, bulldozer, huge tractors or mining trucks), i.e. while the tanks will have a mass of less than 100 tons, a diesel + gearbox is preferable than an EMT (diesel + generator + electric motor)
  • Kosmonavt
    Kosmonavt 18 May 2013 22: 36
    +1
    I really liked the idea of ​​a "besotankist" following the example of a "drone" ... I laughed. There will be no such massive "bestekistnik". A design like some kind of reconnaissance vehicle or "fire support vehicle" is possible. Well armed and armored. For use with manned tanks. Only together, not instead of.
    1. bask
      bask 18 May 2013 22: 45
      +3
      Quote: Kosmonavt
      I really liked the idea of ​​a "besotankist" following the example of a "drone" ... I laughed.

      And, what laughs is already in the world of tanks drones. ,, Black Knight ,, BAE.
      1. Volodya Nigmetov
        Volodya Nigmetov 14 May 2018 13: 29
        0
        He suggested that the Ministry of Defense should create a game where a merkava challenger, a centurion, and something of ours, are equipped. 100% remote control crews sit in a bunker. A training ground is selected. A natural warhead and let urinate in real life while the tank is alive. Questions like merkava will be removed immediately. in response, a whole book of multi-letters is nothing
  • Fofan
    Fofan 19 May 2013 12: 46
    +1
    Quote: bask

    And, what laughs is already in the world of tanks drones. ,, Black Knight ,, BAE.

    yes cho smeyatstso that? unmanned tanks will soon be 80 years old, but no one really uses them.
    http://abunda.ru/31873-teletank-est-i-takoj-17-foto.html
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 19 May 2013 23: 12
    +1
    Skepticism about electric traction seems excessive to me, many of the advantages of this propulsion are manifested in modern cars. The increase in weight can be largely compensated by the absence of a box, cardan, gearboxes, etc. And the weight and size of BelAZ units is somewhat inapplicable to the tank. engine power MBT 1500-1700 hp (for advanced samples), not 3500. In addition, the resource of a dump truck should obviously be higher than for a tank. But, if we consider such a scheme for a tank with a front engine, it will improve the weight distribution: heavy ED will balance the forehead and the engine. As for the increase in caliber: at the end of the 30's, the potential of the 57mm anti-tank gun was considered excessive, and the war ended with 122mm on the IS-2.
    The only thing about MV behind. Perhaps this is a plus in battle, but imagine what it would be like to walk along the camera 300-400 km on the march.
    Design work is always a compromise.
    PS It is very nice that there are people who are able to work out the project in such detail and thoroughness. The article is a definite plus.
    More good and different projects!
    1. krot00f
      krot00f 21 May 2013 18: 08
      -1
      SO a dump truck. and the resource of a dump truck, But you won’t start pulling, do not light it. If the resource of the tank is small, it means that it is not a passenger car, and in the conditions of its operation it is no longer possible to make the resource. Yes, and TK do not just write.
  • krot00f
    krot00f 21 May 2013 18: 02
    +1
    As long as the gut is thin to come up with their own concept, they rely on science fiction writers. The tank’s ammunition was designed to zero, Coached from books and websites, YES turret from the coalition more calibers, Yes Yes Pturov, Wasov, It killed that the smooth-bore gun has insufficient accuracy Yes 30 years the tank was made and it’s not with that gun, let's change the caliber so that certainly did not look like.
  • Vecheslav
    Vecheslav 26 June 2017 21: 20
    0
    To make a tank according to the Merkava principle when the engine in front does not justify itself in combat conditions against an equal enemy. Merkava for Israel is fighting against partisans and not an equal enemy, because when a shell hits the engine or something else, the tank is immobilized. which means that it is impossible to reverse equipment in battle, and this means the complete destruction of the tank in battle. So this concept is stupid and not thought out.
  • Nitro
    Nitro 3 July 2017 01: 58
    +1
    It seems to me alone that this tank is a cross between an M3 Lee and a merkava
  • vicyo
    vicyo 5 July 2017 13: 52
    0
    A tank is a tool, and at the beginning of the article it is necessary to clearly and clearly define what tasks this tool is created for. If this has not been done, it makes no sense to read further. Okay, I read it to the end.
    The heading says “with enhanced crew protection” and a few paragraphs below, the weak defense in the upper projection is perfectly calmly declared unsatisfactory. About anti-tank missiles designed to undermine the tower with the prospect of defeat ammunition have not heard? But they are.
    What about the auxiliary power unit? For any reason, start the main engine, reducing its resource? Pure water wrecking.
    A lot about how the tank will fight with helicopters. MBT should not do this - there are specially trained and accordingly armed people who can do this much better.
    We are talking about MBT - that is, the main mass tank, so it is very important to consider the cost, manufacturability, production capabilities. The decision to arm the Abrams, Leopards, Merkavas with a gun with a barrel is noticeably shorter than that of their main possible opponents, made by specialists much more knowledgeable in these matters than the author of the article. The cost and difficulty of manufacturing the barrel are directly dependent on its length. Instead of writing in detail about the capacity of the tanks, describing the dimensions of a particular unit to the nearest millimeter, it would be more interesting for me to find out which design bureau and at what production capacities all this will be done.
    There is much debate about the width of the tank and the possibility of its transportation by rail. What for? This issue will be closed one of the first, when bridges, tunnels, railway transportation control systems will be destroyed with high-precision weapons, and locomotives will be disabled.
    When ammunition with depleted uranium is mentioned, it is worth considering that the Americans use them very far from their home. Few can afford to use them that way.
    That tank that is described in the article, to the actual embodiment in metal - is no closer than the first successful flight of a Nigerian starship on a rowing pull.
    The author clearly spends too much time on WoT.
  • turcom
    turcom 12 October 2017 18: 36
    0
    Hmm, to dream does not mean to do.
  • Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 5 December 2017 11: 28
    0
    Not a well-thought-out miracle, the mechanic doesn’t see a damn thing or see enough with SVD to shoot down (punch, gouge) the cameras and .... cuckoo, more precisely.
  • kerf
    kerf 10 May 2018 18: 47
    0
    Someone clearly outplayed the tanks.