The Russian Defense Ministry showed footage of the Shturm unmanned tank participating in exercises.

On the chassis tanks A crewless, remotely controlled combat platform has been developed for the T-72 and T-90 tanks. The Russian Ministry of Defense released footage of this unmanned tank, dubbed the "Shturm" heavy robotic assault system (TRShK), participating in exercises.

This combat vehicle is controlled by troops from a support vehicle located some distance from the platform, approximately three kilometers.

The unmanned tank's primary armament is a 125mm cannon. It can also be fired remotely. The cannon's barrel is shortened, allowing the combat vehicle to operate in dense urban environments while traversing its turret 360 degrees.

The robotic system's design allows it to be used as a regular tank if necessary, as it can also operate with a crew. It is planned to use the advanced Russian Rassvet satellite communications system for control in the future.

The Shturm unit took part in the Center-2026 strategic command and staff exercise. Its final stage, which involved the latest Russian armored vehicles, took place at the Chebarkul training ground in the Chelyabinsk region.

The Shturm TRShK was developed by specialists at the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering. It is manufactured by Uralvagonzavod Corporation. The system was demonstrated for the first time during testing last year.

Comments

[knn54]

Back in the late 20s and early 30s, under Bekauri's leadership, the OSTechBYURO developed an experimental crewless "teletank." However, the communication range and reliability were not up to par.

[Roman 11]

Quote: knn54

teletank

Yes... I think they even took part in the first battles.

[TOR2]

They were actively used in the Finnish company.

But the main success came in March. A TT-26 managed to get right up to the Finnish pillboxes. The tank dropped a container of explosives and drove away. Fifteen minutes later, an explosion ripped through the reinforced concrete fortifications, destroying them four stories deep. The Finns truly couldn't cope with this tactic: you fire at the tank, but no one jumps out screaming; it keeps crawling along as if nothing had happened. And if you don't fire, it will blow up your pillbox.

Unfortunately, the technical capabilities of the time prevented further development in this area. By the start of WWII, the TT-26 was significantly outdated.

[Roman 11]

Quote: knn54

under the leadership of Bekauri

His unenviable fate—he turned out to be a spy—simply shows that Comrade Stalin wasn't very fond of inventors. Often, if an inventor was an enemy, he'd be thrown up against the wall, or he'd be somewhere in the depths of the Gulag, tinkering with his handicrafts under extreme supervision. Ivan the Terrible also had some sort of problem with inventions; he also didn't cherish invention and creativity.

[NakedMan]

I can just picture Stalin with a pipe: "How about I shoot some inventor today? Well, I don't like them, the shady types."
They weren’t arrested because creative people in institutes were writing denunciations against each other.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Naked Man

Should I shoot today?

you can't remove the words from a song

Stalinists are unusual people; they always fight with their own people. On this site, they will definitely force their favorite name into discussions... because, because, to add even more downvotes - this is such a narrowly focused form of struggle, you understand, for the hostile division of society, friends and enemies... It does not unite people, it divides... If this is so, then it is from the devil, and almost all trials require consolidation, and if this were so, there would be no malice towards each other, there would be no devil, then there would not be so many enemies of the people who suddenly fell out of the blue - I don’t believe they nod to some secondary reasons: “I didn’t know,” “I didn’t think,” “it just happened.”

I always told the Stalinists that your leader would have been the most outstanding in world history, if not for one small but... - he ruled the country by execution.

[bayard]

Quote: Novel 11

- he ruled the country by means of executions

I wonder who started bringing back tens of thousands of Soviet commanders from prisons and camps at the end of 1938? Who created the commission to review and verify the guilty verdicts? Was it Beria? Almost from his first day in office?
And who put him up to this?
And how is it that even in 1937-1938, Soviet courts issued far more acquittals than the most democratic courts in human history, the modern Russian Federation? Where there is no death penalty (a moratorium)?

[Roman 11]

Quote: bayard

And who advised him?

You see, this is not a forum topic. You are defending your position not with logic and morality, but from the point of view of the majority.

[bayard]

Quote: Novel 11

This topic is not for the forum.

Why so ?

Quote: Novel 11

You defend your rightness not with logic and morality

So, isn't the creation of a Commission for the Review of Criminal Cases Based on Slander and Anonymous Denunciations... Logic and Morality? This commission continued its work during WWII—investigating thoroughly, re-checking every detail, and re-interrogating witnesses. The return from prison of the future Marshal of Victory Rokossovsky and tens of thousands (if not over a hundred thousand) of Soviet commanders... isn't this proof of the Logic and Morality of L.P. Beria's actions from the very first day of his tenure?

Quote: Novel 11

and from the point of view of the majority

And where did the majority come from? Despite all the rabid propaganda of your yellow press? Maybe the people remember and know better, and all your filth and slander, like shit dried in the Sun of Truth, fell off the boots of History like husks?

And yes, in my family there were also people who were repressed during that period, including my great-uncle, the commander of the 25th Shock Chapayev Division, Division Commander Kutyakov.

[isv000]

Quote: bayard

Could it really be Beria?

A controversial figure. Much has been said about him, but it was under his leadership, and in the shortest possible time, that the state implemented many vital projects. I'll give my opinion: as head of state, he could have brought considerable benefit to the country, bringing it back from the post-war ruins. And the "Western partners" would have kept a low profile, because Beria wouldn't have banged his boot on the podium for no reason...
p.s. As for the gossip, Stalin also robbed banks and mail coaches with trains, expropriating them, so to speak, for the benefit of the party...

[bayard]

We had no electricity in Donetsk for 3 days, so I’m only responding today.

Quote: isv000

He's a controversial figure. Many things have been said about him.

These were indeed slanders, as Yuri Mukhin has described in great detail and convincingly in his books. Even in my lieutenant years, senior officers told me how, under a signed non-disclosure agreement, they were given lampoons, allegedly from the "Beria Affair," composed on Khrushch's orders, with all its fairy tales and phantasmagorias. This is especially true if you consider how busy this man was and how he was, overseeing simultaneously (in the post-war period): the Soviet Nuclear Project, the Missile Program, the Moscow Air Defense System ("Berkut") Program, the restoration of devastated Soviet cities, the Reconstruction of Moscow and the construction of the "Stanin Sisters," Foreign Intelligence, and many other crucial projects. There are also documented opinions of prominent Soviet weapons academics about this man's personality, moral, and professional qualities. So Khrushchev was simply creating an alibi for himself after usurping power and denigrating his victims with vile slanders. One only needs to recall his antics about Stalin.

Quote: isv000

p.s. As for the gossip, Stalin also robbed banks and mail coaches with trains, expropriating them, so to speak, for the benefit of the party...

Well, robbing the Bank of England collectors (Rothschild, Russia's sworn enemy) and the local (Baku) oil rich, often foreign businessmen... even by today's standards, that's... feats worse than Robin Hood. Especially since it was for a good cause. And while in power, he vealed and implemented almost all the programs and plans of the Slavophile "Sharapov Group." That's why he deserves praise and glory. He didn't "socialize women," didn't turn Russia into "a bunch of brushwood on the fire of revolution," as Trotsky and Co. (the Rothschilds' agents in Russia) desired and strove for, but rather realized the dreams and plans of Russian geniuses who had been trying to implement their programs and reforms in the last years of Alexander III, approved by him for implementation. If the Tsar had not missed the main agent and resident of the Rothschilds in his entourage, the scion of the French branch of their banking clan along the Halachic line, Rothschild-Witte "Half-Sakhalinsky"... he would have lived a long life, and probably during his lifetime Russia would have become (The phrase itself makes me laugh) a Communist Monarchy, the most powerful and advanced in the world. For S. Sharapov (his friend and comrade) brought him the "Golden Key" to a Bright Future—his economic and socio-political development and reform programs, but most importantly, his Theory of Absolute Money. This is roughly what A. Tolstoy's allegorical tale about the adventures of a wooden boy who received the Golden Key to a Bright Future as a reward for his Pure Heart is about.
Stalin accepted this key and all the programs from the hands of the students and associates of the Great Russian Genius. And brought them to life. He turned a fairy tale into reality. Having performed incredible economic miracles, having achieved an industrial and economic breakthrough in 10 years! Having made the USSR the second largest economy in the world after the USA by the end of 1940! At the same time, having ensured the right of Soviet citizens to free secondary education, free healthcare at the highest world level, legislatively established an 8-hour work day and provided all the necessary social guarantees. And this in the context of the consequences of the devastation after WWI and the Civil War. And then he stood firm and ensured Victory in the war against the military machine of all of united Europe ... And again, in a matter of years, he restored the country from ruins, making it the second nuclear superpower in the world. Only a man of the highest moral qualities, the highest intellect, and an iron will could do such a thing. This is how steel was tempered! For Dzhugashvili means "Iron." But in the crucible of revolutionary struggle, wars, and upheavals, steel was forged and tempered from soft but heavy iron.
But the Golden Key to the Bright Future was received by him from the hands of friends and associates of the Great Russian Genius - S. Sharapov.
And from Marx's teachings, only people like Sverdlov, Trotsky, and other Zinovievs and Bukharins could emerge. Capable of bringing only chaos, enslavement, and death.

[old rats]

His unenviable fate—he turned out to be a spy—simply shows that Comrade Stalin wasn't very fond of inventors. Often, if an inventor was an enemy, he'd be thrown up against the wall, or he'd be somewhere in the depths of the Gulag, tinkering with his handicrafts under extreme supervision. Ivan the Terrible also had some sort of problem with inventions; he also didn't cherish invention and creativity.

Where do you come from, such experts on Comrade Stalin’s psychology?
It seems like there are more and more of you on VO over the years. It's raising the suspicion that there's a secret organization somewhere that donates to imbeciles for visiting this site.

[Roman 11]

Quote: old rats

It seems like there are more and more of you on VO over the years.

You're probably asking this to throw in some negative comments.

[Alf]

If the barrel is shortened, maybe it makes sense to switch to a 152mm barrel? With the same ballistics, you can get a much more powerful HE shell.

[MichIs]

125 is already in the tank. And 152 needs to be created and deployed.

[Alf]

Quote: MichIs

And 152 needs to be created

Object 292? All that's left is to take it off the shelf and dust off the documentation.

[Roman 11]

The only thing I don't like is complications. When complications start, it affects the organization. Any additional vehicles, controls, and so on, seem unnecessary to me. Extra links are a burden in combat.

[Dilettante grandfather]

I'd like to point out that this idea is long overdue for a trial. But, as Comrade Nikolai rightly noted, it's not new.
First, a crewless vehicle must be completely autonomous. There's no operator involved.
Second: there must be many such machines. And they must be controlled centrally. Two dozen, three dozen... A shared AI.
Third, I think these should be T-34-85s, not T-90s.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

T-34-85

then it's T-27...
Yes, in my opinion, the course of action showed that the topic is fundamentally a broken card - heavy weapons are vulnerable to light maneuverable weapons.

This is something from the realm of kickbacks, for a high-profile project.
rather, it is an expensive weapon of a narrow range - for example, for cleaning boilers, nothing more

We need mass-produced, efficient, and inexpensive models.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Novel 11

then it's T-27.

T-28. A short, large-caliber gun with a powerful HE shell and a pair of machine guns in several independent firing positions. Or a pair of CC machine gun and automatic grenade launcher modules in independent firing positions and a 30mm automatic cannon.

Quote: Novel 11

rather, it is an expensive weapon of a narrow range - for example, for cleaning boilers, nothing more

This is an infantry assault vehicle. Infantry needs fire support. Tanks aren't very useful in cities; infantry should be taking care of them there. BMPs are weak in armor, and that's not what they're for. But an autonomous, heavily armored vehicle with a reasonable level of automation—that's what's needed.

Quote: Novel 11

We need mass-produced, efficient, and inexpensive models.

I quote "Sorry, son, that's science fiction" :) Military equipment can't be cheap. No one can do it. Otherwise, it will be disposable, like a kamikaze drone. But a drone is a guided munition, nothing more. And we're talking about combat equipment, a munitions carrier. One that should, hopefully, last more than one battle.

[Roman 11]

Quote: abc_alex

Which, preferably, will last more than one battle.

Experience shows, and there's no other way to refute it, that heavy equipment is currently useless in open combat. No chance whatsoever. Regarding the massive use of... Well, you could send in 300 tanks. I don't know how many would survive to occupy some square mile of territory, say, 100 by 100 kilometers. Maybe, but somehow I doubt it would work. If you encircled all their armored vehicles with barbed wire, they could probably destroy everything, everything, from head to toe, well, practically everything.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Novel 11

Practice shows, and there is no other way to refute it, that at the moment, heavy equipment has no help at all in open combat.

I'll let you in on a secret, which isn't really a secret at all, but in "open combat," heavy vehicles wouldn't have had much of a chance even without UAVs. I repeat, a "kamikaze drone" is a guided munition. It's not a new weapon, nor is it a "purple ray of death." Its main difference is its ease of use. But even before them, armies were full of guided munitions that made tanks vulnerable. For example, the Khrizantema missile has a penetration of one meter twenty centimeters of homogeneous armor behind dynamic protection. And interestingly, shaped-charge munitions were once considered invincible. BUT they've found ways. And they will find them again, I assure you. It's just that infantry is extremely uncomfortable alone in combat. Soldiers want something heavy and armored in front of them, something they can hide behind, something that can destroy a machine-gun nest or take out a sniper.
And, in principle, UAVs don't represent anything extraordinary. The Arena/Afganit system's weapons simply need to be modified to counter mass air strikes. That's the challenge. BUT, it's an engineering challenge. And therefore, solvable.

[Roman 11]

Quote: abc_alex

And they will find it here, I assure you.

This is the only true thing about this. Because all of this, of course, without a doubt, leads to the complication of "Armored Vehicles." They'll need to come up with something else somewhere, bolt something onto the tank, and this will be reflected in the tank's weight and price; it will strive to catch up. And therefore, it will become a unique, universal combat system. But it will increase in price, weight, and everything, and will become cumbersome, inflexible, and then there will be no point in having it as a tank at all. The infantry will simply be scared off by their rapid attrition.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Novel 11

But it will increase in price, weight, and everything, and will become cumbersome and inflexible, and then there will be no point in it as a tank at all. The infantry will simply be scared of their rapid elimination.

The T-64 was already heavier, more complex, and more expensive than the T-34. However, a modern main battle tank is a complex and expensive thing, and only a handful of countries on Earth can produce one. Well, that's the kind of weapon it is. But I repeat, this weapon is NEEDED. Both as a firing platform and as a means of defense. Nothing better for land combat has yet been invented.

[Alf]

Quote: abc_alex

A short, large-caliber gun with a powerful HE shell

Then it would most likely be a howitzer-gun with separate loading and the ability to fire from above.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alf

Then it would most likely be a howitzer-gun with separate loading and the ability to fire from above.

Provided that there are barrel-mounted ATGMs.

[Alf]

Quote: abc_alex

Provided that there are barrel-mounted ATGMs.

Purkua by and not pa ?

[Nikolaevich I]

T-34, T-27, T-28...Excuse me, did I end up at a flea market? I thought at first it was the Military District!

[scientist]

Quote: Novel 11

heavy weapons, vulnerable to light maneuverable weapons

In its current form, of course. The crew's life support system won't allow for significant design changes. But the survivability of the modernized unmanned T-72s is still much higher than that of the Uran-9s demonstrated at the Moscow parade just five years ago.
Moreover, satellite communications aren't critical for such vehicles. If interference occurs, a UAV with optical communication is a fairly good repeater; it can even be used on armored vehicles, and replacing it wouldn't take long.

[abc_alex]

Quote: scientist

The crew's life support system will not allow for significant changes to the tank's design.

That's why the unmanned T-72 is more of a first step, a concept. Naturally, an unmanned vehicle would require a completely different internal layout. And the level of autonomy currently demonstrated is not viable. The vehicle must move independently. It must detect its target independently. The operator's job should be limited to identifying the target and making a decision about whether to engage it.
And communications... I don't know, raising a tethered quadcopter repeater at least 10 meters above the tank would provide communication "beyond the horizon."

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: abc_alex

And communications... I don't know, raising a tethered quadcopter repeater at least 10 meters above the tank would provide communication "beyond the horizon."

And, in extreme cases, it is possible to set up a semaphore telegraph!

[Dilettante grandfather]

then it's T-27...

Well, a tankette with a machine gun is not the best option.
As for the broken map, tanks have been buried many times, but they're still alive. They'll find effective defenses, and the tanks will attack again.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

As for the broken map, the tanks have been buried many times, but they are still alive.

Get it out of your head, just think about it, we're adults, you know, I'm telling you honestly, I'll admit, I've seen enough of these gibberish, these barbecues—God knows what they're made of—and these stacks of barbed wire, but we're not even laughing anymore. Or do you want those Don Quixote windmills to turn into moving skyscrapers made of barbed wire? Well, then, damn, those journalists from neighboring galaxies will definitely come and laugh at us. Look, the Russians have learned to fight, damn. Well, maybe we should just go back to bows and arrows, and what's also an idea, let's make long-range crossbows and start fighting with that too. I'm just saying: maybe sometimes it's time to limit ourselves in some ways? Because our mind is a generator of evil, it can invent such things... We, like our AI, are a parody of this mind—we can literally make a mountain out of nothing, like these tanks. They're starting to turn into who knows what. And yet, you'll agree, those grown-up generals in stripes are sitting there. Gray-haired, as they say. I must emphasize the word here—not children anymore. We are slaves to our minds, our fantasies, our illusions.

Where and what to allocate funds to—this follows from the second-grade math curriculum. Of course, there, in robots, drones, and, of course, dawn—there's no greater, better effect at the moment. Especially dawn, a combat-ready, normal, natural one, without any holes or cracks, so that it functions. Not to create some bizarre horror stories or barbecues in the minds of our creators, but to properly refine what already exists. I insist that history doesn't invent, but confirms (note the word confirms) that generals always prepare for the past, the last war. We live in a different technological paradigm. What was there then? A bet on Armatas and SU-57s? All that's been tossed aside, you see, and christened... It wasn't useful at the front, none of it is needed, all this high cost—it was kickbacks to the stripes-makers and a nightmare. The weapons of victory are dawn geraniums and FPV. There's no other option at the moment, and this is the right direction. Only the total mobilization of remote operators. Imagine if there were not hundreds of thousands, but millions? Operators who could be anywhere, even in Kamchatka. And here the most important problem, the problem of mobilization, is solved once and for all—so that it's not the Russians who go to the front, but the front that comes to the Russians—that's where the main problem is solved. With the help of the total mobilization of remote operators, so that the battle can be controlled from Kamchatka. And then, in masses, any frontline offensive, defensive operations, bombing, any plans can be carried out... and note, without attack aircraft—NRTKs, other unmanned transport delivers drones to the LBS, they carry out tasks... NRTKs to hold positions must be equipped with machine guns, mortars, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, and who knows what else... Humanoid robots will also be needed, but certainly not tanks.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

First, a crewless vehicle must be completely autonomous. There's no operator involved.

Really? How will it differentiate soldiers? For example, ours from Ukrainians? Nowhere in the world have reliable algorithms been created to recognize the wide range of objects encountered on the battlefield. This isn't like heaven, where every object screams "I'm one of our own" at half the airwaves.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Comrade, I don't know your patronymic...
The first thing a fighting machine should do is hit the enemy.
Distinguish - yes, it should.
But there's a simple thing: friend or foe. The system works for pilots, so why wouldn't it work for infantry?
Please note, I asked a question. I answered yours. Please answer mine without further ado.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

But there's a simple thing: friend or foe. The system works for pilots, so why wouldn't it work for infantry?

Not the pilots, but the planes. Of which there are only a few in the sky. Well, maybe dozens. And a downed plane falls and breaks into pieces. An enemy plane can't fly up to a downed one and quickly rip out its friend-or-foe system.
But an infantryman can. Simply approach a wounded or dead enemy and remove the identification device from his uniform. And become a friend to all your vehicles. In the worst case, the entire advancing enemy army will be considered "friends" to your vehicles if they still have the corpses of your soldiers.
And most importantly, hundreds of thousands of such systems are needed. And keeping track of them all would be simply impossible.

I agree that a machine should kill the enemy. The only problem is that no one in the world has yet developed a reliable algorithm for enemy identification. If we fought like chess, "white against black," it would be easier. For now, only humans can identify the enemy.

[Nikolaevich I]

And yet, a certain number of friend-or-foe identification systems were supplied to special forces and armored units at the end of the last century!

[ANB]

For now, only humans can identify the enemy.

Let's clarify.
In some cases, even the person does not recognize it.
And in some cases, even a computer can handle it.

[the same doctor]

The bosses still haven't gotten over Hollywood's illusions and fantasies about combat robots. This project is only good as a trial run and a testing ground for ideas. The main drawback: it requires an infantry platoon to guard it, and it's impossible to make many of them. Combat robot projects should only be considered for those whose production runs will (maybe) be in the tens of thousands.

[faiver]

Let them test it out, maybe something will come of it...

[Roman 11]

Quote: faiver

maybe something will come of it...

Well, it's not hard to see now that this will be another toy for Comrade Shoigu's biathlon. Or something like that. The tank theme—it's been around for over 110 years, right? But I don't recall any tank battles in the Northern Military District, any major one, tank-on-tank, I mean. All those NATO armored vehicles fell to various kinds of lancets, ending with simple long-range artillery strikes. The only thing that sticks in my memory from the Northern Military District is the famous tank battle between the famous Alyosha and two or three enemy tanks, plus armored vehicles, but that's secondary. That's one against two, roughly the entire four-year war. And where are the armored vehicles? It's unclear why they were created. So another show, unsuitable for combat conditions, biathlon, embezzlement nothing more... pity the taxpayer, utilities in the sky, au come back to earth

[the same doctor]

I wouldn't be so categorical. Converting 90% of existing tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers into remote-controlled vehicles is a wonderful goal. But the ideology behind this conversion is fundamentally flawed. This option would only work if it were controlled by two dozen operators. From a bus?!!!
Therefore, these trial vehicles should be sent to the front and mercilessly destroyed in battle. The experimental unit should be commanded by the customers from the Ministry of Defense. I see no other way to reach the old (redacted) in the Ministry of Defense.

[faiver]

Yes, yes, utilities are in the sky, let's close all the research institutes whose research doesn't yield financial returns for ten years, and send the PhD candidates to become concierges and janitors...

[Roman 11]

Quote: faiver

Let's close all research institutes

No, that's not it, let's close the funny shelves. Biathlons are pure nonsense. It's already clear to children that it has a basis, but it hasn't been reinforced by practice. What's the point in harping on something that's already been covered? I don't get it. Let's stick to the promising areas. Remote control operators will emerge, and then our capabilities will increase. That's where the budget should be spent then; that's precisely what produces an effect, what defeats the enemy. Frontal offensive operations can be carried out using only drones operated by operators; there will be many of them using remote control. At least, that's what I hope.

[Evgeny64]

Well, actually, that's a strange opinion.

I don't remember having any kind of tank battle in the North-Eastern Military District, a big one, I mean tank against tank.

Do you even understand that a tank is designed for something a little different and that a tank-versus-tank battle is more of an exception to the rule than the norm?
A tank is essentially a means of breaking through and supporting infantry; its main purpose is to destroy what threatens the infantry, and the possibility of someday encountering an enemy tank is a secondary option.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Evgeny64

this is a side option

I approach things holistically. For me, war doesn't have any side effects. It's war.

[Evgeny64]

That’s why

This is war

The tank is designed to destroy pillboxes, firing points, "break through" defensive lines, "roll out" everything that hinders the infantry's advance, and if it runs into another tank and is knocked out, this is only an inconvenience that does not affect the tank's effectiveness and its necessity if the infantry has advanced with it for ten kilometers.
And there is someone to destroy the enemy's tank, besides tanks.

I fit the complex

A tank in combat is precisely a complex of various forces, means, and weapons, and within this complex, it has a designated place among "assault" units, ATGM crews, helicopters, aircraft, tank support equipment, and now, even drones.
None of the above, in isolation from the others, is capable of completing the task... well, except for the infantry, which always bears the brunt of everyone else's losses.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Evgeny64

A tank in battle is precisely a complex of various forces.

I'm not stealing, I just think the era of meat wars is a thing of the past... Neither tanks nor infantry are needed anymore, understand, even the nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it, when the dawn comes, the low-orbit satellite constellation will turn all this into a bow and arrows and other useless sticks... Anyone who wants it will have a war in any point of the globe on their home monitor. It will be an all-out war, just like a courier receiving an order, and the flight will be paid for, the remote control operator does not risk his life, he completed the task, got the money... There will quickly be not thousands or even tens of thousands of them, but such a mass (not swarms of drones, but clouds, drone fogs) can carry out any frontal operations, defensive, offensive, bombing, fighter (air defense), any plans - no one gets injured, no one dies. I won't even mention AI, the efficiency is increasing... the only thing is, to secure territory, you'll need NRTKs, robots equipped with machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, flamethrowers, etc., etc., etc.... and this feature should have already been in use since 2024, it's just that the old men in general positions are getting it extremely slowly.

[Evgeny64]

Well, you rely too much on what is happening in Ukraine; no one has cancelled the war in its previous form.
Well, something like that, at the operational level, as we were taught in the military in the 80s: a strike with tactical nuclear weapons to operational depth, a breakthrough with tanks, infantry inside infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, then "fortresses" and chemical troops clear the former fortifications of the remaining infantry, and everyone moves on.
There is no one to use UAVs and robots; there is simply an area that needs to be decontaminated and degassed, and individual survivors who envy those who died at the moment of the strike.
At the strategic level, these are strikes on large industrial centers, in the depths of the territory, transport hubs, etc.
There simply won't be anyone to operate all these super-smart toys at the front, and there won't be anyone or anywhere to install new ones. The front line is being hammered by rocket and artillery strikes in the style of World War II, and the rear, i.e., the place where the operators sit now, will simply be nonexistent. There will be a continuous swath of destruction there, stretching across the entire operational depth. Not even the places where artillery and MLRS are usually located, i.e., 20-30 km from the front and deeper, will be there.
You just need to have the means to overcome the zones of complete and severe destruction, suppressing along the way individual pockets of those that accidentally survived and have the desire to resist.

[Eugene Zaboy]

The design of the robotic complex allows it to be used as a regular tank if necessary, since it can also operate with a crew. 

Why retain the ability to use a crew? It's better to maximize the capabilities of robotics. Perhaps the turret should have a 360° machine gun; if it's a storm tank, it should be able to defend itself from infantry from the sides.

[the same doctor]

You misunderstood. To fully utilize the tank's capacity—that's a lot of development work needed to cram it all in. Reducing the capacity—at the very least, a new turret—would require a ton of work.
What we're looking at is a makeshift piece of work that could be blamed for a lot of things. They cobbled it together from what was available, without putting much thought into it. Even the gearbox is probably old. And that's the one God himself ordered to be the first to be robotized.

Therefore, the developers need to be given double the money and, at the same time, an audit needs to be conducted. Thieves need to be kicked out of the team.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: also a doctor

You misunderstood. To fully utilize the tank's capacity—that's a lot of development work needed to cram it all in. Reducing the capacity—at the very least, a new turret—would require a ton of work.

It's understandable that it's a home-made vehicle based on a basic tank. Still, an automatic machine gun on the turret and 360-degree cameras wouldn't hurt. The crew consists of three. One can man the machine gun during an assault. It wouldn't hurt.

[hector]

The design of the robotic complex allows it to be used as a regular tank if necessary, since it can operate with a crew.

Watching the video, the first question that came to mind was: How many shots would it take for the crew to die from gas contamination?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ettore

The design of the robotic complex allows it to be used as a regular tank if necessary, since it can operate with a crew.

Watching the video, the first question that came to mind was: How many shots would it take for the crew to die from gas contamination?

In what case should the crew be shocked by gunfire?
when he sits in the room from which he controls the tank by radio?
Or when it's transferred to a tank? If it's in a tank, the gun still has its ejector, which helps expel propellant gases from the barrel after firing. It's also unlikely the standard air blower was removed from the tank, as it's also part of the PAZ system.

[hector]

Quote: Bad_gr

If it's in a tank, then the gun still has an ejector, which helps propellant gases leave the barrel after firing, and the standard air blower is unlikely to have been removed from the tank, since it's also part of the PAZ system.

The ejector on the barrel is not visible, and after the shot, in the video, all the gases went into the turret. Look closely.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ettore

Quote: Bad_gr

If it's in a tank, then the gun still has an ejector, which helps propellant gases leave the barrel after firing, and the standard air blower is unlikely to have been removed from the tank, since it's also part of the PAZ system.

The ejector on the barrel is not visible, and after the shot, in the video, all the gases went into the turret. Look closely.

I downloaded and rewatched the video—I agree that if there is an ejector, it's extremely ineffective: after firing, there's no visible gas discharge from the barrel, and a large amount of gas enters the live barrel after the bolt opens. It looks like the booster isn't working in the live barrel, or the hatches are open (no open hatches are visible in the video). It's unclear what function the thicker part of the barrel, starting from the middle, serves (unless it's an ejector).
By the way, the 2A82 gun on the Armata has a delayed breech opening after firing, when the gas pressure has already dropped significantly. This may be why it doesn't have an ejector on the barrel, although the lack of a crew in combat could also be a secondary reason.

[gribanov.c]

The idea is sound, but this option isn't quite what's needed. I've always maintained that we need a mass-produced, low-cost, unmanned fire support tank with a remotely controlled 40mm or 57mm automatic cannon. For such a tank to be assigned to each company during an offensive, its mission would be to position itself approximately 1 km from the enemy stronghold, which the infantry would capture. It shouldn't get any closer, and from that distance, it would be able to destroy field fortifications, firing points, armored vehicles, and infantry with aimed fire. For this purpose, it would need a variety of ammunition for its automatic cannon: fragmentation, high-explosive fragmentation, and armor-piercing rounds. Protecting it from drones is a separate task.

[Thumbs]

A more compact unmanned tank is needed, equipped with a new active protection system with AI-controlled processing of enemy target data, similar to that on the American Hornet, with a human operator authorized to engage the target. Crew compartments will be redundant, replacing the payload.

[Thumbs]

And all of this should work in conjunction with the unified tactical control system (UTCS), which is designed to implement the concept of “network-centric warfare”

[Colleague]

You can do anything unmanned, the main thing is a reliable communication channel

[single-n]

3 km? Wow!!! That's a breakthrough!!! The crew will be completely safe. No drones, no mortars. A whole 3 km!!
About five years ago, I watched a guy from Germany operate an excavator in South Africa. And they wrote about the T-26-based teletank, which was assembled in the USSR 100 years ago, without me even mentioning it.

[Dmitry Eon]

It would be much more reasonable and sensible to create an assault mine-clearing vehicle with a track or bladed trawl, a single 30mm cannon, and a 30mm automatic grenade launcher, as on the Berezhok module. The absence of an ammo rack in the hull will increase survivability against drones and magnetic shaped-charge mines (missed during mine-clearing) that strike the underside of tanks. The absence of a heavy turret will reduce weight and allow the vehicle to push heavy trawls in front of it. Furthermore, the autocannon will allow it to destroy mines laid openly on the ground.