Military Review

Radical cure for militants and separatists. On the role of the tank in the modern war

172
Discussing the new Russian tank “Armata”, we focused on the question of how it would fit the conditions of the modern battlefield and combat operations of the foreseeable future. And at the same time - how relevant a weapon is today a tank in general. Let's talk about this.




So: wouldn't a tank as a type of weapon an anachronism in modern warfare? Won't the use of rapidly developing anti-tank weapons put an end to his use in battle? After all, at one time the machine gun put an end to the cavalry, and now, perhaps, we are witnessing a revolution in military affairs?

Indeed, the NATO countries have so far refused to create new tanks and prefer to be content with that technique, which is only an improvement created at the end of the last century. So maybe they are right? And Russia (as well as Israel, Turkey, India, China, Japan, Korea, etc.) in vain improves this kind weapons?

Here we have to say that NATO countries in a certain period were captured by some erroneous theories of military art, which justified the "relief" of combined-arms units in favor of increasing their mobility (they were discussed in more detail here). These concepts did not find confirmation of their effectiveness in reality, although they significantly influenced the capabilities of the NATO forces and the promising armored vehicles, which did not receive their development.

But let us return to us and to the prerequisites for the appearance in our country of a fundamentally new combat vehicle.

To start again: what is a tank. First, it is a highly protected fighting machine. In terms of passive (armor) and active protection, the tank surpasses any other types of armored vehicles. Secondly, it is a combat vehicle with high mobility and maneuverability. A tank is capable of independently making long marches, actively moving in combat, and practically any terrain is available to it. Thirdly, it is a tool that has great firepower. Tank gun - the most powerful means of destruction on the line of sight, which have ground troops. From these fighting qualities follows the so-called tank formula - armor, fire, maneuver. The combination of these qualities in one combat vehicle is what distinguishes a tank from any other types of weapons.

However, we should not forget that the tank, above all, an assault weapon. This follows from the fact that its main armament — the tank gun — is a direct shot weapon. Of course, a tank can fire from closed positions (along a hinged trajectory). But this is not his purpose. For this there are cannon and rocket artillery. By the way, cannon artillery gradually becomes completely howitzer (leading fire only from closed positions), since tanks replaced it at direct shot distances. They are better protected from return fire and able to move during combat. So, comparing the tank with other types of weapons, it should not be confused with self-propelled artillery guns - they have different tasks and different uses in combat.

In addition, the tank fires on targets that it is able to identify independently. To do this, he has a perfect set of surveillance and target detection tools. But this does not mean that it can be confused with a means of intelligence. The advantage of the tank is that it is capable of independently destroying the identified target, and much faster than other reconnaissance equipment will be able to give target designation to the means of destruction. At the same time, he can and should both obtain external data about the enemy (since his means are limited by direct visibility) and issue data on reconnoitered targets to the units interacting with him. He does not conduct the battle separately from the rest of the troops, but clears for the infantry the fortified enemy defenses and enjoys the fire support of artillery (and assault aviation) where enemy defense is dangerous for the advancement of tanks to the firing position. This should also be remembered.

Now you can go to the fighting itself and assess how the tank remains in them useful and reliable. Let's start with the vulnerability. Since anti-tank weapons are developing rapidly (from aviation to manual weapons), will they put an end to the use of tanks in battle?

Here it is necessary first to distinguish between anti-tank weapons. There is the concept of "tank-dangerous targets." It does not include, for example, enemy aircraft and long-range precision weapons. Why? Yes, because a tank is an assault vehicle. He does not have to deal with such goals on his own. The safety of the movement of tanks and the unimpeded promotion of them to the firing position is a task for other forces interacting with them on the battlefield. Own aviation and air defense systems will fight with enemy aircraft. Do not forget that we are not a banana republic. And domestic air defense systems practically exclude the appearance of enemy aircraft over the battlefield. The enemy’s artillery will not be destroyed by tanks, but by its long-range weapons. Work for the tank - in the zone of its weapons. That is why tank-dangerous targets are those targets with which a tank is capable of fighting independently. These should include enemy armored vehicles (including enemy tanks) and anti-tank infantry weapons.

In the fight against portable equipment and armored vehicles, including light ones (often carrying anti-tank missiles or automatic cannons, which are dangerous for tank observation / reconnaissance vehicles), the tank has two advantages.

First, it is his firepower. The tank is guaranteed to hit any armored vehicle that has a worse defense than itself. The time from detection to target destruction is significantly less than that of the missile systems.

Secondly, it is his security. In addition to passive protection (multi-layer combined armor and designs that provide resistance to means of destruction), the modern Russian tank has active protection. This and dynamic protection (DZ), in a simplified form representing the blocks containing an explosive substance and installed over the main armor. They explode towards a flying projectile or rocket, destroying them before entering the main armor or changing their trajectory. These are both active protection complexes (KAZ) and optical-electronic suppression complexes (CEP). The first shoot in the direction of the approaching means of destruction (the same projectile or missile) submunition or a bundle of striking elements, and detect the threat using small-sized millimeter-range radar stations. The latter are designed to counteract high-precision laser-guided weapons, including airborne, as well as weapons using laser rangefinders (without which, for example, it cannot fully calculate the shot of the FCS of modern tanks) and infrared self-guidance.

All this makes the tank a difficult goal to destroy, even for modern anti-tank weapons. That is why their development has led to the fact that most new systems tend to hit the tank from above, where it is least protected. And that is why, by the way, the new Russian tank “Armata” will have a new layout that will protect the crew from all sorts of ammunition hitting from above. This is a requirement of the time, which will allow the new tank to withstand a developed and modern adversary who has high-quality anti-tank weapons.

But besides a developed and modern enemy, there is a danger of encountering an armed gangster-terrorist international. It has recently been used in the struggle of the West with opponents possessing powerful armed forces. Such an adversary, being incapable of direct confrontation with the regular army, will conduct combat operations where it has the best defense. First of all, in urban areas.

And here again it will not work without tanks. In urban development, infantry just needs a powerful and highly secure assault weapon. Tank gun perfectly copes with fortified gun emplacements and manpower, sheltered in buildings. The need for tanks in the fight against irregular armed formations is evidenced by the experience of the war in Syria, the experience of Israel, which is constantly fighting terrorism, and our own experience. Suffice it to recall how long Chechen fighters sought from the federal forces a ban on the use of tanks in populated areas. However, before that, at a high price, they had to gain experience in the correct use of tanks in urban areas. Not easy this experience went to the Syrian army. Not just because tanks remain the basis of the combat power of the Israeli armed forces. This experience must be studied and developed, because it is invaluable.

... Thus, the relevance of tanks on today's battlefield and the battlefield of the foreseeable future remains very high. Perhaps, since the days of the Great Patriotic War, the main purpose of the tank has changed - the fight against the tanks belonging only to the enemy. Today, in the bulk of the likely fighting, tanks will have to face other tasks. Nevertheless, in battle, they simply have nothing to replace. There is no other means that has similar firepower combined with high security and mobility. And these fighting qualities should be developed and improved in the new armored technique.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_26790/
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 15 July 2013 08: 39 New
    20
    Tanks have been "buried" for many years. And yet they do not even think to give up their positions.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 09: 19 New
      -26
      Quote: xetai9977
      ki have been "buried" for many years. And yet they do not even think to give up their positions.

      They have already passed them. There are fewer and fewer tanks, but they cost more and more. And so many anti-tank weapons have already been produced that the tank has no chance to survive on the battlefield with either KAZ or anything else. For example, only TOW was produced over 600000!
      The range of ATGMs is much greater than the range of action of a tank gun.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 24 New
        10
        Quote: Professor
        They have already passed them. There are fewer and fewer tanks, but they cost more and more.

        So are the planes. They also "passed"?


        Quote: Professor
        And so many anti-tank weapons have already been produced that the tank has no chance to survive on the battlefield with either KAZ or anything else.

        And how much air defense equipment was produced? And how many chances to survive in an aircraft that does not have protection from their effects?
        1. papas-57
          papas-57 15 July 2013 22: 06 New
          +4
          Well, we’ll finish your palette by comparing the number of soldiers and the number of pogron in warehouses of all countries of the world
      2. xetai9977
        xetai9977 15 July 2013 09: 27 New
        17
        Everything is relative. Reducing the role of tanks compared to World War II does not mean that they have already outlived themselves. There are tasks that only tanks are able to solve most effectively. The presence of ATGM did not lead to the elimination of tanks, as well as the presence of air defense systems did not bury the aircraft.
        1. Professor
          Professor 15 July 2013 09: 34 New
          -9
          Why go so far? How many tanks were 20 years ago and how many are now?

          Quote: xetai9977
          There are tasks that only tanks are able to solve most effectively.

          For example? What tasks and when were they last solved?

          Quote: xetai9977
          The presence of ATGM did not lead to the elimination of tanks, as well as the presence of air defense systems did not bury the aircraft.

          We see what old ATGMs and RPGs are doing in Syria. In aviation, the situation has changed radically, planes are becoming so rare that they are already given their own names. Even not very poor countries allow themselves to have only a dozen or two aircraft. Where possible they are being squeezed out by cheap and efficient drones.
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 15 July 2013 10: 01 New
            10
            Quote: Professor
            Cheap and efficient drones.

            Tanks and drones will probably be created and replaced, probably.
            But this is all electronics. Blowing up one 5-5 CT nuclear weapon, in the near-earth orbit will bring 99.9%, all the satellites. The drones will all stand up. What will you fight.
            Not that it will not replace a highly protected MBT with an inhabited tower. Israel is in no hurry to abandon, Merkava-4, and to suspend their release.
            1. Professor
              Professor 15 July 2013 10: 43 New
              -5
              Quote: cosmos111
              But this is all electronics. Blowing up one 5-5 CT nuclear weapon, in the near-earth orbit will bring 99.9%, all the satellites. The drones will all stand up. What will you fight.

              We put them in a Faraday cage and no one is afraid of EMP. wassat

              Quote: cosmos111
              Not that it will not replace a highly protected MBT with an inhabited tower. Israel is in no hurry to abandon, Merkava-4, and to suspend their release.

              You do not have the correct information, Israel has suspended the production of fours and is reducing the number of remaining tanks.
              1. alean245
                alean245 15 July 2013 11: 17 New
                +5
                Quote: Professor
                We put them in a Faraday cage and no one is afraid of EMP.

                Correctly smile . At the same time, launch new satellites without any electronics at all. Absolute protection against EMP. But seriously, even in the case of shielding, the EMP will penetrate through the antennas. Or are you going to screen them too?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 15 July 2013 11: 25 New
                  -15
                  Quote: alean245
                  Correctly . At the same time, launch new satellites without any electronics at all. Absolute protection against EMP. But seriously, even in the case of shielding, the EMP will penetrate through the antennas. Or are you going to screen them too?

                  When tanks without electronics learn how to do it then ask questions. Remember to add a foot switch for reliability. laughing
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. mertvoe_exo
                    mertvoe_exo 16 July 2013 02: 19 New
                    +1
                    Profh, I already read your comments, and I’m already tired that you’ve always gone against everyone. but understand that the tanks have not yet outlived themselves at least because people prefer to sit in them than just stand in the middle of a field with a machine gun.
                2. rolik
                  rolik 15 July 2013 15: 58 New
                  +5
                  [quote = alean245] At the same time launch new satellites without electronics at all.
                  They will work on lamps, an example has already been. Our MIG, the entire electric lamp. The mattresses laughed for a long time, until the wretched ones realized that in the case of a nuclear explosion and an EMP pulse nothing would happen to these lamps.
                  1. alean245
                    alean245 15 July 2013 16: 46 New
                    0
                    Quote: rolik
                    They will work on lamps, an example has already been. Our MIG, the entire electric lamp. The mattresses laughed for a long time, until the wretched ones realized that in the case of a nuclear explosion and an EMP pulse nothing would happen to these lamps.

                    Computing on board the spacecraft is also on lamps?
                  2. alean245
                    alean245 15 July 2013 16: 50 New
                    +1
                    Quote: rolik
                    At the same time launch new satellites without electronics at all

                    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/405/uoqz179.jpg
              2. wk
                wk 15 July 2013 12: 43 New
                +7
                Quote: Professor
                Israel has suspended the production of fours and is reducing the number of remaining tanks.


                Israel has suspended the release of fours by no means because of military expediency, but for economic reasons, or rather a large reduction in foreign (US) military assistance.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 15 July 2013 12: 52 New
                  -2
                  Quote: wk
                  Israel has suspended the release of fours by no means because of military expediency, but for economic reasons, or rather a large reduction in foreign (US) military assistance.

                  Suspended something that is not considered critical. For example, missile defense system LCD and Hetz not reduced despite financial problems.

                  PS
                  US aid is not reduced, the problem is domestic financing.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 15 July 2013 13: 29 New
                    -2
                    ZhK and Hets go separate budgets, and these are programs conducted jointly with the USA. LCD, in addition, is sponsored by a separate additional tranche.
                  2. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 15 July 2013 18: 30 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    Suspended something that is not considered critical. For example, missile defense system LCD and Hetz not reduced despite financial problems.

                    Here Palestinians learn how to make combat hang gliders and home-made tanks from pots, then Merkava will become critically important and air defense, and not just missile defense laughing
                  3. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 15 July 2013 22: 15 New
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Suspended something that is not considered critical. For example, missile defense system LCD and Hetz not reduced despite financial problems.


                    Professor! And why is Israel so many tank forces? The opponents of this country now have nothing better than the old modifications of the T-72 (Syria). Egypt and Turkey are controlled by an ally of Israel. So m. is this the reason?
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 15 July 2013 22: 34 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Blackgrifon
                      Professor! And why is Israel so many tank forces? The opponents of this country now have nothing better than the old modifications of the T-72 (Syria). Egypt and Turkey are controlled by an ally of Israel. So m. is this the reason?

                      Allies, especially in BV, the thing is not reliable. Stalin and Hitler were also allies. Moreover, Egypt is not an ally of Israel and the parliament periodically announces the need to cancel the peace treaty.
                      Erdogan’s lunges are generally difficult to call peaceful.
                  4. roma-belij
                    roma-belij 15 July 2013 22: 33 New
                    0
                    Something Tsahal does not reduce the number of tanks and aircraft, and the main reserve - 8 ARMORED DIVISIONS.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 15 July 2013 22: 42 New
                      -1
                      Quote: roma-belij
                      Something Tsahal does not reduce the number of tanks and aircraft, and the main reserve - 8 ARMORED DIVISIONS.

                      Reduces and actively, especially tanks and aircraft too.
                2. rolik
                  rolik 15 July 2013 15: 59 New
                  +7
                  Quote: wk
                  Israel has suspended the release of fours by no means because of military expediency

                  I wonder how the Jews in Palestine will go into tanks without tanks. On the streets you have to run without covering your armor.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 15 July 2013 18: 21 New
                    -5
                    Quote: rolik
                    I wonder how the Jews in Palestine will go into tanks without tanks. On the streets you have to run without covering your armor.

                    As soon as they find Palestine on the maps, they will immediately decide how to get there.
                    1. YuDDP
                      YuDDP 15 July 2013 22: 34 New
                      0
                      Quote: Professor
                      As soon as they find Palestine on the maps

                      It’s easy, Professor. Palestine is not far from the main international airport in Israel almost near the roads to the invented capital - Jerusalem.
                      There are still fences with barbed wire.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 15 July 2013 22: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: YuDDP
                        It’s easy, Professor. Palestine is not far from the main international airport in Israel almost near the roads to the invented capital - Jerusalem.
                        There are still fences with barbed wire.

                        What are you saying? I have been there more than once and have not seen any Palestine ... Tell me where is their capital? What kind of banknotes do they have?
                      2. YuDDP
                        YuDDP 15 July 2013 23: 07 New
                        +3
                        How so? You can't go there. There stands by the road: "Jews are not allowed in." Red such stands ...
                        Soon there will be both money and the capital. You are not a D.O.R.A.K. and you understand that this is a matter of time.

                        Behind the Palestine Green Line
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 16 July 2013 07: 59 New
                        -2
                        There are no stands there, just as there is no money and no capital. Tell me, is there a Palestinian language? And in general, what is the difference between the "Palestinian" people (Chabl Phalestini) and, say, the Jordanian (Chabl Yardeni)? wink
                3. rolik
                  rolik 16 July 2013 11: 45 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Professor
                  As soon as they find Palestine on the maps, they will immediately decide how to get there.

                  In the near future, so it will be possible to say about Israel))))))))
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 16 July 2013 12: 21 New
                    -2
                    Quote: rolik
                    In the near future, so it will be possible to say about Israel))))))))

                    I'm afraid you won’t wait. For 60 years everyone has been promising and promising. In the meantime:
                    10-year apartment sales record broken in Israel
          2. Onotollah
            Onotollah 15 July 2013 17: 45 New
            +7
            Quote: Professor
            Faraday cage

            And there’s a foil hat.
            I highly recommend.
          3. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 15 July 2013 22: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Israel has suspended the production of fours and is reducing the number of remaining tanks.


            Sorry, but how significant are the cuts? Are older cars removed or new ones? What caused the contractions? I do not argue with you, Professor, but I ask you to clarify, because I believe that his armored armada is redundant for Israel.

            In addition, none of what the ground forces now possess can compare with tanks for protection, firepower, and mobility.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 15 July 2013 22: 34 New
              -2
              Now they will reduce, and, most likely, sell part of the tanks. Reducing the military budget.
            2. Professor
              Professor 15 July 2013 22: 36 New
              -3
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Sorry, but how significant are the cuts? Are older cars removed or new ones? What caused the contractions? I do not argue with you, Professor, but I ask you to clarify, because I believe that his armored armada is redundant for Israel.

              Essential. Reduce the production of MK.4, disband tank units. trigger- financial problems, reason- rethinking the role of tanks.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 16 July 2013 19: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                reason- rethinking the role of tanks


                What do you plan instead of tanks - BMP? Or a mass of light armored personnel carriers?
                1. Cat
                  Cat 16 July 2013 19: 35 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  Quote: Professor
                  reason- rethinking the role of tanks


                  What do you plan instead of tanks - BMP? Or a mass of light armored personnel carriers?

                  something - with mass, armor and price like a tank, but with weapons like a BMP / BTR and with a compartment for 5-10 paratroopers. If something happens, it will not be able to destroy the protected target because there is nothing, but if it is hit by anti-tank weapons, there will be a dozen more corpses.
                  Something like that =)
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 17 July 2013 18: 36 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cat
                    but with weapons like the BMP / BTR and with a compartment for 5-10


                    The Israeli TBMP (or rather TBTR) weapons consist only of a machine gun, which I agree with a big "minus", but the armor is reinforced by DZ. And the IDF uses its infantry fighting vehicles in conjunction with tanks. This compensates for the weak firepower of this BM class.
                2. Professor
                  Professor 16 July 2013 20: 52 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  What do you plan instead of tanks - BMP? Or a mass of light armored personnel carriers?

                  Both that and another and idiots.
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 17 July 2013 11: 18 New
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Both that and another and idiots.


                    Professor!
                    Heavy BMP on meringue MK.4 with 30-35 mm. or something new? MRAPS are American or of their own design?

                    (do not throw the source - I want to read it myself :))
                  2. Professor
                    Professor 17 July 2013 11: 30 New
                    -1
                    There is no one source. Sorry. request
                    If you are about AOI, then your own development and BMP / BTR and MRAP. Turrets from Elbit and Raphael include stabilizers in the 2 planes, day / night surveillance system incl. thermal imagers, a system of automatic tracking of targets, ATGMs of the third generation, KAZ, data exchange with aviation and receiving data from UAVs, etc. This and more are already on the battlefield.
                  3. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 17 July 2013 18: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    If you are about AOI, then your own development and BMP / BTR and MRAP. Turrets from Elbit and Raphael include stabilizers in the 2 planes, day / night surveillance system incl. thermal imagers, a system of automatic tracking of targets, ATGMs of the third generation, KAZ, data exchange with aviation and receiving data from UAVs, etc. This and more are already on the battlefield.


                    Thank. One moment I did not understand, please specify - TBMP will be with autocannons or as before with machine guns.
                  4. Professor
                    Professor 17 July 2013 21: 15 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    One moment I did not understand, please specify - TBMP will be with autocannons or as before with machine guns.

                    Already with automatic guns use.





                    Remote Weapon Stations for Armored Vehicles
                  5. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 17 July 2013 21: 20 New
                    0
                    I'm afraid such a BM is suitable only for self-defense. It hurts BK scanty.
                  6. Professor
                    Professor 17 July 2013 21: 32 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Spade
                    I'm afraid such a BM is suitable only for self-defense. It hurts BK scanty.

                    Possible reloading from inside the military unit.
                    Israel remote control weapon system "Rafael Samson Mk2"
  • ultra
    ultra 16 July 2013 13: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    We put them in a Faraday cage and no one is afraid of EMP.

    This is not possible! Then the satellite will turn into a useless object (transceiver equipment will work how?).
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 15 July 2013 10: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: cosmos111
    Tanks and drones will probably be created and replaced, probably. But this is all electronics. Blasting one 5-5 kt nuclear weapon, 99.9% of all satellites in low Earth orbit will take off. Drones will all stand up. What will be the fight. Not that it will not replace, highly protected MBT with a inhabited tower. Israel is in no hurry to refuse, Merkava-4,, and suspend their release.

    Not sure if you need a habitable tower. The concept of Armata seems to me more thoughtful than that of Merkava. To the Question of Merkava. Inhabited tower they are forced to do. They don’t have a charging machine. And where there is a loader it is already possible to leave a tip with the commander. They could once again lick the Soviet gun loader, but then Merkava would lose her door at the back to quickly leave the tank.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 15 July 2013 14: 54 New
      -2
      Quote: PROXOR
      They don’t have a charging machine.

      The four have such a design. But there are at Leclerc, K-2, Type 10 Japan. What is a habitable tower for? To get the most complete information from the tank commander about the surrounding combat situation. And the enemy who can defeat MBT. For an uninhabited tower you need a multi-level multi-channel, automated battle control system. And get real-time information. Then, you can refuse an inhabited tower. examples, in NATO, of automated systems. Link-16
      , is a battlefield information management system.
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTIDS
      http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_eis_class2_terminals.html
      http://www.qrz.ru/vhf/klimenko/u1_5.shtml
      http://www.qrz.ru/vhf/klimenko/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_22
      1. My doctor
        My doctor 15 July 2013 18: 54 New
        -2
        sorry, put a minus for "This design у fourе"And"о surrounding combat situationsи"I will not continue further wassat
  • de_monSher
    de_monSher 15 July 2013 20: 32 New
    -1
    Better ... the "grappling" weapon described in the dilogy - "Russian Spring" - "American Autumn", back in 1989 ... *)) And after all, a simple weapon, in fact, is a satellite with hooks and ropes, which are dropped over the starting tables of a potential enemy. The ropes entangle the missiles, and they are firmly "nailed" to the ground ... *)))
  • Mairos
    Mairos 15 July 2013 11: 03 New
    11
    Professor, are you talking about Europe - "In aviation, the situation has changed dramatically, aircraft are becoming so rare that they are already given their own names. Even not quite poor countries allow themselves to have only a dozen or more aircraft." ??

    So they will soon disarm altogether. And even "convincingly" everything will "motivate" ..
    Humanism, tolerance for potential aggressors, etc. When Africa moves to them in large numbers, they will not be surprised to demand that their women voluntarily satisfy migrants for reasons of political correctness and in the form of compensation for the actions of the colonialists.
    Europe is mired in verbiage and lies, and there is simply not enough money for tanks and planes, that’s the whole answer.
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 15 July 2013 15: 42 New
      10
      So in Europe they created a new miracle weapon: combat ped ... art. hi
    2. YuDDP
      YuDDP 15 July 2013 22: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Mairos
      require their women to voluntarily satisfy migrants

      and those (women) will languidly whisper to them (migrants): "Love me in French ..."
  • Basileus
    Basileus 15 July 2013 11: 14 New
    0
    How many superpowers were 20 years ago and how many are now?
  • Ghenxnumx
    Ghenxnumx 15 July 2013 12: 01 New
    +5
    Quote: Professor
    We see what old ATGMs and RPGs are doing in Syria.

    Professor, and what are the militants confronting with tanks of the latest modifications from KAZ and KOEP of the latest generations?belay ?
    Please, more about this, otherwise the press somehow lost sight of this fact. laughing
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 12: 05 New
      -6
      Quote: Ghen75
      Professor, what do the militants withstand the latest modifications of tanks from KAZ and KOEP of the latest generations?

      And are they apart from single copies and except at exhibitions somewhere (Israel does not count)?

      Please, more about this, otherwise the press somehow lost sight of this fact. laughing
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 15 July 2013 22: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    For example? What tasks and when were they last solved?


    Five-day war, battles in Syria and more.

    Quote: Professor
    We see what old ATGMs and RPGs are doing in Syria. In aviation, the situation has changed radically, planes are becoming so rare that they are already given their own names. Even not very poor countries allow themselves to have only a dozen or two aircraft. Where possible they are being squeezed out by cheap and efficient drones.


    The old ATGMs and RPGs in Syria are acting against cars with the old DZ - official information is in the media as well as in other sources. The IDF acted successfully against newer ATGMs and suffered minor losses.

    Drones in aviation - I'm sorry, but I have not heard of the US, Chinese, Indian or Russian Air Forces massively replacing full-fledged combat vehicles with drones. Moreover, the experience shows insignificant protection of drones against electronic warfare - everyone remembers an example of "landing" of an American drone? Or news 2 years ago that militants in Iraq, using a simple computer program, were able to receive information from Amer. drones at the same time as their operators? But drones are too big a topic for conversation - let's get back to tanks anyway :)
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 22: 41 New
      -3
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      Five-day war, battles in Syria and more.

      Do not make me laugh. In the five-day war, tanks on both sides served for the most part either as ducks in the shooting range or created traffic jams on mountain roads.

      Quote: Blackgrifon
      but I didn’t hear that the air forces of the USA, China, India or Russia massively replaced full-fledged BM with drones

      In vain did not hear. Fifth-generation aircraft in service will be miserable, the sixth will be UAVs.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 16 July 2013 19: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Do not make me laugh. In the five-day war, tanks on both sides served for the most part either as ducks in the shooting range or created traffic jams on mountain roads.


        But what about attacks on the base of peacekeepers when tanks from a long range knocked out all the light armored infantry fighting vehicles, and then fired at the base?

        Regarding UAVs, I will not argue, but my opinion is that in the present conflict they, as a complete replacement for real aviation, are useless. EW funds will impede the work of operators as much as possible. And use AI - no matter how expensive it would be.
      2. Fetel
        Fetel 17 July 2013 09: 56 New
        0
        the sixth will be the UAV
        - Professor, do not make people laugh. We’ll talk about the sixth generation of UAVs instead of airplanes and attack aircraft when UAVs in the BVB learn how to effectively and autonomously withstand manned aircraft.
        And then they will clog the communication channels from the ground with interference, and that's all - they sailed.
        1. Professor
          Professor 17 July 2013 10: 05 New
          -1
          Quote: FeteL
          And then they will clog the communication channels from the ground with interference, and that's all - they sailed.

          This can only be said by a person who does not understand anything in the subject under discussion. Please specify how you intend to clog the communication channels from the ground with interference, as well as the difference between unmanned and remote-controlled.
          1. Fetel
            Fetel 17 July 2013 17: 13 New
            0
            also the difference between unmanned and remote controlled.
            - in some cases, between these concepts in relation to UAVs there is no difference.
            Read:

            In 2010, in the US Air Force the number of UAV operators reached 400 people.
            http://gunm.ru/news/operator_bpla/2011-06-16-308 рассказ оператора БПЛА Майкла Си:

            ... I am observing the situation from a bird's eye view: I control unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones. ...
            - that is, in this case we are talking about unmanned and remotely controlled vehicles.
            I know that these devices can perform tasks without the participation of an operator - for example, flying along a pre-programmed route. In this case, clogging up the air with interference to prevent the task is really useless. UAVs will have to return to the point of departure on the inertial system due to loss of communication.
            1. Professor
              Professor 17 July 2013 21: 06 New
              -2
              Quote: FeteL
              And then they will clog the communication channels from the ground with interference, and that's all - they sailed.

              Quote: Professor
              Please specify how you are going to clog the communication channels from the ground by interference.

              Well? wink
              1. Fetel
                Fetel 17 July 2013 23: 55 New
                0
                When a remotely controlled UAV is blocked by the communication channel with the operator, he will not be able to complete the task, and will be forced to return to the base.

                And what to drown out? Yes, even the "Cutter". Or other, older versions of jammers.
              2. Professor
                Professor 18 July 2013 07: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: FeteL
                And what to drown out? Yes, even the "Cutter". Or other, older versions of jammers.

                Please specify how you are going to clog the communication channels from the ground by interference?
                How are you going to jam for example frequency hopping and antennas with a controlled radiation pattern? More specifics and fewer slogans!

                EW troops lose GPS fight
              3. Fetel
                Fetel 18 July 2013 18: 55 New
                0
                The exercises you mentioned used outdated equipment. The chopper will solve the problem.
                And if that - there is always a good old air-to-air missile, did you watch the video of the shooting down of an Israeli drone by MiG over Georgia on the eve of the August conflict?
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 15 July 2013 10: 50 New
    +4
    Profh, and now let’s give the tank battalion 1-2 UAVs. NATO air defense is so fiction and they will not be able to bring them down. But they can identify goals. As they say, I would know where to fall the straw would lay. So here it is possible to allocate outfits of forces and means to suppress ATGM.
  • Mairos
    Mairos 15 July 2013 10: 59 New
    +8
    Professor, you contradict yourself. Either write about the impenetrability of the "Merkava", then write that the tanks "have already surrendered." Decide already. Or are you like Baba Yaga - always against .. Against Russia, Syria, Iran .. Against Soviet and Russian technology and always sing "Hosanna" to Israeli and American technology. It's funny)) We are not children.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 11: 03 New
      -5
      Quote: Mairos
      Professor, you contradict yourself. You write about the impenetrability of the "Merkava", then you write that the tanks "have already surrendered."

      Why are you lying? I always wrote that they are not punched only, I never wrote about Merkava’s impenetrability. Check out all my articles and comments.

      Quote: leon-iv
      Profff, and now let's give the tank battalion 1-2 UAV. NATO air defense is so fiction and they will not be able to bring them down. But they can identify goals. As they say, I would know where to fall the straw would lay.

      Those countries that are armed with these same UAVs are actively abandoning the production of tanks. Why's that?

      Quote: leon-iv
      So here it is possible to allocate outfits of forces and means to suppress anti-tank systems.

      Find such a fighter.


      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 15 July 2013 11: 10 New
        +7
        Those countries that are armed with these same UAVs are actively abandoning the production of tanks. Why's that?

        Oats are expensive today. (C)
        Find such a fighter.

        My picture did not appear. As I understand it, there are deeply shy people. So here is just our fio imager. And here it is more important to identify people. And then OFS mines and other hardcore with aerosol curtains.
        1. anomalocaris
          anomalocaris 16 July 2013 07: 02 New
          0
          It is possible without a thermal imager. Although it’s easier with him. And so, the problem of the ninja is solved by the method of massive use of mortars in all suspicious places.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 July 2013 11: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        Find such a fighter.

        Enough of a moment. He will not have time to shoot. The tank is good in that you can hang a lot of things on it. For example, equipment for detecting and suppressing optics.
        The second option: he fired, the tank made a sieve out of it with the help of a projectile with a remote fuse, the rocket is either deceived or shot down.

        Professor, you do not forget, the prodigy is fantastic.
        1. Professor
          Professor 15 July 2013 11: 22 New
          -8
          http://s24.postimg.org/8djdozu1h/71f_BD.jpg
          http://s24.postimg.org/4jpxfucph/41091271.jpg
          http://s18.postimg.org/6vu2shi8p/B8v_Tv.jpg
          Quote: leon-iv
          My picture did not appear. As I understand it, there are deeply shy people. So here is just our fio imager. And here it is more important to identify people. And then OFS mines and other hardcore with aerosol curtains.

          Somehow on this site I proved to one layman with calculations and links that the tank emits at least 64000 times more energy than a completely naked dork standing in full growth. This gives the conclusion that the tank will be detected at a distance 32 times greater than the detection of this naked athlete. The tank has practically no chance.

          Quote: Spade
          Enough of a moment. He will not have time to shoot.

          Are you kidding today? With 2-8 km you will find it in an instant?

          Quote: Spade
          The second option: he fired, the tank made a sieve out of it with the help of a projectile with a remote fuse, the rocket is either deceived or shot down.

          I didn’t: I didn’t detect it, I don’t have anyone to shoot at (I shot it off) and I didn’t do it stupidly (the arm of the ATGM is longer than the arm of the tank).

          Quote: Spade
          Professor, you do not forget, the prodigy is fantastic.

          It’s true, but it’s true that ATGMs are now several orders of magnitude more than tanks, they will score in numbers.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 15 July 2013 11: 29 New
            10
            that the tank radiates at least 64000 times more energy than a completely naked dork standing upright. This gives the conclusion that the tank will be detected at a distance 32 times the detection of this naked athlete. The tank has practically no chance.

            Proff do not pull the hedgehog on the globe.
            The range of open places in Russia is an average of 5-8 km. Most likely, the reconnaissance UAV will find signatures that will give the battalion commander that regiment / brigade division / batteries to cover that part of the Schaub did not interfere. They put the curtains and dig forward. And if they implement Good KAZ, then it will be super. A 125mm OFS with remote detonation is such a sour argument.
            Threat Tank is an element of the battlefield no more.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 July 2013 11: 31 New
            +7
            Quote: Professor
            Are you kidding today? With 2-8 km you will find it in an instant?

            Not only will I find, but I won’t give a shot. The Chinese are already installing such equipment on their tanks.

            Quote: Professor
            I didn’t: I didn’t detect it, I don’t have anyone to shoot at (I shot it off) and I didn’t do it stupidly (the arm of the ATGM is longer than the arm of the tank).

            Notched. UV sensors steer, the torch is capable of detecting at large distances.
            Well then, run, don’t run, the shell or mine is faster.
            1. Professor
              Professor 15 July 2013 11: 49 New
              -2
              Quote: Spade
              Not only will I find, but I won’t give a shot. The Chinese are already installing such equipment on their tanks.

              But we kind of decided to not talk about the prodigy? wink

              Quote: Spade
              Notched. UV sensors steer, the torch is capable of detecting at large distances.

              Someone today remembered NLOS ...

              Quote: Spade
              Well then, run, don’t run, the shell or mine is faster.

              Even in theory, it is unlikely to hit the calculation of anti-tank systems after shelling the tank, but in practice this is generally true:


              PS
              In this photo, how many fighters were found? laughing
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 July 2013 12: 17 New
                +6
                Quote: Professor
                But we kind of decided to not talk about the prodigy?

                Old Soviet PAPV. The end of the 70's. Guaranteed that in 1.5 km. not a single pturist will be.


                Quote: Professor
                Someone today remembered NLOS ...

                Does Spike NLOS not have a jet engine? Did not know.

                Quote: Professor
                Even in theory, it is unlikely to hit the calculation of anti-tank systems after shelling the tank, but in practice this is generally true:

                So what's next? There are launch coordinates, the standard target for artillery is 300 to 200. How fast should I run?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 15 July 2013 12: 27 New
                  -4
                  Quote: Spade
                  Old Soviet PAPV. The end of the 70's. Guaranteed that in 1.5 km. not a single pturist will be.

                  ATGMs hit not much further than at 1.5 km.

                  Quote: Spade
                  Does Spike NLOS not have a jet engine? Did not know.

                  He has an engine and is tested in battle, but the means of detecting and counteracting it exist only in theory or as a prodigy.

                  Quote: Spade
                  So what's next?

                  And then most likely the funeral of the families of crew members.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 July 2013 12: 39 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Professor
                    ATGMs hit not much further than at 1.5 km.

                    And we do not have the end of 70's in the yard.


                    Quote: Professor
                    He has an engine and is tested in battle

                    So there is a torch. That allows you to detect a rocket with UV sensors. And get the coordinates of the launch site. And work on these coordinates, taking the target size as standard 300 on 200


                    Quote: Professor

                    Quote: Spade
                    So what's next?

                    And then most likely the funeral of the families of crew members.

                    For protection, there is KAZ.
                  2. Professor
                    Professor 15 July 2013 12: 48 New
                    -3
                    Quote: Spade
                    And we do not have the end of 70's in the yard.

                    Nevertheless, except for exhibitions and booklets, such devices as far as I know do not exist. ATGM - reality.

                    Quote: Spade
                    So there is a torch. That allows you to detect a rocket with UV sensors. And get the coordinates of the launch site. And work on these coordinates, taking the target size as standard 300 on 200

                    Here in this you are very (well, like at all) wrong. A winged missile, not a ballistic one. Since it can be detected far from the launch site (NLOS), it is not possible to calculate the launch site.


                    Quote: Spade
                    For protection, there is KAZ.

                    It exists in one well-known country, the rest either on paper or in laboratories.

                    I do not want to be a tanker.
                  3. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 July 2013 19: 20 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    Nevertheless, except for exhibitions and booklets, such devices as far as I know do not exist. ATGM - reality.

                    Good morning. The French have a hospital, the Chinese have it, already on the tanks.


                    Quote: Professor
                    It exists in one well-known country, the rest either on paper or in laboratories.

                    While. And you think that this "for now" will go on forever and on this basis build the thesis about the "death of tanks"
                  4. Professor
                    Professor 15 July 2013 19: 26 New
                    -3
                    Quote: Spade
                    The French have a hospital, the Chinese have it, already on the tanks.

                    There is information about the effectiveness, experience of combat deployment?

                    Quote: Spade
                    While. And you think that this "for now" will go on forever and on this basis build the thesis about the "death of tanks"

                    When KAZ enters the army en masse then we’ll talk about the bright future of tanks. They also installed air defense systems on the destroyers, but even this did not save them, they became museum exhibits.

                    PS
                    Do you know how much KAZ costs?
                  5. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 July 2013 20: 02 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Professor
                    There is information about the effectiveness, experience of combat deployment?

                    Full internet. The French and Chinese are very concerned that the intelligence of probable friends does not bother, and therefore spread everything.


                    Quote: Professor
                    When KAZ enters the army en masse then we’ll talk about the bright future of tanks.

                    And where to go, put. Yours collided with the "Cornets", and appeared on the KAZ tanks. But there are also things like "Chrysanthemums" with 1300 armor penetration behind the active


                    Quote: Professor
                    Do you know how much KAZ costs?

                    Cheaper than a tank. Like "Cornet"
                  6. Pimply
                    Pimply 15 July 2013 20: 14 New
                    -4
                    Already coming. Quietly, but everywhere they conduct tests. That Iron Fist in tests in the States shot down a tank shell, the Koreans are wise, the Germans.
        2. sania0413
          sania0413 15 July 2013 22: 45 New
          +2
          MONKEY))
    2. klimpopov
      klimpopov 15 July 2013 14: 20 New
      +2
      Like two nashol. Professor do not languish - how many are there?
      1. Professor
        Professor 15 July 2013 18: 22 New
        -3
        Quote: klimpopov
        Like two nashol. Professor do not languish - how many are there?

        I’m waiting for Lopatov until he finds them all in an instant.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 15 July 2013 20: 38 New
          +1
          Well, sort of really two.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 15 July 2013 13: 31 New
    +1
    Prof, theory is good. In practice, my friend was shooting a group of terrorists for 4km. And taking into account the modern integration of UAVs in the tank’s circuit, the chances are somewhat more serious.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 14: 01 New
      -4
      Quote: Pimply
      In practice, my friend shot a group of terrorists for 4km

      4 km on the tank in 4 million American rubles? Here Tamuz at 20 km pint point makes and costs much cheaper than a tank.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 15 July 2013 14: 21 New
        +3
        Prof, the cost of the shell and Tamuz is somewhat different. Factor of. While Tamuz can perform a fairly narrow range of tasks. In addition, the tank is much more functional, prof. It often has the functions of surveillance and intelligence.
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 July 2013 15: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: Pimply
          rof, the cost of the projectile and tamuz is slightly different

          Prof Thoms gathered every machine gun presses. And to storm the settlements alone ATGM
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 17: 04 New
            -2
            It looks like it.
        2. Professor
          Professor 15 July 2013 18: 48 New
          -4
          Quote: Pimply
          Prof, the cost of the shell and Tamuz is somewhat different. Factor of. While Tamuz can perform a fairly narrow range of tasks. In addition, the tank is much more functional, prof. It often has the functions of surveillance and intelligence.

          You are not the cost of a projectile (which also costs about $ 10 thousand), but compare the cost of the entire system including the cost of training crews and maintenance. How much will one tank shot cost you? By the way, in the Golan, according to the Syrian source of fire, in the 9 of the 10 cases, it is Tambuz that is used. Well stupid ...
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 19: 53 New
            +3
            I compare. The cost of Tamuz is 145 US dollars. It was released 000 Tamuz for the Second Lebanese, which amounts to 500 million 72 thousand dollars - which amounts to 500 merkav. However, I am not saying that the Tamsu are not needed, or that it is too expensive. No. Just everything has its place and time. Tamuz cannot cover the soldier with armor, cannot destroy the house, cannot act as a mobile pillbox in fact, cannot perform reconnaissance and defensive functions, and cannot evacuate the wounded under heavy fire. He can only hit the target.
            The second Lebanese perfectly showed both potential vulnerability and the power and lack of alternative tanks. Over 500 launches - only 10 percent of the tanks were hit, less than 1 percent were destroyed. Compared to other wars, efficiency is much lower. So the tank, albeit in smaller quantities and in a modified form, still live and live.
            Quote: Professor
            By the way, in the Golan, according to the Syrian source of fire, in 9 out of 10 cases, it’s Tamuz that is used.

            And in Gaza? That's it.
          2. Professor
            Professor 15 July 2013 21: 00 New
            -2
            Quote: Pimply
            The cost of Tamuz is 145 000 US dollars. 500 Tamuzov was released for the Second Lebanon, which is 72 million 500 thousand dollars - which is the cost of 20 mercenaries.

            Invalid costing. 500 launches this (I came across the number 600) is almost the same number of targets hit at a distance of 25 km. TOW to remember? And they are much cheaper.
            Lebanon



            Schema


            However, how many tanks are needed to hit the same number of targets in the same area? Why did they use ATGMs in Lebanon? Has Hezbollah got tanks?


            How much does it cost to train a tank commander in a tank school? What is the cost of a tank’s life cycle? So consider the cost / effectiveness.
            Gaza


            Quote: Pimply
            Tamuz cannot cover the soldier with armor, cannot destroy the house, cannot act as a mobile pillbox in fact, cannot perform reconnaissance and defensive functions, and cannot evacuate the wounded under heavy fire. He can only hit the target.

            Just hit the target? Few?
            Dot for millions of dollars? Tamuz will not destroy the house until. They’ll put the warhead as it will destroy it on Bumblebee. A tank scout is generally a laugh, except for reconnaissance in battle.

            Quote: Pimply
            And in Gaza? That's it.

            And in Gaza, but there the bandwidth is less than 25 km; therefore, the use of Tamuz was limited, but it was. There was the use of less long-range anti-tank systems. And when was it in Gaza? In Syria, this is happening now.

            Gaza


            Gaza
          3. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 23: 00 New
            -2
            Prof, you are making a classic mistake. When you see the successful use of a new weapon, immediately cross out the old one. So, for example, it was with aircraft guns.

            I consider the cost / effectiveness. ATGM can not perform the functions of a tank. He can perfectly complement it, and, for example, as a result of this, much fewer tanks are needed than before. But this does not mean that the need for them has disappeared.
          4. Professor
            Professor 16 July 2013 07: 56 New
            -2
            Quote: Pimply
            But this does not mean that the need for them has disappeared.

            A tank from a mass becomes a piece weapon. What will happen next - wait and see. hi
          5. ATATA
            ATATA 16 July 2013 08: 06 New
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            A tank from a mass becomes a piece weapon. What will happen next - wait and see.

            Yes! laughing
            The French thought the same before WWII.
          6. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 17 July 2013 21: 19 New
            -1
            In AOI, by 2020, they plan to have 20 tank brigades from the MKNXX / 2 / 3. All other types of cars will be decommissioned. That is, it is a relative reduction, but still it is no less than 4 machines. winked
            Generally Oleg, you are very mistaken. I'm from Andas, but ask any foot soldier, he will confirm to you how difficult it is to build without tanks. Neither ATGMs, nor armored personnel carriers are not even a replacement for them.
      2. Professor
        Professor 18 July 2013 10: 40 New
        0
        In pursuit. Golan. Weekdays alarming border.



  • Kars
    Kars 15 July 2013 11: 29 New
    +5
    http://s24.postimg.org/8djdozu1h/71f_BD.jpg
    http://s24.postimg.org/4jpxfucph/41091271.jpg
    http://s18.postimg.org/6vu2shi8p/B8v_Tv.jpg
    Quote: leon-iv
    My picture did not appear. As I understand it, there are deeply shy people. So here is just our fio imager. And here it is more important to identify people. And then OFS mines and other hardcore with aerosol curtains.
    Somehow on this site I proved to one layman with calculations and links that the tank emits at least 64000 times more energy than a completely naked full-length dork. This gives the conclusion that the tank will be detected at a distance 32 times the detection of this naked athlete. The tank has practically no chance


    The professor clowns again))) from his own 64 times. This still does not change the fact that thermal imagers can already detect a person from a distance of 000 km or more. But YES, the professor’s tank is easier to detect than a person))) But this is not easier for a person. Yes, and confirm by the way that the vaunted Merkava 20 can detect a person from 4 meters no more, even though your compatriots tankers say about 60 km.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 15 July 2013 11: 38 New
      +2
      Kars good afternoon
      How do you like the idea of ​​a Group KAZ such as a morpheus based on a spherical AFAR. And blow it into the BMPT dimension by slightly changing its layout.
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 July 2013 11: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: leon-iv
        How do you like the idea of ​​a Group KAZ type of morpheus based on a spherical AFAR.

        It depends on how much money the reaction time and multichannel will cost.
        The area of ​​the protected group object (columns, etc.)
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 15 July 2013 11: 55 New
          0
          it will be expensive because AFAR is on horseback
          I suggest a combat radius of 2-2,5 km and, most importantly, maximum automation, that is, minimization of the human factor.
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 July 2013 12: 21 New
            +2
            Quote: leon-iv
            I suggest a combat radius of 2-2,5 km and, most importantly, maximum automation, that is, minimization of the human factor.

            Well, I think it’s very difficult. In such a radius, there can be dozens or even hundreds of launches, there can be many shelters, dead zones, etc. Such a thing would have helped more from aviation.

            But the idea itself deserves to be developed.
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 15 July 2013 12: 26 New
              +2
              Just the same for the aircraft will be armored, they are more appropriate there.
              In such a radius, there may be dozens or even hundreds of launches, there may be many shelters, dead zones, etc.

              Yes, this is not a panacea at all, but the effectiveness of + KAZ in tanks in general can create a dead zone for them from ATGMs and RPGs. So is the means of air strike. She doesn’t need to work on aviation.
              It is important here LARGE BC I would try to cram 20 pcs in 1 complex
              And the reaction time is 0,5-2s.
            2. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 12: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: leon-iv
              Just the same for the aircraft will be armored, they are more appropriate there.

              panzer-like is not that.
              Quote: leon-iv
              She doesn’t need to work on aviation.

              on aviation and I do not offer but only on means of destruction
              Quote: leon-iv
              And the reaction time is 0,5-2s.

              it's a long time.
            3. leon-iv
              leon-iv 15 July 2013 12: 50 New
              0
              panzer-like is not that.

              why is it a fact about aviation targets
              it's a long time.

              Why? I laid 2 on a difficult jamming environment and a glut of target channels and so on.
            4. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 13: 02 New
              +1
              Quote: leon-iv
              why is it a fact about aviation targets

              we vet is not about air defense
              Quote: leon-iv
              why? I laid 2 on a difficult jamming environment and a glut of target channels and so on.

              all the same for a long time. After how many seconds, the KAZ striking element will meet the target.
            5. leon-iv
              leon-iv 15 July 2013 13: 07 New
              +1
              I think it is possible no more than 2-3 seconds for the entire cycle of detection of the accompanying defeat.
              KAZ must also be obligatory.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 15 July 2013 13: 50 New
    -4
    Senseless thing.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 15 July 2013 13: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars

    The professor clowns again))) from his own 64 times. This still does not change the fact that thermal imagers can already detect a person from a distance of 000 km or more. But YES, the professor’s tank is easier to detect than a person))) But this is not easier for a person. Yes, and confirm by the way that the vaunted Merkava 20 can detect a person from 4 meters no more, even though your compatriots tankers say about 60 km.

    Prof in all other topics is more than adequate, but here ... However, everyone has their own small weaknesses.

    Well, what about Merkava - the guys are familiar with the point for 4 km covered at night. Visibility, they say, was magnificent.
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 13: 58 New
      +5
      Quote: Pimply
      . Visibility, they say, was magnificent.

      Get friends with the Professor)))

      and you can please him
      Qatar authorities have decided to purchase 118 German Leopard tanks over the next seven years, Western media report citing sources in the government of the Arab state.

      Tanks will be produced at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall, The Defense News reports citing Bild am Sonntag. In April, Krauss-Maffei announced victory in a tender of 2,5 billion euros for the supply of artillery systems and 86 tanks in Qatar , of which 62 vehicles will be a variant of the main tank of the Bundeswehr Leopard-2.


      It turns out that it’s not looking at the opinion of the professor, some fools spend money on tanks)))
    2. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 14: 14 New
      -5
      Quote: Pimply
      Prof in all other topics is more than adequate, but here ... However, everyone has their own small weaknesses.

      And here I am adequate since I know this materiel not by hearsay. Like it or not, but the tank glows so that the fighter with ATGM has nothing to fear. I personally observed this in the thermal imager.

      Quote: Pimply
      Well, what about Merkava - the guys are familiar with the point for 4 km covered at night. Visibility, they say, was magnificent.

      Again lay out the rollers where the tank at night for more than 4 km hit? By the way, my colleague from Maglan claims that he will fall into the hatch of the tank at a distance of 15-20 km.

      Quote: Pimply
      Prof. Equipment soldier is also becoming more and more expensive. And the armies are shrinking. Did the need for a soldier disappear from this?

      It is planned to take fewer planes, and they themselves are becoming more expensive. Do planes disappear from this as classes?

      Remember, there were such ships battleships? Heavily armored with huge guns. Where are they?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 15 July 2013 14: 34 New
        -3
        Prof, if you know the materiel, you know very well that in theory it can glow 64000 times stronger. In practice, for modern tanks there are systems that reduce the amount of heat generated - and by the way, systems are actively used in Israel. So often at the same distance the tank is more difficult to detect than a person.
        And even without a cape, on devices with a range of 4 km, the difference is actually not in the radiation intensity, but in size. That's all.
        1. Professor
          Professor 15 July 2013 14: 43 New
          -4
          I watched an Israeli tank in the thermal imager and not the most ancient one as well. The tank shines much stronger and is visible (in practice) at a much greater distance than a person standing at full height. About the soldier who sat behind a boulder I am generally silent. You will not see it in the thermal imager, the pebble is more contrasted in the thermal imager than the fighter.

          Quote: Pimply
          And even without a cape, on devices with a range of 4 km, the difference is actually not in the radiation intensity, but in size. That's all.

          nifiga
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 15: 23 New
            -2
            Quote: Professor
            And even without a cape, on devices with a range of 4 km, the difference is actually not in the radiation intensity, but in size. That's all.

            What does it mean, if yes 8)
          2. Professor
            Professor 15 July 2013 18: 49 New
            -3
            Quote: Pimply
            What does it mean, if yes 8)

            Quote: Pimply
            What does it mean, if yes 8)

            Nifiga means that you are wrong, the size, in this case, matters, as well as the radiation power. This is the same as saying that a small gray square on a gray background is as clearly distinguishable as a large (once 100 more) white square on the same gray background.
          3. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 19: 53 New
            -3
            The tank is not 100 times larger, prof.
          4. Professor
            Professor 15 July 2013 21: 02 New
            -2
            Quote: Pimply
            The tank is not 100 times larger, prof.

            The surface area or cross-sectional area is more than 100 times larger.
          5. Pimply
            Pimply 15 July 2013 23: 01 New
            -2
            But in practice, the difference is not so great.
          6. Professor
            Professor 16 July 2013 08: 03 New
            -2
            Quote: Pimply
            But in practice, the difference is not so great.

            Velika - the laws of physics on planet Earth are the same for the tank and for homosapience.
  • anomalocaris
    anomalocaris 16 July 2013 06: 59 New
    0
    Found immediately. In normal optics I will calculate from a kilometer and a half. smile
    Prof, and throw more such pictures.
    1. Professor
      Professor 16 July 2013 08: 02 New
      -2
      Quote: anomalocaris
      Found immediately. In normal optics I will calculate from a kilometer and a half. smile
      Prof, and throw more such pictures.

      How much did you find? wink
  • Pimply
    Pimply 15 July 2013 13: 23 New
    -1
    Prof. Equipment soldier is also becoming more and more expensive. And the armies are shrinking. Did the need for a soldier disappear from this?

    It is planned to take fewer planes, and they themselves are becoming more expensive. Do planes disappear from this as classes?
  • Cynic
    Cynic 15 July 2013 14: 31 New
    +5
    Quote: Professor
    They have already passed them.

    I'm not afraid to borrow the immortal Twain dictum
    Rumors of my death are somewhat exaggerated! Tank
  • Net
    Net 15 July 2013 16: 09 New
    +4
    How can one compare a person with an ATGM and a tank in isolation from other fire weapons? You imagine an ideal and therefore not indicative situation. A person with an ATGM has neither universality, nor security, nor mobility of a tank.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 July 2013 18: 54 New
      -4
      Quote: Netto
      A person with an ATGM has neither universality, nor security, nor mobility of a tank.

      A tank can also be thrown over the air (intermeddle in the Mi-2) by land (on a motorcycle) well on water (on a boat) as well as a fighter with ATGM. It is also secretive and has a long arm, like the Fighter with ATGM.
      Well, about the universality of the tank, I am generally silent, he is a reaper and a dude is a dude ... lol
  • vjhbc
    vjhbc 15 July 2013 20: 26 New
    +4
    you are wrong and any infantryman will tell you that it’s better to attack the enemy with a tank nearby than without one and no other machine can replace the tank
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 15 July 2013 22: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    They have already passed them. There are fewer and fewer tanks, but they cost more and more. And so many anti-tank weapons have already been produced that the tank has no chance to survive on the battlefield with either KAZ or anything else. For example, only TOW produced more than 600000! The range of ATGMs is much greater than the range of action of a tank gun.


    Professor! Sorry, but you look at the problem from one side. MBT with a normal DZ and trained crew is able to confidently confront almost any enemy - the armies of Russia, Israel and other countries that have real combat experience, not only have not abandoned tanks, but continue to operate them.
    Earlier on the site was an article by a tanker who fought in 2ChV. According to him, individual MBTs withstood up to 8 hits, but continued to carry out the task.
    On the other hand, the illiterate use of technology will bury it and the crew very quickly.
    So everything is very, very relative.
  • mertvoe_exo
    mertvoe_exo 16 July 2013 02: 15 New
    0
    Tanks are tanks, but there are also people - the human factor has not yet been canceled. And I think your head is cooking, so think and tell yourself where you would like to be ???: under machine gun fire or sitting in a tin armored can which can shoot with ATGM ??? I personally for the second
  • King
    King 15 July 2013 09: 34 New
    +2
    These clever men and artillery more than once already bury. tanks will only improve and improve
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 15 July 2013 15: 35 New
      +6
      Quote: King
      These clever men and artillery more than once already bury. tanks will only improve and improve

      - I support. First, the number of crew members will decrease in the tank. To this goes. Automation has already made the loader redundant, and the gunner will be redundant - there are already systems that automatically aim. By the way, they shoot better than humans. Further improvement will make the driver unnecessary. Horror am the commander will cope. Americans are already using exoskeletons with might and main, and an American with an exoskeleton does not need a gunner or driver. This is the design of the exoskeleton. And the tank is essentially an exoskeleton, that is, an external auxiliary and protective shell around a person’s body, only the distinction from an ordinary exoskeleton is very large and massive, which does not change much. The essence of the matter is little changed even by the fact that the usual exoskeleton accurately replicates human movements, while the tank’s principle of re-movement is different. So what? We create an interface on common goals - that for a person using a step motion, that for a tank using a caterpillar movement, forward, backward, right and left turns, turns in place and turns along a certain radius are common, this interface will level the difference in the principles of movement.
      And then the person inside the tank will not be needed. And it will be enough soon. A tankless tank is still a tank and will remain a tank. Maybe there will be no need for such powerful armor - we protect and increase the survivability of the control electronics, engine and other systems, that's all. Even so, the tank will still remain a tank and will be called a tank. So to bury a tank is nonsense, never hesitates, unless, when the world becomes absolutely pacific.
  • ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 15 July 2013 21: 49 New
    0
    Quote: xetai9977
    Tanks have been "buried" for many years.

    That's for sure, and the most perfect weapon is a combat cockroach, how many centuries has all mankind been fighting them, huh? And with all available methods, ranging from sound slippers to chemical. weapons of mass destruction. It remains only to arm and indicate the enemy ......
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 15 July 2013 08: 41 New
    +1
    Good article. The tank just changed a little the specifics of its work, but also remains a very effective tool on the battlefield. therefore, I am absolutely sure that the development of the tank is still relevant I think for about 20 years, but I haven’t been driving these 72 years for the T-80 \ T-20, they are outdated and the effectiveness of these two vehicles will be negligible after a good 10-15 years.
  • Kars
    Kars 15 July 2013 08: 50 New
    +3
    A truly modern tank should be capable of firing at several targets simultaneously with great efficiency. A top firing point, fully independent in the horizontal plane, with a caliber of 30-45 mm with a large elevation angle is required.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 00 New
      +3
      And they must be walking ...
      I tried to imagine a tank with several independently guided guns, and even with a combat module with a 45 mm automatic gun on top of this. I was horrified. I think four caterpillars can not do here. We need six.
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 July 2013 09: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        moreover, with a combat module with a 45 mm automatic gun on top of this. Horrified

        How cowardly you are. Believe in progress, uninhabited combat modules and the reduction in the size of servomechanisms.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 08 New
          +3
          I'm not cowardly, I'm adequate.
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 July 2013 09: 14 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            I'm not cowardly, I'm adequate.

            Yes, yes, of course. Only often do this to yourself.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 19 New
              0
              And you repeat to yourself that it is possible to install several guns with independent guidance on the tank. And consider yourself a genius.
              1. Kars
                Kars 15 July 2013 09: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                And you repeat to yourself that it is possible to install several guns with independent guidance on the tank.

                ))))))))))
                Quote: Spade
                . And consider yourself a genius.

                I am more humble.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 31 New
                  +2
                  Dear, I learned to count before school. The image shows one barrel. And to fire at "multiple targets" you need several guns.

                  And by the way, out of modesty, are you not saying that the ZSU-23-2 has a slightly smaller caliber than the "30-45 mm"?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 15 July 2013 09: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Dear, I learned to count even before school. On the image is one trunk

                    Actually 4.
                    Quote: Spade
                    And by the way, out of modesty, are you not saying that the ZSU-23-2 has a slightly smaller caliber than the "30-45 mm"?

                    Out of modesty, I am not saying that the T-64E is a new generation tank.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 48 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Actually 4.

                      Seven. You forgot about the crew’s personal weapons. And if the tank is commander, then eight. An officer may also have a gun.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 09: 56 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Seven. You forgot about the crew’s personal weapons.

                        It is not visible in the photo. Therefore, I have not forgotten. But the absence of a machine gun coaxial with a gun worries me.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 10: 11 New
                        +1
                        But he is not required. It is possible to put a machine gun over the barrel. Perhaps even 12.7, if there is nothing to do.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 10: 18 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        But he is not required
                        So the question about the number of trunks removed?
                        Quote: Spade
                        It is possible to put a machine gun over the barrel.

                        Of course it is possible,
                        Quote: Spade
                        Perhaps even 12.7, if there is nothing to do.

                        Jews with the Americans are seen nothing.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 10: 22 New
                        0
                        The question of the need to defeat several targets at the same time has not been resolved. Haha goat button accordion in modern network-centric warfare? It is enough to reset the data to the senior boss, and in automatic mode, and he will be at the same time 10 goals at XNUMX goals.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 10: 26 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        The question of the need to defeat several targets simultaneously

                        It is extremely necessary.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Haha goat button accordion in modern network-centric warfare

                        are you network-centric Wah, wah, wah. And so you don’t need to kill enemies anymore?
                        Quote: Spade
                        It is enough to reset the data to the senior boss, and in automatic mode, and he will be at the same time 10 goals at XNUMX goals.
                        Will he come personally and will be cursed? Or is it easier for a tank to immediately destroy enemy firepower threatening it?

                        I’m watching today, you’re not in shock. Is it a long weekend?

                        Message from article

                        The advantage of the tank is that it is capable of independently destroying the identified target, and much faster than other reconnaissance equipment will be able to give target designation to the means of destruction
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 10: 49 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Kars
                        It is extremely necessary.

                        What for? Is the tank tasked to fight alone against the army?


                        Quote: Kars
                        are you network-centric Wah, wah, wah. And so you don’t need to kill enemies anymore?

                        Necessary. But this does not mean that you need to make a Swiss army knife from the tank, unreasonably re-complicating it

                        Quote: Kars
                        He personally will come and will curse obscenities?

                        No, it will transfer the target of artillery-NLOS to systems-drones-combat helicopters-tactical aviation. This will be more effective than "mat punching". Or the target will be hit by another tank / infantry fighting vehicle associated with the target-detected tank by the C4I system

                        Quote: Kars
                        Message from article

                        Alexander Gorbenko
                        Born in 1977 in a military family. He served as an urgent in the Navy. Married, two children (for now). Interests: history, military history, military equipment.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 11: 23 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        What for? Is the tank tasked to fight alone against the army?

                        Then to increase the chances of survival in battle.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Necessary. But this does not mean that you need to make a Swiss army knife from the tank, unreasonably re-complicating it

                        Well, at least you understand what you need. Do not want to overcomplicate? Send cannon fodder is inexpensive in the post-Soviet space.
                        Quote: Spade
                        No, will transfer the target of artillery-NLOS
                        In the meantime, he throws the tank already aunt, went rehousing into a helicopter. Or the target disappeared.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Or the target will be hit by another tank / BMP associated with the C4I system that has detected the target
                        And why another tank or infantry fighting vehicle could not identify the target themselves?



                        Quote: Spade
                        Lexander Gorbenko
                        Born in 1977 in a military family. He served as an urgent in the Navy. Married, two children (for now). Interests: history, military history, military equipment.
                        And can you refute his message?
                        The advantage of the tank is that it is capable of independently destroying the identified target, and much faster than other reconnaissance equipment will be able to give target designation to the means of destruction
                        He is not capable of destroying the target on his own? Will make it slower?

                        Not sure, it’s not a good day for you.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 11: 38 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Then to increase the chances of survival in battle.

                        And the Israelis do not want to install a normal combat module on the Namers. In order to increase his chances in battle.


                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, at least you understand what you need. Do not want to overcomplicate? Send cannon fodder is inexpensive in the post-Soviet space.

                        I would rather not fight in a separate tank, but with the entire system of fire weapons available.
                        We just think differently. You are in the style of the First World War, when tanks increased with the simultaneous increase in the number of barrels, I am in the style of the 21st century, when electronic systems allow you to quickly and efficiently conduct a cycle of fire exposure.

                        Quote: Kars
                        And why another tank or infantry fighting vehicle could not identify the target themselves?

                        They may not see. And the C4I system will display the target detected by other means on their monitors. Even if she is behind the wall, there will be a possibility of her defeat.

                        Quote: Kars
                        And can you refute his message?

                        Sure. The tank has long been not "one warrior in the field"
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 11: 45 New
                        +2
                        Not well, surely you got up on the wrong foot today)))))
                        Quote: Spade
                        And the Israelis on "Namers"

                        Nammer is BeTeER))))) and the Jews will not put their Samsonchik there so as not to provoke ardent commanders to use it for other purposes.
                        Quote: Spade
                        I would prefer to fight not with a separate tank, but with the entire system of weapons available

                        Well, it’s necessary
                        Quote: Spade
                        I'm in the style of the 21st century

                        You flatter yourself, you think in the style of inertness of the late 20th century.
                        Quote: Spade
                        They may not see
                        They can’t see, but at the same time they must hit))) not well and said.

                        Quote: Spade
                        And the C4I system will display the target detected by other means on their monitors
                        How long does it take? And why isn’t it easier to hit the target right away? Especially the target that threatens the existence of the tank that it discovered.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Sure. The tank has long been not "one warrior in the field"

                        And where is the mention of one soldier in the field? That there should be one tank? But this does not eliminate the need for multi-channel firing. Following your logic, even the anti-aircraft machine gun must be removed from the tank. C41 will transmit the coordinates and the anti-aircraft gun will come and start firing at the top floors of buildings.
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 12: 06 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        and the Jews didn’t put their Samsonchik there so as not to provoke ardent commanders to use him for other purposes.

                        Exactly!!! In order not to provoke climbing to where you can rake.

                        Quote: Kars
                        You flatter yourself, you think in the style of inertness of the late 20th century.

                        Oh oh The extensive path with an increase in the number of trunks is the 21st century, and increasing efficiency through greater informatization and increasing situational awareness of crews is the inertness of the end of the 20th? You didn’t mix anything up?

                        Quote: Kars
                        How long does it take? And why isn’t it easier to hit the target right away? Especially the target that threatens the existence of the tank that it discovered.

                        It will take moments. You really got stuck in the last century. Modern control systems have already stepped very far forward. How do you think: a tank can be threatened by many targets at the same time and therefore it needs many channels of destruction. And if three others threaten this tank, what should I do? One hit a gun, the second 23-mm twin, the third 7.62 machine gun? And if four? The driver should lean out of the hatch and hit him with accurate fire from the AKSU?

                        Quote: Kars
                        And where is the mention of one warrior in the field? That there should be one tank?

                        And what, you need to cram a 40-mm automatic cannon into it with its own ammunition, guidance and stabilization systems? At what cost? What to cut? You need one more crew member for this device, you need a place for equipment and BC. And it all takes up space. Armored barn for 80-90 tons - is this your "development path"?
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 12: 17 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Exactly!!! In order not to provoke climbing to where you can rake.

                        And so all the same intends your tank? Or all the same armored personnel carriers?
                        Quote: Spade
                        Oh oh The extensive path with the increase in the number of trunks is the 21st century

                        Increasing firepower is a trend.
                        Quote: Spade
                        increasing efficiency by means of greater informatization and increasing situational awareness of crews is the inertness of the end of the 20th?

                        Firstly, it doesn’t interfere with one another, and in combination it will give the best result, which you can take for granted.

                        Secondly, work on TIUS and so on began at the end of the 20th century. Will you argue?
                        Quote: Spade
                        Take it a moment
                        Skazachnik. Particularly liked the creation through the wall))) And for that instant a lot of things happen.

                        Quote: Spade
                        How do you think: a tank can be threatened by many targets at the same time and therefore it needs many channels of destruction
                        Ideally, it would be good to hit all targets, but you have to compromise.
                        Quote: Spade
                        And if three others threaten this tank, what should I do?
                        To hit targets from cash with maximum speed, while nothing interferes with sharing information with a tactical group. But leaving targets without fire is fraught.

                        Quote: Spade
                        And what, it is necessary to cram a 40-mm automatic gun with its own ammunition, guidance and stabilization systems into it? At what cost? What to cut

                        nothing to cut. the price is the tank and so it’s not a cheap toy anymore.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Armored barn for 80-90 tons - is this your "development path"?

                        I think somewhere up to 70-80 tons it is quite realistic to get an effective next-generation tank capable of adequately responding to the challenges of the modern battlefield.

                        But as I wrote many times, you say black on white. Probably a BMPT like Terminator, whose crew is increased and more than one firing channel is disgusting to you?
                      12. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 July 2013 12: 34 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Increasing firepower is a trend.

                        More likely the next fashion.


                        Quote: Kars
                        First, one does not interfere with the other

                        Even as it interferes. And the crew is distracted by firing from a 40-mm AP for each one who crosses from the trench to the trench, and the really necessary equipment will have to be thrown out of the reserved one.


                        Quote: Kars
                        Skazachnik. Especially liked the sprinkling through the wall)))

                        You just need to read more. Projectile AMP. lightly armored and unarmored are destroyed, tanks go to restore everything that the fragments "licked" from their armor. And all this is behind the wall.

                        Quote: Kars
                        nothing to cut. the price is the tank and so it’s not a cheap toy anymore.

                        The price is not in money. The price is to reduce the main ammunition BC and other inconveniences.

                        Quote: Kars
                        I think somewhere up to 70-80 tons is quite possible to get

                        More. A lot more. You are going to stuff a bunch of weapons there.
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 12: 46 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        More likely the next fashion.

                        whatever you call
                        Quote: Spade
                        Even as it interferes. And the crew is distracted by firing from a 40-mm AP for each one running from trench to eye

                        AAAAA0000 I’m shocking you to push the automated system, and now the crew must do something to notify the higher ones.

                        Quote: Spade
                        and really necessary equipment will have to be thrown out of the used one.
                        Why did you get such stupidity? Nobody will throw away surveillance systems, they will even be duplicated. Although, most likely, the main components of TIUS computers and tires should, according to your scheme, be located in the stern of a tower niche of an uninhabited tower))))

                        Quote: Spade
                        You just need to read more. Projectile AMP. lightly armored and unarmored are destroyed, tanks go to restore everything that the fragments "licked" from their armor. And all this is behind the wall.

                        WOW., But if there are several walls? Is everything to our avant-garde tank Aless Kaput? And all that he was able to do was transmit data about the target)))) \
                        Quote: Spade
                        The price is not in money. The price is to reduce the main ammunition BC and other inconveniences.

                        say nonsense again, I don’t pinch the mass. At the same time, 45 mm will save the shells of the main gun. Yes, and just give him more chances to shoot that ammunition.
                        Quote: Spade
                        More. A lot more. You are going to stuff a bunch of weapons there

                        Much more? Are you evaluating one module from 45 to 20 tons? At least you’ll get it))) And about the heap of weapons
                        1-152 mm gun / launcher
                        1-45 mm gun
                        1-30 mm twin gun with 152 mm
                        1 -12.7 mm machine gun
                        1-7.62 mm machine gun
                        KAZ, KOEP
                        smoke / anti-personnel grenade launchers.
                        and naturally personal weapons of the crew.

                        Here is an approximate composition of the weapons of a promising tank.

                        And what are the issues with Owner’s affiliation? The beginning of the development of Tius?
              2. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 17 July 2013 21: 23 New
                0
                The intention is least intended for movement in the first line. But to be honest, I also think that there is never much firepower, even in second-line vehicles.
  • cosmos111
    cosmos111 15 July 2013 09: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    modules and reduction of dimensions of servomechanisms

    Uninhabited combat module, only for BMP / BTR. But not as for MBT.
    Lockheed Martin, presented an uninhabited combat module. The WTT is equipped with a new 40-mm telescopic cannon CTCA, manufactured by the company "CTA International" and a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun. For replacement with the BMP Warrior and Bradley.
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 09: 45 New
      +4
      Quote: cosmos111
      Uninhabited combat module, only for BMP / BTR. But not as for MBT.

      Well, why, the Russian Cub Armata bark with an uninhabited combat module. And then we'll see.
      I personally suggest placing another one in the aft of the tower, I can well assume with a telescopic mechanism for raising / lowering. Made on the drives as they do with cameras now. - These are naturally just suggestions, there will be problems with the armoring of the drives. But the large-caliber fire to 45-50 mm the point is simply necessary.

      Something remotely similar only on the roof.
  • cosmos111
    cosmos111 15 July 2013 09: 04 New
    +4
    Quote: Kars
    X-plane firing point caliber 30-45

    In the 2016 year in Germany, a prototype tank for urban combat called Jaguar will be released for testing.
    The car was made on the basis of the Leopard 2 A7 tank. But unlike Leo. The jaguar had a front engine arrangement, like that of a Merkava tank.
    As the main armament, the vehicle received a shortened 120 mm cannon. This gun was paired with a rapid-fire 30mm cannon. An additional 12,5 mm circular firing point was also located on the turret. Well, above the hatch of the tank commander is the standard for the German army 7,62 mm MG3 machine gun. And not some "crazy"


    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 12 New
      0
      Dear, this is fantastic. Seriously.
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 15 July 2013 09: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        Dear, this is fantastic. Seriously.

        Maybe a fantasy, but more real than a tank with an uninhabited tower.
        For urban combat, BMP-heavy-T and BTR-T are needed, under the guise of 152 mm self-propelled guns with anti-shell armor.
        Quote: Spade
        say that the ZSU-23-2 caliber

        These guns are most optimal for the BTR-T / BMP-T.
        Afghanistan 1986 g. ZSU-23-4 ... "SHILKA" ... "SHAITAN-ARBA"

        1. Kars
          Kars 15 July 2013 09: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: cosmos111
          ZSU-23-4

          unfortunately, the battles for Grozny showed even low efficiency for 30 mm BMP 2. What can I try to solve with new ammunition. In caliber 23 mm this is very problematic.
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 15 July 2013 10: 28 New
            +2
            30 mm shell we have a small OF, part.
            It is not advisable to use it against infantry and to suppress firing and sniper points. More rationally 40 mm AGS grenade launcher ,, Flame ,, paired with 2-I 23 mm guns. For BTR-T.
            BMP-T (triple) 120-mm rifled semi-automatic gun 2A60 (30 shells) .And 23 mm gun, ammunition 1000 shells.iem, ammunition - 1000 cartridges.
            Or a single combat module with 57 mm C-68 gun.
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 11: 25 New
              +3
              Quote: cosmos111
              30 mm shell we have a small RP, part

              23 mm shilka is even smaller, but as you said it was applied.
              Quote: cosmos111
              40 mm AGS grenade launcher ,, Flame

              Far from the best solution if there is no need for a hinged path.
            2. max702
              max702 17 July 2013 21: 57 New
              0
              I agree to supply the gun from NONA and business then ... and the tank now with its gun is primarily a VET and then an infantry support weapon. how long does a tank shell cost and how much does NONA have (was considered the most technologically advanced shell in the USSR) and the resource of a tank gun is very small, but it costs hoo!
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 15 July 2013 09: 55 New
          0
          Uninhabited towers are no longer fiction.
          1. wk
            wk 15 July 2013 10: 09 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Uninhabited towers are no longer fiction.

            an uninhabited tower cannot be an end in itself, it seems in these disputes the concepts have long been replaced ... the uninhabited tower was conceived for greater survivability of the tank and the protection of the crew ... but at the modern technical level it did not justify itself ... even on the time-tested T72 when hit into the tower (in case of survival of the tank) the automatic loader fails ... an experienced "tower" with the help of the automatic re-delivery machine will charge faster and more reliably.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 15 July 2013 10: 14 New
              +4
              Quote: wk
              an experienced "turret" with the help of a re-delivery machine will charge faster and more reliably.

              He will have no time. After the shell hits the tower, it will be busy extracting breakfast.
              1. Mairos
                Mairos 15 July 2013 11: 07 New
                +3
                Moreover, he will produce extraction in a fainting state
    2. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 09: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: cosmos111
      In 2016 in Germany, will be tested


      were once developed by Leo 3 - a model from an enthusiast based on those sketches.
      1. Venguard
        Venguard 15 July 2013 11: 57 New
        +1
        suggested that leo2 is like a tiger, and on the left, leo3 is like a royal tiger, also larger and has smoother shapes)
    3. Venguard
      Venguard 15 July 2013 11: 53 New
      +4
      In the 2016 year in Germany, a prototype tank for urban combat called Jaguar will be released for testing.
      The car was made on the basis of the Leopard 2 A7 tank. You didn’t mean this beauty by chance?)
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 15 July 2013 10: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    An upper firing point, completely independent in the horizontal plane, of 30-45 mm caliber with a large elevation angle is required.

    Who will manage it? Add another crew member?
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 10: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Rakti-Kali
      Who will manage it? Add another crew member?

      By the way, I’m for increasing the crew. Although I can imagine that a commander and a gunner can handle a modern TIUS, each gun.
      1. Metlik
        Metlik 15 July 2013 12: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        By the way, I’m for increasing the crew. Although I can imagine that a commander and a gunner can handle a modern TIUS, each gun.

        The crew should not be in the tank, but in the heavy BPM behind, and control the tank remotely. Fantasy? Calculate how much armor you can hang in addition, refusing to place the crew inside. How much money and time it takes to prepare an experienced tanker.
      2. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 15 July 2013 12: 59 New
        0
        In modern tanks there is a kkp, often with a remote control. And the commander is not Typhon and not a hecatonheir; he needs to search for a target, to monitor the situation ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 July 2013 15: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          And the commander is not Typhon and not a hecatonheir; he needs to search for a target, to monitor the situation ...

          So let it be busy, and at the same time by pressing a key it will be able to destroy what it finds. It is not for nothing that duplication to the tank commander is often introduced everywhere and is often a priority.

          Quote: Metlik
          and in heavy BPM behind, and control the tank remotely. Fantasy?

          It is quite possible, the main thing is that whatever hackers do not intercept the signal, or do not infect viruses)))
  • erased
    erased 15 July 2013 08: 56 New
    +4
    The water is wet, the sky is blue, twice two is four. The author painted axioms, but for what? To convince those who doubted the need for a tank? Or support those who know that a tank is needed?
    Everyone seems to know about the role of the tank in modern combined arms combat and in low-intensity operations. After the removal of the Pasha Mercedes company from the army, tanks no longer move columns into cities.
    If it is now accepted that the new Minister of Defense is putting order in the department, then the army again takes into account the experience of Stalingrad, Warsaw, Prague, Königsberg, Berlin and other cities that the Red Army defended and took. Again they remembered Hungary-56, Prague-68, and Afghanistan 79-89. They know and take into account the features of the use of tanks in urban and other battles in Iraq-03, Syria-13.
    So what was the author writing about, what special thoughts or ideas did he bring?
    1. soldier's grandson
      soldier's grandson 15 July 2013 09: 35 New
      +3
      and also the author forgot to add that the tank is kaaak eb..et that everyone is ... oh
  • strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 15 July 2013 09: 02 New
    +9
    Not me, really, just a doctor - but the tanks are VERY needed. And the best tanks - and a lot. Flying tanks are especially needed - I mean the Ka-52. I am for the tank renaissance.
  • wk
    wk 15 July 2013 09: 06 New
    +2
    ... taking into account the fact that the main hostilities in modern conflicts are unfolding either in the mountains, where in many cases the use of tanks is not possible, or in densely built-up city blocks (Syria), the tank should become a real fortress, (akin to Merkava) having lost mobility and increased vertical projection ... classic tank battles are practically absent in modern conflicts, but for such a deep modernization of the T80 and T72 will meet all the requirements .... yes, and the crew must be at least 4 people the loader should be discarded.
    1. pav-pon1972
      pav-pon1972 15 July 2013 10: 00 New
      +1
      Automat loading oh as needed. This was proved by Iraq, the injuries among American tankers are very high on the Abrams (served in the 4th Guards tank division), and development in the areas (in armament and defense) needs to be developed further ...
      Moreover, the automatic loader on our tanks is very reliable, but you need to refine ....
      1. wk
        wk 15 July 2013 10: 19 New
        0
        Quote: pav-pon1972
        injuries among American tankers are very high

        it can sometimes be better to get your little finger injured than to lose your head as a result of a system failure .... modify? but the charging mechanism has its own technological limit, and I think it has already been achieved, as in other mechanical devices ... modern mechanisms (watches, for example) are no worse and no better than those that were done 100 years ago.
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 15 July 2013 10: 09 New
      0
      Quote: wk
      the tank should become a real fortress, (akin to Merkava), albeit having lost mobility

      And when you try to redeploy tanks on the territory of the Russian Federation, it turns out that they don’t get on the railway platform, they don’t pass on bridges, and their roads can’t stand it ...
      1. wk
        wk 15 July 2013 10: 30 New
        0
        there is a reasonable limit of 60t which the railway platform and transport aircraft take
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 15 July 2013 09: 21 New
    0
    The author so wanted to talk about tanks for a serious ...

    ... how much it will correspond to the conditions of modern combat and military operations of the foreseeable future. And at the same time - how relevant the type of weapons is today the tank in general. Let's talk about it. ...

    Did not work out.
    Thanks to him for supporting the tanks, but such topics are not disclosed. Not a minus.
    I don’t whine, it’s just that the beginning of the conversation is so serious, but there’s nothing to read.
    Good luck to the author.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 15 July 2013 09: 28 New
    +5
    The argument is about nothing. Yes, without a modern tank, a modern army is impossible, just don’t have to jerk it off, the question is very serious. Or should our guys cover the ground again? And the significance of tanks, even outdated ones, was actually shown by Syria.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 15 July 2013 09: 40 New
    +3
    Since World War II, the main purpose of the tank has changed - the fight against tanks, which only belong to the enemy.

    During the Second World War, the main task of tanks was to deeply break through the enemy’s defense, followed by the coverage and encirclement of the enemy.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 15 July 2013 09: 47 New
    -2
    If a 50-60-ton machine with a powerful cannon cannot solve a certain problem, then it is strange to wait for a solution to this problem from light wheeled vehicles. Moreover, there is a precedent in history when the mobile unit of the regiment level was defeated by the generally Holosad (semi) partisans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mang_Yang_Pass But if they had a short speed ... that is, a tank battalion, it might have been possible to avoid a catastrophe, the tank even cements it well in defense.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 15 July 2013 10: 18 New
    +5
    I’m not a specialist, but I was in Tskhinvali immediately after the war, talking with people. If you discard all idle bazaars and a certain silence of the media, then everyone agrees on the opinion of the tank, this is serious. Tell me the car that Baranov turned off from the launcher, but this tank drank so much blood. With all the conversations and beautiful commercials, it was not so easy to punch out of portable means in practice, but rather not possible. The Israelis at one time suspended the operation in Lebanon to prepare their tanks after receiving information that the Palestinians had received a batch of granotometos from the USSR prepared and went and the losses were minimal. We climbed into Chechnya like a combat drill. I saw the interview itself with one of the designers of dynamic protection, so he gave the same example about Israel and says, well, why didn’t contact us in advance, we figured out how to protect the cars in this situation. By the way, Grachev almost got into a fight, they say. But the developer got to the point of inviting him to fire at cars on Kubinka and was about to sit in that tank at that moment. He was not allowed, but after the shelling all the cars started up and reached the repair boxes under their own power. There were practically no tank losses to the second company in Chechnya, and the example of the eighty who went through Karamah there back received almost a dozen hits. Everything must be applied with his head and tanks and planes and submarines. In the same company with Georgia, the Tu-22 was destroyed, as it turned out, the set level was 6000m, even for a non-specialist, an ideal target at such a height is understandable. Yes, and I'm sure our intelligence overslept the supply of Bukov, and that's the result.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 July 2013 10: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: kapitan281271
      Tell me the car that I turned off from the ram launcher Baranov

      Anatoly Konstantinovich Barankevich.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 15 July 2013 10: 19 New
    +4
    How to fight without a tank? He will cover with armor when necessary and half the house will fall apart with one shot. And in the city he is number one. only you need to be able to use it and for this do not forget the experience of using tanks during the assault on cities in the Second World War. The director of the Museum of the Battle of Stalingrad said that during the Chechen campaign, the military came to them and took away a memorial from the time of the Second World War on attack and defense in the city. Conclusion - the invaluable experience of our grandfathers was lost or forgotten and only when the peasant thundered and crossed himself. and given the trends in modern conflicts that occur mainly in cities, it must be improved and honed. And the tank he gives morally enormous support to the infantry simply from the fact that he is.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 15 July 2013 10: 51 New
      +2
      I agree. Tanks will dominate the ground forces for a long time. Syrians are fighting on the T72 and BMP 2 with rabid beasts with a bunch of modern weapons. That's who needs the experience of urban combat to take over from us.
  • duke
    duke 15 July 2013 11: 05 New
    +3
    To combat the militants, of course, you need a special tank with a 57-76 automatic gun of the au-220m type, with a decent angle of elevation of the barrel, to work in the city and mountains, because a standard 125 mm cannon, in this case has excess power and small ammunition, as events in Syria showed, on the turret there is, in addition to a 12,7 mm machine gun, namely a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, whose grenades are more powerful than the AGS 17/30 and have a flight range of 2 km and a reserve which is large enough to lead a long battle. All this economy should be managed with a computer operator, which is under armor. For the infantry, such a tank will be indispensable support, in my opinion, better than the current BMPT, which Kazakhstan bought from us. It is clear that you can destroy any tank, but without such a shaitan-arba you just can not do. If there were such in Grozny, how many losses could have been avoided. And also attack aircraft like IL-10 soldier
  • ed65b
    ed65b 15 July 2013 11: 13 New
    +1
    The “invisible” tank, as it was called. He fully justified this nickname! Legends told of him. As if it appears from nowhere and disappears, it is unknown where and how. The Dudaeva gunner does not know a miss - two shells were fired into an APC from four thousand meters, and it’s for sure that only a palm can be put between the holes in the armor. To get from the gun into that tank, it was argued, is generally impossible ... Invisibility, in general.

    But there was no mysticism here. As there was no that "seventy-twos" and some "stelsovskih" secrets. Glory to the tank created the skill of the crew, his ability to completely use the features of the territory where the battles were fought.

    Tank duel of Lieutenant Yuri Tamozhenikov
    1. Pon69
      Pon69 15 July 2013 13: 03 New
      +1
      Why didn't you finish writing the end of the story? About how "invisible" has become just more invisible once more. Skill and skill even on the "invisible" works flawlessly!
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 15 July 2013 19: 07 New
        +1
        The tank fighters did not yet suspect that Yuri was already considering a retaliatory move.

        The platoon reasoned something like this. Having the initial advantage, Dudayevites use it to the full. What can they oppose? What to catch? On the unexpected! What are the militants counting on? What is in defense when firing a natural reaction of a person - to be beaten, to lie low, to close with smoke ... So - it is necessary to do otherwise

        And here "invisible" showed itself again. After the first breaks, the Customs officers shouted:

        - Get on! Back !!!

        Now Leonid has not failed. The tank pulled back sharply, instantly escaping from the trench. The fighting vehicle was in full view of the militant tankers. But after all, the tank of the Dudayevites ceased to be invisible to Yuri and his comrades. What was required! Customs officers learned to shoot in Chirchik glory. Yuri launched the first shell offhand, like a cowboy in a western. Undershoot. Realizing his maneuver, the tank of militants began hastily crawling back, trying to hide on the reverse slope of the high-rise. Then, Tamozhenikov fired several shells in a canopy through the top, each time changing the range, but not knocking down the scope. He reasoned that the confused Dudaev tankers, trying to quickly escape from the shelling, were unlikely to maneuver out of sight of the enemy. And I was not mistaken. After another shot through a thick dusty foam of explosions, at first timidly, and then thicker clouds of solar smoke began to break through.

        More "invisible" in these parts did not appear.

        I finished
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 15 July 2013 12: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: leon-iv
    Just the same for the aircraft will be armored, they are more appropriate there.
    In such a radius, there may be dozens or even hundreds of launches, there may be many shelters, dead zones, etc.

    Yes, this is not a panacea at all, but the effectiveness of + KAZ in tanks in general can create a dead zone for them from ATGMs and RPGs. So is the means of air strike. She doesn’t need to work on aviation.
    It is important here LARGE BC I would try to cram 20 pcs in 1 complex
    And the reaction time is 0,5-2s.

    We take the platform of Almaty for self-propelled guns and on its base we sculpt.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 15 July 2013 12: 28 New
    +2
    With proper use, tanks can be used for another million years, the main thing is not to enter them into the city, without the support of infantry.
  • gych
    gych 15 July 2013 13: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Dear, I learned to count before school. The image shows one barrel. And to fire at "multiple targets" you need several guns.

    And by the way, out of modesty, are you not saying that the ZSU-23-2 has a slightly smaller caliber than the "30-45 mm"?

    this is not zsu-23-2, but gsh-23 on the turret of the t-64e tank! great machine!
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 15 July 2013 16: 23 New
    +1
    All sorts of tanks are IMPORTANT, all sorts of tanks are NECESSARY - I mean that the TANK should be like a modular combat platform, depending on the application, have its own set of "weapons" and "protection" depending on the application ... for example, "city-field" ...
    Personally, it seems to me ...
  • Tan4ik
    Tan4ik 15 July 2013 16: 53 New
    +1
    Yes, in my opinion they will be used for a very long time. After all, not much time has passed since their creation, only about a hundred years.
  • gallville
    gallville 15 July 2013 17: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: gych
    this is not zsu-23-2, but gsh-23 on the turret of the t-64e tank! great machine!

    Well, I still agree with the turret above the commander’s place, and who will shoot with the ags in battle? Or do we have gunners in Ukraine with 2 heads and 4 hands?

    Z.Y. The moment with anti-aircraft machine guns suggests how it will be in armature? In fact, you can’t install optics in a remote module for it, it means only electric cameras? - But what about duplication?
  • Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 15 July 2013 23: 12 New
    +1
    "However, one should not forget that a tank is, first of all, an assault vehicle."
    - I will argue to hoarseness. Assault tanks fortified positions - death. Tanks are by no means an assault unit. All battles where tanks storm the fortified area are lost.
    A tank is a weapon of breakthrough, surroundings and reach. During the assault, all the advantages of the tank come to naught. Article minus.
  • GUSAR
    GUSAR 15 July 2013 23: 52 New
    -1
    Drones-zadrons, and without the good old tank, nowhere, and if anyone doesn’t have it, either from lack of money or from insanity, the Dutch eliminated the tanks in their aircraft, and the truth is a fagot on shame tanks !!!
  • Vladya
    Vladya 16 July 2013 01: 36 New
    0
    the teacher on fire in a tank school in the first year said, whoever shoots the first situation two tanks head-on, he will win :-)
  • Stas197
    Stas197 16 July 2013 01: 40 New
    -1
    It’s not possible to imagine a modern army without tanks. And the defense (as well as the attack) will always improve.
  • Backfire
    Backfire 17 July 2013 07: 11 New
    +1
    The tanks did not exhaust themselves. They just need more and different ones - the "species diversity" of what we today call a tank should greatly increase.

    Summing up the mental retardation of those who order tanks (military - it is not clear why?) And those who pay for it (state, or rather officials). Although it’s possible to understand just the latter - it’s not their children who will burn in steel boxes.

    The battles are becoming more and more "urban" and here we need vehicles of a completely different class.
    It happens that a meeting with the opponent's tanks is not expected, an example is the same Syria. And if there is a "normal" war, then conventional tanks with a classic layout bypass cities and towns, and vehicles of a completely different design remain for work in the city.

    For these machines, you need everything else: necessarily thermal imagers, IF optics, and all this should be duplicated and give a circular picture for the crew.
    Various sensors - and the ability to saturate the battlefield remotely with them.

    No long-barreled gun needed.
    No caliber and cumulative ammunition is needed, but thermobaric, flamethrower, high-explosive and fragmentation are needed by itself, but all this should have fuses and guidance systems providing detonation not only when touched, but also remotely, and at an arbitrarily assigned distance (by analogy with the XM25 grenade launcher) )

    A different booking scheme is required - without emphasis on the forehead, but evenly, on all sides of the car. Necessarily "screens" from all sides.
    Necessarily a system of protection against flying p / t missiles.
    The bottom itself should provide protection against mines / landmines.

    But the engine can be simpler - speeds greater than 40-45 km / h simply will not be needed. Yes, you can save on tanks - you won’t have to travel far. But you need a well-protected add. power plant (for the operation of all systems with the main engine idle).

    And such a machine must be able to receive information in real time from all its "colleagues" in the flock, drones, sensors, etc.

    And of course, like "classic" tanks, they will have to be used en masse.

    All of these components already exist, to assemble a similar machine from them is not a matter of technical complexity, but a matter of overcoming the inertness of thinking.
    1. Professor
      Professor 17 July 2013 10: 11 New
      0
      You described everything beautifully. After the implementation of these ideas, the tank will become a heavy APC with a remotely controlled turret.
      welcome to the club