Military Review

The layout of the main battle tanks

65
The layout of the main battle tanks



Tank as an engineering structure is a complex of weapons, armor protection, bearing bases, power plant and chassis. The tank must be able to move both off-road (specific pressure on the ground, not exceeding the pressure of a person’s foot) and along the existing road network with artificial structures (weight with full load, not exceeding the carrying capacity of the bridge spans).

To the chassis tank general requirements are imposed on the caterpillar mover, primarily ensuring uniform loading of the track rollers. Ignoring these requirements leads to the following negative consequences:
- decrease in passability due to uneven specific pressure on the ground;
- increased vertical oscillations of the body when driving on rough terrain,
- reduce the speed of movement;
- reduce the accuracy of firing of the gun because of the lower efficiency of its stabilizer;
- increase crew fatigue;
- increased wear of the elastic elements of the suspension of support rollers and hydraulic shock absorbers.

Therefore, the layout of the tank must meet the requirement of the weight balance of its components relative to the center of the bearing surface of the tracks. The main massive elements of the tank structure include a gun turret, a gun, a gun ammunition, an engine, a transmission and fuel, as well as armor and dynamic protection. A crew that has an order of magnitude less weight, but occupies a large internal volume, also has a direct impact on the weight balance. The mutual arrangement of these elements and determines the effectiveness of the layout of the combat vehicle.

The first types of tanks, developed in Great Britain and Germany during the First World War, had the simplest layout - a general casemate of a corps with armament placed in the front (on the sides and / or in the frontal part), and the engine with the transmission, located in the rear. Ammunition and fuel were located in the center of the hull. The numerous crew and armor protection were evenly distributed throughout the hull. The gun turret as such was absent, casemate half-towers, symmetrically located along the hull sides, were used instead. Tracked propulsion had a chassis with a small course of track rollers, as can be seen from the example of the German tank AV7.



The experience of combat use of tanks of the simplest layout revealed their design flaws:
- weak armor protection of the casemate case with a developed external surface;
- the presence of large dead zones of shelling from guns installed in the casemate half-towers;
- low speed of movement over rough terrain due to the slow travel of the suspension.



In this regard, at the end of the First World War in France, an optimal layout was developed for a new strike combat vehicle, which has since become a classic, replicated in hundreds of samples of experimental and production machines in many countries of the world. The hull of the Renault FT-17 had a very dense layout, which for the first time was divided into distinct functional areas — the nose section of the command, the central combat compartment and the aft engine compartment. A circular rotation tower with an 37-mm gun was installed in the center of the hull with a nose shift. A mechanic-driver was housed in the department of control, a tank commander and ammunition assembly in the fighting compartment, an engine, transmission and fuel in the engine-transmission compartment.



The development of this layout was the construction of the Soviet tank KV-1 of the beginning of World War II, whose tower had a developed feed niche, in which a significant part of the gun’s ammunition was located. At the end of the war, the last modification of the most massive Soviet tank T-34-85 received a similar tower.

Tanks in World War II in offensive operations were used in accordance with their unique combat specialization - as a means of breaking through fortified defenses, operating in direct fire contact with the enemy. In this case, the main threat of a tank defeat came from the frontal angle. This necessitated the differentiation of protection with an increase in the thickness of the armor of the front parts of the hull and turret and a corresponding decrease in the thickness of the armor of the side and stern parts. The center of gravity shifted forward relative to the center of the track bearing surface.



In order to restore optimal weight balancing of the tank, it was necessary to move its tower back. To this end, one more innovation was introduced into the classic layout: all German tanks and the American Sherman M4 tank had a spaced power plant — the gearbox and onboard gearboxes were located in the forward hull section of the hull. The engine was associated with the transmission of the drive shaft. This decision made it possible to shift back the heavy tower at the cost of moving forward a relatively light transmission.



The last version of the layout of the tank had two major drawbacks:
- the presence of a cardan shaft forced to increase the height, volume and surface area of ​​the hull, reducing the degree of protection of the tank (the ratio of armored volume to the weight of armor);
- the front-mounted gearboxes of the tracked propulsion unit placed on the frontal surface were extremely vulnerable not only to armor-piercing projectiles, but also fragments and a shock wave from explosions of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles, in contrast to the classical layout, where the hull shields forage side-mounted gearboxes from frontal shelling.
The solution to the problem was found at the end of the war by Soviet developers in the design of the T-44 tank. Without changing the classical layout, they reduced the length of the aft compartment due to the transverse arrangement of the engine and transmission, interconnected by a gear. The center of the bearing surface of the tracks shifted forward in the direction of displacement of the center of gravity of the tank. In the future, this engineering solution (reduction of the dimensions of the power plant) in combination with the previously implemented layout option (tower with developed aft niche) was repeated in the designs of the main battle tanks of the USA, Germany, France, Japan and South Korea, including those currently in service moment.



However, the retreat from the classic Renault FT-17 layout with the removal of ammunition into the feed niche led to a weakening of the tank's protection level due to the increase in zaronievy volume while creating excess space in the fighting compartment of the hull. The reason was that the hull height could not be reduced below the engine level in combination with its cooling system (approximately 1 meter). The height of the turret is determined by the extreme lowering points of the barrel (up to touching the edge of the upper frontal part) and raising the breech of the gun (up to touching the ceiling of the tower) when the guns are vertical (approximately 0,8 meters). When placing the commander and gunner mainly in the tower in the turret space is formed, a volume sufficient to store the entire ammunition.



The only problem is how to ensure the lifting of shots from the under-the-wall space and dismounting them into a gun. In 1964, this problem was solved in the Soviet T-64 tank by installing an automatic loader under the rotating floor of the crew compartment. All subsequent Soviet, Russian, Ukrainian and Chinese tanks are currently using this layout.



In another way, the American developers of the experienced T1958 tank tried to go in 92. Its original layout was based on the transfer of the engine compartment to the nose of the hull and combined with the control compartment, fenced off by an armored partition. The weight of the frontal armor, engine and transmission was balanced by the weight of the turret and ammunition. However, the combination of the length of the two sections of the hull forced to increase its height with the aim of the vertical layout of the equipment of the power plant. As a result, the tank increased the reserve volume and surface area of ​​the hull while reducing the degree of protection. Despite the obvious lack of such a layout and the abandonment of its American developers, it was repeated in the Israeli serial tank Merkava and the Swiss experimental tank NKPz, which is most likely due to the lack of experience in designing tanks in these countries.



The increase in the effectiveness of modern armor-piercing and cumulative shells forced the developers to take another step in improving the design of tanks. As part of the development of the classic layout in the 1980-ies in the USSR and the United States, work was carried out on the creation of experimental tanks with uninhabited towers - Boxer / Hammer and ASM Block III, respectively. These works, brought to a high degree of readiness, were discontinued due to the lack of reliable electronic means of observation and aiming for the crew fully located in the hull at that time.



Work in this direction was resumed only in 2012 year as part of the project to create a new Russian tank "Armata". Based on modern achievements in the field of automatic systems for detecting and tracking targets, the project provides for a reduction of the tank crew to two people located in the control compartment. In addition to the uninhabited fighting compartment and the turret, a significant difference in the layout of the “Armata” from the layout of the Renault FT-17 is an increase in the length of the forward end of the hull to accommodate mounted modules of armor or dynamic protection. The increased length of the body has a positive effect on the displacement of the center of the track surface backwards. The size of the bow can be estimated from a photograph of an experienced tank "Object 187", which is used as a prototype of "Armata".



The projected development of the functionality of promising systems for active protection of tanks up to interception of high-speed kinetic projectiles makes it possible in the near future to reduce the requirements for passive armor protection of the tank, as well as its dynamic protection, currently being successfully used against low-speed rocket grenades and anti-tank missiles. Moreover, the number of launchers of damaging elements of active protection installed on each tank will ensure the simultaneous interception of two or more targets flying from the same or different directions. Based on this prediction, we can assume the rejection of dynamic protection, a reduction in the thickness of the reservation to the splinterproof and the transition to an all-round undifferentiated booking.



In addition, today there are ready-made solutions of hybrid power plants consisting of a heat engine (diesel or single-shaft GTE), an integrated electric generator, a lithium-ion high-capacity rechargeable battery and traction electric motors. It is possible to transfer the traction motors together with the onboard gearboxes to the forward part of the hull, evenly distributing the load along the length of the bearing surface (given the large volume occupied by the control compartment and the low weight of a two-person crew). In this case, the duplicated power cables connecting the generator with electric motors, unlike the cardan shaft of tanks of the Second World War, can be conducted along the hull sponsored sponsons without increasing its height.



A tank with a similar layout was already developed in 2009, as part of the American FCS program, but did not go into the series due to the unavailability of the selected Quick Kill active defense system to intercept high-speed kinetic armor-piercing shells. However, given the progress in the development of this type of protection, it is now likely that this layout will be used in the US airmobile tank, the concept of which is developed by the US Army TRADOC command, and the Israeli main battle tank Rakiya, designed to replace the outdated Merkava tank. in the armored units of the Israel Defense Forces, beginning in 2020.
Author:
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. alex86
    alex86 22 July 2013 07: 30
    +5
    I liked it, it’s a little crumpled at the end, but “Armata” will not be shown anyway, so it's okay. However, before "rejection of reactive armor, reduction of armor thickness to anti-fragmentation and the transition to all-aspect undifferentiated armor", I think, as "to the moon on skis" - single experimental vehicles, perhaps, will create, but in real practice, the presence of a substantial stock of expensive means of countermeasures (limited, moreover, in quantity) will lead to an unaffordable increase in prices.
  2. Kars
    Kars 22 July 2013 10: 21
    +5
    Based on this forecast, one can assume the refusal of dynamic protection, a decrease in the thickness of the reservation to anti-fragmentation and the transition to a full-fledged undifferentiated reservation.


    Three lines of defense are better than one. At the same time, no one has canceled atomic weapons, but today the tank is the best system for conducting combat in the conditions of radioactive contamination.

    And the author, as I understand it, Andreas
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 22 July 2013 11: 35
      +4
      Quote: Kars
      Three lines of defense are better than one. At the same time, no one has canceled atomic weapons, but today the tank is the best system for conducting combat in the conditions of radioactive contamination.


      Squeeze a burst of 40-mm BOPs, watching how a tank with anti-shatter protection fires its ammunition KAZ and put a bullet in the form of a simple ATGM
      1. Kars
        Kars 22 July 2013 12: 39
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Squeeze a burst of 40 mm BOPS,

        It is quite possible that the ATGM will not be needed. And what is the field of activity for the BMP-3 with its 100 mm + 30 mm
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 22 July 2013 13: 30
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          Squeeze a burst of 40-mm BOPs, watching how a tank with anti-shatter protection fires its ammunition KAZ and put a bullet in the form of a simple ATGM

          Quote: Kars
          It is quite possible that the ATGM will not be needed. And what is the field of activity for the BMP-3 with its 100 mm + 30 mm

          So how tragic about: and the Israeli main battle tank Rakiya, designed to replace the obsolete Merkava tank in the armored units of the Israel Defense Forces, starting in 2020.
          Was-is super-duper and on-on-you "outdated".
          It's funny-strange to read this and remember the "mattress" BMP project (from BAE Systems under the GCV program) weighing under 70 tons.

          What are your future tanks and infantry fighting vehicles?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 July 2013 13: 48
            +2
            The first photo you have posted is the "Black Knight" robot from BAE Systems.
            See 4 drums on the tower, 2 horizontally and 2 vertically? These are scanning lidars. They are present on many machines that can find their own path.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 July 2013 13: 50
            0
            Black Knight Unmanned Combat Vehicle

          3. Prohor
            Prohor 24 July 2013 16: 33
            0
            Um, the last picture looks more like "past" than "future" ...
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 22 July 2013 13: 32
          +1
          30 mm is not interesting. KAZ is unlikely to respond to them
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 July 2013 14: 23
            +3
            Well, this is still incomprehensible. 30 mm also optics can crumble specifically KAZ itself.

            And about the second firing point.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 22 July 2013 15: 01
              +1
              I am absolutely not against the rendered combat modules. You just need to do so that the commander does not strain. For example, to put something like a Belarusian BM to the "Adunka" with the ability to automatically defeat the marked targets.

              I am against pushing weapons into the reserved space. And against setting what no one to shoot.

              The only thing that would not hurt is a 60-mm mortar, like the Jews. With lighting and infrared lighting mines. The latter is preferable.
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 July 2013 15: 07
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                Only it is necessary to make sure that the commander does not strain

                Nobody will force it to charge. And so why do all modern SLAs do with firing from the main guns to the commander. (Moreover, as I wrote, for increasing the crew to 4 people + automatic charging)
                Quote: Spade
                I am against pushing weapons into the reserved space. And against setting what no one to shoot.

                And why else is the reserved space? And there is someone to shoot, especially if they want to live.

                Quote: Spade
                The only thing that would not hurt is a 60 mm mortar

                why is the Cloud bad? add only fragmentation antipersonnel and all
                Quote: Spade
                infrared lighting mines. The latter is preferable.

                But what about thermal imagers already no hope? Need backlight like the moon?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 22 July 2013 18: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  And what about thermal imagers already no hope?

                  Nobody seems to refuse from night branches in favor of thermal imagers. They just complement each other.
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 22 July 2013 18: 25
            0
            Quote: Spade
            30 mm is not interesting. KAZ is unlikely to respond to them

            And on the A-10 attack aircraft there’s just a 30mm gun, and uranium core shells pierce 69mm of rolled armor.
      2. Andreas
        22 July 2013 17: 29
        0
        The dispersion of 30-40 mm shells during automatic firing at a range of 1 km or more is a circle several times larger in diameter than the width of the tank body. Therefore, the cost of KAZ rocket-propelled grenades to intercept them will be several times less, respectively, than shells in line.

        In this case, a combat vehicle with a 30-40 mm cannon, firing at a direct-fire tank, will be destroyed by return fire from a 120-125 mm tank gun, without waiting for the completion of the queue.

        A few of these clashes are enough and all surviving combat vehicles armed with 30-40 mm cannons will be assigned to the rear for specialized use as ZSU and tank support vehicles against the calculations of RPGs and ATGMs during operations in urban areas.
        1. bazilio
          bazilio 22 July 2013 18: 00
          0
          Quote: Andreas
          The dispersion of 30-40 mm shells during automatic firing at a range of 1 km or more is a circle several times larger in diameter than the width of the tank body. Therefore, the cost of KAZ rocket-propelled grenades to intercept them will be several times less, respectively, than shells in line.

          What do you think, what stock of KAZ can be placed on tanks? The currently operating KAZ have an average of 10 striking combat elements. Another question is how KAZ will identify the ammunition? in size? by speed? Will KAZ be able to distinguish a BPS 20-30 mm cannon from a 12,7 or 14,5 KPVT bullet? If it doesn't, then the decision is obvious - to fire a couple of bursts from a large-caliber machine gun at the tank from the bushes, forcing the KAZ system to spend all its combat elements. If KAZ ignores such small-sized targets, then what prevents BOPS from doing for a 20-30 mm cannon with an ammunition caliber of 12,7 or 14,5. And one more question, judging by the schemes, the combat elements of the KAZ are located along the perimeter of the tower and cover only a certain sector. If the fire is fired in the forehead, then in the frontal part the KAZ elements will quickly end. How to deal with this problem. Again, how will the KAZ deal with ammunition that hits the tank from above ?. Regarding the last 2 questions, I have one idea, but I don’t know how real it is - to create a KAZ in the form of, for example, a barrel art installation, placed in a separate module, rotating along the horizon. 360 degrees and with "trunk" elevation angles up to 90 degrees. at the same time with some kind of tape feed and a high rate of fire and speed of rotation of the "trunk"
          1. Andreas
            22 July 2013 18: 59
            0
            If you fill the entire volume of an uninhabited tank tower with KAZ rocket-propelled grenades with a vertical launch according to the MetalStorm principle, then 200 pieces will fit exactly.

            If at the same time launch tubes will be on the order of 30-40, then you can simultaneously hit as many attacking shells / missiles / grenades.

            With a vertical start, the entire hemisphere is protected 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically.

            Any tricky ammunition that separates when approaching or is fired in one gulp will no longer work laughing
        2. Alekseev
          Alekseev 22 July 2013 22: 07
          0
          Quote: Andreas
          The spread of 30-40 mm shells during automatic firing at a range of 1 km or more is a circle several times larger in diameter than the width of the tank

          Yes sir!
          And it would not hurt the adherents of 30-40 mm guns to recall that such guns were widely represented both in the Second World War and later, but nobody made bets on them, as on the basis of anti-tank artillery, then or now. For obvious reasons. wink
          For obvious reasons
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 July 2013 22: 12
            +2
            Quote: Alekseev
            that such guns were widely represented both in World War II and later, but nobody made bets on them as the basis of anti-tank artillery either then or now. For obvious reasons.


            let's not compare accuracy, guidance systems and armor penetration of modern small-caliber guns and the times of the second world war?
            1. Andreas
              22 July 2013 22: 43
              0
              Since we are talking about intercepting 30-40 mm of shells by the active defense system even before meeting with the tank’s armor, we can only discuss the accuracy (not accuracy) of firing a burst from an automatic gun.
              In other words, how many shells from one stage will fly into the frontal projection of the tank, and will not fly past the tank (there will be no second stage, since a combat vehicle with an automatic gun will be collapsed to the ground with a return shot of the tank).

              The circular probable deviation (CVL) of the 30-mm gun GAU-8A of the A-10 attack aircraft when firing a burst at a distance of 1280 meters is a circle with a diameter of six meters. Our 30-mm automatic KVO guns when firing a burst even more.

              Those. most of the shells from the queue will go into "milk" and they will not need to spend rocket-propelled grenades of the tank's active protection system.
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 July 2013 22: 52
                +1
                Quote: Andreas
                In other words, how many shells from one stage will fly into the frontal projection of the tank, and will not fly past the tank (there will be no second stage, since a combat vehicle with an automatic gun will be collapsed to the base with a return shot of the tank)



                And why exactly Lobovaya? And why, in the case of such an IMPOSSIBLE end, the line will not be maximally possible? And how much time does it take? It would also be interesting to know what is the basis for the belief in such a low accuracy of fire?
                1. Alekseev
                  Alekseev 23 July 2013 12: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  interesting to know what is the basis of the belief in such a low accuracy of fire?

                  You just have to look at the firing range in person. say bmp-2.
                  Or a shot from the NSVT ZPU tank (at least closed type, at least open) and everything will become clear.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 23 July 2013 13: 43
                    +1
                    Is the video not enough? I was especially impressed by the shooting of the Swedish 40 mm
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 23 July 2013 13: 50
                    +1
                    ______________________--
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 22 July 2013 23: 08
                0
                Quote: Andreas
                The circular probable deviation (CVL) of the 30-mm gun GAU-8A of the A-10 attack aircraft when firing a burst at a distance of 1280 meters is a circle with a diameter of six meters.

                You have incorrectly cited information from Wikipedia. This is not KVO. This is the diameter of the circle in which 80% of the shells will fit. Accordingly, half of the shells in a circle of 3.8 m, and 25% - in a circle with a diameter of 1.9 m.

                Every fourth shell will hit the tank from any directional angles. And there are 1350 of them. And the rate of fire is 1800-3900 / min
                1. Andreas
                  23 July 2013 12: 54
                  0
                  I can’t say anything KVO / non KVO in the part of the circle with a diameter of 6,1 meters at a firing range of 1220 meters - my information is taken from the translation description of GAU-8A. It is likely that they did not accurately translate from English into Russian or the terminology does not match.

                  But even judging by your information, the consumption of KAZ rocket-propelled grenades will be four times less than the consumption of 30-mm shells.

                  In addition to the rate of fire, there is also the concept of the maximum length of the queue until the barrel of the automatic gun overheats. At GAU-8A, the production time of one burst is equal to one second, followed by one-minute breaks in firing.

                  In one second, the gun will be able to release about 32 shells, of which only 8 will need to intercept KAZ. After that, the tank will have one minute to crush the combat vehicle, armed with a 30 mm overheated gun.
            2. Alekseev
              Alekseev 23 July 2013 12: 15
              0
              Quote: Kars
              let's not compare accuracy, guidance systems and armor penetration of modern small-caliber guns and the times of the second world war?

              Like the armor protection of tanks ...
              If, say, a 57 mm gun could at present be an effective PT tool, then there would be no talk of any 120-125 mm hummingbird.
              1. Kars
                Kars 23 July 2013 13: 44
                +1
                Quote: Alekseev
                As well as armored protection of tanks.

                What armor protection? Here it is not, only anti-shatter.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 July 2013 22: 46
            +2
            Quote: Alekseev
            Yes sir!

            Not this way. Let's start with the "circle". RMS 287 round Bushmaster 2 cannon, range 1 km. The median dispersion is about 3 thousand. Multiply by 4 According to the classical formula "blow in a thousand" we get a circle with a diameter of 1.2 meters.
            All shells were embedded in a circle of 1.2 m., And 50% of the shells of them were laid in a circle with a diameter of 25,5 cm.
            Tell me about tanks of this size.

            Further: the shells flew at an impossible speed in WW2 at 1405 m / s. And they pierced an armored plate 55 mm thick at an angle of 60 degrees. The path length is 110 mm. That is, they will hit some T-54 on board.

            Not to mention the "anti-fragmentation tank"
            1. Andreas
              22 July 2013 22: 57
              0
              I agree with your data on the armor penetration of 30-mm sub-caliber shells.

              With a median dispersion of shells when firing solitary shots also agree.

              But the fact is that in order to deplete KAZ / SAZ, it is necessary to shoot at the tank with a burst, and not single shots (in the latter case, the first 30-mm shell will be intercepted by KAZ / SAZ, and the second 30-mm shell will no longer be , since a 125-mm shell from a tank gun will already fly away in response).

              So, in the case of firing a burst from an automatic 30-mm gun, the circular probable deviation will already be not 0,3 thousandths, but 5 or more thousandths (i.e. it will increase by more than an order of magnitude).
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 22 July 2013 23: 27
                +1
                Quote: Andreas
                So, in the case of firing a burst from an automatic 30-mm gun, the circular probable deviation will already be not 0,3 thousandths, but 5 or more thousandths (i.e. it will increase by more than an order of magnitude).

                In fact, these are indicators when shooting a burst.

                5 thousandths at a distance of 1 km is 5 m. That is, 100% of the shells will be stacked in a circle with a diameter of 20 meters. Sorry, but such weapons are not put in series, but they are carried to the trash. Compose closer to reality.
                In your opinion, it turns out that the dispersion of a 30-mm gun is approximately 10 times greater than that of a 122-mm howitzer D-30
                1. Andreas
                  23 July 2013 00: 18
                  0
                  Not 20 meters, but 5 meters. This is the KVO diameter of the American 30-mm gun GAU-8A when firing a burst.
                  A KVO Russian 30-mm guns when firing a burst in the public domain is not declared at all laughing
                  The 122-mm howitzer D-30 does not fire bursts, so it has a CVO declared only for single shots.
      3. bazilio
        bazilio 22 July 2013 17: 41
        0
        Quote: Spade
        At the turn of the line, one is better. At the same time, no one has canceled atomic weapons, and today the tank is the best system for conducting combat in the conditions of radioactive contamination.

        I agree, I’ll add on my own the well-known 30 mm GAU-8 cannon, the rate of fire from 1800 to 3900 rounds / min. in a second salvo, this gun will spit out towards the tank from 30 to 65 BPS with armor penetration from 38 mm (from 1 km) to 69 (from 500 m, while the ammunition will fly at an angle from above. You can also recall the PT ammunition hitting the target from above- Jewelin, as well as aviation ammunition. I don’t think that KAZ is capable of dealing with such ammunition.
        1. Crang
          Crang 22 July 2013 22: 22
          +1
          Such ammunition will not cause any harm to the tank. Moreover, the lion's share of them will simply not fall into the tank due to the large dispersion. And so - already a hundred times tried to shoot at the tank from "Shilka". The tank stops (cannot drive under the pressure of a hail of shells), but they do not penetrate it.
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 July 2013 22: 32
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            Such ammunition will not cause any harm to the tank

            When will you read, will you learn before you blurt out something?
            Quote: Spade
            watching a tank with anti-shatter protection

            Here we are talking about small-caliber guns in relation to the author's refusal of protivosnaryadnoy booking.
            N-yes)))
  3. shurup
    shurup 22 July 2013 11: 01
    +3
    I’ll fantasize on this subject.
    A man is arranged like a brain in a solid skull and weakly protected other parts of the body. Critical only brain failure.
    Conclusion: a spherical armored capsule for the crew, it is possible with a catapult, surrounded by all other less reserved equipment and connected with it only with cables and shock absorbers.
    1. Gato
      Gato 22 July 2013 13: 46
      +2
      Quote: shurup
      Conclusion: spherical armored capsule for the crew

      You can fantasize further: the abandonment of the crew in general. Failure of which part will then become critical?
      The combat value of the tank tends to zero if either the weapon, or the engine, or the running gear is disabled.

      You can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of layouts ad infinitum, if you do not decide on the place that the tank will occupy in the general weapons system and tactical schemes on the battlefield.
      He is far from being a self-sufficient machine that acts on its own or alone and cannot be protected from all threats only by its own systems.
  4. Gato
    Gato 22 July 2013 11: 18
    +2
    The experience of combat use of tanks of the simplest layout revealed their design flaws:
    - weak armor protection of the casemate case with a developed external surface;
    - the presence of large dead zones of shelling from guns installed in the casemate half-towers;
    - low speed of movement over rough terrain due to the slow travel of the suspension.

    And also extremely "uncomfortable" conditions for the crew. Tankers could not stand more than 2 hours not even a battle, but simple movement.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 22 July 2013 18: 15
      0
      Quote: Gato
      And also extremely "uncomfortable" conditions for the crew. Tankers could not stand more than 2 hours not even a battle, but simple movement.

      So the designers were smart enough to stick an engine with a slightly tight exhaust system and a radiator into the fighting compartment. To this add a stiffer suspension (no rollers are provided for) and no measures to dampen vibration of anything, and you get a torture chamber on the tracks. And if you add gunpowder smoke from your own guns, you had to be a hero so as not to get out of the car even with bullets, even where.
      Well, the truth is that the British excuse the fact that they were the first to think of the idea of ​​a tank.
  5. Argon
    Argon 22 July 2013 12: 46
    +3
    I liked the description of the general principles, the prerequisites for the ROC, in my opinion, are correct, but the development prospects are not objective. There are too many drawbacks to electric propulsion to become the basis for a TEU, anti-fragmentation armor with additional easily replaceable blocks is a solution for light class cars (Sprut, FCS ), but not as the main tank, and the dynamic protection for the complex of characteristics of the alternative is not yet visible. The development of the KAZ, as well as its presence on the promising MBT, is beyond doubt. The refusal of the differentiated booking is extremely controversial, and in my opinion within 50-55t not realizable. In general, a vast field for debate. PS I was very pleased with the sober assessment of the Israeli "masterpiece".
    1. Kars
      Kars 22 July 2013 12: 56
      +2
      Quote: Argon
      I was very pleased with the sober assessment of the Israeli "masterpiece".

      At this ..sober .. assessment, the author sabaku ate))
      http://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-me
      rkava-mk4.html
      http://topwar.ru/user/Andreas/news/
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 22 July 2013 13: 02
        0
        Quote: Kars
        At this ..sober .. assessment, the author sabaku ate))

        And he didn’t. laughing The main thing in MBT 1. Maximum protection of the crew, comfort (at Centurion, in 50 there was an auxiliary power plant with electric titanium for heating tea)., 2 power equipment. 3 fire power.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 22 July 2013 18: 59
      -2
      Quote: Argon
      I was very pleased with the sober assessment of the Israeli "masterpiece".

      Just a different approach to what (or whom) to protect in the first place.
      A tank with a broken-down motor is repaired within hours, and even if it’s days, then a countable number. Even if the tank cannot be repaired (let’s say it’s burned out), it will take a week to make a new tank from scratch, well, two or three, taking into account the Israeli small-scale and design complexity. And how much time does crew training take to a level higher than beginners? Not to mention the fact that in Israel they are 200m far more sensitive than, perhaps, anywhere else.
      This is only Zhukov's "Do not regret the soldiers, women still give birth." But Suvorov (Generalissimo, not Rezun) "Soldier of the Roads". Which of the two would you rather serve under?
      1. uwzek
        uwzek 22 July 2013 21: 58
        +4
        It will take about a year to make a new tank from scratch (even in the presence of large-scale production and low design complexity). Most of this time is the manufacture of the armored hull and turret of the machine. Modern layered armor for one technological transition is not made. The process is many months, this is far from the T-34 to do. Then the assembly of the tank begins with the gradual installation and adjustment of the equipment of the machine, then running tests (this is not the delivery of the finished tank, as well as the adjustment and debugging of the equipment of the machine). The large volume of production of tanks in the USSR was not explained by the ability to quickly rivet products from scratch, but by the fact that they were laid DAILY in decent quantities.
        I’m not saying that tank crews shouldn’t be appreciated, but I simply refute the persistent myth that it is possible in the conditions of war to quickly make up for tank losses. Actually, after a month of a serious war, neither side of the modern tanks will have any left (if you don’t make a reserve in advance, and no country in the world does this yet, it’s expensive to see).
        Restoring a tank with a dumb engine is another myth. A quick replacement of the engine is possible only after its personal failure (the column on the march, the gas turbine engine was pumped, the tank stood up, and the brigade quickly replaced the engine and air filters). And if the shell turned the engine frame? It was necessary to restore the tanks that went through the war (post-Caucasian T-90 and T-72M, by the way, the nature of the damage indicated that the crews were unlikely to die). But the process is long. Complete disassembly. Measurement of sizes. Elimination of combat damage. Further assembly of the machine. Again, not World War II, when the brews are brewed (or the tow is plugged and painted over), the previous crew from the fighting compartment will be washed off, and forward ...
        Such are the armored realities ...
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 22 July 2013 22: 02
          0
          Agree to 100%!
          We need more realities, less theoretical speculations.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 July 2013 22: 49
            0
            Quote: Alekseev
            smaller theoretical speculations.

            Dangerously. Realities then can be deplorable.
        2. Crang
          Crang 22 July 2013 22: 07
          0
          In the Caucasus, the T-90 was not used. And even the T-80U was not a single one.
          1. Argon
            Argon 22 July 2013 23: 38
            -1
            In fact, they fought in the second company T-90S from the Indian order, and 80s in the first. Dear NAGAN, I understand that the myth that the front location of the MTO saves the life of the crew grows from the "Promised Lands", let us leave the victims of Israel's political propaganda, they will no longer be helped. The life and health of the crew is much more dependent on the MOBILITY of the vehicle, more precisely on the ability to remain mobile in the event of combat damage (to leave the firing zone to a relatively safe place and leave the car there) and this is AXIOM. A stationary frozen tank does not allow the crew to survive, because even a knocked-out tank will be "finished off" while in the firing zone (until stable signs of burning) and the crew who tried to leave the car will be shot.
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 23 July 2013 12: 24
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        This is only in Zhukov's "Do not regret the soldiers, women still give birth"

        Wow, he talked with Marshal Zhukov, just like Woland with Pontius Pilate! laughing
        But, "it is unlikely"! Rather, newspapers with biased magazines were puffed into their ears.
  6. Yegorchik
    Yegorchik 22 July 2013 12: 51
    0
    It is necessary to ask the Mechanic whether they considered the possibility of installing an electric transmission in the armature or not.
  7. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 22 July 2013 13: 08
    +1
    ... modification of the most massive Soviet tank T-43-85 ...
    Surely just a typo.

    ... Despite the obvious lack of such a layout and the rejection of American developers, it was repeated in the Israeli serial tank Merkava and the Swiss experimental tank NKPz, which is most likely due to the lack of experience in designing tanks in these countries ...
    I wouldn’t run into this concrete way ...
    laughing
    This is an experience and very serious.

    ... we can assume the rejection of dynamic protection, reducing the thickness of the reservation to shatterproof and the transition to a full-fledged undifferentiated reservation ...
    A lot of armor does not exist. The more tank protection levels, the more tenacious it is.

    It was interesting to read, only nothing new, as there were three types of layout, it remained.
    A little about electric transmission, and the layout depends on it.

    Now they are trying to push the armored capsule and bring to mind the uninhabited tower, not enough information about it.
    There is a lot of controversy here, it would be more interesting to have more material and various options collected in one article, there are a lot of them now. It would be good to finish this article.

    Thanks to the author for the collected material.
    1. Kars
      Kars 22 July 2013 13: 50
      +3
      Quote: Aleks tv
      I wouldn’t run into this concrete way ...

      how not to run over)) the Swiss in general, well, no, such a small country and the tanks themselves did, probably from poverty and backward industry)))
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 22 July 2013 15: 32
        0
        The layout of the main battle tanks

        This is an outdated approach to the design and combat characteristics of MBP.
        Modern MBT, regardless of the layout, is the most complex product integrated into the main combat concept of any state. It consists of the latest technologies in the metal-composite materials, electronics, optics, ballistics. And all this consists of a compromise between weight-protection and mobility. For each state should have its own ideology in production
        MBT and for this particular theater of operations. Yankers and Britons have already closed their tank factories.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 22 July 2013 15: 52
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        and the tanks themselves, probably from poverty and backward industry)))

        laughing

        In general, the NKPz layout is very good.
        For the end of the 70's, the beginning of the 80's it was serious.
        He impresses a lot in the car, more than in a carrot, which is only the automatic loader and the deployment of ammunition.
        It is a pity there is little information on it - weight distribution, armor protection and other stray ...
        It would be interesting to read how they coped with the main diseases of the departure from the classical layout.
        Very interesting.
        1. Kars
          Kars 22 July 2013 16: 39
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv
          In general, the NKPz layout is very good.


          In the Soviet Union, the design of this combat vehicle was analyzed, and it was given the highest rating. Swiss designers put so much modernization potential into their car that even now this tank would be considered modern and would certainly be in demand on the international arms markets for many years.

          But economic issues prevailed, and it was decided to purchase the traditional and cheaper Leopards-2. And the "New Tank" project itself will delight not only enthusiasts, amateurs of tank building, but also quite serious military specialists for many years to come.


          NKPz had significant modernization potential, in particular, in the same 80s, Swiss designers successfully developed a 140-mm gun. This gun possessed not only excellent characteristics, but also a long barrel length. Given the front-engine layout of the Neuer Kampfpanzer, the 140-mm gun would fit well in the turret of the new tank.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 22 July 2013 16: 58
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Swiss designers put so much modernization potential into their car that even now this tank would be considered modern


            Yes, a very worthy idea.

            Kars, but there is no data on booking and weight distribution in your archives?
            Always these questions were of interest to this machine.
            1. Kars
              Kars 22 July 2013 17: 30
              +1
              As usual, everything that Google gives out and no more.
    2. Andreas
      22 July 2013 17: 05
      0
      34 years after the Merkava Mk.1 was put into service, of course, we can talk about the experience of the Israelis in tank building.
      And in the early 1970s, when the T92 tank rejected in the USA was uncritically borrowed as its prototype (technical documentation was handed over to it for free), the experience of tank building in Israel was zero.
      1. Kars
        Kars 22 July 2013 17: 32
        +1
        Quote: Andreas
        in the USA, the T92 tank (technical documentation was transferred to it for free),

        and of course there is evidence?
        Quote: Andreas
        tank building experience in Israel was zero

        what did they do with the Sherman and T-55?

        And the test of the Chieftains?
        1. Andreas
          22 July 2013 19: 07
          +1
          Why do you need confirmation if the fact of borrowing the T92 is visible to the naked eye?

          Replacing equipment and weapons on Shermans and T-55s is far from creating a new tank, even if there is a ready-made technical documentation.

          The Chieften was not a prototype of the Merkava, but was used by Tal's team as a mobile test bench for testing individual components and assemblies of the transmission and chassis (developed by the British on the order of the Israelis on the basis of the spring-balanced suspension of the Chieftain tank).
          1. Kars
            Kars 22 July 2013 19: 30
            +1
            Quote: Andreas
            if the fact of borrowing T92 is visible to the naked eye?

            You never know what is not with the naked eye.
            Quote: Andreas
            Replacing equipment and weapons on Shermans and T-55s is far from creating a new tank, even if there is a ready-made technical documentation.

            This is an experience
            Quote: Andreas
            The Chieftain was not a prototype for the Merkava,

            I said that he is a prototype?
            Quote: Andreas
            and was used by the I. Tal team as a mobile stand for testing individual components and assemblies of the transmission and chassis

            Where did you get this? Or is it also visible with a naked eye?
            1. Andreas
              22 July 2013 20: 11
              +1
              In your photo, even with an armed eye it is not visible that this is a "Chieftain" converted into a "Merkava".

              Here is a classic photograph of an Israeli mobile stand based on the Centurion (not Chieftain - sorry, I made a mistake from memory) for testing the Merkava's transmission and chassis
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 July 2013 20: 59
                +1
                Quote: Andreas
                In your photo, even with an armed eye it is not visible that this is a "Chieftain" converted into a "Merkava".

                And why did you get that it should be Chieftain? This is for Experience. Moreover, this is your invention, like many others.

                This is Sherman converted to Super Sherman

                Quote: Andreas
                Here is a classic photograph of an Israeli mobile stand based on the Centurion (not Chieftain - sorry, I made a mistake from memory) for testing the Merkava's transmission and chassis



                Well, you need to confuse Chieftain, so you can’t joke.
                1. Andreas
                  22 July 2013 21: 35
                  +1
                  I say that can not seeThat it is Chieftain.
                  By the way, also can not seeThat is Super Sherman.

                  As for the Centurion as a mobile stand for testing the transmission and chassis of the Merkava, it was not I who "took" it, this is the Israeli Merkava MBT prototype, based on the Centurion tank chassis in Yad la-Shiryon Museum, Israel.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 22 July 2013 21: 42
                    +2
                    Quote: Andreas
                    As for "Centurion" as a mobile stand, it was not me who "took" it, this is Wikipedia


                    Really?
                    Quote: Andreas
                    The Chieften was not a prototype of the Merkava, but was used by Tal's team as a mobile test bench for testing individual components and assemblies of the transmission and chassis (developed by the British on the order of the Israelis on the basis of the spring-balanced suspension of the Chieftain tank).


                    Did Wikipedia give you this?
                    Quote: Andreas
                    I say that it is not clear that this is Chieftain. By the way, it is also not visible that this is "Super Sherman"

                    Bye, not a super Sherman.
                    Quote: Andreas
                    In your photo, even with an armed eye it is not visible that this is a "Chieftain" converted into a "Merkava".

                    I wonder how could you even come to the mention of Chieftain?
            2. Crang
              Crang 22 July 2013 21: 58
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Where did you get this? Or is it also visible with a naked eye?

              Of course you can see. Not Chieftain, but Centurion.
              1. Kars
                Kars 22 July 2013 22: 09
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                Of course you can see. Not Chieftain, but Centurion.

                So is Chieftain visible or not?
                1. Crang
                  Crang 22 July 2013 22: 11
                  0
                  The Centurion is seen upside-down.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 22 July 2013 22: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: Krang
                    The Centurion is seen upside-down.

                    Quote: Andreas
                    The Chieften was not a prototype of the Merkava, but was used by Tal's team as a mobile test bench for testing individual components and assemblies of the transmission and chassis (developed by the British on the order of the Israelis on the basis of the spring-balanced suspension of the Chieftain tank).

                    Quote: Kars
                    So is Chieftain visible or not?



                    And by the way, what's with the armor-burning T-34-76?
                    although
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 22 July 2013 22: 34
                      0
                      And everything is fine there. BP-350M.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 22 July 2013 22: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: Krang
                        And everything is fine there. BP-350M.

                        And again, no links))) And why not BP 666)))

                        AMMUNITION FOR 76,2-MM F-34, ZIS-5 AND S-54 GUNS SHOT CHARGED
                        Index Weight, kg Index Weight, kg Length, klb Weight of explosives, g Fuse Index Weight, kg
                        Shrapnel, high-explosive
                        UOF-354M 8.82 OF-350 6.2 4 0.71 KTM-1, KTM-3 54-G-354 1.08
                        UOF-354B 8.82 OF-350B 6.2 4 0.64 KTM-1, KTM-3, MG-N, KTMZ-U-G-1 354
                        UO-354AM 8.83 O-350A 6.21 4 0.54 KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
                        UV-354 8.52 F-350 6.41 4 0.785 KT3, KTM-3, 3GT G-354A 0.9
                        UV-354M 8.52 F-350M 6.1 4 0.815 KTM-3 G-354A 0.9
                        UV-354F 8.85 F-350F 6.41 4 0.785 HELL, AD-2, ADM G-354A 0.9
                        Armor-piercing caliber
                        UBR-354A 9.12 BR-350A 6.3 4.2 0.15 (TNT) MD-5 54-G-354 1.08
                        UBR-354B 9.1 BR-350B 6.3 4.2 0.155 (TNT) MD-8 54-G-354 1.08
                        UBR-354SP 9.2 BR-350SP 6.6 2.3 no no 54-G-354 1.08
                        Armor-piercing subcaliber
                        UBR-354P 6.3 BR-350P 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354P 1.08
                        UBR-354N * 6 BR-350N * 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354N 1.4
                        ARMOR RESISTANT
                        no

                        CARTOON AND SHAPPEL
                        USCH-354 8.94 Щ-354 6.5 3 0.085 22 sec., D 54-G-354A 0.9
                        USCH-354T 9.1 Щ-354T 6.66 3 0.085 T-6 54-Г-354A 0.9
                        USCH-354G 9.02 SH-354G (Harz) 6.58 3.9 0.085 22PG 54-G-354A 0.9
                        Incendiary
                        UZ-354 8.86 Z-35O ** 6.24 3.3 0.24 T-6 54-G-354 1.08
                        UZ-354С 8.86 Z-350С 4.65 3 0.24 22 sec 54-Г-354A 1.08
                        SMOKE
                        UD-350 9.12 D-350 ** 6.45 4 - KTM-2 54-G-354 1.08
                        UD-354A 9.12 D-350A 6.45 4 - KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
                        http://www.battlefield.ru/f34/stranitsa-2.html
  8. ramsi
    ramsi 22 July 2013 16: 37
    +1
    I don’t understand, but what, is there a technical possibility for KAZ to react to shells with a speed of 1500m / s ..? And the distance is not too small for a dead tank locator?
    1. Kars
      Kars 22 July 2013 16: 41
      +2
      Quote: ramsi
      and what, there is a technical opportunity for KAZ to respond to shells with a speed of 1500m / s


      http://fcct-microtek.com/c_zaslon_ru.html
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 22 July 2013 16: 46
        +2
        no, Kars, I saw how KAZ works on RPG grenades, I admit even on ATGMs, but on shells, I would like to see
        1. Andreas
          22 July 2013 17: 15
          +1
          As of 2013, there is no active defense system that intercepts kinetic shells at a speed of at least 1500 m / s.

          On the other hand, the US and Israel are planning to bring existing systems such as Quik Kill / "Porcupine Needle" by 2020 or create an alternative system with an interception speed of at least 2000 m / s.

          Probably in opposition to our "Armata" laughing
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 22 July 2013 17: 32
            +1
            thanks, got it. And is there at least more or less reliable data on the successful interception of a KAZ projectile at a speed of 650 - 700 m / s (t34-76)?
            1. Andreas
              22 July 2013 18: 49
              +1
              Yuri Apukhtin. THE LAST WATCH OF THE SOVIET TANK-BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank).

              This document describes the interception of the KAZ tank "Boxer / Hammer" high-explosive fragmentation projectile with an initial speed of 900 m / s. KAZ is probably the predecessor of the Ukrainian "Barrier".
        2. Kars
          Kars 22 July 2013 17: 34
          +2
          Quote: ramsi
          no, Kars, I saw how KAZ works on RPG grenades, I admit even on ATGMs, but on shells, I would like to see


          1. ramsi
            ramsi 22 July 2013 17: 40
            +1
            thanks, Kars, impressed. Although on a subconscious level, all the same, I don’t believe ... - no, I don’t even allow such an opportunity
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 22 July 2013 22: 17
              +1
              But I'm not impressed ... request
              I saw a carriage from B-4 with a d-81 gun, armor plates, a frame with the image of the BPS and the inscription BM-22.
              Where is the KAZ, that the "action" on the video is not clear ... No.
              If we spread it, then slow-motion shooting from the side or top projection, at the appropriate distance, so that it is clearly visible: a shot - the BPS flies (along the tracer), and then KAZ worked, that’s all ... lol
              There are no such videos, well, others are not needed ...
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 23 July 2013 05: 41
                0
                Did you notice that you didn’t shoot at the tank? It would seem, what is the difference - and the difference is that the very ability to get into the shell is demonstrated (and that, judging by the mark, is not very). I believe that even KAZ was not involved there - they just synchronized two shots, having calculated the meeting point for the peephole. In reality, the projectile will not fly past the target, but DIRECTLY at the target. Well, what is the diameter of the projectile 2 - 3 cm, are there any chances to get to the end?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 23 July 2013 09: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: ramsi
                  It would seem, what is the difference - and the difference is that the very ability to get into the shell is demonstrated



                  and what's the difference shoot at a plate or a target? and there and there you can synchronize by eye - although this is quite interesting as at such speeds and a small distance.
                  At the same time, why - any customer will require their own tests.

                  http://btvt.narod.ru/4/zaslon.htm
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 23 July 2013 09: 27
                    +1
                    ________________
                    1. ramsi
                      ramsi 23 July 2013 20: 31
                      0
                      Sorry, Kars, was at work.
                      at the expense of synchronization, I am pretty sure that the distance is too small for the KAZ to actually work - but, you see, it’s very suitable for joining the initial speeds of the sub-caliber and the shot to the barrel.
                      I’m silent about buyers, I don’t think at all here, although the video is clearly not convincing (by the way, the neighboring holes in the plate, it could have been unsuccessful attempts to intercept - huh ...)
  9. svp67
    svp67 22 July 2013 17: 18
    +1
    The author did not consider another version of the layout - articulated. With it, it is possible the crew-instruments-engine-emergency fuel supply-auxiliary weapons, put in one module, shells - the main weapons and the main fuel supply - in another
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 22 July 2013 18: 37
    +1
    The schemes are amazing! Very visual, from visual aids? To the author -respect for the powerfully selected material.
  11. ramsi
    ramsi 22 July 2013 19: 51
    +1
    Quote: Andreas
    Yuri Apukhtin. THE LAST WATCH OF THE SOVIET TANK-BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank).

    This document describes the interception of the KAZ tank "Boxer / Hammer" high-explosive fragmentation projectile with an initial speed of 900 m / s. KAZ is probably the predecessor of the Ukrainian "Barrier".

    well, let’s say the real situation: your 900 m / s, the distance is 1 km, the locator is working ... there are three questions: at what distance does the KAZ decide that the shell threatens it, how much time remains to shoot the striking elements, the striking elements able to handle a caliber projectile?
    1. Andreas
      23 July 2013 00: 09
      +1
      1. Frontier detect attack shells are different for different KAZ, it depends on the speed of the processor of the automatic target detection system. On average, its value can be estimated as 300-500 meters.

      2. The time for the actuation of the KAZ striking elements at an attacking projectile speed of 900 m / s will be from 0,3 to 0,5 seconds. For comparison, the response time of the old Soviet "Arena" is declared as 0,1 seconds, the response time of the modern Ukrainian "Barrier" is 0,001 seconds.
      Those. minimum line interception for the attacking shell in question in the first case is 90 meters, in the second - 0,9 meters.

      3. The problem with the defeat of an attacking sub-caliber armor-piercing projectile is not in the line of its interception (for the KAZ "Zaslon" the minimum value of the interception line is about 1 meter with the required 1,5-1,75 meters), but in the ability hit KAZ striking element (shrapnel, impact core) in the armor-piercing rod of the BPS with a diameter of 20 mm.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 23 July 2013 06: 11
        0
        at the expense of getting into the shell, we both seem to agree. At the expense of everything else ... In my opinion, the interception of ATGMs is the maximum that KAZ is capable of, and it would be nice to even cope with it
      2. Kars
        Kars 23 July 2013 09: 11
        +1
        Quote: Andreas
        and the interception line is about 1 meter with the required 1,5-1,75 meters),



        And where are the required distances indicated? And why 1,5-1,77 and not 5 meters?
        1. Andreas
          23 July 2013 12: 21
          0
          The ramsi response indicates the minimum estimated interception distances for two types of KAZ - the old "Arena" and the modern "Zaslon".

          The maximum estimated interception distances are determined by the flight speed of the striking elements (striking core segments) of the Arena and the Zaslon fragmentation grenade in the direction of the attacking target - about 8000 m / s and 300 m / s respectively.

          Those. the maximum calculated line of interception (the point of mutual convergence of the attacking and intercepting elements) can be estimated in both cases somewhere around 15-20 meters.

          Within this zone, 0,9-20 meters will be intercepted, while for each type of target (BOPS, OFS, ATGM, rocket propelled grenade), its own distance is optimal - depending on the area of ​​the longitudinal section of the target. The smaller it is, the closer the interception is made to increase the accuracy of hitting the target.

          Due to the latter circumstance, the Ukrainian KAZ "Zaslon" is "ahead of the whole planet" (the only active protection system that actually intercepts kinetic projectiles) - a fragmentation grenade can be triggered if it is not fully exited from the tubular guide (interception line is 0,2-0,3 meters) with the greatest possible accuracy.
          1. Kars
            Kars 23 July 2013 13: 57
            +1
            And just answer the question?
            Quote: Andreas
            aslon "the minimum value of the interception line is about 1 meter when required 1,5-1,75 meters)

            Quote: Kars
            And where are the required distances indicated? And why 1,5-1,77 and not 5 meters?

            Quote: Andreas
            (shock core segments)

            The segments? Shock core? What is Kep?
            Quote: Andreas
            respectively, about 8000 m / s and 300 m / s.

            8 km?
            1. Andreas
              23 July 2013 14: 58
              0
              So this is a plus of the KAZ "Zaslon" - if the speed of the attacking projectile requires a minimum interception distance of 1,5 meters from the average active protection system, then, unlike it, the "Zaslon" provides a reduction in the distance to 0,2 meters, i.e. it has a "safety margin" of 1,3 meters. Not to mention the fact that the interception can be started from 15 meters (see above).

              KAZ "Arena" shoots up concave explosive tiles, on one side covered with metal cladding, which is notched. When an explosive is blown up, a shock nucleus is formed with its fragmentation into fragments. Fragments in the form of a sheaf fly in the direction of the calculated meeting point with the target.
              There is a Russian patent, which describes the presence of several programmable fuses in the explosive body to control the azimuth of the flight of a sheaf of fragments.
              The velocity of the fragments at the moment of detonation is exactly equal to the detonation velocity of the explosive; when using octogen, its value is 8000 m / s.

              KAZ "Zaslon" shoots a grenade with curved cylindrical shrapnel shirt. The impact nucleus in this case does not form due to the radial nature of the expansion of the fragments.
              The rate of exit of a grenade from a tubular guide (directly affecting the speed of the system) can be estimated at 300 m / s.
              The subsequent velocity of the expansion of the fragments (of course, also equal to the detonation velocity of the explosives) in this case is insignificant, since the grenade has a small radius of action - about 0,5 meters. The defeat of the target in this zone occurs almost instantly.
              1. Andreas
                23 July 2013 15: 22
                0
                Patent RU 2263268 for KAZ with an "Arena" -type impact core
                http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2263268
                1. Kars
                  Kars 23 July 2013 15: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Andreas
                  When an explosive is blown up, a shock nucleus is formed with its fragmentation into fragments. Fragments in the form of a sheaf fly in the direction of the calculated meeting point with the target.



                  It certainly made fun. The hit core. The usual fragmentation
  12. Crang
    Crang 22 July 2013 19: 57
    -1
    Quote: svp67
    The author did not consider another version of the layout - articulated. With it, it is possible the crew-instruments-engine-emergency fuel supply-auxiliary weapons, put in one module, shells - the main weapons and the main fuel supply - in another

    Articulated - completely unsuitable scheme for the tank. It will be just a clumsy monster that even on the avenue cannot turn around. I judge by the real such tracked transport vehicles that are at my work.
  13. I think so
    I think so 22 July 2013 21: 55
    +3
    The article is so-so ... special attention is paid to an attempt to PUSH the stupid design of the FRONT drive in tanks ... If this GOD DON'T happen, in fact, the new Russian tank will be MUCH vulnerable on the battlefield not only to artillery fire, but also to simple anti-tank rifles .. The history of the Second World War shows that MORE than half of the "Panthers" (and the same principle was used there) were damaged and then destroyed exactly after hitting the front LEADING gear drive ... Neither history nor statistics teaches anything ... and why only our grandfathers collected it ... today's ignoramuses don't need it ...
  14. Crang
    Crang 22 July 2013 22: 19
    0
    Quote: I think so
    The article is so-so ... special attention is paid to an attempt to PUSH the stupid design of the FRONT drive in tanks ... If this GOD DON'T happen, in fact, the new Russian tank will be MUCH vulnerable on the battlefield not only to artillery fire, but also to simple anti-tank rifles .. The history of the Second World War shows that MORE than half of the "Panthers" (and the same principle was used there) were damaged and then destroyed exactly after hitting the front LEADING gear drive ... Neither history nor statistics teaches anything ... and why only our grandfathers collected it ... today's ignoramuses don't need it ...

    The trick is that the "rear-wheel drive" keeps the tracks under the supporting surface constantly taut. And the "front", on the contrary, "collects" them.
  15. Alekseev
    Alekseev 22 July 2013 22: 21
    0
    Quote: I think so
    why only our grandfathers collected it ... today's ignoramuses do not need it ...

    Well ... that was quite common ...
    Which, of course, is regrettable.
    I think that when developing Armata, experience will nevertheless be taken into account.
    1. Andreas
      23 July 2013 00: 31
      +1
      The article says exactly the opposite regarding the opinion "I think so" - the layout of the "Armata" (the planned date of putting into service in 2015) remains classic with the aft arrangement of the engine and transmission.

      These are the United States and Israel in their promising tanks (planned deployment date for 2020) provide for a spaced power plant with a stern diesel generator and bow traction motors.
  16. Prohor
    Prohor 24 July 2013 16: 40
    0
    let's not compare accuracy, guidance systems and armor penetration of modern small-caliber guns and the times of the second world war? [/ quote]
    And remember that the real caliber of 120-125 mm BOPs is less than 30-40 mm.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 26 July 2013 18: 38
      0
      Quote: Prokhor
      And remember that the real caliber of 120-125 mm BOPs is less than 30-40 mm.

      But let's not forget the "caliber" of the charge for this artillery shot, as well as the fact that the BPS with a diameter of 30-40 mm is additionally "lined" with a powder charge with a diameter of 120-125 mm. wink