Military Review

A look from the past at promising tanks: alternative layouts of combat vehicles

50
Modern tank building has one interesting feature. All or almost all aspects of the perspective tank either are the development of old trends, or were invented a long time ago, but only now they have reached the stage of implementation in practice. In addition, we must not forget that some technical solutions, which are considered promising, have been developed for a long time in various experimental projects. A good example of the described trend can be recognized as recent talk about increasing the level of protection of the tank crew by moving its workplaces inside the hull, below the shoulder strap of the tower. Such combat vehicles are not yet in service with any army in the world, which is why, among other things, they are considered future equipment. However, such a layout of the tank is not only not a novelty, but has been studied and reviewed for a long time, at least at the level of theoretical research.


So, in the seventh issue of the magazine “Bulletin of armored vehicles” for 1991, the article by A. Yagodkin “Analysis of tank layouts with removed armament” was published, in which several variants of armored vehicles with different layouts of units and volumes inside the hull were considered. Until recently, this curious research material was available only to a narrow circle of specialists, but recently a well-known expert in the field of armored vehicles, A. Tarasenko, published some of its fragments.

As can be seen from the existing schemes proposed by A. Yagodkin, the main purpose of creating all the considered layouts was to increase the level of protection of the crew and the entire machine as a whole. For this, it was proposed to place the workplaces of all tankers inside the corps, thanks to which it was possible to strengthen the booking of habitable compartments. This feature of the layouts entailed the use of several other ideas that are not characteristic of modern tank design. First of all, it is necessary to note the placement of the instrument. Due to the lack of a “classic” combat compartment, all the proposed tank schemes have a cannon placed on the roof of the hull and mounted on special devices. This separation of the crew and gun, in turn, required to consider several options for the automatic loader, because the crew will not be able to prepare the gun for the shot. Also, all the considered layouts, for greater security, imply the location of the ammunition set inside the armored hull, and not in the turret.

Tanks with crew accommodation in the general compartment

Consider the proposed tank layout by A. Yagodkin, depicted in Figure 1. As noted on the signature to them, a common feature of these four layouts is the placement of the entire crew of three in a single volume in the middle part of the armored hull.

A look from the past at promising tanks: alternative layouts of combat vehicles


In option "a" we see a combat vehicle, the habitable volume of which is noticeably shifted back. The engine compartment is traditionally located in the rear part. The forehead of such a tank can be quite thick and effective armor. Directly behind the frontal armor there is a relatively small amount that can be given, for example, under the fuel tank. Immediately behind him is a compartment for ammunition. It is easy to see that this placement of the stacking of ammunition requires special devices for feeding projectiles and sleeves to the breech of the gun. To solve this problem, the author of the article “Analysis of tank layouts with rendered armament” suggested placing a “mobile ring conveyor” at the bottom of a rotary gun turret. Thus, the tank automatics transfers shots from laying to the conveyor, from where they are fed to the discharging mechanisms.

The most noticeable disadvantage of such a solution to the problem of the safety of tank crews is the need to create a rather complex system for supplying ammunition to a gun. It is worth noting that this “sin” and other proposed layouts, but in this case the problem is aggravated by the specific mutual arrangement of the compartment for the projectiles and the cannon. It is necessary to carry out the design of the ring conveyor so that the projectiles can be fed from the stack and removed for discharging into the gun at any position of the turret. Another drawback of the “a” layout, as well as other layouts in the 1 pattern, is the need to create some kind of new aiming system. Because the gunner is no longer near the cannon and does not move with it, its aiming devices must have a new architecture. For example, it is possible to use television systems. Approximately the same applies to the commander and his observation devices. To monitor the environment, he also needs some new devices, including those based on television cameras and monitors.

Option “b” shown in fig. 1, less complicated compared to the previous one. In this layout, the front part of the armored hull is completely dedicated to the fuel tanks, and immediately after them is the habitable volume. Behind the crew’s armored capsule are the ammunition and the engine compartment. At first glance, this arrangement is the most convenient. However, it has one big drawback, which does not allow it to become the basis for a real armored vehicle. Apart from the difficulties with sighting and observation instruments, the “b” layout has big problems with the rate of fire. Due to the lack of a mobile conveyor or the like devices such a tank after each shot will be forced to return the gun in the longitudinal body position for reloading. This will adversely affect both the rate of fire and the other equally important characteristics of the combat vehicle. For example, a tank made according to this scheme between shots will not be able to save even an approximate tip in the horizontal plane.

The only advantage of this layout is the relative ease of design and manufacture. The entire complex mechanics of the automatic loading of such a tank is located in the immediate vicinity of the laying of ammunition, which can significantly simplify it. But this plus still can not fully compensate for all the existing disadvantages. The gain in the cost and complexity of manufacturing a few dozen parts in the event of war can result in large losses for armored vehicles, and this is too much of a pay for production gains.

A kind of attempt to get rid of the shortcomings of option "b" is the layout "c", based on it. The internal volumes of such a tank, proposed by A. Yagodkin, are distributed in the same way as in the previous version, but there are some slight differences. So, the so-called mobile container for the instrument. Before shooting in this container it is supposed to load several projectiles from stacking in the aft part of the hull. After that, for a certain number of shots, the turret with the gun can be rotated at any angle in the horizontal plane without the need to constantly return to its original position. At the same time, the tower will have to be rotated to its original position after the exhaustion of the stock of shells in the container after the cannon. It is also able to somewhat degrade the fighting qualities of the tank, but not as much as with the “b” layout.

In this arrangement, there is a problem with complex sights and observational devices, and there is also one controversial point. In fact, it turns out that during the battle some of the shells will always be above the level of the roof of the armored hull. In this context, we can recall the numerous discussions on the feasibility of placing ammunition on most modern foreign tanks. These combat vehicles carry shells in the rear of the turret, which sometimes raises certain questions and doubts. Thus, the layout “c” from the 1 picture has ambiguous prospects from the point of view of protecting the ammunition set ready for submission to the gun.

Perhaps the most original version of the tank with a single crew capsule, proposed by A. Yagodkin, is depicted in the scheme "g". In such a loader tank system, the guns to some extent resemble a mobile container behind an instrument from variant “in”, but work differently. In this case, there is only one projectile outside the piling inside the hull. From the compartment for ammunition shot is fed to the so-called. tray with a carriage that delivers it to the breech of the gun. Through the use of such systems, the risk of damage to the ammunition supply system, covered by less powerful armor compared to the hull, is reduced. In addition, with the right approach to the design of a “tray with a carriage”, a sufficiently high rate of fire is provided regardless of the angle of horizontal pickup.

However, a system with a tray and a carriage has several drawbacks. Firstly, it is technically difficult. It is necessary to simultaneously provide fast and accurate movement of the tray to the desired position, protection from bullets and shrapnel, and also to make all the units of the system strong enough to withstand the powerful impact of the tool, being in any position relative to it. And yet, the complexity of manufacturing is compensated by sufficiently high combat qualities in comparison with other layouts, in which the crew is located in the same volume under the swiveling gun turret.

Tanks with a dedicated control compartment

The next few proposed layouts of the tank prospect imply a different crew accommodation, somewhat resembling that currently used. The 3 illustration for the article “Analysis of tank layouts with removed weaponry” shows three variants of the combat vehicle layout, in which the driver is located in the front of the hull, and the commander and gunner are in the middle. At the same time, only a tower with an instrument rotates around its axis, while crew jobs located under it remain stationary.



The variant “a” of such an arrangement is in some nuances similar to one of those already considered. In front of the hull there is a fuel tank (on the right) and a reserved compartment for the driver (on the left side). Behind them is the fighting compartment, coupled with the volume of the driver. Behind the rear wall of the habitable volume is the laying of ammunition and the engine compartment. To feed the shells from stacking to the gun again it is proposed to use a circular conveyor. Such a system will allow you to charge a weapon in any of its position. Aiming and observing the surrounding space, as in other variants, it is proposed to conduct with the help of television systems.

Using a mobile ring conveyor in a tank with such an arrangement will lead to the repetition of the problems of another scheme described above. The main snag in this case will be ensuring the operability of the conveyor and the ammunition lifting system from the conveyor to the discharging line. At the same time, a workable conveyor and related systems will provide a fairly high rate of fire.

Option "b" with fig. 3 has a different layout of internal volumes, and also uses a different system for supplying ammunition from stacking to a gun. The reserved management compartment with the driver’s workplace in such a tank is located on the longitudinal axis between two separate fuel tanks. In view of the use of a different system for lifting shells to the cannon, the layout of the combat compartment, in which the gunner and the commander are located, was changed. When loading a projectile from the bottom of the ammunition compartment is fed forward into the habitable volume. Further, through a special mine, it rises to the top and is transferred to the automatic unloading.

Such a layout of the tank and the method of supplying ammunition to the gun looks interesting, but also not without flaws. The most notable of them is the high altitude of the combat vehicle in comparison with tanks of other schemes. Due to the placement of part of the loading system units under the floor of the crew compartment and the work places of the commander and gunner, the height of the hull increases, and also there is a need to use a rotating tower of a rather complex shape. In addition, such an arrangement of tankers' jobs under certain circumstances may contradict the very idea of ​​taking people as far as possible into the corps.

The third version of the layout of the tank (scheme "in"), captured in Fig. 3, implies the abandonment of the allocated volume for ammunition. In this scheme, crew jobs are located in the same way as in the previous one, but are separated by ammunition. Shells in the carousel styling are placed around the commander and the gunner, in the same armored capsule with them. Before the shot, the laying mechanisms put the projectile of the desired type under the automatic loader, after which it is fed to the gun. The most interesting feature of this layout is the ability to provide the maximum level of protection for the combat compartment, in which both the crew and ammunition are located. This means that with the same weight as in other cases, the crew and shells of such a tank will be protected much better.

The main disadvantage of the proposal "in", in turn, is the proximity of the crew and ammunition. As an example, the location of the cells of the automatic loader on Russian tanks of the last few models, which has long been the object of criticism, since the detonation of the ammunition set is guaranteed to lead to the death of tank crews and the destruction of the combat vehicle. Probably, the use of expelling panels and any partitions can increase the crew’s chances of survival, but despite these measures, the options with the ammunition in a separate armored compartment look much more comfortable and safe for the crew.

Tanks with a single combat compartment

Finally, the article “Analysis of tank layouts with removed armament” considered three options for deploying units and crew workplaces in which tankers are otherwise separated: the commander and the driver are in front of the hull, and only the gunner is left under the rotating turret and gun. These schemes are shown in Fig. 4.



The first version of this layout (scheme "a") is interesting, first of all, the location of the ammunition. Most of the hull is given under a single habitable volume in which all three tank crews are located. Behind them - the fuel tank and the engine compartment. Shells in this case are placed in the conical armored compartment directly under the roof of the crew compartment. As is clear from the diagram, this fan-shaped stowage rotates with the turret and the gun, which ensures loading at any angles of horizontal laying. Also, the advantage of this arrangement is the ability to make the gunner's workplace turnable with the turret and the gun, which will simplify the sighting system.

Despite the original appearance, fan-shaped ammunition has a number of drawbacks. Due to its use, the overall height of the tank increases markedly. In addition, a similar method of transporting shells limits the vehicle’s ammunition, and also deprives the crew of the ability to quickly and effortlessly replenish the automatic loader with additional ammunition shells. Finally, in recent years, anti-tank weapons have been actively developed, affecting the combat vehicle in the roof of the hull and turret. Thus, the entire ammunition immediately comes under attack, and this can have the most terrible consequences both for the tank itself and for its crew.

Option "b" with a separate arrangement of the crew involves the creation of a tank with two separate armored manned volumes. The first of these, with the jobs of the commander and driver, is located in front of the hull, just behind the fuel tank. The second - in the middle part, closer to the stern. In this volume is the place of the gunner. The main features of option "b" from Fig. 4 is the location of the ammunition. In the tank of this scheme, the shells are arranged vertically in the mechanized installation, and the volume itself for the ammunition load surrounds the gunner’s capsule. When using the combat compartment with the turret, this arrangement facilitates aiming, and also makes it easier to feed the shells to the gun. In addition, it is possible to further protect the crew from detonating ammunition.

However, in this case, the proximity of the person and the shells raises relevant questions regarding safety and survivability. At the same time, it should be noted that the location of the crew in two armored compartments increases the chances of escaping only injuries. But still, with the defeat of ammunition, the tank will be seriously damaged or completely destroyed.

The “c” layout option is a further development of the previous idea. Such a tank also has a mechanized stacking with a vertical arrangement of ammunition, but it is located differently. The gunner's capsule and styling are under the pivot tower, but on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis of the machine. Thus, the gunner is in an armored semi-cylinder at the left side (as shown in the diagram, but in practice another placement is possible), and the shells are on the side of it. In comparison with the layout "b" with fig. 4 this option looks more convenient due to the possible increase in the level of protection of the gunner. To do this, it is enough to strengthen the armor plate that separates it from the mechanized styling.

The use of an asymmetric layout of the middle part of the armored hull may have one specific consequence — different survivability depending on the attack angle. In other words, the tank depicted on Yagodkin’s scheme will, at maximum, remain without a gunner when a shell or rocket hits the port side. A similar attack on the right can result in a detonation of ammunition with much more serious consequences for the armored vehicle.

Conclusion

As we see, all ten variants of the tank layout with the crew position inside the armored hull and the gun placed on the roof, given in A. Yagodkin’s article “Analysis of tank layouts with removed weaponry” have both advantages and disadvantages. However, they have several common features that can be considered useful. First of all, this is the absence of the need for a massive and well-protected turret for the crew, guns, sights, etc. equipment. Due to this, it is possible to place the breech of the gun in a relatively small armored unit, which has sufficient or even higher protection indicators in comparison with traditional towers. Thus, it is possible to significantly save in the mass of the finished tank. This savings can be used to enhance the booking of the hull, including the creation of an armored capsule or crew capsules.

In addition, the advantage in weight can be used to increase mobility by installing existing engines, or immediately achieve growth and the level of protection and mobility of the combat vehicle. Thus, having certain drawbacks, any of the arrangements proposed by A. Yagodkin — naturally, with the right incarnation — can significantly raise the potential of tank forces. However, in practice, such "non-standard" tanks are not widespread. First of all, the reason for this is the complexity of a technical nature. Each of the above arrangements involves the creation of a fairly complex automatic loader. Also, do not forget that the new promising tanks for some time will serve along with the old ones, and this will complicate the supply and maintenance.

Thus, even two decades after the publication of the article “Analysis of tank layouts with removed weapons,” the schemes of promising tanks described in it remain on paper. The use of such ideas could indeed have a positive effect on the state of the entire tank industry and the corresponding kind of troops, but they remain unclaimed. On the other hand, designers-tank builders have additional time to study the pros and cons of a particular layout, to determine its prospects, as well as to create new ideas. Anyway, all the tank layout presented above have one common positive feature: analyzing them, we can draw conclusions about the suitability of a particular technical solution for use and use only those ideas in the promising projects that can lead to the expected results.


On the materials of the sites:
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
Author:
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. shurup
    shurup 7 August 2013 09: 29
    +3
    Do not take the 90s as a benchmark in matters of prospects.
    Need to go further. I propose the layout of the crew compartment into two identical workplaces separated by an additional armored partition. I propose to take the third crew member out of the tank - let me have coffee in a shelter in front of the monitor, I’m drinking where.
    It’s time to make up a crew of mechvod, gunner and information officer. And the commander is the one who is older in rank.
    1. elmi
      elmi 7 August 2013 09: 51
      0
      It would be nice to have different classes of tanks on the basis of Almaty: medium and heavy, you still need the most protected urban battle tank.
      1. KG_patriot_last
        KG_patriot_last 7 August 2013 10: 13
        +6
        The last time I was bombarded when I said that heavy tanks are needed for urban combat (de facto the most protected).
        But anyway, I completely agree with you, we need different classes of cars - mass main and a small batch for urban battles.

        shurup
        I also agree, it is necessary to reduce the crew at the expense of the commander, who must sit somewhere and manage a GROUP of tanks and repair vehicles. It is necessary to increase the number of ARVs. And also attach to a single information field UAVs, groups of tanks, commander, crew. Perhaps he will not sit at the shelter, but even in a special commander’s tank, which moves together with a group of tanks (tank two, three).
        1. Kars
          Kars 7 August 2013 10: 33
          +4
          The layouts weren’t impressive, but what to take from the 90s, now video cameras have less nails, and electronics are getting smaller and smaller. The deployed gun still needs good armor protection, and not like sketches. So the proven lineups will remain in demand for a long time. Of course, the option of real-time remote control is interesting, but it will work until the cameras beat, and the tank rises from the slightest malfunction (or it will lose combat effectiveness)


          Quote: KG_patriot_last
          oh heavy tanks for urban battle need
          1. Turik
            Turik 7 August 2013 11: 08
            +4
            Kars, I will disappoint you, the tank in your drawing will be created 32 thousand years after your birth :)
            1. Kars
              Kars 7 August 2013 14: 02
              +5
              Quote: Turik
              32 thousand years after your birth :)

              right? And there are no titans either yet? How to live now)))))
              1. Turik
                Turik 7 August 2013 14: 51
                +2
                Alas, there's nothing to be done. Even laser pointer rifles for the guards, and they did not come up. We fight like orcs. :)
                1. Kars
                  Kars 7 August 2013 15: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: Turik
                  We fight like orcs. :)

                  I don’t know --- Orcoa Gargant has at least
          2. iSpoiler
            iSpoiler 7 August 2013 15: 23
            +1
            The larger the tank, the more RPG ..)))
            1. svp67
              svp67 7 August 2013 22: 28
              0
              Quote: iSpoiler
              The larger the tank, the more RPG ..)))
              ... and the less they need ...
          3. psdf
            psdf 10 August 2013 05: 08
            0
            The remote control will work until the appearance of the first electronic warfarers in the district. (Damn, almost according to Strugatsky)))) And Don EW will come and cut his little barrel organ and (at best) the enemy’s tanks will stand dead cargo. (and at worst they will show what a control interception is)))
      2. 11 black
        11 black 7 August 2013 19: 26
        0
        Quote: elmi
        It would be nice to have different classes of tanks on the basis of Almaty: medium and heavy, you still need the most protected urban battle tank.

        all the same but still IN GENERAL not suitable for urban combat - IMHO modern hand-held anti-tank weapons are capable of opening any armor, and a large-caliber gun (122 mm or more) is not very suitable for a city (you need a rapid-fire and accurate "puncher" with a minimum reaction time to a new target and minimum reload time)
        IMHO an ideal option for the city would be an BMPT, by the way, they are also going to develop it on the basis of Armata, while the Terminator BMPT has problems with the penetration of the gun (it cannot penetrate a wall of 2,5 HE shells with a projectile, the projectile itself is not equipped with an electronic fuse for detonation " behind the wall ", and not upon contact), that is, there is no way to effectively fight the enemy behind cover + too large a crew (5 people). If these shortcomings are eliminated, then you get the ideal urban fighter. IMHO hi
        1. svp67
          svp67 7 August 2013 22: 31
          0
          Quote: 11 black
          IMHO modern manual anti-tank weapons are able to open any armor
          in addition to this and to save the armored objects, I can add - ... under favorable conditions ... Fortunately, a sufficiently large number of ammunition either re-launches or fires at an unsuitable angle ...
        2. SergeySK
          SergeySK 8 August 2013 07: 06
          +2
          11black

          If we are talking about the city then why would a 122mm OFS punch through a 2.5-brick wall ?????

          You shoot at the window of the second floor and it is guaranteed that the floors of the second and third floors and all that was worth lying on them is on the first floor! ! ! !

          If this is not a sufficient effect of 122mm OFS, then I don’t understand what you got into ????

          From me in the 30m 122mm OFS lay I know what kind of dick it is!
          If you’re talking about shooting at inconvenient angles, imagine a 122mm OFS explosion outside the window, you won’t leave for two reasons, or you are idiotic or heavy shell shock! ! !

          From me in the 30m 122mm OFS lay I know what kind of dick it is!
    2. psdf
      psdf 10 August 2013 05: 05
      0
      Meanwhile, UVG ​​calmly and methodically rivets the "terminators".
      The article is good, but more attention should be paid to the technical details, and not to the rasushinaniyah on the topic + - around the article 30 years ago. It is interesting to compare with the promising NATO concept, the French have interesting developments.
  2. Storyteller
    Storyteller 7 August 2013 10: 40
    0
    Personally, I’m more or less officially announced the layout of Almaty: three in front, an uninhabited tower, the rear MTO seems to be the most optimal. I consider the crew to be scattered around the compartments, or even more so to remove the commander from the box, for psychological reasons, and the partitions will interfere with the evacuation. As for the urban battle, then I would like to have a larger elevation angle of the trunk, up to 90 degrees to the horizon. In this case, the trunk can be used as a snorkel, which will allow to overcome water barriers on the move. True, in this case, the balancing of the barrel will deteriorate due to the backward swing axis.
    1. roma2
      roma2 7 August 2013 17: 35
      0
      Where will these three be accommodated there?
      When the hull width is 2.7 m. Minus the thickness of the sides (the same T-90 has 80 mm. One side) and that 1.89 m. Of free internal space for THREE people ??????
      You know the sprat in the bank will probably have more space.
      1. Storyteller
        Storyteller 7 August 2013 18: 48
        +1
        This is if you sit shoulder to shoulder. And if you put the driver in the middle, and move it forward, then nothing at all. Hatches done over the commander and gunner. Well, in the floor.
        1. roial
          roial 7 August 2013 21: 28
          0
          It will have to be moved forward, which will increase the overall dyne of the tank.
          What about the review?
          As can be seen from the American, the observation devices overlap each other, are located low, which will further reduce the detection range of the enemy.
          1. Storyteller
            Storyteller 8 August 2013 10: 10
            0
            The commander and gunner all real peers on the tower attached. Periscopes are for a mechanical driver.
            1. roial
              roial 10 August 2013 14: 16
              0
              There are actually THREE hatches.

              "The commander and gunner have all the real peepers on the turret attached."
              Do not tell me how this is done?
      2. Yemelya
        Yemelya 11 August 2013 01: 24
        0
        Quote: roma2
        Where will these three be accommodated there?
        When the hull width is 2.7 m. Minus the thickness of the sides (the same T-90 has 80 mm. One side) and that 1.89 m. Of free internal space for THREE people ??????


        Nevertheless
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Kars
          Kars 11 August 2013 12: 10
          +1
          Quote: abrakadabre
          270 cm - 2 * 8 cm = 254 cm.

          For starters, before mentioning math, say 270 cm equals 2070 mm?

          Or did you miss something at the institute?
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 11 August 2013 12: 22
            0
            Already noticed and deleted his koment :)
            And posted another
            drinks
      4. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 11 August 2013 12: 09
        0
        2,07 m minus the thickness of the sides. And not 2,7 m
  3. Martar
    Martar 7 August 2013 10: 41
    0
    Quote: shurup
    I propose the layout of the crew compartment into two identical workplaces separated by an additional armored partition. I propose to take the third crew member out of the tank - let me have coffee in a shelter in front of the monitor, I’m drinking where.

    In this case, there is enough mechanical drive in the tank, and the tank should be on the wire, otherwise the tank will be left without armament and radar jamming and can only maneuver
    1. Storyteller
      Storyteller 7 August 2013 10: 52
      +1
      Quote: Martar
      otherwise, when radar jamming is performed, the tank will remain unarmed and will only be able to maneuver

      That is why the crew must sit together.
  4. USNik
    USNik 7 August 2013 11: 07
    +3
    Quote: shurup
    I propose to take the third crew member out of the tank - let me have coffee in a shelter in front of the monitor, I’m drinking where.

    Why then a mechvod and gunner? Let everyone together, sitting in some armored academy, control a remote tank. True, when interfering with MBT, the MBT will turn into a target, but it’s not scary, the crew will remain alive ...
    In this case, the barrel can be used as a snorkel

    laughing And it will also be possible to depict a gun mount or anti-aircraft gun from a tank, a cool idea!
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 7 August 2013 13: 04
      +4
      And it will also be possible to depict a gun mount or anti-aircraft gun from a tank, a cool idea!
      And also, with a certain share of luck, it will be possible to shoot yourself with your own projectile with a vertical shot.
      laughing
      Since many factors influence the flight of a projectile, it will be possible to introduce a new Russian Tank Roulette ...
  5. Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 7 August 2013 12: 29
    +2
    He smiled about protecting the mobile carriage of the automatic loader with armor from bullets and shrapnel. Those. it turns out some crazy calculation of the ZU-23 (or similar) can potentially mow down several tanks. Since the tank crews will survive (which is certainly great and not subject to criticism), they will no longer be able to shoot. And then either put a 20-speed gearbox at 10 speeds forward and 10 backward in order to disappear backwards as quickly as possible, or substitute a bare gearbox due to the fact that there is no armor in the stern on the diagram. Again, if something happens to the automatics, channels for transmitting information from the sighting devices to the gunner's (commander's) monitors, etc. delicate filling, it turns out ALL? Is the tank incapable of combat? After all, it is no longer destiny to get into the fighting compartment and fire in the "manual" mode.
  6. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 7 August 2013 13: 09
    0
    On the first and second configurations, how is it planned to achieve large elevation angles of the gun? If the whole crew together sits right under the gun and its breech. How will the gun charge at high elevation angles?

    On the first layout, the BC was coolly placed - as far as possible from the gun. Maybe then it’s logical to go further and place BC in warehouses?
    fool
    Again, save from detonation ...

    Then offering his super-super-duper-revolutionary layout:
    - place an ultra-long-range gun (per 100 km) in stationary closed positions;
    - reduce the crew to one person;
    - make him a single super-armored tank with target designation system
    Let him ride the battlefield, notice the target and give target designation to a stationary gun.
    What a saving in metal and a reduction in the size of the apparatus, well, its moving part. But it is possible to connect a whole tank regiment to one powerful gun. They will roll along the entire front and look out. And to wet the gun in a continuous mode all the "goats", that is, opponents in the area
    wassat

    Interestingly, on the very last layout, where the gunner sits on the side of the asymmetrical ammunition, what about the weight distribution? With full ammunition, in the process of its consumption and at the end, when the entire ammunition is used up?
    How will this affect the operation of the turret drives? And at work suspension? After all, this is not only the weight of the actual shells with shells, but also the asymmetric mass of armor and other devices.
    Who is special in tanks, do not comment on this issue?
  7. Mikola
    Mikola 7 August 2013 13: 28
    +1
    The best criterion for testing a theory is practice. Need to build prototypes ...
  8. alex86
    alex86 7 August 2013 22: 41
    -2
    On courage it is written - the layout diagram of "Armata", the text is too lazy to copy, but it is practically nonexistent - what kind of cat it is ... Does anyone believe?
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 7 August 2013 22: 48
      +3
      The promising main battle tank, created on the basis of the Armata single platform of heavy tracked vehicles, will be demonstrated for the first time on September 25-28, 2013 at the International Exhibition of Arms, Military Equipment and Ammunition in Nizhny Tagil. This was announced on the air of the Echo of Moscow radio station by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. According to him, the presentation of the tank will be held behind closed doors; only the country's leadership will be allowed on it.

      “Several samples will be demonstrated for the country's top political leadership,” ─ Rogozin said, without giving other details of the upcoming presentation.

      Uralvagonzavod is engaged in the development of a promising tracked platform and a tank based on it. According to the current schedule, the first prototype of a promising tank should be created before the end of 2013. In 2014, the Russian Ministry of Defense intends to acquire 16 tanks on the basis of "Almaty" from a pilot industrial party. These vehicles will participate in military operation. In 2015, it is planned to adopt a new tank for service.

      The Armata project is still classified and its technical details are not known. Previously, it was only reported that a tank based on this platform will receive a robotic combat module capable of independently firing at a selected target until it is destroyed. In addition, the tank will receive the main gun with an automatic loader. The combat vehicle will be constructed on a modular basis, which will greatly simplify its modernization and repair in combat conditions.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 7 August 2013 22: 50
        +1
        ..............................................
        1. alex86
          alex86 7 August 2013 22: 52
          0
          And with courage, as always, another canoe? ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 8 August 2013 00: 16
            +1
            Quote: alex86
            And with courage, as always, another canoe? ...

            Yes, almost no one knows anything. And what we show will not know.
            There are rumors on the chassis / platform - these images are unlike.

            What kind of miracle of a model from the exhibition is generally incomprehensible.
  9. alex86
    alex86 7 August 2013 22: 44
    +2
    Decided not to be lazy
    Tank layout: Armata
    a is a longitudinal section; b - plan view with the tower and roof of the building removed; 1 - gun; 2 - tower; 3 - shoulder straps of the tower; 4 - the cover of the compartment of the autoloader; 5 - crew compartment; 6 - aft crew hatches; 7 - compartment automatic loader; 8 - power unit compartment; 9 - a fuel compartment; 10- tank body; 11, 16 - engines; 12, 15, 19, 20 - on-board gearboxes for transmitting power to the driving wheels of the front and rear contours; 13, 14, 18, 21 - driving wheels of the front and rear contours; 17, 22 - caterpillars of the front and rear contours.
    1. family tree
      family tree 8 August 2013 00: 43
      +1
      Quote: alex86
      Decided not to be lazy
      Tank layout: Armata

      Yeah. Well, the scheme itself, in fact
      laughing
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 August 2013 01: 08
        +2
        ............................
  10. Denis
    Denis 8 August 2013 05: 28
    +1
    A good example of the described trend can be recognized as recent talk about increasing the level of protection of the tank crew by transferring its jobs inside the hull, below the shoulder strap of the tower. Such combat vehicles are not yet in service with any army in the world, due to which, among other things, they are considered the technology of the future
    Here, of course, it’s not completely lower than the tower’s shoulder straps, it’s completely absent.
    The main battle tank Strv-103 is the only reckless tank in the world in service.
    Its layout scheme is unique for the entire period of the post-war world tank construction.
    The truth how and where he showed himself is unknown
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 8 August 2013 05: 51
      +1
      "the only reckless tank in the world in service."
      By and large, this Swedish product should be considered a self-propelled gun - a tank destroyer. In addition to the suspension, it is conceptually from Stug or Hetzer and does not differ. The tank is obliged to support the offensive.
      It’s good to sit on this drunk in an ambush while shooting backwards.
      1. Storyteller
        Storyteller 8 August 2013 10: 05
        0
        I wonder how he bullets around on the go ??????? Reckless, probably in the sense of no brains.
      2. Denis
        Denis 8 August 2013 13: 02
        +1
        Quote: Su-9
        It’s good to sit on this trash in an ambush, while firing back in reverse
        Quotations are given that they write about nm. They put it in a tank
        Personally, I have a low opinion of him, the gun is fixed firmly and can only be moved from the spot
        1. Su-9
          Su-9 10 August 2013 08: 53
          +1
          You never know what they write about him. I can write that the ASU-85 is also a tank! And even better than the Swede, since it is lighter and without a bad turbine. wink And it can only shoot from a place.
          This is a self-propelled gun.
          Reliable, like all Swedish technology.
          Never been in battle
      3. The Indian Joe
        The Indian Joe 9 August 2013 19: 15
        +1
        In fact, this tank was designed purely for defense, for operations in dense forests, where you won’t especially turn the tower. But you are right - one in one tank destroyer, a hatzer or something like that ...
  11. ramsi
    ramsi 8 August 2013 10: 34
    0
    But how else do you like this scheme: the crew is in front, the engine is in the middle, the drive is 4 stars (two on each side, in the center of the side, respectively 4 tracks), the tower is behind?
  12. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 9 August 2013 19: 14
    -1
    IMHO, the future belongs to modular unmanned tanks, which will use projectiles thrown by an explosion of "liquid powder" instead of the traditional shells with powder rods. Even an ordinary mixture of kerosene and nitric acid is higher in energy consumption than gunpowder of the best grades.
  13. vjhbc
    vjhbc 10 August 2013 09: 17
    -1
    Quote: shurup
    Do not take the 90s as a benchmark in matters of prospects.
    Need to go further. I propose the layout of the crew compartment into two identical workplaces separated by an additional armored partition. I propose to take the third crew member out of the tank - let me have coffee in a shelter in front of the monitor, I’m drinking where.
    It’s time to make up a crew of mechvod, gunner and information officer. And the commander is the one who is older in rank.
    Tank layout: Armata
    a is a longitudinal section; b - plan view with the tower and roof of the building removed; 1 - gun; 2 - tower; 3 - shoulder straps of the tower; 4 - the cover of the compartment of the autoloader; 5 - crew compartment; 6 - aft crew hatches; 7 - compartment automatic loader; 8 - power unit compartment; 9 - a fuel compartment; 10- tank body; 11, 16 - engines; 12, 15, 19, 20 - on-board gearboxes for transmitting power to the driving wheels of the front and rear contours; 13, 14, 18, 21 - driving wheels of the front and rear contours; 17, 22 - caterpillars of the front and rear contours.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 10 August 2013 10: 13
      +1
      both-on ... in any way I'm trending, although only in the sense of 4 tracks?
    2. alex86
      alex86 12 August 2013 21: 15
      0
      it was this little scheme I posted above - they not only ignored me, but also put the cons - for illiteracy, or what? recourse
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 13 August 2013 09: 14
        0
        I'm sorry, buddy, yawned, but I don’t put any cons
  14. Totalanigila
    Totalanigila 11 August 2013 05: 10
    0
    A short front caterpillar and a bunch of assembled drive stars with empty space under them will serve as a good smart mine singapore, from which such a design is apparently designed to save. Get one star in the ass!
    Then - the diesel efficiency already reaches 60% and there is nothing to be happy about, almost all of the chemistry has been sucked up and to the next technological level, like to the moon on foot. Further, the iron in the armor also did not go far, at least by weight. Leave only technical vision agree not earlier than the transfer of the entire crew away from the tank. Invisible, or rather imperceptible, in all ranges - only Americans can do this. No protection will save against the cumulative jet, or the tank will have to emit a signal - which contradicts invisibility. Everything else is about the same. In addition to computers, or rather software control systems. So humble yourself, the tanks will remain tanks, and the war will be war and we will die on it. May Gd only be against those who are at the helm of today's World.
  15. Totalanigila
    Totalanigila 11 August 2013 05: 17
    0
    A short front caterpillar and a bunch of assembled drive stars with empty space under them will serve as a good smart mine singapore, from which such a design is apparently designed to save. Get one star in the ass!
    Then - the diesel efficiency already reaches 60% and there is nothing to be happy about, almost all of the chemistry has been sucked up and to the next technological level, like to the moon on foot. Further, the iron in the armor also did not go far, at least by weight. Leave only technical vision agree not earlier than the transfer of the entire crew away from the tank. Invisible, or rather imperceptible, in all ranges - only Americans can do this. No protection will save against the cumulative jet, or the tank will have to emit a signal - which contradicts invisibility. Everything else is about the same. In addition to computers, or rather software control systems. So reconcile, the tanks will remain tanks, and the war will be war and we will die on it. May Gd only be against those who are really at the helm of today's World.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 11 August 2013 09: 56
      0
      4 caterpillars - an attempt to solve the problem of immobilization, shifted stars - structurally more convenient. Everything else in this figure is extremely doubtful: caterpillars of different lengths, a wildly heavy front, two engines, a tower above the engine, a crew behind ...
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 11 August 2013 12: 20
        0
        As well as limiting the angle of rotation of the tower, the increased total volume of two MTOs. In general, this is the fantasy of gamers
  16. Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 11 August 2013 13: 59
    0
    If we analyze the operations with the use of tanks over the past 10 years, then they all happened in the vicinity or in the settlements themselves. So the best camouflage for a tank is a design reminiscent of other vehicles such as a pickup truck or truck.

    Although the tank is the same, and perhaps above all, a psychological weapon, which is David at the enemy with his look and sound of turbines. Therefore, a tank without a tower, that a motorcycle without a gas tank.

    PieS: Nevertheless, helicopters adopted most of the functions of tanks in modern combat, and are much more maneuverable and protected from fire from the ground, acre of clanging tracks and rattle steel on steel.
    1. svp67
      svp67 11 August 2013 14: 07
      +1
      Quote: Kostya pedestrian
      So the best camouflage for a tank is a design reminiscent of
      Nothing new under the moon. Read Russian folk tales wink
      1. Kostya pedestrian
        Kostya pedestrian 14 August 2013 16: 51
        0
        This is not a fairy tale, to me personally, it reminds me of Khiva or Samarkand in Uzbekistan. So the idea is very interesting, only from where the Fritz on the stove? Has it been abandoned by an explosion? Or is it Yushchenko in harmony with the background? Or is it the Vatican focal point? And the dog should be a Moscow watchdog?
    2. ramsi
      ramsi 11 August 2013 15: 59
      +1
      Quote: Kostya pedestrian

      PieS: Nevertheless, helicopters adopted most of the functions of tanks in modern combat, and are much more maneuverable and protected from fire from the ground, acre of clanging tracks and rattle steel on steel.

      I do not agree ... "preferred" positioning of the helicopter in modern combat - there is rather a flaw in terms of mass air defense
      1. Kostya pedestrian
        Kostya pedestrian 14 August 2013 16: 38
        0
        See for yourself:

        1. The first Kursk, which went down in the history of the world as the greatest victory of the Soviet Tank and other military branches, took place on a relatively open rough terrain, and without the presence of modern means of mass destruction and satellite tracking, incl. modern PTK and ballistic missiles.

        2. The second Kursk, which Russia allowed to be called the "greatest tragedy" of the Russian Navy since the time of its founder Peter the Great, which "deprived of leniency" Russia allowed, took place without the involvement of tanks and in the depths of the sea.

        And if in essence, then my unprofessional opinion is that tanks have an advantage in speed of movement, and therefore, are good in reserve for eliminating a breakthrough and weak spots of defense, but the functions of a breakthrough weapon in modern conditions have been lost in view of the new anti-tank missiles, which was shown by the war in Iraq and Syria, and helicopters to eliminate and localize enemy firing lines are much more efficient and safer.
    3. svp67
      svp67 11 August 2013 17: 38
      0
      Quote: Kostya pedestrian
      Nevertheless, helicopters adopted most of the functions of tanks in modern combat, and are much more maneuverable and protected from fire from the ground, acre of the clanging of tracks and the rattle of steel against steel.

      So when in battle you hide from the bullets of the enemy with the armor of a helicopter, then you will compare the functions of a tank and a helicopter ... And for the sake of interest, compare the time spent on the battlefield of a tank and a helicopter ...
      1. Kostya pedestrian
        Kostya pedestrian 14 August 2013 16: 46
        0
        You misunderstood my comment. I, in fact, had in mind the use of tanks in tandem with moto-shooters, and therefore, expressed my opinion that the height of the tower above the ground, which is much discussed in the article, of course matters in the open, but in street conditions battles, the tank just needs a tower to protect the infantry and improved visibility for the tank commander.

        The figures given by the Star Wings of Russia channel show the loss of the first combat helicopter to 1 and destroyed tanks. (YouTube) Also, the area of ​​destruction from the helicopter is more extensive and accurate than from the tank; and the helicopter flight time increases all the time in time.
    4. svp67
      svp67 11 August 2013 17: 42
      0
      Quote: Kostya pedestrian
      Nevertheless, helicopters adopted most of the functions of tanks

      The only helicopters who took over something in this regard, or rather "took away a piece of bread" is from the attack aircraft.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 August 2013 09: 01
        0
        And then, as it is said here, due to a defect in the air defense of the battlefield.
        1. Kostya pedestrian
          Kostya pedestrian 15 August 2013 01: 50
          0
          You correctly noticed about the air defense flaws, but here, in addition to the classical methods of defense, alternative new technologies are also required.
          After the “incident” with Rust (MatiAS), when he landed an airplane near the monument to Minin and Pozharsky, not only the heads of the pilots of Heroes of the Soviet Union, such as Koldunov, flew off (which is fantastic, if you look at the photo of the trial of Rust on the wiki, he’s exactly Harry rubbed it (read Rotar - Hitler's logo for the Wolves, or Fokervulf), only without a Nazi swastika on his forehead).

          But the penetration of "agents of influence" into the ranks of the SA, Navy and Air Force began, which was sadly reflected in the Chechen anti-terrorist operations, when the guys and civilians died for nothing, and the terrorists received weapons from the military. Parts directly on the battlefield. So here, if SMERSH is revived, this organization will bring more benefits, and incl. the fight against missile defense than the additional missile defense system.

          PieS: which is noteworthy in the story with the Prus, although I always have great respect for Peter Alekseevich and Alexandra (including the deceased from the terrorist attack carried out by the Greek Catholics), and rather mediocrely note the reign of Nicholas 2, in view of his involvement with us in the war on the side of Germany.

          Nevertheless, if you study the coats of arms of those lands from where this ace comes from, you will see who killed the Russian royal family incl. children and women, and therefore the Bolsheviks were not only not involved in this, but also tried to save them. So in vain did the Russians demolish the monument to Dzerzhinsky and Lenin, together with our little mouse, it turned out that the men just came to help stop the British and German rivals started by the Mensheviks and Essers, and their chain dogs of religions and churchmen, which they use to intimidate peoples, who were the first to betray the faith of Russians, and the people, and the king.