Perspectives of tank construction

After 1945 there was not a single decade in which a harmonious choir of army voices did not predict an imminent death tank technology as a class of combat vehicles. Their first gravedigger was called nuclear weapon. However, it soon became clear that in terms of its use, a tank, on the contrary, shows the highest survivability and combat capability compared to all other equipment, after which all skeptics died down, but not for long. Once again, the rolling "shovel" was handed to anti-tank guided missiles, combat helicopters and now all high-precision weapons in general. But, in spite of all this, the tanks did not manage to bury.

To date, the main battle tanks (MBT) continue to be the main striking force of the ground forces of any state. And even noticeably reducing tank parks, no one is going to abandon them. Analyzing the experience of recent military conflicts and the current level of equipment of armies in different countries, as well as the level that they can achieve in the foreseeable future, we can confidently say that at least for the next 3-4 decades, the MBT will remain the main striking force in ground units all armies. Being the most survivable, protected and heavily armed combat vehicles in combat conditions, they will, as before, largely determine the stability of ground forces units.

With a great deal of confidence we can say that for the next 25-30 years, a significant part of the world tank fleet will continue to be machines familiar to us today. Such main tanks as T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, M-1 "Abrams", "Challenger-2", "Leopard-2", "Merkava" and other design ideas 60- 70-s of the last century, which were first improved in 80-s, and then in 90-s significantly upgraded, and still continue to improve mainly due to the installation of a new "filling and underweight."

Perspectives of tank construction
T-90 at the parade in Moscow

Obviously, over time, new models of tank technology, created, including on existing platforms, will appear on the battlefield, but there will not be so many of them. Among them, domestic-made tanks may find their place, but what kind of cars these will be is a separate question.

At the beginning of the 2000-ies in the press appeared the first mention of the developed domestic tank of a new generation. Ural KB machine was known under the symbol "object 195", but received its fame as the T-95. Information about the new tank was then quite stingy, and many thought that it would all end only with drawings. However, in the 2008-2009 years, information leaked to the media that a prototype was built and even participates in tests. This tank combines a lot of developments on all the machines of this class, which were conducted in the last century, when the МХNUMX Abrams and T-1 were considered the pinnacle of technical thought. Read more about the features and layout of the "72 object" you canin our article.

Is there anything cheaper?

Even despite its outstanding performance characteristics, the T-95 tank is unlikely to go into mass production. The high cost of the tank, together with the folding of similar foreign programs, makes the re-equipment of domestic tank units on the T-95 a little meaningful and, most importantly, a devastating project. Along with this, a new universal army platform is needed. Such a platform on tracks could be used for tanks and for BMP "heavy brigades." The development of such a platform was begun in the USSR, but in the 90s of the last century it stopped due to lack of funding. Currently, after abandoning the T-95 as the main tank, a unified platform is created based on the requirements of feasibility at the existing technical level and industrial potential. Accordingly, the requirements for its combat capabilities were changed.

Viktor Murakhovsky, an expert in the field of armored vehicles, believes that the main requirements for it are to increase the security of the crew of the vehicle, as well as to equip with means and equipment that will allow the tank to interact with all the other forces of the brigade under the control of the ESU TZ class systems. When creating a new technology, the requirements for "dueling capabilities" that determine the ability to resist the enemy's MBT will be somewhat reduced. Tools of greater power, such as the conceived 152 mm gun on the “195 object”, will not be used. The replacement will be advanced 125-mm guns. This weapon still has a high development potential, including in terms of creating new generation ammunition, while improving this artillery system requires far less cost than moving tanks to a new caliber of main armament.

Challenger-2, UK

Increased requirements for the protection of the crew in conjunction with the development of a new platform, common to both the tank and the heavy infantry fighting vehicle, imply placing the crew of the vehicle in a separate armored capsule, as well as on the T-95, as well as a modular layout. Depending on the purpose of the vehicle, it will receive either a combat compartment of a tank with the appropriate weaponry, or a combat and amphibious compartment for infantry fighting vehicles.

And what is abroad?

In most developed countries of the world today they prefer the modernization of existing combat vehicles. They took this path in the United States after the economic crisis forced the richest country to abandon its ambitious Future Combat System (FCS) program, within which various military equipment had to be developed, including MBT. Moreover, none of the projects of the FCS tank showed a radical combat superiority over the modernized versions of the M1 Abrams, which did not justify its high price. Using the platform from the tank M1, you can carry out upgrades, which will actually allow you to create a new combat vehicle. It is on this way tank went in the West.

In 2009, the United States announced that in the next decade the main battle tank in the country would remain M1A3. It is expected that the new modernization of the tank will get less weight - about 55 tons, against today's 62. This reduction can be achieved through the use of a new turret, which will receive an automatic charging device, modeled on the French tank Leclerc. It is supposed to put a new diesel engine on the machine, update the fire control system and it is possible to install a new weapon (according to some caliber in 140 mm.). These vehicles are planned to be created on the basis of the M1 and M1А1 tanks in storage, they may well remain in service with the country until the 40s along with the existing М1А2 tanks.

In Germany, the development of the Neue Gepanzerte Platforme (NGP) program also slows down (if it does not stop completely), where, like on T-95, it was planned to place the main armament in an uninhabited tower. The tank was to receive the 140-mm cannon as the main weapon. At present, it is not clear whether the German Defense Ministry will be able to find money for a new car, most likely for the 10-15 years, the Leopard-2 will remain the main tank of Germany. Last year, at the Eurosatory exhibition, German tank builders demonstrated a new modification of the tank Leopard-2A7, along with it at the exhibition showed the futuristic MBT Revolution, which was also created on the radically modernized platform Leopard-2. It differs from the A7 model with even greater attention to the security of the tank, as well as the use of “digital armor” technology, which should provide the crew with almost all-round visibility from inside the vehicle.

MBT-Revolution, Germany

Currently, France has one of the most advanced MBTs, the development of the Leclerc tank was carried out in the 80-90 of the last century. In the coming decades, France will manage upgrades to this machine. It is planned to install on the tank the latest fire control systems and a new, more powerful weapon. Perhaps work will be done to improve the power plant, to which there are now a number of issues. The remaining components and assemblies will be borrowed from the base tanks.

His thoughts on the development of a promising tank is in England. They quite fit into the mainstream of the general trends in the development of armored vehicles - a reduction in crew size, a more powerful gun, a perfect fire control system, etc. True, there is information that the successor of the Challenger-2, developed under the Mobile Direct Fire Equipment Requirement program (requirements for firing direct fire in motion), is planned to be equipped with a new gun with electromagnetic acceleration of the projectile. There is a possibility that in this area the British will become innovators, having managed to be the first to install such a weapon on a serial tank. However, the time to implement this system postpones the development of the tank at least 20 years.

Results and trends

Today, the following main trends in the development of main battle tanks can be distinguished:

1. The mass of tanks stopped growing. All promising projects, with the exception of the upgraded Merkava tanks (created for special theaters of military operations), have a total mass within 60 tons.
2. The growth of tank firepower slowed down. Russia's transition to 152 mm guns would invariably launch a new round of the race for the most powerful tank gun, but this most likely will not happen. The limit for the next 20 years will be the caliber of the 140 mm, and the bulk of the tanks will continue to be equipped with 120-125-mm guns.
3. Without exception, all promising tanks will receive an automatic charging, which testifies in favor of the path of development, which in Russia was chosen 30 years ago.
4. New, more advanced fire control systems, target designation systems and communications, as well as active defense complexes and other equipment, with which the combat capabilities of the existing 2-3 generation technology will be significantly increased.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander
    25 March 2011 09: 46
    Apparently, the tanks are not in crisis, but at a new stage of their development. One of the promising areas should be considered on the basis of existing MBTs of ground-air weapons systems, i.e. equipping existing MBTs as a platform with full-time UAVs with a WTO complex, KAZT systems and camouflage in all ranges of electromagnetic radiation, further automation of control and protection systems., remote control, etc. A tank equipped with a UAV will be one of the information components of the ACSW network system. So there is no crisis, there are development prospects. By the way, the T-90 is a great car to implement these areas.
    1. 0
      26 February 2012 08: 39
      You are right - now a quiet revolution is taking place both in armored vehicles and aviation - the place of large and expensive aircraft, tanks, armored personnel carriers with crew on board is occupied by less expensive drones.
      While this process is going quietly and modestly and is most noticeable in aviation - but I think that in the next 50 years (maximum 100) a real revolution in military equipment will occur and unmanned vehicles on the battlefield will dominate ...
      After all, aviation also once began with plywood aircraft ...
  2. Escander
    25 March 2011 11: 11
    One of the most promising MBT of the present (Leclerc France) resembles the Amer Raptor. So expensive and "raw" that refuses to fight for the segment. It’s necessary to bring it to mind for 15 years. In general, the French fellows, perfectly wiped amers nose with their loading mechanism.
    The British plan to equip the tank with a new gun with electromagnetic acceleration of the projectile ??? This refers to the railgun and the first space velocity of the projectile? And how, interestingly, they plan to build it, if the amers still cannot deliver this system to the ship.
  3. turnip
    25 March 2011 13: 53
    tanks will remain the main striking force of the ground forces until that time when all peoples cross swords on yelling. Serdyuchka and Postnikov need to memorize this.
  4. Konstantin11
    25 March 2011 14: 43
    The topic of promising tanks something has become incredibly popular) People even fantasize who is what. For example, on YouTube there is a Elements0fWar channel, where the guys design all kinds of futuristic (including) military equipment in their videos, based on real developments and trends. In particular, there is the embodiment of the American tank of the future, Scott - amply assembled enough.
  5. Maddog
    25 March 2011 14: 44
    One remark.
    It is useless to try to increase the protection of the crew by placing them in an isolated armored module. Modern anti-tank ammunition is guaranteed to hit MBT when it hits - and not only shots to tank 120 and 125 mm guns - all ATGMs, even 30 years ago, and wearable RPGs. According to the statistics of combat use, when a PG-? VR with a tandem warhead hits the hull or turret of the Challenger MBT, the tank bursts at the welded seams, the ammunition stowage detonates, no matter if it is placed loosely or in steel cassettes filled with water.
    The real directions of improving the performance characteristics
    1.Small silhouette
    2.Active armor
    3. Equipping air defense systems with air defense systems
    4. Development of the systems of destruction of approaching warheads installed on the tank
    5. What everyone forgot about - EW stations
    6. The transition to 140-150 mm caliber main gun
  6. Fell from the moon
    25 March 2011 18: 13
    I’m not a tanker, my grandfather was, but he hasn’t been there for a long time.
    That's all, experts wrote, BUT NO ONE about tank 095 and said - what is it bad about? Who saw him? Who sat inside and how the special understood everything - bad! Or is it good?
    If a country boasts a T-50, and a super-plane - this is no less a secret from the point of view of secrecy than to show our people our super-tank! But no, apparently the whole thing is in the retreating generals and the retreating power itself. Or scared from overseas - will you show? So we will show all your bills.
  7. Annsky
    25 March 2011 22: 38
    Any modern MBT is bad because inside the "weak link" - the crew !!! Because of this, it is necessary to strengthen the armor, weight and dimensions. This in turn increases the tank's vulnerability. The conclusion can be very simple: the "crew" of the tank must be outside the tank, and control it virtually, even from a Moscow apartment. The dimensions of the tank must be reduced to the extent necessary to maintain acceptable characteristics of firepower. It is necessary to narrow the dimensions from the top: pyramidal shape. Well, further down the list ...
  8. Fell from the moon
    25 March 2011 22: 50

    Amers already have at least 1 robot boat - they saw it through the Discovery channel. And drones fly with might and main - and the Taliban in Afghanistan seem to be wet ... Only everything is fine when there is a distanion connection.

    And if the connection is KILL? What then? All robots will die, except for those whose dumb algorithm is wired? And what will this algorithm do better than an ordinary soldier who has a brain under his helmet?

    We have all seen enough Amer films about all sorts of robots, and some believe. Yes, we ourselves are more likely to destroy the planet until monsters with a certain intellect appear.
  9. Alexander
    26 March 2011 11: 50
    In our country, work with remotely controlled tanks has been carried out since the mid-30s: telemechanical (radio-controlled) tanks TT-18,26,27, TAKHIM-26, LT1-26, T-46-2, T-38-TT , TT-BT-7, TU-BT-7 As you can see, the work was carried out on a grand scale, but this system was ahead of its time, the high cost and complexity of the equipment, the required high qualifications of personnel, low reliability, all this led to the curtailment of work. war, cases of combat use were in Finland during the Winter War, the Kerch Peninsula in 1942. The Germans have tankettes "Goliath" included in the staff of the battalions "Tiger." After the war, work continued, radio-controlled T-80 and T-72 were created, up to the ability to control them from combat helicopters in the event of the death of the crew from neutron weapons. These were the developments, honor and glory to their creators.
  10. Fell from the moon
    28 March 2011 18: 01
    What is there on the Internet about 095 to see - yes it is ...


    Weakly popovkin - show stools?

    YES, IN THE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, SMART FOR 20 YEARS "KILLED" - some sycophants are the rest.

    And about the money for 095 - less need to steal.

    "ALIEN" is an American film, then there were 2 and 3 and 4.

    These are above us and in all 3 echelons of power.
    30 May 2011 11: 49
    the tank should have either powerful armor or powerful weapons. The first is unattainable at the current level of development, we refused the second, what kind of superiority are we talking about ?!
  12. arkhip2020
    16 November 2011 16: 47
    even meter armor will not be able to withstand a direct hit, for example from a 120mm gun at a distance of less than a kilometer. conclusion: it is necessary to make the tank harder to get
  13. -1
    26 February 2012 08: 30
    The answers to your disputes can be given only by a real military conflict between countries with modern tanks and anti-tank systems ... But it seems to me that it’s much easier, cheaper and more efficient to arm several platoons with modern anti-tank systems (for example, RPG-29 or Hashim) than to drive in offensive tank brigades ...

    It seems to me that tanks will have a hard time in modern combat - they are very good targets and with a well-organized defense they will simply be slaughtered from all sides ... Which, in general, was shown by the Storm of Grozny in the 1st Chechen one - in which tanks showed their vulnerability rather than efficiency, but the Chechens had neither aviation nor normal armored vehicles ...
    1. son of the fatherland
      6 March 2012 14: 39
      You are right and you are wrong. The conflicts you are talking about (ala World War II) will no longer exist. Local conflicts remain. The experience of which, we also have (1st, 2nd Chechen, 08.08.08). And even more so, with NATO, which is now "at war" only in this way. Therefore, there are similar views on the development of MBT.

      Your conclusions, based on Sturm the Terrible, in the 1st Chechen. Almost completely, refuted by the 2nd Chechen company.

      Here is the reason:
      "The use of tanks unprepared for combat operations (lack of reactive armor, unprepared weapons, etc.), recruiting of subunits with untrained crews assembled from different military districts that have not even gone through combat coordination, lack of interaction between tankers and motorized rifles when fighting in urban conditions against well-trained militants equipped with a large number of anti-tank weapons, it led to tangible losses of armored vehicles in the first period of the war.

      And here is the result of the correct conclusions:
      "During the second Chechen campaign, the losses of armored vehicles of the federal forces were significantly less than in the first. Most of the officers had combat experience, the crews were trained and the organization of clear interaction and comprehensive support of combat operations. With skillful use, the tanks were successfully used in battles in urban conditions. .At the entrance of the offensive, motorized rifle subunits support them tanks played a crucial role. They destroyed the detected enemy fire weapons with their fire, after which the infantry moved forward. "